Abstract

The social sciences and humanities bring different attitudes and methods to the problem of meaning. From the “scientismic” point of view, meaning is quantifiable and is largely what Tulving called “verbal” knowledge. The scientismic view, however, is flawed in three ways: its failure to account adequately for “episodic” knowledge, to view language as an event, and to understand modes. The literarist view of meaning is equally flawed. However, the scientismists have most of the political power; hence, the literarists are losing the battle for their set of values and their versions of literacy. A realignment of literary studies under the aegis of rhetoric is necessary.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
1985-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088385002003003
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Rhetoric Review

References (28) · 2 in this index

  1. Awakening to literacy
  2. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics
  3. Adventures of a bystander
  4. Written Communication
  5. Focusing
Show all 28 →
  1. The psychology of reading
  2. Awakening to literacy
  3. Poetic statement and critical dogma
  4. 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4
  5. The philosophy of composition
  6. The act of reading
  7. A theory of discourse
  8. The representation of meaning in memory
  9. 10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80065-X
  10. Literacy and the survival of humanism
  11. Language and perception
  12. On literacy
  13. Research in the Teaching of English
  14. The writer's mind: Writing as a mode of thinking
  15. Conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics
  16. Essays into literacy
  17. Literacy for life: The demand for reading and writing
  18. The psychology of reading
  19. Organization of memory
  20. Literacy for life: The demand for reading and writing
  21. ADE Bulletin
  22. 10.2307/377144
  23. In defense of reason