Page 212 - 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. 212
What Do We Know about the World?
the standpoint, the prejudices the persuader holds are unveiled. Ergo at
this point we return to the interdependence of thought, feeling, and lan-
guage (and its social context).3
Following Cicero and Quintilian (1920), vivid and graphic language
appears to be a persuasive factor, enabling the actualisation of emotions.
The above-mentioned authors use energeia and fantasia to influence the
hearer, energeia renders clarity, fantasia imagination. A subsequent fac-
tor carrying a highly persuasive aim, somewhat different than the above
one, is the use of abstract concepts, such as honour, patriotism, or justice.
The orator making use of the cited concepts may move the audience sub-
stantially by alluding to the topics they regard highly. Such a strategy re-
sorts to the individual strongly-held beliefs and values, which assure the
audience of the truthfulness of the persuader and arouse greater confi-
dence in him. Again, we revert to the pragmatic concept of face, in the
aforesaid example we can perceive positive face realised by claiming com-
mon ground, the approval of each other, shared wants and shared knowl-
edge, and reciprocity of obligations (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 62).
Finally, it should be borne in mind that playing on pathos can either
facilitate the understanding of a logical argument, helping to acknowl-
edge it, or obscure the logical judgement of an argument advanced by the
persuader. The persuader wishing to be effective in the art of persuasion
must acquire all skills indispensable in influencing the audience, should
monitor the response, converge with beliefs and convictions of the au-
dience, reverse his own standpoint, if required. It becomes clear that
the persuader must acquire psycholinguistic knowledge, i.e. the com-
plexities of the human character, so as to rate the responses of the audi-
ence and shape them effectively. All the ploys stated above are realised
by means of language, which occupies a paramount role. Pathos is actu-
alised with the help of argument and repetition, together with stylistic
structures, such as antithesis, metaphors and rhythmic patterns, syntac-
tic structures, i.e. fronting, word order, interrogatives, and lexis, i.e. vivid
and descriptive adjectives (Nash, 1989; Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005).
3 At this point I wish to draw our attention to the significance of language and its social context in the
process of discourse analysis. I advocate a view that language does not exist in isolation. Fairclough
(1989/2001, 1992/2008) in his framework for the textual analysis of discourse or critical discourse
analysis explicates that no analysis is reliable without careful examination of three dimensions: tex-
tual, discursive and social. Van Dijk (1998), in turn, stresses that language users in a communicative
act rely on social acts, participate in a form of dialogue, which cannot be isolated from social and cul-
tural context. Finally, Bourdieu (2008) highlights that language does not exist for its own sake, lan-
guage is determined by the relation it bears with the speakers who bring it into use and who possess
language competence, therefore to interact the whole social structure is required.
the standpoint, the prejudices the persuader holds are unveiled. Ergo at
this point we return to the interdependence of thought, feeling, and lan-
guage (and its social context).3
Following Cicero and Quintilian (1920), vivid and graphic language
appears to be a persuasive factor, enabling the actualisation of emotions.
The above-mentioned authors use energeia and fantasia to influence the
hearer, energeia renders clarity, fantasia imagination. A subsequent fac-
tor carrying a highly persuasive aim, somewhat different than the above
one, is the use of abstract concepts, such as honour, patriotism, or justice.
The orator making use of the cited concepts may move the audience sub-
stantially by alluding to the topics they regard highly. Such a strategy re-
sorts to the individual strongly-held beliefs and values, which assure the
audience of the truthfulness of the persuader and arouse greater confi-
dence in him. Again, we revert to the pragmatic concept of face, in the
aforesaid example we can perceive positive face realised by claiming com-
mon ground, the approval of each other, shared wants and shared knowl-
edge, and reciprocity of obligations (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 62).
Finally, it should be borne in mind that playing on pathos can either
facilitate the understanding of a logical argument, helping to acknowl-
edge it, or obscure the logical judgement of an argument advanced by the
persuader. The persuader wishing to be effective in the art of persuasion
must acquire all skills indispensable in influencing the audience, should
monitor the response, converge with beliefs and convictions of the au-
dience, reverse his own standpoint, if required. It becomes clear that
the persuader must acquire psycholinguistic knowledge, i.e. the com-
plexities of the human character, so as to rate the responses of the audi-
ence and shape them effectively. All the ploys stated above are realised
by means of language, which occupies a paramount role. Pathos is actu-
alised with the help of argument and repetition, together with stylistic
structures, such as antithesis, metaphors and rhythmic patterns, syntac-
tic structures, i.e. fronting, word order, interrogatives, and lexis, i.e. vivid
and descriptive adjectives (Nash, 1989; Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005).
3 At this point I wish to draw our attention to the significance of language and its social context in the
process of discourse analysis. I advocate a view that language does not exist in isolation. Fairclough
(1989/2001, 1992/2008) in his framework for the textual analysis of discourse or critical discourse
analysis explicates that no analysis is reliable without careful examination of three dimensions: tex-
tual, discursive and social. Van Dijk (1998), in turn, stresses that language users in a communicative
act rely on social acts, participate in a form of dialogue, which cannot be isolated from social and cul-
tural context. Finally, Bourdieu (2008) highlights that language does not exist for its own sake, lan-
guage is determined by the relation it bears with the speakers who bring it into use and who possess
language competence, therefore to interact the whole social structure is required.
