This article applies a discourse analysis approach to the narrative discourse from the perspective of argumentative rhetoric and studies the origins of its persuasive functions. Structural approaches have often strived to enumerate the functions of different discourse forms and their entertaining aesthetic roles, eliminating all argumentative objective or dimension. Generally, argumentative approaches do not agree on such functions; which is explained by their different theoretical foundations. The present work is based on two big axes: The first is theoretical and aims at examining the functions of discourse forms in theory, questioning a number of rhetorical forms, and studying the various criteria used in the classification of the functions of discourse forms and in the distinction between one function and another. As for the second axis, it is rather practical and deals with discourse forms in Hamadhani’s Georgeni Maqamat. Here, the study focuses on the distinctions between different phonetic, structural, semantic and cognitive discourse forms, and then it examines their argumentative functions and the sources of their persuasive powers as well as their argumentative effects. The research is to be based on old and modern, Western and Arabic rhetoric. Key Words: Discourse forms – operating system – argumentative power – argumentative impact – effect – persuasive power – argumentative function.
Discourse formsoperating systemargumentative powerargumentative impacteffectpersuasive powerargumentative function
Copied to clipboard