A study of writing in the United States Navy indicates the
wide usefulness of the rhetorical concept of ethos. Although
almost never formally taught, the concept is continually
being rediscovered and applied within a wide variety of
naval contexts, from naval personnel evaluations to ship- repair reports. But ethos is still too seldom consciously
present or habitually applied in the naval profession. And,
as the Tailhook episode has recently demonstrated, a lack
of such understanding can sometimes have adverse effects
on the credibility of the Navy as a whole.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aristotle.On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (1991). (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press .
2.
Clark, D.L. (1957). Rhetoric in Greco-Roman education. New York: Columbia University Press .
3.
Grimaldi, W.M.A. (1980-88). Aristotle, "Rhetoric": A commentary . (Vols. 1-2). New York: Fordham University Press.
Gullickson, G.G., & Chenette, R.D. (1984). Excellence in the Surface Navy. Unpublished master's thesis, Naval Postgraduate School .
6.
Halloran, S.M. (1971). Classical rhetoric for the engineering student . Journal of Technical Writing and Communication , 1, 17-24.
7.
Halloran, S.M. (1982). "Aristotle's Concept of Ethos, or if not his, somebody else's."Rhetoric Review1, 58-63.
8.
Halloran, S.M., & Whitburn, M.D. (1982). Ciceronian rhetoric and the rise of science: The plain style. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.). The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing (pp. 58-72). New York: Modern Language Association.
9.
Hankey, J.R. (1983, August 8). A response to "Bias Against Women?" [Letter to the editor]. Navy Times, 20, p. 19.
10.
Kallendorf, C., & Kallendorf, C. (1985). The figures of speech, Ethos, and Aristotle: Notes toward a rhetoric of business communication . Journal of Business Communication, 22, 35-50.
11.
Matthews, C. (1994). What Do We Stand For?"Naval Institute Proceedings, 120 , 72
12.
. Miller, C.R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40 , 610-617.
13.
Parks, W.H. (1994). Tailhook: What happened, why & what's to be learned. Naval Institute Proceedings , 120, 89-103.
14.
Reynolds, J.F. (1992). Classical rhetoric and the teaching of technical writing. Technical Communication Quarterly , 1, 63-78.
15.
Sattler, W.M. (1947). Conceptions of ethos in ancient rhetoric. Speech Monographs, 14, 55-65.
16.
Seamon, R. (1994). A response to Carey Matthews, "What Do We Stand For?" [Letter to the editor]. Naval Institute Proceedings , 13.
17.
Shenk, R. (1988). Ghost-writing in professional communications. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication , 18, 377-387.
18.
Shenk, R. (1990). Guide to naval writing. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute.
19.
Spishock, P.M. (1983, August 8). A response to "Bias Against Women?" [Letter to the editor]. Navy Times, p. 20.
20.
Stoddard, E.W. (1984). The role of ethos in the theory of technical writing. Technical Writing Teacher, 11, 229-241.
21.
Vickers, B. (1988). The expressive function of rhetorical figures. In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
22.
Walzer, A.E. (1981). Ethos, technical writing, and the liberal arts . Technical Writing Teacher, 8, 50-53. □
