For his first course, Ms. Denis is proposing a general introduction to this module, closely combining two subjects that are in fact many other borders.
Rhetoric and stylistics. This " and" wants to issue ...
¤ stylistic Is discipline, technique, etc.? At least it's a practice around the "style". The word is out, taken from the German in the late eighteenth century. Ona said that the style often took over when the exhausted rhetoric. Chronological filiation? Questionable ...
¤ They gather around a discursive strategy . Both are wondering how the text carries the accession of his reader or hearer. Membership ... Is this the equivalent of persuasion? Is it really similar?
¤ 2 questioned argument and are invited to question the veracity => match?
¤ What effects do they produce? What's going on? What results are we? Why can we be upset by a text?
¤ situation of utterance: part is important. What justifies the taking of words?
¤ Reflection image builded from a text. Produces a text representation of its utterer -> it will also develop strategies for this.
A direct link between rhetoric and stylistic poses many problems. It seems better to think of their relationship as a dialogue.
¤ From the moment we reflect from downstream to upstream, we can only have a teleological view, with a pseudo-extinction inevitable rhetoric -> FALSE, the very existence of this course the watch!
¤ Furthermore, heterogeneous dating! And the rhetoric has nonetheless 25 centuries behind it.
¤ There are also journals and learned societies of rhetoric.
¤ The purpose, again, is not the same. Djéà stylistic practice (although saying it is too limited) with only a small common area with rhetoric: the elocutio . We must therefore go beyond when we speak of "style" -> should not be a simplistic view but rather as ornamentation registration (etymological meaning) -> to escape the impasse.
¤ Finally, their plans differ. Rhetoric is primarily a technical prodction speeches, writing; While the practice of stylistic analysis that does not cause us to write! So much difference anyway. However, rhetoricians have theorized one second rhetorical analysis.
Rhetoric is an art of speech (art seen as ars, know-how latin), persuasive -> but not for nothing and with means -> it's a reflection contextualized , focusing mainly on reflection.
CAUTION: Do not fall into the mode "toolbox" with a text.
In late antiquity and the Middle Ages with the scholastic education students are doing in the liberal arts, to the detriment of the mechanical arts.
| Quadrivium | Trivium |
| Arithmetic | Grammar |
| Geometry | Rhetoric |
| Astronomy | Dialectic (dia logos) |
| Music (Science Harmony) | |
I RHETORIC AND GRAMMAR.
What differentiates ?
What unites them?
-> they are opposed to mathematical reasoning with the premises are true / Their premise is ignorance.
-> In addition, terms in conflict with contradictin 2.
MS is in this last point that there are differences.
1) On the discursive situations.
¤ dialectic: first a verbal battle with blows of arguments with an audience (the disputatio ). There is actually a situation of dialogue, or hesitations after agonistic dialogue with a "pro" and "contra". Defense of a thesis by a defendant with the other seeking to eliminate the other's arguments (without trying to show that reason itself).
¤ rhetoric: it does not stage the two parties, there is no dialogue, no argument in turn.
2) On the application areas and procedures.
¤ Dialectic:-Treaty of general propositions, theses (t Hesis , what poses) that are inherently unreliable, but probable (= which can demonstrate to the etymological sense)
-S ' imposes a rather demanding specifications with, for example, a sequence worked with different arguments. The protocol is very strict. It should not be there errors or cheating.
MODEL = SYLLOGISM
eg All men are mortal, Socrates is a man of gold, therefore Socrates is mortal.
It is a syllogism without fault, but there may be landslides sophisticated ...
¤ Rhetoric
-Treaty of particular proposals, no = general assumptions. Are plausible but not verifiable.
-To gain the support, knows she will need another thing.
IDEAL MODEL = enthymeme
Leaves ccl pending (membership + strong) or very picked on himself.
ex: "I love you fickle would I have done faithful?" (Racine)
GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC II.
¤ Related trivium.
- Initially, grammar = B-ABA speech. But if we confine ourselves here, where is the friction?
- Very quickly, the grammar was extended to science texts, philology . We went from studying the letter written to the letter text and implementation theories.
- Thus, the notion of linguistic correctness has emerged from ancient Greece -> it's an assessment tool. But that is no stranger to the rhetoric ... -> To be intelligible, must comply with the Code is prevalent where a triad which is stated early:
Correction - Clarity - Clarity of language
It commits correction together with grammar. MS is a precondition for it. As for the grammar is a goal.
¤ Figures: grammar could only make out that the lapses of grammar and figures of speech: she has studied grammatically figures. Rhetoric, she studies them systematically.
III RHETORIC AND POETIC
¤ Poetics = very ambiguous term.
-Aristotle had distinguished in his Poetics : *
the historian in charge on the facts certified. *
speaker: do not deal with facts certified -> it is engaged in the debate even though this can take care of past, present or future. *
the poet is not engaged in a news item, they constructed possible ("fiction")
When Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric , and especially interested in evidence to a sul-type evidence, es technical evidence, ie, those that engage the expertise of the speaker.
- The focal point is that 2 interested in art of the verb. They were quickly in contact. Thus, one can think of fiction ... in rhetorical terms. Furthermore, very quickly, poetics was forced to take over concepts that were not of its origin (eg to speak this or that character so likely) -> reflection on the effect, not . around the pathos -> rhetoric raises the question: "What causes that I slarmes" eg.
¤ Rhetoric therefore reflect on the passions of => all treatises on rhetoric have a chapter devoted to them.
-> What is the PLCE of poetics in the trivium? No space under ... So we reduced it and called "art of rhetoric 2nd.
-> What is "the great rhetoricians? Well, actually ... the great poets!
-> You can not do without the assumption that at the rhetoric has poeticized. Was first impoverish when degeneration of democratic regimes. He still has the pleasure of beautiful words, paradoxes: when more political issue, it remains an aesthetic issue . Thus, there was plenty of time treated of the Renaissance who say that => all the background logic is gone.
CONCLUSION:
The contact points are very important between rhetoric and philosophy (+ stylistics):
- Reflections on the fallacies from Locke and over all strategies false paradoxical + (A + non-A).
- contractual dimension of politics: to be a civil civilization, we can not do by force, should lead to accession but not in a misleading way.
- Around epistemology, History of Science may be simplistic to think of science as a reflection verifiable at all times -> it may need to rhetorical devices.
0 comments:
Post a Comment