Part of
Persuasive Games in Political and Professional DialogueEdited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 1–18
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 1–18
Persuasion or the integration of grammar and rhetoric
The term persuasion attracts the interest of both linguists and rhetoricians. Traditionally grammar and rhetoric have been conceived of as separate disciplines. The paper starts by clarifying the concept of persuasion and defines it as the attempt to exert influence on the interlocutor in a way which is favourable to the speaker. Human beings want to be accepted; they are by their very nature persuasive beings. Then the question is posed how such a kind of meaning is expressed in the dialogic action game. Authentic examples are analysed which demonstrate that there are multiple communicative means which are used to influence the interlocutor in the interest of the speaker. They range from the power of words to cognitive means based on emotions. Persuasion is revealed as a variable of performance which requires a holistic model of dialogic interaction or the integration of grammar and rhetoric in order to be adequately described. The Mixed Game Model is introduced as such a model which is capable of describing human beings’ competence-in-performance as persuasive beings.
References
Burke, Kenneth
1950 A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Damasio, Antonio
2000 The Feeling of What Happens. Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage.
Gell-Mann, Murray
1994 The Quark and the Jaguar. Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. London: Abacus.
Iacoboni, Marco
2008 Mirroring People. The New Science of How We Connect with Others. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Lausberg, Heinrich
2000 Elemente der Literarischen Rhetorik. München: Hueber.
Perelman, Chaïm
1977 L’empire Rhétorique. Rhétorique et Argumentation. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ramachandran, Vilayanur
2003 The Emerging Mind. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Rapaille, Clotaire
2007 The Culture Code. An Ingenious Way to Understand Why People Around the World Buy and Live as They Do. New York: Broadway Books.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Michael A. Arbib
1998 “Language within Our Grasp.” Trends in Neurosciences 21 (5): 188–194. 
Simon, Herbert A
1983 Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Toulmin, Stephen
2001 Return to Reason. Cambridge/ Mass., London: Harvard University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser
1999 “Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse.” Discourse Studies 1: 479–497.
Weigand, Edda
2002 “Constitutive Features of Human Dialogic Interaction: Mirror Neurons and What They Tell Us About Human Abilities.” In Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, ed. by Maxim Stamenov, and Vittorio Gallese, 229–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2006 “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation 20 (1): 59–87.
2009 Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability, ed. by Sebastian Feller. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Agyekum, Kofi
2017. The language of Akan herbal drug sellers and advertisers. Language and Dialogue 7:3 ► pp. 360 ff. 
Kayam, Orly
Săftoiu, Răzvan & Adrian Toader
2018. The persuasive use of pronouns in action games of election campaigns. Language and Dialogue 8:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Weigand, Edda
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.