LECTURE SIX

Rhetorical Criticism/Analysis 2
Introduction
In this lecture we shall learn about the rhetorical triangle, strategies for understanding rhetorical
analysis and how to analyse rhetorical writings.
Rhetorical Analysis
The ultimate objective of rhetorical analysis is to show why la text was effective or persuasive.
We observed that by studying texts closely, we can learn how writers and speakers sway others
and how we can be more persuasive ourselves. A rhetorical analysis requires that we step back
from a text and consider it from multiple perspectives. It supplies a heightened awareness of a
text and better appreciation of what the author accomplished. Though understanding how
communication works or fails to work is a worthy goal by itself,
but rhetorical analysis has other benefits.
Traditionally, people talking about rhetorical analysis draw a diagram (see figure 1). This diagram
is a triangle, sometimes in a circle, which is itself sometimes against a background. The triangle
has lines with arrows going in various directions. The point of this diagram is that you have (more
or less) five things to consider when looking at a text: the authors), audience(s), textual
strategies, immediate context, and larger context (sometimes called "background". The arrows go
in all sorts of different directions because all those things influence one another.

The Rhetorical Triangle: Adapted from Miller (2008).

Text
Author
Audience

For instance, I (author or rhetor) am writing this information (text) for my students (audience).
The text is influenced by my intention (author) as well as my perception of what you people are
likely to know and not know (audience). It is also shaped by the immediate context (e.g., how
much time I have to write it, that I am using a word processing program that does not easily
incorporate diagrams, etc.) and the larger context ("background" knowledge on which I can draw,
such as that you know that squirrels go up a tree quickly).
Therefore, some of the elements that are normally considered in this type of analysis are:
• the author's intended audience
• the author's purpose
• the organization of the work and how that organization might influence the reader v
• the use of language
• the type of appeals being used (ethos, logos, pathos).
Strategies for Understanding Rhetorical Analyses
1. Explore the ways in which a text delivers its message. Examine any larger contexts or concerns
through the lens of careful reading of the rhetorical moves in the text.
2. Consider the rhetorical situation associated with a text. Ask questions about speaker and
audience to open avenues for exploring a text. Think about the purposes that inform a text to
help you understand the message.
Extend analysis of the rhetorical situation by thinking about appeals made by a text. Think about
the ways texts play to your emotions or rely on the ethos of their speakers. Examine the logic of
the claims made in a text.
4/ Ask questions about genre and medium to guide your rhetorical analysis. Ask how conventions
shape a text. Consider how the text resists or modifies expectations.
5. Zoom in to critically read the details of a text. How does a text use description, narration,
dialog, comparison or some other writing strategies? What can be said about the use of language
or the tone of the text?
6. Learn to analyze a range of texts. Understand how to read and write about images, sounds,
and videos. Consider how media elements mix in a text.
7. Zoom out to make connections and offer conclusions based on your rhetorical analysis. Don't
stray too far from the primary work of analyzing rhetorical moves, but do extend your analysis to
consider associations with people, ideas, and things.
How to analyse rhetorical writings
The following questions can be used to assess how writer use logos, ethos, and pathos in their
writing.
Logos: (Reason)
Is the thesis clear and specific?
Is the thesis supported by strong reasons and credible evidence?
• Is the argument logical and arranged in a well-reasoned order?
Ethos: (Credibility)
What are the writer's qualifications? How has the writer connected him/herself to the topic being
discussed?
• Does the writer demonstrate respect for multiple viewpoints by using sources in the text?
Are sources credible? Are sources documented appropriately?
Does the writer use a tone that is suitable for the audience/purpose? Is the diction (word
choice) used appropriate for the audience/purpose?
• Is the document presented in a polished and professional manner?
Pathos: (Values/Beleifs: Emotions)
• Are vivid examples, details and images used to engage the reader's emotions and imagination?
• Does the writer appeal to the values and beliefs of the reader by using examples readers can
relate to or care about.

Example of the use of Aristotle rhetorical mode( Logos, Ethos and Pathos)
Speech by George W. Bush on the terrorist attacks on September 11
CROWD: U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I want you all to know --
Q: Can't hear you.
THE PRESIDENT: I can't talk any louder. (Laughter.) I want you all to know that America today -
- that America today is on bended knee in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for
the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. This nation stands with the good people
of New York City, and New Jersey and Connecticut, as we mourn the loss of thousands of our
citizens.
Q: I can't hear you.
THE PRESIDENT: I can hear you. (Applause.) I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you.
(Applause.) And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.
(Applause.)
CROWD: U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
THE PRESIDENT; The nation sends its love and compassion to everybody who is here. Thank you
for your hard work. Thank you for making the nation proud. And may God bless America.
(Applause.)
CROWD: U.S.A.! U.S.A.! (The President waves small American flag.) (Applause.) (nando.net,
2001).
Analysis of the Speech
Applying Aristotle's proofs to this situation will (1) clarify their definitions, (2) expose their utility,
and (3) draw insight to Bush's speech.
Ethos
Ethos refers to "the study of human character"
and "the persuasive potential of the speaker's
character and personal credibility" (Herrick, J. A., 2001). According to Aristotle, this proof was
potentially the most persuasive, although, logos or logic may be considered most important
today.
When one's character is seen as positive, we especially trust or have confidence in the person
trying to persuade us (Andrews, P. H., Andrews, J. A., & Williams, G., 2002). When the speaker is
seen as trustworthy, knowledgeable, and interested in the audience, the audience will likely
accept what the speaker says as true.
Bush's display of ethos during this speech was ubiquitous. Being a president that is willing to
come to the heart of the tragedy that had just occurred, automatically lifted his character to that
of a person who is caring, compassionate, and interested. His sense of eunoia or goodwill was
seen throughout his speech.
Bush's slight nonverbal actions also bolstered his sense of character. Throughout most of his
speech, he kept his arm wrapped around a lead firefighter working at the scene. The two men,
standing in front of onlookers and millions of Americans watching television, looked as if they
were good friends, glancing and nodding at one another. Interestingly, Bush's three minute
speech was completely audience centered, which has been known to affect ethos (Andrews, P. H.,
Andrews, J. A., & Williams, G., 2002). In all, his character and personhood came across as that-of
a conscientious, concerned person. His character shinned when he eloquently stated,
"And the
people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Bush was persuading the
workers and the nation that our country is in safe hands and that we will find whoever did these
terrible acts.
Pathos
Pathos refers to the study of human emotion, emotional appeals, and the act of "putting the
audience in the right frame of mind" (Herrick, J. A., 2001). This emotional side of the speech
usually influences our beliefs and has the potential to influence our actions. According to
Aristotle, pathos is evident when the audience is "roused to emotion by speech" (Aristotle, trans.
1982). The issues of morality also come into play. Aristotle felt that there is a moral imperative for
correct judgment.
Before Bush even spoke a word, emotions were at large. The crowd was chanting, "USA! USA!" A
feel of patriotism and pride mixed with an odd sense of defeat and disgust surrounded the area
and nation. When a man shouted that he could not hear Bush speak, and Bush replied, "I can't
talk any louder," the crowd laughed, putting them in a state of emotional happiness. When Bush
thanked the workers for their treacherous labor, a sense of pride and heroism was felt.
Within pathos, Aristotle makes a distinction between fear appeals and pity appeals. He classifies
fear appeals as the fear of physical harm or death, fear of loss, or deprivation of freedom
(Herrick,
J. A., 2001). When Bush yelled, "And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all
of us soon," he was not creating fear in American lives, but he was appealing to the fears of
whoever knocked down the buildings. In addition, he used this fear appeal (aimed at the
opposers) to motivate, inspire, and persuade Americans that we will retaliate. Aristotle also
classified pity appeals, which suggest or state "that someone or something helpless is being
harmed" (Herrick, J.
A., 2001). Bush's numerous statements, such as,
"The nation sends its love and compassion to
everybody who is here", bring out emotions of pity and sympathy, placing America as the
"helpless and harmed." In addition, the war torn environment in which the speech took place
added to the emotional situation. Pathos was probably more influential than any of the other
proofs in this speech.
Logos
Logos has numerous definitions, but usually refers to the words used, logical content or
reasoning, or thought expressed in words (Herrick, J. A., 2001). Logos also means logical sense
and may suggest intellect or rationality. It is also the study of "the arguments typical of the
reasoning employed in practical decision making" (Herrick, J. A., 2001).
The concept of logos in Bush's speech may be the hardest of the proofs to understand at first
sight when looking at the speech. Looking at specific word use, Bush used an immense amount of
religious jargon. Phrases such as, "On bended knee in prayer" and "May God bless America,"
appealed to both emotions (pathos) and to ways of thought (logos) and religion.
Logos took place on another level as well. There was an argument that the country is united, still
alive, and ready to 'be heard.' When Bush commented that "The nation stands with the good
people of New York City, and New Jersey and Connecticut," he used logic to create an imaginary
link of unification between the people devastated around the county. On another side, he also
made a subtle argument by his threat to those who highjacked the planes and created such
massive destruction.
Discussion
Bush did not just use logos, pathos, or ethos alone. He used them in unison. He used them to
create a wholesome speech that was successful. Pathos was used expertly: the audience's
feelings, needs, and emotions connected with the speech. Logos, or logical sense was displayed
to the listeners throughout the nation. Ethos, or character and credibility, was also eloquently
displayed by Bush.
Aristotle's artistic proofs are thousands of years old, however, they still have practical uses. They
(1) allow the audience to understand public speeches at a greater depth and (2) allow the
speaker to shape and mold her or his speech to one of success. In addition, according to Aristotle,
they define the study of rhetoric. I find Aristotle's artistic proofs to be one of the most useful
contributions to the study of rhetoric.
Summary
In this lecture we have been able to learn about the rhetorical triangle, strategies for
understanding rhetorical analysis and how to analyse rhetorical writings. Also we have been able
to use the rhetorical analysis pattern as an example to examine a speech for easy understanding.