Educ 140

Rhetoric and Criticism

Course Description:
This is a three-unit course offering in the Master’s Degree
Program which gives emphasis on the exploration and application of
art of effective speaking and writing including analysis of the
language used to persuade audience. Application of knowledge to
daily life undertakings.

Target Population:
All graduate school entrants whose education is obtained
through formal and non-formal experiences.

Overview:
This course deals with the major theories of rhetorical
criticism and provides practical ways to analyze and ways to
effective speaking and writing.

Objectives:
At the end of this course, the graduate students will be able
to:

• Express and explain about rhetoric and criticism.

• Recognize the importance of challenges that contemporary
theorists contributed to the study of rhetoric.
• Utilize analytical and critical skills in the application of the
uses of rhetorical criticism.
• Understand how rhetorical theory and criticism are a current
part of the communication discipline.
• Relate learning experiences of rhetoric to real life situation
and apply to teaching-learning process.

1
Instructions to the Learners:

After accomplishing this module, the student may now have

full understanding of the subject by performing the different
exercises and activities included in the module.

Course Content:
Unit I. Definition of Rhetoric
 Selected definitions of Rhetoric.

Unit II. Rhetorical Triangle

 Understanding Rhetorical Triangle
 Using the Rhetorical Triangle
 Logos: Rational Speech
 Pathos: Proportionate Emotion
 Ethos: Credible Character

Unit III. Visual Rhetoric (Reading and Writing) and its effect
 Visual Rhetoric Defined
 Foundations of Rhetoric
Unit IV. The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism
 Definition
 Art of Criticism
 Television Criticism
 Symbols as the Medium of Rhetoric
 Systematic Analysis as the Act of Criticism
 Acts and Artifacts as the Object of Criticism
 Understanding Rhetorical Processes as the purpose of
criticism
Unit V. Functions of Criticisms
Unit VI. Variables of Criticism
Unit VII. The Aims of the Speaker
Unit VII. The Structure of Speech
Unit VIII. The Garden of Eloquence
Unit IX. First Thoughts and Last

2
 UNIT I

DEFINITIONS OF RHETORIC

Overview : This unit includes the selected definition of

rhetoric and the various concept and its
principles.

Objectives : At the end of the unit, the students were able to:
 Define rhetoric
 Give examples of rhetoric

What is rhetoric?

• The art or study of using language effectively and

persuasively. [American Heritage College Dictionary]
• “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any
given case the available means of persuasion.” [Aristotle]

What is said (message)

Who is saying it (speaker)
Who is listening (audience)
Where / when it is being said (context, appeals)
Why it is being said (purpose)
How it is being said (tone, style)

Aristotle believed that from the world around them, speakers could:
1. observe how communication happens and
2. use that to develop sound and convincing arguments.

Aristotle said that when a rhetor (speaker) begins to consider how to

compose a speech, he/she must take into account 3 elements: the
message, the audience, and the speaker.

Definition of rhetoric

3
 1.the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a. the study of principles and rules of composition
formulated by critics of ancient times
b. the study of writing or speaking as a means of
communication or persuasion
2a. skill in the effective use of speech
b. a type or mode of language or speech also: insincere or
grandiloquent language
3. verbal communication: DISCOURSE Synonyms

Rhetoric refers to the study and uses of written, spoken and

visual language. It investigates how language is used to organize
and maintain social groups, construct meanings and identities,
coordinate behavior, mediate power, produce change, and create
knowledge. Rhetoricians often assume that language is constitutive
(we shape and are shaped by language), dialogic (it exists in the
shared territory between self and other), closely connected to
thought (mental activity as "inner speech") and integrated with
social, cultural and economic practices. Rhetorical study and written
literacy are understood to be essential to civic, professional and
academic life.

Rhetoric began 2500 years ago as the study of the forms of

communication and argument essential to public, political and legal
life in Ancient Greece. It has since evolved a rich and diverse body
of research, texts, and pedagogies.

Selected Definitions of Rhetoric

Plato: Socrates asks,

Must not the art of rhetoric, taken as a whole, be a kind of
influencing of the mind by means of words, not only in courts of law
and other public gatherings, but in private places also? And must it
not be the same art that is concerned with great issues and small,
its right employment commanding no more respect when dealing
with important matters than with unimportant? Phaedrus, 261a-
261b.

Isocrates (353 BCE):

But since we have the ability to persuade one another and to
make dear to ourselves what we want, not only do we avoid living
like animals, but we have come together, built cities, made laws,
and invented arts. Speech is responsible for nearly all our
inventions. It legislated in matters of justice and injustice and
beauty and baseness, and without these laws, we could not live with

4
one another. By it we refute the bad and praise the good; through it,
we educate the ignorant and recognize the intelligent. We regard
speaking well to be the clearest sign of a good mind, which it
requires, and truthful, lawful, and just speech we consider the image
of a good and faithful soul. With speech we fight over contentious
matters, and we investigate the unknown. We use the same
arguments by which we persuade others in our own deliberations;
we call those able to speak in a crowd "rhetorical"; we regard as
sound advisers those who debate with themselves most skillfully
about public affairs. If one must summarize the power of discourse,
we will discover that nothing done prudently occurs without speech,
that speech is the leader of all thoughts and actions, and that the
most intelligent people use it most of all.

Aristotle (ca. 350 BCE):

Let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular]
case, to see the available means of persuasion. This is the function
of no other art; for each of the others is instructive and persuasive
about its own subject: for example, medicine about health and
disease and geometry about the properties of magnitudes and
arithmetic about numbers and similarly in the case of the other arts
and sciences. But rhetoric seems to be able to observe the
persuasive about "the given," so to speak. That, too, is why we say
it does not include technical knowledge of any particular, defined
genus [of subjects].

Rhetorica ad Herennium (ca. 80 BCE):

The task of the public speaker is to discuss capably those
matters which law and custom have fixed for the uses of citizenship,
and to secure as far as possible the agreement of his hearers.

Cicero (ca. 90 BCE):

There is a scientific system of politics which includes many
important departments. One of these departments—a large and
important one—is eloquence based on the rules of art, which they
call rhetoric. For I do not agree with those who think that political
science has no need for eloquence, and I violently disagree with
those who think that it is wholly comprehended in the power and
skill of the rhetorician. Therefore we will classify oratorical ability as
a part of political science. The function of eloquence seems to be to
speak in a manner suited to persuade an audience, the end is to
persuade by speech.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1872-73):

5
 What is called "rhetorical," as a means of conscious art, had
been active as a means of unconscious art in language and its
development, indeed, that the rhetorical is a further development,
guided by the clear light of the understanding, of the artistic means
which are already found in language. There is obviously no
unrhetorical "naturalness" of language to which one could appeal;
language itself is the result of purely rhetorical arts. The power to
discover and to make operative that which works and impresses,
with respect to each thing, a power which Aristotle calls rhetoric, is,
at the same time, the essence of language; the latter is based just
as little as rhetoric is upon that which is true, upon the essence of
things. Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language, p 21.

Steven Mailloux (1989):

[Rhetoric is] the political effectivity of trope and argument in
culture. Such a working definition includes the two traditional
meanings of rhetoric—figurative language and persuasive action—
and permits me to emphasize either or both senses, differently in
different discourse at different historical moments, in order to
specify more exactly how texts affect their audiences in terms of
particular power relations. Rhetorical Power.

Charles Bazerman (1988):

The study of how people use language and other symbols to
realize human goals and carry out human activities [. . .] ultimately
a practical study offering people great control over their symbolic
activity. Shaping Written Knowledge, p. 6.

Michel Foucault (1973):

[The problem is bringing] rhetoric, the orator, the struggle of
discourse within the field of analysis; not to do, as linguists do, a
systematic analysis of rhetorical procedures, but to study discourse,
even the discourse of truth, as rhetorical procedures, as ways of
conquering, of producing events, of producing decisions, of
producing battles, of producing victories. In order to "rhetoricize"
philosophy.

Kevin DeLuca:
Rhetoric is the mobilization of signs for the articulation of
identities, ideologies, consciousnesses, communities, publics, and
cultures.

Krista Ratcliffe:
But as Kenneth Burke has taught us, rhetoric may be defined
very broadly (e.g., I tell the students in my undergraduate rhetorical

6
theory class that the study of rhetoric is the study of how we use
language and how language uses us).

Christine Farris:
What rhetoric has always addressed: not the mastery and
regulation of language so much as the ways in which language
shapes, reflects, and changes practices among members of
particular communities.

Michael Holzman:
In antiquity rhetoric was education, the leading out of the
child from the private world of the family (and the family's
responsibility for suitable training) to the social and political worlds.
Learning to write well, which meant, on the one hand, a complicated
technique, and, on the other hand, a discrete (primarily literary)
body of knowledge, was the necessary preparation for what was
seen as the only truly human existence: that of a participant in the
social life of the community and the political life of the state.

Knoblauch:
[Rhetoric] deals with "questions surrounding any study of
language: the relation between language and the world, the relation
between discourse and knowledge, the heuristic and communicative
functions of verbal expression, the roles of situation and audience in
shaping utterance, the social and ethical aspects of discourse. . . .

Cherwitz and Hikins:

Rhetoric is the art of describing reality through language.
Under this definition, the study of rhetoric becomes an effort to
understand how humans, in various capacities and in a variety of
situations, describe reality through language. To act rhetorically is
to use language in asserting or seeming to assert claims about
reality. At the heart of this definition is the assumption that what
renders discourse potentially persuasive is that a rhetor (e.g. a
speaker or writer) implicitly or explicitly sets forth claims that either
differ from or cohere with views of reality held by audiences (e.g. a
specific scholarly community, a reader of fiction, or an assembly of
persons attending a political rally). Communication and Knowledge:
An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology. 62.

James Boyd White:

Law is most usefully seen not, as it usually seen by academics and

philosophers, as a system of rules, but as a branch of rhetoric,
and . . . the kind of rhetoric of which law is a species is most usefully
seen not, as rhetoric usually is either as failed science or as the

7
ignoble art of persuasion, but as the central art by which community
and culture are established, maintained, and transformed. So
regarded, rhetoric is continuous with law, and like it, has justice as
its ultimate aim. Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of
Cultural and Communal Life, 52.

Terry Eagleton (1983):

Rhetoric, which was the received form of critical analysis all
the way from ancient society to the 18th century, examined the way
discourse are constructed in order to achieve certain effects. It was
not worried about whether its objects of inquiry were speaking or
writing, poetry or philosophy, fiction or historiography: its horizon
was nothing less than the field of discursive practices in society as a
whole, and its particular interest lay in grasping such practices as
forms of power and performance. This is not to say that it ignored
the truth-value of the discourse in question, since this could often
be crucially relevant to the kinds of effect they produced in their
readers and listeners. Rhetoric in its major phase was neither a
language, nor a "formalism," preoccupied simply with analyzing
linguistic devices. It looked at such devices in terms of concrete
performance-they were means of pleading, persuading, inciting and
so on-and at people’s responses to discourse in terms of linguistic
structures and the material situations in which they functioned. It
saw speaking and writing not merely as textual objects, to be
aesthetically contemplated or endlessly deconstructed, but as forms
of activity inseparable from the wider social relations between
writers and readers, orators and audiences, and as largely
unintelligible outside the social purposes and conditions in which
they were embedded.

Roland Barthes (1964-1965):

The rhetoric under discussion here is that metalanguage
(whose language-object was "discourse") prevalent in the West from
the fifth century BC to the nineteenth century AD. We shall not deal
with more remote efforts (India, Islam), and with regard to the West
itself, we shall limit ourselves to Athens, Rome, and France. This
metalanguage (discourse on discourse) has involved several
practices, simultaneously or successively present, according to
periods, within "Rhetoric ":
A technique, i.e., an "art," in the classical sense of the word;
the art of persuasion, a body of rules and recipes whose
implementation makes it possible to convince the hearer of the
discourse (and later the reader of the work), even if what he is to be
convinced of is " false."

8
A teaching: the art of rhetoric, initially transmitted by personal
means (a rhetor and his disciples, his clients), was soon introduced
into institutions of learning; in schools, it formed the essential
matter of what would today be called higher education; it was
transformed into material for examination (exercises, lessons,
tests).
A science, or in any case a proto-science, i.e. a. a field of
autonomous observation delimiting certain homogeneous
phenomena, to wit the "effects" of language; b. a classification of
these phenomena (whose best-known trace is the list of rhetorical
"figures"; c. an "operation" in Hjelmslevian sense, i.e. a meta-
language, a body of rhetorical treatises whose substance—or
signified—is a language-object (argumentative language and
"figured" language).
An ethic: as a system of "rules," rhetoric is imbued with the
ambiguity of that word: it is at once a manual of recipes, inspired by
a practical goal, and a Code, a body of ethical prescriptions whose
role is to supervise (i.e. to permit and to limit) the "deviations" of
emotive language.

A social practice: Rhetoric is that privileged technique (since one

must pay in order to acquire it) which permits the ruling classes gain
ownership of speech. Language being a power, selective rules of
access to this power have been decreed, constituting it as a pseudo-
science, closed to "those who do not know how to speak" and
requiring an expensive initiation: born 2500 years ago in legal cases
concerning property, rhetoric was exhausted and died in the
"rhetoric " class, the initiatory ratification of bourgeois culture.
A ludic practice: since all these practices constituted a formidable
("repressive," we now say) institutional system, it was only natural
that a mockery of rhetoric should develop, a "black" rhetoric
(suspicions, contempt, ironies): games, parodies, erotic or obscene
allusions, classroom jokes, a whole schoolboy practice (which still
remains to be explored, moreover, and to be constituted as a
cultural code)."The Old Rhetoric: An aide-mémoire." The Semiotic
Challenge, 12-14.

Wayne Booth (1974):

What happens, then, if we choose to begin with our
knowledge that we are essentially creatures made in symbolic
exchange, created in the process of sharing intentions, values,
meanings, in fact more like each other than different, more valuable
in our commonality than in our idiosyncrasies: not, in fact, anything
at all when considered separately from our relations? What happens
if we think of ourselves as essentially participants in a field or
process or mode of being persons together? If man is essentially a

9
rhetorical animal, in the sense that his nature is discovered and
lived only in symbolic process, then the whole world shifts: even the
usage of words like I, my, mine, self, must be reconsidered, because
the borderlines between the self and the other have either
disappeared or shifted sharply . . . All we need do is honor what we
know about who we are and how we come to be, in language. Once
we give up the limiting notions of language and knowledge willed to
us by scientism, we can no longer consider adequate any notion of
"language as a means of communication" . . . It is, in recent models,
the medium in which selves grow, the social invention through
which we make each other and the structures that are our world,
the shared product of our efforts to cope with experience.

Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg (2001):

Rhetoric has a number of overlapping meanings: the practice
of oratory; the study of the strategies of effective oratory; the use of
language, written or spoken, to inform or persuade; the study of the
persuasive effects of language; the study of the relation between
language and knowledge; the classification and use of tropes and
figures; and, of course, the use of empty promises and half-truths as
a form of propaganda. Nor does this list exhaust the definitions that
might be given. Rhetoric is a complex discipline with a long history:
It is less helpful to try to define it once and for all than to look at the
many definitions it has accumulated over the years and to attempt
to understand how each arose and how each still inhabits and
shapes the field. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, "General
Introduction." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical
Times to the Present. p 1.

Unit 1. Questions

1. Define rhetoric. What does this mean to you?

2. If you were to choose between the selected definition of
rhetoric, which definition you would prefer? Why?
3. Cite 5 rhetoric examples employed in literary devices.
Explain the meaning of each example given.

10
 UNIT II
RHETORICAL TRIANGLE

Overview : This unit includes the definition of rhetorical triangle

and utilization of rhetorical triangle in a discourse both written and
oral.

Objectives: At the end of the unit, the students are able to:
 Define the rhetorical triangle
 Use rhetorical triangle in preparing self-
introduction speech.

What is the Rhetorical Triangle?

Shows the relationship between speaker, audience, message,

style, purpose, tone. Understanding these rhetorical elements
makes both writing and analysis much clearer.

Speaker
The writer/speaker uses:
1. who they are,
2. what they know and feel, and

11
3. what they’ve seen and done to find their attitudes toward a
subject and their understanding of audience.

The Author / Speaker

• Gender / racial / geographical/ socioeconomic/ political
orientation of author
• Author Bias / hidden agenda
• Other important biographical information may affect text

Audience
The writer/speaker:
• speculates about audience expectations and knowledge of
subject, and
• uses own experience and observation to help decide on how
to communicate with audience.

The Audience
• Are they friend or foe? (hostile or sympathetic)
• How will they receive the message?
• How will they affect tone? style?
• Who is the intentional audience?
• Who is the unintentional audience?
• Over time, does the message/effect of the message change as
the audience changes?

Understanding the Rhetorical Triangle

Rhetoric is the ancient art of using language to persuade. If

you use it well, your audience will easily understand what you're
saying, and will more likely be influenced by it.

The three points on the Rhetorical Triangle relate directly to

the three classic appeals you should consider when communicating:

Ethos: building trust by establishing your credibility and authority

(Writer).

Pathos: appealing to emotion by connecting with your audience

through their values and interests (Audience).

Logos: appealing to your audience's intelligence with well-

constructed and clearly argued ideas (Context).

These three elements are shown in figure 1, below.

12
Figure 1: The Rhetorical Triangle

These three elements will determine the persuasiveness of your

argument. Your writing, or other form of communication, needs to
consider all three. Let's look at them in more detail.

Ethos (Writer)
The way in which the writer (or speaker) affects the argument
is known as ethos.
From the outset, you need to clarify who you are, why you are
competent to speak on the issue, and where your authority comes
from.
Your audience might be wary that you're trying to change
their opinions or beliefs. If you don't make it clear why you are
addressing them, some people might assume that you are hiding
something.
Whether you're presenting ideas for problem solving, analysis,
or just to entertain, your audience will try to figure out your motives,
beliefs, values, and assumptions. This allows them to evaluate your
credibility and decide whether you are being sincere.

Pathos (Audience)
When you communicate, you need to understand your
audience and appeal to their emotions. This is known as pathos.
Consider the audience's expectations – what are they hoping
to take away from what you say? Be clear about why you are

13
communicating with this audience in the first place, and plan out
your communication style in advance, with the audience firmly in
mind.
Knowing your audience helps you to avoid alienating them by
using technical terms or jargon that they may not understand, or by
"dumbing down" the content, if your message is intended for
professionals.
Think about the emotion you want to evoke. Are you
addressing a pain point, seeking their trust, or inviting their loyalty?

Logos (Context)
Finally, your audience will analyze your message by putting it
into context. Here the emphasis is on logic and reason, or logos
(pronounced log-oss).
Your audience will likely consider the background to your
communication, and the circumstances or events that preceded it.
They'll analyze the kinds of arguments you used, their relevance,
and whether you delivered them in a clear, coherent and
appropriate way.
Your audience must be able to follow what you are saying for
it to be believable. They'll be looking for a logical, well-constructed
argument, and evidence for any claims that you make. They'll also
be thinking about any possible counterarguments.

Using the Rhetorical Triangle

When you prepare a written document, speech or
presentation, consider the three elements of the triangle. If your
communication is lacking in any of the three areas, you'll decrease
the overall impact of your message.
You can use the following three steps as a guide. 1. Establish
Your Credibility (Ethos)
For your message to be convincing, you need to demonstrate
that you are a reliable and trustworthy source. Answer the
audience's unspoken question, "Is the source credible?"

First, establish who you are as a person. Reveal your biases, beliefs,
values, and assumptions, as appropriate.
Explain where your expertise comes from.

14
Use expert testimony.
Show why you should be considered an authority.
Then, consider the purpose of your communication. Is it:
A call to action?
To provide information?
To educate?
To persuade or change a perspective?
To present ideas?
To entertain?
Second, Appeal to the Audience's Emotions (Pathos)
Understanding your audience enables you to connect with
them, and gives your message more impact.

Appeal to their emotions (where this is appropriate and

honest) and answer their question, "Is this person trying to
manipulate me?"
Ask yourself who the members of your audience are.
What are their expectations?
Why are they reading (or listening) to me?
How will they use this information?
What do I want them to take away?
Consider how you can connect with them emotionally.
What emotions do I want to evoke?
Do I use anecdotes or personal stories?
Third, Consider the Context (Logos)
Think about the context of your message, the best channel of
communication, and how to deliver it with a solid appeal to reason.
Answer the audience's question, "Is the presentation logical?"
Think about how you'll present the information.
What type of reasoning will I use?
How will I support my position? With statistics? Evidence?
Observations?

15
 What tone will I use? Formal or informal?
What is the best way to communicate the message?
Presentation? Email? Blog?
Take into account what events surround the communication.
What background information do I need to supply?
Are there important counterarguments I should bring up and
deal with?
Does the method or location of my communication fit with its
message?
When you take into consideration the three corners of the
Rhetorical Triangle, you're better able to position your points in a
way that your reader (or listener) can understand and get on board
with.
By taking time to understand the art of rhetoric, you'll give
your communications more credibility, power and impact.

Unit II. Questions

1. Define rhetorical triangle.
2. List and explain the three points of rhetorical triangle.
3. Prepare a 3 minutes speech on self-introduction. Include the
ethos, pathos, and logos in persuading your audience.

16
 UNIT III
VISUAL RHETORIC (Reading and Writing) and its effect

Overview : This chapter will describe visual rhetoric and its

related fields of study so that you will be able to
recognize how visual media is employed to
achieve a rhetorical effect.
Objectives : At the end of the unit, the students are able to:
 Define visual rhetoric
 Identify and recognize how visual media is employed in
pictures, songs, poems, advertisements and other
literary works.

VISUAL RHETORIC DEFINED

Visual rhetoric is a special area of academic study unto its own. It
has a long history in the study of art and semiotics (the study of

17
symbols) and it has kinship to the classical study of oral rhetoric
such as persuasive speeches and legal arguments.
For the purpose of our studies, we will define the phrase
“visual rhetoric” as the means by which visual imagery can be used
to achieve a communication goal such as to influence people’s
attitudes, opinions, and beliefs. The study of visual rhetoric,
therefore, is to ask the question, “How do images act rhetorically
upon viewers?” (Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M., 2012, p. 1).
The techniques of visual rhetoric align with the classic pillars
of rhetoric:
Ethos – An ethical appeal meant to convince an audience of
the author’s credibility or character.
Pathos – An emotional appeal meant to persuade an audience
by appealing to their emotions.
Logos – An appeal to logic meant to convince an audience by
use of logic or reason.

One of today’s most familiar uses of visual rhetoric are the

memes you see in social media. Memes, in an incredibly concise and
penetrating way, are able to punctuate a dialogue or issue with
“likes” and shares calculating a somewhat blunt measure of their
popularity.

So if memes are a common part of your daily communication,

it is a good entry point for describing the capability of visual
rhetoric.

FOUNDATIONS OF RHETORIC

18
 In this section, we will describe the areas of foundation
knowledge that surround the principles of visual rhetoric.

RHETORIC: THE TECHNIQUES OF PERSUASION

Before describing the principles of visual rhetoric, it is
important to fully understand the traditions of rhetoric in speaking
and writing. The video link below describes the foundation elements
of rhetoric – logos, pathos, and ethos (logic, emotion, and
credibility).

SEMIOTICS: THE STUDY OF SIGNS AND SYMBOLS.

As described in the Introduction chapter, visual imagery is
analogue, meaning that it is analogous to, or bears a similarity to,
that which it represents. Authors use the power of analogy to create
a symbolic message.
In the example below (figure 1), we see a poster used during
Word War I portraying a fierce gorilla symbolizing a terrifying
German enemy while the draped bare-chested woman symbolizes
the spirit of American liberty. The poster is intended to convey the
idea that, unless you enlist

19
 in the U.S. Army, the German Kaiser’s rabid soldiers would
eventually land on American soil.
A reasonable person would know that there really wasn’t any
risk of an actual gorilla landing on the shores of United States who
would, in one hand, scoop up a helpless woman to carry around
while he whacked things with his club. Still, the rhetorical effect
contributed to a larger communication strategy at the time to foster
an effort to increase recruitment. This was achieved through the use
of overt symbolic references to real objects combined with dramatic
composition techniques (the gorilla’s feet standing on top of the
word “America”, bold typefaces, blood colors, stormy green skies,
and urgent text).

The study of symbols, metaphors, expressions, and signs to

represent ideas, emotions, action, and information is the discipline
called semiotics. Semiotics extends to other realms of
communication such as color coding, art, graffiti, universal codes for
public spaces, and even to the wordless assembly instructions of a
piece of IKEA furniture (see figure 2).

Fig. 2 – “IKEA Guy” © IKEA All Rights Reserved

Techniques of visual rhetoric include using symbolic

references to elicit a reaction from your audience. So as you select
some kind of imagery as part of your visual communication, you
would be employing the psychological language of symbolism to
achieve your effect.

LINGUISTICS: THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND DISCOURSE

20
 Language: Linguists study language in both its written and
spoken form including its historical, cultural, anthropological, and
political backgrounds. As described in the Introduction chapter,
written language is produced in the form of a code (the alphabet).
Words, as a code for a specific meaning in the dictionary, are often
insufficient in conveying the intended meaning of a message
unequivocally. If you have ever experienced the awkwardness of an
email message or social media post that was misinterpreted by
others in the worst possible way, you are familiar with this
phenomenon.

The cause of this problem is rooted in the complexity of

conveying a message in a medium that is too lean to punctuate how
the message is to be interpreted. An example would be the
difference between sending a letter to one’s beloved versus saying
the same words in person. The beloved’s interpretation of the same
message in the form of a letter could be different than if it were
conveyed face-to-face even if the same words were used. The
absence of non-verbal cues in the letter could cause a certain
sarcastic or humorous passage to be errantly perceived as an insult.

Famed linguist Gregory Bateson (1968) described how a

message is segmented into “content” and “relationship”. While the
content could be described as the literal meaning of words as
decoded by the lexicon of our language, the relationship portion of a
message is the part that cues the receiver about how that message
is to be taken as.

It is the author’s challenge to account for the audience’s need for

both meaning and interpretation.

Discourse: We use language as the basis of human discourse,

which is defined as “the production of knowledge through language”
(Hall, 1997, p. 44). Hall’s inclusion of the word “production”
supposes that knowledge is a process of human construction: As we
communicate, we are constructing a shared sense of truth and
reality while forming the contours of a social world. Our social world
“… is the overall outcome of our joint processes of social –
specifically, communicative – construction” (Couldry, N., 2018, p.
18).

As you construct messages through the use of oral, written,

and visual media, you are, in essence, creating a shared
understanding – a reality – through a social process communication.

VISUAL RHETORIC IN PRACTICE

21
 The traditional study of rhetoric, as the prior video describes,
is the study of communication in the art of persuasion. The term
visual rhetoric suggests that there is kinship with traditional oral
rhetoric and written rhetoric, but in a different (visual) form.

For example, in the print ad below for Pinnacle Bank, the

visual element has nothing to do with banking, but has everything
to do with persuading the viewer that the bank has ethos, or
credibility, with respect to the individuals or businesses they are
appealing to. To the audience, the selection of a farm image is
intended to recognize the audience’s perspective, interests,
traditions, and livelihood so that it promotes feelings of trust,
connection, and mutual understanding, even though the
occupations of banker and farmer couldn’t be more different.

In the example below, we see an effort to appeal to both

emotion (pathos) and logic (logos) in the famous “Morning in
America” TV ad from the 1984 presidential election. The emotional
elements are triggered through the use of the wedding scene and
the flag raising scene. The logical element, expressed in the
narrator’s voiceover, is presented in the form of economic statistics
and reinforced by a question that asks why we would want to return
to the conditions that preceded president Reagan’s first term in
office. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGDGk0sNhFU

22
VISUAL RHETORIC VERSUS VISUAL DECORATION

Not all visual information in media is intended for a rhetorical

purpose. In deconstructing visual media, you will be challenged to
distinguish between visual imagery that is purposeful and imagery
that has no particular purpose other than decoration. In the example
below, the globe image, by itself, does not elevate the information
on the slide to a higher level of meaning. Removing the image of
the globe would not take away from the meaning of the other
information.

This is an example of a slide where the image does not promote a

rhetorical effect. It is purely decorative.

In the example below, we see another version of the same

slide where a different image is used for a rhetorical effect. In this
case, the intended message is extended beyond the literal meaning
of the words in the bullet list. The audience gets the sense that the
entities served by this corporation are not just those listed, but that
they embrace a spirit of diversity and inclusion. The effect of this
strategy should be that prospective clients of all backgrounds are
welcome to do business with this organization.

23
 Unit III. Activities.

 Define visual rhetoric

 Find example of visual rhetoric. (ex. Artwork, memes,
drawing, advertisement. Analyze by using the following
questions:
What is the meaning of the visuals?
Give the message and the purpose of the author.
How does the author show the meaning of the visual?
Why did you choose that example?
How do relate your example to teaching-learning
situation during this time?

UNIT IV
The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism

 Discuss rhetorical criticism, purpose and processes.

 Describe, analyze, interpret and judge work of art.

Rhetorical Criticism

 Rhetorical criticism is a mode of analysis that focuses on the

text itself.

 Analyzes the symbolic artifacts of discourse – the words,

phrases, images, gestures, performances, texts, films, etc. that
people use to communicate.

24
 Rhetorical analysis shows how the artifacts work, how well
they work, and how the artifacts, as discourse, inform and instruct,
entertain and arouse, and convince and persuade the audience: as
such, discourse includes the possibility of morally improving the
reader, the viewer, and the listener.

 It studies and analyzes the purpose of the words, sights, and

sounds that are the symbolic artifacts used for communications
among people.

 The arts of Rhetorical criticism are an intellectual practice that

dates from the time of Plato, in Classical Greece (5th-4th c. BC)

 The academic purpose of Rhetorical criticism is greater

understanding and appreciation in human relations.

 Rhetorical Analysis:

• What is called “rhetorical criticism” in the Speech

Communication discipline is often called “rhetorical analysis” in
English. Through this analytical process, an analyst defines,
classifies, analyze, interprets and evaluates a rhetorical artifact.

• Rhetorical analysis is a form of criticism (or close reading) that

employs the principles of rhetoric to examine the interactions
between a text, an author and an audience. Also called rhetorical
criticism or pragmatic criticism.

• Rhetorical analysis may be applied to virtually any text or

image-a speech, an essay, an advertisement, a poem, a
photograph, a web page, even a bumper sticker. When applied to a
literary work, rhetorical analyst is regards the words not as aesthetic
object but as an artistically structured instrument for
communication.

Art of Criticism

 At criticism is the discussion or evaluation of visual art.

 Art critics usually criticize art in the context of aesthetics or

the theory of beauty.

 A goal of art criticism is the pursuit of a rational basis for art

appreciation but it is questionable whether such criticism can
transcend prevailing socio-political circumstances.

 The variety of artistic movements have resulted in a division

of art criticism into different disciples which may use different
criteria for their judgements.

25
Communication as the purpose of rhetoric

 A third component of the definition of rhetoric.

 Symbols are used for communicating with others or with

oneself.

 For many people, the term rhetoric is synonymous with

communication.

 Individuals trained in social scientific perspectives on symbol

use often prefer the term communication, while those who study
symbol use from more humanistic perspectives tend to select the
term rhetoric.

 Rhetoric functions in a variety of ways to allow humans to

communicate with one another.

 Sometimes, we use rhetoric simply as a means of self-

discovery or to come to self-knowledge.

 Another communicative function that rhetoric performs is that

it tells us what reality is.

 The frameworks and labels we choose to apply to what we

encounter influence our perceptions of what we experience and thus
the kinds of worlds in which we live.

Systematic Analysis as the Act of Criticism

 “I like it” or “I don’t like it”

 The process of rhetorical criticism involves engaging in natural

process in a more conscious, systematic, and focused way.

 Through the study and practice of rhetorical criticism, we can

understand and explain why we like or don’t like something by
investigating the symbols themselves.

 Rhetorical criticism, then, enables us to become more

sophisticated and discriminating in explaining, investigating, and
understanding symbols and our responses to them.

26
Acts and Artifacts as the Objects of Analysis in Criticism

 The objects of study in rhetorical criticism’

 An act is executed in the presence of a rhetor’s intended

audience.

 An act tends to be fleeting and ephemeral, making its analysis

difficult, many rhetorical critics prefer to study the artifact o an act –
the text, trace, or tangible evidence of the act.

 When a rhetorical act is transcribed and printed, posted on a

website, recorded on film, or preserved on canvass, it becomes a
rhetorical artifact that then is accessible to a wider audience than
the one that witnessed the rhetorical act.

 Most critics use the tangible product as the basis for criticism
a speech text, a building, a sculpture, and a recorded song.

 The use of the term is not meant to exclude acts from your
investigation but to provide a consistent and convenient way to talk
about the object of criticism.

Understanding Rhetorical Processes as the purpose of

Criticism

 The process of rhetorical criticism often begins with an

interest in understanding particular symbols and how they operate.

 A critic maybe interested in a particular kind of symbol use or

a particular rhetorical artifact

 Critics of popular culture such as restaurant, television,

theatre, film and music critics are these kinds of critics, they tend to
be most interested in understanding the particular experience of the
restaurant or CD they are reviewing.

 But criticism undertaken primarily to connect on a particular

artifact tends not to be enduring: its importance and its functions
are immediate and ephemeral.

 Once the historical situation has been forgotten or the rhetor,

the creator of the artifact is no longer the center of public’s
attention, such criticism no longer useful purpose if it has been
devoted exclusively to an understanding of a particular artifact.

27
 Rhetorical critics are interested in discovering what an artifact
teaches about the nature of rhetoric, in other words, critics engage
in rhetorical criticism to make a contribution to rhetorical theory.

 In rhetorical criticism, theorizing that critics do deals with

explanations about how rhetoric works.

Unit IV. Activity

Read a poem “The Raven” by Edgar Allan Poe. Analyze and cite
examples to support your answer. Utilize the following questions in
your analysis. Write it in short bond paper.
1.Identify the speaker in the poem.
2.To whom is the speaker speaking?
3.Does the rhythm or movement of the poem help convey the
meaning to readers?
4.What’s the tone of the poem?
5.What’s the main focus of the poem?
6.What symbolism used in the poem?
7.What visual imagery, which the poet uses to help create a
“picture” in the reader’s mind?

UNIT V
FUNCTIONS OF RHETORICAL CRITICISM
Overview : This chapter will describe the functions of rhetorical
criticism
Objectives : At the end of the unit, the students are able to:
 Describe the aims, materials and methods of the
standard approach to rhetorical criticism

28
 THE FUNCTIONS OF RHETORICAL CRITICISM
Albert J. Croft
Research in rhetoric and oratory, as in any other art, ought to
proceed from some clearly conceived set of relations between
rhetorical theory, rhetorical criticism, and the history of public
address. The statement of just what rhetorical research ought to
produce can bet be formulated by a re-examination of these
relations. With that goal in mind, this article will pursue three main
lines of inquiry: (1) that of describing or defining of aims, materials
and methods of the standard approach to rhetorical criticism; (2)
that of analyzing some major inadequacies in the methods and
objectives of this standard form; (3) that of proposing a revision of
the aims of speech in criticism. In discussing these three topics, a
point of view will be presented as to the interrelations which ought
to hold between theory, criticism, and history in rhetoric and public
address.
Any brief survey of what has been done in “rhetorical criticism” is
bound to be controversial; so many different things go by this name.
Still, there is no need for semantic controversy as to whether the
term “criticism” can properly be applied to all of this research, for
the only real issue whether the research provides valuable
conclusions. Among recent studies of speakers and speeches,
however, there have been certain relatively common elements. The
rhetorical critic selects for study either a single speaker and speech
or groups of speeches and speakers representing periods,
movement, regions, organization, or ideas. His primary limitation is
that he must focus on public speaking, per se. He then proceeds to
analyze, report, interpret, and evaluate the speeches he has chosen
for study.
The materials of these critical studies fall into three groups: (1) facts
and opinions dealing with the biography of the speaker, the
historical background of the speech, and the nature of the listening
and reading audience: (2) the speaker’s propositions as they occur
in representative speeches (these propositions are derived by a
wide variety of analytic devices); (3) illustrations of the speaker’s
use of Aristotle’s three modes of proof and of various doctrines on
style, arrangement, and delivery.
What, then, has the rhetorical critic done with this material? What
has been his intention in assembling and examining all these data?
Of what value are his conclusions, or what use can be his
conclusions, or what use can be made of them? What are the
functions of this sort of rhetorical criticism? Being stylized, at least
in format, nearly every graduate thesis based on these methods

29
includes some formal statement of objective or purpose. Still, most
of these statements somehow fail to provide satisfying answers to
the questions being raised here. One is forced finally to examine
these theses education lies in the area of the ethics of rhetoric. The
conception of rhetoric as simply a bag of tricks has been denied all
the way from Plato’s distrust of Dale Carnegie. Yet the answer lies
not in arguing that we must teach Speech as an “art” but in
recognizing that the real difference between defensible rhetoric and
a modern sophistry can be delineated only through a fundamentally
ethical criticism of the value-action connections which make up the
real persuasion of a speech. Like the creative theorist in economics
or political science, we can no longer leave ethics to the philosophy
department.
From this point of view, rhetorical criticism takes on special
importance for the future of Speech education, and ultimately for
the future of a society dominated by mass communication. As
speech courses grow more and more “gimmicky” the need to
reformulate theory through “ethical criticism” is very great.
“Principles” of speech there must be, but training in Speech from
Isocrates and Quintilian to our time has always been responsible for
producing something more than “pitch men.” As criticism in the
graduate school goes, so goes rhetorical theory and teaching.
The view on research in rhetoric as expressed in this article rests on
the viewpoint taken toward the relationships of theory criticism, and
history in our field. These relationships may be summarized as
follows: (1) Rhetorical theory, as a basis for criticism, should consist
of a series of formal techniques drawn from the history of rhetorical
theory and unified into a general system. (2) A dynamic interaction
should be maintained between this body of theory and current
criticism; criticism should slowly but continuously remold theory. (3)
Criticism should go beyond concern with purely formal rhetorical
concepts; it must enter the field of making specific value
judgements of the appropriateness and rightness of the idea
adaptation to be found in speeches; criticism must evaluate
speeches. (4) Criticism should provide the much-needed
monographs from which to construct an “idea-centered” history of
public address. (5) Historical interpretation, critical evaluation and
creative theorizing must all become directly concerned with the
ethics of rhetoric.

UNIT VI

VARIABLES OF CRITICISM

30
 SOURCE
The person involved in communicating a marketing
message, either directly or indirectly.
-A direct source is a spokesperson who delivers a message
and/or demonstrates a product or service.
-An indirect source, say, a model, doesn’t actually deliver a
message but draws attention to and/or enhances the
appearance of the ad.

 SOURCE FACTORS

 Source Credibility
Credibility is the extent to which the recipient sees
the source as having relevant knowledge, skill, or experience
and trusts the source to give unbiased, objective information.
There are two important dimensions to credibility, expertise
and trustworthiness.
Low credibility source maybe as effective as a high
credibility source in the sleeper effect, whereby the
persuasiveness of a message increases with the passage of
time.

 Source Attractiveness
A source characteristic frequently used by
advertisers is attractiveness, which encompasses similarity,
familiarity and likability.
Similarity is a supposed resemblance between the
source and of the message. While familiarity refers to
knowledge of the source through exposure. Likability is an
affection for the source as a result of physical appearance,
behavior, or other personal traits.

 Source Power
A source has power when he or she can actually
administer rewards and punishments to the receiver. As a
result of this power, the source may be able to induce another
person to respond to the request or position he or she
advocating.
The power of the source depends on several factors.
The source must be perceived as being able to administer
positive or negative sanctions to the receiver (perceived
control) and the receiver must think the source cares about
whether or not the receiver conforms (perceived concern).
The receiver’s estimate of the source’s ability to observe

31
 conformity is also important (perceived scrutiny).
(slideshare.net by IndrajitBage)

 Message
A discrete unit of communication intended by the
source for consumption by some recipient or group of
recipients. A message maybe delivered by various means,
including courier, telegraphy, carrier pigeon and electronic
bus. A message can be the content of a broadcast. An
interactive exchange of message forms a conversation.

32
33
UNIT VI. Questions.
1. Discuss and explain variables of criticism. Cite examples.
2. Consider yourself as a blogger or an advertising agent. How
would able to convince your audience to follow your blog or
buy your product?

References

34
Internet Sources
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/RhetoricalTriangle.htm

https://granite.pressbooks.pub/comm543/chapter/visual-rhetoric/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335635609382176
(https://rhetoric.sdsu.edu/resources/what_is_rhetoric.htm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7zTd-aXSQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7zTd-aXSQg

Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies | San Diego State

University | 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4452
Office Location: Storm Hall West 141 | Phone: (619) 594-6515 | Fax:
(619) 594-6530 | Email: [email protected]

Books
Bateson, G. (1968). Information and codification: A philosophical
approach. In J. Ruesch, & G. Bateson (Eds.), Communication: The
social matrix of psychiatry (pp. 168–211). New York, NY: Norton.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality.
John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.),
Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices
(pp. 15-64). London: SAGE Publications in association with The Open
University.
Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.). (2012). Defining visual rhetorics.
Routledge.
Banks, William P. “A Short Handbook on Rhetorical Analysis.” 2001.
27 Feb. 2007.
http://english.ecu.edu/~wpbanks/rhetoric/rhetanalysis.html.
Roskelly, Hephzibah & Jolliffe, David. Everyday Use: Rhetoric at
Work in Reading and Writing. Pearson Longman, New York: 2005.

35