Comprehension techniques: rhetoric vs figurative techniques/devices (1 Viewer)

[SadCeliac]

Help how do I tell them apart

 

[Masaken]

rhetorical devices have the intention of persuading the audience / inclining the audience toward a certain viewpoint, while the focus of figurative devices is more from an 'aesthetic' thing, stemming from evoking certain meaning, sometimes which isn't literal or by appealing to how audiences perceive or read the text (this is very barebones though, there is some overlap between the two and in certain cases figurative techniques can be used as rhetorical devices). they (roughly) differ in how they want the audience to respond - rhetorical devices have a more specific intention imo

in terms of rhetoric, it encompasses the principles of persuasion: logos (using facts and stats to support the evidence), pathos (appealing to audience's emotional response), and ethos (credibility - you trust what the speaker is saying is qualified and correct). i wouldn't call these techniques on their own but by understanding what they are you can better link rhetorical devices to meaning and effect on audience. (eg. if the short answer q was how does the speaker invite the audience to...? u can use the technique of 'jargon' - if there is a lot of jargon used - as it shows they are experienced and qualified to talk on the subject -> ethos.)

however, often when i'm doing reading task papers trying to tell them apart should be the least of your worries - you don't need to identify a technique as rhetorical or figurative (eg. i don't need to specify a metaphor being a figurative technique). what's important is the effect of that technique on the audience/meaning of the text, there's no super deep analysis needed, but i guess knowing how to differentiate between rhetoric and figurative can help

 

[SadCeliac]

rhetorical devices have the intention of persuading the audience / inclining the audience toward a certain viewpoint, while the focus of figurative devices is more from an 'aesthetic' thing, stemming from evoking certain meaning, sometimes which isn't literal or by appealing to how audiences perceive or read the text (this is very barebones though, there is some overlap between the two and in certain cases figurative techniques can be used as rhetorical devices). they (roughly) differ in how they want the audience to respond - rhetorical devices have a more specific intention imo

in terms of rhetoric, it encompasses the principles of persuasion: logos (using facts and stats to support the evidence), pathos (appealing to audience's emotional response), and ethos (credibility - you trust what the speaker is saying is qualified and correct). i wouldn't call these techniques on their own but by understanding what they are you can better link rhetorical devices to meaning and effect on audience. (eg. if the short answer q was how does the speaker invite the audience to...? u can use the technique of 'jargon' - if there is a lot of jargon used - as it shows they are experienced and qualified to talk on the subject -> ethos.)

however, often when i'm doing reading task papers trying to tell them apart should be the least of your worries - you don't need to identify a technique as rhetorical or figurative (eg. i don't need to specify a metaphor being a figurative technique). what's important is the effect of that technique on the audience/meaning of the text, there's no super deep analysis needed, but i guess knowing how to differentiate between rhetoric and figurative can help

thank youuuu