Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, June, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2004. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-84).

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2004. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-84).

Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Illinois University, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 135-144).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Covenant Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-131).

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2004. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-84).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Covenant Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-131).

abstract: Lakoff and Levinson claim they have discredited the theory of universal grammar. This dissertation discusses the possibility of a universal humor, suggesting that if universals exist in language's most playful and least rule-governed aspect then they must exist in grammar, language's least playful and most rule-governed aspect. Lakoff's and Levinson's texts are closely analyzed to demonstrate that their claims against Chomsky are not firmly supported; that their groundbreaking new theories of language, perception and cognition do not constitute data that undermines Chomskyan theory; that Levinson's theory of a universal mechanism for human interaction is no stronger than the the grammar universals that Levinson strongly rejects. It is suggested that the litmus test of culture-specific versus universal language may be its level of rhetorical density, as illustrated with humor and naming samples. It is argued that Fillmore's deep case theory, as explained by Nilsen using semantic features and pragmatic intent, has never lost its status as a linguistic universal; Chomsky's theoretical debt to Charles Fillmore may indicate that he unconsciously used Fillmore's deep case, which for Chomsky became thematic relations, without realizing that Fillmore had been the impetus for his research. It is argued that none of the theories of universality, typology or conceptual metaphor may be considered mutually exclusive. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. English 2011

AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Lisa J. Raser, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Speech Communication, presented on October 30th, 2013, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. TITLE: EPISTOLARY PEDAGOGY: COMMUNICATING CARE IN THE UNIVERSITY CLASSROOM MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Suzanne M. Daughton While many scholars have affirmed the importance of communicating care in pedagogical settings (Noddings; Bubeck; Held; Ruddick; Monchinski; hooks; Palmer) there is a need for more scholarly discussion about what the communication of care between teachers and students looks like as a daily, tangible practice. Geneva Gay writes that educators "are hard-pressed to characterize [caring] in actual practice, to put a functional face on it that goes beyond feelings of empathy and emotional attachment" (48). In this dissertation, I examine letter writing in the classroom as one practice of communicating care between teachers and students. As a teacher who seeks to communicate care to my students, I am interested in what pedagogical care looks like, in action. Since I have employed my own "epistolary pedagogy" of writing letters to my students at the beginning of each semester, I want to know how my letter might communicate the giving of care and how the letters written by my students might communicate the receiving of care. Therefore, the data for this project consists of my letter that I wrote to my students at Southern Illinois University as well as a sample of thirty letters that I received back from my students in response to my letter. For analysis, I utilize a version of generic rhetorical criticism combined with a nonviolent communication lens as a method for revealing and understanding the communicative patterns that exist across this collection of letters. The textual evidence across the letters from my students suggests the rhetorical patterns of: self-disclosure, hopes and contributions, assessment, and connection with my letter. These patterns help me to understand ways that my students may be receiving my letter as care. This project explores how an epistolary pedagogy functions as care-in-action because it opens a space for communication between teacher and student, leads to feelings of comfort in the classroom, and provides an opportunity for teacher and students to build a continuing relationship.

Aristotle's division of the "species" of rhetoric (deliberative, forensic, and epideictic) has served as a helpful taxonomy in historical accounts of rhetoric, but it has also produced undesirable effects. One such effect is that epideictic rhetoric has been interpreted historically as deficient, unimportant or merely ostentatious, while political or legal discourse retained a favored status in authentic civic life. This analysis argues that such an interpretation reduces contemporary attention to the crucial role that epideixis plays in modern discourse. As often interpreted, epideictic rhetoric contains at its heart a striving toward communal values and utopic ideals. Taking as its province the good/bad, the praiseworthy/derisible, it is a rhetorical form supremely attentive to what counts for audiences, cultures, and subcultures. As such, it has direct entailments for all forms of rhetorical practice, however categorized, for in its essence is not simply a suggestion of timeliness or appropriate context for its delivery, but also method: a focus on identification and affinity is at the heart of epideixis. Taking an expanded definition of epideixis, I argue that Aristotle's classification be read as provisional (that he allowed for and expected overlap with his divisions), and further, that criticism be seen as a form of contemporary epideixis. I claim that contemporary norms are more fractured than in classical times, and that as citizens no longer at the behest of formerly more unified cultural ideals it is through acts of criticism and aesthetic consensus that we often form emergent communities, gathering around objects of appraisal, around that which offers us pleasure (even the popular). I attempt to account for the mechanics of how, as Dave Hickey argues, “beautiful objects reorganize society, sometimes radically" (Invisible Dragon 81). The vectors through which this reorganization occurs are via popular discourse involving “comparisons, advocacy, analysis, and dissent” (Hickey Invisible Dragon 70), be it at the level of the interpersonal or in a more widely-sanctioned public forum such as professional criticism. I hope to show that epideixis is not a moribund rhetorical category, but a key discursive mode and way of forming community in our times.