It is unanimously agreed that there is no equivalent to Qur’an. Qur’anic expressions and structure are Qur’an bound, and language bound as well. It can’t be reproduce to match the original in terms of structure, effect, and intentionality of source text. Inaccuracies and skewing of sensitive information will always be the by-product.

Many studies, theological, historical, and recently linguistic, have tackled the issue of the untranslability of Qur’an. Abdul-Raof, ….so and so tackled the limits of translation of Qur’an providing examples including; style, cultural voids, morphological, syntactic, prosodic, and acoustic features.

The present work sets out to deeply discover the translation of Arabic coordination particles in similar verses in Qur’an. Coordination is significant linguistic element. It extends to include rhetorical, coherent ….

Qur’an translation is presented as a testing ground for the practical application of Equivalence theory, on one hand, and the rhetorical flaws as well as pragmatic losses resulted, on the other hands. The main focus of the work is coordination particles in the translation of Arberry and Zeidan from the perspective of the following scopes; contrastive rhetoric CR, pragmatic theory of implicature, as well as Equivalence theory. The theoretical background is divided into two main sections; review of previous studies, and thorough inspection of the semantic-syntactic functions of coordination particles.

1.1 Equivalence theorythere is no agreement among translation theorists concerning the accurate definition of equivalence.

1.2 CRSimilarly, Ostler' s (1987) stud y showed that in formal Arabic prose, coordination between phrases and sentences represents an essential means of establishing cohesion in text. She points out that Arabic rhetoric places high value on parallel and balanced constructions of phrases and sentences and that coordinating conjunctions, such as and and or are employed to link any type of parallel structures, e.g. nouns, verbs, phrases, and sentences. Ostler further demonstrated that compared to the discourse organization and the

syntactic structures of essays written by NSs, the L2 writing of Arabic-speaking students contain s a particularly high number of parallel structures, such asmain and dependent clauses and complex strings of adjective, verb, and prepositional phrases . Other researchers, such as Sa'adeddin (198 9),commented that colloquial Arabic relies on repetition of ideas and lexis, as well as frequent uses of coordinators as sentence and phrase connectors forrhetorical persuasion . Sa'adeddin noted that the L2 writing of many Arabic speaking students demonstrates the transfer of cohesive features common in their colloquial language use.They found out that: “Arabic employ significantly higher median rates of sentencetransitions to establish cohesive textual structure. However, the uses of sentence

transi tion s in L2 text s do not necessarily mark a contextu alized flow ofinformation when sentence transition s are intended to identify the meaningfulrelationship of ideas in discourse.”(Hinkel, 2001)

Research in contrastive rhetoric is not exclusively European andAmerican. In addition to the publication of numerous empirical studiesof Arabic-English contrasts, Hatim (1997) and Hottel-Burkhart (2000)have produced contributions to contrastive rhetoric theory. Hatim,whose disciplinary interest is translation studies, made a major study ofArabic-English discourse contrasts, dealing with the typology of argumentationand its implication for contrastive rhetoric. The author iscritical of previous contrastive rhetorical research of Arabic, which hedescribes as being “characterized by a general vagueness of thoughtwhich stems from overemphasis on the symbol at the expense of themeaning,” or as analyzing “Arabic writers as confused, coming to thesame point two or three times from different angles, and so on” (p. 161).Hatim acknowledges, however, that there are differences between Arabic

and English argumentation styles and underscores the importance ofexplaining why these differences occur rather than just relying onanecdotal reporting about the differences.According to Hatim (1997), orality has been suggested as explainingthe differences between Arabic and Western rhetorical preferences byresearchers such as Koch (1983). Koch has claimed that Arabic speakersargue by presentation, that is, by repeating arguments, paraphrasingthem, and doubling them. Hatim admits that Arabic argumentation maybe heavy on through-argumentation (i.e., thesis to be supported, substantiation,and conclusion), unlike Western argumentation, which, accordingto Hatim, is characterized by counterarguments (i.e., thesis to beopposed, opposition, substantiation of counterclaim, and conclusion).Yet the key is that for Arabic speakers, Arabic texts are no less logical thantexts that use Aristotelian, Western logic. To quote Hatim,It may be true that this [Arabic] form of argumentation generally lackscredibility when translated into a context which calls for a variant form ofargumentation in languages such as English. However, for Arabic, throughargumentation

remains a valid option that is generally bound up with a hostof sociopolitical factors and circumstances, not with Arabic per se. It istherefore speakers and not languages which must be held accountable.(p. 53)Hatim’s (1997) contribution to textual analysis of Arabic and Englishcontrasts is signi. cant. He explains observed differences from an empirical,text analytic point of view. Yet, in well-meaning explanations meantto show the legitimacy of different styles of argument across cultures,Hatim ends up generalizing about preferred argument patterns. And,like Hinds (1987), who analyzed Japanese-English contrasts, Hatim canNEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 501become an easy target for those who object to cross-cultural analysisbecause of the danger of stereotyping.Another signi. cant non-European contribution to the study of contrastiverhetoric has been made by Hottel-Burkhart (2000), who writesthat “rhetoric is an intellectual tradition of practices and values associatedwith public, interpersonal, and verbal communication—spoken orwritten—and it is peculiar to the broad linguistic culture in which one

encounters it” (p. 94). What is considered an argument in a culture isshaped by the rhetoric of that culture. Hottel-Burkhart refers to the wellknowninterview of the Ayatollah Khomeni by the Italian journalistOriana Fallaci, analyzed by Johnstone (1986). In the interview, Fallaciused a logical argument supportable by veri. able facts. Khomeni “offeredinstead answers based on the words of God and his Prophet” (p.98), in a tradition in which he was schooled. Johnstone found differencesbetween the two styles of argumentation not only in content butalso in arrangement and style.Interest in contrastive rhetoric in Arabic-speaking countries resultedin the biennial International Conference on Contrastive Rhetoric at theAmerican University of Cairo, Egypt. In a volume of selected conferencepapers (Ibrahim, Kassabgy, & Aydelott, 2000), 13 chapters discuss studiesthat deal with distinctive features of Arabic, studies of Arabic-Englishcontrasts, and contrastive rhetorical studies of Arabic-speaking students’writing in English. The second Cairo conference, held in March 2001,attracted presenters from neighboring countries as well as from Europeand Asia. (Connor, 2002)

1.3 Coordinationthere are a number of evidences that justify the overuse of coordination rather than subordination in Arabic.

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.