Abstract

Neuroscience research findings yield fascinating new insights into human cognition and communication. Rhetoricians may be attracted to neuroscience research that uses imaging tools (such as fMRI) to draw inferences about rhetorical concepts, such as emotion, reason, or empathy. Yet this interdisciplinary effort poses challenges to rhetorical scholars. Accordingly, research in neurorhetorics should be two-sided: not only should researchers question the neuroscience of rhetoric (the brain functions related to persuasion and argument), but they should also inquire into the rhetoric of neuroscience (how neuroscience research findings are framed rhetorically). This two-sided approach can help rhetoric scholars to use neuroscience insights in a responsible manner, minimizing analytical pitfalls. These two approaches can be combined to examine neuroscience discussions about methodology, research, and emotion, and studies of autism and empathy, with a rhetorical as well as scientific lens. Such an approach yields productive insights into rhetoric while minimizing potential pitfalls of interdisciplinary work.

Journal
Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Published
2010-11-15
DOI
10.1080/02773945.2010.516303
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  4. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  5. College Composition and Communication
Also cites 51 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.091
  2. 10.1080/01463370009385597
  3. 10.1073/pnas.0408456102
  4. 10.1142/S0219635209002186
  5. 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01904-6
  6. 10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.03.011
  7. 10.1177/016224390202700103
  8. A Rhetoric of Motives
  9. 10.1002/hbm.20114
  10. 10.1017/S174455230600303X
  11. 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.09.046
  12. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.007
  13. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.012
  14. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90024-8
  15. 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
  16. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.057
  17. 10.7208/chicago/9780226309934.001.0001
  18. 10.1007/BF02172093
  19. 10.1002/ana.21301
  20. 10.1007/s10912-008-9062-4
  21. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21100
  22. 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.10.005
  23. 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.11.043
  24. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00498.x
  25. 10.1177/0162243908328756
  26. 10.1038/35084005
  27. 10.1146/annurev.physiol.66.082602.092845
  28. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2008.08.009
  29. 10.1177/030631288018002004
  30. 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.094
  31. 10.3389/neuro.01.1.1.006.2007
  32. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017
  33. 10.1177/1368430207088035
  34. 10.1080/09687590802469289
  35. 10.1162/0898929042947829
  36. 10.1162/089892902760807212
  37. 10.1038/nature04676
  38. 10.1038/22268
  39. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.048
  40. 10.1093/scan/nsm006
  41. 10.1038/nrn1609
  42. 10.1016/B978-0-12-374176-9.00028-2
  43. 10.1037/0735-7044.118.3.462
  44. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.023
  45. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.062
  46. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.803
  47. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00527.x
  48. 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.075
  49. 10.1215/03335372-23-1-9
  50. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20040
  51. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.071
CrossRef global citation count: 33 View in citation network →