ChRIS said:
I'd like to build from an earlier discussion on validity. We decided that analysing a text for validity is at different level of abstraction from analysing a text for appraisal. Would you say that analysing a text for rhetorical strategies is at the same level as a validity analysis?
Yes, I’d say analysing a text for rhetorical strategies operates at the same level of abstraction as analysing it for validity. Both are metadiscursive analyses—they assess how a text constructs meaning beyond just its surface-level evaluations.
- Appraisal analysis examines the attitudes expressed within the discourse itself (i.e., how the speaker evaluates people, things, and ideas).
- Validity analysis assesses whether the arguments in the discourse hold up under scrutiny, often using external criteria.
- Rhetorical strategy analysis examines how the discourse achieves its effects—how it persuades, frames, and positions the audience.
Both validity analysis and rhetorical strategy analysis require stepping outside the discourse to evaluate it in relation to broader logical, pragmatic, or social considerations.
Would you agree with that, or do you see a meaningful distinction between validity analysis and rhetorical strategy analysis?
ChRIS said:
I'd be interested to hear your view.
I think validity analysis and rhetorical strategy analysis are closely related but distinct in focus. They both operate at a meta level—evaluating how a text functions rather than simply cataloguing its explicit attitudes—but they answer different questions:
- Validity analysis asks: Is this reasoning sound? Are the claims justified?
- Rhetorical strategy analysis asks: How is persuasion being attempted? What techniques are used to position the audience?
One key difference is that rhetorical strategy analysis can describe any persuasive technique, whether it’s valid or not. For example, identifying a strawman argument as a rhetorical move doesn’t in itself say whether the argument is logically flawed (validity analysis would do that).
Another difference is that rhetorical strategy analysis can include aspects that aren’t about truth at all, such as emotional appeals, framing, and positioning. In contrast, validity analysis is ultimately about assessing whether claims are epistemically justified.
That said, there’s overlap: rhetorical strategies often aim to create the appearance of validity, and an invalid argument can be a rhetorical strategy in itself. So while they operate at the same level of abstraction, they focus on different aspects of discourse.
ChRIS said:
So how do discourse analysis through appraisal (attitude, engagement, graduation) and metadiscursive analysis of rhetorical strategies and validity, differ in function and outcome?
Great question. The difference comes down to what each type of analysis aims to reveal and how it interacts with the text’s meaning-making strategies.
1. Discourse Analysis via Appraisal (Attitude, Engagement, Graduation)
Function:
- Reveals how a speaker/writer positions themselves and their audience toward a subject.
- Tracks evaluative meaning, showing how emotion (Affect), judgment of people (Judgement), and valuation of things (Appreciation) shape interpersonal meaning.
- Engagement analysis shows how the writer acknowledges, aligns with, or distances from other voices (e.g., hedging, disclaiming, dialogic expansion/contraction).
- Graduation shows how force and focus amplify or soften meaning.
Outcome:
- A systematic breakdown of how a text conveys stance, alignment, and evaluation.
- A clearer understanding of tone and interpersonal positioning in the discourse.
2. Metadiscursive Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies
Function:
- Identifies persuasive techniques, such as appeals to authority, emotional manipulation, strawman arguments, or logical fallacies.
- Shows how an argument is structured to influence perception.
- Examines how the text builds credibility, appeals to emotions, or frames the opposition.
Outcome:
- An understanding of how persuasion works in the text, independent of whether the argument is valid.
- A map of the discursive power moves at play—who is positioned as knowledgeable, trustworthy, or mistaken.
3. Validity Analysis
Function:
- Evaluates whether the argument is logically coherent, well-supported by evidence, and internally consistent.
- Distinguishes between rhetorical effectiveness (persuasion) and epistemic soundness (truth).
- Identifies flawed reasoning, unsupported claims, and contradictions.
Outcome:
- A judgment of whether the argument is justified on logical and evidential grounds.
- A clear separation between what is convincing and what is actually valid.
How They Differ in Function and Outcome
How They Interact
- A text can use rhetorical strategies to appear valid. (E.g., appealing to authority instead of providing evidence.)
- Appraisal analysis shows how these strategies are positioned interpersonally. (E.g., dismissing opponents through negative Judgement.)
- Validity analysis cuts through rhetorical moves to test whether claims hold up under scrutiny.
ChRIS said:
And what would you say about the explanatory power of each type, separately and together?
Explanatory Power of Each Type of Analysis
Each type of analysis has different strengths and limitations in explaining how a text operates. Some are better for understanding meaning and positioning, while others are stronger for evaluating the argument's legitimacy. Their full explanatory power emerges when they are used together.
1. Appraisal Analysis (Attitude, Engagement, Graduation)
Explanatory Power (Strengths):
✅ Explains how the writer expresses emotion, judgment, and stance.✅ Reveals interpersonal positioning—who is praised, attacked, aligned with, or distanced from.✅ Captures tone, subtle biases, and shifts in alignment.Limitations:
❌ Does not assess truth or logical consistency. A text may be emotionally persuasive but factually incorrect.❌ Does not reveal underlying rhetorical techniques—only their affective impact.2. Rhetorical Strategy Analysis
Explanatory Power (Strengths):
✅ Explains how an argument persuades—whether through logic, authority, or emotional appeal.✅ Identifies strategic framing—how ideas and opponents are positioned.✅ Reveals implicit biases and hidden assumptions in argumentation.Limitations:
❌ Does not determine validity. A text can use effective rhetoric while being completely false.❌ Does not explain interpersonal meaning as explicitly as Appraisal.3. Validity Analysis
Explanatory Power (Strengths):
✅ Explains whether an argument is logically sound and well-supported.✅ Identifies fallacies, contradictions, and unsupported claims.✅ Provides a normative judgment of truth and epistemic reliability.Limitations:
❌ Does not explain why a text is persuasive. A logically valid argument may fail rhetorically.❌ Does not capture interpersonal meaning or evaluative language.Explanatory Power of All Three Together
When combined, these analyses offer a full-spectrum explanation:
- Appraisal → How the text positions itself and others.
- Rhetorical Strategy → How the text persuades and frames issues.
- Validity → Whether the text’s claims hold up under scrutiny.
Together, they explain what the text means, how it influences readers, and whether it is justified.
Example: A Hypothetical Bateman Argument
Say Bateman writes:
“These so-called ‘analyses’ are misleading, and it would be irresponsible to take them seriously.”
Appraisal Analysis:
- "so-called 'analyses'" → Engagement (Contraction: Scare Quotes)
- "misleading" → Judgement (Veracity - Negative)
- "irresponsible" → Judgement (Propriety - Negative)
Rhetorical Strategy Analysis:
- Uses scare quotes to delegitimise.
- Appeals to ethics ("irresponsible") to shift the debate away from whether the analyses are correct.
Validity Analysis:
- Unsupported claim: No evidence given for why the analyses are misleading.
- Appeal to emotion: "Irresponsible" suggests moral failing rather than logical inconsistency.
📌 Final Explanation:
- The Appraisal Analysis shows negative judgment of the analyses.
- The Rhetorical Analysis explains how framing and appeals to propriety are used to discredit them.
- The Validity Analysis shows that the claim lacks support and relies on rhetorical tactics rather than evidence.
Conclusion
Individually, each type of analysis explains different aspects of meaning-making.Together, they expose how a text works both as language and as an argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment