Comm 201 Final Review

Comm 201 Final Review - Comm 201 Final Exam: Herbert...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Comm 201 Final Exam: Herbert Wichelins – ‘Literary vs. Rhetorical Criticism’ Rhetorical Criticism: Audience Centered Concerned with effect of discourse Concerned with the method the author uses to convince the audience Good rhetoric is good at one time for one specific audience Grounded in Aristotle Lloyd Bitzer – Rhetorical Situation Presuppositions: Rhetoric is situation bound, it is called into being by/in relation to a specific situation. A situation may occur to which discourse/rhetoric will not exist without a situation it is intended to meet. The role of the situation in generating discourse has not been sufficiently studied Characteristics of a Rhetorical Situation: Exigence – a need that can be modified by rhetoric Audience – a proper audience is one that can be effected by rhetoric Constraints – situational factors that allow the speaker to communicated but also limit what the speaker may say or do in responding to the situation. Rhetor – the speaker that seeks to provide a ‘fitting response’ that will move the audience to ‘modify the exigence.’ Aka: changing the need to the degree that it no longer becomes a rhetorical need. Edwin Black: Form and Genre Form : the manner in which a work is put together; the pattern it follows Genre : When a number of works are put together in the same manner they constitute a genre. Genre, when devised, may be used to criticize works that claim to be their type. Logical Positivism: “The intellectual effort to bring scientific standards to bear on the resolution of issues.” LP’s Conception of language – the only meaningful statements are those that in principle are empirically verifiable. Non-literal terms and value statements are meaningless in that they cannot lead to empirically verifiable information. Aim: to clarify or purify language, to purge it of subjective meaning and ambiguity. General Semantics: “Applied logical positivism to language” Aim: to clarify language, to eliminate misunderstanding based on “mistakes” of interpretation. Mistakes are cause by A) confusing symbols (words with multiple meaning) and B) using high level abstractions Goal: to get argument back to using only syllogistic form, which tests the form, not the truth, of statements
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Stephen Toulmin: The Argument 2 Views of Arguments: 1. As a process: “An interpersonal interaction involving conflict” (arguments are…) 2. As a thing/entity: an argument as something you make (this argument is….) Model of Argument: Stages 1. Someone advances a claim or conclusion that has the potential for dispute 2. When challenged, the arguer provides data or evidence or grounds for the claim 3. When challenged, the arguer provides a warrant and or the inference that justifies drawing the claim from data (warrants often identifiable by terms such as ‘since, because…). 4.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 9

Comm 201 Final Review - Comm 201 Final Exam: Herbert...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online