Page 207 - 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. 207
rhetoric – martial art or the art of winning
the soul by discourse? 207
cates the persuader’s stance as the interaction progresses, depicting shifts
in stance; the latter conceals the values and the standpoint. The part
the audience plays is equally significant. The audience must discern the
stance, spot the strategy and evaluate its principles. For, as Hunter (ibid.)
maintains, there is nothing worse than naiveté of the audience since it
results in the audience surrendering to the imposed stance.
3.1.2. Ethos – Patterns of Behaviour Adopted by the Persuader
Coming back to the persuader’s stance, we shall propose a few pat-
terns of behaviour s/he can exhibit. To begin with, the persuader can
prioritise a stance such that the audience perceives the benefits for them-
selves (positive face, Involvement Strategy (Scollon and Scollon, 1995)),
seeks approval, the positive self-image (Brown and Levinson, 1987;
Kasper, 1994; Scollon and Scollon, 1995; Fairclough 1989/2001; Fair-
clough, 1992/2008). The other pattern relies on the opposite assump-
tion, i.e. the persuader being in the privileged or empowered position
threatens the audience with the exclusion of the benefits, hence plays
on the emotions, pathos, of the audience (negative face – the want of
self-determination, the claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction). Tactics described above reflect the concept of saving or
threatening face rooted in Brown and Levinson’s theory.1
As a subsequent tactic worth drawing our attention to, the persuad-
er may adopt lies on the belief that “being yourself ” does not entail suc-
cess. Customarily, the persuader needs to implement intuition and cal-
culation in displaying his/her stance, determine how much of self, image
and personality to propose so that it will not discourage a prospective
listener. Too personal or too impersonal a stance can be equally coun-
ter-effective (Hunter, 1984).
Likewise, humour can serve as a tactic deployed by the persuader.
It conveys either a release of tension, acts as a reflection of a non-serious
stance, or an embodiment of the persuader’s personality, being the con-
sequence of his/her conviction. Lastly, it can also function as a gun that
cons the audience into falsehood, ergo yields dubious benefits.
Changing sides by the persuader and his/her willingness to admit it
openly constitutes a strategy which, if managed skilfully, can bring a de-
sirable effect. Nonetheless, it appears to be risky and requires a consid-
erable skill. For the inconsistency of stance can exert an adverse impact
and lead to the feeling of distrust on the part of the audience (ibid.).
1 For details on the aspect of face with reference to the language of politicians, see Szczepańska-Włoch
(2010).
the soul by discourse? 207
cates the persuader’s stance as the interaction progresses, depicting shifts
in stance; the latter conceals the values and the standpoint. The part
the audience plays is equally significant. The audience must discern the
stance, spot the strategy and evaluate its principles. For, as Hunter (ibid.)
maintains, there is nothing worse than naiveté of the audience since it
results in the audience surrendering to the imposed stance.
3.1.2. Ethos – Patterns of Behaviour Adopted by the Persuader
Coming back to the persuader’s stance, we shall propose a few pat-
terns of behaviour s/he can exhibit. To begin with, the persuader can
prioritise a stance such that the audience perceives the benefits for them-
selves (positive face, Involvement Strategy (Scollon and Scollon, 1995)),
seeks approval, the positive self-image (Brown and Levinson, 1987;
Kasper, 1994; Scollon and Scollon, 1995; Fairclough 1989/2001; Fair-
clough, 1992/2008). The other pattern relies on the opposite assump-
tion, i.e. the persuader being in the privileged or empowered position
threatens the audience with the exclusion of the benefits, hence plays
on the emotions, pathos, of the audience (negative face – the want of
self-determination, the claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction). Tactics described above reflect the concept of saving or
threatening face rooted in Brown and Levinson’s theory.1
As a subsequent tactic worth drawing our attention to, the persuad-
er may adopt lies on the belief that “being yourself ” does not entail suc-
cess. Customarily, the persuader needs to implement intuition and cal-
culation in displaying his/her stance, determine how much of self, image
and personality to propose so that it will not discourage a prospective
listener. Too personal or too impersonal a stance can be equally coun-
ter-effective (Hunter, 1984).
Likewise, humour can serve as a tactic deployed by the persuader.
It conveys either a release of tension, acts as a reflection of a non-serious
stance, or an embodiment of the persuader’s personality, being the con-
sequence of his/her conviction. Lastly, it can also function as a gun that
cons the audience into falsehood, ergo yields dubious benefits.
Changing sides by the persuader and his/her willingness to admit it
openly constitutes a strategy which, if managed skilfully, can bring a de-
sirable effect. Nonetheless, it appears to be risky and requires a consid-
erable skill. For the inconsistency of stance can exert an adverse impact
and lead to the feeling of distrust on the part of the audience (ibid.).
1 For details on the aspect of face with reference to the language of politicians, see Szczepańska-Włoch
(2010).
