|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910816287403321 |
|
|
Autore |
Crowley Sharon <1943-> |
|
|
Titolo |
The methodical memory : invention in current-traditional rhetoric / / Sharon Crowley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Carbondale, : Southern Illinois University Press, c1990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-280-69813-6 |
9786613675095 |
0-8093-8593-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (xviii, 207 pages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Cover; Book Title; Copyright Page; Contents; Preface; Acknowledgments; 1. Public Knowledge and Private Inspiration: On Invention, Classical and Modern; 2. How the Outside Gets Inside: The Psychology of the Methodical Memory; 3. How Insides Get Outside Again: The Logic of the Methodical Memory; 4. Subjects and Objects: Logical and Psychological Models of Invention in Early Current-Traditional Rhetoric; 5. Select, Narrow, and Amplify: Invention in Mature Current-Traditional Rhetoric; 6. EDNA Takes Over: The Modes of Discourse; 7. The Methodical Memory on Display: The Five-Paragraph Theme |
8. So What's Wrong with Current-Traditional Rhetoric, Anyway?; 9. The Limits of Modern Epistemology for Writing Instruction or Why Current-Traditional Rhetoric Is Not a Rhetoric; Notes; References Cited; Index; Author Bio; Back Cover |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
In this first sustained critique of current-traditional rhetorical theory, Sharon Crowley uses a postmodern, deconstructive reading to reexamine the historical development of current-traditional rhetoric. She identifies it (as well as the British new rhetoric from which it developed) as a philosophy of language use that posits universal principles of mind and discourse. Crowley argues that these philosophies are not appropriate bases for the construction of rhetorical theories, much less guides for the teaching of composition. |
|
|
|
|