Rhetorical Perspective

[zmaalej]

To Peter Cramer,

You certainly know that when pragmatics was an infant discipline many voices
shouted that it was a new/modern rhetoric.

I  understand the rhetorical perspective as a parallel competence to the
linguistic competence. I can sum up the distinction or complementarity
between the two competencies by invoking second language learners. Many of
them may control the linguistic system in terms of its lexis and grammar,
but may still fail to meet the needs of communication. Two years ago, I
accompanied our students to London for a two-month stay. Some of what I was
told about our students' performance includes statements like: But some of
your students speak like books. Of course, I didn't take this as a
compliment. I take it to be a sign of the failure of the educational system
to inculcate the principles of English rhetoric, which are too theoretical
for them to retain, apply, correct, etc. in the absence of exposure to
English in their linguistic environment. In this sense rhetoric will be more
like appropriateness in language use.

Zouhair
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Cramer <pcramer+ at ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
To: DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu <DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu>
Date: 01 ÝíÝÑííå, 1999 18:19
Subject: Re: Rhetorical Perspective


>Hello
>
>Thanks for the responses.
>
>hmm.  For me, this question of a distinct rhetorical perspective is a
>difficult one.  Is it an effort to explain poetics with an emphasis on
>tropes and figures?  Is it a kind of alternative and parallel tradition
>to philosophy, as C. Perelman suggests?  Is it related to "applied
>linguistics" or "pragmatics" with an emphasis on using discourse to
>accomplish some aim?
>
>
>Excerpts from mail: 29-Jan-99 Re: Rhetorical Perspective by Zouhair
>Maalej at GNET.TN
>> Hi all,
>> Although I do not pretend to be a specialist of rhetoric, it seems to me
>> that I have read about major distinctions between linguistics and
>> rhetoric. I can suggest Leech's _Principles of Pragmatics_ (1983), which
>> discusses pragmatics as a new/modern rhetoric, and proposes a
>> distinction along these lines between semantics and pragmatics. I can
>> also think of Orecchioni's _L'Implicite_ (in French), where she proposes
>> for communication, among other things, a linguistic competence and a
>> rhetorical competence.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Zouhair
>> James Cornish wrote:
>> >
>> > Peter Cramer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello
>> > >
>> > > I'm Peter Cramer, a doctoral student in rhetoric at Carnegie Mellon.
>> > >
>> > > I'm interested the following questions:  Is there a distinct
>> > > "rhetorical" perspective?  If so, how can we characterize it, and
what
>> > > is its relation with perspectives from other fields such as
linguistics?
>> >
>> > I think I would differ from Michelle's comment that there isn't a
>> > distinct "rhetorical perspective" in that all this is a matter of
>> > focus.  Coming from the "discourse of historical rhetoric,"
distinctions
>> > are made to delimit and categorize concepts and processes so that
others
>> > can understand them.  If rhetoric is finding the means of persuasion,
>> > then linguistics is find the means of language.  I think it could be
>> > argued that there IS a difference but only in discursive focus.
>> > --
>> > James Warren Cornish -  Texas A&M University
>> > English Department/ Discourse Studies
>> > 213B Blocker Bldg. M/S 4227
>> > College Station
>> > TX  77840-4337
>> > 409-845-3542 ex. 40
>