Consider This (Week 7): Rhetoric and Cognitive Fluency

A few weeks ago, the Boston Globe published a piece written by Drake Bennett titled "Easy = True" in which he discusses the study of cognitive fluency and its relationship to persuasion and individuals' perception of 'truth,' two important phenomena central to rhetoric.

One of the many things I find compelling about the piece is the way the work of these researchers relates to our study of language and critical thinking, of writing, expression, and rhetorical awareness. It seems a timely piece to consider given the work we've done in recent weeks working through the complexities of logos—both as form and structure and as a method of reasoning.

With that in mind, your blog prompt for this week is pretty straightforward: think about and respond to Bennett's discussion. Some possible questions to consider:

Given the work we've been doing related to rhetoric and, specifically, logos, what is your reaction to Bennett's piece?

What stands out to you?

What do you find interesting or useful in light of our work in class?

Does this discussion deepen or complicate your understanding of rhetoric and the way language 'works'?

Keep in mind that these are only a few of the possible approaches you may take—please feel free to respond to the piece according to your own observations or questions; in other words, don't think you are required to address or answer these specific questions in your post—they are merely options, prompts to help you get started.

Alternately, you may decide to respond to any of the comments left by readers, which can be found either at the Boston Globe or through the New York Times' coverage of the piece in their regular feature "Idea of the Day."

However you choose to approach the piece, remember to relate it back to our unit on logos and/or your understanding of rhetoric. Also remember that this is a reflective piece—not an analysis or report—so you are welcome to invite your audience to look at the piece from your perspective, rely on your own expertise and experience, and explore the topic freely, even if that means you do not arrive at a solid conclusion but, rather, raise questions of your own.

Responders this week: consider what your peers have said about the piece. How do these perspectives align with or differ from your reaction to and understanding of rhetoric and cognitive fluency?

I'm eager to hear what everyone thinks!

Consider This (Weeks 4 & 5): Crafting (and Analyzing) the Sentence

As we continue our discussion of logos, both as a method of reasoning as well as an awareness of form and structure, it is important to understand how logos works in the production (craft, writing) and reception (critical reading, analysis, and interpretation) of text. Working with written language on the sentence level provides an excellent opportunity to observe language dynamics, nuanced appeals, and the way effective use of language engages the Five Canons of Classical Rhetoric, which we discussed in class on Tuesday, February 9. The work we do in understanding the dynamics of the sentence—i.e. its form or style, its internal logic and arrangement, its language economy and delivery, and its ability to linger or prove memorable to an audience—can be applied, in principle, to larger pieces of text: the paragraph, the section, essay or chapter, or an even longer work.

With that in mind, the blogs for this week and next will involve, by turns, the creation and analysis of carefully crafted sentences. Posters will begin by crafting a sentence (invention), adhering to the conventions of either sentence style we discussed in class: the periodic sentence or the final free modifier.

Now for the challenge: as you craft your sentence, strive for writing at least 75 words while maintaining logical integrity and grammatical correctness. If you feel particularly motivated, you may even try become the record-holder for the longest sentence (the longest example we have, so far, is 217 words). Finally, please feel free to have a little fun with this exercise: the opportunity to carefully craft a single sentence, to dwell on such a compact yet rich text, is truly a little luxury.

Responders: using one of the sentences your peers have crafted as your subject, please offer a brief analysis of the sentence, detailing and describing your unique observations about the sentence and using any of the perspectives we've discussed in class including, but not limited to, deductive or inductive reasoning, arrangement, structure, delivery, memory. Keep in mind that your observations are central to your explication and analysis, and that the rhetorical lenses we've been discussing should serve, not as a checklist, but as tools for making sense of or explaining your observations.

We will repeat this process for Week 5, offering those who crafted sentences during Week 4 to offer an analysis during Week 5, and offering those who wrote an analysis during Week 4 to craft a sentence for Week 5.

Please post Week 4 sentences to your blog by the end of the day on Thursday, February 11; those responding for Week 4 should offer their analyses by Sunday, February 14.

Please post Week 5 sentences to your blog by noon on Monday, February 15; responses (analyses) will be due by midnight on Saturday, February 20 (this will begin our usual blog rotation schedule).

Consider This (Week 3): Aphorisms, Idioms, Maxims, and other Itty Bits of Pithy Wisdom

As we have discussed in class, contemporary rhetoric often concerns itself with the discovery of a truth*, or acting on a truth to persuade an audience to move toward certain action.

Rarely do we have the time or patience to wax philosophical; delivering soliloquies and expounding on complex syllogisms are rarely socially efficient practices. Still, humans are driven to understand their world, their relationships, and any number of other 'truths.' How, then, can we work toward such a lofty aim and still seek and communicate such complex wisdom and knowledge succinctly, cogently, effectively without violating social constraints and norms?

Answer: Clever packaging. Enter the idiom. The aphorism. The Maxim–and any number of other compact, economical, and often colloquial expressions.

Click here for Wikipedia's useful list that classifies different types of sayings.

“Sayings,” considered broadly, are rhetorically rich, often amusing, and can be surprisingly complex for their compactness. Consider,

He that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools. (Confucius)

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightening and the lightening bug.” (Mark Twain)

“You can be a little ungrammatical if you come from the right part of the country.” (Robert Frost)

“Ya' gotta dance with the one what brung ya'.” (a Southern expression—favored by an old friend of mine)

I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. (Albert Einstein)

Never mistake kindness for weakness. (my Dad)

Each of these examples—and just about any other successful aphorism—has a semantic value (what does it mean?) and a rhetorical value (how does it achieve that meaning?). It is the 'how' that interests us as we explore the dynamics of rhetoric.

For this exercise, then, please consider what idioms, aphorisms, or other sayings resonate with you. Choose one of them, and explicate it. First, what does it mean? Then consider how it achieves that meaning; ask yourself

What kind of logic is at work? Inductive? Deductive?

How is the idea presented? Does it rely on humor? A clever turn of phrase? Understatement? Overstatement?

What structures do you notice? Is there repetition? Structures of balance? Substitution? Opposition?

What is unique about the word choices (diction), and what is the effect of those choices?

Finally, is it original? Clichéd? How does that affect its impact?

These are just a few of the things you may consider as you examine your selected saying. Please work up a brief draft of your observations, your explication (including, of course, the saying you've chosen to work with), and bring it to class on Thursday, February 4th. As we begin our focus unit on logos, we'll workshop your drafts and talk more about your findings.

Keep in mind that you will, ultimately, post these brief essays to your blog, so you will be writing for a public audience. You will have until Saturday, February 6th, to post.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* The classical tradition made a distinction between rhetoric and dialectic, where rhetoric served as the application, craft, or art of discourse; dialectic referred to the process of reasoning , through argumentation, that led to discovery, understanding, or 'truth.' Contemporary rhetoric has evolved to recognize the interdependence of rhetoric and dialectic and, thus, treats them as parts of the same process. That said, even Aristotle described rhetoric as the counterpart to dialectic, so the treatment of rhetoric and dialectic as relating process to craft is nothing new. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry 'Aristotle's Rhetoric' for more.