Evaluative Language in Arabic Academic Discourse

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Тhe article is devoted to the study of evaluative language in Arabic academic discourse. The analysis was carried out based on the evaluative posts published in the Arabic language in social networks related to the defense of Ph.D. dissertations and the obtaining by Arabic-speaking students of Ph.D. degrees. The focus of the research in the language of appraisal in Arabic academic settings is related to socially and traditionally determining aspects in the perception of the Ph.D. degree in Arab society. In order to identify specific features of the written language of evaluation in Arabic academic discourse, our study is built on the Appraisal theory proposed by James Martin and Peter White (2005) and focused on its sub-categories of the Appraisal theory: Affect , Appreciation , Judgment . The comparative analysis made it possible to identify both universal and specific components in the regarded ways of evaluation within the framework of academic discourse. The authors determine the lexico-grammatical methods of assessment in Arabic academic discourse, which characterize the perception and functioning of the evaluative language in the system of value coordinates of the Arab society. The novelty of the proposed research lies in the fact that at present the appeal to the Arabic academic discourse has not been sufficiently studied. In the end of the study, the authors concluded that the Appraisal theory proposed by Martin and White (2005) can be applied to the research of Arabic language of evaluation. The authors also argue that the written language of assessment in the Arabic academic discourse is directly proportional to cultural, traditional, religious factors that are reflected in the lexico-grammatical components of the assessment. Misunderstanding of these specific features of the evaluative language of the Arabic academic discourse leads to communicative failures. The authors noted the prospects for studying the evaluative language within the framework of the Arabic academic discourse could be conducted in a comparative analysis of the oral and written Arabic language of assessment, each of which has its own specific culturally determined features.

Full Text

Introduction

The study of evaluative language in academic settings has been recently gaining momentum in the fields of pragmatics [1; 2], discourse studies [3; 4; 5], and comparative linguistic studies [6; 7]. It is worth noting that most of the research works examining evaluation in the frames of academic discourse focused on the English language academic discourse [8; 9]. Alongside we can mention several studies that seek to analyze Arabic academic discourse [10; 11; 12]. However, these works concentrated on the Arabic texts’ structures in academic settings (articles, presentations) rather than analyzing the implication of Arabic evaluative language at large.

The Arabic evaluative language in academic discourse presents a unique research opportunity for several reasons. Firstly, being part of a culture where interpersonal relationships play a key role in society, Arabic evaluative language consists of a balance of adherence of its participants to cultural, religious, verbal, and non-verbal norms of communication. Secondly, the Arabic language of verbal evaluation within the framework of academic discourse has distinctive features for each of the education stages (e.g. university admission, dissertation defense). Thirdly, Arabic evaluative language in academic settings is determined by a certain lexico-grammatical set, which, when directly translated into other languages, loses its evaluative specificity.

Theoretical background

At the moment, we cannot convey a single omnipresent theory for evaluation in academic discourse. At different times and places, scientists put forward and researched areas similar to the theory of evaluation. For example, American scholars explored the complexities of writer-reader interactions from the standpoint of metadiscourse which has been taken to mean the rhetorical field that controls the communicative function of language [13; 14]. Also, some researchers looked at the way academic writers gain interpersonal positioning within their fields of study through the use of the evaluative language recognized in evidentiality and hedging [7], mindset markers [9], stance markers [5; 2], voice markers [15], and Appraisal [14].

The use of evaluative language to produce stance and voice has been given academic engagement in recent years. Researchers conjured a broad spectrum of methods in analyzing evaluation language: corpus-based methodology [13, 16; 17]; Systemic Functional Linguistic discourse semantic standpoint [14], and discourse analytic, qualitative, and quantitative approaches [18].

As part of the study of the evaluative language in the context of written academic discourse, it has been shown that the argumentative and rhetorical practices used to express and position one’s views differ according to the generic, disciplinary and cultural context in which they are produced [16; 17].

In essence, some studies analyze the dependence of evaluative language on cultural values (collective or individual values). These studies proved that cultural values are directly related [19] to such aspects of evaluation in language as the style of evaluation [20] and preferred rhetorical practices for expressing judgments [21].

The Appraisal theory has recently made a big-scale contribution to the development of evaluative language theory in general. The Appraisal theory describes semantic systems that interpret interpersonal relationships in the English language. This theory has attracted the attention of many scholars nowadays due to the theory’s affordability of implementation to different contexts, discourses, and languages. The appraisal is involved with the interpersonal dimension in the language [22—24]. Particularly, it implicates a study of the subjective presence of the writer that is reflected by (1) the expression of statements concerning the material a writer produces and (2) the audiences of communication. The appraisal is presented by Jeannett Martin and Peter White [23] as follows: “it is concerned with how writers/speakers approve and disapprove, enthuse and abhor, applaud and criticize, and with how they position their readers/listeners to do so likewise”. The Appraisal suggests a sample for the experiment of how writers transfer sentiments, tastes, and formative judgments. Also, the Appraisal inquires how to evaluate in a way to ultimately permits to create through text communities of shared feelings and values [24].

There are practically no research papers devoted to evaluation within the framework of the Arabic academic discourse. We can single out one research work on the study of the evaluative Arabic language, which was carried out within the framework of comparative linguistics. Thus in 2016, Mahdi Al-Ramadan conducted research based on written materials of Anglo-American and Arabic-speaking students from Saudi Arabia. The study concluded that culture plays a pivotal role in differentiating between the means of academic persuasion that are preferred by writers in the two relevant cultures, as the Anglo-American texts adopted an evaluative stance (the writer appears to the target audience as an objective and impartial person). She concluded, that Americans for the language of evaluation were careful, precise, and restricted by the rules and standards that govern the rhetorical practices of the academic discourse group. It was discovered that these texts depend on the use of what is called in the literature the analysis of the interchangeable meaning of the discourse the voice of the arguer, which is characterized by its interactive nature. On the other hand, it was found that Arabic essay writers prefer to use a more personal persuasive style, and the evaluative meanings in Arabic texts were more intense and focused as a result of the adoption of repetition as a persuasive rhetorical method. In addition, the textual voice of an Arabic student was more trusting, unilateral, and less interactive with the audience in a way that generally resembles the distinctive textual sound of teaching books. The Arabic rhetorical features are also found in most of the academic texts written in English as a foreign language by the students. This supports the role of culture in determining the optimal persuasive methods for the writer and also supports the validity of the hypothesis of contrastive rhetoric at the level of reciprocal meaning in the process of constructing the academic text. The results of Al-Ramadan research [25] indicate that due to both the process of linguistic interaction (transfer) from the mother culture and the possibility of the student writers’ lack of awareness of the rules and standards of academic persuasion followed in the target discourse community, the students tend to produce what she calls intergenres — “hybrid genres that carry features from different sources and that do not entirely reflect the character of either the native culture’s or the target culture’s version of the genre in question” [24. P. 215].

Methodology

The present study is limited to the analysis of written academic discourse. Spoken academic discourse, such as that represented by the genres of presentations, lectures, and conferences, is out of the scope of this study. The study is based on the Appraisal theory within a detail look at the category of the attitudinal stance of the Appraisal Analytical Model, which is explained in section Arabic Evaluative language: implementation of the Appraisal theory of the present study.

Forming the methodological base, both linguistic and non-linguistic methods are engaged in executing the study. The present analysis seeks to implement such standard methods of research as induction and deduction. Using the method of induction in our study, we summarize the results of individual private observations of evaluation in Arabic in terms of academic discourse. The deduction method allowed us to investigate the language of evaluation within the framework of the Appraisal theory, which had not previously been tested on the Arabic-speaking academic discourse.

In addition to this, the method of component analysis was applied to analyze the content component of the language structures of evaluation within the framework of the Arabic academic discourse.

The study is based on posts about the successful defense of dissertations and obtaining a Ph.D. degree published in social media, which have become the main platform for communication in Arabic-speaking countries during the pandemic COVID-19. This material for the study was chosen since the phenomenon of expressing a written evaluation (writer) associated with the academic achievements of a person (reader) has not been studied in Arabic academic discourse. Nevertheless, the widespread use in social media, in particular by the Arab-speaking population for academic purposes, have been proven by previous studies [26; 27]. We have chosen the aspect of evaluating in Arabic academic settings in obtaining the Ph.D. degree since this process is a socially significant moment in the life of a student and his family (قابلة). In the Arab world, it is believed the one who has received a Ph.D. (the field of study does not matter) is an example for the whole family to follow. After the obtaining of the Ph.D. degree, this student’s name will be preceded by the letter.د or will be written (and also pronounced) doctor (الدكتور هيثم هاني الحديد).

Some key standpoints of Arabic academic discourse and its theoretical background

Arabic academic discourse is a unique subject for analysis; however, we can find hardly any works related to the study of Arabic academic discourse. Moreover, most of the researchers are genre-based and attempt to involve genre-structure analytical models in the study of Arabic academic discourse [10—12; 28—31]. Thus, Sultan [30], provided research on the nature of interpersonal communication in the Arabic academic texts. He developed his study on the published research articles in the field of linguistics and concluded that “the Arab writers were more inclined than the English-speaking writers to use attitude markers (surprisingly, unfortunately, I agree) to guide readers in understanding their opinions, intentions, and points of view” [30. P. 29]. In addition, the research reveals that Arabic students prefer to use boosters to express conviction and determination. It also discovered that evidence (for example, X claims according to Y) was about twice as common in English-language articles. According to Sultan, English authors equip a granular basis for verifying the facts they provide. This study indicates the majority of intercultural contrasts in the use of interpersonal elements in academic discourse. However, Sultan’s research got criticism, because it remains relatively limited studies that are devoted to the study of interpersonal metafunction and how it is fully realized in various lexicographical resources [1; 32].

From a cross-cultural perspective, Arabic academic discourse has attracted the attention of Arabic-speaking researchers. Therefore, in 2010 Mohamed-Sayidina investigated the culture-specific factors of Arabic Academic discourse. He finalized that Arabic students use such elements of verbal communication in the written texts as “additive modes of propositional development” (درس دراسا، كتب كتابا) and religious statements, such as (سبحان الله، بسم الله رحمن رحيم). He connected this phenomenon with “dependence of Arabic educational systems on memorizing and rote learning” [33. P. 264]. It is important to mention, that Arabs at large use religious vocabulary in many uncommon Islam fields without understanding the need for their implementation [34].

Tareq Hamed explored the nature of the conjunctive transition in argumentative essays written by Libyan undergraduate students. Thus, his analysis revealed an excessive use of intersentential coordination with the conjunction and (و) and inappropriate use of adversative coordination (expressing the opposition of one word or sentence to another). The data obtained are explained by the negative borrowing of the use of the conjunction and (و) from the Arabic language of students, in which the conjunction and (و) can express five functions: continuative (وكنتيجة الدراسة هذا الامر مهم جدا), additive (عدي اليوم الرياضة والرياضيات), commentary (وأنني مسرور جدا), adversative (اليوم مدومين, وبكرا العطلة) and simulative (مبروك وعقباك الدكتوراه). The Libyan students carried over the function of continuing and (و) into their English writing, as it is used at the beginning of sentences and paragraphs in Arabic texts [35].

Also, within the framework of studying Arabic academic discourse from a cross-cultural perspective, much attention is paid to studies that examine how the choice of vocabulary contributes to the formation of certain culturally specific meanings that help achieve compelling goals. Thus, R. Rass concluded that the frequent repetition of the form of the word, which is characteristic of the Arabic academic discourse, also appeared in the writing of the text by the Arabs in English. He believes that this strategy is perceived by the Arabs as a strategy of persuasion. R. Rass also concluded that Arabs often use superlatives (the best, the most) in student papers in both Arabic and English. Speaking about the pattern of frequent use of superlatives, Russ writes: “unity of belief, indicating that there is only one true path, one right way; there is a single answer; there is black and white and no shades of gray” [36. P. 209]. This study also provides an analysis of the frequent use of the pronouns we and our, which, in the author’s opinion, is the strategy of Arabic-speaking students who are “oriented to the group”. The frequent use of the pronouns we and our can be explained by the collective nature of the Arab culture. As in previous studies, R. Rass in his research proves that the use of Islamic expressions in the framework of academic discourse is characteristic of Arabic-speaking students who do not always understand the correct context for using these Quranic expressions, or according to the author “often fail to consider the idea of “audience” when they write” [36. P. 209].

Arabic Evaluative language: implementation of the Appraisal theory

To analyze the language of evaluation within the framework of the Arabic academic discourse, according to the methodology described above, we applied the Appraisal theory provided by J. Martin and P. White (2005). In the Appraisal theory, J. Martin (2003) and Martin and P. White (2005) constructed standard distinctions such as “those holding between modality and attitudinal lexis” [4. P. 35], and “between attitudinal and epistemic stance” [38. P. 241]. The Appraisal theory can be diagrammatically displayed as follows.

In this study, we focus on the Attitude section, since in the framework of obtaining the Ph.D. degree, this gradation will allow us to provide a more detailed analysis of the evaluation language within the framework of Arabic academic discourse.

Firstly, Affect is clarified as “a semantic resource for construing emotions” [38. P. 148]. The Un/happiness sub-category of Affect “covers emotions concerned with ‘affairs of the heart’ — sadness, anger, happiness and love” [38. Р. 150]. The Dis/satisfaction sub-category of Affect presents “emotions concerned with telos (the pursuit of goals) — such as ennui, displeasure, curiosity, respect” [38. P. 150]. The In/security sub-category of Affect “covers emotions concerned with ecosocial well-being” as is displayed in the consistencies of “anxiety, fear, confidence and trust” [38. P. 150]. The Dis/inclination of Affect is associated with the type of sensations that implicate “intention (rather than reaction), to a stimulus that is irrealis rather than realis” [38. P. 150]. The Appraisal theory can be diagrammatically displayed as follows:

Fig. 1. The Appraisal theory Module by Martin and White (2005)
Рис. 1. Схема теории оценки, предложенная Мартином и Уайтом (2005)

Table 1 / Таблица 1
Examples of Affect in the Arabic academic discourse data / Примеры аффекта (Affect) в арабском академическом дискурсе

Affect

happiness

دكتورنا الحبيب الغالي

لك خالص تبريكاتنا.... داعين المولى عز وجل بأن تكون سيفا للحق تذود عن الوطن والأمة،،،،

أقسم أنك حامل نياشين الفخار والعلم والطيب ....

satisfaction

كيف لا وأنت على طريق الآباء والأجداد ترفع الراية الاردنية بسواعدك وتفدي الوطن برواحك ، وتبسط على وجه المعمورة المنير فروسيةً وفراسة تشربتها في عرين شيخنا الغالي الاجودي صاحب المواقف المشرفة وكلمة الحق المدوية راعي الشومات ومدرسة الفخار وسنديانة الولاء والانتماء

security

 بارك الى نسيبي الغالي الدكتور هيثم هاني الحديد حصوله على درجة الدكتوراه من جامعة جورج واشنطن مع مرتبة الشرف ، كل الدعم والتوفيق

inclination

غادرنا قبل لحظات متوجها الى موسكو لاتمام الحصول على شهادة الدكتوراة في العلاقات الدولية ، بعد حصوله على شهادة التميز بالماجستير من جامعة الصداقه في موسكو

وقد تكرمت الجامعه بمنحه الالتحاق بدراسة الدكتوارة من الجامعة

تمنياتنا له بالتوفيق

Secondly, Appreciation is mostly dedicated to things (materials) rather than people and their manners. Particularly, it contains optimistic/pessimistic estimations of the constitution, formation, formatting, impact, presentation, value of natural objects, procedures, or conditions of experiences by “reference to aesthetics and other systems of social value” [24]. People can also be Appreciated, whereas the judgment does not directly reveal the in/correctness of behaviors [25]. Appreciation is supposed to be an institutionalization of Affect because in the Appreciation one directs to socially identified approaches of value. In this way, “values of Appreciation [are] less directly personalizing, at least relative to values of Affect” [25].

Appreciation consists of reaction, composition, and valuation. Reaction characterizes the evaluator’s responses to things; whether these things are acceptable, dissatisfying, whether are rewarding. An essential contrast between the system of Affect and the system of Reaction is that Affectual values are permanently connected with a distinct human experiencer (طالبة مجتهدة). Reaction (قضية مثيرة للاهتمام) is separated from human experiencers to the assessed entity “as if it were some property which the entity objectively and intrinsically possesses” [24].

The second kind of Appreciation is Composition. It is affiliated with the evaluation of the format or form of the thing: how agreeably the elements of the entity under evaluation fit together, how balanced, and congruous it is. Valuation as a type of Appreciation is connected to assessments of the social weight of the entity; whether it is beneficial or not.

Table 2 / Таблица 2
Examples of Appreciation in the Arabic academic discourse data /
Примеры признательности (Appreciation) в арабском академическом дискурсе

Appreciation

reaction

تخرجك بامتياز مع التوصية بنشر رسالتك الدكتوراه في رياده الأعمال للمنظمات غير الربحية من

الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية

أجمل فرحة فرحتك في وُصولك لهدفك، وفَرحك في يَوم تخرجك

composition

الى الكزن ابو غازي الغالي دكتورنا والدبلوماسي المستقبلي

الف مبروك التخرج وعقبال الدكتوراه

ونتمنى ان نشاركك اللحظه ونفرح بتخرجكم لكن القادم افضل

valuation

الحمدلله على فضله ونعمه وكثير عطائه، أبارك لنفسي حصول أخي الغالي والعزيز عبدالله حمودات على شهادة الماجستير في السياسة والعلاقات الدولية.. حبيبي ابو رزان نجاحك نجاحنا.. وفرحك وفرحنا.. ويا رب أعلى المراتب والدرجات دائماً.

Thirdly, the type of Attitude, Judgment, concerns the area indicating that expresses the writers’ Attitude towards and normative judgment of people and “their character (how they measure up)” [23. P. 52]. Judgments of manners are separated into two types, those dealing with Social Esteem and those dealing with Social Sanction. Social Esteem affects individual estimations of affection or objection of manners, notably those connected to peoples’ Normality, Capacity, and Tenacity. Social Sanction interests’ moral judgments of recognition or condemnation of behaviors that have to do with peoples’ Veracity and Propriety.

Table 3 / Таблица 3
Examples of Judgment in the Arabic academic discourse data /
Примеры суждения (Judgment) в арабском академическом дискурсе

Judgment

Social Esteem

Normality

ما شاء الله كتب رسالته بالإنجليزية حول رياده الأعمال للمنظمات غير الربحية

Capacity

الحمد الله الدكتوراه الفخرية من جامعة البريطانية

Tenacity

لا قوة الا الله هاشم قرر دراسة اللغة الروسية لمدة عام، ثم الدراسة في كلية الدراسات العليا بالروسية

Social Sanction

Veracity

ألف ألف مبروك!

Propriety

كل التقدير والنجاح!

Conclusion

The analysis carried out on the study of evaluative language in Arabic academic discourse based on posts published in social media and dedicated to the successful defense of Ph.D. dissertations, allowed us to draw the following conclusions. Firstly, the applicability of the Appraisal theory proposed by J. Martin and P. White can be applied not only to the analysis of the English appraisal language for which it was developed but also to the analysis of the appraisal language within the Arabic language discourse. Secondly, the language of evaluation in the Arabic academic discourse is determined by such factors as social (a specific attitude in Arab society towards a person who obtained a Ph.D. degree), traditional (a student who obtained a Ph.D. degree is the example for the whole family), religious (the entire language of evaluation includes religious, Islamic expressions). Thirdly, in the context of the pandemic, social media have become the main platform for communication between Arabic-speaking users, including academic communication, which allows us to study evaluative language, as shown in this study. We could note the prospects for studying the evaluative language within the framework of the Arabic academic discourse could be conducted in a comparative analysis of the oral and written Arabic language of assessment, each of which has its own specific culturally determined features.

×

About the authors

Hashem H. Alhaded

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: alkhaded_kh@rudn.ru
Assistant of the Foreign Languages Department 6, Miklukho-Maklay st., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

Tatiana N. Glushchenko

The University of Jordan

Email: tatyana@ju.edu.jo
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Russian Language Department Queen Rania st., Aljubaiha, Amman, Jordan, 2V89+CR

Haitham Alhadid

Stratford University

Email: dr.haithamalhadid@yahoo.com
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Global Leadership and Organizational behavior Department 7777 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, Virginia, USA

References

  1. Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students’ English argumentative writing: An APPRAISAL study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53.
  2. Pho, P. (2013). Authorial Stance in Research articles: Examples from Applied Linguistics and Educational Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Vol. 3. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  4. Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.
  5. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
  6. Ansarin, A. (2011). Reader engagement in English and Persian Applied Linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 113-135.
  7. Itakura, H. & Tsui, A.B. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1366-1379.
  8. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Bristol: Peter Lang.
  9. Duszack, A. (1997). Introduction. In: Culture and styles of academic discourse, A. Duszack (ed.). New York: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1-10.
  10. Fakhri, A. (2009). Rhetorical variation in Arabic academic discourse: Humanities versus law. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 306-324.
  11. Al-Ali, M.N. & Sahawneh, Y.B. (2011). Rhetorical and Textual Organization of English and Arabic PhD Dissertation Abstracts in Linguistics. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 24.
  12. Al-Huqbani, M. (2013). Genre-Based analysis of Arabic research article abstracts across four disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(3), 371-382.
  13. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
  14. Lee, Y.C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online information review.
  15. Matsuda, P.K. & Tardy, C.M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235-249.
  16. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London, New York: Continuum.
  17. Bondi, M. (2012). Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 101-115.
  18. Gross, A.G. & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice in medical research articles. In Stance and voice in written academic genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 85-100.
  19. Zaharna, R. (1995). Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication patterns. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 241-255.
  20. Koch, B. (1983). Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics, 25, 47-60.
  21. Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across cultures: translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
  22. Martin, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.
  23. Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmilan.
  24. White, P.R. & Verschueren, J. (2002). Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 1-27.
  25. Al-Ramadan, M.M. (2016). Appraisal in English and Arabic Academic Discourse: A Contrastive Study within a Systemic Functional Perspective [dissertation]. King Saud University.
  26. Shen, K.N., & Khalifa, M. (2010). A Reasearch Framework on Social Networking Sites Usage: Critical Review and Theoretical Extension. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 341, 173-181.
  27. Abdillah, L.A. (2021). Web-Based Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13984. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.13984
  28. Najjar, H. (1990). Arabic as a research language: The case of the agricultural sciences [dissertation]. University of Michigan.
  29. Al-Qahtani, A. (2006). A contrastive rhetoric study of Arabic and English research article introductions [dissertation]. Oklahoma State University.
  30. Sultan, A.H. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5(1), 28.
  31. Al-Ali, M.N. & Sahawneh, Y.B. (2011). Rhetorical and Textual Organization of English and Arabic PhD Dissertation Abstracts in Linguistics. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 24.
  32. Mei, W.S. & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect, 18(3), 71-91.
  33. Mohamed-Sayidina, A. (2010). Transfer of L1 cohesive devices and transition words into L2 academic texts: The case of Arab students. RELC Journal, 41(3), 253-266.
  34. Dugalich, N.M. (2020). Universal and Culturally Specific Features and Linguistic Peculiarities of the Political Cartoon in the Arabic and French Languages. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 11(3), 479-495. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2020-11-3-479-495
  35. Hamed, M. (2014). Conjunctions in Argumentative Writing of Libyan Tertiary Students. English Language Teaching, 7(3), 108-120.
  36. Rass, R.A. (2011). Cultural transfer as an obstacle for writing well in English: The case of Arabic speakers writing in English. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 206-212.
  37. Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse processes, 11(1), 1-34.
  38. Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. Evaluation in text.

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2022 Alhaded H.H., Glushchenko T.N., Alhadid H.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies