Instructor Manual
Chapter 2: Language and rhetoric
Instructors’ material
Self-assessment exercises
These provide an opportunity for some further instructor-led work and reinforcement. Not all of the solutions will be obvious to students and explanations have been provided where appropriate (see below). Instructors could work through those explanations, using them as a site for ensuring students have grasped more complex points.
Exercise A
In question 3 ‘can’t’ is ambiguous between ‘he isn’t capable of doing it’ and
‘he’s not allowed to do it’
In questions 6 and 9 ‘it’ is ambiguous. In 6 we
don’t know whether it refers to the leg or the razor and in 9 we don’t know
whether it is the mosquito or the aircraft that was flown to Christchurch for
maintenance, but, of course, one interpretation is more likely than the
other.
Exercise E
Students are asked to identify hard/soft generalisations. This exercise could be extended by asking students to provide an appropriate quantifier for the soft generalisations in order to make the generalising claims true.
Exercise F
Question 6. This could also be an example of trading on equivocation. We might think that something’s being the most popular makes it the best product of its kind, when, in fact, it’s the most popular because it’s the cheapest or because it tends to get bundled in with operating software packages.
Question 8. The meanings of the terms ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘operational’ are vague in this context and so this is an example of trading on an equivocation. The term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ has also operated as a buzzword in the context of making a case in favour of the war in Iraq. The sentence could also function as an appeal to fear.
Question 9. This is an example of the smokescreen tactic because the primary topic seems to be the moral question of honouring one’s commitments, but that topic becomes obscured by a move to talking about the burden allegedly placed on public finances by refugees and engagement with the original topic is prevented.
Further ideas
- These questions provide an opportunity to make the point that examples of
rhetorical language do not necessarily exemplify a single rhetorical ploy.
It’s not unusual for a number of ploys to be used at once. It’s a good idea to
find examples, preferably ones that feature both image and text, that students
can analyse in order for them to get a strong feel for the ways in which
language can work to persuade us in the absence of reasons. Here is an example
of the type of text that can be used in this way:
Yum Burger, the hottest thing on the beach this summer! (accompanied by picture of women/woman dressed in bikinis)
Such an advertisement employs the techniques of trading on equivocation – the hottest thing in what respect (of course, there’s a deliberate play on words here too); it makes an obvious appeal to sexiness and is also an example of the direct attack/hard sell. - In this article about a British court case, there’s a good example of how
the ambiguity (in a particular context) of the term ‘safe’ has been used to
defend and permit pesticide spraying close to people’s homes. The substance
was tested to see if it was safe for humans to be exposed to it on a
short-term basis, rather than repeated exposure. The case demonstrates to
students the significance of ambiguity and the way it can be employed to
equivocate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/15/activists-pollution-pesticides-toxins-defra - In this extract from an article on President Obama’s plans for action on
the environment, we see a recourse to gentle nationalistic rhetoric. Students
could be asked to identify this and discuss the impact it has on the
reader.
In another signal of his determination to move on the environment, Obama appointed Carol M. Browner as his climate tsar last week. She was quoted as saying: ‘Time and time again, when the nation has set a new environmental standard, the naysayers have warned it will cost too much. But, once we have set those standards, American ingenuity and innovation have found a solution at a far lower cost than predicted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/obama-climate-change-john-holdren
Guardian Unlimited website 20/12/08, accessed 2/12/08 - Each of the following sentences are implicitly relative. Explain why and
then rewrite each one making the relativity explicit.
a) Her grades are above average.
b) Granny’s golf handicap is very impressive.
c) The rates charged by Hamborough City Council are very high.
d) My car is the best.
e) Time is short.
f) The current global economic situation is very serious.
g) Barack Obama will be a better President.
h) Johnny is doing well at school this year.
i) The Whalers are a successful team.
j) This meal is delicious.