In sharp contrast, criticism (one of many Humanistic methods of generating knowledge) actively involves the personality of the researcher. The very choices of what to study, and how and why to study a rhetorical artifact are heavily influenced by the personal qualities of the researcher.... In the Humanities, methods of research may also take many forms—criticism, ethnography, for example—but the personality of the researcher is an integral component of the study. Further personalizing criticism, we find that rhetorical critics use a variety of means when examining a particular rhetorical artifact, with some critics even developing their own unique perspective to better examine a rhetorical artifact.{{r|Jim A 2009|page=14}}"},"author":{"wt":"Jim A. Kuypers"}},"i":0}}]}" id="mwBb8">
The way the Sciences and the Humanities study the phenomena that surround us differ greatly in the amount of researcher personality allowed to influence the results of the study. For example, in the Sciences researchers purposefully adhere to a strict method (the scientific method).... Generally speaking, the researcher's personality, likes and dislikes, and religious and political preferences are supposed to be as far removed as possible from the actual study....
In sharp contrast, criticism (one of many Humanistic methods of generating knowledge) actively involves the personality of the researcher. The very choices of what to study, and how and why to study a rhetorical artifact are heavily influenced by the personal qualities of the researcher.... In the Humanities, methods of research may also take many forms—criticism, ethnography, for example—but the personality of the researcher is an integral component of the study. Further personalizing criticism, we find that rhetorical critics use a variety of means when examining a particular rhetorical artifact, with some critics even developing their own unique perspective to better examine a rhetorical artifact.[120]:14
—Jim A. Kuypers
Edwin Black wrote on this point that, "Methods, then, admit of varying degrees of personality. And criticism, on the whole, is near the indeterminate, contingent, personal end of the methodological scale. In consequence of this placement, it is neither possible nor desirable for criticism to be fixed into a system, for critical techniques to be objectified, for critics to be interchangeable for purposes of replication, or for rhetorical criticism to serve as the handmaiden of quasi-scientific theory."[121]:xi
Jim A. Kuypers sums this idea of criticism as art in the following manner: "In short, criticism is an art, not a science. It is not a scientific method; it uses subjective methods of argument; it exists on its own, not in conjunction with other methods of generating knowledge (i.e., social scientific or scientific)... [I]nsight and imagination top statistical applications when studying rhetorical action."[120]:14–15
Strategies
Rhetorical strategies are the efforts made by authors or speakers to persuade or inform their audiences. According to James W. Gray,[importance?] there are various argument strategies used in writing. He describes four of these as argument from analogy, argument from absurdity, thought experiments, and inference to the best explanation.[122]
Criticism
Modern rhetorical criticism explores the relationship between text and context; that is, how an instance of rhetoric relates to circumstances. Since the aim of rhetoric is to be persuasive, the level to which the rhetoric in question persuades its audience is what must be analyzed, and later criticized. In determining the extent to which a text is persuasive, one may explore the text's relationship with its audience, purpose, ethics, argument, evidence, arrangement, delivery, and style.[123]
In his Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method, Edwin Black states, "It is the task of criticism not to measure... discourses dogmatically against some parochial standard of rationality but, allowing for the immeasurable wide range of human experience, to see them as they really are."[121]:131 While "as they really are" is debatable, rhetorical critics explain texts and speeches by investigating their rhetorical situation, typically placing them in a framework of speaker/audience exchange. The antithetical view places the rhetor at the center of creating that which is considered the extant situation; i.e., the agenda and spin.[124]
Additional theoretical approaches
Following the neo-Aristotelian approaches to criticism, scholars began to derive methods from other disciplines, such as history, philosophy, and the social sciences.[125]:249 The importance of critics' personal judgment decreased in explicit coverage[clarification needed] while the analytical dimension of criticism began to gain momentum. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, methodological pluralism replaced the singular neo-Aristotelian method. Methodological rhetorical criticism is typically done by deduction, in which a broad method[vague] is used to examine a specific case of rhetoric.[126]These types[clarification needed] include:
engages rhetoric as it suggests the beliefs, values, assumptions, and interpretations held by the rhetor or the larger culture
Ideological criticism also treats ideology as an artifact of discourse, one that is embedded in key terms (called "ideographs") as well as material resources and discursive embodiment.
assumes certain situations call for similar needs and expectations within the audience, therefore calling for certain types of rhetoric
It studies rhetoric in different times and locations, looking at similarities in the rhetorical situation and the rhetoric that responds to them. Examples include eulogies, inaugural addresses, and declarations of war.
narratives help organize experiences in order to endow meaning to historical events and transformations
Narrative criticism focuses on the story itself and how the construction of the narrative directs the interpretation of the situation.
By the mid-1980s the study of rhetorical criticism began to move away from precise methodology towards conceptual issues. Conceptually-driven criticism[127] operates more through abduction, according to scholar James Jasinski, who argues that this type of criticism can be thought of as a back-and-forth between the text and the concepts[specify], which are being explored at the same time. The concepts remain "works in progress", and understanding those terms[clarification needed] develops through the analysis of a text.[125]:256
Criticism is considered rhetorical when it focuses on the way some types of discourse react to situational exigencies—problems or demands—and constraints. Modern rhetorical criticism concerns how the rhetorical case or object persuades, defines, or constructs the audience. In modern terms, rhetoric includes, but it is not limited to, speeches, scientific discourse, pamphlets, literary work, works of art, and pictures. Contemporary rhetorical criticism has maintained aspects of early neo-Aristotelian thinking through close reading, which attempts to explore the organization and stylistic structure of a rhetorical object.[128] Using close textual analysis means rhetorical critics use the tools of classical rhetoric and literary analysis to evaluate the style and strategy used to communicate the argument.
Purpose of criticism
Rhetorical criticism serves several purposes. For one, it hopes to help form or improve public taste. It helps educate audiences and develops them into better judges of rhetorical situations by reinforcing ideas of value, morality, and suitability. Rhetorical criticism can thus contribute to the audience's understanding of themselves and society.
According to Jim A. Kuypers, a second purpose for performing criticism should be to enhance our appreciation and understanding. "[W]e wish to enhance both our own and others' understanding of the rhetorical act; we wish to share our insights with others, and to enhance their appreciation of the rhetorical act. These are not hollow goals, but quality of life issues. By improving understanding and appreciation, the critic can offer new and potentially exciting ways for others to see the world. Through understanding we also produce knowledge about human communication; in theory this should help us to better govern our interactions with others." Criticism is a humanizing activity in that it explores and highlights qualities that make us human.[120]:13
Rhetoric is practiced by social animals in a variety of ways. For example, birds use song, various animals warn members of their species of danger, chimpanzees have the capacity to deceive through communicative keyboard systems, and deer stags compete for the attention of mates. While these might be understood as rhetorical actions (attempts at persuading through meaningful actions and utterances), they can also be seen as rhetorical fundamentals shared by humans and animals.[129] The study of animal rhetoric has been called "biorhetorics".[130]
The self-awareness required to practice rhetoric might be difficult to notice and acknowledge in some animals. However, some animals are capable of acknowledging themselves in a mirror, and therefore, they might be understood to be self-aware and therefore, argue philosophers such as Diane Davis, are able to engage with rhetoric when practicing some form of language.[131]
Anthropocentrism plays a significant role in human-animal relationships, reflecting and perpetuating binaries in which humans assume they are beings that have extraordinary qualities while they regard animals as beings that lack those qualities. This dualism is manifested in other forms as well, such as reason and sense, mind and body, ideal and phenomenal in which the first category of each pair (reason, mind, and ideal) represents and belongs to only humans. By becoming aware of and overcoming these dualistic conceptions including the one between humans and animals, humans will be able to more easily engage with and communicate with animals, with the understanding that animals are capable of reciprocating communication. [132] The relationship between humans and animals (as well as the rest of the natural world) is often defined by the human rhetorical act of naming and categorizing animals through scientific and folk labeling. The act of naming partially defines the rhetorical relationships between humans and animals, though both may engage in rhetoric beyond human naming and categorizing.[133]
Some animals have a sort of phrónēsis which enables them to "learn and receive instruction" with rudimentary understanding of some significant signs. Those animals practice deliberative, judicial, and epideictic rhetoric deploying ethos, logos, and pathos with gesture and preen, sing and growl.[134] Since animals offer models of rhetorical behavior and interaction that are physical, even instinctual, but perhaps no less artful, transcending our accustomed focus on verbal language and consciousness concepts will help people interested in rhetoric and communication to promote human-animal rhetoric.[135]
Comparative rhetoric
Comparative rhetoric is a practice and methodology that developed in the late twentieth century to broaden the study of rhetoric beyond the dominant rhetorical tradition that has been constructed and shaped in western Europe and the U.S.[136][137] As a research practice, comparative rhetoric studies past and present cultures across the globe to reveal diversity in the uses of rhetoric and to uncover rhetorical perspectives, practices, and traditions that have been historically underrepresented or dismissed.[136][138][139] As a methodology, comparative rhetoric constructs a culture's rhetorical perspectives, practices, and traditions on their own terms, in their own contexts, as opposed to using European or American theories, terminology, or framing.[136]
Comparative rhetoric is comparative in that it illuminates how rhetorical traditions relate to one another, while seeking to avoid binary depictions or value judgments.[136] This can reveal issues of power within and between cultures as well as new or under-recognized ways of thinking, doing, and being that challenge or enrich the dominant Euro-American tradition and provide a fuller account of rhetorical studies.[140]
Robert T. Oliver is credited as the first scholar who recognized the need to study non-Western rhetorics in his 1971 publication Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China.[138][141]George A. Kennedy has been credited for the first cross-cultural overview of rhetoric in his 1998 publication Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.[141] Though Oliver's and Kennedy's works contributed to the birth of comparative rhetoric, given the newness of the field, they both used Euro-American terms and theories to interpret non-Euro-American cultures' practices.[141][142]
LuMing Mao, Xing Lu, Mary Garrett, Arabella Lyon, Bo Wang, Hui Wu, and Keith Lloyd have published extensively on comparative rhetoric, helping to shape and define the field.[141] In 2013, LuMing Mao edited a special issue on comparative rhetoric in Rhetoric Society Quarterly,[143] focusing on comparative methodologies in the age of globalization. In 2015, LuMing Mao and Bo Wang coedited a symposium[144] featuring position essays by a group of leading scholars in the field. In their introduction, Mao and Wang emphasize the fluid and cross-cultural nature of rhetoric, "Rhetorical knowledge, like any other knowledge, is heterogeneous, multidimentional, and always in the process of being created."[144]:241 The symposium includes "A Manifesto: The What and How of Comparative Rhetoric", demonstrating the first collective effort to identify and articulate comparative rhetoric's definition, goals, and methodologies.[139] The tenets of this manifesto are engaged within many later works that study or utilize comparative rhetoric.[141]
↑ The word rhetoric comes from the Greekῥητορικόςrhētorikós, "oratorical", from ῥήτωρrhḗtōr, "public speaker".[1] The adjective form, rhetorical, is pronounced /rɪˈtɒrɪkəl/.
↑ The definition of rhetoric is a controversial subject in the field and has given rise to philological battles over its meaning in Ancient Greece.[5]
McCloskey, Donald N. (1983). "The Rhetoric of Economics". Journal of Economic Literature. 21 (2). American Economic Association: 481–517. ISSN0022-0515. JSTOR2724987.
↑ Cleary, John Joseph; Gurtler, Gary M. (2009). Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy: Volume XXIV (2008). Leiden: BRILL. p.236. ISBN978-90-04-17742-0.
↑ Plato. Gorgias. Translated by Jowett, Benjamin. The Classical Library.
Bengtson, Erik (2019). The epistemology of rhetoric: Plato, doxa and post-truth. Uppsala UP.
↑ Zuckert, Catherine H. (2009). Plato's Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.40. ISBN978-0-226-99338-6.
↑ Rapp, Christof (2023), "Aristotle's Rhetoric", in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 21 March 2024
↑ Rapp, Christof (2023), "Aristotle's Rhetoric", in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 14 March 2024
↑ Kennedy, George A. (1991). Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
1 2 Jensen, Kyle (2022). Kenneth Burke’s Weed Garden: Refiguring the Mythic Grounds of Modern Rhetoric. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN9780271092928.
↑ Leff, Michael (1993). "The Habitation of Rhetoric". In Lucaites, John Louis; etal. (eds.). Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. New York: Guilford Press.
↑ Vickers, Brian. "Deconstruction's Designs on Rhetoric". In Horner, Winifred Bryan; Leff, Michael (eds.). Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Its History, Philosophy, and Practice. pp.295–315.
↑ Zappen, James P. (1989). "Francis Bacon and the Historiography of Scientific Rhetoric". Rhetoric Review. 8 (1): 74–88. doi:10.1080/07350198909388879. JSTOR465682.
↑ Ray, Angela G. (2005). The Lyceum and Public Culture in the Nineteenth-Century United States. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. pp.14–15.
1 2 3 Cobos, Casie; Raquel Ríos, Gabriela; Johnson Sackey, Donnie; Sano-Franchini, Jennifer; Haas, Angela M. (3 April 2018). "Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and a Call". Rhetoric Review. 37 (2): 139–154. doi:10.1080/07350198.2018.1424470. ISSN0735-0198. S2CID150341115.
↑ Lundberg, Keith (2008). The Essential Guide to Rhetoric (1sted.). Bedford/St. Martin's. pp.5–8. ISBN978-0-312-47239-9.
1 2 Miller, Susan; Cherwitz, Richard A.; Hikins, James (May 1987). "Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology". College Composition and Communication. 38 (2): 216. doi:10.2307/357725. ISSN0010-096X. JSTOR357725.
↑ Railsback, Celeste Condit (November 1983). "Beyond rhetorical relativism: A structural-material model of truth and objective reality". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 69 (4): 351–363. doi:10.1080/00335638309383662. ISSN0033-5630.
↑ McKerrow, Ray E. (31 December 1992), "Chapter 16. Rhetorical Validity: an Analysis of three Perspectives on the Justification of Rhetorical Argument", Readings in Argumentation, DE GRUYTER, pp.297–312, doi:10.1515/9783110885651.297, ISBN978-3-11-013576-3
↑ Alston, William P. (1989). Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp.153–171.
↑ Goldman, Alan H. (1988). Empirical Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp.22–23.
↑ Waddington, Raymond B.; Sloane, Thomas O. (1999). "On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric". Comparative Literature. 51 (4): 346. doi:10.2307/1771268. ISSN0010-4124. JSTOR1771268.
1 2 3 4 5 Binkley, Roberta (2004). "The Rhetoric of Origins and the Other: Reading the Ancient Figure of Enheduanna". In Lipson, Carol S.; Binkley, Roberta A. (eds.). Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks. State University of New York Press. pp.47–64. ISBN978-0-7914-6099-3.
↑ Binkley, R. (2004). "Suggestions for Teaching Ancient Rhetorics: Mesopotamia – Problems of Origins and Reading Enheduanna". In Lipson, C. S.; Binkley, R. A. (eds.). Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks. SUNY Press. pp.227–29.
↑ Stark, R. J. (2008). "Some Aspects of Christian Mystical Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Poetry". Philosophy and Rhetoric. 41 (3): 260–77. doi:10.2307/25655316. JSTOR25655316.
↑ Hoskisson, Paul Y.; Boswell, Grant M. (2004). "Neo-Assyrian Rhetoric: The Example of the Third Campaign of Sennacherib (704–681 BC)". In Carol S. Lipson; Roberta A. Binkley (eds.). Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks. State University of New York Press. pp.65–78. ISBN978-0-7914-6099-3.
Glenn, Cheryl; Ratcliffe, Krista (5 January 2011). Silence and Listening as Rhetorical Arts. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN978-0-8093-3017-1.
↑ Xu, George Q. (2004). "The Use of Eloquence: The Confucian Perspective". In Lipson, Carol S.; Binkley, Roberta A. (eds.). Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks. State University of New York Press. pp.115–30. ISBN978-0-7914-6099-3.
↑ Metzger, David (2004). "Pentateuchal Rhetoric and the Voice of the Aaronides". In Lipson, Carol S.; Binkley, Roberta A. (eds.). Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks. State University of New York Press. pp.165–82. ISBN978-0-7914-6099-3.
↑ Kennedy, G.A. (1994). A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton University Press. p.3.
↑ Taylor, C.C.W.; Lee, Mi-Kyoung (2020), "The Sophists", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 27 October 2024
Isocrates (1929) [c.353BCE]. "Antidosis". Isocrates with an English Translation. Vol.II. Translated by Norlin, George. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. pp.181–365.
↑ Augustine of Hippo. De doctrina Christiana. IV.2. Cum ergo sit in medio posita facultas eloquii, quae ad persuadenda seu prava seu recta valet plurimum, cur non bonorum studio comparatur, ut militet veritati, si eam mali ad obtinendas perversas vanasque causas in usus iniquitatis et erroris usurpant?
↑ Jerome of Stridon (1893) [384]. "To Eustochium, on the preservation of Virginity". In Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.). Letters of St. Jerome. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Vol.VI. Translated by Fremantle, W.H.; Lewis, G.; Martley, W.G. Buffalo, N.Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co. §29.
↑ Bizzell, Patricia; Herzberg, Bruce (2001). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nded.). Boston: Bedford / St. Martins. p.486.
↑ McLuhan, Marshall (2009) [1943]. The Classical Trivium: The Place of Thomas Nashe in the Learning of His Time. Gingko Press. ISBN978-1-58423-235-3.
↑ Ong, Walter J. (1999). "Humanism". Faith and Contexts. Vol.4. Scholars Press. pp.69–91.
↑ Baldwin, T.W. (1944). William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke. University of Illinois Press. (2 vols.)
↑ Ives Carpenter, Frederic (1898). "Leonard Cox and the First English Rhetoric". Modern Language Notes. 13 (5): 146–47. doi:10.2307/2917751. JSTOR2917751.
↑ Ong, Walter J. (2004) [1958]. Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason. University of Chicago Press.
↑ See Fumaroli, Marc (1980), Age de l'Éloquence. For an extensive presentation of the intricate political and religious debates concerning rhetoric in France and Italy at the time.
Ong, Walter J. (1958). Ramus and Talon Inventory. Harvard University Press.
Freedman, Joseph S. (1999). Philosophy and the Art Europe, 1500–1700: Teaching and Texts at Schools and Universities. Ashgate.
↑ Milton, John (1935) [1672]. Artis Logicae Plenior Institutio: Ad Petri Rami Methodum Concinnata. The Works of John Milton. Vol.XI. Translated by Gilbert, Allan H. New York.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
↑ Pavur, Claude Nicholas, ed. (2005). The Ratio studiorum: The Official Plan for Jesuit Education. St. Louis, Mo.: Institute of Jesuit Sources. ISBN978-1-880810-59-0. OCLC58476251.
↑ Sprat, Thomas (1667). The History of the Royal Society of London, for the Improving of Natural Knowledge. T.R. for J. Martyn at the Bell. pp.112–13.
↑ Dryden, John (1797) [1681]. "Dedication". The Spanish Fryar. Bell's British Theatre. Vol.II. London: George Cawthorn. p.vii.
↑ Herrick, James A. (2013). The History and Theory of Rhetoric (fifthed.). Pearson. pp.183–84.
↑ Birch, D.; Hooper, K., eds. (2012). "Edgeworth, Maria". The Concise Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford University Press. pp.215–16.
↑ Donawerth, Jane (2000). "Poaching on Men's Philosophies of Rhetoric: Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Rhetorical Theory by Women". Philosophy & Rhetoric. 33 (3): 243–258. doi:10.1353/par.2000.0017. S2CID170719233.
Cohen, H. (1994). The history of speech communication: The emergence of a discipline, 1914–1945. Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association.
Gehrke, P.J. (2009). The ethics and politics of speech: Communication and rhetoric in the twentieth century. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
↑ Kuypers, Jim A.; King, Andrew (2001). Twentieth-Century Roots of Rhetorical Studies. Westpost, Conn.: Praeger.
↑ Stern, Barbara B. (1990). "Pleasure and Persuasion in Advertising: Rhetorical Irony as a Humor Technique". Current Issues and Research in Advertising. 12 (1–2): 25–42. doi:10.1080/01633392.1990.10504942 (inactive 1 November 2024). ISSN0163-3392.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
↑ Dubois, J.; Edeline, F.; Klinkenberg, J.-M.; Minguet, P.; Pire, F.; Trinon, H. (1981) [1970]. A General Rhetoric. Translated by Burrell, Paul B.; Slotkin, Edgar M. Johns Hopkins University Press.
1 2 3 4 5 Kuypers, Jim A. (2009). "Rhetorical Criticism as Art". In Kuypers, Jim A. (ed.). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. ISBN978-0-7391-2774-2.
↑ Foss, Sonja (1989). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc.
↑ Grey, Stephanie Houston (2009). "Conceptually-Oriented Criticism". In Kuypers, Jim A. (ed.). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.
↑ Leff, Michael (2001). "Lincoln at Cooper Union: Neo-Classical Criticism Revisited". Western Journal of Communication. 65 (3): 232–48. doi:10.1080/10570310109374704. S2CID157684635.
↑ Davis, Diane (2011). "Creaturely Rhetorics". Philosophy and Rhetoric. 44 (1): 88–94. doi:10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0088. JSTOR10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0088. [Mirror self-recognition] has long been used to test self-awareness in human children: researchers place a mark on the child's face, and if the child spontaneously uses the mirror to touch this otherwise imperceptible mark, she is considered self-aware. But these nonhuman creatures passed the test, too—as if such scientific evidence were necessary to confirm that certain animals represent themselves to themselves and others. . . . Any creature capable of even minimal self-reference is already in language, already responding; that is to say, it is both defined by its irreducible rhetoricity and, more importantly for our purposes, already practicing rhetoric .
↑ Segeerdahl, Pär (2015). "The rhetoric and prose of the human/animal contrast". Language & Communication. 42: 36–49. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2015.03.001.
↑ Melzow, Candice Chovanec (Spring 2012). "Identification, Naming, and Rhetoric in The Sky, the Stars, the Wilderness and The Maine Woods". Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment. 19 (2): 356–74. doi:10.1093/isle/iss084.
↑ Kennedy, George (1992). "A Hoot in the Dark The evolution of general rhetoric". Philosophy & Rhetoric. 25 (1): 1–21. JSTOR40238276.
1 2 3 4 5 Lloyd, Keith (2021). The Routledge handbook of comparative world rhetorics: studies in the history, application, and teaching of rhetoric beyond traditional Greco-Roman contexts. New York: Routledge. ISBN978-1-000-06623-4. OCLC1162596431.
↑ Madotto, Marie (August 2020). "Language Models as Few-Shot Learner for Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems". arXiv:2008.06239 [cs.CL].
Sources
Primary sources
The locus classicus for Greek and Latin primary texts on rhetoric is the Loeb Classical Library of the Harvard University Press, published with an English translation on the facing page.
de Rommilly, Jacqueline (1992) [1988]. The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Duffy, Bernard K.; Jacobi, Martin (1993). The Politics of Rhetoric: Richard Weaver and the Conservative Tradition. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ISBN0-313-25713-2.
van Bühren, Ralf (1998). Die Werke der Barmherzigkeit in der Kunst des 12.–18. Jahrhunderts. Zum Wandel eines Bildmotivs vor dem Hintergrund neuzeitlicher Rhetorikrezeption. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte. Vol.115. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Verlag Georg Olms. ISBN3-487-10319-2..
Further reading
Andresen, Volker (2010). Speak Well in Public: 10 Steps to Succeed. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN978-1-4563-1026-4.
Connors, Robert; Ede, Lisa S.; Lunsford, Andrea, eds. (1984). Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Festschrift in Honor of Edward P. J. Corbett. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.
Duffy, Bernard K.; Leeman, Richard, eds. (2005). American Voices: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Orators. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. ISBN0-313-32790-4.
Farnsworth, Ward (2010). Farnsworth's Classical English Rhetoric. David R. Godine. ISBN978-1-56792-552-4.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.