The Persuasion And Argumentation

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

More than any other kind of discourse, political discourse is eminently persuasive; thus, political speeches represent a special form of persuasion and argumentation which play a crucial role for every political action since this action is prepared, accompanied, influenced and played by language. Thus, the relationship between discourse and people’s purposes is manifested in different sentence structures, words and discourse strategies like persuasion and argumentation people choose. Throughout persuasive speeches, speakers initiate a call to action in the audience, or at least to cause some sort of change in the way they look at a particular subject.

The Arab Spring phenomenon has been the subject to much discussion over the past year. Its full impact on the national and the international politics is still to be seen, and a lot more could be coming in years to come. From the very beginning of the Arab Spring on 18 December 2010, politicians have delivered hundreds of speeches and statements to explain the facts and/or to justify the actions about the phenomenon that swept the Arab World.

Along these lines, the researcher in his study will outline the theories of argumentation and persuasion which are relevant to discuss in connection with rhetoric. Given the enormous national and international significance to the said speeches in times of international political issue - Arab Spring, it is crucial to decipher argumentative and persuasive strategies for the Saudi political discourse enshrined in its minister of foreign affairs speeches. In this regard, speeches delivered since the beginning of Arab Spring on 18 December 2010 by HRH Prince Saud al-Faisal, the minister of Saudi Foreign Affairs, will be taken as a case study.

Review of Related Literature

Introduction

Since the primary area of concern of this study is to analyze the persuasive strategies in the Saudi political discourse that enshrined in the speeches of HRH Prince Saud Al-Faisal, and to search for the possible persuasive impact it has on the audience of these speeches, it is important to dwell on three areas of research for the literature review of this study. First, every study about any leader, prince, king, or even any outstanding figure will be reviewed to find out if there exist studies on the argumentation and persuasion in the political speeches of HRH Prince Saud Al-Faisal. Second, a light will also be shed on any significant study of persuasion and argumentation in general, and on the phenomenon of the Arab Spring in particular. Third, most researchers dealt with various aspects and dimensions of rhetoric, persuasion, argumentation, discourse analysis, political discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis ranging from linguistics, through sociology, philosophy, communication and other disciplines(e.g. Furlough 1985,1989, 1992 ; Furlough and Wodak 1997; van Dijk 1996, 1997; Reisigl 2008; Freely 1971; Lakoff 2002, Bostrom 1983; Brown 1963;Barker 1978; Devito 1991), such attractive and well-known studies and more will be discussed in depth in the coming months from different perspectives .

Thus, the researcher in this report intends to review the studies closely related to the focus of the present study to gain insight into what had been previously studied in the area, but as the researcher to this point still in the phase of collecting, sorting and reading related literature to his study, he will limit himself to certain number of studies.

Persuasion and Argumentation

To start with it is must be emphasized that persuasion and argumentation is not a novelty. The art of persuasion and argumentation is as old as hills. The most important historical theory of persuasion and argumentation is the Aristotelian Rhetorical Theory. Of the writings of Aristotle (384BC-322BC) that survived in complete form and considered as one of the most important was " On Rhetoric"( an online version is based on the translation of a noted classical scholar, W. Rhys Roberts, a hyper-textual resource complied by Lee Honeycutt, at: http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/index.html. Book I of Rhetoric emphasizes the importance of the logical argument and knowing the subject to be discussed , defines rhetoric, explains its functions, presents the three persuasive terms : ethos, pathos, and logos, states the three different kinds of audience and therefore three types of speeches; deliberative, forensic and epideictic speeches. The deliberative speech is the political speech or the speech that gives advice whether in public or in private. The two other speeches – forensic and epideictic- are the speeches that have the subjects of blame or praise. Book II, presents more details about the three types of proof: pathos, ethos, and logos on the basis of the considering the audience. Book III also discuses delivery, style, diction, and metaphor.

The author of The Rhetorica ad Herennium (cited in Al-Osaimi 2002: 115-116) identifies five parts of a complete argument: proposition (claim), reason, and proof of reason, embellishment and resume. The proposition is what an arguer intends to prove and the reason is the justification for that proposition. The proof of the reason gives additional backing for arguments designed support the stated reason. Embellishment is the presentation of the whole argument eloquently and clearly. Finally, resume is a brief recapitulation.

In his most remarkable book in the field of argumentation, The Uses of Argument, Toulmin (1958) creates a structural model by which rhetorical arguments can be analyzed. The Use of Arguments has influenced many scholars in the fields of rhetoric and argumentation. According to Toulmin’s model, an argument consists, first of all, of a claim. The claim is the conclusion that someone wishes to justify in the argument. A claim has to be based on facts or data. Data is defined by Toulmin as reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim. The third element in Toulmin’s model is ‘warrant’. The warrant of an argument assesses whether or not the claim is legitimate based on data given. These three elements are the essential components of any argument. The qualifier attempts to modify the strength of certainty of the claim, and the backing supports the warrant by backing the given reasons, and by giving the warrant authority. The rebuttal, on the other hand, specifies the situations where the claim might not be true, and accordingly counter arguments. In brief, they all in somehow affect the claim by either strengthen it, which qualifiers and backings do or by indicating the circumstances in which the warrant does not apply, which rebuttals do.

To cut the survey short the researcher will focus on some modern studies about persuasion and argumentation. In the last three months, much of the researcher effort has been directed to the study of how persuasive arguments are organized. Most of the researchers, however, dealt with various aspects of persuasion and argumentation, such as definition, modes, elements, strategies and purposes.

Significant Literature on Persuasion and Argumentation

The speeches of great leaders and politicians in the West, generally speaking, have been the object of many studies. These studies have dealt with various aspects and dimensions of the rhetorical characteristics and the means of persuasion of the speeches and writings of influential speakers. In their work, Pennebaker and Persaud (2010) analyze the 2010 UK’s election debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Nick Clegg from a linguistic perspective by using computerized text analysis methods. The aim of their study is having a fairly good picture of how each of the candidates uses language within the debate setting. Their analysis, however, concentrates mainly on the words that the candidates use in their speeches to reflect psychological qualities such as optimism, honesty, and thinking styles. The study concludes that Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Nick Clegg all have distinctive speaking styles that highlight different parts of their personality. Some of these differences are obvious; others are not. Another relevant study deserves mentioning in this review is Markus’s (2006) essay, "Interaction and Persuasion: An Analysis of the Use of Rhetorical Devices in Gorge Brown’s Speech to the Labour Party Conference September, 2006." Her study analyzes the rhetorical devices used in Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour Party as it is one of the most important speeches in Brown’s attempts to gain public support. She claims that the use of rhetorical features as a strategy of persuasion began with the ancient Greeks, its devices still being used today and is especially prevalent in political speeches. She concludes that her analysis of Brown’s speech revealed that each rhetorical device identified showed the presence and combinations of one or more of these devices. In addition, she finds that isolated linguistic features such as we must, and I believe, person pronouns, such as I, we, and us which may appear to be performing grammatical and even aesthetic functions carry more meaning than meets the eye, however, such linguistic features included in the speech were carefully selected and structured in deliberate ways to fulfil the basic fundamental and necessary requirements of effective rhetorical features.

Scrutinizing the substance of rhetoric to differentiate the ‘old’ from the ‘new’ rhetorical paradigms, Lim (2002, cited in Al-Rawabdah 2005: 22) gives an analysis of the changes in public rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton. Thus, he does a content analysis to all inaugural addresses and annual messages delivered between 1789 and 2000 to see if a rhetorical transformation has occurred, and if so, what are some of the specific verbal trappings that define the modern rhetorical president. He explores five transformative trends in presidential rhetoric:

Anti-intellectual: it makes few references to cognitive and evaluative processes and states and eschews formal word choices for more colloquial ones;

Abstract: it relies significantly on religious, poetic, and idealistic references;

Assertive: it is activist; it adopts a "realistic" preoccupation with the language of power and is very confident;

Democratic: it is enthusiastically people-oriented, compassionate, inclusive, and egalitarian;

Conversational: it uses a language that engenders an intimacy between the rhetor and his audience, focuses on the trustworthiness of the rhetor, and highly anecdotal.

After identifying the five significant changes in twenty-century presidential rhetoric, Lim concludes that presidential rhetoric has become more anti-intellectual, more abstract, more assertive, more democratic, and more conversational. He, then, argues that these characteristics define the verbal armoury of the modern rhetorical president. Examining how language can be used as a resource of cultural value and creative power in Australian English, Zheng (2000) studies how Australian politicians use language as a powerful tool in gaining political advantages. He analyzes three speeches; one is taken from the Prime Minister, John Howard, another from the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, and the third speech from the One Nation Party leader, Pauline Hanson. Zheng mainly focuses on two areas of speech: how politicians use their language skills in gaining public support, and how they shirk responsibility. Special political techniques are studied; for example, targeting strategy, inclusive technique, enforcement strategy, testimony technique, citing historical speeches, inversion technique, fear technique, etc.

Like their counterparts in the West, notable politicians in the Arab World have played great roles in establishing attitudes, initiating actions, and unifying their people. The available literature on the Arabic political discourse in general is voluminous. In his paper, "The Arab Spring and the discourse of desperation: shifting from an authoritarian discourse to a democratic one", Lahlali (2011) presents a detailed analysis of the type of discourse delivered by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia before they were forced out of office. He investigates the structure of their last three speeches and the strategies the two presidents used to win support for their points of view and to justify themselves before the public. He employs a comparative and contrastive method to investigate the main themes and strategies: 1) the strategy of blame and denial, 2) defending the self, and 3) modern standard Arabic vs. dialect. The study finds that the two presidents followed similar strategies, passing through a series of stages as earlier strategies failed. The language they used shaped and was shaped by those strategies. The one contrast, however, is in the realm of register: while Mubarak’s speeches were delivered in modern standard Arabic (MSA), Ben Ali in his last speech switched between MSA and Tunisian dialect. Finally, the study finds that repetition of some the same phrases and words was quite prevalent in Ben Ali’s speeches, while Mubarak tends to repeat themes rather than phrases or single words.

In an effort to provide an elaborate study of rhetorical characteristics of Arabic—both written and spoken--to provide business people, public sector leaders, workers in non-government organizations, and the military in USA with the knowledge and skills to facilitate interaction with Arabic audiences in the public and private sectors, Suchan (2010) describes and analyzes the persuasion dynamics between two public sector service organizations—one located in Jordan and the other in the U.S.—attempting to establish a partnership. The study finds that Jordanian leaders constantly used repetition, paraphrase, restatement, and elaboration to support their points, even when speaking in English. Furthermore, these leaders used superlatives and bold, showy language when speaking. Finally, leadership exhibited high-levels of emotion in their body language and voice intonation when communicating their major points and their concerns. On the other hand, Suchan indicates that English speaking cultures generally expect people to support claims by providing evidence in the form of facts, research results, highly credible sources, best practices, historical experiences, and even personal anecdotes and stories.

In his well-written dissertation about the speeches of King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, Al-Shahrani (2008) investigates His Majesty speeches from a discourse analysis perspective. It specifically aims at finding out linguistic structures, meanings conveyed via the structures, and communicative functions fulfilled in the language of those addresses. Analyzing the speeches discoursally, the researcher finds that His Majesty used simple and complex structures, ?inna clauses, formulaic expressions, and structures with some elements being topicalized. He also finds that the King conveyed a large number of meanings or purposes. The meanings include advice (e.g., an individual should evaluate his deeds by himself), fearing Allah and obeying His orders, rationality, responsibility, good citizenship, objectivity, critical thinking, loyalty, self-determination, implementation of development plans, human rights, wisdom, irrationality of war, dignity and respect, peace, stability, and others. All such meanings are an index of the King’s character who really sets up a perfect model worthy to be researched and followed. Furthermore, the study finds that communicative functions are fulfilled; they are transactional, interactional, directive, phatic, and emotive. Finally, the King’s discourses are coherent and cohesive. These two discoursal features are achieved by two types of repetition: lexical and syntactic.

In her treatise, Al-Rawabdah (2005) studies argumentation and persuasion strategies of His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan shown in his various English speeches. The study explores the major canons of rhetoric: invention( logical proofs, emotional proofs, and ethical proofs), arrangement and style, it compares the English speeches and their Arabic translations suggested by the Hashemite Royal Court with respect to the persuasiveness and argumentativeness features. The study finds that His Majesty via his speeches shows understanding of how to use credibility, logic and emotion which result in successful persuasive convincing speeches, and concludes that the King is a man of moral purpose and skilful orator who selects the most effective enthymemes, arguments, pathetic and ethical appeals, style, language, and arrangement of speech.

In his elegant and well-written book about King Faisal Ibn Abdul Aziz Al-Saud , Al-Osaimi (2000) presents a cross-cultural approach to persuasion through a rhetorical analysis of the oratory of King Faisal Ibn Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia from 1964-1975. Al-Osaimi discusses the convincing, effective, and rhetorical means of the Islamic oratory of the late King. Therefore, he provides a rhetorical biography, his style and delivery, his modes of persuasion and his approach to the solution of problems. Al-Osaimi, in his study, adopts the Neo-Aristotelian approach to analyze King Faisal’s invention, speech disposition, style, and delivery. The analysis of invention includes logical proofs, emotional proofs, and ethical proofs as they are defined in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. As to logical arguments, Al-Osaimi uses Toulmin’s model of argument in his analysis of the logical enthymemes which occurred in King’s speeches. The study finds that King Faisal’s speeches reflect his deep thinking, rhetorical philosophy, style, and delivery, effective and convincing modes of persuasion, and logical approach to problem-solving.

Another relevant study deserves mentioning in this review is Koch’s (1987 cited in Al-Rawabdah 2005:14 ) research article, " Presentation as Proof: The Language of Arabic Rhetoric." She claims that Arabs in order to persuade rely on " repeating, rephrasing, clothing and re-clothing one’s request or claim in changing cadences of words." Another unwarrantable reservation on the part of Koch is that she contends that, unlike Western rhetoricians who rely on proof in their persuasive discourse by using logical, emotional and ethical proofs, Arabs rely heavily on presentation ( to persuade and be persuaded by form, elegance and repetition) rather than proof in their persuasive discourse. To refute Koch’s conclusion, Al-Osaimi ( 2000: 14-15) states:

While it is true that Arabs and Muslims value the importance of presenting one’s ideas clearly, Koch makes a sweeping generalization on the basis of selective written discourse which by no means representative of Arab rhetoric. The Arabs, like the Greeks, are oral people. They rely more heavily on oral than on written persuasion. Koch’s exclusive focus on written discourse skews her findings. In addition, owing probably to Koch’s unfamiliarity with the connotative and denotative meanings of the Arabic terms, she makes inconclusive and unqualified conclusions about Arab persuasion.

In brief, the studies reviewed so far clearly indicate that a very important point emphasized which is the use of language as a means of persuasion and argumentation and the influential or powerful role played by outstanding figures or leaders. Most importantly, as I indicated before literature on rhetoric is voluminous both in Arabic and Western studies . Therefore, the researcher intends in the next coming months to keep collecting, reviewing, and updating his literature to gain insight into what had been previously studied up to date in the area, but as the researcher just started to familiarize himself with the required critical thinking strategies and brain storming, the researcher limited himself to certain number of studies mentioned above in passing.

Methodology at Glance

The main objective of these few lines below is to outline the approach that the researcher will adopt in conducting his analysis. The researcher feels that the basic point of departure in his study is to clarify how he will analyze his data. The proposal already covered the problem and the purpose and questions of the study. Also, it shaded some light on data collection, significance and limitations of the study which all will be investigated further in methodology chapter.

