A Neo-Aristotelian Analysis of Stone Cold Steve Austin’s 3:16 Speech

Introduction 

Neo-Aristotelian Analysis stems from rhetorical criticism in the context of any subject matter of analysis. Within the context to underscore the various facets of an artifact or speech, rhetorical criticism implements various methods through which a perspective or thought process could be understood, within its context as well as the context of the audience and the future implication of the speech. Therein, Neo-Aristotelian Analysis employs the critical aspects of the rhetoric criticism to underscore the facets of the content of an artifact. Generated from the context of communication, analysis of various methods of communication and the impact they create on the person delivering the speech, on the auduie4nce, the subject matter, as well as direct implications of the speech, underscore the relevance of the analysis itself (Flynn, 2017) . This is in cognition of the symbolism employed within the communication context and therefore influencing the various facets of the implication of the speech. Therefore, this paper will employ the construct of Neo-Aristotelian Analysis as exemplified within the context of rhetorical criticism on the speech of stone cold Steve Austin. 

The paper will be categorical to underpin the relevance of the speech within the various contexts implicated by the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis of the speech. Particularly, the paper will employ the speech of stone cold Steve Austin 3:16 speech to underscore the relevance of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis within the communication context. Further, through a multifaceted approach, the speech will be analyzed to develop ideas and themes that exist outside the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis framework. The framework of the paper will follow the progression of the artifact description through an analysis of the content and context of the speech. Secondly, an analytical perspective and background of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis method, to underscore pertinent knowledge of the method and its implications in the context. thirdly, application of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis on the artifact and finally followed by conclusive implications of the analytical process of the speech. 

Artifact Description 

Derived from the original methods of rhetorical criticism, Neo-Aristotelian Analysis explores the nature of the artifact based on the context and content it is taken from. Therein, for an analytical process to take place, the description of the artifact is imperative to the method and process. Artifact description, therefore, takes the progression of the artifact both in facts, impact and emotional facets involved. In this particular case, the artifact in the analysis is the stone cold Steve Austin 3:16 speech. Therein, the description takes the progress of the speech within the actual content of the speech, what words were spoken, what emotions dis the rhetor display, what were the actions of the rhetor in the speech, what was the overall display of surrounding awareness was the person, as well as the actions of the audience at the time the speech was given (Austin, 2001). Further, the description of the speech takes the context through which the speech was given: what were the immediate activities that led to the speech moment, what other activities within the previous encounters with the rhetoric emphasized the content of the speech, in what ways does the speech relate to the place the speech was given, and what impact was the speech intended to give to the audience. 

The description of the artifact, therefore, relies on the careful an meticulous analysis of the context and content of the speech in all facets of study. Within this context, the background of the person and his activities as a person as well as the activities leading to the moment of the speech must be explored. It is imperative to emphasize the nature of the person due to the contribution of issues of the persona within the context of the speech to the intended audience. Further, the analytic and description aids with the breakdown of symbols and other forms of communications within the artifact. 

Stone cold Steve Austin is one of the most famous superstars in the world wrestling entertainment networks since the late 1990s. Gaining that level of fame and exposure throughout the world, he stood out within the wrestling entertainment universe by his abilities and the help of the speech that gained him the recognition. Evolving from a series of events within the context of his career, Steve Austin delivered the famous 3:16 speech that gave him the recognition of the people and the wrestling world. The impact of the speech as denoted below hails from various perspectives that define the future of wrestling and the career of Steve Austin as a wrestler. 

Stone Cold Steve Austin's’ 3:16 speech 

The famous phrase “3:16” hails from the 1996 King of the Ring PPV (Pay-per-View) from the World Wrestling Entertainment network (WWE), then known as the World Wrestling Federation network (WWF), and the return Stone Cold Steve Austin, also widely known as "The Texas Rattlesnake" gives a speech regarding his opponent Jake "The Snake" Roberts, whom he had defeated prior to the speech. In order for one to effectively convey the messages behind Austin's "3:16" speech, a description is necessary to thoroughly analyze the artifact, the 3:16 speech, the background of the event, significant individuals involved, the dynamic and history between the Austin and Roberts, and how it relates to the essence of Austin's "3:16". 

King of the Ring was a professional wrestling single-elimination tournament held by the WWF; it typically featured matches that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines that were played out on Monday Night Raw -- WWF’s main television program. Fundamentally, wrestlers portrayed a villain or a hero as they followed a series of events that built friction, and resulted in a wrestling match or series of matches. Furthermore, on the June 3rd edition of Raw, Stone Cold Steve Austin and Jake "The Snake" Roberts qualified for the tournament by defeating two other assigned wrestlers; Bob "Spark Plug" Holly and Hunter Hearst Helmsley, respectively (Flynn, 2015). This would mean that one of the leading event matches would be pitting Austin against Roberts in the tournament. Nonetheless, WWF President Monsoon came to the ring right before the match and offered Roberts to stop the match due to his rib injury suffered in one of his semi-final matches. However, Roberts regrouped and refused to relinquish the opportunity to win the King of the Ring title. 

Moreover, during the match, he began attacking Austin and attempted to use his infamous Drop Dead Twice (DDT) move, but Austin avoided it and began focusing on Roberts' injured ribs, which inevitably greatly benefitted him. Hence, at the end of the match, Austin proceeded to use his infamous maneuver known as the “Stone Cold Stunner” to win the title. After the match, Austin was invited to the stage where the announcer, Dok Hendrix was there to briefly interview him (Fisher, 2017). As Hendrix was introducing Austin “..Prestigious king of the ring” Austin’s answer and approach shocked Hendrix and the audience as he chose to start the speech by mocking Roberts instead of thanking his supporters which set the tone for the rest of the speech. Namely, Austin began the address by ridiculing Roberts’ well-known Bible-preacher gimmick during his coronation as King of the Ring and what he said ended up drastically change the course of his entire career: 

“ The first thing I want to be done is to get that piece of crap out of my ring. You sit there, and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your psalms, talk about John 3:16... Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass! "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, King of the Ring 1996 – June 23, 1996, 

The narrative commences with Austin’s statement regarding the expulsion of Roberts from the entire federation “Don't just get him out of the ring, get him out of the WWF because I've proved son, without a shadow of a doubt, you ain't got what it takes anymore!" Austin deliberately chose to repeat the statement about Roberts' dismissal to emphasize that Roberts' wrestling career has truly come to an end. Once more, at the time of this match, Jake the Snake Roberts was incorporating a gimmick that was a born again Christian who overcame the plights of alcohol and substance use and addiction, and in spite of the fact that WWF is known produce scripted material, Roberts was struggling with addiction in real life. The narrative explained how this born-again Christian act was a waste of time in Austin's opinion "You sit there, and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn’t get you anywhere.” Additionally, this negative attitude Stone Cold was displaying towards Jake’s bible thumping was the sign of a newer era of wrestling, a darker one. “ Talk about your psalms, talk about John 3:16… ” John 3:16 (chapter 3, verse 16 of the Gospel of John) is one of the most prominent and widely quoted Bible verses, especially by evangelical Christians such as the one being portrayed by Roberts at the time. “... Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!” (G. 1996). What would be known merely as “Austin 3:16” immediately became a catchphrase that rapidly spread all around the industry; it quickly became printed on Austin's T-shirts all across WWF/WWE events and took the company by storm. It launched Austin into the mainstream as an integral main event character. 

Furthermore, in professional-wrestling, many believe mic skills and overall charisma are just as important as in-ring work. Prior to the match against Roberts, Austin was not the most popular wrestler in the WWF, however, what spurred his fame was definitely his delivery of the “3:16” speech, Austin addressed Roberts immediately following the match. Also, the fact that Austin had it memorized it made it that much more authentic for the audience and viewers. Moreover, As Austin was giving the speech, Roberts was simultaneously being escorted out of the ring by the ambulance crew, Austin’s indifference to Roberts’ serious injuries stressed Austin’s desire to be the best “As the King Of The Ring, I'm serving notice to every one of the WWF superstars. I don't give a damn what they are, they're all on the list, and that's Stone Cold's list, and I'm fixing to start running through all of 'em.” The narrative goes on to elucidate Austin’s intention to rise through the ranks of the federation regardless of the wrestler(s) he has to fight. “And as far as this championship match is considered son, I don't give a damn if it's Davey Boy Smith or Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin's time comes, and when I get that shot, you're looking at the next WWF Champion.” Austin furthers his emphasis on the nonchalant attitude towards the other wrestlers in the federation by naming one of the best at the time, Shawn Michaels and Davey Boy Smith, in which Austin does end up defeating later at a separate event following the PPV (Kreikenbohm, 1996). Austin concludes the speech with “that's the bottom line because Stone Cold said so.” another catchphrase that fans recite to this day to remember Austin and acknowledge his rich legacy in the WWE. Conclusively, the Austin “3:16” catchphrase spread rapidly throughout the federation’s fan base. It launched Austin into the mainstream as an authentic main event character that remained relevant in the WWF for years to come. Nevertheless, all of this would not have been possible without Austin’s King of the Ring speech. 

Neo-Aristotelian Analysis 

Developed in the formality of rhetorical criticism, Neo-Aristotelian Analysis is the first method of its kind in the criticism of works within literature. The method was generated in the early twentieth century by Herbert Wichelns who is considered the developer of the framework through which the analytical method was justified. Within the context of his work, he developed the central tenets of the analytical method that seeks to understand not only the content but the context of the works under analysis. In his work “the literary criticism of oratory,” Wichelns was categorical within the context of the orator in the manner that developed a new dimension on how issues were perceived in rhetorical criticism. The content of his work evolved to a framework of ideas that enlightened the critics on the method of analysis (Foss, 2017).  The context of his work was imperative to the discipline of rhetorical criticism as the method employed within the context of the work displayed a framework and stipulations that acted as guidelines for criticism. Before his work, critics of literary works had no framework or guideline, and therefore the context of critical works was based on various facets of literary works that existed before. The nexus between literary works and communication are the central tenets that aided in the development of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis as a method of rhetorical criticism. 

The contribution of Wichelns within the dynamics of criticism developed in the distinction between literary criticism and rhetoric criticism. According to Wichelns, the difference between the two constructs within criticism is the context within which they are implemented. Literary criticism is illuminated by the emphasis on the performance and beauty of the works within which it is critical. On the other hand, he defined rhetorical criticism to concern itself with the effect of speech for instance (Leff, 1980). The major emphasis that underscores the distinction is that rhetorical criticism illuminates a speech, not as a literary work but a communication piece and therefore the analysis of the speech ought to take that recognition within the method of analysis applied. 

Therefore, the recognition enables the critic to concentrate on the piece as a communication item and therefore consider the specific audience that the speech is intended to impact as well as the orator’s part within the context of communication as well as the ability of the orator to influence the people listening to the speech. The distinction was categorical in the formation and origin of communication as a facet of the context and discipline of English. The contribution of Wichelns reflects the direction of the rhetorical criticism in the twentieth century and within the wide subject of English works. This contribution is categorical as it provided the framework and basis line for development of theoretical perspectives within the analysis context of the speech. 

Neo-Aristotelianism was therefore developed by the work of Wichelns as a topic within the approach of rhetorical criticism and the analysis of speech. Based on the framework created within his work, the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis approach to a speech indicates the parameters of synthesis of any work. Therefore, the indications of the parameters are included on the various facets of the speech and the orator. Therefore, the inclusion criterion of the approach underscores issues such as, the personality of the speaker of the speech, the public demeanor or character that the speaker portrays to people or even the perceptions that the people in the audience have of the orator (Brock, 1989).  These aspects represent the orator and their relationship with the speech being analyzed to underscore the innate features of the speech within the right context of the person. 

In another perspective, other facets of the speech are recognized and include the audience present within the delivery context of the speech. Further, the content of the speech in the context of major ideas, themes, and symbolism contained in the speech form another facet of the analysis criteria. Other issues explored include the motives that the orator intends to impact, the cognitive ability of the orator and the perception he contains human nature of the people listening to the speech. The criteria expand to the arrangement of the speech while underscoring the presentation package of the orator within the context of emotions, moods and the manner in which the speech is delivered. The analysis further encompasses the method employed by the orator to prepare for the speech and how the delivery of the speech affects the audience within the vicinity of the delivery point. Finally, it also explores the impact of the speech on a long-term basis on the audience and the contextual position of the speech. 

Development and coining of the term Neo-Aristotelian Analysis were due to the nature of these criteria of analysis as discussed by Aristotle. While the framework was developed by Wichelns, the aspect through which the full analytical path is laid is provided by the theoretical perspective of Aristotle. The theoretical perspective, in this case, provided a method in which Wichelns guidelines could be implemented in rhetorical criticism as concrete analytical style. The guidelines illuminated the classical application of pertinent canons of rhetorical criticism and their application aided in the coined term of Neo-Aristotelian Analysis (Black, 1980). The cannons simplify the analytical process through five major categories of rhetoric which form the basis of a speech analysis. The cannons are cognizant of the Wichelns guidelines and approach. The classical cannons include; invention, organization, style, memory, and delivery. These facets of analysis form the major completion of the analytical model within the context of Aristotle theoretical assumptions. 

The importance of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis in rhetoric criticism was immense at the beginning of speech criticism at the time of its invention. From the perspective of the criticism in the rhetoric context, the analysis is pertinent to speech analysis since the early twentieth century. The applicability of the method is categorical in the multifaceted approach of rhetoric analysis. Based on the facets of communication, the analysis is categorical in the provision of a perspective different from another form of analysis and therefore unique within the analytical context. While the beginning of the application of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis was limited to the subject matter and purpose, the guidelines of the speech-enabled the critics to apply the method in an expanded capacity that underscores the various facets of the orator and the audience in the context of delivery of the speech. Therefore Neo-Aristotelian Analysis spearheaded the study of speeches in the context and determination of their direct impact on the audience (Wander, 1983). In the period of development of the analytical method, the public speeches were the subject of analysis since the orator’s issues of personality, and other information were available on public archives. Therein, the development of the analytical approach in this manner provided well-founded credibility within communication and English disciplines. 

Criticism of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis was generated by the theoretical perspectives incorporated from Aristotle. Although after its development it was virtually unchallenged by another theoretical perspective of analysis, the criticism of the method was subject to the building blocks of the Aristotle perspective. In this context, critics of the analysis argued that the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis cannons of analysis were not intended for criticism. Aristotle's rhetoric in this perspective was intended to denote various methods that people would use to speak well and eloquently (Foss, 2017) . Therein, the use of these mechanisms in the context of speech criticism was criticized as the critical blocks were inexistent in the theoretical paradigm. Further, the concentration on the effect of the speech by the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis while producing a criticism of speech may be misleading. The notion was denoted to underscore that the effect of the speech in the analytical context has much to do with the audience and the circumstances within which they are in. therefore, the placement of analytics in the context tend to differ as criticism or mere analysis. 

Nonetheless, Neo-Aristotelian Analysis is imperative to rhetorical criticism as the mechanism used is pertinent to the speech and the context of the speech. Therefore, application of the speech is not only feasible in the context of the work but also in the context of the relevance of the speech to the audience. Further, the process of Neo-Aristotelian Analysis enables a deeper analysis of the subject matter within the speech and the issues of personal as well as contextual affecting the message, themes, and delivery method and nature of the speech. Therein, the application of the method within the analysis of stone cold Steve Austin 3:16 speech enables observation of various perspectives on the subject matter. Neo-Aristotelian Analysis was used in specific to speeches and therefore the analytical framework of the Austin 3:16 speech is the development of the theoretical perspective to denote the underlying themes and content of the speech. 

Application of the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis on the Austin 3:16 speech 

Cognizant of the detailed explanation of the artifact in the second section of this paper and the theoretical perspective of the analysis method, the speech delivered by stone cold Steve Austin in 1996 will be analyzed. The tenets of the theoretical perspectives will be applied independently in recognition of the general purpose of the analytical perspective and process. Within the context of the analysis, the paper will be categorical to underscore the major of cannons of the analytical criteria. Therein, the analysis criteria will unearth the effect of the speech as it impacts the audience of the world wrestling entertainment network and the career of Austin and the fate of the wrestling universe. The analysis based on the Neo-Aristotelian method takes the process of three major areas of that encompasses the entire process. Among them include the reconstruction of the context that the speech was given, the second part if the analysis will take the progression of five stages as indicated to include invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Finally, the analysis will assess the impact of the artifact on the people listening. 

Context reconstruction 

Understanding the impact the Austin 3:16 speech, one must underscore the context in which the speech was given. In this case the context of the speech involves three facets of the context which include; the orator who in this situation is stone cold Steve Austin, the occasion where in this case is the world wrestling entertainment network platform and finally the audience who are formed in this case by wrestling fans in and out of the wrestling arena. The purpose of this step is the discovery of the various components of the contextual speech given the Austin. 

Orator 

Austin 3:16 speech was coined by the name of the orator, Stone Cold Steve Austin. Famously known as the Texas Rattlesnake, Austin is among the most memorable wrestlers in the WWE history. At the time of delivery of the speech, Austin was a regular wrestler in the then world wrestling federation network struggling to get noticed in a world where dominance in wrestling ring was paramount to success. As an entertainment wrestler, stone cold among other wrestlers demonstrates their athleticism on the regular show of WWF network the Monday night raw. The show therein produced every episode during this show, and therefore every wrestler required ensuring they make an impression. Although most of the feuds and alliances were scripted, the nature of stone cold Steve Austin developed him to have unique abilities to entertain the audience. Owing to his past, Austin had training in wrestling with technical skills that enabled him to be a formidable opponent. 

Up until the time of the king of the ring match in 1996, Austin was a regular wrestler in the world wrestling federation. Austin’s career in wrestling was bumpier having been fired from the WCW and beginning in WWE. During the period that the speech was made, the character of Austin was spread and based on him as the ringmaster that enabled him to have tremendous experience in the ring. Although posed no clear direction of his career in WWE, his character as the ringmaster coupled with feuds in the industry brought him the limelight and experience in the field who would later coin the name stone cold to his name. 

Occasion 

Austin 3:16 speech was made by stone cold Steve Austin after winning a king of the ring match in June of 1996. The king of the ring pay-per-view was one of the most famous matches within the wrestling federation. It contained a series of matches carried out through an elimination process. Cognizant of the previous feuds that existed since the beginning of the tournament, the stage was set for Austin to prove his dominance and unleash his new maneuver famously known as the stone cold stunner. During the match, his rival Jake “the snake” Roberts tried to defeat him earlier in the match using his signature move known as the drop dead twice (DDT). 

Nonetheless, Austin would use his skills to turn the match around and employ his signature move the stone cold stunner to win the match. Although the 1996 era was not among the liveliest period for the world wrestling federation, for Austin, it presented him with the opportunity to advance his career as a wrestler. The match is a pay per view match attracted much spotlight within the wrestling company, and therefore, the events of the occasion determined the progress in character and performance the fate of stone cold Steve Austin. With Roberts suffering a preexisting injury to the ribs, he was defeated by Austin paving the way for to deliver his speech during an interview after the match. 

The audience 

At the time of delivery of the speech, the audience at the wrestling arena was the main focus and who formed the main focus of the show as entertainment wrestling. Cognizant of these, the feuds and roles and characters played out during the Monday night raw, the king of the ring match was a settlement and culmination of those storylines. The audience following the storyline of both Steve Austin and Roberts were invested heavily in their feuds at the end of the match. Therein, every statement and utterance made during and after the ring was aimed at making a profound statement. Having witnessed the feuds, the fans had already conceived notions and expectations of what would happen during the match. The win of Austin was faced with jubilation by some and gearing and frustration from others. On the other hand, the audience included more than the fans in the arena but rather also directed to the superstars in the wrestling federation. Several statements refer to the several superstars within the federation’s roster, and the words of the speech were directed to them. 

Application of the five canons of Neo-Aristotelian Criticism on the Austin 3:16 speech 

Interrogation of the Austin 3:16 speech requires the exposition of the text within the framework of the framework of the rhetorical criticism. The canons are explored in the context of the speech to underscore the various ways through which the speech was delivered. The five stages include; invention, organization, style, memory, and delivery. 

Invention 

This level of analysis ensures the development of the speech through the interrogation of the major facets of the content of the speech. Cognizant of this the Austin 3:16 speech is underscored by the major message of his triumph and intention to rise to the top. In the speech, Austin is categorical to underscore his win within the context of his capacity and capabilities as a wrestler while demonstrating his intention towards the top championship matches of the wrestling federation. Proven by the just completed win over his opponent who had been a credible opponent, Austin delivers his win and therefore deserves championship opportunities. 

To underscore the imperative nature of the invention analysis, it follows through the categories that denote the various themes of the content (Hendrix, 1968). First, the logical argument of the speech, denoted by the direct attack on his opinion to be taken out of the ring and even out of the wrestling federation. Secondly, the appeal of Austin’s character within the content of the speech. Determined by the foliation of his words to denote his dominance, he articulates his demeanor and character that he brings in the ring and to the world wrestling federation. Thirdly, the emotional appeal of the speech. Austin is driven by his win and the excitement and electricity of the stadium, he projects his win to his abilities and connecting the injuries of his opponent to his faith and end of his career. The overwhelming environment contributes to the overall emotion of the speech. 

Organization 

Under this section of the analysis, the speech is dissected within the various facets of its structure and therefore to allow for investigation of the structural identities of every facet. The organization of the Austin 3:16 speech is divided into various facets of the rhetoric. The first section incorporates the steam from the match and the fallout comments that denote the dominance of Austin. In this section, he refers to his win against Robert as his form of dominance and even identifies the weakness of his opponent and suggesting he quit altogether. On the second section, he demonstrates his dominance through acknowledgment of the champions within the wrestling federation and equates him to them (Section 309. 2017).  Finally, he provides a future direction that makes his intentions known of wanting championship opportunities. 

A large part of the speech involves the rhetoric against his opponent Roberts. By design, this is emphasized due to the previous feuds within the process of previous matches and encounters that led to the final match at the king of the ring tournament. Among the most significant part of the speech is the attack of the religious gimmick adopted by Roberts which he used and coined it to produce his catchphrase "The Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!" 

Style 

Analysis of the style used by the rhetor in the speech denotes the organization of the language and the way it is organized and applied to create meaning. It also encompasses the use of symbolism in communication. Therefore this element of analysis categorically denotes the use of language in the content of the speech and the intended audience and message passed across. When delivering the Austin 3:16 speech, stone cold employed the use of strength in the choice of words in the attempt to demonstrate his conviction to the matter. For instance, the use of language that would have otherwise been termed as inappropriate illuminates the state of the message that he wants to pass along. 

Known as the Texas Rattlesnake, the words and dialect of his voice insinuate his background toughness of the name he represents. Further, the symbolism of the words used signifies his inner conviction of the message to his opponent. For instance, the name he adopted ‘stone cold’ identify with a level of toughness that is intolerable (Motion picture. 1996). The content of his speech delivers that in two occasions: first, the attack on his already defeated opponent with emphasis that he retire or entirely from wrestling as he does not have what it takes to be a wrestler. Secondly, his rhetoric against the religious and belief system of his opponent and using it to deliver his message of dominance and triumph denote the symbolism of his name. 

Delivery 

This part explores the nature through which the speech is delivered denoting how the presenter of the speech handles the subject matter and how he performs in the process of delivering the speech. The Austin 3:16 speech was delivered from memory in an impromptu characteristic. With Austin leaving the ring and headed to the coronation area, he is interviewed and in short amount of time and few questions he delivered his speech. In very short time, he communicated his emotions, message, and intention to the wrestling federation universe. While giving the speech, he uses his voice to denote the tone of the speech and emphasize on key issues. For instance, while raising his voice, he coins the phrase of the Austin 3:16. The manner of speaking using hand gestures and body language to reinforce his message is integral to the content of his message. Finally, after the speech, he casually and confidently walks away and raising his hand to recognize his fans in the arena. The combination of these issues and symbols of his speech denote his message and intention of the speech to the audience and his capabilities. Within the context of his body movement, it’s clear through the face value of his voice how he demonstrates his conviction. 

Memory 

This step is cognizant of the style employed in the delivery of the speech. The major facet of investigation is the control over the material of the speech. In the Austin 3:16 speech, stone cold presents the speech fully from his memory. Throughout the speech, he demonstrated control with the word choice and his body language. This denotes his control in the context of memory and the how well the speech flowed signified a greater resonance with the material and content of the speech. 

Conclusions and Implications of the Austin 3:16 speech 

Austin 3:16 speech is one of the most profound and illuminating speeches of the world wrestling federation. The content and extent of the speech had far-reaching consequence ton the lives of the audience, the career of Austin as a wrestler as well as the world wrestling federation as a company. The single speech no matter how short it demonstrated the value of well-articulated communication methods to define the direction of issues. For instance, within the speech, Austin demonstrated his dominance and capability not only in the ring but also out of the ring (Cillanki, 2017) . In the context of becoming the king of the ring and demonstrating that he had the capacity to do more, he challenged the champions for their titles. In the progress of the lifespan of the wrestling federation, he later had the chance to go against the champions he named in his speech where he would later become champions several times. Devolving from the conviction and message of his speech, he denoted the dominance demeanor that he presented as part of his character in the wrestling federation that later became WWE. 

Cognizant of the content spoken by Austin in his speech, one phrase would define the rest of his career as a wrestler both in and out of the ring. The phrase “Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass” became one of the most popular across the network and across the world. the phrase that he later adopted as his catchphrase demonstrated his dominance and the influence of his speech to the audience. Through the branding of the phrase, the wrestling federation would earn over a billion dollars in sales of t-shirts and merchandise. This denoted the impact of the speech to the audience and the relevance of the speech to the career of Steve Austin. 

While the Neo-Aristotelian Analysis was categorical to underscore the relevance of the speech within the context of rhetorical criticism, the analysis as a method is faced with challenges. For instance, the analysis is impaired in the investigation of the various facets of the speech as literary work. In this context, it demonstrates the nature of the speech with much emphasis and therefore failing to concentrate on the implication of the speech. In this context finding the content of information in the implication of Austin speech was daunting. 

References 

Austin, S. (2001). The Stone Cold Truth. Retrieved September 14, 2017, from https://books.google.com/books?id=cLyeR7I1ltIC&dq=STONE%2BCOLD%2BSTEVE%2BAUSTIN%2B3%3A16&source=gbs_navlinks_s 

Brock, B. L., Scott, R. L., & Chesebro, J. W. (Eds.). (1989).  Methods of rhetorical criticism: A twentieth-century perspective . Wayne State University Press. 

Black, E. (1980). A note on theory and practice in rhetorical criticism.  Western Journal of Speech Communication ,  44 (4), 331-336. 

Cillanki, A. (2017, May 02). Stunning to Stone Cold: A retrospective look at Steve Austin's career. Retrieved September 14, 2017, from https://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/stunning-to-stone-cold-a-retrospective-look-at-steve-austins-career-2 

Flynn, B. (2017, June 26). May to July of 1996 Changed Pro Wrestling Forever. Retrieved September 13, 2017, from http://blogs.jacksonfreepress.com/post/2017/06/27/may-to-july-of-1996-changed-pro-wrestling-forever/ 

Fisher, J. (2017, March 16). What does Stone Cold Steve Austin's 3:16 actually mean? Retrieved September 13, 2017, from https://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/what-does-stone-cold-steve-austins-316-actually-mea 

Flynn, C. (2015, June 04). 10 Incredible Statistics About Stone Cold Steve Austin. Retrieved September 14, 2017, from http://www.therichest.com/sports/wrestling/10-incredible-statistics-about-stone-cold-steve-austin/ 

Foss, S. K. (2017).  Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice . Waveland Press. 

G. (1996, June 23). "Stone Cold" Steve Austin – Austin 3:16 Promo. Retrieved September 14, 2017, from https://genius.com/Stone-cold-steve-austin-austin-3-16-promo-annotated 

Hendrix, J. A. (1968). In defense of neo ‐ Aristotelian rhetorical criticism.  Western Speech ,  32 (4), 246-252. 

Kreikenbohm, P. (1996, June 23). "And that's the bottom line, 'cause Stone Cold said so". Retrieved September 14, 2017, from https://www.cagematch.net/?id=93&nr=5 

Leff, M. C. (1980). Interpretation and the Art of the Rhetorical Critic.  Western Journal of Speech Communication ,  44 (4), 337-349. 

Motion picture. (1996). United States: WWE. Retrieved September 13, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjWPoQWdmjg . 

Section 309. (2017).  Model Year Wrestler #9: 1996 Steve Austin, From Ringmaster to Stone Cold .  Section 309 . Retrieved 29 November 2017, from http://section309.com/2016/02/01/austin96/ 

Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism.  Communication Studies ,  34 (1), 1-18.