CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Problem

Argumentation is defined as a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader, by putting forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge. It is a hybrid topic that has a long tradition in history and has been made by the hands of philosophy, logic, dialectic, rhetoric, and, recently, pragma-dialectic. As such, most of the research work on argumentation has tackled it from a logical, dialectical, or rhetorical perspective, that is, it has not been dealt with from a linguistic perspective. Even the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation, which deals with argumentation linguistically to some degree, confines itself to a very limited extent (that is, the use of certain types of speech acts). Consequently, the present study makes its appeal to tackle argumentation from a purely linguistic angle; more adequately, from a purely pragmatic perspective represented by the employment of: speech acts, Gricean maxims, and the Politeness Principle.

1.2 Aims of the Study

The present study aims at: 1- Investigating the most common pragmatic strategy(ies) of getting into argumentation in the selected novels. 2- Tracing how arguers pragmatically proceed their argumentation (whether effectively, appropriately, or by appealing to a combination of both) before they get out of it in the three novels. 3- Investigating the most common pragmatic strategy(ies) of getting out of argumentation in the three novels. 4- Developing a model for the pragmatic analysis of argumentation in the three novels. 5- Showing whether some of the major themes in the selected novels are reflected in argumentation or not.

1.3 Hypotheses
It is hypothesized that: 1- Accusation is the most common pragmatic strategy of getting into argumentation in the three novels under study. 2Generally, arguers abide by using a combination of both the effective

arguing and the appropriate arguing in proceeding argumentation in the novels under analysis. 3- Disagreement is the most common pragmatic strategy of getting out of argumentation in the three novels. 4- Some of the major themes in the three novels under study are reflected in argumentation.

1. 4 Procedures
To achieve the aims of this work and verify or reject its hypotheses, the following procedures are adopted : 1- Surveying the relevant literature on argumentation. 2- Using the model developed by this study for the analysis of the data of the work. 3- Analyzing the argumentative situations in the three novels under investigation which represent the data of the current study . 4- Using a mathematical statistical method, represented by the percentage equation, to calculate the results of the analysis.

1.5 Limits of the Study

1- This study is limited to investigating argumentation as a process only (and not as a product). 2- It seeks its aims in all the argumentative situations in three nineteenthcentury novels, viz. the Bronts novels: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bront, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bront, and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bront because they have been found representative to what is required by the data of the work. 3- The genre selected for analysis is conversation.

1.6 Value of the Study

It is hopeful that this study will be of a good value in the fields of pragmatics, applied linguistics, and stylistics. Teachers , students, and

textbooks writers can, as well, make use of this study as it sheds light on the pragmatic side of argumentation which is an aspect of real life communicative situations.