Arkansas English Resource

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Diction and Rhetoric: Empowering Writers with Word Choice ======
Original content by Bethany Cole

===== Introduction =====

Diction refers to the words and style of a writer. While teaching students things like form and organization in writing is important, teaching diction is much more formative. It is one thing to give students a template or method to follow; it is quite another to create wordsmiths. In this article, I will look at three stages of teaching diction as well as pedagogical methods for teaching each of these stages. 

===== Stage One =====

The first stage is understanding the difference between writing and writing that engages. Ralph Eberly from Purdue University describes an experience he had teaching college composition back in the 1950s, opening with a confession of his struggles to motivate his students. His goal was to teach them to “use words that pry open their eyes and ears and minds,” “their” being the audience (Eberly, 52). He decided to take a new approach, one that proved extremely engaging for the students. He took a colorfully written excerpt from literature and subtracted the vivid words, replacing them with mundane ones before distributing copies to the class. Eberly read the story aloud to the class until he reached the edited paragraph then instructed to students to take the edited, plain version of the text and give it life. They were to swap out the boring words and phrases for more descriptive ones. He then had the students exchange papers and do a quick peer review, giving each other feedback on their revisions. Finally, Eberly read aloud the original paragraph from the story so the students could compare themselves to the author. Remarkably, the students’ revisions were not far from the original. This exercise effectively engaged the students; in fact, half of them went on to finish reading the entire story on their own time (52). This same exercise can be easily adapted and repeated for any writing class, showing students how diction is what brings writing to life.

===== Stage Two =====

The second stage is teaching students how diction and style can be used in very specific rhetorical situations. One highly relevant example is how diction is used in political discourse. A study was published in Presidential Studies Quarterly that researched the effect of something called “charismatic rhetoric” (Schroedel, et al., 102). Specifically, it analyzes the content and form of the charismatic rhetoric used by the presidential candidates of 2008. They define charisma as a leadership style that ties a leader to their followers in an emotional way (105). The study lists 9 rhetorical constructs that are seen as charismatic, but for the purpose of teaching, I will only discuss 3. The first is collective focus. This is using inclusive language, putting the leader into the group with their followers by using words like “we” or “us” (107). This “focuses the conversation around a shared purpose” and makes the leader seem like one of the group rather than above them (107). The second rhetorical construct is using words that express action. A leader who creates momentum or urgency with their words can cause the audience to think that the group vision can be accomplished (108). In short, action in language mobilizes followers and makes them excited to participate (108).  The third and final device is using moral justification. This is something a charismatic leader would use if their goal was to bring about change. For example, using religious themes and terms appeals to the values of the audience and inspires them. This is done by referring to universal values and broad themes such as human dignity (109).  

===== Pedagogy =====

Taking this into the classroom, there are a couple of different angles for applying this information for students. First, we can take these devices and use them to analyze the most well-known speeches in American political discourse. This allows students to hypothesize why some speeches are more memorable (or effective) than others. We can take Eberly’s exercise and modify it for this purpose. Have students individually or in groups brainstorm lists of words that would fit in the three categories listed above: collectively focused, action words, and moral/value language. Have them share their lists with the group, forming a collective bank of “charismatic” rhetoric. Next, lead the students in a guided analysis of a well-known political speech, such as Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Have them look for language from those three categories, both from their lists and new ones they didn’t mention. Ask students to comment on their findings, asking them how the words affect them as the audience.

Second, this exercise can lead students into critiquing their own writing, giving them specific tools judging their own effectiveness for their audience. Taking into account everything you’ve covered so far, guide a discussion of the significance of word choice for accomplishing specific goals. It is one thing to come up with an audience or a rhetorical situation for your paper. It is another to effectively write for said audience/situation. When teaching argumentative writing, have students look over their papers for charismatic language. Ask them to identify places they use charismatic rhetoric as well as places where they might change the wording to more charismatic language. In peer reviews, have them analyze each other through this lens and give feedback on how they can apply this rhetorical strategy simply by using different words/phrases. 

The effectiveness of writing, as shown in the exercises, comes down to the specific choice of words used. Eberly’s exercise teaches this at a very broad level. The exercise in charismatic rhetoric applies the concepts more narrowly. Yes, masterful diction in engaging. Yes, it can help us appeal to our audience in persuasive ways. However, if the student is grasping this information well, we can take their understanding of diction one step higher. This leads us to the third and final stage of teaching diction: showing how words shape the world view of their audience.

In an article discussing using Kenneth Burke’s views on rhetoric, Richard Coe implores teachers to give students a deeper awareness of the way words actually function. Coe, along with Burke, argues that words themselves “constitute knowledge and power,” and that diction “is the study of naming and its rhetorical implications” (Coe, 368-369). What does he mean by this? Coe begins by explaining that words are generally pre-loaded with connotations, some more so than others. The naming (i.e., word choices) of a writer reveals their values and biases (370). Because of this, both Burke and Coe claim that words can be more “deviously rhetorical” than arguments themselves given that presumptions within words are less likely to be noticed by the reader and therefore subliminally effective (370). The writing teacher, according to Coe, should therefore teach their students “to think critically about how naming directs/redirects their attention and the attention of their readers” (373-374). Basically, we should be teaching our students how to not fall prey to subtleties of rhetoric while also showing them how they themselves can use words to shape the ideas of their audiences.

This is a tall order, and it takes our students into more abstract territory regarding language and symbols. However, these concepts can be easily demonstrated in the classroom without the need to take students into the weeds so to speak. In the notes of his article, Coe includes a simple pedagogical exercise from Burke that can introduce these concepts quite attainably. Teachers may instruct students to take a news article from the sports section and rewrite it. Instruct them to use language that would normally be used when describing a violent conflict, such as a war. They should describe the actions of one opponent as threatening or provoking. The other opponents’ behavior should be portrayed as self-defense, a necessary but unfortunate retaliation towards the aggressor (376). What was once a fairly neutral piece of writing has now become loaded with connotation. By guiding students in the application of spin to their writing, it opens their eyes to the power of words themselves to define and shape the world view of the reader. 

Taking it further, have students analyze an article from a particularly biased news source. Have them identify the words used by the author that are pre-loaded with connotations. Are they positive or negative? What does the author’s choice of words tell you about their implicit biases? Moving from that, ask students to replace the identified words with synonyms that have different connotations. For example, they can replace a negative word like “stubborn” with the word “steadfast.” To bring in a recent example from politics, what is implied when we describe Mike Pence’s use of religious language in a speech as “exploiting religion” rather than as “employing religion?” Exercises like this get students beyond approaching writing as following certain rules/stylistic guides to get their thoughts into words. Rather, it teaches them that writing is using words to actually shape the way their readers view the world. This not only empowers them as writers, but it also gives them a buffer from “devious rhetoric.” 

===== Conclusion =====

As I have shown above, there are practical and easily adaptable ways of teaching students the power of diction from beginner to advanced levels. From each of these exercises, students are made aware of the importance of diction in everything they write and given ways to immediately apply it to their own writing. Not only that, it makes them more aware as and consumers of rhetoric. 


===== Works Cited =====

Coe, Richard. 1993. "Beyond Diction: Using Burke to Empower Words, and Wordlings." Rhetoric Review 368-377.

Eberly, Ralph. 1953. "A Device for Teaching Diction." College Composition and Communication 52.
Schroedel, Jean, Michelle Bligh, Jennifer Merolla, and Randall Gonzalez. 2013. "Charismatic Rhetoric in the 2008 Presidential Campaign: Commonalities and Differences." Presidential Studies Quarterly 101-128.
Arkansas English Resource

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
