Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 11:3 (2020) ► pp.391–414

Communicative problems in Boeing’s advertisement campaign for the combat aircraft Super Hornet

| Roskilde University
| Roskilde University
This article focuses on an advertisement campaign run in Danish national newspapers promoting Boeing’s combat aircraft F 18 Super Hornet. The campaign received extensive media attention due to its scale and unconventional methods. On the basis of pragmatic text analysis we describe three features in the advertisements: Genre problems, a controversial depiction of sender and recipient, and problems relating to argumentation. We conclude that (1) the analyzed text is predominantly commercial in intent, although framed as information by a sender position that is partly ambiguous in terms of identity, and (2) the campaign’s main arguments are flawed, since decisive justification is not accessible. Based on the findings, the conclusion suggests that the campaign is best understood as a hybrid between public relations and public affairs.
Keywords: advertisement campaign, genre, argumentation, reframing, public relations, public affairs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Public relations as rhetorical communication practice
  • 3.From public relations to public affairs
    • Expectations of genre are exploited in order to mislead the recipient
    • Unclear presentation of sender and recipient
    • Evidence is not provided
  • 4.Genre is exploited in order to mislead
  • 5.Description of the advertisement’s genre
    • 5.1 Rhetorical context
    • 5.2 Sender and recipient positions
    • 5.3 Sender’s purpose and the macro speech act of the text
    • 5.4 Forms of presentation
    • 5.5 Is the text appropriate to the situation?
  • 6.When rational justification fails
    • 6.1Five acts of reframing
      • Reframing of the campaign as a debate
      • The ad’s commercial arguments are reframed as attitudes in a debate
      • The reader is reframed as a participant in a direct democracy
      • The company is reframed as a responsible agent in the public sphere
      • The campaign is reframed as a legitimate political process
    • 6.2Teleological argument fields
  • 7.The argument data are inaccessible
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17020.kja
References (40)
References
Andersen, Kim Jong. 2016. “Boeing sælger død på vinger [Boeing sells death on wings]”. Kommunikationsforum.dk/artikler/Boeings-kampflys-kampagne-er-uetisk (Accessed August 13. 2019)Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1994. “Systems of Genres and the Enactment of social Intentions”. In Genre and the new rhetoric, ed. by A. Freedman and P. Medway, 79–101. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. In C. N. Candlin, ed., Applied Linguistics and Language Study. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2010. “Interdiscursivity in Professional Communication.” Discourse & Communication 4 (1): 32–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumler, J. G., and M. Gurevitch. 2000. “Rethinking the study of political communication”. In Mass media and society, ed. by J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (3rd ed.), 155–172. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Brummett, Barry. 1995. “Scandalous Rhetorics.” In Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism: Case Studies of Corporate Discourse and Social Influence, ed. by William N. Elwood, 13–24. Westport, Conn. & London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Catenaccio, Paola. 2008. “Press Releases as a Hybrid Genre: Addressing the Informative/Promotional Conundrum.” Pragmatics 18 (1): 9–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Anna Mauranen. 1999. “Linguistic Analysis of Grant Proposals: European Union Research Grants.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crable, Richard E., and Steven L. Vibbert. 1995. “Mobil’s Epideictic Advocacy: “Observations” of Prometheus Bound.” In Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism, ed. by William N. Elwood, 27–46. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, Peter. 2005. “The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation.” Political Communication 221: 147–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elwood, William N. 1995. “Public Relations Is a Rhetorical Experience: The Integral Principle in Case Study Analysis.” In Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism: Case Studies of Corporate Discourse and Social Influence, ed. by William N. Elwood, 3–13. Westport, Conn. & London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frankel, Christian. 2004. “Indledning [Introduction].” In Virksomhedens politisering [The politicization of the enterprise], ed. by Christian Frankel, 9–28. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Geist, Uwe. 1996. “Etik og kommunikation [Ethics in communication].” In ETIK – fire artikler om etik i Public Relations [ETHICS – four articles on ethics in Public Relations], ed. by Uwe Geist and Pearson, 7–45. Roskilde: Skrifter fra Dansk og Public Relations, Roskilde Universitetscenter. (Also appeared in Mediekultur 24).Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [English translation 1989 by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.]Google Scholar
Heath, Robert L. 1992. “The Wrangle in the Marketplace: A Rhetorical Perspective of Public Relations.” In Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, ed. by Elizabeth Toth and Robert L. Heath. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2001. “A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organisation communicating well.” In Handbook of Public Relations, ed. by Robert L. Heath. Pp. xxx1. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2010. The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hoff-Clausen, Elisabeth. 2010. Online ethos. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Holmstrøm, Susanne. 2013. “Samfundstræk og hverdagspraksis – et sociologisk perspektiv på ændringer i legitimerende paradigmer [Features of society and everyday praxis – a sociological perspective on changes in legitimizing paradigms].” In Legitimitet under forandring. Virksomheden i samfundet [Legitimacy undergoing change. The enterprise in society], ed. by Susanne Holmstrøm and Susanne Kjærbeck, 27–60. Copenhagen, Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Holmström, Susanne. 2010. “Reflective Management. Seeing the Organization as if From Outside.” In The Sage Handbook of Public Relations, ed. by Robert L. Heath, 261–276. (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Holmstrøm, Susanne, and Susanne Kjærbeck. 2013. “Introduktion: Legitimitet under forandring [Introduction: Legitimacy undergoing change].” In Legitimitet under forandring. Virksomheden i samfundet [Legitimacy undergoing change. The enterprise in society], ed. by Susanne Holmstrøm and Susanne Kjærbeck, 9–26. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Ihlen, Øyvind. 2010. “The Cursed Sisters: Public Relations and Rhetoric.” In The Sage Handbook of Public Relations, ed. by Robert L. Heath. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2006. “Retorisk genreanalyse [Rhetorical genre analysis].” In Retorikkens aktualitet. Grundbog i retorisk kritik [The topicality of rhetoric. Handbook in rhetorical criticism], ed. by Hanne Roer and Marie Lund Klujeff, 85–114. Copenhagen: Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 701: 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Niels Møller. 2003. “Corporate branding og den retoriske grundsituation [Corporate branding and the fundamental rhetorical situation].” Rhetorica Scandinavica 281: 34–48.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Offentlighed som repræsentation af betydningssystemer [The public sphere as a representation of systems of meaning].” In Legitimitet under forandring: Virksomheden i samfundet [Legitimacy undergoing change: The enterprise in society], ed. by Susanne Holmström and Susanne Kjærbeck, 113–136 (Den kommunikerende organisation). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2016. Argumenter i kontekst: Introduktion til pragmatisk argumentationsanalyse [Arguments in context: Introduction to pragmatic argumentation analysis]. Second Edition. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. (2019). “Public Relations and Business Legitimacy.” In Handbook of Business Legitimacy: Responsibility, Ethics, and Society, ed. by Jacob Rendtorff. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehfeldt, Vibeke, and Rita Therkelsen. 1996. “Genren – spillereglerne forud for teksten [The genre – the rules of the game for the text].” In Det nye korstog. Sproganalytiske vinkler på en sagprosatekst [The new Crusade. Linguistic angles of analysis applied to a non-fictional text], ed. by Keld Gall Jørgensen and Uwe Geist, 17–31. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Schutz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann. 1973. The Structures of the Life-World .Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1965. “What is a Speech Act?”. In Philosophy in America, ed. by M. Black. 221–239. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Susen, Simon. 2011. “Critical Notes on Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere.” Sociological Analysis 5 (1): 37–62.Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Therkelsen, Rita. 2013. “Legitimeringsargumenter – et lingvistisk perspektiv på virksomheders balancering mellem markedets og samfundets horisonter [Legitimizing arguments – a linguistic perspective on enterprises balancing between markets and societal horizons].” In Legitimitet under forandring. Virksomheden i samfundet [Legitimacy undergoing change. The enterprise in society], ed. by Susanne Holmstrøm and Susanne Kjærbeck, 235–248. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2001. “PR-tekster [PR texts].” In Profil og offentlighed [Profile and the public sphere], ed. by Mie Femø Nielsen, 231–247. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Togeby, Ole. 2014. Bland blot genrerne – ikke tekstarterne! Om sprog, tekster og samfund [Just mix the genres – not the text types!]. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Toth, Elizabeth L., and Robert L. Heath. 1992. Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar