WRD 112: Section 20
Fernheimer, Spring 2019
Project 2: Composing Identities—Rhetorical Analysis of an Oral History Interview
Timetable:
1/31 Assignment Distributed
2/5 Informal Response due in class in Hard Copy
2/14 Submission 2.1 Due in Class, Peer Review
2/19; Oral Presentations of Constructive Peer Feedback
2/21 Writing Day
2/28 Instructor Comments Distributed; Conferences with Dr. Jan
3/7 Final Submission 2.2 Due in Class
The Basics
You will write a 4-5 page (1000-1250 word) Rhetorical Analysis of an oral history interview. The essay is due 2/14 , and after receiving feedback from your peers and me, you will have the opportunity to revise and resubmit your essay on 3/7 . Make sure your paper is turned in electronically (using the proper naming conventions: yourfirstnamelastinitial_RhetAnal_1_1; i.e., janf_1_1 for first submission, janf__RhetAnaly1_2 for second submission) to the appropriate place on Canvas as well as in hard copy in class. Remember that papers are due at the beginning of class. Even though you are likely to cite only a few sources (the interview, maybe some materials from the texts we’ve read), you must include a “Works Cited” which follows MLA format, and I’ve included some quick tips below. This essay is worth 15% of your overall grade for the course.
The Rationale
We’re confronted with stories all the time. You hear them on the radio, you listen to your roommates and friends, and you probably tell a good yarn yourself. This assignment asks you to listen carefully and closely to the stories an interviewee tells an interviewer, knowing that his or her answers will later be made available to a wider audience. Specifically, this essay asks you to focus on the story the interview tells about identity—whether it is that of a specific ethnic group, of a particular profession, of Lexingtonians, of Kentuckians, of Americans, of Jewish Americans or some combination of all these aspects of identity. Using the rhetorical concepts you learned from Town Branch along with what you’ve learned about the methods of oral history, you will make an argument about the way the interview helps you to learn about a particular identity. You will evaluate the interview in terms of the way the interviewer and interviewee collaborate to construct a specific story about identity for a broader audience. In other words, you’ll be doing a rhetorical analysis of the interview. What does that mean exactly? It means you will need to determine what kind of identity narratives are embedded in the questions/answers: how does the way the conversation unfold affect the way the identity is constructed, and how do the interviewer/ee use appeals to ethos, pathos, or logos to shape the story?
Ultimately, this assignment requires you to make an argument. Yup, you’re going to have to make a claim about the identity narrative(s) presented and support your claim with evidence (quotes!) from and analysis of the interview itself. Note that you should analyze any material you include to demonstrate how it helps to support your argument (remember and use the tips about incorporating evidence from TB and the quote sandwich from They Say I Say). This assignment will help you increase your knowledge of rhetorical concepts (ethos, pathos, logos) and (Jewish) Kentucky history while also giving you the opportunity to practice your writing.
Tips for Getting Started (Invention!)
Since you’ve already indexed this interview, you’re very familiar with it. Before you do anything else, you’ll want to listen to the interview you were assigned again (maybe more), taking notes the whole while. Use the time-stamp function and index you created to remind yourself of sections you find particularly interesting (or maybe even confusing), and make sure you return to them after you’ve listened all the way through. After you’ve listened to the interview once, jot down some notes about your overall impressions:
How would you describe the interaction between the interviewee/er?
What particular moments stand out in your mind and why?
What did you learn about minority/ethnic/other life in Lexington?
Does what you learned confirm, complicate, or contradict expectations or knowledge you already had?
Do your answers to the questions above help point out moments where the interviewee/er makes appeals to ethos, pathos, logos?
Now listen again, paying even more careful attention.
Pay special attention to any unusual pauses, moments of contradiction, language choice, tone, intonation, emphasis. Use the strategies of reading described in TB.
After reading through your notes and listening to the interview, compose an argument that answers the following questions: What does this interview help you learn about identity? How do the interviewee/er’s rhetorical choices help you to learn what you learn?
Possible template for theses: By incorporating several tales of _____(intergenerational conflict) and strong appeals to ethos and pathos, Interviewee X makes a strong case that ____identity is multi-faceted and changes over time.
MLA conventions to follow for your Works Cited:
Course home page:
Kirkpatrick, Judith. American Literature Online. Course home page. Jan.-May 2003. Dept. of
English. Kapi’olani CC. 21 Feb. 2003.< http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kirkpatr/s03>.
(From Faigley’s The Brief Penguin Handbook, Second Edition, p.279)
Publication by a Group or Organization:
“State of the Birds, USA 2004.” Audubon. 2004. National Audubon Society. 19 Nov. 2004
<http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/>.
(From Faigley’s The Brief Penguin Handbook, Second Edition, p.274)
In general you should always include the
Name of the author. “The Title of the article or part of the website you looked at.” The name of
The publication or the site on which the part you looked at is located. The date of the
Publication. The date you accessed the site.
http: The URL for the site enclosed in brackets—copy it exactly–copy and paste
Our Textbook
Oral History Interview
Fred Fugazzi. Interview with Ronald F. White. Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History. July 17,
1980. Digital. http://www.nunncenter.org/OHMSViewer/viewer.php?cachefile=1980OH134_KH172_Fugazzi.xml
10 September 2013.
Grading Criteria (full rubric included on rubrics page)
Your essay will be evaluated (by you, your peers, and me) according to these criteria:
• Clear and concise statement of your argument, which makes a nuanced and insightful claim about identity
• Detailed support of the claim using sufficient evidence and analysis gleaned from the interview itself.
Use of time-stamping to cite quotes in-text.
• Effective essay organization.
• Clear and precise sentence-level syntax, grammar, and style.