π΄π½πΆ π»π·π»πΈ | ππππππππ πΏπππ #πΈ: π³ππππππ ππππππππ
Digital rhetoric is applied in everyday online works for publicity and recognition, although a proper structure and format has yet to be provided because digital writing is ever-evolving in comparison to literary texts that have been used throughout history. Digital rhetoric invokes points of discussion and emotions by reaching an audience through online texts. However, the only issue with labeling digital rhetoric with an exact definition, as stated by Douglas Eyman is that there is “no comprehensive digital rhetoric text [that] has yet been published” (8). Eyman's text is split up into several chapters: "Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric", "Digital Rhetoric: Theory", "Digital Rhetoric: Method", and "Digital Rhetoric: Practice".
In the first chapter, Eyman begins by explaining that digital rhetoric is an interdisciplinary area. Digital rhetoric is interdisciplinary because it is taught in many sub-branches within English, such as communications and creative writing. Eyman continues on by stating that digital rhetoric derives its methods and theories from traditional-based rhetoric, primarily from Burkean-style concepts. In result, nearly every communicative style between individuals has to involve some type of rhetorical application and practice. Digital rhetoric is distinguished from traditional-based rhetoric in format because there is the uncertainty of what defines true rhetoric versus a digital text platform. In the second chapter, Eyman dives deeper into the theoretical analysis of digital rhetoric, in which digital rhetoric should be the primary application of rhetorical theory when it comes to persuasive writing and communication, especially when it is coming from an online context and platform.
Based on the definition of digital rhetoric provided by Eyman, the proper way to implement rhetoric online is to develop a unique digital identity, relate to a community, and apply rhetorical theory from text in one's online use (44). I guess my question for this week's reading is the concrete meaning of intertextuality and how this correlates to the main types of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos) that are applied with digital rhetoric.
Christina, I found your analysis took a different angle on what I saw (a better angle if anything), however I thought that your questions between the relationship with text was an important one that I asked myself as well. When thinking about rhetoric in digital platforms, communication is often brought up, as if it clear what the platform is trying to convey. This can lead to the argument on whether or not social media can be considered a teaching tool (as well as memes[brought to you by slacks discussion]). If we take Eyman's argument through his timeline of rhetoric then he would agree that anything that communicates and teaches, regardless of the what digital platform is, can be considered part of. I also found the third and fourth chapter (although dense) helpful when looking at the implementing process of digital rhetoric in the teaching.
ReplyDeleteHy Christina & Amberlynn, in the case of memes (which I am not a very knowledgeable about), how would ethos play out in them? I feel that it would be difficult to analyze them in regards to ethos, pathos, and logos, because they are so disconnected from their creators & their contexts. Would there maybe be a way to analyze them if we included more methods? Like the tracing of where a meme has been sent via SNA?
ReplyDeleteHi Christina. I think intertextuality is mentioned at different points in the book, so you're right that it's kind of hard to get a good grip on it (among other things!). I take it to mean the inter-connectedness of texts. But when we fold in digital rhetoric and digital practices, it takes on some new significance because that intertextuality is so much easier to use online. It's framed this way around the top of page 34 when he quotes Warnick's _Rhetoric Online_ (2007). "[C]ontemporary users of Web-based discourse have at their fingertips resources that enable them to seek out information in the moment in order to more fully understand and appreciate an intertextual reference" (119). Wikipedia is a good example because we can look up any reference in the middle of reading any page. In other words, every text is the center of its own network of connections to other texts. I have a hard time pinning this down to ethos, pathos, and logos, but I think one of the things that Eyman gets at is that we have this triangle of interactivity between user, text, and system.
ReplyDeleteYour post has generated some good response here, Christina! Thanks for your working-through of ideas and questions :)
ReplyDeleteFor the summary of Eyman's argument and its development chapter by chapter, there are really helpful places throughout the text where he makes what we call "signposting" moves: these are places (especially at points of transition: beginnings and endings of chapters, beginnings and endings of sections, etc.) where scholars explain what they're doing and why, as well as how major ideas connect to each other.
Returning to these signposts as you write those initial parts of the response posts can be really helpful for developing your understanding of a text, and provide direct evidence from authors regarding what they're up to.
One thing in your post I'd like to hear more about is the idea of what defines "true rhetoric," compared to "a digital text platform." In both cases, what do those phrases mean, as you're using them?
You raise an excellent question about rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) in relationship to intertextuality (I'm guessing online specifically, but perhaps more broadly?). Daniel does a really nice job above of discussing intertextuality, noting that he's also not sure how rhetorical appeals fit with or map onto the networks of connections among texts online.
If we think of rhetorical appeals used for the analysis of a text ("how is ethos operating here?") or creation of one ("how do I want to present myself, and what moves should I make to further develop and support that kind of presence?"), intertextuality points to the additional texts we'd need to consider in that analysis or production. While it's possible, for example, to analyze a specific tweet using rhetorical appeals, it also seems necessary to put that tweet into a larger context: the other tweets from that account, the tweet that it responds to (either directly or indirectly, in the case of subtweeting -- and it might be responding to an Instagram post or something that happened face-to-face, instead).
I hope this one small example provides some traction for you, thinking about intertextuality and rhetorical appeals.