Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T01:35:12.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orality in Persian Argumentative Discourse: A Case Study of Editorials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Leila Khabbazi-Oskouei
Leila Khabbazi-Oskouei*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Languages have their own distinctive styles of argumentation. It seems some languages like Arabic and Persian have a preference for using the “oral” features of parataxis, formulaicity and repetition as persuasive devices in argumentation. The purpose of this article is first to examine these “oral” characteristics in Persian argumentation, and then to tie together the two areas of research: the study of orality and the study of metadiscourse. The article claims that these oral characteristics in Persian are means of gaining rhetorical effectiveness. Therefore, they should be considered as metadiscourse devices used to create a bond between writer and reader.

Keywords

ArgumentationOral FeaturesParataxisFormulaicityRepetitionRhetoricMetadiscourse

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , July 2016, pp. 677 - 691
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Iranian Studies 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This article is her second thesis-driven paper.

References

Abdollahzadeh, E. “Interpersonal Metadiscourse in ELT Papers by Iranian and Anglo-American Academic Writers.” Paper presented at INGED conference, Multiculturalism in ELT Practices: Unity and Diversity, Baskent University, Ankara, 2003.Google Scholar
Crismore, A. “The Rhetoric of Textbooks: Metadiscourse.” Curriculum Studies 16 (1984): 279–296. doi: 10.1080/0022027840160306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crismore, A. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.Google Scholar
Crismore, A., and Farnsworth, R. “Mr Darwin and his Readers: Exploring Interpersonal Metadiscourse as a Dimension of Ethos.” Rhetoric Review 8, no. 1 (1989): 91–112. doi: 10.1080/07350198909388880Google Scholar
Crismore, A., and Farnsworth, R. “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse.” In The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, edited by Nash, W., 118–136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. Text, Discourse and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Texts. London: Longman, 1980.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R., and Dressler, W. U. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Shiyab, Said. “The Structure of Argumentation in Arabic: Editorials as a Case Study.” PhD diss., Heriot-Watt University, 1990.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. “Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks.” English for Specific Purposes 13, no. 3 (1994): 239–256. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. “Writing without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.” Applied Linguistics 17, no. 4 (1996): 433–454. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.4.433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30 (1998): 437–458. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum, 2005.Google Scholar
Hyland, K., and Tse, P. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25, no. 2 (2004): 156–177. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.2.156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone Koch, B. “Presentation as Proof: The Language of Arabic Rhetoric.” Anthropological Linguistics 25 (1983): 47–60.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. “Introduction: Perspectives on Repetition.” Text 7 (1987): 205–214.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. “‘Orality’ and Discourse Structure in Modern Standard Arabic.” In New Perspectives in Arabic Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Eid, Mushira, 215–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. “Contrastive Rhetorics: Some Implications for the Writing Process.” In Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language, edited by Freeman, A., Pringle, I., and Yalden, J., 139–161. London: Longman, 1983.Google Scholar
Khabbazi-Oskouei, L. “Interactional Variation in English and Persian: A Comparative Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Magazine Editorials.” PhD diss., University of East Anglia, 2011.Google Scholar
Khabbazi-Oskouei, L. “Propositional or Non-propositional, That is the Question: A New Approach to Analyzing ‘Interpersonal Metadiscourse’ in Editorials.” Journal of Pragmatics 47, no. 1 (2013): 93–107. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, B. “Repetition in Discourse: Cohesion and Persuasion in Arabic.” PhD diss., Ann Arbor University, 1982.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. “The Rise of the New Persian Language.” In The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4, edited by Frye, R. N., 595–632. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. E. The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Manelis, L., and Yekovich, F. R. “Repetition of Propositional Arguments in Sentences.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14 (1976): 196–214.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, A. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. “Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse.” College Composition and Communication 36, no. 1 (1985): 82–93. doi: 10.2307/357609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. “Metadiscourse, Discourse, and Issues in Composition and Rhetoric.” In Discourse Studies in Composition, edited by Barton, E. L. and Stygall, G., 91–113. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002.Google Scholar