Home Perelman’s phenomenology of rhetoric: Foucault contests Chomsky’s complaint about media communicology in the age of Trump polemic
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Perelman’s phenomenology of rhetoric: Foucault contests Chomsky’s complaint about media communicology in the age of Trump polemic

  • Richard L. Lanigan EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 31, 2019
Semiotica
From the journal Semiotica Volume 2019 Issue 229

Abstract

The analysis explores the main arguments of Noam Chomsky’s short book, Media Control that also reprints the monograph “The Journalist from Mars: How the ‘War on Terror’ Should Be Reported.” The problematic is Aristotelian rhetoric and Enlightenment rationality (justice) in civic discourse (Lógos) as compared to the thematic of dialogic reasonableness (Eulógos). Chomsky’s assumption of, and critique of, “old rhetoric” [Aristotle’s rhētorikḗ] is followed by a discussion of Chiam Perelman’s “new rhetoric” [presocratic poiētikḗ / epideiktikos / gērys] and his “incarnate adherence” (giving voice to) concept of the Universal Audience as a function of Epideictic argumentation. This is also a critique of Stephen Toulman’s neo-Aristotelian model of rhetorical “warrant” and its connection to Charles S. Peirce’s normative semiotic of the “argument cycle.” Heidegger’s and Lakoff’s concept of discourse framing is associated with Michel Foucault’s rhetoric concept of an ethic of social discourse for the common good (parrhesia) in the age of Umberto Eco’s hyperreality media that displays Baudrillard’s simulacra, such as Donald Trump.

Keywords: communicology; Chomsky; epideictic; Foucault; hyperreality; media; rhetoric; simulacra

Acknowledgements

The present paper was presented first as “Noam Chomsky’s Complaint About Media Communicology,” The Society for Phenomenology and Media, 11th Annual Conference: “Philosophy, Politics, and the Media,” Washington, DC, 26–February 28, 2009. A second draft was presented at The 2nd Biennial Philosophy of Communication Conference, Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies, Duquesne University, Power Conference Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 3–June 5, 2015. I want express my appreciation for the constructive dialogue from all the audiences for the present paper, and, all those who, over many years, have offered constructive comment on my axiological approach to rhetorical theory, especially Noam Chomsky, Jürgen Habermas, Paul Ricoeur, and Calvin O. Schrag. Last, I want to note my deep appreciation for the important theoretical work on Rhetoric (in the tradition of Group Mu and Phenomenology) by my friend and colleague Prof. Göran Sonesson, Centre for Cognitive Semiotics, Department of Semiotics, Lund University, Sweden; and, in the tradition of Roman Jakobson’s “rhetorical linguistics” to my colleague and friend, Michael Shapiro.

Appendix

A

  1. VOICE [G. gērys: sound to give voice as utterance and inscription]. Voice [inflection; verb tense] codes Active [Ενεργητική], Middle [Μέση], Passive [Παθητική] temporal agency. A key point is that middle voice usually specifies that the agent causing the action is oneself. Greimas and Courtés (1982 [1979]: 39) note in their entry for “Communication” that human communication operates “at the semantic level, as a discourse with two, or several, voices.” A good general reference source is Peters (1967). Notes that “code” is an embodied binary analogue apposition relation of Encode (Expression) and Decode (Presentation), both which are a consciousness of noetic (Reality) understanding, but mean or signify (stand in place of) phenomena that are noematic (Actuality). For this Handchart, the three relevant languages of Voice are:

    1. Greek ontology assigns a voice to each of the seven categories (Ónoma through Graphikos) among others, however they were systematized into four discrete categories by the Medieval Scholastics as the Trivium. For oral expression, the progressive Rhetoric categories: Articulation, Judgment, Generalization, and Concept. For perception, the Logic or Hermeneutic categories: Anagogical, Moral (Tropological), Allegorical, and Literal (see Lanigan 1992: 89, 167). For written expression, the Grammar categories had the signifying modes: absolutes and respectivus (for syntax) and essentials (general and specific) and accidentalis to generate the parts of speech/language (used by Roman Jakobson, see Kristeva (1989 [1981]: 140, 340 n.3)). Note that Latin terms are transliterated from Greek.

    2. English has a voice agency of First Person (“I”), Second Person (“Me”), Third Person (“You”). The third person is problematic as the Wordspatially Names both a private and public “you” [which used to be marked “Thee” and “Thou” as a solution to the referential ambiguity]. The current ambiguity of “you” is a preferred usage for English speakers (It offers the rhetorical option: “I did not mean You!”). Some languages (e.g. Algonquin) have a Fourth Person to solve this problem, as “Thee” and “Thou” used to work as a Case function in English.

    3. French has a similar temporal issue that occurs with Passive Voice where there are two “pasts” that cannot be translated (e.g. into English) properly because they are Case specific in Speech ( = temporality), but not in Writing (spatiality). The ambiguity of the Past is resolved in French by having a verb tense for (1) the Public Narrative of History (passé défini) that suggests the known past (passé simple) which is formal writing [Historicity = past voice function] and then (2) there is the Personal Narrative of a Story (passé composé) which is an action completed at the time of speaking [Narrativity = middle voice function], but also references an unknown time of occurrence in the past. The current ambiguity of “passé composé” (two Voices) is a preferred usage for French speakers, who may or may not be responsible for what has happened!

  2. This Handchart is designed to assist in understanding Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s use of Greek in “Eye and Mind” (1964: 159–190). The Handchart also applies to Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception (1962 [1945]) where terms like “magical” are badly misunderstood in the English translation; unfortunately, such issues are not covered by any translator’s notes.

  3. Greek Discourse:

    1. Plato’s Sophist consists of the progression of (1) Rhetoric [Poetic], (2) Sophistic, (3) Maieutic, and (4) Dialectic. Pre-Socratic ontology specified that all objects have being and have voice in the world, hence things like drinking cups where inscribed on the top edge with the message “I Greet You.”

      1. Rhetoric is the contest (agon) of Ónoma and Magikos: Answers that take (capta) or give (data) Questions.

        [Metaphor: series and substitution as context or referent]

      2. Sophistic is the contest (agon) of Mythos and Mystos: Answers that take (capta) or give (data) Answers.

        [Metonymy: regularity and similarity as context or referent]

      3. Maieutic is the contest (agon) of Mystos and Nous: Questions that take (capta) or give (data) Answers.

        [Simile, Irony: event and selection as context or referent]

      4. Dialectic is the contest (agon) of Logos and Graphikos: Questions that take (capta) or give (data)

        Questions. [Synecdoche: code and existence as context or referent]

        For explication and a quadrilateral diagram of the Discourse Subject, see Lanigan (1992: 94).

    2. Aristotle’s De Communicatione (more commonly translated as De Interpretatione) also introduces the voice distinctions among Logic, Rhetoric, and Grammar. The appropriate translation as “Communication” was proposed by Waitz (1844). An excellent introduction to Aristotle’s On Communication view of Greek discourse is Kasabova and Marinov (2013).

  4. Émile Benveniste’s explication of the double voice (narrativity [auto-reference] and historicity [hetero-reference]) in the French verb, see Lanigan (2012). In French, the use of passé composé is a rhetorical device (narrativity) for dialectical effect (unknown historicity); see note 10 below. Greimas and Courtés (1982 [1979]: 143) use the neologism “hi / story” to accommodate this issue.

  5. Contrary to “natural attitude” belief, perspective is located in the Eye, not in Nature observed (Horizon). An explication in simple, clear language is Ellenberg (2014: 261–266). The basis of Husserl’s ēpochē. In the cultural context, see Clifford (1988).

    Perspective (visual, graphic) ranges from Non-Linear [no parallel lines, e.g. a view of mountains] (0-Point) to Linear (1-, 2-, 3-Point) to Curvilinear (4, 5, 6-Point); these are metatheoretical positions in semiotic models of communication. For a discussion, see Lanigan (1988: 184–193).

    “Point” means “vanishing point” and assumes the point is a horizontal line called the spatial “horizon” (in the West = isometric perspective; eye movement is bottom left [foreground] up to top right [background]), or alternatively, the point is a diagonal line called the temporal “horizon” (in the East = axonometric perspective; eye movement is top right [foreground] down to bottom left [background]). Both perspectives are appositional in all cultures.

  6. Heidegger assigns Logos to middle voice (1984: 60) and discusses the relation between Name and Word (1984: 77).

  7. Merleau-Ponty’s “speech speaking” [Signifying Signifier], thus Prosopopoeia is a Trope of Speech (Semantic Meaning). See Lanigan (1992: 155–177). The present Handchart assumes you have read this chapter!

  8. Chiasm Model: For Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Michel Foucault, there is a postulated axiological valence in discourse based in the tropes of prosopopoeia and asyndeton embedded in the aphorism Le Même et L’Autre defined as the ratio Self : Same :: Other Different. For Merleau-Ponty the valence of perception is Freedom versus Terror; and, for Foucault the valence of expression is Desire versus Power. If discourse consists of both perception of expression [Merleau-Ponty] and expression of perception [Foucault], then axiology is reflective, reflexive, reversible. Therefore, the ratio Self : Same :: Other Different becomes an existential – social discourse valence: Freedom : Desire :: Power : Terror. For an explication of the valence discourse dynamic, see Lanigan (1996; discusses the Museum/Monument versus Library/Document metaphor taken from; Cassirer 1944: 117). See also Lanigan (2001, 2018).

  9. Merleau-Ponty’s “gesture” as the sign of embodiment.

  10. Edmund Husserl’s Stiftung (‘Founding,’ ‘Endowment’) = “Not a spatiality of position, but a spatiality of situation” (Merleau-Ponty 1962: 100).

  11. Foucault’s existential “expressing” or “articulating” (énoncé) or parrhesia: “the one who speaks the truth” as the conjunction of “truth-telling (le dire vrai) and truthful speech (la parole vrai), the result of Rhetoric [in the Trivium] where the Person is “subject to.” Freud’s “talking cure.” Equivalent to Merleau-Ponty’s corps propre and Bourdieu’s hexis. To understand the Greek conceptions, see Lockwood (2013).

  12. Allegory is a major, unsettled problematic (Mystos = mystery) in Greek epistemology (the term is not equivalent to the Medieval usage!) and has its’ modern version as the debate on the ontology of “Presentation” [Vorstellungfunction] where there is a distinction between Darstellungfunction (‘Representation’) and Ausdruckfunktion (‘Expression’). See Cassirer (1946: 53–60). It was resolved by the Medieval Scholastics in many ways, but notably as a hermeneutic approach to the Trivium (Logic, Rhetoric, Grammar). Merleau-Ponty implicitly, and Foucault explicitly, use the Scholastic blueprints in their approach to the problematic and thematic of Discourse (see note 10); for an explication, see especially Tables 1 and 2 in Lanigan (1992: 89, 167). For an applied model, see the Handchart “Lévi-Strauss’ Communicology Model of Myth [mythos] and Reality [logos].” Psychiatry concerns the contested choice (agon) of Mystos or Nous within the context of Mythos and Logos, hence the competing Voices heard by the patient! See specifically Jaynes (1976) and, generally the work of Karl Jaspers on communication and general psychopathology.

  13. Foucault’s essential “expression” or “articulation” (énonciation) or the product of an epistḕmē: “the forgetfulness of rationality” [agōnia mermēra], the result of Grammar [in the Trivium Majorum] where the Person is “subject of.” Equivalent to Merleau-Ponty’s corps veçu and Bourdieu’s habitus. On the issue of the “Author,” see Lanigan (2001). Eulogos is the basis of Chaim Perelman’s “universal audience” in the New Rhetoric where reasonableness (mythos) is the ground of rationality (logos); see Peters (1967: 23) where eulogos is associated with hypothesis (elaborated by Charles S. Peirce and Gregory Bateson as Abduction).

  14. Merleau-Ponty’s “speech spoken” [Signifying Signified], thus Asyndeton is a Figure of Language (Syntactic Signification).

References

Aristotle. 1984. Rhetoric, Rhys Roberts (trans.). In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Bollingen Series 71), vols 1 & 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arneson, Pat. 2014. Communication engagement and social liberation: Justice will be made. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arnett, Ronald C. 2013. Communication ethics in dark times: Hannah Arendt’s rhetoric of warning and hope. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland. 1967 [1964]. Elements of semiology, Annette Lavers & Colin Smith (trans.). New York, NY: Hill and Wang.Search in Google Scholar

Barthes, Roland. 1994 [1970]. The old rhetoric: An aide-mémoire. In Richard Howard (trans.), The semiotic challenge, 11–93. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baudrillard, Jean. 1984 [1981]. Simulacra and simulation, Sheila Faria Glaser (trans.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Blanché, Robert. 1967. Raison et discours: Defense de la logique reflexive. Paris: Libraire Philosophique Vrin-Reprise.Search in Google Scholar

Blanché, Robert. 1969. Structures intellectuelles: Essai sur l’organisation systématique des concepts. Paris: Vrin-Reprise.Search in Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl. 1982. The axiomatization of the language sciences. In Robert E. Innis (ed.), Karl Bühler: Semiotic foundations of language theory, 75–164. New York & London: Plenum Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl. 1990 [1932]. Theory of language: The representational function of language, (Foundations of Semiotics 25), Donald Fraser Goodwin (trans.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.25Search in Google Scholar

Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. An essay on man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cassirer, Ernst. 1946. “Logos” and “mythos” in Early Greek Philosophy. In The myth of the state, 53–60. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2002 [1991]. Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda (1991), 2nd edn. New York, NY: Open Media/Seven Stories Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Michel Foucault. 2006. The Chomsky-Foucault debate: On human nature. New York, NY: The New Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clifford, James. 1988. The predicament of culture: Twentieth century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctvjf9x0hSearch in Google Scholar

Cornish, F. 2009. Discourse anaphora. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 2nd edn., 184–191 Boston, MA: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser 2014. Figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

De Man, Paul. 2017. Rhetoric of tropes (Nietzsche). In Roberto Franzosi (ed.), Landmark essays on tropes and figures, 187–197. New York, NY: Routledge; Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar

Dearin, Ray D. 1969. The philosophical basis of Chiam Perelman’s theory of rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech 55(3). 213–224.10.1080/00335636909382948Search in Google Scholar

Descombes, Vincent. 1980 [1979]. Modern French Philosophy [sic], L. Scott-Fox & J. M. Harding (trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621215Search in Google Scholar

Ding, Ersu. 2015. Semiotics turning cross-cultural. Language and Semiotic Studies 1(3). 1–12.10.1515/lass-2015-010301Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 1986 [1980]. On the crisis of the crisis of reason. In William Weaver (trans.), Travels in hyperreality: Essays, 125–132. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 1989 [1962]. The open work, Anna Canogni (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 2014 [2007]. From the tree to the labyrinth: Historical studies on the sign and interpretation, Anthony Oldcorn (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674728165Search in Google Scholar

Ede, Lisa E. 1981. Rhetoric versus philosophy: The role of the universal audience in Chaim Perelman’s. The New Rhetoric. Central States Speech Journal 32(2). 118–125.10.1080/10510978109368086Search in Google Scholar

Ellenberg, Jordan. 2014. Where the train tracks meet. In How not to be wrong: The power of mathematical thinking, 261–266. New York, NY: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Eubanks, Ralph H. 1986. An axiological analysis of Chaim Perelman’s theory of practical reasoning. In James L. Golden & Joseph J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical reasoning in human affairs: Studies in honor of Chaim Perelman (Synthese Library 183), 69–84. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4674-3_5Search in Google Scholar

Fisher, Harwood. 2001. The subjective self: A portrait inside logical space. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fisher, Harwood. 2009. Self, logic, and figurative thinking. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.10.7312/fish14504Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 2001 [1983]. Fearless speech, Joseph Pearson (ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 2011. Speech begins after death [sic], Robert Bononno (trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 2015 [2013]. Language, madness, and desire: On literature, Philippe Artières et al. (eds.), Robert Bononno (trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.10.5749/minnesota/9780816693238.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Garret, Mary & Xiaosui Xiao. 1993. The rhetorical situation revisited. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 23(2). 30–40.10.1080/02773949309390985Search in Google Scholar

Green, K. 2009. Deixis and anaphora: Pragmatic approaches. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 2nd edn., 178–181. Boston, MA: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Greimas, Algiridas J. & Joseph Courtés. 1982 [1979]. Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary, Larry Crist, Daniel Patte et al. (trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gusdorf, Georges. 1965 [1953]. Speaking (La parole), Paul T. Brockelman (trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F. 1975 [1812–1816]. The science of logic, William Wallace (trans.), 2 vols. Oxford, UK: At the Clarendon Press.10.4324/9781315823546Search in Google Scholar

Heidegger, Martin. 1962 [1927]. Being and time, John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson (trans.). New York: Harper & Row.10.1002/9780470755501.ch11Search in Google Scholar

Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The question concerning technology and other essays, William Lovitt (trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Heidegger, Martin. 1984. Logos (Heraclitus, Fragment B 50). In D. F. Krell & F. A. Capuzzi (trans.), Early Greek thinking: The dawn of western philosophy, 59–78. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, Louis Trolle. 1961 [1943]. Prolegomena to a theory of language, Francis J. Whitfield (trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press/Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Holenstein, Elmar. 1976 [1974]. Roman Jakobson’s approach to language: Phenomenological structuralism, Catherine Schelbert & Tarcisius Schelbert (trans.). Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Holenstein, Elmar. 1987 [1974]. Jakobson’s philosophical background. In Krystyna Pomorska, Elzbieta Chodakowska, Hugh McLean & Brent Vine (eds.), Language, poetry, and poetics: The Generation of the 1880s: Jakobsobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovskij, 15–31. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Hottois, Gilbert. 1977. Philosophie du langage et philosophie de l’argumentation. Revue De Métaphysique Et De Morale 84(4). 471–510.Search in Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. 1970 [1954]. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental philosophy: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy, Walter Biemel (ed.), David Carr (trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

IJsseling, Samuel. 1976. Rhetoric and philosophy in conflict: An historical survey. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-010-1037-5Search in Google Scholar

Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The origins of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 1933 [1781]. Critique of pure reason, Norman Kemp Smith (trans.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kasabova, Anita & Vladimir Marinov. 2013. “Signifying expressions” in Aristotle’s De Interpretatione.Search in Google Scholar

Kojève, Alexandre. 1969 [1947]. Introduction to the reading of Hegel, Allan Bloom (ed.), James H. Nichols, Jr. (trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kristeva, Julia. 1989 [1981]. Language the unknown: An initiation into linguistics, Anne M. Menke (trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant!. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1968. Two species of style in Aristotle. Dialogue 10(1). 1–5.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1969. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Addendum to the Organon. Dialogue 11(2). 1–6.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1974. Enthymeme: The rhetorical species of Aristotle’s syllogism. Southern Speech Communication Journal 39(3). 207–222.10.1080/10417947409372230Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1984. Semiotic phenomenology of rhetoric: Henry Grattan’s discourse on tolerance. Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1988. Phenomenology of communication: Merleau-Ponty’s thematics in communication and semiology. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1992. The human science of communicology: A phenomenology of discourse in Foucault and Merleau-Ponty. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1994. The postmodern ground of communicology: Subverting the forgetfulness of rationality in language (presidential address to the Semiotic Society of America). American Journal of Semiotics 11(3–4). 5–21.10.5840/ajs1994113/42Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1995a. A good rhetoric is possible: Ricoeur’s philosophy of language as a phenomenology of discourse in the human sciences. In Lewis Hahn (ed.), The philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, 309–328. Chicago: Open Court.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1995b. From enthymeme to abduction: The classical law of logic and the postmodern rule of rhetoric. In Lenore Langsdorf & Andrew R. Smith (eds.), Recovering pragmatism’s voice: The classical tradition, Rorty, and the philosophy of communication, 49–70, 278–283. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1996. Michel Foucault’s science of rhetoric: The contest between practical discourse and discursive practice. Symploké 4(1–2). 189–202.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1997a. Communicology. In Lester Embree (ed.), Encyclopedia of phenomenology, 104–110. Boston & Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-017-5344-9_23Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 1997b. Structuralism. In Lester Embree (ed.), Encyclopedia of phenomenology, 683–689. Boston & Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-017-5344-9_154Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2001. The postmodern author: Foucault on fiction and the fiction of Foucault. American Journal of Semiotics 17(1). 253–271.10.5840/ajs200117117Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2007. Communicology: The French tradition in human science. In Pat Arneson (ed.), Perspectives on the philosophy of communication, 168–184. West Lafayette, In Purdue University Press.10.5840/philcomm200724Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2011. On homeworld and community models of the city: The communicology of egocentric and sociocentric cultures in urban semiotics. In Zdzisław Wąsik & Diana Teters (eds.), Unfolding the semiotic web in urban discourse (Philologia Wratislaviensia: From Grammar to Discourse 3), 11–46. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2012. The two senses of a phenomenology of the Weltanschauung: An essay in honor of Émile Benveniste. American Journal of Semiotics 28(1–2). 63–72.10.5840/ajs2012281-25Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2015a. Semiotic paradigms of self and person: The perspectives model of communicology as the logic foundation of human science. Language and Semiotic Studies 1(1). 106–129.10.1515/lass-2015-010107Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2015b. Greek voices of discourse and epistemology explicated in French Discourse (handchart).Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2015c. Netizen communicology: China Daily and the internet construction of group culture. Semiotica 207(1/4). 489–528.10.1515/sem-2015-0056Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2016a. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In Klaus B. Jensen (ed.), International encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy, Vol. 2, 1035–1043. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2016b. Alfred Schütz (1899–1959). In Klaus B. Jensen (ed.), International encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy, Vol. 4, 1808–1816. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2018. The rhetoric of discourse: Chiasm and dialogue in communicology. In Ronald C. Arnett & François Cooren (eds.), Dialogic ethics, 215–243. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.30.09lanSearch in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2019a. Netizen. In Barney Warf (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of the Internet. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. 2019b. Immanuel Kant on the philosophy of communicology: The tropic logic of rhetoric and semiotics. Semiotica 227(1/4). 273–315.10.1515/sem-2017-0112Search in Google Scholar

Lanigan, Richard L. & Rudolf L. Strobl. 1981. A critical theory approach. In Dan Nimmo & Keith Sanders (eds.), The handbook of political communication, 141–167. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Lockwood, Thornton C. 2013. Habituation, habit, and character in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. In Tom Sparrow & Adam Hutchinson (eds.), A history of habit: From Aristotle to Bourdieu, 19–36. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, Richard A. 2014. Discourse. In Lenoard Lawlor & John Nale (eds.), The Cambridge Foucault lexicon, 120–125. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022309.024Search in Google Scholar

Maneli, Mieczyslaw. 1994. Perelman’s New Rhetoric as philosophy and methodology for the next century, (Library of Rhetorics 1). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-015-8287-2Search in Google Scholar

May, Todd. 2003. Foucault’s relation to phenomenology. In Gary Gutting (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Foucault, 284–311. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521840821.011Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1954. Sur les faits diver. In Signes, 388–391. Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1960. On news items. In Richard C. McCleary (trans.), Signs, 311–313. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962 [1945]. Phenomenology of perception, Colin Smith (trans.). New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964. The primacy of perception and other essays. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 2003 [1995]. The notions of information and communication. In Robert Vallier (trans.), Nature: Course notes from the Collège de France, 158–160. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Merrell, Floyd. 2015. Framing signs involves more than mere words. Language and Semiotic Studies 1(3). 13–34.10.1515/lass-2015-010302Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Michel. 1975. The Perelman-Rawls debate on justice. Revue Internationale De Philosophie 29. 316–331.Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Michel. 1986. From logic to rhetoric, (Pragmatics and Beyond 7[3]). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/pb.vii.3Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Michel. 1994. Rhetoric, language, and reason. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Morrissey, Christopher S. 2015. Modern Predicate Logic (MPL) and Term Functor Logic (TFL). American Journal of Semiotics 31(3–4). 183–202.10.5840/ajs201621011Search in Google Scholar

Mu, Group. 1981 [1970]. A general rhetoric, P. B. Burrell & E. M. Slotkin (trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Search in Google Scholar

