Examples: A Pragmatic Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36473/ujhss.v59i3.1145Keywords:
schema, inference, analogy, interpersonal type, explicit, implicit, argumentative function.Abstract
This study deals with a seemingly obvious topic to everyone – examples. Yet, on a closer perusal, the topic turns out to be interestingly perplexed. This can be justified by the amalgam of cognition and communication out of which such concept is delivered. This mixture gives a hand in texturizing examples. This work aims at pragmatically investigating the concept of ‘example’ as far as its definition, structure, types and functions are concerned. Furthermore, it aims at developing an eclectic model that will be utilized to pragmatically analyze the data of the work represented by four interviews with Donald Trump in 2018. Consequently, it hypothesizes the following: complex schema is more frequently used in the data; abductive inference is never employed in the data; faulty analogy is never made in the data; the interpersonal variant of the global type of examples is more frequently found in the data; explicit examples are more commonly given; and, finally, the argumentative function of examples prevails. Afterwards, the percentage equation is employed to statistically calculate the results of the analysis.
The study has come up with many conclusions, out of which is that examples, once chosen meticulously, support the cogency of argumentation by means of strengthening and boosting one’s standpoints towards the alleged goals.
Downloads
References
References
Brown, G. and G. Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: University
Press.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and Literature. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Finch, G. (1997). How to Study Linguistics: A Guide to Understanding
Language. New York University Press.
Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to Mean. London: Edward Arnold.
Itkonen, E. (2005). Analogy as Structure and Process. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins B.V.
Jakobson, R. (1960). ―Linguistics and Poetics‖. Style in Language, pp: 350-377.
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. London: Penguin.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group, Ltd.
Mirza, R. and F. Al-Hindawi. (2016). Strategic Maneuvering in American Civil
and Criminal Court Trials. Deutschland: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Pankin, J. (2013). Retrieved from:
http://web.mit.edu/pankin/www/Schema_Theory_and_Concept_Formation.p
df (accessed on 7th, July, 2019).
Tannen, D. (1979). "What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying
Expectations." New Directions in Discourse Processing, pp: 137-181.
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Van Eemeren, F, R. Grootendorst, and A. F. Henkemans. (2002).
Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Walton, D. (1992). Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. State
University of New York Press.
Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. University of Alabama
Press.
Walton, D. (2002). Leal Argumentation and Evidence. Pennsylvania : The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton. D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Al-Ustath Journal for Human and Social Sciences Vol.(59) No.(3) (September -2020AD, 1441AH)
Weinreb, L. (2016). The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zillam, D. and H. Brosius. (2012). Exemplification in Communication: The
Influence of Case Reports on the Perception of Issues. New York: Routledge.
Web source 1: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/332168
Web source 2: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/332171
Web source 3: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/332174
Web source 4: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/332170
