Abstract
Argumentation is a phenomenon that is inherent to any human discourse. It is one of the distinguished logical mechanisms that has its influence over people and makes them more convinced of a particular situation or issue. In addition, argumentation is considered as an ability to conciliate individuals and make them real participants in the discourse based on their abilities to gathering argumentative mechanisms. The study concentrated on the argumentative discourse prevailing among power conflicting parties: The Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Alawites. Its aim is to explain the arguments each party had adopted to prove its right to take power. Although they drew their arguments from similar sources, they adapted them according to their own understandings. Among the most prominent of these arguments were heredity, the traits and nobility of their rulers, and in doctrine argumentation. In their arguments, the poets relied on the religious sanctuary in a manner that reflects their pragmatic competence and the value of their discourse. The study was concerned with analyzing the discourse mechanisms used by poets in their attempts to prove the legitimacy of parties to take over power. These mechanisms include: semi-logical arguments, structure of reality-based arguments, and arguments that shape the reality structure. They employed different argumentation tools and linguistic means to make their words more powerful to ensure the recipient’s deep understanding of the goals of the discourse
Recommended Citation
Darawsheh, Salah El Din
(2021)
"The argumentative discourse of political poetry in the second century AH,"
An-Najah University Journal for Research - B (Humanities): Vol. 35:
Iss.
9, Article 2.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/anujr_b/vol35/iss9/2