Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi / Waleed Ridha H.Al-Juwaid
Pragmatics Integrated with OtherDisciplines
Languages
Bibliographic information published by the German National Library:
The German National Library lists this publication in the National Bibliography;detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de .
This book is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred,distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except asspecifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms andconditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicablecopyright law. Any unauthorized distribution or use of this text may be a directinfringement of the author s and publisher s rights and those responsible may beliable in law accordingly.
Imprint:
Copyright © 2019 GRIN VerlagISBN: 9783668872912
This book at GRIN:
https://www.grin.com/document/457395
Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi, Waleed Ridha H. Al-Juwaid
Pragmatics Integrated with Other Disciplines
GRIN Verlag
GRIN - Your knowledge has value
Since its foundation in 1998, GRIN has specialized in publishing academic texts bystudents, college teachers and other academics as e-book and printed book. Thewebsite www.grin.com is an ideal platform for presenting term papers, final papers,scientific essays, dissertations and specialist books.
Visit us on the internet:
http://www.grin.com/
http://www.facebook.com/grincom
http://www.twitter.com/grin_com
Pragmatics Integrated with Other
Disciplines
Edited by
Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi
and
Waleed Ridha H. Al-Juwaid
iii
Acknowledgements
The editors would like to express their gratefulness to all those who contributed to this work and helped in having it come out in this form.
v
Introduction
This book is an attempt to reveal the linguistic link between pragmatics
and other disciplines which leads to the emergence of new studies
incorporating them together.
In Chapter One, Religiopragmatics, Muhammad-Reza Fakhr-Rohani,
a professor of linguistics in the University of Qom, Iran (Ph.D.), seeks to
study and explore the linguistic pragmatic aspects involved in religious
communication one side of which involves a human agent, whether a
producer or recipient of the message communicated. He also concerns
himself with multiple and oftentimes non-religious uses of religiously-
charged words, phrases, and short sentences that have historically acquired
idiomatic, and sometimes opaque, meanings. Moreover, he clarifies the
notions which the title suggests, namely, ‘religion’ and ‘pragmatics’.
In Chapter Two, Pragmatics and Discourse, Prof. Fareed H. Al-
Hindawi (Ph.D.) and Dr. Mariam D. Saffah have spotted light on the
relationship between pragmatics and discourse in the sense that pragmatics
and discourse analysis are closely interrelated and that there is a
considerable overlap between them to the extent that they can be regarded
as sister disciplines. They discuss the relationship between these two
disciplines within the realm of linguistics. They propose that the
relationship between them is by no means clear-cut and mono directional.
The study attempts to show how the application of insights from
pragmatics to the study of discourse analysis eventually assists to give birth
to the hybrid discipline termed discourse pragmatics.
Chapter Three, Applied Pragmatics: A Theoretical View, coauthored
by F. H. Al-Hindawi and Mariam D. Saffah defines applied linguistics in
terms of solutions for everyday problems in which language is central.
vi
With respect to this general definition, applied pragmatics (AP) is viewed
as solving problems of everyday life in which pragmatics is involved. Like
applied linguistics, although applied pragmatics focuses on some areas like
teaching and learning second language, it includes a wide range of fields
and disciplines. The present chapter is an attempt to present a brief
theoretical background of AP and the fields that it covers. The study aims
at highlighting these fields and how pragmatics contributes to them through
utilizing its various theories like those of politeness and speech acts.
In Chapter Four, Lexical Pragmatics, Professor Al-Hindawi (Ph.D.)
and Dr. Hussein Huwail Ghayadh deal with pragmatics as the relation of
signs to their users and interpreters or the study of linguistic indices which
can be interpreted only when they are used. Besides, they indicate that in
Chomskyan’s tradition, pragmatics is concerned with performance rather
than competence and this makes pragmatics different from lexis which is
concerned with the referential meaning of words. In this vein, in both fields
of study, some linguistic problems cannot be solved by means of any of
them alone. Consequently, a kind of integrity between both fields is
adopted to deal with those problems. This integrity has led to the birth of
another field of study under the name of lexical pragmatics. This
integration makes a need arise to explore the basic tenets of this newly born
field. Furthermore, a distinction should be drawn between this new branch
of study and lexical semantics. It is hypothesized, here, that lexical
pragmatics can be distinguished from lexical semantics through
dependence on the context. In other words, context plays a vital role in
shaping and constraining lexical pragmatics. The study shows that lexical
items have to be pragmatically inferred in context. In other words, lexical
pragmatics considers the meanings of words as often context-dependent.
vii
In Chapter Five, Pragmastylistics: The Integration of Pragmatics
and Stylistics, Al-Hindawi and Lecturer Nesaem Mehdi Al-Aadili (Ph.D.)
give an account of the relationship between pragmatics and stylistics which
has led to the birth of pragmastylistics or pragmatic stylistics wherein
various pragmatic theories are exploited in interpreting literary discourse.
