Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 12-25 10.1515/topling-2016-0010 Cognitive rhetoric of effect: energy flow as a means of persuasion in inaugurals Serhiy Potapenko Nikolai Gogol State University of Nizhyn, Ukraine . Abstract Cognitive rhetoric of effect deals with creating a referent’s favourable image throughout four text-forming stages: invention (looking for arguments); disposition (argument arrangement); elocution (verbal ornamentation); and performance, combining the ancient canons of memory and delivery. The cognitive procedures of rhetoric of effect rest on conceptual structures of sensory-motor origin: image schemas, i.e. recurring dynamic patterns of our perceptual interactions and motor programmes (Johnson, 1987, p.xiv), and force dynamics, i.e. a semantic category in the realm of physical force generalized into domains of internal psychological relationships and social interactions (Talmy, 2000, p.409). The embedding of sensory-motor structures into the text-forming stages reveals that cognitive rhetorical effects are created by managing the energy flow, which consists of force and motion transformations denoted by particular linguistic units. The phenomenon is exemplified by the analysis of the way impressions of freedom celebration and freedom defence are formed in the inaugurals of J.F. Kennedy (1961) and G.W. Bush (2005) respectively. Key words cognitive rhetoric of effect, ethos, image schema, force dynamics, inaugural address Introduction understanding derives from seeing Classical rhetoric is generally treated as a rhetoric as a science, a virtue, an art, a systematic and comprehensive body of faculty, or a knack (Kennedy, 2007, knowledge primarily intended to teach p.119). On the one hand, comprehending public speaking (Kennedy, 2007, p.104). it as an art or knack we underscore its Since its inception rhetoric has faced two intuitive underpinnings and restrict it to major problems concerning its object and the description of what the author is trying methods. The former is presently related to achieve and the strategies employed to to persuasion (Bonnefille, 2012, p.228; that end (Wesley, 2014, p.136). On the Hamilton, 2003, p.356; Leith, 2012, p.1), other hand, Aristotle’s idea of scientific covering a wide array of genres and media rhetoric (Craig, 2007, p.140) poses it as a (Tabakowska, 2012, p.275), since, as field with rigorous principles of Burke puts it, wherever there is influencing the addressee’s mind which persuasion, there is rhetoric (1969, can be done only if we know its p.172). In its turn, persuasion is defined organization and functioning. as influencing the audience’s mental state Consequently, neither rhetoric as as a precursor to action (O’Keefe, 2007, persuasion nor rhetoric as science is p.595) or, in more rigorous terms, as possible without the knowledge of how imposition of different types of constraints the human mind works. That’s where on the way the audience is led to process cognitive rhetoric comes in: an approach information (Maillat and Oswald, 2013, independently proposed by Sperber who p.137), i.e. persuasion relies on the way linked it to the mind and by Turner (1991) our mind works. As for the method, its 12 Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 12-25 who related it to the human brain modes of proof encompassing ethos, (Hamilton, 2005, p.280). logos and pathos (Campbell, 2007, p.523). Amongst them logos was the first to 1. Cognitive rhetoric of effect: definition receive its modern interpretation as a To date, cognitive rhetoric is defined from theory of argumentation (Perelman and two perspectives: ontological, i.e. that of Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Van Eemeren and communication participants, and Grootendorst, 2004) with pathos and epistemological, i.e. with respect to the ethos still awaiting a contemporary re- research methods applied. Ontologically, thinking. This paper argues that the from the sender’s position, this new development of modern media has been approach is viewed as a study of linguistic transforming ethos, traditionally treated as devices and strategies employed to affect a speaker’s favourable self-image the recipients’ viewpoint and way of (Baumlin, 2007, p.278), into rhetoric of thinking (Kwiatkowska, 2012, p.9), while effect aimed at creating an impression of from the sender-receiver interaction any referent by any media understood in perspective it is regarded as a study of McLuhan’s sense (1997) in any type of fundamental cognitive processes at both discourse. giving and receiving ends (Tabakowska, The cognitive rhetoric of effect unravels 2012, p.276). Epistemologically, cognitive the author’s intended impressions, taking rhetoric is treated as an application of into consideration the conceptual cognitive procedures to investigating structures which underlie text-formation persuasive means, i.e. as a study of at the stages of invention, disposition, correspondence between cognitive elocution and performance, with the last semantics, which seeks to understand how one combining ancient canons of memory we generally conceptualize, imagine, and and delivery. Consequently, cognitive reason, and rhetorical theory, which seeks rhetoric of effect can be defined as the to understand how we conceptualize, theory and practice of textual imagine, and reason in particular implementation of the author’s intention, situations (Oakley, 2005, p.455). These generally outlined in the introduction. two sets of definitions seem to interact It seems natural to start the elaboration since authors are supposed to be aware – of the procedures of the cognitive rhetoric though often intuitively – of the receivers’ of effect with the most basic conceptual conceptual structures they try to affect. structures related to the sensory-motor Therefore the integrated definition, experience. They include image schemas, combining ontology and epistemology, i.e. recurring dynamic patterns of our should treat cognitive rhetoric as the perceptual experience by means of which theory and practice of persuading we can make sense of that experience and explained with the application of cognitive reason about it (Johnson, 2005, p.27), and linguistic methodology. force dynamics, i.e. a fundamental Currently, cognitive rhetorical studies semantic category that allows us to think are mainly atomistic in their nature. and talk about events and relations in the Leaving aside ancient teaching, they focus physical domain as well as in epistemic on separate cognitive procedures: and social domains (Talmy, 2000, p.209). conceptual metaphor (Hamilton, 2012, In this article, the procedures of the p.220), force dynamics (Oakley, 2005, cognitive rhetoric of effect are exemplified p.455), image schemas (Bonnefille, 2012, by the analysis of inaugurals, which are p.229), conceptual integration (Gomola, central events in American political culture 2012, p.287), Cognitive Grammar (Reisigl, 2010, p.252). In such speeches, (Tabakowska, 2012, p.282). However, a the President tries to persuade his comprehensive cognitive rhetorical theory audience to believe him, to cooperate with seems impossible without taking into him, to perform his plans for the future consideration the ancient techniques and to feel convinced that they have made contributing to the persuasion process. It the right choice (Biria and Mohammadi, presupposes doing two things: first, 2012, p.1293). incorporating cognitive procedures into The analysis undertaken in this paper the ancient canons of invention, distinguishes inaugurals’ two functions: disposition, elocution, memory and universal and specific. The universal ones, delivery; second, taking into account the characteristic of any inaugural, include: 13 Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 12-25 unifying the audience; rehearsing Agonist, i.e. the focal force, and an communal values drawn from the past; Antagonist, i.e. a force opposing it (Talmy, setting forth political principles; 2000, p.410). In their turn, image demonstrating that the President schemas, initially suggested by M. Johnson appreciates the requirements and (Johnson, 1987, p.116), represent a limitations of his executive power, urging referent from four external perspectives: contemplation, not action and focusing on bodily, perceptual, moto-topological and the present while incorporating the past dynamic. Bodily schemas FAR – NEAR, UP – and the future (Campbell and Jamieson, DOWN, FRONT – BACK, CENTRE – 1986, p.235). Inaugurals’ specific PERIPHERY indicate the position of functions, overlooked so far, reflect a conceptualized objects relative to the president’s personal views, for example, human body. Perceptual schemas MASS – modesty, underscored in President COLLECTION – COUNT – OBJECT reflect Obama’s first inaugural (Potapenko, 2012, transformations of the images of the p.243), or personal interpretation of objects which are approached or perceived particular concepts, for instance, that of from distance. Moto-topological schemas freedom treated from the perspectives of OBJECT – SURFACE / CONTACT – celebration in President John F. Kennedy’s CONTAINER – FULL / EMPTY represent 1961 inaugural (We observe today not a motion of referents into CONTAINER or victory of party but a celebration of out of it. Dynamic schemas, reflecting a freedom) and of defence in W. Bush’s flow of energy, split into kinetic – 2005 address (For a half a century, distinguishing the trajectories of moving America defended our own freedom by objects in terms of PATH, VERTICALITY, standing watch on distant borders). CYCLE, and force,