Well, today was butt. But, onward and upward.
If you came to see me before you went to NHS, you got the materials needed for doing a speech analysis; i.e. the rhetorical triangle graphic.
The rhetorical triangle consists of 3 separate but equally important parts: The message, the audience, the speaker. Each category lends itself to appeals to logos, ethos and pathos. The handout should be self-explanatory about that, but if it isn't or if you need clarification, let me know.
So, the first thing you need to consider is: What is the message or the thesis of your speech? What is it that the speaker is trying to get across? Once you figure that out, you have the thesis of your own analysis. Therefore, the "message" should be explained in your intro. The message always appeals to logos--yes, pathos is often at work as well, but any speaker worth his or her salt, (what does that expression even mean, anyway??), will need to incorporate a healthy dose of logic in order to be heard. Why? Because you can be as passionate as you want about something, but if it doesn't make sense, your message is lost in the rhetoric. Watch any GOP debate if you don't believe me! ;)
Next, you need to reflect on your audience--well, not YOUR audience--but the audience who was listening to the speech you were assigned. You may need to research the context of the speech on your own--awwwwww...stop whining....in order to fully understand who the audience was. Knowing that will be an integral part of your analysis though, because if you know who your audience was then it will be easy to clarify the message and the purpose.
Last, think about the speaker. Most people, when they are listening to someone speak, have the benefit of seeing them as well. You don't (unless you can find a YouTube vid of your particular speech). Therefore, you need to depend solely on the diction contained within the speech to determine credibility, likeability, believability etc. Look for lit devices at work, or lack thereof, determine their use and include all of that in the analysis.
Questions?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Countdown to Success
Well, as I may have told some of you on Friday, I have been thinking a lot about the upcoming weeks ahead. I know that I have repeatedly drilled into your head that April is the month where we truly separate the “men from the boys” as it were.
Sidebar: isn’t it weird how so many of those banal adages exclusively use male/masculine pronouns/references etc? Why is that?
Anyway, Word is telling me to reword that tired old cliché to read: “distinguish the professionals from the amateurs” which does sound better I suppose.
I know for the past few months I have been referring to April as “Death Month” which, in hindsight, really doesn’t reflect what I want it to. In fact, it is a terrible phrase and I am sorry those inimical words ever tumbled from my mouth because that is not how I want you all to look at it. Rather, I want you to take it, and the work that will need to be done to prepare for it, seriously, but I also want you to understand that that’s really all you need to do. You’ve already done the hard stuff—you’ve learned it. April is just extra time to master what you already know, and maybe to clarify some things about which you aren’t entirely confident yet.
And that, poppets, is where this week’s blog comes in.
What I would like you to do is think about the things we’ve learned so far. This and next week will be entirely devoted to writing, but consider carefully the things we have done in class up until this point. What, if any, are the obstacles that you foresee to getting a 4 or 5 on the exam? What do you think your weak areas are, and what would you like to review more of come April? What do you think are the best ways to review? Your responses here will determine how I break up the different areas for Exam Review Month (Death Month’s new and improved moniker), so please be as precise as possible.
(No word count, but I expect some serious and reflective thoughts/50pts)
Sidebar: isn’t it weird how so many of those banal adages exclusively use male/masculine pronouns/references etc? Why is that?
Anyway, Word is telling me to reword that tired old cliché to read: “distinguish the professionals from the amateurs” which does sound better I suppose.
I know for the past few months I have been referring to April as “Death Month” which, in hindsight, really doesn’t reflect what I want it to. In fact, it is a terrible phrase and I am sorry those inimical words ever tumbled from my mouth because that is not how I want you all to look at it. Rather, I want you to take it, and the work that will need to be done to prepare for it, seriously, but I also want you to understand that that’s really all you need to do. You’ve already done the hard stuff—you’ve learned it. April is just extra time to master what you already know, and maybe to clarify some things about which you aren’t entirely confident yet.
And that, poppets, is where this week’s blog comes in.
What I would like you to do is think about the things we’ve learned so far. This and next week will be entirely devoted to writing, but consider carefully the things we have done in class up until this point. What, if any, are the obstacles that you foresee to getting a 4 or 5 on the exam? What do you think your weak areas are, and what would you like to review more of come April? What do you think are the best ways to review? Your responses here will determine how I break up the different areas for Exam Review Month (Death Month’s new and improved moniker), so please be as precise as possible.
(No word count, but I expect some serious and reflective thoughts/50pts)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Questions For Bunje
You ask; I'll answer. It's the best I can do right now, and I know that still stinks and I am genuinely sorry about that.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Rigor Redefined
Stay tuned for more info on This I Believe...
Til then, onward and upward...
Last week, I had you read an article by Tony Wagner called "Rigor Redefined." In it, he references many AP classes that he observed and how, in simple terms, he found them woefully inadequate.
Although I asked you to write a reaction paper to this article, I would like you to take this opportunity to tell me what you really thought of this article, specifically about what he mentioned were the skills that CEOs and company execs really look for in their new hires.
Do you feel as though your schooling thus far has prepared you for what these companies appear to be looking for?
Go a step further and consider the job pursuits you in which you hope to engage. What do you want to do? If you left school right now, do you feel as though you would be work-place ready and prepared for what they want? Why or why not?
What about the AP classes Wagner references...do they sound familiar to you? Why? We will be talking about your answers to my "Curriculum question" this week as well, so use this discussion as a way to gather your thoughts.
(450 words/50pts)
Til then, onward and upward...
Last week, I had you read an article by Tony Wagner called "Rigor Redefined." In it, he references many AP classes that he observed and how, in simple terms, he found them woefully inadequate.
Although I asked you to write a reaction paper to this article, I would like you to take this opportunity to tell me what you really thought of this article, specifically about what he mentioned were the skills that CEOs and company execs really look for in their new hires.
Do you feel as though your schooling thus far has prepared you for what these companies appear to be looking for?
Go a step further and consider the job pursuits you in which you hope to engage. What do you want to do? If you left school right now, do you feel as though you would be work-place ready and prepared for what they want? Why or why not?
What about the AP classes Wagner references...do they sound familiar to you? Why? We will be talking about your answers to my "Curriculum question" this week as well, so use this discussion as a way to gather your thoughts.
(450 words/50pts)
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Dark Side...
I am hoping that today's listening exercise was a humbling-yet-positive experience for many of you because we were able to explore one of the fundamentals of basic human communication: how to listen effectively. It is no small feat, as many of you saw today, but overall, I was pleased with what I saw in each class.
Now, I know that I said I would post different questions for each period, but I don't think that will really be necessary because much of what I heard today was similar in nature and content.
Therefore, the following question will apply to all sections.
First things first, what did you think of the piece? If any of you are interested, I have all of Green's books including the one referenced in the article today, The Art of Seduction.
After reading the books, I sort of stumbled upon his blog (which is where The Dark Side the originated) called Power, Seduction and War.
What you read today was an older post that I read a couple years back and STILL has me musing over the contents all this time later.
I posit that the theme of this post is that we are drawn to what we perceive is the dark side of human nature, and presumably, the dark side of ourselves. He cites certain examples of classic "villains" both real and fictional and in those we are not talking about ritualistic serial killers or people who harm animals or children per se. From virtually every standpoint, that type of "dark side" is reviled, as of course it should be.
However, there exists, in all of us, an unmistakable desire to do "the wrong" thing (his assertion), and the more we call those people who act on that desire out on it, the stronger the pull is either to the person or to the act. In his exact words: "The strength of their denunciation equals the strength of their attraction."
He goes on to say, in what may be the most controversial opinion in the entire piece, that we are drawn to certain villainous characters such as the pimp, the seducer, the hustler etc because they are more GENUINE than we are. They recognize their dark side and rather than try to hide it or deny it completely, they act on it.
After reading it and taken what I've said here into consideration, do you agree with Greene or disagree? Also to be considered of course is: Do you have a dark side?
Naturally, you must support what you are saying with thoughtful and relevant examples.(450 words/65pts)
Now, I know that I said I would post different questions for each period, but I don't think that will really be necessary because much of what I heard today was similar in nature and content.
Therefore, the following question will apply to all sections.
First things first, what did you think of the piece? If any of you are interested, I have all of Green's books including the one referenced in the article today, The Art of Seduction.
After reading the books, I sort of stumbled upon his blog (which is where The Dark Side the originated) called Power, Seduction and War.
What you read today was an older post that I read a couple years back and STILL has me musing over the contents all this time later.
I posit that the theme of this post is that we are drawn to what we perceive is the dark side of human nature, and presumably, the dark side of ourselves. He cites certain examples of classic "villains" both real and fictional and in those we are not talking about ritualistic serial killers or people who harm animals or children per se. From virtually every standpoint, that type of "dark side" is reviled, as of course it should be.
However, there exists, in all of us, an unmistakable desire to do "the wrong" thing (his assertion), and the more we call those people who act on that desire out on it, the stronger the pull is either to the person or to the act. In his exact words: "The strength of their denunciation equals the strength of their attraction."
He goes on to say, in what may be the most controversial opinion in the entire piece, that we are drawn to certain villainous characters such as the pimp, the seducer, the hustler etc because they are more GENUINE than we are. They recognize their dark side and rather than try to hide it or deny it completely, they act on it.
After reading it and taken what I've said here into consideration, do you agree with Greene or disagree? Also to be considered of course is: Do you have a dark side?
Naturally, you must support what you are saying with thoughtful and relevant examples.(450 words/65pts)
Monday, March 1, 2010
Work and A God of Lesser Things
OK--feels like forever since we've been here doesn't it? First things first--The Company Man questions are located in the AP Lang folder under the READ link. These are due, typed, by Friday.
Onward and upward.
Passion. Courage. Conviction. These words are largely subjective and therefore indefinable, but I would like you to look them up before you answer this week's blog question. Once you do that, consider the following:
What is it in your own life, this life that you have been given, that you would die for? Do the three words play into your answer in any way? If you need a more solid jumping-off point, ask yourself this: given the denotation of the words passion, courage and conviction what is it in your life that can inspire these seemingly esoteric concepts? What is your passion; what gives you courage; about what do you hold an unshakeable conviction? Once you answer those questions, go back to the original--what would you die for? Do your answers to the second set of questions fall in line with the first?
(substantive response/75pts)
Onward and upward.
Passion. Courage. Conviction. These words are largely subjective and therefore indefinable, but I would like you to look them up before you answer this week's blog question. Once you do that, consider the following:
What is it in your own life, this life that you have been given, that you would die for? Do the three words play into your answer in any way? If you need a more solid jumping-off point, ask yourself this: given the denotation of the words passion, courage and conviction what is it in your life that can inspire these seemingly esoteric concepts? What is your passion; what gives you courage; about what do you hold an unshakeable conviction? Once you answer those questions, go back to the original--what would you die for? Do your answers to the second set of questions fall in line with the first?
(substantive response/75pts)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)