RHETORICAL DEVICES

A TOOL KIT

adapted from Potter, J 1996 Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction, Sage, London
by D. Freesmith
Competing metaphors for language
Language as mirror
The mirror metaphor sees language as simply reflecting reality. /
Language as construction yard
In the construction yard metaphor language is used to construct versions of things, people, ideas and events.
In this model, words are never simply neutral reflections of reality. Rather they are understood as influential choices that represent reality in selective ways. Anything can be described using a countless number of different possible combinations of representational choices (ie words). These choices constitute our knowledge and understanding of the world. In this model language is therefore seen as very powerful indeed.
The rhetorical devices in this toolkit can be used to deconstruct a persuasive text in order to identify how it uses language to represent reality in a particular way.


Tools for building a speaker’s credibility

Category entitlement

We accept that certain categories of people are entitled to make specific knowledge claims, so we give special credence to their accounts. In the claim ‘the psychologist told me my child is gifted’ a parent presents this information as coming from a reliable source. The psychologist belongs to the category of ‘expert’, and is thus is entitled to decide that the child is gifted. Citing the psychologist builds the credibility of this parent’s claim.

Concession

Concessions are provided by speakers[1] when they explicitly acknowledge potential counter-claims. The position the speaker ultimately advocates will seem more reasonable and robust since they appear to have considered each side before reaching their conclusion. The speaker presents themselves as both balanced and informed. Their opinion then appears to reflect an appraisal of available evidence rather than a personal agenda

.

I see the importance of providing funding for children with learning disabilities – we do need to give those kids a fair chance. But, at the end of the day, spending money on the gifted kids is simply more practical because they’re the ones who will move our society forward.

Consensus

One way of transforming a description into a ‘fact’ is to produce the agreement of reliable witnesses. An account appears more believable if more than one person agrees (‘we all knew he was nervous’), and all witnesses provide the same account of events.

It wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he [Saddam Hussein] was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.

George W. Bush 8.2.2004 - defending the invasion of Iraq

Disclaimer

A disclaimer is an explicit disavowal of the very stance or opinion a speaker subsequently advocates. A speaker may use this when they know that what they are about to say may attract criticism. This way they deny the criticism before it can even be made.

I’m not sexist, but I just think women belong in the kitchen because it’s natural.

I’m not racist, but I just think black people can’t be trusted.

Footing

When presenting information, a speaker can present themselves as the source of that information, or relay it as someone else’s message. A speaker can shift footing depending on what suits their argument. Depending on your footing, you can limit or extend the extent to which you can be held responsible for the account you are presenting.

He is innocent. vs His solicitor alleges that he is innocent.

Stake management

A version of events could be undermined if the speaker can be shown to have a vested interest in the particular account they provide. For example, if a parent says ‘my child is gifted’, they are open to the charge ‘well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, because all parents think their children are smart’. This means that the parent can be seen to have a ‘stake’ in the matter that undermines the objectivity of their account. To get around this, a speaker can employ one of two tools: stake inoculation or stake confession.

Stake confession

Stake confession is where a speaker acknowledges their vested interest. For example:

I know I’m his dad, and all dads are proud, but he really put in a performance like none other today.

This claim gives the impression that even though this dad ‘would say’ that his son did well, the boy did such a good job that this comment is more than simple bragging and should be taken seriously.

/

Stake inoculation

Stake inoculation is where a speaker rebuts the potential claim that they have a stake even before they are challenged on it. For example, someone selling a new miracle cream in an infomercial may say:

At first, I was sceptical about the new cream. It seemed too good to be true. But after I tried it, I was convinced.

In this claim, the speaker heads off the suggestion that they may just be praising the product for profit by presenting themselves as having been sceptical like anyone else would be. This makes their eventual endorsement of the product more believable.

Tools for building the case

Active voicing

Active voicing is the use of a direct quote from another source. Presenting other people’s words in a direct quote makes the reporting of their words seem more reliable, which in turn builds the ‘believability’ of the argument.

He said to me, ‘I can’t get over how much you’ve improved.’

Categorisation

When a speaker offers a description, choices are available to them about how to name or categorise their subject. These choices affect the audience’s perception. For example, the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ may both be accurately used to describe the same person, but to very different effect.

terrorist / freedom fighter

refugee / asylum seeker / boat person / illegal immigrant

bushranger / legend / hero / criminal

Detail

Detail builds specificity and presents an account as informed, reliable and ‘accurate’.
I saw the thief exit the building at 6.13am wearing a Sydney Swans beanie with a red pom-pom. /

Vagueness

Vagueness supports broad claims and is difficult to ‘pin down’ or undermine. It is also useful if a speaker is trying to be evasive. For example, to avoid unfavourable statistics, non-numerical quantifiers such as ‘some’ or ‘a majority’ may be used.
The commission I set up is to obviously analyze what went right or what went wrong with the Iraqi intelligence. It was kind of lessons learned.George W. Bush 8.2.2004 - defending the invasion of Iraq

Generalisation

Generalisation allows a speaker to stretch a particular interpretation across an indefinite number of instances.

Girls used to fall for him and then he would just dump them.

When I spoke to her she would look at me with those eyes.

The use of ‘would’ in these sentences may be seen to generalise the behaviour across multiple occasions and/or to suggest that the behaviour is characteristic of the person.

