Academic argument: Read the following essays:

1. Aiken, William, and Garret Harding. “Lifeboat Ethics? A Letter to Garret Hardin by William.

Aiken, and a Response by Garret Hardin.” Bioscience 29.6 (1979): 336. Print.

2. Bizzell, Patricia. “Composition Studies Saves the World!” College English 72.2 (2009): 174–87. Print.

3.Nixon, Rob. “Neoliberalism, Genre, and ‘The Tragedy of the Commons.’” PMLA 127 (May 2012): 593–99. Print.

Module Discussion

For this module, we will have a short class discussion on the articles. Please choose one of the readings and try to position yourself in the debate. Do you agree with Hardin, Aiken, or Nixon? Do you agree with Fish or Bizzell? As you do so, please consider the following questions:

• Writer please make 300-350 words for my main post. 350 words is best. Thank you

1. Is Hardin’s response to Aiken effective, or do you agree with Aiken? Why? Defend your position with argument, examples, and evidence.
2. Rob Nixon argues that Hardin’s ideas have led to further abuse of the environment. Do you agree? Why or why not? Defend your position with argument, examples, and evidence.
3. Is Bizzell correct that readings related to social justice have a place in the composition classroom? Why? Defend your position with argument, examples, and evidence.

Instructions

1. Establish Your Position

Now, choose one of the three questions and write a 250 to 350 word response to the question, establishing your position. You should try to provide evidence or examples to support your response.

2. Respond to a Classmate’s Position – SEE THE NEXT PAGE OF MY CLASSMATE’S POST.

Once you have submitted your response, please read at least two of your classmates’ responses and post a 100 to 150 word response to one of them.

3. Defend Your Position

You then need to post a 50 to 100 word response to one of your “responders” (a classmate who responded to your question). – I will send this as soon as I get a response to my post.

Your posts need to be formal, academic, and, as an added challenge, you cannot use the words like, nice, interesting, or good in your posts. This kind of a restriction may seem artificial, but it actually moves our responses toward deeper engagement with each other’s ideas.

Classmate’s post – writer please make a response to one of the post.

Classmate 1:

William Aiken raises sensible questions in his letter “Lifeboat Ethics?” as a counterargument to Garrett Hardin’s theory. The analogy of the developed world sitting safely in their lifeboat while the developing world is abandoned out to sea sounds harsh, egotistical, and unethical; however, Hardin is advocating for the long-term preservation of the Earth and the posterity of humankind, is this not a matter of ethics? A noble and worthy cause?

Hardin is warranted in his comment, “What passes as ‘compassion’ is too often no more than momentary, face-to-face concern, with no thought of coming generations” (337). Tough and impartial decisions are required in the face of posterity and as Hardin mentioned the only peaceful way to make these tough decisions is by nation-state sovereignty and responsibility. The entire world attempting to equally divide resources peacefully without an “impartial manager” seems impossible (337).

While Hardin approaches Aiken’s counterargument with contention, his philosophy that third-world population is predominantly contributing to the deterioration of the Earth’s resources is overzealous. The population is certainly a factor; however, the industrialization and consumerism of the developed world are notably more concerning. Professor Colin Butler and Professor Stephen Dovers, in their article “Population and Environment: a Global Challenge,” identify that “individuals living in developed countries have, in general, a much bigger ecological footprint than those living in developing countries” (Butler). Additionally, Butler and Dovers state “in 2014 Australia’s ecological footprint was calculated at 6.7 global hectares per person . . . if the rest of the world lived like [Australia], we would need the equivalent of 3.6 Earths to meet the demand” (Butler).

The Earth’s resources and posterity of humankind will only thrive at a cost and a sacrifice for some if not all. Hardin pragmatically argues this reality however harsh and unethical it may seem.

Classmate 2:

While in the in book Save the World on Your Own Time by Stanley Fish, it does bring up topics for discussion that are valid for academe, I  do however agree with Patrica Bizzell’s argument that counteracts Fish as it brings a more in-depth knowledge of how students and education have advanced throughout the years and how teachers must adapt.

Bizzell’s argument is that she believes it is an important task for a teacher to go beyond only teaching their disciple the clear cut way and then expecting students to apply their learnings to real-world factors. However, Bizzell believes it is the educators’ job to help students genuinely learn the disciple that is being taught and help students advance through their educational careers successfully through the use of “composition studies.” (175).

Bizzell counteracts Fish’s argument that “academics are not to try to do someone else’s job,” (180) which can involve both character development activities and influencing political stance that can be brought on by a teacher such as Bizzell, “you are not to make your students better people or better citizens.” (180) I agree partly with Fish that I do find it critical for educators to attempt to keep academics separate from personal political views as a way of being unbiased while teaching. Students; however, can benefit from being exposed to other political views from individuals in their surroundings such as educators, it can allow them to have a more in-depth view of their own stance, or can allow them to broaden their view to something they haven’t suggested.

Bizzell continues this agreement by agreeing with Donald Lazere’s observation of “the critical study of political rhetoric,” (182) she believes it it “forms excellent academic content for writing class.” (182)  Bizzell acknowledges that she does go against Fish’s stance of no politics in the classroom, she admits that she believes when her “students encounter [her] as a writing teacher, they encounter all of [her],… religious, political, moral, and social commitments.” (183)

Overall Patrica Bizzell brings an important perspective and credibility that counteracts Stanley Fish in a formal and professional manner on the discussion that the education system should learn and grow with their students.

Guidelines for Academic Argument

Five helpful guidelines for academic argument are presented below.

2. Be formal. Know your audience. They are experts and professionals, so write (or speak) to them as such. Use the language and style of the discipline to show you belong professionally.
3. Be graceful. Treat your opponents with respect. Yes, truth or agreement is your goal, but do not resort to impolite behaviour. Do not become arrogant or close-minded.
4. Be intelligent. It is possible, in the course of day-to-day life, to cause social discomfort by insisting on logical or clear arguments based on evidence. This is not the case in academic work. Allow yourself to be an expert (but remember the above warning against arrogance or dogmatism).
5. Use evidence. Do not hesitate to provide your ideas and your insights, but try to demonstrate that you know your field. Who has written on this topic? What were their ideas? Are they useful ideas, or should they be discarded?
6. Be specific. Do not rely on vague terms, generalizations, or words that do not function without context. As you revise your essays, eliminate and clarify every sentence that begins with “This” or “That,” especially if the sentence is without a noun (or if there is no clear noun antecedent for “this” or “that”).

Comments on the proposal from my professor.

There is a lot in here that still needs sorting out, for example, which rhetorical elements of language you might want to analyse, and why (other than just that his speeches beyond 2011 haven’t been looked at).

You need to stay away from strong  claims you cannot substantiate.

I agree with the mark, and the fist marker’s comments.  There is an interesting research agenda here, but it needs to be clarified and sharpened in various respects.

Two useful books which I strongly recommend:

Analyzing political speeches: rhetoric, discourse and metaphor by Charteris-Black, Jonathan 2014

Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor by Charteris-Black, Jonathan 2011, 2nd ed.

Please note that the literature review will be about previous studies related to the same topic and persuasive strategies. The methodology section will be talking about how I chose my videos and how use political discourse analysis theory.

Timeline for the work to be accomplished :

First I would appreciate a draft for the literature review .

Second a methodology section.

Thirdly the analysis section and the results after analyzing the speeches then we can relate them to the previous literature

Last is the abstract, introduction, conclusion and the bibliography.

Once the writer finishes the methodology section I will provide him with the transcripts of the speeches for him to analyze.

Learning outcomes:

On successful completion of this module, students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate an ability to identify an appropriate research question supported by a clearly focused rationale .
2. Demonstrate a detailed and thorough understanding and critical knowledge of research literature in the field.
3. Demonstrate an understanding of and ability to apply research methods appropriate to the field of study, and to a level that corresponds with the requirements of an M level programme.
4. Demonstrate knowledge of appropriate ethical and methodological considerations.
5. Show an ability to develop a clear, coherent and sound argument based on critical understanding and evaluation of research literature in a chosen field, its gaps, weaknesses and contradictions
6. Draw a well-argued and justified independent conclusion from the research undertaken, whilst remaining sensitive to the limitations of a research project.
7. Identify areas for further research.

It implies making an overview of sources that concern the topic under discussion. The sources should be discussed in sections distinguished according to the common themes, not just one by one.

Chapter III. Methodology: 15% (2700 words) Political discourse analysis

• Research design.
• Variables.
• Sample/Population.
• Instruments/Materials.
• Procedure.
• Method of analyzing the results.
• Limitations.

Chapter IV. Findings/Discussion/Conclusion/recommendation: 40%- 8100 words

It implies telling about the most important findings of the research.

An analysis of King Abdullah speeches – commenting on parts of his speeches and linking them to the previous literature and to the research question.

• Findings in the context of what is already known about the topic.
• The importance of findings.
• Implication of the findings.
• Limitation of the research.
• Potential ways to continue research.

Discussing the findings and how do they answer the research question.

References

Appendix

Total word count =18000 words

One more time it’s just one way of doing it. If the writer can suggest a better way please let me know.

The proposal of my dissertation

The Persuasive Strategies Used in King Abdullah || Speeches

The Aim of the Study

The main aim of the proposed study is to linguistically analyze the use of political language by King Abdullah II – King of Jordan – after 2011. The research will focus on the use of persuasive strategies, which are critical to the analysis of political speech. The research also aims at providing a more solid argument as to how the King uses the persuasive strategies of creativity, rhetoric, indirectness, metaphor, intertextuality, parallelism, Circumlocution, and reference in his leadership (Chilton, 2004). Overall, the study is intended to add to the existing analysis of political analysis by testing various theories and concepts of persuasive strategies as part of political language.

Need for Proposed research

The feasibility of the study is on the basis that there lacks sufficient conclusive linguistic analysis on the speeches of the King of Jordan, particularly in the modern age where the pressure from modern conflict and threats significantly affect the political and economic balance of the Middle East region. The most recent conclusive linguistic analysis focus on three speeches between 2007-2011 (Al-Haq & Al-Sleibi, 2015). While the research is useful in analyzing the leader’s use of language, it lacks an aspect of recency which limits its accuracy on how the king uses persuasion and overall political language in the modern age.

It is necessary to analyze more recent speeches of the King to establish a more accurate argument on his use of persuasive language, and how it influences his leadership. Also, most of the past researchers focused on discourse analysis of the speeches, which resulted in a wide range of results that in are, in a linguistic analysis point of view, limited. The proposed analysis will provide more accurate information concerning the use of persuasive strategies by King Abdullah of Jordan.

King Abdullah has been in the limelight of Islamic leadership and is one of the best leaders in the Middle East region. According to a recent study on three speeches by King Abdullah II, the researchers argue that the leader has attempted to convince almost all leaders globally, to participate in the leadership and politics of Jordan and the Middle East region (Al-Haq & Al-Sleibi, 2015). His speeches are, particularly, always focus on the importance of peace and establishing good inter-state relationships all over the world especially concerning the Israelis and Palestinians (Varshney, 2014). This study will be an in-depth analysis of how successful these speeches have been and how well the leader has appealed to his followers and the rest of the world through the use of persuasive language.

Numerous research exists concerning political language. According to a research by Chilton (2004), there exists a clear relationship between language and politics. Researchers have been keen to consider the impact and trends of political language throughout history. According to Van Dijk (1997), politics is critically dependent on language. The author and researcher considers political discourse analysis and the role of language in politics. He suggests that Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) should be able to answer genuine and relevant political questions and deal with issues that are discussed in political science (Van Dijk, 1997). Another similar study on the relationship between language and politics suggests that there exists a fundamental intimate relationship between language and politics (Chilton, 2004). A more recent research suggests that language plays a critical role in the struggle for power and other critical aspect of modern politics (Dunmire, 2012). Most researchers address the relationship between politics and language through political discourse analysis. However, the research provides a basis for the research considering that persuasive strategies are part and parcel of political discourse.

Research also exists on the use of rhetoric as a stylistic device in the speeches of King Abdullah Past research on political rhetoric shows that it is a suitable approach to analyze the speeches of King Abdullah II. A research by considers the use of metaphor in King Abdullah II speeches. The researchers argue that the King’s use of metaphor is in line with the nineteenth perspective of rhetoric as an adaptation process (Al Bzour, 2019). However, the research involves minimum analysis of the actual speeches. However, it is clear that persuasion is crucial to the king Abdullah’s leadership.

Some research also exists on King Abdullah II speeches and use of language. One of the most significant is a political discourse analysis on 3 of his famous speeches. The results of the study show the existence of the persuasive strategies of creativity, intertextuality, circumlocution, reference, and metaphor (Al-Haq & Al-Sleibi, 2015). The research is closely related to the study considering the research questions and the data used (Al-Haq & Al-Sleibi, 2015). The study also proposes the need for further research on the analysis of the speeches using discourse strategies such as rhetoric, thus the need for the proposed research. Another similar research considers The Linguistic Functions in King Abdullah II of Jordan Speeches. The research shows also takes a discourse analysis approach and to some extent, considers persuasion as a linguistic element of the speeches (Mohammed, 2019). Past research on the use of language by King Abdullah show the existence of the use of persuasive strategies in his speech while there exists a research gap on the use of rhetoric.

Research Questions (please feel free to rewrite or develop the research questions and make them more academic and reasonable)

The proposed research is based on the following research questions.

1. What is the impact of the social, political, and economic environment on the King’s use of language? (mention in the introduction background about those specific social, political, and economic events in the Middle east and especially in Jordan)
2. Does and individual’s use of language and persuasive reflect his/her leadership capabilities?
3. What are the language patterns in the King’s speeches and how effective are they?

Theoretical Background

Language and Politics

Politics and language have been the center of attraction for linguists all over the world. The analysis of leaders’ utterances, speeches, and social media posts have significantly affected the existing knowledge and theories concerning political language (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013). One undeniable fact is that language is often a reflection of a leader’s point of view and professional outlook. It is impossible to fully understand a leader without analyzing how they use language. According to Jason and Hackman (2018), Good communication skills are central to good leadership and often affect the quality of leadership. Research on politics and language is vast and helps understand politics. It is also important that political language in the modern age is significantly differently from early politics considering the different strengths and challenges. Overall, there is a significant relationship between language and politics.

Persuasive Strategies

One inevitable fact is that persuasion is part and parcel of politics in any part of the world. Researchers have been keen to analyze the use of persuasive language in politics for different regions and occasions (Dunmire, 2012). Leaders use persuasive language differently for different occasions. The concept of persuasive strategies in linguistics is, however, not limited to political or leadership language.  It is also common to normal social conversations in different platforms. In definition, persuasion refers to a combination of argumentative and manipulative strategies and tactics used to influence the perception regarding a particular topic (O’keefe, 2008). There are various ways to understand and interpret persuasion in linguistics.

Rhetoric Theory

According to Aristotle, rhetoric refers to the available means of persuasion (Sheridan, Ridolfo & Michel, 2012). Classical rhetoric, as proposed by Aristotle is a means of challenging prevailing assumptions as to what constitutes effective presentation. The theory is particularly applicable in a political context considering the nature of political language. In rhetorical communication, the speaker gives thought to the listener such that the thought influences the listener in such a way that is designed to accomplish a certain goal or achieve a specific result. The theory corresponds to Aristotle’s appeals of general persuasion that include the logos, ethos, and pathos. Rhetoric forms the basis of persuasive language thus its applicability in the proposed research.

While classical rhetoric still stands and modern researchers still use the rhetoric theory for contemporary research, there is a modern form of the theory that conforms to the modern trends in persuasive language and rhetoric in general. Modern rhetoric is somewhat similar to the classical theory in terms of application, but significantly different in application (Hart & Daughton, 2015). Modern rhetoric refers to obscuring the truth. A common application of modern rhetoric is through rhetorical questions where a speaker uses a question to make a point without eliciting an answer. Both classical and modern rhetoric are critical to political language and its analysis. The current research intends to analyze the speeches of King Abdullah II on the basis of rhetoric and other persuasive strategies used in political language.

Research Methodology

The proposed study will analyze 5 speeches by King Abdullah. The speeches will be collected from the official Website of His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein and from reliable news and video sources. I will personally analyze the speeches using the classical rhetorical theory and persuasive strategies. The speeches will be chosen on the basis of time of delivery, intended audience and nature of the speech. Each speech chosen must be from a different event and the speeches must be about different topics. Additionally, there must be at least one speech on the Palestinian case, one on Arab spring, one on the Syrian crisis, one when he took a prize for being a symbol of peace and one on Islamphobia.

Research Design

Each speech will be analyzed separately and a report presented on each concerning the different aspects of rhetoric used. Upon analysis of all five speeches, I will then combine the results of the speech to develop a discussion based on the proposed research questions.

Ethical Approval

The data set comprises online transcriptions from reputable news sources and the official website of his Majesty King Abdullah II. Ethical approval is, therefore, unnecessary.

This is the website https://kingabdullah.jo/en/speeches

Bibliography

Al Bzour, A. F. (2019) Rhetorical Stylistic Device in Political Speech: Metaphor Of King Abdullah Ii’s English Speeches.

Al-Haq, F. A. A., & Al-Sleibi, N. M. (2015). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Three Speeches of King Abdullah II. US-China Foreign Language, 13(5), 317-332.

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.

Dunmire, P. L. (2012). Political discourse analysis: Exploring the language of politics and the politics of language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 735-751.

Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.

Hart, R. P., & Daughton, S. (2015). Modern rhetorical criticism. Routledge.

Huddy, L., Sears, D. O., & Levy, J. S. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford University Press.

Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: A communication perspective. Waveland Press.

Kane, J., & Patapan, H. (2010). The artless art: Leadership and the limits of democratic rhetoric. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 371-389.

Mohammed, A. (2019). The Linguistic Functions in King Abdullah II of Jordan Speeches. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(1), 1-9.

O’keefe, D. J. (2008). Persuasion. The International Encyclopedia of Communication.

Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical studies in media communication, 34(1), 59-68.

Partington, A., & Taylor, C. (2017). The language of persuasion in politics: An introduction. Routledge.

Reisigl, M. (2008). Analyzing political rhetoric. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences, 96-120.

Sheridan, D. M., Ridolfo, J., & Michel, A. J. (2012). The available means of persuasion: Mapping a theory and pedagogy of multimodal public rhetoric. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis. Belgian journal of linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.

Wilson, M. C. (1990). King Abdullah, Britain and the making of Jordan (Vol. 13). Cambridge University Press.

Załęska, M. (Ed.). (2011). Rhetoric and politics: Central/Eastern European perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Sources to be used

Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Springer.

Emad Abdul Latif (2016) Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor, Metaphor and Symbol, 31:4, 250-252, DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2016.1223462

Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.

Thomas, L., & Wareing, S. (2004). Language, society and power: An introduction. Routledge.