Auto-SummaryRhetoric is the study of persuasive writing, involving various linguistic techniques to influence beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Euphemisms and dysphemisms are used to convey positive or negative associations, respectively. Rhetorical analogies, such as metaphors and similes, convey feelings about things. Real and rhetorical definitions differ in their use of language to clarify or express attitudes. Rhetorical explanations, stereotypes, and innuendos are used to slant explanations and create negative impressions. Loaded questions contain unwarranted assumptions, while weaseling techniques weaken claims and protect authors. Downplayers diminish the importance of claims, while the "horse laugh" and hyperbole use ridicule and overstatement, respectively. Proof surrogates suggest evidence or authority without providing it.
I thought that this information might be useful for people who frequent this forum (all of this is from my old Critical Thinking textbook):
- Rhetoric refers to the study of persuasive writing. As we use the term, it denotes a broad category of linguistic techniques people use when their primary objective is to influence beliefs and attitudes and behavior.
- Euphemism--a neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associations.
People fighting against a government of a country can be referred to neutrally as "rebels" or "guerrillas," but a person who wants to build support for them may refer to them by the euphemism "freedom fighters."
- Dysphemisms are used to produce a negative effect on a listener's or reader's attitude toward something or to tone down the positive associations it may have.
Whereas "freedom fighter" is a euphemism for "guerrilla" or "rebel", "terrorist" is a dysphemism.
- Likening one thing to another thing in order to convey a negative--or positive--feeling about it is a rhetorical analogy. Rhetorical analogies include both metaphors and similes.
"Hillary's eyes are somewhat bulgy, like a Chihuahua's" is a simile; "Dick Cheyney has steel in his backbone" is a metaphor.
- "Real" definitions are primarily used to clarify meaning; rhetorical definitions use emotively charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something.
Defining abortion as "the murder of an unborn child" does this--and stacks the deck against those who think abortion is morally defensible. Likewise, "human being" could be restricted in its meaning to an organism that a human gives birth to. Under this definition, abortion could not be classified as homicide.
- Rhetorical explanations are the same kind of slanting device, this time clothed as explanations.
"He lost the fight because he's lost his nerve." Is this different from saying that he lost because he was too cautious? Maybe, but maybe not. What isn't in doubt is that the explanation is certainly more unflattering when it's put the former way.
- A stereotype is a thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence.
Thinking that women are emotional, that men are insensitive, that lesbians are man haters, that southerners are bigoted, that gay men are effeminate--all count as stereotypes.
- Innuendo- an insinuation of something deprecatory.
Consider this statement:
Ladies and gentlemen, I am proof that there is at least one candidate in this race who does not have a drinking problem.
Notice that this remark does not say that any opponent of the speaker does have a drinking problem. In fact, the speaker is even allowing for the fact that other candidates may have no such problem by using the words "at least one candidate." But he has still managed to get the idea across that some opponent in the race may have a drinking problem.
- Loaded question- a question that rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions.
The world's oldest example, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" rests on the assumption that the person asked has in the past beaten his wife.
- Weaselers are linguistic methods of hedging a bet. When inserted into a claim, they help protect it from criticism by watering it down somewhat, weakening it, and giving the claim's author a way out in case the claim is challenged.
There used to be an advertisement for a brand of sugarless gum that claimed, "Three out of four dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum." This claim contains two weaseling expressions. The first is the word "surveyed." Notice that the ad does not tell us the criteria for choosing the dentists who were surveyed. Were they picked at random, or were only dentists who might not be unfavorably disposed toward gum chewing surveyed? Nothing indicates that the sample of dentists surveyed even remotely represents the general population of dentists. If 99 percent of the dentists in the country disagree with the ad's claim, its authors could still say truthfully that they spoke only about those dentists surveyed, not all dentists.
The second weaseler in the advertisement appears in the last phrase of the claim: "for their patients who chew gum." Notice the ad does not claim that any dentist believes sugarless-gum chewing is as good for a patient's teeth as no gum chewing at all. Imagine that the actual question posed to the dentists was something like this: "If a patient of yours insisted on chewing gum, would you prefer that he or she chew sugarless gum or gum with sugar in it?" If dentists had to answer that question, they would almost certainly be in favor of sugarless gum. But this is a far cry from recommending that any person chew any kind of gum at all. The weaselers allow the advertisement to get away with what sounds like an unqualified recommendation for sugarless gum, when in fact nothing in the ad supports such a recommendation.
- Downplayer- an expression used to play down or diminish the importance of a claim.
"Don't mind what Mr. Pierce says in class; he's a liberal."
The term "so-called" is another standard downplayer. We might say, for example, that the woman who made the diagnosis is a "so-called doctor," which downplays her credentials as a physician.
- The kind of rhetorical device we call the horse laugh includes the use of ridicule of all kinds.
Ridicule is a powerful tool--most of us really hate being laughed at. One may simply laugh outright at a claim ("Send aid to Russia? Har, har, har!"), laugh at another claim that reminds us of the first (Support the Equal Rights Amendment? Ho, ho, ho!"), tell an unrelated joke, use sarcastic language, or simply laugh at the person who is trying to make the point.
- Hyperbole is extravagant overstatement.
To describe a hangnail as a serious injury is hyperbole; so is using the word "fascist" to describe parents who insist that their teenager be home at night. Not all strong or colorful language is hyperbole, of course. "Oscar Peterson is an unbelievably inventive pianist" is a strong claim, but it is not hyperbolic--it isn't really extravagant. However, "Oscar Peterson is the most inventive musician who ever lived" goes beyond emphasis and crosses over the line into hyperbole. (How could one know that Oscar Peterson is more inventive than, say, Mozart?)
- An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority is a proof surrogate.
Sometimes we can't prove the claim we're asserting, but we can hint that there is proof available, or at least evidence or authority for the claim, without committing ourselves to what that proof, evidence, or authority is. Using "informed sources say" is a favorite way of making a claim more authoritative. Who are the sources? How do we know they're informed? How does the person making the claim know they're informed? "It's obvious that" sometimes precedes a claim that isn't obvious at all. But we may keep our objections to ourselves in the belief that it's obvious to everybody but us, and we don't want to appear more dense than the next guy.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan   fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/18/10 03:51 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Bulk Substrate
Poid 
andrewss 
Edit 
Reply 
:-)
1 2 all )
bit_slice
Nunbuh_Chrubble
OrgoneConclusion
deCypher
Rhizoid
kadakuda
sudly