Aristotle provides a crucial point of reference for ancient and modern scholars alike. Over years ago, Aristotle literally wrote the book on rhetoric. Though the ways we communicate and conceptualize rhetoric have changed, many of the principles in this book are still used today.
Below, you will find a brief guide to some of the most fundamental concepts in classical rhetoric, most of which originate in On Rhetoric. To understand how argument works in On Rhetoric , you must first understand the major appeals associated with rhetoric. Aristotle identifies four major rhetorical appeals: ethos credibility , logos logic , pathos emotion , and Kairos time. One does not appeal to ethos, logos, or pathos directly. Ethos, pathos, and logos are themselves the appeals an author uses to persuade an audience.
An easy way to conceptualize the rhetorical appeals is through advertisements, particularly infomercials or commercials. We are constantly being exposed to the types of rhetoric above, whether it be while watching television or movies, browsing the internet, or watching videos on YouTube.
Imagine a commercial for a new car. The commercial opens with images of a family driving a brand-new car through rugged, forested terrain, over large rocks, past waterfalls, and finally to a serene camping spot near a tranquil lake surrounded by giant redwood trees.
The scene cuts to shots of the interior of the car, showing off its technological capacities and its impressive spaciousness. A voiceover announces that not only has this car won numerous awards over its competitors but that it is also priced considerably lower than comparable models, while getting better gas mileage.
In just a few moments, this commercial has shown masterful use of all four appeals. The commercial utilizes pathos by appealing to our romantic notions of family, escape, and the great outdoors.
The commercial develops ethos by listing its awards, and it appeals to our logical tendencies by pointing out we will save money immediately because the car is priced lower than its competitors, as well as in the long run because of its higher MPG rate. Finally, the commercial provides an opportune and propitious moment for its targeted audience to purchase a car immediately.
Depending on the nature of the text, argument, or conversation, one appeal will likely become most dominant, but rhetoric is generally most effective when the speaker or writer draws on multiple appeals to work in conjunction with one another.
To learn more about Aristotle's rhetorical appeals, click here. The classical argument is made up of five components, which are most commonly composed in the following order:. Something to include in this section is the significance of discussing the topic in this given moment Kairos. This provides the issue a sense of urgency that can validate your argument. This is also a good opportunity to consider who your intended audience is and to address their concerns within the context of the argument.
For example, if you were writing an argument on the importance of technology in the English classroom and your intended audience was the board of a local high school, you might consider the following:.
Instead, consider using some of these points as evidence later on. Ask yourself: What will be most important to my audience? Print Page Report a broken link. Structure of an Argument Understanding the structure of arguments is important because it enables a reader to critique various works effectively.
Violating important principles of international law would hurt the United States's reptuation in international affairs. Undermining the United States's reputation would make it difficult for the United States to be a leader in international affairs.
The United States should not do anything that will undermine its reputation in international affairs. The United States should not do anything that would make it difficult for the country to lead in international affairs. The United States's diminished reputation would make it difficult for the country to influence human rights policy The United States should not do anything that would make it difficult for the country to influence international human rights policy.
Difference Between an Argument and an Explanation Readers of social science literature sometimes have a difficult time distinguishing between an argument and an explanation. Types of Arguments Inductive and Deductive Arguments There are generally two types of arguments: inductive and deductive. Validity and Soundness A deductive argument is considered valid or invalid. For instance: All fish can run. Anything that can run can fly. Therefore, all fish can fly. For instance: All fish have smooth skin.
Anything with smooth skin can swim. Therefore, all fish can swim. It may look like this: All U. John lives in Washington, DC. Therefore, John is a U.
Evaluating Arguments Critical reading has a lot to do with evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. Related Webinar.
Student Wellness and Disability Services Any concerns about accessibility of materials on this site or compatibility with assistive technology should be addressed to disability mail. Walden Departments, Centers, and Resources. Consider any recent writing task that you faced. As with all the exploration activities included in this chapter, do not limit yourself to school writing assignments.
