Literary Rhetoric Research Articles

The Death of Law and Literature: An Optimistic Eulogy

I spent last Saturday morning leading a group of federal judges in a vigorous and largely successful roundtable discussion of Ariel Dorfman's play, Death and the Maiden. deep underlying cause of this event was surely Michael Palencia-Roth--and not just because he wrote me a nice letter of recommendation to school years ago. His responsibility runs deeper, to the very substance of my understanding of the relationship between and literature, an interdisciplinary field of study that had barely started in the late seventies when Michael first became my teacher and mentor. He is why we read a play rather than an academic essay, and it's his influence that lets me proclaim the death of the Law and Literature movement with an optimistic bent. Although the Brothers Grimm had done work identifying the common etymology of various poetic and terms as early as 1816, the modern Law and Literature movement begins with the 1976 publication of James Boyd White's Legal Imagination. White, an English professor (now a jointly-appointed professor) at Michigan, took seriously the possibility that rhetoric had something to learn from the of fiction. Literature is replete with examples of rhetoric that is community-building rather than divisive, and White has written frequently about humane rhetorical strategies taught by great works of literature. His work fits within a tradition that finds the commonality of and literature in their various languages. This law as literature as language approach pioneered by White has developed several sub-divisions over the years. Scholars like Stanley Fish agree with White that is a sort of language, but Fish does not conclude, as White seems to, that comparative study is necessarily humanizing (see Fish). After all, studying Spanish and Italian together might be mutually illuminating, but neither will be made better through the comparison. Other scholars, moved by a complementary but more critical spirit, might be identified as legal semioticians, dedicated to deconstructing texts in the same way as literary texts, determined to find evidence of class structure embedded in both. Yet another group, whom we might label also focus on similarities in form between stories told in fiction and those told in the course of proceedings. This group endorses narrative fiction as sometimes more valid, and often more persuasive, than obfuscating styles of traditional analysis. What all the foregoing strands have in common is a dedication to the study of form: the form of argument and the form of literary rhetoric. comparative study of and literature for law as literature as language scholars becomes a branch of post-modern aesthetics: What works with an audience and what does not? What moves the viewer or the reader and why? critic attempts to analyze the communication while deemphasizing attempts to discern its meaning. Comparative literary scholars will recognize this approach in some of their own academic writing, and I do not mean to disparage it. I do want to explore why it is, however, that in action, in courts, legislatures, and schools seems so resistant to incorporating its insights. Although White and Fish are cited over 2500 times in academic articles, they have been cited in federal court opinions only four times. This disparity does not necessarily prove they have no influence--perhaps they affect the subconscious via student exposure to their work in school--but nevertheless the form of seems little changed in the last thirty years. Fish himself provides the answer in his perceptive essay, The Law Wants a Formal Existence. Law only works if it appears to be objective. Litigants will only agree that a dispute has been fairly settled if the appears to emerge from an objective black box uncontaminated by the personal preference of the judge. …

Politics and Letters: On the Rhetoric of the Nation in Pinsker and Ahad Ha-Am

This essay seeks to amend a peculiar shortcoming in the current scholarship on Ahad Ha-Am: whereas his style and rhetoric are commonly celebrated, they are seldom examined or analyzed in any detail. Scholarship tends to conflate his literary with his political endeavors and to trace his political impact to his preeminence as an essayist and editor; yet this approach fails to account for his political ineffectuality even at the height of his literary success. This essay suggests, on the contrary, that his essays manifest a struggle to reconcile the demands of politics with those of rhetoric, that is, to reconcile the dialectic form of his argument, the vehicle of his political argument, with the figurative form his rhetoric aspires to achieve. In a reading of three of Ahad Ha-Am's major essays, Emet me'erets yisra'el (1891), Te'udat Ha-Shilo'aḥ (1896), and Mosheh (1904), the essay probes how this struggle shapes his political vision, his literary vision, and his perception of the role of the historical leader (and, ostensibly, his own) in forming a national community . The essay traces Ahad Ha-Am's difficulties in reconciling rhetoric and politics to his tussle with the bequest of Hibbat Zion literature. Whereas Ahad Ha-Am's reliance on traditional Jewish genres, on the one hand, and on English and German philosophical literature, on the other hand, has been readily noted, his indebtedness, to the writings of Hovevei Zion in general, and to that of Leo Pinsker in particular, is yet to be recognized. It is in Pinsker, I shall contend, that one finds one of the most important precursors to Ahad Ha-Am, not only in politics, but in rhetoric as well. Last, this essay probes the prevalent (Marxist) model of reading the political character of Hebrew literature. Such a model fails to give account for the tension that structures the Ahad Ha-Am essay. Whereas this model presupposes that literary rhetoric can take part in the symbolic struggles that make up the political realm, the reading of the Ahad Ha-Am essay put forward in this essay questions the nature of the exchange between rhetoric and politics. It thus suggests that a different model of reading of rhetoric and politics is in need, a model that would account for the failure to reconcile the two.

