1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The insufficient ecological awareness among the public is widely acknowledged as the fundamental cause of ecological crises. To address this issue, the present study incorporates the rhetorical concept of presence with the social psychological notion of prominence effect. The aim is to explore how ecological awareness is conveyed in multimodal discourse and then how it is transmitted to the audience through the presence of multimodal resources, using the ecological public service advertisement “BLUE” as a case study. To examine the prominence effect, interviews were conducted with 12 participants to investigate the influence of the prominent elements on the audience’s understandings. The findings reveal that the ecological awareness conveyed by multimodal resources in the selected material is “Green travel”. To promote this ecological awareness, various resources in the visual, auditory, and textual modalities, such as image displays, background colors, participants’ expressions, and gestures, are employed to achieve “presence”. These prominent elements, in turn, impact the audience’s understanding and reception of the conveyed ecological awareness. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the audience’s ecological awareness influences the prominence effect of elements designed for presence in the discourse, thereby impacting audiences’ understanding and response towards the eco-discourse, and for optimal impact, the elements emphasized in the presence of the discourse should align with the prominent elements to captivate the audience’s attention. Based on the analysis, a multidimensional model of presence-prominent effect of multimodal ecological discourse reception is proposed, and some implications for effective development of ecological awareness is then discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23014.dai
2025-01-21
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2007On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (2nd ed.). Trans.George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benoit, William. L. & Smythe, J. Mary
    2003 “Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism.” Communication Studies54(1): 96–114. 10.1080/10510970309363268
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970309363268 [Google Scholar]
  3. Burnkrant, Robert E., and Daniel J. Howard
    1984 “Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology47(6): 1218–1230. 10.1037/0022‑3514.47.6.1218
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1218 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, Sibo
    2016 “Selling the environment: green marketing discourse in China’s automobile advertising.” Discourse, Context and Media121: 11–19. 10.1016/j.dcm.2016.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Wenge, Tom Bartlett, and Huiling Peng
    2021 “The erasure of nature in the discourse of oil production: An enhanced eco-discourse analysis, Part 1.” Pragmatics and Society12(1): 6–32. 10.1075/ps.20034.che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20034.che [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuervo, Margarita
    2020 “Representation of Rhetorical Presence in Virginia Woolf’s ‘Madame de Sévigné’.” Prague Journal of English Studies9(1): 65–85. 10.2478/pjes‑2020‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.2478/pjes-2020-0004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Delaney, David G., and Paul Slovic
    2019 “Countering the prominence effect: How US national security lawyers can fulfill non-prominent humanitarian objectives.” Journal of National Security Law & Policy (10): 45–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gross, Alan
    2005 “Presence as argument in the public sphere.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly35 (2): 5–21. 10.1080/02773940509391308
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940509391308 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gross, Alan, and Ray D. Dearin
    2003Chaim Perelman. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Howard, Daniel J.
    1990 Rhetorical question effects on message processing and persuasion: The role of information availability and the elicitation of judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology26(3): 217–239. 10.1016/0022‑1031(90)90036‑L
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90036-L [Google Scholar]
  11. Huang, Guowen. (黄国文)
    2016 “The birth and the development of ecolinguistics.” Foreign Languages in China1: 1, 9–12 [2016 生态语言学的兴起与发展.《中国外语》(1): 11, 9–12.]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, Guowen, and Ruihua Zhao
    2021 “Harmonious discourse analysis: Approaching peoples’ problems in a Chinese context.” Language Sciences851: 1–18.10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101365
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101365 [Google Scholar]
  13. Karon, Louise A.
    1976 “Presence in ‘The New Rhetoric’.” Philosophy & Rhetoric9(2): 96–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kauffman, Charles, and Donn W. Parson
    1990 “Metaphor and presence in argument.” InArgumentation theory and the rhetoric of assent, ed. byDavid C. Williams and Michael D. Hazen, 91–102. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen
    2006Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed). London: Routledge Farmer. 10.4324/9780203619728
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728 [Google Scholar]
  16. Leroux, R. Neil
    1992 “Perceiving Rhetorical Style: Toward a Framework for Criticism.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly41: 29–44. 10.1080/02773949209390969
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773949209390969 [Google Scholar]
  17. Maaravi, Yossi, and Ben Heller
    2020 “Studying the prominence effect amid the COVID-19 crisis: Implications for public health policy decision-making.” F1000Research (9): 1356. 10.12688/f1000research.27324.1
    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27324.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Maaravi, Yossi, and Boaz Hameiri
    2019 “Deep pockets and poor results: The effect of wealth cues on first offers in negotiation.” Group Decis Negot28(1): 43–62. 10.1007/s10726‑018‑9599‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9599-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Maier, Carmen D.
    2011 “Communicating business greening and greenwashing in global media: A multimodal discourse analysis of CNN’s greenwashing video.” The International Communication Gazette73(1–2): 165–177. 10.1177/1748048510386747
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386747 [Google Scholar]
  20. Marunowski, Kenneth R.
    2006 “The Euro: A Multimodal Study in Presence.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent State University.
  21. Murphy, John M.
    1994 “Presence, Analogy, and Earth in the Balance.” Argumentation and Advocacy11: 1–16. 10.1080/00028533.1994.11951594
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1994.11951594 [Google Scholar]
  22. Newell, Fiona N.
    2004 “Cross-modal object recognition.” InThe handbook of multisensory processes, ed.Gemma A. Calvert, Charles Spence and Barry E. Stein, 123–139. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3422.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3422.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  23. Olthof, Jelte
    2021 “Projecting a Future Present: Greta Thunberg’s use of Presence at the United Nations Climate Action Summit 2019.” Res Rhetorica8 (1):67–82. 10.29107/rr2021.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.29107/rr2021.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Persson, Emil, Arvid Erlandsson, Paul Slovic, Daniel Västfjäll, and Gustav Tinghög
    2022 “The Prominence Effect in Health-Care Priority Setting.” Judgment and Decision Making17(6): 1379–1391. 10.1017/S1930297500009463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500009463 [Google Scholar]
  26. Remley, Dirk
    2017The Neuroscience of Multimodal Persuasive Messages: Persuading the Brain. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315206325
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315206325 [Google Scholar]
  27. Royce, Terry
    2002 “Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy.” TESOL Quarterly36(2): 191–205. 10.2307/3588330
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588330 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schnotz, Wolfgang
    2005 “Integrated modality of text and picture comprehension.” InThe Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, ed.Richard. E. Mayer, 49–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Shams, Ladan, Yukiyasu Kamitani, and Shinsuke Shimojo
    2004 “Modulations of visual perception by sound.” InThe handbook of multisensory processes, ed.Gemma A. Calvert, Charles Spence and Barry E. Stein, 27–33. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3422.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3422.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Slovic, Paul
    1975 “Choice between equally valued alternatives”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance11: 280–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2020 “Risk Perception and Risk Analysis in a Hyperpartisan and Virtuously Violent World.” Risk analysis40(S1): 2231–2239. 10.1111/risa.13606
    https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13606 [Google Scholar]
  32. Stibbe, Arran
    2015Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315718071
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718071 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic
    1988 “Contingent weighting in judgment and choice.” Psychological Review95(3): 371–384. 10.1037/0033‑295X.95.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  34. Van den Hoven, Paul J.
    2011 “Iconicity in visual and verbal argumentation.” InSeventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation Proceedings, ed.Frans H. van Emeren, 831–834. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23014.dai
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23014.dai
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error