Foss defines rhetoric as “the human use of symbols to communicate,” not the “flowery ornamental speech” or ill substantive language it is often considered to be. (8) Upon reading the common misconceptions about the true meaning of rhetoric, I reached my first point of contention. I do not necessarily agree with the idea that “flowery ornamental speech” is in antithesis to the definition of rhetoric. It is my understanding that rhetoric relies upon the use of symbols to convey and expound upon meaning. Symbols in this regard can be people, places, words and ideas that elucidate some concept not directly related to its source. In a sense, symbols are akin to connective tissues, they provide a means for a higher level of functioning. Without symbolic understanding, all that remains is the bare skeleton, the cup without the actual word “cup” to reference it.** Upon reading this article, it brought to mind a thought I had when I was younger. I recall saying the word “king” and thinking that it sounded very odd. I said the word over and over again and began trying to create a direct connection between the word itself and the image of its actual meaning. I was unable to create any sort of direct relationship between the word “king” and the stereotypical image of a regal looking man sitting at his throne. This left me quite perplexed. It then occurred to me that someone created the word “king” to describe the real world representation of such a man, which means that words themselves are symbols. If the very tools we use to communicate are symbols of matter, phenomenon, ideas etc. in reality, and “symbols are the medium for rhetoric (Foss 8), then how can any use of language not be considered rhetoric- flowery ornamental language included?
Definition #1: using language effectively to please or persuade
Definition #2: grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation
**Is my usage of the cup example considered plagiarism? Is a citation necessary?
Davis, this is outstanding! An ideal post. I really enjoy your final question that summarizes your main point--"if the very tools we use to communicate are symbols of matter, phenomenon, ideas etc. in reality, and “symbols are the medium for rhetoric (Foss 8), then how can any use of language not be considered rhetoric- flowery ornamental language included?"
ReplyDeleteAnd I for me and what I think you are getting at is that any use of language is rhetoric. Now I gotta ask when you refer to language do you include non-verbal communication?