Argumentation in Linguistic Thought: Reconfiguring the Modern and Contemporary Arabic Scholarly Paradigm

Abstract

Recent developments in linguistic inquiry have ushered in profound methodological and epistemological reconfigurations, prompting a critical reassessment of several foundational concepts. Within this evolving landscape, argumentation has emerged as a central analytical category, no longer confined to its classical rhetorical framing, but reconceptualized as an intrinsically pragmatic-linguistic mechanism that governs the organization of discourse and the orientation of interpretive processes. From this perspective, argumentation operates not merely as a persuasive technique, but as a constitutive dimension of meaning construction, embedded in the inferential architecture of language and discourse.

In contemporary pragmatic theory, argumentation is understood as a system of discursive operations, involving argumentative operators, connectives, and orientation markers that structure the progression of utterances and guide the addressee toward specific interpretive and evaluative outcomes. In this sense, it constitutes a shared theoretical terrain between Arabic and Western linguistic traditions, particularly in relation to discourse analysis, communicative intentionality, and the dynamics of persuasion.

This paper seeks to examine the manifestations of argumentation within modern and contemporary Arabic linguistic thought, with a view to mapping the conceptual frameworks developed by Arab scholars and assessing the ways in which argumentative processes are theorized and operationalized within Arabic discourse. Methodologically, the study adopts a critical-analytical approach, grounded in a close reading of key Arabic contributions, while engaging with influential Western models—most notably those associated with Perelman’s rhetorical argumentation and Ducrot’s theory of argumentation in language—in order to trace patterns of appropriation, transformation, and conceptual negotiation.

The analysis is guided by a set of interrelated questions: How is argumentation conceptualized within Arabic linguistic scholarship? What are the principal argumentative mechanisms—linguistic, rhetorical, and structural—mobilized in discourse analysis? To what extent has Arabic linguistic thought internalized, reworked, or resisted dominant Western paradigms of argumentation? And crucially, has it succeeded in articulating an epistemologically autonomous framework, or does it remain largely inscribed within the horizon of Western theoretical models?

The study argues that argumentation, in its pragmatic articulation, constitutes a pivotal dimension of contemporary Arabic linguistic thought, marking a shift from ornamental rhetoric toward a functionally grounded, discourse-oriented paradigm in which meaning, persuasion, and interpretation are dynamically intertwined.