![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Notes
1. Roland Barthes, Image, Music, Text, trans. Stephen Heath (New York: Hill & Wang, 1977), 179.
2. Konstantin Raudive, Breakthrough: An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead, trans. Nadia Fowler (New York: Taplinger, 1971).
3. See Staughton Lynd, “Oral History from Below,” Oral History Review 21 (1993): 1–8; and Alistair Thomson, “Four Paradigm Transformations in Oral History,” Oral History Review 34 (2007): 49–70.
4. For overviews, see Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers's edited collection, Defining Visual Rhetorics (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004); and Lester C. Olson, “Intellectual and Conceptual Resources for Visual Rhetoric: A Re-examination of Scholarship Since 1950,” Review of Communication 7 (2007): 1–20; for notable studies, see Kevin Michael DeLuca, Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism (New York: Guilford Press, 1999); Cara A. Finnegan, Picturing Poverty: Print Culture and FSA Photographs (Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 2003); and Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
5. Yale moved Ong's book to print-on-demand status in 2002.
6. In addition to the books reviewed here, other notable and foundational studies on speech and hearing include Michel Chion, Audio-Vision: Sound on Screen, trans. Claudia Gorbman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994); Michel Chion, The Voice in Cinema, trans. Claudia Gorbman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); Steven Connor, Dumbstruck: A Cultural History of Ventriloquism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); David Schwarz, Listening Subjects: Music, Psychoanalysis, Culture (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997); Leigh Eric Schmidt, Hearing Things: Religion, Illusion, and the American Enlightenment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Kaja Silverman, The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988); and Jonathan Sterne, The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003). In rhetoric, studies of speech and sound are vastly outnumbered by those devoted to images. For a recent exception, see Samuel McCormick, “Earning One's Inheritance: Rhetorical Criticism, Everyday Talk, and the Analysis of Public Discourse,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 89 (2003): 109–31.
7. Frank E. X. Dance, “Speech and Thought: A Renewal,” Communication Education 51 (2002): 355–59; also see Frank E. X. Dance, “Ong's Voice: ‘I,’ the Oral Intellect, You, and We,” Text and Performance Quarterly 9 (1989): 185–99. Dance has been the most visible and vocal opponent of eliminating the term “speech” from our departments and professional associations; see Frank E. X. Dance, “Opposing a Change,” Spectra 25 (1989): 4–5. For a history of the use of “speech” as a titular object, see Gerry Philipsen, “The Early Career Rise of ‘Speech’ in Some Disciplinary Discourse, 1914–1946,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 352–54.
8. See Walter J. Ong, “Orality-Literacy Studies and the Unity of the Human Race,” Oral Tradition 2 (1987): 371–82.
9. For an excellent overview of Ong's career vis-à-vis that of others associated with media ecology, see Lance Strate, “A Media Ecology Review,” Communication Research Trends 23 (2004): 3–48.
10. U. Milo Kaufmann, review of The Presence of the Word by Walter J. Ong, Journal of Aesthetic Education 3 (1969): 162.
11. See Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Zone Books, 1995); and Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects (Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press, 2005).
12. Walter J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), 324.
13. Strate, “Media Ecology,” 4; also see Neil Postman, “The Reformed English Curriculum,” in High School 1980: The Shape of the Future in Secondary Education, ed. Alvin C. Eurich (New York: Pitman, 1970), 160–68. For exemplary rhetorical work conducted from a media ecology perspective, see Kenneth Rufo, “The Mirror in the Matrix of Media Ecology,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2003): 117–40.
14. See Dolar, Voice, 16.
15. See Walter Benjamin, “On the Concept of History,” trans. Harry Zohn, in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Volume 4, 1938–1940, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 289.
16. This is a necessary oversimplification of the term. The Other is frequently capitalized to emphasize that it is not simply another person, but a special “not me” that is, for example, worthy of justice or hospitality (Derrida, Levinas), or the principle figure of the symbolic order (Lacan), and so on.
17. See W. Ronald D. Fairbairn, Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976).
18. Also see Chion, Voice in Cinema.
19. Steven Connor describes this uncanny awareness as the product of “vocalic bodies,” fantasy bodies that we mentally conjure for the voices we hear. See Connor, Dumbstruck, 35–43.
20. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976).
21. Mladen Dolar, “The Object Voice,” in SIC 1: Gaze and Voice as Love Objects, ed. Renata Salecl and Slavoj Žižek (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996), 7–31.
22. The critique of phonocentrism is only one example of the metaphysics of presence for Derrida; however, it remains the most widely known. I have sometimes wondered if the assumption of this critique in the humanities—assuming assumptions also signify simplifications—contributed to the abandonment of the speech object by rhetoricians.
23. Derrida, Grammatology, 20.
24. Dolar is focused specifically here on the critique of phonocentrism as logocentrism. Derrida's late work does take up the issue of the “bad voice” in other places: see Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death, trans. David Wills (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), esp. 53–81; and Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques Derrida to Respond, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), 59–71. My thanks to Ken Rufo for this insight.
25. Eric King Watts, “‘Voice’ and ‘Voicelessness’ in Rhetorical Studies,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 87 (2001): 180.
26. Diane Davis, “Addressing Alterity: Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and the Nonappropriative Relation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 38 (2005): 194.
27. Plato, The Republic of Plato, trans. Francis MacDonald Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), 222–23.
28. Cryptic definitional statements such as the following are typical: “To put it formulaically, speech refers to speakers, and speakers refer to their voice.” Cavarero, More Than One Voice, 9.
29. For a book-length treatment of hearing—and, in a sense, a kind of counterpart to Cavarero's project—see Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation, trans. Christie V. McDonald (New York: Schocken Books, 1985); and Avital Ronell, The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia, Electric Speech (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989).
30. See Silverman, Acoustic Mirror.
31. Sigmund Freud, “An Outline of Psycho-analysis,” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (SE) 23, ed. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1964), 141–208. For a lucid explication of primary identification, see Diane Davis, “Identification: Burke and Freud on Who You Are,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 38 (2008): 123–47.
32. For Lacan, primary identification and the arrival of the Law of the Father (which thereby creates new object choices) are both prior to the Oedipus Complex in Freud, which represents sexual difference or what Lacan refers to as “sexuation.” The reason primary identification is important to gender scholars is that it implies relationality is prior to sexual difference, which has important implications for ethics, social theory, and so forth. See Charles Shepherdson, Vital Signs: Nature, Culture, Psychoanalysis (New York: Routledge, 2000), esp. 115–51.
33. See Franz Rosenzweig, Philosophical and Theological Writings, trans. and ed. Paul W. Franks and Michael L. Morgan (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000).
34. Anne Dufourmantelle, “Invitation,” in Derrida, Hospitality, 122. The related Lacanian term is the “paternal metaphor,” which implies the pact was more or less a forced choice.
35. In the theoretical humanities, the notion of speech as the originary locus of relationality is known as the “acoustic mirror,” a concept developed by the psychoanalytic theorist Guy Rosolato in the 1970s and extensively elaborated by film theorist Kaja Silverman. The acoustic mirror is an event of pre-verbal identification (if we can call it that) that precedes image-based identification (e.g., the “mirror stage”). Although Nass and Brave's work is keyed specifically to the market place and theories regarding the acoustic mirror are nested within cinema studies and musicology, in a qualified sense one can characterize the former as the empirical counterpart to the latter; both projects can be profitably read across one another. See Guy Rosolato, “La voix: entre corps et langage,” Revue francaise de psychanalyse 37 (1974): 75–94; Silverman, Acoustic Mirror.
36. Kate Bush, “Mother Stands for Comfort,” perf. by Kate Bush. Hounds of Love (New York: Sony, 1985). Compact Disk.
37. Connor, Dumbstruck, 30–31.
38. Connor, Dumbstruck, 32.
39. Frank E. X. Dance, “A Speech Theory of Communication,” in Human Communication Theory: Comparative Essays, ed. Frank E. X. Dance (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 129–33.
40. In this regard, the present essay is an expansion of an argument I originally advanced in a very short “provocation” essay in the previous volume. See Joshua Gunn, “Gimme Some Tongue (On Recovering Speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 361–64.
41. Gerry Philipsen, “The Early Career Rise of ‘Speech’ in Some Disciplinary Discourse, 1914–1946,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 352–54.
42. “Membership Changes Name to National Communication Association,” Spectra (May 1997): 1.
43. Judith S. Trent, “A Name Change to Bring Us ‘Ahead to Our Roots,’” Spectra (May 1997): 2.
44. James W. Chesebro, “Why We Need to Change Our Name to the National Communication Association,” Spectra (Nov. 1996): 2.
45. Chesebro, “Why We Need,” 22.
46. Frank E. X. Dance, “Opposing a Change,” Spectra (March, 1989): 4–5.
47. Or as Connor, following Melanie Klein, would have it, to the mother.
48. See Cheryl Glenn, Unspoken: A Rhetoric of Silence (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004); and Robert L. Scott, “Rhetoric and Silence,” Western Speech 36 (1972): 146–58; and Robert L. Scott, “Dialectical Tensions of Speaking and Silence,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (1993): 1–18.
49. William Keith, “Crafting a Usable History,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 345–48. For a number of essays devoted to reviving interest in the history of our field, see the recent forum “On the History of Communication Studies” in the same issue, esp. David Beard, “Out of the Aerie Realm of the Intellectual Firmament,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 349–51; Pat J. Gehrke, “Historical Study as Ethical and Political Action,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 355–57; and Darrin Hicks, “The New Citizen,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 358–60.