awej 5 no.4 full issue 2014

AWEJ Volume.5 Number.4, 2014Exploring the Use of Through-Argumentation and CounterDrid1. IntroductionArgumentation centrally entails the act of giving reasons to substantiate one's claims andto affect the others’ opinions or actions. People embark on argumentation to resolve differencesof opinions, (Van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Snoeck Henkemans, 2002), a core constituent ofhuman intellectual existence. Occurring pervasively in a wide range of contexts both in speechand in writing, argumentation is by far a highly complex type of discourse. When projected inacademic writing, it is supposed to exhibit additional complications due to the intrinsic minutiaeof the writing skill itself (Raimes, 1983). It gets even more sophisticated when writing in aforeign or a second language. In view of this, the skill of arguing compellingly in a written essayis held to be a cardinal criterion in the assessment of academic success for learners of English asa foreign language (EFL), for it reflects students’ potentials of critical thinking, rational synthesisof evidence and construction of arguable claims (Björk, 2003; Graff, 2003; Smagorinsky,Johannessen, Kahn, & McCann, 2011; Stirling, 2009; Mayberry, 2009; Oshima & Hogue, 2007).On these grounds, learners of EFL need to perceive the requisite of becoming skilled atdeveloping written academic argument in various genres to be able to convince readers of theacceptability of their intellectual claims.It is reported in the literature that argumentative essay writing constitutes a challenge formany linguistically adroit international EFL learners (Al-Abed AI-Haq & Ahmed, 1994;Bouchard, 1996; Hinkle, 2002; Kim, 1995; Lux, 1991; Zhu, 2001). When attempting to persuadein English writing, learners find it arduous to attain the anticipated outcomes. The difficulty isnot due to linguistic competence deficiencies but rather to the discourse non-conformitiesexisting between what they take as argumentation and what their English readerships expect it tobe. Such disparities in argumentative discourse engender language failure that oftentimes leadsto misinterpretation of the intended goals of the whole text. Learners compose texts which seemalien according to Western academic discourse conventions, complying with what Ostler (1987)designates as “foreign sounding essays”.In the present study, which is part of a doctoral research project, we aim at exploring thepreferences of a group of Arabic-speaking EFL learners as to the use of through-argumentationor counter-argumentation patterns in developing their argument. The rationale is to check if theformer, being a rhetorical feature of Arabic, underlies certain discourse-level difficulties thatthese learners confront when attempting to write convincingly in English essays. We believe thateffective instruction of writing in EFL contexts ought to start from a lucid understanding of thefactors engendering non-conventional discourse forms. To fathom the context of the study, abrief review of the relevant literature is provided.2. Culture, Writing and ArgumentationThe bounds between culture, writing and argumentation have long held the interest ofresearchers in various disciplines. In general, understanding cultural affiliations of languageusers has important implications for understanding their communicative tendencies (Di Stefano,Imon, Lee, & Di Stefano, 2005; Jaganathan & Kaur, 2003; Novinger, 2001). In writing, seen as amode of communication, the expectations and beliefs that writers and readers possess aboutcomposition stem from their native culture (McCool, 2009). Indeed, cultures differ in “what isseen as logical, engaging, relevant, or well-organized in writing, what counts as proof,conciseness, and evidence” (Hyland, 2003, p. 45). These cultural preconceptions may obstructeffective writer/reader communication. The case of argumentation as a form of communication isno exception: One cannot achieve the ultimate goal of persuasion in argumentation if theArab World English JournalISSN: 2229-9327www.awej.org337