Abstract
Persuasive texts, such as public information brochures or advertisements, aim to convince their readers to behave in a certain manner, such as to stop smoking or to buy a new car. If argumentation is used to achieve this aim, these texts are generally characterised by pragmatic argumentation, a form of argumentation by which an action is recommended on the basis of its favourable consequences. In order to enhance the persuasive effectiveness of these texts, writers may choose to support their claims with different types of evidence, namely statistical, anecdotal, causal, or expert evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ajzen, Icek (1977): Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base rate information on prediction. In: Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 35–5, 303–314.
Baesler, E. James/ Burgoon, Judee K. (1994): The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. In: Communication Research 21, 582–602.
Berthelot-Guiet, Karine/ Ollivier-Yaniv, Caroline (2001): “Tu t’es vu quand t’écoutes l’état”: réception des campagnes de communication gouvernementale, appropriation et détournement linguistique des messages. In: Réseaux 19–108, 155–178.
Brosius, Hans-Bernd (2000): Toward an exemplification theory of news effects. In: Document Design 2–1, 18–27.
Feteris, Eveline T. (2002): Pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. In: Frans H. van Eemeren (ed.): Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News (VA), 243–260.
Garssen, Bart (1997): Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam.
Hoeken, Hans/ Hornikx, Jos (2003): Studying the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal and statistical evidence: What are we comparing? Paper presented at the Southern States Communication Association Conference in Alabama, Georgia, April 3–6, 2003.
Hoeken, Hans/ Hustinx, Lettica (2002): De relatieve overtuigingskracht van anekdotische, statistische, causale en autoriteitsevidentie. In: Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 24–3, 226–236.
Hofstede, Geert (1991): Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London.
Hornikx, Jos (2003): De relatieve frequentie van verschwende evidentietypen in Nederlandse en Franse persuasieve voorlichtingsbrochures. In: Waes, L. van/Cuvelier, P./Jacobs, G./Ridder, I. de (eds.): Studies in Taalbeheersing, volume 1, Assen, 206–217.
Hornikx, Jos/ Starren, Marianne/ Hoeken, Hans (2003): Cultural influence on the relative occurrence of evidence types. In: Eemeren, Frans H. van/Blair, J. Anthony/Willard, Charles A. (eds.): Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, 531–536.
Klopf, Donald William/ McCroskey, James C. (1969): The elements of debate. New York.
Koelen, Maria/ Martijn, Carolien (1994): Persuasieve voorlichting. In: Niels G. Röling/ Dick Kuiper/ Rob Janmaat (eds.): Basisboek voorlichtingskunde. Amsterdam/Meppel, 217–239.
Levasseur, David/ Dean, Kevin W. (1996): The use of evidence in presidential debates: a study of evidence levels and types from 1960 to 1988. In: Argumentation and Advocacy 32–4, 129–142.
McCroskey, James C. (1969): A summary of experimental research on the effects evidence in persuasive communication. In: Quarterly Journal of Speech 55–2, 169–176.
Mulder, Mauk/ Dijk, Rob Van/ Stelwagen, Tilly/ Verhagen, Jan/ Soutendijk, Sibe/ Zwezerijnen, Jan (1966): Illegitimacy of power and positiveness of attitude towards the power person. In: Human Relations 19–1, 21–37.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. (2002): The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks (CA).
Nisbett, Richard E./ Peng, Kaiping/ Choi, Incheol/ Norenzayan, Ara (2001): Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. In: Psychological Review 108–2, 291–310.
Perelman, Chaïm/ Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969): The new retoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame/London.
Reinard, John C. (1988): The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: the status after fifty years of research. In: Human Communication Research 15, 3–59.
Reynolds, Rodney A./ Reynolds, J. Lynn (2002): Evidence. In James Price Dillard/ Michael Pfau (eds.): The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks (CA), 427–444.
Rieke, Richard D./ Sillars, Malcolm O. (1984): Argumentation and the decision making process (22nd edition edition). New York.
Schellens, Peter Jan/ Jong, Menno de (2000): Soorten argumenten in de voorlichting. In: Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 22–4, 288–308.
Schellens, Peter Jan/ Verhoeven, Gerard (1994): Argument en tegenargument: een inleiding in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten (2nd edition). Groningen.
Tversky, Amos/ Kahneman, Daniel (1980): Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In: Martin Fishbein (ed.), Progress in social psychology. Hillsdale, 49–72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag/GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hornikx, J. (2004). Relative occurrence of evidence types in Dutch and French persuasive communication. In: Neuendorff, D., Schmidt, C.M., Nielsen, M. (eds) Marktkommunikation in Theorie und Praxis. Europäische Kulturen in der Wirtschaftskommunikation, vol 4. Deutscher Universitätsverlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-81329-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-81329-9_11
Publisher Name: Deutscher Universitätsverlag
Print ISBN: 978-3-8244-4563-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-81329-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive