0:00
Hey y'all, it's Mr. Fraley, your favorite English teacher, here with another topic, new topic to discuss called rhetorical analysis of written texts. Ah, that word texts bothers me because it makes you do that sound at the end. And when it's paired with analysis, analysis texts, I cannot stand that. You know what I'm going to change the title instead of the other one, I'm not going to say it again instead of the other one. Let's call it this time instead. How to rhetorically analyze a written text. So much nicer in the ears. So how do we rhetorically analyze a written text? How do we do it? I want to know you want to know let's start with some definition and purpose and get to the bottom of things. So think of it like this. A rhetorical analysis essay is a special form of critique. It's a special form of critique. In a critique essay, you determine a source text overall value or worth, by critically examining a set of relevant criteria. In a rhetorical analysis essay, you determine a source text rhetorical effectiveness by examining how the author employs language and or visual images to achieve a particular effect on an audience. Let me say that one more time, rhetorical analysis is determining a source text's rhetorical effectiveness by examining how the author of the text employs language and or visual images, to achieve a particular effect. Keyword effect on an audience, some audience, so we're trying to see how an author uses or handles the rhetorical situation, to reach an audience. So to reach an audience in some way is to effect an audience. And that's an effect, but also effect which is to say give rise to so some rhetorical production can produce an audience can effect one cause one to come into existence. And this is the main point of contention that Richard vats has with Lloyd bitser, his conception of the rhetorical situation bitser is all about, you know, the situation gives rise to the discourse and audience is more or less inherent in the situation. That's however, does not regard situation in the same way as bitser. He rebuts bitser and says that the Retter can produce a situation where one is not already present. And the renter in possession of that right can essentially use, you know, spontaneous, rhetorical discourse to form an audience to bring one into being. And I think you can easily give this an example, if say, someone just begins soliloquies eating or preaching on a street corner. An audience may gather, even though there was no scene present to give rise to a situation. He's basically saying that a situation is a response to rhetoric. Okay, he says he takes the converse position of bitser. But that's or holds that the situation is what controls the rhetorical response. The situation has something within it inherent in it called an exigence. And this the exigency is what compels rhetoric to come into existence as a response to the situation. It is what compels a person to become a writer by the production of rhetoric, but just any response won't do it has to be the right kind of response has to appropriately and correctly respond to the situation. But this, this has an implication according to bitser, this has an implication which is that situation generates response situation is the causal mechanism of response. Where this takes an important turn is with the idea of a correct response.
4:57
All right. He says that rhetorical discourse does obtain its character as rhetorical from the situation which generates it. The tricky part and puzzling this out is to see that they're both right, but also wrong at the same time, they need each other to complete the picture. You know, it may be reductivist, to boil it down to a matter of causation, like the chicken before the egg problem or the the more interesting problem of the first mover hypothesis. Looking into that, if you haven't heard of it, but what they're missing is the fact that rhetoric and situation are not bound to a linear order. But instead, there is a dynamic interplay of causation between rhetoric and situation. This reminds me of some lines from Four Quartets by TS Eliot, listen to this, at the still points of the turning worlds, neither flesh nor fleshless, neither from nor towards, at the Stillpoint. They're the dances but neither arrest nor movement, and do not call it fixity, where past and future are gathered, neither movement from Nord swards, neither ascent nor decline, except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance. I love that because it captures poetically, you know, in the, in the form of truth that poetry can illuminate, we can clearly see the perspectives offered by Vitor and Vits, bitser and vats. Each loses their ability to perceive the relationship between rhetoric and situation and depth. And yeah, they're kind of losing their depth perception ability, based on which eye they're seeing out of one has the situational eye, the other has the rhetorical eye. And this fails them because they're not able to see the dynamic interplay. Which is to say, they're not able to see the dance, which seeing with both at the same time, would would reveal Alright, so keep that in mind. And now let's remember where we are because we've kind of taken a long detour from where we started at the beginning of this episode. Remember, we said that ever Torkel analysis essay determines a source text rhetorical effectiveness by examining how the author employs language and or visual images to achieve and to he to achieve a particular effect on an audience. So how does this conversation about rhetorical situation, play into that into what you do when you rhetorically analyze a text? I'm going to give you a sort of mystical answer to that question. Here's the mystical answer. You need to be able to see the dance in order to fully rhetorically analyze a text. Now, you might be thinking, okay, that's beautiful, but doesn't really help man. I'm trying to actually do this. Alright, sorry, sorry. Okay, I'm getting there. Trust me. Okay. Let me give you three questions. Three questions writing a rhetorical analysis of a reading requires you to answer three related questions. First question, what response? Is the author of the reading trying to elicit from his or her readers from their readers? What response is the author of the reading trying to elicit from their readers? Second question, how does the author employee language to elicit that response? How does the author employ language to elicit that response? Third question, how well does the author succeed in achieving this response? How well does the author succeed in achieving this response? Composing? A rhetorical analysis requires you to examine a source text from the perspective of both a reader and a writer. assessing how well an author achieved certain rhetorical goals in the text.
9:50
Okay, composing a rhetorical analysis requires you to examine a source text from two perspectives. First, the perspective of the reader And second, the perspective of the writer. In other words from the perspective of the audience, as well as the one delivering the rhetoric or the writer. And from there, you would assess how well the writer or the author achieves certain rhetorical goals, whatever they may be. Rhetorical Analysis of print text is based on certain assumptions about how writers write, and the way writing works. Okay? The first assumption is that writing is purposeful, that every text is written by someone who directs it towards some audience to achieve some purpose. And to accomplish their ends, writers will make a series of strategic choices, they'll choose this approach to the topic, instead of that approach, this set of arguments rather than that set of arguments, this evidence instead of that evidence, this thesis rather than that, when this organizational plan in place of another, this word, rather than that word, all those choices together constitute like this circulatory system. The circulatory system is the thing at the end of all of the vertical choices, but of course, it's being produced all along the way whenever a choice is made. Okay? It's the life Boy, that rhetorical choice is the lifeblood of a text. You want to be able to see this system. And then take samples, take samples, perform analysis, right? It's blood work, it's blood work, you ever been to the doctor got some blood drawn, and then got your results. That lab report with your results tells you what else is in your blood and the levels that they're at. Right? I think if I were to push this analogy, it would fall apart very quickly. But I don't know if it helps, it helps. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Anyway, to accomplish their ends, writers make a series of strategic choices. I've already told you this, but I'm telling you again, to accomplish their ends, writers make a series of strategic choices. These are rhetorical choices, they can choose certain approaches, arguments, points of evidence, diction. This thesis first, you know, we've already went over this. But the point is, all of these choices accumulate. And that final accumulation is a unique result. Hearing this can be frustrating, I get it. Because hearing this tells you that there isn't a correct analysis, there isn't like a back of the book answer. But what's more likely true is that there's a range of more or less correct answers. But this range depends on the methodology, the method of actually doing analysis. Remember what analysis says to Okay. Analysis is a detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, in this case, a text. And then also remember what rhetoric is, rhetoric is the use of language to accomplish something, the use of language to accomplish something. With rhetoric, you have rhetorical choices. Rhetorical choices are the decisions speakers and writers make in order to accomplish that something with language. So when we put all that together, then what we talk about when we talk about how to rhetorically analyze the text, is the provision of a detailed examination of the elements or structure of a text, but specifically, the rhetoric and rhetorical choices that are now the constituents of the text. It's system, specifically, the use of language by the author as displayed within the text, to accomplish some goal to effect an audience. If it helps try and position your perspective, from the standpoint of the author. You know, they've probably asked similar questions to those that you would ask when you're writing an essay in a college English course. You might ask yourself, What should I write about? How should I organize it? What should I include? How should I begin? More than likely the author of whatever text you're reading is asking those same questions. But imagine them asking those questions at the beginning of their writing process. I mean, these questions are, are not easy, and they're all significant. They're, they're so significant that you might think of them as archetypal Weaver's the elements, you know, earth, fire, wind, water.
14:39
The point I'm trying to make is to see these kinds of questions as universal, universal elements that can bring writing into existence. What should I write about? How should I organize it? What should I include? How should I begin? All all significant costs. Students. But answers to these questions do not need to be as mysterious or elusive as they are sometimes imagined to be. Or even as we're talking about them. I mean, imagine how differently you would answer such questions. If you were in your home writing in your diary, instead of in a classroom, writing an essay, be a lot different, you're in two different scenes. And how you situate your responses within each of those scenes, is variable. The decisions that you make about how to act or what to write about, are based on your knowledge of the social scene that you are acting in, at any given time. And it's the same thing with other writers. They're also making decisions about how and what to write based on their knowledge of the rhetorical scenes they are writing in. There's definitely something to be said of appropriateness when it comes to rhetorical choices. Typically, the more appropriate they are, the more appropriate and rhetorical choices are, the more likely you are to communicate effectively. And if you're doing this communication within a scene, you're participating in a scene, that scene is also participating. Within the choices that you make, the scene can help determine which choices are quote, appropriate. What we're talking about is scenes of writing. And the more effectively you understand the scene that you are writing in, or the scene that an author is writing in, if you're analyzing a work of theirs, the more effectively you will communicate, or you can use the scene as a kind of readable environment, within or against which you can take measurements or samples of the rhetoric happening there. And then take them through the analytical process, you know, take them through examination, for determining their elements, their constituent elements, the decisions of language of use of language that an author has made in order to handle a scene, and so situate themselves within that scene in order to reach an audience, or to create a scene in which they can situate rhetoric and perhaps create an audience. And, of course, thereby form a rhetorical situation. Either way, you know, whether the scene is already there, or whether it's tandemly created at the same time as rhetoric is produced, it comes down to how effectively the scene is understood, because there is more than likely a direct correlation between effective understanding and effective communication. So with that, we come to our second assumption about how writers write and the way writing works. Our second assumption is that text and context are intimately connected, that text is fundamentally influenced by the context in which it was written. Let me say that again. A second assumption is that text and context are intimately connected, the text is fundamentally influenced by the context in which it was written. And keep in mind that context can be literal, like an actual environment, or more abstract, like a place of publication, like the Paris Review, literary journal, or National Geographic or the New York Times, you know, some particular publication. And we can also account for things like genre, mode, form, even platform position. Things like these have, influence exert influence upon whatever comes into their arenas, into their domains, their territories. These are abstracts relative to or in relation to like the Starbucks down the street, or the library, at your university's campus, or your bedroom, or wherever. In any case, whether the context is abstract or literal, text and context are intimately connected. That's the that's the second assumption that we're making. In other words, text is fundamentally influenced by the context in which it was written. Another way to think about this is what this assumption is positing. It's positing that writers work within a set of Givens. They work within a rhetorical context or situation that includes their reasons for writing the text they work with and within their purpose or aim they work with and within their audience's needs or interest, and they work with and within their knowledge of the topic that they are addressing. They want to be effective with all of this that's underlying everything.
19:39
Effectiveness. To be effective. writers must adapt their writing to meet the needs of the given rhetorical situation. Or if there is no situation yet, then they must adapt their writing to create a scene in which to then situate some rhetoric and effect That is to say produce an audience by the creation of rhetoric. There still it's about effectiveness, no matter the direction of the dynamic interplay. If the author ignores or misconstrues any element of the rhetorical situation, their writing will most likely be less effective than it might otherwise be. Because writers typically want to produce the most effective text possible, and because they want to do that, they take particular efforts to ensure that their language suits the texts audience, purpose, message and occasion. Therefore, okay, here's the you know, like final punch. Therefore, to evaluate attacks rhetorical effectiveness, you must understand the context in which it was written. Now we come to our third assumption. Our third assumption about how writers write and the way writing works. This third assumption is that no rhetorical analysis is definitive. Let me repeat that. This third and final assumption is that no rhetorical analysis is definitive. What do we mean by this? Consider that an audience or readers often disagree about a text in various ways. They often disagree about a text purpose, about its intended audience about the rhetorical strategies that are present and being used, and its effectiveness on the whole. And because readers always bring their own knowledge experiences, sensitivities and biases to attacks, they will form unique individualized responses to even the most fundamental questions concerning how our reading communicates its meaning. Consequently, as a consequence of all we've discussed, when you write a rhetorical analysis essay, you must explain your conclusions as clearly as you can. Supporting them supporting these conclusions was Thorough explanations and specific references to the source text.