<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Rhetorical Perspective</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
<TT>Burke speaks to this quite nicely, right? If we step back to seeing rhetoric as strategies for persuading/convincing, then naturally the Western model is only one. The public discourse focus in the West continues the ancient tradition of legal, ceremonial, and legislative talk as the sites of rhetorical analysis and training, but certainly rhetorical (as assumed above) principles are at work to one degree or another in the whole range of types of linguistic interaction. I say linguistic because I think that it is in language that the full panoply of rhetoric is exercised. So, although to say that rhetoric is _only_ concerned with language would be too strong, it seems that it is mostly concerned with language.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Phil Gaines<BR>
Assistant Professor of English<BR>
Montana State University<BR>
<BR>
----------<BR>
>From: Peter Cramer <pcramer+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU><BR>
>To: DISCOURS@LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU<BR>
>Subject: Re: Rhetorical Perspective<BR>
>Date: Tue, Feb 2, 1999, 2:31 PM<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
>1) Is rhetoric<BR>
>only concerned with language? 2) Is rhetoric only concerned with public<BR>
>discourse? 3) For a perspective to be considered rhetorical, must it be<BR>
>realized in the classical Western model (handbooks, political and legal<BR>
>applications)?<BR>
<BR>
</TT>
</BODY>
</HTML>