pweph, just when i thought i wouldn't have to think or mention "political rhetoric" for another 4 years this project comes around. haha no honestly i'm glad i can take another stab at this paper, because where i left off with it didn't satisfy me. so as most of you already know i'll be doing a substantial re-write of my previous paper that tried to elucidate what it was that politicians were doing that made us hate them so much. my first attempt was limited by time and the depth of my research and analysis fell short. I hope to use what we have learned and discovered after our papers were turned in to develop a more focused thesis and analysis of my topic.
Specifically:
find and use outside peer reviewed sources to help me expand and develop my thesis and give me more direction. (suggestions would be appreciated)
Instill more of aristotle or further develop what i already have
look at the history of politics and what that has to do with our preconceived notions. the history of politics implies that we are expectant of the lies and deception.
drop the claim upfront that politicians use too much rhetoric and find a way to reword it. kirk kindly pointed out that it is impossible for politicians to not use rhetoric, which makes perfect sense. maybe it is too much of one kind..."
audience. audience. audience. if the speaker needs to start off on something we all agree on inorder to effectively persuade us, how does this affect rhetoric or their choice of what to use.
I might have better luck by examining a specific campaign or add and plucking the rhetoric out of and analyzing why it fails to convince me to vote for them or why it makes me hate them more. detailed exploration of the kinds of rhetoric politicians use
I would also like to incorporate the ideas Perelman and Covino wrote about. Ill need to re-read each article..again...so i can have a better understanding of what they are saying and how i can apply that to my paper.
Until then, everyone enjoy a well deserved break from school and eat so much food and pie.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
rhetorical situation
I found myself in a particular rhetorical situation a few days after hunting season opened. I take hunting seriously, and i love filling my freezer full of venison. Anyways, to make a long story short, here in montana hunters are required to wear 400 cubic inches of "blaze orange" material/color when in the woods. Normally, I don't have a problem following the rules that FWP make to protect the hunters and the animals themselves. But where i grew up hunting, this wasn't one of them, and for a good reason. Sure deer see black and white, so they can't see the orange, but what many people seem to forget is light reflection. Light reflects off a blaze orange vest/hat unlike any other natural thing in the woods, so deer can see it from a mile away. I went out hunting, without my blaze orange, but my hunting pack used to be orange, like 5 years ago. Its still got a orange hue, but its dirty, and worn, and would never pass for the regulatory 400 cu of the florescent stuff. Walking back to my car after a seeing a few does and loosing daylight, i passed two hunters on the dirt road. Both of which were wearing their blaze orange, and they called me out. "Wheres your orange," they said?
And there I was, caught in the sights of, what seemed like to me, two very conservative traditional montana hunters who got pissed when out-of-staters deem their hunting laws don't apply to them. I felt bad, i really did, its my responsibility to be a smart hunter and follow the rules. This was a "dangerous situation"referring to blitzers definition, people, events and objects (guns) threatened me. The constraints on my accusers made this situation even more difficult.
As i was trying to weasel my way out of my ignorance, i did not stop to think how rhetoric could help me. By the way i played dumb and acted like i didn't know i needed a certain amount of orange to hunt. And looking back at the situation, the awkwardness, sprinkles of rhetoric, this was my first rhetorical situation i've analyzed as one...if that makes sense. and no, i didn't go out and buy an orange vest after this encounter.
And there I was, caught in the sights of, what seemed like to me, two very conservative traditional montana hunters who got pissed when out-of-staters deem their hunting laws don't apply to them. I felt bad, i really did, its my responsibility to be a smart hunter and follow the rules. This was a "dangerous situation"referring to blitzers definition, people, events and objects (guns) threatened me. The constraints on my accusers made this situation even more difficult.
As i was trying to weasel my way out of my ignorance, i did not stop to think how rhetoric could help me. By the way i played dumb and acted like i didn't know i needed a certain amount of orange to hunt. And looking back at the situation, the awkwardness, sprinkles of rhetoric, this was my first rhetorical situation i've analyzed as one...if that makes sense. and no, i didn't go out and buy an orange vest after this encounter.
this is very long, but very interesting, so i just posted the first 1/4. i got this from the libraries article/journal search engine.
Processing visual rhetoric in advertisements: Interpretations determined by verbal anchoring and visual structure
- VU University Amsterdam, Department of Language and Communication, Faculty of Arts, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- http://dx.doi.org.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.009, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Abstract
This research investigated meaning operation in relation to verbal anchoring and visual structure of visual rhetoric in advertisements. Meaning operation refers to the relation between meaningful visual elements, and determines the number of interpretations of an image. Meaning operation ‘connection’ associates two visual elements, whereas ‘similarity’ states that one element is (like) the other. The former is supposed to elicit less alternative responses than the latter. In a first study, comprehension improved for connection but not for similarity when explanatory text was added (verbal anchoring). In a second study eye tracking measures were used to study meaning operation expressed in juxtaposition or fusion (visual structure). Similarity led to more text-image saccades and longer fixation durations on the image than connection. Interactions on saccades and perceived number of ideas suggest that fusion promotes alternative responses in connection, but not in similarity. Apparently, connections leave interpretations more ‘open’, whereas similarities are more ambiguous (or ‘rich’).
Highlights
► Visual rhetoric can be decomposed in meaning operation and visual structure. ► Similarities (A is (like) B) need more cognitive elaboration than connections (A is associated with B). ► Similarities are richer in meaning, connections are more open in associations. ► Eye tracking data show that visual structure does not affect ambiguity, but rather openness. ► Visual structure and meaning operation provide different sources of incongruity.
Keywords
- Visual;
- Metaphor;
- Rhetoric;
- Comprehension;
- Attitude toward the Ad;
- Eye tracking;
- Fusion;
- Juxtaposition;
- Information processing;
- Openness;
- Verbal anchoring
1. Introduction
Visual rhetoric in print advertisements provides a fruitful topic of investigation for scholars interested in information processing (Van Mulken et al., 2010). Intriguing aspects of visual rhetoric include the role of cognitive processing as a prerequisite for experiencing pleasant feelings toward the advertisement (McQuarrie and Mick, 1999), and the moderating role of an advertisement's complexity and meaningfulness ([Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011] and [Phillips, 2000]). In short, to enjoy a visual metaphor one needs to understand it first.
An important framework for the analysis of visual rhetoric originates from Roland Barthes, whose essayRhétorique de l’image concerned imagery and meaning in advertisements (translated in Barthes, 1977). Semiologists have developed several systems of conveying meanings from images ( [Eco, 1976] and [Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006]). Cognitive psychology addressed the perception of artful imagery (Berlyne, 1970). In pragmatics, models for multimodal interpretation were developed (Yus, 2009). For the purposes of the current research, the literature review is limited to research of advertising imagery that specifically addresses information processing in viewers.
In advertising research, visual rhetoric was studied the past twenty years, with substantial progress in theoretical development and empirical investigation ( [Forceville, 1996], [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008],[McQuarrie and Mick, 1999], [McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005], [Phillips, 2000] and [Scott, 1994]). In particular, frameworks have been developed to classify visual rhetorical figures ( [Forceville, 1996], [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008] and [Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004]), and hypotheses of processing visual rhetoric have been tested ( [Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011], [McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005], [Phillips, 2000] and [Van Enschot et al., 2008]).
Creative executives use visual rhetoric to enhance an advertisement's indirect persuasion (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005). In the design process, verbal copy and visual structure are probed to balance optimal comprehension and appreciation. Visual metaphors may be more or less explicitly explained by captions (variation in verbal anchoring, Phillips, 2000). Pictorial elements may be more or less pronounced in revealing a visual metaphor's meaning (variation in visual structure, Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004). These variations affect visual rhetoric's complexity and meaningfulness. The ways in which verbal anchoring and visual structure convey complexity and meaningfulness are not entirely clear, and different models have been proposed ( [Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011], [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008], [Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004] and [Van Mulken et al., 2010]). The aim of this paper is to assess the mechanisms of visual structure and verbal anchoring, in relation to the metaphor's meaning operation (i.e., the conceptual relation between the metaphorical objects).
According to Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), two design dimensions of visual rhetoric affect an individual's interpretation in different ways, illustrated in Table 1 (containing just a subset of the original typology). The columns represent how visual structure can be more (fusion) or less (juxtaposition) complex. The rows represent how meaning operation can be more (similarity) or less (connection) conceptually rich. Combinations of these dimensions define four image categories, two of which are exemplified in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (see the next section for more explanation). The more complex and rich an advertisement is, the more cognitive elaboration is needed to process it (according to Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004).One of the main challenges in visual rhetoric research is to determine the mechanism that elicits individual thoughts. Some visual metaphors may convey widely diverging thoughts between individuals, while other images elicit much more uniform thoughts in individuals (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005). Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) claim that meaning operation determines the richness of a visual rhetorical figure, and define it as the ambiguity in the relation between pictorial elements, determining the number of thoughts elicited in individuals.
McQuarrie and Phillips (2005), however, use the term ‘openness’ to explain how visual metaphors may elicit individually diverging thoughts. Openness refers to the observation that images are more open to interpretation than text (Eco, 1976). Barthes (1967) defines openness as an infinite number of referents (or signifieds) referred to by means of connotation, whereas the number of signifieds referred to by denotation is closed. Because language has a specified denotational system, as opposed to imagery, openness is typical for visuals. Barthes apparently uses the term richness to refer to a similar phenomenon, when he claims that ‘signification cannot exhaust the image's ineffable richness’ (Barthes, 1977, p. 32).
The main difference between richness and openness seems to be that openness refers to text-image combinations, whereas richness refers to differences between meaning operations in images. Another difference is that openness is not specifically associated with ambiguity or polysemy, but rather with the absence of interpretation-limiting information (such as verbal anchoring, Phillips, 2000). Visual metaphors have more alternative interpretations when verbal contextual explanations are reduced (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005). Although the definitions of richness and openness are different, it is very difficult to discern the phenomena that are supposed to be caused by richness or openness.
In the current research visual rhetoric is varied along design dimensions defined in Phillips and McQuarrie (2004). Our main question is: What are the effects of different types of visual rhetoric on attention, comprehension, and appreciation? Although visual structure has been empirically investigated in several studies, there has not been much research of the interactions between structural and conceptual aspects of visual rhetoric in advertisements (Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011). A secondary goal of the research is to decide whether richness or openness is the better explanatory concept.
In a first experiment meaning operation is varied in combination with verbal anchoring (Study 1), and in a second one with visual complexity (Study 2). Eye tracking is used in Study 2 to verify whether visual structure and meaning operation affect cognitive elaboration differently. The results may give rise to alternative interpretations of Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) framework ( [Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011] and [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008]).
2. Meaning operation and visual structure
In the most general sense, visual metaphor may be defined as similar to verbal metaphor in that it compares two images through analogy by suggesting that one object is like another even though they are quite different ( [Phillips, 2000] and [Stern, 1990]). This definition differs from other definitions in two respects. First, it categorizes metaphor primarily as a case of rhetoric, namely an artful deviation from expectation (McQuarrie and Mick, 1996). Other metaphor researchers focus more on the mapping between a metaphor's source and target domain ( [Steen, 2007] and [Yus, 2009]). Second, the phrasing that one object ‘is like’ another includes both simile and metaphor. Other researchers distinguish visual simile and metaphor as different categories ( [Forceville, 1996] and [Schilperoord et al., 2009]).
Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) define a framework that defines visual rhetoric building on, among others,[Barthes, 1967] and [Barthes, 1977] and previous experimental research ( [McQuarrie and Mick, 1996],[McQuarrie and Mick, 1999] and [Phillips, 2000]). Visual rhetorical images can be categorized along two dimensions: meaning operation and visual structure. Both dimensions have three values, defining nine categories of visual rhetoric in a cross-classification. In this research the two lower values of each dimension are schematized in Table 1, predicting processing differences between proposed categories.
Meaning operation refers to the nature of the relation between the two objects in comparison. In increasing levels of ambiguity, Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) differentiate between connection (A is associated with B) and similarity (A is like B). The third value is a contrastive comparison or opposition (A is not like B). Fig. 1exemplifies a connection: the chocolate cookies are associated with the taste of a cherry. Fig. 2 exemplifies a similarity: we interpret the flash drive and the CDs as similar (so that the memory capacity of one flash drive is the same as many CDs). The third kind of meaning operation involves the most ambiguity because it combines contrast with metaphor. This opposition is not examined in the current research.
Visual structure refers to the way the relevant pictorial elements (constituting the meaning operation) are presented visually. With an increasing level of complexity, Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) distinguish between juxtaposition, fusion, and replacement. Besides similarity, Fig. 2 also exemplifies juxtaposition: the two objects are placed next to each other. In Fig. 1, the connection is visually presented as a fusion: the two objects are merged. Replacement represents the highest level of complexity. One of the pictorial elements is left out of the image, so that a metaphorical interpretation only succeeds after the inference of a missing element. Replacement is not examined in this research.
Table 1 defines four kinds of visual rhetoric, numbered one to four. Following Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), cell number 1 would require less cognitive elaboration than would cell number 4, because the meaning operation defining cell 1 invites less thoughts, and the corresponding visual structure is less complex. Cells 2 and 3 would require moderate cognitive elaboration (between the levels of cells 1 and 4), but no precise prediction is made for these combinations. Study 1 focuses on outcome differences between cells 3 and 4 inTable 1, where verbal anchoring is applied to fusion advertisements expressing different meaning operations. In Study 2, results for combinations of visual structure and meaning operation are relevant to all cells inTable 1.
The difference between fusion and juxtaposition may be explained in terms of incongruity: more unrealistic structures like fusion are more incongruent (Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011). Likewise, connections tend to relate more congruent meaning objects than do similarities. Visual rhetoric employs incongruity to enhance cognitive elaboration, but incongruity might also disturb interpretation ( [Heckler and Childers, 1992] and [Van Mulken et al., 2010]). In this research, incongruity is not a central concept because it does not distinguish between meaning operation and visual structure, but rather conflates them.
The different ways in which meaning operation and visual structure convey cognitive elaboration need to be interpreted carefully. Specifically, whether meaning operation is driving openness rather than richness is an important question. Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) predict that similarity is richer than connection. FollowingBarthes (1977), connection might be more open than similarity. Openness refers to a lack of conventional denotations (we would normally find in language), not to more complicated layers of meaning.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
debate drinking
i don't like these debate assignments. theres a reason i dont have a TV, and convincing my friends who do to turn on the debates is a challenge. they finally agreed to turn off Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia and watch the debate; but with their own rules. they turned it into a drinking game. the rules are as follows.
every time they say one of those words, you drink. when they talk at the same time, you chug.
The certain camera angles that showed the countdown timers were interesting especially when you could tell when the candidates were going over their time.
When Romney was asked about women, contraceptives and all that jazz, the women in the room expressed a particular disinterest and it came to my knowledge a lot of women hate him because apparently he plans to take away funding for planned parenthood.
Obama seemed to take a hint from the criticism from the first debate and he came on a lot stronger, BUT the camera still caught him looking down a lot.
| If you are drinking to Barack Obama: Let Me Be Clear Inherited Middle Class Loopholes Congress Tax Cuts Medicare Sanctions Nuclear Clinton | If you are drinking to Mitt Romney: Unemployment ObamaCare Small Business Freedom Israel Spending Candy (as in Crowley) China Benghazi Reagan |
every time they say one of those words, you drink. when they talk at the same time, you chug.
The certain camera angles that showed the countdown timers were interesting especially when you could tell when the candidates were going over their time.
When Romney was asked about women, contraceptives and all that jazz, the women in the room expressed a particular disinterest and it came to my knowledge a lot of women hate him because apparently he plans to take away funding for planned parenthood.
Obama seemed to take a hint from the criticism from the first debate and he came on a lot stronger, BUT the camera still caught him looking down a lot.
Friday, October 12, 2012
meh
DISCLAIMER:WARNING:DANGER
So as you guys already know I've taken a somewhat different approach to this assignment. When i began i found myself just doing a vague analysis, plucking out figures of speech I found, and modes of persuasion to do a "what the teacher wants" paper. Perhaps i would of been better off doing that, it certainty would of been easier, but i wasn't enjoying it. So instead, our professor inspired me to avoid writing a paper about politics, something i hate, and find something that intrigues me so that i might enjoy writing this paper. Our conversation was helpful and inspiring I tried to analyze the rhetoric of why we hate politics so much, and it was tricky, very. It was essentially doing the opposite of what we have been doing. Perhaps by going down this road i've given myself a much more challenging topic and the subpar quality of my paper reflects this. It was hard not to state the obvious reasons why we all hate politics, and remember i needed to look at it through a rhetorical lens. It reads more like a rough draft. It lacks those juicy rhetorical words and arguments that aristotle speaks so fondly of. I settled on this topic only a few days before the due date, and it would of been nice to see what other people thought about this, specifically the comments in class today were inspiring. Anyways, enjoy, and i'm interested to see what you guys think about this, what am i missing, and why you hate politics.
Rhetoric Of Hate
Americans
are losing interest in politics—Turnout in U.S. national elections ranks an
extraordinary 138th among 170 countries that hold elections. Why has a nation
founded on the pillars of democracy taken such disinterest in politics? Politicians
are riddled with negative adjectives; whereas not too long ago, politics
carried with it positive connotations. They do everything they can to appeal to
the majority of people, but they must be doing something wrong if poll numbers
are down and interest is declining. Some of us in this class have expressed a
particular disinterest in politics. This can’t be a coincidence; there must be
several underlying problems to our opinions. What is it about Romney or Barack
that makes us grit out teeth and curse under our breath?
Politicians
use too much rhetoric. They haven’t realized that too much of a good thing can
be a bad thing. Most Americans don’t know this as the reason why they have
become unattached from politics. Politicians use ethos to appeal as an
authoritative figure; unfortunately these attempts can do more damage then
good. Aristotle writes how anger results from belittlement. Angry Americans direct
their emotion towards those who insult them or what they value. These insults
are the reasoning behind the anger.
Politicians
use rhetoric in every attempt to win our vote. Americans are beginning to see
through this emphasis on manipulation—we are tired of being told what to do and
how to do it. This disillusionment has opened the flood gates to criticism. Politicians
address the American people like sheep; and they are the all mighty shepherd to
guide us through danger and adversity. They speak to the American public as if
there is little hope unless we elect them; they make promises to make it all
better. By utilizing protope, a call to action by using threat or promises,
politicians hope to scare us into voting for them.
In an ad
campaign against Obama, Romney shows a comparison of several of Obamas speeches
in 2008 and 2012. The video shows short clips from different years in Obamas
speeches side by side. He surprisingly uses—if not identical, similar phrases, in
his promises to the American people throughout his 2008 and 2012 campaign. Parallelism in his public speech’s reveal his
incompetence, and makes the audience wonder, if elected, will Obama just do
what he’s been doing? Many of us have
come to recognize this repetition and it has forced us to categorize politics
into this mundane game of broken promises and deception.
Politicians are always promising us something,
only to find out their promise isn’t even feasible. Mitt Romney’s tax cuts for
example, gave many Americans hope; Lower income tax, no estate tax and elimination of taxes on
investment income for low and middle income taxpayers. Unfortunately after he
announced this, they crunched the numbers, and the numbers didn’t add up. Here
is a presidential candidate making promises to us that he can’t keep. This
seems to be a reoccurring pattern in politics. In the 2008 election, Obama
promised to lower health care premiums for those who already had a plan, which
have increased 9% since then. Obama hasn’t kept his promise to protect social
security for future generations. As
voters we put a lot of faith in our politics, but deception and broken promises
have forced us to reconsider.
Single
member candidates inevitably create a two party system. The lack of variety in
candidates leads to many people who decide their isn’t anyone that represents
their views in office. A majority of people end up voting for the candidate who
“mostly” agrees with their opinion. Since 1920 congress has frozen the number
of representatives at 435, regardless of the fact that population has increased
dramatically since then. This disregard to support a growing population so that
we have equal representation supports our growing disinterest in politics. As
each member now represents hundreds of thousands people, voters feel lost at
sea when it comes to influencing their representatives. More Americans are
feeling under-represented in politics.
Candidates take a healthy
serving of logos and spread it all over their campaign.. The reason many of us
hate politics so much is that their logic, in our eyes, is flawed. Romney is
trying to win the vote of the common American people, but his statements that 47%
of Americans don’t pay income tax and who believe they are victims, makes
people really question his true intentions in office; insomuch that voters
wonder why Romney wouldn’t avoid such a blatantly offensive statement to the
lower and middle class. Granted Romney didn’t say this to a public audience, at
least he thought so, we can’t help but wonder what else he is saying behind
closed doors that he doesn’t want us to hear. Two weeks later after this
statement was leaked, Romney states that he was, “just completely wrong.” This
constant shift of opinion plagues the candidates with these irrefutable sleazy
characteristics politicians are known for.
In the recent presidential debate, voters saw
their president Barack Obama, the man in charge of the United States of
America, fall to a very convincing Romney. Obama’s submissive body language,
downward gazes, and lack of eye contact cast doubt into the viewer’s mind, “So
this guy actually runs out country?” As voters we need to see how our president
will hold up against adversity and Obamas pedestal of ethos he’s been building
crumbled before the audience’s eyes. People make decisions emotionally, based
on their perspective of the issue. And their perspective drew them a clear
picture that the man who has been running our country doesn’t deserve another
chance.
Many of
us don’t believe the government is acting is favor of the common people,
because of this, they don’t believe in participating in the institution they
oppose. With approval ratings for the President below 50% and for Congress
below 25% we see a grim future for politics in the United States. What we expect from politics is dependent on the assumptions we
project on politicians. We hope that they meet, or at least try to meet these
assumptions, but we are usually let down. Unfortunately many of them aren’t
considered to be selfless representatives of those who elected them. They are increasingly
seen to be powerless and ineffective beyond their control.
Politicians
have a very specific way they address certain crowds. In a speech to stadium
packed full of college students Obama thanks the audience for “hanging out with
him on a Friday night.” While his use of ethos would tickle a rhetorician pink,
it makes my roll my eyes back. You know that guy? That one guy? The guy who
tries to be friends with everyone. We all hate him, and maybe we’ve been him.
My point is when someone tries too hard to fit in, they usually and make a fool
of themselves.
If our
country is going to continue to operate as a functional and progressive
democracy our politics need a facelift. Genuine passion and interest in the
American people shouldn’t have to be layered with rhetoric and mind games.
Politicians need to take a step back from rhetoric and elucidate their true intentions, without all the fluff.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
debates
Boy obama seems to be avoiding a lot of the questions.
I wonder if they coordinated their tie color..."ok obama ill wear red and you wear blue, god forbid we match"
"50% of college graduates can't find work." Wow is it really that high?
Both candidates frequently comment on how they are about to say something that they both agree on. There must be a reason behind this.
I noticed obama looking directly at the camera more often then romney.
Closing statements were powerful. Obama really reflected on the people he meet all over the US, their jobs, their passion.
Romney seemed to have a much stronger presesnce on stage. Maybe it's his voice. His "paths" metaphor in his closing statement was interesting.
I wonder what they said to each other that made them laugh after they shook hands?
The main themes I noticed each president seem more focused on. Taxes is number one for each of them in my book.
Obama- taxes, insurance, jobs
Romney-taxes, government, medicare.
I wonder if they coordinated their tie color..."ok obama ill wear red and you wear blue, god forbid we match"
"50% of college graduates can't find work." Wow is it really that high?
Both candidates frequently comment on how they are about to say something that they both agree on. There must be a reason behind this.
I noticed obama looking directly at the camera more often then romney.
Closing statements were powerful. Obama really reflected on the people he meet all over the US, their jobs, their passion.
Romney seemed to have a much stronger presesnce on stage. Maybe it's his voice. His "paths" metaphor in his closing statement was interesting.
I wonder what they said to each other that made them laugh after they shook hands?
The main themes I noticed each president seem more focused on. Taxes is number one for each of them in my book.
Obama- taxes, insurance, jobs
Romney-taxes, government, medicare.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Bear In Heaven
Here are four terms I found interesting in the exhaustive list of figures of speech. I can proudly pronunce a handful of words.
Apoxidis- Proving a statement by referring to common knowledge or general experience.
-We can see a lot of this in each of the candidates attempt to convince us that they are experienced and know what they are doing. Ad's i've seen talk about poor budjet cuts, medicare, defense cuts, seems like they are telling the audience its an obvious mistakes and the opponents fault, and we should do out part to correct it. Like the "...its just simple math..." phrase referring to Romney's plan for something or other that didn't add up.
Protrope- A call to action, often by using threats or promises.
-Perhaps not threats, but the candidates are always making promises and commitments to the audience that they will change the way things are. Romney criticizes the defense cuts and promises stop making military cuts. The call to for the candidates is getting them into the poll booths and electing them as president.
Sorites- Concatenated enthymemes. That is, a chain of claims and reasons which build upon one another.
So pretty much every presidential speech and ad in one convenient word?
Inter se pugnantia-Using direct address to reprove someone before an audience, pointing out the contradictions in that person's character, often between what a person does and says.
This figure of speech seems relevant to the upcoming presidential debates I have been hearing so much about. NPS released has an interesting article on "secrets to win a presidential debate." Heres the article
It talks about everything from makeup, to hair style, to how they dress. It's pretty interesting.
Apoxidis- Proving a statement by referring to common knowledge or general experience.
-We can see a lot of this in each of the candidates attempt to convince us that they are experienced and know what they are doing. Ad's i've seen talk about poor budjet cuts, medicare, defense cuts, seems like they are telling the audience its an obvious mistakes and the opponents fault, and we should do out part to correct it. Like the "...its just simple math..." phrase referring to Romney's plan for something or other that didn't add up.
Protrope- A call to action, often by using threats or promises.
-Perhaps not threats, but the candidates are always making promises and commitments to the audience that they will change the way things are. Romney criticizes the defense cuts and promises stop making military cuts. The call to for the candidates is getting them into the poll booths and electing them as president.
Sorites- Concatenated enthymemes. That is, a chain of claims and reasons which build upon one another.
So pretty much every presidential speech and ad in one convenient word?
Inter se pugnantia-Using direct address to reprove someone before an audience, pointing out the contradictions in that person's character, often between what a person does and says.
This figure of speech seems relevant to the upcoming presidential debates I have been hearing so much about. NPS released has an interesting article on "secrets to win a presidential debate." Heres the article
It talks about everything from makeup, to hair style, to how they dress. It's pretty interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)