Abstract
This study presents a contrastive rhetorical analysis of 20 argumentative Arabic and English editorials in argument structure. Samples were selected from two daily newspapers with equally wide distribution, and articles were written by their respective native writers. Both graphical and textual analyses captured the argument structure in terms of macro and micro arguments. A core finding is that the argument structure in the sampled editorials did not conform to the current predominant model of argument structure, which tended to polarize argument structure in terms of through or counter argumentation. The study contributes to the existing literature by defying the polarized traditional purity typology of argument structure frequently cited in the literature, and emphasizes a more dynamic hybrid model to understanding and analyzing arguments in general and in Arabic and English specifically. Additionally, the study of the professional genre of editorails has implications for academic writing and second language writing pedagogy by sensitizing foreign language learners to existing models of argument structure and possible ways to structure their arguments in the target language.
Highlights
Current scholarship in relation to argument structure in Arabic and English has examined newspaper editorials as one form of professional genres
This study presents a contrastive rhetorical analysis of 20 argumentative Arabic and English editorials in argument structure
Samples were selected from two daily newspapers with wide distribution, and articles were written by their respective native writers
Summary
Current scholarship in relation to argument structure in Arabic and English has examined newspaper editorials as one form of professional genres. This literature has pointed out the through and counter text structure of Arabic and English editorials. Kaplan’s basic assumption was that thought patterns and logic differed across cultures which in turn affected languages in shaping and presenting these cultures and construing reality. He pointed out that English rhetoric is “essentially a Platonic-Aristotelian sequence” evolving from ancient Greece and Roman, and is characterized by linear progression of ideas. Still that study was “valuable in establishing contrastive rhetoric as a new field of inquiry” (Leki, 1991, p.123)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have