英语论文网

blish. Despite these acknowledgements, Gronbeck and Sillars proceeded by later claiming that “the classical writers on rhetoric were not writing about criticism: they were explaining to citizens how to give speeches” (112). Still in the same paragraph another sentence that Gronbeck and Sillars wrote claims that “the classical writers on rhetoric were not writing about criticism: they were explaining to citizens how to give speeches.” The authors also noted that the ancient Greeks were living in a distinguished rhetorical world. One can even think about how the rhetoric worked and devised a meaningful vocabulary for its analysis, and had insights, which were important in analyzing the today’s world. One can also be note hat the adaptation is not difficult. In addition, classical writing was described as a very practical art in terms of philosophy making it very easy in applying their assumptions in most of the different contexts and times (112).

The concept of using the rhetoric by Sillars and Gronbeck was intended to mitigate the contradiction between their productions apparently. These orientations and oriented analysis statements seem to portray word “adaptation.” This allows the modern readers to adapt and interact well with the productions of Greeks’ rhetoric comparing to today’s analytical purposes.

However, the Greeks always thought of how the rhetoric worked although there was an omission of a “devised useful vocabulary” that could be later applied by the analysts.

The Sillars and Gronbeck assumed that the ancient Greeks neither taught the vocabularies to their students nor employed the vocabularies for themselves. These assumption and lack of general clarifications not only risked to confusing the college students intended to learn Communication Criticism but does not also accurately reflect the Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle as the rhetorical critics were dedicated.

Both Gronbeck and Sillars admitted that Isocrates was not only a rhetorical critic but also good for the teacher who teaches the students to both review and generate political speech. They also identified Quintilian as “another teacher” within the entire context on top of their discussion of rhetorical criticism. It is also unclear to whether the referent “another teacher” meant to motion back to Isocrates and Cicero or just Isocrates, but in any case, the Plato and Aristotle were well-known teachers.

On another account, the Gronbeck and Sillars’ argument that the classical writers on rhetoric were not critics is problematic and untruthful. This is because, in an endnote to their assertions, Gronbeck and Sillars proposed that “[t]he exceptions to this statement would be the classical treatises devoted to the study of rhetorical style, including works by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demetrius, and Cicero (especially his Brutus, secondarily, his Orator)” (138, fn 2). The assessment fails to understand and appreciate the analysis done in the past beyond the style, which was not only taught but also practiced by the students.

The Gronbeck and Sillars’ assessment that “formal criticism,” “accurate interpretation criticism,” and “neoclassical criticism” (neo-Aristotelian criticism) are the only “three oldest approaches of criticism” also contradicts the qualification of their based style that “[t]he classical writers on rhetoric were not writing about criticism” arg