I was confused about “rhetorical situations.” From the reading, I define it as any situation where person X (rhetor) must address and adapt the situation Y (event or activity) hopefully motivating the audience to take action Z (depending on the situation addressed). True enough, that can be a confusing definition. The entire reading was a little “challenging” for me, and I will just do my best answering everything.
The constituents for a rhetorical situation are: rhetor, audience, exigence, and constraints. These terms defined: rhetors are the speaker or writer, the audience are those listening or reading, exigence is the particular subject coming into question or discussion, and constraints are outside influences that affect how well the impact of the argument will be. A compound rhetorical situation, to me, is when more than just one rhetor and/or audience is addressing one situation. The best example he used in the article, at least for me, is the debate on the Best Western sign in Sherwood Hills. The entire town (general public, newspapers, local governments, etc.) was part of the debate. It was an interesting thought to me how one mistake could encompass a entire town:
"The newspaper ran several stories reporting the resort owners' rationale (they f felt they had applied in good faith and waited long enough) and the council members' reaction (they felt indignant that the owners had flouted the law and were now seeking forgiveness instead of permission)... What might have been a minor bureaucratic matter resolved behind closed doors turned into a town debate..." (Grant-David, pg 114)
It seems that students should be informed because it helps the writers be more convincing and successful. If a writer knows the rhetorical situation and it's constraints, they can play to those restraints and modify themselves to the unexpected. If a writer isn't informed, they might not be as convincing if their timing for the argument is off or they don't adhere to the sympathies of the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment