We have dived into the world of digital for the past couple of weeks. Digital technologies, digital literacy, intertextuality, and digital rhetoric included. For the most part, digital rhetoric can mean different things. But how can a synthesis be made to reach a set or desired conclusion on digital rhetoric and its meaning?
In class, Veronica Villa and I (with help from the class) came up with a defintion for digital rhetoric that made sense to us. We said it is conveying data digitally by influencing the perception of the audience through language, media, and digital technologies/devices/content. In this post, I will be recycling some of the people I referenced in my last blog post, as they are relevant to the conversation and connections I am making, so don’t judge (please).
The Synthesis
As we know, Richard Lanham is the first person to come up with the term digital rhetoric. Eyman concur’s Lanham did not give a direct definition, but that he mapped out the connections it makes with different types of works.
Doug Brent understands the definition of rhetoric is changing and expanding, specifically in digital settings. And, per my last blog post, hypertexts play a big role with digital rhetoric. Gary Heba introduced HyperRhetoric which I believe is a main factor of digital rhetoric. When developing factors that make up “‘multisensory communication’” like words or sounds that is HyperRhetoric at work.
What all of these factors seem to have in common is the idea that the development of rhetoric as digital spaces continue to grow is extremely important. Lanham presents the idea, Brent helps develop the definition, and Heba brings what makes up digital rhetoric. I feel like a broken record but it is so important to continue updating and revamping basically everything whether it’s digital spaces, rhetoric itself, your skincare routine, etc. New developments are being made as we speak, or read. We have to be ready for what the new age has to bring.
Leave a Reply