objectives of the present study metaphoric and euphemistic Glorious Quranic verses have been chosen with seven English interpretations by Shakir, Ali,.
Dedication
-I
‘All Praise be to Allah who guided us’. It gives me great pleasure to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.Omran Moosa Mahood, College of Education, University of Baghdad, for whom I am greatly indebted for his invaluable advice, perseverance and encouragement, and for his patience.
My heartfelt thanks to Dr. Hameed Hassoon Al-Mas’udi, Professor Dr. Saleh Mahdi, Dr. Alya’ M.H. Al-Rubei’I and Dr. Riyadh Al-Ameedi who helped me make this study possible.
I equally indebted to my colleague Mr. Hashim Aliwi. My deep thanks to my parents and my family for their patience during the Ph.D courses.
- II
Language as a means of communication could be used explicitly or implicitly. Implicitness as a linguistic notion is carried out by means of miscellaneous linguistic devices. The present study is mainly concerned with syntactic, semantic and pragmatic implicitness as represented in literary translation. There are different styles of translation determined by the text-type. Linguistically, there are certain devices that can be used to represent implicitness such as metaphor and euphemism (the main concern of the present study). However, the literary texts are written in a way that urges the reader to investigate the intended meaning. The main problem is that this implicated style complicates the task of the translator as well as the reader of the translated text (target text).Currently, it is hypothesized that the application as well as the representation of the linguistic devices of implicitness vary from one language to another. In other words, Arabic language techniques of employing linguistic devices of implicitness (,i.e. metaphor and euphemism) are different from those used in English. However, the study aims at proving how implicitness is employed, represented, and elaborated differently in the source as well as the target text. The ultimate goal of this study is to present a number of conclusions in relation to metaphor and euphemism as two extralinguistic devices representing the issue of implicitness in the Glorious Quran in translation.
The study falls into four chapters, preceded by the preview presents an introduction to the study in which the problem, purpose, hypotheses, procedures, value, scope, and plan are stated. In Chapter one, the researcher deals with the concept of implicitness as discussed in relation to other - III
linguistic phenomena. In Chapter two, the researcher has presented an analysis to the linguistic devices of implicitness, i.e., metaphor and euphemism in English literature. In Chapter three, the researcher has introduced metaphor and euphemism as manipulated in Arabic literature .In four, the researcher has presented a number of metaphoric and euphemistic verses which are analysed syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically. The study ends with a number of conclusions reached by the researcher through the study. To carry out the objectives of the present study metaphoric and euphemistic Glorious Quranic verses have been chosen with seven English interpretations by Shakir, Ali, Pickthal, Zayid, Rodwell, Dawood and Sarwar.
- IV
List of Diagrams Page no. 1. Classification of explicit and implicit message
50
2. Newmark's classification of the types of metaphor
87
3. Dagut's classification of the types of metaphor
88
4. Hatim’s classification of the three dimensions of contiguous
124
transference in Arabic rhetoric. 5. Text analysis strategy of Metaphoric meaning text (3)
157
6. Text analysis strategy of Euphemistic meaning text (12)
198
V
-
-
List of Abbreviations
Ground
G
Object
O
Source Text
ST
Target Text
TT
Tenor
T
Vehicle
V
- VI
Subject
Page
Dedication
IV
Acknowledgements
V
Abstract
VI
List of Diagrams
VIII
List of Abbreviations
IX
Preview
1
1. The Problem
1
2. Hypotheses
2
3. Purpose
3
4. Procedures
3
5. Value
4
6. Scope
4
Chapter One :Linguistic Perspectives on the Notion of
5
Implicitness 1.1 Implicitness in Linguistic Communication
5
1.2 Extravert and Introvert Language
6
1.2.1 Implicit – Explicit Hypothesis (Neuroticism)
6
- VII -
1.3 Types of Extravert (Implicit) Communication
8
1.3.1 Inferences Type
8
1.3.2 Presuppositions Type
9
1.4 Implicit Messages and Manipulation
11
1.5 Meaning and Linguistic Pragmatics
12
1.5.1 Ostensive communication
13
1.5.2 The Principle of Relevance
14
1.5.3 Manifestness
18
1.6 Propositional forms and meaning
20
1.6.1 Equivoque
20
1.7 A superimposed Level of Communication
22
1.8 Proposition Expressed
23
1.9 The Semantic/Pragmatic Distinction and the
26
Explicit/Implicit Distinction 1.9.1 Saying/Implicating
26
1.9.2 Logical Form and Explicature
28
1.10 Relevance-Theoretic Semantics
33
1.10.1 Two types of encoding: Conceptual and Procedural
33
1.11 Pragmatically Determined Aspects of Meaning: Explicature,
37
Impliciture or Implicature 1.11.1 Saying what is not said
39
1.11.2 Impliciture and Explicature
40
1.11.3 Levinson’s preferred interpretation
41
1.11.4 The researcher’s view
43
1.11.4.1 The Linguistic Direction Principle
44
1.11.4.2 Intuitions
45 - VIII
1.11.4.3 Cancelability
46
1.11.4.4 Non-detachability
47
1.12 Implicitness as Manipulated in Arabic Literature
48
1.13 High Context and Low Context
50
1.14 Formality versus Contextuality in Language
51
1.15 Measuring Language Contextuality
55
1.15.1 Word Category Frequency and the F-measure
55
1.15.2 Non-Linguistic Determinants of Contextuality
55
1.15.2.1 Situation
56
1.15.2.2 Gender
58
1.15.2.3 Introversion
58
1.15.2.4 Level of Education
59
1.16 Implicature and Sentence Meaning
60
1.16.1 Theory of Speaker Meaning and Hearer Interpretation
61
1.16.2 Gricean Theory
64
1.16.3 Speaker Implicature and Intention
67
1.16.4 Sentence Implicature and Convention
70
Chapter Two: Linguistic Devices of Implicitness:
77
Metaphor
and Euphemism
in
English 2.0 Introduction
77
2.1 Metaphor in English Literature
77
2.1.1 Introduction
77
2.1.2 Definitions
78
- IX -
2.1.3 Metaphor and Figurative Language
80
2.1.4 Types of Metaphor
83
2.1.4.1 Structural Metaphors
83
2.1.4.2 Oriental Metaphors
83
2.1.4.3 Ontological Metaphors
84
2.1.4.4.Container Metaphor
84
2.1.4.5 Imaginative and Creative Metaphors
85
2.2 Euphemism in English Literature
89
2.2.1 Definitions
89
2.2.2 Euphemism and historical linguistics
90
2.2.3 The "Euphemism treadmill"
91
2.2.4 Euphemism Formation
93
2.2.5 Types of Euphemism
94
2.2.5.1 Euphemism for the Profane
95
2.2.5.2 Religious euphemisms
96
2.2.5.3. Excretory euphemisms
98
2.2.5.4 Sexual euphemisms
100
2.2.5.5 Euphemisms for death
102
2.2.5.6 Doublespeak euphemisms
103
2.2.5.7 Other euphemisms
104
2.3 Levels of Linguistic Analysis
105
2.3.1 Syntactic Analysis
105
2.3.1.1 Sentence Structure
105
2.3.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
105
2.3.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
106
-X-
2.3.2 Semantic Analysis
106
2.3.2.1 Literal Meaning
106
2.3.2.2 Connotative Meaning
107
2.3.2.3 Semantic Equivalence of ST and TT
107
2.3.3 Pragmatic Analysis
107
2.3.3.1 Non- Literal Meaning
107
2.3.3.2 Speech Act Type
108
2.3.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
108
Chapter Three: Linguistic Devices of Implicitness:
109
Metaphor
and Euphemism
in
Arabic 3.0 Metaphor in Arabic Literature
109
3.1.1 Introduction
109
3.1.2 Definition
110
3.1.3 Parts of Metaphor""االستعارة
111
3.1.4 Classification of Metaphor in terms of Tenor and Vehicle
112
3.1.4.1 Metaphor of two Sides mentioned
112
3.1.4.2 Metaphor of two Sides ( االستعارة باعتبار الطرفينsensory
113
metaphor ) حسية استعارة 3.1.4.3 Classification of Metaphor according to the Metaphorized Expressionالمستعار اللفظ باعتبار االستعارة
- XI -
114
3.1.4.4 Classification of Al- Musrraha Metaphor into Anadiya and 116 Wifaqiy باعتبار المصرحة االستعارة ووفاقيةتقسيم عنادية إلى الطرفين 3.1.4.5 Metaphor of Inclusive Featureالجامع باعتبار االستعارة
116
3.1.4.6 Classification of Metaphor according to the relation
117
between similar features ما باعتبار االستعارة نم المالئمات يذكر 3.2 Euphemism in Arabic Literature
119
3.2.1 Introduction
119
3.2.2 Definition
120
3.2.3 Types of Euphemism الكناية
125
3.2.4 The Rhetoric of Euphemism
132
Chapter Four: Implicitness in Arabic-English
138
Metaphor and Euphemism in the Glorious Quran Interpretations 4.0 Introduction
138
Text.1
139
4.1.1 Syntactic Analysis
140
4.1.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
140
4.1.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
140
4.1.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
141
4.1.2 Semantic Analysis
142
4.1.2.1 Literal Meaning
142
- XII -
4.1.2.2 Connotative Meaning
142
4.1.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
143
4.1.3 Pragmatic Analysis
144
4.1.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
144
4.1.3.2 Speech Act Type
144
4.1.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
144
Text.2
145
4.2.1 Syntactic Analysis
146
4.2.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
146
4.2.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
147
4.2.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
147
4.2.2 Semantic Analysis
148
4.2.2.1 Literal Meaning
148
4.2.2.2 Connotative Meaning
148
4.2.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
149
4.2.3 Pragmatic Analysis
150
4.2.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
150
4.2.3.2 Speech Act Type
150
4.2.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
151
Text.3
152
4.3.1 Syntactic Analysis
153
4.3.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
153
4.3.1.2. Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
153
4.3.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
154
4.3.2 Semantic Analysis
155
- XIII -
4.3.2.1 Literal Meaning
155
4.3.2.2 Connotative Meaning
155
4.3.2.2 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
156
4.3.3 Pragmatic Analysis
156
4.3.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
156
4.3.3.2 Speech Act Type
157
4.3.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
157
Text.4
158
4.4.1 Syntactic Analysis
159
4.4.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
159
4.4.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
160
4.4.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
160
4.4.2 Semantic Analysis
161
4.4.2.1 Literal Meaning
161
4.4.2.2 Connotative Meaning
161
4.4.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
162
4.4.3 Pragmatic Analysis
163
4.4.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
163
4.4.3.2 Speech Act Type
163
4.4.3.2 Text Analysis Strategy
163
Text.5
164
4.5.1 Syntactic Analysis
164
4.5.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
164
4.5.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
165
4.5.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
165
- XIV -
4.5.2 Semantic Analysis
166
4.5.2.1 Literal Meaning
166
4.5.2.2 Connotative Meaning
166
4.5.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
167
4.5.3 Pragmatic Analysis
168
- XV -
4.5.3.1 Non- Literal Meaning
168
4.5.3.2 Speech Act Type
168
4.5.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
168
Text.6
169
4.6.1 Syntactic Analysis
169
4.6.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
169
4.6.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
170
4.6.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
170
4.6.2 Semantic Analysis
171
4.6.2.1 Literal Meaning
171
4.6.2.2 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
171
4.6.3. Pragmatic Analysis
172
4.6.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
172
4.6.3.2 Speech Act Type
172
4.6.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
172
Text.7
173
4.7.1 Syntactic Analysis
174
4.7.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
174
4.7.1.2 Implicative verbs and Pronouns
174
4.7.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
175
4.7.2 Semantic Analysis
175
4.7.2.1 Literal Meaning
175
4.7.2.2 Connotative Meaning
175
4.7.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
176
4.7.3 Pragmatic Analysis
176 -
-
XVI
4.7.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
176
4.7.3.2 Speech Act Type
177
4.7.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
177
Text .8
177
4.8.1 Syntactic Analysis
178
4.8.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
178
4.8.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
179
4.8.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
179
4.8.2 Semantic Analysis
180
4.8.2.1 Literal Meaning
180
4.8.2.2 Connotative Meaning
180
4.8.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
180
4.8.3 Pragmatic Analysis
181
4.8.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
181
4.8.3.2 Speech Act Type
181
4.8.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
182
Text .9
182
4.9.1 Syntactic Analysis
182
4.9.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
182
4.9.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
183
4.9.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
183
4.9.2 Semantic Analysis
183
4.9.2.1 Literal Meaning
183
4.9.2.2 Connotative Meaning
184
4.9.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
184
4.9.3 Pragmatic Analysis
185 - XVII -
4.9.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
185
4.9.3.2 Speech Act Type
185
4.9.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
185
Text .10
186
4.10.1 Syntactic Analysis
186
4.10.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
186
4.10.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
187
4.10.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
187
4.10.2 Semantic Analysis
188
4.10.2.1 Literal Meaning
188
4.10.2.2 Connotative Meaning
188
4.10.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
188
4.10.3 Pragmatic Analysis
189
4.10.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
189
4.10.3.2 Speech Act Type
189
4.10.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
189
Text .11
190
4.11.1 Syntactic Analysis
190
4.11.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
190
4.11.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
191
4.11.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
191
4.11.2 Semantic Analysis
192
4.11.2.1 Literal Meaning
192
4.11.2.2 Connotative Meaning
192
4.11.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
193
4.11.3 Pragmatic Analysis
194 - XVIII -
4.11.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
194
4.11.3.2 Speech Act Type
194
4.11.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
194
Text .12
195
4.12.1 Syntactic Analysis
195
4.12.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
195
4.12.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
195
4.12.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
196
4.12.2 Semantic Analysis
197
4.12.2.1 Literal Meaning
197
4.12.2.2 Connotative Meaning
197
4.12.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
197
4.12.3. Pragmatic Analysis
198
4.12.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
198
4.12.3.2 Speech Act Type
198
4.12.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
199
Text .13
199
4.13.1 Syntactic Analysis
200
4.13.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
200
4.13.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
200
4.13.1.2 Implicit Cohesion
200
4.13.2 Semantic Analysis
201
4.13.2.1 Literal Meaning
201
4.13.2.2 Connotative Meaning
201
4.13.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
202
- XIX -
4.13.3 Pragmatic Analysis
202
4.13.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
202
4.13.3.2 Speech Act Type
203
4.13.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
203
Text .14
204
4.14.1 Syntactic Analysis
205
4.14.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
205
4.14.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
205
4.14.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
206
4.14.2 Semantic Analysis
206
4.14.2.1 Literal Meaning
206
4.14.2.2. Connotative Meaning
206
4.14.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
207
4.14.3 Pragmatic Analysis
207
4.14.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
207
4.14.3.2 Speech Act Type
208
4.14.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
208
Text .15
209
4.15.1 Syntactic Analysis
209
4.15.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
209
4.15.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
210
4.15.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
210
4.15.2 Semantic Analysis
211
4.15.2.1 Literal Meaning
211
4.15.2.2 Connotative Meaning
211
4.15.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
211
- XX -
4.15.3 Pragmatic Analysis
212
- XXI -
4.15.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
212
4.15.3.2 Speech Act Type
212
4.15.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
213
Text .16
213
4.16.1 Syntactic Analysis
214
4.16.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
214
4.16.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
214
4.16.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
215
4.16.2 Semantic Analysis
215
4.16.2.1. Literal Meaning
215
4.16.2.2 Connotative Meaning
216
4.16.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
216
4.16.3 Pragmatic Analysis
217
4.16.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
217
4.16.3.2 Speech Act Type
217
4.16.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
217
Text .17
218
4.17.1 Syntactic Analysis
218
4.17.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
218
4.17.1.2 Implicative verbs and Pronouns
219
4.17.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
219
4.17.2 Semantic Analysis
220
4.17.2.1 Literal Meaning
220
4.17.2.2 Connotative Meaning
220
4.17.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
220
4.17.3 Pragmatic Analysis
221
XXII
-
-
4.17.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
221
4.17.3.2 Speech Act Type
221
4.17.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
221
Conclusions, and Suggestions for Further Research
223
1.Conclusions
223
2. Suggestions for Further Research
225
Bibliography
226
1. English References
226
2. Arabic References
236
-
XXIII
-
Preview Translation is considered an activity that takes place between two languages and viewed as an interaction between two language communities. Such identification suggests the idea of transferring content between two texts of two different languages. This difference could cause difficulty in translating ST (the source text) into TT (the target text). Proposing closer equivalents could solve such difficulty.
1. The Problem In translation, there are particular procedures or priorities that should be taken into consideration. One of these priorities is the fidelity, i.e., to what extent the translator is faithful to the original text and the intention of the author. Nevertheless, this feature could be broken down in this study because of the notion of implicitness. A question may be raised, i.e., it could be said, why does implicitness cause difficulty? To answer such a question, one can say that implicitness as a pragmatic term hides a lot of pragmatic meanings or intentions. The study attempts to investigate the complementary role of the author as well as the translator to bridge any gap that could cause difficulty in grasping the original message or meaning. So far, the theory of conversational implicature, which is proposed by Grice. According to Grice, both communicator and audience are deeply involved in metarepresentation (i.e., a representation of a representation: a higherorder representation with a lower-order representation embedded within it).Grecian pragmatics substantially underestimates the amount of inference involved in linguistic communication. As a matter of fact, 1
Arabic is more implicit than English, thus, translating from more implicit to less implicit seems problematic putting into consideration that literary translation namely aims at producing original-like texts.
The present study aims at tackling the problem of transferring the same intended meaning. In other words, it looks for providing an explanation on how translators can manage to impart the meaning of the original text to the target text with the presence of multi linguistic devices that imply the meaning.
2. Hypotheses It is hypothesized that:
1. The type of Lexis, syntax, semantics, pragmatics which Arabic has, seem more implicit than English. 2. There are literary texts (novels, Glorious Qura’nic verses) in which there are some passages implicitly written to achieve some literary as well as moral goals. 3. The linguistic as well as the cultural differences between ST and TT impose another difficulty on the process of translation and the reader of such translation. 4. The intended meaning of the ST is achieved on the semantic and pragmatic levels (,i.e., they are complementary levels) rather than the syntactic level. 5. Arabic language techniques of employing linguistic devices of implicitness (,i.e., metaphor and euphemism) are different from those used in English 2
3. Purpose The study aims at: 1. Investigating and analysing the notion of implicitness as syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically represented in both texts i, e., ST and TT. 2. Attempting to find out to what extent the translator has succeeded in achieving the pragmatic implicitness of the original text.
4. Procedures The following procedures are adopted in carrying out the present study: 1. Giving a general idea of implicitness with particular reference to pragmatic implicitness as represented in some figures of speech such as metaphor and euphemism. 2. Conducting an analysis of source text (randomly chosen texts in the Glorious Quran and seven translations) and target text in which it is shown how metaphor and euphemism are transferred from ST to TT. 3. Presenting conclusions and a number of suggestions for further research.
5. Value The values of the study lie in: 1. Developing a method in tackling the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic implicitness when translating literary texts. 2. Presentig a number of recommendations to those who are concerned with translating such types of texts. 3
6. Scope The present study is limited to tackling the notion of implicitness as carried out by different linguistic devices (,i.e., metaphor and euphemism). The study is limited to analysing seventeen Glorious Qura’nic texts with seven translations (interpretations).
4
Chapter One Linguistic Perspectives on the Notion of Implicitness 1.1 Implicitness in Linguistic Communication Implicitness
is
viewed
as
that
natural
property
of
linguistic
communication which simply contributes to its effectiveness (Justin, 1999: 92). Justin goes on to state that ‗implicitness‘ can also be studied as a means of manipulation of language. According to Justin (Ibid) there are two ways of producing oral and written language. Firstly, Extraverts prefer to produce what they call implicit language (the concern of the present study) in which they use more pronouns, adverbs, and verbs; and fewer nouns, adjectives and prepositions. Secondly, introverts who prefer to produce what they call explicit language.
Dewaele and Furnham (2000:56) suggest that implicit language involves preference for pronouns, adverbs, whereas explicit language involves preference for nouns, adjectives and prepositions. Moreover, both have devised what is called ―Implicit – Extrovert Hypothesis”.
5
1.2 Extrovert and Intravert Language Extrovert language involves a preference for implicitness, whereas the intravert involves a preference for explicitness. However, Dewaele and Furnham (Ibid) focus on their ‗Implicit-Extrovert Hypothesis‘. The hypothesis appears to be held in both informal and formal situations. It is quite clear that oral and written language could involve less or more implicitness. To support such an idea, it is suggested that the more the use of pronouns, verbs, and adverbs the more implicit language and the reverse is right. Introverts are said to prefer explicitness or immediacy. Extroverts are said to prefer implicitness.
1.2.1 Implicit – Extravert Hypothesis (Neuroticism)
Gill and Oberlander (2002-2003:43) worked together in a pilot study in which they gathered a corpus of e-mail messages, and analysed them for characteristic words and sequences of words. The corpus comprised (210) texts produced by (105) university students or recent graduates (37 males, 68 females). Each participant composed two e-mails to a good friend whom they had not seen for quite some time, spending around (10) minutes on each message. The first e-mail concerned their activities in the past week; the second discussed their plans for the next week. The total corpus is around (65,000) words.
6
After analyzing the corpus e-mail message, it was reported that the corpus results on Extravert words were broadly full of using informal language, looser punctuation, vaguer quantification and more- co-ordination. Thus, this appears fit to the ‗Implicit –Extravert hypotheses. However, there are also results on Neurotic language use (low degree of implicitness). Penrebaker and King (1999:35) previously argued that High Neuroticism was associated with a language factor for immediacy. Gill and Oberlander (2003:38) extended these results , suggesting that ‗High Neurotics‟ show a preference for forms occurring frequently in speech , for example ,I ,and , that, rather than less common words such as object , suspicion , tether . This preference for common words contributes towards the very low lexical density found in highly Neurotic texts, demonstrated by the high level of repetition over ten – word sections of text. What is interesting about this is that it suggests that Dewaele and Furnharm‘s ideas about formality and implicitness might be as relevant to the Neuroticism dimension as they are to the Extraversion dimension. If they are so, then , it is expected that-like High Extraverts-High Neurotics will use more verbs ,adverbs ,and pronouns ,while low Neurotics will use more nouns , adjectives , and prepositions .This is called „Implicit – Neurotic Hypothesis „(INH).
7
1.3 Types of Extrovert (Implicit) Communication 1.3.1 Inferences Type If one were to make everything explicit in communicattion, s/he would be confronted with an extremely difficult, if not impossible task. It is a characteristic of any text that the surface structure contains many gaps which interpreters –who are in a permanent quest for coherence –have to fill in by making inferences (Justin, 1999: 92).
There are at least two kinds of such inferences. First, there are semantic inferences that are directly elicited by the surface structure of linguistic utterances. Consider the following example:
1. Today, the refugees are no longer a threat to the stability of our society.
Here, a hearer/reader is forced to infer that so far the refugees were a threat to the presumed stability. As the surface structure of such linguistic utterances leaves the hearer /reader with little or no choice in determining the ‗missing part‘ of the meaning, the addresser / addressee should be held responsible for the addresser‘s / r addressee‘s inferences (Ibid).
Second, there are contextual and pragmatic /rhetorical inferences triggered by a hearer‘s/reader‘s awareness of the context. They are guided by his/her knowledge of a communicative situation, the theme that is addressed to (encyclopedic knowledge) as well as the rules that govern the discursive activity in a given situation , institution , society or culture . As there is no
8
unique perception of a communicative situation, no encyclopedic knowledge shared uniformly by all individuals and no rules of language that would take an algorithmic form, there may, in principle, always be some differences between the addresser /addressee‘s meaning and the addresser‘s /addressee‘s meaning. The addresser /addressee can hardly be held – at least directly – responsible for the addresser‘s /addressee‘s contextual inferences. This, however, is not to say that the former control at least some of the contextual inferences made by the addresser/addressee. S/he can even do it with more or less manipulative effect, which is due precisely to the fact that the responsibility for the inferences is normally of the hearer/reader (Ibid).
1.3.2 Presuppositions Type
Disciplines
studying
implicitness–like
rhetoric,
linguistics
and
philosophical pragmatics – have been attracted by presuppositions. There is presupposition if an utterance conveys information that is not expressed but simply presumed. Presuppositions are a kind of necessary inferences triggered by either a single word or more or less complex surface structure of sentences
(Levinson,
1983:179).Any
linguistic
item
triggering
presuppositions can be called a presupposition –trigger(Ibid).
Here is an example showing how a presupposition triggered by the semantic structure of a single word can serve to convey – rather discreetly – a biased cultural representation; consider the following example:
2. In 1492 Columbus discovered America. 9
According to dictionary, to discover is to find something that had previously been in existence but had hitherto been unknown to humankind. Suppose that an interpreter is not only familiar with the definition but is also aware of the fact that in the 15th century the ‗American‘ continent was populated by natives (red Indians). There are just two ways for such an interpreter to interpret sentence (2) coherently. S/he must infer either that the red Indians were not part of humankind and their knowledge of the continent does not count ,or that, until Columbus‘ discovery, the red Indians were so uncivilized they did not even know they were living in America (Levinson,1983:185). Sentences of the form ―The F is G‖ imply in a distinctive way that there is one and only one F. Russell (1905:479-93) who proposes ―The F is G‖ is equivalent to ―There is one and only one F and it is G.‖ Strawson (1950:320-44) objects that this made a statement like ―The present king of France is bald‖ clearly false. In an intuitive sense, the statement presupposes rather than asserts that there is a unique king of France. Since this presupposition is false, the statement is out of place, and should just be withdrawn.
Following
Frege
(1952:56-78),
Strawson
defines
a
presupposition as a necessary condition for a statement being either true or false. ―The present king of France is bald‖ has no truth-value, because there is no king of France. Strawson's view, thus, complicates logical theory by denying bivalence. A third position, advocated by Kartunnen & Peters (1979:1-56), is that the uniqueness implication is a conventional implicature.This allows them to maintain that ―The F is G‖ has the Russellian truth conditions, while acknowledging that it is not synonymous with ―There is one and only one F and it is G.‖ They can allow that the non-
10
truth conditional component of meaning makes it inappropriate to say that ―The present king of France is bald‖ is false to say that ―Sandra Day O'Connor is a woman but smart‖ is true(Ibid). To make matters even more complex, the existence and uniqueness implications of negations of ―The F is G‖ have signal properties of conversational implicatures, as Grice (1981:183-98) notes. Thus ―The present king of France did not visit Washington‖ ordinarily presupposes that there is a present king of France. But this presupposition is cancelled in ―Since there is no such person, the king of France did not visit Washington.‖
1.4 Implicit Messages and Manipulation It is now obvious that to view implicitness as that (natural) property of linguistic communication which simply contributes to its effectiveness is not the only possible way of viewing it. Implicitness can also be studied as a means of manipulation. Justin (1999:93) goes on to suggest that implicitly communicative messages are hardly visible and have good chances of passing
imperceptibly.
Implicit
messages
can
be related to
the
addresser‘s/addressee‘s hidden communicative intentions strategy. Even in ancient Rome, Quintilian, an expert in rhetoric, was interested in such forms of implicitness as ‗insinuation‘. He describes two motives for its use: 1. the speaker‘s lack of certainty about what he would like to communicate to the hearer 11
2. the speaker‘s conviction that overt communication of a certain content would be inappropriate (Quintilian,1975,78-189).
Contemporary French linguist Catherine Kerbrat-Orrechioni finds a strong reason for the use of implicit forms of communication in outplaying (dejouer) moral, political or legal censorship (Kerbrat-Orrechioni, 1986:277). Following this line of reasoning one could conclude that mass media may sometimes resort to forms of implicit communication because they want to get across messages that are incompatible with the principles of human rights, tolerance, democracy, etc.
1.5 Meaning and Linguistic Pragmatics To understand how meaning is communicated, it is essential to study neoGricean pragmatics, which is chiefly concerned with the inferential processes yielding implicated meaning. It should be expounded here the fundamental concepts of relevance theory. Building on Grice‘s insights into pragmatics, Sperber and Wilson‘s (1986/1995:89) provide the best inferential model currently available.
In relevance theory, meaning is obtained after applying an inferential processor to an input of propositional forms that are yielded by conventional linguistic rules; those rules being themselves supplemented by an inferential procedure when it is necessary to disambiguate syntactic structures in sentences or help assign reference. A unique principle, the Principle of Relevance, is postulated to serve as the inferential engine which keeps
12
pragmatic inferences going. The Principle of Relevance is unexceptionable: it holds whenever communication takes place, the role of pragmatic inferences is thus either to (1) filter propositional meaning, or to (2) yield implicated meaning. The two categories are exemplified by the following: 3. Do you like cranes? can mean something quite different depending on whether it is uttered in a nature reserve or on a building site.
4. I earn £800 a month might be an inaccurate statement, but still be a good approximation of one‘s wages, quite appropriate as an answer to a friend‘s enquiry. The statement implies that the figure given is (or is likely to be) a rough approximation (Dekker, 1998:308-330).
1.5.1 Ostensive communication
When someone communicates, his/her communicative intention must be recognized. If it is not, an utterance will be dismissed as an instance of thinking aloud, or perhaps a sign of impending lunacy. Conversely an action that is done in an ostentatious manner, and that would otherwise have gone unnoticed, can convey meaning. Imagine that a youthful romantic hero is in a gorgeous English garden on a fine evening with his dear one. She is very sensitive to the setting and she breathes deeply. He will deduce from her breathing deeply that she enjoys the stroll. But let us assume that she breathes very deeply. If this is conspicuous enough, he may wonder why she does so. The obvious answer is that she is trying to attract his attention, in
13
order that he might notice that she wants to let him know that she is happy, presumably because of the scent and flowers, possibly on account of the weather, his being with her, or something else—or a combination of these. She cannot convey exactly the same thing verbally. It is, however, quite clear that she communicates. The conclusion to be drawn is that when one communicates, one communicates one‘s intention to communicate as well as some content. Communication is ostensive, and intention should be taken seriously when studying communication (Ibid). Note that in the example just given, communication takes place without the utterance of words, and the intention to communicate has to be fallibly inferred. In conversation, on the other hand, it is speech that indicates the speaker‘s intention to communicate by the very fact of its presence. The intention to communicate cannot fail to be recognized. The same holds for written productions (Ibid).
1.5.2 The Principle of Relevance The Principle of Relevance can be stated quite briefly, although its empirical implications are manifold and a few illustrations and explanations will be needed to understand how it works ―Every act of ostensive communication communicates a presumption of its own optimal relevance‖ (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995: 158).
Relevance, in its technical acceptation, is the ratio between the cognitive cost of processing and the profit obtained, to use an economic metaphor. 14
These can hardly be quantified and evaluated so as to allow comparison, but it does not really matter as the Principle of Relevance appeals to an intuitive balance of cost and profit in any event. Speaker and hearer are similarly unable to evaluate them (cost and profit) with great precision as the conversation happens. Therefore, the hearer has no choice but to trust the judgement of the speaker, who presumes that it is worthwhile to listen to him (Ibid). The presumption of optimal relevance can then be broken up into two distinct parts: (a) The ostensive stimulus is relevant enough for it to be worth to the addressee‘s effort to process it.
(b) The ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator‘s abilities and preferences. (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995: 170).
Part (a) ensures that the addressee is provided with an incentive to respond to the ostensive stimulus (the utterance or the ostensive behavior) and starts processing the information. The addressee must think that the information is worthwhile processing. In addition, it is expected that the communicator will choose the most efficient way to communicate when he/she has to choose between several options. His/her own communicative powers are liable to restrict or to enhance optimal relevance. Other things being equal, he will aim at maximal relevance. Preferential factors, such as affectation of a particular style, can have a bearing on relevance as well, as it limits expression. The foregoing considerations account for (b) and the restrictions it sets. Part (b) is of course stronger than (a), which could logically be done away with, enabling us by the same token to propose the following 15
compendious (personal) formulation for the Principle of Relevance: ―Every act of ostensive communication communicates
presumption that the
ostensive stimulus that has been selected is the most relevant one compatible with communicator‘s abilities and preferences‖ (Ibid). In other words, other things being equal, every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own optimal relevance.
Let us now see how the principle can be applied to the utterances (3) Do you like cranes? and (4) I earn £800 a month. In uttering (3), the speaker is committed to being as relevant as possible in as uncostly a manner as possible, in virtue of the Principle of Relevance. Let us imagine that the speaker is in a nature reserve. If the speaker meant crane in the sense of a mechanical device to raise heavy weights, he would probably have provided some contextual clues, for instance by introducing his question by a preface like: as a mechanical engineer. With no sign pointing to the contrary, the cost for processing the question under the assumption that crane designates a bird is lower than with the other acceptation of the word. Consequently, the hearer is fallibly justified in inferring that the speaker means crane as a type of bird. The analysis of (4) is somewhat more subtle. This is how Sperber and Wilson treat the problem, assuming that the reader is enquiring about the current wages of one of them who has a monthly income of £797.32 pence: There is no reason to think that you need an exact figure. From either reply [i.e., a literally true one or the approximate (4)] you will be able to derive exactly the same conclusions about my status, standard of living, purchasing power, life style, and whatever else you are planning to use my salary as an indicator of. Aiming at
16
optimal relevance, I should therefore choose the reply which will convey these conclusions as economically as possible [i.e., (4)] (Sperber and Wilson,1986/1995: 233).
In other words, the profit yielded by (4) is identical or almost identical to that of the literally true I earn £797.32 pence a month. However, the literally true version entails an additional processing cost, for an informative benefit that is but marginal. The cost outweighs the profit. In uttering (4), the speaker abides by the Principle of Relevance, as he evaluates optimal relevance for the hearer and understands the rationale behind his question. This suggests that optimal relevance is not only contingent on the speaker, but on the audience as well. Relevance is evaluated from the speaker‘s point of view with a particular audience in mind.
But this is not the end of the story. In the opinion of the researcher, the speaker uttering (4) is not communicating in the ostensive sense his status, standard of living, purchasing power, etc. In that it is his wages themselves that provide an indication of these things. Moreover, the hearer may seek to obtain some information that the speaker is unaware of supplying, for instance if he wants to find out whether the speaker is entitled to apply for a new credit scheme. It would be fully undesirable to regard the speaker as communicating that he is entitled or not entitled to apply for the scheme. Indeed the speaker does not intend his utterance of (4) to cause the hearer to entertain such a thought (through the recognition of his intention to communicate). Thus, according to the standard Gricean account, no such thought is communicated. The hearer can of course indirectly arrive at a conclusion, but such a conclusion is not implicated communicatively: the
17
hearer reaches such a conclusion through the informative content of the answer. Sperber and Wilson are curiously silent on this point. But what is actually communicated with (4)? With respect to (4), the hearer is likely to assume that the speaker is bright enough to make the standard assumption that he, the hearer, is just looking for a rough approximation, in virtue of the Principle of Relevance. The hearer will therefore understand that the figure given in (4) is in all likelihood a rough approximation, which is meant to be quite satisfactory. That £800 is in all likelihood a rough approximation of the speaker‘s salary is thus communicated, though not explicitly. It is implicated. What is particularly interesting in this example is that the implicated meaning allows (4) to be literally false.
1.5.3 Manifestness Another major contribution of Relevance to pragmatics is the introduction of the notion of manifestness. Manifestness can be seen as a kind of coefficient that is attributed to assumptions and inferences. A preliminary discussion is required in order to present the notion and put it in the general context of implicated meaning (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995:238).
Whereas Grice (1975:70) would say that in an appropriate context, what lovely weather! means the same as ―The weather is pretty bad‖, i.e. the two are equivalent.Sperber and Wilson (Ibid) insist that the inferential process itself should be taken into serious consideration for the yielding of meaning. A touch of irony, though a very trite one, is conveyed through the antiphrasis. 18
Obviously, one could substitute another sentence for “The weather is pretty bad”, but the propositions the sentences stand for should be roughly equivalent, and corresponding to the assumption that has been formulated here as “The weather is pretty bad” for convenience‘s sake. But disregarding this problem, it could be argued that the assumption ―The weather is pretty bad‖ is presumably more obviously communicated when the corresponding sentence is uttered, than when “What lovely weather!” is uttered. The first proposition is said to be more manifest than the second one. It would accordingly be attributed to the highest degree of manifestness, while the latter would not. (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995:245).
The notion of manifestness is particularly handy when dealing with sentences that cannot be interpreted literally. Take for instance (5) Richard is a lion. There are at least two inferential lead to be followed, which can be represented by the propositions (5a) and (5b):
5. a. Richard is valorous. 5. b. Richard is generous.
The assumptions that Richard is strong and combative are also likely to be communicated by (5), but this need not concern us here. Depending on the context, (5a) will be more manifest than (5b), or vice-versa. Because an extensive range of implicatures is normally triggered by (5), the manifestness of (5a) or (5b) is unlikely to reach or come very close to 100%. Note, however, that the total of all the manifestness percentages could be ascribed to the implicated assumptions, and very often do, exceed 100%. (5a) 19
could be 90% manifest and (5b) 60% manifest in a particular context. It is undoubtedly an almost impossible task to attribute a precise coefficient of manifestness to any implicated assumption, but it is enough for explanatory purposes that it is a theoretical possibility. All in all relevance theory provides us with a satisfyingly powerful and descriptively adequate account of implicated meaning (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995:238).
1.6 Propositional forms and meaning
In the first type of complex meaning that is considered, there, first appear to be two levels of meaning. Equivoques and metaphors figure prominently in this category. An equivoque implies two meanings being communicated at the same time, whereas a metaphor is a trope, conveying an actual meaning which differs from the literal sense. The two figures are quite distinct. Yet for both, meaning is computed out of occurrences in a rather standard way as, appearances notwithstanding, there is no superimposed layer of meaning (Ibid).
1.6.1 Equivoque M. H. Abrams defines the equivoque as ―the use of a single word or phrase which has two disparate meanings, in a context which makes the two meanings relevant.‖ (Abrams,1957: 253). In the following example from Marlowe, King Edward II, being braved by his barons who wish to see an end to his favourite‘s career (Gaveston‘s), threatens to wage war on them:
20
LANCASTER: We‟ll hale him by the ears unto the block. KING EDWARD: Look to your own heads; his is sure enough. WARWICK: Look to your own crown, if you back him thus.
(Edward the Second, II, ii, 91–93) In the last line ―crown‖ is polysemic, as it can refer to the regal crown or the head of the king. Warwick thereby sounds a note of extreme defiance.
Now, how can this particular example and equivoques in general, be accounted for from a relevance-theoretic perspective? One will probably remember that the theory postulates that there is an inferential procedure to filter propositional meaning. What happens during this disambiguation procedure is that syntactic structures, lexical meaning and referents are selected on account of their relevance in context. But when two items are equally relevant, no selection can proceed, and meaning becomes double. In Warwick‘s line, crown can have two meanings, and his utterance means both “Look to your own crown” (i.e., kingship, by metonymy) and ―Look to your own head”. Both readings are relevant. So instead of having one meaning dominating another, sense of being superimposed on another, what we have here are two parallel, competing meanings. Of course one of them can underlie a reading with a higher manifestness to recommend itself, but the less obvious meaning is in no way parasitic on the other. Rather, both are given at (roughly) the same time, albeit with varying degrees of manifestness. This is typical of double entendres with innuendoes(Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995: 178).
21
Equivoques are not exclusively lexical. They can also be syntactic. In that case, two competing syntactic structures are selected as leading to relevance, thus yielding double meaning.
YOUNGER MORTIMER: Why do you love him whom the world hates so? KING EDWARD: Because he [Gaveston] loves me more than all the world.
(Edward the Second, I, iv, 76–77)
Edward II means both that Gaveston loves the king above anybody or anything else, and that Gaveston loves the king more than all the world does. Both ideas are simultaneously communicated in this line. In sum, equivoques are figures whose function rests on the disambiguating procedure which contributes to the yielding of propositional meaning. An equivoque leads to the generation of a semantic twin set.
1.7 A superimposed Level of Communication The second type of complex meaning to be considered is conveyed above a first layer of meaning or narration. An additional, dependent layer of meaning is built on another layer. The superimposed layer of meaning is communicated at a distinct level of communication. The intention to communicate pertaining to the second level is buried in the first layer, and the first layer thus provides a key to the second layer. This communicative strategy is used in literature in two different ways: either the second layer provides a commentary and sheds light on a first layer of meaning or 22
narration, or it partly detaches itself from a first layer of meaning or narration and takes into consideration new objects which nonetheless bear some resemblance to elements present in the first layer. This second strategy is conspicuously used in parables (Sperber and Wilson ,1986/1995: 178).
By layer of narration, it is understood that the immediate narrative content which the audience is made to represent is directly ―shown‖ or ―told‖ in a loose sense. In drama (and film), it corresponds to the basic layer of meaning found in ordinary communication, or narration in the other literary genres. A layer of narration is a more abstract construct than a layer of meaning. It can nevertheless include explicit reflexive or metafictional content, just like a layer of meaning.
1.8 Proposition Expressed
Grice is rightly thought of as the founder of inferential pragmatics; his system of conversational maxims and his insistence on a rational inferential process of working out the non-conventional or conversational implicatures of an utterance are the basis for the bulk of work in current pragmatics, both linguistic and philosophical. Grice's concept of “what is said” by a sentence or utterance seems to be a variant of the pairing of sentences and propositions, and the basic motivation for his interest in properties of rational discourse was to separate off what words say from what in uttering them, imply (Grice,1975: 59). So among the uses to which he put conversational implicature was in defence of Russell‘s semantics for definite descriptions against the challenges from both Strawson and Donnellan; the 23
idea is to maintain Russell‘s quantificational account at the level of what is said for all occurrences of definite descriptions. The existential presupposition standardly carried by both positive and negative definite description sentences is accounted for as a conversational implicature, dependent on a manner maxim concerning the rational presentation of one‘s information. A similar approach is taken to the communication, on the referential use, of a singular proposition; it too is a case of conversational implicature, worked out on the basis of considerations of relevance and/or informativeness(Ibid).
While these two requirements, which go beyond the conventional or encoded linguistic meaning, are taken to be determined by context, they are apparently satisfied without the involvement of the conversational maxims, which
are
employed
just
in
the
derivation
of
conversational
implicatures(Grice,1975:64). There are two possible construals of this: (a) ―what is said‖ just is semantics and, as Bach (1979:124-62) contends, there is an accompanying notion of semantic context, narrow context, comprising just those contextual features necessary for the determination of referents and ‗operative meaning‘, or (b) disambiguation and reference assignment are pragmatic processes, involving considerations of plausibility, informativeness or relevance, and so pragmatics plays an essential role in the determination of the truthconditional content of the utterance. The first construal, which it seems likely, was intended by Grice, makes his “what is said‖ a speech-act equivalent of the linguistic entity to which the formalists assign truth conditions. The second construal, on the other hand, forces a disjunction 24
between linguistic semantics (conventional or encoded linguistic meaning) and truth conditions; in a much developed and extended form, this is the “semantic underdeterminacy‖ thesis, a central tenet of relevance theory, or what Bach (Ibid:47) calls ―the pragmatic view‖.
The Gricean picture is further complicated once we recall that there is a range of linguistic forms which apparently do not contribute to truth conditions, hence not to what is said, but which, assuredly, do encode meaning of some sort; in Grice‘s terms, they give rise to an implicature (that is, to an element of non-truth-conditional utterance meaning), not due to any maxims of communicative behaviour, but via a convention (a linguistic semantic convention, presumably). Among the particular cases he discussed are ―but, therefore, and moreover‖, whose conventional meaning does not bear on the statement(s) made by an utterance in which they feature; they have a meaning, but that meaning is not truth-conditional. Grice‘s status as a speech act theorist, alluded to above, is especially clear in his treatment of these elements; while they do not contribute to the speech act of saying, hence not to the basic (central, ground-floor) speech acts of stating, telling or asking, they enter into higher-level (non-central) speech acts of commenting on the basic ones. For instance, an utterance of ―P but Q‖ (where P and Q have been expressed by indicative sentences) may perform the two basic speech acts of stating (that P, and that Q) and a further higher-level speech act of contrasting these two statements. The truth value of the proposition expressed by this non-central speech act does not affect the truth value of the utterance, which is determined just by the values of P and of Q.
25
In strand five of his retrospective epilogue, Grice (1989a: 359-365) puts up two types of utterance meaning as candidates for signification which is somehow central or primary: the dictive and the formal. Formal signification is all that meaning for which he elsewhere employs the term ‗conventional‘, whether entering into what is said (truth conditions) or implicature. Dictive meaning appears to be another term for what is said, meaning which is usually some combination of (some of the) formally given meaning and of (some of the) contextually supplied meaning. This pull between two different notions of central meaning or primary signification in natural language use arises constantly throughout work in semantics; it is fundamentally a tension between semantics as truth-conditional content (what is said, the minimal proposition expressed), on the one hand, and semantics as what the formal elements that comprise a natural language encode, on the other hand(Ibid).
1.9 The Semantic/Pragmatic Distinction and the Explicit/Implicit Distinction 1.9.1 Saying/Implicating Conversational implicature was seen as a very useful philosophical tool by Grice and other philosophers, for siphoning off non-central aspects of utterance meaning, leaving the core philosophical statement to be assessed for truth; that core “what is said‖ is as close to encoded (conventional) semantic content as a truth-evaluable entity can be. But once one
couples
an
explicit/implicit
26
distinction
with
the
semantic
underdeterminacy view, it becomes clear that the Gricean distinction has to be abandoned or quite radically reconstrued (Bach, 1994:125).
There are at least the following two possible revisions: (a) the concept of what is said has to be understood as involving much more of a pragmatic contribution than Grice acknowledged, a contribution which is as much driven by conversational maxims or communicative principles as is the derivation of conversational implicatures; (b) a very constrained, semantically-oriented concept of what is said can be maintained, but only at the cost of recognising a further representational level, between “what is said‖ and what is implicated. Bach (1994:125) adopts the second approach; he takes what is said to be determined by just encoded content, certain cases of indexical reference assignment and disambiguation, and accepts that it is often subpropositional (so not truth-evaluable). He posits a level of impliciture (distinct from implicature), a propositional representation at which the linguistically given what is said has been pragmatically completed and, on occasion, enriched. However, his conception of ‗what is said‘ seems to be redundant in a cognitive processing account of utterance understanding, since it plays no role in the interpretation which is not already played by the independently motivated level of logical form. The first approach, a revision of “what is said” so as to allow for a much greater input from pragmatics, has been developed within the philosophy of language by Recanati (1989:729), and it is the route taken within cognitive pragmatics by relevance theorists in developing the concept of explicature.
27
1.9.2 Logical Form and Explicature
The gap between linguistically decoded information and proposition explicitly expressed is not bridged just by the processes of reference assignment and disambiguation. First, there are the completion processes . Then, there are such pragmatic processes as identifying the domain over which the quantifier in (6a) ranges and the relevant relation between Mary and the picture in (6b); these may be examples of linguistically mandated pragmatic processes in that the logical form contains a variable indicating the necessity of contextual instantiation in the two instances (pragmatic saturation cases, in Recanati‘s terms):
6.a. Everyone went to the party. a‘. Everyone in my pragmatics seminar went to the party. b. I like Mary‘s picture best. b.‘ I like best the picture that Mary bought from the exhibition.
However, the cases that really show the radical difference between a semantically oriented notion of what is said and the appropriate concept of what is explicitly communicated within a cognitive processing account of utterance is further elaborated in deriving that more informative or more relevant proposition. This relevant proposition is the one the speaker can be reasonably taken to have intended to communicate. Consider the following:
7.a. He took off his boots and got into bed. b. She gave him a push and he fell over the edge. 28
c. Writing my essay will take time. d. He hasn‘t had any lunch. ( Recanati ,1989:74) For each of these examples, the result of reference assignment and disambiguation is a truth-evaluable propositional representation; (7a) is true if both of the following are true: X removed his boots at some time prior to the time of utterance, and X got into bed at some time prior to the time of utterance; (7c) is true if the activity of the speaker‘s writing her essay Y will occupy a time-span (a couple of milliseconds, for instance). However, these are not the propositions intended by the speaker nor the ones understood by the addressee; the temporal sequence communicated by (7a), the causeconsequence relation communicated by (7b), and the concept of an appreciable length of time communicated by (7c) are all aspects of the explicitly communicated proposition (Ibid).
These examples can be viewed as cases of conceptual expansion, of strengthening achieved by the addition of conceptual material; as in, “he hasn‟t had any lunch today”. There are other cases where it seems that a lexical concept appearing in the logical form is pragmatically adjusted so that the concept understood as communicated by the particular lexical item is different from, and replaces, the concept it encodes; it is narrower, looser or some combination of the two, so that its denotation merely overlaps with the denotation of the lexical concept from which it was derived. A case of this sort of ad hoc concept formation was given in (8), repeated here:
8. Kato (of O.J. Simpson, at his trial): He was upset but he wasn‘t upset. 29
[= He was [upset]‘ but he wasn‘t [upset]‖]
As far as its linguistically supplied information goes this is a contradiction, but it was not intended or understood this way. The two instances of the word ―upset‖ were understood as communicating different concepts of upsetness, at least one, but most likely both, involving a pragmatic enrichment of the encoded lexical concept UPSET; the second of the two concepts carries certain implications that the first one does not, implications whose applicability to Simpson Kato wants to deny. The proposition explicitly expressed here is true just in case O.J. Simpson had one sort of property at the time in question, but lacked another, related but stronger, property.
Briefly consider now (9a)-(9d), some potential cases of pragmatic loosening of a concept:
9.a. The steak is raw. b. Holland is flat. c. Jane is a bulldozer. d. Jane isn‘t a bulldozer. e. Bill is a human being. f. Bill isn‘t a human being. In many contexts the property attributed to the steak in (9a) is not literal uncookedness, but a weaker one of undercookedness, which shares some but not all of the implications of the stronger one; similar comments apply to (9b) and (9c). The interest of (9d) is that although the linguistically encoded content of ‗not a bulldozer‘ is literally true of Jane, it is a trivial, hence 30
irrelevant, truth and what is understood as being denied is her having the property that is communicated by the loose use of the concept BULLDOZER in (9c). Example (9e) and its negation (9f) are the enrichment counterparts, in that the property predicated of Bill in (9e) is narrower than the encoded one that denotes a particular species, and this is denied in (9f). These pragmatic narrowings and loosenings of encoded concepts are entirely local, so can fall within the scope of negation. For further discussion, see Carston (1996, 1998:309-330) and Sperber & Wilson (1998b:184-200).
Within the relevance-theoretic account of utterance interpretation, where the aim is to delineate the set of assumptions that are communicated and the processes by which they are derived, these cases are viewed as showing further ways in which pragmatic processing mediates between logical form and the proposition explicitly expressed by (the explicature of) an utterance. What this entails is that not only do pragmatic inferences build on, and flesh out, logical form, but they may also result in the loss of some element of encoded linguistic meaning featuring in the logical form; this is the case for the loose uses in (9a)-(9d). For instance, the proposition explicitly communicated by (9a) is true just in case the steak in question is [raw*], where [raw*] does not entail uncookedness. This makes it very clear how distant the concept of the proposition explicitly communicated in this cognitively-based
account
of
verbal
communication
is
from
the
philosophically-based, semantically-oriented concept of ‗what is said‘. There is no role in the cognitive account for ‗what is said‘ construed as the proposition literally and strictly expressed, so departing but minimally from linguistically encoded meaning(Ibid).
31
The relevance-theoretic explicature/implicature distinction is a distinction among the propositional forms communicated by the utterance (the assumptions falling under the speaker‘s communicative intention, speaker-meant, in Grice‘s terms). It is a derivational distinction. An explicature is derived by inferentially developing the logical form of the utterance. All other communicated assumptions are implicatures; they are derived by inference alone, inference in which the explicature is one of the premises. Different token explicatures having the same propositional content may vary with regard to the relative contributions made by decoding and inference. That is, they may vary in degree of explicitness. The overall picture here is of a semantic representation which is the linguistic input to relevance-seeking
pragmatic
inferential
processes.
This
semantic
representation eventuates in a set of communicated propositional forms, explicatures and implicatures each of which could be given a truthconditional semantics, but none of which is, or is encoded by, a natural language sentence(Carston,1996,1998:309-330;Sperber& Wilson, 1998:184200).
32
1.10 Relevance-Theoretic Semantics 1.10.1 Two types of encoding: Conceptual and Procedural
Having given some idea of how pragmatics is conceived of on this internalist, cognitive processing (performance) view, it is time to return to semantics, keeping in mind that by‗semantics‘ what is meant here is a relation between bits of linguistic form and the cognitive information they encode, rather than a relation between forms and entities in the external world. An important idea, initiated and developed by Blakemore (1997:1-19), is that linguistic meaning can provide two quite distinct types of input to pragmatic inferential processes. On the one hand, linguistic forms may encode concepts. Concepts function as constituents of those mental representations that undergo inferential computations (i.e. conceptual representations), so the concepts encoded by the linguistic expressions used in an utterance make up its logical form and provide the basis for the development of explicatures (the fully propositional assumptions explicitly communicated). On the other hand, linguistic forms may encode procedures. Procedures are not constituents of conceptual representations, but rather function as constraints on some aspect of the inferential phase of comprehension. To illustrate, consider the following examples:
10.a. Squirrels love peanuts. b. Moreover, squirrels love peanuts. c. They love them. d. LOVE (SQUIRRELS, PEANUTS)
33
Most nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs seem to encode a concept, which bears logical relations with other concepts. For instance, the conceptual representation corresponding to the proposition expressed by an utterance of (10a) may consist of a structured string of the concepts encoded by the three words, something like (10d). (I say ―may‖, since the encoded concepts might be adjusted by pragmatic processes of enrichment or loosening. The sentence in (10b) contains the additional lexical item, moreover, which is standardly assumed not to enter into the proposition expressed. The claim here is that its encoded linguistic meaning does not appear in any conceptual representation at all, because it does not encode anything conceptual, but rather indicates the sort of inferential process the proposition expressed is to enter into. Moving now to the sentence in (10c), it too might be used to express exactly the same proposition as an utterance of (10a); the conceptual representation of that proposition will not include the encoded linguistic meaning of the two pronouns. As is generally agreed, pronouns and demonstratives encode a rule for, or constraint on, finding a referent (see Kaplan 1987:89). In short, expression of the proposition that squirrels love peanuts may be achieved by the utterance of any of (10a)-(10c); the meaning encoded by ‗moreover‘ and by the indexicals drops out of the picture.
The relevance-theoretic view is that both indexicals and discourse connectives encode a procedure rather than a concept. On the face of it, these may appear to be two rather disparate phenomena, but what unites them is that they can be characterised, negatively, as not contributing a constituent to any conceptual representation and, positively, as providing an instruction to the hearer to guide him in the pragmatic inferential phase of understanding an utterance. The difference between them is that indexicals 34
constrain the inferential construction of explicatures and discourse connectives constrain the derivation of implicatures (that is, intended contextual assumptions and contextual effects) (Kaplan, 1987:89). Blakemore‘s focus has been on discourse connectives like but, after all, moreover, therefore and so, those cases that Grice classified as devices of conventional implicature, contributing to higher-level speech acts. For instance, consider the examples in (11): 11.a. She can pay. b. After all, she‘s rich. c. She‘s rich. d. So she can pay. e. She‘s rich. f. But she‘s generous.
According to Blakemore, the connectives in these examples do not contribute to any conceptual representation, whether ground-level or higherlevel. Rather, they indicate to the hearer what type of inference process he should perform in deriving the cognitive (contextual) effects of the propositions explicitly communicated by the utterance. The use of ‗after all‘ indicates that (11b) is to be used as evidence in support of (11a); the use of ‗so‘ indicates that (11d) should be processed as a contextual implication of (11c); the use of but indicates that (11f) should be interpreted as contradicting and eliminating a possible implication of (11e). It is, of course, possible for the particular inferential interaction in each case to take place without any connective to direct the hearer; for instance, a hearer of (11b) might recognise it as providing backing for the statement made by (11a) 35
without the encoded instruction provided by „after all‘. What the use of these linguistic elements does greatly increase the salience of a particular inferential relationship, so that, in those cases where the intended interaction is not already obvious to the hearer, the connective saves him the effort of trying to work out what sort of inferential computation he is to perform. Blakemore points out that these are just the sort of effort-saving devices you would expect to be provided by a code which is subservient to a relevancedriven inferential processing mechanism, a mechanism which is geared to derive cognitive effects at least cost to the processing resources of the system (Ibid).
The notion of procedural encoding was initially applied just to cases of this sort, linguistic expressions whose crucial property is that they do not affect the proposition expressed by, hence the truth conditions of, the utterance. The insight was later extended to linguistic expressions whose impact is felt at the level of explicature, including the proposition expressed by an utterance (Wilson & Sperber 1993:215-54). Among the pragmatic tasks at this level are disambiguation and reference assignment. Disambiguation is inherently constrained; the linguistic system supplies a restricted range of specific options for pragmatic selection. The task of assigning individual and temporal referents is a bit different: what pronouns and tense indicate is a broad constraint on the type of referent to supply, for instance, a singular female individual, or a time prior to the time of utterance, that is, they reduce the hypothesis space that has to be searched in arriving at the intended referent. Wilson & Sperber (1988) further suggest that the information carried by non-declarative syntax (for instance, the imperative mood, interrogative word order, illocutionary devices such as „please, let‟s, 36
huh, eh‟ is procedural and functions as a constraint, not on the proposition expressed, but on a higher-level explicature which represents the speech act performed.
So a variety of inferential pragmatic tasks may be constrained and guided by encoded procedures: reference assignment, illocutionary force identification, and the derivation of implicatures. A further crucial job for pragmatics is working out the intended context, the set of assumptions with which the explicitly communicated assumptions are to interact in the search for relevance. A tentative initial hypothesis about ‗some of‘ the syntactic structures discussed by Prince (1981:135-49), such as clefting and preposing, whose contribution to truth conditions is identical to that of canonical declarative word order, is that they encode an instruction about the sort of context within which the propositional content is to be processed.
1.11 Pragmatically Determined Aspects of Meaning: Explicature, Impliciture or Implicature. The following examples will be taken into consideration:
12. a. He is meeting a woman this evening. b. He is meeting a woman [who is not his wife, mother, or sister] this evening. 13. a. I have had breakfast. b. I have had breakfast [today].
37
It is commonly agreed that when someone utters (12a), one usually understands something like (12b). Similarly, it is assumed a speaker uttering (13a) means (13b).
In Logic and Conversation (1975a, 1989) Grice treats (12) as a case of generalized conversational implicature (GCI). Unlike particularized conversational implicatures, GCIs do not depend on a specific context:
"Sometimes one can say that the use of a certain form of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of special circumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature or type of implicature.” (Grice, 1975a, 1989: 37). “There are the ones that seem to me to be more controversial and at the same time more valuable for philosophical purposes.”
(Grice, 1981, 1989: 185)
According to Grice, a speaker uttering (12a) conversationally implicates (12b) (in the absence of particular circumstances).
After Grice, some authors have tried to improve the Gricean distinction between what is said and what is implicated and the account of cases like (12) and (13), (Bach 1994; Carston 1988 and 1998; Recanati 1989; Sperber and Wilson 1986; Levinson 2000). Discussing (12) and (13), it will be seen that different theorists have used at least three different notions to give an account of the same examples. This is not a mere terminological debate, since it could have important consequences for a general theory of communication and, in particular, for related debates such as the 38
explicit/implicit meaning distinction, the literal/non T literal use distinction or the delimitation of semantics and pragmatics.
1.11.1 Saying what is not said In the Gricean tradition it has been assumed that any pragmatically determined aspect of utterance meaning apart from disambiguation and reference assignment is an implicature. Sperber and Wilson (1986:187) defend, instead, that: “In fact, recent work has shown that a number of problems with classical implicature analyses are resolved when the „implicatures‟ are reanalysed as pragmatically determined aspects of explicit content…Generally speaking, we see the explicit sideofcommunication as richer, more inferential, and hence more worthy of pragmatic investigation than do most pragmatists in the Gricean tradition” (Sperber and Wilson, 1986: 183).
Many aspects of meaning considered as GCIs by the Gricean picture are considered by Relevance Theory as part of „what is said‘ or, in their terms, the „explicature‘. An assumption is an „explicature‘ if and only if ―it is a development of a logical form encoded by the utterance‖ (Sperber and Wilson 1986: 182). When an assumption communicated by the utterance is not explicit but implicit, there will be an implicature.
39
According to relevance theory, in the recovery of the explicature there are three pragmatic processes involved: disambiguation, reference assignment and enrichment. Let us consider again example (12) and (13):
12.a. He is meeting a woman this evening. b. He is meeting a woman [who is not his wife, mother, or sister] this evening. 13.a. I have had breakfast. b. I have had breakfast [today].
According to relevance theory, (12b) is the explicature of (12a) and (13b) is the explicature of the utterance of (13a), that is, ―the development of the logical form encoded by the utterance‖ or the result of the processes of reference assignment and enrichment to the logical form or conventional sentence meaning.
There is no GCI in this frame; there is an enriched version of the Gricean notion of „what is said‘: the explicature.
1.11.2 Impliciture and Explicature Bach invents a new category for explaining cases like (12), the impliciture: “In implicature one says and communicates one thing and thereby communicates something else in addition. Impliciture,
40
however, is a matter of saying something but communicating something else instead, something closely related to what is said [...]. Rather, part of what is communicated is only implicit in what is explicitly expressed, either because the utterance is semantically underdeterminate and completion is required or because what is being communicated is an expanded version of the proposition expressed” (Bach ,1994: 126).
Bach thinks a speaker can communicate something without making it fully explicit in two different ways: „completion‘ when an utterance is semantically underdeterminate and „expansion‘ when the utterance expresses a complete proposition but it does not coincide with the proposition meant by the speaker. Thus, the pragmatic material one needs to add to (13a) to get (13b) will be considered by Bach as an impliciture recovered by a process of expansion. Unlike Grice but like relevance theorists, he does not interpret (13b) as an implicature because it seems to him it has too close relation with the sentence uttered. The difference with relevant theorists is that he does not include that material within what is said (or the explicature) because, as he argues quite convincingly, that would be to blur the difference between what is explicit and what is implicit in utterance meaning.
1.11.3 Levinson’s preferred interpretation Levinson recovers the Gricean notion of GCI:―An implicature is generalized if utterance U implicates I unless there are unusual specific contextual assumptions that defeat it‖(Levinson,2000:16). Levinson‘s theory 41
of GCIs is not intended to be accommodated within a unique distinction of what is said and what is implicated by an utterance:
According to the standard line (more often presupposed than justified), there are just two levels
to a theory of
communication: a level of sentence meaning (to be explicated by the theory of grammar in the large sense) and a level of speaker-meaning (to be explicated by a theory of pragmatics, perhaps centrally employing Grice‟s notion of meaning) (Levinson, 2000: 22).
He proposes a third level of communication called utterance-type meaning to take into account properly ―aspects of meaning associated with the general, normal use of expressions‖ (Levinson ,2000:63).
According to him, his theory of preferred interpretation does not try to be a holistic theory of human linguistic competence but it just tries to account for general expectations about how language is normally used. Within those ‗expectations‘ one would have GCIs.
Following Grice, Levinson treats GCI as the case of (12), using his Qheuristic (based on Grice‘s first maxim of quantity). Thus, (12b) will be the preferred interpretation of (12a), because “the speaker has failed to be specific in a way in which he might have been expected to be specific, with the consequence that it is likely to be assumed that he is not in a position to be specific” (Grice,1975a, 1989: 38).
42
The explanation of (13) could be similar, analyzing it, unlike relevant theorists or Bach, as a case of Gricean I-GCI that is based on Grice‘s second maxim of quantity.
1.11.4 The researcher’s view
The researcher wants to defend here a view that treats cases like (12) and (13) as implicitures. This view is incompatible with treating them as cases of pragmatically determined constituents of ‗what is said‘ or the explicature as proposed by Sperber and Wilson, Carston and Recanati . The researcher is not sure whether his position can be consistent with treating them as Levinson‘s GCIs—maybe, or to think of GCIs as a particular subclass of implicitures, even if one sees a problem with the putative nondetachability of GCIs. Some arguments in favor of the researcher's view are, at least, the following ones:
A. It keeps a clear criterion for the distinction between what is explicitly said and the remaining aspects of utterance meaning: the linguistic (or grammatical) direction principle.
B. This criterion fits well with what is well-known as pre-theoretic intuitions on what is explicitly said.
C. The pragmatically determined aspects of (12) and (13) in brackets are cancelable, like implicatures but unlike –one argues- the elements of what is said. 43
D. The pragmatically determined aspects of (12) and (13) in brackets are detachable, unlike implicatures except those based on the maxim of manner.
1.11.4.1 The Linguistic Direction Principle It is a commonplace in contemporary pragmatics to reject the idea that sentences express by themselves complete propositions. It is acknowledged as the rule, not as the exception, that one needs context in a broad sense, that is, pragmatic processes to determine the proposition expressed, what is said, by the utterance of a sentence. Now, which are these elements? A good candidate as a clear criterion is just Carston‘s ―linguistic (or grammatical) direction principle‖, stated by Recanati as follows: ―A pragmatically determined aspect of meaning is part of what is said if and only if its contextual determination is triggered by the grammar, that is, if the sentence itself sets up a slot to be contextually filled.‖ (Recanati, 1993: 255)
With this at hand, one could have a clear criterion, as clear as grammar, about what counts as a pragmatically determined constituent of what is said (the explicature) and what not. Moreover, this criterion fits well with the intuition ―that the constituents of what is said must correspond to the constituents of the utterance‖ (Bach, 1994: 137).‖
However, relevance theory is forced to abandon this principle, because it dictates that (12b) and (13b), contrary to what they intend to defend, are not explicatures. The price they must pay is to abandon the linguistic 44
principle for a principle based on the ‗pre-theoretic intuitions‘. This will lead to the second argument (intuition)(Ibid).
1.11.4.2 Intuitions In the search for clear criteria for distinguishing pragmatically determined aspects of what is said from implicatures, Recanati arrives at the ―availability principle‖: “In deciding whether a pragmatically determined aspect of utterance meaning is part of what is said, that is, in making a decision concerning what is said, we should always preserve our pretheoretic intuitions on the matter ( Recanati ,1989: 310)”.
Allegedly, this principle asserts that (12b) and (13b) must be considered what is said by an utterance of (12a) and (13a), because speaker‘s (pre-theoretic) intuitions are that she has said (12b) and (13b). But is this so? Would the speaker accept that uttering (12a) ―He is meeting a woman this evening‖, she has said (12b) ―He is meeting a woman who is not his wife, mother, or sister this evening‖? The answer is clearly not. Concerning, (13), if one asks the speaker whether uttering (13a) ―I have had breakfast‖ she has said (13b) ―I have had breakfast [today]‖, she might answer, as Recanati claims, ―Yes‖. But what about quering her whether she has said it explicitly or implicitly? It seems that, despite his intentions, Recanati‘s availability principle does not make justice to one's
45
pre-theoretic intuitions on the distinction between implicit and explicit meaning, something that the linguistic direction principle apparently does. If this is so, relevance theory has no criterion whatsoever for distinguishing explicatures and implicatures.
1.11.4.3 Cancelability The researcher‘s view is consistent with the fact that GCIs and implicitures, but not explicatures, are cancelable (when non-based upon the maxim of manner) (see Bach 1994): “A putative conversational implicature that p is explicitly cancelable if, to the form of words the utterance of which putatively implicates that p, it is admissible to add but not p, or I do not mean to imply that p, and it is contextually cancelable if one can find situations in which the utterance of the form of words would simply not carry the implicature. Now I think that all conversational implicatures are cancelable (Grice, 1975b:63, 1989: 44)
It seems just self-contradictory to consider, as one should do according to the arguments by relevance theorists, that something can be at the same time part of what is (explicitly) said and (explicitly or contextually) cancelable.
46
1.11.4.4 Non-detachability Concerning non-detachability things are not so clear. According to Grice, conversational implicatures (except those based on the maxims of manner) are nondetachable: “Insofar as the calculation that a particular conversational implicature is present requires, besides contextual and background information, only a knowledge of what has been said (or of the conventional commitment of the utterance), and insofar as the manner of expression plays no role in the calculation, it will not be possible to find another way of saying the same thing, which simply lacks the implicature in question, except where some special feature of the substituted version is itself relevant to the determination of an implicature (in virtue of one of the maxims of Manner).” (Grice, 1975a: 47, 1989: 39.)
Take again the same example (13): 13.a. I have had breakfast. b. I have had breakfast [today]. If one finds another way of saying the same thing that simply doesn‘t produce (13b), then it is a case of detachability. According to the researcher's idea of ‗what is said‘ tied to the ‗linguistic direction principle‘, (13a) is equivalent at the level of „what is said with‘:
14. I have had breakfast before.
47
And one thinks that clearly an utterance of (14) does not carry anything like (13b). So, (13) is detachable and then, one should not consider it a GCI.
The same conclusion can be drawn on (12) with respect to (14):
12.a. He is meeting a woman this evening. b. He is meeting a woman [who is not his wife, mother, or sister] this evening.
14. A female person is going to be met by him. It is thought that an utterance of (14) does not ―implicate‖ (12b). If (12) and (14) are just two different ways of saying the same thing, then it seems that this is again a case of detachability. Therefore, Grice and Levinson attribute non-detachability to all conversational implicatures (except those based on the maxims of manner) or they treat these cases as GCIs based on the maxim of quantity (Grice, 1975a: 47).
1.12 Implicitness as Manipulated in Arabic Literature As previously stated, implicitness is defined as the pervadeness use of pronouns, adverbs and verbs; and fewer nouns, adjectives and prepositions (Justin,1999:92) . It is taken for granted that any language has its devices of expressing any linguistic phenomenon. Languages, according to Seguinot (1988:108) are: ―inherently explicit or implicit in the kinds of information they convey first through their formal properties and secondly through their 48
stylistic and rhetorical preferences‖. Consequently, implicitness is relative in each language depending on the type of the text.
Aziz (1993, 1998a and 1998b:87) and Hatim (1997:105) point out that Arabic is a highly explicit language when compared to English which is an intrinsically implicit language. Hatim (Ibid) goes on to state that in contrast, English is an intrinsically implicit language where ―uttered meanings are likely to be retrievable only through close scrutiny of what is implied by an utterance‖.
Nida and Taber (1969:204) believe that when implicit information is available in the message, it ―may need to be explicit for subsequent receptors if they are to understand the message‖.
A significant supporting fact (for the present study) is raised by Seguinot who introduces a proof in which it is emphasized that it is the nature of the language whether explicit or implicit that affects the process of translation. However, Weissbrod (1992 cited in Vertis 1998:143) remarks that explicitation as well as implicitation occur as a result of an interaction between several factors, the most important of which is the position of the two languages on the orality / literacy scale.
Seguinot (1988: 108) believes that languages are inherently explicit or implicit as regards the information they introduce and the way they introduce such information.
49
1.13 High Context and Low Context One of the fundamental issues when studying context is to determine the degree of context –dependence in a given situation. All communication or linguistic expressions necessarily refer to the context to some degree (Heylighen,1999:53), but in some situations context will obviously play a much higher role than in others. The anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1976:54) has distinguished two fundamental types of situations: high context and low context. In low context situations, communication is explicit and overt, stating the facts exactly and in detail. In high context situations, communication is implicit and information is conveyed more by the context than by the verbal expression (Ibid).Two types of contexts can be shown in the following model which is suggested by the researcher, high and low context situations:
Communication
low context
high context
situation
explicit message
situation
implicit message
formality
contextuality
Diagram (1): classification of explicit and implicit message
50
According to Hall‘s classification of context, there is a distinction between different types of cultures,i.e.,English and European cultures are typically of low –context, while Arabic and Asian cultures are of high context (Hall,1976:56).
Hall (Ibid) goes on to state that such distinctions are largely based on personal experience and on global impressions of low people in a particular cultural behaviour.
1.14 Formality versus Contextuality in Language
In order to minimize ambiguity and maximize the objectivity and universality of statements in language , science tries to express its result as much as possible through formal languages (Heylighen,1999:25) . This is necessary in particular for models that are implemented as computer programs . However , recent developments have made it clear that complete formal representation is not only theoretically but also practically impossible . AAAI (1997:63) asserts that a major source of inspiration for this shift from closed , formal models to context –dependence ones is natural language , where context enters the interpretive process from the very beginning .
It is commonplace that natural languages, such as English, are very different from formalisms. However, Grice‘s (1975:21) classic paper on ―logic and conversation‖ sets out to show that the division is not as deep as one tends to believe. Much of what in a formal language must be expressed explicitly in order to avoid ambiguity, will be conveyed in natural language 51
by implicature, that is, by implicit reference to a shared framework of knowledge and its implications (Ibid).For example ,if a person entering a room with an open window through which wind is blowing says ―It is cold here‖, the likely implicature is ―I would like the window to be closed‖. Through that message was not uttered literally, it is easily inferred from the background knowledge that heated rooms become warmer when windows are closed, and that people prefer not to feel cold. Grice (Ibid) points out that if one takes into account this shared context (including the general rules or ―maxims‖ of conversation ), expressions which appear ambiguous or nonsensical when interpreted on their own become clear and logical.
It is concluded that natural language will appear much less ambiguous and more logical than it might have seemed if one takes into account different unstated background assumptions. What really sets formal languages apart is the fact that they try to achieve the same clarity without unstated assumptions.
The role of context must be examined by considering simple expressions, that must be anchored, or attached to some part of the spatiotemporal context in order to be meaningful. According to Levelt(1989:58), anchoring is called ‗deixis‘, examples are simple expressions like ―I , his‖, or ―them‖, which must be attached to a particular person ―here, over there‖, or ―upstairs‖ which must be attached to a particular place , and ―before, now‖, or tomorrow‖, which must be linked to a particular time .Levelt (Ibid) states that deictic words on their own have a variable meaning . ―He‖ might refer to John Smith, to Peter Jones ,or to any other male member of
52
humanity .Yet, only one of them will be referred to in any actual expression .Which person that is will be determined by the context.
Dewaele (1995:231) points out that the general term contextdependent or contextual for expressions such as these are ambiguous when considered on their own .This ambiguity according to Heylighen (1999:25) can be resolved by taking into account additional information from the context. In philosophy such expressions are usually called ―indexical‖(BarHillel,1954:359;Barnes & Law,1976:223). The term ―contextuaitly‖ encompasses both the case of deixis , where a connection is to be made with a concrete part of the spatio-temporal setting , and the more abstract case of implicature, where the information to be added must be inferred from unstated background assumptions . It also includes reference to information expressed earlier , which is called ―anaphora‖ in linguistics . More generally , the context of an expression can be defined as ―everything available for awareness which is not part of the expression itself , but which is needed to correctly interpret the expression‖.
The main difference, according to Dewaele (1995:232), between formality and contextuality is as follows: “Formal
language
avoids
ambiguity
by including
the
information about the context that would disambiguate the expression into the expression itself, that is to say, by explicitly stating the necessary references,assumptions,and background knowledge which would have remained tacit in a contextual expression of the same meaning , whereas in a contextual language there is a preference for using ambiguous expression
53
by including less information about the context that would ambiguate the expression”
Dewaele (1995:232) and Heylighen (1999:53) assert that the basic advantage of formality is that more formal messages have less chance to be misinterpreted by others who do not share the same context as the sender. This is clearly exemplified by written language, where there is no direct contact between sender and receiver, and hence a much smaller sharing of context than in speech.
Another difference is issued by Heylighen (1993:45;1999:27) in which formal speech is considered more static or rigid ,whereas contextual speech is flexible ,i.e. meanings shift when the context changes .However, formal speech is structurally more complex , require more time , attention and cognitive processing to be produced and understood . Givon (1985:1008) observes that the absence of context forces the language user to code the necessary presuppositions within the message. The resulting ―syntactic mode‖ of expression involves a higher use of nouns that require lexical searching because of their relatively infrequent use (Ibid). Contextual speech, on the other hand, can do the job with less, shorter, and more frequent words; which are easily and quickly retrieved, and less need for precision, since the context shared by sender and receiver will provide the additional information lacking in the linguistic expression itself. Givon (Ibid) calls this contextually rooted language ―the pragmatic mode‖
54
1.15 Measuring Language Contextuality 1.15.1 Word Category Frequency and the F-measure
According to the previously mentioned definition of contextuality, this definition could be extended to function as a measure to distinguish more reliably the contextual discourse from the less contextual. Such a measure, according to Mazzie (1987:10), should be both valid and practical; valid in the sense that what it measures effectively corresponds to contextuality as it was defined and as it is intuitively understood; practical in the sense it does not require an inordinate amount of effort to apply.
An extended work by Prince (1981:72) in which he concluded that determining an average degree of contextuality seems easier when focusing on cases of deixis or anaphora at the level of single words rather than contemplating complex implicatures at the level of sentence and situations . Levelt (1989:45) distinguishes four types of deixis : referring to person ‗we ,him‟, place „ here ,upstairs‟, time „now,later,yesterday‟,and discourse reference „therefore , yes‘.
1.15.2 Non-Linguistic Determinants of Contextuality In this subsection, it is hoped to examine some non-linguistic variables that affect the degree of contextuality (i.e., implicitness as far as the present study is concerned).This degree in the first place is determined by the characteristics of the situation in which the linguistic behavior was
55
produced, and by the psychological characteristics of the speaker. Both situation and personality are complex and multidimensional phenomena.
1.15.2.1 Situation It is believed that formality can be defined as an avoidance of ambiguity in order to minimize the chance of misinterpretation. Biber (1988:33) confirms this idea by concluding that formality is in its highest level in those situations where accurate understanding is essential such as contracts, laws, or international conferences .Moreover, formality will be higher when correct interpretation is more difficult to achieve. Biber (Ibid) adds that within written language, letters, which normally expect a reply, will be more contextual than articles or books, without possibility for reply. This observation fits in with GudyKunst and Tingtoomy‘s one (1988:35) that in a law –context culture the burden of communication is placed on the sender , whereas in a high –context situation , communication is much more interactive , involving both sender and receiver .
Heylighen (1999:29) points out that the number of elements in the context is potentially infinite ,i.e., any characteristic of the physical , social and mental situation can influence the interpretation of an expression .Levelt (1989:48) classifies linguistic deixis into four categories of context factors :the persons involved , the space or the setting of the communication , the time , and the discourse preceding the present expression .
56
The persons involved in the communication are the sender and the receiver of the message. Levelt (Ibid) asserts that all other things being equal, the larger the difference in psychological or cultural background (including characteristics such as age, class, nationality, or education) between these interlocutors, the smallest the shared context, and therefore the higher the formality of their communication. This observation could explain the requirement of politeness, characterized by a formal style of language that uses more nouns when addressing strangers or people of a different rank (Brown & Levinson, 1979: 56-289). On the other hand, people who are psychologically close, such as siblings, spouses or intimate friends, will tend to be minimally formal in their exchanges. Following Hall (1976:22), it is hypothesized that the highest degree of contextuality will be found among identical twins that were raised together, who completely share their cultural social and even biological background. In other words, high contextuality will be found primarily in environments where there are strong social ties between the participants, and where there is a high level of mutual knowledge, shared experience and commitment.
According to Hall(Ibid), when contextuality shifts within a personal relationship, it will signal changes in intimacy : an increase in contextuality indicates a warning of the relationship , whereas a decrease communicates distancing or unease, implying that expectations have not been met .
57
1.15.2.2 Gender
In this subsection the researcher aims at proving that gender has an impact on the preference use of contextuality which is influenced by many factors. (Dewaele,1996a:120 ;1998a:119 )
Dewaele (2000:34) , in a study , has pointed out that the female group scored F=39%(where F=formality) an average in the informal situation , whereas the male group scored on average F=45% an overall difference . On the other hand , in the formal examination situation and the written essays , no significant differences could be found , though. This seems to indicate that the influence of the situation is stronger than the effect of gender, which it overrides in those cases where spontaneous expression is more restricted.
1.15.2.3 Introversion In personality psychology, a consensus has emerged that the most important differences in personality (i.e., between men & women) can be reduced to combinations of five basic dimensions: the big five (Digman, 1990:417).These were derived by several independent factor analyses of very large numbers of personality variables. The most important of these is the factor introversion /extraversion. Intuitively, extraverts are characterized as outgoing, gregarious and fun-loving, whereas introverts are seen as more quiet, reserved and pensive.
58
1.15.2.4 Level of Education
Normally, one could expect that the higher the academic level a person has reached, the richer his/her vocabulary and the wider his/her outlook. This would lead academically educated persons to express their thoughts in a more precise and less subjective way, that is to say with more formality. More generally, since the major obstacle to the use of formal descriptions is the increased cognitive load, one would expect cognitively more skilled individuals to be less inclined to avoid formality. Thus, it might be hypothesized that formality would correlate positively with the general factor of intellect (also called openness to experience ),which is also part of the big five(Digman,1990:417-440).
Interestingly, Dewaele(2000:24) also found that background interacts with situation ,i.e. the difference in contextuality between formal and informal situations is much larger for high background people than for low background ones. A possible interpretation is that when the situation requires more formality , people with a higher education are capable of a greater shift to such a cognitively more demanding communication style.
In conclusion, three personality variables that correlate with formality :gender, introversion, and level of education have been proposed. Although the empirical evidence is limited, and the theoretical justification is tentative, the existence of these relations seems to match intuitive expectations. The effect of each separate variable is not that strong, but it might be made visible by combining by the extreme values of the three variables. Thus, the prototypical producer of formal speech would be male, 59
introverted academic. The most likely person to speak in a highly contextual way would be an extraverted woman without formal education.
1.16 Implicature and Sentence Meaning An implicature is something meant, implied, or suggested distinct from what is said. Implicatures can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can be conventional or unconventional (Bach, 1994:9). Conversational implicatures have become one of the principal subjects of pragmatics. Figures of speech provide familiar examples. An important conceptual and methodological issue in semantics is how to distinguish senses and entailments from conventional implicatures. Implicature has been invoked for a variety of purposes, from defending controversial semantic claims in philosophy to explaining lexical gaps in linguistics. Grice (1957, 66) who coined the term ―implicature,‖ and classified the phenomenon, developed an influential theory to explain and predict conversational implicatures, and describe how they are understood. The ―Cooperative Principle‖ and associated ―Maxims‖ play a central role. Other linguists have focused on principles of politeness and communicative efficiency. Questions have been raised as to how well these principle-based theories account for the intentionality of speaker implicature and conventionality of sentence implicature.
60
1.16.1 Theory of Speaker Meaning and Hearer Interpretation Grice (1957:377; 1975:22) was the first to systematically study cases in which what a speaker means differs from what the sentence used by the speaker means. Consider the following dialogue: 15.Alan: Are you going to Paul's party? Barb: I have to work. If this was a typical exchange, Barb meant that she is not going to Paul's party. But the sentence she uttered does not mean that she is not going to Paul's party. Hence Barb did not say that she is not going, she implied it. Grice introduced the technical terms implicate and implicature for the case in which what the speaker meant, ―implied‖, or suggested is distinct from what the speaker said.Thus Barb ―implicated‖ that she is not going; that she is not going was her ―implicature.‖ Implicating is what Searle (1969: 265–6) called an indirect speech act. Barb performed one speech act (meaning that she is not going) by performing another (meaning that she has to work). By ―saying,‖ Grice(1957, 68) meant not the mere utterance of words. What Barb said is what she stated, namely, that she has to work, something she could have stated by saying different words. As (Ibid) realized, ―say‖ is used more or less strictly.Thus if a person says ―The largest planet is a gas giant,‖ we will sometimes count him/her as saying (and thus not implicating) that Jupiter is a gas giant. We will follow Grice in using ―say‖ more narrowly, requiring that what a speaker says be closely related to what the sentence uttered conventionally means. So one will take that person to have implicated that Jupiter is a gas giant by saying that the largest planet is.
61
This sample implicature is said to be ―conversational‖. The implicature is not part of the conventional meaning of the sentence uttered, but depends on features of the conversational context (Ibid). In our example, a key feature was the question Alan asked. Had he asked ―What are you going to do today?‖ Barb could have implicated something completely different—―I am going to work‖—by saying the same thing. Grice contrasted a conversational implicature with a ―conventional‖ implicature, by which he meant one that is part of the meaning of the sentence used. 16.(a) He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave. (b) His being an Englishman implies that he is brave. Grice observed that speakers who use (16a) implicate (16b). They imply, but do not say, that his being an Englishman implies that he is brave. Barb's sentence can be used with its conventional meaning without implicating what she did. But (16a) cannot be used with its conventional meaning without implicating (16b). The meaning of ―therefore‖ creates this implicature. There is another sense in which even conversational implicatures can be conventional. Consider: 17.(a) Some athletes smoke (b) Not all athletes smoke. It would be conventional for people who say ―Some athletes smoke‖ to conversationally implicate that not all athletes smoke. Because they do not say that not all athletes smoke, they would not be lying if they thought that all athletes did smoke. They might be guilty of misleading their audience, 62
but not of lying. The implicature is not conventional in Grice's sense. For ―Not all athletes smoke‖ is not part of the meaning of ―Some athletes smoke.‖ Hence there is no contradiction in saying ―Some athletes smoke; indeed, all do.‖ A conventional implicature in Grice's narrow sense is part of the conventional meaning of the sentence used. Consequently, it is a semantic rather than pragmatic phenomenon. A conventional implicature in the more general sense is something that is customarily implicated, and thus may be semantic or pragmatic. Grice called conventional conversational implicatures ―generalized‖ implicatures (Grice, 1957: 70). If an implicature is conventional in either sense, we may say that the ―sentence‖ carries that implicature. Thus even though Barb implicates that she is not going to Paul's party, ―I have to work‖ does not itself implicate this. Conversely, ―Some athletes smoke‖ implicates that not all do even if Carl has never implicated this when he has used the sentence (Ibid). Conversational
implicatures
differ
from
Grice's
conventional
implicatures in being ―cancelable‖ and ―reinforceable‖. Whereas (16a) cannot be used without implicating (16b), the indicated implicature of (17a) can be canceled. The speaker may do this by adding ―Indeed, all do,‖ ―and possibly all do,‖ or ―if not all‖ after uttering (17a). Or the context itself may cancel the implicature, as when it is obvious to all that the speaker is deliberately engaging in understatement. Similarly, conjoining one sentence to a second that means what the first merely implicates reinforces the implicature, and does not sound redundant. Consider ―Some athletes smoke, but not all do.‖ This makes explicit what is normally implicit when someone utters (17a). In contrast, conjoining (16b) to (16a) just sounds redundant.
63
As these examples make clear, Levinson (1983,5) argues that it is not possible to understand speakers fully without knowing what they have implicated as well as what they have said. Semantics, conceived as the study of the meaning of words and sentences, does not exhaust the study of meaning. The study of implicature (conventional or unconventional) is included in pragmatics. The phenomenon of conventional semantic implicature shows further that the study of truth conditions does not exhaust semantics. It is well known that sentences of the form ―p but q‖ have the same truth conditions as ―p and q,‖ but differ markedly in meaning. ―But‖ signals an implicature which ―and‖ lacks: roughly, that it may be unexpected or surprising to say that q after having said that p.
1.16.2 Gricean Theory In addition to identifying and classifying the phenomenon of implicature, Grice developed a theory designed to explain and predict conversational implicatures. He also sought to describe how such implicatures are understood. Grice (1975: 26–30) postulated a general ―Cooperative Principle,‖ and four ―maxims‖ specifying how to be cooperative. It is common knowledge, he asserted, that people generally follow these rules for efficient communication. Cooperative Principle: Contribute what is required by the accepted purpose of the conversation. Maxim of Quality: Make your contribution true; so do not convey what you believe false or unjustified. 64
Maxim of Quantity: Be as informative as required. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant. Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous; so avoid obscurity and ambiguity, and strive for brevity and order. Grice (Ibid) viewed these rules not as arbitrary conventions, but as instances of more general rules governing rational, cooperative behaviour. For example, if a woman is helping a man building a house, she will hand him a hammer rather than a tennis racket (relevance), more than one nail when several are needed (quantity), straight nails rather than bent ones (quality), and she will do all this quickly and efficiently (manner). Implicatures like that in dialogue (15) are explained in terms of the Maxim of Relation, and are therefore called ―relevance implicatures.‖ Barb would have infringed the Maxim of Relation, it is claimed, unless her contribution were relevant to the purpose of the conversation. If Barb is being cooperative, then she is trying to answer Alan's question. Given that working is incompatible with partying, Barb must have intended to communicate that she is not going to the party. Implicatures like that in (17) are explained in terms of the Maxim of Quantity, and so are called ―quantity implicatures.‖ Assuming that the accepted purpose of the conversation requires the speaker to say whether or not all athletes smoke, a speaker who said ―Some athletes smoke‖ would be infringing the Maxim of Quantity if she meant only what she said. So she must have meant more. If she believed that all athletes smoke, she would have said so. Since she did not, she must
65
have meant that some but not all athletes smoke. As a bonus, she achieved brevity, in conformity to the Maxim of Manner (Grice, 1975: 26–30). Grice thought that some implicatures arise by ‗flouting‘ the maxims. This happens when what a cooperative speaker says so patently violates the maxims that the hearer must infer that the speaker is implying something different. Irony and metaphor are thought to arise from flouting the Maxim of Quality. Thus Candy might answer Alan ironically as follows. 18.Alan: Are you going to Paul's party? Candy: I don't like parties. If Alan knows full well that Candy is a party animal, he could reason that if she meant what she said, she would be lying, thus violating the Maxim of Quality. So she must have meant something else. If she meant that she does like parties, then she would be in conformity with the Maxim. And via the Maxim of Relation, she would have answered Alan's question. Generalizing from these examples, Grice provided a theoretical account of what it is to conversationally implicate something that has been widely adopted, sometimes with subtle variations. A representative formulation goes as follows, with S the speaker, and H the hearer (Grice, 1975: 26–30).
66
1.16.3 Speaker Implicature and Intention For a speaker to implicate something, we said at the outset, is for the speaker to mean (imply, suggest) something without saying it. It seems clear that what a speaker means is determined by the speaker's intentions. When Steve utters ―Kathryn is a Russian teacher,‖ whether Steve means that Kathryn is a teacher of Russian nationality or a teacher of the Russian language, and whether he is speaking literally or ironically, depends entirely on what Steve intends to convey. To staet precisly which intentions determine speaker meaning is a matter of debate. On Grice's (1957:377-88) view, to mean that ‗p‘ by ‗e‘ is to utter e with the intention of producing the belief that ‗p‘ in one's audience. Thus whether Steve means that Kathryn is a teacher of Russian or a teacher from Russia depends on which belief he is trying to produce in his audience. Grice's definition seems to have many counterexamples. Speakers who issue reminders are not trying to produce belief. People talking to themselves, or answering a teacher's question, are not even trying to produce activated or occurrent belief. People talking to babies or pets do not expect their audience to recognize what they mean, and people talking to the dead know that their audience cannot think or recognize anything. People sometimes speak in a particular language despite the fact—and occasionally because of the fact—that they know their audience does not understand it. The assumption made by Grice and his followers that speaker meaning is the attempt to communicate seems fundamentally mistaken. These problems can be avoided by specifying different intentions. Davis (2003:97) argues for example, to mean that ‗p‘ is to directly express the belief that ‗p‘. To express a belief or other mental state is to do something with the intention of providing an indication that one
67
is in that state.If Steve expressed the belief that Kathy is a teacher from Russia, then he intended his utterance of the sentence ―Kathy is a Russian teacher‖ to be an indication that he believes she is a teacher from Russia. He can do this without trying to communicate with anyone. Given that speaker meaning is a matter of speaker intention, it follows that speaker implicatures can be recognized or predicted by any of the methods we use to infer intentions from behaviour, and can be explained by the usual factors we invoke to account for intentions. Suppose that while walking in the driving snow with Uli, Swede says ―It is a good day!‖ one may wonder whether he was speaking literally, and meaning just what he said; or speaking ironically, and meaning the opposite of what he said; or perhaps engaging in understatement, and meaning that it is a wonderful day(Ibid:125). We need to know what thought Swede intended to convey (or to impart). One thing we can do is to ask him. If Swede tells us that he was using irony, that would be good evidence that he intended to express the belief, and thus implicated, that the weather is terrible. His intonation might be another indication. The fact that Swede is often ironic in similar situations would be supporting evidence. On the other hand, if we know that Swede loves snow, and freely expresses his feelings, that evidence would make it more likely that he intended to express the belief, and thus implicated, that the weather is wonderful. Finally, if Swede's companion has just suggested that they go in because the weather is lousy, the hypothesis that Swede intended to express the opposite belief because he wanted to stay out may provide the best explanation of his saying ―It's a good day.‖ In that case, we would infer that he meant what he literally said (Davis, 1998:78).
68
While the existence of conversational implicatures does not depend in any way on the assumption that the speaker is observing the Cooperative Principle, conversational principles may play a role in the recognition of implicatures. Indeed, the Cooperative Principle and associated maxims, along with the principles of Style and Politeness, seem to play the same indirect role in implicature recognition that known tendencies play in inductive inference generally. However, the standard picture originating with Gricean theory is that what the speaker says is determined by semantics, while what the speaker implicates is determined by what the speaker says together with a nonlinguistic, pragmatic mechanism. A problem for this view, called ―Grice's Circle‖ by Levinson (2000: Ch. 3), is that many of the processes involved in determining what is said, such as fixing pronominal reference, disambiguating, and unpacking ellipses, ―involve exactly those inferential mechanisms that characterize Gricean pragmatics.‖For example, if an ambiguous term is used in a context, it is naturally assumed without specific counterevidence that the intended meaning was the one relevant to the topic of conversation. In a discussion of snow, ―There is a large bank on Main Street‖ is naturally interpreted as referring to a snow bank. Once the grander claims of Gricean theory are set aside, however, it is unsurprising that conversational principles play much the same role in inferring both what is said and what is implicated (Levinson, 2000:87). For what a speaker says is determined not only by the linguistic meaning of the words the speaker uttered, but also by what the speaker meant by them on that occasion. And speaker meaning is determined by speaker intention. Whether a speaker using the above sentence says that there is a snow bank or a commercial
69
bank on Main Street is partly determined what the speaker means by ―bank‖ on that occasion. But what the speaker means by that individual word is not dependent in any way on what the speaker used the whole sentence to say or implicate. So there is no circle of dependence. Saul (2001:630-41; 2002:228-48) and M. S. Green (2002:83-112) have recently suggested that implicature should be conceived more normatively, making calculability a defensible condition for its application. Alternatively, one might view calculability as a condition for the speaker to properly implicate something, on the more common intentional conception.
1.16.4 Sentence Implicature and Convention
What is it for a sentence to implicate something? Why does ―Some athletes smoke‖ implicate ―Not all athletes smoke‖ The answer to this question seems clearly to be ‗convention‘. Speakers conventionally use sentences of the form ―Some S are P‖ to implicate ―Not all S are P‖. All the signs of conventionality are present.There is a regularity in usage and interpretation. According to M. S. Green (2002:83-112), English speakers commonly use sentences of the form ―Some S are P‖ to implicate ―Not all S are P,‖ but they rarely if ever use them to implicate. Speakers are commonly understood accordingly.These regularities are socially useful, serving, among other things, the purpose of communication. They seem to be as selfperpetuating as other conventional practices. People use ―Some S are P‖ to implicate ―Not all S are P,‖ and are so understood, in part because people have regularly done so in the past (Ibid). And finally, the regularities are 70
arbitrary. Plenty of other practices could have served the same purpose quite naturally, and would have perpetuated themselves in the same way if only they had gotten started. It could have been conventional for English speakers to use ―Some S are P‖ to implicate the denial of any stronger sentence. M. S. Green (2002:95)argues that implicature conventions are not as arbitrary as lexical conventions, though, in all known cases, there is some antecedent relation between what the sentence means and the implicature that makes it natural to use one to convey the other. Nevertheless, there are always alternative implicatures that would be natural too. Conventional regularities are seldom perfect. Thus even though it is conventional to use ―bank‖ to mean ―river bank,‖ speakers more often use it to mean something else. Thus the fact that people sometimes use ―Some S are P‖ without the usual implicature is compatible with it being conventional. ‗Quantity‘ implicatures are examples of ‗conventional‘ conversational implicatures.When Grice (1957:66) talked about conventional implicatures, he was referring to conventional ‗semantic‘ implicatures, like example (16). These implicatures exist because of the conventions that give individual words their meanings. Sentence (16a) implicates (16b) because it is conventional for English speakers to use ―therefore‖ with a certain meaning. In the case of ―Some athletes smoke,‖ there are not only the lexical conventions that give the words ―some,‖ ―athletes,‖ and ―smoke‖ their meanings, and the syntactic conventions that give sentences of the form ―Some S are P‖ their meaning. There is also a second-order convention whereby speakers use a sentence to mean ―Some S are P‖ and thereby to imply ―Not all S are P.‖ Conversational implicatures are always indirect: we imply one thing by meaning another. In some cases, this indirectness is
71
conventional. A language is defined by first-order lexical and syntactic conventions, not by second-order implicature conventions. In this respect implicature conventions are like naming conventions, word formation rules, speech act rituals (e.g., saying ―This is N‖ when answering a telephone), and indirect speech act conventions (e.g., asking ―Is it possible for me to get a ride?‖ to request a ride)( Grice,1957:377-88). Quantity implicatures are distinctive in that the convention attaches a distinctive implicature to a particular sentence form. Other examples are ‗tautology implicatures‘ (e.g., ―An N is an N‖ implicates ―One N is as good as another‖), ‗conjunction implicatures‘ (e.g., ―p and q‖ implicates ―p before q‖ or ―q because p‖), and ‗disjunction implicatures‘ (―p or q‖ implicates ―But not both‖ or ―I don't know which‖). Quantity implicatures are also distinctive in that the same convention appears in all known languages (Horn 1989). Tautology implicatures, in contrast, display the linguistic relativity typical of semantic conventions. Thus, the way English speakers use ―No N is a non-N‖ (Wierzbicka 1987: 102). Many important implicature conventions associate implicatures with sentences of any form. The most familiar examples are the figures of speech. It is conventional to use a sentence to mean the opposite (irony), or something stronger (litotes), or something similar (metaphor). There is also a convention whereby a sentence is used to implicate requested information by making a statement closely related to it by implication, which gives rise to ‗relevance implicatures‘ like (15). Since these conventions do not attach implicatures to particular sentence forms, they do not give rise to sentence implicatures (Ibid).
72
It is plausible that conversational implicature conventions arose in much the same way idioms do.For instance, ―Kicked the bucket‖ started life as a metaphor, and thus an implicature. Some speakers used it as a metaphor to implicate that someone died. The metaphor caught on and became conventional. Although it has not been historically attested, it is plausible that the use of ―Some S‘s are P‖ (or its translation in some earlier language) to implicate ―Not all S are P‖ similarly started life as a nonce implicature that caught on and spread. The difference is that with idioms, the metaphor ―died,‖ and what previously was implied came to be meant directly, creating a non-compositional meaning for the expression. Consequently, idiomatic meanings have been ―detached,‖ whereas conventional implicatures are ―non-detachable‖(Wierzbicka, 1987: 102). An impressive and growing body of research has attempted to discern general regularities in the multitude of conversational implicature conventions associated with a language. One set of studies, conducted by Wierzbicka (1991:145-78; 2003:95-114), seeks to understand how implicature conventions reflect broader ―cultural scripts.‖ Another seeks to describe what happens to the implicatures of a sentence when it is embedded in compound sentences (Gazdar, 1979a:85; Levinson 2000:59). The most influential is the notion of a ―Horn scale,‖ named after Horn (1972:212; 1989:188). Horn observed that the quantifiers all, most, many, some form a scale with the following properties. Instances of ―S are P‖ with one term entail instances with any term to the right, but not to the left; the terms are thus ordered by logical strength. Moreover, the result of substituting one term implicates the denial of the result of substituting any term to the left, but not to the right. In the context ―It is not the case that ―S are P,‖ the
73
logical and pragmatic relations are reversed. Other Horn scales are necessarily, actually, possibly, certainly, probably, possibly, and must, should, may. Levinson (2000: 156) looked for a generalization that would cover these cases but not scales like ‗Between 100% and 90%, at least 10%, some which have the same logical relations as Horn scales but not the pragmatic relations. One is that the items on a Horn scale are widely and frequently used monolexemes (Levinson 2000: 156). This does not exclude all exceptions. For example, ―several‖ is monolexemic and both frequently and widely used. It is weaker than ―many‖ but stronger than ―some.‖ Yet ―Some S are P‖ does not implicate ―It is not the case that several S are P,though, there is no more reason to expect that our implicature conventions are completely systematic than there is to expect that lexical conventions are. All languages are ―irregular‖ to some extent (Levinson, 2000: 156). For example, the regular pattern for adjectives in English is that of tall, taller, tallest. But there are exceptions, such as good, better, best. The
claim
that
conversational
principles
generate
sentence
implicatures is problematic.If they did, conversational implicature conventions would not exist because the regularities would be non-arbitrary. But
conversational
conversational
principles
implicature
do
specify
conventions
common
serve:
interests
communication
that of
information, politeness, style, and efficiency (Ibid). Since conventional practices sustain themselves by serving socially useful purposes, the fact that speakers strive to be cooperative, polite, stylish, and efficient sustains implicature conventions. Implicature is important even in truth conditional semantics. For example, logicians customarily take English sentences of the form ―p or q‖ 74
to be true provided ―p‖ or ―q‖ or both are true (Ibid). Thus, ―It is not the case that cats meow or dogs bark‖ would be counted as false. But there are also cases in which speakers use ―p or q‖ to mean that ―p‖ or ―q‖ is true but not both. Some maintain that ―or‖ is ambiguous in English, with an inclusive and an exclusive sense. But another possibility is that the exclusive interpretation is a conventional conversational implicature rather than a second sense. One piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis is that the exclusive interpretation seems cancelable. Thus ―President of U.S. will visit France or Germany or both‖ does not have a reading on which ―France or Germany‖ rules out ―both.‖ Another is that ―Bill will not visit France or Germany‖ has no interpretation on which it is true because Bill will visit both places. A methodological issue is to describe the evidence that would be needed to decide whether a particular interpretation is a sense or a conventional conversational implicature. A foundational issue to is describe exactly what the difference between the two consists in(Adler, 1987:10). Implicature is often invoked in this way to defend controversial semantic claims. A recent example is provided by the debate between Millians and Fregeans about names. The Millian is a referential theorist who holds that the meaning of a name is its referent. An immediate consequence of this view is that coreferential names are synonymous, and that names without a referent are meaningless. It seems evident, though, that ―Superman‖ and ―Clark Kent‖ are far from meaningless, and would not be synonymous even if the story of Superman were true. As evidence for both claims, we can observe that ―Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent is Clark Kent‖ seems true, while ―Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent is Superman‖ seems false. Hence the two sentences, and the two names that differentiate
75
them, must have different meanings. Millians have recently proposed that the source of these linguistic intuitions is a difference in implicature between the sentences, not a difference in meaning (Grice, 1981: 98-183).One version observes that when we use a sentence to say something about the world, we often implicate something about the sentence itself. In particular, when we use sentences of the form ―S believes that p,‖ we often implicate that S believes that the sentence ―p‖ is true. Since ―Clark Kent is Clark Kent‖ and ―Clark Kent is Superman‖ are different sentences on any theory, the two belief sentences mentioned above can definitely be used with different metalinguistic implicatures. Grice (1975:39) observed that implicatures are generally attached to the meaning of the expressions used, so that ―it is not possible to find another way of saying the same thing, which simply lacks the implicature in question‖.Grice (Ibid) used ―nondetachability‖ as a test of implicature. He allowed exceptions to the rule, though, ―where some special feature of the substituted version is itself relevant to the determination of an implicature (in virtue of one of the maxims of Manner).‖ Metalinguistic implicatures – those that refer to the particular words the speaker used—are clearly detachable. Whether this Gricean defense of Millianism succeeds is a matter of debate.
76
Chapter Two Linguistic Devices of Implicitness: Metaphor and Euphemism in English 2.0 Introduction According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:43), metaphor and metonymy are the two fundamental models of communicating meaning.Additonally, implicitness and explicitness are elaborated through two terms (mainly in this study),i.e., contextuality(implicitness) and formality(explicitness). The researcher‘s point of view, implicitness is defined and identified as a technique used by the writer or the speaker to convey a certain message through applying different literary devices such as metaphor, simile, irony, and euphemism, etc.Before dealing with the linguistic devices, a brief look should be given to rhetoric and text linguistics. These devices are called, according to rhetoricians, esthetic or beautifying values that are employed to achieve a rhetorical effect in which the literary idea is expressed esthetically. The present study tackles the concept of implicitness in relation to the rhetoric literary devices metaphor and euphemism.
2.1 Metaphor in English Literature 2.1.1 Introduction
The subject of metaphor in language can be traced back to very early stages in the history of language study. However, far less attention 77
has been paid to the investigation of the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural dimensions of this device. Translation is ,of course, the proper field for such an investigation. It is the aim of the present study to bring into focus those aspects of the subject that seem to acquire special importance when looked at from the point of view of translation. The difference may be accounted for in terms of several factors which, in turn, reflect different theoretical convictions and /or misconceptions concerning the inherent characteristics of the respective figure, on the one hand, and the significance and relevance of such elements as culture, context and the purpose of translation on the other.
2.1.2 Definitions One of the earliest definitions of metaphor was given by the Greek philosopher Aristotle who said that ‗metaphor consists in applying to a thing a word that belongs to something else‘. Hence the Greek word ‗metaphora‘ is
derived from ‗meta‘ meaning ‗over‘ and ‗pherein
to‘(Stanford,1936:9-10).
Metaphor, in other words, is a kind of describing process in which two objects are described or compared. For example, when one describes a person or some aspect of his/her behaviour by saying ‗that man is a lion‘ in this example, there is actually a kind of ascribing to the man such attributes as brave and daring for which the animal lion is proverbially known. A metaphor may thus be redefined as: “an implied analogy which imaginatively identifies one object with another and ascribes to the first object one or more of the
78
qualities of the second or invests the first with emotional or imaginative
qualities
associated
with
the
second‟(Holman,1985:264)”.
It is a commonplace recognized fact that figures of speech, in particular metaphors, play an extremely important role in producing images, in making speech more specific or more meaningful ,i.e., in making
the
abstract
concrete
and
vice
versa
(Richards,1936:79;Kreuzer,1955:121;Nowotttny,1962:210;Hawkes,1972: 187;Lakoff and Johnson,1980:79-106;Newmark,1982:98 and 1988:145). Figures of speech, then, are not, as is sometimes thought ,mere ornaments of discourse, a verbal matter, rather, they are essential tools of expression and are bound to occur whenever people have a strong feeling to express.
The other important thing consists in the fact that the non-literal use of language ,i.e., the use of figurative devices, may be observed in all social activities and at all levels of formality. They are found not only in literature but also in science, philosophy, law, in advertisements, political speeches, newspaper articles, in formal and informal writing, etc. This is particularly true of metaphor which has been described as the omnipresent principle of language. Richards (1936:92) points out that one can hardly get through three sentences of ordinary fluid discourse without it. Another writer goes even so far as to observe that ―our speech is so riddled with metaphors that we can hardly say a sentence without one‖(Mathews,1979:310).Furthermore, metaphors are pervasive not only in language but also in thought and action .Lackoff and Johnson (1980: 3) observed that ―our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature‖.
79
According to Newmark (1982A:85 & 1988:105), metaphor consists of three terms which are ‗object‘(O henceforth) and ‗image‘(I henceforth) to refer, respectively, to the item which is described by the metaphor, and the item in terms of which the object is described. The third term „ground‘(G henceforth) will be used to indicate the point (s) of similarity or the characteristics which the object and the image have in common (Richards,1936:117). For example, in a sentence such as ‗she is an angel‘ ‗she‘ would be the object and ‗angel‘, the image of the metaphor, the ground being such attributes as beauty, gracefulness, etc., which the person being described and an angle have in common.
2.1.3 Metaphor and Figurative Language
Metaphor is traditionally taken to be the most fundamental form of figurative language. When examining the following example "It's what's under the bonnet that counts" (car advertisement), one can conclude that 'cars‘ do not wear bonnets. That is to say, figurative language is the language which doesn't mean what it says. Black (1979:18) points out that the language which means(or intends to mean) what it says, and which uses words in their 'standard' sense, derived from the common practice of ordinary speakers of the language, is said to be 'literal‘. Figurative language, according to (Black, Ibid), deliberately interferes with the system of literal usage by its assumption that terms literally connected with one object can be transferred to another object. The interference takes the form of transference, or 'carrying over', with the aim of achieving a new, wider,'special'or more precise meaning.
80
Inevitably, figurative language is usually descriptive, and the transferences
involved result in what
seem to be 'pictures or
images' ,consider the following example:
19. An aged man is but a paltry thing, A tattered coat upon a stick……..
(W.B Yeats, Sailing to Byzantium)
However, the term 'imagery' is essentially misleading when it is used to refer to figurative language, because it presupposes that its primary appeal is to the eye. This is not the case ,because the appeal of figurative language may include the visual sense ,as the above metaphor certainly shows, but its essential mode is linguistic and as a result its appeal goes much further. Black (Ibid) adds that the various forms of 'transference' are called 'figures of speech'(or tropes) ;that is, ‗turnings' of language away from meanings and towards figurative meanings. Metaphor is generally considered to manifest the basic pattern of transference involved and so can be thought of as the fundamental 'figure' of speech. The other figures tend to be versions of metaphors prototypes, particularly the three main traditional categories (Ibid:3).
(a) Simile . Where metaphor assumes that the transference is possible or has already taken place ('the bonnet of the car'),simile proposes the transference ,and explains it by means of terms such as 'like' or 'as if' : 'this piece of steel covers the car's engine as if it is a bonnet covering a woman's head', or ,
20. I walked abroad 81
And saw the ruddy moon lean over a hedge Like a red-faced farmer.
In general, because of its 'like' or 'as if ' structures simile involves a more visually inclined relationships between its elements than metaphor. In fact, it is sometimes assumed that simile is metaphor's poor relation, offering only the 'bare bones' of the transferring process in the form of a limited analogy or comparison, whose 'range' is narrow ,because it is predetermined (Ibid:13).
(b) Synecdoche. The word is Greek, derived from 'synekdechesthai' meaning 'to receive jointly'. Here, according to Black (Ibid), the transference takes the form of a part of something being 'carried over' to stand in place of the whole thing, or vice versa. For instance 'Twenty summer's for twenty years; 'ten hands, for ten men; or in Milton's Lycides, 'blind mouths' for the corrupt priests.
(c) Metonymy. This word comes from the Greek word metonymia, derived from meta 'change' and onoma 'name'.Here,the name of a thing is transferred to take the place of something else with which it is associated :'The White House' for the president of the United States; 'The Crown' for the Monarch and so on . Clearly the process also involves personification, and is closely related to that of synecdoche.
However, Wellek and Warren (1949:193) criticize the approach which subdivides figures of speech into 'schemes' and ‗tropes‘. On the contrary, they (Ibid) divide tropes of poetry into figures of contiguity and figures of similarity. Metonymy and synecdoche are part of the figure of contiguity 82
which
expresses
a
relation
that
is
logically
or
quantitivelly
analysable ,i.e., the cause for the effect or vice versa, or the whole for the part. Usually figures of similarity involve metaphor and simile(Ibid:194).
2.1.4 Types of Metaphor 2.1.4.1 Structural Metaphors
Lakoff and Johnson (1980:14) explain that in this type of metaphor, concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another. "Your argument is indefensible" structures the concept of verbal exchanges in terms of war.
2.1.4.2 Oriental Metaphors
Lakoff and Johnson (Ibid), asserts that in this type of metaphor a whole system of concepts is organized with respect to one another. They are related to spatial orientation: up-down, in-out, front-back, onoff,deep-shallow,centre-peripheral, as in (Happy is up), therefore the examples:
21.I'm feeling up today . 22.You 're in high spirits.
indicate that , whereas,(Sad is down) is exemplified in :
23. I'm depressed .
83
24. My spirits sank.
2.1.4.3 Ontological Metaphors
Lackoff and Johnson (1980:25-28) state that in such a type our experience with physical objects provide the basis of our understanding and
employment.
They
reflect
ways
of
viewing
events,activities,emotions,ideas as entities and substances .Obviously, personification is the most significant representative of such metaphors as in :
25.We need to combat inflation . 26.The middle class is a powerful silent force in American politics.
2.1.4.4 Container Metaphor
It is the type in which each of us is taken to be a container,i.e,concrete objects such as ‗human beings, or inanimate things are used as containers(Ibid:29-32). For example, one usually says:
27.I'll get into the tub. 28.I'm in the race or 29.I put a lot of energy into washing the window .
84
2.1.4.5 Imaginative and Creative Metaphors
They are the metaphors by which a new meaning is granted to our experience highlighting certain features while suppressing others. They have entailments of other metaphors and literal language as in:
30. Love is a collaborative work of art.
However, most writings on metaphor label the expressions which have lost their figurative power by overuse and familiarity as "dead metaphors‖. They are prevalent in various languages and constitute the bulk of the language stock. Therefore, it is pertinent to treat them as "dormant".
Metaphors can be traditionally classified into the following types:
1.The concretive metaphor in which an abstract thing acquires
physical
existence or characteristics of an object, for instance the pain of separation ; the light of learning; room for negotiation .
2.A.The anthropomorphic (i.e. humanizing) metaphor in which human characteristics are attributed to non-humans ,for instance the friendly river; laughing valleys ,etc.
B.The animistic metaphor in which the inanimate is granted animate characteristics ,for instance angry sky; the graves yawned ,the foot of the hill, the eye of the needle, etc.
85
3.The synaesthetic metaphor
in which a meaning prevailing in one
domain of sensory perception is transferred into another one, as in "warm
colours",
"loud
perfume",
and
"dull
sound"(Leech,1969:158;Wahba,1974:315;Ulmann,1963:240-242).
4.It is obvious that the first three classes overlap simply because humanity involves intimacy which in its turn entails concreteness .All of them indicate personification which figuratively represents abstraction as human (for instance , The work speaks truth ; Authority forgets a dying king". However, such a classification does not provide us with any hints to determine whether a given metaphor is current or outdated, and therefore, it is more general than explanatory.
Prominent rhetoricians like Quintillian have argued for a distinction between the metaphor which animates the inanimate and its opposite. The main distinction is between organic and inorganic, and thus his kinds of metaphor can be summarized as follows:
1-A metaphor that uses one sort of living for another; 2-A metaphor that uses one inanimate thing for another; 3-A metaphor which puts the animate for the inanimate, and; 4-A metaphor which puts the animate for the inanimate. (Wellek and Warren, 1949:204; and 302-303.Similarly, there is an overlap of classification between (3) and (4).
However, there is no consensus on an established classification of metaphors according to their types since an overlap often exists among them. Interestingly ,a writer like Newmark proposes (1982:A:48) three dually-lablled initial types for discussion: dead (fossilized),standard 86
(stock) and original (creative),but he enlarges the list (Ibid:85) into :dead , clichea, stock , recent , and original. Yet metaphors are divided again (Ibid) into "Simplex" and "Complex" or (1988:104) into "Single (one-word)" and "extended" metaphors. The extended metaphor may be a collocation, an idiom, a sentence, a proverb, an allegory, or a complete imaginative text.
The latter categorization can be reduced to the following diagram which manifests an influence of Newmark's argument (1988:38):
Metaphor
Simplex (single,i.e. one word)
Collocation
Idiom
Complex (extended)
Sentence
Proverb
Alleg Complete text
Diagram (2):Newmark's classification of the types of metaphor
It is clear that idioms are recognized as part of the metaphorical expressions, since they share in an overriding principle for their employment which is their figurative power. Their meaning, as Duff (1981:89) and Nida and Taber (1969:45-89) assert, can not be grasped through the accumulation of the meanings of their constituent words of which all create a semantic unit. However, the strength of imagery in an
87
idiom is less in intensity than that of a metaphor because the words in an idiom convey , rather than colour ,the meaning "To put up with", for example , means , as a unit , "to tolerate" , and a weaker form of effort than the imagery of "shoulder the responsibility".
Dagut's classification (cited in Newmark,1988), considers idioms (and polysemous words) as a granted lower level than metaphor and as derivations of them .Dagut (Ibid) suggested the following classification of metaphor :
Metaphor
Simplex
Complex
(single lexical item)
(more than one lexical item)
Polyseme
Idiom
Formator
Formator
Diagram (3):Dagut's classification of the types of metaphor
88
2.2 Euphemism in English Literature 2.2.1 Definitions
Euphemism (Greek words "eu"=joy and "pheme"=wisdom ) is a word or phrase which people use in place of terms which they consider to be more disagreeable or offensive to themselves and/or to their audience. The linguistic taboo may be an unspeakable name for a deity, such as Persephone, Hecate, Nemesis or Yahweh (Hugh, 1995:1). However, Eugene (2004:65) defines euphemism as a metaphorical or metonymic use of an expression in place of another expression that is disagreeable or offensive. Grant (1991:4) states that euphemism is the substitution of a cultured or less offensive term for a harsh one, consider the following examples:
31. Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.
32. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age.
According to Bolinger (1980:67) euphemism means downplaying one's own aggression. In his argument about euphemisms, Apter (1993:251) points out that euphemisms are often useful because they allow the speaker to replace the trigger(the offending word form) by another word form that expresses the same (or similar) idea but that is not itself associated with a conditioned response. This in turn allow speakers (and listeners) to think about issues that might otherwise be avoided.
89
Euphemisms can be positive or negative. Positive euphemisms include imposing job titles adopted to bolster one's self-image or impress one's friends and acquaintances. Examples of these include counsel in place of lawyer, health care professional for nurse or doctor, chief executive officer instead of president or chairman of the board, and territory manager instead of salesman. Negative euphemisms deflate and diminish. They replace language that people prefer to avoid using. Examples include harvesting in place of killing, collateral damage instead of civilian casualties or deaths, relationship for sexual relationship, and intestinal fortitude in place of guts (Ibid).
In brief, euphemisms are originally phrases whose literal meanings are often dropped .Euphemisms are also used to hide unpleasant ideas , even when the literal term for them is not necessarily offensive .This type of euphemism is used in public relations and politics, where it is known as doublespeak.
2.2.2 Euphemism and Historical Linguistics
The methods of historical linguistics can reveal deformation traces. Several are known to have occurred in Indo-European. Examples include the original Indo-European words for bear (*rktos), wolf (*wlkw os), and deer (originally, hart) (Holder,2003:501).In different Indo-European languages ,each of these words has difficult etymologies because of taboo deformations –a euphemism was substituted for the original , and the
90
form of the original word no longer occurs in the language . An example is the Slavic root for bear-- *medu-ed—which means "honey eater".
In some languages of the Pacific, using the name of a deceased chief is taboo. Since people are often named everyday things, this leads to the swift development of euphemism. These languages have a very high rate of vocabulary change (Ibid).
2.2.3 The "Euphemism treadmill"
Euphemism can eventually become taboo words themselves through a process for which the linguist Steven Pinker has coined the term euphemism treadmill , which is compatible to Gresham's Law in economics. In this process ,over the course of time , a word that was originally adopted as a euphemism acquires all the negative connotations of its referent ,and has to be replaced by a substitute .In extreme cases ,the process can happen many times ,and indeed may still be happening .For example ,toilet room ,itself a euphemism ,was replaced with bathroom and water closet ,which were replaced (respectively) with rest room and W.C.. Funeral director replaced mortician, which replaced undertaker(Hugh,1995:2).
Connotations easily change over time .Idiot was once a neutral term , and moron a similar one .Negative senses of a word tend to crowd out neutral ones ,so the word retarded was pressed into service to replace them. Now that too is considered rude, and as a result ,new terms like mentally challenged or special are starting to replace retarded. In a few decades,
91
calling someone special may well be a grave insult. Similar progressions have occurred, consider the following examples:
crippled
handicapped
disabled
differently-abled
and clerk
cashier
sales associate, etc.
A complementary ‗dysphemism treadmill‘ exists, but is more rarely observed .One modern example is the word "sucks"." That sucks" began as American slang for "that is very unpleasant", and is shortened for "that sucks dick".It progressed ,over the late-20th century ,from being an extremely vulgar phrase to near-acceptability .A child would rarely be disciplined for using the phrase "that sucks", which has been divorced from its original meaning(Hugh,1995:2).
According to Leech (1981:53) euphemism(Greek: 'well speaking') is described as the practice of referring to something offensive or delicate in terms that make it sound more pleasant or becoming than it really is. It consists of replacing a word which has offensive connotations with another expression ,which makes no overt reference to the unpleasant side of the subject, and may even be a positive misnomer(as when a hostess asks a guest whether he would like to 'wash his hands').For example in ‗disease‘ or ‗indisposition‘ , now exists words for illness , were originally euphemisms , meaning 'lack of ease' and 'lack of ability to do things'. ‗Concentration camp‘ was also originally a euphemism('a place where the non-combatants of a district are accommodated') applied to a camp where political prisoners and prisoners of war are kept – a
92
place no better , and in many cases much worse ,than a prison .And there are many well-known examples.
2.2.4 Euphemism Formation Euphemisms may be formed in a number of ways. ‗Periphrasis‘ or ‗circumlocution‘ is one of the most common -- to "speak around" a given word, implying it without saying it. Over time, circumlocutions become recognized as established euphemisms for particular words or ideas(Holder,2003:3).
To alter the pronunciation or spelling of a taboo word (such as a swear word) to form a euphemism is known as taboo deformation. There are an astonishing number of taboo deformation in English, of which many refer to the infamous four–letter words. In American English, words which are unacceptable on television, such as fuck, may be represented by deformation such as freak—even in children's cartoon. Some examples of Cockney rhyming slang may serve the same purpose
to call a person a
berk sounds less offensive than to call him a cunt, though berk is short for Berkshire Hunt which rhymes with cunt (Ibid).
Holder (Ibid) goes on to state that euphemisms are also used in Bureaucracies
such
as
the
military
and
large
‗corporations‘.
Organizations coin ‗doublespeak‘ expressions to describe objectionable actions in terms that seem neutral or inoffensive. Militaries at war frequently do kill people, sometimes deliberately and sometimes by mistake; in doublespeak, the first may be called ‗neutralizing the target‘ and the second ‗collateral damage‘. Likewise, industrial unpleasantness 93
such as ‗pollution‘ may be toned down to ‗outgassing‘ or runoff descriptions of physical processes rather than their damaging consequences. Some of this may simply be the application of precise technical terminology in the place of popular usage , but beyond precision , the advantage of technical terminology may be its lack of emotional undertones , while the disadvantage being the lack of real life context (Holder,2003:5)
2.2.5 Types of Euphemism
Many euphemisms fall into one or more of these categories:
1. Foreign terms (derrire, copulation) 2. Abbreviations(SOB for "son of a bitch") 3. Abstractions(it ,the situation, go) 4. Indirections(behind, unmentionable) 5.Longer(usually Latinate) words (perspire, urinate) 6. Mispronunciation(goldarnit, freakin)
Holder (2003, 2) argues that there is a controversy over certain terms,i.e. whether they are euphemisms or not. For example ,sometimes the phrase ‗visually impaired‘ is labeled as a ‗politically correct‘ euphemism for blind .However, visual impairment can be a broader term , including , for example , people who have partial sight in one eye , a group that would be excluded by the word ―blind‖. There are three antonyms of euphemism, „dysphemism, cacophemism‘, and “power word‖. The first can be either offensive or merely 94
humorously deprecating with the second one generally used more often in the sense of something deliberately offensive .The last is used mainly in arguments to make one's point seem more correct than opponent's.
2.2.5.1 Euphemism for the Profane
Profanity is a word choice or usage which many consider offensive. The original meaning of the term was restricted to blasphemy, sacrilege or taking God's name in vain (profane speech, or swear word), especially expressions such as "God damn it", "go to hell‖, and "damn you"(Maledicta).The word ―bloody‖ may belong to this category. They are sometimes made mild, resulting in less recognizable forms, such as the ―minced oaths‖.
However, there has always been great difficulty in defining profanity .The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in response to complaints about a 1973 broadcast comedy routine by George Carlin called Seven words you can never say on television , ruled that such a language could not be broadcast "at times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." Some words are profane or vulgar in one context but completely acceptable in another. For example , cock is commonly used to describe a male chicken , and is nonoffensive, and as a verb("she cocked her head to the side") it is nonoffensive(Holder,2003:2).
Some vulgarities have emerged from nonoffensive words that become offensive in a particular context. The word "broad" is decidedly nonoffensive, but when applied to a woman (potentially connected to the 95
idea of a broad chest) becomes vulgar. The slang word "sucks" emerged from a nonoffensive word for suction, and became a serious profanity as "sucking" became a euphemism for fellatio.Another example is the word "niggardly" , synonymous with "stingy" , is nonoffensive but increasingly rarely used because of its association with "nigger" .
2.2.5.2 Religious euphemisms
Religious euphemisms may include the following types of euphemism:
a. God/God damn: - goldarn -golly -gosh**gadzooks, supposedly God's hooks, the nails by which Jesus hung on the cross - gawd - goldang - gobdang - dog, an anagram for God used mostly in the phrase Oh my dog! Or Oh My Feicking Dog. Also known in the internet world as OMD or OMFD. - hot damn
b. Damn/Damnation : - darn - drat - durn - dang
96
- tarnation
c. Hell: - H-E-double-toothpicks(or-hockey-sticks) - heck - Sam Hill(What in Sam Hill is going on here?) - herr - infernal - The hot place
d. Jesus/Jesus Christ: - gee - cheesus - Jeebus - Judas - jeepers or jeepers creepers for Jesus Christ - jeez - golly gee - G.M. Chrysler
e.The Devil: - the dark one -the deuce(The deuce you say!---archaic) - the dickens, in use before the era of Charles Dickens - Old Nick - Old Scratch
(Holder, 2003:3-4)
97
2.2.5.3 Excretory euphemisms
Excretory euphemism includes the following types :
a. urine/urinate: - gypsies kiss - jimmy (riddle) - number one - pee - piddle - slash - tinkle - wazz - wee-wee - take a leak - relieve oneself
b. feces/defecation: - number two - bowel movement or bm - droppings - dung - poo - poopie - doo (typically in dog doo,but see below) - dookie - night soil archaic , but composted human feces are still so called - stool
98
- shik (can be used in phrases such as Holy shik)
c. toilets/bathrooms - men's room / women's room - the little boy's room / the little girl's room - restroom - porcelain god , often in connection with vomiting - the throne - the crapper - the head, sailor's terminology. The facility was placed on the bow or head of the ship in case of falls while at sea - latrine , common military term - the big white telephone or the white courtesy phone , "talking to John on.." While "urinate‖ and "defecate" are not taboo words, they are used almost exclusively in a clinical sense. The basic Anglo-Saxon words for these functions, "piss" and "shit", are considered vulgarities, despite the use of "piss" in the "King James Bible"(Holder, 2003:5).
The word "manure", referring to animal feces used as fertilizer for plants , literally means "worked with the hands", alluding to the mixing of manure with earth. Several "zoos" market the byproduct of elephants and other large herbivores as "Zoo Doo‖, and ther is a brand of "chicken" manure available in garden stores under the name "Cock-a-Doodle Doo".
99
2.2.5.4 Sexual euphemisms
Under this heading there are a number of types as listed below:
a. The term adult for sexually oriented for pornographic .For example : - adult film for pornographic movie - adult actress or adult actor for porn star - adult film industry for pornography industry - adult bookstore for pornography store
b. erotic dancer or exotic dancer for stripper c. sex worker for porn star , "stripper", or " prostitute" d. genitalia: - crotch - gonads(can also refer to the proto –genitalia of an unborn fetus) - nads - groin - private parts / privates
e. breasts: - mammets (archaic )
- bosom - chest - bust - boobs/boobies - rack
100
- jugs - tits from teats - white meat (Victorian)
f. buttocks: - bum - tush or tushy - bottom - posterior - rump
g. Having sex: - feick - fuck(archaic, now a dysphemism) - mac - copulation - fornication - fudge - lay with or lie with. For example, Harry lay with Sally - know. Biblical Adam knew Eve; generally phrased know him/her …in the Biblical sense - sleep with - hook-up - horizontal folk dancing - carnal knowledge - make the beast with two backs (Shakespeare)
101
h. Put it up your rectum: - up yours(a shortening of "(stick it) up your (ass)")
Virtually all other sexual terms are still considered profane and unacceptable for use even in a euphemistic sense (Holder,2003:7).
2.2.5.5 Euphemisms for death
The English language contains numerous euphemisms related to dying, death, burial, and the people and places which deal with death.
According to Wikipedia (2005:7), most commonly, one is dying, rather, fading quickly because the end is near. Death is referred to as having "passed away" or "departed". "Deceased" is a euphemism for "dead". Sometimes the "deceased" is said to have "gone to a better place", but this is used primarily among the religious with a concept of "heaven".
However, there are many euphemisms for the dead body, some polite and some profane, as well as "dysphemisms" such as "worm food", or "dead meat". The corpse was once referred to as "the shroud (or house or tenement) of clay", and modern funerary workers use terms such as "the loved one(title of a "novel" about "Hollywood" undertakers by Evelyn Waugh) or "the dearly departed".(They themselves have given up the euphemism "funeral" director for grief therapist , and hold "arrangement conferences" with relatives).
102
Hugh (1995:8) argues that contemporary euphemisms for death tend to be quite colorful , and someone who has died is said to have "passed away", "passed on , bit the big one , bought the farm ,croaked, given up the ghost, kicked the bucket, gone south, tits up , shuffled off this mortal coil(from Hamlet) or assumed room temperature". When buried, they may be said to be "pushing up daisies, sleeping with the fishes or taking a dirt nap.
2.2.5.6 Doublespeak euphemisms
What distinguishes "doublespeak" from other euphemisms is its deliberate usage by governmental, military, or corporate institutions (Ibid). Examples of "doublespeak" include:
a. collateral damage for unintentional killing or damage b. servicing a target for "killing" c. casualty for "death or injury" d. rightsizing , a euphemism for downsizing, a euphemism for " layoffs", itself a euphemism for "mass firing of employees." e. spontaneous energetic disassembly for "explosion" (reportedly used by a director of the "Three Mile Island nuclear power "plant) f. protective custody for ("imprisonment" without "due process" of law) g. the Nazi term Endlosung ("final solution") as a description for the Holocaust h. "comfort women" as a term for prostitute which was then changed to refer specially to women forced into "sexual slavery" during World War II. i. "ethnic cleaning" for genocide 103
j. intervention for invasion k. executive action for association
2.2.5.7 Other euphemisms Other common euphemisms include:
a. restroom for "toilet" room (the word toilet was itself originally a euphemism). b. making love to , playing with or sleeping with for having sexual intercourse with c. motion discomfort bag and air-sickness bag for vomit bag d. sanitary landfill for garbage dump e. the big "C" for cancer(in addition , some people whisper the word when they say it in public , and doctors have euphemisms to use in front of patients) f. bathroom tissue or bath tissue for "toilet paper" (Usually used by toilet paper manufacturers) g. custodian for "janitor" h. petroleum transfer technician for "gas station attendant" i. mixologist for bartender
These lists might suggest that most euphemisms are well known expressions. Often euphemisms can be somewhat situational; what might be used as a euphemism in a conversation between two friends might make no sense to a third person. In this case, Hugh (1995:9) suggests that the euphemism is being used as a type of "innuendo".
104
2.3 Levels of Linguistic Analysis 2.3.1 Syntactic Analysis 2.3.1.1 Sentence Structure The present study will adopt ―Halliday‘ Functional Grammar‖ model in analysing the structure of sentence. This model is based on defining sentence ―as a grammatical device for describing a situation (Halliday, 1985:210-225)‖.A situation typically consists of three components: process, participants, and circumstances. Moreover, these three components, according to Halliday‘s analysis, could have syntactic counterparts as explained in the following example:
33.John arrived yesterday. In the aforementioned example, the agent is ‗John‘,i.e. the subject, the process ‗arrived‘ is the predicate and the circumstance ‗yesterday‘ plays the role of the adjunct.
2.3.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
According to Karttunen (1971:55-69), implicative verbs and pronouns are called ‗presupposition triggers‘. These implicative verbs and pronouns could imply other meanings than those declared or observed in the surface structure. That is to say, they can be used to imply more than one meaning in the sentence.
105
Thus, the verbs as well as pronouns are implicative owing to the fact that they imply or entail other meanings than those observed in the pragmatic content.
2.3.1.3 Implicit Cohesion Halliday and Hasan (1980:11-27) points out that cohesion refers to a class of linguistic (,i.e. syntactic devices) dependence relations in which one textual item depends on another textual item for interpretation. However, Mann, Mathiessen and Thompson (1992:40-71) observe that while relations between textual entities may be signaled explicitly, interpretation is achieved mostly as a result of inferences about the abundance of unsignalled or implicit relations. Beeston (1970:105) points out that one of the cohesive devices in Arabic is repetition.
In the seven interpretations (the word interpretation is used instead of translation for the Glorious Quran through this study).
2.3.2 Semantic Analysis 2.3.2.1 Literal Meaning Newmark (1988:104) argues that figurative language has two purposes, a denotative-oriented purpose and connotative-oriented purpose. He (Ibid) calls these purposes as ‗referential‘ and ‗pragmatic‘ respectively. The denotative-oriented purpose is ‗to describe a mental process or state, a concept, a person, an object, a quality or action more
106
comprehensively and concisely than is possible in literal or physical language (Ibid).
2.3.2.2 Connotative Meaning Leech
(1981:14)
defines
connotative
meaning
as
that
―communicative value an expression has by virtue of what it refers to, over and above its purely conceptual content‖.
2.3.2.3 Semantic Equivalence of ST and TT In this subsection, it is aimed at comparing the semantic, metaphoric and euphemistic equivalence of both texts, i.e. ST and TT. This equivalence, according to Bassnett (1998:120), is decided by how much the translator can be faithful to the original semantic, metaphoric and euphemistic expression with keeping the original meaning.
2.3.3 Pragmatic Analysis 2.3.3.1 Non- Literal Meaning Chandler (2003:125-77) argues that ―the conventions of figurative language constitute a rhetorical code, and understanding this code is part of what it means to be a member of the culture in which it is employed‖.
107
2.3.3.2 Speech Act Type In his book ―How to do things with words‖, Austin (1962) has introduced his theory of speech acts. He (Ibid:) has classified utterances into explicit performatives and implicit performatives ( the concern of the present study). Later, Searle (1969:66-7) has looked for some more abstract scheme based on felicity conditions. He (Ibid) has proposed five types of utterances which are representatives, directives, commisives, expressives, and declaratives.
2.3.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
In chapter two (2.13 diagram-1-), the researcher has proposed a model in which the communication as a process should include speaker, hearer, message, etc. However, the model involves communication between Allah () and the hearer (Man). This message is either formal (explicit) or contextual (implicit). This formality is governed by the type of the message delivered by the speaker or writer.
108
Chapter Three Metaphor and Euphemism in Arabic Literature 3.0 Metaphor in Arabic Literature 3.1.1 Introduction Generally, Arab rhetoricians display that ""االدتطارةmetaphor is used to clarify something, which the hearer does not know, by mentioning a well-known thing in order to compare. This theory in speech structures has led to what is called metaphor. Actually, metaphor is considered more effective than any other rhetorical technique on the hearer because it is more imaginative than other tools.
Arab linguists have invented a number of pictures of aesthetic ""االدتطارةmetaphor to attract the attention of the reader or hearer to listening and to arouse emotions, which is in turn the secret of metaphor. This is also applied in the Glorious Quran, i.e., the speech of Allah. The following example represents how metaphor is drawn in a very complete portrait: }4 " وَاذِتَطَلَػاضرَّأِسُػذَغْبّا "{طرغم.34 [Shakir 19:4] and my head flares with hoariness, [Ali 19:4] and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey, [Pickthal 19:4] and my head is shining with grey hair,
109
In the aforementioned example, the white hair is described in a metaphoric way in which another word is employed to give the same meaning.Moreover, the tense used in the sentence is the past and the action is retained to the head itself.
Others tend to give the minute details of the picture and giving each part its feature as the saying of Imrou‟a Al-kais in describing the length of night: سػضتػضهػضطاػتططىػ بصضبهػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػوأردفػإرجازاػوظاءػبصضصلػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػ. 35
The poet has not been satisfied by comparing the night to a long person. The poet goes on to mention the minute details of that person. That is to say, He borrows alsulb (a bone in the back of Man) to draw the picture. He goes on to exaggerate by saying that there are many bones supporting each other.
3.1.2 Definition Linguistically, ""االدتطارةmetaphor means borrowing something to achieve a certain aim. Terminologically, it is the employment of a certain prominent feature because of a similarity between the original meaning and the contextual meaning with a feature from the original meaning ) 462:ت.ب،(اضؼاذطي. Metaphor is a short simile but it is more effective as in the following example:
110
36.a. I saw a lion in the school. or 36.b. I saw a brave man as a lion in the school.
Definitely example (36b) represents the original form of the metaphor in (36a).In other words, to say that “a lion in the school” means that “a brave man in the school”.
3.1.3 Parts of Metaphorاالدتطارة
According to (هـ626،اضدصاصي، ػ1981ػاضجرجاظي،.ت.ب،)اضؼاذطيػ, metaphor consists of the following three parts:
1. vehicle 2. tenor 3. ground
In rhetoric, each metaphor is built on simile. In metaphor the tool of simile is not used and the process of comparison is carried out through indirect resemblance. In metaphor, the tenor (T henceforth) is similar to vehicle (V henceforth). Metaphor might be a name of gerund, or a noun of a gerund and it can not be a personal noun. In such examples, it is appropriate to be metaphorized as indicating (implicating) that “Hatim” means “hospitality” as in the following example: 111
37. I saw Hatim. Metaphor has a great effect on writing because it enriches the idea whether it is written or spoken. This enrichment is achieved by metaphor which in turn adds aesthetic values and it motivates feelings and emotions.
3.1.4 Classification of Metaphor in terms of Tenor and Vehicle 3.1.4.1 Metaphor of two Sides mentionedػ االدتطارةػبارتبارػطاػغذصرػطنػاضطرسغن If the vehicle is mentioned only, metaphor will be explicit " "تصرغحغظ ػأو ػطصرحظTasrihya or Musrraha . Consider the following example: سأططرتػضؤضؤاػطنػظرجسػودػتػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػورداػورضتػرضىػاضطظابػباضبرد.38 )(اضبدغط )265:ت.ب،ػ(اضؼاذطي
The poet has borrowed pearls, narcissus, jujube, hailstone; for tears, eyes, chicks, fingers, and teeth. If the T is said in speech only and the V is indeed referring to it by saying its similar point which is imaginatively named, it is called Maknia. Consider the following example: وإذاػاضطظغظػأظذبتػأظغارعاػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػأضغغتػصلػتطغطظػالػتظغع.39
112
The poet has described „death‟ as a „tiger‟. He refereed to the tiger by mentioning one of his features which is his or its nails. This type of metaphor is called original Maknia which is connected to nails. After that, he says that illusion has nails like the nails of the tiger. Thus, the word „nails‟ has an imaginative (or Al-Takhiylia) metaphor.
Because of the supposition that the Al-Takhiylia metaphor is similar to Al-Maknia metaphor, they attached to each other, i.e., they are considered as one type of metaphor. Therefore, metaphor is classified into Tasrrihya or Musrraha, Maknia , and Takhiylia.
3.1.4.2 Metaphor of two Sides ( االدتطارةػبارتبارػاضطرسغنsensory metaphor)ػادتطارةػحدغظ
In this kind of metaphor, ت(اضؼاذطي.ب267) asserts that if the metaphoric feature is really achieving the metaphoric sense in being transmitted the form to something known, it is possible to refer to it by a sensory reference as in : .رأغتػبحراػػغططيػ. 44 Which could be translated into: -I saw a giving sea.
Or otherwise, the metaphoric thing is really achieving it by thinking in being characterized, as in the Glorious Quran “َصرَاطَ ػاضطُدتَػِغم ”اعدِظَــــا ػاض ؼ
113
{Al-Fatiha}.i.e., the right religion, thus, metaphor is achieving one. On the other hand, if the metaphoric reference is not suitable neither sensorily nor in mind, metaphor is considered Takhiylia (or imaginative) like „nails‟ in the following:
.ػأظذبتػاضطظغظػأظغارعاػبغالن.41
3.1.4.3
Classification
of
Metaphor
according
to
the
Metaphorized Expressionػاالدتطارةػبارتبارػاضضغظػاضطدتطار
1. If the metaphorized expression is a plastic noun in itself as in „AlBader‟stage (full moon) to express beauty, or a plastic noun for meaning like „killing‟ to express metaphor for strong hitting , the metaphor is called original in Al-Tasrrihya and Al-Maknia (اضؼاذطيػ ت.ب268) . Consider the following example :
}1" صِتَابًػأَظزَضِظَاهُػإِضَ ْغكَػضِتُ ْخرِجَػاضظَّاسَػطِنَػاضظُّضُطَاتِػِإضَىػاضظُّور"{ابراعغم. 42
[Shakir 14:1] (This is) a Book which We have revealed to you that you may bring forth men, by their Lord's permission from utter darkness into light. [Ali 14:1] A Book which We have revealed unto thee, in order that thou mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness into light. [Pickthal 14:1] (This is) a Scripture which We have revealed unto thee
114
(Muhammad) that thereby thou mayst bring forth mankind from darkness unto light.
Or for example: }24" وَاخْغِضْػضَؼُطَاػجَظَاحَػاضذُّلؼػطِنَػاضرَّحْطَظِ" {االدراء.43 [Shakir 17:24] And make yourself submissively gentle to them with compassion. [Ali 17:24] And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility. [Pickthal 17:24] And lower unto them the wing of submission through mercy.
This kind of metaphor is called original(or Asliya) because it is built on a simile followed by another simile considered as the first.
2. If the metaphoric word is a verb, a gerund, a derived noun, an ambiguous noun or a letter, the metaphor is called Tasrrihya Tabaaiya as in the following example :
ظاطتػعطوطيػرظيػ.44 Or as in ) (صهthat is used to stop talking, or to stop acting such as (اضجظديػ
) شاتلػاضضص.i.e., the soldier is killing the thief.
115
3.1.4.4 Classification of Al- Musrraha Metaphor into Anadiya and Wifaqiy
تػدغمػاالدتطارةػاضطصرحظػبارتبارػاضطرسغنػإضىػرظادغظػووساشغظ
Al-Anadiya metaphor is the one whose sides can not be correlated because of the contrasting in meaning between them such as (اضظالمػ
)واضظور. While Al-Wifaqiya is the one in which both sides can be correlated in one thing because of a symmetry such as) ) اضظور ػواضؼدىor as in the Glorious Qura‟n : }122 " أَوَػطَنػصَانَػطَغْتّاػسَأَحْغَغْظَاهُ" {اِّظطام.45 [Shakir 6:122] Is he who was dead then We raised him to life. [Ali 6:122] Can he who was dead, to whom We gave life. [Pickthal 6:122] Is he who was dead and We have raised him unto life.
In
the
aforementioned
example
there
are
two
contrasting
metaphors,i.e.,death and living .
3.1.4.5 Metaphor of Inclusive Feature"" ػاالدتطارةػبارتبارػاضجاطعػ
Al- Musrraha metaphor of inclusive feature includes two types which are the Colloquial or Al-Amya " "اضطاطغظmetaphor and Al-khassya
116
" "اضخاصغظ. The first type is nearest to the colloquial language in which the correlative feature is vivid as in the following example: }52"عذاػطاػوَرَدَػاضرَّحْطَنُػوَصَدَقَػاضِ ُطرْدَضُونَ" {غس.46 This kind of " "االدتطارةmetaphor can not be achieved except by those who are sophisticated or having innate capacity. In the aforementioned example (45), death is compared to lying or sleeping.
3.1.4.6 Classification of Metaphor according to the relation between similar features االدتطارةػبارتبارػطاػغذصر طنػاضطالئطات In this kind, metaphor can be classified into three divisions: Free “”اضططضػظ, nominated “”اضطرذحظ, and bare “ ”اضطجردةwhich are going to be explained.
A.Al-Mutlaka or Free metaphor : is the one which is not related to V or T as in: }27 " غَظػُضُونَػرَؼْدَػاضضَّهِ " {اضبػرة. 47
[Shakir 2:27] Who break the covenant of Allah. [Ali 2:27] Those who break Allah's Covenant. [Pickthal 2:27] Those who break the covenant of Allah. 117
Or as in the verse line of Zuheir:
ضدػىػأددػذاصيػاضدالحػطػذفػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػضهػضبدػأظغارهػضمػتػضم ػ. 48
The poet has borrowed the word „lion‟ to describe the brave man with the aim of mentioning the unarmed ness which is a free metaphor. On the other hand, he says that the lion‟s nails have not been cut yet which is a contrasting because the poet has put two contrasting metaphors ,.i.e. free and bare. As a result, metaphor will be a kind of free one.
B.Al-Murashaha or Elected metaphor: is a kind of metaphor in which the metaphoric feature is correlated with the one from which simile is taken such as the verb ( )اذِ َترُوُاas in the following Glorious verse line:
"َ" أُوْضَـِئكَػاضَّذِغنَػاذِ َترُوُاِػاضضَّالَضَظَػبِاضِؼُدَىػسَطَاػرَبِحَتػتؼجَارَتُؼُمْػوَطَاػصَاظُواِػطُؼْتَدِغن. 49 }16 {اضبػرة [Shakir 2:16] These are they who buy error for the right direction, so their bargain shall bring no gain. [Ali 2:16] These are they who have bartered Guidance for error: But their traffic is profitless. [Pickthal 2:16] These are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, so their commerce doth not prosper.
118
the act of buying is being metaphorized for replacing or choosing. Then, this metaphor has been replaced by trading or earning . C.Al-Mujaradah or Bare metaphor: is the one which is attached to what suits the thing to which metaphor is given as in the following example: . اذترػباضططروفػررضكػطنػاِّذى. 54
This type of metaphor is called bared metaphor because it is formulated away from exaggeration.
3.2 Euphemism in Arabic Literature 3.2.1 Introduction In order to survive, human beings have to co-operate with each other by different ways of cooperation. Thus to cooperate, one needs to communicate by using some way of indicating attitudes, ideas, intentions, and so on. Such communication can be achieved by using the language of words verbally. Therefore, verbal communication plays a very important role in any society. Individuals of any society should have an ability to use the system of the language appropriately as a means of social interaction with native speakers since one can not use some words in every situation. Hence, language can be regarded as a verbal behaviour and one aspect of the total communicative behaviour by which members of a society interact.
Within any society, people are organized into groups. Groups can be characterized in terms of shared attitudes and beliefs, which are
119
expressed by the accepted behaviour of the members of the group, including, of course, their language behaviour. Thus common attitudes, beliefs, and values are reflected in the way members of the group use language, for example, what they choose to say or not to say and how they say it. However, certain words in all societies are unacceptable for social or cultural reasons; they are considered taboo-words that are not to be used or refer to acts which are forbidden or which are to be avoided because they are felt to give actual realization or unpleasant association to what they refer to. The acts or words which are forbidden reflect the particular customs, beliefs, attitudes and views of the society. In addition to that some words may be used in certain circumstances and not in others. In certain societies, words which have religious connotations are considered profane if used outside of formal or religious ceremonies. Another type of words which are related to death, sex organs, and natural bodily functions make up a large part of the set of taboo-words of many cultures. The existence of taboo-words or taboo ideas stimulates the creation of euphemism or as it is called in Arabic '( ' ػاضصظاغظmetonymy).
3.2.2 Definition Euphemism in Arabic can be used to denote three points of اضصظاغظػ or three meanings which can be summarized as follows:
1- The first meaning refers to the way of describing a socially offensive or unpleasant thing or expression, or socially unacceptable to be mentioned instead of another expression as in the following Glorious Quranic verse: 120
}187 ذرُوعُنَّػوَابْتَعُواػطَاػصَ َتبَػاضضَّهُػَضصُم" {اضبػرة ِ "سَاآلنَػبَا.51 [Shakir 2:187] so now be in contact with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you. [Ali 2:187] so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you. [Pickthal 2:187] So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, Here, the word ( )بَاذِـرُوعُنَّػis a euphemism, meaning ' intercourse ' which has unpleasant connotation in such a religious text since such texts are regarded as acts of communication between the Sender ( ) and the public. In these texts, Allah () communicates with us through His messengers. We believe that these religious texts are fully communicative acts since they carry messages of speech acts, which are generally descended to address all people with no exception. Such texts usually use polite and pleasant expressions instead of other expressions that have offensive connotation in order to elevate and soothe the language of people. Thus the use of "( " اضصظاغـظػeuphemism) in such religious texts makes a socially unacceptable topic mentionable ( 201 : 4791 ,؛رتغـقػ 769: 4771,)ططضوبػواضبصغر.
2- The second meaning of " euphemism " is that Arabs used to call each other by using their euphemistic name 'surname' rather than the first name because such a euphemistic name will maximize and increase the honorific and respectable character of the person. Thus, they say
121
for example, '' 'أبـاػاضحدـنػػFather of Al-Hasan' or 'Al-Husseini' rather than to say the naked name. (716 :4755 ,)ابنػطظظور. 3.The third way of using '" 'ػاضصظاغـظػeuphemism"
in Arabic is that
sometimes Arabs tend to exaggerate the meaning of certain words by using the '" ' اضصظاغظeuphemism" implying harm without saying words. Here, they use the exaggeration or what is called circumlocution through speaking around a given word as in the following Quranic Verse: (994-991 :9111 ,ػوسغود97 :ت. ب,)اضطبرد.
} 3-1 :)" {اضػاررظ3(ُ)وَطَاػأَ ْدرَاكَػطَاػاضِػَارِرَظ2(ُ)طَاػاضِػَارِرَظ1(ُػ"ػاضِػَارِرَظ.52 [Shakir 101:1] The terrible calamity! [Ali 101:1] The (Day) of Noise and Clamour! [Pickthal 101:1] The Calamity! [Shakir 101:2] What is the terrible calamity! [Yusufali 101:2] What is the (Day) of Noise and Clamour? [Pickthal 101:2] What is the Calamity? [Shakir 101:3] And what will make you comprehend what the terrible calamity is? [Yusufali 101:3] And what will explain to thee what the (Day) of Noise and Clamour is? [Pickthal 101:3] Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Calamity is! Here, the word ' 'اضػاررـظػis a metonymic word which refers to the day of judgement. ' 'اضػاررـظػis used here instead of the Day of Judgement in order
122
to exaggerate and glorify the meaning of the Day of Judgement in the minds of the audience.
Euphemism (Kinäyah), means transference based on substitution of names on the basis of a relation between them. Here the social motive of euphemism is paramount and it is the directive force behind the use of this type of transference. An example of this would be the Quranic euphemistic expression „if you touch women‟ to mean what is more than touching, namely sexual intercourse.
We find the first reference to kinayah by Abu „Ubaydah (d. 833/210) in his book Majaz al-Quran" "طجاز ػاضػران. He refers to it as a linguistic phenomenon and uses the grammarians‟ conception of it when he considers it the omission of the noun and its substitution with a pronoun. In other words, Abu „Ubaydah treats kinayah as „implicitness‟ in linguistic reference where only a pronoun is mentioned without any nominal antecedent before it or any resolvable reference after it. The examples he uses include the following verses from the Quran:
}ػ26ُصُلُّػطَنْػرَضَغْؼَاػسَانٍ"{اضرَّحْطَن
".53
[Shakir 55:26] Everyone on it must pass away. [Ali 55:26] All that is on earth will perish: [Pickthal 55:26] Everyone that is thereon will pass away ; }ػ32 ػ"ػػحَتَّىػتَوَا َرتْػبِاضِحِجَابِػ"{ص.54
123
[Shakir 38:32] until the sun set and time for Asr prayer was over, (he said): [Ali 38:32] until (the sun) was hidden in the veil (of night): [Pickthal 38:32] till they were taken out of sight behind the curtain.
However, Arab rhetoricians classified reference into two major categories, i.e., into linguistic and cognitive phenomena. Hatim (2002:19) argues that within euphemism there are three types of transference as shown in the following diagram:
Majaz irtibati (contiguous transference)
Kinayah Implicitness
majaz aqli
majaz mursal
rational transference loose transference
linguistic transference
cognitive transference ontological transference
Diagram (4): Hatim‟s classification of the three dimensions of contiguous transference in Arabic rhetoric According to the researcher‟s point of view, the logic behind this classification is that while the first and third of these pertain to the worlds of concepts and language respectively, in view of the fact that they are known in Arabic rhetoric as „cognitive‟ and „linguistic‟ respectively, the second pertains to the world of things and objects, in view of the fact that the relations underlying it are essentially existential relations such as adjacency, positionality and contingency. Consequently, euphemism in Arabic rhetoric has three dimensions: the cognitive dimension 124
represented by majaz „aqli, the linguistic dimension represented by kinayah(one of the concerns of this study) and the ontological dimension represented by majaz mursal.
3.2.3 Types of Euphemism ()اضصظاغظ
In order to know the main types of euphemism in Arabic, it is preferable to shed light on the main elements of it. According to its structural term, (euphemism) is composed of three elements. The first one is represented by اضطصظى ػبه
(euphemistic expression ).The second
element refers to اضطصظى ػرظه
(original expression) which is socially
unpleasant and unacceptable and substituted by the euphemistic term. The last element can be somewhat situational or what is called ( اضػرغظظthe context of situation)) 791: 4771,) ططضوب ػواضبصغر.These elements can be represented by the following example cited from the Glorious Quran:-
} 18"ػَأوَطَنْػغُظَذَّأُػسِيػاضِحِضِغَظِػوَعُوَػسِيػاضِخِصَامِػزَ ْغرُػطُبِغنٍ "{اضزخرف.55
[Shakir 43:18] What! that which is made in ornaments and which in contention is unable to make plain speech! [Ali 43:18] Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with Allah)? (Ali, 1989: 1327)
125
[Pickthal 43:18] (Liken they then to Allah) that which is bred up in outward show, and in dispute cannot make itself plain?
(Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in dispute (to be associated with God)? (Ali, 1989: 1327) refers to the }ٍ {غُظَذَّأُػسِيػاضِحِضِغَظِػوَعُوَػسِيػاضِخِصَامِػزَ ْغرُػطُبِغنin this Qura‟nic verse اضطصظىػ ( بهeuphemistic expression) represented by women ' ' اضظداء. In this Quranic verse, the context of situation refers to the accident when the unbelievers in a blasphemous way imagine goddesses or daughters to Allah the Almighty. Thus, Allah the Almighty is addressing those unbelievers in a rhetorical question whether the softer sex (woman) that is usually brought up among trinkets and ornaments, and, on account of the referring modesty which for the woman is a virtue, is unable to stand up boldly in a fight and give clear indications of the will to win. Thus is that sort of quality to be associated with Allah the Almighty? )175 :4765,)ذبر.
Through the above elements, Arab rhetoricians divided اضصظاغـظػ 'euphemism' into two groups. In addition to that each is subdivided into different types. The first group involves three types according to the nature of '( ' اضطصظـىػرظـهػػthe original expression). The first type of this group refers to the ' ( ' ػاضصظاغـظػ رنػاضطوصوفeuphemism on behalf of quality of the described person or thing). Thus, in example (55) (the original expression) '( ' اضظدــاء' ' اضطصظــىػرظــهwomen) has been given different qualities and through these qualities we can distinguish the original expression ( اضػزوغظــيػ66 :4791 ,ػابــنػاِّرغــرػ747,4791 اضػزوغظــيػ, ططضـــوبػ
126
799 :4777 , ;واضبصـغرػ741 :ت. د,)اضطرازـيػ. The second type refers to the ' ('ػاضصظاغـظػرـنػ اضصغظػاضططظوغظeuphemism on behalf of the abstract quality of the original expression ). Here, some unacceptable qualities may be substituted by some euphemism terms. Consider the following Quranic verse:}29" َوضَاػتَجْطَلْػغَ َدكَػطَعِضُوضَظّػإِضَىػرُظُ ِػكَػوَضَاػتَبْدُطِؼَاػصُلَّػاضِبَدْطِ" {االدراء.ػ56
[Shakir 17:29] And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth, [Ali 17:29] Make not thy hand tied (like a niggard's) to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach, [Pickthal 17:29] And let not thy hand be chained to thy neck nor open it with a complete opening,
Here, ( اضطصظـىػرظـهػthe original expression) involves two bad qualities (niggardliness and wastefulness).The two expressions(َ)طَعِضُوضَظّػإِضَىػرُظُ ِػكand ( ) تَبْدُطِؼَاػصُلَّػاضِبَدْـطِػare used in place of the direct reference of those two abstract qualities niggardly and wasting respectively (ibid).
The third type shows that euphemism can be found on behalf of attribution ()اضصظاغظ ػرن ػاضظدبظ. Here we have a factual thing described by one or more qualities instead of the explicit thing ( :4794 ,اضجارم ػوأطغن 491). An example of this type can be seen the following Quranic verses:
127
}3-1 :)" {اضحاشظ3(ُ)وَطَاػأَ ْدرَاكَػطَاػاضِحَاشَّظ2(ُ)طَاػاضِحَاشَّظ1(ُ" )اضِحَاشَّظ. 57
[Shakir 69:1] The sure calamity! [Yusufali 69:1] The Sure Reality! [Pickthal 69:1] The Reality!
[Shakir 69:2] What is the sure calamity! [Ali 69:2] What is the Sure Reality? [Pickthal 69:2] What is the Reality?
[Shakir 69:3] And what would make you realize what the sure calamity is! [Yusufali 69:3] And what will make thee realise what the Sure Reality is? [Pickthal 69:3] Ah, what will convey unto thee what the reality is
(The Sure Reality! what is the Sure Reality? and what will make Thee realize what the Sure Reality is?) (Ali, 1989: 1596). Here, the euphemism ' 'الحاقةis mentioned here referring to the day of Judgment. Thus, the events in which all falsehood and pretence will vanish and the absolute Truth will be laid bare are attributed to The Day of Doom. Thus, all these qualities are mentioned instead of the explicit thing (The Day of Judgment), and wherever these qualities are found, they will refer to the same attribution The Day of Judgment.
128
The second division of '( 'اضصظاغــظeuphemism) is composed of different types according to the context of situation as well as the means that refers to the '('اضطصظـىػرظـهػػthe original expression). This division of '( 'اضصظاغـظػeuphemism) can be found in four important types: اضتطـرغضػ (innuendo), ( اضتضـوغّّػwave), ( اضرطـزػsymbol) and ( اإلذـارةػأوػاإليمةاhint)(ابـنػػ 77 :4791 ،()اِّرغر476 :4797 ,ػاضدصاصي,797 :4771 ,)ططضوبػواضبصغر.
It is worth mentioning that the first type, i.e., ( اضتطرغضinnuendo), is the most common type of euphemism. Here, the S tends to avoid using a public speech, for certain social or religious reasons, but, instead, he will innuendo by such a speech. Innuendo is some-what situational; because speech cannot be understood only according to the situation and the background knowledge of both S and H. thus for this reason, it's regarded as one type of euphemism since the Ss attempt to avoid unpleasant subjects in certain context. Therefore, what might be used as a euphemism or innuendo in a conversation between the S(s) and the H(s) might make no sense to others who have no background knowledge (272ػ:1972ػ،ػاضػغرواظي،213ػ:2444ػ،)سغود. As, an example of innuendo, in the sermon of Imam Ali (peace be upon him), he said: ػإنػأصرمػاضطوتػاضػتل;ػ، "ػإنػاضطوتَػطاضبًػحرغثػالػغغوتهػاضطػغمػوالػغطجزهػاضؼارب. 55 واضذيػظغسػابنػأبيػػطاضبػػبغدهػِّضفػضربظػباضدغفػأعونػرضيػطنػطغتظػرضىػاضغراشػسيػ زغرػطارظػاضضه"ػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػ "…Certainly death is a quick seeker. Neither does the steadfast escape it nor can the runner-away defy it. The best death is to be killed. By Allah 129
in whose hand (power) lies the life of the son of Abu' Ta'lib certainly a thousand strikings of the sword on me are easier to me than a death in bed…"(Ali, 1971:46)
In this speech Imam Ali (peace be upon him) exhorted his followers to fight; he was admonishing his companions for their languor to fight their enemy. He did not say directly that they are cowards or afraid of death but he innuendos that death will come sooner or later, here or there. Thus there is no need to be afraid of death and they should face their enemy face to face because the best wag of death is to be killed in the Way of Allah. Such an innuendo is a kind of dispraise since the innuendo is either a praise or a dispraise. This dispraise cannot be understood by the Hs only by him since it is related to certain context (941 :9111 ،)سغود.
The second type of contextual euphemism is the '( 'اضتضـوغّّػwave). This type of euphemism can be found when someone points out to or describes somebody by a certain feature through which and other means of situation one can characterize such a person. Here, such a type of euphemism describes a connection between two things where one term or a phrase is substituted for another; it expresses simple contiguous relations between two objects, such as part- whole, cause-effect, and so on. Thus, referring to a 'generous man' as a كثير الرماد. 55 -'man of much ash'
Arabs here use a salient characteristic of one domain (much ash is one important feature among other features and means, to represent the entire
130
domain (the generosity) in Arab Culture. Hence, the generosity 'اضطصظـىػػ ('رظــهthe original expression) can be indicated according to different means such as preparing the food, kindling the fire, cooking the food, inviting the guests and at last leaving much ash which refers to generosity through all these means(799 :4791 ,)اضػزػوغظي.
The third type of contextual euphemism is the '( 'اضرطـزػsymbol). In this case, Arabs tend to use a euphemistic symbol to dispraise somebody when he is absent and the common means that refers to him is very little. Thus, they use a common symbol between them to describe a dull person by saying ررغضػاضػغا. 60
- 'a man of wide back' This euphemism '' 'رـرغضػاضػغـاػػa man of wide back' is used instead of disagreeable expression of "a stupid man" which cannot be publicly said (995 :4799 ,)اضػغرواظي.
The last type of contextual euphemism is '( 'اإلغطـاءػأوػاإلذـارةػػthe hint). In this type, there is a sort of conformity between the two expressions '('اضطصظــىػبــهthe euphemistic expression) and '('اضطصظــىػرظــهthe original expression). The euphemistic hint is used explicitly when the H is nearby to the S and the means are very little. An example of this type when a woman complained to a ruler by saying:
131
أذصوػإضغكػشضظػاضغئرانػسيػبغتي. 61
-'I complain to you the fewness of mice in my house' She means that (' ) أشكو إليك الفقررI complain to you the poverty'. Thus such a euphemistic hint involves an explicit and a close relationship between ' ' 'اضطصظىػبهthe fewness of mice in the house' and '' 'اضطصظـىػرظـهػػthe poverty' since the house is empty of any food then the mice will not come to it. (799 :4791 ,)اضػزػوغظي.
Generally speaking, it is worth mentioning from the above mentioned types that euphemism serves in these instances as a kind of contextual expression, words or phrases whose meanings depend on the context in which they are embedded. Because potential contexts are unlimited, contextual expressions have an unlimited number of potential meanings.
3.2.4 The Rhetoric of Euphemism Arab rhetoricians are fond of using the stylistic device of ''اضصظاغـظػ (euphemism) in different fields of study. Thus they use it in their written texts as well as their orations. They include it in various aspects of life because it has the ability to achieve different moral and tactful affairs of life such as morality and beliefs. They believe that '( 'اضصظاغـظػeuphemism) is more eloquent than declaration, and the ' ( ' اضتطـرغضػinnuendo) is more
132
effective than explicitness. Hence for this reason '( 'اضصظاغـظػeuphemism), in all its styles and types, can be used to achieve different linguistic, artistic, stylistic and intellectual goals. It beautifies the meaning of certain expressions and strengthens the power of the style ) 55 :4797,) ػاضجرجاظي. The researcher believes that euphemism has to do with the total bundle of semantics and pragmatics as it functions ultimately to produce certain intended meaning or effect in the H. This idea can be attributed to the fact that euphemistic expressions tend to be full of life, motion and more emphatic in the soul of the addressee(s). Therefore, ' 'اضصظاغ ـظ (euphemism) is a kind of figurative language that has a more than decorative purport, it is meant to have an effective power, to raise the emotions associated with a subject and correspondingly to evoke emotional responses from an audience. In other words, the euphemistic expressions have powerful stylistic effects which impress readers or hearers and should, therefore, be part and parcel of their meaning, and those effects have to be taken into account in studying euphemism contrastively. This fact can be clarified in the following Quranic verses: } 27 {اضغرشان... ػػ " وَغَوْمَػغَطَضُّػاضظَّاضِمُػرَضَىػغَدَغْه ِػ.62 [Shakir 25:27] And the day when the unjust one shall bite his hands . [Ali 25:27] The Day that the wrong-doer will bite at his hands. [Pickthal 25:27] On the day when the wrong-doer gnaweth his hands. (The Day that the wrong-doer will bite at his hands,…)(Ali, 1989: 932). } 149 " وَضَطَّاػدُػِطَػسِيػأَغْدِغؼِمْ " {اِّرراف.ػ63
133
(when they repented, and saw…) (Ali, 1989: 385). } 42 َضبُػصَغَّغْهِػرَضَىػطَاػأَظغَقَػسِغؼا" {اضصؼف ِّ" وَأُحِغطَػبِرَ َطرِهِػسَأَصْبََّّػغُػ.64ػ
(So his fruits (and enjoyment) were encompassed (with ruin), and he remained twisting and turning his hands over what he had spent on his property…) (Ali, 1989: 741).
The above euphemistic expressions can be seen semantically and pragmatically, and all of them present the same meaning of (regret) in this living and tangible portrait. Thus instead of mentioning the explicit word of 'regret' which is lifeless, these euphemistic expressions are used to focus on such a meaning and make it more prominent (:4794 ,اضجارمػوأطغن 431; 949 -949 :9111 ,)سغود.
The other eloquent reason behind using the '( 'اضصظاغظeuphemism) in Arab culture is its decent connotation which makes no overt reference to the unpleasant side of the subject. Thus, it is common to find that Arab people will change or replace certain words and expressions that have bad connotations and are associated with a socially distasteful subject by other euphemistic expressions to avoid such connotations. Hence, they will replace words or expressions that are related with sex, excretion, death, women and so on by other euphemistic words or expressions as in examples
(57
and
59)
(239-235 :8391 ،اضرطــــاضبي
899:8338،)ورربغظ.
134
;
شصــــبجي
'( 'اضصظاغـظػeuphemism) is used sometimes to hide and cover the personality of certain persons by using a euphemistic expression instead of the explicit name. Such a use of euphemism is for the sake of protecting the name of the addressee from wearing out in everyday use. Such a use of euphemism can be illustrated in the following Quranic verse: } 23ػ:ػػ" َورَاوَدَتْهُػاضَّتِيػعُوَػسِيػبَغْتِؼَاػرَنْػظَغِدِهِ"ػػػػ{ػ غودف.ػ65ػػ ػ (But she in whose house he was, sought to seduce him from his (true)self) (Ali, 1989: 558).
Allah the Almighty in this Quranic verse uses this euphemistic expression instead of the real name of the woman who seduced the Prophet Joseph ( )رضغـهػاضدـالمػػin order to present the purity of Joseph as well to make the name of such a guilty woman unknown ( ػ:1984ػ،ابنػاِّرغـر 63; 873 :0991 ، ;ططضوبػواضبصغر991 -947 :9111 ,) سغود.
Arabs have another use of '( 'اضصظاغـظػeuphemism) when they use it instead of something that is not mentioned before. Such a euphemism depends on the common knowledge of the H. This kind is used for the sake of beautifying speech as well as brevity. Moreover, the original expression can be known and inferred according to the background
135
knowledge between the S and H (993 :8391 ،)اضرطـػاضبي.The following Quranic verses may clarify this type of euphemism:
}26ػ:ػ"صُلُّػطَنْػرَضَغْؼَاػسَانٍ"ػػػػػػ{اضرحطن.ػ66ػ
( All that is (on earth will perish ) (Ali, 1989: 1475). }32ػ:ػػ"حَتَّىػتَوَا َرتْػبِاضِحِجَابِ"ػػػػػػػػػػػػػػػ{ص.67
( until (the sun) was hidden in the veil (of night) (ibid, 1225). }ػػ26ػ:ْػاضترَاشِيػ"ػ{ػػاضػغاطظ َّ عت َ َػػػ" صَضَّاػإِذَاػبَض.68ػ ( Yea, when (the soul) reaches to the collar-bone (in its exist)(ibid, 1652).
Here, the first euphemism refers to the earth which can be inferred according to the common fact that all the creatures over the earth are going to die since all the living creatures live on the earth. The second one refers to the sun which can be interpreted only by the hearers who are living at that time. The last euphemism refers to the soul of the human beings because when they are going to die, their souls will arrive, in the last moment of their life, at the collarbone. Thus, it is only the soul that can reach to this point according to the background knowledge between the participants of this speech. 136
The last important point of euphemism is its use for the sake of exalting the meaning of certain words in the spirits of the addressees. This exaggeration or exaltation of the meaning of the euphemistic expression is used to evoke, awaken and draw the addressees attention to such subjects as in the examples (58 and 61) (994 -991 :9111 ,)سغود.
137
Chapter Four Implicitness in Arabic-English Metaphor and Euphemism in the Glorious Quran Interpretations
4.0 Introduction
Implicitness as a linguistic phenomenon is viewed or represented via various linguistic devices (see chapter two and three). This representation is carried out by different levels, i.e. syntactic, semantic and pragmatic level. Consequently, the present chapter deals with those linguistic devices, i.e. metaphor and euphemism.
In this chapter, the two linguistic devices are treated in terms of their syntactic, semantic as well as their pragmatic construction in both languages (, i.e. Arabic and English). The sample of analysis consists of Glorious
Quranic
verses
in
Arabic
with
seven
interpretations
(translations) for each verse. These interpretations are done by Shakir, Yusufali, Pickthal, Zayid, Rodwell, Sarwar and Dawood.
138
Text.1 )إِنَّ ػاضَّذِغنَ ػغَِؾصُضُونَ ػأَطْوَالَ ػاضِغَتَاطَى ػظُضِطّا ػإِظَّطَا ػغَِؾصُضُونَ ػسِي ػبُطُوظِؼِمْ ػظَارّا ػوَدَغَصْضَوْنَػ.1 }01دَطِغرّا( ػ{اضظداءػ
"(As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies and they shall enter burning fire"[Shakir,4:10]. "Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies: They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!" [Ali, 4:10] "Lo! Those who devour the wealth of orphans wrongfully, they do but swallow fire into their bellies, and they will be exposed to burning flame"[Pickthal, 4:10]. “Those that devour the property of orphans unjustly, swallow fire into their bellies; they shall burn in the flames of fire”[Zayid, 4:10]. “Verily they who swallow the substance of the orphan wrongfully, shall swallow down only fire into their bellies, and shall burn in the flame![Rodwell, 4:10]. "Those that devour the property of orphans unjustly Swallow fire into their bellies; they shall burn in the flames of Hell"[Dawood,4:10]. "Those who wrongfully consume the property of orphans are, in fact, consuming fire in their bellies and they will suffer the blazing fire" “Those who wrongfully consume the property of orphans are, in fact, consuming fire in their bellies and they will suffer the blazing fire” [Sarwar, 4:10].
139
4.1.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.1.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The Glorious Quranic verse consists of the following syntactic (functional) components: 1. The agent „those’, ، ‟اضذغنis the subject. 2. The process ‘devour’, ‘swallow’, „eat up’, ، ‟غؾصضونis the verb. 3. The circumstance ‘shall’, ، ‟سis the adjunct since it refers to futurity in Arabic.
4.1.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
The verbs used in the Qura‟nic verse like swallow, devour, eat up in the ST are implicative verbs owing to the fact that they entail other meanings than those observed in the semantic content.
In most of the interpretations, (the researcher uses the
word
„interpretation‟ „ ‟اضتغدغرinstead of „translation‟ „‟اضترجطظowing to the fact that Allah‟s speech can not be translated but interpreted ) implicative pronouns are used, for example in Shaker‟s interpretation, more than one pronoun is used like those,who,they,their. This use of pronouns presupposes the implicitness of that language.
140
4.1.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
In the seven interpretations (the word interpretation is used through out this study instead of translation) anaphoric reference is repeatedly used through using „they‟ „their‟ to refer to „those‟. This riddled use of anaphoric referent pronouns is employed by Shakir, Yusufali, Pickthal, Zayid, Rodwell, Sarwar and Dawood interpretations. In brief, the syntactic implicitness overrides the TT than the ST. When reading the seven interpretations, it is clear how the first sentence paves the way to the other sentences. For example the second sentence in most of the interpretations relies on the construction of the first in all the elements such as the subject ‘those’ which is replaced by ‘they’ in the second and so on.
In accordance with the definition of Aziz (1998:91) for reference and its types, the Quranic text involves more than one type. The first use in the Quranic verse in the TT starts with the demonstrative pronoun ‘those’, thus, the English language prefers using implicit pronouns more than those used in Arabic language.
The second is the use of suffix pronoun in the Arabic verse „ ‟بطوظؼمwhich anaphorically refers back to „‟اضذغن. This reference is also applied in the English interpretation as ‘their bellies’„‟بطوظؼم.
141
4.1.2 Semantic Analysis 4.1.2.1 Literal Meaning
In applying the denotative or the referential meaning on the verse, it is clear that the expression „eat up a Fire’ „ ‟غؾصضون ػظاراdenotes the wrongful deed of the act of eating up the property of orphans „‟اليتامى. This declaration of prohibition„ ‟اضتحرغمis regarded as a direct threatening to those who has the intention for such a bad deed or action.
4.1.2.2 Connotative Meaning The ST expresses the denotation of the fact that Allah () the Almighty has asserted the idea of distributing the inheritance „ ‟اإلرثto the nearest relatives who are mentioned in the Islam or Quranic classification, for example the man„‟اضرجلshould have duplicated share as in
the
Quranic
verse„حظ ػاِّظثغغن
‟وضضذصر ػطثل.
In
brief,
the
connotative(general and semantic) meaning of ST asserts that the inheritance„‟اإلرثshould be distributed justly among relatives „ ‟اِّشرباءto deceased (8دطر،202ػصغحظػ،4جضد:)ػاضطغزان.
142
4.1.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT Semantically, the ST is composed of a set of expressions that produce a specific message. Any violation in the selection of the counter words of the TT would cause a violation in the semantic content of the original message. Let us take the verb „ ‟غؾصضونin the ST which is in turn replaced or interpreted by devour, eat up ,etc., in the TT. In this example, it is significant to gauge to what extent the interpreter has succeeded in fulfilling the same semantic content of this expression. In fact, one can not deny that the connotations of the word „ ‟غؾصضونin Arabic language are different from the connotations of the words devour, swallow, eat up, consume in the English language. This difference can be attributed to the miracle style that found in the language of the Holy Quran and the metaphor represented in this verse.
Metaphorically speaking, Glorious Quranic verse consists of three metaphoric terms or elements :object( henceforth :O ), image(henceforth : I)and ground( henceforth: G).That is to say, ‘those’ „ ‟اضذغنis the O and ‘eat up’ or ‘devour’ fire is the I of the metaphor .The speech act of threatening in the Quranic verse is the G in the sense that „those who swallow or devour‟ are just like those who steals or unlawfully takes the property of orphans. This type of metaphor is called „‟االدتطارةاضتصرغحغظ Tasrrihya (explicit) metaphor.
143
4.1.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.1.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning The explicit meaning of text (1) is explained in (4.2.1).The implicit meaning of the Holy verse is concerned with the incident of Fatima ( )عليهاالسالمin which the garden of Fadak has been deprived after the
departure of the Prophet () (00اضدطر،448اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،)ظورػاضثػضغن
4.1.3.2 Speech Act Type
In this text, the main speech act is promising „ ‟اضورد.This type of speech act commits the speaker(Allah ()) to some future course of action ,i.e., ‘fire’ „ ‟اضظارor ‘hell’ as a result of the action of consuming the property of orphans.
5.1.3.3. Text Analysis Strategy
The Holy Qura‟nic verse deals with the issue of distributing the property of deceased. This case is treated through the communication between Allah () and the Prophet (). The communication contains a heavenly law for Man in dealing faithfully with her/his relatives in the issue of property.
144
Text.2 )اضضّهُػوَضِيُّػاضَّذِغنَػآطَظُواِػغُ ْخرِجُؼُمػطؼنَػاضظُّضُطَاتِػإِضَىػاضظُّ ُورِػوَاضَّذِغنَػصَ َغرُواِػأوضغاؤعمػاضطَّازُوتُػ.2 }257ػػػغُ ْخرِجُوظَؼُمػطؼنَػاضظُّورِػإِضَىػاضظُّضُطَاتِ( {اضبػرةػ “Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness” [Shakir2:257]. “Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness” [Ali 2:257]. “Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness” [Pickthal 2:257]. “Allah is the supporter of the faithful. He leads them from darkness to the light. As for the unbelievers, their supporters are false gods, who lead them from light to darkness” [Zayid, 2:257]. “God is the patron of believers: He shall bring them out of darkness into light: As to those who believe not, their patrons are Thagout: they shall bring them out of light into darkness” [Rodwell, 2:257]. “Allah is the patron of the faithful. He leads them from darkness to the light. As for the unbelievers, their patrons are false gods, who lead them from light to darkness” [Dawood, 2:257].
145
“God is the Guardian of the believers and it is He who takes them out of
darkness into light. The Devil is the guardian of those who deny the Truth and he leads them from light to darkness” [Sarwar, 2:257].
4.2.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.2.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The metaphor in this Qura‟nic verse is analysed as shown in the following diagram: Agent (subject)(Allah())
Process (Predicate)
Circumstance (place or adjunct)
bring out
darkness into light
This diagram shows the syntactic structure of the sentence in terms of Halliday‟s functional grammar (1988:210-225). The agent (subject) is Allah () who brings out those believers to a better state in which they can
be
safer
and
eternally
live
in
paradise
.This
type
of
metaphor„ ‟االدتطارةis called „ ‟طصرحظ ػأو ػتصرغحغظ ػرظادغظTasrrihya or Musrraha in which two contrasting terms are put together to highlight the two states of Man „‟اإلظدان, i.e., the ‘light’ „ ‟اضظورand ‘darkness’ „‟اضظضطات. These two contrasting terms are used metaphorically to refer to ‘believe’ „ ‟اإلغطانand ‘disbelieve’ „‟اضصغر.
146
4.2.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns The presupposition –trigger (implicative) verb is ‘bring out’. It is implicative since it expresses metaphorically the act of bringing someone out of a certain place to another. This movement is done symbolically, i.e., those who disbelieve changed to believers in Islam owing to the fact that Islam as a religion is considered as a movement from darkness into light.
It is worth noting that the interpretations have applied more than one verb. For instance the verb „ ‟غخرجؼمis interpreted as ‘bring out or lead’, this diversity in the interpretation in the TT would cause an obstacle in the understanding of the reader of these interpretations. ػػ
4.2.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
In the present Glorious Quranic verse, the words ‘light’ „ ‟اضظورand ‘darkness’ „ ‟اضظضطاتhas been repeated twice for each. This repetition is cohesively used in the seven interpretations since there is a new information added to the verse.
Reference through pronouns as a cohesive device is repeatedly used in the ST. For example the suffix pronoun „ ‟هin „ ‟غخرجؼمrefers anaphorically to ػAllah (), thus, such a type of reference is applied to refer implicitly to the „agent‟ or the doer of the action. This process is
147
repeated in the second part of the sentence as in „ ‟أوضغاؤعمwhich anaphorically refers to „ِ‘ ‟اضَّذِغنَػصَ َغرُواand (as to) those who disbelieve’.
4.2.2 Semantic Analysis 4.2.2.1 Literal Meaning Literally, the Quranic verse means that Allah () is the master „ ‟وضيof the believers‟اضذغن ػاطظوا„ ػ.Therefore, Allah () exercises the authority over the man „ ‟اإلظدانwho is the slave of Allah ().
In the ST Allah () is the only master „ ‟وضيof those who believe. This word„ ‟وضيis interpreted differently in most of the seven interpretations, for instance Shakir interprets it as ‘guardian’; Ali as ‘Protector’; Pickthal as ‘Protecting Guardian’, etc. Such a variety in the interpretation refers to the difference in the understanding of the meaning of the ST.
4.2.2.2 Connotative Meaning
When checking the communicative value of the Quranic verse, one can find out the following intentions: 1. Allah () is the master „ ‟وضيof the believers. 2. Satan is the master „ ‟وضيof the disbelievers.
148
3. Allah () is the only power that has the ability to bring the Man „ ‟اإلظدانout of the darkness into the light. 4. An eternal fire or Hell „ ‟اضظارis the destiny of those who disbelieve in Allah ().
4.2.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
In applying the same procedures, the choice of words or lexical entries should be precise as much as possible. This preciseness could be achieved by choosing the most appropriate expression in the TT. To a certain extent, this appropriateness is achieved in certain areas and misachieved in others. For example the words ‘darkness’ „ ‟اضظضطاتand ‘light’ „ ‟اضظورare interpreted successfully. On the other hand, the choice of the word „ ‟وضيis foggy since most of the interpretations have not agreed upon one word in the TT such as master, Protector, Protecting Guardian, etc.
However, it is worthnoting that the type of the metaphor„‟االدتطارة of the ST is called „ ‟طصرحظػأوتصرغحغظرظادغظTasrrihya or Musrraha.
149
4.2.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.2.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
The intended meaning of the Qura‟nic verse lies in the fact that there is a demarcation line between the ‘light’ „ ‟اضظورand ‘darkness’ „‟اضظضطات,i.e., the difference between the white „right‟ and the black „devil‟ . These two areas are governed by certain rules or principles which have been given by Allah (). In case of violating any of these principles, this will lead to darkness and in turn to hell or fire „‟اضظار. (01دطر،363صغحظ،2جضد،)اضطغزان
According to ( اضبرعان01دطر،522صغحظ،0)جضد, ‘light’ „ ‟اضظورmeans the house of the Prophet „()( ‟أل ػاضردول), while ‘darkness’ „‟اضظضطات means or refers to their foe „‟ردوعمػأوػطبعضؼم.
4.2.3.2 Speech Act Type According to Searle‟s (Ibid) classification of speech acts, this Qura‟nic verse implicates two speech acts, promising „ ‟اضوردand threatening „‟اضورغد. It is a promise in the sense that Allah () has promised those who believe by bringing them out of the darkness „‟اضظار
150
into light „‟اضجظظ.On the other side, Allah () has given a threat to those who disbelieve that Satan will lead them to darkness „‟اضظارػأوػجؼظم.
4.2.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
Pragmatically, each speech between a speaker and a hearer should include communication. The present Qura‟nic verse is a communication between Allah () and the addressee who is Man „‟اإلظدان. This communication is contextually and formally expressed at one time. It is formally expressed in the sense that Allah () has the great power to tell his slaves how to behave or live truly. It is also contextually expressed, since Allah () has the immense eloquence to tell his slaves in an indirect language to follow the Islamic rights and duties. This implicated style or language in telling the laws of Allah () has given the language of Glorious Quran another rhetorical feature. In terms of the elements of metaphor, ‘master’ „ ‟وضي, ‘light’ „ ‟اضظورand ‘darkness’ „ ‟اضظضطاتare the I and
the
believers
and
the
(01دطر،363صغحظ،2جضد،)اضطغزان.
151
disbelievers
are
the
G
Text.3 ب ػارْحَطْؼُطَا ػصَطَا ػرَبَّغَاظِي ػصَعِغرّا(ػ ػر ؼ َّ )وَاخْغِضْ ػضَؼُطَا ػجَظَاحَ ػاضذُّلؼ ػطِنَ ػاضرَّحْطَظِ ػوَشُل.3 }24{االدراء “And make
yourself
submissively gentle to them with compassion,
and say: O my Lord! have compassion on them, as they brought me up (when
I
was)
little”
[Shakir
17:24].
“And , out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say : "My Lord ! bestow on them thy Mercy even as they cherished me inchildhood"”[Ali17:24]. “And lower unto them the wing of submission through mercy, and say : My Lord ! Have mercy on them both as they did care for me when I was little”[Pickthal 17:24]. “Treat them with humility and tenderness and say: „Lord be merciful with them. They nursed me when I was an infant” [Zayid, 17:24]. “And defer humbly to them out of tenderness; and say, “Lord, have compassion on them both, even as they reared me when I was little” [Rodwell, 17:24]. “Treat them with humility and tenderness and say: „Lord, be merciful to them. They nursed me when I was an infant” [Dawood, 17:24]. “Be humble and merciful towards them and say, "Lord, have mercy upon them as they cherished me in my childhood" [Sarwar, , 17:24].
152
4.3.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.3.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
With the first look at the sentence in the ST and TT, it is easy to recognize that the subject is implied. This implication is clearly seen in the verb „ْ‘ ‟وَاخْغِضlower’ which at the same time anaphorically refers to ‘parents’. The following diagram draws vividly the syntactic picture:
Agent (subject) Man
Process(predicate)
Circumstance(object) Parents in
Being humble, gentle
old age
Syntactically, it is worthnoting that the subject in Arabic is recognized either by mentioning the subject directly or by verb inflection as in the present verb „ْ‘ ‟وَاخْغِضlower’.
4.3.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
One of the definitions of implicitness is to refer to an object with implicit words or expressions. In the present verse, the ST is riddled with reference pronouns that refer back (anaphoric reference) to preceding
153
noun phrases or nouns. For instance the pronoun „‘ ضَؼُطَاto them’, „towards them’ which all refer back to ‘parents’ „‟اضواضدغن. Thus, the noun phrase is realized implicitly through using personal pronouns. In the Arabic text, the personal pronoun „ ‟ضَؼُطَاis used to refer to dual number, whereas the English equivalent personal pronoun ‘to them’ is used to refer to two or more than two(i.e., plural).Consequently, the English language is more implicit than Arabic concerning this domain. The researcher prefers to replace the word „ ‟ضَؼُطَاby ‘both’ to give more acceptable interpretation. This technique could be applied also to another sentence within the same verse as in „ ‟ارْحَطْؼُطَاto be interpreted as ‘have mercy on both’.
4.3.1.3 Implicit Cohesion The present text is „pregnant‟, if one can say, with the cohesive devices. Let us take for example the two verbs „ْ‟وَاخْغِض,„‟ارْحَطْؼُطَا, these verbs implicate that two actions should be done by the Man whether a daughter or a son to their parents. This reference is cohesively done since it interweaves the parts of the holy verse.
When comparing the seven interpretations, one can conclude that some of the interpretations have replaced the verbs as in „ْ ‟وَاخْغِض,„‟ارْحَطْؼُطَا in the ST by adjectives in the TT as in Sarwar‟s interpretation ‘Be humble and merciful’. This process cold be justified on the bases of the difference of the two languages (i.e. either syntactic or semantic difference).
154
4.3.2 Semantic Analysis 4.3.2.1 Literal Meaning
The text deals with the idea of teaching Man, in general, how to treat his parents. This idea has been tackled by Allah () through of the Glorious book the Quran.
4.3.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The seven interpretations have dealt with the verse according to the expressive values of the words in the ST. These expressive values are decided by the overall meanings of the holy verse. The overall meaning dominates the minute details of the general meaning, i.e. the meaning of each word contributes coherently to the overall meaning of the text.
The connotative meaning of the Holy verse is realized through the whole Sura or parts of the Sura. It is well known for Muslims that some of the Suras are dealing with one topic, others include more than two. For example, the Sura of “Night Journey” deals with a number of topics. Each topic could be realized and understood according to the „textual situation‟.
155
4.3.2.2 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT Any interpretation of any literary text should account for the „local and global meaning‟ of the text (Haberlandt, 1993:1). The local meaning of the text is concerned with how Man behaves towards his parents, while global meaning is dealt with the overall meaning of the whole verse.
Metaphorically, the structure is explained as follows: 1. „animals or birds in general’ is the vehicle „‟ مستعارػطظه. 2. „Man‟ „ ‟اإلظدانis the tenor „‟طدتطارػضه. 3. „َ„ ‟جَظَاحthe wing’ is the ground „‟طدتطار. This kind of metaphor is called original (or Asliya) because it is built on a simile followed by another simile considered as the first.
4.3.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.3.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
Pragmatically, the Glorious verse covers a certain idea out of which meaning is filtered. The present utterance of the Glorious verse expresses the fact that the behaviour of Man should be governed by rules given by Allah (). These governing rules ought to be obeyed. (2دطر،403صغحظػ،3جضدػ،)اضبرعان
Allah () has ordered Man to be merciful, humble with his parents. This relationship is compared to the relationship between the tiny
156
bird and his mother, and how the tiny bird lowers his wings) to his mother to bring him the food (04دطر،84صغحظ،03جضد،)اضطغزان.
4.3.3.2 Speech Act Type
The type of the speech act is command because it orders Man to be merciful and humble to his parents.
4.3.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The application of the communication model leads to the following diagram:
Communication by Allah ()
Formal communication
contextual communication
(between Allah()and Man)
(depending on earthly examples )
literal meaning(explicit message)
non-literal meaning(implicit meaning)
Metaphoric Meaning Diagram (5): Text analysis strategy of Metaphoric meaning
157
Text.4 ضرٍػ ِ ُ) وَشَالَ ػاضِطَِضكُ ػإِظِّي ػَأرَى ػدَبْعَ ػبَ َػرَاتٍ ػدِطَانٍ ػغَِؾصُضُؼُنَّ ػدَبْعً ػرِجَافً ػوَدَبْعَ ػدُظبُ َالتٍ ػخ.4 (شَاضُواِػ43)وَأُ َخرَ ػغَابِدَاتٍ غَا ػأَغُّؼَا ػاضِطَألُ ػأَسِتُوظِي ػسِي ػرُؤْغَايَ ػإِن ػصُظتُمْ ػضِضرُّؤْغَا ػتَطْ ُبرُون }43-44 ( (ػ{غودف44)ََأضِعَاثُػأَحْالَمٍػوَطَاػظَحْنُػبِتَؾِوِغلِػاَِّحْالَمِػبِطَاضِطِغن “And the king said: Surely I see seven fat kine which seven lean ones devoured; and seven green ears and (seven) others dry :O chiefs! explain to me my dream, if you can interpret the dream(43) They said: Confused dreams, and we do not know the interpretation of dreams(44).”[Shakir 12:43-44]. “The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! Expound to me my vision if it be that ye can interpret visions (43) They said: "A confused medley of dreams: and we are not skilled in the interpretation of dreams." (44)” [Ali 12:43-44]. “And the king said: Lo! I saw in a dream seven fat kine which seven lean were eating, and seven green ears of corn and other (seven) dry.O notables! Expound for me my vision, if ye can interpret dreams (43) They answered: Jumbled dreams! And we are not knowing in the interpretation of dreams (44).” [Pickthal, 12:43-44]. “The king said :‟I saw seven fatted cows which seven lean ones devoured; and seven green ears of corn and seven others dry . O my nobles, tell me the meaning of this vision, if you can interpret visions” [Zayid, 12:43-44]. “ And the king said ,”Verily , I saw in a dream seven fat kine which seven lean devoured ; and seven green ears and other withered . O nobles,
158
teach me my vision, if a vision ye are able to expound” [Rodwell, 12:4344] “ the king said :‟I saw seven fatted cows which seven lean ones devoured; also seven green ears of corn and seven othersdry. Tell me the meanings of this vision, my nobles, if you can interpret visions” [Dawood, 12:43-44]. “(Sometimes later), the King dreamt that seven lean cows were eating seven fat ones and that there were seven green ears of corn and seven dry ones. He asked the nobles to tell him the meaning of his dream if they were able to (43) They replied, "It is a confused dream and we do not know the meaning of such dreams (44).”[Sarwar, 12:43-44].
4.4.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.4.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
Following the same procedure, the present Holy verse consists of the following components: 1. The agent (subject) is „ُ‘ ’اضِطَألO chiefs!‟. 2. The process (predicate) is „َ‘ ‟شَاضُواThey said’. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is futurity in the sense that it is an expectation (soothsaying).
The Glorious verse consists of three metaphoric elements. The O is the „ُ‘ ’اضِطَألO chiefs!‟ the I is „ُ‘ أ’َضِعَاثConfused dreams‟, and the G is the comparison between the dreams and the ‘jumbled or confused dreams’ which refers to a bundle of grass tied together as one package. 159
4.4.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
The main implicative verb in this metaphoric Glorious verse is the noun „ُ‘„ ’أَضِعَاثConfused dreams‟ which refers to the action of packaging a bundle of grass to constitute one main bundle. On the other hand, the pronoun „„ ‟أَغُّؼَاO‟ which cataphorically refers to „ُ‘ ’اضِطَألO chiefs!‟ implicates the collective meaning of all the „ُ„ ’اضِطَألchiefs’. The other pronoun is in the verb „„ ‟أَسِتُوظِيexplain to me’ in which the infix „ ‟ونwhich refers to a group of people.
4.4.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The ST is enriched with cohesive words or alternative words. For example, the words „‘ ‟ضِضرُّؤْغَاthe dream’ and „ِ„ ‟اَِّحْالَمdreams‟ which both refer to two different notions. That is to say, the word „َ ‟ضِضرُّؤْغاcan be interpreted as ‘vision’, while the word „ِ„ ‟اَِّحْالَمcan be interpreted as „dreams‟. These two words should be interpreted differently because they denote two distinct concepts or meanings. The use of two different words in the ST made it more cohesive than the TT which has replaced them by the same word.
Cohesion as a concept in the TT has been violated in some of the interpretations because they have replaced the two words „ ‟ضِضرُّؤْغاand 160
„ِ ‟األَحْالَمby the word „dreams‟. Thus, the word „ ‟ضِضرُّؤْغاshould be interpreted as „vision‟, while the word „ِ ‟اَِّحْالَمshould be interpreted as „dreams‟.
4.4.2 Semantic Analysis 4.4.2.1 Literal Meaning Semantically, the word ‘ُ„ ’أَضِعَاثConfused dreams‟ or „Jumbled dreams‟ refers to a bundle of grass. The Glorious verse has compared between a bunch of grass and a number of dreams. This comparison is based on the collectivity of both concepts, i.e. the bunch of dreams and grass or plants (7:::0002،)أداضغبػاضبغانػسيػاضػرآن.
The explicit meaning of the Holy verse , according to the soothsayers of the king ,is that what he has seen is a mere false dreams and related to the psychological state of the king himself. (7دطر،308ػصغحظ،ػ4جضد،)اضصذاف
5.4.2.2. Connotative Meaning
The connotative meaning of the Glorious verse is described in terms of the values of the words of the Glorious verse as a whole or as one entity. It expresses the fact that there is a difference between „‟اضرُّؤْغا
161
‘vision’ which is a true fact (,i.e. is going to happen) and
„ِ‟اَِّحْالَم
„dreams‟ as described by „ُ ’اضِطَألwhich is a false one. This difference between two ideas is visible for the Muslim reader but foggy for the nonMuslim. The meaning of the Glorious verse is based on the „seven lean cows were eating seven fat ones’.
4.4.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
When comparing both texts, i.e. the ST and TT, one can conclude the unplanned replacement of the words of the ST into the TT. For example the word ‘ُ„ ’أَضِعَاثConfused dreams‟ has been interpreted differently. This difference can be justified on the bases that per interpretation has its own meaning or explanation on which it is based. In the researcher‟s point of view Pickthal‟s interpretation is the most successful one in describing this concept. From a metaphoric point of view, the V and T is „ُ‘ ’َأضِعَاثConfused dreams’ and the G is the comparison between ‘dreams’ and ‘ُ‟أَضِعَاث because both are referring to a collection. This type of metaphor is entitled Original Tasrrihya metaphor „‟االدتطارةػاضتصرغحغظػاِّصضغظ
162
4.4.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.4.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning The Glorious verse refers to the expectation of the ‘visions’ of the king for the seven years of poverty These ‘visions’ are not mere ‘dreams’ as „ُ‘ ’اضِطَألO chiefs!‟ describes them, but they are true coming incidents that are going to take place (9دطر،213صغحظ،00جضد،)اضطغزان.
4.4.3.2 Speech Act Type The whole verse can be entitled under the heading of „a warning speech act in which the speaker ‘the king’ warns the hearer to a coming danger, i.e. poverty.
4.4.3.2 Text Analysis Strategy According to ( اضصاذف7دطر،308 ػصغحظ، ػ4جضد،) the dreams are the reason behind the relief of the Prophet Yusuif () from the prison he was in. The Holy text is a message sent by Allah () to the community of Yusuif () as a warning.
163
Text.5 صرُونَ(ػ ِ ْظرُونَ ػإِضَ ْغكَ ػوَعُمْ ػالَ ػغُب ُ )وَإِن ػتَدْرُوعُمْ ػإِضَى ػاضِؼُدَى ػالَ ػغَدْطَطُواِ ػوَ َترَاعُمْ ػغَظ.4 } 189{اِّرراف “And if you invite them to guidance, they do not hear; and you see them looking towards you, yet they do not see”[Shakir 7:198]. “If thou callest them to guidance, they hear not. Thou wilt see them looking
at
thee,
but
they
see
not”[Ali
7:198].
“And if ye (Muslims) call them to the guidance they hear not; and thou (Muhammad) seest them looking toward thee, but they see not”[Pickthal 7:198]. “ If you call them to the right path , they will not hear you .You find them looking towards you , but they can not see you” [Zayid , 7:198] “ And if ye summon them to “ the guidance ,” they hear you noy: thou seest them look towards thee “ but they do not see !” [Rodwell , 7:198]. “If you call them to the right path, they will not hear you. You find them looking towards you, but they can not see you”[Dawood , 7:198]. “(Muhammad), if you invite them to the right guidance, they will not listen to you. You will see them looking at you but they do not really see” [Sarwar, 7:198].
4.5.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.5.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The functional structure of the sentence can be drawn as follows: 1. The agent (the subject) is the Prophet Muhammad ().
164
2. The process (the predicate) ‘looking at you’ ‘َظرُون ُ ’غَظ. 3. The circumstance (the adjunct) is in the present tense.
It is clear that the subject can be concluded according to the textual information available in the preceding or following Glorious verses in which the Prophet is mentioned.
4.5.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns The main implicative and metaphoric verb is the verb „َظرُون ُ ‟غَظ „looking‟. The textual use of the verb implicates another meaning than the original one, i.e. the true meaning of the verb „َظرُون ُ ‟غَظis „َصرُون ِ ْ‟الَػغُب.
On the other side, the metaphoric verse contains referent pronouns to the disbelievers. For example the verb ‘looking’ „َظرُون ُ ‟غَظincludes the suffixes „َ ‟ونwhich is the plural use of the verb. The second one is the demonstrative
pronoun„ْ‟وَعُمwhich
refers
anaphorically
to
the
disbelievers. The third reference is in „َصرُون ِ ْ‟غُب, i.e. the suffix „َ ‟ونwhich refers again to the disbelievers.
4.5.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The Glorious verse is riddled with the cohesive devices. The first device is the use of the referential pronouns. That is to say, the verbs such
165
as ‘looking’ „َظرُون ُ ‟غَظor „see‟ „َصرُون ِ ْ ‟غُبto which suffix pronouns are added. The other referent pronouns are like „ْ ‟عُمand „َ ‟إِضَ ْغكwhich both refer to two different persons ,i.e. the pronoun „ْ ‟عُمrefers to the disbelievers ,while „َ ‟إِضَ ْغكrefers to the Prophet Muhammad () .
4.5.2 Semantic Analysis 4.5.2.1 Literal Meaning
When analysing the explicit (semantic) meaning, one can conclude the following meanings:
1. There is an invitation or a call to the true path or guidance (for disbelievers). 2. There is no real response from those who disbelieve to the call of the Prophet (). 3. They are looking at him physically but spiritually can not see him.
4.5.2.2 Connotative Meaning
Broadly, the Glorious verse contains contrasting values of the words or expressions. It is contrasting since it involves the two processes of „looking at physically‟ and spiritual inability to see at the same time. These contradictions add another connotative feature to the ST. Such a feature makes it difficult for the non-Muslim reader of the Glorious
166
Quran grasps the implicit meaning behind this Glorious verse. This difficulty has been well-handled by Sarwar‟s interpretation because he interprets the Glorious verse „ِ ‟الَػغَدْطَطُواas ‘they will not listen to you ’, and „َصرُون ِ ْ ‟الَػغُبas ‘but they do not really see’ .The point of success lies in the wording of the interpretation in which specific words are put to help the non-Muslim reader to recognize the true meaning of the Glorious verse.
4.5.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
To have an equivalent interpretation, there should be semantic equivalent counterparts in the selection of expressions of the TT. In the present Glorious verse, the semantic and metaphoric equivalence are unrecognizable since the semantic features of the words of both languages are unavailable. For instance the words ‘looking’ „َظرُون ُ ‟غَظor „see‟ „َصرُون ِ ْ ‟غُبhave two different semantic features (see 5.5.2.2) which should be taken into consideration when interpreted.
On the metaphoric side, there is a failure in the recognition of the metaphor represented in the ST. This failure lies in the difficulty in giving a similar metaphoric construction in the TT. In other words the interpretations, in general, have not been successful in fulfilling this part because the words of the ST have specific features that are not available in the TT. The type of the present metaphor is called „Tasrrihya Tabaaiya‟ „‟االدتطارةػاِّصضغظػاضتبطغظ.
167
4.5.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.5.3.1 Non- Literal Meaning
The implicit meaning of the Glorious verse refers to the fact that the Glorious Quran has compared between those who disbelieve and the statues they worship. The point of comparison is that the disbelievers and these statues are neither see nor hear what is around them. (0دطر،436صغحظ،3جضد،)اضصاذف
4.5.3.2 Speech Act Type
The type of speech act is decided by the intention of the speaker, i.e. Allah (). The intended speech act in this Glorious verse is warning in the sense that the Glorious verse is warning them against the coming danger.
4.5.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The text is a communication that is contextually realized because it is related to the community of the Prophet Muhammad (). The disbelievers are hearing the calls of the Prophet but with no response. Thus, the verse has compared them to the statue they worship.
168
Text.6 }002( سَؾَذَاشَؼَاػاضضّهُػضِبَاسَػاضِجُوعِػوَاضِخَوْفِ)ػ{اضظحل.6 “therefore Allah made it to taste the utmost degree of hunger and fear”[Shakir16:112]. “so Allah made it taste of hunger and terror (in extremes) (closing in on it)
like
a
garment
(from
every
side)”[Ali16:112].
“so Allah made it experience the garb of dearth and fear”[Pickthal 16:112]. “Therefore, He afflicted them famine and fear as a punishment” [Zayid, 16:112]. “God therefore made her taste the woe of famine and fear” [Rodwell, 16:112]. “Therefore He afflicted them with famine and fear as a punishment” [Dawood, 16:112]. “He caused them to suffer hunger and fear” [Sarwar, 16:112].
4.6.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.6.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
Syntactically, the Glorious verse can be explained as follows: 1. The agent (subject) is Allah (). 2. The process (predicate) is „afflicted‟ „‟سَؾَذَاشَؼَا. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the past tense as seen in the verb „afflicted‟ „‟سَؾَذَاشَؼَا.
169
4.6.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns The implicative verb is „afflicted‟ „‟سَؾَذَاشَؼَا. It is implicative in the sense that it implicates the meaning of tastiness and unsafe state. The verb „afflicted‟ „ ‟سَؾَذَاشَؼَاcompares between injury and tastiness, i.e. the bitter taste in the mouth of Man. Additionally, the suffix pronoun in „ ‟سَؾَذَاشَؼَاrefers cataphorically to the village mentioned in the Sura.
4.6.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The main cohesive expression is the implicative use of the verb ‘afflicted‟ which means tastiness, and the noun „garb‟ „َ ‟ضِبَاسwhich means clothes or wear. This talent in using two dissimilar words in meaning to give one same meaning is cohesively done in the ST. While this concept is either neglected or omitted in the TT. In some of the interpretations. For example Zayid‟s interpretation has omitted the word „َ ‟ضِبَاسin the interpretation. On the other side, the same interpretation has added a new word to the TT which is „punishment ‟. The researcher‟s view is that the noun „punishment ‟ is put to add stronger effect to the verb ‘afflicted‟.
170
4.6.2 Semantic Analysis 4.6.2.1 Literal Meaning
The explicit meaning of the Glorious verse refers to an action done by Allah (). This action contains two subsections which are „hunger‟ and „fear‟. The Glorious verse refers to a village which was having a number of graces given by Allah () like safety and food. The people of that village were not thankful to Allah‟s () graces and gifts. Thus, Allah () has punished them by ‘fear’ and ‘hunger’. ( ػ02 ػاضجضد،اضطغزان 06اضدطرػ،387اضصغحظػ،)
4.6.2.2 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT In Shakir‟s interpretation the word for word interpretation is employed. That is to say, he has paid attention for each single word, thus, the interpretation has come to meet most of the successful points. In Ali‟s interpretation, there are additive phrases or clauses that are put between two brackets to add more meanings to the interpretation. In Pickthal‟s interpretation, it is invisible that the interpreter has replaced the words of the ST by words that are not similar in meaning like „ِ ‟اضِجُوعby „dearth‟,i.e. both words are different in meaning. The only justification for Pickthal‟s choice is that one of the words is the cause „ِ ‟اضِجُوعof the other „dearth‟.
171
Metaphorically, the type of the metaphor of the Glorious verse is called Free „‟اضطجردة. It is called Free „ ‟اضطجردةbecause there is no exaggerated feature added to it (the metaphor).The V and the T is the act of „tasting‟, and the G is „َ‟ضِبَاس.
4.6.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.6.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning The implicit meaning refers to a village near to a river called ALThirthar. The people of this village were living in safety and a great subsistence. Additionally, Allah () has sent them a Prophet to invite them to believe in Allah () but they refused this invitation. Thus, Allah () has punished them by hunger and fear for seven years. (06اضدطر،387اضصغحظ،02اضجضد،)اضطغزان
4.6.3.2 Speech Act Type In this Glorious verse Allah () has warned and punished the people of the village. Thus, the whole speech act is a matter of warning.
4.6.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy The Glorious verse talks about a message sent by Allah () to the community of that village. The message contextually explicated in the
172
sense that the Glorious verse is related to a particular village which can be Makka.
Text.7
)(أُوْضَـِئكَ ػاضَّذِغنَ ػاذِ َترُوُاِ ػاضضَّالَضَظَ ػبِاضِؼُدَى ػسَطَا ػرَبِحَت ػتؼجَارَتُؼُمْ ػوَطَا ػصَاظُواِ ػطُؼْتَدِغن.7 }06{اضبػرةػ “These are they who buy error for the right direction, so their bargain shall bring no gain , nor
are they
the
followers
of the right
direction”[Shakir2:16]. “These are they who have bartered Guidance for error: But their traffic is profitless,
and
they
have
lost
true
direction”[Ali
2:16].
“These are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, so their commerce doth not prosper, neither are they guided”[Pickthal 2:16]. “Such are those that barter away guidance for error : they profit nothing” [Zayid , 2:16] . “ These are they who have purchased error at the price of guidance : but their traffic hath not been gainful neither are they guided at all”[Rodwell , 2:16]. “ Such are those that barter away guidance for error : they profit nothing , nor are they on the right path”[Dawood , 2:16]. “They have traded guidance for error, but their bargain has had no profit and they have missed the true guidance” [Sarwar, 2:16].
173
4.7.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.7.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The Glorious verse can be analysed as shown in the following points: 1. The agent (subject) is „such‟ and „those‟ „َ‟أُوْضَـِئكَػاضَّذِغن. 2. The process (predicate) is „buy‟ „‟اذِ َترُوُا. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the past tense since the Glorious verse is in the past tense taking into consideration the fact that the Glorious Quran is workable continuously.
4.7.1.2 Implicative verbs and Pronouns The implicative verb is „barter‟ „ ‟اذِ َترُوُاwhich refers to the process of buying (explicitly).While implicitly, according to the implicative view, it means the replacement of something by another. The Glorious verse has referred to the process of replacing metaphorically „guidance for error’, i.e. it has used another word to refer to the process of buying.
On the other hand, the implicative verb itself involves an implicative pronoun or suffixes. In other words, the suffix „ ‟واin the verb ‘barter or bought‟ „ ‟اذِ َترُوُاanaphorically refers to „َ‟أُوْضَـِئكَػاضَّذِغن.The other implicative pronoun is „َ ‟أُوْضَـِئكwhich cataphorically refers to „َ‟اضَّذِغن.
174
4.7.1.3 Implicit Cohesion The main lexical cohesion in this Glorious verse is the cohesive use of the verb „barter‟ „ ‟اذِ َترُوُاto implicate another meaning other than the explicit meaning of the verb . This replacement is done cohesively in the sense that it fulfills the same role of the verb „replaced‟ which is the interpretation of the verb „bought‟.
45.7.2 Semantic Analysis 4.7.2.1 Literal Meaning
Explicitly, the Glorious verse describes those who buy or barter the guidance for error. This type of description is a criticism for the process of buying the good for the bad, i.e. the white for the black. Then, the Glorious verse describes such process as a losing trade or definitely a losing operation (4اضدطر،55اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،)اضصاذف.
4.7.2.2 Connotative Meaning When checking the expressive value of the words of the Glorious verse, it is vivid that it compares between preferring error for the right path. The Glorious verse considers the buying process (which is an abstract process) as a trading act (which is a concrete process)(Ibid).
175
4.7.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
Semantically, the seven interpretations have employed different expressions for one meaning. That is to say, the choice of the words differs from one interpretation to another. For instance, the verb „‟اذِ َترُوُا is interpreted differently as in Shakir‟s interpretation „buy‟. Ali‟s interpretation as „purchase‟, and others as „barter‟. This difference in semantic choice is attributed either to interpretation on which the interpreter bases his interpretation on, or because of the stylistic difference.
The metaphoric construction is also influenced by such choices ,i.e. the metaphor in the TT is violated. In other words, the choice of the words in the ST is metaphorically influenced, whereas the choice of the words in the TT is only pragmatically influenced. This means that the metaphor in the TT is no there,i.e. for the purpose of the interpretive meaning. The present metaphor is called Nominated metaphor “اضطرذحظػ ”االدتطارة.
4.7.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.7.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
The implicit meaning of the Glorious verse refers to those who preferred the eternal Hell or Fire for the eternal paradise. It describes the hypocrite people who were in the right direction and changed to the wrong one. Those hypocrites are ready to do anything for the sake of their benefit (06اضدطر،019اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،)طواعبػاضرحطن. 176
4.7.3.2 Speech Act Type
The speech act in this Glorious verse can be under the heading of threatening „ ‟اضورغدfor those who replaced the belief in Allah () and the right path for the disbelief and error.
4.7.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The Glorious verse describes the state of those who preferred „error‟ „َ ‟اضضَّالَضَظfor
„„ ‟اضِؼُدَىGuidance‟. This description is highly
informative because of the good state in which they were living and replaced it by the bad. Thus, the result of such a step is the eternal Fire or Hell.
Text .8 ( (أُوضَـِئكَ ػاضَّذِغنَ ػاذِتَرَوُاِ ػاضضَّالَضَظَ ػبِاضِؼُدَى ػوَاضِطَذَابَ ػبِاضِطَعِ ِغرَةِ ػسَطَا ػأَصْ َبرَعُمْ ػرَضَى ػاضظَّار.9 }075{اضبػرةػ “These are they who buy error for the right direction and chastisement for forgiveness; how bold they are to encounter fire”[Shakir 2:175]. “They are the ones who buy Error in place of Guidance and Torment in place of Forgiveness. Ah! what boldness (They show) for the Fire! “[Ali 2:175]. 177
“Those are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, and torment at the price of pardon. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire!” [Pickthal 2:175] “Such are those that buy error with guidance , and torture with forgiveness” [Zayid , 2:175] . “ These are they who have bartered guidance for error , and pardon for torment” [Rodwell , 2:175]. “ Such are those that barter guidance for error and forgiveness for punishment .How steadfastly the seek the fire of Hell” [Dawood , 2:175]. “They have exchanged guidance for error and forgiveness for torment. What makes them seek the fire so earnestly (for they are doomed to be punished)?” [Sarwar, 2: 175 ].
4.8.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.8.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The
Glorious
verse
consists
of
the
following
functional
components : 1. The agent (subject) is „َ„ ‟اضَّذِغنthose‟. 2. The process (predicate) is „buy‟ „‟اذِ َترَوُا. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the past tense as manipulated in the verb „‟اذِ َترَوُا.
178
4.8.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
It is clear that the present Glorious verse is similar to the previous one (5.7.) but different in the type of the metaphor. Both „such‟ and „those‟ and „َ ‟أُوضَـِئكَػاضَّذِغنare referent pronouns. They refer to the subject ,i.e. disbelievers who replaced guidance for error and forgiveness for torture. The main implicative verb is „„ ‟اذِ َترَوُاbuy‟ or „purchase‟. The verb refers to the act of changing from guidance to error or from the right direction to the false path ,i.e. Fire.
4.8.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The Glorious verse is enriched with the contrasting pairs of words. These pairs are cohesively related to each other. For instance, the nouns „„ ‟اضِؼُدَىGuidance‟ and „َ„ ‟اضضَّالَضَظerror‟ are related to each other in the sense that they denote two states of dissimilarity.
179
4.8.2 Semantic Analysis 4.8.2.1 Literal Meaning
Explicitly, the Holy verse refers to the people who chose the guidance for error. They have moved from „ِ„ ‟اضِطَعِ ِغرَةforgiveness‟ to„َ„ ‟اضِطَذَابtorture‟ (7اضدطر،266اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،)اضصاذف.
4.8.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The expressive value of this Glorious verse lies in the fact that Allah () has threatened those who hide the truth for their private benefits, they will be eternally tortured in Hell or Fire. Consequently, hiding the truth means, according to Allah (), choosing the side of the enemies who are against Allah () and the Prophets ()صلى اهلل عليهن وسلن.
4.8.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
Both texts of the ST and TT are similar in certain aspects and dissimilar in others. They are similar in the literal choice of the words like „buy‟ „(‟اذِ َترَوُاin some of the interpretations) and „„ ‟اضِؼُدَىGuidance‟ and „َ„ ‟اضضَّالَضَظerror‟, while they are dissimilar in the type of the metaphor. The ST contains what is called Al-Tasrrihya metaphor (Al-Mutlaqa). This
180
type of metaphor neither the V nor the T have similar features, rather, there is another feature through which they are associated. That is to say, „َ„ ‟اضِطَذَابtorture‟ and „ِ„ ‟اضِطَعِ ِغرَةforgiveness‟ are not similar in meaning to each other directly but they represent two different states. This difference in both gives them the chance to be associated.
4.8.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.8.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning According to (اإلطام ػاضحدن ػاضطدصري04اضدطر،587اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،), the Holy verse talks about the praiseworthy feature of the Prophet ( ) and His family Ahl ul Bayt ()عليهن السالم. It is a threatening for those who hide these good features ,i.e. the moralities of the result of such an act is Hell.
4.8.3.2 Speech Act Type
The type of the speech act is „threatening‟ „‟اضورغد. It is a threatening for those who try to replace the good for the evil or „‟اضِؼُدَى „Guidance‟ for „َ„ ‟اضضَّالَضَظerror‟.
181
4.8.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The message has contextually come to warn those who buy guidance for error. It is contextual in the sense that the Glorious verse is related to certain incidents happened to the Prophet Muhammad () and his family Ahl ul Bayt (السالم
)عليهن.
Those who hide the praiseworthy
moralities of the Prophet () and Ahl ul Bayt (السالم
)عليهن
will be in an
eternal Fire (Ibid).
Text .9 }4 ( وَاذِتَطَلَػاضرَّأِسُػذَغْبّا) {طرغم.9 “and my head flares with hoariness” [Shakir 19:4]. “and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey” [Ali 19:4]. “and my head is shining with grey hair”[Pickthal 19:4]. “and my hear glows silver with age”[Zayid , 19:4] . “ and the hoar hair glisten on my head” [Rodwell , 19:4]. “and my head glows silver with age” [Dawood , 19:4]. “and my hair has turned white with age” [Sarwar, 2:16].
45.9.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.9.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The Glorious verse can be analysed as follows : 1.The agent (subject) is „age‟ . 2. The process (predicate) is „glows‟ or „glisten‟ „َ‟اذِتَطَل. 182
3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense.
It is worthnoting that the doer of the action of glowing or glistening the hair is age. The subject in the ST is hidden, whereas in the TT is mentioned.
4.9.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns „َ„ ‟اذِتَطَلglows‟ or „glisten‟ is the implicative verb of the Glorious verse. It is implicative in the sense that it hides another meaning than this denoted explicitly. In other words, „َ„ ‟اذِتَطَلglows‟ means that the hair got white because of age.
Considering pronouns, there are no pronouns of any type included in this Glorious verse.
4.9.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
Because of the condensed meaning in this Holy verse, the only cohesive word is the verb „ل َ َ„ ‟اذِتَطglows‟. It is cohesive since it is a metaphorized expression which implicates the meaning of whiteness ,i.e. just like the flames of fire spreaded in the head (hair). The Holy verse addressed the „head‟ as one entity that includes the hair only (,i.e. the whole for the part).
183
4.9.2. Semantic Analysis 4.9.2.1. Literal Meaning
The Glorious verse expresses the fact that the speaker got old. This verse describes metaphorically the age state of the speaker who is the Prophet Zakariyya () (6اضدطر،786اضصغحظ،2اضجضد،)اضططغن.
4.9.2.2 Connotative Meaning The Glorious verse denotes the idea that the „head‟ „ُ ‟اضرَّأِسas a part of the body has got white. This description contains the concept how the flames of the fire spread in different directions ,i.e. the white hair is in everywhere in the „head‟ „ُ‟اضرَّأِس.
5.9.2.3. Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
Semantically, the interpretations try to fulfill interpretive meaning of the Glorious verse. This trial ranges between explicit and implicit meaning. That is to say, the interpreters try to compromise between the meanings of the Glorious verse. However, the interpretations have tackled the point of meaning semantically so as to mediate between the expression and the meaning it denotes.
Having recognized how the semantic construction is built, the metaphoric structure is part of it. In other words, the process of making the metaphor is integrated with the process of choosing the required 184
expression. This type of metaphor in Arabic is called Al-khassya „ ‟االدتطارةػاضخاصغظin which the comparison is based on the „strangeness‟.
4.9.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.9.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
The intended meaning of the present Glorious verse is multiple. According to (6اضدطر ػ،320 ػاضصغحظ ػ،3اضجضد،)ظور ػاضثػضغن, it refers to the Prophet Ibrahim () who asked Allah () about one white hair in his head, the answer of Allah () has come to him to tell him that it is a sign of dignity .Another interpretation is that it is an implicit request from the Prophet Zakariyya () to Allah () to give him a child because he was barren (Ibid).
4.9.3.2 Speech Act Type
The Glorious verse declares the speech act of request since it is an implicit requestive act by the Prophet Zakariyya ().
4.9.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy The Glorious verse is a dialogue between Allah () and the Prophet Zakariyya ().
185
Text .10 }22 )صَ َتبَػسِيػشُضُوبِؼِمُػاضِؿِغطَانَ({اضطجادضظػ.10 “these are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith” [Shakir 58:22]. “For such He has written Faith in their hearts” [Ali 58:22]. “As for such, He hath written faith upon their hearts” [Pickthal 58:22]. “Allah has written the faith in their very hearts” [Zayid , 58:22]. “On the hearts of these hath God graven the faith” [Rodwell , 58:22]. “ Allah has inscribed the faith on their very hearts” [Dawood , 58:22]. “God has established faith in their hearts” [Sarwar, 58:22].
4.10.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.10.1.1 Sentence Structure of Metaphoric Text
The Glorious verse can be described as in the following points: 1. The agent (subject) is Allah (). 2. The process (predicate) is „َ„ ‟صَتَبhas written‟. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present perfect tense as in „has written‟. The subject is implicitly mentioned in the verb „َ‟صَ َتب.
186
4.10.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns The verb „has written‟ „َ ‟صَ َتبis the main implicative verb in the Glorious verse. It refers implicitly to another action than writing ,i.e. it is a spiritual writing done by Allah () .
The second part of the Glorious verse contains an implicative pronoun as in „ُ ‟شُضُوبِؼِمwhich refers to those who have great faith in Allah ().
4.10.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The attractive point of cohesion lies in the implicative use of the verb „written‟ „َ ‟صَ َتبwhich describes the degree of faith in the hearts of the believers. When checking the seven interpretations, it is quite clear that the interpreters have interpreted the Glorious verse differently. For example Shakir‟s interpretation starts with „these are they‟,Ali‟s one starts with „For such‟ and Pickthal starts with „As for Such‟. This variety in interpretations can be due to the variety in the understanding of the meanings of the Glorious verse.
187
4.10.2 Semantic Analysis 4.10.2.1 Literal Meaning The Glorious verse talks about the state of the believers in Allah () and the Prophet ().The verse describes the „Faith‟ of those believers .Allah () has given them the energy of their believing which is the true faith in Allah () and the Prophets (). Those believers have been given the wide-mind and supported by the spiritual power. (02اضصغحظػ،669اضدطرػ،4ػاضجضدػ،)جواطعػاضجاطع
4.10.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The Glorious verse expresses the idea of the true belief or faith of the Muslims. The choice of words in the interpretation is done explicitly. In other words, the interpreters have chosen their expressions depending on the surface structure of the expressions in the ST. Such an interpretation should take into consideration the meaning of the original expressions of the ST. For example the interpreter can modify or add words to the interpretation as in the researcher‟s interpretation „As for such He has deeply written faith upon their hearts‟. Here, the word „‟deeply adds another point of strength to the interpretation to show the degree of faith.
188
4.10.2.3 Semantic and Metaphoric Equivalence of ST and TT
Looking for equivalence means looking for a twin interpretation. However, semantic equivalence of ST can be achieved easily, whereas pragmatic equivalence is difficult to be achieved. The present Glorious verse is interpreted word for word equivalence with some difference in the structure of TT. This difference in structure is ascribed to the difference in both languages.
On the other side, metaphoric equivalence is problematic since it is related to the cultural difference between ST and TT. This type of metaphor is called „sensory metaphor‟ػادتطارةػحدغظ.
4.10.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.10.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning In ( اضتبغان02اضدطر،556اضصغحظ،9)اضجضد, the Glorious verse refers to Muslims who strongly believe in Allah () and love the Prophet (), and Ahl ul Bayt (السالم
)عليهن.
According to اضتبغانAllah () has put a
certain feature (i.e. deep faith) in the hearts of the believers to be distinctive among Muslims.
189
4.10.3.2 Speech Act Type
The Glorious verse expresses the speech act of „promising‟ „‟اضورد. Allah () has promised those who worship Allah () and obey the Prophets () that they will be in an eternal paradise.
4.10.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The Glorious verse is considered as a message to Muslims to be deeply faithful in Allah () and the Prophets () sent by Allah (). One can conclude that worshiping Allah () and obeying the Prophets () is a kind of winning trade.
Text .11 }087ذرُوعُنَّػوَابْتَعُواِػطَاػصَ َتبَػاضضّهُػَضصُمْ) {اضبػرة ِ ػػػ(ػسَاآلنَػبَا.11 “so now be in contact with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you” [Shakir 2:187]. “so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you” [Ali 2:187]. “So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you” [Pickthal 2:187]. “Therefore, you may lie with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you” [Zayid , 2:187]. 190
“Now, therefore , go in unto them with full desire for that which God hath ordained for you” [Rodwell , 2:187]. “Therefore, you may lie with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you” [Dawood , 2:187]. “Now it is lawful for you to have carnal relations with your wives and follow what God has commanded” [Sarwar, 2:187].
4.11.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.11.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
The euphemistic verse can be analysed as follows: 1. The agent (subject) is „men‟. 2. The process (predicate) is „َّذرُوعُن ِ „ ‟بَاbe in contact‟. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense.
In fact, the subject of the Glorious verse is implicit, i.e. it can be concluded depending on contextual understanding of the whole Sura.
4.11.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
The Holy verse contains two implicative verbs. The first one is „َّذرُوعُن ِ „ ‟بَاassociate‟ which implicitly refers to the sexual process of intercourse. The second one is „ِ„ ‟وَابْتَعُواseek‟ which implicitly refers to the aim behind the process of sexual intercourse as Allah ( ) has ordained Man.
191
The second implicative part is the pronoun „them‟ „َّ ‟عُنin „ِ‟ابْتَعُوا which refers cataphorically to „men‟.
4.11.1.3 Implicit Cohesion The ST has been formulated in a way that makes it cohesive because it is contextually understood. That is to say, the choice of the words of the Holy verse is based on a contextual data available in the preceding and following verses. For example the present Holy verse is preceded by the following Holy verse}087أُحِلَّ ػَضصُمْ ػضَغْضَظَ ػاضصؼغَامِ ػ({اضبػرة ْ)اضرَّ َسثُػإِضَىػظِدَؽئِصُم, thus, there is a pre-introductory verse for the Holy verse in question. The euphemistic expression اضطصطضّّ ػاضصظائي
itself is a
cohesive tool in the sense it decorates the Glorious verse and it adds an aesthetic aspect.
4.11.2 Semantic Analysis 4.11.2.1 Literal Meaning
Explicitly, the Glorious verse represents an invitation to do something ,i.e. Allah () has invited „men‟ specifically to do a certain act at a specific time because there are advantages and disadvantages behind such a process. Thus, Allah () has given in this Glorious verse, the excuse or the green light for Muslims to have or act their private act with their wives or husbands.
192
4.11.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The
verb
„َّذرُوعُن ِ ‟بَا
„associate‟
is
a
euphemistic
expression ,meaning, „intercourse‟ which has expressive connotation in such a religious text, thus, Allah () has replaced the word of „intercourse‟ by „َّذرُوعُن ِ ‟بَاto avoid the unpleasant connotation of the word „intercourse‟ „‟اضجطاع.
4.11.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
Semantically, the TT texts vary in the choice of the words that are supposed to be equivalent to ST. For instance the verb „َّذرُوعُن ِ ‟بَاis replaced by „be in contact‟ „intercourse‟ , „hold‟ „lie‟,etc, therefore .it seems an uneasy act or job to choose the righteous word for the verb „َّذرُوعُن ِ ‟بَاbecause the verb „َّذرُوعُن ِ ‟بَاhas certain connotation that should be taken into account when interpreting it .
The type of the euphemism used in this Glorious verse is called „‟اضصظاغظ ػرن ػاضطوصوف. The original expression is „‟اضجطاع, whereas the euphemistic expression is „َّذرُوعُن ِ ‟بَا.
193
4.11.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.11.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning The Glorious verse expresses one of the laws given by Allah () in the month of Ramadhan . In this month, Muslims fast during the day and at night they are allowed to eat and to have sexual intercourse. (7اضدطر،43اضصغحظ،2اضجضد،)اضطغزان
4.11.3.2 Speech Act Type The Glorious verse expresses the speech act of „command‟ which comes under the heading of directives group. The speech act involves the commander who is Allah () and the receiver or „obeyer‟ who is Man.
4.11.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy Actually, the Glorious verse represents a communication between Allah () (the sender) and the public (the receiver). The Glorious text is a message from Allah () to obey His orders in the month of Ramadhan wherein certain laws are given by Allah () which all should be obeyed.
194
Text .12 }29ػػػ(وَضَاػتَجْطَلْػغَ َدكَػطَعِضُوضَظّػإِضَىػرُظُ ِػكَػوَضَاػتَبْدُطِؼَاػصُلَّػاضِبَدْطِػ) {االدراء.12 “And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth” [Shakir 17:29]. “Make not thy hand tied (like a niggard's) to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach” [Ali 17:29]. “And let not thy hand be chained to thy neck nor open it with a complete opening” [Pickthal 17:29]. “Be neither miserly nor prodigal” [Zayid , 17:29]. “And let not thy hand be tied up to thy neck; nor yet open it with all openness” [Rodwell , 17:29]. “Be neither miserly nor prodigal” [Dawood , 17:29]. “Do not be stingy nor over generous” [Sarwar, 17:29].
4.12.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.12.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
The Glorious text is analysed into the following components: 1. The agent (subject) is „Man‟ „‟اإلظدان. 2. The process (predicate) is „ْ„ ‟تَجْطَلmake‟, „„ ‟تَبْدُطِؼَاstretch‟. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense.
195
It is notable that the present Glorious verse consists of two euphemistic expressions, i.e. „ّ ‟طَعِضُوضَظand „‟تَبْدُطِؼَا.
4.12.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
There are two implicative verbs. The first one is given the form of a noun „ ‟طَعِضُوضَظwhich originally refers to the verb „‟غعل, meaning, being miser. The second implicative verb is „ ‟تَبْدُطِؼَاwhich means the wasting. Allah () has euphemized the two acts of misery and waste ,i.e. has used two euphemistic expressions „ ‟طَعِضُوضَظand „ ‟تَبْدُطِؼَاin place of „ ‟اضبخلand „‟اضتبذغرػأوػاإلدراف. When comparing the ST with the TT, it is clear that the interpretation has used different words for the same expression or meaning .This difference can be justified on the basis of the connotation value each expression has. The Glorious verse contains two referent pronouns as in „َ ‟غَ َدكand „َ‟رُظُػِك. They refer to Man who is considered the caliphate of Allah ().
4.12.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The Glorious verse has provided two states for the use of hand „euphemistically‟. That is to say, Allah () has talked about using the
196
hand as a tool for either extra giving (wasting) or refusing (misery) to give money. These two states are related to one topic or idea wherein Allah () has ordered Man to avoid them and to be mild or moderate.
4.12.2 Semantic Analysis 4.12.2.1 Literal Meaning
The explicit meaning of the Glorious verse lies in the idea that Man should neither shackle his hand to his neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost. This overt meaning can be concluded with the first look at the Glorious text, i.e. Allah has ordered Man to avoid both (misery and waste).
4.12.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The expressive value of the words of the Glorious verse lies in the connotations of per word. For instance the sentence „ّ‟وَضَاػتَجْطَلْػغَ َدكَػطَعِضُوضَظ refers to misery state, whereas the sentence „ِ ‟وَضَاػتَبْدُطِؼَاػصُلَّػاضِبَدْطrefers to the wasting state.
197
4.12.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
The semantic equivalence can be achieved only if the ST and TT are formulated in a way that the semantic features and the pragmatic intentions are fulfilled. Such aim is unachievable in the Glorious Quran owing to the fact that it is the miracle of Allah (). Thus, it is only possible to make as much as possible a semantic equivalence.
However, the present interpretations are divided into two groups. The first group tries to fulfill the semantic equivalence like Shakir, Yusufali, Pickthal and Rodwell. The second group tries to fulfill the meanings of the Glorious verse like Zayid and Dawood. Therefore, most of the available interpretations are neither capable of achieving the semantic features nor the pragmatic intentions, i.e. the intended meaning of the ST. This type of euphemism is called „ ‟اضصظاغظػرنػاضصغظػاضططظوغظ.
4.12.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.12.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
The implicit meaning of the Glorious verse is about the warning of Allah () against two states, i.e. misery and waste. Thus, money, according to Allah‟s () laws, should be exploited in the right direction or
path,
i.e.
to
be
given
(09اضدطر،471اضصغحظ،6اضجضد،)اضتبغان.
5.12.3.2. Speech Act Type 198
to
the
poor
people
The main communicative speech act behind this Glorious verse is the „warning‟ against misery and waste.
4.12.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy Communication by Allah ()
Misery
Waste
Euphemistic Meaning
Diagram (6): Text analysis strategy of Euphemistic meaning
The Glorious verse tells Muslims how to exploit their money in the right direction. Man, according to the Glorious Quran is the caliphate of Allah () on earth, thus, Man is supposed to work to the prosperity of earth and to serve Allah () goals.
199
Text .13 }3-1 :)" {اضحاشظ3(ُ)وَطَاػأَ ْدرَاكَػطَاػاضِحَاشَّظ2(ُ)طَاػاضِحَاشَّظ0(ُ)ػػػاضِحَاشَّظ.13 “The sure calamity!(1) What is the sure calamity!”(2) And what would make you realize what the sure calamity is!(3) [Shakir 69:1,2,3]. “The Sure Reality!(1) What is the Sure Reality?(2) And what will make thee realise what the Sure Reality is?”(3) [Ali 69:1,2,3]. “The Reality!(1) What is the Reality? (2) Ah, what will convey unto thee what the reality is!(3)” [Pickthal 69:1,2,3]. “The Truth;(1) and what is the Truth?(2) What would make you realize what the Truth is ?(3)” [Zayid , 69:1,2,3]. “THE INEVITABLE !(1) What is the Inevitable?(2) And who shall make thee comprehend what the Inevitable is?(3)” [Rodwell , 69:1,2,3]. “The Truth;(1) and what is the Truth?(2) What would make you realize what the Truth is ?(3)” [Dawood , 69:1,2,3]. “The Inevitable! (Day of Judgment) (1) What is the Inevitable? (2) Would that you knew (in detail) what the Inevitable is! (3).” [Sarwar, 69:1,2,3].
4.13.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.13.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
The Holy text can be analysed as follows: 1. The agent (subject) is Allah ().
200
2. The process (predicate) is the coming of „sure calamity‟ . 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense which refers to the „Day of Judgment‟.
4.13.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns Clearly, the Glorious verse contains the verb „َ„ ‟أَ ْدرَاكrealize‟. The verb is used as a tool of asking about the „Day of Judgment‟. The verb is also used implicitly in the sense that it is employed with the implicative noun „sure calamity‟ „ُ‟اضِحَاشَّظ.
The implicative pronoun which refers to Man is in the verb „‟غدري.The pronoun „ ‟اضصافis used exophorically to refer to Man who is the receiver of the question and the Glorious Quran.
4.13.1.2 Implicit Cohesion The Glorious verse contains a cohesive repetition of the word „sure calamity‟ „ُ ‟اضِحَاشَّظwhich is used as an assertive tool. Allah () has emphasized this „Day‟ because it is the day in which all people are counted.
201
4.13.2 Semantic Analysis 4.13.2.1 Literal Meaning ‘sure
calamity’
„ُ‟اضِحَاشَّظaccording
to
اضطغزان
(26اضدطر،374اضصغحظ،5)اضجضد means the warning against the coming of the torture of Allah ( ).The main
evidence
of
such
interpretation
is
the
Glorious
verse
()وحاق ػبال ػسررون ػدوء ػاضطذاب.Another interpretation, according to اضصاسي (3اضصغحظ،207اضدطر،5)اضجضد, refers to the hour in which all facts are realized and it is obligatory to be known by Man.
4.13.2.2 Connotative Meaning The connotative meaning of the word „calamity‟„ُ ‟اضِحَاشَّظrefers to the absolute Truth (, i.e., the coming of the dooms day).This Truth refutes all other false stories about the inexistence of such day. The Glorious verse presents a rhetorical question about the unawareness of Man.
4.13.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT The ST is riddled with the repetition of the word „calamity‟„ُ‟اضِحَاشَّظ. On the other side, the TT has imitated this repetition but with different equivalents. For example the same word „ُ ‟اضِحَاشَّظis interpreted as „sure calamity‟,„Reality’, „Truth’ and ‘Inevitable‟. This variety can be justified
202
on the basis that each interpretation has a certain meaning about the euphemistic expression „ُ‟اضِحَاشَّظ. Consequently, the interpretation has come with different equivalents for the same word. According to ()اضصاسي, the euphemistic expression „ُ ‟اضِحَاشَّظmeans „Reality ‟, thus, the interpretation which involves the word „Reality‟ is more reliable than the ones that contain the word „sure calamity‟ which means „ ‟ظصدظor „‟صارثظ. The right meaning of the expression „sure calamity‟ is „Day of Judgment‟. This type of euphemism is called „‟اضصظاغظػرنػاضظدبظ.
4.13.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.13.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning ( اضطغزان05اضدطر،53اضصغحظ،21 )اضجضدasserts that „ُ ‟اضِحَاشَّظmeans the „Day of Judgment‟. The use of the interrogative sentence is mainly used to exaggerate this day. Then, the Glorious verse refers to the ignorance of Man of this great day which is described in many Glorious Quranic verses like ( )غوم ػتذعل ػصل ػطرضطظ ػرطا ػأرضطتor (غوم ػغغر ػاضطرء ػطن ػأخغه ػوأطه ػ )وأبغهػوصاحبتهػاضتيػتؾوغه.
4.13.3.2 Speech Act Type
203
The Glorious verse indicates the speech act of „threatening‟ „‟اضورغد for those who are unaware of the „Day of Judgment‟.
4.13.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The Holy text is a message sent by Allah () in its contextual form. In other words, it refers to the community of the Prophets of Thamoud and Aad (). That is to say, the contextual (implicit) information is necessary to interpret the Glorious verse. It is a communication between the sender Allah () and the receiver Man.
Text .14 A. (Innuendo) اضتطرغض ( شَالَ ػبَلْ ػسَطَضَهُ ػصَبِغرُعُمْ ػعَذَاػ62)ُ ) شَاضُوا ػأَأَظتَ ػسَطَِضتَ ػعَذَا ػبِؽضِؼَتِظَا ػغَا ػإِ ْبرَاعِغم.14 }ػ26-63( ( {اِّظبغاء63)َسَادْؾَضُوعُمْػإِنػصَاظُواػغَظطِػُون “They said: Have you done this to our gods, O Ibrahim? (62) He said: Surely (some doer) has done it; the chief of them is this, therefore ask them, if they can speak. (63) ” [Shakir 21:62-63]. “They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Abraham?" (62) He said: "Nay, this was done by - this is their biggest one! ask them, if they can speak intelligently!"(63)”[Ali21:62-63]. “They said: Is it thou who hast done this to our gods, O Abraham? (62) He said: But this, their chief hath done it. So question them, if they can speak. (63)” [Pickthal 21:62-63].
204
“„Abraham‟ , they said , „was it you who did this to our deities?‟ (62) „No‟, he replied . „It was their chief who smote them. Ask them , if they can speak‟. (63)” [Zayid , 21:62-63]. “They said , “Hast thou done this to our gods , O Abraham ?” (62) He said , “Nay, that their chief hath done it : but ask ye them , if they can speak.” (63) ” [Rodwell 21:62-63]. “ „Abraham‟ , they said , „was it you who did this to our deities?‟ (62) „No‟, he replied . „It was their chief who smote them. Ask them , if they can speak‟. (63) ” [Dawood , 21:62-63]. “They asked, "Abraham, did you do this to our idols?"(62) He replied, "I think the biggest among them has broken the smaller ones. Ask them if they are able to speak".(63)” [Sarwar, 21:62-63].
4.14.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.14.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
The euphemistic Glorious verse is analysed as shown in the following : 1. The agent (subject) is the Prophet „Abraham‟. 2. The process (predicate) is „breaking the deities‟. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the past tense since the incident happened in the age of the Prophet Abraham ().
4.14.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
205
The implicative verb in the Holy verse is „َ„ ‟سَطَِضتdid‟ which means breaking the deities „‟بِؽضِؼَتِظَا. The verb „„ 'سطلdone‟ is used implicitly in the Glorious verse to refer to the act of breaking „our deities‟ „‟بِؽضِؼَتِظَا. Allah () has implied the action of Abraham () ,i.e. the action of breaking has been described contextually because the contextual information which refers to verb „َ„ ‟سَطَِضتdid‟ is available in the preceding Holy verse as in „‟تاػاضضهػالصغدنػأصظاطصم, the verb „ ‟اصغدنrefers implicitly to the act of breaking the deities. Implicative pronouns are introduced in the noun „ ‟آضِؼَتِظَاwhich refers to the deities of the community of Namroud who disbelieved in Allah () as the only God.
4.14.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The main cohesive tool in the Glorious verse is the use of the verb „َ ‟شَالwhich is used alternatively between the Prophet Abraham ( ) and the disbelievers in the Sura .The verb „َ ‟شَالis used by the speaker as well as by the hearer mutually .Moreover, the subject of the sentence is included in the verb „َ ‟شَالas in „ ‟شَاضُواas an implicit reference to the speaker of the speech.
4.14.2 Semantic Analysis 4.14.2.1 Literal Meaning
206
Explicitly, according to ( اضصاذف4اضدطر،286اضصغحظ،5)اضجضد, the Glorious verse represents a dialogue between the Prophet Abraham () and the disbelievers in his community. They ask him whether he has broken their gods, he answers „ask them if they can speak‟.
4.14.2.2 Connotative Meaning
The connotations of the expressions used in the TT do not give the same amount of information given by the ST. This could be due to the difference in the expressive value of the words used in the ST from those used in the TT. For instance the verb „„َ ‟سَطَِضتhas certain values which might be unavailable in the equivalent verb of the TT in „done‟ .This difference will influence on the meaning of the whole verse as one entity giving one specific intention.
4.14.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
Semantically, the ST has been interpreted differently in the TT. That is to say, some interpretations have transferred the speech directly, others indirectly. This variety in the way of representing the same Glorious verse may violate the semantic as well as the euphemistic equivalence.
207
Euphemistically, one can say that the part of the Glorious verse is transferred successfully, the other part is transferred unsuccessfully. The successful part lies in the fact that the TT interpretations have represented the overt (explicit) meaning successfully, whereas the implicit meaning is ignored or neglected. This type of euphemism is called ػ‟اضصظاغظػبارتبار اضودائط.
4.14.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.14.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
The Glorious verse presents the story of the Prophet Abraham () against the gods or idols of his community. Abraham () broke all their idols into pieces except their chief .When they came back from a day of festivity, they found their idols lying and broken on the floor. After that, they brought Abraham () and asked him if it was he who did that with their gods. Abraham () pointed to the chief idol, left intact by him, and asked them to find out the truth from him. This argument is an innuendo in itself since it urges them to think of the fact that their idols can neither harm nor they can benefit from.
4.14.3.2 Speech Act Type The speech act is „threatening‟ for those who worship another god than Allah ().
208
4.14.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The Glorious verse is about a message sent by Allah () by means of the Prophet Abraham () to the people of Namroud. Namroud was worshiped as a god by his followers. Abraham () has argued with them to tell them how wrongful they are by worshiping the idol and the disbeliever Namroud instead of Allah ().
Text .15 B. (Wave) ّّاضتضوغ }4) وَطَاػجَطَلَػَأزْوَا َجصُمُػاضضَّائِيػتُظَا ِعرُونَػطِظِؼُنَّػأُطَّؼَا ِتصُمْ( {اِّحزابػ.15 “nor has He made your wives whose backs you liken to the backs of your mothers as your mothers” [Shakir 21:62-63]. “nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers”[Ali21:62-63]. “nor hath He made your wives whom ye declare (to be your mothers) your mothers” [Pickthal 21:62-63]. “He does not regard the wives whom you divorce as your mothers.” [Zayid , 21:62-63]. “neither hathe he made your wives whom ye divorce to be as your mothers.” [Rodwell 21:62-63].
209
“He does not regard the wives whom you divorce as your mothers.” [Dawood , 21:62-63]. “God does not consider your wives whom you renounce by zihar as your mothers” [Sarwar, 21:62-63].
4.15.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.15.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
The Glorious verse functionally consists of the following components: 1. The agent (subject) is „men‟ „‟اضرجال. 2. The process (predicate) is „you liken‟ „َ‟تُظَا ِعرُون. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense.
4.15.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns „you liken‟ „َ ‟تُظَا ِعرُونis the implicative verb in the Glorious text. It is implicative because it has an implicit meaning which is „divorce‟ „‟اضطالق. Allah () has not declared explicitly the word „divorce‟ by giving a soft word which is „َ ‟تُظَا ِعرُونinstead of using „‟تطضػون. In other words, the main purpose behind using the euphemistic expression in such religious texts is to make a socially unacceptable topics mentionable.
4.15.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
210
Avoiding the repetition in the same Glorious verse is considered a cohesive technique. For instance Allah (), has refereed to „ُ ‟َأزْوَاجَصُمin the second place as „َّ‟طِظِؼُن,i.e. by using the personal pronoun „ ‟عن. This technique is violated by repeating the word „mothers‟ in two places in the interpretation.
Another lexical cohesion device is the euphemistic use of the verb „َ ‟تُظَا ِعرُونwhich refers to the „wives‟ when they are divorced. That is to say, Allah () has warned Muslims against divorcing.
4.15.2 Semantic Analysis 4.15.2.1 Literal Meaning The explicit meaning of the Glorious verse refers to the convention which has been spread in the Islamic period. At that time, „men‟ used to divorce their wives in a way that makes them unable to remarry. Allah () has rejected such an idea or tradition because it causes a number of problems for women such as scarcity or poverty.
45.15.2.2 Connotative Meaning The Glorious verse expresses the fact that Allah () has warned „men‟ „ ‟اضرجالto make their wives as their mothers, i.e. to make them neither still their wives nor divorced. This idea has been spreaded among
211
Arabs before the coming of Islam. After that, Allah () has told Muslims to avoid such convention by divorcing them to let women be free.
4.15.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
The semantic equivalence of ST is different from one interpretation to another. For example Zayid‟s and Dawood‟s interpretations are similar to each other in the choice of the semantic representation. While Rodwell‟s interpretation has been made on the basis of negating the idea of the Holy verses, i.e. the other interpretations have started with positive start. Rodwell‟s one has started with negation by using the word „neither‟. In brief, the semantic equivalence varies from one interpretation to another.
Dealing with euphemistic equivalence, it is clear that this equivalence is violated or deformed since the euphemistic structure in the TT is not transferred because of using explicit or direct notions instead of using euphemistic ones.
4.15.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.15.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning
The implicit meaning of this Glorious verse is related to the story of Zayid‟s adoption. This man has been adopted as a son by the Prophet Muhammad (). He was a slave and bought by the Prophet in the market. He married his cousin but later he said to his wife Zainab, you are as my 212
back to me as my mother. Allah () has ordered the Prophet to marry Zainab to make her avoid poverty .Some disbelievers tried to say how the Prophet () can marry the wife of his adopted son Zayid. The answer for such claim has come from Allah () that the marriage of the Prophet is legitimate because Zayid is an adopted son and he returned to his true father (09اضدطر،303اضصغحظ،8اضجضد،)اضتبغان.
4.15.3.2 Speech Act Type The Glorious verse represents the speech act of „warning‟ to Muslims against going such acts that are related to the pre-Islamic period.
4.15.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
Formally (explicitly) the Glorious verse represents one of the laws that tackle the social side of the Muslims life. Contextually (implicitly), the Glorious verse represents indirect reference to a social case in which the life between the man and his wife is arranged by certain laws.
Text .16 C. (Hinting) اإلغطاء ) وَاتْلُػرَضَغْؼِمْػظَبَؾَػظُوحٍػإِذْػشَالَػضِػَوْطِهِػغَاػشَوْمِػإِنػصَانَػصَ ُبرَػرَضَ ْغصُمػطَّػَاطِيػوَتَ ْذصِغرِيػ.16 }70بِؽغَاتِػاضضّهِ ػ( {غوظس
213
“And recite to them the story of Nuh when he said to his people: O my people! if my stay and my reminding (you) by the communications of Allah” [Shakir 10:71]. “Relate to them the story of Noah. Behold! he said to his people: "O my people, if it be hard on your (mind) that I should stay (with you) and commemorate
the
signs
of
Allah”[Ali,10:71].
“Recite unto them the story of Noah, when he told his people: O my people! If my sojourn (here) and my reminding you by Allah's revelations” [Pickthal ,10:71]. “And recount to them the tale of Nuh.He said to his people : „O my people , if it is hard on you that I should dwell in your midst and preach to you Allah‟s revelations” [Zayid , 10:71]. “Recite to them the history of Noah, when he said to his people, -If, O my people! my abode with you, and my reminding you of the signs of God. ” [Rodwell , 10:71]. “Recount to them the tale of Noah. He said to his people: „if it offends you that that I should dwell in your midst and preach to you Allah‟s revelations.” [Dawood , 10:71]. “(Muhammad), tell them the story of Noah who told his people, "Even if my belief and my preaching of the revelation of God” [Sarwar, 10:71].
4.16.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.16.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text The Glorious verse is analysed as follows: 1. The agent (subject) is the Prophet „Muhammad ().
214
2. The process (predicate) is „Recite‟ „ُ‟وَاتْل. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense.
4.16.1.2 Implicative Verbs and Pronouns
There is no implicative verb in the Glorious verse (ST) but there is an implicative noun „‟طَّػَاطِي, while in the TT there is an implicative verb which is „dwell‟ in some of the interpretations like Zayid and Dawood ones. The verb in the ST is considered as a hinting euphemism in which the maker points to a certain meaning with little means. Implicative pronouns are used as in „ْ ‟رَضَغْؼِمand „‟رَضَ ْغصُم. These two pronouns refer to the disbelievers in the people of the Holy Prophet Noah ().
4.16.1.3 Implicit Cohesion
The Glorious verse is written in the style of telling a story or indirect speech. Usually, indirect speech consists of the speaker who tells the speech of someone else using the same words. In the present Glorious verse Allah () has applied the indirect speech technique but with some exceptions. The main exception, which makes the Glorious verse more
215
cohesive is that the speaker, who is Allah (), has told a story in which He is the speaker and the writer. In other words, the story of Noah‟s () people has happened according to Allah‟s will and wisdom.
4.16.2 Semantic Analysis 4.16.2.1 Literal Meaning Explicitly the Glorious verse tells the story of Noah‟s () people. They have rejected Noah‟s () call to worship Allah () as the only God. The Prophet Noah () has told them that he believes in Allah () and he is ready to accept Allah‟s () destiny. Noah () has also asked his people to do whatever they can since Allah () is on his side because he has a deep faith in Allah‟s () power. (9اضدطر،537اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،)اضططغن
4.16.2.2 Connotative Meaning Allah () has told the hearer (the Prophet Muhammad ()) to tell the story of the Prophet Noah ().It asks the receiver (the Prophet Muhammad ()) to refer to the people of the preceding Prophets and how they behaved towards their Prophets, i.e. positively or negatively.
216
4.16.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT
Semantically, the seven interpretations disagree about the first verb in the ST. Some of them start with „recite‟, others with „recount‟. However, to give an equivalent expression for the ST is absolutely a difficult task, rather it is possible to give nearer expressions that convey the same meaning of the ST.
On the other side, the euphemistic structure has been deformed or there has been a shift in the form of the original euphemistic expression which is „‟طَّػَاطِي. For example in some of the interpretations the noun „ ‟طَّػَاطِيhas been shifted into a verb like „dwell‟ in Dawood and Zayid interpretations, while this change or shift has not been found in Rodwell‟s, Shakir‟s and Pickthal‟s interpretations.
4.16.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.16.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning According to ( اضصاذف06اضدطر،078اضصغحظ،4اضجضد،), the Glorious verse asks the Prophet Muhammad () to tell the story of the Prophet Noah () to be a lesson for the disbelievers of Makka. With the beginning of Islam, the Prophet () has faced a number of difficulties in his invitation for the Islamic religion from the disbelievers of Makka. They have dared the Prophet and hurt him many times physically and spiritually, but Allah () has supported him.
217
4.16.3.2 Speech Act Type The Glorious verse is a „threatening‟ „ ‟الوعيدspeech act in which Allah () has threatened the disbelievers of Makka that their fate would be like the people of the Prophet Noah ().
4.16.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy
The Glorious verse has come to be in the form of a story to be told by the Prophet. Allah () has asked the Prophet Muhammad () to tell the Prophet Noah‟s () story to be a lesson for the disbelievers of Makka.
Text .17 D. (Symbol) اضرطز }40 ( أالػتصضمػاضظَّاسَػثَالَثَظَػأَغَّامٍػإِالَّػرَ ْطزّاػ( {آلػرطرانػ.07
“that you should not speak to men for three days except by signs” [Shakir 3:41]. “"Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals”[Ali, 3:41].
218
“that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three days except by signs” [Pickthal ,10:71]. “ „For three days and three nights, „He replied , „You shall not speak to any man except by signs ” [Zayid , 3:41]. “that for three days thou shalt speak to no man but by signs” [Rodwell , 3:41]. “„For three days and three nights, „He replied , „You shall not speak to any man except by signs” [Dawood , 3:41]. “"You must not speak to people for three days except with gestures” [Sarwar, 3:41].
4.17.1 Syntactic Analysis 4.17.1.1 Sentence Structure of Euphemistic Text
The Glorious verse can be analysed as follows: 1. The agent (subject) is the Holy Prophet Zakariyya (). 2. The process (predicate) is „should not speak‟. 3. The circumstance (adjunct) is the present tense.
4.17.1.2 Implicative verbs and Pronouns
There is no implicative verb in the ST but there is an implicative noun which is „‟رَ ْطزّا ػ. It is implicative because it means using sign to speak instead of speaking by mouth. Allah () has ordered the Prophet to speak to his people using signs as his only language. The implicative
219
euphemistic noun „ ‟رَ ْطزّا ػis also interpreted as a noun in the TT. It is an implicative noun since it is employed euphemistically to mean speaking to people using body gestures and facial expressions.
4.17.1.3 Implicit Cohesion The expression „َّ ‟إِالis repeated twice in the ST for two purposes. The first use is a negation for the verb „„ ‟تصضمspeak‟, The second use of „َّ ‟إِالis a positive and as an exception tool. That is to say, to avoid speaking except using signs.
4.17.2 Semantic Analysis 4.17.2.1 Literal Meaning The explicit meaning of the Glorious verse is to stop talking to people except using signs. These signs could be by using eyebrows, eyes and hands. Allah () has ordered the Prophet Zakariyya () not to speak and worship Allah () continuously.
4.17.2.2 Connotative Meaning
220
The Glorious verse consists of two processes. The first is to stop speaking to people for three days and the second is to communicate with people by using signs and worship Allah (), day and night.
4.17.2.3 Semantic and Euphemistic Equivalence of ST and TT Semantically, the verb „„ ‟أالػتصضمnot speak‟ is used in the way that can be used for the present and the future tense. It is wrong to interpret „ ‟أال ػتصضمas „you should not speak‟. „you will not speak‟ is the true interpretation because the Prophet will be totally occupied with remembrance and praise and glorification of Allah (), day and night. Thus, the action of the Prophet is continuous and in progress. This type of euphemism is called „ ‟اضصظاغظ بارتبارػاضودائط.
4.17.3 Pragmatic Analysis 4.17.3.1 Non-Literal Meaning In reply to Zakariyya‟s () request for a sign which could let him know that his wife was blessed with a child, the almighty Allah () has given him the sign that he would not have been able to speak to the people whilst being fully occupied with remembrance and praise and glorification of Allah (), day and night. (0اضدطر،300اضصغحظ،0اضجضد،)اضصاسي
221
4.17.3.2 Speech Act Type Allah () has „commanded‟ the Prophet Zakariyya () not to speak except by signs.
4.17.3.3 Text Analysis Strategy Contextually (implicitly), the ST refers to the story of the Prophet Zakariyya () owing to his request to know as to when a son will be born in spite of their (he and his wife) natural (physical) disability. Zakariyya () has asked Allah () to appoint a sign for him. The sign was not to speak except by signs for three days.
222
Chapter Five Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research 5.1. Conclusions After analysing some translated metaphoric and euphemistic Glorious verses in the Glorious Quran, the study has come out with the following conclusions:
1. Arabic language displays more implicitness than English in the sense that Arabic employs words (,i.e. the type of lexis) that denote implicated meanings as in metaphoric and euphemistic expressions. Thus, the first hypothesis has been validated. 2. The Glorious verses of the Glorious Quran (, i.e. in particular metaphoric and euphemistic verses) shows more implicitness than those Glorious verses in which there are no metaphoric nor euphemistic expressions (implicative verbs, nouns or pronouns). Consequently, the second hypothesis of literary texts has been verified. 3. The cultural background (,i.e. whether Muslim or not) of the translator of the Glorious Quran affects the type of the translation ,i.e. whether it is literal depending on explicit meaning (semantic representation) or nonliteral depending on implicit meaning (pragmatic intention). Therefore, the third hypothesis has been proved. 4. The semantic as well as the pragmatic level are the true displayers of the intended meaning owing to the conclusion that the choice of expressions
223
(semantic level) affects the intended meaning (pragmatic level) and This supports the fourth hypothesis. 5. Arabic metaphoric and euphemistic expressions have certain connotations that give them the ability to display more effective portraits than those in English. 6. In view of the analysed verses or texts, metaphor and euphemism as linguistic devices have not been transferred successfully by the translators. That is to say, the construction of the metaphoric and euphemistic verses should be built on choosing equivalent constructions that achieve the same influence on the TT reader (,i.e. non-Muslim). 7. Arabic and English languages display different types of metaphor and euphemism, in turn; the translator has to make a compromise in the process of shifting metaphor from ST to TT. 8. As a remedy for translators’ failure in giving equivalent metaphoric and euphemistic expressions, the translators are supposed to select equivalent expressions that achieve the same rhetoric effect as much as possible. 9. Some Glorious Quranic texts hide other meanings than those declared in the expressions used. In other words, some Glorious verses exhibit an explicit and implicit meaning. The translator has to make a compromise by translating (interpreting) the implicit Glorious verses (,i.e. that have implicative verbs, nouns and pronouns) in accordance with intended meaning, while the explicit Glorious verses in accordance with the explicit meaning (semantic representation).
224
5.2. Suggestions for Further Research The findings of this study could be reinforced by the following suggestions:
1. Carrying out a study about implicitness in English-Arabic literary texts. 2. Conducting a study that focus on the translation of implicit use of speech acts in the Glorious Quran. 3. Investigating implicitness in some translated political speeches or in some translated United Nations certifications.
225
1. English References
AAA-97.(1997).
Fall
Symposium
on
Context
in
Knowledge
Representation and Natural Language. November 8-10, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California. Abrams,M.(1957). A Glossary of Literary Terms. The Macmillan Company of India Ltd. Adler, J. (1987) „Comparisons with Grice‟. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 710–1 Ali, S.R. (trans.) (1971). Imam Ali: Nahjul Balagha :Sermons, Letters and Sayings. Qum: Foundations of Islamic: C.P.W. Apter, D. (1993). Political Discourse. http://www.yale.edu/ccr/apter.doc. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: OUP. Aziz, Y. (1993). „Explicit and Implicit Reference in Arabic-English Translation‟. In Babel. Vol.39, No.3, pp.129-50. (1998a). Topics in Translation : With Special Reference to English and Arabic. Garyounis: The University of Garyounis. (1998b). „Translation and Pragmatic Meaning‟. In Shunnaq, A.c Dollerup and M. Saraireh (eds.) Issues in Translation. Irbid: National University. pp.199-141. Bach, K. (1994). „Conversational impliciture‟. Mind and Language, 9, 124–62.Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
226
Bach,K. & Harnish, R.M.(1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bar-Hillel Y. (1954). Indexical Expressions. Mind 63: 359-379. Barns B. & Law J. (1976). Whatever Should Be Done with Indexical Expressions. In Theory and Society 3,223-237. Bassnett, S.(1998). Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge. Beeston, A.F.L. (1970). The Arabic Language Today. Oxford: OUP. Biber, D. (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, CUP. Black, M. (1979). „More about Metaphor‟. In Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, CUP. Blakemore, D. (1997). Restatement and exemplification : A relevance – Theoretic reassessment of elaboration. Pragmatics and Cognition 5: 1-19. Bolinger, D.(1980) Language, the loaded weapon: the use and abuse of language. London: Longman. Brown, p., & Levinson, S.C. (1979).‘Universals in language usage : Politeness phenomena‟. In : questions and politeness. Strategies in social interaction. E.N. Goody (ed.). Cambridge, CUP, 56-289. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (ed.). 155-81.Reprinted in S. Davis (ed.). 3351.
(1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 309-330.
227
(1998).Pragmatics and the Explicit-Implicit Distinction. University College London PhD thesis. To be published by Blackwell , Oxford. Chandler,D. (2003). Semiotics. London: Routledge. Chomsky, N (1977). Essays in Form and Interpretation . Amsterdam : North Holland. Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: CUP. (2003) Meaning, Expression, and Thought. New York:CUP. Dawood, N. J. (1988)The Koran. England: Penguin Books Ltd. Dekker, P. (1998).‘Speaker‟s reference ,description and information structure‟. Journal of Semantics, 15:301-330, 1998. Dewaele, J.-M.(1995).Style-shifting in oral interlanguage: Quantification and definition. In The Current State of interlanguage , L. Eubabk, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (eds.). Amsterdam-Phiadelphia, John Benjamins, p.231-238. (1996a). „How to measure formality of speech? AModel of Synchronic Variation. In : Approaches to second language acquisition. Jyaskyla Cross-Language Studies 17, K. Sajavaara & C.Fairweather (ed.), Jyaskyla, 119-133. (1996b). „Variation dans la composition lexicale de styles oraux,
I.R.A.L.
International
Review
of
Applied
Linguistics.
ΧΧΧІV/4,261-282. (1998a). „The effect of gender on the choice of speech style‟. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics.p.119-120,1-17
228
(2000). „Gender, social and situational variables in the choice of speech style in native Dutch. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium, 2000, April 2000, Bristol. Dewaele, J.-M. & Furnham, A. (2000).„Personality and Speech Production: A pilot study of second language learners‟. Personality and Individual Differences. p.28,355-356. Digman, J.M. (1990). „Personality Structure : Emergence of the Fivefactor Model. Annual Review of Psychology. P.41: 417-440. Duff, A. (1981). The Third Language. U.K.: Pergamon. Eugene,E.L.(2004) What is a euphemism? URL:http://www.indiana.edu/ anthling. Frege, G. (1952). On sense and reference. In P.T. Geach and M.Black (eds.) translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford : Blackwell, pp.56-78. Gazdar, G. (1979a). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press. Gill, A. & Oberlander,J. (2002). Taking care of the linguistic features of extraversion. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p. 363-368. (2003). Perception of e-mail personality at zero-acquaintance: Extraversion takes care of itself; Neuroticism is a worry. In Proceedings of the 25 Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, p. 456-461. Givon, T. (1985). „Function, structure and language acquisition‟. In : The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol, 1, D.I. Solbin (ed), Hillsdale , Lawrence Erlbaum, 1008-1025.
229
Grant, R. O. (1991). „The Hermeneutical Spiral‟. A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Illinois: Downers Grove. p.103. Green, M. S. (1995).„Quality, volubility, and some varieties of discourse‟. Linguistics and Philosophy. p.18, 83–112. (2002). Review of Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory, by Wayne A. Davis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.p. 65, 241–4. Grice, H. P. (1957) „Meaning‟. Philosophical Review. 66, 377–88. (1975).Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press .pp. 22-40,49-73. (1981).Presupposition and conventional implicature. In P.Cole.(ed.), Radical Pragmatics,183-98 . New York : Academic Press. (1989a) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press. Gudykunst, W. & S. Ting-Toomey (1988).Culture and interpersonal communication. Sage :CA, Newbury Park. Haberlandt, K. (1993). Understanding Mutual Models and Inferences. Harford: Trinty College Press. Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York, Anchor Press. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan , R. (1980).Cohesion in English. London :Longman. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, INC. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London :Longman. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, INC. Hatim, B.(1997). Communication Across Cultures. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
230
Hawkes, T.(1972). Metaphor. London and New York: Methuen. Heylighen, F. (1999) „Advantages and limitations of formal expressions‟. In Foundations of Science, 4:1, p.25-56. Holder, R.W.(2003).„How to Say What You Mean‟. In A Dictionary of Euphemisms. Oxford: OUP. Holman, C. Hugh (1985). A Handbook to Literature. (4th edn.) Indiana : Bobbs-Merrill. Horn, L. R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph. D. Thesis, UCLA Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hugh, R. (1995).A Dictionary of Euphemism & Other Doublespeak. 2nd (ed.). ISBN 0517702010. Justin, J.(1999). Getting a Grip on the Message. Ljubljan, slovenia. The School Field ,vol.x, No ½, pp.89-100. Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited . In U.Conner & R.B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing Across Languages : Analysis of L2n text (pp.76-107).Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Karttunen, L. & Peters,S. (1979).Conventional Implicature. In Oh & Dinneen (1979:1-56). Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1986). L‟implicite. Paris : Armand Colin. Kreuzer, L.R. (1955) Elements of Poetry. New York : The Macmillan Company. Lakoff, G. & Jonson, M. (1980).Metaphors We Live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
231
Leech, G. (1969) A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. U.K.: Longman Group Ltd. (1981). Semantics, (2 nd edn.,) Harmondsworth: Penguin. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd. (1996b). Pragmatics. Hong Kong: OUP. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989).Speaking From intention to interaction. Cambridge: Mass, MIT press. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics . Cambridge: CUP. (2000).Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mann, William, C., Christian, M.I.M. Mathiessen & Thompson, S.A. (1992).‟Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis‟. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. (ed.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.p.40-71. Matthews, C.M. (1979) Words. London: Lutterworth Press. Mazzie, C.A. (1987). „An experimental Investigation of the Determinants of Implicitness‟. In Spoken and Written Discourse, Discourse Processes.p.10,31-42. Newmark, P. (1982). Approaches To Translation. Oxford: Pergamon. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. U.K.: Prentice Hall. Nida, E. & C. Taber (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Nowottny, W. (1962). The Language Poets Use. London : The Athlone Press. Palmer,F.R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
232
Pennebaker, J.W. & King, L. (1999). ‘Linguistic styles : Language use as an individual difference‟. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,1296-1312. Pickthal, M. (1986). The Meaning of the Glorious Qur‟an: Text and Explanatory Translation. New Delhi: Taj Company. Prince, E.F. (1981). „Toward a Taxonomy of Given /new information‟. In : Radical Pragmatics ,P. Cole (ed), New York, Academic. Quintilien, M,F. (1975-78). Institution orative .Les belles letters, Paris, IΧ,2. Recanati,F. (1989). The Pragmatics of what is said .Mind and Language 4: 295-329.Reprinted in S. Davis(ed.). 97-120. (1993).Direct Reference : From Language to Thought. Oxford : Blackwell. Richards, I.A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London : OUP. Rodwell, M.A. (trans.)(1948). The Koran. Great Britain: at the Temple Press. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. In The Philosophy of Language, 2nd edn., ed. A. P. Martinich, pp. 203–11.. From Mind. Oxford: OUP.P. 14: 479–493. Sarwar,M.(trans.)(2005).The
Holy
Quran.
http://www.nagaf.org/english/book/25/index.html. Saul, J.
(2001).„Review of Implicature: Intention, Convention, and
Principle‟. In :The Failure of Gricean Theory by Wayne Davis. Noûs, 35, 630–41. (2002). Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Noûs, 36, 228–48.
233
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. (1979). “Metaphor”. In Ortony. (ed.) pp. 92-123. Seguinot, C (1988).‘Pragmatics and the explicitation Hypothesis‟. In Acts of the First Congress of the Canadian Association of Translation Studies. Quebec : University of Quebec. Pp.106-13. Shakir,M.S.(trans.)(2005). Holy Quran.Qum,N. Ansariyan Publications: Neqeen Press. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford. (1998b). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P.Carruthers & J. Boucher (eds.). Language and Thought : Interdisciplinary Themes. 184-200. CUP. Stanford,W. Bedell. (1936). Greek Metaphor : Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford. Strawson, P.F. (1950). On Referring. Mind,59,320-44. Traugott, E.C.and Pratt,M.L.(1980).Linguistics for Students of Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch. Ulmann, S. (1963).„Semantic Universals‟. In H.Greensberg, (ed.) Universals of Language. USA:MIT Press. Vertis, L. (1998).„In search of the Third Code : An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation‟. In Meta ΧLIII No.4.pp.243-311. Wahba, M. (1974). A Dictionary of Literary Terms. Lebanon: Libraire du Liban. Wellek, R & Warren, A. (1949) Theory of Literature. U.K.: Penguin Books. Wierzbicka, A. (1987).„Boys will be boys: “radical semantics” vs. “radical pragmatics”‟. Language.p. 63, 95–114. 234
(1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wikipedia (2005).The Free encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.euphemism. Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (1988a). Mood and the analysis of nondeclarative sentences. In J.Dancy,J.Moravcsk & Ch. Taylor (eds.). Human
Agency:
Language,
Duty
and
Value.
77-101.Stanford,
CA:Stanford University Press. Reprinted in A Kasher(eds.).vol.11,26289. (1993).Linguistic form and relevance. Cambridge :CUP. Yusuf,A.Y.(trans.) (1989). The Holy Qur‟an. Text Translation and Commentary. Kuwait: Al-Murgab: That Es-Salasil Printing Publishing. Zayid, M.Y. (trans.)(1980). The Holy Quran. Beirut: Dar Al-Choura.
235
2. Arabic References القـران الكريم أبن األثير ،ضياء الدين . )9148( .المثل السائر في أدب الكاتب والشاعر،ج.3ط. 2تحقيق وشرح:د .احمد الجوفي و د.بدوي طبانة.الرياض :دارالرفاعي. أبن منظور ،أبي الفضل جمال الدين محمد بن مكرم . )9111( .لسان العرب،ج . 3بيروت: دار صادر لمطباعة والنشر. االندلسي ،أحمد بن عبد ربه(ت.) 384.العقد الفريد .القاىرة :دار الفكر. الثعالبي ،أبي منصور عبد الممك بن محمد . )9134( .فقو المغة وسر العربية .القاىرة :المكتبة التجارية. الجارم ،عمي و أمين ،مصطفى . )9199( .البالغة الواضحة :البيان والمعاني والبديع لممدارس الثانوية .قم :مكتبة سيد الشيداء. الجرجاني ،عبد القاهر .)9149( .دالئل اإلعجاز .القاىرة :دار المنار . الحسيني ،هاشم (م 9919ق) البرىان في تفسير القرآن .ط ، 1طيران ،مؤسسة البعثة ، 1415،ق 2،جمد 1724 ،ص. الحسيني ،جعفر( .)8111أساليب البيان في القرآن .قم :مؤسسة الطباعة والنشر. الرازي ،محمد بن أبي بكر بن عبد القادر .)9149( .مختار الصحاح .بيروت :دار الكتاب العربي. السبزواري ،السيد عبد األعمى الموسوي 9818( ،ق) مواىب الرحمن في تفسير القرآن ،النجف االشرف :مطبعة اآلداب 4 ،جمد 1932 ،ص.
236
السكاكي،أبو يعقوب يوسف بن أبي بكر محمد بن عمي (ت 686هـ) مفتاح العموم .تصحيح:احمد سعد عمي .القاىرة:مطبعة مصطفىالبابي الحمبي وأوالده. شبر،عبد اهلل .)9161( .تفسير القران الكريم (تفسير شبر) .بيروت :دار البالغة لمطباعة. الطباطبائي ،سيد محمد حسين (،م 9818ق) ط . 3الميزان في تفسير القرآن (تفسير الميزان) ،طيران :دار الكتب اإلسالمية 1397 ،ق 22،جمد 8764 ،ص. الطبرسي ،أمين الدين أبو عمي الفضل بن الحسن 9898(،ق) تفسير جوامع الجامع .ط،3 طيران :مؤسسة النشر والطبع جامعة طيران 3،جمد 1734،ص ،الطبعة البيروتية. الطوسي ،أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن عمي 9811( ،ق) .التبيان في تفسير القرآن ط،1 تحقيق أحمد حبيب قصير العاممي ،قم :مكتب اإلعالم اإلسالمي ،االفست من الطبعة البيروتية 12 ،مجمدات 5828 ،ص. عتيق ،عبد العزيز .)9198( .عمم المعاني ،بيروت :دار النيضة العربية لمطباعة والنشر. العروسي ،عبد عمي بن جمعة(.م 9998ق) تفسير نور الثقمين .ط ،2قم:المطبعة العممية5، ، جمد 3421،ص. العسكري ،اإلمام أبي محمد الحسن بن عمي(ع)9811( ،ق) تفسير اإلمام الحسن العسكري (ع) ، .قم :مؤسسة اإلمام الميدي(عج) 1،مجمد 746 ،ص. فيود ،بسيوني عبد الفتاح .)8118( .عمم البيان :دراسة تحميمية لمسائل البيان.ط . 2القاىرة : مؤسسة المختار لمنشر والتوزيع. القز ويني ،الخطيب (ت 931.هـ) (. )9141اإليضاح في عموم البالغة.ط .2تحقيق:محمد عبد المنعم خفاجي.بيروت.
237
قصبجي،عصام و عربية،هيفاء ". )9119( .الداللة االجتماعية لمكناية في البالغة العربية".مجمة بحوث جامعة حمب.ع. 2 القيرواني،أبو عمي الحسن بن رشيق(.ت 816.هـ) (. )9198العمدة في محاسن الِشعر وآدابو ونقده.ط . 4تحقيق:محمد محي الدين عبد الحميد .بيروت:دار الجيل. الكاشاني ،المولى محسن ( ،م 9119ق) .الصافي في تفسير كالم اهلل (تفسير الصافي)ط،1 مشيد :دار المرتضى 5 ،جمد 2232 ،ص. الكاشاني ،المولى نور الدين محمد بن مرتضى(،المتوفى بعد سنة 9991ق) .تفسير المعين ط ، 1قم :مكتبة آية اهلل العظمى المرعشي النجفي 3 ،جمد 1828 ،ص. المبرد9314( ،هـ).الكامل .مطبعة الحمبي. المراغي،احمد مصطفى (ب.ت) .عموم البالغة في المعاني و البيان والبديع .القاىرة :المكتبة العربية ومطبعتيا. مطموب ،احمد والبصير ،كامل حسن . )9111( .البالغة والتطبيق.ط .2بغداد :مطبعة المجمع العممي العراقي. مغنية ،محمد جواد 9149(،م) ط .3تفسير الكاشف ،بيروت :دار الماليين( ،م 1422ق) ، 7جمد 3844،ص. الهاشمي ،أحمد( .ب ت) .جواىر البالغة في المعاني و البديع.بغداد:مؤسسة الصادق لمطباعة والنشر.
238
