DOCSLIB.ORG

Discourse Analysis: Some Conceptual Remarks on Pragmatics and Rhetoric

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS AND RHETORIC Oleh: Abd. Ghofur (Dosen Tetap Prodi Tadris Bahasa Inggris STAIN Pamekasan & Mahasiswa S3 Universitas Negeri Surabaya) Abstract: This paper focuses on discourse analysis, particularly persuasive discourse, using pragmatics and rhetoric in a combined way, called by Pragma-Rhetoric. It can be said that this is a cognitive approach to both pragmatics and rhetoric. Pragmatics is essentially Gricean, Rhetoric comes from a reading of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, extending his notion of discourse to meso- and micro-discourses. Two kinds of intentions have to be considered: first, communicative intention, and, then, persuasive intention. The fulfilment of those intentions is achieved by a successful persuasive-communicative action. The psychological, philosophical and logical aspects derived from the pragma-rhetorical perspective are crucial in view of its applications in several practical domains. Keywords: Discourse, pragmatics, rhetoric, communication, intention, persuasion Introduction the intention of persuading.1 This clearly This article begin with a implies a theoretical choice in the field of recognition to a philosopher of action, pragmatics as far as pragmatics is not language and communication, Marcelo conceived in a merely semiotic way (not Dascal, a Leibnizian who particularly to say, in an impossible “semiologic” interested in semantics and pragmatics, way), but in an intentional way following who has contributed so much to the the path open by Austin and, particularly, development of philosophy in the last 30 by Grice. This also implies a new view on years. The aim of this paper is to show a the ancient rhetoric, a choice in favour of pragmatic and rhetorical view in 1 The combination of pragmatics and discourse analysis, combining both rhetoric has been suggested by some scholars, disciplines in order to explain the including Dascal himself, but it is quite difficult to intentional phenomena that occur in most “marry” such an ancient discipline as rhetoric with such a new discipline as pragmatics, if we do not communicative uses of language, put both in the same “register level”, i.e. in the level namely, the communicative intention and of intentionality. Read, Dascal, M. and A. G. Gross (1999), The Marriage Of Pragmatics And Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 32 (2). DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur a neo-Aristotelian rhetoric, where, in the different ways. For some scholars what is well-known triangle ethos-logos-pathos, important in discourse is just its structure, the elaboration and realisation of for others its functionality, for many discourse is especially analysed in terms others its social role, and for some others of what is inside the taxis (dispositio), that its communicative features in terms of is to say, the order of discourse, and not context, cultural interaction, and so on.3 so much in terms of what is inside the For a long time linguistics forgot the elocution. In fact, this is a choice in favour analysis of discourse, even in semantics of a rhetoric linked to dialectics2 and not and pragmatics. Semantics was mainly so linked to poetics (or the current lexical and sometimes sentential, in the literature theory), introducing the idea of modern post-Fregean sense. the intention of persuading by the Pragmatics, before the analysis of discourse maker. indexicality, was the ‘waste-basket’ of The first section of the paper linguistics, 4 and it seems that general consists in a few remarks about the references to context were enough for different approaches taken in discourse calling pragmatics to any language analysis in general, from sociology to theory. ethnomethodological conversation Our main reason for not being analysis, in order to situate the interested in sociological approaches to perspective combining pragmatics and discourse analysis is that the standard rhetoric. The second section is devoted sociology of discourse takes it, at the to the way of understanding same time, as an indicator of social communicative intention in Gricean practices, basically of social pragmatics. The third one focuses on a order/disorder, and as a factor of the neo-Aristotelian rhetoric that can be construction of social reality. This merged with pragmatics in a theory called approach can be seen in so different pragma-rhetoric, which is the topic of the authors as Goffman, 5 Bourdieu, 6 or fourth section. We end with a few Berger and Luckmann.7 What is lacking concluding remarks. in this approach is a socio-psychological conception of the discourse-maker, more Forms of discourse analysis 3 The most important conceptual Schiffrin, D. (1994), Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell problem of discourse analysis is the 4 Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971), Out of the delimitation of the very idea of discourse. Pragmatics Waste-Basket, Linguistic Inquiry 2, P., 401-407 Depending on the different theoretical 5 Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of talk. views adopted for that analysis, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 6 discourse is conceptualized in quite Bourdieu, P. (1984), Questions de Sociologie. Paris: Minuit 7 Berger, P. and Th. Luckmann (1966), 2 See, Aristotle, Rhetoric, on very The Social Construction of Reality. New York: beginning of his book Doubleday. 2 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur precisely, a cognitive conception of the structure and norms of the group.9 individuals involved in a discourse, The critique can be particularly alternatively taking the roles of speaker extended to the cultural analysis and audience. The sociological analysis approach of the Palo Alto School in what of discourse can contribute to taxonomy is called “cultural pragmatics” (Bateson, of different social groups, and then to an Watzlawick and Hall), given the fact that explanation of the interactions among methodologically they take the global those groups in terms of their contribution cultural system as the departure point for to discourse production and studying communicative acts by reproduction, but it forgets all cognitive individuals. This is why they give an aspects (psychological and linguistic) of extraordinary relevance to the analysis of discourse making and understanding. different kinds and levels of context. Foucault’s philosophical approach to Situating there the study of general discourse, especially focused on the interaction, considered as an open relationships between discourse and system where, particularly, power (the order of discourse is given by communication takes place. Taking into the discourse of order), is not very far account the effects of interaction on the from sociological approaches and lacks individuals, they distinguish between those same aspects.8 digital communication and analogical It happens quite the same with communication, and they focus on what some anthropologists, ethnographers of they call “pragmatic paradoxes” as the communication, and ethno way of reaching the core of their theory methodologists. Their analysis of on cultural pragmatics.10 discourse has to do with a more general In contrast with these cultural analysis and the defense of approaches, we take into account the specific cultural identities and development of pragmatics from Austin worldviews. These approaches go from and Grice on. That means that the ethnography to ethno linguistics through pragmatic approach we take for some major trends in anthropology. What discourse analysis is an intentional one is remarkable here is that they collect a and not a behaviorist one, as it is the case huge number of empirical data of the semiotic pragmatics done in Morris’ (discourses), but at the end, there is no 9 See, Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in theoretical analysis –explanation- of Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: them, because meaning in Prentice-Hall, read, Sacks, H. (1992), Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell, see also, Sacks, communication is always something H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974), A negotiated in the framework of the Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation, Language 50, P., 696-735. 10Watzlawick, P., J. Helmick Beavin, and 8 Foucault, M. (1966), Les Mots et les D. Jackson Don (1972), Une Logique de la Choses. Paris: Gallimard Communication. Paris: Seuil OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 3 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur framework.11 the same time, but you cannot intend p and intend not-p at the same time. Pragmatics: Intentions in c. Their object is presupposed to be communication attainable by the agent. You can Since the work by Austin and desire to go to the moon this Grice, linguistic pragmatics has been afternoon, but you cannot intend to go mainly focused on the communicative to the moon this afternoon (unless you use of language conceived as intentional are a multimillionaire who has made human action. The study of the agent’s an arrangement with some spatial beliefs, desires and, particularly, agency). intentions is crucial for understanding d. Their object represents their what she has done. Naturally, then, the conditions of satisfaction. analysis of beliefs, desires, and, Communicative intentions have also particularly, intentions is at the center of some features of their own: pragmatic studies. Grice’s study on e. They are usually intentions-in-action meaning intentions opened a long debate and
Recommended publications
  • Semantics and Pragmatics

    Semantics and Pragmatics

    Semantics and Pragmatics Christopher Gauker Semantics deals with the literal meaning of sentences. Pragmatics deals with what speakers mean by their utterances of sentences over and above what those sentences literally mean. However, it is not always clear where to draw the line. Natural languages contain many expressions that may be thought of both as contributing to literal meaning and as devices by which speakers signal what they mean. After characterizing the aims of semantics and pragmatics, this chapter will set out the issues concerning such devices and will propose a way of dividing the labor between semantics and pragmatics. Disagreements about the purview of semantics and pragmatics often concern expressions of which we may say that their interpretation somehow depends on the context in which they are used. Thus: • The interpretation of a sentence containing a demonstrative, as in “This is nice”, depends on a contextually-determined reference of the demonstrative. • The interpretation of a quantified sentence, such as “Everyone is present”, depends on a contextually-determined domain of discourse. • The interpretation of a sentence containing a gradable adjective, as in “Dumbo is small”, depends on a contextually-determined standard (Kennedy 2007). • The interpretation of a sentence containing an incomplete predicate, as in “Tipper is ready”, may depend on a contextually-determined completion. Semantics and Pragmatics 8/4/10 Page 2 • The interpretation of a sentence containing a discourse particle such as “too”, as in “Dennis is having dinner in London tonight too”, may depend on a contextually determined set of background propositions (Gauker 2008a). • The interpretation of a sentence employing metonymy, such as “The ham sandwich wants his check”, depends on a contextually-determined relation of reference-shifting.
  • Pragmatics Is a Systematic Way of Explaining Language Use in Context

    Pragmatics Is a Systematic Way of Explaining Language Use in Context

    Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use in context. It seeks to explain aspects of meaning which cannot be found in the plain sense of words or structures, as explained by semantics. As a field of language study, pragmatics is fairly new. Its origins lie in philosophy of language and the American philosophical school of pragmatism. As a discipline within language science, its roots lie in the work of (Herbert) Paul Grice on conversational implicature and the cooperative principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff Leech on politeness. We can illustrate how pragmatics works by an example from association football (and other field sports). It sometimes happens that a team-mate will shout at me: “Man on!” Semantic analysis can only go so far with this phrase. For example, it can elicit different lexical meanings of the noun “man” (mankind or the human race, an individual person, a male person specifically) and the preposition “on” (on top of, above, or other relationships as in “on fire”, “on heat”, “on duty”, “on the fiddle” or “on the telly”). And it can also explain structural meaning, and account for the way this phrase works in longer sequences such as the “first man on the moon”, “a man on the run” or “the man on top of the Clapham omnibus”. We use language all the time to make things happen. We ask someone to pass the salt or marry us - not, usually at the same time. We order a pizza or make a dental appointment. Speech acts include asking for a glass of beer, promising to drink the beer, threatening to drink more beer, ordering someone else to drink some beer, and so on.
  • What Is Rhetoric?

    What Is Rhetoric?

    What is Rhetoric? Rhetoric – the art of persuading someone through your speech and writing. It is a discourse (form of communication) that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate a particular audience in certain situations. Origin – ancient Greece became the birthplace of rhetoric (effective speech/writing) in the fifth century B.C. Even Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle were arms deep in theories on the most effective means of persuasion. Examples Martin Luther King, Jr. – “I Have a Dream” Abraham Lincoln – “Gettysburg Address” There are many more famous speakers who use rhetoric. Can you think of other examples? Why is rhetoric in writing so important? Writing more effectively saves time. Things to Consider Audience – Who are you writing to? Purpose – Why are you writing this? What’s the point? Adjust your voice, tone, and persona to accommodate your communication situation. For every writing project, you can best determine what you want to say and how you want to say it by analyzing your rhetorical situation (which is sometimes called your communication situation). Learning to think rhetorically is one of the most important benefits of education! Successful leaders and decision makers are capable of making good decisions because they have learned to examine problems from a rhetorical perspective. Successful writers have learned they can write a more effective document in less time by thinking rhetorically. By simply thinking rhetorically, someone can utilize many mental activities – such as focusing on identifying the needs of a particular audience or situation. Ask yourself: Who’s going to read this? In what way can I persuade my audience? .
  • A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Understanding

    A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Understanding

    A PRAGMATIC~BASED APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING INTERS~NTENTIAL ~LIPSI~ Sandra Car berry Department of Computer and Information Science University of Delaware Nevark, Delaware 19715, U3A ABSTRACT S~A~R-I : "The Korean Jet shot down by the Soviets was a spy plane." IntersententAal eAlipti caA utterances occur frequently in information-seeking dielogues. This FI: "With 269 people on board?"~ paper presents a pragmatics-based framework for F2: "With infrared cameras on board?" interpreting such utterances, ~ncluding identAfi- cation of the spoa~r' s discourse ~oel in employ- Previous research on ellipsis has neglected to ing the fra~ent. We claim that the advantage of address the speaker's discourse Eoals in employing this approach is its reliance upon pragmatic the frasment but reel understanding requires that information, including discourse content and these be identified (Mann, Moore, and Levin, 1977) conversational goals, rather than upon precise (Webber, PoZlack, and Hirschberg, 1982). representations of the preceding utterance alone. In this paper, we investlgate a framework for interpreting Intersententlal ellipsis that occurs INTRODOCTION in task-orlented dialogues. This framework includes: The fraRmentary utterances that are common in communication between humans also occur in man- [1] a context mechanism (Carberry, 1983) that Nachi~e OOmmUlLCcation. Humans perslat in using builds the information-seeker, s underlying abbreviated statements and queries, even in the plan as the dialogue progresses and differen- presence o/ explicit and repeated instructions to tiates be~een local and global contexts. adhere to syntactically and semantically complete sentences (Carbonell, 1983) • Thus a robust [2] a discourse component that controls the natural langua@e interface must handle ellipsis.
  • Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period

    Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period

    Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period This volume is an investigation of how Augustine was received in the Carolingian period, and the elements of his thought which had an impact on Carolingian ideas of ‘state’, rulership and ethics. It focuses on Alcuin of York and Hincmar of Rheims, authors and political advisers to Charlemagne and to Charles the Bald, respectively. It examines how they used Augustinian political thought and ethics, as manifested in the De civitate Dei, to give more weight to their advice. A comparative approach sheds light on the differences between Charlemagne’s reign and that of his grandson. It scrutinizes Alcuin’s and Hincmar’s discussions of empire, rulership and the moral conduct of political agents during which both drew on the De civitate Dei, although each came away with a different understanding. By means of a philological–historical approach, the book offers a deeper reading and treats the Latin texts as political discourses defined by content and language. Sophia Moesch is currently an SNSF-funded postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford, working on a project entitled ‘Developing Principles of Good Govern- ance: Latin and Greek Political Advice during the Carolingian and Macedonian Reforms’. She completed her PhD in History at King’s College London. Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period Political Discourse in Alcuin of York and Hincmar of Rheims Sophia Moesch First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation.
  • Ockham's Razor and Chemistry

    Ockham's Razor and Chemistry

    Ockham’s Razor and Chemistry * Roald Hoffmann, Vladimir I. Minkin, Barry K. Carpenter Abstract: We begin by presenting William of Ockham’s various formulations of his principle of parsimony, Ockham’s Razor. We then define a reaction mechanism and tell a personal story of how Ockham’s Razor entered the study of one such mechanism. A small history of methodologies related to Ock- ham’s Razor, least action and least motion, follows. This is all done in the context of the chemical (and scientific) community’s almost unthinking accep- tance of the principle as heuristically valuable. Which is not matched, to put it mildly, by current philosophical attitudes toward Ockham’s Razor. What ensues is a dialogue, pro and con. We first present a context for questioning, within chemistry, the fundamental assumption that underlies Ockham’s Ra- zor, namely that the world is simple. Then we argue that in more than one pragmatic way the Razor proves useful, without at all assuming a simple world. Ockham’s Razor is an instruction in an operating manual, not a world view. Continuing the argument, we look at the multiplicity and continuity of con- certed reaction mechanisms, and at principal component and Bayesian analysis (two ways in which Ockham’s Razor is embedded into modern statistics). The dangers to the chemical imagination from a rigid adherence to an Ockham’s Razor perspective, and the benefits of the use of this venerable and practical principle are given, we hope, their due. Keywords: Ockham’s Razor , reaction mechanism , principle of least action , prin- ciple of least motion , principal component analysis , Bayesian analysis .
  • Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics

    Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics

    Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics YEUNG, \y,ang -C-hun ...:' . '",~ ... ~ .. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy In Philosophy The Chinese University of Hong Kong January 2010 Abstract of thesis entitled: Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics Submitted by YEUNG, Wang Chun for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 2009 This ,thesis investigates problems surrounding the lively debate about how Kripke's examples of necessary a posteriori truths and contingent a priori truths should be explained. Two-dimensionalism is a recent development that offers a non-reductive analysis of such truths. The semantic interpretation of two-dimensionalism, proposed by Jackson and Chalmers, has certain 'descriptive' elements, which can be articulated in terms of the following three claims: (a) names and natural kind terms are reference-fixed by some associated properties, (b) these properties are known a priori by every competent speaker, and (c) these properties reflect the cognitive significance of sentences containing such terms. In this thesis, I argue against two arguments directed at such 'descriptive' elements, namely, The Argument from Ignorance and Error ('AlE'), and The Argument from Variability ('AV'). I thereby suggest that reference-fixing properties belong to the semantics of names and natural kind terms, and not to their metasemantics. Chapter 1 is a survey of some central notions related to the debate between descriptivism and direct reference theory, e.g. sense, reference, and rigidity. Chapter 2 outlines the two-dimensional approach and introduces the va~ieties of interpretations 11 of the two-dimensional framework.
  • Modeling Scope Ambiguity Resolution As Pragmatic Inference: Formalizing Differences in Child and Adult Behavior K.J

    Modeling Scope Ambiguity Resolution As Pragmatic Inference: Formalizing Differences in Child and Adult Behavior K.J

    Modeling scope ambiguity resolution as pragmatic inference: Formalizing differences in child and adult behavior K.J. Savinelli, Gregory Scontras, and Lisa Pearl fksavinel, g.scontras, lpearlg @uci.edu University of California, Irvine Abstract order of these elements in the utterance (i.e., Every precedes n’t). In contrast, for the inverse scope interpretation in (1b), Investigations of scope ambiguity resolution suggest that child behavior differs from adult behavior, with children struggling this isomorphism does not hold, with the scope relationship to access inverse scope interpretations. For example, children (i.e., : scopes over 8) opposite the linear order of the ele- often fail to accept Every horse didn’t succeed to mean not all ments in the utterance. Musolino hypothesized that this lack the horses succeeded. Current accounts of children’s scope be- havior involve both pragmatic and processing factors. Inspired of isomorphism would make the inverse scope interpretation by these accounts, we use the Rational Speech Act framework more difficult to access. In line with this prediction, Conroy to articulate a formal model that yields a more precise, ex- et al. (2008) found that when adults are time-restricted, they planatory, and predictive description of the observed develop- mental behavior. favor the surface scope interpretation. We thus see a potential Keywords: Rational Speech Act model, pragmatics, process- role for processing factors in children’s inability to access the ing, language acquisition, ambiguity resolution, scope inverse scope. Perhaps children, with their still-developing processing abilities, can’t allocate sufficient processing re- Introduction sources to reliably access the inverse scope interpretation. If someone says “Every horse didn’t jump over the fence,” In addition to this processing factor, Gualmini et al.
  • Pragmatics and Grammar: Motivation and Control Robert A

    Pragmatics and Grammar: Motivation and Control Robert A

    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 32 Article 3 1988 Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control Robert A. Dooley SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Recommended Citation Dooley, Robert A. (1988) "Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 32 , Article 3. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol32.03 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol32/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRAGMATICS AND GRAIUIAR.: HOTIVATIOII AND OOIITROL Robert A. Dooley 1 Introduction 2 Pragmatics in relation to semantics and syntax 2.1 Early definitions of pragmatics 2.2 The interface between pragmatics and semantics 2.3 The interface between pragmatics and syntax 2.4 Externally motivated phenomena encoded by grammar 2.5 Types of interaction between grammar and pragmatics 3 Pragmatic phenomena with little or no grammaticalization 3.1 Mbya hearsay particle 3.2 Wayampi main clause word order 4 Pragmatic phenomena with partial grammaticalization 4.1 Mbya future marker 4.2 Hixkaryana hearsay particle 4.3 Hixkaryana afterthought elements 5 Pragmatic phenomena with more or less complete grammaticalization 5.1 English WR-clefts 5.2 Dutch auxiliary placement 6 Concluding remarks I Introduction Much of what has been done as "pragmatics" has dealt with utterance interpretation, that is, with the influence of context on meaning.
  • Natural Law and Modern Jurisprudence Joseph V

    Natural Law and Modern Jurisprudence Joseph V

    Document généré le 1 oct. 2021 06:45 Laval théologique et philosophique Natural Law and Modern Jurisprudence Joseph V. Dolan Volume 15, numéro 1, 1959 URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1019972ar DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1019972ar Aller au sommaire du numéro Éditeur(s) Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval ISSN 0023-9054 (imprimé) 1703-8804 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Dolan, J. V. (1959). Natural Law and Modern Jurisprudence. Laval théologique et philosophique, 15(1), 32–63. https://doi.org/10.7202/1019972ar Tous droits réservés © Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval, Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des 1959 services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. https://www.erudit.org/fr/ Natural Law and Modern Jurisprudence I. LAW AND THE FORMATION OF THE CITIZEN 1. The influence of the community It is almost with surprise that we remark in theEthics, where Aristotle is preparing his transition to thePolitics, the important and even critical role he assigns to law in the formation of virtue.1 It is our habit to think of law as occupied with ends more immediate and pedestrian like monitoring traffic, taxing our cigarettes, and suppressing violence.
  • Enhancing the Students' Rhetoric Attainments in Teaching of College

    Enhancing the Students' Rhetoric Attainments in Teaching of College

    Sino-US English Teaching, July 2019, Vol. 16, No. 7, 300-305 doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2019.07.003 D DAVID PUBLISHING Enhancing the Students’ Rhetoric Attainments in Teaching of College English Intensive Reading ZHANG Rong-gen Shanghai Publishing and Printing College, Shanghai, China Beginning with various definitions of rhetoric, the paper gives a survey of some common English rhetoric figures found in College English intensive reading, such as metaphor, simile, transferred epithet, allusion, hyperbole, personification, metonymy, antithesis, onomatopoeia, double negative, inversion, rhetoric question, parady, transferred negation, and the like. By elaborating the functions of those rhetoric figures, the paper attempts to enhance the students’ rhetoric attainments and arouse their interest in learning English. Keywords: rhetoric attainments, rhetoric figures, College English teaching Introduction Some students often complain that the teaching of College English intensive reading course is so monotonous. It is really the case. How can a tasteless person feel his delicious food? And a certain rhetoric attainment is the prerequisite for the student to enjoy this “delicious food” of College English intensive reading course. The category of rhetoric is quite broad, one of which definitions is given by Aristotle as the art of public speaking by means of persuasion (Aristotle, 1954, pp. 2-12); and Hartwell extends the definition of rhetoric as the art of using words in speaking or writing (Hartwell & Bentley, 1982, pp. 1-15). That is to say, rhetoric contains both the art of public speaking and the method of composition. According to Chen Wangdao, a modern Chinese rhetorician, rhetoric includes both active rhetoric and passive rhetoric.
  • A Study of Musical Rhetoric in JS Bach's Organ Fugues

    A Study of Musical Rhetoric in JS Bach's Organ Fugues

    A Study of Musical Rhetoric in J. S. Bach’s Organ Fugues BWV 546, 552.2, 577, and 582 A document submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS in the Keyboard Division of the College-Conservatory of Music March 2015 by Wei-Chun Liao BFA, National Taiwan Normal University, 1999 MA, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2002 MEd, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2003 Committee Chair: Roberta Gary, DMA Abstract This study explores the musical-rhetorical tradition in German Baroque music and its connection with Johann Sebastian Bach’s fugal writing. Fugal theory according to musica poetica sources includes both contrapuntal devices and structural principles. Johann Mattheson’s dispositio model for organizing instrumental music provides an approach to comprehending the process of Baroque composition. His view on the construction of a subject also offers a way to observe a subject’s transformation in the fugal process. While fugal writing was considered the essential compositional technique for developing musical ideas in the Baroque era, a successful musical-rhetorical dispositio can shape the fugue from a simple subject into a convincing and coherent work. The analyses of the four selected fugues in this study, BWV 546, 552.2, 577, and 582, will provide a reading of the musical-rhetorical dispositio for an understanding of Bach’s fugal writing. ii Copyright © 2015 by Wei-Chun Liao All rights reserved iii Acknowledgements The completion of this document would not have been possible without the help and support of many people.