Bungakuron and ‘literature’ in the making

The article takes a new approach to the study of Natsume Sōseki's Bungakuron (Theory of literature, 1907) by examining it in the context of the formation of ‘literature’ in late-Meiji Japan, with a specific focus on the development of national literary history (kokubungakushi) and rhetoric (bijigaku). The dialogue between Bungakuron and the context in which Sōseki published the text is particularly important because it was a time in which the institution of ‘literature’ was beginning to take form in Japan. My paper examines Bungakuron's contribution to the realm of ‘literature’ and identifies how Bungakuron functioned as a criticism of how ‘literature’ was being conceived in Japan. The ultimate goal of my project is thus double: situating Bungakuron within the movement of literary formation and identifying how the text becomes a theory that critiques the trend itself.

ENLIGHTENED ERUDITION AND THE POLITICS OF READING IN JOHN TOLAND'S CIRCLE

The dense marginal annotation made by freethinker, John Toland (1670–1722) and republican author and parliamentarian, Sir Robert Molesworth (1656–1725) on a copy of Martin Martin's Western Islands (1716) is an exceptional source for exposing the relationship between elite sociability and intellectual conversation. As an example of collaborative serial reading the case-study is unique, and allows a number of historical enquiries. Contextualizing Toland's and Molesworth's collaborative reading of the Royal Society sponsored work with the political and anticlerical projects both men pursued, the article argues that the surviving annotations are emblematic of the erudite, but still politically engaged, republic of letters of the period. Establishing the polemical engagement with clerical discourses about superstition, credulity, and ‘natural’ knowledge, by examining the literary, intellectual, and personal rhetoric at work in the marginalia, the article explores a case-study of cultural and intellectual debate at work in the early English Enlightenment.

The Virtualization of Elián González

The Virtualization of Elián González

Actio in Some Neo-Latin Ecclesiastical Orations

Abstract The study of theories of actio is a basic part of Rhetoric which ought not to be neglected, especially when one is considering practical rather than literary rhetoric. The present study deals with neo-Latin ecclesiastical rhetoric and points out the differences between protestant and catholic notions about the phenomenon of preaching. The presence or absence of indications of actio permits a clear distinction among tendencies in neo-Latin theory. There is such a thing as actioin the Catholic sense, but not in the Protestant. Among catholic scholars, Fr. Luis de Granada stands out for his doctrinal focus and for the quantity of his reflections on this subject.

Rhetoric for Hypertext and Literary Rhetoric

Rhetoric for Hypertext and Literary Rhetoric

The Chinese postmodern: trauma and irony in Chinese avant-garde fiction

The Chinese Postmodern is a pioneering study of today's Chinese experimental fiction, exploring the works of such major writers as Can Xue, Ge Fei, Ma Yuan, Mo Yan, Xu Xiaohe, and Yu Hua from the perspective of cultural and literary postmodernity. Focusing on the interplay between historical psychology and representational mode, and between political discourse and literary rhetoric, it examines the problem of Chinese postmodernity against the background of the cultural-political reality of twentieth-century China.The book seeks to redefine Chinese modernity and postmodernity through the analyses of both orthodox and avant-garde works. In doing so, the author draws on a number of theories, psychoanalysis and deconstruction in particular, revealing the hidden connection between the deconstructive mode of writing and the experience of history after trauma and showing how avant-garde literature brings about a varied literary paradigm that defies the dominant, subject-centered one in twentieth-century China.The distinctiveness of The Chinese Postmodern is also found in its portrayal of the changes of literary paradigms in modern Chinese literature. By way of characterizing avant-garde fiction, it provides an overview of twentieth-century Chinese literature and offers a theorization of the intellectual history of modern China. Other issues concerning literary theory are explored, including the relationships between postmodernity and totalitarian discourse, between historical trauma and literary writing, and between psychic trauma and rhetorical irony. This book will appeal to readers in the fields of Chinese literature and culture, modern Chinese history, literary theory, and comparative literature.Xiaobin Yang is Croft Assistant Professor, University of Mississippi.

'Ia gorazdo umnee napisannogo': On Apophatic Strategies and Verbal Experiments in Dostoevskii's "A Raw Youth"

SEER,Vol. 79,JNo. 2, April200 I 'Ia gorazdo umnee napisannogo': On Apophatic Strategies and Verbal Experiments in Dostoevskii's A Raw routh INGUNN LUNDE A RAW YOUTH (Podrostok, I875) is Arkadii Makarovich Dolgorukii's storyof his transitionfrom adolescence to manhood; a narrativein the first person, written by a young man of twenty, which describes a sequence of events which took place about six months earlier. His autobiographicalenterprisepresents the earnest narratorwith certain fundamentalproblems, the most obvious of which is to 'pin down' in words, and make sense of, the flux of reality:hence, Arkadii'snarrative moves constantly ontheborder of the unsayable, thus reflecting on the verbal level the characteristic liminal, or threshold situation of the novel.' The problem of the inadequacy of language to expressreality, or truth,is not only thematizedin Arkadii'saccount, but conspicuously demonstrated by Dostoevskii in the novel's design as a whole. In his discussion of discursivestructuresin A Raw Youth, Aage Hansen-Love linksthis particularfacet of the novel to the traditionof apophaticism, with its focus on the inexpressibilityof the essential.2In the present essay I concur, aiming at the same time to develop in more detail the analysisof the novel's verbal make-up.I take as my point of departure certainkey featuresof the apophatic approachin the context of verbal representation and examine their realization in the narrative.I then proceed to a discussionof some of the less obvious implicationsof the novel's 'apophatic rhetoric'. More specifically, my analysis traces its linkto two non-verbalcontexts:first,the motif of the sunor lightof the Ingunn Lunde is a postdoctoral Research Fellowvin the Department of Russiani Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. I wish to thank Peter Alberg Jensen, Tine Roesen and William Mills Todd III for their reading of earlier Xversions of this essay and their valuable comments. My thanks also to the anonymous readers of SEER for their useful suggestions. i Horst-Jurgen Gerigk formulates the main objective ofA Rawl"outh as 'The representation of a pubescent mind in the midst of its possible ways of development'. It is this goal, according to Gerigk, which determines the narrative mode (Erzahlhaltung) of the novel; compare Horst-Jurgen Gerigk, Versuch iberDostoevskijs Jilagling,Forum Slavicum, 4, lunich, I965 (hereafterVersuch), p. 17, n. 6. Oge Khansen-Leve [A. Hansen-L,ve], 'Diskursivnye protsessy v romane Dostoevskogo Podhostok' (hereafter 'Diskursivnye protsessy') in Vol'f Shmid [WIolfSchmid] and XT. \I. M4arkovich(eds), Avtori tekst,St Petersburg, I996, pp. 229- 67. APOPHATIC STRATEGIES IN A RAW YOUTH 265 sun, and in particular, the slanting rays of the setting sun, a central symbol in Dostoevskii's ceuvre;3 and second, the visual realm of pictures, icons, and photographs, associated most clearly with Arkadii's mother, Sofiia Andreevna. Both contexts display, on closer examination , interesting correspondences with the overall apophatic character of Arkadii's discourse, self-representation, and quest. Towardsa Literary Rhetoric ofApophaticism Apophasisis not 'to say nothing', nor is it 'absence of discourse'. Neither does apophaticism necessarily imply a distrust of language. But an apophatic approach inevitably involves a concern with language and with rhetoric. From early Christianity onwards, theologians, legislators and poets alike were constantly confronted with the problem of referring to and representing divine or sacred reality by means of a human discourse. Whilst the direct linking of the theological and conceptual approach with the verbal and rhetorical is not unproblematic , I think it is valid,4 partly because of the church fathers' own awareness of and concern with the problem of linguistic representation; moreover, the very fact that divine truth may be represented by means of a human discourse was frequently justified by reference to the incarnation of Christ. Similarly, the depiction of Christ in icons was made possible, it was argued, by the Son of God having been born in the flesh, or, the Wordhavingbeenmadeflesh.Thus conceived, language and rhetoric represented a reflection of the divine Logos,the paradox of the Incarnation mirrored by the paradox of its verbal and visual representation. The problem of representation could be used creatively, and explored as a means of intensifying the rhetorical effect, as a method of amplification. In fact, by describing and depicting 'the essential' while presenting the utterance itself as inadequate, the...

Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study

Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study

Poetry and Culture: Performativity and Critique

As the practices of New Historicism and the growing impetus of Cultural Studies push literary criticism toward cultural cri tique, poetry appears to be an increasingly marginalized genre. Mark Jeffreys, for instance, has described the ideological difficulties facing the lyric in recent criticism, and Paul Fry has been provoked into writing neo-Shelleyan defense of poetry as the temporary release of consciousness from its dependence on the signifying process.1 Reasons for this marginalization appear to come down to questions about the accessibility of poetry as tool for political criticism: poetry as highly organized form of language is too self-enclosed in its formalist processes to relate direcdy to social practices; poetry as predominandy bourgeois production is ideologically tainted; and lyric poetry as the privileged literary paradigm of New Critical aesthetics is associated with their now suspect claims of homogeneous unity and transhistorical essentialism. In short, the formalist demands of poetry would seem too pronounced to satisfy desire for broader based social and cultural criticism. No doubt suspicion of poetic formalism is in part the result of that separation of intrinsic and extrinsic analyses which Paul de Man noted in the 1970s. The development of formalist criticism in the twentieth century, he observed, had produced conception of form as a solipsistic category of self-reflection, where meaning is said to be extrinsic.2 Such separation of intrinsic (formalist) and extrinsic (social, historical) methodologies produced polarities of inside and outside, which de Man's attention to semiology intended to disrupt. Through unravelling discursive processes, he endeavoured to show how literary rhetoric suspends analytical logic, opening up the possibilities of figurai potentiality which he equated with literature itself (AR 10). De Man's disruption of inside-outside polari ties has largely gone unheeded among critics with social and political agendas, but what has also been given little attention is the potential for cultural critique engendered by referential aberration, by that suspen sion of normative referential logic which is frequently an effect of poetic

Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary Study

Lausberg's Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, here made available for the first time in English, received high critical acclaim on its first publication in 1963. It is a monumental work of extraordinary erudition, organisation and comprehensiveness, and enjoys unrivalled authority in its formal description of rhetorical techniques. The present edition is a translation of the second edition of 1973, which was reprinted in 1990. The Handbook has for many years been a standard reference work for all engaged in the study of literature and rhetoric. This translation will ensure its accessibility to a new generation of students of rhetoric.

THE DECADENT CHALICE: A CRITIQUE OF LATE MING POLITICAL CULTURE

The motif of decadence has a long history in Chinese literary and political rhetoric. It is bound up with the idea of restoration, of revival. In the Analects Confucius deploys this by invoking the decline of proper ritual forms and observances as indicative of the overall decay of civil morality and governmental order. The use of an idealized antiquity as a foil for criticizing contemporary society or politics is evident in such later writers as Han Yu (768–824), for whom, as Charles Hartman notes, the distant past was an almost spiritual state, which Han Yu equated with his hopes for the immediate future. His goal in literary and moral cultivation was to return to antiquity (fugu). The interval between ancient times and the present was one of decline. Stephen Owen has also written extensively about the images of ruins or other vestiges of antiquity in Chinese literature as foci for memory and lament, as well as inspirations for renewal.

Problématologie et argumentation

Problematology can be defined as a new means of conceiving Reason, by enlarging it at the base, where the responding process originates, i.e. in the act of questioning. The author shows how such an approach can lead to an understanding of the forms of reasoning and discourse associated with argumentation and rhetoric and how problematology can constitute the junction between pathos, ethos and logos. It then becomes possible to grasp the connections between literary rhetoric, figures of style and judicial argumentation for example. This article is intended as an introduction to such an overall picture.

Toward a rhetoric of reason

It is customary to oppose logic to argumentation, just it goes without saying that the latter differentiates itself from literary rhetoric. This tradition, born with Aristotle, was faithfully followed by Perelman, who brought rhetoric back to its proper place by going beyond the logical empiricism then prevailing. Argumentation has never ceased to be anything but a weak inference, noncompelling in its conclusions, which must be brought to life in countering the monopoly of demonstrative or apodictic inference represented by logic. As a result of this negative definition of the rhetorical field, rhetoric finds itself ab initio in a position of inferiority, not to say on the defensive. And thus it is necessary to discern just what the reduction of rhetoric to a conflict between propositions signifies. Yet the goal remains, in logic, a conclusion about truth and the justification of its acceptance. But in this game, logic is without a doubt more efficient since its conclusions are without appeal: its propositions are true, and known well the indisputable justifications of their truth-values. Argumentation, which also deals with propositions, i.e., truth-values, can thus be no more than a substitute, appropriate in non-scientific contexts before any scientific decision can take place. The least one can say is that rhetoric finds itself in a position of inferiority since it is situated well short of the establishment of truth, and in any case, rhetoric cannot settle once and for all alternative theses in opposition. We should equally note the underlying idea behind the propositional model: it combines truth and justification. Not only is science privileged, but the idea itself of truth implies that its possession justifies its acceptance beyond any possible debate. The exclusion of the rhetorical field goes along with this idea of truth. Truth is convincing as such, hence the superiority of any procedure which establishes truth univocally over any thought process, which debates without establishing one conclusion in a decisive and necessary way, and which makes acceptance subjective instead of placing it in an objective field which constrains and subordinates subjective movements. Whoever asserts a proposition, gives it a truth-value, and whoever speaks of truth, conditions intellectual procedure to exclude all which does not lead to it. Rhetoric, on the contrary, works with the conflicts between propositions. If one conceives of rhetoric a possible procedure for deciding between propositions, it will inevitably be inferior to science and to logic, which are conclusive. In turn, rhetoric will also be external to the literary field, since literature does not argue. As to science, it is situated beyond all argumentation by virtue of its method of justifying propositions. Scientific method can resolve any opposition by reductio ad absurdum. Since any proposition must in principle be true or false, science must be the propositional model even if one is still at the (inferior) level where one does not really have knowledge. In this model of reason, what can the positive role and place of rhetoric be? Such a conception of rhetoric sketched can be found in Plato, who was able to discredit it easily. It rests on the propositional model of the Logos: a

Montesquieu républicain ? De l'interprétation universitaire pendant la IIIe République

Catherine Larrère : Was Montesquieu a republican ? This article attempts to define the relationship between Montesquieu the republican who was considered as one of the founding fathers of the Third Republic, and Montesquieu the sociologist on whom Durkheim wrote his Latin thesis. This Montesquieu, concerned with facts and their relationships rather than with ideal essences, conforms to the scientific model which suited the Republic, namely positive science in which modern scientific culture should replace traditional literary rhetoric. But between scientia politico, to which Montesquieu still belonged, and sociology, whose precursor Durkheim wanted to be, politics has vanished. This does not however apply to morality, which Durkheim reworks as the science of morals. This still comes down to founding the Republic on virtue.

Retórica como ciencia de la expresividad (presupuestos para una retórica general)

This article deals with the reactivation of Rhetoric as the general science of text. General Rhetoric, in which linguistic and poetic studies are included, becomes the most complete science in the analysis of literary and non-literary discourse. The recovery of the genuine state of Rhetoric, with Poetics and the utilization of the categories of Text Linguistics, is felt to be the best way of establishing General Rhetoric, in which the study of elocutio is given an adequate place, and the role of inventio, dispositio and actio is stressed. The author sets up the specialization, as Literary Rhetoric, of a very important section within General Rhetoric. This Literary Rhetoric is constituted by the contribution of both classical Rhetoric and classical and linguistic Poetics.

Vision, Pilgrimage, and Rhetorical Composition

Vision, Pilgrimage, and Rhetorical Composition Robert M. Jordan University ofBritish Columbia In the popular mind, and indeed in the minds ofmany smdcnts and teachers ofliterature, even some Chaucerians, rhetoric retains much ofthe stigma expressed by John M. Manly when he stated that "the task ofthe artist is not to pad his tales with rhetoric, but to conceive all the events and characters in the forms and activities oflife."1 But those who have learned something from Wayne Booth, Richard Lanham, the Russian Formalists, the European structuralists, and a host of other theorists of the postwar generations can no longer accept the easy dichotomy between rhetoric and life.2 Manly found in Chaucer what Manly and his generation valued in literature, and that was the "forms andactivitiesoflife," not the "padding" ofrhetoric. And as a later generation, living in the "postmodern" age, we too see ourselves in Chaucer's plenitude. But what we see is quite different. It is well expressed, I think, in these words ofa modern critic: "The point of view shifts; the ...style shifts and the tone; characters turn into things; sequences of events abruptly vanish. Images clash; realms of discourse bang together." This description of clashing styles and shifting view­ points- this rhetorical description, ifyou will-is not from a Chaucerian commentary. It is Annie Dillard describing today's postmodern or "experi1 John M. Manly, "Chaucer and the Rhetoricians," PBA 12 (1926): 95-113. Cited from reprint in R.J. Schoeck and).Taylor, eds., Chaucer Cn"ticism: The "Canterbury Tales"(Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1960), p. 285. 2 Wayne C. Booth, TheRhetoric a/Fiction (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1961); Richard A. Lanham, The Motives ofEloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance (New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversityPress, 1976), esp. chap. 1. Among many accounts oflanguage­ centered developments in modern literary theory the following are especially useful: Frederic Jameson, The Pnson-House a/Language (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1972); Jonathan Culler, Structuralist Poetics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975); Terence Hawkes, Structuralzsm and Semiotics (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1977). 195 RECONSTRUCTING CHAUCER mental" fiction, the works ofJoyce, Nabokov, Calvino, Barth, and many others.3 My point is that today's writers and critics-and readers too-are inter­ ested in surfaces, in the artful disposition of the wealth of materials that language offers. We have cultivated predispositions that were anathema to earlier critics. In particular we are prepared to recognize a Chaucerian di­ mension-the verbal surface itself-that is exterior to content and outside the focus of realistinterpretation. And we have begun to sharpen analytical instruments that can help us appreciate both the aesthetic possibilities and the philosophical implications of an artistry that is acutely conscious of verbal surfaces. Rhetorical narrative-known in postmodern parlance as metafiction-recognizes and exploits the ambiguous status of language as both an autonomous system and an instrument of perception. We are more skeptical than post-Romantic and early modern readers-and I think more in tune with Chaucer-about the relation between language and !ife. Does this mean that we are willing to sacrifice life and emotion for artifice and mere virtuosity? It is easy to fall into such dualistic thinking, as Manly did, and regard Chaucer as either a rhetorician or an artist. A rhetorical reading of Chaucer does not dismiss life and feeling but rather redirects attention from the verisimilitude of realistic content and drama­ tized characters to the labor itself of writing and composing poetic nar­ ratives. Life and feeling are discerned not exclusively in imagined content but also on the actual verbal surfaces, where the living poet confronted the awesome challenge of converting what he knew and what he felt into the constraining forms of language. As many recent commentators have noted, Chaucer's art is highly self-conscious. Like postmodern fiction, it betrays in many ways a preoccupation with the nature and the possibilities of the verbal medium, and with the limits of language as well. Thesignsof Chaucer'sfascinationwithhismediumareapparentthrough­ out his works, and they take a variety of forms. The question of the reliabil­ ity of language as an account of reality is an important theme in TheHouse ofFame and in The Manciple's Tale...

Foregrounding norms and ironic communication

Researchers in literary theory, linguistic pragmatics, and rhetoric have identified three principal communicative functions of irony: (1) to give emphasis or reinforcement to the values of a friendly listener, (2) to attack or ridicule the values of an hostile or unsuspecting listener, and (3) to undermine an opponent's intellectual position. This essay goes further by (7) arguing that a process called the “foregrounding of norms” is crucial to ironic comprehension and (2) arguing that differences among these three ironic outcomes owe to differences in the target audience's personal relation to these norms as well as to the type of norms foregrounded.

Interpreting the Fu: A Study in Chinese Literary Rhetoric

Interpreting the Fu: A Study in Chinese Literary Rhetoric