Citation: Theory & Rhetoric, Research Methods
Summary:
Grant-Davie's article re-analyzed the term rhetorical situations and presented ideas to update the term to define its' modern usage. He considered and added to Bitzer's three-way division of rhetorical situations with three amendments: "First, I believe exigence, as the motivating force behind a discourse, demands a more comprehensive analysis. Second, I think we need to recognize that rhetors are as much a part of a rhetorical situation as the audience is. ... And third, we need to recognize that any of the constituents may be plural.
Citation-worthy:
"Scholars and teachers of rhetoric have used the term rhetorical situation since Lloyd Bitzer defined it in 1968. ... We all use the term, but what exactly do we mean by it and do we mean the same thing?" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 264).
"At a fundamental level, ... understanding the rhetorical situations of historical events helps satisfy our demand for causality--helps us discover the extent to which the world is not chaotic but ordered, a place where actions follow patterns and things happen for good reasons" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 264).
"In my scheme I propose that [the question 'Why is the discourse needed?'] be the second of three that ask, respectively, what the discourse is about, why it is need, and what is should accomplish" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 266).
"I am proposing stasis theory be used as an analytic tool, an organizing principle in the sequence of questions that explore the exigence of a situation ..." (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 268).
"Rhetors may play several roles at once, and even when they try to play just one role, their audience may be aware of their other roles. A Little League baseball umpire might, depending on his relationship with local residents, receive fewer challenges from parents at the game if he happens also to be the local police chief" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 270).
"A discourse may have primary and secondary audiences" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 270).
"Douglas Park has broadened this perspective by offering four specific meanings of audience: (1) any people who happen to hear and read a discourse, (2) a set of readers or listeners who form part of an external rhetorical situation (Equivalent to Bitzer's interpretation of audience), (3) the audience that the writer seems to have in mind, and (4) the audience roles suggested by the discourse itself. ... Rhetorical situations, then, are not phenomena experienced only by rhetors" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 270, 272).
"Constraints are the harest of the rhetorical situation components to define neatly because they can include so many different things ... 'persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence' ... [Bitzer's] use of the term constraints has usually been interpreted to mean limitations on the rhetor ... However, this commonly held view of constraints as obstacles or restrictions has obscurred the fact that Bitzer defines constraints more as aids to the rhetor than as handicaps. The rhetor 'harnesses' them so as to constrain the audience to take the desired action or point of view" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 272).
"Dialogue challenges the idea of rhetorical situations having neat boundaries. When participants meet around a table and take turns playing the roles of rhetor and audience, are there as many rhetorical situations as there are rhetors--or turns? Or should we look at the whle meeting as a single rhetorical situation?" (Grant-Davie, 1997, p. 274).
