TERM PAPER - A+ WORK Required. Zero Plagiarism. Every Single Instruction Followed in line with Grading Rubric

SOCIALIZATION THEORY 5

Research Proposal: Judicial Rhetoric

ENGL 570 TERM Project Proposal

Liberty University

Prompt

The prompt chosen is culturally informed. In this prompt I will take into consideration the elements of broader context such as past judicial rhetoric, the trial and defense in judicial rhetoric and Aristotle’s explaination of judicial rhetoric and how these influences are taken up in rhetorical theory. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): spelling

Rhetoric will mainly be used as an art of pursuation. The idea to be followed in the rhetorical theory is the actual information which will be rational and will follow organizational pattern in order to create a sense of consistence for the readers. The result will be attained in framing phase through informative presentation. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): spelling

Modification of the Prompt to Focus on a Specific Idea

I plan to modify culturally informed prompt by following tenets of rhetoric. In this case, I will modify this prompt to fit into invention, arrement and style tenets. The paper will also follow three basic appeals to persuade the audience: Logos which are appeals based on reason, logic and order. Ethos which are appeals based on authority, credibility as well as character. Pathos which are appeals based on emotion. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): I think you’re conveying you will use rhetoric (apply it) in your term paper, but this isn’t what we would consider “modifying the prompt.” When you modify a prompt, you make it specific about a particular subject. You seemed to do that some in the above section. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): spelling Comment by Holt, Travis (English): fragment Comment by Holt, Travis (English): fragment

The Rhetorician to be Included in the Discussion

The rhetorician to be included in the discussion will be Aristotle. Aristole is essential to my topic because he defined judicial rhetoric as writing or speech that takes into consideration the injustice or justice of a certain accusation or charge (Garver, 2009). Aristotle also addresses defense, accusations and the bases from which their enthymemes must be drawn, exploring 'for what, and how many, purposes persons do wrong (Garver, 2009). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): the wording is hard to follow here.

Concerns about the Topic

The purpose of the project is to explore judicial rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome. Any individual reading the classical rhetorics may discover that judicial as the branch of rhetoric received the most attention because of the discussion of the courtroom (Nordquist, 2017). Trials or lawsuits in courtroom in Rome and Greece were extremely common experience for ordinary free citizen--normally the male head of a home--and it was a rare citizen who failed to go to courtroom at least a half a dozen times during the course of his adult life. Comment by Holt, Travis (English): is Comment by Holt, Travis (English): that received

This project seeks to answer the following questions:

· What is the trial and defense in judicial rhetoric?

· How did Aristotle explain judicial rhetoric in terms of the enthymeme? Comment by Holt, Travis (English): compared to what? Are you saying he is unique in doing this, thus suggesting he is different from his predecessors? If so, that could turn into a full-fledged paper where you discuss the significance of Aristotle doing this and what it meant and means for rhetoric to follow.

Intended Theories

The research intends to use classical rhetoric theory which traces its roots back to antique Greece, where “rhetoric” denotated the art of public speaking as it advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the 4th and 5th century Athenian democracy (Webb, 2016). As rhetoric started to be treated as an art, it began to appear in public debate. According to Alexander Kennedy, dialogues, speeches, theses, as well as lectures were extended and established by educators of public speaking, philosophers, as well as practicing speakers to create a ‘classical rhetoric (Webb, 2016). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): ancient Comment by Holt, Travis (English): This section seems to be a general understanding of what some scholars have labeled as “classical rhetoric theory.” I don’t think this is the “theory” you’re applying here, and you don’t necessarily have to identify one for the purpose of this paper. If anything, I would say you’re doing more of a historical analysis as you work to understand the historical context and how it influenced Aristotle’s development of rhetoric.

Value of the Project

Through this project, the prosecutors will use judicial rhetoric to arouse assent to the truth of a statement by persuading their audiences to agree with their illustrations of reality. The resistance to their opinions is implied in their circumstances since contrasting opinions are anticipated from the defense (Nordquist, 2017). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): Lawyers and judges already have a pretty clear understanding of rhetoric and its presence in the courtroom.

 Whereas modern scholars of practical reasoning hardly think about rhetoric, judicial reasoning from Judicial rhetoric is the model that will help contemporary scholars in practical reasoning (Nordquist, 2017). Comment by Holt, Travis (English): Do you have proof that they are unaware of this? Be careful with statements such as this. You’re making a claim, but in the paper, you would need to immediately support that.

This is definitely getting on the right track. I know you’ve worked hard to develop a beginning for this project, and this can be exhausting and difficult; however, I want to stress the importance of such proposals because we are able to work together to get you on track for a much better outcome than if you had written an entire paper on your first proposed topic. As I say in the instructions, the proposal is a form of negotiation between the professor and student, a fleshing out of ideas to improve the quality of the paper by the end.

I think you are good to go with the topic as proposed, particularly what you mentioned in the third question you seek to answer. Nevertheless, I need to caution you against a few pitfalls. First, don’t summarize what judicial rhetoric is and has been understood to be by other scholars. At times, it seemed you were explaining what it was and that it is valuable for others to be aware of it. Judicial rhetoric has been in some form of existence since it’s discovery, and we continue to use it today; thus, it’s not something to really be rediscovered. Now, if you’re explaining/describing that Aristotle did something different in his classifications of rhetoric, and that his contributions had a direct impact on our understanding of rhetoric, that might be different. Basically, work on answering a question that hasn’t already been answered, and that will help you avoid summarizing and reporting in the term paper.

Also, continue to edit consistently. I noticed you addressed some of the spelling errors I noted in previous drafts, but there are still some present in this submission. Anytime you have someone help you find issues that need to be addressed, always interpret that as “if I have one mistake, chances are I have others.” This will help you look at every sentence rather than just ones that have been marked.

You do not have to resubmit the proposal again, but be sure to heed my advice above as you construct the outline.

References