APPENDIX B
126
APPENDIX (B1)
Results of the Study:
Art.
Pattern
Thesis
#
Placement
1. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
2. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
3. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
4. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
5. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
6. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
7. Prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
8. Sit. – Prob. – sol/conc.
(m)
9. Prob. – sol/conc.
(f)
10. Prob. – sol/conc.
(i)
11. Sit. – prob. – sol. – conc.
(i)
12. Sit. – prob. – sol. – conc.
(i)
13. Sit. – prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
14. Sit. – prob. – sol. – conc.
(i)
15. Sit. – prob. – sol. – conc.
(f)
16. Prob. – conc.
(i)
17. Prob. – conc.
(i)
18. Prob. – conc.
(i)
19. Prob. – conc.
(i)
20. Prob. – conc.
(f)
21. Prob. - conc.
(f)
22. Sit. – prob. – conc.
(i)
23. Prob. – sol – prob. – sol – conc.
(i)
24. Prob. – sol. – prob. – sol.- conc.
(i)
25. Sit. – prob. – sol – prob. – sol- conc (i)
26. Prob. – sol – prob. - conc.
(i)
Pattern
#
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Article
Title
‫االعتراف بالحق العربي مؤجال‬
‫العودة للزمن الردئ‬
‫العرب والمستقبل حاضرون أم غائبون‬
‫من يسرق مساعدات دارفور‬
‫من يدافع عن األقصي‬
‫الجامعة المصرية والتطوير‬
‫امتحاناتنا الجامعية هل أهدرنا دورها‬
‫االنقالب الخطير‬
‫مواجهة اسرائيل بعيدا عن ساحات القتال‬
‫األبحاث والروتين‬
‫الدغدغة ومجانية التعليم‬
‫المميز والموازي‬
‫التعليم العالي واالنتاج‬
‫التصنيع بديل للتعليم‬
‫قاعدة صواريخ الشتائم‬
‫وانتصر الجميع في لبنان‬
‫أوروبا كأمريكا ليست بردا وال سالما علي لبنان‬
‫محاكمة صدام حسين انتهاك للقوانين الدولية‬
‫نزع سالح حزب هللا مغالطات وتبريرات‬
‫مقاومة اسرائيل بال عروبة وال إسالم‬
‫لماذا يدافعون عن اإلخوان؟‬
‫في المسألة التعليمية‬
‫التطوير الحقيقي لكليات التربية‬
‫جبهات الصراع الجديدة في العالم العربي‬
‫تحرير اإلرادة العربية من المقوالت الفاسدة‬
7002 ‫الوطن الفلسطيني بعد أحداث يونيو‬
Pattern
Percentage
Prob. – Sol – Conc.
Prob. – Conc.
Sit – Prob. – Sol –Conc.
Prob. – Sol – Prob. – Sol – Conc.
Sit – Prob. – Sol – Prob. – Sol – Conc.
Sit – Prob. – Conc.
Prob. – Sol / Conc.
Prob. – Sol – Prob. – Conc.
(7) = 27 % + 5 (sit) = 46%
(6) = 23 % + 1 (sit) = 27%
(5) = 19.23%
(2) = 7.7 %
(1) = 3.8 %
(1) = 3.8 %
(2) = 7.7 %
(1) = 3.8%
Thesis Placement:
4 out of 26 articles have final thesis placement, one medium and the rest are initial
127
128
129
APPENDIX C
130
131
Table of the Problem, Solution and Conclusion slots in each article
Article Topic Argument construction
Solution
#
within the Problem slot
1
Pol. *
Posteriori
Advice/Recommendation
Analogy
2
Pol.
Polarization
Call for confrontation
3
4
5
Pol.
Pol.
Pol.
6
7
Edu.*
Edu.
8
Edu.
9
10
11
Pol.
Edu
Edu.
12
13
14
15
Edu.
Edu.
Edu.
Pol.
16
Pol.
17
Pol
18
19
Pol.
Pol.
20
21
22
23
24
Pol.
Pol.
Edu.
Edu.
Pol.
25
26
Pol.
Pol.
*
Polarization
Explication
Explication
Recommendation
Recommendation
Suggestions
recommendations
Recommendation
Q–A
Misconception
Q – A*
Explication
Priori
Suggestion
Posteriori
Q – MA*
Advice
Explication
Implicit solutions
Explication
R.Q.
Counter- Op. *
Q–A
Explication
Recommendation
Explication
Recommendation
Posteriori
Suggestions
Analogy
Suggestions
Counter-Op.
Paradox
---------------------Explication
Explication
------------------Counter-Op.
Explication
-----------------------Counter-Op.
--------------------Q–A
Counter-Op.
Implicit solutions
Explication
-------------------------Polarization
Implicit solution
Explication
Suggestions
Explication
Suggestions
Q–A
Misconception
Recommendation
Posteriori
Recommendation
Counter-Op.
Pol. = Political, Edu.= Educational
Conclusion
Quotation & a wish
Reiteration
of
thesis
recommendation for change
Recommendation & R.Q. *
A plea
and R.Q.
A plea
Evaluation of solution
It is the solution
It is the solution
Recommendation with proverb
Reiteration
of
thesis,
recommendation
A warning
Recommendation
A warning
Lyrical lines
R.Q.
Restatement of the general thesis
Restatement of the general thesis
A general comment
The general thesis
The general thesis
Recommendation
A wish
Recommendation
Reiteration of solution
Reiteration of thesis
Q – A = Question-Answer, Q-MA = Question- Multiple answer
R.Q. = Rhetorical Question, Counter Op. = Counter Opinion
132
and
APPENDIX D
133
Table of types of background data/information used in each article
Art.
#
News
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
#3
#5
#9
#7
# 3,
Background Data/ Information
Chunks where they appeared in every article
News
Current
Historical
General
interviews
events
events
information
#6&7
# 10
# 4, 7, 9
#2
#7
# 4 & 12
#9
# 2, 4
# 2, 5
#1
#2
# 7, 8
# 1, 4, 5
#1
# 1, 3
#6
#2
# 4, 8, 10, 11
# 7, 10, 12
# 2, 3, 7
#1
#1
#4
#5
# 13
#1
#1
# 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
# 6, 8, 13
# 3, 9, 10
# 10, 11
#1
# 1, 4
# 4, 10, 11
#2
# 11
#6
#7
#8
It seems that background data/information argument form has the largest percentage among
other argument forms it appears in 88.5 % of the articles. It also appears in all the slots of the
articles.
134
Table of places of rhetorical questions in each article
Art.
#
Sit.
3
5
8
10
11
15
16
20
23
24
25
Rhetorical Questions
Where they appeared in every article
Problem
Solution
Conclusion
Chunk # 13: Asserts
the importance of
the issue
# 1: General thesis
#
7:
reiterates
general thesis
# 4, 9: asserts the problem
#3
# 11
#3
# 7: restatement of
the thesis
# 6, 7: asserts specific thesis
# 7: asserts his viewpoint
# 16: to support
his suggestion
# 5: seeking a solution
# 8: asserts her view
The rhetorical questions appear in about 42 % of the articles in different slots except the
situation slot.
Table of places of statistical/documentary data within the articles
Art.
#
4
7
8
18
Statistical / Documentary Data
Where they appeared in every article
Situation Problem Solution Conclusion
# 2, 3, 7
#3
#1
# 2, 3, 4, 5
The statistical/documentary data are used in about 15 % of the articles, and they appear mainly
in the problem slot.
135
Table of places of hypothetical questions within the articles
Art.
#
4
7
9
11
15
19
23
26
Hypothetical Questions
Where they appeared in every article
Situation Problem Solution Conclusion
#4
# 4, 6
# 1, 4
#8
#5
#3
# 14
#6
The hypothetical questions appear in the articles with a percentage of about 31%. They are
evident mainly in the problem slot.
Table of places of quotations/proverbs/common sayings within the articles
Art.
#
Situation
8
10
23
25
Quotations/ Proverbs/ Common Sayings
Chunks where they appeared in every article
Problem
Solution Conclusion
# 7: quotation
# 12: proverb
# 3: common saying
# 6: poetic lines
# 12: quotation
# 7: quotation
The quotations/proverbs/common sayings appear in about 15 % of the articles. They appear
only in the problem and conclusion slots.
Table of places of simile/metaphor within the articles
Art.
#
14
15
16
23
25
Simile / Metaphor
Chunks where they appeared in every article
Situation
Problem
Solution
Conclusion
# 1: incident
#1: fable
# 7: lyrical lines
# 1: idiom
# 2,3,4& 6
# 5: simile
The simile and metaphor are used within the articles in different slots with a percentage of
about 19%.
136
References
Abdul-Raof, H. (2006). Arabic rhetoric: A pragmatic analysis. London & New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Al-Jubouri, A. J. R. (1984). The role of repetition in Arabic argumentative discourse. In J.
Swales and H. Mustafa (Eds.), English for specific purposes in the Arab world (pp. 99117). Birmingham, UK: The Language Study Unit. University of Aston.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (G.A. Kennedy, trans.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Aston, G. (1977). Comprehending value: Aspects of the structure of argumentative discourse.
Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata, 6: 465-509.
Bell, A. (1995). Language and the media. Annual review of applied linguistics, 15: 23-41.
Bliss, A. (2001). Rhetorical structures for multilingual and multicultural students. In C. Panetta
(Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 15-30). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Choi, Y-H. (1988a). Text structure in Korean students' argumentative writing in English. World
Englishes, 7: 129-142.
Choi, Y-H. (1988b). Textual coherence in English and Korean: An analysis of argumentative
writing by American and Korean students. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of
Pragmatics, 11: 211-247.
Connor , U. and Takala, S. (1984). Argumentative patterns in student compositions: An
exploratory study. Paper presented at The Eighteenth Annual TESOL Convention,
Houston, March.
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U.
Connor and R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 57-71).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Connor, U. (1988). A contrastive study of persuasive business correspondence: American and
Japanese. In S. J. Bruno (Ed.), Global implications for business communications: Theory,
technology, and practice. 1988 proceedings 53rd national and 15th international
convention of the association for business communication (pp. 57-72). Houston, TX:
School of Business and Public Administration, University of Houston – Clear Lake.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. and Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. C.
Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp.
138-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Corbett, E. P. J. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford
University Press.
de Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ducrot, O., Bourcier, D. and Bruxelles, S. (1980). Les mots du discours. Paris: Editions de
Minuit.
Dudley-Evans, T. and Jo St John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary
approach. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. and Swales, J. (1980). Study modes and students from the Middle East. ELT
Documents, 109, The British Council, London.
Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective
communication. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis
of L2 text (pp. 153-168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
El-Hadidi, A. M. (1996). Fann al-maqāl fī ḍawʼ al-naqd al-adabī. Egypt: ʻA.al-L.M.al-S. alḤadīdī
137
Enkvist, N. E. (1987). Linguistic stylistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Goodman, K. S. (1970). Reading: A psychological guessing game. In H. Singer and R. B.
Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes in reading (pp. 497-508). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Grabe, W. (1987). Contrastive rhetoric and text-type research. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan
(Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 115-137). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. M.
Johnson and D. H. Roen (Eds.). Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263283). New York: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hassan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in
a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.
Hatim, B. (1989a). Argumentative style across cultures: Linguistic form as the realization of
rhetorical function. In H. Paris, R. Kolmel and J. Payne (Eds.). Babel: The cultural and
linguistic barriers between nations (pp. 25-32). Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press.
Hatim, B. (1989b). Text linguistics in the didactics of translation: The case of the verbal and
nominal clauses types in Arabic. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 27 (2): 136144.
Hatim, B. (1990). A model of argumentation from Arabic rhetoric: Insights for a theory of text
types. Bulletin: British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, 17 (1): 47-54.
Hatim, B. (1991). The pragmatics of argumentation in Arabic: The rise and fall of a text type.
Text, 11 (2): 189-199.
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across cultures: Translation theory and contrastive text
linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader vs. writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan
(Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean,
Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor and A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research
and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-109). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia: USA.
Hines, C. (2000). Go, pat, go! … Far away and quickly. Houston Chronicle Aug. 13, 2000.
Hoey, M. (1979). Singling in discourse. Discourse Analysis Monographs, Birmingham: ELR,
University of Birmingham.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London:
Routledge.
Holes, C. (1984). Textual approximation in the teaching of academic writing to Arab students:
A contrastive approach. In J. Swales and H. Mustafa (Eds.), English for specific purposes
in the Arab world (pp. 228-242). Birmingham, UK: The Language Study Unit. University
of Aston.
Horing, A. S. (1993). The psycholinguistics of readable writing: A multidisciplinary
exploration. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hottel-Burkhart, N. G. (2000). The canons of Aristotelian rhetoric: Their place in contrastive
Arabic-English studies. In Z. Ibrahim, S. Aydelnott and N. Kassabgy (Eds.), Diversity in
language: Contrastive studies in English and Arabic theoretical and applied linguistics
(pp. 93-110). Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.
Hulteng, J. L. (1973). The opinion function: editorial and interpretive writing for the news
media. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Jabr, A. (2001). Arab translators problems at the discourse level. Babel, 47 (4): 304-322.
138
Jordan, M. P. (1984). Rhetoric of everyday English texts. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kachru, Y. (1988). Writers in Hindi and English. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across
languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 109-137). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Kachru, Y. (1989). Language and cultural means: Expository writing in South Asian English.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Illinois.
Kamel, S. A. (2000). Categories of comprehension in argumentative discourse: A crosslinguistic study. In Z. Ibrahim, S. Aydelnott and N. Kassabgy (Eds.), Diversity in
language: Contrastive studies in English and Arabic theoretical and applied linguistics
(pp. 193-235). Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning,
16: 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric.
Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan (Eds.),
Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory
of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures:
Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kenkel, J. M. (1991). Argumentation pragmatics, text analysis, and contrastive rhetoric.
Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services.
Khalil, E. (2000). Grounding in English and Arabic news discourse. Philadelphia, PA, USA:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Koch, B. J. (1981). Repetition in discourse: cohesion and persuasion in Arabic argumentative
prose. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Kummer, W. (1972). Aspects of a theory of argumentation. In E. Gülich and W. Raible (Eds.),
Text sorten (pp.25-49). Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies.
TESOL Quarterly, 25 (1): 123-143.
Liu, J. J. (2007). Placement of the thesis statement in English and Chinese argumentative
essays: A study of contrastive rhetoric. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 4 (1): 122-139.
Matsuda, P. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 6 (1): 45-60.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts.
English for specific purposes, 12: 3-22.
Newsom, D. and Wollert, J. A. (1988). Media writing: preparing information for the mass
media. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Ostler, S. E. (1987). English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. In U.
Connor and R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 169185). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pandharapande, R. (1982). English and Marathi. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Annual review of
applied linguistics, 3: 118-136.
Panetta, C. G. (2001). Understanding cultural differences in the rhetoric and composition
classroom: Contrastive rhetoric as answer to ESL dilemmas. In C. Panetta (Ed.),
Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 3-13). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Purves, A. C. (1988). Introduction. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and
cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 9-21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Qudama ibn Ja'far (1982). Naqd al-nathr. Beirut, Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya.
139
Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moeschler, J., Rubattel, C. and Schelling, M. (1985). L'articulation du
discours en français contemporain. Berne, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English
composition. College Composition and Communication, 40 (4): 459-466.
SLAC (2003). Thesis statements. Student Learning Assistance Center (SLAC). Texas State
University - San Marcos.
Smith, M. W. (2005). Students as contrastive rhetoricians: Examining ESL student perceptions
of L1 and L2 rhetorical conventions. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT, 12: 79-98.
Struever, N. (1992). Classical rhetorical topics and contemporary historical discourse.
Argumentation, 6: 337-347.
Swales, J. and Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative
speakers of English. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Corpus, comparison, culture: Doing the same things differently in
different cultures. In M. Ghadessy, R. Roseberry and A. Henry (Eds.), Small corpus
studies and ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 311-334). Philadelphia, PA, USA: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tirkkenon-Condit, S. (1985). Argumentative text structure and translation. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. and Lieflander-Koistinen, L. (1989). Argumentation in Finnish versus
English and German editorials. In M. Kusch and H. Schroder (Eds.), Text-interpretationargumentation (pp. 173-181). Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vähäpassi, A. (1988). The problem of selection of writing tasks in cross-cultural study. In A. C.
Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp.
51-78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1988). Media as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell and P. Garrett (Eds.),
Approaches to media discourse (pp. 21-63). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Werlich, E. (1976). A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.
Wilber, R. and Miller, R. (2003). Modern media writing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning
Williams, M. P. (1984). A problem of cohesion. In J. Swales and H. Mustafa (Eds.), English for
specific purposes in the Arab world (pp. 118-128). Birmingham, UK: The Language
Study Unit. University of Aston.
140