Reply to Gaonkar and Fuller

• John Angus Campbell ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Washington

     University of Washington

     Estados Unidos

     
• Localización: Southern communication journal, ISSN 1041-794X, Vol. 58, nº 4, 1992, págs. 312-318
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This response focuses on Gaonkar's two major claims, on the thinness of rhetorical theory and my sins of intention, and with Fuller's objections to rhetoric as strategy. The “thinness” of rhetorical theory, I argue, is its virtue and its pride, and that Gaonkar's alternative models for a “dense” language raise questions of their own. Gaonkar opposes the notion of a strategist, Fuller the notion of a strategy. Responses to criticism of the author's work on Charles Darwin are set out.