{"id":5405,"date":"2021-10-23T12:16:24","date_gmt":"2021-10-23T10:16:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5405"},"modified":"2025-05-14T11:42:04","modified_gmt":"2025-05-14T09:42:04","slug":"rhetorical-argumentation-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/rhetorical-argumentation-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Rhetorical Argumentation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Classical RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION<\/span><\/h1>\n

Classical argumentative rhetoric is based on the natural ability to speak. This capacity is developed through conceptualization and practical exercises on general or social issues. This type of rhetoric combines linguistic, interactional and civic skills.<\/p>\n

1. The Rhetorical Address<\/span><\/h2>\n

The rhetorical address<\/em> corresponds to the traditional definition of discourse<\/em>, that is, \u201cthat which, in public, treats a subject with a certain method, and a certain length\u201d<\/span> (Littr\u00e9, [Discourse<\/em>]). A discourse is a \u201cformal, ordered and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.\u201d (W., Discourse<\/em>).
\nThis concept of discourse differs from the concepts of discourse as defined by Foucault (1969, 1971) or P\u00eacheux (Maldidier, 1990). This meaning of discourse<\/em> is not included among the six definitions considered by Maingueneau in his foundational presentation of \u201cFrench discourse analysis\u201d (1976, pp. 11-12).<\/p>\n

A rhetorical address is a speech delivered by a speaker or orator<\/em> to an audience<\/em>.<\/p>\n

– The orator addresses a pressing issue of general concern<\/em><\/strong>,<\/em><\/span> typically seeking to influence an ongoing decision-making process<\/em> that is developing under certain time constraints.
\nClassical rhetoric focuses on an orator, addressing an audience. In reality, a full rhetorical situation involves choice<\/strong>, and includes as many orators or voices as there are possible choices.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0The speech is a relatively long, planned monologue<\/em> <\/strong><\/span>composed of a series of speech acts that construct a unified representation of the disputed subject, and are intended to<\/strong><\/span><\/em> lead to action.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 It is produced in the context of a discursive competition<\/em><\/strong> <\/span>that takes place between different speeches of mutual opponents, with incompatible proposals. The rhetorical address occurs in a space of contradictory discourse, where all interventions are positioned in relation to\u00a0 each other<\/em>. Even if the speaker tries to erase all traces of the surrounding counter-discourses, the speech is still structured by such competing discourses.<\/p>\n

\u2014 The speech is delivered to an audience<\/em><\/strong>, composed of everyone who will play a role in the decision-making process<\/em> concerning the issue in hand. The audience is divided<\/em><\/strong> on what the right decision would be, and includes staunch supporters<\/em> and opponents<\/em> of each proposal, as well as undecided<\/em> individuals, see roles<\/a>. <\/span>The traditional emphasis on persuasion suggests that the orator focuses more on the doubters and questioners, than on radical opponents. His task is to remove doubt<\/strong>, create and guide opinion, see logos, ethos, pathos<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The rhetorical audience is both diminished and enlarged<\/strong>. It is diminished<\/em>, because it is defined by its lack of knowledge and its indecision. However, at least within the framework of the New Rhetoric\u00a0 the audience is also elevated as a critical instance<\/em>, somewhere on the path to achieving a universal, deeply rooted and justified consensus.<\/p>\n

Argumentative rhetoric has theorized, codified, evaluated and stimulated this type of public communication, the only type of public address possible before the advent of radio, cinema, television and the internet. Its theoretical object remains well defined, the circulation of contradictory speeches within a decision-making group, see argumentation-2<\/a>; persuasion<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. The Rhetorical Catechism<\/span><\/h2>\n

At least until the modern times, rhetorical argumentation<\/strong> was the backbone of teaching and education in the Western world.<\/span> In the Middle Ages, it served as one of the three arts of discourse<\/em> that made up the trivium<\/em> (grammar, logic, and rhetoric), and was preparatory to the quadrivium<\/em> (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music).<\/p>\n

