修辞三段论及其应用研究
VIP免费
Contents
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………..i
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...…………………ii
摘要…………………………………………………………………………………......iv
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………....v
Chapter One Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Chapter Two Rhetoric in Brief ..........................................................................................4
§2.1 A Synoptic History of Rhetoric ..........................................................................4
§2.2 A Comparison between Classical Rhetoric and Contemporary Rhetoric .......... 6
§2.2.1 Classical Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasion ............................................... 6
§2.2.2 Contemporary Rhetoric: Identification .................................................. 11
§2.2.3 A Comparison between “Persuasion” and “Identification” ................... 14
§2.3 Argument: The Core of Rhetoric ......................................................................15
Chapter Three A Theoretical Investigation of the Enthymeme .......................................17
§3.1 Definition of the Enthymeme ...........................................................................17
§3.2 Concepts Related to the Enthymeme ............................................................... 19
§3.2.1 Syllogism ............................................................................................... 19
§3.2.2 Probability ..............................................................................................21
§3.2.3 Topos ......................................................................................................22
§3.3 Features of the Enthymeme ............................................................................. 24
§3.4 The Role of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical Persuasion .................................... 32
§3.5 The Operational Mechanism of the Enthymeme ............................................. 37
§3.5.1 Construction of the Enthymeme ............................................................ 37
§3.5.2 The Operational Model of the Enthymeme ............................................39
Chapter Four The Application of the Enthymeme .......................................................... 47
§4.1 Application of the Enthymeme in Discourse Analysis .................................... 47
§4.1.1 Discourse Analysis: A Brief Survey .......................................................47
§4.1.2 The Enthymeme in Discourse Analysis ................................................. 48
§4.2 Application of the Enthymeme to the Teaching of English Writing ................ 55
§4.2.1 Problems with the Teaching of English Writing .................................... 55
§4.2.2 The Teaching of Invention via the Enthymeme ..................................... 57
§4.2.3 The Teaching of Organization via the Enthymeme ................................60
§4.2.4 The Enthymeme-Based Model in the Teaching of English Writing ...... 62
§4.3 Application of the Enthymeme to the Teaching of English Reading ............... 64
§4.3.1 The Interactive Process of Reading ....................................................... 64
§4.3.2 Problems with the Teaching of English Reading ................................... 65
§4.3.3 The Role of the Enthymeme in English Reading ...................................66
§4.3.4 An Approach in the Teaching of English Reading ................................ 68
Chapter Five Conclusion .................................................................................................72
§5.1 A Brief Summary of the Study .........................................................................72
§5.2 Limitations and Further Research .................................................................... 73
Appendix .........................................................................................................................75
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 77
在读期间公开发表的论文 .............................................................................................82
Chapter One Introduction
1
Chapter One Introduction
In America, when people hear the word “rhetoric,” they are likely to think about
politicians intending to tell lies and distort the truth with “empty words” or beautiful
language. This is somewhat a humiliation to the rhetoricians who defined the art of
rhetoric in ancient Athens and Rome. In ancient times, rhetoric was utilized to get rid of
disagreement about important political, religious, or social issues; the study of rhetoric
was the study of being a qualified citizen.
It is obvious that not everyone shares the same idea. There are always different
opinions about things since people have different experiences in their lives. As Kenneth
Burke put it, “We need never deny the presence of strife, enmity, faction as a
characteristic motive of rhetorical expression” (1962: 20). Though disagreement among
human beings is inevitable, sometimes agreement must be achieved in order to work
things out. So the ancient rhetoricians invented rhetoric so that they would have means
of judging whose opinion was most accurate, or valuable. The aim of ancient rhetoric
was to activate the power that exists in languages among all the people by teaching the
principles of rhetoric. People who know about rhetoric know how to persuade others to
accept their opinions. It is a better choice for most people that rhetoric instead of
violence can help to get rid of disagreement. And the thousands of years’ history of
rhetoric may be an evidence of its vitality.
In China, rhetoric was once aimed at persuading people during the Spring and
Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. Politicians and scholars like Confucius
tried to persuade the emperor to accept their political theories. They left behind a good
record of their wise arguments. But since the Han Dynasty, Chinese rhetoric began to
center on written text instead of oral language. From then on, rhetoric has been serving
the appreciation of literature; it came to be considered as “modification of words or
expressions.”
When they realized that the narrow view of Chinese rhetoric is usually much too
limited to the study of sentences and the units below sentence level, many modern
scholars began to introduce the system of Western rhetoric. To quote Gorgias, rhetoric
was “the ability to persuade with words”(Hu, 2002: 8). And according to Aristotle, the
enthymeme is “the very body and substance of persuasion” (Rhetoric I, 1).
