Page 372 - 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. 372
What Do We Know about the World?
munication events, being then either routine-based or complex, allows
us to look at texts as contextualized (situated) and subjected to the in-
terpretation of the participants to the event.
3. The Rhetorical Situation
The contextualized and situated nature of text can be better de-
scribed by referring to the concept of rhetorical situation developed by
Lloyd Bitzer (1968; 1980). According to Bitzer “rhetoric is situation-
al” (1968: 3), i.e. “a particular discourse comes into existence because of
some specific condition or situation which invites utterance” (1968: 4)
and “rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to situation”
(1968: 5), a rhetorical situation, that is to “a natural context of persons,
events, objects, relations, and an exigency which strongly invites utter-
ance” (1968: 5). More precisely, the constituents of any rhetorical situ-
ation are “an exigency – a problem or defect, something other than it
should be […] an audience capable of being constrained in thought or
action in order to effect positive modification of the exigency […] a set
of constraints capable of influencing the rhetor and an audience” (1980:
23). Among these constituents, exigency is crucial since we usually re-
act to situations according to how we perceive things are and should be
(1980: 25); exigency is the element which operates the engine of change
in communication:
Exigency is the necessary condition of a rhetorical situation. If there were no
exigency, there would be nothing to require or invite change in the audience
or in the world – hence there would be nothing to require or invite the crea-
tion and presentation of pragmatic messages. (Bitzer, 1980: 26)
Human beings perceive defects, obstacles, and imperfections and
urge for some change. This urgency is felt because of some interests and
valuations toward the rhetorical situation. Bitzer specifies that the con-
stituents of a rhetorical exigency are both a factual condition and an in-
terest relation (1980: 28): factual condition is “any set of things, events,
relations, ideas, meanings – anything physical or mental – whose exist-
ence is (or is thought to be) independent of one’s personal subjectivity”;
interest is “any appreciation, need, desire, aspiration which, when relat-
ed to factual conditions, accounts for the emergence of motives and pur-
poses” (1980: 28). The speaker/writer’s decision to speak/write derives
from the exigency (i.e., the perception of a factual condition and the ex-
istence of an interest related to it) and aims to positively modify the ex-
igency through discourse that influence audience’s thought or action.
munication events, being then either routine-based or complex, allows
us to look at texts as contextualized (situated) and subjected to the in-
terpretation of the participants to the event.
3. The Rhetorical Situation
The contextualized and situated nature of text can be better de-
scribed by referring to the concept of rhetorical situation developed by
Lloyd Bitzer (1968; 1980). According to Bitzer “rhetoric is situation-
al” (1968: 3), i.e. “a particular discourse comes into existence because of
some specific condition or situation which invites utterance” (1968: 4)
and “rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to situation”
(1968: 5), a rhetorical situation, that is to “a natural context of persons,
events, objects, relations, and an exigency which strongly invites utter-
ance” (1968: 5). More precisely, the constituents of any rhetorical situ-
ation are “an exigency – a problem or defect, something other than it
should be […] an audience capable of being constrained in thought or
action in order to effect positive modification of the exigency […] a set
of constraints capable of influencing the rhetor and an audience” (1980:
23). Among these constituents, exigency is crucial since we usually re-
act to situations according to how we perceive things are and should be
(1980: 25); exigency is the element which operates the engine of change
in communication:
Exigency is the necessary condition of a rhetorical situation. If there were no
exigency, there would be nothing to require or invite change in the audience
or in the world – hence there would be nothing to require or invite the crea-
tion and presentation of pragmatic messages. (Bitzer, 1980: 26)
Human beings perceive defects, obstacles, and imperfections and
urge for some change. This urgency is felt because of some interests and
valuations toward the rhetorical situation. Bitzer specifies that the con-
stituents of a rhetorical exigency are both a factual condition and an in-
terest relation (1980: 28): factual condition is “any set of things, events,
relations, ideas, meanings – anything physical or mental – whose exist-
ence is (or is thought to be) independent of one’s personal subjectivity”;
interest is “any appreciation, need, desire, aspiration which, when relat-
ed to factual conditions, accounts for the emergence of motives and pur-
poses” (1980: 28). The speaker/writer’s decision to speak/write derives
from the exigency (i.e., the perception of a factual condition and the ex-
istence of an interest related to it) and aims to positively modify the ex-
igency through discourse that influence audience’s thought or action.
