Argumentation Theory in English and Arabic Hussein HuwailGhayadh Thiqar Directorate of Education Teachers Training Institute

Transcription

1 Argumentation Theory in English and Arabic Hussein HuwailGhayadh Thiqar Directorate of Education Teachers Training Institute Abstract: Argumentation Theory provides theoretical and methodological foundation of understanding how to use various types of discourse as a means of convincing others. It seems that this theory does not confine itself to English only: it has its roots in various cultures such as Arabic. Thus, this paper is an attempt to trace this theory in both contexts in order to find out the similarities and differences between them. The findings of contrasting the two theories reveal that the two theories are more similar than they are different. They are similar in: basing on rhetoric, adopting the pragmatic argument, stylistic techniques, and law of utility. They are different in some stylistic techniques such as cautiousness, supplementation, accomplishment, contrajunction, and increasing or decreasing words. Being more similar, can be taken as an evidence that English theory developed from the Arabic one. Key Words: argumentation, association, supplementation, Cautiousness, accomplishment Introduction: Language is a complex instrument, having parts that connect or go together in complicated ways, used to communicate an unbelievable number of different things, but for our purposes here we can reduce the universe of communication to argumentation. Regardless of the type of communication, verbal (oral, written) or non-verbal (paralanguage), argumentation is a crucial theory for communication. Ramsy and Miller argue that the goal of argumentation is not coercion, but rather mutual understanding (2003:7). When we express thoughts, we draw a decision or final judgment based on what is already known, i.e. what we have experienced. Thoughts are connected to our values (what we think are right/wrong or good/bad), beliefs (what we think is true/false), and attitudes (what we like and dislike). We are influenced by our mental perspectives, which Peter Senge defines as deeply internalized images of how the world works (Senge, 1990:159). What is more, Hample (1992: 99) identifies the relation between mental perspectives and argumentation by stating that, Nothing in the weak view denies that argument occurs mentally not is it ever claimed that mental experience is irrelevant to argumentation. A lot of what interlocutors say is for a specific purpose. Whether they are arguing, expressing a wish or asking permission, apologizing, we use language in order to fulfill that purpose. Each purpose can be known as a language function. Savignon describes the function of language as "the use to which language is put, the purpose of an utterance rather than the 225

2 particular grammatical form an utterance takes" (1983: 13). To assure Savignon s attitude, Berns remarksthat the function of language is based on an actual language use (1984: 5). 1. What is argumentation? Argumentation is as a discourse, Brooks and Warren state that argumentation is the kind of discourse used to make the audience think or act according to the desire of the arguer (Brooks and Warren, 1949:141). O'Keefe (1977: 121) affirms that the word argument is systematically used to refer to two different phenomena. First, it refers to a kind of utterance or a sort of communication act. This sense is called, according to O'Keefe, argument1. Second, argument sometimes refers to a particular kind of interaction. This sense is known as argument2. Argument1 is something one person makes (gives, presents or utters); while in an argument 2 is something two or more persons have (or engage it). Arguments1 are thus on a par with promises, commands, apologies, warnings, invitations, orders, and the like. Arguments2 are classifiable with other species of interactions such as bull sessions, heart - to heart talks, quarrels, discussions, and so forth. Thus, argument2 is referred to by speaker as argumentation which is a process rather than a product. Canavan points out that argumentation has a relation to facts and ordering by stating that argumentation is the ordering of the facts and principles relating to a subject in question, with the view to inducing belief as to its truth or error (Canavan, 1974:266). Argumentation is a speech act complex aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. According to a prominent handbook definition, it is a verbal and social activity of reason carried out by a speaker or writer concerned with increasing (or decreasing)the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for a listener or reader; the constellation of propositions brought to bear in this endeavour is intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge(van Eemeren et al, 1996:5).Audi defines argument as a sequence of statements (Audi, 1999: 43). We naturally learn to make arguments in our daily life. We make them with our friends and partners, with parents, with bosses. I should be allowed to leave early because.... I couldn t have bought the car because.... I deserve a higher salary because..... To verify this, Van Emermen et al (2014: 1) remark that argumentation is a phenomenon we are all familiar with. They add, we do not only know it from formally regulated juridical and parliamentary debates but also from less formal discussions at work, from editorials and letters to the editor in the newspaper, and even from the more informal exchanges we have at home about what to think of something or how something should be done. Besides, the definition of argumentation also suitable to be used in argumentation theory as an 226

3 academic discipline should, in our view, connect with commonly recognized characteristics of argumentation as it is known from everyday practice(emermen, 2014: 3). 2. Argumentation Theory in English Argumentation theory has further matured asa discipline. Neoclassical theoretical approaches to argumentation, such as the New Rhetoric and the Toulmin s theory, have inspired new developments. Besides, prominent approaches of a more recent date, such as Informal Logic and Pragma- Dialectics, have expanded in various ways. Chaïm Perelman was a prominent rhetorician of the twentieth century (Gross, 2003: 1). As a matter of fact, it is beyond any doubt that Chaim Perelman was one of the greatest scholars that were actively engaged in the study of rhetoric in the twentieth century (Van Eemeren, 2009: 119). Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca point out that Only an existence of an argumentation that is neither compelling nor arbitrary can give meaning to human freedom (Perelman &Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969: 514). That is, the centrality of rhetoric and human freedom in a world that both are existed. In other words, because of the centrality they grant to audience, and in part because of the negative attitude that informal logicians have to rhetoric, Perelman makes his theory of argumentation in a close relationship with rhetoric. Along with, argumentation, for Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, involves the attempt to bring about adherence in the minds of an audience, understood as those to whom the argumentation is addressed (Ibid: 7). To affirm this, Perelman makes an interesting observation: It is on account of the importance of audience that I bring the theory of argumentation together with rhetoric rather than styling it an informal logic, as do the young logicians of today who take an interest in argumentation, but for whom the word rhetoric retains its pejorative aspect (Perelman,1989: 247). Equally important, van Eemeren et al. argue that a common reaction is the following: Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca offer a rhetorical concept of rationality in which soundness of argumentation is equated with the degree to which argumentation is well suited to those for whom it is intended. This means that the soundness of argument is, according to this criterion, always related to an audience (van Eemerenet al. 1996: 96).Furthermore, this theory values the audience and presents the arguer and audience as cooperating in a shared community of mutual regard. Thus, the thrust of what they present is aimed at the construction of arguments, at how to put arguments together in order to win over audiences to a point of view. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca point out that argumentation is the result of the association (liaison) or dissociation of ideas: 227

4 By processes of association we understand schemes which bring separate elements together and allow us to establish a unity among them, which aims either at organizing them or at evaluating them, positively or negatively, by means of one another. By processes of dissociation, we mean techniques of separation which have the purpose of dissociating, separating, disuniting elements which are regarded as forming a whole or at least a unified group within some system of thought: dissociation modifies such a system by modifying certain concepts which make up its essential parts. It is in this way that these processes of dissociation are characteristic of all original philosophical thought (Ibid, 189). Due to this, Perelman s New Rhetoric explores the concept of dissociation (one, along with association, that had been introduced earlier). The strategy of dissociation involves taking an established concept and dividing it along particular lines, with one of the separated elements promoted as having a value over its more traditional counterpart. What is more, Perelma s dissatisfaction with the logical approach to argumentation is shared by a group of philosophers ((Van Eemere, 2009: 127). To sum up, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca offer the same explanation for choosing to call their approach rhetoricalrather than dialectical ((Perelman &Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969: 54). The British-American philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin gained animpressive reputation in the field of argumentation theory with The Uses ofargumen, in which he introduces a new model forthe layout of arguments. Because of the impact Toulmin s ideas about logic and everyday reasoninghave had on argumentation theory, he can be regarded as one of the founding fathersof modern argumentation theory(van Emermen et al. 2014: ). Toulmin presents in the model a novel approach toanalyzing the way in which claims can be justified in response to challenges. Hismodel replaces the old concepts of premise and conclusion with the new concepts of claim, data, warrant, modal qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments (Toulmin, 2003: ): 1. Claim: conclusion whose merits we are seeking to establish (C). For 228

5 example, if a person tries to convince a listener that Harrt is a British subject, the claim would be "Harry is a British subject." (1) 2. Data: the facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim what we shall refer to as our data (D). For example, the person introduced in 1 can supporthis claim with the supporting data "Harry was born in Bermuda." (2) 3. Warrant: The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the dataestablished in 2, "Harry was born in Bermuda," to the claim in 1, "Harry was a British citizen," the person must supply awarrant to bridge the gap between 1&2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British subject." (3). Figure (1) illustrates this: Figure (1): Caption Component of Argumentation (Adapted from Toulmin stheory 2003, P: 92) 4. Backing: Backing, which a warrant relies on in each field, must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions (governing the nationality of persons born in the British colonies) as backing statement to show that it is true that "Harry born in Bermuda will legally be a British subject." 5. Rebuttal: When we analyze an argument using the Toulmin method, we look for potential objections to the argument's reasons, objections which the writer expects his or her opponents to make (acknowledges exceptions or limitations to the argument). Usually, these are included in arguments as opportunities for the writer to present her or his own reasons as refutations/rebuttals. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, "Harry born in Bermuda will legally be a British subject, unless he has betrayed Britain 229

6 and has become a spy of another country." 6. Qualifier: Words or phrases, indicating the strength, state the degree of force or probability to be attached to the claim. Such words or phrases include "possible," "probably," "impossible," "certainly," "presumably," "as far as the evidence goes," or "necessarily." The claim "Harry is definitely a British subject" has a greater degree of force than the claim "Harry is a British subject, presumably." To take a particular example: in support of the claim (C) that Harry is a British subject, we appeal to the datum (D) that he was born in Bermuda, and the warrant can then be stated in the form, A man born in Bermuda may be taken to be a British subject : since, however, questions of nationality are always subject to qualifications andconditions, we shall have to insert a qualifying presumably (Q) in front of the conclusion, and note the possibility that our conclusion may be rebutted in case (R) it turns out that both his parents were aliens or he has since become a naturalised American. Finally, in case the warrant itself is challenged, its backing can be put in: this will record the terms and the dates of enactment of the Acts of Parliament and other legal provisions governing the nationality of persons born in the British colonies (Toulmin, 2003: 97). The result will be an argument set out as follows: Figure (2): Caption Component of Argumentation (Adapted from Toulmin stheory 2003, P: 97) Van Emermen et al (2014: 38) argue that the version of Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorstof the argumentation theory, the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation, developed in Amsterdam byfrans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst combines a dialectical and a rhetorical perspective on argumentation and is both normative and descriptive.the research team explain in Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, 230

7 pragma-dialecticians view argumentation as part of a discourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. In order to be able to combine the dialectical and thepragmatic dimensions systematically, pragmadialecticians start from fourmeta-theoretical points of departure. The first is that in argumentative discourse, communication takes place functionally through speech act performances(functionalization of the research object). The second is that the ways in which positions with regard to the other party s standpoints and criticisms and defenses of standpoints are conveyed can be accounted for by extending the speech act perspective socially to the level of interaction (socialization). The third is that the commitments acquired in argumentative discourse can be externalized by identifying the communicative and interactional obligations created by the speech acts performed (externalization). The fourth is that a dialectical regimentation of argumentative discourse can be achieved by designing an ideal model for aregulated exchange of speech acts in a critical discussion (dialectification). Van Emermen et al (2014: 38) point out thatvan Eemeren and Grootendorst identify various stages of argumentative discourse must pass through to resolve a differenceof opinion Viewed analytically, there should be a confrontation stage, 1) Confrontation: At which a participant in the discussion puts forward a standpoint while a second participant either doubts or contradicts it (Presentation of the problem, such as a debate question or a political disagreement. i.e. a difference of opinion appears in this stage). 2) Opening: Agreement on rules, such as for example, how evidence is to be presented, which sources of facts are to be used, how to handle divergent interpretations, determination of closing conditions. In other words, Where participants decide to resolve the difference of opinion, so the roles of protagonist (that is, the onewho supports the standpoint) and antagonist (that is, the one who opposes it) are assigned. In practice, this stage often remainsimplicit. 3) Argumentation: Application of logical principles according to the agreed-upon rules. The protagonist defends her/hisstandpoint by putting forward arguments to counter theantagonist s objections or doubts. 4) Concluding: When closing conditions are met. These could be for example, a time limitation or the determination of an arbiter which shows the extent to which thedifference of opinion has been resolved. It will be resolved infavour of the antagonist if the protagonist withdraws; if theantagonist abandons her/his beliefs or doubts, then it is resolved infavour of the protagonist. 231

8 Note that these stages are indispensablein which the difference of opinion comes about, an opening stage in which the procedural and material point of departure of the discussion is determined, an argumentation stage in which the standpoints at issue are defended against any criticism that is advanced, and a concluding stage in which it is determined what the result of the discussion is. 3. Contrasting Prerelman, Toulmin, and Van Eemeren s Theories of Argumentation Just as the rhetor attempts to shape a discourse according to its audience, the rhetor likes also to receive explicit or implicit tokens of adherence from the audience. However, because the rhetor is the one doing the talking (or writing), the rhetor determines the tokens received from the audience. A rhetor who begins a discourse with a pledge or oath involves the audience (Perelman &Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969: 106). Perelman lists numerous stylistic techniques which a rhetor uses to make things present to an audience's mind. Presence increases when the rhetor gives an extended exposition of the significance of certain elements. A rhetor who uses the imperative invites the audience to participate in the action. Repetition, the accumulation of contradictory accounts, and the detailed account of the successive stages of a phenomenon magnify presence. (Ibid: ). The present tense, the use of the singular instead of the plural, and an unusual use of the demonstrative convey the feeling of presence (Ibid: ). Othermore elaborate figures of speech make the rhetor's discourse present to the audience's mind. Figures of speech depending upon. Synonymy and metabolerepeatedly paraphrase a single notion and thus suggest progressive direction. The rhetor's imaginary indirect speech with a single person (sermodnatio) or with a group engaged in conversation (dialogism) helps maintain presence. Repetition-anaphora, conduplicatio, and adjectiomagnify presence in that they suggest distinctions of help divide complex actions into sequential events. Onomatopoeia evokes an actual noise (Ibid: ). It thus becomes evident that, in Perelman's theory of argumentation, presence displays, by means of verbal techniques, "certain elements on which the speaker wishes to center attention in order that they may occupy the foreground of the hearer's consciousness" (Ibid: 142). In this respect, Perelman writes, "The new rhetoric, like the old, seeks to persuade or convince, to obtain an adherence which may be theoretical to start with, although it may be eventually manifested through a disposition to act, or practical, as provoking with immediate action, the making of a decision, or a commitment to act" (Perelman, 2000: 1391). 232

9 Thus, Perelman's new rhetoric is a theory of argumentation which provokes either a mental or physical action on the part of an audience. In this regard, Wayne Booth who says a rhetor has to define the audience, (Booth, 1963: 141) repeatedly asserts the concept that argumentation is a function of the audience being addressed. In one context, he writes that "it is in relation to an audience that all argumentation is developed." (Perelman, 1963: 41). Toulmin s Theory is based on the structure of logic in argumentation. He developed a structure of how to identify and organize the logic in argument, both implicit and explicit elements. Toulmin argues that Conformity to logic is a merit in argumentative performances and performers (Toulmin, 2003: 5). He adds, For logic is concerned not with the manner of our inferring, or with questions of technique : its primary business is a retrospective, justificatory one with the arguments we can put forward afterwards to make good our claim that the conclusions arrived at are acceptable, because justifiable, conclusion s (Ibid: 6). Equally important, Toulmin considers that an argument is made up of propositions, and the logician s objects of study are the formal relations between propositions (Ibid: 6). Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004: 11) point out that argumentation leads us into the estate of philosophy. Adopting Toulmin s attitude, they consider that claims play a vital role in argumentation. Thus, they declare that instead of concerning themselves with the question of who is right or wrong, or what exactly is true or untrue, argumentation theorists concern themselves with the way in which acceptability claims, such as claims to being right or truth claims, are (or should be) supported or attacked (Ibid: 12). In this regard, the choice of a particular philosophical view of reasonableness can have important consequences for how the concept of acceptability is understood. That is, the choice of a particular perspective on reasonableness is often accompanied by the selection of a series of premises of an epistemological, ideological, didactic, or sometimes purely practical nature (Ibid: 13). Following Toulmin sknowing and Acting (1976: 257), three views of reasonableness can be distinguished: a geometrical, an anthropological, and a critical perspective. They think that a fully-fledged argumentation theory should combine insights acquired through rather different kinds of research. It is, in their view, the task of argumentation theorists to establish a well-considered link between, on the one hand, insights as they are expressed in normative models such as those of formal logic, and, on the other hand, insights derived from empirical descriptions as provided by discourse analysts that are primarily socially or linguistically oriented Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004: 9). In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory developed by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 233

10 (1984,1992), Eemeren points out that in modern logic, new, more advanced and complex logical systems are being developed, and attempts are being made to incorporate these results into argumentation theory (Eemeren, 2001: 58). He adds argumentation is seen as part of a critical discussion that is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion (Ibid: 91). To sum up, the terms "discourse," "speaker," and "audience," we understand by them, respectively, the argumentation, the one who presents the argument, and those to whom it is addressed. So to what extent could we estimate the number of educated people among society or audience to whom argumentative discourses are addressed? Who can understand logical arguments (Toulmin and Eemeren s Models) rather than rhetorical ones (Pereleman s)? Fairclough (2009: 135) disagrees with Eemerenin taking into account only the "party's views and preferences".he pointedly believes that "not just any adaptation to currently prevailing beliefs would do, but adaptation to beliefs and values that can be publicly justified as worthy of being shared". We can estimate that it is no more than 10% are educated who can perceive the content of logical argumentation. Long (1987: 107) states that Perelman believes that a rhetor linguistically creates a presence which the audience adheres to. He adds, Perelman's presence becomes a psychological element which controls how the audience perceives, conceives, and remembers the rhetor's objects, ideas, and lines of argument (Ibid: 110). 4. Argumentation Theory in Arabic Since the pre-islamic era, verbal art has been an important cultural institution. Not only the artistic useof language, but also the language itself is invested with special significance: Islam established Arabic as the language of God(Johnstone, 1991: 118). Bateson puts it (1967: 80-81):Classical Arabic still retains the connotation which it had as a poetic koiné [koinéis a dialect or language of a region that has become a common or standard language]of being more beautiful and more significant -- indeed, this is often carried to the point where the elegant expression of an idea may be taken as evidence of its validity, [Classical Arabic] is the language in which important things are said... The inflectional grammar of the written language is regarded as a work of art [italics mine]. In Arabic, rhetoric plays an influential role. It is the art of effectivenessthat can be achieved by using different techniques such as the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. Such an idea is based on language is designed to have impressive effects on its audience. Abdul- Raof points out that rhetoric is the flesh and blood of the Arabic language. It is a linguistic means toa pragmatic end. It is a discipline that aims to sharpen up the linguistic skills ofspeaking and writing (Abdul-Raof, 2006: 234

11 II). BarabaraJohnstone explores the rhetoric of parallelism, paraphrase, and morphological repetition in Arabic. She states that Arabic speakers are verymuch aware of the system, and use it in punning and in creatingaphorisms (Johnstone, 1991: 71). In Arabic, rhetoric is the process of accessibility to audience minds.to prove the authenticity of this idea, Al-SAkaki(Died in 1228 A.D.)considers that the previous meaning of rhetoric is the real meaning of argumentation (Al-Sakaki, 1983: 169). IbnMandhur(Died in 711A.D.) defines argumentation as the process of using arguments (Ibn_MAndhur, 1997: 570). Equally important, Al-Zurkishi s definition(died in 1392 A.D.) of argumentation is based on the Glorious Qur an: ) وب ف ب آ خ إال هللا ف س د رب ف س جحب هللا ز ة ا ع سش ع ب ص ف ( األ ج بء ا خ If there had been in them (the heavens and earth) other gods beside Allah, then surely both would have gone to ruin 1. AL-Zurkishi defines argumentation as the use of the mental evidence (Al-Zurkishi, 1990: 486). This mode of semantic embellishment is common in argumentation and 1 Sura: Al-Anbiya. Aya: 22. ( MAulawiSher Ali (Trans.), see references) scholastic speeches in which the communicator attempts to provide substantiating cognitive evidence to prove his or her point of view and rebut the opponent s views (Abdul-Raof, 2006: 257). Therefore, argumentation is a mental effort, in its presentation depends on the mentality of evidentiary processes, through human communication, the exchange of intellectual discourse, and via cultural and conversational storage. Its purpose isthe persuasion and influencing others. So it is an open field for a convergence of views, compatible and conflicting. Besides, Johnstone also argues that Arabic argumentative style has its roots in the oratory of an oral culture (Johnstone, 1991: 114). She adds Arabic argumentation is clearly argumentation by presentation, both in the general way and in the actual deictic manifestation of this mode ofargument. An arguer presents truths by making them present in discourse: by repeating them, paraphrasing them, doubling them, and calling attention to them with external particles (Ibid: 117). She points out Arabic argumentation is structured by the notion that is the presentation of an idea the linguistic forms and the very words that are used to describe it that is persuasive. (Ibid: 117). The most common argumentative features in Arabic are: 4.1 The Question 235

12 In addition to the pragmatic function of questions which is the meaning a speaker wishes to convey to the person they are speaking to (the addressee) (Archer, 2005: 44),the first thing anyone thinks of when reflecting on the purposeand function of a question is that it is a means of requestinginformation. The chief motivation for information questions is to befound in a desire for knowledge; the speaker wants to know somethingand assumesthat the hearer knows it. Questioning for information isthe traditional perspective which considersa question is a requestto supply unknown information, and that what is linked to a question,i.e. a response,is the utterance which provides this information (Athanasiadou, 1990: 107). Thus, we can consider the question is one of the argumentative elements according to its communicative role. Forexamp1e: ) إ ذ أ خ ر ز ث ه ث آد ظ ز ذ ز ز أ ض د ع ى أ ف س أ س ذ ث س ث ى االعساف( ا خ 7 ل ب ا ث ى(( And when the Lord brings forth from Adam s children - out of their loins their offspring and makes them witness against their own selves by saying: Am I not your Lord? They say, yea 2. So using question makes the speech more eloquently, as a result of that, they say Yea. As well, the second meaning of the access to the hidden meaning of the question is the degree of persuasion. 4.2 Applying Liaison anddissociation in Arabic One of the basic concepts that Arabic rhetoric can provide through its analysis of speech is the argumentative concepts of liaison and dissociation. Liaison will be between the judgment that is unacceptable and the argument that supports it (Al-Hashimi, 1999: 31-32). One of the argumentative liaison strategies is metaphor (Al-Azawi, 2006: 105). In this regard, Al-Azawi agrees with Leech that metaphor is the means by which he takes his revenge on languagefor the stereotyped idea which have prevailed over the truth (Leech, 1985 : 215 ). For example: ( اخ ف ض ب ج بح ا ر ي ا س ح خ ( االسساء / And lower to them the wing of humility out of tenderness 3 Dissociation is another type of argumentation in Arabic. Dissociation can be represented by blaming (Saula, 2011: 104). For example: ) ج ع ل ل ا ج بد س ج ح ب ب ط ز ) ا ح 7 236

13 And they ascribe daughters to Allah themselves have what they desire 4 Holy is He! while they 2 Sura: Al-Ara f.aya: Sura: Al-Asara. Aya: Sura: Al-Nahl.Aya: 57 Because daughters represent the negative value in pre-islamic society, so they say that they are attributed to God, and son are their desire. Thus, it is a type of blaming (Al-Tabataba i, 1997: 275). Mocking is a type of dissociation (Saula, 2011: 104). For example: أي اسد! What kind of a lion he is! Using mocking here make the speech more effective than saying He is coward. 4.3 Other Argumentative Styles Supplementation Al-Suyuti(Died in 1505 A.D.)states that )ا زر ( supplementation (Al- Tatheal) is the additional meaning that comes at the end of a sentence to affirm and clarify the meaning of what have been said (Al-Suyuti, 1974: ). For example: ) ل ج بء ا ح ك ش ك ا ج بط إ ا ج بط و ب ش لب( االسساء/ 2 And say, Truth has come and falsehood has vanished away. Falsehood does indeed vanish fast 5 ل ي ا طبعس: ل ل رح ع ص ثب حج ت ضذ رد غ س هللا رد God, the pleasure of living in beloved passed did not last, everything accept God will never exist Cautiousness ( Al-Ihtras ))االحزساض( Cautiousness is also an argumentative style which is used by the speaker whose speech is understood wrongly, so he adds words 237

14 or phrases to raise doubt and misunderstanding (Saula, 2011: 104). For example: 5Sura: Al-Asra. Aya: 82 )أ ذ خ ع ى ا ؤ أ ع ص ح ع ى ا ى بف س ) ا بئدح and who will be kind and humble towards believers, hard and firm against disbelievers 6 To raise the misunderstanding of weak-heartedness, God uses the word powerfulness. Another example: )ح ز ى إ ذ ا أ ر ا ع ى اد ي ا ل ب ذ خ ب أ ب ا اد خ ا س بو ى ال ح ط ى س ب ج د ال ط ع س ا / 2 Until when they came to the valley of Al-Naml, one ant said, O ye Naml, enter your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they know not 7 The phrase not know to support the justice of Solomon and his followers Accomplishment ( Al-Tatmeem ))ا زز ( Accomplishment is also another argumentative rhetorical style. Bin Ja far(died in 948 A.D.) points out that the speaker compensates the ellipsis to be complete (Bin Ja far, 1963: 49). For example: ( ط ع ا ط ع ب ع ى ح ج س ى ب ز ب أ س س ا( اال سب / 2 And they feed, for love of Him, the poor, the orphan, and the prisoner 8 Even they lose, they feed with love. Another example: ) ع ا ص ب ح بد ذ و س أ أ ث ى ؤ ف أ ئ ه د خ ا ج خ ( ا سبء / But who does good works, whether male or female, and is a believer, such shall enter Heaven 9 Good works will be better when he/she is a believer. 6 Sura: Al-Ma ada.aya: 54 7 Sura: Al-Naml.Aya: 18 8Sura: Al-Insan.Aya: 8 9 Sura: Al-Nisa. Aya:

15 4.4.4 Contrajunction ( Al-Istidrak ))األسزدزان( Contrajunction is one of the argumentative style. Al- Zamakhshari(Died in 1134 A.D.)considers contrajunction,it is signalled by "but", mediates between two positive and negative variables (Al- Zamakhshari, 2004: 300). Similarly, De Beaugrande and Dressler argue that Contrajunctionlinks things having the same status but appearing incongruous or incompatible in the textual world, e.g. a cause and an unanticipated effect (De Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981: 71-72). For example: ) ار ج ع ا ب ر ز ا ا ط بط ع ى ه س ب ب و ف س س ب ى ا ط بط و ف س ا ( ا جمسح / And they pursue the course which the rebellious men followed during the reign of Solomon. And Solomon did not disbelieve; but it was the rebellious who disbelieved 10. But is used here between negation and affirmation: negating disbelieving of Solomon and affirming disbelieving of rebellious. Not only but is used as a contrajunction, Al-Ansari remarks that it is used for emphasis (argumentative style) (Al-Ansari, 1985:322). For example: - ب جبء ح د ى ش د جبء. - Mohammad didn t come butzaid. After negation, the use of but emphasizeszaid s coming Antithesis ( Al-Tibaq ))ا طجبق( Antithesis isa figure of speech in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of, or strongly contrasted with, each other, can be used for argumentative purposes (Saula, 2011:101). For example: ) ر ح س ج أ م بظ ب ز ل د ) ا ى ف 2 Thou mightiest deem them awake, whilst they are sleep 11 They seem awake but it is not true wakefulness. 10 Sura: Al-BAqara.Aya: Sura: Al-Kahaf. Aya: Witty Influential Thought Witty influential thought ( Al-Tankeet ))ا ز ى ذ( is also used for argumentative purposes. It refers that the speaker uses certain expression instead of others that are available (Al-Masri, 2008: 212). For example: (أل خ ر ب ث ب ) ( ث م ط ع ب ا ر (ا حبلخ We would surely have seized him by the right hand * And then surely we would have served his life-artery

16 The reason behind using the right hand instead of the left one: the right is stronger and more useful. Similarly, life- artery (aorta) is the main artery in human body: when it is cut, person s life ends Increasing and Decreasing In the sentence, increasing or decreasing أ ا مصب ) Al-ZiyadaWa )(ا ص بدح Al- Nuqsan) morphemes or words make the sentence more argumentative (Saula, 2011: 128). For example: ) ذ ه ا ف ش ا ج ) األ عب / And that indeed is a manifest triumph 13 )ذ ه ا ف ش ا ج ) ا جبث خ / That is the clear achievement 14 The pronoun it which should be translated into verb to be in sentence pattern: SVCs is additional for emphasis. Another example of ellipsis: )ال ط ع ( األ عب / is not fed 15 The purpose behind omitting the subject to emphasize the verb, that is, the main events is the process of feeding. Furthermore, omitting the verb is the process of focalization: focalizes the verb, the subject is given information while the verb is new information (Saula, 2011: 132). 12 Sura: Al-Haqa.Aya: Sura: Al-Ana am.aya: Sura: Al-Jathiya.Aya: Sura: Al-Ana am.aya: Repetition Repetition ا زىساز) ) (Al-Tikrar) is another procedure of argumentation and it is a prominent feature in Glorious Qur an.the purpose of repeating stories is to show the pragmatic dimension and it is called Analogous Argumentation ا حجبج األ ث ) )(Al-zurkishi, 1990: 9). For example: ) و ل م ص ع ه أ ج بء ا س س ب ث ج ذ ث ف ؤ اد ن ( د / And all of the tiding of the messengers, whereby We make thy heart firm 16 In their rhetoric, Johnstone verifies that Arab prefer repetition, the Arab loves repetition (Johnstone, 1991: 11) Law of Utility 240

17 Law of Utility لب اال فع) ) (QanoonAl-Anfa ) in pragmatic communication is based on: Why did the speaker say that? In other words, why A is more argumentative than B (Saula, 2011: 79-80) 5. English and Arabic Argumentation Theories Contrasted 1. Both English and Arabic are based on rhetoric as a means of persuasion. 2. Both English and Arabic agree that the rhetor likes also to receive explicit or implicit tokens of adherence from the audience. 3. Both English and Arabic argumentation are based on the concepts of association and dissociation. 4. Both theories adopt the Pragmatic Argument: We call that argument pragmatic which permits the evaluation of an act or an event in terms of its favorable or unfavorable consequences. 5. Freedom, in both theories, refers to that we are able to express our belief and to try and convert others toit, with the obligation to let others do the same with us, and to listen to them with the same willingness to understand their ideas and make them ours that we demand of them for our own. 6. Both theories, on the part of the speech as an act of the speaker, in treating the relationship between act and person, the speech, considered as an act of 16 Sura: Hood.Aya: 120 the speaker, deserves special attention, becausespeech is the most characteristic manifestation of the person and because the interaction between speaker and speech plays a very important part in argumentation. 7. Both English and Arabic have rhetorical styles (stylistic techniques). The similarity lies in: a. Law of utility in pragmatic communication is based on: Why did the speaker say that? b. Rhetorical devices are a use of language that is intended to have an effect on its audience: - Repetition and the detailed account of the successive stages of a phenomenon magnify presence. - Figures of speech make the rhetor's discourse present to the audience's mind. 241

18 - Indirect speech with a single person or with a group engaged in conversation helps maintain presence. But the difference lies in: a. In English: - Prerelman makes a demarcation between demonstration and argumentation. - Rhetoric, Facts and truths are used in the processes of persuasion. - b- In Arabic: - Supplementation: is the additional meaning that comes at the end of a sentence to affirm and clarify the meaning of what have been said. - Cautiousness: is an argumentative style which is used by the speaker whose speech is understood wrongly, so he adds words or phrases to raise doubt and misunderstanding - Accomplishment: the speaker compensates the ellipsis to be complete. - Contrajunction : mediates between two positive and negative variables. - Witty influential thought: the speaker uses certain expression instead of others that are available. - Increasing or decreasing: morphemes or words that make the sentence more argumentative. 6. Conclusion In Western Culture, there are three theories tackle the argumentation theory. Two of them (Toulmin and Eemeren s) are based on logic;the discussion is a critical one (through components or stages) between two persons or parties taking a particular standpoint as a subject of discussion. The third (Perelman s) is based on rhetoric, the addressee is an audience. Throughout the research, we argued that in argumentation theory, the important thing is not knowing what the speaker regards as true or important, but knowing the views of those he is addressing. His purpose is to persuade the others through using rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices usecertain expressions in a certain way to convey meaning or to persuade. It can also be a technique to evoke an emotion on the part of the reader or audience. According to this theory, if one s goal is to convince others, he should be looking first and foremost for pragmatic components that are available in his repertoire. Researching the two theories (English and Arabic) shows that both of them are based on rhetoric. What is more, it has been proved that the Arabic theory is older than the Western one.the Western theory is widely accepted because it is well-framed as a theory, while the Arabic one, like other theories, is scattered on rhetoric, and linguistic books. 242

19 References: 1. Abdul-Raof, H. (2006). Arabic Rhetoric: A pragmatic Analysis. London & New York: 2. Routledge Taylor & Francis e-library. 3. Al-Hashimi, A (1999). Jewels of the rhetoric in the meanings and rhetoric and Elegance. Dar 4. Ihiaa Al-Turath Al-Arabi. Beirut. 5. Al-Ansari, I. (1985). The Enricher s Intelligent from Arabs Books. Beirut: Dar Al- Fikr. 6. Al-Azawi, A. (2006). Language and Argumentation. Al-Dar Al-Baydha : Dar Al- Umda. 7. Ali, MaulawiSher (Trans.) (2004). The Holy Qur an: Arabic Text and English Translation. 8. Islamabad: Islam International Publications Ltd. 9. Al-Suyuti, J. (1974). Proficiency in the science of the Quran. Cairo: Egyptian General Book 10. Authority 11. Al-Masri, I, (2008).Innovation of Al-Qura n. Cairo: NahdhatMasr. 12. Al-Sakaki.(1983). Science Key. Beirut. Dar Al-Kutub Al-Alamiya. Al-Tabataba I, M. (1997).Scales in Interpretation of Qura n.vol. 2. Beirut: Al- Alami Foundatio 14. Al-Zamakhshari, M Elaboration in Arabic. Beirut: Dar Al-Jeel. 15. Al-Zurkishi (1990 ). The Proof in AL-Qua an Science. Beirut: Al-Maktaba Al- Asriya. 16. Audi, R. (1999). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University 17. Press. Archer, D. (2005). Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom. Amsterdam:John 18. Benjamins B.V. 19. Athanasiadou, A. (1990). The Discourse Function of Questions. The 9th World Congress of 20. Applied Linguistics, April I5-21, Greece :Hatkrdrkr. 21. Bateson, Mary Catherine Arabic Language Handbook. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 22. Berns, M Functional approaches to language. In S. Savignon and M. Berns (eds.), 23. Initiatives in communicative language learning. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 24. Bin Ja far, A. (1963). Criticism of Poetry. Beirut: Al-Khanachi Library. 25. Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. (1981).Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. 26. Booth, W. (1963).The Rhetorical Stance.College Composition and Communication, Vol. 14, 27. No.3, Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, Toward a New Rhetoric. pp Eemeren, v., Grootendorst, R. &Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentels of Argumentation 29. Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary 30. Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.. 243

20 31. Van Eemeren&Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma- 32. dialected approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33. Van Eemere, F. H. (2009). Argumentation Theory after the New Rhetoric.L analisilinguisticaeletteraria XVII, PP Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E., Henkemans, F., VErheij, B. and Wagemans, J. (2014). 35. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer 36. Fox, J. and Modgil, S. (2006 ). From Arguments to Decisions: Extending the Toulmin View. In David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij(eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model (PP: ). 37. Dordrecht: Springer Hample, D. (1992). A Third Perspective on Argument. In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample, Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. New a. York: Foris. 38. Ibn-Mandhur (1997).Arab s Tongue. Beirut: Dar Sadir 39. Johnstone, B. (1991). Repetition in Arabic discourse: Paradigms, syntagms, and the ecology of 40. language. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. 41. Leech, G. (1985 ). Semantics. London: Penguin. 42. Long, R. (1987).The Role Of Audience in Chaim Perelman's New Rhetoric. Journal of Advanced 43. Composition, Volume IV. 44. Maneli, M. (1994). Perelman s New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next 45. Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 46. Perelman, Ch. (1963). The New Rhetoric. John Petrie (trans.), in Perelman's The Idea of Justice 47. and the Problem of Argument. New York: Humanities Press. 48. Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969).The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. 49. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver, tr. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 50. Perelman, C. (1989).The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments. InDearin, Ray D. (ed.), the New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response. New 51. York: University Press of America. 52. Perelman, Ch. (2000). "The New Rhetoric: a Theory of Practical Reasoning. In Patricia Bizzell 53. and Bruce Herzberg (eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times 54. to the Present. New York: Bedford, PP: Perelman, C. (2001). The new rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning. In P. Bizzell and B. 56. Herzberg (Eds. ), The rhetorical tradition (pp ): New York: Bedford Books. 244

21 57. Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990). 58. Raphael, D. (2001). Concepts of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 59. Ramsey, E. and Miller, D. (2003).Experiences between Philosophy and Communication.In Ramsey Eric Ramsey and David James Miller (eds.),. New York: State University of New York 60. Press. 61. Savignon, S Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, 62. Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 63. Saula, A. (2011). The Argumentation: studies and applications of the theory. Beirut: Maskiliani 64. Toulmin, S.E. (1976). Knowing and Acting. An Invitation to Philosophy. New York: Macmillan. 65. Toulmin, S. (2003).The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 245

22 نظرية الحجاج في اللغتين اإلنجليزية والعربية مدرس. حسين حويل غياظ مديرية ذي قار/ معهد تدريب معلمي التربية الملخص: تييء نظرية الحجاج اساسا نظريا ومنيجيا لفيم كيفية استخدام أنواع مختمفة من الخطاب كوسيمة إلقناع اآلخرين. ويبدو أن ىذه النظرية ال تقتصر عمى المغة اإلنجميزية فقط بل ليا جذورىا في ثقافات مختمفة مثل العربية. وليذا فإن ىذا البحث ىو محاولة الستقصاء أثر ىذه النظرية في كال االسياقين من أجل معرفة أوجو التشابو واالختالف بينيما. تكشف نتائج المقارنة أن النظريتين اكثر مماثمة مما كونيما مختمفتين. متماثمتين بكونيما يعتمدان عمى: البالغة والحجة التداولية والصيغ االسموبية وقانون األنفع. أما االختالف فيكون في بعض الصيغ االسموبية مثل االحت ارس والتتميم واالستد ارك والزيادة والنقصان في المفردات. بكونيما اكثر تماثال يعتبر دليال عمى ان النظرية االنكميزية تطورت من العربية. 246