Nonfiction Unit 2011

Document Sample
Nonfiction Unit 2011 Powered By Docstoc
					ENGLISH LANGUAGE & COMPOSTION AP
ENGLISH HL 1 IB
                  NON FICTION UNIT PACKET

Texts: Everything’s an Argument
       50 Essays

Objectives:
   To understand what constitutes an argument---the purposes of argument, kinds of
      argument, emotional appeals of argument (pathos, ethos, & logos) and the intended
      audience
   To analyze the process of making claims with the support of sound reasons and reliable
      evidence using the Toulmin Argument format
   To analyze clusters of essays grouped by a variety of modes and purposes
   To understand the rhetorical situation of a specific text---how a writer achieves his/her
      purpose through various rhetorical strategies using the SOAPSTone method

Day 1--3: Introduction to Argumentation
    Chapter 1 thru 4 of Everything’s an Argument Introduction Power Point: What constitutes
       an argument
    Structure of an Argument
                  The Toulmin Argument
                  Chapter 6 of Everything’s an Argument
    Alan Dershowitz’s ―Testing Speech Codes‖ Exemplar
Day 4 & 5: Cluster #1: Race & Culture, 50 Essays
    Frederick Douglas’ ―Learning to Read and Write‖ (process analysis)
    Discussion using SOAPSTone approach & comprehension quiz on rhetorical strategies
Day 6 & 7: Cluster #2: Reading, Writing, & Speaking, 50 Essays
    Jonathan Swift’s ―A Modest Proposal‖ (argumentation/persuasion)
    Discussion using SOAPSTone approach & comprehension quiz on rhetorical strategies
Day 8 & 9: Cluster #3: History & Politics, 50 Essays
    Thomas Jefferson’s ―The Declaration of Independence‖ (example)
    Discussion using SOAPSTone approach & comprehension quiz on rhetorical strategies
Day 10 & 11: Cluster #3: History & Politics, 50 Essays
    Abraham Lincoln’s ―The Gettysburg Address‖ (argument/persuasion)
    Discussion using SOAPSTone approach & comprehension quiz on rhetorical strategies
            S.O.A.P.S.Tone – Analyzing Point of View

 Speaker:   Is there someone identified as the speaker? Can you make
  some assumptions about this person? What social class does the author
  come from? What political bias can be inferred?

 Occasion: What may have prompted the author to write this piece? What
  event led to its publication or development?

 Audience: Does the speaker identify an audience? What assumptions can
  you make about the audience? Is it a mix in terms of: race, politics, gender,
  social class, religion, etc.? Who was the document created for? Does the
  speaker use language that is specific for a unique audience? Does the
  speaker evoke: nation? Liberty? God? History? Hell? Does the speaker
  allude to any particular time in history, such as: ancient times? Industrial
  Revolution? World Wars? Vietnam?

 Purpose:     What is the speaker’s purpose? In what ways does the author
  convey this message? What seems to be the emotional state of the speaker?
  How is the speaker trying to spark a reaction in the audience? What words
  or phrases show the speaker’s tone? How is the document supposed to make
  you feel?

 Subject:     What is the subject of the piece? How do you know this? How
  has the subject been selected and presented to the author?

 Tone: What is the author’s attitude toward the subject? How is the writer’s
  attitude revealed?
Rhetorical/Argumentative Language & Terms Glossary
                     Biographical Statement: ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

PROFESSOR ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ of Harvard Law School has been described by
Newsweek as "the nation's most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most
distinguished defenders of individual rights." The Italian newspaper Oggi reported that he is "the
best-known criminal lawyer in the world," and his law practice has been called "the most
fascinating on the planet." Time magazine, in addition to including him in the cover story on the
"50 Faces for the Future," called him a "legal star" and "the top lawyer of last resort in the
country—a sort of judicial St. Jude." Business Week described him as "a feisty civil libertarian
and one of the nation's most prominent legal educators," ABC commentator Jeffrey Toobin
characterized him as "a national treasure," and Floyd Abrams, the great First Amendment
lawyer, called him "an international treasure." His students have praised him as "the master of
the hypothetical—answer one correctly, and he's got one in his arsenal that's guaranteed to tie
your tongue in knots." He has been profiled by every major magazine ranging from Life
("iconoclast and self-appointed scourge of the criminal justice system") to Esquire ("the
country's most articulate and uncompromising protector of criminal defendants") to Fortune (an
"impassioned civil libertarian" who has "put up the best defense for a Dickensian lineup of
suspects") to People ("defense attorney extraordinaire") to New York Magazine ("one of the
country's foremost appellate lawyers") to TV Guide (one of "America's top attorneys"). He has
been included on lists of America's most influential and successful lawyers as well as of
influential Jews. The Forward called him, ―America’s most public Jewish defender‖ and ―Israel’s
single most visible defender – the Jewish state’s lead attorney in the court of public opinion.‖

Dershowitz, who has been characterized as a "public intellectual par excellence," has been a
pioneer in making the legal profession accessible to the general public. He was the first law
professor to write regularly for the New York Times in its Week in Review, op-ed and Book
Review sections. He was also the first to appear regularly on Nightline, The McNeil-Lehrer
NewsHour, Firing Line, Larry King Live, Today, and Geraldo Rivera. Rivera has called him
"[B]eyond a doubt… the smartest lawyer I know." Buckley has described him as a "deeply
thoughtful man," "a master of the law," and "a masterful advocate."

