Download as KEY, PPTX
Uploaded byIan Sherman
Rhetorical analysis
This document provides an introduction to rhetorical analysis. It defines rhetoric as oral communication and analysis as breaking something apart to examine its components. It then lists questions one should consider when conducting a rhetorical analysis, such as the purpose and audience of an argument, as well as the persuasive appeals it employs. The document discusses the three main persuasive appeals of pathos, logos, and ethos. It also provides examples of texts to analyze and assignments for students to complete a rhetorical analysis.
More Related Content
Rhetorical analysis
- 1. rhetorical analysis: rhetoric— “ora1on” analysis—(ana=up, lysis=loosen) “to break apart”
- 2. Reading and Wri1ng in English 101: Read “talk” write more write reread 2
- 3. • What is the argument’s purpose? • Who is its audience? •What appeals (pathos, ethos, logos) does it use? • What’s the type or genre? • Who is making the argument? What ethos does it create?
- 4. • What other authori1es does the argument rely upon? • What evidence is used? How is it arranged and presented? • What claims are advanced; what issues are raised, and what issues are ignored or evaded? • What are the contexts—social, poli1cal, historical, cultural—for the argument? • How does language or style work to persuade an audience?
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9. •Pathos: Emotion •Logos: Logic •Ethos:Credibility / Morality
- 10. Which appeals did they employ? • Derek Bok, regarding censorship at Harvard • Texas Dept of Transporta1on, in their an1‐ drunk‐driving campaign • This textbook, in aPemp1ng to convince you that rhetorical analysis is engaging and important?
- 11. What ques1ons did they ask? • Seth Stevenson, wri1ng on Bob Dylan and Victoria’s Secret • Zombie, analyzing the San Francisco Chronicle • Dick Rogers, responding to Zombie’s analysis and the original photos • Milena Ateya, analyzing Derek Bok’s argument
- 12. The “Rhetorical Analysis” assignment 1 (due Tues 12 July) • Low‐stakes wri1ng: prac1ce, not final product • Read both essays; analyze only one • Think about the “toolkit” on p. 98 • Think about audience, author, purpose • Do more than just agree or disagree • Submit in personal (“Your Name”) folder and in group folder 12
- 13. The “Rhetorical Analysis” assignment 2 (due Fri 15 July) • S1ll low‐stakes • Read your peers’ essays first • Reread both essays; analyze the same one • Dig deeper • Use more “toolkit” techniques • Submit in personal (“Your Name”) folder only 13
Editor's Notes
- #2 Relates to Ch. 5. More info. First: dig into the terms.\n
- #3 In this class, reading is a 5-step process. The essays are complex, and you might not understand much after a first read.\n
- #4 (Work through these one by one, and reference earlier discussion of Ethos/Pathos/Logos) As in any toolkit, you are not meant to use every single tool to address every single problem—this would be equivalent to pulling out the wrench, the hammer, the drill, the tape measure, the pliers, the screwdriver, etc. when all you might need is a thumbtack. The trick is knowing which tool to use—and you do that by becoming familiar with the job that each one does. \n
- #5 \n
- #6 P. 107: An author must consider both whom he’s writing to and why he’s writing—and the ways that those two ideas interconnect. \n
- #7 Let’s look at these again--they’re important\n
- #8 Sympathy, empathy, pathetic--it means pain. But now--emotion in any sense. Sentimentality, humor, fear, etc.\n
- #9 Reasoning and facts. The backbone of academic writing.\n
- #10 In Greek: one word meant two things. Ethos = ethics, but also credibility. Ethos means “I can be trusted”\n
- #11 Bok = logos, ethos\nTexas DOT = pathos\nTextbook = a blend. Logos, but lots of pathos and two kinds of ethos (academic, “current”)\n\n
- #12 If you need models of a Rhet Anal, look back here\n
- #13 \n
- #14 \n