Meaning. Are the tools of rhetoric useful in studying the matter?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1505-9057.58.05Keywords:
sense, rhetoric, communication, science, religion, metaphysics, thesis, hypothesis, G. Frege, I. Kant, R. Marlin, W. van Orman QuineAbstract
The discussion centres around two issues: the issue of meaning, and the question whether the tools of rhetoric viewed as the basic tool in interpersonal communication (be it everyday or specialist communication) can be helpful in reading and interpreting meaning. The author understands meaning after G. Frege: […] let the following phraseology be established: A proper name (word, sign, sign combination, expression) expresses its sense, stands for or designates its reference. By means of a sign we express its sense and designate its reference. The purpose of the discussion is also to answer a much more general question: whether through rhetoric can one say something important about the world, so do they define a philosophical thesis or only, from various perspectives, one searches for the most probable answer to a hypothesis.
The presented assumption is a result of the suggestion of Willard van Orman Quine: Rhetoric is the literary technology of persuasion, for good or ill, and it entails something which Randal Marlin defined as referentially translucent expressions.
Therefore, the hypothesis I shall try to prove is the following: can the sense of any expression be, using the tools of rhetoric, defined to such an extent so that it becomes a philosophical thesis and not a hypothesis? So that in terms of both the subject and the object the expression could be considered as true. Then and only then can one say that such an expression has/contains some (but not any) sense.
Downloads
References
Austin John L., How to Do Things With Words, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1962.
Google Scholar
Barfiled Owen, Poetic Diction. A Study in Meaning, Faber & Gwyer, London 1928.
Google Scholar
Burke Kenneth, Language as Symbolic Action. Essays on Life, Literature, and Method, California University Press, Berkeley et al. 1966.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340664
Burke Kenneth, “Retoryka Mein Kampf”, [in:] Nowa Krytyka. Antologia, selection H. Krzeczkowski, trans. M. Szpakowska, PIW, Warsaw 1983, pp. 344–377 (it is a chapter of Burke’s book, The Philosophy of Literary Form, The University of California Press, Berkeley et al. 1973, pp. 191–220).
Google Scholar
Delsol Chantal, Nienawiść do świata. Totalitaryzmy i ponowoczesność, trans. M. Chojnacki, Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, Warsaw 2017.
Google Scholar
Dubois Jean et al., Dictionnaire de linguistique, Larousse, Paris 1973.
Google Scholar
Foss Sonja K., “Rhetorical Criticism as the Asking of Questions”, Communication Education 1989, vol. 38, issue 3, pp. 191–196 [trans. into Polish with commentary in: Forum Artis Rhetoricae 2016, no. 4(47), pp. 70–87].
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528909378755
Foss Sonja K., Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Il. 2004.
Google Scholar
Frege Gottlob, Sens i znaczenie (Über Sinn und Beduetung, 1892), trans. B. Wolniewicz, http://sady.up.krakow.pl/antfil.frege.sensiznaczenie.htm [accessed on: 17.07.2018].
Google Scholar
Gołąb Zbigniew, Heinz Adam, Polański Kazimierz, Słownik terminologii językoznawczej, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw 1968.
Google Scholar
Grzegorczykowa Renata, “Problem funkcji języka i tekstu w świetle teorii aktów mowy”, [in:] Język a kultura, t. 4: Funkcje języka i wypowiedzi, eds. J. Bartmiński, R. Grzegorczykowa, Wiedza o Kulturze, Wrocław 1991, pp. 11–28.
Google Scholar
Herbert Zbigniew, 89 wierszy, Wydawnictwo A5, Krakow 2008.
Google Scholar
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html [accessed on: 7.06.2019].
Google Scholar
Ingarden Roman, O dziele literackim. Badania z pogranicza ontologii, teorii języka i filozofii literatury, trans. M. Turowicz, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw 1960.
Google Scholar
Jazykoznanije. Bolszoj Enciklopediczeskij Slovar’, ed. V.N. Jarceva et al., Izdatelstvo Bolszaja Rossijskaja Enciklopedija, Moscow 1998.
Google Scholar
Kant Immanuel, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Reclam Verlag, Leipzig 1971 [trans. into Polish in: I. Kant, Krytyka czystego rozumu, trans. R. Ingarden, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw 1957].
Google Scholar
Kwintylian Marek F., “Kształcenie mówcy”, [in:] St. Śnieżewski, Terminologia retoryczna w Institutio Oratoria Kwintyliana, Wydawnictwo Księgarnia Akademicka, Krakow 2014, pp. 113–148 (Book V).
Google Scholar
Lalande André, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, PUF, Paris 1972.
Google Scholar
Lichański Jakub Z., Filologia – Filozofia – Retoryka. Wprowadzenie do badań (nie tylko) literatury popularnej, DiG, Warsaw 2017.
Google Scholar
Logika i język: studia z semiotyki logicznej, selection, trans., introduction and notes J. Pelc, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw 1967.
Google Scholar
Marlin Randal, “The Rhetoric of Action Description. Ambiguity in Intentional Reference”, Informal Logic 1984, issue 6(3), pp. 26–29.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v6i3.2737
McComiskey Bruce, Post-Truth Rhetoric and Composition, Utah State University Press, Ohio 2017.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1w76tbg
Orman Quine Willard van, Różności. Słownik prawie filozoficzny, trans. C. Cieśliński, Aletheia, Warsaw 1995.
Google Scholar
Pindar, The Odes of Pindar, ed., transl., comm. J. Sandys, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge Mass., London 1915.
Google Scholar
Pindar, Wybór poezji, selection, introduction, trans., comm. by A. Szastyńska-Siemion, Wydawnictwo Ossolineum, Wrocław et al. 1981.
Google Scholar
Prechtl Peter, Leksykon pojęć filozofii analitycznej, trans. J. Bremer SJ, Wydawnictwo WAM, Krakow 2009.
Google Scholar
Ross Alf, “Argumentacja i perswazja”, [in:] Metaetyka, selection, ed. I. Lazari-Pawłowska, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw 1975, pp. 163–183.
Google Scholar
Salustiusz Krispus, “Sprzysiężenie Katyliny”, [in:] Krispus Salustiusz, Sprzysiężenie Katyliny i Wojna z Jugurtą, trans. K. Kumaniecki, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław 2006.
Google Scholar
Spengel Leonhard von, “Die Definition und Eintheilung der Rhetorik bei den Alten”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 1862, vol. 18, pp. 481–526.
Google Scholar
Szulc Aleksander, Podręczny słownik językoznawstwa stosowanego. Dydaktyka języków obcych, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw 1984.
Google Scholar
Szymura Jerzy, Język, mowa i prawda w perspektywie fenomenologii lingwistycznej J.L. Austina, Wydawnictwo Ossolineum, Wrocław 1982.
Google Scholar
Tolkien John R.R., On Fairy Stories, ed. V. Flieger, D.A. Anderson, Harper Collins, London 2008.
Google Scholar
Tukidydes, Wojna peloponeska, trans. K. Kumaniecki, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław et al. 1991.
Google Scholar
Volkmann Richard E., Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht dargestellt, Teubner Verlag, Leipzig 1885 (repr. Olms Verlag, Hildesheim et al. 1987).
Google Scholar
Volkmann Richard E., “Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer”, [in:] Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1st. ed. von Müller, Beck Verlag, München 1901 [Polish trans. in: H. Cichocka, J.Z. Lichański, Zarys historii retoryki. Od początku do upadku cesarstwa bizantyńskiego, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 1993, pp. 109–233 (quotation of the fragment omitted in the Polish edition!)].
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.