<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://rhetorclick.com/skins/common/feed.css?270"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/index.php?feed=atom&amp;target=Aine&amp;title=Special%3AContributions%2FAine</id>
		<title>RhetorClick - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://rhetorclick.com/index.php?feed=atom&amp;target=Aine&amp;title=Special%3AContributions%2FAine"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aine"/>
		<updated>2026-05-16T09:50:00Z</updated>
		<subtitle>From RhetorClick</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.16.1</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine</id>
		<title>User:Aine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:51:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I am a student at St. Edward's University, majoring in English Writing and minoring in Environmental Science and Policy. I hope to be attending graduate school after working for a year or two in the elusive realm that exists outside of school. Wikipedia has contributed to my success in school, as well as significantly developing my collection of arbitrary knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
My Wiki Contributions Include-&lt;br /&gt;
*Douglas Brent article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Kathleen Yancey article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Expanded Michel Foucault article summary on the features of the &amp;quot;author-function&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Douglas Brent&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Michel Foucault&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Jim W. Corder&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Donald C. Bryant&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Saussure &lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Cynthia L. Selfe&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Richard J. Selfe&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Lisa S. Ede&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Andrea A. Lunsford&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics</id>
		<title>Signified and signifier are core of semiotics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:48:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Considered to be the father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure dedicated his life's work to the focus upon meaning being established through language being considered an interrelated system of elements. Ferdinand de Saussure defines that the linguistic sign is both the combination of a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). The signified is sensory, in which it is not the material sound of actually hearing the word, rather the psychological imprint of the sound. The signifier or sound-image indicates the signified or concept. The signifier cannot be simply called a word because the signified (the concept behind the word) and the signifier are inextricably linked to each other, as the sound-image carries the concept, as a means to bring it into the community of speakers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signifier and signified, whilst superficially simple, form a core element of semiotics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saussure's ideas are contrary to Plato's notion of ideas being eternally stable. Plato saw ideas as the root concept that was implemented in individual instances. A signifier without signified has no meaning, and the signified changes with person and context. For Saussure, even the root concept is malleable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saussure distinguishes the two principles of the linguistic sign: The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign and The Linear Nature of the Sign. The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign roughly that every means of expression used in society is based on collective behavior or convention, in that the rules of linguistic sign are fixed and not upon the intrinsic value of the sign. Saussure notes that the use of the word arbitrary means that the word symbol or signifier has no natural connection with the concept or signified. Principle II, The Linear Nature of the Sign, states that the signifier- being auditory- is unfolded solely in time (linear time), and the act of signifier has no duality, but only different oppositions to what precedes and what follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the fundamental definitions of Saussure’s rhetorical case, he writes of the immutability of the sign. The immutability of the sign refers to that the signifier is fixed, not free, rather than the common misconception that individuals can “choose” whichever word we want. The two antithetical forces bond together to form a phenomenon: that freedom of choice and tradition create arbitrary convention, in which “because the sign is arbitrary it follows no other law than that of tradition, and because it is based on tradition, it is arbitrary.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following, Saussure acknowledges that while time insures the continuity of language (immutability); time also wields the more or less rapid change of linguistic signs, which is mutability. In the equation of change, tradition or “the old substance” predominate, so the only relative in the equation is change. Change is a shift or loosening in the relationship between the signified and the signifier. Basically, just like all things, time changes language, evolving with the community of speakers. Thus, continuity implies change and the two forces are intrinsic in the formation of langue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this knowledge, we can understand that language is the only human institution unlimited in the ways to associate an idea to a sequence of sounds. Yet, language is a product of both social forces and time. Hypothetically, without a community of speakers, a language would sit unchanged for centuries in some immortal person’s lonely brain. In contrast, all current language is based upon something inherited from prior generations. Basically, time works in finite and infinite ways&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Influential_Role_in_%22Computers_in_the_Composition_Classroom%22</id>
		<title>Influential Role in &quot;Computers in the Composition Classroom&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Influential_Role_in_%22Computers_in_the_Composition_Classroom%22"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:46:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Contributing to three different articles in the Computers in the Composition Classroom book, Cynthia L. Selfe has played an instrumental role in Digital Composition and Pedagogic...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Contributing to three different articles in the Computers in the Composition Classroom book, Cynthia L. Selfe has played an instrumental role in Digital Composition and Pedagogical studies. Since the late 1980’s, Cynthia Selfe has dedicated a significant portion of her work to analyzing how teachers should incorporate computers into the classroom. Repeatedly in the three articles co-authored by Selfe, her message remains consistent: that teachers should not just assume the traditional role as the teacher teaching and the students learning, rather writing in the computer classroom should be both learning and teaching as a mutual practice shared between teacher and student. Selfe also consistently persists throughout the three articles that it is naïve for teachers to talk about “the effects of technology” in overly positive terms, as if computers had intrinsic value and their mere existence in composition classroom improved the pedagogy itself. Rather, Selfe calls for awareness of technology in the computer classroom as it tends to disappear when we consider it just another instructional tool, and that is the most dangerous part; she calls for paying attention to how technology has complex linkages among issues of literacy, poverty, and race, as technology does not necessarily equate to improved literacy for all children in the U.S.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:45:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Writing and Technology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]]: [[Influential Role in &amp;quot;Computers in the Composition Classroom&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Computer_Interface_as_Representation_of_Oppression_of_Diverse_Cultures</id>
		<title>Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Computer_Interface_as_Representation_of_Oppression_of_Diverse_Cultures"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:43:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Richard J. Selfe’s contribution to the writing and digital pedagogies is best represented by him and his wife, [[Cynthia L. Selfe]] who expresses not dissimilar concerns with computers in the classroom, in their analysis of the computer interface as a symbolic result of the white, upper-middle class domination of technology that has oppressed cultural diversity. Richard Selfe facilitates creating a provocative and intriguing view of why teachers need to be more aware when implementing technology in the classroom. For instance, they assert the ethnocentric of equating the computer with a desktop stating, “that interface, and the software applications commonly represented within it, map the virtual world as a desktop, constructing virtual reality by association, in terms of corporate culture and the values of professionalism” (Selfe and Selfe 73).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Computer_Interface_as_Representation_of_Oppression_of_Diverse_Cultures</id>
		<title>Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Computer_Interface_as_Representation_of_Oppression_of_Diverse_Cultures"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:42:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Richard J. Selfe’s contribution to the writing and digital pedagogies is best represented by him and his wife, Cynthia Selfe (INCLUDE LINK TO HER) who expresses not dissimilar ...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Richard J. Selfe’s contribution to the writing and digital pedagogies is best represented by him and his wife, Cynthia Selfe (INCLUDE LINK TO HER) who expresses not dissimilar concerns with computers in the classroom, in their analysis of the computer interface as a symbolic result of the white, upper-middle class domination of technology that has oppressed cultural diversity. Richard Selfe facilitates creating a provocative and intriguing view of why teachers need to be more aware when implementing technology in the classroom. For instance, they assert the ethnocentric of equating the computer with a desktop stating, “that interface, and the software applications commonly represented within it, map the virtual world as a desktop, constructing virtual reality by association, in terms of corporate culture and the values of professionalism” (Selfe and Selfe 73).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:42:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Writing and Technology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:42:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Writing and Technology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]: [[Computer Interface as Representation of Oppression of Diverse Cultures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:39:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Pedagogical Studies */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Distinctions_Between_Classical_and_Modern_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Distinctions_Between_Classical_and_Modern_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:39:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Major Distinctions Typically Drawn Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Andrea A. Lunsford &amp;amp; Lisa S. Ede’s further contributed to the same movement contributed to by Richard Weaver, Kenneth Burke, Donald C. Bryant, and Chaim Perelman as they drew upon the classical tenets of rhetoric in an attempt to merge a contemporary concept of rhetoric, rather than attempting “to define [the new rhetoric] against classical tradition’ (Lunsford &amp;amp; Ede 397). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The seriously flawed, conventional understanding of rhetoric as displayed in Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
==Major Distinctions Typically Drawn Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Classical Rhetoric'''&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Man is a rational animal living in a society marked by social cohesion and agreed-upon values.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Emphasis is on logical [or rational] proofs.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Rhetor-audience relationship is antagonistic, characterized by manipulative one-way communication.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Goal is ''persuasion''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Modern Rhetoric'''&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Man is a symbol-using animal living in a fragmented society.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Emphasis is on emotional or psychological0 proofs.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Rhetor-audience relationship is cooperative, characterized by emphatic, two-way communication.&lt;br /&gt;
*4.Goal is ''communication''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than having distinctions pull modern rhetoric farther away from classical rhetoric, Lunsford &amp;amp; Ede argue that the similarities primarily as well as some of the distinctions (as seen in Table 2 ) between classical and modern rhetoric “will help to identify those qualities which must characterize any vital theory of rhetoric” (405).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2:&lt;br /&gt;
'''Similarities and Qualifying Distinctions Between &lt;br /&gt;
Classical and Modern Rhetoric'''&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Both classical and modern rhetoric view man as a language-usage animal who unites reason and emotion in discourse with another.&lt;br /&gt;
''Qualifying Distinction:''&lt;br /&gt;
Aristotle addresses himself primarily to the oral use of language; our is primarily an age of print.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. In both periods rhetoric provides adynamic methodology whereby rhetor and audience may jointly have access to knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
''Qualifying Distinction'':&lt;br /&gt;
According to Aristotle, rhetor and audience come into a state of knowing which places them in a clearly defined relationsip with the world and with eacch other, mediated by their language.  The prevailing modernist world view compels rhetoric to operate without any such clearly articulated theory of the knower and the known.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. In both periods rhetoric has the potential to clarify and informactivities in numerous related fields.&lt;br /&gt;
''Qualifying Distinction'':&lt;br /&gt;
Aristotle's theory establishes rhetoric as an art and relates it clearly to all fields of knowledge. Despite the effortsmodern rhetoricians, we lack any systemmatic, generally accepted theory to inform current practice.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Distinctions_Between_Classical_and_Modern_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Distinctions_Between_Classical_and_Modern_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:38:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Andrea A. Lunsford &amp;amp; Lisa S. Ede’s further contributed to the same movement contributed to by Richard Weaver, Kenneth Burke, Donald C. Bryant, and Chaim Perelman as they drew u...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Andrea A. Lunsford &amp;amp; Lisa S. Ede’s further contributed to the same movement contributed to by Richard Weaver, Kenneth Burke, Donald C. Bryant, and Chaim Perelman as they drew upon the classical tenets of rhetoric in an attempt to merge a contemporary concept of rhetoric, rather than attempting “to define [the new rhetoric] against classical tradition’ (Lunsford &amp;amp; Ede 397). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The seriously flawed, conventional understanding of rhetoric as displayed in Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
==Major Distinctions Typically Drawn Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Classical Rhetoric'''&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Man is a rational animal living in a society marked by social cohesion and agreed-upon values.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Emphasis is on logical [or rational] proofs.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Rhetor-audience relationship is antagonistic, characterized by manipulative one-way communication.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Goal is ''persuasion''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Modern Rhetoric'''&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Man is a symbol-using animal living in a fragmented society.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Emphasis is on emotional or psychological0 proofs.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Rhetor-audience relationship is cooperative, characterized by emphatic, two-way communication.&lt;br /&gt;
*4.Goal is ''communication''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than having distinctions pull modern rhetoric farther away from classical rhetoric, Lunsford &amp;amp; Ede argue that the similarities primarily as well as some of the distinctions (as seen in Table 2 ) between classical and modern rhetoric “will help to identify those qualities which must characterize any vital theory of rhetoric” (405).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2:&lt;br /&gt;
'''Similarities and Qualifying Distinctions Between &lt;br /&gt;
Classical and Modern Rhetoric'''&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Both classical and modern rhetoric view man as a language-usage animal who unites reason and emotion in discourse with another.&lt;br /&gt;
''Qualifying Distion:''&lt;br /&gt;
Aristotle addresses himself primarily to the oral use of language; our is primarily an age of print.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. In both periods rhetoric provides adynamic methodology whereby rhetor and audience may jointly have access to knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
''Qualifying Distinction'':&lt;br /&gt;
According to Aristotle, rhetor and audience come into a state of knowing which places them in a clearly defined relationsip with the world and with eacch other, mediated by their language.  The prevailing modernist world view compels rhetoric to operate without any such clearly articulated theory of the knower and the known.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. In both periods rhetoric has the potential to clarify and informactivities in numerous related fields.&lt;br /&gt;
''Qualifying Distinction'':&lt;br /&gt;
Aristotle's theory establishes rhetoric as an art and relates it clearly to all fields of knowledge. Despite the effortsmodern rhetoricians, we lack any systemmatic, generally accepted theory to inform current practice.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:21:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Pedagogical Studies */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942: [[Distinctions Between Classical and Modern Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:19:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Writing and Technology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947 [[Andrea A. Lunsford]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-13T03:19:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Pedagogical Studies */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page discusses key rhetorical movements and the theories associated with those movements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: [[Polyphony]], [[Unfinalizability]], [[Carnival and Grotesque]], [[Chronotope]], [[Heteroglossia]] (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), [[Speech genres]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), [[Definition of Man]] as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947 [[Andrea A. Lunsford]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), [[God and Devil Terms]], [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: [[Toulmin Model of Argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: [[Epistemic Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939: [[Rhetoric in Existentialist Literature]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics</id>
		<title>Signified and signifier are core of semiotics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:24:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Considered to be the father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure dedicated his life's work to the focus upon meaning being established through language being considered an interrelated system of elements. Ferdinand de Saussure defines that the linguistic sign is both the combination of a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). The signified is sensory, in which it is not the material sound of actually hearing the word, rather the psychological imprint of the sound. The signifier or sound-image indicates the signified or concept. The signifier cannot be simply called a word because the signified (the concept behind the word) and the signifier are inextricably linked to each other, as the sound-image carries the concept, as a means to bring it into the community of speakers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The signifier and signified, whilst superficially simple, form a core element of semiotics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saussure's ideas are contrary to Plato's notion of ideas being eternally stable. Plato saw ideas as the root concept that was implemented in individual instances. A signifier without signified has no meaning, and the signified changes with person and context. For Saussure, even the root concept is malleable. (fix!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saussure distinguishes the two principles of the linguistic sign: The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign and The Linear Nature of the Sign. The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign roughly that every means of expression used in society is based on collective behavior or convention, in that the rules of linguistic sign are fixed and not upon the intrinsic value of the sign. Saussure notes that the use of the word arbitrary means that the word symbol or signifier has no natural connection with the concept or signified. Principle II, The Linear Nature of the Sign, states that the signifier- being auditory- is unfolded solely in time (linear time), and the act of signifier has no duality, but only different oppositions to what precedes and what follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the fundamental definitions of Saussure’s rhetorical case, he writes of the immutability of the sign. The immutability of the sign refers to that the signifier is fixed, not free, rather than the common misconception that individuals can “choose” whichever word we want. The two antithetical forces bond together to form a phenomenon: that freedom of choice and tradition create arbitrary convention, in which “because the sign is arbitrary it follows no other law than that of tradition, and because it is based on tradition, it is arbitrary.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following, Saussure acknowledges that while time insures the continuity of language (immutability); time also wields the more or less rapid change of linguistic signs, which is mutability. In the equation of change, tradition or “the old substance” predominate, so the only relative in the equation is change. Change is a shift or loosening in the relationship between the signified and the signifier. Basically, just like all things, time changes language, evolving with the community of speakers. Thus, continuity implies change and the two forces are intrinsic in the formation of langue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this knowledge, we can understand that language is the only human institution unlimited in the ways to associate an idea to a sequence of sounds. Yet, language is a product of both social forces and time. Hypothetically, without a community of speakers, a language would sit unchanged for centuries in some immortal person’s lonely brain. In contrast, all current language is based upon something inherited from prior generations. Basically, time works in finite and infinite ways&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine</id>
		<title>User:Aine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:22:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I am a student at St. Edward's University, majoring in English Writing and minoring in Environmental Science and Policy. I hope to be attending graduate school after working for a year or two in the elusive realm that exists outside of school. Wikipedia has contributed to my success in school, as well as significantly developing my collection of arbitrary knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
My Wiki Contributions Include-&lt;br /&gt;
*Douglas Brent article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Kathleen Yancey article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Expanded Michel Foucault article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Douglas Brent&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Michel Foucault&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Jim W. Corder&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Donald C. Bryant&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Saussure (*****FIX!)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics</id>
		<title>Signified and signifier are core of semiotics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:21:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Considered to be the father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure dedicated his life's work to the focus upon meaning being established through language being considered an interrelated system of elements. Ferdinand de Saussure defines that the linguistic sign is both the combination of a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). The signified is sensory, in which it is not the material sound of actually hearing the word, rather the psychological imprint of the sound. The signifier or sound-image indicates the signified or concept. The signifier cannot be simply called a word because the signified (the concept behind the word) and the signifier are inextricably linked to each other, as the sound-image carries the concept, as a means to bring it into the community of speakers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Saussure distinguishes the two principles of the linguistic sign: The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign and The Linear Nature of the Sign. The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign roughly that every means of expression used in society is based on collective behavior or convention, in that the rules of linguistic sign are fixed and not upon the intrinsic value of the sign. Saussure notes that the use of the word arbitrary means that the word symbol or signifier has no natural connection with the concept or signified. Principle II, The Linear Nature of the Sign, states that the signifier- being auditory- is unfolded solely in time (linear time), and the act of signifier has no duality, but only different oppositions to what precedes and what follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following the fundamental definitions of Saussure’s rhetorical case, he writes of the immutability of the sign. The immutability of the sign refers to that the signifier is fixed, not free, rather than the common misconception that individuals can “choose” whichever word we want. The two antithetical forces bond together to form a phenomenon: that freedom of choice and tradition create arbitrary convention, in which “because the sign is arbitrary it follows no other law than that of tradition, and because it is based on tradition, it is arbitrary.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following, Saussure acknowledges that while time insures the continuity of language (immutability); time also wields the more or less rapid change of linguistic signs, which is mutability. In the equation of change, tradition or “the old substance” predominate, so the only relative in the equation is change. Change is a shift or loosening in the relationship between the signified and the signifier. Basically, just like all things, time changes language, evolving with the community of speakers. Thus, continuity implies change and the two forces are intrinsic in the formation of langue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this knowledge, we can understand that language is the only human institution unlimited in the ways to associate an idea to a sequence of sounds. Yet, language is a product of both social forces and time. Hypothetically, without a community of speakers, a language would sit unchanged for centuries in some immortal person’s lonely brain. In contrast, all current language is based upon something inherited from prior generations. Basically, time works in finite and infinite ways&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics</id>
		<title>Signified and signifier are core of semiotics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Signified_and_signifier_are_core_of_semiotics"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:20:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Considered to be the father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure dedicated his life's work to the focus upon meaning being established through language being considered an inter...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Considered to be the father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure dedicated his life's work to the focus upon meaning being established through language being considered an interrelated system of elements. Ferdinand de Saussure defines that the linguistic sign is both the combination of a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). The signified is sensory, in which it is not the material sound of actually hearing the word, rather the psychological imprint of the sound. The signifier or sound-image indicates the signified or concept. The signifier cannot be simply called a word because the signified (the concept behind the word) and the signifier are inextricably linked to each other, as the sound-image carries the concept, as a means to bring it into the community of speakers.&lt;br /&gt;
    Saussure distinguishes the two principles of the linguistic sign: The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign and The Linear Nature of the Sign. The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign roughly that every means of expression used in society is based on collective behavior or convention, in that the rules of linguistic sign are fixed and not upon the intrinsic value of the sign. Saussure notes that the use of the word arbitrary means that the word symbol or signifier has no natural connection with the concept or signified. Principle II, The Linear Nature of the Sign, states that the signifier- being auditory- is unfolded solely in time (linear time), and the act of signifier has no duality, but only different oppositions to what precedes and what follows.&lt;br /&gt;
    Following the fundamental definitions of Saussure’s rhetorical case, he writes of the immutability of the sign. The immutability of the sign refers to that the signifier is fixed, not free, rather than the common misconception that individuals can “choose” whichever word we want. The two antithetical forces bond together to form a phenomenon: that freedom of choice and tradition create arbitrary convention, in which “because the sign is arbitrary it follows no other law than that of tradition, and because it is based on tradition, it is arbitrary.”&lt;br /&gt;
    Following, Saussure acknowledges that while time insures the continuity of language (immutability); time also wields the more or less rapid change of linguistic signs, which is mutability. In the equation of change, tradition or “the old substance” predominate, so the only relative in the equation is change. Change is a shift or loosening in the relationship between the signified and the signifier. Basically, just like all things, time changes language, evolving with the community of speakers. Thus, continuity implies change and the two forces are intrinsic in the formation of langue.&lt;br /&gt;
    With this knowledge, we can understand that language is the only human institution unlimited in the ways to associate an idea to a sequence of sounds. Yet, language is a product of both social forces and time. Hypothetically, without a community of speakers, a language would sit unchanged for centuries in some immortal person’s lonely brain. In contrast, all current language is based upon something inherited from prior generations. Basically, time works in finite and infinite ways&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:10:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Semiotics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]], 1857-1913: [[signified and signifier are core of semiotics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:06:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot;([http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/art/rogchap.html]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
*1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:05:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; ([Douglas http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/art/rogchap.html]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
*1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:05:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot;  ([http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/art/rogchap.html]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
*1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T08:04:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; (Douglas [http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/art/rogchap.html]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
*1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine</id>
		<title>User:Aine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:59:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I am a student at St. Edward's University, majoring in English Writing and minoring in Environmental Science and Policy. I hope to be attending graduate school after working for a year or two in the elusive realm that exists outside of school. Wikipedia has contributed to my success in school, as well as significantly developing my collection of arbitrary knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
My Wiki Contributions Include-&lt;br /&gt;
*Douglas Brent article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Kathleen Yancey article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Expanded Michel Foucault article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Douglas Brent&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Michel Foucault&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Jim W. Corder&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Donald C. Bryant&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine</id>
		<title>User:Aine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/User:Aine"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:57:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I am a student at St. Edward's University, majoring in English Writing and minoring in Environmental Science and Policy. I hope to be attending graduate school after working for a year or two in the elusive realm that exists outside of school. Wikipedia has contributed to my success in school, as well as significantly developing my collection of arbitrary knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;
My Wiki Contributions Include-&lt;br /&gt;
*Douglas Brent article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Kathleen Yancey article summary&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Douglas Brent&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Michel Foucault&lt;br /&gt;
*Movements and Theories for Jim W. Corder&lt;br /&gt;
*Movement and Theories for Donald C. Bryant&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent,_Douglas_%22Rogerian_Rhetoric:_An_Alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric%22</id>
		<title>Brent, Douglas &quot;Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent,_Douglas_%22Rogerian_Rhetoric:_An_Alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric%22"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:53:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth. &amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent,_Douglas_%22Rogerian_Rhetoric:_An_Alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric%22</id>
		<title>Brent, Douglas &quot;Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent,_Douglas_%22Rogerian_Rhetoric:_An_Alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric%22"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:51:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Douglas Brent]] &lt;br /&gt;
Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    * 1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
    * 2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
    * 3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
    * 4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth. &amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent_Douglas</id>
		<title>Brent Douglas</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent_Douglas"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:51:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Article Summaries */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In need of a summary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Biography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Summaries ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional Works/ Publications==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Yancey,_Kathleen_Blake_%22Looking_for_Sources_of_Coherence_in_a_Fragmented_World:_Notes_toward_a_New_Assessment_Design%22</id>
		<title>Yancey, Kathleen Blake &quot;Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Yancey,_Kathleen_Blake_%22Looking_for_Sources_of_Coherence_in_a_Fragmented_World:_Notes_toward_a_New_Assessment_Design%22"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:50:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Yancey writes that in order to attempt to ascertain some sort of value on digital composition we need to use the frameworks and processes of printed, textual compositions and apply them to the new digital medium. Yancey says that coherence is at the heart of our worlds, so “coherence is all about relationships.” Achieving coherence digitally involves not only the pattern of words with words and words with context like printed text, but it involves the entirety of the piece and the multiple contextual frameworks to assess the text in. The reader then becomes the inventor/creator of their own logic, or achiever of the text’s logic, while “weaving” through the multiple layers and realms of any digital text, regardless of whether the composer intended the reader to go in this non-linear pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yancey says that in order to assess digital texts, we should understand that technology can be at odds, not with the intent of the writer, but with the effect. Yancey supports this with an example of word processing programs such as spell check to assess the composition, changing what the writer intended. In contrast, the technology can seduce the writer; for instance a teacher re-writing a student’s essay even though she merely intended to write comments, so technology was so easy, it became seductive. Thus, awareness is essential when assessing digital texts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yancey writes that in order to assess digital texts, then we must create a heuristic, so that we are encouraged by the technology of the heuristic, i.e., questions. Yancey states that the questions of the heuristic should include the inquiry of, “what is the intent? What is the fit between the intent and the effect?” In other words, does the composition work like the composer intended, and if it does differently then the intent then how and why?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent_Douglas</id>
		<title>Brent Douglas</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Brent_Douglas"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:46:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Article Summaries */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In need of a summary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Biography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Summaries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    * 1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
    * 2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
    * 3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
    * 4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth. &amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional Works/ Publications==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Argument_as_emergence_toward_the_other</id>
		<title>Argument as emergence toward the other</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Argument_as_emergence_toward_the_other"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T05:35:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Jim W. Corder claims his view of &amp;quot;argument as emergence toward the other, Rhetoric as Love,&amp;quot; is an underlying extension from Carl Rogers, Rogerian method. However, Corder acknowl...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Jim W. Corder claims his view of &amp;quot;argument as emergence toward the other, Rhetoric as Love,&amp;quot; is an underlying extension from Carl Rogers, Rogerian method. However, Corder acknowledges that while Carl Rogers' insights into argumentation have been highly valuable and may work in some particular settings, they do not deal with the &amp;quot;flushed, feverish, quaky, shaky, angry, scared, hurt, shocked, disapointed, alarmed, outraged, even terrified condition that a person comes to when his or her narrative is opposed by a genuinely contending narrative&amp;quot; (418).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Rogers created his method for the therapy session in which the patient understands that the therapist is trying to facilitate their own self-healing, Corder attempts to explain how the underlying principles of the Rogerian method can be taken into context while in a heated debate. Corder calls for a change in the way we talk about argument. The use of the words display and presentation offer a neat organization to argue a particular subject, yet this is not true argument that creates that flushed and feverish condition that a person comes to when facing a contending argument. Rather Corder states that &amp;quot;[Argument] is something to be. It is what we are&amp;quot; (422). Thus, if we are to value ourselves and our own argument, and are to value all others, &amp;quot;we must learn that argument is emergence.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
We can change the way we argue if we learn to love before we disagree, although generally the opposite situation happens and Coder gives an example of this: war veterans on opposing sides can forgive and love after they fought decades prior.&lt;br /&gt;
Corder claims that although the arguer faced with a contending narrative has to go alone, the arguer must not hold his argument as priority when producing the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ultimately, Corder differs from using the Rogerian method, acknowledging that it is unrealistic for a rhetorical situation, as arguments that are most significant to us are just where threat occurs&amp;quot; (419). But, when we re-define rhetoric as love, then we acknowledge that &amp;quot;we must speak a commodious language, creating a world full of space and time that will hold our diversities, and we can learn to hear a commodious language&amp;quot; (428).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T04:53:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
*1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
*2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
*4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T04:51:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric. &amp;quot;Rogerian rhetoric also moves away from a combative stance, but is distinct from other models of argumentation in three ways. First, it goes even farther than most other models in avoiding an adversarial approach. Second, it offers specific strategies based on nondirective therapy for building the co-operative bridges necessary for noncombative inquiry. Third, and in my opinion most important, it has the potential to offer students an opportunity for long-term cognitive and ethical growth&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;br /&gt;
Originally, the Rogerian therapy is used as a particular technique called &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;saying back,&amp;quot; in which the therapist constantly repeats or summarizes what the patient is trying to say in order to facilitate the healing process. The technique is used in order to prevent the patient from having a sense of attack that can happen when a patient has the conception that they are being evaluated rather than discussing the truth behind their personal issues. &lt;br /&gt;
Douglas argues that this rogerian technique of &amp;quot;restatement&amp;quot; can be used for rhetorical situations that are emotional laden rather than using the combative techniques posed by traditional forms of rhetoric or &amp;quot;when emotions and a sense of threat preclude direct debate in the classical mode&amp;quot; (Douglas). Rogerian rhetoric can be seen as anti-combative form of argument. &lt;br /&gt;
Although this should not be reduced to a mechanical formula of Rogerian Rhetoric, these are the Rogerian stages that should pass in a rhetorical situation:&lt;br /&gt;
    1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better. (Douglas)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas experimented by applying Rogerian Rhetoric to the writing classroom in order to achieve the third benefit of rogerian rhetoric in which it provides an opportunity for students' long-term cognitive and ethical growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The point of this oral exchange is not so much to invent material for a particular piece of writing as to get the general feel of Rogerian discussion in its most &amp;quot;native&amp;quot; mode, face-to-face communication. Once I think students have got the hang of this, I move them on to the more difficult task faced by writers: recovering underlying values from other people's written texts. Again I pair them off and they begin by writing straight-ahead, univocal arguments for their own point of view on a controversial issue. Students exchange papers and try to write summaries that satisfy the original author, who in turn may write counter-summaries that extend and correct the reflected image of their ideas.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Although according to Douglas the process of implementing Rogerian Rhetoric into to the classroom is exhausting, &amp;quot;students (and the teacher!) have a greater appreciation of the difference between their own default mode of argument and the process of struggling toward a genuine understanding of another's point of view&amp;quot; (Douglas).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric</id>
		<title>Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Rogerian_Rhetoric_as_an_alternative_to_Traditional_Rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T04:24:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent ...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Carl Rogers was the founder of Rogerian Therapy. Although he avoided calling the Rogerian method, Rogerian Rhetoric, by stating that is was Rogerian Communication, Douglas Brent claimed that applying Rogerian principle to rhetoric is an effective alternative to traditional rhetoric.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T04:06:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Rogerian Rhetoric */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913: signified and signifier are core of semiotics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: [[argument as emergence toward the other]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]: [[Rogerian Rhetoric as an alternative to Traditional Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T04:03:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913: signified and signifier are core of semiotics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rogerian Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: argument as emergence toward the other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T03:44:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* New Rhetorics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913: signified and signifier are core of semiotics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: argument as emergence toward the other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T03:43:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Uncategorized */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913: signified and signifier are core of semiotics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: argument as emergence toward the other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric</id>
		<title>Definitions of rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T03:42:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Definitions of Rhetoric */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
Bryant contributed to the New Rhetoric movement by rejecting to the modern conception that rhetoric was sophistry. Bryant supported and expanded upon Kenneth Burke's new rhetoric by stating his infamous definition of the function of rhetoric: ''adjusting ideas to people and people to ideas''. Bryant also supported the idea that the principles of classical rhetoric could still be applied to the modern and extensive forms of discourse today through a reinterpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric. Bryant believed that Aristotle's Rhetoric had limitations that were historical rather than philosophical. Bryant objected to Aristotle's apparent failure to include exposition and persuasion within rhetoric, arguing that Aristotle's idea of demonstration implies perfect exposition for an inquiring audience. Also, Bryant argues that Aristotle's third category of his tripartite speeches, the deliberative speech, includes a persuasion-based system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryant elaborates on the theory that rhetoric can be distinguished as a four-tiered definition. &lt;br /&gt;
*Rhetoric as an instrumental discipline as it is concerned with the management of discourse in specific situations for practical purposes. Whether it be the preacher, the journalist, the radio or television reporter, Bryant believed that they should not exploit their authoritative position by implying their opinion as fact by stating, &amp;quot;This is because,&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;I believe so because...&amp;quot; Rhetoric is an instrumental tool as the rhetorician &amp;quot;must know the right question to ask and the bases for answering them with greatest probability for his audience now. That is his rhetorical knowledge&amp;quot; (279). &lt;br /&gt;
*Rhetoric as a literary study, involving linguistics, critical theory, and semantics as it touches the art of informing ideas, and the functioning of language. Although rhetoric can be considered a literary study, it does not have the privilege that other sciences have in that rhetoric cannot wait until &amp;quot;all contingencies have been removed and solutions to problems have been tested in advanced&amp;quot; (281). Rhetoric is based on contingent human affairs, thus rhetoric must do what is best to consider all aspects the issue at hand and deliver a decision when it is required.&lt;br /&gt;
*Rhetoric as a philosophical study so far as it is concerned with a method of investigation or inquiry. &amp;quot;Rhetoric is a method. Rhetoric ''does'' rather than ''is''&amp;quot; (281). Bryant believed that rhetoric should not be studied as a closed system as other learnings are concerned with, but as a method.&lt;br /&gt;
*Rhetoric as a social study as it is akin to politics, drawing upon psychology and sociology; it is the study of a major force in the behavior of men in society. &amp;quot;The position is that a complete rhetoric, and that is the kind of rhetoric which we are discussing, knows the whole man and seeks to ring to bear the whole man in achieving its ends- what he is and what he thinks he is, what he believes and what he wants and what he tells himself he wants&amp;quot; (284).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric</id>
		<title>Definitions of rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T02:27:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Definitions of Rhetoric */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
Bryant elaborates on the theory that rhetoric can be distinguished as a four-tiered definition. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as an instrumental discipline as it is concerned with the management of discourse in specific situations for practical purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as a literary study, involving linguistics, critical theory, and semantics as it touches the art of informing ideas, and the functioning of language.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as a philosophical study so far as it is concerned with a method of investigation or inquiry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as a social study as it is akin to politics, drawing upon psychology and sociology; it is the study of a major force in the behavior of men in society.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Author-function</id>
		<title>Author-function</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Author-function"/>
				<updated>2011-05-11T02:10:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than classifying himself as a post-structuralist, Michel Foucault considered himself to be a genealogist. Differing from the structuralist view that one can map the structure of a language and that meaning meaning is to be found within the language as a whole, Foucault argued that meaning can be derived outside of what culture's discursive system dictates as true or false. Foucault believed that meaning does not come from the evolution of ideas or the misnomer, &amp;quot;the history of thought.&amp;quot; He argued that using history as a system to dictate meaning was merely an anthropological attempt that created the need to categorize each thing until the meaning had been completely dispersed. Foucault believed that to rely on the belief that a general history would be able to constitute meaning is counter-intuitive and rejects the idea that differences exist, stating &amp;quot;a general history, on the contrary, would deploy the space of a dispersion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, Foucault argues against the history of thought as a discursive system for structure, but argues for history stripped of anthropological justification. &amp;quot;In short, the history of thought, of knowledge, of philosophy, of literature seems to be seeking, and discovering, more and more discontinuities, whereas history itself appears to be abandoning the irruption of events in favour of stable structures.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather, Foucault argued that the construction of meaning should be analyzed in the discontinuities, its differences, the fractures and fissures, within this history of thought, e.g., meaning must be established by reading in between the lines of what is evident. Meaning is established a-linearly. Foucault believed binary pairs limited the existence for meaning outside of the word's implied opposite. For example, a man who argues that their opponent is wrong- is actually blinded by the belief that the argument is binary without acknowledging the complex meaning behind the argument itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Foucault differed from Post-structuralists with two points: Firstly, he did not think that there were definite fundamental structures that could explain the human condition and secondly he thought that it was impossible to step outside of discourse and survey the situation objectively. (Jones, 1998)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Author-function</id>
		<title>Author-function</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Author-function"/>
				<updated>2011-05-10T23:47:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot;Rather than classifying himself as a post-structuralist, Michel Foucault considered himself rather to be a genealogist. Differing from the structuralist view that one can map the...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Rather than classifying himself as a post-structuralist, Michel Foucault considered himself rather to be a genealogist. Differing from the structuralist view that one can map the structure of a language and binary thought, Foucault argued that meaning can be derived outside of what culture's discursive system dictates as true or false. Foucault believed that meaning does not come from the evolution of ideas or the misnomer, &amp;quot;the history of thought.&amp;quot; He argued that using history as a system to dictate meaning was merely an anthropological attempt that created the need to categorize each thing until the meaning had been completely dispersed. Foucault believed that to rely on the belief that a general history would be able to constitute meaning is counter-intuitive and rejects the idea that differences exist, &amp;quot;a general history, on the contrary, would deploy the space of a dispersion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;There is a reason for this. If the history of thought could remain the locus of uninterrupted continuities, if it could endlessly forge connections that no analysis could undo without abstraction, if it could weave, around everything that men say and do, obscure synthesis that anticipate for him, prepare him, and lead him endlessly towards his future, it would provide a privileged shelter for the sovereignty of consciousness.&amp;quot; Thus, Foucault argues against the history of thought as a discursive system for structure, but argues for history stripped of anthropological justification. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In short, the history of thought, of knowledge, of philosophy, of literature seems to be seeking, and discovering, more and more discontinuities, whereas history itself appears to be abandoning the irruption of events in favour of stable structures.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Rather, the construction of meaning should be analyzed in the discontinuities, the fractures and fissures, within this history of thought. Meaning is established a-linearly. Foucault believed binary pairs limited the existence for meaning outside of the word's implied opposite.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-05-10T23:00:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Post-Structuralism */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Semiotics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913: signified and signifier are core of semiotics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roland Barthes]], 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Mikhail Bakhtin]], 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Literary Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. A. Richards]], 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Rhetorics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kenneth Burke]], 1897-1993: [[Dramatistic Pentad]] (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Chaim_Perelman Chaim Perelman], 1912-1984: [[New Rhetorics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Post-Structuralism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michel Foucault]], 1926-1984: [[author-function]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pedagogical Studies ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lisa S. Ede]], b. 1947&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Writing and Technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cynthia L. Selfe]] and [[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Dennis Baron]], b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Andrea A. Lunsford]], b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Uncategorized ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Donald C. Bryant]], 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Weaver]], 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; [[Noble Rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Toulmin]], 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robert L. Scott]], b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jim W. Corder]], 1929-1998: argument as emergence toward the other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Ohmann]], b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[S. Michael Halloran]], b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John M. Slatin]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Brent]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[John Logie]]: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sean D. Williams]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Steven Fraiberg]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorapure et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Palmquist et al.?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bill Hart-Davidson]] and [[Steven D. Krause]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Douglas Downs]] and [[Elizabeth Wardle]]:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Foucault,_Michel_%22What_Is_an_Author%3F%22</id>
