This sketch is dedicated to analysing examples of persuasive inference which can be found in the content of parliamentary speeches of right-wing members of Parliament. The research material is composed of randomly selected texts of parliamentary speeches delivered by members of Parliament of the 4th and 5th term of Parliament’s office (the period 2001–2007).
This paper discusses inference schemes based on generalisation, identification and shallow analogy. Generalisation consists in expanding a theorem or phenomenon beyond its natural boundaries, persuasive identification is a device consisting in conscious exposure of similarities of two objects and simultaneous concealment of all differences between them, while inference based on shallow analogy uses hardly perceptible similarities between two phenomena.
Persuasive inference differs from logical inference in that its aim is to convince recipients even at the cost of formal correctness of the reasoning itself. Politicians willingly apply erroneous, yet attractive in terms of persuasion, premises which ought to be primarily adjusted to and accepted by listeners.
The aim of this paper is to analyse the rhetorical efficiency of addressative forms applied in asymmetric (distance) relations. Particular attention is paid to assessing the form Mr./Ms. + first name, which has been spreading for around twenty years now. Its occurrence is associated with the process of Americanisation of Polish politeness manners.
Persuasive suitability and unsuitability of the indicated addressative forms is discussed on the example of the following circles: commerce and services, higher education institutions, lawyers, medical staff, state and legislative authorities, television.
