Therefore, meaning is not discovered in situations, but createdby rhetors.
I think Nietzsche would agree with this. Nietzsche said that language (and by extension meaning) was subjective and could not be truly universal because individuals (in this example, rhetors) would apply their own background and experiences to a particular word in order to determine its meaning. Also mirrors Locke's idea that language is not universal.
situationis rhetorical only if something can be done, but apparently itis only rhetorical also if something should be done.
"Should be done" in this context is relative to the individual who is engaging rhetoric in a certain situation. One person might believe something should be done, while another thinks that the status quo is sufficient. This reminds me a little of Hume's theory of taste, in which he argued that certain people had "better" or "superior" taste to others. In reality, taste is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder.
But whereas litera-ture was the chief opponent of rhetoric in America, linguistics and semantics opT posed rhetoric in European intellectual life at the beginning of the century.
References the Rickert piece, which stated that the rhetorical/cultural environment influenced the rhetoric that was produced. Similarly, the rhetorical culture of America and Europe differed, and the primary opponent of rhetoric changed as a result of the different rhetoric produced (due to different rhetorical environments). This web of rhetoric is kind of confusing, but also makes sense because rhetoric is everywhere.
efficient communication by language.
Like Spencer and Bain, Hill is very focused on the efficiency of language.