Persuasive privilege speeches are heavily relied upon by Filipino senators in dealing with their constituents and fellow politicians. Through a privilege speech, Filipino senators promote their advocacies, defend their Zork and reputation and generally attempt to influence their listeners. However, despite the central and highly public role that privilege speeches play in the Philippine socio political arena, no study has, thus, far attempted to scrutinize the structure, reasoning, and persuasive strategies present until this paper. This study, therefore, used the theories by Wood and Goodnight (1996); Froemling, Grice, and Skinner (2011); and German, Gronbeck, Ehninger, and Monroe (2010) to examine 58 privilege speech transcripts featuring Filipino senators obtained from the official WeBsite of the Senate of the philippines Through this paper, it was revealed that Filipino senators present their points and claims in such a way that the audience would feel the relatable and personal nature of the issues tackled. It was also shown that the Filipino senators favor structuring their speeches by presenting the issue or necessity, proposing a solution, and then appealing for action. The study was also able to highlight how Filipino senators applied a combination of logical and emotional appeals to establish, maintain, and raise credibility.
Keywords: Persuasion, reasoning, structure, public speaking, persuasive communicationBarnet, S., & Bedau, H. (2011). From critical thinking to argument: A portable guide (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s.
Copi, I.M., Cohen, C., & Flage, D.E. (2007). Essentials of logic (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
De Leon, H. (2011). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Manila: Rex Publishing.
Dillard, J., Weber, K., & Vail, R. (2007). The relationship between perceived and actual effectiveness of persuasive messages: A meta-analysis with implications for formative campaign research. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 613-631.
Duck, S., & McMahon, D.T. (2010). Communication in everyday life. Canada: SAGE Inc.
Farida, A.N. (2012). Steps in the moves of keynote speeches in mobile phone launching events as pointers for teaching public speaking. English Education Journal, 2(2), 169-176.
Franz, D. (2004). Discourse and democracy. contemporary reactions on contemporary culture. USA: University of Virginia.
Froemling, K., Grice, G., & Skinner, J. (2011). Communication: The handbook. USA: Pearson Education.
German, K.M., Gronbeck, B.E., Ehninger, D., & Monroe, A.H. (2010). Principles of public speaking (17th ed.). Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson.
Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). Is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape viewers’ impressions of political candidates. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 833-850.
Richmond, V.P., & Hickson, M. (2002). Going public: A practical guide to public talk. USA: Pearson Education.
Seiter, R.H., & Gass, J. S. (2010). persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ten Brinke, L., & Adams, G.S. (2015). Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130(1), 1-12.van Winden, F. (in press). Political economy with effect: On the role of emotions and relationships in political economics. European Journal of Political Economy. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.05.005.
Verderber, R.F. (1985). The challenge of effective speaking (6th ed.). USA: Wadsworth, Inc.Verderber, K., Verderber, R.F., & Sellnow, D. (2011). Essential speech. USA: Cengage Learning.
Watt, S., & Barnett, J. (2013). Persuasive speaking. Public Speaking Project. Retrieved from http://www.publicspeakingproject.org.
Wood, R., & Goodnight, L. (1995). Strategic debate (5th ed.). Illinois: National Textbook.