←2019. – Vol. 15

Olesia V. Lazer-Pankiv 
Ph.D., Associate Professor
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Kostiantyn A. Riabtsev
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv




The article is devoted to the study of peculiarities of persuasiveness expression in the Demosthenes’ speeches on the material of the first and second Philippics. The analysis of the text of these speeches made it possible to distinguish a number of linguistic and rhetorical means used by the author to increase the level of persuasiveness of the speeches. In particular, emphasis is placed on the Demosthenes’ usage of numerous particles and conjunctions (with different meanings: conditionality, amplification, negation and opposition), syntactic constructions (Genetivus absolutus, Accusativus / Nominativus cum infinitivo), emphatic usage of the personal pronoun in the first person. The rhetorical techniques by which the speaker convinces the audience are identified and commented upon: alternation of direct and impersonal appeals to the audience; paradox, hyperbole, metaphor, erothema, antithesis, rhetorical question, as well as syntactic and semantic pleonasm. Demosthenes combines different principles according to Aristotelian categories of logos (logical reasoning and sequences, calculations of costs), ethos (oaths to Zeus, gods; usage of one’s authority for persuasion; emphasis on service to the common good as the main principle) and pathos (pathetic, sometimes even angry appeals; appeal to strong emotions of listeners).

Key words: persuasiveness, Demosthenes, linguistic and stylistic means, rhetorical techniques, logos, ethos, pathos.


  1. Golodnov, AV. Persuazivnaja kommunikacija: strategii i taktiki vozdejstvija [Persuasive communication: strategies and tactics of impact] (SPb.: Asterion, 2010), 243 (In Russ.).
  2. Golodnov, A. V. Ritoricheskij metadiskurs: osnovanija pragmalingvisticheskogo modelirovanija i sociokul’turnoj realizacii [Rhetorical metadiscourse: the foundations of pragmalinguistic modeling and sociocultural implementation] (SPb.: Asterion, 2011), 344 (In Russ.).
  3. Miasoiedova, S. V. “Rytorychne pytannja jak zasib vyrazhennja neprjamogo sponukannja v suchasnij ukrai’ns’kij movi [Rhetorical Question as a Means of Expressing Indirect Imperative Meaning in the Modern Ukrainian Language]”. Molodyj vchenyj 9 (24)/1 (2015): 118-121 (In Ukr.).
  4. Chernjavskaja, V. E. Diskurs vlasti i vlastdiskursa: problemy rechevogo vozdejstvija [Discourse of Power and Discourse Power: Issues of Speech Influence] (Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2006), 136 (In Russ.).
  5. Charteris-Black, J. Politicians And Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor (Houndmills; Basingstoke; Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 239.
  6. Cialdini, R. B. Influence (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 302.
  7. Halmari, H. Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005), 265.
  8. JaegerW. Demosthenes, the origins and growth of his policy (Cambridge: Walter de Gruyter Company, 1938), 273.
  9. Sealey, R. Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 340.
  10. Worthington, I. Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. (London: Routledge, 2000), 289.
  11. Aristotel’, Ritorika. Pojetika [Rhetoric, Poetics] (Moscow: Labirint, 2000), 224 (In Russ.).
  12. Demosfen, Rechi [Speeches], eds. E. S. Golubcova, L. P. Marinovich, J. D. Frolov. 3 vols. (Moscow: Pamjatniki istoricheskoj mysli, 1994) (In Russ.).
  13. Aristotle, Ars Rhetorica (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959),
  14. Demosthenes, Κατὰ Φιλίππου Α”, in Demosthenis Orationes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0069%3aspeech%3d4.
  15. Demosthenes, Κατὰ Φιλίππου Β”, in Demosthenis Orationes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0069%3aspeech%3d6.
  16. ΚΤσάτσος, Δημοσθένης (Αθήνα: ΕΣΤΙΑ, 2000), 355.