Motivational Quotes on Social Media: A Rhetorical Appraisal

The world we live in has become an ocean filled with undulating waves of motivational messages. People ply the earth with vain looks; every unfortunate encounter seems to be welcomed with lots of bitterness. What can be done to remedy this situation? This is where motivational speakers come to the stage. When people face various life challenges, they often resort to a motivational quote for a bit of inspiration. This study sets out to look at the rhetoric in some motivational quotes in a bid to elicit those elements that make them more resonant to the extent that some have become celebrated parts of society's lexicon. Using the rhetorical theory by (Selzer 2003), we discovered from the 100 quotes analyzed from Facebook that a subtle combination of good words mitting, motivational psychology and rhetorical appeals inspire people. Well-structured messages that use figures of speech and appeal to our inspirational nature can be meaningful and powerful in shaping our thoughts hence aiding us to appreciate some valuable things in our lives that have been underestimated.

“Boom! You bought them.”

A review of advertisement studies shows that there has been little attempt to examine infomercials in terms of rhetorical appeals and persuasive strategies. Therefore, this study sought to contribute to the existing literature by exploring the persuasive elements of Apple infomercials through Aristotle’s modes of persuasion to reveal the most frequent persuasive language features and structures and to study how such elements were utilized to promote the products and services of the company. A top-down approach based on Aristotle’s modes of persuasion was adopted to identify the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos and pathos as well as the promotional tokens and patterns in the text. The descriptive findings provided evidence to demonstrate that although all the rhetorical proofs were employed in the corpus, emotional appeal was the most dominant. The findings of this research open new horizons for further studies on infomercials in general and persuasive rhetoric in specific.

Using Metadiscourse to Enhance Persuasiveness in Corporate Press Releases: A Corpus-Based Study

Previous studies have explored the genre characteristics and persuasive nature of press releases. However, systematic analyses of the metadiscursive devices for persuasive purposes are lacking for corporate press releases. Following a corpus-assisted approach, this study investigates the distribution patterns of different types of metadiscourse resources used to achieve persuasiveness in the corporate press release genre. A quantitative analysis of the corpus under study reveals the different frequencies of metadiscourse devices in corporate press releases, and comparisons are made across different genres with similar persuasive attempts. The factors underlying the similarities and differences in metadiscourse use across genres are also examined. A qualitative analysis supported with examples illustrates how different types of metadiscourse devices contribute to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos and help to enhance persuasiveness. Major findings and their implications for business discourse learners and researchers as well as business practitioners are presented. The article ends with its limitations and recommends avenues for further research in this line of inquiry.

An Encounter with God

Scholars acknowledge that most ancient people experienced the written text of Hebrews by hearing it read out loud. Several studies also recognize the book’s emphasis on divine speech. However, research has not examined how the occurrences of divine speech in Hebrews would have been spoken by the person reading the text once it arrived at its intended destination or how the speech would have been perceived by the communities that heard it recited. The oral cultural context from which Hebrews originated decisively shaped the form and delivery of the written divine speech and must be considered in any analysis. In this study I will address this gap by examining how the divine word from Psalm 95 cited in Hebrews 3:7–11 might have been vocalized in its original context and examine the kinds of rhetorical appeals the author made to the audience.

Between Rhetoric and Propaganda: A Case Study of Appeals to Pathos in Iraq War Justification

This MRP explores the ethical dilemma inherent in the use of emotional appeals in political speeches. Taking a historical approach to the question of how ethics and emotion have played out in rhetorical theory and propaganda studies, I examine how political speakers use rhetorical appeals to pathos in order to gain support for controversial policies. I question where the “line” between legitimate rhetorical appeals to pathos and illegitimate, emotionally manipulative propaganda lies, and ask: do appeals to emotion constitute propaganda? What is the difference between a legitimate appeal to emotion and propaganda? What constitutes a “legitimate” appeal to emotion in political speech? To answer this, I analyze three speeches made by Western political leaders justifying America’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. My analysis distinguishes different kinds of appeals to pathos, or emotion, within my data set and weighs each speaker’s use of “legitimate” appeals to pathos against emotional appeals that are classified as “propaganda,” according to Elspeth Tilley’s Propaganda Index (2005). My findings show that a large percentage of appeals to pathos in each speech analyzed meet the requirements for propaganda as defined by Tilley. Eighty-one percent of appeals to pathos in George W. Bush’s “Message to Saddam” constitute propaganda; sixty-eight percent of appeals to pathos in Tony Blair’s Speech to the British House of Commons constitute propaganda; and seventy-three percent of appeals to pathos in Stephen Harper’s Speech to the Canadian House of Commons are considered propaganda as defined by Tilley. My findings showcase the ambiguity of “ethical” communication in political contexts, and underline the importance of critical audience engagement in political processes.

Rhetorical Appeals and Tactics in New York Times Comments About Vaccines: Qualitative Analysis

Background Improving persuasion in response to vaccine skepticism is a long-standing problem. Elective nonvaccination emerging from skepticism about vaccine safety and efficacy jeopardizes herd immunity, exposing those who are most vulnerable to the risk of serious diseases. Objective This article analyzes vaccine sentiments in the New York Times as a way of improving understanding of why existing persuasive approaches may be ineffective and offers insight into how existing methods might be improved. We categorize pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine arguments, offering an in-depth analysis of pro-vaccine appeals and tactics in particular to enhance current understanding of arguments that support vaccines. Methods Qualitative thematic analyses were used to analyze themes in rhetorical appeals across 808 vaccine-specific comments. Pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine comments were categorized to provide a broad analysis of the overall context of vaccine comments across viewpoints, with in-depth rhetorical analysis of pro-vaccine comments to address current gaps in understanding of pro-vaccine arguments in particular. Results Appeals across 808 anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine comments were similar, though these appeals diverged in tactics and conclusions. Anti-vaccine arguments were more heterogeneous, deploying a wide range of arguments against vaccines. Additional analysis of pro-vaccine comments reveals that these comments use rhetorical strategies that could be counterproductive to producing persuasion. Pro-vaccine comments more frequently used tactics such as ad hominem arguments levied at those who refuse vaccines or used appeals to science to correct beliefs in vaccine skepticism, both of which can be ineffective when attempting to persuade a skeptical audience. Conclusions Further study of pro-vaccine argumentation appeals and tactics could illuminate how persuasiveness could be improved in online forums.

Central American Migrants

This chapter employs a queer migration approach to analyze the implications of liberal advocate and activist organizing around the child in political and movement discourse about Central American migration. Turning to rhetorical appeals from the 2014 “crisis” of child migration, the chapter reveals that liberals’ compassionate response and pro-family rhetoric in defense of the child paradoxically justifies militarized and securitized futures that are decidedly anti-migrant and anti-children. As Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration indicate, liberal pro-family, pro-child rhetorics traffic in discourses of vulnerability, innocence, and compassion that are easily deployed to extend stringent immigration policies that harm all migrants, including the children they claim to protect.

Aristotle's Rhetorical Triangle in Advertising

This study aims to validate the influence of Aristotle's rhetorical triangle—ethos, pathos, and logos—to the behavior of Saudi Arabian consumers, focusing particularly on consumer product. Quantitative and qualitative methods including descriptive research design were used. Two hundred respondents participated in the study. Results shows that age has impact to influence respondent's preference of Aristotle's rhetorical appeals. However, educational attainment has no influence on respondents' behavior towards Aristotle's rhetorical appeals. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents perceived ethos appeal as the most effective appeal of persuasion. This finding could be due to culture, since Saudis valued trust and credibility. Entities that might be affected directly or indirectly of the findings will give them an idea on how to reach and persuade the target audiences. The classical Aristotle's rhetorical triangle is the ancient art of persuasion still remains useful and applicable for the communication.

language of American political discourse: Aristotle's rhetorical appeals as manifested in Bush's and Obama's speeches on the war on terror

This article employs critical discourse analysis to analyze the representation of the “war on terror” in the political speeches of Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama in the decade following 9/11; it examines Aristotle's approach into the study of the language of persuasion through his three main rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos, identifying several strands of the war on terror discourse and analyzing the way they influence the persuasiveness of the speeches and therefore the ability to generate public debate. The findings show substantial similarities in representation patterns among the two presidents' discourses and end up to the conclusion that the language of the war on terror is not simply a neutral or objective reflection of policy debates of terrorism and counterterrorism; rather, it is a carefully and deliberately constructed public discourse designed to make the war on terror look reasonable and morally justified.