Argumentation is one of the central concepts through which rhetoric, criticism, logic, pragmatics, and interpretation meet. It cannot be reduced to ornamented speech, formal proof, or psychological persuasion alone, because its history shows a continuous movement between language, reason, audience, context, and critical judgment. This study offers a historical-critical and comparative reading of argumentation in Greek rhetorical thought, classical Arabic rhetoric and criticism, modern Western theory, and modern Arab critical thought. It examines the Sophistic emphasis on persuasive skill, Plato’s critique of false persuasion, Aristotle’s integration of rhetoric and dialectic, and the Arabic rhetorical movement from Al-Jahiz to Ibn Wahb, Al-Jurjani, and Al-Sakaki. It then discusses modern theories associated with Perelman, Ducrot, Meyer, and selected Arab critics. The study argues that argumentation becomes a critical standard when it is used to analyze discourse, interpret meaning, examine evidence, organize dialogue, evaluate claims, and direct persuasion through reason. This standard does not eliminate rhetorical effect, but it subjects effect to interpretation, accountability, and rational examination. The paper therefore presents argumentation as a flexible critical procedure capable of connecting ancient rhetorical heritage with modern theories of discourse and criticism.
Argumentation is one of the central concepts through which rhetoric, criticism, logic, pragmatics, and interpretation meet. It cannot be reduced to ornamented speech, formal proof, or psychological persuasion alone, because its history shows a continuous movement between language, reason, audience, context, and critical judgment. This study offers a historical-critical and comparative reading of argumentation in Greek rhetorical thought, classical Arabic rhetoric and criticism, modern Western theory, and modern Arab critical thought. It examines the Sophistic emphasis on persuasive skill, Plato’s critique of false persuasion, Aristotle’s integration of rhetoric and dialectic, and the Arabic rhetorical movement from Al-Jahiz to Ibn Wahb, Al-Jurjani, and Al-Sakaki. It then discusses modern theories associated with Perelman, Ducrot, Meyer, and selected Arab critics. The study argues that argumentation becomes a critical standard when it is used to analyze discourse, interpret meaning, examine evidence, organize dialogue, evaluate claims, and direct persuasion through reason. This standard does not eliminate rhetorical effect, but it subjects effect to interpretation, accountability, and rational examination. The paper therefore presents argumentation as a flexible critical procedure capable of connecting ancient rhetorical heritage with modern theories of discourse and criticism.
