COMM 662 - Chapter 3 notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes from book - Alaoui...

Description

Holly Yamagata Comm 662 Chrifi Alaoui 7 September 2016 Reading Question #3: Neo-Aristotelian Criticism Thesis: Neo-Aristotelian criticism is a traditional method of criticism that looks at the canons of rhetoric. This chapter discusses neo-Aristotelian criticism - what it is and how to apply it. Neo-Aristotelian criticism is the most traditional form of criticism, but it is not perfect. Many other methods derived from the strengths and weaknesses of this certain form of criticism. Neo-Aristotelian criticism is limiting in three ways: single speaker required, well-known speaker, and it’s best if the artifact is a speech. Neo-Aristotelianism excludes “all evaluations other than the speech’s potential for evoking intended response from an immediate, specified audience” (24). The process of criticizing using the neo-Aristotelian method has four steps. First you have to select an artifact. Then you have the analyze the artifact by reconstructing the context, applying the canons of rhetoric (invention, organization, style, memory, delivery), assessing the effects of the canons of rhetoric and then formulating a research question. Some other important tools that can be used when criticizing a speech are using ethos, pathos and logos. The main research question for this type of criticism would be, “did the rhetor use the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from the audience” (28). The information in this chapter was very informative so I felt like there wasn’t much I could disagree or agree with; the method is the way it is. One thing that stood out to me was when it was mentioned that using this method will probably require the critic to zone in one just one or two canons of rhetoric. It’s best to zone in on one or two canons in detail instead of trying to hit all the canons and being more broad. The goal of rhetorical criticism is to add to rhetorical theory, and dissecting the artifact deeply by only focusing on one aspect is a better way to do so. I have been taught about the various canons of rhetoric before so I felt very comfortable about possibly using this method to dissect an artifact in the future.

Neo-Aristotelian Criticism: Genesis of Rhetorical Criticism - First formal method - neo-classical, neo-Aristotelian or traditional - Rhetorical criticism “is concerned with effect. It regards a speech as a communication to a specific audience, and holds its business to be the analysis and appreciation of the orator’s method of imparting his ideas to his hearers.” - A critic should deal with these elements - The speaker’s personality - The public character of the speaker or the public’s perception of the speaker - The audience - The major ideas presented in the speech - The motives to which the speaker appealed

-

The nature of the speaker’s proofs, the speaker’s judgement of human nature in the audience - Speaker’s method of speech preparation - The manner of delivery - The effect of the discourse on the immediate audience and its long term effects - Use classical canons of rhetoric as units of analysis (named the approach neo-Aristotelianism) - Invention, organization, style, memory, delivery - Rhetorical criticism was limited to speeches because critic had to determine effect of rhetoric on immediate audience - Neo-aristotelianism could not be used to study written discourse or nondiscursive rhetoric - Study single speakers - Famous speakers - easier to get background information - neo-Aristotelianism excludes “all evaluations other than the speech’s potential for evoking intended response from an immediate, specified audience” - Classical rhetorical criticism ignored a large body of information that could have been analyzed - Now there are many approaches to rhetorical criticism A. Procedures (four step process) a. Selecting an artifact i. Speeches are good artifacts for this method ii. Find a credible rhetor - easy to get background information b. Analyzing the artifact (3 steps) i. Reconstructing the context 1. Study rhetor - links between rhetorical efforts and rhetor’s history 2. Study occassion rhetoric was produced 3. Study audience ii. Applying the canons (five steps that go into the process of public speaking) 1. Invention - the location and creation of ideas and materials for the speech a. Two proofs: (1) external proofs that come from sources the rhetor didn’t create (2) internal that the rhetor does create b. Internal proofs fall into three categories i. Logos - logical argument (is evidence relevant, consistent, and sufficient) ii. Ethos - appeal of the rhetor’s character (credibility; established by integrity, intelligence and good will) iii. Pathos - emotional appeal c. Reasoning: (1) inductive (2) deductive i. Inductive - examples are used to draw a general conclusion

ii.

Deductive - beginning with generalization and putting it to a specific case 2. Organization - the structure or arrangement of the speech a. Examples: chronological order, problem-solution order 3. Style - the language of the speech a. Particular words or symbols used by the rhetor 4. Memory - mastery of the subject matter which may include the actual memorizing of the speech a. Many speeches are not memorized b. Often is not applied to neo-Aristotelian critic 5. Delivery - management of the voice and gestures in the presentation of the speech a. Impromptu, from memory, extemporaneously, reading a manuscript b. Body movements: posture, movement, gestures, eye contact c. Physical appearance d. Vocal skill: articulation, pronunciation, rate of speech, pitch iii. Sometimes need to focus on 1-2 canons (or else it’s too much; this will help dissect the artifact deeply) c. Assessing the effects i. A critic judges the effects of the rhetoric ii. Was the goal of the rhetor met/what happened as a result of the rhetoric d. Formulating a Research Question i. “Did the rhetor use the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from the audience.” (28) e. Writing the Essay (five major components) i. An introduction - discuss the research question, its contribution to rhetorical theory, and its significance ii. A description of the artifact and its context iii. A description of the method of criticism (neo-Aristotelian criticism) iv. A report of the findings of the analysis, explicate the rhetor’s choices through application of the five canons to your artifact v. Discussion of the contribution the analysis makes to rhetorical theory...