The one concept I struggled with this semester was rhetoric. I can't explain why. It just took me a little longer than normal for me to wrap my head around it. I believe I now have an understanding of rhetoric. It's interesting because now I find myself pickup up small details when looking at advertisements or watching commercials.
For this assignment, I was tasked with reading “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” by Keith Grant-Davie and “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis – Writing Spaces” by Laura Bolin Carroll, and answering the following.
​
After reading Grant-Davie's article 'Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents,' write a brief definition of a rhetorical situation. Use some examples to illustrate your point. Try to use at least one example of your own and examples from the reading.
Why would knowing how to figure out the rhetorical situations help you succeed as a writer?
​According to Carroll, what are the steps of a full rhetorical analysis?
​
Reading Response: Carroll and Grant-Davie
​
After reading the Grant-Davie article, 'Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents,' I define a rhetorical situation as a situation already existing or is created by a speaker or writer, the rhetor. Through discourse, the rhetor tries to convince the audience to change their perspective/beliefs based on what the rhetor tells them. In the article, Grant-Davie gives the following examples of rhetorical situations.
​
-
"A presidential candidate may be able to convince the electorate that the more important issues in a debate about a rival's actions are not the legality of those specific actions but questions they raise about the rival's credibility as leader of the nation ("He may have been exonerated in a court of law, but what does the scandal suggest about his character?")." (Grant-Davie).
-
"Attorneys do the same kind of thing in a courtroom, trying to induce the jury to see the case in terms of issues that favor their client" (Grant-Davie).
-
"The newspaper ran several stories reporting the resort owners' rationale (they felt they had applied in good faith and waited long enough) and the council members' reaction (they felt indignant that the owners had flouted the law and were now seeking forgiveness rather than permission). The newspaper also berated the resort owners' actions in an editorial. What might have been a minor bureaucratic matter resolved behind closed doors turned into a town debate, with at least 15 letters to the editor printed in the weeks that followed. From a rhetorical perspective, I think the interesting question is why the incident sparked such a brushfire of public opinion, since not all controversial incidents covered by the newspaper elicit so many letters to the editor" (Grant-Davie).
These examples are rhetorical situations because, through discourse, the rhetor (presidential candidate, attorney, and newspaper) tries to convince their audience to change their perspective/beliefs based on what the rhetor is telling them.
​
I have experienced many rhetorical situations. The most recent for me was my parents attempting to dissuade me from transferring schools in the future. Another, from my mom, was that motorcycles are dangerous; therefore, I shouldn't have one. I have written and given a speech supporting using thorium as fuel in nuclear reactors instead of uranium. I have also constructed counterarguments to recent rhetorical situations regarding whether I should transfer and the safety of owning a motorcycle.
​​
Knowing how to analyze a rhetorical situation will help me succeed as a writer because the process of finding and producing a meaningful, impacting piece of work lies in learning and understanding rhetorical writing. I've never thought about writing from a rhetorical perspective. It took me a couple of reads to understand all the jargon in Grant-Davie's essay, 'Rhetorical Situations and their Constituents.' It's because I have never written with these terms in mind. After processing, understanding a situation determines how I approach it, how to best relate to my audience, and how to find a deeper meaning in what I want to say and then say it. Grant-Davie refers to Lloyd Bitzer, who says, "Understanding the situation is important because the situation invites and largely determines the form of the rhetorical work that responds to it" (Grant-Davie). Bitzer says, "Rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to the situation, in the same sense that an answer comes into existence in response to a question, or a solution in response to a problem" (Grant-Davie).
​According to Carroll, “Rhetorical analysis asks how discourse functions in the setting in which it is found. In order to perform analysis, you must understand the context, and then you must carefully study the ways that the discourse does and does not respond appropriately to that context” (Carroll).
​
The steps of a complete rhetorical analysis, according to Carroll, are:
1. Identify the rhetorical situation by looking at the discourse’s context.
a. Ask questions about the writer of the discourse.
b. Determine what the discourse is about.
c. Identify and understand the exigence of the discourse. Ask what, why, and who?
i. “What is this rhetoric responding to?” “What might have happened to make the rhetor (the person who creates the rhetoric) respond in this way?” (Carroll).
ii. “Rhetorical Exigence is some kind of need or problem that can be addressed and solved through rhetorical discourse” (Grant-Davie).
d. Why is the discourse needed? What is the discourse trying to accomplish? What is its purpose?
i. “Understanding the exigence is important because it helps you begin to discover the purpose of the rhetoric. It helps you understand what the discourse is trying to accomplish” (Carroll).
ii. We can discern the purpose by asking questions like “What does the rhetor want me to believe after seeing this message?” or “What does the rhetor want me to do?” (Carroll).
e. Who is the audience?
i. “Rhetors make all sorts of choices based on their audience. Audience can determine the type of language used, the formality of the discourse, the medium or delivery of the rhetoric, and even the types of reasons used the make the rhetor’s argument. Understanding the audience helps you begin to see and understand the rhetorical moves that the rhetor makes” (Carroll).
f. Are there constraints or limitations?
i. “The constraints of the rhetorical situation are those things that have the power to “constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (Carroll). Constraints have a lot to do with how the rhetoric is presented. Constraints can be “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives” (Carroll). Constraints limit the way the discourse is delivered or communicated. Constraints may be something as simple as your instructor limiting your proposal to one thousand words, or they may be far more complex like the kinds of language you need to use to persuade a certain community” (Carroll).
2. Analyze the rhetorical appeals.
a. What is the argument?
i. What is the audience being asked to believe or do?
ii. How is the rhetor trying to persuade me?
b. What artistic appeals are utilized to persuade the audience?
i. Logos – a visual appeal
ii. Pathos – an emotional appeal
iii. Ethos - credibility or authority of the rhetor
c. Look at the unstated assumptions of the discourse.
i. Visual appeal – font, page layout, types of paper, imagers
ii. Language use – word choice, sentence structure
d. Is the rhetoric effective within its context?
i. Does the discourse successfully respond to the exigence?
ii. Is the discourse an ethical approach?
iii. Is the discourse persuasive?
iv. Can conclusions be drawn about the rhetoric?
“These kinds of questions let you begin to create your own claims, your own rhetoric, as you take a stand on what other people say, do, or write” (Carroll).
3. Begin to analyze – How well does the rhetoric fit into the context?
a. Does the discourse fit the context?
i. Does it address the problem?
ii. Consider the audience’s needs.
iii. Provide accurate information?
iv. Have a compelling claim?
b. Does the rhetorical situation work within the context of the discourse?
i. Is the problem addressed?
ii. Does the audience of the rhetoric have the power to make changes?
iii. Do the appeals fit the audience of the rhetoric?
iv. Is there enough information relayed to the audience for them to make an informed decision?
v. Is there any manipulation happening? For instance, is incomplete or inaccurate information being given or playing with the audience’s emotions?
vi. Sub-claims – are there any that the audience must accept to understand the rhetor’s primary claim?
vii. Negative effects – are there any that could occur from this rhetoric?
Works Cited
Bolin Carroll, Laura. “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis – Writing Spaces.” Writingspaces.org, edited
by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. "Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1." 2010, https://writingspaces.org/past-volumes/backpacks-vs-briefcases-steps-toward-rhetorical-analysis/.
Grant-Davie, Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 1997, pp. 264–79, www.jstor.org/stable/465644.