Content uploaded by Hani Al-Ebadi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hani Al-Ebadi on Sep 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hani Al-Ebadi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hani Al-Ebadi on May 14, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1824
Speech Acts and their Constructive Roles in
Trump's Argumentation
1Dr. Hani K. Al-Ebadi, 2 Hayat Hasan Kadhim, 3Saad Abdullah Murdas
Abstract: Speech acts perform a central role in fulfilling the argumentative objectives in the argumentative
discourse. This is so because of its contribution in forming the argumentative structure of the discourse. This
motivates the current study to investigate the role of speech acts and their constructive roles in the American
President's, Trump, argumentative speech in Saudi Arabia 2017 in his attempt to satisfy his argumentative
objectives. The study adopts the Pragma-dialectic approach of argumentation (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst,
1983 and Van Ree, 2009) and speech act theory (Searle, 1969; Vanderveken, 1989 and Harnish, 1994) as its
model for analyzing the collected data. Some conclusions have been arrived at validating the hypotheses of the
study.
Keywords: speech acts, argumentation, Trump, Prag-dialectic, Opening
1. Introduction
In general people do not use argumentation for the sake of discussing or debating an issue, but because they
pursue a goal whose fulfillment requires an interaction with other people and to convince them to accept a particular
standpoint (Palmieri, 2014: 13). In this regard, Al-Ebadi (2012: 2) points out that communication among interlocutors,
is inf luenced by such elements as their attitudes, ideas, and social status. In the same vein, Al-Duleimi and Al-Ebadi,
(2016: 63). show that managing the mind of others is the main task of text. Argumentative discussions often involve
performances of illocutionary acts which are unquestionably not actually part of the argumentation, but which
nevertheless contribute to the resolution of the dispute (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1983: 95). Such marriage
between argumentation and speech acts (henceforth SAs) activates the current study to answer the following questions:
What are Trump's argumentative intents or standpoints? Which SAs does Trump employ in his argumentative
discourse to fulfill his argumentative intents? What constructive roles (henceforth CRs) do Trump's argumentative
SAs perform? What are the most frequently utilized SAs? What is the most frequently supported argumentative intent
in Trump's argumentation? As such, this work aims to find out the SAs used by Trump in his argumentative speech, to
pinpoint the distribution of these SAs through the stages of the critical discussion, to figure out the CRs of Trump's
argumentative SAs and to state the most frequently used SAs as well as standpoints. It hypothesizes that, first, the SAs
of pledge, promise, assertion and question are Trump's effective argumentative ones to satisfy his argumentative
objectives. Second, the CRs of the standard critical discussion are obeyed to achieve his argumentative objectives.
Third, SA of assertion is the most frequently deployed one in Trump's argumentative discourse. Fourth, the
standpoints of "outstretching hands of cooperation and trust with the Islamic world and America's goal is initiation a
coalition of nation against extremists" represent the main focus of Trump via advancing arguments and establishing
results.
2. Argumentation
Van Eemeren (1996: 1) defines 'argumentation' as a practical activity with the aim of enlarging the addressee's
acceptance or minimizing his acceptance about controversial points by giving acceptable justification for such a
position. Thus, as Besnard and Hunter (2008: 1) point out, argumentation stands as one of the important shapes of
human cognition and life.
Argumentative discourse involves different genres among which political speech like Trump's speech in this
study. It is viewed as a process which aims to persuade targets to accept a particular point which serves both
1Thi-Qar University/College of Education for Humanities/Dept. of English
hanialebadi700@gmail.com
2Babylon University/College of Education for Humanities/Dept. of English
Alhayathope13@yahoo.com
3Thi-Qar University/College of Education for Humanities/Dept. of English
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1825
interlocutors. It is considered as a monological interaction where only one interlocutor speaks while the other does not
(Ibid.: 9-13). In order to fulfill the process of persuasion, the addresser can use different ways, strategies and other
types of linguistic means aimed at making himself acceptable to the addressees. As such, the main goals beyond the
process of political argumentation is to win the discussion, to show the power, to make good pronouncements which
serve the public aims, to persuade persons to do something for the sake of the addresser or to play addressees' feelings
and emotions (Ibid: 115). Accordingly, the activities of this process are not random or unexpected ones. Rather, it is
probable to find bases which allow the observer to define it and find out its conventions (Ibid.).
On the behalf, political argumentation can be considered as institutionalized one but there are no specific
regulations to control its practice. We can consider any individual activity that talks about politics as a form of
political argumentative activity and in this way it is problem-free since these examples comply with the principles of
the logic of the dialogue. What instigates problems to arise are the cases that do not comply with the rules that govern
the dialogue practiced (Houtlosser and Eemeren, 2009:116).
3. Pragma-dialects
Among the recent orientations of studying argumentation is Pragma-dialectic approach by Eemeren and
Grootendorst (1984). The aim of this approach is to produce an analytic overview of the points of critical discussion in
an attempt of re-establishing an argumentative discourse. Here, argumentation consists of two arguers: protagonist and
antagonist. The first arguer presents and defends his standpoints whereas the second one is the recipient and evaluator
of those standpoints (Van Eemeren&Grootendorst, 2004:59). Both try to resolve a difference of ideas about the
expressed standpoints or try to persuade each other to accept them for the protagonist or to prove its unacceptability
on the part of the antagonist (Ibid .).
There are four stages through which the process of resolving the difference of opinion about the expressed
standpoints is passed. These include confrontation, opening, argumentation and concluding (Van Ree, 2009:47). The
first stage consists of the points of discussions that are disputed by the arguers and their shapes. The second stage aims
to find out the common ground arguers share. In third stage, the protagonist cites his arguments to support his
standpoints in his attempt to overcome the antagonist's doubts or to refute his critical reactions. The result of the
discussion which are concerned with the resolution of the difference of ideas are shown in the last stage (Ibid., 2009:
62). Regarding the data of this study, it articulates this approach to be adopted since it is believed that Trump's
argumentation passes through the stages of critical discussion to fulfill his argumentative objectives2.
4. Speech Acts and Argumentation
It is argued that each stage has its own purposes and functions (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004: 96).
Throughout these stages, SAs have a vital role to accomplish the final objectives of the critical discussion through
their contribution to the resolution of the dispute (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1983: 95). Put differently, the use
of SAs are related to the specific and subsidiary purposes of the stage of the resolution process in which it is
performed (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004: 96).
In this regard, SAs can be defined pragmatically as a various moves that are made in the different stages of
critical discussion in order to arrive to the stage of the resolution of difference opinion (Ibid.: 62) as in this study. The
distribution of these SAs over the different stages of the resolution process is described in the model of a critical
discussion. In the model, it is indicated, for each stage of the discussion which representative SAs play a specific CR
in that stage of the discussion.
5. Model of Analysis
This section intends to develop a model of analyzing the data under scrutiny through the aforementioned
discussion of argumentation, critical discussion and SAs. The model aims to analyze the data in an attempt to find out
the SAs and their CRs in resolving the points of difference of different stages in the data in question.
5.1 Argumentative Stages and their Constructive Roles
5.1.1 Confrontation stage
This stage has the CR of presenting the points of view that are discussed by the debaters and their shapes (Van
Ree, 2009: 62). The debaters may agree or refuse the points of view. In addition, they may introduce definitions,
amplifications and so on.
5.1.2 Opening Stage
The second stage has the task of finding out the common ground arguers share. Their aim here is to ensure that
their substantive and procedural argument is sufficiently broad to conduct a fruitful discussion (Van Ree, 2009: 62).
2Trump is the protagonist whereas Islamic leaders are the antagonists.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1826
As such, the arguers may express their acceptance of the challenge to defend a standpoint or decide to start a
discussion.
5.1.3 Argumentation Stage
This stage involves advancing the arguments that the protagonist cites to support his points of view in his
trying to overcome the antagonist's doubts or to disprove his critical reactions.
5.1.4 Concluding Stage
Finally, the CR of the fourth stage is revealing the results of the arguments that concerning the decision of the
difference of opinion. The decision can have the form of upholding or withdraw a point of view, establishing the
result, agree or disagree, requesting a usage declarative or introducing definition, specification, amplification and so
on.
5.2 Speech Acts in Critical Discussion
As it has been argued earlier (See 4.), SAs are used to achieve the intended CRs through the different stages of
the critical arguments in order to resolve the difference of point of view. For Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1983:
104) and Van Ree (2009: 62) the five types of Searle's taxonomy including assertives, commissives, directives,
expressives and declaratives, can be used to perform certain CRs through the different stages of the critical discussion.
In this section, some SAs, accompanied with its own felicity conditions (henceforth FCs) drawn from Searle
(1969:66-7),and Searle and Vanderveken (1985:189-216), are surveyed. They are expected to be available in the data
under scrutiny.
5.2.1 Assertion
Assertion is one of Searle's assertives (Searle, 1969: 66). By assertive, the arguer affirms a proposition,
commits himself to agree of the proposition or guarantee the truth of the proposition or express judgment on its
proposition. To force the speaker to form something that is called assertion. Accurately speaking, the following FCs
are adjusted by Searle (1969:66) for the SA of assertion:
1- Propositional: Any proposition.
2- Preparatory: the speaker has evidence for the fact of the proposition. It is not clear to both S and H that H knows
the proposition.
3- Sincerity: the speaker believes the proposition.
4- Essential: the speaker's utterance considers as a commitment to the effect that the proposition represents an actual
state of affairs.
5.2.2 Pledge
Pledge, as a commissive SA, is a speaker-directed act. The speaker commits himself to a particular future
event that is binding regardless of circumstances that may happen. The person who makes a pledge should be
responsible for the outcomes and results of his/her action (Recan, 2015: 22-23).
1. Cooperative Conditions (CCs)
(i) S and H are able to use and understand what is communicated by a given utterance.
(ii) A must be directed towards a specific addressee (s).
2. Propositional Content Conditions (PCCs)
(i) S expresses the proposition that P in the utterance of T.
(ii) The P expressed must predicate a future A of the S.
3. Preparatory Conditions (PCs)
(i) A must be beneficial for H and S must know that this is the case.
(ii) A must not be done in the normal course of events.
(iii) A must be done publically.
(iiii) S confirms his/her commitment by an oath or any other confirmation particle to strengthen the degree of
commitment of what s/he says.
4. Sincerity Conditions (SCs)
(i) S intends to do A.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1827
(ii) The S must believe that his/her A is possible.
(iii) The S must not be forced to do his/ her A.
5. Essential Conditions (ECs)
(i) S intends that the utterance of T will place him under an obligation to do A.
6. Ethical Conditions (EtCs)
(i) A must be ethically good.
(ii) A must not be broken.
5.2.3 Promise
Promise stands as one of Searle's expressives. Here, the speaker indicates his feelings to the other interlocutors.
In other words, it expresses the speaker's commitment to do something (Arnovick, 1994: 127). Searle (1969:62-3)
proposes FCs below:
1-Propositional: future act A of the speaker.
2-Preparatory: a-the receivere would prefer the speaker's doing A to his not doing A, and the speaker thinks the
receiver would prefer the speaker's doing A to his not doing Act. It is not obvious to both the speaker and the
receiver that the speaker will do A in the normal course of events.
3-Sincerity: the speaker intends to do the A.
4-Essential: it counts as the undertaking of a commitment to do the A.
5.2.4 Question
Another type of SAs, according to Searle (1969: 66) is directives among which is question. It is an attempt by
the addresser to get the addressee to answer, i.e., to perform a SA. Broadly speaking, interrogatives are the default
constructions of questions. They refer to the direct illocutionary force of this type of acts (Harnish, 1994:4). The SA of
question has the following FCs, as indicated by Searle (1969:66):
1- Propositional: Any proposition or propositional function.
2- Preparatory: a- the receiver does not know the apply.b- It is not obvious to both the addresser and the receiver that
the addressee will provide the information that time without being asked.
3- Sincerity: the addresser wants this information.
4- Essential: the addresser’s utterance counts as an attempt to elicit this information from the receiver.
Figure (1) below summarizes the developed model for analyzing the data under scrutiny.
Figure (1): An Eclectic Model for Analyzing SAs & their CRs
6. Data Description and Analysis
6.1 Data Description
The data of analysis is an addressing speech delivered by the American President Donald Trump in Saudi
Arabia 2017 after nominating him as president of the United States. It is taken from the BBC Satellite Channel
available at www.bbc.com/news/world-us. The address lasts about 35 minutes and it covers some worthy issues
among which are 'war against terrorism' and 'cooperation between America and Arabs and Muslims'.
6.2 Data Analysis
6.2.1 Method of Analysis
Confrontation St.
Opening St.
Argumentation St.
Concluding St.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1828
The data are analyzed according to the models developed in (5) and figure (1) above in order to reveal its
argumentative SAs and their CRs.
6.2.2 Overall Analysis
According to the model developed in Section (5 above), the analysis reveals that Trump's address consists of
only three stages of the critical discussion: confrontation, argumentation and concluding. Each performs certain CRs.
As far as the confrontation stage is concerned, it has the CR of presenting standpoints. It is the only role because it is
one-way argumentation; only one active interactant, the President Trump. These standpoints are:
1. Strengthening America's old friendships with Islamic world,
"I pledged to strengthen America’s oldest friendships, and to build new partnerships in pursuit of peace."
2. Building new friendships with other Islamic countries,
"I pledged to strengthen America’s oldest friendships, and to build new partnerships in pursuit of peace."
3. Outstretching hands of cooperation and trust with the Islamic world,
"I also promised that America will not seek to impose our way of life on others, but to outstretch our hands in the
spirit of cooperation and trust."
4. America's vision is one of peace, security and prosperity in the world,
"our vision is one of peace, security, and prosperity—in this region, and in the world."
5. America's goal is initiation a coalition of nation against extremists,
"our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful
future that does honor to God."
6. Extremists threat the international peace, security, prosperity and future. (implicit standpoint).
Concerning the third stage, argumentation stage, contains a set of arguments supporting the various
standpoints that are presented in the confrontation stage. In this regard, the analysis shows that Trump advances two
arguments to support the first standpoint, one argument to maintain the second standpoint, thirteen arguments
supporting the third standpoint, four arguments maintaining the fourth standpoint, thirteen arguments supporting the
fifth standpoint and finally nine times supporting the sixth standpoint.
Finally, the fourth stage comes to establish the results of the process of argumentation as a whole.
In addition, the analysis, following the developed model, reveals that some SAs are utilized to carry out these
stages and their CRs. Put it differently, the SAs of promise, pledge and assertion are used in the confrontation stage to
perform the CR of presenting standpoints. In the argumentation stage, Trump employs the SA of assertion to fulfill the
CR of advancing arguments. In this regard, this SA supports the different standpoints that are triggered in the
confrontation stage. Ultimately, in the concluding stage, the SAs of assertion and question are employed to achieve
the CR of establishing results of Trump's argumentation.
6.2.2 Illustrative Pragmatic Analysis
Based on the model developed (See 5 & fig. 1), some representative examples are given here.
Confrontation Stage
Text (1)
"I pledged to strengthen America’s oldest friendships, and to build new partnerships in pursuit of
peace."
This text is a commissive SA, namely pledge according to its FCs (See 5.2.2). Phrased another way, Trump pledges to
do the act of strengthening America's relationships with Islamic countries. Such a pledge represents a kind of benefit
for both the Americans and Islamic counties. It is supposed that Trump, as American President, intends to do this
future act. Regarding the CR of this SA, it performs the CR of presenting the standpoint of strengthen America's
oldest friendship "strengthening America's old friendships with Islamic world" (See 6.2.1).
Text (2)
"I also promised that America will not seek to impose our way of life on others, but to outstretch our
hands in the spirit of cooperation and trust."
According to the model, this text represents another commissive SA, namely, promise. Following its FCs (See 5.2.3),
it is a future act of not interfering in the way other countries choose to live. The addressees prefer this issue. It seems
that Trump believes his audience. In addition, both are not sure about the fulfillment of this promise in the normal
events and finally it seems that Trump intends to achieve this promise. As far as the CR is concerned, this SA presents
the standpoint of "outstretching hands of cooperation and trust with the Islamic world" (See 6.2.1 and Appendix 1). It
seems one of the ways maintaining his audience trust in America's policy of neutrality.
Text (3)
"Our vision is one of peace, security and prosperity in this region and in the world"
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1829
The text above, based on the model, is the SA of assertion. In terms of its FCs (See 5.2.1), it is a proposition for which
the addresser has evidence that will be introduced in the argumentation stage (See Texts 20-23 Appendix 1). It is not
obvious that the addressees know Trump's proposition about America's vision in this era. For Trump, it appears that
he believes his vision about the world. As far as the CR is concerned, this SA advances the standpoint of "America's
vision is one of peace, security and prosper in the world" with the aim to be accepted later (See 6.2.1). The other
example of this SA and its CR in the confrontation stage is (4) (Appendix 1).
Argumentative Stage
Text (4)
"… in just a few months, we have created almost a million new jobs, added over 3 million trillion…"
Based on the developed model, the text above is an assertive one, namely, assertion. In the light of its FCs (See 5.2.1),
it is a proposition of the American government's achievements. It represents evidence of these achievements. On its
face, Trump seems to believe the proposition. Concerning the CR of this SA in the current stage, it advances the
argument of supporting Trump's standpoint of "America's vision is one of peace, security and prosperity in the world"
(See 6.2.1) in the confrontation stage. Put it differently, creating jobs is an aspect of prosperity in the world. Other
examples of such SA and its CR are 5, 6, 7 and 23 (Appendix 1).
Text (5)
"…we signed historic agreements with the Kingdom that will invest almost $400 billion in our two
countries and create many thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia."
Supported by the developed model, the text is an assertion SA. Following its FCs (See 5.2.1), it is a proposition of
committing agreements with other countries. Besides, it is evidence per se. As far as the CR is concerned, this SA
advances evidence of Trump's standpoint of "outstretching hands of cooperation and trust with the Islamic world" in
the confrontation stage (See 6.2.1). The addresser exhibits such agreements between America and Islamic countries as
a type of cooperation. Other examples of this SA and its CR in the confrontation stage are 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (Appendix 1).
Text (6)
"We have also started discussions with many of the countries present today on strengthening
partnerships, and forming new ones, to advance security and stability across the Middle East and
beyond."
In terms of SAs, it represents an assertion according its FCs (See 5.2.1). It is the proposition of initiating discussions
of cooperation with other countries. It is evidence driven by the addresser. Regarding its CR, this SA performs the role
of advancing an argument maintaining the standpoint "building new friendships with other Islamic countries" (See
6.2.1). The addresser, Trump, talks about discussions with some Islamic leaders that have not commit agreements
with America as an example of cooperation with the world. Another example of this SA and its CR in Trump's
argumentation is 7 (Appendix 1).
Text (7)
"America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks – from the atrocities of September 11th to the
devastation of the Boston Bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando."
Reinforced by the developed model, this text is an assertion. According to its FCs (See 5.2.1), it is a proposition of
America's sufferings from terrorists' attacks. As the previous cases in the argumentation stage, the text stands as
evidence supporting a standpoint. Concerning its CRs, this SA advances an evidence of Trump's standpoint of
"extremists threat the international peace, security, prosperity and future" (See 6.2.1) in the confrontation stage. The
American President advances an argument about terrorists' danger against the world. To be more clarified, one of the
terrorists' attacks is these barbaric ones against United States. Additional examples of assertions supporting this
standpoint are 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 (Appendix 1).
Text (8)
"Jordanian pilots are crucial partners against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. "
The text above, following the developed model, is an assertive SA, namely assertion. In terms of its FCs (See 5.2.1), it
is a proposition showing America's allies in fighting terrorists. It is another example supporting the addresser's
standpoints. As far as the CR is concerned, this SA advances the standpoint of "America's goal is initiation a coalition
of nation against extremists" (See 6.2.1). Here, the speaker supports his standpoint by revealing the cooperation with
Islamic countries such as the Jordanian pilots' role through fighting terrorists. Other examples of this SA and its CR in
the confrontation stage are 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 (Appendix 1).
Concluding Stage
Text (9)
"Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth?"
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1830
Depending on the developed model, this text stands as a directive SA, namely question according to its FCs (See
5.2.4). It is a proposition of seeking confirmation from the addressees. In addition, the addresser aims at either
confirmation or rejection of his 'yes-no' question. As far as its CR, it is used to establish a result of Trump's
argumentation (See 6.2.1). Here, Trump attempts to seek his audience's acceptance of his advanced standpoint in the
confrontation stage initiating coalition against terrorism. Other examples of such a SA and its CR are 24, 25, 26 and
27 (Appendix 1).
Text (10)
"New jobs and industries that will lift up millions of people."
According to the developed model, this text is an assertive one, namely, assertion depending on its FCs (See 5.2.1). It
is a proposition of the hoped achievements of accepting his standpoint that are advanced in the confrontation stage
"America's vision is one of peace, security and prosperity in the world". As far as the CR is concerned, this SA
establishes the result of efficiency of acceptance of Trump's advanced standpoints in the confrontation stage (See
6.2.1).Other examples of this SA and its CR are 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 in Appendix 1.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the data analysis, the conclusions below have been reached:
1. As far as of Trump's discussion, it involves three argumentative stages: confrontation, argumentation and
concluding. No use of opening stage has been observed.
2. Only four SAs are utilized by Trump to fulfill his argumentative objectives. These include pledge, assertion,
promise and question. More clearly, the SAs of assertion, pledge and promise are used in the confrontation stage;
that of assertion is the only one invested in the argumentation stage whereas those of assertion and question are
utilized in the concluding stage. This conclusion validates the first hypothesis.
3. As regards the CRs, in the confrontation stage, the SAs of assertion, pledge and promise are used to present
standpoints. In the argumentation stage, the SA of assertion is employed to advance argumentations supporting the
standpoints presented in the confrontation stage. Finally, in the concluding stage, the SAs of assertion and
question are utilized to fulfill the CR of establishing results. This conclusion validates the second hypothesis.
4. The most frequently used SA is assertion. It is utilized 29 times; 2 times in the confrontation stage, 18 in the
argumentation stage and 9 in the concluding stage.
5. Trump's main focus are the standpoints of 'outstretching hands of cooperation and trust with the Islamic world;
America's goal is initiation a coalition of nation against extremists; and extremists threat the international peace,
security, prosperity and future'. They received the high number of supporting arguments.
Reference
Al-Ebadi, H. (2012). 'A Systemic-Functional Analysis of Religious Texts with Reference to the Epistle of 'James'.
Journal of Thiqar Arts, Vol.2, No.7, pp.1-20.
Al-Duleimi, A. & Al-Ebadi, H. (2016). 'Ideology in News Reports: Al-Jazeera Reporters as Representative: a Critical
Discourse Analysis'. British Journal of English Linguistics,Vol.4, No.2, pp.53-66,
www.eajournals.org.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge. CUP.
Besnard, B. and Hunter, N. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Eemeren F. (1996). Political Maneuvering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-
dialectical approach. Cambridge: CUP.
and R. Grootendorst (1983). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1831
Harnish, R. (1994). Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Houtlosser, P. and Eemeren, V. (2009). Argumentation. Oxford: T&T Clark International.
O’Keefe, D. (1982). “The Concepts of Argument and Arguing”. In J. Robert and C. Willard (eds.) Advances in
Argumentation Theory and Research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, pp. 2-23.
Recan, F. (2015). Pledge in English and Arabic Religious Texts: A Contrastive Study. Unpublished Thesis:
Babylon University.
Searle, R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.
and Vanderveken D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: CUP.
Van Ree, A. (2009). Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. Netherlands: Springer.
Appendix 1: the Analyzed Data
Standpoint
Presented/
Supported
Constructive
Role
Speech Act
Stage
Example
No.
1 & 2
Presenting a
standpoint
Pledge
Confrontation
I pledged to strengthen America’s oldest friendships, and to
build new partnerships in pursuit of peace.
1.
3
Promise
I also promised that America will not seek to impose our way of
life on others, but to outstretch our hands in the spirit of
cooperation and trust.
2.
4
assertion
Our vision is one of peace, security, and prosperity—in this
region, and in the world.
