HOKUSEI REVIEW THE SCH00L OF HUMANITIES(HOKUSEI GAKUEN UNIVERSITY)Vo1 36,1999 0FFPRINT

A Study of」 apanese Persuasion From
An Ethnography of Cornrnunication Perspective

ShOli TakanO

北星論集 (文 )第 36号

NIarch 1999

AS物 の ぼ 工ψαπθSθ fセ 簿%α θπsグ

Fttπ ∠2 Ettη てなrのり
α″θπル タガυθθθげ Cθ ππππグψθ
Shoji TAKANOThis paper reports the prelinlinary results of my comparative
analysis of 」apanese persuasive rhetoric from an ethnography ofcommunication perspective(Hymes, 1974; Sa宙 1le― Troike, 1989)
This investigation v″ as initiaHy motivated by Saville TrOike's(1993)

prOpOsal to compensate for both theoretical and methodologicalweaknesses in the contrastive rhetoric literature(see Leki [1991]

for a comprehensive review).Two of those weaknesses are thefocus of the present study: the literature's ethnocentrisln and its
neglect of the situational context of language use.

The study is aprelirllinary attempt to demonstrate through real data from speech

COlllinunities that an ethnography of conlrnunication perspectivev″

ould be able to yield significant insights into an understanding ofsuch problems and hopefully provide some potential solutions

Since Robert Kaplan's(1966)provocative article on some 600
ESIン

learners'transfer of native language rhetoric in their composi

tions,comparative studies of culture― bound rhetoric have formed avigorous field of inquiry called ̀contrastive rhetoric'(Houghton &Hoey,1984;Grabe&Kaplan,1989) Duril■ g the last thirty years,
contrastive rhetoric research has greatly cOntributed to the improve―

ment of second language 、
vriting theories and teaching as v/ell ascomparative rhetorical analysis of a wide variety of first languages.

However,the、 vhole theoretical enterprise of contrastive rhetoric andits lnethodology,v/hich Purves(1988: 15)characterizes as still in its

‑1‑

北

星

論

集 (文 )第ASル の び ルψα″6σ ル塔″αsあ ″FЮ ″ A″ E″ ″昭々ψり げ

36号

π″″″′
″あ″&″ ψσ υσ̀″formative stages," has not necessarily been practiced unprob―

It is vital that the Japanese language learns the offensive nature

lematicallyand vitality of English,Ⅵ /hich are salient in the British traditionof debate poelll, without too much appealing to emotional

One of the problems is a degree of ethnocentrism in the analysis

aspects of the poetic language [Japanese] in persuasion''(p̲(Hinds,1982;Leki,1991)As is evident in Kaplan's(1966:11)classic
schematic representations of culture―181;parentheses added by the author)

bound̀̀thought patterns''(e.g,the English pattern is schematized by a single straight‐ line arrow,theOne of the advantages involved in the ethnography of colllinuni

oriental pattern by a spiral),the results derived frolll crOSS linguistic(and crOss̲cultural)comparisons of rhetoric tend to be English―

biasedcation concerns its relativistic stance.

2牡s is obvious so far,colnpar―

Namely, comparisons are nlade predonlinantly M″ ith this English

ative analysis of rhetoric is often heavily biased、vith the researcher's

rhetorical organization as the loornl:a linear,hierarchical progression

native norms,and analyses presented are likely to fail to account forof thought evolving fron■ the Anglo‐ European cultural tradition(Ka―an internal(native speakers')point of view

Saville「 Froike(1993:9)

The practice of inferring that a different pattern reflects

plan,1966) Non linear patterns of any other cultures are thus likely

asserts,

to be considered to be deviants fronl the nOrm

different cultural values is of very questionable validity if it is done

Ethnocentric characterizations, o ftell stcn■ llning from unidilnen―

from an external point of viewv''

The ethnography of colllinuniCa―

sional, oversimplistic scales such as the degrees of directlless andtion requires colllnlunicative events to be interpreted within theindirectness,have readily evoked negative connotations of Japanesecontext of their host speech collllnunity rather than in the outsider's,

rhetoric(e.g, ̀̀indirect,''

and the validity of the interpretation is al、

circular,''

110n linear,'' ̀̀cirCumlocutory,''

beating around the bush'', ̀̀evasive,"

illll)licit,''vague'', ̀̀scat―vays exalllined by a native

point of view(Saville̲Troike&Johnson,1994)
The second problelll prevalent in contrastive rhetoric research istered,'' ̀̀paratactic,'' etc), and have stereotyped it as ̀ineffective'

Pvlolloover,the ultimate eth―the lack of sufficient accounts of intricate interplay bet、 veen thenocentrism or even a self― denigrating attitudc in studies of compara―

language and its context of use in the cultural lnatrix or in particular

tive rhetoric results in the folloM/ing cOncltisi()11()f̀rhetorical disabil―

discourse communities(Saville̲Troike & Johnson, 1994)The

ity'in」 apanese communication:

contrastive rhetoric research as a subset of text linguistics(van Dijk,

especially in argumentative discoursc

1988)has heavily been oriented to descriptions of textual structures
General problems[that statclncllts llladc by Japanese are notover context; supra― sentential linguistic structures are the prilnarycorrectly interpreted by foreigllers] lic ll()t()nly in the Jal)allese

domain Of inquiry,and its context of use secondary

language, but also in」apanese' ullskillftllll()ss ill Sp()alく illg thelanguage and foreign languages''(Chiino, 1993: 173; 1)al‐elltheses

lt follov/s thatsuch an analytical frameM7ork does not enable the researcher topenetrate the variables operating beyond the linguistic code,such as
the effects of particular rhetorical strategies on the audience,and theadded by the author)social psychological, interactive properties of texts constructed
And Chino's essay ends with the foHov/ing collcltisioll:

through the joint efforts by the rhetor and the audience
ill■

‑2‑

Wlost

portantly,the analytical framev″ ork of text linguistics is incapable‑3‑北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

4S物 のof accounting for why particular rhetorical strategies are more or″ ノ″ απω ο &不 笏 Sあ π FЮ 712 4π E′ 力″昭 名″ り″εοπ ″ %″ ′
ω 励 ″ &● ク′ε力 σGerbner(1985)charaCterizes mass media discourse as represent

less likely to be used in varied contexts of colllrnunication.

ing

An advantage of the ethnography of conlrllunication in thesecomprehensive cultural indicators''

The indicators ̀̀、 vill nottell us what individuals think or do. But they、 vill tell us what lllost

vhy"(p24)

respects is its potential to conduct a legitilnate analysis of language

people think or do something about and suggest reasons、

first and foremost as a socially situated cultural fornl,while recogn‐

Thus, a study of mass media discourse will to some degree touchizing the necessity to analyze the code itself and the cognitive process

knovringly shared M″ ays of selecting and vieⅥ ring events and aspectsof its speakers and hearers"(Saville′ rroike,1989:3) Its framev″ orkof life"(p15),and̀̀deals comprehensively,systematically,and gener‐of analysis puts the utmost emphasis on the functions of language inally rather than specifically and selectively or ad hoc wvith patterns of

the situational context and explanatory dilnensions of the observed

collective cultural life"(p18)Mass media discourse at some level

phenonlena(Saville̲Troikeぞ 壁」ohnson,1994)

reflects the speech community members' representational perspec‐ヽVithin this paradign■,

researchers are expected to extract a vast variety of infornlation

tives of value,priority,and relationships in social life,v/hile shaping

fronl the situational context, utilize it in conducting analyses, andtheir attitudes,tastes,and preferences

explain why a particular collllllunicative event is structured in partic‐

ular ways.

The resources that would make the analyses legitilnate

h71essages in adVertisements such as those in television commer‐
cials are also ̀̀oVerV″ hellningly persuasive in intent''(Rotzoll, 1985)

from an internal point of vie、 v should include information from

The primary goal the advertisers strive to achieve is to alter audience

cultural,social,and political settings as、 ハ″
ell as physical ones of the

behavior,levels of a、 ハ
/areness,knov″ ledge,and attitudes

Ⅳloreover,text produced; ̀unsaid' components of the text are regarded as

television colllrllercials present to us vivid, real data,、vhich comeparticularly significant units of analysis in the ethnography of conl

fronl the speech community members'live performance of language

munication approach(Tannen&Saville‐ 「rroike, 1985)

in the rich situational contexts

The present study explores a legitirnate comparative analysis of
the rhetoric of Japanese persuasion,based on those insights gainedfron■ the ethnography of corllll■

unication and situated in the context

of the」 apanese speech community

Because colllrllunicative signals other than the spoken and thewritten cOdes become highly interpretable fronl contextual informa‐tion in television colllrnercials,I assume that the holistic analysis of
the colllinunicative event will be feasible and will contribute to theinvestigation of、vhat is colnlnunicated beyond the text Or v″ hat is notdirectly observable through the linear sequence of the code, v″ hich

THE STUDY

text analysis alone generany fails to account forT7ε θπ″ιπ″な ぉ αRθ ″υαη′ι グ′グ ル んπα θπrη

For this investigation, I、″
ill analyze message structures inspeech implies,how visualimages interact v″ ith the codes,what theirヘmerican conl‐

COllllllunicative effects on the audience are,how significantly differ―

Television comnlercials are″
hat their integrated
ent modes of the linguistic code are used and、 ハJapanese television conllnercials, including those ofュlllercials for comparative purposes.

particularly selected as a relevant unit to rhetorical analysis offunctions are

persuasion on the basis of the follo、 ving assumptions―‑4‑―

Particular ques―

tions in this dilnension,for example,should ask、 vhat the absence of

sグ

‑5‑

北

星

論

集 (文 )第

4Sル の a1/Jψ α″ ο乃だ″ ο″FЮ ″ A″ E・ 7π 昭%″ り げ 働″″Z″ グ″あ″&ゅ ι
び
″υ
σ

36号

^′

Dα ″ αη″ ̲4π αク″ ′Fγαzι s̀αBoth the Japanese and the English data to be analyzed are
fifteen― minutelong sets of TV commercials The JapaneSe data

were on the air in Japan during 1990‑92
the air in the U S around 1992

The English data v√

data

The undesirable stateC) S01utiOn:

The desirable stated) Evaluation:

The evaluation of the outcome of thesuggested solution̲

ere onThe fifteen lllinutes contain forty‐

five collllllerCials in the Japanese data, thirty―b)Problem:

one in the Alllerican

II Persuasive 2へ ppealsa)Rational

Apparently, 2俎 merican collllnerCials tend to be much longer

appeaほthan Japanese coll1lnercials

ln collecting data,I restricted the type of commercials to thoseb) Credibilityon the necessities of life such as medicine,health care products,andthe likeappeals:

Arguments based on reality;argumenta―f轟ns
鳳翼lil蝿 ∫「‖:蹴 IttStrad°

The rhetor's personal experiences,knov√:lilel[よln those types of commercials,the advertiser's persuasive

intent seems relatively evident, in that the advertisers strive toc) Affective

appeakpersuade people M″ ho face solne problems to buy their products by

llt'and a、'淵

The use of concrete and charged lan‐tti緊

resorting to culturally appropriate rhetorical strategies

ittT聰「ご翼潔』』:濯:laphOrs

l have applied the data to an analytical frame integrating two

III Informal Logic

COlllpOnentsi textual analysis(ConnOrで %Lauer, 1988)and the ethno‐a)Claim:

An assertion,a thesis statement

graphy of colllinunication analysis of collllllunicative events(Saville^b) Data:

Experience, facts, statistics, or occur
rences in suppOrt for the clainl

Troike,1989:138‑57)
The first compOnent primarily aillls to conduct a conlparativec) Warrants:

analysis of textual aspects of the commercials to identify cross―Sho、 ving that the original clailll is an
apprOpriate and legitilnate one

cultural differences(and similarities)in the linguistic structures of

persuasion

1‐

ハ″areness of the(Conner and Lauer 1988:142‑146)

Connor and Lauer(1988), inveStigating cross― culturaldifferences in persuasive student v″ ritil〕 g,suggest a useful evaluative

The second colllponent of the analytical frame stems directly

lllodel for text analyses that consists of three distinctive dilllensions

from the ethnography of communicltiOn methodo10gy of communicaof the text:1)superstructure(ie.,the Organizational plan of the text),

tive events(Saville Troike,1989:107‑80) This paradiglll defines a2)the rhetOr's usage of persuasive appeals,and 3)the informal logic

variety of sub components of communication(Hymes,1972:5865)

of the text

The first three of the eleven conlponents are fixed in this study;ie,
1)the genre(or the type of event)is television comlnercial or adver―

I. Superstructurea) SituatiOn:

tisement;2)the topic(or the referential focus)is health care products;

Background facts and viev「 s intended forand 3)the purpose/function of the event(or the interaction goals)is

the orientation of the reader to the prob‐

persuasion

lem area‑6‑

The remaining eight colllponents are defined as follows(Saville Troike,1989:138‑57):

‑7‑

北

4) Setting:5) Key:星

集 (文 )第論36号

Participants:

7)Message Form:

7・

″Oπ

2〜 σε″υι

Location, tilne of day, season of year,

text and its context as a conllllunicative event from a holistic per―and physical aspects of the situation(eg,spective

size of roolln, arrangement of furniture,etc)tion of a solely text‐ based methodology

El■■otionalDATA ANALYSIS

tone of the event(e.g.,serious,

sarcastic,jocular,etc)
6)AS加 /.71び フ石ψ ′π ο &β Zる グοπ Fη ″ ■ π E′力″昭 名″ り rli O″ ″ ″ f

ill compensate for the lilllita―
l hope that this framework、 ハ″

including their age,sex,ethnicity,social

The results of data analysis indicate that there are three striking

status, other relevant categories, anddifferences bet、 veen 2へ merican and」 apanese conllnercials in terms of

their relationship、 ハ
rith one anotherpersuasive rhetorici superstructure,persuasive appeals,and the point―

Both vocal and nonvocal channels, andof‐ vie、

v operation.

Discussions for each follow in orderthe nature of the linguistic code v/hich is

used

SZψ θ
κ′
筋 θttπ″8) ⅣIessage content: ヽヽ
hat is being conllnunicated about in the9)Act Sequence:

structure are coordinated and focused in different v″

Ordering of communicative/speech acts,
including turn taking, overlap phenonl

tv″

ena,or other relevant incidents10)Rules forlnteraction:11)Norms Of
lnterpretation:

A textual analysis attests that the four components of super―

event.

rhat proprieties should be observed inヽヽ
the evento cultures

ays between the

The contrasts are captured as follo、 vsi

Components of42ι ″θ
αηttα πasθSuperstructure
Situationi

Problem:
The conllllon knov′ ledge, the relevant

Solution:cultural presuppositions,or shared under―vhich aHoM″ particular infer‐
standings, 、

Evaluation:ences to be drawn about what is to betaken literaHy,what discounted,etc

In 2へ merican coll1lnercials,all the four components are rather clearlyrecognized(*****)frOn■
Above all,the norms of interpretation(ie,the belief system of acommunity"about communication)(Hymes,1972a:58)are the fOcal
component that allov/s us to ̀explain' v′

hy particular rhetoricalstrategies are preferred or dispreferred in varied context of thecommunicative event.
This multi‐ dilnensional frame for data analysis is supposed tothe text

a rigid rhetorical unit shared by lnost of the colllinercials in the data

Problems and solutions are given equal M″ eight, and become thecenter in the scope of the audience attention

Japanese commercials,

on the other hand,do nOt clearly identify the four cOmponents.

Theygenerally lacks the first(― ―――――),and the second is often missing([****])

take better account of interactive and constitutive dilllensions of the‑8‑ノヘbove all,the progression,thatthe problems are set and the solutions are then presented,seems to be‑9‑

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

AS加 の グ jの αηωι&答 ″αsあ ″F/aπ 4″ E″ π 拓ε″り げ O″ ″″″′ 励π&ゅ θ

rlllσFirst,、 ve discuss some 2へ merican exalnples(Note: The remaining components are integrated into thediscussions that foHovr)

42ι ″θαη ttQ22ψ 診 ヱ (A‐ 1)

Sa's first statement presents her problematic situation(

WRITTEN

SpokenS― a:is every、 vhere'')and particular problems(

it[stress]a headache.… and stomach

In nly v/orld̲it's every、 /here

gets upset'')Her last statement concludes the story,referring to theStress gives me a headache,and

solution brought by that particular medicine

sometilnes my stomach gets up―
set

I'nl just relieved
4777θ ″

There's TYLENOL HEAD―
ACHE PLUS
S―

S‐

b:New Tylenol Headache plus

π Eκα7″ た 2(A‐ 2)

SpokenTYLENOL AND ANTACIDS‐

a:You say your eyes are red,

The first lnedicine with Tylenol

irritated,dry

pain

Don't hide themrelieverfOr

stresslVRITTEN

headaches plus antacid for stoln

Help them with Clear Eyes

ach upset

lt gets rid Of the redness

CLEAR EYES

a:It can't take the stress out of rny

life,butit can help my head and

The ethnography of conllnunication components of this advertise‐stolllach feel better

ment are as foHoMrsi―TOPIC:An eye medicine

The ethnography of conlmunication components of this advertise‐―SETTING:Wedding

ment are as fonov/s:―KEY:Serious‐T()PIC:2へ medicine for stress headache and stonlachache―PARTICIPANTS:A bride hiding her eyes with sunglasses;a―SETTING:The actress tells a story at her homebridegr00111;and a pastor;an invisible narrator(S― a).

―KEY:Serious―PARTICIPANTS:A middle‐ aged woman(S‐ a)as an actor―ⅣIESSAGE FORh/1:The spoken code is predominantly used;
only the narrator(S― a)speaks

and an invisible male narrator(S‐ b).

―ACT SEQUENCE:S― a's mOn01ogue speaking to the bride―NIESSAGE FOR1/1:Predominantly the spoken code is used;(and the viewer).

S‐

a uses the informal register;S‐ b uses the catch‐ phrase regis‐ter(ie.,Only noun phrases in isolation)(Note: The remaining compOnents are integrated into thediscussions that follow)‐ACT SEQUENCEi S― a sets the scene,and introduces her

problems and the target item
itelll and its effects

S‐ b repeats the name of the

S‐ a reinforces the solution brought by theltelllEven in this short commercial, the problenl solution unit is rigidly

maintained

After the particular problems (red, irritated, dryeyes'')are presented,the solution is presented by the prOduct.

‑10‑

‑11‑

Here

g名 ″の グ ε″グ 励″2,ψ ιι″υοAS加 の グ ノ″α″ οル答παsあ πF7/771A″ E′ み″οο ″ク

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

77・

again,it is the principal concern that the product itself is the very
agent of solving the problem」apanese cOmmercials,on the other hand,display different char―acteristics in superstructure.

First of all,the situation component is

not generally set up to introduce some problems

This perhaps

partly explains why」 apanese commercials are made short(with theaverage length being 15 seconds) Secondly,unlike 2へ merican colll
mercials,the problem― solution sequence does not seelll to be a signifi

cant unit in the communicative event

Particular problems are notthematized"(ie,given greater prominence than others)(BrOwn&
Yule, 1983: 134)

The presentation of the problems is rather in the

background"of staging in the discourse,and the central focus of theaudience attention seems to be given to the solution: the desirable
state is established in theforeground of consciousness" of theaudience(Brown& Yule, 1983: 135) Third, the problem solver,which should be the commercial product itself according to theS― b: I石

りカグI石 りοοοοο00Sカ グ
̲R‐(̀Right YOU ARE RIGHT!')
″ わ ο
π力α
Sc:Eπ sα π ろ%κ 777ク カιたたカグ
η
ガzο ι
カグ
グ
π″ga αη″ πο″ο
,カ ルα
sカ

sπ

〃Eκ r

S″ r/EAK/4 RfZOε 〃′

Jノlイ

Ir、

υ

HAIG00グπο /7ο π772α 力笏 ηグscノ οοπο グ 笏πα s力 θ″οο πグ

καz′

EⅣSAN Bι「RO〃 υ"グ《Mixture Of H― A― B and RC')

π′
グ
ル″グ
παsπ
わ たグ

(̀HydrOchloric acid bromhekisin
and ryzoteam chloride v/ork forsore throat
mucosaeand bronchial

They v/in v/。 rk for other cold

symptOms')
S‐ a/S‐ b:

11,力 α′″ πιttα 777ιπθ

KAZ AttO Sび O SπOtt00

1/γθ
η
ραみ

7VO KAArTT̲4 AY(̀Good,wasn't itP

P̲4Bι Rθ Ar ESυ

.

[Taking]Pablon earlier(̀Relieving a variety of cold

[than necessary]')symptoms')

purpose of this colllllluniCative event fronl the advertiser's point ofvievら

tends to be presented in rather oblique ways

Here are some
The ethnography of conllnunication components of this advertise―iHustrations

ment are as follo、 vs:―TOPIC:A llledicine for cold

渤 α%θ Sι &α 7″ ル IC‐ 1)

WRITTEN

SpokenS―

a: Mα 22zα O力 αyο οノS―b:Nαοオ惚 πOP‐1【 EY:Casual,pleasant,very happy and refreshing―PARTICIPANTS:Mother(Sb);her daughter(S― a);an invis―(̀IVIom,good morning')

S― a:ible male narrator(S― c).

(Are you OK,nowP')―n/1ESSAGE FORNI:Both the spoken and written codes are

ιrη タ

used

S‐ b and S‐ a talk in the infornlal register;S― c uses theformal register.

(̀YeahりSb:κ α2ι ηαο′″ πO″ απ ″ο ο々昭 CP(̀Thanks tO whom,your cold has
been curedP')
S―‐SETTING:Home%θ η22ι α
777α η
0 0カ 昭 0″ οsク
a: Moεカグ(̀Of course,thanks to mom)P̲4BιRO′「、 AttO ЭKAGE(̀Thanks tO Pabron')

一‑12‑――ACT SEQUENCE:S― b and S― a talk casually about S‐ a'scondition in the morning at their home;S― c formally explains
the medicine S‐ b and S‐ a reinforce the positive aspects of the

medicine

No overlap takes place‑13‑

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号‐
lSル の 〆 ν″ωθ&β ″
πFη tt A″ E′力
πttzψ り び の″″ク″′ 励″ル恣″ι
″υ
ο
ぉグ
ο
のα

(Note: The remaining components are integrated into thediscussions that follow)

7770た 0777α ォ
協 わカグπグω/7カ 00%α カ

κOORAκ κυ'θカz

In contrast to ho、 v the problems are presented in the Anlerican(̀But,when(you)are still in trou―counterparts(̀stress'in Al;̀eye problems'in A2),the prOblem(̀cold')

ble,K00RAKKU)
4w ο∂の α力απα οお″is ̀embedded' in this colllinunicative event rather than given athematic focus in the course of discourse

The text does not explicit‐

ly present any details about the problelll(̀cold')from which S― a

434 0DAン つ4KANA Orび ]■■

z//グ

̲

(̀For regular passages every(̀For regular passages every

morning')morning')

KOЭRAKκ υ

appears to have suffered
Both S― b and S‐ a look very pleased with the fact that S― a's cold

has been cured by the medicine
t、

lt is the pleasant atmosphere thevo actresses create M″ hich most strongly impresses the audience as

The ethnography of colllinunication components of this advertise―ment are as follows:

the foregrounding component of this particular colllinercial‐TOPIC:A medicine for constipation.

Through the message content focused on the pleasant consequence‐SI〕 TTINCT:ヽ た
ariOus scenes frona the actress's outd00r activ―

rather than on the excellence of medicine as the problem― s01ver,thekey'' component of this particular colllinunicative event plays thecentral role in exercising strong communicative effects on the audi
ence:alllicable images of the product created through pleasant,jolly
atmosphere in a stable,suburban llliddle‐

class home environment

ities.

‐KEY:Active,light,happy‐PARTICIPANTS:A young working woman(Sa)in her 20s、
vho looks very active.
―NIESSAGE FORⅣ IS:The spoken code is used relatively morethan the written code

S― a casually speaks in both the infor‐
mal register and with the catch‐ phrase register. The written2ψ ′ι2(J2)′ψακ ιEχα夕

WRITTEN

SpokenSa:フ レb′ αsカ グ″α ιο′
αι ″″たグψノπノηιグθ
s1/(̀I deal v7ith constipation in apositive lnanner')code reinforces the information she presents―ACT SEQUENCE:Only S a talks(Note: The remaining components are integrated into thediscussions that follow.)Kαttα /7 /7 %gO力 αSカ グル, 夕αsα グ ο「ι″…
″ρα″ わノAgain in this text,the situation and the concrete problem (̀constipa‐(Doing exercise,eating a lot oftion')are not explicitly thematized The focus of the communicative
event is predolninantly on her positive attitudes to、 vards the problem

vegetables )(eg,thrOugh the scenes of various outdoor activities and diet)that isembedded in the story,and the consequent delightful state of accom‐
plishment and success is reinforced by the lively key colllpOnent of
the event―‑14‑―The medicine per se is presented as a subsidiary item or
―‑15‑

北 星

論

集 (文 )第ASル の グ ν
″ ιルバ%Sあ πFЮ 717 4π E′ 力
π昭%ψ /11げ Cο 277・ Zπ 滋あπ&″ ι
σ
力ο
のα

36号

a secondary alternative(v″ hich should be considered in case those
exercises and diet did not work)rather than the problem‐42ι ″ 2E‰ α夕″ ″ θ (A‐ 3)S―

that the advertiser's real intent can be masked̲
Pa熔 ″ sグυιι
ウ
θ
α′
S
り
ρ
′

WRITTEN

Spokensolver, so

dage you use,if you want those

BANDAGE ALONE BANDAGE AND NEOSPORIN

cuts to heal

(Dramatization)

a: No matter which kind of ban‐faster,use

NEOSPORIN every time you

̀沈

The solutions presented must be evaluated in a fair and compre―

bandagehensible fashion for the audience and eventuaHy be given soundTesting shows Neosporin helps

iuStifiCations in order for the persuasion to be successful.

cuts heal faster

The

Four days fas‐rhetor's presentation of evaluation of the product is a very crucial

ter than bandage alone

phase of persuasive discourse, and the ways of presenting it musthelps preventing infection

conforn■ to the audience's native rhetorical norms̲

And itIn the evaluation

component of the superstructure,the rhetors fronl the two cultures
are found to resort to different types of persuasive appeals

While itseems that in both cultures,the rhetor's evaluation is ailned to reach

So whatever bandage you use,
use Neosporin

make it better and fasterAnd for fast healing, plus paina high level of credibility or M/arrants for the collllllercial items,therelief, try maxirnunl strength

resources on M/hich the advertiser's evaluation is based seem to be

NEOSPORIN PLUS

cross‐ culturally quite contrastive̲

MAKE IT BETTER FASTER

Together, they

The following is a schematic

representation of the evaluative procedures in each culture:
The ethnography of colrlinunication components of this advertise―lllent are as follows:

Data for Evaluation

4協 ιπιαπ

statistics;scientific evidence;―authority(Rational Appeals)
渤

απθSι

user's opinions; experiences;
1lnages;llllpresslons>

Credibility/

Warrants‐TOPIC:ⅣIedical ointment for cuts.
‐SET「 FING: Scenes frOm someone's home and the outdoors.
‐KEY:Formal,serious,scientific.

>

Credibility/

Warrants(Affective Appeals)‐PARTICIPANTS:An invisible male narrator(Sa);many

people who show their cuts and demonstrate how to use themediclne‐}/1ESSAGE FORⅣ IS:The spoken code is a dominant medium,In 2へ merican colllrllercials,data for evaluation are likely to be objec‐

tive evidence such as statistical figures,scientific proof,authority's

opinions, etc

lt seems that such rational appeals are taken as

but the written message is also used as reinforcellDent
speech is made in the formal register.

The‐ACT SEQUENCE:S‐ a is the only speakerappropriate strategies to affect the audience's views and attitudes(Note: The remaining components are integrated into theConsider,for example,this colllinerCial for an antibacterial agent

discusslons that fonov/.)―‑16‑――‑17‑―北 星

論

集 (文 )第

36号

ι
″υ
ο
A Sttr/1び メ
ηFЮ ″ 4″ E′ 力
πぼ%ω り 〆 0770%″ ・ 励″&ゅ σ″ゐο&冬 z^グ οψα7・̲42ι ″θαπ 2θ 7″ カ イ (A‑4)

WRITTEN
DOCTORS RECONIMEND
DIAL

SpokenS‐ a:ノヽntibacterial soap

doctors recommend mOre thanoften deternlined by its superiority to any other product of the samekind,、 vhich is iudged by obieCtive criteria such as scientific evidence,statistical figures,authoritative opinions,and direct comparisons.

In Japanese colllinerCials, on the other hand, the evaluation

any otherfocuses largely on the user's subieCtiVe opinions or experiences about

the commercialized item.

Aren't you glad you use Dial

2生 ffective appeals to evoke emotion in theaudience seelll to take priority over rational appeals

The ethnography of corlllllunication components of this advertise―ment are as follows:

appeals are occasionaHy seen, they are consistently situated in the
backgrOunding domain of the collllllunicative event‐SETTING:No setting;only one soap appears on the screen‐KEY:Formal‐PARTICIPANTS:An invisible male narrator(S‐a)‐NIESSAGE FORⅣ IS:Both the spoken and the written codes

are used,but the latter is still supplementary

SEQUENCE:S‐ a explains(Note: The remaining components are integrated into theof the commercials

Here are some illustrations

夕″Sι Eχαルψαηιψル θ (」 3)
ヽ
VRITTEN

SpokenS―

a: Hαηα ποg%α グ,,zθ ″αグ
ι7/ο sα 777α ′
″
たノ
′
α力ιグο
,

《AlthOugh my nose has become
better,discussions that follow)
yαs%々 。gα

グ
グsカ グ

Nαsι

,

̀sカ

In A‐ 3,it is evident that scientific evidence(̀testing shoⅥ ″s,'̀prevent‐(Yasuko is kind to me,so )ing infection')and statistical figures(̀four days faster')constitute amajor,foregrounding aspect of this particular collllllunicative event

The dramatization of colllparing the healing effects also strengthens

the credibility of the medicine.

Moο s%力 οsカ グ々αzι ″θzllο O¨(̀I've decided to stay in bed withthis cold a little longer)

In A4, the appeal to authority(̀Doctors recommend')is also strategic,reinforced by the use of thewritten message(DOCTORS RECOMMEND DIAL')
As discussed earlier, the progression from the problem to thesolution tends to be highlighted in the superstructure of´ irnericancommercials

The appeals tothe audience's emotion are foregrounded,constituting lnajor portions‐TOPICi Soap

‐ACT

ア
ヽ
hen rationalヽ

Because of this emphasis on the product's ability tosolve problems and make situations better,it also seems quite conlmon in American commercials that the values of the product are
―‑18‑

―‑19‑

北

Sο ,1272グ

夕
s力 ′
彪′
zο

星

論

集 (文 )第

ろ
ハ
Rこ し
ご
υ ωα」
ο力z
ソ

gttψ の び Cο πππ
4Sルの グル′απ″οπ滋あ″&ゅ ′εttο
ω′&答笏Sわ πFゎ ″ 4%E′ 力36号

OS〃0‐ Sπ Oの り0入り「
K̲4」 笙グ′、

4夕 笏π οゐz ωα グ″πグπο777ο あ あ
Sb:♪ 、カグ
カz

KANWAハ Y

お%″ωα″ O ααι2,zι らクった力%(̀RURU works really well,(̀For relieving a variety of cold

《NARON

doesn't itP)

synnptoms')

243ι ttυ BROKκ υ(̀Double block')

ACE blocks bothpains and their aggravation')Rι ttσ

Sa:F%′ ′οたカルカπ ηο

030A44 Zκし4f θ J00 1CHIN■―
3HI θ κ 41

S―

̀(「

rhe pain)instantly disappears'

c: Z物 な%% πグ 2α γ
οπ ιι
S%
7・

(̀Adults 3 capsules at a time;3(̀NARON ACE for headaches'tiines a day')[in singing voice])

The ethnography of colnlnunication components of this advertise―

The ethnography of colllrllunication components of this advertise‐ment are as follows:

ment are as foHows:―TOPIC:A medicine for cold

―TOPIC:A medicine for headache―SETTING:Someone's home;a man(Sa)stays in bed with‐SETTING:Someone's kitchen;a woman(Sa)is preparing

cold; a Ⅵ″
oman feeds him with a spoon

for a meal,but does not feel well

The calnera is the

viewpoint of the lnan watching the woman, so the man does
not appear―KEY:Serious,but informal‐KEYi Casual,friendly.

tor(S― b);female chorus grOup(S― c)― PARTICIPANTS:A

sick man in bed;a woman named

YASUK0―ⅣlESSAGE FORⅣ IS:The spoken code is a dominant medium.
vhereas S― b uses the formal
a uses the informal register, 、S―‑ⅣIESSAGE FORⅣ IS:Both the spoken and the written codes

are used,but the former plays a central role and the latter isstill supplementary―ACT SEQUENCE:Only S‐ a talks.
4)ルψακωιEχα ψカ イ (」 ‐registerS̲c calls the name of the medicine in singing―ACT SEQUENCE:S‐ a expresses her bad feeling S― b pro―vides technical information S‐ a expresses her happy feeling、vhich has been brought by the medicine

The characters'expressions of affection and intilnacy with his、 vife

7″

WRITTEN

SpokenS――PARTICIPANTS:A housewife(Sa);an invisible male narra‐

a: Nαπ力α 力αたα″οπzα ′%ρ 夕Oπ ιι(in J3)and relief from the pain(in」 4)greatly COntribute to the current

alllicable consequence that has been realized by the products(̀I wonder why this has madelittle prOgress')

Espe―cially in J‐ 4,the homemaker's final statement of relief and happiness(̀[The pain] instantly disappears')works quite effectively in con‐trast to the preceding undesirable state,v″ hich is again represented interms of the character's unpleasant feelings rather than being―‑20‑―‑21‑

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

A S177の tF」 ψα″ωσ&パ クαsあ ″F7a″ A″ E励 ″昭名″妙 げ

explicitly verbalized(̀I、 ハ
hy this has made little progress')/onder、ハ″S‐ b:The users' favorable experiences and opinions create g00d

ぐLiize Protection Against Dry

with rational information contribute to the audience's empathy with

Loose Hair)

Ordinary

2へ n evaluation from apeer's point of vievr is highly esteemed over scientific evidence frOm̀Rグ ルι´αSα おπ
カグろ00sカ グヵ οπ%

The users'direct testimonies along v″ ith affective appeals rather thanpeople's consensus seems highly valuable̲

Neι ι
,多
α;∂α πグ″,̀ι ο7/(̀While sleeping, your hair getsmoisturized')

ilnages and impressions of the product on the part of the audience.

the users and lead to their acceptance of the productπttZπ ′ 力″P/・ ″
σ
ttσ
ψσ

S‐ a:

イI P̲4S4雰 し1
4S4 AttO K14ン ル

Asα ηο 力α222グ ´αsα な%力 απαノ
(̀T̀our hair doesn't get dry in themorning')some authority

KANAf《YOUR HAIR DOESN'T GETDRY IN THE MORNING̀)The dolllinant focus on the construction of g00d illlages andilllpressions through affective appeals in Japanese conllnercials isrepresented by the repetitive use of the catch‐ phrase register

The ethnography of collllllunication components of this advertise―

Written catch― phrases with vocal superilnposing repetitively appears

ment are as follov″ s:on the screen, emphasizing the name of the product and its good

―TOPIC:A hair conditioner

properties,and the solutions or effects brought by the product‐SETTING:S― a's bathroom,and a walk on the street.

Forthis specific purpose,the v″ ritten code is much more actively used in‐KEY:Casual

Japanese cOlnmercials than in American commercials Here is some―PARTICIPANTS:A young woman(S‐ a)is washing her hair,and feels good̲ S‐ a,with shiny,good‑looking hair,walks on
2へ n invisible male narrator(S‐ b)Simply repeats theillustration:

the street

catch― phrases

工ψα17ι Sι 亜弦α7%炒 ″ 5(」 ‑5)

VRITTENヽ

Spoken
Sa:S力 α2%ψ zZ S/2グ ″ ″πsa sカ グ
″7z7,

SHAノ イPυ υ(̀Shampoo and rinse,then .')S″ 裂 ] RNSυS層 ■4Pノ 1

messages(̀SHAMP00 AND RIN SE,―ACT SEQUENCE: S‐ a demOnstrates the product at her
bathroolll, repeating the catch― phrases S― b also ioins s̲a,repeating the identical phrases

THEN')
2グ ルιρ
αSα おクカグιθOsカ グヵ ο夕
,2″

ι〃Z9

Liize Protection Against Dry
Loose Hair')(ζF00ン ルイびRグ ルιραSα おZカ グι
Oο sカ グヵ οπZ

(̀LHZE PROTECTIONAGAINST DRY L00SE HAIR')ι〃,3 P̲484雰 ιttrr βOosⅢ(̀Liize Protection Against Dry
Loose Hair')―‑22‑――A/1ESSAGE FORA/1S:Both the spoken and written cOdes are
repetitively used; the catch― phrases overlap with the spoken

24847Sι 'KI BOOS班

F00ユ イυ(̀LHZE PROTECTIONAGAINST DRY L00SE HAIRりHere are some other examples for the catch‐phrase register and its

repetitive usage:a.New Elegance

Elegance,Yes.

b…Containing Fragile Granulesc

For Shiny Hair With No Damage̲―‑23‑一Clear Clean.

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

4 SttrJl〆 「
π
α
ω′&β″
Sわ ″FηυψαdNewly Developed Superrich New Superrich̲ Care of
Damage of Every Single Hair. Lax SuperrichｅPowerfulヽ Vashing. Powerful Rinsingｆ．

A Day Without Damaged Hairg ψり び ε
ス″E′力
″
ππα
″″″ο
π&ゅ ′
ι
″υ
θ
ο
ο

participant framework typical of 2ヽ merican colllinercials:

NeM/Surf II

American:Rhetor― Centered

What The Shampoo

Gave Ⅳre. Beautiful Hair Since(one)ヽ Vashes With The
Shampoo V0 5 Shampoo and Conditioner for Damaged

′P

Hair

R///////考The corrlrnunicative effects that this particular strategy rnay produce(Foregrounding)is the reinforcement of good images and illlpressions on the product

The rhetor repeatedly emphasizes the names and good properties ofthe product,using catch― phrases rather thaǹexplaining'the qualityof the product to the audience in an expository manner.

For the rhetor(R),the prOduct(P)iS the entity to be advertisedTherhetor is consistent in that position and tends to refer directly to the

product's quality, explains its characteristics, and points out its

T/3aクθグ
グ つたυグιltl θ
ρθzri9κ
The final note、 vorthy difference betv″ een Japanese andノ ヘmerican

superiority to any other similar products

As far as the audience(2へcommercials concerns the strategic manipulation of ̀̀audience

is concerned,it is always made clear that the product is the entity todesign" by the rhetor(Ben, 1984) For effective persuasion, eachbèexplained'by the rhetor

culture seems to exp10it its owvn unique systelll of participant frame‐

the side of the persuader(or the advertiser), whereas the audience

The rhetor's position is consistently on、
vork, in which the relative stance of the rhetor tO the audienceinvariably remains on the persuadee's side

manifests itself quite distinctively but in comparatively quite intrigu‐

rhetor hirnself or herself who plays a major role in advertising theing waysitenl in the foregrounding domain Of the corllinunicative event.

The varied stance of the rhetor is indicated by the rhetor's

The rhetor's spe‐ln addition, it is the

In Arnerican commercials,certain linguistic characteristics con‐choice of style and lnode of the linguistic code,and also by particularsyntactic choices and communicative strategies)

tribute to such patterns of point― of― view operations

The spoken

cific stance also contributes to the establishmcnt Of certain social

code is a predolllinant rnediulll、 vhen the rhetor presents the productrelationships betv″ een the rhetor and the audience in the、 vay that theto the audience.As seen in A‐ 2(e.g"̀Dont hide them,'̀Help them

illocutionary force of persuasion becomes more effectivewith Clear Eyes')and A‐ 3(eg"̀Use NEOSPORIN,'̀Try maximumFirst,the rhetorical structure ofン ヘmerican cOnlmercials can bestrength '), directives are very coll11■ Only used, which reflects thecharacterized as being̀rhetor― centered,'in that the rhetor's partici―

persuader's straightfor、 vard approach to the audiencepant stance in relation to the audience is consistent in making direct

code, on the other hand, seems supplementary, playing a minimum

persuasive appeals and constitutes the very core of this colllinunica‐

role

tive event.

/1edge(eg,name of the product,price,phone number,scien―
cal kno、 ハ

The following schematic representation depicts thelt is mostly used to reinforce technical information and practi‐

tific descriptions,etc)along with the spoken messages―‑24‑―

The、 vritten

一‑25‑―北星論

集 (文 )第36号

g名 の/111げ O″ ″πttι
π′ 励″27ψ οσAS劫 の び フ″ο &る ″αsあ πFra177ス πEl17π οのαSσThe rhetorical structure of persuasion in Japanese commercials,
on the other hand,is characterized as being̀audience― oriented':rather than an active agent(R2)of experiencing the product̲

Rhetorl's task of providing technical information and practical knOwledge
for the audience corresponds、 vith that of the rhetor in the Arnerican」apanese:Audience― Orlented

participant framework

The relative stance,however,is maintainedin the backgrounding domain in relation to the stancc of the audience――together with Rhetor 2‑― who participate、 vithin the foregroundヽ江

domaln.
A clear distinction between the foregrounding and backgrOund‐ing domains is consistently made in the Japanese participant frame‐v″

ork through this kind of point‐of―view operationithe former domain

is created for Rhetor 2 to take care of the folk‐level awareness andperceptions of the product in profitable v″ ays, whereas the latterdomain is maintained for the advertiser(Rhetor l)to suppOrt Rhetor
2 in lnoderation
Stylistic alternations are found to M″ ork as a strategic̀̀staging(BackgrOundingl(ForegroundinJ

device"(Brown&Yule,1983)to determine the rhetors'relative
positions in Japanese commercials

ln general,there are two types

Two different kinds of rhetor positions are characteristically estab‐of styles in Japanese: distal style (polite, hOnorific, out‐ group―

lished in」 apanese colllinercials

encoding)predicates, and direct style (Casual, intilnate, in‐ group―of―

As a culturally appropriate point‐

view operation,the original rhetor(Rl)shifts his or her point of

encoding)predicatesI)istal style indicates thatthe speaker isview into the side of the audienceり ,and shares good experiences

sho、ving solicitude toward,and maintaining some linguistic distanceand opinions about the product(P),and ellloys the current desirable

from,the addressee"(Jorden&Noda,1987)This style,then,charconsequence as a co‐ rnember of the user group(R2).

acterizes the speaker as being less direct and more formal with a sign

The prOduct isevaluated and praised from the user's standpoint rather than theof deference to the person(s)addressed and/or the tOpic of conversa―

advertiser's(Rl).The pleasant atmosphere,which is created bytion

Rhetor 2's providing positive testimonies about the product,contrib―

directly,utes to the establishment of good images and impressions of theaddressee(s)and/Or about the topic(Jorden gと Noda, 1987). It is

product

Froln the vie、 ver's point of vie、 ハ
ら it is Rhetor 2 rather than

Rhetor l who constitutes the foregrounding phase of the collllller―
cials,receiving the center of the audience's attention

Rhetor l(eg, the narrator/the advertiser), on the Other hand,remains consistently in thèbackstage'as a provider of information―‑26‑―

I)irect style, on the other hand, anows the speaker to talkintirnately, familiarly,

abruptly or carelessly to theobserved that Rhetor 2 typically uses a direct style, establishing‐
1, J‑3, andrapport and intirnacy with the audience as a peer(see」
J‐4),v″ hereas Rhetor l,who is often an invisible narratOr addressing

frolll the backstage with technical information about the product,ismore likely to use a distal style, establishing formal relationships―‑27‑一北星論

集 (文 )第

ttψ α
θ
″υ
ο
πは名
″ 励π&ゅ θ
A Sttdll〆 υποSυ ル7̲q″ ゐグοηFЮ ″ 4π E′ 力
″り 〆 働ππ″36号

with the audience(see J‐ 1) Gumperz(1982)calls the former type ofstrategic manipulation in particular ̀̀llletaphorical'' style‐shifting,

which produces special connotations and illocutionary effects of theact on the addressee

lnforlnal,casual,and intimate style allo、

vs thespeaker(Rhetor 2)to metaphoricany place hilll or herself on theaudience's level and obtain agreement and empathy frolll therll as hisor her peers

desire(N/1atsuyama,1983) It rnay be that this emphasis contributes

to a rhetorical organization in which aggressiveness and goal‐
oriented behaviors are greatly discouraged,though further penetra‐tion into such an interpretation is certainly needed
Japanese culture is also often portrayed as a proto‐ typical̀̀nega―tive polite'' culture where ilnposing cOmmunicative behaviors onothers are highly abhorred(Brown& Levinson, 1987).

It is likelythat the Alalerican rhetor's emphasis on causal col■ Junctions imposeson thc audience his or her own view and demands agreement fromDiSCUSS10N AND CONCLUS10N

thcnl, which violates interactive norlns in」

A great deal of comparative research on cross‐ cultural differ―ences in comnlunicative events has thus far pointed out that various
components of the cOlllinunicative events are manipulated variably

according to the norms of the speech community to
speaker belongs.

Thè̀frame,''which defines、、
vhich the″hich components aremeaningful and in、 ハ
rhat ways they interact 、vith one another in asingle conllnunicative event,is deterlllined differentially across par―ticular speech communities or cultures(Saville Troike,1989)The
outcome of this prelinlinary investigation has also revealed that there
is a v″ ide variety of discrepancies in the frallling of the colllinuniCa‐tive event of persuasion between American and Japanese cultures
2へ

n ethnOgraphy of colllnlunication perspective suggests relativis‐

tic interpretations of phenomena frolll an internal(native speakers')
point of view.

rithout that perspective,Japanese persuasive rheto‐ヽヽ

ric is often perceived as ill‐ structured or illogical because of theabsence of the Japanese rhetor's explicit presentation of problellls
and the lack of focus on the progression fronl problen■

to solution(interms of American norms of persuasive rhetoric)An ethnographyof communication perspective,hoM″

ever,identifies the identical phe―nomenon as culturally appropriate or unmarked on the basis of somebehavioral norms deeply rooted in the Buddhist tradition in Japaneseculture,for example,which includes an cmphasis on the exclusion of―‑28‑―

apanese cultureThus,

the insignificance of̀cause'(̀problenポ )can be interpreted differently

once v/e go beyond the organization of the text per se and seek
ans、 vers from the cultura1/situational context

The lack of thecause‐ and― effect structure from this more relativistic perspective

does not necessarily indicatèineffectiveness'or a deficit in」

persuasive rhetoric from the internal point of view.

apaneSe

Rather, it

reflects the native speaker's conllnunicative competence operating
Ⅵ″
ithin the cultural matrix

The present analysis also illustrates that the Japanese rhetor's
affective appeals are highly esteemed over rational evidence.

The

construction of good ilnages and ilnpressions of the product inquestion is the core facet of the persuasive strategy;repetition andredundancy of information also seenl to be frequent rhetorical strat―egies to reinforce such communicative effects
Referring particularly to Chinese and Japanese cultures,Becker(1986)tries to define the concept of̀truth'as being̀̀not propositional

but humanly embodied''(p79).

He argues that Japan's historicalsituation of̀̀close― knit densely populated village societies''has for―med people's vie、 v of social harmony as more essential thaǹ̀precision" or ̀̀scientific experilnentation"(p80) ̀Truth' is then drav″ nfroln a quality of humanity,not frorll the accuracy of propositions orlogicality alone; in Other words, truth is defined in terms of folk―‑29‑―

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

consensus rather than absolute scientific truthlπ E肋 ″
ASル の グ ルψα″おιルおπαsあ ″F711π ‐鋸拓ψ

lt folloM/s that stron―ご″υθ
げ 6″ 71″ ″たαあπ■ ■ σof lnanipulating both types of codes according to tasks and settings

ger appeals in」 apanese persuasive rhetoric tend to consist in thisthey facesociocultural value of ̀truthhood' derived from general agreenlent

Japanese persuasion enables us to investigate socio‐and harmOny rather than in absolutècorrectness'based on indepen―

why the restricted code is preferred or Ought to be used for certain

dent obiective evidence

iHocutionary effects

ln Japanese persuasive rhetoric, the rhetor also characteristi
cally rnerges into the position of the audience,does̀staging'in v/hich

The ethnography of colllinuniCation approach toヽVithout that relativistic

cultural reasons

perspective,

researchers are very likely to overlook the Japanese rhetor's ability
to use a restricted code to achieve elaborate colllmunicative effects

he or she experiences the product and speaks frOlll the peer
audience's point of vie、 v,and creates a rapport to obtain their empa―

thy (ie, the point― of― vie、 v operation) Japanese coll■ municative
style,v/hich is acquired through the processes of children's socializa‐

tion, is characterized as relying heavily on mutual cooperation andempathy among the conversants(Clancy,1986)Communicative
effectiveness is largcly deternlined by the listener's ability to infer、vhat is llleant by the speaker rather than by the speaker's skillful,eloquent presentation of ideas (Hinds, 1987i Shibatani, 1991)

REFERENCES
Becker,C B (1986) Reasons for the lack of argumentation and del)ate
グ物″κπ′″η′P′ ″′
ο″s,in the Far East ttrc・ ″ α οηα′ヵ π772α ′ぼ 」
/ブ

10: 75‑92

Bell, A (1984) Lallguage style as audience design
Sο σ
″l・

Bernstein, Basil (1961) Social structure, language and learning/7/プ 。
na″ σ″α′Rσ s∂ α′
τ力3:163‑176(1972) Social Class,language and socialization

Japanese are also said to prefer indirect,suggestive intuition to exact

oral explanations (Becker, 1986) The point̲of― viev「 operation
unique to Japanese rhetoric Of persuasion clearly attests these traitsof the culturaHy appropriate collllnunicative competence

The key

to success in Japanese persuasion seems to lie in the rhetor's role notin persuading people in a straightforward, eloquent manner but inproviding the frame where sollle vague,reserved intent Of the rhetor
is left for the addressee tòfeel' or nlake iudgnlents themselves

Text analysis alone may result in 」apanese rhetoric's beingt‐

IIarnlonds,vorth,England:Penguin Books pp 157‑178
ttα お ルグηグυθた″′∬I SOπ ι ι′
Brown, P, & Le宙 nson, S (1987) Pθ ′

ια′
2gマィ
喀 θ Jsはじ Cambridge:Canlbridge University Press

Brown,G,&Yule,G (1983)のおεοZパ ι̲4″ αかsた Cambridgei Cam‐bridge University Press

Chino,T (1993) Kotoage senu kuni no kotoba:NihOngo to settoku 1lo
retorikku (̀The language of a country blessed by li/ord― spirits:
イ″/7′ q′ ′力σ」apanese and the rhetoric of persuasion) Tみ θ/1″ ′;2g̀̀ノ Fο た低″ Lα ″g%α ョタ
s,6:172‑182
Cο ノ

more

versity

deficits(Bernstein,1961,1972)
such an interpretation「e must,however,be cautious withヽThose codes might simply capture different

display rules" at the surface level rather than differences in the

speakers' cognitive systellas (Tannen, 1980) We should also be
reminded that native speakers frol■ l a speech community are capable―‑30‑―

11l P P″/ Cο ″ノl″ : Sσ ″σた″ R′α″ι″″ Sο ιGigli()li(ed), ια′7g″ 鍔で α野characterized as using a ̀̀restricted code,'' in comparison with theelaborated" Alnerican rhetoric, because of these superficial

ια′72
z″″ ′ グ

,13:145204

Himeli Dokkyoo Uni―

Clancy, Patricia (1986) The aCquisition of conllnunicative style inJapanese
Sο

̀″

2ク
α
ln B B Shieffelin & E Ochs(eds), ια′
̀gσ

″αι
グ
′
ο77■

727グ

̀/0ヽ

/7/2s
C″ ′

Cambridgei Canlbridge University

Press pp 213‑250

Conner,U,&Lauer,J (1988) Cross― Cultural variation in persuasive、
student writing ln A C Purves(ed),助 j″ ′7g4ε ss几 ′ g″ ̀箸 ′
,′

‑31‑

北 星 論 集 (文 )第 36号

απ″ C%′ /1//ι s

Newbury Park,CA:Sage

Rotzoll,K B(1985) Advertisements ln T A van Dijk(ed),DおιOπ ttθ αη″ εοπππηグ ″Oπ :A42211̲4′ ρηα ω わ 厖ο ̲4π αクSな ぼ̀力壼Qss Mcdtα JDな ιοzttσ απグ εO,,2777%″ ノιαガοπ Nevァ York:17Valter deDたιοzttι απ″ C0772π %η グのποπ:Attθ lt Иρρηαι
力あ わ r/1ι 4″αクsた ar‐

New York:ヽ Valter de

Mαs Medtα つたιο7/熔 θαπグεοπ夕
,zπ π
グ
ι
α′
あ
Gruyter

Gruyter

Saville Troike,M (1989)rあ οEttπ og%ψ tt ar‐lη ′η,グ %̀″ οπ New York:Basil Blackwell

Grabe,W,そ %I(aplan,R̲(1989) Writing in a second language:Contras‐
tive rhetoric ln D.JohnsOn&D Roen(eds),Rた 力ηιグ
ssル N式′ηg

New York:Longman.pp 263‑283

tives.
Saville‐Gumperz,」 ohn(1982) Dな ιο%冬 θ S′πι
ttt● Cambridge:Calllbridge
Hinds,J (1982) Contrastive rhetoric:Japanese and English

Troike,M,&」 ohnsOn,D(1994) Comparative rhetoric:An

Urbana‐ Chan■ paigll

Shibatani,N/1(1991)

グ′′
zg 4̀″ s lα π―Reading,MA:Addison Wesley

Publishing Company pp 141‑152

Houghton,D,遷 登 Hoey,LI(1984) Linguistics and written discourse:ιω げContrastive rhetoric ln R Kaplan(ed), ̲4η ηクαノRι υグ
gπ な万6,3:2‑22Иψクノ″″ ιルタHymes,D (1972)(1993) Comparative rhetorici an integration of perspec―
NIanuscript The University of Arizona物ιル oε ιグ鳩ひ グ ルιPπgπ α″ぉ′,,2鳩
απ″ ια、 、
o
L″
α
ι
O式
t″″
ι
ο
at
Universityof 11linois at
鱈
3

T′ χノ
,3

(1987) Reader versus writer responsibility: A new

typology ln U Conner&R Kaplan(eds),T44″

geSグ ルψα″ Cambridgei Cambrid―τ力οια夕τク■

ge Ulliversity Pressl｀allllell,D (1980) A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies:

Athenian Greek and American English ln W L Chafe(ed),T力 ′P″ αγS/ο ガσAZη ク
si Cog″ グ
υの C7r′ ″π′απ″ Z″送εなンな″θAψ οJ′ar‐″υ′Pγo″ %̀′ グ
ο″ Norwood,NJ:Ablex

Tannen,D,&Saville Troike,M (eds),(1985) R/ψ ιθ′グυθs ο
πSグ ルηθι

卜/1odels Of the interaction of language and sociallife

ln J J Gumperz&D Hymes(eds),Dグ ″ あπs効 で
グ
力ιグ
ο′
ηク なガ

Norw00d,NJ:Ablex
van Dijk,TA (1988) コ
ヽ zllSゐ つた
4θ̀ノ

New York:Basil Blackwell pp 35‑71

̀0″Erlbaum AssOciatesgttψ カグπ Sο ιグο′グ,Og%た ノグι
sf 4κ Ethπ οι(1974) Fθ zη αα″οπs グ
Philadelphia,PA:University of Pennsylvania Press

Иりργ
θ
α

̀力

Jorden,EH&Noda,M(1987)励 απο :τ力′助 οたθπιαημ
Sθ

ο
,ル /′

I New Haven:Yale University Press
Kaplan,R (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural educationg,16:1‑20
Zα η
α夕
η
zグ η
ク αgο ιο
Leki,I(1991)Twenty fiVe years of contrastive rhetorici Text analy
sis and writing pedagogles

ESOL Oι α″ノγιか,Vo1 25,No2:123‑「143cο ππzπ グια″οπi 4π

integration of perspectives̲動

University Press.

ι2r帆 お%ψ ″ ″ 6π ″Zπ ′ 励″

Pt・

Gerbner,M(1985) Mass media discourse:Message system analysis asa component of cultural indicators ln T A̲ van I)ijk (ed̲),gι χ
gOsr 4η И%α クs,S2′&〜 ′びわσ

4Sル の グ し【πω′ 不″αsわ πF77‐ ″ 4π EttπψαNIatsuyama,UK(1983)Can story grammar speak Japanese7 7み

ι

Rι α
ググ
ヵι
γ,36:666‑9
ηg raα ι

Purves,A (ed)(1988) ''1″ ″ηg̲/1ι ηss Lα η送
夕電es απグ C%′″たs

Newbury Park,CA:Sage―‑32‑――‑33‑一冬σ Hlllsdale,NJ:Lawrence北 屋 論 集￨∞ 集 鶴 号[ABSTRACTD‑34‑