Where I Lived, and What I Lived For



Building Blocks for Rhetorical Analysis

“Where I Lived, and What I Lived For”

By Henry David Thoreau

First – here are a couple of new terms that may be new to you. They will be referenced in today’s work, but you will also want to add them to your bank of terms, as you will need to know them for other texts and purposes after this.

New Terms to Know:

Parallelism: the use of components in a sentence that are grammatically the same; or similar in their construction, sound, meaning or meter. Parallelism often either juxtaposes contrasting images or ideas so as to show their stark difference, or joins similar concepts to show their connection. The definition of parallelism can also refer to a grammatical construct, which we use commonly in everyday speech, for example “She enjoys gardening and cooking” instead of “She enjoys gardening and to cook.” This is different than a “parallel,” or comparison you might draw between two ideas in a text, like Lenny and the mouse in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.

Extended metaphor: a comparison between two unlike things that continues throughout a series of sentences in a paragraph or lines in a poem. It is often comprised of more than one sentence and sometimes consists of a full paragraph.

Antithesis: two opposite ideas are put together in a sentence to achieve a contrasting effect. Antithesis emphasizes the idea of contrast by parallel structures of the contrasted phrases or clauses, i.e. the structures of phrases and clauses are similar in order to draw the attention of the listeners or readers. Examples are “Patience is bitter, but it has a sweet fruit” and “Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice.”

Chiasmus: comes from the Greek term for the letter X; a sequence of two phrases or clauses which are parallel in syntax, but reverse in order of the corresponding words. An example is “never let a fool kiss you or kiss fool you” (anonymous saying) and "you forget what you want to remember, and you remember what you want to forget."(Cormac McCarthy, The Road, 2006)

Now, here is an example of a possible rhetorical analysis prompt like you may see on the AP test. We will use this prompt to frame our discussion of the rhetorical analysis essay.

Sample Prompt: Write an essay in which you characterize Henry David Thoreau’s attitude toward nature and analyze how (rhetorical devices) Thoreau conveys these ideas.

Here are some helpful steps you will take before you begin writing a rhetorical analysis essay.

Step One: Identify SOAPSTone. (use resource provided).

1. Who is the speaker?

2. What is the occasion?

3. Who is the audience?

4. What is the purpose?

5. What is the subject?

6. What is the tone?

Determining the components of SOAPSTone is a helpful starting place, and some or all of this information will appear in the introduction of an essay, in most cases.

Step Two: Identify rhetorical devices in the text and consider their effect.

Brainstorm a list of everything you notice the author uses or does in this text that strike you as significant or interesting, especially anything that can help you characterize Thoreau’s attitude toward nature. Sometimes it is helpful to zoom in on particular portions of the text, so we will be focusing on paragraphs 16-23 for this exercise.

1. Paragraph 16: Thoreau makes effective use of antithesis. Identify each example, and then discuss how these antitheses support authorial purpose (the likely purpose the author had for writing) in the paragraph.

2. Paragraph 17: Thoreau employs simile and metaphor to illustrate his appeal for us to simplify our lives.

A. Identify 3 of these similes and discuss how they support authorial intent (the meaning or interpretation that the author most likely had).

B. Identify the extended metaphor Thoreau uses and discuss how it supports potential authorial intent.

3. Paragraph 18 begins with a rhetorical question. How does this question impact the writing? Discuss how the rest of the paragraph responds to this question.

4. Now find 3 other places anywhere in the text where you notice something interesting that Thoreau does with language, punctuation, structure, diction, or syntax (word order).

|Quote |Rhetorical Device |Effect |

|1. | | |

|2. | | |

|3. | | |

5. In the concluding paragraph, Thoreau develops two metaphors, one for the concept of time, and the other to illustrate the intellect. Identify each of these, explaining why they are appropriate, and then, discuss how they support the overall purpose of this excerpt.

6. Thoreau contends, “we do not ride the railroad; it rides upon us” (a type of parallelism, known as chiasmus). Paraphrase/interpret this comment; then consider some modern contrivance (laptop, IPhone®, Facebook®, PDA, etc.)—what would Thoreau have to say about our relationship to this item? Would Thoreau be more likely to argue that this device has served to simplify our lives or complicate them?

Now you have a lot of material you could use to write a rhetorical analysis. As a writer, you will need to sift through your ideas and land on the ones that seem central, or the ones you can build the strongest argument around. A strong rhetorical analysis usually focuses on two to three devices the author uses, with examples and analysis to support your position.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download