Rhetorical criticism.

President Bush's 2001 speech on stem cell research showed unusual intermixing of
rhetorical bits from past arguments of proponents and opponents, suggesting that such
mixing is a distinct rhetorical strategy. Analyses revealed two communities that had
engaged each other over reproductive biology issues for decades, developing distinct
vocabularies and argumentative patterns in that interaction. The speech mixed
fragments ofthese usages. Traditional textual analyses and analyses ofthe mixing
itself showed that the mixing seems to reinforce traditional approaches to divided
audiences by opening up many possibilities for the communities to draw different
meanings from what is said. Analyses of responses to the speech showed such split
understandings, and followup analyses to 2007 suggest that the speech helped freeze
the character of the debate in the form Bush gave it. Mixing is a viable rhetorical
strategy to help manage intractable issues with deeply divided audiences.

This purpose of this study is to investigate the apologetic rhetoric of professional
athletes’ off-field scandals. The three case studies used were Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant,
and Michael Phelps. A genre analysis was conducted to determine the success or failure
of the speech by examining the image repair strategies used during the rhetoric.
Further research revealed that the audiences’ perception plays a large role in
determining if the rhetoric was successful or not. Two factors that aid the audience are
the medium in which the public address was given, and the time it took to deliver the
speech once the off-field scandal took place.
The findings determined that Tiger Woods apologia was not successful, while
Kobe Bryant’s was successful. The rhetoric of Michael Phelps’ speech lacked in delivery
and strategies chosen. To have a successful apologia, one should have a clear use of
strategies as well as a timely public address.

This thesis describes the pitfalls of writing rhetorical analyses of abortion arguments that are not sensitive to field dependence as described by Toulmin (1958). It examines Lake's (1984), Tonn's (1996), and Railsback's (1984) rhetorical analyses in order to test whether the lack of attention these scholars display toward field dependence detracts from the reliability of their analyses. To accomplish this task, this thesis will compare the scholars' analyses against my analysis of amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade (1973) and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1988) cases. The results show that the Lake's, Tonn's, and Railsback's analyses are problematic when compared to the arguments in these amicus curiae briefs. Thus this thesis concludes that scholars need to pay close attention to field dependence when writing rhetorical analyses not only of abortion arguments but also field specific arguments in general.