Page 70 - 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. 70
What Do We Know about the World?
sented by the sender (Breton, 2008: 9; Danblon, 2005: 13). The process
of persuasion is multi-layered and occurs in a series of steps. The starting
point and prerequisite for successful persuasion is the creation of a per-
suasive and/or convincing ethos on the part of the sender at the begin-
ning of the rhetorical/argumentative commitment. In order to see the
question of the creation of ethos in a more comprehensive context, we
should like to first deal with the question concerning the possible differ-
ences between rhetoric and argumentation; second, with the phenome-
non of persuasion; third, with the role of ethos in rhetorical and argu-
mentative discourse; and fourth, with the multi-layered phenomenon of
the linguistic-discursive creation of ethos in rhetoric and argumentation.
After the theoretical introduction there will be an applied part to illus-
trate how the linguistic-discursive creation works in concrete political
speeches. The four speeches which will serve as corpus for our analyses
were given by Mussolini between 1921 and 1941. The first of them was
delivered on April 3rd 1921 during the inaugural ceremony at the first en-
counter of the Fasci dell’Emilia e della Romagna (Mussolini, 1921: 239,
footnote). The second speech was given at the Teatro Sociale in Udine on
September 20th 1922 on the occasion of the encounter of the Fasci Fri-
ulani di Combattimento (Mussolini, 1922: 411, footnote). On Septem-
ber 18th 1938 Mussolini talked to the Triestines in the Piazza dell’Unità
of their city Trieste (Mussolini, 1938: 144, footnote). And with the last
of the four speeches, which serve us as corpus here, Mussolini addressed
the hierarchies of the Roman Fascists at the Teatro Adriano in Rome on
February 23rd 1941 (Mussolini, 1941: 49, footnote). The topics Mussolini
dealt with in the quotations of these four speeches concern Fascist con-
victions, policies and ideological principles as we will see in part three.
Rhetoric and argumentation are occasionally used as synonyms, yet
sometimes as quite distinct disciplines or approaches to discourse. We
will have a quick glance at this ambiguity from a historical point of view.
Concerning the issue of persuasion we will briefly retrace the etymolog-
ical path of the term and then try to grasp the very nature of the phe-
nomenon. The question of the nature of ethos on the one hand and the
function of ethos in discourse on the other hand is our third topic. As is
commonly known, the concepts of ethos, pathos and logos stem from one
of Aristotle’s magna opera Rhetoric (Aristoteles 2010) from the fourth
century B.C. in which rhetoric is treated as τέχνη, téchnē, which means
art. This suggests that Aristotle already conceptualised the emergence of
ethos in discourse as the result of an artful strategy. When talking about
ethos nowadays it has to be verified whether it still and always stands for
sented by the sender (Breton, 2008: 9; Danblon, 2005: 13). The process
of persuasion is multi-layered and occurs in a series of steps. The starting
point and prerequisite for successful persuasion is the creation of a per-
suasive and/or convincing ethos on the part of the sender at the begin-
ning of the rhetorical/argumentative commitment. In order to see the
question of the creation of ethos in a more comprehensive context, we
should like to first deal with the question concerning the possible differ-
ences between rhetoric and argumentation; second, with the phenome-
non of persuasion; third, with the role of ethos in rhetorical and argu-
mentative discourse; and fourth, with the multi-layered phenomenon of
the linguistic-discursive creation of ethos in rhetoric and argumentation.
After the theoretical introduction there will be an applied part to illus-
trate how the linguistic-discursive creation works in concrete political
speeches. The four speeches which will serve as corpus for our analyses
were given by Mussolini between 1921 and 1941. The first of them was
delivered on April 3rd 1921 during the inaugural ceremony at the first en-
counter of the Fasci dell’Emilia e della Romagna (Mussolini, 1921: 239,
footnote). The second speech was given at the Teatro Sociale in Udine on
September 20th 1922 on the occasion of the encounter of the Fasci Fri-
ulani di Combattimento (Mussolini, 1922: 411, footnote). On Septem-
ber 18th 1938 Mussolini talked to the Triestines in the Piazza dell’Unità
of their city Trieste (Mussolini, 1938: 144, footnote). And with the last
of the four speeches, which serve us as corpus here, Mussolini addressed
the hierarchies of the Roman Fascists at the Teatro Adriano in Rome on
February 23rd 1941 (Mussolini, 1941: 49, footnote). The topics Mussolini
dealt with in the quotations of these four speeches concern Fascist con-
victions, policies and ideological principles as we will see in part three.
Rhetoric and argumentation are occasionally used as synonyms, yet
sometimes as quite distinct disciplines or approaches to discourse. We
will have a quick glance at this ambiguity from a historical point of view.
Concerning the issue of persuasion we will briefly retrace the etymolog-
ical path of the term and then try to grasp the very nature of the phe-
nomenon. The question of the nature of ethos on the one hand and the
function of ethos in discourse on the other hand is our third topic. As is
commonly known, the concepts of ethos, pathos and logos stem from one
of Aristotle’s magna opera Rhetoric (Aristoteles 2010) from the fourth
century B.C. in which rhetoric is treated as τέχνη, téchnē, which means
art. This suggests that Aristotle already conceptualised the emergence of
ethos in discourse as the result of an artful strategy. When talking about
ethos nowadays it has to be verified whether it still and always stands for
