research paper rhetorical devices

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write a rhetorical analysis | Key concepts & examples

How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis | Key Concepts & Examples

Published on August 28, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

A rhetorical analysis is a type of essay  that looks at a text in terms of rhetoric. This means it is less concerned with what the author is saying than with how they say it: their goals, techniques, and appeals to the audience.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Key concepts in rhetoric, analyzing the text, introducing your rhetorical analysis, the body: doing the analysis, concluding a rhetorical analysis, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about rhetorical analysis.

Rhetoric, the art of effective speaking and writing, is a subject that trains you to look at texts, arguments and speeches in terms of how they are designed to persuade the audience. This section introduces a few of the key concepts of this field.

Appeals: Logos, ethos, pathos

Appeals are how the author convinces their audience. Three central appeals are discussed in rhetoric, established by the philosopher Aristotle and sometimes called the rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, and pathos.

Logos , or the logical appeal, refers to the use of reasoned argument to persuade. This is the dominant approach in academic writing , where arguments are built up using reasoning and evidence.

Ethos , or the ethical appeal, involves the author presenting themselves as an authority on their subject. For example, someone making a moral argument might highlight their own morally admirable behavior; someone speaking about a technical subject might present themselves as an expert by mentioning their qualifications.

Pathos , or the pathetic appeal, evokes the audience’s emotions. This might involve speaking in a passionate way, employing vivid imagery, or trying to provoke anger, sympathy, or any other emotional response in the audience.

These three appeals are all treated as integral parts of rhetoric, and a given author may combine all three of them to convince their audience.

Text and context

In rhetoric, a text is not necessarily a piece of writing (though it may be this). A text is whatever piece of communication you are analyzing. This could be, for example, a speech, an advertisement, or a satirical image.

In these cases, your analysis would focus on more than just language—you might look at visual or sonic elements of the text too.

The context is everything surrounding the text: Who is the author (or speaker, designer, etc.)? Who is their (intended or actual) audience? When and where was the text produced, and for what purpose?

Looking at the context can help to inform your rhetorical analysis. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech has universal power, but the context of the civil rights movement is an important part of understanding why.

Claims, supports, and warrants

A piece of rhetoric is always making some sort of argument, whether it’s a very clearly defined and logical one (e.g. in a philosophy essay) or one that the reader has to infer (e.g. in a satirical article). These arguments are built up with claims, supports, and warrants.

A claim is the fact or idea the author wants to convince the reader of. An argument might center on a single claim, or be built up out of many. Claims are usually explicitly stated, but they may also just be implied in some kinds of text.

The author uses supports to back up each claim they make. These might range from hard evidence to emotional appeals—anything that is used to convince the reader to accept a claim.

The warrant is the logic or assumption that connects a support with a claim. Outside of quite formal argumentation, the warrant is often unstated—the author assumes their audience will understand the connection without it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t still explore the implicit warrant in these cases.

For example, look at the following statement:

We can see a claim and a support here, but the warrant is implicit. Here, the warrant is the assumption that more likeable candidates would have inspired greater turnout. We might be more or less convinced by the argument depending on whether we think this is a fair assumption.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Rhetorical analysis isn’t a matter of choosing concepts in advance and applying them to a text. Instead, it starts with looking at the text in detail and asking the appropriate questions about how it works:

• What is the author’s purpose?
• Do they focus closely on their key claims, or do they discuss various topics?
• What tone do they take—angry or sympathetic? Personal or authoritative? Formal or informal?
• Who seems to be the intended audience? Is this audience likely to be successfully reached and convinced?
• What kinds of evidence are presented?

By asking these questions, you’ll discover the various rhetorical devices the text uses. Don’t feel that you have to cram in every rhetorical term you know—focus on those that are most important to the text.

The following sections show how to write the different parts of a rhetorical analysis.

Like all essays, a rhetorical analysis begins with an introduction . The introduction tells readers what text you’ll be discussing, provides relevant background information, and presents your thesis statement .

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how an introduction works.

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech is widely regarded as one of the most important pieces of oratory in American history. Delivered in 1963 to thousands of civil rights activists outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., the speech has come to symbolize the spirit of the civil rights movement and even to function as a major part of the American national myth. This rhetorical analysis argues that King’s assumption of the prophetic voice, amplified by the historic size of his audience, creates a powerful sense of ethos that has retained its inspirational power over the years.

The body of your rhetorical analysis is where you’ll tackle the text directly. It’s often divided into three paragraphs, although it may be more in a longer essay.

Each paragraph should focus on a different element of the text, and they should all contribute to your overall argument for your thesis statement.

Hover over the example to explore how a typical body paragraph is constructed.

King’s speech is infused with prophetic language throughout. Even before the famous “dream” part of the speech, King’s language consistently strikes a prophetic tone. He refers to the Lincoln Memorial as a “hallowed spot” and speaks of rising “from the dark and desolate valley of segregation” to “make justice a reality for all of God’s children.” The assumption of this prophetic voice constitutes the text’s strongest ethical appeal; after linking himself with political figures like Lincoln and the Founding Fathers, King’s ethos adopts a distinctly religious tone, recalling Biblical prophets and preachers of change from across history. This adds significant force to his words; standing before an audience of hundreds of thousands, he states not just what the future should be, but what it will be: “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” This warning is almost apocalyptic in tone, though it concludes with the positive image of the “bright day of justice.” The power of King’s rhetoric thus stems not only from the pathos of his vision of a brighter future, but from the ethos of the prophetic voice he adopts in expressing this vision.

The conclusion of a rhetorical analysis wraps up the essay by restating the main argument and showing how it has been developed by your analysis. It may also try to link the text, and your analysis of it, with broader concerns.

Explore the example below to get a sense of the conclusion.

It is clear from this analysis that the effectiveness of King’s rhetoric stems less from the pathetic appeal of his utopian “dream” than it does from the ethos he carefully constructs to give force to his statements. By framing contemporary upheavals as part of a prophecy whose fulfillment will result in the better future he imagines, King ensures not only the effectiveness of his words in the moment but their continuing resonance today. Even if we have not yet achieved King’s dream, we cannot deny the role his words played in setting us on the path toward it.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

The goal of a rhetorical analysis is to explain the effect a piece of writing or oratory has on its audience, how successful it is, and the devices and appeals it uses to achieve its goals.

Unlike a standard argumentative essay , it’s less about taking a position on the arguments presented, and more about exploring how they are constructed.

The term “text” in a rhetorical analysis essay refers to whatever object you’re analyzing. It’s frequently a piece of writing or a speech, but it doesn’t have to be. For example, you could also treat an advertisement or political cartoon as a text.

Logos appeals to the audience’s reason, building up logical arguments . Ethos appeals to the speaker’s status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them. Pathos appeals to the emotions, trying to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic, for example.

Collectively, these three appeals are sometimes called the rhetorical triangle . They are central to rhetorical analysis , though a piece of rhetoric might not necessarily use all of them.

In rhetorical analysis , a claim is something the author wants the audience to believe. A support is the evidence or appeal they use to convince the reader to believe the claim. A warrant is the (often implicit) assumption that links the support with the claim.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis | Key Concepts & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/rhetorical-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write an argumentative essay | examples & tips, how to write a literary analysis essay | a step-by-step guide, comparing and contrasting in an essay | tips & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness

• The Writer’s Craft
• Open access
• Published: 07 May 2018
• Volume 7 , pages 207–210, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lara Varpio 1  

Wherever there is meaning there is persuasion. —Kenneth Burke [ 1 ]

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

Scientific research is, for many, the epitome of objectivity and rationality. But, as Burke reminds us, conveying the meaning of our research to others involves persuasion. In other words, when I write a research manuscript, I must construct an argument to persuade the reader to accept my rationality .

While asserting that scientific findings must be persuasively conveyed may seem contradictory, it is simply a consequence of how we conduct research. Scientific research is a social activity centred on answering challenging questions. When these questions are answered, the solutions we propose are just that—propositions. Our solutions are accepted by the community until another, better proposition offers a more compelling explanation. In other words, everything we know is accepted for now but not forever .

This means that when we write up our research findings, we need to be persuasive. We must convince readers to accept our findings and the conclusions we draw from them. That acceptance may require dethroning widely held perspectives. It may require having the reader adopt new ways of thinking about a phenomenon. It may require convincing the audience that other, highly respected researchers are wrong. Regardless of the argument I want the reader to accept, I have to persuade the reader to agree with me .

Therefore, being a successful researcher requires developing the skills of persuasion—the skills of a rhetorician. Fortunately for the readers of Perspectives on Medical Education, The Writer’s Craft series offers a treasure trove of rhetorical tools that health professions education researchers can mine.

A primary lesson of rhetoric was developed by Aristotle. He studied rhetoric analytically, investigating all the means of persuasion available in a given situation. He identified three appeals at play in all acts of persuasion: ethos, logos and pathos. The first is focused on the author, the second on the argument, the third on the reader. Together, they support effective persuasion, and so can be harnessed by researchers to powerfully convey the meaning of their research.

Ethos is the appeal focused on the writer. It refers to the character of the writer, including her credibility and trustworthiness. The reader must be convinced that the author is an authority and merits attention. In scientific research, the author must establish her credibility as a rigorous and expert researcher. Much of an author’s ethos, then, lies in using well-reasoned and justified research methodologies and methods. But, a writer’s credibility can be bolstered using a number of rhetorical techniques including similitude and deference .

Similitude appeals to similarities between the author and the reader to create a sense of mutual identification. Using pronouns like we and us, the writer reinforces commonality with the reader and so encourages a sense of cohesion and community. To illustrate, consider the following:

While burnout continues to plague our residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

While burnout continues to plague residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. Medical educators owe it to their residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

In the first sentence, the author aligns herself with the community of medical educators involved in residency education. The writer is part of the we who has to support residents. She makes the burnout problem something she and the reader are both called upon to address. In the second sentence, the author separates herself from this community of educators. She creates social distance between herself and the reader, and thus places the burden of resolving the problem more squarely on the shoulders of the reader than herself.

Both phrasings are equally correct, grammatically. One creates social connection, the other social distance.

Deference is a way for the author to signal respect for others, and personal humility. The writer can demonstrate deference by using phrases such as in my opinion , or through the use of adjectives (e.g., Smith rigorously studied) or adverbs (e.g., the important work by Jones). For example:

The thoughtful research conducted by Jane Doe et al. suggests that resident burnout is more prevalent among those learners who were shamed by attending physicians. Echoing the calls of others [ 1 ], we contend that this work should be extended to also consider the role of fellow learners as potential contributors to resident experiences of burnout.

In this sentence, the author does not present Jane Doe and colleagues as weak researchers, nor as developing findings that should be rejected. Instead, it shows deference to these researchers by acknowledging the quality of their research and a willingness to build on the foundation provided by their findings. (Note how the author also builds ethos via similitude with other scholars by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that other researchers have also called for more research on the author’s suggested extension of Doe’s work).

Readers pick up on the respect authors pay to other researchers. Being rude or unkind in our writing rarely achieves anything except reflecting poorly on the writer.

In sum, as my grandmother used to say: ‘You’ll slide farther on honey than gravel.’ Establishing similitude and showing deference helps to establish your ethos as an author. They help the writer make honey, not gravel.

Logos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the argument being presented by the author. It is an appeal to rationality, referring to the clarity and logical integrity of the argument. Logos is, therefore, primarily rooted in the reasoning that holds different elements of the manuscript’s argument together. Do the findings logically connect to support the conclusion being drawn? Are there errors in the author’s reasoning (i.e., logical fallacies) that undermine the logic presented in the manuscript? Logical fallacies will undercut the persuasive power of a manuscript. Authors are well advised to spend time mapping out the premises of their arguments and how they logically lead to the conclusions being drawn, avoiding common errors in reasoning (see Purdue’s on-line writing lab [ 2 ] for 12 of the most common logical fallacies that plague authors, complete with definitions and examples).

However, logos is not merely contained in the logic of the argument itself. Logos is only achieved if the reader is able to follow the author’s logic. To support the reader’s ability to process the logical argument presented in the manuscript, authors can use signposting. Signposting is often accomplished via words (e.g., first, next, specifically, alternatively, also, consequently, etc.) and phrases (e.g., as a result, and yet, for example, in conclusion, etc.) that help the reader to follow the line of reasoning as it moves through the manuscript. Signposts indicate to the reader the structure of the argument to come, where they are in the argument at the moment, and/or what they can expect to come next. Consider the following sentence from one of my own manuscripts. This is the last sentence in the Introduction [ 3 ]:

This study addresses these gaps by investigating the following questions: 1. How often are residents taught informally by physicians and nurses in clinical settings? 2. What competencies are informally taught to residents by physicians and nurses? 3. What teaching techniques are used by physicians and nurses to deliver informal education?

At the end of the Introduction, this sentence offers a map to the reader of how the paper’s argument will develop. The reader can now expect that the manuscript will address each of these questions, in this order. I could also use large-scale signposting, such as sub-headings in the Results, to organize the reading of data related to each of these questions. In the Discussion, I can use small-scale signpost terms and phrases (i.e., however, in contrast, in addition, finally, etc.) to help the reader follow the progression of the argument I am presenting .

I must offer one word of caution here: be sure to use your signposts precisely. If not, your writing will not be logically developed and you will weaken the logos at work in the manuscript. For instance, however signposts a contrasting or contradicting idea:

I enjoy working with residents; however , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

If the writer uses the wrong signpost, the meaning of the sentence falls apart, and so does the logos:

I enjoy working with residents; alternatively , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

Alternatively indicates a different option or possibility. This sentence does not present two different alternatives; it presents two contrasting ideas. Using alternatively confuses the meaning of the sentence, and thus impairs logos.

With clear and precise signposting, the reader will easily follow your argument across the manuscript. This supports the logos you develop as you guide the reader to your conclusions.

Pathos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the reader. Pathos refers to the emotions that are stirred in the reader while reading the manuscript. The author should seek to trigger specific emotional reactions in their writing. And, yes, there is room for emotions in scientific research articles. Some of my favourite manuscripts in The Writer’s Craft series are those that help authors elicit specific emotions from the reader.

For instance, in Joining the conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic Lingard highlights the importance of ‘hooking’ your audience. The hook ‘convinces readers that this gap [in the current literature] is of consequence’ [ 4 ]. The author must persuade the reader that the argument is important and worthy of the reader’s attention. This is an appeal to the readers’ emotions.

Another example is found in Bonfire red titles. As Lingard explains, the title of your manuscript is ‘advertising for what is inside your research paper’ [ 5 ]. The title must attract the readers’ attention and create a desire within them to read your manuscript. Here, again, is pathos in action in a scientific research paper: grab the reader’s attention from the very first word of the title.

Beyond those already addressed in The Writer’s Craft series, another rhetorical technique that appeals to the emotions of the reader is the strategic use of God-terms [ 1 ] . Burke defined God-terms as words or phrases that are ‘the ultimates of motivation,’ embodying characteristics that are fundamentally valued by humans. To use an analogy from card games (e.g., bridge or euchre), God-terms are like emotional trump cards. God-terms like freedom, justice, and duty call on shared human values, trumping contradictory feelings. By alluding to God-terms in our research, we increase the emotional appeal of our writing. Let us reconsider the example from above:

While burnout continues to plague our residents, medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service .

Here, the author reminds the reader that residents will be in service as physicians for their lifetime, and that we have a  duty (i.e., we owe it ) to support them in that calling to meet the public’s healthcare needs. Invoking the God-terms of service and duty, the writer taps into the reader’s sense of responsibility to support these learners.

It is important not to overplay pathos in a scientific research paper—i.e., readers are keenly intelligent scholars who will easily identify emotional exaggeration. Consider this variation on the previous example:

While burnout continues to ruin the lives of our residents, medical educators have neglected to identify the root causes of this problem. We have a moral obligation to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

This rephrasing is likely to create a sense of unease in the reader because of the emotional exaggerations it uses. By over-amplifying the appeals to emotion, this rephrasing elicits feelings of refusal and rejection in the reader. Instead of drawing the reader in, it pushes the reader away. When it comes to pathos, a light hand is best.

Peter Gould famously stated: ‘data can never speak for themselves’ [ 6 ]. Researchers must explain them. In that explaining, we endeavour to convince the audience that our propositions should be accepted. While the science in our research is at the core of that persuasion, there are techniques from rhetoric that can help us convince readers to accept our arguments. Ethos, logos and pathos are appeals that, when used intentionally and judiciously, can buoy the persuasive power of your manuscripts.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States of America’s Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Burke K. A rhetoric of motives. Berkley: University of California Press; 1969. p. 72.

Google Scholar  

Purdue Online Writing Lab. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. 1995. 2018. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/ . Accessed 3 Mar 2018.

Varpio L, Bidlake E, Casimiro L, et al. Resident experiences of informal education: how often, from whom, about what and how. Med Educ. 2014;48:1220–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lingard L. Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:252–3.

Lingard L. Bonfire red titles. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:179–81.

Gould P. Letting the data speak for themselves. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2005;71:166–76.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

Lara Varpio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lara Varpio .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Varpio, L. Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness. Perspect Med Educ 7 , 207–210 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0420-2

Download citation

Published : 07 May 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0420-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effects of rhetorical devices on audience responses with online videos: An augmented elaboration likelihood model

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Interactive Media, School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China

Roles Data curation, Resources

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation College of Communication, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Roles Data curation

Affiliation College of Liberal Arts, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, 330022, China

• Guangchao Charles Feng, 
• Yiwen Luo, 
• Zhenwei Yu, 
• Jinlang Wen

• Published: March 16, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282663
• Reader Comments

The way in which information is linguistically presented can impact audience attention, emotion, and cognitive responses, even if the content remains unchanged. The present study aims to examine the effects of rhetorical devices on audience responses by introducing a new theoretical framework, the augmented elaboration likelihood model (A-ELM), which integrates elements of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and narrative theory. The results show that the mediation effects of attention on the relationships between rhetorical devices and affective and cognitive elaborations are moderated by involvement. Nonnarrative evidence, combined narrative and numerical evidence, source credibility, and tropes versus the lack of figures of speech, elicit better audience responses in low-involvement situations, whereas numerical evidence outperforms narratives in high-involvement situations. This study not only offers a novel theoretical framework in the form of A-ELM, but also has important implications for advancing methodologies and practical applications.

Citation: Feng GC, Luo Y, Yu Z, Wen J (2023) Effects of rhetorical devices on audience responses with online videos: An augmented elaboration likelihood model. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0282663. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282663

Editor: Krzysztof Stepaniuk, Bialystok University of Technology: Politechnika Bialostocka, POLAND

Received: December 12, 2022; Accepted: February 20, 2023; Published: March 16, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Feng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Figshare ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19498751.v1 ).

Funding: Specific grant numbers (grant no.: 18BXW082) Initials of authors who received each award (GF) Full names of commercial companies that funded the study or authors (no commercial companies are involved) Initials of authors who received salary or other funding from commercial companies (na) URLs to sponsors’ websites ( http://www.nopss.gov.cn/ ) The funder (National Social Science Fund of China) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The manner in which information is linguistically presented has a profound impact on how audiences attend to, process, and respond to it emotionally, even when the content remains the same [ 1 ]. This is particularly relevant in today’s digital world, where online videos have become a prevalent form of media consumption. These videos are not only used for entertainment purposes, but they also serve as sources of information dissemination, product advertising, and political campaigning [ 2 ]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the role of narratives and rhetorical strategies in shaping audience responses to online videos, particularly given the widespread influence of these videos on society.

Despite numerous studies exploring the persuasive effects of linguistic styles, there is still a gap in our understanding of how rhetorical strategies interact to influence audience responses in real-world settings. Most prior studies have relied on small-scale empirical studies to examine the effects of rhetorical figures on various outcomes, such as attention, ad attitudes, brand attitudes, purchase intention, preference, and memorability [ 3 – 7 ]. These studies have often ignored the potential interaction between rhetorical figures and other message features, such as narratives.

To fill this gap, the present study aims to investigate the effects of rhetorical devices and the possible interactions among them on audience responses to online videos. By combining big data mining and content analysis methods, this study seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between narratives and rhetorical devices and audience responses. The study also proposes an integrated framework that incorporates theories from information processing and narratives, which has the potential to address the inconsistent and mixed findings of prior studies.

This new study is necessary as it has the potential to inform the development of more effective communication strategies and deepen our understanding of how language shapes the way in which we attend to, process, and respond to information, particularly in the context of online videos. With the growing influence of online videos, a better understanding of the interplay between message strategies and audience responses has the potential to lead to more impactful and effective communication.

Audience responses

Prior research has demonstrated that the use of rhetorical figures in messages can enhance audience engagement by eliciting responses in attention, cognitive (i.e., thoughts), and affective (i.e., feelings) elaborations [ 8 , 9 ]. These responses are susceptible to different message features and heuristic cues, and rhetorical devices serve as relevant influencers. For instance, Weber [ 10 ] discovered that less factual news is conducive to audiences’ perceived relevance and engagement among many news (message) factors. This finding alludes to the positive effect of narratives and other rhetorical devices on audience responses, each of which will be reviewed below.

Thoroughly examining the relationships among attentive (e.g., viewing or the first time clicking), cognitive (e.g., commenting), and affective (e.g., liking) responses is beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that attention acts as a gatekeeper for both cognitive and affective responses [ 11 – 14 ]. This is especially relevant in the context of online videos, where users must click on the video to view it before they can engage with it through likes, shares, and comments. The relationship between cognition and affect, however, remains a topic of intense debate [ 15 – 17 ]. Rather than delving into this debate, this study considers affective and cognitive elaborations as parallel response variables of attention.

Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Attention to the headline is positively associated with subsequent affective (e.g., liking) (H1a) and cognitive elaborations [i.e., nonverbal (e.g., sharing) and verbal (e.g., commenting) elaborations (H1b)].

In what follows, various rhetorical devices, particularly narratives and figures of speech, and their effects on audience responses are reviewed, and hypotheses and research questions are raised accordingly.

Definitions.

Scholars from different disciplines have provided varying definitions of the term “narrative”. It is considered a symbolic representation of events [ 18 , 19 ]. [ 20 ] expanded the definition of narratives to include stories with plots and chronological sequences of events [ 19 , 21 ]. Although “narrative” often appears as a generic term in the literature, it can encompass various forms, such as personal stories, anecdotes, eyewitness accounts, entertainment-education content, and testimonials [ 20 , 22 ].

Narrative effects.

Previous research has consistently demonstrated the persuasive effects of narratives. The underlying mechanism is that once individuals become immersed in the story, there is a transportation effect that causes people to perceive the story as realistic and identify with its characters [ 23 ]. According to [ 23 ], individuals who are transported into a narrative world are likely to change their real-world beliefs through reduced negative cognitive responses and counterarguments, the realism of the experience, and strong affective responses [also see 24 ]. These findings are echoed by the extended elaboration likelihood model [ 24 ], the entertainment overcoming resistance model (EORM) [ 25 ], and exemplification theory [ 26 ].

While many studies have confirmed the persuasive effect of narrative content, some scholars have challenged these findings. Some have found a nonsignificant [ 27 ] or even reversed [ 28 ] effect of narratives versus nonnarratives on attitude changes or knowledge and perception. In addition [ 29 – 32 ], have found that a particular form of nonnarrative, i.e., numerical evidence, is more persuasive than narrative evidence. [ 33 ] contended that numerical evidence has a stronger effect than narrative evidence on beliefs and attitudes, whereas narrative evidence has a stronger influence on intentions. Follow-up studies by [ 29 , 34 ] found that a message combining narrative and numerical evidence is more persuasive than using either form of evidence alone. This finding was also replicated by [ 35 ].

Moderation effect of involvement on the relationship between narratives and responses.

[ 36 ] attributed mixed findings regarding the persuasive effects of narratives and numerical evidence to the influence of involvement. [ 36 ] also found that narrative testimonials are more compelling than numerical evidence under low involvement conditions. indicating that the effect of narrative is a heuristic process [ 36 ]. [ 37 ] suggested that individuals who are highly engaged in a narrative should have low levels of involvement and ability in scrutinizing a persuasive argument, while those highly involved in a compelling argument should concentrate on the quality of claims.

A series of related hypotheses are raised below:

H2: The effects of other forms of nonnarrative evidence, numerical evidence, and combined narrative and numerical evidence on attention are stronger than those of narrative evidence depending on the level of involvement. Specifically, narrative evidence receives greater attention than other forms of nonnarrative evidence (H2a), numerical evidence (H2b), and combined narrative and numerical evidence (H2c) under low involvement conditions.

H3: The indirect effects of other forms of nonnarrative evidence, numerical evidence, and combined narrative and numerical evidence on liking are stronger than those of narrative evidence depending on the level of involvement. Specifically, narrative evidence receives higher levels of liking than other forms of nonnarrative evidence (H3a), numerical evidence (H3b), and combined narrative and numerical evidence (H3c) under low involvement conditions.

H4: Similar to H3, narrative evidence receives higher levels of cognitive elaboration than other forms of nonnarrative evidence (H4a), numerical evidence (H4b), and combined narrative and numerical evidence (H4c) under low involvement conditions.

Figures of speech

Conceptualization..

A figure of speech (FoS), defined as “a form of speech artfully varied from common usage” [ 38 ], is a vital message style that affects persuasive effects [ 39 ]. Although over two hundred different figures have been cataloged, many are variants of approximately forty general types of figures of speech [ 40 ] [also cf. [ 41 ]]. These figures of speech can be divided into two major groups, i.e., tropes and schemes [ 38 ]. Tropes, including specific figures such as metaphors, puns, and associations, involve the substitution or destabilization of the meaning of a word that is a deviation from what it usually signifies. Schemes, which are characterized by the reversal of word order, omissions, insertions, repetitions, and rhyme, deviate from customary grammatical structure [ 5 , 38 , 40 ]. In the same vein, [ 42 ] classified rhetorical figures into two types, namely, metabolas and parataxis, which correspond to tropes and schemes, respectively.

The persuasive effects of rhetorical figures have been examined in various contexts and found to be effective, for example, advertisements that use rhetorical figures are more likely to garner greater attention [ 3 ], ad attitudes, brand attitudes, purchase intention [ 4 ], preference, and memorability [ 5 – 7 ].

Moderation effect of involvement on the relationship between FoS and responses.

The persuasive effects of a figure of speech (FoS) have also been found to be moderated by involvement. In studying a specific type of FoS, i.e., rhetorical questions, [ 43 ] found that the effect of rhetorical questions on message attention and elaboration is stronger at levels of low involvement. The reason for this is that rhetorical questions can distract message recipients from processing arguments and can also make recipients perceive pressure from the source [ 44 ]. A similar finding has been observed in a few ad copy studies [ 7 , 45 , 46 ]. Consequently, a series of related hypotheses are proposed below:

H5: Tropes (H5a) and schemes (H5b) receive greater attention than literal texts that do not use any figures of speech under low involvement conditions.

H6: The mediation effects of attention on the relationships between figures of speech and affective elaboration (liking) are moderated by involvement such that tropes (H6a) and schemes (H6b) receive higher levels of liking than literal texts that do not use figures of speech under low involvement conditions.

H7: The mediation effects of attention on the relationships between figures of speech and cognitive elaboration are moderated by involvement such that tropes (H7a) and schemes (H7b) receive higher elaboration than literal texts that do not use any figures of speech under low involvement conditions.

Source credibility

As reviewed above, the credibility of information sources [for a review of the conceptualization and operationalization, see 47 ] affects the effect of persuasion [ 48 ]. Previous studies have found that highly credible (trustworthy and competent) sources produce a more positive attitude toward advocacy than do sources that are perceived to be less credible [for a review, see [ 49 ]].

Moderation effect of involvement on the relationship between source credibility and responses.

The persuasive effect of source credibility is moderated by involvement [also cf. [ 50 , 51 ]]. When people have little involvement in an issue, a source with low credibility will induce a more positive attitude than will a more credible communicator [ 52 ]. According to the dual-process theories reviewed above, source credibility belongs to one of the peripheral cues that people rely on mainly under low involvement conditions in information processing [ 53 , 54 ] [for a review, see [ 55 ]]. That is, a highly credible source has a positive persuasive effect only when the level of involvement is low.

The following series of related hypotheses are raised accordingly:

H8: The effect of source credibility on attention is higher under low involvement conditions.

H9: The mediation effect of attention on the relationships between source credibility and liking is moderated by involvement such that higher levels of source credibility receives a higher level of liking under low involvement conditions.

H10: The mediation effect of attention on the relationships between source credibility and cognitive elaboration is moderated by involvement such that the higher level of source credibility receives higher levels of cognitive elaboration under low involvement conditions.

Augmented ELM (A-ELM)

The kind of processing strategy that a message recipient employs depends on the number of mental resources the recipient is motivated to allocate to such information processing [ 56 ]. Moreover, due to the varied mental resources (involvement, ability, and opportunity), the recipient will follow two relatively distinct routes in persuasion [ 57 ]. This theorizing is well documented in dual-process models, including the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) [ 57 , 58 ], the heuristics-systematic model (HSM) [ 59 ], the motivation, opportunity, and ability model (MOA) [ 60 ], and others.

The extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM) [ 24 , 61 ] hypothesizes that the processing process and outcome of entertainment content are determined by one’s engagement with the story plot and characters. Authors have argued that only involvement with the characters rather than issue involvement is relevant in such a context [ 24 ]. Nevertheless, such theorizing assumes that all entertainment content is homogeneous in substance, forms, and styles. [ 62 ] proposed the language complexity (simple vs. complex) × processing mode (automatic vs. controlled) framework (LCPMF), which considers the abovementioned variations of content. However, the relationship between language complexity and processing mode is entangled, and the LCPMF has never been empirically applied. In addition, language complexity may not fully account for the variation in processing strategies. For instance, a message recipient who is emotionally engaged with the story plot and characters or finds the message entertaining may maintain a constant processing mode, regardless of its level of complexity.

Moreover, the LCPMF fails to consider any cues other than language complexity, such as language intensity [ 63 ], narrative or numerical evidence, or the credibility of content creators, which might affect the processing strategies adopted. The present study proposes a new integrated theoretical framework called the augmented ELM (A-ELM) by incorporating narrative theory and the ELM. The A-ELM, as shown in Fig 1 , comprises all the hypotheses and research questions raised above. In summary, it maintains that the mediation effects of attention (click to view) on the relationships between rhetorical devices and elaborations are moderated by issue involvement.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282663.g001

Data mining.

Most data were collected from two major video-sharing websites in China, namely, Xigua Video (2,648,807 items or 35% of the total) and Bilibili (4,919,998 items or 65% of the total), through data scraping using a crawler programmed with Python. The elements of data to be scraped include the title of the video and the audience responses received for the content, which include the number of views, the number of likes, the number of saves, the number of shares, the number of danmaku (Danmu or bullet chats), and the number of comments, among others. In addition, the attribute information, including the visibility of the issue covered in the text and the author’s impact, e.g., the number of followers, was collected.

Content analysis and codebook.

After the data had been collected from the websites, ten thousand randomly sampled items were subjected to further content analysis (9,244 were left after removing those titles with fewer than five characters). The tests addressing the hypotheses and research questions were based on the coding results of the content analysis. Five senior-year undergraduate and four postgraduate students majoring in the Chinese language were recruited to code the sampled data according to the codebook.

The codebook describes and explains the categories of each variable, which will work as the independent variables used in later hypothesis testing. The coded independent variables included figures of speech [three categories including 1) tropes, 2) schemes, and 3) none] and types of evidence [four categories including 1) narrative, 2) numerical, 3) the combination of the two, and 4) other Nonnarrative evidence].

Each of the coders was trained by one of the three research assistants (RAs) and allowed to start formal coding only after their coding results had satisfactory intercoder reliability with those of a corresponding RA. The RAs also randomly chose samples of coding results from each coder to check their coding quality every day. If intercoder reliability was a problem, the coder of concern was asked to recode certain content.

The intercoder reliability test using the frequently used indices showed that all the categories’ intercoder reliability was satisfactory [ 64 – 67 ]. In addition to the results of the intercoder reliability test, the tables are also presented in the online appendix ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19498751.v1 ) due to the space limit.

Audience responses to headlines.

As discussed above [ 8 , 9 ], audience responses to headlines include paying attention to the headline (viewing) and subsequent affective (e.g., liking the story) and cognitive (e.g., commenting) elaborations after watching the video. These metrics were collected by scraping the relevant websites.

Viewing was measured by the number of viewers ( M = 547,654, SD = 1,056,431, N = 9,244).

Affective Elaboration.

Affective elaboration, or liking, was measured by the number of likes ( M = 26,521, SD = 65,718, N = 8,182).

Cognitive Elaboration.

Cognitive elaboration was measured by the number of shares ( M = 2155, SD = 8,308, N = 8,168), the number of saves ( M = 6,311, SD = 24,119, N = 8,168), the number of comments ( M = 692, SD = 1,825, N = 9,242), and the number of Danmaku (overlaying comments on video displays) ( M = 3,398, SD = 8,747, N = 5,022).

Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed to examine the scale’s dimensionality based on the big data ( N = 7,568,805). The number of extracted factors in the PCA was determined based on the eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule [ 68 ]. The PCA yielded two factors (verbal and nonverbal cognitive elaborations) that explained 85% of the variance in the items. The factor loadings of verbal elaboration were .86 (comments) and .90 (Danmaku), and the Cronbach’s α was .72. The factor loadings of nonverbal elaboration were .94 (shares) and .95 (saves), and the Cronbach’s α was .87. Given the acceptable performance on validity and reliability, the dimensionality results derived from PCA were used in the following structural equation modeling (SEM).

Independent variables

Types of evidence..

The four categories of evidence were coded as narrative (70.857%), numerical (.876%), the combination of the two (1.309%), and other nonnarrative evidence (26.958%).

Figures of Speech.

There were three included categories of figures of speech, i.e., tropes (18.714%), schemes (12.166%), and none (69.120%).

Source Credibility.

Source credibility was measured by the number of followers of content creators ( M = 1,025,659, SD = 3,386,276, N = 9,244) and the fame of content creators.

The Number of Followers.

The number of followers a content creator has is often used as a peripheral cue by consumers to gauge the creator’s trustworthiness and credibility [ 69 , 70 ]. Moreover, [ 69 ] discovered a positive effect of the number of followers a celebrity has on the subject’s perception of the celebrity’s attractiveness, trustworthiness, and competence [cf. 71 ]. This information was collected by scraping the existing data of the websites.

The Fame of Content Creators.

The authors of videos come from a variety of sources, including 1) traditional media, 2) new media platforms, 3) official organizations, 4) nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 5) celebrities, 6) ordinary anchors (equivalent to YouTubers), and 7) famous anchors. A cluster analysis was performed to rank the content creators by the degree of fame. The result showed three ordered categories of fame, i.e., 6, 2 and 7 combined, and the rest combined.

The same PCA procedures as those discussed above were performed on the two items based on the big data ( N = 7,568,805). The PCA yielded one factor that explained 79% of the variance in the items. The factor loadings were .8 and .88, and the Cronbach’s α was .865.

Issue Involvement.

Involvement can indicate the importance of an issue and the amount of needed effort to process information [ 72 ] [for a taxonomy of involvement, see [ 73 ]]. The study’s data sources could be a natural proxy measure of involvement due to the difference in the needed effort of browsing. The two video platforms have very diverse user bases. The users of Bilibili are mostly generation Z and fans of ACGN (animations, comics, games, and novels) [ 74 , 75 ], while the users of Xigua are, in general, generally older people who care about serious topics [ 76 , 77 ]. Therefore, the users of Bilibili who aim to seek stimulation have a shorter attention span and are less likely to pay attention to the details in the text of titles [cf. 78 ] than those of Xigua. In light of the fundamental difference in the user characteristics of the two platforms, the level of involvement was measured by the sources of the videos. Bilibili (Bilibili = 2, 31.556%) and Xigua (Xigua = 1, 68.444%) indicate conditions of high and low involvement, respectively.

Control Variables.

There were two control variables that served as control variables, i.e., topic visibility and the date difference between publishing and crawling times.

Topic Visibility.

Topic visibility or familiarity, which might affect attention, worked as a control variable [cf. 79 ]. The visibility of the concerning event or people, as often displayed in social media metrics, indicates the object’s popularity [ 80 ]. This visibility also serves as a heuristic cue for the algorithms and the users of video websites alike to perceive that object as valuable and noteworthy [ 81 ]. This variable must be controlled because the trending topic easily dominates the attention of users, and people are hence less likely to be affected by the rhetorical strategies contained in the title that has recently been widely discussed on social media.

The visibility of the concerned topic was measured by the number of search times obtained by scraping the “hot searches” provided by Weibo, which is a Twitter-like website in China. The video titles are matched with the “hot searches” database during the same period. Those that were successfully matched received a rating score of visibility, whereas those that failed to match were left blank (NA) ( M = 812,146, SD = 1,062,156, N = 8,499).

Date Differences.

Videos published in earlier days will have more extended viewing periods and, hence, a better chance to be viewed ( M = 171, SD = 294, N = 8,473). Controlling for the effect of this date difference aimed to rule out the influence resulting from the artifact.

Model specification.

As stated in the hypotheses and RQs above, attention mediates the effects of rhetorical devices on affective and cognitive elaborations. Moreover, such a mediation process is moderated by the level of involvement, which forms the moderated mediation model [for a review of this method, see [ 82 ]]. In light of [ 82 ], the significant prediction of either a j (the prediction from predictor X to mediator M ) or b j (the prediction from M to dependent variable Y ) depending on moderator W indicates the presence of moderated mediation. The predictions of a j depending on W (involvement) have been included in H5 and H6, while the predictions of b j are not dependent on involvement due to a lack of theoretical support.

Dataset and analysis

The data were scraped, cleaned, and manipulated using Python 3.7. The dataset is stored on the online repository ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19498751.v1 ). Some analyses (e.g., PCA and reliability test) and data manipulation also employed R 3.6, and hypothesis testing using structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed with M plus 8.6 [ 83 ]. The collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data.

Results and discussions

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) derived from the mixed-effects null model was .295, indicating that 29.5% of the variance was accounted for by clustering. As a result, multilevel modeling was necessary. The hypotheses and research questions were addressed using multilevel moderated mediation modeling with SEM and the Monte Carlo and numerical integration method, which. However, this method made χ 2 and related fit statistics unavailable.

All the measurement models were significant. The number of shares and saves were significantly loaded on the factor of nonverbal cognitive elaboration, whereas the number of comments and danmaku were significantly loaded on the factor of verbal cognitive elaboration. Moreover, the two factors were significantly loaded on a single factor, which is simplified as cognitive elaboration. In addition, the number of followers and the fame of content creators were significantly loaded on a single factor, i.e., source credibility.

Both affective elaboration (i.e., the number of likes) and cognitive elaboration were significantly predicted by attention (i.e., the number of viewers) ( β = .713, p <.001; β = .423, p <.001). That is, higher levels of attention translate into higher levels of affective and cognitive elaborations. Consequently, H1 was supported.

Depending on the level of involvement, the effects of other forms of nonnarratives (vs. narratives) and combined narrative and numerical evidence on attention were significant ( β = .043, p <.01; β = .176, p <.01. That is, nonnarrative evidence and combined narrative and numerical evidence attract more viewers than narrative evidence under low involvement conditions. Numerical evidence attracts more viewers under high involvement conditions, as expected, but this effect was insignificant ( β = −.111, p = .179). Consequently, H2a and H2c were supported, but H2b was rejected.

Regarding the effect of figures of speech (FoS) on attention, only the effect of tropes (vs. nonuse of FoS) was significant ( β = .061, p <.01). That is, tropes can attract more viewers than literal texts under low involvement conditions. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in attracting viewers between schemes and the nonuse of FoS. Consequently, H5a was supported, but H5b was rejected.

The effect of source credibility on attention was significant ( β = 32.211, p <.001). That is, the higher the source credibility is, the more viewers there are when the involvement level is low. Therefore, H8 was supported.

The effect of the control variables (i.e., visibility of the issue and date difference) on attention was also significant ( β = −.062, p <.001; β = .116, p <.001). Higher levels of visibility attract fewer viewers under low involvement conditions. The longer that videos are published, the more viewers they have. In summary, controlling for the effects of visibility and date difference, the effects of numerical and other forms of nonnarrative evidence, tropes, and source credibility on attention were significant depending on the varying level of involvement.

The moderated mediation effects of attention on the relationships between rhetorical devices (and source credibility) and affective elaboration (e.g., liking), and cognitive elaboration had mixed results. The effects of the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, other forms of nonnarrative (vs. narrative) evidence, tropes (vs. nonuse of figure of speech), and source credibility on both affective and cognitive elaborations were significantly mediated by attention depending on the level of involvement. There were significant moderated mediation effects of the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, other forms of nonnarrative evidence, tropes and source credibility on liking, i.e., affective elaboration( β = .251, p <.01; β = .061, p <.01; β = .087, p <.001; β = 45.957, p <.001) and cognitive elaboration ( β = .149, p <.01; β = .036, p <.01; β = .051, p <.05; β = 27.258, p <.001). Consequently, H3a, H3c, H4a, H4c, H6a, H7a, H9, and H10 were supported, but H3b, H4b, H6b, and H7b were rejected.

The relationships between the mediator (i.e., attention) and affective and cognitive elaborations were significant. Attention clearly plays the role of a gatekeeper for subsequent responses. Nevertheless, the effects of linguistic devices and source credibility on responses were not consistent.

There are significant and moderated (by involvement) mediation effects of attention on the relationships between the predictors [other forms of nonnarrative (vs. narrative) evidence, the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, tropes (vs. nonuse of figure of speech), and source credibility] and both affective and cognitive elaborations. When the level of involvement was low, the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, other forms of nonnarrative evidence, tropes, and source credibility had positive effects on audience responses. In contrast, visibility had positive effects on responses under high involvement conditions. The positive effects of other forms of nonnarrative evidence and the combination of narrative and numerical evidence under low involvement conditions could be attributed to two factors.

First, in the context of video viewing, the titles using narratives have already included a synopsis of their stories. If users have low issue involvement, then they lack the motivation to click to watch the video. Second, an untested three-way interaction may exist on top of the moderation of involvement. For instance, the genre of videos, which is an attribute not reported by Xigua Video, may moderate the interaction effect of involvement and evidence types. In addition, older age groups are more easily attracted by narratives, while members of generation Z [ 75 ], who comprise the staple user base of Bilibili, prefer nonnarratives with or without numbers over narratives in their browsing [cf. 84 ].

Research implications

This study has made substantial theoretical contributions by proposing an augmented ELM (A-ELM) that combines narrative theory and dual-process theories into a unified theoretical framework. The A-ELM represents an improvement over previous ELM(s) in multiple ways.

The A-ELM is different from the E-ELM [ 24 , 61 ], which holds that the audience’s emotional engagement (transportation) is only relevant to high levels of involvement with the plots and characters. Involvement with the plots and characters is different from issue involvement. The former, which is a core concept in the E-ELM, should be better conceptualized as narrative engagement, while the latter is simply involvement that the ELM refers to. Moreover, the E-ELM contends that communication outcomes are determined by involvement with the story plot and characters, while the A-ELM maintains that mere narrative evidence is detrimental to communication outcomes when issue involvement is low. The underlying reason is that users lack the motivation to process the information further when they are not interested in the issue per se.

The A-ELM provides a fresh perspective on the debate over the persuasive impact of narratives versus numerical evidence. Nonnarratives should be differentiated between numerical and nonnumerical ones. Numerical evidence indicating a higher argument quality works better under high involvement conditions. In contrast, other nonnarrative evidence is believed to have better audience responses under low involvement conditions.

In addition, tropes and source credibility have better effects on audience responses under the low involvement condition, while video titles that address social issues tend to attract users with high levels of involvement.

The present study employed two methods, i.e., big data mining and content analysis. The validity and reliability of the measurement scales were first confirmed based on big data collected from the natural setting, and then the hypotheses and research questions were examined based on randomly selected data subjected to content analysis. In addition, the study adopted innovative multilevel moderated mediation modeling based on Monte Carlo integration. Therefore, this study has made several methodological contributions to the field.

This study not only has theoretical and methodological implications, but also practical implications for video creators. Depending on the users that a video targets, video creators can choose specific rhetorical devices to grab attention. Specifically, creators should use nonnarrative evidence and figures such as metaphors, puns, and other similar tropes in video titles to engage young users who lack persistent levels of involvement. Nevertheless, video titles with numerical evidence and public issues work best to engage older users who are interested in serious topics.

Conclusions

This study found that attention (number of viewers) is a significant predictor of affective (number of likes) and cognitive (e.g., number of comments) elaborations. Higher levels of attention result in higher levels of affective and cognitive elaborations. This study also found that nonnarrative evidence and combined narrative and numerical evidence attract more viewers than narrative evidence under low involvement. The use of tropes in figures of speech was found to attract more viewers than literal texts under low involvement. It implies that when reading texts with tropes and non-narratives, users apparently process those messages effortlessly as peripheral cues. Users, however, process numerical information, particularly concerning trending social issues, in an effortful and systematic way.

Source credibility was found to have a significant effect on attention, with higher credibility leading to more viewers under low involvement. The control variables, i.e., visibility of the issue and date difference, were also found to have a significant effect on attention.

Limitations

The mixed results of the study could be attributed to several limitations. Firstly, the study only utilized data from two major video-sharing websites in China, which may have resulted in the exclusion of other important sources and websites. Secondly, the impact of narratives on communication could be influenced by transportation and narrative involvement, but the extent of narrative involvement was not accessible to the study. Finally, due to the use of secondary data, many constructs were measured using a limited number of items, leading to concerns about reliability.

Future research directions

Based on the limitations mentioned above, future research directions in this area could include:

• To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the communication effects of rhetorical devices and narratives, the scope of data sources could be expanded to include additional video-sharing websites, such as those in China and beyond, including YouTube [cf. 2].
• Enhancing Measurement Reliability. To address the reliability concerns in the measurement of constructs, future research could utilize multiple items or more robust measures. Furthermore, while the primary users of the two video-sharing platforms were originally comprised of Generation Z and older adults, these platforms are now evolving to attract a more diverse range of age groups. Therefore, the measurement of involvement could be improved by using additional variables such as content focus (e.g. political vs entertainment).
• Investigating the effects of rhetorical devices and narratives in different contexts. The effects of rhetorical devices and narratives may vary across different communication contexts, such as in politics, entertainment, advertising, or health. Future research could examine the effects in these different contexts and compare the results to the findings of this study.
• Conducting qualitative studies to complement the quantitative findings, and explore the underlying mechanisms and processes that explain the communication effects of rhetorical devices and narratives.

These future research directions could help to further our understanding of the effects of rhetorical devices and narratives on communication outcomes and inform the development of more effective communication strategies that use rhetorical devices and narratives.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. Berlyne DE. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1971.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 12. Lazarus RS. The cognition–emotion debate: A bit of history. In: Dalgleish T, Power M, editors. Handbook of cognition and emotion. New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1999. p. 3–19.
• 14. Wilson BJ, Gottman JM. Attention—The Shuttle Between Emotion and Cognition: Risk, Resiliency, and Physiological Bases. Stress, Coping, and Resiliency in Children and Families: Psychology Press; 1996.
• 18. Abbott HP. Defining narrative. 2 ed. Abbott HP, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. 13–27 p.
• 19. Gabriel Y. Stories and Narratives. 2018 2021/07/28. In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: Methods and Challenges [Internet]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-business-and-management-research-methods-v2 .
• 38. Corbett EP. Classical rhetoric. NEW YORK: Oxford University Press; 1965.
• 39. Shen L, Bigsby E. The effects of message features: Content, structure, and style. The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 2013. p. 20–35.
• 42. Barthes R. Rhetoric of the Image. Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang; 1977. p. 32–51.
• 58. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer New York; 1986. p. 1–24.
• 59. Chaiken S. The heuristic model of persuasion. Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Vol 5. Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1987. p. 3–39.
• 61. Slater MD. Involvement as Goal-Directed Strategic Processing: Extending the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M, editors. The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2002.
• 77. Fang W. Zhongshipin Sanwanjia Luxian Zhizheng: Xigua de Suanfa, B zhan de Quanzi, Zhihu de Da V China: Jiemian Xinwen; 2021. Available from: https://www.jiemian.com/article/5634681.html .
• 80. Marwick AE. Status update—celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2013.
• 83. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus: the comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: user’s guide. 8.3 ed. Los Angeles, CA: MuthÈn & MuthÈn; 2019.

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, the 20 most useful rhetorical devices.

General Education

Rhetoric is the art of effective communication; if you communicate with others at all, rhetorical devices are your friends!

Rhetorical devices help you make points more effectively, and help people understand you better. In this article, I'll be covering some important rhetorical devices so you can improve your own writing! 

What Are Rhetorical Devices?

A lot of things that you would think of as just regular everyday modes of communicating are actually rhetorical devices That’s because ‘rhetorical devices’ is more or less a fancy way of saying ‘communication tools.’

Most people don’t plan out their use of rhetorical devices in communication, both because nobody thinks, “now would be a good time to use synecdoche in this conversation with my grocery clerk,” and because we use them so frequently that they don’t really register as “rhetorical devices.”

How often have you said something like, “when pigs fly!” Of those times, how often have you thought, “I’m using a rhetorical device!” That’s how ubiquitous they are!

However, being aware of what they are and how to use them can strengthen your communication , whether you do a lot of big speeches, write persuasive papers, or just argue with your friends about a TV show you all like.

Rhetorical devices can function at all levels: words, sentences, paragraphs, and beyond. Some rhetorical devices are just a single word, such as onomatopoeia. Others are phrases, such as metaphor, while still others can be sentence-length (such as a thesis), paragraph-length (hypophora), or go throughout the entire piece, such as a standard five-paragraph essay.

Many of these (such as the thesis or five-paragraph essay) are so standard and familiar to us that we may not think of them as devices. But because they help us shape and deliver our arguments effectively, they're important to know and understand.

The Most Useful Rhetorical Devices List

It would be impossible to list every single rhetorical device in one blog post. Instead, I've collected a mixture of extremely common devices you may have heard before and some more obscure ones that might be valuable to learn.

Amplification

Amplification is a little similar to parallelism: by using repetition, a writer expands on an original statement and increases its intensity .

Take this example from Roald Dahl’s The Twits :

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it. A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

In theory, we could have gotten the point with the first sentence. We don’t need to know that the more you think ugly thoughts, the uglier you become, nor that if you think good thoughts you won’t be ugly—all that can be contained within the first sentence. But Dahl’s expansion makes the point clearer, driving home the idea that ugly thoughts have consequences.

Amplification takes a single idea and blows it up bigger, giving the reader additional context and information to better understand your point. You don’t just have to restate the point— use amplification to expand and dive deeper into your argument to show readers and listeners how important it is!

Anacoluthon

Anacoluthon is a fancy word for a disruption in the expected grammar or syntax of a sentence. That doesn’t mean that you misspoke—using anacoluthon means that you’ve deliberately subverted your reader’s expectations to make a point.

For example, take this passage from King Lear :

“I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things, What they are, yet I know not…”

In this passage, King Lear interrupts himself in his description of his revenge. This has multiple effects on the reader: they wonder what all the world shall do once he has his revenge (cry? scream? fear him?), and they understand that King Lear has interrupted himself to regain his composure. This tells us something about him—that he’s seized by passion in this moment, but also that he regains control. We might have gathered one of those things without anacoluthon, but the use of this rhetorical device shows us both very efficiently.

Anadiplosis

Anadiplosis refers to purposeful repetition at the end of one sentence or clause and at the beginning of the next sentence or clause. In practice, that looks something like a familiar phrase from Yoda:

“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Note the way that the ending word of each sentence is repeated in the following sentence. That’s anadiplosis!

This rhetorical device draws a clear line of thinking for your reader or listener—repetition makes them pay closer attention and follow the way the idea evolves. In this case, we trace the way that fear leads to suffering through Yoda’s purposeful repetition.

Antanagoge is the balancing of a negative with a positive. For example, the common phrase, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” is antanagoge—it suggests a negative (lots of lemons) and follows that up with a positive (make lemonade).

When writing persuasively, this can be a great way to respond to potential detractors of your argument. Suppose you want to convince your neighborhood to add a community garden, but you think that people might focus on the amount of work required. When framing your argument, you could say something like, “Yes, it will be a lot of work to maintain, but working together will encourage us all to get to know one another as well as providing us with fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers.”

This is a little like procatalepsis, in that you anticipate a problem and respond to it. However, antanagoge is specifically balancing a negative with a positive, just as I did in the example of a garden needing a lot of work, but that work is what ultimately makes the project worth it.

Apophasis is a form of irony relating to denying something while still saying it. You’ll often see this paired with phrases like, “I’m not saying…” or “It goes without saying…”, both of which are followed up with saying exactly what the speaker said they weren’t going to say.

Take this speech from Iron Man 2 :

"I'm not saying I'm responsible for this country's longest run of uninterrupted peace in 35 years! I'm not saying that from the ashes of captivity, never has a phoenix metaphor been more personified! I'm not saying Uncle Sam can kick back on a lawn chair, sipping on an iced tea, because I haven't come across anyone man enough to go toe to toe with me on my best day! It's not about me."

Tony Stark isn’t saying that he’s responsible for all those things… except that’s exactly what he is saying in all of his examples. Though he says it’s not about him, it clearly is—all of his examples relate to how great he is, even as he proclaims that they aren’t.

A scene like this can easily be played for humor, but apophasis can also be a useful (albeit deceptive) rhetorical tool. For example, this argument:

Our neighborhood needs a community garden to foster our relationships with one another. Not only is it great for getting to know each other, but a community garden will also provide us with all kinds of fresh fruit and vegetables. It would be wrong to say that people who disagree aren’t invested in others’ health and wellness, but those who have the neighborhood’s best interests in mind will support a community garden.

That last sentence is all apophasis. Not only did I imply that people who don’t support the community garden are anti-social and uncaring (by outright stating that I wouldn’t say that, but I also implied that they’re also not invested in the neighborhood at all. Stating things like this, by pretending you’re not saying them or saying the opposite, can be very effective.

Assonance and Alliteration

Assonance adds an abundance of attractive accents to all your assertions. That’s assonance—the practice repeating the same vowel sound in multiple words in a phrase or sentence, often at the beginning of a word, to add emphasis or musicality to your work. Alliteration is similar, but uses consonant sounds instead of vowel sounds.

Let’s use Romeo and Juliet as an example again:

“From forth the fatal loins of these two foes; A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life.”

Here, we have repetition of the sounds ‘f’ and ‘l’ in ‘from forth...fatal...foes,’ and ‘loins...lovers...life.’

Even if you don’t notice the repetition as you’re reading, you can hear the effects in how musical the language sounds. Shakespeare could easily have just written something like, “Two kids from families who hate one another fell in love and died by suicide,” but that’s hardly as evocative as the phrasing he chose.

Both assonance and alliteration give your writing a lyrical sound, but they can do more than that, too. These tools can mimic associated sounds, like using many ‘p’ sounds to sound like rain or something sizzling, or ‘s’ sounds to mimic the sounds of a snake. When you’re writing, think about what alternative meanings you can add by emphasizing certain sounds.

Listen, asterismos is great. Don’t believe me? How did you feel after I began the first sentence with the word ‘listen?’ Even if you didn’t feel more inspired to actually listen, you probably paid a bit more attention because I broke the expected form. That’s what asterismos is—using a word or phrase to draw attention to the thought that comes afterward.

‘Listen’ isn’t the only example of asterismos, either. You can use words like, ‘hey,’ ‘look,’ ‘behold,’ ‘so,’ and so on. They all have the same effect: they tell the reader or listener, “Hey, pay attention—what I’m about to say is important.”

Dysphemism and Euphemism

Euphemism is the substitution of a more pleasant phrase in place of a familiar phrase, and dysphemism is the opposite —an un pleasant phrase substituted in place of something more familiar. These tools are two sides of the same coin. Euphemism takes an unpleasant thing and makes it sound nicer—such as using 'passed away' instead of 'died'—while dysphemism does the opposite, taking something that isn't necessarily bad and making it sound like it is.

We won’t get into the less savory uses of dysphemism, but there are plenty that can leave an impression without being outright offensive. Take ‘snail mail.’ A lot of us call postal mail that without any real malice behind it, but ‘snail’ implies slowness, drawing a comparison between postal mail and faster email. If you’re making a point about how going electronic is faster, better for the environment, and overall more efficient, comparing email to postal mail with the phrase ‘snail mail’ gets the point across quickly and efficiently.

Likewise, if you're writing an obituary, you probably don't want to isolate the audience by being too stark in your details. Using gentler language, like 'passed away' or 'dearly departed' allows you to talk about things that might be painful without being too direct. People will know what you mean, but you won't have to risk hurting anyone by being too direct and final with your language.

You’ve no doubt run into epilogues before, because they’re a common and particularly useful rhetorical device! Epilogues are a conclusion to a story or work that reveals what happens to the characters in the story. This is different from an afterword, which is more likely to describe the process of a book’s creation than to continue and provide closure to a story.

Many books use epilogues to wrap up loose ends, usually taking place in the future to show how characters have changed as a result of their adventures. Both Harry Potter and The Hunger Games series use their epilogues to show the characters as adults and provide some closure to their stories—in Harry Potter , the main characters have gotten married and had children, and are now sending those children to the school where they all met. This tells the reader that the story of the characters we know is over—they’re adults and are settled into their lives—but also demonstrates that the world goes on existing, though it’s been changed forever by the actions of the familiar characters.

Eutrepismus

Eutrepismus is another rhetorical device you’ve probably used before without realizing it. This device separates speech into numbered parts, giving your reader or listener a clear line of thinking to follow.

Eutrepismus is a great rhetorical device—let me tell you why. First, it’s efficient and clear. Second, it gives your writing a great sense of rhythm. Third, it’s easy to follow and each section can be expanded throughout your work.

See how simple it is? You got all my points in an easy, digestible format. Eutrepismus helps you structure your arguments and make them more effective, just as any good rhetorical device should do.

You’ve probably used hypophora before without ever thinking about it. Hypophora refers to a writer or speaker proposing a question and following it up with a clear answer. This is different from a rhetorical question—another rhetorical device—because there is an expected answer, one that the writer or speaker will immediately give to you.

Hypophora serves to ask a question the audience may have (even if they’re not entirely aware of it yet) and provide them with an answer. This answer can be obvious, but it can also be a means of leading the audience toward a particular point.

Take this sample from John F. Kennedy’s speech on going to the moon:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

In this speech, Kennedy outright states that he’s asking questions others have asked, and then goes on to answer them. This is Kennedy’s speech, so naturally it’s going to reflect his point of view, but he’s answering the questions and concerns others might have about going to the moon. In doing so, he’s reclaiming an ongoing conversation to make his own point. This is how hypophora can be incredibly effective: you control the answer, leaving less room for argument!

Litotes is a deliberate understatement, often using double negatives, that serves to actually draw attention to the thing being remarked upon. For example, saying something like, “It’s not pretty,” is a less harsh way to say “It’s ugly,” or “It’s bad,” that nonetheless draws attention to it being ugly or bad.

In Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave , he writes:

“Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others.”

Notice the use of “not uncommon.” Douglass, by using a double negative to make readers pay closer attention, points out that some slaves still sought superiority over others by speaking out in favor of their owners.

Litotes draws attention to something by understating it. It’s sort of like telling somebody not to think about elephants—soon, elephants becomes all they can think about. The double negative draws our attention and makes us focus on the topic because it’s an unusual method of phrasing.

Onomatopoeia

Onomatopoeia refers to a sound represented within text as a mimicry of what that sound actually sounds like. Think “bang” or “whizz” or “oomph,” all of which can mean that something made that kind of a sound—”the door banged shut”—but also mimic the sound itself—”the door went bang .”

This rhetorical device can add emphasis or a little bit of spice to your writing. Compare, “The gunshot made a loud sound,” to “The gun went bang .” Which is more evocative?

Parallelism

Parallelism is the practice of using similar grammar structure, sounds, meter, and so on to emphasize a point and add rhythm or balance to a sentence or paragraph.

One of the most famous examples of parallelism in literature is the opening of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities :

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way— in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

In the beginning, every phrase begins with “It was,” which is itself a parallelism. But there are also pairs of parallelism within the sentence, too; “It was the ___ of times, it was the ___ of times,” and “it was the age of ___, it was the age of ___.”

Parallelism draws your reader deeper into what you’re saying and provides a nice sense of flow, even if you’re talking about complicated ideas. The ‘epoch of incredulity’ is a pretty meaty phrase, but Dickens’ parallelism sets up a series of dichotomies for us; even if we don’t know quite what it means, we can figure it out by comparing it to ‘belief.’

Personification

Personification is a rhetorical device you probably run into a lot without realizing it. It’s a form of metaphor, which means two things are being compared without the words like or as—in this case, a thing that is not human is given human characteristics.

Personification is common in poetry and literature, as it’s a great way to generate fresh and exciting language, even when talking about familiar subjects. Take this passage from Romeo and Juliet , for example:

“When well-appareled April on the heel Of limping winter treads.”

April can’t wear clothes or step on winter, and winter can’t limp. However, the language Shakespeare uses here is quite evocative. He’s able to quickly state that April is beautiful (“well-appareled”) and that winter is coming to an end (“limping winter”). Through personification, we get a strong image for things that could otherwise be extremely boring, such as if Shakespeare had written, “When beautiful April comes right after winter.”

Procatalepsis

Procatalepsis is a rhetorical device that anticipates and notes a potential objection, heading it off with a follow-up argument to strengthen the point. I know what you’re thinking—that sounds really complicated! But bear with me, because it’s actually quite simple.

See how that works? I imagined that a reader might be confused by the terminology in the first sentence, so I noted that potential confusion, anticipating their argument. Then, I addressed that argument to strengthen my point—procatalepsis is easy, which you can see because I just demonstrated it!

Anticipating a rebuttal is a great way to strengthen your own argument. Not only does it show that you’ve really put thought into what you’re saying, but it also leaves less room for disagreement!

Synecdoche is a rhetorical device that uses a part of something to stand in for the whole. That can mean that we use a small piece of something to represent a whole thing (saying ‘let’s grab a slice’ when we in fact mean getting a whole pizza), or using something large to refer to something small. We often do this with sports teams–for example, saying that New England won the Super Bowl when we in fact mean the New England Patriots, not the entirety of New England.

This style of rhetorical device adds an additional dimension to your language, making it more memorable to your reader. Which sounds more interesting? “Let’s get pizza,” or “let’s grab a slice?”

Likewise, consider this quote from Percy Bysshe Shelly’s “Ozymandias”:

“Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them.”

Here, Shelly uses ‘the hand’ to refer to the sculptor. The hand did not sculpt the lifeless things on its own; it was a tool of the sculptor. But by using just the hand, Shelly avoids repeating ‘the sculptor,’ preserves the poem’s rhythm, and narrows our focus. If he had referred to the sculptor again, he’d still be a big important figure; by narrowing to the hand, Shelly is diminishing the idea of the creator, mirroring the poem’s assertion that the creation will outlast it.

Tautology refers to using words or similar phrases to effectively repeat the same idea with different wording. It’s a form of repetition that can make a point stronger, but it can also be the basis of a flawed argument—be careful that your uses of tautology is the former, not the latter!

For example, take this section of “The Bells” by Edgar Allen Poe:

“Keeping time, time, time, In a sort of Runic rhyme… From the bells, bells, bells, bells.”

Poe’s poetry has a great deal of rhythm already, but the use of ‘time, time, time’ sets us up for the way that ‘bells, bells, bells, bells’ also holds that same rhythm. Keeping time refers to maintaining rhythm, and this poem emphasizes that with repetition, much like the repetitive sound of ringing bells.

An example of an unsuccessful tautology would be something like, “Either we should buy a house, or we shouldn’t.” It’s not a successful argument because it doesn’t say anything at all—there’s no attempt to suggest anything, just an acknowledgment that two things, which cannot both happen, could happen.

If you want to use tautology in your writing, be sure that it’s strengthening your point. Why are you using it? What purpose does it serve? Don’t let a desire for rhythm end up robbing you of your point!

That thing your English teachers are always telling you to have in your essays is an important literary device. A thesis, from the Greek word for ‘a proposition,’ is a clear statement of the theory or argument you’re making in an essay. All your evidence should feed back into your thesis; think of your thesis as a signpost for your reader. With that signpost, they can’t miss your point!

Especially in longer academic writing, there can be so many pieces to an argument that it can be hard for readers to keep track of your overarching point. A thesis hammers the point home so that no matter how long or complicated your argument is, the reader will always know what you’re saying.

Tmesis is a rhetorical device that breaks up a word, phrase, or sentence with a second word, usually for emphasis and rhythm . We often do this with expletives, but tmesis doesn’t have to be vulgar to be effective!

Take this example from Romeo and Juliet :

“This is not Romeo, he’s some other where.”

The normal way we’d hear this phrase is “This is not Romeo, he’s somewhere else.” But by inserting the word ‘other’ between ‘some’ and ‘where,’ it not only forces us to pay attention, but also changes the sentence’s rhythm. It gets the meaning across perfectly, and does so in a way that’s far more memorable than if Shakespeare had just said that Romeo was somewhere else.

For a more common usage, we can turn to George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion , which often has Eliza Doolittle using phrases like “fan-bloody-tastic” and “abso-blooming-lutely.” The expletives—though mild by modern standards—emphasize Eliza’s social standing and make each word stand out more than if she had simply said them normally.

What’s Next?

Rhetorical devices and literary devices can both be used to enhance your writing and communication. Check out this list of literary devices to learn more !

Ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos are all modes of persuasion—types of rhetorical devices— that can help you be a more convincing writer !

No matter what type of writing you're doing, rhetorical devices can enhance it! To learn more about different writing styles, check out this list !

Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:

In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could work for other farmers as well.

Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:

In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will be affected in the same way.

Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer. There are many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:

• Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
• Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
• Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
• If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
• Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
• Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.

Pathos , or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities.  Pathos can also be understood as an appeal to audience's disposition to a topic, evidence, or argument (especially appropriate to academic discourse). 

Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year because it would give a human face to the numbers.  Academic arguments in particular ​benefit from understanding pathos as appealing to an audience's academic disposition.

Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten people.

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 16 January 2019

A model of rhetorical markers competence in writing academic research articles: a qualitative meta-synthesis

• Reza Khany 1 ,
• Mohammad Aliakbari 2 &
• Saeedeh Mohammadi 1  

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education volume  4 , Article number:  1 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

The knowledge of diverse rhetorical relations is a remarkable component of competence in research article (RA) writing for learners’ successful handling of scholarly writing tasks in English for academic purposes (EAP) programs. This study aimed to present a model of Rhetorical Markers (RMs) competence in writing EAP RAs. In so doing, a ‘qualitative meta-synthesis’ approach was adopted as the research method. A meta-synthesis exercise was framed and the currently available literature on various models of RMs was investigated. 385 relevant abstracts and 321 full papers were screened and a number of 23 studies were appraised for final inclusion. Afterwards, a reciprocal translation was conducted to extract the latent themes and concepts in the general model. More specifically, a thematic coding strategy was applied for synthesizing the selected studies. Then, different obtained themes and categories were synthesized to build the major components of the model of RMs competence. Finally, three super themes of RMs were emerged including: pragmatic markers, meta-discourse markers, and metaphorical markers. The new model, as a conceptual frame of reference, can provide awareness to the EAP researchers regarding the underpinning components of the knowledge of RMs in writing up academic research papers.

Introduction

Research articles (RAs) are acknowledged as the most important form of scientific discourse because they are leading means of distributing academic knowledge for future use. Over the recent decades, the study of RAs has received much attention in the academic genre analysis. A variety of perspectives has been put under deep consideration, including organization, lexicon, cohesion and coherence markers, rhetorical moves, etc. (e.g., Hyland & Tse, 2005 ; Khany & Tazik, 2010 ; Li & Ge, 2009 ; Luo & Hyland, 2016 ; Swales, 2004 ).

Among the significant linguistic features explored in the literature on text analysis are cohesion and coherence markers (e.g., Anderson, 2001 ; Bolden, 2009 ; Fraser, 2005 ; Goatly, 1997 ). Coherence and cohesion are captured by a set of rhetorical markers (RMs), which represent the explicit and implicit relations between different discursive segments and manage the flow of discourse. An explicit relation is marked by an explicit connective, but in an implicit one, the connective is absent, and it is difficult to recognize the discourse relation (Pitler et al., 2008 ). It is worth noting that the concepts contributing to coherence relations and their discourse markers highly draw upon the prominent linguistic theory of Halliday’s ( 1994 ) systemic functional linguistics. His theory suggests that an intended meaning is postulated for any kind of verbalization leading to the readability of the text. As such, discourse connectives are utilized to represent a type of rhetorical relation and make the interpretation of the text possible. These concepts also fundamentally contribute to Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann & Thompson, 1988 ), which accounts for the connections between distinct units of the text and the functions each connection serves in the text. The knowledge of these markers is of high necessity in producing a well-organized research article in English. Given this, several models have been also proposed by different scholars: Goatly’s ( 1997 ) model of metaphorical markers (MMs), Fraser’s ( 2005 ) model of discourse markers (DMs), Hyland’s ( 2005 ) model of Metadiscourse Markers (MDMs), and Fraser’s ( 2009 ) model of Pragmatic Markers (PMs). A detailed review of current literature on different sets of rhetorical markers is provided as follows.

Literature review

Rhetorical organization in writing is manifested through some linguistic and meta-linguistic cues called markers. These markers fulfill varying functions in the text. Various approaches have been put forward for the classification of discourse markers (e.g., Fraser, 1990 , 1999 ; Knott & Sanders, 1998 ; Sanders, Spooren, & Noordman, 1992 ; Schiffrin, 1987 ). Though, Pragmatic Markers (PMs) are described as linguistic devices that play no part in determining the semantic meaning of a discourse segment but play a significant role in the interpretation of the utterance (Fraser, 2009 ). PMs are different from Discourse Markers (DMs) in that they do not necessarily connect discourse segments, and they may occur with single utterances (Feng, 2008 ). However, in some classifications, DMs are considered a type of pragmatic markers. Several studies have examined these markers with respect to diverse sections of RAs (e.g., Jalilifar, 2007a , b , 2008 ; Stotesbury, 2003 ; Tan-de Ramos, 2010 ). These studies investigated the frequency and distribution of discourse-pragmatic elements in different sections including abstract and body of the research articles. They revealed that these markers have crucial roles in the way authors express their message to the reader and establish relationships with the addressee.

Textual association is also manifested by Meta-Discourse Markers (MDMs) which refer to the organization of the discourse itself and to the facets of the relationship between author and reader (Hyland, 2005 ). Scholars including Vande Kopple ( 1985 ), Hyland ( 2005 ), and Adel ( 2006 ) have proposed frameworks for MDMs. A growing body of literature has investigated MDMs in diverse sections of the RAs (e.g., Abdollahzadeh, 2001 , 2003 ; Atai & Sadr, 2008 ; Dahl, 2004 ; Hyland, 1995 , 2004 ; Jalilifar & Kabezadeh, 2012 ; Mirshamsi & Allami, 2013 ; Rahimpour, 2006 ; Sultan, 2011 ; Vassileva, 2001 ). Sultan ( 2011 ), for example, examined the use of MDMs in English and Arabic RAs within the field of linguistics and found that transitions and hedges had the highest frequencies in both English and Arabic RAs. Similarly, Jalilifar and Kabezadeh ( 2012 ) explored the use of MDMs in introduction and method sections of applied linguistic RAs and showed that transitions were used more than the other MDMs.

Metaphorical Markers (MMs), as another set of rhetorical markers, are expressions which occur “in the environment of a metaphor’s vehicle term, or a unit of discourse that unconventionally refers to, or colligates with the topic of a metaphor on the basis of similarity, matching or analogy” (Goatly, 1997 , p. 17). Few studies have analysed MMs in RAs, including Skorczynska and Deignan ( 2006 ) and Khany and Rostami ( 2011 ). For instance, Khany and Rostami ( 2011 ) indicated that the international journals had a more frequent number of MDMs than the Iranian journals, although both types of journals used them similarly.

Metaphorical markers also include attention to modality. Much of the literature on modality (Lyons, 1977 ; Palmer, 1986 ; Perkins, 1983 ) often assumes that the major function of modals is to reveal writer’s the state of mind, to indicate that he/she is uncertain, uncommitted, or tentative about the truth value of the proposition. In case of research on modality markers in RAs, very few studies have been reported. For instance, Vold ( 2006 ) investigated the use of epistemic modality markers as an important type of hedges – in RAs in three languages and different disciplines. He identified interesting differences between disciplines regarding the type of markers used.

Other rhetorical markers have been suggested and studied in the past research, including author presence markers (e.g., this author, we), intensity markers (e.g., certainly, highly), politeness markers (more or less, briefly), and indirectness markers (e.g., almost, sort of).

Author Presence Markers (APMs) embody expressions by which writers convey their attitudes, feelings, judgments, opinions, and commitments toward the propositional content. An author’s influential stance helps him to argue for a position and claim solidarity with the readers, evaluate the other writers’ work, and acknowledge alternative views (Hyland, 2004 ). APMs have been the area of concern in some recent studies (e.g., Crosthwaite, Cheun, & Jiang, 2017 ; Harwood, 2005 ; Hyland, 2002a , b , 2003 ; Molino, 2010 ; Sheldon, 2009 ).

Based on the analysis of some corpora, academic writers use overt authorial identity markers to catch the attention of target readers and highlight their attachment to a certain community of practice (Harwood, 2005 ; Ivanic, 1998 ). Several studies have observed the clear presence of the authors’ voice in academic writings, such as the use of the first person pronoun combined with an argumentative verb – I/we claim that (e.g., Berge, 2003 ; Hyland, 1998b ; Vassileva, 2000 ). The review of literature on the existence of first-person pronouns in academic texts has indicated that personal pronouns and possessive adjectives are present in academic writings and that they are well-known as an influential source for building an authorial identity (Kuo, 1999 ; Tang & John, 1999 ). Person markers indicate the author’s presence in a text and reflect the importance of this presence in variability in the tenor of a text (Hyland, 1994 ). Another obvious way researchers opt to demonstrate their identity is referring to their earlier studies through self-citation. Self-citation has been referred to occur in 60% of all instances of authorial presence markers in a multidisciplinary corpus (Hyland, 2001 ). Hyland ( 2001 ) illustrated that self-reference markers exist more frequently in RAs in the soft disciplines (e.g., Sociology, Philosophy, Applied Linguistics) than the hard ones (e.g., Microbiology, Physics, Engineering). As he elaborated, in hard sciences, academic writers undervalue their individual role and highlight the phenomenon under study instead. Similarly, other self-mention terms like “this author”, “the researcher” have been found to be used by some writers especially Ph.D. degree holders (Isik Tas, 2008 ).

Intensity markers (IMs) are other affective linguistic devices (Burke, 2011 ), which encode authors’ emotions and dispositions, and are used to negotiate their claims and persuade their readers. These markers reveal the writer’s stance towards the presented materials and their communicative function. Intensity markers have lately been studied in different sections of RAs (e.g., Behnam & Mirzapour, 2012 ; Beighmohammadi, 2003 ; Shiri maslaki, 2007 ). Beighmohammadi ( 2003 ), for example, examined the application of IMs across different domains in the introduction section of RAs. He identified more frequent use of intensity markers in RAs in social sciences. Shiri maslaki ( 2007 ) also examined abstract sections of research articles in Biology and TEFL and found no significant difference between them in terms of frequency of use of emphatics but found more amplifiers and downtoners in biology articles. Behnam and Mirzapour ( 2012 ) focusing on abstract and conclusion sections indicated that the overall distribution of IMs in Applied Linguistics RAs is higher than Electrical Engineering ones.

Lastly, other prominent set of markers include indirectness markers. Brown and Levinson ( 1987 ) offer an inclusive definition of indirectness as a set of politeness strategies with the goal of reducing imposition on the addressee bringing about solidarity between the addresser and the addressee. These markers have a lot in common with indirectness markers. Also, politeness markers have similarities with author presence markers and intensity markers. Thus, this article does not elaborate on politeness markers as a separate set of markers in academic writing. Some studies have been conducted on the use of indirectness markers in academic writing (e.g., Alijanian & Vahid Dastjerdi, 2012 ; Hinkel, 1997 ; Leech, 2006 ; Myers, 2004 ; Scollon & Scollon, 1995 ; Wong, 1990 ). For instance, Wong ( 1990 ) indicated that through using rhetorical questions, writers can hint about the purpose of their texts and state their idea without a direct expression. Myers ( 2004 ) also studied on conditionals and demonstrated that through using conditional tense, the writer can prevent a threat to the face and make solidarity. Leech ( 2006 ) also revealed that hedges decrease the enforcement of ideas and make the situation smooth for offering author’s claim.

Having reviewed the varying rhetorical markers in the literature, it can be deduced that the knowledge of rhetorical markers can highly benefit language users in general and EAP researchers in specific in proper encoding and decoding textual meaning.

The significance of RMs competence for EAP researchers

In an EAP program, skills required for a learner to perform well in an English speaking academic context across some particular subject areas are instructed usually in a university setting. Developing academic writing abilities is an important goal in these programs. Learning to write academic texts in English is becoming an increasingly important issue for research on L2 writing as well as curriculum design of English for Academic Purposes (Ruan, 2017 ). The value and importance of writing and publishing an RA in a scholarly journal while or after the completion of an EAP program have been added to the significance of developing EAP writing skills.

Due to the recognized importance of reporting and publishing academic articles, some recent studies have considered the difficulties faced by non-native writers in writing academic research articles (e.g., Derntl, 2014 ; Flowerdew, 2001 ; Tahririan & Jalilifar, 2004 ; Wette, 2017 ). These studies highlighted that problems in getting published might arise due to some deviations of the international standards in non-native RAs regarding form and structure. Besides, when the instruction on academic writing is required, research in EAP argues for the need to focus on discursive practice (e.g., Charles, 2007 ; Flowerdew, 1998 ; Hood, 2004 , Hood, 2006 ; Pho, 2008 ). Therefore, this study can be of significance to EAP researchers who study English in different academic fields of study and may find difficulty writing a cohesive and coherent research article. In other words, RMs competence in EAP RA writing is essential to the learners’ successful handling of scholarly writing tasks encountered in a higher-education setting. Furthermore, this competence is a prerequisite for their entry into the academic discourse community if they decide to pursue scholarship beyond an undergraduate education (Flowerdew, 2000 ).

Lack of a reductive model of RMs in academic RA writing

The review of existing models of rhetorical markers reveals that although too much attention has been paid to discursive relations and markers in the past research, not an abridged and decreased model has yet been established. However, the still growing and accumulating research interest in discursive markers in academic writing necessitates a research synthesis that systematically summarizes all the discursive markers for the purpose of writing academic research articles. Thus, the present study raises research attention on RMs in EAP RAs and aims to identify an aggregated network of markers amenable in various sections of research articles. Also, no meta-synthesis has been conducted related to disparate number of models for different rhetorical relations to guide the writers in a more systematic way. Accordingly, this study aims to propose a more reductive model which synthesizes all the markers in different models into one model and can be a common frame of reference for a wide range of EAP disciplines.

Research question

In specific, the current study addresses the following research question:

What are the key components (major areas, parameters, and features) of a conceptual model of academic RA Rhetorical Markers Competence model?

Methodology

Following the qualitative paradigm and in line with the goal of the study, a ‘qualitative meta-synthesis’ (Walsh & Downe, 2005 ) approach was adopted as the research method. The term ‘qualitative meta-synthesis’ was coined by Stern and Harris ( 1985 ) and is known to be an appropriate interpretive method designed to generate a common frame of reference based on qualitative evidence. The strategy of synthesizing integrates the results of studies across both time and researchers.

All the existing models of discursive markers were located through an electronic search in the literature, and the markers in these models were compared, contrasted, and synthesized. Walsh and Downe ( 2005 ) proposed a seven step approach for qualitative meta-synthesis: (1) framing a meta-synthesis exercise, (2) identifying relevant papers, (3) deciding what to include, (4) appraising studies, (5) comparing and contrasting exercise, (6) reciprocating translation, and (7) synthesizing translation.

Framing a meta-synthesis exercise

In this stage, identifying an appropriate research interest frames the meta-synthesis exercise. The question in this study dealt with interrogating the underpinning themes and concepts in the different models of rhetorical markers which were available in the literature and producing a common conceptual framework for academic RA writers. This stage involved mapping research evidence relevant to the RMs and prioritizing key models and theories for further investigation.

Locating relevant studies, deciding what to include, and appraising studies

This stage involved a literature search in order to locate topically relevant studies through an electronic search and gather all the possible sources in the available databases. This stage involved an exhaustive electronic search in order to locate topically relevant studies and collect all the possible sources in the search source indexes and databases. Walsh and Downe ( 2006 ) suggested a systematic review of trials which requests researchers to locate all related studies. A list of credible journals were also examined to identify related studies, namely Second language writing, English for academic purposes, English for specific purposes, Written Communication, TESOL Quarterly, Pragmatics, Applied linguistics, Language Awareness, Asian ESP journal, System, Modern Language Journal, Text, Discourse studies, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Reading and Writing, Functions of language.

The initial effort to choose relevant studies to the research interest produced 385 abstracts and 321 research papers. In result, those studies which could inform the conceptual model of RMs competence were put under more scrutiny.

At this stage, a ‘berry picking’ procedure (Bates, 1989 ) was applied. In order to locate the available markers and their relevant models, citation analysis was conducted undertaking a search for the original models in the articles’ citations. This stage also helped to find more relevant studies through a recursive web search of citations using Google and Google Scholar. Besides, in case of different models for one specific type of marker, the recency, comprehensibility, applicability in academic RAs, and inclusiveness of the models were taken into consideration. Afterwards, in the appraisal step, studies were investigated based on sample quality criteria (Atkins et al., 2008 ) and low quality studies were screened out to increase the rigor of meta-synthesis process.

According to Atkins et al. ( 2008 ), sample quality criteria are as follow:

The study is qualitative;

Research questions are clearly stated;

Approach is appropriate for the research question;

Qualitative approach is justified;

Study context is described;

Role of the researcher is described;

Sampling method is described;

Sampling method is appropriate to the research question;

Data collection method is described;

Data collection method is appropriate to the research question;

Method of analysis is clearly described;

Analysis is appropriate for the research question; and Claims are supported by sufficient evidence.

Finally, twenty three articles were selected and accumulated for final meta-synthesis. Thus, this study applied purposive sampling to screen relevant studies in line with the research objectives. Table  1 presents the number of screened and selected references, abstracts, articles, and studies for meta-synthesis.

Comparing and contrasting exercise

This step aimed to determine how models were similar or different from each other. In so doing, different markers in the models were compared and contrasted through an in-depth reading of the models and exploring their key concepts. Some of the studies seemed to build upon previous models or use borrowed elements from other models, while some were not dependent on other models and seemed to be self-sufficient. The juxtaposition of studies in this way shows the homogeneity and heterogeneity of models (see Table  2 ). The studies have been ordered with regard to the relevant rhetorical markers in focus.

Reciprocal translation

In this step, key concepts and themes in each study were identified through a thematic coding strategy. Doing this, overarching core categories (super-themes), subcategories (themes), and codes were obtained using a reciprocal translation process. This process is called reciprocal translation (Noblit & Hare, 1988 ) in the sense that inductive and interpretive emergence of concepts and metaphors is done though an iterative categorization of codes and themes. As Noblit and Hare ( 1988 ) suggested, in order to combine the relevant studies, a list of themes should be created, and then connections should be established among the relevant themes. As Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990 ) has been suggested as an approach for synthesizing data (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009 ), this approach was adopted as the most appropriate and applicable approach in this study. As recommended by Miles and Huberman ( 1994 ), a priori list of codes and categories was prepared based on theoretical background of the study. Each study was examined and classified into a pre-specified category. Our initial categories included (a) discourse markers, (b) pragmatic markers, (c) meta-discourse markers, (d) metaphorical markers, (e) author presence markers, (f) intensity markers, and (g) indirectness markers. We then engaged the stages of Grounded Theory common to original research in qualitative studies. In so doing, key codes and concepts in each study were identified and synthesized following the scheme of grounded theory including the steps of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. In the open coding procedure, the obtained codes were written verbatim to facilitate the coding and counting process and comparing the main themes of the studies. The codes in the aggregated studies were classified into the initial categories. In the phase of axial coding, all the interlinked categories and codes were then transformed into descriptive themes. The codes that were irrelevant to the main categories were eliminated, and the codes with similar meanings were aggregated under one code.

Synthesis of translation

This last step of qualitative meta-synthesis involved synthesizing the translated, reconsolidated, and juxtaposed themes and concepts to obtain the overarching theories and components. To wit, a general interpretation of the phenomena was proposed as grounded in the codes and categories of the underlying models.

Results and discussions

After the recursive search in the literature, twenty three studies relevant to different rhetorical markers were qualitatively met-synthesized using the above-mentioned procedures. As a result, three distinctive core categories of markers were identified as listed in Table  3 . A subsequent reading of many articles confirmed the use of these concepts for the analysis of markers in different sections of RA corpora. Applying grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ) for synthesizing the data set followed the steps of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The procedure of thematic categorization of the evidence led to three core categories. Table 3 represents the frequency of codes and concepts for the main dimensions of the synthesized model.

As follows, the synthesized model is described in detail following an explanation of main components of the aggregated models and a comparison of different models of RMs.

Pragmatic markers

This is the first core category obtained through the qualitative meta-synthesis extracted from the synthesis of 94 codes and four concepts. This core category consists of two subcategories of discourse markers and pragmatic markers. Various classifications of discourse and pragmatic markers are compared and contrasted as follows.

Sanders et al. ( 1992 ) and Knott and sanders ( 1998 ) argued that all coherence relations have some structures in common: basic operation (They have either a causal or additive nature.); source of coherence (They have coherence on either pragmatic or semantic grounds.); polarity (They link the content either negatively or positively.); order of segments (They have either a basic order or a non-basic order). These features generate 12 classes of coherence markers.

Fraser ( 1990 , 1996 , 1997 , 1999 , 2005 , 2009 ) has also posited various classifications of discourse and pragmatic markers. Fraser ( 1990 ), for example, categorized DMs as adverbials (now, then), literally used phrases (to repeat, similarly) idiomatic phrases (all in all, still and all), verbs (look, see), interjections (well), coordinate conjunctions (and, but), subordinate conjunctions (while, however), and terms such as anyway and OK, which don’t fall into any of the slots. Fraser ( 1999 ) categorized DMs into two major types, including discourse markers which relate messages (contrastive, collateral, inferential, additional markers) and DMs which relate topics (e.g., by the way, back to my point). Similarly, Fraser’s ( 2005 ) categorization of DMs involved four types: Contrastive (markers showing relations of opposition); elaborative (markers signaling that the current sentence includes an elaboration or explanation of an earlier utterance); inferential (markers signaling that the current utterance conveys a message that is the outcome of some aspect of the previous utterance); and temporal (markers signaling time relations) discourse markers. Fung and Carter ( 2007 ) also categorized a core functional paradigm of DMs, namely interpersonal (markers showing relations between interlocutors), referential (markers showing relations between discourse segments, structural (markers signaling topic shift and development) and cognitive (markers denoting thinking processes) dimensions.

Fraser ( 1996 ) classified pragmatic markers in four subtypes: basic markers (markers signaling the force of the basic message); commentary markers (markers commenting on some aspect of the basic message); parallel markers (markers signaling an entire message in addition to the basic message); discourse markers (expressions marking the relationship between the messages). Then, Fraser ( 1997 ) provided a categorization of commentary markers, including assessment, manner of speaking, evidential, perlocutionary, mitigation, and emphasis markers. Erman ( 2001 ) recognized three domains for pragmatic markers: Textual-monitors, social monitors, and meta-linguistic monitors. Text-monitors include discourse markers, and editing markers. Editing markers in turn included repair and hesitation markers. Social monitors also involve Interactive markers and comprehension securing markers. Metalinguistic monitors include approximators, hedges, emphasisers.

Gonzalez ( 2005 ) categorized pragmatic markers into three structures of rhetorical, sequential, and inferential. Rhetorical discourse structures include comment, clarifier, concluding, emphasizer, evaluator, evidential, addition, delayer, resumption, and topic shifter markers. Sequential structures are divided into three categories: closing segment boundary, development of action initiator, and direct speech initiator markers. Finally, inferential structures include contextual constrainer, justification, face threat mitigator, presupposition, text-world’s anchorer, and monitoring markers.

Feng ( 2008 ), based on the sematic import of the words, classified pragmatic markers as conceptual and non-conceptual marker. Conceptual pragmatic markers were grouped into epistemic (markers indicating the degree of certitude) and evaluative (markers signaling the writer/speaker’s attitudes and feelings) sub-types. Non-conceptual pragmatic markers, on the other hand, were grouped into contrastive, elaborative, and inferential markers. Fraser ( 2009 ) provided a more inclusive framework of pragmatic markers adding discourse management markers (DMMs) to his previous models. In this framework, DMMs contained discourse structure, topic orientation, and attention markers. He also outlined four basic classes of topic orientation markers, including return to a prior topic, add to or continue with the present topic, digress from the present topic, and introduce a new topic. Attention markers were also subdivided into the markers of topic return, topic change, and topic continuation.

Considering different classifications of discourse and pragmatic markers within the meta-synthesis approach, Fraser’s taxonomy (2009) was found to be more comprehensive. Several studies have taken discourse markers as a subset of pragmatic markers (e.g., Feng, 2008 ; Fraser, 1996 , 1999 , 2006, 2009 ) . Table  4 illustrates a meta-synthesized taxonomy of pragmatic markers together with examples randomly derived from the Corpus of Research Articles (CRA) ( 2007 ) and Corpus of Journal of Articles ( 2014 ). The CRA is a large collection of Research Articles collected from 39 disciplines. Also, the CJA is a large collection of articles from 721 high-impact journals in 38 disciplines in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) or in SCImago Journal Rank (SJR).

Meta-discourse markers

The next super theme, derived from 92 codes and four concepts, contributes to the meta-discourse markers which, in turn, encompass meta-discourse markers, intensity markers, author presence markers, and indirectness markers. Several studies in the literature have proposed classification systems for meta-discourse markers (e.g., Adel, 2006 ; Crismore et al., 1993 ; Hyland, 2005 ; Vande Kopple, 1985 ).

Vande Kopple’s ( 1985 ) classification for meta-discourse included textual and interpersonal main categories. Textual meta-discourse constituted text connectives, code glosses, validity markers, and narrators. Interpersonal meta-discourse also included illocution markers, attitude markers, and commentaries. Crismore et al. ( 1993 ) then provided a revised categorization of meta-discourse, including two major categories of textual and interpersonal. However, textual component was subdivided into textual markers (logical connectives, sequencers, reminders, and topicalizers) and interpretive markers (code glosses, illocution markers, and announcements). The interpersonal aspect was also reorganized into hedges, certainty markers, attributors, attitude markers, and commentary. Hyland ( 2005 ) also proposed a models which comprises two major categories, including interactive MDMs, which concern the writer’s awareness of and attention to his readers and interactional MDMs, which refer to writer’s attempts to make his views more explicit for the readers.

These studies followed Halliday’s ( 1994 ) tripartite conception of meta-functions which distinguished three functions of ideational, textual, and interpersonal. Yet, Adel ( 2006 ) suggested a rather different model in which he made a distinction between two meta-discourse types: meta-text which represents impersonal and text/code oriented aspects and writer-reader interaction which represents reader and participant oriented aspects of the text.

Vande Kopple’s model, as the first systematic attempt to introduce a taxonomy of meta-discourse markers, triggered further studies and taxonomies. Hyland’s ( 2005 ) taxonomy of meta-discourse markers has been found to be more recent, inclusive, and comprehensible building upon previous taxonomies.

The interactional aspect of metadiscourse deals with the way the authors interact with their readers and engage them. Thus, intensity markers (IMs) fulfill interpersonal functions in RAs and can be regarded as metadiscourse markers. According to Quirk et al.' ( 1985 ) model of IMs, these markers are classified into three major classes of emphasizers, amplifiers, and downtoners. Crismore et al. ( 1993 ) also viewed intensity markers are one type of metadiscourses which actualizes interpersonal functions. They also stated that IMs display the communicative value of the discourse and writers’ stance toward the proposition.

Besides, Hyland ( 2005 , 2007 ) views interactional meta-discourse categories as markers of authorial stance. Stance is the way writers convey their attitudes, feelings, judgments, opinions, and commitments toward the propositional content. A similar way of looking at authorial stance is proposed by Vassileva ( 2000 ) but under the term authorial presence . She recognizes two types of linguistic means of authorial presence realizations: means of direct indication of authorial presence (first person pronouns) and means of indirect indications of presence and/or discourse depersonalization (passive constructions, hedges, the generic form one) (Vassileva, 2000 , pp. 47–8). In this scheme, passive constructions and generic form are not mentioned in Hyland’s framework. Boosters and attitude markers are also absent in Vassileva’s framework. Thus, the proper authorial stance, which is established in academic writing, highly contributes to interpersonal functions of the RA.

Molino ( 2010 ) acknowledged that besides personal and impersonal authorial references, author visibility or invisibility may be realized by means of other rhetorical options, such as possessive adjectives (e.g., my) or metonymic expressions functioning as “abstract rhetors” (e.g., this paper). First-person subject pronouns and inflected verbs, on the one hand, and passive constructions are applied when the writers have to highlight or obfuscate their role as authors. These personal and impersonal references are manifested in different discourse functions like announcing goals and arguments, explaining procedures and data, stating results, and referring back to the text.

Due to the thematic commonalities with the interactional aspect of metadiscourse markers, author presence markers are subsumed under interactional MDMs. Also, as intensity markers fulfill interpersonal roles, they can be regarded as interactional MDMs and thus author presence markers. However, as shown in Fig.  1 , Vassileva’s categories are added to the framework to make it more comprehensive.

A Synthesized Typology of Author Presence Markers

Also, indirectness markers have been found to have features in common with meta-discourse markers. Brown and Levinson ( 1987 ) posited a taxonomy of indirectness markers and divided them into three major categories: (A) Rhetorical strategies and markers: devices in this category have a persuasive objective. (B) Lexical and referential markers: indirectness items in this category rely both on meaning and relationships to present a claim. (C) Syntactic markers and structures: these tools manifest indirectness in the sentence structures (Brown & Levinson, 1987 ).

This framework has been applied as a framework of analysis in several studies (e.g., Hinkel, 1997 ). Myers ( 2004 ) also considered hedges, denials, impersonal constructions, and other markers of indirectness as vital strategies to maintain politeness in written academic discourse.

All in all, Table  5 demonstrates a synthesized model of the meta-discourse markers, including the constituent core categories, categories, and subcategories, together with examples in the context collected from Corpus of Research Articles ( 2007 ) and Corpus of Journal of Articles ( 2014 ). This model incorporates all the elements in the previous models and can account for all types of meta-discourse markers in academic RAs.

Metaphorical markers

A third type of rhetorical markers suggested by the meta-synthesis includes metaphorical markers. This super-theme was obtained from the synthesis of three concepts and 22 codes.

Based on Goatly’s ( 1997 ) model of metaphorical markers, MMs involve eighteen types of markers distinguished in three types of factive, non-factive, and counterfactive based on the criterion of factivity (degree of certainty and definiteness). Counterfactives with the strongest effects on the metaphors turn them into literal comparisons.

Furthermore, modality plays a significant role in metaphorical markers, especially in factive and counter-factive structures. The concepts of modality and hedges also overlap to a lesser or greater extent. This connection is very clear in the case of modal verbs. Examples of modality markers are subjunctive mood, modal auxiliary verbs, modal adjectives, modal adverbs, the modal infinitive, etc. They influence the factual status of a sentence in the real world and transform its validity.

A consideration of the very rare number of models on metaphorical markers, Goatly ( 1997 ) was identified as the most readily available and inclusive framework of MMs. Table  6 details Goatly’s framework together with examples derived from the context of EAP research articles.

A model of RMs competence in writing academic RAs

The research question in this study interrogated the key components of a new model of RMs in writing academic RAs. To this end, a meta-synthesis approach was adopted as the basis for construct definition of the model. The underpinning rhetorical markers were identified and extracted via semantic analysis. A resulting common frame of reference for RA writers can be illustrated as a new scheme (see Table  7 ). This framework involves all the principal components of RMs competence in producing scholarly research papers.

Discussions and conclusions

The competency for producing an academic research article requires specific writing skills different from the regular writing classes (Connors, 1982 ). Different RA moves and sections fulfill some crucial rhetorical functions. However, RA writers are not sufficiently capable of constructing the appropriate rhetorical devices and connections whose right application boosts the functional establishment of various RA sections.

The present research, offering the compartments of the RMs competence of writing academic RAs in a new model, helps the students in higher education that today experience increasing difficulties in publishing scholarly RAs. Earlier studies have applied different models of RMs in different sections of research papers (e.g., Hinkel, 2003 ; Jalilifar, 2008 ; Sznajder, 2005 ; Vold, 2006 ; Rahimpour, 2006 ). However, this model can fill the gap in the literature concerning the lack of a systematically organized theoretical framework in that it synthesizes the currently available markers in one model. It also tends to be applicable in writing every specific section of an RA.

Awareness of diverse models for RMs and their constituents can considerably assist students on courses of English for academic purposes if they are to pursue scholarship beyond their undergraduate education (Flowerdew, 2000 ) and succeed in their academic endeavors. Furthermore, this can highly yield an implication for novice native or non-native academic researchers to understand whether they have the knowledge of distinct set of rhetorical relations and their typical markers to develop a readable body of academic discourse. This model of RMs can, also, guide the EAP curriculum developers to plan textbooks, lessons, or any other instructional materials dedicated to rhetorical relations and markers in writing academic RAs.

Moreover, such a model can have a constructive role in EAP instruction. This suggests the significance of markers in academic writing and the need of teaching these markers and their rhetorical relations in EAP writing classes. However, a consideration of current writing classes reveals that teaching rhetorical relations and markers are neglected or less concentrated than spelling mistakes, grammar, or writing style in teaching academic writing. EAP instructors seldom take rhetorical markers seriously when they teach academic writing. This results in the lack of coherence and cohesion in students’ writing. Accordingly, university instructors can highly benefit from incorporating the components of the model in their syllabus to help the EAP students throughout different research writing courses.

However, it is worth noting here that the new model is not a prescriptive approach to academic writing, and the authors are recommended to find their own way to establish their voice and agency using their own choice of markers. As Littlewood ( 1996 ) has noted, an important task in teaching academic EFL writing is to introduce the students to the conventions of academic discourse, while enabling them to self-express in writing.

The current study raises some topics reserved for further work. Future studies which emphasize different categories of RMs and their manifestations are recommended which are specific to distinct academic fields. Additional research can be undertaken to analyze the frequency, range, and distribution of markers in different sections of research articles and in any specific academic discipline. Besides, a cross-linguistic comparison of different rhetorical relations and their markers in academic writing may underline some discrepancies, which can guide native and non-native writers of English to produce a more acceptable research paper.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2001). Native and non-native writer's use of textual metadiscourse in ELT papers. In Unpublished master thesis . Tehran: University of Tehran.

Google Scholar  

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). Interpersonal metadiscourse in ELT papers by Iranian and Angelo-American academic writers . Paper Presented at International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT Practice at Basket University.

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English . Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Book   Google Scholar  

Alijanian, E., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2012). The use of indirectness devices in Persian and English argumentative written discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Linguistics, 4 (3), 60–70.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, G. (2001). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation . US: John Benjamins Publication Corporation.

Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 2 (7), 1–2.

Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J. (2008). Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8 (21).

Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9 (59). Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/59 .

Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for on-line search interface. Online Review, 13 (5), 25.

Behnam, B., & Mirzaour, F. (2012). A comparative study of intensity markers in Engineering and Applied Linguistics. English language teaching, 5 (7), 158–163.

Beighmohammadi, A. (2003). An investigation into the patterns of use of discourse features of intensity markers in academic research articles of hard science, social science and TEFL. In Unpublished master‘s thesis . Tehran: University of Tehran.

Berge, K. L. (2003). The scientific text genres as social actions: Text theoretical reflections on the relations between context and text in scientific writing. In K. Fløttum & F. Rastier (Eds.), Academic discourse. Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 141–157). Oslo: Novus.

Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 , 974–998.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burke, M. (2011). Literary reading, cognition and emotion. An exploration of the Oceanic mind . London and NewYork; Rutledge publishing. Taylor and Francis.

Charles, M. (2007). Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes., 6 (4), 289–302.

Connors, U. (1982). The rise of technical writing instruction in America. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12 (4), 329–352.

Corpus of Journal of Articles. (2014). Research center for professional communication in English. In The Hong Kong Polytechnic University .

Corpus of Research Articles. (2007). Research center for professional communication in English. In The Hong Kong Polytechnic University .

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finish University students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39–71.

Crosthwaite, P., Cheun, L., & Jiang, F. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46 , 107–123.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (10), 1807–1825.

Derntl, M. (2014). Basics of research paper writing and publishing’, Int. J. Technology Enhanced Learning, 6 (2), 105–123.

Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (99), 1337–1359.

Feng, G. (2008). Pragmatic markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 , 1687–1718.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1), 17–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1), 121–150.

Flowerdew, L. (1998). Corpus linguistic techniques applied to text linguistics. System, 26 , 541–552.

Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 , 383–395.

Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167–190.

Fraser, B. (1997). Commentary pragmatic markers in English. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 5 , 115–127.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31 , 931–952.

Fraser, B. (2005). Towards a theory of discourse markers. Retrieved from: http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/

Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 , 892–898.

Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied Linguistics, 28 (3), 410–439.

Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors . London: Routledge.

Gonzalez, M. (2005). Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies, 7 (1), 53–86.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Harwood, N. (2005). Nowhere has anyone attempted … in this article I aim to do just that’. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 , 1207–1231.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27 (3), 360–386.

Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 student’s writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 , 1049–1068.

Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks. Continuum 24–44.

Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 , 37–49.

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (3).

Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging in scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching , 18 , 33–42.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349–382.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 , 207–226.

Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 , 1091–1112.

Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56 , 351–358.

Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (3), 251–259.

Hyland, K. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal . London: University of London.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 260–285.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12 (1), 39–63.

Isik Tas, E. E. (2008). A corpus-based analysis of genre-specific discourse of research: The research article and the PhD thesis in ELT (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) . Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jalilifar, A. (2007a). All the way through the hedges: A corpus analysis of hedges in research articles. JAL, 23 , 39–63.

Jalilifar, A. (2007b). Hedging as a pragmatic strategy: Variations across disciplines and cultures. TELL, 1 (3), 43–69.

Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1 , 114–122.

Jalilifar, A., & Kabezadeh, F. (2012). A comparative study of textual metadiscourse markers in introduction and method sections of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation (LCT), 1 (1), 17–31.

Khany, R., & Rostami, M. (2011). Metaphor markers in sub-disciplines of applied linguistics research articles: The case of local and international journals. IJALS, 1 (3), 34–49.

Khany, R., & Tazik, K. (2010). A comparative study of introduction and discussion sections of sub-disciplines of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Applied Language Studies (JALS), 1 (2), 97–122.

Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (2), 135–175.

Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Special Purposes, 18 (2), 121–138.

Leech, G. (2006). Politeness: Is there an east-west divide. Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), 167–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009 .

Li, L., & Ge, G. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical RA (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28 , 93–104.

Littlewood, W. (1996). Academic writing in intercultural contexts: Integrating conventions and personal voice. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 , 1–18.

Luo, N., & Hyland, K. (2016). Chinese academics writing for publication: English teachers as text mediators. Second language writing, 33 , 43–55.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8 (3), 243–281.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mirshamsi, A., & Allami, H. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master's theses. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5 (3), 23–40.

Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 , 86–101.

Myers, G. (2004). Matters of opinion: Talking about public issues. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70 (3), 409–412.

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies . Newbury Park: Sage.

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, M. (1983). Modal expressions in English . London: Frances Pinter.

Pho, P. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10 , 231–250.

Pitler, E., Raghupathy, M., Mehta, H., Nenkova, A., Lee, A., & Joshi, A. (2008). Easily identifiable discourse relations. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2008), Manchester, August.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language . London: Longman.

Rahimpour, S. (2006). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian texts; Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics research articles . Unpublished Master thesis, University of Mashhad.

Ruan, Z. (2017). Lexical bundles in Chinese undergraduate academic writing at an English Medium University. RELC Journal, 48 (3), 327–340.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15 , 1–35.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication . Oxford: Blackwell.

Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28 , 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001 .

Shiri Maslaki, T. (2007). A comparative study of discoural features in natural sciences and applied linguistics . Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tabriz, Tabriz.

Skorczynska, H., & Deignan, A. (2006). Readership and purpose in the choice of economics metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 21 (2), 87–104.

Stern, P., & Harris, C. (1985). Women's health and the self-care paradox: A model to guide self-care readiness — Clash between the client and nurse. Health Care for Women International, 6 (12).

Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 , 327–341.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). The basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sultan, A. (2011). A contrastive study of met discourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. ACTA LINGUISTICA, 5 (11), 28–41.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sznajder, H. S. (2005). A corpus based description of metaphorical marking patterns in scientific and popular business discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22 , 172–182.

Tahririan, M. H., & Jalilifar, A. R. (2004). Genre analysis of thesis and dissertation abstracts: Variation across cultures. IJAL, 7 (2), 121–143.

Tan-De Ramos, J. (2010). A comparative study of the discourse marker types in the body section of the research papers of DLSU students. TESOL Journal, 2 , 62–73.

Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The “I” in identity: Exploring identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (Supplement 1), S23–S39.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36 , 82–93.

Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author? A comparative analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse . Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag.

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20 , 83–102.

Vold, T. E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A crosslinguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 61–87.

Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 50 (2), 8.

Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2006). Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery, 22(2), 108–119.

Wette, R. (2017). Using mind maps to reveal and develop genre knowledge in a graduate writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38 , 58–71.

Wong, H. (1990). The use of rhetorical questions in written argumentative discourse. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 1, pp. 187–208). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

No funding was received and funding information is not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

This study includes a meta-synthesis of available investigations and models of rhetorical markers. All the meta-synthesized data have been explained in the results section. Therefore, all data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

English Department of Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

Reza Khany & Saeedeh Mohammadi

Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

Mohammad Aliakbari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RK contributed to the choice of models, examined the meta-synthesized data and worked on the method of metha-synthesis. SM selected, coded, and meta-synthesized the relevant studies and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. MA read and approved the final manuscript. All the authors read and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeedeh Mohammadi .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

1. R K is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics in English Department of Ilam University. He is the head of English department in Ilam University. He has taught various EFL, ESP, and TEFL courses in BA, MA, and Ph.D. educational degrees. His interests include pragmatics, corpus linguistics, second language writing, sociolinguistics, and structural equation modeling approach. He had presented and published many research papers in various areas of research.

2. M A is full professor in Applied Linguistics currently teaching Ph.D. and M.A. courses and supervising various theses in Ilam University. His interests include pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and second language acquisition. He is a publisher of many research papers in various areas of research.

3. S M is a Ph.D. candidate in Applied Linguistics in Ilam University. She got her BA in English translation from Zanjan University and her MA in TEFL from Guilan University. She is now teaching different courses in Zanjan Farhangian University. She is also an EFL teacher in Education Office. She is interested in the areas of corpus analysis, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, academic writing and publishing, and pragmatics. She has conducted different studies in related areas.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Khany, R., Aliakbari, M. & Mohammadi, S. A model of rhetorical markers competence in writing academic research articles: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 4 , 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0064-0

Download citation

Received : 02 August 2018

Accepted : 16 December 2018

Published : 16 January 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0064-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Rhetorical markers
• English for academic purposes
• Research article
• Research article writing competence
• Meta-synthesis

Reading Skills

Analyzing rhetorical devices.

• The Albert Team
• Last Updated On: December 22, 2023

What We Review

Introduction

Welcome to an exciting exploration of rhetoric and its powerful tools, known as rhetorical devices. Rhetoric is the art of using language effectively to persuade and communicate. Rhetorical devices are like special tricks that speakers and writers use to make their messages more convincing and impactful. These techniques are crucial because they shape the way we understand what people say or write, whether it’s in old speeches and books or in things we see and hear today.

Understanding rhetorical devices is crucial for anyone looking to enhance their analytical skills, as it allows for a deeper understanding of how arguments are constructed and what makes them effective. This knowledge is not just academic; it’s a practical tool that can improve your critical thinking, reading, and writing abilities.

In this guide, we will delve into the most common rhetorical devices, break down why they’re used, and show you how to spot them in different texts. We’ll also explore the principles of ethos, pathos, and logos, which are the foundation of persuasive communication. To make these ideas come to life, we’ll analyze Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” a text that’s filled with rhetorical strategies.

Get ready to embark on a journey that will deepen your understanding of language and its incredible power to persuade, inform, and move people. Let’s begin by unlocking the secrets of rhetorical devices and their role in shaping compelling communication.

Why Is Rhetoric Important?

Rhetoric is a very old skill that goes back to ancient Greece, where thinkers like Aristotle first talked about it. It’s all about using language in a smart way to achieve different goals, like convincing, informing, entertaining, or motivating people. What makes it important is that you can use it in many different situations, whether you want to shape what people think about something or just talk to someone.

In today’s world, where we have a lot of information, knowing about rhetoric is super useful. It helps us make messages that are interesting and strong, and it also helps us look carefully at what others are saying and decide if it makes sense. Understanding rhetoric isn’t just about talking well; it’s also about listening carefully and being part of good conversations. It’s a basic skill for talking effectively, thinking carefully, and being an active member of society.

When we study rhetoric, we learn not only how to say things in a way that convinces others but also how to figure out when others are trying to convince us. This double skill is really important in today’s world, where there’s a lot of talking and sharing ideas. It helps us understand and take part in important discussions.

What are Rhetorical Devices?

Rhetorical devices are tools and techniques that writers, speakers, and everyday people use to make their messages more effective. These tools are important because they help us build strong arguments, stir up emotions, and make complex ideas easier to understand. They’re not just fancy tricks; they’re essential for good communication.

Rhetorical Devices Examples

Rhetorical devices are the tools used to enhance persuasion and understanding in communication. They can add clarity, depth, and emotional impact to your message. Here’s a look at some widely recognized and powerful rhetorical devices, each with its unique influence on the audience.

Ethos is all about making the person who’s talking or writing seem believable and trustworthy. It’s like showing that they know what they’re talking about and that they’re honest. When people do this, it helps convince others that they can be trusted. For instance, when a doctor talks about health, they might mention their medical degree to show that they really know what they’re talking about, and that way, people will trust what they say.

Pathos is when you try to make the people you’re talking to feel something. It’s about making a connection by sharing emotions, wants, or fears. When you make people feel something, it can really change how they think and what they do. For instance, think about a commercial for a sports brand. It might tell a story about an athlete who faced tough challenges and came out on top. This story can make you feel inspired and determined. When you feel that way, you start to like the brand because it gave you those good feelings. That’s how pathos works.

Logos is all about using logic and good reasoning. It means showing information like data, facts, or numbers to make a strong and clear argument. For example, imagine a climate activist who wants to convince people that we need to take care of the environment. They might use facts and statistics about how global temperatures are going up to logically explain why we should take action. This way, they’re using logos to make their point.

Metaphors and Similes

These devices compare one thing to another, often in a way that helps clarify complex ideas or make a message more memorable. A writer might say, “Injustice is a poison that corrupts society,” using a metaphor to liken injustice to poison to emphasize its harmful effects.

This involves deliberate exaggeration to emphasize a point or evoke strong feelings. For instance, a person might say, “I’ve told you a million times.” This hyperbole highlights their frustration or repeated efforts.

Repeating words, phrases, or ideas can reinforce a message and make it more memorable. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech is an excellent example of repetition. The phrase “I have a dream” is reiterated multiple times throughout the speech, powerfully underscoring his vision for equality and justice. Each repetition of this phrase reinforces his hopeful message and leaves a lasting impact on the audience

Identifying Rhetorical Devices in a Text

Recognizing rhetorical devices in text is an essential reading skill that deepens your understanding of how authors convey meaning and persuade their audience. Here’s how you can sharpen your ability to identify these devices as you read:

1. Familiarize Yourself with Common Devices

Start by building a strong foundation. Understand the definitions, purposes, and effects of common rhetorical devices like ethos, pathos, logos, metaphors, hyperbole, and repetition. Knowing what each device looks like and how it typically operates in text will prepare you to spot them more easily.

• Practice Tip: Create a reference chart of devices with definitions and examples. Refer to this chart as you read, and try to match passages with the relevant device. You can also refer to this handy list for a great starting point!

2. Read Actively and Critically

Engage with the text on a deeper level. As you read, be mindful of the author’s word choice, sentence structure, and the overall tone. Ask yourself why the author might have chosen a particular word or phrase and what effect it creates.

• Practice Tip: Highlight or note down sentences or passages where you suspect a rhetorical device is at play. Then, analyze why you think a device is used and what it’s achieving.

3. Look for Patterns and Anomalies

Rhetorical devices often manifest as patterns in the text. Repetition of words, phrases, or ideas; patterns in imagery or metaphors; or even a sudden change in tone or style can all be clues. Conversely, anomalies or deviations from the norm can also signal rhetorical emphasis.

• Practice Tip : As you read, mark recurring themes or language patterns. Consider how these repetitions or anomalies contribute to the text’s persuasive or emotional impact.

4. Consider the Context

Every text exists within a specific context that influences its content and style. Understand the historical, cultural, and personal background of the text. Consider the intended audience and the author’s purpose. This context can provide valuable clues about why certain rhetorical devices are used.

• Practice Tip: Before diving into a text, do a quick research on its background. As you read, keep the context in mind and think about how it might shape the choice of rhetorical devices.

5. Analyze the Structure

The organization of a text can reveal a lot about its rhetorical strategies. Look at the structure of arguments, the progression of ideas, and the placement of particularly persuasive or emotional sections.

• Practice Tip: Create an outline of the text’s structure as you read. Note where key devices appear and how they contribute to the overall argument or message.

By focusing on these specific reading strategies, you’ll become more adept at noticing and understanding the subtle ways authors use rhetorical devices to enhance their messages. Remember, like any skill, identifying rhetorical devices improves with regular practice and thoughtful engagement with a wide range of texts.

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Rhetorical Devices

After you’ve identified rhetorical devices in a text, the next step is to analyze their effectiveness. This involves understanding not just how these devices are used, but why they’re used, and what impact they have on the audience. Here’s how you can approach this analysis:

1. Assess the Context

 Understanding when and where a piece of writing was created is key to knowing why the author used certain words or phrases. Think about the time period and the place it comes from. Also, consider who the author was speaking to and what was going on at that time. These details can help you understand why the writer chose to use certain language and how well it worked.

2. Evaluate the Purpose

Next, ask yourself what the writer wanted to achieve. Did they want to convince the readers, give them information, entertain them, or inspire them? Writers use different ways of speaking to reach their goals. By figuring out the writer’s main goal, you can better judge if they used the right approach and how effective it was.

3. Consider the Audience’s Reaction

4. check how the rhetorical devices fit in.

See how well the rhetorical devices fit into the writing. Do they blend in smoothly, or do they stick out awkwardly? When used well, these tools should make the writing better and clearer. If they don’t fit well, they might make the writing hard to understand or take away from the main point.

5. Think About Right and Wrong

Think about whether the language tools are used in a good and honest way. Are they used to share the truth and respect the readers, or are they used to trick or mislead them? Using these tools in the right way can make the writer seem more believable and trustworthy. But using them in the wrong way can make people doubt what the writer is saying.

6. Compare Other Texts

To put your analysis into perspective, compare the use of rhetorical devices in the text with their use in other well-known works. How are the strategies different? What makes some more effective than others? This comparative approach can deepen your understanding of rhetorical effectiveness.

7. Reflect on Personal Impact

Finally, think about your own reaction to the text. Were you persuaded, moved, or inspired? Your personal response can be a powerful indicator of the rhetorical devices’ effectiveness

By closely looking at these parts, you’ll learn more about how language tools work and what makes them good or not so good. This skill is useful for school and helps you think more about the different ways people talk and write in everyday life.

Analyzing Rhetorical Devices in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail ” by Martin Luther King, Jr

Analyzing rhetorical devices isn’t just an academic exercise; it’s a way to deepen your understanding of influential texts and the strategies that make them powerful. A prime example for this kind of analysis is Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” an important text in the Civil Rights movement. Here’s how you can use this letter to practice your reading skills through rhetorical analysis:

Before you read “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” know the background. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote it in 1963 while he was in jail in Birmingham, Alabama. He was there because he was protesting for equal rights. He wrote the letter to respond to some church leaders who didn’t agree with his protests. Understanding this time and why King was in jail helps you see why he wrote what he did.

King wrote the letter to explain why he believed protesting against unfair laws was right and needed. He wanted to convince his critics and others that not fighting against racism was wrong. Knowing what King wanted to achieve with his letter helps you understand why he chose certain words and ways of explaining his thoughts.

Think about how the people King was writing to, the eight church leaders, and others might have felt when they read his letter. King used religious references and talked about moral issues because he thought these points would really hit home for them. Also, think about how others who were for or against equal rights at the time might have reacted to his words

4. Check How the Rhetorical Devices Fit It

Look at how King uses rhetorical devices in his letter.

Ethos (Credibility/Trustworthiness):

• King’s Role and Experience: King tells readers he’s the leader of an important group that works all over the south. He says, “I am the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.” This makes people see him as a leader with a lot of experience.
• Moral Standing: King talks about his strong beliefs and compares himself to people from the Bible to show he’s doing the right thing. He mentions famous religious figures, making people see him as someone with good values. He mentions, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their ‘thus saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their home towns…” highlighting the comparison between him and other religious figures the clergy would have respected.

Pathos (Emotional Appeal)

• The Pain and Struggle: King vividly describes the experiences of African Americans, evoking emotions to make the readers feel the urgency and pain of the racial situation.He talks about families being hurt and people living in fear.
• Hope and Despair: He contrasts the hope of the civil rights movement with the despair caused by racism, creating an emotional rollercoaster that compels the audience to empathize and act. He expresses, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

Logos (Logical Appeal)

• Reasons for Protests: King explains clearly why they need to protest. He says they’re protesting because promises are broken and people are treated unfairly. He makes it clear that they have to stand up for what’s right.
• Counterarguments: He thinks about what his critics say and answers them. For example, when people call him an “outsider,” he responds by saying, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This phrase emphasizes his right to be involved in these matters because injustice is a universal issue that needs to be addressed.
• Phrasal Repetition: King repeats certain phrases to make his message stronger. For instance, he starts many sentences with “When you” to show how often immoral actions happen to the African American community. This helps make his point clearer and stick in the reader’s mind.
• Anaphora (Repeating the start of sentences): He often starts sentences with the same words, like “I am here because,” to stress his reasons for being in Birmingham. This makes his reasons stand out and easier to remember.

Reflect on how King uses his words in a fair and honest way. He makes strong points about what’s morally right and wrong but does it respectfully. He’s not trying to trick anyone; he’s trying to show them the truth and get them to think differently about the situation.

6. Compare with Other Texts

Look at King’s letter and compare it with other important writings or speeches from the same time or even other works by King himself. Notice how they are similar or different in the way they try to convince and inspire people. This can help you understand more about how words can be used to make a big impact.

Lastly, think about how the letter makes you feel. Are there certain parts that stand out to you or make you feel strongly? Thinking about your own reactions can help you see just how powerful King’s words are and why they are still remembered and talked about today.

By looking closely at “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” you not only improve your ability to notice and analyze the rhetorical devices King uses but also grow to appreciate this powerful and important letter in a new way. This study will help you become a better reader who understands and thinks more about what you read, seeing beyond just the words on the page.

Practice Makes Perfect

Like any skill, proficiency in identifying and analyzing rhetorical devices comes with practice. It’s one thing to understand these strategies in theory, but it’s another to apply this knowledge actively and see it in action. That’s why we encourage you to take what you’ve learned here and put it into practice.

Albert provides many opportunities for you to practice these rhetorical analysis skills. Whether you want to improve before the AP® Language and Composition Exam or gain a deeper understanding of how authors used rhetoric in essential historic texts , Albert has you covered! Every question includes a detailed explanation of the correct answer and the distractors so you can learn as you go.

Remember, the more you practice, the more intuitive and insightful your rhetorical analysis will become. Rhetorical devices are not just academic concepts; they are practical tools that can enhance your reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. So, take advantage of Albert’s resources, and start practicing today. With dedication and practice, you’ll soon find yourself mastering the art of persuasion and the nuances of effective communication.

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(3); 2018 Jun

Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness

Lara varpio.

Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD USA

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

Scientific research is, for many, the epitome of objectivity and rationality. But, as Burke reminds us, conveying the meaning of our research to others involves persuasion. In other words, when I write a research manuscript, I must construct an argument to persuade the reader to accept my rationality .

While asserting that scientific findings must be persuasively conveyed may seem contradictory, it is simply a consequence of how we conduct research. Scientific research is a social activity centred on answering challenging questions. When these questions are answered, the solutions we propose are just that—propositions. Our solutions are accepted by the community until another, better proposition offers a more compelling explanation. In other words, everything we know is accepted for now but not forever .

This means that when we write up our research findings, we need to be persuasive. We must convince readers to accept our findings and the conclusions we draw from them. That acceptance may require dethroning widely held perspectives. It may require having the reader adopt new ways of thinking about a phenomenon. It may require convincing the audience that other, highly respected researchers are wrong. Regardless of the argument I want the reader to accept, I have to persuade the reader to agree with me .

Therefore, being a successful researcher requires developing the skills of persuasion—the skills of a rhetorician. Fortunately for the readers of Perspectives on Medical Education, The Writer’s Craft series offers a treasure trove of rhetorical tools that health professions education researchers can mine.

A primary lesson of rhetoric was developed by Aristotle. He studied rhetoric analytically, investigating all the means of persuasion available in a given situation. He identified three appeals at play in all acts of persuasion: ethos, logos and pathos. The first is focused on the author, the second on the argument, the third on the reader. Together, they support effective persuasion, and so can be harnessed by researchers to powerfully convey the meaning of their research.

Ethos is the appeal focused on the writer. It refers to the character of the writer, including her credibility and trustworthiness. The reader must be convinced that the author is an authority and merits attention. In scientific research, the author must establish her credibility as a rigorous and expert researcher. Much of an author’s ethos, then, lies in using well-reasoned and justified research methodologies and methods. But, a writer’s credibility can be bolstered using a number of rhetorical techniques including similitude and deference .

Similitude appeals to similarities between the author and the reader to create a sense of mutual identification. Using pronouns like we and us, the writer reinforces commonality with the reader and so encourages a sense of cohesion and community. To illustrate, consider the following:

While burnout continues to plague our residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

While burnout continues to plague residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. Medical educators owe it to their residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

In the first sentence, the author aligns herself with the community of medical educators involved in residency education. The writer is part of the we who has to support residents. She makes the burnout problem something she and the reader are both called upon to address. In the second sentence, the author separates herself from this community of educators. She creates social distance between herself and the reader, and thus places the burden of resolving the problem more squarely on the shoulders of the reader than herself.

Both phrasings are equally correct, grammatically. One creates social connection, the other social distance.

Deference is a way for the author to signal respect for others, and personal humility. The writer can demonstrate deference by using phrases such as in my opinion , or through the use of adjectives (e.g., Smith rigorously studied) or adverbs (e.g., the important work by Jones). For example:

The thoughtful research conducted by Jane Doe et al. suggests that resident burnout is more prevalent among those learners who were shamed by attending physicians. Echoing the calls of others [ 1 ], we contend that this work should be extended to also consider the role of fellow learners as potential contributors to resident experiences of burnout.

In this sentence, the author does not present Jane Doe and colleagues as weak researchers, nor as developing findings that should be rejected. Instead, it shows deference to these researchers by acknowledging the quality of their research and a willingness to build on the foundation provided by their findings. (Note how the author also builds ethos via similitude with other scholars by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that other researchers have also called for more research on the author’s suggested extension of Doe’s work).

Readers pick up on the respect authors pay to other researchers. Being rude or unkind in our writing rarely achieves anything except reflecting poorly on the writer.

In sum, as my grandmother used to say: ‘You’ll slide farther on honey than gravel.’ Establishing similitude and showing deference helps to establish your ethos as an author. They help the writer make honey, not gravel.

Logos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the argument being presented by the author. It is an appeal to rationality, referring to the clarity and logical integrity of the argument. Logos is, therefore, primarily rooted in the reasoning that holds different elements of the manuscript’s argument together. Do the findings logically connect to support the conclusion being drawn? Are there errors in the author’s reasoning (i.e., logical fallacies) that undermine the logic presented in the manuscript? Logical fallacies will undercut the persuasive power of a manuscript. Authors are well advised to spend time mapping out the premises of their arguments and how they logically lead to the conclusions being drawn, avoiding common errors in reasoning (see Purdue’s on-line writing lab [ 2 ] for 12 of the most common logical fallacies that plague authors, complete with definitions and examples).

However, logos is not merely contained in the logic of the argument itself. Logos is only achieved if the reader is able to follow the author’s logic. To support the reader’s ability to process the logical argument presented in the manuscript, authors can use signposting. Signposting is often accomplished via words (e.g., first, next, specifically, alternatively, also, consequently, etc.) and phrases (e.g., as a result, and yet, for example, in conclusion, etc.) that help the reader to follow the line of reasoning as it moves through the manuscript. Signposts indicate to the reader the structure of the argument to come, where they are in the argument at the moment, and/or what they can expect to come next. Consider the following sentence from one of my own manuscripts. This is the last sentence in the Introduction [ 3 ]:

This study addresses these gaps by investigating the following questions: How often are residents taught informally by physicians and nurses in clinical settings? What competencies are informally taught to residents by physicians and nurses? What teaching techniques are used by physicians and nurses to deliver informal education?

At the end of the Introduction, this sentence offers a map to the reader of how the paper’s argument will develop. The reader can now expect that the manuscript will address each of these questions, in this order. I could also use large-scale signposting, such as sub-headings in the Results, to organize the reading of data related to each of these questions. In the Discussion, I can use small-scale signpost terms and phrases (i.e., however, in contrast, in addition, finally, etc.) to help the reader follow the progression of the argument I am presenting .

I must offer one word of caution here: be sure to use your signposts precisely. If not, your writing will not be logically developed and you will weaken the logos at work in the manuscript. For instance, however signposts a contrasting or contradicting idea:

I enjoy working with residents; however , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

If the writer uses the wrong signpost, the meaning of the sentence falls apart, and so does the logos:

I enjoy working with residents; alternatively , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

Alternatively indicates a different option or possibility. This sentence does not present two different alternatives; it presents two contrasting ideas. Using alternatively confuses the meaning of the sentence, and thus impairs logos.

With clear and precise signposting, the reader will easily follow your argument across the manuscript. This supports the logos you develop as you guide the reader to your conclusions.

Pathos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the reader. Pathos refers to the emotions that are stirred in the reader while reading the manuscript. The author should seek to trigger specific emotional reactions in their writing. And, yes, there is room for emotions in scientific research articles. Some of my favourite manuscripts in The Writer’s Craft series are those that help authors elicit specific emotions from the reader.

For instance, in Joining the conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic Lingard highlights the importance of ‘hooking’ your audience. The hook ‘convinces readers that this gap [in the current literature] is of consequence’ [ 4 ]. The author must persuade the reader that the argument is important and worthy of the reader’s attention. This is an appeal to the readers’ emotions.

Another example is found in Bonfire red titles. As Lingard explains, the title of your manuscript is ‘advertising for what is inside your research paper’ [ 5 ]. The title must attract the readers’ attention and create a desire within them to read your manuscript. Here, again, is pathos in action in a scientific research paper: grab the reader’s attention from the very first word of the title.

Beyond those already addressed in The Writer’s Craft series, another rhetorical technique that appeals to the emotions of the reader is the strategic use of God-terms [ 1 ] . Burke defined God-terms as words or phrases that are ‘the ultimates of motivation,’ embodying characteristics that are fundamentally valued by humans. To use an analogy from card games (e.g., bridge or euchre), God-terms are like emotional trump cards. God-terms like freedom, justice, and duty call on shared human values, trumping contradictory feelings. By alluding to God-terms in our research, we increase the emotional appeal of our writing. Let us reconsider the example from above:

While burnout continues to plague our residents, medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service .

Here, the author reminds the reader that residents will be in service as physicians for their lifetime, and that we have a  duty (i.e., we owe it ) to support them in that calling to meet the public’s healthcare needs. Invoking the God-terms of service and duty, the writer taps into the reader’s sense of responsibility to support these learners.

It is important not to overplay pathos in a scientific research paper—i.e., readers are keenly intelligent scholars who will easily identify emotional exaggeration. Consider this variation on the previous example:

While burnout continues to ruin the lives of our residents, medical educators have neglected to identify the root causes of this problem. We have a moral obligation to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

This rephrasing is likely to create a sense of unease in the reader because of the emotional exaggerations it uses. By over-amplifying the appeals to emotion, this rephrasing elicits feelings of refusal and rejection in the reader. Instead of drawing the reader in, it pushes the reader away. When it comes to pathos, a light hand is best.

Peter Gould famously stated: ‘data can never speak for themselves’ [ 6 ]. Researchers must explain them. In that explaining, we endeavour to convince the audience that our propositions should be accepted. While the science in our research is at the core of that persuasion, there are techniques from rhetoric that can help us convince readers to accept our arguments. Ethos, logos and pathos are appeals that, when used intentionally and judiciously, can buoy the persuasive power of your manuscripts.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States of America’s Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

PhD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, MD. Her program of research investigates the many kinds of teams involved in health professions education (e.g., interprofessional clinical care teams, health professions education scholarship unit teams, etc.). A self-professed ‘theory junky’, she uses theories from the social sciences and humanities, and qualitative methods/methodologies to build practical, theory-based knowledge.

Wherever there is meaning there is persuasion. —Kenneth Burke [ 1 ]

31 Useful Rhetorical Devices

What is a rhetorical device and why are they used.

As with all fields of serious and complicated human endeavor (that can be considered variously as an art, a science, a profession, or a hobby), there is a technical vocabulary associated with writing. Rhetoric is the name for the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion, and though a writer doesn’t need to know the specific labels for certain writing techniques in order to use them effectively, it is sometimes helpful to have a handy taxonomy for the ways in which words and ideas are arranged. This can help to discuss and isolate ideas that might otherwise become abstract and confusing. As with the word rhetoric itself, many of these rhetorical devices come from Greek.

Ready, set, rhetoric.

The repetition of usually initial consonant sounds in two or more neighboring words or syllables

wild and woolly, threatening throngs

Syntactical inconsistency or incoherence within a sentence especially : a shift in an unfinished sentence from one syntactic construction to another

you really should have—well, what do you expect?

Repetition of a prominent and usually the last word in one phrase or clause at the beginning of the next

rely on his honor—honor such as his?

A literary technique that involves interruption of the chronological sequence of events by interjection of events or scenes of earlier occurrence : flashback

Repetition of a word or expression at the beginning of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses especially for rhetorical or poetic effect

we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground

The repetition of a word within a phrase or sentence in which the second occurrence utilizes a different and sometimes contrary meaning from the first

we must all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately

The usually ironic or humorous use of words in senses opposite to the generally accepted meanings

this giant of 3 feet 4 inches

The use of a proper name to designate a member of a class (such as a Solomon for a wise ruler) OR the use of an epithet or title in place of a proper name (such as the Bard for Shakespeare)

The raising of an issue by claiming not to mention it

we won't discuss his past crimes

An expression of real or pretended doubt or uncertainty especially for rhetorical effect

to be, or not to be: that is the question

Harshness in the sound of words or phrases

An inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases

working hard, or hardly working?

A disjunctive conclusion inferred from a single premise

gravitation may act without contact; therefore, either some force may act without contact or gravitation is not a force

The substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging expression for an agreeable or inoffensive one

greasy spoon is a dysphemism for the word diner

Repetition of a word or expression at the end of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses especially for rhetorical or poetic effect

of the people, by the people, for the people

Emphatic repetition [ this definition is taken from the 1934 edition of Webster's Unabridged dictionary ]

An interchange of two elements in a phrase or sentence from a more logical to a less logical relationship

you are lost to joy for joy is lost to you

A transposition or inversion of idiomatic word order

judge me by my size, do you?

Extravagant exaggeration

mile-high ice-cream cones

The putting or answering of an objection or argument against the speaker's contention [ this definition is taken from the 1934 edition of Webster's Unabridged dictionary ]

Understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary

not a bad singer

The presentation of a thing with underemphasis especially in order to achieve a greater effect : UNDERSTATEMENT

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them ( Metaphor vs. Simile )

drowning in money

A figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated

crown as used in lands belonging to the crown

The naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it

A combination of contradictory or incongruous words

cruel kindness

The use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense : REDUNDANCY

I saw it with my own eyes

A figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by "like" or "as"

cheeks like roses

The use of a word in the same grammatical relation to two adjacent words in the context with one literal and the other metaphorical in sense

she blew my nose and then she blew my mind

A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships ), the whole for a part (such as society for high society ), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin ), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man ), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage )

The use of a word to modify or govern two or more words usually in such a manner that it applies to each in a different sense or makes sense with only one

opened the door and her heart to the homeless boy

MORE TO EXPLORE: Rhetorical Devices Used in Pop Songs

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Usage Notes

Prepositions, ending a sentence with, hypercorrections: are you making these 6 common mistakes, a comprehensive guide to forming compounds, can ‘criteria’ ever be singular, singular nonbinary ‘they’: is it ‘they are’ or ‘they is’, grammar & usage, more words you always have to look up, the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', more commonly misspelled words, plural and possessive names: a guide, commonly misspelled words, pilfer: how to play and win, 8 words with fascinating histories, great big list of beautiful and useless words, vol. 3, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden.

• DOI: 10.23977/langl.2023.061620
• Corpus ID: 266853291

An Analysis of Rhetorical Devices in the English Version of Fortress Besieged from the Perspective of Relevance Theory

• Published in Lecture Notes on Language and… 2023
• Linguistics

8 References

On fortress besieged, relevance communication and cognition, translation and relevance: cognition and context, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A List of Rhetorical Devices

RELATED PAPERS

Jaana Vuori

shelly guan

Linguistik Indonesia

Ruswan Dallyono

Cristian Tileaga , Michael Billig , Susan Condor

Argument &amp; Computation

Randy Allen Harris

Research in Economics

Itzhak Gilboa

Kawa Sherwani

Pragmatics & beyond

Steve Oswald

Understanding Rhetoric: A Student Guide with Samples and Analysis

Elinor A. McNeel

Zvi Bekerman

Language Culture Politics International Journal

Elżbieta Pieniążek-Niemczuk

Michael Drout

IOLC Conference

Estudios de Lingüística del Español

Javier De Santiago-Guervós

Asha Sarangi

Joshua Trey Barnett

Dr. Waleed Ridha Aljwaid

G. Thomas Goodnight

Zohar Kampf

International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies

In B. Hampe, ed., From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 443-473. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Todd Oakley

Linguistic Frontiers

Susan Schmerling

Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly

Clare Williams

Ivanka T . Mavrodieva

Retoryka i motyw początku

Res Rhetorica journal

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024