Reviewed by: The War of Words by Kenneth Burke M. Elizabeth Weiser Burke, Kenneth. The War of Words. Ed. by Anthony Burke, Kyle Jensen, Jack Selzer. Oakland: University of California Press, 2018. viii + 285 pp. ISBN: 9780520298125 “For it is by the war of words that men are led into battle,” Kenneth Burke asserts in his new book, The War of Words (248). How a man dead these twenty-seven years has come to have a “new” book is not a better story than how prescient is the book, how pointedly this work—written and largely revised by 1950—speaks to our times. Burke’s overarching concern is the impetus to war that he saw all around him in the years immediately following World War II—all in some ways particular to his era. But the rhetoric by which geopolitical forces worked their magic to convince the American public to support their aims—these are universal. Or as Burke writes, “The particulars change from day to day, but the principle they embody recurs constantly, in other particulars” (45). In The War of Words, the editors have uncovered among Burke’s papers his Downward Way, the practical, applied counterpart to his Upward Way [End Page 242] of philosophizing about the universal nature of rhetoric in A Rhetoric of Motives (and its precursor, A Grammar of Motives). After a brief historical introduction from the editors—part context, part explanation of their editing process—the text is Burke’s alone, consisting of two largely completed sections and two sections for which he made substantial notes. As the editors put it, “‘The War of Words’ was designed from the start to be the analytic realization of Burke’s theory of the rhetorical motive. . . .Without The War of Words, [A Rhetoric of Motives] remains incomplete” (30). If Burke’s ultimate purpose in his motivorium trilogy was ad bellum purificandum, “toward the purification of war,” then his optimistic general theory of identification was to be counterbalanced with the shrewder practical analysis of rhetoric in everyday life, the war of words. For various reasons outlined by the editors, this Downward Way was never published, meaning that for some seventy years rhetoricians have been attempting to apply Burke’s theories to the analysis of scenes, acts, and agents in the world around us. It is a tremendously useful addition to the canon, therefore, to find Burke’s own original attempts to do the same. Thus, for instance, while in A Rhetoric of Motives Burke describes identification as identifying our interests with another’s, becoming consubstantial, in War of Words he describes the dangers of identification with a necessarily expansionist nationalism: “It is the deprived persons at home who, impoverished because so much of the national effort is turned to the resources of foreign aggression rather than to the improvement of domestic conditions, it is precisely these victims of nationalistic aggressiveness whose fervor is most readily enlisted through the imagery of sheerly vicarious participation in the power of our nationally subsidized corporations abroad” (251). That he was describing those fervent supporters of a Cold War buildup and not those fervent supporters of Donald Trump serves only to demonstrate the ways in which American exceptionalism relies on similar rhetorical devices in the scene-act ratio that keeps the world on edge. His first section, “The Devices,” then, shows Burke categorizing strategies much as he did with theories in RM, updating and expanding upon classical rhetorical strategies to show how they function in the modern world. The Bland Strategy, Shrewd Simplicity, Undo by Overdoing, Yielding Aggressively, Deflection (“so general an end that nearly all the Logomachy [the War of Words] could be included under it” [68]), Spokesman, Reversal, Say the Opposite, Spiritualization (the unifying achievements and paranoias of “us”), Making the Connection—these ten devices, a multitude of examples, and the theory behind them make up the first 125 pages of The War of Words. That multitude of examples, often confusing for readers of Burke’s longer texts, here in their somewhat condensed form work well. Don’t understand a description of a device? Read an example of it. Don’t understand that example? There are five or ten more, ranging...

Reviewed by: The Routledge Reader of African American Rhetoric: The Long Durée of Black Voices ed. by Vershawn Ashanti Young and Michelle Bachelor Robinson Mudiwa Pettus Young, Vershawn Ashanti, and Michelle Bachelor Robinson, eds., The Routledge Reader of African American Rhetoric: The Long Duree of Black Voices, New York: Routledge, 2018. 894 pp. ISBN: 9780415731065 In their preface, Vershawn Ashanti Young and Michelle Bachelor Robinson herald The Routledge Reader of African American Rhetoric: The Long Duree of Black Voices as a landmark publication in the field of rhetorical studies. The reader, they contend, is the only comprehensive rhetoric anthology to “speak directly to the artistic, cultural, economic, religious, social, and political condition of African Americans from the enslaved period in America to our present era, as well as to the Black Diaspora” (xxi). As expressed in their introduction, Young and Robinson hoped to meet two goals in undertaking their editorship of the anthology. First, they aimed to deliver a collection of “unequivocally rhetorical” texts that reveals how African Americans have sought to influence American society. Second, they intended to illustrate that African American rhetoric exists “all around us,” performed in every genre and mode of communication (xxi). In the final analysis, Young and Robinson achieved these goals marvelously. The Routledge Reader of African American Rhetoric is a singular pedagogical and reference text that presents African American rhetoric in all its contours, complexities, and, even, contradictions. Containing almost 900 pages of primary and critical works, the reader is wonderfully expansive. Interviews, autobiographical writings, folktales, speeches, social media posts, poetry, and theoretical treatises are among the genres showcased. Expertly, this wide-ranging content is organized into [End Page 237] four major units that are divided into sections based on themes. While Young and Robinson provide introductions to each of the major units, thirteen “expert editors,” a cohort of scholars culled from a wide range of disciplines, have provided introductions, selected readings, and crafted explanatory annotations for most of the reader’s subsections. Part 1, “African American Rhetoric—Definitions and Understanding,” presents readers with the contextual and theoretical framing for navigating the anthology. In the unit’s first half, Young and Robinson delineate the book’s purpose and codify the six elements of African American rhetoric: language, style, discourse, perspective, community, and suasion. The unit’s second half is composed of the work of Molefi Asante, Geneva Smitherman, and Keith Gilyard, foundational theorists of African American rhetoric who clarify the philosophical underpinnings, linguistic features, and the history of the systematic study of African American rhetoric, respectively. Part 2, “The Blackest Hours—Origins and Histories of African American Rhetoric,” includes texts that highlight the enduring imprint that African orature has left on African American expressive culture; the varied faith systems through which African Americans have theorized their lived experiences; Black epistemes of language, literacy, and education; and the diversity of African American political rhetoric. Part 3, “Discourses on Black Bodies,” centers the premise that considerations of gender and sexuality are essential to the study of African American rhetoric. The unit features readings on Black feminisms, Black masculinity, and Black queer/quare rhetorics. Part 4, “The New Blackness: Multiple Cultures, Multiple Modes,” is the book’s final and most eclectic unit. Potent readings that parse Caribbean intellectual thought, African American technoculture, the rhetorics of Hip Hop, and the self-reflexiveness of Black artistry are the focus. Indubitably, the anthology’s apparatus provides readers with a wealth of entry points into the study of African American rhetoric. Reinforcing the anthology’s intended pedagogical function, each section is followed by a bibliography and a set of discussion questions. Readers can use these paratextual resources to further process the anthology’s readings independently and/or within a group, in and outside of institutionalized classrooms. A companion website, containing links to recordings of public addresses, comedic performances, musical selections, and other artifacts that complement the anthology’s primary readings and critical introductions, has also been made available. The cumulative effect of these supplementary materials is that individuals with both an advanced and burgeoning knowledge of African American rhetoric can find their footing in the anthology’s vast terrain and that Young and Robinson’s contention that African American...

The Third Sophistic Laurent Pernot Foreword The Third Sophistic is a cultural and social phenomenon that began in the Greek half of the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. It comprised personalities who were teachers of rhetoric, orators, and public figures. The numeral adjective “Third” is understood in reference to the First Sophistic, which includes Greek sophists of the 5th and 4th century BCE, and the Second Sophistic, which includes Greek sophists active in the Roman Empire from the 1st to the 3rd century CE. This is a relatively new subject in the field of history of rhetoric and it has been the topic of much recent research: the time to assess the work done and to open future prospects has come. The following essays aim to provide a definition of the Third Sophistic. They describe historical changes, explore geographical areas, unravel social and familial connections, and highlight exceptional individualities. It is hoped that this collection will provide insights into the richness of Greco-Roman rhetoric of Late Antiquity and demonstrate its relevance to literature, politics, and religion. A chronology and a bibliography are provided below for the convenience of readers. L. P. N.B. Of the three papers gathered here, the first two were presented at the ISHR Twenty-First Biennial Conference (London, 26–29 July 2017) as part of the Panel “The Third Sophistic and Its Spaces.” [End Page 174] Chronological Table This chronological table lists the principal authors that are mentioned in the papers. The dates are sometimes approximate or conjectural. The cited names do not only include sophists. 5th cent. BCE Gorgias (480–380) 4th Plato (427–347) Aeschines (390-after 330) 3rd 2nd 1st Potamon of Mytilene (75 BCE –15 CE) 1st cent. CE 2nd Aelius Aristides (117–180) Lucian (120–180) 3rd Philostratus (170–245) Callinicus of Petra (Second half of the 3rd cent.) Julian of Cappadocia (?) Menander Rhetor (Second half of the 3rd cent.) Panegyrici Latini 4th Eusebius of Caesarea (265–339) Prohaeresius (277–369) Lactantius (+325) Libanius (314–393) Themistius (317–390) Himerius (310–390) The Emperor Julian (331/2–363) Aphthonius (Second half of the 4th cent.) Gregory of Nazianzus (330–390) Gregory of Nyssa (330–395) Basil of Caesarea (329–379) John Chrysostom (345–407) Eunapius (349–415) Panegyrici Latini (Cont.) Marius Victorinus (290–365) Symmachus (340–402) Ambrose (335–397) Augustine (354–430) 5th Synesius (370–413) The School of Gaza Damascius (460–538) 6th The School of Gaza [End Page 175] Select Bibliography E. Amato, A. Roduit, M. Steinruck, ed., Approches de la Troisiéme Sophistique: Hommages à Jacques Schamp (Bruxelles: Latomus, 2006). Google Scholar Av. Cameron, “Culture Wars: Late Antiquity and Literature,” in C. Freu, S. Janniard, A. Ripoll, ed., ”Libera Curiositas.” Melanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tar-dive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), 307–316. Google Scholar R. C. Fowler, ed., Plato in the Third Sophistic (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2014). Google Scholar D. Hernández de la Fuente, “Poetry and Philosophy at the Boundaries of Byzantium (5th-7th centuries),” in A. de Francisco Heredero, D. Hernández de la Fuente, S. Torres Prieto, ed., New Perspectives on Late Antiquity in the Eastern Roman Empire (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 81–100. Google Scholar P. Kimball, ed., “The Third Sophistic: New Approaches to Rhetoric in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Late Antiquity 3 (2010). Google Scholar M. Kraus, “Rhetorik und Macht: Theorie und Praxis der deliberativen Rede in der dritten Sophistik. Libanios und Aphthonios,” in M. Edwards, P. Ducrey, P. Derron, ed., La rhetorique du pouvoir: une exploration de Vart oratoire délibératif grec (Vandœuvres: Fondation Hardt, 2016), 299–341. Google Scholar P.-L. Malosse, B. Schouler, “Qu’est-ce que la Troisième Sophistique?” Lalies 29 (2009): 157–224. Google Scholar R. J. Penella, “Prologue,” in A. J. Quiroga Puertas, ed., The Purpose of Rhetoric in Late Antiquity: From Performance to Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1–7. Google Scholar L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain (Paris: Institut d’Etudes Augustiniennes, 1993). Google Scholar A. J. Quiroga Puertas, “From Sophistopolis to Episcopolis. The Case...

The foreword, written by Judy Z. Segal, begins with a brief dialogue between a patient and a nurse that illustrates the effects of discursive actions on health and medicine. It is a dialogue between a patient and a nurse, reminiscent of stories of ancient cartographers who mapped their changing and uncertain worlds through stories, discovering ever new riches in a world that wasn't flat. In the same way, contemporary thinkers in health and medicine are discovering the treasure in exploring rhetoric and technical communication across traditional boundaries. These authors move through previously uncharted territory with story and new questions that extend the boundaries of our individual bodies. They explore important questions of individual human agency and how that intersects with social and rhetorical theory. Critical questions new to medicine in the twenty-first century, such as resistance, power of representation, and where advocacy for health justice lies, are topics explored through a variety of lenses in this collection.

AbstractDecolonial smuggling is a practice that falls at the intersections of fugitivity (Moten) and delinking (Mignolo, Wanzer-Serrano). It is geared toward disrupting rhetorical studies’ zero-point epistemology to open space to marshal alternative epistemologies—of Black being, Indigeneities, and their relational formations—against the canon to enable more radical, decolonial disciplinary futures. Building on the work of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) scholars, this essay details the forms of whiteness and knowledge production that reproduce epistemic violence, performs metaphoric (meta)criticism across various strands of race scholarship, and comments on white scholars’ role in these conversations. This essay seeks to add clarity to what decolonization looks like for rhetoricians with respect to the epistemologies and ontologies embedded within the metaphors that, for many, are matters of life and death.

Editors' introduction.

In U.S. secondary schools there is an overriding emphasis on formulaic approaches to argumentative writing instruction in English language arts that tends to trivialize disciplinary norms of argument and evidence because of institutional pressure to bolster students’ test performances.  This paper seeks to provide an ethnographically-informed framework for understanding for whom, how, when, and to what extent it is possible for students to participate, through writing, in the study of literature as the central disciplinary content of English language arts. The corpus of data used in this study of an 11th grade International Baccalaureate (IB) classroom (26 students) consisted of classroom instruction (video-recordings and field notes) that occurred across an initial instructional unit (September 8th to November 3rd). Of particular importance is a summative writing assignment, teacher interviews and collaborative data analysis (with video clips), student interviews about instruction and their writing, samples of student writing, and related documents. We also analyzed two essays written by the two case study students in response to a writing assignment that the teacher, described as an IB “literary commentary with an unspecified topic” that she reframed as a literary argument. Discourse analysis of a series of events within instructional conversations revealed that rather than prescribed forms, the teacher offered “possible” writerly moves for her students’ arguing to learn. Consequently, her students enacted their writerly moves in a variety of patterns suggestive of disciplinary ways of knowing in English language arts rather than in a pre-set formula that they had learned in previous grades. In order to trace how the students enacted modes of participation (procedural display and deep participation) in disciplinary activity (literary argumentation) as writing practices and shifting writer identities  we also conducted a multi-phased and multi-layered ana

The intersection of industry sponsorship, government regulation, academic interests, and medical journals is a core interest in biomedical research, and one that overlaps with concerns in the rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM). At stake in conversations about this intersection are authority and participation: who is and is not invited to offer opinions and, even when invited, whose opinions are taken seriously. Following, colleagues with ties to the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) present their ideas in response to questions about authorship and authority posed by another, who is also an RHM scholar. The answers of medical journal editors and publications professionals employed by corporate entities largely align with the view that both authorship and authority should be determined by scientific practice and knowledge rather than power relations or politics. A philosopher who gave an invited plenary talk at the national ISMPP meeting and participated in the organization’s first white paper offers a different perspective, considering the ways that fields self-constitute in part by bounding authority and authorship.

We proudly present this special issue of Community Literacy Journal on "Building Engaged Infrastructure." Our vision for this collection begins with the inaugural Conference on Community Writing (CCW), which took place at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2015 1 and attracted 350 scholars, students, activists, and community members representing forty-two states, three countries, 152 colleges and universities, and forty-eight community organizations.This large group was drawn to a vision of higher education that connects with local, national, and international communities by using writing for education, public dialogue, and social change.The overwhelming response to the conference underscored a desire by those working in community writing (a growing subfield within rhetoric and composition that includes genres such as service learning, community-based research, community literacy, community publishing, advocacy and activist writing, and more) to have opportunities to network, share best practices, and receive mentoring.This event brought together academics and community members to explore the relationships between communication, writing, and social action.According to CCW founding chair Veronica House, a conference goal was "to build a national network of people, ideas, resources, and support structures-an engaged infrastructure-to make the work we do in and about our communities more sustainable, impactful, rewarding, and rewarded." 2 In the pages that follow, we turn our attention to the scholarship and practice of community writing that emerged from, or was reflected in, presentations and conversations at CCW.We realize, and want to highlight in this special issue, the obstacles, challenges, and paradoxes of working in community writing.For one, as the astute reader will no doubt notice, definitions of community range widely.The same is true for what counts as writing.An exploration of engagement and infrastructure is no less complex.However, we believe that the inclusion of multiple viewpoints, and the deferral of a precise definition of terms, effectively identifies the fluid boundaries of this thing we call "community writing." Those who attended CCW, or previous events like the 2008 "Imagining Community Literacy" meeting in Philadelphia and the 2011 "Writing Democracy" conference in Commerce, Texas 3 , or who are energized by work that engages the ethics and populations outside of the traditionally defined borders of the university share enthusiasm for engaged work and an optimistic belief that the study and practice of writing can lead to a more just world.We also share concerns about the risks embedded in this work.In April 2016, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) published an official "Position To this end, they hosted a conference of about 150 librarians, public historians, community leaders, and teachers and scholars from our field and beyond at Texas A&M-Commerce in March 2011 and have held pre-conference workshops at the CCCCs every year since.In July 2012, Michelle Hall Kells hosted about 25 leading scholars in community literacy in Santa Fe, New Mexico, for the Summit of the National Consortium of Writing Across Communities.Clearly, the desire to establish a collaborative unit of some kind is high.3.

It is not typically the bent of infrastructure to be continually responsive in a way that is expansive and inclusive; instead, for newcomers or those with alternative histories, aims, vision, values, and perspectives, the inertia of infrastructure is more likely to be experienced as infrastructural breakdowns. We ask: What might wisdom look like in these “structured” encounters? That is, what is the intellectual work of rhetoric on those thin ledges where institutional chronos shapes and limits possibilities for knowledge work and working relationships among people who likely would not have otherwise met? In response, we advance a framework for a constructive approach to infrastructure—one that prizes deliberation over rationalization and actively attends to the warrants underlying calls for public engagement. We first consider the relationship between infrastructure, rhetorical wisdom, and the imagination of possibilities, then lay out a framework for cultivating rhetorical wisdom in response to infrastructure breakdowns.

We understand "community literacy" as the domain for literacy work that exists outside of mainstream educational and work institutions.It can be found in programs devoted to adult education, early childhood education, reading initiatives, lifelong learning, workplace literacy, or work with marginalized populations, but it can also be found in more informal, ad hoc projects.For us, literacy is defined as the realm where attention is paid not just to content or to knowledge but to the symbolic means by which it is represented and used.Thus, literacy makes reference not just to letters and to text but to other multimodal and technological representations as well.We publish work that contributes to the field's emerging methodologies and research agendas.

Dandrey Patrick. In memoriam : Marc Fumaroli(1932–2020). In: Le Fablier. Revue des Amis de Jean de La Fontaine, n°31, 2020. La Fontaine et la culture européenne au carrefour des Fables (II) p. 7.

This ethnographic case-study examines the impact of asynchronous written feedback comments on the peer feedback process within one doctorate writing group. The doctorate students were interviewed retrospectively about their perceptions of effective feedback comments. Affective components (e.g. hedging devices) and effective components (e.g. revision comments) within the reviewers’ feedback comments, and external components (e.g. reviewer competency) that influence the peer feedback process were induced from the interview transcripts using a grounded theory approach. Further evidence that these identified components impact the feedback process appreciably was triangulated from the analysis of two other datasets; the participants’ asynchronous written feedback comments and revision plans. The results show that the participants used much affect in their written feedback exchanges, and this affect had a strong impact on the effect of their feedback process. Thus, written affective language can play a significant role in how an author interprets and implements feedback comments. This suggests that affect can play a prominent role in helping to develop more effective feedback practices within writing groups. Helping writing communities develop a better understanding of affect within asynchronous written feedback comments can only help them to develop more useful feedback practices.

Preview this article: Interchanges: Response to Donald Lazere’s “Reaffirming Critical Composition Studies as an Antidote to Trumpian Authoritarianism”, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/72/3/collegecompostionandcommunication31163-1.gif

Preview this article: Interchanges: Response to Donald Lazere's "Reaffirming Critical Composition Studies as an Antidote to Trumpian Authoritarianism", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/72/3/collegecompostionandcommunication31164-1.gif

Preview this article: Interchanges: Response to Paula Mathieu and William H. Thelin, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/72/3/collegecompostionandcommunication31165-1.gif

The editor's note for issue 5.1.

Introductory essay to special issue from Guest Editors Ann E. Green, Wiley Davi, and Editorial Assistant Olivia Giannetta.

T he Community Literacy Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes both scholarly work that contributes to theories, methodologies, and research agendas and work by literacy workers, practitioners, and community literacy program staff. We are especially committed to presenting work done in collaboration between academics and community members, organizers, activists, teachers, and artists.

Community Literacy Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes both scholarly work that contributes to theories, methodologies, and research agendas and work by literacy workers, practitioners, and community literacy program staff.We are especially committed to presenting work done in collaboration between academics and community members, organizers, activists, teachers, and artists.We understand "community literacy" as including multiple domains for literacy work extending beyond mainstream educational and work institutions.It can be found in programs devoted to adult education, early childhood education, reading initiatives, or work with marginalized populations.It can also be found in more informal, ad hoc projects, including creative writing, graffiti art, protest songwriting, and social media campaigns.For us, literacy is defined as the realm where attention is paid not just to content or to knowledge but to the symbolic means by which it is represented and used.Thus, literacy makes reference not just to letters and to text but to other multimodal, technological, and embodied representations, as well.Community literacy is interdisciplinary and intersectional in nature, drawing from rhetoric and composition, communication, literacy studies, English studies, gender studies, race and ethnic studies, environmental studies, critical theory, linguistics, cultural studies, education, and more.

Marc Fumaroli (1932–2020)In memoriam Laurent Pernot Translated by Jameela Lares Marc Fumaroli aimait à rappeler qu’il avait fait partie du groupe de savants qui, en 1976, conçut le projet de fonder une société consacrée à l’histoire de la rhétorique, avec Anton D. Leeman, Alain Michel, James J. Murphy, Heinrich F. Plett et Brian Vickers. Cette initiative pionnière devait se concrétiser dès l’année suivante, avec la fondation de l’International Society for the History of Rhetoric (ISHR) à Zurich le 30 juin 1977. À cette époque, Marc Fumaroli, né le 10 juin 1932, était déjà un universitaire remarqué. Muni d’une solide formation, agrégé des lettres, ancien pensionnaire de la Fondation Thiers, il soutint sa thèse d’État à l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, en 1976 précisément, et fut élu professeur dans ce même établissement. Spécialiste de la littérature française du XVIIe siècle, il s’inscrivait dans la lignée de grands maîtres comme Paul Bénichou, Raymond Picard et René Pomeau. Natif de Marseille, issu d’une famille corse, ayant passé son enfance à Fès, au Maroc, ce Parisien était un homme de la Méditerranée et de la culture latine. Passionné des arts de la scène, il « écumait les couturières et les premières », selon ses propres mots, et il donna au quotidien danois Jyllands-Posten des critiques qui furent par la suite réunies en un volume hors commerce (Orgies et féeries. Chroniques du théâtre à Paris autour de 1968, Paris, 2002). Dans la décennie qui suivit la fondation de l’ISHR, Marc Fumaroli développa et fit connaître son approche novatrice de la rhétorique, envisagée comme une composante essentielle de la littérature, de l’histoire des idées et du fonctionnement des institutions, tant séculières qu’ecclésiastiques. Il la qualifiait de « nervure » de la civilisation, à cause de son rôle de renfort, de soutien et d’arête saillante. En 1980, parut l’édition imprimée de sa thèse, L’Age de l’éloquence. Rhétorique et « res literaria » de la Renaissance au seuil de l’époque classique (Genève, Droz), puis, en 1985, l’édition commentée des Fables de La Fontaine (Paris, Imprimerie nationale), deux ouvrages qui attiraient l’attention, entre autres, sur l’héritage antique, sur l’influence des jésuites, sur le poids des genres, des topoi et des théories du style. [End Page 1] Directeur de la revue XVIIe Siècle, directeur du Centre d’étude de la langue et de la littérature françaises des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Marc Fumaroli fut élu professeur au Collège de France en 1986 et donna comme intitulé à sa chaire « Rhétorique et société en Europe (XVIe – XVIIe siècles) ». En 1987, en tant que président de l’ISHR, il eut la responsabilité du VIe congrès de la Société, qui se tint à Tours et à Poitiers et fut applaudi par tous comme une grande réussite. À partir du milieu des années 80, les travaux de Marc Fumaroli changèrent d’échelle. Sans jamais oublier le cœur rhétorique et littéraire de ses préoccupations, il traça des perspectives élargies dans une série de grands livres, dont on ne peut citer ici qu’une sélection. Lecteur infatigable et pénétrant (Exercices de lecture. De Rabelais à Paul Valéry, Paris, Gallimard, 2006), il analysa les échanges feutrés des écrivains avec le pouvoir politique (Le Poète et le Roi. Jean de La Fontaine en son siècle, Paris, de Fallois, 1997 ; Chateaubriand. Poésie et Terreur, Paris, de Fallois, 2003). Il dégagea l’importance, dans l’histoire du monde occidental, du « loisir lettré » (otium literatum), de la conversation et des institutions littéraires, comme les salons ou les académies, qui permettaient le commerce des esprits et l’interaction en matière culturelle (Trois institutions littéraires, Paris, Gallimard, 1994 ; La Diplomatie de l’esprit. De Montaigne à La Fontaine, Paris, Hermann...

Other| January 01 2021 Contributors Pedagogy (2021) 21 (1): 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-8693018 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 January 2021; 21 (1): 193–194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-8693018 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2021 Duke University Press2021 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Contributors You do not currently have access to this content.

Editorial| January 01 2021 Editors' Note Pedagogy (2021) 21 (1): 195. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-8899807 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Editors' Note. Pedagogy 1 January 2021; 21 (1): 195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-8899807 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2021 Duke University Press2021 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Editors' Note You do not currently have access to this content.

This paper contributes to the debate about the strawman fallacy. It is the received view that strawmen are employed to fool not the arguer whose argument they distort, but instead a third party, an audience. I argue that strawmen that fool their victims exist and are an important variation of the strawman fallacy because of their special perniciousness. I show that those who are subject to hermeneutical lacunae or who have since forgotten parts of justifications they have provided earlier are especially vulnerable to falling for strawmen aimed at their own positions or arguments. Adversarial argumentation provides especially fertile ground for strawmen that fool their own victims, but cooperative argumentation is no fail-safe protection from them either.

This descriptive narrative depicts an academic program that deploys a collaborative project model for delivering concurrent multimedia courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Applying this model, online master’s students who are studying the management of technical communication activities remotely manage teams of on-campus undergraduate students who are studying multimedia production skills. The author piloted the collaborative project model during a recent academic term. Student response to the format was overwhelmingly positive from both graduates and undergraduates, and the resulting projects were of exceptional quality and well received by their respective clients.

This article discusses our work examining asynchronous eTutoring comments and how we determined whether tutor comments on papers submitted to our writing center were effective. Drawing from the fields of writing center theory, education, and rhetoric and composition, we define effectiveness as a combination of revision and improvement factors (Faigley and Witte; Stay; Bowden). Data collected consisted of initial and subsequent drafts of student papers submitted for eTutoring sessions, including the comments a tutor made on each paper. We categorized the comments and corresponding revisions to answer the following questions: which types of comments result in the greatest number of revision changes? And, do those comments, according to our definition, align with the types of comments we find to be the most effective? We found that frequency and effectiveness were not the only factors in determining a comment’s importance. We emphasize the necessity of instruction and scaffolding in tutor comments to potentially increase their effectiveness and student understanding.