CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study Success or failure in life largely determined by our ability to make wise decision for ourselves and to secure the
decision we want from others. Much of our significant
and purposeful activity
is concerned with
making required decision. The art of making rational and wise
decisions is argumentation. Dealing with argumentation, Hill
and Leeman (1997:
2) state that argumentation is the
communicative process in which individuals present and test reasons supporting opposing
points of view.
While Emeren and
Grootendorst (2004: 1) say that “Argumentation is
verbal, social, and
rational activity aimed
at convincing a reasonable critic
of the acceptability
of a standpoint
by putting forward
a constellation of proposition
justifying or refuting the proposition expressed in the standpoint”.
Argumentation becomes the part of
our daily routine. It occurs everywhere from informal encounters between
people to the formally
structure debate. We need argumentation to defense, to argue and to
convince people when delivering information. It
is not only
used by a
broadcaster and politician
in mass media which used
as a canal of spreading
opinion but also needed by a
housewife to teach their children about norm and life in logical statements. Teachers need
a good argumentation to deliver the
science and value to their students so that they clearly understand. It is no doubt that
argumentation as a part of communication becomes a central role of life.
Moreover, to
some extent, argumentation
becomes a tool
to win the audiences attention.
This fact makes
people use the
argumentation in various fields
with various purposes.
For example, an advertising company
produces their advertising that consists
of qualified arguments to convince
the audience.
Another example, in political
setting, the candidates of the presidents are voted by
their constituents based
on how they
delivered the arguments
during the campaign season. It seems that ability of
delivering qualified argumentation is needed by
who involved in
politic field. Dealing
with the importance
of argumentation, Hill and
Leeman (1997: 1) state that
“No matter who
you are, where you lie, what your professional goals
are, what your religion beliefs are, how
old you are, or how shy you are, you likely engage in argumentation on a daily basis”.
Al Qur’an also mentions the term
of argumentation in surah An Nahl verse 16:125
that is “Invite (all) to the way of Thy Lord with
wisdom and preaching; and argue with them In
a Way that
are best and
Most Gracious: for
Thy knoweth best,
who have strayed from His path, and who receive
guidance.” (QS. An Nahl: 125, translated by Yusuf Ali (Qur’an in Words: 2006).
Another version of translation of
Surah An Nahl 16: 125 is “invite (mankind, O Muhammad)
to the Way
of Your Lord
(i.e. Islam) with
wisdom (i.e. with
the Divine Inspiration and the
Qur’an) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a Way
that is better.
Truly, Your Lord
know best who
has gone astray
from his path, and He is the best Aware of those who
are guided.” (QS. An Nahl: 125) The
word “jadiil” in
Surah An Nahl
16: 125 above
means “argue”, the imperative form
of word “to
argue”. According to
Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary
(Hornby, 1995: 52),
the word argue means
“to express an
opposite opinion”. Its
noun form is
“argument” and becomes
“argumentative” in its adjective
form.
From this
surah, it is
known that Allah
allow us to
argue mankind in a better way. Sayyid Quthb (2003: 224) in his
monumental work, Tafsir fi Zhilalil Qur’an
define that the “better way” is presenting the truth with wise arguments based
on the facts
without disparaging others’.
Sayyid Quthb proposed
this translation dealing on
contexts “dakwah” in Islam. Based on his translation, when Moslem
invites others to
Islam, it should
be in graceful
words and wise argumentation
in order that are invited feeling respected. Both these translation of surah
An Nahl: 125
are same in
defining the word
“jadiil” to be
“argue”. The word
“argue” is the
bare infinitive of
“argumentation”. From this
verse, it is known
that Prophet Muhammad is allowed to argue with humankind but in better way.
Considering with that, the
researcher indubitably takes the argumentative statements
on debates of
2008 USA presidential
candidates to be
studied. The scholars propose various classification
discourse type.Argumentative discourse is one of the types of discourse, based on the
purpose of communicative perspective, besides descriptive,
expository, persuasive, and narrative
discourse (Rani, et. al
1980:46), in which
its purpose is
to change attitudes
(Renkema, 1993: 128). A
discourse categorized as argumentation
when it appears from controversial issues between
speaker and his
or her partner.
In most basic
sense, Hill and
Leeman (1996:9) define
argumentation as the communicative process in which individuals present and test reasons (argument) supporting
opposing point of view. It occurs when two
or more people
express differing points
of view, have
sufficient motivation to engage
in a argumentative interaction, construct reasons to support their particular point of view, and test the
reasons offered by each other (Keraf, 1982:3).
In linguistics, the study of argumentative discourse belongs to the field of Discourse Analysis.
Demo (2001:
1) defines Discourse
analysis as “the
examination of language used by members of a speech
community”. It involves looking at both language form
and language functions
and includes of
both spoken interactions and written texts. Discourse analysis is a
method to study the language use from their
inner and outer aspects of texts so that the result of the study will be vivid;
and
one method to
examine discourse under
the field of
Discourse analysis is using
the Toulmin’s model of argumentation.
Stephen Edhelston Toulmin, the
British philosopher proposes the practical method for understanding arguments with his
new way of thinking about human argument.
Toulmin approach is a reaction to the models of formal logic which use in
long decade before
he wrote his
book entitled The Use of Argument. He assumes
that such model
are too static
to deal with
something as dynamic
as human thought, and so he
propose a better system adapted to the actual logics use by actual people (Hart, 1990:138). Hence, the
researcher uses Toulmin’s model of argument
to analyze the object.
Toulmin proposed that the logical
microstructure of human argumentation and
reasoning consists, implicitly or explicitly, of six categories. Those
categories are; Claim, Data,
Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal
and Qualifier. It becomes
a layout that interrelated to
analyze the arguments. The first three elements “claim”, “data”,
and “warrant” are
considered as the
essential components of
practical arguments, while
the second triad
“qualifier”, “backing”, and
“rebuttal” are the complements
and may not be needed in some arguments.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar