Response to Elizabeth Roush's Question 2

This post is in response to Elizabeth Roush’s question #2

I also found this section of the chapter interesting; it definitely caught my eye and made me think about whether I agreed or not with what Warnick and Inch were saying. When first reading the statement “intentions are unobservable responses”(pg. 30) I disagreed, but with further thought I agree with Elizabeth that the authors make a valid point. There definitely are times when a person can be persuasive enough, or a good enough speaker in general to portray a certain image while also hiding the true intention. It doesn’t even have to be personally hidden, I think it happens sometimes just due to them talking in the moment. Or perhaps even a good picture of the intention can be made, but when you look at the text you can actually see the intentionality that more clearly.

By looking at the use of language in the speech or text we can further examine the author’s intentions. So while there intentions may be unobservable in person, on paper they are easier to distinguish when looking at argument structure and language use. I agree that the case can be made that the intentions can actually be more affective or better understood through the reading of the text rather than during the actual speech. When a speaker is reading a speech aloud accentuation can be put on different statements in relation to others that may have been seen as more important during the reading. In looking at both Obama and President Regan’s speeches on the screen and also having the hard copy, I feel that as a class we were better able to analyze each situation and the intentions behind the speeches. In Obama’s address during the democratic national convention you could definitely tell that in his speech he was trying to unite both parties to join in change. In looking at the text we were specifically able to look at his word usage and how he was able to be so accurately descriptive in those he spoke of in his speech. During the speech this may or may not have been noticed but in reading the speech it shows a deep personalization that he wants to create with each of these people and how they can be an example for the American people. The intention becomes stronger and more focused. With Regan I believe the same is apparent. In watching his speech made after the Challenger tragedy he comes off as very sympathetic but strong. When we discussed the text of his speech in class we were able to pull out many other points that helped to create this whole picture of the past, present, and what was to come for America in the future. His word choice and speech structure was very strategically planned and that is hard to see in just one view of the speech, but when you take the time to examine the text you can experience really all that it encompasses and what Regan was really wanting to convey to the American people.

            I think both of these speeches and texts are good examples of how a speech/claim can show some type of intentionality, but with further examination of the text really show that so much more can be pulled, and the intentions of the author can truly be seen. It’s easy to misinterpret or be fooled, but when you read the text for what it is and know the background it is easier to base your interpretations. I have experienced personal encounters where my interpretation of the speaker was mistaken for what their true intentions were, and I felt fooled until I went back and actually replayed what was said and thought about how and why they said things. Looking at the language behind arguments definitely impacts how they are interpreted, and in thinking about this question it has made me much more aware of how much of an impact language has. This chapter and section alone have opened my mind to encourage me to be more critical in the analysis of language used by others and myself. 

Question Response to Promo Girl

Question Response 2: This is in response to Promo Girls question, “The Challenger.”

 

I wonder if we as humans change the rhetoric in response to situations, specifically tragedies, in Order for out conscious beings to comprehend and swallow in the face of tragedies what has occurred? I also wonder if we do the same thing in light of other situations?

 

As discussed by Jeff Philpott’s class discussion on Tuesday, there seems to a very clear connection between rhetoric used and the situation at hand. We as humans all the time change our rhetoric based on the situation. It’s just like in the challengers case, and in any other type of tragedy, let’s say 9/11 for this example, the rhetoric before and after the event had changed drastically. Before 9/11 we didn’t refer to Iraqis or Middle Eastern people in the same way we do now, the news did not report the same way it did before the war began, and why? Because the situation had changed, they had now committed a terrorist attack on us and we had now waged war. When the situation changes the discourse is sure to change as well.

            This can be said for many other situations as well. The whole idea of the “rhetorical situation” is that rhetorical discourse is called into being by the situation. The situation is what helps us apply the appropriate response. Exigency helps us to find the problem that needs to be addressed, the audience is whom we can influence through our discourse, and constraints are the limitations we face n our discourse. All of these occur and all of them are dependent on the situation so that the proper response can be made. I think a current example of this could be the issue of global warming. The problem is that it is definitely affecting our planet, the audience is those who are willing to make the sacrifices needed, and the constraints could be others that deny and argue against the idea of global warming. If the situation were to change, so would the constraints and audience addressed.

            So definitely the answer would be yes to the question of whether other situations create this same kind of change in discourse.  Rhetoric is directly correlated with situation.