Мобильная версия

Доступно журналов:

3 288

Доступно статей:

3 891 637

 

Скрыть метаданые

Автор Benoit, William L.
Автор D'Agostine, J. Michael
Дата выпуска 1994
dc.description Rhetorical theory and criticism offer scant advice on approaching multiple audiences, despite that fact that much discourse addresses heterogeneous audiences. This analysis of Chief Justice Marshall's Supreme Court opinion in the case of Marbury v. Madison illustrates the use of separation and incorporation (a form of integration) in a multiple audience situation. It also offers insight on a landmark case in the development of our tripartite system of government.
Формат application.pdf
Издатель Taylor & Francis Group
Копирайт Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Название “The case of the midnight judges” and multiple audience discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury V. Madison
Тип research-article
DOI 10.1080/10417949409372928
Electronic ISSN 1930-3203
Print ISSN 1041-794X
Журнал Southern Communication Journal
Том 59
Первая страница 89
Последняя страница 96
Аффилиация Benoit, William L.; Associate Professor of Communication, University of Missouri
Аффилиация D'Agostine, J. Michael; Technical Training Specialist at E.D.S.
Выпуск 2
Библиографическая ссылка Beth, L. P. 1962. Politics, the constitution, and the Supreme Court, New York: Harper & Row.
Библиографическая ссылка Benoit, W. L. 1989. Attorney argumentation and Supreme Court opinions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 26: 22–38.
Библиографическая ссылка Beveridge, A. J. 1919. The life of John Marshall, vol. III, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Библиографическая ссылка Cahn, E. 1954. “An American contribution”. In Supreme Court and supreme law, Edited by: Cahn, E. New York: Clarion.
Библиографическая ссылка Cox, A. 1976. The role of the Supreme Court in American government, New York: Oxford University Press.
Библиографическая ссылка Dahl, R. A. 1958. Decision‐making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy‐maker. Journal of Public Law, 6: 279–95.
Библиографическая ссылка Dean, H. E. 1966. Judicial review and democracy, New York: Random House.
Библиографическая ссылка Golden, J. L. and Makau, J. M. 1982. “Perspectives on judicial reasoning”. In Explorations inrheloric: Studies in honor of Douglas Ehninger, Edited by: McKerrow, K. E. 157–77. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Библиографическая ссылка Hagan, M. R. 1976. Roe v. Wade: The rhetoric of fetal life. Central States Speech Journal, 27: 192–99.
Библиографическая ссылка Hunsaker, D. M. 1978. The rhetoric of Brown v. Board of Education: Paradigm for contemporary social protest. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43: 91–109.
Библиографическая ссылка Jacob, H. 1918. Justice in America: Courts, lawyers and the judicial process, 3rd ed., Boston: Little, Brown.
Библиографическая ссылка Marshall, J. (1803). Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 138, 1 Cranch 138.
Библиографическая ссылка McDaniel, C. and Darden, W. R. 1987. Marketing, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Библиографическая ссылка Newell, S. E. and Rieke, R. D. 1986. A practical reasoning approach to legal doctrine. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22: 212–22.
Библиографическая ссылка O'Keefe, B. J. and Delia, J. G. 1982. “Impression formation and message production”. In Social cognition and communication, Edited by: Roloff, M. E. and Berger, C. R. 33–72. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Библиографическая ссылка O'Keefe, B. J. and Shepherd, G. J. 1987. The pursuit of multiple objectives in face‐to‐face persuasive interactions: Effects of construct differentiation on message organization. Communication Monographs, 54: 396–419.
Библиографическая ссылка Perelman, C. and Olbrechts‐Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, Edited by: Wilkinson, J. and Weaver, P. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Библиографическая ссылка Pride, W. M. and Ferrell, O. C. 1987. Marketing: Basic concepts and decisions, 5/e., Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.
Библиографическая ссылка Rieke, R. D. 1982. “Argumentation in the legal process”. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, Edited by: Cox, J. R. and Willard, C. A. 363–76. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Библиографическая ссылка Rieke, R. D. 1986. “The evolution of judicial justification: Perelman's concept of the rational and the reasonable”. In Practical reasoning in human affairs, Edited by: Golden, J. L. and Pilotta, J. J. 227–44. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Библиографическая ссылка Rieke, R. D. 1991. The judicial dialogue. Argumentation, 5: 39–55.
Библиографическая ссылка Schoel, W. F. and Guiltinan, J. P. 1990. Marketing: Contemporary concepts and practices, 4/e., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Библиографическая ссылка Smith, C. R. 1971. Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech as a model of dual audience adaptation. Today's Speech, 19: 15–22.
Библиографическая ссылка Smith, C. R. 1975. The Republican keynote address of 1968: Adaptive rhetoric for the multiple audience. Western Speech, 39: 32–39.
Библиографическая ссылка Thompson, W. N. 1979a. Barbara Jordan's keynote address: Fulfilling dual and conflicting purposes. Central States Speech Journal, 30: 272–77.
Библиографическая ссылка Thompson, W. N. 1979b. Barbara Jordan's keynote address: The juxtaposition of contradictory values. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 44: 223–32.
Библиографическая ссылка Warren, C. 1926. The Supreme Court in U. S. history, rev. ed., vol. 1, Boston: Little & Brown.
Библиографическая ссылка Wright, W. E. 1964. Judicial rhetoric: A field for research. Speech Monographs, 31: 64–72.

Скрыть метаданые