Introduction to RhetoricChapter 2 Summary Presentation

Close Reading:What, How, Why?

WHAT is the author/speaker saying?What is the message?

What is the subject?

What is the purpose?

What is the focus?

HOW is the author/speaker saying it?What rhetorical appeals is the author/speaker making?

What rhetorical strategies is the author/speaker using?

What genre is the author/speaker using?

Why does the author/speaker make those choices?

Why does the author/speaker choose certain appeals?

Why does the author/speaker choose certain devices?

Why does the author/speaker choose a certain genre?

How do these choices make the text more effective?

Good literature is like Ogres. Ogres are like onions.Onions have layers.

Bad literature is like cotton candy: It tastes sweet at first, but has very little substance.

What is the task of Rhetorical Analysis?● Understand what the author/speaker is trying to say.● Identify the rhetorical choices the author/speaker

makes in order to create an effective message.● Understand why those particular choices make the

message effective.● Answer questions or write an essay to demonstrate

this understanding (in AP Land, at least).

Message

Words

Details

Style

Genre

Devices

Syntax

Context

Context = Very Important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CbN8sfihY

Diction: Verbs & AdjectivesConnotation

Syntax:Short = ExcitedLong, Varied = Calm, Methodical

TONE

Speech to the Troops at Tilbury● Identify the Rhetorical Situation (Soaps)● Highlight appeals to Logos, Ethos, Pathos● Identify Rhetorical Strategies & Style Choices● Identify the Tone / Mood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbjj9Nmn6ZU

Blood, Toil, Tears, and SweatIdentify the Tone of the speech.

Explain why you described it the way you did, making specific reference to the text.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TlkN-dcDCk

Close Reading:It ain’t just highlighting

Close Reading involves interacting with the text in a variety of ways.

Ways to interact with a text:● Read the text more than once● Ask questions as you read● Annotate the text● Use graphic organizers

Why does the author make the choices that they do?

Read the Ralph Ellison essay… The questions on pages 46-47 are the types of questions you should ask yourself when doing a close reading.

Be sure that your answers are always supported by the text.

Ask questions about… DICTION:

Ask about interesting and/or powerful language.

Why does the author choose those words over similar ones?

How would the meaning change if a particular word was replaced with a synonym?

SYNTAX:

Ask about the use of certain sentence structures or types.

Does the author use parallelism, juxtaposition, antithesis, or repetition?

How does the sentence structure affect the pacing of the piece?

If you annotate everything, you may as well annotate nothing.

Suggestions for Annotating a Text:● Make note of unfamiliar or interesting vocabulary● Highlight the main idea● Highlight important or interesting ideas● Make connections within the text● Make connections outside of the text● Ask questions of the textIllustrate close reading / annotation of ‘The Santa Ana Winds’

Using a Graphic Organizer

Quote from the Text

Paraphrase of the Quote

Rhetorical Strategy

Effect of Rhetorical Strategy

What rhetorical strategies should I look for?

Message

Words

Details

Style

Genre

Devices

Syntax

Context

Diction DevicesConnotation: emotions and associations conjured by

a word or phrase.

Archaic Diction: old-fashioned or outdated language.

Allusion: a reference to a person, place, event, or work of art.

Colloquialism: use of common, informal language

Forms of RepetitionAlliteration: repetition of sounds at the beginning of

words in a series.

Anaphora: repetition of words at the beginning of successive lines, phrases, or sentences.

Antimetabole: repetition of words in reverse order

Figurative LanguageMetaphor: comparison of two things in which one is

called the other; does not use like or as.

Simile: comparison of two things using like or as.

Personification: giving human attributes to non-human things.

Synecdoche: using a part of something to stand for the whole

Forms of IronyOxymoron: paradoxical juxtaposition of words that

seem to contradict each other.

Hyperbole: deliberate exaggeration for emphasis or effect

Understatement: deliberate expression of an idea as less significant than it actually is.

Syntactical DevicesAntithesis: opposition or contrast of ideas in parallel

structure.

Asyndeton: omission of conjunctions between words, phrases, or clauses.

Inversion: reversed order of words in a sentence.

Juxtaposition: placement of two things next to each other to show similarities and differences.

More Syntactical DevicesParallelism: similarity of structure in a series of

words, phrases, or clauses.

Rhetorical Question: a question posed for rhetorical effect that is not meant to be answered

Zeugma: Use of different words in a grammatically similar way to produce different meanings

Sentence Types & Structures

Sentence TypesCumulative:A sentence that completes the idea at the beginning, then adds on to it

Hortative:A sentence that exhorts, encourages, or calls to action

Imperative:A sentence that gives a command

Periodic:A sentence whose main clause is withheld until the end

Interrogative:A sentence that asks a question

Sentence StructuresSimple:A sentence with one subject and one predicate

Complex:A sentence that has a dependent clause added to it

Compound:Two simple sentences joined by a comma and conjunction

Complex-Compound:Two sentences joined together, one (or both) of which is a complex sentence

To sum up… What rhetorical devices is the speaker using in the text?

Why does the speaker use those devices?

How do these devices make the text effective?

What is a Rhetorical Fallacy?A Rhetorical Fallacy is a faulty appeal, a piece of faulty reasoning, or a distraction that does not allow for open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful conversation and debate depends.

Types of Rhetorical FallaciesThere are three types of Rhetorical Fallacies:

● Logical Fallacies: the faulty use of information or logic● Emotional Fallacies: the faulty use of emotional appeals● Ethical Fallacies: the use of faulty sources of authority

Logical FallaciesCircular Reasoning: Where someone attempts to prove his conclusion by simply restating it. He says “P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true.”

Jimmy: Dad, why do I have to go to school?Dad: Because you need a good education. Jimmy: Why do I need a good education? Dad: Because you need to do well in school.

Logical FallaciesEquivocation: Where the meaning of a word is changed in the middle of an argument

If the English don’t drive on the right side of the road, what are they doing on the wrong side?

Logical FallaciesLoaded Question: Where someone asks one question which assumes the answer to a second question

Judge: “Have you stopped beating your poor dog yet?” [Has he ever begun beating his dog?]

Logical FallaciesPart-to-Whole: Where someone asserts that what is true of part of something must also be true of the whole thing together

Child: “Mommy, why is this pillow so heavy? It only has feathers in it and little feathers weigh hardly anything.”

Logical FallaciesWhole-to-Part: Where someone asserts that what is true of something as a whole must also be true of each of its parts. This is the reverse of the part-to-whole fallacy

If our bag of potato chips won’t float when I throw it in the pond, why will one of my potato chips float by itself?

Logical FallaciesHasty Generalization: Where someone generalizes about a or group based upon a small and poor sample; to stereotype an individual or group based on limited experience

All plumbers are brilliant. I know a plumber who can calculate Pi to the 289,954th digit

Logical FallaciesWeak Analogy: Where someone claims that some items which have only a few minor similarities are practically the same in almost everything else

A cloud is 75% water. A watermelon is 75% water. Since a plane can fly through a cloud, a plane must be able to fly through a watermelon

Logical FallaciesPost-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc: Where someone assumes that since A happened before B, A must have caused B

I wore my purple socks yesterday, and I did great on my math test. I’m going to wear those socks every time I have a test from now on.

Logical FallaciesProof-by-lack-of-evidence: Where someone claims something is true simply because nobody has yet given them any evidence to the contrary

No evidence has been found that life does not exist on other planets. Therefore, we are not alone in the universe

Logical FallaciesNon Sequiter: (Latin for “It doesn’t follow”) is a statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An important logical step may be missing in such a claim.

Emotional FallaciesRed Herring: Where someone introduces an irrelevant point into an argument. He may think (or he may want us to think) it proves his side, but it really doesn’t

Grizzly bears can’t be dangerous – they look so cute

Emotional FallaciesAppeal to Fear: Where someone moves you to fear the consequences of not doing what he wants

Prosecuting Attorney: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I urge you to convict John Jones of this crime of murder. We need to put him where he can never commit any crimes. If you don’t convict him, you may be his next victim.”

Emotional FallaciesAppeal to Pity: Where someone urges us to do something only because we pity him, or we pity something associated with him

Motorist: “But officer, this is the fifth ticket I’ve been given this year. If I get another ticket, then they will take my license away, and I won’t be able to drive to work. My wife and children will starve.”

Emotional FallaciesBandwagon: Where someone pressures us to do something just because many other people like us are doing it

“More Americans get their news from ABC than from any other source.”

Emotional FallaciesSlippery Slope: arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous results

If you get a B in high school, you won’t get into the college of your choice, and therefore will never have a meaningful career

Emotional FallaciesEither-Or: Where someone asserts that we must chose between two things, when in fact we have more alternatives

Either you’re an American or you are a Communist. You aren’t from America, so you must be a Communist.

Emotional FallaciesTransfer: Where an advertiser gets us to associate our good or bad feelings about one thing, to another unrelated thing; often in the form of sex appeal

In a commercial, Gara Gorgeous, the famous movie star with beautiful hair, holds up a bottle of shampoo and says. “Use Shimmer Bounce shampoo for better looking and better smelling hair.”

Emotional FallaciesFalse Need: arguments create an unnecessary desire for things

You need to a new iPhone because it will make your life so much easier.

Emotional FallaciesSnob Appeal: Where someone encourages us to think his product would make us better, or stand out, from everybody else

Buy skunk brand perfume. You will stand out in the crowd

Emotional FallaciesAppeal to Tradition: Where we are encouraged to buy a product or do something because it is associated with something old

A black and white photograph of man building a guitar. The caption reads: “Play Martin Guitars. Our expert guitar craftsmen build guitars using only the most time honored traditions.”

Emotional FallaciesAppeal to Hi-tech: Where someone urges us to buy something because it is the “latest thing” – but not necessarily because it is the best thing

Our “Laundry Ball” cleans your clothes automatically with our patented method of defusing the ionization of the fetezoic acids and implanting a catalyst

Emotional FallaciesPerson Who: Conclusion is based on one (usually bad) experience

I’m never eating at Taco Hut. My friend ate there and got very sick.

Emotional FallaciesExigency: Where someone offers nothing more than a time limit as a reason for us to do what he wants

Genuine lead teacups! Now 95% off! Hurry, while supplies last!

Emotional FallaciesPersuasive Definition: Defining a term using loaded language

Evolution is the false and stupid idea that all life on earth evolved from single-cell organisms.

Ethical FallaciesAd Hominem: Where someone attacks an opponent’s character, or his motives for believing something, instead of disproving his opponent’s argument

I know everybody thinks Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct, but I can’t accept it. Einstein believed in leprechauns.

Ethical FallaciesGenetic Fallacy: Where someone condemns an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it

Bert: “Mr Gritchus, why do you always wear suspenders and never a belt?” Mr Gritchus: “Because belts were developed in the military centuries ago and were used by soldiers. Since the military is evil, and belts came from the military, I can’t wear a belt.”

Ethical FallaciesFaulty Appeal to Authority: Where someone appeals to the authority of someone who has no special knowledge in the area they are discussing

My car mechanic says the best way to fix computer problems is to just give the computer a good, sharp kick

Ethical FallaciesAppeal to the People: Where someone claims his viewpoint is correct just because many other people agree with it

Political Candidate: “My plan to fix the economy is the best plan because 74% of voters believe it is the best plan.”

Ethical FallaciesGuilt by Association: calls someone’s character into question by examining the character of that person’s associates

Sara’s friend Amy got caught smoking weed; therefore, Sara is a delinquent

Ethical FallaciesUsing Authority Instead of Evidence: occurs when someone offers personal authority as proof

Trust me – my best friend wouldn’t do that

Ethical FallaciesPoisoning the Well: Disparaging an opposing argument before mentioning it

And now let’s hear the absurd ideas of my dull-witted opponent, Mr. John Smith.

Ethical FallaciesDogmatism: shuts down discussion by asserting that the writer’s beliefs are the only acceptable ones

I’m sorry, but I think Pizza Hut has the best pizza and that’s that

Ethical FallaciesStraw Man: arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments in order to misrepresent an opponent’s argument in order to defeat him or her

A: We need to regulate access to handguns. B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom.

Ethical FallaciesMoral Equivalence: compares minor problems with much more serious crimes (or vice versa).

The new dress code rules are simply fascist

Ethical FallaciesStacked Evidence: represents only one side of the issue, thus distorting the issue

Cats are superior to dogs because they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent