COMM 3302 – History – Flashcards

--Empty, bombastic language that has no substance... flowery, ornamental speech laden with metaphors and other figures of speech.

-the human use of symbols to communicate a. What does it mean to say that humans are the creators of rhetoric? -(think of symbols and try to communicate) we're intentional of what we're saying. Sometimes people get msgs tho even when we don't mean to send anything. (Washington DC, job highlight "Hey, smile"

- they are the primary medium of rhetoric. Something that stand for something else. And everybody knows it stands for something else.

-??????? is the purpose of rhetoric.

-1. We use rhetoric to persuade others. (Vote for me for President) (this morning after I left before my husband I couldn't remember to shut the door, then the dogs would get out. So I had to mak sure to communicate that my husabdn would sense the urgency. 2. We use rhetoric to invite understanding. Some people are more informative and some are more persuasive. 3. We use rhetoric as a way of knowing ourselves. We often test ideas by talking to people. 4. Rhetoric "tells us what reality is" - it defines reality.

- Reality is not fixed but changes according to the symbols we use to talk about it. What we count as real or as knowledge about the world depends on how we choose to label and talk about things.

...

-We need to use methods. We need to support our arguments w/ evidence. When we're talking about it it should come from the text itself. Boy that was a boirng speech. You'd have to go back and prove points and show points that he could of livin'd up. -Critics use methods -Critics support their arguments w/ evidence -Critics engage in evaluation or judgement.

-Acts are performances delievered in the presence of the thetor's audience. (Our class would be an audience) -Artifacts consists of tangible evidence of an act (notes would be an example of this)

-It enables us to understand particular artifacts. (obamas speech. Going to watch it, look at it on youbtube. You just want to know more about that speech). -It can help us understand more about the nature of rhetoric (theory). Then u can say, "Yeah, I can compare this speech to other ppls speeches." Comparing obamoas first speech to his second. -It can help us become more effective users of symbols. Makes u a better communicator. We want to be the most effective communicators we can be, and knowing how other people do it can help. -It can help us become more effective audience memebers. More sophisticated interpreters or symbols. DON'T USE THE WORD CONSUMERS. (Consumer is like taking to heart of what someone says). I want u to be more sophisticated interterpretors of symbols.

-(form is the ultimate essience of anything) (form of dogs) (form for dog, cat, cow, beauty, justice, abstract ideas)

- Its platos story that's telling us what our situation is as humans. (Picture of the cave) (he doesn't think we're very bright ppl) (theres differences in fire; bright, dime, flicker) (The person holding up the chair Is ppl who think they know better than humanity.) (Plato says all we see is flickering shadow. That is symbolizing the situation that the guy is in that's chained to the wall.) (The person is gonna see a slightly different dog) (we don't see truth very well and we are trapped. He doesn't think humans have very much potential.) The person finally gets to the top and sees truth and either dies or explaods because he can't handle it. He cant handle the truth. I finally know that the form of dog is. They think he has gone crazy so they kill him. When really, hes the wiser one and nobody believes him. The ppl that are chained u can't educate them or do anything with them.

-Truth is absolute. (there is one truth) -Truth is unchanging. (there is only one form of dog and only one truth about it) -Truth is difficult for ppl to apprehend. (ppl can't handle the truth bc all we're going to see in our life time is the flickering shadow of the cave) -Peoples perception of truth often changes.

-Rhetoric is invariably bad. (the guy that gets out is just as dumb) -Rhetors cannot be trusted. (its never gonna produce anything good) -You cant trust them. There leading u further away from the truth. THAT'S WHO THE SOPHISTS WERE. They we're teaching but they didn't even know truth. Plato says everyone was wrong, he was always right. He said Rhetoric was always bad and shouldn't be trusted.

-1. For every argument there is an equal and opposite argument. (there saying there is no truth. They way you become an effective rhetor is to understand what u believe and what ur opponent believes) -2. Humanity is the measure of all things. Sophists say there is not truth. For every arugment there is an equal and opposite argument. How do we decide things? We decide. Humans decide.

- Rhetoric is necessary -Ideally, rhetoric is responsible. We're teaching citizens how to hear the arugments and see the views on both side and how to understand them and then make a decision. They think without rhetoric we don't know things. They say we need debate and rhetoric to what we want to implament as a society. The more educated they are the more they're better audience members.

-he defined rhetoric as : The faculty of discovering the available means of persuasion in any given case. "Hes not defining it as a performance hes defining the way to figure out what the best arguments are. -He argued that rhetoric is useful bc "things that are true and just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites. "If u were arrested and know ur innocent, u still want the best lawyer to represent u and help u out" Aristotle is trying to find that MIDDLE GROUND AND TRUTH THAT WILL PREVAIL.

...

-The standards of evolution in rhetorical criticism are justification, reasonable inference, and coherence.

One assumption is that objective reality does not exist. You cannot know what the artifact "really" means because there are as many realities about the artifact as there are vocabularies from which to conduct inquiry about it. -A second assumption is a critic can know an artifact only through a personal interpretation. You cannot be objective, impartial, and removed from the data because you bring to the critical task particular values and experiences that are reflected in how you see and write about an artifact.

-Justification: the argument made by a critic. You must be able to justify what you say or offer reasons in support of the claims you make in your report of your findings. -Reasonable Inference: You must show how you moved from the data of the artifact to the claims you are making. You must show the reader how the claims you make reasonably can be inferred from your data. -Coherence: You must order, arrange, and present your findings so they are congruent and consistent.

-"A work of rhetoric is pragmatic... it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world; it performs some task." You need to think of rhetoric as trying to accomplish something. Sell yourself.

a. Exigence - (i) an imperfection marked by urgency (ii) that can be modified through discourse. (the job interview situation is a good situation. "You need a job" that's the exigence. If u can persuade them that ur a good caditade to help get u that job. Some exigencies isn't rhetorical. An example would be a natural disaster. Nothing he could say that would stop the hurricane. Ppl are arguing about how to effect that. Exigence can be suprises. Might only happen a few times in ur life or could be occurring. b. Audience - those persons who (i) are capable of being influenced by discourse and (ii) of being mediators of change (can affect the exigence). If what ur trying to do is achieve results through your rhetoric u need to identify the right audience. Ex: benefit for a natural disaster, your trying to get the audience motivated to help. Ex: job interview: u've gotta think about all ur audience. c. Constraints - anything that has the power to affect the audience's ability to modify the exigence. *can be positive or negative* positive could be after a natural disaster, you throw a charity event or through a concert and Americans will help and give money. Being nice people. Ex: job interview: the time u spent at tx state and from this community, that can play as an constraint in the interview. Negative one: campaign to gain rights in this i. Constraints can be positive and negative. ii. Constraints can be tangible and intangible.

Rhetors create rhetorical situations. When your saying "I think this is a problem.." -We can know and define rhetoric (as opposed to art or science) as what rhetors produce in response to rhetorical situations. There not bound in time or to the audience. If I come up for a sign for cancer, if it sound science its still gonna be the cure for cancer. Ex: Emily Dickenson. Her poems that we're hid and found in her drawer.

i. Rhetorical situations are recognized (or discovered) by rhetors. ii. Rhetorical situations may go unanswered. Sometimes ppl talk about them, sometimes ppl don't. iii. Rhetorical situations call for fitting (appropriate) responses, not just any response. EX; job interview. EX: obamas speech. Was it appropriate? Gives us a way to judge if it was good or not. iv. The need for an audience separates rhetoric form art or science. Ex; president speech, to decide if its good is if the audience thinks it is and if the audience moves and impacts them in that moment. That's what makes it a rhetorical event.

-"concerned with permanence... [and] beauty". We look at a piece of art and what were suppose to get out of it is is it beautiful and will it stand the test of time? Ex; shakespear. It has permance and beauty even tho it was wrote in a different time. Ex; romeo and Juliet. Ex: martin luther king (beautiful and effective)

-"concerned with effect". Very informed. Ex; MLK speech (beautiful and effective)

a. Reconstructing the context in which the rhetorical artifact occurred. i. What were the talents, position, and goals of the rhetor? ii. What elements of the occasion influenced the rhetor? iii. What can we know about the audience of the speech? The overall question the critic is asking here is, what was the rhetors goal?

b. Applying the five canons of rhetoric to the artifact: i. Invention : Speaker's major ideas, lines of argument, and content. kWhen u have an assignment and think "what am I gonna create as my speech?" Aristotle said there are 3 forms of proof that they are using. a. Ethos (including moral character "its whether or not the audience is feeling your appealing to their values, ", intelligence "does the speaker know what there talking about", and good will "have their best interest in mind"): the appeal of the rhetor's character, or what the speaker brings to the speech. Credibility of the speaker. **WHAT THE SPEAKER BRINGS TO THE SPEECH**. It has to be relevant to the speaker and the audience. EX: tiger words. He was a successful athlete and fought cancer. How do I convence this audience I have good sense or intelligence. We're looking at how the speaker is doing it in the speech. b. Pathos: appeals designed to generate emotions in the audience or what the audience brings to the speech. ***EMOTIONS OF THE AUDIENCE.*** fear, fun (Cadillac commercial), sad (sad animal commercial) Ex: safety of the motorcycle breaks thing to the girl. You have to make sure you balance the pathos appeal because sometimes if there too strong your audience will pull away. THE BEST APPEALS FORM ALL 3 OF THESE (ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS) c. Logos: Logical argument in the speech. (final form of proof. a. Inductive reasoning: reasoning from specific examples to general conclusions. (if u make an inductive argument, make sure you use representative examples. Also, use enough examples.) b. Deductive reasoning: reasoning from a generalization of a specific case. (Aristotle said this is the best one). "In this case this is good, in this case this is whats good."

ii. Organization: how is it organized? Topical, chronological, spaceal, problem solution. All of these are patterns of organizations. You can talk about the clarity of it also.

iii. Style: use of language. Do u want to use an elevated style or earthly style? (says Aristotle). Obama was probably going for a higher style. We talk to our classmates differently that we do our parents, or bosses, or bf/gf. That's style.

iv. Delivery: physical presentation of the speech. Sometimes we're lucky enough to see the speech. Like if u saw the speech, or if u didn't u could watch the delivery on youtube. Ex: Obama. Or Ex: Lincoln, we don't have videos but we can talk about his delivery. Like how hes dressed, or the stories that ppl tell that actually saw his speeches. Or from primary sources that would know.

v. Memory (the lost of canon): it was very important to Aristotle. It was a pain to write things down. So if u had a big speech to say you had to memorize it. Tried to connect ways to help there memory while delivering a speech.

i. Immediate effects: does it seem that the rhoetor was trying to persuade someone to vote for them for president? U would use whatever evidence u could use. ii. Long-term effects: if they talk about it and talk about it for a long time. Ppl refer back to that certain speech.

Radio, trying to calm down in citizens of Iraq we had bombed them war had begun.

- Bases arugmments on the Koran - Aruging that Iraq is defending itself. ** Western societies are evil. ** Kowat had historically been apart of Iraq ** Allah allowed the invasion to happen - so it was okay.

-Muslim -Arab leader

-Arab brotherhood -Need to reclaim Palestine --> invoking important issue to Arabs

-1st he would open every speech opened with a quote from the Koran, then the 2nd thing he would do would praise the courage of the Iraquies, then he would predict victory from Iraq, 4th western societies are evil, then he would close by encouraging other nations to join with the Iraquies.

-classical Arobic dialect (the way leaders speak and is most understandable. Talking in a way to relate to there ppl)

- strong delivery. Script (reading it off of a script) still sounded strong, dynamic, energetic.

-yes with the Iraqies, they supported him.

-Ethos: good sense: -thorough, -he had done his research, -very handy with specific amount facts and figures, -he discloses specific facts, -he offers outside evidence as his request, -he talks about his legal work/obligations, -he explains how senate office works,,, good will: -he said hes not using taxs dollars for political purposes, -hes protected American taxpayers, -Pat not on pay roll -hes going to tell the truth -proud of the integrity of his donors -whole financial history (good son, good husband) good moral character: -military service -humility -regular guy -Pathos: -common man -asked all the questions -patriotism -talking about how marrying his wife was the best day of his life -relating to other couples having troubles -Logos:

...

...

During Vietnam war, 1 year after he was elected. War protesters planned a moralirum day. Ppl were frustrated over his lack of progress. -1969 Oct 15: Scheduled Moratorium Day -1969 Oct. 13: Nixon announces he will deliver a policy speech -1969 Nov. 3: Nixon's "Vietnamization" speech...speech about how hes got to answer to win the war -1969 Nov. 15: Second Moratorium Day

-Immediate withdrawl (pull out troops..he rejects it bc all the time the troops spent there would have been wasted. Leaving Vietnam in a horrible state.) he thinks it's a bad idea -Fixed-schedule withdrawl. (start pulling ppl out. It makes us weak, then the enemy can respond however or whenever they want. -Negotiation (what if we sat down with the North and South Vietnamese and to talk to them about what needs to happen) -(Escalation). He didn't necessarily say this but he did. -"Vietnamization" (That was his SOLUTION that he came up with) he would train the S vietamese ppl and would start pulling Americans out. Ppl were wondering "but isn't that what we've been doing?" ... the speech was contriversal.

-1. Nixon's message was designed for a middle of the road audience (The "silent majority")....there not the peace protestors or the anti peace protestors. It's the ppl that aren't saying anything. -2. The speech was written by a "superior technician" to reach this audience. They said it was a good speech.

-1. The wisdom of the speaker's choice of target audience. -2. Whether a political policy is viable. -3. The estimated truth of a rhetor's statements. (bc its not up to us to decide if Nixon is honest.)

-1. Is effect the best measure of a speech? (Hitler, was he effective? He knew how to relate to everyone and persuade. He had a sense of theatre and performance and could relate to ppl about what he was saying.) -2. Neo-Aristotelian criticism presumes a rational bias. (we assume to make arugments that ppl can respond to) (the woman wearing a fur coat. "I bet she would wear dead dogs.") -3. Neo-Aristotelian criticism presumes a discursive bias. (means that ppl persuade entirely through words and language.) -4. The approach can be mechanical in its application. -5. The approach best analyzes one speaker/one speech at a time. (one speaker, one speech)(ex. Woman protestors.) -6. The approach traditionally analyzes "famous" or "significant" speeches.

Genre: a category or group. We can look at speeches by category. Instead of just looking only at one speaker, we can look at many. Maybe I want to look at both Obamas speeches. Genre or generic criticism: "seek to discover commonalities in rhetorical patterns across recurring situations" pg. 137.

Situational requirements: the perception that conditions in a situation call forth a particular kind of rhetorical response.

Ex: humor. We talk about humor as a genre. EX: fear, you might try to talk to a younger cousin or sibling and say "if u do this then blah blah blah its bad don't do it!"

1. Forensic rhetoric: rhetoric concerning the past; legal rhetoric. Okay that analyzsis to legal fr EX: CSI they go back to the crime scene. So looking at the past they can tell what happen. EX: court trail. Both trying to create these versions of the past 2. Epideictic rhetoric: rhetoric concerning the present; ceremonial rhetoric. EX: Ulogies. EX: Toast at a wedding EX: thank you speech. They are bringing ppl together at the moment. Heres what we are celebriating while our friend is getting married. 3. Deliberative rhetoric: rhetoric concerning the future; political rhetoric. EX: an legislated body deliberates on what they want to act?????

1. Situational requirements: the perception that conditions in a situation call forth a particular kind of rhetorical response. 2. Substantive (or stylistic) requirements: features of the rhetoric itself.

Generic description: does a genre exists? Generic participation: does a certain artifact belong in an already established genre? Generic application: according to an already established genre, how can we evaluate a particular text?

Someone has passed talking about what they did in their lives, has reference to something else.

There both consistant with the genre of eulogy but in different context. Barbra: had more time to prepare, used humor. Kennedy: not at a funeral, memorized kind of, extemporaneous

1. Rhetorical critics can understand social reality and its relationship to rhetoric. (EX: 2. Critics who study genres can see how rhetorical acts influence each other and how rhetoric is shaped by prior rhetoric. (EX: obamas speech. ??)

Apologia: to account for or defend oneself against accusations of wrongdoing. Sometimes when someone has to defend themselves and have a higher reason for doing it. EX: checkers speech.

Denial: the speaker disavows the act of wrongdoing, the contention that an action was wrong, or the intent to do something wrong. EX: I didn't do it. or they might deny that what they did was wrong. So there denying the wrongness of the act. EX:what Nixon did in his Nixon speech. "Yeah I took the money but it wasn't wrong for what it went to" EX: what I did was wrong but I didn't know it and didn't mean it. EX: weeniers sending the pictures of his penis Its only affective up to the event that its plausible.

Bolstering: the speaker tries to emphasize a positive relationship between herself or himself and something the audience values. EX: Nixon talking about how he was a good ol boy and working, loved his parents, was in the military, talking about his wife wears a great publican coat not a fur coat. EX: Kennedy "my brother got shot by a white guy" (hes sharing that loss and trying to show empathy. Trying to show that is a positive.) ***ITS ALWAYS GOOD TO THROW IN SOME BOLSTER. Your trying to show this positive relationship between u and the audience and show all the good things that you have done. You've got to remember all the great things that I've done for you while they're trying to get out of a scandral.

Differentiation: the speaker tries to get the audience to view the act in a new and different context. EX: yes im accused of killing this person, but it was self defence. If I can get u to see if differently maybe you'll act on it differently and see it how I do. EX: I was using bad judgmenet because things we're so hard and our family was having a bad time. They are spinning it. Can you just see it from this perspective. In this moment I didn't use my best judgement and heres why.

Transcendence: the speaker tries to associate perceived wrongdoing with a higher goal or purpose. EX: yes I stole the bread, but I stole it for my daughter that was starving. (did it for a greater good or higher purpose) EX: Oliver North, I did it so I could bring American's home

Bolstering, talked about her family, brother is baseball player, husband, parents were supportive of her. Husband was always there at the interviews. She has this positive relathionship with them. Another way she did bolstering was with her own honestly. "Look I did this and it was a mistake and now its time to clear the air and move on" so by stressing that she was hoping the audience would see that. Differentiation: shes admitting shes having a lesbian affair, some of her needs weren't being met. Husband and her we're gone from each other long periods of time. They're not together all the time. She says "yes it was a lesbian affair but I not lesbian."

Bolstering "look at all the good she does for the sports and women. It was always for the future generation and sports. It was about making things better for everyone else." She never did anything for herself. Transcendence: "we need to look at this as the bigger issue is what are the privacy implications?" public figures have very little privacy, so we needa make sure that we make that distinctions. Whatever someone does in there private life is there business.