A discussion based on lenses: Katie, Logan, Amy, Jie, & Josh

Katie (argument): Comparing Richards and Weaver has been an enormous task as the two conflict on certain ideas that are subsets of greater overall ideas on which they do agree. Quotes out of both help make this comparison and contrast more clean. Both I believe conceptualize language in the same way, in an overarching system that then governs rhetoric, which would be a subset under language. Richards believes that “Approach to meaning, far more than the approach to such problems as those of physics, requires a thorough investigation of language,” (pg. 1276), which implies that he believes that language, unlike science, is dynamic and more fluid, and thus meaning, and in turn persuasion and rhetoric, would necessitate study in language to be successful. “Language, if used, must be a ready instrument,” also attests (pg. 1275) to this idea that language is not definable; this idea then shows how rhetoric can be used by a speaker in both beneficial and harmful ways, since the interpretation of that rhetoric, thus language used by the speaker, can be interpreted in several ways, depending on the definitions that the audience allows for the language used, and what emotional response those words provoke for each member of the audience. Thus, Richards mentions, “Words are imperfect means of communication.”

Weaver agrees with Richards, stating that “Language, a system of imputation, by which values and precepts are first framed in the mind and are then imputed on things,” (pg. 1359), suggests in a different way that language and word use in the rhetorical sense is imperfect as the imputation may not carry over to the audience. In essence both Weaver and Richards consider the power of rhetoric, Richards in the sense that it can be used for either harm or good, while Weaver considers the lost art of rhetoric as it once was. Weaver does differ from Richards in this aspect; Weaver speaks to the idea of the “attacked” rhetoric, as in rhetoric is attacked from “Distorted image that makes man a merely rationalistic being,” (pg. 1358) while Richards speaks to the power of rhetoric but through the lens of morality.       

Amy (public speech): I agree that both Weaver and Richards acknowledge the power of rhetoric, and both acknowledge that language can be used to mislead and deceive.  I think they disagree on ideas about language.  Richards argues that ambiguity is unavoidable because language has to be interpreted by a listener who lives in a specific context.  He says that “no word can be judged as to whether it is good or bad, correct or incorrect, beautiful or ugly, or anything else that matters to a writer, in isolation” (1289).  Context matters - both the words themselves (think using context clues to figure out what a word means) and the context of the listener’s life.  Weaver agrees that a rhetor must know his audience’s lived context, but the rhetor must use that knowledge to lead the audience towards the good.  He says that the “honest rhetoricians therefore has two things in mind: a vision of how matters should go ideally and ethically and a consideration of the special circumstances of his auditors” (1355).  He believes there is a transcendent ideal, similar to Plato’s vision of the transcendent.

It seems to me that Weaver is trying to join two ideas.  He believes in the transcendent and the good, that some things are better than others.  In this sense, his ideas are very much in line with Plato.  But Weaver also believes in “the reality of man’s composite being,” explaining that people are both rational and emotional, and that context matters (1357).  It seems that he differentiates between the transcendent and what is in what we’ve called in class the realm of the probable.  Where Weaver differs with Richards is the nature of language.  Richards believes that language by it’s very nature is slippery, with meaning hard to pin down.  Weaver thinks that language isn’t problematic, but that base rhetors are a problem.  Base rhetors mislead the people, while the good rhetor leads people to the good.


Logan (heuristic): ·    
    Weaver asserts “rhetoric is cognate with language.” This, I think, is the greatest similarity between him and Richards. Richards offers us that rhetoric should be the study of misunderstandings that result from the inherent ambiguities of language. While Weaver places more of an emphasis on the classical conceptualization of the inextricability of rhetoric and persuasion, both deal with the ways in which language informs human interactions; Weaver even states explicitly “the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that its object is the whole man” (1352), and “rhetoric should be considered the most humanistic of the humanities” (1353, emphasis added). Collectively, their understanding conceives of rhetoric as a heuristic, which is a notably less prescriptive approach than those who come before them in the rhetorical tradition. For Richards, an awareness of context is absolutely necessary in understanding rhetorical situations and specific utterances; similarly, Weaver and his “value-laden” perception of language invites students of rhetoric to pay attention to the worldviews of both speakers and audiences.

    The major difference between Weaver and Richards is that Weaver deals with the purpose of rhetoric while Richards deals more with the nature or function. This might sound simplistic, but I think the difference is crucial theoretically. Weaver returns to Plato and The Phaedrus to emphasize the position of truth within the discipline of rhetoric. For him, “rhetoric inevitably impinges upon morality and politics” and “we have to think of its methods and sources in relation to a scheme of values” (1355). Specifically, he invokes the dialectic exercise of the lover vs. the nonlover debate to argue that the “true” purpose of rhetoric is to move the will of the audience to the ultimate good. Richards, on the other hand, concerns himself more with the ways in which words are informed by layers of context. He is less concerned with purpose than he is with developing a theoretical framework that will allow us to understand the ways in which those contexts inhibit or invite understanding.


Josh (emotions): When we consider the different roles that Richards and Weaver assign to human emotions in rhetoric, we get a sense of their theoretical points of convergence and divergence. Although they treat of different aspects of language and meaning, they begin from similar positions, namely, the point at which formal logic ceases to provide a means for understanding the way language contributes to the construction of meaning. Richards begins by noting the arbitrary nature of the definitions assigned to terms and the subjective nature of concepts such as cause and effect. Weaver begins with a revolt against the scientistic doctrines that would reduce humankind to “a logic machine” (1352). In short, they both recognize that subjectivity contributes immensely to acts of audience and rhetor.

These positions allow great room for individual subjectivity to enter into a theory of discourse. Richards places great emphasis on the role of the difference meanings individuals assign to specific terms and the ambiguity that arises from a lack of shared meaning.This speaks to a gap which, for Weaver, can be crossed through vivid language which appeals to the emotions of listeners (1358). Such language provides a concrete experience of what was hitherto only an abstraction, and helps to create identification between the rhetor and the audience by giving them an experiential point from which to refer to more abstract ideas which are more commonly treated of in terms of logic.



Jie Liu (Human Beings):
In my view, the major difference between Weaver and Richards lies in their different understandings of rhetoric and language. Richards tends to examine rhetoric as a means – in particular he analyzes language and meaning, paying close attention to signs and contexts. The focus of his study is communication. According to his The Philosophy of Rhetoric, rhetoric is the “study of verbal understanding and misunderstanding” (1281) and his purpose is to achieve better understanding. Richards seldom talks about the nature of human beings, the object of Rhetoric.

On the other hand, the foundation of Weaver’s research on rhetoric and language is his understanding of human beings. In “Language is Sermonic,” he claims that rhetoric’s “object is the whole man” (1352), which means a rhetorician should consider not only logical argument, but also “other parts of man’s constitution, especially to his nature as a pathetic being” (1352). A whole man is also a historical man; a rhetorician needs to address an audience in its particular situation (1352-3). This is also reflected in Weaver’s definition of humanity, which includes “emotionality,” “capacity for aesthetic satisfaction,” and “religious passion,” apart from rationality (1352). Because feeling is an important part of soul, in “The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric” Weaver views his “complete man” as “the ‘lover’ added to the scientist” (1369).

Focusing on human beings, Weaver’s rhetoric aims to “perfect men by showing them better versions of themselves” (1371). Influenced by Platonic idealism, he believes in absolute truth and “ultimate good” (1368). Thus, there is an order of values and “a hierarchy leading up to the ultimate good” (1370). In order to move the soul towards the ultimate good, a real rhetorician should use analogy like Socrates instead of logic with an assumed authority – “He should be in a position to know somewhat better than I do” (1358). Weaver actually agrees with “Quintilian that the true orator is the good man” (1360). It is also reasonable for a rhetorician to talk about “real potentiality or possible actuality” (1368) as long as he attempts to push the audience toward the Good. In this sense, rhetoric “consists of truth plus its artful presentation” (1366). Because Weaver’s rhetoric centers on perfecting human beings, it includes dialectics bearing “theoretical truth” but also “a desire to bring truth into a kind of existence” (1371). Hence, Weaver’s rhetoric is realistic and represents “intellectual love of the Good” (1371) at the same time.

Weaver’s theory of language seems also based on his view of human beings. “The soul is impulse, not simply cognition.” (1370) Therefore language inevitably indicates people’s attitude and tendency. He admits that there are “degrees of objectivity” (1359) but the seemingly objective “expression can be seen as enclosed in a rhetorical intention” (1359). “Every use of speech, oral and written, exhibits an attitude, and an attitude implies an act.” (1359) Thus, “men are born rhetoricians” (1359) while language is “sermonic,” “subjectively born, intimate, and value-laden vehicle” (1359). In short, rhetoric is “cognate with language” (1359).  

In certain aspects, Richards’s view of language is very different from Weaver’s. While Weaver does not believe that language can be neutral, Richards states that persuasion is “only one among the aims of discourse” and pays more attention to exposition, which he thinks merely “states a view” (1281), even though he also realizes that in reality pure exposition is hard to find (1287). Actually Richards’s understanding of truth is related to this pure exposition, in other words, being objective and scientific. He seems not interested in an ideal, absolute truth. Accordingly, when talking about language, he sticks to “the strict scientific or ‘rigid’ end of this scale of dependent variabilities” (1289). In addition, Richards emphasizes the role of contexts and the interinanimation of words: the meaning of a particular word depends on special situations and other words. He is aware of ambiguity and “multiplicity of meaning” (1286). Hence, “no word can be judged as to whether it is good or bad… in isolation” (1289). On the contrary, Weaver believes in ultimate good and prefers a hierarchy of words. “All of the terms in a rhetorical vocabulary are like links in a chain stretching up to some master link which transmits its influence down through the linkages.” (1370) Some words are better than other words. Weaver also feels that the commonness of Basic English Richards created “constitutes the negative virtue ascribed to the nonlover” (1363).

Finally, there are a few similarities between Richards and Weaver. Though Richards does not believe in absolute truth and ultimate good, it seems that he also attempts to pursue something general, something behind particulars when claiming that meanings “have a primordial generality and abstractness” (1283). In addition, he is aware of the role of feeling when mentioning emotive meaning (1287) and other functions of language (1289). He also knows “the function of language as an instrument for the promotion of purposes” (persuasion) as well as “a means of symbolizing references” (1277). On the other hand, Weaver views language as “a system of imputation, by which values and precepts are first framed in the mind and are then imputed to things” (1359). To a certain extent, this echoes Richards’s triangle about symbol, reference, and referent: thoughts (including values and precepts) goes before things.