Page 215 - 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. 215
rhetoric – martial art or the art of winning
the soul by discourse? 215
positional, degree, testimony, genus/species, part/whole, associational, and
root meaning.
The definition model of argument implies that the speaker or writer
makes use of the general category so as to move to the unique feature of
a point discussed. Thus, in a persuasive discourse every definition might
incite a counter-definition. The cause and effect model embodies an in-
tegral part of a persuasive process, both in literary and functional dis-
course, although it takes a different form in each of them. In the lan-
guage of politicians, which is our central focus, it is effect-centred, since
the said ploy seems to be more convincing. Nonetheless, it is not devoid
of predicaments (e.g. oversimplification, disproportion etc.) Cockcroft
and Cockcroft (ibid.) identify three processes of cause and effect, the
first being a simple cause producing a simple effect, the second a complex
cause producing a simple effect, the last one a complex cause producing
a complex effect. We need to accentuate that the cause and effect model is
grounded in the dialectical process. Comparison and parallelism emerge
to be the key issues of the similarity model of argument. The oppositional
model, on the other hand, depicts contradictory motifs. We can enumer-
ate a few sub-varieties of the model: contraries, contradictions, privatives
and relatives. Similarly to the cause and effect model, the aforementioned
model of argument is present in a dialectical process, involving two-way
interaction, not infrequent in the language of politicians, in which one
thread of thinking is adopted ruling out at the same time the other one.
Such an argument lies at the basis of provocation. The degree model of ar-
gument constitutes the third common topos referred to in political rheto-
ric by Aristotle, together with the similarity and oppositional models. It
rests upon constant dynamics, desirability of a goal, instrumental means
of achieving it (ibid.). The subsequent type, i.e. the testimony model, is
founded on the credibility of a witness, as a consequence it is considered
as one of the weakest topics. The testimony model is to be encountered
in television broadcasts, notably political interviews, for its declarative
function, in which the political figures display their loyalty and support
for a particular standpoint or a political party or offers certain instruc-
tion, hence it often acts as an ideological weapon. The genus/species type
of argument carries an interactional function, in which the speakers af-
ter initiating a discussion, making a statement, refute each other’s argu-
ments, moving from genus to species, or further to sub-species. The part/
whole model appears to correspond to the previous model of argument.
What differentiates it from the former is that the genus/species can exist
the soul by discourse? 215
positional, degree, testimony, genus/species, part/whole, associational, and
root meaning.
The definition model of argument implies that the speaker or writer
makes use of the general category so as to move to the unique feature of
a point discussed. Thus, in a persuasive discourse every definition might
incite a counter-definition. The cause and effect model embodies an in-
tegral part of a persuasive process, both in literary and functional dis-
course, although it takes a different form in each of them. In the lan-
guage of politicians, which is our central focus, it is effect-centred, since
the said ploy seems to be more convincing. Nonetheless, it is not devoid
of predicaments (e.g. oversimplification, disproportion etc.) Cockcroft
and Cockcroft (ibid.) identify three processes of cause and effect, the
first being a simple cause producing a simple effect, the second a complex
cause producing a simple effect, the last one a complex cause producing
a complex effect. We need to accentuate that the cause and effect model is
grounded in the dialectical process. Comparison and parallelism emerge
to be the key issues of the similarity model of argument. The oppositional
model, on the other hand, depicts contradictory motifs. We can enumer-
ate a few sub-varieties of the model: contraries, contradictions, privatives
and relatives. Similarly to the cause and effect model, the aforementioned
model of argument is present in a dialectical process, involving two-way
interaction, not infrequent in the language of politicians, in which one
thread of thinking is adopted ruling out at the same time the other one.
Such an argument lies at the basis of provocation. The degree model of ar-
gument constitutes the third common topos referred to in political rheto-
ric by Aristotle, together with the similarity and oppositional models. It
rests upon constant dynamics, desirability of a goal, instrumental means
of achieving it (ibid.). The subsequent type, i.e. the testimony model, is
founded on the credibility of a witness, as a consequence it is considered
as one of the weakest topics. The testimony model is to be encountered
in television broadcasts, notably political interviews, for its declarative
function, in which the political figures display their loyalty and support
for a particular standpoint or a political party or offers certain instruc-
tion, hence it often acts as an ideological weapon. The genus/species type
of argument carries an interactional function, in which the speakers af-
ter initiating a discussion, making a statement, refute each other’s argu-
ments, moving from genus to species, or further to sub-species. The part/
whole model appears to correspond to the previous model of argument.
What differentiates it from the former is that the genus/species can exist
