Reference no: EM131046566

Rhetorical Analysis Writing Project Relevant course readings: Laura Bolin Carroll: "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis" Kerry Dirk: "Navigating Genres" Keith Grant-Davie: "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents".

Whatever option you select, you'll need to address the same questions as you develop your understanding of rhetorical discourse and the way different discourses address differences in rhetorical situation:

1. The question of exigence: What is the discourse about? What need or purpose does the discourse address? What fundamental values are at stake? What is the discourse trying to accomplish-and how successful is it?

2. The question of the rhetor: Who is-or are-the rhetor or rhetors? Who is responsible for the discourse? Who created it? Does the rhetor successfully establish ethos? Why or why not? How does the discourse itself invoke a particular rhetor? Who sponsored the discourse, and how?

3. The question of audience: For whom is the discourse intended? To whom would this discourse appeal? Who is the actual audience, and who is the audience invoked or imagined by the discourse itself? Does the discourse invite the audience to adopt a new role, a new identity?

4. The question of constraints: What constraints did the rhetor have to take into account-what factors outside of the discourse and beyond the rhetor's control might influence the audience's response to the discourse? Are they negative or positive constraints? How did the rhetor accommodate those constraints? Was the rhetor successful?

5. The question of genre: What is the genre of the text, and what purpose does this genre typically serve? How do audience expectations of the genre contribute to our understanding of the exigence, the intended audience, and the rhetor? What constraints does the genre introduce?

These constituents of rhetorical situations aren't an outline for your project; you won't march through each of them in succession in the body of your project. Rather, they're your initial research questions that will help you to analyze thoroughly the rhetorical dimensions of the texts you select. The form and structure of your project will depend, finally, on a refined research question that will develop out of your research and your understanding of how your chosen texts work.

Project Options: I believe that the complexities of rhetorical situations and rhetorical strategies generally become clearer when two different texts are compared. This project, therefore, will ask you to choose two pieces of rhetorical discourse that address the same topic and compare them to see how differences in exigence, rhetor, audience, and constraints are at the heart of differences in the treatment of the topic. You'll be responsible for finding two texts ("text" being understood in its broadest sense) and analyzing both thoroughly, the results of your analysis being a specific research question about their differences that your paper will attempt to answer.

Option 1: Analysis of Scientific Accommodation. Your task in this option will be to compare how scientific findings are "translated" for non-scientific audiences by comparing a mass media report about a scientific finding to the scholarly reporting of that research in the original report or journal article. You'll begin your project by finding articles in the mass media-newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc.-that cover scientific research and that include references to the original published report of the findings. You'll then track that report down and compare the original-presumably written for a specialized, scientific audience--to the article that appeared in a venue aimed at a general readership. You'll then analyze both discourses from the five perspectives listed above to understand better how each operates rhetorically, generating pages of notes that will help you to frame a more specific research question.

Some possible refined research questions might include

• How is the writing done by scientists for scientists different from writing in the popular media, and what do those differences tell us about the values of the discourse(s) of science versus the view some other audience has of the values of science?

• What doesn't get included in popular accounts of scientific research, or how does scientific research get misrepresented in popular accounts, and what bearing might these differences have on the general public's understanding of science and the scientific method? More effective projects will pay attention to and discuss

• The periodicals (or venues) in which the articles appear. What magazine, website, newspaper, or journal published these articles? When were they published? Who is the audience for this publication? What is the general purpose of this venue? How do you know? (Hint: you may need to look at copies of the journal from the library or through its website-not just the article you're analyzing.)

• The authors. What can you learn about them? Are their credentials/institutions included? Can you find anything about them through Google? (If you're unclear on the nature of academic authorship, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on the subject.)

• Specific differences between the texts. Consider choosing to focus on one specific aspect of the research and then look closely at how it's covered in each article: compare the terms that are used, the way the information is delivered (text alone? charts and graphs? illustrations?), the sentence structure (active or passive voice?), etc. Even a close comparison of the titles can suggest a lot about the differences in rhetorical situations.

• Visuals included. How would you compare the information conveyed by any images, charts, tables, videos, or other graphics used in the two articles? How do such visuals contribute to the rhetorical strategy of the article? (Consider including screenshots or copies of images and graphics in your actual paper.)

• The specific exigencies of each article. It's true that the purpose of popular coverage of research is to make specialized information accessible to the public; it's also true that scientific writing shares new research with other scientists. But what knowledge, specifically, is at stake in your articles? What new insight does the scientific article present? What gap in our existing knowledge does it address? Why is this research considered newsworthy? Why, according to the popular coverage, should a non-scientific audience care about this new knowledge? (Consider using the CARS Model to unpack more specifically the exigence of the research article.)

• The underlying values that inform each article. Why is this research important to the scientific community? What values are suggested by the popular coverage?

Option 2: Comparing Political Rhetoric According to the Department of Communication at the University of Texas, Arlington, "Political persuasion is hard to analyze because it is so fragmented. We usually see bits and pieces (sound bites, picket signs) on the news. It is not complete; it is not sequential; it has been edited by others and we see it later." For the second option, you'll choose a contemporary issue that's central to the current presidential campaign (e.g., gun rights; immigration policy; health care costs and accessibility; corporate malfeasance; etc.) and choose two relatively short statements regarding that issue made by two different candidates.

You can examine the rhetoric of two candidates from the same political party or two candidates from different parties; their statements should be in the form of the brief excerpts we come to identify with the candidates and that get circulated by news outlets and on social media. They can come from written statements; speeches given on the campaign trail or addressing an organization of some kind; interviews; social media posts (or even tweets or a series of tweets) by the candidate or the campaign organization; or other sources of information from the candidates. More obviously, perhaps, than in academic writing, political rhetoric is built on and appeals to complex, competing values among voters. Keep your eyes open as you scroll through your social media feeds, watch late-night television programs, and listen to or watch news programming.

Distinguish between statements that are made by the candidates or their campaigns and the many ways those statements can get picked up and redistributed by other sources and outlets (e.g., memes, satirical online media like the Youtube channel Bad Lip Reading, and so on)-you're looking for official statements by the candidates or statements sanctioned by their campaigns. After selecting your texts, you'll analyze them from the five perspectives listed above to understand better their rhetorical dimensions, generating several pages of notes that will help you to frame a more specific research question. This option might also require you to do some background research on the issue to contextualize the statements-to understand the exigence that prompted them, for instance, or the leanings of the audience being addressed. Some possible refined research questions might include

• How and why do different candidates-that is, different rhetors-try to establish their ethos in the ways they do? What larger values are reflected in the way they construct their ethos? How might that ethos appeal to different constituents?

• How do particular instances of political rhetoric invoke different audiences-what "role" is being "set out for them by the writer" (as Andrea Lunsford puts it), and why would an audience be prepared to accept that role? More effective projects will pay attention to and discuss

• The specific rhetorical strategies of two specific passages of rhetorical discourse. Remember: you're not analyzing a candidate's every statement on an issue. You should be able to quote and describe the discourse or text you're analyzing (for instance, a page on the candidate's website; a specific clip of the candidate speaking before a crowd; etc.). Neither are you editorializing, offering your own point of view on the issue. This is a work of analysis, not persuasion. Your job is not to take a stand of your own on the issue, but to zero in on some very specific chunks of discourse from the candidates and analyze them closely.

• The context in which the discourse would be encountered. Be clear about when, where, and how these statements were made. Is this a sound bite from a debate? A quotation from a newspaper article? What does that larger context suggest about the exigence? What is the difference between a comment a candidate made in response to a question in a debate, and an official statement that appears on the candidate's website? How much control does the candidate have of the discourse, under the circumstances?

• The genre. Is this a video clip of the candidate speaking at a town hall meeting? How is that rhetorical situation different from a written discourse that appears over an inspiring photo of the candidate on the campaign website? How does genre affect the exigence of the discourse?

• The underlying values that inform the discourse. Recognizing to whom the candidate is appealing, and how, often involves unpacking the multiple exigencies of the discourse. A candidate who defends gun rights and the second amendment is certainly appealing to voters' fear of crime or desire to protect their families, but usually there is an additional appeal to ideas about freedom and constitutional rights-that is, to a particular vision of America and what it means to be American. Often when a candidate's discourse is unappealing to us, it's because their underlying values are different from ours.