21W.016 | Fall 2016 | Undergraduate

Writing and Rhetoric: Designing Meaning

Assignments

Essays

Essay 1: Speech Analysis

Draft due: One day before Session 8

Revision due: Two days after Session 10

Length: 1,000 words

Purpose: To learn to analyze features of public argument, and to consider your own claims and appeals to a public audience.

Example student work:

The Next Four Years of Values (PDF) - Courtesy of an MIT student and used with permission.

Essay 2: Debate Analysis

Draft due: Three days after Session 16

Revision due: Two days after Session 20

Length: 1,250 words

Purpose: To learn to analyze arguments on both sides of a debate in relation to each other, and to consider your own claims and appeals to a public audience.

Example student work:

Analysis of Trump v. Clinton debate on Gun Control (PDF) - Courtesy of an MIT student and used with permission.

Essay 3: Digital Rhetoric Analysis

Draft due: One day before Session 24

Oral presentation of your own MIT homepage image: in class on Session 26, ~10 minutes

Revision due: Last day of class, Session 27

Length: 1,750 words

Example student work:

A Community of a Thousand Influences (PDF) - Courtesy of an MIT student and used with permission.

For this assignment, you should choose a speech made in the public sphere—for instance, any of the convention or policy speeches made by one of the candidates, or a speech about one of the candidates made by someone else at the conventions, or a speech by another public figure, such as President Reif. Many options are available on the course website, or at American Rhetoric. Your task is to analyze this speech using the rhetorical methods we’re studying in class, in order to explain its strengths and weaknesses. The specific speech, and the methods of analysis, are up to you; you will, of course, want to choose a combination of speech and analytical methods that reveals some insight: perhaps it will explain how specific features of the rhetoric worked to make the speech effective (or ineffective), or explain what other rhetorical appeals or strategies could have been developed, or why an effective speech is nonetheless logically flawed, etc.

The potential methods should be drawn from the readings. For instance, based on Consigny’s article, you could analyze the topic (concept) pairs, and how they shift the audience’s beliefs. Based on Selzer’s article, you could analyze which rhetorical appeals are being used, and how they work together (or perhaps pull against each other). You might also analyze whether those are the most effective appeals, or whether a different balance of ethos, logos, and pathos might be more persuasive. Based on Fahnestock and Secor’s article, you could analyze where an argument begins and ends, in terms of stases, and whether it has successfully fulfilled or put to rest that stasis. These are just examples; other approaches are possible. You can choose to largely draw from one method, or to combine methods where overlapping them will reveal deeper insights. The requirements are that you make explicit your methods, and that the methods must be drawn from the readings we’ve covered in class.

Your essay will need to briefly explain each concept it applies, introduce the sources of the rhetorical methods as well as the source of the speech you’re analyzing, and cite all sources according to MLA format.

As you write your analysis, consider:

The underlying logical structure of your argument (you’ll be making arguments of fact and definition (showing that a particular feature of the speech should be seen as an appeal to ethos, for instance, while another forms a central topic pair), of causation (showing the effects of a particular type of discourse, or what causes a stasis to be closed) of value (arguing that some pieces are working well and others less than well, or that the argument as a whole is effective or not), and of policy (arguing that an alternative type of appeal would work better, or that we should not be convinced by a line of reasoning). As you design your microarguments, you’ll need to consider the order in which to present them and how they link together to form a strong reasoning chain.

The rhetorical structure of your argument (considering your audience, what premises need to be spelled out and which can be left implicit? Similarly with terms—which need to be defined? What order will make the logic clear and also pique the reader’s interest?)

For this assignment, you should choose one debate exchange in the public sphere—that is, the sequence of statements and rebuttals in response to one question, such as the exchange on one topic in one of the debates, arguments presented for or against a supreme court issue, or two exchanges in different sides of the question about whether “Redskins” is an offensive name for a football team. Your task is to analyze this debate sequence using the methods we’re studying in class (especially appeals, stasis theory, Toulmin’s model, and argumentation schemes), in order to explain which side presented the stronger argument, and why, or why the debate as a whole worked well (or didn’t) to clarify the distinctions between positions. The specific debate sequence, and the methods of analysis, are up to you; you will, of course, want to choose a combination of argument and analytical methods that reveals some insight: perhaps it will explain why a particular debated question evoked a great or poor exchange, or how one or another of the debaters used a specific technique to win the exchange, or why understanding one or a combination of the theories can explain some feature of this debate or of debates in general that otherwise seems hard to understand.

The thesis of your essay, in other words, will follow the basic argument structure of:

Rhetorical theory X (or X and Y) gives us analytical method X’, which when applied to debate sequence A offers conclusion C.

As you write your essay, consider:

The underlying logical structure of your argument (what are your claims? What is your evidence base, warrants, and qualifiers? What allows you to analyze and make inferences? etc.)

The rhetorical structure of your argument (considering your audience, what premises need to be spelled out and which can be left implicit? Similarly with terms—which need to be defined? What order will make the logic clear and also pique the reader’s interest? How will you introduce the theory to the reader?)

Your development of authority and credibility—how does your introduction of the positions and arguments you’re analyzing show your broad understanding of the exchange, and of the issues at stake? How do your introductions of the theories, and your citation practices, show your rhetorical expertise? How does the depth of your analysis show your engagement and insights?

While rhetoric has long been associated primarily with spoken oratory (political speeches, arguments in court, etc.), much recent analysis has been devoted to considering the rhetorical (i.e., symbolic and persuasive) functions of visual images, and of “texts” that are produced in multiple media—websites, advertisements, posters, films, even video games. In this unit, you will both analyze and produce rhetoric in multiple media. The unit includes 3 interrelated assignments: An essay analyzing the rhetoric of MIT’s homepage, a web design for the MIT homepage, and an oral presentation of your web design.

Your third essay assignment asks you to analyze the rhetoric of MIT’s homepage. As the images shift day to day, what argument is being made about MIT? How are viewers being persuaded (explicitly and implicitly) to accept particular ideas in relation to MIT? What do these designs suggest about the cultural identity that MIT constructs for itself?

To address these questions, you’ll need to perform a detailed rhetorical analysis of multiple homepage designs, and develop an argument about MIT’s use of visual rhetoric based on that analysis. Note: your argument in the essay is a critical analysis that addresses and evaluates what MIT does construct as an identity through its homepage; you are not being asked, here, to argue for what MIT should construct as its image (that can be addressed in your own web design and presentation).

As always, your essay should have a clear focus and purpose, a logical structure, and an argument based on evidence and reasoning. All sources (including the primary sources of MIT’s homepage) must be cited according to MLA format.

Useful invention activities: To prepare for the longer essay, begin by analyzing 2-3 separate images from MIT’s homepage this semester. You can choose any 2 or 3 images that you like, but at least one needs to be an image posted in November. Using the chart for comparing visual rhetoric of the homepage will help you organize your insights, and make comparisons, so that you can develop its ideas based on considering the images in relation to each other, rather than simply developing separate analyses. What appeals does the website make? What do we begin to learn about MIT’s use of visual rhetoric by examining these examples? What do these specific images tell us about MIT’s image of itself? (For instance, what is the focus of each image? Is “education” or “research” or “community” or “innovation,” or something else, being emphasized? How serious or playful, accessible or challenging, traditional or innovative are these constructed images? What do the images connote, and what visual tropes are at play? How does the web design develop ethos?).

One important note about this essay: Because this essay analyzes visual evidence, you’ll need to think carefully about how to incorporate visual evidence into your essay. Unlike in the first two essays, you won’t be able to “quote” your evidence, but you will have the same options of either presenting evidence directly (here, not in a quotation but through incorporating the image (or part of it)), or paraphrasing by rendering the evidence in your own words (in this case, describing the image). You will also need to consider, should you present the evidence directly, how you will integrate that into your text—will you simply attach the image and refer to it throughout? Will you crop small parts (perhaps frames or close ups) and integrate them as separate figures? If you paraphrase, will you describe the image all at once, or in smaller chunks? How will you move throughout the image in your analysis, and how will you orient your reader to the frame of the larger image as you do? As you work on early invention activities such as comparative analysis, also experiment with different options for incorporating information about the visual images in your text, and determine which is most conducive to the analysis you need to perform.

Course Info

Instructor
As Taught In
Fall 2016
Learning Resource Types
Written Assignments with Examples