Include letters, e-mails, notes, and any other kinds of writing you may do. Occasion is an important part of the rhetorical situation. It is a part of the writing context that was mentioned earlier in the chapter. Writers do not work in a vacuum. Instead, the content, form and reception of their work by readers are heavily influenced by the conditions in society as well as by personal situations of their readers.
These conditions in which texts are created and read affect every aspect of writing and every stage of the writing process, from topic selection, to decisions about what kinds of arguments used and their arrangement, to the writing style, voice, and persona which the writer wishes to project in his or her writing. All elements of the rhetorical situation work together in a dynamic relationship. Therefore, awareness of rhetorical occasion and other elements of the context of your writing will also help you refine your purpose and understand your audience better.
Similarly having a clear purpose in mind when writing and knowing your audience will help you understand the context in which you are writing and in which your work will be read better. One aspect of writing where you can immediately benefit from understanding occasion and using it to your rhetorical advantage is the selection of topics for your compositions. Any topic can be good or bad, and a key factor in deciding on whether it fits the occasion.
In order to understand whether a particular topic is suitable for a composition, it is useful to analyze whether the composition would address an issue, or a rhetorical exigency when created.
The writing activity below can help you select topics and issues for written arguments. To understand how writers can study and use occasion in order to make effective arguments, let us examine another ancient rhetorical concept. Kairos is one of the most fascinating terms from Classical rhetoric. It signifies the right, or opportune moment for an argument to be made. It is such a moment or time when the subject of the argument is particularly urgent or important and when audiences are more likely to be persuaded by it.
Ancient rhetoricians believed that if the moment for the argument is right, for instance if there are conditions in society which would make the audience more receptive to the argument, the rhetorician would have more success persuading such an audience.
For example, as I write this text, a heated debate about the war on terrorism and about the goals and methods of this war is going on in the US. It is also the year of the Presidential Election, and political candidates try to use the war on terrorism to their advantage when they debate each other.
These are topics of high public interested, with print media, television, radio, and the Internet constantly discussing them. Because there is an enormous public interest in the topic of terrorism, well-written articles and reports on the subject will not fall on deaf ears. Simply put, the moment, or occasion, for the debate is right, and it will continue until public interest in the subject weakens or disappears.
In order to persuade their readers, writers must use three types of proofs or rhetorical appeals. They are logos, or logical appeal; pathos, or emotional appeal; and ethos, or ethical appeal, or appeal based on the character and credibility of the author. In his work Rhetoric, Aristotle writes that the three appeals must be used together in every piece of persuasive discourse. An argument based on the appeal to logic, or emotions alone will not be an effective one.
Understanding how logos, pathos, and ethos should work together is very important for writers wh use research. Often, research writing assignment are written in a way that seems to emphasize logical proofs over emotional or ethical ones. Such logical proofs in research papers typically consist of factual information, statistics, examples, and other similar evidence.
According to this view, writers of academic papers need to be unbiased and objective, and using logical proofs will help them to be that way. Because of this emphasis on logical proofs, you may be less familiar with the kinds of pathetic and ethical proofs available to you. Pathetic appeals, or appeals to emotions of the audience were considered by ancient rhetoricians as important as logical proofs. Yet, writers are sometimes not easily convinced to use pathetic appeals in their writing.
According to Corbett, many of us think that there may be something wrong about using emotions in argument. But, I agree with Corbett and Connors, pathetic proofs are not only admissible in argument, but necessary The most basic way of evoking appropriate emotional responses in your audience, according to Corbett, is the use of vivid descriptions Using ethical appeals, or appeals based on the character of the writer, involves establishing and maintaining your credibility in the eyes of your readers.
In other words, when writing, think about how you are presenting yourself to your audience. Do you give your readers enough reasons to trust you and your argument, or do you give them reasons to doubt your authority and your credibility? Consider all the times when your decision about the merits of a given argument was affected by the person or people making the argument.
