The embedding of modules in context and their visual arrangement

In the context of websites, the multi-modal format influences how persuasion is attempted. Hyperlinking, non-linearity, the modularity of and the nesting of content are different aspects that affect how arguments are set up to persuade. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006: 204-205) point out that despite non-linearity and the possibility of multiple reading paths the composi- tion of websites is not random, which is why I argued it should also be taken into account for a multi-faceted picture of persuasion. My second set of research questions regarding how sub-sites are embedded in the co- and context of websites as well as how sub-sites are visual- ly arranged are essential. In order to assess the embedded function within the website struc- ture, I analyse how sites belonging to the respective sub-samples are hierarchically ordered or

categorized within the larger websites. This will give me insight into how website authors position the codes in question and how they want readers to perceive and approach said themes. Further, I comment on how both codes, “addressing common questions/worries” and “listing practical tips”, are structured as modules. The visual design points to how readers are supposed to engage with the material presented and to where the topical foci lie. Thus, de- spite the fact that these are not linguistic concerns as such, they are necessary aspects to get a grasp of how argumentation is built up on the websites.

In the topic “addressing common questions/worries”, the question of how the modules are structured is especially important since it establishes pre-given identities of web-sources as experts and outside voices as lay interactants by “[…] simulat[ing] a discussion between insiders and outsiders” (Turnbull 2013: 298). The bi-partite structure works to grant a posi- tion of expertise to website authors, which is boosted in the cases of (S04) and (S29) by claiming that their responses are providing facts or are exposing excuses respectively. Simi- larly, the lexeme expert is explicitly used to designate answers in (S17) and (S18). All of these linguistic means reinforce the hierarchy in knowledge inherent to the genre of FAQs. Further, the internal structure of FAQs pinpoints how readers are expected to engage with information and the embedded function of FAQs in the overall practice. In this respect, the strategic placement of FAQs and how they fit into the organization of the websites is im- portant to consider.

As explained before (see Ch. 6 and Section 7.2.1), I used “listing practical tips” as a label to indicate that websites feature designated areas of explicit advice-giving. In other words, the advice-giving frame is unequivocally present, including the asymmetry in knowledge between the roles and the relational dimension that come with advice-giving. Thus, this makes sections featuring the code “listing practical tips” interesting for a study persuasion. The face-threatening potential of advice and the pre-distribution of expertise also poses chal- lenges to website authors in terms of how to position themselves and readers. In contrast the theme “addressing common questions/worries”, website authors abstain from explicitly label- ling themselves as experts, using more subtle identity strategies to signal expertise. Further, as I will show, the categorisation of “listing practical tips” on the entire website and the name of the modules can have a mitigating effect, announcing to readers that they are about to be- come advice-seekers. The internal structure of the theme “listing practical tips” is more var- ied than “addressing common questions/worries”: from listing advice to working with hyper- links, all of which guides readers’ attention in different ways. In the following two sub- sections, I will elaborate on the embedding of and the internal arrangement of modules. I will

begin with “addressing common questions/worries” and then move on to “listing practical tips”.

7.3.1.1. Addressing common questions/worries

Even though thematic modules of websites need to make sense on their own, where they are integrated, how the content of modules connects to the rest of a website as well as their visual arrangement is meaningful in terms of persuasion. As already indicated in Section 7.2.1, my analysis showed that the two sources with the larger number of words, (S17) and (S18) are also similar in terms of how the sub-sites dealing “addressing common questions/worries” are visually arranged and their embedded function within the practices. Therefore, I will first discuss (S17) and (S18) before moving on to elaborate on the embedded functions of (S29) and (S04). Their order is deliberately reverse to do justice to the continuum of typicalityon which the modules can be placed with (S04) being the most distant from typical FAQs.

Figure 7.1 shows a screenshot of how “addressing common questions/worries” is realised as

Frequently asked questions in (S17):

The category FAQs is subordinate to Advice & Information (blue frame), which points to the purpose of FAQs of conveying facts, showing options and suggesting action alternatives for readers to become active. Additionally, this explicit sub-categorization to Advice & Infor-

mation sets the ground for the pre-established asymmetrical identity positions of lay-

questioner and expert-respondent typical of FAQs. This aspect of setting up a frame of expec- tation is especially important since advice-giving is by no means restricted to the tab Advice

& information in (S17). In other words, if readers click on Advice & Information, they are

willing to adopt the role of advice-seekers and expect the speech-event advice to take place. In (S17) the question-answer pairs are grouped into super-categories (e.g. Preparing to quit

and go smokefree, etc.), which facilitates the navigation of the website (Fig. 7.1). Readers can

Figure 7.1 Screenshot of the thematic module “addressing common questions/worries” in (S17); (blue frame added)

click on the topic of their interest, resulting in the questions popping up. At that point, they can select whatever question they identify with or regard as most pertinent for them. Ja- noschka (2004: 111) has called this “customization”, which is a type of individualization that enhances the attractiveness —and ultimately the persuasiveness— of the website. This type of structure indicates that the FAQs are not meant to be consumed exhaustively, but that readers can cherry-pick whatever snippet of information they find interesting.

This assumption is corroborated by the fact that there is a redundancy of information across questions. In example (7.28), the overlap in content is illustrated with two passages from separate questions dealing with relapse. The first question addresses first-time quitters whereas the second question is directed at more experienced quitters. Both questions belong to the category Preparing to quit and go smokefree and are listed in sequence on the website:

(7.28) What if I start smoking again? […]

If you start again, don't worry. You haven't failed. You have improved your chance of success next time.

[…]

I've tried to give up many times, but always fail - what else can I do?

If you've tried before and it didn't work out don't worry. You haven't failed, you have just given yourself more practice for the next time you quit.

[…] (S17)

If we look at the answers to both questions, it becomes clear that the paragraphs display simi- lar content, in parts even featuring the same wording (don’t worry, you haven’t failed). It is reasonable to assume that website authors expect readers to click on what is relevant to their identity—either as a first time or as a more experienced quitter.

The observation that website authors anticipate readers to go through the questions selec- tively can be further supported in other sections. The super-category Smoking and pregnancy is especially prone to repeat content from other super-categories. For instance, the question

Can I use NRT while I’m pregnant? is raised and answered in the exact same form in the pre-

vious super-category on Nicotine Replacement Products and other stop smoking medicines. Similarly, questions dealing with the dangers of smoking and how it affects children and un- born babies are discussed multiply with few alterations in content. Thus, pregnant women are most likely to head to the category Smoking and pregnancy, where they can expect to find

information targeted at them. However, by reiterating content under several headings and categories, website authors make sure that important items of information can be found by the intended readers in several places regardless of their reading path.

Moreover, my close-reading analysis of the embedding and the visual arrangement of the FAQs in (S17) reveal that one of their main functions is to regroup information from other sub-sites on thesource. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 are both screenshots of (S17); one depicting the FAQs question dealing with the effects of second-hand smoke and the first page under the tab

Secondhand smoke linked to reasons for quitting. The content presented in both sections

overlaps, with the blue frames highlighting two near- identical pieces of information.

Since FAQs cover a range of topics (as indexed by the super-categories), their function seems to be to provide concise summaries of information that is distributed on the entire website. Further, if we compare the layout of the screenshots, it is noteworthy that FAQs are still pri- marily text-based and are intended to be read vertically without many text-enhancing effects. In contrast, important facts are given more weight by making them more “salient” with the help of colour and turning the font bold in in the sub-site about second-hand smoke (Kress & Van Leeuwen 2006: 201). This relative visual bareness is part of the FAQ genre: It reinforces the impression that readers encounter expert answers, which contributes to ethos construc- tion. In terms of persuasion, the function of regrouping information in FAQs helps to empha- size important points and leads readers to information they would not have clicked on other- wise. Finally, the FAQs in (S17) work as a navigation/information centre, guiding readers to other sub-sections of the website. The discursive move referral occurs most often in “ad- dressing common questions/worries”, featuring 46 occurrences in 32 questions in (S17). Eve- ry question ends with a hyperlink to another sub-section in (S17), which highlight the fact that the FAQs are seen as providing an opportunity to further involve readers by redirecting them to other sub-sections.

In (S18), the theme “addressing common questions/worries” is realised as Ask the ex-

perts, which is one of many topics from which readers can choose in the sub-menu on the

left-hand side (highlighted by a blue frame in Fig. 7.4). The topic Ask the experts is set be- tween hyperlinks to Help someone stop and Help & advice, which places it among the explic- it advice- and information-giving sections of the website. As pointed out for (S17), if readers select this section, they expect to engage in the speech event advice, in which they will be presented with action alternatives and information. Further, the name of the module itself sets up the hierarchy of knowledge form the beginning, which may affect how advice is rendered and information is given.

The question-answer pairs are categorized according to topics, which have the same headings as in (S17) but appear in different order53_{. Readers can select the topic of their interest and}

choose the question they would like to know more about. By selecting a specific question, readers make a text pop up. As argued above for (S17), the customization of content has a persuasive effect since readers individualize the content of the website according to their needs (Janoschka 2004: 113). It also suggests that readers make their way through the FAQs in a selective fashion, being their own agents in terms of what topic they select.

However, website authors use the strategy of repetition to increase the likelihood of readers finding relevant information. In example (7.29), I collated three passages containing the argument of how cigarettes are filled with toxic chemicals. I conducted a word search for

toxic in NVivo in “addressing common question/worries” in (S18), which produced seven

results, three of which featured the exact same phrase (over 4.000 toxic chemicals): (7.29)

Cigarettes contain over 4,000 toxic chemicals and around 50 of these cause can- cer. […]

(S18; What’s in a cigarette?) […] Damage to the health of a smoker is caused by the tar, carbon monoxide, and

over 4,000 toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke. […]

(S18; Are NRT products just

as dangerous as smoking cig- arettes?)

[…] Cigarettes contain over 4,000 toxic chemicals and around 50 of these cause cancer.

[…] (S18; What does smoking do

to my body?)

