ANDREJ SKERLEP

RE-EVALUATING THE ROLE OF RHETORIC IN PUBLIC RELATIONS THEORY

AND IN STRATEGIES OF CORPORATE DISCOURSE

Andrej Skerlep recieved Ph.D. in communications science with the thesis on social context of
communication processes. He lectures on public relations, rhetoric and semiotics at Faculty of
Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is the author of one book and more than
forty articles and papers on various aspects of communication processes.

ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: public relations, rhetoric, corporate discourse, argumentation, genres of
discourse, decision-making.

The article criticizes the dominant paradigm of public relations theory for lack of attention
paid to the discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations. An alternative theoretical
approach to public relations is identified that does treat discursive and rhetorical dimensions
of public relations, but it is indicated that at present it has not been sufficiently integrated into
dominant public relations theory. The article explores the points of convergence between
rhetoric and public relations. The narrow and broad conceptions of rhetoric are presented, the
first characterizing rhetoric with persuasive and argumentative discourse, and the second with
different types of discourse. It is suggested that elements of the broad conception of rhetoric
could provide heuristics for analyzing public relations techniques as a ‘genre repertoire’ of
public relations discourse. In the second part, an inquiry into the narrow conception of rhetoric
as persuasive and argumentative discourse is made. Positivistic understanding of ‘truth’ and
‘objectivity’ as normative criteria of public relations discourse is criticized on basis of so
called ‘rhetoric as epistemic’ view. It is argued that in corporate discourse, especially in
situations of confrontation with active publics, key managerial decisions have to be justified in
argumentation. In the last part of the article, Toulmin’s model of argumentation is suggested as
especially suitable for analysis of argumentative nature of corporate discourse.

1
INTRODUCTION
Public relations professionals are specialized in skillful production and management of
corporate discourse. It has to be emphasized at the outset that corporate discourse is not final
objective of public relations practice, but performs a function of establishing and maintaining
beneficial relations between organization and its stakeholders or strategic publics. Nevertheless,
public relations practitioners are professional communicators who are involved daily in
expressing various positions in articulate corporate discourse. They have to possess various
communication skills to be able to effectively engage in corporate discourse in situations that
are frequently marked by polemic and conflict, and that makes public relations practice similar
to ancient practice of rhetoric. Article develops an argument that rhetorical tradition could
contribute considerably to theoretical analysis of discursive dimension of public relations
practice. It starts with the claim that the dominant view of public relations has not developed
proper theory of discursive and rhetorical dimension of public relations.

THE DOMINANT PARADIGM

Although its precursors can be traced back for centuries, public relations is a rather modern
social practice that has developed as a profession in twentieth century. There are numerous
books and journals that cover it, but the majority of them offer little more than practical
instructions. As a specialized field of scientific research, public relations developed in the
second half of twentieth century. In the most eminent textbooks1 on public relations that are
grounded on scientific theories and research, as well as in more theoretically oriented books2,
one can discern an emerging body of knowledge about public relations. It can be described as
an interdisciplinary approach based on social sciences that are applied in research and theory
building in order to describe, explain and criticize the professional practice of public relations.
Although there are considerable variations among different authors in elaborating the field,
there is a clear set of recurrent concepts, topics, practical insights and theoretical models which
makes it possible to designate this recurring pattern of interpretation as a dominant view on
public relations. The dominant view reveals itself most clearly in the above-mentioned
textbooks that are being used at universities for teaching of public relations. In the more refined
and elaborated context of public relations theory, the dominant view is the dominant paradigm
of public relations theory that has to be associated primarily with the work of James Grunig and
his collaborators. On the basis of his empirical research, Grunig developed four theoretical
models of public relations practice, a situational theory of public relations and delineated
normative criteria of excellence in public relations. A recent bibliometric research3 showed that

2
James Grunig is by far the most often cited author and that the textbook by Grunig and Hunt4 is
the most cited book in the field.

LACK OF CONCERN FOR DISCURSIVE DIMENSION

The dominant paradigm of public relations has shown little interest in the rhetoric of public
relations practice, i.e., rhetoric as integral part of public relations. Despite its heavy reliance on
contemporary social sciences as theoretical resource, the dominant paradigm of public relations
failed to make a ‘linguistic turn’5 that marked social sciences in 20th century. From cultural and
media studies to sociology, political science and psychology, contemporary social sciences are
marked by intense interest in what might be characterized with expressions like discourse,
textuality, signification, speech acts and argumentation as well as with disciplines such as
linguistics, semiotics and rhetoric.

Alternative approach at the crossroads of the fields

Nevertheless, in the last 15 years some indications of an alternative approach to research of
public relations practice that is focused on its discursive and rhetorical aspects emerged. In
contrast to a dominant paradigm, the alternative approach lacks a systematic theory and a clear
set of recurring topics that one could clearly identify as an alternative paradigm to the dominant
one. In addition, the alternative approach is not restricted to the specialized field of public
relations, but works at the intersection of public relations, organizational communication,
speech communication and rhetoric. The most prominent authors elaborating on discursive and
rhetorical aspects, most notably George Cheney and Robert Heath, alternate in their work
between the fields, or, to put it differently, work beyond narrow disciplinary divisions. In her
valuable survey of the work done on rhetorical approaches to public relations, Elisabeth Toth6
treats organizational communication and public relations as almost synonymous terms, creating
an impression that rhetoric is well integrated into the field of public relations. It can indeed be
argued that the research field of organizational communication represents a counterpart to that
of public relations as their respective domains of research overlap to a certain degree. In line
with the argument presented here, this is fortunate, because discursive and rhetorical analysis
have been firmly incorporated in the field of organizational communication.7 And yet the fields
of organizational communication and of public relations are clearly distinct, because the
greatest majority of research on organizational communication does not coincide with the field
of public relations. The latest overview of research in the field of organizational
communication that spans more than 900 pages has preciously little to say that would directly

3
apply to public relations.8 Cheney and Christensen recently observed9 that for most
organizational communication scholars organizational communication ends with the boundaries
of the organization. In spite of the fact that ‘the organization as container metaphor’ has been
criticized, it still marks conceptual and practical limitations within the field of organizational
communication. On the other hand, as Toth herself observed, a lot of work in alternative
approach is done by specialists in speech communication and rhetoric10 who analyze corporate
rhetoric from their perspective, but do not systematically integrate their research into public
relations theory. So, if one subtracts the work done by specialists in organizational
communication and by specialists in speech communication and rhetoric, there is preciously
little about rhetorical aspects of public relations that falls squarely into the specifically
designated field of public relations. Still, the extensive work by George Cheney11 and Robert
Heath12 who introduced notions such as ‘corporate rhetor’ and ‘organizational ethymeme’ and
phrases such as ‘good organization communicating well’, is strongly endorsed here. The
argument in this article is inspired and aligned with their work and the tradition of alternative
approach.

How textbooks cover speech and writing

The lack of concern for the notions of discourse and rhetoric is even more curious because
practice of public relations was defined by Grunig and Hunt as ‘management of communication
between an organization and its publics’.13 As professional communicators, public relations
practitioners are involved daily in discourse while communicating with the publics, but in
public relations textbooks of the dominant paradigm there is no theoretical concept of
discourse.14 Because of essentially communicative nature of professional public relations
practice, public relations textbooks cannot obliterate dimensions of speech and writing, but they
specify them merely in the form of simple practical instructions. In this regard the textbooks
offer a well defined set of topics on the so called ‘public relations techniques’: how to write
news releases, backgrounders, feature stories, newsletters, speeches, how to edit newsletters
and internal magazines, how to organize news conferences, or give interviews. In the future,
public relations techniques could be theoretically elaborated as genres of public relations
discourse or as ‘genre repertoire’ of public relations, in similar way as Orlikowski and Yates15
have attempted to elaborate on genres in the field of organizational communication. The main
problem is that public relations techniques are not related to discourse theory. To demonstrate
conceptual poverty of the notions of speech and writing in dominant paradigm, the titles and
subtitles of relevant chapters and their relative length (proportional to the overall length of the

4
book) in five often quoted textbooks on public relations and public relations techniques are
reproduced here.

TABLE - TOPICS COVERED BY TEXTBOOKS

(By relative length and titles/subtitles)

Cutlip, Center, Broom (1994) Effective public relations16

Relative length - 6 pages out of 560 pages
Titles - Communication component of strategy: Semantics; Symbols; Barriers and stereotypes.

Baskin, Aronoff (1988) Public Relations: The Profession and the practice17
Relative length - 4 pages out of 483 pages
Titles - Principle of effective writing: Packaging Ideas & Pyramid power.

Hunt, Grunig (1994) Public Relations Techniques18

Relative length - 8 pages out of 418 pages
Titles - Public relations writing techniques: Select the right style; Maximum Objectivity;
Source review; Long-range implications/consistency; Achieving maximum impact; Involving
the reader; Evaluating your writing.

Bivins (1991) Handbook for Public Relations Writing19

Relative length - 4 pages out of 340 pages
Titles - Setting message strategy: Information; Argument; Image; Emotional strategies;
Entertainment; Setting a style and organizing message; Writing informative message, Writing
persuasive message.

Wilcox, Nolte (1997) Public Relations writing and media techniques20

Relative length - 7 pages out of 494 pages
Titles - Persuasive writing: Audience analysis; Source credibility; Appeal to self-interest;
Clarity of the message; Timing and context; Symbols, slogans and acronyms; Semantics;
Suggestion for action; Content and structure: Drama; Statistics; Surveys and polls; Examples;
Testimonials; Endorsements; Emotional appeals.

This sample demonstrates that public relations in general and its techniques in particular are
directly dealing with discursive dimension of communication. The relative length of the
chapters is significant, because it indicates how little importance these topics have in overall
structure of these textbooks. It's beyond the scope of this article to go into detailed examination
of the textbooks here; an analysis would show that, on the one hand, basic journalistic
standards and skills are adopted, with special emphasis on truth, objectivity, impartiality and
news values, while on the other hand, some rudimentary elements of persuasive discourse are
proposed. But simple sets of basic instructions are all too brief and unelaborated. In their
discussion of speech and writing all these textbooks lack grounding in theory of discourse.21 In
this article it is suggested that discursive dimension of public relations communication could be
theoretically elaborated with classical and contemporary theory of rhetoric.
5
RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON DISCOURSE
There is no clear-cut answer to the question of what is rhetoric. It has been defined and
redefined throughout history.22 In De Oratore, Cicero defines rhetoric as ‘the art of speaking
well - which is to say, with knowledge, skill and elegance’.23 This definition reveals that
rhetoric is first of all an art or skill of being able to articulate oneself well. It is communication
skill, which is focused on how to use ideas and language to be able to produce eloquent
discourse in any given situation. Ancient Greeks conferred to rhetoric the status of technê - a
productive knowledge as skill to produce something. In Greece, technê rhêtorikê, the
knowledge of how to produce and deliver an eloquent speech, had the same status as
architecture, a skill to produce beautiful and functional buildings. In profligacy of
contemporary usage of the expression, this basic ‘technical’ meaning of rhetoric as productive
art has often been lost. In this article, it is argued not for some high flying philosophical
concept of rhetoric, but first of all for rhetoric as a technical skill of composing eloquent
discourse, because there is a direct parallel with public relations as a skill to produce eloquent
corporate discourse.

Rhetoric as theory of persuasive discourse

There are two competing conceptions of rhetoric, a narrow and broad one. The narrow
conception characterizes rhetoric as persuasive discourse, while the broad one encompasses
various types of discourse, which transforms rhetoric into a general theory of discourse. The
narrow understanding of rhetoric was most famously expressed by Aristotle who wrote that
rhetoric is ‘an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion’.24
Aristotle’s definition equates rhetorical discourse with persuasive speech and designates
persuasion primarily as argumentation. He differentiates three types of persuasion: first, ethos,
the speaker’s ability to establish a positive image of himself in the perception of the audience,
secondly, pathos, the speaker’s ability to affect emotions of the audience, and thirdly, logos, the
ability to show the inner logic of the topic of speech. Aristotle, the inventor of classical formal
logic of induction and deduction, emphasized logos, rational argumentation, as the most
important way of persuading the audience. In spite of his emphasis on rational argument,
Aristotle understood well that the character of the speaker and emotional dispositions of the
audience contribute to the effectiveness of the argument. But it has to be emphasized that for
Aristotle persuasion is essentially argumentative discourse.

6
Rhetoric as a general theory of discourse and genres of public relations
The beginnings of a broad definition of rhetoric can be traced back to Cicero, but it started to
flourish in the early modern rhetoric of eighteenth century that was associated with
Enlightenment and so called belle-lettres movement.25 The broad concept of rhetoric covers
every type of discourse, written as well as spoken, and besides the persuasive discourse, literary
and scientific discourses as well. In the eighteenth century Campbell defined rhetoric as an ‘art
in which discourse is adapted to its end’, and this definition was repeated literally in the
twentieth century by I.A. Richards.26 This broad definition of rhetoric does not exclude
argumentation and persuasion of classical conception, but embeds it in a broader conception of
different types of discourse. However, there is no consensus about the classification of
discourse. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Alexander Bain’s classification of
“modes of discourse” - description, narration, exposition and argumentation - was very
influential.27 ‘Description’ sets forth a static scene; ‘narration’ tells a story as sequence of
events; ‘exposition’ offers rational explanation of a notion or an issue; ‘argumentation’ seeks to
impart an opinion to the audience or to move the audience to an action. In second half of
twentieth century Bain’s classification fell in disrepute as too mechanical and artificial and was
substituted by more processually oriented classifications. In the seventies James Kinneavy28
classified discourse according to the ‘aims of the communicator’, and distinguished between
referential, expressive, persuasive and literary discourse. In ‘reference discourse’, the
communicator refers to external states of affairs to represent them in discourse; in addition,
Kinneavy defines three subtypes of reference discourse - informative, scientific and
speculative; in ‘expressive discourse’, the communicator expresses his or her inner state of
mind; in ‘persuasive discourse’, the communicator tries to induce the audience to accept his
expressed opinion about the topic or to move the audience to do something; and finally, in
‘literary discourse’, the communicator calls attention to the language of the discourse itself in
order to produce an aesthetic experience in the receiver.
At this point the reference to these classifications of types of discourse was made in
order, first, to emphasize that argumentative discourse is not the sole type of discourse,
secondly, to show the ability of rhetoric tradition to encompass different types of discourse
besides argumentative and persuasive, and thirdly, to show possible heuristics for future
development of genres of public relations discourse. It is apt to elucidate briefly how these two
alternative classifications of discourse can be combined in public relations situations.
‘Corporate rhetor’ sometimes tries to inform with a description of something, narration of a
sequence of relevant events, an explanation, or even argumentation that informs with

7
justification of certain decisions; in crisis situations, the organization can express concern or
regret with vivid descriptions or narration; in confrontation with an active public, the
organization tries to persuade with argumentation that can include descriptions, narration and
an explanation as part of an argument; in communication campaigns and public relations
advertising, the aesthetic function of discourse is emphasized in slogans and images to attract
attention. The future development of ‘genre repertoire’ of public relations discourse will have
to be based on empirical research of the practical use of public relations techniques and
grounded not solely in rhetoric tradition but in the theory of discourse analysis as well.

RHETORIC AND ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGIES OF CORPORATE DISCOURSE

But it would be utterly misleading to reduce the significance of rhetoric for public relations
only to a theoretical elaboration of public relations techniques as the latter are usually
understood as the craft of ‘communication technicians’, the neophytes who start with the rather
routine work of writing press releases, while senior public relations practitioners are concerned
with planning strategy and counseling top management. If one wants to understand rhetoric as a
tool of strategic decision-making in organizations, one has to turn back to classical narrow
conception of rhetoric as argumentative discourse. In its most important part, in first canon,
inventio, classical rhetoric is dealing with the question of how to develop effective arguments.
This means that rhetoric is not only concerned with discourse in linguistic sense, but also
shapes our thinking of how to present our case and justify our position. The most valuable
contribution of rhetoric to public relations should be seen in the discovery of persuasive
arguments. Rhetoric should be perceived as the tool for developing strategies of corporate
discourse that justify managerial decisions and impart them to various publics in such a way
that the organization can establish and maintain beneficial relations with the publics. But to
serve this purpose, public relations counseling should try to induce incorporation of the
argumentative logic of corporate discourse in the very process of managerial decision-making
itself. Unsound managerial decisions that do not take into consideration how they will be
justified to the situationally relevant publics cannot be communicated well.

Grunig stance on rhetoric

Lack of concern for rhetoric and theories of discourse is surprising in the light of the fact that
Grunig defines the essence of public relations practice with situations in which organization is
faced with attentive and active publics in conflict with organization on one or several issues.
With reference to Dewey and Blumer, Grunig defined the notion of the public with the notion

8
of issue as ‘issue publics’.29 The word issue denotes topic of discussion or of general concern
and implies debate. An issue opens up different possibilities for resolution, so there is always a
potential for dispute about which alternative course of action will be chosen. Consequently,
when an organization is faced with an attentive and active public, the situation of at least
potential confrontation and polemic exists. In this situation public relations managers have to
construct discursive strategy of organization that has to be based essentially on argumentative
discourse. But argumentation need not be used only in polemical discourse; even in friendly
discussion among cooperating partners a professional communicator needs to ground his or her
claims and justify the position on the issue he or she represents.
At this point a brief discussion of Grunig’s attitude towards persuasion and rhetoric can
be illuminating. In the eighties, Grunig was strongly opposed to persuasive aspects of public
relations discourses, because he understood persuasion as manipulation. Grunig developed well
known models of public relations, in the context of which he explained professional public
relations practice either with asymmetrical, persuasive discourse of an organization trying to
impose its interests on publics, or symmetrical discourse, which he defined with equal
opportunities and reciprocity among the participants (organization and publics) in attempts to
achieve a compromise on the contended issue. He intensely championed the symmetrical model
of communication, which he equated with excellence in public relations, and opposed the
asymmetrical persuasive model, which he equated with straightforward manipulation. In a 1989
article he identified rhetoric in general with asymmetrical, manipulative model of public
relations.30 In his latter writings31 he backed down from his rejection of asymmetric model and
developed ‘mixed motives’ model of public relations communication, which has features both
of asymmetric and symmetric one. He also retreated from his emphatic rejection of rhetoric as
manipulative, and referred to distinction made by Wayne Booth between Rhetoric B and
Rhetoric A, the first being persuasive, the second being defined as aimed to ‘discover and
refine, in critical exchange, our ends, our purposes, and our values’.32 In theories of
argumentation this distinction is well recognized; Stephen Toulmin termed it as a distinction
between ‘argumentation as advocacy’ and ‘argumentation as inquiry’, the first striving to prove
certain claims, the second aiming at discovering a solution to a problem or finding common
ground.33 One may doubt that public relations discourse can do without advocating interests of
organization in its discourse; but be that as it may, in both cases one is dealing with
argumentative discourse. Grunig’s antipathy towards persuasion and his false equivalence
between Aristotle’s concept of rhetoric and manipulation disposed him negatively toward
incorporating rhetorical tradition in public relations theory, and it might be inferred, that

9
because of his influence, his rejection of rhetoric might have hindered others in further
exploring relation between rhetoric in public relations discourse.

Rhetoric as epistemic
The naive belief in truth, objectivity and impartiality as normative criteria of validity of public
relations discourse that is professed by many public relations textbooks does not elucidate the
discursive dimension of polemical confrontations. Not only has positivistic concept of truth
became controversial with the ascent of postmodern relativism in the last decades, the concept
of ‘truth’ has been conceptualized altogether differently in rhetorical tradition from ancient
times onwards. Aristotle was already aware that rhetorical argumentation is not an analytical
demonstration of ‘universal truths’ as in science or philosophy where truth of premises and
validity of inference must be proven with absolute certainty, but in most cases refers to the
world of contingent and controversial public issues, based in each particular case on different
beliefs, opinions and interests, termed doxa in ancient Greek. In the situation of public
contention on a controversial issue the speaker can only marshal the best arguments for his or
her case. This does not mean that rhetor is allowed to speak untruths or to manipulate the
public, but that he or she is engaged in ‘dialectical reasoning’ in domain of the probable.34 The
‘truth’ can only be reached through argumentative dialogue that reveals which of the
participating parties has better arguments. To illustrate how in situations of conflict and
controversy the very question of what is ‘the truth’ of an issue has to be negotiated in discursive
dialogue, classical stasis formula35 is briefly discussed. The stasis formula, originating in
forensic rhetoric used in courts of law but later applied to other kinds of disputes as well, posits
four questions that show where disagreements can arise and from what point we, as active
participants, should start to argue our case: what are the relevant facts of the issue, how do we
define the issue in question, how do we evaluate the circumstances as relevant in the context of
the issue, and what kind of discursive and institutional procedures have been used in order to
resolve the three preceding questions. If we disagree on the facts of the issue, we start to argue
about the facts; if we agree on the facts concerning the issue, we might disagree on defining it,
so we start to argue about definition; if we agree on relevant definitions, we might disagree on
relevant circumstances, and so forth. Legal proceedings in a court of law can be seen as an
exemplary argumentative inquiry into the complex situation that is clarified through rhetorical
exchange between indictment and defense. As argued by the contemporary view of ‘rhetoric as
epistemic’, in disputes about the contingent social world the ‘truth’ of polemical confrontation
can only be ascertained through the argumentative dialogue, so that ‘true knowledge’ is the

10
product of rhetorical exchange, not prior to it. ‘Man must consider truth not as something fixed
and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he
finds himself and with which he must cope. ... In human affairs, then, rhetoric is a way of
knowing; it is epistemic.’36

TOULMIN’S MODEL OF ARGUMENTATION

As can be seen in works of Chaim Perelman37 and Stephen Toulmin, argumentative discourse
remains a central preoccupation of contemporary rhetoric as well. The argumentation theory38
developed by Toulmin is the most influential contemporary model for describing the structure
of arguments and is adopted in various disciplines, e.g. in law39 or in analysis of business
decision-making.40 According to Toulmin, formal logic does not allow for an adequate
judgment of argumentation in natural language, so he developed a model that resembles
deductive inference in formal logic, but is much more flexible. In his theory the starting point is
the reasoning in favor of an assertion or claim. Assertion is a proposition whose validity is not
obvious without further details, so the speaker needs to offer reasons for its validity. The more
convincing the supporting reasons for a claim, the more rational and acceptable the claim tends
to be. The model provides a basis for both teaching the skill of argumentation and the
examination of practical reasoning in actual discourse.

Elements of the model

The model distinguishes the following parts of an argument:
Claim: the assertion or conclusion that is put forward for acceptance;
Grounds: relevant data or information that is the foundation for the argument;
Warrants: the rule that justifies the move from the grounds to the claim;
Backings: additional support for the warrant;
Qualifications: phrases expressing the degree of certainty placed on a claim;
Possible rebuttals or reservations: the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that might
undermine the force of the argument and are excluded from the claim.

The following example adapted from Toulmin41 illustrates how the model works:

Initial claim: The International Communication Agency (ICA) contributes to the reputation of
the US around the world.
Ground: ICA is a US agency responsible for spreading American ideas around the world.

11
Warrant: Public diplomacy of spreading American ideas is an indispensable contribution to the
reputation that the US enjoys around the world.
Backing: As historian Dr. Smith demonstrated in his influential historical analysis of the topic,
history has repeatedly shown that the reputation of US derives in large measure from the ideas
it represents.
Reservation: If we exclude those hostile countries, where the ICA’s activities are attacked as
imperialistic propaganda by influential local groups and media,
Qualification: we can infer with great certainty,
Confirmed claim: that the ICA contributes to the reputation of the US around the world.

At the outset of an argumentation, the one who argues (‘the assertor’) presents a claim that he
wants to be accepted. An example in a public relations context would be a manager's claim that
a particular action is the best way to reach the company's goals. Considering the typical
decision-making context of a meeting, an opponent could rise and question the soundness of
proposed claim. The question "why" or some other critical remark urges the assertor to provide
reasons to demonstrate that the claim is well founded, at least if he or she wants to make his
claim on a rational basis rather than as a simple personal opinion or authoritative decision that
is imposed on others to accept. Therefore, the proponent must reveal the grounds on which his
claim is based. The grounds can include different kinds of factual data or other information
describing the special situation on which the claim is based. However, the grounds do not
necessarily make the claim immediately reliable, because other participants in argumentative
dialogue might not immediately perceive how the grounds are related to the initial claim.
According to Toulmin, appropriate warrants are needed to elucidate and to authorize the ‘step
from the grounds to the claim’. The warrants take the form of rules that confirm the association
between grounds and claim. Since the warrants' reliability and applicability to the context of
particular argument can also vary, the assertor can provide additional ‘backing’ that supports
the warrant with additional information from authoritative sources.
Even if the assertor has presented grounds, warrants and backings to prove his or her
claim, there are still two further sets of unsettled questions that refer, first, to the strength of the
proposed argument, and secondly, to the possible extraordinary circumstances that might
undermine the validity of the claim. Regarding the strength, Toulmin suggests that every
argument is advanced more or less strongly. The assertor can use a set of ‘modal qualifiers’,
i.e., colloquial adverbs and phrases, like "certainly," "so far as the evidence goes," and "very
likely," to qualify the strength with which he or she supports his claim. Toulmin thus takes into

12
account that the quality of the reasons supporting a claim can be somewhere between weakly
probable and absolutely certain. Finally, extraordinary circumstances can undermine the force
of the argument. With the idea of rebuttals or reservations, Toulmin acknowledges the fact that
the assertor's reasoning is valid only in the absence of some exceptional conditions. With
reservations, the assertor excludes certain exceptional and undermining conditions from his or
her claim to narrow down what he or she does assert, which makes his or her argument much
more precise and difficult to refute.
Toulmin's model of argumentation is just one among several contemporary theories of
argumentation.42 It cannot be said that it reveals all the nuances of argumentative discourse, but
because it reconstructs basic moves in argumentation in simple and effective way, it gained
wide acceptance in contemporary rhetoric as well as in other disciplines. It was presented here
to elucidate the basic mechanism of argumentative discourse that is fundamental for the view of
‘rhetoric as epistemic’ enterprise. In context of public relations this aspect of rhetoric should be
perceived as the tool for developing sound strategies of corporate discourse to employ in
different situations.

CONCLUSION
In reaching a decision management has to clarify its position with various arguments that will
justify, if necessary, its decision to different strategic constituencies. In the course of reaching a
decision, top management should not consider only economic arguments, referring to cost
effectiveness, quality of the product or market forces, but other arguments as well, especially
how to justify its decision to employees, mass media, governmental organizations, local
community or activist groups. The ability to justify managerial decisions with convincing
arguments should be seen as one core element of business ethics and corporate ‘social
responsibility’ as well. But once the decisions are made, they have to be communicated to
various publics in an effective manner and at that moment different genres of public relations
discourse have to be deployed. Rhetoric and discourse analysis can elaborate further on these
crucial aspects of public relations practice, so they should become one of the central
preoccupations in the field of public relations theory and research.

