Page 334 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 334
What Do We Know about the World?
actions and interfaces mark new common ways of getting into contact.
A new (virtual) subjectivity and inter-subjectivity1 emerges. Rhetoric is
gaining new characteristics which feature mediated text production and
non-linear consumption.
Firstly, there is no clear border between the speaker and the audi-
ence; the continuous exchanging of roles enables the person to be both
speaker and listener, to be both writer and reader; and, in the same rhe-
torical situation, to be, concurrently, both communicator and receiver.
In the public domain, texts are not objects; by representing, talking, and
constituting relationships, they are themselves, public. This means not
only that the speaker is acting constantly as an audience but, also, that
the result, of that simultaneous, multi-identical communication, is the
interaction within and with texts. Interactivity penetrated the rhetori-
cal situation, the role of the sender and the text which is open to modifi-
cation, being un-finished, fluid, and trans-medial. New media discourse
suggests informality, a characteristic which is unfamiliar with tradition-
al rhetorical practices. As Judith T. Irvine (1979: 776–779) suggested,
formality is due to increased code structuring, the consistency of choic-
es, and the invocation, of the positional, rather than the personal identi-
ties and the emergence of a central situational focus. Formal speech and
communication imposes special rules of style and delivery on the speak-
er and deals with important activities and central figures in them (Ken-
nedy, 1997). However, the interactivity and permanence, of new media
communication, stir up the situational borders of formality, lessen the
importance of rules and positions, and boost the significance of person-
al identities and side involvements.
New media’s basic characteristics changed, also, the way ethos, pa-
thos and logos could operate. As Gurak (2009) claimed, speed – com-
bined with reach – was a predominant feature which had a dramatic im-
pact on the content and practice of communication. A significant shift,
from invention to delivery (distribution), can be detected in digital prac-
tice. Speed enhances the need to distribute on the speaker’s side and the
1 “Computer screen and television screen coexist as centers of familial activity. In this kind of private
space, the household member can delve into the computer screen by visiting websites, by associa-
tively surfing locations , by shopping, by entering a synchronous chat room or MUD (a multi-user
domain, in which the digitally literate person can assume various personae), by reading and/or post-
ing to an asynchronous list serve (or by reading only, a move that has been named “lurking”), and
by many other activities with CD-ROMs. Many people have reported the experience in their digi-
tal households and HUTs (or their offices or cyberhall cafes) of subjectively going elsewhere on the
computer, of interacting subjectively with the machine in a way that increases and/or complicates
human interaction with technology.” (Welch, 1999: 156)
actions and interfaces mark new common ways of getting into contact.
A new (virtual) subjectivity and inter-subjectivity1 emerges. Rhetoric is
gaining new characteristics which feature mediated text production and
non-linear consumption.
Firstly, there is no clear border between the speaker and the audi-
ence; the continuous exchanging of roles enables the person to be both
speaker and listener, to be both writer and reader; and, in the same rhe-
torical situation, to be, concurrently, both communicator and receiver.
In the public domain, texts are not objects; by representing, talking, and
constituting relationships, they are themselves, public. This means not
only that the speaker is acting constantly as an audience but, also, that
the result, of that simultaneous, multi-identical communication, is the
interaction within and with texts. Interactivity penetrated the rhetori-
cal situation, the role of the sender and the text which is open to modifi-
cation, being un-finished, fluid, and trans-medial. New media discourse
suggests informality, a characteristic which is unfamiliar with tradition-
al rhetorical practices. As Judith T. Irvine (1979: 776–779) suggested,
formality is due to increased code structuring, the consistency of choic-
es, and the invocation, of the positional, rather than the personal identi-
ties and the emergence of a central situational focus. Formal speech and
communication imposes special rules of style and delivery on the speak-
er and deals with important activities and central figures in them (Ken-
nedy, 1997). However, the interactivity and permanence, of new media
communication, stir up the situational borders of formality, lessen the
importance of rules and positions, and boost the significance of person-
al identities and side involvements.
New media’s basic characteristics changed, also, the way ethos, pa-
thos and logos could operate. As Gurak (2009) claimed, speed – com-
bined with reach – was a predominant feature which had a dramatic im-
pact on the content and practice of communication. A significant shift,
from invention to delivery (distribution), can be detected in digital prac-
tice. Speed enhances the need to distribute on the speaker’s side and the
1 “Computer screen and television screen coexist as centers of familial activity. In this kind of private
space, the household member can delve into the computer screen by visiting websites, by associa-
tively surfing locations , by shopping, by entering a synchronous chat room or MUD (a multi-user
domain, in which the digitally literate person can assume various personae), by reading and/or post-
ing to an asynchronous list serve (or by reading only, a move that has been named “lurking”), and
by many other activities with CD-ROMs. Many people have reported the experience in their digi-
tal households and HUTs (or their offices or cyberhall cafes) of subjectively going elsewhere on the
computer, of interacting subjectively with the machine in a way that increases and/or complicates
human interaction with technology.” (Welch, 1999: 156)