For example, when watching television news, are you predisposed against certain cable networks and more inclined towards others because you trust them more? So, how can a writer establish a credible persona for his or her audience? One way to do that is through external research.
Conducting research and using it well in your writing help with you with the factual proofs logos , but it also shows your readers that you, as the author, have done your homework and know what you are talking about. This knowledge, the sense of your authority that this creates among your readers, will help you be a more effective writer. The logical, pathetic, and ethical appeals work in a dynamic combination with one another. It is sometimes hard to separate one kind of proof from another and the methods by which the writer achieved the desired rhetorical effect.
If your research contains data which is likely to cause your readers to be emotional, it data can enhance the pathetic aspect of your argument. The key to using the three appeals, is to use them in combination with each other, and in moderation. It is impossible to construct a successful argument by relying too much on one or two appeals while neglecting the others. Consider two recent examples of fairly ineffective use of the three appeals.
You can see both ads below. The purpose of the ad is to stir emotion, and it does it rather well. The problem with this approach is, however, that it does not tell voters much about the concrete steps and activities Senator Clinton would undertake if elected.
While this is certainly a worthy cause, it is not clear from this ad how exactly Senator Obama intends to change the world should he be elected. The reason for this lack of clarity is the heavy emphasis on the pathetic appeal at the expense of logos. Writing is a social process. Texts are created to be read by others, and in creating those texts, writers should be aware of not only their personal assumptions, biases, and tastes, but also those of their readers.
Writing, therefore, is an interactive process. It is a conversation, a meeting of minds, during which ideas are exchanged, debates and discussions take place and, sometimes, but not always, consensus is reached. You may be familiar with the famous quote by the 20th century rhetorician Kenneth Burke who compared writing to a conversation at a social event.
This passage by Burke is extremely popular among writers because it captures the interactive nature of writing so precisely. A writer always enters a conversation in progress. In order to participate in the discussion, just like in real life, you need to know what your interlocutors have been talking about. So you listen read. Once you feel you have got the drift of the conversation, you say write something.
Your text is read by others who respond to your ideas, stories, and arguments with their own. This interaction never ends! To write well, it is important to listen carefully and understand the conversations that are going on around you. Writers who are able to listen to these conversations and pick up important topics, themes, and arguments are generally more effective at reaching and impressing their audiences.
It is also important to treat research, writing, and every occasion for these activities as opportunities to participate in the on-going conversation of people interested in the same topics and questions which interest you.
Our knowledge about our world is shaped by the best and most up-to-date theories available to them. Sometimes these theories can be experimentally tested and proven, and sometimes, when obtaining such proof is impossible, they are based on consensus reached as a result of conversation and debate. Even the theories and knowledge that can be experimentally tested for example in sciences do not become accepted knowledge until most members of the scientific community accept them.
Other members of this community will help them test their theories and hypotheses, give them feedback on their writing, and keep them searching for the best answers to their questions. As Burke says in his famous passage, the interaction between the members of intellectual communities never ends.
No piece of writing, no argument, no theory or discover is ever final. Instead, they all are subject to discussion, questioning, and improvement. As you know, in Medieval Europe, the prevailing theory was that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that all other planets and the Sun rotated around it.
In , astronomer Nikolaus Kopernikus argued that the Sun was at the center of the solar system and that all planets of the system rotate around the Sun. Of course, the Earch did not begin to rotate around the Sun with this discovery.
The Inquisition did not engage in debate with the two scientists. Instead, Kopernikus was executed for his views and Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for his views.
Although in the modern world, dissenting thinkers are unlikely to suffer such harsh punishment, the examples of Kopernikus and Galileo teach us two valuable lessons about the social nature of knowledge. Firstly, Both Kopernikus and Galileo tried to improve on an existing theory of the Universe that placed our planet at the center.
They did not work from nothing but used beliefs that already existed in their society and tried to modify and disprove those beliefs.
0コメント