Free Essay

Narrative Texts

In:

Submitted By alykhedr71
Words 10090
Pages 41
http://rel.sagepub.com/
RELC Journal http://rel.sagepub.com/content/31/2/45 The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/003368820003100203
RELC Journal 2000 31: 45
Ayisha H. Mohamed and Majzoub R. Omer
Texts
Texture and Culture: Cohesion as a Marker of Rhetorical Organisation in Arabic and English Narrative
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for RELC Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/31/2/45.refs.html
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
45
TEXTURE AND CULTURE: COHESION AS A MARKER OF
RHETORICAL ORGANISATION IN ARABIC AND ENGLISH
NARRATIVE TEXTS
AYISHA H. MOHAMED
Police Training College in Abu Dhabi and MAJZOUB R. OMER
College of Girls’ Education in Tabuk
Abstract
This paper claims that the differences at the cultural level between the Arabic-speaking and the English-speaking communities have a direct effect on the rhetorical organisation of Arabic and English texts as evident in the different ways in which cohesive devices are used.
It is suggested that the two speech communities differ along the following cultural dimensions: oralised v. literate, collectivism v. individualism, high-contact v. low-contact, and reader-responsible v. writer-responsible. In order to test the influence of these cultural differences on the use of cohesive devices on written texts produced in the two languages, translationally-equivalent parallel texts comprising three Arabic short stories and their English translations, as well as a contextually-equivalent parallel texts consisting of three
Arabic short stories and three English short stories (unrelated by translation) were analysed in terms of the cohesive devices that they used. This analysis revealed that Arabic and English use different cohesive patterns. Arabic cohesion is characterised as context-based, generalised, repetition-oriented, and additive. In contrast, English cohesion is described as text-based, specified, change-oriented, and non-additive. It is argued that the cultural differences between the two speech communities are directly responsible for the different use of cohesive devices in the two languages.
Introduction
The contrastive Rhetoric Hypothesis states that texts written in different languages display culture-specific organisational patterns (cf. Kaplan, 1966,
1972, 1976; Grabe and Kaplan, 1988, 1996). Two main approaches have been used to test this statement: the ’global’ and the ’linguistic’ approaches
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
46
(Purves, 1988). In the first approach, texts produced in different languages have been compared with reference to their global semantic structure, noticeably the ways propositions are developed (Clyne, 1987; Kachru, 1988,
Hinds, 1990). In the second approach, written texts are compared with reference to the observable discourse-sensitive linguistic forms (e.g. Cohesive devices), on the assumption that differences at this level reflect differences at the culturally-coded rhetorical level of text organisation (e.g. Tsao, 1983;
Holes, 1984; Johnstone, 1987; Mohamed, 1993; Mohamed and Omer,1999).
This study adopts the second approach. It aims at investigating the influence of culture on text texture by comparing written Arabic and English texts in terms of the cohesive devices they use. Previous studies in this area have reported some differences in the organisational patterns of Arabic and
English texts (cf. Al-Jubouri, 1984; Aziz, 1988; Khalil 1989; Ostler, 1987).
However, these studies have not provided a satisfactory explanation for these differences. This study aims at filling this gap. It claims that cultural differences between the Arabic-speaking and English-speaking communities are directly responsible for differences in the use of cohesive devices by writers in the two speech communities.
This paper proceeds along the following lines. First, it identifies those cultural differences between the two speech communities that are believed to determine the differences at the level of cohesion (section 2). Secondly, it describes the method adopted in the analysis of the texts used in this study.
This involves describing the types of text analysed and cohesion model which forms the basis for the textual analysis (section 3). Thirdly, it identifies, on the basis of the textual analysis, the different types of cohesive devices used by the writers in the two languages (section 4). Finally, the study explicitly relates the cultural differences to the different cohesive devices used in the two languages.
Differences in Culture
One of the main assumptions in contrastive rhetoric is that writing - as an important form of human communication - is embedded in a culture (Connor,
1996). Because of the close interrelationship between culture and communication, scholars have categorised different speech communities along the lines of certain cultural dimensions with the aim of having a better understanding of intercultural communication (e.g. Anderson, 1994; Hall,
1976; Hofstede, 1980, 1983). Jandt, (1995) presents a comprehensive review
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
47
of several contrastive cultural dimensions, showing how speech communities differ along these dimensions and pointing to the impact of these cultural differences on cross-cultural communication.
In this section, the Arabic-speaking community and the English-speaking community (mainly the UK and the USA) are contrasted in terms of the following cultural dimensions: oralised v. literate; collectivist v. individualist; high-contact v. low-contact; high-context v. low-context; reader-responsible
v. writer-responsible.
Oralised v. literate z This dimension refers to the different amount of oral residue that different cultures allow in written discourse. Within this context, it is suggested that the Arabic culture allows a greater amount of oral residue in its written discourse than the English culture. The persistence of oralisation in written
Arabic texts is due to three main factors: the influence of the Qur’ an, classical
Arabic poetry and oratory, the role of oral tradition in the transmission of knowledge, and the literacy policies involved in the teaching of Arabic writing within the Arabic educational system.
First, the Qur’ an (together with classical poetry and oratory) represents the ultimate standard in written Arabic style (Jandt, 1995). Of course, the
Qur’an was initially revealed to the Prophet orally, and was only written down later in its original oral style without any changes. Since the Qur’an has continued to represent the epitome of Arabic style, it is therefore natural that written Arabic texts - even today - exhibit several elements of its oral style. Secondly, oral tradition in the Arab culture has assumed a central role in the transmission of knowledge even if that knowledge was initially embodied in written from. Thus, the most influential books in the Arab-
Islamic culture have always been accompanied by oral explanations which have been handed down from one generation to another. This shows the high value attached to oral communication in this culture.
Naser (1992) sums up this point as follows:
As a result of the influence of the Qur’ anic revelation and also other factors related to the rise of the whole Islamic educational
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
48
system, the significance of the oral tradition and memory as a vehicle for the transmission of knowledge came to complement the written word contained in books...such books became more than simply the written text. Rather, they came to accompany and in a sense became immersed in the spoken word, through an oral teaching transmitted from master to student and stored in the memory of those destined to be the recipients of the knowledge in question. Such books were not exclusively written texts whose reality was exhausted by the words inscribed in ink upon parchment (1992: 12).
Thirdly, the teaching of Arabic writing has been entrusted to the Islamic clergy whose main aim in the educational process is to preserve the Qur’ anic high poetry, and classical oratory. Hence, the teaching of writing is firmly anchored in the imitation of the oral style embodied in these texts through constant repetition and memorisation. It is therefore natural that Arab writers who are the product of such an educational system would produce written texts in which they emulate the oralised style of writing they learnt at school.
In this way, the policy of literacy in the modern Arab world serves to preserve and reinforce the tradition of using elements of oral communication in written discourse. In contrast to Arabic writing, the influence of oral tradition on English writing has long ceased to exist. While the Qur’an has continued to exert its influence on written Arabic to this day, the influence of the English translation of the Old Testament on written English does not extend beyond the 17 Ih century (Kaplan, 1966). Further, the methods of teaching writing in the English culture have taken a different course. In the absence of a desired stylistic model to follow, imitation through memorisation and repetition has had a minimal role in the teaching process. Instead, the emphasis has been on teaching the functional aspects of writing, as determined by factors such as genre type, purpose, audience, etc. In this way, English writing has developed its own conventions, different from those in oral communication. In addition to distinguishing between ’oral’ and ’literate’ cultures, some scholars have discussed the effect this distinction has on human communication. Ong (1979, 1982) identifies the following differences between communication in ’oral’ and literate’ cultures:
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
49
(a) Because information retrieval in oral cultures is memory-bound (as opposed to memory-free in literate cultures), information tends to be packaged in memory-aiding forms characterised by a high degree of formal parallelism. In contrast, the memory-free communication context in literate societies is marked by a greater degree of phonological, lexical, and syntactic variation.
(b) Propositional development is predominantly ’additive’ in oral cultures, while it is mainly ’subordinative’ in literate cultures.
(c) Communication is largely context-based in oral cultures, while it is predominantly text-based (text-sensitive) in literate cultures. This is due to the greater measure of ’distance’ between discourse participants in literate societies.
(d) Communication is mainly ’aggregative’ in oral cultures, while it is largely ’analytic’ in literate societies.
Collectivism v. individualism
Jandt (1995) defines the elements of this dimension as follows:
This dimension refers to how people define themselves and their relationships with others. One difference is reflected in who is taken into account when you set goals. In individualist cultures, goals are set with minimal consideration given to groups other than perhaps your nuclear family. In collectivist cultures, other groups are taken into account in a major way when goals are set.
Individualist cultures are loosely integrated, collectivist cultures are tightly integrated (1995: 192-193).
According to Jandt (1995), the English speaking countries (e.g. the USA,
Great Britain) have a high level of individualism, while the Arab countries have a high level of collectivism. Mohamed (1993) uses the same terms to distinguish between the two cultures. This difference between the two cultural groups is evident in all aspects of life: nuclear family as opposed to extended family, individual ownership as opposed to group ownership
(accommodation, food, other utilities), loose social ties as opposed to close social ties, etc.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
50
High Contact v. low-contact
This cultural contrast is based on Richmond and McCroskey’s (1989) dimension of ’immediacy’, which they define as the degree of spatial and psychological closeness between members of a community. High-contact cultures are characterised by a high degree of spatial and psychological closeness, while low-contact cultures are characterised by a low degree of physical and psychological closeness. Jandt (1995) labels the Arabian culture as high-contact while he labels the English-speaking culture as low-contact.
High-context v. low-context
Jandt (1995) defines these elements as follows:
Cultures in which little of the meaning is determined by the context are labled low context. Cultures in which more of the meaning is determined by the context are labeled high context (1995: 201 ).
Jandt (1995) goes on to label the Arabian culture as high context while the US culture is labelled as low context. Because of the importance of context in high-context cultures (such as the Arab culture), communication in such cultures tends to be indirect or implicit and often relies on intermediaries.
Reader-responsible v. writer-responsible
This distinction was popularised by Hinds (1987), who uses it to refer to the different ways in which different cultures attach varying degrees of responsibility to the writer and reader in the communication act. According to Hinds (1987), some cultures (such as English) attach greater responsibility to the writer (writer-responsible), while others (e.g. Japanese) attach greater responsibility to the reader (reader-responsible). One consequence of this distinction is that texts produced in reader-responsible cultures are more tolerant of ambiguity, imprecision of statements, and absence of clearly stated discourse organisers than texts produced in writer-responsible cultures.
Mohamed (1993) presents evidence to suggest that the Arab culture is readerresponsible while English culture is writer-responsible.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
51
Method of texts analysis
Types of text analyse
To investigate the effect of the cultural contrasts discussed above on the type of cohesion devices used in Arabic and English, twelve narrative texts written in the two languages were compared in terms of cohesion.
The selection of this genre type is based on the assumption that narrative discourse is perhaps less subject to intercultural influence than other genre types often used in contractive rhetrric studies (e.g academic writing). Two types of text equivalents were analysed: translationally-equivalent parallel texts (TEPTs) and contextually-equivalent parallel texts (CEPTs). The difference between the two types of text equivalents is that the correspondence is intentionally created by translation in the former type while it happens accidentally because of similarity of context in the latter type (Durmusoglu,1983; Hartmann, 1980).
Three pairs of TEPTs were analysed: three Arabic short stories and their
English translations. The English translations were produced by professional translators who are also native speakers of English .It is assumed that the translations were produced in the appropriate English style suitable for an English readership. The details of the TEPTs used in the study are as follows:
Because of the possibility of transferring the rhetorical style of the source language into the target languages (James, 1983), six CEPTs were also analysed . These consist of three Arabic short stories and three English short stories (unrelated by translation):
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
52
Model of analysis
The model of cohesion on the basis of which the texts were analysed is largely based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. In addition, the model incorporates other cohesive categories commonly used in Arabic: the repetition of whole clauses or sentences. Two types of repetition can be identified at this level: repetition of sense and repetition of form. In the first kind of repetition, synonymous or near-synonymous clauses or sentences
(which may or may not be similar in form) are repeated across different parts of the text. The effect is cohesive at the propositional level. Frequently, such repetition of clauses is accompanied by the repetition of the external context in which the clauses are used.
The second type of repetition refers to the repetition of adjacent clauses or sentences which have identical or similar syntactic and phonological forms.
This type of repetition is often referred to as ’formal parallelism’ (e.g. Quirk et al. 1972; James, 1983; al-Jubouri, 1984). The emphasis here is on formal rather than semantic similarity.
Gutwinski (1976) uses the term &dquo;enation&dquo; to refer to this kind of repetition.
He quotes Gleason (1956) who defines ’enation’ as follows:
Two sentences may be said to be enate if they have identical structures, that is, if the elements (say, words) at equivalent places in the sentences are of the same classes , and if constructions in which they occur are the same (1965:199).
According to Gutwinski (1976), ’enation’ (which may be complete or partial) functions cohesively often in conjunction with lexical cohesion, and may be reinforced by other features of grammatical cohesion.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
53
Enkvist (1973) uses the term ’iconic linkage’ to refer to this process. By this term he means:
....Those situations in which two or more sentences cohere because they are at some level of abstraction, isomorphic (or more popularly, &dquo;pictures of each other&dquo;) (1973:123).
In his definition of iconic linkage’, Enkavist emphasises both syntactic and phonological similarities. Thus, instances of rhythmic and metrical regularities, rhyme, alliteration, and consonance all qualify as instances of
’iconic linkage’.
Text analysis: cohesive contrasts
The analysis of the texts showed that Arabic and English differ along four dimensions of cohesive contrasts: context-based v. text-based; generalised (implicit) v. specified (explicit); repetition-oriented v. changeoriented
; additive v. non-additive. On the basis of the analysis, Arabic cohesion is described as context-based, generalised, repetition-oriented, and additive, while English cohesion is characterised as text-based, specified, change-oriented, and non-additive. These cohesive categories are discussed and illustrated in this section with examples from both CEPTs and the TEPTs.
To avoid difficulties in reading the Arabic script, the illustrative Arabic examples are rendered in literal English translation, preserving the types of cohesive devices used in the Arabic texts. However, where necessary, the
Arabic examples are also rendered in transliteration, following Hans Wehr’ss
(1976) system. In the case of TEPTs, the examples are given in pairs, with
’A’ indicating Arabic originals and ’E’ their English translations.
Context-based v. text-based
This cohesive contrast refers to the varying degree of significance the two languages attach to ’context’ in the signalling and interpretation of cohesive relations. In this study, differences along this dimension are illustrated by the different ways the two languages use anaphoric pronouns or repeated nouns as reference items. Briefly, Arabic sometimes uses a pronoun as a cohesive device even if it has more that one possible antecedent
(e.g. The uncle/The boy&dquo;he). In such cases, an Arabic reader has to use contextual intermediaries to identify the intended referent of the pronoun.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
54
Hence, the term context-based to describe this aspect of Arabic cohesion.
Two types of contextual intermediaries can be used: the external situational and cultural context and the internal linguistic context. The latter can be located in the immediate vicinity of the pronoun or it can be located in other distant parts of the text.
In contrast, English generally uses a pronoun as a reference item only if it has one possible antecedent (e.g. The uncle/The boy &dquo;he). If there are two possible antecedents which can be referred to by the same pronominal form, an English writer repeats the noun to avoid ambiguity in identifying the intended referent (e.g. The uncle/The boy&dquo;The uncle). In this way, an
English reader does not need to go beyond the cohesive item itself (a pronoun or repeated noun) to identify the referent. Hence, the term text-based to describe this aspect of English cohesion.
The first five examples below (taken from the CEPTs) illustrate the difference between the two languages with regard to this cohesive contrast.
The first four examples (taken from AS 1) clearly illustrate the context-based nature of Arabic cohesion as described above, while the fifth example (taken from ES3) demonstrates the text-based nature of English cohesion:
1. AS 1: ... and she (1) turned to him (2), so he stretched his arm and started to fasten the necklace patiently, although a hot blood was flowing in his veins, and his feelings excited, and She (3) started calling to him, to embrace her (4) between his arms.
There are two main characters in the story from which the above passage is taken: a young man (referred to as him (2) and his fianc6e (referred to as she (1) and her (4)). The problematic pronoun here is she (3). Does it refer to ’The man’sfiancée or to ‘his feelang,r’? This is because in Arabic both katibatuhu (his fiancee) and masa ’iruhu (his feelings) are feminine and are both referred to by the feminine pronoun hiya (literally translated as she in English). An Arab reader can use cultural intermediaries to identify
‘his feelings’ (rather than ’his fianc£e) as the referent of she(3). In the Arab culture, it is socially inappropriate for a woman to overtly express her desire to be embraced by her fianc6e. Indeed, a group of Arabic native speakers who were asked separately to identify the referent of the pronoun in question
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
55
all agreed that the intended referent is ’his feelings’, not ‘his fiancie, citing the culture-based argument stated above.
In addition to the external cultural context, an Arab reader can also use the internal linguistic context to identify ‘his feelings’ as the referent of the pronoun. This context is indeed available as evident in ’2’ below:
2. AS 1:
a.... and he was about to weaken and respond to the call of his inner-self b....his hidden feelings awakened, and his heart emitted a sound which started blaming him for not embracing her to him.
The emboldened clauses in ‘1’, ’2a’, and ’2b’ are cohesively related, both with regard to the propositions they express and the words used to express these propositions. Briefly stated, what the writer says about the referent
’his feelings’ in ’2a’ and ’2b’ is obviously closely related to what he says about the referent of she(3) in ‘1’. If so, then by association, ’his feelings’ must be the intended referent of she 3 in ‘1’. Note that in the Arabic text
’2a’ occurs in the vicinity of ’1’, while ’2b’ occurs in an earlier part of the text. The context-based nature of Arabic cohesion can be further illustrated with the following example:
3. AS 1: ... and he( 1 ) approached the palace; The Nubian doorman noticed him (2), and he(3) stood up, smiling, welcoming his(4) arrival, while his(5) eyes and white teeth gleamed on his(6) black face, and he(7) started going up the marble stairs slowly.
In ’3’ ’The young man’ is referred to as he( 1 ), him(2), and his(4), while
’The Nubian doorman’ is referred to as he(3), his(5), and his(6). But who does he(7) refer to? Does it refer to ’The young man’ or ’The Nubian doorman? While there may be situational and cultural clues which enable an Arab reader to identify ’The young man’ (rather than ’The Nubian doorman’) as the referent of he(7), the story contains clear contextual clues
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
56
elsewhere in the text which point to this interpretation, as can be seen in
’4’ below:
4. AS I
a. Then he started going up the expensive marble stairs, slowly and dignified.
b....and he reached the marble stairs, and then he started descending slowly...
As in the case of ’1’ and ’2a’ and ’2b’ above, the emboldened clauses in ’3’, ’4a’ and ’4b’ are cohesively connected by the repetition of a similar propositional content. In each clause, an individual (referred to as he) is described as carrying out similar actions in the same way. This suggests that the same individual is being referred to in the clauses. He in ’4a’ and
’4b’ refers to ’the young man’ (there is no other possible referent). If so, then, again by association, ’the young man’ (not ’the Nubian doorman’ ) must be the referent of he(7) in ‘3’ .
Now consider the English example below (taken from ES3), comparing it with the Arabic examples in ’1’ and ’3’ above:
5.ES3: As he( 1 ) neared Fourth Street, another man, a new one sprang up, suddenly before him(2), a short heavy-set fellow stepping out of the shadows and striding towards him(3). The man(4) passed without giving him(5) a second glance, but after the man(6) had gone by,
Walter(7) stopped and stepped back against a house wall watching his(8) progress down the street...
In this example, he(1), him(2) and him(3) refer to ’Walter’ (mentioned in the preceding discourse). When ’man’ is referred to at the beginning of the second sentence, the noun (rather then the pronoun) is used (man~~The man). The reason for the writer’s choice here is obvious: The man is unambiguous, while he could be taken to refer to ’Walter’, especially that all the preceding pronouns have been used for this purpose. The same can be said about the choice of The man (6) for the second time instead of he.
Him (5) refers to ‘Walter’ . Finally, the proper noun Walter is repeated (7) instead of using he, since this alternative (he) would have two possible referents. (’the mau’ or ‘Walter’ ). Note that once Walter is used, a pronoun
(his (8)) is used to refer to ’The man’ .
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
57
The example above shows that even though several instances of reference are made to two entities having the same semantic features (i.e.
+human, +male, +third person, +singular), an English reader will have no problem in identifying at any point in the discourse which of the two entities is being referred to. Furthermore, in doing so the reader relies on the reference items themselves (pronouns or repeated nouns) rather than any situational, cultural, or linguistic context. This clearly contrasts with the
Arabic examples in ’1’ and ’3’ above, where context plays a central role in identifying referents.
The contrast between the two languages along this cohesive dimension is also evident when we look at the following two examples, taken from pair 2 in the TEPTs. In each example, a context-based instance of Arabic cohesion in the Arabic original is replaced by a text-based instance of
English cohesion in the English translation:
6. A : His uncle said to him (1) once more...that a child like you will die...and without looking at him (2) he (3) repeated for the tenth time since the morning:
I am not a child.
E : His uncle has repeated to him once more...a child like you will die...without looking at his uncle (1), he (2) repeated for the tenth time that morning:
I am not a child
To whom does him (2) in the Arabic original refer: ’The uncle’ or ’The child’ (who is a male)? The linguistic context (I am not a child) indicates that he (3) refers to ’the child’. Therefore, him (2) refers to ’the uncle’.
In the English translation, the noun is repeated (the uncle). In this way, the reference item itself (rather than the context in which it is used) is used to interpret the reference relationship. The same difference between the two languages is seen in ’7’ below:
7. A : ...and at the following moment itself Abu Qassim saw... and
Qassim got down and he was seized by the arms and the colourful clothes, and from inside the car, nailed to his seat like a stone, he saw his wife.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
58
E: Just at thatAbu Qassim saw... Qassim got out and was seized amidst arms and clothes and embroidery. Inside the car, as if nailed to his seat like a stone, Abu Qassim saw his wife.
In the Arabic original, the reader uses situational context to identify &dquo;Abu
Qassim (and not his son, ’Qassim’), as the referent of he. ’Qassim’ had already got out of the car. Further, he is unmarried and therefore has no wife to look at. All this contextual information is not needed in the English translation. The referent is unambiguously identified by the repetition of the noun.
Generalised v. specified
This cohesive contrast has to do with the level of specificity in which cohesive relationships are established between anaphoric items and their antecedents, whether such antecedents are recoverable from the text
(endophoric reference), or whether they are recoverable from the external context (exophoric reference). In Arabic, the anaphoric expression The +N, which potentially refers to a type of referents (generic reference), is often used to refer to a token of that type (using, for instance, the eyes to refer back to the eyes of a particular person: the man &dquo;the eyes). In such cases, an Arab reader has to relate the eyes (which can refer to all eyes) to particular eyes ( ‘the man’s eyes’ ). Hence, the term ’generalised’ to describe this aspect of Arabic cohesion. In contrast, English relates an anaphoric item to its antecedent in a more specific (or direct) manner. In such contexts, English uses co-referential possessive pronouns instead of the definite article (e.g. the man &dquo;his eyes), thus establishing a specific connection between the anaphoric item and its antecedent. Hence, the term ’specified’ to describe this aspect of English cohesion.
The following two examples (taken from AS 1 and AS2 in the CEPTs) clearly illustrate the ’generalised’ nature of Arabic cohesion:
8. AS 1 : ... and he turned right, saluting, then he saw the beautiful legs.
9. AS2 : ... for she is his wife (reddening in the face) and she is young
(beating of the heart)....
An English translation of the italicised items above would render them as her beautiful legs, her face, and her heart respectively. Indeed, if we
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
59
look at the following five paired examples below (taken from the TEPT), we can see that every generic expression of the form the +N in the Arabic originals has been replaced in the English translation by the more specific form possessive pronoun +N:
10. A : The man was wearing the modem suit...the languor became firmly entrenched in the eyes.
E : The man wore a lounge suite. The languor became firmly entrenched in his eyes.
11. A....and your question about him brought me back to the most beautiful times of the youth.
E : ...and was only brought back to me those most exquisite times of my youth by your enquiring.
12. A : The gun’s leather strap was broken so his uncle tied instead of it a rope of fibre moistened with oil and blackened with the hands soiled with mud.
E : The gun’s strap was broken so his uncle had attached a fibre rope moistened with oil and blackened with his hand.
13. A : ... and she reached stoically towards the food.
E : ...and she reached stoically towards her food.
14. A : ... and in the next moment burst the trillings.
E : The next instant the women’s trillings had burst forth.
The examples in ’12’ and ’13’ above illustrate in the most explicit ways the interrelationship between the group-oriented Arab culture and the
’generalised’ Arabic cohesion on the one hand and the individual-oriented
English culture and the ’specified’ nature of English cohesion on the other.
There is no doubt that ’the gun’ in ’12’ is owned by an individual: ’the uncle’. However, the concept of ’collective use’ dominant in the Arab culture suggests that several other people - apart from the owner - have used the gun
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
60
before. Hence, the cohesive generic item (the hands) is meant to reflect this: the hands is not meant to refer to ‘the uncle’s hands’ only but rather to ’the hands of all the people’ who have used the gun before. In contrast, the English translator relates the hands to ’the uncle’ only (his hands). In doing so, she reflects her cultural values which emphasise ’individual ownership and use’.
The same argument applies to ’13’. In the Arab culture, eating is a truly collective activity. People eat together often from the same plate.
Hence, the Arab writer uses the generic terms the food to relate ’food’ to a group and not to an individual (she). In fact, the woman referred to (she) was not eating alone. In contrast, eating in the English culture is an individual-oriented activity. People eat separately, each from his/her own plate. This cultural orientation is clearly reflected in the English translation.
The translator uses her food (rather than the food), relating ’food’ to an individual (she) rather than to a group.
With regard to ’14’, the Arab writer uses the generic expression the trilings rather than the specific expression the women’s trillings (used by the English translator). The reason for this choice is culture-specific: in the Arab culture only women perform this activity. Hence, within this cultural context, the possessive the women’s would have been redundant, violating one aspect of Grices’s (1975:45) maxim of quantity: ’Don’t make your contribution more informative than is necessary’. Since trilling is an activity unknown in the English culture, the English translator has to be more specific and informative, telling her English readers that this activity is female-specific in the Arabian culture (hence the use of the women’s trillings). In this way, the translator adheres to another aspect of Grice’s (1975: 45) maxim of quantity: ’make your contribution as informative as required’.
Repetition oriented v. change oriented
The difference between the two languages at this dimension operates at two levels: the word level and the clause-sentence level. One of the most frequent cohesive devices in Arabic is the reiteration of the same word.
In the English translation, this reiteration of the same word is replaced by either the use of a pronoun (reference), the use of a substitute word
(substitution), zero substitution (ellipsis), or the use of a synonym.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
61
At the clause/sentence level, Arabic often repeats clauses or sentences which are remarkably similar (often identical) in their formal (and sometimes semantic) features. In English, clauses are repeated but with a noticeable degree of variation in their formal features. It is for this reason that, along this dimension, Arabic cohesion is described as ‘repetition-oriented’, while English cohesion is characterised as ’change-oriented’ (whether at the word or clause level).
The following six paired examples below (taken from the TEPTs) demonstrate the difference between Arabic and English cohesion along this dimension at the word level. Reiteration of the same word in the Arabic originals is replaced in the English translations by reference (’15’ and ’16’), substitution ( ‘ 17’ and ’18’), ellipsis (’19’ and ’20’), and the use of a synonym (’21’ and ’22’):
15 A : ...and I plunged into deep sleep and during my sleep...
E : ...I plunged into deep sleep. During it...
16. A : ... but still the enjoyment lacks something. What is this something?
E : But the enjoyment sill lacked something. What was it?
17. A : ... reaching him is no longer an easy thing... and be sure that you will reach.
E : It is no longer an easy matter to reach him...but be sure that you will do so.
18. A : ... and he strips branches from it to graft new branches.
E : ... and stripping of branches in order to graft new ones.
19. A : - and from where will you get the cartridges?
- I bought them.
- How many cartridges?
E : - And where are you going to get the cartridges?
- I bought them.
- How many 0 did you get?
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
62
20. A : ...but my eyes rose and met with his eyes.
E : ...but my eyes rose and met his 0.
21. A : ... and I used to find for each illness its cure until I was afflicted with the illness which no one has a cure for it.
E : I was able...to find a cure, until I became afflicted with that illness for which no one possesses a remedy.
22. A : ...a mysterious feeling of pride mixed with a strange feeling of sorrow and sorrow was the victor over pride.
E : ...a mysterious sensation of pride mixed with a strange feeling of sorrow. Grief was the victor over pride.
The use of ’enate’ clauses in written Arbaic is clearly evident in the examples below (taken from AS 2 in the CEPTs):
23. a : fa huwa saikhun bi ’immati hi al-mustafhila fauqa ra’si hi
(and he is a sheikh with his white turban that sits overwhelmingly on his head)
b. wa huwa saikhun bi lihyati hi al-mustarsila fauqa sadri hi
(and he is a sheikh with his grey beard that flows over his chest).
Clauses ’a’ and ’b’ above are, to use Enkvist’s (1973) words, &dquo;pictures of each other&dquo;. This is evident in the remarkable similarity in their formal features: (i) They have the same number of words: ten in each.
(ii) Their syntactic structure, described below, is identical: coordinator
+ subject pronoun (same word) + complement noun (same word) + preposition (same word) + noun + possessive pronoun (same word).
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
63
(iii) phonetically, the clauses are very similar. Almost every word in ’a’ and its counterpart in ’b’ begin and end with the same sound combinations. This can be illustrated with the words occupying the seventh position:
While written Arabic makes extensive use of ’formal parallelism’, written
English tends to avoid parallel constructions. The following two examples (taken from the TEPTs) clearly illustrate this difference between the two languages:
24. A : clause 1: wa yazallu al-kaun kama huwa clause 2: wa yazallu jasadi kama huwa
(and the world remains as it was)
(and my body remains as it was)
E : clause 1: and yet the world remains just the same.
Clause 2: and my body doesn’t change at all.
The Arabic clauses are virtually identical. They differ only in the third word.
In contrast, the English clauses are different in several aspects: they don’t have the same number of words, they don’t use the same words, they have different polarity (positive in clause ‘1’ and negative in clause ’2’), and, of course, they are phonetically dissimilar.
The same picture emerges when we compare the paired examples in ’25’ below: 25 A.
a. It bespoke of power and health and daily hygiene and good nutrition. b. and I saw once again the power and the health and the hygiene and the good nutrition.
c.... concerning the health and the power and the hygiene and the good nutrition.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
64
E :
a. It bespoke power, health, daily hygiene, and good nutrition.
b. I saw again his power and health, his clean, well-fed body.
c. I saw how vigorous, powerful, clean and well-nourished he seerrced.
The series of lexical items in the first Arabic sentence are repeated in almost the same way in the second and third sentences. In contrast, the first
English sentence is repeated twice in two different ways. In the second sentence pronominal reference (rather than lexical repetition) is used (e.g. his power and health). In the third sentence, the lexical items are repeated in adjectival rather than nominal form (e.g. vigorous, poweful).
Additive v. non-additive
Finally, the two languages differ in the type of conjunctive cohesion they use. Arabic cohesion is predominantly additive while English cohesion is mainly non-additive (non-additive cohesion includes adversative, temporal, and causative).
The analysis of the TEPTs shows that additive conjunction has a higher percentage than non-additive conjunction in each of the three Arabic originals, while non-additive conjunction has a higher percentage than addition conjunction in each of the three English translations:
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
65
The same picture emerges in the analysis of the CEPTs. Additive conjunction has a higher percentage than non-additive conjunction in the three Arabic stories (70.2% to 29.8%). In contrast, non-additive conjunction has a higher percentage than additive conjunction in the three
English stories (84.3% to 15.7%).
Discussion: relating texture to culture
The basic claim we have made in this paper is that cultural differences between the Arabic and English speech communities reflect differences at the level of cohesion between written Arabic and English texts. The two speech communities were compared with reference to five contrastive cultural dimensions: oralised v. literate, collectivist v. individualist, highcontact
v. low-contact, high-context v. low context, and reader-responsible
v. writer-responsible. The Arabic culture is described as oralised, collectivist, high-contact, high-context, and reader-responsible, while the
English culture is characterised as literate, low-contact, low-context, and writer-responsible. To test the effect of these cultural differences on the types of cohesive devices used in the two languages, narrative texts produced in the two languages were compared in terms of cohesion. This comparison showed that the two languages differ along four contrastive cohesive dimensions: context-based v. text-based, generalised v. specified, repetition-oriented v. change-oriented, and additive v. nonadditive.
Along these dimensions, Arabic cohesion is characterised as context-based, generalised, repetition-oriented, and additive, while
English cohesioin is described as text-based, specified, change-oriented, and non-additive.
In this section, the different cultural contrasts are explicitly related to their corresponding cohesive contrasts. Figure 1 summarises the interrelationships between the cultural and the cohesive contrasts. As can be seen from Figure 1 (see page over), there is no one-to-one correspondence between a pair of cultural contrasts and a pair of
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
66
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
67
Cohesive contrasts. Instead, four pairs of cultural contrasts (i.e. collectivist v. individualist, high-contact v. low contact, high-context v. lowcontext, and reader-responsible v. writer-responsible) are related to two pairs of cohesive contrasts (i.e. context-based v. text-based and generalised v. specified). Further, one pair of cultural contrasts (i.e. oralised v. literate) is related to three pairs of cohesive contrasts (i.e. repetition-oriented v. change-oriented, additive v. non-additive, and context-based v. text-based).
Let us first consider the first four pairs of cultural contrasts listed above.
Clearly, the cultural features associated with each of the two languages along these dimensions are highly interrelated, in the sense that the collectivist Arab culture is also high-contact, high-context, and reader-responsible, while the individualist English culture is also low-contact, low-context, and writerresponsible.
Because in the collectivist Arab culture social ties are tightly integrated, there is a high level of physical and psychological closeness between individuals (high-contact). Hence communication tends to rely heavily on context, on the assumption that a great deal of background information is shared by the discourse participants (context-based). In this way, writers in the Arab culture rely on the reader to interpret inexplicitly stated information by using the shared contextual clues (reader-responsible).
The interrelationships between the English cultural features are also quite obvious. Because of the loosely integrated social ties in the individualist
English culture, there is a low level of physical and psychological closeness between individuals (low-contact). Therefore, information tends to be explicitly stated by careful use of discourse organisers rather than by relying on contextual clues (text-based). In this way, the success of communication is largely dependent on the writer (writer-responsible).
If we look once more at Figure 1, we can see that the collectivist, highcontact, high-context, reader-responsible Arab culture produces context-based, generalised cohesion, while the individualist, low-contact, low-context, writerresponsible
English culture produces text-based, specified cohesion. As we have mentioned previously, in collectivist societies contextual clues play a central role in the interpretation of written discourse. This is precisely what
Arab readers do when faced with an anaphoric pronoun which has more than one possible referent: they use situational, cultural, and linguistic clues - rather than the pronoun itself - to identify the intended referent (contextbased cohesion). To an English reader, the use of pronominal reference in such a fashion amounts to &dquo;irresponsibility&dquo; on the part of the writer. As
Beeston (1970) put it:
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
68
Arabic use of pronouns borders sometimes on the irresponsible.
They are freely employed without an attempt to aid the reader in identifying which of several pronouns in a sentence refers to which of previously mentioned entities. English use of ’ornate epithet’ to avoid ambiguity of pronoun reference (’Edward
VII’...the King...the monarch, etc.) is alien to traditional Arabic style. (1970: 113).
Beetson’s characterisation of pronominal reference in Arabic as
’irresponsible’ is a reflection of the typical view of written communication in the English culture where, as we have argued before, the writer (rather than the reader) is largely responsible for the success of communication. To an
Arab reader, on the other hand, the use of pronominal reference in the way stated above may not be viewed as ’irresponsible’ since, as we have mentioned above, the burden of responsibility in the Arab culture falls largely on the reader. It is for this reason that an Arab writer can afford to be ‘irresponsible’ .
The use of text-based cohesion in the English texts is a reflection of the individualist nature of the English culture where, due to the physical and psychological distance between individuals, written communication tends to be relatively context-free. Interpretation of written discourse depends largely on the linguistic items used within the text, rather than on the context in which these items are used. This is evident in the text-based nature of
English cohesion. Thus, English writers use a pronoun as a reference item only if it has one possible referent. If a pronoun will have more than one possible referent (e.g. the boy, the maa - he), it will not be used. Instead, the noun will be repeated to avoid pronominal ambiguity (e.g. the boy, the man - the man). In this way, the English reader relies on the cohesion items used - rather than on the context in which they are used - to identify the intended referent.
The relationship between collectivism and generalised Arabic cohesion on the one hand and individualism and specified English cohesion on the other is quite evident. The difference between the two cultures along these dimensions has to do with the fact that ’possession’ is related to the group in the Arab culture, while it is related to the individual in the English culture.
In fact, the principle of ’collective ownership’ is so dominant in the Arab culture that generic expressions are not only used to refer to possessions shared by the group (e.g. the woman reached stoically toward the food) but they are often used to refer to possessions which can only belong to an individual
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
69
(e.g. the man was wearing the modem suit. The languor became firmly entrenched in the eyes). In contrast, in these same situations English substitutes a possessive pronoun for the definite article, thus providing a specific connection between the anaphoric item and its antecedent (e.g. her food instead of the food; his eyes instead of the eyes). In this way, the use of the generic anaphoric expressions in Arabic may be thought of as an assertion of the ’we’ (collectivism), whereas the use of the possessive pronouns in English may be thought of as an assertion of the ‘I’, the ’he’ or the ’she’ (individualism).
With regard to the different attitudes the two cultures take towards the use of oral elements of communication in written discourse, we can see from
Figure 1 that the ‘oralised’ Arab culture produces repetition-oriented, additive, and context-based cohesion, while the ’literate’ English culture produces change-oriented, non-additive, and text-based cohesion. Repetition, particularly repetition of memory-aiding forms (enate sentences), the use of additive propositional development, the significance attached to context in discourse production and comprehension have been identified as some of the main features of communication in oral cultures, while the use of diverse linguistic forms at the level of the word or the sentence, the use of nonadditive modes of propositional development, and the significance attached to the internal textual items (as opposed to context) in the production and interpretation of discourse are thought of as some of the main features of communication in literate cultures (cf. Ong, 1982; Emig, 1977). The dominance of repetition as one of the main features of Arabic cohesion is reinforced by the literacy policy in the Arab world which depends largely on memorisation (through constant drilling) of classical texts, most of which are oral in origin. These texts serve as the model to which students aspire when producing written texts. It is not unusual for an Arab student to keep in memory for many years portions of written texts for subsequent use in literacy discussions or even writing assignments. The students’ ability for memorisation is aided by the style of written Arabic texts in which the use of formal parallelism is highly regarded.
The difference between Arabic and English written texts with regard to the use of oral elements of communication was investigated by Sa’Adeddin
(1989), who initially used two English versions of the same Arabic original: a ’semantic’ version (conforming to the rhetorical organisation of Arabic) and a ’native-English’ version (conforming to the rhetorical structure of
English). On the basis of this data, he concluded that all elements of the oral
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
70
mode of textual development in the ’semantic’ version were replaced by elements of the visual (i.e. literate) mode of textual development in the ’native-
English’ version. However, Sa’Adeddin went on to argue that the visual mode of text development is also commonly used in written Arabic. But, instead of using original Arabic texts to provide evidence for this claim, he presented two English translations of two original Arabic texts, without specifying this time whether the English translations are ’semantic’ or ’native-
English’. In fact, it appears that both translations were ’native-English’ version: they were professionally carried out for the use of a native English readership (just like the translations used in this paper). In this way, it will be reasonable to argue that the conclusion drawn from these translations (i.e. the use of visual mode of text development in Arabic) is unjustifiable. The two translations appear, instead, to reinforce the view that the visual mode of text development is a feature of written English.
To conclude this discussion, two points need to be stressed. First the cohesive contrasts between Arabic and English should be viewed in relative rather than in absolute terms. Thus, for instance, describing Arabic cohesion as context-based and English cohesion as text-based does not mean that
Arabic never uses text-based cohesion, nor does it mean that English never makes use of context-based cohesion. The point is that context-based cohesion is more common in Arabic than in English, while text-based cohesion is more frequent in English than in Arabic. Similarly, elements of oral communication may be used in written English, but they are far less frequently used than in written Arabic. Additive and non-additive modes of propositional development are used in the two languages, but the former is far more common in Arabic than in English, while the latter is more frequent in English than in Arabic.
Finally, the differences in cohesion between the two languages are not the result of linguistic differences between the two languages, nor do they reflect any differences in the cognitive abilities of the writers in the two cultures.
Indeed, from a linguistic point of view, the range of cohesive devices investigated are equally available for use by the writers in the two cultures.
Thus, for instance, Arabic is as capable as English is in signalling cohesive relationships very precisely. Arabic is rich in the various forms used to realise grammatical cohesion as well as in synonyms. It is therefore perfectly possible in Arabic to avoid repetition of the same lexical items or sentences. It is also perfectly possible in Arabic to avoid ’ambiguous’ pronominal reference. In fact, linguistically speaking, there is little difference in what can be done -
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
71
with reference to cohesion - in the two languages. Hence, the differences in the cohesive devices between the two languages are not linguisticallydetermined.
Rather, they are culturally-determined. In more specific terms, the differences in the social ties in the two societies are, in a sense, reflected in the differences in the cohesive ties used by writers in the two cultures.
References
Al-Jubouri, A. (1984). ’The Role of Repetition in Arabic Argumentative
Discourse’. In Swales, J. and H. Mustafa (eds) English for Specific
Purposes in the Arab World, pp.99-117.
Al-Sa’dawi, N. (1982). ’Al-quina’. In Al-Sa’dawi, N. Mawat ma’ali al-wazir sabiqan, pp.25-30. Beirut: Dar al-Adab.
Al-Sahar, A. (1953). ’Qasr fi al-Janna’. In Al-Sahar, A. Sada al-Sinin, pp.162-
173. Cairo: Maktabat Misr.
Amis, K. (1972). ’Interesting things’. In Dolley, C. (ed.) The Second Penguin
Book of English Short Stories, pp.308-318. London: Penguin Books.
Anderson, P. (1994). ’Explaining Intercultural Differences in Non-Verbal
Communication’. In L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter (eds).
Intercultural Communication: A reader, t 7h edn,pp.229-239.
Belmont, CA:wadsworth.
Aziz, Y. (1988). ’Theme-rheme Organization and Paragraph Structure in
Standard Arabic’, Word 39(2): 117-127.
Beeston, A. (1970). The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson
University Library.
Clyne, M. (1987). ’Cultural Differences in the Organisation of academic
Texts: English and German’, Journal of Pragmatics 11:212-247.
Coats, R. (1966). ’The Net’. In Foley, M.(ed.) Fifty Best American Short
Stories: 1915-1965, pp.261-269. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Secondlanguage
Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
72
Durmusoglu, G. (1983). ’The Notion of Parallel Texts and its Place in
Contrastive and Applied Linguistics’, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Exeter.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning’, College Composition and Communication, 28 May.
Enkvist, N.E. (1973). Linguistic Stylistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Gleason, H.A. (1965). Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Grabe, W. and R.B. Kaplan (1988). ’Writing in a Second Language:
Contrastive Rhetoric’. In Johnson, D.M. and D.H. Roen (eds)
Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students, pp.263-283. New
York: Longman.
Grabe, W. and R.B.Kaplan (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. London and New York: Longman.
Grice, H.P. (1975). ’Logic and Conversation’. In P. Cole and J.Morgan
(eds.) Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3) pp.41-58.
New York: academic Press.
Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some
Grammatical and Lexical features of English Discourse. The
Hague: Mouton.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Harlow, B. (1984). ’The Child Borrows His Uncle’s Gun and Goes East to Safad’. In Harlow, B. (trans.) Palestine’s Children, pp.14-23.
London; Heinemann Educational Books.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
73
Hartmann, R.R.K. (1980). Contrastive Textology. Comparative Analysis in Applied Linguistics. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
Hinds, J. (1987). ’Reader vs. Writer Responsibility: A New Typology’. In
Connor, U. and R.B.Kaplan (eds) Writing across Languages:
Analysis of L2 Texts, pp.141-152. Reading, MA: addison-Wesley.
Hinds, J. (1990). ’Inductive, Deductive, Quasi-inductive: Expository Writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai’. In Connor, U. and A.M.
Johns (eds) Coherence in Writing: research and Pedagogical
Perspectives, pp.89-109. Washington, D.C.: TESOL Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
(1983). ’Dimensions of National Cultures in Fifty
Countries and Three regions’. In J.B.Derogowski, S.Dziurawiec, and
R.C.Annis (eds) Expectations in Cross-Cultural Psychology, pp.335-355. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Holes, C. (1984). ’Approximation in the Teaching of Academic Writing to
Arab Students: A Contrastive Approach’. In Swales, J. and H.
Mustafa (eds) English for Specific Purposes in the Arab World, pp.228-242. Birmingham: Language Service Unit, Aston University.
Hutchins, W.M. (1987). ’The veil’. In Hutchins, W.M. (ed. and trans.)
Egyptian Tales and Short Stories of the 1970s and 1980s, pp.59-
62. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.
James, C. (1983). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
Jandt, F.E. (1995). Intercultural Communication: An Introduction. Thousand
Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Johnson-Davies, D. (1967). ’Za’balawi’. In Johnson-Davies, D. (trans.)
Modern Arabic Short Stories, pp.135-145. London: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
74
Johnstone, B. (1987). ’Parataxis in Arabic. Modification as a Model for
Persuasion’, Studies in Language 2(1): 85-98.
Kachru, Y. (1988). ’Writers in Hindi and English’. In Purves, A. (ed) Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric, pp.109-127. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kanafani, G. (1980). ’al-Sagir Yasta’iru martinat Kalihi wa yusarriq ’ila
Safad’. In Kanafani, G. The Complete Works of Ghassan Kanafani.
Volume 2, pp.627-642. Beirut: dar al-Tiba’a wa al-Nasr.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966). ’Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Culutural
Education’, Language Learning XVI (142): 1-20.
— (1972). The Anatomy of Rhetoric: Prolegomena to a
Functional Theory of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: Centre for Curriculum
Development.
Khalil, A. (1989). ’A Study of Cohesion and Coherence in Arab EFL College
Students’ Writing’, System 17(3): 359-371.
Lashin, M.T.; (1964). ’al-kaahla al-mazhuwa’ . In Lashin, M.T. Yuhka ’anna wa qisas ’ukra, pp. 135-146. Cairo: Al-Dar al-Qawmiyya lil Tiba’ a wa al-Nasr.
Mahfouz, N. (1962). ’Za’ba lawi’. In Mahfouz, N. Dunya Allah, pp.136-
150. Cairo: Dar Misr lilTiba’ a.
Mohamed, A. (1993). ’A Contrastive Study of Syntactic Relations, Cohesion and Punctuation as Markers of Rhetorical Organisation in Arabic and English Narrative Texts’, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Exeter.
Mohamed, A. and M.R. Omer (1999). ’Syntax as a Marker of Rhetorical
Organisation in Written Texts: Arabic and English’, IRAL, XXXVII/
4:291-305.
Naser, S.H(1992). ’Oral Transmission and the Book in Islamic Education
:The Spoken and the Written Words’ , Journal of Islamic Studies 3(1):
1-14.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011
75
Ong, W.J. (1979). ’Literacy and Orality in Our Times’, Profession 79. New
York: Modern Language Association of America.
— (1982). Orality and Literacy : The Technologizing of the Word. London : Methuen and Co.
Purves, A.C. (ed.) (1988). Writing Across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Newbury Park , CA: Sage Publications.
Quirk, R. et al. (A 1972). Grammar of Contemporary English. London:
Longman
Richmond, V.P. and McCroskey, J.C. (1989). Communication:
Apprehension, Avoidance, and Effectiveness ( n2d ed.) Scottsdale, AZ:
Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Taymou, M. (1978). ’al-fa’ra. In Makki, A.A. (ed.) al-Qissa al-Qasira, pp.
114-122. Cairo: Dar al-ma’arif.
Tsao, F.F. (1983). ’Linguistic and Written Discourse in Particular Languages
- contrastive Studies: English and Chinese (Mandarin)’. In Kaplan,
R.B. (ed.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 3: 99-117.
Wehr, H. (1976). Arabic-English Dictionary. New York: Spoken Language
Services.
Woolf, D. (1965). ’The Flyman’. In Allen, D.M. and R. Creeley (eds) New
American Story, pp. 225-236. New York: Grove Press.
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 28, 2011

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Analysis Narrative Text

...TextTell Me a Good Story: Using Narrative Analysis to Examine Information Requirements Interviews during an ERP Implementation Rosío Alvarez University of Massachusetts, Boston Jacqueline Urla University of Massachusetts, Amherst Abstract This paper reports on a participant-observation study examining how clients use narratives to convey information during ERP requirements analysis interviews. Techniques drawn from narrative analysis are used to analyze the structure and content of different types of narratives clients tell during requirements analysis interviews. First, findings reveal that interviewees organized their experience, sought to persuade listeners, and conveyed information to analysts using “stories,” “habitual,” and “hypothetical” narratives. Client narratives provide a pragmatic view of the information system, offering insight into the ways the system is actually used and the habitual practices of the work environment. Second, narratives function to signal the embeddedness of the information system in its larger organizational and social context. While analysts may be inclined to dismiss narratives as messy or uncodeable data, the insights they provide merit attention. To the degree that narratives give insight into users’ perspectives on organizational issues, they provide knowledge that is essential to any information systems project. This is especially true for ERP projects that, unlike other systems projects, seek to integrate processes spanning the entire...

Words: 10893 - Pages: 44

Free Essay

Narrative Text Essay

...Gr.301 Russu Cristian Narrative Essay The legend of the Coral Island - NOPOMBALU The legend of the Coral Island - NOPOMBALU Once upon a time there were a handsome hunter, his name was Lawongo. In the jungle he only hunted wild hogs. The animals often destroyed the villagers' fields. The villagers were very grateful. With Lawongo's help, their fields were safe from the wild hogs. Lawongo was also very great in playing a flute, it was so melodious, like the night butterflies, dancing over the fire. Everybody always enjoyed listening to his flute play. One of the people was a beautiful girl. She always listened attentively, with those passionate eyes looking at him. Lawongo knew there was a beautiful girl who always paid attention to him. Lawongo fell in love with her. The girl also loved him, later they got married. They were very happy. They loved each other and promised to be always together. They would be together until they died. On one night, Lawongo had a strange dream. In his dream he was hunting a very big wild hog. The hog attacked him. He did his best to kill the hog, with monstrous tusks. He used his knife to stab the hog and it finally died. Its dead body, was as big as the moon in the sky that night. On the next morning, Lawongo went hunting. It was still early in the morning and he did not want to wake his wife up. In the jungle ha did not see any animals. He could not find any wild hog either. He felt very strange. He walked and he felt very...

Words: 1676 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Crossing Abstract

...Crossing - Abstract This paper examines the narrative technique and the significance of the setting in the short story Crossing. It also investigates the main character in the short story. The first part sets out to define the narrative technique. This is done by reading through the text and noting down any time one reads something useful about the narrator. After this is done one can do the examination of the narrative technique. The second part examines the main character in order to get an understanding of who he is as a person and what he wants. The examination is done by making an analysis and interpretation him. The final part of this study assesses the significance of the setting. This can be found by noting every time the setting is described. Afterwards one can do an analysis of the setting in order to evaluate the significance of it. The paper shows that the author is working with indirect speech when the reader experiences flashbacks. Otherwise quotation marks are used when the father is speaking with his son. By analyzing the main character it is shown that he longs for getting back together with his former wife and of course his child. It is concluded that the significance of the setting is somewhat important. It helps the reader to get a clear understanding of the events that takes place by the way it is described. Crossing - Abstract This paper examines the narrative technique and the significance of the setting in the short story Crossing. It also investigates...

Words: 937 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

17 Again

...a moving image text through the film techniques and media theories I have learnt in this term. The film is called “17 again”, which is directed by Burr Steers and written by Jason Filardi. This movie is took place in USA and released in 10 April 2009. The budget of this movie is $20000000 US and the final gross is $64149837 US which is a great success. This story is taking about the main character-Mike O’Donnell ( Zac Efron) whose life didn't quite turn out how he wanted it to and wishes he could go back to high school and change it. He wakes up one day and is seventeen again and gets the chance to rewrite his life. The genre of this film is comedy romance, which is a hybrid genre as I can find lots of signs and conventions in the movie. For examples, the kissing scenes and some silly reactions of the characters can be found in the movie. What’s more, the lighting in this film is high-key lighting which connotes the meaning of happiness and serenity. Moreover, the mode of address in this film is indirect to the audience which was used the third person angle to encode the meaning to the audience. On the other hand, I choose this movie because of few reasons. Firstly, I love the main character- Zac Efron very much. He has acted in many teenage romance films before, for instance, High School Musical 1, 2 and3. After I watched the High School Musical, I admire his out-looking and his acting skills. Therefore, I choose this film. Besides, the narrative of this movie is...

Words: 1387 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Apple

...is a key facet of narrative. “In telling a story, who tells it is of paramount importance” (Bohner and Grant 15). Narrator “Choosing a narrative point of view is perhaps the most important and most difficult decision a writer of a story makes. Point of view—like plot, character, setting, and language—is a creative decision; however, it is also a very much a technical decision” (Bohner and Grant 15). “Someone has to tell the story. That someone is called the narrator. But the question is who will that narrator be and what does the narrator know” (Bohner and Grant 15). Mediation Drama and film unfold directly before our eyes. In narrative fiction there is always something (a viewer, a speaker, both) between the reader and the action: a point of view other than our own has already been imposed. This is mediation. Point of view involves the angle of vision (the point of view from which the people, events, and other details are viewed). This view is called the focus. The words of the story lying between the reader and the story is the voice. Focus Focus acts like a camera. It chooses what we can look at, the angle at which we can view it, and how it is framed. In this case, a tv screen vs. a movie screen. Details and emphasis change depending upon the frame and the focus in both text and film. Angles in film Film can help us to understand point of view if we think of the camera eye as our mediator in the text. The picture...

Words: 1698 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Reading

...What factors affect reading?  | | | | | | * A non-encouraging reading home environment * A non-encouraging reading classroom environment * Vision problems * Lack of interest in the book * Hearing - Speech impedement, Hard of Hearing, or deafness * Lack of background knowledge * Lack of strong vocabulary base * Gender * Intelligence with the ability to 1) learn, 2) problem solve, or 3) see relationships in reading * Language differences/Dialect/Cultural difference | | In Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Snow, Burns, & Griffin (1998) presented a synthesis of research on the conditions that contribute to successful reading. The authors identified the following factors as predictors of success and failure in reading: Physical and  Clinical Factors | Predictors of  School Entry | Acquired Knowledge of Literacy | Family-based Risk Factors | Neighborhood, Community, and School-based Factors | Cognitive deficienciesHearing problemsEarly language impairmentAttention deficit/hyperactivity disordersVision problems | Acquired proficiency in languageVerbal memoryLexical and syntactic skillsOverall languagePhonological awarenessOral Vocabulary | Reading readinessLetter identificationConcepts of printPhonemic awareness | Family history of reading difficultiesHome literacy environmentOpportunities for verbal interactionHome language other than EnglishUse of a nonstandard dialect of English in the homeSocioeconomic status | Environmental...

Words: 3411 - Pages: 14

Free Essay

Night Garden and Swallows and Amazons

...night Garden and Swallows and Amazons How do ‘the lure of the real’ (Bogan,A.2006) and the ‘power of the fantastic’ (EA300,Block 4) work together in any two of the set texts in Block 4? ‘The lure of the real’ (Bogan,A.2006) and the ‘power of the fantastic’ (EA300,Block 4) are used to create dramatic effect and depth to narratives, in interesting and diverse ways. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. When the real and the fantastic combine, truly delightful and often informative, stories are created. Novels differ in their proportional use of realism and fantasy. Realism is commonly used to convey a sense of believability, to give gravitas to characters and to enable a child reader to understand through the presentation of the familiar and recognisable. Fantasy can be viewed as a “departure from consensus reality.” (Hume cited in EA300. Block4.p169). This could exist in the form of imaginary play, dreams, unworldly creations or literal impossibility. This essay will concentrate on Swallows and Amazons and Tom’s Midnight Garden. Each text has different approaches to the use of reality and fantasy. However, they convey similar themes and messages through various presentations of ‘the real’ and ‘the fantastic.’ Ransome and Pearce anchor their stories in reality by creating a “powerful sense of place and” a “celebration of freedom underpinned by family security.” (EA300, Block4) Ransome achieves this by distinct geographical representation of the Lake District...

Words: 2367 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Principles for Interpreting Narratives

...Narratives are meaningful stories that retell past events about specific characters (Fee and Stuart, 2003).  Biblical narratives are just like narratives except they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Biblical narratives tell God's story. Biblical narratives have three components characters, plot, and plot resolution (Fee and Stuart, 2003). The characters include a protagonist, which is the main person in the story (Fee and Stuart,  2003).  An antagonist which is the person that causes the conflict and lastly, agonist which role is to support the main characters in the story.  A narrative main function is to retell a story using specific characters.      When interpreting narratives it is easy to make common mistakes associated with interpreting narratives. Although, there are many errors people make when interpreting narratives, I will only list three, which are moralizing, personalizing, and lastly misappropriation.     The first, error is moralizing. Moralizing assumes that moral teachings or principles for living can be taught from all scripture (Fee and Stuart, 2003). The second, error is personalizing. Personalizing involves reading a narrative and making it pertain to you, instead of realizing that the narrative tells a story about specific characters in that story (Fee and Stuart). The third and last error is misappropriation, which means to appropriate the text for purposes that it was not intended for (Fee and Stuart,  2003).      There are many principles for interpreting...

Words: 402 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Calvino's Novel

...Course: Instructor: Date: It is primarily difficult to define Postmodernism literature due to its novelty in technique, versatile ideas, and its break from the traditional narrative writing. Basically “If on a winter's night a traveler” is a novel about the reading experience. When discussing the postmodern literature, Calvino’s novel of 1979 “If on a winter's night a traveler” definitely is a work that is worth to be examined within this context. While ascribing the features of the postmodern fiction to a specified work at times can prove to be an undertaking that is both controversial and challenging in nature. This novel has proven to be both fascinating and also to be innovative work of the fiction which is postmodern. “If on a winter's night a traveler” authored by Italo Calvino, is a postmodern novel since it deviates from the obvious objectivity provided by the omniscient external narration normally found in nearly all traditional books(Calvino & William, pp.13-18). All through chapter two, Calvino employs second person viewpoint, where he narrates of the readers of the novel, are the key characters in his plot. The author constantly employs the pronoun “you” in making the reader to feel more engaged in what is happening and points out directly the relationship between the author, the text, and the readers. Self-reflectivity also is found in nearly all postmodern novels are well-known to possess. Calvino’s novel portrays numerous remarkable literary devices that...

Words: 2371 - Pages: 10

Free Essay

John Steinbeck. the Pearl. Fragment Analisys

...Vera Kemzane Group 4B The text analysis “The Pearl” by John Steinbeck. The present extract is from the novel “The Pearl” written by American author John Steinbeck. The novel is about Kino, who is a pearl diver and main theme is man`s nature, both evil and good, greed and honest. The extract refers to the part of the novel, when Kino discovers an enormous pearl or “the Pearl of the World”. The register of the text is fictional narrative, and type of narration is heterodiegetic, because the narrator situated outside the level of action. The text is with omniscient point of view, or zero focalization – the narrator knows more than characters. The authorial narrative allows the narrator to have an insight into the thoughts and feelings of the characters, and to see the story from outsider`s position: And he wondered whether he had baptized Kino`s baby, or married him for that matter. And the doctor’s eyes rolled up a little fat hammocks and he thought of Paris. He remembered the room he had lived in there … In addition, it is a third-person narrative extract, because all character of the story referred as “they” “it” “he”: their mother knew it; his eyes; he wondered; they waited etc. Finally, it is overt narrator; he makes his opinion known and gives extra information and explanations: The news came to the doctor where he sat with a woman whose illness was age, thought neither she nor the doctor would admit it (this is also an example of irony). The narrator uses evaluative...

Words: 1603 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Enn315R Assignment 01: Frames of Reference

...perfect example of a gothic novella; it has all the above elements, which are cleverly implemented throughout the text. One of these elements is James’ use of the frame narrative. I will be discussing the frame narrative and narrators, with particular focus on Douglas, and how it affects the governess’ story. The Turn of The Screw; a novella in which one thinks less about the literary techniques, or the writing style, but more about the story itself. One finds oneself asking; are the ghosts real? Is the governess insane? Is it a conspiracy? We, as the reader need to take a closer look at the text to identity and analyse the techniques, the words, the imagery that gives the story its mystery and intrigue. One such technique is the use of a frame narrative, we hear the story from the unnamed narrator, Douglas and then from the Governess. We know very little about any of the narrators, however, perhaps the narrator that stands out most is Douglas; he is our link to the Governess and her story. Although we are not given much information on Douglas, he is very cleverly used by James. He is the only person present who knew the governess, and the similarities between him and Miles are thought provoking. They are both roughly the same age, they both came back from school to meet the governess , who was hired to look after their sisters , and lastly it is mentioned in the text that they both stand with their hands in their pockets , . Although some readers believe Douglas and Miles to...

Words: 1002 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Theatre

...when they were going to spend the week-end with Dolly, he urged Julia to seize the opportunity that the week-end presented. Julia explained that people financed plays for two reasons, either because they wanted notoriety, or because they were in love with someone. But Michael had never even thought that Dolly was in love with him. He was very surprised when Julia told him that it was not he whom Dolly loved. He didn’t believe it. 3. This extract belongs to the belles-lettres functional style, the main purpose of which is to give the readers aesthetic pleasure, to make them think and entertain by appealing to their emotions. The major part of the text is presented by the author’s narrative proper. It is told in the 3rd person, from the view point of an omniscient anonymous narrator. Sometimes the author’s narrative is interspersed with insertions of represented inner speech. The represented inner speech is employed to reveal Michael’s ideas and thoughts. There are such markers showing this fact: a) verbs denoting mental activity (he thought), b)...

Words: 869 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Analyse

...analysis provides the background for an essay, and account or a text in another genre you are asked to write about a text. You should only use results from the analysis, which are relevant for the focus you have chosen. Novels | Short stories | A novel is a literary imaginative work whose content has been invented in an author’s imagination. It does not represent actuality and it is seldom based on facts.Novels and short stories are fiction. | A short story belongs to the genre fiction.It is epic and it tells a story in just one main plot. Often: * Exposition (eksponering, udstilling, redegørelse) * Complication * Crisis * Sad/happy/open/surprising ending.A short story is often restricted (begrænset) to one setting only; fixed place and time and narrow (snæver, smal) social surroundings. There is a limited set of characters in a short story. A decisive (afgørende) situation beyond a character’s control occurs (forekommer, opstår) and the story starts. A short story only discusses a selected part of life. It mostly shows a decisive moment in life, which can entail (medfører) a fatal blow (skæbnesvangert) | To analyse fiction is to open the text by examining its various components (forskellige bestanddele). A good analysis will cover all the following points. * However, all the points will not be equally important in all analyses. Always base your analysis on what is actually said in the text. Analysing of fiction Description: | * Who is the author...

Words: 1257 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Literature

...Using Narrative Text in the Secondary Classroom Once upon a time, in a school, very much like your own, American History and all its contents were studied alongside tales of triumph, and defeat. In this history class, the students supplemented curriculum delivered through lectures and textbooks, with materials from sources such as diary entries, editorials, and historical fiction. This is an example of how narrative text can coexist with expository information found in content area classrooms in today's high schools. While the need for expository text is vital to the success of a student to understand the content (i.e., Social Studies) curriculum, narrative literature and various other texts are a great way to supplement the learner with information from which they can draw a better understanding of the state standards. Explained below is a definition of narrative literature, advantages and disadvantages of using narrative text in the high school Social Studies classroom, and five possible uses for using narrative texts in the high school classroom. Narrative Literature Narrative literature can be both fiction such as novels, as well as non-fictional works such as memoirs (Burke). Often, narrative literature includes many of the following: a plot, character, problems, and themes. In fictional work, one generally finds a setting, with a beginning, a reaction, and an ending (Roe, Stoodt-Hill, & P. C. Burns, 2004). Narrative literature can, and does exist on its own in...

Words: 1279 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

The Crossing

...The crossing The relationship between the father and the son The protagonist is an unnamed man somewhere between 30-50 years old, and located in a small depression, because text says; "He had not been happy in a while." The protagonist is divorced or separated from his wife: "... He had not wanted here back, had not wanted much of anything really" (line.15) It would seem that the protagonist himself is to blame for the divorce, as he nurtures a desire that things should work again, both in relation to his ex-wife, but perhaps most in relation to his son. The father is very caring and loving to his son, and you quickly sympathize with him as the reader "... when the boy came running into the living room he threw him over his shoulder, careful not to hit his head on the corner of the TV…" (Page 2. line16-17) The protagonist wants to pass some of the good childhood memories that he had with his own father. They also used to take the same trip, and the main character repeats many of the same principles and rituals with his own son. Since the reader does not have access to the boy's thoughts and feelings, just as we have in the father. The author paints a picture of him with descriptions and through his father's thoughts about him. Most of all, we get a picture of a small frail boy. This narrative technique enables the reader to quickly sympathize for the boy and especially his father, who tried to get him safely through their journey in the wilderness: "He looked at the...

Words: 699 - Pages: 3