Article:
Van’t Hof Marcia S. Star of fear, Star of Hope: North Star to Reach Reality. Rhetorical Criticism, 2004, p455-459.
Research Question:
According to this study, author wants to know how to present history reality to students then students can go through contemporary course (455).
Research Aim:
The author’s aim is try to explore how the text, which is in the book, Star of Fear, Star of Hope, serves rhetorical strategies to influence children’s fears on historical reality (455).
Methodology:
Marcia tries to generate an explanatory schema from the traces of the book, Star of fear, Star of Hope, and she focus on the realism, comfort, and discomfort. (456)
Finding:
The findings of this paper are: 1. When children become participators, they will like to map the story and their experience; 2, the visual elements can reinforce verbal elements; 3.the illustrator and author use discomfort elements to bring the painful mystery (456-459).
Limitation:
The author assumes that harsh reality is the element to understand; therefore Star of Fear, Star of Hope will be a good lesson. However, the author forget that learning one thing is not equal practicing it.
Future direction:
The author suggests that teachers can let student to learn realism, comfort, and discomfort from Star of Fear, Star of Hope (459).
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Pentadic Criticism Review#week12
Article:
W. Ross Winterowd. Dramatism in Themes and Poems. College English, Vol. 45, No. 6. (Oct., 1983), pp. 581-588.
Research Question:
In this artifact, Winterowd asks two questions: 1.What is the importance of Burke’s paradigm? 2. How the dramatism can really work on themes and poems (Winterowd581-588)?
Research Aim:
The author’s main aim is try to define that Burke’s paradigm is not only via enthymemes but also via synecdoches. (Wintered 582). In addition, the author wants to explain that humans live not by enthymemes alone thought this perspective.
Methodology:
In this paper, there is no specific methodology to develop author’s thoughts. However, Winterowd tries to adopt both deduction and induction to explain Burke’s contributions.
Finding:
According to the author, Burke did not invent the representative anecdote, and he wrote appositionally.
Limitation:
The disadvantage of Burke’s methods is that it does not lead readily to the closure of an enthymeme (Winterowd 587-588).
Future direction:
The Burke’s Darmatism has been outside the mainstream of language theory and literary criticism. However, Burke’s method should be applied to more areas such as Post-structuralism.
W. Ross Winterowd. Dramatism in Themes and Poems. College English, Vol. 45, No. 6. (Oct., 1983), pp. 581-588.
Research Question:
In this artifact, Winterowd asks two questions: 1.What is the importance of Burke’s paradigm? 2. How the dramatism can really work on themes and poems (Winterowd581-588)?
Research Aim:
The author’s main aim is try to define that Burke’s paradigm is not only via enthymemes but also via synecdoches. (Wintered 582). In addition, the author wants to explain that humans live not by enthymemes alone thought this perspective.
Methodology:
In this paper, there is no specific methodology to develop author’s thoughts. However, Winterowd tries to adopt both deduction and induction to explain Burke’s contributions.
Finding:
According to the author, Burke did not invent the representative anecdote, and he wrote appositionally.
Limitation:
The disadvantage of Burke’s methods is that it does not lead readily to the closure of an enthymeme (Winterowd 587-588).
Future direction:
The Burke’s Darmatism has been outside the mainstream of language theory and literary criticism. However, Burke’s method should be applied to more areas such as Post-structuralism.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Narrative Criticism Review#week11
Article:
Clark Callahan. Cosmological Worldview and Theory-building: A Rhetorical Analysis of Medieval Astronomical Narrative. Oct2005 Vol.29 No.2, p98-105.
Research Question:
According to this study, author wants to find an approach to know what way can order and present a worldview through a description of a situation in the medieval cosmological scientific narrative (Clark99).
Research Aim:
The author’s aims are: 1.to describe and to analyze the substance of the medieval cosmological narrative; 2. and to offer an evaluation of the narrative to extending and theorizing the narrative form. (Clark99).
Methodology:
The paper, Cosmological Worldview and Theory-building: A Rhetorical Analysis of Medieval Astronomical Narrative, tries to use narrative theory to understanding the medieval astronomical narrative. In addition, the research also compares the Arabic models as Contribution with Copernican Heliocentric thought and European Astronomy perspective. (Clark99-101)
Finding:
The findings of this paper are: 1. the science become its own message without the intercultural discussion; 2, the narrative here is the culmination layers that analysis does not encompass the entire narrative; 3.the impact of Copernican heliocentrism altered the way humans viewed themselves and their place in the world (Clark101-103).
Limitation:
History is primarily recognized in communication research as background for understanding individuals. Nevertheless, those current studies still only focus on communication efficiency. The historical narrative is a particular approach to testify and to understand the relationship of time and contextualizations (Clark103-104).
Future direction:
According to this artifact, the Cosmological Narrative is not only an approach to focus on communication action, but a theoretical model to know a life world of an individual. Therefore, developing the Cosmological Narrative forward to a multiple communication research is the future direction (Clark104).
Clark Callahan. Cosmological Worldview and Theory-building: A Rhetorical Analysis of Medieval Astronomical Narrative. Oct2005 Vol.29 No.2, p98-105.
Research Question:
According to this study, author wants to find an approach to know what way can order and present a worldview through a description of a situation in the medieval cosmological scientific narrative (Clark99).
Research Aim:
The author’s aims are: 1.to describe and to analyze the substance of the medieval cosmological narrative; 2. and to offer an evaluation of the narrative to extending and theorizing the narrative form. (Clark99).
Methodology:
The paper, Cosmological Worldview and Theory-building: A Rhetorical Analysis of Medieval Astronomical Narrative, tries to use narrative theory to understanding the medieval astronomical narrative. In addition, the research also compares the Arabic models as Contribution with Copernican Heliocentric thought and European Astronomy perspective. (Clark99-101)
Finding:
The findings of this paper are: 1. the science become its own message without the intercultural discussion; 2, the narrative here is the culmination layers that analysis does not encompass the entire narrative; 3.the impact of Copernican heliocentrism altered the way humans viewed themselves and their place in the world (Clark101-103).
Limitation:
History is primarily recognized in communication research as background for understanding individuals. Nevertheless, those current studies still only focus on communication efficiency. The historical narrative is a particular approach to testify and to understand the relationship of time and contextualizations (Clark103-104).
Future direction:
According to this artifact, the Cosmological Narrative is not only an approach to focus on communication action, but a theoretical model to know a life world of an individual. Therefore, developing the Cosmological Narrative forward to a multiple communication research is the future direction (Clark104).
Monday, November 05, 2007
The Metaphor Criticism Review#week10
Article:
Mikkonen, Kai. The “Narrative is Travel” Metaphor: Between Spatial Sequence and Open Consequence. Oct2007, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p286-305.
Research Question:
According to this artifact, author wants to know how the travel metaphor affects and provides one with the meanings to think through travel narratives (Mikkonen286).
Research Aim:
This article has three aims: 1.to demonstrate the importance of the metaphor of travel in the narrative method; 2. to rethink the traits of travel writing through temporality concepts while developing narrative theory; 3. to extend cognitive-linguistic research in metaphors. (Mikkonen287).
Methodology:
The paper, The “Narrative is Travel” Metaphor: Between Spatial Sequence and Open Consequence, takes the metaphors as an object of study in itself and restorative it from the method which is provide by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. George and Mark state that journey and travel are “structural metaphors” and related to other metaphorically structures (Mikkonen288-289).
Finding:
In this paper, we can find: 1.the cognitive foundations and communicative functions of the “narrative is travel” metaphor that are found on the experience of the movement and the actions of people; 2.the projection of a world that is articulated to the fictional narrative; and 3.the travel narrative to offer people a basic lens for viewing space and time (Mikkonen299- 300).
Limitation:
There are two limitations of the metaphor of travel narrative: 1.the perspective of the approach creating a utopia world and a microcosm; and 2.the idea of the worldview that is a representation of a traveler’s individual concept of time and space (Mikkonen300-301).
Future direction:
According to the author, the metaphor of travel narrative can offer the experience of time and space through the subjective perspective of movement and of perceiving a world (Mikkonen302). This approach can give a better understanding of the identifying traits that can help people know a traveler’s point of view. Therefore, it should be applied to a new area between observation and inner reflection In the near future.
Mikkonen, Kai. The “Narrative is Travel” Metaphor: Between Spatial Sequence and Open Consequence. Oct2007, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p286-305.
Research Question:
According to this artifact, author wants to know how the travel metaphor affects and provides one with the meanings to think through travel narratives (Mikkonen286).
Research Aim:
This article has three aims: 1.to demonstrate the importance of the metaphor of travel in the narrative method; 2. to rethink the traits of travel writing through temporality concepts while developing narrative theory; 3. to extend cognitive-linguistic research in metaphors. (Mikkonen287).
Methodology:
The paper, The “Narrative is Travel” Metaphor: Between Spatial Sequence and Open Consequence, takes the metaphors as an object of study in itself and restorative it from the method which is provide by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. George and Mark state that journey and travel are “structural metaphors” and related to other metaphorically structures (Mikkonen288-289).
Finding:
In this paper, we can find: 1.the cognitive foundations and communicative functions of the “narrative is travel” metaphor that are found on the experience of the movement and the actions of people; 2.the projection of a world that is articulated to the fictional narrative; and 3.the travel narrative to offer people a basic lens for viewing space and time (Mikkonen299- 300).
Limitation:
There are two limitations of the metaphor of travel narrative: 1.the perspective of the approach creating a utopia world and a microcosm; and 2.the idea of the worldview that is a representation of a traveler’s individual concept of time and space (Mikkonen300-301).
Future direction:
According to the author, the metaphor of travel narrative can offer the experience of time and space through the subjective perspective of movement and of perceiving a world (Mikkonen302). This approach can give a better understanding of the identifying traits that can help people know a traveler’s point of view. Therefore, it should be applied to a new area between observation and inner reflection In the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
