American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 5, 2020 Logistics of Language Change in the Qur’anic Discourse: A pragma-linguistic perspective Sami Al-Heeh1& Ibrahim Najjar2 1Faculty of Arts, Department of Applied English, Palestine Ahliya University E-mail: [email protected] 2Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Malaysia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This small-scale study explores language change in the Qur‟anic Discourse. It aims to describe some semi-identical verses with minor changes at the structural level, interpret the meanings depicted in these verses, and explain the factors that facilitated the linguist variation depicted in theses verses. The study utilizes corpus linguistics for data collection. It also applies a critical as well as an analytical approach to the data collected. Thus, it builds on Fairclough‟s (1998) critical model of discourse analysis. It has been found that the holy Script of Islam tends to apply language change in a few semi-identical verses. The variation, perceived by a native speaker‟s intuition, is structurally carried out through lexicalization, grammaticalization, or lexico-grammaticalization. It has been concluded that the sociolinguistic variation, realized in the Qur‟anic discourse, is regulated by the status, gender, and interaction social factors. Keywords: The Qur‟anic Discourse, Sociolinguistic Variation, Lexicalization and Grammatical- ization, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Pragma-stylistics 1. INTRODUCTION Like everything else, language changes over time. The German linguist, Wilhelm von Humboldt has remarked that “There can never be a moment of true standstill in language, just as little as in the ceaseless flaming thought of men. By nature it is a continuous process of development” (In Aitchison, 2001, p.3). According to structuralism, grammar refers to the set of underlying rules (also known as principles and parameters) that native speakers of one language subconsciously follow. In theory, the definition implicates that it is possible for a linguist to compile a good book of grammar in which the author can formulate a complete set of grammatical rules that give good reasons for all the well-formed structures and reject the ill-formed ones. In practice, this claim encounters a number of serious problems including mainly language fuzziness and variation (Aitchison, 2001, p. 39). Brinton and Traugott (2005, p. 9) list two approached to language change that are not in line with the concept of grammar. The first tendency is perceived as a self-contained module regulated by a set of language specifics and universal absolute principles and parameters functioning independently of contextual factors. The second is felt as a set of general cognitive inclinations deeply shaped by language external factors. At least, these approaches maintain a clear difference between the concept of „lexicon‟ and that of „grammar‟. They also develop two conceptions of grammar that are parallelized in opposition of two approaches to language change. In one view, change looks sudden, complete, internal and transferable. In another, change sounds variational, gradual, linguistic and sociolinguistic. 1 American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 5, 2020 Following a sociolinguistic variation model of language change, most of the studies have been carried out on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In research, the term „grammaticalization‟ is meant to refer to the part of the study that minds language change. It is used to address certain research questions, such as how grammatical items can develop new grammatical functions, and how lexical items and structures occur in certain contexts to serve grammatical functions. Heine (2017, pp. 573-601) argues that grammaticalization theory is not a theory of language, in general and that of a language change, in particular. He contends that the ultimate goal of the theory is to describe the way grammatical forms arise, interpret how they develop over time and in physical space, and explain why they are structured in the way they are. In this sense, it is essentially ahypothesized process looking for new emergence of grammatical rules. Lexicalization covers all the processes that “lead to the emergence of new lexical items” (Himmelmann, 2004, p. 22). The definition includes only what is considered as new lexical item emerging the lexicon. It, however, excludes any rule, whether grammatical or syntactic, that have already stored in the lexicon as a fresh one. The interrelationship between both grammaticalization and lexicalization is tight and confusing. Both overlap in the input and outcome. To both processes, the lexicon is a final box of input. To both, new forms of language that is governed by fresh rules is the ultimate goal. Both processes, however, vary in their orientation and focus. The process of lexicalization is oriented by phonological as well as semantic factors whereas that of grammaticalization is oriented by functional and syntactic factors. Thus, lexicalization focuses on meaning and senses while grammaticalization focuses on new forms of language composition and addition. Linguistic variation is defined as “two or more ways of saying the same thing, where the „same thing‟ refers to what is denoted by an utterance” (Kiesling, 2011, p. 13). For example, the alternation in the Qur‟anic discourse between [fa-ma: ista:‟u:] and [wa-ma: istata:‟u:]both glossed as „then / and they were not able to‟ in modern English, entails notavariation but also a change. Necessarily, the linguistic variable in the quote takes place at the phonological level in which the phoneme /ta/ is dropped in a post lexical process. This morph-phonological process does not alter the potential meaning of the Arabic morpheme [istata:‟a] meaning „he could‟ by itself. It only reflects a language change carried out on the syntactic level to help denote two different abilities of a „group of people‟ to scale and dig through a wall. From a pragma-linguistic point of view, the Qur‟anic discourse sustains that the more efforts to be paid, the more phonemes to be used. The less efforts the less phonemes to be selected and used (see the English interpretation provided in Example 1). Besides pragmatic and phonological factors, linguistic variables can occur at other levels including semantics, syntax and discourse. For example, the Qur‟anic discourse sometimes refers to Prophet Johnah as [dha‟l-Nun] roughly glossed as „the Man of the Fish‟ in a situation through which the Noble Qur‟an opens the discourse with Jonah going away in anger and thinking that his Lord would never cause him distress. Up to this, Jonah is not in the depth of darkness inside the whale. So the relationship between Jonah and the whale is constrained by the semantic factor of inalienability. This 2 American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 5, 2020 helps explain why the Qur‟anic discourse selects the term [Dha‟l-Nun] which facilitates an inalienable casebetween two arguments that has not started yet. Where the Qur‟anic discourse shifts to refer to Jonah inside the whale, it selects and uses the term [sahib] roughly glossed as „the Man of the Fish‟. This linguistic manipulation suggests that one argument referring to „Jonah‟ becomes part of the other argument referring to the „fish‟. In this sense, the relationship between both arguments sounds alienable and inseparable (see the English interpretation provided in Example 2). Language change often takes place for some reasons including social status, gender, and interaction. Social classes play an important role in innovating, carrying, and spreading the change in waves. Though the change may start, in any class, it very likely that it is innovated by the high class whose variety is often admired by other classes. Middle-aged people from the working and middle class are supposed to carry the change due to the fact that they have some connections with younger and older generations. Besides, the issue of gender is another cause that triggers some change. Throughout history, the issue of both sexes, in general and that of woman, in particular in regard to hot themes of absolute equality between sexes, and liberty of woman and woman‟s right, is exclusively debatable. Moreover, Geographic isolation does not lead to language change. In fact, it maintains linguistic conservatism. However, interaction with others often leads to language change, as it triggers at the social level some drastic changes accompanied by some changes at the linguistic level(Holmes, 2001, pp. 194-120). The rise of Islam in the sixth century triggered some drastic changes on the Arabs who had experienced some differentsociocultural values andsocial norms. In the Pre-Islamic Era, Arabs were accustomed to living in many tribes fighting for pastures and water for their livestock. Such people coming from different tribes and clans and living an isolated and tough area, had inherited some varieties characterize to good extent with fluency. These varieties were also featured by non- correspondent pronunciation attributed to glottalization and germination (Hassan et al, 2011, pp. 831- 834). As both stemmed from as well as encouraged by the way people used to live, the teachings of Islam stemmed basically from the Noble Qur‟an which has stressed unifying native speakers of Arabicaround their Prophet. This social unity was accompanied by some techniques in reciting the holy Script of Islam to regulate the random glottal stops and consonantal clustering. In relevance, the Great Vowel Shift (GVS) in the 13th century England was accompanied by many drastic social changes to liberate Englishmen as well as their language from the dominance of 3 American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 5, 2020 Latin and French (Giancarlo, 2001).Similarly, the Noble Qur‟an has shifted the long vowel /i:/ in the adjective phrase (Adj-P) [ja:ri:yah] meaning „be running‟ to a short /i/ as in the verse [aljawa:ri al- kunnas] roughly glossed as „the planets that rotate and clean‟ (At-Taquir 81:16).