You are on page 1of 352
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. ‘The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction, In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete ‘manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g, maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white Photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company +300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA. 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 NARRATIVE IN RHETORICAL ARGUMENT by Christine Murphy Silk DISSERTATION Submitted to the College of Humanities and Social Sciences Camegie Mellon University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Rhetoric November 1995 Copyright © 1995 by Christine Murphy Silk UMI Number: 9622442 UMI Microform 3622442 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. ‘This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Carnegie Mellon University COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES DISSERTATION ‘Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN RHETORIC Title__NARRATIVE IN RHETORICAL ARGUMENT Presented by —_ CHRISTINE MURPHY STLK Accepted by the Department of ___ENGLISH Lez /ps- ry Richasd Ev Youre Py rl¥s Dave CBston Ke Corer } ulezlos- reston Cove} Y egee ee leeenice Approved by the Committee on Graduate Degrees ‘Dean Date’ To my mother, Dolores Murphy. Her tenacity is the original inspiration for my having traveled this far. Thanks, Mom, for refusing to be a quitter in your children’s eyes. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have provided invaluable assistance throughout the writing of this dissertation. First and foremost, I owe particular thanks to my dissertation committee. I thank Richard Young, who got me started on this path. His sagacity and guidance have been of incalculable value to my scholarly growth. I thank Preston Covey for his instruction, inspiration, and guidance on rhetorical and non- thetorical matters, and most of all, for his friendship. I thank David Kaufer for his support, lively comments, and sophisticated insights. In addition, I thank Richard Enos for his help on earlier drafts of this dissertation. Towe a particular debt of gratitude to the following people and institutions, whose assistance has made all the difference: John R. Hayes, Jill Hatch, Martha Harty, Kate Maloy, Judge John F. Fader II and his staff (especially Ashley How), Randy Mackubin, Paul Sandler, James Lintott and May Liang, Mark Svec, Russ Halpern, Jerome Goldberg, the Institute for Humane Studies, and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation. A special thank-you goes to my husband, Roger, for his patient proofreading, particularly in the more technical passages. His unfailing support, advice, and most of all his love, have made this project less daunting. ii Christine Murphy Silk Dissertation Title: “Narrative in Rhetorical Argument" Dissertation Advisor: Richard Young ABSTRACT Scholars from a variety of disciplines have recently taken an interest in narrative, regarding it as a rich source for understanding how humans gather and communicate knowledge. Traditionally, narrative has been viewed primarily, if not exclusively, as a poetic genre. Stories are assumed to be the domain of poets, fiction writers, and literary critics. However, as this dissertation shows, narrative is not exclusively a poetic device. It is also a rhetorical device that has had an important presence in rhetorical argument since antiquity. This dissertation examines selected treatises of rhetoric from the classical era (Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian), and the cighteenth-century (George Campbell and Richard Whately) to determine how these rhetoricians regarded the roles of narrative in thetorical argument. In addition, writings on jury trial argument and firsthand observations of bench trial argument are analyzed to determine how narrative functions in contemporary forensic rhetoric. Two significant findings emerge from this study. First, narratives—which include both fictional and non-fictional accounts—have had important functions in rhetorical argument throughout history. Among other things, they have functioned as autonomous arguments, as evidence in support of larger arguments, and as vehicles for conveying emotional appeals and appeals based on ethos. Second, the functions of narrative in thetorical argument can be accounted for in terms of three factors: (1) the epistemological assumptions of the larger rhetorical system in which the narrative is utilized, (2) the aims of the rhetor, and 8) the specific portion of the argument in which the narrative appears. Furthermore, in forensic rhetoric, the range of functions a narrative may have in a given trial argument seems to depend on the audience trying the case; that is, whether the audience is a jury or a judge. This dissertation is significant because it fills a void in our knowledge concerning the relationship between rhetoric and narrative. Knowing how narrative functions in rhetorical argument can broaden our perspective on the communicative utility of storytelling, and it can increase our understanding of how thetorical arguments are constructed and transmitted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication Acknowledgments Abstract Chapter 1: Overview Approaches to Narrative: Poetics and Rhetoric Definitions, Scope, and Structure Chapter 2: Narrative in Classical Rhetorical Argument Plato Aristotle Cicero and Quintilian Chapter 3: Narrative in Eighteenth-Century Rhetorical Argument George Campbell Richard Whately Chapter 4: Narrative in Modern Forensic Argument Narrative in Jury Trials Narrative in Bench Trials Chapter 5: Narrative and Rhetoric: Directions for Future Inquiry ii iit 32 58 80 104 126 w41 187 217 224, 275 Appendix Table 1: Classical Rhetoric in Its Most Developed State Through the Time of Quintilian Table 2: Narrative in Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus Table 3: Narrative in Aristotle's Theory of Rhetoric Table 4: Narrative in the Rhetorical Theories of Cicero and Quintilian Table 5: Narrative in Campbell's Theory of Rhetoric Table 6: Narrative in Whately’s Theory of Rhetoric Table 7: Comparison of the Functions of Narrative in Jury Trial Argument and Bench Trial Argument Bibliography 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 vi CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW ‘Communication begins by constructing narrative. —Northrop Frye The Archetypes of Literature The recent interest in narrative among scholars in rhetoric and speech communications has had a significant impact on contemporary theories of human communication. John Louis Lucaites and Celeste Michelle Condit cite “the growing belief that narrative represents a universal medium of human consciousness.”! Underlying this belief is the assumption that narrative is, in Hayden White's terms, a “metacode, a human universal,” and that man is, in Alasdair MacIntyre's terms, “essentially a story-telling animal.”2 The interest in narrative is 1 John Louis Lucaites and Celeste Michelle Condit, "Re-constructing Narrative Theory: ‘A Functional Perspective,” Journal of Communication 35 (Autumn 1965): 90 ? Hayden White, “The Value of Narrativty in the Representation of Reality,” Critical Inquiry 7 (Autamn 1980):6; Alasdair Macintyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1981), 201. evident in the disciplines of English, Rhetoric and Speech ‘Communications. Scholars in other disciplines such as anthropology, political science, jurisprudence, medicine and ‘economics have also taken an interest in narrative? Over the last few decades, rhetoric scholars have begun taking a closer look at narrative because they believe that the compelling power of storytelling may yield further insight into the efficacy of informative and suasory discourse. Robert C. Rowland suggests that 3 For example in anthropology see: Edward M. Bruner, "Ethnography as Narrative” and Renato Rosaldo “longot Hunting as Story and Experience” in The Anthropology of Experience, 2, Vicor W. Turner and Edward M. Bruner (Uzbana: University of Ilinos Press, 1986); Catherine Kohler Riessman, Narrative Analysis (Newbury Park: Sage, 193); in political science, se: Jefferson D. Bass, “The Appeal to Efcacy as Narrative Closure: Lyndon Johnson and the Dominican Criss, 1965," Souther Speech Communication Journal 50 (1985): 108-120; Maureen Whitebrook, ed, Reading Political Stories: Representations of Politics in Novels and Pictures Savage: Rowman & Litlefield, 1993); n jurisprudence see: W. Lance Bennet, “Storytelling in Criminal Trials: A Model of Social Judgment,” Quarterly Journal of Specch 64 (1978): 1-22; W. Lance Bennett and Martha Feldman, Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Pres, 1961); in medicine see: MJ. Hyde, "Storytelling and Public Moral Argument: The Case of Medicine Argument and Social Practice: Proceedings ofthe Fourth Speech Communication ‘Assocition/American Forensic Assocation Confrence on Argumntation, ed. J. Robert Cox, Malcolm O. Silas and G.B. Walker (Annendale: Speech Communication Assocation, 1985, ‘364-375; and in economics, see Donald N. McCloskey, If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise, 24 ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1992). “narrative should be studied as one among many modes of argumentative proof...and one among many rhetorical devices for persuading an audience.”¢ John L. Lucaites and Celeste M. Condit argue that “a narrative voice pervades virtually every genre and medium of human discourse,” and they call for the development of a “critical praxis” that can “illuminate the full range of communicative practices in which narrative participates.”5 Perhaps the most radical position is that of Walter Fisher and his “narrative paradigm.” Fisher believes that narrative can function as a “metaparadigm” or a master metaphor that describes all discourse and allows us to better understand and assess “whatever is taken as an instance of knowledge.” The narrative paradigm, he argues, can provide a “foundation upon which a complete theory of rhetoric needs to be built” and thereby resolve some of the problems that he believes plague the philosophy of rhetoric, such as the inability of traditional argumentation theory to adequately resolve public 4 Robert C. Rowlané Monographs 54 (September 1987): 274, 5 Lucaites and Condit, "Re-constructing Narrative Theory,” 90,106. 6 Walter R Fisher, “Narration, Knowledge, and the Possibility of Wisdorn,”in Rethinking ‘Knonledge: Reflections Across the Disciplines, ed. Robert F. Goodman and Walter R. Fisher (Albany: State University of New York, 1995), 169. “Narrative: Mode of Discourse or Paradigm?” Communication controversies that deal with issues of morality.” Fisher's narrative paradigm will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. The present inquiry may be viewed as a contribution to this renewed interest in the communicative and suasory potential of narrative. Specifically, this dissertation describes the functions of narrative in classical rhetoric, in eighteenth-century psychological- epistemological rhetoric, and in specific theories of rhetoric that have begun to emerge in the modern era. Douglas Ehninger has classified these time periods—classical, eighteenth-century, and modern—as “rhetorical systems.” Ehninger defines a system both as “an organized, consistent, coherent way of talking about something” (as in a single treatise, such as Aristotle's Rhetoric), and as “the rhetoric embodied collectively in the treatises of a given place or period.”® Thus, Aristotle's Rhetoric, along with the thetorical treatises of Plato, Cicero, and Quintilian, constitute a system known as classical rhetoric. This latter sense of the word 7 Walter R. Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Toward o Philosophy of Reason, Value and Action (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1967), 194, ® Douglas Eninger,"On Systems of Rhetoric” in The Retori of Western Thought, ed James L. Golden, Goodwin F. Berquist and William E, Coleman, 3rd edition (Dubuque Kendall/Hunt, 1988), 25 “system,” with which Ehninger is most concerned, is the sense in which the word is most frequently used in this dissertation. APPROACHES TO NARRATIVE: POETICS AND RHETORIC ‘The approach taken in this dissertation is rooted in the field of thetoric, not poetics. This is an important point to make, because most narrative theorists—with the exception of a few scholars such as Fisher, Lucaites, and Condit—approach the study of narrative from a poetic standpoint. Most narrative scholarship comes out of departments of literature, and narrative has traditionally been viewed as a literary genre. ‘The impetus to explore narrative as something other than a poetic device is comparatively new. This dissertation represents one example of a small but growing trend in the field of rhetoric and communications that questions the old assumption that narrative is exclusively a device of poets, fiction writers, and literary critics. By analyzing rhetorical treatises from ancient to modern times, this dissertation will identify the presence of narrative in theories of thetorical argument, and it will explicate the functions of narrative in those theories. With a few notable exceptions which will be discussed later, rhetoric scholars have generally ignored the Presence of narrative in rhetorical argument, probably because, as Lucaites and Condit have pointed out, “dominant contemporary theoretical explanations of narrative are drawn almost exclusively from ‘poetic’ models of discourse” rather than rhetorical ones, and narrative has been regarded as a poetic genre rather than a thetorical genre? To understand how this is so and what can be done about it, it is necessary to briefly review the history of the relationship between thetoric and poetics. Ever since Aristotle wrote the Rhetoric and the Poetics, the two arts have been treated as separate disciplines, each with dominion over its own discursive genres. Under poetics one finds an array of literary genres, including poetry, drama, short stories, and novels. Many kinds of poetic discourse have a narrative structure; that is, they are essentially stories. Rhetoric has traditionally included genres such as epideictic, deliberative and forensic speeches that deal with matters of probability and opinion. Rhetorical genres have not traditionally been recognized as having narrative structure. Indeed, rhetorical arguments sought to imitate, albeit imperfectly, the arguments one finds in formal logic, as Aristotle's definition of an enthymeme as a “rhetorical syllogism” 9 Lncaites and Condit, Re onsrating NamativeTheory90 indicates.19 As Walter Ong points out, “[bJoth poetic and rhetoric are distinct from the logic of the sciences in that their arguments do not proceed with necessity,” but “rhetoric approximates the necessary in a way that poetic does not." In short, the structure of poetic discourse can and often does appear in the form of a narrative, and it has been assumed that rhetorical arguments typically adopt a logical structure devoid of narrative. This dissertation will show that this latter assumption is invalid. General distinctions between rhetoric and poetics have remained relatively intact over the centuries. However, throughout history there has been considerable debate over the exact boundaries between the two arts. The criteria for distinguishing a “poetic” discourse from a “rhetorical” one have been continually challenged and reformulated. The latest version of this debate most familiar to the modern scholar may be that between Wilbur Samuel Howell and Kenneth Burke. Howell, who favors a close reading of Aristotle's Poetics, argues that the distinction between the two arts 10 Aristotle, The Rhetoric and Poetics of Avistate, trans, W. Rhys Roberts and Ingram Bywater (New York: Modern Library/Random House, 1954), 1356b. 11 Walter Ong, "The Province of Rhetoric and Poetic, in Essays on the Rhetoric ofthe ‘Western World, ed. Edward PJ. Corbett, James L. Golden and Goodwin F. Berquist (Dubuque, 1A: Kendall Hunt, 1990), 88. hinges on the concept of mimesis. Mimesis comes from Greek, meaning “to copy” or “to imitate.” Thus, poetic discourse is mimetic in that it is a “literature of symbol” in which an author presents his audience with “an imagined reality, or a fiction, and does so in such a way as to suggest connections of note between the imagined reality and that actual reality within which the hearers or readers dwell.”12 Rhetoric, in contrast, is a non-mimetic “literature of statement” in which an author “makes statements about actual realities, and his hearers or readers understand those realities in terms which the statements are intended more or less to illuminate.”!5 According to Howell, “the two literatures exist as. hard realities in the world of letters, and...much ingenuity, perceptiveness, and divergence have already been displayed in working out the nature of the relation between them.” in his view, there is no need to tamper with this long-standing, clear distinction between the two arts. lbur Samuel Howell, “The Twe-Party Line: A Reply to Kenneth Burke,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (Febreary 1976), 71-72. %8 Howell, "The Two-Party Line,” 71-72. 4 Witbur Samuel Howell, Rhetoric and Poatics: A Plea forthe Recognition of the Two Literatures," in The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, ed. Luitpotd Wallach (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 196), 380. Kenneth Burke's position on this subject is more elusive. Burke's influential work, Counter-Statement, can be interpreted as a treatise that calls into question distinctions between rhetoric and poetics. Burke writes: [T]he word [rhetoric], by the lexicographer's definition, refers but to ‘the use of language in such a way as to produce a desired impression upon the hearer or reader....In accordance with the definition we have cited, effective literature could be nothing else but rhetoric....15 Commenting upon his work in a later essay, Burke points out that in Counter-Statement he was using the term “rhetoric” in two different senses: “I was arguing for rhetoric as a literary style. And I was working on some theories of form which I called rhetorical. Unlike Howell, for whom only the poetic is symbolic, Burke sees all communication, including rhetoric, as symbolic. One could infer, as Howell has done, that Burke believes that “the poetical utterance and the rhetorical utterance [are] specifically alike” and that “drama, prose fiction, and the lyric and narrative poetry, as well as the 15 Kenneth Burke, Counter Statement, 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 193,210, 16 Kenneth Burke, "The Party Line," Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (February 1976), 63 various types of non-fiction, lie within the proper jurisdiction of thetorical theory.”1” It is difficult to know with certainty whether Howell's interpretation of Burke's position is accurate because Burke does not explicitly address the distinctions between rhetoric and poetics in Counter-Statement. However, when pressed about the issue, Burke did make an explicit distinction between the two arts. He wrote an essay in response to Howell's criticisms, and in it he distinguished rhetoric and poetics according to what Michael Leff has called the “functional approach.”18 The functional approach characterizes rhetoric as “instrumental” in that it uses “symbolic action to produce effects ‘beyond’ the act,” while poetics “deals with the exercising of symbolic action in and for itself,” in the words of Burke.!? Other noted scholars uphold similar functional distinctions between rhetoric and poetics. Herbert A. Wichelns says that poetics is concerned with expressing permanent, universal values “which age cannot whither nor custom stale,” whereas thetoric “is not concerned with permanence, nor yet with beauty” but with communicating to a specific audience at a specific point in 17 Howell, “Rhetoric and Poetics,” 377, 375. 18 Michael C. Leff “In Search of Ariadne's Taread: A Review of Recent Literature on [Rhetorical Theory,” Central States Speec Journal 29 (Summer 1978): 88 18 Burke, “The Party Line” 10 time Walter Ong writes: “The logic of poetic and of rhetoric follows the ends to which each of these arts is directed—the former to making a thing for contemplation, the latter to the production of action in another.”21 Looking at narrative specifically, it has traditionally been considered to be within the “poetic” domain, and it has been the subject of study in departments of literature, who trace their roots back to Aristotle's Poetics rather than to his Rhetoric. This point is confirmed by Howell: “Aristotle's Poetics is a treatise on writings ordinarily allocated to departments of literature in the modern university.” Howell notes that epic poetry in the Aristotelian sense includes a range of genres such as prose fiction, satire and narrative poetry, among others. A “poetic” or “literary” approach to narrative analysis emphasizes the formal or structural features of the text, and it attempts to account for the meanings and interpretations that 20 Herbert A. WicheIns, "The Literary Criticism of Oratory,” in Esays on the Rhetoric of ‘the Western Worl ed, Edwerd PJ. Corbet, James L. Golden and Goodwin F. Berquist (Dubuque: Kendall Hunt, 1990), 76, 21 Ong, “The Province of Rhetoric and Poetic” 88, 72 Witbur Samuel Howell, Poetics Rhetoric and Logie Studies in the Basic Disciplines of Criticism (theca: Cornell University Press, 1975), 5051 ul emerge from those features. Traditionally, the focus has been on fictional texts, but in recent years the analysis has broadened to include non-fictional narratives such as history and biography, as well as genres such as newspaper reports, films, comic strips, pantomime, dance, gossip, and psychoanalytic sessions 24 Nevertheless, the concern with the structural features of the text has remained constant. Wallace Martin notes that this focus on structural features is a historical phenomenon that evolved in response to the need for scholars te establish some sort of criterion for judging the legitimacy of emerging genres, such as the novel, that sought a respectable place alongside other poetic genres such as. epic poetry and drama. ‘The purposes and methods of critics of the novel after World War Il were in large part determined by their desire to demonstrate the importance of the genre [of the novell ata time when claims about literary merit were based on form. So long as discussions of the novel emphasized its subject matter and 23 Wallace Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), 37, 24 Shlomith Aimmon-Kenan, Neratie Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Meuthen, 1983), 1 12 content, disregarding the formal issues that were then important in

You might also like