Academic literature on the topic 'The rhetorical field'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'The rhetorical field.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "The rhetorical field"
Siebert, Sabina, Graeme Martin, and Gavin Simpson. "Rhetorical strategies of legitimation in the professional field of banking." Journal of Professions and Organization 7, no. 2 (May 8, 2020): 134–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa010.
Full textGolyshkina, L. A. "Decoding Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Substantiation of the Scientific Direction." Nauchnyi dialog, no. 5 (May 30, 2020): 9–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-5-9-24.
Full textBrinch Jørgensen, Iben. "Retorisk feltmetode. En produserende og refleksiv demokratisk praksis." Rhetorica Scandinavica 23, no. 79 (December 10, 2019): 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.52610/qfdm8266.
Full textMcKerrow, Raymie E. "Text + Field: Innovations in Rhetorical Method." Quarterly Journal of Speech 104, no. 2 (March 7, 2018): 216–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2018.1447284.
Full textRochmawati, Dyah. "PRAGMATIC AND RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN THE ENGLISH-WRITTEN JOKES." Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, no. 1 (May 31, 2017): 149. http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.6868.
Full textLunde, Ingunn. "Rhetorical enargeia and linguistic pragmatics." Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5, no. 1 (March 8, 2004): 49–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.04lun.
Full textAdsit, Janelle, and Laura Wilder. "Borders Crossed." Pedagogy 20, no. 3 (October 1, 2020): 401–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/15314200-8544487.
Full textHansson, Stina. "Rhetoric for Seventeenth-Century Salons: Beata Rosenhane's Exercise Books and Classical Rhetoric." Rhetorica 12, no. 1 (1994): 43–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.1.43.
Full textMiddleton, Michael K., Samantha Senda-Cook, and Danielle Endres. "Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods: Challenges and Tensions." Western Journal of Communication 75, no. 4 (July 2011): 386–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.586969.
Full textSpoel, Philippa M. "Rereading the Elocutionists: The Rhetoric of Thomas Sheridan's A Course of Lectures on Elocution and John Walker's Elements of Elocution." Rhetorica 19, no. 1 (2001): 49–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rh.2001.19.1.49.
Full textDissertations / Theses on the topic "The rhetorical field"
Hogan, Kevin. "The pit, the field and the edifice : a rhetorical analysis of the commemorative 9/11 Ceremonies of September 11, 2002." Scholarly Commons, 2006. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/642.
Full textChristensen, David M. "Understanding the National Science Foundation's CAREER Award Proposal Genre: A Rhetorical, Ethnographic, and System Perspective." DigitalCommons@USU, 2011. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/923.
Full textFärlin, Johanna. "Postmodern retorik? : Om postmodernitetens roll i det svenska retorikämnets utveckling 1980–2020." Thesis, Uppsala universitet, Avdelningen för retorik, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-447317.
Full textAlfaia, Lilian. "Construindo conhecimento em estudos organizacionais no Brasil." reponame:Repositório Institucional do FGV, 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/10438/17277.
Full textApproved for entry into archive by ÁUREA CORRÊA DA FONSECA CORRÊA DA FONSECA (aurea.fonseca@fgv.br) on 2016-10-04T14:58:18Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Lilian Alfaia - Versão final.pdf: 4983105 bytes, checksum: 708e888321d3f0d28ed59217c6fa8c05 (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-18T12:18:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Lilian Alfaia - Versão final.pdf: 4983105 bytes, checksum: 708e888321d3f0d28ed59217c6fa8c05 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-08-29
Grounded on a more constructivist and procedural perspective of science in which social and cultural practices reveal how science is made, this thesis aimed to analyse how the process of knowledge building in the field of Organizational Studies in Brazil occurred. To this end, we followed the evolution of scientific production from a longitudinal perspective, through the identification of legitimacy strategies of scientific contributions made by the authors in scientific articles that would reveal how these strategies differ rhetorically among them. We, then, unveil how these strategies differ rhetorically and map scientific contribution legitimacy strategies’ networks vs actors (individual and institutional ones) by watching how they influenced the positions of the players-actors in the scientific field over time and how they influenced the process of knowledge building in Organizational Studies. Drawing from the theory of the fields (Bourdieu, 1983a; 2004b; Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinings, 2002; Martin, 2003; Fligstein, 2003; Davis and Marquis 2005; Emirbayer and Johnson, 2008; Fligstein and McAdam, 2011; 2012) and some factors that influence the knowledge construction in Administration, we sought to understand how the actors present and defend their scientific contributions, also how the distribution of capital is organized, how the actors position themselves in the field and how they dispute the monopoly of scientific authority. Data collection consisted in the selection of 500 articles from 1960 to 2014, 430 in national journals and 70 in international ones, composing a database with various information regarding the articles. Data were categorized based on the content analysis (Bardin, 2006) and analysed through rhetorical analysis (Mann and Thompson 1988). This research thesis has shown that the actors use the argumentative capital differently, although apparently similar, depending on the context of their scientific contribution legitimacy’s strategy: internal scientific discourse, the practice’s discourse or the combination of both. Considering the use of these strategies and the ownership of capitals such as scientific and economic, from the rules of the game in the field, stakeholder groups divide themselves and compete for positions from the following setting: scientific vs ambiguous and practical vs ambiguous. Organizational Studies evolved gradually from an initial ‘pre-field’ to the current phase of the field, now with clear goals, well-defined game rules and marked positions within the existing dispute. However, beyond the repertoire defined for internal scientific discourse, the use of scientific contribution legitimacy’s strategies shows that the authors also try to legitimize their contributions through external strategies of the field, which, in turn, endorses that the Brazilian Organizational Studies field cannot yet be considered as a ‘pure’ scientific field still in search of autonomy. Key-words: scientific field, organizational studies, knowledge, rhetorical analysis, legitimacy strategies.
Esta tese teve por objetivo analisar como se deu o processo de construção de conhecimento na área de Estudos Organizacionais no Brasil, partindo de uma perspectiva mais construtivista e processual da ciência, direcionada para as práticas sociais e culturais presentes no processo científico que revelam como a ciência é feita. Para tanto, acompanhamos a evolução da produção científica a partir de uma ótica longitudinal, identificando as estratégias de legitimidade das contribuições científicas apresentadas pelos autores nos artigos científicos, desvendando como estas estratégias de legitimidade se diferenciam retoricamente e mapeando redes de estratégias de legitimidade de contribuição científica X atores (individuais e institucionais), observando como estas influenciaram as posições dos jogadores-atores no campo ao longo do tempo e como estas influenciaram o processo de construção de conhecimentos em Estudos Organizacionais.Tomando como base a teoria de campos (BOURDIEU, 1983a; 2004b; GREENWOOD, SUDDABY e HININGS, 2002; MARTIN, 2003; FLIGSTEIN, 2003; DAVIS e MARQUIS 2005; EMIRBAYER e JOHNSON, 2008; FLIGSTEIN e MCADAM, 2011; 2012) e alguns fatores que influenciam o processo de construção do conhecimento em Administração, buscamos compreender como os atores apresentam e defendem suas contribuições científicas, como se organiza a distribuição de capitais, como se posicionam no campo e como disputam o monopólio da autoridade científica. A coleta de dados consistiu na seleção de 500 artigos, 430 em periódicos nacionais e 70 em periódicos internacionais, compondo um banco de dados com diversas informações em torno dos artigos, considerando o período de 1960 até 2014. Os dados foram categorizados com base na análise de conteúdo (BARDIN, 2006) e analisados por meio de análise retórica (MANN e THOMPSON, 1988). A pesquisa mostrou que os atores (individuais e institucionais) fazem uso do capital argumentativo de modo diferenciado, embora aparentemente semelhante, conforme o contexto de sua estratégia de legitimidade de contribuição científica: discurso científico interno, discurso da prática ou a combinação de ambos. Considerando a utilização destas estratégias e da posse de capitais como científico e econômico, a partir das regras do jogo no campo, grupos de atores se dividem e disputam posições a partir da configuração: científicos X ambíguos e práticos X ambíguos.O campo de Estudos Organizacionais evoluiu aos poucos de uma fase inicial de pré-campo até a fase atual de campo, com objetivos claros, regras do jogo definidas e posições marcadas na disputa existente em seu interior. Entretanto, o uso de estratégias de legitimidade de contribuição científica para além do repertório definido para o discurso científico interno mostra que os autores também tentam legitimar suas contribuições via estratégias externas ao campo científico, revelando, assim, que o campo de Estudos Organizacionais brasileiro ainda não pode ser considerado como um campo científico 'puro', tratando-se de um campo ainda em busca de autonomia.
Queen, Mary Teresa. "Technologies of representation fields of rhetorical action in transnational feminist encounters /." Related electronic resource: Current Research at SU : database of SU dissertations, recent titles available full text, 2005. http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/syr/main.
Full textAdams, Peter James. "A Rhetoric of mysticism." Thesis, University of Auckland, 1991. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/2021.
Full textWhole document restricted, but available by request, use the feedback form to request access.
Holder, Cory Vaillancourt. "Teaching collaborative writing for real-world application to the field of technical writing." CSUSB ScholarWorks, 1998. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/1567.
Full textMcKinney, Elizabeth G. "Rhetorical Technical Communication: Exploring the Gaps, Connections, and New Boundaries Between the Fields Through an Analysis of Instruction Manuals." University of Findlay / OhioLINK, 2016. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=findlay148188814788489.
Full textHealey, Christopher. "The use of graphic rhetoric in communicating business strategy to a diverse audience : a quasi-field experiment." Diss., University of Pretoria, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/64851.
Full textMini Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2017.
za2018
Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)
MBA
Unrestricted
Lala-Sonora, Autumn Marie. "Surveying the Field: How Do (and Should) Writing Centers Market and Design." University of Dayton / OhioLINK, 2020. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=dayton1591194133726362.
Full textBooks on the topic "The rhetorical field"
Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from the field. New York: Longman Publishers, 2003.
Find full textThe Norton Field Guide to writing. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.
Find full textFrancine, Weinberg, ed. The Norton field guide to writing. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2009.
Find full textE, Wilcox Lance, ed. A field guide to writing. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1992.
Find full textFrancine, Weinberg, ed. The Norton Field guide to writing: With handbook. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2013.
Find full textJanet, McCann, ed. In a field of words: A creative writing text. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Find full textFlaherty, Francis. The elements of story: Field notes on nonfiction writing. New York: Collins, 2009.
Find full textDaly, Goggin Maureen, ed. The norton field guide to writing, with readings. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.
Find full textDaly, Goggin Maureen, ed. The Norton field guide to writing, with readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007.
Find full textThe Norton field guide to writing. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "The rhetorical field"
Vlachostergiou, Aggeliki, George Marandianos, and Stefanos Kollias. "From Conditional Random Field (CRF) to Rhetorical Structure Theory(RST): Incorporating Context Information in Sentiment Analysis." In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 283–95. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70407-4_38.
Full textWolkenhauer, Anna. "International Organizations and Food: Nearing the End of the Lean Season?" In International Organizations in Global Social Governance, 297–321. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65439-9_13.
Full textBeger, Paula. "Party Rhetoric and Action Compared: Examining Politicisation and Compliance in the Field of Asylum and Migration Policy in the Czech Republic and Hungary." In Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, 137–56. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54674-8_6.
Full textLandau, Jamie. "Feeling Rhetorical Critics:." In Text + Field, 72–85. Penn State University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp46w.8.
Full textMiddleton, Michael K., Samantha Senda-Cook, and Danielle Endres. "Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods." In Readings in Rhetorical Fieldwork, 38–55. Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351190473-5.
Full textEwalt, Joshua P., Jessy J. Ohl, and Damien Smith Pfister. "Rhetorical Field Methods in the Tradition of Imitatio." In Text + Field, 40–55. Penn State University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp46w.6.
Full textLabrousse, Agnès. "The Rhetorical Superiority of Poor Economics." In Randomized Control Trials in the Field of Development, 227–55. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865360.003.0010.
Full textAngeli, Elizabeth L. "A Rhetorical History of a Developing Field." In Rhetorical Work in Emergency Medical Services, 44–62. Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315104881-3.
Full textGronewoller, Brian. "Introduction." In Rhetorical Economy in Augustine's Theology, 1–8. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197566558.003.0001.
Full textAndrews, Charles. "Reason, Ridicule, and Indifference." In Virginia Woolf, Europe, and Peace, 51–64. Liverpool University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/liverpool/9781949979374.003.0004.
Full textConference papers on the topic "The rhetorical field"
Ramadhini, Tasya Maharani, Isti Tri Wahyuni, Nida Tsania Ramadhani, Eri Kurniawan, Wawan Gunawan, and R. Dian Dia-an Muniroh. "The Rhetorical Moves of Abstracts Written by the Authors in the Field of Hard Sciences." In Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.089.
Full textCherkasova, Yelena Valeryevna. "RELEVANCE OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF LAW." In Russian science: actual researches and developments. Samara State University of Economics, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.46554/russian.science-2020.03-1-427/430.
Full textSPILLER, Ralf, Christof BREIDENICH, and Ute HILGERS-YILMAZ. "Visual rhetoric of the Islamic State (IS): Persuasion in the field of terror." In 10th International Conference on Design History and Design Studies. São Paulo: Editora Edgard Blücher, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.5151/despro-icdhs2016-03_005.
Full textOrr, T., and Dongxue Ma. "The language and rhetoric of bibliographic citation in the field of computing: A report of preliminary results." In 2009 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC 2009). IEEE, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ipcc.2009.5208691.
Full textReports on the topic "The rhetorical field"
Imbrie, Andrew, Rebecca Gelles, James Dunham, and Catherine Aiken. Contending Frames: Evaluating Rhetorical Dynamics in AI. Center for Security and Emerging Technology, May 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.51593/20210010.
Full text