Persuasion in Context

  • Jeremy Koay
Part of the Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse book series (PSDS)


The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate how persuasion strategies relate to ideology. Taking a constructionist approach, the chapter considers active roles of both persuaders and the audience in persuasion events. As the context of persuasion includes the audience, this chapter argues that persuasion strategies are influenced by the way writers imagine their audience’s values and beliefs. To examine these values and beliefs, the chapter provides an illustrative case study of self-improvement books. A move analysis of 20 body chapters from 20 different self-improvement books identifies three resources that writers use to persuade their audience: problem–solution structure, tentative language, and coherence markers.


Imagined audience Persuasion Persuasion strategies 


  1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1986). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed. and C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherry, S. (2008). The ontology of a self-help book: A paradox of its own existence. Social Semiotics, 18(3), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 138–159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., et al. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2004). Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society, 33(3), 377–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  12. Hyon, S. (2018). Introducing genre and English for specific purposes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Roitman, M. (2014). Presidential candidates’ ethos of credibility: The case of the presidential pronoun I in the 2012 Hollande-Sarkozy debate. Discourse & Society, 25(6), 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenblatt, L. (1993). The transactional theory: Against dualisms. College English, 55(4), 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Virtanen, T., & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Woodstock, L. (2006). All about me, I mean, you: The trouble with narrative authority in self-help literature. Communication Review, 9(4), 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Koay
    • 1
  1. 1.EduMaxiAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations