This is something I wanted to bring up last week, but Burke makes a reference to "public rhetoric" on pg. 71 in RoM. Near this reference to "public rhetoric" Burke uses the word public utterance, so is he equating "public rhetoric" to physical/vocal responses? The reason I ask is that a secondary area of mine for the PhD is public rhetoric, and last semester we tried to create a corpus of items that qualify as public rhetoric. We included things such as gravestones and cemeteries, commentary surrounding the Chief Illiniwek controversy at the University of Illinois, literature, copyright law, and many other items. What was interesting is that each example had a unique character and many did not have a vocal representation, and by vocal I mean spoken by humans. When thinking about Burke's definition (maybe it's a stretch to call it a definition rather than a discussion) is he limiting public rhetoric to only physical/vocal responses? Or, is he considering the many other forms of communication and uses of language that extend beyond mere vocal responses?