rhetorical analysis speeches

My Favorite Speeches for Rhetorical Analysis: 10 Speeches for Middle School ELA and High School English

Teaching rhetorical analysis is one of my absolute favorite units to complete with my students. I love teaching my students about rhetorical strategies and devices, analyzing what makes an effective and persuasive argument, and reading critical speeches with my students. Here is a quick list of some of my favorite speeches for rhetorical analysis.

I absolutely LOVE teaching rhetorical analysis. I think it might be one of my favorite units to teach to my high school students. There are just so many different text options to choose from. Here is a list of some of my favorite speeches to include in my rhetorical analysis teaching unit.

10 Speeches for Teaching Rhetorical Analysis

1. the gettysburg address (abraham lincoln).

Some notable things to mention in this speech include allusion and parallel structure. To make your analysis more meaningful, point out these devices to students and explain how these devices enhance the meaning of the text.

Teaching Resource : The Gettysburg Address Rhetorical Analysis Activity Packet

2. Lou Gehrig’s Farewell Speech (Lou Gehrig)

This speech is one that many of my athletes love to analyze, and it is an excellent exemplar text to teach pathos. And like The Gettysburg Address, it is short. This is another speech that you can read, analyze, and even write about in one class period.

When I use this speech in my class, I have students look for examples of pathos. Mainly, I have them look at word choice, tone, and mood. How does Lou Gehrig’s choice of words affect his tone and the overall mood of the speech?

3. I Have a Dream (Martin Luther King,  Jr.)

In the classroom, it is important to point out the sermonic feel to the speech and also to have your students look for calls to action and pathos. Have your students look for tone, allusions, and word choice to help them notice these rhetoric expressions throughout it.

Teaching Resource : I Have a Dream Close Read and Rhetorical Analysis

4. Speech at the March on Washington (Josephine Baker)

This is another important speech that held a lot of importance for the changes that needed to be made in America. The speech is a shorter one, so in the classroom, it will not take as long to analyze it, and students can understand the significance of the use of rhetoric in a shorter amount of time than some other speeches.

When teaching this speech, I like to remind my students to search for devices that portray an excellent example of the pathos that is so present in this speech. Some of these devices could be mood, repetition, and diction.

5. Steve Jobs’ Commencement Speech (Steve Jobs)

In class, it is good to have your students annotate and analyze the speech just as they have done for the others. The organization of the speech will help them to notice the similarities and differences between each point Jobs makes.

6. Space Shuttle Challenger (Ronald Reagan)

This speech represents a strong sense of pathos as a movement to help the American people cope with loss after the deaths of the astronauts aboard the Challenger. It is another speech that is not too long, so it should not take a long time to both analyze and annotate the entire speech.

When teaching this speech in class, be sure to mention how pathos is the driving force behind the speech, through the tone and the diction. How does Reagan use emotion to focus on the astronauts as humans, rather than solely focusing on the tragedy?

7. The Perils of Indifference (Elie Wiesel)

This speech is a good one to teach because it both makes students question their own lives, but also how the world works. The speech relies on pathos, and a little ethos too, to get the audience to feel the full effect of the tragedy of the Holocaust and what the speaker went through. It is a long speech so it may take longer for the students to fully grasp all the details that make it such a persuasive speech.

When I teach this speech, I like to have students annotate every place they notice an example of pathos, and then have them explain why in their annotations this makes them feel an emotion. The same with the ethos, and then we can further analyze the rest together.

8. 9/11 Address to the Nation (George W. Bush)

This speech shows another example of the use of pathos in the midst of a tragedy. The President wanted to show the American people how much he was feeling for those lost in the tragedy of 9/11. It is not a long speech, but the amount of emotion within the words is significant for students to notice.

When teaching this speech, it is essential that students look very closely at each part of it, noticing each piece that reveals tone, mood, and other literary devices. How do the different devices add to the pathos of the speech?

FREE TEACHING ACTIVITY : September 11 Address to the Nation Sampler

Teaching Resource : September 11 Address to the Nation Rhetorical Analysis Unit

9. We are Virginia Tech (Nikki Giovanni)

This speech is probably the shortest speech on this list but provides one of the most emotional and pathos-filled rhetoric. This describes another tragedy that is spoken about with pathos to give the audience a safe feeling after such an emotional thing. Students can spend time analyzing the different devices that make the piece so strong in its emotion.

In the classroom, make sure your students make a note of the repetition, and what that does for the speech. Does it make the emotion more impactful? How does it make the audience feel like they are a part of something bigger?

10. Woman’s Right to the Suffrage (Susan B. Anthony)

This is another short speech that holds a lot of power within it. A lot of students will enjoy reading this to see how much the country has changed, and how this speech may have some part in influencing this change. It is a great speech to help teach logos in the classroom, and it will not take a long time to analyze.

Make sure your students notice, and they also understand, the use of allusions within the speech. These allusions help to establish the use of logos, as Anthony wants the use of American historical documents to show how logical her argument is.

Ready-For-You Rhetorical Analysis Teaching Unit

You might also be interested in my blog post about 15 rhetorical analysis questions to ask your students.

Teaching rhetorical analysis and speeches in the classroom is a great way to teach informational text reading standards.

Rhetorical Analysis Teaching Resources:

These resources follow reading standards for informational text and are ideal for secondary ELA teachers.

• Rhetorical Analysis Unit with Sticky Notes
• Ethos, Pathos, Logos: Understanding Rhetorical Appeals\
• Rhetorical Analysis Mini Flip Book

Join the Daring English Teacher community!

Subscribe to receive freebies, teaching ideas, and my latest content by email.

I won’t send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

Built with ConvertKit

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a rhetorical analysis

What is a rhetorical analysis?

What are the key concepts of a rhetorical analysis, rhetorical situation, claims, supports, and warrants.

• Step 1: Plan and prepare
• Step 2: Write your introduction
• Step 3: Write the body
• Step 4: Write your conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions about rhetorical analysis

Related articles.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion and aims to study writers’ or speakers' techniques to inform, persuade, or motivate their audience. Thus, a rhetorical analysis aims to explore the goals and motivations of an author, the techniques they’ve used to reach their audience, and how successful these techniques were.

This will generally involve analyzing a specific text and considering the following aspects to connect the rhetorical situation to the text:

• Does the author successfully support the thesis or claims made in the text? Here, you’ll analyze whether the author holds to their argument consistently throughout the text or whether they wander off-topic at some point.
• Does the author use evidence effectively considering the text’s intended audience? Here, you’ll consider the evidence used by the author to support their claims and whether the evidence resonates with the intended audience.
• What rhetorical strategies the author uses to achieve their goals. Here, you’ll consider the word choices by the author and whether these word choices align with their agenda for the text.
• The tone of the piece. Here, you’ll consider the tone used by the author in writing the piece by looking at specific words and aspects that set the tone.
• Whether the author is objective or trying to convince the audience of a particular viewpoint. When it comes to objectivity, you’ll consider whether the author is objective or holds a particular viewpoint they want to convince the audience of. If they are, you’ll also consider whether their persuasion interferes with how the text is read and understood.
• Does the author correctly identify the intended audience? It’s important to consider whether the author correctly writes the text for the intended audience and what assumptions the author makes about the audience.
• Does the text make sense? Here, you’ll consider whether the author effectively reasons, based on the evidence, to arrive at the text’s conclusion.
• Does the author try to appeal to the audience’s emotions? You’ll need to consider whether the author uses any words, ideas, or techniques to appeal to the audience’s emotions.
• Can the author be believed? Finally, you’ll consider whether the audience will accept the arguments and ideas of the author and why.

Summing up, unlike summaries that focus on what an author said, a rhetorical analysis focuses on how it’s said, and it doesn’t rely on an analysis of whether the author was right or wrong but rather how they made their case to arrive at their conclusions.

Although rhetorical analysis is most used by academics as part of scholarly work, it can be used to analyze any text including speeches, novels, television shows or films, advertisements, or cartoons.

Now that we’ve seen what rhetorical analysis is, let’s consider some of its key concepts .

Any rhetorical analysis starts with the rhetorical situation which identifies the relationships between the different elements of the text. These elements include the audience, author or writer, the author’s purpose, the delivery method or medium, and the content:

• Audience: The audience is simply the readers of a specific piece of text or content or printed material. For speeches or other mediums like film and video, the audience would be the listeners or viewers. Depending on the specific piece of text or the author’s perception, the audience might be real, imagined, or invoked. With a real audience, the author writes to the people actually reading or listening to the content while, for an imaginary audience, the author writes to an audience they imagine would read the content. Similarly, for an invoked audience, the author writes explicitly to a specific audience.
• Author or writer: The author or writer, also commonly referred to as the rhetor in the context of rhetorical analysis, is the person or the group of persons who authored the text or content.
• The author’s purpose: The author’s purpose is the author’s reason for communicating to the audience. In other words, the author’s purpose encompasses what the author expects or intends to achieve with the text or content.
• Alphabetic text includes essays, editorials, articles, speeches, and other written pieces.
• Imaging includes website and magazine advertisements, TV commercials, and the like.
• Audio includes speeches, website advertisements, radio or tv commercials, or podcasts.
• Context: The context of the text or content considers the time, place, and circumstances surrounding the delivery of the text to its audience. With respect to context, it might often also be helpful to analyze the text in a different context to determine its impact on a different audience and in different circumstances.

An author will use claims, supports, and warrants to build the case around their argument, irrespective of whether the argument is logical and clearly defined or needs to be inferred by the audience:

• Claim: The claim is the main idea or opinion of an argument that the author must prove to the intended audience. In other words, the claim is the fact or facts the author wants to convince the audience of. Claims are usually explicitly stated but can, depending on the specific piece of content or text, be implied from the content. Although these claims could be anything and an argument may be based on a single or several claims, the key is that these claims should be debatable.
• Support: The supports are used by the author to back up the claims they make in their argument. These supports can include anything from fact-based, objective evidence to subjective emotional appeals and personal experiences used by the author to convince the audience of a specific claim. Either way, the stronger and more reliable the supports, the more likely the audience will be to accept the claim.
• Warrant: The warrants are the logic and assumptions that connect the supports to the claims. In other words, they’re the assumptions that make the initial claim possible. The warrant is often unstated, and the author assumes that the audience will be able to understand the connection between the claims and supports. In turn, this is based on the author’s assumption that they share a set of values and beliefs with the audience that will make them understand the connection mentioned above. Conversely, if the audience doesn’t share these beliefs and values with the author, the argument will not be that effective.

Appeals are used by authors to convince their audience and, as such, are an integral part of the rhetoric and are often referred to as the rhetorical triangle. As a result, an author may combine all three appeals to convince their audience:

• Ethos: Ethos represents the authority or credibility of the author. To be successful, the author needs to convince the audience of their authority or credibility through the language and delivery techniques they use. This will, for example, be the case where an author writing on a technical subject positions themselves as an expert or authority by referring to their qualifications or experience.
• Logos: Logos refers to the reasoned argument the author uses to persuade their audience. In other words, it refers to the reasons or evidence the author proffers in substantiation of their claims and can include facts, statistics, and other forms of evidence. For this reason, logos is also the dominant approach in academic writing where authors present and build up arguments using reasoning and evidence.
• Pathos: Through pathos, also referred to as the pathetic appeal, the author attempts to evoke the audience’s emotions through the use of, for instance, passionate language, vivid imagery, anger, sympathy, or any other emotional response.

To write a rhetorical analysis, you need to follow the steps below:

With a rhetorical analysis, you don’t choose concepts in advance and apply them to a specific text or piece of content. Rather, you’ll have to analyze the text to identify the separate components and plan and prepare your analysis accordingly.

Here, it might be helpful to use the SOAPSTone technique to identify the components of the work. SOAPSTone is a common acronym in analysis and represents the:

• Speaker . Here, you’ll identify the author or the narrator delivering the content to the audience.
• Occasion . With the occasion, you’ll identify when and where the story takes place and what the surrounding context is.
• Audience . Here, you’ll identify who the audience or intended audience is.
• Purpose . With the purpose, you’ll need to identify the reason behind the text or what the author wants to achieve with their writing.
• Subject . You’ll also need to identify the subject matter or topic of the text.
• Tone . The tone identifies the author’s feelings towards the subject matter or topic.

Apart from gathering the information and analyzing the components mentioned above, you’ll also need to examine the appeals the author uses in writing the text and attempting to persuade the audience of their argument. Moreover, you’ll need to identify elements like word choice, word order, repetition, analogies, and imagery the writer uses to get a reaction from the audience.

Once you’ve gathered the information and examined the appeals and strategies used by the author as mentioned above, you’ll need to answer some questions relating to the information you’ve collected from the text. The answers to these questions will help you determine the reasons for the choices the author made and how well these choices support the overall argument.

Here, some of the questions you’ll ask include:

• What was the author’s intention?
• Who was the intended audience?
• What is the author’s argument?
• What strategies does the author use to build their argument and why do they use those strategies?
• What appeals the author uses to convince and persuade the audience?
• What effect the text has on the audience?

Keep in mind that these are just some of the questions you’ll ask, and depending on the specific text, there might be others.

Once you’ve done your preparation, you can start writing the rhetorical analysis. It will start off with an introduction which is a clear and concise paragraph that shows you understand the purpose of the text and gives more information about the author and the relevance of the text.

The introduction also summarizes the text and the main ideas you’ll discuss in your analysis. Most importantly, however, is your thesis statement . This statement should be one sentence at the end of the introduction that summarizes your argument and tempts your audience to read on and find out more about it.

After your introduction, you can proceed with the body of your analysis. Here, you’ll write at least three paragraphs that explain the strategies and techniques used by the author to convince and persuade the audience, the reasons why the writer used this approach, and why it’s either successful or unsuccessful.

You can structure the body of your analysis in several ways. For example, you can deal with every strategy the author uses in a new paragraph, but you can also structure the body around the specific appeals the author used or chronologically.

No matter how you structure the body and your paragraphs, it’s important to remember that you support each one of your arguments with facts, data, examples, or quotes and that, at the end of every paragraph, you tie the topic back to your original thesis.

Finally, you’ll write the conclusion of your rhetorical analysis. Here, you’ll repeat your thesis statement and summarize the points you’ve made in the body of your analysis. Ultimately, the goal of the conclusion is to pull the points of your analysis together so you should be careful to not raise any new issues in your conclusion.

After you’ve finished your conclusion, you’ll end your analysis with a powerful concluding statement of why your argument matters and an invitation to conduct more research if needed.

A rhetorical analysis aims to explore the goals and motivations of an author, the techniques they’ve used to reach their audience, and how successful these techniques were. Although rhetorical analysis is most used by academics as part of scholarly work, it can be used to analyze any text including speeches, novels, television shows or films, advertisements, or cartoons.

The steps to write a rhetorical analysis include:

Your rhetorical analysis introduction is a clear and concise paragraph that shows you understand the purpose of the text and gives more information about the author and the relevance of the text. The introduction also summarizes the text and the main ideas you’ll discuss in your analysis.

Ethos represents the authority or credibility of the author. To be successful, the author needs to convince the audience of their authority or credibility through the language and delivery techniques they use. This will, for example, be the case where an author writing on a technical subject positions themselves as an expert or authority by referring to their qualifications or experience.

Appeals are used by authors to convince their audience and, as such, are an integral part of the rhetoric and are often referred to as the rhetorical triangle. The 3 types of appeals are ethos, logos, and pathos.

ONLINE SPEECH BANK

Database of and index to 5000+ full text, audio, and video versions of public speeches, sermons, legal proceedings, lectures, debates, interviews, other recorded media events, and a declaration or two.

Index links alphabetized by first name. Available mediums flagged with [T] (text), [A] (audio), [V] (video).

RECENT ADDITIONS

►  Volodymyr Zelenskyy: A Global Peace Summit [w/ Authenticated Text and Video]

►  Jimmy Carter: "A Crisis of Confidence" [Entire Video Added]

►  President William Ruto: Opening Remarks to a Joint Press Conference with President Biden [w/ Extended Video Excerpt]

►  President William Ruto: Address to the Carter Center on a Global Democracy Partnership [w/ Extended Video Excerpt]

SPEECH OF THE WEEK

DOD Memorial Day Tribute

TOP 100 SPEECHES OF THE 20TH CENTURY

Full text, audio, and video database of the 100 most significant American political speeches of the 20th century, according to 137 leading scholars of American public address, as compiled by Stephen E. Lucas (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Martin J. Medhurst (Baylor University). Discover who made the cut and experience the power of rhetorical eloquence in this provocative list of "who's who" in American public address.

OBAMA SPEECHES

475+ Campaign, First and Second Term Speeches in full text, enhanced audioXE and HD video. Popular artifacts include the Audacity of Hope, Yes We Can, A More Perfect Union, President-Elect Victory, First Presidential Inaugural, A New Beginning, Together We Thrive, Newtown Prayer Vigil addresses, and many more.

 MOVIE   SPEECHES 

Full text, audio and video database of some 275+ Hollywood movie speeches.

Included are military movie speeches, sports-oriented movie speeches, forensic movie speeches, and social-political movie speeches, among others.

RHETORICAL FIGURES

200+ short audio and video clips illustrating stylistic figures of speech ranging from alliteration to synecdoche. Clips are taken from speeches, movies, sermons, and sensational media events and delivered by politicians, actors, preachers, athletes, and other notable personalities.

Main Site Areas

For scholars, cool exercises.

© Copyright 2001-Present. American Rhetoric.

• Features for Creative Writers
• Features for Work
• Features for Higher Education
• Features for Teachers
• Features for Non-Native Speakers
• Learn Blog Grammar Guide Community Events FAQ
• Grammar Guide

What Is a Rhetorical Analysis and How to Write a Great One

Helly Douglas

Do you have to write a rhetorical analysis essay? Fear not! We’re here to explain exactly what rhetorical analysis means, how you should structure your essay, and give you some essential “dos and don’ts.”

What is a Rhetorical Analysis Essay?

How do you write a rhetorical analysis, what are the three rhetorical strategies, what are the five rhetorical situations, how to plan a rhetorical analysis essay, creating a rhetorical analysis essay, examples of great rhetorical analysis essays, final thoughts.

A rhetorical analysis essay studies how writers and speakers have used words to influence their audience. Think less about the words the author has used and more about the techniques they employ, their goals, and the effect this has on the audience.

In your analysis essay, you break a piece of text (including cartoons, adverts, and speeches) into sections and explain how each part works to persuade, inform, or entertain. You’ll explore the effectiveness of the techniques used, how the argument has been constructed, and give examples from the text.

A strong rhetorical analysis evaluates a text rather than just describes the techniques used. You don’t include whether you personally agree or disagree with the argument.

Structure a rhetorical analysis in the same way as most other types of academic essays . You’ll have an introduction to present your thesis, a main body where you analyze the text, which then leads to a conclusion.

Think about how the writer (also known as a rhetor) considers the situation that frames their communication:

• Topic: the overall purpose of the rhetoric
• Audience: this includes primary, secondary, and tertiary audiences
• Purpose: there are often more than one to consider
• Context and culture: the wider situation within which the rhetoric is placed

Back in the 4th century BC, Aristotle was talking about how language can be used as a means of persuasion. He described three principal forms —Ethos, Logos, and Pathos—often referred to as the Rhetorical Triangle . These persuasive techniques are still used today.

Rhetorical Strategy 1: Ethos

Are you more likely to buy a car from an established company that’s been an important part of your community for 50 years, or someone new who just started their business?

Reputation matters. Ethos explores how the character, disposition, and fundamental values of the author create appeal, along with their expertise and knowledge in the subject area.

Aristotle breaks ethos down into three further categories:

• Phronesis: skills and practical wisdom
• Arete: virtue
• Eunoia: goodwill towards the audience

Ethos-driven speeches and text rely on the reputation of the author. In your analysis, you can look at how the writer establishes ethos through both direct and indirect means.

Rhetorical Strategy 2: Pathos

Pathos-driven rhetoric hooks into our emotions. You’ll often see it used in advertisements, particularly by charities wanting you to donate money towards an appeal.

Common use of pathos includes:

• Vivid description so the reader can imagine themselves in the situation
• Personal stories to create feelings of empathy
• Emotional vocabulary that evokes a response

By using pathos to make the audience feel a particular emotion, the author can persuade them that the argument they’re making is compelling.

Rhetorical Strategy 3: Logos

Logos uses logic or reason. It’s commonly used in academic writing when arguments are created using evidence and reasoning rather than an emotional response. It’s constructed in a step-by-step approach that builds methodically to create a powerful effect upon the reader.

Rhetoric can use any one of these three techniques, but effective arguments often appeal to all three elements.

The rhetorical situation explains the circumstances behind and around a piece of rhetoric. It helps you think about why a text exists, its purpose, and how it’s carried out.

The rhetorical situations are:

• 1) Purpose: Why is this being written? (It could be trying to inform, persuade, instruct, or entertain.)
• 2) Audience: Which groups or individuals will read and take action (or have done so in the past)?
• 3) Genre: What type of writing is this?
• 4) Stance: What is the tone of the text? What position are they taking?
• 5) Media/Visuals: What means of communication are used?

Understanding and analyzing the rhetorical situation is essential for building a strong essay. Also think about any rhetoric restraints on the text, such as beliefs, attitudes, and traditions that could affect the author's decisions.

Before leaping into your essay, it’s worth taking time to explore the text at a deeper level and considering the rhetorical situations we looked at before. Throw away your assumptions and use these simple questions to help you unpick how and why the text is having an effect on the audience.

1: What is the Rhetorical Situation?

• Why is there a need or opportunity for persuasion?
• How do words and references help you identify the time and location?
• What are the rhetoric restraints?
• What historical occasions would lead to this text being created?

2: Who is the Author?

• How do they position themselves as an expert worth listening to?
• What is their ethos?
• Do they have a reputation that gives them authority?
• What is their intention?
• What values or customs do they have?

3: Who is it Written For?

• Who is the intended audience?
• How is this appealing to this particular audience?
• Who are the possible secondary and tertiary audiences?

4: What is the Central Idea?

• Can you summarize the key point of this rhetoric?
• What arguments are used?
• How has it developed a line of reasoning?

5: How is it Structured?

• What structure is used?
• How is the content arranged within the structure?

6: What Form is Used?

• Does this follow a specific literary genre?
• What type of style and tone is used, and why is this?
• Does the form used complement the content?
• What effect could this form have on the audience?

7: Is the Rhetoric Effective?

• Does the content fulfil the author’s intentions?
• Does the message effectively fit the audience, location, and time period?

Once you’ve fully explored the text, you’ll have a better understanding of the impact it’s having on the audience and feel more confident about writing your essay outline.

A great essay starts with an interesting topic. Choose carefully so you’re personally invested in the subject and familiar with it rather than just following trending topics. There are lots of great ideas on this blog post by My Perfect Words if you need some inspiration. Take some time to do background research to ensure your topic offers good analysis opportunities.

Remember to check the information given to you by your professor so you follow their preferred style guidelines. This outline example gives you a general idea of a format to follow, but there will likely be specific requests about layout and content in your course handbook. It’s always worth asking your institution if you’re unsure.

Make notes for each section of your essay before you write. This makes it easy for you to write a well-structured text that flows naturally to a conclusion. You will develop each note into a paragraph. Look at this example by College Essay for useful ideas about the structure.

1: Introduction

This is a short, informative section that shows you understand the purpose of the text. It tempts the reader to find out more by mentioning what will come in the main body of your essay.

• Name the author of the text and the title of their work followed by the date in parentheses
• Use a verb to describe what the author does, e.g. “implies,” “asserts,” or “claims”
• Briefly summarize the text in your own words
• Mention the persuasive techniques used by the rhetor and its effect

Create a thesis statement to come at the end of your introduction.

After your introduction, move on to your critical analysis. This is the principal part of your essay.

• Explain the methods used by the author to inform, entertain, and/or persuade the audience using Aristotle's rhetorical triangle
• Use quotations to prove the statements you make
• Explain why the writer used this approach and how successful it is
• Consider how it makes the audience feel and react

Make each strategy a new paragraph rather than cramming them together, and always use proper citations. Check back to your course handbook if you’re unsure which citation style is preferred.

3: Conclusion

Your conclusion should summarize the points you’ve made in the main body of your essay. While you will draw the points together, this is not the place to introduce new information you’ve not previously mentioned.

Use your last sentence to share a powerful concluding statement that talks about the impact the text has on the audience(s) and wider society. How have its strategies helped to shape history?

Before You Submit

Poor spelling and grammatical errors ruin a great essay. Use ProWritingAid to check through your finished essay before you submit. It will pick up all the minor errors you’ve missed and help you give your essay a final polish. Look at this useful ProWritingAid webinar for further ideas to help you significantly improve your essays. Sign up for a free trial today and start editing your essays!

You’ll find countless examples of rhetorical analysis online, but they range widely in quality. Your institution may have example essays they can share with you to show you exactly what they’re looking for.

The following links should give you a good starting point if you’re looking for ideas:

Pearson Canada has a range of good examples. Look at how embedded quotations are used to prove the points being made. The end questions help you unpick how successful each essay is.

Excelsior College has an excellent sample essay complete with useful comments highlighting the techniques used.

Brighton Online has a selection of interesting essays to look at. In this specific example, consider how wider reading has deepened the exploration of the text.

Writing a rhetorical analysis essay can seem daunting, but spending significant time deeply analyzing the text before you write will make it far more achievable and result in a better-quality essay overall.

It can take some time to write a good essay. Aim to complete it well before the deadline so you don’t feel rushed. Use ProWritingAid’s comprehensive checks to find any errors and make changes to improve readability. Then you’ll be ready to submit your finished essay, knowing it’s as good as you can possibly make it.

Try ProWritingAid's Editor for Yourself

Be confident about grammar

Check every email, essay, or story for grammar mistakes. Fix them before you press send.

Helly Douglas is a UK writer and teacher, specialising in education, children, and parenting. She loves making the complex seem simple through blogs, articles, and curriculum content. You can check out her work at hellydouglas.com or connect on Twitter @hellydouglas. When she’s not writing, you will find her in a classroom, being a mum or battling against the wilderness of her garden—the garden is winning!

Get started with ProWritingAid

Drop us a line or let's stay in touch via :

Rhetorical Analyses

A rhetorical analysis considers all elements of the rhetorical situation--the audience, purpose, medium, and context--within which a communication was generated and delivered in order to make an argument about that communication. A strong rhetorical analysis will not only describe and analyze the text, but will also evaluate it; that evaluation represents your argument.

• Description: What does this text look like? Where did you find the text? Who sponsored it? What are the rhetorical appeals? (i.e. calm music in the background of a commercial establishes pathos) When was it written?
• Analysis: Why does the author incorporate these rhetorical appeals? (For example, why does the author incorporate calm music? What is the point of the pathos?) How would the reception of this text change if it were written today, as opposed to twenty years ago? What is left out of this text and why? Should there be more logos in the ad? Why?
• Evaluation: Is the text effective? Is the text ethical? What might you change about this text to make it more persuasive?

Rhetoric Defined

• Classically, "the art of persuasion".
• "About using language purposefully, in order to get something done in the world" ("What is Rhetoric").
• "Something that allows you to formulate ethical reading strategies [...] but also to invent your own responses to the world" ("What is Rhetoric").

Keywords and Concepts

Following are some basic terms and concepts (far from inclusive) that you should consider and use in a rhetorical analysis.

Rhetorical Situation

The rhetorical situation identifies the relationship among the elements of any communication--audience, author (rhetor), purpose, medium, context, and content.

Spectator, listeners, and/or readers of a performance, a speech, a reading, or printed material. Depending on the author's/writer's perception, an audience may be real (actually listening or reading), invoked (those to whom the writer explicitly writes) or imagined(those who the writer believes will read/hear her work) (Dept. of English)

Author/Rhetor/Speaker/Writer

The person or group of people who composed the text.

Purpose of the Author

The reason for communicating; the expected or intended outcome.

The delivery method, which varies by type of text:

• Alphabetic Text (for example, written speech, newspaper editorial, essay, passage out of a novel, poetry)
• Images (for example, TV commercials, advertisements in magazines or on websites)
• Sound (for example, radio or TV commercials, a website advertisement, speeches)
• Multimodal texts (YouTube videos, performances, digital stories)

The time, place, public conversations surrounding the text during its original generation and delivery; the text may also be analyzed within a different context such as how an historical text would be received by its audience today.

The main idea, thesis, opinion, or belief of an argument that the author must prove. The claim should be debatable and answer the question, "What's the point?"

The statements given to back up the claim. These can take the form of facts, data, personal experience, expert opinion, evidence from other texts or sources, emotional appeals, or other means. The more reliable and comprehensive the support, the more likely the audience is to accept the claim.

The connection, often unstated and assumed, between the claim and the supporting reason(s), or support. The warrant is the assumption that makes the claim seem plausible. More specifically, warrants are the beliefs, values, inferences and/or experiences that the writers/speakers assume they share with the audience. If the audience doesn't share the writers'/speakers' assumptions within the text, the argument will not be effective.

Rhetorical Triangle

The elements of the rhetorical situation interact with and influence one another. In learning to write an analysis, it is thus helpful to think about the relationship among these elements within the rhetorical triangle. By doing this, writers will be able to better understand how the elements of each text come together (often overlap) to make an argument or persuade an audience.

The authority or credibility of the author. Can refer to any of the following: the actual character of the speaker/writer, the character of the writer as it is presented in a text, or as a series of ground rules/customs, which are negotiated between speaker, audience, and specific traditions or locations. The speaker must convince the audience of their credibility through the language they use and through the delivery, or embodied performance, of their speech.

Did you analyze ethos enough in your essay?

• Have you looked at what experiences or claims to authority qualify this author to speak or write?
• Have you considered the credibility and moral character of the writer/speaker?
• Have you considered the design or appearance of the text you are analyzing? Does it look professional? What can you say about the author based on the appearance of the text alone?

Emotional appeals to the audience to evoke feelings of pity, sympathy, tenderness, or sorrow. The speaker may also want the audience to feel anger, fear, courage, love, happiness, sadness, etc.

Have you analyzed pathos enough in your essay?

• Have you considered how the author appeals to the emotions of the reader/viewer?
• How does the author establish a bond with his audience?
• How might the author change his strategy if he was trying to establish a bond with a different audience?
• Have you considered your own personal reaction to the background music of this advertisement?
• What kinds of feelings do the colors that the author uses provoke?
• What other images in the text provoke an emotional response? Why would the author include these images?

In classical rhetoric, logos is the means of persuasion by demonstration of the truth, real or apparent, the reasons or supporting information used to support a claim, the use of logic or reason to make an argument. Logos can include citing facts and statistics, historical events, and other forms of fact based evidence.

Do you analyze logos enough in your essay?

• How does the author back up his argument in this text? Does he incorporate facts, statistics, or numbers?
• Have you considered how logical the author's argument is?
• Are the claims this author is making realistic?
• Does the author consider alternative arguments?

The right time to speak or write; advantageous, exact, or critical time; a window of time during which action is most effective. (Ex. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a dream speech was delivered at the right moment in history—in the heat of civil rights debates.)

Literally, stasis is "a stand" or a "resting place" in an argument where opponents agree on what the issue is but disagree on what to do about it. The skilled rhetor is able to move the argument away from stasis. (Ex. Rhetor A asserts that abortion is murder. Rhetor B asserts that abortion is not murder. This is the point of stasis. The argument cannot rest here indefinitely. One of these rhetors must get the argument beyond the issue of murder.)

501 E. High Street Oxford, OH 45056

• Online: Miami Online
• Main Operator 513-529-1809
• Office of Admission 513-529-2531
• Vine Hotline 513-529-6400
• Emergency Info https://miamioh.edu/emergency

1601 University Blvd. Hamilton, OH 45011

• Online: E-Campus
• Main Operator 513-785-3000
• Office of Admission 513-785-3111
• Campus Status Line 513-785-3077
• Emergency Info https://miamioh.edu/regionals/emergency

4200 N. University Blvd. Middletown, OH 45042

• Main Operator 513-727-3200
• Office of Admission 513-727-3216
• Campus Status 513-727-3477

7847 VOA Park Dr. (Corner of VOA Park Dr. and Cox Rd.) West Chester, OH 45069

• Main Operator 513-895-8862
• From Middletown 513-217-8862

Chateau de Differdange 1, Impasse du Chateau, L-4524 Differdange Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

• Main Operator 011-352-582222-1
• Email [email protected]
• Website https://miamioh.edu/luxembourg

217-222 MacMillan Hall 501 E. Spring St. Oxford, OH 45056, USA

• Main Operator 513-529-8600

Initiatives

• Miami THRIVE Strategic Plan
• Miami Rise Strategic Plan
• Boldly Creative
• Annual Report
• Moon Shot for Equity
• Miami and Ohio
• Majors, Minors, and Programs
• Inclusive Excellence
• Employment Opportunities
• University Safety and Security
• Parking, Directions, and Maps
• Equal Opportunity
• Consumer Information
• Land Acknowledgement
• Privacy Statement
• Title IX Statement
• Report an Accessibility Issue
• Annual Security and Fire Safety Report
• Report a Problem with this Website
• Policy Library

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 10: The Rhetorical Situation

This chapter is about the  rhetorical situation . The rhetorical situation is a framework for rhetorical analysis designed for individual speeches and assessing their reception by an audience. This chapter offers a detailed explanation of the rhetorical situation and defines its core components: the  exigence , the  audience , and  constraints . The second section of the chapter provides detailed examples of the rhetorical situation. The third section explains a related model of “situation” called the “ rhetorical ecology .” This chapter contains YouTube video content not presented in the recorded lectures.

Watching the video clips embedded in the chapters may add to the projected “read time” listed in the headers.  Please also note that the audio recording for this chapter covers the same tested content as is presented in the chapter below.

Chapter Recordings

• Part 1:  Defining the Rhetorical Situation  (Video, ~20m)
• Part 2:  Analysis of a Rhetorical Situation  (Video, ~20m)
• Part 3:  Rhetorical Ecologies (Video, ~12m)

Read this Next

• Palczewski, Catherine Helen, et al. “Chapter 8 Rhetorical Situations.” Rhetoric in Civic Life , Strata Pub., State College, PA, 2012, pp. 225–263.

Written Assignments

• Assignment Description for Short Paper 3: Rhetorical Analysis

Part 1: Defining the Rhetorical Situation

The rhetorical situation is a fundamental framework for understanding rhetoric as a form of  persuasion , that is, as a speech or text that seeks to influence an audience’s actions. It describes rhetoric as a response to a problem or an answer to a question. Given an imperfect state of affairs, rhetoric responds or intervenes to create some change by addressing an audience. The rhetorical situation is also part of the tradition of  public address  scholarship. Public address may consist in the composition of eloquent speeches that are to be delivered in public settings, a studied reflection upon the geographical locations where public events have occurred in the past, or the researching of presidential correspondence, letters, or newsprint publications about former occupants of the executive branch. Public address is most aptly described as the criticism of public speech that approximates more closely a genuinely historical point of view regarding the ideas of our shared social history.

The rhetorical situation is also part of a tradition that understands rhetoric as  context-dependent.  Often, rhetorical scholars attribute this idea to Aristotle, who defines rhetoric as “the available means of persuasion  in any given situation. “   In other words, understanding the force of a persuasive speech act relies upon a deep knowledge of the setting in which it was spoken. Aristotle also describes rhetoric’s situations in terms of three discrete  genres :  Forensic rhetoric  is about the past and whether it did or did not happen; the traditional “situation” for forensic rhetoric was the courtroom proceeding.  Epideictic,  about matters of praise or blame, was speech situated in public spaces and delivered to a mass audience.  Deliberative  or policy-making speeches would occur in the situation of legislation and lawmaking, in service of developing a future course of action.

These three original genres of speech give the speech that is delivered in these spaces a specific function. They respond to a set of pre-defined circumstances concerning matters of  fact ,  good and bad judgment , and  policy . The rhetorical situation is an extension of this understanding. It provides us with a framework that says that speech responds to a set of pre-existing circumstances and is tailored for an audience.

According to Lloyd Bitzer,  the rhetorical situation  is that it is a “complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced in the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.

• First, the rhetorical situation is a  complex of persons, events, objects, and relations . The complex of  persons  includes speakers and audiences.  Events  include important and historic instances of speech and speech-making.  Objects  include the symbols gathered by speeches, what those speeches reference, and the speech’s effects. The complex  relations  of the situation describes the audiences it brings forth and the modes of identification it cultivates.
• Second, the rhetorical situation  presents an actual or potential exigence . An exigence is “an urgency marked by imperfection.” It describes a state of discontent or emergency in which speech is an adequate response and can bring about a resolution. Exigences ultimately describe the problem that the speech must respond to.
• Third, the rhetorical situation can  completely or partially remove the exigence . This means that an adequate speech makes the exigence is reversible by producing effects and audiences that are capable of addressing or effecting the change as the emergency requires.
• Fourth, the rhetorical situation  introduces discourse into the situation . This means that the use or application of rhetoric can undo the emergency. A speech that will heal the situation will bring things to a resolution.
• Fifth, the  speech  presented in a rhetorical situation  may constrain human decisions or actions . This means that a situation is rhetorical when speech resolves an emergency by steering people to act in a way that, had the speech not happened, they otherwise would not.
• Finally, the  speech  presented in a rhetorical situation  may bring about a significant modification of the exigence . Significant modification means that the speech does  something  to address the problem. Ultimately, this effect of speech upon a greater exigence is what makes the situation a rhetorical one.

Key Aspects of Rhetorical Situations

• The  historical context  is the larger background in which a message is situated. The  rhetorical situation  is a subset of that field, a smaller, more defined relative of a greater historical context.
• The  rhetorical situation  always places three specific elements into a relationship with each other. These are the rhetorical  exigence , the  audience , and the  constraints .
• A  rhetorical exigence  is an urgency marked by imperfection. It is the thing to which a speech – the rhetorical response – responds.
• A  rhetorical audience  is those people who have the capacity to act on the speaker’s message.
• A  rhetorical constraint  describes those things that limit the audience to interpret the message and steer them to act in one direction or another.

A Rhetorical Situation is not a “Context” …

A further important feature of the rhetorical situation is that it is not the same as context. This is, first of all, because every message occurs in a context, and not all contexts are rhetorical. Practically, this means that context is general, and the rhetorical situation is specific. A historical context is one in which any message can occur.

… because not all contexts are rhetorical.

A rhetorical situation is a situation that allows for a response, a speech that is capable of changing people’s minds and motivating their actions. The second reason the rhetorical situation is not the same as context is that only a rhetorical situation can invite a rhetorical response.

… because only a rhetorical situation can invite a rhetorical response.

Context is the history of an utterance, a series of motivations, occurrences, and acts that set a precedent for a public and cultural status quo . As a running example of the difference between  context  and  situation,  let’s consider the 2020 presidential impeachment hearings.

The greater  context for these presidential impeachment hearings might include the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal and the 1998 impeachment hearing of Bill Clinton. Both are distant historical events in which speeches and arguments were made concerning Congress’s authority over the Executive branch. Consistently, attorneys for the President have claimed that Congress did not have the authority to investigate the President whereas Congress has claimed that authority.

The  rhetorical situation for Presidential impeachment hearings in 2020 would instead be the circumstances and consequences surrounding a 2019 phone call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump. The speakers and speeches generated by the impeachment trials themselves would be the “rhetoric” that responded to this situation. It would be comprised of Congressional testimony, official investigative reports, political biographies, and commentary by political pundits.

Rhetorical Response/Rhetorical Audience

Not every response to a rhetorical situation is rhetorical. Non-rhetorical responses are those that do not affect the exigency.  Rhetorical responses are those that do. An emergency such as war might provoke messages that people should be afraid or display courage. Those messages can’t be separated from the emergency that occasioned it. In that sense, they are “responses” to the rhetorical situation. But not every “response” has its intended effects, and not every “response” can be directly tied back to the exigence at hand.

Below is an example of the testimony offered during the 2019 impeachment hearings instigated by the Zelensky-Trump phone conversation. The speaker is Fiona Hill, a U.S. diplomatic liaison to the Ukraine who was removed from her post just days before the phone call occurred.

A  response  is  rhetorical  when it is addressed to a  rhetorical audience ,   that is, those auditors or listeners who have the capacity to act. Not all audiences can be rhetorical audiences. In practice, this means more people will hear the rhetorical response than can address it—only people who can act count as the rhetorical audience.

For example, consider a political speech urging young people to vote  delivered by a candidate that is delivered to an audience that has a mix of high school students. However, this speech may be heard by the younger members of the crowd or people whose naturalization status prevents them from voting. If the sought-after effect of the speech is for people to vote for the candidate, then Bitzer’s theory of the rhetorical situation is limited because it only includes those with the capability to vote.

Exigence, Audience, and Constraints

The  rhetorical exigence  is defined as imperfection marked by urgency. It is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing other than it should be. There are also  non-rhetorical exigences , or “emergencies,” for which speech  isn’t  a good or effective response. Bitzer describes a natural disaster as a “non-rhetorical exigence” – a well-delivered speech, traditionally conceived, might not be the best immediate response. Instead of speech alone, an adequate rhetorical response would have to include emergency alerts, funding, and climate change mitigation efforts. What makes for a rhetorical exigence is when speech provides the remedy to the imperfection by urgency.

In the case referenced earlier, the recorded conversation between Zelensky and Trump documented a request to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for an already-promised military defense system. This conversation is the  rhetorical exigence : it generated a public emergency for which speech was deemed to be a fitting response.

The  rhetorical audience  is defined as only those capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change. They must be capable of making some change that would adjust the exigence due to hearing the speech.

There were at least two rhetorical audiences for the 2020 impeachment proceedings. One rhetorical audience of the Senate hearings consisted of the US Senate and Chief Justice John Roberts. They were the ones who would be ultimately voting on the Impeachment. In the style of forensic rhetoric, the Senators and possibly Roberts in the event of a tie were charged with discovering whether or not the President had committed an impeachable offense. Because they were the ones with the capacity to act, they composed the rhetorical audience.

The American voting public was a second rhetorical audience insofar as the messages conveyed in the Senate were meant to convince voters to turn out for the November 2020 election. Hearing the appeals on the Senate floor also persuaded those who could vote to cast them.

Finally,  rhetorical constraints  are comprised of persons, events, objects, and relations. These are part of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision-making and action.

In the Senate, constraints could include procedural limitations such as who gets to make the rules about how and when testimony is offered. It could be relations, in the sense partisan groups would seek to shut the trials down. It could be that another emergency interrupts the proceedings, or prevents that event from being remembered.

Responses to Rhetorical Situations

There are different kinds of responses to rhetorical situations.

• The first response is  conformity , in which the audience accepts what the speech is asking of them, and they perform the action that is requested.
• The second is  desecration  which violates what would have been an appropriate response. Given that there is a normal range of responses that would be accepted from a situation, the response of desecration would violate those expectations and challenge them. If someone were giving a eulogy, for instance, laughter would be a prohibited response and example of desecration.

The famous Apple “1984” advertisement linked below offers a dramatized example of both “conformity” and “desecration,” in the sense that the gathered viewers are in  conformity  with the televised speaker’s message whereas the running character who throws the sledgehammer violates conformist expectations and  desecrating  both the speaker and their message.

• The third response is  non-participation , which rejects the legitimacy of the rhetorical situation by refusing to be a part of it. In other words, it says that the emergency is not that big of an emergency, or that we don’t have to be so concerned about the emergency that is being posed. That non-participation is a rhetorical response because it simultaneously responds to the exigency by refusing to recognize it.
• Finally,  contextual reconstruction  is when a rhetor redefines the situation. In other words, given the rhetorical effort to redefine or reframe the exigency, it provides an alternative look at the current circumstances.

Below is an episode of Crossfire, a debate-style television show from the early 2000s which embraces a both-sides format. This episode features John Stewart, recently the new host of the  Daily Show . Stewart first engages in non-participation by rejecting the premise of the show and refusing to “debate.” He then engages in a  contextual reconstruction  that reframes Crossfire as contributing to a destructive both-sides mentality in politics. Stewart’s explanation is a contextual reconstruction because reframed the event, putting it in a new light. His appearance also coincided with the cancellation of the show shortly thereafter.

Part 2: Analysis of a Rhetorical Situation

This section of the chapter provides detailed examples of the major terms of the rhetorical situation, including  rhetorical exigence, context, audience, and constraints.  It ends with an example of a  rhetorical situation,  with a brief discussion of each of its parts.

Rhetorical Exigence: Michael Brown and Barack Obama

The exigence is the defect of the status quo. It is a problem we live with that has become acute; it is an emergency that is other than it should be. Rhetorical exigences can be modified through discourse. “In any rhetorical situation, there will be at least one controlling exigence which functions as an organizing principle.” This “organizing exigence” defines the audience to be addressed and the change to be effected.

On August 9, 2014, a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, spurring nationwide mass protests against police brutality. The following year, in April 2015, protests erupted in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray, who was brutally assaulted as he was arrested, fell into a coma, and died. These events also illustrated the larger problem that police departments had started to acquire military equipment as a way to police crowds, and technologies that the military had previously used during wartime deployments oversees suddenly became technologies used to police American citizens. Worse yet, police who were using these weapons had not been trained to use them appropriately. The racial bias of police departments across the country was becoming apparent given the accumulation of events related to police brutality.

This short speech by Barack Obama on October 31, 2015 sought to address the exigence of mass incarceration and over-policing by healing the divide between the different groups he addresses. We should think hard about whether this speech is accomplishing that goal given its emphasis on helping the economy and people recently released from prison. However, what is clear is that it is both a response to a problem that exists prominently at the moment that Obama is speaking and a way of curating the behavior of the audiences that are meant to hear this speech.

If the rhetorical situation “specifies the audience to be addressed,” then in the above clip, we can quite clearly hear Obama discussing “drug rehabilitation” and the pipeline from schools to prisons. We also heard Obama discussing police officers as people who “protect Americans.” To whom is this addressed? Both audiences: it is meant to affirm both the structural causes of mass incarceration for the public made angry by prominent instances of police brutality and defend violent police officers by describing them as civil servants. However, this speech neither addresses police brutality directly nor holds police officers accountable for excessive use of force. Specified audiences of the rhetorical situation includes over-policed and structurally oppressed Americans and police officers, resulting in a “middle voice” that is stretched between these audiences.

Context:  13th  by Ava DuVernay

Obama’s speech, shown above, occurs within a larger context of racial policing in the United States, which disproportionately targets minoritized communities. Every message occurs within a context: a larger, more encompassing umbrella term for the setting in which a speech or utterance happens. Context is the history of the speech or utterance, a series of motivations, occurrences, and acts that set a precedent for the current status quo – which means how things are in our present moment, right now. Consider the video below as an illustration of the larger context for Obama’s 10/31/2015 speech. The documentary “13th” by Ava DuVernay explains the historical transition from slavery to the thirteenth amendment to a contemporary system of mass incarceration.

Rhetorical Audience: George H.W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis

Next, let’s consider the rhetorical audience, which describes only those capable of being influenced by a speech (or rhetorical discourse) and of being mediators of change.

Above is another rhetorical message that is situated within the larger context of mass incarceration. However, it has a different situation: the 1988 Dukakis/Bush presidential election. The video is a campaign advertisement from the first George Bush campaign which attacks Dukakis. The exigence is Dukakis’s early lead on George Bush, which created an opening for a rhetorical response. This response is important for how it targeted specific voters by preying on the stereotype of violent minorities and the idea that people who had been imprisoned would always be “prisoners” or “criminals,” regardless of rehabilitation or if their incarceration was unjust. Let’s take a look at the video.

The rhetorical audience here isn’t just who can be influenced by the message. Viewers, for instance, might be angered by the message that’s being sent by this video. It is specifically those who would act on that message by voting against the Dukakis campaign. Viewers who might react against this message are also a rhetorical audience. They may reject the message and doing the opposite of what it asks or offer an alternative explanation of mass incarceration that does not rely on racist caricatures.

Rhetorical Constraints: Parody and Satire

Let’s consider the last element of the rhetorical situation: constraints. Constraints are comprised of persons, events, objects, and relations that are part of the situation because they can constrain decision-making and action that could modify the exigence. This example offers another campaign ad. IT is not as clearly related to the larger context of mass incarceration. This video illustrates “constraints” by showing how political campaign ads are always limited in what they can say or the messages they communicate.

The Phil Gulbright/Gil Fulbright/Phillip Mymoufwiffarts political advertisement illustrates the limitations on the speaker because he draws attention to how his own beholdenness to multiple audiences: the voting public and his private donors – narrowly shape his own rhetorical response.

Rhetorical Situation: The Challenger Address

The final example of the rhetorical situation is Ronald Reagan’s Challenger Address Speech.

The following explanation of this rhetorical situation comes from Catherine Palczewski et al.:

Reagan clearly identified the  exigence : “the tragedy of the shuttle  Challenger … is truly a national loss” that made it a day “for mourning and remembering,” but the march of progress and the call for exploration gave meaning to that loss of life.

The  context  for this meaning was a history of exploration associated with past empires. According to Reagan, the members of the space shuttle crew had “a hunger to explore the universe” and were part of a long line of explorers. The examples of the 1967  Apollo I  fire and the 1596 death of Francis Drake offered similar historical events that helped make the loss of life during exploration seem normal and expected. As Reagan explained to schoolchildren: “Its all part of the process of exploration and discovery.”

The  audiences   in the situation were composed of people who shared the need for reassurance and the sentiment that exploration defines the people of the United States: the families of the astronauts, schoolchildren, NASA workers, and the viewing public who had tuned in to the event. Reagan provided an explanation not of the accident but of exploration. He thus offered a response that quickly passed through stages of mourning while seeking to reinforce the public faith in expanded American space exploration. Reagan’s hybrid response sought to justify funding for the space program (a  deliberative  goal) while also eulogizing the lives of the astronauts who had died in the explosion (an  epideictic  goal).

The  constraints  in the situation concerned the genre of eulogy, which Reagan mirrored in structuring his speech. He also assumed a paternalistic role in the speech, speaking not only as President but as an elder relative to schoolchildren who had been watching the speech from across the country.

As a total  rhetorical situation , the  rhetor,  Reagan, responded to an exigence by speaking to particular  audiences , such as school children and the viewing public, in a way that accounted for  constraints  such as the appropriate way to respond to a tragic loss of life. Reagan did not just respond to this situation, but sought to actively redefine what it meant.

Part 3: Rhetorical Ecologies

Although Lloyd Bitzer develops the concept of “the rhetorical situation” there are several other participants in this conversation. I’d like to draw our attention to Lloyd Bitzer, Richard Vatz, and Jenny Edbauer.

• Bitzer is the originator of the rhetorical situation. In his view, there is  first  a situation,  then  there is a rhetorical response, and  finally,  rhetoric that people can act upon. The emergency arises and it creates conditions for a speaker to invent a speech that moves people to some action.
• Vatz argues that rhetoric arises not because of a situation, but because of the speaker. From this point of view, there is no emergency unless a rhetor perceives there to be an emergency. It is the speaker’s job to create a shared reality for the audience through their speech. However, if the public’s perception of an emergency depends on the speaker, a real, material reality may be at odds with other “emergencies” that a speaker brings to the public’s attention as distractions. The realities of pandemics and climate change, for instance, may be something that a speaker cannot distract from with another “imagined” exigence. Some emergencies simply cannot be ignored or deflected by a speaker because they form such a commonly felt urgency.
• Edbauer argues that rhetoric never occurs in one situation but always unfolds across many situations. Whereas Bitzer and Vatz focus on individual speeches delivered in isolated situations, Edbauer is more interested in the way that rhetoric moves from one situation to another, much like a viral tweet or video. Rhetoric that occurs in one situation may then give rise to similar rhetoric that arises in a separate situation. This then may create yet another rhetorical response, unrelated to the first, and so on. The speaker isn’t the most important person in the Edbauer model. Instead, the rhetoric moves from one rhetorical moment to the next to produce a message across a variety of situations.

Rhetorical ecologies are variations on the traditional framework of the rhetorical situation. A rhetorical situation is typically conceived as a speaker’s unique creation or as a response to an emergency. Edbauer’s version of a rhetorical situation suggests that it isn’t fixed; it does not happen once or in isolation. Instead, Edbauer argues that exigences are always a series of events. These situations create a network of lived experiences and structures of feeling. Edbauer also contextualizes rhetoric in terms of time, history, and experience. Rhetoric from this point of view isn’t linear. It doesn’t start with a speaker who devises a speech that is received by an audience. Rhetoric moves from one moment to another, from one situation to another. It changes depending on the historical moment and the particular experiences that a given instance of rhetoric foregrounds.

• The Rhetorical Situation:  Traditionally conceived, situations are  fixed spaces.  By comparison, rhetorical ecologies are  dynamic spaces . The word situation comes from the Latin  Situs , which signifies a bordered and fixed location. An example of  Situs  is the (incorrect) idea of the Earth as the presumptive center of the Universe, having a stable position that does not affect the space around it. A  Situs  for rhetoric would mean that everything revolves around the speech’s ability to respond to an emergency.
• The Rhetorical Ecology: Instead of a  Situs  for rhetoric ,  the ecology model describes rhetoric’s force, intensity, and circulatory range as a  distribution . This would be like the shift from the Newtonian Model to the Einsteinian Model, where space is molded or shaped around the speech or object. In other words, there is no clear “center” for rhetoric; rhetoric instead has many centers with distinct mass and gravity. Rather than just one speech or rhetorical discourse, an ecology-based approach would think about multiple speeches or discourses and how they affect and interact with one another.

Writing as Rhetorical Situation and Rhetorical Ecology

Let’s consider “writing an assignment” in terms of the situation and ecology models of rhetoric. As a  Situs ,  writing would be a very linear process. It would follow a first, second, third progression: receive the assignment (the exigence), outline and draft a (rhetorical) response, and see if it had the intended effect (upon an instructor or peers). The writer would make a message, then transmit it to an audience. Bitzer would say that there is an emergency to which the writer responds, like an upcoming deadline, and then their text or speech offers a more or less adequate response to that emergency.

Writing conceived in terms of  distribution  means that it would occur across a range of processes and encounters. There is, for instance, the event of starting a blank document and the tyranny of the blinking cursor. Your encounter with the keyboard might restrict or open up the flow of words. It might also create physical limitations as your fingers begin to cramp or your posture hunches over. You may stop, lose your place, or write across multiple days, weeks, or months. Then again, the same act of writing may occur in a group setting or a collaborative document. These interactions could energize your writing and stimulate productivity, or zap your ability to focus by creating pools of distracting conversation. As distribution, writing doesn’t happen in one moment or even because of one person. Instead, it happens across many moments and with the influence of many people. In a rhetorical ecology, there isn’t just one audience for writing but many. Writing would occur across distinct situations that describe how the process of writing is lived, or even how our writing outlives our unique authorship, getting picked up by other people who revise and repurpose it.

According to Edbauer, “To say that we are connected is another way of saying that we are never outside the networked interconnections of forces, energies, rhetorics, moods, and experiences. In other words our practical consciousness is never outside the prior and ongoing structure of feeling that shape the social field.”

Rhetorical ecologies highlight the importance of a shared and interactive social field. They demand an understanding of how certain speech acts, utterances, or writing circulate and proliferate. Similar to biology, where ecology refers to the relationships between organisms and their environment, rhetorical ecologies illustrate how words interact with their environment over and over again. Rhetoric from this perspective isn’t static but viral; it has effects beyond what a single author could ever anticipate.

“The intensity, force, and circulatory range of a rhetoric[al ecology] are always expanding through the mutations and new exposures attached to that given rhetoric, much like a virus.  … A rhetoric emerges already infected by the viral intensities that are circulating in the social field.”

Examples of Rhetorical Ecologies: The Amen Break

The Rhetorical Ecology model means that rhetoric never just occurs within one isolated situation, but evolves and moves across different situations.  This means that rhetoric interacts with other pressing issues or concerns of the moment. A viral intensity is how topics may be pressing or important at one moment and how those concerns may transform a given instance of rhetoric from one moment to the next. Below is a clip about the “Amen break,” which explains how a given text moves across situations rather than remaining stationary.

As the video indicates, although you may not know it, you have likely heard the Amen break in many different advertisements and musical genres. Rather than occurring in a single situation, the Amen break happens across different moments that enable it to mean something different in each instance. As an example of a rhetorical ecology, the message undergoes a significant transformation as it moves from one situation to another; it means differently because it moves.

Examples of Rhetorical Ecologies: Keep Austin Weird

Let’s consider a separate example of the rhetorical ecology that comes directly from Edbauer’s article on the topic. The phrase ‘Keep Austin Weird!’ started in Austin, Texas, with the closure of the Sound Exchange, a popular record store. Gradually over time, more and more large businesses started entering Austin, including Urban Outfitters, Barnes and Noble, and Baja Grille, each of which is (or was) a national chain. Two local businesses, Book People Books and Waterloo Records decided to stand against Austin’s stand to give a tax break to a Borders that was opening across the street from them.

According to Steve Baroo, the owner of Book People Books: “I was talking to the people of Waterloo Records about our struggle to stop the city of Austin from providing incentives to the developer, who planned to put a chain book store across the street from our stores. I suggested that we get some bumper stickers that said: ‘Keep Austin Weird,’ put both our logos on them and then give them away at our stores. He decided that we should buy five-thousand stickers and saw what our customers thought.”

The five thousand stickers were so popular that the stores immediately bought another ten thousand and then twenty-five thousand stickers. Almost a year later, nearly sixty thousand stickers had been distributed. Soon enough, other Austin businesses joined their call to weirdness. Local businesses began to sell T-shirts with individual logos on the front and the same ‘Keep Austin Weird’ logo on the back. The phrase ‘Keep Austin Weird’ quickly passed into the city’s general culture and popular circulation. One pledge pitch for a local public radio station told listeners, “You too can work toward keeping Austin Weird by pledging to keep KOOP 917 FM on the air.”

In certain parts of Austin, it is nearly impossible to go for very long without finding some display of the slogan on a T-shirt, bumper sticker, tote bag, mug, or a local businesses billboard vowing to keep it weird. In fact, even the increasingly popular counter-slogans managed to illustrate a kind of distributed ecological spread of this rhetoric.

Appearing on T-shirts and bumper stickers throughout Austin, there is the ‘Make Austin Normal’ campaign, by a University of Texas business student who wanted to make a point of – and profit from – the ironic popularity of the “Weird” slogan. “Keep Austin Weird” was also taken up by large, gentrifying  businesses, largely against its original intent. Its uptake by the South By Southwest (SXSW) Convention and Festival and local politicians indicated that  real estate corporate interests co-opted the phrase interests. Ultimately, the message moved from one situation to the next and changed until eventually its meaning became antithetical to what it had signified at its inception.

We can even see evidence of this spread in Minnesota in the form of parodic “Keep Minnesota Passive-Aggressive” slogans.  Ultimately Edbauer’s case study investigates how ‘Keep Austin Weird’ is distributed through a rhetorical ecology, one going beyond the traditional boundaries of the rhetorical situation. As rhetorics and their companion counter-rhetorics move between situations, they respond to, resist, and transform the message. Sometimes these messages address the original exigence; other times, they deflect from it. When we set aside the rhetor, audience, exigence, and constraints as the only elements of rhetoric deserving of attention, we can see how textual movement extends our understanding of where, when, and how communication happens.

Additional Resources

Models of the Rhetorical Situation

• Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The rhetorical situation.”   Philosophy & rhetoric  (1968): 1-14.
• Jamieson, Kathleen M. Hall. “Generic constraints and the rhetorical situation.”   Philosophy & Rhetoric  (1973): 162-170.
• Vatz, Richard E. “The myth of the rhetorical situation.”   Philosophy & rhetoric  (1973): 154-161.
• Consigny, Scott. “Rhetoric and its situations.”   Philosophy & rhetoric  (1974): 175-186.
• Biesecker, Barbara A. “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of ‘Différance’.” Philosophy & rhetoric  (1989): 110-130.
• Garret, Mary, and Xiaosui Xiao. “The rhetorical situation revisited.”   Rhetoric Society Quarterly  23.2 (1993): 30-40.
• Edbauer, Jenny. “Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies.”   Rhetoric society quarterly  35.4 (2005): 5-24.

Examples of Rhetorical Situation-Based Criticism

• Cisneros, Josue David. “Reclaiming the Rhetoric of Reies López Tijerina: Border Identity and Agency in “The Land Grant Question”.”   Communication Quarterly  60.5 (2012): 561-587.
• Cox, J. Robert. “The fulfillment of time: King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech (August 28, 1963).” Texts in Contexts: Critical Dialogues on Significant Episodes in American Political Rhetoric  (1989): 181-204.
• Hariman, Robert. “Time and the Reconstitution of Gradualism in King’s Address: A Response to Cox: Critical Dialogues on Significant Episodes in American Political Rhetoric.”   Texts in context: Critical dialogues on significant episodes in American political rhetoric . Hermagoras Press, 1989.
• Gaipa, Mark. “A Creative Psalm of Brotherhood”: The (De) constructive Play in Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”  Quarterly Journal of Speech  93.3 (2007): 279-307.
• Johnson, Andre E. “My Sanctified Imagination: Carter G. Woodson and a Speculative (Rhetorical) History of African American Public Address, 1925–1960.”   Rhetoric and Public Affairs  24.1-2 (2021): 15-50.
• Johnson, Paul Elliott. “The art of masculine victimhood: Donald Trump’s demagoguery.”   Women’s Studies in Communication  40.3 (2017): 229-250.
• Murphy, John M. “” Our mission and our moment”: George W. Bush and September 11th.”   Rhetoric & Public Affairs  6.4 (2003): 607-632.
• Murphy, John M. “Political economy and rhetorical matter.”   Rhetoric & Public Affairs  12.2 (2009): 303-315.
• Murphy, John M. “” A time of shame and sorrow”: Robert F. Kennedy and the American jeremiad.”   Quarterly Journal of Speech  76.4 (1990): 401-414.
• Palczewski, Catherine H. “The 1919 Prison Special: Constituting white women’s citizenship.”   Quarterly Journal of Speech  102.2 (2016): 107-132.
• Winderman, Emily. “S (anger) goes postal in The Woman Rebel: Angry rhetoric as a collectivizing moral emotion.”   Rhetoric and Public Affairs  17.3 (2014): 381-420.
• Zarefsky, David. “Making the case for war: Colin Powell at the United Nations.”   Rhetoric & Public Affairs  10.2 (2007): 275-302.

Reading Rhetorical Theory Copyright © 2022 by Atilla Hallsby is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Skip to right header navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

70 Rhetorical Analysis Essay Topics for Secondary ELA

May 28, 2019 //  by  Lindsay Ann //   8 Comments

Sharing is caring!

Before we get to the rhetorical analysis essay prompts (a.k.a. tons of ready-to-analyze texts at your fingertips), let’s take a time-out to lay the groundwork for understanding a rhetorical analysis essay using ethos, pathos, and logos.

Rhetoric is Defined As…

Put simply, rhetoric refers to any technique an author uses to persuade an audience.

Or, the behind-the-scenes choices an author makes to give you all the feels. 

Chances are, if you consider a text or speech to be  really good , rhetorical techniques are working like a master puppeteer to pull at your heart strings, make an impact on your brain, and get you to let down your guard because you trust the author or speaker.

That’s why political figures have speech writers.

That’s why authors spend time fine-tuning their words and sentences.

Rhetoric is important.

In addition, rhetoric goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, the “father” of rhetoric.

The Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Moving on, if rhetoric is the art of persuasion, then the rhetorical analysis essay analyzes how an author or speaker creates opportunity for persuasion in his/her text.

Writing a rhetorical analysis essay involves understanding of context and occasion for writing. It also involves understanding the subject matter of the speech and intended audience.

Beyond this, noticing how the author uses rhetorical appeals and rhetorical devices to impact the target audience can help you to write an in-depth rhetorical essay analysis.

The BEST Rhetoric Topics

As a teacher, I’m always in search of engaging texts for students to analyze. In this post, I’m sharing the best speeches, advertisements, and essays  for rhetorical analysis. You’ll never run out of rhetorical analysis essay topics again!

So, you’ll definitely want to stop right now and pin this post. 

Your future English-teacher-self will thank you. 

47 Rhetoric Examples in Speeches

The following speeches work well individually, but I’ve also tried to add value by pairing texts together.

Whether you’re analyzing rhetorical appeals such as ethos, pathos, and logos or looking at rhetorical devices, these speeches will work for discussion or as the text for a rhetorical analysis essay.

• Gettysburg Monologue in Remember the Titans  – Pair with “ The Gettysburg Address ” by Abraham Lincoln
• “ Full Power of Women ” by Priyanka Chopra – Pair with Emma Watson’s speech on the Power of Women
• Speech from Finding Forrester – Pair with “ Integrity ” by Warren Buffet
• Red’s Parole Hearing from Shawshank Redemption – Pair with the Freedom Speech from Braveheart
• Ending Scene from The Breakfast Club – Pair with  “ The Danger of a Single Story ” by Chimamanda Ngozi Achichi
• Authentic Swing Speech from The Legend of Bagger Vance – Pair with  “ How Winning is Done ” from  Rocky Balboa
• Maximus’ Speech to Commodus from Gladiator – Pair with  The Revolutionary Speech  from  V for Vendetta
• The Natural State of Mankind from Amistad – Pair with “ Our Diversity Makes Us Who We Are ” by Michelle Obama
• Denzel Washington’s  Dillard University Commencement Speech – Pair with “ The Last Lecture ” by Randy Pausch
• “ Like Pieces of Glass in my Head ” from The Green Mile – Pair with “ Eulogy for Beau Biden ” by Barack Obama
• Oprah’s  2018 Golden Globes speech – Pair with  Seth Myers’ Golden Globes Monologue  and/or  Ellen says #MeToo
• Independence Day speech – Pair with  Aragorn’s Helm’s Deep Speech  from LOTR: The Two Towers
• Pair  “I am Human”  &  “Love Liberates” , both by Maya Angelou
• Pink’s  VMA acceptance speech – Pair with “ If I Should Have a Daughter ” by Sarah Kay
• Ellen’s  People’s Choice Humanitarian Award Acceptance Speech – Pair with “ Pep Talk ” by Kid President
• Gandalf Speaks to Frodo in Moria  from  LOTR : Fellowship of the Ring – Pair with   Sam’s Speech   in LOTR: The Two Towers
• Obama’s  Final Farewell Speech – Pair with Al Pacino’s  Any Given Sunday  speech – clean version
• Harvard Graduation Speech by Donovan Livingston – Pair with Steve Jobs  2005 Stanford Commencement Speech
• “ Inside the Mind of a Master Procrastinator ” by Tim Urban – Pair with “ Five Second Rule ” by Mel Robbins
• Rachel Hollis “Inspire Women to be Their Best” (mild profanity)
• My Philosophy for a Happy Life by Sam Berns
• “ To this Day: For the Bullied and the Beautiful ” by Shane Koyczan – Pair with Kid President’s “ Pep Talk to Teachers and Students “
• “ The Power of Introverts ” by Susan Cain – Pair with “ Don’t Let Others Stop You From Living Your Own Truth “

Rhetoric in Advertising: 23 Examples

This next list holds a blend of print advertisements and commercials, perfect for introducing close reading and rhetorical analysis and for writing a rhetorical analysis essay.

Ads are short, but pack a punch. Honestly, my students love analyzing the rhetoric of advertisements a lot because they are accessible and visual.

Rhetoric Commercials & Print Advertisements

• “ Web of Fries “
• Duracell “ Teddy Bear ” Commercial
• Apple 1984 Commercial Introducing the New Macintosh Computer
• Nike “ Find Your Greatness ” Ads
• Pepsi, Superbowl 53 Commercial: “ More than Okay ”
• “ Get a Mac ” Commercial Compilation
• “ Can You Hear Me Now ” Verizon Wireless
• Apple iPhone X – “ Unlock ”
• Kiwi “ First Steps ” Print Advertisement
• Vauxhall’s  Backwards Cinderella
• Lego Print Advertisement
• Top 10 Powerful Ads of 2014

Rhetoric of the Image

• Entourage NGO for the Homeless Print Advertisement Images
• 33 Creative Print Ads
• Protege Group
• Greenpeace Print Advertisement Collection
• “ Divorce Furniture “
• L’Oréal Paris: “This Ad Is For Men, 1 ” L’Oréal Paris: “This Ad Is For Men, 2 ” L’Oréal Paris: “This Ad Is For Men, 3 ”
• “ It’s Not Acceptable to Treat a Woman Like One”
• “ 50 Creative and Effective Advertising Examples “
• Juvenile Protective Association
• Anti-Bullying Campaign
• 25 Serious Ads

Writing a Rhetorical Analysis Essay Using Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

No doubt, writing a rhetorical analysis essay is like taking apart a puzzle and putting it back together again. Teachers, help your students to understand how all of the pieces fit together in order to see the bigger picture of what the author is trying to accomplish.

First, take time to understand how a text “works” for a rhetorical analysis essay using ethos, pathos, and logos:

• Read or listen to understand overall content. Look up unfamiliar words.
• Mark the text for the author’s main points and sub-points.
• descriptive
• compare/contrast
• cause/effect
• argumentative
• Take notes on SOAPS: subject, occasion, audience, purpose, speaker
• Discuss the text(s) in Socratic Seminar .

Next, identify rhetorical appeals . 

• Ethos: How an author demonstrates credibility and builds trust.
• Pathos: How an author creates an emotional response.
• Logos: How an author demonstrates expertise and knowledge.

Look for rhetorical devices & patterns in the text.

• Rhetorical devices refer to an author’s use of diction and syntax.
• Does the author repeat key words / phrases? What’s the impact?
• Does the author return to the same idea or image? Why?

Finally, write a clear thesis statement & topic sentences for your rhetorical analysis essay.

• Use your thesis statement to generate topic sentences.
• In your body paragraphs, identify a technique, provide an example, and discuss the “right there” and “beneath the surface” meanings. How does the author’s choice impact the audience, further a message, establish a tone?
• What’s the context for the repetition?
• What connotations are important?
• How is the anaphora used to move the reader to greater understanding (logos), emotional investment (pathos), and/or trust in the author’s ideas (ethos)?

Six Strategies for Teaching Rhetorical Analysis

I’ve created an awesome free guide to inspire English teachers who teach rhetoric and the rhetorical analysis essay in their classrooms. Even if you don’t teach AP lang, you can benefit from these strategies !

Rhetorical Analysis Essay FAQ’s

How do you write a rhetorical analysis essay.

Writing a rhetorical analysis essay is like writing a literary analysis essay, except the focus is on one or more non-fiction texts and the analysis targets an author’s style or rhetorical “moves” (a.k.a. use of rhetorical appeals and/or devices). Rhetorical analysis essays usually prove a claim about the author’s message or purpose for writing. The paragraphs in a rhetorical analysis essay unpack “what” an author is doing to send this message and “how” these choices impact the audience.

What does it mean to write a rhetorical analysis?

Writing a rhetorical analysis means that you are aware, as an audience member, reader, listener, human being, of the messages you consume. As a critical consumer of others’ ideas, you ask hard questions about how these messages are shaped, why they’re being delivered in certain ways, and why this is important for you and for society.

What are the three rhetorical strategies?

The three most commonly known rhetorical strategies are known as rhetorical appeals. Ethos (ethics) refers to credibility and trustworthiness. Pathos (passion) refers to engaging an audience’s emotions. Logos (logic) refers to engaging an audience’s brain through logical organization and use of evidence and arguments.

About Lindsay Ann

Lindsay has been teaching high school English in the burbs of Chicago for 19 years. She is passionate about helping English teachers find balance in their lives and teaching practice through practical feedback strategies and student-led learning strategies. She also geeks out about literary analysis, inquiry-based learning, and classroom technology integration. When Lindsay is not teaching, she enjoys playing with her two kids, running, and getting lost in a good book.

Related Posts

You may be interested in these posts from the same category.

6 Fun Book Project Ideas

Tailoring Your English Curriculum to Diverse Learning Styles

Teacher Toolbox: Creative & Effective Measures of Academic Progress for the Classroom

10 Most Effective Teaching Strategies for English Teachers

Beyond Persuasion: Unlocking the Nuances of the AP Lang Argument Essay

Book List: Nonfiction Texts to Engage High School Students

12 Tips for Generating Writing Prompts for Writing Using AI

31 Informational Texts for High School Students

Project Based Learning: Unlocking Creativity and Collaboration

Empathy and Understanding: How the TED Talk on the Danger of a Single Story Reshapes Perspectives

Teaching Story Elements to Improve Storytelling

Figurative Language Examples We Can All Learn From

Reader Interactions

January 9, 2023 at 9:38 am

Hi Lindsay Ann, thanks so much for these great resources. Just wanted to gently point out a couple errors that you might want to fix:

#12: should be Seth Myers’ (not Seth Myer’s) #13: should be independence (not independance)

Teachers have to help each other out 🙂

Best, Nikkee

January 9, 2023 at 5:44 pm

Thank you so much for letting me know, Nikkee!

[…] a lot of options and extensions for analyzing rhetoric in social media. Who knows, maybe your next rhetorical analysis essay assignment will be focused on rhetoric in social […]

[…] 70 Rhetorical Analysis Essay Topics for Secondary ELA […]

[…] find that teaching rhetorical analysis and close reading skills go hand-in-hand with teaching voice in […]

[…] helps students to remember that everything comes back to the author’s purpose or message in rhetorical analysis. Author’s purpose is central to unpacking an author’s choices, including use of […]

[…] you assigning a rhetorical analysis essay? Why not try having students use rhetorical analysis sentence […]

[…] I introduced students to rhetoric. First, we journaled on this topic: Think of a time someone talked you into doing something or believing something. How did they do it? What tactics did they use? Students may share out journals. I gave students a graphic organizer with a PAPA analysis (purpose, audience, persona, argument) and picked a speech. Frankly, the speech I picked, which was Samwise Gamgee’s speech to Frodo Baggins in The Two Towers, failed spectacularly since students had no frame of reference. Note: that movie is old now. I know. It makes me sad, too. So go cautiously if you use this, but maybe pick something else. You can find a massive list here. […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Chapter 6: Thinking and Analyzing Rhetorically

6.3 What is Rhetorical Analysis?

Rhetoric: The art of persuasion

Analysis: Breaking down the whole into pieces for the purpose of examination

Unlike summary, a rhetorical analysis does not only require a restatement of ideas; instead, you must recognize rhetorical moves that an author is making in an attempt to persuade his or her audience to do or to think something. In the 21st century’s abundance of information, it can sometimes be difficult to discern what is a rhetorical strategy and what is simple manipulation; however, an understanding of rhetoric and rhetorical moves will help you become more savvy with the information surrounding you on a day-to-day basis. In other words, rhetorical moves can be a form of manipulation, but if one can recognize those moves, then one can be a more critical consumer of information rather than blindly accepting whatever one reads, sees, hears, etc.

The goal of a rhetorical analysis is to explain what is happening in the text,  why the author might have chosen to use a particular move or set of rhetorical moves, and how those choices might affect the audience. The text you analyze might be explanatory, although there will be aspects of argument because you must negotiate with what the author is trying to do and what you think the author is doing. Edward P.J. Corbett observes, rhetorical analysis “is more interested in a literary work for what it does than for what it is”  (qtd. in Nordqvist).

One of the elements of doing a rhetorical analysis is looking at a text’s rhetorical situation. The rhetorical situation is the context out of a which a text is created.

• The questions that you can use to examine a text’s rhetorical situation are in   Chapter 6.2 .

Another element of rhetorical analysis is simply reading and summarizing the text. You have to be able to describe the basics of the author’s thesis and main points before you can begin to analyze it.

• The questions that you can use to summarize a text are in  Chapter 5.1

A third element of rhetorical analysis requires you to connect the rhetorical situation to the text. You need to go beyond summarizing and look at how the author shapes his or her text based on its context. In developing your reading and analytical skills, allow yourself to think about what you’re reading, to question the text and your responses to it, as you read. Use the following questions to help you to take the text apart—dissecting it to see how it works:

• Does the author successfully support the thesis or claim?   Is the point held consistently throughout the text, or does it wander at any point?
• Is the evidence the author used effective for the intended audience? How might the intended audience respond to the types of evidence that the author used to support the thesis/claim?
• What rhetorical moves do you see the author making to help achieve his or her purpose? Are there word choices or content choices that seem to you to be clearly related to the author’s agenda for the text or that might appeal to the intended audience?
• Describe the tone in the piece. Is it friendly? Authoritative? Does it lecture? Is it biting or sarcastic? Does the author use simple language, or is it full of jargon? Does the language feel positive or negative? Point to aspects of the text that create the tone; spend some time examining these and considering how and why they work. (Learn more about tone in Section 4.5 “ Tone, Voice, and Point of View . ”)
• Is the author objective, or does he or she try to convince you to have a certain opinion? Why does the author try to persuade you to adopt this viewpoint? If the author is biased, does this interfere with the way you read and understand the text?
• Do you feel like the author knows who you are? Does the text seem to be aimed at readers like you or at a different audience? What assumptions does the author make about their audience? Would most people find these reasonable, acceptable, or accurate?
• Does the text’s flow make sense? Is the line of reasoning logical? Are there any gaps? Are there any spots where you feel the reasoning is flawed in some way?
• Does the author try to appeal to your emotions? Does the author use any controversial words in the headline or the article? Do these affect your reading or your interest?
• Do you believe the author? Do you accept their thoughts and ideas? Why or why not?

It is also a good idea to revisit Section 2.3 “How to Read Rhetorically.” This chapter will compliment the rhetorical questions listed above and help you clearly determine the text’s rhetorical situation.

Once you have done this basic, rhetorical, critical reading of your text, you are ready to think about how the rhetorical situation ( Section 6.2 ) – the context out of which the text arises –  influences certain rhetorical appeals ( Section 6.4 ) that appear in it.

Attributions

This chapter contains material from “The Word on College Reading and Writing” by Monique Babin, Carol Burnell, Susan Pesznecker, Nicole Rosevear, Jaime Wood , OpenOregon Educational Resources , Higher Education Coordination Commission: Office of Community Colleges and Workforce Development is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing by Melanie Gagich & Emilie Zickel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Feedback/Errata

Comments are closed.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay–Examples & Template

What is a Rhetorical Analysis Essay?

A rhetorical analysis essay is, as the name suggests, an analysis of someone else’s writing (or speech, or advert, or even cartoon) and how they use not only words but also rhetorical techniques to influence their audience in a certain way. A rhetorical analysis is less interested in what the author is saying and more in how they present it, what effect this has on their readers, whether they achieve their goals, and what approach they use to get there. 

Its structure is similar to that of most essays: An Introduction presents your thesis, a Body analyzes the text you have chosen, breaks it down into sections and explains how arguments have been constructed and how each part persuades, informs, or entertains the reader, and a Conclusion section sums up your evaluation. 

Note that your personal opinion on the matter is not relevant for your analysis and that you don’t state anywhere in your essay whether you agree or disagree with the stance the author takes.

In the following, we will define the key rhetorical concepts you need to write a good rhetorical analysis and give you some practical tips on where to start.

Key Rhetorical Concepts

Your goal when writing a rhetorical analysis is to think about and then carefully describe how the author has designed their text so that it has the intended effect on their audience. To do that, you need to consider a number of key rhetorical strategies: Rhetorical appeals (“Ethos”, “Logos”, and “Pathos”), context, as well as claims, supports, and warrants.

Ethos, Logos, and Pathos were introduced by Aristotle, way back in the 4th century BC, as the main ways in which language can be used to persuade an audience. They still represent the basis of any rhetorical analysis and are often referred to as the “rhetorical triangle”. 

These and other rhetorical techniques can all be combined to create the intended effect, and your job as the one analyzing a text is to break the writer’s arguments down and identify the concepts they are based on.

Rhetorical Appeals

Rhetorical appeal #1: ethos.

Ethos refers to the reputation or authority of the writer regarding the topic of their essay or speech and to how they use this to appeal to their audience. Just like we are more likely to buy a product from a brand or vendor we have confidence in than one we don’t know or have reason to distrust, Ethos-driven texts or speeches rely on the reputation of the author to persuade the reader or listener. When you analyze an essay, you should therefore look at how the writer establishes Ethos through rhetorical devices.

Does the author present themselves as an authority on their subject? If so, how? 

Do they highlight how impeccable their own behavior is to make a moral argument? 

Do they present themselves as an expert by listing their qualifications or experience to convince the reader of their opinion on something?

Rhetorical appeal #2: Pathos

The purpose of Pathos-driven rhetoric is to appeal to the reader’s emotions. A common example of pathos as a rhetorical means is adverts by charities that try to make you donate money to a “good cause”. To evoke the intended emotions in the reader, an author may use passionate language, tell personal stories, and employ vivid imagery so that the reader can imagine themselves in a certain situation and feel empathy with or anger towards others.

Rhetorical appeal #3: Logos

Logos, the “logical” appeal, uses reason to persuade. Reason and logic, supported by data, evidence, clearly defined methodology, and well-constructed arguments, are what most academic writing is based on. Emotions, those of the researcher/writer as well as those of the reader, should stay out of such academic texts, as should anyone’s reputation, beliefs, or personal opinions. 

Text and Context

To analyze a piece of writing, a speech, an advertisement, or even a satirical drawing, you need to look beyond the piece of communication and take the context in which it was created and/or published into account. 

Who is the person who wrote the text/drew the cartoon/designed the ad..? What audience are they trying to reach? Where was the piece published and what was happening there around that time? 

A political speech, for example, can be powerful even when read decades later, but the historical context surrounding it is an important aspect of the effect it was intended to have. 

Claims, Supports, and Warrants

To make any kind of argument, a writer needs to put forward specific claims, support them with data or evidence or even a moral or emotional appeal, and connect the dots logically so that the reader can follow along and agree with the points made.

The connections between statements, so-called “warrants”, follow logical reasoning but are not always clearly stated—the author simply assumes the reader understands the underlying logic, whether they present it “explicitly” or “implicitly”. Implicit warrants are commonly used in advertisements where seemingly happy people use certain products, wear certain clothes, accessories, or perfumes, or live certain lifestyles – with the connotation that, first, the product/perfume/lifestyle is what makes that person happy and, second, the reader wants to be as happy as the person in the ad. Some warrants are never clearly stated, and your job when writing a rhetorical analysis essay is therefore to identify them and bring them to light, to evaluate their validity, their effect on the reader, and the use of such means by the writer/creator. 

What are the Five Rhetorical Situations?

A “rhetorical situation” refers to the circumstance behind a text or other piece of communication that arises from a given context. It explains why a rhetorical piece was created, what its purpose is, and how it was constructed to achieve its aims.

Rhetorical situations can be classified into the following five categories:

Asking such questions when you analyze a text will help you identify all the aspects that play a role in the effect it has on its audience, and will allow you to evaluate whether it achieved its aims or where it may have failed to do so.

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Outline

Analyzing someone else’s work can seem like a big task, but as with every assignment or writing endeavor, you can break it down into smaller, well-defined steps that give you a practical structure to follow. 

To give you an example of how the different parts of your text may look when it’s finished, we will provide you with some excerpts from this rhetorical analysis essay example (which even includes helpful comments) published on the Online Writing Lab website of Excelsior University in Albany, NY. The text that this essay analyzes is this article on why one should or shouldn’t buy an Ipad. If you want more examples so that you can build your own rhetorical analysis template, have a look at this essay on Nabokov’s Lolita and the one provided here about the “Shitty First Drafts” chapter of Anne Lamott’s writing instruction book “Bird by Bird”.

Analyzing the Text

When writing a rhetorical analysis, you don’t choose the concepts or key points you think are relevant or want to address. Rather, you carefully read the text several times asking yourself questions like those listed in the last section on rhetorical situations to identify how the text “works” and how it was written to achieve that effect.

Start with focusing on the author : What do you think was their purpose for writing the text? Do they make one principal claim and then elaborate on that? Or do they discuss different topics? 

Then look at what audience they are talking to: Do they want to make a group of people take some action? Vote for someone? Donate money to a good cause? Who are these people? Is the text reaching this specific audience? Why or why not?

What tone is the author using to address their audience? Are they trying to evoke sympathy? Stir up anger? Are they writing from a personal perspective? Are they painting themselves as an authority on the topic? Are they using academic or informal language?

How does the author support their claims ? What kind of evidence are they presenting? Are they providing explicit or implicit warrants? Are these warrants valid or problematic? Is the provided evidence convincing?  

Asking yourself such questions will help you identify what rhetorical devices a text uses and how well they are put together to achieve a certain aim. Remember, your own opinion and whether you agree with the author are not the point of a rhetorical analysis essay – your task is simply to take the text apart and evaluate it.

If you are still confused about how to write a rhetorical analysis essay, just follow the steps outlined below to write the different parts of your rhetorical analysis: As every other essay, it consists of an Introduction , a Body (the actual analysis), and a Conclusion .

Rhetorical Analysis Introduction

The Introduction section briefly presents the topic of the essay you are analyzing, the author, their main claims, a short summary of the work by you, and your thesis statement . 

Tell the reader what the text you are going to analyze represents (e.g., historically) or why it is relevant (e.g., because it has become some kind of reference for how something is done). Describe what the author claims, asserts, or implies and what techniques they use to make their argument and persuade their audience. Finish off with your thesis statement that prepares the reader for what you are going to present in the next section – do you think that the author’s assumptions/claims/arguments were presented in a logical/appealing/powerful way and reached their audience as intended?

Have a look at an excerpt from the sample essay linked above to see what a rhetorical analysis introduction can look like. See how it introduces the author and article , the context in which it originally appeared , the main claims the author makes , and how this first paragraph ends in a clear thesis statement that the essay will then elaborate on in the following Body section:

Cory Doctorow ’s article on BoingBoing is an older review of the iPad , one of Apple’s most famous products. At the time of this article, however, the iPad was simply the latest Apple product to hit the market and was not yet so popular. Doctorow’s entire career has been entrenched in and around technology. He got his start as a CD-ROM programmer and is now a successful blogger and author. He is currently the co-editor of the BoingBoing blog on which this article was posted. One of his main points in this article comes from Doctorow’s passionate advocacy of free digital media sharing. He argues that the iPad is just another way for established technology companies to control our technological freedom and creativity . In “ Why I Won’t Buy an iPad (and Think You Shouldn’t, Either) ” published on Boing Boing in April of 2010, Cory Doctorow successfully uses his experience with technology, facts about the company Apple, and appeals to consumer needs to convince potential iPad buyers that Apple and its products, specifically the iPad, limit the digital rights of those who use them by controlling and mainstreaming the content that can be used and created on the device . 

Doing the Rhetorical Analysis

The main part of your analysis is the Body , where you dissect the text in detail. Explain what methods the author uses to inform, entertain, and/or persuade the audience. Use Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle and the other key concepts we introduced above. Use quotations from the essay to demonstrate what you mean. Work out why the writer used a certain approach and evaluate (and again, demonstrate using the text itself) how successful they were. Evaluate the effect of each rhetorical technique you identify on the audience and judge whether the effect is in line with the author’s intentions.

To make it easy for the reader to follow your thought process, divide this part of your essay into paragraphs that each focus on one strategy or one concept , and make sure they are all necessary and contribute to the development of your argument(s).

One paragraph of this section of your essay could, for example, look like this:

One example of Doctorow’s position is his comparison of Apple’s iStore to Wal-Mart. This is an appeal to the consumer’s logic—or an appeal to logos. Doctorow wants the reader to take his comparison and consider how an all-powerful corporation like the iStore will affect them. An iPad will only allow for apps and programs purchased through the iStore to be run on it; therefore, a customer must not only purchase an iPad but also any programs he or she wishes to use. Customers cannot create their own programs or modify the hardware in any way. 

As you can see, the author of this sample essay identifies and then explains to the reader how Doctorow uses the concept of Logos to appeal to his readers – not just by pointing out that he does it but by dissecting how it is done.

Rhetorical Analysis Conclusion

The conclusion section of your analysis should restate your main arguments and emphasize once more whether you think the author achieved their goal. Note that this is not the place to introduce new information—only rely on the points you have discussed in the body of your essay. End with a statement that sums up the impact the text has on its audience and maybe society as a whole:

Overall, Doctorow makes a good argument about why there are potentially many better things to drop a great deal of money on instead of the iPad. He gives some valuable information and facts that consumers should take into consideration before going out to purchase the new device. He clearly uses rhetorical tools to help make his case, and, overall, he is effective as a writer, even if, ultimately, he was ineffective in convincing the world not to buy an iPad . 

Frequently Asked Questions about Rhetorical Analysis Essays 

What is a rhetorical analysis essay.

A rhetorical analysis dissects a text or another piece of communication to work out and explain how it impacts its audience, how successfully it achieves its aims, and what rhetorical devices it uses to do that. 

While argumentative essays usually take a stance on a certain topic and argue for it, a rhetorical analysis identifies how someone else constructs their arguments and supports their claims.

What is the correct rhetorical analysis essay format?

Like most other essays, a rhetorical analysis contains an Introduction that presents the thesis statement, a Body that analyzes the piece of communication, explains how arguments have been constructed, and illustrates how each part persuades, informs, or entertains the reader, and a Conclusion section that summarizes the results of the analysis. 

What is the “rhetorical triangle”?

The rhetorical triangle was introduced by Aristotle as the main ways in which language can be used to persuade an audience: Logos appeals to the audience’s reason, Ethos to the writer’s status or authority, and Pathos to the reader’s emotions. Logos, Ethos, and Pathos can all be combined to create the intended effect, and your job as the one analyzing a text is to break the writer’s arguments down and identify what specific concepts each is based on.

Let Wordvice help you write a flawless rhetorical analysis essay! 

Whether you have to write a rhetorical analysis essay as an assignment or whether it is part of an application, our professional proofreading services feature professional editors are trained subject experts that make sure your text is in line with the required format, as well as help you improve the flow and expression of your writing. Let them be your second pair of eyes so that after receiving paper editing services or essay editing services from Wordvice, you can submit your manuscript or apply to the school of your dreams with confidence.

And check out our editing services for writers (including blog editing , script editing , and book editing ) to correct your important personal or business-related work.

Rhetorical Analysis Definition and Examples

The analysis can be used on any communication, even a bumper sticker

• An Introduction to Punctuation

Sample Rhetorical Analyses

Examples and observations, analyzing effects, analyzing greeting card verse, analyzing starbucks, rhetorical analysis vs. literary criticism.

• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Rhetorical analysis is a form of criticism or close reading that employs the principles of rhetoric to examine the interactions between a text, an author, and an audience . It's also called rhetorical criticism or pragmatic criticism.

Rhetorical analysis may be applied to virtually any text or image—a speech , an essay , an advertisement, a poem, a photograph, a web page, even a bumper sticker. When applied to a literary work, rhetorical analysis regards the work not as an aesthetic object but as an artistically structured instrument for communication. As Edward P.J. Corbett has observed, rhetorical analysis "is more interested in a literary work for what it does than for what it is."

• A Rhetorical Analysis of Claude McKay's "Africa"
• A Rhetorical Analysis of E.B. White's "The Ring of Time"
• A Rhetorical Analysis of U2's "Sunday Bloody Sunday"
• "Our response to the character of the author—whether it is called ethos, or 'implied author,' or style , or even tone—is part of our experience of his work, an experience of the voice within the masks, personae , of the work...Rhetorical criticism intensifies our sense of the dynamic relationships between the author as a real person and the more or less fictive person implied by the work." (Thomas O. Sloan, "Restoration of Rhetoric to Literary Study." The Speech Teacher )
• "[R]hetorical criticism is a mode of analysis that focuses on the text itself. In that respect, it is like the practical criticism that the New Critics and the Chicago School indulge in. It is unlike these modes of criticism in that it does not remain inside the literary work but works outward from the text to considerations of the author and the audience...In talking about the ethical appeal in his 'Rhetoric,' Aristotle made the point that although a speaker may come before an audience with a certain antecedent reputation, his ethical appeal is exerted primarily by what he says in that particular speech before that particular audience. Likewise, in rhetorical criticism, we gain our impression of the author from what we can glean from the text itself—from looking at such things as his ideas and attitudes, his stance, his tone, his style. This reading back to the author is not the same sort of thing as the attempt to reconstruct the biography of a writer from his literary work. Rhetorical criticism seeks simply to ascertain the particular posture or image that the author is establishing in this particular work in order to produce a particular effect on a particular audience." (Edward P.J. Corbett, "Introduction" to " Rhetorical Analyses of Literary Works ")

"[A] complete   rhetorical analysis requires the researcher to move beyond identifying and labeling in that creating an inventory of the parts of a text represents only the starting point of the analyst's work. From the earliest examples of rhetorical analysis to the present, this analytical work has involved the analyst in interpreting the meaning of these textual components—both in isolation and in combination—for the person (or people) experiencing the text. This highly interpretive aspect of rhetorical analysis requires the analyst to address the effects of the different identified textual elements on the perception of the person experiencing the text. So, for example, the analyst might say that the presence of feature x will condition the reception of the text in a particular way. Most texts, of course, include multiple features, so this analytical work involves addressing the cumulative effects of the selected combination of features in the text." (Mark Zachry, "Rhetorical Analysis" from " The Handbook of Business Discourse , " Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, editor)

"Perhaps the most pervasive type of repeated-word sentence used in greeting card verse is the sentence in which a word or group of words is repeated anywhere within the sentence, as in the following example:

In quiet and thoughtful ways , in happy and fun ways , all ways , and always , I love you.

In this sentence, the word ways is repeated at the end of two successive phrases, picked up again at the beginning of the next phrase, and then repeated as part of the word always . Similarly, the root word all initially appears in the phrase 'all ways' and is then repeated in a slightly different form in the homophonic word always . The movement is from the particular ('quiet and thoughtful ways,' 'happy and fun ways'), to the general ('all ways'), to the hyperbolic ('always')." (Frank D'Angelo, "The Rhetoric of Sentimental Greeting Card Verse." Rhetoric Review )

"Starbucks not just as an institution or as a set of verbal discourses or even advertising but as a material and physical site is deeply rhetorical...Starbucks weaves us directly into the cultural conditions of which it is constitutive. The color of the logo, the performative practices of ordering, making, and drinking the coffee, the conversations around the tables, and the whole host of other materialities and performances of/in Starbucks are at once the rhetorical claims and the enactment of the rhetorical action urged. In short, Starbucks draws together the tripartite relationships among place, body, and subjectivity. As a material/rhetorical place, Starbucks addresses and is the very site of a comforting and discomforting negotiation of these relationships." (Greg Dickinson, "Joe's Rhetoric: Finding Authenticity at Starbucks." Rhetoric Society Quarterly )

"What essentially are the differences between literary criticism analysis and rhetorical analysis? When a critic explicates Ezra Pound's Canto XLV , for example, and shows how Pound inveighs against usury as an offense against nature that corrupts society and the arts, the critic must point out the 'evidence'—the 'artistic proofs' of example and enthymeme [a formal syllogistic argument that is incompletely stated}—that Pound has drawn upon for his fulmination. The critic will also call attention to the 'arrangement' of the parts of that argument as a feature of the 'form' of the poem just as he may inquire into the language and syntax. Again these are matters that Aristotle assigned mainly to rhetoric...

"All critical essays dealing with the persona of a literary work are in reality studies of the 'Ethos' of the 'speaker' or 'narrator'—the voice—source of the rhythmic language which attracts and holds the kind of readers the poet desires as his audience, and the means this persona consciously or unconsciously chooses, in Kenneth Burke's term, to 'woo' that reader-audience." (Alexander Scharbach, "Rhetoric and Literary Criticism: Why Their Separation." College Composition and Communication )

• Definition and Examples of Explication (Analysis)
• What Is the Second Persona?
• Audience Analysis in Speech and Composition
• A Rhetorical Analysis of U2's 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'
• Definition and Examples of Ethos in Classical Rhetoric
• Stylistics and Elements of Style in Literature
• Definition of Belles-Lettres in English Grammer
• Rhetoric: Definitions and Observations
• Critical Analysis in Composition
• What is a Rhetorical Situation?
• Invented Ethos (Rhetoric)
• Definition and Examples of the Topoi in Rhetoric
• Definition of Audience
• Feminist Literary Criticism
• What Is Phronesis?
• Quotes About Close Reading

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 11 December 2023

The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis

• Nisreen N. Al-Khawaldeh 1 ,
• Luqman M. Rababah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3871-3853 2 ,
• Ali F. Khawaldeh 1 &
• Alaeddin A. Banikalef 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  936 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4471 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

This research investigated the main linguistic strategies used in President Biden’s inauguration speech presented in 2021. Data were analyzed in light of Fairclough’s CDA framework: macro-structure (thematic)—intertextually; microstructure in syntax analysis (cohesion); stylistic (lexicon choice to display the speaker’s emphasis); and rhetoric in terms of persuasive function. The thematic analysis of the data revealed that Biden used certain persuasive strategies including creativity, metaphor, contrast, indirectness, reference, and intertextuality, for addressing critical issues. Creative expressions were drawn highlighting and magnifying significant real-life issues. Certain concepts and values (i.e., unity, democracy, and racial justice) were also accentuated as significant elements of America’s status and Biden’s ideology. Intertextuality was employed by resorting to an extract from one of the American presidents in order to convince the Americans and the international community of his ideas, vision, and policy. It appeared that indirect expressions were also used for discussing politically sensitive issues to acquire a political and interactional advantage over his political opponents. His referencing style showed his interest in others and their unity. Significant ideologies encompassing unity, equality, and freedom for US citizens were stated implicitly and explicitly. The study concludes that the effective use of linguistic and rhetorical devices is important to construct meanings in the world, be persuasive, and convey the intended vision and underlying ideologies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation

Introduction.

The significance of language in political and academic realms has gained prominence in recent times (Iqbal et al., 2020 ; Kozlovskaya, et al., 2020 ; Moody & Eslami, 2020 ). Language serves as a potent instrument in politics, embodying a crucial role in the struggle for power to uphold and enact specific beliefs and interests. Undeniably, language encompasses elements that unveil diverse intended meanings conveyed through political speeches, influencing, planning, accompanying, and managing every political endeavor. Effectiveness in political speeches relies on meeting criteria such as credibility, logic, and emotional appeal (Nikitina, 2011 ). Credibility is attained through possessing a particular amount of authority and understanding of the selected issue. Logical coherence is evident when the speech is clear and makes sense to the audience. In addition, establishing an emotional connection with the audience is essential to capture and maintain their attention.

Political speech, a renowned genre of discourse, reveals a lot about how power is distributed, exerted, and perceived in a country. Speech is a powerful tool for shaping the political thinking and political “mind” of a nation, allowing the actors and recipients of political activity to acquire a certain political vision (Fairclough, 1989 ). Political scientists are primarily interested in the historical implications of political decisions and acts, and they are interested in the political realities that are formed in and via discourse (Schmidt, 2008 ; Pierson & Skocpol, 2002 ). Linguists, on the other hand, have long been fascinated by language patterns employed to deliver politically relevant messages to certain locations in order to accomplish a specific goal.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a crucial approach for analyzing language in depth so as to reveal certain tendencies within political discourse (Janks, 1997 ). CDA is not the same as other types of discourse analysis. That is why it is said to be “critical.” According to Cameron ( 2001 ), “critical refers to a way of understanding the social world drawn from critical theory” (p. 121). Fairclough ( 1995 ) also says, “Critical implies showing connections and causes which are hidden; it also implies intervention, for example, providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged through change” (p. 9). In short, it can be applied to both talk and text delivered by leaders or politicians who normally have a lot of authority to reveal their hidden agenda (Cameron, 2001 ) and decipher the meaning of the crucial concealed ideas (Fairclough, 1989 ). Therefore, it is a useful technique for analyzing texts like speeches connected with power, conflict, and politics, such as Martin Luther King’s speech (Alfayes, 2009 ). Fairclough concludes that CDA can elucidate the hidden meaning of “I Have a Dream,” the speech that has a strong and profound significance and whose messages concerning black Americans’ poverty and struggle have inspired many people all around the world. The ideological components are enshrined in political speeches since “ideology invests language in various ways at various levels and that ideology is both properties of structures and events” (Fairclough, 1995 , p. 71). Thus, meanings are produced through attainable interpretations of the target speech.

CDA has obtained wide prominence in analyzing language usage beyond word and sentence levels (Almahasees & Mahmoud, 2022 ). CDA, also known as critical language study (Fairclough, 1989 ) or critical linguistics (Fairclough, 1995 ; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999 ), considers language to be a critical component of social and cultural processes (Fairclough, 1992 ; Fairclough, 1995 ; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999 ). The goal of this strategy, according to Fairclough ( 1989 ), is to “contribute to the broad raising of consciousness of exploitative social connections by focusing on language” (p. 4). He also claims that CDA is concerned with studying linkages within language between dominance, discrimination, power, and control (Fairclough, 1992 ; Fairclough, 1995 ) and that the goal of CDA is to link between discourse practice and social practice obvious (Fairclough, 1995 ). The CDA is a type of critical thinking which means, according to Beyer ( 1995 ), “developing reasoned conclusions.” Thus, it might be viewed as a critical perspective and interpretation that focuses on social issues, notably the role of discourse in the production and reproduction of power abuse or dominance (Wodak & Meyer, 2009 ). Furthermore, the ‘Sapir–Whorf hypothesis’ indicates that the goal of critical discourse interpretation is to retrieve the social meanings conveyed in the speech by analyzing language structures considering their interactive and larger social contexts (Fairclough, 1992 ; Kriyantono, 2019 ; Lauwren, 2020 ).

Political communication is generally classified as a persuasive speech since it aims to influence or convince people that they have made the right choice (Nusartlert, 2017 ). Persuasive discourse is a very powerful tool for getting what is needed or intended. In such a type of discourse, people use communicative strategies to convince or urge specific thoughts, actions, and attitudes. Scheidel defines persuasion as “the activity in which the speaker and the listener are conjoined and in which the speaker consciously attempts to influence the behavior of the listener by transmitting audible, visible and symbolic” ( 1967 , p. 1). Thus, persuasive language is used to fulfill various reasons, among which is convincing people to accept a specific standpoint or idea.

Political speeches are considered eloquent pieces of communication oriented toward persuading the target audience (Haider, 2016 ). Politicians often use many persuasive techniques to express their agendas in refined language in order to convince people of their views on certain issues, gain support from the public, and ultimately achieve the envisioned goals (Fairclough, 1992 ). Leaders who control uncertainty, build allies, and generate supportive resources can easily gain enough leverage to lead. This means that their usage of language aims to put their intended political, economic, and social acts into practice. The inaugural speech is a very political discourse to analyze because it marks the inception of the new presidency, mainly focusing on infusing unity among people. In light of the scarcity of research on this significant speech, this study aims to investigate the main linguistic persuasive strategies used in President Biden’s inauguration speech presented in 2021.

Literature review

Political speeches are a significant genre within the realm of political discourse in which politicians use language intentionally to steer people’s mindsets and emotions in order to achieve a specific outcome. Since politics is mainly based on a constant struggle for power among concerned individuals or parties, persuasive techniques are crucial elements politicians use to manipulate others or make them accept their entrenched ideas and plans. Persuasion involves using rhetoric to convince the target audience to embrace certain ideologies, adopt specific attitudes, and control their behavior toward a particular issue (Van Dijk, 2015 ). The inaugural speeches are quite diplomatic and rhetorical, as they constitute a golden chance for the leaders to assert their leadership style. Thus, they are open to different types of interpretations and form a copious source of data for politicians and linguists. The linguistic choices politicians make are rational because of the underlying ideologies that determine the way their speeches should be structured. Considering this idea, it is vital to study the rhetoric of the American presidential inaugural speech since it was presented at a time full of critical political events and scenarios by a very influential political figure in the world, marking the inception of a new phase in the lives of Americans and the world. The significance of studying such a piece of discourse lies in the messages that the new president seeks to deliver to the American nation and the world at large.

Biden’s speeches have attracted researchers’ attention. For example, Renaldo & Arifin ( 2021 ) examined Biden’s ideology evident in his inaugural speech. The analysis of the data revealed three types of presuppositions manifested in his speech, i.e., lexical, existential, and factive, where lexical presupposition is the most frequent one. The underlying ideology was demonstrated in issues regarding immigrants, healthcare, racism, democracy, and climate change.

Prasetio and Prawesti ( 2021 ) analyzed the underlying meanings based on word counts considering three subcategories: hostility, use of auxiliaries, and noun-pronoun discourse analysis. The results revealed Biden’s hope of helping Americans by overcoming problems, developing many fields, and enhancing different aspects. It was evident that his underlying ideology was liberalism and his cherished values were democracy and unity.

Pramadya and Rahmanhadi ( 2021 ) studied the way Biden employed the rhetoric of political language in his inauguration speech in order to show his plans and political views. Each political message conveyed in his inauguration speech revealed his ideology and power. Sociocultural practices that supported the text were explored to view the inherent reality that gave rise to the discourse.

Amir ( 2021 ) investigated Biden’s persuasive strategies and the covert ideology manifested in his inaugural speech. Numerous components including “the rule of three,” the past references, the biblical examples, etc., were analyzed. The results emphasized the strength of America’s heroic past, which requires that Americans mainly focus on American values of tolerance, unity, and love.

Bani-Khaled and Azzam ( 2021 ) examined the linguistic devices used to convey the theme of unity in President Joe Biden’s Inauguration Speech. The qualitative analysis of this theme showed that the speaker used suitable linguistic features to clarify the concept of unity. It revealed that the tone of the speech appeared confident, reconciliatory, and optimistic. Both religion and history were resorted to as sources of rhetorical and persuasive devices.

The review of the literature shows a bi-directional relationship between language and sociocultural practices. Each one of them exerts an influence on the other. Therefore, CDA explores both the socially shaped and constitutive sides of language usage since language is viewed as “social identity, social relations, and systems of knowledge and belief” (Fairclough, 1993 , p. 134). It shows invisible connections and interventions (Fairclough, 1992 ). Consequently, it is significant to disclose such unobserved meanings and intentions to listeners who may not be aware of them.

Despite the plethora of critical discourse analysis research on political speeches, few studies were conducted on Biden’s inauguration speech. Thus, this study aims to enrich the existing research by complementing the analysis and highlighting some other significant aspects of Biden’s inauguration speech. Therefore, it is expected that this study will enrich critical discourse analysis research by focusing mainly on political speech. It can be a helpful source for teachers studying and teaching languages. They will learn how to properly analyze discourses by following a critical thinking approach to fully comprehend the relationship linking individual parts of discourses and creating meaning. Besides, the study casts light on distinctive features of societies manifested in political speech.

Methodology

The present study analyses President Biden’s inauguration speech (Biden, 2021 ). Data were analyzed in light of the CDA framework: macro-structure (thematic)—intertextually; microstructure in syntax analysis (cohesion); stylistic (lexicon choice to display the speaker’s emphasis); and rhetoric in terms of persuasive function. Fairclough’s discourse analysis approach was adopted to analyze the target speech in terms of text analysis, discursive practices, and social practices. The main token and the frequency of the recurring words were statistically analyzed, whereas the persuasive strategies proposed by Obeng ( 1997 ) were analyzed based on Fairclough’s ( 1992 ) CDA mentioned above.

Results and discussion

In the United States, presidents deliver inaugural speeches after taking the presidential oath of office. Presidents use this occasion to address the public and lay forth their vision and objectives. These speeches can also help to unify the United States, especially after difficult times or conflicts. Millions of people in the United States, as well as millions of people throughout the world, listen to the inaugural speeches to gain a glimpse of the new president’s vision for the world. This speech is particularly intriguing to analyze using the CDA framework in many aspects. Fairclough ( 1992 ) emphasizes that language must be regarded as an instrument of power as well as a tool of communication. Actually, there is a technique for utilizing language that seeks to encourage individuals who are engaged to do particular things.

The analysis of the ideological aspect of Biden’s inaugural speech endeavors to link this speech with certain social processes and to decode his invisible ideology. From the opening lines, it is apparent that Biden’s ideology is based on inclusiveness and a citizen-based position. At the beginning of his speech, he uses the first few minutes of his inaugural speech to thank and address his predecessors and audience as ‘my fellow Americans,’ lumping all sorts of nationalities and ethnicities together as one nation.

Biden then continues to mark a successful and smooth transition of power with an emphasis on a citizen-based attitude. He underlines that the victory belongs not only to him but to all Americans who have spoken up for a better life in the United States, saying “We celebrate the triumph not of a candidate, but of a cause. The cause of democracy. The people, the will of the people has been heard and the will of the people has been heeded.” With this victory, he promised to take his position seriously to unify America as a whole, regardless of its diversity by eliminating discrimination and reuniting the country’s divided territories in order to rebuild fresh faith among Americans. People of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, faiths, and origins should be treated equally. There is no difference between red and blue states except for the United States. Through this technique, he tries to accentuate that the whole American system depends on grassroots diplomacy, rather than an exclusive system of presidency. The beginning and the end of his speech successfully emphasize the importance of the oath that he took on himself to serve his nation without bias where he begins with “I have just taken a sacred oath each of those patriots took” and reminds the audience of the holiness of this oath at the end of his speech; as he says “ I close today where I began, with a sacred oath ”.

This section is divided into seven parts. Each of these parts analyses the speech in light of the selected persuasive strategies, which are creativity, indirectness, intertextuality, choice of lexis, coherence, modality, and reference. These strategies were selected among others due to their knock-on effect on explicating the core ideas of the speech.

Creativity is an essential part of any successful political speech. That is because it plays a significant role in structuring the facts the speaker wants to convey in a way that is accessible to the audience. It helps political figures persuade the public of their ideas, initiatives, and agendas. Indeed, Biden’s speech abounds with examples of creativity which in turn shapes the policies and expectations he adopts.

By using the expression “ violence sought to shake the Capitol’s very foundation ”. The speaker alluded with some subtlety and shrewdness to the riots made by a pro-Trump crowd that assaulted the US Capitol on Jan. 6 in an attempt to prevent the formal certification of the Electoral College results. Hundreds of fanatics walked onto the same platform where Biden had taken his oath of office, they offended the democracy and prestige of the place and the US reputation. He left unsaid that they were sent to the Capitol by the previous president, and described them in another part of his speech:

Here we stand, just days after a riotous mob thought they could use violence to silence the will of the people, to stop the work of our democracy, and to drive us from this sacred ground.

Biden won the popular vote by a combined (7) million votes and the Electoral College. The election results were frequently confirmed in courts as being free of fraud. Nevertheless, the rioters who attacked the Capitol claimed differently and never completely admitted these results.

The other thing that stood out was Biden’s emphasis on racism. He highlighted the Declaration of Independence’s goals, as he often does, and depicted them as being at odds with reality:

I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real. But I also know they are not new. Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, demonization have long torn us apart.

Of all, this isn’t the first time a president has spoken about racism at an inauguration. However, in the backdrop of the (Black Lives Matter) riots and the continued attack on voting rights, Biden’s adoption of that phrase as his own is both strategically and ethically significant. The pursuit of racial justice has previously been mentioned by Biden as a significant government aim. To lend substance to his rhetoric, society will have to take action on criminal justice reform and voting rights.

President Biden also argued that there has been great progress in women’s rights.

Here we stand, where 108 years ago at another inaugural, thousands of protesters tried to block brave women marching for the right to vote. Today we mark the swearing-in of the first woman in American history elected to national office—Vice President Kamala Harris.

In 1913, a huge number of women marched for the right to vote in a massive suffrage parade on the eve of President-elect Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration, but the next day crowds of mostly men poured into the street for the following day’s inauguration, making it almost impossible for the marchers to get through. Many women heard ‘indecent epithets’ and ‘barnyard banter,’ and they were jeered, tripped, groped, and shoved. But now the big difference has been achieved. During his primary campaign, Biden promised to make history with his running mate selection, claiming he would exclusively consider women. He followed through on that commitment by choosing a lawmaker from one of the most ardent supporters of his campaign, black women, as well as the fastest-growing minority group in the country, Asian Americans.

On a related note, the president touched on the issue of racism, xenophobia, nativism, and other forms of intolerance in the United States “ And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat .” He stressed that every human being has inherent dignity and deserves to be treated with fairness. That is why, on his first day in office, he signed an order establishing a whole-government approach to equity and racial justice. Biden’s administration talks of “restoring humanity” to the US immigration system and considering immigrants as valuable community members and employees. At the same time, Biden is signaling that the previous administration’s belligerent attitude toward partners is over, that the US’s image has plummeted to new lows, and that America can once again be trusted to uphold its commitments in a clear attempt to heal the rift in America’s foreign relations and rebuild alliances with the rest of the world.

So here is my message to those beyond our borders: America has been tested and we have come out stronger for it. We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.

Indirectness

Politicians avoid being obvious and speak indirectly while discussing politically sensitive issues in order to protect and advance their careers as well as acquire a political and interactional advantage over their political opponents. It’s also possible that the indirectness is driven by courtesy. Evasion, circumlocution, innuendoes, metaphors, and other forms of oblique communication can be used to convey this obliqueness. Indirectness is closely connected with politeness as it serves politicians’ agendas by spreading awful stories about their opponents (Van Dijk, 2011 ).

Many presidents have been more inclined to draw comparisons between their policies and those of their predecessors. Therefore, Biden was so adamant about avoiding focusing on the previous president that he didn’t criticize or blame the Trump administration’s shortcomings on the epidemic or anything else. In other words, he does not want to offend Republicans, Trump’s party. When Biden was talking about the attack on the US Capitol by the supporters of Trump, he didn’t mention that Trump had sent them. He talked about the lies of Trump and his followers without naming them, but the idea was clear.

There is truth and there are lies. Lies told for power and for profit” he declared. “Each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders—leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation—to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.

Of course, such lies were spread not merely by Trump and his horde, but also by the majority of Republicans in Congress, who relentlessly promoted the myth that Trump had won the election. One of the most striking aspects of Biden’s speech is this: while appealing for unity, he admitted that some of his opponents aren’t on the same page as him and that their influence has to be addressed. Biden didn’t use his speech to criticize those who believe his victory was skewed, but he appeared to acknowledge that his plan would be tough to implement without tackling the spread of lies. It was an interesting choice for a man who promotes compromise.

Biden’s speech is enriched with numerous conceptual metaphors and metonymies stemming from various domains. Metaphor is perceived as an effective pervasive technique used frequently in our daily communication (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980 ; Van Dijk, 2006 ). It helps the addressees understand and experience one thing in terms of another. It is closely related to cognition as it affects people’s reasoning and giving opinions and judgments (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011 ). For example, Biden used the metaphor ‘Lower the temperature’ to lessen the tension and chaos caused in the previous presidential period. In another example, he utilized ‘ Politics need not be a raging fire ’ to portray politics as something dangerous and might destroy others.

Biden presents examples of metonymy when he portrays periods of troubles, setbacks, and difficult times as dark winter ‘We will need all our strength to persevere through this dark winter’ to emphasize the gloomy days Americans experience in times of crises and wars. The representation of the concept of ‘unity as the path forward’ implicitly alludes to Biden’s path for the previously created divided America, emphasizing the significance of following and securing the necessary solution, which is unity as the path for moving forward. The depiction of crises facing Americans such as ‘ Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence, Disease, joblessness, hopelessness’ as foes, make people feel the urgent need to unite in order to combat these foes. The expression of ‘ ugly reality ’ reflects an atrocious world full of problems such as racism, nativism, fear, and demonetization . Integrating such conceptual metaphors and metonymy is conventional and deeply rooted and can lead to promoting ideologies by presenting critical political issues in a specific way (Charteris-Black, 2018 ). They make the speech more persuasive as they facilitate people’s understanding of abstract and intricate ideas through using concrete experienceable objects (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980 ). In other words, they perfectly and politely portray serious issues confronting Americans as well as the course of action required to overcome them. Democracy is depicted as both a precious and fragile object. This metonymy makes people appreciate the value of democracy and encourages them to cherish and protect it. Biden declares that democracy, which has been torn during the previous period, has triumphed over threats. Using this metonymy succeeded in connecting logos with pathos, which is one of the goals of using metaphors in political speeches (Mio, 1997 ).

The metonymy of America as a symbol of good things ‘ An American story of decency and dignity. Of love and of healing. Of greatness and of goodness ’ is deliberately created to represent America as an honest and good country. Through this metaphor, Biden appeals not only to the emotions of all people but also to their minds to persuade them that America has been a source of goodness. This finding supports the researchers’ outcomes (Van Dijk, 2006 ; Charteris-Black, 2011 ; Boussaid, 2022 ) that figurative language reveals how important issues are framed in order to advocate specific ideologies by appealing to people’s emotions. Hence, it is a crucial persuasive technique used in political speeches. This implies that Biden is aware of the significance of metaphor as a persuasive rhetoric component.

Intertextuality

Intertextuality has been defined as “the presence of a text in another text” (Genette, 1983 ). Fairclough claims that all texts are intertextual by their very nature and that they are thus constituents of other texts (Fairclough, 1992 ). It is an indispensable strategic feature politicians employ in their speeches to enhance the strength of the speech and reinforce religious, sociocultural, and historical contexts (Kitaeva & Ozerova, 2019 ). Antecedent texts and names are significant components of rhetoric in politics, especially in presidential speeches, because any leader of a country must follow historical, state, moral, and ethical traditions and conventions; referring to precedent texts is one way to get familiar with them. This linguistic phenomenon is necessary for reaching an accurate interpretation of the text, conveying the intended message (Kitaeva & Ozerova, 2019 ), and increasing the credibility of the text, thus getting the audience’s attention to believe in the speaker’s words (Obeng, 1997 ).

Presidents and political intellectuals in the United States have made plenty of statements that will be remembered for years to come. These previous utterances have been unchangeably repeated by other presidents of the USA in different situations throughout American history and are familiar to all Americans. Presidents of the United States frequently quote their predecessors. Former US presidents are frequently mentioned in the corpus of intertextual instances. The oath taken by all presidents—a set rhetorical act of speech—contains a lot of intertextuality. On a macro-structure level, the speaker utilizes intertextuality to give the general theme an appearance by recalling ‘old’ information. Biden quoted Psalm 30:5: “ Weeping may endure for the night, but joy cometh in the morning .” It is a verse that has great resonance for him, given the loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident and his adult son Beau to cancer. On this occasion, he links it to the suffering, with more than 400,000 Americans having died from COVID-19. This biblical and religious type of intertextuality implies that Biden links people’s intimate connection to God with their social and ethical responsibilities.

Another example is when Biden refers to a saying of President Abraham Lincoln in 1863: “ If my name ever goes down into history, it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it .” Although he leads at a completely different time, much like President Lincoln, Biden is grappling with the challenge of a deeply divided country. Deep political schisms have existed in the United States for a long time, but tensions seem to have been exacerbated lately. These nods to Lincoln bring an element of familiarity back to US politics and, potentially, a sense of return to stability after years of turbulence. The president has also quoted a part of the American Anthem Lyrics. He has recited a few lines of the song that highlight his values of hard work, religious faith, and concern for the nation’s future.

The work and prayers of century have brought us to this day. What shall be our legacy? What will our children say… Let me know in my heart When my days are through America, America I gave my best to you.

Choice of lexis

This choice of lexis may have an impact on the way the listeners think and believe what the speaker says. As Aman ( 2005 ) argues, the use of certain words shows the seriousness of the speech to convince people. Regarding this choice of vocabulary, Denham and Roy ( 2005 ) argue that “the vocabulary provides valuable insight into those words which surround or support a concept” (p. 188).

When you review the entire speech of President Biden, one key theme stands out above all others: Democracy. This was reiterated early in his speech and was repeated several times throughout. He has picked the most under-assaulted ideal: ‘democracy’. This word was used (11) times “We’ve learned again that democracy is precious. Democracy is fragile. And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed,” Biden remarked. This would be evident in another period, but after the 2020 election and the attempt to reverse it, the concept is profound.

The president made lots of appeals to unity in his inaugural speech and ignored the partisan conflicts to achieve the supreme goal of enhancing cooperation between all to serve their country. He repeated the words ‘unity’ and ‘uniting’ (11) times.

And we must meet this moment as the United States of America. If we do that, I guarantee you, we will not fail. We have never, ever, ever, failed in America when we have acted together.

This was Biden’s most forceful call for unity. It would be difficult to achieve, however, not just because of the Trump-supporting Republican Party, but also because of the historically close balance of power in the House and Senate.

Biden’s pledge to bridge the divide on policy and earn the support of those who did not support him, rather than seeing them primarily as political opponents, was a mainstay of his campaign, and it was a major theme of his acceptance speech. “ I will be a president for all Americans .” He also tried to play down the dispute between the two parties (Republican and Democratic) “ We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal .” This is evident by addressing his opponents from the Republican Party.

To all of those who did not support us, let me say this:Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart. And if you still disagree, so be it That’s democracy.That’s America. The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion. And I pledge this to you: I will be a President for all Americans. I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did.

The use of idiomatic expressions is also evident in the speech; Biden says ‘If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment’ when talking about overcoming fear about America’s future through unity. This expression encourages the addresses to empathize with the speakers’ circumstances before passing any judgment.

The analysis of syntax helps the addressees sense more specifically cohesion. Within a text or phrase, cohesion is a grammatical and lexical connection that keeps the text together and provides its meaning. Halliday, Hasan ( 1976 ) state that “a good discourse has to take attention in relation between sentences and keep relevance and harmony between sentences. Discourse is a linguistic unit that is bigger than a sentence. A context in discourse is divided into two types; first is cohesion (grammatical context) and second is coherence (lexical context)”.

This was shown with the most frequent form of cohesion for the grammatical section, which is the reference with 140 pieces of evidence. Biden employed a variety of conjunctions in his speech to make it easier for his audience to understand his oration, such as “and” (97) times, “but” (16) times, and “so” (8) times.

The analysis also shows that Biden has used various examples of cohesive lexical devices, repetitions, synonyms, and contrast in order to accomplish particular ends such as emphasis, inter-connectivity, and appealing for public acceptance and support. All of these devices contribute to the accurate interpretation of the discourse. It is evident that Biden used contrast/juxtaposition as in:

‘There is truth and there are lies’; ‘Not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s’; ‘Not of personal interest, but of the public good’; ‘Of unity, not division’; ‘Of light, not darkness’; ‘through storm and strife, in peace and in war’, ‘We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal’. ‘open our souls instead of hardening our hearts’; ‘ we shall write an American story of hope’ .

The use of juxtaposition makes the scene vivid and enhances the listener’s flexible thinking meta-cognition by focusing on important details drawing conclusions and reaching an accurate interpretation of communication.

The use of synonyms such as ‘ heeded-heard; indivisible-one nation; battle-war; victory-triumph; manipulated-manufactured; great nation-our nation-the country; repair-restore-heal-build; challenging-difficult; bringing America together-uniting our nation; fight-combat; anger-resentment-hatred; extremism-lawlessness-violence-terrorism ’ is evident in Biden’s speech. This type of figurative language helps in building cohesion in the speech, formulating and clarifying thoughts and ideas, emphasizing and asserting certain notions, and expressing emotions and feelings. The results are in line with other researchers’ (Lee, 2017 ; Bader & Badarneh, 2018 ) finding that political speeches are emotive; politicians can express feelings and attitudes toward certain issues. Lexical cohesion has also been established through repetition. The most repeated words and phrases in Biden’s speech are democracy, nation, unity, people, racial justice, and America. The repetitive usage of these concepts highlights them as the main basic themes of his speech.

The speaker employed deontic and epistemic modality, which implies that he has used every obligation, permission, and probability or possibility in the speech to exhibit his power by displaying commands, truth claims, and announcements. The speaker’s ideology can be revealed by the modality of permission, obligation, and possibility.

The usage of medium certainty “will” is the highest in numbers (30) times, but the use of low certainty “can” (16) times, “may” (5) times, and high certainty “must” (10) times was noticeably present. The usage of medium certainty is mainly represented by the usage of “will” to introduce future policies and present goals and visions. In critical linguistics terms, the use of low modality in a presidential address may reflect a lack of confidence in the abilities or possibilities of achieving a goal or a vision. That is, the usage of low modality gives more space to the “actor” to achieve the “goal”. For example, the usage of “can” in “ we can overcome this deadly virus ” and “ we can deliver social justice ” does not reflect strong belief, confidence, and assurance from the actor’s side to achieve the goals (social justice, overcoming the deadly virus). The usage of modal verbs in Biden’s speech reflects a balanced personality.

In modality, by using “will”, the speaker tries to convince the audience by giving a promise, and he may hope that what he says will be followed up. By using “can”, the speaker is expressing his ability. In cohesion, it is well organized, which means the speaker tries to make his speech easier to follow by everyone by using “additive conjunctions” or “transition phrases” that have the function of “listing in order”. Lastly, the generic structure of the speech is well structured.

The use of pronouns in political speeches reveals rich information about references to self, others, and identity, agency (Van Dijk, 1993 ). Biden has used the first and second pronouns meticulously to express his vision. The most frequent pronoun Biden has used is ‘we’ with a frequency of (89) which helps him establish trust and credibility in the speech, and a close relationship between him and his audience. This frequency implies that they are one united nation. Whereas he has used the pronoun ‘ I ’ with a frequency of (32). Using these types of pronouns allows the speaker to convey his ideas directly to his audience and make his intended message comprehensible. This balanced usage of pronouns reflects Fairclough’s ( 1992 ) notion of discourse as a social practice rather than a linguistic practice. The analysis demonstrates that the most prominent themes emphasized by Biden are ‘democracy and unity’. These themes have also been accentuated by the overall dominance of the pronoun “we,” which reflects Biden’s perception of America as a good society that needs to be united to successfully go through difficult times. Such notions represent his policies.

Political speech is functional and directive in its very nature. Thus, the language of politics in inaugural speeches is a significant and unique event since it affects people’s minds and hearts concerning certain pressing issues. It is a powerful tool that newly elected political leaders use to promote their new leadership ideas and strategic plans in order to convince people and attract their support. The analysis of the speech reveals that Biden’s language is easy and understandable. Biden employed a variety of rhetorical features to express his ideology. These figurative devices and techniques include creativity, indirectness, intertextuality, metaphor, repetition, cohesion, reference, and synonymy to achieve his political ideologies; assuring Americans and the world of his good intentions towards uniting Americans and working collaboratively with other nations to persevere through difficult times.

The overall themes expressed in this speech are the timeless values of unity and democracy. They are the cornerstones and key ideological components of Biden’s speech. This value-based orientation indicates their paramount recurrent semantic-cognitive features. The construction of the meaning of such values lies in the sociocultural and political context of the USA and the whole world in general and America in particular. Biden’s speech includes certain ideals, like "unity" to work together for the nation’s development, "democracy" to exhibit the "democracy" that has recently been assaulted, "equality" to treat all American people equally, and "freedom" to let individuals do whatever they want. Such themes are essential, especially in times of the worst crisis of COVID-19 encountering the world since they help him reassure his nation and the world of some improvements and promise them progress and prosperity in the years to come. To sum up, the results showed that the speaker used appropriate language in addressing the theme of unity. The speaker used religion and history as a source of rhetorical persuasive devices. The overall tone of the speech was confident, reconciliatory, and hopeful. We can say that language is central to meaningful political discourse. So, the relationship between language and politics is a very significant one.

The study examined the main linguistic strategies used in President Biden’s inauguration speech presented in 2021. The analysis has revealed that Biden in this speech intends to show his feelings (attitudes), his goals (reviewing the US administration), and his power to take over the US presidential office. It has also disclosed Biden’s ideological standpoint that is based on the central values of democracy, tolerance, and unity. Biden’s speech includes certain ideals, like "unity" to work together for the nation’s development, "democracy" to exhibit the "democracy" that has recently been assaulted, "equality" to treat all American people equally, and "freedom" to let individuals do whatever they want. To convey the intended ideological political stance, Biden used certain persuasive strategies including creativity, metaphor, contrast, indirectness, reference, and intertextuality for addressing critical issues. Creative expressions were drawn, highlighting and magnifying significant real issues concerning unity, democracy, and racial justice. Intertextuality was employed by resorting to an extract from one of the American presidents in order to convince Americans and the international community of his ideas, vision, and policy. It appeared that indirect expressions were also used for discussing politically sensitive issues in order to acquire a political and interactional advantage over his political opponents. His referencing style shows his interest in others and their unity. The choice of these strategies may have an influence on how the listeners think and believe about what the speaker says. Significant ideologies encompassing unity, equality, and freedom for US citizens were stated implicitly and explicitly. The study concluded that the effective use of linguistic and rhetorical devices is recommended to construct meaning in the world, be persuasive, and convey the intended vision and underlying ideologies.

The study suggests some implications for pedagogy and academic research. Researchers, linguists, and students interested in discourse analysis may find the data useful. The study demonstrates a sort of connection between political scientists, linguistics, and discourse analysts by clarifying distinct issues using different ideas and discourse analysis approaches. It has important ramifications for the efficient use of language to advance certain moral principles such as freedom, equality, and unity. It unravels that studying how language is used in a certain context allows people to disclose or analyze more about how things are said or done, or how they might exist in different ways in other contexts. It also shows that studying political language is crucial because it helps language users understand how a language is used by those who want power, seek to exercise it and maintain it to gain public attention, influence people’s attitudes or behaviors, provide information that people are unaware of, explain one’s attitudes or behavior, or persuade people to take certain actions. Getting students engaged in CDA research such as the current study would help them be more adept at navigating and using rhetorical devices and CDA tactics, as well as considering the underlying ideologies that underlie any written piece. Based on the analysis, it is recommended that more research studies be conducted on persuasive strategies in other political speeches.

Data availability

All data analyzed in this study are included in this published article. They are available at this link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/20/inaugural-address-by-president-joseph-r-biden-jr/ .

Alfayes H (2009) Martin Luther King “I have a dream”: Critical discourse analysis. KSU faculty member websites. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from, http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alfayez.H/Pages/CDAofKing’sspeechIhaveadream.aspx

Almahasees Z, Mahmoud S (2022) Persuasive strategies utilized in the political speeches of King Abdullah II: a critical discourse analysis. Cogent Arts Humanit 9(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2082016

Article   Google Scholar  

Aman I (2005) Language and power: a critical discourse analysis of the Barisan Nasional’s Manifesto in the 2004 Malaysian General Election1. In: Le T, Short M (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research, 15–18 November 2005. Tasmania: University of Tasmania, viewed August 20, 2009, from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/conference/files/proceedings/full-cda-proceedings.pdf

Amir S (2021) Critical discourse analysis of Jo Biden’s inaugural speech as the 46th US president. Period Soc Sci 1(2):1–13

Google Scholar  

Bader Y, Badarneh S (2018) The use of synonyms in parliamentary speeches in Jordan. AWEJ Transl Liter Stud 2(3):43–67

Bani-Khaled T, Azzam S (2021) The theme of unity in political discourse: the case of President Joe Biden’s inauguration speech on the 20th of January 2021. Arab World Engl J 12(3):36–50. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3952847

Beyer BK (1995) Critical thinking. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, IN

Biden J (2021) Inaugural address by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/20/inaugural-address-by-president-joseph-r-biden-jr/#:~:text=We%20must%20set%20aside%20the,joy%20cometh%20in%20the%20morning.&text=The%20world%20is%20watching%20today,come%20out%20stronger%20for%20it

Boussaid Y (2022) Metaphor-based analysis of Joe Biden’s and George Washington’s inaugural speeches. Int J Engl Linguist 12(3):1–17

Cameron D (2001) Working with spoken discourse. Sage, London

Charteris-Black J (2011) Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. Springer

Charteris-Black J (2018) Analysing political speeches: rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Bloomsbury Publishing

Chouliaraki L, Fairclough N (1999) Discourse in late modernity: rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Denham G, Roy A (2005) A content analysis of three file-selves. In: Le T, Short M (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research, 15–18 November 2005. Tasmania: University of Tasmania, viewed August 20, 2009, from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/conference/Files/proceedings/full-cda-proceedings.pdf

Fairclough N (1989) Language and power. Longman, Harlow

Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge

Fairclough N (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: the universities. Discourse Soc 4(2):133–168

Fairclough N (1995) Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language

Genette G (1983) “Transtextualité”. Magazine Littéraire 192:40–41

Haider AS (2016) A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis of the representation of Qaddafi in media: evidence from Asharq Al-Awsat and Al-Khaleej newspapers. Int J Linguist Commun 4(2):11–29. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v4n2a2

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Halliday MAK, Hasan R (1976) Cohesion in English (No. 9). Routledge

Iqbal Z, Aslam MZ, Aslam T, Ashraf R, Kashif M, Nasir H (2020) Persuasive power concerning COVID-19 employed by Premier Imran Khan: a socio-political discourse analysis. Register J 13(1):208–230

Janks H (1997) Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse Stud Cult Polit Educ 18(3):329–342

Kitaeva E, Ozerova O (2019) Intertextuality in political discourse. In: Language, power, and ideology in political writing: Emerging research and opportunities. IGI Global. pp. 143–170

Kozlovskaya NV, Rastyagaev AV, Slozhenikina JV (2020) The creative potential of contemporary Russian political discourse: from new words to new paradigms. Train Lang Cult 4(4):78–90

Kriyantono R (2019) Syntactic analysis on the consistency of Jokowi’s rhetorical strategy as president and presidential candidate. J Appl Stud Lang 3(2):127–139. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v3i2.1419

Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Lauwren S (2020) Interpersonal functions in Greta Thunberg’s “civil society for rEUnaissance” speech. J Appl Stud Lang 4(2):294–305. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v4i2.2084

Lee J (2017) “Constructing educational achievement in political discourse: an analysis of Obama’s Interview at the Education National Summit 2012.” Penn GSE Perspect Urban Educ 13:1–4

Mio JS (1997) Metaphor and politics. Metaphor Symbol 12(2):113–133

Moody S, Eslami ZR (2020) Political discourse, code-switching, and ideology. Russ J Linguist 24(2):325–343

Nikitina A (2011) Successful public speaking. Bookboon

Nusartlert A (2017) Political language in Thai and English: findings and implications for society. J Mekong Soc 13(3):57–75

Obeng SG (1997) Language and politics: indirectness in political discourse. 8(1), 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008001004

Pierson P, Skocpol T (2002) Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. Polit Sci State Discip 3(1):1–32

Pramadya TP, Rahmanhadi AD (2021) A day of history and hope: a critical discourse analysis of Joe Biden’s Inauguration speech. Rainbow 10(2):1–10

Prasetio A, Prawesti A (2021) Critical discourse analysis in word count of Joe Biden’s inaugural address. Discourse analysis: a compilation articles on discourse and critical discourse analysis, 1:1–12

Renaldo ZA, Arifin Z (2021) Presupposition and ideology: a critical discourse analysis of Joe Biden’s Inaugural Speech. PROJECT (Prof J Engl Educ) 4(3):497–503

Scheidel TM (1967) Persuasive speaking. Scott Foresman, Glenview

Schmidt VA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Ann Rev Polit Sci-Palo Alto 11:303

Thibodeau PH, Boroditsky L (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16782

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Van Dijk TA (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse Soc 4(2):249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

Van Dijk TA (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse Soc 17(3):359–383

Van Dijk TA (2011) Discourse and ideology. In: Van Dijk (ed) Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE, London, p 379-407

Van Dijk TA (2015) Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen D, Hamilton HE, Schiffrin D (eds) The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, London, p 466–485

Wodak R, Meyer M (2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis 2:1-33

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

Nisreen N. Al-Khawaldeh & Ali F. Khawaldeh

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts and Languages, Jadara University, Irbid, Jordan

Luqman M. Rababah & Alaeddin A. Banikalef

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nisreen N. Al-Khawaldeh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemantry data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Al-Khawaldeh, N.N., Rababah, L.M., Khawaldeh, A.F. et al. The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 936 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02450-y

Download citation

Received : 20 August 2023

Accepted : 22 November 2023

Published : 11 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02450-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Brand Consultation & Market Analysis

• Brand Audit & Strategy
• Competitor Analysis
• Consumer Interviews
• Google Analytics Review
• Persona Development
• SEO Audit & Strategy
• SEO Keyword Research
• Site Mapping & Content Architecture
• Technical Strategy & Roadmapping

Creative Design & Branding

• Copywriting & Storytelling
• Event & Exhibition
• Inbound Marketing
• Logo & Brand Development
• Mobile App Design & Development
• Presentation Design
• Print Design
• Website Design & Development

Custom Web & App Development

• API Development
• Augmented Reality App Development
• Front-End Design & Development
• Virtual Reality App Development
• Web App Development
• WordPress Theme Customization
• WordPress Theme Development

Immersive Reality & New Technologies

• 3D Environment Creation
• Advanced 3D Modeling
• Immersive Story Telling
• Mixed Reality App Development
• Photogrammetry
• Prototyping
• Quantified Biometrics

Video Production & Animation

• Drone Video
• Film Production
• Mixed Reality Video
• Motion Graphics
• Post Production & Editing
• Script Writing & Story Telling
• Storyboards & Shotlists
• Voiceover & Audio Sourcing

25 Examples of Rhetorical Strategies in Famous Speeches

I’m not trying to be cheesy! An emotional response is a meaningful response, and that reaction stays with you long after the presentation is over. Whenever you think of that speaker or of that topic, your brain will bring back those feelings for you- whether they be of motivation, inspiration, sadness, empathy, or otherwise.

Rhetorical strategies use language to convey special meaning and/or to persuade someone. Basically, these strategies can be used to intentionally invoke feelings in others.

If your first reaction to all this is “Huh?” that’s okay- so was mine. Here’s how I understand it now: rhetorical strategies = emotional connection = memorability.

If you’ve ever considered becoming a master presenter (no judgement if you have), you need these tools in your repertoire ASAP. They’re just so effective!

Don’t believe me? All the cool kids are using (or used) them – I’m talking about thought leader Simon Sinek , technology guru Steve Jobs, past American president Barack Obama, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., and even good old William Shakespeare.

Unless you’re above any of these greatly respected people, I’m betting that you could benefit from a little rhetorical strategy in your next speech!

25 rhetorical strategies from the best minds

We’ve compiled 25 rhetorical strategies from the most memorable presentations on the planet so that your next presentation is undeniably memorable. Ready to begin?

1. Alliteration:

Two or more words in a row that start with the same sound.

“They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different, and difficult places.” – Barack Obama

2. Allusion:

A statement that hints at something instead of being direct about it.

“You must borrow me Gargantua’s mouth first. ‘Tis a word too great for any mouth of this age’s size” – Shakespeare

3. Anadiplosis:

Repeating the last word (or words) of a sentence at the beginning of the next sentence.

“Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.” – George W. Bush

4. Analogy:

A literal comparison of two things.

“A good speech should be like a woman’s skirt: long enough to cover the subject and short enough to create interest.” – Winston Churchill

5. Anaphora:

Using the same word (or words) to begin 2 or more sentences (or paragraphs) that follow each other.

“I trust Hillary to lead this country because I’ve seen her lifelong devotion to our nation’s children – not just her own daughter, who she has raised to perfection but every child who needs a champion: Kids who take the long way to school to avoid the gangs. Kids who wonder how they’ll ever afford college. Kids whose parents don’t speak a word of English but dream of a better life. Kids who look to us to determine who and what they can be.” – Michelle Obama

6. Anastrophe:

A reversal of the typical ordering of a sentence.

“This much we pledge, and more” – JF Kennedy

7. Antistrophe:

Repeating one (or more) words at the end of a sentence.

“It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can” – Barack Obama

8. Antithesis:

A contrast of thoughts.

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” – Neil Armstrong

9. Asyndeton:

Leaving out conjunction words (as or and) from a sentence.

“…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” – Abraham Lincoln

10. Assonance:

Repeating a vowel sound in a sentence.

“I feel the need, the need for speed” – Tom Cruise (from the movie Top Gun)

11. Chiasmus:

The reversal of the latter of two parallel sentences.

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” – John F. Kennedy

12. Diacope/Tmesis:

Inserting a word (or more) between the components of a compound word.

“Free at last, free at last; thank God almighty, free at last!” – Martin Luther King

13. Epistrophe:

Another name for antistrophe (see above).

“…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth” – Abraham Lincoln

14. Expletive:

Using a word or phrase only to fill out a sentence for grammar, rhythm or balance.

“… we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving …” – Winston Churchill

15. Germinatio:

The repetition of a word within the sentence.

“That’s 58 songs every second of every minute of every hour of every day.” – Steve Jobs

16. Hyperbole:

Exaggerating a description for emphasis.

“Best version of Google Maps on the planet, widgets, and all with Edge and Wi-Fi networking.” – Steve Jobs

17. Hypophora:

Posing a question that you will answer yourself.

“When the enemy struck on that June day of 1950, what did America do? It did what it always has done in all its times of peril. It appealed to the heroism of its youth” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

18. Litotes:

An understatement that expresses an affirmative by negating its opposite.

“I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

19. Meiosis:

A massive understatement.

“The situation has developed, not necessarily to our advantage” – Emperor Hirohito, announcing to the Japanese people that atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

20. Metaphor:

Comparing two unlike objects to provide a clearer description.

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” – William Shakespeare

21. Parallelism:

using a sequence of identical constructions in writing

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I will learn.” – Benjamin Franklin

22. Scesis Onomaton:

Repeating two (or more) different words with identical or similar meaning within the same sentence.

“That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America” – Barack Obama

23. Simile:

Comparing two unlike things using the words “like” or “as” with an example.

“We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

24. Symploce:

Repeating one (or more) words at the beginning and end of successive sentences.

“In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone” – Barack Obama

25. Tricolon:

A sentence with three clearly defined parts of equal length

Rhetorical strategies improve audience engagement

If you got a little lost amidst the English jargon, here are the 2 main takeaways you need to know:

• Repetition emphasizes meaning Repetition is perhaps the most common rhetorical strategy. Whether it be the repetition of a word, a phrase, or a specific sound, it is incredibly effective. Use this strategy to build meaning behind the essential points you need to get across.
• Comparisons facilitate understanding Comparisons are also an extremely popular strategy, likely because they make the subject matter more relatable. If your audience can identify with what you’re saying, that creates an opportunity for you to cultivate a connection with them.

In sum, the best designed presentations , a slick new outfit, or a commanding voice may impress an audience initially, and can be important to gain their attention, but they lack true substance for any long-term retention. Rhetorical strategies are the single greatest tool for memorability. If you recognized even one of these examples, you just proved that rhetoric strategies are memorable. Why not start using them to your advantage?

Incorporating rhetorical strategies is kind of like learning how to ride a bike – you’re going to think you look unsure the first few times you try and you’re probably going to walk away with some scrapes and bruises. But, once you gain confidence, you’ll be able to ride circles around everyone else.

See what I did there? Here’s to being memorable!

Note: All definitions have been adapted from Your Dictionary .

Looking for more presentation insights?

Check out our Top 30 Most Popular Presentations of All Time , 16 Strategies Used by Pitch Deck Designers , 10 Things to Never Do When Presenting , or read our Top 10 Presentation Tips .

Looking for some creative help for your next presentation? Our team of talented ninja designers would love to assist!

Previous Post The Ultimate Guide to VR Videos

Next post 52 creative infographics that will inspire, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Brand Consultation & Market Analysis
• Creative Design & Branding
• Custom Web & App Development
• Immersive Reality & New Technologies
• Video Production & Animation
• View All Services
• 1-888-77-NINJA

You can see how this popup was set up in our step-by-step guide: https://wppopupmaker.com/guides/auto-opening-announcement-popups/

Need a Ninja?

Analyzing Famous Speeches as Arguments

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Traditionally, teachers have encouraged students to engage with and interpret literature—novels, poems, short stories, and plays. Too often, however, the spoken word is left unanalyzed, even though the spoken word has the potential to alter our space just as much than the written. After gaining skill through analyzing a historic and contemporary speech as a class, students will select a famous speech from a list compiled from several resources and write an essay that identifies and explains the rhetorical strategies that the author deliberately chose while crafting the text to make an effective argument. Their analysis will consider questions such as What makes the speech an argument?, How did the author's rhetoric evoke a response from the audience?, and Why are the words still venerated today?

Featured Resources

From theory to practice.

Nearly everything we read and hear is an argument. Speeches are special kinds of arguments and should be analyzed as such. Listeners should keep in mind the context of the situation involving the delivery and the audience-but a keen observer should also pay close attention to the elements of argument within the text. This assignment requires students to look for those elements.

"Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication, its principles can be applied to many facets of everyday life" (Lamb 109). It's through this lesson that students are allowed to see how politicians and leaders manipulate and influence their audiences using specific rhetorical devices in a manner that's so effective that the speeches are revered even today. It's important that we keep showing our students how powerful language can be when it's carefully crafted and arranged.

Further Reading

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).
• 4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
• 5. Students employ a wide range of strategies as they write and use different writing process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes.
• 7. Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and nonprint texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience.

Materials and Technology

• ReadWriteThink Notetaker
• Teacher Background and Information Sheet
• Student Assignment Sheet
• List of Speeches for Students
• Queen Elizabeth I’s Speech with Related Questions
• Historical Speech Research Questions
• Peer Response Handout
• Essay Rubric

This website contains audio of the Top 100 speeches of all time.

Included on this site is audio of famous speeches of the 20th century, as well as information about the speeches and background information on the writers.

The "Great Speeches Collection" from The History Place are available here in print and in audio.

This website includes information on finding and documenting sources in the MLA format.

Preparation

• Review the background and information sheet for teachers to familiarize yourself with the assignment and expectations.  Consider your students' background with necessary rhetorical terms such as claims, warrants, the appeals (logos, pathos, ethos), and fallacies; and rhetorical devices such as tone, diction, figurative language, repetition, hyperbole, and understatement. The lesson provides some guidance for direct instruction on these terms, but there are multiple opportunities for building or activating student knowledge through modeling on the two speeches done as a class.
• Check the links to the online resources (in Websites section) make sure that they are still working prior to giving out this assignment.
• Decide whether you want to allow more than one student to analyze and write about the same speech in each class.
• Look over the  List of Speeches for Students to decide if there are any that you would like to add.
• Look over the suggested Essay Rubric and determine the weights you would like to assign to each category.  For example, you might tell students that Support and Research may be worth three times the value of Style. Customize the Essay Rubric to meet the learning goals for your students.
• Reserve the library for Session Three so the students can do research on their speeches.
• President Obama’s Inauguration Speech.
• Former President Bush’s Defends War in Iraq Speech.
• Former President Bush’s 9/11 Speech.
• Former President Clinton’s “I Have Sinned” Speech.

Student Objectives

Students will

• analyze a speech for rhetorical devices and their purpose.
• identify an author’s purposeful manipulation of language.
• identify elements of argument within a speech.
• write an analysis of a speech with in-text documentation.

Session One

• Begin the lesson by asking students what needs to be present in order for a speech to occur. Though the question may seem puzzling—too hard, or too simple—at first, students will eventually identify, as Aristotle did, the need for a speaker, a message, and an audience.
• The class should discuss audience and the importance of identifying the audience for speeches, since they occur in particular moments in time and are delivered to specific audiences. This is a good time to discuss the Rhetorical Triangle (Aristotelian Triad) or discuss a chapter on audience from an argumentative textbook. You may wish to share information from the ReadWriteThink.org lesson Persuasive Techniques in Advertising and  The Rhetorical Triangle from The University of Oklahoma.
• Next distribute Queen Elizabeth’s speech to the troops at Tilbury and use the speech and its historical context as a model for the processes students will use on the speech they select. Provide a bit of background information on the moment in history.
• Then, as a class, go over  Queen Elizabeth’s speech and discuss the rhetorical devices in the speech and the purpose for each one. Adjust the level of guidance you provide, depending on your students' experiences with this type of analysis. The questions provide a place to start, but there are many other stylistic devices to discuss in this selection.

Discuss the audience and the author’s manipulation of the audience. Consider posing questions such as

• This is a successful speech.  Why?
• Elizabeth uses all of the appeals – logos, pathos, and ethos – to convince all of her listeners to fight for her from the loyal follower to the greedy mercenary.  How?
• The tone shifts throughout the selection.  Where?  But more importantly, why?

Martin Luther King, Jr. uses an appeal to pathos in his “I Have a Dream” speech through his historical allusion to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.” This is particularly effective for his audience of people sympathetic to the cause of African American men and women who would have been especially moved by this particular reference since it had such a significant impact on the lives of African Americans.

Session Two

• Continue the work from the previous session by distributing the  Analyzing Famous Speeches as Arguments handout and discussing the assignment and what it requires. See the  background and information sheet for teachers for more details.
• Tell students they will be getting additional practice with analyzing a speech as an argument by showing a short  10-minute clip of a presidential speech . Ask students to think about how the particular moment in history and the national audience contribute to the rhetorical choices made by the speaker.
• Lead a discussion of the speech as an argument with regard to purpose and intent. Work with students to identify warrants, claims, and appeals.
• Ask students to consider how the author manipulates the audience using tone, diction, and stylistic devices. What rhetorical devices aided the author’s manipulation of his audience? Discuss a particular rhetorical device that the President used and the purpose it served.
• Share the Essay Rubric and explain to students the expectations for success on this assignment.
• Allow students to select a speech from the List of Speeches for Students . If they wish to preview any of the speeches, they can type the speaker's name and the title of the speech into a search engine and should have little difficulty finding it.

Session Three

• Take the students to the library and allow them to research their speeches. They should locate their speech and print a copy for them to begin annotating for argumentative structure and rhetorical devices.
• What was the speaker up against?  What is the occasion for the speech?
• What did the author have to keep in mind when composing the text?  
• What were his or her goals?  
• What was his or her ultimate purpose?  
• What was his or her intent?
• Remind students that the writer of the speech is sometimes not the person who delivered the speech, for example, and this will surprise some students. Many people assume that the speaker (president, senator, etc.) is always the writer, and that’s not always the case, so ask your students to check to see who wrote the speech. (They might be surprised at the answer. There’s always a story behind the composition of the speech.)
• Help students find the author of the speech because this will challenge some students. Oftentimes, students assume the speaker is the author, and that’s sometimes not the case. Once the speechwriter is identified, it is easier to find information on the speech. Help students find the history behind the speech without getting too bogged down in the details. They need to understand the climate, but they do not need to be complete experts on the historical details in order to understand the elements of the speech.
• If they wish, students can use the ReadThinkWrite Interactive Notetaker to help them track their notes for their essays. Remind them that their work cannot be saved on this tool and should be printed by the end of the session so they can use it in future work.
• For Session Four, students must bring a thesis, an outline, and all of their research materials to class for a workday. Remind them to refer to the Analyzing Famous Speeches as Arguments , the Essay Rubric , and any notes they may have taken during the first two sessions as they begin their work.
• The thesis statement should answer the following question: What makes this speech an effective argument and worthy of making this list?

Session Four

• Set up students in heterogeneous groups of four. Ask students to share their outlines and thesis statements.
• Go around to check and to monitor as students share their ideas and progress. The students will discuss their speeches and their research thus far.
• Have students discuss the elements of an argument that they plan on addressing.
• Finally, have students work on writing their papers by writing their introductions with an enticing “grab” or “hook.” If time permits, have students share their work. 
• For Session Five, students should bring in their papers. This session would happen in about a week.

Session Five

• In this session, students will respond each other's drafts using the Peer Response Handout .
• Determine and discuss the final due date with your students. Direct students to Diana Hacker’s MLA site for assistance with their citations if necessary. 
• Remind students that their work will be evaluate using the essay rubric .  They should use the criteria along with the comments from their peer to revise and polish their work.
• During the process of analyzing  Queen Elizabeth I’s Speech , consider showing the related scene from the film Elizabeth: The Golden Age . Though the text of the speech is drastically cut and altered, seeing one filmmaker's vision for the scene may help reinforce the notion of historical context and the importance of audience.
• Allow students to read and/or perform parts of the speeches out loud. Then, they can share some of their thinking about the argumentative structure and rhetorical devices used to make the speech effective. This activity could happen as part of the prewriting process or after essays have been completed.
• Require students to write a graduation speech or a speech on another topic. They can peruse print or online news sources to select a current event that interests them.  Have them choose an audience to whom they would deliver an argumentative speech.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• After peer response has taken place, use the essay rubric to provide feedback on student work. You may change the values of the different categories/requirements to better suit the learning goals for your classroom.
• Calendar Activities
• Lesson Plans
• Student Interactives
• Strategy Guides

Students explore the ways that powerful and passionate words communicate the concepts of freedom, justice, discrimination, and the American Dream in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

While drafting a literary analysis essay (or another type of argument) of their own, students work in pairs to investigate advice for writing conclusions and to analyze conclusions of sample essays. They then draft two conclusions for their essay, select one, and reflect on what they have learned through the process.

Useful for a wide variety of reading and writing activities, this outlining tool allows students to organize up to five levels of information.

This strategy guide clarifies the difference between persuasion and argumentation, stressing the connection between close reading of text to gather evidence and formation of a strong argumentative claim about text.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

20 Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Example: Comprehensive Guide and Tips

Master the art of crafting a rhetorical analysis thesis statement with our comprehensive guide and 20 compelling examples.

Writing a rhetorical analysis can be a challenging task, but it all starts with a strong thesis statement. In this article, we'll dive deep into what makes a good rhetorical analysis thesis and provide you with ten solid examples to help you get started. So, buckle up and get ready to master the art of crafting a compelling rhetorical analysis thesis.

What is Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Statement

Before we dive into examples, let’s briefly discuss what a rhetorical analysis is. Essentially, a rhetorical analysis evaluates how an author or speaker uses words to influence an audience. This involves looking at the use of rhetorical strategies like ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical arguments).

Key Elements of a Rhetorical Analysis

• Author: Who is the author or speaker?
• Audience: Who is the intended audience?
• Purpose: What is the goal of the work?
• Strategies: What rhetorical techniques are used?

Crafting a Rhetorical Analysis Thesis

A rhetorical analysis thesis should clearly state the author’s purpose and identify the main rhetorical strategies used. It needs to set the stage for the analysis that will follow.

Characteristics of a Strong Thesis

• Clear and Concise: Avoid vague language.
• Specific: Identify the rhetorical strategies.
• Arguable: Present an argument that can be supported with evidence.

Ten Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Examples

To help you get started, here are ten examples of strong rhetorical analysis thesis statements:

Example 1: Civil Rights and Segregation

In his 'Letter from Birmingham Jail,' Martin Luther King Jr. effectively uses ethos, pathos, and logos to argue against segregation and advocate for civil rights, persuading his audience through emotional appeals, ethical credibility, and logical arguments."

Example 2: Gender Equality and Women's Rights

"Through her use of vivid imagery, personal anecdotes, and rhetorical questions in 'A Room of One's Own,' Virginia Woolf skillfully highlights the systemic oppression of women, urging her audience to recognize and challenge the barriers to female creativity."

Example 3: Conscientious Food Consumption

"By employing statistical evidence, expert testimony, and powerful anecdotes, Michael Pollan in 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' convincingly argues for a more conscientious approach to food consumption, appealing to the reader's logic, ethics, and emotions."

Example 4: Global Indifference to Suffering

"In his speech 'The Perils of Indifference,' Elie Wiesel uses stark contrasts, emotional appeals, and rhetorical questions to criticize the global indifference to suffering, aiming to inspire his audience to take action against injustice."

Example 5: Race in America

"Using a combination of historical references, emotional narratives, and ethical appeals, Barack Obama in his 'A More Perfect Union' speech addresses the complexities of race in America, striving to unite his audience through shared values and common goals."

Example 6: Environmental Awareness

"In 'Silent Spring,' Rachel Carson utilizes vivid imagery, scientific evidence, and emotional appeals to expose the dangers of pesticide use, compelling her audience to reconsider their impact on the environment."

Example 7: Stereotyping and Diversity

"In 'The Danger of a Single Story,' Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie uses personal anecdotes, rhetorical questions, and emotional appeals to highlight the pitfalls of stereotyping, encouraging her audience to embrace diverse perspectives."

Example 8: British Exploitation of Ireland

"Through the use of satire, irony, and hyperbole, Jonathan Swift in 'A Modest Proposal' critiques the British exploitation of Ireland, using shocking suggestions to underscore the severity of the issue."

Example 9: Racial Equality and Hope

"In 'I Have a Dream,' Martin Luther King Jr. employs repetition, metaphors, and allusions to biblical texts to inspire hope and advocate for racial equality, creating a resonant and compelling vision for the future."

Example 10: National Unity and Civil War

"In 'The Gettysburg Address,' Abraham Lincoln uses concise language, parallelism, and appeals to national unity to honor the fallen and redefine the purpose of the Civil War, aiming to strengthen the resolve of his audience."

Example 11 : Climate Change Awareness

"In his article 'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math,' Bill McKibben uses alarming statistics, personal anecdotes, and urgent tone to highlight the imminent dangers of climate change, urging his audience to take immediate action."

Example 12: American Dream Critique

'The Great Gatsby,' F. Scott Fitzgerald employs symbolism, character development, and setting to critique the illusion of the American Dream, revealing the hollowness and corruption behind its façade."

Example 13: Social Media and Mental Health

"In 'The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains,' Nicholas Carr uses scientific research, historical context, and logical arguments to illustrate the detrimental effects of social media on mental health and cognitive function."

Example 14: Animal Rights Advocacy "

"In her essay 'Animal Liberation,' Peter Singer utilizes logical reasoning, ethical arguments, and vivid descriptions of animal suffering to advocate for the rights of animals, challenging his readers to reconsider their treatment of non-human creatures."

Example 15: Immigration and Identity

'The Distance Between Us,' Reyna Grande uses personal narrative, emotional appeals, and vivid imagery to explore the challenges of immigration and the search for identity, highlighting the resilience and strength of immigrants."

Example 16: Gun Control Debate

"Letting Go of Fear,' Nicholas Kristof employs emotional anecdotes, statistical evidence, and logical reasoning to advocate for stricter gun control laws, aiming to persuade his audience of the need for safer gun regulations."

Example 17: Feminism and Pop Culture "

"In 'We Should All Be Feminists,' Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie uses personal experiences, cultural analysis, and rhetorical questions to argue for gender equality, encouraging her audience to embrace feminist principles in everyday life."

Example 18: Health and Nutrition

"In Defense of Food,' Michael Pollan uses historical context, scientific evidence, and straightforward advice to critique modern dietary practices and advocate for a return to simpler, more natural eating habits."

Example 19: Political Corruption

In 'The Prince,' Niccolò Machiavelli employs historical examples, pragmatic advice, and ethical considerations to explore the nature of political power and corruption, offering a controversial guide for rulers seeking to maintain control."

Example 20: War and Humanity

In 'All Quiet on the Western Front,' Erich Maria Remarque uses vivid imagery, personal narrative, and stark contrasts to depict the horrors of war and its dehumanizing effects on soldiers, challenging romanticized notions of military conflict."

Tips for Writing Your Rhetorical Analysis Thesis

Now that you’ve seen some examples, here are a few tips to help you write your own:

• Identify the Author’s Purpose: Understand what the author aims to achieve with their work.
• Focus on Specific Strategies: Mention the rhetorical strategies the author uses.
• Be Clear and Direct: Avoid vague language and be as specific as possible.

Q: What is the purpose of a rhetorical analysis thesis? A: The purpose of a rhetorical analysis thesis is to present your main argument about the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies.

Q: How long should a rhetorical analysis thesis be? A: It should be one or two sentences long, clear, and concise.

Q: Can I revise my thesis statement during the writing process? A: Yes, revising your thesis as you delve deeper into the analysis is often necessary to reflect your evolving argument.

Importance of a Strong Thesis

A strong thesis is crucial because it:

• Guides Your Analysis: It provides a roadmap for your essay.
• Clarifies Your Argument: It makes your argument clear to the reader.
• Keeps You Focused: It helps you stay on track during your analysis.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Being Too Vague: Avoid general statements that don’t provide a clear direction.
• Ignoring Rhetorical Strategies: Ensure you mention specific strategies used by the author.
• Lack of Argument: Your thesis should make a clear argument, not just a statement of fact.

Quick Stats and Facts

• 60% of students find writing a thesis statement to be the most challenging part of a rhetorical analysis.
• 85% of successful rhetorical analyses include a clear mention of at least three rhetorical strategies in the thesis.
• 90% of high-scoring essays have a thesis statement that is revised during the writing process.

Key Takeaways

• Always start with a clear understanding of the author’s purpose.
• Identify the main rhetorical strategies used.
• Craft a thesis that is specific, arguable, and concise.

Crafting a strong rhetorical analysis thesis is the cornerstone of writing an effective rhetorical analysis. It sets the stage for your entire essay, guiding your arguments and helping your readers understand the focus of your analysis. By understanding the author’s purpose, identifying the key rhetorical strategies, and creating a clear, concise thesis, you can build a compelling and insightful analysis.

Remember, practice makes perfect. Don’t hesitate to revise and refine your thesis as you delve deeper into the text. With the examples and tips provided in this article, you’re now equipped to tackle any rhetorical analysis with confidence. So, go ahead and start writing—your perfect thesis is just a few drafts away!

Gloria Steinem's Equal Rights Testimony Speech Analysis Argument & Rhetoric Unit

Description

Elevate your high school ELA classroom with this comprehensive argument and rhetoric analysis unit for Gloria Steinem's iconic Equal Rights Amendment testimony before the United States Senate. Easily facilitate students as they dive deeply into her testimony's historical context with engaging background notes, explore the power of rhetoric and persuasive techniques through interactive activities, and test their understanding with a challenging MCQ quiz. Not only will the step-by-step presentation guide students through each element, ensuring a thorough grasp of Steinem's impassioned oration, but the additional workbook pages will provide a structured space for students to gather their notes and complete the accompanying activities.

Materials Included:

• A fully editable PPT Presentation , with over 40 included slides, that spans the entire unit and covers the following topics:
• Background information regarding the speech's rhetorical situation (speaker, purpose, audience, context, and exigence)
• How to write rhetorical analysis statements
• An exemplar rhetorical analysis statement for Steinem's speech
• How to write a Rogerian (qualified) argument paragraph
• An exemplar Rogerian argument paragraph for an equal rights related focus question
• How to write a Rhetorical Precis paragraph
• An exemplar Rhetorical Precis paragraph for Steinem's speech
• 5 rigorous rhetoric and argument multiple-choice questions to test students' mastery of the speech
• Explanation slides to reveal the correct MCQ answer and why it is correct
• A customized Student Workbook Packet , complete with guided note-taking sections, modeling sections, and activity creation sections - to thoroughly guide students through the daily materials and activities
• A detailed Teacher's File , complete with student objectives , suggested pacing guide, daily procedures , and common core standards' alignment for grades 9-10

Ignite your students' critical thinking and analytical skills with this dynamic, all-inclusive unit!

Keywords: rhetorical analysis unit, argument analysis unit, U.S history, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, 1970's America, important American speeches, pivotal U.S speeches, speech analysis unit, rhetorical analysis activities, nonfiction text analysis, motivational speeches, inspirational speeches, High school ELA unit, Speech analysis lesson plan, Rhetoric and argument analysis, Guided presentation on speech analysis, Historical context of Steinem's Senate testimony, multiple choice quiz on Steinem's ERA testimony, analyzing famous speeches, High school English curriculum, Engaging secondary ELA lessons, AP Lang, AP Language and Composition, non-fiction reading strategies, non-fiction analysis, U.S Seminal document analysis

Questions & Answers

21stcenturylit.

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think

How Is China Responding to the Inauguration of Taiwan’s President William Lai?

This ChinaPower feature is based on information available as of May 23, 2024. It will be updated with additional analysis as more information becomes available.

On May 23, 2024, China commenced large-scale military exercises surrounding Taiwan, called “ Joint Sword-2024A .” The drills came just three days after Taiwan’s new president William Lai gave his inauguration speech. Chinese officials stated that the drills are intended to “serve as a strong punishment for the separatist acts of ‘Taiwan independence’ forces and a stern warning against the interference and provocation by external forces.” This activity by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was accompanied by what China called “comprehensive law enforcement operations” involving China’s coast guard around two of Taiwan’s offshore islands.

This is the third round of major escalatory military exercises China has held around Taiwan, following unprecedented exercises in August 2022 and another round in April 2023 . How is this exercise different from the prior ones? What does this exercise reveal about China’s approach towards Taiwan? What was China’s rationale for engaging in these exercises, and what other non-military activities has China taken?

Joint Sword-2024A and Comprehensive Law Enforcement Operations

In the days leading up to the start of Joint Sword-2024A, China’s military was relatively inactive in the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Ministry of National Defense (MND) reported no PLA aircraft in Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) or “around Taiwan” on the day of William Lai’s inauguration (May 20) or the following day, and there was only one reported on May 22.

This all changed on the morning of May 23. At 7:45 am that day, the PLA Eastern Theater Command announced it was commencing joint military exercises around Taiwan and its outlying islands from May 23-24. The exercise sought to engage in “joint sea-air combat-readiness patrol, joint seizure of comprehensive battlefield control, and joint precision strikes on key targets.”

China’s MND published a map showing that operations would occur in five different zones around the island as well as four smaller zones surrounding Taiwan’s outlying islands (Kinmen, Wuqiu, Matsu, and Dongyin).

The publication of this map is different than before. When China conducted large-scale exercises in August 2022, Chinese authorities issued specific coordinates for seven exercise zones and warned ships and aircraft not to enter those zones. 1 During the April 2023 exercises, China did not announce any specific zones. This time, China again announced zones for the exercises, but it did not issue coordinates and warn ships and aircraft not to enter.

The placement of the five zones around Taiwan is significant, and there are notable differences between these five zones and the seven zones that were announced during the August 2022 exercises.

• The northern zone is positioned closest to Taiwan’s capital Taipei. Some Chinese military commentators indicated this is intended to signal that China can position forces close to Taiwan’s leadership. This zone is significantly larger than any of the northern zones announced in 2022, but the 2022 exercises had three separate northern zones as opposed to one. Additionally, the Joint Sword-2024A northern zone does not appear to intrude as close to Taiwan as the 2022 zones did. In 2022, two of the northern zones intruded well into Taiwan’s contiguous zone and into the territorial waters.
• The eastern zone is positioned near the port city of Hualien, which is one of Taiwan’s main international shipping ports (though a relatively small one). Chinese commentators suggest the zone is indicated to test and display China’s ability to block three key lines: the flow of energy into Taiwan, the likely “escape” route that Taiwan citizens might take to flee conflict, and the route through which the United States and others might flow forces to defend Taiwan. It is also important to note that Taiwan’s new vice president Bi-khim Hsiao spent a decade of her political career representing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Hualien. The exercise zone here is significantly closer than the eastern zones in the 2022 exercises. According to the map published by Chinese authorities, the zone appears to intrude well into Taiwan’s contiguous zone.
• The southeastern zone extends into the Bashi Channel, the waterway that connects the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea to the broader Pacific Ocean. This is a crucial route for international shipping traffic. In the August 2022 exercises, China positioned a smaller exercise zone more squarely in the middle of the channel.
• The southwestern zone is positioned off the coast of Kaohsiung, which is Taiwan’s busiest container shipping port, as well as a critical hub for imports of oil and natural gas. It is also home to a major Taiwan naval port. Chinese commentators note that operations in the area would aim to “strangle” the port and “confine” Taiwan’s navy. Notably, the zone does extend into the contiguous zone (according to China’s maps), but it does not intrude into Taiwan’s claimed territorial waters, while the August 2022 zone there did extend into territorial waters.
• The western zone is located in the Taiwan Strait, just west of Taiwan’s Penghu Islands. This zone is notable in that the August 2022 exercises did not feature a zone in this area. The zone may be intended to display China’s ability to dominate and seal off portions of the Taiwan Strait. According to maps released during a Taiwan MND press briefing , three China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels were operating in the waters south of this exercise zone on May 23.

The lack of Chinese detailed coordinates for these zones leaves some of these finer details up for question. As one indication of this, maps released by Taiwan’s MND appear to show exercise zones of slightly smaller sizes and in slightly different positions. One critical difference is that the Taiwan MND map does not show any of the exercise zones extending significantly into Taiwan’s claimed contiguous zone. The Taiwan MND version of the map is recreated below.

In addition to the map of the exercise locations, China’s MND released additional information to either signal Chinese intentions or depict PLA movements. One was a graphic of how Chinese maritime forces could close in on the main island of Taiwan from five key directions. Another animation showcased Chinese forces targeting four labeled Taiwan locations (Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung, and Hualien County) and one unnamed location (near Taitung).

In terms of overall force deployment, the first day of Joint Sword-2024A featured a smaller number of air forces than in past exercises. Taiwan’s MND reported 49 aircraft around Taiwan on May 23, and 35 of which crossed the Taiwan Strait median line or into Taiwan’s ADIZ. 2 This is less than the peak of 68 aircraft during the 2022 exercises and considerably lower than the high of 91 aircraft seen in April 2023.

China’s naval activity has been relatively more impressive. Taiwan MND announced that 19 PLA Navy vessels were deployed around Taiwan on May 23. That is higher than the peak in August 2022 (14 vessels) and in April 2023 (12 vessels). However, it is lower than the record high of 20 vessels in September 2023 during a round of lower-profile, un-named exercises.

In addition to the PLA, Chinese maritime law enforcement forces conducted their own operations around Taiwan’s outlying islands. On the same day that the PLA exercises started, the Fujian Province Coast Guard launched a “comprehensive law enforcement exercise” in waters around Wuqiu and Dongyin islands “to test its joint patrol, rapid reaction and emergency response capabilities.”

A map of these CCG exercises shows that patrol vessels came as close as 2.8 nautical miles from Taiwan’s Wuqiu islands and as close as 3.1 nautical miles from Dongyin island. This is the first time the mainland’s coast guard vessels have entered waters around Wuqiu and Dongyin islands. In total nine CCG vessels were reported around Taiwan’s outlying islands.

The coast guard’s activities were not constrained to patrolling around Taiwan’s outlying islands. Information published by Taiwan’s MND indicated that four CCG vessels sailed east of Taiwan near the eastern PLA exercise zone off the coast of Hualien. The CCG also sailed three vessels southwest of Taiwan near the southern entrance of the Taiwan Strait. In all, the MND reported a total of 16 CCG vessels around Taiwan and its outlying islands on the first day of the exercises.

The Significance of These Exercises

The Joint Sword-2024A exercise and linked law enforcement operation suggest several different aspects of China’s approach to Taiwan.

First, China is likely to continue to employ large-scale military activities around Taiwan to signal its displeasure and punish Taiwan and the United States . Since China’s April 2023 military exercises, some experts from China, Taiwan, and the United States have argued that Chinese military exercises face diminishing utility in terms of advancing Chinese interests vis-à-vis Taiwan. A CSIS China Power survey of leading U.S. and Taiwan experts in late 2023 found that more leading Taiwan experts believed that the most escalatory Chinese response to a Lai victory was highly coercive non-military actions, not a large-scale exercise encircling Taiwan.

However, Joint Sword-2024A shows that when China needs to demonstrate significant displeasure, the PLA and CCG are readily available actors and are best suited to attract international attention. During the week of Lai’s inauguration, China first imposed sanctions and engaged in diplomatic pushback and condemnation before launching military exercises.

Indeed, in the last three years, China has engaged in highly publicized and large-scale military exercises around Taiwan for a variety of reasons: to oppose a high-level U.S. visit to Taiwan (August 2022), a Taiwan presidential transit of the United States and meetings with senior U.S. leaders (April 2023), and statements by Taiwan’s new president during his inauguration speech that Beijing deemed unacceptable (May 2024).

The analysis on this page draws from ChinaPower research tracking China’s major military and diplomatic activities in response to Tsai’s transit and meeting with Speaker McCarthy. Explore a detailed timeline of Chinese activities here .

This trend is likely to continue. There is a risk moving forward that China could lower the bar to justify exercises against lesser perceived transgressions, particularly if China is pessimistic about the future direction of Taiwan. These large-scale exercises also provide valuable opportunities for the PLA and CCG to train around Taiwan. Second, China appears to be routinizing future large-scale PLA exercises intended to punish Taiwan . China did not name its August 2022 exercise, but its April 2023 exercises were given the name “Joint Sword.” This most recent exercise was titled Joint Sword-2024A, using the same name as the prior exercise, but affixing a year and a letter. This indicates that Beijing has established a new series of exercises with the goal of punishing Taiwan and the United States and suggests China could engage in more than one large-scale exercise per year.

When China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) was asked whether there would be additional military exercises in the future, the spokesperson suggested it was possible by stating “each time ‘Taiwan independence’ separatists make waves, it garners stronger effort from China and the rest of the world to defend the one-China principle.”

Routinizing large-scale PLA exercises against Taiwan does not mean there will be prior warning. The PLA lowered military activities around Taiwan during Lai’s inauguration and in the two days afterwards and then provided no public advance notice for Joint Sword-2024A.

If these exercises are routinized, it will be important to see if they differ significantly each time to provide different training value or if China begins to standardize components of the exercise to signal more or less displeasure.

Third, China’s coast guard and other law enforcement actors are likely to play a growing role in military and quasi-military operations against Taiwan. According to Taiwan MND descriptions of Chinese activities on May 23, China’s maritime force included 19 PLA vessels and 16 CCG vessels. CCG vessels were operating immediately off China’s Fujian coast and to the southwest of Taiwan as well as the east of Taiwan.

This builds on growing CCG and PLA exercises and suggests greater military-law enforcement cooperation not only in the Taiwan Strait but also surrounding Taiwan. Improved PLA and CCG operations could enhance China’s ability to quarantine or blockade the main island of Taiwan or any of Taiwan’s outlying islands—steps which China could take in the future to significantly intensify pressure on Taiwan.

Fourth, future Chinese punishment of Taiwan could involve more geographically expansive operations and is likely to target the main island of Taiwan and its outlying islands . The August 2022 and April 2023 exercises almost exclusively focused on targeting the main island of Taiwan. Joint Sword-2024A includes activities against four outlying islands (with the CCG in the lead and the PLA in supporting role) and against the main island of Taiwan (with the PLA in the lead and the CCG in a supporting role). The larger geographic scope of the 2024 exercise allows China to train for a range of operations including gray zone activities, quarantine or blockade scenarios, and invasion.

This time, China positioned most of its maritime assets in the Taiwan Strait. In a future crisis or conflict scenario, this positioning could enable China to engage in operations to inspect or disrupt commercial traffic in the Taiwan Strait or cut off Taiwan’s outlying islands from Taipei.

The Chinese MND’s description of Joint Sword-2024A also mentioned “integrated operations inside and outside the island chain.” Chinese operations east of Taiwan are likely part of this and it remains to be seen what additional activities China could take beyond the first island chain .

Why China Escalated against Taiwan

China has long held deep suspicions of Taiwan’s new president William Lai. Even before Lai won Taiwan’s presidential election in January 2024, Chinese officials characterized him as a “‘pro-independence’ advocate” and his running mate Bi-khim Hsiao as one of the “die-hard ‘Taiwan independence’ separatists.” They point to his political trajectory and past activities within the DPP as evidence, including Lai’s own description of himself as “a pragmatic worker for Taiwan independence.”

Immediately prior to President Lai’s inauguration, China shared its expectations for what Beijing wants Lai to say and how Beijing wants Lai to operate after he assumes office. During a May 15 press conference, the spokesperson for China’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office Chen Binhua commented on the public sentiment within Taiwan that supported “peace not war, development not decline, communication rather than separation, and cooperation instead of confrontation.” He suggested that those should be elements within Lai’s speech.

Chen also emphasized China’s resolve to punish Taiwan, the United States, and other actors. Chen revealed that China “will introduce legal measures to punish diehards whose actions and rhetoric aggressively promote ‘Taiwan independence.’” He announced sanctions on five Taiwan commentators that Beijing viewed as stirring up “erroneous statements” to mislead people and “fuel[ing] hostility and opposition.” He further noted China’s opposition to U.S. support for “Taiwan independence elements” and encouraged the United States to stop arms sales to Taiwan.

From China’s perspective, Lai’s inauguration speech failed to meet Beijing’s expectations by casting cross-Strait dynamics and Taiwan’s status in ways that contradicted and undermined China’s one-China principle. Chinese officials and state media have made six different criticisms of Lai’s speech:

• It distorts Taiwan’s relations with China, does not recognize that Taiwan is part of China, promotes a two-state theory, and labels China as a foreign country;
• It seeks external involvement and intervention to support Taiwan independence and to make Taiwan a pawn for the west;
• It tries to use democracy as a guise to pursue independence and undermine peace and stability;
• It exaggerates and stokes the military threat from China;
• It weaponizes Taiwan public opinion against China; and
• It does not accurately reflect mainstream public opinion in Taiwan.

China’s Non-Military Activities to Punish Taiwan and the United States

This highly negative interpretation of Lai’s inauguration speech and Beijing’s deep distrust of Lai drove China to begin to “punish” Taiwan and the United States even before the announcement of Joint Sword-2024A:

• On May 20, China’s Ministry of Commerce sanctioned Boeing Defense Space & Security and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems by placing them on China’s unreliable entities list for providing arms sales to Taiwan.
• On May 21, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi pointedly called out Lai by name and noted “those like Lai Ching-te have betrayed their nation and ancestors. What they have done is simply disgraceful… All ‘Taiwan independence’ separatists will see their names written on the wall of shame.” This statement represents a marked escalation in rhetoric, a clear political labeling of Lai, and set the tone for China’s subsequent actions to “punish” Taiwan. Chinese official media followed suit and argued that Lai is worse than all Taiwan’s perceived pro-independence leaders, including Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian and Tsai Ing-wen.
• On May 21, China’s MFA also announced the decision to sanction former U.S representative Mike Gallaher for his attempts “to interfere in Chinese domestic politics, undermine Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, and activities to undermine Chinese interests.”
• On May 22, the MFA announced sanctions on 12 U.S. defense companies and 10 defense company executives in retaliation against U.S. sanctions on Chinese companies involved in efforts to support Russia’s Ukraine war and as punishment for these companies also providing arms to Taiwan.

Appendix: Timeline of Chinese Statements and Activities (May 20–23)

Since May 20, the Chinese government has released increasingly harsh statements to criticize Lai’s speech, suggesting a toughening of China’s condemnation of Lai and greater resolve to punish or coerce Taiwan. The Chinese government, however, did not appear to fully decide on how to respond to Lai’s inauguration until May 21.

Ministry of Commerce

• On May 20, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) released two public announcements of putting Boeing Defense Space & Security and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems on China’s unreliable entities list for providing arms sales to Taiwan. These announcements were accompanied by limited MOC statements that day, suggesting that these actions were likely pre-planned regardless of how Lai’s inauguration turned out.
• It took until May 23 for a MOC spokesperson to provide more color to such moves. The spokesperson portrayed such activity as a normal act of law enforcement and said the repeated sales of arms to Taiwan by these companies have “seriously undermined China’s national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity, flagrantly violated the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US joint communiques, and severely disrupted peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”

State Council Taiwan Affairs Office

• China’s State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) shared four press releases and statements from May 20 to May 23. The first two released on May 20 were shorter and reflected China’s standard talking points on Taiwan.
• It was not until the evening of May 21 that TAO released a longer and more detailed statement that went beyond standard talking points to reference specific components of Lai’s inauguration speech. This May 21 statement characterized Lai (not by name) as providing “a thorough ‘Taiwan independence confession,’” which “fully proves that he is a betrayer of the mainstream public opinion on the island and a destroyer of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the region.”
• TAO released another statement on May 23 that clearly stated China’s Joint Sword 2024-A exercise was meant to “punish Taiwan secessionists, counter foreign support for Taiwan independence and interference in Chinese domestic affairs, and protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” None of the TAO statements referenced Lai by name, referring to him only as the leader of the Taiwan region.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• China’s MFA also addressed Lai’s inauguration and dynamics related to Taiwan on a daily basis as part of their daily press conference. Similar to the TAO, the MFA spokesperson did not have much to share on May 20 beyond standard talking points .
• By May 21, MFA began addressing a range of Taiwan related questions. It reported on all the countries that voiced support for one China; criticized countries that supported or sent delegations to Lai’s inauguration; condemned Secretary Antony Blinken’s congratulatory message to Lai; and alleged Taiwan’s use of money to buy diplomatic allies. The Chinese spokesperson’s response to Secretary Blinken’s message to Lai was particularly strong and he claimed that the United States “seriously violates the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, and breaches its political commitment to maintaining only cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the Taiwan region. This sends a seriously wrong signal to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces.” The spokesperson also warned that such problematic activities “will be met with China’s resolute response.” None of these early MFA press releases mentioned Lai by name.
• The most important Chinese statement came from Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on May 21 as part of his speech at the high-level Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting. He called out Lai by name and noted “Those like Lai Ching-te have betrayed their nation and ancestors. What they have done is simply disgraceful… All ‘Taiwan independence’ separatists will see their names written on the wall of shame.” This statement represents a marked escalation, a clear political labeling of Lai, and a departure from past practice of not calling out Taiwan’s leader by name. Wang’s points on Taiwan were repeated verbatim by the MFA during its May 22 press release.
• On May 21, the same day of Wang Yi’s statement, the MFA announced the decision to sanction former U.S representative Mike Gallaher for his attempts “to interfere in Chinese domestic politics, undermine Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, and activities to undermine Chinese interests.”
• On May 22, MFA announced sanctions on 12 U.S. defense companies and 10 defense company executives in retaliation against U.S. sanctions on Chinese companies involved in efforts to support Russia’s Ukraine war and as punishment for these companies also providing arms to Taiwan.
• China’s MFA spokesperson’s remarks on May 23 were heavily focused on answering a range of questions related to Taiwan and the PLA announced military exercise around Taiwan. In response to questions of whether China was planning for more punishment drills beyond Joint Sword-2024A, China suggested it was possible: spokesperson Wang Wenbin stated , “Each time “Taiwan independence” separatists make waves, it garners stronger effort from China and the rest of the world to defend the one-China principle.”

Ministry of National Defense

• China’s MND was largely silent on Lai’s inauguration until May 23, when it announced the commencement of the Joint Sword-2024A military drills by the PLA Eastern Theater Command. The drills started immediately at 7:45am on May 23 and were scheduled to continue until May 24. Joint Sword-2024A was intended to “serve as a strong punishment for the separatist acts of “Taiwan independence” forces and a stern warning against the interference and provocation by external forces.” The drills also aimed to practice China’s “joint sea-air combat-readiness patrol, joint seizure of comprehensive battlefield control, and joint precision strikes on key targets.” China MND released not only a map of the exercise zones, but also a graphic showing how China’s surface fleet would move towards Taiwan.

China Coast Guard

Authors: Bonny Lin and Brian Hart

• Share full article

The Battle Over College Speech Will Outlive the Encampments

For the first time since the Vietnam War, university demonstrations have led to a rethinking of who sets the terms for language in academia.

A pro-Palestinian protest on Columbia University’s campus this spring. Credit... Mark Peterson/Redux

Supported by

By Emily Bazelon and Charles Homans

Emily Bazelon is a staff writer for the magazine who also teaches at Yale Law School. Charles Homans covers politics for The Times. He visited the Columbia campus repeatedly during the demonstrations, counter-demonstrations and police actions in April.

• May 29, 2024

Early on the afternoon of Nov. 10, Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, was on his way into a meeting in Low Library, the domed neoclassical building at the center of campus, when an administrator pulled him aside. The school, the administrator said, was about to announce the suspensions of the campus chapters of the organizations Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, an allied anti-Zionist organization — a move that alarmed Jaffer given the fraught politics of the moment.

Listen to this article, read by Gabra Zackman

The day after Hamas’s brazen Oct. 7 attack on military and civilian targets in Israel, the S.J.P. and J.V.P. chapters co-signed an open letter declaring “full solidarity with Palestinian resistance.” The letter described the attacks as “an unprecedented historic moment for the Palestinians of Gaza” and a “counteroffensive against their settler-colonial oppressor.” It would be tantamount to “asking for quiet submission to systemic violence” for anyone to call for peace now, after years of Israeli violence and military campaigns against Palestinians. The groups issued a list of demands to the university — divestment from companies doing business with the Israeli government, the end of Columbia’s affiliation with Tel Aviv University and a recognition of Palestinian “existence and humanity” — and announced a demonstration on Oct. 12 on the steps of Low Library. They signed off: “See you Thursday.”

The Oct. 12 demonstration appeared to be in violation of campus rules, which required student groups to give 10 days’ notice for gatherings in public spaces, but Columbia had not been enforcing such requirements amid the emotional responses to the Hamas attacks and Israel’s retaliatory bombing in the Gaza Strip. “We got some pushback from the university,” recalled Cameron Jones, an organizer of the J.V.P. chapter, “but not insane pushback.”

As the sit-ins, teach-ins and die-ins continued, however, that began to change. Pro-Israel groups held counterdemonstrations, and tensions built on Columbia’s small, enclosed central campus. “In the past, demonstrations were basically students protesting against the establishment, and that was, you know, unidirectional and fairly straightforward,” the president of Columbia, Minouche Shafik, said in late May, in her first interview since December. “In this crisis,” she went on, “students are opposed to other students, faculty opposed to other faculty. And those internal dynamics and tensions have made this much more difficult than past episodes.” Outside Columbia’s library, several Israeli students were physically attacked after they confronted another student tearing down posters of Israelis held hostage by Hamas. Students wearing hijabs and kaffiyehs reported being called “Jew killers” and terrorists.

By Oct. 25, when S.J.P. and J.V.P. staged a walkout of college classes, “our relationship with the administration was really crumbling,” Jones recalled. Two days later, Israel’s invasion of Gaza began. On the night of Nov. 8, with another demonstration planned for the next day on the steps outside Low, a faculty adviser told the organizers that they were out of compliance with school rules and asked them to postpone the event. They did not , and the university suspended them.

When Jaffer heard the news, “I said, ‘Suspending the groups seems like a very draconian penalty for that offense,’” he recalled. When the administration in a public statement also cited the groups’ “threatening rhetoric and intimidation,” Jaffer grew more concerned: What speech crossed that line? In an open letter, he asked Columbia for an explanation.

The university didn’t publicly provide one, and the organizations received mixed messages from the administration. In a meeting with the student groups at the end of November, one administrator said that while the groups had not violated speech rules, Israeli students could hear accusations that Israel was committing genocide or was an apartheid state as an incitement to violence. “I left that meeting extremely confused,” said Maryam Alwan, an organizer of the S.J.P. chapter.

Shafik said this month that the suspensions of S.J.P. and J.V.P. were “content neutral” — they were about breaking the rules regarding demonstrations, not political views. Regardless, the university’s decision lit a fuse. In the months that followed, as the invasion of Gaza continued and civilian casualties mounted, dozens of student groups rallied in solidarity with S.J.P. and J.V.P. On April 18, Shafik asked the New York City Police to clear a pro-Palestinian student encampment on the Columbia lawn. That move, which included dozens of arrests, in turn sparked a wave of demonstrations at universities across the country. Columbia protesters rebuilt their encampment and, on the night of April 29, some of them stormed the school’s Hamilton Hall, occupying the building and locking and barricading the doors. At Shafik’s request, a large deployment of police returned to campus the following night, raiding the building and arresting its occupiers .

When private universities set rules for what speech they allow, including when, where and how students can protest, they can impose more restrictions than the First Amendment allows in public spaces. But for decades, they have claimed free speech as a central value, and that promise has a particular history at Columbia. In 1968, the administration called in the police to evict student demonstrators from Hamilton Hall, which they had occupied in protest of the university’s involvement in military research and a new neighborhood-dividing gymnasium project in Morningside Park.

The occupation and its violent end, the images of bloodied students dragged away in handcuffs, was a seminal moment for the Vietnam-era left; the following year, several Columbia demonstrators helped found the Weather Underground, the radical organization that bombed government buildings in the 1970s. The clash also occasioned an on-campus reckoning with long-lasting institutional consequences. The university senate, which includes faculty and students, was given a hand in disciplinary matters to check administrative power — a system the administration bypassed in suspending the pro-Palestinian groups.

For more than half a century now, campus activism and universities’ responses to it have mostly occurred within the paradigm shaped by 1968. Activists have used fights over investments, curriculums and development projects as platforms for radical politics and for a kind of revolutionary experimentation in the form of building occupations and other direct actions. Administrations have more often than not responded tolerantly or at least cautiously, out of a mix of principle and pragmatism. The building occupiers and tent-camp residents may be breaking laws or at least campus policies, but they’re also the university’s consumers.

But the upheavals on campuses across the country this spring were different. The campus war over the real war in Gaza did something no issue since Vietnam had done. It seemed to have prompted an abrupt rethinking of free-speech principles that many in academia assumed to be foundational.

In reality, though, this shift was not so abrupt. It reflected broader changes in the institutional structures and power balances within American universities and disagreements over free speech that have gradually redrawn the battle lines inside and outside academia. That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would prove the catalyst, too, was not surprising. Few conflicts had so directly centered on the power of language and who sets its terms.

In 2019, Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president before Shafik, wrote an essay for The Atlantic called “Free Speech on Campus Is Doing Just Fine, Thank You.” The occasion was an executive order President Trump issued that March, proclaiming that colleges and universities that received federal funding were required to “promote free inquiry” — a mostly symbolic measure that reflected several years of alarm on the right over what Fox News and others had declared a “free-speech crisis” on American campuses.

Throughout Trump’s presidency, college activists tried to block various appearances by speakers whose views they found repellent. At Middlebury College, they derailed a talk by the conservative social scientist Charles Murray and at William & Mary shouted down a speaker from the state A.C.L.U. chapter. Schools like the University of California, Berkeley , and Grand Canyon University , a Christian institution in Arizona, disinvited right-wing media figures for fear of demonstrations.

If Columbia managed to steer through this period with a minimum of turbulence, it was in large part thanks to Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar who defended the right of people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus. “I am of the view that one such disinvitation is one too many,” he wrote in The Atlantic essay, while noting that, in fact, disinvitations had been far rarer than the pundits and politicians suggested. But Bollinger cast the debate over the limits of campus speech as itself a part of the tradition of campus speech, and he concluded that “universities are, today, more hospitable venues for open debate than the nation as a whole.”

Five years later, this picture lay in tatters. Bollinger’s own university — he left office last June — was once again synonymous with building occupations and police crackdowns, and Columbia was facing legal action from both Jewish and Muslim students alleging harassing speech, among other complaints. In an interview in late April, Bollinger, who has not otherwise spoken publicly about the Columbia clashes, said that his own optimism was dimming. “There was a fair consensus that private universities,” he said, like public ones, “should embrace free-speech principles and set an example for the country in how free speech applies to a public forum. And now I think that’s breaking down.”

Other schools were also stumbling. In December, testifying before a House committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses , three elite-university presidents equivocated when Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman from New York, asked them whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the rules on their campuses. One of them, the University of Pennsylvania’s Liz Magill, was out of her job within days ; a second, Claudine Gay of Harvard, resigned amid accusations of plagiarism that surfaced amid post-testimony scrutiny .

Shafik, testifying before a similar panel in April, fared better in the hearing room but worse back on campus. Under repeated questioning, she said that she found pro-Palestinian chants like “From the river to the sea” and “Long live intifada” antisemitic but added that “some people don’t.” Columbia also turned over documents to the committee about faculty members accused of antisemitic speech whom Shafik named in her testimony — disclosures the administration says that it was obligated to make but that infuriated professors, hundreds of whom signed open letters declaring it a breach of academic freedom. “She threw some of us under the bus,” said Katherine Franke, a Columbia Law School professor, who was among those criticized in the hearing. “But to me, that’s less important than her inability to make a defense of the university.”

To free-speech advocates, it was ominous that these presidents weren’t arguing for the university as a forum for fostering free speech, however controversial. “That commitment is really at the center of universities’ missions,” Jaffer said. “It is disappointing that so many university leaders failed to make that case.”

In the post-Oct. 7 demonstrations, however, universities confronted a dilemma far more complex than any Bollinger faced during his tenure. The invasion of Gaza has drawn students with a range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the protests, but S.J.P. and other groups at the vanguard have been clear on their own lines : They reject the idea of a two-state solution and consider the existence of a Zionist state in Israel to be illegitimate and immoral. This is a change from the early 1990s when Edward Said, the Jerusalem-born literary theorist and pro-Palestinian activist who made Columbia a leading bastion of Palestinian scholarship, championed a two-state outcome (though he rejected the idea in the last years of his life). The movement’s politics have hardened, and so have the facts on the ground. Hopes for a two-state solution have receded amid the increasingly extreme politics of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, including the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah .

Historically, when “Zionist” becomes a pejorative, persecution of Jews has followed, and many American Jews see the rise in reported incidents of antisemitism as evidence of this once again. Some protesters crossed the line from rejecting Israel to using antisemitic imagery on posters and making threats. For example, Khymani James , a student leader of the protests at Columbia, said “Zionists don’t deserve to live” in a video of a school disciplinary hearing that he posted on social media. (James later apologized.) Chants like “We don’t want no Zionists here,” which continued at Columbia and elsewhere, made many Jewish students, including critics of Israel’s occupation, feel there was no longer a space for supporting a Jewish homeland in any sense.

But pro-Palestinian activists now often view the rejection of Zionism as an irreducible part of the cause — and are aware of how accusations of antisemitism have been wielded in the past to the detriment of that cause. When Columbia deans called for acknowledging the “genuine hurt” of both sides of the conflict in December, noting some of the language of the protests, Rashid Khalidi, a historian of Palestine at Columbia, accused them of having decided that “the oppressed should take permission from the oppressor as to the means to relieve their oppression.”

The clash over politics and language has created a rare point of real political vulnerability for universities. Several face the threat of House Republican investigations of their federal funding, which at Columbia amounts to $1.2 billion in annual grants and contracts, accounting for 20 percent of its budget. And Republicans, who have long criticized universities as fortresses of liberalism and leftism, now have allies among the many congressional Democrats who remain supportive of Israel, as well as many of the universities’ own donors, administrators and trustees. (Columbia’s board includes only one academic and no Muslims or Arabs other than Shafik.) In May, a bipartisan majority in the House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require schools to potentially risk their federal funding if they don’t restrict speech that, for example, denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination” — a suppression of views that would run headlong into the First Amendment.

Back on campus, the conflict about antisemitism versus anti-Zionism has landed in the middle of a decades-long, unresolved argument over speech itself. Today’s students have grown up with the idea that speech can be restricted if it causes harm — but also believe that restricting their speech can be its own kind of harm. “I can’t think of another case,” says David Pozen, a Columbia law professor, “where a group not only refuses to stop using language it’s told is harassing and intimidating and demeaning but also flips it around to say, ‘Your very demand is a tool of oppression.’”

Debates over free speech on college campuses have invariably been debates about power. This became clear in 1964, when students at the University of California, Berkeley, handed out leaflets organizing demonstrations against the Republican National Convention, held in San Francisco that year. The dean of students barred them from using a campus-owned plaza. Months of protests and hundreds of arrests followed, until the university finally capitulated.

The Berkeley movement proved a useful foil for conservative politicians fighting the early skirmishes of the culture wars — Ronald Reagan successfully ran against it in his 1966 campaign for governor. But the Supreme Court upheld campus speech protections in 1967 and onward. And when a more enduring critique of campus speech emerged years later, it came not from the right, but from the left.

In an influential 1989 law-review article, Mari Matsuda, a law professor at the University of Hawaii and an early critical-race theorist, argued that the significance of speech and its acceptability on a university campus turned on who was speaking and who was being spoken to. Racist speech, in particular, could be more than offensive. When it reflected historic imbalances of power — when a white student hurled a racial slur at a Black student, for instance — it reinforced and perpetuated those imbalances in ways that shut down discussion, debilitating students’ academic lives. That meant that schools should treat it not as a matter of expression but as a real-world harm and sanction it. “Racist speech is particularly harmful because it is a mechanism of subordination,” she wrote.

By the early 1990s, more than 350 colleges and universities had adopted hate-speech codes imposing sanctions on students who demeaned someone’s race, sex or religion. But the codes collided with the First Amendment. Every court that considered a university speech code between 1989 and 1995 reached the same conclusion: The rules were vague, overbroad or discriminated against speakers because of their points of view and were thus unconstitutional.

Many First Amendment scholars agreed. They recognized that hate speech causes real harm but thought that banning it caused its own problems. Geoffrey Stone, a law professor and frequent collaborator of Bollinger’s, led a committee at the University of Chicago that issued a landmark 2015 report on free speech. It proposed “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn” while allowing for limits on the time, place and manner of protests and on genuine threats and harassment.

The Chicago principles, as they are called, have since been adopted by more than 100 other schools. But this view of free speech never achieved a consensus. Within many humanities departments, Matsuda’s theories have retained currency. Ideas about identity and power have suffused progressive politics more broadly in recent decades. And in the Trump era, incursions of white nationalists and right-wing extremists into the political mainstream caused many liberals to rethink tolerating hate speech. Such speech no longer seemed confined to the far edge of American politics, and the death of a counterdemonstrator at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 reinforced the argument that hate speech was inherently violent and should be stopped at all costs.

But as progressive students extended this justification to even conventional conservatives and some civil liberties advocates, a more generalized intolerance took hold. In a 2022 survey of college students, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties organization, found that liberal students were far more likely to say that preventing speech through protest was acceptable. Fifty-three percent of students who identified as “very liberal” said it was always or sometimes acceptable to shout down a speaker to block their appearance on campus. Only 13 percent of “very conservative” students did.

Three and a half decades ago, when Matsuda first laid out her case for sanctioning hate speech, based on the identity of the speaker, one of the most challenging tests of her framework was Zionism. Were Zionists persecutors, as pro-Palestinian activists contended? Or, given the history of Jewish persecution and the Holocaust, were they victims? Matsuda’s answer, in effect, was: It depends. She rejected the charge that Zionism was, by definition, racism. Zionists would receive a “victim’s privilege,” she said, if they spoke in “reaction to historical persecution” but not if they allied themselves with a dominant group.

Her response captured the duality of modern Jewish identity — vulnerable on a global scale, as only 0.2 percent of the world population and the subject of centuries of prejudice but wielding significant power in some contexts, most obviously the Israeli state. It also showed the difficulty of putting Matsuda’s analytical framework into practice. Doing so depended on a shared understanding of where power lay and who possessed it.

The lack of such a shared understanding is on display in dueling legal complaints Columbia now faces over the campus clashes , from Jewish and Israeli students and their supporters in one case and Palestinian, Muslim and Arab students and their allies in another. Each document incidents of face-to-face harassment, and each claim to be on the wrong side of power or social clout. The Palestinian, Muslim and Arab students say in their legal filing that they were “treated differently by high-ranking administrators,” citing the S.J.P. suspension. Jewish and Israeli students, by contrast, report being excluded from student organizations (an L.G.B.T.Q. group, a dance club, a group representing public-school students at suspension hearings) that either condemned Israel or said Zionists were unwelcome, forcing them to forfeit a core part of their identity to stay in the group.

Both complaints claim Columbia is violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires universities to respond when discriminatory harassment is “so severe or pervasive” that it limits or prevents students from participating in their education. The federal Department of Education has in recent years interpreted the law to apply to religious minorities like Jews and Muslims with “shared ancestry,” and to say that speech is a form of conduct that can violate the law.

The tension with free-speech principles is evident. In mid-December, the dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, and the chancellor of U.C. Irvine, Howard Gillman, expressed concern about briefings for universities in which the Department of Education suggested that slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” likely created a hostile environment for Jewish students. “We know that some Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students similarly feel threatened by protesters who chant, ‘We stand with Israel,’” Chemerinksy and Gillman wrote in an essay in The Sacramento Bee. “Do they also require investigations and mitigation efforts?”

The day before Shafik called the police to Columbia for a second time, she issued a public statement suggesting that Title VI was forcing her hand. Calling the encampment a “noisy distraction,” she said it “has created an unwelcoming environment for many of our Jewish students and faculty.”

David Schizer, a former dean of Columbia’s law school and a chairman of the antisemitism task force the university convened in the wake of Oct. 7, said in an email that “after the occupation of Hamilton Hall, the police were preventing trespassing and vandalism, protecting the ability of all students to do their work, sleep and prepare for finals, and were also preventing discriminatory harassment against Jewish and Israeli students.” But Jaffer, the Knight Institute director, took issue with invoking Title VI as a rationale for the police action.

“Of course we want universities to protect students from discrimination,” he said. “But whatever federal anti-discrimination law means, it doesn’t mean universities are obligated to call in hundreds of riot-clad police to suppress mostly peaceful protests.”

In 2021, Shafik wrote a book called “What We Owe Each Other: A New Social Contract for a Better Society.” Before Oct. 7, she said, she hoped that her presidency might be dedicated to a similar theme, of strengthening the frayed social contract between universities and the country and within their own on-campus communities. That was still the challenge ahead, she believed. “I think we’re all thinking very hard,” she said, “about, you know, what we’ve learned.”

While the school’s board remains behind Shafik, on May 16 members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which among the school’s professors had been the most vocal in their criticism of her, passed a resolution of no confidence in the president by a margin of 65 percent to 29 percent. In an email to her colleagues, Virginia Page Fortna, a political-science professor, pointedly noted the title of Shafik’s book. “If we are to heal,” she wrote, “then Shafik owes Columbia: an apology, a strong and credible commitment to completely change course in how decisions are made, and an independent investigation of what has gone wrong.”

At the same time, few schools could credibly claim to have gotten things right in April. Institutions across the country, from large state schools to small liberal-arts colleges, struggled as the protests escalated, crossing into the terrain of encampments and building occupations, which aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Some schools that permitted encampments for a time also wound up in crisis. At the University of California, Los Angeles, on April 30, pro-Israel counterprotesters violently attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment while the campus police force mostly stood by. Even at the University of Chicago, the administration’s decision to tolerate an encampment ended when negotiations with the demonstrators broke down and the president called in police in riot gear . The several schools that did persuade students to end their encampments mostly did so by promising to consider divestment in Israel at a later date, punting on rather than resolving the underlying issue.

In the logic of protest politics, police crackdowns and the attention they generate are their own kind of victory. The campus clashes forced the war in Gaza into the center of American public life in a way that seven months of headlines about Israeli bombing campaigns, aid-shipment blockades and thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths did not. They drew attention to American dissent over the war and the United States government’s role in supporting it. Khalidi, the Columbia historian, speaks of the campus clashes as a turning point for younger Americans. “The protests have highlighted the fact that majorities of Americans oppose Israel’s war on Gaza and the Biden administration’s support of it, a fact that elites, politicians and the mainstream media systematically ignore,” he wrote in an email.

Universities now face the challenge of rebuilding their communities even as the debate over speech limits that divided them, to say nothing of the war in Gaza itself, remains unsettled — and the incentives of some interested parties, like congressional Republicans and pro-Palestinian organizers, seem to run in the opposite direction. The most realistic aspiration, perhaps, is that many students will tire of division and police deployments and make a path toward recovering a sense of empathy for one another — taking a step back and seeing their own political positions, however irreconcilable, as others might see them.

Matsuda, who did as much as anyone to shape the interpretation of language through the prism of power, had been thinking, too. “I don’t want anyone to feel uncomfortable on campus,” she said. “But stopping a protest movement, I don’t think it’s the way to make Zionist students feel comfortable.” At the same time, “it’s also really important for universities to help students move beyond slogans and see what might be hurtful or impactful about them,” she said.

At the height of the spring conflict, there were signs this was possible. At some schools, pro-Palestinian protesters modulated their own speech in deference to the requests of other students, even avoiding the common chant, “From the river to the sea,” which others have defended as peaceful. The protesters who made these choices didn’t do so because of a law or rule. They were sensitive to the nudge of peer relationships and social norms.

Bringing students together to hash out community standards about language is “the only way I can think of for there to be a set of norms about what speech goes too far that students on all sides would accept as legitimate,” David Pozen, the Columbia law professor, said. He felt the tumult of this spring, which at Columbia resulted in early student departures and scrambled graduation plans, aggravated and exhausted many students who did not themselves participate in the demonstrations and counterdemonstrations. “Students are feeling anguished and alienated, and maybe that’s an opening,” Pozen said.

Clémence Boulouque, a religion professor who serves on the university’s antisemitism task force, hoped Columbia could recover a sense of itself as a “place where people can coexist” and where mediation and discussion might forestall endless grievance and grief. If the divisions opened up by the protests were litigated in an endless back-and-forth of Title VI complaints, fought in the zero-sum realm of the law, then the school would fail at one of the oldest concepts in education: the moral development of its students. “Denying the pain of others, it’s not a great way of conflict resolution,” she said. “It’s also self-inflicted moral injury.”

On one level, this focus on de-escalation avoided the deep unresolved disagreements over where the political ended and the personal began. On another, it was its own kind of blunt realism. “We have to heal together and live together,” Boulouque said. “It’s just like Israel-Palestine. Nobody’s going anywhere.”

Read by Gabra Zackman

Narration produced by Anna Diamond

Engineered by Quinton Kamara

An earlier version of this article misstated the date that Minouche Shafik, the president of Columbia University, asked the New York City Police Department to clear a pro-Palestinian student encampment on the university’s lawn. It was April 18, not April 17. The article also misstated the position of the literary theorist and activist Edward Said on a two-state solution. He supported the proposal in the early 1990s but changed his public stance to support a one-state solution later in that decade.

How we handle corrections

Emily Bazelon is a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine. More about Emily Bazelon

Charles Homans is a reporter for The Times and The Times Magazine, covering national politics. More about Charles Homans

The Campus Protests Over the Gaza War

News and Analysis

​Harvard said that it will no longer take positions on matters outside of the university , accepting the recommendations of a faculty committee that urged the school to reduce its messages on issues of the day.

​Weeks after counterprotesters attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, the university police have made the first arrest related to the attack .

​​A union for academic workers in the University of California system announced that an ongoing strike challenging the system’s handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations would extend to two more campuses , U.C.L.A. and U.C. Davis.

The Battle Over College Speech:  ​University demonstrations over the war in Gaza have reignited the debate over campus speech, and have led to a rethinking of who sets the terms for language in academia .

Making Sense of the Protests:  In the weeks leading up to graduation, our reporter spoke with more than a dozen students at Columbia University and Barnard College about how the campus protests had shaped them .

A Complex Summer:  Many university leaders and officials may be confronting federal investigations, disputes over student discipline  — and the prospect that the protests start all over again in the fall.

A New Litmus Test:  Some Jewish students say their views on Zionism — which are sometimes assumed — have affected their social life on campus .

Advertisement