So What if They’re Lying to Us? Comparing Rhetorical Strategies for Discrediting Sources of Disinformation and Misinformation Using an Affect-Based Credibility Rating

Despite growing research on false information, a theoretical framework to organize findings is lacking. We use affect control theory to fill this need and introduce the affect-based credibility rating for interpreting the effectiveness of rhetorical strategies in discrediting the source of falsehoods. The rating quantifies the difference in connotations between the labels used to characterize the source and an ideal, credible source. Successful discrediting amplifies the difference. We use the rating to compare rhetorical strategies for discrediting opponents as sources during rival information campaigns about the Equal Rights Amendment. We show claiming the opponent is spreading disinformation rather than misinformation (stating the opponent is spreading falsehoods deliberately, rather than unwittingly) appears more effective at discrediting, particularly when disinformation claims allege more sinister motives for lying. The new rating helps organize findings by enabling direct comparisons between strategies, thereby contributing toward efforts to detect and discredit falsehoods in media.

Demosthenes and Philip’s Death

This paper aims to analyse the episode about Demosthenes’ reaction to Philips’ death both in Aeschines and Plutarch, comparing persuasive devices used by each writer when searching for the audience response that each of them wants. Firstly, we will verify the rhetorical strategies from forensic oratory that Aeschines uses in Against Ctesiphon to portray Demosthenes as a threat to community welfare. Finally, we will emphasise epideictic techniques in the Life of Demosthenes, which allow Plutarch to show a much more favourable image of Demosthenes than Aeschines does.

Investigating Rhetorical Aspects of Writing Argumentative Essays and Persuasive Posters: Students’ Perspective

Students at the tertiary level need arguments because they are expected to use analytical and critical thinking skills. The present study is situated in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context in an Omani University and reports the experience of (N=46) undergraduate EFL writers in argumentative essays and persuasive posters. Using rhetorical strategies, and drawing on the principles of persuasive writing, the participants prepared posters and essays on two separate topics. Data were collected from the 46 participants’ responses to a semi-structured online survey questionnaire. Analysis of the data obtained indicates that the participants preferred designing posters to writing persuasive essays while reporting varieties of rhetorical difficulties in building an argument for persuasion. The participants also perceived establishing evidence and facts as the most challenging element in persuasive writing and arousing the audience’s feelings and emotions as the most challenging rhetorical appeal in posters. Some pedagogical implications were reported as well.

The Use of Rhetorical Strategies in Argumentative Essays

The most challenging skill perceived by students when they learn the English language is the writing skill. This recent study would like to identify the rhetorical strategies used by good writers and poor writers. Two participants were selected, and written essays was the instrument employed for this study. Both participants were required to write an essay on ‘Should examinations be abolished?’ The essays written were analysed using a coding technique. The findings indicated that both writers utilised the three elements, Logos, Ethos and Pathos, differently. Both were considerate to the readers when they wrote the essays and presented their message, which was also heavily emphasised. However, they did not focus on their roles as writers. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that teachers need to help students familiarise themselves with rhetorical strategies. As for students, they should be aware of the rhetorical strategies to enhance their writing skills to write argumentative essays.

Challenging Valuations: How Rankings Navigate Contestation

Accounts of why rankings are pervasive features of the modern world focus mostly on their properties as valuation devices that, upon entering the public sphere, exert pressure on the ranked. In doing so, however, research tends to overlook the important role played by the different types of organizations that produce rankings. To remedy this, the article draws from a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews with members of these organizations to show that they put a great deal of effort into addressing and responding to different kinds of criticism. Working towards building and maintaining the credibility of rankings is thus revealed to require constant attention by their producers, who devise multiple procedures and rhetorical strategies to this end.

When Evaluative Adjectives Prevent Contradiction in a Debate

This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words (VBWs), and one of the goals of this paper is to build a methodological tool for finding and classifying these VBWs (with a focus on evaluative adjectives). Our study echoes the importance of “cultural keywords” (as reported by Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, 1997) in argument (as reported by Rigotti & Rocci, Argumentation in practice, 2005), but is rather based on a German approach developed by (as reported by Dieckmann, Sprache in der Politik: Einführung in die Pragmatik und Semantik der politischen, 1975), (as reported by Strauss and Zifonun, Der politische Wortschatz, 1986), and (as reported by Girnth, Sprache und Sprachverwendung in der Politik: Eine Einführung in die linguistische Analyse öffentlich-politischer Kommunikation, 2015) about “Miranda” and “Anti-Miranda” words that is expanded and refined here. In particular, our study tries to understand why some statements, fueled by appreciative (Tseronis, 2014) or evaluative adjectives, have such rhetorical effects on a pragmatic level in the particular context of a vote on the Swiss popular initiative called “for more affordable housing”. This context is fruitful since two parties offer reasons for two opposing policy claims: namely, to accept or to reject an initiative. When one party uses arguments containing such universally unassailable adjectival groups to defend a “yes” vote (in our example, pleading for more affordable housing rents), the opposing party cannot use a symmetrical antonym while pleading for the “no” vote. The methodological tool that is proposed here could shed light on the use of certain rhetorical and referential strategies in conflicting policy proposition contexts.

Bach and the Soprano Voice

The chapter begins with a simple question: given the fact that Bach’s music for sopranos was composed almost exclusively for boys, why have early music practitioners—including those endorsed in 2018 by the Bach Leipzig Archive—become so accustomed to using female sopranos? Taking account both of the rhetorical strategies that Bach uses in a representative group of soprano arias (choice of affect, use of topoi, scoring, and vocal writing) and the use of female sopranos in this repertory in concert, radio, and recordings since the nineteenth-century revival, this chapter proposes that Bach imbued his soprano arias with an intrinsic sense of femininity—passion, optimism, desire, compliance, modesty, and submission—that was central to his expression of Lutheran theology and that emerges as no less vital for listeners, even long after the original theological context had lost its relevance. The chapter also shows how Bach’s unacknowledged capacity for representing female subjectivity has influenced even the most historically informed performance practices.

Jeremiah

This chapter explores the various dimensions of the narrative portrayal of Jeremiah as a traumatized prophet. The author proposes that the book of Jeremiah could be considered as an extended trauma narrative with the prophet as one of its leading characters, seeking to make sense of the exceedingly traumatic events associated with the Babylonian invasion and exile that threatened to subsume Jeremiah and his fellow Judeans. Particularly what have been called the Confessions of Jeremiah (Jer 11:18–20; 12:1–6; 15:10–21, 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–13) seem to be particularly suited to be read in terms of the rhetorical strategies identified by Laurie Vickroy, according to which characters in trauma narratives are shown to react to wound-inflicting circumstances. The author argues that these various dimensions of Jeremiah as Traumatized Prophet are not only central to an understanding of the book of Jeremiah, but also may help readers, both then and now, deal with the reality of trauma that includes the various options for sense-making amidst trauma.

Agency as Rhetorical Device in the Discourse of kids Animated Learning Videos on Covid- 19 Virus

At Covid-19 pandemic, people worldwide were attacked by a dangerous and widely spread virus known as Coronavirus. Kids are not matured enough to understand why they have to stay home and follow health instructions. Animated learning videos are designed for kids for the purpose of making them aware of the virus. The objectives of the present study are: (1) Examining one of Burke’s pentad (1969) represented by ”agency,” in Covid-19 kids videos, (2) Investigating the rhetorical devices used in the selected data to inform, persuade and make kids aware of what is meant by covid-19, (3) Revealing the dominant rhetorical device. The main question that arises here is; “what are the rhetorical strategies used in the discourse of the learning videos on Covid-19”. The selected data is limited to the discourse of six kids’ videos dealing with covid-19 found on YouTube. The theories followed in the analysis are Tarigan’s theory (2013) and Burke’s pentad (1969). The results revealed that the discourse of each video reflects a dramatic situations, including the pentad items; act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. It is also found that agency as a rhetorical device is highly used in the selected data and the most dominant device was personification. It is concluded that the use of the dramatic situations and rhetorical devices in such videos has a valuable role in making kids aware of what is meant by Covid-19 pandemic and persuaded why they have to follow the safety instructions, leaving schools and stay home.

Testing the Efficacy of Attitudinal Inoculation Videos to Enhance COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: A Quasi-Experimental Intervention Trial (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of COVID-19 related misinformation has spread and been amplified online. The spread of misinformation can influence COVID-19 beliefs and protective actions including vaccine hesitancy. Belief in vaccine misinformation is associated with lower vaccination rates and higher vaccine resistance. Attitudinal inoculation is a preventative approach to combating misinformation and disinformation which leverages the power of narrative, rhetoric, values, and emotion. OBJECTIVE This study seeks to test inoculation messages in the form of short video messages to promote resistance against persuasion by COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. METHODS We designed a series of 30-second inoculation videos and conducted a quasi-experimental study to test the use of attitudinal inoculation in a population of individuals who were unvaccinated. The three intervention videos were distinguished by their script design- with Intervention Video 1 focusing on narrative/rhetorical (“Narrative”) presentation of information, Intervention Video 2 focusing on delivering a fact-based information (“Fact”), and Intervention Video 3 using a hybrid design (“Hybrid”). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to compare the main effect of intervention group on the three outcome variables: ability to recognize misinformation tactics (“Recognize”, willingness to share misinformation (“Share”), and willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine (“Willingness”). RESULTS There were significant effects across all three outcome variables comparing inoculation intervention groups to controls. For the Recognize outcome, the ability to recognize rhetorical strategies, there was a significant intervention group effect (F(3,1929)=8.5, p<0.0001). For the Share outcome, support for sharing the mis-disinformation, the intervention group main effect was statistically significant (F(3,1928)=3.4, p=0.0168). For the Willingness outcome, there was a significant intervention group effect; intervention groups were more willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to controls (F(3,1929)=4.1, p=0.0064). CONCLUSIONS Across all intervention groups, inoculated individuals showed greater resistance to misinformation than their non-inoculated counterparts. Relative to those who were not inoculated, inoculated participants showed significantly greater ability to recognize and identify rhetorical strategies used in misinformation, were less likely to share false information, and had greater willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Attitudinal inoculation delivered through short video messages should be tested in public health messaging campaigns to counter mis-disinformation