A Linguistic Study  of Facial Expressions in Selected Quranic Verses

Hashim  Aliwy Mohammed Al-Husseini; Itimad  Munam Neama

doi:10.31185/eduj.Vol2.Iss44.2382

Authors

Hashim Aliwy Mohammed Al-Husseini College of Education for Humanities, Wasit University
Itimad Munam Neama Dep. of English, College of Education for Humanities, Wasit University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol2.Iss44.2382

Abstract

The current study investigates the linguistic features of facial expressions in the Holy Quran. The language of the Holy Quran is considered as a symbolic language that refers to meaning beyond itself. The symbolism of this form of language is increased by the use of some expressions that represent paralinguistic elements including the phenomenon of facial expressions which have different meanings and interpretations that need to be explored. It is believed that facial expressions have various linguistic explicit and implicit meanings. Thus, this study attempts to identify two levels of meaning, i.e., pragmatic and semiotic, to explain the meaning of these forms of facial expressions and clarify their implied meaning. It also aims to identify the types of speech acts, implicature, and forms of politeness in addition to the semiotic meaning that is implemented in these forms of facial expressions. These facial expressions are analysed from the pragmatic and semiotic points of view by employing a qualitative linguistic investigation. The analysis is carried out through an eclectic model which includes Barthes’ (1968) theory of semiotics, Searle’s (1969) classification of speech acts, Grice’s (1975) theory of implicature, and Leech’s (1983) politeness theory. Four representative Quranic texts are chosen to analyse these types of facial expressions. The findings of the pragmatic analysis show that facial expressions in the Quranic texts encompass different types of speech acts, many implicatures, and various forms of politeness. The semiotic analysis, on the other hand, shows that these forms of facial expressions have denotative and connotative levels of meaning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

The Holy Quran.

Al Tabatabai, S. M. H. (1996). Al-mizan fi tafsir al-Quran. Qom. Iran. Islamic Publication office.

Al Tabrasee, A. A. (1992). Majma'a Al Bayan Fi Tafseer Al Qur'an. Dar Ihya'a Al Turath Al Arabee. Beirut- Lebanon.

Ali, A. Y. (2004). The meaning of the holy Qur’an. USA. Beltsville. Maryland. Amana Publications.

Almusallam, I. (2018). A discursive approach to politeness: Negotiating offers in women's talk by Saudi Arabic and British English speakers. The University of Leeds School of Languages, Cultures, and Societies.

Alston, W. (1989). Divine nature and human language: Essays in philosophical theology Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.

Alston, W. (1996). Belief, acceptance, and religious faith. In D. Howard-Snyder and J. Jordan (eds.) Faith, freedom, and rationality. Lanham. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon, Oxford.

Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New York. Hilland Wang.

Barthes, R. (1990). Mythologies. İstanbul, Turkey: Hürriyet Yayınları.

Barthes, R. (2005). Semiological adventure. İstanbul, Turkey: YKY.

Birner, J. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. Malden, MA.: Wiley-Blackwel.

Brian, D.(2004). An introduction to the philosophy of religious language. Oxford. Oxford University press.

Buck, R. And VanLear, A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of Communication, 52(3), pp. 522-539.

Charles W. (2002). Introducing English semantics. London and New York.

Cobley, P. and Jansz, L. (2001). Introducing semiotics. Icon Books. Cambridge.

Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research. USA. University of Illinois.

Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Fiske, J. (2010). Introduction to communication studies. Routledge.

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Griffiths, P. (2006). An introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press Ltd.

Haung, V. (2006). Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Herman, J. (2008). The language problem. Language & Communication 28 (2), pp. 93-99.

Jiang, Y. (2010). On linguistic phenomenon. Philosophical Investigation, 1 (6), pp. 73-78.

Jones, S. L. (1994). A constructive relationship for religion with the science and profession of psychology: Perhaps the boldest model yet. American Psychologist, 49 (3), 184-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.3.184.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics .London. Longman.

Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nakhilawi, H. A. (2016). Ethnosemantic, pragmatic, and textual analysis of kinship terms in Arabic and English discourse. Doctorate Thesis. University of Sains Malaysia.

Panofsky, E. (1970). Meaning in the visual arts. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Prior, P. (2014). Semiotics. In L. Constant, and S. Brian (Eds.), The Routledge companion to English studies (pp. 160-173). London, UK: Routledge.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London. Longman.

Qutb. S. (2013). Fī-Zilāl al-Qur’an (A. Yasin, Trans.). Jakarta: Gema Insani.

Ran, Y. P. (2006). Pragmatics: Phenomena and analysis. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Robert, R. (2002). Philosophy of Religion & Religious Ethics: Study. Nelson Thornes.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

Shank, G. (2002). Qualitative research. A personal skills approach. New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.

Simons, M. (2009). Implicature. Carnegie Mellon University: Department of Philosophy.

Sobur, A. (2009). Semiotika komunikasi. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Suzila, T. and Yusri, M. (2012). Politeness: Adolescents in disagreements. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity. 2 (2), p. 127.

Toropove, B. (2002). World religions. A person education company.

Traunmuller, H. (2005). Paralinguale phänomene [Paralinguistic phenomena). In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. & Trudgill, P. (Eds.), An international handbook of the science of language and society. (pp. 653-665). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Tsotra, D. Janson, M., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2004). Marketing on the Internet: A semiotic analysis. In D. Tsotra, M. Janson, & D. Cecez-Kecmanovic; Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Information Systems (pp. 4210-4220). New York: Association for Information Systems.

Walters, S. ( 2009). Practical kinesic interview and interrogation: Level 1 and 2 Course. Indianapolis, IN: Stan Walter and Associates.

Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yule, G. ( 1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zainurrahman, A. (2010). Pragmatics: How people use language. Stkipkieraha Ternate. Indonesia Free Access Journal of the Philosophy of Language and Education.