A pragma-linguistic perspective - Journals Online

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 5, 2020

1

Logistics of Language Change in the Qur’anic Discourse:

A pragma-linguistic perspective

Sami Al-Heeh1& Ibrahim Najjar

2

1Faculty of Arts, Department of Applied English, Palestine Ahliya University

E-mail: [email protected] 2Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This small-scale study explores language change in the Qur‟anic Discourse. It aims to describe some

semi-identical verses with minor changes at the structural level, interpret the meanings depicted in these

verses, and explain the factors that facilitated the linguist variation depicted in theses verses. The study

utilizes corpus linguistics for data collection. It also applies a critical as well as an analytical approach to

the data collected. Thus, it builds on Fairclough‟s (1998) critical model of discourse analysis. It has been

found that the holy Script of Islam tends to apply language change in a few semi-identical verses. The

variation, perceived by a native speaker‟s intuition, is structurally carried out through lexicalization,

grammaticalization, or lexico-grammaticalization. It has been concluded that the sociolinguistic

variation, realized in the Qur‟anic discourse, is regulated by the status, gender, and interaction social

factors.

Keywords: The Qur‟anic Discourse, Sociolinguistic Variation, Lexicalization and Grammatical-

ization, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Pragma-stylistics

1. INTRODUCTION

Like everything else, language changes over time. The German linguist, Wilhelm von Humboldt

has remarked that “There can never be a moment of true standstill in language, just as little as in the

ceaseless flaming thought of men. By nature it is a continuous process of development” (In Aitchison,

2001, p.3). According to structuralism, grammar refers to the set of underlying rules (also known as

principles and parameters) that native speakers of one language subconsciously follow. In theory, the

definition implicates that it is possible for a linguist to compile a good book of grammar in which the

author can formulate a complete set of grammatical rules that give good reasons for all the well-formed

structures and reject the ill-formed ones. In practice, this claim encounters a number of serious problems

including mainly language fuzziness and variation (Aitchison, 2001, p. 39).

Brinton and Traugott (2005, p. 9) list two approached to language change that are not in line with

the concept of grammar. The first tendency is perceived as a self-contained module regulated by a set of

language specifics and universal absolute principles and parameters functioning independently of

contextual factors. The second is felt as a set of general cognitive inclinations deeply shaped by

language external factors. At least, these approaches maintain a clear difference between the concept of

„lexicon‟ and that of „grammar‟. They also develop two conceptions of grammar that are parallelized in

opposition of two approaches to language change. In one view, change looks sudden, complete, internal

and transferable. In another, change sounds variational, gradual, linguistic and sociolinguistic.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2

Following a sociolinguistic variation model of language change, most of the studies have been

carried out on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In research, the term „grammaticalization‟ is meant

to refer to the part of the study that minds language change. It is used to address certain research

questions, such as how grammatical items can develop new grammatical functions, and how lexical

items and structures occur in certain contexts to serve grammatical functions. Heine (2017, pp. 573-601)

argues that grammaticalization theory is not a theory of language, in general and that of a language

change, in particular. He contends that the ultimate goal of the theory is to describe the way grammatical

forms arise, interpret how they develop over time and in physical space, and explain why they are

structured in the way they are. In this sense, it is essentially ahypothesized process looking for new

emergence of grammatical rules.

Lexicalization covers all the processes that “lead to the emergence of new lexical items”

(Himmelmann, 2004, p. 22). The definition includes only what is considered as new lexical item

emerging the lexicon. It, however, excludes any rule, whether grammatical or syntactic, that have

already stored in the lexicon as a fresh one. The interrelationship between both grammaticalization and

lexicalization is tight and confusing. Both overlap in the input and outcome. To both processes, the

lexicon is a final box of input. To both, new forms of language that is governed by fresh rules is the

ultimate goal. Both processes, however, vary in their orientation and focus. The process of lexicalization

is oriented by phonological as well as semantic factors whereas that of grammaticalization is oriented by

functional and syntactic factors. Thus, lexicalization focuses on meaning and senses while

grammaticalization focuses on new forms of language composition and addition.

Linguistic variation is defined as “two or more ways of saying the same thing, where the „same

thing‟ refers to what is denoted by an utterance” (Kiesling, 2011, p. 13). For example, the alternation in

the Qur‟anic discourse between [fa-ma: ista:‟u:] and [wa-ma: istata:‟u:]both glossed as „then / and they

were not able to‟ in modern English, entails notavariation but also a change. Necessarily, the linguistic

variable in the quote takes place at the phonological level in which the phoneme /ta/ is dropped in a post

lexical process. This morph-phonological process does not alter the potential meaning of the Arabic

morpheme [istata:‟a] meaning „he could‟ by itself. It only reflects a language change carried out on the

syntactic level to help denote two different abilities of a „group of people‟ to scale and dig through a

wall. From a pragma-linguistic point of view, the Qur‟anic discourse sustains that the more efforts to be

paid, the more phonemes to be used. The less efforts the less phonemes to be selected and used (see the

English interpretation provided in Example 1).

Besides pragmatic and phonological factors, linguistic variables can occur at other levels

including semantics, syntax and discourse. For example, the Qur‟anic discourse sometimes refers to

Prophet Johnah as [dha‟l-Nun] roughly glossed as „the Man of the Fish‟ in a situation through which the

Noble Qur‟an opens the discourse with Jonah going away in anger and thinking that his Lord would

never cause him distress. Up to this, Jonah is not in the depth of darkness inside the whale. So the

relationship between Jonah and the whale is constrained by the semantic factor of inalienability. This


3

helps explain why the Qur‟anic discourse selects the term [Dha‟l-Nun] which facilitates an inalienable

casebetween two arguments that has not started yet. Where the Qur‟anic discourse shifts to refer to

Jonah inside the whale, it selects and uses the term [sahib] roughly glossed as „the Man of the Fish‟.

This linguistic manipulation suggests that one argument referring to „Jonah‟ becomes part of the other

argument referring to the „fish‟. In this sense, the relationship between both arguments sounds alienable

and inseparable (see the English interpretation provided in Example 2).

Language change often takes place for some reasons including social status, gender, and

interaction. Social classes play an important role in innovating, carrying, and spreading the change in

waves. Though the change may start, in any class, it very likely that it is innovated by the high class

whose variety is often admired by other classes. Middle-aged people from the working and middle class

are supposed to carry the change due to the fact that they have some connections with younger and older

generations. Besides, the issue of gender is another cause that triggers some change. Throughout history,

the issue of both sexes, in general and that of woman, in particular in regard to hot themes of absolute

equality between sexes, and liberty of woman and woman‟s right, is exclusively debatable. Moreover,

Geographic isolation does not lead to language change. In fact, it maintains linguistic conservatism.

However, interaction with others often leads to language change, as it triggers at the social level some

drastic changes accompanied by some changes at the linguistic level(Holmes, 2001, pp. 194-120).

The rise of Islam in the sixth century triggered some drastic changes on the Arabs who had

experienced some differentsociocultural values andsocial norms. In the Pre-Islamic Era, Arabs were

accustomed to living in many tribes fighting for pastures and water for their livestock. Such people

coming from different tribes and clans and living an isolated and tough area, had inherited some

varieties characterize to good extent with fluency. These varieties were also featured by non-

correspondent pronunciation attributed to glottalization and germination (Hassan et al, 2011, pp. 831-

834). As both stemmed from as well as encouraged by the way people used to live, the teachings of

Islam stemmed basically from the Noble Qur‟an which has stressed unifying native speakers of

Arabicaround their Prophet. This social unity was accompanied by some techniques in reciting the holy

Script of Islam to regulate the random glottal stops and consonantal clustering.

In relevance, the Great Vowel Shift (GVS) in the 13th

century England was accompanied by

many drastic social changes to liberate Englishmen as well as their language from the dominance of


4

Latin and French (Giancarlo, 2001).Similarly, the Noble Qur‟an has shifted the long vowel /i:/ in the

adjective phrase (Adj-P) [ja:ri:yah] meaning „be running‟ to a short /i/ as in the verse [aljawa:ri al-

kunnas] roughly glossed as „the planets that rotate and clean‟ (At-Taquir 81:16). This Qur‟anic vowel

shift (QVS) on the graphemic and phonemic level in terms referring to the great planets running in the

sky or the big ships running in the sea is probably intended to draw people way from women running at

homes to serve.

1.2 Research problem, objectives, and questions

Though work is done in the aspect of sociolinguistic variation and language variation, there is no

(up to my best knowledge)solid research that has attempted to check language change in Arabic, in

general and the Qur‟anic discourse, in particular, that is based on more recent denotational theories, and

that is oriented by sociolinguistic, pragma-linguistic, and pragma-stylistic perspectives. Any systematic

scholarly studies on the topic is expected to contribute to the general field of applied linguistics and the

specific area of sociolinguistics.

The present study explores the extent to which change and variation are applied in the holy

Script of Islam. It exploits some semi-identical verses in which specific words are changed on the

syntactic level of the verse. It aims to describe these changes, interpret the implicated meanings

conveyed by the linguistic variation, and explain the forces lying behind the change. Thus, the study

attempts to address the following question:

1. To what extent is language change applied in the Qur‟anic discourse?

2. At what level of language does the change take place?

3. What is the factor that triggers the language change?

4. Which linguistic perspective does the change meet?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Boukhechba and Bouhania (2019) investigated language in the spoken Arabic dialect of El-

Menia, a small city in Algeria. The scholars examined code-switching, diminutive and pragmatic

markers, and the substitution of /y/ into /q/. Data were collected from 386 subjects through focus group

interviews (FGI), virtual focus groups (VFGs) and anonymous observations, and correlated with social

factors, such as gender, age, family, practice, and social networks. The researchers found that that

formality, prestige and attitude are among the factorsthat triggeredlanguage change taking place in El-

Menia, Algeria. However, the impact of these factors on people depends oncriterion of the family that

could also be considered as a social network through which language change and variation spread from

one social group to another.

Irwandi (2019) studied the Qur‟anic concept on human language. He aimed to integrate both

religion and science to examine specific themes in sociolinguistic. He claimed that our ability to

communicate intelligently, symbolically and abstractly sound completely mysterious to evolutionists. He

also added that neither modern evolutionists could explain how human language has originated, nor

could linguists could explain how speech came about and why many languages have been developed in

the paradigm of science-religion interconnection. To provide some answers for the questions raised and

have not been answered, the researcher explored the Noble Qur‟an to discuss three concepts regarding

human‟s language: the etymology of our language, the relationship between our brain and language,

ethics and language. The researcher implicated that the study contributed to sociolinguistic as it

concerned how language is used by humans.


5

Dhia‟R and Salih (2008) investigated gender and culture in linguistic change. They considered

borrowing as a main cause of language change. They claimed that loan words have influence on all the

levels of language. They also argued that the native speakers of the language in which the linguistic

variation occurred might play a major role. To check the impact of both sexes on language change, they

assumed that language change had to be regulated by the native speaker as he / she could either accept

or reject it. They suggested that culture was another factor that could pave the way to language change.

The researchers found that variable of gender in favour of men was crucial in language change. Men

were more active than their counterpart women in innovating the change due to a higher degree of

linguistic interaction. The researchers concluded. The less conservative the society was, the more

frequent the change was. The more similar the sociocultural values were, the more significant the

change was.

Abdel-aal (2017) investigated the loss of meaning and grammatical function in one of the English

translations of the Noble Quran into English. The scholar refer to the semantic and grammatical losses

as mismatch between the target text and the source script in terms of grammar and morphemes that

affect meaning. The researcher found that the change in translating conjunctions was the most frequent

in the grammatical main category. Among the other common types of loss were the tense, syntactic

order, duality and plurality, and linguistic endorsement. In regard to semantic change, it includes some

variations in denotative and connotative meanings, re-wordings, rhetorical devices and expressive

speech functions. The researcher concluded that among the main causes of the losses were cross-

linguistic and cultural differences between Arabic and English, semantic complexities, and lack of

appropriate equivalents.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study benefits from the linguistic features of the Quranic discourse (QD) to describe,

interpret and explain variation and change. It first utilizes corpus linguistics, i.e. the science of large

bodies of text, to collect the Quranic verses, i.e. clauses that entail some shifts (McEnery, 2012).

Concordance of the key words in context (KWIK)would result in identifying the Quranic semi-identical

sequences and discourses in which the change is applied. This manipulation at the discourse level

enables the researcher to have a general look at the components of the sequence collected. This

preliminary outlook often helps the researcher collect data for analysis. In short, the ultimate goal of the

corpus work is, however, to identify the semi-identical coordinated Scripts that clearly display linguistic

variation at the discourse level of the Qur‟anic discourse.

Theoretically, the paper draws on a linguistic theory of language. The analysis consistently

builds on "systemic functional language" (SFL) which is supposed to leak some knowledge about the

grammatical functions as well as the syntactic features of the units of the holy Text under analysis

(Schmitt, 2010, pp. 55-73). From a pragmatic view, the analysis also builds on "first order logic" to

purify meaning (Kearns, 2000, pp. 25-35). Therefore, the "meaning relation" that each pair of verses

under investigation helps build will be analytically checked. The "meaning values" of the discourses

under discussion will be also drawn (Kearns, 2000, pp. 35-41). More importantly, the "predicate" or the

"predicators", i.e. what is said about the subject or what is used as subject complement, as well as their

"arguments", will be systematically drawn and notified (Hurford, 2007, pp.198-204).

The study also benefits from critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a research method. It builds on

Van Dijk's (1998)model of analysis which perceives discourse as an indispensable component of


6

ideology. Van Dijk (1998) has identified a variety of discourse structures that can carry important

functions of deep thoughts at the syntactic, semantic and schematic, i.e. discourse, levels. The study also

meets Fairclough's (2013, 2010)model of analysis. Fairclough's three-dimensional analytical framework

includes three types of analysis at the levels of producing, consuming and construing, i.e. realizing,

meaning (Mirzaei and Eslami, 2013, p. 106). The first analysis is descriptive; it aims at describing the

meanings produced. The second is interpretive, as it aims to consume the meanings produced by the

writer or speaker. The last analysis is explanatory, as it aims at realizing the meanings produced and

consumed.

The data collected is felt differently. Analytically, the researcher integrates two levels of

language to describe, interpret and explain the linguistic features of the QD that processes deep thoughts

that accelerate some linguistic variation. Thus, the researcher systematically uses a critical research

method that clearly shows how meanings are conveyed at the syntactic level. The study, therefore,

approaches the text from a more "recent denotational theory" in which the structural meaning of words

is checked at the discourse level (Kearns, 2000, pp. 16-24). Consequently, the study goes beyond the

notion of the sentence to contextualize the deep meanings, values, and doctrines the QD helps advance.

These meanings are often satisfied in the processes of production, consumption and realization.

Syntactically, the researcher also highlights the importance of language change and tense in the process

of word selection and use. Generally speaking, the data collected is perceived or rather conceived under

analysis from a „post-structuralism' perspective validating that “there is nothing outside the text” (Rivkin

and Rayan, 2004).

4. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This section aims to explore the linguistic variation implemented in some semi-identical discourses in

the Noble Qur‟an. A systematic analysis including a description, interpretation as well as explanation of

the linguistic variation will be followed to answer the questions assigned for the study.

4.1.l Social Status and Lexicalization

In Figure (1), both quotes from the Qur‟anic discourse (henceforth QD) narrates the story of

Prophet Abraham‟s guests, the Angels. The first quote opens with honoring the guests and their host.

Then, it steps to announce their attendance, greetings their host with peace, and replying the foreigners‟

greetings tactfully. The QD moves to the event of preparing in which the host goes quietly to his

household and brings some fatted, but cooked beef. The QD ends in serving the food and urging them to

eat. Unlikely, the second quote opens with good tidings. It, however, steps to the greetings and

answering the greetings in a high degree of tactfulness, and the celebration of the good news by bringing

roasted beef. In the quote, the QD closes with panic and fear when the host realizes that the guests

cannot eat as human beings (see the English interpretations provided for both quotes in Figure 1).

In Figure (1), the QD presents Prophet Abraham as a very kind man who used to welcome guests.

Actually, the QD refers to Abraham as a „nation‟ and „the best friend of the most Passionate‟.

Historically, Prophet Abraham came from Mesopotamia in Iraq and lived among Canaanite Arabs to the

south of Historical Palestine in Al-Khalil, the Arabic for „friend‟ referring to Abraham himself.


7

Canaanites revered Abraham as a Prophet, and they also respected his son Isaac, his grandson Jacob or

Israel and Sons of Israel. Prophet Abraham as well as the neighboring Arabs were known of good

hospitality. This social norm was entrenched in Arabia, one of the toughest and largest Area in which

travel was unlikely without many stops for water, shelter and provision of food. Thus, Prophet Abraham

and the neighbors were accustomed to welcoming people coming from distant places. However, guests

at that time used to attend people of high status, such as Abraham or the heads of tribes and clans.

As implicated in the second quote, Prophet Abraham, the grandfather of Arabs and Jews, did not beget

children till late age. Thus, the Noble Qur‟an gives the good news of having a baby though both couples

were very old. This helps explain why Abraham and his wife, Sarah, were extremely astonished by the

good tidings announced by the Angels. Regardless of the constraint of age, Abraham went directly to

celebrate the great event to come. Thus, he fetched the guests who carried the good news to the old

couple roasted meat. The good news of having a child nictitates doing a party of barbecue to

commemorate. It is important to note here that the teachings of Islam honoring many of Abraham‟s

actions, urge Muslims to celebrate when having new born babies. Unlike welcoming guests which

encourages the act of cooking food, having a baby or rather some good news of begetting a baby at an

old age among childless parents accelerates performing a festival in which the ritual of roasting food to

rejoice is encouraged.


8

4.1.2 Social Status and Grammaticalization

In Figure (2), both quotes entail some linguistic variation. The first quote opens with these who

believed, those who turned to Judaism, Christians and Sabians. The QD steps to identify these sub-

groups as monotheists believing in their Creator, the Other Life and doing good deeds. The Quote closes

with assigning a reward for these categories and excluding any penalty or any sadness. Similarly, the

other quote reads. However, it reorders the categories of the believers maintaining the believers first, the

Jews second, the Sabians third, and finally the Christians last. In this linguistic manipulation, the QD

also excludes rewording as a potential conclusion for the arguments reordered. The other prospects are

kept for all (see the English interpretations provided for both quotes in Figure 2).

In Figure (2), both quotes reflect a sociolinguistic variation on the syntactic as well as the

semantic level of both discourses. The word-order of the items referring to the groups of people fixes a

high status to Muslims, as the term is placed first in both quotes. It, however, gives a relatively low

status to Sabians, as the term is inserted last. Re-ordering the items again has resulted in giving a low

status to Christians, as they are placed last. This sociolinguistic variation is carried out by

grammaticalizion through which the sentence pattern is shifted from linking by relative clauses (used for

both Muslims and Jews, respectively and frequently)to nominalization for both Sabians and Christians

(respectively and frequently). The nominative case is done through the syntactic markers [-u:na]

manifesting itself finally on the Arabic for Sabians.


9

By de-contextualizing the context in each quote, the QD conveys specific meanings related to the

notion of rewarding on the Other Day. In the first quote, the QD endorses that rewarding is generally

tested by believing in Allah, the Last Day, and doing good. Thus, results will be marked according to

these general criteria. In the other quote, the QD implicates other sub-criteria to be met in regard to

believing in the Creator. It is important to note here, that the concept of faith in Islam includes believing

in Allah as an only Creator, in His angles as holy spirits, His books as holy Texts, His messengers as

prophets, and His fate whether good or not. Consequently, the linguistic change realized in both

identical verses as well as realized on the syntactic level is intended to meet the variable of social status

for the arguments under discussion.

4.1.3 Sociolinguistic Variation and Lexical Diffusion

In Figure (3), the QD comments on Prophet Noah. It remarks that the Providence had sent Noah

to his people, and he stayed among them one thousand years except fifty years before they were

punished by flooding. In the quote, the QD assigned the motion verb phrase (M-VP) send as a predicate

to argue for the plural bound morpheme [-na:] meaning „We‟ referring to the Providence, the proper NP

(Noah) and the Prep-P (to his tribe). This three-place predicate gives a high status to the argument Noah

among his people. The QD also continues to assign the location VP stay as a predicate to argue for the

unstated pronoun [huwa] referring to (Noah), the Prep-P (among them), the adverbial NP (thousand

years), and the excluded adverbial NP (fifty years). Though rare, this four-place predicate tells a lot

about the period Noah‟s stayed with his own people. The quote closes with the big flood, as severe

punishment for Noah‟s people (see the English interpretation provided for the Quote in Figure 3).

In Figure (3), the QD explicates that the period that Noah has lived with his family is so long. It,

however, implicates that it is a difficult life in which Noah encounters so many difficulties while he is

telling them the message he is carrying from His God. The rejection which continues for a long period

of time has accelerated using the Arabic term [sanatun] meaning „year‟. This Semitic term is used to

cover the long and hard era Noah has lived before the punishment. As Noah has already escaped the

flood with a few people and some pairs of animals –as the Noble Qur‟an informs elsewhere, it is

expected that he and his companions have lived in peace for some period of time. To help realize the

kind of life that Noah lived with his people post the flood, the QD selects the Arabic [„a:mun] roughly

glossed as „year‟ in modern English to quantify as well as to qualify the period Prophet Noah

experienced. Unlike the previous one, this era is short but fruitful.


10

4.2.1 Sociolinguistic Variation and the Potential Roles of Both Sexes

In Figure (4), the QD uses the term [ar-rija:lu] to refer „men‟ and [an-nisa:‟i] to refer to „women‟

in the first verse. In the second, it uses the term [qawmun] glossed as „men‟ and „nisa:‟un] glossed as

„women‟ to argue for both sexes. In the first verse, the QD opens with the debatable argumentation

comparing men and women in regard to family guardianship (also known as minor leadership). It

maintains that men are more likely to lead the family due physical abilities and financial capacities. It

also continues to urge good women to obey and guard their husbands. Though perceived by most of the

researchers of Islamic studies as a directive, the quote maintains a referential speech function through

which the QD informs us about both sexes. Because of their physical strength, men can earn living.

However, theselection of the Arabic term [as-saliha:t] glossed as „well-qualified‟ and quantified by the

Arabic for „obedient‟, may exclude for the women who can run to earn their living, but they are

encouraged to obey their partners and to protect their earnings (see the English interpretation provide for

the first quote in Figure 4).

In Figure (7), the QD in the second verse opens with urging all believers not to deride other people

because those who are teasing might not be better than those who are being teased. Then, the QD

continues to urge women not do so for the same reason (see the English interpretation provided for the

second verse in Figure 4). This linguistic processingsounds ambiguous, as it maintains the term „qawm‟

to denote either „men‟ or „living earners‟ outside home. It also keeps the term „nisa:‟ to mean either

„women‟ or „householders‟. As the first verse assigns the predicate „qawwamu:na‟ meaning „be more

likely to be guardians‟ to argue for men, it is very probable that the QD (pragma-stylistically) selects the


11

term „qawmun‟ stemming from the same root, to refer to men. Though oriented by a social factor, this

sociolinguistic, lexical variation is a gender-based one.

4.2.2 Grammatical Sociolinguistic Variation and Gender

In Figure (5), the QD opens with everything belongs to Allah. He creates what he pleases. He

bestows daughtersupon whom He pleases, and he bestows the sons upon whom He pleases; or He mixes

them males and females; and He makes whom He pleases barren (see the English interpretation provided

for the quote in Figure 5). In the Arabic text, the QD uses the indefinite plural NP [ina:than] meaning

„females‟ as an argument for the predicate [yahabu] glossed as BESTOW. It also adds the definite plural

NP [ath-thuku:ra] to argue for the predicate [yahabu] roughly glossed as „bestow‟ in modern English. It

is important to note here that identical synonyms are unlikely in the QD. Thus, the VP [yahabu] is used

twice to denote „giving‟ and „granting‟. The first sense connotes for a case in which too many females

are given; the second for a special case in which only the males are given. In reality, the first case

sounds much more frequent than the other.

In Figure (5), the QD advances to refer to a third option in which Allah mixes both sexes: males

and females. The QD selects the linking word [„aw] roughly glossed as „or‟ in modern English to head

mixing case. This Semitic word can be used as a conjunct or a disjunct. As a conjunct, it allows for an

inclusive idea to proceed. As a disjunct, it helps resuming a full exclusive idea to advance. Whether a

conjunction or a disjunction, the QD assigns the predicate [yuzawwijuhum] roughly glossed as „He

mixes them‟ but literally as „He makes them get married‟ to argue for [thukra:nan] and [ina:thana]

glossed as „males‟ and „females‟. Both senses of the predicate assigned are in line with both arguments.

However, the lexical as well as the grammatical variation applied on the arguments gives more priority

for the sake of the second sense of marriage. Grammaticalization has included a linguistic change in the

word order from a female-to-male meaning relationship to a male-to-female rapport. Lexicalization has

also included a linguistic variation in the use of plural referring to males. That is to say, there is a shift

from pluralization for plethora conveyed by [thukuran] to that of scarcity satisfied by [thukra:nan]. As a

native speaker of English, I also perceive the term [thukra:n] as mature males. Finally, the closing of the

quote argues for a fourth, but null case in which people may be created barren. A case that can also be

proved wrong by marriage.


12

4.3 Linguistic Variation and Interaction

In Figure (6), the QD slightly differently narrates the terrible moments of the arrival of Lot‟s

guests. In the first verse, the QD dramatically tells that when the Angels attended Lot as guests, he felt

distressed on their account as well as powerless with regard to them. Then, the QD gives the turn to the

Angles to reassure Lot not to feel sad or be panic, as his people could not cause harm to them. They also

told that they will save Lot and his family except his wife (see the English interpretation provided for the

first Quote in Figure 6). In the opening move, the QD inserts the minimum word [an] roughly glossed as

a „filler‟ in modern English. For some linguists, this word sounds extra, as its deletion does not change

meaning at all. It is also neither a content nor a functional word at the internal or external level of both

grammar and meaning. As the word does not function at the syntactic and semantic levels, it is very

probable that it works at the schematic, i.e. discoursal, level. In other words, it might be realized as a

discourse marker inserted initially to indicate a shift in the speech in which a turn is given to another

speaker. In this sense, the verse entails a telegraphic change regulated by linguistic interaction.

Dissimilarly, the opening of the second quote does not reflect any linguistic variation regarding

the insertion the discourse marker [an]. The speech is both a delayed and indirectly reported one. Here,

the QD narrates what happens; it simply puts some events in order according to the time in which each

event happened. The QD closes with what Lot said about that distressful day. It does not give turn to any

other participant to speak. This linguistic processing is not intended to be fully dramatic provoking some

intense in which a turn has to be taken from one speaker to be given to another instantly. The

manipulation is meant to be fully narrative allowing for some events to flow naturally. Lack of any need

for a linguistic interaction among interlocutors does not trigger any change at the syntactic level of the

discourse (see the English interpretation for the second quote in Figure 6).


13

5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

To conclude, the QD tends to change the text in certain contexts oriented by the variable of

social status. In a couple of semi-identical verses concerning the arrival of some guests who were

carrying some bad and good news to Prophet Abraham, the QDalters two words to meet the negative as

well as the positive feelings of receiving the news. Linguistic variation is carried out through

lexicalization of one word describing differentlythe kind of foodserved kindly to the carriers of both the

bad news concerning the delinquent peoples of Loot, i.e. Abraham‟s nephew, and the good tidings

concerning the new baby Abraham will beget. To meet both social acts, the QD alters the process of

preparing as well as serving the food to connote positively for the positive feelings of good

generousness, hospitality, and fresh parenthood.

Besides, the QD reflects some sociolinguistic variation at the syntactic level. In one quote, it has

been found that the QD lists believers coming from the Abrahamic four main religions. In one verse, the

QD places both Muslims and Jews, respectively, on the top, and inserts Christians and Sabians,

respectively and finally. In the other, the QD places Christians finally. It also deletes the motif of reward

on the Day of Doom for all the believers. The language change spotted in the second quote is carried out

on the syntactic level in which the case of both arguments referring to both Sabians and Christians is

shifted from an accusative to a nominative one. In both verses, grammaticalization is carried out through

shifting the accusative syntactic marker [-i:ina] to the nominative syntactic marker [-u:na]. This

linguistic manipulation at the structural level of the nominative case has already left both arguments of

Sabians and Christians not endorsed in relevance to the reward, deleted in the second. It has been

concluded that the variation evidenced in both quotes is sociolinguistic performed through

grammaticalization.

In relevance, the QD applies lexical diffusion to meet the burden of high social status extending

for a long period of time. In one verse, it has been found that the QD implicitly selects and uses the

Arabic term for „year‟ following the solar calendar to quantify the period as well as qualify the sort of

life that one Prophet lived with his own people. The term used connotes the negative feelings of long

term, continual hardships. The QD also applies a language change in which the Arabic for „year‟

following the lunar calendar to quantify as well as qualify another period the Prophet lived with his own

people. The term shifted to and used connotes the positive feelings of easiness of life in a relatively short

period time of a post era. Consequently, it has been concluded that the sociolinguistic variation carried

out by lexical diffusion is regulated by the social factor of high status extending differently for a long

period of time.

The QD tends to change the text in certain contexts related to the variable of gender. It has been

found that the QD uses the Arabic for „men‟ and „people‟ to refer to males. Though the second sense

denotes „male workers‟, the sociolinguistic variation is carried out by lexicalization in which one terms

is shifted to and used to meet the social and economic roles It has been concluded that the lexical,

sociolinguistic change is oriented by the variable of sex. In another example, it has been found that the

QD uses grammaticalization as well as lexicalization to show certain themes related to both sexes.

Among these are the motifs of creation both sexes and marriage. Consequently, it has been concluded

that the lexico-grammatical, sociolinguistic variation is also regulated by the differences between both

sexes pragma-stylistically.

Finally, the QD tends to vary the text for some reasons related to interaction. In one quote, it has

been found that QD uses a bare minimal word at the schematic level of the discourse. The word, having


14

the general characteristic features of the fillers in English, sounds extraneous, as it neither carries

meaning on the semantic level, nor does it function on the grammatical level. It only functions at the

level of the discourse to signal for a turn to be given to somebody else. The insertion of this discourse

marker in one of a semi-identical pair of verses maintains a lexico-grammatical linguistic variation.

Consequently, it has been concluded that the change carried out by the insertion of the discourse marker

[an] in the QD is certainly triggered by linguistic interaction.

Linguists should investigate other forms of discourse markers which have been referred to as

„extra‟ words in the Qur‟anic discourse. Arab linguists list also up to five words behaving in a way

similar to that of [an] on the syntactic level of the QD. For example, the minimal word [„in] is used to

head a few verses in which the turn is given to other people. In these verses, the change is not oriented

by the linguistic interaction or the turn given. It is, however, based on what is said by interlocutors. In

other words, there is a difference between what is explicated about the arguments of the assigned

predicate, in general, and what might be implicated about each argument in particular. In one quote

headed by [„in], the QD gives a turn to old Egyptians to refer to both Moses and his brother Haroon as a

„couple of magicians‟, for instance. The explicated meaning suggests magic acts on both parts of the

argument; the implicated meaning denotes two types of magic acts: verbal and nonverbal. The nonverbal

or physical trick is implicated for Moses; the verbal for Haroon. Therefore, it is expected that the QD

uses the minimal word [„in] to mirror a linguistic change in which the implicated meanings are assigned,

enclosed and hedged.

REFERENCES

1) Abdel Aal, N. M. (2017). Grammatical and Semantic Losses in Abdel Haleem’s English

Translation of the Holy Quran (Thesis submitted to School of Languages and Communication,

Putra University, Malaysia).

2) Aitchison, J. (2001). Language change: Progress or decay?. Cambridge university press.‏

3) Boukhechba, H.&Bouhania, B. (2019). Language Change in the Spoken Arabic Dialect of El-

Menia(Doctoral dissertation, Ahmed Draia University-Adrar).‏

4) Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge

University Press.‏

5) Dhia'R, A., &Salih, A. M. (2008). Gender and Culture in Linguistic Change. Journal of Tikrit

University for the Humanities, 15(9), 527-537.‏

6) Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.‏

7) Fairclough, N. (2010). Language and power. Pearson Education

8) Hassan, Z. M., Esling, J. H., Moisik, S., &Crevier-Buchman, L. (2011). Aryepiglottic Trilled

Variants of/ʕ, ћ/in Iraqi Arabic. In ICPhS (pp. 831-834).‏

9) Heine, B. (2017). Grammaticalization. The handbook of historical linguistics, 573-601.‏

10) Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal. What

makes grammaticalization, 21-42.‏

11) Holmes, J (2001).An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd

Ed.). Sussex: Pearson Education Ltd.

12) Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.‏

13) Hurford, J., Heasley, B. & Smith, M. (2007). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.


15

14) Irwandi, I. (2019, January). The Qur’anic Concept on Human Language: A Preliminary Study on

Science-Religion Integration in Studying Sociolinguistics. In 1st International Conference on

Innovation in Education (ICoIE 2018). Atlantis Press.‏

15) Giancarlo, M. (2001). The rise and fall of the great vowel shift? The changing ideological

intersections of philology, historical linguistics, and literary history. Representations, 76(1), 27-

‏.60

16) Kearns, K. (2000). Semantics. New York: St.

17) Kiesling, S. F. (2011). Linguistic variation and change. Edinburgh University Press.‏

18) McEnery, T. (2012). Corpus linguistics (Vol. 978019). Oxford University Press Inc.‏

19) Mirzaei, A., & Eslami, Z. R. (2013). Exploring the variability dynamics of wedding invitation

discourse in Iran. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 103-118.‏

‏.Rivkin, J., & Ryan, M. (Eds.). (2017). literary theory: An anthology. John Wiley & Sons‏ (20

21) Schmitt, N. (2002). An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Hodder Education.

22) Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.‏ Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln,

Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

Documents

A pragma-linguistic perspective - Journals Online