Shell. Te mantendremos en contacto con los hechos. Revelando patrones argumentativos de los negocios globales contemporáneos

Cristián Santibáñez; Kateryna Bura

doi:10.14198/dissoc.30159

Authors

Cristián Santibáñez Universidad Catolica de la Santisima de Concepción, Chile
Kateryna Bura Universidad Nacional Taras Shevchenko de Kiev, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4147-9751

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14198/dissoc.30159

Keywords:

argumentation, audiences, emotion, ethos, shell

Abstract

In this article, we provide an analytical examination of Shell’s 1995 advertisement. This advertisement is a specific example of the linguistic strategies used by transnational corporations to conceal their institutional responsibilities and divert attention from serious legal accusations. However, it also has broad social implications. We attempt to demonstrate that the advertisement manifests the general intention to demonstrate the moral and political superiority of global business over political systems in contemporary, interconnected societies. Methodologically, we use Walton’s (2006) argumentative reconstruction models; we distinguish types of audiences (Tindale, 1999) that Shell targets in its discursive strategy and the emotions to which it appeals to construct a positive moral image. Following the argumentative analysis, our findings indicate that, contrary to its efforts to present itself as an objective party committed to the facts, Shell consistently uses emotional strategies appealing to fear, authority, and mercy toward third parties.

References

Amossy, Ruth, 2001. Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology. Poetics Today, 22(1), 1-23.

https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-22-1-1

Aristotle, 2000. Art of Rhetoric. Translated by John Freese. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Campbell, George, 1963. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 2002. Cicero on the Emotions: Tusculum Disputations 3 and 4. Margaret Graver (Translator). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226305196.001.0001

Damasio, Antonio, 1994. Descartes' Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Putnam Books, New York.

Durán, Jorge, 2016. Argumentative Discourse in the Context of Social Protest: Documents of Demands as a Communicative Activity Type. Master's Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Eemeren, Frans van. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Eemeren, Frans van, Grootendorst, Rob, 2004. A systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389

Eemeren, Frans van, Houtlosser, Peter, 2002. Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In van Eemeren, F., Houtlosser, P. (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 131-159.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_10

Govier, Trudy. 1999. The Philosophy of Argument. Vale Press, Newport News, VA.

Hamblin, Charles, 2017. Linguistics and The Parts of the Mind. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.

Johnson, Ralph, 2001. Interpreting Shell's 'Clear Thinking in Troubled Times'. Informal Logic, TS, 21 (3), 39-47.

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i3.3396

Norrick, Neal. (1978). Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics 2 (3): 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(78)90005-X

Perelman, Chaïm, Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucien, 2000. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

Quintilian, 2001. The Orator's Education. Books 11-12. Edited and Translated by Donald Russell. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Rigotti, Eddo, Greco, Sara, 2019. Inference in Argumentation. A topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5

Senewo, IkpoBari, 2015. The Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR): Extent of Actualization 25 years later? The Extractive Industries and Society, The Extractive Industries and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.06.004

Thagard, Paul, 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1900.001.0001

Tindale, Christopher, 1999. Acts of Arguing. A Rhetorical Model of Argument. SUNY Press, New York.

Tindale, Christopher, 2004. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Sage, London.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204482

Tindale, Christopher, 2015. The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge University Press, New York.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645

Toulmin, Stephen, 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Toulmin, Stephen, Rieke, Richard, Janik, Allan, 1979. An Introduction to Reasoning. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New Yok.

Tranas, Linas, Caminada, Emanuele, 2020. Gerda Walther and Hermann Schmalenbach. In Szanto, T., Landweer H. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Phenomenology of Emotions. Routledge, London, pp. 133-143. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315180786-12

Walton, Douglas, 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania.

Walton, Douglas, 1997. Appeal to Pity. Argumentum ad Misericordiam. State University of New York Press, New York.

Walton, Douglas, 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New York.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807039

Walton, Douglas, Gordon, Tom, 2012. The Carneades Model of Argument Invention. Pragmatics & Cognition 20(1), 1-31.

https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.1.01wal