GUIDE TO WRITING A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

GUIDE TO WRITING A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

to writing a rhetorical analysis

Finding a Topic

112

A rhetorical analysis is usually assigned: you’re asked to show how an argument works and to assess its effectiveness. When you can choose your own subject for analysis, look for one or more of the following qualities:

  • a complex verbal or visual argument that challenges you — or disturbs or pleases you

  • a text that raises current or enduring issues of substance

  • a text that you believe should be taken more seriously

Look for arguments to analyze in the editorial and op-ed pages of any newspaper, political magazines such as the Nation or National Review, Web sites of organizations and interest groups, political blogs such as Huffington Post or Power Line, corporate Web sites that post their TV ad spots, videos and statements posted to YouTube, and so on.

Researching Your Topic

Once you’ve got a text to analyze, find out all you can about it. Use library or Web resources to explore:

  • who the author is and what his or her credentials are

  • if the author is an institution, what it does, what its sources of funding are, who its members are, and so on

  • who is publishing or sponsoring the piece, and what the organization typically publishes

  • what the leanings or biases of the author and publisher might be

  • what the context of the argument is — what preceded or provoked it and how others have responded to it

Formulating a Claim

Begin with a hypothesis. A full thesis might not become evident until you’re well into your analysis, but your final thesis should reflect the complexity of the piece that you’re studying. In developing a thesis, consider questions such as the following:

113

  • How can I describe what this argument achieves?

  • What is the purpose, and is it accomplished?

  • What audiences does the argument address and what audiences does it ignore, and why?

  • Which of its rhetorical features will likely influence readers most: ethos of the author? emotional appeals? logical progression? style?

  • What aspects of the argument work better than others?

  • How do the rhetorical elements interact?

Here’s the hardest part for most writers of rhetorical analyses: whether you agree or disagree with an argument usually doesn’t matter in a rhetorical analysis. You’ve got to stay out of the fray and pay attention only to how — and to how well — the argument works.

Examples of Possible Claims for a Rhetorical Analysis

  • Some people admire the directness and confidence of Hillary Clinton; others are put off by her bland and sometimes tone-deaf rhetoric. A close look at several of her speeches and public appearances will illuminate both sides of this debate.

  • Today’s editorial in the Daily Collegian about campus crimes may scare first-year students, but its anecdotal reporting doesn’t get down to hard numbers — and for a good reason. Those statistics don’t back the position taken by the editors.

  • The imageboard 4chan has been called an “Internet hate machine,” yet others claim it as a great boon to creativity. A close analysis of its homepage can help to settle this debate.

  • The original design of New York’s Freedom Tower, with its torqued surfaces and evocative spire, made a stronger argument about American values than its replacement, a fortress-like skyscraper stripped of imagination and unable to make any statement except “I’m 1,776 feet tall.”

Preparing a Proposal

If your instructor asks you to prepare a proposal for your rhetorical analysis, here’s a format you might use:

114

  • Provide a copy of the work you’re analyzing, whether it’s a print text, a photograph, a digital image, or a URL, for instance.

  • Offer a working hypothesis or tentative thesis.

  • Indicate which rhetorical components seem especially compelling and worthy of detailed study and any connections between elements. For example, does the piece seem to emphasize facts and logic so much that it becomes disconnected from potential audiences? If so, hint at that possibility in your proposal.

  • Indicate background information you intend to research about the author, institution, and contexts (political, economic, social, and religious) of the argument.

  • Define the audience you’d like to reach. If you’re responding to an assignment, you may be writing primarily for a teacher and classmates. But they make up a complex audience in themselves. If you can do so within the spirit of the assignment, imagine that your analysis will be published in a local newspaper, Web site, or blog.

  • Conclude by briefly discussing the key challenges you anticipate in preparing a rhetorical analysis.

Considering Format and Media

Your instructor may specify that you use a particular format and/or medium. If not, ask yourself these questions to help you make a good choice:

  • What format is most appropriate for your rhetorical analysis? Does it call for an academic essay, a report, an infographic, a brochure, or something else?

  • What medium is most appropriate for your analysis? Would it be best delivered orally to a live audience? Presented as an audio essay or podcast? Presented in print only or in print with illustrations?

  • Will you need visuals, such as moving or still images, maps, graphs, charts — and what function will they play in your analysis? Make sure they are not just “added on” but are necessary components of the analysis.

Thinking about Organization

Your rhetorical analysis is likely to include the following:

115

  • Facts about the text you’re analyzing: Provide the author’s name; the title or name of the work; its place of publication or its location; the date it was published or viewed.

  • Contexts for the argument: Readers need to know where the text is coming from, to what it may be responding, in what controversies it might be embroiled, and so on. Don’t assume that they can infer the important contextual elements.

  • A synopsis of the text that you’re analyzing: If you can’t attach the original argument, you must summarize it in enough detail so that a reader can imagine it. Even if you attach a copy of the piece, the analysis should include a summary.

  • Some claim about the work’s rhetorical effectiveness: It might be a simple evaluative claim or something more complex. The claim can come early in the paper, or you might build up to it, providing the evidence that leads toward the conclusion you’ve reached.

  • A detailed analysis of how the argument works: Although you’ll probably analyze rhetorical components separately, don’t let your analysis become a dull roster of emotional, ethical, and logical appeals. Your rhetorical analysis should be an argument itself that supports a claim; a simple list of rhetorical appeals won’t make much of a point.

  • Evidence for every part of the analysis.

  • An assessment of alternative views and counterarguments to your own analysis.

Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response

If you have access to a writing center, discuss the text that you intend to analyze with a writing consultant before you write the paper. Try to find people who agree with the argument and others who disagree, and take notes on their observations. Your instructor may assign you to a peer group for the purpose of reading and responding to one another’s drafts; if not, share your draft with someone on your own. You can use the following questions to evaluate a draft. If you’re evaluating someone else’s draft, be sure to illustrate your points with examples. Specific comments are always more helpful than general observations.

The Claim

116

  • Does the claim address the rhetorical effectiveness of the argument itself rather than the opinion or position that it takes?

  • Is the claim significant enough to interest readers?

  • Does the claim indicate important relationships between various rhetorical components?

  • Would the claim be one that the creator of the piece would regard as serious criticism?

Evidence for the Claim

  • Is enough evidence given to support all your claims? What evidence do you still need?

  • Is the evidence in support of the claim simply announced, or are its significance and appropriateness analyzed? Is a more detailed discussion needed?

  • Do you use appropriate evidence, drawn from the argument itself or from other materials?

  • Do you address objections readers might have to the claim, criteria, or evidence?

  • What kinds of sources might you use to explain the context of the argument? Do you need to use sources to check factual claims made in the argument?

  • Are all quotations introduced with appropriate signal phrases (for instance, “As Áida Álvarez points out”), and do they merge smoothly into your sentences?

Organization and Style

  • How are the parts of the argument organized? How effective is this organization? Would some other structure work better?

  • Will readers understand the relationships among the original text, your claims, your supporting reasons, and the evidence you’ve gathered (from the original text and any other sources you’ve used)? If not, what could be done to make those connections clearer? Are more transitional words and phrases needed? Would headings or graphic devices help?

  • Are the transitions or links from point to point, sentence to sentence, and paragraph to paragraph clear and effective? If not, how could they be improved?

  • Is the style suited to the subject and appropriate to your audience? Is it too formal? Too casual? Too technical? Too bland or boring?

  • Which sentences seem particularly effective? Which ones seem weakest, and how could they be improved? Should some short sentences be combined, or should any long ones be separated into two or more sentences?

  • How effective are the paragraphs? Do any seem too skimpy or too long? Do they break the analysis at strategic points?

  • Which words or phrases seem particularly effective, accurate, and powerful? Do any seem dull, vague, unclear, or inappropriate for the audience or your purpose? Are definitions provided for technical or other terms that readers might not know?

117

Spelling, Punctuation, Mechanics, Documentation, and Format

  • Check the spelling of the author’s name, and make sure that the name of any institution involved with the work is correct. Note that the names of many corporations and institutions use distinctive spelling and punctuation.

  • Get the title of the text you’re analyzing right.

  • Are there any errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and the like?

  • Does the assignment require a specific format? Check the original assignment sheet to be sure.

RESPOND •

118

Find an argument on the editorial page or op-ed page in a recent newspaper. Then analyze it rhetorically, using principles discussed in this chapter. Show how it succeeds, fails, or does something else entirely. Perhaps you can show that the author is unusually successful in connecting with readers but then has nothing to say. Or perhaps you discover that the strong logical appeal is undercut by a contradictory emotional argument. Be sure that the analysis includes a summary of the original essay and basic publication information about it (its author, place of publication, and publisher).

Click to navigate to this activity.