MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4324005064 · doi:10.1353/rht.2000.0015

The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric ed. by Christine Mason Sutherland and Rebecca Sutcliffe

2000· article· en· W4324005064 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueRhetorica · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRhetoric and Communication Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRhetoricScholarshipPower (physics)PoliticsCLARITYSociologyPolitical rhetoricField (mathematics)Media studiesGender studiesHistoryPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyTheology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviews 349 different levels of spiritual understanding may be debatable. Given the likelihood that an open text can serve to stimulate reflection on all these levels, too precise an attempt at political closure may be counterproductive. Sybil M. Jack University of Sydney Christine Mason Sutherland and Rebecca Sutcliffe eds, The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1999), vii + 279 pp. This new collection brings back the excitement of the 1997 Saskatchewan conference of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, where its essays were delivered. There scholars of women's issues from such countries as Canada, France, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia, England, and the U.S. sized up others' perspectives, questioned assumptions, and pushed for clarity, but came away assured of women's place in a field that has notoriously excluded them. Restive fractiousness was not much evident in discussions about women, like the productive dissension arising for instance at the first Rhetorics and Feminisms conference later that summer, when differentials of power, economic means, and race tensions came to the fore. Differences like these are mostly missing, too, from this volume; nevertheless, Mason Sutherland and Sutcliffe's volume encourages and supports an array of scholarship about women that today still lacks ready access to print. Mason Sutherland's own essay opens the collection, a place due it as a plenary address for the gathering of international scholars, and also as "overview of the field" from the editors' stance. "Women in the History of Rhetoric: the Past and the Future" asserts that far from a margin, women have been "a matrix" for rhetoric. "[O]ur part in it has been to feed it, to support it, to enable it", says Mason Sutherland. Referring to all women's work as "maternal" has lately rankled many, but situating it as "anterior" to the rhetorical tradition can strike a resonant note (p. 10). Yet the author worries that a "world view of our own time can come between us and a clear understanding of" past women (p. 350 RHETORICA 27), and she pleads for a complexly ambivalent, but "sympathetic listening to ...voices of the past" such as Mary Astell’s (p. 14). Mason Sutherland presents Astell (1666-1731) as a rationalist and high church monarchist who nevertheless vigorously defended women's education and capacity for public service. The goal of Mason Sutherland's address and of the co-edited collection, then, is "to promote good in our present without doing the past the injustice of misunderstanding and misrepresenting it" (p. 29). The book's sixteen essays (one in both French and English) are arranged as they address ways women were (or are) excluded from, alongside, participating in, emerging into, and engaging the rhetorical tradition, five locations the editors also suggest for future studies of women in rhetoric. The first section, on exclusion, offers C. Jan Swearingen's essay, "Plato's Women: Alternative Embodiments of Rhetoric", which questions the ethics of dismissing such figures as Aspasia and Diotima by claiming that evidence for them is literary and thus suspect. "Directing the announcement selectively at studies of women in antiquity", Swearingen concludes, "is an act of pseudo­ objectivity that should not go unremarked" (p. 44). A wonderfully weird counterpoint is Jody Enders's text, "Cutting Off the Memory of Women", testifying against medieval torture that was designed explicitly to undercut and erase what were codified by the fifteenth-century Malleus Maleficarum as the notoriously unruly memories of women. These essays represent both thoughtful and provocative scholarship, and yet I wonder, looking back at the conference program, why for example Mary Garrett’s "Women and the Chinese Rhetorical Tradition" is not here. The collection focuses, as scholarship about women has, on studies that recover in rhetorical terms the work of particular women: Catherine of Sienna, Hester Ann Rogers, Lady Mary Wroth, Flora MacDonald Denison, and Gertrude Buck to name some honored here. I must confine myself here to a very few essays from this useful volume that even more broadly open up studies about women in rhetoric. One of them, from the "alongside" section, is Helene Cazes's "Verbum inuisiblile palpabitur: The Sibyls in the Second Half of...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,521
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,727

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,208
Écart entre enseignants0,185 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle