GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies Volume 22(4), November 2022 http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2204-11 eISSN: 2550-2131
ISSN: 1675-8021 193 PI think that the smart and keen Iraqi citizen can improve the choice
according to his experience ب دددلاب ا لاب اكذلابي دددلا دددوبلاددددددد ابصدددقتعاو
ةو جتلابءكضبىلعبر يتخلااب سحيبيابصي P. There is no excuse for an apologized person if he makes a mistake and chooses who counterfeit or tamper or exaggerate or buy the votes or who sell their votes
بر يتخابه جت وببهذوبيلاابأطخاباذابر ت ذلبر علاو
بيو تددددددد يبوابيك ل دددايوابيوروويوابيك يويب ي دددلا
لاا
مهتاك ابيك يايب ي لابوابتاك P. There is no excuse for them in front of Allah and history and in front of society.
عذتجذلابم ااوبخير تلابم ااوباللهبم اابمهلبر C. It is forbidden to elect those who counterfeit or tamper or buy the votes.
بب ختنابما ح
بيو تددددد يبوابيوروويبوابيك يويب ي لا
.تاك The illocutionary force of this fallacy (refer to the above extract) at the sentence
level is that of assertive, in which al-Maliki advises the audience not to do something that is forbidden, which implies the function of an advice. However, the context of speech 10 (refer to appendix Band the background information about al-Maliki do not imply that it is an advising speech act at the textual level. Ali (2014) points out that this was a propaganda adopted by al-Maliki to exploit the religious perspective because he assumes that religion is something that the audience
would easily succumb to, based on the context of the target audience. That is, when someone elects those who counterfeit or tamper, this would mean he supports them and
participates with their sin, and thereby will not be excused by Allah as he has committed something that is forbidden. Here, we can infer the following unexpressed premise it is forbidden to elector choose those who counterfeit or tamper. Thus, the illocutionary force at the textual level is different from the illocutionary force at the sentence level, as al-Maliki indirectly prohibits the audience from electing other candidates by presupposing that other candidates tamper with the votes. Thus, the illocutionary act of this fallacy can be seen in Table 2. TABLE 2. The illocutionary force of
declaring standpoint taboos Share with your friends: 
