Post #18: Essay #4- Reflective Paper

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Sect 1

Essay #4- Reflective Piece

Thursday, December 6, 2011

As a Rhetoric and Professional Writing major, one would think that knowledge of the ancient and modern rhetoricians is automatic and widely known. However, it was not until taking Principles of Rhetoric that the full knowledge and application had been acquired. English 360, Principles of Rhetoric, had truly helped in extending my rhetorical outlook, as well as growth in my overall writing skills.

While my analytical strengths as a writer are a constant shiner, writers are constantly growing and learning new techniques. For most the favorite part of writing may be the creativity and the endless possibilities, but I personally enjoy taking pieces apart and getting down to the true nitty grittiness of them. After reading from The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, and Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, as well as blogging about the readings, my understanding of such devices had truly widened. I had begun to notice the devices that which I had already been familiar with, as well as those I hadn’t. For example, just a few weeks into this class, after readings had been done, I had seen how the use of proofs had been added to my papers soon after blogging. Later on in the semester, after my writing and truly grown, I had used premise and rhetorical examples in my writing pieces. Throughout the semester, as a whole, I could truly see my arguments and ideas coming together, as a result of the readings and the blog entries. By computing blog entries I was able to comprehend the readings and read and comment on what my fellow students had said. This had truly helped in the initial stage of the writing process because the class as a whole began to correlate the theories and materials from ancient and modern rhetors, and apply it to everyday curriculum. By blogging we were able to exchange ideas, helping me see that such writing often calls for out of the box thinking, for there isn’t always just one right answer, but rather different dimensions.

Rhetorical proofs are important because they appeal to the audience’s emotions. While rhetoric may rely on logic to back up its arguments, it is key to engage the audience and persuade them. This is done by appealing to their emotions. Aristotle stated that by understanding these emotions, one can then engage and use them in their arguments, making a real impression. These proofs are then slotted into two different categories: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic proofs are ones that are not made up, but rather found in the rhetorical situation at hand. Examples of this include data, facts, testimony, and witnesses. However, according to Cicero extrinsic proofs relied heavily upon authority. These proofs are found in the forms of politics and law, serving as key to all rhetoric because it provides the audience with real proof coming from the case at hand. This type of device was seen in essay number two, where I discussed Walter Ong’s “Orality and Literacy” which states that oral language cannot exist without verbal expression, and vice versa. In the paper I had used extrinsic proofs to prove my point by applying Ong’s theory to modern everyday examples. “When a text is read out loud, it is adapted into sound, which is derived from spoken language itself. Oral culture in turn leads to verbal production, and speech is then recorded and written down” (Zaman, Essay #2). In this quote I directly show how oral, written, and spoken language are all interconnected, just as Ong’s theory states. Essay number two was one of the first pieces I had written for the class, that being said, I can see areas where I had learned new material and ideas, and I can also see areas where improvement was needed. However, by looking to the pieces and blog entries after essay number two, I can proudly say that improvement was made.

Premise, the opening statement in an essay, sets the stage for the argument at hand. I had learned very early on in my schooling and writing that it was this very opening statement that would truly captivate one’s audience. From then on I had made it a clear point to always have a clear and convincing “grabber.” One piece of writing in which I had illustrated this was in essay number three. In the paper I had discussed late Professor Randy Pausch’s Last Lecture and the rhetorical devices he had used. Pausch’s premise was truly important to his lecture as a whole, because he wanted to draw the audience into his reality, stating that he wasn’t in denial about his diagnosis, and in order for him to truly understand the lecture, they must understand this first and foremost. No matter what kind of argument one has, the use of examples will only make it stronger. Examples help prove one’s point by using either personal stories or experiments. For rhetorical examples, specifics are key. The true rhetorician is one who evokes sensory details from examples; the audience should be able to identify sights, sounds, and even smells when walking through the rhetorical examples. Such reactions from the rhetor exemplify that the use of examples was properly used. I have found that my writings throughout the semester drew upon examples that attempted to delve into the audience’s emotions. My reason for doing so being that I had wanted to take the audience back to their own personal experiences, being able to truly relate with the argument given, thus being persuaded to agree. Essay number three being the last paper, by the end of it, and upon receiving it back, I could truly see with my own eyes the growth that I had gone through in the class. My ideas as a whole were better formed, showing that I had now understood how to apply the devices and theories learned to modern pieces as well. I had also learned how to take evidence from the piece and to take it apart bit by bit, showing that my ideas were not simply figments of the imagination, but rather solid well thought notions. At this point the sections that we had finished discussing in the book also helped in my progression as a rhetor. Referring to the dates this paper had been assigned and turned in, I can see that my blog entries had become less forced, and more fluid in their structure. My understanding of the reading material was more noticeable, in that I could actually reiterate the information that I had read. By having a better understanding of the material as a whole, it had become easier and more natural when applying it to the assignments.

While I may have done so before, entering this class I had learned and properly started to use

rhetorical devices throughout my writings. For a rhetor, using such devices is key, showing the audience that one

has real applicable knowledge in the field. However, when taking real numbers into account and looking at the

rubrics for the past assignments, one can explicitly see that my strengths lie in the invention and ethos part of my

papers. As I personally agree that taking from one’s own experiences and observations is of utmost importance

in an argument. My strengths also lie in the actual communication of such thoughts as well. For if I were not able

to clearly communicate my own thoughts, then what sort of rhetor would I be?

Post #17: Toulmin, Focault, and the Order of Discourse

Stephen Toulmin was more of a mathmetician and scientist than a rhetorician. Although his work on structure of argument had a huge effect on the theory of rhetoric. His work on philosophy and his need for deeper knowledge led him to be distressed over Aristotle's isolation of logic, believing that logic was cut off from human understanding. Toulmin proposed formal study of practical reasoning, calling it the "logic" of arguments. He had established a connection between claim and data. Toulmin also stressed the division of reasoning into rational and irrational thinking.

Michel Focault was a philosopher, psychiatrist, and psychiatrist. He believed that a history of definitions of reason and social divisions led to people behaving madly, and studied the social history of imprisonment. In his work titled "Order of Discourse," Focault denied the reality of discourse and saw it as the conveyor of pre-existing meanings, also referring to this as the questioning of the "will" to truth. He saw the author/speaker and nature as the source of discourse, and in his theory of discourse he had stated that there was a relationship between language and knowledge.

Post #16: Essay #3- Rhetorical Effectiveness of a Modern Source

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Section 1

Essay #3

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Every year at Carnegie Mellon University, professors are asked to give what is called their Last Lecture, a kind of adieu to students, words of last advice. For Professor Randy Pausch this goodbye, and advice, was quite real. Pausch was diagnosed with stage three pancreatic cancer, and with so little time left, his Last Lecture had become a sinking reality. But instead of taking the expected reaction and shutting down, Pausch decided to do something proactive, for others, as well as for his own family. With three small children and a wife at home, Pausch wanted to leave something behind, showing his ongoing love and hopes and dreams for them. In doing so, the rhetoric of “The Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams” relied upon philosophy and humanity, playing into the hopes and dreams of others, and engaging his audience on a truly personal level.

While one may think that Pausch’s Last Lecture is only affective due to his personal appeal and the philosophic approach, looking deeper one can see that his rhetoric is affective in and of itself. To the ancient rhetoricians, premise was of high importance. The premise would set the stage for the argument, and during such times, scientific proof behind the premise ensured that it was acceptable and rang true. At the beginning of the lecture, Randy Pausch displays an image of all of his cancerous tumors, stating that, “My dad always told me if there’s an elephant in the room introduce them. If you look at my CAT scans there’s approximately ten tumors in my liver and the doctors told me approximately three to six months of good health left. That was a month ago so you can do the math” (Pausch).By showing the actual photographic evidence of the cancer in his body, Pausch is not only showing the audience the inevitability of his diagnosis, but he also shows that it is indeed scientifically real and he is not attempting to hoodwink those he is acknowledging.

The story of Pausch’s childhood dreams, and how he went about securing them, is, as a whole, a play on words. And it is because of this that one can see him using an abundance of tropes and figures to playfully prove his point. The very first trope which hooks his audience in, is his use of irony: “If I don’t seem as depressed or morose as I should be, um, sorry to disappoint you, and I assure you I’m not in denial” (Pausch).While most would say that it is natural for a person to be upset by such a diagnosis, Pausch has a somewhat humoristic awareness of this, and warrants the audience of this awareness as well. Another trope used in the Lecture is the play on sound and sense. Randy Pausch states that one of his dreams was to win large stuffed animals. Showing the audience that this was true, and that he had made sure of it, he had brought out onto the stage the various stuffed animals he had won. A figure that is easily seen by all in the lecture is the use of climax. Pausch first gives a list of his childhood dreams, and then goes on to show how he had accomplished each, or in some cases, how they had tied in to his career as an educator.

While Pausch draws upon ancient devices in his lecture, one can also see hints of 19^th century rhetoric throughout his work. More specifically, one can see evidence of Richard Whatley’s rhetoric in Pausch’s work. Whatley’s main concern over rhetoric was its inability to change in the last few eras; he believed that the 19^th century would surely bring about change. And with this change, rhetoric would form its reliance upon science. One of his core beliefs was that science and logic were the foundations of argument. This can also be seen in Pausch’s lecture, beginning with his premise of his cancerous images. By showing the scientific photographic evidence of his disease, combined with the statement that he is not in denial, Pausch shows that what he is doing is simply logical. He is aware of the scientific evidence behind his disease, even the audience is aware, but he is not stopping his life. By continuing with treatment and lectures, Pausch is doing the logical thing and showing that life does not stop, because it literally hasn’t; he is not dead yet, and he will go on living until he is. Another Whatley belief seen in “The Last Lecture,” is that scientific knowledge is based on reasoning. One of his childhood dreams was to be in zero gravity. While teaching at Carnegie Mellon University he and his team had done a project that enabled his team the chance to be in zero gravity. Unfortunately this did not include him, being the faculty advisor, so he signed on to the project for a different position. Pausch changed the reasoning in order to obtain his childhood dream.

The lens of modern rhetoric can also be used to analyze Randy Pausch’s “Last Lecture”. During the modern era rhetoric had truly began to develop and a true theory of language was conceptualized. This theory stated that the importance of written and spoken word was still high, pertaining to everyday life, ensuring that people could properly communicate in their jobs and careers especially. When delving deeper into the speaker’s lecture, one can see that this is truly the center of Pausch’s lecture. He speaks about how to achieve one’s childhood dreams, and in doing so, Pausch had to truly persuade and argue for himself, showing people how exactly he would accomplish them. Modern rhetoric also vouches for the importance of education, showing the importance of logic and its application to different areas. Pausch displays this idea throughout his lecture. Firstly speaking about how many of his dreams had somehow been connected to his career as a computer science professor, and throughout the virtual reality program he had developed. But another crucial highlight in his lecture pertaining to this specific idea of modern rhetoric, is the importance of mentors and students towards one another. While Pausch had a mentor that he had relied upon since he was a student, he also had students of his own that he had looked up to. Many of them had not only inspired him, but had continued the dreams of virtual reality work that they had shared. Modern rhetoric also sheds light upon the headway of the emergence of women. It was during this time period that women had truly begun to have a voice and had begun to voice their true opinions in public. Implicitly seen in Pausch’s lecture is that one of the students that had inspired him was a woman; and in choosing computer science as her path, she continued the virtual reality Alice project Pausch had started. After his death the university had chosen to memorialize his memory by offering a scholarship in his name to women in computer science.

Randy Pausch’s “The Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams,” is a display of words and emotions spoken by a man with little time left, but not in denial. Instead, Pausch had chosen to give his Last Lecture as a message to all those he loved and those he undoubtedly inspired. While the lecture truly plays into the personal level, engaging the audience by truly conversing with them, it also holds true to the art of rhetoric. Pausch is heard using various concepts, from both the ancient and modern eras. What may possibly make his speech modern and viable, is his use of technology tied into his premise that life after diagnosis can go on.

Works Cited

Pausch, Randy, perf.Randy Pausch Last Lecture: How to Achieve Your Childhood Dreams.Carnegie Mellon University, 2007.Web.14 Nov 2011..

Post #15: Modern & Post-Modern Rhetoric, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Marxism & Language

In the beginning of the 20th century, rhetoric had a significant decline. However, throughout the 20th century rhetoric became valuable, and gained the new reputation as the theory of language and meaning. Around this time the study of rhetoric had become known in college, transforming into composition, and focusing on technical writing and grammar. As composition became more vigorous and independent, a rhetorical analysis of academic writing had come about. Composition had become more professional and speech communication was introduced, stressing that the ability to convey knowledge clearly and efficiently was of utmost importance. Instructors had also started to become interested in the pedagogical theory, really delving deep into the style of teaching, and the rhetoric behind it.

Mikhail Bakhtin was a language and linguist expert. He believed that language can only be understood as dialogue, real utterances in social situations. It was quite common for Bakhtin to attack others' approaches to literature. But foremost, he was a true believer in Formalism, the study of structural linguistics; the main ideas being the abolishment of simplistic literature and the differences it held from practical language.

Post #14: Delivery, Maria Stewart, and Frederick Douglas

The ARCS textbook states that although delivery is now forgotten, it is still considered a cannon of rhetoric. While modern rhetoric's delivery relies more upon a "set format," such as a certain number of paragraphs, and such. Nowadays, the distance between the audience and the rhetor has significantly increased, making delivery even more obsolete. With oral discourse, the ears are focused in on the actual words, whereas the eyes are focused in on the bodily gestures of the rhetor. That being said, one can see how important punctuation is. The ancients had developed it in order to have a better flow with the actual written delivery.

Maria W. Stewart was an African-American rhetorician and activist. To her religion and God were very important, and from a young age she had access to books on preaching, which in a sense was the only real form of rhetoric for quite some time. During the early part of her life she had met many African-American clergymen who were important to the development of her thinking. One of whom was born free and actively attacked Thomas Jefferson for his racist statements. In her work titled "Religion and the Pure Principles of Morality," she asked her people to improve morally and educationally, and to resist white oppression.

Frederick Douglas, another activist, was born a slave, but he had strived to continue his education. During his enslavement Douglas organized literacy schooling for fellow slaves, instilling in others the need for an education and freedom. He later on fled to New York City, where he was free to speak against slavery. Many had noted him as a profound speaker, even when he refused to change his accent and dialogue. Douglas had truly believed that in order to speak to other slaves, he had to still relate to them and walk and talk like them.

Post #13: Memory, 19th Century Rhetoric Intro, and Whatley

The textbook, ARCS, views memory as a cannon of rhetoric. It also sees memory as an almost counterpart of kairos, they both require "attunement" and recalling the events. The ancient rhetorician Quintilian saw "tappable memory" as a system of signs and symbols that would help in triggering one's memory of the argument at hand. Although the current memory systems aren't as used as the ancient ones, cultural memory is still a phenomenon. In cultural memory, the writer needs to know crucial events and knowledge pertaining to the argument. Ancient memory systems, however, contain mental construction of images, the notion of literal "place", i.e. a house or a street, and the placing of a memorable item.

The 19th century rhetoric saw a development in women's rhetoric. It was by this time that most of the population, men and women included, were literate and attended formal schooling in atleast the elementary to secondary levels. This increase in literacy led women to further their education, especially in the sense of Protestant Christianity. Women who pursued the study of rhetoric learned of the classical spirit and it's application in public and civic issues. It is this awareness and knowledge that gave women a rhetorical and public voice, however progressive it may have been.

At this time in history, the rhetoric of men of color also came about. Men of color, like Apess, called for unity against white supremacy and the abolition of slavery. Such warranted ideas called for rhetorical strategies that would help in facing hostile audiences. One African American, a man named Frederick Douglas, took his self-taught knowledge of the European American tradition to speak for African American cause, as well as women's rights. By becoming so knowledgeable, even President Lincoln was persuaded to lend him an ear.

Richard Whatley altogether changed the face of 19th century rhetoric. He viewed syllogism as linguistic reasoning. Stating that rhetoric was of Aristotelian fashion, he had also noted that rhetoric had not gone through very significant changes. Whatley stated that logic was necessary and that science and logic were foundations of said arguements. Yet funnily enough, he also claimed that logic was the basis for religious argument, and often questioned the logic and science behind the New Testament, much to the dismay of others.

Post #12: Research Essay

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Section 1

Essay #2- Final Draft

Question #1

The great thinker Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to find, in any given situation, the available means of persuasion. During the renaissance rhetoricians would gather in coliseums to argue and listen to each other’s speeches. During those times they did not have any official form of government, hence all stately problems were addressed in said manner. Yet as time drew on and such meetings had begun to be recorded, it was found that writing and print had started to compliment oral speech. For without it, we would not have a solid recollection of what occurred. The work titled “Orality and Literacy,” by Walter Ong, states that oral expression cannot exist without verbal expression, and vice versa.

In this day and age, it is difficult to not see how Ong’s theory strikes true in rhetoric. When a text is read out loud, it is adapted into sound, which is derived from spoken language itself. Oral culture in turn leads to verbal production, and speech is then recorded and written down. The turning of such a tide brought about a whole new way of thinking in the world, starting with the renaissance and leading into the enlightenment period. This meant that written text had been broadened in its availability to other classes, and eventually led other peoples to revolt for a chance and a say in their own history.

Oral speech and its style brings about many different interpretations. For example, tone and change in style brings about different levels of persuasion. At a young age, people are socialized to adapt to a certain way of communicating; speech becomes a learned behavior, showing the difference between the right and wrong ways of speech by society’s standards. It is from this that oral speech is recognized as the more personal form of communication. However, without its humble beginnings of written language and text, oral speech would not hold the same connotations.

In written speech, it is key to have all the ideas available; for, without it, one’s speech is incomplete, and therefore their argument does not exist or is very weak. The advantage with written speech is relative to its abundant knowledge as well as the history behind the language itself. Without such knowledge, it would be impossibly difficult to move forward. When inspecting written and oral speech’s views on rhetoric, it is key, especially, to examine which is dominant today.

Ong relates his work to Aristotle’s “Art of Rhetoric,” forming the idea that rhetoric in itself is a production of writing. “Rhetorike, or rhetoric, basically meant public speaking or oratory, which for centuries even in literate and typographic cultures remained unreflexively pretty much the paradigm of all discourse, including that of writing” (9). Here one may see that Ong is drawing a strong connection between rhetoric, oratory speech, and writing. While it may be quite clear that all of these are connected, by delving deeper, one can see that before man had even come to think of oratory speech and writing, rhetoric was above all. Similar to that of the renaissance, it was the only way in which language and thought was communicated, not leaving very much room for the thought of written texts until later in history. It was not until much later in history, somewhere around the 16^th century, that the relationship between oral and written language had built its foundation. There was no doubt that oral art was conceived without writing, whether consciously or subconsciously. Written and oral language have developed rhetoric of today to great lengths, going above and beyond by drawing upon the ideology of the technological world.

Ong explains the concept of “secondary orality,” which is the new present day orality that is sustained by the technological culture. This “secondary orality” is a new orality that relies upon the workings of telephone, radio, television, and other types of electronics that rely upon writing and print for their survival. “Today primary oral culture in the strict sense hardly exists, since every culture knows of writing and has some experiences of its effects. Still, to varying degrees many cultures and subcultures, even in a high-technology ambiance, preserve much of the mind-set of primary orality” (11). Here Ong is seen comparing today’s “secondary orality” to “primary orality,” stating that due to the world’s views on, and increasing usage of technology, no aspect of life is untouched, especially the use of oral and written language. This corresponds to “primary orality,” which Ong states is “a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print” (11).

Walter Ong’s work, “Orality and Literacy,” detail the idea that oral and written language cannot exist

simultaneously without one another. Although the world had known oral language to have been bred first, written

language slowly started to develop in and on its own. Writing and print had slowly grown to form as one, each

making a mark on the works of rhetoric.