Framing Argument about an Educational Experience
Format AMA
Academic Level: –
Volume of 850 – 1500 words (5 pages)
Assignment type : Essay
Description
This is your site for uploading the initial progress you’ve made toward identifying and analyzing a compound rhetorical situation in accordance with Keith Grant-Davie’s article that we’ve been discussing.
The guidelines for this first stage are one to three-plus pages, double-spaced in 12 pt. Times New Roman font with one-inch margins.
I’ve gone ahead and provided a suggested essay outline for at least your final version that may help you better envision the nature of this assignment. For this first stage, you are free to determine how formal you wish to be, whether an initial rough draft of the format below or more of a journal response to help you get started and generate ideas.
Our goal is to gain a broader, more enlightened perspective of a “compound rhetorical situation” (503) by using Grant-Davie’s methodology for analysis, which he obviously believes will help us to see more depth in the complicated arguments surrounding our lives since the constituents encompass the important factors shaping and driving the discourse of a debate.
A Creative Title
Introduction: Brief background of the compound rhetorical situation, or discursive event, you’ll be analyzing (including why you feel it important to analyze), introduction of Grant-Davie’s article as your framing lens, and the stases, or questions, that are driving your interest and analysis of the language in action surrounding the event.
Exigence: In this section, you should address the “Matter and the Motivation” of the rhetorical act that set in motion a series of responses and counter-responses (490). In other words, identify that reasons behind the initiation of an article, order, post, or some other discourse that notably spurred the discussion about the issue.
As you do so, you can consider some of the questions Grant-Davie poses:
“What is the discourse about?” (491). (What is/was at stake? What values are involved? How does the initial rhetor (and even subsequent ones) stand to gain by it?)
“Why is [was] the discourse needed?” (493).
“What is [was] the discourse trying to accomplish?” (494).
You can also distinguish between what the initial rhetorical team claims the exigence is and what you or others may see as underlying aspects of their exigence that aren’t being publicized or acknowledged.
Rhetors: “Those People, Real or Imagined, Responsible for the Discourse and Its Authorial Voice” (495). The initial rhetor will be the rhetorical team behind the initial discourse that you are using as a starting point of your discursive event. You’ll want to identify and describe their backgrounds and initial activities to set the stream of discourse in motion as well as the content of said discourse.
You will also need to include those in the audience who responded to the initial discourse and thus became rhetors as well, so do likewise by discussing their backgrounds and activities to respond including the content.
Audience: “Those People, Real or imagined,with Whom Rhetors Negotiate through Discourse to Achieve the Rhetorical Objectives” (497).
First, you will describe in detail the various audiences to the initial discourse, both those intended and those perhaps not, per Grant-Davie, including the effects they may have had on the initial discourse as well as subsequent responses.
You’ll probably want to include the initial rhetorical team here also as they became an audience to the responses, including the effects they likely had on the formation of the responses.
Constraints: “Factors in the Situation’s Context [other than exigence, rhetors, and audiences] that May Affect the Achievement of the Rhetorical Objectives” (499).
In other words, you can think of constraints as contextual factors shaping the discourse that may not be directly connected to your considerations of exigence, rhetors, and audiences (501). As we’ve discussed, laws can prominently be involved in shaping the conversation by the limitations they impose on various activities, acting as positive limitations for one side and negative limitations for another.
In terms of discourse generated by ad-based media, obviously advertisers play an important role in shaping the discourse because of their influence on the bottom-line of news outlets. Also, as we’ve discussed quite often in relation to the Sherwood Hills example, cultural values regarding such things as concentrated wealth, private property, preservation of natural areas, resistance to governing institutions, and beliefs about the American Dream can shape the discourse considerably in positive or negative ways depending on the party.
Before moving on, though, it’s worth reminding you about Grant-Davie’s view that the constituents are “interlace[d]” and “the boundaries between [them]…[un]stable” (506). However, he does believe that initially treating them as if they are separate provides us with an opportunity to “look at a situation from a variety of perspectives” (506-7).
Conclusions: So, as a result of your more in-depth analysis of important factors, to what extent have your own views been shaped to see the compound rhetorical situation differently? Any surprises? Were you able to arrive at satisfying responses to your opening questions? Did you happen to notice any new connections or commonalities between various parties that you hadn’t before? Do you have any better understanding of the driving forces behind the debate? Do you feel any differently regarding what the debate is about? What do you see as the most compelling constraint? What do you consider your biggest take-away, and why would you argue that it’s important for us to ponder?
Works Cited: A minimum of three. Grant-Davie’s article should be listed as should any other articles you reference from Writing About Writing. You’ll also want to cite the sources, both here and within your paper, that you use for understanding and describing your chosen discursive event with the various players and rhetorical activity involved.
Additional guidelines and reminders:
You should adhere to MLA guidelines (see Purdue OWL website as needed) including the following:
12 pt. Times New Roman Font
1 inch margins
All double spaced
To make sure your entire paper is double spaced with one-inch margins, in the paragraph section of the Home tab in WORD, check the box that will prevent extra spacing between paragraphs/heading and uncheck the box for widow/orphan control.
Align left
Last name / page number in header one-half inch from top edge.
Your heading should be one inch from top and not included in header so that it is not repeated on every page.
Underline your thesis.
Demonstrate your ability to quote and cite properly by integrating numerous short (less than 4 lines) direct quotations with parenthetical citations. See this Webpage at the Purdue Owl for further information as needed: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/03/
Length: 3 to 5-plus pages
Upload to Canvas—Needs to be a .doc, or .docx, or .pdf file
Consult the Purdue OWL website for MLA matters and other fundamental writing concerns.
