Studying Speeches

Rhetorical history

Rhetorical criticism

Definition: Rhetoric

The use of the resources of language to shape response to a public situation.

Rhetoric responds to situations Situations are public situations Rhetoric concerns responses to situations;

shape action Rhetoric involves the use of language in

response Rhetoric is strategic: goal seeking

Powers of Rhetorical Message

Assembles relevant elements of context Creates a flow of events (Understanding)

Sequences Theory of causes

Creates a value structure for events Things that are deplorable (unfriendly) Things that are inviting (friendly)

Motivates particular response Rationalizes response Organizes response

Powers of language: 9/11

Assembles relevant elements of context Who did it? Why? Like Pearl Harbor? Came as students; Resistance

on United flight 93; Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan Not: Impact of American policy on motivation; failures of our

defenses; Why these buildings?; our cultural differences with attackers; Impact of American entertainment media

Creates a flow of events (Understanding) Caused by “hatred of our freedom”; “exploited our <freedoms>”

Creates a value structure for events “Evil actions, done by evil people” Innocent victims

Motivates particular response Must defend ourselves Afghanistan as target

A Model of Rhetorical Response

. . . Draws elements from context . . .

A rhetorical message . . .

. . . into an understanding to shape a response.

As a public we demand leaders speak . . .

They clarify events for usThey provide us an account of what

happenedThey guide us to a public responseThey inspire us to commit to that

response

Inaugural Addresses

Rituals provided to leaders to define our time

Name the time as they see itThey provide a mosaic of valuesDeclare their commitment to responses

to that time

Understanding Rhetorical Moments

Bitzer’s account of rhetorical situation Exigence: Problem demanding response Audience: The public the spkr addresses Constraints: resources available to spkr

Limiting elements Opportunities

Speaker makes choices: fitting or unfitting

We judge the speaker’s rhetorical act: a fitting response to rhetorical situation or not

Understanding Rhetorical Moments

Bitzer’s account of rhetorical situation Exigence: Situation group & Historical context group

Audience: Situation group Constraints: Biography group, Situation group,

Historical Context group Speaker makes fitting choices: Response group

We judge the speaker’s rhetorical act: a fitting response to rhetorical situation or not

Rhetorical History as Context

We study several factors: What exigence created the rhetorical moment?

Short term history What did the speaker draw upon in his rhetorical

response? What did s/he not choose to recognize? (constraints or choices from context)

History of the times; broader historical understanding What characteristics of the speaker helped shape

his/her response? (personal constraints) Biography Training in speaking

How did the speech shape public response? Response to the speech

Brockriede’s Criticism

Criticism: passing judgment on experience: Evaluative for better understanding of experience:

Explanation Argument: 5 characteristics

1. From known to unknown2. Reason to believe the unknown3. Choice among competing judgment/explanation4. Probable, not certain5. Willingness to be wrong

Brockriede’s Criticism

Criticism: passing judgment for

better understanding

Argument1. known to unknown

2. Reason to believe

3. Competing judgment/explanation

4. Probable, not certain

5. Willingness to be wrong

George Bush first considered the events a crime subject to investigation, then an act of war subject to military action.

George Bush had little choice but to go to war after media had framed events as Pearl Harbor.

Brockriede’s Criticism

Claim Your inferential leap What you seek to prove

Make a significant claim Description not enough Classification (labeling) not enough Significant claim has characteristic of argument

Brockriede’s Criticism

Claim Your inferential leap What you seek to prove

Make a significant claim

Description not enough Classification (labeling)

not enough Significant claim has

characteristic of argument

George Bush first considered the events a crime subject to investigation, then an act of war subject to military action.

George Bush had little choice but to go to war after media had framed events as Pearl Harbor.

Brockriede’s “Explanation” Argument

How does the speaker gather context, shape it into an understanding, and transform it into motivation?

Argument should beSignificant claimWell proven

Brockriede’s “Evaluation” Argument

How well does the spkr respond to the situation? What does the situation require? What resources does the spkr have? What barriers must the spkr overcome?

Argument should be Significant claim Well proven

Our Agenda for Discussions

1. What in the moment are the demands on the speaker?

2. What strategies does the speaker use to respond?

• What do they respond to in the context?• How does he respond to them?

3. How appropriate are the strategies?• Appropriate for the context?• Appropriate for his/her goals?

Implications on Your Papers

1. Develop a thesis about the speech and its response to situation

• Explain the speech’s response to situation• Evaluate the speaker’s response

2. Support that thesis with your research• Biography of the speaker• Historical context• Demands of the moment• Responses to the speech