Abstract
This study explores the issue of textual synonymy as a highly impactful pragmatic-functional element in constructing arguments within argumentative texts—particularly in the fields of political and media translation between Arabic and English. The research is based on the hypothesis that synonymous expressions in such texts are not interchangeable; rather, each serves a specific rhetorical function tied to the author’s tone and persuasive intent. By applying the Text-Type Theory as developed by Reiss and further expanded by Hatim & Mason, the study analyzes five common synonym sets (resist/oppose/defy, accuse/blame/condemn, suggest/propose/recommend, warn/threaten/advise, support/approve/endorse) to evaluate how well translations preserve the original argumentative function of the source text.
The study employs a comparative pragmatic analytical method, revealing that translations which overlook the source text’s function often result in diluted arguments or a loss of persuasive effect. Conversely, translations that are sensitive to the text’s function and type have shown effectiveness in conveying the intended message within the target culture.
The study concludes that textual synonymy is not merely linguistic variation but a crucial rhetorical strategy. The Text-Type Theory proves to be an effective framework for guiding translators’ decisions and assessing translation quality in argumentative texts.
Keywords
Textual synonymy, argumentative translation, argumentative function, Text-Type Theory, pragmatics, political discourse, media translation, Hatim & Mason, Reiss, persuasive effect, textual analysis.

تحميل البحث