Dershowitz is the author of 27 non-fiction works and two novels. His writing has been praised by
Truman Capote, Saul Bellow, William Styron, David Mamet, Aharon Appelfeld, A.B.
Yehoshua, Elie Wiesel, Richard North Patterson, and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. More than a million
of his books have been sold worldwide.

Dershowitz has been interviewed by most major television and radio shows. He has been
featured on the covers of several magazines, including The American Bar Association Journal,
New York Magazine, The Jerusalem Report, California Lawyer and Newsday. He has also been
interviewed by numerous American magazines and newspapers such as the New York Times,
Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, U.S News & World Report, Playboy, and Boston
Magazine, as well as by the foreign news media throughout the world. He is regularly invited to
write commentaries for the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New
York Times, and other newspapers. He has also published hundreds of articles in magazines and
journals. He has written more than 1,000 op-ed articles. His essay "Shouting Fire" was selected
for inclusion in The Best American Essays of 1990 and has been reprinted dozens of times, as
has been an earlier essay entitled "Psychiatry in the Legal Process: A Knife that Cuts Both
Ways." For two years, he hosted a radio talk show about the law, for which he received the 1996
Freedom of Speech Award from the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts.

Dershowitz's writings have been translated into French, German, Hebrew, Japanese, Thai,
Chinese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Russian and other languages.

He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals such as The New York
Times Magazine, The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The
Nation, Commentary, Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal,
and more than 300 of his articles have appeared in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.
Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction and non-fiction works with a worldwide
audience. His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong, The Case For Israel, The Case For
Peace, Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence,
Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways, Finding Jefferson – A Lost Letter, A Remarkable
Discovery, and The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and The Case For Moral Clarity:
Israel, Hamas and Gaza.

Dershowitz has been called the "winningest appellate criminal defense lawyer in history." Over
the course of his 35-year career as a lawyer, Dershowitz has won more than 100 cases—a
remarkable record for a part-time litigator who handles primarily criminal appeals, which
generally have a very low rate of reversal. Dershowitz takes half of his cases on a pro bono basis
and continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and causes. In a series of recent moot
courts, he has defended Jesus (hung jury), Abraham (acquitted) and Hamen (convicted but
sentence commuted to life imprisonment). In the summer of 2003, he participated in a highly
praised televised mock trial of Pete Rose on ESPN. He has been a consultant to several
presidential commissions and has testified before congressional committees on numerous
occasions, including as a witness against President Clinton's impeachment. He has advised
presidents, United Nations officials, prime ministers, governors, senators, and members of
Congress as well as business leaders about legal and political issues. He has also represented and
consulted with major media companies on free-speech issues. He helped obtain the largest fee in
history for lawyers against the cigarette industry.

In 1983, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith presented him with the William O. Douglas
First Amendment Award for his "compassionate eloquent leadership and persistent advocacy in
the struggle for civil and human rights." In presenting the award, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel
said: "If there had been a few people like Alan Dershowitz during the 1930s and 1940s, the
history of European Jewry might have been different." Rabbi Irving Greenberg included
Dershowitz, along with Wiesel, as prime examples of "modern-day rabbis" who teach Torah in a
secular context. The New York Criminal Bar Association honored Dershowitz for his
"outstanding contribution as a scholar and dedicated defender of human rights." The Lawyers'
Club of San Francisco has honored him as a "Legend of the Law," and the Atlanta Bar
Association included him in the category of legal "superstar." NBC selected Dershowitz as a
participant on the American team to debate a trio of Soviet representatives on a nationally
televised confrontation, and after the debate, William Buckley proposed the American team for
Medals of Freedom.
Alan Dershowitz was born in Brooklyn, graduated from Yeshiva University High School and
Brooklyn College. At Yale Law School, he graduated first in his class and served as editor-in-
chief of the Yale Law Journal. After clerking for Chief Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur
Goldberg, he was appointed to the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 and became a full
professor at age 28, the youngest in the school's history. Since that time, he has taught courses in
criminal law, psychiatry and law, constitutional litigation, civil liberties and violence,
comparative criminal law, legal ethics, human rights, the Bible and justice, great trials,
neurobiology and the law, and a collaborative philosophy course called "Thinking About
Thinking."

Dershowitz has lectured throughout the country and around the world to more than a million
people - from Carnegie Hall to the Kremlin. In 1979 he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship
for his work in human rights. In 1981 he was invited to China as a guest of the government to
lecture and consult on their criminal code. He returned in 2001 to lecture to lawyers and law
students. In 1987 he was named the John F. Kennedy-Fulbright Lecturer and toured New
Zealand University lecturing about the Bill of Rights. In 1988 he served as Visiting Professor of
Law at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and lectured in Israel on civil liberties during times
of crisis. In 1990 he was invited to Moscow to lecture on human rights, and the following year
was selected as a Father of the Year and a recipient of the Golden Plate Award. At Harvard, he is
currently the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, a chair established in honor of the great
justice's work in constitutional law. Dershowitz has been awarded honorary degrees and medals
by Yeshiva University, Syracuse University, Hebrew Union College, the University of Haifa,
Monmouth College, Fitchburg College and Brooklyn College. He has been active in the
American Civil Liberties Union, and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

He is married to Carolyn Cohen, a Ph.D. in psychology. He has three children, one of whom is a
film producer, another a lawyer with the National Basketball Association and the Women's
National Basketball Association, and the third is a senior in high school. Dershowitz was a
varsity basketball player in high school and continues to play, regularly attends Boston Celtics
home games, and occasionally comments on the Boston sports scene. He has even been the
subject of two New Yorker cartoons, a New York Times crossword puzzle and a Trivial Pursuit
question.

http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php
                     A Real Test for Any Proposed Speech Code or Policy
                                    By Alan M. Dershowitz

We need not resort to hypothetical cases in testing the limits of a proposed speech code or
harassment policy of the kind that some students and faculty members of Harvard Law School
are proposing. We are currently experiencing two perfect test cases.

The first involves Harvard’s invitation to Tom Paulin to deliver a distinguished lecture for which
it is paying him an honorarium. Paulin believes that poetry cannot be separated from politics and
his politics is hateful and bigoted.

He has urged that American Jews who make aliya to the Jewish homeland and move into the
ancient Jewish quarters of Jerusalem or Hebron ―should be shot dead.‖ He has called these Jews
―Nazis‖ and has expressed ―hatred‖ toward ―them.‖ ―Them‖ is many of our own students and
graduates who currently live on land captured by Israel during the defensive war in 1967, or who
plan to move there after graduation.

The Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron have been populated by Jews since well before the
birth of Jesus. The only period in which they were Judenrein was between 1948 and 1967, when
it was under Jordanian control, and the Jordanian government destroyed all the synagogues and
ethnically cleansed the entire Jewish populations.

Though I (along with a majority of Israelis) oppose the building of Jewish settlements in Arab
areas of the West Bank and Gaza, the existence of these settlements – which Israel was offered to
end as part of an overall peace – does not justify the murder of the men, women and children
who believe they have a religious right to live in traditional Jewish towns such as Hebron.

Paulin’s advocacy of murder of innocent civilians, even if it falls short of incitement, is a
paradigm of hate speech. It would certainly make me uncomfortable to sit in a classroom or
lecture hall, listening to him spew his murderous hatred toward my former students and co-
religionists. Yet I would not want to empower Harvard to censor his speech or include it within a
speech code or harassment policy.

Or consider the case of the anti-Semitic poet Amira Baraka who claims that ―neo-fascist‖ Israel
had advance knowledge of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and warned Israelis to
stay away. This provable lie received a standing ovation, according to The Boston Globe, from
―black students‖ at Wellesley last week. Baraka had been invited to deliver his hate speech by
Nubian, a Black student organization, and paid a handsome honorarium with funds providedby
several Black organizations. Would those who are advocating restrictions on speech include
these hateful and offensive lies in their prohibitions? If not, would they seek to distinguish them
from other words that should be prohibited?

These are fair questions that need to be answered before we anyone goes go any further down
theis dangerous road to selective censorship based on perceived offensiveness. Clever people can
always come up with distinctions that put their cases on the prohibited side of the line and other
people’s cases on the permitted side of the line.

For example, Paulin’s and Baraka’s speeches were political, whereas the use of the ―N‖ word is
simply racist. But much of what generated controversy at Harvard Law School last spring can
also be deemed political. After all racism is a political issue, and the attitudes of bigots toward a
particular race is a political issue. Paulin’s and Bakara’s poetry purports to be ―art‖, but the ―n‖
word and other equally offensive expressions can also be dressed up as art.

The real problem is that offensiveness is often in the eyes – and experiences – of the beholder.
To many African-Americans, there is nothing more offensive than the ―n‖ word. To many Jews,
there is nothing more offensive than comparing Jews to Nazis. (Ever notice that bigots never
compare Sharon to Pinochet, Mussolini or even Stalin – only to Hitler!)

It would be wrong for a great university to get into the business of comparing historic grievance
or experiences. If speech that is deeply offensive to many African-Americans is prohibited, then
speech that is deeply offensive to many Jews, gays, women, Asians, Muslims, Christians,
atheists, etc. must also be prohibited. Result-oriented distinctions will not suffice in an area so
dominated by passion and historical experience.

Unless Paulin’s and Bakara’s statements were to be banned at Harvard – which they should not
be – we should stay out of the business of trying to pick and choose among types and degrees of
offensive, harassing or discriminatory speech. But nor we remain silent in the face of such hate
speech. Every decent person should go out of his or her way to condemn what Tom Paulin and
Amira Bakara have said, just as we should condemn racist statements made last spring at
Harvard Law School.

The proper response to offensive speech is to criticize and answer it, not to censor it.
                     DISCUSSION QUESTIONS for 50 Essays Readings

“Learning to Read and Write”
1. The opening paragraph establishes the master-slave content of this essay. How would you
   describe the tone? Does Douglas sound bitter?
2. What examples of irony do you find in the opening paragraph?
3. What rhetorical strategies does Douglass use to depict his ―mistress‖?
4. Although the entire essay is organized as a process analysis, Douglas includes narration and
   description. Where are these rhetorical modes most emphasized?
5. What is the purpose of paragraph 3?
6. How does Douglass appeal to ethos throughout the essay?
7. Arguably, the most emotional and metaphorical paragraph is the sixth. Discuss its
   placement. Why is it particularly effective where it is?
8. How would you describe Douglass’ writing style in paragraph 6? What is his tone?

“A Modest Proposal”
1. How does Swift want the reader to view the speaker? What features best describe that
    ―persona‖ he adopts?
2. Note Swift’s diction in the opening paragraphs. Identify examples of quantification and
    dehumanization. Explain their purpose.
3. Swift’s speaker explains the anticipated results before revealing the actual purpose. Explain
    the rhetorical purpose of such a strategy?
4. What are some assumptions underlying paragraph 7?
5. For each of the classic appeals (ethos, logos, & pathos), indicate two examples from the first
    eight paragraphs. Which one is the speaker’s primary appeal?
6. Taking careful note of the diction of paragraph 12, with words such as ―dear‖ and devoured,‖
    explain the rhetorical strategy at work.
7. Indicate Swift’s motivational appeals, specifically those to thrift, economy, and patriotism.
    Explain the rhetorical strategy behind such appeals.
8. Consider the additional proposal mentioned in paragraph 17. Explain the rhetorical strategy
    at work in that paragraph.
9. Explain what Swift suggests as ―expedients‖ in paragraphs 29—31, and explain the rhetorical
    strategies at work.
10. The very end of paragraphs 31 and 32 may be seen as breaks from Swift’s ironic voice.
    Explain how that may be the case, and identify one other place where Swift’s voice breaks
    through that of his persona.

“The Declaration of Independence”
1. Identify each of the truths indicated.
2. Identify each of the rights indicated.
3. Identify the subject and predicate of the first sentence of the Declaration.
4. Identify a major assumption underlying the first sentence. What is the rhetorical principle at
   work?
5. What effect does the phrase ―self-evident‖ have in sentence 2? How does that phrase help
    support the speaker’s position?
6. Why does the speaker begin with an appeal to ―respect‖ as a value before stating the claim?
7. Consider the speaker’s appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos. Identify and explain two of these.
8. 8. Read carefully the second and third truths. At that time, was it a historical fact that
    governments were instituted for the purpose the speaker states? What is the rhetorical
    purpose of such a statement?
9. Explain how the speaker uses facts to appeal to logos.
10. Explain the effect of the rhetorical parallelism with which Jefferson concludes the
    Declaration.

“The Gettysburg Address” – see reading on the next page
1. Identify the tone of the speech with a two-word phrase—an adjective-noun combination
   (―angry sarcasm,‖ for example), or a combination of adjectives (such as ―melancholy and
   wistful‖)
2. What does Lincoln refer to in his opening sentence? Explain the effect of this reference.
3. Indicate examples of repeated diction. Explain the effect and probable purpose of these
   repetitions.
4. Note and explain diction that has to do with life and death. Explain its effect.
5. Considering the importance of this speech, note how ironic it is that Lincoln said ―The world
   will little note, no long remember what we say here . . .‖ (paragraph 3). Why do you think
   this speech endured?
6. Indicate as many examples of parallelism as you can find. Explain their effect.
7. Explain the effect of Lincoln’s use of juxtapositions and antithesis.
8. Note the rhetorical shift Lincoln indicates with ―But . . . ― in paragraph 3. Explain its
   purpose and effect.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:473
posted:1/2/2012
language:English
pages:14