Cognitive rhetoric of effect: energy flow as a means of persuasion in inaugurals

Open access

Abstract

Cognitive rhetoric of effect deals with creating a referent’s favourable image throughout four text-forming stages: invention (looking for arguments); disposition (argument arrangement); elocution (verbal ornamentation); and performance, combining the ancient canons of memory and delivery. The cognitive procedures of rhetoric of effect rest on conceptual structures of sensory-motor origin: image schemas, i.e. recurring dynamic patterns of our perceptual interactions and motor programmes (Johnson, 1987, p.xiv), and force dynamics, i.e. a semantic category in the realm of physical force generalized into domains of internal psychological relationships and social interactions (Talmy, 2000, p.409). The embedding of sensory-motor structures into the text-forming stages reveals that cognitive rhetorical effects are created by managing the energy flow, which consists of force and motion transformations denoted by particular linguistic units. The phenomenon is exemplified by the analysis of the way impressions of freedom celebration and freedom defence are formed in the inaugurals of J.F. Kennedy (1961) and G.W. Bush (2005) respectively.

BARTLETT, T., 2014. Analysing power in language. London: Routledge.

BAUMLIN, J., 2007. Ethos. In: Th. Sloane, ed. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 278-292.

BIRIA, R. and MOHAMMADI, A., 2012. The sociopragmatic function of inaugural speech: A critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 44, pp. 1290-1302.

BONNEFILLE, S., 2012. Obama’s and Sarkozy’s remarks at the U.N.’s Climate Change summit: A contest between figurative and literal language?” In: A. Kwiatkowska, ed. Texts and minds: Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 225-243.

BURKE, K., 1969. A rhetoric of motives. California: University of California Press.

CAMPBELL, K. K., 2007. Modern rhetoric. In: Th. Sloane, ed. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 517-527.

CAMPBELL, K. K. and JAMIESON, K. H., 1986. Inaugurating the presidency. In: H. Simons, A. Aghazarian, eds. Form, genre, and the study of political discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, pp. 203-225.

CRAIG, R., 2007. Communication. In: Th. Sloane, ed. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125-146.

DODGE, E. and Lakoff, G., 2005. Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In: B. Hampe, ed. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin, N.Y: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 57-92.

ENOS, R. L. and Fahnestock, J., 2007. Arrangement. In: Th. Sloane, ed. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49-53.

GOMOLA, A., 2012. Cognitive mechanisms at work and their perlocutionary effect in Catholic preaching. A case study. In: A. Kwiatkowska, ed. Texts and minds: Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 287-298.

HAMILTON, C., 2003. Genetic Roulette: On the cognitive rhetoric of biorisk. In: R. Dirven, R. Frank, M. Pütz, eds. Cognitive models in language and thought. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 353-393.

HAMILTON, C., 2005. A cognitive rhetoric of poetry and Emily Dickinson. Language and Literature, vol. 14, pp. 279-294.

HAMILTON, C., 2012. Tony Blair’s cognitive rhetoric. In: A. Kwiatkowska, ed. Texts and minds: Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 201-225.

JOHNSON, M., 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

JOHNSON, M., 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In: B. Hampe, ed. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 15-34.

KENNEDY, G., 2007. Classical rhetoric. In: Th. Sloane, ed. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104-125.

KWIATKOWSKA, A., 2012. From the editor. In: A. Kwiatkowska, ed. Texts and minds: Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 7-10.

LEITH, S., 2012. You talkin’ to me? London: Profiles Books.

LDCE., 2003. Longman dictionary of contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.

MAILLAT, D. and OSWALD, S., 2013. Editorial. Biases and constraints in communication: Argumentation, persuasion and manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 59, pp. 137-140.

MCLUHAN, M., 1997. Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.

OAKLEY, T., 2005. Force-dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect. In: B. Hampe, ed. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 444-473.

O’KEEFE, D., 2007. Persuasion. In: Th. Sloane, ed. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 595-603.

PERELMAN, Ch. and OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L., 1969. The New rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

POTAPENKO, S., 2012. Modest or determined? Cognitive-rhetorical analysis of the effects of President Obama’s inaugural and congressional speech. In: A. Kwiatkowska, ed. Texts and minds: Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 243-258.

REISIGL, M., 2010. Rhetoric of political speeches. In: R. Wodak, V. Koller, eds. Handbook of communication in the public sphere. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 243-269.

TABAKOWSKA, E., 2012. Rhetoric: “the most valuable gift of gods” or “the art of deception”? In: A. Kwiatkowska, ed. Texts and minds: Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp.273-286.

TALMY, L., 2000. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Concept structuring systems. vol. 1. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.

TURNER, M., 1991. Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

VAN EEMEREN, F. and GROOTENDORST, R., 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WESLEY, J., 2014. The qualitative analysis of political documents. In: K. Bertie, I. Maks, A. van Elfrinkhof, eds. From text to political position: Text analysis across disciplines. Amsterdam, Phil.: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.135-159.

WESTNEY, P., 1994. Rules and pedagogical grammar. In: T. Odlin, ed. Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 72-96.

WODAK, R., 2011. The discourse of politics in action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.217
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.655

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 360 301 24
PDF Downloads 200 183 6