The unresolved nineteenth-century debate--"is rhetoric an art or a science?"--hashindered our attempt to establish an inclusive research paradigm for rhetoric and composition. The newly dominant paradigm is quickly narrowing to prefer the qualitative designs that suit our literary ideals, relieve our math and statistics anxiety, and fulfill political ideologies. Such qualitative work has given us great insight into the mind of the researcher, a stronger voice to the individual, and a powerful tool for groups traditionally oppressed by our field.At the same time, however, our field needs quantitative research that examines the scope of certain issues or that tests the effectiveness of solutions to problems, and we should remain prepared to understand such research from other fields. But the quantitative/qualitative division in composition cannot be healed through "methodological pluralism" or by examining the epistemologies governing those methodological choices.A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification (Annis, 1978) provides a new lens through which we may recontextualize the competing epistemologies our field has outlined, providing a new decision-making framework through which we may appreciate the intersection of research issues (issue/question, purpose, method, and publication) and rhetorical issues (writer, audience, and subject) that form the varied contexts for our work: contexts highlighted in a matrix of questions representing a Contextualist Research Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition.To illustrate such a paradigm, Eileen Oliver's (1995) "The Writing Quality of Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Graders, and College Freshmen: Does Rhetorical Specification in Writing Prompts Make a Difference?" is reprinted with an interview with Oliver, in which she detailed the context for her study. To further demonstrate a Contextualist Paradigm at work, my own study--"Red Ink / Blue Ink: Does it Really Make a Difference?"--responds to the largely untested anecdotal evidence that discourages writing teachers' use of red pens.A Contextualist Research Paradigm is necessary for composition to heal the artificial divisions between qualitative and quantitative research, to direct our attention fully to context rather than politics, form, and numbers, and to conduct not only the research we like, but also the research we and our students need. / Department of English

No description available.

No description available.

Philosophy is traditionally defined against rhetoric. The traditional difference between philosophy and rhetoric is based on a distinction between truthful and persuasive speech. The history of philosophy offers a number of examples how to approach the relationship between truth and persuasiveness. However, this relationship was traditionally taken in such a way so that philosophy could be defined against rhetoric. This approach can also be found in the texts of Immanuel Kant. From this point of view, Kant's project of critical philosophy can be interpreted as an attempt to purify philosophy and separate it from rhetoric. But when Kant defines the philosophy against rhetoric, he falls into obvious contradiction. As the critical philosophy helps to realize the ideas of the Enlightenment, thus, it also helps to spread the light of reason. However, the spread of general enlightenment requires an effective link between philosophy and rhetoric, i.e. between truth and persuasiveness. Since the critical philosophy is the instrument of enlightenment, it acquires its rhetorical dimension. A closer examination of the rhetorical dimension of Kant's critical philosophy, which still represents a certain desideratum of Kant Studies, thus opens up completely new research and interpretation possibilities.

This rhetorical thesis analyzes Richard M. Weaver's theories of rhetoric and his methodology for ranking argument types according to their perceived ethicality. Two keynote speeches by former U. S. Representative Barbara Jordan have been subjected to the Weaverian analysis. Ms. Jordan's argument types are characteristic of what Weaver considered ethical oratory. Weaver's axiological judgments and his dogmatic ranking of the hierarchy have generated some criticism from rhetorical scholars. Although this criticism is justified, Weaver's philosophy and methodology provide insight to a given's orator's philosophical perspective. The Weaverian analysis contributes to the understanding of not only the superficial aspects of an address, but also the underlying and sometimes hidden motivations of an orator.

La thèse propose une nouvelle théorie de l’argumentation – bidimensionnelle – reposant sur deux paramètres :la force et l’orientation. Quatre types de marqueurs sont identifiés, articulés autour de ces deux paramètres. <p>Le chapitre 1 porte sur le réductionnisme topique :la théorie selon laquelle tous les arguments sont défaisables, c’est-à-dire réfutables.<p>Le chapitre 2 retrace l’histoire du réductionnisme logique :la théorie selon laquelle tous les arguments valides sont indéfaisables. L’argument étudié est la définition.<p>Le chapitre 3 présente la théorie bidimensionnelle, qui explique à la fois les arguments défaisables et indéfaisables.<p>Les chapitre 3 et 4 sont une application de la théorie bidimensionnelle de l’argumentation.<p>Le chapitre 4 étudie l’argument appelé présomption. <p>Le chapitre 5 offre un traitement nouveau de l’argument a fortiori.<p> / Doctorat en Philosophie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished