Page 204 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 204
What Do We Know about the World?
“the power to effect ‘most divine’ deeds” (Asmus, 1986: 156). Aristotle
(1959: 15) referred to rhetoric as the “the faculty of discovering the possi-
ble means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever”. He argued
that rhetoric served “the function of no other of the arts, each of which
was able to instruct and persuade in its own special subject”. Rhetoric
was not so much to persuade as to find “the existing means of persua-
sion” (Aristotle, 1959: 13). This belief also “removes rhetoric from the
realm of the haphazard and the fanciful” (Dixon, 1971: 14), the charge
which was often filed by the Aristotle’s opponents.
Aristotle (1959: 3) in his definition of rhetoric compares rhetoric
to dialectic, saying it is its “counterpart [...] for both have to do with
matters that are in a manner within the cognizance of all men and not
confined to any special science”. He explicates that “all men [...] up to
a certain point, endeavour to criticise or uphold an argument, to defend
themselves or to accuse”. However, it needs to be emphasised that some
do it accidently, while others do so habitually. We can infer that some do
not possess any knowledge of the art of rhetoric, while others grasped
the insights and use it to their advantage. The above-mentioned defini-
tion applies to the language of politicians, who sometimes appear to crit-
icise or support an argument, or attempt to refute it, or defend it or ac-
cuse their opponents of some error in reasoning. It cannot, however, es-
cape our attention that in the contemporary language of politics, pub-
lic relations play a prominent role. Thus the arcane art of how to address
the public is becoming or has already become an indispensable and re-
quired skill for every politician wishing to achieve success, even if doing
so amounts to blurring his/her real positions. “Rhetoric as a technique
of argument [...] rather than of ornamentation” (Dixon, 1971: 14) is to
forward its achievement. Even if it constitutes one of the oldest surviv-
ing disciplines, its insights and rules still possess the capacity to adjust
to the ideological and social change (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 3).
2. Data Presentation
The persuasive dialogue in functional language, i.e. the language of
politicians, constitutes the central focus of this article. The Art of Rhet-
oric by Aristotle (1959), in turn, serves as the theoretical background
structuring the content of the article. Three kinds of proofs (ethos, pathos
and logos) are discussed, followed by the elaboration of various models
of argumentation.
The ultimate success of the persuasive dialogue is subject to the lan-
guage chosen to fit in with the subject of the interaction, the social con-
“the power to effect ‘most divine’ deeds” (Asmus, 1986: 156). Aristotle
(1959: 15) referred to rhetoric as the “the faculty of discovering the possi-
ble means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever”. He argued
that rhetoric served “the function of no other of the arts, each of which
was able to instruct and persuade in its own special subject”. Rhetoric
was not so much to persuade as to find “the existing means of persua-
sion” (Aristotle, 1959: 13). This belief also “removes rhetoric from the
realm of the haphazard and the fanciful” (Dixon, 1971: 14), the charge
which was often filed by the Aristotle’s opponents.
Aristotle (1959: 3) in his definition of rhetoric compares rhetoric
to dialectic, saying it is its “counterpart [...] for both have to do with
matters that are in a manner within the cognizance of all men and not
confined to any special science”. He explicates that “all men [...] up to
a certain point, endeavour to criticise or uphold an argument, to defend
themselves or to accuse”. However, it needs to be emphasised that some
do it accidently, while others do so habitually. We can infer that some do
not possess any knowledge of the art of rhetoric, while others grasped
the insights and use it to their advantage. The above-mentioned defini-
tion applies to the language of politicians, who sometimes appear to crit-
icise or support an argument, or attempt to refute it, or defend it or ac-
cuse their opponents of some error in reasoning. It cannot, however, es-
cape our attention that in the contemporary language of politics, pub-
lic relations play a prominent role. Thus the arcane art of how to address
the public is becoming or has already become an indispensable and re-
quired skill for every politician wishing to achieve success, even if doing
so amounts to blurring his/her real positions. “Rhetoric as a technique
of argument [...] rather than of ornamentation” (Dixon, 1971: 14) is to
forward its achievement. Even if it constitutes one of the oldest surviv-
ing disciplines, its insights and rules still possess the capacity to adjust
to the ideological and social change (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 3).
2. Data Presentation
The persuasive dialogue in functional language, i.e. the language of
politicians, constitutes the central focus of this article. The Art of Rhet-
oric by Aristotle (1959), in turn, serves as the theoretical background
structuring the content of the article. Three kinds of proofs (ethos, pathos
and logos) are discussed, followed by the elaboration of various models
of argumentation.
The ultimate success of the persuasive dialogue is subject to the lan-
guage chosen to fit in with the subject of the interaction, the social con-
