Retorička moć uvjeravanja u Ciceronovom govoru Pro Milone (Za Milona) / Persuasive rhetoric in Cicero’s speech Pro Milone

Authors

  • Seada Brkan University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54524.2490-3930.2021.99

Keywords:

rhetoric, analysis, discourse, predication, persuasiveness, argumentation, perspectivization, nominalization, mitigation/intensification, critical analysis

Abstract

Rhetoric in Ancient Rome was a very specific type of discourse construction used to shape, present, and interpret specific works of individuals and then present them to critics. Depending on the perspective of the orator, defense counsel, or plaintiff, discourse strategies were aimed at legitimizing or delegitimizing a specific act. Words and wise acts of a skillful orator, which Cicero was renowned for, were often as powerful as weapons; they not only uncovered the intentions and objectives of participants in a given situation, but they reflected the social and political image of Rome, including the context of the event. The paper presents one of the possible methods of analyzing Cicero’s speeches made for the defense of Milo, a notable Roman charged for the murder of aristocrat Clodius Pulcher. It is based on the discourse-historical approach of R. Wodak and M. Reisigl. It is a qualitative analysis focused on the linguistic construction of the defense of the defendant at a trial. The analysis will show the discourse constructions produced under the influence of a set of specific social factors, in this case, the political environment in Rome, the ideological affiliation of speakers, and the main discussion participants – Milo and Pulcher, their political roles, and the degree of formality. The paper’s theoretical framework is a critical analysis of the discourse.

References

Fairclough 1989 – N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Longman, 1989.

Fairclough 1992 – N. Fairclough, Discourse and Text: Linguistic Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis, Discourse & Society, 1992.

Fairclough 1995 – N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Longman, 1995.

Fairclough, Wodak 1997 – N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, Critical Discourse Analysis, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, SAGE Publications, 1997, 259–284.

Fairclough 1999 – N. Fairclough, Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis, in A. Jaworski, N. Coupland (eds.), The Discourse Reader. Routledge, 1999.

Fairclough 2003 – N. Fairclough, Analyzing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research, Routledge, 2003.

Fairclough 2005 – N. Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, Marges Linguistiques, 2005, 76–94.

ϔ Fairclough, Mulderrig, Wodak, 2011 – N. Fairclough, J. Mulderrig, R. Wodak, Critical

Discourse Analysis, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, SAGE Publications, 2011, 357–378.

Fairclough 2016 – N. Fairclough, Dialectical-relational approach to CDA, in R.Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, Third Edition, SAGE Publications, 2016.

Huckin 2002 – T. Huckin, Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse of Condescension, in E. Barton, H. Stygall, (eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002, 155–176.

Mesihović 2015 – S. Mesihović, Orbis Romanus, Autorsko izdanje, Elektronsko izdanje, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Sarajevu, 2015.

Reisigl, Wodak 2009 – M. Reisigl, R. Wodak, The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Second Edition, SAGE Publications, 2009, 87–121.

Schiffrin 1994 – D. Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell, 1994.

Van Dijk 2002 – T. A. van Dijk, Political discourse and political cognition, in P. Chilton, C. Schäffner, Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. John Benjamins pp. 2002., 207 – 225.

Van Dijk 2006a – T. A. van Dijk, Discourse and manipulation, Discourse & Society 17 (2), SAGE Publications, 2006a, 359 – 383.

Van Dijk 2006b – T. A. van Dijk, Discourse, context and cognition, Discourse Studies 8 (1SAGE Perspectives, 2006b, 159 – 177.

Van Dijk 2008 – T. A. van Dijk, Discourse and Power, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2008.

Van Dijk 2009 – T. A. van Dijk, Society and Discourse, How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Wodak, Meyer 2009 – R. Wodak, M. Meyer, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis Sage, 2009.

Wodak, Meyer 2016 – R. Wodak, M. Meyer, Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage, 207, 2016.

Wodak, Krzyżanowski 2008 – R. Wodak, M. Krzyżanowski, Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Wodak et al. 2009 – R. Wodak, R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, K. Liebhart, The Discursive Construction of National Identity, Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

Wodak 2001 – R. Wodak, What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage Publications, 2001, 1–13.

Downloads

Published

24.12.2021

How to Cite

Brkan, S. (2021). Retorička moć uvjeravanja u Ciceronovom govoru Pro Milone (Za Milona) / Persuasive rhetoric in Cicero’s speech Pro Milone. Journal of BATHINVS Association ACTA ILLYRICA / Godišnjak Udruženja BATHINVS ACTA ILLYRICA Online ISSN 2744-1318, (5), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.54524.2490-3930.2021.99

Issue

Section

Articles