Thus the mastery of the enthymeme becomes the core of mastering rhetoric.
Research into the Enthymeme and Its Application
2
However, it seems that the enthymeme has not got its due attention, just as Aristotle
once said:
...Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have constructed but a small
portion of that art. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art:
everything else is merely accessory. These writers, however, say nothing about
enthymemes, which are the substance of rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with
no-essentials (Rhetoric, 1954: 20).
In the eyes of many people, the enthymeme is merely connected with scientific and
logical styles since it is often mentioned as “rhetorical syllogism.” In fact, the
enthymeme is also found in styles other than the previous two. It can be used
everywhere in our daily life. For example, the sentence “Mary will fail her final exam
because she hasn’t studied” is an enthymeme. The enthymeme is used so often that
people seldom notice that they are using it.
The history of enthymeme can be traced back to ancient Greece where Isocrates
(436-338 B.C.E.), one of the influential rhetoricians of the time, gave the enthymeme a
central place in his conception of rhetorical skill. And it was Aristotle who gave the
enthymeme a rough description and set up its position in rhetoric.
Despite the much attention he paid to the enthymeme, Aristotle failed to give a
clear definition to this concept. The study of the enthymeme, as it turned out, was put
aside for a long time. When the enthymeme became a hot topic again with the arising of
classical rhetorical study, the inexplicit definition made the academicians debate for a
long time. As a result, there are many different definitions of enthymeme, most of
which misunderstand the essence of the enthymeme.
In modern times, the enthymeme is often connected with syllogism, and it is
considered as “imperfect syllogism” by many academicians. If you have a close look at
the Rhetoric, you will find some differences in the definition and description between
the classical and modern rhetoric.
Under this circumstance, the first priority is to give a workable definition of the
enthymeme. Only when this is done, can the enthymeme be practically used.
Take the teaching of English writing to Chinese students as an example. It has long
been considered as one of the most difficult tasks in the English classroom. The students
are often bothered by questions like “what to say about it?” or “how to write?” And
Chapter One Introduction
3
teachers are challenged as well: How to help the students do better in the invention and
arrangement of their writing? How to improve their writing?
At this point, we may well take the enthymeme into account. The place of
enthymeme in the invention part of rhetoric, its persuasive effect and the importance of
the interaction between the speaker and the audience make it possible to be applied to
the teaching of writing and reading, especially the teaching of English writing.
In this thesis, Chapter One is a general introduction to the motivation of choice of
the rhetoric and the enthymeme as the subject of the thesis. Some current research on
the enthymeme is introduced, and objectives of the research are stated.
Chapter Two offers a brief review of the history of rhetoric and compares the
classical and the contemporary rhetoric in order to find out the essence of rhetoric.
Since the enthymeme is a kind of argument, the researches on argument are briefly
introduced in this chapter.
Chapter Three makes a detailed theoretical investigation into the enthymeme,
including its definition, features, role in the rhetoric and its operational model. All the
efforts are made to give a clear image of the enthymeme and provide convenience to
later applications of it.
Chapter Four applies the theory of the enthymeme to the fields of discourse
analysis, the teaching of English writing and the teaching of English reading in order to
show the practical value of the enthymeme.
Chapter Five is a conclusion of the thesis. Besides a brief summary, the author
states some limitations of the research in the thesis and points out the future efforts to be
made.
Research into the Enthymeme and Its Application
4
Chapter Two Rhetoric in Brief
§2.1 A Synoptic History of Rhetoric
In order to get the essence of rhetorical study, it is necessary to go over its two
thousand years’ history, which can be traced back to ancient Greece.
The study of rhetoric started in ancient Greece because people at that time began to
know the importance of giving speech. Then rhetoric became the course to train people
in how to persuade others. It became the study of the strategies of using words to
accomplish a purpose, that is, persuading people to do or to think what the speaker
wishes.
There are many famous rhetoricians who made great contributions to the
development of classical rhetoric. The three greatest ancient writers on rhetoric, who are
still frequently mentioned today, were Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian. Aristotle was
considered as the greatest theoretician of rhetoric with his more philosophical principles
on rhetoric; Cicero was the greatest practitioner of rhetoric with a wonderful discussion
of theories applied to law cases, which can still work well today; and Quintilian was the
greatest teacher of rhetoric.
In Aristotle’s time, rhetoric was primarily concerned with oral language. This can
be proved by the original meaning of two words: Rhetor in Greek means orator, public
speaker, and rhetorike means public speaking. “To Aristotle’s world, teaching students
rhetoric meant teaching them to become orators. Deflection of rhetoric from oral
performance to written argumentation as such, vaguely incipient at best in Aristotle,
would occur only very slowly and imperceptibly over the centuries. Yet it must be
remembered that the oral speeches Aristotle was concerned with were in fact no longer
purely oral but were already being shaped by the chirographic milieu to post-oral
thought forms”(Horner, 1983: 3).
By the middle of the fourth century B.C. rhetoric had become the central discipline
in Greek education, affecting “all public utterances” and indeed all intellectual activity
(Kennedy, 1964: 7, 237, 268-72). The Romans made rhetoric more systematic. Due to
their efforts, rhetoric spread through the world in almost all fields of communication,
such as education and public activity, and in all forms of writing.
Classical rhetoric died with the collapse of the Roman Empire. However, the
Chapter Two Rhetoric in Brief
5
system established primarily by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian survived, and
was modified by rhetors afterwards.
In the Middle Ages the classical tradition of rhetoric continued. However, rhetoric
at that time was not studied as a practical art. Instead, it became a kind of scholastic
exercise. The center of rhetoric became a study of the art of letter writing and of
preparing and delivering sermons. “Medieval rhetoric to a great extent then became a
series of adoptions of Ciceronian rhetoric to particular needs of the times, with
applications to problems of letter-writing, verse-writing, and preaching”(Horner, 1983:
49).
With the Renaissance, with the influence of Humanists, rhetoric became central
again. There came a revival of interest in the works of the classical rhetors. People made
use of Ciceronian rhetoric in discussions of philosophy, art, and religion. The study of
rhetoric during the English Renaissance made great progress. There were mainly three
groups: the Traditionalists—those who paid attention to the five parts that existed in the
classical rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery; the
Ramists—those who taught rhetoric included only style and delivery, and placed the
invention and arrangement to the field of logic; and the Figurists—those whose interest
centered on the study of the schemes and tropes. Though they had different pedagogical
methods, their fundamental conception of the art of rhetoric was actually the same.
These three groups contributed to the delivery of the classical rhetoric in England.
In the eighteenth century rhetoricians still followed the classical rhetoric. Most of
them regarded rhetoric as a practical art, much as Aristotle had conceived it. However,
by the end of the eighteenth century, classical rhetoric lost its dominant role, and
became nearly dead. According to Winifred Bryan Horner, “The eighteenth century
marks the end of a long tradition of rhetoric that had its beginning in Greece in the fifth
century B. C. and that for twenty centuries dominated philosophic thought and the
established institutions of church and government”(1983:101).
It was from the nineteenth century that the study of rhetoric changed a lot. The
term rhetoric was replaced by the term composition. Rhetoric’s association with oratory
was cut off, and composition now dealt exclusively with written text. The theoretical
method of writing in the rhetoric course was taken place by the approach of imitation
and practice. In the nineteenth century, therefore, political rhetoric was displaced by the
study of literature. Literature was made use of to teach freshman composition, and the
Research into the Enthymeme and Its Application
6
method paid much attention to style.
In the twentieth century, especially in the thirties and forties, various literary critics
made contribution to the revival of rhetoric. Among them are I. A. Richards and
Kenneth Burke. Meanwhile, people like Max Black and Lloyd Bitzer in the relatively
newly formed discipline of speech also associated their study with rhetoric. Philosophy
came to connect with rhetoric somewhat later, but in the fifties and sixties several
important philosophers have begun to call attention to rhetoric or call their own work
rhetorical, among whom there were Hannah Arendt in political theory, Stephen Toulmin
in logic, and Thomas Kuhn in philosophy of science. As a matter of fact, the
extraordinary expansion of colleges, especially in the sixties, necessarily involved an
expansion in first year writing programs. That expansion contributed to a growing sense
that the teaching of writing was best seen as rhetorical. Nowadays, it may well be said
that the study of rhetoric has been dispersed to many different fields of sciences.
The “new rhetoric,” developed during the last thirty years, is often considered as
the representative of contemporary rhetoric. The “new rhetoric” is the result of different
fields’ contributions. Whenever the “new rhetoric” is discussed, two figures are
unusually mentioned: I. A. Richards and Kenneth Burke. And Kenneth Burke with his
theory of “identification” has become the representative of contemporary rhetoric just as
Aristotle is considered as “father” of classical rhetoric.
It can be concluded from the history of rhetoric that classical rhetoric really had a
deep influence on the development of rhetoric. But still, after more than two thousand
years, what are the differences between the classical rhetoric and the “New Rhetoric”?
In the next part we will make a comparison between the representative theories of
Aristotle and Kenneth Burke.
§ 2.2 A Comparison between Classical Rhetoric and Contemporary
Rhetoric
§2.2.1 Classical Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasion
To Gorgias, rhetoric was “the ability to persuade with words”; to Isocrates, “The
artificer of persuasion”(Hu, 2002: 8); Aristotle has defined rhetoric as “the faculty of
Chapter Two Rhetoric in Brief
7
discovering in the particular case what are the available means of persuasion”(Cooper,
1932:7). It may be simply interpreted that rhetoric is the art of discovering and using the
most effective means of persuasion. It can be induced from the definitions that in the
classical sense, rhetoric is equivalent to persuasion. Persuasion is the center of classical
rhetoric. The term persuasion here is used in the broad sense to mean the influencing of
human behavior and attitude through the use of written and oral symbols.
According to Aristotle, there are three modes of persuasion: ethos,pathos and
logos. As it is said, a speech consists of three things: the speaker, the subject which is
treated in the speech, and the hearer to whom the speech is addressed (Rhetoric I,
3,1358a). It seems that this explains why only three modes of persuasion are possible.
These three appeals are the essence of the Aristotle theory. It should be made clear what
they are and how they work in the process of persuasion.
First, ethos “depends on the personal character of the speaker” (Rhetoric, 1954: 24).
It refers to the character of the speaker. Aristotle says, “We believe good men more fully
and more readily than others” (Rhetoric, 1954: 24). If the speaker appears to be credible,
the audience will form the second order judgment that propositions put forward by the
credible speaker are true or acceptable. He must display practical intelligence
(phronêsis), a virtuous character, and good will (Rhetoric II, 1, 1378a6ff). Without
showing the three elements in what he or she says, the effects of ethos cannot be
perceived. It is granted that if the quality of the person on the platform, on the television
screen, or behind the printed page is appreciated by the audience, there will be an
immediate effect of persuasion. But if the personality of the persuader is not acceptable,
it is hard to perceive persuasion among the audience. So it is taught that if you want to
be a competent salesman, the first thing you have to sell is yourself.
It is not easy to create a persuasive ethos because ethos always shows itself to
listeners or readers who inevitably build up an impression of the speaker or writer,
whether they agree with him or not.
Aristotle analyzed two kinds of ethical proof: invented ethos and situated ethos.
According to Aristotle, invented ethos is the character that can be invented suitable to an
occasion. If the rhetors enjoy a good reputation in the community, they can use it as a
situated ethos. The situated ethos can only be built up according to a long-term habitual
behavior. A person who has a bad reputation in the society may fail in achieving the
persuasive purpose in his speech or writing, no matter how beautiful his argument is.
摘要：
展开>>
收起<<
ContentsAcknowledgments………………………………………………………………………..iABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...…………………ii摘要…………………………………………………………………………………......ivListofFigures……………………………………………………………………………………....vChapterOneIntroduction...........................................................................................
相关推荐
-
USST_Arts_112480743自动生产线的同步维修模型及案例分析VIP免费
2025-01-09 14 -
USST_Arts_112480745基于供需网特征理念的企业间关系状态研究VIP免费
2025-01-09 15 -
USST_Arts_112480756 我国城镇化与能源消费结构间关系的研VIP免费
2025-01-09 20 -
USST_Arts_112490763 企业创新型团队社会网络、知识管理过程及团队创造力关系研究VIP免费
2025-01-09 13 -
USST_Arts_112490769创新团队执行力影响因素分析VIP免费
2025-01-09 16 -
USST_Arts_112070649基于团队自反性的科技型企业TMT特征对企业绩效的影响研究VIP免费
2025-01-09 21 -
TR公司工业机器人市场发展战略研究VIP免费
2025-01-09 24 -
二氧化碳套管式气冷器的研究VIP免费
2025-01-09 17 -
非共沸混合物在微通道水平单管内流动沸腾特性VIP免费
2025-01-09 81 -
基于MRO的连铸辊维护管理系统研究VIP免费
2025-01-09 11
作者：陈辉
分类：高等教育资料
价格：15积分
属性：83 页
大小：625.22KB
格式：PDF
时间：2024-11-20
相关内容
-
USST_Arts_112070649基于团队自反性的科技型企业TMT特征对企业绩效的影响研究
分类：高等教育资料
时间：2025-01-09
标签：无
格式：PDF
价格：15 积分
-
TR公司工业机器人市场发展战略研究
分类：高等教育资料
时间：2025-01-09
标签：无
格式：PDF
价格：15 积分
-
二氧化碳套管式气冷器的研究
分类：高等教育资料
时间：2025-01-09
标签：无
格式：PDF
价格：15 积分
-
非共沸混合物在微通道水平单管内流动沸腾特性
分类：高等教育资料
时间：2025-01-09
标签：无
格式：PDF
价格：15 积分
-
基于MRO的连铸辊维护管理系统研究
分类：高等教育资料
时间：2025-01-09
标签：无
格式：PDF
价格：15 积分
