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 (17)
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.
(ed). 2008. Dialogue and Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2009. Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability, ed. by Sebastian Feller. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
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. 
Agyekum, Kofi
2017. The language of Akan herbal drug sellers and advertisers. Language and Dialogue 7:3 ► pp. 360 ff.
Weigand, Edda
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.