On some persuasive strategies in technical discourse: Cross-cultural analysis of directives in English and Czech technical manuals

Open access


The aim of the paper is to provide a cross-cultural analysis of selected linguistic realizations of persuasion in the language of technical communication represented by the genre of technical manuals (TM) and to identify the differences and similarities between the ways persuasion is expressed in this type of specialized discourse in English and Czech. More specifically, the paper attempts to discover which linguistic realizations of directives are applied to persuade the readers of the correctness of the instructions and the necessity of reading and following them. The results demonstrate that the main lexico-grammatical devices are quite similar in all the data. There are only minor frequency differences between English and Czech manuals, which are naturally reflected in their parallel Czech and English translations. The findings indicate that the quality of written instructions, including the degree of persuasiveness, is of great importance since it can influence prospective users of particular technical devices when making a choice about what to buy.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adam M. 2017. Persuasion in religious discourse: Enhancing credibility in sermon titles and openings. Discourse and Interaction vol. 10 no. 2 pp. 5-25.

  • Blake G. and Bly R. W. 1993. The elements of technical writing. New York: McMillan.

  • Brown P. and Levinson S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Crystal D. and Davy D. 1969. Investigating English style. London: Longman.

  • Dillard J. P. and Pfau M. 2002. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

  • Dillard J. P. and Shen L. eds. 2013. The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

  • Dontcheva-Navratilova O. 2011. Coherence in political speeches. Faculty of Education work 152. Brno: Masaryk University.

  • Dontcheva-Navratilova O. 2018. Persuasion in academic discourse: Cross-cultural variation in Anglophone and Czech academic book reviews. In: J. Pelclová and L. Wei-lun Lu eds. Persuasion in public discourse. Cognitive and functional perspectives. John Benjamins pp. 227-257.

  • Quirk R. Greenbaum S. Leech G. and Svartvik J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

  • Halmari H. 2005. In search of “successful” political persuasion. A comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. In: H. Halmari and T. Virtanen eds. Persuasion across genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins pp. 105-134.

  • Halmari H. and Virtanen T. (eds) 2005. Persuasion across genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Hyland K. 2002. Directives: Arguments and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics vol. 23 no.2 pp. 215-239.

  • Johns A. 1997. Text role and context. Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jucker A. H. 1997. Persuasion by inference: Analysis of a party political broadcast. Political Linguistics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics pp. 121-137.

  • Leech G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.

  • Leech G. and Svartvik J. 1994. A communicative grammar of English. 2nd ed. London: Longman.

  • Miller G. R. 1980. On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In: M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller eds. Persuasion: New directions in theory and research. Beverly Hills CA: Sage pp. 11-28.

  • Palmer F. R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Pérez-Llantada C. 2002. Designing new genre identities in scientific and technical discourse: Cognitive social and pedagogical implications. Journal of English Studies. vol. 3 pp. 251-263.

  • Perkins M. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.

  • Rus D. 2014. Technical communication as strategic communication. Characteristics of the English technical discourse. Procedia Technology 12 pp. 654-658.

  • Searle J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5 pp. 1-23.

  • Sharpe M. 2014. Language forms and rhetorical function in technical instructions. English for Specific Purposes World vol. 15 no 43 pp. 1-9. www.esp/world.info

  • Sperber D. and Wilson D. 1986. Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Šipková M. 2017. O modálních predikativech slovesného původu typu To přende (se) patři…zbórat. Naše řeč vol. 100 no. 4 pp. 265-271.

  • Tárnyiková J. 2007. Sentence complexes in text. Processing strategies in English and in Czech. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.

  • Trimble L. 1985. English for science and technology a discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Virtanen T. and Halmari H. 2005. Persuasion across genres. Emerging perspectives. In: H. Halmari and T. Virtanen eds. Persuasion across genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins pp. 3-24.

  • Vogel R. 2018. Persuasion in business documents: Strategies for reporting positively on negative phenomena. Ostrava Journal of English Philology vol. 10 no. 1 pp. 55-70.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 188 188 5
PDF Downloads 138 138 4