3.
5 & 6
Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping
out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that
does honor to God.
4.
4 & 6
Advancing
argument
Argumentation
in just a few months, we have created almost a million new
jobs,...
5.
1, 3, 4 & 6
…we signed historic agreements with the Kingdom that will
invest almost $400 billion in our two countries and create many
thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia.
6.
1, 2 & 4
We have also started discussions with many of the countries
present today on strengthening partnerships, and forming new
ones, to advance security and stability across the Middle East
and beyond.
7.
3, 5 & 6
Later today, we will make history again with the opening of a
new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology – located
right here, in this central part of the Islamic World.
8.
5 & 6
America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks – from the
atrocities of September 11th to the devastation of the Boston
Bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and
Orlando.
9.
5 & 6
The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So
too have the nations of Africa and even South America. India,
Russia, China and Australia have been victims.
10.
6
But, in sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the
innocent people of Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations.
They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the
destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.
11.
3, 5 & 6
Jordanian pilots are crucial partners against ISIS in Syria and
Iraq.
12.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1832
3 & 6
Saudi Arabia and a regional coalition have taken strong action
against Houthi militants in Yemen.
13.
3 & 6
The Lebanese Army is hunting ISIS operatives who try to
infiltrate their territory.
14.
3 & 6
Emirati troops are supporting our Afghan partners.
15.
3 & 6
In Mosul, American troops are supporting Kurds, Sunnis and
Shias fighting together for their homeland.
16.
3 & 5
Qatar, which hosts the U.S. Central Command, is a crucial
strategic partner.
17.
3 & 5
Our longstanding partnership with Kuwait and Bahrain continue
to enhance security in the region.
18.
3 & 5
And courageous Afghan soldiers are making tremendous
sacrifices in the fight against the Taliban, and others, in the fight
for their country.
19.
3 & 5
I am proud to announce that the nations here today will be
signing an agreement to prevent the financing of terrorism,
called the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center – co-chaired by
the United States and Saudi Arabia, and joined by every
member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is another historic
step in a day that will be long remembered.
20.
3 & 5
I also applaud the Gulf Cooperation Council for blocking
funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror,
and designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization last year.
Saudi Arabia also joined us this week in placing sanctions on
one of the most senior leaders of Hezbollah.
21.
3 & 5
I also applaud Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in
hosting refugees. The surge of migrants and refugees leaving the
Middle East depletes the human capital needed to build stable
societies and economies. Instead of depriving this region of so
much human potential, Middle Eastern countries can give young
people hope for a brighter future in their home nations and
regions.
22.
4 & 5
In that spirit, after concluding my visit in Riyadh, I will travel to
Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and then to the Vatican – visiting
many of the holiest places in the three Abrahamic Faiths. If
these three faiths can join together in cooperation, then peace in
this world is possible – including peace between Israelis and
Palestinians. I will be meeting with both Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas.
23.
4, 5 & 6
Establishing
result
Question
Concluding
Will we be indifferent in the presence of evil?
24.
6
Will we protect our citizens from its violent ideology?
25.
6
Will we let its venom spread through our societies?
26.
6
Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth?
27.
6
Assertion
If we do not confront this deadly terror, we know what the
future will bring—more suffering and despair. But if we act—if
we leave this magnificent room unified and determined to do
what it takes to destroy the terror that threatens the world—then
there is no limit to the great future our citizens will have.
28.
3 & 4
The birthplace of civilization is waiting to begin a new
renaissance. Just imagine what tomorrow could bring.
29.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol.24, Issue 09, 2020
ISSN: 1475-7192
1833
3 & 4
Glorious wonders of science, art, medicine and commerce to
inspire humankind.
30.
3 & 4
Great cities built on the ruins of shattered towns.
31.
3 & 4
New jobs and industries that will lift up millions of people.
32.
6
Parents who no longer worry for their children, families who no
longer mourn for their loved ones,
33.
6
and the faithful who finally worship without fear.
34.
4
These are the blessings of prosperity and peace.
35.
6
These are the desires that burn with a righteous flame in every
human heart. And these are the just demands of our beloved
peoples.
36.
