Serviços Personalizados
Journal
Artigo
nova página do texto(beta)
Espanhol (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Referências do artigo
Tradução automática
Enviar este artigo por emailIndicadores
-
Citado por SciELO -
Acessos
Links relacionados
-
Similares em
SciELO
Compartilhar
Permalink
Revista mexicana de ciencias políticas y sociales
versão impressa ISSN 0185-1918
Rev. mex. cienc. polít. soc vol.49 no.201 Ciudad de México Set./Dez. 2007
https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2007.201.42593
Sociedad y Política
Estudio retórico-comunicativo de los debates presidenciales mexicanos (2006)
1Facultad de Ciencias de la Información de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus de la Moncloa, Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid, España, 28040.
En su Retórica, Aristóteles distinguió materiales de prueba personal (ethos), argumentales (logos) y dramáticos, o de experiencia (pathos). También distinguió entre discursos judiciales, deliberativos y epidícticos o demostrativos. El autor de este trabajo quiere demostrar que la Retórica de Aristóteles sigue vigente analizando los debates presidenciales mexicanos en 2006. Se ocupa de cómo cada candidato se atuvo a las normas de los debates, su concepción del público y cómo emplearon los tres tipos de mate-riales. Asimismo, ilustra sus afirmaciones con numerosos ejemplos.
Palabras clave: discurso; debates presidenciales mexicanos; materiales de prueba personal; argumentales y de experiencia
In his Rhetoric, Aristotle distinguished materials of personal proof (ethos), materials of persuasive arguments (logos) and dramatics ones (pathos). He singled out too political or deliberative, forensic and epidictic or demonstrative speechs. This article’s author means to demonstrate that Aristotle’s Rethoric keeps its validity by analyzing Mexican presidential debates in 2006. He deals with each candidate’s use of debate rules, their understanding of the public and how they used the three types of materials. He illustrates his statements with a number of examples.
BIBLIOGRAFÍA
Abramowitz, Alan, “The Impact of a Presidential Debate on Voter Rationality”, en American Journal of Political Science, vol. 22, núm. 3, agosto de 1978. [ Links ]
Aristóteles, Retórica, Madrid, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 1990. [ Links ]
Benoit, William L. y William T. Wells, Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press, 1996. [ Links ]
Berlo, David K., James G. Lemert, y Robert J. Mertz, “Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptabiiity of Message Sources”, en Public Opinion Quaterly, vol. 33, núm. 4, 1970. [ Links ]
Benoit, William L. , Mitchell S. McKinney y R. Lance Hobert, “Beyond Learning and Persona: Extending the Scope of Presidential Debate Effects”, en Communication Monographs, vol. 68, núm. 3, septiembre de 2001. [ Links ]
Carlin, Diana B., Eric Morris, Shawna Smith, “The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates’ Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates”, en American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, núm.12, 2001. [ Links ]
Chaffee, Steven H. “Presidential Debates: Are they helpful to voters?”, en Communication Monographs, vol. 45, 1978. [ Links ]
Dilenschneider, Robert L., Power and Influence (Mastering the Art of Persua-sion), Nueva York, Prentice-Hall, 1990. [ Links ]
El-Mir, Amado José y Felicísimo Valbuena (comps.), Manual de periodismo. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Universidad de Las Palmas y Editorial Prensa Ibérica. 1997. [ Links ]
Faucheux, Ronald A. (ed.), The Debate Book. Campaigns & Elections, Arlington, Publishing Company, L.C.C., 2003. [ Links ]
Geer, John G., “The Effects of Presidential Debates on the Electorate’s Prefer-ences for Candidates”, en American Politics Research, vol. 16, núm. 4, octubre de 1988. [ Links ]
Gilbert, Michael A., How to Win an Argument, Nueva York, McGraw-Hill, 1979. [ Links ]
Holbrook, Thomas M., “Political Learning from Presidential Debates”, en Political Behavior, vol. 21, núm. 1, marzo de 1999. [ Links ]
Hovland, Carl Iver, et al. (eds.), The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1957. [ Links ]
Hovland, Carl Iver, Irving Lester Janis y Harold H. Kelley, Communication and Persuasion. Psychological Studies of Opinion Change, New Haven, Yale University Press , 1953. [ Links ]
Jamieson, G.H., Communication and Persuasion, Dover, Croom Heim, 1985 [ Links ]
Janis, Irving Lester, Victims of Groupthink, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1973. [ Links ]
Janis, Irving Lester y Carl Iver Hovland (eds.), Personality and Persuasibility, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1959. [ Links ]
Lausberg, Heinrich, Elementos de retórica literaria, Madrid, Gredos, 1975. [ Links ]
Merrill, David W. y Roger H. Reid, Personal Styles and Effective Performance, Radnor, Chilton Book Company, 1981. [ Links ]
Swanson, Linda y David Swanson, “The Agenda-Setting Function of the First Ford-Carter Debate”, en Communication Monographs, vol. 45, núm 4, noviembre de 1978. [ Links ]
Toulmin, Sthephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge, University, 1958. [ Links ]
Recibido: 28 de Mayo de 2007; Aprobado: 13 de Agosto de 2007
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons
