- The history of the metaphor of growth is traced in Robert A. Nisbet, Social Change and History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Development (London: Oxford University Press, 1969). For specific references to metaphors of growth and development in Greek thought see Aristotle's Metaphysics, trans, with commentaries by Hippocrates G. Apostle (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966), p. 77; and Aristotle, Genesis and Decay, trans. H. H. Joachim (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), II, 11.
- Augustine, The City of God , trans, by Marcus Dods (New York: Modern Library, 1950), X, 1–14, XV, and XII.
- Nisbet, ch. 5; and Kenneth E. Bock , “Evolution, Function and Change,” American Sociological Review , 28 (April 1963), 229–337.
- Charles Darwin . The Origin of the Species (New York: Modern Library, 1958); and Herbert Spencer , Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative (New York: D. Appleton and Company. 1891).
- Stephen Toulmin , Human Understanding , Vol. I (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) and The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1977).
- 6 Douglas Ehninger , “Argument as Method: Its Nature, Its Limitations, and Its Uses,” Speech Monographs , 37 (June 1970), 101–111.
- Wayne Brockriede , “Where Is Argument?” Journal of the American Forensic Association, 9 (Spring 1975), 179–182; “Rhetorical Criticism as Argument,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 60 (April 1974), 165–174; and “Characteristics of Argument and Arguing,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 13 (Winter 1977), 129–132.
- Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca , The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation , trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1958; rpt. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1969); Perelman, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument , trans. John Petric (London: Rutledge and Kegan, 1963); Lloyd F. Bitzer , “Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 45 (December 1959), 399–408; and “Rhetoric and Public Knowledge,” in Rhetoric, Philosophy and Literature. An Exploration, ed. Don M. Burks (West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1978), pp. 67–93.
- Edwin Black , Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (1965; rpt. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), ch. 6; and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Jamieson, Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action (Falls Church, Va.: Speech Communication Assoc., 1978).
- John Cragan , “Rhetorical Strategy: A Dramatistic Interpretation and Application,” Central States Speech Journal , 26 (Spring 1975), 4–11; Sonja K. Foss , “The Equal Rights Amendment Controversy: Two Worlds in Conflict,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 65 (October 1979), 275–289; and David Zarefsky , “The Great Society as a Rhetorical Proposition,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 65 (December 1979), 364–379.
- Brant R. Burleson , “A Cognitive-Developmental Perspective on Social Reasoning Processes,” Western Journal of Speech Communication , 45 (Spring 1981), 133–147. Some aspects of the cognitive-developmental approach are discussed in Burleson, “The Place of Non-Discursive Symbolism, Formal Characterizations, and Her- meneutics in Argument: Analysis and Criticism,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 16 (Spring 1980), 222–231; and Burleson and Susan L. Kline , “Habermas' Theory of Communication: A Critical Explication,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 65 (December 1979), 412–428; Jürgen Habermas , Communication and the Evolution of Society , trans. Thomas McCarthy (1976; rpt. Boston: Beacon Press, 1979), ch. 2.
- Charles Kneupper , “Rhetoric, Argument, and Social Reality: A Social Constructivist View,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 16 (Winter 1980), 173–181; and Kneupper, “Paradigms and Problems: Alternative Constructivist/Interactionist Implications for Argumentation Theory,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 15 (Spring 1979), 220–227. Charles Arthur Willard makes this claim in several articles: “A Reformulation of the Concept of Argument: The Constructivist/Interactionist Foundations of a Sociology of Argument,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 14 (Winter 1978), 121–140; “On the Utility of Descriptive Diagrams for the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments,” Communication Monographs , 43 (December 1976), 308–319; “Argument as Non-Discursive Symbolism,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 14 (Spring 1978), 187–193; and “The Epistemic Functions of Argument: Reasoning and Decision-Making from a Constructivist Inter-actionist Point of View,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , 15 (Winter 1979), 169–191; 15 (Spring 1979), 211–219.
- 13 Kenneth Burke , The Philosophy of Literary Form (1941; rpt. Berkeley: Universfty of California Press, 1973), pp. 11O–11.
- This position is develooed in Herbert Bu'terfield, The Origins of Modern Science (New York: Free Press, 1957).
- Robert Bretall , ed., A Kierkegaard Anthology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946).
- Frederick J. Teggart , Theory and Processes of History (Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press, 1977), pp. 303–4.
- Ibid.
- Luther P. Gerlach and Virginia H. Hine , Lifeway Leap: The Dynamics of Change in America (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973), chs. 1 & 2.
- The idea of continuity through change is suggested in the works of Aristotle and others and is developed more completely in Kenneth Burke. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose (New York: New Republic, 1935).
- Thomas B. Farrell , “The Ideality of Meaning of Argument: A Revision of Habermas,” Dimensions of Argument , ed. George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes (Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association, 1981), pp. 905–926.
- Robert Rowland , “Argument Fields,’ in Dimensions of Argument, pp. 56–79.
- Discussions of form appear in Black and in Campbell and Jamieson. The Burkean approach to form is developed in the following: Robert L. Heath , “Kenneth Burke on Form,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 65 (December 1979), 392–404; and Jane Blankenship and Barbara Sweeney , “The ‘Energy’ of Form,” Central States Speech Journal , 31 (Fall 1980), 972–983. Kenneth Burke develops the idea in: Philosophy of Literary Form. pp. 89–109; Counter-Statement (1941; rpt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 123–127; and Dramatism and Development Barre, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1972), p. 16.
- Burke , Counter-Statement , pp. 123–127.
- Ibid.
- Conventional form accounts for the natural patterns of thinking and justification which have been acquired by audiences through their experience of hearing arguments in the form of problem and solution and assertion and defense.
- Progressive form is a patterning and sequential relating of discourse that appears in svllogistic and qualitative forms. Syllogistic progression involves a clearly deduced and point-by-point linkage of reasons to each other to establish central ideas or issues; whereas qualitative progression involves a more inductive connection between reasons–a connection that is not entirely obvious until an entire work is perceived by an auditor. Repetitive form is “the restatement of the same thing in different ways” (Counter-Statement, p. 125), a form that reinforces major claims and issues which are part of arguments.
- Heath , 397.
- Richard B. Gregg , “Kenneth Burke's Prolegomena to the Study of the Rhetoric of Form,” Communication Quarterly , 26 (Fall 1978) 12.
- Kenneth Burke , “Definition of Man,” Language as Symbolic Action (Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press, 1966), pp. 16–20.
- Lloyd Bitzer , “The Rhetorical Situation” in Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings , ed. Richard L. Johannesen (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), pp. 381–393.
- Ibid., p. 386.
- Ibid., p. 387.
- Ibid., p. 388.
- John H. Patton , “Causation and Creativity in Rhetorical Situations: Distinctions and Implications,” Quarterly Journal of Speech , 65 (February 1979), 47.
- The engagement phase features the arguer making symbolic choices regarding action within a situation. The process is explained by Herbert Blumer. Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Method (Englewood, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961), pp. 64–68. The idea of engagement is compatible with evolutionary concepts of Burke on form and those of Toulmin on developing ideas.
- The ideas expressed here coincide with Brockriede's characteristics of argument. Sources for these characteristics are cited in footnote 7. He believes engaging in argument involves an inferential leap, a perceived rationale, choice among disputed options, risk of confrontation, and sharing some frame of reference.
- Allan H. Sager , “The Fundamentalist- Modernist Controversy, 1918–1930,” Preaching in American History , ed. DeWitte Holland (Nashville, Tn.: Abington Press, 1969), 258–277.
- Diversification features adaptation and change that are revealed in the arguments. Diversification generally includes innovations and selections of form by the arguer.
- Walter R. Fisher , “Toward a Logic of Good Reasons,” Quarterly Journal oj Speech , 64 (December 1978), 379–380.
- Ibid., 376–384.
- Several works explain Solzhenitsvn's background. The primary source is his autobiography The Oak and the Calf, trans. Harry Willet (New York: Harper and Row, 1979). He includes many materials related to himself and Russian history in the trilogy Gulag Archipelago I, II, III (New York: Harper and Row, 1973, 74, 76 sequentially). Other sources about Solzhenitsyn that have been of considerable use in the study are the following: Giovanni Gvazzini, Solzhenitsyn (1971; rpt. New York: Dell Publications, 1973); Martin E. Marly . “On Hearing Solzhenitsyn in Context,” World Literature Today , 53 (Autumn 1974). 578–584; Walter Kaufman , “Solzhenitsyn and Autonomy,” ed. Kathryn B. Feur , Solzhenitsyn (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976); Stephen Carter , The Politics of Solzhenitsyn (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1977); Oliver Clement. The Spirit of Solzhenitsyn (London: Search Press, 1976); Leopold Labedz, Solzhenitsyn: A Documentary Record (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973); Francis Parker, Solzhenitsyn: Politics and Form (London: Macmillan Ltd., 1977); and Edward E. Ericson. Jr. , Solzhenitsyn: The Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: William B. Ecrdmans Publishing. 1980).
- Solzhenitsyn , The Oak and the Calf , pp. 2–3.
- Ibid., p. 11.
- Darrell P. Hammer , USSR: The Politics of Oligarchy (Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press, 1974), pp. 286–320.
- Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn and Janis Sapiets , “Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn in February 1969, B.B.C.,” East & West, ed. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (New York: Perennial Library, 1980), pp. 145–82.
- Solzhenitsyn , The Oak and the Calf , pp. 50–102.
- A detailed discussion of the thaw and the role of Novy Mir and the government both in initiating the period and retracting it appears in: Dina R. Spechler, Permitted Dissent in the USSR: Novy Mir and the Soviet Regime (New York: Praeger, 1982).
- He testifies to this growing confidence in The Oak and the Calf, pp. 50–102.
- Several sources explain the lack of free explosion in the Soviet Union: Derrick Sington, Freedom of Communication (London: Ampersand Ltd., 1963); Mark W. Hopkins , Mass Media in the Soviet Union (New York: Pegasus, 1970); Frederick C. Barghoorn , Politics in the USSR (Boston: Little, Brown and Compan” 1966); and John Hohenberg , Free Press, Free People (New York: Free Press, 1973).
- Grazzini , ch. 8; Sington, p. 95; Hopkins. 101–105; Barker, ch. 3; and Hohenberg, pp. 362–373.
- Sington. p. 38;
- Ibid.
- He stressed this tradition in Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1972).
- Solzhenitsyn , The Oak and the Calf, p. 1.
- The record of this appearance before the Congress is chronicled in Labedz, pp. 94–102.
- Ibid., p. 96.
- Ibid., p. 98.
- Ibid., p. 102.
- Solzhenitsyn , The Oak and the Calf , pp. 191–225.
- Ibid.
- Labedz , p. 106.
- Ibid., pp. 106–7.
- Ibid., pp. 107–8.
- Ibid., p. 108.
- Ibid., p. 109.
- Ibid., pp. 116–7.
- Solzhenitsyn , The Oak and the Calf , pp. 191–225.
- Citations from Cancer Ward are taken from the work, trans. Rebecca Frank (New York: Dell Publishing, 1968).
- Ibid., po. 327–33.
- The details surrounding the Nobel Prize are explained bv Solzhenitsyn in The Oak and the Calf, pp. 289–334.
- Ibid., p. 331.
- All citations from the Nobel speech are from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture , trans. F. D. Reeve (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1972). Page references are included in the text.
- Selections from the Harvard Commencement Address are taken from “A World Split Apart,” Vital Speeches , 1 September 1978, pp. 678–689. Specific page references are included in the text.
- Fisher , 379–382.
- Ibid., 379.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 380–384.
- Encounter , a literary magazine, has a large number of interviews with Solzhenitsyn from 1975 to the present.
- Carter , p. 152.
The Journal of the American Forensic Association
Volume 19, 1983 - Issue 3