Keith Grant-Davie’s article serves to define the term rhetorical situation and have the reader understand its main components. He discusses the complexities that arise from understanding rhetorical situations, and he challenges the reader to ask themselves various questions when coming across one. He offers various definitions for a rhetorical situation, the first being by Lloyd Bitzer who first introduced the term back in 1968. According to Bitzer, a rhetorical situation is a situation in which a context has a certain problem, or exigence, that requires rhetorical discourse by people in order to solve the problem or need. Grant-Davie offers a clearer and further in depth explanation of the term, detailing four constituents that make up a rhetorical situation and offering a series of questions that could be asked in order to understand a rhetorical situation in a given context. These include exigence, rhetors, audiences, and constraints. The author encourages the reader to ask what the discourse is about, why it is needed, what it is trying to accomplish, who the rhetors conveying the discourse are, how the discourse creates contexts for the audiences, and what constraints work either for or against the rhetor’s objectives.
Although this concept can be difficult to understand, I can agree with the ideas presented by the author. When dealing with a situation, in this case rhetorical, it is easy to see how all these components he mentioned come into play. It makes sense that a problem in a certain context brings about a discourse in which this problem attempts to be solved. It does not necessarily have to be a problem, as much as it is a need or common goal, such as was described in past readings through the concept of a discourse community. A discourse community bases its actions on a certain goal, and its members communicate in various ways in order to accomplish this goal. The analysis offered by Grant-Davie of the four constituents somehow relates to the discourse community, which also has some form of an audience, rhetors, constraints, and as mentioned, an exigence or need.
Although this concept can be difficult to understand, I can agree with the ideas presented by the author. When dealing with a situation, in this case rhetorical, it is easy to see how all these components he mentioned come into play. It makes sense that a problem in a certain context brings about a discourse in which this problem attempts to be solved. It does not necessarily have to be a problem, as much as it is a need or common goal, such as was described in past readings through the concept of a discourse community. A discourse community bases its actions on a certain goal, and its members communicate in various ways in order to accomplish this goal. The analysis offered by Grant-Davie of the four constituents somehow relates to the discourse community, which also has some form of an audience, rhetors, constraints, and as mentioned, an exigence or need.