Page 219 - 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. 219
rhetoric – martial art or the art of winning
the soul by discourse? 219
(15) Bronisław Komorowski: [...] I will not file a report to the Prime Minis-
ter [...]
4. Conclusion
In every discourse where persuasion is the primary goal we observe
the co-existence of the structural principles: ethos, pathos and logos. The
type of interaction, personality, stance, as well as emotional appeal may
determine the choice of arguments. Conversely, the choice of arguments
may reflect the influence arguments exert on emotions and standpoint
adopted by the persuader. The process is simultaneous. Quintilian (quot-
ed in Dixon, 1971: 25) maintained that every aspect of speech enhances
character: the tone reveals the orator’s good will towards the audience,
the ordering of arguments reflects his/her intelligence and sense of val-
ues, while the feelings expressed embody the goodness of his/her heart.
Ergo the orator should be able to comprehend psychology, know the val-
ues of the audience and respond to them effectively and truthfully.
Tactics employed by the speaker include postulating the irrelevance
of the opponent’s argument, by showing its ambiguity, inconsistency or
preposterousness. In effective persuasion the issue, the arguments and
their relevance must stand in line since an attentive hearer will perceive
any incoherence and lack of cohesion upon which they are grounded.
Correspondingly, the more the persuader understands his audience, the
more s/he will be compelling.
According to classical rhetoric, all the arguments are or can be po-
lar opposites, “either/or”, hence they can limit a free mind. The com-
position, structurally controlled, systematised and classified, may cramp
a free development of ideas. Aristotelian rhetoric offers a form of argu-
ment, not a compromise, agony being its aim (Dixon, 197; Budzyńs-
ka-Daca, 2008). The language of politics appears to draw interest from
that rhetoric, in which it has inexorably settled, for the aim of the politi-
cal discourse is tantamount to that of rhetoric, even if it has, in the opin-
ion of its opponents, become morally suspect, “the art of the purple pas-
sage and the debating trick, language masquerading as thought” (Dix-
on, 1971: 1–2, 70), language used so as to “influence, persuade, perhaps
to exhort and instruct”, language used to manipulate, language requir-
ing consummate skills.
In sum, on one hand, we can defend a position adopted by Cap
(2005, 2006, quoted in Skowrońska, 2010), who upholds that “skilful
use of language is not only an asset, but a must in legitimization” of pol-
itics, “broadly defined as the ultimate goal sought by politicians”. On
the soul by discourse? 219
(15) Bronisław Komorowski: [...] I will not file a report to the Prime Minis-
ter [...]
4. Conclusion
In every discourse where persuasion is the primary goal we observe
the co-existence of the structural principles: ethos, pathos and logos. The
type of interaction, personality, stance, as well as emotional appeal may
determine the choice of arguments. Conversely, the choice of arguments
may reflect the influence arguments exert on emotions and standpoint
adopted by the persuader. The process is simultaneous. Quintilian (quot-
ed in Dixon, 1971: 25) maintained that every aspect of speech enhances
character: the tone reveals the orator’s good will towards the audience,
the ordering of arguments reflects his/her intelligence and sense of val-
ues, while the feelings expressed embody the goodness of his/her heart.
Ergo the orator should be able to comprehend psychology, know the val-
ues of the audience and respond to them effectively and truthfully.
Tactics employed by the speaker include postulating the irrelevance
of the opponent’s argument, by showing its ambiguity, inconsistency or
preposterousness. In effective persuasion the issue, the arguments and
their relevance must stand in line since an attentive hearer will perceive
any incoherence and lack of cohesion upon which they are grounded.
Correspondingly, the more the persuader understands his audience, the
more s/he will be compelling.
According to classical rhetoric, all the arguments are or can be po-
lar opposites, “either/or”, hence they can limit a free mind. The com-
position, structurally controlled, systematised and classified, may cramp
a free development of ideas. Aristotelian rhetoric offers a form of argu-
ment, not a compromise, agony being its aim (Dixon, 197; Budzyńs-
ka-Daca, 2008). The language of politics appears to draw interest from
that rhetoric, in which it has inexorably settled, for the aim of the politi-
cal discourse is tantamount to that of rhetoric, even if it has, in the opin-
ion of its opponents, become morally suspect, “the art of the purple pas-
sage and the debating trick, language masquerading as thought” (Dix-
on, 1971: 1–2, 70), language used so as to “influence, persuade, perhaps
to exhort and instruct”, language used to manipulate, language requir-
ing consummate skills.
In sum, on one hand, we can defend a position adopted by Cap
(2005, 2006, quoted in Skowrońska, 2010), who upholds that “skilful
use of language is not only an asset, but a must in legitimization” of pol-
itics, “broadly defined as the ultimate goal sought by politicians”. On
