{"id":4901,"date":"2021-10-20T11:37:02","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T09:37:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4901"},"modified":"2025-07-15T15:24:31","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T13:24:31","slug":"enthymeme-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/enthymeme-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Enthymeme"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #ff0000;\">ENTHYMEME<\/span><\/h1>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt;\">1. The Greek Word<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Greek word corresponding to the English words <em>enthymeme (<\/em>and the adjective <em>enthymematic<\/em>) means (Bailly, [<em>enthymema<\/em>]):<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">Thought, reflection.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">Invention, especially a war stratagem.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">Reasoning, advice or warning.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">A reason, a motive.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The general meaning of \u201cthought, reflection\u201d is present in all ancient rhetoric: \u201cEvery expression of thought is properly called an enthymeme.\u00a0\u00bb (Cicero, <em>Top.<\/em>, XIII, 55; p. 423A<br \/>\nQuintilian also alludes to the meaning \u201ceverything that is conceived in the mind\u201d, to set it aside (<em>IO<\/em>, V, 10, 1).<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt;\">2. An Instance of a Topos (Argument Scheme)<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In rhetorical argumentation, <span style=\"background-color: #ffff00;\">an enthymeme is essentially an instance of a topos. An argument scheme is a <strong>general<\/strong> formula having an inferential (associative) form. An enthymeme is the application of such a formula to a <strong>specific<\/strong> case.<\/span><br \/>\nThis general definition is combined with the following orientations:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\"><strong>(i)\u00a0<\/strong>In relation to logic, the enthymeme is:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">\u2014\u00a0A form of <em>syllogism<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">A syllogism based on a <em>plausibility<\/em> or a <em>sign.<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">A <em>truncated<\/em> syllogism.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">\u2014\u00a0The <em>counterpart<\/em> of the syllogism.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\"><strong>(iii)<\/strong> Functionally, the enthymeme is a manifestation of <em>cooperation<\/em> with the audience.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\"><strong>(iv)<\/strong> Additionally, the enthymeme has also been defined as a <em>concluding formula<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<h1><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt;\">3. A Special Kind of Syllogism<\/span><\/h1>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #800000; font-size: 12pt;\">3.1 The Enthymeme is <span style=\"background-color: #ffff00;\">a Syllogism Based on \u201ca Probability\u201d or \u201ca Sign\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In the <em>Prior Analytics<\/em>, Aristotle defines the enthymeme as \u201c<strong>a syllogism starting from probabilities or signs<\/strong>\u201d (<em>P. A.<\/em>, II, 27).<\/p>\n<p><strong>A <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/5154-2\/\"><em>natural<\/em> <em>sign<\/em><\/a> <\/span>i<\/strong>s a proposition that expresses a natural connection between two states of affairs. The connection may be probable (to be <em>red<\/em> is a sign or a symptom of <em>fever<\/em>) or necessary (<em>smoke <\/em>is a sign of\u00a0<em>fire<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>An enthymeme is a <strong>probable<\/strong> reasoning such as:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">Peter is tired, he must have worked hard.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Depending on the range of context considered by the analyst, the arguer may be accused of mistaking necessary and sufficient conditions, or he may be trusted to know for certain that Peter did not spend the whole night partying.<\/p>\n<p>A <span style=\"background-color: #ffff00;\"><strong><a style=\"background-color: #ffff00;\" href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/probable-plausible-true-e\/\"><em>probability<\/em><\/a> <\/strong><\/span>is a proposition thar expresses either a probable natural relation or a social agreement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">A probability is a generally approved proposition: what people know will or won&rsquo;t happen, will or won&rsquo;t be, is a probability, e.g. <em>\u201cthe envious hate\u201d<\/em>, \u201c<em>the beloved show affection<\/em>\u201d. (Aristotle, <em>PA,<\/em> II, 27)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>These are excellent examples of associative semantic inferences (+ <em>envious<\/em>, + <em>hate<\/em>); (+ <em>love<\/em>, + <em>show love<\/em>), see <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/orientation-e\/\">orientation<\/a>; <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/topos-in-semantic\/\">topos in semantic<\/a>. Such substantial probabilities are based on common-sense views of basic human tendencies. The corresponding topics underlie the current production of arguments; see <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/common-place-e\/\">common place<\/a>.<br \/>\nFor example, the big strong man will prevail over the small weak one, and mothers love their children. Sometimes, however, this is not the case. A characteristic of reasoning from social probabilities is that it can be reversed, as expressed in the key Aristotelian topic #21, \u201cincredible things do happen\u201d (<em>Rhet<\/em>, 2.22, 1400a5; RR p. 373).<\/p>\n<p>Consistency is generally a source of probability. People are rational, intentional beings; they make plans and are expected to act according to those plans, and remain true to their words and intentions. Their behavior is presumed to be <em>probably<\/em> consistent. Inconsistency is the sign of a defective personality, or of a basic mistake, see <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/consistency-e\/\">consistency<\/a>; <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/ad-hominem-2\/\"><em>ad hominem<\/em><\/a>. Demonstrating that an opponent is incoherent is a key strategy for rejecting claims or narratives.<br \/>\nHowever, as noted in topos #21, consistency is only a probability, and probabilities cannot hold up against hard evidence; they are only default, everyday qualifications.<br \/>\nOther topoi are based on inconsistent behavior: People change their minds and criminal actions may be poorly planned, see <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/motives-and-reasons-e\/\">motives<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #800000; font-size: 12pt;\">3.2 The Enthymeme is <span style=\"background-color: #ffff00;\">a Truncated Syllogism<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The enthymeme is also defined as <span style=\"background-color: #ffff00;\">a categorical syllogism in which a premise is omitted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">Men are fallible, you are fallible.<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">You are a man, you are fallible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Or the conclusion:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">Human are fallible, after all you are a human!<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The <em>Logic<\/em> of Port-Royal defines the enthymeme as:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">A syllogism that is perfect in the mind, but imperfect in the expression, because one of the propositions is suppressed as too clear and too well known, and as being easily supplied by the minds of those to whom we speak. (Arnauld, Nicole, [1662], p. 224).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">No enthymeme is conclusive, except in virtue of an understood proposition, which, consequently, has to be in the mind though it be not expressed. (<em>Id<\/em>., p. 207).<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The example in the preceding paragraph can therefore be called an enthymeme for two reasons: First, it is based on <em>probable<\/em> indices; second, it is an <em>incomplete<\/em> syllogism.<\/p>\n<p>However, the definition of an enthymeme as a truncated syllogism is often not considered to be Aristotelian: \u201cIt is not of the essence of the enthymeme to be incomplete.\u201d (Tricot&rsquo;s Note to Aristotle, <em>PA<\/em>, II, 27, 10, p. 323).<br \/>\nFurthermore, according to Conley, this conception of the enthymeme as a truncated syllogism was not widely used in ancient rhetoric. Conley only finds it in one passage in Quintilian (Conley 1984, p.174).<\/p>\n<p>The <em>First Analytics<\/em> does consider the case of the truncated syllogism, \u201cMen do not say the latter [<em>Pittacus is wise<\/em>] because they know it\u201d (<em>PA<\/em>, II, 27, 10). On the other hand, we read in the <em>Rhetoric<\/em> that:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">If any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself. Thus, to show that Dorieus has won a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say \u2018<em>For he has won the Olympic games,<\/em>\u2019 without adding \u2018<em>And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown\u2019<\/em>, a fact that everyone knows. (<em>Rhet<\/em>., I, 2, 1357a15; RR, p. 113).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"background-color: #ccffff;\">According to this definition, the enthymeme can be considered as a<em> figure of speech<\/em> by ellipsis, precisely <em>a figure of thought<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt;\">4. The Rhetorical Counterpart of the Syllogism<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In the Aristotelian system, the proof is obtained by inference, whether it is scientific (logical), dialectical, or rhetorical. For Aristotle, there are two types of scientific inference, syllogistic deduction and induction. In rhetoric, scientific inference is replaced by \u201crhetorical inference\u201d or enthymeme, since the requirements of rhetorical discourse are incompatible with the exercise of scientific inference:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">I call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example the rhetorical induction. (<em>Rhet<\/em>., I, 2, 1356b5, RR, p. 109)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The syllogism (scientific inference) and the enthymeme (rhetorical inference) are defined in a strictly parallel way:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">When it is shown that certain propositions are true, and in consequence, a further and quite distinct proposition must also be true either invariably or usually, this is called a syllogism in dialectic, and an enthymeme in rhetoric. (<em>Rhet<\/em>., I, 2, 1356b15; RR, p. 109)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Unlike the syllogism, which is derived from true propositions, the enthymeme is drawn from \u201cprobabilities and signs\u201d (<em>Rhet<\/em>., I, 2, 1357a30; RR, p. 113), see supra \u00a7 3.1.<\/p>\n<p>The enthymeme is \u201cthe substance of persuasion\u201d, \u201ca sort of demonstration\u201d (<em>Rhet<\/em>., I, 1, 1354a10, RR p. 95; 1355a5, RR p. 99). It deals centrally with the issue at hand, the substance of the debate, \u201cthe fact\u201d (<em>Rhet<\/em>, I, 1, 1354a25, RR p. 97. As such, the enthymeme is opposed to the reckless use of <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/ethos-e\/\">ethos<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/5306-2\/\">pathos<\/a>, see <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/emotion-e\/\">emotion<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The enthymeme is also called a <em>rhetorical syllogism<\/em>, and is considered as an <em>imperfect<\/em> syllogism. These labels refer to rhetoric as syllogistic. However, the scientific \/ dialectical \/ rhetorical parallelism, attractive as it may be, is problematic. To accept this opposition, is to enter an uncomfortable and empirically inadequate conceptual grid.<br \/>\n\u2014 On the one hand, the distinction between the three types of reasoning creates a divide between the <em>categorical<\/em> scientific syllogism and the <em>probable<\/em> dialectic syllogism, versus the <em>persuasive<\/em> rhetorical enthymeme. This distinction implies that socially relevant discourse is inherently incapable of addressing with well-founded truth.<br \/>\n\u2014 On the other hand, argumentative rhetoric is straitjacketed by the opposition between <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/technical-and-non-technical-evidence-e\/\"><em>technical<\/em> <em>evidence<\/em>,<\/a> proper rhetorical evidence, and nontechnical proof, which do not fit into the previous notional framework. Common legal discourse routinely combines the two types of proof, in perfectly syllogistic forms of reasoning, see <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/layout-of-argument-toulmin-e\/\">layout<\/a>; <a href=\"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/demonstration-and-argumentation-e\/\">demonstration<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The reasons given for tying the enthymeme to syllogistic discourse are somewhat paradoxical. The enthymeme as a truncated syllogism is said to suit rhetoric because it is less pedantic than the complete syllogism. This assumes that the missing premise is <strong>easily retrievable<\/strong>. Another reason given is that one would use an enthymeme because the average audience has mediocre intelligence, and cannot follow a rigorous syllogistic chain. However, this second justification assumes that the missing premise is<strong> too difficult to recover.<\/strong> These two justifications are not immediately compatible.<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt;\">5. Enthymeme and interpretative cooperation<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>From the perspective of argumentative communication, the enthymeme uses implicit information to achieve persuasion (Rhet., I, 2, 1356b5, RR p. 109).<br \/>\nAs Bitzer notes (1959, p. 408), the enthymematic form connects the speaker and the audience in the co-construction of discourse meaning, \u201cthe enthymeme is satisfied if merely what is stated in it is merely understood\u201d, (Quintilian, <em>IO<\/em>, V, 14, 24). By constructing a common speech space, implicitness produces intersubjectivity. The speaker frames the audience as good listeners, and creates an atmosphere of complicity and \u201cgood intelligence\u201d. This communicative fusion thus contributes to the formation of an ethos: \u201c<em>You understand me. You can read my mind. I am like you. We are together.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In Jakobson&rsquo;s terms, the enthymematic formulation of reasoning has a <em>phatic<\/em> function, that is, it maintains an open communication channel. The surprise effect associated with the ellipsis is intended to awaken a sleepy audience: \u201c<em>Something is missing!<\/em>\u201d (see supra \u00a7 3.2).<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt;\">6. The enthymeme as a closing formula<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Ancient rhetoricians considered <strong>enthymemes based on opposites<\/strong> to be the most efficient. This specific enthymeme has appropriated the name of the class, as its paragon,<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Although every expression of thought may be called an enthymeme, the one which is based on contraries has appropriated the common name for its sole possession, for it seems the most pointed form of argument.\u00a0 (Cicero, <em>Top<\/em>., XIII, 55; 423)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ENTHYMEME 1. The Greek Word The Greek word corresponding to the English words enthymeme (and the adjective enthymematic) means (Bailly, [enthymema]): Thought, reflection. Invention, especially a war stratagem. Reasoning, advice or warning. A reason, a motive. The general meaning of \u201cthought, reflection\u201d is present in all ancient rhetoric: \u201cEvery expression of thought is properly called [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4901"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14620,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4901\/revisions\/14620"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}