Please excuse my brief digital rhetoric tangent.

So,

 as I am reviewing the different research and study methods  (and of course checking emails constantly)....Not only am I realizing the crazy amount of procedural and invitational rhetoric of practically everything that we use on the internet. Every thing from the bright blue links our eyes are drawn to click on, to the little red (Facebook), orange (Instagram), (I don't know what color  Pinterest notifications are...yet,) but all of these tools and mechanics are constantly inviting us to use them, and then the whole format and structure of the internet is a procedure we go through...)--Now I just need to apply this to my paper.

Also, how inviting is it for us to just use our Google Calendar or our phones to remind us of everything from assignments due to coffee meetings, are we too lazy? busy?  ...overwhelmed maybe?

IDK!

Anways, back to work! Sending good vibes for everyone's paper!


Sam

Equal Signs and Facebook Photos

So I'm guessing everyone has heard on some level, but two important cases will are in front of the Supreme Court that have to do with gay marriage and marriage equality. You've probably heard of this because of the viral movement that has happened on Facebook and Twitter (and maybe other sites but I know of those two for sure) and that's changing your profile picture to the equal sign.

I wanted to post on here about it not only because I find it an interesting piece of digital rhetoric but also because I feel that this post will stop me from screaming at people on Facebook who are commenting on it and have no idea what they are talking about.

When I first saw the equal signs instead of my friends profile pictures I wasn't sure what it was about. A quick Google search quickly filled me in. I had heard about DOMA and the other case before, but I had forgotten because i had been paying attention when it was first said that they would go before the Supreme Court; and while I don't know much about that branch of our government I am aware at how freaking long it takes them to actually look at a case, so it had slid to the back of mind during that time. However, this movement reminded me and I quickly changed my profile picture and started keeping an eye on the news.

Many of my friends changed their pictures as well before and after me. I even had one friend message me and ask what it was about. I've also noticed some interesting variations; among which are parodies I like and don't agree with (but that's a different post).

There have also been those who appose this. Most recently I saw a status by a Facebook friend that said she found it annoying she now had to read people's name's because they all had the same profile picture of two rectangles (she's a math major and she feels that an equals sign does not work the way people think it works). What made really got to me was a comment on their status where someone said something along the lines of 'vote how you want but changing your profile picture won't change things'.

I don't agree with this; hence why I'm in this class, really. I don't agree with the idea that changing your Facebook picture won't change things because of what I did the first time I saw those pictures; I Googled what they were about. I highly doubt I was the only one. Other people on my feed had been sharing articles and talking about it as well. The fact this profile movement has worked so well has caused a lot of the articles that people are sharing to be written. It has caused a friend to ask me about it and get informed about something he knew nothing about. It's a response that has caused responses - the parodies. It's caused status posts that I have agreed and not agreed with, and caused discussion that is specific to this part of the LGBTQ+ movement and ones that have to do with other parts of the movement.

Will people's profile pictures decide the these two cases? No. The changing of the profile picture is just one of the many actions I am taking in response to the discourse surrounding the situation.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on this. What do you guys think?

Methods of Analysis

I was really looking forward to getting a lesson on Confucianism while reading this article, but turns out, that's not what I would be reading. Ding more than anything discusses the different methodologies of analysis' of rhetoric, what comparative rhetoric is and while explaining and describing in detail the methods she used to to research Analects, she helped me undersand what our next paper really is all about.

So rather than searching for the information and discourse buried within her amazing research methodology descriptions concerning Analects,  I attempted to conceptualize the structure of the paper itself. First, his introduction of comparative rhetoric and its methods and the criticisms of it (while sneaking in his major argument) by first proposing his idea of how she will do his research, then explaining why she proposes this form and topic, and lastly giving reason for why (his purpose). Following this, just as our papers do, she gives a brief historical background of certain aspects of the topic itself. THEN (and here's the biggie because it's exactly what we're working on) she goes into the different types of methodologies and procedures she will be using. This is the section I pulled from the most, seeing that I found some of his methods and procedures very interesting, the corpus linguistic technique of concordance and lexical analysis and rhetorical analysis (146).  I liked it because it reminds me of articulation, in a sense. By taking a part the text little by little (chunking it, pretty much), analyzing those chunks separately   and then going back through the information bottom up- I feel his approach/method allows us to really break down the information..although, very time consuming.

sHe then gets more into his topic of research...which I'm not going to lie, was, um..kind of skimmed and read through quickly- as I said above, I really was just looking at the structure and order of his paper rather than really analyzing the research she did herself. Anyways, as I was saying she got into his work of yan and ren, and did his linquistic corpus technique with it, then after, pulled it all together to get to she most interesting part...the "Three Types of Rhetors and Their Respective Ways to Achieve Persuasion"- which is where she ties in all of the articulation and chunking she had done in his method of research and comes to his conclusion.

Huiling Ding

To be honest I couldn’t follow the topic in the essay. I know nothing about Chinese dialect or the text that the person was analyzing and so I found it hard to find a place to start when it came to understanding it. However, I found it very informational when it came to analyzing an artifact. While I think the situation will be slightly different – it seemed like Ding was talking about his method of analyzing while talking about what he had found using his methods. But I still think some things I noticed could be applied

While the artifact Ding was studying was text the reading showed there is more then one method of analyzing it then simply reading it. For instance the idea of understanding the history of the linguistics had never occurred to me. I ‘ve never really thought about the history of a word, and my linguistics class I’m taking this semester has just started to show me the concept of understanding how we speak and what it means.

Another thing I noticed that while their many different methods Ding of analyzing the text it always went back to her main goal, or thesis. This is probably a good thing to keep in mind in any paper, but especially when analyzing in several different ways. It could be easy to get distracted or start to ramble.  

Virtue-Centered Rhetoric

So, this was a bit heavy for reading at 9am on a Monday, but nevertheless, I understand the point of this reading. Ding's style in this piece was (or what my understanding is) what our next paper is supposed to have the tone of. It is about the different methods of comparative rhetoric as Confucius defined it as the cross-cultural study of rhetorical traditions as they exist or have existed in different societies around the world.

The overall layout of the piece began by giving a historical context for virtue-centered rhetoric, and how Ding plans to achieve the goals set by Liu and Mao by examining non-Western rhetorical text and within that text's historical, political, and cultural context. Ding's first methods include conducing a piece-by-piece analyses of each important text and author and then put them together into a larger picture.

The pieces that he seemed to focus on the most was the Analects from Confucius, which was a span of writing collected and recorded over 230 years after his death. 20 of these years encompasses all but the last 20 years of during the first political unity of China by Emperor Qing. His analyses were both by computer and hand-tagged keyword extraction, analyzing a handful of words and how often they occurred, their distribution, and the word meaning to isolate the word from its surrounding context and to analyze it in that context. Overall, Ding found that Confucius's main ideology was that only through virtue can a rule ensure the effectiveness of his orders and that his nation will follow suit.

Confucius’s Virtue-Centered Rhetoric – Huiling Ding

This reading was really interesting to me. I’ve always heard about Confucius, but I never really knew who he was or why he’s so well known. This reading cleared all that up for me. I also found this helpful in terms of layout, since I paid more attention to how this analysis was structured. I got a tip from Samantha about not only paying attention to the content of the articles we’re reading, but also analyzing the structure, and it really does help (thanks Sam)!

Ding starts by talking about comparative rhetoric; defining it and giving a bit of background information on it. Several paragraphs later he begins discussing Confucius. Before going into Confucius’s theories, he gives a bit of background on Confucius’s life and how he developed the ideas he had. After we have the background information and contextual information about his life, Ding moves into how he is going to analyze the work, the Analects. This seemed a bit familiar to me, since this is our next paper – the methods section. After saying how he’s going to analyze the work, Ding analyzes it. He breaks up the work into specific sections, in this case specific words to help narrow down the scope. This helps, since with my topic, Pinterest is a very large social platform, and I need to narrow it down somehow. From here, Ding moves into the conclusion.

Someone once told me when you write a paper, give a speech, or present something, the structure is simple. “Tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them; tell them what you told them.” This seemed familiar to me in Ding’s paper, and it makes much more sense now that I’m older and actually moving into writing academic works that require repetition to convey denser ideas. Going back to Ding’s analysis, there were several strategies and quotes that I really liked, and think I might use for my own analysis of Pinterest, when the time comes.

First, I like how he mentions that he had to read the text several times through holistic reading. Since Pinterest isn’t a text so much as a platform, I’m going to spend a lot of time on the site, immersing myself to its ways and really perusing through the boards and what’s pinned to them to get a good working understanding of the culture within Pinterest. Second, an approach I really found fascinating was when Ding mentioned that he went through the text to count the words, but he also used a software to take the first ten to fifteen words before and after the use of the phrase and put them together. This, I think, is a very interesting approach. Third, he uses the words as a major foundation for his analysis. He takes a few words, like “ren”, and really does an in-depth analysis of the word itself, and then relates it back to the Analects and Confucius through its meaning. That, I think, is really cool.

Throughout the paper, Ding mentions things like, “After defining…ren, I returned to…”, and “My analysis…” This helps to reorient the reader and guide them through the paper, and I like that. It’s almost as though his audience is people (or scholars) new to the concepts. Additionally, Ding gave a lot of contextual information to increase understanding. This is especially important to my paper, since Pinterest is growing, it still doesn’t have everyone on it, and many people still don’t know what it is or understand it. He also ties all claims to research, which I know you should do, but I haven’t seen it done quite as well as it was done here. It gives me something to look up to when I write my paper, though it’s a completely different topic.

Ding also does a lot of summarizing at the end of the paper, which is good, because there are a lot of ideas and concepts presented in this paper that could easily be forgotten due to over-information, had Ding not carefully thrown in summaries. Overall this reading really helped increase my understanding of both a methodology section and an in-depth analysis.

paper 3: basis/foundation for the paper/RC

How we accomplish a rhetorical criticism?

 What goes into an argument about a Rhetorical Approach/Method?

-purpose: justification of how you plan to study the artifact you are studying/justifying a form of interpretation

 Research Question Audience-
 Context of what you are studying: -broad to narrow -define: historical/temporal/background of discussion -program locale -perspective of critic (to identifies the audience, link content/metaphor to audience)

In-depth Definition of different method/approach


How text and context are tied Text: how do we define it as an artifact -author/creator: -history -platform -interface -parameters-specifically what you are studying -justification of text as significant 
Studies prior have led us to need to study the text in this way

 Reference/Work Cited -approaches to studying a similar locale -

A plan of action for yourself; how you plan to collect information when you are doing your analysis

An education, because studying your artifact may be very different from the ways you normally study

Pool Links

Some before:
http://digarch.lib.mtu.edu/showbib.aspx?bib_id=718265#
http://digarch.lib.mtu.edu/showbib.aspx?bib_id=632761#


Some after:
http://digarch.lib.mtu.edu/showbib.aspx?bib_id=718264#

Zemmels

This reading was basically the history of rhetoric. While I still don’t think of the internet as old (because it is getting up there and years and that means I’m growing up and lalalala…I shouldn’t write these blog posts so late at night). But everything has a history to look through, and so I think this reading is important.

I think Zemmels had a good point when he said that the internet is fragmented and dispersed. And I had never really thought about it before, but I do feel that it has a large effect on its rhetoric; from the discourse, the audience, to the authors.

Once again I’m reading about how rhetoric has had to change for the technological age so it can better address the discourse that comes from an online space. But I wonder if this is such a big surprise? I mean I have a feeling that this is not the first time rhetoric has had to evolve for a new type of artifact. What about the first time they came out with magazines? Or when movies and then tv was first established? I have a feeling that rhetoric had to change for all of this so I’m not sure why the authors I have read seem almost surprised that this has happened. It’s going to happen again, I’m sure.

I like the sound of this rhizome model. “A system of relationships without a center” sounds like a pretty cool way of describing the internet. This also gets at the idea that the internet can be fragmented; these relationships come together on some level, but on other levels they are

Zemmels

I think this piece is a 21 page paper on exactly what this class is about. I was honestly a bit confused about the whole depiction of rhetorical criticism and how it relates to the digital sphere, but this paper made me step back and look at the big picture of what this class is about. It is very important for us to be able to rhetorically analyze the digital world that we use so that we can accurately depict what can or can not be trusted in the ways that it interacts with audiences.

Unfortunately, the audience does not usually feel the same way about this. To the untrained user, according to Zemmels, they typically do not care. The indeterminacy of authorship is a challenge to rhetorical analysis, but the audience sometimes believes that in an internet environment, it is not needed and sometimes poses a challenge. When an author of something remains anonymous, they are more likely to express their true feelings on a subject instead of worrying about their appearance in the public eye. Also, in the world of the internet, it is so easy for users to cut and paste any text that they see, so the authors credibility gets lost in the process anyway.

I couldn't agree more with the section on media in the digital sphere. Douglas Kellner believed that the nation is so corrupted with conservative ideologies, that the internet is a way for people to be exposed to different viewpoints and they would then be able to make more informed decisions about government and society. With traditional print media, sometimes people live in areas where every public viewpoint is conservative. I notice this a lot with my hometown. Because it is a farming community, the newspaper is a weekly-run depiction of republican viewpoints from the 1920s. The number of articles about football and hunting has probably tripled any other normal newspaper. But with the internet, my community can [hope to be] more democratic in their thinking.

An Archaeology of Rhetorical Criticism and Internet Communication – Zemmels

This reading was interesting to read after Barbara Warnick’s piece because it referenced many things she said in her article. I find that very cool because I have the background information prior to reading this article. This one started off by introducing the umbrella term “Internet studies” (1). I like this distinction, because it acknowledges that there are so many areas of study on the internet today. The article also mentions Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) right away. This was also cool to read, because from my studies in the past and what I am interested in for the future, I am interested in the subject of HCI and usability. So I like that that was mentioned.

This article said, “New Media is more narrowly defined here as aural and visual media production, distribution, and consumption” (2). This was a good distinction to me, though it still seems a bit broad. I understand this to mean any sort of imagery online, including its distribution and consumption. This ties in very well with my research topic (Pinterest) because it’s based on imagery and how it gets distributed, so I may have to remember this source for a future paper!

Another thing that stood out to me was that “scholarly research in this area is still relatively new and no universally accepted terms, definitions, theories or methodologies have emerged” (4). This is really cool to read because I personally love that my university offers courses that enable us as students to really get in the field and do our own research and findings, as opposed to just reading about what others have done and leaving it at that. I also find it interesting because it means (to me at least) that I chose the right area of study because this stuff is crazy interesting!

This article, like many before it, also talks about the identity of the user. I find this area of study really interesting, and the fact that it’s mentioned in nearly every academic article we read really highlights its importance. This article says that users “often switch genders”, which lead them to “become the authors not only of the text, but of themselves, constructing new selves through social interaction” (9). This helps to create an ethos (or distract from it) when a user is reading text online. Following Warnick’s article, this leads me again to question the importance of credibility and traditional notions of authorship. 

questions for rhetorical critics

What sorts of roles are being enacted? What kinds of participation or response is being sought? What sort of online community is assumed, and what are its conventions and values? What are the significant absences--who is excluded; what values are suppressed; what is not said? -"Rhetoric Online" (Warnick)

Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse

Many rhetorical scholars are trying to look at the rhetoric of the digital sphere the same way that they do traditional texts. This is mainly because they have no other knowledge of how to approach this. Warnick's article argues that while this can work well, it most likely will not. They believe that critical work and critical theory will be changed to suit the new communication environments, but this can not happen. Authors can not be evaluated because the author of a text online usually gets lost within a group of commentators.

Traditional aspects of rhetorical criticism can be used in some aspects, however, on the basis of communication practices. The communicators still support some sort of value and ideology and try to influence others. They still take a standpoint to try to appeal to reader.

The identity of the audience is also difficult to determine in an online environment. While devices can measure the attendance coming to a website, it can not always determine who that person is that is visiting. (Although, as I am researching, data mining is becoming more and more accurate with this). Also, Warnick mentions that the web is a cluster of pseudo-environments. It is difficult to judge the credibility of a certain website or candidate because there are so many impostors trying to pretend that they are that person with fake websites.

rhetorical criticism reading

This reading was about how criticism of public discourse has to change from the old ways when one is looking at rhetoric online. I feel like we had been talking about some of these ideas before -especially when talking about the idea of identity  - but this reading was still very informational.

As usual I found the ideas of identity particularly interesting. Especially how once again a paper brings up the fact that you can technically play as another gender online. I had never really thought about this when I am just on the Web; the idea that a person could tell me they are a woman or a man and I would just have to take that text at face value. But it seems to be an idea that plagues rhetorers because I have read about it in several papers. I would have to think some more about how I perceive and anonymous identity online but my first thought is usually to think of them as male. This is because I see most faceless people online as highly assertive, often-times destructive, and many times powerful people and I've been taught socially to view these traits favorably in men.

One thing that fist stuck out in this reading for me was the part they quoted on reading hpertext. The point made about how one can't fully research the quantity that the internet provides and that online rheterors have to work with chunks and samples reminds me of the paper we just had to write. Ten pages, trying to contextualize all the work that has been done on World of Warcraft, and I felt like I had barely scratched the surface. That's a normal feeling on the internet; the understand that I will only be working with a small sample of what their is to offer. I never thought before about how this effects my rhetoric. It has to, on some level, because I have to understand that I will never be a 'master' of the knowledge that I am studying; or at least in the way that it used to happen.

Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse on the Internet - Warnick

This was a really interesting read. The first thing that really stood out to me was when she quoted, "new communication environments... are themselves metamessages" (74). This was interesting to me because Marshall McLuhan's book, The Medium is the Massage came to my mind. This topic interests me because the same message is taken in different contexts based on where it's placed. If I post a Facebook post, for example, it will not have the same message as a Twitter Tweet or blog post or a Pinterest Pin. All of the mediums have their own connotations, and I love that about the digital sphere. To me, I kind of feel like the world wide web is just a giant puzzle, and as rhetors, we need to figure where to post our message and how in order to achieve the best result.

This reading also talked a lot about malleable texts. This idea is also fascinating to me because it makes so much sense, yet people still don't see this viewpoint when they're on the internet or when they're posting on social media sites or other websites. When I post something, I know it is not finite. It is not "set in stone", and I know others can - and may- distort it for their own purposes and attach their own meaning to it, essentially changing my text completely. A quote from the reading says, "we may have to change our expectations of what texts are and how they function" (75). This is completely true in my mind, however, deciding how to change the expectations is where the hard part comes in (for me at least). I, as a user of social media and the internet, switch back and forth from a rhetor to audience, and back again in the blink of an eye. This is the same for a vast majority of web users today.

This flows into Warnick's discussion of the audience and how the meaning of audience has had to adapt to the digital sphere. Because messages can be so distorted from their original meaning, and because they can be re-posted and distributed beyond our wildest dreams, "the audience is often not readily identifiable" (77). This leads me to wonder how much the audience plays a role in messages. To me, this new form of the digital sphere only strengthens the notion of audience. The original message had an audience that it was intended for, knowingly or not. The message that is constructed based on that message is then tailored to an audience, and so on and so forth. Without the notion of audience, the message wouldn't need to be reformed in the first place. Or so I believe.

Along with the question of the audience comes the question of authorship. There have been many times when I have found what seems like a great source for an academic paper, only to question whether the source is credible because there is not author associated with the content. In response to this, Warnick says, "one cannot tell who the author is, nor does it make sense to ask this question in the traditional way" (79). This brought up a whole new world of ideas for me, because it makes sense that if all the other traditional ways are being re-positioned to apply to the digital sphere, why should authorship not be redefined? It makes sense that it should be re-examined, especially as everyone on the internet (and especially social media) has the potential to be an author of content.

In response to the above paragraph, one quote that jogged my brain was when Warnick quoted, "to treat all representations as true" (79). This, however unrelated it may seem, made me think of a TV commercial. I believe it's a State Farm commercial. A man is on his mobile device when a woman comes up questioning the existence of the State Farm apps. She then goes on to say, "you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true" (Commercial). This just made me think of the level of credibility on the internet, and how some people will really believe anything they read or see online.

Overall, this article really jogged a lot of new ideas and theories.

Hope everyone is having a good spring break.

I just found this and know if I wait till next class to mention it I'll forget about it. I really haven't formed my thoughts about it yet, so I'll just post it without comment; however, I feel that is very revelant to our class.

NoHomophobes

(Trigger warning for some terrible language and obviously homophobia)

Rhetoric on the brain..

Lately, everything I look at-- literally everything, from magazine covers, book covers, coffee mugs, menus, labels, board games, facebook posts, advertisements, descriptions, everything-- I apply rhetoric to it. I rhetorically analyze everything.

What are they trying to say?
Who are they trying o say it to?
Why are they trying to say this?
In what ways are they going about getting their message across?....
excigency? constraints? audiences? goals?....

I try to think of ways they could have displayed or worded something differently, I think of the type of impact what they have created or said has on their audience- and their unintended viewers? Does it effect them negatively? Positively? I just can't stop ladies!

I wish I could post everything that really grabbed my attention...but I can't post all of them or it would be too much. Here's one that I came across while I was communicating with my father via Facbook (you can obviously tell his stance on things haha)-----crazy that just the action of "posting "a graphic to his Facebook wall, and "sharing" it with people, he is forming or displaying an aspect of his identity! exciting right?! haha

Anyways, take a look below and see what you think of the message/argument/"calling to change" this post is trying to attempt....then think about could/would happen if something like this went viral???


p.s. don't mind my advertisements-they get me every time, apparently they think I'm a homeowner.

Harlem Shaking Before It Was Cool

I'm going to start by saying I know the point of memes is to make fun and take things out of context. That being said, take a look at these.



What we talked about in class today reminded me of this. I saw it on Facebook. I wonder, what does this say about the original Harlem Shake? Does it infer that the original isn't cool? What does that say about the Harlem culture? I Googled "Harlem Shaking Before It Was Cool" and found many similar memes, including this one:



What does this say about our culture? I highly doubt that Michael J Fox was doing the "Harlem Shake", since he has the medical condition. Personally, I think this is a slap in the face to Fox and the original Harlem Shake.

Symbolic Action (Blumer) --I suggest Mead as well

I Need to Look Into

buying a more alarming alarm clock.

Anyways, here are my notes for the reading for last night. One thing I want to say before I post it is that, I really appreciated the fact that there weren't a million references to other scholars work, yes, the article was packed with information (as always) but it didn't cite a million different people's concepts every paragraph. Okay, here are my notes, sorry they are a little jumpy...it was late:

Rhetorical Analysis (Rhetorical Criticism) – Can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence others through language.

Rhetoric – highly ornamental or deceptive or even manipulative speech or writing.

Rhetoric textbooks are usually how-to books / advice manuals for how to produce effective pieces of communication.

Rhetoric can be understood as both a productive and interpretive enterprise – The study of language -  and the study of how to use it.

Through rhetorical analysis, people strive to understand better how particular rhetorical episodes are persuasive.

        ·      Better sense of values and beliefs and attitudes that are conveyed in specific rhetorical moments.

             Normal (aka “uncritical” or “reactive”) reading  involves experiencing first hand a speech or
             text or advertisement, etc., and then reacting (or not).

       ·      Critical reading – rhetorical analysis – involves studying carefully some kind of symbolic action.

Rhetorical analysts are basically eavesdropping on what someone is saying or writing to someone else, with the purpose of understanding better how it is said or written

Rhetorical situation – circumstances of the subject, audience, occasion, and purpose.

Normal reading – people usually read critically (to some degree) as well as for content; Rhetorical analysis is an effort to read interpretively, with an eye toward understanding the message fully and how the message is crafted to earn a particular response.

Methods of Rhetorical Analysis – And Some Examples

·      Many approaches to rhetorical analysis and no one correct way to do it

·      Approaches can be placed between two broad extremes

                                *Textual Analysis - Analyses that concentrate more on texts than contexts.

                      -  Typically use one or another kind of rhetorical terminology as a means of careful
                                analysis of a single symbolic act considered on its own discrete terms

        * Contextual Analysis – Regard particular rhetorical acts as parts of larger communicative
                  chains or conversations.

                        -  By understanding larger conversations that surround a particular symbolic
                                  performance, an analyst can appreciate better what is going on within that
                                   performance.

Textual Rhetorical Analysis

·      Experts in rhetoric have developed sophisticated terminologies to help them teach their lessons

      o   Audience – Fundamental concept in rhetoric. Term used to denote any one of three general
                     ideas

                  1. The actual listeners or readers of a rhetorical act

                       - Aristotle was at pains to describe audience in this sense in his Rhetoric

                                    *He detailed kinds of strategies likely to compel particular types of readers

                                    * Most common and vital rhetorical occasions faced by rhetors in ancient    
                                       Athens:

o   Forensic Rhetoric – characteristic of courtrooms (past actions)

o   Deliberative Rhetoric – Characteristic of legislative forums (future course of action)

o   Epideictic Rhetoric – Ceremonial

                   2. Images of those readers in the mind of one developing an argument

                  3. More recently, the presence of an audience within the text itself.