The Micro-Structure of the Writing of  Lebanese University Students as
Examined in the Genre of  Argumentation in Arabic and English

By
Dr. Siham El-Hassanieh
Lebanese University, Faculty of Education
 

I. Identification of the problem, reasons for doing this research, research questions and definition of key terms.

A. Statement and identification of the Problem

The micro-structure of the writing of Lebanese students is examined in the genre of argumentation in Arabic and in English. This area is important because it helps reach an understanding of the problems Arabic  students face while writing in English. Halliday’s modified functional analysis(1979, 1989)  is used to analyze the students’ essays in English and Arabic.
Methodology

            Two primary  research tools were used to collect the data. The first is the actual student scripts on the topic of ‘merciful killing’ and the second is semi-structured interviews which were used to allow students to explain how they write in English and in Arabic and what problems they face in both languages.
Findings

            1. It was found  that students use pronominal and demonstrative reference in the same manner in English and Arabic. However, they use the coordinating conjunctions, ‘and’ and ‘but’ differently.
            2. Preliminary findings and analysis suggest that the problems in using subordination in English may be due to the overuse of coordination in Arabic from our perspective which is normally used in Arabic for coordination and subordination depending on the context.
Statement of the Problem

Observing my Lebanese students over many years while structuring  their essays in different genres of writing in general and argumentation in particular, I have sensed the concerns they were going through while writing reflecting on the text question. Some of the indicators of their concerns were the following questions raised while they were writing:
“How can I express this idea?
 Is it O.K. if I say it this way?
Which transition should I use instead of ‘but’ or ‘and’ ? How and where can I divide the sentence?
What does this word mean?…etc.”
I hope that responding to the above questions might reduce their anxiety and would provide enough room for them to redraft and improve their writing.
This situation exemplifies the fact that discourse analysis of writing which has been defined differently by different applied linguists deals with how communicative the message is and how well-structured it is. In  communication situations, in writing the student has to provide his/her context through exploring his/her schemata for cohesive devices such as reference, substitution ellipsis, conjunctions, and punctuation marks. In this respect, the writing of an Arabic academic text follows conventions different from those of writing an English text in spite of some basic similarities between Arabic and English of the macro structure of essay organization (Williams, 1982; 1983). I  am interested in the similarities as well as the differences between academically written texts in Arabic and English. Identifying some of the similarities and differences  would help us teach essay writing more efficiently. The aim of this study is to analyze the micro structures (pronoun reference, the use of  the conjunctions “and” and “but”) of three Lebanese university students’ argumentative essays adopting  the modified version of Halliday’s conceptual framework (1979, 1989, 1994) to fit the analysis of Arabic texts (Williams, 1983).
Halliday recommends a functional analysis which depends on a functional grammar defined as “…essentially a ‘natural’ grammar in the sense that everything in it can be explained, ultimately by reference to how language is used” (1994, p. xiv) . Functional grammar stresses the utility of grammatical relations labeling clauses according to the function they perform in a text such as asking a question, giving an answer, stating a problem, offering a solution, making a claim, then a counterclaim, making a comparison or a general statement, and giving examples. In a functional grammar, in contrast to formal grammar, a language is interpreted as a system of meanings accompanied by forms through which the meanings can be realized. How are these meanings realized is the right question to determine the utility of the grammatical relationships (Halliday, 1994). Halliday recommends a discourse grammar that “ needs to be functional and semantic in its orientation, with the grammatical categories explained as the realization of semantic patterns”(1994, p. xvii). His theory is based on a theoretical approach that
 
leans towards the applied rather than the pure, the rhetorical rather than the logical, the actual rather than the ideal, the functional rather than the formal, the text rather than sentence. The emphasis is on the text analysis as a mode of action, a theory of language as a means of getting things done (Halliday, 1994, p. xxvii).

The study presented here is an empirical study in which I look at 3 argumentative texts in Arabic and English for three Lebanese University participants looking for similarities and differences in using the following two cohesive features: reference and conjunctions (‘and’ and ‘but’ ) trying to answer the following research question:
           
How is an Arabic text organized in contrast with an English text?

(concentrating primarily on two micro- analytic tools to achieve cohesion)

Definition of terms
I have adopted the following definitions of important basic terms as used by Halliday (1994). He talks about two possible levels of achievement in any piece of discourse analysis
1. The first one contributes to the “understanding” of the text enabling one to show how, and why the text means as it does. While doing this linguistic analysis, multiple meanings, alternatives, ambiguities, metaphors…etc are likely to be discovered.
2. The second one contributes to the evaluation of the text. It enables the linguist to say why the text is, or is not, an effective text.
 According to Halliday, this is a difficult goal to achieve because it requires an interpretation not only of the text itself but also of its context (context of situation, context of culture) and of the systematic relationship between context and text. As defined by Halliday (1989), ‘text’ will be used to refer to ‘ a semantic unit’ which can be spoken or written, “or indeed in any other medium of expression that one likes to think of” (p. 10). According to Halliday, a text should be seen as a product and a process. It

…is both an object in its own right (it may be highly valued object, for example, something that is recognized as a great poem and an instance –an instance of social meaning in a particular context of situation. It is product of its environment, a product of a continuous process of choices in meaning that we can represent as multiple paths or passes through the networks that constitute the linguistic system (p.11)

 It may be longer than an isolated sentence and will have an identifiable communicative function which contains features such as cohesion which works on or near the surface and coherence concerned with how texts hang together below surface level; that is, which indicate the deeper structure that gives meaning (Halliday, 1989).
The importance of the context of the situation and background information in writing a text have been discussed by Nattinger and Decarrio

Writing is rather like a conversation in which speakers assume the role of audience in order to judge how much background information and clarifying material needs to be supplied for the message to be properly interpreted ( 1992, p. 84).
                       
The uttered or written words do not exclusively contain the meaning of an utterance or a printed sentence. What gives stretches of discourse meaningful texture, is processing the text and relating it to the context of situation (coherence) and tying it together with internal linkers such as reference, conjunctions…etc.(cohesion) (Halliday, 1989).
The term ‘cohesion’ will be used as used by Halliday and Hasan (1976). It works at the micro-level; that is, on or near the surface level of the text and refers to ‘ties’ or relationships that hold across sentences.
 Two of the four major analytic tools of cohesion identified by Halliday and Hasan: reference and conjunctions (only the two coordinating conjunctions: ‘and’ and ‘but’ have been used.  The term ‘coherence’  has been used as defined  by Halliday and Hasan(1976). Coherence  works at a deeper, wider or often less reachable level(Lyons 1977; Robins 1980: ch6). It is concerned with how texts hang together below surface level (Halliday and Hasan, 1989). Halliday clarifies the relationship between coherence and cohesion in the following manner:

A text is characterized by coherence; it hangs together. At any point after The beginning, what has gone before provides the environment for what
is coming next. This sets up internal expectations; and these are matched up from the expectations referred to earlier, that the listener or reader brings from the external sources, from the context of the situation and of culture. An important contribution to coherence comes from COHESION:the set of linguistic sources that every language has (as part of the textual meta-function) for linking one part of a text to another (Halliday and Hasan.
1989, p. 48).

 Due to the complexity of this area and the limitations of the  length of this paper, the analysis of cohesion has been limited to using two of Halliday’s analytic tools (reference and  two of the problematic conjunctions as used in Arabic in contrast with English: ‘and’ and ‘but’)  to investigate whether these cohesive ties are used in the same manner in  English and Arabic argumentative texts.
Modified 3 0ctober 2001

ABSTRACT

            The micro-structure of the writing of Lebanese students is examined in the genre of argumentation in Arabic and in English. This area is important because it helps reach an understanding of the problems Arabic students face while writing in English. Halliday’s modified functional analysis (1979, 1989)  is used  to analyze the students’ essays in English and Arabic. It was found  that students use pronominal and demonstrative reference in the same manner in English and Arabic. However, they use the coordinating conjunctions, ‘and’ and ‘but’ differently. Two primary research tools were used to collect the data. The first is the actual student scripts on the topic of ‘merciful killing’ and the second is semi-structured interviews which were used to allow students to explain how they write in English and in Arabic and what problems they face in both languages. Preliminary findings and analysis suggest that the problems in using subordination in English may be due to the overuse of coordination in Arabic from our perspective which is normally used in Arabic for  coordination and subordination depending on the context.

INTRODUCTION
           

            Observing my Lebanese students over many years while structuring  their essays in different genres of writing in general and argumentation in particular, I have sensed the concerns they were going through while writing reflecting on the text question. Some of the indicators of their concerns were the following questions raised while they were writing: “How can I express this idea? Is it O.K. if I say it this way? Which transition should I use instead of ‘but’ or ‘and’ ? How and where can I divide the sentence? What does this word mean?…etc. I hope that responding to the above questions might reduce their anxiety and would provide enough room for them to redraft and improve their writing.
This situation exemplifies the fact that discourse analysis of writing which has been defined differently by different applied linguists deals with how communicative the message is and how well-structured it is. In  communication situations, in writing the student has to provide his/her context through exploring his/her schemata for cohesive devices such as reference, substitution ellipsis, conjunctions, and punctuation marks. In this respect, the writing of an Arabic academic text follows conventions different from those of writing an English text in spite of some basic similarities between Arabic and English of the macro structure of essay organization (Williams, 1982; 1983). I  am interested in the similarities as well as the differences between academically written texts in Arabic and English. Identifying some of the similarities and differences  would help us teach essay writing more efficiently. The aim of this study is to analyze the  micro structures (pronoun reference, the use of  the conjunctions “and” and “but”) of three Lebanese university students’ argumentative essays adopting  the modified version of Halliday’s conceptual framework (1979, 1989, 1994) to fit the analysis of Arabic texts (Williams, 1983).
Halliday recommends a functional analysis which depends on a functional grammar defined as “…essentially a ‘natural’ grammar in the sense that everything in it can be explained, ultimately by reference to how language is used” (1994, p. xiv) . Functional grammar stresses the utility of grammatical relations labeling clauses according to the function they perform in a text such as asking a question, giving an answer, stating a problem, offering a solution, making a claim, then a counterclaim, making a comparison or a general statement, and giving examples. In a functional grammar, in contrast to formal grammar, a language is interpreted as a system of meanings accompanied by forms through which the meanings can be realized. How are these meanings realized is the right question to determine the utility of the grammatical relationships (Halliday, 1994). Halliday recommends a discourse grammar that “ needs to be functional and semantic in its orientation, with the grammatical categories explained as the realization of semantic patterns”(1994, p. xvii). His theory is based on a theoretical approach that
 
            leans towards the applied rather than the pure, the rhetorical rather than
            the logical, the actual rather than the ideal, the functional rather than the
            formal, the text rather than sentence. The emphasis is on the text analysis
            as a mode of action, a theory of language as a means of getting things done
            (Halliday, 1994, p. xxvii).

The study presented here is an empirical study in which I look at 3 argumentative texts in Arabic and English for three participants looking for similarities and differences in using the following two cohesive features: reference and conjunctions (‘and’ and ‘but’ ) trying to answer the following research question:
           
            How is an Arabic text organized in contrast with an English text?
(concentrating primarily on two micro- analytic tools to achieve cohesion)
The paper is  organized in the following manner: Definition of terms such as ‘discourse’, ‘discourse analysis’, ‘text’, ‘writing’, ‘cohesion’, and ‘coherence’; review of related literature with respect to problems of cohesion and coherence in general and cohesive ties in particular(reference and the conjunctions(‘and’ and ‘but’ ) as used in Arabic and English; methodology, data analysis, conclusion, appendices, and references. The following section consists of two parts, defining  key terms as they are used in this paper, and  reviewing  the related literature.
Definition of terms
Starting with the first part, I am going to adopt some of the definitions of important basic terms as used by Halliday (1994). He talks about two possible levels of achievement in any piece of discourse analysis. The first one contributes to the “understanding” of the text enabling one to show how, and why the text means as it does. While doing this linguistic analysis, multiple meanings alternatives, ambiguities, metaphors…etc are likely to be discovered. The second one contributes to the evaluation of the text. It enables the linguist to say why the text is, or is not, an effective text. According to Halliday, this is a difficult goal to achieve because it requires an interpretation not only of the text itself but also of its context (context of situation, context of culture) and of the systematic relationship between context and text. As defined by Halliday (1989), ‘text’ will be used to refer to ‘ a semantic unit’ which can be spoken or written, “or indeed in any other medium of expression that one likes to think of” (p. 10). According to Halliday, a text should be seen as a product and a process. It

            …is both an object in its own right (it may be highly valued object, for
            example, something that is recognized as a great poem and an instance –
            an instance of social meaning in a particular context of situation. It is a
            product of its environment, a product of a continuous process of choices in
            meaning that we can represent as multiple paths or passes through the
            networks that constitute the linguistic system (p.11)

 It may be longer than an isolated sentence and will have an identifiable communicative function which contains features such as cohesion which works on or near the surface and coherence concerned with how texts hang together below surface level; that is, which indicate the deeper structure that gives meaning (Halliday, 1989).
The importance of the context of the situation and background information in writing a text have been discussed by Nattinger and Decarrio

            Writing is rather like a conversation in which speakers assume
            the role of audience in order to judge how much background
            information and clarifying material needs to be supplied for the
message to be properly interpreted ( 1992, p. 84).

                       
                       
The uttered or written words do not exclusively contain the meaning of an utterance or a printed sentence. What gives stretches of discourse meaningful texture, is processing the text and relating it to the context of situation (coherence) and tying it together with internal linkers such as reference, conjunctions…etc.(cohesion) (Halliday, 1989). I will use the term ‘cohesion’ as used by Halliday and Hasan (1976). It works at the micro-level; that is, on or near the surface level of the text and refers to ‘ties’ or relationships that hold across sentences. I will use two of the four major analytic tools of cohesion identified by Halliday and Hasan: reference and conjunctions (only the two coordinating conjunctions: ‘and’ and ‘but’. I will also use the term ‘coherence’ as used by Halliday and Hasan(1976). Coherence  works at a deeper, wider or often less reachable level(Lyons 1977:; Robins 1980: ch6). It is concerned with how texts hang together below surface level (Halliday and Hasan, 1989). Halliday clarifies the relationship between coherence and cohesion in the following manner:

            A text is characterized by coherence; it hangs together. At any point after
            the beginning, what has gone before provides the environment for what
            is coming next. This sets up internal expectations; and these are matched
            up from the expectations referred to earlier, that the listener or reader
            brings from the external sources, from the context of the situation and of
 culture. An important contribution to coherence comes from COHESION:
the set of linguistic sources that every language has (as part of the textual
meta-function) for linking one part of a text to another (Halliday and Hasan.
1989, p. 48).

 Due to the complexity of this area and the limitations of the  length of this paper , I will limit my self to the analysis of cohesion using two of Halliday’s analytic tools (reference and  two of the problematic conjunctions as used in Arabic in contrast with English: ‘and’ and ‘but’)  to investigate whether these cohesive ties are used in the same manner in  English and Arabic argumentative texts.
Review of related literature
Coming to the second part, reviewing the related literature indicates remarkable findings by scholars interested in comparing Arabic texts with English texts for native speakers of Arabic. Problems of cohesion and coherence have been investigated by Kaplan as early as 1966. He pointed out that many overseas students, despite their command of the structure of the English language write compositions that are considered by their instructors to be badly organized or lack coherence. Kaplan’s claim has been confirmed by (Koch 1981 and Williams 1982) at least with respect to native speakers of Arabic learning English as a first foreign language. Koch has observed a ‘peculiar strangeness’ in the writing of some Arab students’ compositions, a strangeness caused not only by grammatical errors, spelling and punctuation, but also by global “mistakes” in producing ideas and approaching topics. Williams reporting about his own experience of teaching English for native speakers of Arabic complains that his students were unable to write unified paragraphs and cohesive  texts.
            Investigating the problem of cohesion, Dudely-Evans and Swales provide an example which shows a different approach to the development of an argument in Arabic in contrast to English. He quotes a translation of an article from an Arabic newspaper. Comparing this article with a similar version of the same article written originally in English and in a more normal  journalistic style, Dudely Evans and Swales spot different ways of treating  the same basic content. Beginning with 2 topic sentences, the Arabic version constructs its points very largely by a sequence of loosely connected anecdotal facts many of which repeat earlier points in contrast to the English approach which follows the order of “ situation…
evidence…exemplification”(p. 97). Among other features noticed include the very different use of ‘and’ and the length of the sentences. Dudely-Evans and Swales conclude that incoherence may be due to the transference of these features to the writing of academic English. The frequency  and type of repetition , two important  features which have not been discussed  in detail by Dudely - Evans have been investigated by Al-Jabbouri( 1984).

Al-Jabbouri claims that the differences between English and Arabic in the use of repetition are largely although not entirely responsible for the differences in the approach to the development of an argument in the two languages.  Repetition is noticeable through two major processes: parallelism and paraphrase(cf. Kaplan 1966, Koch 1981, and Williams 1982). Parallelism is used to refer to the repetition of form. Paraphrase is used to refer to the repetition of substance; a restatement of a certain point of the argument in different words a number of times. Al-Jabbouri (1984) describes parallelism as a rhetorical device which leads to “ text-building”. It keeps the discourse receiver (reader/hearer) to a definite viewpoint while at the same time attracting new material to it. This is a reflection of a tendency that Arab writers have towards forceful statement. Paraphrase along with other types of repetition create the desired effect on the receiver. What appears to be a florid and verbose style of argumentation to a westerner is meant to give a forceful assertion to an Arab. This required effect cannot be conveyed with brevity (Al-Jabbouri, 1984).
I will give evidence from the argumentative texts of the Lebanese university students for what Al-Jabbouri says later in my dissertation. I will limit my self to Halliday’s modified functional analysis (Williams,  1984).
Williams (1984) warns against applying Halliday’s cohesive ties to Arabic without modification although they provide a useful framework for exploring this area. He identifies two difficulties in using an unmodified version of Halliday’s framework in a contrastive study of Arabic and English.
           

1. Identifying the units between which the analyst should seek cohesive ties.
2. Investigating whether Halliday’s definition of  “theme” is adequate for the analysis of a  verb – subject – object language like Arabic.

         I am going to analyze three argumentative essays for three participants looking for evidence or counter evidence for what William’s says with respect to the first point concentrating on two of the cohesive  analytic tools of Halliday: reference and conjunctions(limiting the analysis to the use of coordinating conjunctions  ‘and’ and ‘but’ as used in Arabic and English.
 
PARTICIPANTS

                        The research was carried out on two groups of second year Lebanese university students, 25 students from the first and second branches of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration for the academic year 1999-2000. They are all multilingual native speakers of Arabic. Each student has a good command of at least one foreign language(English) and some have a command of two languages (English and French). Bio-data was collected by a questionnaire distributed twice to validate the information. The first one was given the first day of classes, and the second one was given the last day of classes before starting the final exam. A list of the questions asked can be found in Appendix A. The students had a minimum of 10 years of English and a maximum of 23 years.  All of them had between 18 - 20 years of Arabic. Their ages ranged between 18 and 23. Most of  them were pleased to take the tests and showed cooperation especially after explaining to them the  virtues and aims of this research. By coincidence, the  majority of the second branch  group came from a Christian  community   whereas the majority of the first branch group  came from a Moslem community. The different cultural backgrounds were reflected in their writings especially when they wrote the third essay. Information collected from the questionnaire reflected more differences than similarities in their basic skills as illustrated in table I in the Appendix A
            Three  argumentative texts  for three  participants (one male and two females) who are  multilingual chosen randomly from the second group are going to be analyzed using two of the analytic tools used by Halliday (1976, 1984, 1989).  These participants were observed while writing and were interviewed individually each after writing his/her essay and as a group directly at the end of the writing session. Some interview questions were modified after the first interview session.

METHODOLOGY

             The methodology used in this research study was partially quantitative and partially qualitative. The first part of it was quantitative. I used a questionnaire to collect bio-data and important background information such as age, sex, 1st language, 2nd language,… The information is presented in table I in  Appendix C in addition to a copy of the questionnaire. The second part was qualitative. I used semi-structured interviews and case studies of three students examining the students’ writing in argumentation adopting the modified functional analysis of Halliday: functional sentence perspective as used by Williams (1984).

Essays
                        To answer the research question, two groups of students (25 each) were given the same essay topic for 60 minutes writing time in Arabic and in English. Half of the students wrote the Arabic essay first while the other half wrote the English essay first. The first essay topic was written before the first partial exam. Two months later, students wrote the second essay as part of the second partial exam. Students wrote the third argumentative essay in June, and it was part of the final exam. Detailed instructions are given in Appendix C.
           
Interviews
              Three students were interviewed twice after writing their essays in English individually and in groups of three. I asked them questions which would reflect their rhetorical and cognitive strategies (questions about brainstorming, drafting and redrafting, outlining and organizing their ideas)  and questions about similarities and differences between essay writing in Arabic and English. Interviewing the three participants revealed that when writing in English, they brainstormed, organized their ideas, drafted, and re-drafted depending on how much time they had. When they wrote in Arabic, however, they didn’t do so. One of  the problems they faced when writing in both languages is finding the right word or expression. Some of the problems raised in writing English were: when to use subordination and when to use coordination, how to punctuate their sentences, how to write a unified paragraph…etc. Going into in depth interviews with the three participants, showed lack of awareness that Arabic rhetoric is different from English rhetoric and follows cohesive ties which may be similar in form but different in function. For example, ‘and’ is used in both languages. It is used as an additive coordinator in English (Halliday,1976). In Arabic, however, it is used as an additive or adversative coordinator, and as a subordinator depending on the context to introduce an attendant circumstance (Williams, 1984). ‘But’ is also used as an additive or adversative coordinator and a subordinator but not as frequently as ‘and’ as will be illustrated in the data analysis section.  (The interview questions are presented in Appendix B)
In the following section a modified functional analysis of three argumentative essays of Lebanese University students would be presented.

DATA ANALYSIS

 In my data analysis, I  would primarily concentrate on two micro-features of discourse analysis investigating how reference and the use of the coordinating conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘but’ would lead to cohesion  in English and Arabic argumentative  texts of three Lebanese University participants.
As used by Halliday and Hasan(1976), reference can be divided into two classes: endophoric and exophoric. Although endophoric reference refers to features within the text and exophoric reference refers to features outside the text, both can refer back to things already mentioned (anaphoric reference ) or they can refer to items not yet mentioned (cataphoric reference). In this paper ,I am going to limit my analysis to endophoric reference.

Pronominal reference
Starting with pronominal or pronoun reference (covering the system of personal pronouns: I, me, mine,etc…), the following examples from participant one indicate that this feature is used in the same manner in Arabic and English:
Participant one (male)
Talking about life, participant one says in the Arabic text,

Life…!
It may appear a small and simple word used daily in different ways. People
may not know its meaning until they think of loosing it. Man enjoys a great and    important gift, life. Has he got the right to give it up any time he wants or has
Others got the right to decide for him when to die when….

The pronouns it, its, they, and he are used anaphorically to refer back to the nouns Life, People, and Man respectively.
Similarly, in the English text of the same participant, anaphoric reference can be shown in the following quotation:
           
Proponents of death legislation agree that death is sometimes the sole
exit to physical or psychological suffering of a patient. So, they suggest
that death should be regulated by a certain law to assure that it would
not be misused. They call this “the right to die;” that is the individual’s
right to end his life when it becomes a source of ultimate sufferings.
 
The pronouns they, it, his, and it refer anaphorically to the noun phrases Proponents of death legislation, a certain law, the individual’s right and his life respectively.

Participant two (female)
The following quotations from the  texts of participant two give further evidence for the same use of anaphoric reference in Arabic and English texts.
English text
All in all, Jesus has forgiven those who killed him. Moreover, Jesus
sacrificed with his life to help others. This is because He’s the owner of all lives.
As a conclusion, life is a precious and unlimited treasure. We must take
care of it and don’t harm it or let anyone to take it from us because life is not
compensated . Moreover, God the owner of all lives only puts the beginning and
the end for each one’s life.                

The pronouns him, his life, and he refer anaphorically to Jesus, and the pronoun it refers to
Life.

            Arabic text

Life for man is the most precious thing man has got keeping in mind that

he hasn’t made it by himself. It was donated to him...
            In 1988, a survey carried out by the United Nations showed that capital punishment  does not stop others from committing crimes . It is not better than imprisonment for the rest of the criminal’s life. Religious laws reject capital punishment as  Christ says, “Don’t kill”

Then pronouns  he, it, and him anaphorically  refer to the nouns  man, life, and man respectively.  Similarly, the it refers to capital punishment.

Participant three (female)
Quoting from the third participant’s texts in both languages gives further evidence.

English text

Nowadays, doctors are introducing instruments that extend the life of

patients and sometimes improving it, they are using medical and surgical

procedures to make it easier for ill people to improve their life.

The pronouns it, they, and the possessive adjective their refer anaphorically to the nouns life, doctors, and patients.

Arabic text

 Who knows (ya tura) to what extent we may end the life of a human being and transfer him to a world from which he will never be able to come back?
How can a woman abort a child whether this child is healthy or handicapped? The foetus eats and drinks along with the mother  as long as she lives and at a moment she decides to abort and gets rid of the baby removing it from her womb.

The pronouns him and he refer to a human being, she refers to the mother, and it refers to the baby. 

 In the following section, I will quote evidence from the same three participants’ argumentative essays to show  how demonstrative reference referred to by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as Deixis  is used in English and Arabic.

Demonstrative reference

            Using mostly determiners and pronouns and sometimes adverbs and adverbials (this/that; now/then; yesterday; here/there; anaphoric use of the definite article), this system of reference is not as simple as it appears. (Unit 7, University of Leicester, MA in App.Ling./TESOL (Distance); cited in CPD, Module3: Socio linguistics/Discourse Analysis, University of Leicester. I will limit myself to how this/that and these /those as used in English and Arabic in the argumentative essays of Lebanese university students at the faculty of Economics and B. A.

Participant One

English text

            The following quotations illustrate how this participant uses the demonstratives, ‘these’ and ‘this’ anaphorically and cataphorically.

…Who decides when should life stop and who

has the right to stop it?(1) These are some of the questions that are raised by

People facing the dilemma of living and dying.

(3)So, they suggest that death should be regulated by a certain law to assure that it would not be misused. (4)They call this “the right to die;” that is, the individual’s right to end his life when it becomes a source of ultimate sufferings.

The demonstrative ‘These’ in sentence(1) refers anaphorically to the previously raised questions. In sentence (4) ‘this’ refers anaphorically the law legislating death and cataphorically to the individual’s right to die.

Selections from the Arabic text almost reflect similar usage of these demonstrative references,

Participant one

Arabic text.

In the following sentence,the first ‘this’refers anaphorically  to putting an end to one’s sufferingand the second ‘this’ refers to the suggested solution.  ‘Those’ refers cataphorically to the coming information: “  people who give themselves the right to decider for others”

And there are persons who make decisions         

to end the life of someone else who is not capable of doing that for himself
believing that they are putting an end to his sufferings, and assuming he was going to ask for this solution had he been able to do so, but this is illogical
Those who give themselves the right to decide for others are so arrogant that they…

In the coming section I will quote more examples illustrating the similar use of the demonstrative references: this/that and these /those from the second participant’s English and Arabic argumentative essays.

Participant two

 English text
            This quotation illustrates how demonstratives can be used cataphorically (referring forward) and anaphorically(referring backwards) In the first sentence‘Those’ refers cataphorically to the coming information. In the second sentence, however, ‘these’  refers anaphoricallyto people who are faced with critical and serious problems and the ones who commit suicide…

 (1)Usually, a lot of people especially those  who are faced with critical and serious problems
those  who commit suicide” 
do so because they pass in certain circumstances such as loneliness,
unemployment, physical illness, psychiatric illness, drug abusers, alcohol
drinkers…etc. (2)However, these people need help.

Participant two

Arabic text
            In this participant’s essay there is  evidence for cataphoric reference only. In sentences (1), (2), and (3) ‘those’ refers cataphorically to the people surrounding the patient, the people who want to end their lives, and to the ones who are for capital punishment.

(1)Aren’t those
surrounding him supposed to show him what’s wrong and convince him to
change his decision?
(2)We can also see that the government refuses to end the life of some of
those who want to end their lives and passes judgements for execution for others.
(3)Those who are for capital punishment are not usually concerned about the
reasons which have led to the first crime, and are asking for another crime.

More evidence is going to be given from the third participant’s English and Arabic essays in the following part:

Participant three

 English text
 In the first sentence, the demonstrtive ‘this’ is used cataphorically to refer to the coming information. In the second, however, ‘These’ is used anaphorically to refer to previous information.

(1)When you hear this statement“the right to die” 
 you think immediately about the role of economy, society and morality that affects such a decision.

(2)…there are thousands of patients who suffer from untreated
illness, who think each day to commit suicide because their life is an obstacle for
them and their families. Do we have the right to end their life, or end it by
themselves?(3) These persons should live or die?

Participant three

 Arabic text
            This participant uses the demonstrative reference anaphorically and cataphorically frequently.  In the second sentence,‘These’ refers cataphorically to criminals, and ‘This’ in sentence(3) is used anaphoricallly referring to ending the lives of criminals and cataphorically to the punishment used as a lesson for others to learn from.

(1)The judges in passing the sentence of death
should be as courageous as the criminal when committing his crime.(2) These
criminals have ended the lives of many persons why shouldn’t we end their lives
and pull them out of our society. (3)This would be a punishment for them and a
lesson for others to learn from.

In the coming section, I will quote evidence indicating the similar and different uses of the conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘but’, in Arabic and English of the same three participants.

Conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘but’

As defined by KA Discourse Analysis 3, CPD, University of Leicester, coordinating conjunctions are “ pragmatic connectors that link ideas  (p.5). Halliday (1985) identifies four types of conjunctions: additive( and, moreover, …); temporal (then, next,…); causal (so, thus, …), and adversative(but, yet, …) I am going to show evidence for the use of one additive conjunction, ‘and’ and one adversative conjunction ‘but’ in the argumentative essays of three participants.
One major source of confusion for native speakers of Arabic while writing English is in using the coordinator ‘and’ which is used in Arabic as  a coordinator and a subordinator depending on the context of the situation. This has been noticed and discussed by Williams (1983)
“and” in Arabic “… is used not only as a coordinator but also as a subordinator to introduce “Ha:l” clauses, clauses expressing an attendant circumstance” ( p. 119). Williams gives evidence from an Egyptian newspaper to support his claim. I will give evidence from the argumentative writing of three Lebanese University students to give further support.

Participant one

English text

            In this section, I will quote examples which indicate the various uses of the coordinator ‘and’ in Arabic  as a subordinator and as a coordinator,  to show an adversative relationship, and an additive relationship. The following quotation shows how ‘and’ is used as a subordinator here to introduce an attendant circumstance:

Since the law has no feelings and lacks the ability to judge, and the
judgments of legislators are confined to this law, the legislation of death

would suggest that every situation is like the other, which is absurd.

 Sometimes  ‘and’ is used as in Arabic for contrastive information where ‘but’ should have been used because it is in contrast to the  previous idea as in the following example:

Consequently, some people  have come to propose the legislation of death and others totally refuse this

The following quotation shows how ‘and’ is used as an additive coordinator in  these sentences:

Indeed, life is sacred and too precious to let go, not to mention that it is too sublime to be regulated by man-made laws or agreements. Life is a divine gift, and physical death is another;

The Arabic text of the same participant shows how ‘and’ is used for different purposes, additive, adversative or alternative  relationships whereas  ‘but’ is  used mainly for an adversative relationship.

Participant one

Arabic text

The following quotation designates how ‘and’ and ‘but’ are used:

(1)Man enjoys a great and important gift, life…

(2)But we see many cases where people started deciding when they should die and when

others should die.(3) Reasons are many and analysis differ according to different
reasons.(4) For example some people reach a state of misery and giving up to the
extent of killing themselves or  of committing suicide, but suicide is not a
solution but submission or surrendering.(5) And there are persons who make decisions
to end the life of someone else who is not capable of doing that for himself…

Sentences (1), (3), and the first part of sentence (4) ‘for example some people reach a state of misery and giving up to the extent f killing themselves or  of committing suicide,…’ indicate how ‘and ’is used for additional information. Sentence(5) shows how ‘and’ is used for an adversative relationship. Sentence (2) shows how ‘and’ is used for an
 alternative  relationship. In contrast, the opening of sentence (2), and the second part of          sentence(4)show how ‘but’ is  used mainly for an adversative relationship.

In the following part, I will quote more evidence from the argumentative essays of participant two for the use of the conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘but’:

Participant two

 English essay

      Selections from participant two reflect how ‘and’ and ‘but’ are not only used as coordinators but also as subordinators to introduce an attendant circumstance which leads to ambiguity and confusion. The first selection illustrates how ‘and’ is used as an additive coordinator and a subordinator and how ‘but’ is used as an adversative coordinator.

(1)How would a community based on love and respect try to put an end to the life of others?(2) It is true that a person who is suffering from pain due to a serious
 illness might prefer to put  an end to his life, but  why would he do that?
(3)Is it because he lost someone dear and he became hopeless. (4)But what about
miracles?(5) Is it that the level of desperation is too high that it made him lose

belief?

      In sentence (1), ‘and’ is used as an additive, and in sentence (3), it is usedas a Ha: l subordinator here to introduce an attendant circumstance: he became hopeless. ‘But’ is used as an adversative in sentence(4).

Participant two

Arabic essay

 
In the following quotation from the Arabic essay ‘and’ and ‘but’ are used as coordinators and subordinators as will be illustrated below:

(1)Although we sometimes  find people who has not got chances for success
and because of the existence of miracles and the support of others they were
                    successful in going on and leaving the ghost of ending their lives
(2)But, if the mother’s life was in danger then it may be possible to end the baby’s
life but who decides?  

In the Arabic essay , this particpant uses ‘and’ as a Ha: l subordinator here to introduce an attendant circumstance: the existence of miracles  and as an additive in the second part, “and the support of others they were successful in going on and leaving the ghost of ending their lives”. In sentence (2), she uses ‘but’ as a Ha: l subordinator here to introduce an attendant circumstance: “if the mother’s life was in danger” and for contrast in the last part of the sentence, “ ‘but’ who decides”.
 

            In the following section, I will quote sentences from the texts of participant three to demonstrate how ‘and’ and ‘but’ are used as  coordinators and/or subordinators:

Participant three

 English text

(1)In my point of view, I could not take such a decision because like God gives us  life, God takes it whenever he wants and if the right to die or to end a life is legitimised by legal action, how long it will be before the right to die becomes the duty to die?

(2)Nowadays, doctors are introducing instruments that extend the life of
patients and sometimes improving it, they are using medical and surgical
procedures to make it easier for ill people to improve their life.

(3)In my point of view, I encourage the ending of life for criminals only, I
mean the execution and nothing else. Because life is a holy thing given by God
(for signalling out events) (contrast)

(4)I know one handicap person who cannot move his
hands and legs but he can move his head and can talk.(5) This person is now
studying at the school and he can write tests and compositions by putting the pen
in his mouth.

In sentence (1) ‘and’ is used as a Ha: l subordinator here to introduce an attendant circumstance: legitimizing the right to die. In sentence(2) and (5), ‘and’ is used as an additive coordinator However,  in sentence(3) ‘I mean the execution and nothing else’ it is used for contrast where ‘but’ should have been used. In sentence(4) ‘but’ is used as adversative coordinator.

In the last part, I will give more evidence from the Arabic text of participant three to reveal how ‘and’ is used as an additive coordinator , a Ha: l subordinator, and as an adversative replacing ‘but’. ‘But’ is only used once as an adversative.
 

Participant three

 Arabic text

The following sentences from the Arabic text show how ‘and’ is used as an additive in sentence(1), a Ha:l subordinator introducing an attendant circumstance in the second part of sentence  (1),   “… and at a moment she decides to abort and gets rid of the baby
removing it from her womb”, and as an adversative in sentence (3) where ‘but’ should have been used. ‘But’ is used only once in sentence(5) as an adversative coordinator to show contrast.

(1)The foetus eats and drinks along with the mother and lives as long as she lives and at a moment she decides to abort and gets rid of the baby
removing it from her womb.(2) Why hasn’t the mother taken the necessary
preventive measures before getting pregnant?
(3)Destiny gives us no choice and life gives us choices.
(4)Even if a
criminal repents he still possesses the desire to kill so send him away and execute
him!(5) But we shouldn’t harm the innocent virtuous spirit and deprive it from the
blessing of coming to life and living.

Finally since this is a part of  a larger investigation for a doctoral dissertation, more evidence will be provided for the use of other cohesive devices by analyzing additional texts. ( 5405 words)

Conclusion

            Finally, the functional analysis of the essays of the three participants in English and Arabic confirms some of the findings of Williams (1982, 1984). First,  pronominal and demonstrative reference are used in the same manner in English and Arabic as illustrated in the data analysis section. Second,  ‘and’  is utilized as an additive and adversative coordinator and as a subordinator in Arabic depending on the context. I would like to highlight a very important point with respect to writing in Arabic in contrast to English. Academic writing in Arabic is based on Arabic discourse following an oral tradition as manifested  in the holy Bible and Koran on one  hand whereas academic writing in English is based on English discourse following a different Anglo-Sxon tradition of writing on the other (Ostler, 1987). This is reflected  in the long Arabic sentences where each consists of many ideas  (7-9 ) connected with commas or ‘and’ in contrast to a combination of coordination and subordination in English depending on the context and the importance of ideas. Regardless of the language we choose, I think, there is agreement among researchers and scholars that writing is a complex skill that needs a lot of practice by the student and efficient guidance by a knowledgeable tutor. As Sharples (999) says,

There is no single best way to write because writing interacts with almost every mental, physical, and social activity. The path to successful writing involves understanding the many different ways that minds engage with the world to create text (xi)

In conclusion,  I agree with Sharples that writing is not a matter of having original ideas only but of having the capacity of expressing these ideas in just the right manner, to be communicative and exciting.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

Name_____________________________________________________________________
                        (First name)                                                   (Family)
Age______School at the L. U._____________________________________ Year ______
Nationality______________ Sex ______________________________________________
1. First Language___________________________________________________________
2. Second Language (s) ______________________________________________________
3. Language (s) spoken at home_______________________________________________
4. Number of years you have studied English ____________________________________
5. Number of years you have studied Arabic ____________________________________
6. (a) Name of the high school which you have graduated from _____________________
          _____________________________________________________________________
     (b) Medium of instruction _________________________________________________
7. EEE or TOFEL Score ___________ Where ___________________________________
8. Field of specialization _____________________________________________________
10. Name of your instructor in the first year ____________________________________
11. Number of books read in English last 12 months other than textbooks ___________
12. Number of books read in Arabic last 12 months other than textbooks ___________
13. Number of books read in other languages (specify) ___________________________
14. Number of minutes/hours spent on writing in English per day/ week/ month other   
      writing assignments _____________________________________________________
15. Number of minutes/hours spent on writing in Arabic per day/ week/ month other   
      writing assignments _____________________________________________________
16. Number of minutes/hours spent on writing in other languages (specify) __________
      _______________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. How do you write in Arabic?
1. Do you brainstorm first?
2. How do you organize your ideas? according to  a certain logical order, order of importance, chronologically…etc.
3. How many drafts do you write? Do you draft and re-draft? How often?
4. How often do you do self-correction?
2. How  do you write in English?
1. Do you brainstorm first?
2.  How do you organize your ideas? according to  a certain logical order, order of importance, chronologically…etc.
3. How many drafts do you write? Do you draft and re-draft? How often?
4. How often do you do self-correction?

     
      3.   Is it easier to write in English or in Arabic?

1. Why?
2. What problems do you face when you write in Arabic? Name some of them.
3. What problems do you face when you write in English? Name some of them.

4.   How often do you write in Arabic?

5.   How often do you write in English?

APPENDIX C.

 TABLE I
PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES /BIO-DATA
TABLE I

Abbreviations used

S.T.S.S.  Shanulian Tatikian Secondary School

A.S.S.   Antoine Sisters School

C.S.R.   College des Soeur du Rosaire (Public School)

APPENDIX D

ESSAYS

Students wrote the third essay which was argumentative in June and it was part of the final exam. With respect to the argumentative essay, students had samples of three reading selections discussed and analyzed in class. The points related to the  argument for were written on one side getting feedback from the students and the counter argument( or points against the main argument) on the other side of the board. Students were trained how to refute the argument giving  concrete evidence to support their points of view. In the exam, students were given an argumentative text which could be used for choosing additional ideas to support their argument whether for or against.  There was some change in methodology and instructions given.  The comprehension text given had the same essay theme which was  “Merciful Killing” .Students were given the following instructions:

            Arthur D. Silk states that “life’s final drama” should not be subject to legislation (passing laws approving or disapproving of certain actions), but should be handled by an unwritten agreement between family members and the attending physician.
            Write a well-organized essay of 3-4 unified body paragraphs arguing for or against legislating  death using reasons, examples and/or illustrations, quoting authorities…to support your point of view.
            Consider the point raised by Dr. Silk that the economic realities of health care costs for the terminally ill raise the possibility of legislation that threatens to shorten life for those completely dependent on Medicare. What is the difference between the right to die and the duty to die? What are the moral, emotional, social, and economic obligations of individuals to society? Try to answer some of these questions whether you argue for the legislation of death or against it.

REFERENCES

Al-Jabouri, A. J. R. (1984) “The Role of Arabic Repetition in Argumentative Discourse” in Swales, J. and Mustafa, M. (eds.) English for Scientific Purposes in the Arab World, Language Studies Unit, Bermingham, University of Aston. pp. 99-117
Dudely-Evans, T., and Swales, J. (1980) ‘Stydy Modes and Students from the Middle East’, ELT Documents 109, The British Council, London.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R.,(1976), Cohesion in English, Great Britain, Longman Group Ltd.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1993) “Quantitative Studies and Probabilities in Grammar” in Hoey, M. (ed.) Data, Discription, Discourse, PP. 1-25.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966),’Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-cultural Education’Language Teaching, vol. Xvi, nos. 3 & 4.
Khalil, A(1986), ‘A Study of Cohesion and Coherence in Arab EFL College Students’ Writing”, A paper presented at the Fifth Annual Linguistics Conference, Yarmouk
University, Jordan, April, PP. 359-371.
Koch, B. J. (1981), Repetition in Cohesion and Persuasion in Arabic, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Ostler, S. E. (19 87). “ English in parallels: a comparison of English and Arabic prose.” in Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. B., editors, Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text.
Saa’deddin, M.A.(1991), ‘Writing Across Language Communities: The Structure of Arabic Text’, Kuwait, University of Kuwait.
Sharples, M. (1999), How We Write, London, Sharples.
Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. “Discourse and Culture” in T. A. Van Dyk
Module 3: Sociolinguistics/Discourse Analysis, (2001) “Clause Relations”, Continuing Professional Development, University of Leicester, Leicester.