It is unanimously agreed that there is no equivalent to Quran.

Quranic expressions and structure are Quran bound, and

language bound as well. It cant 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 Quran. Abdul-
Raof, .so and so tackled the limits of translation of Quran
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 Quran.
Coordination is significant linguistic element. It extends to
include rhetorical, coherent .
Quran 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 theory
there is no agreement among translation theorists
concerning the accurate definition of equivalence.
1.2 CR
Similarly, 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 as
main 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 for
rhetorical 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 sentence
transitions 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 of
information when sentence transition s are intended to identify
the meaningful
relationship of ideas in discourse.
(Hinkel, 2001)
Research in contrastive rhetoric is not exclusively European and
American. In addition to the publication of numerous empirical
studies
of 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 of
Arabic-English discourse contrasts, dealing with the typology of
argumentation
and its implication for contrastive rhetoric. The author is
critical of previous contrastive rhetorical research of Arabic,
which he
describes as being characterized by a general vagueness of
thought
which stems from overemphasis on the symbol at the expense of
the
meaning, or as analyzing Arabic writers as confused, coming
to the
same 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 of
explaining why these differences occur rather than just relying
on
anecdotal reporting about the differences.
According to Hatim (1997), orality has been suggested as
explaining
the differences between Arabic and Western rhetorical
preferences by
researchers such as Koch (1983). Koch has claimed that Arabic
speakers
argue by presentation, that is, by repeating arguments,
paraphrasing
them, and doubling them. Hatim admits that Arabic
argumentation may
be heavy on through-argumentation (i.e., thesis to be supported,
substantiation,
and conclusion), unlike Western argumentation, which,
according
to Hatim, is characterized by counterarguments (i.e., thesis to be
opposed, opposition, substantiation of counterclaim, and
conclusion).
Yet the key is that for Arabic speakers, Arabic texts are no less
logical than
texts that use Aristotelian, Western logic. To quote Hatim,
It may be true that this [Arabic] form of argumentation generally
lacks
credibility when translated into a context which calls for a
variant form of
argumentation in languages such as English. However, for
Arabic, throughargumentation
remains a valid option that is generally bound up with a host
of sociopolitical factors and circumstances, not with Arabic per
se. It is
therefore speakers and not languages which must be held
accountable.
(p. 53)
Hatims (1997) contribution to textual analysis of Arabic and
English
contrasts is signi. cant. He explains observed differences from
an empirical,
text analytic point of view. Yet, in well-meaning explanations
meant
to 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 can
NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 501
become an easy target for those who object to cross-cultural
analysis
because of the danger of stereotyping.
Another signi. cant non-European contribution to the study of
contrastive
rhetoric has been made by Hottel-Burkhart (2000), who writes
that rhetoric is an intellectual tradition of practices and values
associated
with public, interpersonal, and verbal communicationspoken
or
writtenand it is peculiar to the broad linguistic culture in
which one
encounters it (p. 94). What is considered an argument in a
culture is
shaped by the rhetoric of that culture. Hottel-Burkhart refers to
the wellknown
interview of the Ayatollah Khomeni by the Italian journalist
Oriana Fallaci, analyzed by Johnstone (1986). In the interview,
Fallaci
used a logical argument supportable by veri. able facts.
Khomeni offered
instead answers based on the words of God and his Prophet (p.
98), in a tradition in which he was schooled. Johnstone found
differences
between the two styles of argumentation not only in content but
also in arrangement and style.
Interest in contrastive rhetoric in Arabic-speaking countries
resulted
in the biennial International Conference on Contrastive Rhetoric
at the
American University of Cairo, Egypt. In a volume of selected
conference
papers (Ibrahim, Kassabgy, & Aydelott, 2000), 13 chapters
discuss studies
that deal with distinctive features of Arabic, studies of Arabic-
English
contrasts, 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
Europe
and Asia. (Connor, 2002)

1.3 Coordination
there 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.