Orality in Persian Argumentative Discourse: A Case Study of Editorials

Languages have their own distinctive styles of argumentation. It seems some languages like Arabic and Persian have a preference for using the “oral” features of parataxis, formulaicity and repetition as persuasive devices in argumentation. The purpose of this article is first to examine these “oral” characteristics in Persian argumentation, and then to tie together the two areas of research: the study of orality and the study of metadiscourse. The article claims that these oral characteristics in Persian are means of gaining rhetorical effectiveness. Therefore, they should be considered as metadiscourse devices used to create a bond between writer and reader.     

Understanding interdisciplinarity in its argumentative context: thought and rhetoric in the perception of academic practices

ABSTRACT

The meaning and value of interdisciplinarity can be described in several, at times even contradictory, ways. Yet, little is known about how these play a role in individuals’ argumentation and everyday thinking. Drawing on Michael Billig’s rhetorical psychology, this paper explores how individuals draw on meanings, values, and connotations of interdisciplinarity to construct arguments and counter-arguments about this practice. This approach sheds light on the contradictions that surround interdisciplinarity, and thus on the rhetorical context in which its meaning is constituted. The value of rhetorical psychology for the study of interdisciplinarity is demonstrated through the analysis of the discourse of 27 interviews with researchers and administrators from a large British university. The analysis identifies 12 interpretative repertoires interviewees use to argue and to think about interdisciplinarity. Highlighting these repertoires and the contradictions between them is relevant for stimulating individuals’ reflexivity, critical thought, and decision-making regarding disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity.