Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?

Presidential elections, by their nature, provoke fierce debates. During the 2017 French campaign the heated exchange between C. Angot and F. Fillon attracted public attention: that “clash” was making a “buzz”. Our attention was first caught by the terminology recurrently u...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Françoise Collinet
Format: Article
Language:Catalan
Published: Adam Mickiewicz University 2017-09-01
Series:Studia Romanica Posnaniensia
Subjects:
Online Access:https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/srp/article/view/12258/12093
id doaj-e04a0ff15b7d4f3698e5353a9273ddbe
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e04a0ff15b7d4f3698e5353a9273ddbe2021-08-03T00:31:09ZcatAdam Mickiewicz UniversityStudia Romanica Posnaniensia0137-24752084-41582017-09-01443435810.14746/strop.2017.443.003Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?Françoise Collinet0Université JagellonnePresidential elections, by their nature, provoke fierce debates. During the 2017 French campaign the heated exchange between C. Angot and F. Fillon attracted public attention: that “clash” was making a “buzz”. Our attention was first caught by the terminology recurrently used by the media: in which ways are “clashes” and “buzzes” different from but also similar to old rhetorical mechanisms? And, more specifically, would New Rhetoric’s sensitivity to historical relativity shed some light on the issue? At first, we assumed that, polemic being a typical argumentative situation, there was no incompatibility between that theoretical framework and the study of a concrete polemical exchange. Of course, New Rhetoric doesn’t focus on polemical exchanges; we do, however, share Nicolas’ unease at saying that Perelman idealizes philosophical agreement (e.g. Nicolas, 2015a, § 7). After addressing that issue and the ambivalence of Perelman’s position, we will say a few words about the end / consequence dis-tinction.https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/srp/article/view/12258/12093rhetorichistorical relativitybuzzclashend/consequence distinction
collection DOAJ
language Catalan
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Françoise Collinet
spellingShingle Françoise Collinet
Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
Studia Romanica Posnaniensia
rhetoric
historical relativity
buzz
clash
end/consequence distinction
author_facet Françoise Collinet
author_sort Françoise Collinet
title Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
title_short Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
title_full Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
title_fullStr Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
title_full_unstemmed Faites le buzz ! Un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
title_sort faites le buzz ! un vieux mécanisme rhétorique adapté à l’espace médiatique contemporain ?
publisher Adam Mickiewicz University
series Studia Romanica Posnaniensia
issn 0137-2475
2084-4158
publishDate 2017-09-01
description Presidential elections, by their nature, provoke fierce debates. During the 2017 French campaign the heated exchange between C. Angot and F. Fillon attracted public attention: that “clash” was making a “buzz”. Our attention was first caught by the terminology recurrently used by the media: in which ways are “clashes” and “buzzes” different from but also similar to old rhetorical mechanisms? And, more specifically, would New Rhetoric’s sensitivity to historical relativity shed some light on the issue? At first, we assumed that, polemic being a typical argumentative situation, there was no incompatibility between that theoretical framework and the study of a concrete polemical exchange. Of course, New Rhetoric doesn’t focus on polemical exchanges; we do, however, share Nicolas’ unease at saying that Perelman idealizes philosophical agreement (e.g. Nicolas, 2015a, § 7). After addressing that issue and the ambivalence of Perelman’s position, we will say a few words about the end / consequence dis-tinction.
topic rhetoric
historical relativity
buzz
clash
end/consequence distinction
url https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/srp/article/view/12258/12093
work_keys_str_mv AT francoisecollinet faiteslebuzzunvieuxmecanismerhetoriqueadaptealespacemediatiquecontemporain
_version_ 1721224899912007680