33 Public Communication Analysis: Description, Interpretation, and Evaluation
Chapter Objectives
Students will:
Describe and interpret a range of rhetorical features in a rhetorical artifact.
Evaluate the artifact’s success or failure in achieving the rhetor’s goals and in strengthening or weakening democratic principles.
The previous chapter defined public communication analysis as an approach to rhetorical criticism that helps critics determine a rhetorical artifact’s features and ascertain their likely consequences. It guided you through the first two steps of this rhetorical method: identifying an appropriate rhetorical artifact and reconstructing its historical context.
In this chapter, we focus on analyzing the artifact itself by describing the next two steps of public communication analysis. First, we will explain how to describe and interpret an artifact’s rhetorical features. Then we will instruct you on how to evaluate an artifact’s functions and consequences, focusing on whether or not the artifact achieved the rhetor’s goals and strengthened democratic principles.
Describing and Interpreting the Rhetorical Features
Public communication analysis begins with description. In chapter 30, we defined description as noticing, identifying, and explaining a rhetorical artifact’s content, form, and absence. In this chapter, we will introduce you to more specific types of features, from argumentation to delivery. Some of these features focus more on an artifact’s content (e.g., pathos, ethos) while others emphasize its form (e.g., organization, style), though many features consider both aspects (e.g., argumentation). You should find, label, and observe each feature with specificity. You should also always ask what might be missing or absent from the artifact.
Public communication analysis follows description with interpretation. In chapter 30, we defined interpretation as making inferences about how an artifact’s content, form, and absence function persuasively. Interpretation explores the artifact’s symbolic action, which we defined in that same chapter as the power of symbols to do things—to shape our thoughts, values, and actions.
Notice that critics infer interpretations; you can rarely prove your inferences as definitively as you can describe rhetorical features. For example, you can name an artifact’s organizational structure (“Notice how the speech moves chronologically from past to present to the future”), but you infer how that structure functioned (“By moving chronologically, the speaker shifted the audience’s attention from the past crisis to the more hopeful future, leaving them feeling more optimistic and comforted”).
Remember the insight we provided in chapter 30: A critic’s interpretations should use active verbs to accentuate the symbolic action. If you are not using verbs when interpreting a rhetorical artifact, then you are probably still describing, rather than interpreting, its persuasive functions or symbolic action.
Box 33.1 Describing and Interpreting a Rhetorical Artifact
For each rhetorical feature,
find the feature in the artifact,
describe the feature with specificity, and
interpret how the feature may have influenced the audience’s beliefs, attitudes, or courses of action.
Not every rhetorical feature you examine will be important or even present in every artifact, but you cannot know that until you closely attend to the artifact and determine its central features. We recommend you conduct your rhetorical criticism by initially describing and interpreting each element systematically and then deciding which elements provide the most important rhetorical insights to share with others.
We now turn to specific rhetorical features to describe and interpret for your artifact. They include the following: argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, rhetor’s credibility, construction of the desired audience, construction of the undesired audience, organization, style and framing, and delivery. For each, we will explain the feature, provide prompting questions for your own description and interpretation, and offer an example.
Argumentation
Recall from chapter 26 that an argument is the advocacy of an idea, position, or course of action that is supported by evidence. Drawing from Stephen Toulmin’s model, we identified the three main components of any argument as including a claim, data (evidence), and warrant(justification for using the data to support the claim).[1] In chapter 25, we noted that Aristotle considered argumentation to be a form of proof he called logos.
Box 33.2 Argumentation Reminders
Patterns of Reasoning
deductive reasoning
inductive reasoning
reasoning from example
reasoning from analogy
reasoning from cause
reasoning from sign
reasoning from authority
Reasoning Fallacies
hasty generalization
faulty analogy
faulty cause
slippery slope
appeal to authority
appeal to popularity
appeal to common practice
begging the question
ad hominem
false dilemma
Describing an artifact’s argumentation does not mean simply restating its main point(s) or message. Rather, it means doing the following:
carefully identify the artifact’s claims, data, and warrants to determine the type and validity of the argumentation
note the patterns of reasoning utilized as well as any inclusion of fallacies, which we described in chapter 27 as flaws or defects in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument
consider whether and how an artifact includes counterarguments to its claims or proposals
Rhetorical criticism requires going beyond merely describing these aspects, however, to interpreting how they may have persuaded (or failed to persuade) an audience to accept the rhetor’s position. Box 33.3 offers questions to help you describe and interpret your rhetorical artifact’s argumentation.
Box 33.3 Questions to Ask About Argumentation
Description
What claims, data, and warrants did the artifact provide or not provide?
Did the artifact use valid and sound arguments, or did it make use of fallacies? How so?
What patterns of reasoning did the artifact include?
How well did the artifact identify and reasonably respond to counterarguments?
Interpretation
How might the artifact’s claims, data, and warrants have resonated—or failed to resonate—with the audience(s), given the historical context?
How might the argument(s) have persuaded, or failed to persuade, the audience of the speaker’s viewpoint, given the historical context?
What kinds of attitudes, values, conclusions, or actions did the argumentation encourage or discourage?
Box 33.4 Argumentation in President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
In the previous chapter, we turned to President Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech to exemplify the criteria for an appropriate rhetorical artifact and how to identify its historical context. We return to this artifact in this chapter to illustrate how to analyze each rhetorical element. Descriptive labels are bolded, and interpretations are underlined.
In his January 6 speech, President Trump constructed an argument about the 2020 election using inductive reasoning. Early in the speech, he made his thesis clear: “Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.” His data (evidence) included the three common types of evidence explored in chapter 26: example, statistics, and testimony. Trump alleged specific examples of illegal actions in several swing states that resulted in fraudulent votes for Biden, cited numerous statistics for ballots illegally counted against him in those states, and occasionally integrated testimony, mostly from unnamed people like a “real pollster,” “eyewitness testimony,” and “a career employee” of Detroit. Indeed, Trump provided no sources for his examples and statistics of fraud, and most of his sources for testimony were vague references (“people,” “an eyewitness,” “a real pollster,” “poll watchers,” “a career employee” of Detroit).
By inundating listeners with multiple forms of apparent evidence and repeatedly referring to them as “the facts,” Trump created the impression of validity and truth. He encouraged the audience to accept his inductive conclusion that, based on the numerous instances he named, he easily won the election and that Democrats were lying and “stealing” the election for Joe Biden.
This claim, however, required the audience to place tremendous trust in Trump to have ethically researched the topic and presented his findings—a trust undercut by many legal decisions. By January 6, 2021, the Trump administration, lawyers, and supporters had presented their evidence in courts to support lawsuits to overturn the election; they lost sixty-one cases and won one.[2] Indeed, the House of Representatives Committee that later investigated the US Capitol attack concluded that Trump had been made aware by this point that his claims of fraud were baseless but persisted anyway with the “Big Lie,” making false claims “more than 100 times during his [January 6] speech.”[3]
Consequently, Trump’s use of argumentation was likely only persuasive to supporters who already accepted the claim or wanted it to be true. For those listening critically, Trump’s lack of sources to support his evidence and his use of reasoning fallacies significantly weakened his claims. Trump relied on multiple fallacies, including false dilemma. He offered listeners only two possible outcomes based on whether they accepted or rejected his thesis that he won the election. Acceptance would “save our democracy” while rejection means “our country will be destroyed.” Such a false dilemma appeared as reasoning but actually played, instead, on American’s feelings for their country. It also ignored additional possible outcomes, such as helping save the country by rejecting his attempt to alter official election results.
Thus, in place of sound argumentation, valid reasoning, and verifiable evidence, Trump’s speech made points that sounded like arguments but offered falsehoods instead.
Appeals to Emotions and Loyalties
Rhetorical artifacts typically appeal to the audience’s emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness) and loyalties (e.g., liberty, family), or what Aristotle called pathos. As we explained in chapter 25, pathos is concerned with the psychological state of the audience; it is a measure and reflection of the extent to which we are moved by and feel invested in a topic and a message.
Describing an artifact’s appeals to emotions and loyalties means that you identify
the specific emotions and/or loyalties elicited by the artifact and
how the rhetor appealed to these emotions and loyalties.
You then interpret how the pathos appeals functioned persuasively. Infer how soliciting particular emotions and loyalties may have aided (or hurt) the rhetor’s goal, such as by
relating pleasurable feelings and allegiances with the rhetor’s position or
associating painful emotions and the disloyalties the audience rejects with counterproposals, a standing policy, or a problem (as described in chapter 25).
You might also pay attention to the balance or imbalance of positive and negative appeals to emotions and loyalties as well as to the balance or imbalance of these appeals with argumentation. Recognizing an artifact’s extensive reliance on fear appeals, for example, may indicate that a rhetor attempted to frighten the audience into accepting their position.
Box 33.5 Questions to Ask About Appeals to Emotions and Loyalties
Description
Which specific emotions and/or loyalties did the artifact invoke or appeal to? Where? How?
Which pleasurable emotions and/or loyalties did the artifact associate with the position advocated?
Which painful emotions and/or disloyalties did it associate with counterviewpoints or the problem itself?
To what extent did the artifact balance positive and negative emotions and loyalties?
Interpretation
How might the artifact’s appeals to emotions have made the audience(s) feel moved by and interested in the message—or failed to do so?
What did the rhetor gain or lose from the emphasis or de-emphasis on appeals to emotion and audience loyalties?
How did the emotional appeals focus the audience(s)’ attention? Toward what? Away from what, given the historical context?
Box 33.6 Pathos in President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
In his January 6 speech, President Trump elicited pleasurable feelings of pride and the loyalties of patriotism and democracy by praising “the magnitude of this crowd” and calling his audience “patriots” who “love our country,” “do not want to see our election victory stolen,” and want “to save our democracy.” Trump’s language—magnitude, patriots, victory, democracy, save—instilled feelings of righteousness and confidence in rejecting the election results. He lamented that “weak” Republicans like Mike Pence lacked such “courage and guts.” He ended his speech by encouraging his audience to walk to the Capitol and give the “weak” Republicans the same “pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” He implied that insufficient feelings of courage and pride were what prevented congressional leaders from rejecting the Electoral College votes.
Trump paired such appeals with painful feelings of anger, outrage, and even hate. His very first sentence—“The media will not show the magnitude of this crowd”—immediately expressed outrage at the “fake news media” for allegedly refusing to show the audience’s size. He associated the news media with the disloyalty of communism, comparing their “suppression” with “what happens in a communist country.” He went on to accuse Democrats of “stealing” the election by “cheating,” stoking anger at the election outcome and hatred toward the opposing political party.
By pairing such extreme and antithetical emotions (pride and shame, love and hate) and loyalties (democracy and communism), Trump left little room for Republican supporters to accept the election results. To do so was to no longer love your country and to side with despicable criminals and even communism. He also amplified the magnitude of Congress’s January 6 meeting as a historical moment in the battle between courage and shame: “We’re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity, they’ll be ashamed.”
This showdown of feelings corresponded closely to the false dilemma analyzed earlier as part of logos, revealing that Trump’s speech emphasized feelings over sound argumentation and verifiable facts. Trump implied that the crowd might help these leaders choose the “courage” to deny the election. He encouraged his audience to demonstrate the “strength” of their feelings to congressional members, “because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
Rhetor’s Credibility
A third feature typically found in rhetorical artifacts are appeals to credibility, or what Aristotle called ethos. In chapter 5, you learned that ethos refers to the state of a rhetor’s public character or persona. This definition should draw your attention to the rhetor’s credibility as a rhetorical creation. That means the following:
Analyzing ethos involves examining how the artifact presented the rhetor as a character that the audience(s) would perceive as credible.
Although a rhetor’s previous reputation plays a role in this perception, the critic is more interested in how an artifact strengthens, modifies, or builds the rhetor’s credibility through the public message under examination. Beginning critics can make the mistake of merely explaining a rhetor’s prior reputation without examining the artifact itself.
Box 33.7 Credibility in President Obama’s July 19, 2012, Speech
President Obama addressed the nation on July 19, 2012, a few days after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator for his Sanford, Florida, community, fatally shot Martin, a seventeen-year-old African American boy who was walking home through the neighborhood.
Saying Obama had credibility when speaking because he was the president would ignore the persona he emphasized in the speech as an African American man: “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.…There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.”[4] Looking to the speech for ethos reveals that Obama drew upon his personal experience as an African American man and as a member of the African American community to depict himself as an authoritative source on race conflicts.
As box 33.7 exemplifies, you must specifically describe what kind of credibility or persona the rhetor attempted to construct within the artifact being analyzed and how that credibility was developed. In chapters 5 and 25, we suggested rhetors typically try to establish their credibility in terms of one or more qualities:[5]
competence (expertise, preparation, intelligence)
trustworthiness (moral standing, integrity)
goodwill (having the audience’s best interests at heart)
dynamism (charisma).
Rhetors may use a variety of rhetorical means to establish any of these qualities, including but not limited to all the other rhetorical features highlighted in this chapter: argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, construction of the audience and the other, organization, style, and delivery.
Box 33.8 Questions to Ask About the Rhetor’s Credibility
Description
What type(s) of credibility did the rhetor try to cultivate through the artifact? How?
What type of character did the rhetor present for themselves? How?
What overall impression did the rhetor attempt to create for themselves?
Interpretation
Why might the rhetor have chosen to develop the credibility they did, given the historical context?
How did the rhetor’s credibility appeals leave the rhetor vulnerable to attack or refutation?
How did the qualities emphasized in the rhetorical artifact relate to the rhetor’s reputation at the time?
Box 33.9 Credibility in President Trump’s January 6, 2021 Speech
In his speech, President Trump developed at least three types of credibility through a variety of rhetorical features:
Competence: His reference to multiple examples and statistics cultivated the impression that he was well researched on election fraud; he even claimed that “nobody, until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were.”
Goodwill: His expression of outrage, along with praise for advances made by his presidential administration, suggested he wanted what was best for the country.
Dynamism: His use of humor and coarse language—such as “They’re all running around like chickens with their heads cut off.…Nobody knows what the hell is going on”—suggested a gregarious and straight-talking personality.
Together, these three qualities—competence, goodwill, and dynamism—presented Trump as a forceful spokesperson against the election results, helping cultivate some audience members’ trust in his claims and evidence.
Of course, these very rhetorical appeals also hurt Trump’s ethos in the eyes of critics and those who acknowledged the courts’ decisions against his claims of fraud. His use of unverified evidence weakened perceptions of his competence, his outrage at the election results reflected someone willing to hurt the country’s democratic process, and his coarse manner of speaking reflected someone unfit for the presidency.
Construction of the Desired Audience
In addition to analyzing how an artifact developed the rhetor’s credibility, you can also examine how it constructed the desired audience. You might think of the desired audience as another character the artifact constructs, similar to how it develops the rhetor’s own persona. In chapter 11, we explained that through speech, a rhetor can offer a vision of a desired audience—that is, of an audience that does not yet exist. That vision may emphasize key qualities and attitudes the rhetor wishes actual audience members to adopt. It might also attempt to unite listeners into an idealized community for a better future.[6]
Box 33.10 Questions to Ask About the Desired Audience
Description
Who was the desired audience? Who was the “you” or “us” the artifact associated with positive qualities?
What positive qualities or characteristics did the artifact associate with the desired audience? How? Where?
Through what strategies did the artifact construct the desired audience?
What kind of relationship did the artifact create between the rhetor’s presentation of themselves (ethos) and their desired audience?
Interpretation
How did the desired audience encourage those who actually heard, viewed, or read the artifact to think or act?
How did the construction of the desired audience attempt to entice actual listeners to adopt its qualities or perspective?
Box 33.11 Construction of the Desired Audience in President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
President Trump developed two different desired audiences in his January 6 speech.
First, he presented a desired audience of Republican leaders who would reject the Electoral College votes to overturn the election results. He particularly identified Vice President Mike Pence as becoming part of this group:
I hope Mike is going to do the right thing.…I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.…All Vice President Pence has to do is send it [the electoral vote tally] back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.” Trump also included in this desired audience currently “weak” Republicans who needed to become “strong” by supporting this effort: “So we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue…to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
This desired audience functioned as not just an invitation to but also pressure on Republican leaders to execute Trump’s wishes to remain in the good graces of Trump and his supporters. For politicians, the fear of losing public support—and thus their political office—was real and ongoing.
Trump constructed a second desired audience of supporters who would give these Republicans the “courage” to reject the election results. This audience consisted of true “American patriots” who would remain committed, together, to “stop the steal” because they “cannot take it anymore.” Trump frequently constructed this audience with “we”: “We will never give up. We will never concede.” “We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy.” Trump constructed this desired audience as victims of the “fake news media,” “big tech,” Democrats, and many others who conspired to “steal” the election for Joe Biden. Rather than give in or admit defeat, Trump’s desired audience would remain banded together with Trump to buoy Republican congressional leaders to overturn the election results.
This desired audience functioned as a savvy adaptation to Trump’s target audience. Trump’s supporters likely felt defeated and deeply disappointed by the election outcome—even confused by it. Trump’s vision offered a clear action they could take (walk to the Capitol) to remain on the winning side and overcome their sense of victimization.
Construction of the Undesired Audience
Yet another rhetorical feature you can examine is how the artifact constructed the undesired audience. This is the audience the rhetorical artifact negates by denying or dismissing their relevance or existence.[7] Artifacts typically construct an undesirable audience in one of two ways:
First, they may silence a group by failing to include them, even though that audience is directly affected by the artifact. (We referred to this group in chapter 10 as the implicated audience.)
A history textbook that relates the United States’ westward expansion without ever referencing the perspectives of Native American peoples, for example, negates these groups’ existence and silences their voices, thereby making them an undesired audience.
Second, a rhetorical artifact may construct an undesired audience by characterizing it negatively, typically associating the person or group with the “characteristics, roles, actions, or ways of seeing things to be avoided,” making the undesired audience the opposite or flipside of the rhetor’s desired audience.[8] (We referred in chapter 10 to groups spoken for as the implied audience.)
If the history textbook referenced earlier included Native Americans in its explanation of the United States’ westward expansion but presented a racist depiction of them as bloodthirsty, unreasonable, and uncivilized, then it would negate the Native Americans’ human existence by portraying them as animalistic and, thus, undesirable—possibly in contrast to the qualities ascribed to the white settlers. Of course, just like the rhetor’s credibility and desired audience, the undesired audience is a rhetorical construction that does not necessarily bear resemblance to the actual existing group it represents.
Recognizing undesired audiences can help you discover how artifacts rationalize favored positions, foster unity among the desired audience by creating a common enemy, or discourage the adoption of alternative perspectives.
Box 33.12 Questions to Ask About the Undesired Audience
Description
Whose perspective or voice, if any, was missing from the artifact that could or should have been included?
Who was the “they,” “them,” “he,” or “she” the artifact associated with negative qualities?
What negative qualities, actions, or viewpoints did the artifact associate with the undesired audience?
How did the artifact relate the desired audience with the undesired audience? Typically, they are presented as opposites. How did the artifact offer such a construction, or what other kind of relationship did it build?
Interpretation
What attitudes and actions might the construction of the undesired audience have attempted to rationalize or encourage (or debunk/discourage)?
What type of community did the undesired audience help unify (against it) or define?
How did the construction of the undesired audience possibly mobilize actual listeners to adopt qualities of the desired audience?
Box 33.13 Construction of the Undesired Audience in President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
In his January 6 speech, Trump used negative characterizations to construct an undesired audience consisting of the “fake news media,” “big tech,” “radical left Democrats,” and many others. He depicted these groups as wanting to “steal” the election. The news media and “big tech” “suppress[ed]” thought and speech and downplayed the size and success of Trump and his supporters. After “years” of getting “away with election fraud” and enacting poor policies, Democrats “us[ed] the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots [to]…attempt the most brazen and outrageous election theft.” Trump also included in this undesired audience any “weak” Republicans who allowed Democrats to succeed.
In so doing, Trump presented all groups who might oppose, counter, or hold Trump accountable as detestable, representing the worst elements of society and driven by widely rejected vices: personal greed, unchecked power, and corruption. This portrayal attempted to justify their undoing through an overwhelming and outraged public response.
Organization
An artifact’s organization can also be a useful feature to analyze. The ordering of points or arguments—what Aristotle called arrangement—can do the following:
Reveal the rhetor’s logic or way of thinking. In chapter 13, we explained that patterns of arrangement depict common ways of thinking.
Identify the rhetor’s presumptions about the audience: as knowledgeable or ignorant about the topic and as favorable, apathetic, or hostile toward the rhetor’s thesis.
Suggest what the rhetor deemed important or unimportant, based on the amount of time or space the rhetor devotes to each topic, reason, emotion, and so forth.
One of the best ways to determine the artifact’s organization—especially its pattern of arrangement—is to create an outline of the artifact, noting its main points and sections. Doing that will help you avoid the mistake of simply restating what the rhetor said in the order they said it: “She started by saying…then she claimed…and she ended by concluding that…” Notice that such statements do not describe or interpret the artifact; they merely summarize or restate it.
Once you identify an artifact’s pattern of arrangement, you can interpret how the organization took the audience on a rhetorical journey. Infer how each part of the artifact, starting with its beginning, may have shaped or influenced how the audience received what came next in the artifact; how that section of the artifact then affected how the audience received what followed; and so on until the artifact concludes.
Such rhetorical movement is like what rhetoric scholar Stephen Lucas has called the textual context, which is the evolving environment created within an artifact that conditions the audience’s responses to the artifact from its beginning to its ending. Lucas explains that “a text [artifact] creates its own internal context as it unfolds in time and is processed by the listener or reader.”[9] The textual context is quite different from how we used the word “context” earlier in this chapter, for textual context exists entirely within the artifact itself. It forces the critic to infer how the structure may have impacted the audience’s reaction to the text because of the organization. It prevents organization from being undervalued by suggesting that how a rhetor moves strategically from the beginning to the end of the artifact matters.
Box 33.14 Questions to Ask About Organization
Description
What pattern of arrangement did the artifact follow? How would you label the structure employed by the artifact?
What logic or way of thinking was suggested or encouraged by the artifact’s organization?
What parts of the artifact received the most emphasis or time? The least?
What presumptions about the audience(s) were revealed by the artifact’s organization?
Interpretation
How did the artifact rhetorically build, flow, or grow from beginning to end (or fail to do so)? How might each part have influenced the impact or meaning of the part(s) that followed?
How might the artifact’s structure have impacted audiences’ impressions of the topic/issue?
Why might the rhetor have chosen the structure, given the historical context?
Box 33.15 Organization of President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
President Trump’s speech at first seems to be organized a little like stream-of-consciousness, jumping from idea to idea. After a more careful inspection, however, the speech appears to come closest to the nonlinear pattern of a star. We explained in chapter 13 that a star pattern provides multiple main points—like the tips of a star—that may appear disparate from one another, but all support the thesis.
Interestingly, Trump’s speech emphasized five main points that focused on the problem (the election result was fraudulent, and the news media are suppressing that information) and the solution (we will stop the steal, but Mike Pence and other Republicans need to reject the electoral vote count, which is why we need to march to the Capitol and give them the courage to do that). These points made logical sense together and supported the thesis, “We will ‘stop the steal.’ Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.”
In a star pattern, one main point is typically focused upon and developed at a time, though the ordering of main points can be altered for different audiences and situations. In his speech, however, Trump frequently moved back and forth among the five main points in various orders. That gave it the feeling of stream-of-consciousness as he bounced from one point to the other in no predictable pattern. By doing so, Trump could speak in a somewhat impromptu manner, which some might have interpreted as more authentic and engaging than reading a manuscript speech, while also emphasizing his thesis and main points. Indeed, the five main points became so interrelated that the structuremay have helped audience members remember each point. However, speakers who repeatedly shift from point to point run the risk of sounding disorganized, appearing frenetic or undisciplined, and boring the audience through repetition.
Style and Framing
We defined style in chapter 16 as language or expression. You are already analyzing an artifact’s style when you consider the rhetorical features previously discussed. To enhance your analysis of an artifact’s style, however, you can attend to at least three additional aspects of an artifact.
First, examine the level or type of language the artifact employed. You might describe the simplicity or complexity of the language (e.g., folksy versus grandiloquent), the informality or formality of the style (e.g., colloquial versus learned), or even the type of voice—manner of expression—it reflects (e.g., lawyerly, sermonic, motherly, etc.). Then interpret how these choices may have shaped the audiences’ impressions of the rhetor, the audiences themselves (how they were addressed), and the topic or issue.
Second, consider the stylistic devices the artifact employs. Recall from chapter 16 that such devices are language techniques and literary tools that clarify meaning, express ideas in a compelling manner, and appeal emotionally to an audience. Identifying and describing these devices can aid you in interpreting how the artifact used them to create a sense of rhythm, encourage visualization, enhance argumentation, or develop a sense of community.
Finally, analyze the artifact’s persuasiveframing of the issue addressed. In chapters 21 and 25, we defined framing as the use of language to order and make sense of the world. We explained that framing is how we employ language to help shape perceptions of reality. Use guidance in chapter 25 to describe and interpret how the rhetor framed the problem and its cause (i.e., who’s to blame) in ways that appear worthy to the audience and logically set up the desired solution.
Analyzing how an artifact framed the issue enables you to determine how its presentation of the problem matched, or failed to reflect, the actual issue that prompted the artifact (the “why” in the historical context). Drawing from chapter 25, you can also consider whether the framing appears to be an honest attempt to persuade the audience to adopt the rhetor’s solution or a potentially dishonest effort to win supporters by intentionally confusing the audience’s understanding of the issue.
Box 33.16 Questions to Ask About Style and Framing
Description
What level or type of language did the artifact adopt?
What stylistic devices did the artifact employ?
How did the artifact persuasively frame the issue (define the problem, cause, and solution)?
How well or poorly did the artifact’s persuasive framing reflect the issue that motivated the artifact? How did the framing relate to (or contrast with) alternative framings of the same issue at the time?
Interpretation
How might the artifact’s style and framing have shaped audiences’ impressions of the issue? How might those impressions have encouraged audiences to adopt the rhetor’s perspective (or not)?
How did the stylistic devices create a sense of rhythm, encourage visualization, enhance argumentation, or develop a sense of community?
How did the style and framing complement or contradict the other rhetorical features, such as argumentation, appeals to emotion, and the desired and undesired audiences?
Box 33.17 Framing and Style in President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
President Trump’s framing of the election explicitly defined the problem, its cause, and the solution. As mentioned previously, he identified the problem as mass election fraud; the causes as Democrats’ corruption, the news media’s suppression efforts, and “weak” Republicans’ failures to respond; and the solution as supporters’ pressure on Republican leaders to overturn the election results.
This framing dishonestly diverted attention from the actual problem—Trump lost the election—to an invented problem of election fraud. That diversion whipped his supporters into outrage and action instead of acceptance and contemplation. Trump’s framing also left somewhat unclear what that action or their pressure on Congress should look like. Trump encouraged rally attendees to “walk” and “march” to the Capitol and even once said “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Yet his framing emphasized the causes of the fraud as so despicable, coordinated, and strong that peacefully marching and protesting would be an insufficient solution, leaving open the possibility that supporters might need to escalate their response.
Trump’s stylistic choices contributed to that escalation. Trump drew heavily on the stylistic device of metaphor. One of his most heavily used metaphors likened the election results to theft: “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.” “Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft. There’s never been anything like this. It’s a pure theft in American history.” “They want to steal the election.” “We must stop the steal.” “This is a criminal enterprise.” By likening the results to a crime, Trump’s metaphor depicted himself and his supporters as innocent victims of nefarious lawbreakers; thus, they were justified in defending and retrieving what was rightfully and legally theirs.
How they might do that was informed by a second popular metaphor in Trump’s speech: Their response was like a physical fight. Trump instructed, “And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He characterized the Republicans who objected to the results as “warriors” who were “fighting. The House guys are fighting.” He criticized the “weak” Republicans who “are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.” Through this metaphor, Trump likened their response to an unrestrained physical assault that was both required and justified to win. Some supporters took this metaphor literally.
Delivery
To analyze a rhetor’s delivery of an artifact, you must have access to an audio or visual recording. In chapter 17, we defined delivery as the actual means of expression: “It is how a speaker physically conveys words and ideas, verbally and nonverbally, to the audience.” You can describe a rhetor’s
vocal delivery (how the voice and mouth are used to deliver words),
nonverbal delivery (how the body is used to communicate),
televisual delivery (how a speech is presented through a screen), and
use of memory (how one stores and recalls the information shared in a speech).
You should then interpret how the rhetor’s delivery functioned persuasively, given the historical context. As explained in chapter 17, delivery is situational; its effectiveness depends on the rhetor’s ability to adjust to situational factors (e.g., occasion, purpose, audience composition, and size) and conditions and constraints (e.g., distance from the audience, use of a camera, the arrangement of the speaking platform or lectern, etc.). You can identify the delivery choices the rhetor made for their speaking situation and infer whether and how they met the demands of that situation to achieve their persuasive goal.
Box 33.18 Questions to Ask About Delivery
Description
How would you characterize the rhetor’s vocal delivery in terms of their volume, tone, rate, pauses, articulation, pronunciation, and vocal fillers?
How would you characterize the rhetor’s nonverbal delivery in terms of their eye contact, facial expressions, gestures and movement, and appearance?
If the artifact was delivered through a screen, how would you characterize the rhetor’s use of, or adaptation to, the camera’s framing, angle, and distance; the lighting and background; and the camera’s movement or steadiness?
How did the rhetor adjust their delivery to suit the historical context, or how did they fail to do so?
What mode of delivery did the rhetor adopt (extemporaneous, memorized, impromptu, manuscript)?
Interpretation
How might the rhetor’s delivery have influenced audiences’ impressions of the rhetor? How might those impressions have compared or differed if audiences watched in person or via a screen?
How might the rhetor’s delivery have aided or hurt their attempt to persuade their audiences?
How did the rhetor’s delivery complement or distract from the artifact’s other rhetorical features?
Box 33.19 Delivery of President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech
President Trump’s speech delivery appeared to strengthen his claims by depicting him as presidential. Dressed in a black, long overcoat with a white collared shirt and red tie, he looked presidential. The setting helped. His podium featured the presidential seal, American flags waved in the breeze on either side of him onstage (and in the camera’s frame), and the White House was easily visible behind him. The stage placed him physically above audience members, reflecting his power over them.
His nonverbal delivery was restrained. He remained standing behind a podium. He frequently gestured to underscore his points, such as shrugging his shoulders, pointing at the crowd, or dropping his hand with specific words. But his gestures were made fairly close to his body. His vocal tone and volume stayed rather consistent, with only occasional vocal emphases on particular words or phrases. While the speech was scripted and teleprompter screens stood on both sides of him, Trump appeared to mostly look out at the crowd and cameras. He paused occasionally when the crowd cheered or chanted.
Consequently, Trump’s delivery depicted a man who was—and was ready to remain—the US president. He talked directly to the people as their leader and their choice.
Evaluating the Rhetorical Artifact
Once you have systematically described and interpreted your artifact for features such as the ones listed previously, you can judge the artifact’s functions and consequences. Focus on whether the artifact successfully achieved the rhetor’s goals (or not) and strengthened or weakened democratic principles. We will discuss both assessments in turn.
Did the Artifact Achieve the Rhetor’s Goals? Why or Why Not?
You should judge if and why the artifact achieved the rhetor’s goals. Use
your research and understanding of the historical context (i.e., evidence from outside sources) and
your description and interpretations of the rhetorical features (i.e., evidence from the artifact)
to argue how the artifact helped the rhetor achieve their goals or why they fell short.
Of course, determining success can be complicated. What counts as success, with what audience, and how quickly must it occur? As a critic, you must decide and ultimately argue how to define success or failure for the artifact, given its context.
Speech scholar W. Norwood Brigance claimed, “The success of any speech is determined, not by whether it carries the day, but by how far it moves toward that goal.”[10]
Box 33.20 Evaluation of Whether President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech Achieved His Goals
President Trump’s speech fulfilled his immediate goal of motivating rally attendants to march to the Capitol and pressure Republican congressional leaders to object to the Electoral College votes. After Trump’s speech, a large portion of the approximately 10,000 people in attendance joined the tens of thousands of protesters already gathered near the Capitol.[11]
Unfortunately, their presence strengthened a physical attack on the building that had already begun. According to the House of Representatives Select Committee’s final report, “The Proud Boys and other extremists initiated the attack shortly before the joint session of Congress was set to begin at 1:00 p.m. The rioters who streamed down Pennsylvania to the U.S. Capitol from the Ellipse then provided crucial momentum for the attack.”[12] In that attack, over 140 law enforcement officers were injured, five people died (on that day or soon afterward), $2.9 million in damages was done to the Capitol, and congressional leaders had to end their meeting suddenly and be escorted by police to safe hiding spaces.[13]According to NPR, “The FBI has estimated that around 2,000 people took part in criminal acts on Jan. 6,” and they continued to investigate and make arrests through 2024.[14]
Did Trump’s January 6 speech cause the Capitol attack? On the one hand, the answer is no. The attack started before his speech ended, and most people who walked to the Capitol did not directly engage in violence or enter the building. He never told his audience to enter the building or attack congressional leaders or Capitol police officers.
On the other hand, the answer is yes. His speech contributed to his previous rhetoric that encouraged supporters to travel to Washington, DC, to stop congressional leaders, especially Pence, from certifying the votes. He whipped up his audience’s outrage through false evidence and fallacies as well as contrasts of love and hate. He depicted the encounter as a showdown between patriots and enemies and encouraged his supporters to “fight” the “thieves” to “save” the country. Such rhetoric overly simplified the situation and downplayed the weighty implications of attempting to overturn a democratic election.
While Trump did not overtly tell the crowd to attack the Capitol, he stoked feelings and beliefs that helped justify such violence. As one professor noted for the BBC, “He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.”[15] Several investigations made a similar conclusion, resulting in Congress impeaching Trump for a second time and the Justice Department indicting him on four counts, including the “Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.”[16]
Trump’s speech failed to fulfill his ultimate goal of overturning the 2020 election results. Congress reconvened the following day to finish their certification of the Electoral College votes, officially confirming Joe Biden’s election victory as the forty-sixth US president.
Did the Artifact Strengthen or Weaken Democratic Principles? How?
In addition to assessing the artifact’s ability or failure to achieve the rhetor’s goals, public communication analysis requires you to also consider the artifact’s impact on democratic principles.
We argued in chapter 31 that rhetoric that addresses public affairs should strengthen democracy, and we suggested that critics evaluate an artifact’s impact on democracy by determining whether it strengthens or weakens democratic principles. In that chapter, we defined democratic principles as the behavioral standards necessary for democratic governance to exist and thrive, and we gave examples such as the participation of ordinary people in civic affairs, the equality of all people, and the tolerance and protection of a variety of voices. Artifacts that prioritize, reinforce, and/or practice such principles strengthen democracy.
To help you assess your artifact’s impact on democratic values, we will delve into this idea a bit further by considering, separately, how an artifact might support democratic principles directly or indirectly.
How Did the Artifact Directly Support or Hurt Democratic Principles?
A rhetorical artifact might directlystrengthen democracy by advocating for or addressing one or more democratic ideals. We might think, for example, of Martin Luther King Jr.’s calls for freedom and equality in his “I Have a Dream” speech. Alternatively, an artifact can directlyweaken democratic principles by explicitly calling for their dismissal, subjugating them to other values, or refusing their application to particular groups of people.
How Did the Artifact Indirectly Support or Hurt Democratic Principles?
An artifact can strengthen democracyindirectly by modeling or practicing democratic principles. Any artifact that qualifies as responsible public discourse, for instance, reinforces democratic principles. Recall in chapter 4 we defined responsible public discourse as public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It may or may not be polite or civil. Alternatively, some artifacts indirectly weaken democratic principles by practicing irresponsible public communication that uses the qualities of unproductive discourse and restricts the public sphere in inequitable ways.
A rhetorical artifact may fall along a sliding scale between strengthening and weakening democratic principles. Most artifacts probably improve some principles and hurt others. Clearly, the more ways a single artifact strengthens democratic principles, the better. You will need to decide in which direction your artifact tends by paying close attention to the artifact’s rhetorical features and historical context.
Box 33.21 Evaluation of the Effects of President Trump’s January 6, 2021, Speech on Democratic Principles
President Trump’s speech directly hurt democratic principles. Though he claimed to “save our democracy,” his speech called to overturn a democratic election. That directly violated such principles as the rule of law, the importance of the common good in balance with personal gain, and the accountability of officials and public leaders to the will of the people.
Trump’s speech also indirectly weakened democracy by making heavy use of division, dichotomous thinking, certainty, combativeness, and winning and by attempting to restrict valid voters to those Americans who voted for him.
Summary
This chapter provided the final steps necessary to conduct a public communication analysis. After identifying a suitable rhetorical artifact and reconstructing its historical context, you should continue to analyze the artifact itself:
You describe and interpret several rhetorical features, including argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, the rhetor’s credibility, the desired audience, the undesired audience, organization, style and framing, and delivery.
You next make two types of judgments about the artifact, using what you learned from the historical context and rhetorical features. You evaluate whether the artifact was successful or failed to achieve the rhetor’s goals, recognizing the need to argue for what counts as success or failure. You also judge whether the artifact strengthened or weakened democratic principles by considering the principles the artifact attempted to directly reinforce (or violate) and indirectly practiced or modeled (or failed to do so).
Key Terms
textual context
Review Questions
How do you describe and interpret an artifact’s argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, organization, and style and framing? What mistakes should you avoid?
What is the difference between the rhetor’s construction of themselves (credibility), the desired audience, and the undesired audience?
By what means might you evaluate an artifact’s success in achieving its goals?
By what means might you evaluate an artifact’s impact on democratic principles?
Discussion Questions
Which of the rhetorical features seems most important to analyze? How should you decide which to focus on or to include when sharing your work?
What kinds of evidence best support a critic’s interpretations of an artifact’s rhetorical features? How does a critic know when their inferences are right? How should we judge the merit of a critic’s interpretations, especially when two critics disagree about how a rhetorical feature functioned?
How can you ever really make judgments about an artifact’s success or failure or impact on democratic principles? What kinds of evidence does that require?
Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1958). ↵
“Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,” Campaign Legal Center, campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections, accessed 15 May 2024, US House of Representatives, Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 117th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: US Government Publishing Office, 2022), 210–213, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/9EAM-SMZ8. ↵
US House of Representatives, Final Report, 197, 204–210, 232. ↵
President Obama, “Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin,” WhiteHouse.gov, July 19, 2013, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin, archived at https://perma.cc/4HH8-2CQC, accessed 10 Jul. 2024. ↵
See Richard D. Rieke, Malcolm O. Sillars, and Tarla Rai Peterson, Argumentation and Critical Decision Making, 7th ed. (New York: Pearson, 2009), 155–156. ↵
This rhetorical feature is based on the “second persona” developed by Edwin Black and “the people” developed by Michael McGee. Edwin Black, “The Second Persona,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 56 (1970): 109–119; Michael Calvin McGee, “In Search of ‘the People,’” Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (1976): 235–249 ↵
This rhetorical feature is based on the concept and theory of the “third persona” as developed by Phillip Wander, “The Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory,” Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 210. ↵
Stephen E. Lucas, “The Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1988): 249. ↵
William Norwood Brigance, “What Is a Successful Speech?,” Quarterly Journal of Speech Education 11 (1925): 376. ↵
Garrett Epps, qtd. in Sam Cabral, “Capitol Riots: Did Trump’s Words at Rally Incite Violence?,” BBC, 13 Feb. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437, archived at https://perma.cc/GS8F-6EZQ, accessed 17 May 2024. ↵
Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, “Trump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated,” New York Times, 1 Aug. 2023, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html, archived at https://perma.cc/3X8U-9ZTB, accessed 17 May 2024. ↵
Recall from chapter 26 that an argument is the advocacy of an idea, position, or course of action that is supported by evidence. Drawing from Stephen Toulmin’s model, we identified the three main components of any argument as including a claim, data (evidence), and warrant(justification for using the data to support the claim).[1] In chapter 25, we noted that Aristotle considered argumentation to be a form of proof he called logos.
Rhetorical artifacts typically appeal to the audience’s emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness) and loyalties (e.g., liberty, family), or what Aristotle called pathos. As we explained in chapter 25, pathos is concerned with the psychological state of the audience; it is a measure and reflection of the extent to which we are moved by and feel invested in a topic and a message.
In his January 6 speech, President Trump elicited pleasurable feelings of pride and the loyalties of patriotism and democracy by praising “the magnitude of this crowd” and calling his audience “patriots” who “love our country,” “do not want to see our election victory stolen,” and want “to save our democracy.” Trump’s language—magnitude, patriots, victory, democracy, save—instilled feelings of righteousness and confidence in rejecting the election results. He lamented that “weak” Republicans like Mike Pence lacked such “courage and guts.” He ended his speech by encouraging his audience to walk to the Capitol and give the “weak” Republicans the same “pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” He implied that insufficient feelings of courage and pride were what prevented congressional leaders from rejecting the Electoral College votes.
Trump paired such appeals with painful feelings of anger, outrage, and even hate. His very first sentence—“The media will not show the magnitude of this crowd”—immediately expressed outrage at the “fake news media” for allegedly refusing to show the audience’s size. He associated the news media with the disloyalty of communism, comparing their “suppression” with “what happens in a communist country.” He went on to accuse Democrats of “stealing” the election by “cheating,” stoking anger at the election outcome and hatred toward the opposing political party.
A third feature typically found in rhetorical artifacts are appeals to credibility, or what Aristotle called ethos. In chapter 5, you learned that ethos refers to the state of a rhetor’s public character or persona. This definition should draw your attention to the rhetor’s credibility as a rhetorical creation. That means the following:
Yet another rhetorical feature you can examine is how the artifact constructed the undesired audience. This is the audience the rhetorical artifact negates by denying or dismissing their relevance or existence.[7] Artifacts typically construct an undesirable audience in one of two ways:
An artifact’s organization can also be a useful feature to analyze. The ordering of points or arguments—what Aristotle called arrangement—can do the following:
Such rhetorical movement is like what rhetoric scholar Stephen Lucas has called the textual context, which is the evolving environment created within an artifact that conditions the audience’s responses to the artifact from its beginning to its ending. Lucas explains that “a text [artifact] creates its own internal context as it unfolds in time and is processed by the listener or reader.”[9] The textual context is quite different from how we used the word “context” earlier in this chapter, for textual context exists entirely within the artifact itself. It forces the critic to infer how the structure may have impacted the audience’s reaction to the text because of the organization. It prevents organization from being undervalued by suggesting that how a rhetor moves strategically from the beginning to the end of the artifact matters.
President Trump’s speech at first seems to be organized a little like stream-of-consciousness, jumping from idea to idea. After a more careful inspection, however, the speech appears to come closest to the nonlinear pattern of a star. We explained in chapter 13 that a star pattern provides multiple main points—like the tips of a star—that may appear disparate from one another, but all support the thesis.
We defined style in chapter 16 as language or expression. You are already analyzing an artifact’s style when you consider the rhetorical features previously discussed. To enhance your analysis of an artifact’s style, however, you can attend to at least three additional aspects of an artifact.
To analyze a rhetor’s delivery of an artifact, you must have access to an audio or visual recording. In chapter 17, we defined delivery as the actual means of expression: “It is how a speaker physically conveys words and ideas, verbally and nonverbally, to the audience.” You can describe a rhetor’s
Once you have systematically described and interpreted your artifact for features such as the ones listed previously, you can judge the artifact’s functions and consequences. Focus on whether the artifact successfully achieved the rhetor’s goals (or not) and strengthened or weakened democratic principles. We will discuss both assessments in turn.
