Found rhetoric: syllepsis

Rhetorical figure permeates every aspect of language use, a phenomenon that not only points to our language's roots in an oral tradition (as we discussed in class) but also validates Hugo's argument that "once language exists only to convey information, it is dying."

Take, for example Ruth Fremson's NYT photo from 10 February 2009 (below).


A simple enough image, the President standing behind a canvas podium that reads "Making America Work," but what is striking is that in just three words, the event organizers advanced a much more complex argument, one that could be expanded a number of ways; still

"It is the responsibility of the country's elected and business leaders to protect opportunities for American workers (ostensibly through the proposed stimulus package), and it is the fortitude and productivity of America's workforce that is responsible for the nation's success"

doesn't fit nearly as well on a sign. Not the most economical use of language. . . nor does it hold the same appeal.

Enter syllepsis: recall that syllepsis is the rhetorical trope we discussed in class in which one word is used to modify, frame, or govern two or more other words. In this example, "work" is the word used in two different senses to frame "Making America" two different ways; it recasts the not only the meaning but also the grammatical construction and turns what could be a 40-word claim into a three-word, exponentially more effective, argument.

At once practical and beautiful, that, folks, is the power of language.

Consider this . . . week 4

Print advertising--the folks responsible for creating print ads are a rhetorician's dream. In medium where space is money, where you can believe that a team of markting professionals have exhausted every cost/benefit analytical tool at their disposal, where the importance of a strong, effective appeal can make or break a product (or even a business), there is little room for error: language and rhetorical appeals must be as effective--and as economical--as possble.

In class today, you partnered with one or two other(s) to collaborate on an analysis of a particular print ad. For Week 4's blog, please continue that analysis based on teh criteria we have covered in class thus far: identifying types of appeals, audience; observng and interpreting ethos and kairos; evaluating structures of reasoning (i.e. scan for logical fallacies), word choice (diction), arrangement (syntax), and figure (tropes and schemes).

In short, for week 4, complete as thorough a rhetorical analysis of the print ad you selected in class as you can.

2QE: Second Quarterly Essay

Throughout the first few weeks of class, we have been surveying rhetorical theory in order to better understand how language, and specifically argumentation, 'works.' To date, we have focused on identifying types of appeals and evaluating their efficacy, understanding the importance of an argument's 'situatedness,' grasping the complexity an importance of ethos, and evaluating the validity, ethicality, and sturucture of arguments. Tomorrow's class (2/5)will focus on learning more about the structure of language through rhetorical figure (tropes and schemes) as a way of observing and analyzing the relationship between craft, style, and efficacy and/or appeal.

Your second quarterly essay (2QE) asks that you apply these principles and attempt (essayer) a rhetorical analysis of your own; thus, the 2QE is not unlike the print ad analysis blog you will complete for week 4; in fact, your 2QE may be an expansion and revision of your blog exercise, should you decide to conmtinue your work from the week 4 exercise.

In short, you should select any public argument that interests you —that is, a specific, supported claim advanced in the public sphere—and evaluate it from a rhetorical perspective. In your analysis you should consider elements including, but not limited to kairos, rhetorical purpose, audience, type(s) of appeal(s), legitimacy of support (is it fallacious?), and overall effect (does it work?).

Next Tuesday (2/10) we will talk more specifically about rhetorical analysis as a methodology, so please refer to our class notes r/t rhetorical analysis to help support or guide your approach. This essay should result in a project that is approximately 4 to 6 pages in length (double-spaced) to start, but as always, please honor the content of your work over the length of the project: quality over quantity is our gold standard. If you have written a thorough, substantive analysis in three pages, or if you require eight, so be it. Please refrain from ‘fluffing’ or abridging your work at this stage in the drafting process.

Ethcial, Pathetic, and Logical Fallacies

The method by which we reason through complex ideas, through the use of language, is truly a remarkable craft. The arrangement of symbols to not only make meaning but to affect a particular rhetorical appeal is key in understanding how language works and in using it deliberately, responsibly, ethically, and effectively.

As we have discussed in class, what will be appropriate and effective in one situation may be inappropriate and counterproductive in another (i.e. in each case), which is one reason why understanding patterns and structures of logical proofs (pistis) is so important in the effective use of language. A well-crafted argument considers not just the kairos (the opportune or appropriate moment in which one situates and advances a claim), but also the method by which an argument is structured and supported. Once understood as a craft, Aristotle's classification of pisteis (proofs) as entechnic (artistic) and atechnic (non-artistic) becomes clearer: we use the materials and data available (atechnic pistis) to craft (entechnic pistis) an appeal.

When inadvertent, fallacies hinder the efficacy of language and compromise its ability to achieve its objectives; when used delberately, fallacies apply rhetorical mechanisms without consideration for ethics to achive an objective through unfair, unprincipled, or inaccurate means (as with propaganda, for example). While the compendium of specific logical, pathetic, and ethical fallacies is vast, they all turn on the same basic structures of reasoning: deductive (i.e. syllogistic and enthymematic) and inductive (i.e. probabilistic).

[Please refer to your class notes for specific examples and definitions of structures of reasoning and logical, ethical, and pathetic fallacies.]

Given the power--and often the consequences--of language, taking time to parse the logical structures of an argument, be it one you are crafting and andvancing or one you are receiving, may be one of the most valuable practices you can adopt.

Consider this . . . Week 3

As this course is designed to offer substantial instruction and practice across various modes of literacy by directly engaging public argument, the blog project offers each of you the opportunity to do just that: now that each cohort has named and configured a blog, you are now prepared to advance public arguments of your own.

Each week, I will post a prompt, related to our class discussions and/or current events, for bloggers and respondents to consider (i.e. the “Consider this . . .” series of posts). These prompts are designed to frame your work within the context of our course and guide your approach, but you are welcome to explore any subject or text you choose. My hope is that you can tailor these blog posts and responses to your own personal and professional interests, making them relevant to and representative of your unique perspectives and experiences.

Please keep in mind that those who post this wek should do so by midnight Tuesday, February 3; respondents should post their work by midnight Saturday, February 7.

Without further ado . . .

Consider: ethos

In his treatise On Rhetoric, Aristotle argues that ethos “should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person” (1.2.42), which is in many ways a practical and fair suggestion. In contemporary practice, public arguments—especially those advanced by ‘public figures,’ be they well-known writers, celebrities, public servants, or ‘talking heads’—are often inextricable from the character or reputation of the person or group advancing the argument. This presents an interesting problem: to what degree can we discount reputation? Should we? When you judge ethos (i.e. the credibility of a given speaker/author), do your conclusions depend more on the speaker’s reputation or on the particular rhetorical moment/act (or both, and in what measure)?

Welcome, Spring 2009

Welcome, newcomers, to the Engaging the Polis blog. This project, now beginning its second semester, brings the writing we do for class to a broader, more public, forum. This space will serve as the 'hub' through which you may link to your and/or other cohorts' blogs, but it will also serve as a shared space where I will routinely post summaries of class discussions, lecture notes, et al. relevant or supporting material that is appropriate to share in an open-access forum. Those enrolled in class as well as visitors to our site(s) are welcome to post comments, submit questions, and share related materials.

By way of introduction, here are some questions will explore this semester, taken from today's class:

What is rhetoric?

Aristotle defines rhetoric as "having the ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion" (from On Rhetoric, Book I, Chapter 2, 1-2). We will spend more time explicating this definition and exploring how it works in a contemporary context.

In his 1776 Philosophy of Rhetoric, George Campbell advanced this definition of rhetoric: "the art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end[. . .]the ends [ . . .] reducible to four; [. . .] to enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination, to move the passions, or to influence the will." This last 'end,' "to influence the will," cogently reveals the power of language and literacy and the central importance of ethics in rhetorical practice, something we will explore in depth throughout the semester.

Given these definitions (there are, of course, a corpus of others we will also consider), it is clear that rhetoric is concerned with argument and persuasion; it involves both agency and reception and, therefore, often involves opposition . . .but opposition is not always necessary: as the rhetorician and scholar Andrea Lunsford offers, rhetoric may be used for a variety of purposes, to

Inform
Convince
Explore
Make Decisions
Meditate or Pray

and I would add to that list,

to Facilitate Self-expression.

Throughout the semester, we will return to these claims, test them, and understand how and when they might be accurate or inaccurate. By the end, I hope you will have developed your own perspectives about the scope, purpose, and limits of rhetoric.

What is a polis?

Strictly speaking, a polis refers to the Ancient Greek city-state, but it is also used to describe a 'social organization,’ a 'public,' or a 'body of citizens.' We will employ all of these definitions in our study of rhetoric and writing.

What do we mean by 'public argument' and what are its forms?

With this, I am hoping to understand rhetoric not only in the strict academic sense, but as it relates to our everyday experiences and interactions. Topics and issues advanced in the public forum, however we define 'public,' are fair game. While topics may range from the serious and the contentious, the local and the global, the popular and the esoteric, understand that there is also room for levity.

The method by which these topics are carried are the forms we will discuss; the form, then, is one method “by which discourse is adapted to its end” and is, therefore, rhetorical. Indeed, if, as Lunsford suggests, ‘everything is an argument,’ then there are almost endless opportunities to explore themes, topics, or issues that are important, relevant, and useful to you during your engagement with this project.

So, once again, welcome. I look forward with optimism to what's in store.

1QE: First Quarterly Essay

As we addressed in class, this course invites you to engage in public debate and discussion; therefore, as an opening exercise, please write a brief (2-3 page, or thereabouts) essay that describes and argues a claim that is important to you. Consider this: if you were to become known for advancing a particular cause or for trumpeting a particular issue, what would it be? What matters to you enough to talk to others about it? What might be your own personal "soap-box" argument?

Please turn in your typed essays in class on Thursday, January 22. See you then!