COMM 104: Study Guide
77 Cards in this Set
| Front | Back |
|---|---|
|
Rhetoric
|
all available means of persuasion
|
|
3 Books in Aristotle's Rhetoric
|
1. Public Speaker
2. Audience
3. Speech itself
|
|
Who motivated rhetoric?
|
Sophists
|
|
What 2 Assumptions is the Rhetoric Guided By?
|
Must Consider Audience
Use # of proofs in speech
|
|
What are the three proofs
|
ethos- speakers perceived character
logos- logical proof
pathos- appealing to emotions
|
|
3 types of Rhetoric
|
deliberative
forensic
epideitic
|
|
Deliberative
|
legislature, determine course of action; political
|
|
Forensic
|
speaking in court, elicit feelings of guilt; pathos
|
|
Epideitic
|
ceremonial
|
|
Aristotle's 5 Canons
|
invention- knowledge of topic
arrangement- organization; unity among thoughts
style- language
delivery- nonverbal
memory- mental storage of invention
|
|
What is extemporaneous?
|
without preparation
|
|
First rule of fair-minded interpretation
|
be sensitive to context and purpose
|
|
What happens without context?
|
message loses meaning and accuracy
|
|
What is the goal in audience analysis?
|
know enough to make your ideas clear and meaningful
|
|
What are the two elements of audiences?
|
demographics
situations- environment
|
|
Arguments
|
process of giving a reason in support of a claim
|
|
Claim
|
conclusion; statement that the speaker is seeking to show as true
|
|
Reason
|
statement offered in support of the truth of another statement
|
|
Premise
|
statements that compose a reason
|
|
Proposition
|
positional statement of a controversial issue
|
|
Proposition of fact
|
whether something is true/false, exists/non exist
answered w great certainty
|
|
Proposition of value
|
moral/immoral; includes questions of facts but also demand value judgments
|
|
Proposition of policy
|
what you want someone to do or believe; includes the word should
|
|
4 Broad Steps of Invention
|
problem- clearly articulate problem
blame- source of the problem
solution
consequences
|
|
4 Characteristics of Good Elements of style
|
accuracy/clarity
propriety
economy
vivacity
|
|
accuracy vs clarity
|
accuracy refers to meaning intended by receiver
clarity refers to audience understanding
|
|
propriety
|
language is appropriate to source topic and audience
|
|
economy
|
as many words as necessary
|
|
vivacity
|
quality of interest heard in language chose
|
|
4 tools for vivacity
|
metaphors
antithesis- juxtaposition of contrary ideas
rhyme
isocolon- successions of same length clauses
anaphora- using same phrase at the beginning of each sentence
|
|
manuscript
|
speech is read to audience
adv- detailed and good for nervous speakers
dis- no nonverbal, lack of psychological connection
|
|
memorization
|
speaker memorizes it
adv- nonverbals, decreased psych barrier
dis- no good for adapting
|
|
extemporaneous
|
occasionally referring to notes
adv- talking directly
dis- bad for detail oriented
|
|
impromptu
|
little/no prep
adv- conversational
dis- no detail
|
|
3 possible purposes for communication
|
inform, persuade, entertain
|
|
ISO- categorical or topical
|
requires that the topic be broken into categories so that similar ideas are grouped together
|
|
ISO- Sequential
|
topic be described in chronological order
|
|
ISO- Spatial
|
speaker to describe the topic from left to right, west to east; cause and effect
|
|
PSO- Problem-solution
|
requires existence of the problem be described in the first point and the solution/benefits in the next point
|
|
PSO- Goal Advantage
|
requires speak to argue that the proposed plan does a better job of satisfying the original goals than the existing approach
|
|
PSO- Monroe's Motivated Sequence
|
sequentially address: attention, need for change, satisfaction by providing a solution, visualization by painting a picture of benefits, action and designed for policy speeches that seek immediate action/uses psych of persuasion
|
|
Informative Speech Organization (3)
|
categorical or topical
sequential
spatial
|
|
Persuasive Speech Organization (3)
|
problem-solution
goal advantage
monroe's motivated sequence
|
|
Initial Ethos
|
how credible a speaker is perceived before message
|
|
Terminal
|
how credible a speaker is during
|
|
Types of Evidence (3)
|
examples
statistics
testimonials
|
|
Test of Argument Worthiness
|
1. test of truthfulness of premises
2. test of logical strength
3. test of relevance
4. test of non-circularity
|
|
test of truthfulness of premises
|
test condition- reason is true in each of its premises, explicit and implicit
|
|
test of logical strength
|
condition- if the reason were true then the claim would be very true
|
|
test of relevance
|
truth of the claim depends on the truth of the reason; requires that the source's reason is the basis for the claim
|
|
test of non-circularity
|
truth of reason does not depend on the truth of the claim
|
|
If all reasons are true but claim is false
|
fails test of logical strength
|
|
if all reasons are true but it is not possible for claim to be false
|
argument passes logical strength test
|
|
Fallacies of Relevance (7)
|
appeals to ignorance
appeals to the mob (bandwagon)
appeals to emotion
ad hominem attack
straw man
playing with words
misuse of authority
|
|
appeals to ignorance
|
occur when absence of reason is used to reject the claim
ex- Since there are not questions from the class regarding fallacies, then they must understand them.
|
|
appeals to the mob
|
error in reasoning to assume that because others are doing it or believe that it is correct
|
|
appeals to emotion
|
occurs when we rely upon an emotional response as the best guid for forming decision
ex- Mom said there were starving children all over the world who would give anything for the pickled beets on my plate, so I gave in and ate them.
|
|
ad hominem attack
|
when someone is personally attacked rather than his or her ideas
ex- After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit wei…
|
|
straw man
|
idea that refuting the weakest argument is enough and saying the entire claim should be denied
when one person attributes to the other an argument that the other person did not say
|
|
playing with words
|
when an argument exploits problematic vagueness, ambiguity, stereotyping, donkey cart langued or slanted langue
|
|
misuse of authority
|
error in reasoning that occurs we we believe a claim because a powerful or respected person says it
|
|
Deductive Arguments
|
require that the conclusions are true if the reasons are true
|
|
Denying the consequent
|
#1: If A, then B
#2: Not B
Conclusion: therefore, A
ex- if the gate is open then he'll go in
he didn't go in
then the gate wasn't open
|
|
Affirming the antecedent
|
#1: If A, then B
#2: A
Conclusion: then B
ex- if you play with fire you'll get burned
I played with fire
you got burned
|
|
Disjunctive Syllogism
|
#1: Either A or B
#2: Not A
Conclusion: then B
ex- either you go to the play or we see a movie
we didn't go to the play
then you saw a movie
|
|
Applying a Generalization
|
#1: every member of F is a member of G
#2: X is a member of F
Conclusion: so X is a member of G
ex- every teacher is in the teacher's union
she's a teacher
then she's in the union
|
|
Applying an Exception
|
#1: every F is a G
#2: X is not a G
Conclusion: X is not an F
ex- every song has a tune
chants don't have a tune
then chants are not songs
|
|
The Power of Only
|
only is one of the most interesting words in our language
extraordinarily
|
|
transitivity relationship
|
if x has a transitive relationship to y, and y has the same transitive relationship to z, then x has the same transitive relationship to z
ex- The team with the best record is the Mountaineers. The team with the best record should win the trophy. So, the Mountaineers should win the troph…
|
|
reflexivity relationship
|
if x has a reflective relationship to y, then y has the same reflective relationship to x
ex- Danielle is Carrie's sister. So Carrie is Danielle's sister.
|
|
Fallacies in Declarative Statements
|
affirming the consequent
denying the antecedent
|
|
affirming the consequent
|
#1: if a, then b
#2: a
conclusion: b
ex- if im in morgantown im in west virginia
Im in west virginia
therefore im in morgantown
|
|
denying the antecedent
|
#1: if a, then b
#2: not a
conclusion: not b
ex- if im not in morgantown im not in west virginia
im not in morgantown
then im not in west virginia
|
|
fallacies when reasoning about classes of objects
|
false classification
fallacies of composition and division
|
|
false classification
|
one feature can be true of one group without requiring that one group be apart of the other
|
|
fallacies of composition and division
|
attributes that apply to parts of a whole may not apply to entire
division- occurs when we say what is true of the group is true of individuals
composition- true about parts is true about whole
|
|
Fallacies of false reference
|
just because something is described in one way does not mean that the person knows same things described in another way
|
COMM 104: Study Guide