comparative analysis

This essay offers a comparative analysis of health law and telemedicine in Iran and the United States. It explores unique aspects of healthcare systems, regulations, challenges, and opportunities in both nations, tracing the historical development of health law and virtual health from inception to modern times. Specific challenges and opportunities exist within each country's healthcare systems, telemedicine practices, and regulations. For instance, in Iran, the coexistence of traditional and modern legal frameworks makes it essential to ensure that the laws are updated. The United States has a complex landscape of virtual health that needs to be maintained and integrated. What is similar in both countries is the importance of privacy. The analysis emphasizes the importance of adapting legal frameworks to accommodate technological advancements while protecting patient interests. Enhancing health laws and expanding telemedicine capabilities in both countries can improve access to virtual healthcare and enhance the quality and safety of patient care.

This study investigates the pragmastylistic features employed in English and Arabic religious texts, with a specific focus on the concept of rewarding. Drawing on Narmin Abbas Lutfi Baqqal's PhD dissertation, the research examines the pragmatic and stylistic characteristics of rewarding in Biblical and Prophetic Hadith texts. The study addresses two primary research questions: (1) What are the pragmastylistic features used in English and Arabic religious texts to convey rewarding? (2) Which pragmatic and stylistic features are more prevalent in these texts? By analyzing 20 Biblical verses and 20 Prophetic Hadiths, the paper identifies the linguistic and rhetorical devices used to express rewarding, highlighting both similarities and differences between the two languages. The findings reveal that both texts employ declarative and imperative speech acts, deixis, and figurative language, but with distinct stylistic preferences. This study contributes to the fields of pragmatics, stylistics, and religious discourse analysis, offering insights into how language shapes religious messages across different cultural and linguistic contexts.

This study provides a comparative analysis of the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians to manipulate their audiences. By examining political speeches from both linguistic contexts, the research reveals distinct cultural patterns in manipulation. English-speaking politicians often employ direct, fact-based appeals (logos), while Arabic-speaking politicians rely more on emotional and collective identity appeals (pathos). These strategies reflect the cultural and linguistic norms of each group. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric.