Justification may be a prerequisite for any claim that is made, whether the claim is about a weather forecast by a meteorologist, an accusation of negligence by an employee against his or her employers, or a doctor's diagnosis. Justification denotes a communicative act which is meant to compensate for the violation of a certain norm or to enable recipients to understand better something unpredicted or disputed.
Although justification is ubiquitous in everyday life, it has so far remained relatively unexplored in general and in the political domain in particular. Therefore, this study examines its pragmatic aspects in some selected British and American political speeches. It sets itself the task of fulfilling the following aims: (1) finding out the various criteria of justification resorted to by British and American decision-makers and discovering the most frequent criterion; (2) detecting the types of justification that are most recurrently used by British and American decision-makers in the data understudy ; (3) identifying the pragmatic structure of justification employed by British and American decision-makers shedding some light on its most basic structural components; (4) finding out the different pragmatic strategies employed by British and American decision-makers to justify their decisions and detecting the most frequent ones; (5) identifying the similarities and differences between British and American decision-makers regarding the use of the criteria, types, strategies and basic structural components of justification ; (6) specifying the role played by strategic maneuvering in justification; (7) designing an eclectic model for data analysis; (8) shedding some light on the different approaches proposed to account for the complex nature of justification. To achieve the aims of the study and assess the validity of its hypotheses, a number of procedures are followed: (1) reviewing the literature relevant to justification and enhancing its pragmatic nature; (2) developing an eclectic model to be used in analyzing the data under study through surveying the relevant pragmatic theories; (3) randomly selecting data as representative examples for both British and American political speeches and analyzing them by means of the model developed for this purpose; (4) conducting a statistical analysis to support the findings of the pragmatic analysis; and (5) Conducting comparison between the strategies used by the British and American decision-makers.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE PROBLEM
1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.3 HYPOTHESES
1.4 PROCEDURES
1.5 LIMITS OF THE STUDY
1.6 VALUE OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER TWO: JUSTIFICATION AND ITS PRAGMATIC NATURE
2.1 JUSTIFICATION AND OTHER RELATED FIELDS OF STUDY
2.2 JUSTIFICATION IN POLITICS
2.3 APPROACHES TO JUSTIFICATION
2.3.1 ARGUMENTATION
2.3.1.1 Justification as Product and Process
2.3.1.2 Types of Justification
2.3.1.2.1 Deductive Justification
2.3.1.2.1.1 Syllogism
2.3.1.2.1.2 Enthymeme
2.3.1.2.2 Inductive Justification
2.3.1.2.3 Abductive Justification
2.3.1.3 Warrants
2.3.1.4 Argument Support
2.3.1.5 The Burden of Proof
2.3.2 SPEECH ACTS IN JUSTIFICATION
2.3.2.1 Speech Act Sequencing
2.3.2.2 Justification and Excuse
2.3.3 FALLACY
2.4 RELATED TOPICS
2.4.1 REFUTATION
2.4.2 RHETORICAL PRAGMATICS
2.4.3 AUDIENCE
CHAPTER THREE :THE PRAGMATIC MODEL OF JUSTIFICATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 MODELS OF JUSTIFICATION
3.2.1 TOULMIN’S (1958) JUSTIFICATORY ARGUMENT
3.2.2 SCHELGOFF AND SACKS (1973) ADJACENCY PAIRS
3.2.3 VAN DIJK’S (1977A) SPEECH ACT SEQUENCES
3.2.4 FERRARA’S (1980) SUBORDINATE ACTS IN SEQUENCES
3.2.5 VAN EEMEREN AND GROOTENDORST’S MODEL OF CRITICAL DISCUSSION(1984)
3.2.5.1 Strategic Maneuvering
3.2.6 FRITZ’S (2005) ACCUSATION RESPONSES
3.2.7 WODAK’S (2006) JUSTIFICATION DISCOURSE
3.3 THE ECLECTIC MODEL
3.3.1 CRITERIA
3.3.2 TYPES
3.3.2.1 Orsolini’s (1993) Account of Justification Types
3.3.2.1.1 Backgrounding
3.3.2.1.2 Causal Explanation
3.3.2.1.3 Correction
3.2.3 THE PRAGMATIC STRUCTURE OF JUSTIFICATION
3.3.3.1 The Initiation Stage
3.3.3.1.1 Speech Acts
3.3.3.1.1.1 Accusing
3.3.3.1.1.2 Proposing
3.3.3.1.1.3 Refusing
3.3.3.1.1.4 Complaining
3.3.3.1.1.5 Compliment
3.3.3.1.1.6 Criticizing
3.3.3.1.1.7 Warning
3.3.3.1.1.8 Condemnation
3.3.3.1.1.9 Telling
3.3.3.1.2 Presuppositions
3.3.3.2 The Subsequent Stage
3.3.3.2.1 Cooperative Principle
3.3.3.2.1.1 Hedge of the Cooperative Principle
3.3.3.2.1.2 Conversational Implicature
3.3.3.2.2 Speech acts
3.3.3.2.2.1 Stating
3.3.3.2.2.2 Claiming
3.3.3.2.2.3 Denial
3.3.3.2.2.4 Justification
3.3.3.2.2.5 Apologizing
3.3.3.2.3 Aristotle Argumentative Appeals
3.3.3.2.4 Pragma-Rhetorical Tropes
3.3.3.2.4.1 Hyperbole
3.3.3.2.4.2 Rhetorical Question
3.3.3.2.4.3 Simile
3.3.3.2.4.4 Metaphor
3.3.3.2.4.5 Personification
3.3.3.2.4.6 Praeteritio
3.3.3.2.4.7 Amplification
3.3.3.2.5 Pragma-Dialectical Strategies
3.3.3.2.5.1 Support Strategies
3.3.3.2.5.2 Fallacies
3.3.3.3 The Concluding Stage
3.3.3.3.1 Speech Acts
3.3.3.3.1.2 Explaining
3.3.3.3.1.3 Promising
3.3.3.3.1.4 Thanking
3.3.3.3.1.5 Advice
3.4 TESTING THE WORKABILITY OF THE MODEL
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND ANALYSIS
4. 1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 DATA DESCRIPTION
4.2.1 POLITICAL SPEECHES
4.2.2 CONTEXT
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS
4.3.1 MODEL OF ANALYSIS
4.3.2 PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS
4.3.2.1 British Political Speeches
4.3.2.1.1 Tony Blair Speeches
4.3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
4.3.3.1 British Political Speeches
4.3.3.2 American Political Speeches
4.3.3.3 British vs. American Political Speeches: A Statistical Comparison
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
5.2 PEDAGOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Objectives & Topics
This study aims to investigate the pragmatic aspects of justification within political discourse, specifically focusing on how British and American decision-makers justify their decisions in political speeches. The central research question seeks to understand the criteria, types, structural components, and strategies of justification employed in this specific political domain.
- Pragmatic analysis of justification in political speeches.
- Identification of justification criteria and recurring types.
- Analysis of the structural components and initiation stages of justification.
- Examination of pragma-rhetorical strategies and fallacies used by decision-makers.
- Comparative analysis between British and American political discourse styles.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 The Problem
According to Orsolini (1993: 281), in a conflictive talk, speakers assume two interactional roles: denying the addressee’s position and supplying some support for their own. Arguments that they employ as support normally indicate that speaker’s position is grounded on underlying norms and rules that are expected to be held by all participants. Thus, in a conflictive talk, supplying justifications means producing arguments that are able to render the speaker’s position less disputed by the recipient.
In this regard, Sinnotte-Armstrong and Fogelin (2010: 3) assert that one of the most salient uses of arguments is that of justifying a disputed claim. Thus, justifications are meant to provide reasons to accept their conclusions. These justifications have the effect of altering the addressee’s thinking by making him/her believe a conclusion that he has doubted before.
Prior to that, Kasachkoff (1988: 20-9) mentions that justifications and explanations serve diverse purposes. However, their purposes are recurrently mingled to the extent that they cannot be separated one from the other. Moreover, it is demonstrated that determining whether a given discourse is an explanation or a justification is not always an easy task to do and only will the context in which it occurs decide that. It will show whether the speaker is attempting to make the audience accept a particular fact or he/she concentrates on making the audience understand that fact.
In spite of the fact that justification is pervasive in everyday interactions, it has remained relatively linguistically, particularly pragmatically, unexplored. This study provides an investigation of justification as a communicative event from a pragmatic point of view. It is conducted in pursuit of redressing the balance, however slightly, with regards to studies concerned with refutation. It attempts to show that consideration of refutation can only be complete when justification is considered.
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION: This chapter defines the problem, lists the study aims and hypotheses, outlines the procedures, and defines the limits and value of the study.
CHAPTER TWO: JUSTIFICATION AND ITS PRAGMATIC NATURE: This chapter explores the theoretical background of justification across various fields and analyzes different approaches, including argumentation and speech act theory.
CHAPTER THREE: THE PRAGMATIC MODEL OF JUSTIFICATION: This chapter develops an eclectic pragmatic model for data analysis by reviewing existing models and defining the structural stages of justification.
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND ANALYSIS: This chapter presents the collection, description, and detailed pragmatic/statistical analysis of political speeches from British and American leaders.
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: This chapter provides the final conclusions of the study, practical recommendations for educators, and suggestions for future research paths.
Keywords
Justification, Pragmatics, Argumentation, Political Discourse, Speech Acts, Fallacy, Refutation, Rhetoric, Audience, Strategic Maneuvering, Presupposition, Causal Explanation, Correction, Political Speeches, Discourse Analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this dissertation?
The work investigates the pragmatic dimensions of justification as a communicative act within political speeches, analyzing how British and American decision-makers utilize language to support their political claims and decisions.
What are the central themes of this work?
The central themes include the pragmatic structure of justification, its grounding in argumentation theory, the use of rhetorical strategies, the role of the audience, and the comparative analysis of justification patterns across different political systems.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The study aims to identify the criteria, types, structural components, and pragmatic/rhetorical strategies used by politicians to justify their actions, while exploring similarities and differences between British and American decision-makers.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The research uses a descriptive and analytical methodology, developing an "eclectic model" of justification and applying statistical analysis (including Chi-square tests) to compare the frequency of pragmatic strategies found in the speeches.
What is addressed in the main part of the book?
The main body focuses on theoretical approaches to justification (Chapter 2), the construction of a pragmatic model (Chapter 3), and a comprehensive data analysis of speeches by Tony Blair, David Cameron, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama (Chapter 4).
Which keywords best characterize the study?
Key terms include Justification, Pragmatics, Argumentation, Political Discourse, Speech Acts, Rhetoric, Fallacy, and Strategic Maneuvering.
How is the pragmatic model of justification structured?
The model defines justification as a process with three distinct stages: the Initiation Stage (speech acts and presuppositions), the Subsequent Stage (strategy-heavy analysis), and the Concluding Stage (finalizing the justification through specific speech acts).
What unique insight does the study offer regarding politicians?
The study reveals that politicians often violate the rules of critical discussion to advance their goals, frequently resorting to the derailment of strategic maneuvering and the production of various types of fallacies to make their decisions appear more acceptable to the public.
- Citar trabajo
- Mariam D. Saffah (Autor), 2018, Justification. A Pragmatic Perspective, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/537312
