Abstracts
Abstract
Arabic argumentation is often described as relying on repetition and coordination in contrast to Western argumentation, which emphasizes syllogism, proof, and dialectic. However, previous studies on this topic were based on a limited and unrepresentative corpus. This study seeks to verify these claims using a contemporary corpus of 110 Arabic competitive debates, comprising approximately 515,793 words. A hybrid argumentation annotation model, combining Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos) and Toulmin’s model of argument structure, was developed for analysis. The findings reveal a high prevalence of logos compared to ethos and pathos, with relatively minimal reliance on repetition. Arabic argumentation emerges as diverse rather than monolithic, incorporating both inferential reasoning and rhetorical repetition. This study also highlights the influence of genre on rhetorical strategy use, calling for further research on genre-specific Arabic argumentation.
Keywords:
- Arabic,
- argumentation,
- Aristotle,
- debate,
- repetition,
- rhetoric,
- Toulmin
Résumé
L'argumentation arabe est souvent décrite comme reposant sur la répétition et la coordination, contrairement à l'argumentation occidentale, qui privilégie le syllogisme, la preuve et la dialectique. Cependant, les études antérieures sur ce sujet reposaient sur un corpus limité et non représentatif. Cette étude vise à vérifier ces affirmations à l'aide d'un corpus contemporain de 110 débats compétitifs arabes, comprenant environ 515 793 mots. Un modèle hybride d'annotation argumentative, combinant les arguments rhétoriques d'Aristote (logos, ethos, pathos) et le modèle de structure argumentative de Toulmin, a été développé pour analyse. Les résultats révèlent une forte prévalence du logos par rapport à l'ethos et au pathos, avec un recours relativement faible à la répétition. L'argumentation arabe apparaît diversifiée plutôt que monolithique, intégrant à la fois le raisonnement inférentiel et la répétition rhétorique. Cette étude souligne également l'influence du genre sur l'utilisation des stratégies rhétoriques, ce qui appelle à des recherches plus approfondies sur l'argumentation arabe spécifique à chaque genre.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Al-Mahmoud, Abdulla. 1989. Repetition in Arabic with special reference to translation of political discourse. Victoria University of Manchester, PhD thesis. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2208362612?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20ThesesGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Al-Jabouri, Adnan. 1984. The role of repetition in Arabic argumentative discourse. In English for specific purposes in the Arab world, eds. John Swales and Hasan Mustapha, 99–117. Aston: University of Aston.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Baker, Mona. 2018. In other words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315619187 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bazzanella, Carla. 2011. Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences 33(2): 243–254.10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Beaugrande, de Robert and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bhagat, Rahul and Eduard Hovy. 2013. What is a paraphrase? Computa-tional Linguistics 39(2): 463–472.10.1162/COLI_a_00166 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Blakemore, Diane. 1997. Restatement and exemplification: A relevance theoretic reassessment of elaboration. Pragmatics & Cognition 5(1): 1–19.10.1075/pc.5.1.04bla Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Blommaert, Jan and Chris Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29(1): 447–466.10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Brennan, Niamh M. and Deirdre M. Merkl-Davies. 2014. Rhetoric and argument in social and environmental reporting: The dirty laundry case. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27(4): 602–633.10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1333 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Brown, Penelope. 1999. Repetition. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(l-2): 223–226.10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.223 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Budzynska, Katarzyna, Marcin, Koszowy, Patrick, Saint-Dizier and Maciej Uberna. 2024. Analysing language of the dynamics of ethos and emo-tions in rephrased arguments. The 24th International Workshop on Com-putational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA’24). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3769/paper2.pdfGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press.10.1525/9780520353237 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Persuasion, legitimacy and leadership. In Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor, ed. Jona-than Charteris-Black, 1-31. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230501706_1 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524599 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Dickins, James, Hervey, Sandor and Ian Higgins. 2017. Thinking Arabic translation: A course in translation method: Arabic to English. 2nd Edi-tion. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315471570 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Erisen, Cengiz and Jose D. Villalobos. 2014. Exploring the invocation of emotion in presidential speeches. Contemporary Politics 20(4): 469–488.10.1080/13569775.2014.968472 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fairclough, Norman. 2023. Critical discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, eds. Michael Handford and James Paul Gee, 11–22. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003035244-3 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fakhri, Ahmed. 2012. Reported speech in Arabic journalistic discourse. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XI, eds. James Paul Gee, Michael Handford, 9–20. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fakhri, Ahmed. 2009. Rhetorical variation in Arabic discourse: Humanities versus law. Journal of Pragmatics 41(2): 306–324.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.001 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fu, Yujie, Wang, Suge, Li, Xiaoli, Li, Deyu, Li, Yang, Liao, Jian and Jianx-ing Zheng. 2023. Hierarchical neural network: Integrate divide-and-conquer and unified approach for argument unit recognition and classi-fication. Information Sciences 624: 796–810.10.1016/j.ins.2022.12.050 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Halliday, Michael A. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hatim, Basil. 1990. A model of argumentation from Arabic rhetoric: In-sights for a theory of text types. British Journal of Middle Eastern Stud-ies 17(1): 47–54.10.1080/13530199008705505 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hatim, Basil. 1991. The pragmatics of argumentation in Arabic: The rise and fall of a text type. Text 11(2): 189–199.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hatim, Basil. 1998. Text politeness: A semiotic regime for a more interac-tive pragmatics. In The pragmatics of translation, ed. Leo Hickey, 72–102. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.10.21832/9781800417939-007 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hatim, Basil. 2007. A model of argumentation from Arabic rhetoric: In-sights for a theory of text types. British Society for Middle Eastern Stud-ies. Bulletin 17(1): 47–54.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The translator as communicator. Lon-don & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Higgins, Colin and Robyn Walker. 2012. Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum 36(3): 194–208.10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hill, Jemma Helen Oeppen. 2020. Logos, ethos, pathos and the marketing of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 30(1): 87–104.10.1080/08841241.2019.1683120 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hinton, Martin. 2022. Argumentation and identity: A normative evaluation of the arguments of delegates to the COP26 UN Climate Change Confer-ence. Argumentation 38(1): 1–24.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hirst, Graeme. 2003. Paraphrasing paraphrased. In ACL International Workshop on Paraphrasing: Paraphrase Acquisition and Applications (IWP 2003).Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hitchcock, David and Bart Verheij. 2006. Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Holes, Clive. 1992. Book review: Johnstone’s Repetition in Arabic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(3): 556–557.10.1017/S0041977X00003839 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ihlen, Øyvind. 2009. Good environmental citizens? The green rhetoric of corporate social responsibility. In Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II, eds. R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, D. Waymer, 360–374. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jawad, Hisham. 2007a. Paraphrase, parallelism and chiasmus in literary Arabic: Norms and translation strategies. Babel 50(3): 230–245.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jawad, Hishma. 2007b. Lexical doublets in Arabic literary discourse: Stereoscopy and complex meaning. Journal of Arabic Linguistics 47: 32–49.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jawad, Hisham. 2009. Repetition in literary Arabic: Foregrounding, back-grounding, and translation strategies. Meta 54(4): 753–769.
10.7202/038902ar
Google Scholar
Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jawad, Hisham. 2010. Sound symbolism, schemes and literary translation. Babel 56(1): 47–63.10.1075/babel.56.1.04jaw Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnstone, Barbara. 1991. Repetition in Arabic: Paradigms, syntagms, and the ecology of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.18 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnstone, Barbara. 1987. Parataxis in Arabic: Modification as a model for persuasion. Studies in Language 11(1): 85–98.10.1075/sl.11.1.04joh Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Karbach, Joan. 1987. Using Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Journal of Teaching Writing 6(1): 81–92.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kennedy, George A. and Aristotle. 2007. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Khader, Mohammed M., Abdul Gabbar Al-Sharafi, Mohamad Hamza Al-Sioufy, Wajdi Zaghouani and Ali Al-Zawqari. 2024. Munazarat 1.0: A corpus of Arabic competitive debates. In Proceedings of the 6th Work-shop on Open-Source Arabic Corpora and Processing Tools (OSACT) with Shared Tasks on Arabic LLMs Hallucination and Dialect to MSA Machine Translation, eds. Hend Al-Khalifa, Kareem Darwish, Hamdy Mubarak, Mona Ali, Tamer Elsayed, 20–30. LERC-COLING. Torino, Ita-lia: ELRA and ICCL.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Koch, Barbara J. 1983. Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics 25(1): 47–60.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Konat, Barbara, Katarzyna, Budzynska and Patrick Saint-Dizier. 2016. Rephrase in argument structure. In Foundations of the language of ar-gumentation, Proceedings of the COMMA 2016 Workshop, eds. Patrick Saint-Dizier, Manfred Stede, 32–39. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Koszowy, Marcin, Oswald, Steve, Budzynska, Katarzyna, Konat, Barbara and Pascal Gygax. 2022. Informal Logic 24(1): 49–82.10.22329/il.v42i1.7212 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lawrence, John and Chris Reed. 2019. Argument mining: A survey. Compu-tational Linguistics 45(4): 765–818.10.1162/coli_a_00364 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- McCroskey, James C. and Jason J. Teven. 1999. Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs 66(1): 90–103.10.1080/03637759909376464 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Nussbaum, Michael.E., CarolAnne M. Kardash. 2005. The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writ-ing. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(2): 157–169.10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Offerdal, Truls. S., Just, Sine N. and Ihlen, Øyvind. 2021. Public ethos in the pandemic rhetorical situation: Strategies for building trust in authori-ties’ risk communication. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research 4(2): 247–270.10.30658/jicrcr.4.2.3 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Osborne, Jonathan. 2005. The role of argument in science education. In Research and the Quality of Science Education, eds. K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, H. Eijkelhof, 367–380. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Papadopoulou, Tina, Theoharakis, Vasilis, Jones, Marian V. and Sumon K. Bhaumik. 2022. Analyzing the macrostructure of spoken strategic com-munication: An application of argumentation analysis on high-technology newly public firms’ earnings conference calls. British Jour-nal of Management 35(1): 68–85.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Perelman, Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Qin, Jingjing and Erkan Karabacak. 2010. The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System 38(3): 444–456.10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rahman, Shahid and Walter Edward Young. 2022. Argumentation and Arabic philosophy of language: Introduction. Methodos. Savoirs et Textes 22.10.4000/methodos.8833 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Reynolds, Barbara and Matthew Seeger. 2005. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communica-tion 10(1): 43–55.10.1080/10810730590904571 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne Wong and Rodney H. Jones. 2012. Intercul-tural communication: A discourse approach. 3rd ed. Sussex: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Suhartono, Derwin, Gema, Ario Pradipta, Winton, Suhendro, David, The-odorus, Ivan Fanany, Mohamad and Aniati Murni Arymurthy. 2020. Ar-gument annotation and analysis using deep learning with attention mechanism in Bahasa Indonesia. Journal of Big Data 7: Article 90.10.1186/s40537-020-00364-z Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The uses of argument, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840005 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wambsganss, Thiemo, Janson, Andreas, Käser, Tanja and Jan Marco Lei-meister. 2022. Improving students argumentation learning with adaptive self-evaluation nudging. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6(CSCW2): 1–31.10.1145/3555633 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wan, Qian, Crossley, Scott, and Yu Tian. 2022. Automated classification of argumentative components in students’ essays. In Intelligent tutoring systems: 18th international conference, ITS 2022, eds. Scott Crossley, Eleni Popescu, 98–110. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-09680-8_16 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Xu, Yiwei, Margolin, Drew and Jeff Niederdeppe. 2020. Testing strategies to increase source credibility through strategic message design in the context of vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. Health Communication 36(11): 1354–1367.10.1080/10410236.2020.1751400 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Younis, Ramy, de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel, Gygax, Koszowy, Marcin and Steve Oswald. 2023. Rephrasing is not arguing, but it is still persuasive: An experimental approach to perlocutionary effects of rephrase. Jour-nal of Pragmatics 210: 12–23.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar