Style and Delivery have such a huge impact on our rhetoric that without considering these variables, we are leaving out a major piece of the pie. Speaking of pie...lets look at some examples of hyperbaton, a style that can have a significant impact on rhetoric.

Normally we can say "The pie was delicious and juicy." However, by using hyperbaton we can change this around into a more influential and powerful sentence by stating "Delicious and juicy the pie was." What effect does this wording have on rhetoric?

Perhaps the magnitude of the result is left for the audience to know; however, these forms of speech can be much more persuasive.

Every time I hear a sentence that uses hyperbaton I always think of Yoda. In fact, while riding in the car this weekend my brother and dad continued on and on attempting to say everything "Yoda-style". In order to break this up, I barged in and explained that his form of speech is much of the time in a style in accordance with hyperbaton speech, explaining what we had learned in class on Thursday.

They seemed fascinated by this for about 30 seconds then went on to say everything "Darth Vader-style" to which I gave up trying to find an explanation for...

I see so many similarities between the historical viewpoints of rhetoric and those about this topic today. There was one line by Cicero in the presentation that specifically stuck out in my mind. “A flute player cannot play without his flute. An orator cannot tell his story without an audience.” This metaphor used by Cicero was a very good example about how rhetoric was used historically. The audience was seen as a necessarily accessory to the speaker; whereas today, the speaker is put at a much lower level compared to the interest of the audience. To me it seemed rhetoric was a very solid, black and white occurrence. There needed to be a speaker and an audience and the speaker had to convince the audience of an issue or argument. Rhetoric seemed to be a lot of convincing, as rhetoric seems to have intent within content, but not always necessarily within its consequences. I think it is also true today concerning the emotional connection that the speaker must have when connecting with an audience. I think historically rhetoric was seen more as a presentation of information for persuasion whereas today rhetoric can and is applied to many more simplistic forms of communication.

I’ve never understood the word “rhetoric” or what lies behind those eight letters as a meaning. I’m not sure if I can confidently grasp onto a meaning even now; or if I ever will. I’m in the middle of a tug of war with my mind telling me what this word means while the other part of my mind is contradicting my own self.

I’m told rhetoric includes words, images, and gestures presented to an audience for some kind of purpose. Does the purpose only include the “sender’s” delivery or does this include the reaction and consequences by the audience? If that purpose or reactive consequence is not met by the audience does this make it not rhetoric, or does this make it an unsuccessful form of rhetoric? If rhetoric involves an audience, then what constitutes an audience? Does there need to be a group of people sitting with all attention focused on “the man up front” or are passersby considered an audience?

I understand that we’re still in the beginning of this broad topic and through these next few class periods specifically, my thoughts on this subject will meld and mold into something more solid.

From conclusions that I can draw at this point, humans are naturally rhetorical beings. We naturally tend to rely on symbols, strive to have or be an audience, seek and work towards defining truth, and have the desire to analyze the world around us. These descriptions can apply to our natural tendencies as a human race, and also can apply to the idea of rhetorical theory. It will be interesting to get all of the different perspectives on rhetorical theory as well; to compare histories and conclusions about this idea of communication and persuasion.

Grouping

Belonging or associating with solely one group is hardly ever the case; everything in our lives occurs within groups, within groups, within groups, within groups.

Example:
-An organically grown peach in our local Safeway store…

The organic fruit section
Which is found in
The organic foods section
Which is found in
The produce section of Safeway
Which is found in
The local Safeway store
Which is found in
McMinnville
Which is found in
Oregon
Which is found in
The Northwest
Which is found in
The United States of America
Which is found in
North America
Which is found in
The Earth
Which is found in
This Universe

We use these groups that things are placed in to describe and to identify the item. For example if someone asked me about organic peaches, I would describe that our local Safeway store here in McMinnville, Oregon has them in their produce section along with the other organically grown items. I would use this product’s grouping to describe the item itself. We cannot be defined by one group that we call ourselves a part of, although, associating with numerous groups can help us in our search for our own identity.

By associating with one group in particular, we can in turn have an effect on other members of the same group by other characteristics that we call our own. To me this seems like a cycle of never-ending influences, which essentially it is. People change opinions and attitudes which has an effect on the group of association which has further effects on people within the group when they associate with more groups; and the cycle continues.