1994
DOI: 10.1080/02773949409391019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The social construct of enthymematic understanding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, given the enthymematic nature of public discourse (Scenters-Zapico, 1994), where a speaker's ideas reflect shared beliefs of the listeners, the definitions governors attach to education call into question the greater public's commitment in the United States to preparing students for more than economic pursuits. Yet it was not always so.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, given the enthymematic nature of public discourse (Scenters-Zapico, 1994), where a speaker's ideas reflect shared beliefs of the listeners, the definitions governors attach to education call into question the greater public's commitment in the United States to preparing students for more than economic pursuits. Yet it was not always so.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Enthymematic reasoning is more than a “truncated syllogism”, and instead, it should be understood as a rhetorical act that plays upon the communal connection of the audience. Recent rhetorical scholarship has recognized the faults in the traditional understanding of the enthymeme as a truncated syllogism and tried to move forward by understanding enthymemes based on suppression or arrangement (Fjeslstad, 1994, p. 22; Fredal, 2018; Mcgee, 1990; Scenters-Zapico, 1994). This essay borrows from Barbra Emmel to produce a contemporary understanding of enthymematic reasoning as one based on parsimony to highlight the importance of community when attempting to cross the digital divide (Emmel, 1994, p. 132).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When developing an account of why the public screen reveals a shift from the public sphere Deluca and Peeples (2002, p. 127) highlight how screens create a largely unidirectional affect in which the audience passively receives the message. However, with the advent of the increased discernment brought on by the digital divide the level of sophistication at which an audience member can choose to come into the range or not of a given community or public creates new opportunities for building community (Scenters-Zapico, 1994, pp. 71-76; Warner, 2002b, pp.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%