Language, Ideology, Power, and Persuasion: A Case in Arabic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1601.24Keywords:
language, power, ideology, persuasion, religiousAbstract
The present paper handles the intricate relationship between language, power, ideology, and persuasion. The study tackles this important aspect of people's daily lives and focuses on religious discourse that aims at changing people's lives that could lead to subversive consequences. The researchers selected a well-known Arabic speech delivered to the inhabitants of Mecca (in Saudi Arabia) by a member of dissidents (Khawarij) and analyzed it within two frameworks, one proposed by Fairclough (2001) and the other proposed by Aristotle. The purpose of selecting these two models is to put the two to robust testing to find out which can successfully handle the chosen text well. After applying the former model, it was found that the chosen text has met all the points proposed by Fairclough in being so tightly woven as to be called a coherent and unified text. However, when the latter model was applied, it was found the speech failed to meet the three elements proposed by Aristotle, namely, logos, ethos, and pathos. The authors have found that the framework proposed by Fairclough is appropriate for texts that could be analyzed socio-linguistically, while the model proposed by Aristotle is more appropriate for religious and political speeches. It is hoped that this study and similar others underpin the relevant ongoing research and accentuate the intriguing and profound relationship between language, power, ideology, and persuasion. However, the speaker is unlikely to achieve what he intends if all or at least one of the Aristotelian rhetorical triangle's components are missing.
References
Crystal, David. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Kadt, E. (1993). Language and emancipation in South Africa. World Englishes, 12(2), 157-68.
Fairclough, N. (1990). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labor, New Language. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis'. In A. McTonlet & M. Rapley (Eds.), How to analyze talk in institutional settings (pp. 25–41). London: Continuum.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power and language: Selected interviews and other writings (C. Gordon, Ed., pp. 972–977). The Harvard Press.
Fowler, H. W. &. Fowler, F. G. (1906). The King's English. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from prison notebooks (Q. Hoarse &. G. Nowell-Smith, Eds. & Trans.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Halliday, M., &. Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Kachru, Braj. (1986). The Power and Politics of English. World Englishes, 5(2), 121-140.
MacKay, D. (1973). Cognition & aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 22-40.
Mahmoud, M. (1979). Nar Tahat-l-ramaad (Fire under ashes). Cairo: Dar Al-Maarif.
Martin, J. R. (2001). Cohesion and texture. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of discourse Analysis (pp. 35-53). Oxford: Blackwell.
Meyer, C. F. (1987). A linguistic study of American punctuation. New York: Peter Lang.
Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beeber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 615-624.
Morley, Trevor, L. (2004). Power and ideology in everyday discourse: the relevance of critical discourse analysis in pragmatic linguistics today. The English Language and Linguistic, Seminar, 31, 20-25.
Petty, R. E., &. Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (19), 123-205.
Rahman, T. (2002). Language, ideology, and power: language-learning among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, D., &. Rafoth, B. (1986). Social cognitive ability as a predictor of the quality of expository and persuasive writing among college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(1), 9-21.
Sauer, C. (1989). Structures of Consensus-Making and Intervention: The Concept of Nazi Language Policy in Occupied Holland. Retrieved March 16, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1075.7.o4sau.
Shiffrin, D. T., & Hamilton, H. (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Simpson, P., & Mayor, A. (2010). Language and power: a course book for students. London and New York: Routledge.
Smith, S. M., &. Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Speed of Speech and Persuasion: Evidence for Multiple Effects. Retrieved January 12, 2018, from http://doi.org/IO.1177/01461672952110006.
Taiwo, R. (2007). Language, ideology, and power in Nigerian newspaper headlines. Nebula, 4, 1, 218-227.
Whorf, B. L. (1964). Language, thought, and reality. New York: Widely.
Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power, and ideology in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Woolard, K. A., & Scheiffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, (23), 55-82.
Wolfson, P. (1981). Language, thought, and culture. In Clare, V. Eschholz, A., & Rosa, A. (Eds.), Language (pp. 45–53). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Zughoul, M. (2007). Studies in contemporary Arabic/English sociolinguistics. Irbid: Hamada Publishing House.
