Response to Of Writers and Purgers Q 3

This entry is in response to Roman Christiaens third question based on the Lackoff and Johnson reading.

The first question raised by Roman is in how Lakhoff and Johnson point out the important aspect of the metaphor in language and the limitations that can be encountered when the metaphor in language fails. I also believe this is a very interesting point that both authors present. The use of metaphor in speech is not something that is typically thought of unless it is specifically used in the “poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish.” Unless it is obvious that metaphors are being used they can be very hard to recognize in common language even though metaphors seem to be existent in all language for Lakoff and Johnson. I don’t think it is a main concern for the authors that metaphors can make a point that they didn’t want to be made. The authors point out the fact that metaphors can at times hide other important meanings, not necessarily totally oppose what was trying to be said. Hiding points and having opposing purposes are two different things, a person coming up with a metaphor would make sure that it fit the situation, but the mistake could be made that the metaphor made could hide important other aspects. I believe this is what makes metaphors so hard to understand at times. How can you really know that the meaning you get from the metaphor is the meaning the creator wanted? The answer is you can’t, people see things differently and metaphors can take on various meanings.

So does this point out a caveat in the use of language overall? I agree with Roman on this point that this does create a limitation in language. People can always be confused on the meanings of language; this is why we study communication. The authors of these chapters focus on the idea of why context is important in these instances for misunderstanding. A concept can be structured by the metaphor but the true meaning has the ability to extend it in many different directions. So we may think we know the meaning but in fact it can be much deeper than the ideas that we come up with. Roman gives a great real life example of this too in philosophy. A whole room full of people can examine the language of Philosophy and you can have a whole room full of different translations of the metaphors. This does create a problem for people trying to understand the overall meaning of the writings. Philosophers are very poetic and are some of the fore fathers of rhetoric, so finding meaning in these can be hidden and difficult to pinpoint, which creates a problem.

Is this a correct assumption made by Roman? Roman does make a valid point about how metaphors can complicate the use of languages and I do agree with him on his view of this article. Yes metaphors may be used in everyday life, but when we take the time to look at them and examine them they can also create varying views on there meaning. We will continue to use metaphors as part of our conceptual systems and human thought processes because they are such a big part of our understandings and realities that we make, understanding them is when we can reach problems.

Week One Participation Summary

I didn't know if we needed to do this or not, but if you wanted a quick summary of our readings here it is.

Our readings from chapters one through three in the Introduction to Rhetorical Theory introduce the art of Rhetoric to us through uses of explanations and examples of how rhetoric is used in everyday life. In chapter one the main theme is to discuss what rhetoric is and the processes we go through in rhetorical situations (the six actions). The chapter discusses continuities and discontinuities in communication and how when we have discontinuities in our communication “we strive to manage our symbols for specific goals”(pg. 6). We use rhetoric to induce certain results in our communication. Rhetoric takes place at certain and specific times in our communication and because of this is considered an art due to the knowledge needed in using it effectively.

Chapter two discusses how in each instance that rhetoric is used it is leading to a desired end result. Narrative, dialectic, and rhetoric were all explained in the social practice of rhetoric, which focuses on the joint transaction of thinking that occurs between communicators in rhetoric. Rhetoric was also described as a method in this chapter because it is something that is strategically planned in order to help us find out what is needed for certain communication situations. It stresses the fact that knowing your audience is an essential and important part in communicating effectively.

Chapter three gives the readers an idea of the opportunities in which rhetoric may occur. Rhetoric is very powerful in helping to shape the things around us, so we should take full use of that opportunity and apply it so that we can use our environments to our advantage. Rhetorical comm. has the ability to change and fit the needs of what is going on, but it is very important that if we begin to change communication we do it so that it appropriately fits the new situation. This chapter also discusses the exigence, audience, and constraint elements of rhetoric, but I am interested to learn more about these in our class discussion tomorrow.

The final piece we read for this week was the article by Bitzer. This article focuses on the situational element of rhetoric. Rhetoric, like described in chapter one, is very situational, but Bitzer makes an interesting point about rhetoric not always having to take place in discourse. It is the “situation which calls the discourse into existence”, his essay focuses on bringing rhetorical situation into a new light to be examined closer. I don’t exactly understand all of the elements of this article as well so I look forward to discussing it further in class.