So far, we\u2019ve established a working definition of Rhetoric and explored the three basic categories of rhetorical appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.<\/p>\r\n
But as readers and writers, we should be aware that rhetoric is often more complicated than these broad categories.\u00a0 Writers often employ techniques that blur the lines within this classification system.\u00a0 One common mistake that students make is to simply sift through a text, looking for examples of Logos, Pathos and Ethos and then separate them into compartments, sort of like that young children\u2019s game, where you put the round block in the round hole, the square block in the square hole, etc.\u00a0 But what if you get a block that doesn\u2019t fit any of the holes?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_112\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"300\"]![\"Decorative.](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/csueng100101fall2023\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/156\/2018\/01\/Blocks-300x215.jpg\")
\u201cShape Sorter Ella\u2019s Dad\u201d Flicker CC BY 2.0[\/caption]\r\n\r\nA tool that can help us move beyond these three broad categories of rhetorical appeals and better understand an author\u2019s purpose, both on a macro level (meaning the whole essay) and on a micro level (meaning in each sentence), is a literary analysis approach called \u201cSpeech Act Theory.\u201d\r\n
I know.\u00a0 The word \u201ctheory\u201d can be intimidating.\u00a0 But what Speech Act Theory basically says is that every time a person uses language, they are not simply communicating information, but also committing an act, and those acts have a specific purpose for the person speaking and an intended effect on the audience to whom they are communicating.<\/p>\r\n
This applies both to formal writing and to informal, everyday speech.\u00a0 When someone writes an argumentative essay, they are committing the speech act of trying to share their viewpoint and get others to believe it.\u00a0 But it is equally true that, when we casually talk with people in our private lives, we are engaging in speech acts.\u00a0 When we tell a story about something that happened to us, we want our friends to listen and have some sort of desired reaction to it, such as finding it entertaining.\u00a0 When we tell a joke, we want people to laugh.\u00a0 Even the basic act of saying \u201chello\u201d to someone is a speech act, as it opens the possibility for further conversation.\u00a0 In fact, saying \u201chello\u201d is maybe one of the most important everyday rhetorical moves, as it lays the basic foundation for human connection.\u00a0 But we can\u2019t really compartmentalize it as Logos, Pathos or Ethos.\u00a0 It\u2019s one of those blocks that doesn\u2019t fit any of the holes, but we still need it to play the game.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Very often, an author\u2019s most effective rhetorical moves are of this unclassifiable nature.\u00a0 And as readers, we should strive to move beyond thinking in terms of separating everything into the categories of Logos, Pathos of Ethos, and instead ask ourselves what the writer is trying to DO in every sentence, paragraph and their text as a whole.<\/p>\r\nReference:\r\n\r\nAustin, J. L. How to do Things with Words.\u00a0 <\/em>London. Oxford University Press. 1962.","rendered":" Hello!<\/p>\n So far, we\u2019ve established a working definition of Rhetoric and explored the three basic categories of rhetorical appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.<\/p>\n But as readers and writers, we should be aware that rhetoric is often more complicated than these broad categories.\u00a0 Writers often employ techniques that blur the lines within this classification system.\u00a0 One common mistake that students make is to simply sift through a text, looking for examples of Logos, Pathos and Ethos and then separate them into compartments, sort of like that young children\u2019s game, where you put the round block in the round hole, the square block in the square hole, etc.\u00a0 But what if you get a block that doesn\u2019t fit any of the holes?<\/p>\n A tool that can help us move beyond these three broad categories of rhetorical appeals and better understand an author\u2019s purpose, both on a macro level (meaning the whole essay) and on a micro level (meaning in each sentence), is a literary analysis approach called \u201cSpeech Act Theory.\u201d<\/p>\n I know.\u00a0 The word \u201ctheory\u201d can be intimidating.\u00a0 But what Speech Act Theory basically says is that every time a person uses language, they are not simply communicating information, but also committing an act, and those acts have a specific purpose for the person speaking and an intended effect on the audience to whom they are communicating.<\/p>\n This applies both to formal writing and to informal, everyday speech.\u00a0 When someone writes an argumentative essay, they are committing the speech act of trying to share their viewpoint and get others to believe it.\u00a0 But it is equally true that, when we casually talk with people in our private lives, we are engaging in speech acts.\u00a0 When we tell a story about something that happened to us, we want our friends to listen and have some sort of desired reaction to it, such as finding it entertaining.\u00a0 When we tell a joke, we want people to laugh.\u00a0 Even the basic act of saying \u201chello\u201d to someone is a speech act, as it opens the possibility for further conversation.\u00a0 In fact, saying \u201chello\u201d is maybe one of the most important everyday rhetorical moves, as it lays the basic foundation for human connection.\u00a0 But we can\u2019t really compartmentalize it as Logos, Pathos or Ethos.\u00a0 It\u2019s one of those blocks that doesn\u2019t fit any of the holes, but we still need it to play the game.<\/p>\n The following video explains the Speech-Act Theory.<\/p>\nVideo: A Speech-Act Theory Adventure<\/h3>\n