Abstract

ABSTRACT Effective communication relies on the use of rhetorical devices and strategies to make ideas present in the minds of an audience. By employing the concept of cognitive environments, we can use the visual analogy of making an idea “present” to its fullest effect, empowering our rhetorical skills and helping influence audience reception. In this article, the author argues that while cognitive environments do indeed provide a significant and important conceptual tool for understanding and anticipating an audience’s experiences, beliefs, and knowledge, a more robust sense of agreement is necessary. The article proposes the concept of a topos that serves as a shared meeting place within cognitive environments within which both author and audience contribute their background assumptions to find common ground and commonalities in interpretations. It is in figuring the topos effectively that cognitive environments can be more accurately and effectively mapped onto each other, and breaches between such environments can be productively bridged.

Journal
Philosophy & Rhetoric
Published
2024-06-28
DOI
10.5325/philrhet.57.1.0030
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  2. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Also cites 8 works outside this index ↓
  1. “The Instability of the Topic Places: Rhetoric, Phronesis and Neurobiology.”
    Communication Quarterly  
  2. “Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation.”
    Critical Inquiry  
  3. “Rhetoric of Rhetorical Inquiry.”
    Western Journal of Communication  
  4. “Space, Place, and the Textures of Rhetorical Criticism.”
    Western Journal of Communication  
  5. “What Is an Allusion?”
    Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism  
  6. “Audiences, Relevance, and Cognitive Environments.”
    Argumentation  
  7. “Character and Knowledge: Learning from the Speech of Experts.”
    Argumentation  
  8. “Introduction: Of Place and Time.”
    Argumentation  
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →