|
|
English 4620A/6000B: Survey of the History of Rhetoric
Fall 2010
TR 2-3:15
WH 262
CRN 81895 (4620A), 81896 (6000B)
3 semester hours
Dr. Lee
Campbell
College of
Arts and Sciences
Department of English
Valdosta State
University
Valdosta, GA
31698-0025
West Hall 216
229-333-7351 (office)
229-333-5946 (Department)
229-259-5529 (fax)
jlcampbe@valdosta.edu
http://www.valdosta.edu/~jlcampbe
Office hours: T 3:30-5:30, W 4-5, R 12-2, and by appointment
1. COURSE DESCRIPTION: Prerequisite or corequisite: ENGL 3060 or
3080, depending upon major program. A study of rhetorical
theory and its major figures from the classical period to the present.
2. GENERAL GOALS: Survey of the History of
Rhetoric is an advanced introduction to the art(s) of rhetoric. What is an
art? An art is a system of guidelines,
or heuristics, designed to make the successful production of something more
likely (than it otherwise would be without the system). What is rhetoric? Defined by Aristotle (c 335 BCE), rhetoric is the art of
finding the popular means of persuasion in speech. Defined by George Campbell
(1776), rhetoric is the art of enlightening an audience’s understanding,
pleasing its imagination, moving its passions, or influencing its will. These definitions tell us one thing:
rhetoric is the wildly ambitious attempt to analyze successful communication
in hopes of making it more likely to happen.
Using as our primary text a work that
overviews Western thinking on the art(s) of rhetoric from the Greek Sophists
to modern rhetoricians such as Chaim Perelman, we
will examine portions of selected primary texts for their perspectives on the
nature and scope of rhetorical discourse, its arts, and its historical and
cultural positions.
3a. EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS: Undergraduate
students who successfully complete ENGL 4620A
i.
will demonstrate an understanding of the art of rhetoric,
including
a.
the nature and scope of rhetoric through historical periods
b.
the means of acquiring rhetorical skills: art, imitation,
practice, and gift
c.
the central rhetorical arts of invention, arrangement, and
style
d.
the historical and cultural positions of rhetoric through
the ages
e.
the relationship of rhetoric to other English studies, such
as composition and literature (English outcome 4; core outcomes 6, 7)
ii.
will demonstrate an understanding of major periods and
figures in the history of rhetorical theory (English outcomes 1, 4; core outcomes
6, 7)
iii.
will demonstrate skills in the analysis of rhetorical
situations, including rhetor, audience, language, and exigence
(English outcome 2; core outcome 7)
iv.
will demonstrate an understanding of the functions of
rhetorical discourse in society, including political, epistemic, and
ideological (English outcome 4)
v.
will demonstrate writing skills in argument, organization,
style, editing, and mechanics (English outcome 2, core outcome 4)
vi.
will demonstrate speaking skills (English outcome 2; core
outcome 4)
vii.
will demonstrate the ability to employ contemporary
technologies for writing and research (English outcome 3, core outcome 3)
viii.
will demonstrate an awareness of ethical issues in rhetorical
discourse (English outcome 4; core outcome 8)
3b. EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR GRADUATE
STUDENTS: Graduate students who
successfully complete ENGL 6000B
i.
will demonstrate an advanced understanding of the art of
rhetoric, including
a.
the nature and scope of rhetoric through historical periods
b.
the means of acquiring rhetorical skills: art, imitation,
practice, and gift
c.
the central rhetorical arts of invention, arrangement, and
style
d.
the historical and cultural positions of rhetoric through
the ages
e.
the relationship of rhetoric to other English studies, such
as composition and literature (English outcome 4; core outcomes 6, 7)
ii.
will demonstrate a superior understanding of major periods
and figures in the history of rhetorical theory (English outcomes 1, 4; core
outcomes 6, 7)
iii.
will demonstrate advanced skills in the analysis of rhetorical
situations, including rhetor, audience, language, and exigence
(English outcome 2; core outcome 7)
iv.
will demonstrate an advanced understanding of the functions
of rhetorical discourse in society, including political, epistemic, and
ideological (English outcome 4)
v.
will demonstrate advanced writing skills in argument,
organization, style, editing, and mechanics (English outcome 2, core outcome
4)
vi.
will demonstrate advanced speaking skills (English outcome 2;
core outcome 4)
vii.
will demonstrate a superior ability to employ contemporary
technologies for writing and research and to integrate research in a
coherent, original argument worthy of presentation or publication (English
outcome 3, core outcome 3)
viii.
will demonstrate an advanced understanding of ethical issues
in rhetorical discourse (English outcome 4; core outcome 8)
4.
TEXT AND MATERIALS: One
required text overviews the art(s) of rhetoric from classical Greek to
contemporary times: Rhetoric and Human
Consciousness: A History (3/e), by Craig R. Smith (Waveland, 2009). ISBN 13: 978-1-57766-587-8.
Class
members will also be assigned primary readings that they will access online
(WWW and/or BlazeView). In this way
the instructor hopes to keep textbook costs low, but members will need to pay
attention carefully to the various means by which the primary texts will be
available. And there may be printing
or photocopying costs involved if members want hard copies of readings. Class
members should concentrate on these primary readings, as well as the portions
of the Smith text that comment on the primary readings.
All
members should have or obtain an email account and be or become adept with
BlazeView, VSU’s online instructional medium.
Members may communicate with the instructor through his regular email
address (jlcampbe@valdosta.edu), via the mail tool in BlazeView, or on the
course’s general discussion board on BlazeView.
5.
ASSIGNMENTS: Educational outcomes presented above will
be achieved as students complete the following assignments:
·
midterm
exam—20 points (outcomes i, ii, iv, v, viii)
·
final
exam—20 points (outcomes i, ii, iv, v, viii)
·
participation
in daily small-group work on primary texts in rhetoric—25 points (outcomes i, ii, iv, vi, viii)
·
proposal
for written analysis of a rhetorical situation—5 points (outcomes i, ii, iv, v, viii)
·
progress
report for analysis of a rhetorical situation—5 points (i,
ii, iii, iv, vii)
·
rough
draft of analysis of a rhetorical situation—5 points (i,
ii, iii, iv, vii, viii)
·
final
draft of analysis of a rhetorical situation—20 points (outcomes i, ii, iii, iv, v, vii, viii)
6. ATTENDANCE: This course will focus
on reading selected primary works in the history of rhetoric. Reading such texts isn’t easy. So classes will be devoted to the detailed
discussion of texts in small groups.
Because that focus makes attendance crucial, it will be kept at every
class, and students will be able to earn up to 25 points (25 percent of their
final grade) for coming to class and participating.
The instructor does not excuse absences, so the attendance policy is simple:
earn one point for every class attended for a maximum total of 25. As the class will meet approximately 30
times, members can thus miss about five classes without penalty. The sixth absence will start to cost a
member points, two per absence.
7.
CIVILITY: Late arrivals,
early exits, ringing cell phones, and grumpy behavior are disruptive. Arrive
on time, do not leave early, turn off cell phone ringers, and cheer up.
8.
GRADING: The grading system
is based on a five-point GPA-like system according to which
·
5.0 = A+
·
4.5 = A-
·
4.0 = B
·
3.5 = B-
·
3.0 = C
·
2.5 = C-
·
2.0 = D
·
1.0 = F
When applied to assignments or exams
that are worth 20 points, the scale looks like this:
·
20/20 =
A+
·
18/20 =
A-
·
16/20 =
B
·
14/20 =
B-
·
12/20 =
C
·
10/20 =
C-
·
8/20 = D
·
6/20 =
D-
·
4/20 = F
Final grades will be determined on the
following scale:
·
100 = A+
·
90 = A-
·
80 = B
·
70 = B-
·
60 = C
·
50 = C-
·
Below 50
= F
Note that this grading system is not based on percentages; scoring a 3
of 5 on an assignment or a 12 of 20 on an exam, for example, should not be understood as 60 percent, which
might be a D or F in some systems. In this 5-point system, a score 3 of 5 or
12 of 20 is a C. Final grades are calculated by simply totaling
points earned. In order to estimate
one’s grade at a certain time, one must total points earned and then consider
the number of possible points left to be earned, the number of those points
that might realistically be earned, and the number of points needed for a
certain grade.
9.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: Both
exams, to be completed on BlazeView, should be done individually, although
members may wish to collaborate in studying for them. The exams themselves should not be done collaboratively. Answers that evidence such collaboration
will receive zeros.
The
written project must avoid plagiarism, both intentional and
unintentional. Papers will be
penalized heavily should the plagiarism be intentional and extensive, lightly
if the plagiarism is unintentional and relatively minor.
10.
SCHEDULE: The following
schedule is tentative. It presents
readings in the Smith text, primary rhetorical texts, and due dates. Members
are expected to keep up with changes announced in class. On BlazeView members will access primary
readings or receive instructions about how to access them on the WWW.
