Lexical and Conceptual Language Compression/ Decompression through Antonymic Construals in the Qur’ān

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Shaheen Mubarik
Nadia Anwar

Abstract

This study investigates the lexical and conceptual compression/decompression of the Arabic language brought about by means of antonymic construals in the selected category ‘Signs of Allah'sMagnanimity and Omnipotence’ of the Qur’ān. It aims to have an insight into the usage based and context dependent functions of antonymy in creating compression and decompression of language though dynamic construal approach to antonymy. The data were gathered by using purposive sampling technique. 861 verses were selected as the universe for this research. Eighty four verses were then taken as the content or population for the study. Further, through two tiered sampling we selected eight verses as the sample to answer the research question i.e., to what extent the context affects language compression and decompression that take place in the selected category i.e., ‘Signs of Allah's Magnanimity and Omnipotence’ through antonymic construals? The study finally concluded that the context plays a central role to cause language compression and decompression through the antonymic pairs in the Qur’ān.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Shaheen Mubarik, & Nadia Anwar. (2019). Lexical and Conceptual Language Compression/ Decompression through Antonymic Construals in the Qur’ān. Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization (JITC), 9(2), 65-87. https://doi.org/10.32350/jitc.92.04

References

Cann, Ronnie. “Sense Relations.” Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. vol. 1, (2011): 456-478.
Charles, Walter G., and George A. Miller. Contexts of Antonymous Adjectives, Applied Psycholinguistics 10 (1989): 357-75.
Eisenberg, Arlene., Heidi Eisenberg Murkoff, and Sandee Eisenberg Hathaway. What to Expect the First Year. New York: Workman, 1989.
Finegan, Edward. Language: Its Structure and Use. Cengage Learning, 2014.
Griffiths, Patrick. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
Jones, Steven. Antonymy: A Corpus-Based Perspective. London, Routledge, 2002.
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine., Christopher D. Manning, and Christopher Potts. “Was it Good? It was Provocative. Learning the Meaning of Scalar Adjective.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, (2010): 167-176.
Marton, Yuval., Ahmed El. Kholy, and Nizar Habash. “Filtering Antonymous, Trend-Contrasting, and Polarity-Dissimilar Distributional Paraphrases for Improving Statistical Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Edinburgh, (2011): 237–249.
McGregor, William B. Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.
Mihalcea, Rada. and Carlo Strapparava. “Making Computers Laugh: Investigations in Automatic Humor Recognition.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, (2005):531-538.
Mohammad, Saif. Bonnie J. Dorr, Graeme Hirst, and Peter D Turne. “Computing Lexical Contrast.” Computational Linguistics 39 (2013):555–590.
Murphy, George., and Jane M. Andrew. “The Conceptual Basis of Antonymy and Synonymy in Adjectives.” Journal of Memory and Language 32, (1993): 301-319.
Murphy, M. Lynne. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Murphy, M. Lynne., Carita Paradis, and Caroline Willners. “Introduction: Lexical Contrast in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics no.41 (2009): 2137-2139.
Paradis, Carita. “Ontologies and Construal in Lexical Semantics.” Axiomathes, no. 15 (2005): 541-573.
—. “Configurations, Construals and Change: Expressi