RhetCanada (The Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric) invites submissions for our 2026 conference from May 28th-30th at St. Jerome’s University (SJU), a college of the University of Waterloo.

This conference will be a large and unique joint event, comprising the annual conferences of RhetCanada and the Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing/Association canadienne de redactologie, and the Rhetoricon project. Papers accepted for the RhetCanada annual conference will be scheduled between May 28th and May 30th, 2026; papers accepted for the CASDW/ACR annual conference will be scheduled for presentation between May 26 and May 28th. Proposals are due by January 19th, 2026. Registrants for either conference will be welcome to attend all sessions of “Rhetoric, Discourse, and Writing Today,” which also includes an array of shared sessions.

2026 Theme: “Rhetoric, Writing, and Discourse Today: Do Modern Problems Demand Modern Innovations?”
The conference theme for RhetCanada builds on the overarching event theme with a broad invitation: if a crisis, predicament, or object feels unprecedented, does it demand a new approach? When might classical rhetorical principles—these ancient innovations—speak to the communicative challenges of the present? And, conversely, when do contemporary developments prompt or demand new understandings—or reinventions—of rhetorical theory and practice? RhetCanada’s theme this year, “Do Modern Problems Demand Modern Innovations?,” invites us to consider the dynamic interplays and tensions between rhetorical traditions and the demands of modern life, culture, society, and technology.

Although we warmly welcome all papers within our traditional research areas (see below), consider exploring how ancient (or modern) solutions might be reimagined for modern (or ancient) problems. Within this juxtaposition of old and new, possible areas of inquiry include: rhetorical invention and the rhetorics of innovation and creativity; the adaptation of classical rhetorical frameworks to contemporary issues in writing, discourse, and communication; rhetorical pedagogy in the age of AI and automation; rhetorical ethics in public and digital spheres, and interdisciplinary approaches that bring rhetoric into conversation with technology, policy, culture, and nature. We encourage participants to reflect on how rhetoric endures, evolves, and intervenes—shaping not only how we write and speak, but also how we think, collaborate, and imagine the future together.

Getting Ready to Submit

As you consider your topic, please consider whether you intend to submit a regular 20 minute paper, or a 10-12 minute "lightning" paper. Also consider researching out to colleagues for collaborative presentations, or creating a panel. Depending on the number of submissions, we may encourage a limited presenters to switch from a 20 minute paper to a lightning paper. To see the submission requirements, check "RhetCanada" (under Which Association?) on the Submission form. New presenters and student presenters should read the following sections carefully.

Rhetorical Scope and Focus

RhetCanada welcomes papers on all aspects of rhetoric, in English or French. To maintain engagement with rhetorical studies, we give strong preference to papers that:

Cite or deploy one of the hundreds of definitions or characterizations the art of rhetoric has received since the first known usage of the term (Plato); see this excellent compendium.
Display familiarity with one or more rhetors and rhetoricians from any part or locale in rhetoric’s history.
Draw explicitly on rhetorical scholarship associated with the proposed topic.

If a paper is accepted but there are concerns over the fit of the paper with audience expectations, referees will follow up with guidance for the presenter (for instance, to use the term trope in the technical sense of our discipline instead of the increasingly popular sense, or to avoid rhetoric in the unthinking, journalistic sense of mere deceptive speech). We hope making these norms explicit will make newcomers feel confident that their papers fit well.

Research Areas

Rhetorical theory and criticism
History of rhetoric
Biographical research on rhetors or rhetoricians
Rhetoric and indigenous issues, rhetoric in cultural comparison, rhetoric and ethnography
Rhetorical studies of Canadian public discourse, as well as public discourse in any global setting
Rhetoric in popular culture and everyday life, rhetoric and the media, film, gaming, and visual culture
Rhetoric and identity: gender, sexuality, race, and beyond
Rhetoric and the physical environment
Rhetoric and the body, sports, or performance
Rhetoric in the fine arts and literature
Rhetoric and writing studies
Rhetorical education, training, or pedagogy; rhetoric in various disciplines and professions
Rhetoric of legal, medical, scientific, or religious discourse
Rhetorical discourse analysis, rhetorical genre studies
Rhetoric and generative AI, NLP, computer science, or linguistics

Guidelines for Students

We invite graduate and undergraduate students to present and attend. The following process applies to students whose proposal is accepted:

After your proposal is accepted, upload a draft of your paper by April 30th. This shows that you are committed to presenting and participating, and it enables us to provide you with personalized feedback, presentation tips, mentoring, and encouragement to enhance your presentation. Submit a 5-8 page double-spaced draft in Microsoft Word format. This draft should approximate the “script” of your 10-12 or 20-minute oral presentation. You will receive feedback on your draft a week or two later. In addition, by May 27th, any students who wish to apply for the Michael Purves-Smith Graduate Student Paper Award or the RhetCanada Undergraduate Paper Award must also submit a final draft of their approved oral presentation and any slides or handouts. The Prize Committee will evaluate your written material and oral presentation delivery. See the awards’  Terms of Reference for more information.

Writing a Strong Proposal

An annotated proposal below serves as a worthy example. All proposal are ranked on:

Clarity of proposal
Relevance of the proposal to our conferences/fields of rhetorical study
Contribution to scholarship/our field

The example proposal does an excellent job with 1) and 2), and does a good job with 3), although additional details about the implications of the research would be beneficial. It would certainly be accepted. If your proposal is not about an obvious rhetorical concept or rhetorician, pay particular attention to explaining its relevance to rhetorical studies.

Title: Risk as a Common Topos

The professional writing field of risk communication [establishes field/scope/focus] finds itself in the eye of our contemporary cultural moment. Risk talk dominates public discussion of climate, housing, vaccines, national security, and more [and broader context/stakeholders]. But, as climate experts worldwide can attest, the facts and data that allow us to assess risks and make decisions often take a back seat to arguments over whether a risk even exists [highlights contentious issue]. Building on the work of sociologist Ulrich Beck, who argues that we are living in a “risk society” characterized primarily by the ubiquity of new, human-made risks,[outlines approach/key players, and justifies why this is topical], and legal scholar Dayna Nadine Scott, who suggests that risk has become a widespread conceptual frame, I propose [thesis/scholarly advancement signaled via subject pronoun] that “risk” is more than a deliberative discussion of statistics and probabilities: it has become a form of argument that functions as an Aristotelian topos, or persuasive “place”, in our social discourse [describes thesis, and makes a crucial connection to rhetorical studies by mentioning foundational rhetoricians and concepts]. The topoi, are patterns or schemes of argumentation (definition, division, comparison, etc.); the koinoi topoi, or “common” topics, were general forms that could be applied to any subject matter, whereas the idioi topoi were more restrictive and used for very specific subjects [useful definition of jargon; our audience knows what topoi are, but could potentially use a refresher on the common/special distinction] (MacDonald, p. 791; see also Kennedy; Miller; and Leff) [these names evince a solid literature review]. Risk communication and risk scholarship often treat risk as an idion topos, a specific set of arguments used for discussing risk, uncertainty and hazards (Jensen). But in a contemporary context where risk is a fact of everyday life, we have become habituated to thinking in terms of risk, and, as a result, it has become a general form of argument for all kinds of subjects [thesis broadened]. If I am arguing with my family about going out for dinner, I can easily adopt a risk-based argument about the high cost of eating out, or the high-fat and high-salt content of restaurant food [such an example is helpful, but not necessary]. If I don’t want to go out for dinner, risk is a koinon topos, a perfect “place” to find an argument that will persuade my family to eat at home tonight. My paper will further develop this idea and consider its implications for scholarship in the rhetoric of risk [if word count allows, specifying implications and scholars would be of benefit].

Brief Selected Bibliography [Note the prominent rhetorical scholars below, and also the key scholars outside rhetorical studies (law, sociology, etc.) that make the proposal interdisciplinary.]

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Translated by George A. Kennedy, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Beck, Ulrich. World at Risk. Translated by Ciaran Cronin, Polity Press, 2009.
Jensen, Robin E. “Rhetoric of Risk.” In The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, Torsten Reimer, and Katherine A. McComas. SAGE Publications, 2015, pp. 86-97.
Leff, Michael. “Up from Theory: Or I Fought the Topoi and the Topoi Won.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2006, pp. 203-2011.
Lupton, Deborah. Risk. 2nd edition. Routledge, 2013 [1999].
MacDonald, Michael J. Editor. The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. Oxford UP, 2020.
Miller, Carolyn R. “The Aristotelian Topos: Hunting for Novelty.” In Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer, Southern Illinois University Press, 2000, pp.130-146.
Ross, Derek G. “Common Topics and Commonplaces of Environmental Rhetoric.” Written Communication, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2013, pp. 91-131.
Scott, Dayna Nadine. “Risk as a Technique of Governance in an Era of Biotechnological Innovation: Implications for Democratic Citizenship and Strategies of Resistance.” In Risk & Trust: Including or Excluding Citizens?, edited by Eileen Young, Law Commission of Canada, 2007.
Warnick, Barbara. “Two Systems of Invention: The Topics in the Rhetoric and The New Rhetoric.” In Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer, Southern Illinois University Press, 2000, pp. 107-129.