New rhetorics

New rhetorics is an interdisciplinary field [1] approaching for the broadening of classical rhetorical canon.[2][3] The New Rhetoric is a result of various efforts of bringing back rhetorics from the marginal status [1] it attained by its image and 'negative connotations' of "political lies, corporate spin, long list of Greek and Roman terms for patterns of expression no one knowingly uses, purple prose, boiler-plate arrangement schemas, unimaginative reproductions of bullshit and so on" [4] if not to its previous place of a discipline "associated with social and intellectual prestige" [1] then at least to the level of the other contemporary fields in the social, cultural and liguistic studies. Notoriously the field emerged after the work of Chaim Perelman and Lucille Olbrechts-Tyteca in their book The New Rhetoric (1969) [5] but both the notion and the idea for the need of "new" rhetoric, different from the "old" one can be traced to the works of Kenneth Burke - A Rhetoric of Motives (1950) and Rhetoric - Old and New (1967),.[6]

What helped the emergence of New rhetoric was the ideas of the epistemic status of rhetoric, the notion of a clearly definable rhetorical core and other.[1]

New rhetorics attempts to preserve the original field but it also has tense relationship with it.[1] For example New rhetoric attempts to break up with the formalistic and logocentric (i.e. patriarchal) Neo-Aristotelian analysis in favour of interplay between text and context, but according to DeGenaro it does not succeed to place itself outside the "Western-patriarchal" with being unable to departure from "elite backgrounds and scopes of study" [3] to a diversity of voices, topics, etc. This probably makes New Rhetoric rather a ground for the Postmodern rhetoric [7] which "puts into question the identities of the speaker, the audience, and the messages that pass between them" [8] with evaluating the intersubjective philosophy [9] because of the inherently accepted in the postmodernistic philosophy idea that "differences cannot be overcome, in Hegelian fashion, by cancelling them under a higher-order synthesis, but must be eroded or defaced in the course of traversing them."[10]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Andreea Deciu Ritivoi, Rhetorics: New Rhetorics, in Wolfgang Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication, doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x
  2. ↑ Per example in Defining the New Rhetoric and Professing the New Rhetoric
  3. 1 2 New and Alternative Rhetorics - William DeGenaro, Who says?: working-class rhetoric, class consciousness, and community, Univ of Pittsburgh Press, 2007, pp.5
  4. ↑ George Pullman, Rhetorically Speaking, What’s New?, Georgia State University, What is the New Rhetoric? conference
  5. ↑ Thomas M. Carr, Jr. Some Consequences of The New Rhetoric: A Critical Study, Argumentation 7: 475-479, 1993
  6. ↑ Zachary M. White, Re-examining Kenneth Burke on "identification" in the "new" rhetoric, dissertation @ Purdue University
  7. ↑ Not the rhetoric of postmodernism but postmodern theory and analysis in rhetorics.
  8. ↑ Gary E. Aylesworth, Rhetoric, Postmodern The International Encyclopedia of Communication, doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x
  9. ↑ Barry Brummett, Some Implications of "Process" or "Intersubjectivity": Postmodern Rhetoric, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Penn State University Press, 1976
  10. ↑ Gary Aylesworth, Postmodernism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, November 23, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.