A Logical Pragmatics Study of Argument in Islamic-Christian Debates
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Lately, pragmatics has attracted the attention of linguists and philosophers. It has been integrated into many fields of study that have contributed to the study of language. A debate is a special form of an argumentative dialogue in which two or more parties take part in attacking and defending certain claims through reasoned discourse. This study has set itself to pragmatically analyze and evaluate selected arguments of religious debates. Islamic-Christian debates are specifically chosen as data for the current study because they have not received due attention in language studies. This study is essentially concerned with investigating the logical pragmatics in the context of Deedat-Swaggart‟s debate. Consequently, the study aims at: identifying the most frequently utilized logical pragmatics strategies; showing whether the pragmatic criteria are frequently kept to or violated. To fulfill the aims, it is hypothesized that debaters utilize certain logical pragmatics strategies (grounds, warrants, claims, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals, certain types of reasoning, and argumentation schemes), the pragmatic criteria are frequently violated. The study employs a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) to analyze the data and to verify or reject the hypotheses. The results of the study reveal that the most frequent pragmatic strategies utilized by Deedat are: grounds, deductive reasoning, argument from expert opinion. Swaggart, on the other hand, highly employs: grounds, presumptive reasoning, argument from expert opinion. The results have also shown that Deedat‟s chains of arguments are stronger and more persuasive than Swaggart‟s in terms of satisfying the logical criteria of argument evaluation.
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
College of Education for Humanities, TIKRIT UNIVERSITY. THIS IS AN OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE UNDER THE CC BY LICENSE http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
References
Al-Hindawi, F. H., and Al-Khazali, A. B. (2019). Pragmatics of Arrogance in Trump’s “America First” Foreign Policy Speech. Journal of Tikrit University for Humanities. 26 (6), pp. 1-9.
Ali, A. Y. (1989). The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary (2nd ed). Kuwait: That Es-Salasil Printing and Publishing.
Al-Juwaid, W., R. (2019). The Pragmatics of Cogent Argumentation in British and American Political Debates. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bermejo-Luque, L. B. (2011). Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bickenbach, J. E., and Davies, J. M. (1996). Good Reasons for Better Arguments: An Introduction to The Skills and Values of Critical Thinking. Ontario: Broadview Press.
Cavender, N. M., and Kahane, H. (2010). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life (11th ed). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C., Walton, D., Willard, C., A., Woods, J., and Zarefsky, D. (2009). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New York: Routledge.
Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Verheij, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Francisca, S. H. A., and Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Freeley, A. J., and Steinberg, D. L. (2009). Argumentation and Debate (12th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
___________. (2014). Argumentation and Debate (13th ed). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Gensler, H. J. (2017). Introduction to Logic (3rd ed.). New York, Routledge.
Godden, D., and Walton, D. (2007) Advances in the Theory of Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. Informal Logic, 27(3), pp. 267-292.
Godden, D. (2012). The Role of Mental States in Argumentation: Two Problems for Rationality from Psychology of Belief. In F. Paglieri, L. Tummolini, R. Falcone, and M. Miceli (Eds), The Goals of Cognition: Essays in Honor of Cristiano Castelfranchi (pp. 123-143). London: College Publications.
Green, G. M. (2008). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Heffernan, T. J., and Burman, T. E. (2005). Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Boston: Brill.
Hurley, P. J., and Watson, L. (2018). A Concise Introduction to Logic (13th ed). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest Rationality. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
___________. (2009). Some Reflections on the Informal Logic Initiative, Studies
in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16 (29), 17–46.
Johnson, R. H., and Blair, J. A. (1994). Logical Self-defense. New York: International Debate Education Association.
Marciszewski, W. (1981). Dictionary of Logic as Applied in the Study of Language: Concepts, Methods, Theories. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Mirza, R. and Al-Hindawi, F. (2016). Strategic Maneuvering in American Civil and Criminal Court Trials. Deutschland: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Parret, H., Sbisa, M., and Verschueren, J. (1981). Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pattee, G. K. (2019). Practical Argumentation. Good Press.
Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Phillips, H., and Bostian, P. (2015). The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide (2nd ed). Stamford: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Reed, C., and Walton D. (2001). “Applications of Argumentation Schemes.” OSSA Conference Archive. 97
Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., and Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. Boston: Pearson Higher Ed.
Rottenberg, A. T., and Winchell, D. H. (2018). The Structure of Argument. New York. Macmillan Higher Education.
Rybacki, K. C., and Rybacki, D. J. (2012). Advocacy and Opposition: An Introduction to Argumentation (7th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Salmon, M. H. (2013). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin’s Framework for the Analysis of Everyday Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations. In Argumentation. 17, 185–202, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sultan, H. S., and Younis, U. I. (2010). “Pragmatic Study of Deixis in Some Elegies”. Journal of Tikrit University for Humanities. 17(3), pp. 1-14
Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
Tittle, P. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason. New York: Routledge
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., and Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
Walton, D. N. (1990), “What is Reasoning? What is an Argument?”, The
Journal of Philosophy, 87, (8), 399–419.
___________. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
___________. (2007). Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
___________. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., and Koszowy, M. (2014). Two Kinds of Arguments from Authority in the Ad Verecundiam Fallacy. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/crrarpub/17
Web Sources
Web Source I
http://deedat4kurd.blogspot.com/2015/02/transcription-of-Deedat-debate.html