The present paper on "Argumentation of Metonymy in Political Discourse – a Theoretical Framework and an Applied Model" aims to study the argumentative dimension in the figures of thought by studying the argumentation of metonymy in the "serious" non-literary discourses such as the political discourse, the military discourse, the economic discourse, the judicial discourse, etc. Thus, it is to identify the extent of the Arab rhetoric success in going beyond producing oratorical discourses to the production of serious discourses with strategies successful in achieving its objectives.
The research has concluded several results, including:
- The metonymical expression is an argumentative expression whose structure contains an evidentiary knowledge of a persuasive nature, which enabled it to be one of the successful argumentative techniques in the speeches of President Sadat.
- The research has shown that metonymy has gone beyond the entertaining function in literary texts to the persuasive argumentative function in the political discourse, which reflects its ability to absorb both the mental argumentative and the entertaining imaginative visions.
- Argumentation using metonymy in some contexts of the political discourse of President Sadat has reflected that he enjoyed eloquent democracy, which allowed him to address the public with arguments, evidence and reasoning in a context that puts the act of persuasion within a communicative perspective which takes the public authority into account, on even a prima facie basis.
- Argumentation with metonymy is a manifestation of achieving the act in the political discourse; as it tries to persuade audiences with the objectives and goals of the discourse, and then driving them to act in the direction of the goals and objectives planned.