Rhetorical status: A study of its origins, functions, and consequences

You ain't just whistling Dixie: How Carol Moseley‐Braun used rhetorical status to change Jesse Helms' tune

“…Clearly, Moseley-Braun had elevated her rhetorical status. Thus, Butler's (1995) discussion of the Senate as a forum clearly illustrates and is consistent with Logue and Miller's (1995) assertion that changes in the context of interaction such as those discussed above have critical implications for rhetorical status. Obviously, persons accorded high rhetorical status are more persuasive than those accorded low rhetorical status.…”

“…There are two cognitive elements associated with the process of assigning social status: they are the typing (e.g., race, gender) and ranking (same or differential rank in wealth or occupation) of individuals. Neither process is neutral and both affect the classifying person's affect (e.g., like or dislike) for the target (Logue & Miller, 1995). Typing and ranking processes emulate status and hierarchy in society.…”

“…Because it involves listeners' and speakers' reciprocal and selective weighing and incorporation of personal and social characteristics, rhetorical status affects perceptions of speaker credibility. These characteristics manifest themselves in different ways and to differing degrees in given contexts (Logue & Miller, 1995). Furthermore, communicators may shift their rhetorical status because (a) new strategies become apparent, (b) they recognize changes in the other, or (c) the communication context has changed.…”

“…Personal status includes qualities such as motivations, aims, beliefs and habits of character that speakers bring into a given communication context (Logue & Miller, 1995). It is the sum of speakers' virtues, vices, manners and affections that traditionally were examined under the rubric of ethos (Logue & Miller, 1998).…”

Public argument and legislative debate in the rhetorical construction of public policy: The case of Florida midwifery legislation

“…The fact that they did not calls into question the automatic equation of material power with material influence and suggests that the relationship of power to rhetorical effectiveness is more complex than it is often portrayed. In their theorization of rhetorical status, Logue and Miller (1995) point out that rhetorical status can be incongruent when a communicator perceives his/her standing in an interaction differently than other parties to the interaction do. A group's persistent use of an argumentative strategy, including the strategy of refusing to engage in argument, despite evidence of the strategy's ineffectiveness may indicate such incongruity.…”