		<title>Foucault, Michel &quot;What Is an Author?&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Foucault,_Michel_%22What_Is_an_Author%3F%22"/>
				<updated>2011-05-10T22:44:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In “What is an Author,” [http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Michel_Foucault Michel Foulcault] works to correct a pivotal aspect he had excluded, and received criticism for, in his previous writings--the role or non-existent role of the author. He limits his discussion to “the singular relationship that holds between an author and a text” while mentioning the themes of writing’s exterior position and the relationship of writing and death. Foucault also brings up the question of, what constitutes the work of an author and what is everything he/she wrote? This has kept us from fully understanding the disappearance of the author. As has the notion of [http://4341.quinnwarnick.com/wiki/Glossary#E ecriture] in which the idea of the signal, human author becomes a “transcendental anonymity” (182). Foucault then discusses the name of an author and its function. He concludes that the name of an author is not a proper name that does not modify despite changes in the characteristic of the named individual, but rather a name that is linked to the discourse of the author. Thus, the author’s name is functional, and its function is to “characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourses within a society” (184). Having an author as a function and speaking purely of texts with authors, the “author-function” has four features: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*First, “Objects of appropriation”: the author function has to be a set property distinguished as such by some legal governance.&lt;br /&gt;
*Second, “Not universal or constant in all discourse”: the author function is not constant in all discourse because, throughout time, the value placed on naming an author has varied for different purposes, e.g., folk inherent truth and cherished wisdom, honed throughout the ages, would be negated with a known writer or author. (in contrast, authors of math have to be stated as they are indicative of time period and context)&lt;br /&gt;
*Third, “Not formed spontaneously through the simple attribution of a discourse to an individual”: the author function is not simply formed by relating a text to an individual, just like in the Saussure reading: that there has been no recorded period in which the image and the concept were simply put together. By following Foucault’s criteria for assessing what should be in an author’s “work,” we can sufficiently “recover” the relationship of the “author-function.”&lt;br /&gt;
*Fourth, “Arises our of their scission--in the division and distance of the two” (184-188): this is the division and distance of the three egos that an author depicts in his/her writings. The author function does not simply refer to one individual because it has three separate ego’s, that of the goals of the work after it once immediately finished and potentially future questions to apply to the work, the one amidst creating it, and the unique individual who at a time and place succeeded in the work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After stating the four features of the &amp;quot;author function&amp;quot;, he then makes the depiction between scientific writings and those of “initiators of discursive practices” (189). The difference being that these initiators of discursive practices “produced not only their own work, but the possibility and the rules of formation of other texts,” and that they can be returned to as opposed to rediscovered or reactivated. Foucault defines how “the initiators of discourse practices” are exemplified foremost with Marx and Freud because their theories can be built upon. However, the initiation of a discourse is not like scientific or mathematical theory because it is entirely separate from future developments of it; they are separate because they have an intended omission that makes the initiation impossible to return to. We can only return to theorize what the omission actually is, and through this impossibility to truly know what was omitted are the initiators forever discursive. Thus, this omission constantly initiates future discursive practices but the original initiation can never be corrected or fixed because it was an intentional omission that others can only guess upon what it's meaning was for.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric</id>
		<title>Definitions of rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-04-07T15:41:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: /* Definitions of Rhetoric */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==&lt;br /&gt;
Bryant elaborates on the theory that rhetoric can be distinguished as a four-tiered definition. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as an instrumental discipline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as a literary study&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as a philosophical study&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rhetoric as a social study&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric</id>
		<title>Definitions of rhetoric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Definitions_of_rhetoric"/>
				<updated>2011-04-07T15:33:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: Created page with &amp;quot; == Definitions of Rhetoric ==&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements</id>
		<title>Theories and Movements</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Theories_and_Movements"/>
				<updated>2011-04-07T15:31:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aine: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Ideas of various scholars-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ferdinand de Saussure, 1857-1913: signified and signifier are core of semiotics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. A. Richards, 1893-1979: father of [[New Criticism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mikhail Bakhtin, 1895-1975: polyphony, unfinalizability, carnival and grotesque, chronotope, heteroglossia (&amp;quot;The Dialogic Imagination&amp;quot;), speech genres&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kenneth Burke, 1897-1993: dramatistic pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose), definition of man as symbol-using animal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Donald C. Bryant, 1905-1987: [[definitions of rhetoric]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Weaver, 1910-1963: man's nature is fourfold (rational, emotional, ethical, religious), &amp;quot;god terms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;devil terms,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;noble rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chaïm Perelman, 1912-1984: The New Rhetoric&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roland Barthes, 1915-1980: author and scriptor, neutral and novelistic writing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Toulmin, 1922-2009: Toulmin Model of Argument (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michel Foucault, 1926-1984: author-function&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robert L. Scott, b. 1928: &amp;quot;epistemic rhetoric&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jim W. Corder, 1929-1998: argument as emergence toward the other&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Ohmann, b. 1931:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S. Michael Halloran, b. 1939:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lisa S. Ede, b. 1947, and Andrea A. Lunsford, b. 1942:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dennis Baron, b. 1944:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglas Brent:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cynthia Selfe and Richard Selfe:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John M. Slatin:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kathleen Yancey:&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aine</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>