Page 369 - 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. 369
stakeholders in promotional genres:
a rhetorical perspective on marketing communication 369
do not adequately take into consideration the participants and the con-
text in which communication processes are created and live. Rigotti
and Cigada (2004: 23–56) point out that each communication act is an
event, in other words it is something that happens and that “touches” us,
“moves” us, changes us because we are interested in it. Meaning corre-
sponds to this change. Thus, a communication event is not simply a re-
lation between a signal and the participants, it is not a process of encod-
ing and decoding a message, but it is a continuous process of interpreta-
tion of the meaning of the message in relation to the whole situation in
which the communication event takes place.
In order to overcome the difficulties in understanding who are the
participants in the communication process of advertising, a more re-
fined model of the context of communication and the communicative
situation is needed. Particularly, more refined conceptual tools for the
description of the relationship between a text, its goal, and task (which,
according to the tradition of Ancient rhetoric, we call officium – cf. Gre-
co Morasso, 2009: 222 – and which relate to the notion of genre – cf.
Askehave and Swales, 2001) and the participants in the communication
are required.
Rigotti and Rocci’s (2006) model of communicative context (stem-
ming from pragmatic theories of verbal communication, particularly
from speech act theory; see figure 2) provides an adequate conceptual
framework. According to these scholars, communication context results
from the combination of an institutionalized component and an inter-
personal one:
Within the institutionalized component, activity types are seen as resulting
from the mapping of culturally shared interaction schemes onto an actual in-
teraction field (a social reality characterized by shared goals and mutual com-
mitments). As a result of the mapping, communicative flows and roles are
created. Within the interpersonal dimension, we distinguish between a rela-
tionship-based personal component and a communal component connected
with cultural identities. (Rigotti and Rocci, 2006: 155)
A communicative event such as, for instance, a print ad for training
shoes, is composed – in its institutional dimension – of an activity type
of promoting a pair of training shoes. Within this activity type we can
identify the market of shoes as the interaction field and advertising as
the interaction scheme. The personal component of the interpersonal di-
mension is, in the case of a print ad, sterile since it is unusual that poten-
tial consumers have had previous personal communicative interactions
a rhetorical perspective on marketing communication 369
do not adequately take into consideration the participants and the con-
text in which communication processes are created and live. Rigotti
and Cigada (2004: 23–56) point out that each communication act is an
event, in other words it is something that happens and that “touches” us,
“moves” us, changes us because we are interested in it. Meaning corre-
sponds to this change. Thus, a communication event is not simply a re-
lation between a signal and the participants, it is not a process of encod-
ing and decoding a message, but it is a continuous process of interpreta-
tion of the meaning of the message in relation to the whole situation in
which the communication event takes place.
In order to overcome the difficulties in understanding who are the
participants in the communication process of advertising, a more re-
fined model of the context of communication and the communicative
situation is needed. Particularly, more refined conceptual tools for the
description of the relationship between a text, its goal, and task (which,
according to the tradition of Ancient rhetoric, we call officium – cf. Gre-
co Morasso, 2009: 222 – and which relate to the notion of genre – cf.
Askehave and Swales, 2001) and the participants in the communication
are required.
Rigotti and Rocci’s (2006) model of communicative context (stem-
ming from pragmatic theories of verbal communication, particularly
from speech act theory; see figure 2) provides an adequate conceptual
framework. According to these scholars, communication context results
from the combination of an institutionalized component and an inter-
personal one:
Within the institutionalized component, activity types are seen as resulting
from the mapping of culturally shared interaction schemes onto an actual in-
teraction field (a social reality characterized by shared goals and mutual com-
mitments). As a result of the mapping, communicative flows and roles are
created. Within the interpersonal dimension, we distinguish between a rela-
tionship-based personal component and a communal component connected
with cultural identities. (Rigotti and Rocci, 2006: 155)
A communicative event such as, for instance, a print ad for training
shoes, is composed – in its institutional dimension – of an activity type
of promoting a pair of training shoes. Within this activity type we can
identify the market of shoes as the interaction field and advertising as
the interaction scheme. The personal component of the interpersonal di-
mension is, in the case of a print ad, sterile since it is unusual that poten-
tial consumers have had previous personal communicative interactions
