29
S522 Lecture 5 February 24 Rhetoric: decoding argumentation

S522 Lecture 5 February 24

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

S522 Lecture 5 February 24. Rhetoric: decoding argumentation. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

S522 Lecture 5February 24

Rhetoric: decoding argumentation

Page 2: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 3: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 4: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

If…anyone had said that there was a kind of thread…which far surpassed the thread of linen or of wool in fineness and at the same time in

strength, and also in beauty and softness, men would have begun immediately to think of some

silky kind of vegetable, or of the finer hair o some animal, or of the feathers and down of

birds; but a web woven by a tiny worm, and that in such abundance, and renewing itself yearly, they would assuredly never have thought. Nay, if anyone had said anything about a worm, he

would no doubt have been laughed at as dreaming of a new kind of cobweb.

Francis Bacon

Page 5: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

[If a man had said] there was a new invention by means of which the strongest towers and walls could be shaken and thrown down at a great distance, men would doubtless have

begun to think over all the ways of multiplying the force of catapults and mechanical engines by weights and wheels and such machinery for ramming and projecting; but the notion of a fiery

blast suddenly and violently expanding and exploding would hardly have entered into any man’s imagination or fancy, being a thing to

which nothing immediately analogous had been seen, except perhaps in an earthquake or in

lightningFrancis Bacon

Page 6: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

If…anyone had said that a certain instrument had been invented by means of which the

quarters and points of the heavens could be taken and distinguished with exactness, men

would have been carried by their imagination to a variety of conjectures concerning the more

exquisite construction of astronomical instruments; but that anything could be

discovered agreeing so well in its movements with the heavenly bodies and yet…simply a

substance of metal or stone, would have been judged altogether incredible.

Francis Bacon

Page 7: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 8: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors add or enlarge meaning through transfer

Page 9: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors make ideas possible

Page 10: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors make innovation possible

Page 11: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors make innovation comprehensible

Page 12: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors set the terms of reference for what is

comprehensible or salient.

Page 13: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors are embedded in cultural context

Page 14: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Metaphors change the cultural context

Page 15: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

“Metaphors can kill”

Lakoff

Page 16: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 17: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 18: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 19: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 20: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Michael BilligArguing and Thinking

1987/1995Cambridge University Press

Page 21: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Plato

Protagoras

Page 22: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

The word in language is half someone else’s. It becomes ‘one’s own’ only when the speaker appropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic expressive intention. Prior to this..the word does not exist in a neutral or impersonal language…rather it exists in other people’s mouths, serving other people’s intentions: it is from there that one must take the word and make it one’s own.Bakhtin, 1981 [1935]

Page 23: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

. “Every utterance must be regarded as primarily a response to preceding utterances of the given sphere (we understand the word ‘response’ here in the broadest sense). Each utterance refutes, affirms, supplements and relies upon the others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into account.”

Bakhtin 1986

Page 24: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Logos

Anti-logos

Page 25: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

Argumentation:

Statements imply another position which they are countering. One can only

understand the meaning and intention of a statement if you understand what it is

arguing against.

Page 26: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

What is seen as problematic

has to be explained and justified

What is taken for granted

is not explained, or if it is, it is in terms of ‘natural’, ‘inevitable’, functional’

and is used as a logical underpinning for other explanations

Page 27: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

• Who is the audience? How do you know?• What is being argued against? What is the

logos for which this is an anti-logos• What is taken for granted• What is seen as problematic• What is assumed about what the audience

knows (shared metaphors, facts)• What is assumed about what the audience

believes and values• What is assumed about what/whom the

audience will perceive as an authority

Page 28: S522  Lecture 5 February 24
Page 29: S522  Lecture 5 February 24

• Open loop: closed solution

• Closed loop: open solution