The book defines neo-Aristotelian criticism as "the first formal method of rhetorical criticism." It originally had no structure and guidelines but with time this method developed the framework for how a speech should be formed, organized and presented. This was done by contributions from various people throughout time that decided what criteria needed to be met.
I can understand why it took so long on how to define this type of criticism because rhetorical criticism is a confusing concept as it is. It seems that even though the communication field has come a long way all aspects and concepts of it are still very vague. I feel like as confusing as they try to make neo-Aristotelian criticism if you really take a long at it, it's common sense and a guide on how to be organized.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
What are the 5 cannons of rhetoric?
The book I believe had the best way in describing what applying the cannons is "the steps that go into the process of public speaking." The five steps are invention, organization, style, memory and the delivery.
This process seems like common sense of how you would organize a speech starting with the way you formulate your ideas for a speech which includes background information, objects and giving a taste of what you point is. The second step is organizing your speech which is self explanatory, it's preparing your speech on what your going to talk about. It's done through the order you plan to talk about everything. The third step is style. It's all about what your own personal twist your applying to your speech. I'm not sure if this is accurate but I interpreted it as the game plan for your method of persuasion you plan on using. Fourth is the memory where you show how well you have mastered the subject by proving it. The audience is going to be the people that tell whether you actually know what your talking about because your trying to teach them, they are learning from the presenter. If the audience does not have a good grasp on the message of the speaker then the speaker looks like they do not know what they are talking about. Lastly the delivery is how you finally present your speech to your audience. This idea can be tested by how you have influenced your audience by measuring their reaction. In my opinion I think the final step is the most important the delivery is what wins the audiences over. If you don't know what your talking it will show through your delivery. If the speaker seems excited and interested in what they're talk about that will make the audience motivated to understand as well.
This process seems like common sense of how you would organize a speech starting with the way you formulate your ideas for a speech which includes background information, objects and giving a taste of what you point is. The second step is organizing your speech which is self explanatory, it's preparing your speech on what your going to talk about. It's done through the order you plan to talk about everything. The third step is style. It's all about what your own personal twist your applying to your speech. I'm not sure if this is accurate but I interpreted it as the game plan for your method of persuasion you plan on using. Fourth is the memory where you show how well you have mastered the subject by proving it. The audience is going to be the people that tell whether you actually know what your talking about because your trying to teach them, they are learning from the presenter. If the audience does not have a good grasp on the message of the speaker then the speaker looks like they do not know what they are talking about. Lastly the delivery is how you finally present your speech to your audience. This idea can be tested by how you have influenced your audience by measuring their reaction. In my opinion I think the final step is the most important the delivery is what wins the audiences over. If you don't know what your talking it will show through your delivery. If the speaker seems excited and interested in what they're talk about that will make the audience motivated to understand as well.
What are the three basic steps in analyzing an artifact?
1. SELECTING THE ARTIFACT
The first step would be selecting the artifact. This entails you find a piece of work that meets the appropriate standards in selecting your artifact. The artifact you chose must me something that you are interested in. The reason why is because selecting something that you are motivated about will make sure you have the right tools available in doing your best at analyzing your artifact to the fullest. The last standard would be to select an artifact that is by a rhetor so that it is easy to access background information about the.
2. ANALYZING THE ARTIFACT
Secondly Analyzing the artifact which includes three major steps reconstructing the context in which the artifact occurred, application of the five canons to the artifact and assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience.
The first step would be investigating about the rhetor's background information. This helps you get a better feel for what the rhetor's point of views are and why he was motivated about this subject. The best I thought to describe this idea was it is putting you in the rhetor's shoes.
The second step is applying the five canons to the artifact. The best way I thought to describe this process would be organizing a public speech. The basic steps even end with what the audiences memory of the speech and what they got out of the presentation.
The final step is having the critic judges the actually rhetoric by trying to interpret what the goal of the rhetoric. They do this by analyzing a response.
3. WRITING THE ESSAY
The final step is putting all your information from your previous steps and actually writing the essay. It is a five step process that is the basic writing structure for writing any essay. It includes the introduction, the description of the artifact and its context, a description of the method of criticism,a report of the findings of the analysis and finally a discussion of the contribution the analysis makes to rhetorical theory.
The first step would be selecting the artifact. This entails you find a piece of work that meets the appropriate standards in selecting your artifact. The artifact you chose must me something that you are interested in. The reason why is because selecting something that you are motivated about will make sure you have the right tools available in doing your best at analyzing your artifact to the fullest. The last standard would be to select an artifact that is by a rhetor so that it is easy to access background information about the.
2. ANALYZING THE ARTIFACT
Secondly Analyzing the artifact which includes three major steps reconstructing the context in which the artifact occurred, application of the five canons to the artifact and assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience.
The first step would be investigating about the rhetor's background information. This helps you get a better feel for what the rhetor's point of views are and why he was motivated about this subject. The best I thought to describe this idea was it is putting you in the rhetor's shoes.
The second step is applying the five canons to the artifact. The best way I thought to describe this process would be organizing a public speech. The basic steps even end with what the audiences memory of the speech and what they got out of the presentation.
The final step is having the critic judges the actually rhetoric by trying to interpret what the goal of the rhetoric. They do this by analyzing a response.
3. WRITING THE ESSAY
The final step is putting all your information from your previous steps and actually writing the essay. It is a five step process that is the basic writing structure for writing any essay. It includes the introduction, the description of the artifact and its context, a description of the method of criticism,a report of the findings of the analysis and finally a discussion of the contribution the analysis makes to rhetorical theory.
Introduction.
I'm Courtney Brown a junior and a communications major. I want to take out of using this blog is to better understand rhetorical criticism through interacting with other students from the course textbook. Hopefully with this blog it will have guide me to a better understanding of rhetorical criticism as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)