Foundations of Evaluative Criteria in Rhetorical Criticism
Public Defence of PhD thesis by Sune Holm Pedersen.
The dissertation is a meta-critical inquiry into the theoretical foundations of evaluative criteria in rhetorical criticism. The dissertation proposes an answer to the questions of the origins of evaluative criteria in rhetorical criticism and how their appropriateness in relation to rhetorical objects can be justified. In order to answer these questions, the dissertation discusses historical, theoretical/methodological, and analytical issues.
The historical part of the dissertation investigates a claim by several prominent rhetoricians about a decline in evaluative rhetorical criticism during the twentieth century. It is concluded that a conception of rhetorical criticism without evaluation at its center seems to arise around 1970, but also that rhetorical scholars since Wichelns may have emphasized evaluation more in their programmatic writings than in actual critical practice. It is also argued that a solid theoretical basis for evaluative rhetorical criticism is a necessary condition for its legitimacy in an academic context.
The theoretical/methodological part of the dissertation proposes that ‘function’ and related notions may explain the origin and appropriateness of evaluative criteria in rhetorical criticism. It further proposes that ‘rational reconstruction’ is a suitable methodological approach for examining how the concept of function may be used to solve the problems of origin and appropriateness.
The analytical part of the dissertation examines how four critics/theorists (Wichelns, Auer, Kock, Patterson) base their evaluative reasoning on four difference conceptions of function, which they use to derive evaluative criteria and justify the appropriateness of these criteria.
The dissertation concludes that the concept of function constitutes one key notion in the pursuit of answers to some foundational questions in rhetorical criticism: Where evaluative criteria come from and how their appropriateness can be justified.
Afhandlingen er en meta-kritisk undersøgelse af det teoretiske grundlag for vurderingskriterier i retorisk kritik. Afhandlingen giver et svar på, hvor vurderingskriterier i retorisk kritik kan komme fra, og hvordan deres hensigtsmæssighed i forhold til retoriske objekter kan underbygges. For at besvare disse spørgsmål diskuterer afhandlingen historiske, teoretiske/metodiske og analytiske problemstillinger.
I den historiske del af afhandlingen undersøges en påstand fremført af flere fremtrædende retorikere om en tilbagegang i vurderende retorisk kritik i løbet af det tyvende århundrede. Det konkluderes bl.a., at der omkring 1970 tilsyneladende opstod en forståelse af retorisk kritik uden vurdering i centrum. Samtidig påpeges at retorikere siden Wichelns måske har lagt mere vægt på evaluering i programmatiske skrifter frem for i egentlig kritisk praksis. Der argumenteres også for, at et solidt teoretisk grundlag for vurderende retorisk kritik er en nødvendig betingelse for dens berettigelse i akademisk sammenhæng.
I den teoretiske/metodiske del af afhandlingen foreslås, at ’funktion’
og relaterede begreber kan forklare oprindelsen og hensigtsmæssigheden af vurderingskriterier i retorisk kritik. Det foreslås også, at ’rationel rekonstruktion’ er et egnet metodisk redskab til at belyse, hvordan forskellige varianter af funktionsbegrebet kan anvendes i vurderende kritik til at opstille kriterier og underbygge kriteriernes hensigtsmæssighed.
I den analytiske del af afhandlingen belyses nærmere, hvordan fire kritikere/teoretikere (Wichelns, Kock, Auer, Patterson) baserer deres vurderingstænkning på fire forskellige funktionsbegreber, som de anvender til at opstille vurderingskriterier og underbygge hensigtsmæssigheden af kriterierne.
Afhandlingen konkluderer, at funktionsbegrebet udgør én nøgle til at besvare grundlæggende teoretiske spørgsmål om retorisk kritik: hvor vurderingskriterier i retorisk kritik kan komme fra, og hvordan deres hensigtsmæssighed i forhold til retoriske objekter kan underbygges.
Assessment Committee
- Associate Professor Hanne Roer, chairman (University of Copenhagen)
- Professor Jean Goodwin (North Carolina State University)
- Professor Jens E. Kjeldsen (University of Bergen)
Moderator of defence
- Associate Professor Lisa Villadsen (University of Copenhagen)
Copies of the thesis will be available for consultation before the defence at the following three places:
- At the Information Desk of Copenhagen University Library, South Campus
- In Reading Room East of the Royal Library (the Black Diamond)
- At Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, Karen Blixens Vej 8, 2300 Copenhagen S