Rhetorical Theory
Notes from Keith & Lundberg part II (chapters 4, 6)
Argument and persuasion
• Rhetoric = positive techniques, not “tricks”
• Outside of force or threats, you need persuasive arguments to
get people to think , feel or do something (cognitive-affectivebehavioral effects)
• Speaker = audience—they will make their own decisions, using
their standards; speaker is no better than audience
Proofs (ways to persuade)
• Aristotle coined logos (speech-based), ethos (sender-based),
pathos (receiver-based)
• Logos: same root as
• “logical” ; this initially meant that the speech persuaded
through a series of logical steps [it can also mean that the
speech has logic because it is supported by good evidence,
which means truthful facts, data]
• Steps can be a syllogism: 2 premises lead to a conclusion
• Aristotle is a man
• All men are mortal
• Therefore Aristotle is mortal
• Or an enthymeme, which leaves out the second step because
it assumes the audience knows it:
• Aristotle is a man therefore he is mortal
We use this reasoning when we say Where there’s smoke
there’s fire (smoke is a sign of fire); Drugs cause poor grades
[what are counter-arguments to that—what’s missing or
assumed?]; Fixing a car is like cooking—you need the right
ingredients and the right recipe (analogy; again how could you
argue with this?)
• Or just use some examples to build up an argument (this is
induction, going from specific to general; deduction is going
from general to specific)
• I see a dog and it has 4 legs, more dogs also have 4 legs. So I
conclude (through induction, and enough dogs) that dogs have
4 legs.
• I understand from other knowledge e.g. of biology that
mammals such as dogs have 4 legs. I state as a general
principle that dogs must have 4 legs [we call it a theory;
scientists call it a hypothesis]. I then conclude (through
deduction) that if I see a specific dog, it will be 4-legged.
• In rhetoric, examples can be real or hypothetical (“what if you
were wrongly convicted of murder”?); this often appeals to
emotions of audience
Ethos
• Ethos has a root similar to
• “ethics” or “ethical” but means the reputation of the speaker;
If I say it you might be persuaded, but if the president says it
you’re more likely to be persuaded
• The relationship is that people of high reputation generally are
ethical (honest, believable, trustworthy) people
• Speakers can create strong ethos by
• Their actions (“Practice what you preach”)
• Explaining how their beliefs fit the audience (“We are alike so
believe as I do”)
• Showing their expertise, or credentials (assuming those are real
and meaningful rather than saying “Take my word on this”)
Pathos
• What are the linguistic or etymological connections with
words we know?
• Pathetic, for one—something that evokes emotion (sadness)
• Pathos is created in the audience by appeals to emotion in the
speech, attempts to get the audience’s emotions in line with
the speaker’s conclusions
• Choice of examples—metaphors, images, words—can help
create pathos that works; are they “demonstrators,”
“protestors,” “radicals,” “anarchists”? Is that animal a victim or
an experimental subject?
• Pathos alone (e.g. gory pictures) rarely works
Topoi
• These (plural of topos), connected to
• Topography = place as in topographical maps
• Are general forms that arguments take; Greeks saw these as
existing in space; you got to know the landscape
• Note the examples are all If A, then B
• If more likely thing does not happen, less likely will not
• If person has a motive, they will act on it
• If you support a standard, it applies to you (don’t be a
hypocrite)
• If things are alike in general they will be alike in specifics
(analogy—fixing a car is like cooking a meal)
Issues
• An issue is anything people can take sides on (take issue with)
• Two arguments that aren’t easily resolved clash or have stasis;
(are static—don’t move) this is something you are looking for
in your research paper
• To argue, the two sides must be on the same point, not talking
past each other:
• Can a government restrict gun ownership?
• Does gun ownership increase death, violence?
• If the issue is legal or policy, there are certain set points of
stasis (e.g. what are the facts)
• These are: presume that the innocent, or the status quo wins
in a tie, so the other side has the burden of proof its case to
win [“Tie goes to the runner”]; this prevents rash decisions or
policies
Fallacies
• Fallacy = an error in logic or reasoning; can damage your ethos
• Non sequitur =
• Not in sequence, doesn’t follow; “It’s a nice day so vote for
me”
• Ad hominen (Homo sapiens= person) attack the person and
say their ideas are wrong: “The Occupy people are a bunch of
crazy radicals so don’t listen to them”
• Ad populum (populace=people, popular) everyone believes it
so it must be true
• Appeal to authority: someone has a Ph.D. (high ethos) but it’s
in a different subject than they are discussing (e.g. Dr. Laura)
• Appeal to ignorance: there’s no proof against it so it must be
true (UFOs, aliens)
Fallacies (cont.)
• Guilt by association, or stereotyping: Democrats believe this
so we Republicans should be against it
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc = faulty cause and effect; If A then
B, B was caused by A—again why might this be wrong? (also
faulty is to say correlation = causation where A goes up/down
and B also goes up/down)
• Because we have no proof of the connection—how was it
caused; and because some other factor C might have caused
B, or have caused both A and B to go up; or with correlation B
might have caused A
• Classic example: Length of women’s dresses correlates with
price of coffee in Brazil; can we see any cause and effect here?
Fallacies (cont.)
• Red herring—take the argument off-topic
• Slippery slope: we know that A can lead to B and B to C and C
to D, so if A happens, D will follow; what’s wrong?
• One of these might break the chain: most gum chewers later
drink alcohol, alcohol drinkers are more likely to take drugs,
therefore chewing gum leads to drugs
• [Section on Kenneth Burke is interesting, important to know
who he was; main ideas]:
• Humans react to the use of symbols; humans naturally add value
judgments to hierarchies (we change the nominal e.g. black and
white to the ordinal e.g. black is less than white in some sense;
we think good things can’t be overdone; we are persuaded by
people we identify with (who we feel are like us)
Style (chapter 6)
• Figures of speech make your rhetoric more persuasive
• Antitheses-contrast the first statement with the second: One
small step for a [note] man, one giant leap for mankind [also sort
of a parallelism]
• Repetition of
• Sounds
• Alliteration (she sells sea shells …)
• internal rhyme (If the glove don’t fit …)
• Words or phrases: often at the same point of a sentence: We will
fight in the fields, we will fight in the trenches
• Klimax: a layering of ideas: not today, not tomorrow, not in
my lifetime, your lifetime
• Also look for ones in classic quotations: I came, I saw, I
conquered; Give a man a fish … (often Shakespeare or Bible)
Tropes
• Use substitute words or phrases: more colorful, complex, elegant,
artistic way of expressing something: surf the Net [and, a Web page
is not really a page]
• Metonymy: old word still holds meaning: the press still means the
news media to us; we the people
• Synecdoche: represent something by a part: “On Broadway
production” means major theater in NYC, but they’re not all on
Broadway; also the White House is just one person there
• Metaphor: The defense was a brick wall (All the world’s a stage);
recall simile, actually a type of analogy, uses “like” or “as”: He was as
big as a house
• Burke and others see these tropes as key to why rhetoric works
(they are playful, clever, inventive, seductive?)
• Identity tropes: (We the people) also are key