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering means offering a very selective description of something that includes particular details as relevant, while omitting or ignoring other potential aspects, so as to support a specific argument.

Gerrymandering is a favourite of politicians. For example:

Government politician: The economy is healthy – just look at the high growth rate of gross domestic product.

Opposition politician: The economy is unhealthy – just look at the increasing number of families below the poverty line.

These politicians do not disagree about the facts themselves – they are both telling the truth. The problem is that they have each selected different criteria for determining the health of the economy. They selected these criteria according to which one helps to tell the story about the economy they need to present to the electorate.

! The word gerrymandering has an interesting history which helps to explain its meaning. Try researching it on the internet.

Intention-promoting verbs

Certain verbs can be chosen to make intention explicit. For example, ‘James tripped, so the team lost’ does not necessarily imply that James intended to lose, while ‘James helped the team lose’ implies intention.

Making evidence ‘speak for itself’

A speaker can increase the credibility of their evidence by presenting it as self-evident. This downplays their role in collecting or interpreting the evidence. The speaker personifies the evidence as though it is the evidence itself that makes the case, not their subjective interpretation of it. This strategy obscures the speaker’s (or others’) actions, choices or judgments in the acquisition, selection or analysis of that data. This is often used in science. (This device is also known as ‘empiricist repertoire’.)

The facts show …

It is self-evident that…

All the evidence points to…

Obviously….

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush 17.3.2003 – calling for the invasion of Iraq

Maximisation &
minimisation
Maximisation and minimisation are commonly used for emphasis or de-emphasis.
Maximisation can be used to establish blame: She harassed Kate so much, so I’m not surprised she snapped.
Minimisation can be used to downplay accountability: He only threw a tiny rock. / Extreme case
formulation
This is the extreme version of maximisation and minimisation. A degree of exaggeration is often involved.
Everyone who meets her likes her.
She never listens to me.

Nominalisation

Nominalisation is the changing of verbs into nouns within a sentence. This may be done to avoid mentioning those who performed the action, and can enable the speaker to avoid attributing responsibility. For example the verb ‘kill’ in ‘police killed rioters’ can be transformed into the noun killing, as in ‘the killing was regrettable’. The term killing avoids mentioning the perpetrators, allowing the speaker to avoid or even shift attributions of blame.

/

Passive voice

Like nominalisation, use of the passive voice is a way to avoid mentioning the subject of the verb. For example ‘police killed rioters’ can be transformed into the passive form ‘the rioters were killed’, thereby avoiding mention of the killers themselves. As with nominalisation, this can allow the speaker to avoid or even shift attributions of blame.

Pronoun selection

Pronouns are words that stand in the place of nouns, including: I, me, my, we, us, our, you, your, he, she, him, her, his, it, its, they, them, their.

Careful selection of pronouns can be a convenient way for speakers to include or exclude themselves and/or others, according to the requirements of the argument.

For example, by calling Aboriginal people ‘them’ a speaker separates these individuals from white Australians (‘us’/your audience) and potentially presents them as all the same.

Rhetorically self-sufficient arguments

These are common-sense arguments that are acceptable to a listener without further justification. These arguments are ‘safe ground’ for a speaker because the audience will usually agree. They are also difficult for opponents to criticise. Speakers often tie their case to a familiar rhetorically self-sufficient argument that they know their audience will feel comfortable to accept.

Different problems require different solutions.

You can’t please everyone all the time.

Ten rhetorically self-sufficient arguments in liberal democratic societies[2]:

1. Resources should be used productively and in a cost-effective manner.

2. Nobody should be compelled.

3. Everybody should be treated equally.

4. You cannot turn the clock backwards.

5. Present generations cannot be blamed for the mistakes of past generations.

6. Injustices should be righted.

7. Everybody can succeed if they try hard enough.

8. Minority opinion should not carry more weight than majority opinion.

9. We have to live in the twentieth century.

10. You have to be practical.

Each of these arguments is deeply familiar to and trusted by members of liberal democratic cultures such as contemporary Australian culture. Politicians in particular draw on these arguments according to the needs of their case. The arguments may not be inherently or logically self-sufficient. Indeed some of them may contradict others when applied to particular situations. For example, John Howard drew on number 5 when refusing to make a formal apology to the Stolen Generations, but drew on number 6 when accepting the need for an apology from Japan for war crimes towards Australian soldiers.

Statistics

Using numerical representations is not a neutral process. Rather, statistics may be selected so as to support particular arguments. For example, a speaker can choose percentages, fractions, absolute figures or non-numerical representations (‘a vast majority’) according to the needs of a particular case.

In the last year in Australia 284,000 new jobs were created. - Peter Costello 13.7.07

The Treasurer’s presentation of the number 284,000 in this case has greater impact than a percentage (‘2.5% increase in jobs’) or a vague term like ‘many’.


Tools for rousing audience emotion

These tools are used particularly in oral texts to rouse the audience’s emotion and attract their sentiment towards the argument proposed.

Repetition

This can be used effectively to emphasise and to evoke emotion.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!

Martin Luther King 23.8.1963

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.

Winston Churchill 4.6.1940

Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world.

George W. Bush 8.2.2004 - defending the invasion of Iraq

Rhetorical questions