Content: Introduction The Impact of lingua-cultural rhetorical questions on dialogues general-rhetorical questions 2 Examples of rhetorical questions 15 Benefit

Cultural peculiarities of rhetorical questions

Cultural rhetoric is defined by the standards or values that culture attaches to things. This sort of value attachment can even vary within a culture and amongst different groups of people. We see in modern society in America that culture defines the roles of its entire membership and where an acceptable place in society is for these people. The struggle between sexes is one in particular that is perfect for this example. Culture has dictated in the past the placement of men above women, and therefore the power of men’s rhetoric over that of a woman. Gender and Visual Rhetoric roles are an ideal example of cultural rhetoric viewing the two genders as sub groups of the American culture.

Simply put, cultural rhetoric is a way of framing the words or ideology of a group through a lens that filters or can judge another group’s rhetorical power and value. Cultural rhetoric theories state that a culture is able to dictate values and standards through cultural rhetoric practice. With an interdisciplinary approach to understanding cultural theories of visual rhetoric, below is a more indepth explanation of culture as understood by sociologists and communications scholars.

Culture affects how we see things. Different cultures perceive things differently. According to Laura Desfor Edles' Cultural Sociology in Practice, “Culture” can be defined in several capacities; (A) humanistic and artistic activities, (B) the manner in which a particular group of people live, their way of life, (C) systems or patterns of shared symbols (1). It is this last method of defining “culture” with which we are most concerned. It is through these systems of shared patterns and symbols that individuals understand their environment, their reality, their life and everything related to their life.

Each individual has their own subjective frame through which they see reality. These frames are created through unique cultural experiences specific to the individual. Cultural frames reject an objective reality. Cultural frames shape how we see ourselves, others and our world. Cultural frames are cumulative they accumulate over time with experience and are constantly changing based on these experiences. The sum of our cultural frames is called our cultural prism. Because each individual experiences life through their own cultural frames, it can be said that there is no one universal objective reality. Each person has their own reality.

Often, the focus in both learning as well as teaching visual rhetoric is the need to make certain universal claims regarding its power, uses and meanings. However, if we consider visual rhetoric from the “cultural frames” perspective, there is no universal application of visual rhetoric. Each individual’s cultural frames dictate how they use as well understand visual rhetoric. For example, consider traffic signs. Traffic signs vary from country to country and even sometimes from region to region. Depending on an individual's cultural background, he or she will understand traffic signs differently.

A Japanese "bumpy road" sign looks strikingly similar to the European sign for "dip" in the road . Two different concepts represented by the same image in different geographical locations. The interpretation of these signs therefore will vary based on the cultural prism from which an individual views them.

The language we use to describe our world is completely arbitrary. There is no reason that certain words represent certain things. There is no clear connection between the signifier (word/symbol) and the signified (“object in world”). But more importantly, the construction of language is extremely culturespecific. Not only do varying cultures use different words but also these cultures see words differently. For example, consider a tree, a tree can be seen many different ways from varied subject positions and cultural frames. For an environmentalist, a tree is something to be preserved, a relic. For a timber company, a tree is profit. For a politician, a tree can represent a political platform.

Visual rhetoric can be considered a language, a visual language and similar to verbal language it is often arbitrary and definitely culturespecific. Consider brand logos. A company's logo is often wellrecognized as representing a particular brand but it's actual connection to the brand is somewhat arbitrary. For example, the Starbucks logo ; a green and white Nordic goddess has no relation to coffee products, the brand logo is arbitrary. In addition to being arbitrary, often logos are culturespecific as well arbitrary. While Starbucks is probably a universally recognized logo, an image such as the Duke Dog, James Madison University's mascot is not. The Duke Dog is a culturallyspecific symbol, easily understood and recognized by the James Madison University (JMU) culture as their noble mascot and spirit guru, yet most likely considered just a dog to individuals outside the JMU culture.

“The ideas of the ruling class are, in every epoch, the ruling ideas: i.e. the class, which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force (Edles 33).” This description of Hegemony is quoted by Edles from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' German Ideology. Although the description sounds somewhat convoluted, Marx and Engel touch upon the important idea of the connections between the ruling class and the ruling intellectual force. Hegemony is a fairly simple concept with very complicated definitions. In essence, Hegemony is a theory regarding how dominant classes control the order of society by making their own views appear to be the accepted views. Subordinate classes accept certain ideas, actions or structures as natural when in reality they are actually social constructs created by the dominant classes. “Hegemony is thus the sum of the cultural processes through which ruling groups universalize their own worldview in order to emerge as dominant (Rumbo).”

Deconstructing hegemonic constructs is extremely important when investigating any form of rhetoric. To understand certain forms of visual rhetoric, it is necessary to be aware of any potential hegemony. In addition, when participating in visual rhetoric one should be sure not to further any hegemonic constructs that may exist within the culture. Often, media perpetuates hegemonic structures by portraying individuals, the world and life as a particular way. While cultural groups such as African Americans, Hispanics and Asians continue to flourish within the United States, television, movies and advertising continue to portray America as a dominantly White society with little diversity. By constantly being exposed to often "colorblind" media, we accept it is as natural the Hegemony that The United States is a dominantly White country. In interpreting and creating visual rhetoric, it is important to keep in mind the potential Hegemonies.

Culture (from a communications standpoint) deals mostly with the rules that govern the understood, misunderstood, acceptable, unacceptable, expected and unexpected ways messages are relayed within a certain community. This community can be as small as an intimate group of friends or as large as a continent. The community is the culture. The message and it's delivery methods is the rhetoric. While theories on cultural rhetoric are usually explained in regards to verbal communication, they adapt well into visual rhetoric.

When verbal literacy is used, it follows guidelines set forth by the governing body and is designated as the national language. Visual literacy is also governed by culture specific values, but which are set for by national groups, they can vary. To be completely visually literate, one must understand all cultural aspects that may play a role in the interpretation of the image. This is where the knowledge and understanding of semiotics is important. The role of nonverbal communication in visual rhetoric connects closely to semiotics and the understanding of a visual argument.

Nonverbal behavior is typically analyzed indepth in regards to communication. Nonverbal communication itself is culturebased. The cultures one associates with will influence their interpretation and use of nonverbal codes. Nonverbal cues, as explained by Mark P. Orbe and Carol J. Bruess in Contemporary Issues in Interpersonal Communications, can be split up into seven categories, four of which translate well into visual rhetoric (138).

Facial and eye communication through expressions can tell a lot about the message a person is conveying in a picture. The importance of the face can be traced back to the simple fact that when communicating verbally, a person typically looks at the communicator’s face for extra feedback. However, much of facial communication is culture bound (Orbe 142). The seven common facial expressions (sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, and happiness) are innate in people as children. Yet, as a person is socialized into their cultures as adults, these expressions are sometimes hidden or accentuated. For example, Asian cultures teach one to hide any highly emotional thoughts such as sheer excitement. In a painting, it is important to take note of the cultural setting of the characters because their facial expressions may be skewed to fit the culture.

Proxemics study the use of space in communications (Orbe 145). Proxemics are also highly culture bound. A photo of a mother and child in each other’s personal space, embraced in a hug automatically brings thoughts of intimacy to an American. This is because intimate distance (touching up to 18 inches apart) is considered primarily inappropriate in U.S. culture. A good example of the extent to this used in recent popular culture is the film, Borat, where a foreign man from Kazakhstan tries to introduce himself to Americans by invading their intimate space . Borat is not welcomed by Americans who see this as an invasion of their personal space. Proxemics tie in closely with visual rhetoric because the distance between the two objects in a narrative representation may give clues to the relationship and argument conveyed.

Physical appearance and artifacts affect communications on a cultural level similar to facial and eye communication. This includes the choice of dress, choice of objects, decoration and the like. Even certain colors are more important than others in a culture (Orbe 154). For example, red, white and blue will have a different emotional connection to an American, Britain or Frenchman than to an Iraqi or South African. To an American, a photograph of a woman in a revealing dress will stimulate a different reaction than the reaction to the same photograph by a group of men from India. Similarly, in this photo of a Japanese wedding ceremony, the bride has her hair covered. Understanding that this has the same effect as wearing a wedding veil in western culture adds to the viewers understanding of the image.

The environment can be affected by culture in visual rhetoric. Architecture, room arrangements and colors fall into this category (Orbe 150). This relates closely to time and space in regards to visual rhetoric. Different cultures will react differently in certain environments. A person who grew up in the culture of the "city that never sleeps", New York, will react to a painting of the Swiss Alps differently than a person who travels the world hiking and mountain climbing.

Culture is both influential in how a reader interprets visual rhetoric as well as how a writer composes visual rhetoric. Understanding how cultural theories can influence visual rhetoric is essential. Although this discussion included only Sociological as well as Communicationbased theories of culture and visual rhetoric, these theories can be considered the underlying base upon which other cultural theories are developed and understood.

The work deals with the linguocultural aspects of crosscultural communication with the help of rhetorical questions. The aim of work is to identify the relationship between lingual personality’s interpreting degree of crosscultural symbols and successful process of crosscultural communication. As a result it is proved, that crosscultural communication is based on interpretation of crosscultural symbols as one of the most important motivate factors of communication. It should be emphasized that the lingual personality is the main component of communicative process. It is identified, that individual parameters of lingual personality form the individual lingual world view which reflects objectively the world perception by people having different cultures. The role of lingual personality parameters of emigrant at the successful crosscultural communication is identified.

The linguoculturological researches is to discover as language paradigm of culturological discourse, as basic pragmatic functions of linguoculturological units in any communicative situations. We use the linguocultural analysis as the base method of crosscultural communication researches.

It is evident, that crosscultural communication is based on crosscultural interpretation. According to О.А. Leontovich there are some factors of national and cultural language specificity of crosscultural communication, such as: 1. Representation of cultural traditions of the people: permits, prohibitions, stereotypical acts and etiquette characteristics of communicative universal facts. 2. Representation of social situation and social functions of communication. 3. Representation of local social situation in the peculiarities of the course of mental processes and various activities, such as the psycholinguistic base of speech activity, and the paralinguistic phenomena. 4. Determination of language specifics of community and research the symbols as cultural symbols [4, Р. 191192]. Motivation of cultural symbol represents the correlation between the concrete and abstract elements of symbolic content. Such correlation distinguishes the symbol and the sign, because the sign illustrates the connection between the signified and the signifier. A sign becomes a symbol as the whole spectrum of secondary conventional values of interpretation. The symbol has the properties of the sign, although the symbol does not imply a direct reference to the denotation.

Correlation between the sign and symbol has an important role in the specificity of crosscultural discourse consisting of different linguistic personalities and the conditions of communication. Lingual personality of emigrant as an object of linguistic researches generalizes culturallinguistic and communicativeactivity values, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. The lingual personality consists of the following components: 1) value component has a system of values, and life meanings. It is the content of education. The value component allows a person to form an initial and deep view of the world, forms the linguistic world view, the hierarchy of spiritual representations that form the base of a national character and realize in the process of linguistic dialogue; 2) culturological component contributes cultural studies, such as the rules of speech and nonverbal behavior; 3) personality component characterizes individual and deepest things in each person [5, Р. 119]. Individual parameters of lingual personality form he complex combination of psychophysiological, social, nationalcultural and linguistic peoples` differences. It leads to the fact that at the level of crosscultural communication the differences between linguistic personalities reach a certain critical volume that can have both positive and negative impact on the success in the crosscultural communication. English and Russian cultures had some similar things in the past, such as mythoarchetypal beginning. English culture is the unity of many tribes’ cultures such as Brits, Scots, Celts, and AngloSaxons, then Norman culture. But Russian culture is the unity of culture of pagan Slavic, Christian Byzantine, and Western European.

Different cultural identity is the base of crosscommutation shock. The study of the crosscultural communication principles allows identifying the causes of communicative shock. Such identification is the way of overcoming the results of communicative shock. The process of crosscultural peoples interaction bases on studying the particular of communication using complex approaches, qualitative changes in the choice of research methods of lingual personality as the subject of successful crosscultural communication [4, Р. 9]. Any lingual personality has an “evaluation scale”. For example, lingual personality of emigrant uses this “evaluation scale” to represent the surrounding world as the linguocultural model. This model is a structural property and powerful factor of personality selfdetermination, because a representative of any particular culture has a certain cultural fund, that is, a set of knowledge that provides a certain outlook in the field of national and world culture. The cultural fund is basic units included in any national culture. The person’s belonging to a particular culture determines his mentality as the basis of another culture perception usually by reading literature and crosscultural communication. In crosscultural communication the lingual world view is very important thing as a guide in the communicative process between the lingual personality of emigrant and the society. The lingual world view is the basis of personal selfidentification and largely depends on linguocultural specificity of society. It is the format of lingual semantics code. Individual lingual world view can be an actual or a relic thing. But, a relic specificity of lingual world view can be the base to form new mental structures. As a result of such new lingual world view forming we identified the difference between the archaic semantic system of language and the actual mental model that is valid for a lingual group. E.E. Brazgovskaya said about the differences of crosscultural discourse of society and “social creative text” . Crosscultural discourse has certain national sign, therefore V.V. Vorobiev says: “linguistic signs and expressions require an extralinguistic way of their representation and interpretation” [3, Р. 8182], whereas lingual world view can have the form of a linguistic one. This thesis means that lingual world view can form linguistic competence, but it proves to be meaningfully more complicated. The issue of culturological relativity of lingual world view is very important. It is apparented in the variability of forms and categorization of the meanings system.

Differences of lingual world view formed under the influence of complex cognitive structures. Such influence is important for the forming as discursive models, as literary text models. Lingual and linguocultural world views are consistent with each other because of the dialectical connection of language and thought as a reflection of the world in people mind. Lingual and linguocultural world views have at the same time a number of differences due to their functional specificities. Researches of lingual world view in dynamics are carried out with the socialdynamic study of cultural interaction. The socialdynamic approach in the study of lingual world view suggests that the lingual world view is in the status of permanent development. The components of this system reflect the specificity of life and culture of social and national community which is the base of crosscultural communicative shock, because of ethnoconnotation. Ethnoconnotation has the deep level of the supposed multilayered model of cultural conceptssphere. It has a certain structure and specific parameters of ethnoconotants content. The ethnoconnotation appearance in the crosscultural communicative processes bases on the degree of correlation between form and meaning of cultural code.

To sum up, lingual world view has pragmatic parameters and manifests itself in realities, which include concepts related to the life and worldview of the society that created them. So, it is evident, that crosscultural communication is based on crosscultural interpretation which bases on four factors of national and cultural language specificity having cultural symbols.

It is proved, that cultural symbol is one of the most important motivate factor of crosscultural communication having the lingual personality parameters of emigrant as the base. The lingual personality parameters consist of the following three components: value component, culturological component, personality component. The lingual personality parameters are the base of the lingual world view forming in crosscultural communication process. The lingual world view is very important thing as a guide in the communicative process between the lingual personality and the society.