Introduction
to the Art of Rhetoric
Aug
17 Lecture on the scope of rhetorical studies
Aug 19 Smith 1; Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation”
The
Emergence of Rhetorical Practice
Aug
24 Smith 2; O’Leary and McFarland, “The Political Use of Mythic Discourse:
Prophetic Interpretation in Pat Robertson’s Presidential Campaign”
Aug 26 Smith 2; Kinneavy, from Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith
The
Sophistication of Rhetoric
Aug
31 Smith 3; Gorgias, Encomium of Helen; Dissoi Logoi
Sep 02 Smith 3; Isocrates, from Antidosis
Sep 07 Smith 3; Plato, Gorgias
Sep 09 Smith 3; Plato, Gorgias
Aristotelian
Rhetoric
Sep
14 Smith 4; Aristotle, from Art of
Rhetoric, Book I
Sep 16 Smith 4; Aristotle, from Art of
Rhetoric, Book I
Sep 21 Smith 4; Aristotle, from Art of Rhetoric, Book II;
proposal of analysis of rhetorical situation due
Sep 23 Smith 4; Aristotle, from Art
of Rhetoric, Book II
Roman
Rhetoric
Sep
28 Smith 5; from Rhetorica ad Herennium,
Book I
Sep 30 Smith 5; from Rhetorica ad Herennium, Book
II
Oct 05 Smith 5; from Rhetorica ad Herennium, Book III
Oct 07 midterm; Smith 5; from Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory
Medieval
Rhetoric
Oct
12 Smith 6; Augustine, from De Doctrina
Oct 14 review for midterm exam; complete midterm exam on BlazeView between
3:30 R, Oct 14, and 11:59 PM W, Oct 20
Oct 19 No class: fall break
Oct 21 Smith 6; Principles of Letter
Writing
Rhetoric
in the Renaissance and Enlightenment
Oct
26 Smith 7; Peacham, from Garden of Eloquence; progress report on analysis of rhetorical
situation due
Oct 28 Smith 8; Bacon, from Advancement of
Learning
Nov 02 Smith 8; Campbell, from Philosophy
of Rhetoric
Nov 04 Smith 8; Campbell,
from Philosophy of Rhetoric
Nov 09
Smith 8; Whately, from Elements of
Rhetoric
Rhetoric, Existentialism, Identification,
Dramatism, Adherence, and Media
Nov 11 Smith 9; Heidegger,
“Language”
Nov 16 Smith 10; Burke, from A Grammar of Motives
Nov 18 Smith 11; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca,
from The New Rhetoric
Nov 23 Smith 11; McLuhan, from Understanding
Media; rough draft of analysis of rhetorical situation due
Nov 25 No class: Thanksgiving break
Rhetoric
and Postmodernism
Nov 30 Smith 12; Derrida, from “Signature Event Context”
Dec 02 Smith 12; review for final exam; submit final draft of analysis of
rhetorical situation
Final
Exam
Dec
8-10 Complete final exam on BlazeView by 11 PM
11.
SPECIAL SERVICES: Class
members requiring classroom accommodations or modifications because of a
documented disability should discuss this need with the instructor at the
beginning of the semester. Class members who require assistance but who are
not registered with the Special Services Program should contact the Access
Office.
12. ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL SITUATION: Class members will demonstrate their
understanding of the art of rhetoric, its historical figures, and its
position in society as they analyze suasory
(persuasive or dissuasive) discourse in a rhetorical situation, historical or
contemporary. A rhetorical situation,
as we’ll learn during the first week of class, comes into existence when a
rhetor (speaker or writer) perceives an exigence
(i.e., a problem) that might be addressed by discourse directed at an
audience with some ability to respond to the exigence. In Aristotle’s terms, the rhetor searches
for “the available means of persuasion” in the situation. In Lloyd Bitzer’s
terms, the discourse is “constrained” by various elements in the situation,
including aspects of the rhetor him/herself, qualities of the audience, parts
of the subject matter, the nature of the occasion, and the timing of the
discourse. The objective of class members is to explain how a rhetor uses the
available constraints in a situation for suasory
ends.
In
short, the history of rhetoric is the accumulated writings on how rhetors should or do in fact navigate rhetorical
situations. Thus, class members should
choose a contemporary or historical rhetorical situation that they can make
sense of according to rhetorical theory. Everyone will, the instructor
guesses, use Bitzer’s work (from 1968), but a
selection of other work (some of which might be treated in class, some not)
will need to be employed as well.
What
rhetorical situation may class members choose? Members should focus on a single,
substantial example of suasory discourse, although
they certainly may refer to other speeches or writings of the rhetor. President Obama, for example, while a
candidate for the presidency, delivered a speech in Philadelphia in March of
2008 in response to a perceived exigence created by
remarks of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
“A More Perfect Union” runs about 5000 words and took over 30 minutes
to deliver. A rhetorical analysis of
the candidate’s situation would include an examination of, among other
things,
·
the
timing and the occasion of the speech (kairos)
·
the
candidate’s presentation of himself (in the speech’s words themselves—ethos, as well as in his delivery),
·
the
candidate’s perception of the issue before him and his position on it,
·
the
speech’s arguments in support of his position (logos),
·
the
speech’s use of qualities of the audience as means of persuasion (pathos),
·
the
speech’s arrangement,
·
and the
speech’s use of style (diction, sentence composition, and figures of speech)
for persuasive effect.
Important
to note is that this analysis should not be primarily political or
sociological (although the political and sociological contexts are obviously
important); the analysis should be rhetorical, concentrating on how the
speaker or writer as a rhetor negotiates the many constraints facing him or
her. Class members are aiming to
produce rhetorical criticism. Possible
topics are unlimited: deliberative discourse (concerning a future course of
action), such as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter
from Birmingham Jail (1963) or James Madison’s Federalist 10 (1787);
ceremonial discourse (concerning a present occasion), such as President
Eisenhower’s farewell speech (1961) or any presidential inaugural; legal
discourse (concerning some past action), such as Richard Nixon’s “Checkers”
speech (1952). Members who choose to
analyze speeches need access to the full text and may analyze the speech’s
delivery if there is videographic record of
it. The delivery of written work can
also be analyzed in terms of place of publication, distribution, and so on.
The examples given above all concern American politics, but members might
choose international subjects, religious oratory, or essays on any number of
subjects—as long as they are suasory, not literary
or expository.
Students
in ENGL 4620 should produce an analysis of at least 12 pages with six primary
rhetorical sources (books or articles on rhetorical theory: not counting
Smith or other commentaries on the chosen rhetorical situation). Members should, of course, cite Smith and
other commentaries on the rhetorical situation, but the instructor is
interested mainly in what applications of primary rhetorical theory can be
made.
Students
in ENGL 6000 should produce an analysis of at least 15 pages with eight
primary rhetorical sources (books or articles on rhetorical theory: not
counting Smith or other commentaries on the chosen rhetorical
situation). Members should, of course,
cite Smith and other commentaries on the rhetorical situation, but the
instructor is interested mainly in what applications of primary rhetorical
theory can be made.
Class
members will produce the analysis in stages:
·
proposal of
analysis of rhetorical situation (due September 21): in an essay consistent
with MLA format, describe the more or less unarguable facts of the rhetorical
situation and then hypothesize what might be the key ways in which the
discourse you have chosen to analyze exploited the situation’s available
means of persuasion (about two pages).
·
progress
report on analysis of rhetorical situation (due October 26): in an essay
consistent with MLA format (with list of works cited in correct form),
explain how the primary works in rhetoric (articles, essays, books) that you
have found will help you analyze the rhetorical situation you have
chosen. In short, preview your
analysis of the situation given your research (two to four pages).
·
rough draft of
analysis of rhetorical situation (due November 23): in an essay consistent
with MLA format (with parenthetical citations of sources and list of works
cited), attempt a full analysis of the rhetorical situation.
·
final draft of
analysis of rhetorical situation (due December 2): in an essay consistent
with MLA format (with parenthetical citations of sources, list of works
cited, and edited style and mechanics), present a finished analysis of the
rhetorical situation.
15. INSTRUCTOR: The instructor was born to Canadian parents in
Peoria, Illinois, May, 1960. Born in 1925, his parents told him stories of
Manitoba during the Depression. The instructor listened to monophonic
Beatles records on a portable turntable; watched the Vietnam War on the
nightly news and his three older brothers’ reactions to it; played hockey on
frozen ponds; saw the first Ali vs. Frazier fight live on European
television; delivered papers spreading the news of Watergate (are there any
paperboys left?); kept score in bowling with a pencil; learned to drive with
a stick in a VW Bug and a three-on-the-tree Dodge; attended his first rock
concert at Soldier Field in Chicago (Emerson, Lake, and Palmer; Foghat; J. Giles, Climax Blues Band) and saw his last a
couple of years ago (Dylan and Haggard); typed college papers on a manual
typewriter; bought his first computer at the age of 30—after completing his
dissertation; and ran off his first class handouts with a ditto
machine. Besides Peoria, the instructor has lived in Vancouver, British
Columbia; Bogotá, Colombia; Geneva, Switzerland; Normal, Illinois; West
Lafayette, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Arkadelphia and Hot Springs,
Arkansas; Valdosta, Georgia; and Riverview, Florida, where he currently makes
a home with his wife and three children born in 1995, 1998, and 2000, as well
as two dogs and four cats. Riverview
is located in the Tampa Bay area, where the instructor’s wife works. This means he commutes once a week (to
Valdosta and back), usually on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He’s not on campus Mondays or Fridays, so
take advantage of email and the five office hours on T, W, and R.
Back to Topos
|