Owners narrow rhetorical exigencies or problems by framing issues, or what Hauser called the “rhetorical structure of public problems.” When doing so, they necessarily create a symbolic perspective on the alternative positions on the issues and on those who hold them. We want to get at both how issues are narrowed and the alternative symbolic perspectives on those issues in this report. Conduct an analysis of language that discloses (1) how each side depicts what it views as the major issue, (2) how each side depicts its own position on that issue, and (3) how each side depicts the other side’s position. Your analysis should therefore disclose how the issues are being symbolically defined and addressed. It should include a discussion of:
- The most important issue or issues in the contending parties’ public discourses (the problem, cause, remedy, and/or costs and benefits)
- The principal terministic screens that contending parties use to symbolically name or define the issues and screen the meanings of their own positions and opposing positions in response to those issues. Identify tropes and genres (if relevant).
- Identification and division among participants in the discourse about the issues created by these terministic screens
- Dominant discourses that participants drawn upon as rhetorical resources. Also discuss critical discourses used to challenge dominant discourses (if applicable).
- Materials from Group Observation 2
- At least three scholarly sources on rhetoric concepts used in this report