No description available.

This thesis attempts to investigate the structure of Arabic argumentative discourse in general and 'editorials' as an argumentative text-form in particular and the problems this discourse raises for translators. This investigation includes the identification of editorials' main constituents, the types of clause relations typical of this form of argumentation and their contribution to meaning continuity of such discourse, and certain textual phenomena, i.e repetition, parallelism, thematization, paragraphing, etc., and their unequivocal significance in translation. To this effect, random samples were taken from three different Arabic newspapers, i.e Al-Ahräm, Al-Ra'y, Al-Iqatan, to show how the structure of these texts gives rise to ambiguity when translated (literally) into English. To achieve these objectives, this study uses a semantic, structural, and pragma-semio-textual approach to analyze and then translate the texts chosen, as language in this study is considered to be a form of behaviour (Halliday 1973) that cannot be studied in isolation from its social, cultural, and contextual contexts in which it is used. Our textual analyses have shown some interesting results. First, editorials have their own generic structure, and such structure is presented in specific stages. Second, editorials as well as other argumentative texts are dominated by semantic causal relations; these relations tend to have a psychological impact on text-readers and should be accounted for in translation. Third, editorials favour the cohesive type of lexical repetition not only for cohesion purposes but also for persuasive functions as well. Fourth, editorials use many parallel constructions for conviction and persuasive functions. Fifth, editorials have semantic structures and stylistic features that cause problems for the English reader. These features require attention during the process of translation. All these issues tend to reflect the nature of editorials within argumentation and their unequivocal significance within the study of discourse.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A number of studies have attempted to examine the writing processes of skilled and non-skilled native and non-native speakers of English. However, few studies have examined the writing processes of Arab university students, and none has been conducted on Libyan students' writing processes. This study examines the writing processes in L1 (Arabic) and L2 (English) of twelve Third-Year Libyan University Students (TYLUS), as they verbalised and produced written texts in both languages. The study investigates the process and product data separately to see if any relationship exists between an individual subject's process skill and product quality in either language. Observation, think-aloud protocols, interviews, questionnaires, and written products have been utilised to gather data in a triangulated case study. The composing sessions were audio-taped; the tapes were then transcribed, translated, and coded for analysis, along with the drafts and the final written compositions. The investigation into Ll and L2 writing processes was guided by one main and three sub-research questions. The main research question was: what writing processes do Libyan University students use while writing in Ll Arabic and in L2 English? Do they follow similar or different strategies? The first sub-research question was: how is the linguistic knowledge of the students reflected in Ll and L2 writing? The second was: does the Arabic rhetorical pattern affect the students' English writing? And lastly, how does instruction influence the writing processes and products of these students? The L1 and L2 protocol data yielded a number of interesting findings. Most subjects had a purpose in mind while composing their texts, but had little concern for audience. Individually, each subject displayed a unitary composing style across languages, tending to compose in the Ll and L2 similarly, with some variations in specific aspects. , As a group, the subjects' writing process differences were manifested in planning, time and content; writing time was shorter in L1 than in L2; reviewing in L1 focused on organisation and content, but on form, grammar and vocabulary in L2. Similarities were apparent in mental planning and reliance on internal resources as the subjects alternated between writing, repeating, and rehearsing. The L2 compositions gradually emerged with repetitions, pauses, and the use of L1, and seemed to be constrained by the subjects' linguistic knowledge and imperfect mastery of L2. This suggests that the composing knowledge and skills of Ll could potentially be transferred into L2 composing, and the subjects had employed many similar strategies deemed necessary for writing in both languages but were unable to apply accurately them in L2. In addition, the subjects used Ll to facilitate their composing in L2. They tended to comment and repeat portions of texts in words, rehearse in phrases, and engage in other composing activities at sentence level. Translated segments occurred at almost every level but mainly at phrase level. Finally, and interestingly, some subjects made more errors in L1 than in L2. A tentative composing process model showing the locations in which LI was used during the writing process is proposed. Implications for EFL, particularly. for Libyan University students, and suggestions for further research are also provided.

Thesis (MA) -- University of South Australia, 1992

Thesis (MA) -- University of South Australia, 1992