Article published in:
Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 39–54

Pre-election TV debates – persuasive games between ethos, logos, and pathos

| University of Warsaw (Poland)
| University of Warsaw (Poland)
This article presents argumentation in pre-electoral TV debates. Three debate cycles are analyzed – in Poland (2010), Great Britain (2010), and the United States (2008). They represent an example of a ritual dispute marked by the format or rhetorical order – dispositio – governing the persuasive discourse taking place in the TV micro-situation. A macro-situation applies to the communication between politicians and electors which involves different argumentation. It can be divided into central (logos) and peripheral (pathos and ethos). The authors analyze these types of argumentation. What is more, a difference between ad rem, ad hominem and ad auditores arguments is described. The debate format as well as the factual/eristic argumentation techniques used to build one’s ethos are depicted.
Published online: 01 October 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.03bud
References
Aristotle
1926 The Art of Rhetoric, trans. by John H. Freese. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barłowska, Maria
2008 “Amplifikacja retoryczna.” In Retoryka, ed. by Maria Barłowska, Agnieszka Budzyńska-Daca, and Piotr Wilczek, 98–115. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd F
1999/1968 “The Rhetorical Situation”. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1–14. Rpt., ed. by John Louis Lucaites, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally Caudill, Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. A Reader, 217–225. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka
2011 “Debaty konkursowe i telewizyjne debaty przedwyborcze – problemy dispositio w dwóch realizacjach gatunkowych.” Forum Artis Rhetoricae 2: 139–155.Google Scholar
2012 “Format from the Rhetorical Perspective –Principles of the Polish Pre-electoral TV Debates in 1995-2010.” In Rhetoric and Politics. Central/ Eastern European Perspectives, ed. by Maria Załęska, 264–282. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2012 “Idea debaty a reguły interakcji w formatach polskich telewizyjnych debat przedwyborczych.” Studia Medioznawcze 1: 45–59.Google Scholar
Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka, and Jacek Kwosek
2009 Erystyka czyli o sztuce prowadzenia sporów. Komentarze do Schopenhauera. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Coleman, Stephen
2000 “Meaningful Political Debate in the Age of the Soundbite.” In Televised Election Debates: International Perspectives, ed. by Stephen Coleman, 1–24. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Friedenberg, Robert V
1997 “Patterns and Trends in National Political Debates: 1960-1996.” In Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates - 1996, ed. by Robert V. Friedenberg, 61–91. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Garver, Eugene
2000 “ Ethos and Argument: the Ethos of the Speaker and the Ethos of the Audience.” In Papers on Rhetoric III, ed. by Lucia Calboli Montefusco, 113–126. Bologna: CLUEB.Google Scholar
Kennedy, George A
1972 The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
1969 Quintilian. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
Kinneavy, James L., and Susan C. Warshauer
1994 “From Aristotle to Madison Avenue: Ethos and the Ethics of Argument.” In Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, ed. by James S. Baumlin, and Tita French Baumlin, 171–190. Dallas: Tex.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich
2002 Retoryka literacka. Podstawy wiedzy o literaturze, transl. by Albert Gorzkowski. Bydgoszcz: Homini.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alisdair
1996 Dziedzictwo cnoty: studium z teorii moralności, transl. by Adam Chmielewski. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Meyer, Michel, Manuel M. Carrilho, and Benoȋt Timmermans
2010 Historia retoryki od Greków do dziś. Warszawa: Aletheia.Google Scholar
Miodunka, Władysław, and Adam Ropa
1979 “Z zagadnień socjolingwistycznego opisu sytuacji. Na przykładzie sytuacji telewizyjnych.” Socjolingwistyka 2: 63–71.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J
1958 Ramus and Talon Inventory. Cambridge/ Mass.: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perloff, Richard. M
1998 Political Communication: Politics, Press, and Public in America. Mahwah, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard. E., and John. T. Cacioppo
1996 Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard. E., and John T. Cacioppo
1984 “The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 69–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quintilian
1958 Institutio Oratoria. Trans. H.E. Butler. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard UPGoogle Scholar
Vickers, Brian
1998 In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. N
1999 Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
1998 Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
2001 “Searching for the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem.” Argumentation 15 (2): 207–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wisse, Jakob
1989 Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Ziomek, Jerzy
1990 Retoryka opisowa. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2016. Confrontation and collaboration in the course of the election debate. Language and Dialogue 6:3 ► pp. 370 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. 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.