Rhetorical Perspective

[Georgia Caver]

It seems to me that if we could get at exactly what's meant by
"rhetorically embellished" vs. 'no rhetoric at all," we'd be on to
something.  Does the notion of rhetoric as embellishment trivializes the
discipline?  Does the notion of "no rhetoric at all" or plain speaking
(you know, one of the most lingering complaints against Clinton is that
he's "too careful" with his language...) suggest that "real"
people--honest people, at least--don't "use" rhetoric.  I'd argue that
rhetoric is always "there" and that suggesting that one speaks or writes
with "no rhetoric at all" assumes a purity of thought/language/meaning
that exists outside the sontext of socialized communication.

oh well....have a nice day....

Georgia Caver
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Chaudhary, Mark wrote:

>		Hmmm.....anyone ever analyze a rhetorically embellished
>communiqué and contrast it to another message that attempts to use no
>rhetoric at all but convey precisely the same info/message? Is this
>possible? I'm guessing that conveying the same barebones message is
>possible, but what about all the other subtleties that are lost in the
>conversion. What information do they carry/convey? What's lost?...and does
>it matter? if so, how?.......how does one use rhetoric when instructing
>someone or something to do something....or does one?
>
>		(forgive me if my posts sound a shade naive.)
>		  :-/
>		Mark
>
>		~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>		Mark Chaudhary
>		 <mailto:mark.chaudhary at westgroup.com>
>mark.chaudhary at westgroup.com
>		Phone:(651)687-6189	
>		West Group Computer Research
>		IM: Oosic13      ICQ: 20238557
>		- Octothorpic assassin>- - -------------------
>		~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>				-----Original Message-----
>				From:	Phil Gaines
>[mailto:gaines at ENGLISH.MONTANA.EDU]
>				Sent:	Wednesday, February 03, 1999 9:47 AM
>				To:	DISCOURS at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU
>				Subject:	Re: Rhetorical Perspective
>
>				Yes, I said that the Western model of
>rhetoric is "only one" model, not "the
>				only one".  Glad we got that cleared up.
>Right, so what does Navajo
>				rhetoric look like, I wonder?  And shouldn't
>someone be writing a
>				dissertation on rhetorical universals?
>
>				Phil
>
>				----------
>				>From: David Samuels
><samuels at ANTHRO.UMASS.EDU>
>				>To: DISCOURS at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU
>				>Subject: Re: Rhetorical Perspective
>				>Date: Wed, Feb 3, 1999, 8:39 AM
>				>
>
>				>Maybe I'm misunderstanding Phil Gaines, but
>why would a gloss of "rhetoric"
>				>as "strategies of persuasion" mean that the
>Western model is the only one
>				>out there?  Don't Navajos ever try to
>persuade each other?  (If you
>				>conflate rhetoric and poetic, as many do,
>does that mean that a Western
>				>model of poetics is the only one
>available?)
>