Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 15:2 (2024) ► pp.246–274

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The interpersonal semantics of rhetoric

Ideological variations and their rhetorical construction in the GM debate in China

 | Huaqiao University
ORCiD logo with link | East China University of Political Science and Law
Published online: 6 April 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21011.che
Abstract
Different from previous linguistic studies on rhetoric, which primarily concern the ideational semantics and the logic of sentences, this article attempts to deal systematically with the interpersonal semantics of rhetoric by drawing on the comprehensive appraisal framework of systemic functional linguistics (Martin, Jeanette R. and Peter R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and explores the mechanism of rhetorical persuasion in science communication via appraisal through a case study of the gene-modification (GM) debate in China. It first examines the rhetorical appeals of the subsystems of appraisal and then based on a self-constructed and coded corpus of GM debate discourses, it compares how institutional (the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and the Greenpeace Organization) and individual stakeholders (Cui Yongyuan and Fang Zhouzi) of different ideological interests in the GM debate mobilize the interpersonal semantic resources to rhetorical effects to persuade the audience of the safety/danger of the GM technology and products. The analysis reveals that while the opinion leaders choose ‘soft’ persuasion by heavily using affect and judgement resources, the institutions opt for ‘hard’ persuasion by utilizing more appreciation resources. The four parties all prefer contracting resources over expanding resources of engagement, which restricts the space of negotiation. Their communicative motives are interpreted through the lens of the rhetoric theory, and the implications and consequences for science communication in the post-truth era are discussed. Theoretically, the paper contributes to understanding the persuasion mechanism of appraisal and to understanding the science vs. society, and government vs. citizens relationship.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies on scientific debates
  • 3.Analytical framework
    • 3.1Science communication and its rhetoric effect of persuasion
    • 3.2The interpersonal semantics of rhetoric
  • 4.Data and methods
  • 5.Analysis of appraisal resources and their rhetorical appeals
    • 5.1Analysis of attitude resources and their rhetorical appeals
      • 1.General distribution of attitude resources in the debate discourses
      • 2.Analysis of affect resources in the debate discourses
      • 3.Analysis of judgement resources in the debate discourses
      • 4.Analysis of appreciation resources in the debate discourses
    • 5.2Engagement analysis and appeals to ethos and logos
      • 1.General distribution of engagement resources in the debate discourse
      • 2.Analysis of contracting resources in the debate discourses
      • 3.Analysis of expanding resources in the debate discourses
  • 6.Rhetorical effects of the deployment of the appraisal resources
  • 7.Conclusion and implications
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Amossy, Ruth. 2009. “The New Rhetoric’s inheritance: Argumentation and discourse analysis.” Argumentation 231: 313–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Alison, Stuart Allan, Alan Petersen and Clare Wilkinson. 2005. “The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press.” Science Communication 27 (2): 200–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Augoustinos, Martha, Shona Crabb and Richard Shepherd. 2010. “Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK.” Public Understanding of Science 19 (1): 98–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika and Changpeng Huan. 2018. “Key principles for analyzing appraisal.” Foreign Languages Research, 11: 39–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Martha S. 2008. “Ethos and narrative in online educational chat.” In Rhetoric in Detail: Discourse Analyses of Rhetorical Talk and Text, ed. by Barbara Johnstone and Chris Eisenhart, 195–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Guy, Elisa Pieri and Peter T. Robbins. 2004. “The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food.” Discourse & Society 15 (4): 433–449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Guy, Peter T. Robbins and Elisa Pieri. 2006. “Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions.” Public Understanding of Science 151: 3–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Marion. 1990. “Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse.” Canadian Journal of Education 151: 348–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen. 2005. Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henderson, Alison, C. Kay Weaver and George Cheney. 2007. “Talking ‘facts’: Identity and rationality in industry perspectives on genetic modification.” Discourse Studies 9 (1): 9–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higgins, Colin and Robyn Walker. 2012. “Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports.” Accounting Forum 361: 194–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte and Torben Vestergaard. 2009. “Evaluation and audience acceptance in biotech news texts”. Journal of Pragmatics 411: 586–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Humphrey, Sally. 2010. “Enacting rhetoric in the civic domain.” English in Australia 45 (3): 9–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenkins, Richard. 2000. “Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology.” Current Sociology 48 (3): 7–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, George A. 2007. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (George A. Kennedy, translator). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lassen, Inger. 2006. “Is the press release a genre? A study of form and content.” Discourse Studies 8 (4): 503–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008a. “Construing hope in gene modification discourse.” In Towards Humane Technologies: Biotechnologies, New Media and Ethics, ed. by Naomi Sunderland, Phil Graham, Peter Isaacs and Bernard McKenna, 133–150. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. “Commonplaces and social uncertainty: Negotiating public opinion.” Journal of Risk Research 11 (8): 1025–1045. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lukin, Annabelle. 2019. War and Its Ideologies: A Social-semiotic Theory and Description. Singapore: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maeseele, Pieter. 2015. “Risk conflicts, critical discourse analysis and media discourses on GM crops and food.” Journalism 16 (2): 278–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Jeanette R. 2000. “Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Jeanette R. and Peter R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. and Ashley R. Kelly, eds. 2017. Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motion, Judy and C. Kay Weaver. 2005. “The epistemic struggle for credibility: Rethinking media relations.” Journal of Communication Management 9 (13): 246–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, Elwood. 1944. “The semantics of rhetoric: A dialogue on public speaking in 1944.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 30 (1): 31–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2012. Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization: The Impact of Culture and Language. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, Louise, Anabela Carvalho and Julie Doyle, eds. 2012. Citizen Voices. Performing Public Participation in Science and Environment Communication. Chicago: Intellect Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinho, Fabiana. 2018. On logos, pathos and ethos in judicial argumentation. In Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics, ed. by Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer and Nuno M. M. S. Coelho, 133–155. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poortinga, P. Wouter and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2005. “Trust in risk regulation”. Risk Analysis 251: 199–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priest, Susanna H. 2006. “The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: Competing voices, contrasting frames.” Public Understanding of Science 151: 55–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priest, Susanna H. and Ten Eyck, Toby A. 2003. “News coverage of biotechnology debates.” Society. 40 (6): 29–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers-Hayden, Tee and Nicholas F. Pidgeon. 2007. “Moving engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry.” Public Understanding of Science 161: 345–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roper, Juliet, Ted Zorn and C. Kay Weaver. 2004. Science Dialogues: The Communicative Properties of Science and Technology Dialogue. Hamilton, N. Z.: University of Waikato.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarze, Steve. 2006. “Environmental melodrama.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 92 (3): 239–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.” The Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ten Eyck, Toby A. 2005. “The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: Mirrors,windows or walls?” Public Understanding of Science 141: 305–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
To, Vinh, Damon Thomas and Angela Thomas. 2020. “Writing persuasive texts: Using grammatical metaphors for rhetorical purposes in an educational context.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 40 (2): 139–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Wesley. 2018. “Power, discourse, and news media: Examining Canada’s GM Alfalfa protests.” Geoforum 911: 117–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Peter R. 2001. Appraisal Website. [URL]
Yamaguchi, Tomiko. 2007. “Controversy over genetically modified crops in India: Discursive strategies and social identities of farmers.” Discourse Studies 9 (1): 87–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhou, Nana
2025. Attitudinal negotiation: the analysis of online commentary videos about an international event on Chinese social media platform bilibili.com. Linguistics Vanguard DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue