In:Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 85–100
Political debates
Deliberation, persuasion, and ethos construction
Published online: 1 October 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.05nea
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.05nea
Drawing on Isabela and Norman Fairclough’s (2012) recent approach to practical reasoning in political discourse analysis, the chapter seeks to identify the premises, the goals, the means, and the values that impact upon the participants’ ethos construction in the 2012 American Presidential debates. The political debate is investigated as a form of deliberative argumentation, but also as a persuasive dialogue, in which the participants put forward proposals for actions and argue about the advantages and disadvantages of a certain course of action, in the attempt to both clarify the issues and exert influence on the audience.
References (14)
Amossy, Ruth. 2001. “
Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology.” Poetics Today 22 (1): 1–23.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric, transl. by W. Rhys Roberts. A hypertextual resource compiled by Lee Honeycutt. Available at [URL].
Beason, Larry. 1991. “Strategies for Establishing an Effective Persona: An Analysis of Appeals to Ethos in Business Speeches.” Journal of Business Communication 28 (4): 326–346.
Blair, Anthony J. 2003. “Relationships among Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric.” In Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, and A. Francisca Snoek-Henkemans, 91–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1995. Language and Symbolic Power, transl. by Gino Raymond, and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dailey, William O., Edward A. Hinck, and Shelly S. Hinck. 2008. Politeness in Presidential Debates: Shaping Political Face in Campaign Debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis. A Method for Advanced Students. London and New York: Routledge.
Neagu, Maria-Ionela. 2013. Decoding Political Discourse. Conceptual Metaphors and Argumentation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University.
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Reijven, Menno H.
Săftoiu, Răzvan & Adrian Toader
2018. The persuasive use of pronouns in action games of election campaigns. Language and Dialogue 8:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2016. Confrontation and collaboration in the course of the election debate. Language and Dialogue 6:3 ► pp. 370 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.