FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2056519207> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2056519207 endingPage "103" @default.
• W2056519207 startingPage "102" @default.
• W2056519207 abstract "102Philosophy and Literature of Don Quixote as exemplifying the essential links between literature and ideology; and his criticism of hermeneutics and analytical philosophy for dissociating the theory of meaning from the theory of interpretation as well as his determination to make room for history in problematology are notable. Meyer's discussion is not, however, without weaknesses. Thus, he frequently relies on assertion rather than demonstration ahd becomes less than compelling. He claims, for example, that one does not resort to language without the intention ofconvincing the addressee ofwhat one says (p. 71); yet in saying to an addressee something like What time is it? in what way, exactly, am I trying to convince that addressee? Above all, he fails to show in detail how an utterance provides the name of that which is problematic (in question) and necessitates an answer. It is no doubt true, for instance, diat Napoleon lost at Waterloo is paraphrasable by Napoleon is the individual who lost at Waterloo and can be said to give an answer to Who lost at Waterloo? (p. 37). But it is also true that it can constitute the answer to an indefinite number ofother questions (e.g. , Why do you look so sad?) just as it is true diat a given question (say, What do you want?) can have an indefinite number of appropriate answers. In other words, however attractive Meyer's question view of meaning and interpretation may be, he does not offer enough proof of its applicability and usefulness. In spite of this, I feel that problematology as presented by Meyer is not without promise and I believe that Meaning and Reading can be of interest to literary theorists and philosophers alike. University of PennsylvaniaGerald Prince Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse, edited by Robert J. Connors, Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford ; xiii & 291 pp. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984, $22.50 cloth, $11.95 paper. Since Plato rhetoricians have been engaged in a polemic with philosophers. The startling aspect of Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse is that its authors drop the fight with the philosophers to take arms against literary criticism instead. The volume is an hommage to E. P. J. Corbett, distinguished teacher of English composition and rhetoric. The title is itself an allusion to Corbett 's textbook, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the essays are concerned specifically with the teaching of rhetoric and composition and with the place of rhetorical studies in American Reviews103 universities and colleges. There are frequent allusions to the way rhetorical studies were supplanted by departments devoted to the study of English literature. Some essays look back on this evolution with considerable disapproval while others look forward to greater collaboration between rhetoricians and teachers of composition. The villain of the piece is often the English departments which have ignored and even disparaged (p. 246) teachers of composition , rhetoric andjournalism while members of such departments struggle over abstruse questions of intentionality in literary texts (p. 48). One implicit consequence of this view, fortunately not held by all the contributors , is that rhetoric is primarily shown as applicable to all discourse except literary discourse. This is presumably the reason why there is no mention ofthe contemporary work in literary applications of rhetoric by the Liège Group (in its General Rhetoric), by Genette, or by Valesio, while Paul de Man gets only a passing nod. With one or two exceptions the contributors treat European rhetorical studies as having come to an end with Ramus. Fortunately there are a half-dozen very good, even excellent, essays here, which propose a vision of rhetoric fully open to work with literary models and texts. These include D'Angelo's study of the evolution of the analytic topoi, Larson 's proposals on classifying discourse, Stewart's comments on the Phaedrus, Raymond's study of enthymemes and examples, and Kinneavy's essay on the dieory and practice of the teaching of writing. The last is an example of an expanded view of rhetoric, integrating the classical teaching of the practice of discourse into an eclectic and interesting description of twentieth-century concern for situation..." @default.
• W2056519207 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2056519207 creator A5025924011 @default.
• W2056519207 date "1986-01-01" @default.
• W2056519207 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2056519207 title "<i>Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse</i> (review)" @default.
• W2056519207 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/phl.1986.0057" @default.
• W2056519207 hasPublicationYear "1986" @default.
• W2056519207 type Work @default.
• W2056519207 sameAs 2056519207 @default.
• W2056519207 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2056519207 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2056519207 hasAuthorship W2056519207A5025924011 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C2775852435 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C40422974 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C50379869 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C111472728 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C124952713 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C1370556 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C138885662 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C142362112 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C144024400 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C158071213 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C17744445 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C199360897 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C199539241 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C2775852435 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C2780876879 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C40422974 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C41008148 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C41895202 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C50379869 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C527412718 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C7991579 @default.
• W2056519207 hasConceptScore W2056519207C94625758 @default.
• W2056519207 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2056519207 hasLocation W20565192071 @default.
• W2056519207 hasOpenAccess W2056519207 @default.
• W2056519207 hasPrimaryLocation W20565192071 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W103666505 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W2068931236 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W2084948569 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W2354460449 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W2373931940 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W2745107573 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W306677563 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W4235024301 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W4285282535 @default.
• W2056519207 hasRelatedWork W4313589092 @default.
• W2056519207 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W2056519207 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2056519207 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2056519207 magId "2056519207" @default.
• W2056519207 workType "article" @default.