I keep running into the term rhetoric these days in the context of ESL, both in my classes at TNS, and in articles I am reading about medical English (four examples are listed below). Although rhetoric is usually defined loosely as “the art of persuasion,” I would prefer to give it the more general definition of  “strategies for effective communication.”

Often rhetoric has a negative connotation. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as:

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques

but notes also the negative sense in which it is used:

language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content

The word rhetoric may also conjure up lists of mostly Greek and Latin words for obscure literary devices (anadiplosis, catachresis, synecdoche, etc.). Here’s an example from an early book of rhetoric, called The Garden of Eloquence, written by Henry Peacham in 1593, introducing a device called “Synaeceosis”:

Here is the text, with modernized spelling and layout:

Synaeceosis is a figure which teacheth to conjoin diverse things or contraries, and to repugne [i.e. oppose] common opinion with reason, thus:

• The covetous and the prodigal are both alike in fault, for neither of them knoweth to use their wealth aright, for they both abuse it, and both get shame by it.
• Gluttonous feasting, and starving famine are all one, for both weaken the body, procure sickness, and cause death.

Actually, this device is fairly useful in talking about ESL. Here are two examples of synaeceosis that I have written, using Peacham’s model:

• A descriptive approach and a prescriptive approach to language teaching both share the problem of inadequately addressing all of the needs of learners.
• If we focus on solely on skills, learners may gain greater automaticity, but lose the opportunity to gain metalinguistic understanding of the language; if we focus solely on systems, learners may develop a solid decoding ability but lack automaticity. Either way, the integral interplay of skills and systems is lost.

It is easy, looking at these long Greek words, to feel that rhetoric has no relevance to today’s world. Perhaps it is time to simplify the terminology, because I think that there is great need for this discipline. I know I am not alone in this belief, because the University of Iowa offers a minor in Rhetoric and Persuasion. Here is how the UI Rhetoric Department defines rhetoric:

Rhetoric is not just empty words or fine political speeches. Rhetoric is the study and art of writing and speaking well, being persuasive, and knowing how to compose successful writing and presentations. Rhetoric teaches us the essential skills of advanced learning and higher education. In Rhetoric classes, students learn to think logically, to discover wrong or weak arguments, to build a good case on a controversial topic, and to overcome the all-too-common fear of speaking in public so that they can deliver crisp and well-prepared speeches.

Rhetoric is a fundamental building block of good education, whether it is followed by studies of Engineering, English or Entomology. Clear thinking, good argument, and logical discussion are essential to academic student success in any discipline and field. The better the essays you write, the better your grade. The stronger the presentations you make, the greater your academic success. The more you understand how to criticize and analyze what you read and study in Music, Mathematics or the Modern Languages, the stronger your education.

— The University of Iowa, https://clas.uiowa.edu/rhetoric/about/what-is-rhetoric

For me rhetoric is the place where my two professions (English teaching and Communication Skills coaching) meet. In Medical English, it is the area of language learning that both L1 and L2 English speakers both need, but in slightly different ways. In the classical understanding, rhetoric is related to productive skills, especially oration and debate. But for me it must also involve receptive skills as well. An effective doctor cannot discuss treatment options with a patient without listening thoughtfully to and responding respectfully to a patient’s concerns and wishes. A politician cannot function as an effective representative of her constituency without reading and listening to the opinions of those who elected her.

I am very excited to have recently discovered Fahnestock (2011), which combines a detailed historical overview of rhetoric, with an analysis of the English language (in terms of historical development, and structure), to give a highly informative picture of how rhetoric works in English. A careful reading of this work is one of my next projects.

References:

Carvalho, KRR (2008). “A Organização Retórica das Apresentações Orais de Trabalhos Científicos na Especialidade Médica de Pneumologia.” (In Portuguese with English abstract. English title: “The Rhetorical Organization of Oral Presentations in the Medical Specialty of Pneumology”). The ESPecialist, 29 (1), 85–111.

Díez Arroyo, M (2014), “ ‘Ageing youthfully’ or the rhetoric of medical English in advertising.” Ibérica, 28, 83-106.

Fahnestock, J (2011), Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koerber, A, and Graham, H (2017) “Theorizing the Value of English Proficiency in Cross-Cultural Rhetorics of Health and Medicine – A Qualitative Study.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(1), 63-93.

Salager-Meyer, F, Alcaraz Ariza, MA, and Zambrano, N (2003) “The scimitar, the dagger and the glove – intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English Medical Discourse (1930–1995).” English for Specific Purposes, 22, 223–247.