After reading Jack Selzer’s “Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers”, I have identified the following sorts of questions I believe one would ask when doing rhetorical analysis. Initially, rhetoricians have to ask themselves either “who is the author/ speaker”, “how does he or she establish ethos (credibility) in their text”, and “who makes up their intended audience”? These questions allow one to be able to identify the exact discourse community they are trying to reach. A final question that one may ask is, “does the message or text succeed in fulfilling the author’s or speaker’s intentions”? The purpose of utilizing rhetoric in text or speech is to persuade the audience to believe what you are saying; thus, one has to reflect and identify if their goal has been achieved. The above questions are some of the most important questions one has to ask when doing rhetorical analysis. If one is unable to not only identify the type of audience they are communicating to, but also unable to persuade their audience, they will never succeed in fulfilling their intentions as a speaker/ author.
A text assigned to myself outside of this course is the syllabus to my Finance 326 Derivatives class. To begin, after reading Selzer’s text, I realized that when rhetoricians are trying to reach a specific audience, they also use specialized vocabulary familiar with that audience in order to effectively connect with them. A syllabus outlines specific course objectives and specific rules of the professor prior to the first class. The way a professor communicates with their colleagues is different than the way they communicate with their students, and this is seen in how they write their syllabus. To write an effective syllabus, the professor has to understand not only who their audience is, but what their intentions are when reaching out to this audience. For example, my derivatives professor’s syllabus has the intention to inform what work is required throughout the semester. Thus, he bullet-pointed and bolded the most important information (such as office hours, contact information, and grading rubric), that he believed is the most important information pertinent to the students. As young adults, college kids tend to be easily distracted; therefore, bulleting and highlighting important information in a syllabus is a technique that ensures our type of discourse community receives necessary information. Ultimately, the text in question suggest that scientific discourse in my major is that the writing styles of business professionals are similar to that of scientists and other professionals in similar fields. They both uphold their claims with proof from credible sources to defend their own ethos. Additionally, scientific discourse is related to discourse in my major because both parties communicate as conversation to effectively relay information or ideas to specific discourse communities. They use similar analytical methods that can give people a better sense of how the particular pieces of rhetorical performance emerges from, are owning to, and speak to specific contexts.
3 Comments
Montgomery discusses scientific discourse in terms of rhetoric in his book The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, where he claims that “Scientific writing is also engaged in rhetoric—it aims not just to tell you but to persuade you. It wants to convince us that the result not only has meaning but is meaningful” (Montgomery, 2017). Here, according to Montgomery, rhetoric has to do with science as a way to effectively communicate to a specific audience with a purpose to inform, educate, and persuade. I also agree with Montgomery in his statement that “scientific writing is storytelling” and that that rhetoric has to do with science as a means of providing research and data in a way that anyone can understand regardless if their professional field is biomedicine or agronomy. The following excerpt as seen on page twelve of his book highlights the relationship between rhetoric and science:
“Scientific communication is highly stylized- far more stylized, in fact, than forms such as the literary essay. When we look back at the past, say to the 17th century, and trace technical expression forward, we find that what we are doing when we write is telling very condensed, extremely formalized ‘stories’ to an equally particular audience” (Montgomery, 2017). Note the fact that Montgomery identifies that when scientist communicate their findings they are relaying “condensed” and “formalized” stories to a specific discourse community. I believe that the need to talk about rhetoric in a science writing course is necessary because it expands our knowledge and skills as a writer to effectively reach out and connect with a discourse community previously foreign to myself. I believe that the majority of students taking writing courses at college are steered towards technical and professional writing styles to be able to write memos, reports and presentations for the real world; however, if one was ever to write for the sciences, I expect most students to be unable to effectively communicate their thoughts. Looking at science through a rhetorical lens might be illuminating in the following two ways. To begin, you would have to take into account all audiences who will receive your text and think about how they might perceive your information. This opens one’s mind to think and analyze their information in different ways that can not only benefit their immediate communication technique, but benefit their future communication techniques as well. Second, I perceive looking at science through a rhetorical lens is an opportunity for myself to grow as a writer and develop skills that I have never before utilized. I have always written for the business world (i.g. writing memos, reports, presentations, letters of transmittal, etc.), and I believe that changing my rhetorical lens will open new doors for my writing career. |
AuthorLuke Grabowski Archives
April 2018
Categories |