[Article] 評論家としてのジャッジ Judge as "critic of argument"

English version follows Japanese one.
But before that...

[Anouncemnt: 10000hits anniversary event]

The hit counter of this blog is approaching to 10000. So, special event!!
The first person who send me a question after 10000hits via e-mail or message application on SNS(mixi, Gree or facebook) will receive my honest answer to it. :)
I have no idea whether anybody on earth is interested in such an event but oh well... I like this sort of nonsense. :p

[お知らせ：　1万ヒット記念イベント]

このブログのヒットカウントが1万に近づいて参りました。で、記念イベントです。
1万ヒット後最初にメールもしくはSNSのメッセージ機能で質問を下さった方に、
記念して質問の如何に関わらず必ず正直なお返事をすることに致します。
一体全体そんなことに興味のある方がいらっしゃるものか分かりませんが、
そういう飲み会ゲームじみたことが嫌いではない私なのです。あはは。

さてさて、本題。
最近アップをさぼりがちでしたが、久々にディベート関連論文についても書いてみたり。

[論文] バルスロップ, V.ウィリアム. 1983. 「評論家としてのディベート審査員：　先験的視座へ」. 『米国討論学会誌』. 20巻夏季号. 1-15頁．

プリミティブながら大変興味深い論文。

今のところtabula rasaに対応する形でcriticという言い回しをしているのはこれが最初のもの。ですが、traditional interpretation of this imageというくだりがあるので、どうやらもっと前からあるもののよう。どなたかもっと前に出ているものをご存知でしたら教えてくださいませ。ちなみに、注にUlrichのIn Search of Tabula Rasaという1981年の発表が挙げられていて羨ましい限り。くぅー、私も生で読みたかったな、それ。どっかで手に入らないかしら。

eticとemicという語の感触は、どうやら元のPikeの論文を読まないとしっくりこなさそう。やれやれ、また読むものが増えてしまいました。Leffの使い方が私には本来と逆に思えるのですが・・・どういうことかしら・・・おかしいな。でもまあ、Leffの言い方だとPolicy/NDTのジャッジはよりeticであり、Parliはemicであるかのように読めます。で、Balthropのはその丁度逆化のよう。うーん・・・これは原文読まないとな。


それにしても、1978年ごろを皮切りに「Judgeとは」論が急激に過熱するわけですが、どうも現代の理論は発散してしまって根本が80年代から前に進んでいないように思えます。みんな諦めちゃったのかな。そんなことでいいのかー。

Although I had been too lazy to update my reading in two languages for a while but here it is. :)

[Article] Balthrop, V. William. 1983. The Debate Judge as "Critic of Argument": Toward A Transcendent Perspective. Journal of the American Forensic Association. Vol20, Summer. pp.1-15

Primitive but very interesting.

This is the first article which uses "critic" in realation with "tabula rasa" in debate adjudication as far as I have found. But there is a line that "Traditional interpretations of this image," there gotta be something previous. Please tell me if you know any earlier works on "critic perspective" in debate adjudication. By the way, in a footnote, he mentions about a paper presented at the Speech Communication Association by Ulrich in 1981 (title: In search of tabula rasa) and I wish if I could read it myself.

I'm not quite sure about nuance of "etic" and "emic" yet and probably need to read Pike's work for that. Especially how Leff used these terms make me feel puzzled. Aren't they originally opposite...? Leff's way of explanation sounds that Policy/NDT style adjudication is more etic and Parli is more emic. And Balthrop's one sounds exactly opposite. I really should read the original text...

Although "who's judge?" and "what judging is about?" type of discussion got enormous heat since roughly 1978, it seems to me the current theories lost the focus and are not moving forward from the ones in 80s. I guess studies on paradigms should remain as a hottest issue even now though... It somehow looks as if scholars are tired with digging that issue.

------------------------------------------
Alone among most popular paradigms in its efforts to derive standards for evaluation from each individual approach is tabula rasa. "It is," wrote Ulrich, "an approach to judging that emphasizes the desirability of having debate rules evolved from each individual debate instead of being imposed upon a round externally by the judge."
------------------------------------------