As the scope of rhetorical inquiry broadens to cover intersemiotic and intertextual phenomena, scholars are increasingly in need of new, defensible analytic procedures. Several scholars have suggested that methods of discourse analysis could enhance rhetorical criticism. Here, I introduce a discourse-based method that is empirical, delicate, and adaptive to the complexities of intertextual and multimodal rhetoric. Specifically, I argue that rhetorical scholars can productively integrate systemic-functional linguistics, multimodal text analysis, and micro-intertextual comparison. I illustrate how this micro-rhetorical toolkit can be employed to investigate the recontextualization of written political discourse in video journalism.
AndrusJ. (2011). Beyond texts in context: Recontextualization and the co-production of texts and contexts in the legal discourse, excited utterance exception to hearsay. Discourse & Society, 22, 115-136.
2.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (HolquistM., Ed.; EmersonC.HolquistM., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
BaldryA. P.ThibaultP. J. (2005). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook with associated on-line course. London, UK: Equinox.
BennettW. L.LawrenceR. G.LivingstonS. (2007). When the press fails: Political power and the news media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BiberD.FineganE. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124.
8.
BlackE. (1970). The second persona. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 109-119.
9.
BlackE. (1978). Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
10.
BlairJ. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In HillC. A.HelmersM. (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
BlommaertJ. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BurkeK. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
CharlandM. (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Québécois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(2), 133-150.
15.
ChengM. S. (2012). Colin Powell’s speech to the UN: A discourse analytic study of reconstituted ethos. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(5), 424-449.
16.
CramerP. (2011). Controversy as news discourse. New York: Springer.
17.
DunmireP. (2011). Projecting the future through political discourse: The case of the Bush doctrine. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
18.
EisenhartC.JohnstoneB. (2008). Discourse analysis and rhetorical studies. In JohnstoneB.EisenhartC. (Eds.), Rhetoric in detail: Analyses of rhetorical text and talk (pp. 3-21). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
19.
EnglebretsonR. (Ed.). (2007). Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
20.
FahnestockJ. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296.
21.
FahnestockJ. (2003). Verbal and visual parallelism. Written Communication, 20(2), 123-152.
22.
FahnestockJ. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
FaircloughI.FaircloughN. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London, UK: Routledge.
24.
FaircloughN. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge.
25.
FaircloughN. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
GeeJ. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, UK: Routledge.
28.
HaganS. (2007). Visual/verbal collaboration in print: Complementary differences, necessary ties, and an untapped rhetorical opportunity. Written Communication, 24(1), 49-83.
29.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Hodder Education.
30.
HerrickJ. A. (2005). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
HopperP. (2007). Linguistics and micro-rhetoric: A twenty-first century encounter. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(3), 236-252.
33.
HuckinT. (1992). Context-sensitive text analysis. In KirschG.SullivanP. A. (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 84-104). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
34.
HuckinT. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In MillerT. (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text (pp. 78-92). Washington, DC: U.S. Information Agency.
35.
HuckinT. (2002). Textual silence and the discourse of homelessness. Discourse & Society, 13(3), 347-372.
36.
HuckinT.AndrusJ.Clary-LemonJ. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 107-129.
37.
HullG. A.NelsonM. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224-261.
38.
HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
IshizakiS.KauferD. (2012). Computer-aided rhetorical analysis. In McCarthyP.M.Boonthum-DeneckeC. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 276-296). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference
40.
JaffeA. (Ed.). (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
McKerrowR. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91-111.
51.
MontgomeryM. (2007). The discourse of broadcast news: A linguistic approach. London, UK: Routledge.
52.
NelsonM. E.HullG. A.Roche-SmithG. (2008). Challenges of multimedia self-presentation: Taking, and mistaking, the show on the road. Written Communication, 25(4), 415-440.
53.
PerelmanC.Olbrechts-TytecaL. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (
WilkinsonJ.WeaverP., Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
54.
ReisiglM.WodakR. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87-121). London, UK: Sage.
55.
RichardsonJ. (Ed.). (2012). Language and journalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
RitivoiA. (2008). Talking the (political) talk: Cold War refugees and their political legitimation through style. In JohnstoneB.EisenhartC. (Eds.), Rhetoric in detail: Discourse analyses of rhetorical talk and text (pp. 33-56). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
57.
RoyceT. (2007). Inter-semiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In RoyceT. D.BowcherW. L. (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63-109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
59.
SelzerJ. (2004). Rhetorical analysis: Understanding how texts persuade readers. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analysis of text and textual practice (pp. 279-307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
StraussA. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61.
StubbsM. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ThiemeK. (2010). Constitutive rhetoric as an aspect of audience design: The public texts of Canadian suffragists. Written Communication, 27, 36-56.
64.
TrewT. (1979). Theory and ideology at work. In FowlerR.HodgeB.KressG.TrewT. (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 94-116). Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
65.
Van DijkT. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London, UK: Sage.
66.
Van DijkT. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Van DijkT. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social context influences text and talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Van LeeuwenT. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
69.
WodakR. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
70.
WodakR.WeissG. (2004). Visions, ideologies and utopias in the discursive construction of European identity: Organising, representing, and legitimising Europe. In PützM.Nef-Van AertselaerJ. A.Van DijkT. A. (Eds.), Communicating ideologies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse, and social practice (pp. 225-252). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
71.
WoodwardB. (2004). Plan of attack. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
72.
ZdenekS.JohnstoneB. (2008). Studying style and legitimation: critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In JohnstoneB.EisenhartC. (Eds.), Rhetoric in detail: Analyses of rhetorical text and talk (pp. 25-31). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