Pepe, Cristina. 2013. The genres of rhetorical speeches in Greek and Roman antiquity. Boston, MA: Brill.10.1163/9789004258846Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim. 1963. The idea of justice and the problems of argument. New York, NY: Humanities Press.Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim. 1967. Justice. New York, NY: Random House.Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim. 1970. The new rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning. In Robert M. Hutchins & Mortimer J. Adler (eds.), The great ideas today 1970. New York, NY: Praeger; Encyclopedia Britannica.Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim. 1973. A naturalistic interpretation of authority, ideology, and violence. In Dale Riepe (ed.), Phenomenology and natural existence: Essays in honor of Marvin Farber, 342–352. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim. 1979 [1977]. The rational and the reasonable. In Harold Zyskinf & W. Kluback (trans.), The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications, 117–123. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9482-9_11Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim. 1982. The realm of rhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969 [1958]. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver (trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pernot, Laurent. 1993. La Rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde-gréco-romain. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes.Search in Google Scholar

Pernot, Laurent. 2005 [2000]. Rhetoric in antiquity, W. E. Higgins (trans.). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.10.2307/j.ctt284x1wSearch in Google Scholar

Pernot, Laurent. 2015. Eidetic rhetoric: Questioning the stakes of ancient praise. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.10.7560/768208Search in Google Scholar

Peters, F. E. 1967. Greek philosophical terms: A historical lexicon. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pilotta, Joseph J. 1986. The concrete-universal: A social science foundation for the new rhetoric. In James L. Golden & Joseph J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical reasoning in human affairs: Studies in honor of Chaim Perelman (Synthese Library 183), 379–392. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4674-3_20Search in Google Scholar

Ralón, Laureano 2011. Interview with Calvin O. Schrag. Figure/Ground. http://figureground.org/interview-with-calvin-o-schrag/(accessed 30 April 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042605Search in Google Scholar

Recaséns-Siches, Luis. 1962. The logic of the reasonable as differentiated from the logic of the rational (Human Reason in the Making and Interpretation of the Law). In Ralph A. Newman (ed.), Essays in jurisprudence in honor of Roscoe Pound, 192–221. Indianapolis, In Bobbs-Merrill.Search in Google Scholar

Reich, Robert B. 2015. Saving capitalism: For the many, not the few. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Search in Google Scholar

Ricoeur, Paul. 1989. Rhetoric – Poetics – Hermeneutics. In Michel Meyer (ed.), From metaphysics to rhetoric (Synthese Library 202), 137–149. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-009-2593-9_10Search in Google Scholar

Ricoeur, Paul. 2004 [2003]. Memory, history, forgetting, Kathleen Blamey & David Pellauer (trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226713465.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ricoeur, Paul. 2005. Discours et communication. Paris: Éditions de l’Herne.Search in Google Scholar

Schrag, Calvin O. 2003. Communicative praxis and the space of subjectivity. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Scult, Allen. 1976. Perelman’s universal audience: One perspective. Central States Speech Journal 27(3). 176–180.10.1080/10510977609367889Search in Google Scholar

Shapiro, Michael & Marianne Shapiro. 1988. Figuration in verbal art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sonesson, Göran 2010. Rhetoric from the standpoint of the lifeworld. Actes Sémiotics. http://epublications.unilim.fr/revues/as/3106 (accessed 30 April 2019).10.25965/as.3106Search in Google Scholar

Stawarska, Beata. 2015. Saussure’s philosophy of language as phenomenology: Undoing the doctrine of the Course in General Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190213022.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Tönnies, Ferdinand 1957 [1935 /1887]: Community and Society. Trans. and ed. Charles P. Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press [Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft /Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Abhandlung des Communismus und des Socialismus als empirischer Culturformen Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag. (R. Reisland).Search in Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen. 2003 [1958]. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840005Search in Google Scholar

Veyne, Paul. 2010 [2008]. Foucault: His thought, his character, Janet Lloyd (trans.). Malden, MA: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Roy. 1986. Symbols that stand for themselves. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Waits, Theodore (ed.). 1844. Aristotelis Organon Graece. Pars prior: Categoriae, Hermeneutica, Analytica Priora. Leipzig: Hahn.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, Jeffrey. 2000. Rhetoric and poetic in antiquity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195130355.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Walker, Jeffrey. 2011. The genuine teachers of this art: Rhetorical education in antiquity. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.10.2307/j.ctv6wgh4mSearch in Google Scholar

White, Haden. 1978. Tropics of discourse: Essays in cultural criticism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801821271Search in Google Scholar

Wilden, Anthony. 1980 [1972]. System and structure: Essays in communication and exchange. 2nd ed. London: Tavistock.10.4324/9781315014135Search in Google Scholar

Wilden, Anthony. 1987. The rules are no game: The strategy of communication. New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar

Zalamea, Fernando. 2012. Peirce’s logic of continuity. Boston, MA: Docent Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zawadowski, Leo. 1975. Bühler mode. In Inductive semantics and syntax: Foundations of empirical linguistics, 25–45. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.10.1515/9783110806205Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-05-31
Published in Print: 2019-07-26

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  3. Spontaneous emergence of language-like and music-like vocalizations from an artificial protolanguage
  4. A sociological analysis of moves in the formation of Iranian epitaphs
  5. Sign systems: The dawn of earliest mankind
  6. L’ambigüité structurale et l’acquisition des compétences linguistiques en français en passant par la langue maternelle
  7. The corporeal meaning of language: A semiotic approach to musical glossolalia
  8. Bringing back the image into its frame: Barthes’ soldier and the contextual frame of human perception and interpretation of signs
  9. Context-based analysis of an advertising poster
  10. Semiotic approaches to “traditional music”, musical/poetic structures, and ethnographic research
  11. The theory of synesthesia according to the Pythagorean tradition and Nabokov’s revisiting of Pythagorean synesthesia
  12. “Do you understand these charges?”: How procedural communication in youth criminal justice court violates the rights of young offenders in Canada
  13. Between the institution and the individual: What walking in a place that includes institutional heritage discloses
  14. Finite semiotics: Cognitive sets, semiotic vectors, and semiosic oscillation
  15. The “Fiat 500L” commercial: A journey into Italian style
  16. Epiepistemology/neuro-semantic programming
  17. Diagrams and mental figuration: A semio-cognitive analysis
  18. Perelman’s phenomenology of rhetoric: Foucault contests Chomsky’s complaint about media communicology in the age of Trump polemic
  19. Semiotic and discursive consequences of the cybertextual condition: The case of tragedy
  20. Signizing: The root of the functions of the intentional sign
  21. Review Article
  22. Vital signs: The Darwinian semiotics of beauty in the animal and human worlds
https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0030
Keywords for this article
communicology; Chomsky; epideictic; Foucault; hyperreality; media; rhetoric; simulacra

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  3. Spontaneous emergence of language-like and music-like vocalizations from an artificial protolanguage
  4. A sociological analysis of moves in the formation of Iranian epitaphs
  5. Sign systems: The dawn of earliest mankind
  6. L’ambigüité structurale et l’acquisition des compétences linguistiques en français en passant par la langue maternelle
  7. The corporeal meaning of language: A semiotic approach to musical glossolalia
  8. Bringing back the image into its frame: Barthes’ soldier and the contextual frame of human perception and interpretation of signs
  9. Context-based analysis of an advertising poster
  10. Semiotic approaches to “traditional music”, musical/poetic structures, and ethnographic research
  11. The theory of synesthesia according to the Pythagorean tradition and Nabokov’s revisiting of Pythagorean synesthesia
  12. “Do you understand these charges?”: How procedural communication in youth criminal justice court violates the rights of young offenders in Canada
  13. Between the institution and the individual: What walking in a place that includes institutional heritage discloses
  14. Finite semiotics: Cognitive sets, semiotic vectors, and semiosic oscillation
  15. The “Fiat 500L” commercial: A journey into Italian style
  16. Epiepistemology/neuro-semantic programming
  17. Diagrams and mental figuration: A semio-cognitive analysis
  18. Perelman’s phenomenology of rhetoric: Foucault contests Chomsky’s complaint about media communicology in the age of Trump polemic
  19. Semiotic and discursive consequences of the cybertextual condition: The case of tragedy
  20. Signizing: The root of the functions of the intentional sign
  21. Review Article
  22. Vital signs: The Darwinian semiotics of beauty in the animal and human worlds
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 17.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2018-0030/html
Scroll to top button