Types of Arguments

I was actually really excited when I read this chapter because I was finally on familiar territory.  This chapter is what I spent a semester in my English 1C class completing.  We learned all about the Toulmin model and different types of arguments, so I felt like I could finally relate to what I was reading!  I love learning about the different types of arguments and trying to categorize where I would be placed during my converstations.  I tend to fall under the motivational argument in most cases.  When using a motivational warrant as the basis for your argument, you must understand the emotional needs of the audience.  For example, if you are talking about saving the whales to a bunch of people who actually capture and slaughter whales for use and consumption than no matter how motivational your argument is, it may fall upon deaf ears.  But if you are speaking to people who are advocates for saving the whales than they would probably relate more to your argument and as long as you appeal to their emotional needs, you should gain the support you had attempted to garner.  I also liked how in this section it spoke about Maslow's needs hierarchy.  I actually saved all of my work from my English 1C class, so I was able to get out my pyramid with Maslow's needs hierarchy and refer to it when reading this section.  People always joke that I am a hoarder (I have a tough time getting rid of my school work), but in this case, I was quite glad that I had saved it!

Kate

Well-Known Speaker

I just watched the Democratic National Convention the other night (luckily my husband recorded it or else I would have missed it!) and when Bill Clinton came on, I knew I was in for a good time.  He is such an amazing orator.  Unless he used a teleprompter, I do not think he was reading from any notes.  His speech was so empowering.  His words flowed so smoothly and eloquently.  I believe he was quite persuasive in his speech.  The crowd also seemed to feel the same way as they cheered through most of his speech.  His arguments were very convincing and he had thorough knowledge on the topics he discussed.  I believe Clinton's credibility helps him in his speeches.  Of course, for his past indiscretions, many people often scoff when he is mentioned, but as a leader of our country for eight years, he accomplished many amazing tasks that no other president before him had done (granted, most were not put in the position Clinton faced when he assumed office, but that's beside the point).  Clinton of course was a very powerful man when he held office and I believe he still is.  He is linked to his wife, Hillary, who is a very influential and powerful woman, so I do believe Clinton's power of authority does him well when he speaks.  I think Clinton possesses all three traits discussed for this post.  He of course is attractive for an older man.  His accent is also not so bad to the ears either.  When Clinton speaks, at least for the democats, his words are heard and his words are his vow, he does not stand behind something he doesn't support or believe in and I feel that is also what makes him an influential speaker.

Kate

Influential Speaker

I have had the privilege of hearing addresses from so many speakers, it is hard to pin point one and say that his or her speech was the best.  As I had stated in an earlier blog, when I was rather young, the first time I heard Martin Luther King Jr. speech, "I Have a Dream", I was moved.  His voice was so empowering as well as his message.  He stood behind a platform with such strength and pride, I was enraptured in every word that flowed from his mouth.  After hearing his speech, I set out to learn everything  I could possibly learn about him.  His speech had sent me on a mission to learn his history, who he really was, where he came from and what brought him to his death.  I think I can say that I became truly interested in history after I had heard his speech.  I wanted to know everything about this man and prior to that, I had little interest in history (granted, I was still very young!).  Now, I am a history major and as I look back, I think I can say after hearing MLK's speech, that was what set me on the course to learn as much as I possibly could about our history.
The worst speaker I believe is a bit of a touchy subject.  I am not hoping to offend anyone, but I have to say that George W. Bush was not gifted with the form of great communication skills.  The poor guy.  So many times I watched him perform his speeches and it seemed for the most part, he was fumbling his way through his speeches.  He often became tongue tied and from time to time would lose his train of thought.  He always had to read directly from his notes which I do not believe would qualify as a great speaker.  I personally believe a great speaker should have notes to refer to, not cite word-for-word.  Granted, it must have been very nerve wrecking to be on a stage knowing millions upon millions of people are watching you talk, but he was after all our leader, I think he maybe should have taken a few communication courses at his community college to help him learn a few skills.  And as I have said, I do not mean this to be mean or harsh or to offend anybody, this is just my personal feeling and I believe we are all entitled to that!

Kate

Communication is so Confusing!

I had never really given much thought to the whole concept of communication and I had no idea there were so many different models and ways to define communcation.  I had always thought communication was when two or more people were participating in a conversation with one another.  I had never stopped to actually analyze what communication actually was and how communities or different cultures actually define communication.  Of all the different models I have read in this chapter, I have to say that the one I feel I can most relate to is the Dell Hymes model.  I have been in deaf studies at Sierra College for a few semesters now and before I had begun, I knew very little about the deaf community and I did not even know there was an actual legitimate deaf community and an entire deaf culture.  I have learned so much through these courses.  I have emersed myself in the deaf community and I have observed the ways deaf people communicate with one another.  Not only do they use their hands to communicate, but facial expressions is an important part on how they communicate with each other.  Without the facial expressions, one would not be able to fully understand what the other person is attempting to communicate.  I believe that the deaf community could be greatly linked to the Dell Hymes model.  The deaf have formed a small-knit community and they often embrace outsiders and are quick to give you a warm welcoming hug and they understand if you are slow at signing (and sometimes, I still am!) and they are patient, kind and understanding.  Becoming emersed in the deaf community has opened my eyes to a very different, fun and exciting form of communication!

Kate

The Pragmatic Perspective

Pragmatists believe that one must need to understand moves people use as they work out their relationship to one another.  I really enjoyed how the book used the game of chess as a way of understanding pragmatists.  While one person is deciding on what move to make, the other person is anticipating what move the other player is intending on making while anticipating what his or her next move will be. I believe this happens all the time in communication.  People tend to sometimes not pay full attention and rather anticipate what the person they are communicating with is going to say next and most times the person is waiting with his or her response before the other person has even finished speaking.  I think this is a very patterned interaction.  It seems to have been bred in us.  We often anticipate one another's move and are deciding upon what our next move will be before the other person has made his or her move which is very much like the game of chess.  I also like how the book states that when a person decides to communicate with another person, they become partners in a game that requires individual moves.  This I believe is a great way to define the pragmatists approach because you cannot really play too many games on your own (thinking outside the box of computer games, card games and such...more along the line of board games or physical sports) you need a partner.  People are born to compete with one another and I believe this even falls into our communication skills.  When having an argument and you KNOW you are right, are you willing to concede just because the other person won't quit arguing, or are you going to fight tooth and nail because you are correct and your point is very valid?  I believe most of us would argue tooth and nail.  I feel that communication may become less "game-like" only in maybe an academic setting.  When you are being taught something, you want to soak up that knowledge, you are not sitting there thinking of the next move you will make, you are sitting there retaining the knowledge that is being put forth.  But in our everyday lives, I feel communication is more of a game than not.

Kate

Social Constructionist Perspective

The social constructionist perspective sees communication as a process whereby people, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality.  It emphasizes the relationship between communication and culture.  I believe we "build worlds" through communication by in fact communicating.  If we look back at any of our world wars, we can see that communication was a key factor in provoking the war and also by ending the war.  Through the Cold War, we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union to see who could have the biggest nuclear weapon.  Although we did not physically, verbally communicate, our actions on both sides did the communicating for us.  The entire world was greatly affected by the Cold War and it built the world in which we now live.  Actions have consequences and sometimes are actions are much louder than our words.  I believe our actions it was "builds worlds" more than physically communicating with other nations or within our own nation.  In our culture, we talk about how important it is to help out the less fortunate, how it is our duty to help those in need, and we take great pride in helping out other countries and civilizations that cannot help themselves.  There are many countries who also perpetuate this same behavior, but not all countries are in the place to be able to lend a hand to those less fortunate, those who are truly in need of the help.  By helping out the less fortunate, rather it is here in the US or it is in a third world country, we take great pride in helping others out.  I also cannot help but think about how reality television has become such a mainstream in so many American family homes.  Personally in our home, we try to avoid them as much as possible, but it seems that it has become somewhat of an epidemic upon our society.  We see these virtually nobody's rise to their fifteen minutes of fame for lacking any real skill or talent (okay, so clearly I am not referring to all of the talent based reality television programs, I am thinking more along the lines of, "The Jersey Shore" or any of the "Housewives" reality programs).  We see these people on the television and many attempt to emulate them in their everyday lives.  Many people think that if that person can be a reality television star, than they could be one as well.  I think this has affected our nation more than most other nations.  Granted, I have not done a statistical research on other countries and their reality television programming, but I know it is huge in the US.  After the former reality television stars fifteen minutes is up, the person once again becomes obscure and we soon quickly forget about him or her.  Communication is everywhere and although we may not realize it, it is a huge form through the television programs we watch and are influenced by as well.

Kate

The Sophists

When thinking of the Sophsits during the ancient Greek era, I cannot help but to campare them to today's criminal defense attorneys.  The Sophists were willing to teach their "tricks" of persuasive speaking to large audiences but were only willing to do so for a hefty price, so if you were not very well off, the Sophists would pay no attention to you and would not teach you their ways.  The Sophists were very much so despised by the philosophers of their time.  They claimed to know the answers to every possible question, but when it came time to deliver these "answers", they would beat around the bush and use their "tricks" to move on to another topic and the audience for the most part would follow along and not realize they had just been bamboozled.  Philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato felt that the most important thing was to deliver the truth and only the truth while the Sophists only main goal was to win arguments.   Winning arguments was not a challenge for the Sophists because many if not most would choose a weak person to have an argument with and then they would use their wisdom (they were quite smart) to essentially and quite quickly break down their opponent's argument, leaving their audience in awe, but what the audience did not realize is that they were basically being set up because the Sophists had chosen a weak opponent to go up against.  Granted, their plan was brilliant.  Capitalism at its finest, I suppose.  The Sophists were in it for the money and the money they earned!  The true philosophers were in it to seek out the truth and justice and did not care so much about earning money and this is why the so truly despised the Sophists.

Kate