Writing an Analysis
This is a little bit more detail than the excellent advice
from Foss, ch. 2.
(The suggested lengths are appropriate to the mini-analysis.)
Introduction
(1¶)
Think of the
introduction you learned in your public speaking(y) class
Attention:
Engage us in the topic in a loosely creative manner (e.g., “When the nation
experiences a tragedy together, as they did when the Space Shuttle
Challenger exploded, the
president becomes grief-counselor-in-chief.”)
Thesis:
Succinctly state your goal/claim (e.g., “The following analysis of Reagan’s
Challenger address reveals how
the role of presidents to help an audience process grief.”)
Significance/Rationale:
Give us a reason to care—likely the reason you chose to study this artifact
(e.g., “Reagan’s address is a prime example of the need and function of
presidents to speak about national tragedy and provide solace for the
citizenry.”)
Preview:
Briefly—and I mean, briefly—tell us about what will transpire, think in
terms of sections (e.g., “My study opens with a description of Reagan’s
Challenger address and
Challenger’s significance to Reagan’s audience in 1986. Following a
discussion of context . . . .”)
Description of the
Artifact
(1-2¶,
not much more than a page)
The description here
should be broad strokes. This is not the place for
play-by-play description of the artifact. The emphasis is on the context
of the artifact and its place in society/history.
This may be
Why the
artifact/speech came to be (as a response to something?)
When was the
artifact/speech created, heard, or otherwise made public?
Who heard/saw
the artifact/speech?
What do we need
to understand about the rhetor or text to understand the analysis to follow
(this is not merely for neo-Aristotelian criticism)?
Description of the
method
(1-2¶,
not much more than a page)
Tell us about your
method, focusing heavily on how you
will be using it (e.g., Don’t spend a lot of time talking about delivery and
memory in neo-Aristotelian criticism or rhetorical visions in fantasy theme
analysis, if that is not something you are focusing on). Make it clear what the
tenets of the method and how those principles lead to the actual means of
analysis. For some methods this is looser than others, so you need to explain
how you have employed it (e.g., how you are doing feminist criticism).
Analysis
(the bulk of
your paper)
This is the really fun part! Arrange your findings by theme, chronologically, or whatever means makes sense. It is up to you to craft an analysis for us to easily follow. Use sub-headings as necessary, but be sure you still transition between the sections clearly.
In your writing,
going after every example of a theme, trope, or whatever will become a grocery
list. Choose examples that are representative and rich. When discussing your
findings focus on a pattern much like this:
Establish a
point you want to make (e.g., “The President repeatedly expresses his
personal grief.”)
Provide limited,
but key examples (e.g., “In several places the President makes statements
along the lines of, ‘. . .’.”)
Explain your
understanding of the example (e.g., “Reagan’s use of ‘I’ emphasizes that he
experiences the pain of loss along with the general public.”)
Express the
significance of your point(e.g., “By showing his own grief for the tragedy
Reagan bonds with the people . . . .”)
Conclusion
(1¶)
As you would with a
speech’s conclusion, briefly touch on what you did in the paper.
the nature of
certain types of artifacts (e.g., presidential addresses during national
loss)
the significance
of important artifacts (e.g., what is compelling about a popular movie)
cultural
values/concerns (e.g., what is the impact of a certain image of
femininity/masculinity)
Return to Rhetorical Criticism | Return to Courses | Return to Buerkle Main Page
| C. Wesley Buerkle, Associate Professor | PO Box 70667 |
| Communication Department, East Tennessee State University | Johnson City, TN 37614 |
| buerkle@etsu.edu | (423) 439-7579 |