IYOKAN - Institutional Repository : the EHIME area http://iyokan.lib.ehime-u.ac.jp/dspace/

>> 愛媛大学 - Ehime University

This document is downloaded at: 2017-10-15 14:34:02

Title On Defining English Rhetoric

Author(s) DAVIES, Roger J.

Citation 愛媛大学教育学部紀要. 第II部, 人文・社会科学. vol.31,no.1, p.79-106

Issue Date 1998-09-20

URL http://iyokan.lib.ehime-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/iyokan/2347

Rights

Note

愛媛大学教育学部紀要　人文・社会科学　第31巻　第1号　79～1061998

0n　Defining　lEng1is11Rhetoric

Roger　J．Davies

D助α〃mmオげ肋功∫尻

ハ舳吻ぴ〃舳オ｛Im

　　五〃me晩方mκ吻

Developments　in　the．Cross＿Cultural　StUdy　of　Rhetoric

　　　　When　individua1s　from　other　cu1tures　produce　academic　texts　in　E㎎1ish　as　a　second

1anguage，they　wi11often　organize　and　present　their　ideas　in　ways　that　vio1ate　the　ex－

pectations　of　native　readers．Even　if　the　texts　are　syntactica1Iy　accurate，the　discourse

structures　may　be　perceived　as“a1ien，”as　not　conforming　to　the　standard　norms　of　wr｛tten

E㎎1ish．Where　there　is　an　inadequate　management　of　lower1eve11inguistic　features，and

errors　in　grammar　and　usage　become　superimposed　upon　anoma1o廿s　organizational　pattems，

the　resulting　texts　may　very　we11be　incomprehensib1e．The　American　app1ied　linguist，Robert

Kap1an，was　one　of　the　first　to　notice　these　discrepancies　in　students’cross＿cu1tura1wr｛ting，

and　he　coined　the　term　co〃m∫切e　me左。伽to　accomt　for　the　phenomenon．

　　　In　a　semina1artic1e　comparing　the　expository　writing　styIes　of　several　different1anguage

groups，Kap1an（1966）c1aimed　that　L2pattems　of　rhetorica1organization　wi11　often　be

transferred　to　Eng1ish　language　compositions　with1arge1y　negative　effects．Contrastive

studies　across　cu1tures　at　that　time　were1imited　to　the1evel　of　the　sentence，but　Kaplan

suggested　that　1inguistic　and　cu1tura1factors　－beyond　the　sentence　1eveI　innuenced　L2

1earners’writing　skills．He　further　ma呈ntained　that“foreign　students　who　have　mastered

syntactic　structures　have　sti11demonstrated　inability　to　compose　adequate　themes，term

papers，theses，and　dissertations，”and　that　instructors　often　complain　that　their　written　texts

are　somehow“out　o士focus，”“1acking　in　cohesion，”and“1acking　in　organization”（p．3）．

According　to　Kap1an，these　deficiencies　arise　because　L2students　are　emp1oying　a　rhetoric

and　a　sequence　of　thought（i．e．，1ogic）based　on　their　mother　tongue．He　suggested　that“1ogic

（in　the　popular，rather　than　the1ogician’s　sense　of　the　word）which　is　the　basis　of　rhetoric，

is　evolved　out　of　cu1ture；it　is　not　universal．Rhetoric，then，is　not　universa1either，but　varies

from　culture　to　cu1ture．．．”　（P．2）1

　　　Kap1an’s　study，which　was　later　to　achiεve　a　certain　notoriety　in　app1ied1inguistic　and

langua套e　teaching　circ1es，invo1ved　the　ana1ysis　of　paragraph　structure　in　some600com一

79

Roger　J．Davies

positions　written　in　Eng1ish　by　L2students　from　five　different1anguage　groups＝Eng1ish，

Semitic，Orienta1，Romance，and　Russian．Graphic　representations　of　the　rhetorica1pattems

of　each　language　group　were　provided，giving　rise　to　its　we1トknown　sobriquet，the“doodles”

artiClel

刃昭2肋　　Sθm棚。

令　　1

0れen伽Z　　　　児。mαn6e

多＠

亙㈱s切n

！！

し

1〉

4　　　　　　｝

　　　Kap1an’s　comparisons　of　these　five1anguage　groups　can　be　brief1y　summarized　as　fo11ows．

The　expected　sequence　of　thought　in　Eng1ish　is　essentia11y1inear－paragraphs　are　expected

to　exhibit　unity　and　coherence　and　to　never　be　digressive．In　the　Semitic1anguage　group，

the　paragraph　is　based　on　a　comp1ex　series　of　para11el　con苧tructions　and　coordination　is

stressed　over　subordination．Writing　within　the　Orienta1group　of　languages　is　characterized

by　an　approach　by　indirection－the　deve1opment　of　the　paragraph　is　said　to　circ1e　around

a　subject，Providing　a　variety　of　tangentia1views．In　the　Romance　languages，digressions

are　permitted，there　is　more　freedom　to　move　away　from　the　centra1topic，and　a1though

one　is　expected　to　eventuany　return　to　the　main　theme，interesting　asides　that　do　not

contribute　to　the　basic　thougbt　of　the　paragraph　are　a11owed．Russian　permits　major

digressions，and　often　materia1irre1evant　to　the　main　idea－of　the　paragraph　is　presented，

somewhat　Iike　parenthe亡ica1amplifications　which　would　be　written　as　footnotes　in　Eng1ish・

　　　Characteristica11y　of　any　paradigmatic　work，Kap1an’s　theories　attracted　considerab1e

criticism．As　Ho1yoak＆Piper（1997，pp，125＿126）point　out，“his　graphic　representations

of　rhetorica1pattems　in　s61ected1anguages　were　simplistic，his　database　was・too　sma11，his

reliance　on　English　texts　as　a　basis　for　conclusions　about　other1anguages　naive．”Kap1an

himself（1987）acknow1edges　the　va1idity　of　these　criticisms，but　continues　to　support　the

basic　premise　of　his　origina1position，espec王a11y　in1ight　of“h三s　critics’failure　to　provide

quantitative　evidence　to　the　c㎝trary”（op－cit．，p－126）．Writing　some　two　decades1ater　he

states　that．．

．it　is　now　my　opinion　that　a11of　the　various　rhetorical　modes　identi士ied　in　the“doodles　article”

ヨre　possible　in　any］anguage－i－e。，in　any　language　whicb　bas　written　text，The　issue　is　that

each1anguage　has　certain　clear　preferences，so　that　whi1e　all｛orms　are　possible，an　forms　do

not　occur　with　equal　frequency　or　in　parane1distribution．My　contention　is　that　any　native

speaker　of　any　particu1ar1anguage　has　at　his　disposaI1itera11y　hundreds　of　different　mechanisms

to　signify　the　same　meaning．（Kap1an，1987，p．10）

Kap1an’s　ground＿breaking　work　provided　the　impetus　and　set　the　basic　parameters　for

80

On　De壬ining　Englis｝1Rhetoric

a　who1e　new　generation　of　cross－cu1tura1research　into　written　discourse．Early　investigations

into　contrastive　rhetoric　contimed　to　emphasize　his　basic　hypothesis　that　differences　within

the　intemaリ。gics　of1anguages1ead　to　the　deve1opment　of　different　rhetorics　causing　in－

terference　with　L2writing　performance．The　focus　of　these　studies　was　primari1y　on　textual

considerations，and　initial　approaches　were　most1y　concemed　with　descriptions　of　macros－

tructures　（i．e．，1arger　rhetorical　patterns　of　organization，or　discourse　structures）　in　the

expository　writing　of　se1ected　lan馴ages．Later　research　was　redirected　towards　a　more　text

ana1ytic　approach，inc1uding　the　isolation　of　contrastive　features　at1ower1evels　o土macro－

structure（or　higher　levels　of　microstructure，depending　on　one’s　point　of　view）such　as

cohesive　ties　and　the　ana1ysis　of　propositiona1movement．More　recent1y，the　fie1d　has　moved

beyond　the　boundaries　of　text　itseH　to　encompass　cognitive　and　pragmatic　variab1es　in

writing，in　particu1ar　the　context　in　which　text　is　produced，both　situational　and　cu1tura11

“contrastive　rhetoric　has　shifted　its　emphasis．．．to　deeper1eve1s　of　discourse　meaning　in

context，assuming　that　L2writing　disp1ays　prefened　cohventions　of　the　Ll　language　and

cu1ture　rather　than　ref1ects　Ll　thought　pattems”（A11aei＆Connor，1990，p．23）．A1an　Purves’

investigations　into　the　nature　of　writing　have　been　important　in　shaping　this　new　direction

｛n　contrastive　rhetoric．Purves＆Purves（1986）speak　of　writing　not　as　a－ski11，but　as“an

activity　dependent　on　the　prior　acquisition　of　knowledge”（p．178）．They　argue　that　this

includes　knowledge　of　the　subject　matter，knowledge　of　the　grammatica1constructs　to　be

used，know1edge　of　the　text　structure　and　text　mode1s　of　written　genres，and　knowledge

of　socia1and　cu1tura1ro1es　inherent　in　the　writing　process（op．cit．）．Contemporary　theories

of　contrastive　rhetoric　continue　to　stress　that1anguage　and　writing　are　cu1tura1phenomena，

and　that　transfer　between　the　mother　tongue　and　target1anguage　wi11typica11y　include．not

on1y　lexica1，9rammatical，and　syntactic　e1ements，but　a1so　Pattems　of　rhetorica1organization

and　sty1istic　preferences，which　in　tum　are　shaped　and　inf1uenced　by　implicit，under1y｛ng

cu1tural　assumptions　and　traditions，which　themse1ves　are　forged　within1inguistic　com－

munities　over1ong　Periods　of　time．

　　　In　its　apPlication　and　orientation，contrastive　rhetoric　is　essentia11y　pragmatic　and

pedagogica1，not　in　a　methodo1ogicai　sense，but　in　providing　teachers　and　students　with

knowledge　of　the1inks　between　cu1ture　and　writing，and　how　discourse　structures　and

sty1istic　choices　are　ref1ected　in　written　products．The　theoretical　basis　of　contrastive　rhetoric

is　interdiscip1ina町and　mu1tidimensiona1．Its　underlying　assumptions　are　neo－Whorfian　and

derive　from　the　theory　of1inguistic　relativity．Its　deveIopment　has　been　inf1uenced　by　such

majOr　mOVementS　aS　COntraStiVe　analySiS，errOr　ana1ySiS，inter1anguage　StudieS，and1anguage

transfer．It　is　immediate1y　dependent　on　research　in　text1inguistics　and　discourse　ana1ysis，

and　is　theoretica11y　motivated　and　informed　by　the　fie1ds　of　rhetoric　and　composition　theory．

It　is　also　fed　by　anci11ary　streams　as　varied　as　cultuエa1anthropo1o駅，cognitive　science，

trans1ation　theory，9enre　ana1ysis，and　literacy　studies．

　　　Today，a　wea1th　of　materials　exists　on　the　app1ication　of　contrastive　rhetoric　to　the

teaching　and1earning　of　many1anguages　throughout　the　wbr1d．Sti11，conceptua1prob1ems

81

Roger　J，Davies

remaih，and　approaches，methodo1ogies，and　conclusions　tend　to　be　extreme1y　varied　and

often　contradictory．In　may　be，for　examp1e，that　some1eamers’writing　prob1ems　are

predominant1y　deve1opmental，rather　than　ref1ecting　issues　in　rhetorica1transfer．As　Ho1yoak

＆Piper（1997，p．128）note，“suprasentential　features　of　the　written1anguage　w｛n　be　of

no　avai1where　the　management　of1ower　level　linguistic　concerns　takes　up　short＿term

processing　capacity，rendering　deve1opmenta1factors　just　as　re1evant　as　transfer一．．．’’In

addition，as　Grabe（1987）points　out，one　of　the　main　difficulties　often　lies　in　comparing　text

types　across1anguages．For　instance，expository　or　persuasive　prose　may　be　distinct　and

important　text　genres　in　English，but　not　in　other1anguages．It　may　be　that　researchers

are　seeking　to　compare　what　is，strictly　speaking，incommensurab1e．Ways　must　be　fomd

to　re1ate　the　intemany　defined1inguistic　categorjes　of　one1anguage　with　those　of　another，

1〕ut，as　yet，there　is　no　agreed　upon　theory　of　rhetoric　or　discourse　from　which　descriptive

categories　can　be　applied　to　a　variety　of　languages（Houghton＆Hoey，1983）．

　　　With　the　goa1of　contributing　to　the　creation　of　such　a　theory，we　wi11investigate　the

origins　of　fhetoric　in　the　West　and　trace　its　deve1opment　up　to　modem　times，arriving　in

the　end　at　a　comprehensive　definition　of　the　term　which　wi11　p1ace　it　within　the　framework

of　a　theory　of　discourse．It　is　ouf　be1ief　that　in　order　to　understand　the　nature　of　Eng1ish

rhetoric　in　the　modern　world，it　is　essential　to　have　an　adequate　knowledge　of　the　historica1

matrix　from　which　it　arose，There　is1itt1e　as　divisive　as　the　interpretation　of　history　in　this

postmodern　age，yet　without　an　understanding　of　the　origins　and　evolution　of　rhetoric　in

the　Western　tradition，we　will　have　no　adequate　frame　of　reference　for　comprehendi㎎the

canons　and　strictures　which　govem　our　use　of　language　today，nor　for　deve1oping　a　uniform

theo町。f　discourse　within　which　to　conceptua1ize　research　mode1s　for　the　cross＿cu1tura1study

Of　Writing．

English　Rhetoric　in　Historical　Perspectlve

“We　are　standing，”Sir　Isaac　Newton　once　remarked，“on　the　shou1ders　of　giants．”

　　　The　history　of　rhetoric　in　the　West　covers　some2500years　and　during－this　time　the

discip1ine　has　accumu1ated　a　variety　of　princip1es　and　shifts　in　emphasis　that　ref1ect　the

c1〕aηging　needs　of　those　who　practice　it．The　modem　art　of　rhetoric　finds　its　roots　in　the

past　but　a1so　responds　to　contemporary　concems；it　is　an　art　which　constantly　changes　to

suit　the　purposes　of1an馳age　use　by　human　beings：“Rhetoric　enab1es　writers　and　speakers

to　design　messages　for　particu1ar　audiences　and　purposes，but　because　peop1e　in　various

cultures　and　historica1periods　have　assumed　different　definitions　of　what　makes　com－

munication　effective，rhetorica1princip1es　change”（Lindemann，1995，p－40）．The　term

〃eす。伽itse1f　has　taken　on　a　wide　range　of　meanings，and　every　historical　period　has

characterized　the　rhetorica1tfadition　di士ferent1y，sometimes　focusing　on　ora1discourse，

82

On　Defining　English　Rhetoric

sometimes　on　written　texts，sometimes　defining　it　narrowly　as　having　to　do　soleIy　with　style，

or　de1ivery，or　invention，sometimes　viewing呈t　as　including　a　wider　range　of　the　arts　and

forms　of　communication　in　general，Rhetoric　has　thus　accumu1ated　a　mu1tiplicity　of　con－

notations　over　the　centuries，making　the　formulation　of　a　comprehensive　definition　difficuIt，

for　it　denotes　both　a　practice　and　a　body　of　know1edge　describing　that　practice．Yet　an

accurate　definition　of　rhetoric　is　fmdamental　to　understanding　the　way　in　which　people

communicate三n　English　today　in　oral　or　written　discourse．

　　　Because　this　survey　of曲etoric　is　so　broad　in　scope，it　makes　no　pretense　to　com－

prehensiveness．It　is　on1y　possib1e　to　dwe11on　the　most　important　characters　and　their　main

works，as　we11　as　the　most　significant　inte11ectua1movements　of　various　historica1periods，

As　such，it　includes　the　major　trends　in　discourse　education　in　Westem　cu1tufe　in　genera1，

presented　within　a　multi＿discip1inary　framework　encompassing　not　onIy　the　art　of　rhetoric

itself，but　a1so　related　discip1ines　such　as　composition　theory，，1iterary　criticism，phi1osophy，

etc．This　brie壬。ut1ine　draws士reely　from　a　number　of　exce11ent　historica1overviews　of　the

fie1d，including　Corbett’s（1990）αα∫∫タ。〃児加古m．cカプ肋e　Mo6em∫オ〃enす，Lindemann’s（1995）

λ児加オ。γ左。カプ〃7肋mg　Teαc加κ∫，and　Kinneavy’s（1971）λ丁肋。ηρ戸〃5comse．

Classical　Rhetoric

　　　　For　most　of　its1ong　history，rhetoric　in　the　Western　tradition　was　a　prominent，if　not

dominant，discip1ine　in　both　schoo1s　and　society　at　large．Its　origins　are　to　be　found　in　the

Henenic　world　of　the趾th　century　BC　at　which　time　the　great　oratorica1traditions　of　pub1ic

address　were　systematica11y　deve1oped．Rhetoric　in　this　period　was　c1osely　a11ied　with　other

studies，such　as　aesthetics，logic，and　ethics，and　was　considered　a　means　for　communicating

great　and　serious　ideas　in　pu1〕lic　forums．However，“the　practice　o土an　art　antedates　its

co砒ication”and　the　codified　principIes　of　any　discipline　are　a1most　always　formulated

inductively　from　the　study　of1ong－standing　practices（Corbett，1990，p．540）．This　is　certain1y

true　of　the　pefsuasive　oratory　of　tbe　Greeks　which　played　an　important　ro1e　in　Henenic

society　many　centuries　before　the　first　treatises　on　the　subject　were　written：

One　only　has　to　note　the　prominence　of　speeches　and　debates　in　the　Homeric　epics，in　the　p1ays

of　tbe　Greek　dramatists，in　t阜e　histories　of　Herodotus　and　Thucydides，and　in　the　philosophies

of　Hesiod，to　be　convinced　that　persuasive　discourse　exerted　a　continuing　infIuence　upon　the

ancient　Greeks　almost　from　the　dawn　of　t1ユeir　civi1ization．（ibid．）

　　　　The　art　of　rhetoric　was　first　formulated　in　a　systematic　way　in　Sicily　in　the　second

quarter　of　the　fifth　century　BC　and　is　generany　attributed　to　Corax　of　Syracuse　wh0

deve1oped　a　manua1on　pub1ic　speaking　to　he1p　citizens　regain　their　confiscated　property　from

a　recent1y　overthrown　tyrant　by　proving　their　c工aims　in　the　courts，Corax　suggested　that

a　judicial　speech　should　have　four　parts－Proem，narration，arguments（both　confirmation　and

83

Roger　J．Davies

refutation），and　peroration1－the　arrangement　that　formed　the　basis　for　a111ater　rhetorica1

theo町．

　　　In　Athens　during　the　fi士th　and士。urth　centuries　there　were　a　re1atively　large　number　of

itinerant　teachers　who1ectured　on　various　topics，and　particu1arly　on　rhetoric，They　became

known　as　the　Sophists　and1ater　deve1oped　an　unsavory　reputation　for　arguing　any　cause

regard1ess　of　ethics　or　mora1ity，and　in　emphasizing　sty1e　above　a11（hence　the　meaning　of

∫o肋4∫卿today　as　deceitfu1reasoning）、Not　all　were　unscrupu1ous，however，and　the　most

in此ential　of　the　Sophists　was　Isocrates　who　was　a　highly　ethica1teachef0f　rhetoric　and

probab1y　even　more　popular　than　Aristotle　in　his　day．He　stressed　the　notion　of　the　proper

education　for　an　idea1orator　focusing　on　the　who1e　man，a　point　of　view　which　had　a　marked

jn刮uence　on1ater　orators　such　as　Cicero　and　Quinti1ian．His　teachings　also　contributed　to

the　development　of　higher　education　in1atef　classica1times－

　　　However，not　an　Sophists　had　high　moral　standards，and　P1ato（through　his　spokesman

Socrates）criticized　the　form　qf　rhetoric　practiced　in　his　day　in　passages　scattered　throughout

his’ р奄≠Pogues．Plato　deprecated　rhetoric　as　mere　f1attery，1ikening　it　to　cooke町and　cosmetics，

and　his　v王ews　had　a　strong　impact　on　his　student，Aristot1e，who　attempted　to　counteract

his　former　teacher’s1ow　estimate　of　persuasive　oratory　in　his　writings，but　who　a1so　opposed

the　Sophists　in　proposing　an　approach　to　rhetoric　as　a　usefu1and　practica1form　of1ogica1

argumentatiOn．

　　　Aristotle’s　R尻eチ。γ4c（c．330BC）is　without　question　the　most　important　treatise　on　the

art　of　rhetoric　ever　written．Corbett（ibid．，p．544）describes　it　as“one　of　the　great　books

of　the　Westem　world”as　it　has　had　a　mo㎜mental　in此ence　on　a111nte11ectual　thought　in

the　Westem　tradition．It　became‘‘the　fountainhead　of　a111ater　rhetorica1theory”（ibid．，p．

543）：“［T］he　Rhetoric　not　only　of　Cicero　and　Quintilian，but　o士the　Middle　Ages，of　the

Renaissance，and　of　modem　times，is，in　its　best　elements，essentia11y　Ar三stote1ian”（Cooper，

cited　in　Corbett，ibid．，pp．543＿544）．

　　　The　R加古。肋is　divided　into　three　books，which　dea1with　the　nature　of　rhetoric，invention，

and　arrangement　and　sty1e，respective1y．Perhaps　tbe　key　to1mderstanding　Aristot1e’s　ap－

proach　t6the　subject　is　that　he　v王ewed〃。bα〃伽as　the　basis　of　the　persuasive　art　of

rhetoric，while　universal，verifiable　truths　fe11　within　the　domain　of　dia1ectic20r1ogic．That

is，rhetoric　dea1t　withμoろα〃e　truth，with　opinions　and　be1iefs　which　cou1d　be　advanced　with

greater　or1esser　certainty　depending　on　people’s　opinions　and　customs，whi1e　dia1ectic　was

1proem：Preli皿inary　commen士，Preface

　Peroration：the　conc1uding　part　of　a　discourse，especia11y　an　oration

2Dia1ectic：（1）log王。，（2a）a　discussion3nd　reasoning　by　diaユ。gue　as　a　method　of　intelユectual　investigation，

　（2b）a　Socratic　technique士。r　exposing　fa1se　be1iefs　and　e1iciting　truth，（2c）the　P1atonic　investigation

of　the　etemaいdeas，（3）the　Hege1ian　process　of　cbange　in　wbich　a　concept　or　its　realization　passes

　over　into　and　is　preserved　and　fulfined　by　its　opposite，（4）development　through　the　stages　of　thesis，

antithesis，and　synthesis（see　dia工ectica1materia1ism＿Marx〕，（5〕any　system　of　reasoning，exposition，

or　argument　that　juxtaposes　opposed　or　contradictorナideas　and　usua11y　seeks　to　resolve　their　conf1ict

84

On　De丘ning　Eng1ish　Rhetoric

considered　a　method　of　inte11ectual　investigation　for　e1iciting　abso1ute　truths．

　　　The　recognition　of　probabi1ity　as　the　essence　of　the　persuasive　art1ies　beh三nd　most　of

Aristot1e’s　contributions　to　rhetorica1theory（ibid．，p1544），the　most　important　of　which　are

aS　fO110WS：

．　the　three　mOdes　Of　p工00f　（彦肋0∫，力α肋0∫，and　王090∫）

・deductive　and　inductive　methods　of1ogical　argumentation

・the　topics，or広。φoク，as　a　means　of　discovering　available　arguments

・　the　stress　on　audience　as　the　chief　informing　Principle　of　persuasive　discourse

　　　Aristot1e　stressed　the　importance　of　invention，or　the　discovery　and　development　of

arguments，and　he　outlined　three　appeals（modes　of　proof，or　means　of　persuasion）by　which

an　OratOr　trieS　tO　COnVinCe　Or　SWay　an　audienCe－e脇0S，切肋0S，and王090S：

・e肋。∫（ethica1appea1s）＝creating　a　favorab1e　impression　of　oneself　as　a　wise　and　virtuous

individua1of　good　wi11．These　appea1s　include　the　speaker’s　know1edge　and　experience，

personal　and　socia11y＿recognized　expertise　on　the　subject，and　awareness　of　the　audience’s

va1ues－In　other　words，with　ethical　appea1s，a　speaker　tries　to　persuade　the　audience　that

he　or　she　is　a　person　worth　listening　to，someone　with－Va1uab1e　insights　into　the　subject

under　discussion．Ethica1appeals　are　thus－centered　in　the　speaker．

・〃肋。∫（emotiona1appea1s）：appealing　to　the　character，emotions，or　menta1state　of　the

audience．These　types　of主rgument　a平e　constructed　to　persuade　the　audience　through　the

emot｛ons．They　inc1ude　the　use　of　charged　language　and　vivid　pictures　designed　to　evoke

strong　emotiona1reactions　in　the　audience，Emotiona1appea1s　are　thus　directed　toward　the

heart．

・’ogo∫（logica1appea1s）：using　the　deductive　logic　of　sy11ogisms　and　the　inductive1ogic　of

examp1es，These’types　of　appeal　involve　the　rationa1mind　and　are　based　on1ines　of

reasoning　and　logical　argument；they　should　a1ways　be　supported　by　detai玉ed　examp1es，facts，

statistics，etc．Logica1apPea1s　are　based　on　the　mind　or　inte11ect．

　　　Aristot1e　maintained　that　all　know1edge　is　acquired　and　a11proof　is　achieved　through

either　deduction　or　induction（Corbett，19901p，68）．The　d雌erence　between　the　two　is　that

deduction　makes　inferences　from　generalized　statements，whi1e　induction　makes　inferences

from　verifiabIe　phenomena．A　sy11ogism　is　a　deductive　scheme　of　forma1argument　consisting

of　a　major　and　minoT　premise　and　a　conclusion　invented　by　Aristot1e　to　analyze　and

systematize　deductive　reasoning．The　enthymeme　is　the　rhetorical　equiva王ent　of　the　sy11o－

gism，which　produces　not　the　definitive　conc1usion　we　get　in　science　or1ogic，but　a　form

of　be1ief　or　persuasion　instead，With　induction，on　the　other　hand，we　pmceed　ff0m　the

particu1ar　to　the－genera1，Thus　in　science　or1ogic　we　arrive　inductive1y　at　a　genera1ization

through　the　observation　of　a　series　of　particu1ars．Induction1eaps　from　observed　facts，over

an　area　of　unknown，unobserved　instances，to　a　generalization．The　examp1e　is　the　rhetorica1

equiva1ent　of　logical　induction．

　　　Aristot1e　also　introduced　the　notion　o“ψo4（Greek　for“p1aces’’），or　topics．This　did　not

mean　a1ist　of　subjects　as　it　does　now，but　rather　a　way　of　discovering　arguments　on　any

85

Roger　J．Dav三es

subject（i．e．，invention）．These　discovery　procedures　inc1uded　a　sman　number　of　commom妙。4

and　a1arger　secondary　set　of1王nes　of　inquiry　such　as　ar馴ing　from　cause　and　effect，from

definitions，from　parts　to　the　who1e，from　opposites，etc．Later，in　Renaissance　Eng1and，the

meaning　of妙。4changed　and　came　to　mean“commonp1aces，’’or　subjects　to　write　about，

Today，topics　are“subjects　for　writing　about”rather　than“ways　of　approaching　a　subject”

as　in　Aristot1e’s　day（Lindemann，1995，p．43）．Some　of　Aristotle’s≠ψo｛survive　at　present，

however，as　modes　of　paragraph　deve1opment：definition，comparison　and　contrast，cause　and

effect，　etc．

　　　Another　important　area　dea1t　with　by　Aristotle　was　the　divisions　of　an　argument．He

suggested　that　a11arguments　shou1d　have　two　main　parts：the　first　part　states　the　case，the

…。・dp・・tp・・…it，・・d・d・…t・df・u…此・・t。一пc，fu・th・・d…1・pi・gth…一

rangement　originany　proposed　by　Corax：

・　the　introduction　（Pro1ogue）

．　an　out1ine　or　narration　of　the　subject　（the　statement　of　the　case）

・the　proofs　for　or　against　the　case（the　argument）

・the　summary（epilogue）

　　　A干istotle　a1so　argued士。r　a　p1ain，natura1sty1e　of　argumentation，one　that　displays　the

qualities　of　c1arity，dignity，propriety，and　correctness（this　contrasted　with　rhetoricians　wh0

both　preceded　and　fo11owed　him）．Ar1stot1e’s　ideas　became　a　guidi㎎force　in　Western

intenectua1thought　when　they　were　rediscovered　prior　to　Renaissance　times，and　the

above＿mentioned　princip1es　came　to　be　significant　in　the　deve1opment　of　the　rhetorica1style

of　Eng1ish　and　infIuence　our　approach亡。　subject　even　today．

　　　It　is　a1so　important　to　understand　that　classical　rhetoric　was　primari1y　a　spoken，not

written，art．It　focused　a1most　entire1y　on力㈱mα∫4m，to　enab1e　politicians，1awyers，and

statesmen　to　argue　their　cases　（forensic　or　judicia1rhetoric　for　the　courtroom，de1iberative

rhetoric　for　the　Senate，epideictic　rhetoric　for　ceremonia1occasions）．To　these　ends，classica1

rhetoricians　divided　the　art　of　rhetoric　into　five　depart卿ents　or　canons：

・invention［Latin伽mn肋；Greek乃mm348］：finding　or　researching　one’s　material；discoverjng

or　finding　arguments　and　supPorting　evidence

・arrangement［Latin∂紬05栃。；Greek式α虹∫］：organizing　and　arranging　one’s　materia1；the

parts　of　an　argu工。ent　inc1uded　2πoκ6主mm，　倣疵〃α〃。，　co砂かmα加。，　ク押切加。，　and力eγoκα加。

・style［Latin　e五〇c挑痂；Greek王e虹∫］：the　fitting　of　the1anguage　to　the　audience　through　the

three　sty1es－high（or　grand），midd1e，and　low（or　plain）；includes　the　omamenting　of　a

disc01血se　with　traditiona1rhetorica1devices　and　figures　of　speech

・memory［Latin　memoγ｛α；Greek伽mme］：the　training　of　the　mind　to　ensure　accurate　reca11，

o｛ten　through　the　use　of　mnemonic　techniques

・de1ivery［Latin力mmmm肋肋；Greek尻妙。cれ銚］：techniques　for　presenting　speeches；per－

fOrmanCe

　　　“In　oratory　and　rhetoric，as　in　so　much　else，the　Romans　were　heirs　to　the　Greeks［and］

Roman　oratory，by　and1arge，was　an　imitation　of　Greek　mode1s，［which］did1itt1e　more　than

86

On　Defining　Eng1ish　Rhetoric

elaborate，refine，and　systematize　doctrines　or｛gina11y　staked　out　by　Aristot1e”（Ehninger，

1965，p．ユ69）．Neverthe1ess，two　important　Roman　rhetoricians　fo1Iowed　Aristot1e：Cicero　and

Quinti1ian．Today，in　addition　to　Aristot1e’s　R加オ。枇，the　most　inf1uential　c1assica1初。rks　on

the　subject　of　rhetoric　are　cons｛dered　to　be　Cicero’s　D召∫mem肋m（86BC）and　De　Omわm

（55BC），and　Quinti1ian’s∫m∫肋m肋0m切加（94－95AD），as　well　as　the　R尻e柳4cαλa

亙mm〃mm（86－82BC），a　work　which　was　wide1y　attributed　to　Cicero　but　is　now　considered

to　be　from　anonymous　sources．

　　　Cicero（106＿43BC）was　a　bri11iant　politician，philosopher，and　speaker　in　his　own　right．

For　him，rhetoric　was　a　branch　of　political　science，used　in　order　to　defend　the　po1itica1

state　eloquent1y，and　his　treatises　emphasize　forensic　rhetoric，used　to　argue1ega1cases．

Because　he　believed　that　a　good　orator　must　have　a　broad　understanding　of　many　aspects

of　culture，his　writ三ngs　were　particularly　inf1uentia1during　the　Renaiss互nce　among亡he　Eng1ish

and　Continenta1Humanists．Cicero　wrote　numerous　rhetorica1treatises，orations，and　epist1es

which　generations　of　students　had　to　study　and　memorize　as　mode1s　unti1recent1y．His　chief

contribution　to　the　fie1d　is－the　be1ief　that　the　idea1orator　shou1d　have　a　broad　know1edge

of　many　subjects，which　resu1ted　in　the　study　of　rhetoric　rea11y　becoming　a1iberaI　arts　course、

　　　αcero　a1so　expanded　Aristotle’s　division　of　the　argument　from　four　to　six　sections：

・倣m励mm（introduction）：estab1ish　rapport　with　your　audience；arouse　interest

・mα〃励。（the　statement　of　the　case）：discussion　of　what　has　occurred　to　generate　the　issue

・a〃∫4o：an　out1ine　of　the　points｛n　the　argument；thesis　sはtement

・　com’グmαガ。：Proofs　“壬。r”　the　position　being　argued

・ク功吻地：Proofs　disproving　the　opPonent’s　c1aim

・力eπom痂（conc1usion）：a　review　of　the　argument，and　a　final　appea1to　the　audience．

　　　In　later　centuries，students　practised　the　above　sections　piecemea1，separated　from　the

whole　of　the　discourse，and　this　gave　rise　to　the“modes”of　composition：mαm’肋。　became

the　narrative　essay，〃必ゴ。　the　expositoW　essay，and　co切かmα肋the　argumentative　essay

（Lindemann，1995，p－44）．Alexander　Bain，．for　exampユe，in亙m8脆尻Comφo∫倣mα〃児伽赦た

（1866），estab1ished　five　modes，four　of　which　as　sti11common1y　utilized　today：exposition，

narration，description，and　argumeptation（Bab’s　fifth　mode　was　poetry）．Today，Corbett

（1990，p．21）describes　the　four　forms　of　discourse　as　Argumentation，Exposition，Description，

and　Narration．

　　　Another　important　work，from　amnymous　sources，was　the　R加わγ｛cαλ∂Hemmm4勿ml

It　is　the　ear1iest　extant　Latin　work　on　rhetoric　and　the　ear正iest　treatment　of　prose　style　in

Latin．This　treatise　has　the　most　comp1ete　coverage　of　style　and　de1ivery　of　any　of　the

…i・・tw・・k・1・・d・・g9・・t・th・・F1…1・・f・tyl・一highlmid字1・・．・・dbw■d・・ig・・d的m…l

de1ight，0f　teach　an　audience，respectively．Although　this　work　was　virtually　unknown　in

the　ancient　wor1d，it．enjoyed　wide　popu1arity　in　the　Midd1e　Ages　and　Renaissance，and

became　a　basic　e1ementa町text　in　schools　in　Eng1and　during　the　Tudor　Age．

　　　The　name　invariab1y　coup1ed　with　Cicero　in　the　Iiterature　of　the　fie1d　is　that　of　Quinti1ian

（35－100AD），a　prominent　teacher　of　rhetoric　who　was　bom　in　Spain　but1ater　became

87

Roger　J．Davies

famous　in　Rome　as　a　pIeader　in　the1aw　courts．He　agreed　with　Cicero　that　a　rhetor　must

be　broad1y　educated，but　a1so　ins三sted　that　a　good　orator　must　a1so　be　a　mora1individua1．

　　　With　Quinti工ian，the　divisi㎝s　of　the　argument　became　reduced　to士ive－the　classica1

趾rangement　of　the　parts　o士a　discourse：

．　五κ0κ∂4mm　（intrOduCtiOn）

Etymo1ogically，the　w0fd｛m姉肋〃。m　means“a1eading　into．”The　Greek　termが。emimm

meant“before　the　song”；the　Latin　term伽。m刎m　meant“beginning　a　web”（by1aying　a

warp　in　weaving）．The　basic　function　is　to　lead　the　audience　into　the　discourse，but　an　abrupt

0f　immediate　ehtry　is1ike1y　to　unsett1e　them，so　they　must　be“eased　into”the　subject（ibid．，

p．282）．The　preparation　of　the　audience　bas　two　aspects二It　in士。rms　tlユem　of　the　objectives

of　our　djscourse　and　it　disposes　them　to　be　receptive　to　what　we　say　by　showing　them　that

our　discourse　is　worthy　of　their　attention．The　introduction　should　be　designed　to　put　the

audience　in　a　receptive　frame　of　mind，especia11y　if　they　are　ind雌erent　or　hosti1e，and　the

c1osing　lines　of　the　introduction　should　be　so　managed　that　they　lead　easi1y　and　naturany

into　the　next　division　of　the　discourse．

．ルm肋。（statement　of　fact，or　the　state　of　affairs　at　the　moment）

The流桃づ。，or　out1ine　of　the　points　to　be　argued，has　now　become．incorporated　within　the

伽i・m肋．It　is　difficult　to　trans1ate　the　Latin　term　m〃m肋because　m〃m才走。n　has　taken　on

djf王erent　meanings　in　modern　English　than　it　had　for　the　Romans．S〃emmまひ力。ナsuggests

more　accurate1y　what　is　done　in　this　part　of　expository　and　argumentative　prosel　A　m〃α地

is　essentia11y　a　statement　of　affairs　at　the　moment　of　speaking　or　writing．In　this　section

are　set　forth　the　essentia1王acts　of　the　case　under　consideration．The　statement　of　fact　is

expository　in　that　it　is　designed　to　inform1isteners　of　the　circumstances　that　need　to　be

known　about　the　subject－Quinti1ian（ibid．，p．298）advises　that　it　be1ucid（i．e．，clear　or

transparent），brief，and　plausib1e．

・　Comガκmα加。　（aSSerting　ProofS　“王。r，’）

This　invo1ves　the　proof　of　one’s　case：The　speaker　brings　to　bear“an　the　avai1ab1e　means

○士persuasion’’（ibid。，p．301）to　support　the　cause　he　or　she　is　espousing．As　a　general　ru1e，

the　speaker　should　not　descend　from　the　strongest　arguments　to　the　weakest　as　this　wi11

be　anticlimactic　and　the　weaker　argments　will　strike　the　audience　as　afterthoughts：“We

want　to　leave　our　strongest　argument　ringing　in　the　memory　of　our　audience；hence　we

usually　place．it　in　the　emphatic　fina1position”（ibid。）．If　there　are　a　number　of　arguments

of　relative丑y　equal　strength，they　can　be　p1aced　in　any　order－I圭there　are　a　nu工nber　of　both

strong　and　weak　arguments，it　is　best　to　start　and　end　on　strength，sandwiching　the　weaker

arguments　between．

．沢功m切れ。　（refuting　Proofs　‘二against”）

An　investigation　into　a11possib1e　counter－arguments　is　a1so　made，and　these，of　course，are

refuted　玉n　advance．

・Pm0πακ0　（COnC1uSiOn）

The　most　common　Greek　term　was　eψ〃。g05（cf．epi1ogue），from　the　verbψ〃ege伽，meaning

88

On　Defining　Eng1ish　Rhetoric

“to　say　in　addition．’’An　even　more　instructive　Greek　term　was　mm尾e助α励δ3ゐ，which　is

equivalent　to　the　Latin　mc妙肋五α物，from　w拙。h　the　English　mcαが〃肋。m　derivesl　The

common　Latin　term　was力eκom〃。，a　word　which　meant“a　finishing　off．”What　this　meant

is　i11ustrated　by　QuintiIian　who　suggested　two　parts　to　the力mom肋：e舳mem肋　（an

enumerat｛on　or　summing　up）and倣物∫（producing　the　appropriate　emotion　in　the　audience）

（ibid．，p．307）．0f　interest　is　the　fact　that　even　today　an　academic　essay　in　Eng1ish　is　expected

to　conc1ude　with　a　summary　or　paraphrase　of　the　main　points　discussed　fo11owed　by　an

eva1uation　or　judgment　on　beha1f　of　the　writeエ．Note　the　similarities　between　the　classica1

arrangement　of　the　parts　of　discourse　and　the　five＿paragraph　essay　mode1of　contempora呼

expository　Eng玉ish　below，especiany　in　terms　of　the　introduction　and　conc1usion＝

　　丁㍑テーPARA6RAPH仁X？OS1TORY鵠SAYMOD目．O子…N帆15HRH日’0RlC

Go而e制

S岬ifio

Bac㎏mnd

Th6sis

　　　S制ement

　　　　　1瑠：1ワ

□　　　　　1・一・岬・フ

ロ　　　　　11嶋フ

□　　　　　1；騨ワ

1”缶。㎞ωi洲

S0㏄i而。

oo冊冊1

S皿mmaリく一＞　　　　P丑1raphrase

Ew創皿alionく＿＞

　　　　　　Jodgm㎝t

Eo剛

Co雌1舳i㎝

†

　　　Quintilian　andαcero　were　to　have　an　enomous　effect　on　education　in－the　West　from

the　Midd1e　Ages　to　the　Renaissance　and　beyond，but　during　the　classica1period，higher

education　in　Greece　and　Rome　was　most　strong1y　inf1uenced　by　the　works　of　Isocrates　and

PIato．It　contained　two　main　streams－rhetoric　and　dialectic：

89

Roger　J．D3vies

Systematic　higher　education　began　as　a　device　for棚ilitary　training　around320BC　and　continued

we11into　the　third　centuq　AD．These　co11eges＿spread　throughout　more　thanユOO　Heuenistic

cities．Two　idea1s　dominated　the　co11ege，the　speech＿maker　and　the　debater．In　a　rea1sense　they

can　be　said　to　be　the　iegacies　of　Isocrates　and　Pユato，respect王veユy．The　f王rst［i．e。，rhetor｛c］

dominated　a11higher　education　in　Greece　and　Rome．Rhetoric　here　does　not　mean　a　general　study

of　communication－as　it　now　often　does．Rhetoric　here　means　a　science　of　persuasion，academic

eloquence．｛Kinneavy，　ユ971，p－7）

The　a1temative　t0fhetoric　in　higher　education　in　c1assica1times　was　dia1ectic［cf．debate；

thesis，antithesis，synthesis］．This　was　due　to　the王nf1uence　of　the　P1atonic　and　Aristote1ian

tradition　of　phiIosophy，but　its　main　imp劃。t　was　on1y　to　come　with　the　Midd1e　Ages（ibid．，

p．8）．Rhetoric，based　on　mode1s　set　down　by　Isocrates，c1early　p1ayed　the　more　important

ro1e　in　the　education　system　of　antiquity．Preparatory　work　for　higher　education　inc1uded

exercises　in　composition　to　which　were　added　some　history　and　mathematics　and　a1ittk

debating，But　all　was　in　preparation　for　rhetoric．

He巨．e一，Isocrates］deve1oped　the　set　speech　and　the　imitation　of　models，as　an　essential　part

of　his　technique，and　tbis　has　continued　down士。　our　own　day．These　mode1s　were　exemp1ars

of　the　kinds　of　compositions　to　be　fomd　in　speeches．Consequent1y，・the　preparatory　exercises

in　composition　in　secondary　educatio血［included］euIogies　and　censures，character　sketches，

comparisons，description，theses，。．．and　legal　stands．．．．These　led　immediate1y　to　the　various　kinds

of　declamations3－lega1，po1itical，fictiona1，historical，mythological，etc．The　traditiona1arrange－

ment　of　the　cユassicaユrhetor王。a1speecb　was　care土uuy　fonowed．（ibid一，pp．7＿8）

In　general，training　in　the1anguage　arts　in　the　educationa1institutions　of　the　c1assical　period

can　be　described　as　fonows：

［I］n　Antiquity，three　main　aims　of1anguage　structured　the　training　in　the　art　of　discourse：the

1iterary，the　persuasive（rhetorica1），and　the　pursuit　of　truth（dialectical）．The　analysis　of1iterary

texts　was　the　province　of　the　secondary　school：the　other　two　aims　were‘couegiate’and　university

concerns．In　composition，which　was　directed　to訂preparation　for　rhetoric，certain　forms　or

modes　were　thought　to　be　basic　to　au　composition（nartative，description，eu1ogy，and　definition）

and　structured　the　composition　program。（ibid。〕

Rhetoric　in　the　Middle　Ages

　　　　The　Platonic　Academy　in　Athens，the1ast　physica1estabhshment　of“pagan”1eaming

in　the　ancient　world，was　c1osed　by　the　Christian　emperor　Justinian　in529AD，and　that

year　is　often　used　as　a　convenient　date　to　mark　the　end　of　the　dassica1period　and　the

beginning　of　the　Midd1e　Ages．The　medieva1period1asted　mtiI　the　Renaissance，which

3Dec1amation：a　recita1as　an　exercise　in　e1ocution

Edo馴：a　commendatory　set　oration

Censure：a　judgment　invo1ving　condemnation

90

On　Defining　EngIish　Rhetoric

began　in　Italy　and　moved　northward　to　Britain　where　it　is　dated　by　scho1ars　rough1y

ユ500－1650AD．

　　　With　the　coming　of　the　Midd1e　Ages　and　the　increasing　dominance　of　ecc1esiastica1

authority，the　art　of　public　speaking　went　into　decline．For　the　next　thousand　years，oratory

was　main1y　confined　to　ceremonia1occasions　or　to　the　schoo1room．“The　art　of　rhetoric　stood

sti11，if　it　actua11y　did　not　retrogress”（Corbett，1990，p．549）．

　　　Rhetoric　went　through　a　number　of　transformations　during　this　period　due1arge1y　to

the　inf1uence　of　the　Christian　Church　and1ater　the　emerging　nation　states　of　Europe．There

was　an　important　shift　in　emphasis　from　invention，as　emphasized　by　Aristot1e，to　sty1e．

Invention　became1ess　significant　because　a11tmths　were　assigned　by　the　Bible，or“invented”

by　Godl　Principles　of　sty1e，however，he1ped　convince　others　of　God’s　tmth　and　to　explain

God’s　word．In　this　way，cIassica11eaming　and　rhetorica1principles　were　accommodated　to

Christian　theo1ogy　and　the　interpretation　of　scriptural　truths　and　persuading　peop1e　to　Iive

by　them．The　work　of　St．Augustine（354－430AD）was　particu1ar1y　in刊uential　in　this

regard．The　branches　of　rhetoric　which　were　most　important　were　thus　homi1etics（the

sermon）and　the　epideictic（ceremonial）variety．

　　　Educational　institutions　during　the　Middle　Ages，and　in　fact　up　to　the　twentieth　century，

refIect　Quinti1ian’s　insistence　on　the　moral　as　we11　as　inte11ectua1training　of　students．As

soon　as　children　could　read　and　write，they　received　instruction　in　grammar．This　included

speaking　and　writing　correctly　and　interpreting　the　poets，as　taught　by　a　grammar　teacher

（the　gm刎mακm∫）．Children　were　taught　rules　for　proper　word　order，agreement，and

vocabulary，and　wさre　given1ectures　on　every　kind　of　writer，which　they　then　had　to　imitate

through　recitations－grammar　meant　the　systematic　study　of　both1anguage　and　literary　texts，

and　imitating　and　paraphrasing　mode1s　was　the　main　form　of1eaming．After　students　reached

an　acceptab1e1eve1，a　second　teacher，the肋e’o〃m∫，began　rhetorica1studies，and　a11were

expected　to　master　the　five　departments　of　c1assica1rhetoric．At　higher1eve1s　of　education，

debate　and　disputation　within1imits　Iaid　down　by　the　Christian　church　became　the　new　focus．

The　main　concern　of　the　co11ege　thus　shifted　from　rhetoric　to　dia1ectic：

Wユereas　in　Antiquity，the　main　determinant　of　academic　success　was　delivery　of　the　set　speech

（the　dec1amation），in　the　Midd1e　Ages，each　stage　of　progress　in　the　academic　wor1d　was

determined　by　the　abi1ity　to　engage　in　dialectica三debate．This　concept＿permeated　higher

education　till　the　nineteenth　century．Thus，if　Isocrates　and　rhetoric　can　be　said　to　rule　over

the　first　thousand　years　of　higher　educati㎝in　Westem　civilization，Plato　and　dialectic　can　be

said　to　preside　over　the　next　thousand．（KimeaW，1971，pp．8－9）

　　　　The　composition　modes　of　the　Middle　Ages　were　designed　to　prepare

dia1ectic，just　as　written　preparatory　exercises　in　the　classical　period　were

rhetoric　in　the　form　of　the　decIamation：

students　for

designed　for

Although　in　Antiquity　the　literary　anaIyses（grammar〕and　preparatory　composition　exercises　were

91

Roger　J．Davies

an　oriented　to　the　u1timate　de1ive呼。f　the　wen＿prepared　speech，from　the　Midd1e　Ages　ti11the

eighteenth　century，alユstudies　were　oriented　to　tbe　defense　of　ideas　in　a　debate　with　one’s

co11eagues　or　with　one’s　masters．The　medieva1debate　was　practica11y　coextensive　with　edu－

cation，for丑round　the　successive　debate　exercises　was　organized　the　st早dent’s　progress　through

the　school　system．（ibid．，p．9〕

　　　　During　the　Midd1e　Ages，mdergraduate　students　at　universities　studied　the　m〃切m　of

grammar，rhetoric，and1ogic（dia1ectic），whi1e　postgraduate　students　received　training　in　the

qmα〃〃mm　of　arithmetic，astronomy，music，and　geometq．The　province　of　rhetoric　focused

on　two　main　arts：the　art　of1etter　writing（倣∫肋切m〃∫）was　emphasized　in　the　law　schoo1s，

and　the　arts　of　preaching（α竹e5力me〃。αm捌were　part　of　theo1ogica1training．Training　in

rhetoric　was　seen　as　usefu1for　a　career　in　secular　and　ecclesiastica1courts　where1etter

wfiting　became　an　important　means　of　conducting　lega1－and　diplomatic　transactions，and　a1so

served　the　c1ergy　in　persuading　congregations　to　fo11ow　Christian　princip1es．In　genera1，

however，rhetoric　was　much　more　neg16cted　during　the　medieva1period　than　in　classical

timeS．

Rhetoric　in　the　Renaissance

　　　　The　Renaissance　is　a　phenomenon　which　took　p1ace　in　the　Westem　world　over　a1ong

period　of　time，from　the　late　fourteenth　centufy　to　the　mid＿seventeenth　centu町、During　this

time　there　was　a　great　reviva1of　art，1iterature，science，and1earning　in　genera1in　E岨。pe．

Tbe　Renaissance　marks　the　transition　from　tbe　medieval　to　the　modem　wor1d，but　it　occurred

gradua11y　and　in　different　forms　and　at　different　times　in　different　countries．As　such，it

is　not　possib1e　to　state　precisely－when　it　began　or　when　it　ended．It　is　be1ieved　that　the

Renaissance　began　in　the　city　states　of　northem　Ita1y　and，particular1y　from　the　fifteenth

century　onward，moved　gradua11y　northward．During　this　time，a　number　of　European

countries　rose　to　become　wor1d　powers，but　the　inte11ectua1heart　of　the　time　remained　in

Italyl　The　rediscovery　of　Greek　and　Roman　c1assics　was　the　main　inte11ectua1cata1yst　of

the　Renaissance，and　scho1ars　known　as“humanists”studied　them　enthusiastica11y　for　their

inspiration　and　en1ightenment，Most　of　their　ear1y　efforts　centered　on　reconci1ing　the　new1y

discovered　c1assica1㎞owledge　with　Christian　precepts；1ater，similar　efforts　took　p1ace　with

regard　to　the　newly　emerging　sciences．

　　　With　the　arrivaユ。f　the　Renaissance　and　the　gradua1deve1opment　of　free　institutions　in

the　Westem　wor1d，rhetoric　and　public　address　began　to　regain　much　of　their　ancient　dignity．

The　c1assical　reviva1of　rhetoric　provided　the　foundation　for　the　important　tradition　o土

scho1astic　disputation，a　question＿and＿answer　procedure　used　not　on1y　for　academic　in－

struction　but　a1so　for　exp1oring　prob1ems　in　phi1osophy，theo1ogy，and　even　in亡he　sciences．

This　reviva1would　reach　its　apex　some　time　later　in　the　British　Parliament　and　French

Revo1utionary　Assemb1y　where　modem　par1iamentary　speaking　first　emerged　and　which

witnessed　some　of　the　greatest　de1iberative　oratory　of　a11　time．

92

On　Defining　English　Rhetoric

　　　　With　the　deve1opment　of　the　printing　press　in　the　fifteenth　century，however，rhetoric

took　op　a　new　focus．Whereas　classica1rhetoric　had　been　concemed　primari1y　with　spoken

discourse，scho1ars　were　now　ab1e　to　apply　rhetorica1princip1es　to　written　d｛scourse．From

its　origins　in　fifth＿century　BC　Greece，through　its　f1ourishing　period　during　the　Roman

Empire，and　into　its　dec1ine　in　the　Midd1e　Ages，rhetoric　was　associated　main1y　with　oratory．

This　was　amp1ified　in　medieva1times　to　incIude1etter　writing，and　with　the　advent　of　printing

in　the　Renaissance，rhetorica1precepts　began　to　be　appIied　on　a1arge　scale　to　Written

discourse（Corbett，ユ990，p．20）．Equa11y　important　was　the　fact　that　a1though　rhetoric　had

been　associated　a1most　exc1usively　with　the　art　of　persuasion　in　ear1ier　times，its　princip1es

were　now　extended　to　include　expository　modes．

　　　The　most　inf1uentia1rhetorician　in　the　development　of　rhetoric　in　Eng1ana　during

Renaissance　times　was　the　Dutch　humanist，Desiderius　Erasm廿s（1466－1536）（Corbett，1990，

p．550）、He　wrote　a　number6f　books　at　the　beginning　of　the　sixteenth　century　which　dea1t

with　pedagogy　as　we11　as　rhetoric　and　which“set　the　pattem　for　the　Eng1ish　grammar＿school

curriculum　and　for　rhetoricaI　training　in　the　schoo1s”（ibid．）．He　maintained　that　students

cou1d1earn　to　write　and　speak　we11through　discriminating　reading　and　much　practice，and

was　one　of　the　first　to　advocate“that　sanest　of　a11precepts　about　writing”＿constant

practice＿thus　foreshadowing　the　modem　belief　that“you1earn　to　write　by　writing，writing，

and　more　writing’’（ibid．）．He　a1so　recommended　keeping　a“commonp1ace　book”for　writing

down　new　ideas　and　passages　from　reading，Paraphrasing　Poetry　into　prose　and　vice　versa，

rendering　the　same　subject　into　two　or　more　styles，and　proving　Propositions　along　severa1

砒feTent1ines　of　argument（ibid．）．His　De　Coがαwas　astounding1y　popular　and　was　widely

used　in　Tudor　schoo1s　to　help　students　deve1op　elegance　and　variety　in　exp士ession　in　Latin．

Renaissance　rhetoricians　in・genera1were　concemed　with　c1assifying　and　cata1oguing

co伽α一1itera11y“abundance，”but　meaning“fullness　of　expression．”0ne　achieved　funness　of

expression　by　gathering　many　things　to　say　on　a　subject　and　by　deve1oping　a　variety　of

d雌erent　ways　of　saying　the　same　thing，

　　　Up　until　this　time，rhetorics　had　aIways　been　written　in　Greek　or　Latin，“and　most　of

the　compositions　by　English　schooIboys　up　to　the　second　decade　of　the　sixteenth　century

were　in　Latin”（ibidl，p．553）．With　the　publishing　of　new1y　rediscovered　c1assica11iterature

came　a　renewed　interest　in　the　works　of　the　chief　Greek　rhetorici乱ns，and“it　was　not1ong

before　rhetoric［again］became　the　dominant　discipline　in．．．schoo1s　and　miversities”（ibid、）。

Although　the　rhetoric　taught　in　schoo1s　was　basica11y　Aristotelian，the児加オ。〃was　never

wide1y　used，and　it　was　the　Latin　rhetoricians，especia11y　C｛cero，」Quinti1ian，and　the

anonymous　author　of〃Hemmm伽m，who　dom1nated　educat1on．Wi11iam　Lyly’s　Gmmm〃げ

工α左m（pub11shed1n1544，but　w1de1y　used　unt111867）was　a　preparatlon　for　C1cero，V1rgll，

and　Ovid．“Poetry　and　e1oquence　were　reasserted　in　the　Renaissance，and　Cicero　dethroned

Aristot1e　and－ oIato”（Kinneavy，1971，p．10），Secondary　schools　again　began　to　stress

preparation　for　rhetoric　as　during　the　classical　period．Even　by　the　beg圭nning　of　the

Renaissance　the　dia1ectica1tradition　had　become　steri1e　and　even　farcica1．At　the　universities

93

Roger　J．Davies

disputations　continued，however，and　it　was　not　unti11722that　Cambridge　went　over　to

written　exams，and　Oxford　on1y　added　them　to　the　ora1s（ibid．）．

　　　As　Eng1ish　pride　in　the　achievements　of　the　nation　grew，a　movement　deve1oped　to　get

students　to　orate　and　write　in　the　vemacularl　However，“in　the　early　sixteenth　century，when

Eng1ish　first　became　respectable　enough　to　rep1ace　French　and　Latin　as　England’s　in－

stitutiona11anguage，0u「fi「st　imPu1se　tOward　e1egance　prOduced　a　prose　style　thick　with

Latinate　abstraction．．．”（Wi11iams，1989，p．3）．Later　historians　would　comp1ain：“．．．of　a11the

studies　of　men，nothing　may　sooner　be　obtained　than　this　vicious　abundance　of　phrase，this

trick　of　metaphors，this　volubility　of　ton馴e　which　makes　so　great　a　noise　in　the　world．．．”

（Thomas　Sprat，1667；cited　in　Wi11iams，1989，p．3）．

　　　It　must　be　remembered　that　the　language　was　sti11very　much　in　the　process　o士de－

ve1opment　in　these　times　and　it　was　not　unti1much　later　that　witten　and　spoken｛orms

of　English　became　codified　into　pattems　that　members　of　society　were　expected　to　fouow．

During　the　period　of　rough1y1100t01300AD，for　instance，Eng1ish　was　very　much　a　hybrid

1anguage　composed　of　French（used　by　the　nobility），Latin（used　by　the　Church　and　by

scholars　and　in　such　schoo1s　as　existed　in　those　times），and　Eng1ish（or　rather　Ang1o＿Saxon

dia1ects，used　by　the　common　peop1e）（Sed1and，！994，p．10）．The　first　known　instance　of

the　use　of　Eng1ish　as　the　vehicle　of　instruction　in　schools　was　c．1349when　French　was

discarded（Kinneavy，1971，p．5），but　even　into　the1600s，students　were　sti11studying

primari1y　in　Latin　in　English　schoo1s．In　co11eges　and　universities　the　use　of　Latin　proved

more　difficu1t　to　disp1ace：0xford，for　examp1e，did　not　get　its　first　professorship　in　Enghsh

Literature　unti1　1873　（ibid．）．

　　　According　to　Corbett（ibid。），it　is　common　to　c1assify　the　vemacular　rhetorics　produced

during　the　Enghsh　Renaissance　into　three　groups＝the　traditiona1ists，the　figurists，and　the

Ramists．The　traditiona1ists　viewed　a11five　departments　of　rhetoric　as　important．Among

them，Thomas　Wi1son　pub1ished　one　of　the　first　rhetorics　in　Eng1ish　instead　of　Latin（λ材e

げ肋e士。物m，1533）．The　figurists　emphasized　sty1e　above　a11．George　Puttenham’s　T加λ物

け亙m助∫尻Poe∫4e（1589），for　instance，treats　l07different　fi馴fes　of　speech．The　Ramists

（after　the　French　scho1ar　Peter　Ramus）assigned　invention，arrangement，and　memory　to　the

fie1d　of　logic，and　a11ocated　on1y　sty1e　and　de1ivery　to　rhetoric．This　narrow1y　defined　Ramist

orientation　with　its　preoccupation　with　sty1e　and　ornamentation　wou1d　eventua11y　lead　to　the

dec1ine　of　the　art　of　rhetoric　in　the　eighteenth　century．

Rhetoric　from　the　Renaissance　to　the　Twentieth　Century

　　　　During　the　centuries　that　fo11owed　the　Renaissance，there　came　into　being　a“war

between　the　p1ain，unadomed　method　of　human　discourse　and　the　e1egant　and　orna亡e”

（Winterowd，cited　in　Lindemam，ユ995，p．48）．This　conf1ict　centered　on　how　pro皿inent

scholars　believed　c1assica1principles　shou1d　be　adapted　to　new　deve1opments　in1iterature

and　the　sciences．Three　perspectives　developed－the　e1ocutionary，the　1iterary，and　the

94

On　Defining　English　Rhetoric

SCientifiC，

　　　The　e1ocutionary　approach　emphasized　delivery　and　tried　to　advance　the　art　of　pub1ic

speaking，The　main　venues　of　its　advocates　were　pub1ic1ectures，parliamen㎏ry　debates，and

pu1pit　orato町．Thomas　Sheridan’s工ec劾m80n捌。c〃。m（1762）is　a　good　examp1e　of　this

perspective　which　was　concemed　primari1y　with　delivery　and　sty1e　in　forma1contexts．

　　　The1iterary　perspective　was　concemed　not　so　much　with　public　speaking，nor　with　the

new　science，but　on1iterary　texts．This　encompassed　a　wide　spectrum　of　views　concerning

sty1e，however．Neoc1assicists　like　Jonathan　Swift（1667一ユ745）revered　the　ancients，studied

the　c1assics，and　imitated　their　sty1es．The　works　of　Horace，Homer，Virgil，and　Cicero　were

he1d　up　as　mode1s．They　be1ieved　that　good　writing　shou1d　be　relative1y　unadomed，free　fro血

ambiguity，and　conform　to　ancient　Greek　and　Roman　mode1s，as　they　sought　to　re－establish

the　importance　of　c1assica1Ieaming．Unfortunate1y，many　neoc1assicists　fo11owed　c1assica1

princip1es　sIavish1y　with　rather　negative　consequences　for　newly　emerging　instruction　in

Eng1ish　gra血mar．At　the　other　end　of　the　scale　were　those　who　admired　omate　style．They

aimed　not　only　to　persuade　an　audience　but　to　transport　them．Writers1ike　Edmmd　Burke

（1729＿1797）p1aced　great　emphasis　on　sub1imity　of　thought　as　weI1as　eloquence　in　style－

It　was　be1ieved　that　the　sub1ime　arose　from　contemplating　greatness　and　permitting　the

beautifu1to　act　on　the　mind　through　the　senses．In　between，there　was　a　large　group　of

rhetoricians　who　tried　to　b1end　the　oid　and　new．They　fo11owed　c1assica1princip1es，but

quoted　English1iterature，and　combined　rhetoric　with　poetics，which　had　heretofore　been

separate．This　was　a　forerumer　of　modem1iterary　criticism，best　i11ustrated　in　the　work

of　Hugh　B1air（1718－1800），who　presented　an　enormously　popu1ar　overview　of　rhetoric

dealing　with　matters　of　aesthetics　and　taste　in　a　pub1ication　entitled工ec切m50m　R加ま。れ。α〃

3e〃e8工e〃m5（1783）．He　preferred　the　pIain　sty1e，but　a1so　accepted　an　emphasis　on　the

sublime．He　forged　a　new　aniance　between　the　old　and　the　new，as　we11as　between　rhetoric

and　other　verbaI　arts，focusing　on　culture　and　how　human　beings　use王anguage　to　com－

municate　with　different　audiences　for　d批erent　purposes．His　writings　were　Iater　used　as

textbooks　at　universities　in　Eng1and　and　Scot1and，and　later　in　America　at　Yale（1785）and

Harvard　（1788）．

　　　Proponents　of　the　scientific　perspective　such　as　Francis　Bacon（156！－1626）emphasized

tbe　need　for　a　p1ain　sty1e　of　writing　and　the　importance　of　invention　in　discovering　truths．

Bacon　advocated　the　separation　of1ogic　from土hetoric，the　importance　of　inductive　processes

（i．e．，the　empirica1observation　of　nature）rather　than　deductive　sy11ogisms　in　conducting

scientific　research，and　a　sty1e　of　writing　characterized　by　relative1y　short　sentences，simp1e

words，and　Iitt1e　omamentation　for　communicating　the　resu1ts　of　this　research．He　a五so

stressed　the　need　to　understand　human　nature　and　to　ana1yze　the　audience　one　hopes　to

inf1uence，and　had　an　important　influence　on　the　deve1opment　of　conciseness　and　c1arity　in

wTiting　in　English．

　　　A　later　spur　to　the　development　of　the“restrained　prose’’of　the　scientific　sty1e　was

the　Roya1Society　f0f　the　Advancement　of　Science　which　was　estab1ished　to　provide　scientists

95

Roger　J．Davies

with　govemment　support　for　their　research．In1664，two　years　after　its　founding，the　Roya1

Society　named　a　committee　for　the　improvement　of　the　English　language．Although　this

project　never　went　much　beyond　the　p1anning　stage，it　had　a　good　dea1of　inf！uence　on　the

kind　o士prose　being　written　in　these　times，giving　impetus　and　support　to　the　formation　of

“SCientifiC”Writing．

Have1ock（1963．1976）points　out　that　with　the　emphasis　on　literacy　both　in　classica1Greece　and

in　post－reformation　Eng工and　there　was　a　great　concem　to　make　sentences　say　exactエy，neither

more　nor　less　than　what　they　meant．Poetry　and　proverbial　sayings，which　mean　more　and1ess

than　what　they　say，were　rejected　as　means　of6xpressing　truth　by　PIato　and2000years．later

by　members　o士the　Roya1Society　of　London　who，according　to　their　historian　Spratt｛1667／！966），

were　devoted　both　to　the　advancement　of　science　and　to　the　improvement　of　the　Eng1ish　language

as　a　medium　of　prose。（Hildyard＆O1son，1982，p．20）

　　　　One　of　the　members　of　the　Roya1Society’s　committee　was　John　Dryden（163ユー1700），

known　today　as　the　father　of　the　modem　English　prose　sty1e．Dryden　was　undoubted1y　the

best　writer　of　his　t壬me　and　wrote　in　a11the　main　literary　forms　except　the　nove1－poetry，

drama，trans1ation，and　the　critica1essay．He　set　the1iterary　standards　for　hjs　age　and　for

generations　to　fo11ow，by　working　tire1ess1y　to　deve1op　a　new　prose　sty1e，suitab1e　for　the

emerging　modern　Eng1ish．With　other　members　of　the　Roya1Society，一 ??@proposed　the　use

of　a　p1ain　and　clear　sty1e　to　convey　scjentifjc　truths－In　poetry　as　we11，D呼den　urged　his

countrymen　to　write　more　simply（as　opposed　to　the　metaphysica1poetry　of　the　preceding

century），and　led　the　way　toward　a　more　restrained，natural，and“easy”sty1e．In　the　essay，

too，Dryden　advocated　clear，reasonab1e，and　carefu11y　controned　writing，w…th　we11＿deve1oped

reasoning　“brought　to　a　conclusion　in　the　final　strong　assertion”　（Sed1and，1994，P．79）．

Dryden　was　most　inf1uential　in　the　development　of　a“midd1e　styIe”of　writing　which

tempered　the　more　extreme　e1ements　of　the　p1ain，uti1itarian　style　promoted　by　some　of　his

co11eagues　who　advocated　the　establishment　of1iterary　symbols　having　the　precision　and

stability　of　mathematical　symbols．Dryden　preser＋ed　the1anguage　from　taking　on　an　arid，

mathematical　character　by　making〃。卯ク的（or　appropriateness）the　central　doctrine　of　his

views　on　sty1e．αose1y　a11ied　with　this　concem　was　his　encouragement　of　the　use　of

vernacu1ar　rather　than　Latinate　syntax，a11owing　for　more　na㍍ralness，ease，and　spon亡aneity

in　writing（ibid．）．

　　　0ne　of　the　great　achievements　of　this　time　was　the　creation　of　the　K伽g〃m＾B〃e，

pub1ished　in161ユ、The　scho1ars　who　researched　this　Bible　drew　on　earユier　English　versions

as　we11as　older　texts　written　in　Hebrew，Greek，and　Latin．The　result　was　a　superb　comp1ete

trans1ation　of　the　Bib1e　into　Eng1ish，surpassing　anyヒhing　previous1y　pub1ished，and　indeed

it　is　sti11　the　most　wide1y　read　text　in　the瓦ng1ishユan馳age．“Its　e1evated　diction　and　smooth，

ba1anced　sty1e　set　a　standard　for　the　English1anguage　for　succeeding　generations”（Sedland，

1994，p．61）．A1though　it　does　contain　some　archaic　and　ornate　content，士。r　the　most　part

it　is“very　dear　and　understandab1e，．．．written　in　beautjfuユ刊。wing　prose”（ibidI）．

96

On　Defining　EngIish　Rhetoric

　　　Thus，while　rhetoric　during　the　seventeenth　century　developed　a　preoccupation　with　styIe

and　omamentation　wh｛ch　wou1d　eventua11y1ead　to　its　dec1ine，the．groundwork　was　being

laid　for“the　development　of　the　kind　of　easy，natura1，co11oquial　prose　styIe　that　prevails

today．．．［as　i11ustrated　in］the　p1ain　but　e1egant　prose　found　in　such　magazines　as　T加ルm

γbγ尾eグand　肋ゆeγも．．．”　（ibid．，p．563）．

　　　In　the　eighteenth　century，rhetoric　sti11generany　followed　c1assica1concepts，but　a　more

independent　spirit　was　becoming　evident　with　rhetoricians　endeavoring　to　discover　their　own

natura1，individua1sty1es．This　freer，more　subjective　spirit　he1ped　set　the　stage　for　the

appearance　o｛the“romantic”writers．At　the　same　time，the　Renaissance　emphasis　on

c1assification　and　categorization　was　replaced　with　a　concem　for　de1iveryφm舳m物主主。）．Pu1pit

o｝atory　was　of　great　importance　and　conections　of　sermons　by　famous　preachers“so1d　on

the　sca1e　of　popu1ar　noveIs　today”（Corbett，1990，p．564）．The　chief　figure　of　the　time　was

Thomas　Sheridan　whose工ec切m∫伽〃。c〃。m（1762）he1ped　shift　the　meaning　of　e王。cm〃。m

from吻王e　to6e舳eη（in　the　later　vogue　of　the“e1ocution　contest”in　schoo1s）．This　history

of　British　rhetoric　in　the　second　ha1f　of　the　eighteenth　century　is　dominated　by　three　Scottish

rhetoricians，Hugh　B1air，George　Campbe11，and　Lord　Kames，making　Edinburgh“the　Athens

of　the　North”（ibid．，p．567）、

　　　In　education，rhetoric　was　an　important　part　of　the　university　curricu1um　and　as1ate

as　the　nineteenth　century，co1Ieges　had　departments　of　rhetoric．The　study　of　rhetoric　at

American　universities　started　in1806when　John　Quincy　Adams　became　Boy1eston　Professor

of　Rhetoric　and　Oratory　at　Harvard．There　was　popu1ar　interest　in　pub1ic　Iectures　and

debates　at　the　time　and　university　courses　usua11y　stressed　oratory，rhetoric，and1ogic，which

were　taught　by　c1ergymen　or　mora1phi1osophers．University　students　attended　lectures　on

rhetoric，among　other　subjects，wrote　compositions　for　professors，and　formed　debating

societies，some　of　which　stin　survive　todayl　These　extracurricu1ar　clubs　were　comp1ete1y　run

by　students　and　some　deve五〇ped　into　institutions　amassing1arge　libraries．These　co11ege

debating　societ三es　also　a11owed　students　to　deveIop“Old　Boy”contacts　which　sustained　them

1ong　after　graduation．

　　　During　the　eighteenth　century　the　disputation　system　started　to　disappear　in　many

universities，although　at　schoo1s1ike　Oxford　it　was　still　important　unti1the　midd1e　of　the

nineteenth　century．However，a1though　the　dia1ectica1system　o｛examinations　and　promotions

gradua11y　disintegrated，the　content　remained　traditiona1．Freshman　and　sophomore　years

were　devoted　to　trans1ating　Latin　and　Greek　c1assics，rhetoric，mathematics，and　some　natural

science．In　the　final　two　years，1ogic，ethics，metaphysics，Christian　apologetics，modem

1anguages，and　zoo1ogy，histo町，and　geo1ogy　were　studied（KinneaW，1971，p．11）．

　　　The　nineteenth　century　saw　the　beginnings　of　the　separation　of　English　literature　from

the　classics，but　it　was　late　in　the　century　before　most　universities　estab1ished　EngIish

departments．Eng1ish　literature，however，was　stm　tied　to1ogic，rhetoric，and　philology，

Eventua1iy，1ogic　and　rhetoric　were　de1egated　back　to　phi1osophy．Logic　went　through　further

mutations　to　become　almost　a　form　of　mathematics，4and　the　study　o｛rhetoric　gradua11y

97

Roger　J．Davies

disapPeared　（ibid．）．

　　　In　America，as　the　emphasis　in　education　shifted　more　and　more　from　speaking　to

writing，courses　in　Eng1ish　Literature　and　Freshman　Eng1ish　became　part　of　the　curricu1um，

and　higher　education　became　increasing1y　diversified　into　departments　and　specia1ized　majors，

with1iterature　studies　begiming　to　dominate　English　departments　for　the　first　time．Rhetoric

was　a1so　incorporated　into　Eng1ish　departments　by　the　end　of　the　nineteenth　century，but

the　tefm　me肋4c　itse1f　fe11out　of　fashion，being　replaced　by　the　term　comク。∫肋。n，which

dea1t　exclusive1y　with　written　discourse．Literature　was　used　to　teach　freshman　composition

courses．Another　feature　o土the　nineteenth　centuαco11ege　Eng1ish　program　in　America　was

the　appearance　of　the　graduate　school（e．g．，Yale，1861；Johns　Hopkins，1876）：

［T］he　stress　on　research　and　publication，rather　than　teaching，for　promotion　began　a　trend　which

sti1i　in肋ences　the　graduate　and　undergraduate　departments　of　Eng〕ish…T］ユis　was　not　o皿1y　an

American　phenomenon≡in　Eng1and　the　functions　of　the　university　professor　and　the　college　tutor

reflected　an　measy　compromise　so1ution　to　the　same　prob1em．（ibid．，p．12）

　　　　A1exander　Bain’s亙mg王舳Comψ05肋。m　md五尻eわ地（1866）became　one　of　the　most

inf1uentia1works　of　the　times　and　exp1icated　the　forms　of　written　discourse　still　wide1y　used

today、

To　eacb　of　the　four　modes　of　discourse【i．e．，exposition，narration，description，and　argumentatjon］

there　corresponds　a　principle　of　thought　which　permits　rea1ity　to　be　considered　in　this　way．

Therefore，each　of　the　modes　has　its　own　pecu1iar1ogic－It　a1so　has　its　own　organizationa1

pattems，and，to　some　extent，it　own　sty1istic　characteristics．（ibid．，p．37）

Bain’s　work　a1so　helped　initiate　a　pattern　of　instruction　known　as“the　doctrine　o圭the

paragraph”that　moved　from　the　word　to　the　sentence　to　the　paragraph　to　the　whole

composition．This　was　accompanied　by　a　method　of　instruction　centered　on　various　methods

for　deve1oping　the　paragraph　which　were　rea11y　an　adaptation　of　Aristot1e’sわψo4（or“topics”），

and“the　ho1y　trinity　of　unity，coherence，and　emphasis”（Corbett，1990，p．572）．

Possib1y　the　most　important　contribution　of　tbe　nineteenth　century，as　far　as　a　theory　of　discourse

is　concemed，was　a　clearer　c工assification　of　t］le　modes　of　discourse．A1ex壬㎜der　Bain，phi1osopher

and　psycho1ogist，established　the　modes（then－caued　forms）of　discourse　as　being＝narration，

exposition，description，argumentation，and　persuasion．The　first　four　quickly　became　the

structuring　princip1es　of　many　composition　books　in　the　next　ha1f　century．They　are　sti11　accepted

modes　in　many　high　schoo1and　co11ege　texts。一。．（op．cit．，p．12）

4Logic　has　been1ooked　upon　in　various　ways　throughout　history：as　a　too1of　phi1osophy　by　Aristot1e

and　his　fo11owers，as　a　separate　branch　of　phi1osophy　l〕y　the　Stoics，as　an　art　of　language　in　the1iberal

arts　tradition，as　equivalent　to　mathematics（Russe11），and　as　the　only　true　philosophy（logica1positivists）

（KimeaW，1971，p．108）．In　a　gener主1the6q　of1anguage　today，logic　would　seem　to　be　a　part　of

semantics　rather　than　grammar　or　pragmatics．

98

On　Defining　Englis1ユRhetoric

　　　　Because　of　their　emphasis　on　a　broad　mderstanding　of　culture　and　insistence　on　in－

te11ectual　and　mora1training，Cicero　and　Quintilian　were　the　two　most　important　c1assica1

influences　on　education　in　England　and　America　during　this　entire　period：“The　moral　bias

was　especia11y　important，because　from　the　seventeentb　through　most　of　the　nineteenth

century　the　English　and　American　school　systems　were　dominated1arge五y　by　c1er駆men”

（Corbett，1990，p．547）．Writing　education　at　this　time　re刊ected　a　combination　of　two

traditions：Aristote1ian，based　on　sy11ogistic　reasoning，and　Ga玉ilean，based　on　hierarchica1

taxonomies．As　a　result，“traditiona1schooリwriting］，from　the　midd1e　of　the　eighteenth

century　we11ihto　the　twentieth．．．，pIaced　great　value　on　c1arity　and　precision　in　the　framework

of　a　rigorously1ogical　system．一．”（Kap1an，1988，p，290）。

Contemporary　Rhetoric

　　　　Although　the　study　of　rhetoric　was　the　centra1discip1ine　of　the　schoo1curriculum　for

extended　periods　of　its1ong　history，and　ski11in　oratory　or　in　written　discourse　was　a　key

to　success　in　the　courts，the　pariiament，and　the　church　from　ancient　t三mes，in　the　twentieth

century　the　art　of　rhetoric　has　fa11en　into　disfavor　in　the　educationa1　institutions　of　the

Westem　world，and　a1ong　with　Latin，has1argely　been　expunged　from　most　modern　curricula．

It　is　now1itt1e　known　in　Westem　society　at1arge．

The　first　two　decades［of　the　twentieth　century］saw　some　ve町violent　readjustments，more

violent　undoubtedly　than　any　before　or　since　in　t］ユe　history　oi　westem　civi1ization－Beginning

aromd1913，the　formal　divorce　of　speech　from　English　was　sought　by　peopIe　who　felt　that

speech　was　being　neglected　in　Eng工ish　departme早ts。．．。Departments　of　speech　were　created　and

courses　such　as　e1ocution，eloquence，dec1amation，and　rhetoric　were　popular　early，These

emphases　dec1ined　in　the　twenties，and　public　speaking，debate，argumentation，and　discussion

received　more　emphasis．．．．In　a　sense，the　speech　peop1e　took　rhetoric（the　art　of　persuasion）

with　them；only　now　is　it　being　invited　back．Seco皿d1y，1ogic　also　departed　and　found　a　haven

in　philosophy　and1ater－with　the　marriage　of　logic且nd　mathematics　in　Russe11and　Whitehead－in

departments　of　mathematics．。。．With　the　departure　of　logic　and　rhetoric，d1scourse　education　as

the　Iocus　of　the　traditional　liberal　arts　can　be　said　to　have　effectively　ceased．These　removals

c1eared　the　way　for　English　to　be　a　department　of　literat皿re　and　philolo馴．一．。PhiIo工。gy，mainly

in　its　h三storical　facets，often　dominated　the1iterature　component　of　the　department　in　these　early

decades［but1ater1eft1iterature　behind　to　become　what　is　known　today　as1inguistics／（KimeaW，

！971，p．13）

　　　　With　the　almost　comp1ete　separation　of　writing　and　speaking　skins　in　most　modem

university　education，speech　communication　c1asses　are　now　generally　found　in　the　FacuIty

of　Fine　Arts　which　typica11y　offers　courses　in　theatre，speech　science，pub1ic　address，and

oral　interpretat｛on．In　British　universities，students　aTe　not　genera11y　provided　with　forma1

instruction　in　writing　ski11s　as　this　is　felt　to　be　the　domain　of　secondary　education．In

America，however，Freshman　English　has　Iong　been　part　of　the　curriculum　at　most

universities　and　norma11y　fa11s　under　the　auspices　of　the　English　Department，Progressive

99

Roger　J．Davies

schoo1s　tend　to　provide　instruction　in　academic　writing　skins（Eng1ish101）and　research　paper

writing（English102），but　in　many　co11eges，Engエish　Departments　have　genera11y　been

reduced　to　two　concems：the　reading　and　ana1ysis　of1iterary　texts，and　the　writing　of

expository　essays　about　these　texts（ibid．，p．16）．Creative　writing　generaIly　disappeared　from

standard　composition　courses　several　decades　ago，and　research　in　discourse　education（i．e・，

rhetoric）now　takes　place　in　departments　of1inguistics　or　in　other　anci11a町discip1ines．

Recent1y，courses　in　remedia1Eng1ish　have　a1so　been　in　great　demand　in　both　America　and

Britain，and　in　some　cases　absorb　up　to　one－third　of　incoming　freshman　students　as　we11

as1arge　numbers　of　foreign　students，giving　rise　to　an　mpara11e1ed　number　of“writing

1aboratories”｛or　students　in　tertiary　education，in　which　rhetoric　in　both　its　classica1and

“new” ?盾窒高刀@continues　to　p1ay　an　important　role。

The　New　Rhetoric

　　　The1atter　half　of　the　twentieth　century　has　seen　a　resurgence　of　interest　in　rhetoric

in　a砒ferent　form．Scho1ars　such　as　Kenneth　Burke，James　Kinneaw，Chaim　Per｝eman，and

Stephen　Tou1min　have　all　helped　to　deve1op　the“new　rhetoric’’in　very　different　directions，

incorporating　recent　perspectives　and　re士inements　in　1inguistics，anthropo1ogy，Psycho1ogy，

po1itica1sc三ence，etc．

　　　Kenneth　Burke（1897－1993）has　had　the　greatest　impact　on　rhetoric　in　this　century．

He　focuses　on1anguage　itse1f，asserting　that　a11　human　beings　are1inguistic　anima1s，using

and　mjsusing　symbols．Burke　views　rhetoエic　as　a　function　of　language　that　enab1es　peop1e

to　overcome　the　divisions　separating　them．Identification　is　a　key　concept　in　his　theory：

The　key　term　for　the　o1d　rhetoric　was‘persuasion’and　its　stress　upon　deliberate　design．The

key　term　for　the‘new’rhetoric　wou1d　be‘identification’一。。。‘Identification’at　its　simp1est　is　also

a　deliberative　device，as　when　the　politician　seeks　to　identify　himself　with　his　audience．（Burke，

cited　in　Lindemam，1995，p．54）

Burke’s　major　contribution　to　rhetorica1theory　has　been　his　attempt　to　broaden　its　scope

and　comect　a11acts　of1anguage　within　the　socia1fabric　of　the　cu1ture　in　which　they　occur，

　　　James　Kinneaw’sλ丁肋。ηげ〃∫comse（1971）brings　together　the　classica1and　con－

temporary　e1ements　of　rhetoric．His－theory　is　essentia11y　Aristote1ian，but　a1so　incorporates

perspectives　from　modem　linguistics，literary　criticism，phi1osophy，sociology，etc．KinneaW

avoids　the　term〃e柳4c　because　it　can　take　on　mu工tip1e　and　often　shifting　me呈mings．He

focuses　instead　on　the　term励∫co蜥∫e　as“the　fu11text．．．of　an　ora1or　written　situation，”and

emphasizes　the　use　of1an卯age　to　purposefulユy　communicate王deas　to　an　audience，bringing

the　notion　of“audience”to　the　forefront　of　modem　theories　of　rhetoric．

　　　Another　important　contributor　to　the“new　rhetoric”is　the　Be1gian　phi1osopher　Chaim

Pere1man，who　a1ong　with　his　coneague　M1adame　L．01brechts＿Tyteca，pub1ished　a　major

lOO

On　Deiining　Eng1ish　Rhetoric

rhetorica1work，〃e　Me〃沢ゐeオ。肋jλTmα眺召。mλ惚m刎mちin　France　in1958．Per1eman，

who　ho1ds　an　advanced　degree　in1aw，app1ies　non－forma1modes　of　reasoning，such　as　the

kind　of“dialectica1”　proofs　Aristot1e　utilized　in　the　Rhetoric，to　argumentation　in

jurisprudence．The　Eng1ish　phi1osopher　Stephen　Tou1min　has　a1so　been　dissatisfied　with　the

app1icability　of　forma11ogic　to　the　prob1ems　of　human－a｛fairs　and　developed　a　spec三fic　method

of　argumentation　based　on　c1aims　and　warrants．

　　　In　other　manifestations，the“new　rhetoric”has　a1so　focused　more　on　po1itical　and　socia1

relationships，viewing　rhetoric　as　a　too1for　socia1change．From　a　socia1constructivist

perspective，there　has　been　an　investigation　into“how　the　use　of．．．languages　reproduces　and

maintains　social　activities　and　relations，how1anguages　are　sustained　by　socia1institutions，．1、

［and　how　languages　are］one　of　the　chief　mechanisms　by　which　our　sense　of　reality　is

negotiated”（Bazerman，1990，pp．77－78）．C1osely　re1ated　is　criをical　discourse　ana1ysis　which

examines“how　discourse　is　shaped　by　re1ations　gf　power　and　ideologies，and　the　constructive

effects　discourse　has　upon　social　identities，social　relations，and　systems　of　know1edge　and

belief”（Widdowson，1995，p．158）．

Definitions　of　Rhetoric

　　　　The　term　m物励itse1f　is　derived　from　the　Greek　nounsγ励mα（a　word）and　m肋γ（“a

teacher　of　oratory”），which　stem　from　the　Greek　verb召棚（“I　say”）．The　Eng1ish　nom

肋e柳4c　derives　from　the　Greek　feminine　adjective7加〃伽，which　is　e11iptical　for　meわm6

まecゐm（“the　art　of　the　rhetor　or　orator”）．Eng1ish　o1〕tained　the　term　direct1y　from　the　French

〃肋吻m．Thus，in　a　simp1e　etymologica1sense，rhetoric　has　to　do　with　speaking　or　orating，

but　in1ater　times　came　to　inc1ude　writing　as　we11，first　as　a　preparation　for　oratory，and

later　as　an　art　in　its　own　right．

　　　Aristotle　defined　rhetoric　as　both　a　practical　art　and　a　way　of㎞owing，“the　facu1ty

of　discovering　a11the　avai1ab1e　means　of　persuasion　in　any　given　situation”（cited　in　Corbett，

1990，p．3）．Classica1rhetoricians　narrowed　the　scope　of　rhetorica1discourse　to　persuasion；

howevef，it　is　generany　believed　that　Aristot1e’s　definition　was　meant　to　comprehend　not

on1y　argumentative　discourse　but　expository　modes　as　we11．

　　　Over　time，rhetoric　has　a1so　acquired　a　whole　set　of　negative　comotations．At　one

extreme，it　is　sometimes　associated　so1ely　with　sty1e－figures　of　speech，nowery　diction－or

with　the　notion　of　empty，bombastic　language（“mere　rhetoric”）、

　　　Contemporary　definitions　of　rhet0fic｛ocus　on　the　notion　of　audience：“［R］hetoric　is　the

art　or　the　discip1ine　that　dea1s　with　the　use　of　discourse，either　spoken　or　written，to　inform

or　persuade　or　motivate　an　audience，whether　that　audience　is　made　up　of　one　person　or

a　group　of　persons”（Corbett，1990，p．3）．In　this　sense，it　can　be　defined　as　the　choice

of1inguistic　and　structural　aspects　of　disc6urse　chosen　to　Produce　an　effect　on　an　audience．

　　　The“new　rhetoric”has　been　defined　as　the　way“peopie　use1anguage　and　other　symbo1s

to　realize　human　goa1s　and　carry　out　human　activities一［It］is　u1timate1y　a　practica1study

101

Roger∫．D五vies

offering　peop1e　greater　control　over　their　symbo1ic　activity”（Bazerman，1988，p．6）．It　a1so

impacts　both　politica1and　socia1relationships　and　is“one　of　the　chief　mechanisms　by　which

our　sense　of　rea1ity　is　negotiated”（Bazerman，1990，pp．77－78）．

　　　Rhetoric　is　thus　an“e1astic”．term　which　has　a　great　many　connotations　in　Eng1ish

depending　on　the　context．Today，it　is中fined　primari1y　as　the　s亡udy　of　the　princip1es　and

ru1es　of　composition，as　we11as　ski11in　the　effective　use　of　speech，while　sometimes　a1so

denoting　insincere　or　grandi1oquent1anguage　（㎜eδ∫た〆∫jWm肋　N召ω　Co〃e虹α古e刀北杉。mαη，

ユ990）．It　might　be　more　accurate，however，to　describe　both　written　composition　and

speech－making　as　goa1s，whi1e　rhetoric　itse1f　is　the　study　of　the　organizing　principles　which

under1ie　and　direct　our　efforts　towards　attaining　these　goals．In　other　words，at　one　end

of　its　range　of　meanings　rhetoric　is　concerned　with　the　orderjng　of　ideas；at　the　other　end

it　is　concemed　with　the　presentation　of　these　ideas　in　language（Jordan，1965，p．3）．In　its

most　minima1sense，rhetoric　can　therefore　be　defined　as　the　way　people　organize　and　present

their　ideas　when　speaking　or　wrjting　in　a1anguage（Davies，1995；Davies＆Ide，1997）．

Rhetoric　and　Discourse　Theory

　　　　Towards　the　end　of　the1ast　century　and　the　beginning　of　the　present　one，rhetoric　ceased

to　become　a　separate　discipline　in　most　educationa1institutions　in　the　West，with　the　rare

exception　of　certain　American　universities　which　have　maintained　Departments　o士Rhetoric．

In　most　cases，the　traditional　functions　of　rhetoric　were　shipped　out　to　other　disciplines　such

as　phi1osophy，speech　communication，composition　studies，and1inguisticsl　In　particular，

composition　studies，which　norma11y　fa11within　the　authority　of　Eng1ish　departments，provide

a　venue　for　the　practica1application　o壬rhetoric　in　written　form，and　within　the　fie1d　of

Iinguistics，the　relatively　recent　discipHne　of　discourse　studies　has　assumed　responsibi1ity　for

the　theoretica1underpimings　of　modem　rhetoric．

　　　This　is　a　somewhat　simp1ified　rendition　of　a　comp1ex　issue　in　the　academic　wor1d，and

there　is　sti11a　good　deal　of　termino1ogical　confusion　in　the　fie1d，but　it　is　c1ear　that　the

terms　rhetoric　and　discourse　are　now　often　used　interchangeab1y　for1inguistic　analysis　beyolユd

－the　ieve1of　the　sentence　as　a　unitl　For　example，van　Dijk（cited　in　James，1980，PP．

102－103）states　that“aデsoon　as　tbe　ana1ysis　goes　beyond　the　boundaries　of＿grammatica1

notions　we　find　ourselves　in　the　inter＿disciplinary　fie1d　of　discourse　studies，’’whi1e　Enkvist

（1987，p．26）maintains　that“usua11y　the　domain　of　grammar　has　been　the　sing1e　sentence，

whereas　discip1ines　such　as　rhetorjc．．．have　dea1t　with　textuaユspans　beyond　the　sentence．”

Chafe（cited　in　Widdowson，1995，p－162）notes　that“the　tem‘discourse’is　used　in

somewhat　different　ways　by　different　scho1ars，but　mder1ying　the砒ferences　is　a　common

concern　for1an馴age　beyond　the　bomdaries　of　isolated　sentences’’；in　a　simi1ar　mamer，

Kap1an（1987，p19）defines　rhetoric　as“the　leve1of　organization　of　the　who1e　text，”while

Mauranen（1993，p．29）states　that“in　current1inguistic　work，the　term　rhetoric　is　frequentiy

associated　with　text　organization　in　units1arger　than　the　sentence．”Beaugrande＆Dress1er

102

On　Defining　English　Rhetoric

（1981，p，15）c1aim　that“the　o1dest　form　of　preoccupation　with　texts　can　be　fomd　in

RHETORIC，dating　from　Ancient　Greece　and　Rome　through　the　Midd1e　Ages　right　up　to

the　present，”and　that　c1assica1rhetoric，“despite　its　different　terms　and　method』，”shares

a　number　of　vita1concems　with　modern　text（i．e．，discourse）1inguistics．KinneaW（1971）was

one　of　the　first　to　treat　rhetoric　and　discourse　synonymously，d三fferentiating　between　oral

or　spoken　discourse　in　speech　communication，and　written　discourse　in　composition　studies．

　　　Neverthe1ess，because“the　fie1d　of　discourse　is　sti11　in　what　Kuhn，a　notab1e　historian

of　science，has　ca11ed　the　preparadigm　period”（ibid．，p．2），the　term挑。om∫e　is　used　in

very　d雌erent　ways　by　d雌erent　scholars，creating　a　good　dea1of　confusion　that　has　yet　to

be　resolved．As　Fairc1ough（1992，p．3）states，“discourse　is　a　difficu1t　concept，1arge1y

because　there　a士e　so　many　conf1icting　and　overlapping　definitions　formulated　from　various

theoretica1and　disciplinary　standpoints、”Widdowson（1995，p．157）concurs，stating　that

discourse　is　c1early“a　contentious　area　of　enquiry．．．，a　diverse，not　to　say，diffuse　conceptl”

　　　One　of　the　more　contentious　issues　existing　in　the　field　today，for　examp1e，is　the

dif｛erence　between流5com∫e　and赦左．For　some，there　is　an　imp1ication　that　the　word“text”

refers　only　to　written1anguage，and　that　discourse　ana1ysis　of　writing　beyond　the　sentence

1eve1is　therefore　text　ana1ysis．The　resu1t　is　a　distinction　between“spoken　discourse”and

“written　text．”Others　argue｛or　a砒ferent　set　of　distinctions　between　the　two　terms．

Widdowson，for　examp1e，c㎝tends．that　texts　can　be　in　written　or　spoken　fom　and“come

in　a11shapes　and　s｛zes：they　can　correspond　in　extent　with　any1inguistic　unit：1etter，sound，

word，sentence，combination　of　sentences”（1995，p．164）．Discourse　is　a　matter　of“deriving

meaning　from　text　by　refening　to　its　contextua1con砒ions，to　the　be1iefs，attitudes，va1ues

which　represent　different　versions　of　reaIity．The　same　text，therefore，can　give　rise　to

different　discourses”　（ibid．，P．168）．

　　　Another　source　of　confusion　has　to　do　with　the　terms左e切mα伽ゐ（or倣古〃mg〃∫地s）

and淋。om∫e　mα伽あ．The　former　is　often　associated　with　European　traditions，the1atter

with　Ang1o＿American　research　doing　the　same　things．They　can　a1so　be　viewed　as　com－

p1ementary：Discourse　ana1ysis　starts　with　outer　frames　of　situations　and　tries　to　find　formal

correlates　to　situational　variab1es；text　ana1ysis　works　in　the　opposite　direction　from　linguistic

forms　to　appropriate　contexts．In　this　sense，text　ana1ysis　is　more　concemed　with　formal

devices　for　estab1ishing　inter－sententia1connections　in　units　above　the　sentence　（see　for

examp1e，Ha11iday＆Hassan，！976），whi1e　discourse　ana1ysis　deals　with　considerations　of　use．

Text　ana1ysis　usua11y　focuses　on　written，and　therefoエe　mono1ogic（one＿‘speaker’）texts；

discourse　ana1ysis　on　unscripted　（1itera11y）spoken　interaction．

　　　There　are　a1so　fundamental．砒ferences　between　British　and　American　schoo1s　of　dis－

course　ana1ysis，The　British　work，which　has　been　greatly　inf1uenced　by　pragmatics　and

Ha11iday’s　functiona1approach　to　Ianguage，principa11y　fo11ows“structura1＿1inguistic　criteria，

on　the　basis　of　the　isoIation　of　units，and　sets　of　rules　defining　we11＿formed　sequences　of

discourse”（McCarthy，1991，p．6）、American　discourse　ana1ysis，on　the　other　hand，is

“dominated　by　work　within　the　ethnomethodo1ogica1tradition（see，for　example，Gumperz

103

Roger　J．Davies

＆Hymes），＿which　examines　types　of　speech　event　such　as　storytening，greeting　ritua1s，

and　vefba1due1s　in　different　cultural　and　socia1set亡ings”（ibid．）．This　is　o王ten　Iabe1ed

co舳ms〃。nαmψ∫4∫．Here，the　emphasis　is　not　on　bui1ding　structura1mode1s　of　discourse

as　in　the　British　mode1，but　on　the　c1ose　observation　of　individua1s　as　they　interact　within

authentic　socia1settings．The　American　work　has　produced　a1arge　number　of　descriptions

of　discourse　types　and　insights　into　sociaI　constraints　on　conversationa1　patterns　（e．g．，

tum＿taking，politeness　strategies，face＿saving　phenomena，etc．），and　over1aps　in　some　ways

with　British　work　in　pragmatics（ibid．）．

　　　The　spectrum　of　discourse　studies　has　a1so　broadened　its　scope　considerab1y　over　the

1ast　thirty　years．This　has　been　carried　out　in　two　ways：（1）vertica11y　in　terms　of1arger

1inguistic　units－theカクm〃1eveユ，or　how　sentences　are　organjzed　intoユarger，suprasententid

units　or　texts；and（2）horizonta11y　in　terms　of　incorporating　socio－cu1tura1settings　within

linguistics－the力mc肋mα王1eve1，or　the　ways　in　which　peop1e　put1anguage　to　use（i．e、，

pragmatics）（James，ユ980，p．102）．Put　another　way，discourse　has　moved　from　a　technica11y

narrow　definition　as　exemp1ified　by　the　study　of　grammatica1and　other　re1ationships　between

sentences，to　a　broader　perspective　re1ated　to　the　functiona1uses　of　1anguage　in　socia1

contexts，to　a　view　in　its　broadest　sense　as　the　study　of　who1e　systems　of　communication

within　cu1tures，inc1uding　ideo1ogy，forms　of　discourse，and　socia1ization（Sconon＆Sco11on，

1995，p．95）．

　　　In　defining　the　parameters　of　discourse，Kinneavy（1971）maintains　that　syntactics　and

semantics　are　beyond　the　borders　of　discourse　study，but　define　its1ower　boundaries．The

upper1imits　range“beyond　the　textual｛nto　the　vast　sociaユand　cu1tura1effects　of1anguage

phenomena”（p，23）．Thus，“［b］eyond　text　lies　the　context　of　the　situation　of　which　the　text

is　a　part．This　includes　such　areas　of　investigation　as　psycho1ogica1and　social　motivations

for　speaking　and　writing．．．・Beyond　the　sf亡uationaI　context1ies　the　cuユtura1context，the

nature　and　conventions　of　which　make　the　situational　context　permissib1e　and　meaningfu1．．．．

It　can　hard1y　be　denied　that　cu1tura1context　and　situationa1context　determine　text．In　this

1arge　sense，no　text　is　autonomous－it　exists　within　a　biographical　and　historica1stream”

（pp．23－24）．

Discourse　Theory　and　Contrastive　Rhetoric

　　　　Robert　Kap1an（1988，pp．275－279）once　described　contrastive　rhetoric　as　a　subset　o壬

text1jnguistics，“a　kind　o土text　ana1ysis　that　has　f1oated　on　the　periphery　of　more　forma1

1inguistic　studies　for　nearly　a　quarter　of　a　century．”Although　in王tiany1arge1y　an　American

deve1opment，contrastive　rhetoric　was“not　compatib1e　with　either　genera1or　applied1in－

guistic　traditions　in　the　United　States．”Ear1y　attitudes　among　structura1ists　which1imited

1inguistic　investigations　to　the1eveユ。f　the　sentence，as　well　as　the　strict1y　syntactic　focus

of1ater　deve1opments　in　TG　grammar，were　antithetica1to　contrastive　rhetoric　as　they　tended

tg　inhibit　research　into　suprasentential　units　and　intersentential　re1at｛onships．Underlyin9

104

On　Defining　Eng工ish　Rhetoric

neo－Whorfian　assumptions　further　served　to　alienate　contrastive　rhetoric　from　mainstream

1inguistics　in　tbe　United　States　in　the　last　few　decades．Kap1an　thus　argued　that　contrastive

rhetoric　be1ongs　to　the　basic　tradition　of　text1inguistics，which　has“its　roots　in　the　Prague

School　Linguistics　and　in　the　Firthian　innuence　in　Britain，”whiie　acknow1edging　that　there

are“important　differences　between　the　research　tradition　in　European　text＿1inguistics　and

the　immediate　and　pragmatic　objectives　of　contrastive　rhetoric，”especiany　in　terms　of　its

pedagogica1motives　and　apP1ications．

　　　In　the1ast　decade　there　have　been　sign1ficant　changes　to　this　viewpoint，however，

including　a　major　reapPra三sa1in　Iinguistic　circles　of　the　theory　of1inguistic　re1ativity（see

for　examp1e，Gumperz＆Levinson，1996），a　renaissance　in　contrastive　ana1ysis　research，

especia11y　at　the1eve1of　discourse，and　a　gradua1mefging　of　the　fields　of　text1inguistics

and　discourse　ana1ysis．As　Beaugrande（1990，p．26）notes，“although’text五inguistics’and

‘discourse　analysis’origina11y　emerged　from　different　orientations，they　have　steadiIy　con－

verged　in　recent　years　unti1they　are　usuany　treated　as　the　same　enterprise．．．．”In　the　light

of　these　deve1opments，Kap1an’s　assessment　needs　to　be　re＿eva1uated　and　a　new　theoretica1

frame　of　reference　for　understanding　contrastive　rhetoric　estab1ished．

　　　It　was　postu1ated　earlier　in　this　work　that　rhetoric　in　the　Westem　tradition　can　best

be　understood　with呈n　a　theoW　of　discourse．This　leads　to．the　premise　that　contrastive

rhetoric，too，can　be　conceived　in　a　similar　way－Recent　shifts　in　discourse　studies　from　an

ear1y　emphasis　on　grammatica1and　other　forms　used　to　mark　cohesive　re1ationships　between

sentences，to　the　inclusion　of　1arger　units　of　socia1context　re1ated　to　the　functiona1uses

of　language，to　the　study　of　whoIe　systems　of　communication　within　cultures　and　societies

（Sco11on＆Sconon，1995）has　been　para11eled　by　deve1opments　in　contrastive　rhetoric，which

has　a1so　moved　beyond　the1eve1of　text　to　include　both　the　situational　and　cu1tura1contexts

of　writing．The　concerns　of　contrastive　rhetoric　today　are　threeイ。1d．They　include　inter－

sententia1textua1re1ationships，the　organizational　parameters　which　shape　the　overa11form

of　a　written　text，and　written　discourse　as　a　cu1tura1activity，including　education，literacy，

and　the　socia1土unctions　of　writing．Contrastive　rhetoric　can　thus　best　be　defined　today　within

a　theory　of　discourse，not　as　the．a1ienated，hybrid　offspring　of　text　linguistics，but　more

aCCurate1y　aS　COm加α∫オ伽e　〃れ材em　♂4∫C0刎κSe　αmα砂∫ゐ．

References

A11aei，S．，＆Comor，U。（1990）．Exp1oring　the　dymmics　of　cross＿cu1tura1couaboration　in　writing

　　　c1assrooms，Tあe　Wケ物mg”8≠mc伽，ユ0｛1），19－28．

Bazerman，C．（1990）．Discourse　ana1ysis　and　social　construction．In　W．Grabe＆R．Kap1an（Eds。），λm舳〃

　　　m〃4emげα妙腕d肋酬柵｛cs，oo’。エエ（pp．77－83〕．Cambridge：Ca皿bridge　University　Press．

Beaugrande，R．de．（1990）。Text　linguistics　and　new　app1icati㎝s．In　W．Grabe（Ed．），ル物αJ例伽げ

　　　α助κe∂肋g〃∫ガ㏄，〃（pp．17－41）。C丑mbridge：Cambridge　University　Press．

Beaugrande，R．de，＆Dエess1eエ，W．（1981）、〃γ脇励㎝わ㈱脇g泌伽．London：Longman．

Connor，U．（1996）．Cm加口3伽召〃ef〃5c．Cambridge：Cambridge　University　Press．

！05

Roger　J．Davies

Corbett，P．（1990）．αα∬｛mエ〃肋γ｛c∫oπ肋e　mo励例∫切δe砺β〃ed．ノ．0x士。rd：Oxford　University　Press．

Davies，R・（ユ995）、Teacbing　Engiisb　presentation　ski11s　in　Japan．五〃m侶L伽あe旭伽ル提刎。伽，28（2），

　　　55－81．

Davies，R．，＆Ide，S一（ユ997）．The　influence　of　Ll　education　English　L2composition　ski11s三n　Japan．

　　　亙励me　α”m附ク砂　Cen杉7力7亙∂〃〃”0地”R召seακ局αn3Pmc杉。邊Memo”5、ユ5，29－50．

Ehninger，D一（1965）。History　of　rhetoric　and　public　address．In　R．Reid（Ed．），∫〃m〃。物m士。肋eガei6

　　　げ功mc危（pp．165一ユ83）．Chicago：Scott，Foresman　and　Company，

Enk向st，N・（ユ987〕・Textエinguistics　for　the　app－ier：An　orientat圭。n・正n　U．Connor＆R．Kaplan（Eds．），

　　　　Wm．伽£αc伽sわmg伽g邊∫jルα胸5げ工2丁鮒（pp．23－44）一Reading，MA：Addison－Wesley．

Fairc1ough，N．（1992）．〃5ωmse伽ゴ∫oo〃。免伽g偉．Cambridge：Polity　Press．

Grabe，W．（1987）。Contrastive　rhetoric　and　text－type　research－In　U．Comor＆R．Kaplan（Eds．），肋倣m厚

　　　m05∫lmg伽螂51ルαJツ5ゐ。ゾエ2Te妨（pp・ユ1ト138〕。Reading，MA：Addison－Wes1ey．

Gumperz，J一，＆Levinson，S一（Eds。）．｛1996）一地価m肋m£且伽馴古∫枕mJα切伽．Cambridge：Cambridge

　　　University　press．

Ha11iday，M．，＆Hassan，R。（1976）．Co加曲m5例五惚脆化．London：Longman．

Hi1deyard，A。，＆O1son，D一（1982）一〇n　the　comprehension　and　memoW　of　ora1vs．written　discourse．

　　　　In　D．Tamen（Ed．），助。加mα〃〃倣刎正価g刎αg邊（pp．17－34）．Norwood，NJ＝Ab1ex．

Holyoak，S。，＆Piper，A。（1997）。Talking　to　second　language　writers：using　interview　data　to　investigate

　　　　cOntrastive　rhetoric．Z疵粥馳硯8召　7をαc局4〃8Re∫彦ακcゐ，　エ　｛2），　122一ユ48．

Houghton，D。，＆Hoey，M．（1983）．Linguistics　and　written　discourse：Contrastive　rhetorics，In　R．Kaplan

　　　　（Ed．），λ舳加工γm4emげα妙腕d王切g〃∫伽∫，3（pp．2＿22）．Rowley，MA：Newl〕u町House．

James，C．（ユ980）．Cm物5切e　mψ5i∫．London：Longman．

Jordan，J。（ユ965）．誠加ξ〃肋庇．New　York：Harper　and　Row，Pub1ishers．

Kaplan，R　（1966）Cultural　thought　pattems　in　inter－cu1tura1education．工αmgmα8石工mm加g、エ6，1－20．

K目p工an。．．R一（工987）一Cu工tl〕r討tho㎎ht　patterns　revisited－In　U．Comor＆R．Kap1an（Eds．〕，研7彬m皇α伽05∫

　　　　J伽g刎g召∫。・αmψ∫古5ぴ工2城f，Reading，MA1Addison－Wes1ey，

Kap1an，R・｛1988〕・Contrast三ve　rhetoric　and　second13nguage1earning：Notes　toward　a　theory　of　con－

　　　　trastive　rhetoric．In　A．Purves（Ed。），肌π倣瑚g〃m53加地馳昭郷疵〃m肋πω（pp．275－304）．Newbury

　　　　Park，CA：Sage．

Kimeavy，J・（1971）・λ物。ηoゾ挑。o舳e・New　York1W．W．Norton＆Company．

Lindemam，E一（1995）。λ〃肋地力πm棚惚武mc加欄．New　York：0xford　University　Press．

Mauranen，A。（1993）．Cm肋m㍑蛎meme∫圭m伽∂伽4c伽柳4c．Frankfurt　am　Main：Peter　Lang．

McCarthy，M．（1991）．〃∫ω㈹eαmα伽ゐ∫〃正αm馳αgピem尻επ∫一Cambridge1Cambridge　University　Press．

Purves，A．，＆Purves，W．（1986〕．Viewpoints：Cu吐ures，text　mode1s，and　the　acd沽ty　of　witing．Re∫mκゐ

　　　　加　肋e　Tmc伽m£げ互mξκ8尻，20（2），174－197．

Scollon，R。＆Sco11on，S．Wong｛1995）一∫肋舳肋”αl　comm伽づ。〃m．Cambridge，MA：B1ackwe1L

Sed1and，J。（ユ994）．λm　e55m物τ肋∫foηげ万例g脆尻〃em物m．Tokyo：Nan’un　Do．

肌わ5切も用肋ルm　Co肋g古物D｛舳m鮒．（1990）．Springfie1d，Mass：Merriam＿Webster，

Widdowson，H・（1995）・Discourse　ana1ysis：A　critica1view、工αmgmαg召m∂〃emf〃e，4（3），15ト172．

Wi11iams，J一（1989）一丁醐王e880m5切。王m柳α〃gmc召．Bost㎝1Scott，Foresman　and　Company．

（Rece王ved　May工0，ユ998）

106