CMST 450
Weeks 1-3
in Brief
On our website:
http://chantrill.net/rhetoric_basic_notes.pdf
Herding Cats
 Running with the Squirrels
 Figures of Thought & Speech
 Rhetorical Devices (repetition, word order,
semantics—metaphor & metonymy)

Herding Cats & Lame Ducks
Theory v. Application
 Community Interests v. Partisan Interests
 Expert v. Democratic (decisions & leadership)

Flaunting it.
Scandalous Rhetorics

Harris’ Handbook
"Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years
have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be
trained. . . . This one a long time have I watched. . . . Never his
mind on where he was."
(Star Wars: Episode V--The Empire Strikes Back, 1980)
Rhetorical Devices
“The Literary Criticism of Oratory”
Wicheln's essay attempted to "put rhetorical studies on
par with literary studies as an area of academic
interest and research."[2] Wichelns wrote that oratory
should be taken as seriously as literature, and
therefore, it should be subject to criticism and
analysis.
Herbert A. Wichelns, 1925




Literary criticism is concerned with evaluating the
wisdom, beauty, and truth contained in great works of
fiction, while rhetorical criticism is devoted to
assessing the persuasive effect of situated oratory.
Rhetorical criticism focuses on discovering and
appreciating how speakers adapt their ideas to
particular audiences.
Rhetoric not concerned with permanence and beauty
but with immediate effect.
Distinguish between Communication and English
departments (Wichelns had a rhetorical goal of his
own.)
Wichelns, continued.
The Consequences
 Neo-Aristotelian (or neo-classical) criticism became
virtually the only method, unchallenged until the
1960s and based on Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”
 Rhetorical Criticism became the “Study of Speeches”
 Subject matter and Purpose: to study the effect on the
immediate audience,
Limited to single speakers (usually “elite men” of
public affairs). Not designed for the critic, but
designed to teach the speaker.
◦ “Did the speech evoke the intended response?”
◦ “Did speaker use the available means of persuasion?”
Neo-Classical Criticism
Formula for Analysis:
 Finding issues
 Understanding the audience
 Discovering the structure
 Identifying arguments (logos)
 Values (pathos)
 Ethos
 Style
Neo-classical Criticism, continued.

Marie Hochmuth Nichols, “Lincoln’s First
Inaugural” (1954)
Example of Neo-classical criticism
“Public Address: A Study in Social and Intellectual
History”
Rhetorical criticism can make important
contributions to social and intellectual history.
 Ideas are produced by historical contexts, are
linked to change, and have social consequences.
 Ideas, values, and beliefs of a culture are
expressed in speeches.

Ernest J. Wrage, 1947
Critics should evaluate the quality of a speech.
 The effect of a speech is difficult to assess, but the
quality can be determined separately from its
actual impact on an audience.
 ...relying on the judgment of qualified critics,
rather than trying to compute audience reactions.

Wayland Maxfield Parrish, 1954
Determining the areas of investigation
 Establishing the authenticity of texts
 Reconstructing the social settings

Basic Purposes of Criticism
(evolving)








Rhetorical situation
Nature of the audience
Structure of the message
Forms of argument
Values
Ethos
Style and delivery
Assessment of effectiveness
Organizing Neo-Classical Criticism







Integrity of ideas: logical proof (logos)
Emotion in speech: pathetic proof (pathos)
Character of the speaker: ethical proof (ethos)
Structure of oral discourse
Style of public address
Delivery
Measures of effectiveness
Neo-C Standards of Judgment
“The Rhetorical Situation”
 Exigence: an imperfection marked by an urgency—a
defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing
which is other than it should be. Not all exigences are
rhetorical (only those which can be modified by discourse).
 Audience: only those who are capable of being influenced
by discourse and of being mediators of change.
 Constraints: persons, events, objects, and relations which
are parts of the situation because they have the power to
constrain decision and action needed to modify the
exigence.
Lloyd F. Bitzer, 1968

Bitzer defined the rhetorical situation as the
"complex of persons, events, objects, and
relations presenting an actual or potential
exigence which can be completely or partially
removed if discourse, introduced into the
situation, can so constrain human decision or
action as to bring about the significant
modification of the exigence."
The Rhetorical Situation,
continued
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Exigence: What happens or fails to happen? Why is one compelled
to speak out?
Persons: Who is involved in the exigence and what roles do they
play?
Relations: What are the relationships, especially the differences in
power, between the persons involved?
Location: Where is the site of discourse? e.g. a podium, newspaper,
web page, etc.
Speaker: Who is compelled to speak or write?
Audience: Who does the speaker address and why?
Method: How does the speaker choose to address the audience?
Institutions: What are the rules of the game
surrounding/constraining numbers 1 through 7.
Analyzing the rhetorical situation (which, at its most fundamental, means
identifying the elements above) can tell us much about speakers, their
situations, and their persuasive intentions.
The Rhetorical Situation,
continued


The ancient Greeks gave special attention to timing-the "when" of the rhetorical situation. They called
this kairos, and it identifies the combination of the
"right" moment to speak and the "right" way (or
proportion) to speak.
An example: After a school board votes to fire a
popular principal, a sympathetic parent might grab
the microphone and scream invectives at the board.
This would be bad kairos. Perhaps a better choice
would be to recognize that a mild rebuke fits the
situation followed by a well-timed letter to the editor
or column in the school newsletter.
The Rhetorical Situation,
continued.
The 40-year Reign of NeoArtistotelian Criticism (19251965)

“…led a movement to break away from the
constraints of the ‘neo-Aristotelian’ approach: a
particularly formulaic, unimaginative type of
traditional criticism” (147).
◦ In 1988 Stephen E. Lucas identified a “renaissance” of
traditional analysis. Though no longer the dominant
paradigm, some critics still use a modified traditional
approach (to avoid the pitfalls of early neo-classical
criticism.)
Edwin Black, Renegade (1965)
“Lincoln at Cooper Union: A Rhetorical Analysis of
the Text”
 Wikipedia: Lincoln at Cooper Union
 These authors “evaluate many of the same factors
that Wichelns recommends [for traditional/neoAristotelian criticism], but broaden the analysis to
consider Lincoln’s discourse as part of a genre
(type) of political discourse” (147).

Michael C. Leff and Gerald P.
Mohrmann, 1974
“‘The Circle of Our Felicities’: Thomas Jefferson’s First
Inaugural Address and the Rhetoric of Nationhood”
 “…demonstrates how a critic can attend to classical
topics of criticism without being locked into a rigid
formula” (148).
 Situates the speech in the historical context, examines
its immediate effects and enduring influence, and
explains how the speech ‘functions rhetorically.’”
◦ But also integrates elements of close textual analysis and
genre criticism.
Stephen Howard Browne, 2002
Transcript of the speech
Video of the speech
How would a traditional (neoclassical, neo-Aristotelian)
critic analyze this speech?
 How ‘bout a NONTRADITIONAL rhetorical critic?
 Wordclouds
 Obama’s other rhetorical
moment of the last week



President Obama’s SOTU 2012