(1983). Metaphor in argumentation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 13, No. 3-4, pp. 201-207.

Research Article| May 01 1983 Aristotelian and Ramist Rhetoric in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan: Pathos versus Ethos and Logos James P. Zappen James P. Zappen College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1983) 1 (1): 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1983.1.1.65 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation James P. Zappen; Aristotelian and Ramist Rhetoric in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan: Pathos versus Ethos and Logos. Rhetorica 1 May 1983; 1 (1): 65–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1983.1.1.65 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1983, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1983 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Chapters on doing research in the library are the backwater of English handbooks and rhetorics. Even a cursory survey of the contents of these chapters reveals a strange combination of intimidating lists of indexes, vague-if hopeful-advice about the uses of the card catalogue, and caveats about choosing books carefully and remembering not to steal them. After reading through seventeen introductions to research in twelve currently marketed handbooks, a recently issued guide to the research paper, two popular textbooks, and two widely used technical writing handbooks, I am led to ask 1) what relation exists between what professional researchers do and what the handbooks recommend and describe? 2) what should be the pedagogical goals of these chapters? and 3) how might research writing be taught more effectively ? Professional researchers start with an hypothesis or an observation, not with a topic; they look for answers, not for an exercise in debate; and when they seek out information, professionals scope. They look for every conceivable way to save time and cut through the literature by finding a few trustworthy guides. First, of course, they turn to the telephone to network, to make contact with people who can recommend either experts or publications that present the most recent information. Second, researchers send letters of inquiry to concerned individuals and organizations, a strategy that recognizes that we live and work by committees, institutes, centers, associations, and lobbies that produce thousands of publications, many of which may never appear in traditional bibliographies. Professionals also use automated bibliographic searching, with all of the methods now available for selecting review articles and limiting the field in other ways. Finally, and most important for the purposes of composition teachers, professionals use selected bibliographic tools to find 1) recent studies, 2) review articles, and 3) recent publications that include annotated bibliographies. Here I would emphasize the word selected. It takes time to use

This study analyzed a sample of recommended children's Revolutionary War novels. The analysis of content found that most books contain a selective interpretation of the Revolution that ignores the complex debate among historians about the subject. Virtually all novels, for example, fail to discuss the dilemma faced by black Ameri- cans during the Revolution. An analysis of the narrative structure of the novels revealed the interdependence between that structure and novel content. Thus, changes in the conception of the Revolution as a historical event were invariably accompanied by changes in novel structure. Despite thjese changes, the overwhelming majority of novels are structured as a rite of passage in which the protagonists are transformed from weak, de- pendent adolescents to stronger, more independent adults. These changes in novel content and structure are discussed in relation to the socioeconomic and historical milieu in the society in which they were produced. One characteristic of the dominant approach to literary study and analysis has been to consider literature in terms of its capacity to generate emo- tional and intellectual responses in its readers. While this approach is cer- tainly important, Kelly (1974) has argued that defining literature solely in terms of its inherent power to compel responses has the effect of reducing the need to examine the complex forces that might otherwise be assumed to shape both the creation and effect of literature. An additional conse- quence of supposing that literary works are independent or autonomous of social and historical forces and processes is, according to Kelly, the belief that the study of literature could be conducted free from political and ideological influences thus permitting the claim that aesthetic judge- ments are largely independent of the critic's cultural context (p. 144). Believing that insufficient consideration of the socioeconomic and his- torical forces discussed by Kelly has limited our understanding of the complexities of literary creation for children, the present researcher ex- amined the evolution of the content and narrative structure of a sample of thirty-two recommended children's novels written about the American Revolution and published between 1899 and 1976. The analysis of con- tent reconstructed the historical conception, or interpretation, of the Rev- olution contained in the novels in order to understand how authors explain the Revolution as an historical event. The analysis of narrative

Preview this article: Teaching Written Argument: The Significance of Toulmin's Layout for Sentence-Combining, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/44/7/collegeenglish13683-1.gif

(1982). Aristotle's concept of ethos, or if not his somebody else's. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 58-63.

Review: Argument texts and audience REASONS AND ARGUMENTS, By Gerald M. Nosich (Belmont. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1982) ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE: PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS, By James Edward Sayer (Sherman Oaks. CA: Alfred Publishing Co., 1980) BETTER REASONING: TECHNIQUES FOR HANDLING ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE, AND ABSTRACTION, By Larry Wright (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston, 1982) INTERPRETATIVE CONVENTIONS: THE READER IN THE STUDY OF AMERICAN FICTION, by Steven Mailloux. Cornell University Press, 1982.

THERE are four forms of writing: exposition, which informs the reader by presenting facts and figures; description, which helps the reader visualize an idea or situation; narration, which tells a chronological story; and persuasion, which tries to convince the reader to accept the writer's perspective. Most writing is predominantly one of these forms. Proposal writing may require all four forms. Perhaps this explains why many proposals are not effective.

FOUR WORLDS OF WRITING, By Janice M. Lauer, Gene Montague, Andrea Lunsford, and Janet Emig (New York: Harper and Row, 1981, xvii + 423 pp.) REINVENTING THE RHETORICAL TRADITION, ed. Aviva Freedman and Ian Pringle (Conway, Arkansas: L & S Books, for the Canadian Council of Teachers of English, 1980, 197 pp.) UNDERSTANDING PERSUASION. By Raymond S. Ross and Mark G. Ross (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall, 1981, xii+228 pp.)

At the beginning of his Rhetoric, Aristotle reviews the state of current thinking and finds it lacking because it has not dealt with rhetoric's essential feature, proof. In the Rhetoric, Aristotle's professed mission is to correct this fault, to found rhetoric as an art through an examination of its essence. This concern for the essence of rhetoric-that which makes it to be what it is and not something else leads me to a familiar passage which I nominate as among the most fundamental in its significance for the way in which we read the Rhetoric. I refer to Aristotle's definition, offered in Book I. He states: Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter . . . But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us. . . 1 The part of this passage which the literature overlooks, for the most part, is Aristotle's indication that his definition refers to rhetoric's unique function. It is function, ergon, which I wish to discuss as holding enormous potential for our understanding of Aristotle's work, for understanding what he considered to be rhetoric' s essence. As you know, Aristotle abandoned Plato's theory of Forms. But in so doing Aristotle did not wish to relinquish the idea that one could get at definitions which would explain the essence of a thing.2 His notion of scientific knowledge turns, in fact, on being able to explain a thing's essence. Essence will be reflected in a true definition. Thus, since essence is so important, Aristotle wishes to make clear what it means and how we would discover it. Essence is not some additional component in a thing separate from material components. Nor can he say it is a material component either. So he rejects the tack of explaining essence in relationship to matter. Instead, he treats essence as the structure of a thing and links it with causality. Usually this linkage is with formal cause, and sometimes with efficient cause. For instance, the reason why some flesh and bone is cat is because it is structured by the form of cat. It is a cat because it is organized in a way that it can perform the function of cat-can realize its end-and so is influenced by its teleological striving for perfection.4 Similarly, a particular hunk of matter is human because it is organized or structured to achieve the end of humans-rational activity. As we are familiar, this is man's end. Why is it man's end? Because this is the function unique to man. Thus it is that Aristotle's discussion of the essence of anything gets tied to the crucial notion of function. And, by implication, the discussion of a thing' s function is simultaneously indicative of its essence.

Preview this article: Can an English Teacher Contribute to the Energy Debate?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/43/6/collegeenglish13778-1.gif

The communication process has three main elements: the sender, the message, and the receiver. The sender's credibility and background relative to the message can affect the receiver. Differences between sender's and receiver's experiences and attitudes are also important in how a message is received. The words that comprise messages and the tones used to express them can vary the meaning and interpretation of messages. People differ in their susceptibility to persuasion. Emotion has an effect in persuasion but more important are the order of presentation and the believability and effectiveness of the sender. Those who know how to listen and pay attention not only stand out as beacons of courtesy but also have an advantage — by understanding what is expected of them — in preparing their messages for others.

The debate as to whether heuristics or prescription provides the best approach to teaching technical writing is still largely unresolved. When heuristics are used as process, as problem-solving devices, and when prescription is used as a product-producing device, a useful synthesis of the two approaches occurs. This article presents such a synthesis of heuristics and prescription; it concludes with a short annotated bibliography on heuristics and prescription which can be used by the technical writing teacher and the technical writer.

PICK UP ANY RECENT PUBLICATION on composition and you will almost surely find some reference to the problem of evaluating writing. Teachers and researchers alike acknowledge that pronouncing judgment on a piece of writing is both important and difficult. Important because teaching students to write, sorting students for placement or admission, and research in composition all depend upon ability to discriminate levels of quality in writing. Difficult because the theoretical basis of evaluation remains unarticulated. In contrast, composition instruction has begun developing a coherent set of assumptions. For example, theorists may disagree on the relative merits of classical, tagmemic, dramatistic, and prewriting forms of invention, but they agree on the principle that invention is part of the writing process. Evaluation of writing proceeds without a similar set of principles. Yet evaluation does proceed. The need for deciding who shall attend which college, designating those competent to graduate from high school, identifying growth in writing, or determining our nation's educational progress have spawned various systems for evaluating writing. Holistic scoring, quantification of syntactic features, analytic scales, and primary trait scoring illustrate the range of existing methodologies for evaluating writing. Rather than evolving from commonly held assumptions about evaluation, each method rests upon its own set of assumptions. Statistical computations of reader responses provide the rationale for holistic scoring and analytical scales; developmental stages of language acquisition account for quantification of syntactic features; a triangular model of discourse underlies primary trait scoring. Each of these systems and the assumptions underlying it represent careful and intelligent thought, and my purpose here is not to denigrate any of them. I cite them simply as illustrations of my point. Driven by the necessity to evaluate writing, theorists have avoided examination of the nature of evaluation itself and have moved directly to devising means (and rationales for these means) for accomplishing this difficult task. In this article I wish to propose a more general theory of evaluation and to suggest how it might be worked out in practical terms. This theory grows out of a philosophical and linguistic debate on the question of meaning. The debate, best summarized by P. F. Strawson's distinction between

Preview this article: The Differences Between Speech and Writing: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/30/3/collegecompositionandcommunication16226-1.gif

Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. Robert J. Fogelin. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1978. Pp. 351. An Introduction to Reasoning. Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, Allan Janik. New York: Macmillan, 1979. Pp. 343. Historical Linguistics. Theodora Bynon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), 1978. Pp. x + 301, 7.95 (paper).

Preview this article: A Heuristic for Persuasion, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/30/2/collegecompositionandcommunication16246-1.gif

IN The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn elaborates the concept of the a comprehensive theoretical model that governs both the view of reality accepted by an intellectual community and the practice of that community's discipline. This concept has increasing interest for English studies because new demands on our composition courses, along with new developments in literary theory, have contributed to a hot debate over the premises of our discipline. Maxine Hairston, for one, has explained in an address to the 1978 convention of the Conference on College Composition and Communication that we should understand this debate as the sort of profound revolution in accepted thinking that accompanies a new paradigm, rather than as an unrelated group of local disagreements over critical tastes and pedagogical methods. Professor Hairston wants to dignify our debate as a debate because she fears, with good reason, that its beginnings in literary theory and composition pedagogy have allowxved too many practitioners in English studies to regard it as tangential to their main business. Therefore, Hairston emphasizes the comprehensive nature of the as Kuhn explains it. Having characterized our situation as a debate, however, Hairston goes on to support her own candidate for our new by an appeal to evidence. But it is Kuhn's most striking point that a determines the identification and interpretation of empirical in a given discipline. Empirical makes sense only when considered in light of a paradigm; therefore, evidence cannot be imported to establish a above debate. Hairston and others (Janet Emig and E. D. Hirsch, for example) have sought, however, to establish a based on such evidence, under the misapprehension that only a so established can raise English studies to the status of a truly rigorous discipline. On the contrary, Kuhn argues that a is established, even in the natural sciences, not because of compelling evidence, but because of a rhetorical process that delimits the shared language of the intellectual community governed by the paradigm. Indeed, he suggests that he has derived his concept of paradigm for the sciences from a study of the theoretical models that govern the humanistic disciplines. In following Kuhn, we should not be misled into a scientistic faith in evidence as compelling. Instead, the special province of our new may be indicated in his analysis of the ways in which any is constituted by language.

Perelman, Chaim. L'Empire rhétorique; rhétorique et argumentation. Collection “Tour Demain,” Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1977. Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts‐Tyteca, L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans, by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. First paperback edition, 1971.

Preview this article: The Ethos of Academic Discourse, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/4/collegecompositionandcommunication16286-1.gif

Preview this article: Teaching Argument: An Introduction to the Toulmin Model, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/3/collegecompositionandcommunication16301-1.gif

Persuasion is the art of being heard effectively. It is important that the manner of communication does not distract attention from the content. The personal communication styles of both participants in a dialog can be analyzed in common terms as a practical approach to an effective communication strategy. The personality characteristics used are intuition, thinking, feeling, and sensation. Discussion of these descriptors creates awareness of negative interactions which can be overcome by conscious style modification.

Preview this article: Teaching Creativity in Argumentation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/39/4/collegeenglish16444-1.gif

LOGICAL THINKING in freshman composition continues to be an essential need, but the increasing emphasis in many composition programs on reading skills and expository writing has led to the sacrifice of essentials in logic. Admittedly, composition teachers, untrained or little acquainted with formal logic or even the informal fallacies, feel ill-equipped to present these effectively; many feel better equipped to teach exposition than the argumentative essay. But few if any will argue about the need for logical thinking. The question is not whether to teach logical thinking and the argumentative essay but rather how these can be taught successfully to students of varying backgrounds and reading ability. My concern in this essay is with some essentials in logic. My experience at an open-enrollment urban university has been that some but not all matters of logic can be taught, and certainly not as fully as the student will be taught them in the Philosophy Department. The complex forms of deductive reasoning are best reserved for the course in formal logic. However, the elements of deductive and inductive logic can be presented simply and effectively to all students, in the context of rhetorical ideas-specifically audience, purpose, modes of persuasion. More than this, certain matters of rhetoric can be introduced effectively through logical thinking, which offers a better way to distinguish main from subordinate ideas than the usual breakdown from main to subordinate topics and headings associated with the familiar sentence outline.

IN THE SUMMER OF 1975, a small group of persons in the Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Michigan began to meet to discuss some tentative approaches to long-range planning. impetus for these meetings came not from a single and isolated matter but rather from a complex of events and experiences, some of them shared by everyone involved in the Department's work (some, indeed, shared by everyone in the profession) and some of them growing out of individual experiences. Falling enrollments in the humanities, new courses and new approaches to teaching within a discipline that at one time seemed comfortably defined as historical and literary (and English), the changing job market for graduates in the humanities: these were some of the factors to which we were all responding. Individually, some members of the group had been responsible for innovative programs that had already shaped changes in a particular way. Tim Davies and Jay Robinson had been deeply committed to the Doctor of Arts in English program at Michigan. Hubert English had served as chairman of both Freshman English course and graduate program. He knew various constituencies and could chart the alterations in their needs and expectations perhaps better than anyone else in the Department. My interest grew out of experience in the University Long-Range Planning Committee and out of a personal conviction that we needed to look ahead for ourselves to see if, in Curt Gowdy's memorable phrase, our future was still ahead of us. If we did not, it seemed altogether possible that others would look for us and make decisions based on criteria that we might find unacceptable. After a good deal of debate about the methods we might use and the purposes any sort of planning might serve, we settled on the creation of a descriptor questionnaire of a type that had been used by Claude Eggertsen of the Education School at Michigan in an attempt to define The Future Environment of the University of Michigan.' Our aims, of course, were far more modest than his. We simply wanted to know how members of the Department of English Language and Literature saw their discipline and their efforts within that discipline,

Preview this article: Critical Thinking, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/38/3/collegeenglish16621-1.gif

What are we former students of the New Critics to think of Catch-22 and all the praise heaped on it, for more than a decade now, by English professors? If sentimentality means what we thought it did (invitation to unexamined response, indulgence of inappropriate emotion) and as bad as we thought it was (an insult to serious readers, an abomination to people in universities) then, if we are still able to read as we were taught to read, Catch-22 thoroughly sentimental and not worth teaching. But apparently most college teachers, like most American intellectuals, do not see the book this way. I have in my office three collections of Catch-22 criticism that have been offered to me, in the last two years, for classroom use. They hardly acknowledge that a reaction like mine, like ours, possible. The editor of one of them, Robert M. Scotto (Joseph Heller's Catch-22: A Critical Edition, New York: Dell, 1973), tells me in his first sentence that Catch-22 is our contemporary classic, and appends eight critical essays that show no sign of disagreement. Frederick Kiley and Walter McDonald, editors of A 'Catch-22' Casebook (New York: Crowell, 1973), declare in their second sentence that they feel, without reservation, that Catch-22 a masterpiece. Of the forty-six entries in their collection only three or four, by my reckoning, could be called seriously unfavorable. This in a genre commonly devoted to dialectic. The third editor, James Nagel (Critical Essays on Catch-22, Encino, Calif.: Dickenson, 1974), advertises controversy in his collection, and says that nearly all the key issues remain unresolved and continue to be vigorously debated, but the controversy we see mainly over what the novel really about, or whether the disjointed time scheme functional or not, or whether Yossarian an epic or an existentialist hero, and so on. Though there some debate over how bad the writing and how stereotyped the characters are, and some discussion of how functional these crudities and stereotypes may be, Nagel's introduction heavy with respect for Heller's art, and only two of the nineteen essays he collects are unfavorable. One of these a one-page review. Through all these collections the student will hear little debate on the kind of question that seems, that once seemed, vital to me, to us-whether the novel will stand up to and reward a hard, critical reading, or whether it will break down, whether it sentimental. Instead he will hear many tributes and claims that link the novel to the questions he finds vital in our time: that Catch-22 a brilliantly comic attack, long before the Vietnam war, on all the stupidity and

The current journal publication system has four immediate participants: researcher-writers, publishers, libraries, and readers. In response to technological developments which facilitate copying, publishers have increased their demands for additional revenue from libraries. The logic of the publishes' arguments threatens the very existence of institutions which purchase items with the intention of providing them to more than one reader. Society at large does have some interest in the spread of scientific principles and technological information, and the current thrust of the publishers broadens the concept of the ownership of ideas, since publishers entitled to a new payment for each reader may have the right to price large segments (e.g. students, docturs caring for the inteligent, etc.) of an interested public out of the market. In addition, increased restriction on the flow of scientific and technical information may have a significant impact on the advance of science and technology itself.

Cybernetics, the “science” relating the modus operandi of computing machines to man, has fostered a number of myths that cloud the way we talk about computers. And even though these cybernetics myths are not always taken seriously by the philosopher, engineer, or computer programmer, a misleading and imprecise vocabulary of computer logorrhea has evolved which threatens to obscure man's ability to use the electronic computing machine as a tool. This paper represents an inquiry into the roots of several cybernetics-related misconceptions and some of the consequent anthropomorphic nonsense and grammatical falacies which permeate our thinking and our language.

For anyone who has witnessed the success of many young men and women who were taught to fail, has watched them lay claim to their talents, meet their commitments and set out with a plan in their minds, the widespread pessimism about whether Open Admissions can work, as they put it, is baffling. Especially baffling is the fact that this pessimism was deep-rooted even before any of the new students had stepped on our campuses. By now, there is a literature of pessimism, a theology-more precisely, a social science-of despair that serves the purposes of those who have already rejected the social policy implicit in Open Admissions. Unfortunately, the debate about Open Admissions has been and is being carried on in the language of those who oppose it: in the alphabet of numbers, the syntax of print-outs, the transformations of graphs and tables, the language, in particular, of a prestigious group of social scientists who perceive through their language truths that even they seem, at times, unwilling to hear, much as scientists of another kind in another

The schism between theory and practice is reflected in English studies. British technological universities have attempted to meet the needs of industry in technical fields. Economic and academic pressures often make this difficult. A degree in modern English studies is planned which attempts to combine traditional academic values and functional needs. A new approach to rhetoric combining linguistic and critical disciplines with practical skills in communication can combine liberal and vocational needs. The course content of the degree and the teaching approach is related to the ethos of a technological university.

THE THEORY OF CHAUCER'S iambic pentameter, and by extension of the English pentameter tradition, proposed in Morris Halle and Samuel J. Keyser's article in College English for December 19661 is not one to be taken lightly. The article is intricately argued, in correct and toughly objective linguistic terms; it asks the right kind of questions about the nature of a meter, and in my opinion gives some very good answers to some of these questions. It is an interesting, a substantial, and even an important article; it demands a very close reading (such as I hope I have given it), and I must confess it commands my admiration. Nevertheless, I have some objections to urge-not so much on the score of inaccuracies in the argument, so far as the argument reaches, but on that of a certain inadequacy to the full idea of the English iambic pentameter. My aim is furthermore to conduct my conversation or debate with Halle and Keyser in such a way as to promote one perhaps paradoxical emphasis of my own concerning what for the moment I allude to, without explanation, as a notoften recognized co-presence or co-operation, in English iambic verse, of two controlling conceptions, both a rule and a norm (the latter of which is the center of the rule but not itself a rule). It will make at least for clarity in the direction of my discourse if I begin by somewhat abruptly challenging an assertion made in the introductory paragraphs of Halle and Keyser's article.

Preview this article: Critical Thinking and the Problem of Plagiarism, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/21/1/collegecompositionandcommunication19224-1.gif

Epideictic rhetoric has been traditionally stigmatized as fl attery or empty show without any practical goal. Where does such attitude towards epideictic come from? To answer this question, we explore the ancient debate about the nature and the function of the epideictic genre. In the second part of this paper, we discuss the recent reappraisal of the epideictic among classical scholars and fi nally focus the attention on a promising fi eld of research: epideictic speeches in honor of women.

This paper sustains that rhetoric can be a fruitful way of practicing philosophy of language. The startingpoint is a suggestion drawn from the work of the Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito. According toEsposito, one of the main characteristics of the Italian thought is the focus on the necessary connectionbetween language and extra-linguistic world. I argue that rhetoric (intended in an Aristotelian sense), thanks to its extra-linguistic aim (persuasion), pays particular attention to this connection. This has important consequences: 1. considering speakers and listeners as essential components of speech and assigning a key position to the listener; 2. including the sphere of emotion in the fi eld of refl ection on language; 3. considering truth as a social practice; 4. considering the agonistic dimension as a constitutive element of the speech.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the persuasion which characterizes therapeutic advice and its collaborative goal. It is observed that this type of advice seems to be more effective when it is not limited to a mere scientific demonstration, but it considers also all the interlocutor’s subjective aspects. The study is supported by examples from a little corpus of transcribed real doctor-patient dialogues, collected and analyzed in a previous research work of the author. The research examines the principal arguments, argumentative figures and silences.

This essay analyzes the argumentative basis of the maternity debate on the main social network sites, in relation to the debate on the draft of Cirinnà bill on gay and lesbian civil partnerships in the Italian Parliament, to evaluate its congruence. The study of suasion (Eco, 1986), defined as a technique of covert persuasion, i.e., concealed and hidden (Mortara Garavelli, 2001), in relation to new media, represents “a new area of rhetoric, which deals almost exclusively with words and the act of writing in largely predetermined contexts” (Marazzini, 2001).

The paper claims that in the online discussions on Facebook concerning veganism – a brand new social food habit in Western societies – one can observe the mixture of traditional moral and revolutionary arguments. The presence of almost-religious extremism impacts a veganism-related verbal and visual argumentation, and even violence against the vegans. From the technical point of view, in the discussions concerning the veganism the probability argument, the argument of going-beyond and the ad sacrificium argument prevail.

Preview this article: The Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/29/2/collegeenglish22353-1.gif

The goals of this course is to • help students to explore English grammar through a unique ’discovery ’ approach that encom-passes both critical thinking and text analysis • study English grammar from a theoretically/descriptively informed perspective? seek the right balance in our English grammar teaching between theory and practice • help (prospective) teachers to be able to apply this knowledge in various contexts. This course is ideal and useful for those interested in English education/language arts, English as a second language, and linguistics. The class will cover the basic grammar rules and major English constructions. After each chapter, students will have a writing assignment that tests the grammar rules covered in the chapter. Students who successfully finish this course will be able to apply their understanding of grammar structure to the EFL classroom. As usual, this class consists of two class hours as a unit. Students are required to read the main textbooks thoroughly and do exercises as homework. Main Textbook:

Preview this article: Logos (poem), Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/24/8/collegeenglish27284-1.gif