THE CONTEXT
Jack Selzer helps us understand that a rhetorical analysis can describe how identifiable elements in a text work together to make it persuade. M. Jimmie Killingsworth reminds us that, by virtue of the situational nature of genres, the reader is as involved in persuasion as the writer. Let’s put these ideas to work by selecting one of the following essays to do a brief rhetorical analysis using Selzer’s article as a lens:
- “Community in Action” by Studs Terkel, NPR Morning Edition (24 Oct 2005)
- “Honesty Is Always the Best Policy” by Michael Lemonick, Onearth (27 May 2010)
- “It’s Ms. America to You” by Barbara Kantrowitz, Newsweek (Nov 2007)
- “The Real Reason Students Can’t Write” by Laurence Musgrove, Inside Higher Ed (28 April 2006)
Your task is to describe, discuss, and justify the essay’s most persuasive aspect in 1 or 2 examples and post it to the class blog in the form of a coherently written analysis. That’s not much room, so you should be selective yet substantive. In discussing how your essay persuades, draw on either the textual or the contextual approach. Remember that to do the textual analysis, you will want to consider things like inventio (including ethos, pathos, and logos), dispositio, elocutio, and type of argument. To do the contextual analysis, you will need to look up references to people, places, and events that are mentioned in the essay in order to discuss how the writer’s background, message, and strategies were responding to a real audience and need. Please be prepared to justify your approach, i.e., why is one approach better than the other to illustrate how the essay persuades, and why does all of this matter (to you, to other readers, to the class, to writing in the public sphere)?
EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is fairly flexible and I will accept a broad range of responses. I want you to be original, since it is possible that all of you will read the same article but notice different things. Keep in mind the following criteria:
- Coherence – your analysis is threaded together by a thesis statement
- Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific text details to illustrate the point you want to make
- Clarity – your paragraphs are focused, your sentences are grammatically sound
- Blogging Guidelines – your analysis follows these and uses them to your advantage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Assignment #2 – due 9/17/10 (by 5 p.m.)
THE ASSIGNMENT
Following this week's discussion on revised movie trailers, I'd like you to consider how Kinneavy's aims/genres and Ong's audience construction affect your understanding of other public genres. For this short assignment, please select one of the following texts to read and analyze:
- “All in the Name of Science” by Jane Brody, New York Times (30 Jul 1972) E2
- “Letter to President Clinton on Iraq,” New American Century (26 Jan 1998)
- “One Day, Now Broken in Two” by Anna Quindlen, Newsweek (9 Sep 2002)
- “A Rescue Plan for College Composition and High School English” by Michael B. Prince, The Chronicle of Higher Education (27 Jul 2009)
- Drawing on Kinneavy, identify what you think is the principal aim of your chosen text and what genre you believe it best fits, or what genre boundaries it best blurs. Consider Kinneavy's whole definition of "aim" and whether your text's aim relies more or less on audience construction. Think about how your text either fits easily with or complicates Kinneavy's principal divisions, and the significance of that.
- Drawing on Ong, discuss how your chosen text could be rewritten to persuade another audience. As part of that discussion, describe the form it would need to take, talk about how you would construct your audience, and discuss at least one contextual "conversation" (remember Selzer's contextual analysis?) you see in the text that makes it likely that another audience would accept it. How is this significant?
Although this is an analysis, please remember that your Short Assignment should make some insightful statement about why or how this matters (to you, to other readers, to the class, to writing in the public sphere). If it helps you to think of this analysis as a “critical reflection,” then that is fine with me.
RESPONDING TO BLOG POSTS
For SA #2, in addition to posting your own analysis, I will ask you to respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by commenting directly on their blogs. You may respond to their SA #1 or their SA #2. By "respond," I mean that you have many options for engaging with their post:
- you might continue the conversation they started, if they did start one, or present an answer to a question that they pose, or ask an extended question with the aim of provoking the analysis further
- you might demonstrate a shared or a different understanding of something you have read in common, or comment on how the writer's experiences seem to speak for or against your own
- you might share how something in the writer's post causes you to understand the limitations of something else in another post (or even in your own post)
- you might note some disagreement or dissensus between your understanding of a term they use and their own use of it, and unpack that disagreement for us
- you might tell the writer how or whether something s/he wrote has helped you discover something new about what you read, how you analyzed, or certain values you hold about the topic being discussed.
This assignment is fairly flexible and I will accept a broad range of posts and responses. However, your argument will likely be more complex (and longer) than in SA #1, and your thesis statement will need to reflect that complexity. You may organize your analysis however you wish, but please keep in mind the following criteria:
- Content/Argument – your analysis brings your chosen text into dialogue with Kinneavy's and/or Ong's principles (beyond utilizing some of their key terms)
- Coherence – your analysis is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates the complexity of your argument and acts as a "thread" for your claims
- Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific examples from your chosen texts to illustrate the points you make about aim/genre, audience, and form
- Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences are grammatically sound
- Blogging Guidelines – your analysis follows these and uses them to your advantage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Assignment #3 – due 9/24/10 (by 5 p.m.)
THE ASSIGNMENT
Following this week's discussion on what constitutes scientific and technical discourse, I'd like you to consider the definitions of several key concepts in this sphere. For this short assignment, please select one of the following texts to read and analyze:
- "The Future of Reading" by Johan Lehrer, The Frontal Cortex Science Blog (8 Sep 2010)
- “The Green Apple” by David Biello, Scientific American (16 Jun 2010)
- “Introduction” to Radio Revolution: The Coming Age of Unlicensed Wireless by Kevin Werbach, New America Foundation (15 Dec 2003) [click on pdf to open]
- “Living in a Landscape of Fear” by Cristina Eisenberg, Scientific American (13 Aug 2010)
As always, this discussion and critical reflection should lead to some insightful statement about why or how this matters (to you, to other readers, to the class, to writing in the public sphere).
RESPONDING TO BLOG POSTS
For SA #3, in addition to posting your own discussion, I will ask you to respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by commenting directly on their blogs. You may respond to their SA #2 or their SA #3.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is fairly flexible and I will accept a broad range of posts and responses. However, the goal of this assignment is twofold: you want to demonstrate and justify your understanding of Gross and Fahnestock/Secor; you also want to apply that understanding to your own coherent discussion of a new text. You may organize your discussion however you wish, but please keep in mind the following criteria:
- Content/Argument – your analysis brings your chosen text into dialogue with Gross's and/or Fahnestock/Secor's principles (beyond utilizing some of their key terms)
- Coherence – your analysis is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates the complexity of your argument and acts as a "thread" for your claims
- Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific examples from your chosen texts to illustrate the points you make about induction, stases, arrangement, etc.
- Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences are grammatically sound
- Blogging Guidelines – your analysis follows these and uses them to your advantage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Assignment #4 – deadline extended to 11/6/10 for posts and 11/7/10 for responses
THE ASSIGNMENT
Part One:
Select one of the genre samples from any of the three spheres we have studied this semester and briefly discuss how that genre sample functions as sustainable public discourse according to its form (Winterowd, “Dispositio”) or its symbol-using (Enoch, “Becoming Symbol-Wise”). As part of your discussion, be sure to consider not only what the genre sample argues but also how it argues, and be sure to cite appropriately from any article you use to discuss it.
Part Two:
Discuss—as honestly as possible—an issue having to do with discourse that you want to pursue in your historical-causal analysis, and describe—as specifically as possible—what you think are some viable genres or “real” forms that your issue might take. What are some audience considerations that will come up for you, i.e., things you have to keep in mind about the form or the function of the genre so that it is maximally effective? What will that genre form need to be able to achieve?
RESPONDING TO BLOG POSTS
For SA #4, in addition to posting your own discussion, I will ask you to respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by commenting directly on their blogs. Please respond to Part Two of their post by specifically offering one theoretical concept or principle from our course that you think will be most important to them to keep in mind as they consider their genre or “real” form. What are some audience considerations you would like to see them keep in mind and/or what questions do you have about their issue that may help them along? Please try not to hold back at this point. In other words, if their issue raises actual or potential concerns for you, as a reader, please find a way to turn those concerns into salient advice.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is the most flexible of all Short Assignments. The goal is twofold: you want to demonstrate and justify your understanding of Winterowd and Enoch; you also want to start articulating your final project idea for an audience who can give you productive feedback. Please keep in mind the following criteria:
- Thoroughness of Discussion
- Specificity of Brainstorming
- Accuracy in Handling Course Texts
- Language and Clarity
- Blogging Guidelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment