on the study of ancient chinese rhetoric/bian
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]On: 17 November 2014, At: 23:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Western Journal ofCommunicationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20
On the study of ancientChinese rhetoric/BianXing Lu a & David A. Frank ba Assistant Professor in the Department ofSommunication , DePaul Universityb Associate Professor in Robert D. Clark HonorsCollege , University of OregonPublished online: 06 Jun 2009.
To cite this article: Xing Lu & David A. Frank (1993) On the study of ancientChinese rhetoric/Bian, Western Journal of Communication, 57:4, 445-463, DOI:10.1080/10570319309374467
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374467
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Western Journal of Communication, 57 (Fall 1993), 445-463
On the Study of Ancient ChineseRhetoric/Bian
XING LU and DAVID A. FRANK
IN his In Defence of Rhetoric, Brian Vickers (1988) calls rhetoricalscholars to recapture the rhetorical past, rhetorical theories, and
practices developed by schools and individuals of different cultures. Thestudy of rhetoric in the West has featured primarily Occidental tradi-tions, although Western scholars have made attempts to introduce,explain, and explore the rhetoric of other cultures. Chinese rhetoric, inparticular, has received some attention from some Western scholars(Crump & Dreher, 1951; Dreher & Crump, 1952; Garrett, 1983, 1991,1993; Jensen, 1987,1992; Kincaid, 1987; Oliver, 1971; Reynolds, 1969).
Unfortunately, some historians of rhetoric deny the existence of anancient rhetoric or draw narrow descriptions of Chinese rhetoric. JamesMurphy (1983) concludes: "There is no evidence of an interest inrhetoric in the ancient civilization of Babylon or Egypt, for instanceneither Africa nor Asia to this day produced a rhetoric" (p. 3). Jensen,Kennedy, and Oliver contend that Chinese rhetoric is characterized byharmony, deprecation of speech, and lack of interest in logic (Jensen,1987; Kennedy, 1980; Oliver, 1971). We wish to broaden and embellishthe portrayal of Chinese rhetoric as it has been painted by Murphy,Jensen, Oliver, and Kennedy. We believe that the ancient Chinese had"senses" of rhetoric (Scott 1973) and that these senses of rhetoric reveala tradition of speech and argumentation that should be recaptured byhistorians of rhetoric.
Chinese rhetoric should be of interest to the Western audience andthe Western rhetorical scholar. As Jensen (1987) notes:
Surely we need not linger on how imperative it is to understand better the rhetoricalbackground of Asia, where the majority of the people of the world reside and the area whichis rapidly forging into economic ascendency on the world scene. Even if this were not thecase, the rich cultural heritage of that region of the globe needs to be studied for its ownsake. (p. 219)
XING LU (Ph.D., University of Oregon, 1991) is an Assistant Professor in the Departmentof Sommunication, DePaul University. David A. Frank (Ph.D., University of Oregon,1983) is an Associate Professor in Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
446 Western Journal of Communication
The study of ancient Chinese rhetoric may shed light on ourunderstanding of contemporary China. Moreover, exploration of Chi-nese rhetoric may enhance our knowledge of rhetoric generally andmake us aware of the shared, yet varied rhetorical traditions betweenthe East and the West. Our study of primary ancient Chinese textsdemonstrates that the ancient Chinese formulated senses of rhetoricboth similar to and different than those of ancient Greeks.
The reasons Western scholars have not detected or have drawnnarrow descriptions of the Chinese rhetorical tradition are understand-able. First, Western scholars believe rhetorical traditions exist onlywhen literature explicitly identified as works of rhetoric are discovered.Chinese rhetoric is not a codified or a canonized discipline. As senses ofrhetoric may be implicit rather than explicit in the works of Chinesethinkers, rhetorical scholars from the West conclude that ancient Chinadid not have a rhetorical tradition. Second, Western scholars oftencannot read the Chinese language, thus, base their conclusions on weaktranslations of ancient Chinese texts. Finally, Western scholars tend todecontextualize their analyses of ancient Chinese rhetoric. The rhetori-cal theories and practices of the ancient Chinese are reflections of, andfunctional responses to, cultural patterns and crises. When the analysesof ancient Chinese rhetoric are placed in their proper context, analternative portrait of ancient Chinese rhetoric emerges.
We develop an alternative portrait of ancient Chinese rhetoric in thisessay. In the spirit of Vickers' call for intercultural and transnationalstudies of rhetoric, our essay is the product of a collaboration between anative Chinese and an European-American. We begin with a critique ofthe existing studies of ancient Chinese rhetoric by Western scholars. Wealso offer suggestions for the construction of culturally sensitive andmodulated modes of inquiry necessary for the illumination of ancientChinese rhetoric and a multicultural perspective of rhetoric.
MODES OF INQUIRY: STUDIES OF ANCIENT CHINESERHETORIC BY WESTERN SCHOLARS
Ancient Chinese rhetoric deserves careful analysis, but it must bestudied in its context. Analytical research reveals useful knowledgeabout the particular elements of a rhetorical system, but may produce anincomplete account of the whole. Contextual research may reveal muchabout rhetorical systems, but may obscure accounts of particularelements of those system. Both modes of inquiry, contextual andanalytical, are necessary for a robust understanding of any rhetoricalsystem.
Kincaid (1987) urges scholars of intercultural communication toavoid polarities and maintains " . . . the part and whole ultimately cannotbe separated. One way to say this is that there is no part and whole butrather one part/whole. Each 'one' defines the other, and indeed is the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 447
other" (p. 332). We agree. Western critics have made generalizationsabout ancient Chinese rhetoric on the basis of decontextualized analysis.They have tended to elide the cultural mosaics (the whole) from whichChinese writings on speech behavior are drawn. Western scholars aretrained in European modes of inquiry, which emphasize analysis andtaxonomy. Such modes of inquiry are rooted in the Western tendency toseparate, departmentalize, and polarize (Lloyd, 1966; Moore, 1967).
Such a mode of inquiry, in Nakayama's words, "has shed an everstronger light over the natural world, while it has also inevitably createdshadows" (in Harms 1980, p. 3). Western habits of mind have revealedmuch useful knowledge about the universe, but the shadows cast as aresult of analytical outlooks greatly affect the vision of the Westernscholar. Kincaid (1987) observes:
One of the major obstacles of the general systems approach to communication has alwaysbeen the lack of an appropriate research methodology to study social phenomenaholistically. It is conceptually obvious to Western scholars that there is indeed a whole towhich the parts studied correspond, but the entire analytical and conceptual apparatusitself has always acted as an obstacle to a clear understanding of this insight (p. 332).
In Asia, and particularly in China, thought and speech patterns tendtoward the holistic and contextualized. The ancient Chinese culture wasa highly contextualized constellation of political intrigue, art, andphilosophical expression. Explicit codification and systemization ofthought were not a prevailing habit of mind. For example, rhetoric hasnever been officially codified as a separate discipline by Chinese scholars.We agree with Jensen (1987) when he obsurves: "[Rhetoric] was soimportant that it was intertwined with, inseparable from philosophy,religion, ethics, psychology, politics, and social relations" (p. 219).
Although some Western scholars are seemingly aware of the minglingof Chinese rhetoric with philosophy, language, and culture, they use thedisciplinary framework of Western rhetoric in their search for a Chineserhetoric. At the same time, Western scholars are also influenced by earlystudies of Chinese culture and philosophy. F. S. C. Northrop's (1946)dubious claims that Chinese thinking is intuitive as opposed to scientificand that the Chinese language is incapable of logic still pervadesWestern scholarship on Chinese communication studies.
To recover ancient Chinese rhetoric, Western scholars will need toachieve an authentic understanding of the Chinese language and ofChinese habits of mind. Our examination of the Western literature onChinese rhetoric reveals two primary problems with the existing re-search: (1) dependency on translation; (2) dependency on analytical anddefinitional mode of inquiry.
Dependency on Translation
As most Western scholars do not read or understand the Chineselanguage, they must turn to translations for interpretations of Chinese
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
448 Western Journal of Communication
rhetoric. Translations may lead to confusion and weak interpretations ifthey are not faithful to the original text. We believe Western scholarshave relied on weak translations of those sections of ancient Chinesetexts that relate to speech behavior. We will offer revised translationsthat are contextualized and, arguably, more authentic.
Our revised translations, performed by the first author, have beencorroborated by one scholar of Chinese religious studies and two othernative Chinese scholars.1 The revised translations offered here are notmeant to be definitive. However, we hope the revised translations willcast a new light on the interpretation of ancient Chinese rhetoric.
Misleading Translations
In his "Rhetorical Emphases of Taoism (1987)," Jensen turns to LinYutang's translation of Lao Tzu's %r?-Tao Te Ching i t i$2as primarysupport for his interpretation of Taoist rhetoric. Jensen relies heavily onthe following translation of Chapter 81 in Tao Te Ching for theconclusion that ancient Chinese Taoists deprecated argument andrejected speech root and branch:
"A good person does not argue; he/she who argues is not a goodperson."
In this verse, the word "argue" is a literal translation of the Chineseword bian % ? However, if we look at the context of this verse, Mancannot be literally translated as "argue" because the previous verse ofthe original text reads: •fiW^^HW^f'lg "True words are not high-sounding; high-sounding words are not true." In this context, bian zhe¥&-a 3 refers to those who speak with high-sounding words or those whohave glib tongues. Lao Tzu believed that those who have glib tongues areby virtue not good persons. Therefore, the word "bian" in this contextrefers to the negative term "glib tongue" and to the person who useshigh-sounding words. The translation of the word bian in this context as"argue" could mislead.
A more faithful translation of this verse reads: "A good person doesnot speak with high-sounding words; one who speaks with high-sounding words is not a good person." Or "A good person does notpossess a glib tongue; one who speaks with a glib tongue is not a goodperson." The translation Jensen used led him to the conclusion thatspeech and argumentation are deprecated in the Taoist treatment ofChinese rhetoric.
Oliver's use of translations in his Communication and Culture inAncient India and China (1971) may have led him to narrow conclusionsabout ancient Chinese rhetoric. In this book, Oliver concludes that "Tao
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 449
Te Ching seemingly renounces rhetoric and even communication itself(p. 238). He supports his statement with this translation:
£g$tf3".^ffW. (Chapter5)"In much talk there is weariness. It is best to keep silent."
In this sentence, the Chinese word shou-zhong !*Fcr1 was translated as"silent." In fact, the linguistic meaning of shou T? is "keep" or"maintain," and the meaning oizhong 4* is "middle" or "moderate."More importantly, the essence of Taoism is balance and appropriateness.Excessive talk does not conform to Taoist directives. A more accuratetranslation would be: "Too much talk creates weariness; it is better tomaintain moderation." Our alternative translation considers the linguis-tic texture of the passage and the philosophical context of Taoism. Thetranslation of shou-zhong as "silent" may be a result of the translator'spreconception about Eastern speech behavior. The difference betweentranslating the Chinese word "shou-zhong" as "silent" and "maintain-ing moderation" will definitely lead to different interpretations of Taoistbian. We believe the embedded meaning in Tao Te Ching is theappropriateness and artistic choice in speech and argumentation. A"Chinese-less" reader or a less sensitive critic might conclude, on thebasis of such translations, that Lao Tzu condemned all forms of rhetoric,speech, and argumentation.
Complications with Multiple Citations
Oliver (1971) cites the following lines from Chapter 81 of Tao TeChing: "The females always overcomes the male by her stillness" (p.239), and "It is not good to settle a grievance if the settlement leads toother grievances, care should be taken that communication not becomedivisive" (p. 244). However, these lines are nowhere to be found in theChinese version of Chapter 81. Unfortunately, non-Chinese speakingreaders and researchers are subject to great risks when working withtranslations.
Oliver relied on many different translators and translations inhis analysis of Tao Te Ching: Waley, John C. H. Wu, Lin Yutang,Legge, Blakney, Duyvendak, Giles, Bynner, and Chu'u Takao.(p. 238), a practice than can produce inconsistency. For example, Oliver(1971) quotes one translation of the 43rd verse of Tao Te Ching'Fs£.f>0?C7!3£3L.?;T#$.£.) as reading "The best instruction is not inwords" (p. 238). At another place, he cites a different translation of thissame line: "If you do not quarrel, no one on earth will be able to quarrelwith you (p. 239)." A narrow view of Chinese rhetoric may follow whenkey words or sentences are taken out of context. Ideally, scholars canavoid problems of translation if a system of corroboration is used tocheck the authenticity and contextual meanings of translations.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
450 Western Journal of Communication
Dependency on Analytical and Definitional Mode of Inquiry
The Western study of ancient Chinese rhetoric also has been affectedby the Western tendency to analyze and define. As a result, someWestern scholars have sought, but not discovered, explicit rhetoricaltheories in the highly contextualized culture of ancient China, nor aChinese equivalent to the word "rhetoric." Finally, Western scholarshave assumed that the ancient Chinese culture was relatively station-ary. We will examine these complications in turn.
The Search for Categories and Clarity
Western scholars have studied Chinese rhetoric with an occidentallens. They tend to look for explicit theories, concepts, and statementsabout rhetoric in the works of Chinese philosophers rather than locatingimplicit senses of rhetoric in the contexts of Chinese philosophy, history,and society. The works of Jensen and Oliver illustrate the Westerntendency to departmentalize and categorize.
Jensen (1987) identifies six emphases of Taoist rhetoric and listedthem in the following order: speech deprecation, argument condemna-tion, denouncement of knowledge, avoidance of critical thinking, respectfor authority, and emphasis on ethics. This listing is accurate andhelpful. However, Jensen's interpretation of the characteristics ofTaoist rhetoric is based on segments of works by Lao Tzu and ChuangTzu's &rf-. His conclusions are reached by a mode of inquiry character-ized by categorization and analysis. Jensen's analysis would have beenmore complete and authentic if he had accounted for the holistic andparadoxical nature of Taoism.
The Taoist perspective on rhetoric is rooted in its philosophicalorientation; namely wuwei 3c% which means to speak and act withoutartificiality and superficiality. In addition, Taoist writings are eitherparadoxical (as in Tao Te Ching) or metaphorical (as in Chuang Tzu).The meanings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu cannot be taken literally orexplicitly. Jensen's literal reading of Taoism and the Western tendencyof searching for explicit meaning led Jensen to the conclusion thatTaoism condemns speech and argumentation.
A more authentic interpretation of Taoist rhetoric requires therelation of each emphasis of Taoist rhetoric to the whole (Tao %)) andthe identification of paradoxical as opposed to literal meanings. Takinginto account the paradoxical nature of Taoism, it becomes apparent thatTaoist rhetoric condemns glib tongues, excessive talk, and floweryspeech, but does not condemn speech that is appropriate to the occasionand that is aimed at achieving Te £g (virtue).
To be fair, Oliver (1971) appears to be sensitive to the paradoxical andcontextual nature of Tao. He notes that "For of one thing Lao Tzu wascertain: to break truth into separable fragments is to destroy it. Nothing
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 451
has meaning except in context—and context is all-inclusive" (p. 245).Yet Oliver's treatment of Taoist rhetoric does not clearly connectTaoism and rhetoric. Oliver seems to assume rhetoric to be a separateentity. Consequently, after an analysis of "rhetorical implications ofTaoism," he is left with "vagueness (p. 245)," and "mysticism (p. 240)"in contrast to Western preference for clarity and explicitness.
The Search for Equivalence and Definition
While the word "rhetoric" in ancient Greece refers to the art ofpersuasion, no exact equivalent for "rhetoric" occurs in Chinese. Webelieve the closest in meaning and senses to "rhetoric" in ancient Chinais the word bian. This term did not earn disciplinary or definitionalstatus in ancient China, but the consistent use of the term in thephilosophical texts between 500-200 BCE suggests an evolving sense ofthe role played by speech and argument in the creation of logic, morality,and knowledge. Oliver, Jensen, Murphy, Kennedy and others did notemploy bian in their study of ancient Chinese rhetoric. Because they usethe word "rhetoric" with its Western and Greek meanings, theyconclude that China does not have a rhetorical tradition (Murphy) orthat this tradition is totally different from the Western tradition (Oliver,Jensen, Kennedy).
Schiappa (1991) argues that "naming phenomena alters perceptionsof and behavior toward that-which-has-been-named" (p. 2). Accordingly,using the English word "rhetoric" to describe and interpret Chinesesenses of persuasive discourse may reflect Western perceptions ofrhetoric. The problem of applying English terms to the analysis ofChinese concepts is not unique to the field of rhetorical studies. As Halland Ames (1987) observed, "To settle upon an English equivalent foreach major concept and then pursue the analysis through the equivalentrather than the original term is unquestionably the most problematicmethodological pitfall of Western interpretation of Chinese philosophy". . . This is because . . . "when a concept is assigned an Englishequivalent, a certain depth of the concept is unavoidably lost . . . " (pp.41-42). Western rhetorical scholars will miss the depths and nuancesembedded within ancient Chinese texts if they use "rhetoric" as theEnglish equivalent for Chinese senses of bian. Since an assignedequivalent of the English word "rhetoric" for the interpretation ofChinese bian could be misleading, it is necessary to search for a word inChinese that carries Chinese senses of persuasion and speech behavior.
Several Chinese words can be associated with the meaning of rhetoric.Words like bian $ (argumentation), shuo ift (explanation), shui M4
(persuasion), ming •£ (dialectics, naming), yue 0 (speaking) yan If (lan-guage, speech) can all in one way or another be related to the word"rhetoric." However, we chose the word "bian" as a synonym (notequivalent) of "rhetoric." Three criteria are used in choosing the word
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
452 Western Journal of Communication
"bian." The first criterion is frequency. In comparison with the otherfive words, the word "bian" is the most frequently used word by Chineseantiquities in their philosophical texts to refer to speech and argumenta-tion; most noticeably in philosophical texts of contemporaries or thosefollowing Confucius.5 The second criterion is determined by definitionscontained in dictionaries of ancient Chinese. According to Shuo Wen JieZi i&SCl?̂ ., the oldest Chinese dictionary complied in 25 AD by Xu ShenTpR the word "bian" is defined as: (1) bian # (argumentation anddisputation); (2) "bian" $ (makingdistinctions); (3) "bian" 3? (makingchanges);6 (4) "zhi" ?q (achieving justice and order). In the ModernChinese Dictionary (1980), the word "bian" still retains some of itsclassical sense, but has become more explicit as argumentation ordisputation in meaning. "Bian" is defined as: "both sides use reasonsand evidence to express opinions on matters and issues; expose theopponent's weak points and finally achieve a correct viewpoint andmutual understanding."
From the above evidence, we can see some similarities between theGreek rhetoric and Chinese "bian" in their linguistic senses anddevelopment. Both "rhetoric" and "bian" refer to speech and argumen-tation. "Rhetoric" in Greek language means creating change throughpersuasion; "bian" in Chinese serves to change attitudes and beliefs."Rhetoric" in the Greek sense involves the faculty of inquiry. Likewise,"bian" in Chinese is the process of making distinctions. "Rhetoric" inthe Greek sense refers to the persuasive discourse used in political andjudicial situations. Similarly, "bian" in Chinese aims at achieving socialorder and justice.
However, it must be noted that the meanings of rhetoric and bian arenot identical. Each word is derived from its own social, philosophical,and linguistic contexts. The Greek sense of rhetoric is more concernedwith the art of persuasion while the Chinese sense of bian seems to bemore concerned with social values. The Greek sense of rhetoric and itsEnglish translation conceptualize rhetoric as more of an end whileChinese bian, as defined in the modern dictionary, is more of a meansand process. In any case, the meanings given to rhetoric and bian overlapbut also differ. For the purpose of our discussion, we will use "rhetoric"in Greek contexts and bian, the romanization of the Chinese characterf$ , in Chinese contexts.
The third criterion for choosing the word "bian" is linguistic specific-ity. "Bian" captures the sense of speech by itself while the other fivewords can have different meanings when used in different linguisticcontexts. For instance, ming •& can mean someone's name when used inconjunction with xing j& . We do not mean to imply that bian is thedefinition of Chinese rhetoric. We do, however, believe that the termcaptures the sense of speech behavior (Scott, 1973) held by many ancientChinese philosophers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 453
The Search for Stationary Meaning
In their attempt to identify a Chinese rhetoric, Western scholars tendto treat Chinese notion of persuasive discourse with static meanings.Fortunately, contemporary historians of Western rhetoric are nowplacing the development of ancient Greek rhetoric in its context and arediscovering an evolution in thought and terminology concerning speechbehavior in ancient Greece. We appropriate this approach in our study ofancient Chinese bian.
In his investigation of Greek senses of rhetoric, Schiappa (1992)suggests that a sense of rhetoric may have existed prior to Plato andAristotle, but that it was not made explicit until the appearance of theword "rhetoric." Schiappa (1990) notes that the Greeks in the fifthcentury BCE "used \e7eiv to describe speeches or speaker, Trei0a> forpersuasion, and \070jJ for argument or speech" (p. 458). Schiappa (1990)has discovered that "In the late fifth century, and through much of thefourth, OT|TO>O [public speakers] was a technical term designatingpoliticians who put forth motions in the courts or the assembly" (p. 457).Schiappa argues in the same article that the word PTTTOOIXTI for' 'rhetoric'' was coined by Plato in his writing of Gorgias in an attempt todistinguish himself from the sophistic practice of oratory that Platoconsidered as morally harmful. Schiappa considers the invention of theterm as "a conceptual breakthrough with such innovations by linguisti-cally linking knowledge and skill with an assortment of activities andprofessions" (p. 464). In this sense, the Greek word for "rhetoric"carries with it the meanings of public speaking, argument, and persua-sion and was stretched by Plato and Aristotle to include questions ofepistemology and morality. This transition corresponds closely to theevolution of terms from ming to bian in the writings of Chinesephilosophers.
We have discovered a gentle, not explicit, evolution in the languageused to describe speech behavior in ancient China. Our conclusions hereare tentative and exploratory, but we offer the following contextualiza-tion of key Chinese terms that referred to logic, speech, and argument inancient China.
We mentioned above that several words were used to describe speechbehavior in philosophical texts following Confucius, but two stood out:"ming" and "bian." Although the two terms often overlapped inmeaning, they eventually began to produce divergent meanings. Con-fucius ^J=f (551-479 BCE) coined ming in the context of "namingcorrectly, speaking properly" (-SIEWI©). Thus, ming for Confucius, wasthe correct correspondence between social order and proper speechbehavior. Confucius used the term "ming" in political contexts and forthe purpose of social harmony.
According to Lao (1984), the school of Ming or Dialecticians practicedand defined ming differently than Confucius. This group was interested
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
454 Western Journal of Communication
in logic and metaphysics and defined ming as a form of argument. Theywere known asMingJia. &W. Lao (1984) identified three characteristicsof niing practiced by this group:
First, in terms of topics, the School of Ming only pursued questions of logic andmetaphysics instead of politics and ethics. Second, in terms of making an argument, theSchool of Ming relied on reasoning, logic or metaphysical theory rather than historical andcultural evidence. Third, the School of Ming has formulated its own theory and belongs toearly metaphysics. This school was known for its sophistry7 (p. 380). (First author'stranslation)
The writings of prominent ancient Chinese philosophers who werecontemporaries of Confucius and the School of Ming used the word bian% more frequently than ming in their discussions of speech and speechbehavior.8 The meaning of bian in their works included the logic andrational argument connoted in ming and embraced the topics ofepistemology and morality associated with the use of speech. Thesephilosophers may have chosen the word bian in order to distancethemselves from the Chinese sophists or to modify the Confucianconcept of ming.
For example, Hsun Tzu saw bian as evoking truth and preservingjustice. "Where there are fallacies or heresies, scholars can use bian tofight against it since they do not have political power or command oflaw" ("Zheng ming" 376) (rectification of names). Hsun Tzu used theword, ming, in the title of his article "Zheng ming" 1-g . But in thecontent of the article, Hsun Tzu used both ming and bian as he mighthave wanted to identify himself as a disciple of Confucius by using mingbut also wanted to distinguish himself from mingjia and his master byusing bian. By the time Han Fei Tzu ?£)£?• (280-233 BCE) wrote in theyears directly preceding Qin's # unification of China (221 BCE) and thefounding of the Han •& dynasty (206 BCE), the word "bian" was usedconsistently to refer to speech, persuasion, and argumentation.
Thus, much like the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition, the Chinesetradition of bian evolved, developed, and was extended by differentschools of thought and by different thinkers. Ming has a close connec-tion to bian as "logos" to "rhetoric" in the Greek tradition. But the twoterms are not identical. Ming is limited to logic, metaphysics, and socialorder while bian envelopes the meaning of ming, and at the same timeincludes speech and argument in serving and creating truth, morality,and knowledge. In fact, The rhetorical meaning of ming faded awaywhen the School of Ming lost its influence after 200 BCE. The rhetoricalmeaning of bian is still accepted and practiced to this day.
A more complete account of Chinese rhetoric is not possible if one failsto examine the dynamic and evolutionary nature of the ancient Chineseculture and Chinese bian. The ancient Chinese clearly had senses ofwhat Westerners call "rhetoric." And we believe these senses arereflected in their use of terms and characters. We believe the character
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 455
bian best captures the perspectives of the ancient Chinese on speechbehavior.
WESTERN PERCEPTIONS OF CHINESE BIAN
In this section, we will review the conclusions reached by Westernscholars in their writings on Chinese bian. These perceptions are theproduct of the modes of inquiry used by Western scholars discussedabove. The existing literature suggests that Chinese speech behavior isintended to promote harmony, is deprecated and devalued, and isuninterested in logic.
Chinese Rhetoric Is Characterized by Harmony
Western scholars believe the purpose of Chinese rhetoric is to achieveharmony. As Jensen (1978) notes: "a central value of East Asiancultures is the desire for harmony, oneness with nature and with otherhuman beings—with all of life" (p. 223). This desire for harmony, inKincaid's (1987) view, is not just a traditional value in ancient China,but also the goal in modern China. Accordingly, whether in the society ofcommunism and socialism, as in the People's Republic of China, or inthe society of democracy and capitalism as in Taiwan, respect forauthority, unity, and harmony is a primary Chinese trait (1987).
As harmony is believed to be the social goal of China, it is regarded asthe main characteristic and goal of Chinese bian. In comparing the goalof communication of East and West, Cushman and Kincaid (1987)observe that "An Eastern perspective emphasizes selflessness andsubmission to central authority as an institutional means for achievingunity and harmony between man and nature as the principle goal ofcommunication" (p. 9). Oliver (1971) shares the same conclusion as hewrites, "the primary function of discourse is not to enhance the welfareof the individual speaker or listener but to promote harmony" (p. 261).Unlike a Greek orator who imposes his will on his audience, Kennedy(1980) writes, "the role of the speaker is much less emphasized in therhetoric of India or China, where harmony rather than victory is oftenthe goal" (p. 10).
Obviously, such generalizations about the role played by Chinese bianin promoting social harmony reflect some degree of truth. However,these generalizations may not reflect the complex and variegated natureof Chinese rhetorical practices. China has a recorded history of 5,000years and Chinese cultural values are represented by different schools ofthought at different times in history. When Western scholars makeglobal generalizations about Chinese rhetoric, they are often unclearabout the time period, the school of thought, the social context in whichthe rhetoric of harmony is initiated and emphasized.
In fact, Ancient Chinese history is a mosaic of ideological, philosophi-cal, and cultural diversity. Historians of the period of Spring-Autumn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
456 Western Journal of Communication
and Warring States #&&@ (722-221 BCE) record intense conflictsbetween and among ancient Chinese states and philosophical schools. Atthis time wars broke out between different states, and as Kroll (1985)records, "Disputation took place both between philosophical schools andwithin a single tradition. These debates were held in different settings,either in private circumstances (sometimes through an intermediary)and 'in the lanes,' that is in public" (p. 121). Clearly, conflict, war, anddissent were not absent in the ancient Chinese culture and tradition.
Speech in China Is Deprecated
Jensen (1987) concludes that eloquence, argumentation, and speak-ing in general are deprecated in China as they are associated with highlynegative connotations such as "shallowness, superficiality, untrustwor-thy cleverness, pretentiousness, pride, hypocrisy, and flattery" (p. 221).According to Oliver, (1971) "loud talk and abusive language wereconsidered poor behavior" in China (p. 98). Slow talk and silence arevalued in Chinese society. Choe (1985) shares a similar view as he notes,"It [education] was taught generally that one should be cautious inuttering words. Especially men were taught to be slow of speech anddiscreet in selecting words. This was a norm and a virtue which took rootin traditional society so deeply as to become intrinsic in it" (p. 9).
The historical evidence produces a somewhat different conclusion.Speech in ancient China was encouraged and speakers enjoyed impres-sive reputations and played important roles in politics and education.They were considered wisemen or elites of the society. Ample examplesof vigorous debates and persuasive speeches can be found in recordedand recreated books of the Warring States time period (475-221 BCE).Some of these books are: Chan-Kuo Ts'e [Records of the Warring States]fifcllSS, Kuo-Yu [Discussion of the Nationals] §fi§, Tso-Chuan [Recordsof Tso] £ # and Shih-Chi [A Book of History] £ i3 by Ssu-ma Ch'ien (90BCE). Evidence of speech and argumentation in ancient China has beenalso investigated and categorized by a few Western scholars. Crump andDreher, (1951) for example, described Yu-shui $?$, (traveler persuaders)in the fourth century BCE China:
Adept in persuasion, quick of wit, owing no allegiance to anything beyond their ownaggrandizement, these men traveled the empire professing loyalty to first this prince, thenthat, turning one against the other with cleverly turned argument. While admittedlyinterested only in their own fortunes, these You-shwei have had far-reaching effects onhistory... (p. 16)
These you-shwei or you-shui and their activities are also mentionedby Kroll (1985) when he writes: "The China of the Chan-Kuo/Hanperiod [475 BCE-220 CE] seems to have abounded vnthpien shih, [bianshi] the name applied to 'wandering persuaders' (p. 126). The word"shi" ± in ancient China refers to learned and skilled men who "beganto be known more for their rhetoric than for their philosophy... he wasconstantly an envoy and always using the talent for which he was first
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 457
employed—persuasion" (Crump, 1964, p. 8). In Crump's (1964) opin-ion, the English word "rhetor" would be the best translation for theChinese word "shi" (p. 9). Chan Kuo Ts'e, and other literary booksmentioned above, record stories, conversations, and activities in whichthese shi demonstrated their persuasive skills.
