Rhetoric

RhetoricSophomore English (A)

Before we get into the denotations, etc. of what rhetoric is, what connotations do you have with the term? Why?

What is rhetoric?It is . . .

the art of analyzing all the choices involving language or media that a writer, speaker, artist, viewer, reader or listener might make in a situation so that the text becomes meaningful, purposeful, and effective for readers and listeners

or . . .the art of featuring content for a specific purpose (what is content?)

Rhetoric is . . .

The specific features of texts, written or spoken, that cause them to be meaningful, purposeful, and effective for readers or listeners in a situation

The rhetorical situation -

WritersSpeakers

TextsMessages

Context---------- Media Readers

ViewersListeners

ethos

pathoslogos

Thinking about arguments, their contexts, audiences, and appeals brings us to the rhetorical situation – a shorthand phrase for the entire set of relationships

“in a situation”

That phrase “in a situation” has come up twice now - What does it suggest about the nature of rhetoric?

That it has EXIGENCE- the issue, problem, or occasion that causes someone to write or speak

There is a Rhetorical Framework: SOAPSTone

Speaker

Occasion

Audience

Purpose

Subject

Tone

- the one who is writing or speaking

- this is the ‘exigence’ - the context (big and small)that prompted the speaker to sit down and hash this out

- the ones to whom the piece is directed

- the reason behind the text. What the speaker wants the audience to do or think as a result

- the main idea of the piece – what it is all about

- the attitude of the author. It enhances the effectiveness of the piece. Word choice is key.

There are the THREE APPEALS :ETHOSPATHOSLOGOSThey are involved in the transaction (that

is, the act of carrying through, accomplishing, or doing) Rhetoric

ETHOS:the ethical appeal having to do with the speaker’s credibility – that they are a credible source (a person with character) worth hearing out

In what ways can a speaker make this appeal?-correct grammar and spelling-vocabulary choice-sounding fair-having an expertise

PATHOS:the emotional appeal – the means to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotions

In what ways can an author make this appeal?-inspire anger, outrage, sympathy, patriotism, honor, fear, etc.

-using emotional stories

LOGOS:the appeal to logic and reason

In what ways can an author make this appeal?-cite facts-cite credible evidence-cite certain authoritative experts

Which appeal is at the heart of the rhetorical TRANSACTION?

Yep – LOGOSThe best way to support a claim is with cold, hard facts

There is also the appeal to needs:Physiological needs

- food, drink, healthSafety needs

- security; freedom from harm; order and stabilityBelongingness and love needs

- love within a family and among friendsEsteem needs

-material success; achievement; power, status, and recognition from others

Self-actualization needs- fulfillment in realizing one’s potential

Maslow’s Hierarchy

What is the ETHOS?

What is the PATHOS?

What is the LOGOS?

Speaker =Occasion (exigence) =Audience =Purpose =Subject =Tone =

What is the ETHOS?

What is the PATHOS?

What is the LOGOS?

Speaker =Occasion (exigence) =Audience =Purpose =Subject =Tone =

What is the ETHOS?

What is the PATHOS?

What is the LOGOS?

Speaker =Occasion (exigence) =Audience =Purpose =Subject =Tone =

The transaction at work

When a writer argues, they generally use a form of rhetorical transaction called the Toulmin method (after Stephen Toulmin in The Uses of Argument)

The Toulmin method: Claim – Evidence – Warrant

The ClaimIt is the 'main idea', the thesis, or the controlling ideaA good claim is not obvious. Why bother proving a point nobody could disagree with?

A good claim is engaging. Consider your audience's attention span and make interesting claims which point out new ideas: teach the reader something new.

A good claim is not overly vague. Attacking enormous issues whole leads only to generalizations and vague assertions; refrain from making a book-size claim.

A good claim is logical; it emerges from a reasonable consideration of evidence. (Note: this does not mean that evidence has only one logical interpretation. Reasonable people often disagree.)

A good claim is debatable. Claims that are purely factual and claims that are only opinion fail this requirement.

A good claim is typically hypotactic (it uses subordinate clauses). Simple sentences rarely comprehend enough complexity to do justice to a well-conceived opinion

The QualfierIs a restriction set on the claim

ABSOLUTE QUALIFIEDWill May, might, couldForms of “be” (am, is, are, was, were) May be, might have been, may have been

All Many, most, some, numerous, countless, a majority

Every (Same as “all”)

None/no Few, not many, a small number, hardly any, a minority

Always Often, frequently, commonly, for a long time, usually, sometimes, repeatedly

Never Rarely, infrequently, sporadically, seldomCertainly Probably, possiblyImpossible Unlikely, improbable, doubtful

The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Qualifiers express doubt; they leave your reader wondering if you know what you’re talking about. Constructions like it appears that and it seems likely that diminish the strength of your claims. Sometimes that’s exactly what you want, when you don’t want to overstate your case and cannot justify making a stronger, more direct claim.

President Nixon probably resigned as a result of the Watergate cover-up.

President Nixon resigned as a result of the Watergate cover-up.

The EvidenceThese are the reasons (arguments, proofs, grounds) given in support of the claim using the three appeals.

Evidence can come in the following forms:-use of facts and statistics (inductive logos)-use of expert opinions (ethos and logos)-use of examples and explanations – stories – (logos), quotes or details from the text

-use of logical reasoning (deductive logos)Evidence is used to answer "how do you know?'

inductive logos A type of reasoning that moves from the specific to the general. The argument is based on a limited number of examples, and from these examples, the writer attempts to fashion a more general or universal rule. The trick here is making sure the examples used truly are representative of the whole.

- the writer holds up a specific example and then claims what is true for it is also true for the general category.

example: “This lemon is sour, therefore all lemons are likely sour.”

deductive logos-Also called syllogistic reasoning, deduction is a type of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific. The argument is based on a general or universal rule that both the reader and the writer agree upon. The writer takes this general or universal rule, and then tries to show how a specific example fits into that larger category. The trick here is to distinguish between validity and truth- begins with a general or universal truth accepted by most people, and then applies that to a specific example.

example: “All lemons are sour. This is a lemon. Therefore, this lemon is also sour.”

Evaluation of the EvidenceIs the evidence up-to-date?

This may depend on the subject.Is the evidence sufficient?Is the evidence relevant? Don’t lose sight of the subject and introduce evidence that is wide

of the claim.Are the examples representative?It is the speaker’s responsibility to choose examples that are typical

of the examples that are not used.Are the examples consistence with the experience of the audience? The audience will use their own experience to measure the

soundness of the speaker’s evidence.

The Warrant (because)This is the 'because'These are the . . . assumptions or presuppositions underlying the argument;the generally accepted beliefs, values, or definitions;the common ways our culture views things.Because they are so commonplace, warrants are almost always

unstated and implied

The Warrant (because)Warrants are . . .The common ground of the author and audience.Shared warrants invite the audience to participate by unconsciously supplying part of the argument.They provide the underlying reasons linking the claim and the evidence

You can infer the warrants by asking, “What is causing the author to say the things they do?; Where is the author coming from?; Why do you think it? (make connections between the evidence and the claim; what you know about

The Warrant (because)

You can infer the warrants by asking, “What is causing the author to say the things they do?”; “Where is the author coming from?”; “Why do you think it?” (make connections between the evidence and the claim; what you know about the subject and evidence and what you know your audience or readers know about the subject.)

An author must ask themself “What assumption(s) must my audience make to be able to accept my claim?”

The warrant – this presumed understanding – links the claim to the evidence.

Logical Fallacies

Fallacy- an error of reasoning based on faulty use of

evidence (facts or opinions in support of the claim – reports, statistics, expert views, personal experience) or incorrect inference (interpretation of the facts)

The following slides offer some examples of fallacies made in argument.

Logical FallaciesAd hominem

-Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.

Logical FallaciesThe Bandwagon Fallacy

-The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea is suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.

-This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.

Logical FallaciesGambler’s Fallacy-The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-

term deviations from probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are statistically unlikely, say, a series of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up, it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes of the next coin toss.

Example(1) This coin has landed heads-up nine times in a row.Therefore:(2) It will probably land tails-up next time it is tossed.

Logical FallaciesGenetic Fallacy

-The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

-Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.

-Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.

Example(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.Therefore:(2) The tooth fairy is real.

Logical FallaciesRed Herring

-The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating – and effective – fallacies to observe.

-The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.

Logical FallaciesFalse Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy

-The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious.– If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will

collapse.– America: Love it or leave it.

Logical FallaciesStraw Man Fallacy- The Straw Man fallacy is committed when the arguer

misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.

-This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

- This can be done by oversimplifying the opposition and then attacking the oversimplification.

Example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."