Description
Snippet.
ENC 2135 – Research, Genre, and Context.
Rhetorical analysis of field artifacts.
Introduction
While both the artifacts by King (2014) and Glass (2015) are based on the same subject matter – drumming – they take on different rhetorical approaches. This essay focuses on displaying unique genre features that drive overall rhetoric despite the shared subject. In literature, the general convention as argued by Chandler (1997), is that rhetoric is contained in the purpose of a genre rather than the substance. As such, the analysis in this essay also considers the rhetorical stances perpetuated by the purposes of both artifacts.
Comparison and contrast
Among the notable rhetorical strategies at the beginning of both artifacts are genre conventions. Using Chaldler’s (1997) description, such conventions rely on attributes such themes, settings, structures, and style which are shared in a genre and its contents. King’s (2014) artifact for instance relies on academic journal article conventions and abides by its rules. At the beginning of the article, King (2014, n.p.) for instance in the statement “…. but the development of modern percussion instruments, including the drum set, is recent…” defines the problem the article addresses. He contextualizes why his history of Jazz drumming is important noting that it ties back to the role of percussion in art and culture as well as the fact that the musical drum was developed alongside Jazz music in historical America. The problem statement, as in the introduction of King’s (2014) article, is characteristic of academic writing. According to an analysis by Blocken (2017), a problem statement allows for the estimation of an article’s contribution.
Comparably, the artifact by Glass (2015) carries the conventions of a video documentary. Primarily, Glass (2015) narrates the history of the drum in an educative but informal language………….
(Buy to read more).
Appx. 1,600 words.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.