| المستخلص: |
The argumentative speech is an authority by which speakers use influence and persuation process, it is a linguistic exercise in a deliberative place among the speakers as a claim for the first and intentionally display objection for the second. Each of which use rhetorical techniques to convince the other by his arguments, these techniques are different according to the difference of the situation. Arguments could be logical. Evidentiary arguments may be linguistic or rhetorical arguments, Imam Kadhim (pbuh) pronounced language as a mechanism lingual from the term until to the manner. Argumentative pronunciation has a central significance in the speech of Imam al-Kazim (AS), for earning a semantic power that derived from destination tags for being intensity argumentation to Quranic issues references to it. As the argumentation word in the speech of Imam al-Kazim (As) does not indicate the functional meanings or news only, but it significance is operative orbital literally in the speech. It can be inferred through turn as an employed word within the meaning of the orbital strategy from the lexical meaning to argumentative and deliberative one by these mental requirements. Concerning compositions in argumentative kadhimian speech are evidentiary units which linked indicatively and judicially, by using orbital lack of communication that reach arguments and results formality and semantically. Lack of communication inside have varied in AL-kazimian speech, it has used the conflict to do argumentative function for the first argument and invalidate it or upgrading of weak argument to a powerful one. As well as, argumentative supporting factions which gather supporting arguments for one result, and argumentative reasoning factions that combine justificatory arguments. Also, the arguing image has an important role in the process of arguing and persuading in AL-Kazmi speech. Argumentation image has taken three evidentiary forms which are (Analogy and argumentative representation), (Argumentative Metaphor), (Metony my and exposure argumentation). Regarding argumentative techniques, they vary in AL-kazmi speech. They have employed rhetorical techniques as arguing use, including the style of question, as they changed from direct normative style to other argumentative styles, such as problematic question or answering question or justificatory question, in addition to reproaching question for doing arguing purposes that associated with each type from questions.
Among other techniques, negation one as a polemical strategy for rejection within multiple forms. AL-Imam has used inclusion and scorching arts as arguing style, so Imam's speech include higher arguments, like a Quranic text and poetry to deduce its authenticity. As well as dialog reproaching which transmit intense arguments indicatively because of mental requirements that rever to it. Concerning logical methods are techniques that designed to demonstrate non-rebuttable and denial. One of these methods is argumentative inference. Imam has been inferred on the credibility of his arguments in Quranic text or wisdom, or in a manner of syllogism, or by induction way, or by argumentative hierarchy. He has also used psychological and methods ways for the purpose of emotional persuasion and influence. He has used argumentative narration (appetitive and intimidating) as a evidentiary prelude to the credibility of the intended addressee in accepting it or intimidate him for not accepting it. As well as, he use catalysts ad valorem, as arguments that attitude based upon it, and belonging catalysts which are oriented towards addressee's emotion to influence him. And by the close, Imam has used all the linguistic capabilities of language starting from word, structure, and image to manner employing it argumentatively for persuading the target audience of different conditions .
|
