Introduction: “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
“On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History in the Spring of 1978 (Vol. 9, No. 3) as part of a thematic issue on rhetorical analyses. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this work examines the intricate relationship between rhetorical tropes and acts of persuasion, situating rhetoric as a field both of structural conventions and dynamic events. Culler argues that rhetoric is marked by paradoxes, such as its simultaneous role as a toolkit of figures and a process producing meaningful events. He explores how rhetoric operates in literary and textual contexts, influencing both the creation and interpretation of meaning. This essay is significant in literary theory for challenging static definitions of rhetoric and emphasizing its fluid interplay with semiotics, tropes, and the interpretative acts of readers and critics. By interrogating the undecidability inherent in rhetorical and literary practices, Culler highlights the dynamic, often contradictory nature of meaning-making, leaving a lasting impact on discussions of textuality and rhetorical criticism.
Summary of “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
- The Dual Nature of Rhetoric
Culler argues that rhetoric occupies a paradoxical position, being simultaneously a set of structured conventions and a dynamic force capable of producing unpredictable events. This dual nature challenges traditional definitions and positions rhetoric as both a framework and a phenomenon of textuality (Culler, 1978, p. 608). - Tropes as the Essence of Persuasion
The essay explores the relationship between tropes (figurative language) and persuasion. While tropes structure discourse, their ability to generate meaning is discontinuous and incalculable. This interplay illustrates the inherent instability in rhetorical analysis, where structure often fails to fully explain events (p. 609). - Rhetorical Analysis and Ambiguity
Culler highlights contributions from other scholars like Stanley Meltzoff, who views rhetoric as the synthesis of linguistic and semiotic elements to produce events. However, Meltzoff acknowledges that the complexities of rhetorical effects, such as ambiguities, resist definitive analysis (p. 609-610). - Case Studies of Shakespearean Rhetoric
The analysis includes Thomas MacCary’s exploration of comedic patterns in The Comedy of Errors and Berel Lang’s examination of the tragic structure in King Lear. Lang successfully integrates structure and audience response, showing how rhetorical devices shape tragic effects, particularly through audience identification with Lear (p. 610-611). - The Incertitude of Linguistic Constructs
Ann Banfield’s discussion of style indirect libre (free indirect style) is critiqued for its focus on linguistic structures at the expense of rhetorical effects. Culler asserts that the interpretive function of such styles lies in their ambiguity, which resists fixed linguistic classification (p. 612). - Rhetorical Figures in Classical Literature
In discussing Oedipus Rex, Culler highlights how rhetorical figures, like metonymic reversals, blur the boundaries between meaning and events. The guilt of Oedipus arises not from the act itself but from the narrative’s interpretive framework, illustrating how rhetoric constructs reality (p. 614-615). - Rhetoric as Generative and Ungrounded
The essay extends to modern literature, as seen in Peter Brooks’ analysis of Frankenstein. The rhetoric of the monster disrupts traditional language and meaning, illustrating how ungrounded discourse can both persuade and destabilize humanistic values (p. 616). - Political and Literary Dimensions of Rhetoric
Victor Brombert’s work on Victor Hugo is discussed to show how rhetoric operates in political and literary criticism. Hugo’s assertions about textuality and indeterminacy reflect rhetoric’s power to simultaneously affirm and challenge interpretive norms (p. 617). - Conclusion: The Inherent Aporias of Rhetoric
Culler concludes that rhetoric is defined by its aporias—moments of irresolvable ambiguity. These aporias underscore the duality of rhetoric as both structural and event-driven, making it central to literary analysis and interpretation (p. 618).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Description | Significance |
| Rhetoric | The art of using language to persuade or influence others, encompassing both structures (rules) and events. | Highlights the paradoxical duality in rhetoric: structured conventions vs. dynamic, unpredictable outcomes. |
| Trope | A figurative or rhetorical device used to shape meaning within a discourse. | Essential to persuasion but inherently unstable; the basis of rhetorical and textual analysis. |
| Persuasion | The process by which rhetoric influences thought or behavior, often through emotional or logical appeal. | Demonstrates rhetoric’s power to create meaning and incite action, despite its unpredictability. |
| Structure and Event | The interplay between established rhetorical forms and the unpredictable outcomes they produce. | Emphasizes the incalculable nature of rhetorical effects; structures alone cannot fully explain events. |
| Paradox | The contradictory characteristics inherent in rhetoric, such as being essential yet often avoided. | Reflects the complexity and fluidity of rhetoric as a field of study. |
| Style Indirect Libre | A narrative style blending the perspectives of the narrator and character, creating ambiguous attribution. | Exemplifies the indeterminate and interpretive nature of rhetorical and literary discourse. |
| Metonymic Reversal | A rhetorical shift where cause and effect are inverted, as seen in the narrative construction of events. | Illustrates the constructed nature of reality in rhetoric, as in Oedipus Rex. |
| Ambiguity | The openness of rhetorical figures to multiple interpretations, preventing definitive meaning. | Central to rhetoric’s power and its analytical challenges; shapes interpretive acts. |
| Intertextuality | The interconnectedness of texts through shared references and rhetorical structures. | Highlights how meaning is created and contested within a broader textual framework, as in Hugo’s works. |
| Rhetoricity | The quality of language that foregrounds its rhetorical nature, as opposed to direct representation. | Explored in Frankenstein as a disruption of traditional humanistic discourse. |
| Aporia | An irresolvable contradiction or impasse within rhetoric or textual analysis. | Exemplifies the limits of rhetorical understanding and its inherent complexities. |
| Figures of Identification | Tropes that create a shared perspective between character and audience, as seen in King Lear. | Key to the emotional and rhetorical power of texts, particularly in dramatic contexts. |
| Textuality | The concept of the world as a text, subject to interpretation and imbued with rhetorical structures. | Challenges assumptions about fixed reality; central to Hugo’s view of the world as authored by God. |
Contribution of “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
- Key Contribution: The essay highlights the inherent instability and undecidability in language, tropes, and meaning. It emphasizes that rhetoric operates within an aporetic space where meaning and events are incalculably intertwined (Culler, 1978, p. 608-609).
- Significance: Aligns with poststructuralist views by rejecting the fixed relationship between language and meaning, showcasing the fluidity of textual interpretation.
- Key Contribution: Culler argues that the interpretive act of the reader shapes the function of rhetorical devices like style indirect libre. Ambiguities in narrative style compel the reader to attribute meaning based on subjective hypotheses (p. 612).
- Significance: Reinforces the role of the reader as an active participant in the creation of textual meaning, central to reader-response approaches.
3. Structuralist Semiotics
- Key Contribution: The essay discusses rhetoric as a system of signs that produce events, underlining the structural interplay of figures and conventions (p. 610).
- Significance: Demonstrates how tropes and rhetorical structures function within a system, advancing semiotic interpretations of language and literature.
- Key Contribution: Through examples like King Lear and Oedipus Rex, Culler illustrates how rhetorical strategies shape narrative events and reader responses, often blurring the boundaries between structure and meaning (p. 610-615).
- Significance: Expands the understanding of how narrative forms utilize rhetoric to engage and persuade audiences.
5. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory
- Key Contribution: The exploration of pre-oedipal patterns in The Comedy of Errors and the guilt-construction in Oedipus Rex bridges rhetoric and psychological drives (p. 609, p. 615).
- Significance: Enriches psychoanalytic approaches by examining how rhetorical devices engage unconscious desires and conflicts.
- Key Contribution: Culler revises classical notions of rhetoric by focusing on its paradoxes—its capacity to structure discourse and simultaneously disrupt conventional meaning (p. 608).
- Significance: Positions rhetoric as central to both literary creation and interpretation, emphasizing its dual role as structure and event.
7. Feminist and Cultural Theories
- Key Contribution: The discussion of texts like Frankenstein examines how marginalized voices, such as the monster’s, utilize rhetoric to challenge dominant ideologies (p. 616).
- Significance: Supports feminist and cultural critiques by illustrating how rhetoric can disrupt traditional hierarchies and norms.
8. Intertextuality in Literary Theory
- Key Contribution: By addressing Victor Hugo’s portrayal of the world as a text, Culler underscores the interdependence of texts and the impossibility of isolated meaning (p. 617).
- Significance: Advances the concept of intertextuality, a key idea in postmodern and deconstructionist theories.
- Key Contribution: The essay engages with the undecidability of meaning, as seen in tropes like metonymic reversal, where cause and effect are destabilized (p. 615).
- Significance: Contributes to deconstructionist critiques by showcasing how texts inherently deconstruct themselves through their reliance on unstable rhetoric.
Examples of Critiques Through “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Critique Through Culler’s Framework | Key Concepts from Culler’s Essay | Reference |
| The Comedy of Errors | Examines its comedic pattern as pre-oedipal and narcissistic, relying on the audience’s identification with the characters’ struggles. | – Rhetorical appeal – Structure and event – Identification in rhetoric | Culler, 1978, p. 609 |
| King Lear | Analyzes the tragedy’s emotional power through tropes of identification, merging the perspectives of Lear and the audience. | – Figures of identification – Structure vs. event – Ambiguity | Culler, 1978, p. 610-611 |
| Oedipus Rex | Highlights metonymic reversals, where guilt is inferred from narrative repetition, demonstrating how rhetoric constructs meaning. | – Metonymic reversal – Aporia in rhetoric – Textual construction of reality | Culler, 1978, p. 614-615 |
| Frankenstein | Focuses on the monster’s ungrounded rhetoric, which disrupts traditional humanistic discourse and persuades readers to see the monster as human. | – Rhetoricity – Language as ungrounded – Subversion of humanistic values | Culler, 1978, p. 616 |
Criticism Against “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
1. Overemphasis on Ambiguity
- Culler’s focus on aporia and undecidability may overshadow the practical applications of rhetorical analysis. Critics argue that this emphasis renders rhetoric overly abstract and less useful for concrete literary interpretation.
2. Neglect of Historical Context
- The essay largely overlooks the historical and cultural contexts in which rhetorical practices evolved, potentially limiting its scope and applicability to diverse literary traditions.
3. Lack of Empirical Validation
- Culler’s arguments rely heavily on theoretical frameworks without empirical evidence or extensive textual examples to substantiate claims about rhetoric’s effects on meaning and events.
4. Overgeneralization of Rhetoric’s Dual Nature
- Critics contend that the dual nature of rhetoric as both structure and event is treated as universal, neglecting cases where rhetoric functions more predictably and systematically.
5. Underrepresentation of Reader Diversity
- The essay assumes a relatively uniform reader response, ignoring how different cultural, historical, and personal backgrounds might influence interpretations of rhetorical devices.
6. Ambiguity in Terminology
- Terms like “trope,” “event,” and “aporia” are used extensively but are not always clearly defined or differentiated, which could lead to confusion among readers.
7. Limited Exploration of Non-Western Rhetoric
- Culler’s analysis is centered on Western literary traditions, leaving non-Western rhetorical practices and theories largely unexamined.
8. Potential Circular Reasoning
- The argument that rhetoric simultaneously creates and undermines meaning may fall into circular reasoning, as it relies on the premise that all meaning is inherently unstable.
9. Minimal Engagement with Counterarguments
- The essay does not sufficiently address alternative views or critiques of rhetorical theory, which could enrich the discussion and bolster the validity of its claims.
10. Marginalization of Authorial Intent
- Culler’s emphasis on the reader and textual effects minimizes the role of authorial intent, which some critics see as a crucial aspect of rhetorical and literary analysis.
Representative Quotations from “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Rhetoric is the art of using language effectively, yet it is also that which any composition must avoid if it is to be truly effective.” | Highlights the paradoxical nature of rhetoric: simultaneously essential for persuasion and potentially disruptive. |
| “The relationship between structure and event is incalculable, which is why rhetoric is fated…to be simultaneously a discourse of structure and event.” | Emphasizes the unpredictable interplay between rhetorical forms (structure) and their real-world impact (event). |
| “Rhetorical analysis attempts to account for these events, and it does so by identifying structures, patterns, figures.” | Defines the aim of rhetorical analysis: understanding how rhetorical elements influence discourse and meaning. |
| “Ambiguities balance… until we see where the ambiguities balance.” | Reflects rhetoric’s capacity to accommodate and sustain multiple interpretations without definitive resolution. |
| “One cannot claim with any confidence that the responses to the play correspond to the effects predicted for its structure.” | Critiques the unpredictability of rhetorical effects, demonstrating the complexity of connecting intent with outcome. |
| “Style indirect libre is a function which sentences can be given, and there are features which may lead the reader to give sentences this function.” | Explains how certain narrative techniques encourage readers to attribute ambiguous rhetorical significance. |
| “Man discovers himself enigmatic, without stability or a domain proper to him, oscillating between the equal of god and the equal of nothing.” | Explores the existential implications of rhetoric as a force that destabilizes identity and meaning. |
| “Instead of inferring a meaning from a deed, we infer a deed from a meaning.” | Illustrates how rhetoric reverses traditional causality, constructing events through interpretive frameworks. |
| “The monster’s rhetoric… persuades those who, like the blind de Lacey, cannot see that it is being used not in its proper human reference but in reference to the improper, the monstrous.” | Demonstrates how rhetoric subverts expectations, redefining the boundaries between the human and the monstrous. |
| “Faith may stand firm against textuality. That is what Brombert needs in his political battle… or else effacing tropes and ending the need for persuasion.” | Suggests that belief or faith might counter rhetoric’s destabilizing tendencies, highlighting its political implications. |
Suggested Readings: “On Trope and Persuasion” by Jonathan Culler
- Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
- Culler, Jonathan. “On Trope and Persuasion.” New Literary History, vol. 9, no. 3, 1978, pp. 607–18. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468458. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
- Vickers, Brian. “The Atrophy of Modern Rhetoric, Vico to De Man.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 6, no. 1, 1988, pp. 21–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.1.21. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
- Kelly, Dorothy. “The Ghost of Meaning: Language in the Fantastic.” SubStance, vol. 11, no. 2, 1982, pp. 46–55. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3684024. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
- Mattson, Craig E. “A Better Feeling for Making the World Better? TOMS’s Tropes and the Buy-One-Give-One Mode.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 5, 2018, pp. 440–58. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48544137. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.