Rhetorical Analysis Strategies

Rhetorical Analysis

* A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS REFERS TO THE PROCESS OF ANALYZING A TEXT, GIVEN SOURCE OR ARTIFACT. * No judgment- only analysis * Explores content, purpose, background (of author), structure, and the topic of a text * RHETORIC IS THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE AN INTENDED MESSAGE * via argumentation, persuasion, or another form of communication. * Critical Reading- ask questions while you read (SOAPStoned) * What is the subject? * What is the thesis? (point) * Who is the intended audience? * What is the tone of the text? * What is the writer’s purpose? * What methods does the writer use to develop his/her ideas? * In what way does the writer use diction? * What does the write use to convey his/her point? * Basic Rhetorical Strategies for Effective Communication STRATEGY | DEFINITION | QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKING | EXEMPLIFICATION | Provide examples or cases in point | Are there examples -- facts, statistics, cases in point, personal experiences, interview quotations -- added to the essay? | DESCRIPTION | Detail sensory perceptions of a person, place, or thing | Does a person, place, or object play a prominent role in the essay? | NARRATION | Recount an event | Are there any anecdotes, experiences, or stories in the essay? Process analysis: Explain how to do something or how something happens. Does any portion of the essay include concrete directions about a certain process? | COMPARISON AND CONTRAST | Discuss similarities and differences | Does the essay contain two or more related subjects? Does it evaluate or analyze two or more people, places, processes, events, or things? Are there any similarities and/or differences between two or more elements? | DIVISION AND CLASSIFICATION | Divide a whole into parts or sort related items into categories | Does the essay reduce the subject to more manageable parts or group parts? | DEFINITION | Provide the meaning of terms you use | Is there any important word in the essay with many meanings and is defined or clarified? | CAUSE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS | Analyze why something happens and describe the consequences of a string of events | Does the essay examine past events or their outcome? Does it explain why something happened? | REPETITION | The constant use of certain words | Why, with all words at her disposal, does the writer choose to repeat particular words? | COUNTERPOINTS | Contrasting ideas such as black/white, darkness/light, good/bad | Does the writer acknowledge and respond to counterpoints to her position? | IMAGERY | Language that evokes one or all of the five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell | Does the essay use any provocative language that calls upon readers’ senses? | METAPHOR AND SIMILE | A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by “like” or “as” | Does the essay make connections between things to make a point or elicit an idea? | STYLE, TONE, AND VOICE | The attitude a writer takes towards a subject or character: serious, humorous, sarcastic, ironic, satirical, tongue-in-cheek, solemn, objective | What tone does the essay have? How does the writer portray herself? What choices does she make that influence her position? | ANALOGY | The comparison of two pairs that have the same relationship | Are there any comparisons made by the writer to strengthen her message | FLASHBACK | The comparison of two pairs that have the same relationship | Are there any comparisons made by the writer to strengthen her message? | HYPERBOLE | Exaggeration or overstatement | Does the writer make any claims that seem extreme? | PERSONIFICATION | Giving human qualities to animals or objects | Is something without conscience thinking or talking? | IRONY | An expression or utterance marked by deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning, often humorous | Does the writer really support her own assertions? Does she seem to be claiming the opposite you expect her to claim? | OXYMORON | A contradiction in terms such as “faithless devotion,” “searing cold,” “deafening silence,” “virtual reality,” “act naturally,” “peacekeeper missile,” or “larger half” | Do any of the writer’s terms seem to obviously clash? | PARADOX | Reveals a kind of truth which at first seems contradictory; Red wine is both good and bad for us | Do any contradictions used in the essay contain some grain of truth? | SYMBOLISM | Using an object or action that means something more than its literal meaning; A skull and crossbones symbolize death. | Does the writer seem to assert that a thing has meaning outside of the obvious? | PARODY | Reveals a kind of truth which at first seems contradictory; Red wine is both good and bad for us | Do any contradictions used in the essay contain some grain of truth? | SARCASM | Using an object or action that means something more than its literal meaning; A skull and crossbones symbolize death | Does the writer seem to assert that a thing has meaning outside of the obvious? | SATIRE | Literary tone used to ridicule or make fun of human vice or weakness, often with the intent of correcting, or changing, the subject of the satiric attack | Does the writer’s humor aim to fix its target? | DICTION | Choice of words | Why, with all words at her disposal, does the writer choose to use those particular words? | PARALLELISM | The use of identical or equivalent constructions in corresponding clauses | Are there any syntactic similarities between two parts of a sentence? | * Persuasive Appeals * Logos- appeal to reason/logic * Deductive/inductive reasoning * Pathos- appeal to emotion * evocative imagery, description, visuals, and the like to create within the reader or listener a sense of emotion: outrage, sorrow, excitement, etc. * Be careful to distinguish between pathos as a rhetorical vehicle to persuade using emotion and the logical fallacy “appeal to pity”. * fallacy diverts the audience from the issue to the self while the appeal emphasizes the impact of the issue. * Ethos- appeal to ethics * words they use, their tone, their credentials, their experience, their charge over the audience, verbal and nonverbal behavior, criminal records etc. * gives the author credibility. * Argumentation * Deductive Logical Argument * Major premise then examples/proof conclusion * Top to bottom- EX: * MEN ARE TALL - a major premise as it works with a large group of people * BOB IS A MAN - a minor premise as we hear about only one individual of that group * BOB IS TALL - we attempt to make a conclusion based upon what we have already been told * Inductive Logical Argument * Bottom up * Starts with conclusive statement then moves to next “logical” step (examples to back up statement) * Logical Fallacies * Powerful tools in logic and rhetoric- expose faults to make your argument stronger * When an arguer is able to identify her opponent’s fallacious positions, she can point them out and expose a weakness. She undermines her opponent’s position FALLACY | DEFINITION | EXAMPLE | APPEAL TO FORCE | Arguer threatens reader/listener | If you don't agree with me, I will beat you up. | APPEAL TO PITY | Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener | If you don't pass me in this course, I will get kicked out of school and have to flip burgers the rest of my life. | DIRECT APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE | Arguer arouses mob mentality | The terrorists came from the middle east. Our only course of action is to turn it into a parking lot. | INDIRECT APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE | Arguer appeals to the reader/listener's desire for security, love, respect, etc. | Of course you want to read my book, it's what all the intellectuals read. | ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (ABUSIVE) | Arguer verbally abuses the other arguer | You're a moron; therefore your point is invalid. | ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (CIRCUMSTANTIAL) | Arguer presents the other arguer as predisposed to argue in this way | Of course you'd say I need braces; you're a dentist. (Anyone may be able to note I need braces.) | ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON (TU QUOQUE) | Arguer presents other arguer as a hypocrite | How can you tell me not to drink and drive when you did it last weekend? (Note: don't drink and drive.) | ACCIDENT | General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover | Americans are entitled to freedom of speech, so you cannot arrest him for yelling "fire" in the theater. (Note: don't yell "fire" in the theater.) | STRAW MAN | Arguer distorts opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument | Our campus is "dry" and doesn't allow alcohol. Obviously the administration is composed of a bunch of puritans who don't speak for the majority and can be ignored. | MISSING THE POINT | Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by the premises | College education costs are rising exponentially; therefore we should reduce the number of years needed to obtain a degree. | RED HERRING | Arguer leads reader/listener off track | People continually talk about the negative effects of tobacco, but did you know that the Native Americans used to smoke tobacco? Many Native American folk remedies are still used today in holistic medicine. | APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY | Arguer cites untrustworthy authority | My sixteen year old cousin Billy said that there was no moon landing, and he wants to be an astronaut, so it must be true. | APPEAL TO IGNORANCE | Premises report that nothing is known or proved, and then a conclusion is drawn | There is no way of disproving the existence of God, therefore he exists. Or, conversely: There is no way of proving the existence of God, therefore he doesn't exist. | HASTY GENERALIZATION | Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample | Mrs. Dobson's Rottweiler bit a neighbor boy; therefore all Rottweilers are violent dogs. | FALSE CAUSE | Conclusion depends on nonexistent or minor causal connection | Every time I change the channel, my sports team scores. Therefore, any time I want my team to score, I need only change the channel | SLIPPERY SLOPE | Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction | If Americans' rights to bear arms is taken away, foreigners will view the country as weak and disarmed and attack, easily crushing our crippled defenses and enslaving our nation to submit to their will and whim. | WEAK ANALOGY | Conclusion depends on defective analogy | My cousin Billy is just like Yao Ming, he is tall and loves basketball; therefore he will be a pro ball player just like Yao Ming. | BEGGING THE QUESTION | Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out key premises, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle | Of course animals have rights, just look at how they're being treated. | COMPLEX QUESTION | Multiple questions are concealed in a single question | Have you stopped sleeping with your secretary? | FALSE DICHOTOMY | "Either/or" statement that hides additional alternatives | Either you buy Axe body spray or you risk not attracting the ladies. Obviously you want to attract the ladies, so you will buy Axe body spray. | SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE | Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion | Of course that child can't practice medicine, he is only a boy. (If said child is Doogie Howser.) | EQUIVOCATION | Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word of phrase | A squirrel is a mammal; therefore a large squirrel is a large mammal. | AMPHIBIOUSLY | Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement | John rode his bike past the tree with a helmet. (The tree has a helmet?) | COMPOSITION | Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole | Bleach and ammonia individually are strong chemical cleaners; therefore if I mix them I will have a stronger chemical cleaner. (Note: don't mix bleach and ammonia.) | DIVISION | Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts | Our campus is over one hundred years old; therefore every building on campus is over one hundred years old. |