In Eyman’s “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric”, he explains how digital, electric, computational, and techno rhetoric are all related to one another in their own way. Starting off, he mentions digital rhetoric as mentioned before in my previous blog posted here. To keep it short, digital rhetoric refers to anything and everything, not just a small handheld device.
Next, electric rhetoric is used “as a descriptive term for rhetorical analysis of electronic texts that did not see much widespread use” (pg. 42). In simpler terms, it is just changes in writing done by electronic forms of communication according to Welch. However, Eyman does not agree with this statement. He believes that the term is limited and it is moving beyond orality and print.
On the other hand, computational rhetoric bridges “qualitative and quantitative /algorithmic approaches to humanities research” (pg. 42). This form of rhetoric is more argument based and processes “informal logic and persuasion” which is one of the issues according to Eyman. He also states another problem with this which is its complexity. Eyman argues how there is much more behind the scenes of computational rhetoric than arguments.
Lastly, techno rhetoric can be defined as “the distinction between being a techno rhetorician and a rhetorician…but the techniques, ways of reading the material” differ based on their own scholarly material. This definition was given by Keith Dorwick, but Jimmie Killingsworth condenses it and makes it much simpler. Killingsworth states, “the study, practice, and teaching of electronic literacies, as in the field of new media studies and computers and composition” (pg. 43).