If we consider that the seven occurrences of the toxicity of cigarettes are distributed across the total of thirty-three questions, it shows that there is a good chance that readers get across that particular argument at some point. Similar to the FAQs in (S17), Ask the experts is used to reinforce content of other sub-sites in (S18), providing succinct summaries of important information. Moreover, the search questions bar at the bottom of the site underlines that

53 _{The large amount of informational overlap between (S17) and (S18) can be attributed to the fact that both}

websites have a governmental background with (S17) being the country-wide website. Nonetheless, they differ in terms of discursive structure (see Section 7.3) but also in terms of the embedded functions of their FAQs.

readers should consider ask the experts as an archive of information that can be accessed ac- cording to their needs. This impression is further stressed by the fact that readers are invited to submit a question if they do not encounter a satisfactory answer (Can’t find what you’re

looking for?). Additionally, system-generated suggestions of Other questions that may be useful... (see Fig. 7.5) once the reader selects a question bolsters the archive-like function of Ask the experts.

In Figure 7.5 two screenshots are depicted that deal with the dangers of smoking during pregnancy: one is from the sub-section Pregnancy whereas the other is the answer to one of the questions in the super-category Smoking and pregnancy. While there is an overlap in in- formation (examples are highlighted with blue frames in Fig. 7.5), the information presented on the sub-site specifically designed for smoking in pregnancy is more elaborate. In fact, the sub-site lists more potential health dangers (e.g. congenital defects) and is textually more explicit when talking about health risks of smoking. In contrast to (S17), the summaries of information in Ask the experts in (S18) are more succinct than what can be encountered in the specific sub-sites. In other words, Ask the experts represent the digested versions of infor- mation within the sub-sites. The larger amount of text in the specific sub-site on Pregnancy seems to go hand in hand with an increased effort to convince readers of the information pre- sented. For instance, slower growth is presented as an isolated health risk in the FAQs where- as the same health risk is additionally linked to developmental issues (lower achievements) and respiratory illnesses (developing asthma). The implications of a slower growth are thus made more pressing to readers.

Finally, one further idiosyncrasy of Ask the experts is the request to rate answers after each question, inviting readers to judge how useful they found single answers. The possibility to evaluate content is not particular to the section Ask the experts but also appears in Help &

Advice in (S18) (see Fig. 7.12). This type of user-site interactivity makes the speech-event

advice appear less one-sided, handing back some expertise to readers by giving them the op- portunity to influence other readers’ reading path (see Warnick 2007: 76 on types of interac- tivity and Ch. 2). However, this is only an ostensible reduction of the lay-expert hierarchy as authorial control remains entirely with website authors.

181

Figure 7.5 Screenshots of two sub-sites dealing with smoking and pregnancy in (S18): from the sub-site Pregnancy and from dangers of smoking during pregnancy in Ask

In (S29) the issue of smoking is just one of many lifestyle issues that have an effect on readers’ health that are discussed, such as exercise and eating well. As shown in in Figure 7.6, the structure and the overall purpose of the website differ from (S17) and (S18), which are entirely focussed on smoking cessation. The thematic module “addressing common ques- tions/worries” is realized as Overcoming excuses to quit smoking (blue frame in Fig 7.6) and is listed below hyperlinks to sub-sites detailing the benefits of quitting per se and during pregnancy. The location of Overcoming excuses to quit smoking suggests that it acts as a final spur for readers after all arguments have been put on the table. If readers want to know more about how they can overcome excuses, they click on the heading leading them to hyperlinked content.

The sub-site itself is text-based (Fig. 7.7) and lists the different excuses in a vertical sequence (see blue frames). In contrast to the FAQs discussed earlier, the entire text is visible without requiring additional interaction, such as clicking on a link to open a sub-topic. This pre- determined reading path implies that readers are supposed to make sense of the document in its entirety, highlighting that each piece of information is relevant. This assumption is further Figure 7.6 Screenshot of “addressing common questions/worries” in (S29)

supported by the ascending numbering of Excuses54_{. If we examine the rest of the smoking} section on the website, it becomes clear that Overcoming excuses to quit smoking presents new information. This could account for the editorial decision to guide readers through the whole subpage. Hence, the embedded function of the dyadic module within the entire website structure differs from the two other sources (S17, S18). While the latter two offer a platform for readers to look up information in a independent way, the website authors from (S29) use the dyadic format to enhance the rhetorical effect of their arguments. Readers are expected to recognize themselves in the Excuses-statements, which should make them more willing to accept ensuing advice and information to become smoke-free. In other words, website au- thors want to persuade readers to quit making excuses and go for it, as phrased in the intro- ductory text.

54 _{Nonetheless, due to the fact that Excuses or the first parts of the dialogic structures have been made salient by}

turning the font bold (see Kress& Van Leeuwen 2006: 201), readers can skim and pick tesxts selectively to some extent.

In (S04), the thematic module “addressing common questions/worries” is realized as

Nicotine Myths, which is part of the super-category Quitting (Fig 7.8). This super-category is

presented as the more neutral, product-independent section, giving dis-interested information on this otherwise commercial website. The other main headers either entail product presenta- tions or stop smoking programmes based on the use of the medication of the company (Ac-

tiveStop, Cut Down to Stop).

The information-giving character of the super-category Quitting is reinforced by mimick-