1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2032-6904
  • E-ISSN: 2032-6912
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Non-governmental organisations set different goals than for-profit corporations. However, they need to be advertised in order to keep working. One of the basic means NGOs use in order to attract volunteers and donators is their website. Although the English language is considered as the of the internet it seems to be inadequate when a global audience is aimed at. NGOs seem to have realized the need to communicate with potential donators or volunteers in their native language and have started providing localized versions of their websites. In this paper we are going to examine the persuasive discourse adopted by NGOs in their English, French and Greek website versions. According to Aristotle (, 1356a) (2002) the three persuasive techniques used to change the audience’s beliefs are (a) which appeals to the audience’s emotions, (b) , which establishes the good “character” and credibility of the author and (c) which uses logic and evidence to convince the audience. Our aim is to examine both the use and the multisemiotic realization of the above mentioned techniques in different cultural contexts. For the needs of our analysis we will adopt methodological tools from the field of social semiotics ( (Barthes 2007) and (Kress and Van Leeuwen 19962002). Translational theories such as Skopos theory (Reiss and Vermeer 1984Nord 1997) will provide the theoretical framework for the study of the adaptation techniques and strategies adopted when the Greek audience is addressed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jial.19001.cha
2019-05-16
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aaker, Jennifer and Lee, Angela Y.
    2001 ““I” seek pleasure and “we” Avoid pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information processing and Persuasion”. InJournal of Consumer Research28: 33–49. 10.1086/321946
    https://doi.org/10.1086/321946 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aaker, Jennifer and Durairaj Maheswaran
    1997 “The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion.” Journal of Consumer Research24 (3): 315–328. 10.1086/209513
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209513 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aaker, Jennifer and Patti Williams
    1998 “Empathy versus Pride: The Influence of Imotional Ippeals across Cultures.” Journal of Consumer Research25 (3): 241–261. 10.1086/209537
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209537 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aaker, Jennifer L. and Jaideep Sengupta
    2000 “Addivity versus Attenuation: The Role of Culture in the Resolution of Information Incongruity.” Journal of Consumer Psychology9 (2): 67–82. 10.1207/S15327663JCP0902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP0902_2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aaker, Jennifer and Andy Smith
    2010The Dragonfly Effect. Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Albers-Miller, Nancy D. and Marla Royne Stafford
    1999 “An International Analysis of Emotional and Rational Appeals in Services vs Goods Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Marketing16 (1): 42–57. 10.1108/07363769910250769
    https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910250769 [Google Scholar]
  7. Alden, Dana L. , Wayne D. Hoyer and Lee Chol
    1993 “Identifying Global and Culture-specific Dimensions of Humor in Advertising: A Multinational Analysis.” Journal of Marketing57 (2): 64–75. 10.2307/1252027
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1252027 [Google Scholar]
  8. Alden, Dana L. , Douglas M. Stayman and Wayne D. Hoyer
    1994 “Evaluation Strategies of American and Thai Consumers.” Psychology and Marketing11 (2): 145–161. 10.1002/mar.4220110205
    https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110205 [Google Scholar]
  9. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2002Rhetoric 1356 a. Introduction, Translation and Comments byDemetrios Lypourlis. Thessaloniki: Zitros.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barthes, Roland
    2007Εικόνα-Μουσική-Κείμενο [orig. Image, Music, Text]. Translated in Greek byGeorge Spanos. Athens: Plethron.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brennan, Niamh M. and Doris M. Merkl-Davies
    2014 “Rhetoric and Argument in Social and Environmental Reporting: the Dirty Laundry Case.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal27 (4): 602–633. 10.1108/AAAJ‑04‑2013‑1333
    https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1333 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carmen, Mangiron and Minako O’Hagan
    2006 “Game Localisation: Unleashing Imagination with “Restricted” Translation.” The Journal of Specialised Translation6: 10–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Charalampidou, Parthena
    2019 “Επιχώρια προσαρμογή και επίκληση στο συναίσθημα: Μία σημειωτική προσέγγιση στη μελέτη πολύγλωσσων δικτυακών τόπων Μη Κυβερνητικών Οργανώσεων [Emotional appeal in Localization: A semiotic approach to the study of multilingual NGO websites]”, Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of Greek-speaking Translation Studies Scholars, 25–27 May 2017, Thessaloniki.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chesterman, Andrew
    2000 “A Causal Model for Translation Studies.” InIntercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies, by Maeve Olohan . Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Choi, Yung Kyun and Gordon E. Miracle
    2004 “The Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising in Korea and the United States: A Cross-cultural and Individual-level Analysis.” Journal of Advertising33 (4): 75–87. 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639176
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639176 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooper, Martha D. and William L. Nothstine
    1996Power persuasion: moving an ancient art into the media age. Greenwood, Ind.: Educational Video Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. de Mooij, Marieke
    2004 “Translating Advertising: Painting the Tip of an Iceberg.” The Translator10 (2): 179–198. 10.1080/13556509.2004.10799176
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2004.10799176 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gentzler, Edwin
    2001Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. GHK, European Commission – DGEAC
    GHK, European Commission – DGEAC 2010 “Study on Volunteering in the European Union.” Country Report Greece, London.
  20. Goering, Elizabeth , Ulla M. Connor , Ed Nagelhout and Richard Steinberg
    2009 “Persuasion in Fundraising Letters: An Interdisciplinary Study.” InNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Online First XX (X). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gottlieb, Henrik
    2007 “Multidimensional Translation : Semantics turned Semiotics.” InSandra Nauert and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.) Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra: Challenges of Multidimensional Translation (EU High Level Scientific Conference Series): 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gudykunst, William B. and Stella Ting-Toomey
    1988Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Guidère, Matthieu
    2000Publicité et traduction. Paris and Montréal: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall, Edward T.
    1976Beyond Culture. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, Michael
    1978Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Han, Sang Pil and Sharon Shavitt
    1994 “Persuasion and Culture: Advertising Appeals in Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology30 (4): 326–350. 10.1006/jesp.1994.1016
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1016 [Google Scholar]
  27. Handy, Femida
    2000 “How we Beg: The Analysis of Direct Mail Appeals.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29: 439–454. 10.1177/0899764000293005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000293005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hayward, William G. and Kwok K. Tong
    2001 “Effects of Language on Web Site Usage with Bilingual Users.” Usability Evaluation and Interface Design: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Mahwah: LEA.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Henning, Martha L.
    1998 “Friendly persuasion: Classical rhetoric.” courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
  30. Hofstede, Geert
    1991Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes, James S.
    1988Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hudson, David , Jeniffer Van Heerde-Hudson , Niheer Dasandi and Susan Gaines
    2016Emotional Pathways to Engagement with Global Poverty: An Experimental Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
    2012a ““Loss” or “Lost” in Translation: A Contrastive Genre Study of Original and Localised Non-profit US Websites.” Jostrans, 17: 136–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2012b “Web Localization in US Non-profit Websites: A Descriptive Study of Localization Strategies.” InI. Garcia Izquierdo (ed.) Iberian Studies on Translation and Interpreting, Oxford: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, Heejung and Hazel Rose Markus
    1999 “Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77 (4): 785–800. 10.1037/0022‑3514.77.4.785
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen
    2002 “Colour as a Semiotic Mode: Notes for a Grammar of Colour.” Visual Communication1 (3): 343–368. 10.1177/147035720200100306
    https://doi.org/10.1177/147035720200100306 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1996Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Maroto, Jesús and Mario de Bortoli
    2003Web Site Localisation. www.eurorscg.co.uk/localisation
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Masnovi, Janae
    2013 “Persuasive Strategies and Hats Off for Cancer Donations.” Pepperdine Journal of Communication Research1 (3): 6–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nord, Christiane
    1991Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches. Manchester/Northampton MA: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2001 “Loyalty Revisited: Bible Translation as a Case in Point.” The Translator7 (2): 185–202. 10.1080/13556509.2001.10799100
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799100 [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Hagan, Minako
    2005 “A Game Plan for Audiovisual Translation in the Age of GILT.” Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra “Challenges of Multidimensional Translation”. Saarbrücken. www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_proceedings/2005_proceedings.html
    [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Neil, Julie
    2008 “Linking Public Relations Tactics to Long-term Success: An Investigation of How Communications Contribute to Trust, Satisfaction, and Commitment in a Nonprofit Organization.” Journal of Promotion Management14: 263–274. 10.1080/10496490802623358
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10496490802623358 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pym, Anthony
    1997Pour une éthique du traducteur. Arras/Ottawa: Artois Presses Université/Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Reiss, Katharina
    1971/2002 La critique des traductions, ses possibilités et ses limites [Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Uebersetzungskritik]. Translated by Catherine Bocquet . Artois Presses Université.
  47. Reiss, Κatharina and Hans Vermeer
    1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111351919
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111351919 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sandrini, Peter
    2005 “Website Localisation and Translation”. ΙnH. Gerzymisch Arbogast & S. Nauert (eds.), MuTra: Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings: 131–138. www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_proceedings.html
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Singh, Nitish and Arun Pereira
    2005The Culturally Customized Website: Customising Websites for the Global Marketplace. Βurlington/Oxford: Elsevier. 10.4324/9780080481333
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080481333 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sklias, Pantelis
    2000 “The new international economic relations and international trade regime: the cases of Ecuador and the Common Wealth of Dominica.” Τετράδιο Εργασίας5 [Workbook 5], Greek Center for Political Research, Panteion University, Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith, Brett R. , Maria L. Cronley and Terri F. Barr
    2012 “Funding Implications of Social Enterprise: The Role of Mission Consistency, Entrepreneurial Competence, and Attitude toward Social Enterprise on Donor Behavior.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing31: 142–157. 10.1509/jppm.11.033
    https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.11.033 [Google Scholar]
  52. Spivey, Sarah
    2010 “Non Profits in the Digital Age.” Advertising Age. https://adage.com/article/goodworks/nonprofits-digital-age/144982/
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Stiff, James B. and Paul A. Mongeau
    2003Persuasive Communication. 2nd.New York: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilkins, Jon
    2002 “Why is Global Advertising still the Exception, Not the Rule?” Admap, February: 18–20.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jial.19001.cha
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jial.19001.cha
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