SLWIS Newsletter - Volume 6 Number 1 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
EFL Column THE ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY AND EFL ARABIC SPEAKERS
A colleague of mine and I were discussing the fact that oftentimes EFL students, in this case Gulf Arabic speakers, appear well-equipped to deliver essays demonstrating the pros and cons of a topic, but in many cases lack the ability to effectively argue through their contention. This prompted me to consider through-argumentation versus counterargumentation, an area of rhetoric I studied while enrolled in an English/Arabic/English translation and interpreting program at the American University of Sharjah. (Note: I often find useful connections between TESL, rhetoric, and translation and interpreting studies.) Reflecting on the concept of through-argumentation versus counterargumentation may hold some interest for ESL/EFL instructors of writing. In discussing the notion of through-argumentation and the challenges this area poses for translation from Arabic into English, Hatim (2004) observed a current shift in Arabic away from residual orality toward more literate practices, terms that Hatim is quick to dismiss as “labels” when he explains:
Through-argumentation in Arabic discourse may be characterized by a cumulative buildup of evidence and repetition to prove unequivocally a particular point, while counterargumentation is virtually nonexistent. As Hatim and Mason (1997) explained, counterargumentation, which is common in academic English, involves two protagonists confronting each other. There is the absent protagonist, who has his or her “thesis cited to be evaluated,” and a present protagonist “performing the function of orchestrating the debate and steering the receiver in a particular direction” (p. 7). Hatim (2004) continued by explaining the implications of what he calls “residual orality”:
In relation to translation, Hatim (2004) summed up the difficulty in translating residual orality when he described the awkwardness found in fairly literal translations of Arabic editorials. This awkwardness comes from, as he says,
Sa'deddin (1989) similarly stated of the aural mode, in contrasting it to the visual mode in Arabic:
The absent protagonist serves the critical purpose of conveying background on the subject, placing the argument within an informed context, and preparing the ground for the writer’s own counterargument and perspective. Couching an argument in this way serves several purposes, which may be summed up by the seven criteria for effective communicative discourse as put forward by Beaugrande and Dressler (1981):
Beaugrande and Dressler suggested that if one of the seven standards is defied within a text, a breakdown occurs in the communicative effectiveness. Accordingly, at least three regulative principles also control communication:
Given the fact that through-argumentation is a common feature in Arabic texts, ESL/EFL instructors may wish to bring to the attention of ESL Arabic speakers the somewhat elusive but ever-present absent protagonist and methods for making the writer’s point of view more pronounced. On her Web site, in “How to Write an Argument Essay,” Fleming gives this advice:
It is important to note here, of course, the well-known fact that Arabic speakers come from a variety of educational backgrounds, both private and governmental. Many may have encountered the Arabic visual mode in school and/or may be learning English as a third language, in which case they may have already adapted to various Western discourse styles and presence of the absent protagonist. The point to be made is that since the absent protagonist is clearly of consequence to the argumentative essay, special emphasis may be required in teaching writing to ESL Arabic speakers unfamiliar with this concept or lacking a solid L1 foundation in this area. Broader investigation of this domain, including the impact of globalization and the electronic media on changing and evolving Arabic rhetorical patterns, might provide greater insight into the writing patterns of ESL Arabic speakers and the challenges they face. Further investigation of this area might also determine the degree to which Arabic has the potential to function as a resource for Arabic ESL/EFL students, as opposed to an obstacle, as suggested by both Sa’deddin (1989) and Ayari (1992). REFERENCES Ayari, S. (1992). Exploring the Role of NL in L2 Writing: Evidence from Arabic Learners of English. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Minnesota. Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Hatim, B. (2004) Shedding residual orality: The case of Arabic. Unpublished manuscript. Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge. Sa'deddin, M. A. (1989). Text development and Arabic-English negative interference. Applied Linguistics, 10/1, 36-51 Ann Ainlay Chebbo, achebbo@sharjah.ac.ae, holds a BS degree in languages (Arabic) and linguistics from Georgetown University, an MEd in TESOL from Boston University, and an MA in English/Arabic/English translation and interpreting from the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. She is a currently a translator (seconded faculty member) in the Office of the Chancellor at the University of Sharjah in the UAE, where she also directed the Intensive English Program from 2006 to 2008. |
|