I uppsatsen föreslås, undersöks och problematiseras ett möjligt sätt att definiera begreppet "retorisk funktion".

Rhetoric can be seen through many perspectives as being a function-centred science. For instance, Bitzer argues that the “[…] situational view of rhetoric takes as its starting point the observable fact that human beings interact functionally with their environment” (Bitzer 1980:21). Theories regarding rhetorical genre, from Aristotle to modern theorists such as Carolyn Millers, can also be described as being functional. In fact, throughout the rhetorical field it is common to read that “x has a rhetorical function”. But what do we mean by that? What does it mean that something has a rhetorical function?

This essay will strive to provide an answer to this question in an interesting and atypical fashion. The document shall commence with the philosophy of functionalism in biology and will explore how theorists reason when the question poised concerns functions such as the human heart or the skin of a chameleon.

The controversial theorist Ruth Millikan shall then be discussed. She is of the opinion that the way in which she determines functions (which is largely based on natural selection) is transferable to human language. Although it is the opinion of the author that Millikan possesses a questionable view of language it should be noted that she has constructed useful terms for application in this particular field. After an analysis of her direct- and derived proper functions concept, the novel theories of direct- and derived rhetorical proper functions will be detailed and explained.

In the following section, the term function in popular rhetoric theories such as the rhetorical situation and the rhetorical genre shall be discussed and compared to the terms suggested, in order to determine if the terms are meaningful.