Page 73 - 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. 73
he linguistic-discursive creation of the speaker’s ethos for the
sake of persuasion: a key aspect of rhetoric and argumentation 73
ing a question (Meyer, 2008: 11).3 When taking this into account, it is
perfectly coherent to consider argumentation as part of rhetoric as the
overall goal of argumentation is also to reduce the distance between in-
dividuals concerning a question (Meyer, 2008: 16). No matter whether
rhetoric and argumentation are considered different, similar or the same
domains, ethos is a key factor for both of them, and as a matter of fact it
constitutes the starting point for argumentative and/or rhetorical strate-
gies. However, before dealing with the very issue of ethos, its nature and
its function, we will briefly touch upon the matter of persuasion as the
main objective of argumentative and/or rhetorical strategies.
2.2. The Question of Persuasion
Persuade derives from Latin persuadere, per indicating the ac-
complishment of something and suadere, suasus from Sanskrit sva-
dus, to instigate someone to do something (cf. TLIO; Pianigiani). Per-
suasion as opposed to orders or proposals operates indirectly, as the ad-
dressee is not explicitly asked to do or to believe something (Maingue-
neau, 1991: 228). It is the addressee himself or herself who draws the re-
spective conclusions without mostly realizing that he or she has been
prepared to do so by being familiarized with the premises leading him
or her to draw that conclusion. However, it is not only the premises lead-
ing to a certain conclusion which constitute the persuasive part of a text.
Every word as part of an utterance is argumentative as every utterance
instigates the addressee to see, believe and act differently than before
being addressed (Plantin, 1996). The addressee integrates the new piece
of information into his or her stock of information and then interre-
lates it with other pieces of pertinent information and thus eventually
gains new insights. Hence, merely by being informed of no matter what,
the addressee’s cognitive state changes. Some new information is added,
some old belief is cancelled, or some existing attitudes are modified and
all of this brings about a change in the addressee’s cognitive state.4 Per-
ception is selective and the transmission of information is necessarily se-
lective as well. For this simple reason every speech act is latently or po-
tentially persuasive. It is only persuasive though, if the information is in-
tentionally transmitted for the sake of bringing about a change in the
addressee’s attitude. Otherwise we’d rather speak of unconscious influ-
ence. In practice it is obviously difficult to clearly separate one from the
3 “La rhétorique est la négociation de la distance entre les individus à propos d’une question” (Meyer,
2008: 11).
4 In Relevance Theory these are the so-called positive cognitive effects (cf. Sperber and Wilson, 1986)
sake of persuasion: a key aspect of rhetoric and argumentation 73
ing a question (Meyer, 2008: 11).3 When taking this into account, it is
perfectly coherent to consider argumentation as part of rhetoric as the
overall goal of argumentation is also to reduce the distance between in-
dividuals concerning a question (Meyer, 2008: 16). No matter whether
rhetoric and argumentation are considered different, similar or the same
domains, ethos is a key factor for both of them, and as a matter of fact it
constitutes the starting point for argumentative and/or rhetorical strate-
gies. However, before dealing with the very issue of ethos, its nature and
its function, we will briefly touch upon the matter of persuasion as the
main objective of argumentative and/or rhetorical strategies.
2.2. The Question of Persuasion
Persuade derives from Latin persuadere, per indicating the ac-
complishment of something and suadere, suasus from Sanskrit sva-
dus, to instigate someone to do something (cf. TLIO; Pianigiani). Per-
suasion as opposed to orders or proposals operates indirectly, as the ad-
dressee is not explicitly asked to do or to believe something (Maingue-
neau, 1991: 228). It is the addressee himself or herself who draws the re-
spective conclusions without mostly realizing that he or she has been
prepared to do so by being familiarized with the premises leading him
or her to draw that conclusion. However, it is not only the premises lead-
ing to a certain conclusion which constitute the persuasive part of a text.
Every word as part of an utterance is argumentative as every utterance
instigates the addressee to see, believe and act differently than before
being addressed (Plantin, 1996). The addressee integrates the new piece
of information into his or her stock of information and then interre-
lates it with other pieces of pertinent information and thus eventually
gains new insights. Hence, merely by being informed of no matter what,
the addressee’s cognitive state changes. Some new information is added,
some old belief is cancelled, or some existing attitudes are modified and
all of this brings about a change in the addressee’s cognitive state.4 Per-
ception is selective and the transmission of information is necessarily se-
lective as well. For this simple reason every speech act is latently or po-
tentially persuasive. It is only persuasive though, if the information is in-
tentionally transmitted for the sake of bringing about a change in the
addressee’s attitude. Otherwise we’d rather speak of unconscious influ-
ence. In practice it is obviously difficult to clearly separate one from the
3 “La rhétorique est la négociation de la distance entre les individus à propos d’une question” (Meyer,
2008: 11).
4 In Relevance Theory these are the so-called positive cognitive effects (cf. Sperber and Wilson, 1986)
