对话修辞:1600-1900年女性传统的兴衰

Dara Rossman Regaignon
{"title":"对话修辞:1600-1900年女性传统的兴衰","authors":"Dara Rossman Regaignon","doi":"10.5860/choice.49-6092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Asa scholarly community, it is not only important that we theorize, analyze, and interpret communicative acts but also that we educate. In her newbook,Conversational Rhetoric: The Rise and Fall of a Women’s Tradition, 1600–1900, Jane Donawerth manages successfully to fulfıll both obligations. She adds several women to the history of rhetorical theory, analyzes their texts with sophistication and detail, and interprets for her reading audience the signifıcance of their contributions. She does this all while suggesting ways in which we might improve our own pedagogy. The book is the most recent edition to the series Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms, an interdisciplinary project seeking to “connect rhetorical inquiry with contemporary academic and social concerns.”While her study is an important contribution to our understanding of modern rhetorical theory, perhaps her most unique contribution is the assertion that theories of the past can be lessons in pedagogical technique today. Donawerth writes, “While there is not a direct link from the women’s tradition of rhetoric to these examples of contemporary composition pedagogy, nevertheless, we can yet learn something about our own teaching practices from a tradition that taught women how to enter the conversation” (145). Donawerth carefully argues that the women she writes about are influential in the history of rhetoric and that their theories might inform our own scholarly activities today. The study of women and their rhetorical contributions can provide insight into communication theory and social contexts. Donawerth’s analysis accomplishes both of these tasks in several ways. Donawerth writes her self-described “revisionist, feminist, critical or ‘constructionist’ history of women’s rhetorical theory” (9) by analyzing dialogues, conduct books, pamphlets, speeches, elocution handbooks, and other forms of communication written by women for women from 1600 to 1900. In her study, Donawerth describes the rise and fall of a “counterdiscourse of women’s BOOK REVIEWS 213","PeriodicalId":246415,"journal":{"name":"Composition Studies","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conversational Rhetoric: The Rise and Fall of a Women's Tradition, 1600-1900\",\"authors\":\"Dara Rossman Regaignon\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.49-6092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Asa scholarly community, it is not only important that we theorize, analyze, and interpret communicative acts but also that we educate. In her newbook,Conversational Rhetoric: The Rise and Fall of a Women’s Tradition, 1600–1900, Jane Donawerth manages successfully to fulfıll both obligations. She adds several women to the history of rhetorical theory, analyzes their texts with sophistication and detail, and interprets for her reading audience the signifıcance of their contributions. She does this all while suggesting ways in which we might improve our own pedagogy. The book is the most recent edition to the series Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms, an interdisciplinary project seeking to “connect rhetorical inquiry with contemporary academic and social concerns.”While her study is an important contribution to our understanding of modern rhetorical theory, perhaps her most unique contribution is the assertion that theories of the past can be lessons in pedagogical technique today. Donawerth writes, “While there is not a direct link from the women’s tradition of rhetoric to these examples of contemporary composition pedagogy, nevertheless, we can yet learn something about our own teaching practices from a tradition that taught women how to enter the conversation” (145). Donawerth carefully argues that the women she writes about are influential in the history of rhetoric and that their theories might inform our own scholarly activities today. The study of women and their rhetorical contributions can provide insight into communication theory and social contexts. Donawerth’s analysis accomplishes both of these tasks in several ways. Donawerth writes her self-described “revisionist, feminist, critical or ‘constructionist’ history of women’s rhetorical theory” (9) by analyzing dialogues, conduct books, pamphlets, speeches, elocution handbooks, and other forms of communication written by women for women from 1600 to 1900. In her study, Donawerth describes the rise and fall of a “counterdiscourse of women’s BOOK REVIEWS 213\",\"PeriodicalId\":246415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Composition Studies\",\"volume\":\"88 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Composition Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-6092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Composition Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-6092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

作为一个学术团体,我们不仅要对交际行为进行理论化、分析和解释,而且还要进行教育。在她的新书《对话修辞:女性传统的兴衰,1600-1900》中,简·多纳沃斯成功地做到了fulfıll这两项义务。她在修辞学理论的历史中加入了几位女性,用复杂和细节分析了她们的文本,并为她的读者解释了signifıcance她们的贡献。她在做这些事情的同时,还提出了一些我们可以改进自己教学方法的方法。这本书是修辞学和女权主义研究系列的最新版本,这是一个跨学科项目,旨在“将修辞学研究与当代学术和社会问题联系起来”。虽然她的研究对我们理解现代修辞理论做出了重要贡献,但也许她最独特的贡献是断言过去的理论可以成为今天教学技术的经验教训。Donawerth写道:“虽然女性的修辞学传统与这些当代作文教学法的例子没有直接联系,然而,我们仍然可以从教会女性如何进入对话的传统中学到一些关于我们自己的教学实践的东西”(145)。多纳沃斯谨慎地认为,她所写的女性在修辞学史上具有影响力,她们的理论可能会影响我们今天的学术活动。对女性及其修辞贡献的研究有助于深入了解交际理论和社会语境。Donawerth的分析以几种方式完成了这两项任务。Donawerth通过分析从1600年到1900年女性为女性写的对话、行为书、小册子、演讲、演讲手册和其他形式的交流,写出了她自我描述的“女性修辞理论的修正主义、女权主义、批判或‘建构主义’历史”。在她的研究中,多纳沃斯描述了“女性书评反话语”的兴衰
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Conversational Rhetoric: The Rise and Fall of a Women's Tradition, 1600-1900
Asa scholarly community, it is not only important that we theorize, analyze, and interpret communicative acts but also that we educate. In her newbook,Conversational Rhetoric: The Rise and Fall of a Women’s Tradition, 1600–1900, Jane Donawerth manages successfully to fulfıll both obligations. She adds several women to the history of rhetorical theory, analyzes their texts with sophistication and detail, and interprets for her reading audience the signifıcance of their contributions. She does this all while suggesting ways in which we might improve our own pedagogy. The book is the most recent edition to the series Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms, an interdisciplinary project seeking to “connect rhetorical inquiry with contemporary academic and social concerns.”While her study is an important contribution to our understanding of modern rhetorical theory, perhaps her most unique contribution is the assertion that theories of the past can be lessons in pedagogical technique today. Donawerth writes, “While there is not a direct link from the women’s tradition of rhetoric to these examples of contemporary composition pedagogy, nevertheless, we can yet learn something about our own teaching practices from a tradition that taught women how to enter the conversation” (145). Donawerth carefully argues that the women she writes about are influential in the history of rhetoric and that their theories might inform our own scholarly activities today. The study of women and their rhetorical contributions can provide insight into communication theory and social contexts. Donawerth’s analysis accomplishes both of these tasks in several ways. Donawerth writes her self-described “revisionist, feminist, critical or ‘constructionist’ history of women’s rhetorical theory” (9) by analyzing dialogues, conduct books, pamphlets, speeches, elocution handbooks, and other forms of communication written by women for women from 1600 to 1900. In her study, Donawerth describes the rise and fall of a “counterdiscourse of women’s BOOK REVIEWS 213
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PARS in Practice: More Resources and Strategies for Online Writing Instructors Performing Antiracist Pedagogy in Rhetoric, Writing, and Communication/Writing for Engagement: Responsive Practice for Social Action Survivance, Sovereignty, and Story: Teaching American Indian Rhetorics Still Life with Rhetoric: A New Materialist Approach to Visual Rhetorics Teaching with Love
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1