Among these theories are the speech act theory, the cooperative principle
and conversational implicature theory, in addition to politeness theory.
Hence, to form a vivid picture about this newly born field of study, it seems
necessary to account for the narrative structure and the corresponding
method of analysis.
Chapter Six, Basic Tenets of Rhetorical Pragmatics by Professor
Al-Hindawi (Ph.D.), Assistant Professor Hussain H. Ma'yuuf (Ph.D.) and
Lecturer Waleed Ridha H. Al-Juwaid (Ph.D.), addresses itself to the task of
examining the basic tenets of Rhetorical Pragmatics. It starts with a brief
idea about rhetoric; its relationship with dialectics, communication, and
pragmatics and moves to show how rhetoric can work together with
pragmatics under the title of 'Rhetorical Pragmatics' or 'Pragmarhetoric'.
The study adopts Leech's model of communication which entails
explaining the interpersonal rhetoric with its components: the cooperative,
politeness, irony, and Banter principles. An idea concerning 'textual
rhetoric' is also presented in this chapter to shed light on some significant
points of its principles. The chapter also deals with rhetorical pragmatic
strategies, types of arguments, figures of speech and tropes. It ends up with
a brief idea about strategic maneuvering in argumentation focusing on its
rhetorical aspects.
viii
In Chapter Seven, The Basic Foundations of Pragma-Dialectic
Theory, Professor Al-Hindawi, Assistant Professor Hussein Dhahi Muzhir
Al-Hassnawi (Ph.D.), and Lecturer Hussein Huwail Ghayadh (Ph.D.)
investigate the evolution of the pragma-dialectic school, the roots of this
school, and its application. Additionally, they investigate the impact of
pragmatics on argumentation in general and on dialectics in particular. The
study integrates the communicative angle derived from pragmatic insights
rooting in speech act theory with critical insights instigated by rational
approaches. As such, the study attempts to disambiguate the relation
between pragmatic indications and the dialectic insights, namely, the
organization of critical discussion: the rules of critical rationalism in
addition to the fallacies occurred due to the infringement of the rules.
Strategic Maneuvering, which is introduced in Chapter Eight by
Professor Al-Hindawi and Lecturer Ramia Fua'ad Abdulazeez ( Ph.D.), is a
somehow recent theory launched in (2002) by Eemeren and Houtlosser and
proposed as the extended version of the standard pragma-dialectical theory
originally launched in (1984) by Eemeren and Grootendorst. According to
the standard version, resolving a difference of opinion requires discussants
to follow a reasonable code of conduct represented by ten rules of
reasonableness. The extended version, however, postulates that it is not
only important to resolve the difference of opinion reasonably; it is equally
significant to resolve it to an arguer's own good. This is done by making
rhetoric join the queue. That is, every dialectical (i.e. reasonable) move has
at the same time a rhetorical (effective) role of persuading the peer arguer.
Hence, strategic maneuvering is delivered.
The Editors
November 2019
ix
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.……………………………………..….…iii
Introduction.……………………………………….……….…..v
Chapter One
Religiopragmatics: Islamic Perspective……………………….1
Introduction
Religion
Religion and pragmatics
Linguistic pragmatics
Language and religion
Conclusion
Works cited and consulted
Chapter Two
Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis……………………….….43
Introduction
Pragmatics
Discourse Analysis
Pragmatics versus Discourse Analysis
Context versus Co-text
Trends in Pragmatics
Discourse Pragmatics
Discourse Pragmatics: Frameworks
Speech Acts
x
Conversational Implicature
Presuppositions
Reference
Politeness
Impoliteness
Discourse Pragmatics and Information Structure
Discourse Pragmatics and Argumentation
Critical Discourse Pragmatics
Conclusions
References
Chapter Three
Applied Pragmatics: A Theoretical View……………………85
Introduction
Applied linguistics
Pragmatics: Main theories
Speech act theory
Cooperative principle and the concept of implicature
Hedges
Pragmatic presupposition
Politeness theories
Applied pragmatics: Pragmatics and other disciplines
Teaching pragmatics
Pragmatic Competence
Pragmatic failure
Pragmatic transfer
Pragmatics in classroom
Pragmatics and Translation
xi
Clinical Pragmatics
Literary pragmatics
Legal Pragmatics
Man-machine Interaction
Contrastive Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics
Conclusion
Bibliography
Chapter Four
Lexical Pragmatics……………………………………….…127
Introduction
Relevance Theory and Lexical Pragmatics
Relevance Theory
Lexical pragmatics
Varieties of lexical adjustment
Lexical narrowing
Narrowing in Relevance Theory
Broadening
Approximation
Hyperbole
Metaphor
Category Extension
Lexical Blocking
Neologisms and word coinages
Pun like cases
Discourse particles
Conclusions
References
xii
Chapter Five
Pragmastylistics: The Integration of Pragmatics and
Stylistics……………………………………………………….155
Pragmatics, Stylistics, and Pragmastylistics
Foregrounding vs. Automatization
Literary and Non-literary Discourse
Pragmatic Theories Exploited in the Interpretation of Literary Texts
The Interpretation of Literary Texts by Means of Speech Theory
The Interpretation of Literary Texts by Means of Grice's
Cooperative Principle
Character-level Interaction and Implicatures
Higher-level Interaction: Narrator-reader Implicature
Assessment of the Contribution of CP to the Interpretation
of Literary Discourse
The CP and Symbolism
The Interpretation of Literary Texts by Means
of Politeness Theory
Politeness: Narrator and Reader Level
Politeness: Character to Character level
The Structure of Narrative
Schemata
Genre
The Competent Reader
Conclusions
References
xiii
Chapter Six
Basic Tenets of Rhetorical Pragmatics………………….…191
Rhetoric
Historical Background
Pragmatics and Communicative Intentions
Rhetoric and Dialectic
Rhetoric and Communication
Rhetorical Pragmatics
Leech's Model of Communication
Interpersonal and Textual Rhetoric
The Interpersonal Rhetoric
The Interpersonal Role of the Cooperative Principle
The Interpersonal Role of the Politeness Principle
The Interpersonal Role of the Irony Principle
The Banter Principle
The Textual Rhetoric
The Processibility Principle
The Economy Principle
The Expressivity Principle
Rhetorical Pragmatic Strategies
Rhetoric, Argument and Argumentation
Pragmatic Reasoning of Argument
Pragmatic Structures of Argument
Syllogism
Enthymeme
Argumentative Appeals (Rhetorical triangle)
Ethos
xiv
Pathos
Logos
Figures of Speech
Tropes (Rhetorical Devices)
Destabilization Tropes
Metaphor
Simile
Irony
Pun
Substitution (Emphasis) Tropes
Rhetorical Questions
Overstatement (Hyperbole)
Understatement (Litotes)
Strategic Maneuvering
Maneuvers involving the same arguments
Maneuvers involving the different arguments
References
Chapter Seven
The Basic Foundations of Pragma-Dialectic Theory……..231
Introduction
The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Theory
Components of Pragma-Dialectics
Dialectic
Argumentation
Standpoints
Critical Discussion
xv
The ideal model of a critical discussion
Speech Acts and Pragma-dialectic
Fallacies
Rules of Dialogue
Violations of Rules of Critical Discussion
Application of the pragma-dialectical theory
Conclusion
References
Chapter Eight
Strategic Maneuvering……………………………………….259
Introduction
Pragma-Dialectics
Dialectic, Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering
Aspects of Strategic Maneuvering
Parameters in Determining the Strategic Function
of Argumentative Maneuvers
Some Modes of Strategic Maneuvering
Persuasive Definitions
Rhetorical Questions
Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering
Persuasive Effects of Strategic Maneuvering
Effect Size Expressions
Two Varieties of Strategic Maneuvers
Maneuvers Involving the Same Arguments
Gain-loss Appeal Framing
Explicit Conclusions
xvi
Identification of Information Sources
Argument Completeness
Figurative Versus Literal Expressions
Maneuvers Involving Different Arguments
One-sided Versus Two-sided Messages
Adapting Appeals to Cultural Values
Conclusions
Bibliography
1
Chapter One
Religiopragmatics: Islamic Perspective
Muhammad-Reza Fakhr-Rohani
University of Qom, Iran
Introduction
Religiopragmatics seeks to study and explore the linguistic pragmatic
aspects involved in religious communication one side of which involves a
human agent, whether a producer or recipient of the message
communicated. It is also concerned with multiple and oftentimes non-
religious uses of religiously-charged words, phrases, and short sentences
that have historically acquired idiomatic, and sometimes opaque, meanings.
[1] However, it is in order to clarify certain notions of which the title
suggests, namely, ‗religion‘ and ‗pragmatics‘.
Religion
A quick search in the books concerned with academic studies of the
phenomenon of ‗religion‘ reveals that although it is fairly easy to sense and
feel, ‗religion‘ per se proves ―notoriously difficult to define‖ (Peterson, et
al., 1991, p. 4). As expected, it seems to be more difficult to define
2
‗religious language‘. Both the term and the concept of ‗religion‘ are
difficult to define. In the first place, it is a term that connotes various things
and senses to different people in various communities. For a devout
Zoroastrian, ‗religion‘ means Zoroastrianism; for a Jewish rabbi, it means
Judaism; and for a Buddhist monk, ‗religion‘ finds expression only in
Buddhism. Clearly, in a Muslim community, ‗religion‘ refers to Islam.
Nonetheless, Muslims (and/or, are expected to) observe and obey Islamic
religious rules and regulations. Such a kind of religious observance and
obedience cannot (and should not) be expected from a non-Muslim, or even
from an atheist. For example, Muslims perform salat, Islamic canonical
prayer, five times a day. No Muslim should expect any non-Muslim behave
in this regard like a typical Muslim. What does this signify? ‗Religion‘
appears to be essentially a value and/or sanctity-free term; it is religiously
value-laden only before and in the community of those people who (really
and sincerely) believe in it in this way. The sanctity of any religion, if
vividly definable, is thus relative only to its followers. This is not a hard-
and-fast rule, though. For example, Muslims revere all the Divinely
dispatched prophets whose names are mentioned in the Holy Quran, yet
they obey only Islam, neither Judaism nor Christianity, despite numerous
references to them (and their prophets and messengers) as mentioned in
both the Holy Quran and the vast hadith literature. It follows that ―no single
definition [of religion] will suffice to encompass the varied sets of
traditions, practices, and ideas which constitute different religions.‖
(Crystal, 1991, s.v. religion). Smart (2002, p. 359) defines it as ―the pattern
of belief and practice through which men communicate with or hope to
3
gain experience of that which lie behind the world of their ordinary
experience. Typically it focuses on an Ultimate or Absolute, thought of by
some believers as God.‖ In a more categorized way, Geertz (1973, p. 90)
maintains that ―a religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2)
establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in
men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4)
clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the
moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.‖ (Original italics)
The phenomenon of religion received treatment even from the Left
Wing who are famous for pretending to overlook this important
phenomenon. Designated as ―a purely private matter‖ (1968, p. 253), Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels maintain that they ―cannot know anything
about the existence of God‖ (Ibid., p. 379) simply because ―[o]nly material
things [seem] perceptible‖ (Ibid.). Based on such a reasoning, they pay no
attention to any ―charges‖ (Ibid., p. 51) raised against their ―standpoint‖
such they barely deserve any ―serious examination‖ (Ibid., p. 51). Yet, the
phenomenon of ‗religion‘ is described, from the perspective of the same
camp, not only as ―this important social phenomenon‖ (Ilitskaya, 1978, p.
462) and also as ―a part of the spiritual culture of mankind‖ (Ibid., p. 463)
and as ―one of the principle forms of social consciousness, one of the major
components of men‘s intellectual activity‖ (Ibid., p. 464).
There have been some dichotomies based on the presence and absence
of religion. From a Durkheimian perspective, ―a religion is a unified system
of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set
4
apart and surrounded by prohibitions – beliefs and practices that unite its
adherents in a single moral community called a church.‖ (Durkheim, 2001
[1912], p. 46). It is religion that ―divides …the universe into two mutually
exclusive categories, the sacred and the profane.‖ (Cladis, 2001, p. xxi)
There is yet another dichotomy in that Jensen (2014) believes that
‗religion‘ refers to ―semantic and cognitive networks comprising ideas,
behaviours and institutions in relation to counter-intuitive superhuman
agents, objects, and posits.‖ (p. 8) Perhaps on analogy with Chomskyan
linguistics, Jensen introduces ―i-religion‖ as comprising ―individualistic
psychological processes‖ in contrast to ―e-religion‖ which concerns
―religious and social formations.‖ (Ibid., p. 54).
Religion and pragmatics
Since the present paper deals with religiopragmatics, it is in order to
discuss certain aspects of ‗religious language‘. As a Divine creation,
language is certainly a gift to man. This point has received references in the
Holy Quran in that Allah granted the faculty of speech to man (The Holy
Quran, Sura al-Raḥmān [55]: 4) and that languages are amongst several
signs of the existence of Allah (The Holy Quran, Sura al-Rūm [30]: 22).
Besides the Islamic world, in Christianity there are a few Biblical hints in
the New Testament (John, 1: 1-2) that endorse that language is a Divine
gift. The British Archbishop Richard C. Trench referred to ‗language‘ as
―God‘s perfect gift‖ (Trench, 1851; cited in Harpham, 2002, p. 222).
Likewise, Whitney (1892, p. 400) regarded language as ―a divine gift to
5
man‖ (1892, p. 399), and that language had a Divine origin (Ibid., p. 400).
Yet, it appears that there is not any natural, human language which can be
characterized as essentially ‗religious‘ or ‗sacred‘, in contrast any other
language(s) to be identified as ‗irreligious‘ or ‗profane‘. There are certainly
uses of language in ‗semi-, non-, or even anti-religious‘ contexts. Any
given language can virtually be used in any socio-religious context,
whether religious, non-religious, irreligious, profane, or even blasphemous.
Moreover, as ‗religion‘ means different phenomena to different people, a
‗religious language‘ must have different connotations, manifestations, and
effects for different people. While a devout Hindu may regard Sanskrit as a
sacred language, it is seldom regarded as such in a Muslim community. It
follows that ‗sacrality‘, ‗sacredness‘, ‗religiosity‘ and ‗religiousness‘ are
not just attributes to be attested to a language out of nothing; it is after the
advent of a macro-religious phenomenon, or such phenomena, e.g., the
emergence of a religion, the revelation of a sacred book, and so forth, in a
community that the language being used to such an end can gradually be
regarded as a ‗religious language‘. Rather, ―…the sacred is contagious….it
spreads out from this [sacred] hub to things connected to it.‖ (Cladis, 2001,
p. xxii) In a similar vein, the very specific language, particularly the words
and symbols, including abbreviations, can be looked up to as ‗sacred‘ by
those who are adherents of that religion. In a similar way, the very words
used in the Holy Quran as well as the authoritative hadiths from the
Prophet Muhammad and the Shia Infallible Imams are regarded as ‗sacred‘
because of the Divine origin and source of the Holy Quran and the
Infallibility of the Infallible personalities in whom Shiite Muslims believe.
6
This type of belief in the ‗sacredness‘ of the Arabic language, as used in the
aforementioned discourses, cannot be generalized to any text produced in
Arabic. It follows that the ‗sacredness‘ believed to be inherent in the
aforementioned types of discourses is a function of their sources, not the
language utilized.
So far as ‗pragmatics‘ is concerned, it is indisputable that by the term
‗pragmatics‘ the American philosopher Charles Morris meant ―the relations
of signs to their users‘ […] which implies that signs are produced for a
purpose‖ (Posner, 1998, p. 515). By this term, Morris meant ―the science of
the relation of signs to their interpreters.‖ (Davis, 1991, p. 3) Traditionally
divided into Anglo-American vs. Continental European traditions, the
former seems to be more interested in certain discussions mainly in the
philosophy of language and speech-act theory (Chapman, 2011, p. 5), the
latter lays emphasis on ―sociolinguistics and discourse analysis, and
emphasizes the functional perspective on language behavior.‖ (LoCastro,
2012, p. 7).
Linguistic pragmatics
Another topic worthy of discussion here is ‗pragmatics‘, more properly
‗linguistic pragmatics‘. As ―the study of communication – the study of
how language is used‖ (Kempson, 2001, p. 396), linguistic pragmatics is
very much concerned with studying ―what the message intends to
communicate‖ (LoCastro, 2012, p. 6), for this is the real scope pragmatics
in that its task lies in ―understanding intentional human action‖ (Green,
7
1996, p. 2, cited in Grundy, 2000, p. 214). It is with this ―societal character
of pragmatics‖ (Mey, 2001, p. 6) that it is rightly expected to focus on that
aspect of pragmatics ―where one studies how linguistic knowledge and
extralinguistic knowledge interlock in the production of successful
communication‖ (Harris, 2003, p. 58 [emphasis added]). With these
considerations, Verschueren‘s definition of ‗pragmatics‘ seems to be an
encapsulating and all-embracing one: ―a general cognitive, social, and
cultural perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in
forms of behavior‖ (1999, p. 7). To this definition, and specifically
amongst the adjectives listed above, ‗religious‘ can and must be added,
hence the present paper, ―Religiopragmatics‖.
Before embarking on discussing certain aspects of religiopragmatics
as used in a typical Muslim, specifically Shiite, community, it deserves
giving an explanation on the rationale behind developing the present work.
It deserves explanation why the community of linguists, mainly Western
linguists, and even a great majority of those Muslim linguists who have
been trained and educated in that camp of thought, have remained so
inattentive to the interface of linguistics and religious data. Traditionally, in
Muslim communities linguistic considerations have made part and parcel of
religious scholarship. Examples can be found in focusing on training non-
Arab students in learning proper pronunciation of Classical Arabic for the
sake of Quran recitation and how to correctly perform salat – mandatory
Islamic ritual prayer. Apart from this minimal requirement, those who
aspire to make experts in the realms of formal religious education must
8
take lessons in Arabic grammar, rhetoric, and certain linguistic-cum-
rhetorical interpretation of primary resources of religious knowledge, i.e.,
the Holy Quran and the hadiths. [2] There has been a major point of
difference between Western linguistic scholarship from their Eastern,
typically Muslim counterpart. While the latter has remained ―strongly
dominated by religion‖ (Seuren, 1988, p. xii, cited in Harpham, 2002, p.
219), the former has been ―basically secular and nonreligious‖ (Seuren,
1988, p. xii, cited in Harpham, 2002, p. 219). It seems that time is ripe for
considering certain Islamic religious phenomena from a pragmatic
perspective under the rubric of ‗religiopragmatics‘. [3]
Language and religion
Apart from a few other basically human phenomena, e.g., family, both
language and religion make two fundamental characteristics of every
human community. While religion is viewed as ―the primary evolutionary
universal‖ (Darquennes and Vandenbussche, 2011, 5), religion and
language together are regarded as ―anthropological constants in the
evolution of mankind‖ (Darquennes and Vandenbussche, 2011, 5). Granted
a basic social function of language is communication, there seems to be no
religious act devoid of the purpose of communication. However, the other
end of this religious communication can be placed along a continuum,
ranging from the Deity, in Islam called Allah, to ordinary people gathered
in a religious service or function. Based on what was touched upon, there is
no intrinsically and essentially religious language; however, there are
9
indeed many religious occasions wherein language acquires a religious
coloring. [4] All Divine texts are essentially acts of religious
communication from the Deity to mankind via a Divinely-dispatched
prophet. This is accomplished for the sake of religious guidance of
mankind. From a pragmatic perspective, it is a Divine act of
communication accomplished in a human language. The sacredness of this
text emanates from its Divine source. It is such a kind of Divine sacredness
that makes not only the whole text but every bit of it so sacred that its
words, when written or printed out cannot be touched without having
performed wudu, ritual ablution. [5] Such a text is being credited with
having the Deity, Allah, as its ―author‖ (a Goffmanian terminology) Who
has formulated and dictated ―the actual words‖ (Goffman, 1981, cited
without page reference in Keane, 1997, p. 58). The Holy Quran has various
uses in Muslims‘ life, ranging from its recitation at intervals to using and
making references to its fragments for various reasons. In this case, the
person who recites or reads out some fragments of it can be called its
―animator who utters‖ (Goffman, 1981, cited without page reference in
Keane, 1997, p. 58 [original italics]) it for various purposes, [6] yet the
addressee and/or the audience are expected to derive the actually intended
meaning. [7, 8] The case of the Quran recitation is intriguing, in that not
only its recitation but also listening to it is an act of devotion, hence a
bystander‘s attentive listening to its being recited is also a rather passive act
of devotion, even if it is not live recitation but a recorded one. [9]