Critical Questions in Criticism
Hart wrote, “Good criticism is the art of developing and then using critical probes . . . intelligent and specific questions to be asked of a given text.”
THE RHETORICAL ENVIRONMENT
Place – Time – Events – PeopleWhat is the exigence as the rhetor saw it?
What is the exigence as the audience saw it?
What questions about the events surrounding the speech do you need to answer? What events immediately preceded or followed the rhetorical act?
What questions about the speaking occasion do you need to answer? What are immediate circumstances in terms of time, date, location, nature of occasion, media of communication, etc.?
What in the rhetorical environment is of greatest interest to you?
Is there textual evidence that the rhetor considered these factors in writing the speech?
THE RHETOR
What do you need to know about the rhetor?
What was the rhetor’s position in the social-political environment? What issues, causes, groups, or individuals shaped rhetor’s position on the exigence?
What were the audience’s perceptions of the rhetor?
Is there textual evidence that the rhetor considered these factors in writing the speech?
What attitudes did the rhetor project toward the audience and the subject matter?
What expectations did the occasion create in the audience?
THE AUDIENCE & THE OCCASION
What was the historical, social, political, and economic setting of the rhetorical situation, and how did these forced create expectations for the audience?
What was the relationship between the audience and the subject of the message?
What group identifications existed in the audience?
Demographics—age, sex, race, ethnic origin, occupation, income, political party?
Any relevant values, beliefs, attitudes, ideologies?
What elements of the rhetorical situation are most salient for audience?
Is there textual evidence that the rhetor considered these factors in writing the speech?
What was the rhetor’s persuasive goal?
THE MESSAGE or TEXT
Invention
What change in belief, attitude, or behavior did rhetor seek from audience?
Were the speaker’s arguments an effective response to the exigence?
Did the rhetor understand or correctly interpret issues as they were generally understood at the time?
Was a persuasive case made in support of the rhetor’s position?
Were the arguments fully laid out? Were arguments more asserted than proven?
What grounds or evidence was used to support the claim in the argument?
What kinds of grounds were offered? Examples, illustrations, statistics, scientific evidence, artifacts, opinions, premises?
What kinds of warrants support the argument?
What kinds of reasoning? Cause-effect, sign, generalization, parallel case, analogy, definition, etc.?
Organization
How did rhetor organize message?
How did speaker handle introduction functions? Exordium, narratio, and partitio?
How did rhetor develop the body or main lines of development in the speech?
Style
What judgments can be made about the use of language?
How does speech stand up against traditional criteria: clarity, appropriateness, and impressiveness?
Did the rhetor use plain, middle, or grand style?
Did the rhetor use stylistic devices—tropes and schemes?
Metaphor, allusion, alliteration, antithesis, climax, hyperbole, metonomy, exymoron, repetition, rhetorical question, synedoche, etc.
Delivery
Description of rhetor’s voice, gesture, body movement, and space?
Potential of voice, gesture, body movement, etc., to convey emotions and attitudes? To arouse those in the audience?
Details of presentation: for example: Camera techniques, color, special type fonts, layout design, etc. Arrangement of the speaking area—lectern, podium, position of audience, etc.
THE CRITICAL JUDGMENT
Thonssen and Baird wrote, “Insightful synthesis integrates the many parts and makes the seemingly discrete components a whole piece.”
The basis of criticism is explained and defended, and a judgment is made about the speech.
Some sources of criteria:
Utilitarian – effects – results – impact: Did the message produce the effect intended?
Reality: Did the message convey truth? Based on truth? Instrumental in creating truth by reasoning from accurate information?
Artistic – aesthetics: Did the message meet highest standards of beauty and well-formedness?
Morality: judgments about the outcome in the context or about what is right and wrong
Psychology: Did the message purge the emotions of the speaker? Of the audience?
Culture and subculture: Does the message reflect customs and practices of a culture? Shed light upon the essence of the culture?
Cagle
Notes from Rybacki, Karyn Charles, and Donald Jay Rybacki. Communication Criticism: Approaches and Genres. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002.
Form template for speech analysis.