To start with, it must be said that the researcher will refer to the online version of Aristotle’s Rhetoric which is based on the translation of noted classical scholar W. Rhys Robert, a hyper-textual resource complied by Lee Honeycutt ( Appendix 1) http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/index.html

More than 2300 years ago, Aristotle laid the groundwork for modern public communication. He (Book I: Chapter 1) defines rhetoric as "the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever." Accordingly, rhetoric is considered as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case. "it is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion" (Aristotle Book I: Chapter : 1). This study basically will adopt, to analyze HRH Prince Al-Faisal’s speeches, the Neo-Aristotelian approach of criticism which has received wide consent and application in researchers’ of English and Arabic rhetorical studies. Neo-Aristotelians are primarily concerned with the modes of persuasion a speaker utilizes and how effectively these modes are presented in any given situation to persuade a given audience. Generally speaking, to them, there are three basic stages in analyzing the artifact (the subject of the speech) in rhetorical criticism: reconstructing the context, applying the five canons of rhetoric (invention, organization, style, memory, and delivery) to the artefact and finally assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience. " Many critical studies have tested the application and reliability of various rhetorical standards using the classical "canons" of rhetoric to analyze and evaluate the rhetoric of prominent leaders, preachers, propagandists, revolutionists, nationalists and others" Al-Osaimi (2000: 2) . Thus, Neo-Aristotelian criticism is based in large part on Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

Aristotelian rhetoric is divided into two main categories: artistic proofs and inartistic proofs. Aristotle in this regard states:

Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not. By the latter I mean such things as are not supplied by the speaker but are there at the outset -- witnesses, evidence given under torture, written contracts, and so on. By the former I mean such as we can ourselves construct by means of the principles of rhetoric. The one kind has merely to be used, the other has to be invented. (Book I: Chapter 2)

With reference to the artistic means, Aristotle identifies three means that used by the speakers to persuade their audience. Invention, the first canon of rhetoric is concerned with three artistic proofs: ethos (ethical appeal), pathos (emotional appeal) and logos (rational or logical appeal). Ideally, the speaker should appeal to reason exclusively, but rhetoric has recognized that people are not only influenced by reason alone, as so all three means are normally used in effective discourse. Aristotle says:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others, should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of his character before he begins to speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject shall be treated in detail when we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. Aristotle (Book I, Chapter 2).

Aristotle is, primarily, interested in how the speaker’s logos, ethos and pathos and are created in a speech. As to the logical proofs, Aristotle focuses on two forms of logical proofs- enthymeme and example. He considers enthymeme as the strongest of the proof and the core of rhetoric. Aristotle (Book I, Chapter 2) argues: "Everyone who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: there is no other way". He, then, defined both:

When we base the proof of a proposition on a number of similar cases, this is induction in dialectic, example in rhetoric; when it is shown that, certain propositions being true, a further and quite distinct proposition must also be true in consequence, whether invariably or usually, this is called syllogism in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric... The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself. (Book I Chapter 2)

Aristotle, however, interested in how the speaker’s ethos is created and established in his speech. According to him, the speaker’s credibility is manifested in good sense, good moral character and good will. He states "there are three things which inspire confidence in the orator's own character -- the three, namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill" (Book II Chapter 1). It is the speaker who is judged as having good character, for instance, if he fits within the audience’s idea of a good and honest person. A virtuous character, then, has to do with speaker image as honest and good person. The practical wisdom and shared values are the basic elements that assess such goodness. By the same token, a speaker is thought to have goodwill when the audience feels that that their better interests are there in speaker’s heart. Aristotle indicates:

These are the only possible cases. It follows that anyone who is thought to have all three of these good qualities will inspire trust in his audience. The way to make ourselves thought to be sensible and morally good must be gathered from the analysis of goodness already given: the way to establish your own goodness is the same as the way to establish that of others. (Book II Chapter 1)

Finally, pathos, or emotional proof, concerns how particular emotions of the speaker are stirred up within the audience. Aristotle (Book II: Chapter 1) mentions "the emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear and the like, with their opposites".

Accordingly, the researcher will examine the rhetorical proofs in HRH Prince Saud Al-Faisal’s speeches, i.e., examine the available means of persuasion, that are based on three types of proof: logos (logical proofs) which come from the line argument in the speech, pathos (emotional proofs) which have to do with the feeling the speech draws from the hearers, while ethos (ethical proofs) is the way the speaker’s character is revealed through the message.

With reference to the arrangement of the speeches, the researcher will investigate the way HRH organizes the content. Aristotle (Book III: Chapter 13) maintains that a political speech is of three parts. "These are the essential features of a speech; and it cannot in any case have more than introduction, statement, argument, and epilogue" (Book III: Chapter 13). The introduction should reflect the purpose of the speech, capture the audience’s attention and most importantly establish the speaker’s credibility. The body of the speech (which includes the statement and argument) can be arranged in spatial, topical, problem solving, chronological or, among others. It is here in the body that the speaker’s main argument(s) is/are presented. The epilogue (conclusion), however, should remind the audience of the speaker’s main ideas and leave them favourably disposed toward them.

Style deals with how language is used in the speech. Aristotle (Book III: Chapter 2) argues that "style to be good must be clear, as is proved by the fact that speech which fails to convey a plain meaning will fail to do just what speech has to do. It must also be appropriate, avoiding both meanness and undue elevation". Consequently, style deals with word choice and sentence composition. The researcher will try to discover what kind of style does Prince Saud adopt? Is it clear style where the writer/speaker uses usual word choice, low complexity, littlie use of figures, etc? Or is it the opposite -impressive style? Does he dress his ideas by using repetition, parallelism and other devices that make his speeches attractive? Does he use figurative language?

Going back to the logical arguments, the researcher will adopt Toulmin’s (1958) model to analyze how HRH presents his claim ( conclusion of the argument), provide evidence (data) and what warrants ( patterns of reasoning) he relies on to connect these data to their claims. In his work on logic and argument, The Use of Argument, Stephen Toulmin (1958) presents three necessary and major parts of an argument. The three main parts are the claim, the data (evidence) and the warrants. In a very concrete sense, the researcher will identify certain rhetorical proofs and try to interpret why Prince Saud uses them. Further discussion will amplify this model and its developments when the researcher presents his literature of review and methodology chapters.

With reference to delivery and memory, the final two canons of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, the researcher will not cover them. Memory and delivery have very little to do with letters. Delivery concerns the presentation of the speech while memory is considered as one’s preparation for delivery. Thus, a speech can be read, memorized, or seen somewhere in between, for example, employing an outline or note card. Moreover, delivery concerns the pitch, volume, speed and smoothness of the speech as well as nonverbal delivery elements such as eye contact, gestures, and body movement. My analysis will consider how HRH Prince Saud presents the case; that is why I will limit my analysis to the aspects of invention, arrangement and style that constitute the rhetoric of the speeches.

To recapitulate, the format of the research’s planned analysis is the following:

1- He will investigate the types of proofs in Prince Saud’s speeches, namely, logical proofs, emotional proofs, and ethical proofs. Each one of these modes will be clarified by several examples from HRH’s speeches, and in the case that some examples were written in Arabic; the researcher will translate them and transcribe them phonetically into English.

2- The researcher will examine HRH Prince Saud al-Faisal’s speeches arrangement (introduction, statement, argument, and epilogue) to discover what various methods of arrangement His Highness relies on to structure his speeches.

3- The researcher will go through the different characteristics of His Highness style (word choice and sentence composition) and the way in which this influences the persuasiveness of his speeches.

As the present study will investigate the persuasive and argumentative strategies in the Saudi political discourse that enshrined in His Royal Highness Prince Saud Al-Faisal’s (the Minister of Foreign Affairs) speeches, the researcher thinks it would be of great benefit to shed light on some aspects of HRH’s life which directly or indirectly influenced his ability as an influential speaker.

Appendix 2: Your Researcher in Lines

I majored in English language and translation at Imam Mohammed bin Saud University, and graduated from the department with a GPA of 82.27% in 1993. My dedication to, and enthusiasm for English, however, continued to blossom; so I decided to look for a job that needs my qualifications and teaches me more skills and experience which will be useful for me and for the society. I have worked in many places from private sector to my current job as lieutenant colonel and the director of English and European Languages department at Ministry of Defense and Aviation.

This long-term experience of translation taught me how to translate various types of documents and most importantly how to overcome a translator’s fear during consecutive translation especially with senior officials, ambassadors, or royal family members. At MODA, in particular, I was held responsible for analyzing various types of media materials in different languages as part of my job and for presiding over many committees related to the English language in general and MODA responsibilities in particular. Consequently, I realized that translation is not only the replacement of words by other words, but also it is a matter of knowing the culture of both the source and target languages. Thus, this experience of translation, the military, and media analysis in different areas constitute my greatest treasure which I look forward to further developing through lifetime education and professional advancement.

Moreover, I know that whatever career I choose, a degree in English will be a great asset. In 2006, I enrolled in the English Language and Literature Department’s integrated MA program at Imam Mohammed bin Saud University for two years from which I graduated with MA in linguistics in the field of discourse analysis. There I wrote my MA thesis on discourse analysis which was evaluated as a very pioneering study. As a result, I have gained more confidence in the field and in research methodology and learnt to work under immense pressure. Also, studying linguistics, in general, and majoring in discourse analysis, in particular, gave me the opportunity to analyze a wide range of texts, focusing on the impact they can have on the society.

I am completely devoted to discourse analysis and its importance in any communicative process. Over the past year, no discussion can be complete without a reference to what has been termed Arab Spring. The political phenomenon has the potential to have an extraordinary impact for years to come. Given the enormous national and international significance to the speeches delivered in times of international political turmoil, I think it is a very good topic to be analyzed and discussed as a research topic for a PhD. Studying communication and political discourse not only helps me to appreciate the essence of humanity, language, but also to further understand the systems of planning and controlling that politicians use to convey their message(s).

My decision to enroll in a PhD program at a reputable university is based on my desire to further my understanding of the subjects that I find enthralling and exciting i.e. linguistics, discourse analysis and communication. Consequently, I proposed a topic titled "Strategies of Persuasion Used in the Saudi Political Discourse: A Case Study on Arab Spring Phenomenon". Then, I searched for a reputable university that has an opportunity for supervising my topic through one of its academic experts. University of Newcastle was my first choice.

In fact, I am interested in postgraduate studies at the School of Arts and Cultures for three reasons. First, I believe the PhD research in such a reputable school will give me a much broader and deeper understanding of languages and communication and their important roles in any society or culture. Second, I highly admire the interdisciplinary nature of the Media and Cultural Studies Department. Finally, the program is very interesting to me, specifically, because of the multi interests of the expertise in the department, which, I believe, will not only improve my understanding of communication, generally speaking, but will also satisfy my goal as a potential decision maker who seeks for perfection in his communication with others. I also believe such experience will reflect positively on my knowledge and work expertise. This highly reputable and well-known university will be the perfect environment for me to learn more about the subjects I have thoroughly enjoyed for such a long time.

After completing the program, I intend immediately to put into practice in my homeland all the skills that I will have acquired. I look forward to better understand and more appreciate the international and cultural relations and the value of language and communication in any given context. Furthermore, I intend to provide consultations and advice to decision makers in MODA in my country, in general, and in my administration in particular to help them enhance their interaction with foreign countries’ representatives and officials. Finally, gaining a PhD degree in media and cultural studies from the reputable university of Newcastle will help me achieve my dream of becoming an analyst who will significantly contribute to the field.

Finally, in my spare time, I like to maintain a level of physical fitness by doing some sports activities and walking at the amazing Newcastle city. In my home country, I coordinate neighbors’ weekly gathering schedule in my district and our monthly outdoor recreational activities. Moreover, I attend the periodical meetings of the orphans’ association which I have been a member of since 2008. These activities have given me the chance to be involved in groups I have a great deal of enthusiasm and love for.