“Rhetoric,”“Logic,” and “Poetics” in Burundi: Culture Patterning of Speech Behavior¹

Abstract

LEIKEother universal categories of human behavior, speech is the object of diverse, complementary specializations. In the context of the ethnography of speaking, not only the language spoken but also the uses of speech may be assumed to have distinctive culture patterns. Ideally, total anthropological description of the pattern of a culture could well' include its rules and uses of speech, their implementation and violation, and relevant sanctions, positive and negative. Conversely, when inquiry is focused on cultural patterns of speech behavior, the proper context is the whole culture pattern. Major intracultural variations in the uses of speech may be assumed to be systematically related to the constituents of culture patterns, including aspects of the social structure, cultural definitions of the situations of action, the cultural philosophy and value system, and their patterned interrelations.Speech is so important and pervasive in any society that at least those with a reputation for wisdom or success are probably capable of stating the norms that govern the uses of speech. Moreover, enculturation includes instruction of the young not only in the mechanics of speaking but also in the patterns of speech behavior. Hence, virtually any adult and probably many young people are potential sources of relevant information, direct or inferential.The traditional kingdom of Burundi2 offers a particularly fortunate case study of culture patterning of speech behavior. Speech is explicitly recognized as an important instrument of social life; eloquence is one of the central values of the cultural world-view; and the way of life affords frequent opportunity for its exercise. Sensitivity to the variety and complexity of speech behavior is evident in a rich vocabulary for its description and evaluation and in a constant flow of speech about speech. Argument, debate, and negotiation, as well as elaborate literary forms are built into the organization of society as means of gaining one's ends, as social status symbols, and as skills enjoyable in themselves.A highly secularized, sophisticated feudal kingdom with a population of approximately two million, traditional Burundi has well-defined criteria of rhetoric, logic, and poetics, and well-developed ideas about their uses and interrelations. The norms governing the uses of speech are explicitly differentiated according to caste, sex, and age, so that the relations of speech behavior to social structure are easily grasped by observers. Adoption of the terms, "rhetoric," "logic," and "poetics" from western culture is necessarily tentative and obviously entails the risk of culture-bound distortion. Conventional denotative meanings will be used, i.e., "rhetoric" will designate the norms and techniques of persuasion, as well as criteria of styles of delivery in public speaking; "logic" will refer to the rules and uses of evidence and inference; and "poetics" will refer to the esthetic criteria that govern discourse. The referents of these terms are neither precise nor unambiguous ...

On the origins of contrastive rhetoric: a reply to Matsuda

“…Further, I based my proposal on Hymes' publications in the early 1960s and Kaplan's seminal article in 1966 rather than imagining that Kaplan was drawn to Hymes' ethnography of communication because of his recent interest in ethnography as a framework for writing research. Third, I suggested that Kaplan might have read Albert's (1964) article. I did not propose that Kaplan was influenced by it.…”

The origin of contrastive rhetoric revisited

“…Two years after the publication of Hymes' (1962) article on the ethnography of communication, Albert (1964) published an article entitled '"Rhetoric', 'logic', and 'poetics' in Burundi: cultural patterning of speech behavior". As the title indicates, the paper is an ethnographic study of speech behavior in Burundi, a highly secularized, sophisticated feudal kingdom in Africa.…”

On the relationship of the “Enthnography of speaking” to the “ethnography of communication”1

“…Although Hymes uses the phrase "ethnography of communication" in his introduction to the 1964 special issue of the American Anthropologist, and although the title of the collection is "The Ethnography of Communication", none of the individual authors uses that phrase to refer either to their own work or to the approach in general. Instead, three call the approach the "ethnography of speaking" (Albert 1964:35, Frake 1964:127, Arewa and Dundes 1964; two use "sociolinguistics" as a cover term (Ervin-Tripp 1964:86, 91, Gumperz 1964; and one selection invents an additional term: the "ethnography of speaking folklore" (Arewa and Dundes 1964:72). The remainder of the contributors do not use any term to refer to the approach.…”