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)



Creates a value structure for events



Sequences
Theory of causes
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



Creates a flow of events (Understanding)


Caused by “hatred of our freedom”; “exploited our <freedoms>”
Creates a value structure for events



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
“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 us
 They provide us an account of what
happened
 They guide us to a public response
 They inspire us to commit to that
response

Inaugural Addresses
Rituals provided to leaders to define our
time
 Name the time as they see it
 They provide a mosaic of values
 Declare 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?


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)



Short term history
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
From known to unknown
Reason to believe the unknown
Choice among competing judgment/explanation
Probable, not certain
Willingness to be wrong
Brockriede’s Criticism

Criticism:


passing judgment for
better understanding
Argument

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
known to unknown
Reason to believe
Competing
judgment/explanation
Probable, not certain
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 be
 Significant claim
 Well 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
What in the moment are the demands
on the speaker?
What strategies does the speaker use
to respond?
1.
2.
•
•
What do they respond to in the context?
How does he respond to them?
How appropriate are the strategies?
3.
•
•
Appropriate for the context?
Appropriate for his/her goals?
Implications on Your Papers
Develop a thesis about the speech and
its response to situation
1.
•
•
Explain the speech’s response to situation
Evaluate the speaker’s response
Support that thesis with your research
2.
•
•
•
•
Biography of the speaker
Historical context
Demands of the moment
Responses to the speech