Cover not available
Article In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 13:3 (2024) ► pp.428–453

Presence-prominence effect in multimodal eco-discourse

Taking ecological public service advertisement as an example

 | Southwest University
 | Southwest University
The insufficient ecological awareness among the public is widely acknowledged as the fundamental cause of ecological crises. To address this issue, the present study incorporates the rhetorical concept of presence with the social psychological notion of prominence effect. The aim is to explore how ecological awareness is conveyed in multimodal discourse and then how it is transmitted to the audience through the presence of multimodal resources, using the ecological public service advertisement “BLUE” as a case study. To examine the prominence effect, interviews were conducted with 12 participants to investigate the influence of the prominent elements on the audience’s understandings. The findings reveal that the ecological awareness conveyed by multimodal resources in the selected material is “Green travel”. To promote this ecological awareness, various resources in the visual, auditory, and textual modalities, such as image displays, background colors, participants’ expressions, and gestures, are employed to achieve “presence”. These prominent elements, in turn, impact the audience’s understanding and reception of the conveyed ecological awareness. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the audience’s ecological awareness influences the prominence effect of elements designed for presence in the discourse, thereby impacting audiences’ understanding and response towards the eco-discourse, and for optimal impact, the elements emphasized in the presence of the discourse should align with the prominent elements to captivate the audience’s attention. Based on the analysis, a multidimensional model of presence-prominent effect of multimodal ecological discourse reception is proposed, and some implications for effective development of ecological awareness is then discussed.
Keywords: audience’s understanding, audience’s reception, ecological awareness, multimodal eco-discourse analysis, prominence effect, rhetorical presence
Article outline
  • 1.Research background
  • 2.Theoretical basis and research status
    • 2.1Presence-prominence effect
      • 2.1.1Rhetorical presence
      • 2.1.2Prominence effect
    • 2.2Research status of eco-discourse analysis
  • 3.Research method
    • 3.1Data sources
    • 3.2Analysis method and procedure
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1The presence of emphasized elements in each scene
      • 4.1.1Scene 1
      • 4.1.2Scene 2
    • 4.3Scene 3
    • 4.4Scene 4
    • 4.2The prominence effect on the audience
      • 4.2.1The prominence effect on the ecologically well-informed audience
        • 4.2.1.1Elements having a prominence effect in Scene 1
        • 4.2.1.2Elements having a prominence effect in Scene 2
          • 1.Dim background color
          • 2.The participant’s life story
          • 3.The participant’s physical features, expressions and language use
        • 4.2.1.3Elements having a prominence effect in Scene 3
        • 4.2.1.4Elements having a prominence effect in Scene 4
    • 4.3The prominence effect the ecologically uninformed audience
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Conclusion and implications
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (34)
References
Aristotle. 2007. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (2nd ed.). Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, William. L. & Smythe, J. Mary. 2003. “Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism.” Communication Studies 54(1): 96–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnkrant, Robert E., and Daniel J. Howard. 1984. “Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(6): 1218–1230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Sibo. 2016. “Selling the environment: green marketing discourse in China’s automobile advertising.” Discourse, Context and Media 121: 11–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Wenge, Tom Bartlett, and Huiling Peng. 2021. “The erasure of nature in the discourse of oil production: An enhanced eco-discourse analysis, Part 1.” Pragmatics and Society 12(1): 6–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, Margarita. 2020. “Representation of Rhetorical Presence in Virginia Woolf’s ‘Madame de Sévigné’.” Prague Journal of English Studies 9(1): 65–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delaney, David G., and Paul Slovic. 2019. “Countering the prominence effect: How US national security lawyers can fulfill non-prominent humanitarian objectives.” Journal of National Security Law & Policy (10): 45–93.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan. 2005. “Presence as argument in the public sphere.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35 (2): 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan, and Ray D. Dearin. 2003. Chaim Perelman. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Daniel J. 1990. Rhetorical question effects on message processing and persuasion: The role of information availability and the elicitation of judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 26(3): 217–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Guowen. (黄国文). 2016. “The birth and the development of ecolinguistics.” Foreign Languages in China 1: 1, 9–12. [2016. 生态语言学的兴起与发展.《中国外语》(1): 11, 9–12.]Google Scholar
Huang, Guowen, and Ruihua Zhao. “Harmonious discourse analysis: Approaching peoples’ problems in a Chinese context.” Language Sciences 851 (2021): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karon, Louise A. 1976. “Presence in ‘The New Rhetoric’.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 9(2): 96–111.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Charles, and Donn W. Parson. 1990. “Metaphor and presence in argument.” In Argumentation theory and the rhetoric of assent, ed. by David C. Williams and Michael D. Hazen, 91–102. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed). London: Routledge Farmer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leroux, R. Neil. 1992. “Perceiving Rhetorical Style: Toward a Framework for Criticism.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 41: 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maaravi, Yossi, and Ben Heller. 2020. “Studying the prominence effect amid the COVID-19 crisis: Implications for public health policy decision-making.” F1000Research (9): 1356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maaravi, Yossi, and Boaz Hameiri. 2019. “Deep pockets and poor results: The effect of wealth cues on first offers in negotiation.” Group Decis Negot 28(1): 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, Carmen D. 2011. “Communicating business greening and greenwashing in global media: A multimodal discourse analysis of CNN’s greenwashing video.” The International Communication Gazette 73(1–2): 165–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marunowski, Kenneth R. 2006. “The Euro: A Multimodal Study in Presence.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent State University.
Murphy, John M. 1994. “Presence, Analogy, and Earth in the Balance.” Argumentation and Advocacy 11: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newell, Fiona N. 2004. “Cross-modal object recognition.” In The handbook of multisensory processes, ed. Gemma A. Calvert, Charles Spence and Barry E. Stein, 123–139. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olthof, Jelte. 2021. “Projecting a Future Present: Greta Thunberg’s use of Presence at the United Nations Climate Action Summit 2019.” Res Rhetorica 8 (1):67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Persson, Emil, Arvid Erlandsson, Paul Slovic, Daniel Västfjäll, and Gustav Tinghög. 2022. “The Prominence Effect in Health-Care Priority Setting.” Judgment and Decision Making 17(6): 1379–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Remley, Dirk. 2017. The Neuroscience of Multimodal Persuasive Messages: Persuading the Brain. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Royce, Terry. 2002. “Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy.” TESOL Quarterly 36(2): 191–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, Wolfgang. 2005. “Integrated modality of text and picture comprehension.” In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, ed. Richard. E. Mayer, 49–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shams, Ladan, Yukiyasu Kamitani, and Shinsuke Shimojo. 2004. “Modulations of visual perception by sound.” In The handbook of multisensory processes, ed. Gemma A. Calvert, Charles Spence and Barry E. Stein, 27–33. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slovic, Paul. 1975. “Choice between equally valued alternatives”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11: 280–287.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Risk Perception and Risk Analysis in a Hyperpartisan and Virtuously Violent World.” Risk analysis 40(S1): 2231–2239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stibbe, Arran. 2015. Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic. 1988. “Contingent weighting in judgment and choice.” Psychological Review 95(3): 371–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Hoven, Paul J. 2011. “Iconicity in visual and verbal argumentation.” In Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation Proceedings, ed. Frans H. van Emeren, 831–834. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar