Hello happy rhetors! Let's continue to beef up our awesome rhetorical analysis skillz. Here's what you need to do this week to achieve full credit for this blog. 1. Read this article by Jen Doll in The Atlantic. And this article by Dana Coleman that kind of says the same thing in a different way. 2. Then, in a well-developed paragraph, complete a mini-rhetorical analysis identifying how Jen Doll and Dana Coleman crafts their argument of the misuse/use and deconstruction of the English language through rhetorical appeals and use of rhetorical devices. Which is more convincing and why? 3. Once you have posted, you are not done. Come back to this blog and comment on someone else's posting, expressing your own interpretation, questioning his or her analyses, or suggesting changes to improve his or her writing. This will be due Friday, January 29th by midnight. |
1/28/2016 08:22:28 pm
Both Jen Doll and Dana Coleman appeal to ethos in their articles on the addition of the second definition of the word "literally" to the Google dictionary. The two authors utilize authoritative tones to explain that the inclusion of the new definition is a moral affront. They also include examples of other websites or internet personalities who are decrying the new definition, adding validity to their own opinions.
Autumn Boekeloo
1/28/2016 08:42:13 pm
While I agree that Doll did exhibit sophisticated syntax which enhanced the diction qualities of her article, I found her constant use of ethos overwhelming. Did the amount of credibility add to your decision that Doll is more convincing?
Christina Lu
1/28/2016 10:03:56 pm
I agree with you on this one. I enjoyed reading Doll's argument far more because Coleman's appeared as quite amateur to me. I also liked how Doll included background information, which really helped me understand the rest of her argument, something Coleman did not do. On the other hand, how do you think you could you argue that Coleman was more convincing?
Mia Grizzle
1/29/2016 05:39:31 pm
I wholly agree with you about Doll being the more convincing of the two. However, I think that Coleman did a nice job stating her point and not adding any fluff and can see to where other readers might find her article more appealing. Also, I'm with you on the dislike of the word "peeves".
Autumn Boekeloo
1/28/2016 08:37:52 pm
Jen Doll and Dana Coleman design their argument of the misuse/use and destruction of the English language through rhetorical devices in similar, yet completely different stylistic ways. Automatically, when reading the first few sentences of Doll's article, I identified ethos. As I continued, I examined a minimalistic amount of logos, but a consistent wave of ethos flooded my computer screen. Doll's key to rhetorical devices throughout her entire article was the appeal to ethos. The ethos was so constant, it began to aggravate me. (ex: "The web site io9 announced." and definitions to this effect have appeared in The Oxford English Dictionary and The Merriam-Webster Dictionary since the early 1900s.)
Ciera Staton
1/28/2016 09:49:08 pm
I agree completely that Doll appealed overwhelmingly to ethos because in my head, I imagined a monotone robot reading her article out loud. Her intended audience must be people of a higher class who can easily understand and interpret her diction.
Eunice Ngata
1/29/2016 09:59:52 pm
Since Doll's article was written in The Atlantic, do you think this could have influenced her writing style in any way? Also, even though it was a lot of facts, do you think she was still able to get her point across better?
Ciera Staton
1/28/2016 10:00:41 pm
Jen Doll appeals to ethos in her article about the misuse of the word literally. Almost everything that she says is backed up by a publication or other author's words. The diction and syntax she uses makes it difficult to easily read the article. Several times I had to go back and reread to get an understanding of what I just read. Her diction is formal and almost unnecessary.
Denise Thomas
1/29/2016 04:50:56 pm
I find it interesting how you stated that Doll's use of diction was "unnecessary", I can agree that the topic was not one that needed high, formal diction in order to efficiently argue. But, would you agree that using formal diction can make the author sound more intelligent and therefore become more reliable and persuading?
Julie Sanderlin
1/29/2016 05:55:32 pm
I agree with Ciera, that Doll's use of diction was unnecessary. To me, it seemed like a ton of vocab forced into an online article. I don't think she took her audience too much into consideration.
Christina Lu
1/28/2016 10:01:19 pm
Both Doll and Coleman established ethos by citing the dictionaries and other sites that added different meanings to the word “literally.” However, Doll takes it one step further by including historical information about other words that have changed their meaning over the course of history. Doll’s use of complex diction and syntax also shows that she is an educated writer who is very knowledgeable about the topic. By using words such as “lexicographical,” “vociferous,” and “bemoaned,” she appeals to a more educated audience. Her article is also filled with complex sentences and questions, which helps draw the reader in. When she asks why so many people are resistance to language change, she follows up with numerous answers. The syntax of this part effectively emphasizes each point she makes. In comparison, Coleman’s article is more casual and simplistic. She uses everyday vocabulary and monosyllabic words. Her diction is neutral and her tone is much more conversational.
Kesha Perkins
1/29/2016 08:50:49 pm
I agree with your analysis. Doll sounded sophisticated and developed a well-rounded argument, while Coleman's argument was a simplistic opinion piece.
Philip Wynne
1/31/2016 12:33:16 pm
I also agree with the analysis. Doll's more sophisticated style of writing allowed for me to understand her reasoning and better appreciate the article opposed to Coleman's simplistic article that only allowed broad details.
Denise Thomas
1/29/2016 04:45:52 pm
Doll started her article off by establishing ethos, she established this by quoting Google's second definition of the word literally. Doll's appeal to ethos continued by discussing the forms of the word literally within the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which are both commonly used and well established dictionaries. Doll uses formative, polysyllabic words in order to make her argument on the misuse of the world literally more convincing.
Kenny Koch
1/29/2016 05:20:33 pm
I agree with what you found as appeal that the two authors found on the topic that they were arguing, and you reasoning for picking Doll as having the better argument was good and logical
Kenny Koch
1/29/2016 05:16:09 pm
Doll uses different style choices, such as using repetition of the word peeve and using polysyllabic word, to strengthen her argument about the use of the word literally. She appeals to ethos by establishing her own credibility by citing the second definition of the word literally, which establishes her credibility by showing that she did research on the topic she is arguing.
Mia Grizzle
1/29/2016 05:32:49 pm
Doll starts out her article with a strong appeals ethos by using the definition of literally. Throughout her piece she continued this by giving more examples of words that are misused and their definitions. Also, both Doll and Coleman had a bit of a sarcastic tone when talking about the overuse and misuse of the word literally. While Doll was more entertaining in explaining how the word literally is use today, Coleman's article was dry and informative. Coleman fell behind Doll, however, because Doll used more advanced language and presented the audience with the proper definitions of these misused words.
Faye Noorman
1/29/2016 11:45:23 pm
Nice job analyzing the tones of the articles. I like that you included the highlights of both, but which did you find more convincing? Did Coleman's sweet and simple straight to the point help you understand the argument better?
Sunny Vang
1/30/2016 12:21:02 am
I completely disagree with your statement that "Coleman's article was more short, sweet, and to the point." Coleman's article was not sweet -- it was bland and lifeless. While it was indeed shorter, I would argue that it was not more "to the point"; I feel that Coleman's article had no point.
Julie Sanderlin
1/29/2016 05:51:02 pm
I thought that Coleman's article was more convincing, do to the simpler diction she used throughout the piece. I believe that Doll consciously used stronger (and more confusing, may I add) diction. While Doll does appeal to an incredible amount of ethos to improve her credibility, it is, as Autumn stated, overwhelming in a way. It's almost as if she was stuffing the reader with vocabulary words and credibility. To be completely honest, it seems like a poorly written school essay with the prompt "use ethos". While that may sound harsh, it is nicely written, for someone who doesn't have to analyze everything.
bethel mamo
1/29/2016 09:24:05 pm
I find it interesting that you associated a simpler diction to more credibility. I did the complete opposite because I thought that using complex words means a writer is more knowledgeable.
Nadin Catak
1/29/2016 11:44:08 pm
This is interesting to me because I actually thought the exact opposite. I felt that the non simplistic diction and syntax made her appear more confident in what she was saying. The ethos only added onto her credibility and confidence, I felt like, because when I read it, I thought, "Wow, she has definitely done her research, she knows what she's talking about. I think she's credible and she's confident. I want to trust her with whatever she says." Like, that's just the vibe I get from her article in comparison to Coleman's.
Ansley Hayman
1/31/2016 04:38:24 pm
I do agree that Doll used stronger diction, but in my opinion that made her argument more convincing. But do you think that the comical nature of Coleman's article made the argument any less convincing?
Kesha Perkins
1/29/2016 08:47:36 pm
When discussing the added definition to the word literally, both Jen Doll and Dana Coleman use influential rhetorical devices to persuade the reader. Doll’s diction is both simple and complex; she uses words such as, “lexicographical” and “snooty,” in order to appeal to linguists and the general public. On the other hand, all of Coleman’s diction is simple and leaves little room for interpretation. Also, Coleman’s “hmph” creates a disappointed and irritated tone, while Jen Doll mocks those who are upset about the change with the phrase, “good and holy”. Furthermore, both writers input examples that appeal to logic. Doll references many past criticisms of words that are commonly used today, such as “awful”, “hopefully”, and “irregardless”, to imply people are exaggerating the current situation. Coleman simply blames Parks and Recreation and How I Met Your Mother for the predicament.
bethel mamo
1/29/2016 09:19:14 pm
By including multiple sources such as Reddit and the multiple TV shows that gave rise to the figurative way of using literally , both Coleman and Doll show their credibility and appeal to the reader's ethos. Both the articles include the definition of the word literally which appeals to logos by providing facts to back their statements. While Doll uses a light tone to communicate with the reader, Coleman uses an admonishing tone that points out the invalidity of the new definition.
Andrew Gasparini
1/29/2016 11:47:31 pm
I agree with Dana's more critical tone. It kind of threw me off of the vibe. I think that is Coleman would have at least attempted to touch on her opposing viewpoint, acknowledge it, and then refute it, I would have enjoyed her article more. However, I disagree with your statement on the credibility of the authors based on their diction. Just because a writer uses higher-level vocabulary does not mean they are more trustworthy (in fact, I believe that it is a statistic that liars have better vocabularies!) Some people keep it short, sweet, and to the point rather than big, fluffy words to express themselves.
bethel mamo
1/29/2016 09:21:58 pm
.
Eunice Ngata
1/29/2016 09:52:39 pm
In “You’re Saying It Wrong”, Doll begins the article with strong diction. Starting with, “the outcry began” appeals to pathos by creating a negatively and suspenseful feeling as the readers wonder why people are upset. Doll uses these feelings to her advantage as she continues on by showing how she and many other literary scholars are upset with the new definition of “literally.” Doll references countless articles, authors and books who agree with her on the completely wrong but new definition of literally which appeals to ethos. These references, strong diction and elaborate syntax add to her ethos and she becomes more credible and educated on the topic. When comparing that article to, “According to the dictionary, ‘literally’ now also means ‘figuratively’” by Dana Coleman, the diction and syntax are completely different. Coleman uses shorter, more neutral and easily understandable words to make her point. Even though the article is more relatable in that it is easy to understand, Coleman creates a persona of being personable by referencing sitcoms and drinking games on TV.
eunice ngata
1/29/2016 10:02:44 pm
Doll' s article seemed more convincing to me because it was a more well-rounded thought and seemed to be more educated on the topic she is talking about
Brittany Ent
1/29/2016 11:41:20 pm
I agree with your analysis, and you could have possibly mentioned their differences in tone, as in Doll appears to be much more aggressive and upset in her tone while Coleman appears to be more calm and even amused in hers.
Brittany Ent
1/29/2016 11:36:15 pm
Doll and Coleman both utilize server rhetorical analysis strategies. Doll overall uses more formal diction, using polysyllabic words like 'peevery' while Coleman uses more neutral diction and many more monosyllabic words in order to appeal to a larger audience, while Doll's article appeals to a more educated audience with an extensive vocabulary. Doll establishes her ethos by citing a source who works for a dictionary company and citing several dictionaries, while Coleman appeals to ethos by citing several dictionary sources as well. Doll utilizes a slightly more formal tone than Coleman and appeals to logos by explaining the common misuses of other words while Coleman utilizes a more conversational tone by using words like 'hmph' to express an emotion along the lines of disdain.
Brittany Ent
1/29/2016 11:39:01 pm
Doll's article is more convincing to me because she references other words that are commonly misused and utilizes many more examples.
Nadin Catak
1/29/2016 11:41:18 pm
Jen Doll appeals to many aspects of the reader's ethos and logos in "You're Saying it Wrong" through examples of the various criticisms which she refutes in the article. She includes 8 (or more) quotes from just as many credible sources and by doing so, Doll establishes her credibility as an author of this piece: she has clearly done her research. She understands what all the main points made against the definition of "literally" are and refutes them incredibly well because of this. Similar to Doll, Dana Coleman also appeals to the audience's ethos and logos by choosing to include quotes. However, in contrast to Doll, Coleman utilizes a more simplistic syntax and diction. Even the length of the article is considerably shorter. While this may appeal to some readers as being easier to understand and more to the point, Doll's article was presented in a judgmental and mocking tone with which I felt more connected to as a reader. I definitely think Doll was more convincing because of the confidence portrayed in this somewhat mocking tone and her non simplistic syntax and diction.
Andrew Gasparini
1/29/2016 11:41:19 pm
I believe that Jen Doll's article gave more evidence to back up their argument while remaining someone unbiased so their audience may create their own opinion. Jen uses complex, flowing sentences with polysyllabic, high diction. She appeals to logos by explaining how the English language's word definition evolve with its speakers and how their can never be one, set meaning to a word. Also, she appeals to ethos by showing her credibility at the end when giving examples of words in the past that have since changed.
Celina Cotton
1/31/2016 06:55:34 pm
I agree that Doll had much more evidence in her argument to establish her point and I like how you noticed she appealed to logos by using the dictionary example.
Faye Noorman
1/29/2016 11:41:28 pm
Dana Coleman and Jen Doll establish their credibility by including different dictionaries like Google, Merriam, and Cambridge. Both writers constantly use evidence to support the different ways the word "literally" can be used; this makes both of their arguments more valid.
Madeliene Guillen
1/30/2016 06:11:06 pm
I agree with your analysis. What do you think Coleman's intention was by using laid back, neutral diction? Do you think her article is written for a certain type of people?
Sunny Vang
1/30/2016 12:15:42 am
Dana Coleman crafts a piece that is concise and easy to understand. Coleman maintains a conversational, simplistic voice to get across her ideas concerning the use of the word "literally." The article presented by Coleman is brief and does not require intense amounts of reflection or SAT vocabulary studying. Attempting to be humorous, Coleman references a drinking game created based on the misuse of the term "literally." The author also refers to sitcoms such as "How I Might Your Mother" and "Parks and Rec" in a desperate attempt to make the article a more interesting read. Overall, the author lacks meaningful depth and fails to make a lasting impact.
Madeliene Guillen
1/30/2016 06:03:03 pm
Jen Doll pads her argument about the use/misuse of the word "literally" through polysyllabic diction that weaves sentences with excessively worded syntax that are likely to appeal to an older, more educated audience. Doll also appeals to ethos by using several quotes from credible people such as an English professor from Rutgers University, a Merriam-Webster lexicographer, and an Executive director of the American Heritage Dictionary. Finally, Doll also utilizes examples of historical "peeving" of the English language in order to appeal to logos. Dana Coleman on the other hand, has the same message but does so with much simpler syntax and more colloquial diction. Coleman uses rhetorical questions and terms such as "hmph" and "Huh?" to likely appeal to a younger audience with less education. Her intended audience is also illustrated through the mention of popular TV shows and drinking games to build her ethos toward her intended audience. Despite Othman's easily digestible rhetorical appeals, her article lacks depth and barely scratches the surface of the issue, leaving the reader searching for more. Doll's article is much more effective in her argumentation because the issue is fully analyzed through effective rhetorical appeals that, compared to the opposing article, make Dana Coleman’s work appear inadequate.
Kimberly Nguyen
1/30/2016 07:48:41 pm
I really liked how you state your analysis because it was very in-depth and detailed. It seems to me that Coleman was against the use of "literally's" second definition as she always questions the need to exaggerate when using that word. Do you agree that people tend to exaggerate as she said or was she exaggerating about the "misuse" of the word to prove her point?
Kimberly Nguyen
1/30/2016 07:35:23 pm
Doll and Coleman both discuss the misuse/use and deconstruction of the English language through rhetorics. In "You're Saying It Wrong", Doll justifies that using the word "literally" to "mean figuratively" is acceptable by accounting the credibility of the word's contradicting meaning. She cites sources such as The Oxford English Dictionary and The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that use the different meaning for "literally". Doll also appeals to the audience'e emotions by explaining how people, who do not accept "literally's" alternative definition, need to prove that they are right or justify their own beliefs. However, Coleman argues against the contradicting meaning of "literally". She attacks the credibility of the substitute definition by claiming that the definition appears in "popular sitcoms" such as "Parks and Recreation" and "How I Met Your Mother" and those shows tend to wrongly exaggerate the meaning. Also, she uses repetition such as "really, really, really" when she questions the need to overstate when using the word "literally".
Kimberly Nguyen
1/30/2016 07:53:37 pm
**audience's
Alyssa Malasi
1/30/2016 08:11:14 pm
I think your analysis was very well thought out. How do you think the difference of tones that Doll and Coleman used in their articles made their argument more or less convincing?
Alyssa Malasi
1/30/2016 08:05:45 pm
Jen Doll and Dana Coleman both appeal to ethos in their articles talking about the word literally and its misuse. Doll mentions multiple sources to get her point across about the misuse of literally. Her tone throughout the article seemed harsh and strict. While Coleman also uses sources in her article, her tone comes across as more calm and relaxed. Doll has a more complex syntax than Coleman's which is more simple.
Mackenzie Union
1/30/2016 09:28:44 pm
What did you think of the examples of TV shows in Coleman's article? Was it an effective and credible example?
Mackenzie Union
1/30/2016 09:26:35 pm
Doll immediately appeals to ethos by siting the Google definition of the word "literally". She uses formative diction and provides many thoughts on different sources ideas of the meaning of literally. Doll's almost mocking tone about how the word literally "attracts an especially snooty breed of linguistic scrutiny" draws in the general public along with those of higher intellect due to polysyllabic words and formal diction. An appeal to logos is also shown by providing many sources and examples of how others view the word literally.
Philip Wynne
1/31/2016 12:31:19 pm
Jen Doll from The Atlantic and Dana Coleman from Salon wrote articles on the second definition of “literally” after it was added to Google dictionary. Both authors appeal to ethos in their articles by using assertive tones to explain that the new definition is incorrect. Doll and Coleman include examples from other websites (Such as io9 in Doll’s article) that also share a strong dislike to the new definition. By doing this, the authors add credibility by showing their opinion is shared by others. Both articles point out the misuse of the word "literally." However, Doll's article uses higher formal diction. This includes sophisticated syntax with polysyllabic words whereas Coleman uses a simple syntax with monosyllabic words. The method Doll uses creates a formal tone, more so than Coleman's. Overall, the tone and diction Doll uses enables readers to obtain more information opposed to Coleman’s simplistically written article that provides less information for the reader.
Ansley Hayman
1/31/2016 04:35:18 pm
Both the article written by Doll and Coleman utilize ethos from the start by citing the addition of the second definition of "literally" in the dictionary. Doll's article, like Coleman's, use an authoritative tone to get her point across. By including examples from other websites and their opinions on the new addition, both authors further develop the credibility of their opinions on the matter. Doll's article has a higher form of diction and utilizes a more sophisticated word choice, more so than Coleman's, making the tone sound more formal. Coleman's article does not contain as many sources and citations as Doll's does, making Doll's article seem more reliable. Along with this, the examples that Doll includes, specifically on "peeving", kept my attention more than the other article. Overall, the diction and tone of Doll's article made her argument more convincing.
Celina Cotton
1/31/2016 06:53:56 pm
While both authors appeal to ethos to create their argument, Doll also appeals to logos by using factual, historical examples of the breakdown of the English language. Doll quotes linguists and language experts to exhibit her argument that the use of certain words incorrectly is just a form of the English language changing. Doll’s constant appeal to ethos is convincing of her argument. Coleman, however, had less credibility in her article. She didn’t provide as specific of examples of where her information came from. Coleman seems more amateur and casual in her commentary of the “literally” word use, by asking audience questions. Doll’s article used a much larger vocabulary, with stronger diction in order to emphasize her points. Her tone is very assertive throughout the article; however, there is a tonal shift at the end of the commentary when she discusses Tarzan’s syntax. Doll’s argument is stronger because of her appeals to both logos and ethos, as well as her tone and diction that asserted her argument in a way that made her seem more excited about the topic than Coleman. Comments are closed.
|
Mrs. theakerI eat books. Archives
September 2017
Categories
All
|