Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetoric Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KEITH GRANT-DAVIE
UtahStateUniversity
RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents
264
Rhetoric
Review,Vol.15,No. 2, Spring1997
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents
265
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review
Rhetoric
266
Matterand MotivationoftheDiscourse
sensethata situationboth
Bitzerdefinesrhetorical
exigenceas therhetor's
calls for discourseand mightbe resolvedby discourse.Accordingto this
theessentialquestionaddressingthe exigenceof a situationwould
definition,
be "Whyis thediscourseneeded?"However,in myschemeI proposethatthis
what the discourseis
questionbe the second of threethatask, respectively,
about,whyit is needed,and whatit shouldaccomplish.I derivethe logic for
thisorderof questionsfromthe versionof stasistheoryexplainedby Jeanne
Fahnestockand Marie Secor, who argue that the stases providea natural
a subject.This sequence proceedsfrom
sequence of steps for interrogating
questionsof fact and definition(establishingthat the subject exists and
thesource
it) throughquestionsof cause and effect(identifying
characterizing
of the subjectand its consequences)and questionsof value (examiningits
or quality)to questionsof policyor procedure(consideringwhat
importance
shouldbe done about it) ("The Stases in Scientificand LiteraryArgument"
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rhetorical
Situationsand TheirConstituents
267
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268
Review
Rhetoric
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents
269
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270
RhetoricReview
author(260-68). Cherry'sdistinction
mightbe illustrated
by the speechof a
presidential
candidatewhobringsto it theethoshe has establishedthrough
his
politicalcareerand usesthespeechto createa personaforhimselfas president
in thefuture.
Thenagain,a rhetor's
ethoswill notbe thesameforall audiences.
It will dependon whattheyknowand thinkof therhetor's
pastactions,so the
"real"or "historical"
authoris not a stable"foundation"
identity
but depends
partlyon theaudiencein a particular
rhetorical
situation.Like exigence,then,
oftherhetor.
audiencecan influence
theidentity
Rhetorsmayplayseveralrolesat once,and evenwhentheytryto playjust
one role,theiraudiencemay be aware of theirotherroles.A LittleLeague
baseball umpiremight,dependingon his relationshipwith local residents,
receivefewerchallengesfromparentsat thegame if he happensalso to be the
local police chief.The range of roleswe can play at any given momentis
constrained
oftherhetorical
certainly
bytheotherconstituents
situationand by
the identitieswe bringto the situation.However,new rhetoricalsituations
changeus andcan lead us to add newrolesto ourrepertoire.
To use Consigny's
createethospartlythrough
terms,rhetors
integrity-ameasureof consistency
theytake fromsituationto situationinsteadof puttingon a completelynew
maskto suittheneedsofeverynewaudienceand situation;and theyalso need
receptivity-the
abilityto adaptto newsituationsand notrigidlyplaythesame
rolein everyone.
AUDIENCE-Those People, Real or Imagined, with Whom Rhetors
NegotiatethroughDiscourseto Achievethe RhetoricalObjectives
Audienceas a rhetorical
theidea of a homogenous
concepthastranscended
and are assembledin therhetor's
bodyofpeoplewhohavestablecharacteristics
and secondaryaudiences,audiences
presence.A discoursemay have primary
that are presentand those that have yet to form,audiences that act
or as individuals,
audiencesaboutwhomtherhetorknowslittle,
collaboratively
or audiencesthatexistonlyin therhetor'smind.ChaimPerelmanand Lucie
Olbrechts-Tyteca
pointoutthatunlikespeakers,writerscannotbe certainwho
their audiences are, and that rhetorsoften face "composite"audiences
eitherof severalfactionsorofindividualswhoeachrepresent
consisting
several
different
groups(214-17).
In Bitzer'sschemeaudienceexistsfairlysimplyas a groupof real people
withina situationexternalto boththerhetorand the discourse.Douglas Park
fourspecificmeaningsof audience:
has broadenedthisperspective
byoffering
(1) anypeoplewho happento hearor read a discourse,(2) a set of readersor
whoformpartofan externalrhetorical
situation
listeners
(equivalentto Bitzer's
of audience),(3) the audiencethatthe writerseems to have in
interpretation
mind,and (4) theaudiencerolessuggestedbythediscourseitself.The firsttwo
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituations
and TheirConstituents
271
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272
Rhetoric
Review
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents
273
I woulddefineconstraints,
bothpositiveand negativeconstraints.
then,as all
factorsin thesituation,aside fromtherhetorand the audience,thatmaylead
theaudienceto be eithermoreor less sympathetic
to thediscourse,and that
may therefore
influencethe rhetor'sresponseto the situation-stilla loose
definition,
butconstraints
defyanything
tighter.
With the rhetor and the audience excluded from the categoryof
it is temptingto exclude the otherartisticproofstoo, thereby
constraints,
simplifying
thecategoryfurther
bydrawinga distinction
betweentherhetorical
situationand the discoursethatarises fromit. However,clearlythe situation
continuesafterthepointat whichthediscoursebeginsto addressit. A rhetor
continuesto define,shape,reconsider,
and respondto therhetorical
situation
thecomposingprocess,and at anygivenpointduringthatprocess,
throughout
therhetormaybe highlyconstrained
discourse.Ifwe are to be
bytheemerging
whatwe havealreadywritten
mustconstrain
whatwe writenext.
coherent,
If constraints
are thoseotherfactorsin rhetorical
besidesrhetors
situations,
and audiences,thatcould help or hinderthediscourse,whatmighttheybe? I
have alreadyincludedthe emergingtextof the discourseas a constraint
on
whata rhetorcan add to it. To thiswe can add linguisticconstraints
imposed
of languageuse dictatedbythe
bythegenreof the textor bytheconventions
situation.Other constraintscould arise fromthe immediateand broader
contextsof the discourse,perhapsincludingits geographicaland historical
Such constraints
eventsthatthe
couldincluderecentor imminent
background.
discoursemightcall to readers'minds,otherdiscoursesthatrelateto it, other
people, or factorsin the cultural,moral, religious,political,or economic
climate-both local and global-that might make readersmore or less
receptiveto thediscourse.Foreigntradenegotiations,
a domesticrecession,a
hardwinter,civil disturbances,
a sensationalcrimeor accident-eventslike
these might act as constraintson the rhetoricalsituationof an election
campaignspeech,suggesting
appealsto makeor avoidmaking.Everysituation
of time,place, people,events,and so
ariseswithina context-a background
forth.
Not all ofthecontextis directly
relevantto thesituation,
butrhetorsand
audiencesmay be aware of certainevents,people, or conditionswithinthe
contextthatare relevantand shouldbe consideredpartofthesituation
because
theyhave the potentialto act as positiveor negativeconstraintson the
discourse.The challengefortherhetoris to decidewhichpartsof the context
bearon thesituationenoughto be consideredconstraints,
andwhatto do about
them-for instance,whetherthe best rhetoricalstrategyfor a negative
wouldbe to addressit directlyand tryto disarmit-or even tryto
constraint
turnit intoa positiveconstraint-orto say nothingaboutit and hope thatthe
audienceoverlooksittoo.
Some of myexampleshave complicatedtherolesof rhetorand audience,
butall so farhavelookedat discoursesin isolationand assumedthatsituations
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274
Rhetoric
Review
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents
275
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276
RhetoricReview
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituations
and TheirConstituents
277
theprosperity
ofothersin thecommunity
dependedtoo. The ownerswerealso
praised as upstandingmembersof the community,
having employedlocal
peopleand contributed
to local charities.Two letterwritersarguedfromthis
constraint
thatthecommunity
shouldnotbitethehandthatfeeds.
This analysisof the SherwoodHills sign debateas a compoundsituation
onlyscratches
thesurface,butunderstanding
eventhismuchaboutthesituation
goes a longwaytowardexplainingwhytheincidentgeneratedsuchan unusual
waveofpublicopinion.The conclusionofa compoundrhetorical
situationmay
be harderto determine
thantheend of a single-discourse
situation,
particularly
ifthesubjectofdiscussionis perennial.This particular
disputeendedwhenthe
exchange of lettersstopped and the Sherwood Hills owners reached a
compromise
withthecountycouncil:Boththesignand theordinanceremained
in place,butthesignwas loweredbytenfeet.
As mydiscussionand exampleshave shown,exigence,rhetor,audience,
and constraints
can interlacewitheach other,and thefurther
one delvesintoa
situationthe moreconnectionsbetweenthemare likelyto appear. However,
whiletheboundariesbetweentheconstituents
will seldombe clearand stable,I
do thinkthatpursuingtheminitiallyas iftheywerediscreteconstituents
helps
a rhetoror a rhetorician
lookat a situationfroma varietyof perspectives.
My
in theprecedingpageshave beento discussthepossiblecomplexities
efforts
of
rhetoricalsituations.Teachingstudentwritersand readersto ask the same
questions,andto understand
whytheyare askingthem,will help themrealize
theiroptions,choose rhetoricalstrategiesand stancesforgood reasons,and
each other'sroles.6
beginto understand
Notes
1 thankRhetoric
Reviewreaders
JohnGageandRobertL. Scott,whosecarefulreviewsofearlier
drafts
ofthisessayhelpedme improve
itgreatly.
2
Bitzer'sdefinition
does notdistinguish
situationfromcontext.The two termsmaybe used
but I preferto use contextto describethe broaderbackgroundagainstwhicha
interchangeably,
rhetorical
situation
developsandfrom
whichitgathers
someofitsparts.I see situation,
then,as a subset
ofcontext.
3 In "The Rhetorical
Situation?
and "Rhetoricand Public Knowledge,"Bitzeruses theterms
I haveused exigencein thisessaymostlyforreasonsof habit
exigenceand exigency
synonymously.
and consistency
withtheoriginalBitzer/Vatz/Consigny
I considerit an abstractnounlike
discussion.
or coherence.Whilecohesioncan be locatedin textualfeatures,
diligence,influence,
coherence
is a
perception
in thereader.In thesameway,exigenceseemsto me to describenotso muchan external
circumstance
as a senseofurgency
or motivation
withinrhetors
or audiences.It is theywho recognize
(or failto recognize)
exigencein a situation
and so theexigence,likethe meaningin literary
works,
mustresidein therhetor
or audienceas theresultofinteraction
withexternalcircumstances.
Although
Bitzercallsthosecircumstances
I prefer
exigences,
tothink
ofthemas sourcesofexigence.
4 This fundamental
betweenBitzerand Vatz parallelsthe debatewithinliterary
disagreement
theory
overthelocationof meaning:
whether
meaningexistsin thetext,independent
of thereader,or
itis largely
orentirely
whether
brought
bythereaderto thetext.Bitzer'sviewlookstowardformalism,
Vatz'stowardreader-response
and minetowardthepositionthatmeaningis a perception
theories,
that
occursinthereader
butis (orshouldbe) quitehighly
constrained
bythetext.
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278
Rhetoric
Review
5 Takingpoststructuralist
approaches
totherolesofrhetor
andaudience,
LouiseWetherbee
Phelps
and RobertRothfurther
challengeany assumption
of a static,dividedrelationship
betweenthetwo.
Phelpsuses MikhailBakhtin'sidea of heteroglossia
to deconstruct
theidea of a boundary
between
authorand audience.She arguesthatthe othervoices an authorengagesthroughreadingand
conversation
whilecomposingare inevitably
present
in thetext,inextricably
wovenwiththeauthor's
voice,andthatthisintertextuality
ofthetextandtheauthor
makesa simpleseparation
oftextandauthor
fromaudienceimpossible(158-59). Rothsuggests
thattherelationship
between
writers
andreadersis
notadversarial
senseofaudiencetakestheform
oftencooperative,
ofa shifting
(175), andthata writer's
setofpossiblereadingrolesthatthewriter
maytryon (180-82).Neither
PhelpsnorRotharguethatwe
shouldabandonthetermsrhetorandaudience.Phelpsacknowledges
thatalthough
authorandaudience
thatwe shouldretainthe
maynotbe divisible,
we routinely
actas iftheywere(163), andsheconcludes
conceptof audience for its heuristicvalue "as a usefullyloose correlatefor an authorial
or whatever
an utterance
turnstoward"(171). LikePhelps,Rothrecognizes
that
orientation-whoever
thefreeplay of rolesneedsto be grounded."Whatwe reallyneed,"he concludes,"is a continual
ofopposites,
readersanda monitoring
interms
balancing
bothopennesstoa widerangeofpotential
ofa
orphaseinthecomposing
particular
senseofaudienceatanyonemoment
process"(186).
6 1 havesummarized
thatmight
be usedbywriters
myanalysisina listofquestions
(oradaptedfor
use byaudiences)toguidethemas theyexaminea rhetorical
situation.
Spacedoes notallowthislistto
be includedhere,butI willsenda copytoanyonewhomailsmea request.
WorksCited
Bitzer,Lloyd F. "The RhetoricalSituation."Philosophyand Rhetoric1 (1968): 1-14. Rpt.
NewYork:
Contemporary
TheoriesofRhetoric:SelectedReadings.Ed. RichardL. Johannesen.
Harper,1971.381-93.
Ed.
. "Rhetoric
and PublicKnowledge."
Rhetoric,
Philosophy,
and Literature:
An Exploration.
Don M. Burks.WestLafayette,
IN: PurdueUP, 1978.67-93.
Booth,WayneC. TheRhetoricofFiction.2nded. Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1983.
in WrittenDiscourse."Written
Cherry,Roger D. "Ethos Versus Persona: Self-Representation
Communication
5 (1988): 251-76.
Consigny,
Scott."Rhetoric
andItsSituations."
Philosophy
andRhetoric7 (1974): 175-86.
Covino,WilliamA., and David A. Jolliffe.
Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,
Boundaries.Boston:
Allyn,1995.
Crowley,
Sharon.
AncientRhetorics
forContemporary
Students.
New York:Macmillan,
1994.
"AudienceAddressed/Audience
Invoked:The Role of Audiencein
Ede, Lisa, and AndreaLunsford.
Composition
Theoryand Pedagogy."College Composition
and Communication
35 (1984): 15571.
Audienceas Rhetor."
KirschandRoen
Enos,Theresa."AnEternalGoldenBraid: Rhetoras Audience,
99-114.
Criticism."
of Literary
TextualDynamicsof the
Fahnestock,
Jeanne,and MarieSecor."TheRhetoric
Professions.
Ed. CharlesBazermanandJamesParadis.Madison:U ofWisconsinP, 1991.76-96.
. "TheStasesinScientific
andLiterary
Argument."
Written
Communication
5 (1988): 427-43.
Fields,Barbara.Interview.
TheCivilWar.Dir.KenBurns.Florentine
Films,1990.
Communication.
Kirsch,Gesa, and Duane H. Roen,eds.A Sense ofAudiencein Written
Newbury
Park,CA: Sage, 1990.
Kucer,StephenL. "The Makingof Meaning:Readingand Writingas ParallelProcesses."Written
2 (1985): 317-36.
Communication
Long,RussellC. "TheWriter's
Audience:FactorFiction?"KirschandRoen73-84.
and theChallenger
Accident."
Moore,Patrick."WhenPolitenessis Fatal: TechnicalCommunication
JournalofBusinessand TechnicalCommunication
6 (1992): 269-92.
Written
Martin."A Social-Interactive
ModelofWriting."
Communication
6 (1988): 66-85.
Nystrand,
Park,Douglas."TheMeaningsof'Audience."'
CollegeEnglish44 (1982): 247-57.
A Guidefor the
TechnicalInformation:
Pattow,Donald, and WilliamWresch.Communicating
NJ:Prentice,
1993.
Electronic
Age. EnglewoodCliffs,
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents
279
Perelman,
Chaim.TheNewRhetoric:A TheoryofPracticalReasoning.Trans.E. Griffin-Collart
and
0. Bird. The GreatIdeas Today.Chicago:Encyclopedia
Britannica,
Inc.,1970. Rpt.Professing
NJ:
theNew Rhetorics:A Sourcebook.Ed. TheresaEnos andStuartC. Brown.EnglewoodCliffs,
1994. 145-77.
Prentice,
TheNew Rhetoric.Trans.JohnWilkinsonand Purcell
Perelman,Chaim,and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca.
Weaver.U. of NotreDame P, 1969: 1-26. Rpt.Contemporary
Theoriesof Rhetoric:Selected
NewYork:Harper,1971. 199-221.
Readings.Ed. RichardL. Johannesen.
Phelps,Louise Wetherbee.
Audienceand Authorship:
TheDisappearingBoundary.KirschandRoen
153-74.
andReadings.2nded. Boston:Allyn,1994.
Reep,Diana C. TechnicalWriting:
Principles,
Strategies,
A Post-Structuralist
Roth,RobertG. DeconstructingAudience:
Rereading.KirschandRoen175-87.
Vatz,Richard."TheMythoftheRhetorical
Situation."
PhilosophyandRhetoric6 (1973): 154-61.
White,Eugene E. The Contextof Human Discourse: A Configurational
Criticismof Rhetoric.
Columbia:U ofSouthCarolinaP, 1992.
at UtahStateUniversity,
KeithGrant-Davie
is an assistant
professor
wherehe hastaughtrhetoric,
readingtheory,
and technical
writing.
His articleshave appearedinJAC:A Journalof Composition
and Reader. His current
Theory,The Journalof TechnicalWriting
research
and Communication,
and styleanalysissoftware,
projectsincludetherhetoric
ofsilence,grammar
and theprocessofgrant
writing
andreviewinbiologicalresearch.
RhetoricReviewBack IssuesAvailable
Thefollowing
issuesofRR areavailableatthesinglecopypriceof$10.00,including
mailing:2.1,2.2,
3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1,7.2,8.1, 8.2,9.1, 10.1,10.2,11.1,11.2,12.1,12.2,13.1,13.2,
as a groupforonly$99.00,,
backissuesmaybe purchased
14.1,14.2,and 15.1.All twenty-four
including
mailing.Volumes1.1 & 2, 3.1,5.1 & 2, 6.1,and9.2 areavailableonlyas photocopies.
The
priceforeach is $11.00,including
mailing.
Orders
forindividual
backissuesmustbe prepaid.Orders
andlibraries
fromdepartments
maybe billed.Pleasewritetotheaddressbelow,e-mail
orfax(520/621-7397),
(rhetrev@ccit.arizona.edu),
indicating
whichbackissue(s)youwouldlike:
ofEnglish,
Rhetoric
Review,TheresaEnos,Editor,
Department
ofArizona,Tucson,AZ
University
85721.
This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions