Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:14:47 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "h-rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese texts on Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
From: Christopher Pound <pound@is.rice.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:03:16 -0500 (CDT)
Hi,
A friend of mine is looking for Chinese sources on rhetoric: not literary composition, but speaking, argument, and persuasion. Ideally, I think what she's looking for are any counterexamples to the suggestion that rhetoric -- as a discourse on public discourse -- hasn't exactly flourished in China, because there's conceivably some link between the usefulness of rhetoric and ... um, I'm forgetting how it's phrased ... democracy? the most common source of authority? freedom? the plasticity of legitimation? Whatever she said. One of those. :-)
She thanks you all in advance for putting up with the request and for any help you may provide.
--
Christopher Pound (pound@rice.edu) | They are in an irreversible vegetative
Department of Anthropology, Rice U. | state. -- David Schneider
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:29:26 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese texts on Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:54:33 -0500
From: jmw1@midway.uchicago.edu (Joe Williams)
Forwarded message:
From: Christopher Pound <pound@is.rice.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:03:16 -0500 (CDT)
Hi,
A friend of mine is looking for Chinese sources on rhetoric: not literary
composition, but speaking, argument, and persuasion. Ideally, I think
what she's looking for are any counterexamples to the suggestion that
rhetoric -- as a discourse on public discourse -- hasn't exactly flourished
in China, because there's conceivably some link between the usefulness of
rhetoric and ... um, I'm forgetting how it's phrased ... democracy? the
most common source of authority? freedom? the plasticity of legitimation?
Whatever she said. One of those. :-)
She thanks you all in advance for putting up with the request and for
any help you may provide.
--
Christopher Pound (pound@rice.edu) | They are in an irreversible vegetative
Department of Anthropology, Rice U. | state. -- David Schneider
_Quarterly Journal of Speech_ has had a couple of articles in the last couple of years on Chinese rhetoric, one specifically on the democratic movement, I think. You might also look at _Communication Theory, Eastern and Western Perspectives_, ed. D. Lawrence Kincaid, Academic Press, 1987.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:59:58 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
From: Jim Crosswhite, University of Oregon
<jcross@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 10/25/95
The question about "Chinese rhetoric" is, for me, for now, an almost impossible question. I hope that more people will point the ignorant among us to better sources. My response here is a little long, so people uninterested in the issue might want to delete now.
I tried to broach this question a couple of years ago when I taught a mercilessly accelerated course on the history of rhetoric. I used ancient texts to approach it. We concentrated on Confucius, and I relied heavily on Herbert Fingarette's still great book, _Confucius: The Secular as Sacred_, and on another great book, _Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China_, by A.C. Graham. We also read material from Han Fei Tzu's _Persuasions_ and the "Difficulty" pieces.
We had already been through the Greeks and Romans, and my students were just beginning to piece together a pragmatically helpful narrative of the history of rhetoric, when I introduced the question of "Chinese Rhetoric." The students themselves came up with a fairly sophisticated version of the democracy/public sphere-rhetoric connection (not surprising since I had introduced some of Kennedy's main organizing ideas for a history of rhetoric), and had lots of ways of pointing out in lots of texts that the problems (or interpretations of the problems) that faced the Greeks and Romans and led to rhetoric as a kind of answer seemed not to face the ancient Chinese. They often pointed out that in many of the Chinese texts the point is not how to speak to an enfranchised public or an audience of near equals, but rather how to know when to speak to a superior and how to put things in an acceptable way.
This is what I expected, but, like your friend, I was hoping to discover a different way of reading this material, and a different way of thinking of "Chinese rhetoric." Here are a few of the avenues I tried to open up.
Any help out there? Is there a meta-analysis or critique of European-American work on Chinese rhetoric? Are there approaches that move beyond (or further into, or complicate) the democracy-public sphere ways of seeing Chinese rhetoric?
--Jim Crosswhite
University of Oregon
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:41:33 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 06:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Cheryl Glenn <glennc@ucs.orst.edu>
Regarding Christopher Pound's query:
There's a professor at Cal State Fullerton doing terrific work on Chinese
rhetoric: Heping Zhao (HZHAO@fullterton.edu). Cheryl Glenn
Forwarded message:
From: Christopher Pound <pound@is.rice.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:03:16 -0500 (CDT)
Hi,
A friend of mine is looking for Chinese sources on rhetoric: not literary
composition, but speaking, argument, and persuasion. Ideally, I think
what she's looking for are any counterexamples to the suggestion that
rhetoric -- as a discourse on public discourse -- hasn't exactly flourished
in China, because there's conceivably some link between the usefulness of
rhetoric and ... um, I'm forgetting how it's phrased ... democracy? the
most common source of authority? freedom? the plasticity of legitimation?
Whatever she said. One of those. :-)
She thanks you all in advance for putting up with the request and for
any help you may provide.
--
Christopher Pound (pound@rice.edu) | They are in an irreversible vegetative
Department of Anthropology, Rice U. | state. -- David Schneider
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:37:31 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:58:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: CJAN@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
The older source is Robert T. Oliver, Communication and Culture in
Ancient China and India. George Kennedy is just bringing to press
a collection on cross cultural studies in rhetoric. Any work by
Mary Garrett is good. Some out of China, as well, cites to be
found soon.
Jan Swearingen
Arlington
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:42:00 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Yameng Liu <yameng+@andrew.cmu.edu>
The most important recent "Chinese sources on rhetoric," if by that we mean texts in Chinese and by Chinese, are _Gu Hanyu Xiucixue Ziliao Huibian_ [A source Book of Classical Chinese Rhetoric] (Beijing: Shangwu, 1980), edited by Zheng Dian and Tan Quanji; and _Zhongguo Xiucixue Shi Gao_ [A Draft History of Chinese Rhetoric] (Shanghai: Jiaoyu, 1983) by Zheng Ziyu. (I believe a new version of Zheng Ziyu's history of Chinese rhetoric has been available for some time, but I have not yet been able to get a copy).
Professor Pound's post and especially Prof. Crosswhite's comments have brought up a number of interesting issues that concern not just Chinese rhetoric, but the understanding of rhetoric in general. Shall we believe that rhetoric is definable only within the context of "democracy/public sphere"? Or without reference to "literary composition"? Should Putnam's _The Arte of English Poesie_ (spelling?) still be read as a rhetorical text? Was there a Renaissance rhetoric if we follow Habermas's definition of "public sphere"? Does the title _The Rhetoric of Fiction_ still make sense? Of course, one can always argue against the existence of _rhetoric_ in other cultures by defining the term in a certain way. The question is: can a narrow, exclusive definition be justified by the rich history and the manifaceted tradition of oratory in the West? Just look at how classical rhetoricians disagreed with one another over the scope of rhetorical practices, and it would seem prudent not to take the meaning of the term for granted. For the purpose of cross-cultural studies of oratory, a broad definition, such as Quintilian's, is definitely to be preferred.
Some of these issues I have attempted to address in two studies I did recently. In _Three Issues in the Argumentative Conception of Classical Chinese Discourse_, to be published in _Philosophy East and West_ (46.1, Jan. 1996), I suggest that classical Chinese masters be seen as "rhetorical critics" and their discursive practices be understood from this perspective. In _To Capture the Essence of Chinese Oratory: an Anatomy of a Paradigm in Comparative Rhetoric_, to be published in the Spring 1996 issue of _Rhetoric Review_, popular assumptions about Chinese rhetorical tradition are examined against the backdrop of original source materials, and the cause for the persistence of these assumptions is also explored. Both texts attempt to provide a new perspective on oratory in the Chinese tradition, but they go beyond Chinese rhetoric per se and touch on theoretical underpinnings of cross-cultural studies of rhetoric in general. The arguments are a little too complex to be posted here, but I would be happy to run a copy for those who are working on a related project and would like to read them now, for whatever purpose.
Yameng Liu
English
Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:21:26 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:17:48 -0500
From: jmw1@midway.uchicago.edu (Joe Williams)
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:58:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: CJAN@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
The older source is Robert T. Oliver, Communication and Culture in
Ancient China and India. George Kennedy is just bringing to press
a collection on cross cultural studies in rhetoric. Any work by
Mary Garrett is good. Some out of China, as well, cites to be
found soon.
Jan Swearingen
Arlington
In regard to cross cultural rhetoric, having recently returned from a couple of months in Tokyo teaching academic discourse to Japanese MA students in a new U of Chicago graduate program there, I have collected some bibliography about Japanese rhetoric and style (most of it unfortunately in Japanese). If anyone is interested in it, let me know. I'd also be interested in hearing from those who were participating in a discussion of that topic last year and who would like to pick up that conversation again.. I got about 20 research papers from Japanese students on Japanese rhetoric and style, some quite interesting. Anyone with a special interest, drop a line.
Joe Williams
UofChicago
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:44:26 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Archiving Discussions of Chinese/Japanese Rhetoric
H-Rhetors,
Following Joe Williams' interest in continuing discussions of Chinese/Japanese rhetoric, I'd like to put in a plug for keeping the discussion on the list. Gary and I (but mostly Gary at this point) are working on getting a fuller h-rhetor gopher and web page going, which will include past discussion threads that we and subscribers think are provocative and useful. (Please send suggestions to me or Gary via h-rhetor@msu.edu, HatchG@jkhbhrc.byu.edu, or LVavra@uic.edu.) The recent thread on the OJ Simpson verdict has in fact been gophered, and will be edited and announced shortly. A thread on Asian rhetoric/s, it seems to me, would be a great resource. This discussion would be most easily archived if it's kept on h-rhetor.
Linda Vavra
LVavra@uic.edu
H-rhetor co-moderator
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:35:55 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
From: "John Hammerback" <JHAMMERB@PMAIL1.csuhayward.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:28:14 -0800
In an article Richard Jensen and I did on The Plan of Delano (QJS, l994), we cite an essay by Kathleen Wong, then an undergraduate student, on Chinese-American rhetoric--it's in the Cal State Hayward Conference in Rhetorical Criticism Journal, l992. Also, on Japanese rhetoric, a great source is Roichi Okabe, who teaches at Nanzan U in Japan, is in SCA and its directory, and has written a lot on rhetoric--including translating Aristotle's Rhetoric into japanese. He has a Ph.D. in rhetorical studies from Ohio State and an M.A. from Indiana and will be very helpful, I'm almost sure. Last year he was at U. of Minn, speech communication dept., on a Fulbright.
John Hammerback
CSU Hayward
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:43:45 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
From: jmw1@midway.uchicago.edu (Joe Williams)
Forwarded message:
From: "John Hammerback" <JHAMMERB@PMAIL1.csuhayward.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:28:14 -0800
In an article Richard Jensen and I did on The Plan of Delano (QJS,
l994), we cite an essay by Kathleen Wong, then an undergraduate student,
on Chinese-American rhetoric--it's in the Cal State Hayward Conference
in Rhetorical Criticism Journal, l992. Also, on Japanese rhetoric, a great
source is Roichi Okabe, who teaches at Nanzan U in Japan, is in
SCA and its directory, and has written a lot on rhetoric--including
translating Aristotle's Rhetoric into japanese. He has a Ph.D. in
rhetorical studies from Ohio State and an M.A. from Indiana and will be
very helpful, I'm almost sure. Last year he was at U. of Minn, speech
communication dept., on a Fulbright.
John Hammerback
CSU Hayward
I hope someone can reach him. I think he would be an invaluable resource. The issue of what counts as "rhetoric" raised by Yameng Liu is one that was as vexing as it was provocative when I was talking about rhetoric to my Japanese students (who ranged from about 26 years old to 70). A revealing detail about Chinese-Japanese historical/cultural relations is that the Japanese seem to have borrowed a very substantial part of their intellectual/literary heritage from China, with the exception of what I understand to be its rich rhetorical tradition. An exception to the exception is a small matter: the pattern known as ki, sho, ten, ketsu, which apparently dates at least to 11th c. (or earlier) Chinese four line poetry.
Joe Williams
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:48:25 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
From: dfrank@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (David Frank)
My friend Jim Crosswhite suggests that "The word "rhetoric" doesn't have a real counterpart in Chinese, and there is no tradition of rhetorical theory as we understand it in context of a history of rhetoric course. Does asking questions about" Chinese rhetoric" help us to understand Chinese thought (and/or western rhetoric) better, or does it distort things? What's the motivation for and possible use of this question?" Xing Lu and I addressed such questions about ancient Chinese rhetoric in "On the study of ancient Chinese rhetoric/bian" that was published in _Western Journal of Communication_ 57 (1993) pp. 445-464. Xing Lu, who is now an assistant professor at DePaul, has finished four chapters on a book to be published by a University Press in 1996. She has conducted a thorough survey of the relevant texts and has done extensive work in the University of Beijing Library. As a native Chinese speaker and a scholar well versed in English and the Western rhetorical tradition, her ability to juxtapose the two traditions is remarkable.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:13:01 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:29:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: CJAN@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Wow. Thanks to David Frank, Jow williams, and John Hammerback for their postings on Chinese rhetoric. Yameng Liu was one of the listings I was going to find. The news about the Japanese translation of Aristotle is useful, as is the note that most Japanese conventions are borrowed from Chinese traditions. Fung Yu-lan's A History of Chinese Philosophy Vol 1 (through 100 B.C.) is an excellent source for the comparison of Mencius and Socrates, of confucius' speech with the sophists, of Mohist dialectic, of rebukes of word mongers and opinion distinguished from truth. Confucius is likened to the Sophists, and also said to hold a position comparable to that of Socrates in the West.
I working with Hui Wu, a graduate student from Chinese People's Republic at TCU, I became more aware of the subtleties of comparison and the dangers as well. Too many extant studies have found rough similarities and examples but failed to understand the wholly different attitude toward literature, philosophy, moral values, and what we call rhetoric in Chinese culture. Even today the rhetoric is on the surface a rhetoric of assent within which subtleties argue the "new" points and push for change. Storytelling figures prominently as a persuasive device--put yourself into this glorious picture, o high one--etc.
Hui Wu's work is getting quite advanced, particularly on the enthymeme--contact her directly at TCU.
Jan Swearingen
cjan@utarlg.uta.edu
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:28:42 -0500 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:29:05 -0500
From: jmw1@midway.uchicago.edu (Joe Williams)
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:29:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: CJAN@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
most Japanese conventions
are borrowed from Chinese traditions.
I didn't say quite that. I said that a specific pattern (along with one or two others) were borrowed. The question of what counts as a convention in Japanese rhetoric I find very puzzling. Most of what counts as "Japanese" rhetoric is, I think a consequence of cultural history, virtually none of it, I believe, written down. There is now a growing literature in Japan,of course. But to be candid, what I have read of it in English is not as helpful as I would have hoped. I am sure that I have not read a good many things that are quite good.
Joe Williams
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:30:51 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "H-Rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhetoric
Forwarded message:
From: vwn <vwn@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 7:08:48 EST
For recent work on Chinese Rhetoric see:
Heping Zhao's lead article in the latest issue of Rhetoric Society Quarterly. See also his dissertation on a 5th century Chinese rhetorician: Liu Xie. Heping teaches at Cal State Fullerton.
Haixia Wang's dissertation on contemporary Chinese rhetoric. Haixia teaches at U. WIsconsin La Crosse.
Janice Lauer
Purdue University
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:33:56 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "h-rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese Rhtoric/Bian
Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 13:11:14 -0600 (CST)
From: HWU@GAMMA.IS.TCU.EDU
I thank Dr. David Frank for posting Chinese rhetoric in the listserv. I am
glad the Xing Lu is doing profound research in it.
Although I have not done any research in terms of Bian in Chinese rhetoric,
as a Chinese woman with a background of Chinese literature and history, I
would like to discuss this mode of rhetoric from the Chinese "Common sense."
I think Bian, unlike the Western classical rhetoric, emphasizes more
wisdom of the rhetor than logical development of arguemnts, though there
was a hidden logical relation in Bian to the rhetorical situation. When a
Bian Shi (messenger) was sent to speak to the king of another country in order
to prevent a potential war, he would tell a story that had a moral in it, and
usually there was a pun, an analoge, or a smart saying that took high
intelligence to decode. If the Bian Shi on the other side, or the king,
could not figure out the meaning of the saying and its relation to the
situation, the messenger got the upper hand of his rival, and the other
country could not lunch the war. So
I guess Bian might be a rival of wisdom in Chinese rhetoric.
Mine is a very rough thought about Bian. And I think Xing Lu and Frank's article on Bian is a nice contribution to the study of Chinese rhetoric. I am wondering whether there is any enthymematic demonstration of proofs in Bian (implicit? explicit?)?
Hui Wu
Department of English
Texas Christian University
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:57:52 -0600 Reply-To: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> Sender: H-Net History of Rhetoric Discussion list <H-RHETOR@MSU.EDU> From: "h-rhetor, Linda Vavra" <lvavra@uic.edu> Subject: Chinese rhetoric/bian
Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 22:41:15 -0900
From: dfrank@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (David Frank)
Hui Wu's observations are intriguing, and I am hopeful that the discussion on H-rhetor about Chinese rhetoric will not fade. Before we can engage in the study of Chinese rhetoric, western and eastern scholars need to acknowledge their cultures of origin. Western scholars can begin by remembering the conclusions G.E.R. Lloyd's _Polarity and analogy; two types of argumentation in early Greek thought_ that the ancient Greeks polarized and dichotomized. Modern western scholars have inherited Greek habits of thought. And we tend look at Chinese culture believing there is or is not a rhetoric.
With apologies to the postmoderns, I believe there is a universal sense of rhetoric that is expressed in some culturally specific manners. Xing Lu has traced the trajectory of the use of bian in ancient Chinese texts. The symbol evolved to embrace many of the same meanings that rhetoric, as it was defined by Aristotle, included. Without doubt, enthymemes attend Bian. The Bian Shi had to adapt to the values of their audience and used these values as unstated touchstones for their arguments. Finally, the argumentum ad hominem as defined and developed by Henry W. Johnstone may be yet another rhetorical universal that is clearly in evidence in ancient Chinese (and Hebrew) rhetoric.
David Frank
University of Oregon
Return to H-RHETOR Home Page.