Introduction
The author of the article “In Jordan, the hip speak is Arabizi”, Ibon Villelabeitia, is a media specialist at The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. He lives in Geneva. He got his education at the University of Montana.
Summary of the article
This article talks about how Jordanians are gradually abandoning Arabic and adopting Arabizi. The author suggests that most elite Jordanians think that English is a symbol of high status. They also see English as a language that allows them utter words that sound offensive in Arabic. Villelabeitia (2005) suggests that this new culture erodes native Jordanian practices. He also thinks Arabizi widens the gap between the poor and the rich. Linguists see this culture as a threat to Arabic as the language spoken by Jordanians. They think Arabic should remain pure.
I found this text effective in convincing the audience that speaking Arabizi contributes to the erosion of the Jordanian moral values, creation of a wide gap between the rich and the poor, and promotion of inferiority complex among Arabic speakers. The text also effectively expresses how Arabizi threatens Arabic as the Lingua-Franca in Jordan.
The writer achieves effectiveness by appealing to the emotions of his audience and creating a rapport with the audience. He also gives enough evidence for his arguments and applies all the elements of persuasion. He introduces his story with an anecdote about what he witnessed while in Jordan. This lays a good foundation for his arguments. The tone he uses also helps him achieve effectiveness. He chooses a very casual tone, which makes the audience see him as a genuine person.
Critical Response
Villelabeitia (2005) argues that Arabizi erodes the Jordanian culture. He illustrates this by introducing his story using an anecdote about Jordanians who do not heed to a call for prayers, but instead, listen and dance to rock music during prayer time (Villelabeitia, 2005). Jordanians are prayerful people who always attend prayer sessions voluntarily. Neglecting prayers, therefore, shows that they are abandoning their culture. Introducing Villelabeitia’s arguments using an anecdote makes him effective because it helps him capture the attention of readers. It also makes the author’s arguments believable.
The author asserts that Arabizi is a means of expression among Jordanians educated abroad. He supports his arguments with quotes from a professor of linguistics. He also quotes another Jordanian who studied in Canada. Both interviewees agree that Arabizi came with these scholars. The quotes are evidence for his argument and they are effective in convincing his readers. Evidence from Jordanians enhances his effectiveness by letting his readers know that he is not just talking about Arabizi from his point of view.
Villelabeitia (2005) effectively uses logos by clearly stating his argument that Arabizi has eroded the Jordanian culture and widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The author describes rich Jordanians speaking Arabizi and behaving like natives of the English world. He also shows how they greet each other and the music they listen to as being very western. One of the people he interviews points out that he does not speak Arabizi to his poor parents.
The author also convinces his audience by appealing to their emotions. He touches the emotions of Jordanians and other religious readers. He argues that Arabizi and western culture make Jordanians forget praying because they concentrate on music and merry-making during prayer time. He also appeals to the emotions of his readers by asserting that Arabizi widens the gap between the rich and the poor. Villelabeitia also attains effectiveness by establishing a rapport with his audience. He chooses a casual tone to create a rapport with readers. This makes the audience see him as one of them. This tone also makes him sound genuine.
The other element of persuasion is ethos. This is the persuasive element that comes from the author’s credentials. Ethos explores whether the author presents the evidence fairly and whether the people he discusses in his arguments are reasonable. Villelabeitia, being a media specialist, has the credentials to handle this topic. He is trustworthy since journalists are specialists in linguistics. He interviews a professor of linguistics who is also reliable in matters of language. Villelabeitia presents his arguments fairly by letting the audience hear from both young people and adults. He interviews Albury, aged 25 and Sarhan who is older than Albury (Villelabeitia, 2005).
Conclusion
Villelabeitia effectively persuades his audience that Arabizi has eroded Jordanian values by appealing to all the elements of persuasion. He uses ethos, logos, and pathos in his persuasions and, hence, makes his arguments believable. His arguments are credible since he catches to the audience using all persuasive appeals.
Reference
Villelabeitia, I. (2005). In Jordan, the hip speak is ‘Arabizi’. Tabloid. Web.