Argumentation strategies of the Saudi political discourse: A critical analysis of oral messages
Keywords:
argumentation strategies, Saudi political discourse, Saudi-Iranian tensions, CDA, exemplification, explicitness, entailment, RQsAbstract
The current study aimed at exploring the argumentation strategies of the Saudi political discourse (henceforth SPD) through critical analysis of oral messages delivered by the ex-Minister of Saudi Foreign Affairs, Adel Al-Jubeir. For fulfilling the goal of the study, the researcher: (1) surveyed what was written about Al-Jubeir in order to get acquainted with his academic, political and diplomatic background, (2) examined the most common argumentation strategies used by politicians and diplomats, and how to analyze them in oral discourse, and (3) selected an issue that is chronic or deeply-rooted, Saudi- Iranian Tensions. Al-Jubeir’s oral interview on that issue was transcribed, and then four techniques of analysis were used. The study results were thoroughly discussed with exemplary analyses. It was concluded that different argumentation strategies are used in SPD – one cements the other – in order to accomplish an effective result. The main contribution of this study can be seen as the elaboration of the theoretical background on argumentation strategies and the empirical evidence in the SPD that necessitates further research.
References
Adler, R. and Rodman, G. (1997). Understanding human communication (6th ed.). Fort Woth: Hartcourt Brace Collage Publishers.
Al-Khatib, K.; Wachsmuth, H.; Hagen, M. & Stein, B.( 2017). Patterns of argumentation strategies across topics. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.1351-1357. Copenhagen. Denmark, September 7-11,2017. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Antonini, S.; Premeg, N.; Mariotti, M. and Zaslavsky, O. (2010). On examples in mathematical thinking and learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43: 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0334-5.
Baley,P. (2005). Analyzing language and politics. In Mediazioni: Online Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies of Language and Cultures. DOI 10.1437/media15.
Barnet,S. and Bedau, H.(eds.) (1987). Current issues and enduring questions: Methods and models of argumentation from Plato to the present. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Batstone, R. (1995) Grammar in discourse: Attitude and deniability. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197-213.
Baumgarten, N.; Meyer, B. and Özcetin, C. (2008). Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence of an elusive concept. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2), 177–203 (2008) DOI: 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.2
Blankenship, K. & Craig, T. (2006). Rhetorical question use and resistance to persuasion: An attitude strength analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25 (2), 111-128.
Bos, J., and Markert, K. (2005). Recognising textual entailment with logical inference. In Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 628-635). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Boynton, G. & Nelson, J. (1998). Making sound arguments: Would a claim by any other sound mean the same or argue so sweet? . In James F. Klumpp (Ed.). Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, frameworks and Critiques (Annandale, VA: National Communication Association, 1997). 12-17.
Buys, W.; Still, T. and Beck, R. (1991). Speaking by doing: A speaking-listening text (6th ed.). Chicago: National Textbook Company.
Cano-Basave, A. & He, Y. (2016). A study of the impact of persuasive argumentation in political debates. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2016, pp. 1405-1413. San Diego, California, June 12-17, 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Chilton. P. & Schaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction, Vol. 2. London: Sa ge, 206-231.
Chilton. P. & Schaffner, C. (2002a). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political Discourse. In Paul Chilton and Christina Schaffner (eds.) Politics as text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia . pp. i-ix.
Dace, K. (1990). The conflict group decision making link: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Dagan, I.; Glickman, O. and Magnini, B. (2005). The PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge, Volume 3944 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer
De Metsenaere, H. and Vandepitte, S. (2017). Towards a theoretical foundation for explicitation and implicitation. trans-kom 10 (3), 385-419.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press.
Dunmire, P. 2012). Political discourse analysis: Exploring the language of politics and the politics of language. Language and Linguistics, 6(11), 735-751.
Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and Social Change . London: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992b). Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Linguistics. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. Available at: http:// balticpractice.nse.ru/…Critical%20discourse%20analsis
Farr, J. ((1989). Understanding conceptual change politically. In Terenence Ball, James Farr & Russel L. Hanson (eds.) Political Innovation and Conceptual Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.24-49.
Fischer, F., &Gottweis, H. (eds.). (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham, NC; Duke University Press.
Folger,J. & Poole, M. (1984) Working through conflict. Glenview, IL : Scott Foresman.
Frank, J. (1990). You call that a rhetorical question?: Forms and functions of rhetorical questions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (5), 723-738.
Gouran, D. (1998). The constituents of sound scholarly argument: An editor’s perspective. . In James F. Klumpp (Ed.). Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, frameworks and Critiques (Annandale, VA: National Communication Association, 1997). 116-121.
Greene, R. (1998). The rhetorical perspective on argumentation and the question of effectivity. . In James F. Klumpp (Ed.). Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, frameworks and Critiques (Annandale, VA: National Communication Association, 1997). 185-190.
Grootendorst, R. (1988, August). Rules for argumentation in dialogues. Paper presented at Wake Forest University Argumentation Conference, Venice, Italy.
Hample, D. &Dallinger, J. (1991). Message design logic, goal structure, interpersonal construct differentiation, and situation. In A. Rahim (Ed.). Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp.188-192) . NY: Praeger.
Hart, C. (2005). Analyzing political discourse: Toward cognitive approach. Critical Discourse Studies, 2 (2), 189-194.
Hartney, A. (1995). Argument through examples: An exploration and case study. In Sally Jackson (ed.) Argumentation and Values. Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation Speech Communication Association, Annandale: VA, pp. 408-412.
Hickl, A. (2008). Using discourse commitments to recognize textual entailment. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pp. 337-344.
Infante, D. &Rancer, A. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
Infante, D. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Jensen, J. (1981). Argumentation in communication. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Jijkoun, V. and de Rijke, M. (2005). Recognizing textual entailment using lexical similarity. In Proceedings of the First PASCAL Challenges Workshop.
Joseph,J. ; Davies, A.; and Mitchell, K. (2006). Language and politics. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
Khalil, H.(2002). Entailment in Meaning. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311383982_Entailment_in_Meaning/download
Kirlvalidze, N. &Samnidze, N. (2016). Political discourse as a subject of interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Teaching and Education,5 (1), 161-170.
Kranich, S. and Gast, V. (2013). Explicitness of epistemic modal marking: Recent changes in British and American English. Available at: http://www.uni-jena.de/~mu65qev/papdf/kranich_gast.pdf
Kreig, E. (1997, July/August). Examining the amazing energy-free claims of Dennis Lee. Skeptical Inquirer,21(4), 34-36.
Leatham, G. (1991). Explicit disagreement in groups with high and low judgment model overlap. In Donn W. Parson (ed.). Argument Controversy, Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation Speech Communication Association, Annandale: VA, pp. 243-248.
Makau, J. (1990). Reasoning and communication: Thinking critically about arguments. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mansouri,S., Biria, R., Najafabadi, M. and Boroujeni, S. (2017). Nomination and argumentation strategies in oratory discourse: The case of an English sermon. SAGE Open, April-June 2017: 1-8. DOI:10.1177/2158244017702425.
Murtisari, E. (2016). Explicitation in Translation Studies: The journey of an elusive concept. Translation & Interpreting, 8 (2), 64-82. DOI: 10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a05
Nelson,J. (1991). Tropes of political argument in America: Toward mythic modes of rhetorical analysis. In Donn W. Parson (ed.). Argument Controversy, Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation Speech Communication Association, Annandale: VA, pp. 73-79.
Newell, S. &Stutman, R, (1988). The social confrontation episode. Communication Monographs, 55, 266-285.
Nordquist, R. (2018). Entailment in Semantics. Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-entailment-in-semantics-1690653
O’Keefe, B. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communicative Monographs, 55, 80-103.
O’Keefe, D. (2018). Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect; A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy 1051-1431. (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rafa20
Ochs, E. and Taylor, C. (1992). Family narratives as political activity. Discourse and Society, 3 (3), 301-340.
Oraby, S., Harrison, V., Misra, A., Riloff, E. and Walker, M. (2017). Are you serious?: Rhetorical questions and sarcasm in social media dialog. Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2017 Conference (pp.310-319). Association for Computational Linguistics. Saarbrücken, Germany, 15-17 August 2017.
Petasis, G. and Karkaletsis, V. (2016). Identifying Argument Components through TextRank. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, pp. 94–102, Berlin, Germany, August 7-12, 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Reike, R. &Sillers, M. (1992). Argumentation and the decision making process( 3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Reinnrd, J. (1991). Foundations of argument: Effective communication for critical thinkers. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Rohde, H. (2006). Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. Department of Linguistics, UCSD.
Rotteberg, A. (1985). Elements of argument: A text and reader (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Rowlanf, R. (1987). On defending argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 20, 140-159.
Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars topica: The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Schaffer, D. (2005). Can rhetorical questions function as retorts? Is the Pope Catholic?, Journal of Pragmatics, 37.433–460.
Schiappa, E. (1995). Warranting assent: Case studies in argument evaluation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Schultz, B. (1991). Argumentative strategies for managing conflict. In In Donn W. Parson (ed.). Argument Controversy, Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. VA: Speech Communication Association, Annandale, pp. 204-207.
Schwarz, B. and Asterhan, C. ( 2008). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. KleineStaarman (Eds). Elsevier Handbook of Educational Psychology: New Perspectives on Learning and Teaching. Elsevier Press.
Shang, Z.; Brooks, C. and McCloy, R. (2014) Does more detailed information mean better performance? An experiment in information explicitness. Review of Behavioural Finance, 6 (2), 86103.
Sillars, M. &Ganer, P. (1982). Values and beliefs: A systematic basis for argumentation. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp. 184-201). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Špago, D. (2016). Rhetorical questions or rhetorical uses of questions? ExELL (Explorations in English Language and Linguistics), 4(2), 102-115.
Strohmaier, M.; Prettenhofer, P. and Lux, M. (2017). Different degrees of explicitness in intentional artifacts: Studying user goals in a large search query log. Personal contact (email: pprett@know-center.at)
Thomlinson, R. & Phillips, K. (1991). Self-monitoring and argumentativeness; Using argument as impression management. In In A. Rahim (Ed.). Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 193-196) . NY: Praeger.
Toska, B. (2010). The dialogical identity of pragmatic markers in political argumentation. Available at: http:www.tu-chmnitz.de/phil/English/sections/ling/download…/Toska_ESSE10.pdf
Toulmin, S. (2003). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turlacu, M. (2014). Argumentative strategies in political discourse. Available online at: www.diacronia.ro/indexing/details/V1157/pdf
UWC Staff for Dallas Baptist University (2015). Exemplification Essay. Dallas Baptist University. Available at: http://www.dbu.edu/uwc.
Walker, G. (1991). Argument and conflict: Conceptual and empirical perspectives. In A. Rahim (Ed.). Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 182-187) . NY: Praeger.
Walton, D. (2006). Dialogical models of explanation. In ExaCt2007: Papers from the 2007AAAI workshop, Vancouver, July 21-22 (pp. 1-9). Menlo Park. CA: AAAI Press.
Walton, D. (2009) Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction. In: Simari G., Rahwan I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA.
Weinstein, M. (1998). Foundational thoughts on informal logic as a theory of argument. . In James F. Klumpp (Ed.). Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, frameworks and Critiques (Annandale, VA: National Communication Association, 1997). 18-23.
Wenzel, A. (1990). Three perspectives on argumentation: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic. I R. Trapp & J. Schueltz (Eds.). Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede ( pp. 9-26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Wilson, J. (1990) Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, J. (1997). Metalinguistic negation and textual aspects of political discourse. In J. Blmmaert and C. Bulcaen (eds.), Political Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69-89.
Wilson, J. (2006). Political discourse. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.) 398-415.
Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. London, UK: Palgrave.
Wodak, R. (2015). Political argumentation. In GianpietroMazzoleni (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.1-9.
Published
Versions
- 2019-02-12 (2)
- 2019-02-12 (1)
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.