Брой 8
Luca Leoni
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Faculty of Philosophy, e-mail: l.leoni@phls.uni-sofia.bg
Abstract: This paper aims to underline the practical importance of Linguistics as a social science and Rhetoric as a specific field of study, stating that they not only represent an invaluable way to understand the world, but they also contribute to creating the social world. I will on the studies of Bakhtin on the dialogical nature of society and social actions, the research made by Holliday on the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a tool of rhetorical investigation of the world, and the study of Blackledge on the use of CDA to understand power in society. The core idea is that Rhetoric, as the study of discursive strategies in use within a social environment, is fundamental to understand the social world. This paper also purports the idea that researchers take part in the social creation of the world because of scientific writing, a tool which is not free of rhetoric. Researchers must be aware of the impact that they have on reality and that social sciences do make a difference in the world. Keywords: Rhetoric, Critical Discourse Analysis, Linguistics Introduction: Rhetoric, as the field of study concerned with the effective use of speech and writing[1], has increasingly gained importance over the last decades within Linguistics, Philosophy, and Communication Studies. It is an invaluable tool for the critical study of political communication, marketing, and, in general, persuasive language. Nonetheless, a broader and deeper understanding of the daily use that we make of rhetoric would be useful to comprehend how pervasive it is in our lives. Intercultural communication, power relationships, social affirmation, and even academic writing are heavily dependent on communication. This paper aims to present Rhetoric and discourse analysis as fundamental tools for understanding society. More than objects of mere linguistic analysis, discourses can be studied to gain useful insight into cultural processes and power relationships. I will build on the studies of Bakhtin (1981) and Blackledge (2012) about language as a social practice. Bakhtin’s “dialogism” will provide my background theoretical pillar. Usually, rhetorical analyses are based on the Aristotelian categorisations of logos (appeal to content and logic), ethos (appeal to the persona of the speaker) and pathos (appeal to emotions). Several fallacies can be employed and recognised within these three categories. The most famous ones are the strawman (the substitution of the argument with an extreme or weak one), the ad hominem (an attack to the speaker rather than their argument), tu quoque(the disparagement of the interlocutor’s argument because he was previously found guilty of what he is criticising), and post hoc ergo propter hoc (the false assumption that two consecutive events must be related one to another as a cause to an effect). An extended lists of fallacies can be found in Cattani (2019). I will propose the use of rhetorical analysis by means of Critical Discourse Analysis to have a better insight into the cultural and social dynamics constituting conversations. It will be discussed that rhetoric is a fundamental facet of the affirmation of minorities and can be a solution to social issues[2] if used properly and with efficacy[3]. At the same time, I would like to introduce the problem of rhetoric in the field of academic communication, since, as Hyland argues, this specific communication, although usually concerned with the seeking of truth, is not free from rhetoric and persuasion[4]. Method: In the present paper, I will review and analyze six studies that use rhetoric and discourse analysis as methodologic tools. The choice of these specific works is due to their research scope, so to provide evidence for the importance of rhetoric and linguistic analysis in several fields of society. Blackledge (2012) focuses on CDA and cultural appropriation; Holliday (2012) on the importance of narratives for the affirmation of the self; Mullany (2012) uses discourse analysis to investigate power relationships and the recognition of social distance on the workplace; Artz (2019) underlines the importance of conscious use of rhetoric to initiate social change; Baldwin (2011) provides proof for the influence that rhetoric exerts on the interpretation of truth during trials; Hyland (2005) focuses on the use of rhetoric in the field of academic writing and research. All these studies use linguistic analysis and provide a wide range of possible fields in which this kind of academic investigation proves fruitful. As a first step, I will present the theory of language of Bakhtin which provides the theoretical background about the ontic relationship between language and society that all the chosen studies share. In Bakhtin’s theory of language[5], discourse is seen as fundamentally dialogic. Communication is more than self-expression, rather it is a social activity whose items are always double-voiced because they are influenced by the context and the history that determined them. Individuals make an act of appropriation of language only when they use it purposefully and consciously. Before that moment, words are part of a complex web of signifiers (in Saussurean sense) which are loaded with their signifieds
through their use in context by other people. As a result, the choice of a precise word or a specific sentence draws from that load of meaning and contributes to it when uttered. In this sense, the study of communication, of which Rhetoric is one important example, is more than the study of human communication. It is a window to the relationship between the self and the other. In this sense, speakers make an act of self-affirmation any time they speak, but this action stems from a finite set of choices determined by the specific meanings associated with each specific word. As a result, the choice of linguistic expressions reflects, influences and can change the definition that we, as a community, give to specific linguistic items, which is ultimately linked with the idea that we have of the physical or social counterpart. In other words, linguistic choices can reinforce or undermine the identity of the object of conversation.
Starting from this theoretical assumption, Blackledge proposes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a tool for linguistic study and understanding of the statement of power from one group over another[6]. The author takes Bakhtin’s dialogism as his main point of view over society. CDA is a comprehensive methodology which includes socioeconomic, cultural and political factors in the analysis of the discourse under investigation. Blackledge focuses on the use of mocking and parody of typical songs and dances in complementary classes of Turkish children in the UK. More precisely, the teacher proposes to students to write and sing a traditional song and perform a traditional dance. One student uses offensive expressions with a classmate while they’re sending each other songs on their mobile phones. The author suggests that the students create a two-level discourse. The official one is the lesson, while the unofficial one is the “market” setting in which the students negotiate for music exchange. Code-switching signals the passage from one level to the other. When the class is proposed to sing a traditional song, the student starts mocking the lyrics and mimicking the female singer. When the teacher proposes to students to dance, more than one student use rap and parody of traditional folk dance to engage in a cultural re-appropriation, subverting the hierarchy momentarily. Moreover, the student engaged in the two-level discourse, makes a direct reference to genitals while dancing.
Blackledge concludes that the ambivalent positioning that these kids have toward their cultural heritage is visible in their use of language and parody. One part of the class completed the tasks and engaged in the cultural communication that the teacher proposed. Another part preferred to be subversive and engage in offensive exchanges of words, mocking of the song, and references to genitals. The subversion to the establishment represented by the teacher was usually playful and, the author suggests, the laughter generated by the parody is a way of cultural appropriation. In a sense, this is a refusal of such heritage as the teacher gives it, and an acceptance of it through the personal “mark” of the students.
In this study, the use of language plays a fundamental role in the creation of cultural consciousness and appropriation in the class. The author does not delve into a rhetorical analysis, but he prefers to employ only CDA. Anyway, I believe that the combined use of both would provide a better understanding of the situation. For example, it is noteworthy that students engage consistently in parody and offensive language. These devices are indeed used to appropriate cultural heritage, as Blackledge suggests, but from a rhetorical point of view humour and offensive language are ways to assert power over an object by ridiculing and diminishing it. In this sense, the use of verbal violence and mocking are not accidental; on the contrary, they represent the most immediate form of negation that the students have. From the point of view of dialogism, students are using language to make fun of their cultural heritage in order to take possession of it. Rhetorical and discourse analysis are the only tools of research that let scholars gain insight into these social dynamics because they generate, develop and wither within discourse.
On a similar track, Holliday focuses on the consequences of narratives in society. The author starts with the concept of ideology as a system of ideas which serve the interests of the political power in place[7]. He frames such as the American, central “West” and opposes it to the peripheral “non-West”. These two elements are not intended as geographical areas, but rather as economic, political and cultural spaces. At the same time, the world can be divided by means of the “individual Self” and “collectivist Other”. The former are characterised by a view of people having personal goals, great autonomy, openness, choice, self-reliance, and improvement, the latter as loyal to family and friends’ group, lower critical thinking, conservatism, interdependence, and silence. This narrative is propagated by the individualist societies to the collectivist ones. At the same time, the former identify with the Self, while the latter with the Other. This is due to the power relation that characterises the two types of societies: a powerful North-West that asserts its strength over the South-East. Holliday keeps track of this narrative in his studies with mixed classes of Asian students that show a different behavioural pattern when they’re with UK classmates, namely they are more silent. The correspondence that some “collectivist” cultures give of themselves, i.e. a general confirmation of the narrative created by the more powerful societies, is seen by Holliday as the precise result of such a narrative.
I would like to stress this aspect that he shows in his study. A narrative created by a more powerful group can be introjected by the less powerful one and proposed in return as a justification of that same narrative. In this way, the object of a narrative becomes its perpetrator as an answer to that same narrative. The statement and repetition of stereotypes and prejudices by both groups are also a form of self-projection into the social reality according to what is expected from them. Therefore, Holliday gives an account of the dialogic nature of the discourse that Bakhtin theorised.
Again, Rhetoric is an adequate tool of study of the social discourse just described, for it is formed by narratives made by and through speeches and writings. Rhetoric gives us the means to analyse the language used in the creation of prejudices and power relationships. That same means is useful to discard a potential discourse of domination of one party over the other, thanks to the study of rhetorical fallacies that are used to speak about the Other in everyday life.
In the field of power relations at work, Mullany develops an interesting analysis of rhetorical strategies of female workers[8]. She builds on previous research about discourse style differences between men and women. The latter would be discouraged from being overtly assertive and authoritative because they would be judged as bossy and aggressive. On the other hand, prototypical feminine discourse strategies would depict them as weak and ineffective. As a result, women would be bound to play minor roles in companies because of this double bind. Against previous research, the author claims that men and women use similar discourse styles when they must contradict both superiors and subordinates. Mullany presents three examples. The first one presents a low-level employee approaching her managers with assertive sentences during meetings. However, her assertiveness was always balanced with humour. The second one presents a female team manager engaging with a male subordinate. She sounds authoritarian in the first place but finally ends the verbal exchange with a “maternal reprimand”, as the author calls it. In the last case study, the same team manager engages in a conversation with a female worker that is not part of her team. In this case, the subject of the study resorts to a lengthy explanation that the author includes in the feminine strategies.
This study if particularly interesting because let us see that power relations are co-determined by linguistic devices. Even if Mullany focuses on masculine and feminine strategies, the study also gives evidence that men can choose to be overlty aggressive or quiet, while women can do so only if they justify their behaviour with a rhetorical device. From a rhetorical point of view, this is a useful example of how power is built in discourse. The subjects of the study show a desire to be assertive with their managers and subordinates, but ultimately fail to do so when they perceive the tension mounting. At that point, they prefer to resort to rhetorical strategies to mitigate it, but they also repropose the narrative of the weak feminine against the strong masculine. In this way, an attack on the establishment was attempted, but the social hierarchy was finally restored. Moreover, the last case study shows how language can be used to signal distance from a co-worker who is not part of your acquaintances, but without reference to any power relationship between the two. This gives further evidence for Bakhtin’s dialogism because the team manager modifies her conversational habits and adapts them to the new social setting. This change also reinforces the pre-existing social distance by reaffirming it implicitly. In this case, social deference is perceivable only through the study of the linguistic device employed and communication is the cultural space in which social relationships are defined. Once again, rhetoric is fundamental to becoming aware of these subtleties which are nonetheless fundamental for understanding a daily occurrence. At the same time, language is also the device used to test the status quo. Widespread knowledge of Rhetoric would be useful to raise awareness about its possible consequences. By way of example, the conscious use of specific discourse devices can mean the victory or the failure of a social movement, our promotion or pay rise, simpler communication and fewer fights with friends and partners.
Artz specifically builds on rhetoric’s potential for creation[9]. In his study, he presents the need for a strong rhetorical narrative for activists of all kinds as a first step toward effective action. This is sparked by the right rhetoric at the right historical moment when the public is attentive to precise messages because of pressing needs and perceived danger. Again, society and rhetoric are deeply intertwined, and the understanding of the latter lets us gain insight into the former. At the same time, language items can reveal useful to keep the audience at ease. The author exemplifies this with Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Obama’s use of drone attacks in Syria.
We can see that in each case, the powerful majority was convinced of the genuine goodness of those political moves. Silence and compliance toward a narrative equals the statement of that same narrative. At the same time, rhetoric can be used to subvert power and create a new worldview. Civil rights movements are an example of the deep influence that language can have on society. The speeches of Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X were the inspirations that moved masses of Black Americans to claim their rights. It is true that these discourses finally evolved in actual protests, but it is no less true that rhetoric has always been the spark that lets the flame blaze. The management of conflicting parties in society takes its first step in rhetoric as the tool to build strong and convincing narratives. Finally, whether a change occurred or not, rhetoric is used again for the creation of a new narrative which will take the place of the previous one. The only way to understand their true meaning and relevance is to “read between the lines” of these narratives.
Baldwin points out how the seeking of truth during trials is influenced by rhetorical strategies[10]. Specifically, he analyses a UK case of suspected Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP) of a mother and the judicial history of the children of the woman who were taken from her by Social Services thanks to declarations of an expert pediatrician, and the following rejection of the sentence from the European Court of Human Rights because of insufficient reasons. The author states that the first sentence was heavily dependent on rhetorical facts and not on actual evidence. More precisely, he recognizes the use of ethos and pathos, namely the positive presentation of the expert pediatrician and the negative one of the mother, and the appeal to emotion and pre-disposition of the audience. Firstly, the pediatrician presents themselves as expert because they read several articles and published two major works on MSbP, but the quality of the published work and the actual preparation of the doctor on the topic has not been assessed by the justice, nor was it defined what “major” meant. This generates the fallacy of indeterminacy which lets the audience make individual inferences about the statement. Moreover, the judge consistently supposed the good faith of the pediatrician and Social Services, even in case of obvious contradictions with precedent statements. For example, Social Services did not disclose the psychiatric report that they had previously required of parents. This was judged by the court as a mistake rather than unprofessional behavior. At the same time, the opposite is true for the mother, since she was consistently depicted as the malicious parent. As an instance, mother’s actions are not presented in a neutral way and thereafter compared to the customary behavior of alleged MSbP, but rather they are compared with symptoms of the syndrome from the very start. This highlights behaviour consistent with diagnosis and hides inconsistent one. As far as pathos is concerned, the author finds that Kairos is the main strategy employed, namely the appeal to the audience for simple explanations that fit the situation. Specifically, the pediatrician’s preference for the mono-causality of the diagnosis, whereas US doctors reported that the same symptoms could be explained by a multiplicity of single symptoms. As a final point, evidence and depositions of the mother were treated with suspicion and, according to the author, this attitude finds its reason in the negative image and negative emotions linked with her.
In this study, Baldwin investigates the rhetoric used within an environment which should be neutral and questioning because its main purpose is the seeking and finding of truth. It is true that judicial processes are subjects of rhetoric since ancient Greece, but what is striking and noteworthy is that this case focuses on a diagnosis evaluation. This is a matter of scientific assessment of the mother more than convincing strategies of a lawyer over a court. It is impossible to perform a thorough critical discourse analysis without the transcription of the trial, but we can draw the conclusion that actual truth is built within discourse. Just like Turkish students in Blackledge (2012) parody their cultural heritage in an act of appropriation through its modification, that both takes from the cultural background and adds culture to it, here we can see that also the clinical history of a person is debatable and subject to language and rhetoric. Once again, social reality is influenced and, at least partly, created by communication. Rhetoric, as a tool of persuasion, plays a fundamental role in establishing the “judicial truth”. In this case, better knowledge of rhetorical devices by the court and the judge could help them in recognising the flawed depositions of the pediatrician and Social Services. More importantly, it would warn the audience of the importance of keeping a dubitative attitude toward all the witnesses.
An important, but too often underrated, field of research in which rhetoric plays an essential role is academic writing. This subject has been addressed by Hyland through the study of metadiscourse, namely discourse devices that have the aim of guiding the audience in the interpretation of a text[11]. This implies the assumption that the text is thought of as more than mere propositional content, but rather as an interaction between different points of view. Language, in this sense, is used to address both the external (propositional) world and the internal (linguistic and interactive) world. From this theoretical background, Hyland develops a study on the discourse items and strategies in several settings (e.g., company annual report, introductory textbooks, popularization of scientific research), but with special attention to academic writing. Although academic discourse is usually perceived as neutral because its focus is truth and the presentation of data, it is not free from rhetoric. In fact, especially within the realm of the Humanities and Social Sciences, discourse strategies play a fundamental role in the convincing interpretation of data and display of hypotheses. Audience persuasion takes place in the interaction between the proposition of valuable interpretations of the data and the relationship that the speaker can create with the audience to convince them of said interpretation. The fact that research papers address a specific public linguistically, and do not limit themselves to the display of raw data, is proof of the writer’s awareness of her interaction with a thinking public. Similarly, researchers know that they are writing for a specific community, and they are aware of the probable background knowledge shared by each member of it. This awareness determines discourse choices, such as the decision to avoid superfluous information, the need to underline a particular way of seeing the data, in which order to present them, or the importance of figures and tables compared to their preferable explanation.
Hyland differentiates between interactive and interactional items. The former are those elements that guide the reader in the understanding and interpretation of the propositional content. The latter are the features that show the attempt of the writer to engage with the audience. Some examples of interactive items are endophorics, evidentials, that is references to authors and previous research, and linkers (e.g., “but”, “even if”). Interactive features are more present in hard sciences than soft ones. Hyland suggests that this is due to the discourse community of hard sciences, which relies heavily on the display of data and on previous research, while the interaction with the audience is usually limited to guiding it through the analysis of data. Examples of interactional items are hedges and boosters (e.g., “surely”, “demonstrate(s) that”, “suggest that”, “may/might”), self-mentions and the use of the first-person singular pronoun, attitude markers (e.g., “significantly”, “ingenious”), and engagement markers (e.g., “let us consider”, “think about”). These items are used more in the Humanities. Even in this case, Hyland suggests that this is due to the discourse community which accepts and values positively the engagement of the audience, the stronger presence of the writer in the text and the proposal of original ideas that depart from previous research. The author underlines the importance of teaching metadiscourse in schools to improve the writing skills and the linguistic consciousness of students. His findings show that items are used differently from native speakers and non-native speakers. Overall, the latter use a smaller array of devices and are generally less aware of the strategies to show off details and data in their studies. They often resort to informal or colloquial expressions and do not fully control linkers, hedges and boosters. Hyland relates this trend with the level of proficiency and with the general level of explicit training in the use of metadiscourse. Its use is associated with high linguistic autonomy and some teachers are not properly equipped to provide students with authentic information. At the same time, teachers could be unaware of the importance of metadiscourse for academic writing. As a final remark, the author stresses the importance of improving education in this respect.
This study provides a rhetorical analysis of academic writing, demonstrating how rhetoric permeates even the fields that traditionally have not been associated with it. Moreover, people who actively make use of rhetorical devices seem largely unaware of this, and this can be considered as proof of the importance of knowing better the subject of rhetoric in order to protect ourselves from its influence in the first place. Research and academy are parts of society, so they are inherently subject to communication in their constituency and development. Even truth, just like rights, power, and identity is the fruit of a conversation between interlocutors. The fact that within the scholars’ community, truth must be supported by data and strict logic, does not mean that its interpretation and meaning cannot be negotiated within a discourse. Gaining insight into such discourse is of primary importance.
Conclusion
This paper shows the importance of rhetoric and linguistic analysis in several aspects of life. Building on the theory of language of Bakhtin, who sees language and society as deeply intertwined and as codependent, I showed how the use of language is fundamental for cultural and ethnic appropriation, the establishment of the ruling power or, on the contrary, to attack it, the statement of minorities’ identities, and the seeking of truth in courts and academic community. Since language and culture are interdependent, only rhetorical or cultural analysis would not be enough for thorough understanding. For this reason, I propose the joint use of rhetorical analysis and CDA. The former is fundamental in the comprehension of single linguistic items, their influence on communication, their effects on the audience, and the discourse balance between propositional content, audience’s engagement and the presentation of the persona of the speaker. At the same time, CDA is important to link these aspects to culture at large and to the broader effects that language has in society. Broader and generalised linguistic investigation is a useful branch of research in Social Science, but it is also a tool for defending ourselves from discourse strategies used in bad faith. It is true that rhetoric is usually linked with politics, trials, and marketing, but, as Mullany shows, it is also all-pervading in our everyday life. A more informed and conscious use of the language can improve the mood at the workplace, transform fights into constructive discussions, expose a fallacious comment on the Internet, (partly) free us from appeal to our emotions and limit the influence that the persona of the speaker exerts over us.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Artz, L. (2010). Speaking the Power of Truth. Rhetoric and Action of Our Times. In: Lee, J.H. & Kahn, S. (2010).Activism and Rhetoric. Theories and Contexts for Political Engagement: 47 – 55. Routledge.
- Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Immagination: Four Essays. Texas University Press.
- Baldwin, C. (2011). Narrative Rhetoric in Expert Reports: A Case Study. Narrative Works 1(2), 3 – 20.
- Blackledge, A. (2012). Discourse and power. In: Gee, J. P & Handford, M. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis: 616-627. Routledge.
- Cattani, A. (2019). Avere ragione. Piccolo manuale di retorica dialogica. Dino Audino
Editore.
- Holliday, A. (2012). Culture, communication, context and power. In: Jackson, J. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication: 37-51. NY: Routledge
- Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
- Mullany, L. (2012). Discourse, gender and professional communication. In: Gee, J. P & Handford, M. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis: 509-522. Routledge.
About the author:
Luca Leoni is a PhD student in Rhetoric at the Faculty of Philosophy at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”. His research interests are in the fields of communication, Critical Discourse Analysis, political rhetoric, and public speaking.
[1] Merriam-Webster.com, 2024. [2] Holliday, A. 2012 [3] Artz, L. 2010; Mullany, L. 2012 [4] in Hyland, K. 2005 [5] in Bakhtin, M. 1981. [6] Blackledge, A. 2012. [7] Holliday, A. 2012. [8] Mullany, L. 2012. [9] Arzt, L. 2019. [10] Baldwin 2011. [11] Hyland K. 2005.
Comments
0 comments
