Hotspot Analysis from Salon : Rhetorical_Criticism


Link to Salon 1291
DocumentSelected Text from Paragraphcount comments madeTags Selectedusers
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedIn fact, the figure seems to stabilize things, especially if we accept the general construction that Mohrmann and I place on the text. The phrase articulates a stable referent that links past fact to future conduct, and its appearance at a transitional moment in the text gives emphasis to its coordinating function. 1 To address your second question, Amanda, I would say that is what Lincoln is doing in this portion of his speech. He links the past to the present (creates a stability) but even goes further to define the present (or future) by saying that slavery is evil - defining how it ought to be viewed, defining the [Stabilization through chiasmus]Stabilization through chiasmusSarah Wheeler
Edwin Black Second PersonaAs the Archbishop in the second part of Henry IV says in the midst of political upheaval: ... we are all diseas'd; And with our surfeiting and wanton hours Have brought ourselves into a burning fever, and we must bleed for it ...The guilt is there. Coherence demands it, and the discourse confirms it. It finds expression in all the classic patterns: the zealous righteousness, the suspiciousness, the mor bidity, the feverish expiati ons. The condition suits the metaphor; the metaphor, the condition.1 This is but a minor quibble, but I find it strange that Black is looking simply at the relationship between the state/metaphor, and not historical context. Couldn't Henry IV's metaphor been just as easily described by that era's fascination with bloodletting and spiritual / mental/ metaphysical ills as symptoms of physical disease?[context?]context?Sarah Miller
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Textnonarbitrary1 I'm not sure I see how Platonism fits into this. L&S claim that iconicity is an example of 'quantum' semiotics, where the construction of signs is no longer arbitrary. They aren't saying that icons are perfect, but rather that they have a [ when I look at their interpretation of Burke's iconicity] when I look at their interpretation of Burke's iconicityChris Brown
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesFinally, the easiest move is simply to change one's phraseology to admit the partiality of one's interpretations.1 As a solution to eliminate the exclusive reading of experiences that a text enables for a specific group, Condit suggests we change the [phraseology]phraseologyMaggie Goss
Edwin Black Second Persona It is true, the Rightist is suspicious of beards, of unconventional dress, of colorful styles of living. He has antipathy for deviance from a fairly narrow norm of art, politics, sex, or religion, so that his endorsement of individualism has about it the aura of a self-indulgent hypocrisy. 1 Here, Black is certainly spiking his rhetorical criticism with a good dose of sharp moral judgment. How did his audience respond to this? I mean, I do get the feeling that he's pidgeonholing conservatives here, and I could see a lot of them saying that they don't subscribe--as either author or auditor--to such rigid classifications. [Moral Judgment ]Moral Judgment Elizabeth Garza
Simons_Narrative_IraqFor most Americans the 9/11 bombings were a tragedy; for neoconservatives bent on invading Iraq they were also an opportunity, providing what David Zarefsky calls a kairotic moment. The administration's rhetoric fueled and channeled the fury already aroused by the attacks themselve1 ggggg[Rhetorical situation]Rhetorical situationdavid
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:30 - 4:451 Mary[conference ]conference mary
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismhow argumentation is a means of knowing and how rhetorical criticism is a specific case of argumentation1 good points Chenchen. Zarefsky is an argument theorist and so for him to think of rhetorical criticism as a kind of argument is a great compliment. Zarefsky does seem to acknowledge that argument belongs to the humanities more than the sciences but then goes on to say that the distinction between science and argument is overdrawn. Is he contradicting himself? Can anyone see how he might not be contradicting himself?[argumentation]argumentationdavid
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedNow it is true that we missed this item. Why? I don't know, but Jasinski does. The reason, he tells us, 1 Does Leff's tone in this passage perhaps betray another exigency in his production of this re-analysis, namely Jasinski's not-so-subtle jab at his overlooking of this particular piece of rhetoric?[exigency]exigencyMichael Hitchcock
Charles Morris Fourth Personaoffered a code that relieved 1 following Chloe's thread[Passing]Passingdavid
Leah Ceccarelli Polysemy2/3/2013 1:501 I think Ceccarelli will agree that if [ the marginalized audience in some power relations] the marginalized audience in some power relationsChenchen Huang
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text can themes related to the strength of his character and policies be said to unfold ""organically?"" Doesn't such a statement undermine the agency that they1 It seems contradictory to declare that these themes [ Leff and Sachs describe Burke's morality] Leff and Sachs describe Burke's moralityMegan McGrath
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaThis ingratiation had everything to do with motivating his charges to join him in a particular understanding of that which was both legion and contagion, alien and yet communicable, but preventable if only they were vigilant. 1 It seems to be that Hoover was able to deflect speculation around his sexuality or being homosexual by defining precisely what homosexuals were. In this definition he creates awful narratives about what these people where like, and by marking them as awful people with evil and demonish ways the public could hardly think that a man like Hoover would be this very thing he is defining. Hoover seems to be achieving assimilation through creating a shared enemy in homosexuals, as he is saying that, too, loathes these individuals (just like the public). Therefore, if we think of Hoover as creating a definition that cannot be applied to the creator (him) and identifying common enemies, then he is creating a union between himself and the public where they do not (and cannot) truly suggest Hoover is a homosexual. [Crafting an Understanding]Crafting an UnderstandingSarah Wheeler
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismIn this sense, the weaker of the claims can be 1 meaning that [General]GeneralSarah Miller
Edwin Black Second PersonaThe critic can see in the auditor implied by a discourse a model of what the rhetor would have his real auditor become.1 Related to implied reader[General]GeneralSarah Miller
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismAnd it is humane in that it engages higher critical faculties rather than only instinct or desire.1 From what I understand, empirical verification is descriptive, inductive, and critical. The relationship between the value of verification and humaneness seems to be linked to the higher functions of discernment, critical thought, and judgment versus instinct or desire.I understand the word humane which was used in this context as showing intellectual advancement. Something that is necessary for argumentation. But I may be incorrect... [verification]verificationChloe Lynn Oxley
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomThe primary target was those Americans not driven by a clearly defined ideological commitment to oppose or support the war at any cost. Resentment of the sacrifice in money and lives, bewilderment at the stalemate, longing for some movement in a clearly marked direction-these were the principal aspects of their state of mind assumed by Nixon. He solicited them saying 1 Forbes Hill's description of the situation surrounding Nixon's speech indicates that he has taken historical context into consideration in determining Nixon's target audience. I agree that there are sections of Nixon's speech that indicate he is targeting a specific group of Americans. However, it seems that Forbes Hill has considered the historical background of the speech as well as specific elements of Nixon's discourse in detereming Nixon's target audience.[target audience]target audienceAmanda Berardi
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper UnionLINCOLN AT COOPER UNION: A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT1 Elizabeth, while I'm definitely not an expert here, I can say that because of the interpretive nature of rhetorical analysis, there will always be discrepancies. Maybe you could leave a mark on the rhetorical world and demand a formula that all neo-classical analysis must follow. But unless we move to a template, it seems that there will always be some change between analyses.[Hill v. Mohrmann/Leff]Hill v. Mohrmann/LeffGarrett Stack
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticism2/13/2013 14:181 This seems both valuable and impractical to me. Yes, it would be lovely to have the time and energy (and print space) to accurately describe the [ social] socialGarrett Stack
Leff 2001 Cooper Union Revisitedeven Mailloux has noted, a recognition of the contingency of interpretive work does not prevent us from taking a position; it only makes us more aware that interpretations of texts are like our other beliefs and commitments; they depend upon our historical situation, on our position in some particular time and place, and they are justified through argument to some particular audience.1 I am concerned here with a question I keep coming back to: what is the purpose? If we continue to analyze and reanalyze the same texts, criticizing each other over what seem like sometimes arbitrary notions (the exemption of one example of chiasmus for example), what are we really doing to advance rhetoric as a field?[So what?]So what?Garrett Stack
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:00 - 4: 151 Conference with Sarah M.[Sarah Miller]Sarah MillerSarah Miller
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismTheir new appeal rested in the fact that they relied instead on empirical verification. 1 But looking into the literature of philosophy of science will tell you that even empirical findings are not free from biases, particularly when the social sciences first emerged. Privileging the objectivity of the sciences might just reinforce the idea that the humanities serve science.[General]GeneralSarah Miller
Edwin Black Second PersonaWe mean, more specifically, that certain features of a linguistic act entail certain characteristics of the language user.1 He mentions how a ghost writer complicates this assertion, and I wish he said more about this. Where do we separate the ghost writer from the author? The ghost writer is not a mere scribe. Does this distinction even matter?[Text-Author Distinction]Text-Author DistinctionMegan McGrath
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomThe state of affairs for the Nixon Administration in the fall of 1969 is well known.1 It seems to me that this sort of work, especially without the benefit of having seen a copy of the original speech as others have noted, seems to take much for granted. To me, this state of affairs is not well known. I understand that Nixon would soon be facing more problems than the American backlash to Vietnam, but I am not overly familiar with the context of this speech. Thus, one of the shortcomings of the neo-Aristotelian method becomes evident; there seems to be a want for contextual information that this particular method must, by necessity, omit for the sake of clarity in the strict methodology. [neo-aristotelian context]neo-aristotelian contextGarrett Stack
Condit: Leff and McGee as Extremesand the emotional stirrings (1 I'm not convinced by this element of Leff's approach. For example, my gut tells me that forms of hyperbaton aren't intentionally placed in texts that aren't supposed to be considered literary, like poems. I'm more inclined to think that the form of the first sentence in Burke's speech is more a result of careless writing than it is of his rhetorical intention to stir emotions of chaos of distress in his audience. [Hyperbaton]HyperbatonElizabeth Garza
Edwin Black Second PersonaMoral Judgment1 I don't know that this will add much to discussion, but Black's contemporaries were among the [ for instance] for instanceSarah Miller
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismhe scientific research report is an argumentative exercise in which the researcher seeks to establish that his or her interpretation of the data is more probable than are the alternatives. What distinguishes the sciences from the humanities is not the presence or absence of argumentation but the degree of consensus about the methods employed and the standards for evaluation. In the sciences, a shared commitment to empiricism and widely accepted design principles and statistical methods produce broad agreement about what counts as knowledge. 1 Absolutely. But many in the scientific community disagree over the best method or approach and is diffuse like the humanities in that way.[General]GeneralSarah Miller
Forbes Hill Conventional Wisdomit buries deep in its texture most premises not likely to be immediately accepted.1 I've seen rhetorical texture used in some contexts before, but to add to the metaphor here... Maybe we can think of it as a woven texture -- with different colored threads that you can see, but that you have to disentangle.[texture]textureSarah Miller
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper Union and delivery--but I feel like Mohrmann/Leff put way more of an emphasis on argumentation. Is it standard for some critics to focus on some elements of the method more than others1 This style of neo-classical analysis seems very different from Hill's version. Hill seems to invoke more themes from Aristotle's []Elizabeth Garza
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:45 - 5:001 if 3 is not open, I can 4:45[.].Chloe Lynn Oxley
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms3:00 - 3:15 1 Michael[Conference]ConferenceMichael Hitchcock
Karlyn Campell and Thomas Burkholderrationalistic criteria1 Can anyone explain the [rationalistic criteria]rationalistic criteriaChenchen Huang
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderBecause identity is shaped by the network of interconnected beliefs that an individual holds, the second persona has ethical significance. Accordingly, Black argues that identifying the second persona enables a critic to make a moral judgment of the model of humanity or character implied in a rhetorical work.1 I don't understand how the second persona enables a critic to make a moral judgment. This idea seems to be hinging on the assumption that the individuals within the second persona share the same ethical values as the critic, but clearly that's not always the case.[ethics in criticism]ethics in criticismAnna Walsh
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismthe two principal functions of rhetoric: building community and inspiring people to achieve collective goals.1 Zarefsky points out that rhetorical criticism allows the critic to consider the rhetorical choices that the rhetor has made and to evaluate these choices (464). Whereas the social scientist values the study of a particular case because it contributes to the discovery of a broader generalization (465), rhetorical criticism questions and evaluates the role of the rhetor in defining community and identifying goals within a particular group of people. As rhetorical critics we may then question the intent of the rhetor and recognize how the identity of a group of people and their shared goals are influenced by their interpretation of certain rhetorical works.[functionsofrhetoric]functionsofrhetoricAmanda Berardi
Edwin Black Second Persona moral character-ethos1 I always associate ethos with a combination of moral character, intellect, and social status. I never thought of it as strictly synonymous with moral character. Is ethos actually just a technical term for moral character, or has it expanded to something more?[ethos]ethosElizabeth Garza
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismand hence no way for the field to resolve disagreements, to test them rationally, or to make an advance.1 It seems that people like Martin & White (2001) might disagree with this view. I might be reading things too literally, but this seems to suggest criticism without method. Most methods have their detractors and universal agreement seems difficult in any context, but rational or logical conclusions don't seem out of the question.[General]GeneralSarah Miller
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text1/27/2013 14:211 I think that what Leff and Sachs are responding to is, what they appropriately call, [ in turn] in turnSarah Miller
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismSecond, rhetorical criticism has called attention to the polysemy of language (Ceccarelli, 1998), its ability to have multiple voices and levels of meaning at once. Polysemous language is ambiguous; auditors can hear it in different registers and attribute to it different meanings. 1 This Ceccarelli (1998) article is much-cited -- based on what I've read elsewhere -- and the examples listed here are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of how critics respond to / use this article.[General]GeneralSarah Miller
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesThese failings are inherent in audience research because rhetoric is neither individual nor universal, but collective.1 How does Condit's use of the word [Condit's collectivity v.McGee's fragmentation ]Condit's collectivity v.McGee's fragmentation Elizabeth Garza
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms3:30 - 3:45 1 Chenchen![appointment]appointmentChenchen Huang
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaInstead of a silence that negates and excludes, as with the third Persona, here silence functions constructively as the medium of collusive exchange. 1 I think we can only use the rhetor's intent when we try to answer the question: Does he/she want to keep a secret? If yes, then there may be a fourth persona out there who knows the secret and sees it in the text. If the answer is no, then the fourth persona seems like an inconsequential biproduct, who is neither a part of the rhetorical situation nor recognized. Once we've asked this though, once an analyst spots a fourth persona, does the analyst become a part of the fourth? How does 'airing out' the secret affect the fourth persona? Does it affect the critic?[Relationship Between Rhetor and Fourth Persona]Relationship Between Rhetor and Fourth PersonaChris Brown
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms3:30 - 3:45 1 Elizabeth[Elizabeth]ElizabethElizabeth Garza
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderAll audiences encounter rhetorical acts chronologically. That is, they begin reading or hearing with the introduction and continue through the conclusion. For ordinary observers, that encounter is usually a single reading or hearing. But critics engaging in descriptive analysis must achieve a much more thorough and complete understanding of the rhetorical act.1 I was wondering, when I read this, what Campbell and Burkholder might say about the technique of reading the introduction and conclusion of an argument only. This is a technique that many instructors give to their students to help them consider what articles might be most helpful for research and that many faculty members use when deciding relevance. Doing so takes the chronology out of the argument, and may or may not affect the rhetorical success. I wonder then, would a descriptive analysis of one or several articles which only take into account the intro (abstract) and conclusion still be considered a descriptive analysis?[applied descriptive analysis]applied descriptive analysisGarrett Stack
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismIf purpose is decentered, removed as the governing principle of rhetorical analysis, what would constitute the 1 good points Chris. I don't have an answer. It seems that Jasinski wants to replace the narrow idea of particular intention with the thicker idea of performative tradition. But how does performative tradition solve the problem of getting beyond particularity while defining a rhetorical hermeneutic. What is a performative tradition after all? How do we distinguish one from the other?[Purpose vs. Performative Traditions]Purpose vs. Performative Traditionsdavid
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text argument represented the substance of rhetorical discourse1 How did they describe the way the claims of an argument were presented structurally and synctactically without thinking about style? Was this before Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca came out with [How can you think about arguments without thinking about style?]How can you think about arguments without thinking about style?Elizabeth Garza
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:15 - 4:301 Conference[Conference]ConferenceJessica
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderThe second paragraph introduces a second character, a slightly older white man who is intensely interested in what Painter is doing, so interested that he is willing to speak to a total stranger. She writes, 1 Rather than talking about the unfolding structure of the first act of the essay, both of these paragraphs seem like basic plot summary. Does anyone see something deeper that I'm missing? [Plot Summary ]Plot Summary Elizabeth Garza
Edwin Black Second PersonaMoral Judgment1 I'm not entirely sure myself, Amanda. I think Black is asking us to do both? On page 595, he states that [ and we are not equipped to render moral judgments of objects."" Later] and we are not equipped to render moral judgments of objects."" LaterMegan McGrath
Leff 2001 Cooper Union Revisitedhow they interpret it. She seeks to identify texts produced by members of the contemporary audience that respond to a primary text, and she subjects these secondary texts or 1 While I'm not sure we can interpret texts in the same way the audience did, I think Leff is missing a point here. He claims that Jasinski's idea of performative tradition doesn't include reception, yet I can easily see how we might examine the intertextual connections media coverage might have created with the Cooper Union Address. However, I'm not sure we should make any final decisions about how the audience interpreted/felt about the address from the media that came after. Instead we might see these reception texts as recontextualizations that were passed forward, creating a new set of meanings, indicating what remained in the public mind. This seems a subtle difference, but I'm wary of any critical technique that believes it has grasped the meaning-making of those who first received the message when there is little documentation from those moments of perception.[reception fragments]reception fragmentsChris Brown
Edwin Black Second Persona Awesome Garbage Heap of Facts1 I love the way that Black puts this, mostly because it's fun to visualize. But also because I think this metaphor does an excellent job of illustrating the discursive constructedness of human experience. Using language always, in every circumstance, requires that we make decisions, that we select linguistic structure(s) that both [ but it still stands that we are still making choices from the meaning potential of the language system in which we are situated. What makes this more compelling is Black statement near the end of the essay: ""we find enticements not simply to believe something] but it still stands that we are still making choices from the meaning potential of the language system in which we are situated. What makes this more compelling is Black statement near the end of the essay: ""we find enticements not simply to believe somethingmary
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticismstanding of context or 1 Dave, could you say a little bit more about what you mean by hermeneutical isms?[kaufer_ background]kaufer_ backgroundGarrett Stack
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaIf his pass were to succeed, therefore, it required both deflection (by defining the homosexual in contrast to his masculine, crime-hunting persona) and exposure (the fiend, i.e., fourth persona, must actually be eliminated).1 I wonder if it's actually possible to eliminate the fourth persona. Was Hoover successful, even though quite a few people still suspected Hoover's lifestyle despite his elaborate performance?[ Eliminating the 4th persona] Eliminating the 4th personamary
Edwin Black Second Persona wait a minute1 Yes, I think that there is certainly an aspect of introspection implicit in Black's arguments, and I'm glad you pointed that out. However, I'd then ask you what you make of the line after your quote from 598, [ when fully ramified] when fully ramifiedGarrett Stack
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:30 - 4:451 Garrett[Garrett]GarrettGarrett Stack
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomThe point is that she espouses here a theory of criticism that requires her to commit herself at all. If anyone writing in a scholarly journal seeks to assess the truth of Nixon's statements, he must be willing to assume the burden of proving them evidently false.1 If n-A criticism does not allow us to may decisions of truthfulness, is this just a warning against positivist terms?Don't we, as critics, assess features and make decisions about the role of those features in text, which we then argue for by providing examples, making connections, etc? What is the critic left with if he/she can't commit to the criticism they write? Is it possible to do a substantial critique without assessing the verifiability of the content?[AssessingTruth]AssessingTruthChris Brown
Phillip Wander The Third PersonaHowever much concerned about the fate of humanity or convinced that great moral, social, and political issues are at stake, Hill's critic must wait for those in power to throw open the archives, for until the critic knows all the secrets, motivations, and information available to those in a position to make policy, he or she must stifle such concerns or relinquish the role 1 I agree. There's always the possibility that our criticism will invite further criticism based on claims that we haven't uncovered the whole story. However, how do we know when we know all the secrets? How can we discover more about the issues we find most socially and politically relevant if we wait for others to reveal the secrets?[critic's impact]critic's impactAmanda Berardi
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomBecause of the residues-like structure,1 I think it means that the argument does not refute the opponent but isolates him....making the opponent's position but a residue of the larger issue.[residues-like structure]residues-like structuredavid
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismach of them may offer valuable insight on the case, enabl ing criticism to proceed additively rather than only by substituting one explanation for another. For this reason, the study of e canonical rhetorical discourse is never ending; there always is something more that can be said. 1 If there is always something more to be said, doesn't additivity become conflict at some point?[General]GeneralSarah Miller
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:00 - 4: 151 Lindsay Corry [Lindsay Corry ]Lindsay Corry Lindsay
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismThe results of science are not eternal truths but truth claims within a particular context.1 This seems more true among scientists than when those results get reported to the public at large. How can that relate to the conclusions that rhetoricians draw?[General]GeneralSarah Miller
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaLurking, even haunting, however, is the fourth persona. Far from timid or willfully ignorant, the 1 It seems like the fourth persona only exists when the rhetor is trying to deceive the audience, or hide something from them. Is there ever a time when we don't hide a part of our identity from others?If we're always trying to keep some secret, then the fourth persona could be a family member who knows, or a friend who's close. But can the fourth persona exist if a rhetor pledges to be open and honest? Can we construct a situation where the fourth persona becomes a recognized audience?[Fourth persona to Audience]Fourth persona to AudienceChris Brown
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedThis reading attempts to show that the design of the whole text-its argument, its style, and most of all, its interlocking sequence of main parts-works effectively toward promoting the speaker as a presidential candidate. 1 In creating our own textual analysis, what are ways that we can pinpoint whatever it is that we want to promote? And on the other hand, would this be the similar or different from what we do when we are just writing argumentative pieces, for example? [promoting]promotingChloe Lynn Oxley
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaThis brief period of vulnerability coincided with the homosexual panic uncle] mining the nation's manhood. Like other men, Hoover could not escape the homophobic fear that accompanied turbulence in gender and sexual norms. 1 I'm wondering what more current types of national panic could function in a similar way. Would Muslim-Americans become a fourth persona after 9/11? Or individuals with mental illness after a tragic shooting? It would be difficult to ascertain that right away, but I'm just wondering what analytic purchase this has for *contemporary* analysis, as opposed to analysis that looks at existing sites of research.[analytic purchase and other groups]analytic purchase and other groupsSarah Miller
Forbes Hill Conventional Wisdom2/6/2013 13:361 I agree with both ladies here. Sure, Hill's interpretation of Nixon's speech is interesting and plausible, but I don't see how it's much more than a that: an interesting interpretation. And I would assume that Hill himself would agree. I would also venture to say that Hill's interpretation is likely the [ Chris] Chrismary
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismIn this context, the chiasmus embodies Lincoln's continued struggle with the burden of the founders; Lincoln wants to act-and calls on the nation to act-1 Great question Maggie and great response Megan. This is a very difficult passage. Megan, you are essentially right. The chiasmus in Lincoln's speech reflects the fact, according to Jasinski, that Lincoln is still haunted by the founder's relationship to slavery. But the larger point is that Leff and Mohrmann OVERLOOKED the importance of this chiasmus in the speech. And why did they overlook it? Because Leff and Mohrmann, according to Jasinski, as neo-classicists, were too focused on Lincoln's immediate intentions and, as campaign speech, those intentions were ingratiation. So according to Jasinski, looking at Lincoln through a narrow intentionalist lens misses a lot of essential things.[chiasmus?]chiasmus?david
Edwin Black Second PersonaWe are more skeptical about the veracity of the representation; we are more conscious that there may be a disparity between the man and his image; we have, in a sense, less trust.1 Why is it that we have have [trust]trustLindsay
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:15 - 4:301 Maggie Goss[Conference]ConferenceMaggie Goss
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomA summary answer can now be given to the question, how well did Nixon and his advisors choose among the available means of persuasion for this situation? 1 I think I'm more concerned with the [persuasion]persuasionmary
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesSocial scientific research produces false universals. Ethnographic studies produce particularistic analyses that tell us how one very narrow group, at one very particular point in time, constructed one particular decoding from the available fragments. 1 Also, what's wrong with collecting several ethnographic analyses, other than the fact that it would take forever to do? It seems like a sound method to me. [ethnographic method]ethnographic methodElizabeth Garza
Karlyn Campell and Thomas Burkholderhe structure of the discourse is important because it represents the rhetor's choice of the most significant perspective on the subject, issue, or section of reality examined.1 Is there a specific order in which we should approach the elements of descriptive analysis? If structure reveals the writer's choice of reality, should we examine it first? Or, does our process of analysis always depend on the discourse that we are analyzing? [ElementsofAnalysis]ElementsofAnalysisAmanda Berardi
Butterworth, Politics of the Pitch: Iraqi National Soccer Teamended on the language of warfare to describe the games on the field. American football, in particular, is replete with references to 1 ddd[General]Generaldavid
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismsine qua non1 [General]GeneralSarah Miller
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticisms4:45 - 5:001 Anna Walsh[conference]conferenceAnna Walsh
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismIt is appropriate to study exemplary cases because they serve as models. 1 But if exemplary cases are defined by their outcomes, it seems to be a bit of a hindsight bias to criticism.[General]GeneralSarah Miller
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaA secret of dangerou difference motivates some to develop and sustain a double-consciousness in orde to survive amid and sometimes to resist dominant, oppressive cultural practices Especially when the markers of one's difference-skin, behavior, dress-can 131 camouflaged, 1 I don't think these situations are always dangerous. Perhaps threatening to a particular identity, but not necessarily categorically harm-causing. For example, students with learning disabilities, if they choose to disclose, are often supplied with accommodations that help them be more successful. If they did not choose to disclose, those services would not be available. [multiple persona disorder]multiple persona disordermary
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaLike one who is the only person in a room seeing an apparition, the social passer's fear of being recognized manifests itself in the paranoid style.1 I would answer your question with another question: Isn't a rhetor always a little bit paranoid? The navigation of the rhetorical situation is always fraught. That said, I would think that while addressing an LGBT group is more acceptable today, there are probably still some rhetors that would want to be discreet in that way. What other groups would you expect to see as part of that fourth persona?[Paranoia]ParanoiaSarah Miller
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper Unionprosopopoeia1 Leff and Mohrmann's insight here seems key in altering the view of Lincoln's speech, as before this it might have seemed as if he was speaking to the South, though through prosopopoeia he is speaking on behalf of the South to engage in a conversation. I wonder what could have showed this occurring in the speech to Leff and Mohrmann? Was it not obvious to others, or does their rhetorical approach allow them to see this while others where not? [prosopopoeia]prosopopoeiaSarah Wheeler
Condit: Leff and McGee as Extremes These tensions and costs exist in any space of human life where living cannot be purchased ready-made, but must be grasped first hand.Technological products we can buy, but the appreciation of beauty, the awe at the structure of the universe, or the vision of our link to humankind, other species, and our planet, cannot be given to anyone second hand. These are the gifts of the liberal arts.1 Please allow me to play devil's advocate here and forward one possible reason for Condit's fear of change. Like many of us, Condit is likely struggling with the rapidly increasing technological strides of this era, and fears for her discipline and its future. We can see this ourselves in the rhetorical classroom. As students of rhetoric, when was the last time you wrote a piece of argument yourself? Certainly, we argue for the validity of theories and rhetorical concepts in the papers we write, but it is in an abstract way, conforming to the bounds of academia. Condit, in her worries over theory and technology, may be afraid that we are losing the ability to produce Ciceros, and instead creating a generation of Cicero citicizers. [technological growth]technological growthGarrett Stack
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesMcGee, to no one's surprise, has landed on the opposite end of the rhetorical teeter-totter from Leff. Where the new Leff offered us a rigorous expert's method for textual analysis, neo-McGee offers us open play in contexts as they are.1 So, are you saying that Leff might argue for rhetorical criticism that establishes criteria for speeches? If this were so (and I don't think it is) would the goal of rhetorical criticism be to produce prescriptive rules or standards out of description of effective vs. ineffective cases?[RhetoricalTeeter-Totter]RhetoricalTeeter-TotterJessica
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaAlready reputed as an expert criminal hunter, Hoover's dramatic account of the sex fiend implicitly bolstered his ethos of sexual normalcy; a man so dedicated to this scourge of degenerates certainly could not be one.1 Hoover's subversive enthymeme seems to be particularly successful because he relies on an existing, well-known facet of his reputation. Do you think this level of notoriety aids a person in creating an effective subversive enthymeme, or might anonymity be more beneficial, as the audience has less to work with and possibly use as ammunition against the person in question?[subversion]subversionMegan McGrath
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomWhen the major organizations of the peace movement announced the first Moratorium Day for October 15 and organized school and work stoppages, demonstrations, and a great 1 The information presented here by Forbes Hill suggests that critiques must read around their speech and understand the situation out of which their speech was created. This indicates that there must be some consideration beyond a close text-only reading and become familiar with situation(s) surrounding the speech. If this is so, does this external exploration only deal with the situation prior to the speech, as the response of the audience is not of concern to Neo-Aristotelian criticism?[Reading around the speech]Reading around the speechSarah Wheeler
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismOf course, the distinction between argumentation and science is overdrawn. Even if scientific observation is direct and empirical, reaching scientific conclusions itself requires argumentation. 1 for Zarefsky and most humanists, rhetorical criticism relies on argument that is dialectical rather than empirical argument, which is grounded by tapping into nature. Does anyone want to try to defend or attack the distinction between dialectical and empirical argument?[kaufer thread]kaufer threaddavid
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text1/28/2013 14:541 It may be useful to bring this back to neo-Aristotelian rhetoric. Burke here seems to be employing a clear n-A style, []Garrett Stack
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismAuthority-trusting the judgment of an expert-also is frequently employed, particularly because in a highly complex world, there are many matters on which any individual lacks expertise. It is not surprising that Aristotle regarded ethos, the apparent credibility of a source, as 1 Perhaps part of the problem in reaching consensus is awareness within rhetorical circles regarding the power of authority; resisting authority might help dispell particularly problematic knowledge claims, or call into question ideas unneccessarily. Is there a way to objectively assess such a thing? [General]GeneralSarah Miller
Phillip Wander The Third Persona300403
294861

293598

293755

293719

275333

274146

273923

274071

284724

297063

296979

301719

281596

281573
15 I think McGee seems to be tired of rhetorical scholarship which exists for the sake of existing. Obessesive methadology, in McGee's opinion, is toothless without additional emphasis on asking [ what does it add to human knowledge]
I think that Leff provides an eloquent answer to these questions that you pose on page 239, when he states: [ and to view it from one of these perspectives to the exclusion of the other is either to bracket the cultural resources that inform rhetorical production or to ignore the situated interests that motivate rhetorical action."" Dissolving the text into its background

Just for background, Gaonkar tried to show that rhetoric studies was in a state of paradox. The early rhetorical tradition focused on training the speaker, and from the speaker's vantage purpose and intentionality were paramount. But in 20th century traditions, rhetoric had become more a critical art, an art of interpreting rhetorical acts through hermeneutic [ consisting of thick descriptions

I found the organic approach to make more sense when Jasinkski states, [ more organic sense of context overwhelmed by a particularized focus on audience and occasion"" (200). So Megan I think you are right in saying ""organic"" is achieved from a balance of textual

I don't understand how analyzing the performative tradition of a text is different from analyzing it in terms of its generic conventions. Jasinski's description of locating a performative tradition within a text-i.e. locating [

I too was initially troubled by this call to dismiss any presuppositions we may have as readers. However, I'm not sure Campbell and Burkholder are necessarily demanding that we do this, but rather that we make an attempt to approach the discourse with [ Therefore

This was interesting to me. The [ quarreling

As I pointed out in my post, I think that this [ a public that asserts some knowledge will have attended to that claim with the scrutiny it finds suitable to its goals. So ""a reliable way of knowing"" is reliable for someone at some time for some reason.Each of us is scrutinizing all those kinds of texts you listed through our own context

Broad definitions of [ although I'm not sure that it was Gaonker that said that if ""rhetoric is everything"" then ""rhetoric is nothing"" (and I'm definitely paraphrasing here). If ""any act

Employing a bit of polysemy, what does this quote mean when we think about [ politics

My interpretation was that moral judgments provide order by [ judgments ascribe a certain finality to a text by shaping ""decisively one's relationship to the action judged"" (595). Black seems to frame the ability to provide order as an inevitable

This selection reveals some of the weaknesses of Black's [ but what does this have to do with the text? How can we know about efficacy or spiritual health? The judgment here is that this metaphor neither explains the problem accurately not does it provide psychological peace

This is a good question, and also, in part, what I find problematic about nature of the 4th persona. Morris seems to indicate that there is a kind of value in telling the secret, even if the telling is performed through a [ since

I agree, Megan. I think the reason Condit takes such issues with Leff and Sachs is because these [ when really they have only revealed the ""ideology constructed for elite listeners"" (335). However

I think that Condit's view of technology is slightly skewed. Yes, we can buy technological products, but the degree to which we integrate them into our lives depends on our abilities with these products--my mom and her inability to text is an example. Or, on the side of the coin, my little brother uses an ipad for its text-to-speech program. He has a difficult time articulating sounds, so it's often challenging to understand his speech. The program allows him to [ yes
what does it add to human knowledge, and to view it from one of these perspectives to the exclusion of the other is either to bracket the cultural resources that inform rhetorical production or to ignore the situated interests that motivate rhetorical action."" Dissolving the text into its background, , consisting of thick descriptions, , more organic sense of context overwhelmed by a particularized focus on audience and occasion"" (200). So Megan I think you are right in saying ""organic"" is achieved from a balance of textual, , Therefore, , quarreling, , a public that asserts some knowledge will have attended to that claim with the scrutiny it finds suitable to its goals. So ""a reliable way of knowing"" is reliable for someone at some time for some reason.Each of us is scrutinizing all those kinds of texts you listed through our own context, , although I'm not sure that it was Gaonker that said that if ""rhetoric is everything"" then ""rhetoric is nothing"" (and I'm definitely paraphrasing here). If ""any act, , politics, , judgments ascribe a certain finality to a text by shaping ""decisively one's relationship to the action judged"" (595). Black seems to frame the ability to provide order as an inevitable, , but what does this have to do with the text? How can we know about efficacy or spiritual health? The judgment here is that this metaphor neither explains the problem accurately not does it provide psychological peace, , since, , when really they have only revealed the ""ideology constructed for elite listeners"" (335). However, , yes, Garrett Stack
Megan McGrath
david
Lindsay
Elizabeth Garza
Maggie Goss
Chloe Lynn Oxley
Chris Brown
mary
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedThe effort was prompted by a desire to rescue the lore of traditional rhetoric from its then dominant use as a taxonomic instrument and to refurbish it as equipment for understanding the internal dynamics of oratorical literature. 2 I think this is a worthy goal even if it relies on classical rhetoric. I like that, in this article, Leff extends close-reading to reception to see what else can be learned about this speech. I still wonder, however, what the broader goal is in analyzing this speech? Of course, one goal is to respond to Jasinski and apply reception analysis to the speech, but why might Leff see this study as significant?[Significance]
This brings up a larger question about the purpose of rhetorical criticism. It seems that Leff probably chose Lincoln's speech because Lincoln is an important historical figure, orator, and leader in American history, and understanding rhetoric from a position of power like his might provide interesting examples of rhetorical phenomena. But is criticism only to be used for cataloging and sharing different textual/contextual features that make meaning/create power in a particular way? Does being a rhetorical critic have some kind of guding force for the work it does beyond the individual intentions of the scholars who determine their corpus? I'm not sure Leff answers that here, but an exploration of any scholars selection of texts would probably reveal something about how they understand rhetorical significance.[Significance
SignificanceJessica
Chris Brown
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticismliterature and literary critics focus on the timeless world of permanent values while oratory and rhetorical critics engage the timely world of immediate effects.2 Jasinski compares time and date. I feel criticism needs to reference the time when a piece of literature was written to get a better understanding of why the author was making certain decisions of what to include in the text. Therefor it makes sense why Jasinski wrote that literature and literature critics focus on the timeless. A date can also hold importance determining what the oratory is referencing; it may only be applicable to that moment needing an immediate effect. With that being said I do think that some sort of time needs to be addressed by critics in understanding the context. [time&date]
Lindsay, I agree with you that this was an interesting notion, but which critics are you talking about here? Literary critics or rhetorical ones? Do your feelings about the importance of date include literary critics, because you seem to be saying here that it both does and does not?[time&date
time&dateLindsay
Garrett Stack
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Textn respect to neo-Aristotelian rhetoric, this tendency led to an unexpected and disastrous contradiction built into the whole project. On the one hand, the neo-Aristotelians committed themselves to a radical particularism: the defining characteristic of rhetorical discourse was its responsiveness to specific circumstances, and the rhetorical perspective was 2 This section, I think, nicely sums up the classes issues with Campbell and Burkholder from last week, specifically in the neo-Aristotlean focus on radical particularism. This method perhaps ignores the wider context that influences the rhetorical perspective, and the [context]
So if a criticism is too particular, it's not valuable? [context
contextGarrett Stack
mary
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticism967093
11634
2 I am unsure of how he is using the term organic as well. Further down the page, Jasinkski states that, [ organic sense of context"" (199). He seems to be positioning this organic sense of context as a contrast to ""a narrow]
The term [ to the point where they collapse in on one another and can no longer be isolated. Is that what Jasinski means by this term?"
organic sense of context"" (199). He seems to be positioning this organic sense of context as a contrast to ""a narrow, to the point where they collapse in on one another and can no longer be isolated. Is that what Jasinski means by this term?", Amanda Berardi
Megan McGrath
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper Union This point is crucial to an appreciation of Lincoln's rhetorical method. Both the direction of the argument and the symbols expressing it are fiercely emotional; yet, all is enmeshed in an incisive logical and linguistic structure, and while the tone remains rationalistic and legalistic, it also creates a subtle emotive nexus between the Republican audience and the founding fathers. 2 Do you think that Lincoln's speech is particularly rationalistic compared to other speeches you have read or heard by presidents or presidential candidates? I find Leff and Mohrmann's description of Lincoln's speech as both fiercely emotional and legalistic very interesting but I am not sure that I can point to places in Lincoln's discourse where I see this balance of emotion and reason. Leff and Mohrmann provide an example of Lincoln's legal syntax on the bottom of page 164. I agree that this sentence resembles complex legal discourse but how does he convey emotion aside from the fact that he is addressing an emotional topic?[ReasonableEmotion]
I second your observation here. They write on page 170 that the final sentence [ReasonableEmotion
ReasonableEmotionAmanda Berardi
mary
Phillip Wander The Third Personahis is the 2 I am a little confused by Wander's explanation that [FirstPersona]
The first persona would be the rhetor himself / herself. The second persona, as Black would say, is the anticipated / implied / preferred audience. Of course, Dana Cloud and the null persona (a rhetor that makes himself invisible) would complicate things. But I don't think you're reading anything wrong, but Wander is a bit circuitous here.[FirstPersona
FirstPersonaAmanda Berardi
Sarah Miller
Phillip Wander The Third PersonaBut, I would argue contrary to McGee that it is much more than a perspective. It entertains possibilities for action, and the actions it considers may go beyond actions sanctioned in the academy, namely the production of texts. 2 I wonder where McGee draws the line between perspective and action, and why he seems to divorce action from perspective. Would he say that, even if perspective and action do overlap at times, does perspective not extend [perspective/action]
I am also wondering to what extent Wander is representing McGee's work well here, but Wander does seem more interested in making criticism actionable in a way that McGee might not address. Perhaps the issue is that even the best of criticism can help us to see the cracks, but not always the means with which to fill them.[perspective/action
perspective/actionMegan McGrath
Sarah Miller
Phillip Wander The Third PersonaWhile academic scholars and literary intellectuals in Europe, after the Second World War, assumed a critical stance in relation to the state and dominant culture, and took political commitment and activity (2 I had a little trouble with this assumption. Is Wander saying that nationalism is not as prevalent in European countries? It seems like being described un-German would have been more troublesome than simply [Un-American?]
I agree with this comment Garrett. I wonder if Wander could provide us with a more specific example of how scholars [Un-American?
Un-American?Garrett Stack
Jessica
Edwin Black Second PersonaIt is through moral judgments that we sort out our past, that we coax the networks and the continuities out of what has come before, that we disclose the precursive patterns that may in turn present themselves to us as potentialities, and thus extend our very freedom.
It is through moral judgments that we sort out our past, that we coax the networks and the continuities out of what has come before, that we disclose the precursive patterns that may in turn present themselves to us as potentialities, and thus extend our very freedom. E
2 This leads me to believe that, in the context of rhetoric, it is sometimes necessary to omit moral judgments from the text. Still, that does not mean that the reader will ignore their own moral conscious while reading the text. [Necessity of Moral Evaluation]
I was hoping you wouldn't point that line out since it does problematize my argument. In your example, I definitely see what your saying. But what about in the example that Black gives? Is excoriating communism (via cancer metaphors) necessitate judicial criticism?[Necessity of Moral Evaluation
Necessity of Moral EvaluationChloe Lynn Oxley
mary
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaHARLES E. MORRIS III2 I wonder if Charles E. Morris III considers himself part of Hoover's 4th persona audience. After all, how could he have been so intuitive about Hoover's strategies to divert attention from himself?[Morris part of 4th persona audience?]
This is an interesting view of his approach. As someone so invested in queer rhetoric, and as a gay man, Morris's own personal experience probably comes to bear a great deal here.[Morris part of 4th persona audience?
Morris part of 4th persona audience?Elizabeth Garza
Sarah Miller
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedWe learn something important about the circumstances surrounding both the production and the reception of the text when we understand that contemporary readers, who held quite different political positions, interpreted the remarks about the South in the same way and that this interpretation is not immediately at obvious to later readers.2 I have to admit I hadn't thought about this when I first read that section. I don't think I would use this particular type of analysis in my project simply because I am not interested in opinions and representations over time, but rather just those surrounding a specific event. It seems this might be a good method of analysis if someone were interested in examining the evolution of responses to a speech. An example of this type of speech might be how people have responded to MLK's [Contemporary readings]
I think this is a very interesting concept that Leff discusses. He seems to be suggesting that the immediate responses to a speech show the diversity of public opinion during the speech's time, while responses to the speech in the future may only reflect one opinion of the speech - the one that was [Contemporary readings
Contemporary readings, Contemporary readings , Maggie Goss
Sarah Wheeler
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismBlack's critical insights depend, I suggest, on an implicit destabilization of the instrumentalist paradigm. 14 Black remains committed to an understanding of rhetoric as fundamentally intentional and purposive but his own critical practice demonstrates a mode of contextualization that escapes the constraints of authorial purpose in order to articulate critical insights. Without this type of destabilizing moment, the critic remains a captive of an overly particularized sense of context. 2 Throughout this reading, I've been trying to nail down exactly what the instrumentalist paradigm is. I think that what Jasinski is trying to suggest is that the instrumentalist approach is bound by context that serves a particular end. In this selection, he also remarks that Black's insights benefit from the points of destablization. Does this mean that a [research questions and instrumentalism]
Jasinski's critique of Black is distracting to me. Is he suggesting that the presumptions undergird instrumental paradigm will result in a particularized reading of context. Instead, ignoring the authorial purposes like what Black does will empower critics to capture the multiplicity in the particular?[purpose_particular
research questions and instrumentalism, purpose_particular, Jessica
Chenchen Huang
Leff 2001 Cooper Union Revisited But to argue for a preferred reading of the text is not to assume that it can have only one meaning. Quite the contrary, such argument opens the possibility of approaching the text not as a fixed artifact but as the object of rhetorical controversy whose meaning and significance change as we come to read it from different angles. 2 Megan, I was having some similar thoughts, and I think what Chris has said is very true. It seems that a thorough analysis can build upon previous analyses in order to mine additional understanding of a text, especially when we consider the incredibly complex timeline of context and rhetorical intention.[preferred reading]
I appreciated Leff's comment. Each rhetorical criticism is built with a set of contextual factors and textual interpretations that arises from the details of the rhetorical event the critic chooses to include. If we're each building a case for our own reading of a text we can compare and contrast our interpretations without arguing for one final/most appropriate/correct reading. Abstract conversations about how much and what kind of context to include only makes sense when we're talking about particular rhetorical events. The kinds of patterns our readings uncover can tbe theorized, generalized, and operationalized, but there is no criticism or critical technique that comes before, or is separate from, the author, the text, and the critic. [preferred reading
preferred readingGarrett Stack
Chris Brown
Charles Morris Fourth Personaa peculiar response to an invisible audience I term the fourth persona.2 Perhaps their is some kind of psychological value in recognition of solidarity? If not, why the textual wink? [meaning of fourth persona]
I understand the fourth persona to work with equal participation between the rhetor and [meaning of fourth persona
meaning of fourth personamary
Lindsay
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper Unionconclusion. 2 Seems to me that they are just taking whatever elements they deem appropriate at illuminating the context adequately enough to fully interpret the text.[analytic layers]
After reading the analysis of the first section of the Lincoln's speech, it seems like this analysis approaches the text from several analytic layers, if you will - argumentative analysis, organizational analysis, and adding in contextual analysis. Does this seem true to how analyses usually proceed - in varied layer? If so, would you complete one type of analysis (argumentative) before going into another? Or, do they happen together under an umbrella rhetorical analysis?[analytic layers
analytic layersChris Brown
Sarah Wheeler
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaDuring historical periods when a clear locus of homosexual meaning is lacking, or gender norms are unsettled, homosexual panic erupts, precisely because of the indeterminacy of cultural identity.2 Is the fourth persona called upon only when identity is threatened by ambiguity, and panic ensues? Are uncertainty, fear, discrimination, and the human propensity for control the only factors that inspire the fourth persona?[panic]
What about safety? Sometimes the government, or law enforcement, might create a fourth persona in the audience members that know, for example, that there is more evidence than what is being revealed, or something else that the public isn't getting.I think that we all keep parts of our experience/routes of argumentation/pieces of our identity to ourselves at all times. We can never go fully public. But maybe there's something to be said for those who claim to be so open that a fourth persona becomes the audience itself.[panic
panicMegan McGrath
Chris Brown
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesInstead of talking about the meanings (implied universal) of a text, orthe experiences it invites (implied universal again), one might speak only of some experiences made possible for certain situated audiences. 2 I agree with Condit's claim that Leff and Sachs describe how a universal audience perceives Burke's speech without considering that this universal audience is really made up of an elite group of people. However, to what extent can we even speak for situated audiences when we can only truly account for our individual experiences?[SituatedAudience]
I feel like this concern might be especially true for critics. If we make a claim about the intended audience, aren't we also making guesses about not only the speaker's intention and the audience? While this might be true, I believe that critics do make these claims, so my question is what are the guidelines or boundaries for making such claims? Or, is this something that might be a given in criticism (or at least mediated criticism)?[SituatedAudience
SituatedAudienceAmanda Berardi
Sarah Wheeler
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismmodest explanatory and predictive power because they abstract out only the common elements of complex individual situations and because the situations to which one might predict are likewise complex and individual. For this reason, rhetorical criticism is unlikely to furnish meaningful. testable hypotheses of the sort that Bowers (1968) sought. It is more likely to furnish explanation sketches or hunches that an analyst can regard as presumptions about a new case
But the regularity of past practice does not constrain future choice. The next president may be unaware of this tradition or may wish to deemphasize the role of religion
2 Rhetorical criticism may have little to no predictive power, but it allows us to better identify and understand deviations from the norms that the audience of a particular genre would come to expect.[functionsofrhetoric]
One way to argue this point is that working in a particular genre (like the inaugural address) limits what is acceptable to that genre; being unaware of the genre's expectations could very well make an argument fall flat.[General
functionsofrhetoric, General, Anna Walsh
Sarah Miller
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical TextThey therefore brought in this bill, and made it purposely wicked and absurd, that it might be rejected.2 It seems necessary that the audience have a certain amount of familiarity with the subject matter so they can understand the images the speaker has [ImagesthroughLanguage]
Do you think that Burke's speech would be less moving for an audience that was unfamiliar with political parties, the processes involved in passing bills, or even sports? Though these things may seem like common knowledge, it is interesting to think about what Iconicity tells us about the speaker's intended audience. If the speaker is using language to create images, for example of stability and instability, then he or she would need to select objects that the audience would associate with these images (261). I did not understand Burke's description of [ImagesthroughLanguage
ImagesthroughLanguageMaggie Goss
Amanda Berardi
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedThis issue is complicated and entails reference to many texts, and I have little space to pursue it here. But I'll try to set out the broad outlines as clearly as possible.2 Is this an example of meta-discourse?[addressing the reader]
Leff adresses his audience/readers directly in this article. I have always been told to try not to do this, but I find when Leff does address the reader it is informative and information we need to know. How do you all feel about addressing the reader? [addressing the reader
addressing the readerElizabeth Garza
Lindsay
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesWe ought to reconstruct a rhetoric that is as full as that of Cicero, rather than pushing the pallid imitations we churn out in textbooks focused on speech fright, visual aids, and other 2 Well, not every school has the same investment in speaking and it seems important to note that Condit wrote this 23 years ago. I don't know that pedagogy is quite the same, or how each university divides speech. For some it's housed in Communications, for others in English... and we all know how departments like to fight for resources. I have read in Rhetoric Review that there has been a call by some to include more rhetorically-minded exercises for students, but I don't know to what extent they want to abandon textbooks. I would posit there are too many existing protocols regarding textbooks to abandon them, but too many idealistic instructors out there for Condit's critique to always hold true (as you suggest). [techne]
I take offense to this statement as my undergrad had a large program/research investment in working to help students with Speaking Apprehension. It seems as if Condit is satisfied with (in the line prior) teaching students to be mighty rhetoricians, but then discourages the production of techne to guide that process. Do they have to be mutually exclusive? Is their room both for contemporary technical manuals and balanced rhetorical criticism?[techne
techneSarah Miller
Chris Brown
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticismhe result of this reductive focus set in motion by Wichelns is, I will argue, a hypervalorization of the particular.6 This mode of contextualization is central to the instrumental model of persuasion that both Gaonkar and I find problematic. There is, however, a second level of contextual tension in Wicheins's text that complicates its rhetoric of context.2 The instrumental model of persuasion is predicated on the belief that a text materializes from a person's response to a particular experience of the human condition. It concerns itself with the specific factors that engendered this response; as such, it credits the creator and the context in which it was created with giving the response its unique genetic makeup. The particular creator and context not only spark a text - they flavor it, as well. Disregarding or minimizing the particulars, the instrumental model argues, would provide a critic with a merely superficial understanding of the text that cannot access its defining characteristics.[kaufer_queries]
why is the hypervalorization of the particular essential to the instrumental model of persuasion?[kaufer_queries
kaufer_queriesMegan McGrath
david
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyIn so doing, we can learn a great deal about the power of audiences to subvert the rhetor's intent, as well as the power of rhetors to manipulate conflicting groups into harmonious adjustment. 2 This is an interesting question. I wonder if a speech or television show could be both strategically ambiguous and inspire resistive readings among its audience. Ceccarelli explains that a Madonna music video and the Cosby Show are both strategically ambiguous. Can you think of a way in which audiences could read an entirely different meaning into this video or show?[looking for polysemy]
It seems to me that the different understandings of polysemy depends on which part of the communication is foreground or acting (audience vs. rhetor vs. critic). If that is the case could one text be analyzed, using the appropriate object of critic, for more than one type of polysemy? Might polysemy just depend on the analyst's focus?[looking for polysemy
looking for polysemyAmanda Berardi
Sarah Wheeler
Phillip Wander The Third PersonaBut, while there are no sides, there are different moments. In textual analysis, for example, one selects a text; one listens to what it says; and one comments on it. It is like a conversation. The critic says will vary. Sometimes the critic will summarize what he or she has heard and the result will be largely expository. Sometimes the critic will argue with what was said or what was left unsaid, and the result will be largely polemical. Whether expository or polemical, the choice is up to the critic, the critic as a real person who listens, speaks, studies the speaking situation, who meditates on purpose, considers the audiences, examines the issues, who does his or her best to say something worthwhile about matters of importance, and who recognizes that there are times when words are not enough.2 Chris, your question is a good one. When I was reading this section I too wondered about this split.. I can't imagine that the split is as definite as it seems to suggest here. I couldn't see a time when a summarizing would be enough to merit some rhetorical critic - there would have to be something novel or some argument within the purpose of even a summary to merit it's existence.. or so it would seem. So, I would think that there is more a gray area between these two categories than it seems. For your second question, maybe he is suggesting that sometimes writing a critique or commentary isn't enough for a critic, but they should act in some way to show their critique? Though, I'm not sure about this.... [Expository/Polemic]
Are the critic's duties limited to this expository/polemic split? It seems to me that even a summary might be a kind of argument, a synecdoche representing the whole. Are critics ever expository without arguing for a particular recontextualization? What kind of exposition did you find useful/necessary in your analysis?When words are not enough, should critics suggest action? Do you want to suggest actions for the rhetors involved in your semester project? What realistic alternatives do critics have to words?[Expository/Polemic
Expository/PolemicSarah Wheeler
Chris Brown
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomWas it in the long run a wise choice to exclude them from the target?
There is a gain, though, from this limitation. If the critic questions the President's choice of policy and premises, he is forced to examine systematically all the political factors involved in this choice
2 Wise in terms of what? What is the basis of wisdom here? Maybe the neo-aristotelian approach doesn't doesn't allow us to ask it, but Hill still asks it. So sneaky. [wisdom]
Is this a bad thing? Maybe rhetoricians are lazy? Or maybe the resources and methods for this kind of systematic analysis are unavailable. [Lazy Rhetoricians
wisdom, Lazy Rhetoricians , mary
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismA more recent critical study of another speech by Lincoln illustrates how this injunction contributes to thin interpretation in rhetorical criticism. Leff and Mohrmann (1974) employ a revit2 I think that Jasinski is right to point out how Leff and Mohrmann have missed a structural / stylistic feature of Lincoln's text, which they devote much of their article to. However, I think they would defend their contextualization as their work was more in line with neo-Aristotlean criticism. It seems like Jasinski is at least making a jump, if not a leap, into the ideological importance of Lincoln's reference to the founding fathers. Personally, I think that might be the kind of investment in Lincoln as a rhetor that Leff and Mohrmann tried to dissociate themselves from.[kaufer_queries]
one of the reasons for reading this essay is that Jasinski attacks Leff and Mohrmann. Do you think his criticism is valid. How might Leff and Mohrmann defend themselves?[kaufer_queries
kaufer_queriesSarah Miller
david
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismIf, as my argument suggests, performative traditions are pervasive and provide the material for rhetorical invention, why has so little explicit attention been given to tradition in rhetorical studies? Bineham (1995) suggests an answer in his discussion of the transparency of tradition. Gaonkar's (1990) 2 Jasinski uses this passage to show why performative traditions have been overlooked. Anyone want to guess what he is saying here?[kaufer_queries]
Of course I could be wrong, but, based on my cursory knowledge of Gaonkar, the problem that the rhetorician faces is that everything is rhetorical. Those artifacts that are not explicitly art take time to discover and appreciate, whereas those that are deliberately and clearly artful require further examination to understand their complexity.[kaufer_queries
kaufer_queriesdavid
Sarah Miller
Edwin Black Second PersonaWhat moral judgment may we make of this metaphor and of discourse that importantly contains it? The judgment seems superfluous, not because it is elusive, but because it is so clearly implied. The form of consciousness to which the metaphor is attached is not one that commends itself it. Is not one that a reasonable man would freely choose, and he would not choose it because it does not compensate him with either prudential efficacy or spiritual solace for the anguished exacti ons it demands.2 I was also confused by what Black meant by moral judgement of discourse, Amanda, and was honestly left kind of frustrated after reading this because I'm still not sure how the cancer metaphor relates to morality.[Moral Judgment]
I am confused by what Black means by moral judgement of discourse. Is he asking us to assign a moral quality to the text itself? For example, is he evaluating to what extent it is morally correct to equate cancer with communism? Or, are we asking whether the auditor that the rhetor constructs is a moral model? Black states that when the critic is able to identify the image of a man that the discourse is projecting, then the critic is able to make moral judgement (598). In other words, since we can evaluate the character and moral quality of a man, we can also evaluate the moral quality of a discourse by examing the image of a man (or auditor) that it creates. If I am interpreting Black's concept of moral judgement correctly, then the cancer of communism metaphor is immoral because it creates an image of an auditor that is not reasonable or spiritually appealing. Does this make sense? How did other people interpret this concept?[Moral Judgment
Moral JudgmentMaggie Goss
Amanda Berardi
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomNeo-Aristotelian criticism compares the means of persuasion used by a speaker with a comprehensive inventory given in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Its end is to discover whether the speaker makes the best choices from the inventory to get a favorable decision from a specified group of auditors in a specific situation. It does not, of course, aim to discover whether or not the speaker actually gets his favorable decision; decisions in practice are often upset by chance factors.4 First the neo-Aristotelian critic must outline the situation, then specify the group of auditors and define the kind of decision they are to make. Finally he must reveal the choice and disposition of three intertwined persuasive factors-logical, psychological, and characterological-and evaluate this choice and disposition against the standard of the Rhetoric.2 I left wondering, [So what?]
This is a great question, and one I struggled with myself. I would imagine that Hill might argue that the neo-Aristotelian method of analysis that allows the scholar to refrain from committing themselves to proving the source true or false. As the author states, the beauty of the technique is that the limitations [So what?
So what?Jessica
Garrett Stack
Phillip Wander The Third PersonaThe Third Persona, therefore, refers to being negated. But
but also being negated in history
2 Wander's definition and assessment of the third persona would seem to have much in the way of analytic purchase for many of our research interests, i.e. from women to gay rights to disability studies. Can you think of other groups or sites of research where this could serve as a helpful lens?[definition of third persona]
I feel as though talking about some group as being [still not seeing agency
definition of third persona, still not seeing agency, Sarah Miller
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical TextExcept for a few onomatopoetic words, the signifiers of language are non-iconic; the relationship between words and meanings is arbitrary, the product of conventions adopted by users of a linguistic code. The form of the signifier does not imitate what it signifies, and so form bears only an arbitrary relationship to meaning. 2 I didn't mean to suggest that icons are perfect, but rather, in my less than eloquent way, that there is a historical underpinning to the idea that words and meaning can have an innate, one-to-one relationship. I can understand how the metaphor-within-metaphor is frustrating, as it obscures their writing in other sections of the article. I think, for now, we may be best served to understand icons as those types of words which are not adequately described as symbols and indices, insofar as the icon has a more physical relation to the thing itself. We read work to that extent in Intertextuality, though I do not think Leff and Sachs are able to illustrate it as well here with their choice of example.[nonarbitrary]
There has been research in Communications that rejects the of idea of symbolic arbitrariness (See McCune, Internal Structure of Indonesian Roots, or Kiki Bouba experiments). That said, is iconicity anything more than a set of metaphors about the way meaning is constructed (as it appears to person doing close reading)? The idea that Burke's style, syntax, metaphor, etc lend themselves to a kind of interpretation is clear, and I do not reject the examples given as interesting restatements of Burke's speech. But is it anything else? What's the take-away form this approach? What I'm really asking is, what does it mean to determine symbols as arbitrary (etymology: Latin- arbitrarius: depending on one's will; uncertain) or not? If no level of symbolic relationship is arbitrary, then this distinction seems void, and iconicity is just something that is (as L&F counterintuitively point out) [nonarbitrary
nonarbitrarySarah Miller
Chris Brown
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyRather than construing the meaning in a work as unitary and fixed, critics should expose the tensions within works that open up possibilities for distinct interpretations.2 Since there is, as Ceccarelli claims, more than one definition of 'polysemy' in practice, the problem seems to be primarily in the use of this term in criticism and the broader implications of have a disparate vocabulary in the discipline. Other than the obvious issue of not being able to use the term without explaining which definition you are using, I wonder what other issues exist when we are faced with a confusing disciplinary vocabulary. [Disciplinary vocabulary ]
Jessica, this a great point, and one I feel is particularly relevant to rhetorical scholarship. The list of controversial terms seems to be limitless. Agency, for one, comes to mind immediately. [Disciplinary vocabulary
Disciplinary vocabulary Jessica
Garrett Stack
Edwin Black Second PersonaWhat the critic can find projected by the discourse is the image of a man, and though that man may never find actual embodiment, it is still a man that the image is of. This condition makes moral judgment possible, and it is at this point in the process of criticism that it can illuminatingly be rendered.2 I think I understand what you're getting at here... Are you saying that the assessments of critics are reflexive? That we have to define other people in terms of difference (to ourselves)? If so, that would certainly challenge the notion that only the speaker is projected in the discourse.[judging ]
By being able to make a judgement on the character of the speak (image of a man), would that not also create a certain image of the critic? How the critic judges the image of a man also determines his/her own image, too? Or, would it be possible to judge the image of the man without defining yourself?[judging
judging Sarah Miller
Sarah Wheeler
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticismhematizing the relationship between text and performative tradition(s) calls into question a romantic model of textual production and rhetorical invention. Texts do not emerge from the inspiration or genius of the author. Invention is a social process in that the words employed by any author are always already part of a performative tradition in which the author is situated and from which the author draws. Textual production or rhetorical invention is also not a process of following rules or precepts (cf. Gaonkar, this volume: 33). Traditions enable and constrain practice but do not dictate or proscribe. Attention to performative traditions leads to a conceptualization of invention as the discursive management of multiple traditions. To use Bakhtin's (1981) metaphor, rhetorical invention is the 2 what does Jasinski mean by the romantic model he talks about here?[kaufer_queries]
I think this romantic model refers to the ideal relationship between text and performative traditions in that the text could be mapped out by the performative tradition. In reality, Jasinski says that the performative tradition guides the textual production rather than dictates it. In analysis I imagine that the places where a text fails to meet traditions could be some of the most interesting while recognizing these points requires an understanding of this element of context.[kaufer_queries
kaufer_queriesdavid
Jessica
Charles Morris Fourth Persona G-Man persona 2 Definition?[definition]
Heroic government agents (g-men = government men) who apprehended famous criminals like Dillinger, et al.[definition
definitionElizabeth Garza
Garrett Stack
Butterworth, Politics of the Pitch: Iraqi National Soccer Teamf political, economic, and cult dimensions like no other production.
The metaphor of sport as nation constitutes an interpretive frame for und standing global politics, what Kenneth Burke terms a
2 dffggsxdfg[General]
gffg[General
Generaldavid
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderContemporary critics must examine and develop critical systems to describe and evaluate such rhetoric in ways that do not inevitably force them to censure its purposes and strategies.2 I think that perhaps C&B take umbrage with the notion of invevitability. What they are perhaps trying to suggest, more than anything, that you should never know the results before you do the experiment, and in fact it might be more valuable to go in with the most open mind possible in order to remove distortions from an analysis biased by personal experience.[Censuring]
C&B are saying here that criticism should not lead to an inevitable discounting or censuring of types of purposes and strategies. As I am interested in who we should keep out of the public sphere, I find this troubling. Questions: Are there any strategies or purposes that you think should always be condemned?-Does cultural or historical context excuse some strategies or purposes from harsh criticism, why?-Why do you think C&B want to develop a system of criticism without ethical inevitabilities? Can criticism be ethically neutral? [Censuring
Censuring, Censuring , Garrett Stack
Chris Brown
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Textmore general conceptions of the symbolic process2 So according to this definition, could another example of the [E.g. of symbolic process?]
TYPO****the role of an orator's description of spiritual visions when they're trying to be persuasive[E.g. of symbolic process?
E.g. of symbolic process?Elizabeth Garza
Phillip Wander The Third Persona944349
we should have the right to amend the wrongs of the Constitution

2/15/2013 21:24

962638

967105

970919

970923

971337

971439

971826

971864

971872

971874

971980

971982

972096

972098

1002580

1003010
20 I agree with Wander when he says Symbolism is an approach to interpretation. What I do not agree with is when he says symbolism is [ ""highly personal texts are mutually exclusive"". In my opinion the symbolism a reader associates with a text is making that reading a personal experience and interpretation; thus making both mutually exclusive. Of course someone can explain why they thought in such a way making it not mutually exclusive. I believe]
Leff's intertextual inclusion of Lincoln's debate with Douglas on p. 236 really helped me understand what he meant by his assertion that the stabilizing chiasmus [ I understood that ""the past fact"" to be the founding fathers' assertion that all men are created equally

This view of chiasmus as stabilizing reminded me of the predictive premise Forbes Hill outlined in [

Leff seems to be saying here that the secular way of normal speaking is without fixity or a strong sense of relation to other moments in time. The sacred is more bound to [ then

Jasisnski claims that in examining Leff and Mohrmann's piece on Lincoln, that while they exhibit a [

If the historical context (and its [ than perhaps it should be in ""a position of importance above the discourse itself

How can do we determine [ whether or not it is

I found Zarefsky's explanation of argumentation (in comparison to scientific-dominance) interesting. It seems as though he is trying to prove the worth of argumentation or define argumentation in a world that reveres science. However, his explanation's noted [ while beneficial and thorough

How do you determine if you have gone too far in creating a [ and what is the right amount in evoking an emotion? Nixon's speech creates fear

While reading through this critique of Nixon's address I was amazed to find many social inferences mentioned by Forbes Hill. I may not have a complete understanding of Neo-Aristotelian criticism, but I did wonder how much external (beyond the text) research/investigation did Forbes Hill have to conduct to be able to comment about social ideas/influences as he had. So, this sentence about not being able to estimate the [ but lacks certainty of their true influence? How do we

While Forbes Hill stresses that neo-Aristotelian criticism does not concern itself with calibrating the truth of Nixon's claims, I found that Forbes Hill did use language that called the truth-status of Nixon's claims into question. Examples of truth assessment can be found in sentences like [ the message creates the illusion of proving that Vietnamization and flexible withdrawal constitute the best policy (152)."" ""Masquerade"" and ""illusion"" suggest attempts at deception

It seems like Leff and Mohrmann are saying that other analyses are not objective enough allowing for the [ then

I always thought [ although I was never quite sure exactly what the term meant. On another note

I would disagree that scholars necessarily always [

Black states that, [ and the judicial phase of criticism is a way of bringing order to our history"" (595). Do current rhetorical analysts bring order to our history by making moral judgments of a text? I'm not sure they do

I admit that I was hesitant to accept yet another persona, however, I think Morris makes a good argument for the dual identities that may drive audience members in, perhaps, conflicting ways. To link this specifically to sexuality seems limiting however. Couldn't there be other identity markers that create a similar duality or [ at this point

I am confused about the relationship between the rhetor and the fourth persona. In this quote, Morris states that the silence of the fourth persona functions constructively and does not exclude this fourth audience. In this sense, the fourth persona is the audience who recognizes and acknowledges the contextual wink. Thus, the rhetor intentionally [ I am unsure whether Hoover intended for his acknowledgement of the fourth persona to function constructively considering that he went on to develop ""a highly sophisticated system of coercion

Condit's note about Leff's invitation does allow for a better understanding of how Leff thinks of rhetorical criticism. However, I wonder how Leff's example of the Burke reading shows [ why is that? Could it be that dealing with more than one response might cause things beyond the text to be considered? Also

I thought this was a good description of [ making it difficult for the author to express their thoughts correctly. I am not sure if I agree with Condit's critique on Leff saying he is
""highly personal texts are mutually exclusive"". In my opinion the symbolism a reader associates with a text is making that reading a personal experience and interpretation; thus making both mutually exclusive. Of course someone can explain why they thought in such a way making it not mutually exclusive. I believe, I understood that ""the past fact"" to be the founding fathers' assertion that all men are created equally, , then, , than perhaps it should be in ""a position of importance above the discourse itself, , whether or not it is, , while beneficial and thorough, , very, , and what is the right amount in evoking an emotion? Nixon's speech creates fear, , but lacks certainty of their true influence? How do we, , the message creates the illusion of proving that Vietnamization and flexible withdrawal constitute the best policy (152)."" ""Masquerade"" and ""illusion"" suggest attempts at deception, , although I was never quite sure exactly what the term meant. On another note, , and the judicial phase of criticism is a way of bringing order to our history"" (595). Do current rhetorical analysts bring order to our history by making moral judgments of a text? I'm not sure they do, , at this point, , I am unsure whether Hoover intended for his acknowledgement of the fourth persona to function constructively considering that he went on to develop ""a highly sophisticated system of coercion, , why is that? Could it be that dealing with more than one response might cause things beyond the text to be considered? Also, , making it difficult for the author to express their thoughts correctly. I am not sure if I agree with Condit's critique on Leff saying he is, Lindsay
Elizabeth Garza
Megan McGrath
Sarah Miller
Maggie Goss
mary
Sarah Wheeler
Jessica
Amanda Berardi
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedThere is, I think, a danger of placing so much emphasis on the larger discursive formation (i.e. the performative tradition) that we lose sight of one of its distinctive goals-the cultivation of a faculty that enables individual agents to intervene effectively in particular situations.3 Is Leff saying that if we focus on the performative aspects of a speech, then we're simultaneously foreclosing the possibility for agency? May question is, so what? What if agency as [Agency?]
Mary, I'm not following your connection here. Are we talking about agency of the speaker of the rhetorical analyst? It seems to me that Leff is merely suggesting a more thorough intertextual analysis than was undertaken in his first effort that takes better accounts for both situation and purpose.[Agency?

I think he's talking about the possibility of the speaker to enact agency. If critics also structural/contextual formations, then, when theorizing the possibility of agency (effective intervention on the part of the speaker), we have a much more complicated picture. [Agency?
Agency?mary
Garrett Stack
Condit: Leff and McGee as ExtremesFurther, because texts contact others and can vary in quality, they are likely to engage in a process of inter-linkage of vocabularies, which demands some creativity. One's internal decoding, in contrast, is a fragmentary process that is spontaneous, demands no responsibility to other human beings, and is not appropriately an article of external judgment. A decoding is thus not a text. It is not true that we 3 I wonder if perhaps looking at meaning from not necessarily a Foucaultian perspective, but a cognitive one, might be useful. In this instance, I'm thinking back to what I've read by Mark Turner and Todd Oakley about cognitive linguistics, metaphorical blending, etc. In that way you could move past trying to figure out the audience, but the ways the actual construction of the text imparts meaning to audiences.[nonarbitrary]
This reminds me of Chris's comments in class about whether or not language is constructed arbitrarily or non-arbitrarily. Condit appears to argue that both the one who constructs the text and the audience for whom it was constructed play a role in the meaning that is made. She, thus, rejects McGee's reliance on audience as having sole control over meaning and suggests that both are influential by leaving room for the author of a text to be creative with language. So, from this perspective it seems that it may be a combination of arbitrary qualities of language and non-arbitrary ones that make meaning complex and rhetorically interesting.[nonarbitrary

I definitely agree! I think that determining arbitrariness is a task that requires us to make decisions about agency that are too subtle and too insidious (in a Foucauldian micropratice way) to categorize the way Leff and McGee try to. Meaning requires both explicit control and limitless creativity. [nonarbitrary
nonarbitrarySarah Miller
Jessica
Chris Brown
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyThey have used this interpretation of Wilson's meaning to ground their own arguments against the book, which they take to be too simplistic and too fatalist3 I wonder if drawing upon other methodologies would help to alleviate the issues that stem from not being able to neatly transpose different meanings / interpretations. While picking and choosing methods to support a resistant reading is problematic (in that you could be delineating from a purer form of reading that Ceccarelli outlines, or imparting too much personal bias), it may be a necessary evil. How else could you speak to how a text speaks to different meanings? At some point, the text would need to be left behind (to an extent) in order to support a claim about meaning.[interpretations or misreadings?]
I agree with your point, Chris. Although Condit makes the distinction between oppositional readings (which she sees as the result of polyvalence, not polysemy) and resistive readings, she still concludes that even oppositional readings, although they often provide less power to the audience than resistive readings, can be successful in usurping power from the producer. This seems to be a question of audience intent and responsible resistance. Claims made by resistance readings that cannot be substantiated through comparison to the original, as Ceccarelli systematically uses as her methodology, could be more easily dismissed. But I could foresee there being situations in which the resistance cannot necessarily correspond neatly to a passage from the original. What is one to do in those situations?[interpretations or misreadings?

Could, then, resistive readings be a form of manipulating the text, almost subverting it, for say the opposition's own use, potentially reading things into the text that aren't in fact there (as a mis-reading of the text)? Could resistive reading be thought of as a strategy for the opposition to use in order to strengthen their own argument (even if their reading is flawed)? As it might be difficult to come out and say completely that their reading was wrong without it looking like the person is not just against the opposition's standpoint.[interpretations or misreadings?
interpretations or misreadings?Sarah Miller
Megan McGrath
Sarah Wheeler
Charles Morris Fourth Personandeed given his own position on the continuum of homosocial bonds, and as a newly minted celebrity, he was a likely target for cultural scrutiny. 3 I think you make a good point. Maybe it goes both ways? I was thinking I was imagining the fourth persona being dependent upon secrets and the fact that the implied auditor can see the person's true identity because they can relate to it. This is why I also wonder (which I posed in another question) why the implied auditor would risk [Secrets Today]
Or are you suggesting that the threat of the press, with its seemingly-immediate uptake, eclipses the perceived threat of the fourth persona today?[Secrets Today

Do you think the fourth persona is still as relevant/prevalent today considering sex scandals seem to be harder to keep secret? That is to say, because of our culture's fascination with knowing every detail about celebrity's and politician's lives--(think gossip rags, Monica Lewinski, Arnold Schwarzenegger's illegitimate son), would that make the fourth persona less viable?[Secrets Today
Secrets TodayMaggie Goss
Megan McGrath
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text
the more primitive force of image-generation controls things-not only absorbing much of the function of argumentation but also forming the base from which argument proceeds.9
3 An interesting definition - is this really how we feel about the study of rhetoric in light of the various schools of prevailing rhetoric in action and pieces that have proven widely influential - as well as our own experiences in rhetorical criticism? Moreover, are there other scholars (perhaps which we will encounter later) that define rhetoric differently?[definitions]
Too, how does this establishment of the dissociation affect how we look at school of thought, would it seem less of a radical change of the time if we changed our definitional footing?[definitions

Images allow for a better understanding of the subject being discussed. Pictures can intensify a subject because with out the image one may not understand why there is an argument. The argument could proceed if the image is unrelated or too extreme; but even then the image creates discussion. [image-generation
definitions, image-generation, Michael Hitchcock
Lindsay
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyBecause the movie is designed to allow 3 Great question, Megan - this is one of the questions I believe that Ceccarelli also poses at the end of the work. Something like - once we acknowledge the varied definitions of polysemy more work must be done to determine what types of moves make the polysemy work? Though, this example and your question leave me wondering whether there are a combination of factors (beyond textual clues) that allow something like the Cosby Show to speak to a variety of audiences? With that being said - you're question would be a very interesting one as motivation for an analysis... [textual cues]
Thinking of questions like, what would have made The Cosby Show less appealing?Maybe if we explored the topics of episodes we might see that, to remain tactfully appealing to many audiences, particular racial or economic themes were absent or vague. When I think back to the show, I don't remember significant vocal affect, for instance.[textual cues

If this definition of polysemy attributes the agency to the author, then what textual cues or specific rhetorical devices might we be able to isolate as particularly effective in crafting a text that allows for such contrary interpretations at once?[textual cues
textual cuesSarah Wheeler
Chris Brown
Megan McGrath
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical TextAlthough relatively easy to comprehend, the sentence is quite long and rather convoluted.
Although relatively easy to comprehend, the sentence is quite long and rather convoluted.
3 This is an important question, which is not really touched on in this essay. Though L&S make some interesting claims about the structure and style of Burke's speech, we should ask the question: Could the audience make this connection? Is this kind of analysis fruitful for anyone other than the rhetorical critic who could see, in a pos hoc kind of way, the patterns L&S lay out? Did Burke's 'circular momentum' really make the difference in persuasiveness, or was it the media coverage of his speech, etc? It seems to me that the only take-away is the ability to compare patterns/metaphors/iconicity across texts/genres, in order to see some more generalized patterns.[comprehension vs iconicity]
I was wondering what is at stake for a speaker when he might compromise clarity or comprehension for some almost artistic progression such as the one noted here in Burke's speech? Pedagogical research about reading and writing suggests that lengthy sentences tend to lose the reader, while this speech was spoken, might the length also lose his audience? Yes, his progression might be seemingly brilliant and rhetorically interesting (especially from a critic's point of view), but is there some balance to consider?? Does the balance depend on whether the work will be read or heard? I'm wondering if the listener recognized all the nuances noted by the critic? Did they influence the listener? [comprehension vs iconicity

I think this is a great question, and I agree with Chris's response and additional questions. Could (or did) the audience respond in a way that suggests they more fully understood or were persuaded by Burke's speech? Or, perhaps the speech was more persuasive because it sounded nicer, more poetic? Does the critic need to know (verifiably) or be concerned with knowing how an audience uptakes a message? This comes back to the question I've had from the start: what's the goal of rhetorical criticism?[comprehension vs iconicity
comprehension vs iconicity, comprehension vs iconicity , Chris Brown
Sarah Wheeler
mary
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderDescriptive analysis,3 That actually jumped out to me as well. I think that it is an uneasy feeling. Something that I wonder about is the lengths that authors go to transform themselves into who they think the audience might want them to me. This seems to be a comment on persona . While ethical questions do seem relevant, is there a method for finding out whether a rhetor is assuming a role/simply adopting a persona? To some extent I think that as writers we might have the tendency to do this in order to establish our credibility or reach a broader audience... I don't think all of the elements are manipulative though- if anything, it just seems to articulate what writers often do. [authority]
I'm not sure I'm completely understanding your question, Maggie, so bear with me as I try to clarify for myself. Are you finding that the questions these elements prompt reveal how overtly or subtly authors can project certain values on their audience, and thereby take unfair liberties? Or do you see the questions the seven elements use to assess as impeding on the autonomy of the author? Or do you mean neither of the above? haha[authority

Does anyone else find the seven elements of the descriptive analysis somewhat manipulative? I recognize that they do not have malicious intentions, but I cannot help but feel a little uneasy about the lengths authors may go to in order to, for example, transform their audience into who they want them to be, trying to make the audience see them in a certain light. Do Campbell and Burkholder have an effect on your sense of autonomy as a reader or authority as a writer?[authority
authorityChloe Lynn Oxley
Megan McGrath
Maggie Goss
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismWhile she gestures toward a broader historical context (for example, she notes that Lincoln used Clay's 1850 compromise address, Andrew Jackson's proclamation against nullification, Webster's reply to Hayne, and the Constitution as inventional materials, inviting what Gaonkar [57] describes as an 3 I think the role of context is to inform both our readers and our analysis. We need context as critics to better understand the purpose of what is being said or how it is being said; with a better understanding of context we will have a more thorough analysis. Readers also need context to understand why certain topics are being discussed, and to give them background on the subject. [Role of Context]
This is a really interesting question because it seems context would be important to both how we inform our analysis and how we inform our readers. I can't help but think of the classic dilemma between which came first, the chicken or the egg. My instinct is that we would first use context to inform our analysis because without an informed analysis, the reader would have nothing to worthwhile to read. However, I can also see why the role of context may be first to inform the reader. I also agree with David that this would be interesting to discuss in class.[Role of Context

excellent question Amanda. Let us discuss in class. Many of you may have projects focused on one or a few select artifacts. You then bring in context to help your readers understand your artifact better. But as you do more of this, you may find out that you need the context to help with the analysis, not just help with the reader. And as you pursue this further, you may find out that the context is really critical to the object of your analysis. So more and more, your context can be the object you are analyzing. [Role of Context
Role of ContextLindsay
Maggie Goss
david
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderThus, we suggest descriptive analysis of discourse in terms of the following seven elements: purpose, persona, audience, tone, structure, supporting materials, and other strategies.
Moreover, because all the components that compose
3 While C&B stress that the seven elements can overlap and appear in different forms across texts, I, too, could see these elements being a bit restrictive in certain situations, Jessica. Do you have an example of a text for which this heuristic would be unproductive?[seven elements]
This seems to me to be a very rigid formula for analyzing discourse. Even if this is the first step, as C&B suggest, the idea that 7 elements can be neatly used as a heuristic in a given text limits the possibilities of what the text is and/or suggests that only certain texts are appropriate for rhetorical analysis. I would argue that even texts that are better served by a different heuristic may be just as pertinent to the goals of rhetoric. [seven elements

At the beginning, Campell and Burkholder distinguish between organic criticism and formulaic/prescriptive criticism by pointing out that a prescriptive approach refers to classical canons whereas an organic approach [approach
seven elements, approach, Megan McGrath
Jessica
Chenchen Huang
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical TextIconicity, then, is a principle more readily apprehended through an interpretative rather than a formal approach to discourse. 3 I would say that we could view iconicity in technical discourse more holistically: Many technical genres value efficiency of their objects and, by extension, use economy of language. Business writers, for instance, use headings to lay out the identification of a problem, its solution, and an action plan in a chronological way -- perhaps with juxtapositional relationships that show what processes should be carried out together, etc. While they may not be as overt or figurative, I think it is fair to say the content of a genre does not make it exempt from acting on its audience in some of the ways described here.[Iconicity]
I think that scientific or technical writing might use iconicity more if they were writing or speaking to an audience of non-experts or people outside their field. As it seems that iconicity serves to represent - so when they want to express something maybe specialized they can use iconicity to speak to a more generalized audience? Though, when trying to think of an example, the first one that came to mind was the potential use of iconicity during something like a legal trial. For example the lawyer speech might employ iconicity to represent say a criminal's anger during a moment OR something similar. Do you think that might an appropriate example?[Iconicity

It seems that the principle of Iconicity would be most easily observable in works of poetry, speech, and literature. What other types of discourse do you think make use of this principle? It seems more difficult to imagine how scientific or technical discourse would use Iconicity. However, I can imagine a scientific article on global warming describing a shrinking iceberg by using sentences of decreasing lengths. Can you think of other examples? [Iconicity
IconicitySarah Miller
Sarah Wheeler
Amanda Berardi
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyFor him, it is an interpretive theory contrived by academic workers who are seeking to increase the hermeneutic depth of their artifacts. -
If polysemy is a term that is making its way into our contemporary rhetorical theory, and if it represents a phenomenon (or set of phenomena) toward which rhetoricians are being asked to turn their attention, it would seem important that we understand what it is and how it functions.
3 I think this critical observation is more appropriately targeted to New Critic close readers in literary criticism. As Ceccarelli has aptly demonstrated in her skifully contextualized, polysemic readings below, Gaonker's criticism towards rhetorical criticism is clearly unwarranted. [Gaonkar's opinion]
I'm extremely impressed with this article. I wonder how Ceccarelli systematically went about tracing all of the different conceptions of polysemy? Did she literally read every single article about polysemy in all of the rhetoric journals? On another note, I wonder if we need to dosystematic studies of other more genereal words like [

I wondered the same thing as I was reading this article. Do you think a larger lesson we can take from Ceccarelli is the need for a unified disciplinary vocaubulary?[
Gaonkar's opinionElizabeth Garza
Jessica
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyLikewise, in the study of mass communication messages, critics are careful to define polysemy as a delimited phenomenon. David Morley says polysemy is
t
3 I completely agree with the idea that we need to think of polysemy as a delimited phenomenon in order for it to be useful, but at the same time, I wonder how we can methodologically determine such boundaries? Furthermore, what are the moral implications of our accidental exclusion of a particular reading? [how do we establish boundaries?]
I don't know that I can speak to your concern about boundaries, but I think I might be able to address your moral concern. I would say that not every critic is equipped to determine every meaning within a text. Different schools of criticism will be able to speak to different facets of a text, which others can understand more holistically. I would think that a bigger worry would be a deliberate misrepresentation of the morals in a piece, i.e. someone like Hitler using Marx to support anti-semitism, etc. (Sorry for the Hitler example.) I would think that, to be moral critics, we have to be upfront about our biases and acknowledge that we can't get every reading right.[how do we establish boundaries?

I'm having a bit of trouble picturing what an anarchically open text might look like? Might anyone have any examples of something considered to be a [unilateral sign
how do we establish boundaries?, unilateral sign, Elizabeth Garza
Sarah Miller
Garrett Stack
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticism
And just as criticism can be enlisted in the aid of science, the reverse is also true .
3 I wonder how debates in the sciences might mimic the one here: Is there a proper hierarchy of the disciplines? within the subdisciplines or specialties?[General]
Sure! Social science, communication studies, and psychological/biological processes all inform our understanding of human interaction, which is rhetoric. Scientific fields add an empirical depth to our (shamelessly) unscientific approach. [Sciece aiding rhetorical criticism

Can anyone provide a specific example of a case where scientific analysis can serve as an aid for rhetorical criticism? [Sciece aiding rhetorical criticism
General, Sciece aiding rhetorical criticism, Sarah Miller
Chris Brown
Elizabeth Garza
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper Unionrepetition. Lincoln includes fifteen extended citations of the issue and an equal number from the 3 In considering the use of repetition, it might be beneficial to think of the time the speech was given a little more - speakers did not have the luxury of videos and the like to repeat the speech again and again. They also had an audience that would listen to their speeches, which might have been long, and had to follow and understand what they were saying. The audience could really only listen to the speech once, and the speaker, then, had to drive the point home. I think that might have influenced the use of repetition in this instance?[repetition]
It seems that the speaker repeats a keyword or phrase when it serves an essential function in his or her argument. Leff and Mohrmann explain that Lincoln [repetition

I agree, Amanda. It seems to be based by the rhetorical situation-depending on what rhetorical function the repetition serves. Unfortunately, I don't think we can accurately determine a set number of times a phrase or word can be repeated before it becomes superfluous.[repetition
repetitionSarah Wheeler
Amanda Berardi
Maggie Goss
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderWhat is the function of the discourse for its author? How does it serve to create an identity for the speaker or writer? To what degree does the discourse serve as self-expression or self-persuasion? If the discourse were the only piece of evidence available from which to determine the character of the author, what inferences could be made about that person?3 I agree that Campbell and Burkholder see the two as separate acts, Amanda. I guess I just have trouble believing that the line between content and context is always a clear one, or that the two can ever be truly isolated from one another.[persona]
I agree. It seems that it would be (nearly) impossible to forget context and focus on content alone. What C&B are afraid of is privileging a historic approach, but I'm not sure I see how anyone could completely separate their knowledge of the rhetorical situation from the text itself.Perhaps they just want to be sure the critic doesn't layer on her own conclusions that the text alone does not support? But can a text really be alone?[persona

I agree that context is needed in analyzing a text. After all isn't the author of the text an expert in the area they are writing on, so shouldn't the critic also be educated in the subject? [persona
personaMegan McGrath
Chris Brown
Lindsay
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismIn contrast to the traditional view that critics focus on single rhetorical text in a single context, Bowers urged that they offer insights in the form of test able hypotheses, which would culminate in the advancement and refinement of scientific theory This he regarded as a
To say the least,
4 I can understand the position that rhetorical criticism should be more multi-faceted, but I do not know that the advancement of science is the right corollary. Considering that even dissertations in the humanities begin with answering a question and forwarding an answer, I'm a bit surprised this idea was met with so much resistance.[General]
why would rhetorical critics bristle at the idea their work was [kaufer thread

My reading made me think that they may feel that way since [kaufer thread

Pre-scientific has connotations of witchcraft or astronomy. ICould this be a poke at the sometimes-sophistic nature of our field?[kaufer thread
General, kaufer thread, Sarah Miller
david
Sarah Wheeler
Chris Brown
sign up for conferences to talk about internal criticismsnday March 44 I'm going to be flying out Wednesday afternoon, so can anyone who signed up for a Monday slot switch to Wednesday? [Sign-up on Monday]
I have to switch to wednesday, so you can take my slot![Sign-up on Monday

Thank you, Maggie![Sign-up on Monday

No problem![Sign-up on Monday
Sign-up on MondayElizabeth Garza
Maggie Goss
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical Criticism The organic imagery in this passage leads Wichelns from
Bitzer
4 I agree with Megan's intuitions and Amanda. For Jasinski, organic seems to be a [organic]
As I was reading this discussion of Wicheins's idea of contextualization, Bitzer's focus on the rhetorical situation came to mind. While there might be many differences between the two - it does seem the importance and impact of the context on the text is a commonality between both Wicheins and Bitzer. Furthermore, while Jasinski shows the distinction between Wicheins's focus of context - context is still important to Wicheins's analysis.. I was struggling to understand the importance of this distinction.. was Jasinski trying to say that Wichein's chooses the scope of context that best serves his object of analysis?[Contextual influence

I think so. According to Jasinski, intentionalists look at context but often a narrow bandwidth of context that fits the speaker's intention and sought for effects. [Contextual influence

Sarah, I agree with Dave, but I wonder what might be the value of extending the context beyond a bandwidth that focuses on intention and sought for affects? In other words, after we start expanding scope, where do we stop?[Contextual influence
organic, Contextual influence, david
Sarah Wheeler
Garrett Stack
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text(2) psychological in which syntactic order imitates psychological experience (the configuration of language in a text embodies states of mind and feeling that occur in real world experience)4 I'm not sure I'm understanding your question correctly, but I think multimodality is a double-edged sword; it could, by engaging more senses, have the potential to either compensate for one area of disconnect or misinterpretation. Or it could provide more opportunities for inappropriate preparation for audience response, by not actually assessing the audience. While, as we've discussed, the critical stance could miss certain audiences in textual form, I think a potential challenge for multimodality is that it might provide more ways in which psychological iconicity could misfire.[psychological-iconicity]
I wonder if we could apply this kind of iconicity more readily in multimodal types of discourse than chronological (although there is something to be said about time-lapse footage) or juxtapositional. I am not saying that the other two aren't present in video footage, news reports, etc. but that examples of the psychological could be more easily accessed in non-textual modes. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Because when reading this, my mind first went to a film like [psychological-iconicity

I think multimodality holds potential for both psychological and juxtapositional iconicity, Sarah. I just read an article for a design seminar. Grounded in semiotic theory, it calls for a meta-language for exploring how visual grammar shapes the meaning-making experiences of audiences and molds their social reality. The meta-language called for is borrowed from systemic functional grammar. Of course, when adopting this approach, one would have to remain sensitive to the critical stance's avoidance of measuring audience response.[psychological-iconicity

It's interesting to consider that a category posed from a critical standpoint would intersect with the realm of communication design, which seems so centered on the audience. Do you see a way (or ways) in which the critical stance using a psychological view would be challenged by work in multimodality? I'm not sure I would be able to answer such a question, but I wonder if the move away from measuring audience response is crippling to understanding psychological iconicity.[psychological-iconicity
psychological-iconicityMegan McGrath
Sarah Miller
Edwin Black Second Personahile in ages past men living in the tribal warmth of the polis had the essential nature of the world determined for them in their communal heritage of mythopoesis, and they were able then to assess the probity of utterance b
It is this perspective on ideology that may inform our attention to the auditor implied by the discourse. It seems a useful methodological assumption to hold that rhetorical discourses, either singly or cumulatively in a persuasive movement, will imply an auditor, and that in most cases the implication will be sufficiently suggestive as to enable the critic to link this implied auditor to an ideology. T
4 This seems like a generalization/simplification of a complicated interaction between authors and auditor in a Greek polis. What evidence does he have to support this? Why doesn't he have to cite this sort of claims?[citation needed?]
Are you saying that an audience's interpretation may be related to their assumptions about how their own ideology relates to the speaker/author? So if an audience member doesn't relate or disagrees with the author's ideology they will then interpret the text (or implied auditor) negatively?[Compelling

The idea that the persona is linked to ideology is compelling to me, but I'm wondering if others disagree. I mean, of course, as Black suggests, people are capable of manipulating their character to make speeches and present themselves in a particular way, but I see how audience interpretations rest, at least in part, on their assumptions about how their own ideology relates to the speaker's or author's. Other thoughts?[Compelling

I think that the manipulation of character can be quite effective in getting the audience to align with the speaker's speech. That may lead the speaker to examine their own ideologies and assume that they line up with that of the speaker. But then again, the audience may be aware of the difference between theirs and the speaker's ideology and still align with the speech itself depending on how the speaker manipulated it. [Compelling
citation needed?, Compelling, Elizabeth Garza
Maggie Goss
Jessica
Chloe Lynn Oxley
Leah Ceccarelli PolysemyDepending on whether or not one sympathizes with the politics of the resistive audience, one will either celebrate the resistive reading as an usurpation of the restrictive dominance of the author and his or her supporters over subsequent textual signification, or deny the accuracy of the prejudice-driven resistive readings while bemoaning the author's failure to more fully constrain interpretive flexibility. 4 While I would be cautious in advocating for a prejudice-driven resistive reading, I would say that some resistive readings that one might dismiss as motivated by prejudice could be fruitful sites for excavating important inequalities that allow for marginalization, embedded in certain power structures. In other words, while prejudice does have the ability to cloud vision, as evident in the Southern reading of Lincoln's speech, it can have the ability to elucidate the perceived injustices driving such deviant readings - the very injustices that, if left unexamined, could serve to further the dominant power structure.[prejudice-driven resistive readings]
You pose a valid point and something that has been illuminated in some of my political science courses - that while there might be those one wholly disagrees with there is a value to hearing the opposition's standpoint because while 95% of the time they may not have something positive to add - there might be 5% of positive things to add and that cannot and shouldn't be ignored. Totally barring the [prejudice-driven resistive readings

My understanding of resistive readings is that they derive their power from their ability to subvert it, and that this power is the product of audience intention. So, while I can't think of a situation in which an unintentional resistive reading is constructed, I wonder if anyone else can.[prejudice-driven resistive readings

I was wondering this too, Megan. I wonder also, the extent to which we are aware we are constructing a resistive reading. In terms of recontextualizations and political prejudices, I imagine they purposely construct a different meaning in order to pull from the text that which benefits their own personal agenda. Are there any situations in which we unintentionally construct a resistive reading?[prejudice-driven resistive readings
prejudice-driven resistive readingsMegan McGrath
Sarah Wheeler
Maggie Goss
Leff Temporality in Lincoln's Second Inauguralt has shared the offence and the punishment meted out in God's time; all have participated in this mysterious relationship between man and God, which renders men responsible for their acts but unable to control their results. The war, then, offers no occasion for human judgment which would encourage one party to inflict further retribution on the other; it is itself a judgment from a higher source, and a redemptive vehicle that, like Christ's passion, purifies and opens the path to unity through spiritual rebirth.
In sum, Lincoln has shifted both from political to religious themes and from a perspective grounded in secular time to one grounded in sacred time.
4 The only reason I was questioning the validity of this comparison was because I wasn't sure of whom, precisely, Leff was speaking. Thank you for lending your insight![Passion of Christ]
That's probably very true, Chris. I would think, perhaps at most, Lincoln had a dual audience that would both respond to this kind of religious talk. Would invoking a Christ metaphor work today? I'm not so sure.[Passion of Christ

Yes, I agree with your response, Sarah. Given that Lincoln used this strategy in a different temporal context, it may be difficult to align him with current politicians. Overall, I think the risk in using this strategy depends on how heavily religion is used as a way to advance their political goals.[Religion in Politics

Maggie, in considering your question I was also thinking of similar politicians. But, I would say that maybe what Lincoln is doing comes across as a little different than what politicians today do, which might because of the different political/religious climate. To answer your question about backfiring, I think that today in our religiously diverse society using this strategy might push some people away as their religious affiliations might not align with the politician's. However, sometimes this strategy is still done today in a more abstract way appealing to a judgement and right and wrong possibly so as to avoid alienating people. But, possibly more overt appeals to certain types of religions might be a calculated risk.[Religion in Politics
Passion of Christ, Religion in Politics, Megan McGrath
Sarah Miller
Maggie Goss
Sarah Wheeler
Leah Ceccarelli Polysemyan audience that accepts the author's version of what a text means, but opposes that text by passing a harsh judgment upon it, is exercising less power over that text (and gaining less
In these cases, the producer no longer has control over the denotational meaning of the message.
4 Condit seems to be saying that subverting a text gives the reader greater stake in the argument than merely the act of acceptance or rejection. The value of this stake seems questionable to me, especially when there seems to be a file line between constructing new meaning and misreading[textmeaning]
I question the extent to which a producer really can have [denotational meaning

I feel the producer has control over denotational meaning when constructing the intended message to a target audience. But once that message is released to the public that is when the producer no longer has control. I would say that often when a meaning is lost or misinterpreted is when teh message is seen by anyone other than teh target audience. [denotational meaning

I agree Mary. Control of denotation infers either an absolute understanding of one's audience, which seems impossible, or a message that is so perfectly crystalline that it cannot be interpreted in any way other than as it was intended. [denotational meaning
textmeaning, denotational meaning, Garrett Stack
mary
Lindsay
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismRhetorical reconstruction, as I envision it, is closer to Foucault's approach than Habermas's. The critical difference is that rhetorical reconstruction assumes the existence of what Bakhtin (1981) termed
A critical program of rhetorical reconstruction could degenerate very easily into an intellectual study of influence. In my view, rhetorical reconstruction, to be a viable critical approach, must do more than note the intellectual influences on a Lincoln or a Clay. As textualists in intellectual history have discovered, the task is to locate influence in textual action.
4 Considering Bakhtin's concern with both genre and the monoglossic forces on any given language, I think that what Jasinski is saying is that these performative traditions do not arise independently out of whole cloth. The tradition develops over time, perhaps drawing on other traditions and practices, but in response to pushes to / against multiplicity. While no rhetor can invent independently of other practices -- as they respond to the traditions that exist for them -- the tradition, like genre, does not have to be necessarily followed to the letter. For instance, we all write cover letters, but they look different in different contexts when written by different writers.[kaufer_queries]
Jasinski links his notion of performative tradition to the work of Bakhtin. Anyone want to hazard what he means here?[kaufer_queries

Agreeing with Sarah, this seems to be a reference to the dialogically oriented nature of all language use. Basically, Bakhtin theorizes that language is a simultaneous striving for monoglossia, a joint ideological and symbolic basis for understanding, and heteroglossia, a mixture of differing voices and opinions (within the constraints of possible expression, limited stylistically and semantically by past usage). For Jasinski, the performative tradition encompasses both of these tendencies, which allows us to know both about the related rhetorical events of the past and the possible dialogic space a particular event opens up for the future.[kaufer_queries

Jasinski distinguishes between the study of intellectual influence and locating the influence of text in textual action. What does this distinction mean?[kaufer_queries
kaufer_queriesSarah Miller
david
Chris Brown
Leff Sachs Words the Most Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical TextThe critical stance, then, retains an audience perspective, but as opposed to neo-Aristotelianism, this perspective does not entail measurement of actual responses. Instead, the critical process seeks to explain how the rhetorical performance invites certain kinds of response.
Working from the evidence within the text, the critic proceeds to make inferences about what the work is designed to do, how it is designed to do it, and how well that design functions to structure and transmit meanings within the realm of public experience.
4 Leff and Sachs claim that a close reading is concerned with the audience's perspective, but not with measuring their responses. What might such a critical perspective be missing from not considering the actual response of the audience?[audience response]
I would think that the reason why actual response isn't considered in this view is that it could venture into the social sciences. However, as you point out, it could miss that audiences are often composed of non-experts who approach texts not with toolkits or methodology, but a variety of biases and schemas that pick up on signals or [audience response

I interpreted this hesitance to measure actual response to the critical stance's commitment to preserving the integrity of the particular transaction that takes place between reader and text -- to avoid imposing generalized abstractions on a reader. If the transaction is not only intrinsic to the text, but intrinsic to the reader, as well, how can the critic venture to categorize or quantify audience experience? I agree, though, that abstention from measuring the specific responses could result in alienation of certain audiences or missed opportunities for anticipating areas for proactive, productive clarification.[audience response

And then what do we do with that work? Who is intended to read the work of the rhetorical critic? What do we expect them to do? [What is rhetorical criticism for?
audience response, What is rhetorical criticism for?, Maggie Goss
Sarah Miller
Megan McGrath
Elizabeth Garza
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper UnionThis identification of genre is basic to our analysis, and the nature of the genre is suggested by Rosenthal's distinction between nonpersonal and personal persuasion ;18 in the former, the speaker attempts to influence audience attitudes about a particular issue, and ethos is important insofar as it lends credence to the substance of the argument. In the latter the process is reversed. The focal point is the speaker, and the message becomes a vehicle for enhancing ethos.
The objective, then, in a campaign oration is ingratiation

With genre and purpose in mind, we can approach the speech through familiar topics.
5 I find these distinctions useful in addressing what form of persuasion is being used and for what reason. I think there is a time and place for when a politician would use one form over the other. I would think that both forms of persuasion are used the same amount, rather than one more than the other. [today's politicians]
Maggie, I agree that context would influence the type of persuasion used.. I would also say that it might depend on the experience of the politician as well - whether they are well-known/respected or not. If they are not well-known, I could see the politician needing to use a more personal form of persuasion to build his ethos that allows him to be more nonpersonal later - but, of course, it would not always function just as this. [today's politicians

Is there an element of ingratiation in every political speech? Or even every speech? What separates this notion of ingratiation from the general establishment of ethos? It seems that, rarely, will persuasive speakers and writers leave their ethos merely to their credentials, but always seem to seek out at least some opportunity to ingratiate themselves to their audience. Do you think Lincoln would have approved of his speech being solely concerned with ingratiation? [ingratiation

With this example, given the tense political climate, maybe Lincoln would be more invested in ingratiation -- he needed people to take him on, not necessarily trust or invest in his morals. I am exaggerating here, but I think what you're moving toward here is that political speeches are not black and white like they appear here. With how campaign speeches are retold and disseminated today, it would seem that goals and motivations behind them probably have shifted since Lincoln's era and Leff's at the time of writing this article.[ingratiation

This sounds like a kind of theoretical underpinning, which raises the question for me: Exactly how are these two related? I've always seen rhetorical analysis as a method all on its own, but I'm realizing now that it relies heavily on a particular theory that guides the analysis? Or is this only sometimes the case? It seems, additionally, that this kind of applied theory would point analysis toward different questions. Maybe this is obvious, but I think the relationship is worth articulating.[theory
today's politicians, ingratiation, , theory, Lindsay
Sarah Wheeler
Garrett Stack
Sarah Miller
Jessica
Edwin Black Second PersonaHowever even if a discourse made neutral and inocuous claims, but contained the term
The expectation that a verbal token of ideology can be taken as implying an auditor who shares that ideology is something more than a hypothesis about a relationship. It rather should be viewed. as expressing a vector of influence.

The expectation that a verbal token of ideology can be taken as implying an auditor who shares that ideology is something more than a hypothesis about a relationship. It rather should be viewed. as expressing a vector of influence. These sometimes modest tokens indeed tend to fulfill themselves in that way. Actual auditors look to the discourse they are attending for cues that tell them how they are to view the world, even beyond the expressed concerns, the overt propositional sense, of the discourse.
5 I personally was confused about how to interpret [innocuous and neutral]
Interesting question, Amanda. I too was wondering how strong of link there was between verbal tokens and speaker's ideology. I was thinking that maybe other parts of the discourse would allow a critique to determine whether a certain verbal token was one of the speaker or one for the audience. Otherwise, there is a large assumption between speech and representation that Black might not flush out fully?[Verbal Tokens of Ideology

Do verbal tokens of ideology always represent the ideology of the speaker? What if a speaker is appealing to the ideology of his or her intended audience and is not necessarliy representing his or her own beliefs?[Verbal Tokens of Ideology

Right! I think that Austin's speech acts are an interesting comparison here. He talked about a performative failing if it isn't sincere, and followed through with in action. Part of that action is the text itself, which should be consistent with the context of action around the event. When this isn't consistent, it might be for some reason, like theater or deception.[Verbal Tokens of Ideology

Relating ideology to implied reader[General
innocuous and neutral, Verbal Tokens of Ideology, , General, Sarah Miller
Sarah Wheeler
Amanda Berardi
Chris Brown
Edwin Black Second PersonaIt is not so much that we crave magistracy as that we require order, and the judicial phase of criticism is a way of bringing order to our history.
History is a long, long time. Its raw material is an awesome garbage heap of facts, and even the man who aspires to be nothing more than a simple chronicler still must make decisions about perspective.
5 It might even be as simple as fulfillment of Aristotle's rhetorical branches. The rhetorical scholar deliberates about the success of the argument, she praises and blames the argument for its rhetorical quality, and she passes judgment on the quality and content. [Moral Order and History]
Great reply, Megan! [Moral Order and History

Thanks, Garrett, that makes it much clearer to me.[Moral Order and History

Thinking of it in term of organizing judgments makes more sense to me--thanks![Moral Order and History

I appreciate what you've said here, Mary. In particular I think the sociolinguistic analyses you mention could help avoid the [Awesome Garbage Heap of Facts
Moral Order and History, Awesome Garbage Heap of Facts, Garrett Stack
Chris Brown
Maggie Goss
Sarah Miller
Leff Temporality in Lincoln's Second InauguralTemporal movement, in fact, seems essential to their rhetorical economy; it frames the action of the various argumentative and stylistic elements, blends them into a unified field of textual action, and projects this field onto the public events that form the subject of the discourse
owhere is this pattern more evident or developed with greater skill than in the Second Inaugural.
5 If I am understanding your question here, you are asking how / in what circumstances speakers blend the secular and sacred temporality. I would say that, when a speaker seeks to add authority to their argument, they would fall on religion. Would temporality show up in a rap award acceptance? Or someone calling natural disasters or sti's a modern plague? I can't say if any of those things are completely divorced from politics, but I would say such a tradition hasn't died out or been the [Secular and sacred time]
Lincoln's temporal movement from the past to the present to the future aids the subject of discussion in his second inaugural speech; as Leff laid out. Leff explains the blending of secular time and sacred time as a form of textual action. He pairs secular time with political themes and sacred time with religious themes. Could this form of textual action between secular and sacred time be used in other situations not relating to politics and religion?[Secular and sacred time

I agree that religion can add authority to argument if the rhetor's audience identifies with a specific set of religious values. However, do you think that other types of themes could be considered sacred? Perhaps themes that are closely related to historical or cultural traditions could also be used to blend sacred time with secular time.[Secular and sacred time

I believe Leff is talking about the temporal pattern of the subject matter. Leff talks about stylistically the second inaugural shifts from past, present, and future. By doing this Lincoln is able to connect secular and sacred time making a stronger argument. I think this is what Leff meant by the pattern being evident. [Nowhere

I think he might have just said that as a transition into his discussion of Lincoln's temporal movement in the Second Inaugural--to draw our attention to the actual text he will be analyzing.[Nowhere
Secular and sacred time, Secular and sacred time , , Nowhere, Sarah Miller
Lindsay
Amanda Berardi
Maggie Goss
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedAs Leah Ceccarelli has demonstrated, the reception of texts can itself function as a rhetorical and hermeneutic activity, and if we attend to the way contemporary receptional fragments interpret texts, we can gain insight into the context that surrounds the primary text and thus better understand its rhetorical workings.5 I agree with both Megan and Sarah. Considering editorial responses can help aid the critic in a proper response to how the speech was received by the audience at that time and thus able to give a better explanation presently. I think it is important as a critic if you do pull from editorial responses to explain where they are coming from and why they my have a different feeling as oppose to another editorial, I felt Leff did this nicely. [Benefits of Reception Analysis]
I agree, again, with what Megan said. It seems that the inclusion of these editorials allows the analyst to paint a fuller picture of the climate and environment in which the speech was given. We are able to understand the situatedness of the speech a little better as well as the immediate responses. I think that this allows the reader to understand the truth of the situation and avoid the [Benefits of Reception Analysis

I think that one of the benefits of this inclusion of editorials is that it provides us, in 2013, with a more layered sense of the climate in which Lincoln's speech was delivered. Since we can't time travel and interview people who witnessed the speech, or conversations in response to the speech, we can use these editorials as a substitute of sorts, as a way to minimize the layers of remove between us and the text. They can also, as Leff asserts, provide a way to confirm the validity/veracity of more contemporary readings - to look for consistency among interpretations. As Brooks points out, however, some editorials are better than others at providing us with interpretations of the actual speech. Others contribute to the very phenomena that Jasinski cautioned against: mythologizing Lincoln, sensationalizing the event. [Benefits of Reception Analysis

**as the reading of Brooks points out[Benefits of Reception Analysis

How do you think Leff's analysis of Cooper Union is enhanced by his consideration of the editorial responses to Lincoln's speech? Leff explains that by examining the reception of Lincoln's speech he is able to provide evidence that confirms his original reading. What else do we gain from his inclusion of these texts in his analysis?[Benefits of Reception Analysis
Benefits of Reception AnalysisLindsay
Sarah Wheeler
Megan McGrath
Amanda Berardi
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomWhy the same argument for the same policy should be predictably less effective to people so little remove( in time is a special case of the question, why do some policies remain rhetorical!) viable for decades while others do not. This question might in part be answered 13) pointing, as was done before, to the maturing of the students into political leadership.
Finally, neo-Aristotelian criticism does not warrant us to estimate the truth of Nixon's statements or the reality of the values he assumes as aspects of American life
5 As Hill notes, this is one of the downsides to the neo-Aristotelian approach. I think the rhetorical critic who doesn't take this approach would have a better chance of giving more substance to her criticism. [RhetoricallyViablePolicies]
How could the rhetorical critic approach this question? What happens when a rhetor excludes a certain group of people from his or her target audience in a policy argument and then the excluded audience develops an influential role in public deliberation? Is the policy no longer rhetorically viable?[RhetoricallyViablePolicies

I think in order for the policy to be rhetorically viable it may have to be altered given its new target audience. I wonder too, if the fact that the audience was once excluded might have an effect on whether or not the group supports the policy. Or is that what you were asking?[RhetoricallyViablePolicies

I also found it strange that Hill at once distanced himself from context and relied on it for his analyses. I wonder to what extent that Forbes Hill is generating his assumptions based on the implied audience of Nixon's speech, as opposed to his own personal knowledge of that era or research into the surrounding context. Given his age, I would surmise that it is his personal experience being brought to the table. As we've discussed in class, we can't help what we already know when performing an analysis.[Value Assumptions

I think these are useful questions, which I can unfortunately only respond to with another question: Before we think about how Forbes Hill might object to these words, I wonder how we can even estimate or determine the truth in Nixon's statements? Can truth be measured?[Truth
RhetoricallyViablePolicies, Value Assumptions, , Truth, Jessica
Amanda Berardi
Maggie Goss
Sarah Miller
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismMore re cently, acts of social or culture performance have been treated as texts.
he objects of rhetorical criticism now include

any act, product, process, or artifact
6 i.e. protests as performative and argumentative[General]
I've also read the phrase [General

yes, the objects analyzed under the umbrella of rhetorical criticism continue to grow. Many welcome this; many lament it.[General

The expanding list of objects seem to create the [General
GeneralSarah Miller
Jessica
david
Chenchen Huang
Leff 2001 Cooper Union RevisitedIf we do not dissolve the text into this background, if we still regard it as, among other things, an utterance designed to achieve something in a specific context, then Lincoln' purposes emerge rather clearly, and the instrumental critique gains density.6 I think this is a good point Sarah, that close reading is perhaps 1 step to a more complex analytic process. I wonder too if this would satisfy Jasinski's call for a more thick interpretation. Leff suggests we see the text in its background, but then we can see what that teaches us that might be related to other texts and contexts. [Intertextual Background]
I agree with Megan's response to your first question - very well stated. In response to your second question, I think there is a balance that should be struck, a nod to the context without realizing the importance and unique contribution of the text being analyzed. A couple weeks ago in class, we discussed that the best analyses strike a solid balance between a text based and context focused analysis. While this doesn't answer your question, I think what it does say is that for each analyses how we do this is different, which might mean drawing parameters around the context that you find pertinent to your analysis while still paying due attention to the text and it's contribution. After reading this piece I might say that a close reading should begin the analytic process and will help you find what/how much context to pay attention to. [Intertextual Background

Leff seems to be saying that by examining a text's intertextual background, we are better able to understand the rhetor's purpose. He also implies that we must be careful not to [Intertextual Background

As for your second question, I wish I had an answer. It's something I'm currently grappling with in my own analysis![Intertextual Background

Can someone explain/define intertextual background for me? I think I understand, but I am having a hard time grasping this concept. [Intertextual Background

I think part of the tension here is our understanding of the text/context divide. If we view context as merely the container of a text or a communicative situation, then we are in a better place to do a specific kind of analysis--focusing either more on the text or more the context. However, if we take the relationship between text and context as much more complicated and interactive, we may come up with a more comprehensive (thick?) critique. On the other hand, it may be more difficult to isolate a unit of analysis, and thus, actually execute the critique (especially if important co-texts are not available). [Intertextual Background
Intertextual BackgroundJessica
Sarah Wheeler
Amanda Berardi
Megan McGrath
Lindsay
mary
Forbes Hill Conventional WisdomFORBES HILL6 I'm not sure about everyone else, but when reading this article I found myself wanting to almost an annotated copy of Nixon's speech so as to see where and how Forbes Hill was able to comment and critique as he had. I think that might be useful in understanding the critiquing process and exploring a critic's thought process??[Suggestion?]
I was thinking the exact same thing, Sarah. I think seeing a transcript of his speech would have made it a little easier to understand how Hill was applying this neo-Aristitlian analysis.[Suggestion?

Agreed. Perhaps he didn't directly incorporate excerpts or quotes because it was published in 1970s??[Suggestion?

It is surprising that he didn't include excerpts. I wonder, however, if his contemporary audience wouldn't have needed him to include the speech. Perhaps he assumed they would, or should, know the speech well enough. I think this is also informative to us as writers who want our work to be accessible to future generations or to audiences that aren't as familiar with rhetorical criticism. [Suggestion?

Agreed. I didn't refer to Lincoln's and Burke's texts in order to navigate myself in previous readings. But I listened to Nixon's speech on youtube. It took me half an hour or so!! It was difficult to read this without citing speech scripts. But after acknowledging what Nixon said in his speech, I discover that Hill does a great job describing everything. I think this is somewhat interesting. [Suggestion?

I agree. Through out this text I wanted to agree with the critic but I had no refrence to the topic being spoken about by Nixon. Not having teh speech to look at made it more difficult to understand and would have aoded the over all text if it was included. [Suggestion?
Suggestion?Sarah Wheeler
Maggie Goss
Elizabeth Garza
Jessica
Chenchen Huang
Lindsay
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticismor drawing upon the richness of qualitative data obtained from a small number of informants
falsifiability

A claim that seemingly accounts for everything does not really explain anything. This is true equally with respect to rhetorical criticism and to science. In rhetorical criticism, the concern for falsifiability arises in the relationship between a general theory and a particular case.
6 But depending on the discipline, qualitative data can be seen as inadequate. Though it may be more useful to the humanties and pointing out the particulars, it has the potential to be dismissed.[General]
I was having a little grasping what Zarefsky meant by [Falsifiability?

**a little trouble grasping***[Falsifiability?

My understanding is that here, Zarefsky is knocking the tendency for some rhetorical criticism to conduct an analysis based on a predetermined category system that, in applying a universal framework to a particular situation, actually does little to reveal anything unique or insightful about that particular situation. Such criticism merely solidifies the framework's applicability to a wide range of cases, leaving a homogenized body of analyses in its wake - i.e., the [Falsifiability?

Yes, that was very helpful. Thanks![Falsifiability?

A nice intersection between the humanities and the social sciences regarding falsifiability is the Freudian approach; though it can be useful, it's ultimately 'bunk' because it can explain away everything and nothing.[General
General, Falsifiability?, Sarah Miller
Maggie Goss
Megan McGrath
Leff Mohrmann Lincoln at Cooper Unionronically, however, this model of
Most of what has been written treats of the background, and, too often, the man as myth has intruded; caught up in the drama of the performance, writers find no bit of information too trivial to report, whether it be the price of tickets or the fit of Lincoln's new shoes.
7 I wonder how his brief contextualization differed from those versions he seems to be critiquing. Perhaps he didn't get into describing inoccuous, narrative details like what he had for breakfast that morning, as the clause [whathasbeenwritten]
Meghan, I agree! This is an important question. I think the approach L&M use here is an interesting contextualization and interpretation, but we should question what methods and texts were left out and ask why.[whathasbeenwritten

I think imagining text and context like this, as oppositional forces trying to wrestle for critical attention, is misleading. We observe contexts through texts, through historical accounts, through communication. We, as critics, analyze these elements of communication (which is the context), and decide what pieces to utilize in our reading of the text. The question I would ask is, too much for who? For other rhet critics?Critics should be giving some clue of how their interpretive sample was taken, and I think L&M do a good job of laying out what was done to achieve their analysis.[overwhelming context

This begs the question, though, of how we determine when context is overshadowing a text. How much is too much?[overwhelming context

This is an interesting question. If we do background research on the historical context of a speech, how do we determine if the recorders of history were also caught up in the drama? How do we determine whether an interesting historical fact will ultimately [overwhelming context

Oh, I agree that viewing text and context as antagonistic or competing forces can lead to unproductive, binary-driven ways of thinking. I saw L&M perpetuating this dichotomous mentality, at least in their introductory paragraphs.[overwhelming context

This also harkens back to Hill's assertion that by performing strict analysis, the rhetor might take a step back from the text, and avoid statements that are more subjective than rhetorical scholarship might or ought to be.[overwhelming context
whathasbeenwritten, overwhelming context, Elizabeth Garza
Chris Brown
Megan McGrath
Amanda Berardi
Garrett Stack
Jasinski Instrumentalism, Contextualism, Interpretation in Rhetorical CriticismThe dominant recuperative strategy in current critical practice employs a
The functionalist or instrumental understanding of rhetorical practice, along with the productionist vocabulary that helps sustain. it, provides Gaonkar with an explanation for the
8 That seems like a fair assessment of what he is doing here. It would be interesting to see if his own proposed analysis, which we do not get to see in this article, also sidesteps issues of agency. If he wants thick criticism, what's thicker than agency? [problems with agency?]
I could, of course, be wrong here, but Jasinski is deliberately distancing himself from discussions of agency with regard to this text, even in the way he approaches Gaonkar. I wonder if this runs counter to his own claims later about tradition, particularly how Lincoln responds to the founding fathers, etc. If Jasinski doesn't think tradition completely constrains the skill / goals of the rhetor, then why does he downplay the role of agency? I understand he wants to move away from a model where *only* the rhetor matters, but doesn't the role / intent of the individual when invoking tradition and ideology matter? It seems like downplaying an argument that could enhance the deep readings he wants.[problems with agency?

I definitely agree with your observation here. Honestly, I would bet that Jasinski skirts the concept of agency because the concept itself is so problematic. To me, it seems like he is acknowledging the possibility of agency (tradition is not entirely constraining) but steering clear of its conceptual difficulties. [problems with agency?

I interpreted it as his criticism of critics who approach texts by trying to determing the author's intentionality. This particular way of looking the author's purpose then inhibits the way that the rhetorical critic contextualizes the analysis, which results in a thin, rather than thick analysis. So trying to contextualize a text by merely trying to get at what the author intended to convey would limit the depth and richness of his or her analysis. [kaufer_queries

*****I interpreted it as his criticism of critics who approach text by trying to determine the author's intentionality, which consequently limits the extent to which he or she adequately contextualizes his or her analysis. [kaufer_queries

yes, that's a large part of it. [kaufer_queries

Right Chris. Although Jasinski does see an ambigjuity in Wichelns between a view that sees the text and immediate situation boxed off from context and a context that is more [kaufer_queries

What do you think Gaonkar meant by [kaufer_queries
problems with agency?, kaufer_queries, Sarah Miller
mary
Elizabeth Garza
david
Charles Morris Fourth PersonaEvery act of passing is enacted, in other words, by means of the fourth persona: a collusive audience constituted by the textual wink.8 Some other examples that I thought of might be survivors of sexual assault/harassment (who are reluctant to come forward thanks to the stigma-ridden, victim-blaming nature of our culture) or drug users, who may be listening to a speech about drug legalization.[Limits of the 4th Persona]
This is interesting.Is it possible for one to be a member of the group doing the discrimination as well as the 4th persona at the same time? Or is it that you can only be a member of one group? It seems that there is some agency associated with this.[Limits of the 4th Persona

Hmmmm... I tried to think about some examples from my personal experience. Say, for example, that you didn't do the reading for this class, and you knew you had to make a comment based on one paragraph that you read. Let's say you make that comment, and all the people who did do the reading know that you didn't do the reading, but they don't call you out on it. Would they constitute the 4th persona in this case? Would the teacher who also doesn't want to embarrass you also be part of the 4th persona? [Limits of the 4th Persona

I don't know why, but this really made my day. (Completely Unrelated)[Limits of the 4th Persona

What about other issues related to discrimination? It seems like a fourth persona could exist in these types of situations if the rhetor is either a member of a group that is being discriminated against or identifies with this group but recognizes the risk of identifying his or her association. [Limits of the 4th Persona

Jessica I was wondering the same thing, whether this relates solely to sexuality. The only example I can think of, which is more of a description, would be someone who is trying to hide a secret of their own by discussing it with the public. [Limits of the 4th Persona

I agree with Amanda in that I think the fourth persona could apply in any situation in which a marginalized, sensationalized, or taboo issue (such as being an illegal immigrant woman, for example, who lives in constant fear that detection and deportation will cause her to be separated from her family) is at stake.[Limits of the 4th Persona

People who have what are known as [Limits of the 4th Persona
Limits of the 4th PersonaAnna Walsh
Chloe Lynn Oxley
Elizabeth Garza
Amanda Berardi
Lindsay
Megan McGrath
mary
Karlyn Campell and Thomas BurkholderBut that knowledge of context should be put aside for the moment, and further investigation of context should be delayed until examination of the discourse itself is completed.
In rhetorical criticism the discourse itself should be of prime importance. Second, it risks creating a counterproductive bias in the critical process.

By carefully examining the context first, critics may form preconceptions regarding what the rhetor could have, or should have, said. Those perceptions could then easily distort the analysis and evaluation of the discourse.
9 At this point, Campbell & Burkholder seems to be suggesting that a critic almost ought to ignore context to a large degree (at least at first) as they say context can influence or impede the understanding of the discourse. I'm not sure that I agree with this ? This firm separation from context and discourse runs counter to other things I have learns in criticism/analysis. For me, I believe that context and discourse go hand-in-hand, working together to allow the critic or analyst the fullest understanding of the discourse, content, or significance. While C&B do note the importance of context to other disciplines, they almost create a noted separation - which I cannot fathom. In my experience, discourse is a response to something or a situation, so to ignore that may not allow for a total analysis or comprehensive understanding of the discourse in question. Can they really be firmly separated? What might an example of this be - an example that may prove their point??[context - now or later?]
I, too, take a bit of exception to this clear distinction that Campbell and Burkholder seem to draw between the rhetorical elements available for analysis and their context. It is my thinking that context is often integral to an analysis of particular arguments, it often informs to a degree that makes its mention in the setting and analysis of an argument near indispensable. Similarly, there are rhetorical situations (though some rhetorical analysts may not own them as objects available for rhetorical criticism) whose arguments are almost entirely context dependent. There are also rhetorical and ideological lenses and tides to take into account that inform the situations. I can see where C&B are coming from, that a piece of rhetoric should be able to stand on the strength of its own arguments, but seeing as how even quotes that set off opposing schools of thought's precepts and the rhetor's divergence from them can be considered a level of context I find its exclusion somewhat hobbling to an analysis.[context - now or later?

Bakhtin anyone?[context - now or later?

I also struggled with this idea, but I think their analysis of Painter's essay illustrates the extent to which they ask us to put context aside. In that analysis, they do discuss context insofar as one would need to understand class and gender issues and the way they're related to affirmative action, but they don't go into a detailed analysis of her treatment of affirmative action with regard to the historical context that she comes from. [context - now or later?

Yes. I can agree with that. Perhaps, then, I'm unclear as to the actual goal of rhetorical criticism. What does an incomplete and (in my opinion) selective analysis of the discourse have to offer? I guess I'm not sure what rhetorical criticism is supposed to do. [the postion of discourse

While I agree with you Amanda, I also might note that I see both the discourse and context working hand-in-hand at times to give the critic the fullest picture of the discourse and its rhetorical implications. I believe that an experienced critic can work on evaluating the discourse critically while still keeping in mind the context. Yes, the critic might not to be able to consider both things at once -- but they are largely inseparable. [organicapproach #context

I of course just saw your response after I posted mine. I agree![organicapproach #context

Campell and Burkholder instruct on the importance of doing your research on a topic before conducting a criticism of the discourse. I feel having background knowledge on the subject you are criticizing is important so that you can make an accurate analysis of the work. Campell and Burkholder then explain the [organicapproach #context

I just read a chapter from James Berlin's Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985, that focuses on how the rhetoric of liberal culture valued individualism fully realized only when form and content coalesced and informed one another organically. Of course, Campbell and Burkholder's emphasis is less on personal expression than on preventing presuppositions from clouding our vision. I find it quite difficult to demand that we check these contextual presuppositions at the door, though. I wonder to what extent this is really feasible, and not just an ideal. [organicapproach #context
context - now or later?, the postion of discourse, , organicapproach #context, Sarah Wheeler
Michael Hitchcock
mary
Elizabeth Garza
Maggie Goss
Lindsay
Megan McGrath
David Zarefsky Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical CriticismIt is the practice of justifying claims under conditions of uncertainty.
critical scrutiny
9 Chris, I read your other comment about context as well, and I think you make some good points. However, I think that to say knowledge is always context dependent is problematic. I'm not sure I would say that the job of rhetorical scholars is to find uncertainty but perhaps the task of rhetorical criticism is to identify points of tension in knowledge. In other words, I see one job of rhetorical analysis as identifying ways that claims to knowledge may be inaccurate and trying to remedy that rather than finding uncertainty. So, I think there is a distinction between uncertainty and the possibility for furthering knowledge in such a way that old ways of thinking are pushed back. [Zarefsky #Tautology #Argument]
Although I agree with much of Zarefsky's position, I find this statement and others troubling. A few questions:-Is it only argumentation if the audience is uncertain? How uncertain? How do we know?-Are there claims that are beyond falsifiability, and thus entirely certain? (Zarefsky thinks many of the grand rhet. theories are tautological in this way)-Do any definitions/symbols escape this tautological nature? My take:Simply, I think all of our claims, empirical or otherwise, can only be certain to someone in some context, and thus any text is an argument if the rhetorical critic works to find the uncertainty that is suspended behind all human [Zarefsky #Tautology #Argument

Yes, and further that we should work to understand how rhetoric moves us away from that uncertainty toward joint knowledge and action.[Zarefsky #Tautology #Argument

So Chris, you are saying that uncertainty lurks behind all knowledge, and argument/rhetoric must locate this underlying uncertainty[Zarefsky #Tautology #Argument

What does it mean for a claim to undergo critical scrutiny and therefore become a valid and reliable way of knowing? For the rhetorical critic, he or she would likely publish a new finding. If their claims were tested and accepted by other writers and critics, similar claims would begin to circulate and become more widely accepted as truth. However, can a photograph, multimedia advertisement, or other form of visual communicate a clear way of knowing? [criticalscrutiny

I would like to think that other forms of visual communication could also form a clear way of knowing, or at least undergo some form of critical scrutiny, given they can also be taken as a claim. Just in the same way a written text may be a form of argument (and undergo scrutiny), a visual medium could make a similar, if not the same argument, and thus experience scrutiny, though perhaps in a different form. This might also be interesting to think in terms of what Zarefksy says about the differing methods between the sciences and the humanities in relation to their standards of evaluating an argument (462). To address your first question, I agree that the rhetorical critic may publish a new finding in order for it to become a valid and reliable way of knowing. In general, it seems likely that presenting a claim to be [criticalscrutiny

this critical scrutiny thread has generated some good commentary. Thank you Amanda, Chris and Maggie (so far). I suspect Zarefsky doesn't want the rhetorical critic to be held to double blind experiments, theorems, or computer simulations. At the same time, he doesn't want to hand rhetorical claims over to cults or fanatics. His word [criticalscrutiny

I feel visual representations have the capability of communicating the truth by allowing a universal understanding and knowledge of what is being shown. With that being said visual representations can also be manipulated making the image false. Visuals, such as photography, are often thought of as absolute truth thus creating knowledge to the audience; but with new technologies and programs ones idea of seeing truth through a photo is jeopardized. [criticalscrutiny

I think it has a lot to do with the circulation of claims, whether the claim is textual in the traditional sense or a type of visual claim. Since we are, at least I think we are (?), still living in a document based society, linguistic symbols reach enregistrement more easily and quickly than visual symbols. However, with all our new-fangled technologies, the circulation of visual claims (visuals that have an agreed upon, fairly stable meaning) will likely increase, which will also increase the rate of enregistrement--the process through which symbols obtain levels of indexicality, and become available for widespread social use. So to me, this seems like a relation between circulation and audience recognition. Recognition being the process through which critical scrutiny actually occurs. [criticalscrutiny
Zarefsky #Tautology #Argument, criticalscrutiny, Jessica
Chris Brown
david
Amanda Berardi
Maggie Goss
Lindsay
mary