Pre-election TV debates – persuasive games between ethos, logos, and pathos
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.
References (28)
References
Aristotle. 1926. The Art of Rhetoric, trans. by John H. Freese. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Barłowska, Maria. 2008. “Amplifikacja retoryczna.” In Retoryka, ed. by Maria Barłowska, Agnieszka Budzyńska-Daca, and Piotr Wilczek, 98–115. Warszawa: PWN.
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.
Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka. 2011. “Debaty konkursowe i telewizyjne debaty przedwyborcze – problemy dispositio w dwóch realizacjach gatunkowych.” Forum Artis Rhetoricae 2: 139–155.
Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka. 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.
Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka. 2012. “Idea debaty a reguły interakcji w formatach polskich telewizyjnych debat przedwyborczych.” Studia Medioznawcze 1: 45–59.
Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka, and Jacek Kwosek. 2009. Erystyka czyli o sztuce prowadzenia sporów. Komentarze do Schopenhauera. Warszawa: PWN.
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.
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.
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.
Kennedy, George A. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kennedy, George A. 1969. Quintilian. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc..
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.
Lausberg, Heinrich. 2002. Retoryka literacka. Podstawy wiedzy o literaturze, transl. by Albert Gorzkowski. Bydgoszcz: Homini.
MacIntyre, Alisdair. 1996. Dziedzictwo cnoty: studium z teorii moralności, transl. by Adam Chmielewski. Warszawa: PWN.
Meyer, Michel, Manuel M. Carrilho, and Benoȋt Timmermans. 2010. Historia retoryki od Greków do dziś. Warszawa: Aletheia.
Miodunka, Władysław, and Adam Ropa. 1979. “Z zagadnień socjolingwistycznego opisu sytuacji. Na przykładzie sytuacji telewizyjnych.” Socjolingwistyka 2: 63–71.
Ong, Walter J. 1958. Ramus and Talon Inventory. Cambridge/ Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Perloff, Richard. M. 1998. Political Communication: Politics, Press, and Public in America. Mahwah, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Petty, Richard. E., and John. T. Cacioppo. 1996. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.
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.
Quintilian. 1958. Institutio Oratoria. Trans. H.E. Butler. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard UP
Vickers, Brian. 1998. In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Walton, Douglas. N. 1999. Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. N. 1998. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas. N. 2001. “Searching for the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem.” Argumentation 15 (2): 207–221.
Wisse, Jakob. 1989. Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Ziomek, Jerzy. 1990. Retoryka opisowa. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2016.
Interpersonal-Communication and Language-and-Social-Interaction Approaches to Studying Conflict.
TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage :32
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 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.