 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(November 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series on |
| Rhetoric |
|---|
 |
Works
|
Related
|
Cognitive rhetoric refers to an approach torhetoric,composition, andpedagogy as well as a method for language andliterary studies drawing from, or contributing to,cognitive science.
Following thecognitive revolution, cognitive linguists, computer scientists, and cognitive psychologists have borrowed terms from rhetorical andliterary criticism. Specifically,metaphor is a fundamental concept throughout cognitive science, particularly for cognitive linguistic models in which meaning-making is dependent on metaphor production and comprehension.
Computer scientists and philosophers of mind draw on literary studies for terms like "scripts", "stories", "stream of consciousness", "multiple drafts", and "Joycean machine". Cognitive psychologists have researched literary and rhetorical topics such as "reader response" and "deixis" in narrative fiction, and transmission of poetry in oral traditions.
Rhetoric is a term often used in reference tocomposition studies and pedagogy, a tradition that dates back toAncient Greece. The emergence of rhetoric as a teachable craft (techne) links rhetoric and composition pedagogy, notably in the tradition ofSophism.Aristotle collected Sophist handbooks on rhetoric and critiqued them inSynagoge Techne (fourth century BCE).
In Ancient Rome, the Greek rhetorical tradition was absorbed and became vital to education, as rhetoric was valued in a highly political society with an advanced system of law, where speaking well was crucial to winning favor, alliances, and legal rulings.
Cognitive rhetoricians focusing on composition (such asLinda Flower and John Hayes) draw from the paradigm, methods, and terms of cognitive science to build a pedagogy of composition, where writing is an instance of everyday problem-solving processes. Colleagues atCarnegie Mellon, Flower and Hayes conducted studies on problem-solving in writing using think-aloud protocols where subjects talk as they solve a problem showing what is happening in their minds while writing.[1]
Janet Emig explored elements of thewriting process and the relationship between process and product.[2] Building upon cognitive theories of transactional and experiential learning byJohn Dewey andJean Piaget, Emig's contribution to cognitive rhetoric is her differentiation betweenspeech acts and writing acts. Because speaking and writing are different ways of performing linguistic functions, Emig argues that the process of speaking and the process of writing result in differing means of expression. One issue Emig points out is that writing can be a sort of trap since the writer becomes a participant in the event through their writing. Another issue Emig identifies involves the way the structure of writing can shape how an event is presented by the writer. This structure becomes a conflict, Emig asserts, because writing should be dictated by the writer's experience—not the form.[3]
Patricia Bizzell juxtaposes writing and thinking to illustrate problems between form and convention. Bizzell identifies two theoretical positions: (1) inner-directed theorists approach writing instruction by focusing on style and conventions, and (2) outer-directed theorists believe these language functions are innate. The inner-directed theory is where students use what they know and apply it to a writing situation (thinking process). The outer-directed theory argues forms can't be taught because how writers choose language may be different depending on the rhetorical situation of the writing task or objective (social process). According to Bizzell, students participate in a variety of discourse communities, and writers are limited by the writer's ability to define the rules which exist in that particular discourse. Bizzell calls for a more flexible process that considers where the writer is at in their process and argues that the writer should use what they know to apply to the task; then, go back and figure out what they don't know—adapting their task to the situation.[4]
James A. Berlin has argued that by focusing on professional composition and communications and ignoring ideology, social-cognitive rhetoric—which maps structures of the mind onto structures of language and the interpersonal world—lends itself to use as a tool for training workers incorporate capitalism. Berlin contrastssocial-cognitive rhetoric withsocial-epistemic rhetoric, which makes ideology the core issue of composition pedagogy.
Cognitive rhetoric offers a new way of looking at properties of literature from the perspective of cognitive science. It is interdisciplinary in character and committed to data and methods that produce falsifiable theory. Rhetoric also offers a store of stylistic devices observed for their effect on audiences, providing a rich index with distinguished examples available to researchers in cognitive neuropsychology and cognitive science.
ForMark Turner (a prominent figure in cognitive rhetoric),narrative imaging is the fundamental instrument of everyday thought. Individuals organize experience in a constant narrative flow, starting with small spatial stories. Meaning is fundamentally parabolic (like a parable): two or more event shapes or conceptual spaces converge (blending) in the parabolic process, generating concepts with unique properties not found in either of the inputs. This process is everyday: anticipating that an object you are headed toward will make contact with you is a parable whereby you project a spatial viewpoint. Such narrative flow is a highly adaptive process, crucial for planning, evaluating, explaining, as well as recalling the past and imagining a future. Thus, literary processes have adaptive value prior to the emergence of linguistic capability (modular or continuous).
Cognitive rhetoric[edit] | Social-cognitive rhetoric[edit] | Social-epistemic rhetoric[edit] | Cognitive poetics[edit]
|