10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 1/11

Student using technology in theclassroom

Digital rhetoricFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Digital rhetoric is the art of informing, persuading, and inspiring action in an audience through media, andit is an advancing form of communication composed, created, and distributed through multimedia. Rhetoriccombines multiple methods such as persuasion, effective writing, and effective speaking to presentinformation in inventive ways.[1] The meaning of rhetoric has changed over time, developing with changesin technologies. Online media are increasingly used as communication and information platforms, and sincemore text is placed online, there is more opportunity for persuasion through innovative and creative means.Because of this shift in rhetoric, the relationship between writers and readers has changed in form,communication style, and effectiveness. Digital rhetoric is advancing and changing how people choose tocommunicate their ideas with broader audiences. Both rhetoric and digital rhetoric hold various meaningsand definitions depending upon who is looking at it; for example, the online journal Harlot of the Arts holdsa competition through Twitter for people to define rhetoric, and the submissions are extremely varied. The2014 results can be found here: Harlot of the Arts(http://harlotofthearts.org/index.php/harlot/article/view/242/153/).

Contents

1 Uses1.1 Definition1.2 Scope of Influence

1.2.1 Education2 History

2.1 Rhetoric to Digital Rhetoric2.2 Shift from Print to Digital

3 Concepts3.1 Visual Rhetoric3.2 Avatar3.3 Circulation3.4 Rhetorical Velocity3.5 Multimodality3.6 Canons

3.6.1 Invention3.6.2 Arrangement3.6.3 Style3.6.4 Memory3.6.5 Delivery

3.7 Collaboration3.8 Remix3.9 Appropriation3.10 Electracy3.11 Kairos

4 Controversies4.1 Legitimacy4.2 Access

4.2.1 Open Access

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 2/11

4.2.1 Open Access4.3 Copyright Issues

5 See also6 References7 External links

Uses

Definition

The term digital rhetoric was coined by rhetorician Richard A. Lanham in his 1993 essay collection TheElectronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts(http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo3661152.html). In 2009, rhetorician Elizabeth Losh(http://losh.ucsd.edu/) offered this four­part definition of digital rhetoric in her book Virtualpolitik(http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/virtualpolitik):

"1. The conventions of new digital genres that are used for everyday discourse, as well as for specialoccasions, in average people’s lives.

2. Public rhetoric, often in the form of political messages from government institutions, which isrepresented or recorded through digital technology and disseminated via electronic distributed networks.

3. The emerging scholarly discipline concerned with the rhetorical interpretation of computer­generatedmedia as objects of study.

4. Mathematical theories of communication from the field of information science, many of which attempt toquantify the amount of uncertainty in a given linguistic exchange or the likely paths through whichmessages travel."[2]

Losh's definition demonstrates that digital rhetoric is a heterodoxical field, one that relies on differentmethods to study various permutations of information: as code, as text, as visuals, as videos, and so on.

Scope of Influence

As the power of technology grows, so too do the uses and scope of digital rhetoric. This includes, but is notlimited to, schools offering online classes and test­taking, online news sources including scholarly journalsand online editions of newspapers, and how people will search for information online rather than consult amore traditional means such as an encyclopedia. Teachers can use podcasts, YouTube videos, and socialmedia sites like Facebook to facilitate discussions and increase students' interest in a topic. In academia,online journals allow for information to be more accessible due to the use of digital rhetoric. Writers alsohave more opportunities to write in various formats instead of a traditional linear format. In social media,people come into contact with digital rhetoric on a daily basis whether it be an updated Facebook status, a140 character tweet, or even the use of Visual rhetoric on websites such as Instagram.

Education

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 3/11

In universities, courses on digital rhetoric are taught at the graduate and undergraduate level as courses inEnglish, Communication, and Media Studies departments. Courses in digital rhetoric “explore the dynamicsof digital reading and writing by examining the rhetorical, social, cultural, political, educational, and ethicaldimensions of digital texts; to interrogate issues of technology and literacy; and to examine identity(including gender, class, race, and more), subjectivity, and representation in digital spaces.” By studyingdigital rhetoric in this way, students are able to understand the uses and purpose of writing in general in amore in depth way. They see the importance of audience, the way culture affects writing, how rhetoric canbe used persuasively versus demonstratively, and by using the familiar platform of technology, students areless likely to resist studying about how to be better writers.

Scholars like Jeff Grabill contribute to use digital rhetoric by pushing for its use in the classroom. Grabillembraces the age of technology and encourages his contemporaries to do so as well. His backgrounds inEnglish, Education, and Technology and work in those fields make him a gateway between the scholarlyfield of digital rhetoric and its implementation. Another scholar, Dr. Cheryl Ball (http://ceball.com/),specializes in areas that consist of multimodal composition and editing practices, digital media scholarship,and digital publishing. She also focuses on university writing pedagogy. Ball teaches people to write andcompose multimodal texts by analyzing rhetorical options and choosing the most appropriate genres,technologies, media, and modes for a particular situation. During her own education, Ball made significantadvances in the digital rhetoric field by completing her school's first electronic and interactive thesis. Shealso received tenure at another university using the first all­digital tenure portfolio.

Digital Rhetoric pedagogy has been further developed in the secondary level of education due to support atthe university level. This allows for students to create and edit projects simultaneously through the internet.Collaboration is seen as one of the biggest advantages to digital rhetoric, as it gives students and teachersthe ability to collaborate and critique anywhere anytime. By being educated in various forms of technologystudents are exposed to more a multimodal world and teachers foster a more well rounded learningenvironment. Through digital writing, students can have a broader choice of composing that can fit theirneeds. Students can have people see their work anywhere, which reflects the accessibility of social mediathat students are used to in their everyday lives.

History

Rhetoric to Digital Rhetoric

Rhetoric is defined as the art of discourse, and is the root of digital rhetoric. As technology has changed, sohave rhetorical situations.While five canons of rhetoric developed for oratory and recovered for print stillapply, they are reconfigured based on new textual forms like the database, the hypertext, the cybertext, andother born­digital texts. Invention,[3] arrangement,[4] and style[5] take on new meanings while delivery[6] iselevated to new importance, and memory comes to refer to textual forms like search engines,[7] archives,[8]

and tags.[9] Although the rhetorical canon of delivery once referred to the oral/aural and bodily aspects ofdelivery, in the age of digital rhetoric, it refers to “Internet­based communication,” and the mediums thatare used.[10] While the study of digital rhetoric is not specific to any one technology or era of technology,ideas in digital rhetoric do evolve alongside new technologies such as smartphones, new and easy to usecomposing platforms like Storify, Pixorial and WeVideo, and techniques such as Ajax. Ideas evolve astechnology evolves, because one way of studying digital rhetoric is to trace the ways that technology's

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 4/11

affordances and constraints "support and enable the transformation of the old rhetoric of persuasion into anew digital rhetoric that encourages self­expression, participation, and creative collaboration."[11] Manytrace the transformation of old rhetoric into digital rhetoric through the classical rhetorical canons.

Shift from Print to Digital

Dennis Baron states, “The first writing technology was writing itself.” While previous writing technologiesinvolved pencils and hieroglyphics, the evolution of communication technology now allows for online andimmediate rhetorical conversations.[12] The evolution of communicative technologies started with thechisel, the book and the quill, the greek alphabet, and the pencil, onto more modern technology such as thecomputer. The origins of modern computing are to be found in the techno­military context of World WarII.[13] Just as the pencil was originally intended as a marking utensil for builders and is now used forwriting, the computer was originally intended to compute advanced math problems, but is now used forword­processing and a myriad of other tasks. Technology continues to modify itself to meet the needs ofpeople; in the case of digital rhetoric, technology has become more prevalent to match people’s usage of theInternet and computers, which creates a technoculture. Another scholar who highlights the changinglandscape from print to digital is Jay Bolter. He argues that the computer is the most significantdevelopment since the start of the alphabetic/print tradition and that digital texts will continue to move printto the “margins of literate culture.” [14]

Concepts

Visual Rhetoric

Visual rhetoric relates to digital rhetoric because they can act together to communicate ideas in a way that isnot bound by a linear format. Mary Hocks, a visual rhetoric scholar, states “the screen itself is a tablet thatcombines words, interfaces, icons, and pictures that invoke other modalities like touch and sound”.[15] Bymanipulating the tools described by Hocks, a writer in the digital world has access to influence a broaderaudience, and an influx of modes to communicate their ideas. This in turn creates a way for writers tocommunicate The use of visual images in rhetoric allows for a writer to convey an idea that may be soabstract that the written linear word will not suffice. Abstract ideas in rhetorical images, as Charles Hillstates, that not only are abstract ideas represented in images acceptable but they are prominent, images “donot necessarily have to portray an object, or even a class of objects, that exists or ever did exist”.[16] Imagesallow for the writer to depict the closest representation of their thought possible since they can blendabstract and tangible thoughts. Hill uses the peace sign, swastika, and the confederate flags as examples ofabstract ideas represented by images. Ironically the image of a peace sign, which seems to be universallyaccepted as a call from the 1970s ‘hippie’ movement, originated as an anti­Christian symbol. The originalgraphic was used to show an upside down broken cross symbolizing the despair of man and the crucifixionof the Apostle Peter. This shows how visual images can change over time and be adapted in such powerfulways that it actually changes the meaning completely. Images are versatile, and coupled with the motive ofthe author can provide key components to an argument. By being informed on how visual rhetoric interactswith its different components a reader/viewer can reduce abstract ideas to a more tangible state.

Avatar

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 5/11

James E. Porter defines avatar as a “virtual body”.[17] With developments in technology, there are newways to present oneself online. This online presentation of one’s own identity is an avatar. While scholarssuch as Beth Kolko hoped for an online world without physical barriers, making it a “realm of ideas,” thereare still social issues, such as gender discrimination and racism.[18] Beth E. Kolko believes that an idealisticonline world would be a “realm of ideas,” without definitive factors such as gender, race, or age. Kolkoargues that a non­gendered online world would not garner enough attention, because individuals could notrelate to each other without gender identity.[19] Victoria Woolums found in a study of the video gameWorld of Warcraft that the gender identity of the avatar affected behaviors of other characters, showing abias even in a realm where gender identity of an avatar may not be physically accurate to its user.[20]

Circulation

Circulation theorizes the ways that texts and discourses move through time and space. Any kind of mediacan be circulated. A new form of communication is composed, created, and distributed through digitaltechnologies.

Rhetorical Velocity

Rhetorical velocity is the concept of authors writing in a way in which they are able to predict how theirwork might be recomposed. With the advancement of technology, there is no limit to the speed and distanceat which an author’s work is able to travel. Therefore, it is important for them to be able to predict how theiraudience will recompose their works. Jim Ridolfo and Danielle DeVoss first coined this idea in 2009 whenthey describe rhetorical velocity as “a conscious rhetorical concern for distance, travel, speed, and time,pertaining specifically to theorizing instances of strategic appropriation by a third party”.[21]

Multimodality

Multimodality means having several modes, modalities, or maxima—in simpler terms, it is a form ofcommunication that uses multiple methods (or modes) to inform audiences of an idea. It can involve a mixof written text, pictures, audio, or videos. Online journals often embrace multimodality in their issues andarticles by publishing works that use more than just written text to communicate the message.

Canons

Digirhet was first coined in 2002 during a reading under a Sugarberry Tree. The term digirhet was communicated to a scholar who then began research and the practice of digital rhetoric.[22]

Invention

Invention, derived from the Latin word invenire, "to find” concerns finding something to say and figuringout how to say it. When brainstorming, certain common categories of thought are used, in order tobrainstorm effectively. These commonly used categories (places = topoi in Greek) are called the "topics of

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 6/11

invention." They include, for example, cause and effect, comparison, and various relationships. The use ofthe topics of invention is just a starting place for writers, invention is a flexible canon that allows for writersto pull inspiration from anywhere.[23]

Arrangement

Arrangement concerns how one orders speech or writing. In older forms of rhetoric, arrangement referredsolely to the order to be observed in an oration. However, the term has broadened to include allconsiderations of the ordering of discourse, especially on a large scale. Arrangement is believed to beorganized into six steps. Writers should start with Introduction and move into a Statement of Facts. Next thewriter would divide the material in order to express all formidable sides of the argument or information.The fourth step is to provide proof that the scholars belief is factual and the most unbiased. Fifth, a writershould give reasons to refute or argue the main points of others ideas of the topic and disprove their beliefs.Last the writer should conclude the piece, rephrasing all given information. Often in the conclusion thewriter restates the thesis and main argument in order to make the point definitive.[24]

Style

Style concerns the artful expression of ideas. If invention addresses what is to be said; style addresses howthis will be said. Style names how ideas are embodied in language and customized to communicativecontexts.” Style can been organized into four categories: Virtues, Levels, Qualities, and Figures of Speech.Style discusses the ways that something is communicated through speech/text as well as how theinformation is presented.[25]

Memory

“At first, Memory seemed to have to do solely with mnemonics (memory aids) that would assist a buddingorator in retaining his speech. However, it clearly had to do with more than simply learning how tomemorize an already composed speech for re­presentation. The practice of storing up information or othermaterial arrived at through the topics of invention can be called for in a given occasion in order toredistribute information that is already known or given. The canon of Memory also suggests that scholarsconsider the psychological aspects of preparing to communicate and the performance of communicatingitself, especially in an oral or impromptu setting. Typically Memory has to do only with the orator, butinvites consideration of how the audience will retain things in mind.” [26]

Delivery

For the general scholar, the term delivery means the way in which a form of information is conveyed to aparticular audience or group of people. These ideas of delivery could mean hearing information spoken at aconference or reading the news paper. The forms can range from podcasts to videos, pictures to text, oreven songs and news papers. Delivery is the modem in which information is given in order for the topic tobe best understood and related to. The term "delivery" is often aligned with the term "performance." TheForest of Rhetoric states that delivery is not only the fifth canon of rhetoric, but it is also a translation of theword "hypokrisis" or, acting. This Greek word was translated into delivery in the standpoint of spoken or

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 7/11

recited information rather than news papers or essays. Performance of plays, speeches, skits, etc. turns intothe delivery of information in the piece being performed or spoken. This is the same as a piece of Literatureor Rhetoric delivering its information through word choice, layout, and structure.[27]

Collaboration

Collaboration in digital rhetoric does not mean a co­authorship directly, even though this could beconstituted as that as well, but collaboration looks more like an outlet that scholars can share their work andreceive feedback as well. Instead of using solely the individual and their work, scholars use each other tospur on each other’s ideas and build their concepts upon another.

Remix

A remix is a work that is created by appropriating and/or altering an existing work. Remix is a concept thatis within digital rhetoric because it is another tool for communication which digital rhetoric employs. Theusage of remixes helps digital rhetoric to reach a broader audience and ties one scholarly work to otherworks that exist in the wider world of the internet. In turn, digital rhetoric has caused exponential growth inthe usage and scope of remixes by giving people new reasons to create and use remixes. They are linked bythe rise of technology and new media.

Appropriation

In the digital age most everything is considered appropriation. Scholars pull their information from amyriad of sources and are constantly redefining terms in order to apply them to the digital world.Appropriation carries both positive and negative connotations. In some ways appropriation is a tool that canbe used for the reapplication of outdated ideas to make them better. In other ways appropriation is seen as athreat to creative and cultural identities. Social media receives the bulk of this scrutiny due to the lack ofeducation of its users. Most “contributors are often unaware of what they are contributing.[28] whichperpetuates the negative connotation. Many scholars in digital rhetoric explore this topic and its effects onsociety such as Jessica Reyman, Amy Hea, and Johndan Johnson­Eilola.

Electracy

Electracy is a term developed by Gregory Ulmer describing the emerging digital age.[29] Electracy is oftendiscussed as being in transition, advancing along with Digital Rhetoric. Electracy explains the fullcommunicative potentials of new electronic media.

Kairos

Kairos is commonly defined as catching the opportune moment. It is imperative that the speaker knowswhen and where to place the argument and if it is appropriate. Kairos is a concept that is related to Ethos,Pathos and Logos. This rhetorical concept has been put on the rhetorical back burner. Digital Scholars likeJim Ridolfo are on the forefront of reviving the concept of Kairos and implementing it into theclassroom.[30]

Controversies

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 8/11

Legitimacy

There is controversy regarding the innovative nature of digital rhetoric. Arguments opposed to legitimizingwebtext are Platonically­based in that they reject the new form of scholarship, web text, and praise the oldform, print, in the same way that oral communication was originally favored over writtencommunication.[31] Originally some traditionalists didn’t regard online open­access journals with the samelegitimacy as print journals for this reason; however, digital arenas have become the primary place fordisseminating academic information in many areas of scholarship.[32] Modern scholars struggle to “claimacademic legitimacy” in these new media forms, as the tendency of pedagogy is to write about a subjectrather than actively work in it.[33] Within the past decade, more scholarly texts have been openly accessible,which provides an innovative way for students to gain access to textual materials online for free, in the waythat many scholarly journals like Kairos (http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/) , Harlot of the Arts(http://harlotofthearts.org/index.php/harlot) , and Enculturation (http://www.enculturation.net/) are alreadyavailable through open access.

Access

Referred to as the digital divide, issues of economic access and user­level access are recurring issues indigital rhetoric. These issues show up most prevalent in computers and writing circles. Access can refer toinequality in the access of information, access to a reading public, and access to means of communicating.For those that teach digital rhetoric in schools and universities, student access to technologies at home andin school is an operative concern.[34] There is some debate about whether mobile computing devices likesmartphones make technology access more equitable.[35]

Open Access

Open access has removed the barriers of fees associated with accessing a work and restrictions of copyrightand licensing. The matter of eliminating fees is most prevalent to digital rhetoric, because it allows for moreaccess to works. Open access and digital rhetoric do not eliminate copyright, but eliminates restrictions bygiving authors the choice to maintain their right to copy and distribute their materials however they choose,or they may turn the rights over to a specific journal. Digital rhetoric involves works that are found onlineand open access is allowing more people to be able to reach these works.

Copyright Issues

Copyright controversies in online and digital texts affect the way Digital Rhetoric is utilized. Many of thesearguments deal with the problem of cost for the publishers and consumers of scholarly text. Copyrightingmaterials is an expensive task, especially when the materials can be translated into many other forms ofdigital sources that are freely found by the public. Because of this ease of transformation, copyright lawsare undermined as scholars lose predication in their online materials through maneuvers as simple as copyand paste or translating hyperlinks. In James P. Zappen's piece "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an IntegratedTheory," he refers to transferring material in ways that create misapplication of a work that a scholar haswritten. "A media database, for example, can produce an almost infinite variety of end­user objects, whichcan be customized for different users, manipulated through hyperlinks, periodically updated, and scaled

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 9/11

upon demand." Zappen's statement of "infinite" is in no way subjective or an over statement. Many digitalpieces are infringed upon, stolen, or misused by the avoidance of copyright. These many forms of copyrightavoidance lend to the controversy of digital rhetoric and media as a whole.[36]

See also

Composition studiesComputer­mediated communicationComputers and writingCybertextDigital humanitiesDigital literacyDigital mediaHypermediaHypertextInternet studiesMultimodalityNew mediaRhetoricTechnological convergence

References1. Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric?

(http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm)2. Losh, Elizabeth (2009). Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media­Making in a Time of War,Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes (PDF). MIT. pp. 47–48. Retrieved 24 April 2015.

3. Delagrange, Susan. (2009). "Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement." Kairos: AJournal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 13(2). [1](http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/delagrange/index.html)

4. Yancey, Kathleen Blake. (2004). "Looking for sources of coherence in a fragmented world: Notes toward a newassessment design" Computers and Composition.

5. Brooke, Collin. (2002). Enculturation: Special Multi­journal Issue on Electronic Publication 4(1).6. Porter, James E. (2009). "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric," Computers and Composition 26:207­224.7. Anne Wysocki, Johndan Johnson­Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Geoffrey Sirc. Writing New Media: Theory and

Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Salt Lake City: U of Utah Press, 20038. Jeff Rice. (2012). Digital Detroit: Rhetoric and Space in the Age of the Network. Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press.9. Brooke, Collin Gifford. (2009). Lingua Fracta: Toward a Rhetoric of New Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.10. Porter, James E. (2009). "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric," Computers and Composition 26:207­224.

Computers and Composition11. Zappen, James. "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory" (2005). Technical Communication Quarterly

14(3):319­325.12. Baron, D. (n.d.). From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from

english.illinois.edu13. What is Digital Rhetoric? Retrieved from, YouTube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=Ebsoslgfgts%7CWhat%20is%20Digital%20Rhetoric? What is Digital Rhetoric? (2011)14. Bolter, J. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum

Associates.

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 10/11

15. Hocks, M. (2003). Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments. College Composition andCommunication, 54(4), 629­656. Retrieved from JSTOR.

16. Handa, C. (2004). Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes By Charles Hill. In Visual rhetoric in a digitalworld: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

17. Porter, James E. (2009). Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric, Computers and Composition 26:207­224.18. Kolko, Beth E. (1999). Representing bodies in virtual space: The rhetoric of avatar design.Information Society.

15(3), 177­18619. Kolko, Beth E. (1999). Representing bodies in virtual space: The rhetoric of avatar design. Information Society.

15(3) 177­18620. Woolums, V. (Fall 2011). Gendered Avatar Identity. Kairos, 16(1). Retrieved from

http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/16.1/.21. Ridolfo, J., and Devoss, D. (2009). Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery. Kairos,

13.2. Retrieved from Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery(http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/ridolfo_devoss/intro.html)

22. Newton,K. (2002) Living Witness23. Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric?

(http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm)24. Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric?

(http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm)25. Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric?

(http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm)26. Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric?

(http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm)27. Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric?

(http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm)28. Reyman, J. (2013). User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation. College English,

75(5), 513­32. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from ncte.org29. Electracy is to digital media what literacy is to print ­Gregory Ulmer .30. David M. Sheridan, Jim Ridolfo, and Anthony J. Michel ( March 19th, 2012) . The Available Means of

Persuasion: Mapping a Theory and Pedagogy of Multimodal Public Rhetoric : Anderson, South Carolina: ParlorPress.

31. Borgman, Christine. Scholarship in a Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2007, p.78.

32. Dunham, Gary. “What are Trends in Scholarly Publishing?” Retrieved from<http://www.asha.org/Academic/questions/Trends­Scholarly­Publishing/>.

33. Ball, Cheryl E. (2004). Show, not tell: The value of new media scholarship. Computers & Composition, 21(4).403­425.

34. Reynolds, Thomas J. and Charles R. Lewis. "The changing topography of computer access for compositionstudents." Computers and Composition 14(2). 1997.

35. Hea, Amy C.K., ed. (2009). Going Wireless: A Critical Exploration of Wireless and Mobile Technologies forComposition Teachers and Researchers. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, pp.15­33.

36. Zappen, J.P. (2005). Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3),319–325. Retrieved from http://www.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Vita/DigitalRhetoric2005.pdf

External links

erhetoric.org (http://erhetoric.org/) ­ digital writing and rhetoric course syllabi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_rhetoric&oldid=684867367"

Categories: Composition Computing and society Communication studies Digital humanities

10/30/2015 Digital rhetoric ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rhetoric 11/11

Internet culture

This page was last modified on 9 October 2015, at 07:58.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution­ShareAlike License; additional terms mayapply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is aregistered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non­profit organization.