This book presents an in-depth analysis of language’s role as the tool and environment for human survival on Earth, examining its ability to provide an unlimited space for telling individual stories that bear the knowledge of mankind’s self-significance. The book is the result of a 20-year-long composite study of language phenomenology grounded in the interactions of Bulgarian and English, approached in a game-like fashion where the play with language units transcends levels of meanings based on significances, and explored through the four basic avatars of activated language: the learner, the teacher, the translator and the creator of texts. The book is divided into three sections: the first details the motivation for this study and the design of the method of exploration. This is followed by an application of this method to the talkative web in order to find ways of meeting the enormous demand for human content. The final section brings together the colourful practices of activated language movement. This book is not about the philosophy of language, per se. It is concerned with the practical field beyond the philosophy of language where the self-identification of the Subject is brought to a higher stage of communicative creativity. The rhetoric theory of argumentation is argued throughout the book to be the relevant ground for building a holistic tool of language learning where language acquisition is seen as the capability of the subject to construct worlds in a universe whose leading structure involves the rhetoric criteria of ethos, pathos and logos, on the one hand, and the self-identifying choice of meanings to situations of complex nature, on the other. As such, the book is primarily concerned with linguistics, rhetoric, semiotics of culture, ethics and language learning, viewed through a philosophical preoccupation with humanity.

David Bordwell's new book is at once a history of film criticism, an analysis of how critics interpret film, and a proposal for an alternative program for film studies. It is an anatomy of film criticism meant to reset the agenda for film scholarship. As such Making Meaning should be a landmark book, a focus for debate from which future film study will evolve. Bordwell systematically maps different strategies for interpreting films and making meaning, illustrating his points with a vast array of examples from Western film criticism. Following an introductory chapter that sets out the terms and scope of the argument, Bordwell goes on to show how critical institutions constrain and contain the very practices they promote, and how the interpretation of texts has become a central preoccupation of the humanities. He gives lucid accounts of the development of film criticism in France, Britain, and the United States since World War II; analyzes this development through two important types of criticism, thematic-explicatory and symptomatic; and shows that both types, usually seen as antithetical, in fact have much in common. These diverse and even warring schools of criticism share conventional, rhetorical, and problem-solving techniques--a point that has broad-ranging implications for the way critics practice their art. The book concludes with a survey of the alternatives to criticism based on interpretation and, finally, with the proposal that a historical poetics of cinema offers the most fruitful framework for film analysis.

'Moral character, so to say, constitutes the most effective means of proof.' In ancient Greece, rhetoric was at the centre of public life. Many writers attempted to provide manuals to help improve debating skills, but it was not until Aristotle produced The Art of Rhetoric in the 4th century bc that the subject had a true masterpiece. As he considered the role of emotion, reason, and morality in speech, Aristotle created essential guidelines for argument and prose style that would influence writers for more than two millennia. Brilliantly explained and carefully reasoned, The Art of Rhetoric remains as relevant today as it was in the assemblies of ancient Athens.

Perhaps no other critical label has been made to cover more ground than "irony," and in our time irony has come to have so many meanings that by itself it means almost nothing. In this work, Wayne C. Booth cuts through the resulting confusions by analyzing how we manage to share quite specific ironies—and why we often fail when we try to do so. How does a reader or listener recognize the kind of statement which requires him to reject its "clear" and "obvious" meaning? And how does any reader know where to stop, once he has embarked on the hazardous and exhilarating path of rejecting "what the words say" and reconstructing "what the author means"? In the first and longer part of his work, Booth deals with the workings of what he calls "stable irony," irony with a clear rhetorical intent. He then turns to intended instabilities—ironies that resist interpretation and finally lead to the "infinite absolute negativities" that have obsessed criticism since the Romantic period. Professor Booth is always ironically aware that no one can fathom the unfathomable. But by looking closely at unstable ironists like Samuel Becket, he shows that at least some of our commonplaces about meaninglessness require revision. Finally, he explores—with the help of Plato—the wry paradoxes that threaten any uncompromising assertion that all assertion can be undermined by the spirit of irony.

Disability Rhetoric is the first book to view rhetorical theory and history through the lens of disability studies. Traditionally, the body has been seen as, at best, a rhetorical distraction; at worst, those whose bodies do not conform to a narrow range of norms are disqualified from speaking. Yet, Dolmage argues that communication has always been obsessed with the meaning of the body and that bodily difference is always highly rhetorical. Following from this rewriting of rhetorical history, he outlines the development of a new theory, affirming the ideas that all communication is embodied, that the body plays a central role in all expression, and that greater attention to a range of bodies is therefore essential to a better understanding of rhetorical histories, theories, and possibilities.

Immanuel Kant is rarely connected to rhetoric by those who study philosophy or the rhetorical tradition. If anything, Kant is said to see rhetoric as mere manipulation and as not worthy of attention. In Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric, Scott Stroud presents a first-of-its-kind reappraisal of Kant and the role he gives rhetorical practices in his philosophy. By examining the range of terms that Kant employs to discuss various forms of communication, Stroud argues that the general thesis that Kant disparaged rhetoric is untenable. Instead, he offers a more nuanced view of Kant on rhetoric and its relation to moral cultivation. For Kant, certain rhetorical practices in education, religious settings, and public argument become vital tools to move humans toward moral improvement without infringing on their individual autonomy. Through the use of rhetorical means such as examples, religious narratives, symbols, group prayer, and fallibilistic public argument, individuals can persuade other agents to move toward more cultivated states of inner and outer autonomy. For the Kant recovered in this book, rhetoric becomes another part of human activity that can be animated by the value of humanity, and it can serve as a powerful tool to convince agents to embark on the arduous task of moral self-cultivation.