A rhetorical device uses words in a certain way to convey meaning or to persuade.
Scope[ edit ] Scholars have debated the scope of rhetoric since ancient times. Although some have limited rhetoric to the specific realm of political discourse, many modern scholars liberate it to encompass every aspect of culture.
Contemporary studies of rhetoric address a much more diverse range of domains than was the case in ancient times. While classical rhetoric trained speakers to be effective persuaders in public forums and institutions such as courtrooms and assemblies, contemporary rhetoric investigates human discourse writ large.
Rhetoricians have studied the discourses of a wide variety of domains, including the natural and social sciences, fine art, religion, journalism, digital media, fiction, history, cartography, and architecture, along with the more traditional domains of politics and the law.
Public relations, lobbying, law, marketing, professional and technical writing, and advertising are modern professions that employ rhetorical practitioners. Because the ancient Greeks highly valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as a crucial tool to influence politics.
Consequently, rhetoric remains associated with its political origins. However, even the original instructors of Western speech—the Sophists —disputed this limited view of rhetoric.
According to the Sophists, such as Gorgiasa successful rhetorician could speak convincingly on any topic, regardless of his experience in that field. This method suggested rhetoric could be a means of communicating any expertise, not just politics.
In his Encomium to HelenGorgias even applied rhetoric to fiction by seeking for his own pleasure to prove the blamelessness of the mythical Helen of Troy in starting the Trojan War. He criticized the Sophists for using rhetoric as a means of deceit instead of discovering truth.
In "Gorgias", one of his Socratic DialoguesPlato defines rhetoric as the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies. Thus, Plato considered any speech of lengthy prose aimed at flattery as within the scope of rhetoric. Aristotle both redeemed rhetoric from his teacher and narrowed its focus by defining three genres of rhetoric— deliberativeforensic or judicial, and epideictic.
When one considers that rhetoric included torture in the sense that the practice of torture is a form of persuasion or coercionit is clear that rhetoric cannot be viewed only in academic terms.
However, the enthymeme based upon logic especially, based upon the syllogism was viewed as the basis of rhetoric.
However, since the time of Aristotle, logic has changed. For example, Modal logic has undergone a major development that also modifies rhetoric.
He restricted rhetoric to the domain of the contingent or probable: The contemporary neo-Aristotelian and neo-Sophistic positions on rhetoric mirror the division between the Sophists and Aristotle.
Neo-Aristotelians generally study rhetoric as political discourse, while the neo-Sophistic view contends that rhetoric cannot be so limited. Rhetorical scholar Michael Leff characterizes the conflict between these positions as viewing rhetoric as a "thing contained" versus a "container".
The neo-Aristotelian view threatens the study of rhetoric by restraining it to such a limited field, ignoring many critical applications of rhetorical theory, criticism, and practice.
Simultaneously, the neo-Sophists threaten to expand rhetoric beyond a point of coherent theoretical value. Over the past century, people studying rhetoric have tended to enlarge its object domain beyond speech texts.
Kenneth Burke asserted humans use rhetoric to resolve conflicts by identifying shared characteristics and interests in symbols. By nature, humans engage in identificationeither to identify themselves or another individual with a group. This definition of rhetoric as identification broadened the scope from strategic and overt political persuasion to the more implicit tactics of identification found in an immense range of sources.In grammar, parallelism, also known as parallel structure or parallel construction, is a balance within one or more sentences of similar phrases or clauses that have the same grammatical structure.
The application of parallelism affects readability and may make texts easier to process. Parallelism may be accompanied by other figures of speech such as antithesis, anaphora, asyndeton, climax.
Antithesis is the use of contrasting concepts, words, or sentences within parallel grammatical structures. Literary Devices Literary Devices, Terms, and Elements In this case, the use of antithesis is a rhetorical device that foreshadows the conflicts that will be central to the novel.
Rhetorical Devices. Despite my enormous love of language and the written word, I could never really get into the arcane field of rhetoric. I was the kid in English class who insisted that the distinction between a simile and a metaphor wasn't really that significant.
Antithesis (Greek for "setting opposite", Rhetorical antithesis. In rhetoric, antithesis is a figure of speech involving the bringing out of a contrast in the ideas by an obvious contrast in the words, clauses, or sentences, within a parallel grammatical structure.
Now You Can Buy the Book If you enjoy learning rhetorical devices, you should get the book. Writing with Clarity and Style: A Guide to Rhetorical Devices for Contemporary Writers takes you far beyond the material here, with full discussions of 60 devices, what they are, and how to use them effectively in modern writing.
The book includes more than examples, as well as practice exercises. Brief definitions of obscure words beginning with the letter A.