Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN 1539-8072 November 2013, Vol. 10, No. 11, 868-885

D DAVID
D
DAVID

PUBLISHING

Meaning in the Holy Quran: A Text Analysis of the “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) Within the Framework of Grice’s Theory of Implicature *

Ali Ebrahimi Badejani

Khansar Branch-Isfahan University,

Isfahan, Iran

Maryam Afshari Badejani

University of Isfahan,

Isfahan, Iran

Ahmad Reza Lotfi

Islamic Azad University-Khorasgan

Branch, Isfahan, Iran

The Holy Quran (1982) is the Holy Book of the Moslems and the most understandable aspect of its eloquence. One

of the most interesting aspects found in different languages is the use of implicatures or implied meaning. How and

why such implicatures are generated and are discussed in pragmatics? In this study, a list of conversations (direct

and indirect) from “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”), the sixth Chapter of the Holy Quran, and the implicatures

implied in the conversations are analyzed through a pragmatic theory: CP (Cooperative Principle). The present

study shows that in most cases, the non-observance of Grice’s (1975) maxims is found in the maxim of Quantity

and the least in Manner. Grice’s CP and its contributory maxims have not been observed in the “Surah Livestock”

in this study. All maxims of Grice have been flouted in This Surah (1982) and there is no difference among Gricean

maxims as far as flouting in the Surah is concerned.

Keywords: “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”), eloquence, implicature, CP (Cooperative Principle), maxims of

Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner

Introduction

The Holy Quran (1982) is the Holy Book of the Moslems and the greatest miracle (mo?Jeze) of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H. (Peace be upon him)). The temporal context in which the Holy Quran was revealed to the Holy Prophet is interesting to notice. It was the time when rhetoric, poetry, and oration were common among people. Then, the Holy Prophet prepared people with sermons and precepts of God through the Holy Quran and put an end to their claims on rhetoric. Islamic scientists have different opinions toward the aspects of the miracle of the Holy Quran. As Obeydiniaa (1995) argued:

Some [scientists] believe that it [the miracle of the Holy Quran] is related to the predictions it makes, some say it is

* Acknowledgements: First and foremost, the authors’ deepest gratitude and heartfelt appreciation must go to Dr. Lotfi. The authors thank him for being an important source of inspiration, for his mindful cooperation, guidance, and comments on this reseaech, and for his constant help and encouragement. The authors also give a very special thanks to their advisor, Dr. Sepahi, for his valuable consultation. Ali Ebrahimi Badejani, master, Math and Computer Faculty, Khansar Branch-Isfahan University. Maryam Afshari Badejani, master, Linguistics Department, University of Isfahan. Ahmad Reza Lotfi, Ph.D., Linguistics Department, Islamic Azad University-Khorasgan Branch.

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

869

because of the news it reports from the past, some claim that it is through giving information about what people have in mind and some believe that people are not able to discover the miracle of the Holy Quran. (p.115)

However, as Ardalaan (1996) mentioned that the miracle of the Holy Quran is related to its eloquence (“fasaahat” and “balaaqat”) more than to other aspect. Or at least, it is the most understandable aspect of the Holy Quran for us. The Holy Quran itself has asked its opponents to create something similar if they can. This miraculous aspect of the Holy Quran is associated with the meanings of its verses. This meaning is, however, not only the first meaning understood by a listener but also the implied meanings of sentences and the way these two meanings are related to each other.

“Mohkamaat” and “Motashaabehaat” The duality of meaning (i.e., force and sense, to use Thomas’ (1995) terminology) in the verses of the Holy Quran is demonstrated in one aspect of the division of the verses to “mohkamaat” and “motashaabehaat”. This division is alluded to in the Holy Quran (see Example 1):

Example (1) (3:7) ﺎﻬِﺑﺎﺸَﺘُﻣ ﺮَُ ﺧُأ وَ بﺎﺘِِ ﻜْﻟا ﱡمُأ ﱠﻦُه تﺎﻤٌَ ﻜْﺤُﻣ تﺎﻳﺁٌ ﻪُْ ﻨِﻣ بﺎﺘَِ ﻜْﻟا ﻚَْ ﻴَﻠَﻋ لََ ﺰْﻧَأ يﺬﱠﻟا ﻮَُ ه (He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical.) Kamaali (1991) argued about the difference between these two groups of verses and stated that:

“‘Mohkam’ is the one [verse] whose meaning [sense] is understood from the surface form without any external analogies or reasons and ‘motashaabeh’ is the one whose meaning [force] is not understood unless through external analogies” (p. 220). Of course, there are other definitions of these two terms. Therefore, it is reasonable to look for implicit meanings in the verses of the Holy Quran to understand more about it. It is worth mentioning that the existence of implied meaning in this Book is something inevitable, because it is the words of God and a bit of His infinite knowledge.

The Face of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) This Surah (1982) consists of 165 verses and all of its verses have been descended with especial ceremonies in a lump sum in Mecca. Gabriel descended it on Holy Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) while 70 thousands angels were escorting him. The main message of the verses of This Surah is fighting with polytheism and invitation to monotheism. Since the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula believe that some livestock were lawful and some others unlawful, the Holy Quran states some commandments about the livestock to combat with these superstitions that because of it, This Surah has been called “Livestock”. There are some narrations about the excellence of This Surah and also about the compliance of the needs by reading it. For instance, it has been narrated from Imam Sadeq (P.B.U.H.) that if everyone performs the prayer twice, then reads This Surah and after that another prayer, his needs will be complied. The word “Qol” (say) in This Surah has the most frequency among the all Suras of the Holy Quran. Maybe the reason of the repetition of this address into the Holy Prophet (44 times) in This Surah refers to the fact which polytheists’ vain believes, deviations, and inopportune expectations have been stated in This Surah; so there should be trenchant. It states the fact that the Holy Prophet is a delegate to say the text of the revelation as exact as it has been descended, no more and no less.

870 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

New Views Toward Implicatures Pragmatics. Pragmatics is one of the new branches of linguistics. It deals primarily with the implied meaning(s) of an utterance. Thomas (1995) distinguished three levels of meaning: (1) abstract meaning; (2) contextual meaning (utterance meaning); and (3) force of an utterance (speaker’s meaning). The first level (abstract meaning) deals with the meanings of sentences without the consideration of the context in which they are uttered. The second one (contextual meaning) concerns the relationship between the abstract meaning of an utterance and its context. And the third one (force of an utterance) is the meaning implied from an utterance. For example in a sentence like “I saw a lion”, the first level signifies that “I” is the first person singular pronoun defining the speaker, “saw” is the past tense of the verb “see” which means “look”, “a” is an indefinite article meaning “one”, and “lion” is “a large powerful flesh-eating animal of the cat family”. Through the second level, we can see the speaker and make a relationship between the abstract meaning (sense) of “I” and the speaker (the referent of “I”). We do the same to the other words of this utterance. We reach the third level when we correctly pass the first two ones. Here many factors like background information, culture, level of knowledge, and so on help us understand the force of an utterance. One force of this utterance can be “I saw a man as brave as a lion”. Depending on the situation, other implicatures are also possible. Pragmatics is mainly concerned with this third level of meaning. Many scientists in different fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and linguistics have tried to reveal the nature of this process and many suggestions have been proposed as to “how” and ‘why” people produce and understand implicatures. In this study, the scope of the research is limited to the framework of Grice’s CP (Cooperative Principle) and its contributory maxims and submaxims (as cited in Thomas, 1995). CP. Thomas (1995) introduced Grice’s CP as: “Make your contribution such as is required at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p. 61). She continued to elaborate on the contributory maxims and submaxims of the principle:

(1) Maxim of quantity:

(a)

make your contribution just as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange);

(b)

do not make your contribution more informative than is required;

(2) Maxim of quality: try to make your contribution one that is true specifically:

(a)

do not say what you believe to be false;

(b)

do not say that for which you lack adequate information;

(3) Maxim of relevance: make your contribution relevant;

(4) Maxim of manner: be perspicuous and specifically:

(a)

avoid obscurity;

(b)

avoid ambiguity;

(c)

be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity);

(d)

be orderly. (Thomas, 1995, p. 63)

It is important to know that these are not some moral pieces of advice for people to obey-this wrong assumption has been the cause of some criticisms on Grice’s maxims (Thomas, 1995). Rather, Grice (1981) believed that people learn to observe these maxims naturally, when communicating with others. If they fail to observe or blatantly flout them, an implied meaning (implicature) will generate. Note the following verse of the Holy Quran (see Example 2):

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

871

(He said: Surely. Some doer has done it; the

chief of them is this, therefore ask them, if they can speak.) Here the Prophet Abraham knows that the chief of the idols is not capable of destroying other idols but he blatantly flouts the maxim of quality to generate the implicature: These idols are not able to do anything then why do you worship them?

Example (2) (21:63) نﻮَُ

ﻘِﻄْﻨَﻳ اﻮُﻧﺎآ نِْ إ ﻢُْ هﻮُﻠَﺌْﺴَﻓ اﺬه ﻢُْ هُﺮﻴﺒَآ ﻪَُ ﻠَﻌَﻓ ﻞَْ ﺑ لﺎﻗَ

Review of the Literature

Enough analysis of implicatures of conversations in the Holy Quran or even any other aspect of Quranic conversations have not ever been done in the studies carried out by either traditional Islamic rhetoric or modern linguistic researchers. However, the implied meanings of all or some parts of the Holy Quran have been the subject matter of a great number of works by Islamic rhetoric studies. Besides, the subject of implied meanings as a whole has been investigated largely by a lot of researchers in the realm of pragmatics. Here, we with a review of these studies in four separate parts: First, the studies in pragmatics specially those concerning implicatures, Gricean implicatures, will begin. Second, the application of pragmatic, linguistic, and discursive analysis theories in religious texts will be presented in general. Third, the Quranic studies that indirectly deal with the subject matter of this study and the application of pragmatic, linguistic, and discursive analysis theories in the Quranic texts in particular will be reviewed. Forth, the rhetoric studies and the other traditional ones in the Quranic texts will be brought. Finally, the conclusion and summary of the said facts in the chapter will be presented. The implied meanings of all or some parts of the Holy Quran have been the subject matter of a great number of works by Islamic rhetoric studies. Besides, the subject of implied meanings as a whole has been investigated largely by a lot of researchers in the realm of pragmatics. The first section of the part will be divided into four subsections: (1) pragmatics and Gricean theories in general; (2) application of pragmatic, linguistic, and discursive analysis theories in religious texts; (3) application of pragmatic, linguistic, and discursive analysis theories in Quranic texts; and (4) rhetoric and the other traditional studies in the Quranic texts.

Pragmatics and Gricean Theories in General Pragmatics is one of the new branches of linguistics. It deals primarily with the implied meaning(s) of an utterance. Thomas (1995) distinguished three levels of meaning: (1) abstract meaning; (2) contextual meaning; and (3) force of an utterance. The first level (abstract meaning) deals with the meanings of sentences without the consideration of the context in which they are uttered. The second one (contextual meaning) concerns the relationship between the abstract meaning of an utterance and its context. And the third one (force of an utterance) is the meaning implied from an utterance. Pragmatics is mainly concerned with this third level of meaning.

Application of Pragmatic, Linguistic, and Discursive Analysis Theories in Religious Texts Schniedewind (2004) stated that Biblical studies is the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible and related texts. For Christianity, the Bible traditionally comprises the New Testament and Old Testament, which together are sometimes called the “Scriptures”. Judaism recognizes as scripture only the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh. Other texts often examined by biblical scholars include the Jewish apocrypha, the Jewish pseudepigrapha, the Christian apocrypha, the many varieties of ante-Nicene early Christian literature, and early Jewish literature.

872 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

There are two major approaches toward Biblical studies. The first approach studies the Bible as a human creation and is most prevalent in the secular academic world. In this approach, Biblical studies can be considered as a sub-field of religious studies. The other approach is the study of the Bible as a religious text, where it is assumed that the Bible has a divine origin or inspiration. In Judaism, especially among the Orthodox, traditional Bible study entails the study of Tanakhwith medieval and modern rabbinic commentaries, or with Midrashim, which traditionally have followed the

Biblical interpretation or exegesis approach. Jews traditionally study at home or in institutions like the yeshiva. In Christianity, the theological interpretation of Biblical passages is called “biblical exegesis”. Other branches of Bible study aim instead at elucidating the provenance, authorship, and chronological order of Biblical texts. Hermeneutical exegesis focuses on the original writer’s sense in relation to the expected audience response. The rule of context applies, and also “scriptures interpret scriptures”. The ideas and meanings are likely to be in harmony within the language and cultural context. Therefore, the rule allows for the meaning to be limited and interpreted within the intent and purpose of the original writers. This interpretative view obviously leads to more focused individual understanding than collective interrelated consensus. The Old Testament books are divided into three basic divisions. Jesus referred to them as: “… the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44, as cited in Holy Bible (New Living Translation), 1996, 2004, 2007). The law of Moses was a common Jewish expression for the first five books of the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament included in “the prophets”, and are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the 12 smaller prophetic books. The psalms included all the remaining books. The book’s genesis is thought to have been written about 1500 B.C. and Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, about 425 B.C The New Testament is a collection of books about the life and times of Jesus and the events that happened to His early followers. The time of the writing of the New Testament books dates from after the

crucifixion of Jesus to around the end of the first century, perhaps 45 A.D. to 95 A.D books are called the Gospels.

Application of Pragmatic, Linguistic, and Discursive Analysis Theories in Quranic Texts According to Tabaatabaaii’s (1984), the people of tradition explained the Qur’an with the traditions ascribed to the companions and overlooked the rational arguments. But Allah has not said in His book that rational proof has no validity. How could He say so when the authenticity of the Book itself depended on rational proof? He has called mankind, rather, to meditate on the Qur’anic verses in order to remove any apparent discrepancy in them. Peimani (1998) offered a list of conversations from throughout the Holy Quran, and the implicatures implied in the conversations are analyzed through two pragmatic theories: CP and PP (Politeness Principle), and two new maxims and principles: How maxims and Why principles. El-Awa (2006) had studied on the analysis of textual relations in the Qur’an from a linguistic point of view and examined according to principles derived from modern pragmatic theory, the type of textual relations in the Qur’an and the way in which verses of one sura relate to each other and to the wider context of the total message of the Qur’an. It has been usually regarded as coming under the category of the study of Munasaba or

The first four

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

873

the organic unity of the Qur’an, an intersection between tafsir and linguistics. There is considerable debate in the field of Qur’anic Studies as to whether or not the Qur’anic sura exhibits an organic unity. Kalero (2010) examined the implicit meaning of “Surah al-Fatiha”, Chapter One of the Holy Quran, view implicature. Although it is said to be concerned about the pragmatic normal “situation” in the wording (text) rule (Product), it is still possible to analyze texts and poems, even if the lines are “abnormal”, because they were not imposed by normal humans. His investigation concluded that the verses contained the intentions of God who has confessed to certain ways by humans. It also implies a deeper meaning than can be obtained as education for the good of the Hereafter. This analysis is based on the assumption that there is more meaning implicit in the text of the verses that can be obtained, understanding that the text becomes more efficient and thorough plan that what is written about God, not based on the assumption that God wants something more to say another thing. Al-Zaqir (1993) offered a list of such investigations done by Western researchers. Cragg (1988, p. 50) categorized the different English translations into two groups of verses called mohkamaat and motashaabehaat as the following: (1) mohkamaat: categorical, clear, definitive, precise, perspicuous, literal, and decisive; and (2) motashaabehaat: allegorical, conjectural, figurative, metaphorical, allusive, analogical, susceptible, and different interpretation.

Rhetoric and the Other Traditional Studies in the Quranic Texts The greatest aspect of the Holy Quran or at least the most understandable one for us is its eloquence. Eloquence (from Latineloquentia) is fluent, forcible, elegant, or persuasive speaking. It is primarily the power of expressing strong emotions in striking and appropriate language, thereby producing conviction or persuasion. The term is also used for writing in a fluent style. The concept of eloquence dates back to the ancient Greeks, Calliope (one of the nine daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne) being the Muse of epic poetry and eloquence. There is extraordinary eloquence and purity of style in the word order or composition of the Qur’an. Alavimoqaddam (1993) said:

Since the oldest rhetoric books dealing with analyzing eloquence (“fasaahat” and “balaaqat”) were written in order to prove the miracle of the Holy Quran, it is reasonable to conclude that art first, the main aim of this science was to prove the miracle of the Holy Quran and understand its eloquence. But later on when it got the shape of a distinct and specified science, its aim extended to distinguish between the non-eloquent and eloquent discourse. (p. 308)

Obeydiniaa (1995) believed that in the first and second centuries A.H., no independent works were compiled in rhetoric, but the third century A.H. was the time of development of this science because of translating Aristotle’s works into Arabic. Alavimoqaddam (1993), however, believed that the first century A.H. is the time when rhetoric started and in the second, third, and forth centuries, this science flourished. In the fifth century A.H., Jorjaani wrote his excellent book which is a rhetoric book referring to Quranic verses. In the fifth and sixth centuries A.H., Zamakhshari (as cited in Obeydiniaa, 1995) completed Jorjaani’s ideas. In Islamic rhetoric, three important components of ma?aani, bayaan, and badi? are discussed. Ma?aani is the science of a set of rules through which one can express himself in a way to suit his addressee’s expectations and needs. Bayaan is the knowledge of rules and principles through which speaker/writer can state the same meaning through different utterances having different degrees of clarity. And finally, badi? is the science of figures of speech which make an expression more elegant.

874 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

Methodology

The method used for doing this research was the theoretical, logical, and library method that was based on the facts of original resources and scholarly references. The materials used were the notes taken from the books, articles, computer networks (internet), informational banks, and the other available resources. The argumentational and comparative strategies and methods have been used for analyzing data that the large number of examples referring to the direct and indirect dialogs which are in the “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”), have helped it.

Data for the Study Since enough works have not ever been done on Quranic conversations, it is necessary to have a list of all conversations in “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”), the sixth Chapter of the Holy Quran, which is meant to be the corpus for this study. This Surah consists of 2,971 words that in this study, about 1,008 words of it are analyzed. These words make up the direct and indirect conversational verses in “Surah Livestock”

(“Al-An’am”). Wherever a dialog is reported in it, the verbs which show the matter of “to state” or “to say” are mentioned. Therefore, the best way to start searching for dialogs is to look for the words which have the meaning of “to state” or “to say”. In Arabic, most infinitives, verbs, adjectives, and other words are derived from “roots”. These roots consist of the main phonemes included in different words. Most of the verb roots in Arabic include three letters. For example, the infinitive KETAABA (to write), the past tense KATABA (he wrote), and the subjective adjective KAATEB (writer) are all derived from the root K-T-B which consists of the three main phonemes included in all the derived words. The verb roots which are being searched in this study are Q-V-L, S-A-L, J-V-B, KH-T-B, Z-K-R, Q-S-S, and N-D-Y which all have the common meaning of “to state” or “to say”. The number of verses of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) containing the aforementioned verb roots amounts to 56 verses out of about 165 total verses. Because these verses are dispersed throughout the Sura Livestock with no clear order, the number of verses are inserted in tables and are sorted out and arranged in logical order. The verses include both monologs and dialogs. Example (3) explains one typical monolog:

Example (3) (1:113) ﻖﻠََﻔْﻟا بَّ ﺮِﺑ ذﻮُُ ﻋَأ ﻞُْ ﻗ (Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn.) And dialogs may be embedded in one verse like Example (4):

Example (4) (2:131) ﻦﻴﻤََ ﻟﺎﻌْﻟا بَﱢ ﺮِﻟ ﺖُْ ﻤَﻠْﺳَأ لﺎﻗَ ﻢِْ ﻠْﺳَأ ﻪﱡُ ﺑَر ﻪَُ ﻟ لﺎﻗَ ذِْ إ

I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.) Or in two verses or more like Example (5):

(When his Lord said to him: Be a Muslim He said:

Example (5) (7:113.114) ﻦﻴﺑﱠَ ﺮَﻘﻤُْ ﻟا ﻦَِ ﻤَﻟ ﻢُْ ﻜﱠﻧِإ وَ ﻢَْ ﻌَﻧ لﺎﻗَ ﻦﻴﺒِﻟﺎﻐْﻟا ﻦُْ ﺤَﻧ ﺎﱠﻨُآ نِْ إ اﺮًْ ﺟَﺄَﻟ ﺎﻨَﻟ نِﱠ إ اﻮُﻟﺎﻗ نَْ ﻮَﻋْﺮِﻓ ةَُﺮَﺤﱠﺴﻟا ءﺎﺟَ وَ (And the enchanters came to Firon and said: We must surely have a reward if we are the prevailing ones) He said: Yes, and you shall certainly be of those who are near (to me).) There are even dialogs which are included in many verses. There are also verses which contain more than one dialog. These dialogs are then divided into two groups of direct and indirect ones: (1) direct dialogs: The dialogs whose participants talk face to face to each other; (2) indirect dialogs: The dialogs whose participants do not talk face to face to each other; rather a third one asks or commands them to talk this way. The verses

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

875

mentioned above, (2:131) and (7:113-114), are examples of direct dialogs and the following is an example of an indirect one (see Example 6):

Example (6) (18:83) اﺮًْ آِذ ﻪُْ ﻨِﻣ ﻢُْ ﻜْﻴَﻠَﻋ اﻮُﻠْﺗَﺄَﺳ ﻞُْ ﻗ ﻦِْ ﻴَﻧْﺮَﻘْﻟا يِذ ﻦَْ ﻋ ﻚََ ﻧﻮﻠَُﺌْﺴَﻳ وَ (And they ask you about Zulqarnain Say: I will recite to you an account of him.) The Almighty God commands His Prophet Mohammad to answer the question in this way. It is not a direct dialog because the Holy Prophet and the inquirers are not communicating to each other face to face. Both the direct and indirect dialogs are chosen to be studied. The direct and indirect conversational verses are analyzed totally through CP. The statistics of direct and indirect dialogs are offered in Table 1.

Table 1 The Total Number of Direct and Indirect Dialogs

Types of dialogs

Number and percentage of verses

Number and percentage of dialogs

Direct

4 = 7.3% 51 = 92.7% 55 = 100%

9 = 11.5% 69 = 88.5% 78 = 100%

Indirect

Total

Data Processing and Analysis Makaarem (1974) said:

The most dangerous method in the interpretation of the Holy Quran is that instead of the Holy Quran itself, we try to impose our own beliefs on it and make judgments which are the effect of our environment, scientific background, religion and taste. (p. 17)

Therefore, regarding there is always probability to interpret Holy Books wrongly, in order to avoid any wrong interpretations, the important and rich source of “Noor Comprehensive Commentary Collection”, Jaame-at-tafaasir-e-Noor, that is a Quranic software and consists of a lot of Quranic commentaries, translations, dictionaries, etc., supplied by Computer Research Center of Islamic Sciences, which is used to extract the related implicatures. Through 144 commentaries, four commentaries are used more than the others, these are “Tafsir-e-Aasaan” by Mohammadjavad Najafi Khomeini which its matter refers to discourse of “Tafsir-e-Noor” by Mohsen Qeraaati with social and educational subjects, “Tafsir-e-Nemooneh” by Nasser Makaarem Shiraazi with social matter and related to practicing in religious jurisprudence, and “Bargozideh-e-Tafsir-e-Nemooneh” by Ahmad Alibaabaaei that its matter is social and analytic. Also out of 105 translations into various languages, Mohammad Hamid Shaker’s translation in American English is used in this study. Using this software, we will search throughout the whole Sura and the commentaries available in Persian. The majority of the implicatures are found in the commentaries. The notable point is that the implicatures are not mentioned directly in these works. Therefore, it is necessary to read the interpretations on conversations of the Sura Livestock of the Holy Quran to see whether they contained implicatures or not. For example, consider the following interpretation extracted from Tabaatabaaii’s (1984) Tafsir-e al-mizaan interpreting the verse 41:11:

The word “TAAE’IN” is plural while they are two. It is not improbable that they (the heaven and the earth) want to be humble and state that they are not separate from other God’s creatures who are all obedient to His command. (p. 585)

The implicature is stated indirectly in the part shown through bold typed letters. This verse is also interpreted in Obeydiniaa’s “?oloom-e-balaaqi dar kashshaaf-e-Zamaxshari” (1995, p. 481) as: In this

876 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

verse, the words “AATAINAA”, “TAAE’IN” and also talking are attributed to the heaven and the earth which are both animate. After all interpretations are written down, it is time to extract implicatures out of them. Firstly, the understood implicatures were formulated in the form of a sentence. For example, for the aforementioned verse, the implicatures were formulated as the following:

(41:11) implicature: (1) We are obedient to you as animate beings are; and (2) We are not separate from your other creatures who are obedient to you. After all conversations implicatures are extracted, in order to know how and why such implicatures are generated, the related Grice’s maxims were looked for. For example, for the above mentioned implicatures, the related maxims and principles are supposed to be:

(41:11) (1) Grice: Quality; and (2) Grice: Quality. The reason is that in both cases the heaven and the earth utter what is untrue and this way, first they want to maximize the praise of the Almighty God, and second, to minimize the praise of themselves. When verifying the relevant maxims, the most probable one is chosen, therefore, it is possible that other maxims are involved with a lesser degree. For some dialogs, however, it is not possible to select only one maxim or principle, because more than one are involved. For better illustration, a table of four columns is drawn (for Grice’s CP) and the numbers of the verses are inserted and the involved maxims are asterisked. The total number of violations and observances (the flouted maxims and the number of each one of these violated maxims separately) is shown in Table 6. The total number of the involvement of these maxims is also calculated to compare them with each another and also with CP. Finally, these numbers are changed into percentage to be tested the hypotheses.

Results and Discussion

Quranic Conversations Since enough works have not ever been done on Quranic conversations, especially on the conversations of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”), the sixth Chapter of the Holy Quran, it is advisable to provide a short statistics of conversations of “Surah Livestock”. It is not the main aim of this study to elaborate on the distribution of the dialogs in “Surah Livestock”. However, since or no similar studies have been done so far or enough works have not ever been done on Quranic conversations, this information could be useful for those who intend to study such conversations. The number and percentage of direct and indirect verses and also dialogs of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 The Total Number of Direct and Indirect Verses and Dialogs

Types of dialogs

Number and percentage of verses

Number and percentage of dialogs

Direct

4 = 7.3% 51 = 92.7% 55 = 100%

7 = 9.2% 69 = 90.8% 76 = 100%

Indirect

Total

According to Table 2, the number of indirect dialogs exceeds direct ones. Moreover, the percentage of direct and indirect verses and also dialogs of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) is presented in Figure 1.

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”) 100 50 direct 0 indirect Percentage of
A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)
100
50
direct
0
indirect
Percentage of
Percentage of
verses
dialogs

877

Figure 1. The percentage of direct and indirect verses and dialogs of the “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”).

The distribution of conversations and dialogs in different verses of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) is demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 3 The Distribution of Dialogs in Different Verses of “Surah Livestock”

Verse

Dialog

Verse

Dialog

Verse

Dialog

Verse

Dialog

19

4

128

2

53

1

136

1

30

3

148

2

54

1

138

1

91

3

8

1

63

1

139

1

93

3

11

1

64

1

143

1

12

2

15

1

65

1

144

1

14

2

22

1

66

1

145

1

37

2

23

1

70

1

147

1

50

2

25

1

74

1

149

1

56

2

27

1

80

1

150

1

57

2

29

1

90

1

151

1

71

2

31

1

109

1

161

1

76

2

40

1

124

1

162

1

77 2

46

1

130

1

164

1

78 2

47

1

135

1

Total = 55

Total = 76

Table 4 The Detailed List of All Conversational Verses and Dialogs in “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”)

 

Verse

Direct

Indirect

Verse

Direct

Indirect

Verse

Direct

Indirect

8

*

54

*

128

**

11

*

56

**

130

*

12

**

57

**

135

*

14

**

63

*

136

*

15

*

64

*

138

*

19

****

65

*

139

*

22

*

66

*

143

*

23

*

70

*

144

*

25

*

71

**

145

*

27

*

74

*

147

*

29

*

76

**

148

**

30

***

77

**

149

*

31

*

78

**

150

*

37

**

80

*

151

*

40

*

90

*

161

*

46

*

91

***

162

*

47

*

93

***

164

*

50

**

109

*

Total direct dialogs = 7 Total indirect dialogs = 69

53

*

124

*

Total dialogs = 76

 

878 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

The verses are arranged according to the number of dialogs and conversations they contain. Clearly the 19th verse contains the largest number of dialogs. The fewest number of dialogs is found in 38 verses with only one dialog. It can be observed that among 165 verses of “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”), only 55 of them include conversations which embody about 33.33% of all the verses. Of course, in 110 verses of This Surah there are no conversations. The most of the dialogs are one-verse dialogs, some of them have together one dialog and in some other verses, sometimes there are more than one dialogs in a verse. The detailed list of all conversational verses in “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) is presented in Table 4. The number of the asterisks shows the number of the dialogs. Also putting them in the cells shows that a dialog is either direct or indirect. As it has been shown four verses of it have direct dialogs, and there are indirect dialogs in the other ones.

CP: Analysis and Results As it was mentioned in Chapter Three, the interpretations for direct and indirect conversations are studied for the extraction of implicatures out of the exegeses. Some of the dialogs and conversations are similar to some others. These similar verses amount to six dialogs contained in three verses. Among seven direct dialogs left, contained in four verses, implicatures were found for four dialogs contained in four verses. The implicatures were extracted out of such verses. Among 69 indirect dialogs left, contained in 51 verses, implicatures were found for 58 dialogs contained in 38 verses. The implicatures were extracted out of such verses. However, the total number of the implicatures amounts 62 ones because in some dialogs or even verses more than one implicatures are observed. How and why implicatures are implied in these dialogs are analyzed through Grice’s CP. Figure 2 and Table 5 show the results of the analysis of how and why implicatures are implied in the dialogs through Grice’s CP.

80 60 quality 40 quantity 20 relevance 0 manner
80
60
quality
40
quantity
20
relevance
0
manner

Figure 2. Analysis of conversational implicatures in “Surah Livestock” (“Al-An’am”) through CP.

Table 5 Analysis of Conversational Implicatures in “Surah Livestock” Through CP

Grice’s maxims

Verse number

Quality

Quantity

Relevance

Manner

8

*

11

*

12

*

14

*

15

19

*

22

*

23

*

25

*

*

27

**

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

879

(Table 5 continued)

 

Grice’s maxims

Verse number

Quality

Quantity

Relevance

Manner

29

*

**

30

*

31

*

37

*

40

46

*

47

50

**

53

***

54

*

56

*

57

**

63

*

64

65

***

66

*

70

**

71

*

74

*

76

*

77

*

*

78

*

80

90

***

91

*

93

**

109

*

124

128

*

130

*

135

**

136

*

*

138

**

139

*

143

144

145

147

*

148

*

149

*

150

***

151

161

162

164

Total = 55 verses

17 = 27.42%

41 = 66.13%

1 = 1.61%

3 = 4.84%

62 implicatures = 100%

880 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

The asterisk(s) in each cell shows that in order to imply the relevant implicature(s), the pertinent maxim or principle is involved. It is notable that 13 verses that have not asterisks mean they have observed the all maxims of Grice and have not violated any of them. These verses are 15, 40, 47, 64, 80, 124, 143, 144, 145, 151, 161,162, and 164. As one can notice, in most cases, about 66.13% of total implicatures, the maxim of quantity is violated. As it was explained in Chapter One, quantity maxim is divided into two submaxims of giving more or less information than needed. Among the studied dialogs 40 cases out of the total 41 violations of this maxim (almost all) concern giving less information than is needed, the only exception is seen in the verse 19 that is giving more information than needed. It can be due to the fact that the Holy Quran is an concise and intensive Book. After the violations of the maxim of quantity, most of violations refer to the violation of the quality maxim with 17 cases, about 27.42% of total implicatures. In three cases, about 4.84% of total implicatures, the maxim of manner is violated. The number of violations to the submaxims of this maxim is all following: do not be obscure = two times (in the verses of 14 and 77), do not be ambiguous = once (in the verse of 147), and no prolixity was observed in the verses, which is something natural for a Divine Book. The least amount of violations refers to the violation of the relevance maxim with only one case, about 1.61% of total implicatures, in the verse of number 130. In verifying which maxim or principle was involved, the clearest one was chosen. For some implicatures, however, violations of more than one maxim or principle are detected. It is also possible that more than one implicatures are implied out of the same utterance and consequently more than one maxim or principle is involved. In the next section, implicatures of these kinds will be offered. As mentioned in Chapter Two, Thomas (1995) distinguished five ways of failing to observe Grice’s maxims. From what Holy Quran interpreters assert, one can deduce that to generate implicatures in Quranic conversations. The violations of about 44 dialogs, 67.69%, in 28 verses, 66.66% of the verses, are of the kind of flouting. The other way of not observing maxims of the dialogs refers to violating that contains 21 dialogs, 32.31%, in 14 verses, 33.33% of the verses. The other ways of not observing a maxim (opting out, infringing, and suspending), have not been seen in this study. In this study, violation is used for all kinds of non-observance as used by many writers on the field. The distribution of the different categories and ways of non-observing of Grice’s maxims according to Thomas (1995), is demonstrated in Table 6.

Table 6 The Distribution of the Different Ways of Non-observing of Grice’s Maxims

Ways of non-observing of maxims

Number and percentage of implicatures

Number and percentage of dialogs

Number and percentage of verses

Flouting

46 = 74.19%

44 = 67.69%

28 = 66.66%

Violating

16 = 25.81%

21 = 32.31%

14 = 33.33%

Opting out

0 = 0%

0 = 0%

0 = 0%

Infringing

0 = 0%

0 = 0%

0 = 0%

Suspending

0 = 0%

0 = 0%

0 = 0%

Total

62 = 100%

65 = 100%

42 = 100%

The dialogs in three verses (25-29-136) have commonly both ways of non-observing of Grice’s maxims, flouting and violating.

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

881

Implicatures In order to clarify the results elaborated on in the previous section, conversations, their implicatures and the relevant principles, and maxims are given in this part. The parts of conversations out of which implicatures are implied will be typed in bold type letters. Here, since the number of the implicatures is a lot, only one example from each kind of them is given. Maxim of quality:

Example (7) (23) ﺎﱠﻨُآ ﺎَﻣ ﺎَﻨﱢﺑَر ﻪﱠِ ﻠﻟا وَ اﻮُْ ﻟﺎَﻗ نَأ ﺎﱠﻟِإ ﻢُْ ﻬﺘَُ ﻨْﺘِﻓ ﻦُﻜَﺗ ﻢَْ ﻟ ﱠﻢُﺛ ﻦﻴَِ آِﺮْﺸُﻣ (Then their excuse would be nothing but that they would say: By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists.) Polytheists say that were not polytheists, but they lie and violate the Maxim of Quality to imply they lie to be forgiven by Lord (Tabaatabaaii, 1984, p. 229) (see Example 7). Maxim of quantity:

Example (8) (25) ﻰﺘَﱠ ﺣ ﺎَﻬﺑِ اﻮُْ ﻨِﻣْﺆُﻳ ﺎﱠﻟ ﺔٍَ ﻳاَء ﱠﻞُآ اْْوَﺮَﻳ نإِ وَ اًﺮْﻗَو ﻢِْ ﻬﻧاَِ ذاَء ﻰﻓِ وَ ﻩﻮُُ ﻬَﻘْﻔَﻳ نَأ ﺔﱠً ﻨِآَأ ﻢِْ ﻬﺑﻮُِ ﻠُﻗ ﻰﻠََ ﻋ ﺎَﻨْﻠَﻌَﺟ وَ ﻚَْ ﻴَﻟِإ ﻊُِ ﻤَﺘْﺴَﻳ ﻦﱠﻣ ﻢُﻬﻨِْ ﻣ وَ ﻦﻴَِ ﻟﱠوَﺄْﻟا ﺮﻴُِ ﻄَﺳَأﺎﱠﻟإِ اَﺬَه نِْ إ اوُْ ﺮَﻔَآ ﻦﻳَِ ﺬﱠﻟا لﻮُُ ﻘَﻳ ﻚََ ﻧﻮُﻟِدﺎَﺠﻳُ كوَُ ءﺎَﺟ اَذِإ (And of them is he who hearkens to you and we have cast veils over their hearts lest they understand it and a heaviness into their ears And even if they see every sign they will not believe in it “so much so that when they come to you, they only dispute with you; those who disbelieve say: This is naught but the stories of the ancients”.) Through this answer, disbelievers violate the Maxim of Quantity to imply that the Holy Quran has not been descended by God (Tabaatabaaii, 1984, p. 231) (see Example 8). Maxim of relevance:

Example (9) (130)ﺎَﻨِﺴُﻔﻧَأ ﻰﻠََ ﻋ ﺎَﻧْﺪِﻬﺷَ اﻮُْ ﻟﺎَﻗ اَذﺎَه ﻢُْ ﻜِﻣْﻮﻳَ ءﺎََ ﻘِﻟ ﻢﻜَُ ﻧوُرِﺬﻨُﻳ وَ ﻰﺘَِ ﻳاَء ﻢُْ ﻜْﻴَﻠَﻋ نﻮﱡَ ﺼُﻘَﻳ ﻢُْ ﻜﻨﱢﻣ ﻞٌُ ﺳُر ﻢُْ ﻜِﺗْﺄَﻳ ﻢَْ ﻟ أَ ﺲﻧﺎِْ ﻟا وَ ﻦِّ ﺠﻟاْ ﺮﺸََْ ﻌَﻣﺎَﻳ ﻦﻳَِ ﺮِﻔَآ اﻮُْ ﻧَﺎآ ﻢُْ ﻬﱠﻧَأ ﻢِْ ﻬِﺴُﻔﻧَأ ﻰﻠََ ﻋ اوُْ ﺪِﻬﺷَ وَ ﺎَﻴْﻧﱡﺪﻟا ةﻮَُ ﻴَﺤﻟاْ ﻢُُ ﻬْﺗﱠﺮَﻏ وَ (O assembly of Jinn and men! did then not come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My communications and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? They shall say: We bear witness against ourselves. And this world’s life deceived them, and they shall bear witness against their own souls that they were unbelievers) The answer of assembly of Jinn and men is not relevant to the asked question. They violate the Maxim of Relevance to imply they acknowledge and accept their sin, neglect and being unbelievers while they say this world's life deceived them (Tabaatabaaii, 1984, p. 354) (see Example 9). Maxim of manner:

Example (10) ﻦﻴﱢَ ﻟﺎﱠﻀﻟا مِْ ﻮَﻘْﻟا ﻦَِ ﻣ ﻦَﱠ ﻧﻮُآَﺄَﻟ ﻰﺑَّ ر ﻰﻧِِ ﺪْﻬﻳَ ﻢﱠْ ﻟ ﻦﺌَِ ﻟ لﺎََ ﻗ ﻞََ ﻓَأ ﺎﱠﻤَﻠَﻓ ﻰﺑَّ ر اَذﺎَه لﺎََ ﻗ ﺎًﻏِزﺎَﺑ ﺮََ ﻤَﻘْﻟا اَءَر ﺎﱠﻤَﻠَﻓ (Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people.) Here, Lord, the second one, is obscure and violates the Manner Maxim, because according to the previous dialog, it is not clear and we cannot understand which Lord refers to, Allah (God) or Moon. It implies Allah (God) is the unique creator and the real Lord (Tabaatabaaii, 1984, p. 295) (see Example 10).

Conclusions

This part deals with the conclusions of the study on the basis of the results put forward in the before section. At first, we discuss the features of Islamic rhetoric concerning the interpretation of the verses of the

882 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

Holy Quran, then deal with the new branches of knowledge dealing with implied meanings. Furthermore, some implications, limitations of the study, and also suggestions for further study will be included. As mentioned before, from the early years of the revealing of the Holy Quran, many interpreters tried to elaborate on the meanings, overt or covert, of this Divine Book. Their exegeses on the Holy Quran are often comprehensive and inclusive. Being familiar with rhetoric, many of them were able to explain the meanings in a knowledgeable and scientific way. Of course, though comprehensive, some of the notions they have used are somehow complicated and difficult for common people to understand. Examples of these notions are estefhaam-e-enkaari (positive interrogation with negative sense), estefhaam-e-taqriri (assertive interrogation), ?ijaaz (laconism), and ?etnaab (amplification). A person who does not have enough background knowledge has to do a lot to understand the meanings of such topics and then to find out the hidden meanings of the verses of the Holy Quran. This lack of knowledge is more problematic for those who live hundreds of years after the exegeses been written. These people are neither familiar with the language of those interpretations nor with the technical terms the interpreters have used. The problem for the foreigners who do not know a word of Arabic is out of question. Moreover, among the new approaches toward explaining the implied meanings, Grice’s model is used in this study. As was seen in the previous chapter, although treatment is somewhat technical, it is easy for everyone to understand. Furthermore, different notions are classified in an understandable manner. In Grice’s Quantity maxim, for example, giving unusual information is divided to “giving less or more information than needed”. The existing CP is complemented by concepts within the traditional interpretations. Therefore, instead of considering different definitions for different kinds of estefhaam (interrogative sentences), only a simple definition for all of them is to be considered by a reader or a listener. The new pragmatic theories utilize very clear classifications and precise explanations so that these are systematic. Through the limited sources utilized for this study, it is shown that in some of the conversations of the “Surah Livestock” of the Holy Quran, one or more implicatures are generated. If other sources are also studied, more implicatures will hopefully be found out. This can be more revealing as far as the miracle of the Holy Quran is concerned. The results of this study can be useful in the different kinds of activity dealing with the meanings of the Holy Quran. First, when teaching the meanings of this Glorious Book to Arab or non-Arab speakers, by introducing these maxims and principles, a better understanding of the Holy Quran can be obtained. As discussed before, the traditional interpretations consist of some difficult topics whose understanding is difficult for common people who are eager to understand the meanings of the Holy Quran. But the new notions are easier for them to grasp. They are also more interesting for learners because they can observe their functions in their daily lives. Second, when translating the Holy Quran into other languages, special attention should be paid to these implied meanings. It is necessary to know whether the violation or observance of the same maxim or principle leads to the same implicature in the target language or not, and if not, which of the other maxims or principles should be utilized. In this study, Grice’s CP and its contributory maxims have not been observed in the “Surah Livestock”. All maxims of Grice have been flouted in the This Surah and there is no difference among Gricean maxims as far as flouting in the Surah is concerned. Among seven direct dialogs left, contained in four verses, implicatures

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

883

were found for four dialogs contained in four verses. The implicatures were extracted out of such verses. Among 69 indirect dialogs left, contained in 51 verses, implicatures were found for 58 dialogs contained in 38 verses. The implicatures were extracted out of such verses. However, the total number of implicatures amounts to 62 ones, because in some dialogs or even verses, more than one implicatures are observed. In most cases, about 66.13% of total implicatures, the maxim of quantity is violated. As it was explained in Chapter One, quantity maxim is divided into two submaxims of giving more or less information than needed. Among the studied dialogs 40 cases out of the total 41 violations of this maxim (almost all) concern giving less information than needed, the only exception is seen in the verse 19 that is giving more information than is needed. It can be due to the fact that the Holy Quran is an concise and intensive Book. After the violations of the maxim of quantity, the most of violations refer to the violation of the quality maxim with 17 cases, about 27.42% of total implicatures. In three cases, about 4.84% of total implicatures, the maxim of manner is violated. The number of violations to the submaxims of this maxim is all following:

Not being obscure are two times (in the verses of 14 and 77), not being ambiguous is once (in the verse of 147), and no prolixity is observed in the verses which is something natural for a Divine Book. The least amount of violations refers to the violation of the relevance maxim with only one case, about 1.61% of total implicatures, in the verse of number 130. In verifying which maxim or principle was involved, the clearest one is chosen. For some implicatures, however, violations of more than one maxim or principle are detected. It is also possible that more than one implicatures are implied out of the same utterance and consequently more than one maxim or principles are involved. As mentioned in Chapter Two, Thomas (1995) distinguished five ways of failing to observe Grice’s maxims. From what Holy Quran interpreters assert, one can deduce that to generate implicatures in Quranic conversations. The violations of about 44 dialogs, 67.69%, in 28 verses, 66.66% of the verses, are of the kind of flouting. The way of not observing maxims of the other dialogs refers to violating that contains 21 dialogs, 32.31%, in 14 verses, 33.33% of the verses. The other ways of not observing a maxim consist of opting out, infringing, and suspending are not seen in this study. Violation is used for all kinds of non-observance in it as used by many writers on the field. This research can hopefully be used as a course of teaching the meanings of the “Surah Livestock”, the sixth Chapter of the Holy Quran, to Arab or non-Arab speakers who intend to learn more about the contents of this Sura and Divine Book.

References

Abshirini, B. (2010). Deviation in Grice’s model in translation of Persian texts. Shiraz, Iran: Islamic Azad University Fars Science and Research Branch. Alavimoqaddam, M. (1993). Dar qalamrov-e-balaaqat (In the realm of eloquence). Tehran: enteshaaraat-e-?aastaan-e-qods. Ali, A. Y. (1968). The Holy Quran: Text, translation and commentary. State of Qatar: Presidency of Islamic Courts and Affairs. Al-Zaqir, M. H. A. (1993). Xaavarshenaasaan va pazhooheshhaa-ye-qoraani (Orientalists and Quranic researches). (M. S. Shari?at Trans.). Tehran: mo?ssese-ye-matla?olfajr (Orientalists and Quranic Studies). Ardalaan, J. S. A. (1996). Dar Parto-ve-Qoraan: Nokaati Darbaare-ye- Balaaqat-e-Joz-e-Avval-e-Qoraan-e-Karim (In light of the Holy Quran: Points about the eloquence of the first part of the Holy Quran). Mishkat Journal, 119. Bach, K. (2007). Conversational implicature. Mind and Language, 9, 124-162. Blackburn, S. (1996). Implicature. The Oxford dictionary of philosophy (pp. 188-189). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bottyan, G. (2010, June). The operationality of Grice’s test for implicature (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.nytud.hu/cescl/proceedings/Gergely_Bottyan_CESCL.pdf Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

884 A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

Cole, P. (1975). The synchronic and diachronic status of conversational implicature. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 257-288). New York: Academic Press. Cragg, K. (1988). A certain sympathy of scriptures. Sussex: Sussex Academic Press. Daniell, P. (2009). The taxonomy of Gricean implicature. Retrieved from http://wwwpdaniell.org/grice.pdf Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De La Torre, M. A. (2002). Reading the Bible from the Margins. Denver: Orbis Books. El-Awa, S. M. S. (2006). Textual relations in the Qur’an: Relevance, coherence and structure. Rutledge Studies in the Qur’an. London: Rutledge. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Grice, P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183-198). New York:

Academic Press. Hancher, M. (1978). Grice’s “Implicature” and literary interpretation: Background and preface. Twentieth Annual Meeting Midwest Modern Language Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Holy Bible (New Living Translation). (1996, 2004, 2007). Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc HUANG, Y. (2006). Neo-Gricean pragmatics. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 231-238). New York: Elsevier. Jorjaani, A. (1989). dalai?el-ol-e?jaazfe-lqor?aan (The reasons of the miracle in the Holy Quran). (M. Raadmanesh Trans.). Mashhad: ?aastaan-e-qods-e-razavi. Kalero, Z. (2010). Implied meaning in verses: An analysis of implicature in the Surah al-Fatihah (Chapter 1 of Koran). Retrieved from http://zainurrahmans.wordpress.com Kamaali, A. (1991). Shenaaxt-e-Qor?aan (Understanding of the Quran). Qum: enteshaaraat-e-osve. Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conversational implicature. In C.-K. Oh, & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 11:

Presupposition (pp. 1-56). New York: Academic Press. Kasper, G. (2003). Pragmatics: Applied pragmatics. In W. J. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 390-392). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leech, G. (1980). Explanations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lundström, L. (2004). Indirectness and Grice’s Cooperative Principle: A study based on the interaction in the sitcoms Friends and Full House (Unpublished term paper, Department of English, Karlstad University). McCawley, J. D. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, 9: Pragmatics (pp. 245-258). New York: Academic Press. Meibauer, J. (2006). Implicature. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 568-581). New York:

Elsevier. MENG, W. J. (2009). The application of conversational implicature to communication. Retrieved from

http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/uc200904/uc20090402.pdf

Meybodi, A. (1960). kashf-ol-asraarvaoddat-ol-abraar (The discovery of the secrets and the greetest of the pious). Tehran:

enteshaaraat-e-?aastaan-e-qods. Miremadi, S-A. (1993). Theories of translation and interpretation. Ghom: Mehr Press. Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, 9: Pragmatics (pp. 261-280). New York: Academic Press. Obeydiniaa, M. A. (1995). ?oloom-e-balaaqidarkashshaaf-e-Zamaxshari (Rhetoric sciences in the interpretation of kashshaaf-e-Zamaxshari) (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Shiraz University). Peimani, M. (1998). Analysis of implicatures of conversations in the Holy Quran (Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Shiraz University). Qoreshi, A. A. (1991). Tafsir-e-ahsan-ol-hadis (The interpretation of the best tradition). Tehran: enteshaaraat-e-? aastaan-e-qods. Saul, J. (2001). Review of implicature: Intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean Theory by Wayne Davis. Noûs, 35, 630-641. Schniedewind, W. M. (2004). How the Bible became a book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.

A TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE “SURAH LIVESTOCK” (“AL-AN’AM”)

885

Shahsavand, Sh., & Davoudi Sharifabadi, E. (2009). Conversational implicature and its realizations in the Persian and English translations of the Holy Qur’an: A case study of the stories of Prophets Joseph and Moses. Tehran: Scientific Information Database. Sobhaani, J. (1995). Tafsir-e-?ayaat-e-moshkel-e-qor?an (The interpretation of the problematic verses of the Quran). Tehran:

enteshaaraat-e-?aastaan-e-qods. Tabaatabaaii, M. H. (1984). tafsir-e-al-mizaan (The interpretation of the Al-mizan). Tehran: enteshaaraat-e-?aastaan-e-qods. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In P. R. Cohen, J. L. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 325-363). Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Wherry, E. M. (1980). A comprehensive contemporary on the Quran. allaahaabaad: R.S. Publishing House. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1981). On Grice’s theory of conversation. In P. Werth (Ed.), Conversation and discourse (pp. 155-178). New York: St. Martins Press. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1986). Inference and implicature. In C. Travis (Ed.), Meaning and interpretation (pp. 45-76). Oxford:

Basil Blackwell. Xorramshaahi, B. (1996). qor?aanshenaaxt (Understanding of the Quran). Tehran: Tehran-no.