AS PROVAS RETÓRICAS NO GÊNERO DELIBERATIVO: UMA ANÁLISE DE PRONUNCIAMENTOS DE WINSTON CHURCHILL

Abstract

This article proposes a rhetorical analysis of Deliberative discourse to answer the central question: how do persuasive elements influence the quality of public deliberation? We aim to deepen the theoretical framework to detail the modes of persuasion of ethos, pathos, and logos in an approach aligned with Charaudeau's theory of Political Discourse. The methodology describes the corpus of analysis – two speeches by Winston Churchill – and the method is a rhetorical analysis that ensures the validity of the study. The results present the analysis with the identification of the frequency and function of the rhetorical and deliberate elements employed by the speakers. In the end, we confront the empirical findings with the theoretical framework and evaluate the political and social implications of the rhetoric of deliberative discourse observed in the formation of consensus or polarization and in the capacity for rational and informed deliberation. The authors addressed were Aristotle (n.d.), Cicero, Quintilian, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1999), and Charaudeau (2006).