Transcription
Continuing our series of lectures for argumentation on AP English Language Composition, this is the 2015 FRQ: polite speech. Here we go. Here's the prompt:
As an anthropologist studying first-year students at a university in the United States, writes a friendly phrases like "how are you," "nice to meet you," and "let's get in touch" communicate politeness rather than literal intent. What, if anything, is the value or function of such "flight speech"? In a well-written essay, develop your position on the value or function of polite speech in a culture or community with which you are familiar. Okay? Use appropriate evidence from the reading, yada yada. All right.
So here's the conversation we're supposed to be having. Right? But it's a value or a function of polite speech. There are some things that you have to consider first: Do I have to choose value or function? Can it be value and function? Can it be just value and not function? It could be function, not value, right? So you have to consider which way you want to go here. Now, very clearly, you have to develop your own position. The anthropologist says that these phrases, they communicate politeness rather than literal intent. That's the beginning of the conversation. Your entire essay cannot be "polite speech is only to be nice; it doesn't matter." Whatever it is that you're gonna do, you have to consider how complex your claim is going to be, right? You should probably not just restrict yourself to these phrases like "how are you," "nice to meet you," "let's get in touch." I think you can go broader than that. I think the conversation should be about polite speech altogether, in what context? There are some ways in which polite speech is not only "how are you," "nice to meet you," right? Thank you; spotlight speech, I suppose, right? There are other phrases in other contexts. Let's say in a political context, or in a personal context, societal, cultural context; there are many ways in which polite speech could function. So you don't have to restrict yourself to these only. All right.
So before you begin writing the essay, you have to consider several things: What exactly is the purpose of the argumentation? Both what is the purpose of the argument within this prompt, and what is the purpose of the argument that you are going to make? Do you want to inquire into the function or value of polite speech? Do you want to present a conviction, like you really feel that polite speech is absolutely useless, no value whatsoever; it's only a crude functionality that we still have for some reason, and we really don't need it; it only gets in the way of conversation? I don't know; some people believe this, right? Maybe you want to instead pursue a persuasive avenue. What does that mean? So in this case, you might want to say that, uh, polite speech, that you want—you want to persuade your audience that polite speech is, in fact, something that we need; it is a function of human interaction without which we cannot exist as a civilization. Okay. All right. I guess you can go in that direction. Or do you want to present a negotiation, meaning polite speech does have a value, but only because it has a function, right? So because it has a function of helping, uh, grease the wheels of communication, then it has a value to us, but really inherently it has no value; it just has a function. Okay? You have to consider what the purpose of the text is and what the purpose of your essay is going to be. Then you have to consider what your claim, main claim, and sub-claims are going to be.
So say that you argue that polite speech has a function in this type of setting, but it really doesn't have a function in this other setting. So, for instance, polite speech is useful, necessary—this will be my claim—in a formal setting, like, uh, professional settings, say work of some sort, but it is not necessary, or it has no function, or it's not as good or as important in a personal setting, like with friends or family or loved ones, right? If that's your overall claim, then your sub-categorical claims would be proving how it works in a professional setting but not in a personal setting, right? Maybe you can say something like: In a professional setting, you need polite speech; otherwise, people are going to think you're rude; they don't want to do business with you; they don't like you, right? But in a personal setting, maybe polite speech gets in the way of real communication with people you love; sometimes you're rude to people you love, and that's okay, right? So you have to consider, uh, what claim and claims, sub-categorical claims you're gonna make. Also the reasons—the reasons why these claims make sense. So you have to start thinking of examples that may be a little more elaborate. What kind of examples are we talking about here? Well, if you're talking about personal examples wherein you—you, because you're saying that polite speech works, is not a functionality within personal settings—then maybe one of those examples could be how people speak differently, let's say to their parents as opposed to their co-workers, and with whom do they actually have a meaningful relationship? We're going to assume that this would be the parents in order to prove the argument. So you have to have elaborate examples. I wouldn't say elaborate necessarily, but you need examples that prove the claim; the reasons they—they substantiate the claim, right? Think of it as: Why do I believe this? Or why should anybody believe that, which is the claim here, right?
Now, after you do the reasons, or you have your reasons, you have to consider what kind of evidence you're going to use. Now, reasons and evidence are usually interchangeable, right? But what I mean by evidence is: Try to think of some way, some hard evidence, if you can. I know it's difficult, day of the exam, you have 40 minutes, you have no evidence except what you have in your head, but evidence could be, uh, situational. Say that, uh, history, right? Say Alexander Hamilton, uh, sending letters to Aaron Burr, which were done in a very polite way, but they underscored, uh, the hatred that they both had for each other. I think this would be evidence, uh, improve and prove of, in defense of the claim that polite speech may have a function, right? But in a way, it actually truncates real meaning and real relationship because Aaron Burr shot him. So this—this would be harder evidence because, in this case, I'm using a historical example in order to prove my point, which is, uh, what you want to do. Then you want to consider what warrants do you have? What premise do you have? Why is it that you think that polite speech is, in fact, valuable? Meaning, if you think that it is valuable because it has a function, right? Then the assumption of that, the premise, the warrant is that everything that has a function has value. You have to prove that. If you don't—if you're not able to prove that everything that has a function has a value, then I don't know that you'll be able to prove that its value is—is that important, right? So this—the ATO would be addressing the opposition. When you address the opposition, you want to consider—I—I don't know if you necessarily need it in a prompt like this, considering the value or function of polite speech; I don't know if you need it, but in many prompts you'd have to address the opposition in some way. I—I sometimes this can backfire because sometimes you create an opposition that isn't there, and in doing so you weaken your own argument. So you have to be careful with how you address the opposition, or if you do at all. I wouldn't in this specific prompt.
So, uh, here are some examples of claims that we can consider. All right. So whether in a formal diplomatic meeting or warm domestic setting, "flight speech" serves as a trusty ethical appeal that opens others up to more readily consider ideas and input by creating a friendlier, warmer, more harmonious atmosphere. That's great, right? Because the claim is that in this specific setting, right, or in this specific setting, polite speech is an ethical appeal. That's awesome, right? That's evidence right there, and ethos appeal. Sometimes, if you want to prove something, why something is good or it works, go to the—go to the appeals, go to the ethos, the pathos, the logos. If you're able to prove it in an appeal way, then you have your evidence right there. Um, and then he explains it: Opens up people to consider ideas; it creates a friendlier atmosphere, right? These are things that most people would agree with, and I think that's another tidbit: If you want to prove something, try to go for the—the safest branch, right? That's the—if most people would agree with this, then it is likely that it is true. Here's another one: Between two divided and very different groups, and the first misstep to hate is a lack of respect. Uh, so here the warrant is going to be that polite speech is useful because it creates respect, and without respect there is no peace. I think that's the direction. So through polite speech, though polite speech might seem antiquated and useless—this will be, I think, the address of the opposition in this case—it worked really well because here he doesn't really engage fully with the opposition; it's more like: I know some people think it's useless, but it—in fact, conveys mutual respect, right? And there cannot be any form of relationship between two groups without respect, right? So among the most divided and misunderstood groups, polite speech has the ability to always step in the right direction: peace. All right. So there's a lot going on here. The warrant is: Polite speech is useful because it creates respect, and respect can foster peace, and this is important, right? And there's even an address of the opposition. These are great. Polite speech has become a form of self-censorship—this is on the other side, right?—preventing people from saying what they truly feel due to fear of coming off as rude or impolite. It is also used as a weapon in our society that blurs the lines between polite and suppression. That's good, right? If this is what you want to argue, I don't know if I agree with it, but it doesn't matter because he convinces me, and that's good enough. A light speech is self-censorship, so this is a strategy; he's redefining polite speech, and now he will argue his redefinition. That's great.
Okay. Here are some essentials for strong reasonings: Remember that the stronger the example seems, the stronger your argument seems, right? So when you have strong examples, you have strong arguments, and this is something that we sort of saw here, um, when talking about—here we go—formal, different diplomatic or domestic settings; ethical appeals are important. So these examples are strong because when you think of diplomatic settings, you think, "Oh yeah, we should be polite; I guess it does have a function there." Immediately the example proves a point for you, and that's important. The relevance of connection between the example—there we go—connection will impact the overall strength of the argument. If—if—if you say the polite speech is a value function and you say, "Well, you know, parents and kids," there's a lot going on there, right? Like the example does not immediately relate the point that you're trying to convey. So the connection has to be clear. Diplomatic settings again and the value or function of light switch—that is an immediate connection. The example doesn't fit; don't try to make it fit. This is true. This is true. For instance, if you go back here and you see self-censorship, right? Preventing others from saying what they truly—I see this and immediately I think of 1984. So if this claim will use evidence as, uh, from 1984, um, I—they would have to be careful because 1984, there's so much going on in the self-censorship of language; it's more about not saying things that would be directly against the government. So they would have to pick examples from 1984, or one big example that immediately proves the point for them. And the point that I'm making then is that the example has to fit or relate directly; otherwise, it's not going to fit, right? And try to be specific. So if they're going to quote 1984, don't say, "In 1984 there is self-censorship." This isn't good. No, 1984 is too big; there's just too much going on. So you have to use that specific example in the novel when this happens and that can relate to the point, your argument. If your example is wrong, your claim will seem wrong, so be careful. Uh, maybe not 1984, but let me go back here, see if I see another one, uh, here we're talking about mutual respect. Oh, sorry, talking about respect and how that may lead to peace, and this is the functionality of polite speech, right? So let's use that example. And the point is: The example is wrong. So if—if you use a historical example wherein, uh, polite speech led to respect, let's say, but really that polite speech didn't lead to respect, it only led to—I don't know—warfare, let's say, or miscommunication between the two groups of people, and you got that wrong, then you're going to lose validity in your overall claim. So you have to make sure that whatever example you end up using, it makes sense and it's true; otherwise, it will improperly support your—your claim.
Okay. Here's a larger body that I think you should look at. I'm only going to read a piece of it, but I do want you to pause it and maybe, uh, use it as an example. So those who argue that polite speech is somehow worthless simply because it does not express the exact literal meaning misunderstand the point of language entirely. So this paragraph is, in many ways, begins as an address of the opposition. The beauty of language is that it is—that it is not exact science with concrete rules and precision, precise information. Language can have tone and emotion and weight. Language is about truly communicating, conveying ideas, not transmitting exact information like a radio or binary machine code or a computer. Posture, body language, demeanor. Okay. So you can see that this body paragraph works so well because the—the—the theoretical, or rather the rhetorical point that they use is about language altogether, and then they include other forms of language, and these forms of language, in many ways, they prove the point for him, right? Which is: Polite speech is not about, you know, only expressing the exact literal meaning, right? There's so much more going on, and then they use 1984 as an extended example of the idea, right? So flight speech is valuable not because it means exactly what it says, but because it creates a human connection between people. And this—buried right here—is the main claim of the body paragraph; that's the point of polite speech. And I think this is what elevates the argument altogether because he's looking at an argument through a very complex view. So read this. Let's go to the next one. Here's another example that might—you might find useful. So David's example: In today's context, polite speech has become a powerful diplomatic tool, especially when the consequences are dire and the fate of the world could be at stake. There's context right there, right? So why is polite speech a powerful diplomatic tool? Well, because we need it for international relations, which is what he's saying. So during the 1980s, the United States was poised against the Soviet Union. Now this is great because this example will encompass the shaky relationship that America and the city—the USSR had in the 80s, right? Now this—this almost—the example, I think, uh, takes the entire body—apparently every dictator shaking hands—here we go—the example takes the entire body paragraph, and this is really, really well done. Sometimes the best way to prove a claim is to relate an example, whether anecdotal or historical, sometimes even personal, perhaps, depending how—how the nature of the personal example, uh, and let that example prove it for you. If you have to work too hard at proving it, it'll be obvious, but if the example proves it for you, there's nothing more to say. And this is great; I think we have a chance to look at it because—and I think you—you already imagine that using America and the USSR and how they can—how certain—certain, uh, phrases and conversations help to de-escalate the issue as opposed to make it worse.
All right. Let's talk about conclusions. Remember that you should end with one of these—I think depends on the essay. If you had a problem-solution, then offer—offer a solution at the end, or an alternative solution perhaps. If you've been talking about how people think that polite speech is valueless, but you think it does have value, then maybe put the last nail in the coffin and it's approved, the aid to disprove the idea. Uh, maybe make a prediction. If you've been talking about how the world needs flight speech for international relations; otherwise, it will—everything will become chaotic—and make a prediction; maybe say that, uh, without this, then that. And that can be a little tricky, right? But I think you can do that in the conclusion. If there's anywhere that you can go off the cuff and say certain things that are sort of, uh, I don't know, wild claims if you will, it's probably the conclusion. Uh, present a call to action if you need it. Um, sometimes I—I don't know if this essay necessarily needs it; other essays need more than this one, but I don't know what call to action you would have to present in polite speech unless your essay was about how the world is somehow worsening for lack of polite speech and we need to bring it back is the only way that we can really foster human relationships again. Maybe—maybe. So here are some examples that you might want to look at. So, um, I'll start here: Through battles on the bat—though through battles on the battlefield, battles in the courtroom, polite speech is used to identify and codify people's relationships with each other and make common courtesies more common. That's—think that's nice. It emphasizes the hierarchical differences people have with each other, much like a judge and a defendant. Polite speech may not appear to be meaningful at school, but on the battlefield it could mean life or death. Now this essay has been talking about the military and actual battlefield, right? And the use of certain language. So this is why this conclusion is very unique to that essay because that's the conversation that we're having. Here we go. Between two divided and very different groups, the first misstep to hate is a lack of respect. So we read this one before, which was, uh, one of the claims that we saw, but this claim right here at the end, it's so powerful; it's so powerful. This is exactly what he's been talking about; he's been talking about a USSR in America; he's been talking about polite speech and fostering respect and thereby providing—ushering peace into the world.
So final tip: As always, be the rhetorical writer. Use appeals or allude to the appeals. Always, always, always show awareness of devices, right? Maybe use a metaphor, maybe use an analogy, an allusion to history; some of you do that. Use ironies in your speech perhaps, right? You need to have personality; you need to have voice. Be careful with logical fallacies, right? Don't attack someone in hopes of defeating their argument; don't generalize quickly, right? Don't change the argument into something that it's not and then attack that, right? Be careful with these logical fallacies; these are very common. All right. That's it.