CROSS-CULTURAL VARIATION IN THE EXPRESSION OF PERSUASIVE POWER IN THE GENRE OF TECHNICAL MANUALS: THE CASE OF DIRECTIVES

Renata Povolná

Abstract

The paper provides a cross-cultural analysis of selected linguistic realizations of persuasion in technical manuals as typical representatives of technical discourse. It aims to identify differences and similarities between the ways persuasive power is expressed in this type of specialized discourse in English and Czech L1 texts. The data comprises manuals to various technical devices and amounts to slightly more than 200,000 words. This specialized corpus (15 manuals in English and 15 in Czech) is assumed to enable the comparison of the ways in which technical communicators express persuasion. The investigation, which is conducted from the perspectives of corpus analysis and discourse analysis, focuses on the ways in which the interactive and dynamic process of persuasion is explicitly manifested: 1. directly (i.e. using directives expressed by imperatives of full verbs, modals of obligation, necessity, prohibition, and predicative adjectives expressing the writer’s judgement of the necessity to perform an action) and 2. indirectly (i.e. using other language means than directives, such as other modals than those related to obligation, necessity or prohibition, conditional clauses, rhetorical questions). The findings are expected to be relevant and applicable in the education domain to raise technical writers’ awareness of directives as useful persuasive strategies suitable for the production of effective well-written technical manuals since their quality including the appropriate degree of persuasiveness can influence prospective consumers to make a purchase of a particular technical device.

Keywords

cross-cultural analysis; technical discourse (TD); technical manuals (TMs); persuasion; persuasive power; persuasive strategies; directives; imperatives; modal verbs; predicative adjectives

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

Adam, M. (2017) ‘Persuasion in religious discourse: Enhancing credibility in sermon titles and openings.’ Discourse and Interaction 10(2), 5-25.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.

Blake, G. and Bly, R. W. (1993) The Elements of Technical Writing. New York: McMillan.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crowder, A. (2014) Technical Writing – Technical Communication: Technical Writing Instruction and Real World Professional Guidance. Kindle Edition. KRB Instructional Publications. Amazon Digital Services LLC.

Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969) Investigating English Style. London: Longman.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2011) Coherence in Political Speeches. Brno: Masaryk University.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2018) ‘Persuasion in academic discourse: Cross-cultural variation in Anglophone and Czech academic book reviews.’ In: Pelclová, J. and Wei-lun, L. (eds) Persuasion in Public Discourse. Cognitive and Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 227-257.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Halmari, H. (2005) ‘In search of “successful” political persuasion. A comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.’ In: Halmari, H. and Virtanen, T. (eds) Persuasion across Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 105-134.

Halmari, H. and Virtanen, T. (eds) (2005) Persuasion across Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hinkel, E. (2009) ‘The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing.’ Journal of Pragmatics 41, 667-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029

Hyland, K. (2002) ‘Directives: Arguments and engagement in academic writing.’ Applied Linguistics 23(2), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215

Internetová jazyková příručka: Konkurence jmenných a složených tvarů přídavných jmen, konkurence přídavných jmen a příčestí trpného. Online document. 2 June 2019 http://prirucka.ujc.cas.cz/?id=420.

Jalilifar, A. and Mehrabi, K. (2014) ‘A cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural study of directives in discussion and conclusions of research articles.’ Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 2(1), 27-44.

Johns, A. (1997) Text, Role, and Context. Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, R. T. (2000) The Language War. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Leech, G. (2003) ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries.’ In: Pacchinetti, R., Krug, M. and Palmer, F. (eds) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 223-240.

Leech, G. (2005) Meaning and the English Verb. 3rd ed. Harlow: Longman.

Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (2003) A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson.

Marshall, C. (2018) Technical Writing for Business People (Business and Technical Writing). Swindon: BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT.

Miller, G. R. (ed.) (1980) Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 11-28.

Mluvnice češtiny (2), Tvarosloví (1986) Praha: Academia.

Palmer, F. R. (2001) Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2002) ‘Designing new genre identities in scientific and technical discourse: Cognitive, social and pedagogical implications.’ Journal of English Studies 3, 251-263. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.81

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

Perloff, R. (2010) The Dynamics of Persuasion. Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. New York and London: Routledge.

Povolná, R. (2018) ‘On some persuasive strategies in technical discourse: Cross-cultural analysis of directives in English and Czech technical manuals.’ Topics in Linguistics 19(2), 72-85.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.

Rus, D. (2014) ‘Technical communication as strategic communication. Characteristics of the English technical discourse.’ Procedia Technology 12, 654-658.

Searle, J. R. (1976) ‘A classification of illocutionary acts.’ Language in Society 5, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

Sharpe, M. (2014) ‘Language forms and rhetorical function in technical instructions.’ English for Specific Purposes World 43(15). Online document. 6 June 2019 http://www.esp-world.info.

Smith, N. (2003) ‘Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English.’ In: Pacchinetti, R., Krug, M. and Palmer, F. (eds) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 241-267.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F. and Seymor, R. (1998) ‘Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing.’ Applied Linguistics 19(1), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.97

Šipková, M. (2017) ‘O modálních predikativech slovesného původu typu To přende, (se) patři…zbórat.’ Naše řeč 100(4), 265-271.

Tárnyiková, J. (2007) Sentence Complexes in Text. Processing Strategies in English and in Czech. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.

Trimble, L. (1985) English for Science and Technology: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Virtanen, T. and Halmari, H. (2005) ‘Persuasion across genres. Emerging perspectives.’ In: Halmari, H. and Virtanen, T. (eds) Persuasion across Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3-24.

Vogel, R. (2018) ‘Persuasion in business documents: Strategies for reporting positively on negative phenomena.’ Ostrava Journal of English Philology 10(1), 55-70.

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2019-1-47


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.