16-05-2012, 01:44 PM
Rhetorical Structures in the Language of Vietnamese Advertisements
Rhetorical Structures in the Language of Vietnamese Advertisements.pdf (Size: 157.18 KB / Downloads: 31)
Abstract
Understanding the structure and function of rhetorical figures in advertising requires a text- and reader-aware
approach. In the absence of appropriate text-centered terminology (e.g., scheme, trope), and without access to the
necessary conceptual tools (e.g., deviation), the longstanding and widespread use of rhetorical figures in
advertising has simply been overlooked in consumer research. This article builds a framework for categorizing
rhetorical figures that distinguishes between figurative and non-figurative text, between two types of figures
(schemes and tropes), and among three rhetorical operations that underlie individual figures (repetition, reversal,
and substitution) in Vietnamese advertisements.
Keywords: Rhetorical figure, Scheme, Trope, Repetition, Reversal, Substitution, Vietnamese advertisements
1. Introduction
Realizing that a key aim of advertising is not purely to inform, but to persuade as well, it is not astounding that
advertising is sprinkled with rhetorical devices (Leigh, 1994). For instance, the current Benson & Hedges
Cigarette campaign uses the rhetorical figure, personification (Pullack, 1997), and was preceded with campaigns
using other rhetorical figures, puns, and resonance. The long-running Absolute Vodka advertising campaigns are
well known for their use of rhetorical figures.
From Aristotle up until the advent of modern social psychology, the discipline of rhetoric was the primary
repository of Western thinking about persuasion (Barthes 1970/1988). The central concern of rhetoric has been
method and manner: how to discover the most effective way to express a thought in a given context, and then
how to alter its expression to suit different contexts. The many techniques catalogued by rhetoricians since
antiquity (e.g., rhyme, antimetabole, pun, hyperbole) have remained largely unacknowledged, undifferentiated,
and uninfluential in advertising theory. This article endeavours to adjust that neglect.
There are two reasons why consumer research needs to address the topic of rhetorical figures (also known as
'figures of speech'). First, newly available content analyses have demonstrated the pervasiveness of figuration in
the language of advertising (Leigh 1994). Second, the paradigmatic ferment associated with the advent of
postmodern (Sherry 1991), semiotic (Mick 1986), and text-based perspectives (Hirschman and Holbrook 1992) is
conducive to a focus on rhetorical phenomena in advertising. Perhaps only now, when consumer researchers have
at last permitted themselves to talk about meaning as well as information, interpretation as well as stimulation, can
rhetorical phenomena be grasped and integrated into consumer research (McCracken 1987; Scott 1994).
The main aim of this article is to contribute a richer and more systematic conceptual understanding of rhetorical
structure in advertising language. In contrast to previous analyses of rhetorical figures in consumer research that
focused on isolated cases (e.g., rhetorical questions, Swasy and Munch 1985; puns, McQuarrie and Mick 1992),
we provide a framework that integrates a wide range of figures appearing in advertisements.
2. Rhetorical structures in advertisements
Rhetoricians maintain that any proposition can be expressed in a variety of ways, and that in any given context one
of these ways will be the most effective in swaying an audience. Therefore, when persuasion is the overriding goal,
the rhetorical perspective suggests that the manner in which a statement is expressed may be more important than
its propositional content. The promise of rhetoric is that there exists a system for discerning the most effective form
of expression in any given situation. Hence, a rhetorical approach to advertising language will rest on three
premises: 1) that variations in the style of advertising language, in particular the presence of rhetorical figures, can
be expected to have crucial consequences for how the ad is processed; 2) that these consequences can in turn be
www.ccsenetass Asian Social Science Vol. 6, No. 11; November 2010
176 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025
derived from the formal properties of the rhetorical figures themselves; and 3) that these formal properties are
systematically interrelated.
2.1 Categorization of figures
Rhetorical figures were first identified and discussed over two thousand years ago in classical antiquity (Todorov
1982). Attempts to systematize the wealth of available figures are almost as old (Wenzel 1990). Modern attempts
at systematization begin with Jakobson and Halle (1956) and Burke (1950), and culminate in the elaborate
typologies of Dubois et al. (1970) and Durand (1987). Following are some of the ways to categorize figures:
Genres of rhetoric (Aristotle):
(Dixon 1971)
judicial rhetoric: oratory of the law courts; rhetoric of legal prosecution and defence
deliberative rhetoric: the audience is asked to judge an action in the future
epideictic rhetoric: praise or denunciation of an individual or institution
The parts of a speech:
(Göttert 1991)
exordium: introduction
narratio: description of circumstances
argumentatio: argumentative part, justification
peroratio: conclusion
Stages of Composition:
(Göttert 1991)
inventio: invention of ideas
dispositio: structuring of ideas
memoria: memorizing of speech
elocutio: verbal presentation of ideas
pronuntiatio: delivery of speech
Artistic modes of persuasion:
(Kennedy 1991)
Ethos: persuasion derived from the character of the speaker
Pathos: persuasion derived from the emotion awakened by a speaker in an
audience
Logos: persuasion derived from true or probable argument
Functions of speech:
(Göttert 1991)
Movere: move the passions
Docere: teach
Delectare: delight
The styles of speech:
(Vickers 1988)
plain style: commonplace matters are to be discussed simply
grand style: lofty subjects are to be discussed impressively
middle style: topics between plain and grand style are to be discussed in a tempered style
From the perspective of advertising theory, previous attempts to systematize the set of rhetorical figures have all
been handicapped by one or more of the following shortcomings: either the taxonomic categories are vague or too
www.ccsenetass Asian Social Science Vol. 6, No. 11; November 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 177
coarse grained, or the categories are not linked to consumer responses, or the focus is on outcomes other than
persuasion.
To overcome these limitations, McQuarrie and Mick (1996) proceeded on a dual front, on the one hand reading
the literature on classical rhetoric, drawing on Corbett (1990), Leech (1969), and Vickers (1988) in particular,
while on the other, immersing ourselves in a large sample of contemporary magazine ads.
2.2 What is a rhetorical figure?
A rhetorical figure has traditionally been defined as an artful deviation (Corbett 1990). A rhetorical figure occurs
when an expression deviates from expectation, the expression is not rejected as nonsensical or faulty, the deviation
occurs at the level of form rather than content, and the deviation conforms to a template that is invariant across a
variety of content and contexts. This definition supplies the standard against which deviation is to be measured (i.e.,
expectations), sets a limit on the amount and kind of deviation (i.e., short of a mistake), locates the deviation at the
level of the formal structure of a text, and imposes a grouping requirement (i.e., there are a limited number of
templates, each with distinct characteristics).
In terms of speech act theory, every communication encounter sets up expectations as it proceeds, and more
general expectations that hold across encounters function as conventions or constraints (Grice 1989). With respect
to metaphor, for instance, listeners are aware of conventions with respect to the use of words, one of which might
be formulated as, words are generally used to convey one of the lead meanings given in their dictionary entry. A
metaphor violates that convention, as in this headline for Johnson & Johnson bandaids, "Say hello to your child's
new bodyguards," accompanied by a picture of bandaids emblazoned with cartoon characters. In the dictionary, a
bodyguard is a large, strong individual, often assigned to a celebrity or political figure for protection against
violent assault; but in this context the ad is describing a bandaid decorated with imaginary beings. Sperber and
Wilson (1986) contend that listeners know exactly what to do when a speaker violates a convention: they search
for a context that will render the violation intelligible. If context permits an inference that the bandaid is
particularly strong, or that the world inhabited by children is particularly threatening, then the consumer will
achieve an understanding of the advertiser's statement. If the ad had said, "Say hello to your child's new Teddy
bear," nonetheless, most consumers would have considerable difficulty. Nonsensical or anomalous statements
represent a double violation or deviation of the second degree. In other words, consumers have available
conventions about how to deal with violations of convention. If a search for context restores understanding, the
consumer assumes a figurative usage and responds accordingly. Else, the consumer assumes some failure of
communication.
As a deviation with respect to specific or general expectations, any figure carries at least one additional meaning
beyond its immediate meaning (Genette 1982). When told that the bandaid is a bodyguard, the consumer both finds
a translation supported by context - this bandaid is particularly strong, provides a greater degree of protection, will
treat your child like a celebrity, etc. - and understands that the advertiser was unwilling to simply say "the bandaid
is strong," or "the bandaid provides extra protection," or "your child is important." The implication is that none of
these three paraphrases just given quite suffices to capture the advertiser's intent; in fact, that no single, univocal
predication applied to the bandaid appears adequate to capture the advertiser's thought. Thus, the resort to a figure
provokes the consumer to consider a variety of predications concerning the bandaid that will be consistent with the
use of "bodyguard" and render it comprehensible in context (see Sperber and Wilson 1986: 231-237). In Genette's
(1982) terms, every figure represents a gap. The figure both points to a translation (the impossibility in this context
of translating "Say hello to your child's new Teddy bear " is the key to its incomprehensibility), and denies the
adequacy of that translation, thus encouraging further interpretation.
Likewise, the advertisement “Thiên thần sắc đẹp của bạn” (“Your angel of beauty”) from Angel beauty salon
links the audience’s cognition to the image of “angel”, a symbol of beauty, and you will walk out of this beauty
salon with the beauty of an angel. The image of “angel” also generates an imagination of an eternal beauty. The
image of “magic” is metaphorized in the word “angel”, implying that Angel beauty salon will magically
“transform” you into a beauty as in fairy tales.
On the contrary, the ad of soya milk “Vfresh” does not refer to another object like “bodyguard” or “angel”, but
to the product itself: “Trái tim ơi, để chắc ai đó thật sự quan tâm đến bạn, hãy tìm tôi!” (“The heart, to ensure
that person’s care of you, please reach me!”). “I – Vfresh” is metaphorized as a guru of love, a friend who can
share experience of love with you, a psychologist, or even a nutritionist or a cardiologist who brings your heart
healthy beats, so that your sublimated soul and emotions can attract that person.
Deviation is used here in the neutral sense of a swerve or departure-a way of marking the text (Mukarovsky 1964;
van Peer 1986). Like aesthetic objects generally (Berlyne 1971), a rhetorical figure provides a means for making
www.ccsenetass Asian Social Science Vol. 6, No. 11; November 2010
178 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025
the familiar strange. Deviation, then, is a matter of creating what consumer researchers might call incongruity. A
key contribution of rhetoric is to explain how certain kinds of text structure, i.e., rhetorical figures, can produce
incongruity in advertising texts.
It is important to acknowledge that any particular figurative expression can deviate to a greater or lesser extent and
thus be more or less incongruous (Leech 1969). This corollary applies at two levels: that of any individual figure (a
particular occurrence of rhyme or metaphor, for instance), and at the aggregate level (some figures, such as puns,
may in general involve a greater degree of deviation than others, such as alliteration). Moreover, if the deviation
drops below some threshold then there is no longer a figure. This occurs, for example, in the case of metaphors that
have become frozen or conventional: e.g., “Cho vẻ đẹp thăng hoa” (“Sublimating your beauty”) (Thai Tuan
Textile Company). Since deviation may be temporally situated, what once was a figure need not always remain
one. This example, together with the bodyguard metaphor, serves also as a reminder that rhetorical structure
resides and operates within a complex web of sociocultural signs and meanings (Eco 1979; Mick 1986; Scott
1994a). Thus, frozen metaphors should be limited and fresh metaphors should be invented as in the ad of Yomost,
“Hãy để cánh bướm Yomost nối nhịp yêu thương” (“Let the butterfly “Yomost” connect rhythms of love”), in
which Yomost is metaphorized as a butterfly.