1. Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art, trans. M. T. H. Sadler (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1977), 1.

2. Georges Bataille, Erotism: Death and Sensuality, trans. Mary Dalwood (San Francisco: City Light Books, 1986), 12.

3. As Deborah Caslav Covina elaborates, “Identification is most usefully understood in terms established by Kenneth Burke, as motivated by the desire for consubstantiality, or ‘shared substance.’ Consubstantiality is, for Burke, a ‘compensatory’ motive that arises out of the human aversion to division.” Deborah Caslav Covina, Amending the Abject Body: Aesthetic Makeovers in Medicine and Culture (State University of New York Press, 2004), 33.

4. Janice Rushing, “ET as Rhetorical Transcendence,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 (1985): 188.

5. Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 19–23.

6. See Lauren Langman and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman, ed., The Evolution of Alienation: Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006).

7. Kenneth Burke, Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), 13.

8. See Joshua Gunn and Mirko M. Hall, “Stick it in Your Ear: The Psychodynamics of iPod Enjoyment,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 5 (2008): 136.

9. Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1941), 64, 293–304.

10. Regarding film, see Barry Brummett, “Electric Literature as Equipment for Living: Haunted House Films,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2 (1985): 247–61, and Brian L. Ott and Beth Bonnstetter, “‘We're at Now, Now’: Spaceballs as Parodic Tourism,” Southern Communication Journal 72 (2007): 309–27. Regarding television, see Brian L. Ott, The Small Screen: How Television Equips Us to Live in the Information Age (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007); Brian L. Ott, “(Re)Framing Fear: Equipment for Living in a Post-9/11 World,” in Cylons in America: Critical Studies in Battlestar Galactica, ed. Tiffany Potter and C. W. Marshall (New York: Continuum, 2008), 13–26; and Daniel J. Lair, “Surviving the Corporate Jungle: The Apprentice as Equipment for Living in the Contemporary Work World,” Western Journal of Communication, 75 (2011): 75–94.

11. Brummett, “Electric Literature,” 248.

12. Claiming that rhetoric is material as well as symbolic is quite fashionable today. But despite its fashionableness, there are surprisingly few examples of criticism that actually analyze rhetoric's materiality. In fact, many of the scholars who make this claim then proceed to analyze symbolicity. The few critical examples that do exist mostly concern the built environment (museums, memorials, shopping centers, coffee shops), not media. So, while highlighting rhetoric's materiality is hardly novel, carefully attending to its materiality, especially with regard to cinema, most assuredly is.

13. Quoted in Anne Thompson, “Tokyo Story,” Filmmaker: The Magazine of Independent Film, Fall 2003, http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/fall2003/features/tokyo_story.php, 4. The characters, elaborates Turan, “definitely yearn for something … essential: simple human connection.” Kenneth Turan, “Movie Review: ‘Lost in Translation,’ ” Los Angeles Times, September, 12, 2003, http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan12sep12,2,5245235.story, 16. Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor in a Leading Role, and Original Screen Play. It received the Oscar for Original Screen Play.

14. Other recent films to take up the alienating and dislocating character of technology include Jonathan Mostow's Surrogates (2009) and James Cameron's Avatar (2009).

15. Observed one critic: “Though the year is 2003 and the world is, in so many ways, at its smallest, with cell phones and e-mail binding us inextricably to one another, we are, this extraordinary new movie reminds us, ever more diffused, ever less able to make meaningful connections.” Scott Foundas, “More Than This: The Road Unexpectedly Taken in Lost in Translation,” LA Weekly, September 18, 2003, http://www.laweekly.com/2003-09-18/news/more-than-this/, 2.

16. Vivian Sobchack, “Phenomenology and Film Experience” in Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film, ed. Linda Williams (Piscataway: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1995), 37.

17. Barbara M. Kennedy, Deleuze and Cinema: The Aesthetics of Sensation (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000); David MacDougall, The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006); Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002); Vivian Sobchack, Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).

18. One of the few recent examples is Brian L. Ott, “The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27 (2010): 39–54. For a notable, though older example, see Martin J. Medhurst and Thomas W. Benson, “The City: The Rhetoric of Rhythm,” Communication Monographs 48 (1981): 54–72.

19. Carl Plantinga, Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator's Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 112.

20. John Lechte and Maria Margaroni, Julia Kristeva: Live Theory (New York: Continuum, 2004), 11–12.

21. Julia Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. M. Waller (New York: Columbia, 1984), 24.

22. Julia Kristeva, “Europhilia, Europhobia,” in French Theory in America, ed. Sylvère Lotringer and Sande Cohen (New York: Routledge, 2001), 36. Kristeva is using “semiotic” in a very idiosyncratic way that differs from more familiar uses of the term (to mean the science of signs) by linguists such as Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure.

23. Kristeva, “Europhilia, Europhobia,” 36–37.

24. The term signifiance “has the advantage of referring to the field of the signifier (and not just signification) and of approaching, along the trail blazed by Julia Kristeva, who proposed the term, a semiotics of the text.” Roland Barthes, The Responsibility of Forms: Critical Essays on Music, Art, and Representation, trans. Richard Howard (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 43.

25. Kristeva, Revolution, 24.

26. Rickert describes the chōra as “the matrix or mother of all becoming.” Thomas Rickert, “Toward the Chōra: Kristeva, Derrida, and Ulmer on Emplaced Invention,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 40 (2007): 255.

27. Julia Kristeva, Revolution, 25–27.

28. Rickert, “Toward the Chōra,” 253.

29. Kristeva, “Europhilia, Europhobia,” 36.

30. Kaja Silverman, The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988). That Silverman and Kristeva are working at cross purposes—a point that Silverman appears to recognize—explains why Silverman's own film critiques are primarily concerned with symbolicity.

31. In keeping with Kristeva, we utilize the metaphor of textuality here, but we do so somewhat reluctantly, as we recognize that this metaphor has contributed to the dominance of hermeneutics over phenomenology in contemporary cultural theory. See Thomas J. Csordas, “Introduction: The Body as Representation and Being-in-the-World,” in Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self, ed. Thomas J. Csordas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 11.

32. Kristeva, Revolution, 86–87.

33. Roland Barthes, Image, Music, Text, trans. Stephen Heath (New York: Hill & Wang, 1977), 182.

34. We understand affects to be extra-discursive “moments of intensity, a reaction in/on the body at the level of matter. We might even say that affects are immanent to matter. They are certainly immanent to experience.” Simon O'Sullivan, “The Aesthetics of Affect: Thinking Art Beyond Representation,” Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 6 (2001): 126. “Affect refers to the manifestation of the inner drives and energy that psychoanalytic theory identifies at work within the subject.” Noëlle McAffee, Julia Kristeva (New York: Routledge, 2004), 23.

35. Kristeva, Revolution, 86. We understand aesthetics to refer to those artistic practices that make themselves present to sensual or sensory-emotive experience.

36. Charles Altieri, The Particulars of Rapture: An Aesthetics of the Affects (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003), 2.

37. Debra Hawhee, Moving Bodies: Kenneth Burke At the Edges of Language (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2009): 13.

38. Thomas W. Benson and Carolyn Anderson, Reality Fictions: The Films of Frederick Wiseman (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989), 2–3. Our own interrogation of Lost's “constructed experience” is further buttressed by the responses of other critics of the film.

39. Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey (Stanford, CA: Standford University Press, 2004). Note that “touch” and “move(ment)” are terms that refer to affect as well as sensation (e.g., “That film was especially touching” or “I was profoundly moved by that film.”).

40. Gumbrecht, Production of Presence, 109.

41. Deanna Sellnow and Timothy Sellnow, “The “Illusion of Life” Rhetorical Perspective: An Integrated Approach to the Study of Music as Communication,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 18 (2001): 395–415, and D. Robert DeChaine, “Affect and Embodied Understanding in Musical Experience,” Text and Performance Quarterly 22.2 (2002): 79–98. See also Medhurst and Benson, “The City,” 63, and Gumbrecht, Production of Presence, 108–9.

42. Affects (understood as moments of intensity), no matter how closely allied with linguistic expression, exist on a nonsymbolic level. See Brian Massumi, “The Autonomy of Affect,” Cultural Critique 31 (1995), 83–109. In Burkean terms, there is no (symbolic) action without (nonsymbolic) motion, which “names, among other things, the realm of sensory perception” (Hawhee, Moving Bodies, 157). We are more than a little bit skeptical of any attempt in the field to “read” or “interpret” (already problematic concepts) affect without careful attention to the material dimensions of rhetoric.

43. David Bordwell, “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Narrational Principles and Procedures,” in Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, ed. Philip Rosen (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 17.

44. Ty Burr, “In ‘Lost,’ dislocated, lonely lives merge in a lovely limbo,” The Boston Globe, September 12, 2003, http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=2795, 6.

45. See, for instance, David Edelstein, “Prisoner of Japan: Bill Murray Opens up in Lost in Translation,” Slate, September 11, 2003, http://www.slate.com/id/2088215/, 2, and David Rooney, “Lost in Translation” Variety, August 31, 2003, http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=review&reviewid=VE1117921663&categoryid=31&cs=1, 8.

46. Mark Caro, “Movie Review: ‘Lost in Translation,’ ” Chicago Tribune, September 11, 2003, http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/mmx-030911movies-review-mc-lostintranslation,0,5755934.story, 1.

47. Thompson, “Tokyo Story,” 9. A typical film script is 120 pages. See Tony Bill, Movie Speak: How to Talk Like You Belong on a Film Set (New York: Workman Publishing, 2008), 204.

48. Dan Schneider, “DVD Review of Lost in Translation,” Hackwriters.com: The International Writers Magazine, June 2004, http://www.hackwriters.com/Lostintransit.htm, 2.

49. Lynn Hirschberg, “The Coppola Smart Mob,” The New York Times, August 31, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/magazine/31COPPOLA.html?pagewanted=1, 2.

50. By “visuals,” we are referring not to the content of the images so much as to the experience of visuality—to the rhythm and pacing of the shots/editing. As Medhurst and Benson explain, “the meaning of an image in the film is constructed by the viewer not only from the ‘content’ of the shot but also from the situation, the structural relation of shots to one another and to other dimensions of the film, and from the rhythm of the cutting” (58).

51. Edward Guthmann, “The message is loud and clear in ‘Lost in Translation’: Director Sofia Coppola knows what she's doing, and Bill Murray's performance is a subtle miracle,” SFGate.com, September 12, 2003, http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-09-12/entertainment/17506814_1_sofia-coppola-translation-scarlett-johansson, 8.

52. Edelstein, “Prisoner of Japan,” 4.

53. Plantinga, Moving Viewers, 131. “Moods are modes of feeling where the sense of subjectivity becomes diffuse and sensation merges into something close to atmosphere, something that seems to pervade an entire scene or situation” (Altieri, “The Particulars of Rapture,” 2).

54. David Denby, “The Heartbreak Hotels,” The New Yorker 79 (September 15, 2003): 100.

55. “The links in the story are indeed there, only they're not typical cause-and-effect connections. They're formed by the emotions that gather at the end of one episode and pour into the next.” Steve Vineberg, “Jet lag,” Christian Century (October 18, 2003): 60.

56. “Coppola has no fear of being undramatic in showing these two characters alone,” Peter Travers, “Lost in Translation,” Rolling Stone, October 3, 2003, http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/8550/49463, 4.

57. Bob and Charlotte do not meet for the first time until more than 30 minutes into the film, and it is several days after that initial encounter (about 41 minutes into the 102 minute film)—following a happenstance meeting outside the hotel's sauna—that the unlikely pair decides to venture into the city together.

58. “Locating her American characters as visitors to Tokyo, Coppola is able to depict a sense of alienation that is highlighted by existence in a ‘foreign’ land. The two protagonists find themselves in a different time zone, dislocated in time as well as space. Their temporal dislocation is emphasised by Charlotte and Bob's jet lag and insomnia, conditions that ensure that they are out of step with their surroundings.” Wendy Haslem, “Neon Gothic: Lost in Translation,” Senses of Cinema 31 (April–June 2004): 9. Another critic put it this way, “As the title indicates, ‘Lost in Translation’ is a film about dislocations and disorientations.” Turan, “Movie Review,” 4.

59. Stuart Klawans, “Tokyo Story,” The Nation (September 29, 2003), 34.

60. Kernels are those plot events that actively contribute to the story's progression, while satellites are the more minor and routine events (see Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978, 53–54). The first third of Lost in Translation is made up almost entirely of satellites.

61. Noel Carroll, Engaging the Moving Image (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 45, 46.

62. Ann Marie Seward Barry, Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 134–37.

63. The building is the Shinjuku Park Tower, of which the Park Hyatt Tokyo occupies the top 14 floors. Much of the film is shot in the hotel's famed New York Bar on the 52nd floor overlooking the city.

64. Susan L. Feagin, “Time and Timing,” in Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion, ed. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 168.

65. “Towering over an elevator full of salary men, Bob is a one-man alienation effect.” Jim Hoberman, “After Sunset,” The Village Voice, September 9, 2003, http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-09-09/film/after-sunset/1, 4.

66. Hoberman, “After Sunset,” 2; Travers, “Lost in Translation,” 4.

67. Joe Queenan, “A Yen for Romance,” The Guardian, January 10. 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/jan/10/features.joequeenan, 4.

68. Maria San Filippo, “Lost in Translation,” Cineaste 29.1 (Winter 2003): 27.

69. Ken Fox, “Lost in Translation: Review,” TV Guide, 2003, http://movies.tvguide.com/lost-translation/review/136955, 1.

70. Cinematographer Lance Acord used an Aaton 35. “With the lightweight camera Acord was able to shoot in locations that would otherwise prove to be impossible. Lost in Translation gives Charlotte's journey the feeling of a personal documentary travelogue (almost guerilla filmmaking) by following her throughout Japan, across the crowded Shibuya Crossing, underground in the Tokyo subway and along the shinkansen track to visit temples in Kyoto” (Haslem, “Neon Gothic,” 15).

71. See Barry, Visual Intelligence, 137.

72. Jeffery Overstreet, “Lost in Translation,” Pastemagazine, December 1, 2003, http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2003/12/lost-in-translation.html, 3.

73. Travers, “Lost in Translation,” 4. Despite the growing popularity of digital video, Lost in Translation was shot on high-speed film stock (Kodak's 5263).

74. Filippo, “Lost in Translation,” 28. See also S. Brent Plate, “Film Review: Lost in Translation,” The Journal of Religion and Film 8.1 (April 2004): 4.

75. “Japan is not Japan itself, but rather a canvas onto which these American's emotions are mapped,” Alice Lovejoy, “Two Lost Souls Adrift in Tokyo Forge an Unlikely Bond in Sophia Coppola's 21st Century Brief Encounter,” Film Comment 39 (July–August 2003): 11.

76. “Coppola has hit on a metaphor for modern alienation.” Peter Rainer, “Sleepless in Tokyo,” New York Magazine, September 15, 2003, http://nymag.com/nymetro/movies/reviews/n_9178/, 3.

77. See Jim Collins, Architectures of Excess: Cultural Life in the Information Age (New York: Routledge, 1995).

78. Caro, “Movie Review,” 9.

79. Foundas, “More Than This,” 4.

80. Anne R. Richards and Carol David, “Decorative Color as a Rhetorical Enhancement on the World Wide Web,” Technical Communication Quarterly 14 (2005) 31, 38.

81. Kennedy, Deleuze and Cinema, 115.

82. Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual, 24.

83. Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual, 28–29. See also Richards and David, “Decorative Color,” 39 and Barry, Visual Intelligence, 128, 130.

84. Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual, 38–40.

85. Richards and David, “Decorative Color,” 39.

86. Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual, 37. Barry, Visual Intelligence, 132.

87. Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual, 37.

88. Lovejoy, “Two Lost Souls, 11.

89. Jeff Smith, “Movie Music as Moving Music: Emotion, Cognition, and the Film Score,” in Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion, ed. Carl Plantinga and Greg M. Smith (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 162.

90. Filippo, “Lost in Translation,” 28.

91. Maureen McCarty Draper, The Nature of Music: Beauty, Sound, and Healing (New York: Riverhead Books, 2001), 11.

92. Edelstein, “Prisoner of Japan,” 5. “Importantly, this confluence of speeds, lights and sounds do not affect the protagonist or viewer as an ‘ego,’ a person with sharply delineated, stable characteristics, but, rather, they combine as a body of affects that impact on the anonymous human body. These affects speak to the body through sensation before being recognised rationally. It is a primordial connection with the world that is shown and felt here.” Anna Rogers, “Sophia Coppola,” Senses of Cinema 45 (October–December 2007): 16.

93. This movement is indicative of Burke's notion of form or the arousing of an appetite. For Burke, the appeal of form is not just a symbolic process, but also one “closely allied with ‘bodily’ processes” that are “exemplified in rhythm.” Kenneth Burke, Counter-Statement, 2nd ed. (Los Altos, CA: Hermes Publications, 1953), 140–41.

94. See Joshua Gunn, “Refitting Fantasy: Psychoanalysis, Subjectivity, and Talking to the Dead,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 5.

95. Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 12–13.

96. The thetic stage corresponds loosely to Freud's Oedipal stage and Lacan'mirror stage. Regardless of their terminological differences, Kristeva—like Freud and Lacan—believes that awareness of self depends upon separation. “Thus we view the thetic phase,” explains Kristeva, “as the place of the Other, as the precondition for signification, i.e., the precondition for the positing of language.” Kristeva, Revolution, 48.

97. Lacan's “Symbolic” (with a capital “S”) is the outcome of the dialectic between Kristeva's “semiotic” and “symbolic” modalities (Lechte and Margoroni, Julie Kristeva, 14).

98. “Continuity is what we are after,” explains Bataille, “but generally only if that continuity which the death of discontinuous beings can alone establish is not the victor in the long run” (Erotism, 18–19).

99. For more on this dual meaning of the semiotic chōra, see Silverman, The Acoustic Mirror, 102.

100. David Schwarz, “Listening Subjects: Semiotics, Psychoanalysis, and the Music of John Adams and Steve Reich,” Perspectives of New Music 31 (1993): 27.

101. Bataille, Erotism, 239.

102. Georges Bataille, The Tears of Eros, trans. Peter Connor (San Francisco: City Light Books, 1989).

103. Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16 (1975): 6–18.

104. Gaylyn Studlar, In the Realm of Pleasure: Von Sternberg, Dietrich, and the Masochistic Aesthetic (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 39–40.

105. This state corresponds loosely to Lacan's notion of the Imaginary. But “in contrast to Lacan, for whom the imaginary order functions only on a visual register, Kristeva stresses all the sensory registers. The imaginary is not only a visual order, it is also, Kristeva claims, organized by voice, touch, taste and smell.” Madan Sarup, An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, 2nd ed., (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993), 122–23.

106. See Filippo, “Lost in Translation,” 26, and Haslem, “Neon Gothic,” 3.

107. Travers, “Lost in Translation,” 1; Rooney, “Lost in Translation,” 12; Paul Julian Smith, “Tokyo Drifters,” Sight and Sound 14.1 (January 2004): 13.

108. Charles D. Minahen, “Specular Reflections: Rimbaud (Lacan, Kristeva) and ‘Le Stade Du Miroir’ in ‘Enfance,’ ” Neophilogus 89 (2005): 222.

109. Laura U. Marks, Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 2; see also Jennifer M. Barker, The Tactile Eye: Touch and the Cinematic Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), Mark Paterson, The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies (New York: Oxford, 2007), and Steven Shaviro, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 50–55.

110. Barker, The Tactile Eye, 31.

111. Marks, Touch, 13, 17.

112. Robert Young, ed., Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), 32.

113. Barthes, Image, Music, Text, 164. The pleasure of the Text is not the pleasure of consumption, for the text is bound to jouissance, which unlike plaisir, “is marked by loss of cultural identity.” Sharon Meagher, “Spinning Ethics in Its Grave: Tradition and Rupture in the Theory of Roland Barthes,” in Signs of Change: Premodern-->Modern-->Postmodern, ed. Stephen Barker (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 212.

114. See Hwa Yal Jung, “Writing the Body as Social Discourse: Prolegomena to Carnal Hermeneutics,” in Signs of Change: Premodern-- > Modern-- > Postmodern, ed. Stephen Barker (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 264–65. By silence, we mean the absence of communication, not the total absence of sound (or ambient noise). In silence, one becomes (at)tuned to the pounding of the heart and other bodily rhythms. “We have a strong tendency to imagine Silence as the absence of sound. This imagination deprives silence of being anything in itself and makes it an emptiness, a void in what should be the norm. But silence was here before anything else, and it envelops everything else. It is the most primary phenomenon of existence, both palpably something and seemingly nothing. Silence is prior to sound, not the cessation of sound.” Robert Sardello, Silence: The Mystery of Wholeness (Berkeley, CA: Goldenstone Press, 2008), 7–8.

115. Hocker Rushing, “E.T. as Rhetorical Transcendence,” 188.

116. Bill Nichols, Movies and Methods: Volume II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 602.

117. Emphasis added. Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives, 21.

118. Michael Calvin McGee, “A Materialist's Conception of Rhetoric,” in Explorations in Rhetoric: Studies in Honor of Douglas Ehninger, ed. Ray E. McKerrow (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1982), 25.

119. On this distinction, see Richard A. Engell, “Materiality, Symbolicity, and the Rhetoric of Order: ‘Dialectic Biologism’ as Motive in Burke,” Western Journal of Communication 62 (1998): 1–26, and Joan Faber McAlister, “Material Aesthetics in Middle America: Simone Weil, the Problem of Roots, and the Pantopic Suburb,” in Rhetoric, Materiality, and Politics, ed. Barbara A. Biesecker and John Louis Lucaites (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 101–2.

120. Roland Barthes, “The Grain of the Voice” in Image, Music, Text, 179–89.

121. John Lechte, Julia Kristeva (New York: Routledge, 1990), 130.

122. See David Howes, Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Cultural and Social Theory (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003), 17–28.

123. See, for instance, DeChaine, “Affect and Embodied Understanding.”