Political Rhetoric: Hunter's View On Major Issues

Aristotle and Burke's theories both accomplish the ultimate goal of finding the meaning behind rhetoric, but Burke's theory delves deeper into the meaning of the rhetoric. When applying Mary Fisher's speech to each of these theories, and looking mainly at this larger difference, it is clear that the true motive of the speech is better developed by Burke's theory than Aristotle's. The main difference between Aristotle and Burke is that Aristotle views persuasion as an argument that can be divided up into the clearly defined categories of ethos, pathos, and logos, while Burke views persuasion as the relationship between speaker and audience, which is largely interpretive. Burke's extremely interpretative theory allows one to capture and analyze

The 2016 Presidential Election is approaching quickly, and as is customary a number of highly controversial issues have taken center stage and each side argues their position with oftentimes charged rhetoric. Using the rhetorical strategies discussed in class (ethos, pathos, and logos) in varying degrees and combinations both Democrats and Republicans appeal to their base and attempt to reach out to those who are on the fence. Oftentimes, whether a presentation or piece of controversial writing is political or apolitical a sizable majority of the readership will begin reading with preconceived notions. Those who take a hardline stance against the writer's position typically will never be convinced to adopt it. However, a large minority of readers

As Gorgias spread his wisdom and skill through the Encomium of Helen, other philosophers also expressed their wisdom and skill through contributing multiple perspectives on rhetoric. As other philosophers have studied rhetoric, there has been many different perspectives and criticisms that add to the complexity of understanding rhetoric and its effect on society. The Dissoi Logoi adds a

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

In his 1992 essay “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric,” George A. Kennedy proposed a foundation of and for a “General Rhetoric” that encompasses the activity of all social, communicative animals, a rhetoric as potential energy that exists prior to not only speech but to the whole of communication. Twenty-five years later, writing in the same journal, Philosophy and Rhetoric, and affiliated with the same institution, Pennsylvania State University, Henry Johnstone identified rhetoric, as a philosophical activity, as one of the handful of activities that separate humankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. Kennedy expanded the particular activities that fall under the domain of Rhetoric to illustrate, in part, that rhetoric, far from being a superfluous, inexact art to be discarded of by the rampant logical positivism and instrumentalism which is characteristic of our era, is in fact integral to the very existence, survival, and indeed consciousness of not humankind, but the whole of socio-sentient life. Johnstone, too, argues his point against the devaluation of rhetoric as a discipline, even though his claim runs counter to that of Kennedy: rhetoric, he says, “is the evocation and maintenance of the consciousness required for communication,” a property unique to human beings (21). It would be folly, according to Johnstone, to attribute this

The rhetorical situation refers to “a situation in which people’s understanding can be changed through messages.” (Zarefsky, 12). The rhetorical situation analysis consists of four elements: audience, occasion, speaker and speech, each assessing the quality of speech. In this essay, I will analyze the rhetorical situation of the historical speech “The Challenger Address” delivered by the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan.

*All the works below for the exam are done independently. No cooperation or discussion with anybody else.

John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech is certainly one to remember. It’s memorable not for its length, but for the effective content that it beholds. He entices readers by the use of strong rhetoric techniques. His inaugural analyzes style of writing, such as diction, tropes, schemes, and syntax, and applies the concept of it effectively throughout the speech. A reader performs rhetorical analysis to examine how authors attempt to persuade their audiences by looking at the various components that make up the art of persuasion. Moreover, it is most essential to be able to understand the relationship among the speaker, subject, and audience, which President Kennedy adequately exploits in his speech.

The rhetorical situation refers to “a situation in which people’s understanding can be changed through messages.” (Zarefsky, 12). The rhetorical situation analysis consists of four elements: audience, occasion, speaker and speech, each assessing the quality of speech. In this essay, I will analyze the rhetorical situation of the historical speech “The Challenger Address” delivered by the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan.

Kenneth Burke, a twentieth century scholar, devoted his work to “the definition of man”. His definition includes the notion that man is a symbol using animal, and that our symbol systems mediate reality. Simply, our perception and use of language shapes our reality. In conjunction with this definition, Burke also believed that rhetoric is a symbolic means of inducing cooperation. Rhetoric was not a means of persuasion for Burke, but more man’s way of achieving identification. Identification refers to the way people try to relate to each other and build relationships through language.

George Lakoff is a cognitive linguist and the author of The New York Times bestseller, The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Lakoff discusses the idea of framing and how it is used as a form of persuasion in political discourse. Politicians use frames as a manipulation tool in an attempt to change the way a person processes facts. Frames also persuade individuals to identify with a particular worldview. Lakoff makes a distinction between framing and spinning. However, I would argue that the terms cannot be separate under any circumstance, that is, framing is merely spinning whether politicians use it with good or manipulative intentions. With regards to framing as a form of “spin-doctoring”, I will discuss Canadian [and American] Liberal political discourse on the issue of immigration, specifically Syrian refugee resettlement.

This study essentially investigates the application of Lakoff’s family-based models in the American electoral speeches. A few previous studies have already conducted to answer the question of how to apply Lakoff’s cognitive models to the analysis of political discourse. The discussion in the previous chapter shows how (Cienki 2004, 2005a, b, Ahrens and Yat Mei Lee 2009, Ahrens 2006, 2011) attempt to put Lakoff’s cognitive models into an empirical investigation in order to find out how political actors construct their political discourse. The conclusion of chapter 3 shows that these studies test specific hypotheses in well-compiled data and follow a clear methodology. However, the researchers find some shortcomings in their investigations.

For Burke, rhetoric can be about persuasion, but is more than mere persuasion and is more than simply convincing you that an action is right. Rhetoric on a more fundamental level is a way of connecting your intrinsic ideas to a shared extrinsic idea. The process of identification is always about making that connection from the intrinsic to the extensive which Burke says can be done in three ways. The first can be seen by describing or identifying two extrinsic ideas together, which can be seen in the NFL protests by connecting the US flag to patriotism. Secondly, identifying both the speaker and audience, or looking for the intrinsic motivation shared between the speaker and the audience is another way the process of identification works. Identification is also about transcendence, as Burke identifies us with ideals or things larger than ourselves as a way of moving beyond who we are.

Both Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On Truth and lies in a normal Sense” and Ferdinand de Saussure’s “Object of Linguistics” and “Nature of Linguistic Signs” focus on the signs and allusions of rhetoric. After, analyzing both articles I have found that rhetoric and misunderstanding are directly related to one another through their ability to persuade

Out of the three genus causarum: genus deliberativum, genus indiciale, and genus demonstrativum, I argue that Williamson’s speech is an example of genus deliberativum. According to Roland Barthes’ rhetorical tree, there are six attributes assigned to the oratorical genres: audience, end, subject, time, reasoning, commonplaces. For the deliberative genre, the audience is "members of an assembly,” the end is “to persuade/dissuade,” the subject is “useful/harmful,” the time is “future,” the reasoning is “exempla,” and the commonplaces is “possible/impossible” (Barthes 72).