awej 5 no.4 full issue 2014

AWEJ Volume.5 Number.4, 2014Exploring the Use of Through-Argumentation and CounterDridunderpinning expectations are different between writers and readers. Indeed, argumentation isthought to be accomplished differently in various cultures (Aldrich, 2003; Hatch, 1992;Kamimura & Oi, 1998; Siegel, 1999; Uysal, 2012; Warnick & Manusov, 2000). Suchdiscrepancies have far-reaching implications for EFL writing instruction. International studentsare faced with the challenge of abiding by a whole set of cultural conventions as regards Englishargumentative writing to meet the Western audiences’ expectations and to obviatemisinterpretation of their texts. Hinkel (1994) comments that cultural dissimilarities and notionsrelated to writing can develop into obstacles in the acquisition of second languagecommunication patterns, mainly when these notions pertain to purposes missing in the learner’sculture such as precision in discourse, rationality of argument, and the need for reason-basedsubstantiation of claims. Thus, the study of the inherent cultural disparities between languages inthe practice of argumentation helps us understand the nature of certain problems that often arisein EFL composition classes. The cultural aspect of ESL and EFL writing problems constitutesthe core component of contrastive rhetoric research. For the purposes of this study, anexamination of contrastive rhetoric findings on Arabic argumentation is of relevance.3. Argumentation in ArabicInterest in the study of differences between Arabic and English rhetoric and the way theymay interfere in writing English prose by ESL or EFL students are motivated by the growingconcern with non-Western rhetorical traditions (Hinkle, 2002). Various contrastive rhetoricstudies have identified rhetorical features that typify Arabic. More specifically, the study of therhetorical features of argumentation in Arabic has been the subject of a relatively large body ofcontrastive rhetoric research. A number of traits are found to distinguish Arabic argumentativediscourse in comparison with English.It is found that Arabic argumentation is characterized by repetition. Al-Jubouri (1984), inthis connection, states that Arabic argumentative discourse possesses a fixed system forreplication identified at the morphological level, the word level and the chunk level. For him, atthe chunk level, repetition is revealed through two chief processes: parallelism and paraphrase,the duplication of form and of substance respectively. Paraphrase plays a special role inpersuasion. It is thought that when an argument is restated a number of times, this would createthe desired effect on the recipient. “The ingredients of an argument are assembled in such a waythat a situation, an action or an event is persistently re-examined, possibly from differentdirections, with the effect of intensifying the reality of the claims and thus achieving a forcefulassertion” (Al-Jubouri, 1984, p. 111). In an empirical study on the comprehension ofargumentative discourse, Kamel (2000) concurs that a purposeful repetitive style is found inArabic at the semantic and the syntactic levels. Instead of presenting a counter-argument, thewriter attempts to fix the argument into the reader’s awareness by means of replicating it. Severalresearchers have attempted to clarify the effect of repetition on argumentation. Johnstone (1991)uses the term rhetorical presence to refer to the effect of argument repetition on the success inconvincing another party of one’s view. According to her, instead of attempting to convince bymeans of the Aristotelian syllogistic argument, which is an “alien” concept to Arabs, Arabicspeakers resort to reiterate arguments. In her words: “An arguer presents truths by making thempresent in discourse: by repeating them, paraphrasing them, doubling them, calling attention tothem” (p. 117). Most importantly, she suggests that presentation persuasion is most oftenemployed in cultural settings “in which religion is central, settings in which truth is brought tolight rather than created out of human rationality” (as cited in Feghali, 1997, p. 361). IsmailArab World English JournalISSN: 2229-9327www.awej.org338