Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Burke had a "puissant sense of the potency and efficiency of the word," Schwartz goes on (Schwartz 1966), which meant that man reveals his "symbolizing capacity through language."
The ceremony continues, with some spiritually appropriate remarks offered by the clergy in charge. Sometimes, the bride and groom write the script from which the clergy will read. And often, the bride and the groom write their own personalized vows. But in many cases, the clergy asks the groom if he takes this woman to be his wife, and does he promise "...to love, honor, cherish and protect her, forsaking all others and holding only unto her?" The groom of course answers "I do." And then the same litany is repeated by the bride prior to the traditional exchange of rings. "Wedding rings are an outward and visible sign of an inward spiritual grace and the unbroken circle of love, signifying to all the union of this man and this woman in marriage." The new rhetoric in this instance is also that everyone in the audience knows that when a person is seen in public with a gold ring, that means the person is married, and hence, not available for flirting or mating.
Burke said that the use of language produces "a desired impression upon the hearer or reader," and that rhetoric is used not in persuasion so much as in identification. The audience doesn't need to be persuaded that this couple is serious about their vows; people cry at weddings because they are so sweet, and so romantic. And sentiment runs high because (especially for women) they identify with the bride and groom; either they were once married and the language therefore takes them back to a brighter, happier day, when idealism and love really meant something. or, the language as the rings are exchanged allows the men and women in the congregation to dream of one day when they too will be exchanging vows.
Every little girl wants to have a lovely wedding, and the language (rhetoric) from a wedding is warm, wonderfully sincere, and gives off a good feeling about the future. Very often scripture is read by the officiating clergy member; a popular passage is from Corinthians; "Love is very patient and kind, never jealous or envious...love does not demand it's own way...is not irritable or touchy..." And this is a way for the clergy to warn the couple that they will no doubt be challenged by emotions that can be hurtful unless they are patient and understanding with one another.
That language is not intended just for the couple getting married, if one takes Burke's new rhetoric seriously. Everyone in the audience hearing the words of the service is in effect identifying with the ceremony. A man and a woman, neighbors of the bride, came to the wedding out of loyalty and to be part of a fun celebration. But when they hear the pastor or rabbi or priest saying, "If you love someone, you will be loyal to them no matter what the costs...you will always believe in them...and stand your ground in defending them..." that language becomes personal and they identify with it rather than being persuaded that it is the right thing for a new couple to embrace.
In a very real way, a wedding is a chance for other married couples in attendance to renew their own vows. While the bride and groom exchange words and promises, the married couple in the back row may join their hands, and she may squeeze his hand; whether the bride is wearing white or blue, whether the groom is nervous or bold as he says "I do," the theme of what is being said out loud rings poignantly in the ears and minds of all who are participating and listening.
When the bride throws her bouquet at the end of the ceremony, she is speaking in symbolic language to the young unmarried woman who catches it - next, it's your turn! Not just to get married, but also to find the right man who can hold her, love her, be faithful to her and cherish her - all the things that the script of the wedding has admonished the newlyweds to be faithful to. The cutting of the cake, the first dance at the reception, those two are parts of the new rhetoric, because they are statements that convey a message through symbolism, the language of identification with others and with tradition.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1950.
Foss, Sonja, Karen Foss, and Robert Trapp (1991). "Introduction to Kenneth Burke."
From Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 2nd edition. Waveland. Retrieved 23 Nov 2007 at http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke.html
Hochmuth, Marie. "Kenneth Burke and the 'New Rhetoric'." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. (2003): 133-144. Retrieved 5 Dec. 2007 at http://www.comm.umd.edu/faculty/tpg/documents/HochmuthonBurke.pdf
Schwartz, Joseph. "Kenneth Burke, Aristotle, and the Future of Rhetoric." College
Composition and Communication 17.5 (1966): 210-216
Simmons, Michael. (2001). "Kenneth Burke: Symbolic Action." Colorado State. Retrieved 23 Nov 2007 at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory58.htm[continue]
"Kenneth Burke's New Rhetoric Kenneth" (2007, December 07) Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/kenneth-burke-new-rhetoric-33552
"Kenneth Burke's New Rhetoric Kenneth" 07 December 2007. Web.27 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/kenneth-burke-new-rhetoric-33552>
"Kenneth Burke's New Rhetoric Kenneth", 07 December 2007, Accessed.27 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/kenneth-burke-new-rhetoric-33552
Expanding the pentad As Burke's pentad continues to be applied and dissected, perhaps we will also see it transform to some degree. In fact, Boje argues that Burke's pentad should be expanded to include a sixth factor - attitude - and that Burke himself would have supported such expansion of his pentad to a 'hexad' (Boje, 2002). Burke himself had said that he had contemplated adding a sixth element - attitude
It was not until the Renaissance that the art of rhetoric would retain the heights it had reached in the classical period. The Renaissance favored classical forms of rhetorical theory - particularly Latin. The Renaissance period can be seen as a severe reaction to the medieval period's emphasis on dialectical forms of scholastic endeavor. One of the key figures in the revival of the classical study of rhetoric was Erasmus.
In his essay "Definition of Man," one of the clauses by which Burke describes man is, "separated form his natural condition by instruments of his own making" (Burke 13). This clearly implies an underlying "supposed to be," or ultimate reality, which Gorgias denies. Another of the Greek Sophists was Protagoras, who -- like the other Sophists generally -- asserted that true knowledge could never really be obtained. He arrived at
While these are some of the more famous elements of rhetorical theory, they do not require extensive discussion here for two reasons. Firstly, they are fairly well-known. Secondly, and more importantly, they actually do not provide much insight into the uses of rhetoric, because Aristotle implicitly inserts an ethics into his discussion of rhetoric that precludes it from having as robust an application to the real world as would
rhetoric in modern day proceedings, the topic will reflect the modern day influence that rhetoric has on governmental processes from decision making to laws that are passed in Congress. The paper shall deal with the importance of rhetoric in modern day proceedings, with its influence on governmental processes from decision making by Presidents to that of the Congress, The paper shall argue that rhetoric is far moved away from reality. The
Semantic vs. Poetic Meaning in Human Language Rhetorically speaking, semantic (i.e., useful) and poetic (i.e., artistic) uses of human language may seem different from one another, in form as well as function. Semantic meaning is the literal, utilitarian meaning of a word, that is, the way or ways a word is typically used in everyday speech and/or writing. Poetic meaning, on the other hand, generally has to do with way(s) in which
Stephen Colbert's Speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner, 2006 In this speech comedian Stephen Colbert gives a hysterically funny account of the Bush administration and the White House Press Corps. President Bush and the member of the press are co-agents. Often he takes an idea of Bush's and carries it to its ridiculous conclusion and "gives people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument." The message seems to be that together