An Introduction to Multiple Meanings of Rhetoric

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Mohammad Ahmadi ¹
• Taghi Poornamdarain ²

¹ Department of Persian Language and Literature, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Persian Language and Literature, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v50i1.64634

Abstract

1. Introduction
Rhetoric is a term that has significantly changed in meaning throughout the history. Not enough attention has been given to the term’s conceptual complexity in Persian and its vast meaning in literary studies. Although it is impossible to differentiate between the various meanings of the term, rhetoric in different contexts has a particular meaning. In Persian, this term has frequently been translated to oratory and eloquence; as rhetoric is more than oratory and eloquence, in this essay we have studied how different meanings of rhetoric have been shaped throughout the history. Some of the most important meanings of rhetoric are eloquence, oratory, weak style and communication. This essay can help the scholars to distinguish between the various meanings of rhetoric in different contexts and differentiate their significance in translation.
2. Methodology
Individuals trained in different fields often prefer to use rhetoric in specific contexts, while rhetoric cannot be restricted to a particular use. Considering the fact that none of its equivalents in Persian can completely demonstrate the true nature of rhetoric and also because of cultural and historical connotations, we have preferred to use the term rhetoric in this essay instead of any of its equivalents in Persian. Different meanings of rhetoric in different periods have been investigated in this essay. Obviously, the perspectives of our ancestors about rhetoric have never been forgotten completely in any time, but we can say in different historical periods, one specific meaning of rhetoric has been dominant over its other meanings.
3. Discussion
Based on historical facts, the term rhetoric was first used in one of the Plato’s dialogues known as Gorgias, which was probably written around 380 BC. Without any doubt, rhetoric in this work referred to oratory. After Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian who were the most eminent figures and biggest theoreticians of oratory in ancient times also used rhetoric in the same manner and rhetoric was long used to mean oratory. But after the democratic governments in Greece and Rome collapsed, the civic role of rhetoric gradually decreased and weakened and instead of practicing forensic and deliberative oratory, aesthetics became the concern of the teachers of rhetoric and the aesthetic topics in rhetorical handbooks became dominant, and rhetoric begin to mean eloquence. In other words eloquence is one of the several meanings of rhetoric. As soon as style became dominant over the other principles in rhetorical handbooks sophistication and attention to the decorative and imaginative aspects of language and the techniques and ways of beautifying grew among rhetoricians and they became obsessed with aesthetics. In this period the meaning of rhetoric changes to verbiage and weak style. Even today in educational institutions in the United States and other countries, rhetoric still has negative connotations. We can claim that rhetoric in its history was always fluctuated between moral and logical and aesthetical perspectives and these perspectives have imposed positive and negative meanings to this term. In the modern period, scholars believe that rhetoric is any kind of communication attempt to change or reinforce an idea, behavior or attitude of human beings. That’s why rhetoric nowadays is equal to all human communication. In other words rhetoric in its new meaning is part of human identity, because whenever man strives to express his emotions and thoughts with the aim of influencing others he is using rhetoric, so we can infer that rhetoric is omnipresent. In this new perspective rhetoric is more than oratory, eloquence and verbiage.
4. Conclusion
The term rhetoric was first used in one of the paltos dialogues known as Gorgias and has long been used to mean oratory; but due to intellectual, social and political developments in Europe the meaning of rhetoric underwent changes throughout the history and this term gradually not only referred to oratory, but also begin to mean eloquence, verbiage, weak style, persuasion and communication. Persian scholars and translators have mostly translated rhetoric to eloquence or oratory and have neglected the other meanings of rhetoric. In this essay we have analyzed how the scope of rhetoric due to political and social changes have changed throughout the history and what has rhetoric been referred to in different periods. This essay can help the scholars to distinguish the various meanings of rhetoric in literary and nonliterary studies and differentiate their significance in translation.

Keywords

• Rhetoric
• Oratory
• Eloquence
• Weak Style
• Communication
• Persuasion

20.1001.1.22285202.1396.50.1.2.1

References

1. ابن سینا، ح. (1373). برهان شفا. ترجمه و پژوهش مهدی قوام صفری. تهران: فکر روز.

2. ابن سینا، ح. (1405). الشفا: منطق. ج 4. به‌تحقیق ابراهیم بیومی، سعید زاید، طه حسین پاشا و ابوالعلا عفیفی، قم: کتابخانه آیت الله مرعشی.

3. افلاطون. (1389). شش رساله. ترجمة محمدعلی فروغی. تهران: هرمس.

4. دیکسون، پ. (1389). خطابه. ترجمة حسن افشار. تهران: نشر مرکز.

5. شهرزوری، م. (1385). الرسائل الشجره الالهیه فی علوم الحقایق الربانیه. تهران: موسسه پژوهشی حکمت و فلسفه ایران.

6. علامه‌ حلی، ح. (1363). الجوهر النضید فی شرح منطق التجرید. قم: بیدار.

7. عمارتی‌مقدم، د. (1395). بلاغت از آتن تا مدینه: بررسی تطبیقی فن خطابة یونان و روم باستان و بلاغت اسلامی تا قرن پنجم هجری. تهران: هرمس.

8. فارابی، م. (1389). احصاء العلوم. ترجمة حسین خدیوجم. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.

9. فرشیدورد، خ. (1378). دربارة ادبیات و نقد ادبی. تهران: امیرکبیر.

10. محمدی‌خراسانی، ع. (1385). شرح منطق مظفر. ج.۲ قم: الامام الحسن بن علی (علیهما السلام).

11. نصیرالدین طوسی، م. (1395). اساس الاقتباس. تصحیح محمدتقی مدرس رضوی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

12. Abrams, M.H. & Galt Harpham, Geoffrey. (2012). A Glossary of Literary Terms, United states of America: Wadsworth.

13. Aristotle. (1991). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP.

14. Black, Edwin. (1965). Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. New York: Macmillan.

15. ____.(1997). “The Prospect of Rhetoric: Twenty-Five Years Later” Making and Unmaking the Prospects for Rhetoric. Ed. Theresa Enos and Richard McNabb. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum : 21–27.

16. Booth, Wayne C. (1983). Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

17. Britanica Concise Encyclopedia. (2011). 9 th edition. London: Oxford University press.

18. Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. California reissue of 1st ed. (1950). Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

19. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. (1942). De Oratore. Trans. E. W. Sutton, Leob Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University.

20. Croce, Benedetto. (1922). Aesthetic. Trans. Douglas Ainslie. London: Oxford UP.

21. Eliot, T.S. (1920). Rhetoric and Poetic Drama. In Essays on Poetry and Criticism. London: Methune.

22. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. (2006). Editor-in-Chief Thomas O. Sloane. London: Oxford UP.

23. Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Cindy L. Griffin.(1999). Feminist Rhetorical Theories. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

24. _____.(2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed. Long Grove, IL:Waveland.

25. Garsten B. (2006). Saving persuasion: A defense of rhetoric and judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U P.

26. Hahn, Laura K., Lance Lippert, Scott T. Paynton. (2009). Survey of Communication Study. www.wikibooks.com.

27. Isocrates. Panathenaicus.(1992) Isocrates. Trans. George Norlin. Vol. II. Rep. of 1st ed. (1929).Cambridge: Harvard UP.

28. Kennedy, George Alexander. (1994). A New History Of Classical Rhetoric. New Jersey: Princeton UP.

29. ____.(1999). Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.

30. Kuypers, J. & King, A. (2009). What is rhetoric? .In J. Kuypers (Ed.),Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

31. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2009).5th edition. Pearson Education Limited

32. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2016). 6th edition: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

33. Miller, G.R., Burgoon, M. & Burgoon, J.K. (1984). The functions of human communication in changing attitudes and gaining compliance. (In Arnold, C.C. & Bowers, J.W., ed. Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. p. 400-474.)

34. Montesquieu, Baron de. (2001). The Spirit of Laws. Trans. Thomas Nugent. Canada: Batoche Books.

35. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2012).8th edition. London: Oxford UP.

36. Quintilian, Marcus Fabius. (1959). Institutio Orataria. Trans. H.E. Butler. Leob Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

37. Schiappa, Edward. (1992). “Rhêtorikê: What’s in A Name? Toward A Revised History of EarlyGreek Rhetorical Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 78.1: 1–15.

38. ____.(2001) “Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 34.3: 260–74.

39. Sprat, Thomas. (1667). History of the Royal Society of London, For the Improving of Natural Knowledge. London: Printed by T. Knapton et al.

40. Thomas Conley. (1991). Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

41. Thuren, L. (1990). The rhetorical strategy of 1 Peter. With special regard to ambiguous expressions. Abo : Abo Academy Press.

42. Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht : Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis.

43. Weinsheimer, Joel C. (2004). The philosophy of Rhetoric in Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric. In Walter Jost and Wendy Olmset. a Camparison to Rhetorica and Rhetorical Criticism. (pp. 141-151). USA: Blackwell Publishing.