Rhetorical analysis requires a fundamental between what is communicated through language and how this is communicated. This is the claim made in the article.

Secondly is the backing or the support of this claim, or the question why this is the claim?! Opinion of different scientist and different authors supporting this claim by giving different examples, like Aristotle, roman authors, Renaissance, Erasmus of Rotterdam. Also within rhetorical pedagogy it was the practice of imitation that most required students to analyze form and content. They were asked to observe a model closely and then to copy the form but supply new content; or to copy the content but supply a new form. Such imitations occurred on every level of speech and language, and forced students to assess what exactly a given form did to bring about a given meaning or effect.

 

I think the method is simple and straight forward which is easy to use and is well explained. But in this article I found it harder, or confusing at some point. I could’t get to the other points or elements of the method. There is a clear claim and many supporting ideas of the claim from different authors and scientist but I couldn’t find as the method mentions ” rebuttal, response, or opposition on this article.