Vol. 16, Issue 1, Jul-Dec 2023

Page: 27-75

A Pragma-Dialectical Study of The Argumentative Indicators in American Electoral Campaign Debates

Mohammed Jasim Betti, Amal Odeh Ghadhab

Received Date:

Accepted Date:

Published Date:

This study is a pragma-dialectical study of the argumentative indicators as used in American electoral campaign debates. The topic in question has not received sufficient attention by researchers. The study aims at the following: (1) investigating Trump's argumentative indicators and their functions in his electoral campaign debates, (2) investigating Clinton's argumentative indicators and their functions in her debates, (3) finding out the similarities and differences between Trump and Clinton in the use of argumentative indicators and their functions. The study hypothesizes that there are no significant differences between Trump and Clinton in : 1. The use of confrontation stage indicators regarding: (a) propositional attitude indicators, (b) force modifying indicators, and (c) dispute indicators. 2. The use of argumentation stage indicators of: (a) subordinative, (b) coordinative (c) cumulative, and (d) multiple argumentations .3 . The total number of the indicators of: (a) confrontation, (b) opening, (c) argumentation, and (d) concluding stages. 4. The use of the functions of argumentative indicators of confrontation stage concerning : ( a) present a standpoint, (b) express an opinion, and (c) show a suspicion of the other arguer's opinion 5 . The functions of opening stage indicators as: (a) a challenge to defend a standpoint, (b) an agreement of a one-sided burden of proof, (c) a denial of a onesided burden of proof, and (d) an agreement with the other arguer's proposition 6 . The use of the functions of argumentation stage indicators as: (a) presenting two serial reasons to support a standpoint subordinative, (b) combining two arguments to develop an opinion (coordinative), (c) providing the arguer with more than two reasons which are of less or great importance (cumulative), and (d) using separate reasons to support an opinion multiple 7. The functions of concluding stage indicators which are: (a) presenting the result of discussion , and (b) maintaining an opinion till the end of discussion. 8. The total number of functions of the indicators of : ( a) confrontation, (b) opening, (c) argumentation, and (d) concluding stages.

Back Download PDF

References

• Al-Hilali, M.T. and M.M.Khan (2012(. Translation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur'an in the English Language . Madinah: king Fahd Glorious Qur'an Printing.
• Allwood, J. and Elisabeth Ahlsen (2015)' On Stages of Conflict Escalation .'In Errico et al. (eds). Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence .Amsterdam: Springer.
• Al-Obudi, H. H. M. and Betti, Mohammed Jasim (2013). The Use of Expressives in Selected Short Stories by Brian Leug and Jhumpa Lahiri. Unpublished MA Thesis, College of Education for Humanities, University of Thi-Qar.
• Atchison, J. (2010) . Atchison's Linguistics. 7.th edn. London: The McGraw-Hill.
• Bach, K. (1999( .The Myth of Conventional Implicature .Linguistics and Philosophy .Vol. 22, pp. 327- 66.
• Baker, M. (2003). Computer-Mediated Argumentative Interaction for the Co-Elaboration of Scientific Notions .'In Andriessen et al. (eds). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer Supported Collaborative .Dordrecht: Spinger.
• Barbaros, C. (2013). ' Exploring Televised Political Debates: Strategies and Issues' .Argumentation vol. 10, pp. 140-9.
• Bartles, L. M. and Lynn Wavreck (2000 (.Campaign Reform: Insights and Evidence. Michigan :University of Michigan Press.
• Beniot, W. (2014). Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character .New York: Lexington Books Lanham.
• Beniot, W. )2016( American Political Campaign Debates .'In William L. Beniot (ed). Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States ,pp. 139-51.
• Bermejo-Luque, L. (2017). Argumentative and Non-argumentative Rhetorical Context: Two examples in same sexmarriage discourse .'In Cornelia and Giuliana (eds) Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives .Ceuta and Melilla: John Benjamins.
• Besnard, B. and N. Hunter (2008). Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Betti, Mohammed Jasim, Igaab, Z. K. & Al-Ghizzi, M. T. H. (2018). The Iraqi EFL Learners’ Use of Permission, Obligation and Prohibition. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8, 3, 251-269.
• Betti, Mohammed Jasim and Yaseen, K. S. (2020a). The Iraqi EFL Learners' Use of Conversational Maxims at the University Level. Education, Language and Sociology Research, vol. 1, no. 1, 43-60.
• Betti, Mohammed Jasim and Hasan, Ahmed Abd (2020). The Iraqi EFL Learners’ Ability to Use Speech Acts in MA and Ph.D. Theses Defense. Education, Language and Sociology Research, 2, 2, 1-23.
• Bickenbach, J .E. and M.D. Jacqueline (1997) .Good Reasons for Better Arguments: An Introduction to the skills and values of critical thinking .Ottawa: J. E. Bickenbach and Jacqueline M. Davis.
• Black, C. J. (2005 )Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor :London and New York: Jonathan Charteris Blac.
• Blair, J. and R. Johnson (1987). ' Argumentation as Dialectical' .Argumentation, vol.1, pp. 41- 56. Bonevac, D. (2003). 'Pragma-dialectics and Beyond' . Argumentation, vol. 17, pp. 1-10.
• Brydon, S. and M. Scott .)2008( Between One and Many .New York :Frank Mortimer.
• Capone, A. , Franco P. and Marco C. (2013). Perspectives in Pragmatics and Philosophy .Bern: Springer
• Cedroni, L. (2013). 'Politolinguistics: Towards a New Analysis of Political Discourse' .In Poggi et al. (eds) Multimodal Communication in Political Speech :Shaping Minds and Social Actions .Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 220-3.
• Chilton, P. and Schaffner C. (2002) .Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Christina, S. (2003(. Politics and Maneuvering .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Fairclough, N. and Isabellah Fairclough (2016). 'Textual Analysis' .In Mark and Rhodes (eds). Routledge Handbook of Interpreting Political Science .London and New York: Routledge.
• Fisher, A. (2004). The Logic of Real Arguments2 . nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.
• Fraster, B. (1995). 'Hedged Performatives' .In Cole and Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts .New York: Academic Press, pp. 187-210.
• Furnan, T. M. (2011). Critical Thinking and Logic: A Philosophical Workbook .New York and North Syracuse: Gegensatz Press.
• Gascon, J. A. (2017(. Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics. Madrid: Springer.
• Gerber, M. (2011). Pragmatism, Pragma-Dialectics, and Methodology :Towards a More Ethical Notion of Argument Criticism .Speaker and Gavel ,vol. 28, (1), pp. 20-22 .
• Grice, H. P. (1975). 'Logic and Conversation' .In Cole and Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics .New York: Academic press, pp.41-58.
• Hietanen, M. (2007). Pual's argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma -Dialectical Analysis .'Oxford: T& T Clark International.
• Hlail, H. H., Betti, Mohammed Jasim and Tari Kadhim Ajeel (2014). A Contrastive Forensic Analytical Study of the Language of Contracts in English and Atrabic. Unpublished MA Thesis, College of Education for Humanities, University of Thi-Qar.
• Hohmann, H. (2002). 'Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives .'In van Eemeren and Houtlosser (eds) ).Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis .Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 40-51.
• Houtlosser, P. (2002). Indicators of a Point of View .'In F. van Eemeren( ed ).Advances in Pragma-dialectics .Amsterdam: Vale Press ,pp.169-84.
• ------------and F. van Eemeren (2009). Argumentation .Oxford :T&T Clark International Infantido, E. (2001)
• Evidential and Relevance .Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Isotalus, P. (2011) 'Analyzing Presidential Debates: Functional Theory and Finnish Political Communication Culture' . Nordicon Review 32, pp. 31-43.
• Jacobs, S. (2000) .Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics. Argumentation ,vol. 14, pp. 261- 86.
• .Jakaza, E. and Mariana Visser (2014). 'Dialogue Voices: A Pragma -Dialectical Approach to R. 6. Mugable's Ceremonial Speeches' .In van Belle et al. (eds). .Let's Talk Politics: New Essays on Deliberate Rhetoric .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Jehad, N. N., Mohammed Jasim Betti and Ammar Turky Attia (2015). The Language of Constitutions: A Forensic Contrastive Study of the American and Iraqi Constitutions. Unpublished MA Thesis, College of Education for Humanities, University of Thi-Qar.
• Jorgensen, C. (2007). 'Don’t say that' .Argumentation .No. 20, pp -465 - 510.
• Kauffeld, F. (2006). Pragma-dialectics Appropriation of Speech Act Theory .'In Houtlosser and van Rees (eds ).Considering Pragma -dialectics .Mohwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kock, C. (2007). The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation .'In van Eemeren et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation .Argumentation ,pp. 785- 8.
• Leech, G. (1983) . Principles of Pragmatics .London and New York: Longman.
• Lepore, E. and Sam C. (2009). Meaning and Arguments: Introduction to Logic Through Language. 2 nd edn. London: Wiley Blackwell.
• Luque, B. L. (2011). Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory. New York: Springer.
• Memon, N. , Faraz A. and IllahiBux G. (2014 (. Critical Analysis of Political Discourse: A Study of Benazir Bhutto's Last Speech .'Balochistan Journal of Linguistics .No. 2, pp. 80- 92.
• Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2012). Historical References as Arguments in Jerzy Buzek's Selected Speeches .'In Guttfeld et al. (eds( ).Re )Visions of History in Language and Fiction. Cambridge :Cambridge scholars.
• O'Halloran, K. (2017(. Posthnmanism and Deconstructuring Arguments: Corpora and Digitally-driven Critical Analysis . London and New York: Routledge .
• Palmieri, R. (2014). Corporative Argumentation in Takeover Bibs .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Perkins, R. Jr. (1999). Logic and Mr. Limbaugh: A Dittohead's Guide to Fallacious Reasoning. Chicago: Open Court.
• Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973). A University Grammar of English .Hongkong: Longman. Renkema, J. (ed.) (2009 .) Discourse, of Course: An Overview of Research in Discourse Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge .New York: Spinger.
• Richards, K. (2006). Language and Professional Identity: Aspects of Collaborative Interaction. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Rocci, A. (2017). Modality in Argumentation .Amsterdam: Springer.
• Schaffner, C. and U. Wiesemann (2001). Annotated Texts for Translation :English German .Clevedon, Buffoldo, and Sydney :Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts .Cambridge: CUP.
• Simons, H. W. (ed.) (1990( The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Snoeck-Henkenmans, A. F. (1996). Indicators of Independent and Interdependent Argument: 'anyway' and 'even .' 'In van Benthen et al( eds ).Logic and Arguments .Amsterdam: the Academic van Wetenschappen, pp. 77-.87-2001(.
• Snoeck-Henkenmans, A. F. (1996a). 'Argumentation, Explanation and Causality: An Exploration of Current Linguistic Approaches to Textual Relations' . In Ted Sanders et al. (eds) Text Representation :Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 231-42 2001).
• Snoeck-Henkenmans, A. F. (1996b). 'Argumentation Structure '.In F .van Eemeren (ed). Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 101- 6.
• Thomas, J. (1995) . Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics .London and New York: Longman. Tindale, C. W. (2004) . Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice .London and New Delhi: Sage.
• Tosi, A. (2001). Language and Society in a Changing Italy . In John Edwards (ed.). Clevedon, Buffola, Toronto, and Sydney: Multilingual Matters.
• Trent, J. S. and Robert Friedenberg (2008). Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices.6 th edn. Lanham. New York, and Toronto: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Van Eemeren, F. H. (2002 ). Argumentation Theory: An Overview of Approaches and Research Themes. In Eriksson et al. (eds) Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts .Penusylvania: Trinity Press.
• Van Eemeren, F. H. (2007). Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation .'In Whaley and Stamter (eds) . Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars .Amsterdam: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Van Eemeren, F. H. (2009). The Study of Argumentation .In Lunsford et al. , (eds) .The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies .Los Angelis and London: Sage Inc.
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2009) . 'Strategic Maneuvering between Effectiveness and Dialectical Reasonableness' .In Henrique Jales Ribeiro (ed ).Rhetoric and Argumentation of the XXI st Century .Colombia: Colombia University Press.
• van Eemeren, F. H .)2010( . Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation .Philadelphia: John Benjamnins.
• van Eemeren, F. H .)2012(. ' Strategic Manoeuvering in Discourse'. In Mannti Mannti and Franco Angeli( eds.) Positive Effects and Ethical Perspectives .Vol. 1. Milano: Franco nglie.
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). In Reasonableness' .In van Eemeren (ed) .Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse .Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 223-40.
• van Eemeren, F. H , Erik C.W. krabbe, Bart Garssen, A.Franscisca Henkenmans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H.M. Wagemans (2014) . Handbook of Argumentation Theory .Dordrecht: Springer.
• van Eemeren, F. H and R. Grootendorst (1984 (. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions Dordrecht: Foris publications. van Eemeren, F. H .)1988(. 'Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues' .Argumentation .Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic, vol. 2, 499-510 .
• van Eemeren ,F.H .and Rob Grootendorst .' .)1989(. Speech Act Conditions as Tools for Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse Argumentation .Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
• van Eemeren, F. H. )1992( . Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective .Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• van Eemeren, F. H )2004( . A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical approach . Cambridge :CUP.
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). 'Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective' .In van Eemeren (ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse .Vol.17. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 203-20.
• van Eemeren, F. H (2015). ' Making the Best of Argumentative Discourse' .In van Eemeren (ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse .Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 543-55.
• van Eemeren, F. H , Snoeck-Henkenmans A. F., Anthony Blair, Ralph Johnson, Erick C. W. , Christian, Doglas N. Walton, Charles A. Willard, John Woods, and David Zarefsky .)1996(
• Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Background and Contemporary Developments . Mohwah and New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• van Eemeren, F. H .)2002 ( .Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation .New Jersey: Lawrence Associates. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (1999). Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion .'In van Eemeren et al. (eds).
• Proceedings of the Fourth International Society for the Study of Argumentation .Amsterdam :Amsterdam University. van Eemeren, F. H ' .)2006). The Case of Pragma -dialectics .'In Parsons et al. (eds) ).Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems .Amsterdam: Springer.
• van Eemeren, F. H (2015) ' .A Procedural View of Critical Reasonableness .'In van Eemeren (ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse .Vol. 17 .Amsterdam Springer, pp. 245-15.
• van Eemeren, F. H. )2015The Case of Pragma Dialectics .'In van Eemeren (ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse .Vol. 17 .Amsterdam: Springer, pp - 149 . 77.
• van Eemeren, F. H and F. Snoeck-Henkenmans .)2007 ( Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma -dialectical study .Vol. 12. Dordrecht: Springer.
• van Eemeren, F. H and A. F. Snoeck-Henkenmans(2007). Argumentation, Analysis and Evaluation 2 . nd edn. New York and London :Routledge Taylor Francis.
• van Eemeren, F. H and B. Garssen (2008). Conversing and Confrontation in Argumentative Discourse .'In van Eemeren and Garssen (eds) .Conversing and Confrontation: Relating Conversing Analysis with Argumentation Theory .Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-27 .
• van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, and B. Menffelds (2009) .Fallacies and Judgements of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules .Vol. 16. Dordrecht, London and New York: Springer.
• van Eemeren, F. H and Wu Peng (eds.) (2017) .Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics .12ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Laar, J. A. (2007( . Don’t say that .'!Argumentation .Amsterdam. Springer, vol. 20. Pp.465- 51.
• van Rees, M. A. (2000). Comments on Rhetoric and Dialectic in the 21st Century .Argumentation . Amsterdam: Springer, vol. 14, 3, pp255-9.
• Walton, D. N. (2006) . Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: CUP.
• Walton, D. N. .)2007 ). Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric .Cambridge: CUP.
• Walton, D. N. and E. Krabbe (1995) .Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning .New York: New York University Press.
• Wenzel, J. W. (1979(. Jurgen Habermas and the Dialectical Perspective on Argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Associations ,vol. 16, pp. 83-94..
• Woodward, B. (2018) . Fear: Trump in the White House .New York. Simon and Schuster.Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language. 4th edn. Cambridge and New York:
• Cuarefsky, D. (2014). Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. 24thedn .Northwestern Evanston: Springer.