TESOL - Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language - Essay Example

A prospectus for: TESOL: Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language The Construction of Arguments in English and Arabic: A Comparison of the Linguistic Strategies Employed in Editorials. Submitted by: Name Month, Semester, Year Table of Contents 1.0 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….3 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..3 1.2 Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………3 1.3 Purpose statement………………………………………………………………………..4 1.4 Hypothesis and Research Question………………………………………………….…..4 1.5 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………..4 1.6 Original Data Inquiry and Design………………………………………………………..6 1.6.1 Data collection strategies…………………………………………………….…6 1.6.2 Sample Interview Questions……………………………………………….…..8 1.6.3 Analysis Strategies……………………………………………………………..9 Reference List……………………………………………………………………….……….10 1.0 Abstract The term argumentation refers to the text under which newspaper editorials are classified (Eades, 2005). For the purpose of this study, argumentation is will be defined as a discourse that attempts to persuade and influence readers using connected series of conceptual relations, violation, value and significance with an objective of determining apposition opposition or a claim (Jonathan, 2006). There exist two categories of argumentative texts, through-argumentative and counter argumentative. Through argumentative texts usually tend to adhere to the structure of argumentative thesis, in depth substantiation and conclusion (Mumisa, 2003). Within the context of the debate surrounding the variance in argumentative styles applied by different languages, this paper investigates such a variance, as observed in terms of the linguistic strategies applied in Arabic editorials as compared to those applied in English context. 1.1 Introduction The primary objective of this study is to investigate the argumentative strategies applied in both English and Arabic languages especially in newspaper editorials. While investigating argumentative strategies used by both languages, the study will also attempt to establish the type of argumentative strategies that the two languages utilize in editorials. The study will also evaluate and analyze the diverse linguistic strategies utilized in Arabic and English argumentative texts. The research will essentially focus on through-argumentation as well as counter-argumentation (Fromkin, 2000). Since the study will basically be based on argumentation strategies as used in both languages, it will be pertinent to begin the study by exploring the various definitions of the term argumentation. 1.2 Problem Statement The problem presented here is determining how arguments are constructed in English and Arabic, and comparing various linguistic strategies that are employed in argumentative texts by newspaper editors. OR – Owing to the excessive dependence on global organizations, argumentative discourses causes further complexities as compared with other types of discourses, such as exposition, narration, or description. The techniques of indicating the theme and organizing the substantiation in both languages are presumed to be dissimilar and so are the organization and methods of expression. The present study, thus, aims at, offering types of argumentative structures and rhetorical linguistic strategies typical of English argumentative discourse and evaluates these groups with the Arabic editorial discourses which may be ethnically rooted within the Arabic cognitive systems. Such circumstances call for the development of studies which focus on widening the understanding of linguistic differences which persist in English and Arabic editorial texts with regard to argumentative structures, and assist the readers in making accurate inferences from such texts. In this respect, the problem is more culturally driven rather than linguistic one, and could only be resolved through systematic and comprehensive studies, such as this, targeted at generating a greater awareness, about the differences in argumentative strategies employed by both the subjects, discussed in this paper. 1.3 Purpose Statement The main purpose of this study was is to analyze and study the comparatively framework of argumentative strategies employed by English and Arabic editorials and examine and investigate how the manner in which such argumentative strategies could be used in English and Arabic, by largely concentrating on newspaper editorials. 1.4 Hypothesis and Research Question The study was based on one editorial argumentative text, and also involved numerous investigations whose foremost goal was to evaluate argumentative strategies that focus on construction of Arguments in English and Arabic. The study attempted to answer the following research questions: i) What structures and linguistic strategies (i.e. syntax and lexis) are employed by both English and Arabic in argumentative texts? ii) What comparison type of similarities or differences in terms of classification and discourse does exist between English and Arabic Languages? 1.5 Literature Review Discerning the purpose and scope of texts or drawing accurate and rational inferences might be problematic, if the root cause of such a problem is not approached in a systematic manner. Such a problem might be caused on account of lack of awareness regarding the large scale differences which exist in the argumentative styles and linguistic structure typical to both the English as well as Arabic discourses. Since the research in this regard, is scarce, there might be several inconsistencies between the problems perceived and the actuality. It is thus, essential to ascertain through comprehensive study, what are the types of differences in editorial texts, what kind of argumentative styles applied by both Arabic as well as English editorials and what type of similarities and or differences exist, in terms of classification and discourse in English and Arabic languages. This literature review will strive to approach these questions by exploring a wide range of research literature which incorporates the ideas and strategies offered by literary and linguistic scholars, within the purview of the present research topic. For many years, the classification of texts has been done using different criteria. According to Werlich (1976), text can be classified into five idealized text types on cognitive and rhetorical basis. The text types that he identified were as follows: description, narration, exposition, argumentation and instruction. Biber (1989) also adapted these texts even though he based them on linguistic criteria. Fassi (1993) captured the prominent linguistic differences that exist among texts in English. Similarly, Fromkin (2000) classified texts with respect to the linguistic features they employ into eight types. He categorized texts on the basis of the sets of syntactic and lexical that regularly co-occurs in them. Accodingly, his findings were supported by Thelwall (2003) who argued that editorial data used in the study of the argumentative comparisons between the two languages was argumentative and persuasive in nature (p.137). In his experiential study, Watson (2002) clearly illustrates linguistic features that are inherent in each type of text. He argues that argumentative texts tend to make use of modals of prediction, necessity and possibility, conditional clauses as well as assuasive verbs (p.82). Based on his findings, he maintained that linguistic features present a persuasive perspective on the reader. On the other hand, Kees (1998) argued that general textual classifications could be incapable of capturing social function of form and content. Further research was conducted by Kemmer (2008) whose study identified text classification on the basis of functional lines. In his functional classification, Kemmer (2008) identified three types of texts namely descriptive, narrative and argumentative. His findings were supported by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) who also identified three types of texts using functional classification. Beaugrande and Dressler functionally defined argumentative texts as: “Those utilized to promote the acceptance or evaluation of certain beliefs or ideas as true vs. false, or positive vs. negative. Conceptual relations such as reason, significance, violation, value, and opposition should be frequent. The surface texts will often show cohesive devices for emphasis and insistence, e.g. recurrence, parallelism, and paraphrase” (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981: p 184). This study will make use of Hatim’s approach (1991) to text type and it will specifically focus on the two variants of argumentation namely through-argumentation and counter-argumentation and their structural forms. Hatim (1991) examines the rationality of argumentation in Arabic and asserts that Arabic demonstrates an inclination towards one of the following argumentation type models, as opposed to English which favors the other part of the pair. He differentiates between through-argumentation and counter-argumentation as: Through-argumentation adopts the format thesis to be supported, substantiation, conclusion whereas counter-argumentation assumes the format thesis to be opposed, opposition, substantiation of counter-claim, conclusion Hatims research into the argumentative text-type in English and Arabic, formal translation perspective, points to a noticeable tendency in English towards counter-argumentation. By contrast, Modern Standard Arabic is claimed to favor through argumentation (Sidiropoulou, 2004, Pp.25). According to Levin (1990) “Concreteness, which appeals to the senses, is a mark of good writing in English, but do not tell everything: it is boring. Good writing is economical” By this, he expresses the typical English - explicit feature, which by no means is a universal prerequisite of style. Arabic, for instance, is a language that prefers both semantic as well as syntactic repetition as representative of a fine style. English style, therefore, proliferates with breaks and elongations, and a substantial part is thus left tacit. Hatim (1997) describes the instincts and anticipations of a local English reader with reference to "effectiveness" as: if something is sensationalized, it is "unsubtle" and unsuitable; it is also not convincing if it is unswerving and means precisely what it says”. Although in both Arabic and English, argumentation aspires to persuade the reader, the obligation in English falls on the reader, while in Arabic it falls on the writer. In English, a compelling argument cannot be discarded unless a counter - argument has been vehemently presented. In Arabic, an argument is affixed into the readers consciousness through reiteration. He thus informs that the western reader overlooks the “Seemingly superficial features of the Arabic text (e.g. repetition, parallelism, papraphrase, solidarity, and warmth, etc.) at his peril. They are all there for a purpose and while the means of expressing the attitudinal meanings involved may differ from one language to another, the ends are universal values are globally recognizable” (Ibrāhīm, Sabiha & Kassabgy, 2000, Pp. 203). Hatim further noted that Arabic symbolizes the "surface formats more explicitly than, say English"; by contrast Johnson (1983) emphasized that explicit logical markers are not always present in English texts and most of the time one has to rely on circumstances for construing the true essence of the texts communicative significance. Such disparities between English and Arabic linguistic structures make the comprehension predominantly of confrontational texts a challenging job. El-Shershabi (1988) described Arabic style as more unambiguous and consistent, while English, according to him, is more contained and rational. El-Shershabi observes that the somewhat vague practice of pronominal orientation in Arabic diminishes the scale of textual lucidity for foreign readers, although a change in the editorial discourse of Arabic "towards the distributional cohesive patterns of the Anglo-American discourse (El-Shershabi, 1988, Pp.255) is rapidly observed. According to Elghamry (2000), an argumentative text is a form of discourse that persuades readers to accept a claim either based on logical or emotional appeals or both. Accordingly, Benmamoun (2000) argued that there exist two sub-types of counter-argumentation namely the balance argument and lopsided argument. In his argument, he asserted that a balance argument is an argument in which the author or writer can signal the contrastive change between a claim and a counter claim. This is usually done either implicitly or explicitly. On the other hand, the lopsided argument is where a counter claim is expected through introduction of an explicit concessive (McMahon, 1994). 1.6 Original Data Inquiry and Design Research data will be analyzed using SPSS, an analytical statistical software and will be achieved in two separate stages. The first stage of analysis will specifically deal with the text’s argument structure, which refers to the textual structure of argument as presented in the editorial text (Ritter, 1991). In this stage, each text statement will be examined according to Hatim’s format of argument structure. On the other hand, Hatim (1991) maintained that the text structure employed will be in form of a thesis that will be argued through extensive substantiation and conclusion. Mumisa (2003) similarly argued that the organizational structure of argument in counter-argumentative texts as used in English language usually takes the form of a thesis. This research study will basically examine the extent to which English and Arabic languages employ these two general types of argumentative structure. The study will not investigate the subtypes of counter-argumentation. The results of the study will be presented in tables and graphs so as to determine if there exists any evidence on the argumentative strategies employed in both languages (Haywood, 1965). The results obtained will also be used to establish the need for further studies. 1.6.1 Data Collection Strategies In answering the research questions, available literature on the topic will be examined. The study will utilize six editorial texts that were part of a daily newspaper publication which will essentially focus on current global issues such as the war on terror, war in Iraq and the Israel Palestine conflict (Mohammed, 1998). Random selection method will be used in selecting the three Arabic daily mainstream newspapers that will be investigated in the study. The three Arabic newspaper publications are: Egyptian Daily official newspaper (Al-Ahram), the Jordanian daily official newspaper ‘Alarab Alyawm’ (Mohammed, 1998). For the purposes of comparative study, three English editorial texts will be similarly selected from two publications namely Sydney morning Herald and the Australian. Selected editorials will be used as a text form so that the results and findings of the study would be attributed to the distinction between the two languages rather than the text forms or genre differences (Benmamoun, 1999).The newspaper editorials in both languages will be selected for this research because they present a rich source of argumentative linguistic features. According to Ritter (1991) argumentative features play a significant role in the identification of different strategies that English and Arabic employ in argumentative texts. 1.6.2 Methodology In order to ensure validity and reliability of data collected, the study used triangulation method that incorporates a wide range of sources as opposed to a single source of information (Thelwall, 2003). The study was approached from different perspectives by combining quantitative data obtained from discourse completion tasks (Benmamoun, 1999). Besides, qualitative data was also captured from interviews conducted among select newspaper editorial. In addition, the research utilized various theories and background information obtained from books, journal articles and the internet that guided the entire study. 1.6.3 Analysis Strategies The process of data analysis will involve two separate stages. The first analysis stage will deal with the text’s argument structure. This stage generally deals with textual organization of argument in the editorial text. During first analysis stage, every editorial text is analyzed accordance with Hatim’s (1997) structural format of argument. In this analysis stage, organizational structure of argument in through- argumentative texts usually takes the structural form of thesis for the purpose of argumentation, extensive substantiation and conclusion. Alternatively, the organizational structure of argument in counter-argumentative texts usually takes the form of a thesis cited to be opposed, opposition, substantiation opposition and conclusion (Watson, 2002). Nonetheless, the subtypes of counter-argumentation were not studied since the key objective of the study was to investigate the extent to which English and Arabic make use of these two general types of argumentative structure (Jonathan, 2006). The results of the study will be represented in form of tables, and particularly the analysis results of each newspaper editorial. The Data analysis and Tabulation was done using SPSS. Moreover, a practical pilot study was conducted on one of the Arabic editorial texts in order to establish whether this stage of textual analysis was capable of providing credible evidence regarding argumentative strategies used in both languages (McMahon, 1994). The results of the pilot study revealed that there were more argumentative strategies that should have been considered and investigated Reference List Beaugrande and Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text linguistics. London: Longman. Benmamoun, E., 1999. The syntax of quantifiers and quantifier floating. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 621–642. Benmamoun, E., 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Elghamry, K., 2000. Case and Indefiniteness in the Construct State in Arabic. Paper presented in the Arabic Linguistics Symposium, University of Utah, Salt Lake, 2–3 March, 2001. Fassi Fehri, A., 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Fromkin, V (2000). Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.. Hatim, B. 1991. The pragmatics of argumentation in Arabic: The rise and fall of a text type. Text 11. 2, 189-199. Haywood, P. (1965). A new Arabic grammar: London publications Jonathan W (2006). On Language and Linguistics. Continuum International Publishing Group . Kees, V. (1998). The Arabic Language, Edinburgh University Press Kemmer, S. (2008). Biographical Sketch of Franz Boas. Houston: Rice University.  Martinet, A (1960). Elements of General Linguistics. London Faber. McMahon, A.. (1994), Understanding Language Change, Cambridge University Press, Edward, W (2002) Arabic English Lexicon.  Mohammed, M., 1998. Checking and Licensing Inside DP in Palastinian Arabic. . Mumisa, M. (2003). Introducing Arabic, Goodword Books. Ritter, E., 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrase: evidence from modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics 25, 37–62. Thelwall, R (2003), Arabic, , Handbook of the International Phonetic Association Cambridge,  Watson, J. (2002). The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic, New York: Oxford University Press . Sidiropoulou, M., (2004). Linguistic Identities Through Translation, Rodopi, Pp. 25 Ibrāhīm, Z., Sabiha, T., Kassabgy, N., (2000). Diversity in Language: Contrastive Studies in Arabic and English Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, American University in Cairo Press, Pp. 202 – 203 El-Shershabi, M. A. H., (1988). Substituition and Lexical Cohesion in the Editorial Argumentative Discourse of Arabic and English, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, Pp. 255 Read More