A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Graduation in Editorials: Force and Focus in Saudi and American Persuasive Discourse

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzahrani

doi:10.36923/jicc.v26i2.1423

Open Access Article Intercultural Communication

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzahrani ⁽¹⁾

1. Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Al-Baha University- Saudi Arabia

https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v26i2.1423

Issue
Vol. 26 No. 2 (2026): Continuous

Submitted
2026 January 22

Accepted
2026 March 9

Published
2026 March 29

Keywords:

Appraisal Theory, Corpus-based analysis, Cross-cultural discourse, Editorial discourse, Graduation, Intercultural communication, Persuasive language

Ask AI (Dimensions)

Download PDF

Abstract

This study presents a contrastive analysis of the Graduation subsystem within Appraisal Theory, examining the strategic deployment of Force and Focus resources in newspaper editorials from two sociocultural contexts: Saudi Arabia (Asharq Al-Awsat, Arabic) and the United States (The New York Times, English). While existing Appraisal research has largely emphasized Attitude and Engagement, the role of Graduation in shaping persuasive discourse remains insufficiently explored, particularly in cross-cultural media contexts. To address this gap, the study adopts a qualitative-dominated mixed-methods design, analyzing a corpus of 30 editorials (15 Saudi Arabic and 15 American English) published between 2024 and 2025. Quantitative analysis is conducted using normalized frequencies and Mann–Whitney U tests to identify statistically significant differences, while qualitative discourse analysis is employed to interpret the rhetorical functions of these resources. The findings reveal a systematic divergence in evaluative scaling strategies across the two corpora. Saudi editorials exhibit a Force-dominant profile, characterized by intensification and expansive quantification that amplify collective narratives and reinforce institutional legitimacy. In contrast, American editorials demonstrate a Focus-dominant profile, relying on sharpening and precise quantification to construct categorical clarity and support adversarial accountability. These differences are statistically significant and indicate distinct patterns of persuasive calibration. The study concludes that evaluative scaling operates as a context-sensitive, institutionally situated rhetorical mechanism shaped by the interaction among media ideology, genre conventions, and sociocultural orientations. By foregrounding the Graduation subsystem, this research advances Appraisal Theory and refines cross-cultural discourse analysis. Furthermore, it provides practical implications for translation studies, media literacy, and intercultural communication by highlighting the importance of recalibrating evaluative strategies across linguistic and cultural contexts.

Article Highlights:

This study provides a systematic cross-cultural analysis of Graduation resources (Force and Focus) in Saudi and American newspaper editorials.
It demonstrates that Saudi editorials adopt a Force-dominant strategy, emphasizing intensification and expansive quantification.
It reveals that American editorials employ a Focus-dominant strategy, prioritizing categorical precision and evidentiary sharpening.
The findings establish evaluative scaling as a context-sensitive and institutionally driven mechanism of persuasion.
The study advances Appraisal Theory by foregrounding Graduation as a central component in cross-cultural media discourse analysis.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Abbadi, R. (2014). The construction of arguments in English and Arabic: A comparison of the linguistic strategies employed in editorials. Argumentum, 10, 724–746. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Abu Radwan, A. (2012). Rhetoric transfer in L2 writing: The role of second language proficiency. Arab World English Journal, 3(2), 365–399. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol3no2.26 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Al Abbad, A., Al Mansur, N., & Ypsilandis, G. S. (2019). Persuasive strategies in Saudi female academic application letter writing. Rhetoric and Communications Journal, 40(6), 12–52. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Alaufi, H. M., & Obeng, S. G. (2025). Persuasive interactional strategies in the Abdullah Al-Mudaifer-Mohammed Bin Salman interview on Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030: Ecolinguistics study. Ijaz Arabi Journal of Arabic Learning, 8(1), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.18860/ijazarabi.v8i1.27559 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Alghazo, S., Al-Anbar, K., Rabab'ah, G., Abusalim, N., & Rayyan, M. (2024). The construction of stance in English and Arabic newspaper editorials: A case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 971. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03418-2 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Alotaibi, H. S. (2020). The thematic structure in research article abstracts: Variations across disciplines. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1756146. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1756146 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Alotaibi, H. S. (2021). Taking an authorial stance in English and Arabic research article discussions. Pragmatics and Society, 12(3), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18044.alo Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Alrajhi, M. (2020). Thematization in native and nonnative medical discourse: A systemic functional approach. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 2(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v2i2.270 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Al-Ramadan, M. M. (2016). Appraisal in English and Arabic academic discourse: A contrastive study within a systemic functional perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). King Saud University. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Alsandeli, I. A., & Alattar, R. A. S. (2022). An analytic study of the evaluative resources used in American and Iraqi opinion columns. Arab World English Journal, 13(2), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no2.15 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Alshehri, A., & Imran, M. (2025). Reader positioning and engagement strategies in English and Arabic online discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 1215. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05593-2 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Alzahrani, M. A. M. (2025). Dialogic engagement in scientific discourse: An appraisal analysis of discussion sections by Arab L2 and native English writers. UB Journal for Humanities, 4(2), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.65073/1658-9343.1051 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Al Zahrawi, R. T., Syed Abdullah, S. N., Brahimi, T., Abdullah, M. A. R., & Mustapha, N. F. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of Arabic rhetoric in the translation and transcreation of literary texts. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 11(1), 2428483. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2428483 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Conboy, M. (2007). The language of the news. Routledge. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524599 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Yahya, N., & Al Thowaini, B. M. (2025). Persuading in Arabic and English: A study of EFL argumentative writing in contrast with native English norms. Open Cultural Studies, 9(1), 20250056. https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2025-0056 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Fan, C. (2020). An analysis of English news reports from the perspective of Graduation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(12), 1634–1639. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1012.18 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Hashemi, A., & Mahdavirad, F. (2023). A cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary, and cross-gender study on Appraisal resources in PhD dissertation abstracts: Martin & White's (2005) Appraisal Theory in focus. Heliyon, 9(11), e22074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22074 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across cultures: Translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. University of Exeter Press. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Technology, Sydney. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Hood, S., & Martin, J. R. (2007). Invoking attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen, & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (Vol. 2, pp. 739–764). Equinox. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781845535803-027 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Kaouther, N. (2024). A contrastive analysis of the use of hedges in English and Arabic newspaper editorials. *El-Quari'e Journal of Literary, Critical and Linguistic Studies, 7*(2), 342–355. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1-2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Kazmi, S., Rakhmawati, D. E. N., & Rahardjo, M. (2024). Realization of semantic and lexical instances in online hard news representation: A study through attitude and graduation analysis. Media Asia. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2024.2310906 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Koch, B. J. (1983). Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics, 25(1), 47–60. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.003 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Kuswoyo, H., Sujatna, E. T. S., Afrianto, & Rido, A. (2022). 'This novel is not totally full of tears…': Graduation resources as appraisal strategies in EFL students' fiction book review oral presentation. World Journal of English Language, 12(6), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n6p294 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Le, É. (2010). Editorials and the power of media: Interweaving of socio-cultural identities. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.35 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Liu, L., & Stevenson, M. (2013). A cross-cultural analysis of stance in disaster news reports. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.36.2.05liu Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Martin, J. R. (2019). Discourse semantics. In G. Thompson, W. Bowcher, L. Fontaine, & D. Schönthal (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (pp. 358–396). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.016 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

McEnery, T., Brezina, V., Gablasova, D., & Banerjee, J. (2022). Fundamental principles of corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107110625 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Ryding, K. C. (2005). A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Suppiah, P. C., Noor, M. M., Turiman, S., Azizan, M., Aziz, M. N., & Bahrn, F. F. S. (2025). Behind the headlines: Modality in Malaysian news media on foreign labour recruitment. Journal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.24191/cplt.v13i2.8164 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Tavassoli, F., Jalilifar, A., & White, P. R. R. (2018). British newspapers' stance towards the Syrian refugee crisis: An appraisal model study. Discourse & Society, 30(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518801079 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Thompson, G. (2013). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431474 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243–289. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42887977 Google Scholar | WorldCat

Authors

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzahrani

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1650-4732

malkhazmari@bu.edu.sa (Primary Contact)

Author Biography

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzahrani

Mohammed Ahmed Alzahrani is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Foreign Languages, Al-Baha University, KSA. He has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University, Australia. His research interests include Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, and Critical Discourse Analysis.

Alzahrani, M. A. M. (2026). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Graduation in Editorials: Force and Focus in Saudi and American Persuasive Discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 26(2), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v26i2.1423

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.

How to Cite

Download Citation

Introduction

Newspaper editorials constitute a fundamental genre of public persuasion, functioning as institutional platforms through which writers evaluate current events, seek to influence public opinion, and align readers with specific ideological stances (Hatim, 1997; Le, 2010; van Dijk, 1995). As a cornerstone of media discourse, this genre, often termed op-eds or opinion columns, plays a critical role in shaping public debate through argumentation and explicit evaluation across diverse political contexts (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Conboy, 2007; Le, 2010). The persuasive efficacy of editorials is inherently linked to their use of evaluative language, rendering them a productive site for discourse-analytic investigation.

Within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Appraisal Theory provides a robust framework for analyzing such evaluation, focusing on how language constructs stance, emotion, and intersubjective positioning (Kazmi et al., 2024; Martin, 2019). The Appraisal system comprises three interconnected domains: Attitude, which concerns feelings and judgments; Engagement, which addresses the management of dialogic space; and Graduation, which scales the intensity and precision of evaluation. Graduation, operating through Force (intensification, quantification) and Focus (sharpening or softening categorical boundaries), is particularly pivotal, described as occupying “the central position in the whole appraisal system” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 136).

Although Appraisal research has productively examined Attitude and Engagement across genres, the Graduation subsystem remains comparatively underexplored, especially in cross-cultural contexts (Fan, 2020; Hashemi & Mahdavirad, 2023). Recent applications of Appraisal Theory to media discourse continue a pattern of focusing predominantly on the Attitude and Engagement subsystems, while treating Graduation as a peripheral or supplementary element in the overall analysis (e.g., Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Kazmi et al., 2024). This gap is particularly salient in the study of persuasive public genres like editorials. In such genres, persuasive force often resides in subtle gradations of meaning, through the amplification of claims, the framing of quantities, and the blurring or hardening of categories. These scaling strategies naturalize ideologies and shape reader alignment (Fan, 2020; Suppiah et al., 2025).

Furthermore, contrastive rhetoric underscores significant cultural variations in persuasive style; for instance, Arabic rhetorical traditions may employ more assertive and repetitive patterns, while Anglo-American conventions often favor mitigated claims and explicit heteroglossia (Hatim, 1997; Koch, 1983). Such predispositions suggest that the deployment of Graduation resources is likely culturally mediated, a notion supported by findings in academic writing (Al-Ramadan, 2016), by analyses of persuasive strategies in Saudi application letters (Al Abbad et al., 2019), and by recent contrastive analyses of evaluative language (El-Dakhs et al., 2025). Supporting this view, research on newspaper editorials has identified distinct cross-cultural patterns in the use of broader stance features, such as a greater reliance on assertive boosters in Arabic compared to a preference for mitigating hedges in English texts (Alghazo et al., 2024). However, a systematic, dedicated contrastive analysis of the Force and Focus dimensions of Graduation in naturally occurring, culturally situated editorials remains absent from the literature.

To address this gap, this study conducts a contrastive analysis of Graduation resources in newspaper editorials from two elite publications, Asharq Al-Awsat (state-aligned, Saudi Arabic) and The New York Times (independent, United States). The observed patterns reflect institutionally situated rhetorical practices within specific sociocultural contexts, not “national culture” in any essentialized sense, as cross-cultural comparisons necessarily operationalize culture through particular texts. Accordingly, these newspapers are analyzed as representing dominant institutional voices, not entire nations, and the study is guided by the following research questions:

What quantitative differences exist in the use of Graduation resources (Force and Focus) between the selected Saudi and American editorials?
What functional differences characterize the strategic deployment of Force and Focus resources in these two editorial sets?
What do these contrasts reveal about the rhetorical orientations of these two elite newspapers, and how might these reflect their distinct institutional and sociocultural positions?

By pursuing these questions through a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis, this research aims to elucidate how evaluative scaling operates as a context-sensitive rhetorical mechanism. The findings are expected to advance the applied dimensions of Appraisal Theory and offer insights into media-specific manifestations of persuasive discourse.

Literature Review

Appraisal Theory and the Graduation Subsystem

Appraisal Theory, situated within the interpersonal metafunction of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), provides a framework for analyzing how language is used to express evaluation, negotiate social relationships, and position authors in relation to their audiences (Martin, 2019; Martin & White, 2005; Thompson, 2013). This system is organized into three interrelated domains: Attitude (conveying affect, judgment, and appreciation), Engagement (managing dialogic space and other voices), and Graduation.

Within this triadic system, Graduation occupies a particularly central role. Defined as the subsystem “concerned with gradability” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 135), Graduation regulates the scaling of evaluative meaning along two dimensions: Force and Focus (see Figure 1). Force involves the modulation of intensity or quantity, typically expressed through intensification (e.g., very, extremely) and quantification (e.g., many, few). Focus, by contrast, deals with the sharpening (e.g., truly, especially) or softening (e.g., sort of, kind of) of categorical boundaries (Martin & White, 2005).

Figure 1.An Outline of Graduation Resources (Martin & White, 2005, p. 138)

Graduation can be understood as a hierarchical mode of meaning in which Force and Focus function as its core semantic categories (Martin, 2019; Thompson, 2013). Simultaneously, it operates as a system organized around options for up-scaling and down-scaling, with these options forming distinct yet interconnected parameters (Martin, 2019; Martin & White, 2005). Linguistically, Graduation could be realized through isolating patterns (e.g., very sad) or through infusing realizations (e.g., scalding hot). As such, it plays a critical role in shaping interpersonal meaning and operates alongside classical functional grammar descriptions of mood and modality (Hood, 2004; Martin, 2019; Martin & White, 2005). In persuasive genres such as editorials and oral presentation genres (Kuswoyo et al., 2022), Graduation constitutes a fundamental rhetorical resource. It enables writers to calibrate the strength of their claims and the definiteness of their categories, thereby subtly influencing reader alignment and naturalizing ideological viewpoints (Fan, 2020; Hashemi & Mahdavirad, 2023; Kazmi et al., 2024). Consequently, the analysis of Graduation is essential for understanding the nuanced mechanics of persuasion.

Despite its theoretical significance, Graduation remains the least examined subsystem in Appraisal research. Existing studies have disproportionately prioritized Attitude and Engagement, often treating Graduation as peripheral or supplementary (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Kazmi et al., 2024). This neglect is methodologically problematic because, as Hood and Martin (2007) demonstrate, Graduation often operates as the mechanism through which Attitude is invoked rather than explicitly inscribed. Studies that omit systematic Graduation analysis risk missing how evaluation is subtly scaled and naturalized. Furthermore, most Appraisal research has been conducted on English-language texts, with limited attention to cross-linguistic applications (Hashemi & Mahdavirad, 2023). Where cross-linguistic studies exist, they rarely address the methodological challenge of establishing functional equivalence across languages with different grammatical systems (Al-Ramadan, 2016). This study responds directly to these gaps

Cross-Linguistic Equivalence in Graduation Analysis

A key methodological issue in cross-linguistic Appraisal research concerns the functional equivalence of Graduation resources. The framework proposed by Martin and White (2005), originally developed for English, cannot be transferred uncritically to structurally distinct languages such as Arabic. As Al-Ramadan (2016) notes, cross-linguistic application requires sensitivity to language-specific grammatical and lexical systems rather than assuming direct structural correspondence. English and Arabic realize Graduation through different formal means. In English, intensification and quantification are typically expressed through lexical modifiers, determiners, numerals, and syntactic constructions, while sharpening and softening often rely on adverbials and hedging expressions (Martin & White, 2005). In Arabic, however, Graduation may be realized morphologically (e.g., intensive patterns), through plural morphology and partitive constructions, via emphasis and mitigating particles, or through clitic attachment and syntactic repetition (Ryding, 2005). These differences indicate that equivalent evaluative meanings may be encoded through non-parallel structural resources.

Three methodological implications follow. First, form-to-form mapping across languages is not viable; analysis must prioritize functional equivalence. Second, some Graduation meanings are grammaticalized in one language but lexicalized in another, requiring careful semantic interpretation. Third, annotation procedures developed for English must be systematically adapted before being applied to Arabic data. Although cross-linguistic Appraisal studies have acknowledged these concerns (Hashemi & Mahdavirad, 2023), methodological discussions of equivalence remain limited, risking the projection of English-based categories onto non-English texts (Al-Ramadan, 2016). The present study addresses this gap by adopting a functionally oriented annotation protocol that prioritizes semantic equivalence over formal similarity.

Cross-Cultural Rhetoric and the Editorial Genre

The notion that evaluative practices are shaped by cultural conventions is foundational in Contrastive Rhetoric (Connor, 1996; Kaplan, 1966) and continues to be demonstrated in recent cross-cultural studies of discourse (e.g., El-Dakhs et al., 2025; Alzahrani, 2025). Comparative studies of Arabic and English discourse have consistently revealed marked rhetorical differences. Arabic rhetorical traditions tend to favor repetition, parallelism, emotive appeal, and assertive oratory, reflecting communal values and moral certitude (Alshehri & Imran, 2025; Alzahrani, 2025; El-Dakhs et al., 2025; Hatim, 1997; Koch, 1983). In contrast, Anglo-American rhetorical norms generally emphasize linearity, understatement, explicit counterargumentation, and epistemic caution, aligning with more individualistic orientations (Alotaibi, 2021; Connor, 1996; El-Dakhs et al., 2025).

These rhetorical traditions manifest in concrete linguistic and textual features. Empirical work on thematic structure, for example, demonstrates that writers often transfer L1 rhetorical preferences into L2 contexts, shaping information flow and the organization of arguments (e.g., Abu Radwan, 2012; Alotaibi, 2020; Alrajhi, 2020; Alzahrani, 2025). Importantly, such cross-cultural variation extends beyond discourse organization to the domain of evaluative language. Research on the Engagement subsystem of Appraisal Theory shows that cultural background influences how writers manage dialogic space and position themselves authorially. This extends to the macro-structure of the argument itself, with comparative studies of editorials finding that Arabic texts often employ a “through-argumentation” structure, affirmatively building a case, while English texts show a greater tendency for “counter-argumentation,” which engages more directly with opposing viewpoints (Abbadi, 2014). For instance, Alotaibi (2021) found that Arabic L1 academic writers prefer contractive strategies to assert authority, while English L1 writers favor expansive resources to open dialogic space. Using the Aristotelian framework, Al Abbad et al. (2019) found that Saudi writers deploy both culturally specific and globally recognizable persuasive strategies, a finding that resonates with the present study's analysis of Graduation resources. This pattern finds resonance in media discourse.

A recent contrastive study of English and Arabic newspaper editorials found that Arabic texts relied more heavily on assertive boosters and affective attitude markers, whereas English editorials showed a greater preference for mitigating hedges (Alghazo et al., 2024). Alaufi and Obeng (2025) similarly identified intensification, positive self-representation, and the “number game” as key persuasive strategies in Saudi political discourse, demonstrating how amplification serves institutional legitimization goals. This pattern is similarly observed in L2 contexts: Arab L2 writers rely more on contractive resources (e.g., show, demonstrate) to assert firm authority, whereas Native English writers employ expansive ones (e.g., may, suggest) to project epistemological openness (Alzahrani, 2025). These convergent findings illustrate that distinct cultural models of persuasion, one valorizing authoritative certainty, the other privileging collaborative reasoning, are enacted through patterned linguistic choices within the Appraisal framework and related interpersonal systems such as hedging (cf. Alghazo et al., 2024; Kaouther, 2024).

However, contemporary scholarship cautions that classical contrastive rhetoric risks oversimplifying cultural dynamics (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). Key critiques include: (1) essentializing “culture” as static and homogeneous, ignoring intracultural variation; (2) reproducing orientalist binaries that position Western rhetoric as logical and non-Western rhetoric as emotive (Said, 1978); and (3) insufficient attention to institutional mediation, where patterns may reflect editorial position as much as national culture (Le, 2010).Al Zahrawi et al. (2024) bibliometric analysis of Arabic rhetoric research confirms the vitality of this scholarly conversation, identifying King Saud University's leadership in the field and the ongoing development of empirically grounded approaches to Arabic discourse analysis.

Despite the growing body of research on evaluative language across cultures, a systematic gap persists. Cross-cultural Appraisal studies have predominantly focused on academic genres, research articles, student writing, and dissertations, consistently prioritizing Attitude and Engagement while treating Graduation as peripheral (Fan, 2020; Hashemi & Mahdavirad, 2023; Kazmi et al., 2024). Hashemi and Mahdavirad's (2023) large-scale study of PhD abstracts, for instance, found Graduation to be the least frequent and least discussed subsystem across cultures. This pattern of neglect extends to media discourse analysis, where recent applications of Appraisal Theory to opinion columns and hard news continue to foreground Attitude and Engagement, leaving Graduation ancillary (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Alshehri & Imran, 2025; Tavassoli et al., 2018). Consequently, a dedicated contrastive analysis of how Force and Focus operate in public persuasive genres, precisely where evaluative scaling is theorized to be central (Martin & White, 2005), remains absent.

The newspaper editorial represents an ideal genre for addressing this gap. Editorials function as a primary platform for institutional persuasion, where calibrating intensity and categorical precision is fundamental to shaping public opinion (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Kazmi et al., 2024). Their inherently evaluative nature renders them a “culture-revealing” text type in which rhetorical preferences are highly visible (Hyland, 2005). This study directly addresses the identified gap by undertaking a fine-grained, mixed-methods analysis of Graduation resources in Saudi Arabic and American English editorials, examining how culturally distinct rhetorical traditions shape the strategic use of Force and Focus.

The study makes three key contributions. First, it advances cross-cultural pragmatics in media discourse by pinpointing the specific linguistic resources, Force and Focus, through which evaluative meaning is strategically scaled, moving beyond broad stylistic generalizations to reveal how persuasion is linguistically engineered. Second, it refines the application of Appraisal Theory in comparative genre research by systematically foregrounding the previously underexplored Graduation subsystem, demonstrating its critical role in enacting culturally situated rhetorical styles. Third, it yields practical insights for translation studies, media literacy education, and intercultural communication by highlighting risks of pragmatic misalignment when evaluative scaling conventions are transferred uncritically across cultural contexts.

Method

Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative-dominated mixed-methods design. It identifies broad, statistically observable patterns in the use of Graduation resources and also supports a nuanced, context-sensitive interpretation of their rhetorical functions. The qualitative dimension carries primary interpretive weight, with quantitative findings serving to establish the systematic nature of observed patterns.

Corpus Compilation

The corpus comprises 30 newspaper editorials, evenly divided between two sources, representing the two distinct linguacultural traditions under examination. The Saudi Arabic sub-corpus consists of 15 editorials published in Asharq Al-Awsat during the period (2024-2025). As a newspaper closely linked to the Saudi establishment and published by the Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG), Asharq Al-Awsat is widely regarded as reflecting official and pro-government perspectives, thereby serving as a clear example of state-aligned Saudi editorial discourse. The American English sub-corpus consists of 15 editorials published in The New York Times during the same period, representing an influential editorial tradition characterized by political and institutional independence from government control in the U.S. context. Editorials were selected based on thematic comparability across four domains: (1) Geopolitical Strategy & International Relations, (2) Domestic Economic Policy, (3) Social Change & Public Discourse, and (4) National Governance & Reform. This approach ensures that both sub-corpora address topics of comparable institutional gravity and persuasive demand, precisely the context in which strategic evaluative scaling is most critical (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Liu & Stevenson, 2013). All selected texts are explicitly labeled as editorials or op-eds, confirming their generic purpose as institutional opinion pieces.

Analytical Framework and Annotation Procedures

The analysis was operationalized through a framework derived from Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory. A comprehensive coding manual was developed, providing explicit definitions and examples for each subcategory of Force (Intensification and Quantification) and Focus (Sharpening and Softening). Every clause in the 30 editorials was examined and coded for the presence of these Graduation resources.

To ensure consistency, a double-coding procedure was implemented on a randomly selected 20% portion of the corpus. Inter-coder reliability was calculated using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, with a threshold of κ ≥ 0.80 deemed acceptable. All Arabic examples in the qualitative analysis are presented with the original Arabic script, a transliteration, and an English translation. This three-tier format ensures transparency and allows all readers, regardless of their familiarity with Arabic, to follow the analysis and understand how Graduation resources are identified and interpreted.

Quantitative Analytical Procedures

Raw counts of each Graduation resource were normalized to rates per 1,000 words to calculate density within each sub-corpus. Normalization is a standard practice in corpus-based discourse analysis to control for differences in text length and enable valid cross-corpus comparison (Biber et al., 1998; McEnery et al., 2022). Prior to statistical testing, Shapiro-Wilk tests were conducted to assess the normality of per-text density scores. Results indicated significant deviations from normal distribution for several Graduation subcategories (p < .05), warranting the use of non-parametric procedures. Mann-Whitney U tests, a non-parametric alternative to the independent-samples t-test for comparing two independent groups on a continuous dependent variable when normality assumptions are violated (Field, 2018), were employed to assess the statistical significance of observed differences in resource density. The unit of analysis for all statistical tests was the individual editorial text: each of the 30 editorials (15 Saudi, 15 American) constituted one case, with normalized density scores calculated for each text. This text-by-text approach ensures statistical independence and captures within-group variability. Effect sizes (r) were calculated following Fritz et al. (2012) to measure the magnitude of observed differences.

Qualitative Analytical Procedures

Qualitative discourse analysis examined the co-textual function of Graduation resources, investigating how they operate within specific rhetorical moves. The analysis focused on whether intensifiers amplified core argumentative claims or heightened the evaluation of opposing viewpoints; whether quantification constructed an expansive scale or anchored the critique in precise evidence; and whether sharpening and softening delineated categorical boundaries or introduced diplomatic nuance. The analysis further distinguished between softening used for diplomatic face management in the Saudi context and softening used for epistemic caution and comparative nuance in the American context. Particular attention was paid to how sequences of Graduation choices contributed to building argumentative momentum, managing interpersonal rapport, and constructing authorial voice.

Integrative Interpretation Procedures

The final phase involved cross-cultural interpretation of combined quantitative and qualitative findings through the theoretical lenses of contrastive rhetoric and intercultural rhetoric. This synthesis sought to explain observed differences not merely as linguistic preferences but as manifestations of deeper, institutionally situated rhetorical styles shaped by the intersection of cultural orientations, media ideology, and genre conventions. This interpretive synthesis also drew on the Aristotelian framework of rhetorical appeals, specifically the contrast between pathos-oriented amplification in the Saudi corpus and logos-oriented precision in the American corpus, and connected the findings to broader persuasive traditions documented in prior research (Al Abbad et al., 2019).

Results

This section presents the empirical findings organized around the three research questions. First, quantitative differences in Force and Focus resources between the selected Saudi and American editorials are examined (RQ1). Second, qualitative analysis explores the functional differences in their strategic deployment across the two editorial sets (RQ2). Third, an interpretive synthesis considers what these contrasts reveal about the rhetorical orientations of the two newspapers and their institutional and sociocultural positions (RQ3).

Quantitative Differences in Graduation Resources

Quantitative differences in Force and Focus resources were examined across the two corpora to address the first research question. A systematic annotation of the 30-editorial corpus yielded the normalized frequencies per 1,000 words for each individual text. These per-editorial-density scores (15 for Saudi Arabic, 15 for American English) formed the basis for all statistical comparisons. To clarify the unit of statistical analysis: each of the 30 editorials was treated as an independent case. For every text, we calculated normalized densities (per 1,000 words) for each Graduation subcategory. The Mann-Whitney U test was then used to compare the distributions of these per-text density scores between the Saudi group (n=15) and the American group (n=15). This approach accounts for variability among individual editorials within each corpus and avoids the ecological fallacy of treating corpus aggregates as single data points. The subsequent statistical analysis, employing Mann-Whitney U tests, reveals a significant divergence in the deployment of Graduation subsystems. The complete results, including density values, test statistics, and effect sizes, are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.Density (per 1,000 words) and Statistical Comparison of Graduation Resources in Saudi Arabic (SC) and American English (AE) Editorials
Graduation Subsystem & Category	Saudi Arabic Corpus	American English Corpus	Mann-Whitney U	*z*	*p*	*Effect Size (r)*
FORCE	41.2	28.7	35.0	3.41	< .001	.62
Intensification	22.5	16.1	41.0	3.06	.002	.56
Quantification	18.7	12.6	30.0	3.58	< .001	.65
FOCUS	15.8	24.3	32.0	−3.52	< .001	.64
Sharpening	9.4	17.9	27.5	−3.71	< .001	.68
Softening	5.5	6.4	97.0	−1.35	.176	.25
TOTAL	57.0	53.0	102.0

Note. SA = Saudi Arabic; AE = American English. Densities are normalized per 1,000 words. All statistical tests were conducted on per-editorial density scores (N = 30 texts; 15 per group). U = Mann–Whitney U statistic. Effect size *r* = |*z*| / √N (N = 30). All *p*-values are two-tailed. Effect size interpretation follows Fritz et al. (2012): *r* ≥ .50 (large), .30 ≤ *r* < .50 (medium), *r* < .30 (small).

The quantitative analysis, summarized in Table 1, reveals a statistically significant and culturally patterned divergence in the deployment of Graduation resources across the two editorial traditions. While Saudi Arabic (SA) and American English (AE) editorials engage in evaluative scaling to a comparable overall extent, with no significant difference in total Gradation density per 1,000 words (SA: 57.0, AE: 53.0; *p* = .222), their reliance on the subsystem dimensions of Force and Focus is markedly distinct. The SA corpus is characterized by a high-density Force profile, using significantly more Force resources overall (SA: 41.2, AE: 28.7; *p* < .001) with a large effect size (*r* = .62). This profile is consistently realized through greater use of both Intensification (SA: 22.5, AE: 16.1; *p* = .002, *r* = .56) and Quantification (SA: 18.7, AE: 12.6; *p* < .001, *r* = .65). In contrast, the AE corpus exhibits a high-density Focus profile, employing significantly more Focus resources (AE: 24.3, SA: 15.8; *p* < .001, *r* = .64). This preference is driven specifically by a substantially higher density of Sharpening (AE: 17.9, SA: 9.4; *p* < .001, *r* = .68), the largest effect size observed in the study. The difference in the use of Softening resources, while slightly favoring the AE corpus (AE: 6.4, SA: 5.5), was not statistically significant (*p* = .176, small effect). These results delineate two distinct evaluative signatures: SA editorials construct persuasion primarily by amplifying intensity and quantity (Force), while AE editorials achieve persuasive effect chiefly by calibrating categorical precision and definitional clarity (Focus), setting the stage for a qualitative examination of their strategic rhetorical functions.

Qualitative Differences in the Employment of Graduation Resources

The second research question examines the functional and strategic deployment of Force and Focus resources, investigating how these Graduation mechanisms operate within the rhetorical and interpersonal structure of editorials in the two corpora.

The Strategic Deployment of Force Resources

Intensification: Affirmation of National Narratives vs. Condemnation of Transgression

“Intensification” scales the degree of qualities or processes, and its application reveals contrasting persuasive agendas across the two corpora.

Saudi Arabic Editorials: Affirmative Amplification of the National Collective

In the Saudi Arabic editorials, intensification is primarily used to elevate and magnify positive attributes associated with the national collective, encompassing state institutions, national projects, shared historical identity, and communal resilience, thereby constructing a discourse of legitimization. This tendency is illustrated in the following examples:

(1) Arabic: “هي فترة صمدت رغم جملة التحديات المصيرية”

Transliteration: hiya fatra ṣamadat raghma jumlat al-taḥaddiyāt al-maṣīriyya.

Translation: “A period that withstood the full range of fateful challenges” (Art. 1, Asharq).

(1) Arabic: “تُوصَفُ الإنجازات بأنها "غير مسبوقة”

Transliteration: Wusifat al-injazat bi-annaha "ghayr masbuqa.

Translation: Successes are described as ‘unprecedented’. (Art. 5, Asharq).

In the first example, the nominal intensifier jumlat (the full range) semantically aggregates and maximizes the scope of the following noun phrase (fateful challenges). This scaling does not merely enumerate challenges but constructs them as an overwhelming, monolithic entity. The rhetorical effect is to dramatically amplify the significance of the verb ṣamadat (withstood), framing national endurance as a heroic triumph against insurmountable odds, thus elevating the collective’s resilience.

The second example demonstrates the use of the lexical intensifier ghayr masbuqa (unprecedented), functioning as a superlative-like marker of uniqueness. By infusing the quality of “successes” with this scalar value, the text positions the national achievements outside comparative historical frameworks, fostering a narrative of distinct and unparalleled collective progress.

American English Editorials: Condemnation of Transgression

Conversely, in the American English corpus, intensification is most frequently employed to heighten the negative evaluation of actions, policies, or actors perceived as transgressing institutional or democratic norms. This usage serves a critical, adversarial function. The following examples illustrate this pattern:

(3) “The administration's cruel, chaotic campaign to deport and drive out undocumented immigrants is creating labor shortages that increase prices” (Art. 4, NYT).

(4) “The nonfinancial parts of the administration’s campaign against higher education are also alarming” (Art. 13, NYT).

In the first example, the paired intensifiers cruel and chaotic operate cumulatively to evaluate the administration’s immigration policy on both moral and practical grounds. “Cruel” invokes ethical condemnation, while “chaotic” denotes dysfunctional execution. Together, they amplify the critique by framing the policy as both morally reprehensible and operationally incompetent, thereby strengthening the editorial’s argument that such measures harm the economy without achieving their stated goals. The second example demonstrates the use of alarming, which intensifies the evaluative process by invoking a visceral, affective sense of danger and urgency. Rhetorically, these intensifiers function not merely to describe but to accuse and alert the audience. They sharpen the categorical boundary between acceptable and unacceptable conduct, amplifying the stakes of the critique and positioning readers to align against the transgressor by invoking norms and values presented as shared within the target audience.

Taken together, these intensification strategies serve to reinforce culturally distinct rhetorical goals. In Saudi Arabic editorials, the ethos of the collective in-group is bolstered, amplifying positive appraisal and strengthening communal identity. In American English editorials, they reinforce a critical, adversarial stance, enhancing the authorial voice of accountability and positioning readers in alignment with normative expectations. Across both contexts, intensification serves as a powerful mechanism for shaping readers’ perceptions, whether by celebrating collective achievements or mobilizing opposition to perceived transgressions.

Quantification: Expansive Scale vs. Precise Evidence

“Quantification”, as a sub-category of Force, involves the scaling of amount, extent, or number (Martin & White, 2005). The qualitative analysis reveals a contrast between the preference for expansive, often non-numerical scaling in the Saudi Arabic editorials and the precise, evidentiary quantification in the American English texts.

Saudi Arabic Editorials: Constructing Expansive and Historical Scale

Quantification in the Saudi corpus frequently employs scalar, often non-numerical terms to convey vastness, historical depth, and the magnitude of collective vision, thereby building a sense of monumental, enduring national endeavor. The following examples illustrate this tendency:

(5) Arabic: “كان هناك بعض الزعماء العرب من اشتهروا بالتنظير في كل شيء، من الذرة إلى المجرة”

Transliteration: Kana hunaka ba'd al-qadat al-'arab al-mashhurīn bi-tanzirihim hawl kull shay', min al-dharra ila al-majarra.

Translation: “There were some Arab leaders famous for theorizing about everything, from the atom to the galaxy.” (Art. 3, Asharq).

(6) Arabic: “اتساع رقعة الحرب في الشرق الأوسط”

Transliteration: ittiṣāʿ ruqʿat al-ḥarb fī al-sharq al-awsaṭ

Translation: “The expansion of the war’s scope in the Middle East.”( Art. 11, Asharq).

In the first example, the universal quantifier kull shay(everything) functions through maximization, scaling the scope of the leaders' theorizing to its broadest possible extent. This expansive quantification does not aim for factual precision but constructs a rhetorical image of exhaustive, perhaps excessive, intellectual ambition, emphasizing breadth over specificity. The second example employs the nominal construction ittiṣāʿ ruqʿah (expansion of scope) to quantify the geographic spread of conflict. The non-numerical scalar term ruqʿah (scope/area) emphasizes magnitude without precise measurement, constructing war as an expanding entity whose growth is inherently threatening. Rhetorically, this quantification amplifies anxiety about regional instability while invoking the historical pattern of conflicts widening beyond their origins, a theme central to the editorial's critique of great power policies.

American English Editorials: Anchoring Argument in Precise Evidentiary Grounding

In contrast, the American English editorials predominantly utilize quantification that is numerical, specific, and often attributed, serving to anchor arguments in concrete data and construct a stance of empirical objectivity and public accountability within the critique. The following examples demonstrate this approach:

(7) “Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans have urged a steep increase of a university endowment tax...” (Art. 13, NYT).

(8) “The Republican plan would strip Medicaid benefits from working-age adults who do not have children unless they can prove they are working at least 80 hours a month. That would result in 7.7 million Americans losing health insurance by 2034” (Art. 3, NYT).

In this example, the adjective steep functions not as a precise numerical quantifier but as a scalar, non-numerical intensifier of the proposed tax increase’s gradient. It belongs to the Force subsystem of Graduation by metaphorically quantifying the rate or severity of change. While it avoids a specific percentage, it powerfully quantifies the policy change's impact and magnitude in economically resonant, figurative terms. Rhetorically, this choice translates an abstract political proposal into a vivid, scalable, and consequential action, framing the policy as severe and impactful. The second example employs precise numerical quantification (7.7 million Americans) to transform an abstract policy proposal into a concrete, measurable consequence. The specific figure anchors the critique in empirical evidence, lending authority to the editorial's argument. Rhetorically, such quantification enacts the press's watchdog function by translating legislative actions into human-scale impacts, enabling readers to grasp the magnitude of policy changes and holding lawmakers accountable through transparent, evidence-based analysis. Overall, these quantification strategies reveal distinct rhetorical orientations. In Saudi Arabic editorials, expansive, non-numerical quantification amplifies collective endeavors and historical magnitude, reinforcing communal identity and national legitimacy. In American English editorials, precise and comparative quantification anchors critique in measurable evidence, emphasizing empirical authority, accountability, and evaluative rigor.

Qualitative Analysis of Focus Resources

“Focus” refers to the Graduation resource for scaling the prototypicality or precision of a categorical boundary, either sharpening it (making membership more exact) or softening it (making membership more approximate) (Martin & White, 2005).

Sharpening: Categorical Precision vs. Defining Centrality

Saudi Arabic Editorials: Sharpening to Elevate Significance

In the Saudi corpus, sharpening is less frequent but strategically employed to elevate the historical or transformative significance of events. The following example illustrates this use:

(9) Arabic: “لم يكن ما حدث على منصة 'إكس' مجرد تحديث تقني، بل كان لحظة مفصلية أسقطت أقنعة كثيرة”

Transliteration: lam yakun Ma hadatha 'ala minsat "X" mujarrad tahdith taqni, bal kana lahẓa mafṣiliyyah asqaṭat aqniʿah kathīrah.

Translation: “What happened on platform 'X' was not merely a technical update, but rather a pivotal moment that unmasked many facades.”) (Art. 5, Asharq).

Here, sharpening operates through a contrastive structure. The sharpener mujarrad(merely) down-scales and dismisses one categorization tahdith taqni (technical update), while the lexical sharpener mafṣiliyyah (pivotal) up-scales the alternative categorization lahẓa (moment) as highly significant. This precisely defines the event as a historical turning point rather than a routine incident, thereby constructing a narrative in which discernment reveals deeper truths.

American English Editorials: Sharpening for Categorical Condemnation and Definitional Clarity

The American corpus shows a marked preference for sharpening, using it to precisely define transgressions and to establish clear, normative categories. The following examples illustrate this function:

(10) “The most effective way to protect that system starts with courage from more people who believe in it.” (Art. 5, NYT).

(11) “Mr. Trump, for all his bluster, does sometimes respond to political and legal pressure...” (Art. 13, NYT).

In the first example, the superlative sharpener is the most effective way to elevate courageous public defense as the prototypical strategy for protecting the legal system. Defining the core of “effective protection” adds argumentative weight to the editorial’s call for action. Rhetorically, it mobilizes readers by presenting a clear, principled course of action. In the second example, the auxiliary does is a grammatical sharpener that affirms the truth of the verb “respond,” adding emphasis and certainty. It sharpens the categorical claim about Trump’s behavior against a backdrop of expected denial (for all his bluster), precisely delineating a facet of his conduct as a verifiable fact. This use of sharpening isolates actionable truths within a complex political reality, serving adversarial accountability. Overall, sharpening in both corpora serves to delineate categorical boundaries and emphasize prototypicality, though for different rhetorical purposes: in American English editorials, it underlines definitional clarity and accountability, while in Saudi Arabic editorials, it elevates the significance of events within a historical or transformative framework.

Softening: Diplomatic Positioning vs. Nuanced Comparison

S audi Arabic Editorials: Strategic Softening for Diplomatic and Pragmatic Nuance

Softening in the Saudi texts often serves as a tool for diplomatic face management, presenting firm stances in a pragmatically flexible manner. The following example illustrates this strategy:

(12) Arabic: “...وعاء 'يوتيوب' يشتمل على قدر لا بأس به من توثيقات هذه المظاهرات”

Transliteration: Wi'a' "YouTube" yashtamil 'ala qadr la ba's bihi min tawthiqat hadhihi al-Mudhaharat.

Translation: “...the container ‘YouTube’ contains a fair bit of documentation of these demonstrations…”) (Art. 3, Asharq).

The phrase la ba’s bihi (a fair bit) is a strategic approximation. It acknowledges the existence of evidence without committing to precise quantification (e.g., “extensive” or “thousands of videos”), softening the categorical claim and introducing deliberate vagueness. This avoids controversy, maintains measured observation, and preserves diplomatic space, reflecting a high-context communication style where relational harmony and strategic ambiguity are valued.

American English Editorials: Softening for Epistemic Caution and Comparative Nuance

In the American corpus, softening is used to express epistemic caution, acknowledge complexity, or make nuanced comparisons that avoid over-generalization. The following example demonstrates this function:

(13) “To lesser degrees, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey recently have as well” (Art. 13, NYT).

The phrase “To lesser degrees” is a crucial softener for comparative analysis. It situates these leaders within the category of those employing authoritarian strategies, but immediately softens their membership relative to the primary example (Putin). This scales down prototypicality, presenting a spectrum rather than a binary classification. It demonstrates epistemic responsibility by refining the comparison, protecting the argument from oversimplification, and constructing a credible, nuanced critique aligned with a rhetorical tradition that values precision and hedged claims. In combination, softening in both corpora mediates categorical boundaries, but in contextually distinct ways: in Saudi Arabic editorials, it manages relational and diplomatic nuance, while in American English editorials, it signals epistemic caution and comparative sophistication. Across both, softening enables authors to balance assertiveness with audience sensitivity and rhetorical precision.

Integrating Institutional and Cultural-Rhetorical Explanations

The observed patterns are best understood as products of the interplay between institutional positioning, media ideology, genre conventions, and cultural orientations. Each of these factors contributes to the distinct evaluative profiles documented across the two corpora.

Institutional Position and Media Ideology

The Saudi corpus, drawn from Asharq Al-Awsat, exhibits a high-density Force profile characterized by affirmative intensification and expansive quantification. This pattern corresponds to the newspaper’s position as a state-aligned outlet closely linked to the Saudi establishment. As an institution whose editorial mandate involves reflecting official perspectives, it uses its discourse to legitimize national projects and reinforce collective identity. The frequent use of intensification to elevate national achievements and quantification to convey historical scale serves this institutional purpose. The American corpus from The New York Times demonstrates a high-density Focus profile marked by sharpening for categorical condemnation and precise evidentiary quantification. This pattern aligns with the newspaper’s position as an independent watchdog institution. Its editorial discourse functions to scrutinize power, hold authorities accountable, and evaluate actors against normative standards. The prevalence of sharpening to define transgressions and precise quantification to ground critique reflects this adversarial institutional role.

Genre Conventions and Editorial Voice

Both newspapers operate within the editorial genre, yet they realize its conventions differently according to their institutional positions. In Asharq Al-Awsat, the editorial voice adopts the stance of a national narrator, amplifying collective achievements and framing events within narratives of national resilience and progress. The first-person plural inclusive (naḥnu, “we”) and references to shared national destiny position the readership as members of a collective undertaking. In The New York Times, the editorial voice assumes the role of a public critic, evaluating actors against normative standards and mobilizing readers’ judgment with calibrated precision. The use of sharpening to define categorical boundaries and quantification to provide evidentiary grounding constructs an authorial stance of objective scrutiny. These distinct realizations of the editorial genre reflect both institutional expectations and culturally situated understandings of the press's social function, legitimization in the Saudi context, and accountability in the American context.

Cultural Orientations as Mediating Resources

Cultural communication styles provide rhetorical resources that writers draw upon, yet their deployment is mediated by institutional goals and genre expectations. The preference for expansive quantification in Saudi editorials draws on rhetorical traditions of amplification and emphasis documented in Arabic discourse (Hatim, 1997; Koch, 1983). However, its specific manifestation in Asharq Al-Awsat serves the institutional goal of legitimizing state-aligned narratives. The use of universal quantifiers (kull shay’, “everything”) and scalar terms ('ala nitaq wasi', "on a wide scale") constructs magnitude and historical depth appropriate to national storytelling. Similarly, the American preference for precise quantification draws on rhetorical traditions of empirical evidence and epistemic caution characteristic of Anglo-American academic and journalistic discourse (Connor, 1996). Yet its manifestation in The New York Times serves the institutional goal of adversarial accountability. Numerical precision and comparative quantification (e.g., “much... relatively little”) anchor critique in verifiable data, lending authority to watchdog functions. Cultural orientations thus supply the rhetorical palette, while institutional position and genre convention guide its application.

Target and Purpose of Rhetorical Force

The findings nuance broad generalizations about “direct” versus “indirect” rhetoric by revealing that directness varies according to rhetorical target and purpose. In the Saudi corpus, rhetoric is directly forceful in positive self-presentation, amplifying collective achievements and national resilience, but strategically indirect when addressing external challenges or potential criticism, employing softening resources for diplomatic face-management. In the American corpus, rhetoric is directly forceful in critiquing others, sharpening categorical boundaries to condemn transgressions, but indirect when making nuanced comparisons or acknowledging complexity, employing epistemic softening for comparative precision. The distinction lies not in the overall level of directness across cultures, but in its target (in-group versus out-group) and primary purpose (legitimization versus accountability). These patterns are shaped by the intersection of institutional position and cultural context: a state-aligned newspaper legitimizing national projects directs its force inward toward collective affirmation, while an independent watchdog scrutinizing power directs its force outward toward institutional critique. Therefore, the observed rhetorical patterns emerge from the complex interaction of institutional positioning (state-aligned versus independent), media ideology (affirmative versus adversarial), genre conventions (national narrator versus public critic), and cultural orientations (communal versus individualistic rhetorical resources). Each factor contributes to the distinct evaluative profiles documented in this study, and none operates in isolation.

Discussion

The integrated findings from this mixed-methods analysis address the study’s research questions while situating evaluative scaling within broader patterns documented in Appraisal and contrastive media discourse research. The results reveal systematic divergences in the deployment of Graduation resources across the two corpora and demonstrate that these divergences align with, yet also refine, patterns reported in previous studies. Quantitatively, the Saudi Arabic editorials exhibited a significantly higher density of Force resources, whereas the American English editorials displayed a higher density of Focus resources. This divergence resonates with earlier observations that Arabic media discourse frequently relies on amplification and repetition as persuasive strategies (Hatim, 1997; Koch, 1983). Studies of Arabic evaluative language (e.g., Alghazo et al., 2024; El-Dakhs et al., 2025) have similarly noted the prominence of intensification and expansive quantification in the construction of collective stance and national identity. This preference for amplification aligns with Al Abbad et al.’s (2019) identification of Pathos and Ethos strategies in Saudi female application letters, suggesting that affective engagement and credibility construction characterize Saudi persuasive practice across genres. The present findings extend this line of research by demonstrating, through systematic density measurement, that such amplification is not merely stylistic but structurally patterned within editorial scaling practices.

Conversely, the prominence of Focus in the American corpus aligns with findings from Anglo-American media discourse that emphasize categorical precision, evidentiary grounding, and epistemic calibration (Connor, 1996; Alotaibi, 2021). Prior Appraisal-based studies have shown that English-language editorials frequently sharpen definitional boundaries and employ measured quantification to enhance argumentative credibility (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022; Kazmi et al., 2024). The present analysis corroborates these tendencies by demonstrating that sharpening and calibrated quantification are not incidental features but central mechanisms of evaluative positioning in the sampled American editorials.

Qualitative findings further reinforce these connections to prior scholarship. In the Saudi corpus, Force resources amplify narratives of resilience and achievement, a pattern consistent with research describing Arabic political discourse as foregrounding collective solidarity and emotive emphasis (Hatim, 1997). Alaufi and Obeng (2025) similarly observe intensification serving institutional legitimization in Saudi political discourse, directly paralleling the legitimization function identified in Asharq Al-Awsat editorials. However, the data also show a strategic deployment of softening in diplomatically sensitive contexts, complicating earlier generalizations portraying Arabic rhetoric as uniformly direct. Similarly, while Anglo-American discourse has often been characterized as empirically grounded and comparatively restrained (Connor, 1996), the American editorials analyzed here demonstrate a sharpness in delineating accountability or defining transgression. Thus, rather than confirming binary cultural stereotypes, the findings suggest that directness and mitigation vary according to rhetorical target and institutional purpose.

From an Appraisal perspective, these results reinforce the argument that Graduation plays a central role in the construction of persuasive discourse. Although earlier research has tended to foreground Attitude and Engagement as primary carriers of evaluation (Alsandeli & Alattar, 2022), the present findings demonstrate that Force and Focus function as crucial mechanisms for calibrating intensity and categorical boundaries. In this respect, the study supports calls within Appraisal scholarship to treat Graduation not as a peripheral subsystem but as integral to interpersonal meaning-making (Kazmi et al., 2024).

Importantly, the findings also respond to critiques of classical contrastive rhetoric that caution against essentializing national discourse styles (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). While the observed patterns align with previously documented rhetorical tendencies, they are best understood as institutionally situated deployments of culturally available resources rather than reflections of homogeneous “national character.” This context-sensitive approach aligns with the empirically grounded tradition documented in Al Zahrawi et al.’s (2024) bibliometric analysis of Arabic rhetoric research, which confirms the vitality of scholarly inquiry into Arabic persuasive practices. By grounding interpretation in corpus-based evidence and avoiding broad cultural generalization, the study advances a more nuanced model of cross-contextual rhetorical comparison.

Theoretical Implications

The findings contribute to Appraisal research by empirically substantiating the functional centrality of Graduation in editorial persuasion and by demonstrating how Force and Focus operate differently across sociocultural media environments. Methodologically, the integration of quantitative density analysis with qualitative interpretation responds to recent calls for greater empirical rigor in Appraisal studies (Hashemi & Mahdavirad, 2023). Theoretically, the results refine cross-cultural rhetoric research by shifting the analytical focus from abstract cultural dichotomies to patterned evaluative scaling within institutionally embedded discourse practices.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The study is limited to two elite newspapers and therefore cannot claim to be representative of broader national media systems. The observed Force- and Focus-dominant profiles may reflect institutional positioning as much as broader rhetorical traditions. Future research should examine additional outlets with varying ideological orientations and conduct cross-genre comparisons to determine whether these Graduation patterns persist across different media contexts. Longitudinal and reception-based studies would further clarify the stability and interpretive impact of evaluative scaling across sociocultural settings.

Conclusion

This study has examined the deployment of Force and Focus within the Graduation subsystem of the Appraisal framework developed by Martin and White (2005) in editorials from Asharq Al-Awsat and The New York Times. By integrating quantitative density analysis with qualitative functional interpretation, the study has shown that evaluative scaling constitutes a systematic and meaningful point of divergence between the two corpora. In this dataset, Graduation does not function merely as a secondary modifier of evaluation; rather, it operates as a principal mechanism through which editorial stance is intensified, delimited, and aligned with readers. At a synthetic level, the contrast between a Force-dominant profile and a Focus-dominant profile reflects two distinct modes of persuasive calibration. One prioritizes amplification of magnitude and collective framing, while the other privileges categorical precision and calibrated scrutiny. These patterns demonstrate that scaling choices shape not only the strength of claims but also the interpersonal positioning of the editorial voice. Crucially, the findings are best understood as institutionally situated deployments of culturally available rhetorical resources in the analyzed publications, rather than as expressions of homogeneous national discourse styles.

The study’s theoretical contribution lies in specifying how Graduation functions as a context-sensitive resource for negotiating legitimacy and accountability in editorial discourse. By empirically demonstrating systematic contrasts in the density and function of Force and Focus across two comparable corpora, the research provides a replicable baseline for future cross-linguistic Appraisal studies. In doing so, it advances a more precise account of how evaluative scaling interacts with editorial role and communicative purpose. The conclusions remain necessarily corpus-bound. The analysis pertains to two elite newspapers over a defined period, and broader generalizations require examination of additional outlets, ideological configurations, and genres. Nevertheless, the methodological integration adopted here offers a transferable model for investigating evaluative scaling across languages and media environments.

From an applied perspective, the findings indicate that cross-context editorial translation and intercultural communication require recalibration of scaling density rather than direct transfer of intensification or sharpening patterns. Awareness of how Force and Focus shape persuasive alignment also strengthens critical media literacy by foregrounding the strategic nature of evaluative language. This study demonstrates that Force and Focus are strategic instruments through which editorial discourse constructs authority and negotiates reader alignment. By clarifying their patterned deployment within institutionally situated contexts, the research contributes to a more empirically grounded and theoretically delimited understanding of persuasive scaling in contemporary media discourse.

Conflicts of interest: The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.

Author’s contribution statements: The author was solely responsible for the conceptualization, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of this study.

Funding statements: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect JICC's or editors' official policy or position. All liability for harm done to individuals or property as a result of any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the content is expressly disclaimed.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process: Generative AI tools were used solely for minor language editing and proofreading. All ideas, analyses, interpretations, and academic content are the author’s original work and responsibility.

Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Share Now

A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Graduation in Editorials: Force and Focus in Saudi and American Persuasive Discourse

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzahrani

How to Cite

ICR Publications

Indexed

ISSN & Website Link

Contact Info

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Alzahrani

Article Details

How to Cite

ICR Publications

Indexed

ISSN & Website Link

Contact Info