Traditionally, rhetoric studies the effect of a text, written or spoken, on its audience. Classical rhetoric starts from a belief that audiences are open to persuasion. It holds also that ways of presenting arguments can be taught, and that the validity of these arguments can be analysed. There is therefore much debate on questions such as whether eloquence or style of presenta- tion of an argument can compensate for its faulty logic. The systematic study of rhetoric and the structure of discourse was founded by scholars such as Aristotle in his work on narrative and tragedy. Scholars such as the first century Roman orator Quintillian wrote textbooks on the art of speaking, discussing the choice of subject matter and the style of delivery appropriate to different speakers such as politicians, attorneys and preachers. It is perhaps not too much of an exaggeration to say that little progress was made between such work and the twentieth century. Indeed, Corbett (1965) uses the categories of traditional rhetoric to analyse famous public speeches. As well as work on narrative structure already mentioned, however, several scholars have recently pointed out ways of developing the traditional con- cerns of rhetoric in linguistically interesting ways, which draw on con- temporary work in discourse, semantics and pragmatics. For example, different approaches are represented by Nystrand (ed., 1983) which has particular reference to written discourse; Widdowson (1979) which has particular reference to EFL and EST; and papers by Sperber and Wilson (e.g. 1983) which have particular reference to semantic and pragmatic theory.
- Rhetoric traditionally has to do also with formal spoken language. Work by Sophists, two thousand years ago, on the successful pleading of legal cases is applied discourse analysis of great social relevance. Teaching of spoken language in the mother tongue often means hints on speech making, or training in interactional skills such as interviewing. However, formal spoken language is influenced by written style: spoken legal language provides an obvious example. Many types are in fact mixed: partly spon- taneous spoken language but supported by written notes, such as much lecturing and public speaking. The general topic of the relationship between spoken and written language is too large to discuss fully here, but the following points are particularly relevant. Both written and spoken language show stylistic variation according to the formality of the context of utterance. However, spoken language varies more in form, between casual and formal, than written language does. Furthermore, the more formal spoken English becomes, the closer it moves towards written lexis and syntax. These generalizations are valid for educated standard English, although not always for non-standard varieties of spoken English, nor for other languages. It follows that extending students' functional command of spoken English, by giving them access to a wider variety of styles, means extending their competence in the direction of the standard written language.
- As linguists have often pointed out, there are paradoxes involved in correcting or teaching informal language. They would argue that everyone has competence in the informal conversational varieties of their native language: this is simply what is meant by being a native speaker of a language. And I have already mentioned some arguments against teaching foreign learners productive competence in informal spoken varieties of language. Much of this section may therefore seem rather negative or to shade into something else, namely teaching written language. However, some of the confusions involved are rife in much educational research, and current work in the forms and functions of written and spoken discourse can make explicit some of these confusions.
- Within the education systems in Britain and the USA, spoken language has in any case been largely undervalued until recently. Education has usually been based predominantly on written language: indeed education has often been equated with literacy. These assertions are inevitably broad and rather crude, but the general point should be clear enough. It is relatively recently that educationalists such as Barnes and Todd (1977) have argued for the value of informal small group talk amongst pupils with no teacher present. Such work usefully draws into question the taken-for- granted equation between education and formal written language. How- ever, it may lack both a systematic formal description of the spontaneous spoken discourse in such teaching situations, and also lack a.very convincing educational rationale. It is plausible that small group discussions help children to formulate their ideas, for example, but this is a commonsense observation, rather than a firmly demonstrated point about the relation of language and thought.