Abstract
Dontcheva-Navratilova presents the intercultural approach to the study of persuasion in specialised discourse adopted in this book. Drawing on previous conceptualisations of this phenomenon, she defines persuasion as an essentially context-sensitive process emerging in complex social interaction and reflecting discourse- and culture-dependent meanings. As well as presenting the corpus used in the investigation, this chapter identifies contextual factors shaping persuasive interaction in specialised discourse. While outlining the analytical framework rooted in functional linguistics and intercultural rhetoric, Dontcheva-Navratilova previews strategies pertaining to the ethical, logical and pathetic persuasive appeals which are scrutinised in the volume and relates them to linguistics resources employed for their realisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Askehave, I., & Swales, J. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 2(22), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.195
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002
Bach, K. (2005). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 21–30). https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.03bac
Bell, A. (1997). Language style as audience design. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 240–250). New York: St Martin’s. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5
Bennett, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1994). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315538747
Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013668
Bhatia, V. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Iberica, 4, 3–19.
Bhatia, V., & Bremner, S. (2017). The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851686
Bhatia, V., Sanchez Hernandez, P., & Peréz-Peredes, P. (2011). Researching specialized languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.47
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358
Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Zhang, M. (2018). Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. In M. de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachan Machenzie (Eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction (pp. 201–226). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Biber, D., & Zhang, M. (2018). Expressing evaluation without grammatical stance: Informational persuasion on the web. Corpora, 13(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0137
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Candlin, C., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2007). Intercultural aspects of specialized communication. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Chamonikolasová, J. (2005). Comparing the structures of academic texts written in English and Czech. In M. Huttová (Ed.), Slovak studies in English 1 (pp. 77–84). Bratislava, Slovakia: Univerzita Komenského.
Cheung, M. (2008). ‘Click here’: The impact of new media on the encoding of persuasive messages in direct marketing. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1177//1461445607087007
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural difference in the organisation of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2
Čmejrková, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and in English. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.11cme
Čmejrková, S., & Daneš, F. (1997). Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing. In A. Duzsak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 40–62). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.41
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524599
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003
Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169
Connor, U., & Moreno, A. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Multilingual matters (pp. 153–164). England, UK: Clevedon.
Connor, U., & Upton, T. (Eds.). (2004). Discourse in the professions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2018). Persuasion in earnings calls: A diachronic pragmalinguistic analysis. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417735644
Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (Eds.). (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046
Dillard, J. P., & Seo, K. (2013). Affect and persuasion. In The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 150–166). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n10
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2013). The Sage handbook of persuasion. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23(1), 9–30.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2014). The changing face of Czech academic discourse. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The semiperiphery of academic writing (pp. 39–61). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351197
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2018). A contrastive (English, Czech English, Czech) study of rhetorical functions of citations in linguistics research articles. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 15–37). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18
Duffy, M., & Thorson, E. (2016). Persuasion ethics today. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651309
Duranti, A. (1985). Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 1. (pp. 193–230). London: Academic Press.
Duranti, A. (2006). Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. congress. Language in Society, 35, 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060222
Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse community view. In A. Duzsak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.11
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). On distinctions between classical and modern rhetoric. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 37–49). Carbondale/Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16
Flowerdew, L. (2012). Grammar and the research article. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0473
Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gil-Salom, L., & Soler-Monreal, C. (Eds.). (2014). Dialogicity in written specialised genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.23
Goering, E., Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Steinberg, R. (2008). Persuasion in fundraising letters: An interdisciplinary study. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009339216
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8400300204
Gotti, M. (2008). Investigating specialized discourse (2nd ed.). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0214-7
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Vol. II. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halmari, H., & Virtanen, T. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion across genres. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘We do not seem to have a theory … the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
Hasan, R. (1989). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed., pp. 70–96). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36, 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analyses of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hogan, J. M. (2013). Persuasion in the rhetorical tradition. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage book of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 2–19). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n1
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237
Huber, A., & Pable, J. (2019). Aristotelian appeals and the role of candidate-generated videos in talent assessment. International Journal of Arts and Design Education, 38(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12176
Hunston, S. (1999). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176–207). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. (2007). Using corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 27–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (1999). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Arguments and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. IJES, 8(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5
Jaklová, A. (2002). Persvaze a její prostředky v současných žurnalistických textech. [Persuasion and means for expressing it in contemporary journalistic texts]. Naše řeč, 85(4), 169–176.
Jakobson, R. (1990[1960]). On language. London, UK/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jucker, A. (1997). Persuasion by inference: Analysis of a party political broadcast. Political Linguistics, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.07juc
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX international congress (pp. 105–116). Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.
Killingsworth, J. (2005). Appeals in modern rhetoric: An ordinary language approach. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.
Kissine, M. (2016). Non-assertion speech acts. In S. Goldberg & E. Borg (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy online. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.5
Kristeva, J. (1969). Sémiotique. Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.
Li, X. (2008). From contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric: A search for collective identity. In W. V. Rozycki, E. Nagelhout, & U. Connor (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 13–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The interplay of cultural and disciplinary factors. Text and Talk, 31, 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.008
Lunsford, A., Wilson, K. H., & Eberly, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982795
Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. Benson & W. Graves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (Vol. 1, pp. 248–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
McIntosh, K., Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.001
Miller, G. R. (Ed.). (1980). Persuasion: New directions in theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, G. R. (2013). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 70–82). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n1
Moreno, A., & Suárez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.009
Mulholland, J. (1994). A handbook of persuasive tactics: A practical language guide. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420768
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2009). Citation in business management research articles: A contrastive (English-Spanish) corpus-based analysis. In E. Suomela-Salmi & F. Dervin (Eds.), Cross-cultural linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 49–60). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.193
O’Keefe, D. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA/London/Delhi, India: Sage.
Orts Llopis, M. A., Breeze, R., & Gotti, M. (2017). Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: Providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11481
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 183–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pelclová, J., & Lu, W.-L. (Eds.). (2018). Persuasion in public discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.79
Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Perloff, R. (2010). The dynamics of persuasion. Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (4th ed.). New York/London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657714
Savolainen, R. (2014). The use of rhetorical strategies in Q & A discussions. Journal of Documentation, 70(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2012-0152
Scotto di Carlo, G. (2015). Ethos in TED talks: The role of credibility in popularized texts. Linguistics and Literature, 81(91), 81–91.
Searle, J. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X
Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and 1993. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 217–235). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_13
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
Simons, H., & Jones, J. (2011). Persuasion in society. London/New York: Routledge.
Šinkūnienė, J. (2017). Citations in research writing. The interplay of discipline, culture and expertise. In T. Egan & H. Dirdal (Eds.), Cross-linguistic correspondences: From lexis to genre (pp. 253–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.191
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review, 73, 439–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183301
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011773
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
Trosborg, A. (1997). Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Trosborg, A. (Ed.). (2000). Analysing professional genres. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
van Emeren, H. (Ed.). (1986). Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C.-R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.55lee
van De Mieroop, D. (2007). The complementarity of two identities and two approaches: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of institutional and professional identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1120–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.009
Vassileva, I. (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x
Virtanen, T., & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across Genres (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.03vir
Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808630
Warchał, K. (2015). Certainty and doubt in academic discourse: Epistemic modality markers. Katowice, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184
Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
Yzer, M. (2013). Reasoned action theory: Persuasion as belief-based behaviour change. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion (pp. 120–136). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2020). Persuasion: Definition, Approaches, Contexts. In: Persuasion in Specialised Discourses. Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58162-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58163-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)