Category Archives: April 2016 Issue 22

Zlatin Kostov – Dance: Communication through Beauty, Grace and Luxery

Zlatin Kostov – Dance: Communication through Beauty, Grace and LuxeryAbstract: The article presents information related to communication, organization and conduct of festivals and competitions for ballroom and Latin dances as well as information on training and trainers of dances.

Keywords: dance, communication, training, competitions.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian)

Christian Plantin – Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Une introduction aux étudesd’argumentation” (2016). Review – Ivanka Mavrodieva, GerganaApostolova “Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Une introduction aux étudesd’argumentation” (2016), by Christian Plantin

Christian Plantin – Dictionnaire de l'argumentation. Une introduction aux étudesd'argumentation” (2016). Review - Ivanka Mavrodieva, GerganaApostolova “Dictionnaire de l'argumentation. Une introduction aux étudesd'argumentation”  (2016), by Christian PlantinDictionnaire de l’argumentation. Une introduction aux étudesd’argumentation, author and compiler Christian Plantin was published in 2016 in Lion by ENS and its volume is of 639 pages.

Christian Plantin is a professor at the University of Lion. He is a researcher of Joint Research Unit ICAR (Interactions, Corpus, Learning, Representation). Christian Plantin is a philologist,  a linguist and a theoretician of argumentation who publishes the results of his studies  and analyses of argumentation. The main areas of his research are argumentation, emotions and pragmatic interactions.  

The Dictionnaire de l’argumentation gives a systematic presentation of arguments and argumentation and there are sufficient grounds to take it as a fundamental research in this field.   The author has profound knowledge and understanding of the arguments and argumentation which are markedly manifested in each of the articles. The terms and the concepts follow alphabetically. The origin of the basic concepts related to argumentation is stated in the texts. What is more, special attention is paid to the introduction of these concepts into the specific fields of study of researchers and research teams and schools from different universities in different countries around the world as well as to the establishment of these concepts as terms and the following changes of their meaning and usage.

The author’s reference to the authority of solid rhetoricians such as Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, etc. creates opportunities for following the traditional lines in the studies of argumentation and systematic encompassing of their contributions to rhetoric in general.   

Precision is the main trait of this fundamental and valuable book on rhetorical argumentation and the proof of its practical efficiency for the student of rhetoric is immediately seen in the examples and sources contained sufficiently in each of the articles, which creates opportunities for further searches of the inquisitive minds.

The respect for the rhetorical heritage and for the contributions of other researchers and academic discussion concerned with topics related to argumentation is seen in the introductory part of the Dictionnaire de l’argumentation where the author mentions that the whole text is based on the work and achievements of such established names into the fields of argumentation and rhetoric as Jean-Claude Anscombre, Anthony Blair, Oswald Ducrot, Frans van Eemeren, Jean-Blaise Grize, Rob Grootendorst, Charles L. Hamblin, LucieOlbrechts-Tyteca, Chaïm Perelman, Stephen E. Toulmin, Douglas Walton, John Woods.

Christian Plantin presents the contributions of the separate scientists and schools while parallelly outlining the novel prospects for argumentation. The author achieves conceptualization of knowledge related to argumentation without final imposing of his statements as postulates to be followed, and neither has he rejected other researchers’ achievements. Thus academic ethics comes forward as the second trait of the Dictionnaire de l’argumentationand it is due to thisfeature that to find information in it is but a pleasant and fruitful adventure of the mind. Taken into view the genre and specifics of academic communication, it is easy to look for and find separate terms, e.g.  Argument against authority, Argument of power, etc. The arguments A priori, A posteriori are paid special attention to (p. 29); specific linguistic features of argumentation are explicated (Les étiquettesprépositionnelles: prépositions ab, ad et ex), and the connection of argumentation with other public practices and events is made evident (Explication et argumentation, p. 271).

Christian Plantin has also included some fundamental concepts to argumentation such as induction, deduction and analogy paying attention to pseudo-deduction (Pseudo-déduction, p.  272). Numerous pages of the Dictionnaire de l’argumentationare devoted to the explicit description of the nature and types of logical faults and fallacies.

The achievements of such scholars as Walton, Wood, Eemeren, Grootendoorst, Toulmin, Perelman Blair, etc. are outlined in separate articles or given as correct quotes.  

There are also tables of systematization (e.g.  p. 289), which we accept as another advantage of the text of this great book, for the reader can immediately have an overview of the generalization of definitions and comparative layout of concepts and terms. The table on p. 92, for example, shows the main cross points, connections and inter projections of the scientific fields of rhetoric, dialectics, logic, grammar, philosophy and pedagogy, and these are placed into view of the new rhetoric, pragma-dialectics and other schools of latest time. The next pages again and again lead us beyond the traditional borders of terminological description and the connections are sought for in the cross concepts of rhetoric, logic, grammar and dialectics based on solid and detailed knowledge of the works of our masters in these fields.  

Pages 95-96 give some basic terms related to Latin arguments and followed by a table where their names in English make things easy for the modern user. This approach proves the utilitarian time saving value of the book of Christian Plantin in the fast search for high information in the educational processes of today.

The systematic approach of the author is seen in the presentation of publications related to argumentation by scientists from different countries, universities and schools, which forms a generalized and clear view of the development of argumentation and its studies into diachronic and contemporary plans (p. 90).

On the one hand, the historic approach has been wisely applied to outline tradition in the millenniums of development of argumentation.  On the other hand, philosophy has been used efficiently to approach terms, meta-terms and concepts. There is a third aspect to the holistic approach of the author keeping account of the achievements and contributions to the study of argumentation in publications on discourse analyses in different areas and concerned with different types of discourse.   

Christian Plantin has been working as a devoted researcher in the connected fields of argument and argumentation, debate, dialogue and emotion for over four decades. He is a prolific author in these fields and an established scholar who reaches far beyond the theoretical and methodological conventions of philology and argumentation. Plantin’s publications of his research on argumentation review its development ever since the 1970s up to date. His work is qualified by its intensity and related searches into novel areas adding to the study of argument, discourse, debate and speech. The best proof of this is his solid scientific produce of which the following titles give but some idea:  

  • “Les figures en situation argumentative”. In M. Bonhomme (coord.) Les figures .L’informationgrammaticale, 2013, 137. 50-56.
  • Théories du débat. Texte et Documents pour la Classe . Paris, CNDP, 2007, 6-13;
  • “Critique de la parole: les fallciesdans le discoursargumentatif”In V. Atayan, D. Pirazzini (eds) Argumentation: théorie – langue – discours. Actes de la section Argumentation du XXX Congrès des RomanistesAllemands, Vienne, septembre 2007. Frankfurt, etc, Peter Lang. 51-70.
  • A Argumentação: História, teoria, perspectivas, 2008;
  • Unmodèledialogal de l’argumentation. Dans Flor M a Bango de la Campa, Antonio Niembro Prieto, Emma ÁlvarezPrendes (eds), 2008. Intertexto y polifonía. EstudiosenHomenaje a M a Aurora Aragón , TomoII.Oviedo, Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo, 2008, 737-754;
  • On casting doubt: The dialectical aspect of normative rules in argumentation, In Houtlosser P. & A. van Rees (eds) Considering pragma-dialectics. Mahwah, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006, 245-256;
  • L’argumentation – Histoire, théories, perspectives. Paris : PUF (Coll. “Que Sais-Je ?”), 2005;
  • Les émotionsdans les interactions, Lyon, 2000;
  • L’argumentation, Paris, Seuil, 1996;
  • Argumenter. De la langue de l’argumentation au discoursargumenté, Paris, Centre national de documentation pédagogique, 1989;
  • Oui , non , si – Etude des enchaînementsdans le dialogue
  • Thèse de 3e Cycle enlinguistique, EHESS – Université de PARIS VIII. Sous la direction de O. Ducrot. Jury : J. Bouveresse, J.-C. Chevalier, O. Ducrot. Mention Très Bien, 1978.

In conclusion, getting back to a general view of Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Une introduction aux étudesd’argumentation, we are even more convinced in our stating that it has three types of  achievements at the levels of making methodological, theoretical and practical contributions.

Christian Plantin possesses explicit fundamental knowledge, an interesting approach to the extraction and systematization of arguments and argumentation procedures, and impressive skills of conceptualization of terminology  based on his novel attitude to the millennium-aged heritage  of the science of argumentation. Dictionnaire de l’argumentation  is exceptionally useful for the academic training of student of philosophy, rhetoric, jurisprudence, communication, etc.  

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian and English)

Rafael Jiménez Cataño – “Ragione e persona nellapersuasione. Testisudialogo e argumentazioene“.

Rafael Jiménez Cataño – “Ragione e persona nellapersuasione. Testisudialogo e argumentazioene“.Nora Goleshevska, PhD

Rhetoric, Argumentation, Communication, Anthropology

Prof. Rafael Jiménez Cataño, PhD was born in Mexico. He is a Doctor in Philosophy, a Full-time Professor of Rhetoric at the Communication Faculty of Holy Cross University, Rome.

His latest book is Ragione e persona nellapersuasione. Testisudialogo e argomentazione (Roma, 2012).

Some recent papers were presented at conferences: “The Role of Goodwill in Conflictive Communication” (Bucharest 2005), “The Critical Value of Trust” (Rome 2009), “Resources to Manage Stereotypes and Similar Issues” (Padua 2010), “Taking Care of Identity through Politeness” (Brasov 2014), “The Relevance of Human Being’s Comprehension in Persuasion” (Warsaw 2015), “Dialogue in View of Human Caring” (Nancy 2015).

Approaching the rhetorical reason:

Rafael Jimenez Cataño’s studies on dialogue and argumentation

Rafael Jimenez Cataño’s book “Reason and person into persuasion. Texts on dialogue and argumentation” (“Ragione e persona nellapersuasione. Testisudialogo e argomentazione”, Edusc 2012, pp.150) is a contemporary multidimensional and erudite study on classical rhetorical subjects approached with contemporary anthropological sensitiveness. The book sprung from  dialogically formulated examples of traditional academic genres – contributions to conferences and papers from conventions as well as an extensive number of articles published over the last decade in academic journals in a number of different languages;

The essays, which refers to linguistic and classical rhetoric themes, reconsiders notions such as dialogue, argumentation and persuasion that reflect not only to rhetoric as a discipline, but also to the concept of the human, i.e. to the very basis of humanities. The explicit intention of all texts is to observe, from a dialogical point of view, the phenomenology of both – reason and person as they appear into the persuasion condition. A consistent rhetorical approach to both concepts combines a philosophical analysis with the analysis of concrete forms of social communication. Besides, the coherent rhetorical critique of reason turns back to the dialogue as a basic human condition.

The book’s structure is divided into two parts. The first one is dedicated to definitions and plurality of truth seen from a dialogical point of view. It’s mainly based on articles published for the first time in Spanish, in the rubric “The Benediction of Babylon” [1] of the Mexican journal “Ixus” whose rubric editor was Jimenez. The chapters from the second part of the book include texts on dialogue, rhetoric and argumentation presented at recent symposia where Jimenez interprets the relation between the person and persuasion.

Following the Babylon metaphor, the first two chapters of the book enlighten the phenomenon of plurality of viewpoints and the tradition of dual discourses. (p. 45) Jimenez places the anthropological significance of confidence, of human belief(s) and capacity / the wish to understand into the very heart of contemporary studies, in a dialogue and argumentation.

It should be noted that Jimenez‘s comprehension of dialogue is multidimensional. It’s not limited to the consideration of the traditional rhetorical genre. Besides, it proposes a heuristic approach that gives “possibility to link life to a speculative reason” (p. 126). On the one hand, dialogue is seen as an anthropological condition of the human (founded into the authentic (interpersonal) relationship between a man and a man) and thus – a substantive premise for the persuasion. On the other hand, its everyday/quotidian dimension shows that every single dialogue is “a competition between different reasons… where sense needs to be distinguished, in particular, into the every case” (p. 46). In this line of thought it should be mentioned Jimenez’s consideration of the volatility of the notion of Other and alterity. (p. 124)

Jimenez’s consideration of the rhetoric as “persuasion of a person to another person” sets up the dialogical situation as an implicit premise of the human condition. From that rhetorical perspective reasoning is not a sufficient procedure for the dialogical partner’s persuasion because the phenomenology of persuasion needs a human in its multidimensionality – reasons(s) as well as belief(s) and capacities to confide in and understand (p. 40) [2]. Although the demonstration and the formal reasoning may be valid in themselves, without a reference to a recipient, the effectiveness of persuasion cannot be studied without the respect to the circumstances in which the argument takes place.

Thereby Jimenez invites the reader to reconsider the critical value belief for understanding and summarizes two significant aspects of the rhetorical reason that emerged in persuasion. The first one is that “the resources of the reason do not exhaust the realm of the human cognitive resources” and the second – the “human intelligence doesn’t coincide with the reasoning itself” (p. 8-9) [3]. Therefore, Jimenez’s framework offers a definition of the human that could be assumed as intentionally non-Eurocentric.

Such a dialogical (re)vision of anthropology [4] provides a rhetorical critique of reasoning that goes beyond the concept of reason used as emancipative power (of the humans from the nature: emotions, desires, prejudices). Within the dialogical situation both the truth and the reason emerge in their weakness – the reason as soft or emphatic (p. 17; p.129-130) and the truth – as weak. Jimenez steps on classical definition on truth as adaequatiointellectuset rei (Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Israeli) [6] reinterpreting the concept whiting it’s plurality that does not reside in the truth itself but in a human way of knowing reality (p. 124)

The idea for plurality of truth in argumentative dynamics allows Jimenez to deconstruct the tradition of what he defines as “Babylonic axiology” – a comprehension of the plurality of languages in light of rhetoric of redemption (as a symbol of the second Fall of man. It also presents a common expression for chaos and confusion, p. 50) [5]. As it shows the sustainable rhetorical structure of the Babylonic axiology, the book contextualizes the dialogue’s condition into the challenging context of the world nowadays: anti globalists (p. 52) and fundamentalist [7]. The prospective to rethink language diversity as richness allows Jimenez to turn the Babylon’s metaphor upside down. He interprets the Babylon Myth in terms of benediction which influences the process of knowing and understanding the Other (p. 57)

The second leading node of the book focuses its attention on the argumentative aspects of the relations between the person and persuasion underlining the existential and personal aspect of persuasion as condition of its receptivity. Such an assumption underlines the role of ethos as a persuasive medium in both meanings – the ethos of the interlocutor, his character and credibility (p. 39) and also the role of the ethos of the dialogical partner and his capacity and will to understand – (i.e. the goodwill – eunoia or “buonavolonta” p. 93).

By reformulating the Aristotelian notion for rhetoric [8] that underlines the efficiency and instrumentality of the ars bene dicendi, Jimenez proposes to think rhetoric as the “art to allow the truth to emerge as true”. Such interpretation of a person – persuasion relations is a step forward in the practical philosophy of dialogue. [9]

As important arguments that appeal to the character of the arguer, Jimenez identifies the ethotic arguments as a persuasive tool that requires a function of credibility. Cataño’s analysis demonstrates how persuasive strategies based on traditional figures of speech, as metonymy and analogy, are widely used for the formation of public opinion.

A significant part of Jimenez’s study on ethos as persuasive medium is dedicated to the argumentative strategy based on metonymies and their uses (p. 98) His invention is the metonymic structure – a certain structure that links a set of artistic entities (borrowed from the poetic experience) to the human condition itself. The entities he identifies are text/poetry, body/person, caress/affect, adventure/love, assembly/communion, binge/festivity, performance/ piece of music and of that”. These structures are defined as real metonymies – an association between two concepts in which the first element from the pairs is already a reality for the second. Another argumentative strategy Jimenez identifies is the strategy based on analogy (similarity). Within this structure the alterity of the Other [10] plays a crucial role (p. 117).

Jimenez also takes time to analyze how these strategies work when they are corrupted. He observes the manifestation of the corrupted usage of argumentation by analogy within the stereotype (argumentum ad ignorantum, the cliché, a taxonomic mistake) explaining its effectiveness with the lack of human’s “courage to use his/her own understanding and goodwill”. Another interesting example where argumentative strategy is compromised is when metonymy becomes wishful thinking.

The leading dialogical intention of the book is implicit also on the level of its referential variety. It integrates the traditions of Luigi Pareyson, Pope John Paul II, Adelino Catani, Carlos Pereda, Douglas Walton, George Steiner, Octavio Paz, Michael Endeect.., dialogizing with contemporary schools as New rhetoric, but also Post-Enlightenment thought and the “program” of a weak thought. Thus, the book is addressed to the academic audience in the field of philosophy and rhetoric, anthropology and argumentation, but also to professional communicators from all spheres of the human activity – politic, economy, education etc.


[1] From the original title in Spanish “La benediction de Babele”.

[2] The significance of both – belief and beliefs for Jimenez’s study on dialogue and persuasion („The human has believes but also believe“) could be related to a set of contemporary studies in that direction as Jean Paul encyclical letter “Fides et Ratio” Derrida’s “Foi et savoir”.

[3] Shouldn’t be an overinterpretation if we conclude that from a dialogical and persuasive point of view the (pure) reasoning is a reduction of the being.

[4] Book review of Giovanni Cogliandrosu La CiviltàCattolica. p. 615.

[5] Symbol of malediction, kingdom of fallen humanity and evil’s presence.

[6] See also Recensione di Lucia Salvato – „L’analisilinguistica e letteraria“, anno XXI 1/2013, UniversitaCatolicadelSacroCuore

[7] Axiology of Anti-globalization movement – overthrows the axiology of Babylonic Myth that is a central line into the rhetoric of redemption of the Anti-globalization movement takes the idea that the world should be changed. In this way too defeat an enemy and construct new world (SF Florence) a defense against the process of (re)unity of the word dominated by the capital.

[8] as capacity to discover the persuasive medium adequate for the certain audience, See Recensione di Giovanni Cogliandrosu La CiviltàCattolica, p. 615.

[9] Book review of Giovanni Cogliandrosu La CiviltàCattolica, p. 615.

[10] The one that has different age, gender, taste, language, country, religion (p. 124).

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in English)

Draga Georgieva Popova – The Religious Factor in Ethnic Conflicts

Draga Georgieva Popova – The Religious Factor in Ethnic ConflictsAbstract: The investigation of ethno – religious conflicts is dictated by the complexity and flexibility of this phenomenon, a number of internal and external factors that influence the inner side of the religious, interfaith, ethnic and interethnic relations. For the exacerbation of ethno-religious conflicts, in the opinion of the author, contribute two groups of factors actually existing in society. Social factors, external to the religious subsystem, are the social phenomena and processes occurring in the state and the political structure of the country and affecting the relationship between state, society and religious communities.

Keywords: Islam, radical jihad, war, religion, god, Allah,, terror, ethnic tensions, ethno-religious conflicts, extremist religious practices, religious intolerance, social tensions Politicization of religion.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian)

Iliana Pavlova – Apps-communication

Iliana Pavlova – Apps-communicationAbstract: The research is dedicated to communication through mobile applications (Apps-communication) and its role in today’s networked society. The trends of development are presented in an attempt of theoretical understanding of Aррs-interaction and the communication models they require. The applications are at the core of a new type of social-local-mobile communication (So Lo Mo).

Keywords: mobile applications, mobile communication, Apps, Apps-communication, SoLoMo communication, self-communication.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian)

Hristo Katrandjiev, Ivo Velinov, Camelya Radova – Use of Rhetorical Figures in Advertising Slogans – Analysis by Product Categories

Hristo Katrandjiev, Ivo Velinov, Camelya Radova – Use of Rhetorical Figures in Advertising Slogans - Analysis by Product CategoriesAbstract: The article presents the results of an empirical research on the use of rhetorical figures in the Bulgarian advertising sphere. We have studied advertising slogans in nine product categories: Food; beverages; automobiles, airlines, gas stations, bus lines; Banks and insurance companies; Chain stores and shopping centers; Technology and communications; Clothing and cosmetics; Tourism and Other product categories. We have also analyzed the relative shares of slogans with and without a rhetorical figure.

Keywords: rhetoric, advertising, figures of thought, figures of speech.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian)

Stefan Serezliev – Name brand. Creative Process and Argumentation – part two

Stefan Serezliev – Name brand. Creative Process and Argumentation – part twoThe first part Name brand. Communicative aspects was published in Rhetoric and Communications E-Journal, Issue 20, October 2016.

Abstract: This current article is dedicated to a brand name which is always in the center of interest both for the contemporary brand management and the wide audience. What is the actual situation concerning the process of brand naming management? The research is divided into two parts, the author makes an attempt to find out the relevant answers of some research questions and to present some perspectives. What are the communicative and creative challenges facing the brand name in the contexts of participation of different stakeholders and actors: organization, brand managers, communication agencies and creatives? What about the influence of digital opportunities and threats in our modern life on the brand naming process both creation and application? What approaches can be used by experts during the process of searching and application of arguments?

Keywords: Argument, argumentation, rhetoric, visual rhetoric, brand name, brand, branding, brand management, integrated marketing communications (IMC), creative process, copywriter.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian)

Marieta Boteva – Rhetorical Argumentation – a Concept on the Problem

Marieta Boteva – Rhetorical Argumentation - a Concept on the ProblemAbstract: The current article introduces the part of the concept related to rhetorical argumentation. The claim is that a rhetorical argument is a trinity of logical core, out logical means and non-verbal means used to persuade and suggest.

Keywords: theory of the argumentation, rhetorical argumentation, image, out logical means, rhetoric.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in Bulgarian)

Ibrahim Aksu – Saving Donkey Work: Simplifying Academic Texts for Translation

Ibrahim Aksu - Saving Donkey Work: Simplifying Academic Texts for TranslationAbstract: This paper investigates the question of whether texts can be successfully simplified for the purpose of translation in the academic environment. The research was conducted at a Turkish state university using questionnaires, interviews, and experiments. A multi-stage format was followed in which further research was carried out on the basis of intermediary findings. The issues discussed include: text simplification, Machine Translation, attitudes of university lecturer-translators, time-saving using simplified texts, translation difficulties to/from English and Turkish, sentence length and complexity, and translation needs in the academic context. It was found that although simplified texts offered speedier translation and reduced ambiguity, the benefits have yet to be widely recognized.

Keywords: academic texts, simplification, translation, Turkish, time-saving.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in English)

Valeriya Smolenenkova – The Proposition Identifying Algorithm

Valeriya Smolenenkova – The Proposition Identifying AlgorithmAbstract: Among various methods adopted for public speech analysis, only few focus on such an important issue as identifying the text proposition, i.e. its key statement. Whereas, this knowledge does not only deepen the understanding of the author’s intention, but also improves the skills of perceiving and analysing information. The concept of ‘knowledge society’ is used to demonstrate the practical use of being able to process information and outline main ideas.

The following article explores ways of defining the proposition based on the mode of argumentation. First, the article discusses general techniques used for revealing the proposition (e.g. argumentation, speech title, etc.). Specific models of propositions and their features are illustrated by examples of epideictic (by Metropolitan of Volokolamsk), judicial (by American abolitionist John Brown) and deliberative (by Franklin Delano Roosevelt) speeches. The conclusions point to the fact that knowing the suggested models of propositions helps to single out the gist of the speech.

Keywords: Rhetoric, rhetorical criticism, public speaking, proposition, epideictic rhetoric, judicial rhetoric, deliberative rhetoric, knowledge society.

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 22, April 2016,,, ISSN 1314-4464

Read the original of the text (in English)