Landmark Essays最新文献_第3页

A Rhetoric of Facts: Arthur Larson’s Stance as a Persuader 事实的修辞:阿瑟·拉尔森作为说服者的立场

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 2020-08-18 DOI: 10.4324/9781003059202-6

R. L. Scott

引用次数: 0

The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle” 希特勒“战斗”的修辞

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 2020-08-18 DOI: 10.4324/9781003059202-2

K. Burke

引用次数: 33

Stanton’s “The Solitude of Self’: A Rationale for Feminism 斯坦顿的《自我的孤独》:女权主义的基本原理

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 2020-08-18 DOI: 10.4324/9781003059202-10

K. Campbell

引用次数: 0

The Literary Criticism of Oratory 演讲的文学批评

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 2020-08-06 DOI: 10.4324/9781003059196-1

H. Wichelns

引用次数: 10

The Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical Criticism 美国公共演讲的复兴:修辞批评中的文本与语境

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 1988-05-01 DOI: 10.1080/00335638809383839

Stephen E. Lucas

引用次数: 23

Bakhtin, Phaedrus, and the Geometry of Rhetoric 巴赫金，《费德鲁斯篇》和修辞学几何

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 1988-03-01 DOI: 10.1080/07350198809359161

R. A. Harris

{"title":"Bakhtin, Phaedrus, and the Geometry of Rhetoric","authors":"R. A. Harris","doi":"10.1080/07350198809359161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198809359161","url":null,"abstract":"This question, the engine humming at the center of Bakhtin's vision, generating alien words like heteroglossy and polyphony, is one that rhetoricians do not ask. And our work is poorer for the silence. We make inquiries, sometimes very probing ones, into ethos, and occasionally we investigate some rhetor in great detail. But we take identity for granted. It is \"Plato\" or \"Socrates\" or \"Burke\" doing the speaking. What we fail to notice is that these labels do not designate autonomous, univocal entities. They designate composites-collections of voices, some in harmony, some in conflict. Mikhail Bakhtin, then, has something to tell us: listen. Listen and you will hear a verbal carnival of such depth and diversity, of such extravagance and exuberance, that your ears will never be the same again. The most immediate consequence of this newfound affluence is that the traditional triangular paradigm of rhetorical events becomes lopsided. The speaker's corner becomes very heavy. But two questions, in parallel with Bakhtin's obsessive probe, present themselves-\"Who is listening?\" and \"What is being said?\" -and they find similarly multivocal answers. This additional plurality does not so much balance the triangle as burden it. That is, as soon as we start to listen more carefully, the paradigm proves hopelessly inadequate. It simplifies interactions to the point of insignificance, it undervalues or ignores essential elements, and it effects an artificial closure on an inherently openended process. Applying it to any rhetorical event, once we are fitted with our new ears, reveals this inadequacy, but, to keep things in the family, consider how the paradigm fares in an examination of multivalence in the Phaedrus.","PeriodicalId":224491,"journal":{"name":"Landmark Essays","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115049502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Québécois 构成性修辞学:以《人民曲》为例

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 1987-05-01 DOI: 10.1080/00335638709383799

Maurice Charland

引用次数: 242

Textual Criticism: The Legacy of G. P. Mohrmann 文本批评:g·p·莫赫尔曼的遗产

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 1986-11-01 DOI: 10.1080/00335638609383783

M. Leff

引用次数: 44

Printings of Aristotle's Rhetoric during the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries 亚里士多德《修辞学》在15和16世纪的印刷

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 1985-12-01 DOI: 10.1080/03637758509376118

P. D. Brandes

引用次数: 0

Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist 米哈伊尔巴赫金作为修辞理论家

Landmark Essays Pub Date : 1985-10-01 DOI: 10.2307/377158

C. Schuster

{"title":"Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist","authors":"C. Schuster","doi":"10.2307/377158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/377158","url":null,"abstract":"The confusion and obscurity surrounding Mikhail Bakhtin's life compounded by the complexity and semantic density of his books and articles has made this Russian theorist into a kind of Zorro figure, the Masked Marvel of theoretical criticism. Who is this exotic character born in Orel in 1895, exiled to Kazakhstan during the 30s, returning finally to the center of Russian academic life in the 1950s? How is one to talk about Bakhtin's major book on the 18th-century German novel when Bakhtin used the only existing copy as cigarette papers during World War II? How are we to value a man who so undervalues himself that he stores unpublished manuscripts in a rat-infested woodshed in Saransk? What can one say about a writer whose very authorship is in question-since two of his major works (Freudianism and Marxism and the Philosophy of Language) were published under the name of V. N. Voloshinov?' Add to this that Bakhtin is known as a literary theorist (and is thus remote indeed from composition and rhetoric), that he refuses to define his terms, and that his language resists interpretation and paraphrase and we have some idea of the formidable task ahead. To ignore Bakhtin because of these difficulties, however, is to deny rhetoric an important influence. Although much of Bakhtin's work is considered literary criticism, his conceptions of discourse develop implications about language use in the widest possible terms. Bakhtin modifies the communications triangle by 1. Scholars disagree on this point, which may never be resolved. In his introduction to The Dialogic Imagination, Michael Holquist explains that \"There is a great controversy over the authorship of three books that have been ascribed to Bakhtin: Freudianism (1927) and Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929; 2nd ed. 1930), both published under the name of V. N. Voloshinov, and The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928), published under the name of P. N. Medvedev. ... The view of the present editor is that ninety percent of the text of the three books in question is indeed the work of Bakhtin himself' (xxvi). This is a reasonable conclusion. The ideas presented in these works are sufficiently complex and sophisticated that it is difficult to imagine two individuals writing so similarly at the same time within the same community. More likely, Voloshinov may have readily agreed to publish the works under Bakhtin's name so that the latter's ideas could be brought into academic currency. Some intellectual collaboration among the individuals in Bakhtin's circle was inevitable in any case. In the final estimate, it makes little difference whether there was one author named Bakhtin, or several","PeriodicalId":224491,"journal":{"name":"Landmark Essays","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1985-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123426911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 15