0:00
Hey everybody, welcome back for how to rhetorically analyze a written text. So this time, we'll be looking at the elements of the rhetorical situation to help us do just what we need to, which is rhetorically analyze a written text. For every element, I'll give you a lot of questions that you can ask to help you flesh things out and to give you plenty of material to work with.
0:30
So first, I'd like to just remind you what rhetorical analysis is. And I'm doing this to help you contextualize why we're discussing in so much detail the elements of the rhetorical situation. So what is rhetorical analysis anyway? Think about it for a second. Actually, before I give you the answer, or before I define it for you, go ahead and hit the pause button and jot down some ideas about what you think rhetorical analysis is.
1:04
Very loosely, you can think of rhetorical analysis as reading like a writer. You know, when you're studying how a writer influences readers through language, you're analyzing the rhetoric, the available means of persuasion of what you read. Rhetorical analysis is the study of persuasion. It's the study of persuasion in order to understand how people have been and can be persuasive. More specifically, "Rhetorical analysis, or rhetorical criticism, can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence others through language." That's a quote from Jack Seltzer in an article of his called "Rhetorical Analysis"—actually, it's a book chapter, but we'll just call it an article here. In any case, we'll make a lot of references to that as we proceed more deeply into rhetorical analysis. But I really like what he does with the definition there because he ties in the importance of both persuasion and rhetorical situation. He makes the relationship between the two very evident. He doesn't really leave things in vague terms that are open to any kind of interpretation. So I find it especially useful. So let me give you that definition from Seltzer one more time: "Rhetorical analysis, or rhetorical criticism can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence others through language." And he'll also identify "rhetorical analysis as a kind of critical reading." In fact, that too, is a quote from his article. He says, "It might be helpful to think of rhetorical analysis as a kind of critical reading. Critical reading—rhetorical analysis, that is—involves studying carefully some kind of symbolic action. The result is a heightened awareness of the message under rhetorical consideration, and an appreciation for the ways people manipulate language and other symbols for persuasive purposes."
3:28
Alright then, keeping all that in mind, let's look at each element of the rhetorical situation and some questions that we can ask for each element. And there are a few elements the elements are author, topic, audience, purpose, or aim, and occasion, occasion. Cool. Now let's go ahead and start with author. And for each of these, by the way, I'll give you a brief kind of summative statement about them about the element. And then follow that with the questions. So the author the author as element of the rhetorical situation, the summative statement, that can capture the essence. The author is the person or people who wrote the text. First question we can ask here, very, very straightforward, almost patronizingly straightforward, is: Who wrote the piece? Who wrote it? What group of people wrote it? What organization is responsible for the production of this piece of communication? Basic questions like these can be reshaped accordingly and appropriately to fit the needs of certain texts. So keep that in mind with most of these questions. You can adapt them if needed, they're not just static, can't-really-change-them-in-any-way. These questions have a certain inherent plasticity that can be used if needed.
5:09
Alright, so now let's look at the next question for author. What is the author's background? What is the author's background in terms of things like race, sex, education, political affiliation, economic status, religion, career? Any number of factors, right? But I should say that, as in any case, be very contemplative and considerate of what information you choose to include in the building of the background for the author. So that question, "What is the author's background?", might be used as a segue to the next couple of questions. I say it might be used as a segue, because I don't want to say that it should be or can be, and then let that be misinterpreted as it [segues]. I'm being very cautious here because I don't want to presume to load the following questions by the depth of field that a certain background might load these questions with. I guess this is all to say that, even when you're writing a rhetorical analysis, you're still working within a mode of persuasion. And so you need to be aware of how that persuasion is coming into effect, and how it might operate upon a reader in certain ways. Anyway, the questions are, what are the author's possible or likely biases? What are the author's possible biases? If any. If any. So this question really is important because it can help locate where certain pieces of persuasion might be originating. However, the mere fact of its presence as a question here may imply that it's a question that always needs to be asked. But clearly, that's not the case. Clearly, it doesn't always need to be asked because not every piece of writing has a certain bias, not every author is going to carry some kind of bias into a written text. And if we fail to recognize that, if we fail to recognize that some texts are actually objective, our default mode of reading might be affected such that we're always looking for a bias because we assume that there is going to be a bias, that there must be a bias, which of course is very, very problematic. So when you're addressing the question, "What are the author's possible or likely biases?", double-check yourself and make sure that you have a valid reason to be addressing [bias] in the first place.
7:55
Alright, next question: What perspective does the author bring to the topic? What perspective does the author bring to the topic? From what position are they writing about the topic? From what point-of-view are they approaching the topic? What is their point-of-view? What is their particular attitude toward a way of regarding the matter at hand? I think this is a really interesting question because it also obliges us to discuss what is the rhetorical perspective, because that's the perspective we're bringing, or should be bringing anyway, to the rhetorical analysis. We bring the rhetorical perspective, along with an indefinite range of other possible perspectives to any rhetorical analysis that we do. Rhetorical Analysis is also rhetorical criticism, remember, and again, in the words of Jack Seltzer, can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence others through language. So rhetorical analysis, rhetorical criticism, as a kind of critical reading requires us to do something fairly difficult.
9:09
We have to put off agreement or disagreement. Let me say that again: we have to put off agreement or disagreement. Because rhetorically analyzing something requires that we judge its effectiveness. And that effectiveness does not and cannot depend on whether we agree with it or not. Our measure of effectiveness cannot be determined by how we feel about something. Otherwise, that measure of effectiveness is defective from the beginning. So again, what we're looking for is not whether we agree with it or not, but instead why the argument might or might not appeal to some people. And we can use our answer to this question to help us say a lot of other things. You know, we might rhetorically analyze to judge artfulness, even if an argument failed to convince, [ask if it] was admirable or useful. For example, what kind of argument is this? We might use it to judge the decorum and timeliness or we might use it to judge an argument's effects.
10:06
Regardless of what you decide to say, rhetorical analysis will not immediately answer the questions that most people would like to ask, which are, "Do you agree with the argument?" "Do you like the film?" "Are you moved by this piece of music?" These will need to be put on hold. Though rhetorical analysis can prepare us to answer such questions thoughtfully—and that's very valuable—after [we have performed an] analysis, we're more able to say why we agree or not. And this grants us a special circumstance—circumstance, which I'm not really sure I want to call a power—that's very useful. In this day and age particularly, it gives us a circumstance of being able to decide between options. I say this is very useful, because it can allow us to do things like get out of rigid ways of thinking that are harming us and/or others. It can give us a level-headedness that we might not have access to normally. And—this is going to sound cheesy—I think it can allow pathways to empathy. If we can understand why something might be influential, or convincing to another person or group of people, then we can start to relate; the divide doesn't seem so impossible suddenly; [and] we can see the persuasion at work beneath the surface on both sides. And maybe then if we can see it, we can follow it, see where it's coming from, and do something about it.
11:26
So rhetorical analysis, therefore, prepares us to be better judges and better advocates. Because if we can understand how we have been persuaded, we can more effectively move others and we can also understand how they persuade and are persuaded, the moves they make and the moves that make them. And in the end, rhetorical analysis always points outward. We don't analyze to analyze. We analyze to understand the judge more justly, to speak more effectively, to behave more responsibly. Ideally, in general, we analyze to become better people ourselves. And while this is true, forgetting what the rhetorical perspective is, might make us think that we are becoming better people while we're just kind of railing against other people because we have biases against them. That's not what we want this to lead to—that would just make everything worse.
12:19
So what is the rhetorical perspective? Well, when it is most useful, the rhetorical perspective cautions us against absolute conviction, you know, a great deal is unknown. A great deal in our lives is unknown, unknowable and unpredictable. When we cannot absolutely know something for certain we must elect the best options, and we must defend the best among a series of good or possibly bad choices. In these circumstances, we should learn to see the merit and opposing cases, and to see why our own case depends on probabilities, gut reactions, appeals to abstractions, such as freedom or justice, and appeals to pragmatic though not guaranteed effects, such as a balanced budget; therefore—and here's the thing that kind of whammies a lot of people sometimes—part of the rhetorical perspective is an acknowledgment that, however much we may believe an argument, it may be flawed, if not wrong, and however much we may disapprove of an argument, it may be reasonable, if not right. And this is exactly why we have to put off agreement or disagreement.
13:28
Now coming back to the question, "What perspective does the author bring to the topic?", we better make sure that we're actually looking for the author's perspective and not just our opinion of the author's perspective, or trying to find our perspective somewhere in the text without recognizing or being able to see the actual perspective, whether the actual perspective happens to coincide with ours or not. [The question,] "What perspective does the author bring to the topic?", means exactly that: What perspective does the author bring to the topic?
14:03
All right. Next question: How does the author "sound" on the page? How does the author "sound" on the page? This is to say, what is their tone? What is their style? What is the emotional trajectory? Or thrust? What is the emotional trajectory or thrust on the page? Is it angry? Is it detached? Is it confused? Is it funny? Is it cynical? Is it serious? Is it sad? Is it passionate? Is it happy? Is it joyful? What is it? How does the author "sound" on the page? Now, this is a tough question, I think, because it asks us to wear the hat of the critic—of the rhetorical critic—instead of the rhetorical analyst. (I mean, it's the same hat, but it's regarded a bit differently in this sense.) So first, we should probably study things like style and tone and diction and all of those writing moves that collectively create the artfulness of a piece of writing. This also goes for anything visual—but that's a point we'll come to soon enough. Personally, I think the rhetorical analyst, or the rhetorical critic, should table this question until they've studied writing in a more in-depth way, studied the symbolic arts, more deeply through theory, and [done] a lot of practice and a lot of reading. Nevertheless, I include it here now for those who might already feel so inclined to it or capable of it.
15:44
Alright, last question for author: What has the author written about this topic in the past? What has the author written about the topic? So do they have a history of publication about it? Or, if they have no publication history about it, what would their background, or what you've learned about their studies, their practices of research, etc, career whatnot—could or how might any of that be useful in providing an answer to this question? And that brings us to the end of our questions for the author element of the rhetorical situation.
16:32
So what's the next element? From there? Let's move to the topic. The topic element of the rhetorical situation is basically what the text is about. The topic is basically what the text is about. Now, there are various ways we're going about this question. Well, rather than ways they're really different levels of understanding it. I'll kind of I'll keep it simple here. But do know that this element goes much deeper than what we're covering here. In fact, if you haven't already done so, I would strongly encourage you, almost as a prerequisite, to go listen to the persuasive principle series. Before continuing. The ideas about topic discussed there will let you in on the deeper levels and give you give you some insight into how to think about them. Anyway, let's continue here. Since we are here, with topic, which is generally what the text is about. We'll start with a straightforward first question, what is the person writing about? What is the person writing about? Second question, is the author addressing a particular aspect of the topic or the topic as a whole? How focused is their line of inquiry? Third question, see, I'm going I'm going straight through these third question, which aspects of the topic received the most attention in which received the least? Fourth question? What exactly is the author stating about the topic? What exactly is the author stating about the topic? Fifth question. What have others said about this subject matter? What have others said about this subject matter? And here is the sixth and final question although you can really think of it as just the rest of the fiscal the fifth question. The question is, what is the relationship between what others have written about the topic and what the author is writing about it? And one more time what is the relationship between what others have written about the topic and what the author is writing about it? So that does it for topic now we're gonna move to audience then purpose or aim and finally occasion fairly quickly, too. And the reason for this, the the rapid succession movement to and through each of the remaining elements of the rhetorical situation, the reason is to reveal how much overlap there is between the elements. How easily one question and one element can lead to another question and another element. The interrelatedness between any of the five whether it be topic, author, audience, occasion, purpose or aim, that interrelatedness holds in an omnipresent way the possibility of leaping from one element to another, through the questions housed within each. For example, let's look at questions five and six of topic. Again, we'll look at those, those two questions sort of collectively. What have others said about this subject matter? And what is the rule Relationship between what others have written about it and what the author is writing about it. Well, from there, let's go to purpose or aim, purpose or aim is the next element would be talking about of the rhetorical situation. And purpose or aim in general is what the author is trying to accomplish and writing the text. So let's think about the questions that we might ask to reveal this element of the rhetorical situation. I think it's possible for every question I'm about to give you for this element to be shaded by those final couple of questions for topic. So here are the questions for purpose or aim. If the author states a purpose or aim for the peace, what is it? Is it to inform, persuade, entertain, educate, provoke to action, draw attention, ridicule, or shock? See how that question could extend from the answer to what is the relationship between what this author says, and what others have written about it. That relationship or a fuller characterization of it might be bound up what the author is trying to accomplish in writing the text might be bound up in their purpose or aim. And so it may be that if we can identify the purpose or aim of the text, we can also explain the relationship between what this author is saying in relation to what others have said. This can give us insight into the larger conversation and allow us to see how the author is handling the topic or really how the author is artfully deploying. So now let's move to the second question on purpose or aim. If the purpose or aim is not stated, What is the author's implied purpose or aim for the text? If the purpose or aim is not stated? What is the author's implied purpose or aim for the text? Third question, and this is a multi part question. By the way, is there more than one purpose or aim for the text? If so, what are they? Does one purpose seem more dominant than the others? Which one? Let me repeat that one more time. Is there more than one purpose or aim for the text? If so, what are they? Does one purpose seem more dominant than the others?
22:10
Which one? And finally, our fourth question and this element? How does the author's purpose influence the text content structure or language? How does the author's purpose influenced the text content structure or language? Alright, that was the last question and purpose or aim? And I actually want to segue directly from that question to the element of the audience. The element of the audience, in general, is who the writer is addressing. So first question here, of course, would be to whom is the text addressed? To whom is the text addressed? And then second question or sort of a follow up from the first one? If the text is not written to a specific person or group of people? What kind of reader did the author seem to have in mind when writing the piece? So for example, does the author seem to be assuming they're addressing a friendly audience or a hostile audience? An expert audience or a novice audience, an academic audience or a popular audience? And really, this question is still applies, even if the text is written to a specific person or group of people? You know, if it's if it's written to a specific person or group of people, you can still ask the question, what kind of reader does the author seem to have in mind when writing the piece or is the audience for whom the text is stated to be addressed accurately characterized by the author in the text itself, and the actual discourse in the content and the structure and the style in the language? You know, all of those things that we considered for the question under purpose or aim? How does the author's purpose influenced the text content structure or language? Or does the identity of the audience work with the purpose or aim and this identity can be either the actual identity of the audience and or the identity of the audience as characterized, represented, you know, whatever your preferred word there, as as as given through the discourse. You see this all the time and politics, especially debates or maybe even debates in general and not necessarily political, with the candidates or the debaters? Building images or identities are representations of audiences within what they say. And these ideas that are installed in the discourse begin to function as points of influence or points of persuasion. The political candidates are trying to influence the voters they are trying to persuade. And they're trying to persuade whoever's watching into becoming part of their voters ship. And if the construction of an audience whether real or imagined within discourse can serve these ends, then it might be something to look out for, and if present, gain an awareness of it and see how it's working. So what if we came up with a kind of hybrid question here? That inherently implies the connection that we're talking about here between the elements of audience and purpose or aim? What if that question was this? Is the purpose and aim of the discourse in keeping with the identity of the audience? Is the purpose and aim of the text in keeping with the identity of the audience?
25:33
I like that question, because it also shows you that you can come up with all kinds of hybrid questions between these elements and catered to the complexities of all kinds and combinations of discourses. Think about it. That question that we just came up with the hybrid question is the purpose and aim of the discourse are texts in keeping with the identity of the audience? That also implies another question that we can ask about the discourse, namely, what kind of discourse is this supposed to be? And just a side note here, by the way, I'm slowly starting to replace the word text with discourse. But anyway, back to the point, we can get to new questions from hybridizing, our starting questions. And this is just one form of the tailoring that I'm talking about the question what kind of text is this supposed to be? Well, I mean, any piece of writing can be a very wide range of things. It can be a letter, it could be a memo, a speech, a speech before a political body, a piece of poetry, a piece of fiction, a journal entry, a diary entry, an article in a newspaper, a poem and a poetry anthology, a song and a CD, a folk song, a piece of folklore, a piece of fiction for an anthology, an article and editorial, a piece of scholarship, research report, etc. The list goes on, no matter what the discourse is, maybe we can ask of it, what kind of discourse is it supposed to be? And if we do happen to ask that question, we can remember that it was formed from considering two elements of the rhetorical situation. In other words, it can be a kind of two way street, where we can get back to or maybe even make our first connection to the rhetorical situation of the various discourses that we might need to analyze rhetorically. And you thought this was hard. I was it's kind of hard. But But here, you're being given the core tools and explained how they work and what to do with them sometimes exactly what to do with them. On that note, I do have two more questions to add to the element of audience. And these will be the third and fourth questions. So third question, what is the audience is likely knowledge of or attitude toward the author and or subject matter? What is the audience is likely knowledge of or attitude toward the author and or subject matter. Fourth question, what assumptions does the author make about the audience? And are these assumptions accurate? That's kind of what we've been talking about. Again, that fourth question is, what assumptions does the author make about the audience? And are these assumptions accurate? And that wraps up the questions for audience. Now let's move to our fifth and final elements of the rhetorical situation, which is occasion occasion. The last element here. In general, what's meant by occasion is this. What prompted the writer to write the piece, what prompted the writer to write the piece. And this includes the compulsion that produced the discourse and also what produced the compulsion to produce the discourse, which is a fun little twist of words to play with. I know that may sound a little circular, but let me rephrase it and say it in other words, so the occasion as being what prompted the writer to write the piece definitely includes the exigence. You're probably already thinking that, but also includes the circumstances which might create an exigence. Remember the numerous ways that bitser provides definition to exigence, some of which I'll read now, and I quote, any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency is a defect in obstacle, something waiting to be done a thing which is other than it should be? In almost any sort of context, there will be numerous exigences but not all, are rhetorical. exigences. So what exactly then is a rhetorical accidents? Here's how bitser defines it. The Rhetorical accidents and accidents is rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification and when positive modification requires discourse or can be assisted by discourse. I'll let you chew on that for a second. So where are we talking about exigence. So much at the start of discussing the element of occasion? Well remember occasion is again, what prompted the writer to write the piece in our first question we've asked about it. Why did the author feel compelled to write this text? Why did the author feel compelled to produce this discourse?