Abstract

Quasi-logical argumentation is one of the most prominent methods used in literary discourse to persuade the recipient. It relies on linguistic and inferential techniques that enhance the strength of an argument, beyond being limited to formal logic alone. This type of argumentation relies on tools such as argumentative links and gradual argument construction, making it an effective tool in poetic discourse, where persuasion blends emotion and rhetorical aesthetics. This research adopts the descriptive-analytical approach to study quasi-logical argumentative techniques in the collection "Fire Prayer" by the poet Nabila Al-Khatib. This research draws on Decro's views on argumentation, which hold that argumentation is not built solely on the rules of logic, but rather relies on organizing discourse in a way that influences the recipient's attitudes and communicative positions. This research aims to analyze quasi-logical techniques in the poet's collection of poems, by examining argumentative links (such as "if" and "where") and their role in constructing poetic discourse and directing meanings. It also explores the mechanisms of the argumentative ladder (negation, inversion, and reduction) and how they are employed in presenting arguments and shaping poetic visions. This contributes to a deeper understanding of the methods of indirect persuasion and the artistic construction of contemporary poetry. The study concludes that the poet skillfully utilizes these techniques to construct a coherent and persuasive poetic discourse. The argumentative links create conditional and semantic relationships between the text's parts, while the argumentative ladder contributes to presenting ideas in a gradual and logical manner. The results also reveal the effectiveness of Decro's theory in explaining the mechanisms of indirect persuasion in poetic discourse. The poet's ability to employ these techniques to guide the recipient's interpretation and construct a profound poetic vision that combines emotional and intellectual dimensions is highlighted, confirming the uniqueness of her poetic experience and her ability to employ argumentative tools to express her existential visions.
 Keywords: semi-logical argumentative techniques, argumentative ladder, argumentative connections, Nabila Al-Khatib, Decro views.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Introduction

This study examines the quasi-logical argumentation techniques in Nabila al-Khatib's Diwan Salat al-Nar through the lens of Oswald Ducrot's argumentation theory. Focusing on how contemporary Arabic poetry employs linguistic structures that simulate logical reasoning while maintaining poetic expressiveness, the research analyzes al-Khatib's use of argumentative devices to construct persuasive discourse. The investigation centers on two primary techniques: argumentative links that create logical dependencies, and the argumentative ladder that structures persuasive progression through negation, inversion, and reduction. By applying Ducrot's framework to modern Arabic verse, this study bridges theoretical linguistics with literary analysis, offering new insights into how poetic discourse organizes meaning and influences interpretation.
 

Materials & Methods

The research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine selected poems from Diwan Salat al-Nar, utilizing Ducrot's argumentation theory as its primary analytical framework. The methodology combines close reading of textual elements with systematic categorization of argumentative patterns, focusing specifically on linguistic markers that function as persuasive devices. The study identifies and classifies argumentative links (such as conditional connectors "if" and "where") and analyzes their semantic and pragmatic functions in constructing poetic arguments. Simultaneously, it traces the operation of the argumentative ladder through three key laws - negation, inversion, and reduction - documenting their sequential employment and cumulative persuasive effect. This dual analytical approach enables both micro-level examination of linguistic features and macro-level interpretation of their discursive significance within the poetic collection.
 

Research Findings

The analysis reveals that al-Khatib's poetry systematically employs quasi-logical structures to achieve persuasive ends. Argumentative links, particularly the conditional "if," establish existential dilemmas that frame the poems' thematic concerns, while spatial markers like "where" undergo semantic expansion to connect physical and metaphysical realms. The argumentative ladder operates through three distinct phases: negation deconstructs conventional binaries to create space for alternative conceptions; inversion transforms emotional conflicts into moral arguments through rhetorical antithesis; and reduction progressively attenuates tension to guide readers toward contemplative resolution. These techniques collectively demonstrate how contemporary Arabic poetry adapts classical rhetorical strategies to modern expressive needs, maintaining persuasive force while accommodating subjective poetic vision. The findings particularly highlight al-Khatib's skill in using linguistic structures that mimic logical progression to organize emotional and intellectual responses.
 

Discussion of Results & Conclusion

The study demonstrates that Ducrot's argumentation theory provides a productive framework for analyzing contemporary Arabic poetry, particularly in revealing how al-Khatib's work synthesizes logical form and poetic expression. The argumentative links function as organizational nodes that structure the poems' conceptual development, while the argumentative ladder's three laws create a dynamic persuasive arc that mirrors classical rhetorical dispositio in modern poetic form. This synthesis challenges traditional distinctions between logical and literary discourse, showing how poetic language can simultaneously pursue aesthetic and persuasive goals. The conclusion emphasizes that al-Khatib's techniques represent a significant development in Arabic poetic practice, one that negotiates between cultural tradition and modernist innovation. The research suggests that similar analysis could fruitfully be applied to other contemporary Arabic poets, potentially revealing broader trends in how modern verse engages with argumentative structures. Ultimately, the study contributes to both literary criticism and linguistic analysis by demonstrating the continued relevance of argumentation theory in understanding contemporary poetic practice.