Between 500 to 200 BCE in China, as Garrett (1993) notes, "theculture was vibrant, pluralistic, and astonishingly creative . . . " (p. 21).Diverse schools of thoughts flourished and debates and arguments overphilosophical and political issues were common. As in ancient Greece,clashes occurred between Chinese mingjia and Chinese philosophers.The ming and Man practiced by Chinese mingjia was condemned anddeprecated by Chinese philosophers such as Confucius and Lao Tzu. Butthey did not condemn Man in general. Confucius believed that speakingwell was the attribute of a good person as he wrote, "A good personshould speak well; but those who speak well are not necessarily goodperson" ("xian wen" %ffl.). Indeed, ancient Chinese philosophersvalued speech as much as the ancient Greeks. Even those philosopherswho condemned Man practised by Chinese ming jia were Man zhethemselves. As Chan (1967) records: "[F]ew have shut themselves up inan ivory tower to write long treaties on philosophy or any theoreticalsubject. . . . Hence, the teachings of Confucius, Lao Tzu, and others arefound in conversations" (in Moore, p. 17).
The ancient Chinese philosophers did condemn false or floweryspeeches. A careful reading of original philosophical texts will lead us tothe finding that what is deprecated by ancient Chinese philosophers isnot speech in general, but glib speakers or speakers with flowery andempty words. Even in today's China, eloquent speakers with emptywords are often judged as being glib, boasting, shallow, and distrustful.
Chinese Speech Is Not Interested in Logic
Western rhetorical scholars have followed the lead of Northrop (1946)who held that the Chinese were "intuitive" and could not use Westernlogic. Echoing Northrop's perspective, Oliver (1971) writes; "the ancientEast has not been much interested in logic, which necessarily correlatedunlike elements, nor has it favored either definition or classification asaids to clear thought" (p. 10). The reason for this, in Oliver's view, is"precisely because intuitive insight was considered to be the superiormeans of perceiving truth. Asian rhetoric, therefore, did not presumelogical argument but the explication of self-evident propositions" (p.259).
Studies of Chinese language demonstrate that "there is nothing inChinese language which prevents the Chinese mind from developinglogical thinking or formulating logical principles" (Cheng, 1969, p. 336).In fact, ancient China rooted argument in a logical system similar to thatof the West. As Graham (1978) informs the Western reader, "nearly all
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
458 Western Journal of Communication
that survives of Chinese logic and some of the most interesting ofChinese science is contained in six chapters of Mo-Tzu so mutilated andcorrupt that many scholars prefer to ignore them as unusable" (Pref-ace). Garrett (1983) concludes her investigation of Chinese Mohist logicin this manner: " . . . their self-conscious restriction to deduction in allareas, including "disputation" and ethical decision-making, was surelydue, as in the Western case, to the striking success of hypothetico-deductive reasoning in demonstrating causal relations for their prob-lems in physics, optics, and mechanics" (p. 341).
Chinese logic is not only discussed in the works of Mo Tzu, but is alsofound in the works of other philosophers. Hughes (1967) argues thatConfucian concept of Jen t (benevolence, humanistic, loving) is notjust a moral system, but a deductively formulated theory, a syllogism:"Man can live well in society: we men of Lu State and its neighbors aremen: therefore, we must be socially minded, i.e., man-to-man-ly (Jen)"(in Moore p. 97). In studying Hsun Tzu's theory of argumentation, Cua(1983) points out: "A careful examiantion of some passages in otheressays also suggests an awareness of the distinction between deductive,inductive, and analogical inferences . . . " (p. 867).
Classical Chinese persuaders used broad means of persuasion and didnot limit themselves to pure forms of deductive and inductive reasoning.A bian shi in ancient China was either a political adviser or a philoso-pher. The methods used by a bian shi varied. The persuasive methodsused by these bian shi in their disputations of philosophical and politicalconsultations, according to Kroll (1985) were "inference by analogy,""thesis and antithesis," "paradox and dilemmas," "comparing thingsand joining objects of the same kind," "the method of [discussing]advantages and disadvantages" (pp. 124-125). In Kroll's opinion, thesemethods were more of forms of indirect argument or indirect persua-sion, and these forms are mostly common in pre-imperial and imperialdiplomatic practices.
The ancient Chinese practised bian, utilized logic, and argued abouttheories of speech. If Western rhetorical scholars are to understandChinese bian, they will need to study it on its own terms and theiranalysis should be rooted in the ancient Chinese cultural context. Thefollowing section outlines some suggestions for rhetorical scholarsinterested in the study of ancient Chinese bian.
ON MODES OF INQUIRY FOR THE STUDY OF ANCIENTCHINESE BIAN
We have argued that ancient Chinese rhetorical tradition should beexamined on its own terms and that Western scholarship and orienta-tions can be helpful in the illumination of Eastern thought andrhetorical practice. Our collaboration leads us to offering two sugges-tions for the Western scholars of Chinese bian. First, the Western
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 459
scholar might search for senses of Bian rather than for definitions ofrhetoric in the literature of the ancient Chinese. Second, the Westernscholar should rigorously contextualize the meaning of Chinese bian inancient Chinese texts.
Senses of Bian
Western scholars should try to avoid impulse to define in studies ofChinese bian. An alternative approach is to identify contextual mean-ings or senses of bian as opposed to identifying explicit definitions ofrhetoric held and perceived by the Chinese and Greek antiquities. This isbecause, in Scott's observation, " . . . any definition of rhetoric that istaken as once-and-for-all is apt to be gravely misleading" (1973, p. 95).Scott (1973) notes that "people generally have a sense of rhetoric. Thissense or feeling, which precedes any definition of rhetoric, is immedi-ately rooted in experience" (p. 82). As people experience and perceive theworld from different angles, they may not come up with a unifieddefinition of rhetoric/fo'an, but they have a sense of rhetoric/foara basedon their experiences with speech. While expansive definitions of rhetoric/bian may limit our understanding of speech to a universal essence,senses of rhetoric/bian allow us to understand the function speechserves in specific contexts.
In the exploration of Chinese senses of bian and in the comparison ofChinese and Greek senses of femn/rhetoric, scholars should also examinehow these senses of bian /rhetoric are developed by different thinkers ineach culture. The meanings of bian /rhetoric in the ancient Greece andChinese are not static, rigid, or permanently defined. A historian ofrhetoric should be sensitive to the evolutionary development of rhetori-cal movements and vocabulary. As Schiappa (1990) observes, "Intellec-tual enterprises change, in part, through the evolution of a specializedvocabulary.. ." (p. 469).
Contextual Orientations
Analytical approaches used in the study of Chinese bian must be tiedto the contexts that provide the backdrop for such study. Such contextswill include social, philosophical, cultural environments, and literarytexts of the ancient Chinese. The scholar should closely examine Chinesecontexts for implicit and related meanings of persuasive discoursepractised or formulated in the Chinese culture and language. This willalso assure a more historically accurate interpretation of the nature oftheir persuasive discourse (Vickers 1988). The literary works producedfor or about the time period to be studied can reveal the speech practicesand theories of particular cultures. As always, scholars should commandthe language of the subjects they study if they are to appreciate thenuances embedded within cultural texts.
The new generation of rhetorical historians have showed the under-standing of the language and culture they study. Schiappa's discovery of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
460 Western Journal of Communication
the evolutionary nature of Greek rhetoric is based on his study oforiginal Greek texts. Garrett's impressive research program and herrecent (1993) exploration of Chinese pathos appeals is derived from herexamination of original Chinese philosophical and literary texts. Schi-appa and Garrett are North American scholars and their researchsuggests that one does not need to be a Greek or Chinese to understandthe speech theories of other cultures. Their research provides scholarswith models of the modes of inquiry necessary for careful and validstudies of non-English rhetorical theories and traditions.
A contextual interpretation of ancient Chinese bian can be enhancedby relying on faithful translations. Whenever possible, the scholar ofChinese bian should be competent in both the English and Chineselanguages. If not, then the scholar should have the translations corrobo-rated by native Chinese scholars or by Western scholars who can readthe Chinese language.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
We have examined and critiqued ancient Chinese speech behaviorportrayed by Western scholars. Our revised account of Chinese bianleads us to some conclusions and implications about the study of Chinesebian and rhetoric of other traditions. First, the rhetoric of pioneersJensen, Oliver, and other Western scholars should be valued. However,rhetorical scholars should also acknowledge the cultural templates andlinguistic subtleties that may complicated an authentic account of arhetorical tradition. To contribute new knowledge to the field, rhetoricalscholars should broaden and refine the previous studies on rhetoric ofother cultures.
Second, A culturally sensitive or modulated account of rhetoricresults when modes of inquiry employed are suited to the rhetoricaltradition under study. A multicultural perspective of rhetoric recognizessimilarities and differences in rhetorical theories and practices ofdifferent traditions, as well as the need to employ appropriate ap-proaches and processes in studying rhetorical theories and practices ofother cultures. In studying rhetoric of other cultures, we should try toavoid the pitfall or tendency of validating our own method or theory, butto discover new method and new theory generated from a new context.The traditional and familiar Western mode of inquiry may obscure thevision of rhetorical scholar seeking to develop a multicultural perspec-tive of rhetoric. We believe the first generation of Western rhetoricalscholars missed the implicit and embedded meaning of Chinese bian asthe result of the modes of inquiry these scholars used in the study ofChinese theories and practices of speech behaviors.
Finally, we conclude from our study that culture is an importantfactor in shaping the rhetorical discourse and formulation of rhetoricaltheory, but the senses of rhetoric and bian shared by ancient Greeks and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 461
Chinese may suggest a universal sense of speech. A multiculturalperspective of rhetoric should assume cultural diversity and universal-ity. As scholars of rhetoric, we should seek out and learn from thedifferences in cultural expressions rooted in different human experience.However, this diversity may be connected by a culturally invariantrecognition of the role played by speech in human affairs. For example,the ancient Greeks and Chinese used speech to argue, to make distinc-tions and changes, and to achieve justices and order. Thus, we shouldalso look for cultural expressions that transcend culture and that mayreflect a universal sense of speech.
The search for cultural differences and similarities in speech shouldlead historians of rhetoric to a broader and more expansive account ofhuman rhetoric. Toward this end, we are hopeful that our study mightprompt other scholars to collaborate to achieve Vickers' vision of anintegrated, inspired, and multicultural knowledge of rhetoric.
ENDNOTES
1. Visiting Professor Xing-Wu Liu, Department of International Studies, DePaulUniversity (from mainland China); Professor Wen-hsiung Hsu, Department of Asian andAfrican Languages, Northwestern University (from Taiwan); and Professor Hee-Jin Kim,Department of Religion, University of Oregon, (Korean American) have read the revisedtranslations and agree that the translations are faithful to the original texts.
2. Except the well accepted names of ancient Chinese philosophers and their works, Iwill use "pin-yin" system for the Chinese characters. "Pin-yin" system is practised inmainland China and has become widely used in the recent works on China.
3. Bian zhe is an equivalent to bian shi. We will use the two terms interchangeablely inthis paper.
4. Shui and shuo are the same character in Chinese, but different in meaning andpronunciation. Shui refers to persuasion in Classical Chinese while shuo means explana-tion, speech, and discussion.
5. Some major texts are: Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching; Chuang Tzu, Chuang Tzu; Mencius,Meng Tzu; Hsun Tzu; Hsun Tzu; Mo Tzu, The Mohist Cannons; Han Fei Tzu, Han FeiTzu. Most ancient Chinese philosophers used their names as the title of their works.
6. The first three Chinese characters have the same pronunciation, but have differentmeanings as explained in the text.
7. Hu Shih, 1963, Garrett, 1983; Graham., 1989; Kroll, 1985 have used the word"sophists" to refer to scholars in the School of Ming.
8. These philosophers are: Lao Tzu Igf (500 BCE), Mencius ft? (390-305 BCE),Chuang Tzu £rf- (369-286 BCE), Mo Tzu § ? (480-420 BCE), and Hsun Tzu t f ? (298-238 BCE) Han Fei Tzu IfclFP (280-233 BCE).
REFERENCES
Chan, W. T. (1967). Chinese Theory and Practice, with Special Reference to Humanism. InC. A. Moore (Eds.), The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy andCulture (pp. 11-30). Honolulu: East-West Center Press.
Chan, W. T. (1967). Syntheses in Chinese Metaphysics. In C. A. Moore (Eds.), The ChineseMind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture (pp. 132-148). Honolulu:East-West Center Press.
Cheng, C. Y. (1969). Logic and Language in Chinese Thought. In R. Klibansky (Eds.),Contemporary Philosophy, A Survey Vol. III (pp. 335-347). Firenge, LA: NuovaItalia Editrice.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
462 Western Journal of Communication
Cheng, C. Y. (1987). Chinese Philosophy and Contemporary Human CommunicationTheory. In D. L. Kincaid (Eds.), Communication Theory; Eastern and WesternPerspectives (pp. 23-43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Choe, C. (1985). Rhetoric: A Comparison of Its Evaluation in East and West. Paperpresented at the annual convention of the International Communication Associa-tion, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Chuang, T. (1959). Chuang Tzu £rf-. In Chung-kuo Che-hsueh Shih Tzu-liao Hsuan' PS fT^&f f iS i • [Collection of Chinese History of Philosophy]. Beijing: ChinaBooks.
Confucius. (1959). The Analects ife®. In Chung-kuo Che-hsueh Shih Tzu-liao Hsuan%Htf¥£S£B£S. [Collection of Chinese History of Philosophy]. Beijing: ChinaBooks.
Conley, T. M. (1979). The Greekless Readers and Aristotle's Rhetoric. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 65, 74-79.
Crump, J. I. (1964). Intrigues: Studies of Chan-kuo Ts'e. Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press.
Crump, J. I., & Dreher, J. (1951). Peripatetic Rhetors of the Warring Kingdoms. TheCentral States Speech Journal, 2, 15-17.
Cua, A. A. (1983). Hsuntes' Theory of Argumentation: A Reconstruction. Review ofMetaphysics, 36, 867-894.
Cushman, D. P., & Kincaid, D. L. (1987). Introduction and Initial Insights. In D. L.Kincaid (Eds.), Communication Theory; Eastern and Western Perspectives (pp.1-10). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Drehar & Crump (1952). Pre-Han persuasion: The legalist school. Central States SpeechJournal 3, 10-14.
Garrett, M. (1983). The "Mo-Tzu" and the "Lu-Shih Ch'un-ch'iu:" A Case Study ofClassical Chinese Theory and Practice of Argument. Diss. University of California,Berkeley.
Garrett, M. (1991). Asian Challenge. In S. K. Foss, K. A. Foss, & R. Trapp (Eds.),Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Illinois: Prospect Heights.
Garrett, M. (1993). Pathos Reconsidered from the Perspective of Classical ChineseRhetorical Theories. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 19-39.
Graham, A. C. (1978). Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. Hong Kong: The ChineseUniversity Press.
Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao. Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company.Hall, D. L., & Ames, R. T. (1987). Thinking Through Confucius. New York: State
University of New York Press.Harms, L. S. (1980). Appropriate Methods for Communication Policy Science: Some
Preliminary Considerations. Human Communication Research, 7, 3-13.Hsun, T. (1979). Hsun-tzu Hsin-chu ^iFSfS. [New Explanation of Hsun Tzu]. Beijing:
China Books.Hu, S. (1963). The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China. 2nd ed. New
York: Paragon Book Reprint Corp.Hughes, E. R. (1967). Epistemological Methods in Chinese Philosophy. In C. A. Moore
(Eds.), The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture (pp.77-103). Honolulu: East-West Center Press.
Jensen, J. V. (1987). Rhetorical Emphasis of Taoism. Rhetorica, 5, 219-229.Jensen, J. V. (1992). Ancient eastern and western regions as guides for contemporary
communication ethics. In J. A. Jaska (Ed.), Conference Proceedings of the SecondNational Communication Ethics Conference. June 11-14 (pp 58-67). WesternMichigan University.
Kennedy, G. A. (1980). A Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition fromAncient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Kincaid, D. L. (1987). Communication East and West: Points of Departure. In D. L.Kincaid (Eds.), Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives (pp.331-340). London: Academic Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Fall 1993 463
Kroll, J. L. (1985-1987). Disputation in Ancient Chinese Culture. Early China, 11-12,118-145.
Lao, S. K. ftSM. (1984). Hsi-pien Chung-kuo Che-hsueh Shih. SfiS^BW^A • [NewComplied Version of Chinese History of Philosophy]. Taipei: San Min Books.
Lao, T. (1959). Tao Te Ching. iMJig . In Chung-kuo Che-hsueh Shih Tzu-liao Hsuan"PHTff^&ffiSSf. [Collection of Chinese History of Philosophy]. Beijing: ChinaBooks.
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1966). Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Lu, X. (1991) Recovering the Past: Identification of Chinese Senses of Pien and a
Comparison of Pien to Greek Senses of Rhetoric in the Fifth and Third CenturiesBCE. Diss. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
Mo, Tzu. (1959). The Mohist Cannons. S g In Chung-kuo Che-hsueh Shih Tzu-liaoHsuan " P S W ^ ^ ^ S S . [Collection of Chinese History of Philosophy]. Beijing:China Books.
Moore, C. A. (1967). Introduction: The Humanistic Chinese Mind. In C. A. Moore (Eds.),The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture (pp. 1-10)Honolulu: East-West Center Press.
Murphy, J. J. (1983). A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. California: HermograrasPress.
Northrop, F. S. C. (1946). The Meeting of East and West New York: The MacMillan Co.Oliver, R. (1971). Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China. New York:
Syracuse University Press.Reynolds, B. K. (1969). Lao Tzu: Persuasion Through Inaction and Non-Speaking. Today
Speech, 17, 23-25.Schiappa, E. (1990). Did Plato Coin Rhetorike? American Journal of Philology, III,
457-470.Schiappa, E. (1991). Rhetorike: What's in a Name? Toward a Revised History of Early
Greek Rhetorical Theory. Paper presented at the 1991 Meeting of the InternationalSociety for the History of Rhetoric. Baltimore, Maryland.
Schiappa, E. (1992). Rhetorike: What's in a Name? Toward a Revised History of EarlyGreek Rhetorical Theory. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, 1-15.
Scott, R. L. (1973). On Not Defining "Rhetoric." Philosophy And Rhetoric, 6, 81-96.Shao, T. H. g y t # (1982). Han Fei-tzu Chin-chu chin-i f ^ F f ^ * ^ ? [Modern Explana-
tion of Han Fei Tzu]. Taipei: Shang Wu Printing House.Vickers, B. (1988). In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Watson, B. (1967). Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsun Tzu and Han Fei Tzu. New York and
London: Columbia University Press.Xu,S. ((im (25 CE) .Shuo Wen JieZi i & t
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
OF
AD
EL
AID
E L
IBR
AR
IES]
at 2
3:44
17
Nov
embe
r 20
14