For such pedagogical purposes, rhetoric has constructed a standard self-representation of the speech production process<\/em> and the resulting speech delivered to an audience:<\/p>\n

– A five-step production process<\/em><\/span>,<\/strong> invention, disposition, speech, memory, pronunciation.<\/p>\n

– Three genres of discourse<\/span>, <\/em><\/strong>deliberative, judicial, and epideictic.<\/p>\n

– Three rhetorical roles<\/em>:<\/span><\/strong> the rhetorical interaction is functionally tripolar,<\/em> \u201cthe speaker<\/strong> who wants to persuade, the interlocutor<\/strong> whom he must convince, and the opponent<\/strong> whom he must refute\u201d (Fumaroli 1980, p. 3).<\/p>\n

– Three discursive means of pressure<\/em> <\/span><\/strong>focus on transforming the audience’s representations and desire for action. The speaker must:<\/p>\n

– Inform and teach<\/em>, through his logos<\/em><\/a>, that is, through the cogency of his arguments and the plausibility of the facts as he reports them.
\n<\/span>– Please<\/em> and attract<\/em> through his style, and his ethos<\/a><\/em>, the self-image he projects in his speech.
\n<\/span>– Move<\/em> the audience to action, through pathos<\/a><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

– According to the tradition, the actions aimed at producing these effects are concentrated in the strategic moments<\/span><\/strong><\/em> of the discourse:<\/p>\n

The introduction<\/em> is the ethotic<\/em> moment.<\/span>
\nThe narrative<\/em> and the arguments<\/em> are dominated by logos.<\/span>
\nThe conclusion<\/em> is the emotional, pathemic<\/em>, moment, through which the speaker hopes to wrest the final decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Organization of the Process<\/span><\/h2>\n

The process of constructing an argumentative rhetorical discourse is traditionally described as involving five stages. The corresponding Latin words for these stages are provided in order to avoid confusion with the English terms, which are false cognates.<\/p>\n

(ii) Dispositio<\/em>: Planning the sequence of arguments<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u201cArrangement [dispositio<\/em>] is the ordering and distribution of the matter\u201d (ibid<\/em>.), that is, the planning of speech, particularly the organization of arguments. Inventio<\/em> and dispositio<\/em> are the two cognitive stages of this process.<\/p>\n

(iii) Elocutio<\/em>: Expressing the argumentation<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u201cStyle [elocutio<\/em>] is the adaptation of appropriate words and phrases<\/strong> to the matter under consideration\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).<\/span>
\nAlthough the word style<\/em> used in the Ad Herennium<\/em> translation may suggest a superficial arrangement of expression, elocutio<\/em> is more than that. It corresponds to the \u201cputting into language\u201d of the arguments, their semantization, and the entire linguistic expression.<\/p>\n

The elocutio<\/em> is characterized by four qualities<\/span>, the grammatical correctness<\/em><\/strong> (latinitas<\/em>), the clarity<\/em><\/strong> of the message (perspicuitas<\/em>), the adaptation of the message to suit the audience (aptum<\/em><\/strong>) and the density and richness of its expression (ornatus<\/em><\/strong>). A discourse may be rejected as defective on any one of these levels, see destruction<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Currently, the English word elocution<\/em> refers to \u201cthe skill of clear and expressive speech, especially of distinct pronunciation and articulation\u201d (W., Elocution<\/em>). With this meaning, elocution<\/em> clearly belongs first to pronuntiatio<\/em>, and only peripherally to elocutio<\/em>, as expression and style.<\/p>\n

(iv) Memoria<\/em>: Memorization of speech<\/span><\/h2>\n

Speeches must be memorized because they are intended to be delivered orally, without the use of paper or autocue. Like the \u00ab\u00a0invention\u00a0\u00bb process, memorization involves cognitive factors. The cultural importance of this memorization work, which may seem anecdotal, has been demonstrated by Yates (1966).<\/p>\n

(v) Pronuntiatio<\/em>: Delivering the speech<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u201cDelivery [pronuntiatio<\/em>] is the graceful regulation of voice, countenance, and gesture\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).<\/span>
\nThe Latin word pronuntiatio<\/em> refers not only to the physical process of speech production and modulation, but also to the idea of \u200b\u200bassertive speech.<\/em> A pronuntiatio <\/em>is a \u201cdeclaration, announcement, or proposal\u201d (Gaffiot [1934], Pronuntiativus<\/em>). A judge does not say<\/em> or read<\/em> his judgment; he pronounces<\/em><\/span> it.
\nThe rhetorical tradition views delivery as the moment of performance, and dramatization of the discourse, that requires a special training of the body, gestures and the voice. Orators, preachers, and actors are subject to the same constraints of public performance, though their techniques, social statuses and messages differ greatly.<\/p>\n

In short,<\/strong> the rhetorical prescriptions for finding, ordering, and expressing arguments in writing are particularly well-suited to general academic essays. These prescriptions seem clear, and easy enough to teach \u00ad\u2014 but, unfortunately, they are not so easy to put into practice.<\/p>\n

In Divisions of Oratory Art<\/em>, Cicero frames the concepts of ancient rhetoric as a series of questions and answers, \u201cvery much like\u00a0 a catechism\u201d, as Bornecque notes ([1924], p. VII). Rhetoric may have suffered from such an ostensibly pedagogical presentation, where everything must be done and said by the book.<\/p>\n

4. Textual Organization of the Speech<\/span><\/h2>\n

This process leads to the final product, the speech delivered in a specific situation. It is articulated in parts, traditionally called:<\/p>\n

– Introduction<\/strong><\/em> (exordium)<\/span>
\n– Narration<\/strong><\/em><\/span>
\n– Argumentation<\/strong><\/em> (a confirmation<\/em> of one’s position followed by a rebuttal <\/em>of the opponent’s positions)<\/span>
\n– Conclusion<\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Argumentation is the central part of the speech. Contrary to a simplistic view of discourse, there is no opposition <\/em>between argumentation, narration<\/em> and description<\/em>.<\/span><\/strong> Like literary narratives or descriptions, argumentative narratives or descriptions, are made from a particular point of view<\/em>.<\/p>\n

5. Extensions and Restrictions of Rhetoric<\/span><\/h2>\n

Ancient argumentative rhetoric has been redefined on various dimensions.<\/p>\n

– Limitation to its expressive<\/em> dimension.<\/strong><\/span> Argumentative rhetoric can be oriented towards persuasive communication<\/em> or the quality of expression<\/em>.<\/p>\n

– Restriction to the linguistic<\/em> dimension and liquidation of the cognitive<\/em> dimensions.<\/span><\/strong> The apparent logic of the five components of rhetorical production was profoundly challenged in the Renaissance (Ong 1958). The three components related to thought<\/em> (invention, disposition, and memory) were separated from the two components related to language<\/em> (expression and delivery). Inventio<\/em>, the foundation of argumentation, was removed from rhetoric. Rhetoric redefined its subject matter, shifting its focus from social discourse to literature and belles-lettres, and developing a passion for the autonomous study of the discourse variations and stylistic figures.
\nA language deprived of thought and a thought deprived of language<\/span>: this orphaned rhetoric would become the target of violent attacks from Locke, see ornamental fallacies<\/a>.
\nIn nineteenth-century France, Fontanier ([1827], [1831]) was the emblematic figure associated with this \u201crestricted rhetoric\u201d (Genette, 1970), as opposed to the so-called \u201cgeneral\u201d rhetoric, which was revived by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). The question of reviving an integral concept of rhetoric remains a topos<\/em> of rhetorical studies.<\/p>\n

– Generalization along its linguistic<\/em> dimension<\/span>.<\/strong> A rhetoric limited<\/em> to figures of speech can itself be called \u201cgeneral<\/em>\u201d: this paradoxical term corresponds to the \u201cGroup \u03bc\u201d approach in their General Rhetoric<\/em> (1970). Figures are examined within a structuralist framework, and figures are reconsidered under the two basic dimensions of language, the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic axes. Issues of argumentation, public speaking, interaction, and communication, are not considered, nor is the aesthetics of figures. During the 1970s, this General Rhetoric<\/em> was practically the only concept of rhetoric to be considered in the French literature , and Perelman’s New Rhetoric occupied only a marginal position. Wenzel devoted an avenging paragraph to this \u201calarming\u201d view of rhetoric (1987, p. 103; see Klinkenberg, 1990, 2001). The contrast with the status of rhetoric in speech and communication departments<\/em> in the United States could not be greater.<\/p>\n

– Extension to ordinary speech<\/em>.<\/span><\/strong> The rhetorical approach can be extended to everyday\u00a0 speech, insofar as it involves managing one’s face (ethos<\/em>), processing data oriented toward a practical end (logos<\/em>), and correlating affects (pathos<\/em>) (Kallmeyer, 1996). Thus, the rhetorical trilogy can thus be seen as the precursor of the various theories of the language functions (B\u00fchler 1933, Jakobson [1960]), in a different theoretical atmosphere. This extension also preserves a fundamental characteristic of rhetorical speech: altering reality by participating in ongoing action. This view may resonate with Bitzer’s evocation of the dialogue between fishermen at work in the Trobriand Islands, and his definition of the \u201crhetorical situation\u201d as involving a degree of \u201curgency\u201d:<\/p>\n

Rhetorical situations may be defined as complexes of persons, events, objects and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence, which can be partially or completely removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence (Bitzer [1968], p. 5).<\/span><\/p>\n

– Extension to any semiotic domain<\/em>.<\/strong><\/span> Rhetoric naturally extends to the co-verbal and paraverbal signifiers. Furthermore, the strategic implementation of any semiotic system can be legitimately be considered rhetorical practice: rhetoric of painting, of music, of architecture for example.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Classical RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION Classical argumentative rhetoric is based on the natural ability to speak. This capacity is developed through conceptualization and practical exercises on general or social issues. This type of rhetoric combines linguistic, interactional and civic skills. 1. The Rhetorical Address The rhetorical address corresponds to the traditional definition of discourse, that is, \u201cthat […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5405","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=5405"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5405\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14291,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5405\/revisions\/14291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

– Generalization to its persuasive<\/em> dimension.<\/strong><\/span> Nietzsche assimilates the rhetorical function to the persuasive function of language, see persuasion<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(i) Inventio<\/em>: Finding the arguments<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u201cInvention<\/em> [inuentio<\/em>] is the invention of things, true or plausible, that would make the case convincing\u201d (Ad Her<\/em>., i, 3). Inventio<\/em> is the cognitive step<\/span> corresponding to the methodical search for arguments, guided by the technique of \u201ctopical questions\u201d, see common places.<\/a>
\n<\/span>The Latin word inventio<\/em> does not mean \u201cinvention\u201d in the sense of creating something that did not exist before. Here, \u00ab\u00a0to invent\u00a0\u00bb means \u201cto find or discover something\u201d<\/span> (Gaffiot [1934], Inventio<\/em>).
\nPsycholinguistic research on the production of written and oral discourse has expanded upon the reflection on inventio<\/em> techniques.<\/p>\n

Rhetorical arguments are \u00ab\u00a0found\u00a0\u00bb based on an exploration of reality, guided by a natural, substantial ontology.
\nReligious arguments have introduced a fundamental change to this vision. Instead of being plausible statements, good reasons are sacred statements drawn from foundational sacred texts<\/span> and, to a lesser extent, from the texts of the relevant religious tradition.<\/p>\n