Week 4 Question 3

My favorite part of this week's chapter would have to be the 6 Social Functions of Rhetoric. The public speakers that I remember the most shared all of these qualities and characteristics when they presented. Even former coaches that I used to play for in sports, the ones I remember the most, also had these qualities. For me, one of the most important functions would have to be building community. I say this because when people have concerns or issues, they want to know and feel like they are not the only ones concerned about this. Once you have a presenter that understands and speaks to these issues, then the audience begins developing a sense of "we" instead of just "me" creating a want to be apart of fixing the problem.

Week 4 Question 2

I'm going to just continue with speaking about Barack Obama since he is a perfect example of what it means to be a good speaker. He displays all three characteristics of a good speaker; credibility, attractiveness and power. When Obama speaks, he speaks with confidence in his words, thus creating his audience to then have confidence in him. People honestly and truly believe in Barack Obama and how he can be a leader for this country. He is attractive to the American people because they feel they can relate to him, which then builds trust. And lastly, he brings the characteristic of power. Not only is he the president, but he has the resources and opportunities to back up what he says and changes people's lives.

Week 4 Question 1

For me, the most memorable and influential speaker today would be our President Barack Obama. His confidence in his words and expressions when he publicly addresses the country are felt by almost everyone. His passion and his ability to address the main concerns of the people give him the influence to persuade and enlighten. As I was reading the social functions of rhetoric, I can already picture and hear Obama constructing his speeches in this manner.

He has his facts, he tests his ideas and the ideas of others to balance out what is the logical choice and how Americans can contribute to getting the country back on its feet. In addition, he builds a sense of patriotism, community, and distribution of power just by using his catch phrase "Yes we can". With this, he asks everyone, not just the government, to be apart of working out of the current recession that we are in. His ideas, and knowledge become contagious and that is what makes him an effective speaker.

Now in a bad speaker, for me, the most noticeable thing is when someone doesn't know their facts, and/or is not confident in what they are saying. Even if you feel like you are wrong, your mannerisms and strength in your voice can still make people listen. It is very easy to not pay attention to someone who does not also look at their audience because it is very important to connect with them. I've seen other students give presentations in classes where they do some of these things and more times than not, the message they are trying to get across is not remembered or listened to.

Week 2 Question 2

According to the pragmatic view, "communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time"(Trenholm). It makes sense that certain actions are a results of others thus following a pattern. In one of last weeks discussions, the ritual of saying hello to someone follows a very similar pattern from person to person. But at the same time, the pragmatic view does not take in to factor any other outside influences. Instead it just focuses on the actions and reactions. Outside incluences would include cutlure, personal needs, or intentions.

Communication is similar like a game because based on what someone says, your response is based upon answering their statement. The situation and context of what is being communicated gives you a range of options of what you can respond to, much like a game of chess. Every piece of this game has limited ranges of movement, and based on what your opponent moves, you select the most appropriate piece to defend or gain an advantage.

Communication is different from a game because communication factors in outside influences. A game is in response to the others move, but communication is a response based on someones past, present and future. No two people communicate the same or have gone through the exact same experiences the same way, thus influencing how they communicate.

Week 2 Question 1

The Social Constructionist Model says that "communication is a process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality"(Trenholm). We build our worlds based on what we have grown around from concepts, to what is right and wrong. We take pieces of our experiences that our culture sees as significant, and respond to them that our culture would see as significant.

An example of this would be if a man proposed to a woman, it is seen here in American culture as a significant event in both people's lives because it is a symbol of a future marriage. Reactions would include possible tears of joy, hugs or kisses; that is the typical response to this significant event in American culture. If the same were to occur in another country where marriages are arranged, the reactions would include confusion because that is not how heir culture views marriage. It may be seen in this culture that if a man proposed to a woman, this is strange and disrespectful. The views of an engagement vary per culture and country based on what their culture has constructed through stories and examples about what it means to be married and the significance of it.

The event of an engagement is seen as one of the happiest moments in people's lives here in our country, but sometimes in other cultures, it may be seen as a sad time. This proves that certain events that have been communicated by culture will translate on how people should react in these situations.

Question #3

My favorite part of this weeks readings were the 5 canons of rhetoric; invention, style, arrangement, memory and delivery. Reading this made me think that already we uses these in constructing a speech but at times, we may forget to factor in others. Memory is not as important as it once was because of the use of technology today, but I feel that if someone were to memorize a piece of rhetoric and be able to deliver this in an organized manner, that is a special tool.

One of my favorite parts of these canons is invention because there are mulitple perspectives that someone can argue or persuade a point. I was able to learn this tool especially in my argument and debate class because even though you may not have believed in the side you are arguing, you were forced to look at different perspectives on how to argue effectively.

Question # 2

As good as the Greeks may believe that to a be an orator, you had to be morally good, I do not agree with this. The name that comes to mind who would be an example of someone who was a good public speaker but not morally right, was Adolf Hitler. During his reign in Germany, he convinced many German people through the power of his words and fist to discriminate against a certain percentage of the population. Even today when you hear him speak, you can feel the passion in his words and he means every bit of what he says. Sometimes you may not have to know exactly what he is saying to begin getting the idea that his public speaking skills are powerful.

The Greeks believed, especially the great rhetoricians like Aristotle and Cicero, that rhetoric is not to win arguments but to discover truths. According to this theory and philosophy, there would be a link between goodness, truth, and public communication. Out of "goodness" the "truth" would be uncovered and to show what is true, effective "public communication" would be needed. Yet, this is not always the case. Someone who is not morally good, like Hitler, can alter truths. With being a good public speaker, he then manipulate his words to make a lie sound truthful, thus breaking the link of goodness, truth and public speaking.

Question # 1

1. Think of a speaker you admire. Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle's classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?

Many other people have mentioned Barack Obama in their blogs and I would have to agree with them. Right now, he is probably one of the most famous and popular people in the world. All eyes are on him with how he deals with the current issues that face this country.

His power to persuade and empower people comes from his ability to touch people’s emotions with his words; thus his speaking ability would be pathos. With how he represents not only himself and how he presents his words, every American is looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, especially in this economic struggle that the country is in. This hope and desire for change by Americans is something that Barack Obama speaks to in every one of his speeches. You can tell he is compassionate and brings hope to the country. His ability to touch people’s emotions to believe that we all can work together to get through these tough times has people really believing that the end of this recession is coming closer.

For me, I feel like I am also a pathos persuasive speaker. The way in how I word things and even my tone of voice, I show compassion for other people’s situations and emotions to persuade people. I never have liked or felt comfortable with being a type of person who is pushy to make decisions, but I outline the choices and options someone has and show how I understand the ways of thinking of these choices. Yet, if there is a particular choice that I want someone to choose, I give deeper detail about the benefits of this and how it can, and will make them feel.