0:00
What's going on good people. So we are back again talking about rhetorical analysis of written texts how to do it, we've covered a lot of ground so far, really deep work was discussing the elements of the rhetorical situation in the previous episode. And now let's look at some very specific rhetorical strategies to deploy or employ, whichever you prefer, along the way of creating our own of composing our own rhetorical analysis of a written text. So check this out. Once you understand the tax rhetorical situation, you are then ready to turn your analysis to the author's rhetorical strategies, which are the way the author manipulates the text content, structure or style to achieve their aim. Now, I'm going to repeat that one more time for all you wonderful note takers, okay? The author's rhetorical strategies are basically the way the author manipulates the text content, structure or style. And those are going to be the big areas that will cover content structure style to achieve their aim to effect, basically, to create some kind of effect. So when we talk about what's concerned with content, we mean, the material and author includes in the text, very simple, just the material that an author includes in the text, then we have structure on the other hand, which concerns the order in which the author presents that material. So structure is the order that the author presents the content. And then finally, style style is concerned with the language and sentence structure that the author uses to convey that material. Okay, so they're all kind of interrelated. Structure concerns the organization and the presentation of the content. And then style is this kind of meta language, if you will, or it's infusing all of the structuration and the incorporation of the content. It's the way in which things are presented. And in a rhetorical analysis essay, you know, it's unlikely that you're going to address every aspect of a text content structure style, I mean, in fact, it may just address one or two of the author's rhetorical strategies. But as the person writing the analysis, you'll determine which strategies you wish to examine and also the depth that you want to go into with those, which are more than likely going to be the ones that you think are most essential to the author achieving their aim. Okay. All right. So that's our overview. And we've got a preview of the large swaths of territory, the content structure and style. Now let's go into those and explore and look into exactly what, what they are, what each is. So let's start our journeying into this rhetorical territory with content. Now, I think this word has picked up a lot of steam, and the era of social media, but just the ability to create and post material or you know, trying to avoid saying the word content just yet, but basically, its content on platforms like YouTube, you know, other video hosting platforms, Vimeo, what else we got loom, things like that. The content is in the middle of a renaissance right now, I think. So. It's really interesting, not only to be able to analyze the various types of content and the specific instances of them out there, but also get a feel for how to create your own content, because really, everyone's sort of doing that these days. You know, like content sort of going through a renaissance. You got something as small as a tweet. Yeah, of course. But then you have like these heavily produced YouTube channels where there's a whole team of people working together to put out videos
4:32
sometimes every day to gain the momentum of a following and being able to strategically create content so that following is maximized and gains the momentum you want right to achieve certain effects is extremely useful. Being able to rhetorically analyze it gives you a foot in the door of better creating your own joining the movement of the renaissance right So there's a selling point that I hope will boost the morale of a lot of listeners who are probably listening to this for class. You know, this could be potentially financially relevant. So keep that in mind. Okay, so we're talking about content when composing a rhetorical analysis essay, what most writers will do is analyze the text content and one or two related ways. They'll do this by examining its arguments, its evidence and reasoning. That's like that's together, that's one way or by examining his persuasive appeals. So one or two related ways is the typical route, see, thereby examining its arguments, evidence and reasoning, or by examining his persuasive appeals. Both approaches are valid, and both approaches are conceivably possible. And just about any situation. And because both of these approaches are closely related, they are closely related. writers will often examine aspects of each in their essays. The point is, you shouldn't feel confined, and what you think you're able to do or not based on the area or way of approach that you've taken, you're not confined. It's not like an absolute restriction. It's just that once you choose examining arguments, evidence and reasoning, you've also chosen the inherent structure that comes with that area that's likely to emerge or feels kind of natural to emerge. And the same is true of the other way, when if you're examining is persuasive appeals, you know, persuasive appeals, of course, play into argumentation and the kinds of evidence that are presented, then the general course of development and further out than that the piece overall, may take. It's sort of like thinking about different branches of scientific thought and exploration. Science, of course, can be seen as a whole. But it could also be seen as having specific veins of character, fields of study. And so when we talk about arguments, evidence and reasoning, I see it as one field of study. And then when we talk about persuasive appeals, I see it as another field of study. Those fields of study, of course, are interconnected naturally, just because they're under the domain of science, in the same way that they're under the domain of writing here of rhetoric, but we can think about them discreetly as well. And that's useful. So let's start moving specifically into considering arguments, evidence and reasoning, arguments, evidence and reasoning. When analyzing a text rhetorical strategies, in terms of its arguments, evidence and reasoning, you're primarily concerned with examining the claims or assertions the writer makes for one, the way that writer supports those claims for to, and the way they explain them for three. So it's just three things really, that you're primarily concerned with examining the claims or assertions that they make, the way they support them, and the way they explain them. So you need to ask yourself, given the text, rhetorical situation, why the writer would choose those particular arguments? Are they the best arguments for the writer to make? Why did the writer choose to support those claims the way they did? Again, was this the best choice of evidence? How effective were the writers decisions? Does the writer explain their reasoning in the piece, exploring or defending the link between their claims and supporting evidence? Are there certain assumptions or leaps of reasoning? The writer leaves unstated? Why might the writer have made that choice? Was it a good decision? You know, like, there's a lot of questions that can spring from just the simple act of examining, but you've got to push through it.
9:04
So all those questions that just happened in the in the last few seconds are worthy of going back and writing down one by one, I think. But I'm going to go ahead and give you some questions that can help you analyze and evaluate attacks rhetorical strategies, in a more orderly fashion, I guess, in terms of its arguments, evidence and reasoning, and the questions will be targeted for each of those three areas. So first, I'll give you some questions for arguments. Second, for evidence or examples. And then third, for reasoning. So let's first look at arguments or assertions. So here's all the questions right? Just gonna say them one by one with a couple of seconds space in between. What arguments or assertions does the author make? And how are they related to the rhetorical situation? How does the audience purpose and occasion of the text influence the author's arguments or assertions. Given the audience and purpose of the text, are these the most effective arguments? If so, what makes them effective? If not, why not? What arguments might be more effective? What arguments or assertions are emphasized the most? Why did the author decide to emphasize those assertions instead of others? What relevant arguments or assertions are ignored? Or slided? Why do you think the author chose not to address them? And finally, how might the intended audience respond to the arguments offered? How well does the author seem to anticipate and perhaps address these likely responses? Alright, now let's move on to the next area. And this is evidence or examples. So I'll do the same thing like it did in arguments or assertions. I'll just give all the questions but with a couple of spaces, or a couple of seconds of space in between each. So first question for evidence for examples. How does the author's support their assertions? Are they supported by primary or secondary research? By personal experience by statistics or expert testimony? What is it? What is the source of the author's evidence for each assertion or argument? Are they particularly effective sources given the tax rhetorical situation? Is the evidence offered appropriate given the tax rhetorical situation? And does the evidence offered effectively support each claim? How might the intended audience respond to the evidence or examples offered? How well does the author seem to anticipate and perhaps address these likely responses? Is the presentation balanced or one sided? In either case? Is that choice appropriate given the rhetorical situation? How does the author address possible counter arguments or evidence that does not support their assertions? And finally, are there obvious arguments the author chooses to ignore or gloss over? What are the effects of these emissions? How might they be explained given the tax rhetorical situation? All right last area for this territory, we're moving into reasoning questions for reasoning, and arguments, evidence and reasoning. So first question, does the author present a clear and cogent line of reasoning in the text? How well does the author move from one assertion to the next? How compelling is the connection the author makes among assertions? And what about between assertions and their supporting evidence? Does the text lead logically and convincingly to its conclusion? Are there clear connections between the text thesis and its primary assertions? Are there any important assumptions the author leaves on stated? Does leaving them unstated and undefended? Make the text any less successful? Is the reasoning fair and balanced? And should it be given the text rhetorical situation? And finally, are there any logical fallacies or flaws and reasoning that might hinder the text effectiveness? You know, consider that question Given its audience purpose and occasion.
14:01
Cool, so you'll have lots of questions now useful questions that you can draw upon when rhetorically analyzing for arguments, evidence and reasoning, but what about the other territory and content that we're talking about? Let's look at those persuasive appeals now. Okay. So persuasive appeals. Another set of strategies authors often employ to achieve their rhetorical goals involves appealing to their readers rationality, or logos or emotions, which is path those are establishing their own credibility as an authority on the topic, which is ethos. So rationality or logos, emotions, or path those or credibility as an authority on the topic, which is ethos. The one of the three appeals may dominate a particular reading most effective persuasive texts use elements of all three. So let's look at all three of those in brief real quick. So in In brief, when authors try to persuade readers by presenting a reasonable series of arguments supported by evidence and examples, they are relying on logos to achieve their goal. When they tried to persuade readers through emotional language or examples, or by appealing to the readers needs or interest, they are relying on patios. When they tried to persuade readers by appearing fair, balanced and informed or by establishing their own credibility and authority on the topic, they're relying on ethos. Okay, logos, pathos, and ethos. These terms are going to guide the question areas that we'll cover and examining or analyzing sorry, attacks, persuasive appeals for rhetorical effectiveness. Alright, so first logos, and I'll do the same thing like I did with the other territory of arguments, evidence and reasoning. I'll just give you each question and then provide a couple of seconds space afterwards. All right, logos. First question. How reasonable and appropriate are the author's claims? Given the rhetorical situation? How clear are the author's claims? Are the author's claims broad and sweeping? Or does the author limit or qualify them? How well does the author use facts, statistics, and expert testimony to support their claims? Are the author's claims adequately explained? Does the author avoid lapses and reasoning or logical fallacies? Does the author address opposing or alternative viewpoints? Are there relevant claims the author fails to address? And finally, are the author's claims convincing? And next up we have pathless. For first question, does the author attempt to convince their readers through appeals to their emotions? To which emotions is the author appealing to the readers personal fears or concerns to the readers economic or social self interest? To the readers desires for acceptance, love or beauty? To the readers sense of justice or social responsibility? Does the author appeal to their readers emotions through choice of arguments, evidence, language, or some combination of those three? How are appeals to emotion balanced with other appeals in the text? Does the author try too hard to appeal to readers emotions into are there appeals to emotion too clumsy or awkward to be effective? And finally, is an appeal to the readers and emotions and effective strategy to employ given the rhetorical situation? All right, that's two down logos and pathos and one to go ethos. So these are questions for ethos. First question, how does the author attempt to establish their credibility or authority? What level of expertise does the author demonstrate when writing about the topic of their text? Does the author's own experience or expertise lend credibility to the text? Does the author demonstrate or document the validity of the source text use to support their assertions?
18:57
Does the author present a balanced or a one sided argument? And is that approach appropriate given the rhetorical situation? Does the author demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the topics complex or controversial nature? And finally, does the text tone or the author's voice contribute to or detract from their credibility? Alright, y'all that's that's good work. You know, that's a milestone right there. We covered all of content, still got structure and style to go but content is is comprehensively covered contents of a big part of rhetorical analysis, but structure and style you know, equally important. We won't have as many questions to ask for each of those. But that just means that the questions we do have needs to be pursued to even deeper degrees. Okay. So Let's first now look at structure, and then we'll move to style. Finally, structure. While many rhetorical strategies are related to a text content, others involve its structure. Once writers decide what information or arguments they'll include in their essays, they need to decide the order in which to present them. structure also involves the way a writer introduces and concludes the text, and draws connections among parts of the text. So it's not just what goes into it, you know, the pieces involved, but the mechanical fluidity between each and how they connect to each other, and move from one to the next, and so on. That's the linear movement of the text one thing to the next from introduction to conclusion, but there's also the way it draws connections among its parts. And it can recursively do that, referencing previous sections in order to strengthen the forward movement or the thrust of an idea, or its salience as it's presented in one part of the text. So So it's sort of complicated, you know, you got the linear element, but you also have this, this non linearity, which is not the easiest thing to trace sometimes, especially if the content is already challenging. To try and to follow that through structure can be difficult, but I'll tell you what it's worth while the payoff will enhance your understanding of it, many fold. Okay. So let's do it. Let's look at some questions that you can ask about a tech structure as you evaluate its rhetorical effectiveness. First question, in what order? Does the author present information or claims? What purpose might lie behind this order? How might the text structure influence an audience's response to the author's ideas, findings? Or assertions? Does the text present a clear and consistent line of reasoning? Are there clear connections between the text stated or implied thesis and its topic sentences? Does the text structure enhance its appeal to logic? And by extension? Does the author draw clear logical connections among the text ideas, findings? Or assertions? Does the structure of the piece enhance its appeal to emotion? Particularly in its introduction, or conclusion? And finally, does the structure of the piece enhance its appeal to credibility? Does the author seem in control of the writing? Does the text hold together as a whole? Are there any obvious flaws and structure that might damage the author's credibility? So that's it for structure we've covered now content and structure what's left while we got style of course. So style. Finally, when analyzing an author's rhetorical strategies, consider their style among other elements of writing style concerns, the text, sentence structure, word choice, punctuation, voice, tone, diction. You know, those are just a few. And I'm naming only a few because style can really take up a whole book, you know, if we were really to put the pedal to the metal on it, but we're not going to do that here. Maybe later on and some like special edition or something. But right now let's let's cover a good swath of the basics. So here are some questions that can help you assess how style contributes to a text rhetorical effectiveness.
23:51
First question, what type of syntax does the author employ? How does the author vary sentence length, long or short? And sentence type? Simple compound complex and compound complex, cumulative, periodic and balanced? Might have to do some review for that one. And then how is syntax related so the audience purpose or occasion of the text? What types of figurative language does the author employ? For example, metaphors, similes, or analogies. And are the choices of figurative language appropriate and effective? Given the tax rhetorical situation? What types of allusions? Not I? LL but alll? What types of allusions does the author employ? Are they appropriate and effective? How appropriate and effective is the author's voice given the text rhetorical situation. How appropriate and effective is the author's tone, given the text, rhetorical situation, of course. And finally, how appropriate and effective is the author's diction? Given the text rhetorical situation? So that's it. That's, that's all the questions. But what about putting those questions to use? You know, we need to figure out how to apply these right? see them in action. So that's exactly what we're gonna do in the next episode. When we take an example text and analyze its rhetorical strategies. The example text we're going to use, by the way, is Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. Thanks for listening, and I'll see you in the next episode.