Author Archives: rossln

Code-Meshing Can Be Good Writing

Posted on by
Reply

by Lili Ross

In the last few decades, there has been a lot of debate surrounding the teaching of the “Standard” English language, especially in high school and college settings. Some, such as Stanley Fish, argue that while individual dialects are important, they do not have a place in the formal academic setting – students should be taught to use “Standard” English correctly so that they may succeed in a world that requires it. Others, such as Vershawn Ashanti Young, see this separation as unnecessary and harmful to the students – educators are encouraging the flawed practice of code-switching when they should be promoting code-meshing. As Young describes it, code-meshing is “mulitdialectalism and pluralingual-ism in one speech act, in one paper … blend[ing] dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and the rhetorical styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech acts” (114). I won’t advocate for one teaching method or another, but rather I’d like to explore the legitimacy of code-meshing as an acceptable form of writing if it were to be accepted into “Standard” English rules.

As Melissa Dennihy noted in her essay, what’s commonly referred to as “Standard” English is better defined as Standardized English, as it acknowledges that our current rules have developed from the language of ‘consensus’ – everyone within a specific area generally agreeing that there are certain ways to say things. With this distinction in mind, it is especially important to note that Standardized English has the power to change as English speakers change: the “standard” grammar and linguistic rules of the 1600s are different from the 1800s, which are different from now, and that’s okay. As explained in A History of the English Language, “language lives only on the lips of living people and must change as the needs of the people expressing themselves change … we must not think that the English of London … is the norm by which all other speech must be judged, and that in whatever respects other speech differs from this norm it is inferior” (Baugh 328). It is not unreasonable to expect that perhaps one day, if enough people were to extensively use it, code-meshing could become incorporated into our Standardized English rules. The question at this point becomes twofold: firstly, does code-meshing have the necessary qualities to theoretically function as a component of Standardized English? And secondly, in our current society and culture, is it likely that code-meshing would be eer  accepted within Standardized English?

As explained in the CCCC’s position statement, uniformity is often presented as the only way to attain ‘good’ writing, when in fact, professors of academia should be showing their students that ‘good’ writing comes from “precise, effective, and appropriate communication in diverse ways, whatever the dialect” (3). If professors are meant to be educating their students how to write well under the rules of Standardized English, as Fish argues, then as we’ve posited, they could one day begin teaching code-meshing in classrooms. In determining whether or not code-meshing could function within Standardized English, I would argue that a good test would be to compare against CCCC’s standards for ‘good’ writing. Namely, can code-meshing be precise, effective, and appropriate?

Precision is often defined as the accuracy and exactness present in a writer’s word choice. One university, in trying to help pin down this definition for students, came up with a few examples of precision in writing, with the main point being to “never sacrifice meaning or clarity for novelty” (Butte 3-5). Essentially, the website encouraged students to use language that was widely understood, not replacing smaller words for more complex ones to seem better educated or cultured. This is best illustrated in one of President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s speeches, as he revised a sentence written by his speechwriter to sound more accessible and down-to-earth: in changing the sentence, “We are endeavoring to construct a more inclusive society,” he chose to reflect the values he was promoting, “We’re going to make a country in which no one is left out.” In choosing “simpler” words, the sentence becomes more precise and effective to the desired audience. Young echoes this idea in his essay, noting that many of his graduate students “tend to try too hard to sound academic, often using unnecessary convoluted language, using a big word where a lil one would do” (113). With this in mind, I would argue that when a writer introduces code-meshing into their writing, it can help the essay become more precise. This is clearly demonstrated in the writings of linguist Dr. Geneva Smitherman, a retired English professor from Michigan State University. In one of her published works, Talkin’ and Testifyin’, she describes the nuance in blending dialects, explaining that “the most distinctive differences in the structure of Black Dialect are patterns using be … mainly used to indicate a condition that occurs habitually … For example, The coffee bees cold means Every day the coffee’s cold, which is different from The coffee cold which means Today the coffee’s cold” (19). For people who do not speak the dialect, this subtle difference may be hard to understand, but now knowing the distinction, properly introducing this dialect into a paper could offer a level of precision not easily attained through “Standard” English.

For a sentence to be considered effective, one faculty member from the University of Washington defined six standards: the language must be concrete and specific, concise, familiar, correct, constructive, and appropriate (“Effective”). While these standards all sound similar, I would argue that effectiveness comes when the audience can easily understand the main ideas behind a sentence, often through the distinct word choice. Effectiveness can be achieved in many ways and is a very subjective concept, but similar to precision, it often develops when the writer is using language they have a clear mastery of. In many cases, code-meshing can lead to effectiveness because there may not be an equivalent word in Standardized English. As Dennihy explains, for one of her assignments she asks students to bring in a work that uses a language or dialect outside of Standardized English and analyze it. One year, a student chose a song written in Spanglish – after translating the lines, she “discussed the challenges of translating the text, explaining why certain lines were rendered less powerful in Standardized English and why some words were untranslatable” (193). In terms of content, code-meshing offers a unique chance to discuss an idea that may not be “translatable” in Standardized English, therefore being a viable source of effectiveness. But as the university states, effectiveness also comes from grammatically clear writing – when the audience doesn’t have to reread a sentence several times to understand what’s being said, the sentence can be considered effective. Some may argue that by promoting code-meshing, one would want to eliminate all rules of Standardized English, grammar and all, but this statement follows faulty logic. Oftentimes, when someone uses code-meshing in a piece of writing, the dialect is present in the words used, not the grammar. No matter the chosen dialect, the grammar of the sentence still remains – in a general sense, a sentence is grammatically correct if the sentence is free of comma splices, run-on ideas, and the if subject agrees with the verb. These grammatical rules are not inherently tied to Standardized English – every language and dialect, whether it be English, German, Spanglish, AAVE, or “text lingo,” is able to follow these and other grammar rules. Therefore code-meshing, as long as it is done well, has the potential to be grammatically effective as well as thoughtfully effective.

The final criterion is appropriateness – can a paper using code-meshing be compatible for the subject it was written for? This question is harder to answer as it can widely vary according to context – one must consider the age of the writer, whether it be for a high school or college course, the expectations of the professor, and the formality of the assignment. What may be okay for an introductory English class may not work for an upper-level Chemistry lab report, but that does not discount code-meshing as a viable tool. In situations where the writer is encouraged to develop and use their own voice, code-meshing could be an integral part of their writing, offering a way for the writer to say things in their own language and provide unique and thoughtful insight. While this is less common in scientific settings, it is still important for researchers to provide their own input and thoughts on the experiment – as one article states, “it is important not to bury your voice in quotes from more well-established researchers …  your conclusions should be based on your original thoughts, which clearly communicate your stance” (Robbins 3). If code-meshing is how you attain that, then it should be considered appropriate for the content.

We’ve proven that code-meshing is a viable candidate for ‘good’ writing as it can be precise, effective, and appropriate when done well, but is it likely that others will recognize that? Unfortunately, in current times, when someone refers to ‘good’ writing, they immediately think of “Standard” English, which many argue has no place for code-meshing. Dennihy notes that after assigning The Color Purple, while many of her students enjoyed Walker’s unique use of language, they “remained unwilling to consider the text an example of ‘good writing’ or ‘good literature,’ given its nonstandardized English” (199). Many students, myself included, have been taught to separate the ideas of personal language and academic language – both are okay and acceptable in their own spheres, but personal language never has a place in an academic setting and vice-versa. We have been taught that ‘good’ writing stems only from correct writing, which must follow Standardized English rules, but that doesn’t make it right. In fact, we have seen how, when used well, code-meshing provides opportunities to be precise and effective that Standardized English cannot.

In our current society, it is realistic to say that code-meshing would not be widely accepted as the definition of ‘good’ writing has not yet adapted, but that can always change. As the CCCC notes, “today’s students will be tomorrow’s employers” – if professors of English could start encouraging code-meshing in writing classes today, then eventually code-meshing could be recognized by the world (23). By exposing young students to published works that incorporate code-meshing, professors can begin to shift the meaning of ‘good’ writing, following the CCCC’s supported standards. By teaching students how to use the tool of code-meshing correctly, rather than shying away from it altogether, we can start to change the rules of Standardized English. But to make any change, we must first be open to the fact that ‘good’ writing doesn’t come from the set of rules regarding language, but rather the language itself.

 

 

Works Cited

Baugh, Albert Croll, and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 5th ed., Routledge, 2002.

Butte College. “How to Write Clearly: Using Precise and Concise Language – Tip Sheet.” Butte College, Butte College, 19 Dec. 2019, http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/style_purpose_strategy/writing_clearly.html.

“Committee on CCCC Language: Background Statement.” Students’ Right to Their Own Language, special issue of College Composition and Communication, vol, 25, no. 3, Sept. 1974, pp 1-18. JSTOR, doi:10,2307/356219

Dennihy, Melissa. “Beyond English: Linguistic Diversity in the College English Classroom.” MELUS: Multi-Ethnic Literature of the U.S., vol. 42 no.4, 2017, p. 192-212. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/680702.

“Effective Use of Language.” University Of Washington. Accessed October 30, 2021, https://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/el.htm.

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2009, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/.

Robbins, Susan P. “Finding Your Voice as an Academic Writer (and Writing Clearly).” Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 52, no. 2, 2016, pp. 133–135., https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1151267.

Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Houghton Mifflin, 1977.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti, et. al., editors. Other People’s English: Code-Meshing, Code-Switching and African American Literacy. Teachers’ College Press, 2014.

Lili Ross — Amanda Gorman’s Message of Unity

Posted on by
Reply

Amanda Gorman’s Message of Unity

            There is likely not a single moment during your day where you are isolated from a rhetorical text, consisting of any text that responds to some sort of need in the community, whether it be an email regarding Covid-19 precautions or a billboard promoting veganism. They can be as localized as a poster for a local band performance or as global as Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, but it’s difficult to compare one against another – their situations are just too different. In measuring the effectiveness of a rhetorical text, there are many things to consider, including the use of rhetorical functions, the chosen words, and the emphasized message. But what these different facets boil down to is, given the constraints of the text and the desired audience, how well did the content of the text respond to the situation itself and how well was it received? Given the recent events of our nation, I chose to analyze a modern rhetorical text nearly every American has heard of – Amanda Gorman’s poem “The Hill We Climb,” written for the 2021 Presidential Inauguration. This poem was written during in very turbulent environment, having to respond to the many stressful events of 2020 and the theme of the inauguration – unity.

The Covid-19 pandemic was, in many ways, the first domino in a year full of stress and uncertainty. With businesses closed nationwide, hundreds of people dying each day, and general anxiety about the months to come, it is no surprise that the state of mental health in America worsened in correlation with the ongoing prevalence of Covid-19. In June 2020, a study was conducted to try and quantify the mental health impacts on American citizens, showing that “overall, 40.9% of respondents reported at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition” related to anxiety, depression, or traumatic stress disorders (Czeisler 1). This new, heightened threshold of anxiety only worsened in the summer of 2020 when race relations across the country were greatly strained following the murder of George Floyd, an innocent black man unjustly killed by police officer Derek Chauvin. As news of this horrific event went viral and the Minneapolis police department failed to act promptly, activists across the country were outraged after yet another example of unjust racial profiling and police brutality, leading to a summer of intense protests throughout the nation. With these events causing the country to grow farther and farther apart each day, the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election offered the chance for Americans to have a say in the future course of the nation.

With the country greatly divided on issues of foreign policy, Covid-19 mandates, social issues, and economic policies, neither candidate was the perfect choice – in a survey conducted by Pew Research, asking members of both the Democratic and Republican parties how they would feel if the opposing candidate won,  “roughly nine-in-ten worried that a victory by the other would lead to ‘lasting harm’ to the United States” (Dimock 3). With this in mind, it is no surprise that the ‘losing’ party would be upset when results were released, but few could’ve predicted the intensity of these reactions. Many Republicans, encouraged by sitting President Donald Trump, felt like the election had been stolen from them, leading to a great sense of animosity. This animosity was fueled on January 6th, 2021 – the scheduled day for the official electoral votes to be counted. As summarized by the Washington Post, beginning that morning, Trump supporters gathered in front of several capitol buildings across the nation, with the largest gathering in Washington, DC. Throughout the day, Donald Trump had been promoting feelings of antagonism in the crowd and encouraging people to ‘not give up,’ beginning a march towards the capitol building. Around 2:15 pm, several extremists had broken into the capitol building, causing both Houses of Congress to adjourn and retreat to shelter. By around 5:40 pm, rioters began clearing out as police officers and members of the National Guard came to reinforce the area, but the damage, both physical and emotional, was irreparable (Shin 9-40).

People worldwide were shocked by the events that had taken place. Many condemned Donald Trump for his actions and urged for democracy to be restored, as seen in UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s tweet: “Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress. The United States stands for democracy around the world and it is now vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power” (@BorisJohnson). Ron Scapp, a writer for the Ethnic Studies Review magazine, documented his personal emotions and thoughts regarding the events that had taken place, focusing especially on their implications. He argued that the events that took place were just another example of the “most recent battle of the war that began before 1861 and didn’t end in 1865” (11). He pointed out that these individuals, blinded by their unfounded beliefs, were continuing the mission of the Civil War by seeking out anyone who did not fit the standard of the ‘ideal American.’ The rioters believed they were ‘saving’ America from politicians with “names and ethnic backgrounds, whose very existence in Congress, in the United States, undermines the white supremacy, Christian nationalism, and patriarchy that is [the rioters’] foundation” (7). But ironically, in trying to save America, the rioters were actually seeking to destroy the real values of America: the ability for people of different races, religions, and ideas to come together to form one amazingly diverse nation. If anything, their reckless and rash actions only helped remind the country of this fact, reigniting the importance of national unity.

Rioters inside the Capitol building, proudly waving an American flag in celebration of their actions. (BBC)

This idea of unity became the main theme for President Biden’s Inauguration on January 20th, embracing the ideas that everyone is welcome and that this country is at its best when everyone works together. And, given the events of 2020 and 2021, this message needed to be reaffirmed now more than ever. So, just like in influential Inaugurations of the past, President Biden, encouraged by his wife, chose to invite 23-year-old Amanda Gorman to speak as the Inaugural Poet in late December. With not a lot of time to develop the poem, Gorman began composing “The Hill We Climb” in early January, getting around halfway through when the insurrection occurred – in an interview with PBS, Gorman states, “I don’t want to say that my poem took a drastic left turn, because it was already going towards a location, but those events just solidified for me how important it was to have a poem about unity and the new chapter of America” (Brown 9). In analyzing a rhetorical situation, one must first recognize the exigence of the situation, defined by Bitzer as “an imperfection marked by urgency … rhetorical [only] when it is capable of positive modification” – in simpler terms, there must be some issue that can be fixed in some way that will spark a conversation (6). In this situation, it is quite clear that Gorman’s exigence was the growing divide the nation had been experiencing, emphasized by the events of the insurrection, and the need to put our petty differences aside to come together. The issue – the nation’s severe lack of unity – could be positively resolved, but only through difficult conversations and deliberate action.

With this in mind, one can begin to assess the audience for this rhetorical situation. Similar to exigence, Bitzer argues that the audience of a rhetorical situation is composed only of “those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change,” in essence, the audience consists only the people who can do something about the message being discussed (7). In this situation, the audience is multi-faceted. Primarily, she is generally speaking to every American in the nation, urging everyone to understand the importance of unity and work to realize it in their own lives. This is made clear in the poem itself: “[We] compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and / conditions of man” (Staff 26-27). It is important to keep in mind Bitzer’s definition of an audience, that it must include people who are willing to listen to the discourse – in theory, this would not include every American, such as those who participated in the insurrection, but I would argue that the rioters are the real target audience. Of course, everyone needs to hear this message, but it’s really directed towards those nine-out-of-ten respondents who thought the nation would fail under the opponent’s leadership. Considering the viewership of the ceremony, it is safe to assume that the 33.8 million people that watched the event represent a wide variety of individuals, allowing her   intended audience to be realized (Nielsen 1). Going further, the secondary audience for this situation is the new leadership itself. At the end of the day, the actions of the President and Vice-President will be the keystone keeping the nation together. Their leadership has the potential to isolate or include the many people that make up America – something that Gorman includes in her poem, urging them to act positively in these critical next four years, this upcoming “era of just redemption [that] We feared at its inception” (Staff 65-66).

The third part of a rhetorical situation consists of the constraints that modify it – in Bitzer’s words, “any persons, events, objects, or relations … [that] have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (8). A constraint can be many different things, but it is important to recognize that a constraint doesn’t always have a negative connotation. Rather, a constraint sets up boundaries that the rhetor must work within, sometimes offering unique opportunities that wouldn’t otherwise be available. In this rhetorical situation, there are several constraints that can be analyzed, beginning with the general expectations of her performance.

Amanda Gorman joins a list of very accomplished poets – five poets who hold a lot of prestige as they were invited to perform for monumental Inaugurations. Each poet shared their message in a unique way, but generally, each poem included themes of unity and cooperation – likely because a Presidential Inauguration is a time meant to encourage and uplift people. Similarly, each poem finds a balance between being too intense and not being intense enough – an inauguration, attended by thousands of people, isn’t always the best situation to deliver a scathing message on the condition of America, for example. Other ‘expectations’ set up from the previous poems include a time limit between four and half to six minutes and a real and raw quality to the performance. All of these expectations and precedents act as a constraint for Gorman’s rhetorical situation. There are certain things she is expected to do and say as the Inaugural Poet: certain themes she must touch on, a certain way she must present herself, a certain amount of time she must speak for. But rather than being held back by these expectations, Gorman chooses to embrace them. As one article states, Gorman “conducted preliminary research” by studying the previous poems and speaking with two of the inaugural poets, drawing inspiration from their messages and studying the styles of renowned orators such as “Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Winston Churchill” (Armenti 3). By doing this, Gorman was able to fully understand what was done well in previous poems and implement those strategies in her own work, bringing it to life in her own unique way and sharing her individual message.

The second constraint Gorman faced was the connection between the wide nature of the audience and Gorman herself. One of the difficulties about being an inaugural poet is that, when you stand on that stage and perform your poem, you are meant to be speaking to every American, no matter their gender identity, political party, religion, race, or age. Because of this general audience, Gorman cannot outright say anything that would polarize anyone, instead focusing on common ideas or struggles that everyone can relate to. As she said in the PBS interview, “[I]t’s trying to make a poem that is both robust, but also accessible to anyone who might be watching, that they can feel that they are represented and well-established in this poem” (Brown 11). She does this in several ways, one of which is rooted in her own identity. As a 23-year-old black woman, she has a unique identity for which she can appeal to thousands of people. For example, she uses her age to connect with many of her younger viewers, such as by including two references from the musical Hamilton in the poem. She connects with other African Americans by emphasizing how her position as Poet Laureate demonstrates the progress they have made as a community. Throughout the poem, she is constantly including herself through her use of the pronoun ‘we,’ effectively calling to mind the emotions everyone has been feeling the past year and reminding everyone that it is almost over. By using her identity, she can say things that Robert Frost, for example, could not, appealing in some way to everyone who hears her poem.

The final constraint to consider is the structure of the Inauguration Ceremony and the medium of her performance, namely in response to Covid-19. Due to the nature of the virus and the desire to set a good example, the Inauguration Committee chose to do things differently this year – “shoulder-to-shoulder crowds will be replaced by American flags fluttering on the National Mall,” one news article states (ShareAmerica 2). Rather than having 200,000 guests, people were encouraged to participate online through social media and other streaming services. Gorman, the nation’s first Youth Poet Laureate who has performed at the Library of Congress and for the Inauguration of the new Harvard president, may have been thrown off by the lack of a live crowd, but she was able to use this constraint to her advantage in other respects. Because the event was going to be so heavily covered by news sources and social media, Gorman had the opportunity for many people to see her performance all at the same time. Knowing that she would be recorded, she could really focus on the delivery of the poem, using vocal intonation, facial expressions, and hand gestures to her advantage. Further, most people would be able to witness her poem as she wanted, imbued with the tone and power of her voice.

Gorman presenting her poem in front of a nearly
empty Capitol Mall. (Corinna Schutte, LOC)

Now knowing the constraints surrounding the rhetorical situation, one can begin to analyze its effectiveness. A good way to do this is by examining Gorman’s effectiveness within each of the rhetorical modes she implemented. As defined by the Writer/Designer informational book, a mode is “a way of communicating,” with many texts being multimodal (Ball et al. 3). There are several different types of modes, include the uses of language, images, sound, spacing, and movement (Ball et al. 14-20). In this situation, Gorman implements many of these modes, with her strongest uses being in the linguistic, aural, and gestural modes. The linguistic mode is present in the words she chooses to use throughout the poem, implementing strong examples of imagery and twisting the syntax in ways that provokes thought. For example, in lines 7-9 she uses homophones to emphasize the idea of justice: “And the norms and notions / of what just is / Isn’t always just-ice.” She also implements repetition to twist the meaning of the words, as seen in the lines, “We lay down our arms / so we can reach out our arms / to one another” and again at the end with the closing statement, “[f]or there is always light, / if only we’re brave enough to see it / If only we’re brave enough to be it” (Staff 33-35, 108-110). As previously mentioned and demonstrated in the last example, Gorman was also very intentional with her pronoun use, implementing the pronoun ‘we’ in as many cases as possible to subliminally promote the idea of unity.

But the words of the poem are just a small part of the overall performance. While they are very important, what really makes this poem effective is Gorman’s presentation of it, emphasized in the aural and gestural modes. When Gorman is on stage, she is the only one in focus – everyone else in the crowd is completely silent as they listen to her words. Because of this complete and utter clarity, the audience can focus on the tone and fluidity of her voice, becoming almost more like a melody than a dry, monotonous reading. By imbuing the poem with her own emotions and character, it becomes more relatable to the average listener – you don’t have to be an English major to appreciate and understand the messages she is sharing. Part of what makes her reading so unique comes from her personal struggles: Gorman has an auditory processing disorder that resulted in a speech impediment at a young age. As she went to speech therapy, she found new ways to express herself, constantly practicing the song “Aaron Burr” from Hamilton and writing her own poetry (Walsh 10). As she continued to practice her reading and writing, she began to develop a unique voice clearly seen in this poem. When listening to the poem, the individual lines of poem seem to blend together, creating a fluid and rhythmic movement from one thought to another.

Gorman also works to elevate her performance through her gestures and facial expressions, creating a more intimate moment. Her hand gestures are not like that of a well-trained politician – stiff and meant to display power – but more like a dancer: fluid, graceful, and meaningful, helping to bring the piece to life. In adding this small and delicate detail, the piece becomes multi-dimensional, also working to show her emotions. Just like someone who gesticulates when they’re excited, Gorman’s use of gestures reveals her passion towards the subject, making her even more relatable to the average viewer. Rather than just blandly reading the words off the page, she used all of the available modes to make the poem into a true performance.

Gorman during her recitation, using vivid hand gestures to help bring movement and emotion into her words. (Patrick Semansky/AP/Pool)

The fact that this poem could be called a performance would upset many literary critics, who argue that a poem is not meant to be public, but rather a personal message from the poet to the individual reader (Burr 22). In Maya Angelou’s Inaugural poem, many critics believe that she abandoned her identity as a poet when she chose to “[turn] away from her more immediate community to address a general audience” (Burr 8). In relating this to Amanda Gorman, who has performed for many large-scale occasions, one could draw the same conclusion – she is better as a performer than an actual poet, for a good poem is measured off its own worth, separate from any effects of the recitation (Burr 22). While this may be true, I do not believe that it detracts in any way from the effectiveness of the rhetorical situation. In this setting, the general message and power of the performance was more important that the critical quality of the poem itself, as demonstrated by the positive reactions from people worldwide. As her Twitter account skyrocketed from 12,000 to 1.3 million followers in two days, critics and celebrities everywhere applauded her for her excellent use of language, reflections, pacing, inclusivity, and empowering messages (Armenti 7). Given the exigence, audience, and many constraints placed on Gorman, I would argue that she was able to work within these limits to effectively share her message of unity to the nation. As Bitzer explains in the end of his essay, what makes a rhetorical situation effective is whether or not it makes an impact on the world and will be discussed in the decades to come (13). By appealing to every American in personal, meaningful ways, Gorman accomplished both of these things, effectively unifying the country in a common goal: to “leave behind a country / better than the one we were left with” (Staff 70-71).

 

 

Works Cited

Armenti, Peter. “‘For There Is Always Light’: Amanda Gorman’s Inaugural Poem ‘The Hill We Climb’ Delivers Message of Unity.” “For There Is Always Light”: Amanda Gorman’s Inaugural Poem “The Hill We Climb” Delivers Message of Unity , Catbird Seat: Poetry & Literature at the Library of Congress, 22 Jan. 2021, https://blogs.loc.gov/catbird/2021/01/for-there-is-always-light-amanda-gormans-inaugural-poem-the-hill-we-climb-delivers-message-of-unity/.

Ball, Cherly E., et al. “Chapter 1.” Writer/Designer – A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects, Second ed., Bedford Bks St Martin’s, S.l., NY, 2021, pp. 3–29.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 1, no. 1, Penn State University Press, 1968, pp. 1–14, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40236733.

Brown, Jeffrey, and Anne Azzi Davenport. “Poet Amanda Gorman on How She Prepared for Inauguration Day.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 18 Jan. 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/poet-tapped-for-inauguration-to-spread-a-message-of-unity.

Burr, Zofia. “Maya Angelou on the Inaugural Stage.” African-American Poets, vol. 2, 2010. InfoBase, Nuncio, Accessed 2021.

Czeisler ME, Lane RI, Petrosky E, et al. Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic – United States, June 24-30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Rep 2020;69:1049-1057.

Dimock, Michael, and Richard Wike. “America Is Exceptional in the Nature of Its Political Divide.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 13 Nov. 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/.

 

 

Nielsen. “Media Advisory: Nearly 33.8m Americans Watch President Joe Biden’s Inauguration.” Nielsen, Nielsen Company, 25 Jan. 2021, https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-releases/2021/media-advisory-nearly-33-8m-americans-watch-president-joe-bidens-inauguration/.

Scapp, Ron. “Wednesday, January 6, 2021.” Ethnic Studies Review, vol. 44, no. 1, 2021, pp. 18–23., https://doi.org/10.1525/esr.2021.44.1.18.

ShareAmerica. “Biden’s Inauguration to Blend the Old with the New.” ShareAmerica (USA), 15 Jan. 2021. NewsBank Inc., Accessed 7 Oct. 2021.

Shin, Youjin, et al. “How One of America’s Ugliest Days Unraveled Inside and Outside the Capitol.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 Jan. 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/capitol-insurrection-visual-timeline/.

Staff, The Hill. “Read: Transcript of Amanda Gorman’s Inaugural Poem.” The Hill, The Hill, 20 Jan. 2021, https://thehill.com/homenews/news/535052-read-transcript-of-amanda-gormans-inaugural-poem?rl=1.

Walsh, Colleen. “Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman Delivers Poem at Harvard President’s Inauguration.” Harvard Gazette, Harvard Gazette, 20 Jan. 2021, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/youth-poet-laureate-amanda-gorman-delivers-poem-at-harvard-presidents-inauguration/.

@BorisJohnson. “Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress. The United States stands for democracy around the world and it is now vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power.” 6 Jan. 2021.