Blog #4

Capital letters can indicate importance. If a word is capitalized, then it must be a proper noun, and therefore important. And if a word is in all caps it might as well have a sign saying “look at me, look at me” it is so eye-catching. They also can indicate the start of a new sentence or thought. They can indicate emotion, for example, when typing, using all caps is the equivalent of yelling at the top of your lungs.
One punctuation mark I think needs to exist is the one mentioned in class, the sarcastic pound sign. I have a habit of reading sarcasm where there is none and would like to be able to know when sarcasm is actually occurring. Another punctuation mark I think we should have is a sign indicating that the words it indicates are thoughts, for instance, a person’s internal monologue. They would both be incredibly useful.

I think that Goffman’s analysis is just as valid today as when it was written. Women are more likely to smile than men, and whenever men are loudly expressive, it is usually in a group of all men (ex. Watching football). Women are usually portrayed as smaller than men, even taking into account high heels. Women are likely to be more affectionate than men, sometimes almost hanging of the male.
One thing that has changed is the likelihood of a male or female to be performing a task usually associated with the opposite sex. Although it is not particularly common, when it happens it seems to be treated seriously. One further thing is that often today in visual arguments, women will significantly outnumber men, a symbol that the man is important or special.
To sum up, although the settings and trappings of advertising have changed, the gender roles portrayed in them have not significantly altered, although they are in many cases more subtle.

">Goffman, Erving. "Gender Advertisements." 27 Jun 2008 .

">Solomon, Martin. "The Power of Punctuation." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. 2004.

Blog #3 Blair

Blair’s main point is that visual arguments do exist,(Blair 349) but that they are very similar to verbal arguments, and consequently not the huge deal that people are making them out to be. (Blair 362) Blair states that verbal and visual arguments are similar because they involve proposing a point, then making a case for that point.

I agree with Blair that visual and verbal arguments are similar. First off, I agree with his definition of argument, which is rather rigid, but works. An argument must propose a point, offer a reason to believe that point, and be able to express that point linguistically. (Blair 346) It can not simply offer a point of view, but must include a reason to believe that point of view.

However, I think the reason for the similarity between verbal and visual arguments has less to do with their actual similarities, and more to do with the restrictions placed on the definition of argument. Within this definition, verbal and visual arguments must be similar, because without those similarities, they can not be defined as arguments. So, I suppose that I only partially agree with him, because if you use a more open definition of argument, then visual and verbal arguments are extremely different.


Blair, J. Anthony. " The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World 344-363

Blog #2 My embarrassing story

One day when I was around seven or eight years old, I spent the day with my great-aunt Marion. That morning we parked her car, a white compact, in one of those multi-tiered underground parking garages. First we went to a movie, then had lunch at a nice restaurant and went for a walk. By late afternoon we were tired and ready to leave, so we headed back to the car. While taking the elevator the level we had parked on, I realized I didn’t remember exactly where the car was parked. When I asked my aunt if she remembered where it was she said that she did not, but we would look around until we found it.
Luckily for us, we had only been looking for a minute or so when we saw a white car that looked just like hers down one of the rows. Walking over to the car, Aunt Marion pulled out her keys to unlock the door when she realized the car was not locked, as the door handle had opened without a key.

“That’s odd,” my aunt said, ”I could have sworn that I locked the car.”

Deciding that it must have been an accident, we got in the car and buckled up. We were just about to pull out when my aunt suddenly started looking around, moving the seat and looking in the glove compartment.

“Where is my stuff? Nathalie, I think we’ve been robbed, someone must have broken in and taken my papers and bags.”

I freaked out, we had been robbed!

“Are you sure?”
“My bag is missing, and so are the papers I keep in the glove box.”

We both freaked out.

Then my aunt calmed down, and decided that even if we had been robbed, there was not anything we could do at that point in time. She told me that she would drive me home, and then go to the police. Just then, a woman knocked on my window.

“Excuse me, but this is my car. Who are you and what are you doing in my car?”

Now I was confused, this was Aunt Marion’s car. It looked just like aunt Marion’s car.

“Sorry, it looks just like my car. I thought it was my car.”
“You didn’t notice that the stuff in the car wasn’t yours?”
“I thought we’d been robbed.”
“You weren’t, because this is my car, so if you could get out of it please.”
“Of course we will. So sorry about this, but really, it looks just like my car.”

As we got out of her car and continued searching the parking lot for our car, I was so embarrassed as we got out I wanted to either turn invisible or miraculously discover the ability to teleport far, far away. Eventually we found the actual car, all the way on the other side of the parking lot.

And that’s why you don’t assume that just because it looks like your car it actually is your car.

In the opening, Foss gives the definition of rhetoric as "The human use of symbols to communicate". (Foss pg 1) Later on though, she says "Rhetoric often involves the deliberate and conscious choice of symbols to communicate with others". (Foss pg 3) This second definition is closer to her explanation of rhetoric. When explaining what rhetoric is, one of the most important parts is that while communication may be accidental, rhetoric is purposeful, deliberately choosing symbols that convey what you want them to. For example, using a red circle with a line slashed over it is a symbol that something is forbidden, or an arrow is a symbol meaning "go that way".
I have always seen rhetoric as not only the process of communication, but as a way of making an argument. Rhetoric is not used just to speak, but to convince others of your point. For instance, in a debate or speech, rhetoric would be used to make a convincing argument for your side. Simply saying something does not count as rhetoric, you have to able to use symbols, usually words, that effectively convey your meaning. Rhetoric does not need to be complicated however, it can be as simple as the word stop on a red octagon, a symbol that conveys the meaning stop or else.

Foss, Sonja K. "Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric."

Definitions on Google:

"The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively."

"Rhetoric." Answers.com. http://www.answers.com/topic/rhetoric


"Rhetoric is the art of speaking well."
-Quintillian

"Some Definitions of Rhetoric." Rhetoric and Composition. 2008. 17 Jun 2008 .