In chapter 10, Selzer examines rhetorical analysis, a broad methodological term that usually falls into two categories or approaches:
- textual: use of rhetorical terminology on a singular symbolic act, taken on its own terms
- contextual: examining a particular act as it fits into a larger chain or conversation
Key peeps:
- Aristotle
- Quintilian
- Cicero
- Barthes
- Burke
- audience
- forensic rhetoric--characteristic of courtrooms; concerning actions done in the past
- deliberative rhetoric--characteristic of legislative forums; concerning future course of actions
- epideictic rhetoric--ceremonial discourse used to create and reinforce community values; concerning present moment
- five canons--actions of a rhetor from planning to delivery; see next five terms
- inventio--finding/creating of info and planning
- dispostio--arrangement
- exordium--introduction
- narratio--forecasting
- confirmatio--proof
- refutatio--refutation
- peroration--conclusion
- elocutio--style
- memoria--recollection of rhetorical resources one could call upon and memorization of what has been arranged
- pronuntiatio--delivery
- elocutio--stylistic maneuvers (antithesis, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, epanalepsis, antimetabole and anacoluthon)
- ethos--trustworthiness and credibility of rhetor
- pathos--reasons that derive from a communities deeply and fervently held values
- logos--sound reasons that emerge from intellectual reasoning
- invention
- emotional appeal--the pathos used
- argument by example--where a single case stands in for many cases (how is this different than synechdoche)?
- details--not merely concrete description, but also hard evidence
- anastrophe--violation of normal subject/verb/object order
- parenthesis--distracting interrupters
- hypotaxis--modifying or subordinate clauses
- parataxis--independent clauses that begin with "and" or "but"
- isocolons--precise mirror-image parallel structures
- hyperbole--exaggeration for emphasis or for rhetorical effect
- irony--expression of something which is contrary to the intended meaning
- allusion--direct or indirect mention of figure or event
- metaphors--implied comparison achieved through a figurative use of words
- connotations--emotional charges of words
- dramatistic pentad--elements to identify before engaging in analysis; elements represented by questions
- act--What purposeful act has taken place?
- agent--Who took this action?
- agency--How or with what did they do it?
- scene--Where, when and in what context did the act take place?
- purpose--Why did they do it? What was their intent? (usually done after the first four)
- identification--for persuasion to work, one identifies with another, either a self or objects
- consubstantiality--humans have symbolic understanding of themselves and others; to share knowledge, people align their personal symbol-system with another's symbol system
- interpretive screens: terminology itself
- rhetoric is both a productive and interpretive enterprise (280)
- rhetorical analysis can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence other through langauge (281)
- rhetorical analysis is a form of critical reading (281)
- textual and contextual analysis are not mutually exclusive (302)
- specific rhetoric performances are an irreducible mixture of both text and context (302)
- as Burke demonstrates, rhet analysis can in and of itself be a part of an unending process (303)
- try to use elements of both in an analysis to understand rhet event more completely
- remember (and perhaps make an explicit note of?) the limits of the analysis, it is always somewhat partial and incomplete, ready to be deepened, critiqued, modified and extended by others
4 comments:
Good notes. I was particularly interested in Selzer's claim that there is no one right way to do rhetorical analysis. I agree with that claim, but I also think it leaves scholars with a wide array of methods to choose from that can allow for a great deal of methodological diversity (all good). But also confusing, at times. Sometimes I 've heard people say they are doing a rhetorical reading when they are just doing a close reading or critical reading. What makes a rhetorical reading different? I think Selzer answers that for us to some degree and some of the other writers as well, but I think this is an abiding concern for those of us who do rhetorical analysis.
@Eileen,
This question of what makes something rhetorical is especially troubling for me. I don't want to detract from the focus of this post (a lovely note-taking from the reading); however, I think it's a question that should be asked. I know that definitions of rhetoric and rhetorical reading range from "winning the soul by discourse" (Plato), to a broad definition like "the art, study, and practice of human communication" (Lunsford). Selzer acknowledges this multiplicity when he notes that there is no single definition of rhetoric (279). So what to do with this "rhetorical reading" term? Aren't we always reading rhetorically? Is "everything rhetorical" as Fish said? (Ewww, I can't believe I just invoked Stanley Fish). Is rhetoric Big Rhetoric? (Schiappa)? I know at my previous institution, we were strongly cautioned with throwing around terms like "the rhetoric of X." So what of it? :-)
Related to this post, I think rhetorical analysis, be it in the hardcore Aristotelian sense that Selzer and Foss demonstrate, or in the Burkean/contemporary way is really useful and definitely the method I seem to utilize when writing.
I know Selzer mentions that rhetorical analysis is particularly useful if you have texts with persuasive intent. . . so I suppose the emphasis in rhetorical analysis is, likely, noting how the writer or creator goes about assembling their text instead of what the text actually says. This seems to be something of a difference between rhetorical analysis and textual analysis (not the textual analysis from this week that Selzer sets up in distinction to contextual analysis, but last week's textual analysis). . . but I think that boundary is a permeable as well. - Justin
In class last night, Missy noted that she was reading rhetorically instead of reading for content. This helped me ALOT in understanding better what reading rhetorically is/does. I suppose it's looking for where the author made what moves for what effect/aim/end. Though i don't think that's necessarily different from reading critically, it might be different from reading closely?
Justin I see your comments as speaking toward a kind of offshoot of rhetorical analysis (which is a way is reading Eileen's accolade of diversity in a cynically): that the divergent approaches stratify the potential meaning of the term and how it is deployed. Do we need a coherent sense of methodology to employ it? This goes back to the previous questions we had about the benefits or disadvantages of pluralistic methodologies for the disciplinarity of Comp.
And I think for myself one thing is critical: the more variance, the harder it is for grad students to understand how to employ it.
Perhaps I'm too willing to critique, but you might say something smells fishy about the multiplicity of rhetorical analysis (actually, I just wanted to use that pun and this statement is not a true indication of how I feel).
Post a Comment