The Centrality of Pragmatics in Ideological Representation of Muslim Religious Speeches



Abstract Views
285

Downloads
120

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jul 10, 2022
Published Aug 10, 2022
10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.4.20

Abstract viewed = 285 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Muslim preachers’ discourse seems highly politically corrected, eloquent and formal. However, the problem is that the more the preacher is eloquent the more the ideologies are hidden. This paper addresses this issue by investigating several Muslim utterances produced by influential preachers on heated topics to unmask the implied meaning as well as the hidden ideologies of the preachers. To that end, pragmatics, discourse analysis, and criticality as ideologically manifested are interconnected to yield a considerable analysis model for discourse in general. Certain conclusions are drawn. Chief among them is that pragmatics is a broad central strategy through which discourse, in general, can be critically analyzed and consequently be referred to as a method rather than a concept in this regard.

Keywords: Centrality, Discourse Analysis, Discourse, Hidden Ideologies, Muslim Pragmatics.

References

  1. Al-Ameen, M. (1976). A’yanul Shia, Darul Ta’aruf vl. 1.
     Google Scholar
  2. Al-Hindawi, F., Jubair, B. and Mahdi, S. (2020). Phonopragmatic Manifestations in Iraqi Husseini Preachers’ Discourse: A Qualitative Auto-segmental Metrical Analysis. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. (1) 11 (p.69-80).
     Google Scholar
  3. Al-Khazali, M. and Al-Hindawi, F. (2016). Impoliteness in Political Conflicts on Terrorism: A Model of Pragmatic Strategies in Institutional Debates. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  4. Al-Mudhafar, M. R. (2012) Al-Matiq. Iraq: Al-Numan Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  5. Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, London.
     Google Scholar
  6. Brown, P. and Levinson, C. (1978). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  7. Brown, P. and Levinson, C. (1987). Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  8. Capone, A., (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics. 37 (9), 1355–1371.
     Google Scholar
  9. Capone, A., (2009). Review of Cappelen & Lepore, language turned on itself. Journal of Pragmatics. 41, 1862–1864.
     Google Scholar
  10. Capone, A., (2010). On Pragmemes again: Dealing with Death. La Linuistique. 46: 3-21.
     Google Scholar
  11. Culpeper, J. (2001). Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. London: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  12. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
     Google Scholar
  13. Fairclough, N. (1985) `Critical and Descriptive Goals in Discourse Analysis', Journal of Pragmatics, 9: 739±63.
     Google Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. (1989a). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     Google Scholar
  15. Fairclough, N. (1989b). Language and Power. London: Longman.
     Google Scholar
  16. Fairclough, N. (1992). Language and Power. London: Longman.
     Google Scholar
  17. Fairclough, N. (1993) Discourse and Social Change. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press and Blackwell.
     Google Scholar
  18. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
     Google Scholar
  19. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Longman.
     Google Scholar
  20. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. T. van Dijk Ed. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  21. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts: 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
     Google Scholar
  22. Gumperz, J. (2004) Interactional Sociolinguistics:A Personal Perspective. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen,and Heidi E. Hamilton: Handbook of Discourse Analysis
     Google Scholar
  23. Halliday M. (1997) Language in a Social Perspective. In: Coupland N., Jaworski A. (eds) Sociolinguistics. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_5.
     Google Scholar
  24. Halliday M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st ed 1985). London: Arnold.
     Google Scholar
  25. Holmes, J. 2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4thed). London: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  26. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     Google Scholar
  27. Ji, W. N. (2009). Study of presupposition in the fi eld of critical discourse analysis. Nanyang Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao (Journal of Nanyang Normal University), 8 (4), 23–60.
     Google Scholar
  28. Johnstone R (2002). Immersion in a second or additional language at school: A review of the international research. Stirling (Scotland): Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching.
     Google Scholar
  29. Jubair, B. and Al-Helu, M. (2021). Ideological Cynicism: Post –Marxist Analysis of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation. 3(7), 139-146.
     Google Scholar
  30. Jubair, B. and Mahdi, S. (2018). Pragmatic Implications of Slang in Husseini Preachers’ Iraqi Arabic. Al-Adab Journal. Forthcoming.
     Google Scholar
  31. Korta, K. & Perry, J. (2011). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  32. Labov, W. (1979). Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press.
     Google Scholar
  33. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
     Google Scholar
  34. Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  35. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  36. Malmastorm, H. (2014). Engaging the Congregation: The Place of Metadiscourse in Contemporary Preaching. Applied Linguistics: 37/4, 561–582.
     Google Scholar
  37. March, G. and Olsen, P. (2011). The Logic of Appropriateness. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science: Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  38. Mey, J. (1979). Zur Kritischen Sprachtheorie (“Toward a critical theory of language”). In J. Mey (Ed.), Pragmalinguistics: Theory and practice: 69–84. The Hague: Mouton.
     Google Scholar
  39. Mey, J. (1985). Whose language? A study in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
     Google Scholar
  40. Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  41. Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd Ed). Blackwell Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  42. Morely, T. (2004). Power and Ideology in Everyday Discourse: The Relevance of Critical Discourse Analysis in Pragmatic Linguistics Today. Seminar of English Linguistics. 20-25.
     Google Scholar
  43. Moses M. and Michael E. C. (2014). A Critical Pragmatic Analysis of the Discursive Expression of Power and Dominance in Chinua Achebe’s Arrow of God. An African Journal of New Writing, 52, 01.
     Google Scholar
  44. Nodoushan, S. (2013). The social semiotics of funerary rites in Iran. International Journal of Language Studies. 7, 79-102.
     Google Scholar
  45. Quirk, R.; Greenbaum; S., Leech; G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman Limited Group.
     Google Scholar
  46. Reisigl, Martin. 2007. Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden: Eine Diskursanalyt¬ische Studie zum ‘Österreichischen Millennium’ in den Jahren 1946 und 1996. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     Google Scholar
  47. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Google Scholar
  48. Searle, J. (1975). "A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts". In Gunderson, K. (ed.). Language, Mind, and Knowledge, pp. 311-344. New York: University of Minnesta Press.
     Google Scholar
  49. Seliger, H. W. (1980). Utterance planning and correction behavior: its function in the grammar construction processes among second language learners. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production (pp. 87-108). Frankfurt: Lang.
     Google Scholar
  50. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
     Google Scholar
  51. Van Dijk, T. A. (1995a). “Discourse analysis as ideology analysis”. In Schäffner, C. & Wenden, A. {Eds.}, Language and Peace (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
     Google Scholar
  52. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998b). “Representing Social Action,” Discourse and Society, Vol. 6(1):81–106.
     Google Scholar
  53. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997a). “Discourse as Interaction in Society” in van Dijk, T. (ed). Discourse as Social Interaction. 1-37. London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  54. Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  55. Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A CDA perspective. In Wodak and Chilton (eds), 71- 100.
     Google Scholar
  56. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Edward
     Google Scholar
  57. Widdowson, H. G. (1995a). Discourse Analysis: A Critical View: Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics (www.journal.sagebub.com).
     Google Scholar
  58. Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Google Scholar
  59. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1998). Gender and Discourse. London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  60. Wodak, R. (2000). Recontextualisation and the transformation of meaning: a critical discourse analysis of decision making in EU-meetings about employment policies. In Sarangi, S. & Coulthard, M. (eds.), Discourse and Social Life 185-206. Harlow: Pearson Education.
     Google Scholar
  61. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  62. Wodak, R. (2007). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.
     Google Scholar
  63. Wodak, R. (2009) Language and Politics. In J. Culpeper, F. Katamba, P. Kerswill, R. Wodak and T.
     Google Scholar
  64. Wodak, R. and Chilton, P. (2005). A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     Google Scholar
  65. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford. Oxford. University Press.
     Google Scholar