Assignment #1 (Rhetorical Analysis):
Evaluate the specific features of and contexts surrounding a text—in other words, you must draft a close and comprehensive rhetorical analysis of either:
“Slowing Down” by Billy Collins [transcripted commencement speech]
or
“The Danger of a Single Story” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie [TED Talk]
Drafting a Comprehensive Rhetorical Analysis (2-3 pages typed and double-spaced):
Ultimately, you perform a rhetorical analysis by closely analyzing all the aspects of a given rhetorical situation (i.e. the natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence that invites a response). In other words: has the author created discourse that successfully responds to this particular situation?
Your response should consider (Reader, Essay, Author, Limitations, and Motivation) and speak intelligently about all of the components of the rhetorical situation.
The acronym “REALM” will help you remember five key perspectives to look at when dissecting rhetorical discourse. Use the following set of statements and questions to help you begin thinking about the text you choose for your rhetorical analysis. As you answer these questions and re-read these texts carefully, other questions will certainly occur to you. Be sure to follow those leads as well!
The reader (or audience). Who exactly is the audience? Can you define the probable readers in terms of age, gender, occupation, education, level(s) of authority, or position of power? What values could target readers possibly share with the writer? What range of positions on the issue might target readers hold before reading? Or after?
The essay (or text). The text itself is perhaps the most obvious piece of the rhetorical context to look closely at. Each project has its own shape based on the specific claim, organization, strategies, types of evidence, and style. What features of the text seem most crucial to understand–the claim, the arrangement of arguments, the supporting evidence, the appeals, the style? What features of the text make it more convincing or persuasive? What parts of the text are most difficult to read? Why? What parts are most appealing? Why? What authorities does the argument rely on or appeal to? How is the position organized or arranged? How does the language or style affect an audience? What claims are made and how does the text present supporting evidence? What specific issues are addressed and what kind of examples are shared? What issues are raised — or ignored or evaded? What moves do you see the authors making which you consider useful or limiting to their project?
The author (or speaker). The writer is the next element to look at in a rhetorical analysis. A writer can adopt a particular mask to present to readers, emphasizing their common humanity or specialized education. In many rhetorical situations, the author will try to highlight the traits she shares with her readers. In other instances, the author may write as an outsider who has a better perspective on a problem or situation. Just how the author presents her character and knowledge, as well as how the author connects with the audience, are key elements in understanding the overall effectiveness of an author’s approach.
Who is articulating the position? What values do they/does it evoke? How does it make the writer or creator seem (un)trustworthy?
What do you know about this author? What specific qualifications does the author present to build credibility with the target audience? What appeals to the author’s character do you see in the essay? In what ways does the author identify with the readers? Does this level of audience connection help the essay? How?
The limitations (or constraints). Because writers must accommodate readers’ background knowledge and their attitudes toward the focus of the project—that set of limitations is most obvious as a component of rhetorical analysis. Given what you can discern about target readers, what limitations does that audience impose on the writer? How do the author’s background knowledge and experience limit or drive the project? How do the author’s character or values limit the argument? What are the larger historical, social, political, and economic contexts and how might they influence and shape the situation/conversation or constrain the writer?
The motivation for the argument (or exigence). What seems to have prompted the writer to present this position? What, if any, is the writer’s history of work on this topic? What value(s) might have sparked this essay?
When we consider rhetorical texts, the motivation for writing is often a particular confrontation with an opposing position or an insight into a problem that could be solved. What is the purpose of the text? What does its project aim to do?
Remember to also pay attention to what sort of APPEALS the author employs:
LOGOS: Has the speaker/author presented clear and reasonable premises and proofs? Has he/she developed ideas with appropriate details that an audience can follow?
ETHOS: Has the speaker/author demonstrated that he/she is credible, good-willed, and knowledgeable about the subject?
PATHOS: Does the speaker/author draw on the emotions and/or interests of the audience? If so, is it effective?
Again, it would be impossible to answer every single question in the prompt in only 2-3 pages. So, remember: that is NOT what I am asking you to do. I have just given you this “outline” so you have some nice starting points to generate a thoughtful and thorough analysis of the text you choose to write about…
