THE ENTHYMEME

in Contemporary Advertising

an

ARH Production

Produced, Written & Directed by

Alec R. Hosterman

A long time ago,

in a galaxy far, far away…

(oops, wrong introduction - sorry about that)

Once upon a time…

(dang it, I did it again - just a second)

In the beginning…(okay, this should work)

Welcome. I’m Aristotle. I’ll be your host as we explore the world of the Enthymeme. I have a bit of experience in this arena, with

rhetoric and science in particular.

I wrote a few books in my day. You may recall Dr. Rice, Alec or Barbara mentioning

them:

On Rhetoric (it spent 18 weeks on the Athens Times bestseller list)

The PoeticsMetaphysics

There are a few others, but I won’t bore you with those titles. You get the idea.

Instead, I’d like to talk about Enthymemes.

Enthymemes are rhetorical syllogisms (we’ll talk about these soon), but honestly, I’m rather vague with a concrete definition.

However, Ann Gill provides a good one for us: “arguments in syllogistic form that use implied premises held by the audience.” Thanks Ann!

Enthymemes are also called “truncated syllogisms” since they’re shortened. One or more premise is “held in the mind.”

I explain them like this: “the conclusion should not be drawn from far back, nor is it necessary to include everything…the latter tiresome because of stating what is obvious.”

Here are a few examples…

“But Brutus says he was ambitious;And Brutus is an honourable man.” – Mark Antony from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

- missing link: honourable men are ambitious

“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” - attorney Johnny Cochran in the O.J. Simpson trial

- missing link: If the glove doesn’t fit the defendant, you must acquit him

To understand Enthymemes, let’s first examine the Syllogism.

(“Armed with her Sword of Syllogism, Bow of Questions, and Sonorous Voice which broadcasts her well-formed premises to all who may be in hearing range, Logic leaves the conundrums of Parmenides behind…She follows her trusty dogs, Truth and Falsehood, as they give chase to the Problem at hand, and thus avoids getting lost in the tangled Woods of Opinion.” - from B. Becker’s History of Science website)

I claim that a Syllogism “is wholly from propositions.” Again, Ann provides a good

synopsis for our talk: “the conclusion is derived directly from information already

present in the premises.” (hopefully she won’t ask for royalties)

I use a relatively famous historical figure to illustrate how they work.

(used with permission from the Socratic Talent Agency)

Here’s the basic layout of a Syllogism

First, there’s a Major Premise:

e.g., “All men are mortal.”

Next, there’s a Minor Premise:

e.g., “Socrates is a man.”

Finally, a logical Conclusion (from premises):

e.g., “Socrates is mortal.”

What we just saw is called a Categorical Syllogism because we logically deduced

a conclusion based on a comparison of characteristics (or categories): Men and

Socrates.

Other types of Syllogisms include:

a. Hypotheticalb. Disjunctivec. Conditional

Let’s try another Syllogism, shall we?

Major Premise: Bad children get spankings.

Minor Premise: You’ve been bad.

Conclusion: You’re going to get a spanking.

To make this an Enthymeme, one of the premises is eliminated (“held in the mind”).

In this case, children know what will happen to them if they’re bad.

Bad children get spankings.

You’ve been bad.

You’re going to get a spanking.

And now, the final product: “You’ve been bad, so you’re going to get a spanking.”

Some Enthymemes are simple, while others are rather complex.

Sometimes the Major Premise is eliminated, while other times it’s the Minor Premise.

Likewise, and somewhat debated, the Conclusion is “held in the mind.”

But wait! There’s more…

To make things interesting, I also describe

two types of Enthymemes:

Demonstrative: proving an affirmative or negative proposition

Refutative: disproving an affirmative or negative proposition

Demonstrative Enthymemes combine compatible propositions in order to prove something.

This type of enthymeme makes assumptions and draws conclusions. The conclusions, then, “demonstrate” the logic.

Refutative Enthymemes join incompatible (opposite) propositions in order to disprove something or show a contradiction.

This structure positions two opposing arguments side-by-side so audiences can see the apparent incompatibilities.

The refutative enthymeme draws conclusions not from what is assumed, but what is shown.

Enthymemes are based on 4 kinds of Fact:

1. Probabilitieswhat is, or supposed to be, usually true

2. Examplesinduction provides similar cases, state proposition, and argue deductively to a particular inference

3. Infallible Signsargue from inevitable and invariable

4. Ordinary Signsargue from some or particular universal proposition, true or false

Enthymemes work because the rhetor and audience share something in common. Usually this is knowledge. This knowledge can be found in:

universal principles (Newtonian physics)

common values (illegal acts)

niche specific (html coding), or common sense (“fire is hot, don’t touch”)

Enthymemes are communal entities, created by the society in which they are spoken, written, or shown.

Like language, they work only when the community knows and understands what is left unstated (“held in the mind”).

In this same vein, Enthymemes can fail if the receivers do not make the connection.

The more you work with Enthymemes, the more they become obvious and clear.

And addictive.

And annoying.(at least to those who hear you mumble “okay, that’s the minor premise

and there’s the conclusion, so the major premise must be…”)

Wow. We’ve covered a lot thus far.

Let’s do a quick review:

1. I’m dead. (nothing new there)

2. Syllogisms contain a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion, the most common type being categorical.

3. Enthymemes are “truncated syllogisms” since one premise is “held in the mind” of

the audience.

And…

4. There are two types of Enthymemes: demonstrative and refutative.

5. Enthymemes are based on four types of facts: probabilities, examples, infallible

signs, and ordinary signs.

6. Enthymemes function in communities of rhetors that share similar knowledge.

Having fun yet?

I am.(can’t you tell from my smile??)

In my time, Enthymemes were mainly used in the rhetoric (spoken word) of the day. Since this is the 21st century, I thought it might be fun to see if we could identify Enthymemes in that curious thing you call advertising. Let’s begin with some propaganda posters from WW I and WW II.

Premise: “Lend them [the soldiers] a hand.”

Premise: “Buy war bonds.”

Conclusion (unstated): You can do your part and help fight in the war by buying war bonds.

Premise (unstated): Non-unified armies fail.

Premise: Together we [the branches of armed forces] win.

Conclusion: We stand together (represented visually).

Premise (unstated): Wasting fuel supports the enemy.

Premise: “When you ride ALONE you ride with Hitler [which wastes fuel that could be used by American troops battling Hitler].

Conclusion: Joining a Car-Sharing Club conserves fuel and supports the American troops.

Premise: If Germany wins the war, religious freedom will disappear.

Premise: War Bonds help in the war effort.

Conclusion (unstated): Buying war bonds saves religious freedom.

These posters were a good introduction because they primarily relied on pathos:

a. either the fear of something happening based on an action

or

b. the patriotism from doing “one’s part” in the war

Are you beginning to see how the interpretation of visual and verbal symbols is crucial to seeing the logic of the advertisement?

Interpretation is key. Likewise, one may interpret the premises slightly differently and still end up with the same overall conclusion. That’s the power of symbols!

Let’s now look at some current ads…

Premise: Cubist paintings are classic.

Premise: This Cubist image utilizes Reeboks.

Conclusion (unstated): Reeboks are classic shoes.

(or wearing them makes you feel like a classy individual, or that you have class, depending upon interpretation)

Premise: In a crisis, sometimes people “have to take matters into your [their] own hands.”

Premise: Those in a crisis “grab new body-heat activated Degree Gel.”

Conclusion (unstated): Degree Gel keeps you calm in moments of crisis.

Premise (unstated): America needs new leadership.

Premise: “Help is on the way.”

Conclusion: John Kerry will be that help [in the form of new leadership].

Here’s a television commercial that takes advantage of enthymematic reasoning.

Because television commercials are not print discourse, our conception will be slightly more interpretive:

Premise: Jake B. was a victim of identity theft.

Premise: Citibank protects their card holders from identity theft with Citi Identity Theft Solutions.

Conclusion (unstated): Using Citibank credit cards and you won’t be a victim of identity theft, like Jake B.

So we’ve come to the end of our video. What have you learned?

Do you now see how enthymemes are used in venues other than traditional speech,

argumentation and logic?

Do you now understand how they function?

Are you now able to see enthymemes in the most common of places?

If you walk away from this video and remember only one thing, this should be it:

BE A CRITICAL CONSUMER.

Knowing how enthymemes work in advertising allows viewers to better understand the role persuasion plays in politics, advertising, history, speech acts, visual communication, and other common discourse arenas.

I think my work is done here. I’m going to go ponder something now (that’s what we philosophers do).

Go forthwith and become a critical consumer. You have the tools. Don’t be afraid to use them.

Hmmm…was that an enthymeme?

The End.

Cast (In Order of Appearance)Aristotle appeared as himselfAnn Gill appeared as herself

Socrates appeared as himself

Print AdvertisementsDegree Gel

Sen. John KerryReebok

CommercialsCitibank

BMW

Penguin TrainerAlec R. Hosterman

All Other Images Donated byOur friends on Google.com.

Equipment Provided byApple Computers

Microsoft Corporation

And now the…

ReferencesAristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G.

A. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford University.

Gill, A. (1994). Rhetoric and human understanding.

Prospect Heights: Waveland.

The producer / director / writer would like to thank his wife Heather, his mother-in-law Sharron, and Microsoft for their help in catching typos, as well as Dr. Rice for his suggestions and technological expertise.

No animals or Greek statues were harmed in the making of this movie.

Epilogue Due to the success of his treatises and

university, Aristotle hasn’t been seen since filming ended in mid July. He released this statement through his agent: “I must think.” No word on the topic.

Socrates still drank the hemlock.

Advertising is still around.

Aristotle will return.