2.1 Review of relevant literature .1 The concept of discourse
2.1.4 Discourse-stylistics and rhetoric
28
remembrance and/or a wish for good health as is characteristic of Hellenistic style, are distinguished in letters 3, 6 and 7. Thanksgiving or blessing form is present only in letter 7, closing greetings in only letters 5 and 7, while a doxology and benediction are present at the close of letters 3, 5and 8. Smith (2010) further states that, generally, Book of Mormon letters use transition words, such as And now, toindicatethebeginning and various dimensions of the body of the letter, as is characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic letters.
Roman Catholic bishops‘ pastoral letters, however, follow the Greco-Roman conventions just like the New Testament letters.
29
for gaining compliance. It was taken to be synonymous with persuasive communication, hence the definition of rhetoric by Aristotle as ―the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion‖ (Aristotle,2000). Since then most definitions of rhetoric have concentrated on its persuasive function. For example, De Wet (2010) defines rhetoric as the art of speaking persuasively, while to Ebeling (1973: 140), rhetoric is ―the science of speaking well on public matters to convince people of what is right and good.‖ Rhetoric, according to Gill and Whedbee (1997), is discourse calculated to influence an audience towards some end, a type of instrumental discourse which is in one way or another a vehicle for responding to, reinforcing or altering the understanding of an audience or the social fabric of the community. Herrick (2001) points out thatthis close association of rhetoric with persuasion has always been at the heart of the conflict over whether rhetoric is a neutral tool for bringing about agreements, or an immoral activity that ends in manipulation and deception. He is of the view that there is more to rhetoric than persuasion.
In the Renaissance period,rhetoric became identified with style (elocution), which in the Classical times was technically one of the five major divisions or canons of rhetoric(Wales 1989). According to Wales, figures of speech, which helped to structure and elaborate an argument and to move emotions, became increasingly identified with the whole art of rhetoric, which was defined simply as the art of speaking well. Stylistic ornamentation was emphasised as the hallmark of rhetoric.
In the contemporary times, the classical view of rhetoric as an intentional oral communication concerned solely with persuasion has changed to includemodern forms of rhetoric: written and spoken discourse and less traditional forms of discourse such as sales promotion, courtship, etiquette, education, and works of art (Foss and Griffin, 1992: 338).
Rhetoric is seen more broadly as a human potentiality to understand human condition (Scott, in Rosenthal, 1985). In the ‗new‘ rhetoric, although persuasion is still seen as its basic function, there are other recognised functions of rhetoric. For example, Burke (1969:43) in addition to recognising persuasion as the basic function of rhetoric, adds that
―rhetoric is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic and continually born anew: the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols.‖ Burke further expands the scope of rhetoric, positing that the field consists of all that has meaning, since the "naming" of something involves symbolic choices. He states, ―Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is 'meaning,' there is persuasion."Burkesees that interactions in our contemporary world are, in some ways, "more complicated" than can be understood by
30
viewing persuasion solely as the explicit, intentional acts which a rhetor directs to a specific, known audience(Quigley online, n.d). Consequently, in A Rhetoric of Motives (1969), he selects "identification" as the key term to distinguish his rhetorical perspective from a tradition characterized by the term "persuasion."He argues that for a person to persuade an audience, he has to identify with that audience. Burke's primary interest in
"identification" is as an end in itself "as when people earnestly yearn to identify themselves withsome group or other" (Burke 1969:203).The focus, in contemporary rhetoric, is on the symbols themselves, not solely on prescriptions and descriptions of their use (Hansen, 1996).
Modern rhetoric was influenced by the elocutionary movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, hence its emphasis on delivery as the most important aspect of speaking(De Wet, 2010). According to De Wet, efforts are concentrated on the artistic manipulation of language devices to ensure effective communication. Thus, the way in which something is said is seen to be more important than what is said. In this sense, modern stylistics can be seen as a development of the main branch of rhetorical study, namely, elocutio, with its interest in the relationship between form and content, and a concentration on the analysis of characteristic features of expression (Wales 1989).
Renkema (2009:14) describes stylistics and rhetoric together as ―the study of the varieties in wording and composition in discourse and the effects on its audience.‖
Distinguishing between the two, de Beaugrande (1994) explains that although both disciplines are obviously dependent on specific selections and their combinations of expression in discourse, there are some antinomies that make them appear distinct. One of them is the fact that rhetoric is a relatively ‗Classical‘ enterprise (dating roughly from the 5th century BC), and ‗stylistics‘ a relatively ‗modern‘ enterprise (dating roughly from the 1930s or 1950s). Another is that rhetoric highlights purpose of language use while stylistics highlights language use. Thirdly, rhetoric highlights text receivers (the audience to be impressed or persuaded), while stylistics highlights text producers (a speaker or writer in search of an individual and noteworthy mastery over language). Fourthly, rhetoric is more institutionalized than stylistics. Fifthly,despite its long history of veneration, the term
‗rhetoric‘ is sometimes used pejoratively to indicate excessive elaboration or a substitute for genuine action; in contrast, the usages of ‗style‘ are ameliorative.
It is observed from the foregoing that rhetoric and style are two related aspects of discourse between which one cannoteasily draw a dividing line.Both are concerned with message as well as with the effective methods of presentation.However, in rhetoric, the
31
message-method relationship is highly inseparable.How something is said conveys meaning as much as what is said. Our rhetorical study of Roman Catholic bishops‘ Lenten pastoral letters in the Ecclesiastical province of Onitsha falls within the framework of discourse-stylistics. The aim is not just to describe the claims and arguments within the discourse but to identify and discuss the rhetorical devices deployed by the bishops for the purpose of achieving persuasion in the letters.Recognition will, however, be given to the contemporary emphasis on rhetoric as effective use of language.
2.1.4.1 Functions of rhetoric
The major function of rhetoric is persuasion. Persuasion involves convincing people to accept our claims as true and to act accordingly. It is an attempt to change either the attitude or the behaviour of another person (Verderber, 1990). Hogan (1999:20) defines persuasion as ―the ability to induce beliefs and values in other people by influencing their thoughts and actions through specific strategies.‖ According to him, persuaders are able to convince others that by following their set of beliefs or altering their values, their lives would be better. Persuasion is defined by De Wet (2010) as a process of communication in which a communicator succeeds in voluntarily forming, sustaining and changing the attitudes or behaviour of one recipient or a group of recipients in accordance with what the communicator intends by his or her message. De Wet is of the view that although persuasion is often used for dishonest ends, there is no doubt that humans cannot live without persuasion. This, according to him, is becausehuman beings are continually confronted with choices, whether real or fictional, and want to reconcile their minds as to what should be done or is to be done about a given matter. Everyday life requires the ability to influence or persuade others, or even just alter their perceptions or perspectives (Piva, 2011).Persuasion is considered by the Sophists as a magical art. Pernot (2006) notes thatthe Greek satirist Lucian compares persuasion to an invisible link that holds listeners captive at a distance, chained by their ears to the tongue of the speaker.
Larrazabel and Korta (n.d.) are of the view that persuasive intention in rhetoric is a very stable kind of intention persistent through all the processes of elaboration and performance of a discourse, oriented to a particular type of behaviour on the part of the audience, namely their persuasion in terms of the acceptance of the beliefs and goals expressed by the speaker. Persuasion is achieved in a rhetorical discourse through argument (conclusion supported by reasons), appeals (especially to elicit an emotion), arrangement (ordering of a message to achieve the desired effect on the audience), and aesthetics (form,
32
beauty and force, achieved through figures of speech such as metaphor, allusion, assonance, rhythm,rhyme, etc.). (Herrick, 2001)
Identifying the ‗great and many functions of rhetoric,‘ Piva (2011) observes that throughout the progression of life, individuals use rhetoric to convey emotions, dictate meaning, persuade others, and better their lives and the lives of those around them. He adds, citing Hart & Daughton (2005:7), that great rhetoric – regardless of underlying themes or central aims – successfully expresses one‘s thoughts and emotions, and also ―draws on our most basic human commonalities and uses simple language with elegance.‖ Here rhetoric is seen as also performing expressive and aesthetic/poetic functions. Rhetoric is also said to help the listener or reader explore the rhetor‘s perspective. Burke (1969) expresses the same idea in different words. In the view of Burke, rhetoric is used by the rhetor to pair situation to the meaning he ascribes to it to make the audience gain understanding and agreement with his understanding of the situation and the audience‘s supposed response to it.
Another function of rhetoric pointed out by Piva (2011) is that rhetoric is a cooperative art, because it requires the rhetor and audience to come together in a joint effort. ―It cannot be done in solitude… by sharing communication, both rhetors and audiences open themselves up to each other‘s influence‖ (Hart & Daughton, 2005:8 , cited in Piva, 2011). According to Piva, rhetorical discourse uncovers an individual‘s internal truths and personal perspectives, and by conveying a message, and communicating one‘s knowledge, both the rhetor and the audience learn about their own life, as well as each other‘s role in life.
Herrick (2001:7) is of the view that even though persuasion is traditionally an important goal of rhetoric, rhetoric has other goals such as achieving clarity, through the structured use of symbols, awakening our sense of beauty through the aesthetic potential in symbols, or bringing about mutual understanding through the careful management of common meanings attached to symbols. No wonder he defines rhetoric as ―the systematic study and intentional practice of effective symbolic expression‖, effective meaning
―achieving the purposes of the symbol-user, whether that purpose is persuasion, clarity, beauty, or mutual understanding.‖ Herrick argues that ―the art of rhetoric can render symbol use more persuasive, beautiful, memorable, forceful, thoughtful, clear, and thus generally more compelling.‖
Hart (1990) identifies other ‗less frequently noticed uses‘ of rhetoric as follows:
33
Rhetoric unburdens. People who make rhetoric do so because they must get something off their chests, because the cause they champion overwhelms their natural reticence.
Rhetoric distracts. A speaker wants to have all, not just some, of our attention. To get that attention, the speaker must so fill up our minds that we forget, temporarily at least, the other ideas, people, and policies usually important to us. Naturally, we do not just give away our attention, so it takes rhetoric at its best to side-track us.
Rhetoric enlarges. In some senses, modern persuaders are like the heralds of old.
They move among us singing the siren song of change, asking us to open our worlds a bit and to study a new way of looking at things, to consider a new solution to an old problem (or an old solution to a problem we did not know we had). Rhetoric operates like a kind of intellectual algebra, asking us to equate things we had never before considered equitable.
Rhetoric names. The naming function of rhetoric helps listeners become comfortable with new ideas and provides listeners with an acceptable vocabulary for talking about these ideas.
Rhetoric empowers. Rhetoric permits and encourages flexibility. Flexibility, in turn, provides options: to address one listener or several; to mention an idea or not to mention it at all; to say something this way and not that way; to tell all one knows or only just a bit; to repeat oneself or to vary one‘s response. Rhetoric encourages flexibility, because it is based on a kind of symbolic Darwinism: (1) speakers who do not adapt to their surroundings quickly become irrelevant; (2) ideas that become frozen soon die for want of social usefulness.
These various functions of rhetoric are made possible through the rhetor‘s use of rhetorical devices.
2.1.4.2Rhetorical devices
Rhetorical devices are strategies of language use which enhance effective communication. They are devices used to manipulate language to effectively transmit the speaker‘s message to a listener. According to Harris (2009), rhetorical devices are aids to writing and their appropriate use adds not just beauty, emphasis and effectiveness to writing but a kind of freedom of thought and expression one never imagined possible. Harris (2009), who defines rhetoric as the art of using language effectively and persuasively, and sees it as involving the writer‘s purpose, the consideration of audience, the arrangement and
34
organisation of thought, smoothness, clarity, logic and economy of expression, maintains that since writing is meant to be read by others with minds different from our own, it must be interesting, clear, persuasive, and memorable, so that they will pay attention to, understand, believe and remember the ideas it communicates. To fulfil these requirements successfully, he adds, a work must have an appropriate and clear thesis, sufficient arguments and reasons supporting the thesis, a logical and progressive arrangement, and importantly, an effective style. He identifies three categories of rhetorical devices: those involving emphasis, association, clarification, and focus; those involving physical organisation, transition, and disposition or arrangement; and those involving decoration and variety. He notes that sometimes, a given device will fall into a single category, but more often, the effects of a particular device are multiple.
Dlugan (2008) identifies three types out of the very large number of rhetorical devices, and these are: devices of sound, devices of repetition and devices of meaning.
Sound-based devices, according to him, add a poetic melody to speeches making them more pleasurable to listen to, and three of the most common forms arealliteration--repetition of the same sound at the beginning of nearby words; assonance—repetition of the same vowel sound in nearby words; and onomatopoeia—a word which imitates the sound of itself.
Devices of repetition of words or ideas are used for emphasis and to achieve cohesion in a text, and the two common forms identified by Dlugan (2008) are anaphora (repetition of a word or phrase at the start of successive clauses or sentences) and epistrophe (repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses or sentences). Meaning devices identified by Dlugan include personification—giving human qualities to abstract ideas, inanimate objects, plants, or animals; metaphor—a comparison of two seemingly unlike things; and simile—
same as metaphor, but using either ―like‖ or ―as‖.Dlugan (2008) observes that rhetorical devices are used to improve the effectiveness, clarity and enjoyment of writing. He maintains that a speech or writing devoid of rhetorical devices is likeapaintingvoidofcolour.
Rhetoricaldevices commonly found in discourse include figures of speech such as metaphor, simile, personification, repetition, parallelism,rhetorical questions, sarcasm, antithesis, allusions, etc., and rhetorical strategies such as the use of proverbs, slogans, idioms, appeal to authorities, logical reasoning, emotive language, etc.Rhetorical devices are used in discourse for the purpose of effective communication of messages or influencing the audience to change attitudes or take a particular course of action.
Studies on rhetorical devices include: McLean (2005), Abioye (2011a), Abioye (2011b), Koncar (2008), and Sztajer (n.d. online). McLean (2005) studies the art of rhetoric
35
in the writings of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of Baha‘ I Faith. He identifies seven rhetorical modes in the writings:the kerygmatic, imperative, magisterial, and defensive modes, the rhetorics of praise and gratitude, blame, and anxious concern. He also identifies five particular rhetorical techniques in Shoghi Effendi‘s writings, and these include loving greetings, persuasion by authoritative reason, the rhetorical question, kinetic emotion and caveats. McLean‘s study offers useful insights that will enable us to identify the rhetorical devices that are specific to the Catholic bishops‘ pastoral letters.
Abioye (2011a) investigates the pragmatic functions of rhetorical questions in Ehusani‘s Nigeria: Years Eaten by Locust. The study reveals that rhetorical questions were used in the text to perform assertive, declarative, stylistic and social-interactional functions as well as emphasize thematically salient information.
Abioye (2011b)examines metaphor and ideology in Ehusani‘s truth trilogy—
Fragments of Truth, Petals of Truth, and Flames of Truth—using Critical Discourse Analysis. She identifies different types of metaphors deployed by the author: journey, hope, biblical and oppression metaphors. She observes that the metaphorical constructions used in the trilogy are not just representations of the social realities in Nigeria, but a critical interrogation of the forces and ideological configurations behind the socio-economic and political harshness being witnessed by the vast majority of Nigerians. Abioye‘s study provides insight on the social function of metaphor.
Koncar (2008) explores the rhetorical design of contemporary Slovenian sermons, drawing on an analysis of a corpus of sermons. By applying Hasan‘s concept of register and Cloran‘s concept of rhetorical units to the genre of sermon, he tries to show how the method of argumentation, which is based on everyday experiences or appeals to human feelings, leads believers towards a Christian lifestyle and faith. Our study is analogous to Koncar‘s as it will show how Roman Catholic bishops in Onitsha province have used rhetorical devices to persuade the faithful to live good moral lives in consonance with the Catholic faith.
Sztajer (n.d, online) is a study on metaphor. Sztajer examines the role of metaphor in religious discourse. He concludes that, apart from being a means that gives a believer a feeling of participation in sacral reality, which is fundamental for every religion, metaphor forms a frame for religious experience to be fully shaped and comprehensible for religious man. As a structure anchoring experiences not tangible in any other way, metaphor becomes a means of objectivation of religious world.