As we moved into the Renaissance period of rhetoric, I definitely saw the shift from sweeping one-sided speeches into consideration for the audience, or audiences. I admit, I chuckled a little reading Erasmus' "Copia" (especially the section on "Indecent Words") because he went into such great detail. But I also had to admit that his methods have a rhyme and reason. Each word choice corresponds to the audience, written or spoken. When he goes into the methods, some of them may seem inane or self-explanatory, but how many of us read, or hear, rhetoric that makes us want to put a fork in our eyes? The same words and word usage repeated in the same text, or large, grandiose phrases when short and sweet would suffice. I paid particular attention to Method 9, "amplification." Broken down into two types, augmentation/comparison and inference, these are methods I've heard used in every-day rhetoric and considered exaggeration for effect. But after reading, and re-reading, about these devices, they have become more than mere ways to expand on the topic at hand. For instance, as I listen to state and local election campaign ads on the radio, Candidate A may state that Candidate B voted against a tax that would increase funds for education, therefore inferring that Candidate B is against education. I would argue that this type of truth-stretching is why Toulmin came up with his system of logic - the warrant must connect the data. Or, rather, the inference (claim?) must have a substantive argument (warrant) that backs up the political ad (data). I'm not suggesting this is the primary reason, but I believe if someone subjected political ads to Toulmin's logic, there would be some serious rhetorical failures.
What I also noticed from the lengthy introduction into the Renaissance rhetoric is how humanism encouraged rhetors to be more concerned with the effect of their speeches and texts. A little like the ancient scholars they studied (Cicero seemed to be a favorite), it wasn't enough to be an excellent rhetor; now a man needed to use words to be a responsible, moral citizen. I think humanism stressed this more than the ancients, but the Renaissance saw more than just nobles or elected officials getting involved in public affairs. Even women are encouraged and invited to study and learn, BUT only as long as their pursuits remained inactive, or merely a hobby, until marriage or orders. Baby steps, I guess.
Lancia,
ReplyDeleteGreat response! I too believe that audience is an incredibly important part of our rhetoric and I enjoyed the shift that we're seeing in the Renaissance rhetors. It seems like such an obvious thing to emphasize; however, I suppose it wasn't at that time. I also love your emphasis on emphasis! I think that is an important thing to note because it can be used for good, but it can also be used to create logical fallacies. It is easy for, let's say, politicians to emphasize keywords that may resonate with their intended audiences while not necessarily backing up claims with actual evidence. This stuff is really important especially now, right around the time of the elections.