REFERENCES

13
1
For example, see Grunig, J. E., Hunt, T. (1984) ‘Managing Public Relations’, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., Fort Worth; Cutlip, S., Center, A., Broom, G. (1994) ‘Effective Public Relations’ (7th
edn), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs; Wilcox, D., Ault, P., Agee, W. (1997) ‘Public Relations:
Strategies and Tactics’, Longman: New York; Baskin, O., Aronoff, C. (1988) ‘Public Relations: the
Profession and the Practice’ (2nd edn), WCB Publishers, Dubuque; and Kitchen, P. (Ed) (1997) ‘Public
Relations: Principles and Practice’, International Thompson Business Press, London.
2
For example, see Grunig, J. E. (Ed) (1992) ‘Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management’, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale; Botan, C., Hazelton, V., (Eds) (1989) ‘Public
Relations Theory’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale; L’Etang, J., Pieczka, M. (1996) ‘Critical
Perspectives in Public Relations’, International Thompson Business Press, London; Moss, D., Verčič,
D., Warnaby, G. (Eds) (2000) Perspectives on Public Relations Research, Routledge, London; and
Heath, R. (Ed) (2001) Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, London.
3
Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, R. B., Hanily, M. L. (1999) ‘Influential Authors and Works of the Public
Relations Scholarly Literature: A Network of Recent Research’, Journal of Public Relations Research,
Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 29-53.
4
Grunig, J., Hunt, T. (1984) op. cit.
5
For example, see Alvesson, M., Karreman, D. (2000) ‘Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational
Research’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36, No.2, pp. 136-159.
6
Toth, E. (2000) ‘Public Relations and Rhetoric: History, Concepts, Future’, in Moss, D., Verčič, D.,
Warnaby, G. (Eds), ‘Perspectives on Public Relations Research’, Routledge, London, pp. 121-144.
7
For recent survey see Putnam, L.L., Fairhurst, G.T. ‘Discourse Analysis in Organizations: Issues and
Concerns’, in Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L. (Eds) ‘The New Handbook of Organizational Communication:
Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods’, Sage, London, pp. 78-136.
8
See Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L. (Eds) (2001) ‘The New Handbook of Organizational Communication:
Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods’, Sage, London.
9
Cheney, G., Christensen, L.T. (2001) ‘Organizational Identity: Linkages Between Internal and
External Communication’, in Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L. (Eds) ‘The New Handbook of Organizational
Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods’, Sage, London, p. 231.
10
For example, see Elwood, W. N. (Ed) (1995) ‘Public Relation Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism: Case
Studies of Corporate Discourse and Social Influence’, Praeger, Westwood; and Benoit, W. (1995)
‘Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies’, State University of
New York Press, Albany.
11
Cheney, G. (1991) ‘Rhetoric in an Organizational Society: Managing Multiple Identities’, University
of South Carolina Press, Columbia; Cheney, G. (1992) ‘The Corporate Person (Re)Presents Itslef’, in
Toth, E., Heath, R. L. (Eds) ‘Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations’. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 165-186; Cheney, G., Vibbert, S. (1987) ‘Corporate Discourse:
Public Relations and Issue Management’, in Jablin, F., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H, Porter, L.W. (Eds)
‘Handbook of Organizational Communication’, Sage, London, pp. 165-194; Cheney, G.,
Dionisopoulos, G. (1989) ‘Public Relations? No, Relations with Publics: A Rhetorical-Organizational
Approach to Contemporary Corporate Communications’, in Botan, C.H., Hazelton, V. (Eds), ‘Public
Relations Theory’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 135-158.
12
Heath, R. L. (1994) ‘Management of Corporate Communication: From Interpersonal Contacts to
External Affairs’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale; Heath, R. L. (1992) ‘The Wrangle in the
Marketplace: A Rhetorical Perspective on Public Relations’, in Toth, E., Heath, R. L. (Eds). ‘Rhetorical
and Critical Approaches to Public Relations’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 37-64;
Heath, R. L. (1993) ‘A Rhetorical Approach: Zones of Meaning and Organizational Prerogatives’,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 141-155. Heath, R. L. (2000) ‘A Rhetorical Perspective on
the Values of Public Relations: Crossroads and Pathways toward Concurrence’, Journal of Public
Relations Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 69-91; and Heath, R.L. (2001) ‘A Rhetorical Enactment
Rationale for Public Relations: The Good Organization Communicating Well’, in Heath, R. L. (Eds),
Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, London, pp. 31-50.
13
Grunig, J. E., Hunt, T. (1984) op. cit., p. 6.
14
It was suggested to the writer (personal communication) that in the United
States the absence of rhetoric in public relations textbooks has two insitutional
causes: first, public relations education is located mostly in journalism and mass
communication departments, while rhetoric is taught primarily in speech
communication departments; and secondly, many public relations educators are
ex-journalists and they teach public relations from the media relations and
journalism perspective, while ignoring the speech communication and rhetorical
perspectives. Although in Europe the situation varies from country to country, the
same reasons for the absence of rhetoric in public relations education might be at
work; it must be added that in Europe the whole field of public relations,
especially public relations education, essentially follows the American lead; for
comparison, see Kitchen, P. (Ed) (1997) op. cit; Jefkins, F., Yadin, D. (1998) ‘Public
Relations’, Pitman, London; and Harrison, S. (1995) ‘Public Relations: An
Introduction’, Routlege, London. Furthermore, in Europe, rhetoric research and
teaching have not been developed as part of speech communication, but
primarily in context of much more remote disciplines of classical philology and
literature; for contemporary European perspective on rhetoric in relation to
‘propaganda’, see for example Ueding, G., Steinbrink, B. (1994) ‘Grundriss der
Rhetorik: Geschichte, Technik, Methode’, Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart; and Plett, F.H.
(Ed) (1996) ‘Die Aktualität der Rhetorik’, Fink Verlag, München.
15
Orlikowski, W. J.; Yates, J. (1994) ‘Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in
Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 541-575.
16
Cutlip, S., Center, A., Broom, G. (1994) op. cit.
17
Baskin, O., Aronoff, C. (1988) op. cit.
18
Hunt, T., Grunig, J. E. (1994) ‘Public Relations Techinques’, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth.
19
Bivins, T. (1991) ‘Handbook for Public Relations Writing’ (2nd edn), NTC Business Books, Chicago.
20
Wilcox, D., Nolte, L. (1997) ‘Public relations Writing and Media Techniques’ (3rd edn), Longman,
New York.
21
For contemporary ‘multidisciplinary’ theory of discourse that covers the aspects relevant for public
relations discourse, see for example van Dijk, T.A. (Ed) (1997) ‘Discourse as Structure and Process’,
Sage, London; van Dijk, T.A. (Ed) (1997) ‘Discourse as Social Interaction’, Sage, London; and
Fairclough, N. (1992) ‘Discourse and Social Change’, Polity Press, Cambridge.
22
See Kennedy, G. A. (1999) ‘Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient
to Modern Times’, Univeristy of North Carolina Press, Chapell Hill; Conley, T. (1990) ‘Rhetoric in the
European Tradition’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago; and Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F.,
Coleman, W. E. (1997) ‘The Rhetoric of Western Thought’ (6th edn), Kendall Hunt Publishing
Company, Dubuque.
23
Cicero (1988) ‘De Oratore - Books I-II’ (trans. by E.W. Sutton and H. Rackham), Harvard University
Press, London, p. 201.
24
Aristotle (1991) ‘On Rhetoric’ (trans. G. Kennedy), Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 36.
25
Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., Coleman, W. E. (1997) op. cit.
26
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., Trapp, R. (1991) ‘Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric’, Waveland Press,
Prospect Heights, p. 31.
27
Connors, R.J. (1995) ‘The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse’, in Covino, W. A., Jolliffe, D.A.
(Eds) ‘Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries’, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
28
Kinneavy, J. L. (1980) ‘A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse’,
W.W.Norton & Co., New York.
29
Grunig, J. E., Repper, F. (1992) ‘Strategic Management, Publics, and Issues’, in Grunig, J. (Ed)
‘Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, pp. 117-158.
30
Grunig, J. (1989) ‘Symmetrical Presuppositions as a Framework for Public
Relations Theory’, In Botan, C., Hazelton, V. (Eds) ‘Public Relations Theory’,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 17-44.
31
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L., (1992) ‘Models of Public Relations and Communication’, in Grunig, J. E.
(Ed) ‘Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management’, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 285-326; Grunig, J. E., White, J. (1992) ‘The Effects of Worldviews on
Public Relations Theory and Practice’, in Grunig, J. E. (Ed) ‘Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management’, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 31-64.
32
Grunig, J. White, J. (1992) Ibid., p. 48-49.
33
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., Janik, A. (1984) ‘An Introduction to Reasoning’, Macmillan Publishing,
London, p.7.
34
Perelman, C. (1995) ‘Logic, Dialectic, Philosophy, and Rhetoric’, in Covino, W. A., Jolliffe, D.A.
(Eds) ‘Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries’, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp.436-440.
35
Hohmann, H. (2001) ‘Stasis’, in Sloane, T.O. (Ed) Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 741-745.
36
Scott, R. (1999) ‘On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic’, in Lucaites, J. L., Condit, C. M., Caudill, S.
(Eds) ‘Contemporary Rhetorical Theory’, The Guilford Press, New York, pp.131-140.
37
See Perelman, C., Olbrechts - Tyteca, L. (1969) ‘The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation’
(trans. by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver), University of Notre Dame Press, London.
38
See Toulmin, S. (1957) ‘The Uses of Argument’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; and
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., Janik, A. (1984) op.cit.
39
Wangerin, P. T. (1993) ‘A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Structure of Persuasive Arguments’,
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 195-240.
40
See Werder, Axel V. (1999) ‘Argumentation Rationality of Management Decisions’, Organization
Science, Vol. 10, No. 5, 672-691; and Farrell, K., Hingstman, D. (2000) ‘Teaching Advanced Seminars
in Legal and Business Argument: Sharpening the Critical Edge’. Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 36,
No. 3, pp. 151-161.
41
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., Janik, A. (1984) op. cit.
42
See van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S. (1996) ‘Fundamentals of Argumentation
Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments’, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale.