In-class reading Rhetoric By Aristotle Para.1: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;for instance,medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy,geometry about the properties of magnitudes(),arithmetic about numbers,and the same is true of the other arts and sciences.But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us;and that is why we say that,in its technical character,it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects. Para.2:Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not.By the latter I mean such things as are not supplied by the speaker but are there at the outset----witnesses,evidence given under torture,written contracts,and so on.By the former I mean such as we can ourselves construct by means of the principles of rhetoric.The one kind has merely to be used,the other has to be invented. Para.3:Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds.The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker;the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind;the third on the proof,or apparent proof,provided by the words of the speech itself.Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible.We believe good men more fully and more readily than others:this is true generally whatever the question is,and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided.This kind of persuasion.like the others,should be achieved by what the speaker says,not by what people think of his character before he begins to speak.It is not true,as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric,that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion;on the contrary,his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.Secondly,persuasion may come through the hearers,when the speech stirs their emotions.Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile.It is towards producing these effects,as we maintain,that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject shall be treated in detail when we come to speak of the emotions.Thirdly,persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. Para.4:There are,then,these three means of effecting persuasion.The man who is to be in command of them must,it is clear,be able (1)to reason logically,(2)to understand human character and goodness in their various forms,and(3)to understand the emotions-that is,to name them and describe them,to know their causes and the way in which they are excited.It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of ethical studies.Ethical studies may fairly be political science,and the professors of it as political experts-sometimes from want of education,sometimes from ostentation,sometimes owing to other human failings.As a matter of
In-class reading Rhetoric By Aristotle Para. 1: Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty（能力）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; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes(量值), arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects. Para. 2: Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not. By the latter I mean such things as are not supplied by the speaker but are there at the outset----witnesses, evidence given under torture, written contracts, and so on. By the former I mean such as we can ourselves construct by means of the principles of rhetoric. The one kind has merely to be used, the other has to be invented. Para. 3: Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others, should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of his character before he begins to speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject shall be treated in detail when we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. Para.4: There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions – that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited. It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of ethical studies. Ethical studies may fairly be political science, and the professors of it as political experts – sometimes from want of education, sometimes from ostentation, sometimes owing to other human failings. As a matter of
fact,it is a branch of dialectic and similar to it,as we said at the outset.Neither rhetoric nor dialectic is the scientific study of any one separate subject:both are faculties for providing arguments.This is perhaps a sufficient account of their scope and of how they are related to each other. Para.5:With regard to the persuasion achieved by proof or apparent proof:just as in dialectic there is induction(归纳法)on the one hand and syllogism(三段论)or apparent syllogism on the other,so it is in rhetoric.The example is an induction,the enthymeme is a syllogism,and the apparent enthymeme is an apparent syllogism.I call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism,and the example a rhetorical induction.Every one who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples:there is no other way.And since every one who proves anything at all is bound to use either syllogisms or inductions (and this is clear to us from the Analytics),it must follow that enthymemes are syllogisms and examples are inductions.The difference between example and enthymeme is made plain by the passages in the Topics where induction and syllogism have already been discussed.When we base the proof of a proposition on a number of similar cases,this is induction in dialectic,example in rhetoric;when it is shown that, certain propositions being true,a further and quite distinct proposition must also be true in consequence,whether invariably or usually,this is called syllogism in dialectic,enthymeme in rhetoric.It is plain also that each of these types of oratory has its advantages.Types of oratory,I say:for what has been said in the Methodics applies equally well here;in some oratorical styles examples prevail,in others enthymemes;and in like manner,some orators are better at the former and some at the latter.Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind,but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause.The sources of examples and enthymemes,and their proper uses,we will discuss later.Our next step is to define the processes themselves more clearly. Para.6:A statement is persuasive and credible either because it is directly self-evident or because it appears to be proved from other statements that are so.In either case it is persuasive because there is somebody whom it persuades.But none of the arts theorize about individual cases. Medicine,for instance,does not theorize about what will help to cure Socrates or Callias,but only about what will help to cure any or all of a given class of patients:this also is business:individual cases are so infinitely various that no systematic knowledge of them is possible.In the same way the theory of rhetoric is concerned not with what seems probable to a given individual like Socrates or Hippias,but with what seems probable to men of a given type;and this is true of dialectic also.Dialectic does not construct its syllogisms out of any haphazard materials,such as the fancies of crazy people,but out of materials that call for discussion;and rhetoric,too,draws upon the regular subjects of debate.The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us,in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument,or follow a long chain of reasoning.The subjects of our deliberation are such as seem to present us with alternative possibilities:about things that could not have been and cannot now or in the future be,other than they are,nobody who takes them to be of this nature wastes his time in deliberation Para.7:It is possible to form syllogisms and draw conclusions from the results of previous
fact, it is a branch of dialectic and similar to it, as we said at the outset. Neither rhetoric nor dialectic is the scientific study of any one separate subject: both are faculties for providing arguments. This is perhaps a sufficient account of their scope and of how they are related to each other.Para.5: With regard to the persuasion achieved by proof or apparent proof: just as in dialectic there is induction （归纳法） on the one hand and syllogism （三段论） or apparent syllogism on the other, so it is in rhetoric. The example is an induction, the enthymeme is a syllogism, and the apparent enthymeme is an apparent syllogism. I call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example a rhetorical induction. Every one who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: there is no other way. And since every one who proves anything at all is bound to use either syllogisms or inductions (and this is clear to us from the Analytics), it must follow that enthymemes are syllogisms and examples are inductions. The difference between example and enthymeme is made plain by the passages in the Topics where induction and syllogism have already been discussed. When we base the proof of a proposition on a number of similar cases, this is induction in dialectic, example in rhetoric; when it is shown that, certain propositions being true, a further and quite distinct proposition must also be true in consequence, whether invariably or usually, this is called syllogism in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric. It is plain also that each of these types of oratory has its advantages. Types of oratory, I say: for what has been said in the Methodics applies equally well here; in some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes; and in like manner, some orators are better at the former and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause. The sources of examples and enthymemes, and their proper uses, we will discuss later. Our next step is to define the processes themselves more clearly. Para. 6: A statement is persuasive and credible either because it is directly self-evident or because it appears to be proved from other statements that are so. In either case it is persuasive because there is somebody whom it persuades. But none of the arts theorize about individual cases. Medicine, for instance, does not theorize about what will help to cure Socrates or Callias, but only about what will help to cure any or all of a given class of patients: this also is business: individual cases are so infinitely various that no systematic knowledge of them is possible. In the same way the theory of rhetoric is concerned not with what seems probable to a given individual like Socrates or Hippias, but with what seems probable to men of a given type; and this is true of dialectic also. Dialectic does not construct its syllogisms out of any haphazard materials, such as the fancies of crazy people, but out of materials that call for discussion; and rhetoric, too, draws upon the regular subjects of debate. The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning. The subjects of our deliberation are such as seem to present us with alternative possibilities: about things that could not have been and cannot now or in the future be, other than they are, nobody who takes them to be of this nature wastes his time in deliberation. Para. 7: It is possible to form syllogisms and draw conclusions from the results of previous
syllogisms;or,on the other hand,from premises which have not been thus proved,and at the same time are so little accepted that they call for proof.Reasonings of the former kind will necessarily be hard to follow owing to their length,for we assume an audience of untrained thinkers:those of the latter kind will fail to win assent,because they are based on premises that are not generally admitted or believed Para.8:The enthymeme and the example must,then,deal with what is in the main contingent,the example being an induction,and the enthymeme a syllogism,about such matters. The enthymeme must consist of few propositions,fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism.For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact,there is no need even to mention it;the hearer adds it himself.Thus,to show that Dorieus has been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown,it is enough to say "For he has been victor in the Olympic games", without adding"And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown",a fact which everybody knows. There are few facts of the necessary type that can form the basis of rhetorical syllogisms.Most of the things about which we make decisions,and into which therefore we inquire,present us with alternative possibilities.For it is about our actions what we deliberate and inquire,and all our actions have a contingent character;hardly any of them are determined by necessity.Again, conclusions that state what is merely usual or possible must be drawn from premises that do the same,just as necessary conclusions must be drawn from necessary premises;this too is clear to us from the Analytics.It is evident,therefore,that the propositions forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be necessary,will most of them be only usually true.Now the materials of enthymemes are Probabilities and Signs,which we can see must correspond respectively with the propositions that are generally and those that are necessarily true.A Probability is a thing that usually happens;not,however,as some definitions would suggest,anything whatever that usually happens,but only if it belongs to the class of the contingent or variable.It bears the same relation to that in respect of which it is probable as the universal bears to the particular.Of signs,one kind bears the same relation to the statement it supports as the particular bears to the universal,the other the same as the universal bears to the particular.The infallible kind is a complete proof;the fallible kind has no specific name.By infallible signs I mean those on which syllogisms proper may be based:and this shows us why this kind of Sign is called complete proof:when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted,they then think that they are bringing forward a "complete proof",meaning that the matter has now been demonstrated and completed;for the word“perhas'”has the same meaning(of“end'or“boundary"")as the word“tekmarh”in the ancient tongue.Now the one kind of Sign(that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of particular to universal)may be illustrated thus.Suppose it were said,"The fact that Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the wise are just".Here we certainly have a Sign;but even though the proposition be true,the argument is refutable,since it does not form a syllogism. Suppose,on the other hand,it were said,"The fact that he has a fever is a sign that he is ill",or, "The fact that she is giving milk is a sign that she has lately borne a child".Here we have the infallible kind of Sign,the only kind that constitutes a complete proof,since it is the only kind that, if the particular statement is true,is irrefutable.The other kind of sign,that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of universal to particular,might be illustrated by saying,"The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that he has a fever".This argument also is refutable,even if the statement about the fast breathing be true,since a man may breathe hard without having a fever
syllogisms; or, on the other hand, from premises which have not been thus proved, and at the same time are so little accepted that they call for proof. Reasonings of the former kind will necessarily be hard to follow owing to their length, for we assume an audience of untrained thinkers; those of the latter kind will fail to win assent, because they are based on premises that are not generally admitted or believed. Para. 8: The enthymeme and the example must, then, deal with what is in the main contingent, the example being an induction, and the enthymeme a syllogism, about such matters. The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself. Thus, to show that Dorieus has been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say “For he has been victor in the Olympic games”, without adding “And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown”, a fact which everybody knows. There are few facts of the necessary type that can form the basis of rhetorical syllogisms. Most of the things about which we make decisions, and into which therefore we inquire, present us with alternative possibilities. For it is about our actions what we deliberate and inquire, and all our actions have a contingent character; hardly any of them are determined by necessity. Again, conclusions that state what is merely usual or possible must be drawn from premises that do the same, just as necessary conclusions must be drawn from necessary premises; this too is clear to us from the Analytics. It is evident, therefore, that the propositions forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be necessary, will most of them be only usually true. Now the materials of enthymemes are Probabilities and Signs, which we can see must correspond respectively with the propositions that are generally and those that are necessarily true. A Probability is a thing that usually happens; not, however, as some definitions would suggest, anything whatever that usually happens, but only if it belongs to the class of the contingent or variable. It bears the same relation to that in respect of which it is probable as the universal bears to the particular. Of signs, one kind bears the same relation to the statement it supports as the particular bears to the universal, the other the same as the universal bears to the particular. The infallible kind is a complete proof; the fallible kind has no specific name. By infallible signs I mean those on which syllogisms proper may be based: and this shows us why this kind of Sign is called complete proof: when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted, they then think that they are bringing forward a “complete proof”, meaning that the matter has now been demonstrated and completed; for the word “perhas” has the same meaning (of “end” or “boundary”) as the word “tekmarh” in the ancient tongue. Now the one kind of Sign (that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of particular to universal) may be illustrated thus. Suppose it were said, “The fact that Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the wise are just”. Here we certainly have a Sign; but even though the proposition be true, the argument is refutable, since it does not form a syllogism. Suppose, on the other hand, it were said, “The fact that he has a fever is a sign that he is ill”, or, “The fact that she is giving milk is a sign that she has lately borne a child”. Here we have the infallible kind of Sign, the only kind that constitutes a complete proof, since it is the only kind that, if the particular statement is true, is irrefutable. The other kind of sign, that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of universal to particular, might be illustrated by saying, “The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that he has a fever”. This argument also is refutable, even if the statement about the fast breathing be true, since a man may breathe hard without having a fever
Para.9:It has,then,been stated above what is the nature of a Probability,of a Sign,and of a complete proof,and what are the differences between them.In the Analytics a more explicit description has been given of these points;it is there shown why some of these reasonings can be put into syllogisms and some cannot. Para.10:The "example"has already been described as one kind of induction;and the special nature of the subject-matter that distinguishes it from the other kinds has also been stated above.Its relation to the proposition it supports is not that of part to whole,nor whole to part,nor whole to whole,but of part to part,or like to like.When two statements are of the same order,but one is more familiar then the other,the former is an"example".The argument may,for instance, be that Dionysius,in asking as he does for a bodyguard,is scheming to make himself a despot.For in the past Peisistratus kept asking for a bodyguard in order to carry out such a scheme,and did make himself a despot as soon as he got it;and so did Theagenes at Magara;and in the same way all other instances known to the speaker are made into examples,in order to show what is not yet known,that Dionysius has the same purpose in making the same request:all these being instances of the one general principle,that a man who asks for a bodyguard is scheming to make himself a despot.We have now described the sources of those means of persuasion which are popularly supposed to be demonstrative. Para.11:There is an important distinction between two sorts of enthymemes that has been wholly overlooked by almost everybody -one that also subsists between the syllogisms treated of in dialectic.One sort of enthymeme really belongs to rhetoric,as one sort of syllogism really belongs to dialectic;but the other sort really belongs to other arts and faculties,whether to those we already exercise or to those we have not yet acquired.Missing this distinction,people fail to notice that the more correctly they handle their particular subject the further they are getting away from pure rhetoric or dialectic.This statement will be clearer if expressed more fully.I mean that the proper subjects of dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the things with which we say the regular or universal Lines of Argument are concerned,that is to say those lines of argument that apply equally to questions or right conduct,natural science,politics,and many other things that have nothing to do with one another.Take,for instance,the line of argument concerned with"the more or less".On this line of argument it is equally easy to base a syllogism or enthymeme about any of what nevertheless are essentially disconnected subjects-right conduct,natural science,or anything else whatever.But there are also those special Lines of Argument which are based on such propositions as apply only to particular groups or classes of things.Thus there are proposition about natural science on which it is impossible to base any enthymeme or syllogism about ethics,and other propositions about ethics on which nothing can be based about natural science.The same principle applies throughout.The general Lines of Argument have no special subject-matter,and therefore will not increase our understanding of any particular class of things. On the other hand,the better the selection one makes of propositions suitable for special Lines of Argument,the nearer one comes,unconsciously,to setting up a science that is distinct from dialectic and rhetoric.One may succeed in stating the required principles,but one's science will be no longer dialectic or rhetoric,but the science to which the principles thus discovered belong. Most enthymemes are in fact based upon these particular or special Lines of Argument:
Para. 9: It has, then, been stated above what is the nature of a Probability, of a Sign, and of a complete proof, and what are the differences between them. In the Analytics a more explicit description has been given of these points; it is there shown why some of these reasonings can be put into syllogisms and some cannot. Para. 10: The “example” has already been described as one kind of induction; and the special nature of the subject-matter that distinguishes it from the other kinds has also been stated above. Its relation to the proposition it supports is not that of part to whole, nor whole to part, nor whole to whole, but of part to part, or like to like. When two statements are of the same order, but one is more familiar then the other, the former is an “example”. The argument may, for instance, be that Dionysius, in asking as he does for a bodyguard, is scheming to make himself a despot. For in the past Peisistratus kept asking for a bodyguard in order to carry out such a scheme, and did make himself a despot as soon as he got it; and so did Theagenes at Magara; and in the same way all other instances known to the speaker are made into examples, in order to show what is not yet known, that Dionysius has the same purpose in making the same request: all these being instances of the one general principle, that a man who asks for a bodyguard is scheming to make himself a despot. We have now described the sources of those means of persuasion which are popularly supposed to be demonstrative. Para. 11: There is an important distinction between two sorts of enthymemes that has been wholly overlooked by almost everybody – one that also subsists between the syllogisms treated of in dialectic. One sort of enthymeme really belongs to rhetoric, as one sort of syllogism really belongs to dialectic; but the other sort really belongs to other arts and faculties, whether to those we already exercise or to those we have not yet acquired. Missing this distinction, people fail to notice that the more correctly they handle their particular subject the further they are getting away from pure rhetoric or dialectic. This statement will be clearer if expressed more fully. I mean that the proper subjects of dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the things with which we say the regular or universal Lines of Argument are concerned, that is to say those lines of argument that apply equally to questions or right conduct, natural science, politics, and many other things that have nothing to do with one another. Take, for instance, the line of argument concerned with “the more or less”. On this line of argument it is equally easy to base a syllogism or enthymeme about any of what nevertheless are essentially disconnected subjects – right conduct, natural science, or anything else whatever. But there are also those special Lines of Argument which are based on such propositions as apply only to particular groups or classes of things. Thus there are proposition about natural science on which it is impossible to base any enthymeme or syllogism about ethics, and other propositions about ethics on which nothing can be based about natural science. The same principle applies throughout. The general Lines of Argument have no special subject-matter, and therefore will not increase our understanding of any particular class of things. On the other hand, the better the selection one makes of propositions suitable for special Lines of Argument, the nearer one comes, unconsciously, to setting up a science that is distinct from dialectic and rhetoric. One may succeed in stating the required principles, but one’s science will be no longer dialectic or rhetoric, but the science to which the principles thus discovered belong. Most enthymemes are in fact based upon these particular or special Lines of Argument;
comparatively few on the common or general kind.As in the therefore,so in this work,we must distinguish,in dealing with enthymemes,the special and the general Lines of Argument on which they are to be founded.By special Lines of Argument I mean the propositions peculiar to each several class of things,by general those common to all classes alike.We may begin with the special Lines of Argument.But,first of all,let us classify rhetoric into its varieties.Having distinguished these we may deal with them one by one,and try to discover the elements of which each is composed,and the propositions each must employ. Vocabulary: I、faculty:any of the physical or mental abilities that a person is born with官能、天赋：能力 e.g.:She retained her mental faculties until the day she died. He had a faulty of understanding complex issues. 2、credible:that can be believed or trusted可信的、可靠的 e.g.:It's just not credible that she would cheat. 3、treatise:a long and serious piece of writing on a particular subject专题论文 4、offshoot::a thing that develops from sth.分支、分支机构 5,dialectic:a method of discovering the truth of ideas by discussion and logical argument and by considering ideas that are opposed to each other辩证法；对立 6.ostentation:an exaggerated display of wealth,knowledge or skill that is made in order to impress people(对知识、财富、技能)炫耀、卖弄、夸示 7.syllogism:a way of arguing in which two statements are used to prove that a third statement is true三段论 8、enthymemes:三段论省略式 9、oratory:the skill of making powerful and effective speeches in public演讲术；雄辩术 lO、haphazard:with no particular order or plan,not organized well无序、无计划的：组织混乱 e.g.:The books had been piled on the shelves in a haphazard fashion. 11 deliberate on(upon):to think very carefully about sth.usually before making a decision e.g.:They deliberated on whether to continue with the negotiation. l2、assent:official agreement to or approval of sth.同意、赞成 e.g.:The director has given her assent to the proposals. 13.contingent:a group of people at a meeting or an event who have something in common 与会者、代表团、小分队：(adj.)depending on sth.that may or may not happen依情况而 定的 l4、variable:often changing多变的、变化无常的e.g:variable temperatures l5、infallible:never wrong,.never making mistakes永无过失的、一贯正确的 Doctors are not infallible. l6、despot:a ruler with great power,especially one who uses it in a cruel way专制君主 Discussion Questions: l、How does Aristotle define rhetoric？ 2.What are the three modes of persuasion?What do you think is the most important factor in persuading others?
comparatively few on the common or general kind. As in the therefore, so in this work, we must distinguish, in dealing with enthymemes, the special and the general Lines of Argument on which they are to be founded. By special Lines of Argument I mean the propositions peculiar to each several class of things, by general those common to all classes alike. We may begin with the special Lines of Argument. But, first of all, let us classify rhetoric into its varieties. Having distinguished these we may deal with them one by one, and try to discover the elements of which each is composed, and the propositions each must employ. Vocabulary: 1、 faculty：any of the physical or mental abilities that a person is born with 官能、天赋；能力 e.g.：She retained her mental faculties until the day she died. He had a faulty of understanding complex issues. 2、 credible: that can be believed or trusted 可信的、可靠的 e.g.: It’s just not credible that she would cheat. 3、treatise：a long and serious piece of writing on a particular subject 专题论文 4、offshoot：a thing that develops from sth. 分支、分支机构 5、dialectic：a method of discovering the truth of ideas by discussion and logical argument and by considering ideas that are opposed to each other 辩证法；对立 6、ostentation：an exaggerated display of wealth, knowledge or skill that is made in order to impress people（对知识、财富、技能）炫耀、卖弄、夸示 7、syllogism: a way of arguing in which two statements are used to prove that a third statement is true 三段论 8、enthymeme：三段论省略式 9、oratory：the skill of making powerful and effective speeches in public 演讲术；雄辩术 10、haphazard：with no particular order or plan; not organized well 无序、无计划的；组织混乱 的 e.g.: The books had been piled on the shelves in a haphazard fashion. 11、deliberate on (upon): to think very carefully about sth. usually before making a decision 深思 熟虑 e.g.: They deliberated on whether to continue with the negotiation. 12、assent: official agreement to or approval of sth. 同意、赞成 e.g.: The director has given her assent to the proposals. 13、contingent: a group of people at a meeting or an event who have something in common 一组 与会者、代表团、小分队；（adj.）depending on sth. that may or may not happen 依情况而 定的 14、variable：often changing 多变的、变化无常的 e.g.: variable temperatures 15、infallible：never wrong, never making mistakes 永无过失的、一贯正确的 Doctors are not infallible. 16、despot：a ruler with great power, especially one who uses it in a cruel way 专制君主 Discussion Questions： 1、 How does Aristotle define rhetoric? 2、 What are the three modes of persuasion? What do you think is the most important factor in persuading others?
3.Why is an understanding of the emotions a necessary part of effective rhetoric?Please give some examples. 4.Could you distinguish induction from deduction?What's the difference between syllogism and enthymeme?Use examples to illustrate. 5.Are all rhetoricians equally well-motivated?How might one learn to recognize bad rhetoric? Additional information An enthymeme is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument)with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion.In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In another broader usage,the term enthymeme is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism,or a less-than-100%argument. Here is an example of an informal syllogism,an enthymeme: “Socrates is mortal because he's human..” The complete formal syllogism would be the classic: All humans are mortal.(major premise-assumed) Socrates is human.(minor premise -stated) Therefore,Socrates is mortal.(conclusion-stated) While syllogisms lay out all of their premises and conclusion explicitly,enthymemes keep at least one of the premises or conclusion unsaid.The assertions left unsaid are intended to be so obvious as to not need stating. Advice is given freely because so much of it is worthless.-James Greay Here it is an explicit premise that 1)advice is given freely.But an implicit premise is that only worthless things are given away freely. Here is an example of a"a less-than-100%argument"stated by George Bernard Shaw The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. While all the premises are true,it is arguable that a man is unreasonable because he is trying to change the world. Shakespeare's Grammar Rhetorical Devices Intertwined with syntax,rhetoric exerts another powerful influence on Elizabethan writing. Rhetoric in its original sense means"the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively."While I won't be getting into some of the more obscure terms(is there anyone who isn't frightened by a mouthful of syllables like "paraprosdokian"?),a healthy understanding of poetry's debt to rhetoric is in order.Below is a list of some of the more common devices employed for emphasis in Shakespeare:
3、 Why is an understanding of the emotions a necessary part of effective rhetoric? Please give some examples. 4、 Could you distinguish induction from deduction? What’s the difference between syllogism and enthymeme? Use examples to illustrate. 5、 Are all rhetoricians equally well-motivated? How might one learn to recognize bad rhetoric? Additional information An enthymeme is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In another broader usage, the term enthymeme is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism, or a less-than-100% argument. Here is an example of an informal syllogism, an enthymeme: “Socrates is mortal because he’s human.” The complete formal syllogism would be the classic: All humans are mortal. (major premise - assumed) Socrates is human. (minor premise - stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion - stated) While syllogisms lay out all of their premises and conclusion explicitly, enthymemes keep at least one of the premises or conclusion unsaid. The assertions left unsaid are intended to be so obvious as to not need stating. Advice is given freely because so much of it is worthless. – James Greay Here it is an explicit premise that 1) advice is given freely. But an implicit premise is that only worthless things are given away freely. Here is an example of a “a less-than-100% argument” stated by George Bernard Shaw The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. While all the premises are true, it is arguable that a man is unreasonable because he is trying to change the world. Shakespeare's Grammar Rhetorical Devices Intertwined with syntax, rhetoric exerts another powerful influence on Elizabethan writing. Rhetoric in its original sense means "the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively." While I won't be getting into some of the more obscure terms (is there anyone who isn't frightened by a mouthful of syllables like "paraprosdokian"?), a healthy understanding of poetry's debt to rhetoric is in order. Below is a list of some of the more common devices employed for emphasis in Shakespeare:
alliteration repetition of the same initial consonant sound throughout a line of verse "When to the sessions of sweet silent thought...."(Sonnet XXX) anadiplosis the repetition of a word that ends one clause at the beginning of the next "My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, And every tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns me for a villain."I (Richard Ill,V,iii) anaphora repetition of a word or phrase as the beginning of successive clauses "Mad world!Mad kings!Mad composition!"(King John,II,i) anthimeria substitution of one part of speech for another "I'll unhair thy head."(Antony and Cleoptra,Il.v) antithesis juxtaposition,or contrast of ideas or words in a balanced or parallel construction "Not that I loved Caesar less,but that I loved Rome more."(Julius Caesar,III, i训 assonance repetition or similarity of the same internal vowel sound in words of close proximity "Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks."(Romeo and Juliet,V,iii) asyndeton omission of conjunctions between coordinate phrases,clauses,or words "Are all thy conquests,glories,triumphs,spoils, Shrunk to this little measure?"(Julius Caesar,III,i) chiasmus two corresponding pairs arranged in a parallel inverse order "Fair is foul,and foul is fair"(Macbeth,I,i) diacope repetition broken up by one or more intervening words "Put out the light,and then put out the light."(Othello,V,ii) ellipsis omission of one or more words.which are assumed by the listener or reader "And he to England shall along with you."(Hamlet,III,iii)
alliteration repetition of the same initial consonant sound throughout a line of verse "When to the sessions of sweet silent thought...." (Sonnet XXX) anadiplosis the repetition of a word that ends one clause at the beginning of the next "My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, And every tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns me for a villain." 1 (Richard III, V, iii) anaphora repetition of a word or phrase as the beginning of successive clauses "Mad world! Mad kings! Mad composition!" (King John, II, i) anthimeria substitution of one part of speech for another "I'll unhair thy head." (Antony and Cleoptra, II, v) antithesis juxtaposition, or contrast of ideas or words in a balanced or parallel construction "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more." (Julius Caesar, III, ii) assonance repetition or similarity of the same internal vowel sound in words of close proximity "Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks." (Romeo and Juliet, V, iii) asyndeton omission of conjunctions between coordinate phrases, clauses, or words "Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, Shrunk to this little measure?" (Julius Caesar, III, i) chiasmus two corresponding pairs arranged in a parallel inverse order "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" (Macbeth, I, i) diacope repetition broken up by one or more intervening words "Put out the light, and then put out the light." (Othello, V, ii) ellipsis omission of one or more words, which are assumed by the listener or reader "And he to England shall along with you." (Hamlet, III, iii)
epanalepsis repetition at the end of a clause of the word that occurred at the beginning of the clause "Blood hath bought blood,and blows have answer'd blows."(King John,II,i) epimone frequent repetition of a phrase or question;dwelling on a point "Who is here so base that would be a bondman?If any,speak;for him I have offended.Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman?If any speak;for him have I offended."(Julius Caesar.IIlii) epistrophe repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses2 "I'll have my bond! Speak not against my bond! I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond."(Merchant of Venice,Ill,iii) hyperbaton altering word order,or separation of words that belong together,for emphasis "Some rise by sin,and some by virtue fall."(Measure for Measure,II,i) malapropism a confused use of words in which an appropriate word is replaced by one with similar sound but (often ludicrously)inappropriate meaning "I do lean upon justice,sir,and do bring in here before your good honor two notorious benefactors. "Are they not malefactors?"(Measure for Measure,II,i) metaphor implied comparison between two unlike things achieved through the figurative use of words "Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this son of York."(Richard Ill,I,i) metonymy substitution of some attributive or suggestive word for what is meant (e.g., "crown"for royalty) "Friends,Romans,countrymen,lend me your ears."(Julius Caesar,IIl,ii) onomatopoeia use of words to imitate natural sounds "There be moe wasps that buzz about his nose."(Henry VIll,III,ii) paralepsis emphasizing a point by seeming to pass over it
epanalepsis repetition at the end of a clause of the word that occurred at the beginning of the clause "Blood hath bought blood, and blows have answer'd blows." (King John, II, i) epimone frequent repetition of a phrase or question; dwelling on a point "Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak; for him I have offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any speak; for him have I offended." (Julius Caesar, III,ii) epistrophe repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses 2 "I'll have my bond! Speak not against my bond! I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond." (Merchant of Venice, III, iii) hyperbaton altering word order, or separation of words that belong together, for emphasis "Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." (Measure for Measure, II, i) malapropism a confused use of words in which an appropriate word is replaced by one with similar sound but (often ludicrously) inappropriate meaning "I do lean upon justice, sir, and do bring in here before your good honor two notorious benefactors." "Are they not malefactors?" (Measure for Measure, II, i) metaphor implied comparison between two unlike things achieved through the figurative use of words "Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this son of York." (Richard III, I, i) metonymy substitution of some attributive or suggestive word for what is meant (e.g., "crown" for royalty) "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." (Julius Caesar, III, ii) onomatopoeia use of words to imitate natural sounds "There be moe wasps that buzz about his nose." (Henry VIII, III, ii) paralepsis emphasizing a point by seeming to pass over it
"Have patience,gentle friends,I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar lov'd you."(Julius Caesar,IIl,ii) parallelism similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words,phrases,or clauses3 "And therefore,since I cannot prove a lover To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determin to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days."(Richard Ill,I,i) parenthesis insertion of some word or clause in a position that interrupts the normal syntactic flow of the sentence (asides are rather emphatic examples of this) "...Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words- Harry the King,Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot,Salisbury and Gloucester- Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered."(Henry V,IV,iii) polysyndeton the repetition of conjunctions in a series of coordinate words,phrases,or clauses4 "If there be cords,or knives, Poison,or fire,or suffocating streams, I'll not endure it."(Othello,III,iii) simile an explicit comparison between two things using"like"or"as" "My love is as a fever,longing still For that which longer nurseth the disease"(Sonnet CXLVII) synecdoche the use of a part for the whole,or the whole for the parts "Take thy face hence."(Macbeth,V,iii)
"Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar lov'd you." (Julius Caesar, III, ii) parallelism similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words, phrases, or clauses 3 "And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determin 鑔 to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days." (Richard III, I, i) parenthesis insertion of some word or clause in a position that interrupts the normal syntactic flow of the sentence (asides are rather emphatic examples of this) "...Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words— Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester— Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered." (Henry V, IV, iii) polysyndeton the repetition of conjunctions in a series of coordinate words, phrases, or clauses 4 "If there be cords, or knives, Poison, or fire, or suffocating streams, I'll not endure it." (Othello, III, iii) simile an explicit comparison between two things using "like" or "as" "My love is as a fever, longing still For that which longer nurseth the disease" (Sonnet CXLVII) synecdoche the use of a part for the whole, or the whole for the part5 "Take thy face hence." (Macbeth, V, iii)