20 Vol 6 Num 4 Pernambucomundo2019octubdiciemb19incl

CUERPO DIRECTIVO Dra.
Nidia Burgos
Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina
Directores
Dr. Juan Guillermo Mansilla Sepúlveda Mg. María Eugenia Campos
Universidad Católica de Temuco, Chile Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
Dr. Francisco Ganga Contreras
Universidad de Los Lagos, Chile Dr. Francisco José Francisco Carrera
Universidad de Valladolid, España
Subdirectores
Mg © Carolina Cabezas Cáceres Mg. Keri González
Universidad de Las Américas, Chile Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México, México
Dr. Andrea Mutolo
Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México, México Dr. Pablo Guadarrama González
Universidad Central de Las Villas, Cuba
Editor
Drdo. Juan Guillermo Estay Sepúlveda Mg. Amelia Herrera Lavanchy
Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía, Chile Universidad de La Serena, Chile
Editor Científico Mg. Cecilia Jofré Muñoz

Dr. Luiz Alberto David Araujo Universidad San Sebastián, Chile
Pontificia Universidade Católica de Sao Paulo, Brasil
Mg. Mario Lagomarsino Montoya
Editor Brasil Universidad Adventista de Chile, Chile
Drdo. Maicon Herverton Lino Ferreira da Silva
Universidade da Pernambuco, Brasil Dr. Claudio Llanos Reyes
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile
Editor Ruropa del Este
Dr. Alekzandar Ivanov Katrandhiev Dr. Werner Mackenbach
Universidad Suroeste "Neofit Rilski", Bulgaria Universidad de Potsdam, Alemania
Universidad de Costa Rica, Costa Rica
Cuerpo Asistente
Mg. Rocío del Pilar Martínez Marín
Traductora: Inglés Universidad de Santander, Colombia
Lic. Pauline Corthorn Escudero
Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía, Chile Ph. D. Natalia Milanesio
Universidad de Houston, Estados Unidos
Traductora: Portugués
Lic. Elaine Cristina Pereira Menegón Dra. Patricia Virginia Moggia Münchmeyer
Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía, Chile Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile
Portada Ph. D. Maritza Montero

Sr. Felipe Maximiliano Estay Guerrero Universidad Central de Venezuela, Venezuela
Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía, Chile
Dra. Eleonora Pencheva
COMITÉ EDITORIAL Universidad Suroeste Neofit Rilski, Bulgaria
Dra. Carolina Aroca Toloza Dra. Rosa María Regueiro Ferreira

Universidad de Chile, Chile Universidad de La Coruña, España
Dr. Jaime Bassa Mercado Mg. David Ruete Zúñiga

Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile Universidad Nacional Andrés Bello, Chile
Dra. Heloísa Bellotto Dr. Andrés Saavedra Barahona

Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brasil Universidad San Clemente de Ojrid de Sofía, Bulgaria
Dr. Efraín Sánchez Cabra Dr. Gerardo Echeita Sarrionandia
Academia Colombiana de Historia, Colombia Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, España
Dra. Mirka Seitz Dr. Antonio Hermosa Andújar

Universidad del Salvador, Argentina Universidad de Sevilla, España
Ph. D. Stefan Todorov Kapralov Dra. Patricia Galeana

South West University, Bulgaria Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO INTERNACIONAL Dra. Manuela Garau

Centro Studi Sea, Italia
Comité Científico Internacional de Honor
Dr. Carlo Ginzburg Ginzburg
Dr. Adolfo A. Abadía Scuola Normale Superiore de Pisa, Italia
Universidad ICESI, Colombia Universidad de California Los Ángeles, Estados Unidos
Dr. Carlos Antonio Aguirre Rojas Dr. Francisco Luis Girardo Gutiérrez
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano, Colombia
Dr. Martino Contu José Manuel González Freire

Universidad de Sassari, Italia Universidad de Colima, México
Dr. Luiz Alberto David Araujo Dra. Antonia Heredia Herrera

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Sao Paulo, Brasil Universidad Internacional de Andalucía, España
Dra. Patricia Brogna Dr. Eduardo Gomes Onofre

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Brasil
Dr. Horacio Capel Sáez Dr. Miguel León-Portilla

Universidad de Barcelona, España Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
Dr. Javier Carreón Guillén Dr. Miguel Ángel Mateo Saura

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Instituto de Estudios Albacetenses “Don Juan Manuel”,
España
Dr. Lancelot Cowie
Universidad West Indies, Trinidad y Tobago Dr. Carlos Tulio da Silva Medeiros
Diálogos em MERCOSUR, Brasil
Dra. Isabel Cruz Ovalle de Amenabar
Universidad de Los Andes, Chile + Dr. Álvaro Márquez-Fernández
Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela
Dr. Rodolfo Cruz Vadillo
Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla, Dr. Oscar Ortega Arango
México Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, México
Dr. Adolfo Omar Cueto Dr. Antonio-Carlos Pereira Menaut

Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina Universidad Santiago de Compostela, España
Dr. Miguel Ángel de Marco Dr. José Sergio Puig Espinosa

Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Dilemas Contemporáneos, México
Dra. Emma de Ramón Acevedo Dra. Francesca Randazzo

Universidad de Chile, Chile Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras,
Honduras
Dra. Yolando Ricardo Dra. Ana Bénard da Costa
Universidad de La Habana, Cuba Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Portugal
Centro de Estudios Africanos, Portugal
Dr. Manuel Alves da Rocha
Universidade Católica de Angola Angola Dra. Alina Bestard Revilla
Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el
Mg. Arnaldo Rodríguez Espinoza Deporte, Cuba
Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Costa Rica
Dra. Noemí Brenta
Dr. Miguel Rojas Mix Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Coordinador la Cumbre de Rectores Universidades
Estatales América Latina y el Caribe Dra. Rosario Castro López
Universidad de Córdoba, España
Dr. Luis Alberto Romero
CONICET / Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Ph. D. Juan R. Coca
Universidad de Valladolid, España
Dra. Maura de la Caridad Salabarría Roig
Dilemas Contemporáneos, México Dr. Antonio Colomer Vialdel
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, España
Dr. Adalberto Santana Hernández
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Dr. Christian Daniel Cwik
Universidad de Colonia, Alemania
Dr. Juan Antonio Seda
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Dr. Eric de Léséulec
INS HEA, Francia
Dr. Saulo Cesar Paulino e Silva
Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brasil Dr. Andrés Di Masso Tarditti
Universidad de Barcelona, España
Dr. Miguel Ángel Verdugo Alonso
Universidad de Salamanca, España Ph. D. Mauricio Dimant
Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalén, Israel
Dr. Josep Vives Rego
Universidad de Barcelona, España Dr. Jorge Enrique Elías Caro
Universidad de Magdalena, Colombia
Dr. Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Dra. Claudia Lorena Fonseca
Universidad Federal de Pelotas, Brasil
Dra. Blanca Estela Zardel Jacobo
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México Dra. Ada Gallegos Ruiz Conejo
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Perú
Comité Científico Internacional
Dra. Carmen González y González de Mesa
Mg. Paola Aceituno Universidad de Oviedo, España
Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Chile
Ph. D. Valentin Kitanov
Ph. D. María José Aguilar Idañez Universidad Suroeste Neofit Rilski, Bulgaria
Universidad Castilla-La Mancha, España
Mg. Luis Oporto Ordóñez
Dra. Elian Araujo Universidad Mayor San Andrés, Bolivia
Universidad de Mackenzie, Brasil
Dr. Patricio Quiroga
Mg. Rumyana Atanasova Popova Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile
Universidad Suroeste Neofit Rilski, Bulgaria
Dr. Gino Ríos Patio Dra. Jaqueline Vassallo
Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Per Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina
Dr. Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Arrechavaleta Dr. Evandro Viera Ouriques

Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, México Universidad Federal de Río de Janeiro, Brasil
Dra. Vivian Romeu Dra. María Luisa Zagalaz Sánchez

Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, México Universidad de Jaén, España
Dra. María Laura Salinas Dra. Maja Zawierzeniec

Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Argentina Universidad Wszechnica Polska, Polonia
Dr. Stefano Santasilia

Universidad della Calabria, Italia Editorial Cuadernos de Sofía
Santiago – Chile
Mg. Silvia Laura Vargas López Representante Legal
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, México Juan Guillermo Estay Sepúlveda Editorial
REVISTA INCLUSIONES ISSN 0719-4706 VOLUMEN 6 – NÚMERO ESPECIAL – OCTUBRE/DICIEMBRE 2019
Indización, Repositorios y Bases de Datos Académicas
Revista Inclusiones, se encuentra indizada en:
CATÁLOGO
PH. D. © ALLA VOROBIONA / PH. D. IRYNA SHAPOSHNYKOVA / PH. D. (c) IRYNA HLUSHCHENKO
PH. D. (C) TATIANA SHVETS / PH. D. (C) VIKTORIIA KOVAL
BIBLIOTECA UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓN
ISSN 0719-4706 - Volumen 6 / Número Especial / Octubre – Diciembre 2019 pp. 257-275
RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION IN MODERN PUBLIC SPEAKING
Ph. D. (c) Alla Vorobiova

Kherson State University, Ukraine
[email protected]
Ph. D. Iryna Shaposhnykova
[email protected]
Ph. D. (c) Iryna Hlushchenko
[email protected]
Ph. D. (c) Tatiana Shvets
[email protected]
Ph. D. (c) Viktoriia Koval
[email protected]
Fecha de Recepción: 12 de junio de 2019 – Fecha Revisión: 28 de julio de 2019

Fecha de Aceptación: 16 de agosto 2019 – Fecha de Publicación: 25 de septiembre 2019
Abstract
This research addresses modern tendencies in rhetorical argumentation. The theoretical rationale
of the study lies in the different approaches to studying the forms of arguments and their content.
The study showed that the compositional perfection of argumentation can be successfully
implemented where sequential deployment of the logical arguments and emotional reasoning
achieve such goals as audience acquisition, acceptance and planned response. The argumentative
system chosen allows for distinguishing the contemporary aspects of persuasive strategies in public
appearance. To obtain an understanding of recent trends in argumentation, an analysis was
performed of political speeches delivered by the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan, China, Ukraine
and the United States during the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly (September
15, 2015). As a result of this inquiry into the rhetorical discourse we tried to facilitate students’
learning of argumentation, to develop their ability to critically analyse sample texts, to give them to
understand what arguments and reasoning are more preferable. With the methodology of cliché
(sample text) replenishment, we describe a way to engage students in studying rhetorical discourse,
help them to develop the ability to analyse modern argumentation critically in the real-world
contexts.
Keywords
Public Appearance – Rhetorical Argumentation – Logical Arguments – Emotional Reasoning

New Persuasive Strategies
Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 258
Para Citar este Artículo:
Vorobiova, Alla; Shaposhnykova, Iryna; Hlushenko, Iryna; Shvets, Tatiana y Koval, Viktoriia.
Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking. Revista Inclusiones Vol: 6 num Especial
(2019): 257-275.

Introduction
Dynamic and constantly changing modern life requires the skills to construct both
informative speeches and persuasive ones. The effective speaking is provided by
Rhetoric, a science addresses “the human capacity to create and articulate knowledge”1
grounded on the principles of argumentation. Today the argumentative strategies are
strenuously involved in many processes: 1) to revive civic education2; 2) to facilitate
academic discourse3; 3) to algorithmize the argumentation scripts with the help of artificial
intelligence4; 4) to promote the interactive cognitive activities5; 5) to create an argument-
based framework for decision making6, etc. Nevertheless, it ought to be remarked that
Aristotle and Cicero, still belong to the core of argumentation theory7. In ancient Greece
and Rome, the greatest orators (Aristotle, Quintilian, Plato, Cicero and others) developed
the principles of common argument tactics, searching for the algorithm for constructing the
most persuasive evidence and reasoning presentation. Cicero, in his treatise “De Oratore,”
gave practical suggestions for inventing effective arguments. He recommended not simply
following the rules of eloquence but noting down and collecting the habitual and instinctive
methods of the masters of eloquence. Cicero claimed, “…eloquence is not produced by
art, but the art has sprung from the practice of the eloquent”8.
1 T. Strand, “Peirce’s New Rhetoric: Prospects for educational theory and research”, Educational
Philosophy and Theory, Vol: 45 num 7 (2013): 707-711.
2 M. J. Hogan and A. J. Kurr, “Civic education in competitive speech and debate. Argumentation
and Advocacy”, Vol: 53 num 2 (2017): 83-89.

3 P. D. Gaonkar, “The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science”, Southern Communication
Journal, Vol: 58 num 4 (1993). Retrieved from:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417949309372909; O. Noroozi, Considering
students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a
digital dialogue game (Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2016). Retrieved from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112 y M. J. Wojdak, “An attention-
grabbing approach to introducing students to argumentation in science”, Bioscience Education, Vol:
15 num 1 (2010): 1-3.
4 P. M. Dung, “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic
reasoning, logic programming and n-person games”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 77 (1995): 321–357;
S. De Ascaniis, “Criteria for designing and evaluating argument diagramming tools from the point of
view of argumentation theory”, in Educational technologies for teaching Argumentation Skills, eds.
N. Pinkwart, and B. Mc.Laren (Bentham Science, eBook, 2012); O. Noroozi, Considering students’
epistemic…; A. Weinberger and F. Fischer, “A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge
construction in computer-supported collaborative learning”, Computer and Education, Vol: 46 num 1
(2006): 71-95 y G. Carenini and J. D. Moore, “Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments”,
Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 170 (2006): 925–952. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437020600066X
5 J.K. Staarman, K. Krol and H. Meijden, “Peer Interaction in Three Collaborative Learning
Environments”, Journal of Classroom Interaction, Vol: 40.1 (2005): 29-39. Retrieved from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768690.pdf
6 L. Amgoud and H. Prade, “Using arguments for making and explaining decisions”, Artificial
Intelligence, Vol: 173 num 3-4 (2009): 413-436. Retrieved from:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437020800194X y F. Paglieri and C.
Castelfranchi, “Why argue? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation”, Argument &
Computation, Vol: 1 num 1 (2010): 71-91.
7 F.H. Van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-
dialectical Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Retrieved from:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3e38/d3ca665a2cdcb05d806e66aea277b1b0f78a.pdf
8 Cicero, De Oratore, book 1, Translated into English with an introduction by E.N.P. Moor (London:
Clifton COLLBGB, 1892). Retrieved from:

https://archive.org/stream/deoratorebook1tr00ciceuoft/deoratorebook1tr00ciceuoft_djvu.txt
Considering this opinion, we believe that a detailed analysis of rhetorical

argumentative strategies used by today’s speakers will give an accurate idea for current
speech persuasive patterns. Before delving more deeply into this, let us consider the
fundamental steps.
1) Define the main components of rhetorical argumentation framework.

2) Research the argumentation types and techniques.
3) Study the quantitative and qualitative set of argumentative strategies in
modern public speaking.
4) Apply an appropriate methodology to facilitate learning argumentation.
Rhetorical Argumentation Framework
Rhetoric is a vivid practical science that requires permanent refinement of its

theory9 to understand effective mechanisms of current discourse confrontation for gaining
agreement from the opponent. The debates about how to study argumentation bring the
theorists of the Western tradition10 to three perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the
rhetorical. The triumvirate11 performs argumentation as a product, as a process and as a
procedure12. After a well-known Peirce’s work13, the New Rhetoric is included in general
logic14 and becomes “the highest and liveliest branch” of it. Therefore, the rhetorical
argumentation is regarded as the form of logical mainly due to rhetoric inability to build a
strict model of reasoning15.
The “continuing competition”16 between dialectic and rhetoric primacy has defined
the dialectical approach as a “part of the study of verbal communication also known as
“discourse analysis” and the rhetorical one as the art of persuading an audience17.
9 F. J. D'Angelo, “The Rhetoric of Intertextuality”, Rhetoric Review, Vol: 29 num 1 (2009). Retrieved
from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07350190903415172
10 Ch. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric (Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press,
1982); J. Wenzel, “Three Perspectives on Argument”, in Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in

Honour of Wayne Brockreide, eds. R. Trapp and J. Schutz (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1990),
9-16. Retrieved from: https://ru.scribd.com/document/67636047/Wenzel-Three-Perspectives-on-
Argument; C. W. Tindale, Acts of arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument (Albany: State University
of York Press, 1999); J. A. Blair, “The Relationships among Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric”, in
Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation,
eds. F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard and F. Snoeck Henkemans (Amsterdam: Sic Sat,
2003); R. H. Johnson, Revisiting the Logical/Dialectical/Rhetorical Triumvirate (OSSA Conference
Archive, 2009). Retrieved from:
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/84 y F. H. Van Eemeren
and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…
11 R. H. Johnson, Revisiting the…
12 J. Wenzel, Three Perspectives…
13 C. S. Peirce, “Ideas, stray and stolen, about scientific writing”, in The essential Peirce. Selected
philosophical writings, num 2 (1893–1913), eds. N. Houser N. and C.J.W. Kloesel (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1904), 325–330.
14 J. J. Liszka, “Peirce’s Revolutionary Concept of Rhetoric”, in Ideas in Action: Proceedings of the
Applying Peirce Conference. Nordic Studies in Pragmatism 1. M. Bergman, S. Paavola, A.-V.

Pietarinen and H. Rydenfelt (Helsinki: Nordic Pragmatism Network, 2010). Retrieved from:
http://www.nordprag.org/nsp/1/Liszka.pdf y T. Strand, Peirce’s New Rhetoric…
15 E. Ivunina, Implicit Knowledge on the Argumentative Structure: synopsis of a thesis (Moscow,
2008). Retrieved from: http://cheloveknauka.com/neyavnoe-znanie-v-strukture-argumentatsii

16 F. H. Van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…
The rhetoric theorists in the Post-Soviet states generally address logic and dialectic
to the cognitive basis of practical rhetoric18 drawing on Aristotle’s and Lomonosov’s
fundamental works19. The logical argumentation is regarded as complete, strict and closed
product when the rhetorical is seen as uncategorized and open to its form and content
development20. It can be distinguished that the rhetorical argumentation specificity is
grounded on the process of persuasive communications21, where the effective influencing
on opponent demands logical and dialectical perspectives as well. Nevertheless, while
logical and dialectical discourse fallacies are permissible to use and create, “… in
rhetorical arguments, the premises need only be plausible for the audience22. Therefore,
we can point the most rhetorical argumentation striking features: 1) intention to persuade;
2) striving for mutual understanding and acceptance; 3) using logical, ethnic and emotional
premises (grounds) verbal and nonverbal; 4) appealing to goodwill and justice; 5)
prohibition regarding manipulation and false information.
Argumentation in rhetoric is a form of reasoning that has the aim of generating a

new one23 and it is seen as “the umbrella under which all reasoning lies”24. Quite recently,
considerable attention has been paid to defining the denotation of the argumentative set. It
is called variously subconcept25, microtheme26, compositional element27, structural-content
block28, act29, model30, set of statements31 or set of propositions32, etc. The problem of
modeling is connected with complexity and heterogeneity of rhetorical argumentation
phenomenon.

18 Y. Rozhdestvensky, Theory of Rhetoric (Moscow: Dobrosvet, 1997). Retrieved from:
https://knigogid.ru/books/400606-teoriya-ritoriki/toread; N. A. Bezmenova, Essays on the Theory
and History of Rhetoric (Moscow: Nauka, 1991). Retrieved from:
https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?hl=ru&as_sdt=0%2C5&q= y T. Anisimova and G. Gimpelson,
Modern Business Rhetoric (Voronezh, 2002). Retrieved from:
https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?hl=ru&as_sdt=0%2C5&q
19 A. Makovelsky, History of Logic (Moscow: Kuchkove pole, 2004). Retrieved from:
http://www.logic-books.info/sites/default/files/makovelskiy_a.o._istoriya_logiki.pdf
20 N.A. Bezmenova, Essays on…
21 O.S. Issers, Speech effects (Moscow: Flinta, Nauka, 2009) y J. Wenzel, Three Perspectives…
22 F.H. Van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…
23 N.A. Bezmenova, Essays on… 1991.
24 M. Goldstein, A. Crowell and D. Kuhn, “What Constitutes Skilled Argumentation and How Does it
Develop?”, Informal Logic, Vol: 29 num 4 (2009). Retrieved from:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.893.3372&rep=rep1&type=pdf
25 N.A. Bezmenova, Essays on…
26 M.R. Lvov, Rhetoric. Speech culture (Moscow: Academia, 2004). Retrieved from: http://journ-
port.at.ua/publ/26-1-0-220
27 A. Volkov, Foundations of Rhetoric (Moscow: Akademicheskij Prospekt, 2003).
28 M. Bloch and E. Freydina, Public Speech and its Prosodic Organisation (Moscow: Prometey,
2011). Retrieved from:

https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=TguHCwAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq
29 S. E. Toulmin, The uses of argument (U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
30 C. W. Tindale, Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice (California: Sage,
2004).
31 S. De Ascaniis and L. Cantoni, Online visit opinions about attractions of the religious heritage: an
argumentative approach, Church. Communication and Culture, Vol: 2 No 2 (2017). Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23753234.2017.1350585
32 T. Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995). Retrieved
from: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/users/diederic/downloads/Oxford.pdf
The quantitative and qualitative composition of such a structural-content block is

not clearly established. The simplest model consists of two main elements: thesis and
grounds33 where the thesis stirs up the question “why” and the grounds reply
“because…”34. The three-component argumentation set, the preferred one in the Post-
Soviet states, includes the thesis, the argument and the demonstration35. The thesis is the
main idea, which must be justified, the argument (three or more points) convincingly
proves the truth of the thesis, and the demonstration represents the process of developing
the thesis statement to support the argument. Such an approach for constructing an
argumentation framework has a wide variety of interpretations.
Another three-component block consists of the top, the scheme and the reduction.
Based on this method36 the top reflects the general idea of reasoning, the scheme
determines the sequence of arguments, and the reduction reduces the terms’ meaning into
the value of the top. Set of three main elements can also be distinguished as standpoint
(claim or position), argument and counter-argument37. A four-component structure38
includes the situation, the problem, the solution, and the assessment and is usually used
for rhetorical analysis39. Invented by Toulmin40, a basic structure of argumentation involves
six components: the claim that is the more specific sub-opinion, the data, the warrant
showing why the data supports the claim and the concluding statement, the qualifiers
which are special conditions that present the arguer’s degree of certainty about the claim,
backing “underlying assumptions that provide justification for the warrant, and rebuttals
that acknowledge the limits of a claim”41. Such a wide range of approaches demonstrates
the researchers’ wish to detect an integrated variant of the argumentation framework, and
confirms the urgency of inventing a universally effective pattern of speech.
The active search has led the scientists to focus on the quality of the premises and
the accuracy of the content within an argument. As a result, it brings to the framework
based on consideration of the argumentative discourse goals42.
Rhetorical Argumentation Types and Techniques
Michael Gilbert points out that the successful argument building combines relevant
and acceptable premises “where collectively they provide adequate grounds for accepting
33 A. Alekseev, Argumentation. Cognition. Communication (Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1991).

Retrieved from:
http://www.philos.msu.ru/sites/default/files/lib/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0
%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2.pdf y T. Honderich, The Oxford Companion…
34 I. A. Sternin, Practical Rhetoric in Explanations and Exercises for Those Who Want to Learn to
Speak (Voronezh: Istoki, 2011). Retrieved from:

http://sterninia.ru/files/757/4_Izbrannye_nauchnye_publikacii/Rechevoe_vozdejstvie/Prakticheskaja
%20_ritorika.pdf
35 L. A. Vvedenskaya and L.G. Pavlova, Culture and the art of speech. Modern rhetoric (Rostov-on-
Don: Publishing house "Phoenix", 1995).

36 A. Volkov, Foundations of…
37 S. De Ascaniis and L. Cantoni, Online visit…
38 S. Tirkkonen-Condit, Argumentative Text Structure and Translation (U.S.: University of Jyväskylä,
1985).
39 M. Bloch and E. Freydina, Public Speech…
40 S.E. Toulmin, The uses of…
41 M. Goldstein, A. Crowell and D. Kuhn, What Constitutes…
42 M. Goldstein, A. Crowell and D. Kuhn, What Constitutes… y D. Walton, Plausible Argument in
Everyday Conversation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992).

the conclusion”43. Argument creating and conjunction depend on the choice of beneficial
reasoning types and techniques.
Rhetorical argumentation framework can be arranged internally with different types

of techniques: direct/indirect, descending/ascending, one-sided/two-sided,
contradictory/supporting, etc. The types of direct and indirect argumentation44 are widely
known: in the direct case, the evidence substantiates the thesis; in the indirect one, the
thesis is confirmed through the antithesis’s denial. The researchers also determine
descending and ascending types of argumentation45. For the descending construction, the
speaker offers the strongest arguments at the beginning of a speech, gradually moving to
the weaker ones and concludes with an emotional request, prompting or conclusion. The
ascending argumentation suggests that the intensity of feelings and arguments will
increase by the end of the speech. It should be taken into consideration that the weak
reasoning in the descending type of argumentation creates a better outcome.
When presenting your point of view, you can adduce one-sided or two-sided
argumentation technique. The one-sided appeal pattern suggests either pros or cons. With
the two-sided framework, the recipient gets an opportunity to evaluate the opposite
arguments and chooses one of several points of view46. Rhetorical discourse can contain
contradictory/supporting types or argument/counter-argument47. In contradictory
argumentation, the speaker gradually destroys the real or possible counter-arguments of
an opponent. With supportive arguments, the speaker puts forward only the positive
reasoning.
Modern rhetorical studies offer a broad range of argument types grouped according
to their form and content. The specified classification is used differently in the wide range
of researchers48. Speaking about argumentative content, some researchers divide
argumentation into epideictic, judicial and deliberative49 after the genres classification
given by Aristotle, Sopatros, Hermogenos50. The epideictic type is responsible for
“establishing principles and values on the basis of which problems are discussed”51. The
judicial one identifies and evaluates facts with respect to the past. Deliberative
argumentation focuses on future decision-making. Due to the New Rhetoric the
classification can be based upon argumentation by association; quasi-logical
argumentation; argumentation based on the structure of reality; argumentation that
grounds the structure of reality; argumentation by dissociation52.
43 M. Gilbert, “Emotion, Argumentation and Informal Logic”, Informal Logic, Vol: 24 num 3 (2004).
45 I. A. Sternin, Practical Rhetoric…
46 I. A. Sternin, Practical Rhetoric…
47 S. De Ascaniis and L. Cantoni, Online visit… y I. A. Sternin, Practical Rhetoric…
48 G. Vreeswijk, “Abstract argumentation systems”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 90 num 1-2 (1997):
225-279.
49 T. Anisimova and G. Gimpelson, Modern Business…; A. Volkov, Foundations of… y Y.
Rozhdestvensky, Theory of…

50 C. Pepe, The genres of rhetorical speeches in Greek and Roman antiquity (Boston: Brill, 2013).
52 C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.
Translated by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969)
y G. G. Hazagerov, Rhetorical dictionary (Moscow: Flinta, Nauka, 2009).
The clear parallels were drawn between the argumentation types: based on the
structure of reality, rhetorical syllogisms (enthymemes) and the argument schemes that
ground the structure of reality, rhetorical induction (examples)53. After Aristotle's system,
the researchers define this pair in different ways: technical /non-technical54, theoretical/
empirical55, intrinsic/extrinsic56. Extrinsic premises embody the laws, facts, testimonial
evidence, examples, etc. and intrinsic ones depend upon the three components: plausible
rational basis (appeals to logos), relevant moral rules and principles (appeals to ethos),
benevolent feelings and emotions (appeals to pathos). Appeals to logos, in turn, can be
presented as a rhetorical syllogism57 (deductive or inductive) and its forms: an enthymeme
(one of the clauses remains implicit), an epicheireme (expanded syllogism), a dilemma
(complex syllogism with two opposite premises), a sorites (chain of related premises),
etc.58.
Appeals to ethos and pathos are sometimes posed as emotional reasoning not
attributed to the grave arguments59. Nevertheless, there is a vivid key point that “the
utilization of emotion in arguments in part or in whole is perfectly rational”60, the rhetorical
validity61 of emotional arguments obviously need appropriate logic and vice versa. The
emotional arguments occur not because of the strict logical necessity but because of
motivated speaker’s choice,62 appearing as pragmatically reasonable or justified.
Therefore, the argumentation array makes the public appearance truly rhetorical
only if the intrinsic reasoning conveys all aspects of the methodological triad63 of
eloquence (appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos). The rhetoric paradigm should primarily
include the conglomeration of speech qualities: 1) plausibility64; 2) relevance65; 3)
benevolence66 on the background of which an obligatory condition for a rhetorical feedback
is novelty67 and persuasiveness68.

54 N. A. Kolotilova, Rhetoric: textbook (Kyiv: Center for Educational Literature, 2007). Retrieved
from: http://padaread.com/?book=84753&pg=1
55 A. K. Mihalskaja, The Russian language. Rhetoric. 10–11 grades (Moscow: Drofa, 2011).
Retrieved from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5_OUge9Bj1AMHJadEoza0FIMzg/view y W. Shi,

Paul's Message of the Cross as Body Language (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
56 T. Van Dijk, What is Political Discourse Analysis? Political Linguistics (Amsterdam: Benjamins,
1997). Retrieved from:

http://discourses.org/OldArticles/What%20is%20Political%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf y F. H. Van
Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…
57 F. H. Van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory… y N. A. Bezmenova, Essays
on…
58 N. A. Bezmenova, Essays on…
59 T. Honderich, The Oxford Companion…
60 M. Gilbert, Emotion, Argumentation…
61 R. E. McKerrow, “Rhetorical Validity: An Analysis of Three Perspectives on the Justification of
Rhetorical Argument”, Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol: 13 num 3 (1977): 133-141.

63 N. A. Kolotilova, Rhetoric: textbook…
64 Y. Rozhdestvensky, Theory of…; N. A. Bezmenova, Essays on…; F. H. Van Eemeren and R.
Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…; D. Walton, Plausible Argument… y Y. Rozhdestvensky,

Theory of…
65 Y. Rozhdestvensky, Theory of…; N. A. Bezmenova, Essays on… y M. Gilbert, Emotion,
Argumentation…
67 Y. Rozhdestvensky, Theory of…
The required completeness of the methodological triad is relevant to rhetorical

public speaking in modern society. Under the current conditions of ongoing struggle
between discourses69 “only the ethos is the real proof that the discourse is rhetorical”70.
The disregard for the ethos leads to fallacies and distortions making sophistical arguments
with concealed duality71 or “a sophistical tactic to bring pressure against an opponent in
argument”72 that essentially are not rhetorical and hybrid in character. Without the pathos,
the argumentation material acquires the properties of the strict scientific discourse73.
The ethical arguments are divided into empathy and repudiation74 where an ethical
norm is accepted, and the anti-norm is negated respectively. In the case of empathy,
rhetorical statements are directed towards positive moral principles, and the addressee
reveals intentions to share ethical values accepted by society. If it is repudiation, the
speaker opposes immoral manifestations seeking audience support. The pathetic
arguments include promises and threats when the speaker's influence is based on
establishing analogies with addressee’s specific positive or negative experience.
Among the emotional reasoning, the researchers traditionally single out the
arguments “to the person”, to various aspects or hypostases, e.g., an appeal to authority,
vanity, pity, motive, force, etc. Some scientists also single out the emotional contextual
appeals to obviousness, faith, taste, fashion, tradition, etc75. Therefore, it is obvious that
the compositional perfection of argumentation can be successfully implemented through
the sequential deployment of logical arguments and emotional reasoning to achieve
audience acquisition, acceptance and planned response.
The Quantitative and Qualitative Set of Argumentative Strategies in Modern Public

Speaking
Rhetoric is traditionally associated with a political discourse76 and the permanent

attempts to analyse it. Most critics now concur that there is no single method that can be
used to analyze all types of a rhetorical discourse77. Nevertheless, new studies reveal that
the rhetorical analysis aim is to evaluate argumentation with regard to its effectiveness78 or
persuasion79.
To consider the effective persuasive strategies of contemporary argumentation, we

analyzed some samples of political discourse. The texts of public speeches delivered by

69 P. Cohen, Reason seen more as weapon than path to truth (The New York Times, June 14,
2011).
70 R. F. Verderber, K. S. Verderber and D. D. Sellnow, The challenge of effective speaking. (15th
ed.) (U.S.: Cengage Learning, 2011).

71 D. Walton, Plausible Argument…
74 G.G. Hazagerov, Rhetorical dictionary…
75 I.A. Sternin, Practical Rhetoric… y A. Volkov, Foundations of…
76 T. Van Dijk, What is… y D. L. Swanson and D. D. Nimmo, New directions in political
communication: a resource book (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1990).

77 T. Van Dijk, What is…; F. J. D'Angelo, The Rhetoric of… y F. H. Van Eemeren and R.
Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…

78 Y. Rozhdestvensky, Theory of…
79 T. Van Dijk, What is…
the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan, China, the United States and Ukraine during the
70th session of the UN General Assembly (September 15, 2015) were considered.
The selection of material addresses the unprecedented rhetorical event, when the
competitive environment between the discourses of different political regimes requires the
politicians “continuously weigh, calculate and choose each word”80. In such a case, the
speaker acts as the rhetorical ideal, “cannot afford an unguarded moment”81, creating the
perfect models of reasoning, representing its best of language, ethics, morality and
emotionally expressive culture.
The presidential speech is a political discourse82 appearing in a monologue. Within

monological and dialogical types83 of rhetorical discourse, the argumentation is mostly
regarded as a means of improving a given dialogical situation84. Researchers are arguing
over the argumentation properties naming them constructive85 or destructive86. It is worth
noting that the “rhetorical perspective”87 of the political monologue definitely brings
constructive “argumentative optimism”88 for the listeners. The audience obtains the
strategic advantage, in the case of either rational effectiveness or illogical weakness, the
recipient accepts or denies the speaker’s ideas respectively.
Specificity of such a public appearance lies in the lack of reflection and inability to
evaluate individual responses. The recipients are not the people or citizens but the
masses, so the political discourse is in consonance with the media one89. Expecting the
masses reaction, the Presidents apply the elements of diplomatic eloquence90 but avoid
using lexical jargon (typically political words)91. The mastery of eloquence is actualized
when the speakers pilot the interlocutors through the main discourse stages: audience
involvement, acceptance of the opinions and developing a “new manufacturer” of
conveying ideas.
We have examined the various levels of discourse structure and have seen what
typical argumentative strategies seem to have this status of preferred methods of doing a
persuasive political speech. The analysis includes evaluation which extrinsic and intrinsic
arguments are used when the politicians want to emphasize effectively the political
attitudes and opinions.
80 J. Kane, What’s at stake in Australian political rhetoric?, in Studies in Australian Political Rhetoric,
eds. J. Uhr and R. Walter (Australia: ANU Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT
0200, 2013). Retrieved from: http://press-
files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p291051/pdf/What%E2%80%99s-at-stake-in-Australian-political-
rhetoric.pdf
81 J. Kane, What’s at…
83 P. Besnard, A. Garcia, A. Hunter, S. Modgil, H. Prakken and G. Simari, G. “Introduction to
Structured Argumentation”, Argument and Computation, Vol: 5 num 1 (2014): 1-4.

84 F. Paglieri, Ruinous Arguments: Escalation of Disagreement and the Dangers of Arguing
(Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA, 2009).

85 F. Paglieri and C. Castelfranchi, Why argue? Towards…
86 F. Paglieri, Ruinous Arguments… y R. H. Johnson, Revisiting the…
87 R. H. Johnson, Revisiting the…
88 F. Paglieri and C. Castelfranchi, Why argue? Towards…
90 S. M. Gustafson, Eloquence is power: Oratory & performance in early America (Williamsburg,
Virginia: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2000).

It should be noted some similarities and differences are evident. Most speech
outlines reflect the combination of deductive argumentative blocks, presenting an edifying,
instructive, peremptory character. In contrast, the choice of inductive array is associated
with the possibility of identifying the intentions of the speech addressee. Such sets of
argumentation form a multistage process of substantiating theses. The most of
microthemes obtain the deductive patterns, for example:
The value of the integration process lies in its democratic nature. To a certain
extent it equalizes the opportunities for all stakeholders and enables small and middle-
sized countries to develop their potential and become an important link in this process92.
Our attempts to establish a scheme germane to monological argumentation in a

political discourse has led to consideration of the goals93. After Walton’s two goals of
argumentation (a) to support the opponent’s opinion, and b) to weaken the opponent’s
position), the studied argumentative array obviously stands out through two inherent “exact
political” elements: 1) the evaluative arguments “supporting an argumentation strategy
based on user preferences”94; 2) call to action. For example:
We should create a security architecture featuring fairness, justice, joint

contribution and shared benefits. In the age of economic globalization, the security of all
countries is interlinked and has impact on one another. No country can maintain absolute
security with its own effort, and no country can achieve stability out of other countries'
instability95.
We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. The activity of
ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and others is the global challenge. The only
possible way to address it is to unite in common and non-compromised fight against this
evil.96.
From a logical point of view, the speakers aspire to systematize public discourse,
algorithmizing its delivery. This is realized through the widespread use of logico-
psychological arguments (e.g., enthymeme as a method of explaining logical evidence),
anatomy (i.e., arranging in a strict order), enumeration (i.e. citation of facts), etc.97.
Most of the attention-getting arguments are intrinsic arguments to pathos. Some of

them are the threats: “… And if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer
the consequences”98. However, the promises prevail: “We will continue to pursue common
92 A. Lukashenko, President of the Republic of Belarus (New York, September 28, 2015, United
Nations General Assembly, Seventieth Session, General Debate, 2015). Retrieved from:
https://gadebate.un.org/en/70/belarus
93 D. Walton, Plausible Argument… y M. Goldstein, A. Crowell and D. Kuhn, What Constitutes…
94 G. Carenini and J. D. Moore, Generating and evaluating…
95 H. Xi, President of the People's Republic of China (New York, September 28, 2015, General
Debate of the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly, 2015). Retrieved from:
https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/70/70_ZH_en.pdf
96 P. Poroshenko, Statement by the President at the General Debate of the 70th session of the
United Nations General Assembly (New York, September 28, 2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/vistup-prezidenta-ukrayini-na-zagalnih-debatah-70-yi-sesiyi-
36057
97 G. G. Hazagerov, Rhetorical dictionary…
98 B. Obama, Remarks by President Obama to the United Nations General Assembly United
Nations Headquarters (New York, September 28, 2015). Retrieved from:

development and the win-win strategy of opening-up. We are ready to share our
development experience and opportunities with other countries”99. The influence of pathos
activates the listeners’ partaking and perception, appealing to the extreme level of
emotional tension (from possible universal suffering to the common benefits).
A topology that studies “what various types of discourses in what situations may be
“about”100 has its contractions in this situation. If the heart topics of classical pathos lie the
notion of the two main strata – Love and Hatred101, the pathetic of political discourse is
premised on the opposition between Good and Evil. The secondary common topics are
global challenges (environmental issues, war, nuclear weapons, terrorism, challenges of
refugees and migration policy, etc), domestic and foreign policy, historical background and
future perspectives. For example, every speaker’s contribution contains empathy appeals
to shared environmental issues: “Ukraine as a member of "Friends of Climate" Group is
looking forward to reaching consensus on the universal agreement in the area of climate
change as soon as possible. We hope that this result will be achieved by the UN Member
States in December this year in Paris. We have to understand that the price of this issue is
the safety of future generations and sustainable development of mankind.”102. It is
significant that the urgency of the discourse topics permits to perceive the loss of the other
themes topicality (e.g.: crime, drugs, education, health problems, etc).
It is illustrative that politicians do not use humour in pathetic interventions as a

rhetoric strategy trying to avoid misunderstandings and possibility to be shown up as
populists103. When “social actors”104 endeavor “to make use of humour for serious
purposes”105 they choose irony, for example: “You can try to control access to information,
but you cannot turn a lie into truth. It is not a conspiracy of U.S.-backed NGOs that expose
corruption and raise the expectations of people around the globe …”106. The next largest
group is composed of intrinsic arguments to ethos. The selection of topics is limited,
avoiding political battles, religious quarrels. The speakers do not use ad hominem
arguments directing against the man, not against his arguments107, argumentum ad
baculum as a rhetorical tactic used to put an end to further argument108 109. Within four
different kinds of emotional appeals that fall under the general heading of argumentum ad
misericordiam110, the speakers shun the appeals to pity and sympathy, applying to
compassion and mercy.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/28/remarks-president-obama-
united-nations-general-assembly
99 H. Xi, President of…
102 P. Poroshenko, Statement by…
103 R. Săftoiu and C. Popescu, “Humor as a branding strategy in political discourse. A case study
from Romania”, Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, Vol: 47 num 85 (2014). Retrieved from:
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/signos/v47n85/a07.pdf
104 R. Săftoiu and C. Popescu, Humor as…
105 R. Săftoiu and C. Popescu, Humor as…
106 B. Obama, Remarks by…
108 D. S. Levi, “The Fallacy of Treating the Ad Baculum as a Fallacy”, Informal Logic, Vol: 19 num
2&3 (1999). Retrieved from:

https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/2324/1767
109 R. H. Kimball, “What’s Wrong with Argumentum ad Baculum? Reasons, Threats, and Logical
Norms”, Argumentation, Vol: 20 num 1 (2006): 89-100.

110 H. V. Hansen, “Logic and Misery: Walton's Appeal to Pity”, Informal Logic, Vol: 20 num 2 (2000).
It has been emphasized that the intrinsic repudiation arguments to ethos are
considered the most individualized111 and risky to use as a mass appeal. This reasoning
often transmits personal moral norms, attitudes, and specific ethnic values that usually do
not meet the common relevance criteria, for example: “Let me be frank: we are deeply
concerned by the ongoing destruction of the traditional family in a number of countries. We
particularly do not like being invited to accept certain moral deviations and various social
'innovations' as natural.”112.
Traditionally, the most persuasive intrinsic argument is an emotional appeal to the

obviousness113. The politician calls the listeners as the witnesses, so and in doing so
identifies himself or herself with the audience, becoming part of it, for example: “We live in
an integrated world, one in which we all have a stake in each other’s success."114.
One of the most popular and strong115 reasoning approaches, an argument from
authority, is rare or entirely absent116. Such a reasoning is chosen sometimes for
developing repudiation, for example: “The Gospel of John teaches us: “In the beginning
was the word.” But what kind of a gospel do you bring to the world, if all your words are
double-tongued like that?”117. It can also be used to form empathy, e.g.: "Wars must not be
an instrument for settling a score between states. “Peace cannot be kept by force, it can
only be achieved by understanding", as wise Einstein put it.”118.
Attention is drawn to the tendency of abandoning intrinsic arguments to authority in

favor of extrinsic arguments, usually life examples. The latter, for instance, represent the
opinion of the townsfolk, and act as an effective adherence to the addressee, e.g.: “One
Syrian refugee who was greeted in Hamburg with warm greetings and shelter, said, “We
feel there are still some people who love other people”119. It is also indicative that the
source of evidence is determined accurately, individually. The speakers use endoxa, “that
common opinions or beliefs shared by a community”120, but avoid indeterminate references
intrinsic to endoxa, for example: “analysts believe…,” “parliamentarians almost agree…,”
etc., which make the link untenable and unconvincing. The politician speaks the argument
on behalf of the whole nation or on his or her own behalf, e.g.: “I would urge that a world
without nuclear weapons should be the main goal of humanity in the twenty-first
century”121. “China will shoulder its share of responsibility and continue to play its part in
this common endeavor.” 122.
111 G. G. Hazagerov, Rhetorical dictionary…

112 A. Lukashenko, President of…
113 G. G. Hazagerov, Rhetorical dictionary…; I. A. Sternin, Practical Rhetoric… y A. Volkov,
Foundations of…
115 M. J. Wojdak, An attention-grabbing…
116 N. Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (New York, September 28, 2015, at the
opening debate of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, 2015). Retrieved from:
https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/70/70_Republic%20of%20Kazakhstan_en.p
df
117 P. Poroshenko, Statement by…
118 A. Lukashenko, President of…
120 S. De Ascaniis and L. Cantoni, Online visit…
121 N. Nazarbayev, President of…
122 H. Xi, President of…
Thus, the process of revealing the argumentative strategies in modern public

appearance makes it possible to affirm the following: 1) the related studies dealing with
components of rhetorical argumentation (the sets, the sequence of elements) remains
relevant; 2) the rational framework of political argumentation is mostly deductive,
expanded with the evaluative arguments and call to action; 3) emotional reasoning
prevails; 4) the argumentation delivery becomes more systematized; 5) technical
arguments with examples preference; and 5) accurate data is used without “common”
endoxa.
Conclusión
Rhetoric is a science ranging over the whole of human affairs123, the society’s
demand for studying principles of argumentation strategies is increasing. All of the
teaching techniques can be conventionally divided into: argument creating tasks124,
argument performing exercises125 and computer-supported argumentation scripts126.
We have focused on generating the rhetorical monologue as a promising

pedagogical strategy included the steps: 1) to familiarize students with rhetoric current
discourse samples; 2) to find and analyse the advanced persuasion patterns; 3) to develop
the ability to replenish the prepared template with effective arguments. With the extended
opportunity to practice, students start to use the famous speech as a model for
investigation, developing the evaluation skills and create public discourse with more
powerful argumentative strategies. Over the year, our students demonstrated gains in
individual argumentive essays and speech. We registered the distinctive progress when
developed skills in using effective arguments become the everyday speech habit.
References
Books
Alekseev, A. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. Moscow: MSU Publishing House.

1991. Available at:
http://www.philos.msu.ru/sites/default/files/lib/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1
%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2.pdf
Anisimova, T. and Gimpelson, G. Modern Business Rhetoric. Voronezh. 2002. Available

at: https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?hl=ru&as_sdt=0%2C5&q
Bezmenova, N. A. Essays on the Theory and History of Rhetoric. Moscow: Nauka. 1991.
Available at: https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?hl=ru&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=
Blair, J. A. “The Relationships among Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric”. In Proceedings of the
Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by F.H.
van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard & F. Snoeck Henkemans. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
2003.
123 P. D. Gaonkar, The Idea of…

124 M. J. Wojdak, An attention-grabbing…
125 M. J. Hogan and A. J. Kurr, Civic education…
126 O. Noroozi, Considering students’ epistemic…; A. Weinberger and F. Fischer, A framework to…
y S. De Ascaniis, Criteria for…

Bloch, M. and Freydina, E. Public Speech and its Prosodic Organisation. Moscow:
Prometey. 2011. Available at:
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=TguHCwAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq
Cicero. De Oratore, book 1. Translated into English with an introduction by E.N.P. Moor.
London: Clifton COLLBGB. 1892. Available at:
https://archive.org/stream/deoratorebook1tr00ciceuoft/deoratorebook1tr00ciceuoft_djvu.txt
De Ascaniis, S. “Criteria for designing and evaluating argument diagramming tools from
the point of view of argumentation theory”. In Educational technologies for teaching
Argumentation Skills, edited by N. Pinkwart and B. Mc.Laren. Bentham Science, eBook.
2012.
Gustafson, S. M. Eloquence is power: Oratory & performance in early America.

Williamsburg, Virginia: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture. 2000.
Hazagerov, G. G. Rhetorical dictionary. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka. 2009.
Issers, O. S. Speech effects. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka. 2009.
Ivunina, E. Implicit Knowledge on the Argumentative Structure: synopsis of a thesis.

Moscow. 2008. Available at: http://cheloveknauka.com/neyavnoe-znanie-v-strukture-
argumentatsii
Kolotilova, N. A. Rhetoric: textbook. Kyiv: Center for Educational Literature. 2007.

Available at: http://padaread.com/?book=84753&pg=1
Liszka, J. J. “Peirce’s Revolutionary Concept of Rhetoric”. In Ideas in Action: Proceedings

of the Applying Peirce Conference. Nordic Studies in Pragmatism 1, edited by M.
Bergman, S. Paavola, A.-V. Pietarinen and H. Rydenfelt. Helsinki: Nordic Pragmatism
Network. 2010. Available at: http://www.nordprag.org/nsp/1/Liszka.pdf
Lvov, M. R. Rhetoric. Speech culture. Moscow: Academia. 2004. Available at: http://journ-
port.at.ua/publ/26-1-0-220
Makovelsky, A. History of Logic. Moscow: Kuchkove pole. 2004. Available at:

http://www.logic-books.info/sites/default/files/makovelskiy_a.o._istoriya_logiki.pdf
Mihalskaja, A. K. The Russian language. Rhetoric. 10–11 grades. Moscow: Drofa. 2011.
Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5_OUge9Bj1AMHJadEoza0FIMzg/view
Noroozi, O. Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative

discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International. 2016. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112
Paglieri, F. Ruinous Arguments: Escalation of Disagreement and the Dangers of Arguing,

Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA. 2009.
Peirce, C. S. “Ideas, stray and stolen, about scientific writing”. In The essential Peirce.
Selected philosophical writings, 2 (1893–1913), edited by N. Houser & C.J.W. Kloesel.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1904: 325-330.
Pepe, C. The genres of rhetorical speeches in Greek and Roman antiquity. Boston: Brill.
2013.
Perelman, Ch. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame
Press. 1982.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.

Translated by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press. 1969.
Rozhdestvensky, Y. Theory of Rhetoric. Moscow: Dobrosvet. 1997. Available at:

https://knigogid.ru/books/400606-teoriya-ritoriki/toread
Shi, W. Paul's Message of the Cross as Body Language. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr
Siebeck. 2008.
Sternin, I. A. Practical Rhetoric in Explanations and Exercises for Those Who Want to
Learn to Speak. Voronezh: Istoki. 2011. Available at:
http://sterninia.ru/files/757/4_Izbrannye_nauchnye_publikacii/Rechevoe_vozdejstvie/Prakti
cheskaja%20_ritorika.pdf
Swanson, D. L. and Nimmo, D. D. New directions in political communication: a resource

book . Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. 1990.
Tindale, C. W. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. California:

Sage. 2004.
Tindale, C. W. Acts of arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: State University

of York Press. 1999.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. Argumentative Text Structure and Translation. U.S.: University of

Jyväskylä. 1985.
Toulmin, S. E. The uses of argument. U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 2003.
Van Dijk, T. What is Political Discourse Analysis? Political Linguistics. Amsterdam:

Benjamins. 1997. Available at:
http://discourses.org/OldArticles/What%20is%20Political%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf
Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The

Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3e38/d3ca665a2cdcb05d806e66aea277b1b0f78a.pdf
Verderber, R. F., Verderber, K. S. and Sellnow, D. D. The challenge of effective speaking.

(15th ed.). U.S.: Cengage Learning. 2011.
Volkov, A. Foundations of Rhetoric. Moscow: Akademicheskij Prospekt. 2003.

Vvedenskaya, L.A. and Pavlova, L.G. Culture and the art of speech. Modern rhetoric.
Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house "Phoenix". 1995.
Walton, D. Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New

York Press. 1992.
Journal articles
Amgoud, L. and Prade, H. “Using arguments for making and explaining decisions”.
Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 173 num 3-4 (2009): 413-436. Available at:
Besnard, P., Garcia, A., Hunter, A., Modgil, S., Prakken, H. and Simari, G. “Introduction to
Structured Argumentation”. Argument and Computation, Vol: 5 num 1 (2014): 1-4.
Carenini, G. and Moore, J. D. “Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments”. Artificial

Intelligence, Vol: 170 (2006): 925–952. Available at:
De Ascaniis, S. and Cantoni, L. Online visit opinions about attractions of the religious
heritage: an argumentative approach. Church. Communication and Culture, Vol: 2 num 2
(2017). Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23753234.2017.1350585
Dung, P. M. “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic
reasoning, logic programming and n-person games”. Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 77 (1995):
321–357.
D'Angelo, F. J. “The Rhetoric of Intertextuality”. Rhetoric Review, Vol: 29 num 1 (2009).

Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07350190903415172
Gaonkar, P. D. The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science. Southern Communication

Journal, Vol: 58 num 4 (1993). Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417949309372909
Gilbert, M. “Emotion, Argumentation and Informal Logic”. Informal Logic, Vol: 24 num 3
(2004).
Goldstein, M., Crowell A. and Kuhn D. “What Constitutes Skilled Argumentation and How
Does it Develop?”, Informal Logic, Vol: 29 num 4 (2009). Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.893.3372&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hansen, H. V. “Logic and Misery: Walton's Appeal to Pity”. Informal Logic, Vol: 20 num 2
(2000).
Hogan, M. J. and Kurr, A. J. “Civic education in competitive speech and debate.

Argumentation and Advocacy”, Vol: 53 num 2 (2017): 83-89.
Kimball, R. H. “What’s Wrong with Argumentum ad Baculum? Reasons, Threats, and

Logical Norms”. Argumentation, Vol: 20 num 1 (2006): 89-100.
Levi, D. S. “The Fallacy of Treating the Ad Baculum as a Fallacy”. Informal Logic, Vol: 19
num 2&3 (1999). Available at:
https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/2324/
1767
McKerrow, R. E. “Rhetorical Validity: An Analysis of Three Perspectives on the

Justification of Rhetorical Argument”. Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol: 13 num 3 (1977):
133-141.
Paglieri, F. and Castelfranchi, C. “Why argue? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of

argumentation”. Argument & Computation, Vol: 1 num 1 (2010): 71-91.
Săftoiu, R. and Popescu, C. “Humor as a branding strategy in political discourse. A case

study from Romania”. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, Vol: 47 num 85 (2014).
Available at: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/signos/v47n85/a07.pdf
Staarman, J. K., Krol, K. and Meijden, H. “Peer Interaction in Three Collaborative Learning
Environments”. Journal of Classroom Interaction, Vol: 40.1 (2005): 29-39. Available at:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768690.pdf
Strand, T. “Peirce’s New Rhetoric: Prospects for educational theory and research”.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol: 45 num 7 (2013): 707-711.
Vreeswijk, G. “Abstract argumentation systems”. Artificial Intelligence, Vol: 90 No 1-2

(1997): 225-279.
Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. “A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge

construction in computer-supported collaborative learning”. Computer and Education, Vol:
46 num 1 (2006): 71-95.
Wenzel, J. “Three Perspectives on Argument”. In Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays

in Honour of Wayne Brockreide, edited by R. Trapp and J. Schutz. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland. 1990: 9-16. Available at: https://ru.scribd.com/document/67636047/Wenzel-
Three-Perspectives-on-Argument
Wojdak, M.J. “An attention-grabbing approach to introducing students to argumentation in

science”. Bioscience Education, Vol: 15 num 1 (2010): 1-3.
Internet reports
Cohen, P. Reason seen more as weapon than path to truth. The New York Times. June
14. 2011.
Honderich, T. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 1995.

Available at: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/users/diederic/downloads/Oxford.pdf
Johnson, R. H. Revisiting the Logical/Dialectical/Rhetorical Triumvirate. OSSA Conference

Archive. 2009. Available at:
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/84
Kane, J. What’s at stake in Australian political rhetoric? In Studies in Australian Political

Rhetoric, edited by J. Uhr and R. Walter. Australia: ANU Press The Australian National
University Canberra ACT 0200. 2013. Available at: http://press-
files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p291051/pdf/What%E2%80%99s-at-stake-in-Australian-
political-rhetoric.pdf
Lukashenko, A. President of the Republic of Belarus, New York, September 28, 2015,
United Nations General Assembly, Seventieth Session, General Debate. 2015. Available
at: https://gadebate.un.org/en/70/belarus
Nazarbayev, N. President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, New York, September 28, 2015.
at the opening debate of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly. 2015. Available at:
https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/70/70_Republic%20of%20Kazakhs
tan_en.pdf
Obama, B. Remarks by President Obama to the United Nations General Assembly United
Nations Headquarters, New York, September 28, 2015. 2015. Available at:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/28/remarks-president-
obama-united-nations-general-assembly
Poroshenko, P. Statement by the President at the General Debate of the 70th session of
the United Nations General Assembly, New York, September 28, 2015. 2015. Available at:
http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/vistup-prezidenta-ukrayini-na-zagalnih-debatah-70-
yi-sesiyi-3605
Xi, H. President of the People's Republic of China, New York, September 28, 2015,
General Debate of the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly. 2015. Available at:
https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/70/70_ZH_en.pdf
Las opiniones, análisis y conclusiones del autor son de su responsabilidad

y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista Inclusiones.
La reproducción parcial y/o total de este artículo
debe hacerse con permiso de Revista Inclusiones.

20 Vol 6 Num 4 Pernambucomundo2019octubdiciemb19incl

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

20 Vol 6 Num 4 Pernambucomundo2019octubdiciemb19incl

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

20 Vol 6 Num 4 Pernambucomundo2019octubdiciemb19incl

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CUERPO DIRECTIVO Dra.

Editor Científico Mg. Cecilia Jofré Muñoz

Portada Ph. D. Maritza Montero

Dra. Carolina Aroca Toloza Dra. Rosa María Regueiro Ferreira

Dr. Jaime Bassa Mercado Mg. David Ruete Zúñiga

Dra. Heloísa Bellotto Dr. Andrés Saavedra Barahona

Dra. Mirka Seitz Dr. Antonio Hermosa Andújar

Ph. D. Stefan Todorov Kapralov Dra. Patricia Galeana

COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO INTERNACIONAL Dra. Manuela Garau

Dr. Martino Contu José Manuel González Freire

Dr. Luiz Alberto David Araujo Dra. Antonia Heredia Herrera

Dra. Patricia Brogna Dr. Eduardo Gomes Onofre

Dr. Horacio Capel Sáez Dr. Miguel León-Portilla

Dr. Javier Carreón Guillén Dr. Miguel Ángel Mateo Saura

Dr. Adolfo Omar Cueto Dr. Antonio-Carlos Pereira Menaut

Dr. Miguel Ángel de Marco Dr. José Sergio Puig Espinosa

Dra. Emma de Ramón Acevedo Dra. Francesca Randazzo

Dr. Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Arrechavaleta Dr. Evandro Viera Ouriques

Dra. Vivian Romeu Dra. María Luisa Zagalaz Sánchez

Dra. María Laura Salinas Dra. Maja Zawierzeniec

Dr. Stefano Santasilia

Indización, Repositorios y Bases de Datos Académicas

Revista Inclusiones, se encuentra indizada en:

BIBLIOTECA UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓN

RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION IN MODERN PUBLIC SPEAKING

Ph. D. (c) Alla Vorobiova

Fecha de Recepción: 12 de junio de 2019 – Fecha Revisión: 28 de julio de 2019

Public Appearance – Rhetorical Argumentation – Logical Arguments – Emotional Reasoning

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 258

Para Citar este Artículo:

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 259

and Advocacy”, Vol: 53 num 2 (2017): 83-89.

Journal, Vol: 58 num 4 (1993). Retrieved from:

Intelligence, Vol: 173 num 3-4 (2009): 413-436. Retrieved from:

dialectical Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Retrieved from:

Clifton COLLBGB, 1892). Retrieved from:

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 260

Considering this opinion, we believe that a detailed analysis of rhetorical

1) Define the main components of rhetorical argumentation framework.

Rhetorical Argumentation Framework

Rhetoric is a vivid practical science that requires permanent refinement of its

1982); J. Wenzel, “Three Perspectives on Argument”, in Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in

Applying Peirce Conference. Nordic Studies in Pragmatism 1. M. Bergman, S. Paavola, A.-V.

2008). Retrieved from: http://cheloveknauka.com/neyavnoe-znanie-v-strukture-argumentatsii

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 261

Argumentation in rhetoric is a form of reasoning that has the aim of generating a

17 F. H. Van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory…

Develop?”, Informal Logic, Vol: 29 num 4 (2009). Retrieved from:

2011). Retrieved from:

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 262

The quantitative and qualitative composition of such a structural-content block is

Rhetorical Argumentation Types and Techniques

33 A. Alekseev, Argumentation. Cognition. Communication (Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1991).

Speak (Voronezh: Istoki, 2011). Retrieved from:

Don: Publishing house "Phoenix", 1995).

Everyday Conversation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992).

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 263

Rhetorical argumentation framework can be arranged internally with different types

Rozhdestvensky, Theory of…

Rhetorical argumentation in modern public speaking pág. 264