1. To enhance the student’s understanding of rhetorical theory and criticism.
2. To provide students with the opportunity for in-depth analysis of a rhetorical artifact through the frame of a rhetorical theory.
3. To refine the student’s written communication.
( Must first select a current artifact. This artifact must have been orifinally created or shared in 2015. It can be a song, a court case, a speech a commecial. Anything shared in 2015. I can give you the one I selected or you can select your own. ORIGINAL WORK, as this will be verified via turnitin.com. I will also give $25 extra if I get an A)
- Each student will select a rhetorical method to use in analyzing the artifact previously described in the short paper.
- Each student then will independently write a paper explaining and evaluating the rhetorical artifact. This paper should be 8-10 pages. The paper should be typed, proof-read, and professional looking.
- Each paper should have an Introduction (that arouses the reader’s interest, explicitly states the thesis of the paper, and previews the body of the paper), a body, and a conclusion (that summarizes the body of the paper, restates the thesis, and heightens the reader’s interest). The introduction and conclusion should each be about a half-page long. Yes, you may use the justification paper verbatim or revised for this part of the paper.
- The body of this paper should be divided into four sections (Please include these headings):
- Section One – Explication of the Artifact. In this section the author should provide an overview of the artifact to be scrutinized. For example, if it is a speech, who presented it, when and where was it presented, who attended the presentation, etc. The intent here is to provide only enough information so that the reader will understand what comes next. The author’s voice in this section is descriptive. This should take less than a page. Yes, you may use the justification paper verbatim or revised for this part
- Section Two – Justification for the Selection of the Artifact. In this section the author should provide a well-argued rationale for why this artifact merits scholarly investigation. This should take about 2 pages. Yes, you may use the justification paper verbatim or revised for this part.
- Section Three – Analysis of the Artifact. In this section the author should introduce the scholar’s method and then use the rhetorical method to reveal things about the rhetorical artifact that would otherwise be missed. The author should use the terminology of the rhetorical scholar and go beyond the text level to reveal the subtext or latent level of understanding. The author’s voice in this section is that of advocacy. You are reaching conclusions, using the scholar’s ideas and language. You must support these conclusions with the artifact or explanation of your reasoning. This should take about 4-5 pages. All of this writing should be new as this was NOT covered in the first paper.
- Section Four – Assessment of the Artifact/Rhetor. In this section the author should identify a standard that the author wishes to use to assess the artifact/rhetor. If the standard is something other than effectiveness, the author should justify the use of this standard. The author should then render a judgment about the artifact. Is it successful? Why or why not? Is it ethical? Why or why not? This should take 1-2 pages. All of this writing should be new as this was NOT covered in the first paper.
- The appropriate use of secondary sources (inartistic proof) in each section is required. Each argument in section three should use the text (or description) of the artifact as support for the argument. The ideas presented should be the student’s based on the student’s understanding of the artifact and the rhetorical method. Ideas from others MUST be properly cited using the MLA or APA style manua
A hardcopy is due at the start of class. The paper must submitted to turnitin.com
1. Meeting the requirements of the assignment
2. Writing quality
5. Appropriate quantity, quality and use of references
6. Argumentative quality of analysis and assessment