Exploring the referential range of etymologically-related lexical pairs in the language of the Qur’an: A cognitive-semantic approach

Abstract

The present study conducts a cognitive-semantic analysis of etymologically-related lexical pairs in the language of the Qur’an. Based on objective selection criteria, the lexical pair rīĥ (a singular form literally meaning wind) and riyāĥ (a plural form literally meaning winds) has been claimed to be representative of the final data set, which includes 20 lexical pairs. Building on the theoretical underpinnings of descriptive semantics and frame semantics, the analysis sought to fulfill three main objectives: (a) identifying the referential range of the pair rīĥ and riyāĥ and its central reference point; (b) explaining the way the historical and theological context helps to mark the connotations associated with each sense in the referential range; and (c) sorting the discourse functions communicated through the cognitive frame(s) evoked by such a lexical pair. Findings showed that the central cognitive frame of both lexical items is that of moving air. However, rīĥ has developed, through metaphorical extension, two other senses that are not applicable to riyāĥ: power/predominance and smell. Finally, both lexical items have been proven to have positive, negative, and neutral connotations that have been divinely manipulated to perform various discourse functions.

Keywords:

• conceptual schema
• connotation
• etymology
• frame semantics
• referential range
• the Qur’an

1. Introduction

Arabic, a Semitic language, involves two high varieties with different norms: Classical Arabic (CA) and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). While CA is the language of pre-Islam poetry, Prophetic speeches, and the Qur’an, MSA is the language of formal media, publications, and education. It has been largely affirmed that the language of the Qur’an is a subvariety of CA. A close reading of the Qur’anic text shows that many lexemes share the same origin (etymon), but simultaneously they have quite different senses and connotations. Accordingly, they could be claimed to perform different communicative functions and augment peculiar readings, considering their underlying historical and theological contexts. In relation to this axiom, homonymic lexemes, i.e., those with a different sense, are assumed to be interpreted differently, thereby causing problems in understanding the (Qur’anic) text and in translation. It is commonly assumed that the sense associated with a singular form is kept in the plural form. For instance, the Qur’anic lexeme “لباس” (libās [raiment]) is homonymic as it is used to signify good deed, e.g., وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَى ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ (wa libāsu at-taqwá dhālika khayr [“But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best.”]) [7:26],¹ and clothes, e.g., يَا بَنِي آدَمَ قَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآتِكُمْ وَرِيشًا (yā banī ’ādama qad ’anzalnā `alaykum libāsāan yuwārī saw”ātikum wa rīshāan [“O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you.”]) [7:26]. Though the plural form “ألبسة” (‘albisah) is not mentioned in the Qur’anic text, we assume that both senses of good deeds and clothes would be associated with such a plural noun. The singular and plural forms are assumed to frame the same situation differently. Also, there is a conceptual mapping from the physical domain of “clothes” to the cognitive structure of “good deeds.”

The present study offers a qualitative analysis, based on a pilot quantitative analysis, of Qur’anic lexemes sharing the same root but used with different senses in order to explain the cognitive frames through which these lexemes acquired such different senses. The target word pair is rīĥ (a singular form literally meaning wind) and riyāĥ (a plural form literally meaning winds), representing a singular and a plural form, respectively. This word pair was chosen specifically because it appears frequently in the Qur’anic text and has a wide range of referential meanings. For the identification of the so-called referential range (i.e., range of senses) of the target word pair, Classical Arabic dictionaries are consulted, along with vastly cited exegetical interpretations for understanding the underlying context of each verse containing either of the target words.

In essence, the present study aims at (a) identifying and comparing the senses associated with rīĥ and riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text (i.e., their conceptual content; Langacker, 2008), (b) linking such senses to historical and theological contexts underlying the use of the target pair to show how they are cognitively framed, and (c) comparing the connotations (positive, negative, and neutral) marking the use of each word. In view of these objectives, the study questions could be stated as follows: (1) Given the boundaries of the Qur’anic discourse, what is the referential range of the pair rīĥ and riyāĥ? And based on such a referential range, which form is polysemic and which is monosemic; and regarding the polysemic form, what is the central reference point from which other senses developed? (2) Given such referential ranges, how do the context and cotext help to mark the connotations associated with each sense? And (3) What are the discourse functions communicated through the cognitive frame(s) evoked by such a word pair?

To offer objective answers to these questions, the present study adopts a qualitative cognitive semantic approach. It links the foundations of descriptive semantic theories as proposed by scholars such as Ullmann (1953, 1957), Leech (1974), Lyons (1977, 1995), and Stalnaker (2017) to the cognitive basis underlying lexemic selection and use as proposed by Ch. J. Fillmore (1976), Ch. Fillmore (2007) in his account of frame semantics. The cognitive-semantic approach best fits the study objectives as it would help to trace and compare the senses (referential range) associated with rīĥ and riyāĥ (their semantic representations) in the Qur’anic text with special reference to connotative and functional meaning aspects. Empirically, it would bridge the gap between meaning construction and knowledge representation as it approaches meaning as inherently experiential (or conceptual) rather than arbitrary. That is, it would show how both lexemes encode similar or different conceptualizations of experience. In this regard, Fillmore and Baker (2010) affirm that all content words require an appeal to the context frames in which the message they express is motivated and interpreted in order to be understood. Furthermore, such an approach would hopefully offer new lexicological and lexicographical insights in Qur’anic linguistic research, as it would open new avenues of research to explore similar etymologically related Qur’anic lexemes in terms of their referential range as well as their possible textually-invoked cognitive frames.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses related literature. Section 3 explicates the theoretical framework of descriptive semantics, with particular emphasis on denotation, connotation, referential range, and cognitive framing. The methodology is explained in Section 4 in terms of data description and procedure of analysis. Section 5 analyses the data and states the main findings. Section 6 discusses the study findings and offers insights for further research.

2. Literature review

In Classical Arabic, lexemes with the same form and variant senses are known as “al-”alfāž al-mutawaāţi’ah’ (i.e., words with similar forms and different senses; Al-Siyūtī, 2008; Al-Zarkashī, 1984). The verb لبس’labisa’, for example, has several senses in the Qur’anic text, including: (a) to confound, as in “وَلَا تَلْبِسُواْ ٱلْحَقَّ بِٱلْبَٰطِل وَتَكْتُمُواْ ٱلْحَقَّ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ” (wa lā talbisū al-ĥaqqa bil-bāţili wa taktumū al-ĥaqqa wa “antum ta`lamūna [And do not confound the truth with the untruth and do not keep back the truth and you know]) [2:42], (b) covering, as in ‘وَهُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ لِبَاسًا’ (wa huwa al-ladhī ja`ala lakumu al-layla libāsāan [He is the One Who has made the night for you (to be) a garment]) [25:47], (c) clothes, as in ‘يَا بَنِي آدَمَ قَدْ أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآتِكُمْ’ (yā banī ”ādama qad ’anzalnā `alaykum libāsāan yuwārī saw”ātikum [We have readily sent down on you a garment to overlay your shameful parts]) [7:26], and (d) good dead, as in “وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَىٰ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ” (wa libāsu at-taqwá dhālika khayrun [and the garment of piety, that is the most charitable]) [7:26].

In addition to the concept of “al-”alfāž al-mutawaāţi’ah’, Arabic studies maintain a pool of terms that capture the essence of the phenomenon of having words with similar forms and (un)related senses, including “al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir” (senses and referents), al-mushtarak al-lafžī (polysemy, i.e., words having the same form and related meanings), at-taraāduf (synonymy, i.e., words with the same or similar meaning), and at-taşrīf (declension, i.e., the alteration of a word’s form by some inflection, usually to express how it functions syntactically in a sentence). These terms could be traced in different annotated manuscripts such as Al-Tha`aālibī (1932), Al-Damaghaānī (1983), Al-Qaāri’ (1988), Bin-Sallām (2007), and Bin-Sulaymaān (2011). As an independent discipline of Qur’anic studies, “al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir” studies lexemes with a similar form and variant senses, as “al-wujuūh” stands for senses and “an-nažaā’ir” stands for referents (see Section 3). That is, while “al-wujuūh” refers to the different senses of lexemes as they are used in different contexts in the Qur’anic text, “an-nažaā’ir” refers to the lexemes used across the Qur’anic text even if they do not keep the same form. For instance, in the Qur’anic text, the referent “بَعۡلِ” (ba`l) stands for both “a husband” as in “قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَىٰ أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَا عَجُوزٌ وَهَٰذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا” (qālat yā waylatā ’a’alidu wa ‘anā `ajūzun wa hadhā ba`lī shaykhāan [She said: Alas for me! Shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man?]) [11:72], and “an idol” as in “أَتَدْعُونَ بَعْلًا وَتَذَرُونَ أَحْسَنَ الْخَالِقِينَ” (‘atad`ūna ba`lāan wa tadharūna ‘aĥsana al-khāliqīna [Will ye call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators]) [37:125].

Furthermore, it should be noted that Arab scholars were much concerned with verses (‘ayāt) that have similar lexico-syntactic structures in the Qur’an for two reasons. First, they aimed at highlighting the lexical semantic relations linking Qur’anic lexemes, especially polysemy (cf., Al-`awā, 1998; Al-Qar`aāwī, 1999) as well as negotiating stylistic and rhetorical differences among similar or quasi-similar verses. Second, they sought to facilitate memorizing the Quran. In this regard, Al-Damaghaānī (1983) focused on listing the derivatives of the same lexeme. For instance, in the Qur’anic text, based on the stem “ذَرَوَ” (dharawa) derivatives such as “dharnī” (leave me), “tadhrūhu ar-riyāĥ” (the windows do scatter) and “mithqāla dharrah” (an atom’s weight) abound. Furthermore, other studies sought to list variant senses of the same referent. ‘Ibn Al-Jawzī (1987), for example, listed eighteen senses for “الحق” (al-ĥaq), including “God”, “the Quran”, “Islam”, “justice”, and “truth”. Strikingly, other studies sought to list the extraordinary senses of a referent. ‘Ibn Al-’imād (2004), for example, mentioned that the lexical item “الفرقان” (al-furqān) is used in the Qur’anic text to signify “triumph”, “outlet”, and “the Qur’an”.

Given the scope of the present study, many studies have addressed the semantic relations built on the idea of sameness of meaning, especially synonymy and polysemy. For instance, Abdul-Ghafour et al. (2019) explored the interrelation between synonymy and polysemy in the Qur’anic text as instantiated by the lexical pair “al-asfār” and “al-kutub” (the Books) and their translations. Findings showed that though the two words are commonly viewed as near-synonyms, it has been proven that they semantically differ in some aspects as far as their contextual meanings are concerned. Yet, available translations do not capture such semantic differences. Furthermore, findings revealed that though the plural form “alkutub” is polysemous in the Qur’anic text, it is literally translated as “the books.”

Likewise, Musahar et al. (2019) analyzed the different senses of the polysemous words “Imam” and “Ummah” in the Qur’anic text and their translations into English and Malay. For this reason, the study relied on one of the officially used interpretation books in Malaysia known as Tafsir Pimpinan al-Rahman and Yusuf Ali’s translation. Findings revealed that Ali’s translation of the target lexical pair is literal, though the interpretations offer precise senses for each lexical pair. In this regard, Ali et al. (2014) highlighted the translation problems resulting from not considering the polysemic nature of some Qur’anic lexemes. Furthermore, Alhaj (2015) considered polysemous words in the Qur’an untranslatable unless an interpretative translation was conducted based on available exegetical interpretations.

To recap then, it is clear that little attention has been paid to the exploration of word forms derived from the same root but developed different senses. Also, none of the available studies sought to trace the central meaning from which other senses are derived. Furthermore, from a methodological perspective, previous studies did not offer clear quantitative and qualitative rubrics for the selection of polysemous Qur’anic words, and the semantic analyses offered in these studies did not dig into the conceptual schemas forming any polysemy network in the Qur’anic text. Therefore, the present study would hopefully fill in this gap using mixed (quantitative and qualitative) methods to explore the referential range of the lexical pair meeting the requirements of selection (see Section 4), explain which of the pair is polysemic and the central reference point from which other senses developed, investigate the role of context and cotext in highlighting the connotations associated with each sense, and in interpreting the discourse functions communicated through the cognitive frame or frames evoked by such a lexical pair.

3. Theoretical framework

Based on the Saussurean concept of sign (Saussure, 1916), a lexeme is construed as a sign with a particular form (signifier) and a particular meaning or meanings (signified). Each lexeme is rendered semantically distinct through a set of semantic features forming its descriptive meaning. Over time, and as a result of our expanding experiences and changing worldviews, such semantic features are updated or deleted. Accordingly, particular meanings disappear, and new meanings are born (Sweetser, 1990). The set of developed meanings of a lexeme or a linguistic expression is called its referential range. The referential range of language expressions “is fixed by their meaning in the language. But their actual reference depends upon a variety of contextual factors” (Lyons, 1995, p. 294). The way language expressions are given their semantic values falls under the scope of descriptive semantics, that is concerned with “the semantic properties” of words (Epstein, 2014, p. 44). As Stalnaker (2017) avers, it “assigns semantic values to the expressions of the language and explains how the semantic values of the complex expressions are a function of the semantic values of their parts” (p. 535). Furthermore, descriptive semantics concerns all the matters that help with evaluating the truth or falsity of the sentence in which a particular lexeme or expression is used (Epstein, 2014).

Broadly speaking, each lexeme is claimed to have both denotative and connotative meanings. Denotative (or descriptive) meaning refers to the basic, explicit referential meaning of a lexeme (denotatum) as shared by all people, whereas connotative (or associative) meaning refers to the associations, emotional suggestions, attitudes, and communicative power that a lexeme carries in different contexts (Lyons, 1977; Raghunath, 2022; Rambaud, 2012). Based on the context, connotations may be neutral, positive, or negative, as represented by expressions such as “people with no fixed addresses”, “homeless”, and “vagrants”, respectively. For Barthes (1967), connotative meaning is naturalized, conventionalized, and finally established as a primary denotative meaning.

Relatedly, the terms “denotative” and “connotative” meanings are sometimes replaced by “reference” and “sense”. While reference signifies a real-world object, sense signifies the mental image it expresses. In a natural language, reference includes nouns, noun phrases, and referring and non-referring expressions. However, a sense of an expression is realized through a set of sense relations such as synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, meronymy, homonymy, etc. Lyons (1995) affirms that the denotation and reference of an expression are not the same. He argues that the denotation of an expression is invariant and utterance-independent. Meanwhile, the reference of an expression is variant and utterance-dependent. For instance, the lexeme “dog” denotes a four-legged canine animal, but it could be lexically referred to as “friend” or “love” in a particular context or semantic situation. Such flexibility in propositional meanings pertaining to lexemes has been supported by common theories about the lexicon, which entail that the semantics of words are underspecified and that more particular information is filled in by the context (e.g., Blutner, 1998, 2004; Reyle, 1993), and is further advocated by Hogeweg’s (2019) argument that the interpretation of words entirely depends on the contextual environment wherein these words occur.

A semantic situation, according to Ullmann (1953, p. 228), is formed considering three variables: (1) the motivated or unmotivated nature of the name (i.e., the acoustic shape of the word), referring to simple/derivative, or compound terms respectively, (2) the greater or lesser precision of the sense (i.e., referential range), (3) the emotive elements that may develop around either component (i.e., associations). Based on these three variables, it is possible to conclude that Arabic tends to favor unmotivated word structure with a plethora of derivatives. Also, in general, Arabic lexemes tend to have a broad referential range that covers both descriptive and non-descriptive semantic properties. Relatedly, each sense is presumed to have positive, negative, and neutral associations. Each sense is formed in terms of a set of semantic features that distinguish a particular lexeme from other lexemes by affirming (+) or negating (-) their presence. The analysis of such semantic features is known as “componential analysis” or “lexical decomposition” (Allan, 2001, 2014; Goddard, 1998; Leech, 1974). One common example in this regard, stool can be distinguished from sofa as follows: stool (- with black, + with legs, + for a single person, + for sitting,—with arms, + rigid) and “sofa” (+ with back, + with legs,—for a single person, + for sitting, + with arms, + rigid).

There remains a question: how do language users schematize the proposition of an utterance in view of the lexemes used? Fillmore’s approach to “frame semantics” (Barsalou, 1992; Ch. Fillmore, 2007; Ch. J. Fillmore, 1976; Löbner, 2002, 2021) would offer an answer to such a question as it relates linguistic semantics to encyclopaedic knowledge. A semantic frame covers the set of facts specifying the “characteristic features, attributes, and functions of a denotatum, and its characteristic interactions with things necessarily or typically associated with it” (Allan, 2001, p. 252). The lexical meaning of a lexeme thus becomes incomplete unless all essential knowledge related to this lexeme is accessed.

In any utterance, lexical choices are made to help with building particular cognitive frames, as lexemes represent categories of experience underlain by a motivating situation (Ch. Fillmore, 2007, p. 238). A cognitive semantic frame is thus perceived as a structured, dynamic, and context-dependent way of interpreting experiences in terms of a motivating context (Barsalou, 1992). That is, in a particular context, a lexeme evokes a frame of semantic knowledge and other linguistic material associated with a potential frame. Furthermore, a lexeme might acquire a new sense (or new senses) as a novel schematization is offered, and hence a new cognitive frame is established. This means that the same lexeme is said to motivate different cognitive frames as long as the context varies, provided that the receptor has enough and appropriate knowledge of such context. By way of demonstration, the lexemes shore and coast, though partially synonymous, designate two cognitive frames that schematize the world differently. While shore is a boundary between land and water from the water’s point of view, coast is a boundary between land and water from the land’s point of view (Fillmore, 2007, p. 246).

Likewise, the same lexeme or form could develop different senses across genres and across different historical periods. The developed senses could be related or unrelated. If they are related, they are semantically described as polysemous. As mentioned earlier, polysemy refers to the coexistence of many different, but related, meanings for a word or a phrase. For instance, the lexeme bright means both shining and intelligent; however, if the senses of one lexeme are unrelated, they are semantically described as homonymic. Homonymy refers to the existence of unrelated words that sound or look the same. For instance, the lexeme bat means both “a stout solid stick” and “a nocturnal flying mammal”. That is, they are etymologically distinct (Palmer, 1976).

Building on the concept of polysemy, the central meaning from which other senses are derived is referred to as “conceptual schema” (Antonova, 2020; Cruse, 2017; Talmy, 1983) or “central reference point” (Rice, 1996; Tribushinina, 2008). Taking the conceptual schema as the core node of any polysemy network, three developments might happen, and therefore new senses emerge. Firstly, the conceptual schema is slightly modified by adding or removing particular semantic features. Second, the conceptual schema’s reference is specialized. Finally, language users implement a kind of metaphorical mapping between one conceptual schema and another. With new mappings, the polysemy network expands.

4. Methodology

This section offers a description of the data, data collection procedure, and procedure of analysis.

4.1. Data collection and description

The Qur’an is the principal religious text of Islam, commonly believed to be a revelation of God to the Prophet Muhammad over a period of 23 years. It is largely claimed to be the finest, most inimitable piece of literature in Classical Arabic. Technically described as a corpus of Classical Arabic, the Qur’an includes 114 Meccan and Medinan chapters, each of which involves 6236 verses, with a total of 77.439 words. In view of the study objectives stated earlier, the present study applies a corpus-based mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) descriptive semantic approach to offer a cognitive-semantic analysis of two etymologically related Qur’anic lexical pairs thought to have diverse senses. A mixed-method approach is the one that “combines different paradigms and research traditions in an effort to arrive at a more complete understanding of the object under investigation” (Loewen & Plonsky, 2016, p. 117). Therefore, a preliminary quantitative analysis was conducted to collect these lexical pairs and then calculate their frequency and keyness. For data collection, Al-Bāĥiṯ Al-Qur’aānī (The Qur’anic Researcher, available at https://tafsir.app/) was used. The final dataset included 20 etymologically related lexical pairs, as shown in Table 1 below. A literal translation is offered in parentheses.

Table 1. List of etymologically-related lexical pairs forming the initial dataset

No.	Lexical pairs	Meaning	Freq.	No.	Lexical pairs	Meaning	Freq.
1	أَمۡنِ ‘amn	security	5	11	رِیح rīĥ	wind	18
	أَمَنَة ’amanah	reassurance	2		رِّیَاحَ riyāĥ	winds	10
2	مَیِّتِ mayyit	dead	15	12	نَزَّلَ nazzala	send down	24
	مَیۡتَةَ maytah	carrion	10		أَنزَلَ ‘anzala	send down	123
3	كُرۡه kurh	hatred	1	13	أَوۡصَٰى ‘awşā	enjoin upon	1
	كَرۡه karh	unwillingness	5		وَصَّیۡ waşşa	enjoin upon	6
4	نِعۡمَة ni`mah	favour	45	14	هَوۡن hawn	gentleness	1
	نَعِیم na`īm	bliss	17		هُون hūn	degradation	4
5	یَشۡرِی yashrī	barter	1	15	عِبَاد `ibād	bondmen	99
	ٱشۡتَرَىٰ ashtará	purchase	10		عَبِید `abīd	slaves	5
6	ٱلۡعُیُون al-`uyūn	springs	10	16	ٱلۡقَـٰاسِطُونَ al-qāsiţūn	the inequitable	2
	ٱلۡأَعۡیُنِ al-’a`yun	eyes	22		ٱلۡمُقۡسِطِینَ al-muqsiţīn	the equitable	3
7	مِثۡل mithl	like of	75	17	ٱسۡطَاعُوۤا۟ asţā`ū	surmount	1
	مَثَل mathal	parable	71		ٱسۡتَطَاعُوا۟ astaţā`ū	bore	4
8	تَبَدَّل tabaddal	change	6	18	تَسۡطِع tasţi`	endure	1
	تَتَبَدَّل tatabaddal	exchange	1		تَسۡتَطِیع tastaţī`	be able	6
9	مِتُّمۡ mittum	die	1	19	أَدۡبَار ‘adbār	backs	13
	مُتُّمۡ muttum	die	3		إِدۡبَارَ ‘idbār	drawing	1
10	ضُر đurr	adversity	21	20	ٱلۡخَاسِرِین al-khāsirīn	losers	24
	ضَر đarr	harm	9		ٱلۡخَاٰسِرُون al-khāsirūn	the losers	4

For the sake of selecting a representative pair for a full-fledged analysis, two criteria have been set: the frequency of both lexical items is >10, and their referential range is considerably variant. Therefore, after the quantification of such pairs, all the potential senses of each pair, in light of its underlying historical and theological context, are configured based on dictionaries of Classical Arabic (Lane, 1968; Al-Rāzī, 1986; ‘Ibn Manžūr, 1993) and vastly-cited exegetical interpretation resources (‘Ibn `ashūr, 1984; Al-Qurtubī, 2006; Al-Zamakhsharī, 2009; M. F. Ar-Rāzī, 1981). The etymologically-related pair that fulfilled the two criteria is rīĥ (a singular form meaning “wind”) and riyāĥ (a plural form meaning “winds”).

4.2. Procedure of analysis

The procedure of analysis followed in the present study operates in three steps. Firstly, it identifies the etymon and semantic components of rīĥ that could be naturally extended to its plural form and riyāĥ so that its prototypical denotative meaning is configured. In so doing, the referential range of each lexeme is defined. Secondly, to offer an integrative semantic profile of the target lexical pair, it explores and compares the connotations associated with rīĥ and riyāĥ in their co-text as well as their historical-theological context. At this stage, four exegeses are consulted: Tafsīr al-fakhr al-rāzī (M. F. Ar-Rāzī, 1981), Tafsīr At-taĥrīr wa-at-tanwīr (‘Ibn `ashūr, 1984), Al-jaāmi` li-’aĥkaām Al-Qur’aān (Al-Qurtubī, 2006), and Tafsīr al-kashāf (Al-Zamakhsharī, 2009). Thirdly, it configures the cognitive frames and schema (Ch. Fillmore, 2007; Ch. J. Fillmore, 1976) underlying the use of each lexeme in the target pair. It is to be noted that the selected verses are quoted in their original form of production, i.e., Classical Arabic, and are accompanied by a Classical Arabic transliteration, i.e., words are phonetically transcribed in the manner of production pertinent to their original form, as well as an English translation adopted from Ali’s, 1983/1934 [1983]) translation. The phonetic symbols used in the Arabic transliteration are adopted from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) with a few differences to tune with the phonetic nature of some sounds in Arabic. Also, an appendix of the symbols used in this study is attached at the end of this paper.

5. Data analysis

Although rīĥ and riyāĥ have different phonetic and orthographic forms, both are derived from the stem “روح” r-w-ĥ (pronounced rawaĥa(. Rīĥ is a singular form whose universal semantic components are +natural force, +air, +blowing, and +speed, forming the semantic frame of “wind”. The plural form is riyāĥ. Both lexemes are distributed in the Qur’anic text as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The frequency of rīĥ and riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text

Rīĥ			Riyāĥ
No.	Chapter	Verse No.	No.	Chapter	Verse No.
1	‘Āli `Imrān	[3: 117]	1	Al-Baqarah	[2: 164]
2	Al-’Anfāl	[8: 46]	2	Al-’A`rāf	[7: 57]
3	Yūnis	[10: 22]	3	Al-Ĥijr	[15: 22]
4	Yūsuf	[12: 94]	4	Al-Kahf	[18: 45]
5	‘Ibrāhīm	[14: 18]	5	Al-Furqān	[25: 48]
6	Al-’Isrā’	[17: 69]	6	An-Naml	[27: 63]
7	Al-’Anbyā’	[21: 81]	7	Ar-Rūm	[30: 46]
8	Al-Ĥaj	[22: 31]	8	Ar-Rūm	[30: 48]
9	Ar-Rūm	[30: 51]	9	Fāţir	[35: 9]
10	Al-’Aĥzāb	[33: 9]	10	Al-Jāthiyah	[45: 5]
11	Saba’	[34: 12]
12	Şād	[38: 36]
13	Fuşşilat	[41: 16]
14	Ash-Shūraá	[42: 33]
15	Al-’Aĥqāf	[46: 24]
16	Adh-Dhāriyāt	[51: 41]
17	Al-Qamar	[54: 19]
18	Al-Ĥāqqa	[69: 6]

As shown in Table 2, rīĥ is more frequent in the Qur’anic text. In terms of the referential range of rīĥ and riyāĥ, both share the prototypical sense of “wind” or “moving air”. This sense could be traced in verses [3:117], [10:22], [14:18], [17:69], [21:81], [22:31], [30:51], [33:9], [34:12], [38:36], [41:16], [42:33], [46:24], [51:41], and [54:19]. The following verses serve as good examples.

• • [30:48] اللَّهُ الَّذِي يُرْسِلُ الرِّياحَ فَتُثِيرُ سَحاباً فَيَبْسُطُهُ فِي السَّماءِ كَيْفَ يَشاءُ

Al-lahu al-ladhī yursilu ar-riyāĥa fatuthīru saĥābāan fayabsuţuhu fī as-samā’i kayfa yashā’

“It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills”

However, verses [8:46] and [12:94] offer two other senses for “rīĥ” not shared by “riyāĥ”. In verse [8:46] below, “rīĥ” is used in the sense of power, predominance, or good fortune.

• • [8:46] وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَا تَنَازَعُوا فَتَفْشَلُوا وَتَذْهَبَ رِيحُكُمْ

wa ‘aţī`ū allaha wa rasūlahu wa lā tanāza`ū fatafshalū wa tadh/haba rīĥukum

“And obey Allah and His Messenger; and fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart and your power depart; and be patient and persevering: For Allah is with those who patiently persevere.”

Indeed, in verse [8:46], a new semantic frame is evoked through the metaphorical mapping of the cognitive frame of wind as a natural force to the cognitive frame of “power” on the part of states. Here, God orders Muslims to obey Him and His Messenger; otherwise, their power and vigor depart. Equally important, in verse [12:94], the prototypical sense of “wind” is made more specialized through a carrier-carried relationship.

• • [12:94] وَلَمَّا فَصَلَتِ الْعِيرُ قالَ أَبُوهُمْ إِنِّي لَأَجِدُ رِيحَ يُوسُفَ لَوْلا أَنْ تُفَنِّدُونِ

wa lammā faşalati al-`īru qāla “abūhum ”innī la’ajidu rīĥa yūsufa lawlā ’an tufannidūn

“When the caravan left [Egypt], their father said: “I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph: Nay, think me not a dotard.”

In verse [12:94], rīĥ is used in the sense of “smell” as air is designed to carry smell. Therefore, it could now be stated that the referential range of rīĥ in the Qur’anic text covers three senses: (1) wind, (2) predominance, and (3) smell. The relatedness of senses (1) and (3) renders rīĥ as polysemic, while the senses (1) and (2) render it homonymic, as “smell” departs from the prototypical sense of “wind”. Yet, the plural form riyāĥ keeps the sense of “wind” throughout the Qur’anic text. Senses (2) and (3) are contextually motivated, and therefore they are mutually exclusive. That is, they suppress one another across contexts. Each sense provokes a particular frame of attributes and, accordingly, a new conceptual schema.

5.1. Rīĥ

In exploring the broader context of the verses in question and the co-text coloring the lexical pairs rīĥ and riyāĥ, it becomes clear that each lexeme has different connotations. Starting with the prototypical sense of wind, the cognitive frame invoked concerns the processes of creating and sending winds, moving ships, causing rain, fertilizing plants, and punishing disbelievers. God is explicitly and implicitly construed as the sender of rīĥ. Consider the following verses.

• • [3:117] مَثَلُ مَا يُنْفِقُونَ فِي هَذِهِ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا كَمَثَلِ رِيحٍ فِيهَا صِرٌّ أَصَابَتْ حَرْثَ قَوْمٍ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ فَأَهْلَكَتْهُ

mathalu mā yunfiqūna fī hadhihi al-ĥayāati ad-dunyā kamathali rīĥin fīhā şirrun “aşābat ĥartha qawmin žalamū ”anfusahum fa’ahlakathu

“What they spend in the life of this [material] world May be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls”

• • [41:16] فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي أَيَّامٍ نَحِسَاتٍ

fa’arsalnā `alayhim rīĥāan şarşarāan fī ’ayyāmin naĥisātin

“So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster”

In verse [3:117], rīĥ is described as “fīhā ṣir” (clamoring cold). In Arabic, الصر “şir” commonly signifies violent, cold wind. However, M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981) holds that الصر “al-şir” refers to the wind that might be extremely cold or hot. Indeed, the aspects of coldness and hotness are acceptable in this context since such wind is destructive in nature as affirmed by the phrase فَأَهْلَكَتْهُ fa’ahlakath (caused it to perish). As M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 8, p. 212) argues, verse [13:117] represents a complex simile in which the alms given by non-believers are likened to a perished harvest, and disbelief is likened to a destructive wind. Historically, as shown in verse [41:16], God manipulates such an intensely violent cold wind to punish the people of `aād who lived in southern Arabia for challenging God and disobeying His messenger, `aād. The wind was so cold that it burned and shook everything and everyone for eight days that are described in verse [41:16] as نَحِسَاتٍ naĥisāt (i.e., cold and sandy).

The same narrative of manipulating cold wind to punish the people of `aād is reiterated in verses [46:24], [51:41], [54:19], and [69:6], where rīĥ is described as “الْعَقِيمَ” (sterile, neither causing rain nor fertilizing plants), فِيهَا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (wherein is a painful torment), تُدَمِّرُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ (destroying everything), تَنزعُ النَّاس (plucking up mankind), and صَرْصَرٍ عَاتِيَةٍ (furious and clamorous). Relatedly, verse [46:24] below offers the scene that preceded the punishment of the people of `aād.

• • [46:24] فَلَمَّا رَأَوْهُ عَارِضًا مُسْتَقْبِلَ أَوْدِيَتِهِمْ قَالُوا هَذَا عَارِضٌ مُمْطِرُنَا بَلْ هُوَ مَا اسْتَعْجَلْتُمْ بِهِ رِيحٌ فِيهَا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

falammā ra’awhu `āriđāan mustaqbila ‘awdiyatihim qālū hādhā `āriđun mumţirunā bal huwa mā asta`jaltum bihi rīĥun fīhā `adhābun ‘alīm

“Then, when they saw the [Penalty in the shape of] a cloud traversing the sky, coming to meet their valleys, they said, “This cloud will give us rain!” “Nay, it is the [Calamity] ye were asking to be hastened! A wind wherein is a Grievous Penalty!”

Historically speaking, narratives affirm that God’s punishment started with a drought that spread throughout the land, but the people of `aād became more obstinate. Some days later, the sky became full of clouds. Initially, they thought that these clouds would cause rain; however, a sudden, cold, violent wind blew and destroyed all aspects of life.

• • [14:18] مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ كَرَمَادٍ اشْتَدَّتْ بِهِ الرِّيحُ فِي يَوْمٍ عَاصِفٍ

mathalu al-ladhīna kafarū birabbihim a`māluhum karamādin ashtaddat bihi ar-rīĥu fī yawmin `āşifin

“The parable of those who reject their Lord is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows furiously on a tempestuous day”

The analogy in verse [14:18] is construed to stress the valuelessness and ineptitude of the deeds of polytheists, as their deeds are likened to ashes (ramād) that the wind blows furiously on a stormy day. This wind is described as عَاصِفٍ ʿaṣif (tempestuous and intense). M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 19, p. 109) argues that ʿaṣif may be either an attribute of the day or of the wind.

Similarly, verse [22:31] is grounded in a compound analogy, as polytheists are likened to those who had fallen from the sky, been snatched up by birds, and been thrown away by the wind.

• • [22:31] وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَكَأَنَّمَا خَرَّ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فَتَخْطَفُهُ الطَّيْرُ أَوْ تَهْوِي بِهِ الرِّيحُ فِي مَكَانٍ سَحِيقٍ

ĥunafā’a lillāh ghayra mushrikīna bihi wa man yushrik billāhi faka’annamā kharra mina as-samā’i fatakhţafuhu aţ-ţayru ’aw tahwī bihi ar-rīĥu fī makānin saĥīq

“if anyone assigns partners to Allah, is as if he had fallen from heaven and been snatched up by birds, or the wind had swooped [like a bird on its prey] and thrown him into a far-distant place.”

Polytheists who have been cast into the valley of aberrance are compared to the wind, which blows things around. Furthermore, ‘ibn `‘Ibn `ashūr (1984, Part 17, p. 255) claims that the use of أَوْ “aw’ (or) denotes two types of polytheists: those who oscillate between monotheism and polytheism (likened to someone who has collapsed from heaven and the birds snatch him away), and those who insist on claiming partners to God (likened to someone who is swept down into a far-off place). The second type is sentenced to severe punishment. Taking these aspects of punishment into account, the negative connotations of rīĥ emerge once more.

Maintaining the same schema of punishment, sea winds are also schematized to punish, as manifested in verse [17:69] below.

• • [17:69] أَمْ أَمِنْتُمْ أَنْ يُعِيدَكُمْ فِيهِ تَارَةً أُخْرَى فَيُرْسِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ قَاصِفًا مِنَ الرِّيحِ فَيُغْرِقَكُمْ بِمَا كَفَرْتُمْ

“am ”amintum ’an yu`īdakum fīhi tāratan ‘ukhrá fayursila `alaykum qāşifāan mina ar-rīĥi fayughriqakum bimā kafartum

“Or do ye feel secure that He will not send you back a second time to sea and send against you a heavy gale to drown you because of your ingratitude”

In verse [17:69], people who show ingratitude to God are destined to be punished by a rumbling sea wind (قَاصِف qāṣif) that is made to break their ships and cause them to be drawn. Furthermore, verse [30:51] below replicates the same idea of ingratitude, as ungrateful people count only on God’s blessings.

• • [30:51] وَلَئِنْ أَرْسَلْنَا رِيحًا فَرَأَوْهُ مُصْفَرًّا لَظَلُّوا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ يَكْفُرُونَ

wa la’in ‘arsalnā rīĥāan fara’awhu muşfarrāan lažallū min ba`dihi yakfurūn

“And if We [but] send a Wind from which they see [their tilth] turn yellow, behold, they become, thereafter, Ungrateful [Unbelievers]!”

That is, if an ungrateful person’s faith is tested by sending them a wind that turns plants yellow (muṣffar), they would be an unbeliever. The attached pronoun in رَأَوْهُ raʾawhu (they see it) refers to “green plants” that turn yellow as a result of sending hot or cold wind and holding rain. Contrarily, the Qur’anic text motivates positive connotations for rīĥ in the sense of moving air. Such positive connotations are related to Solomon, and they can be traced in verses [21:81], [33:9], [34:12], [38:36], and [42:33] below.

• • [21:81] وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ عَاصِفَةً تَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا

wa lisulaymāna ar-rīĥa `āşifatan tajrī bi’amrihi ’ilá al-’arđi allatī bāraknā fīhā

“[It was Our power that made] the violent [unruly] wind flow [tamely] for Solomon, to his order, to the land which We had blessed”

• • [34:12] وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ غُدُوُّهَا شَهْرٌ وَرَوَاحُهَا شَهْرٌ

wa lisulaymāna ar-rīĥa ghudūwuhā shahrun wa rawāĥuhā shahr

“And to Solomon [We made] the Wind [obedient]: Its early morning [stride] was a month’s [journey], and its evening [stride] was a month’s [journey]”

• • [38:36] فَسَخَّرْنَا لَهُ الرِّيحَ تَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ رُخَاءً حَيْثُ أَصَابَ

fasakhkharnā lahu ar-rīĥa tajrī bi’amrihi rukhā’an ĥaythu ‘aşāb

“Then We subjected the wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed”

The Qur’anic text recounts that God made different creatures subservient to Solomon, including the wind. This wind is described as عَاصِفَةً ʿāsifatan (tempestuous or stormy) in verse [21:81], تَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ taǧrī bi-ʾamrihi (run at his command) in verses [21:81] and [38:36], رُخَاءً ruḫāʾan (gently) in verse [38:36], غُدُوُّهَا شَهْرٌ ġudauwuhā šahr (its course in the early morning was a month’s journey) and رَوَاحُهَا شَهْر rawāḥuhā šahr (its course home in the late afternoon was a month’s journey) in verse [34:12]. Commenting on the description of such a wind as عَاصِفَةً ʿāsifatan which literally means “tempestuous”, M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 22, p. 201) holds that the wind was inherently violent, but after God made it subservient to Solomon, it became gentle. However, in terms of the Islamic historical context underlying Solomon’s power as a king, such a wind was powerful rather than violent. The sense of powerfulness is much more appealing in this context, as it helped Solomon to move very quickly from Palestine to different regions all over the globe, carrying him, his soldiers, war equipment, goods, etc. In principle, Solomon’s wind was a miracle that worked to demonstrate his prophecy.

Positive connotations are also invoked in verses [42:33] and [33:9] below, where rīĥ is represented as one of God’s graces.

• • [42:33] إِنْ يَشَأْ يُسْكِنِ الرِّيحَ فَيَظْلَلْنَ رَوَاكِدَ عَلَى ظَهْرِهِ

“in yasha” yuskini ar-rīĥa fayažlalna rawākida `alá žahrihi

“If it be His Will He can still the Wind: then would they become motionless on the back of the [ocean].”

• • [33:9] يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا اذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَاءَتْكُمْ جُنُودٌ فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا وَجُنُودًا لَمْ تَرَوْهَا

yā ’ayyuhā al-ladhīna “āmanū adhkurū ni`mata allāhi`alaykum ”idh jā’atkum junūdun fa’arsalnā `alayhim rīĥāan wa junūdāan lam tarawhā

“O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of Allah, [bestowed] on you, when there came down on you hosts [to overwhelm you]: But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not.”

Though winds are designed to move ships, God warns ungrateful people who deny His existence that He might quiet such a wind; and therefore, they linger motionless. Similarly, in verse [33:9], winds are represented as divine messengers to support believers. God reminds believers that He supported them with a cold wind known as Aş-şabā during Ghazwat Al-’aĥzāb (the Battle of the Trench) in 5 AH. Such a powerful wind took away the camp of the Jewish clans in Mecca. Likewise, verse [10:22] offers another intriguing schema of rīĥ as it is manipulated to mark God’s power to designate the wind as bliss or torment. Therefore, both positive and negative connotations are invoked, respectively.

• • [10:22] هُوَ الَّذِي يُسَيِّرُكُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ حَتَّى إِذَا كُنْتُمْ فِي الْفُلْكِ وَجَرَيْنَ بِهِمْ بِرِيحٍ طَيِّبَةٍ وَفَرِحُوا بِهَا جَاءَتْهَا رِيحٌ عَاصِفٌ

huwa al-ladhī yusayyirukum fī al-barri wa al-baĥri ĥattá ’idhā kuntum fī al-fulki wa jarayna bihim birīĥin ţayyibatin wa fariĥū bihā jā’at/hā rīĥun `āşifun

“He it is Who enableth you to traverse through land and sea; so that ye even board ships;- they sail with them with a favourable wind, and they rejoice thereat; then comes a stormy wind”

The setting of verse [10:22] is a ship where disbelievers firstly rejoiced as a good wind (rīĥun ţayyiba) blew. Suddenly came a tempestuous wind (rīĥun `āşif) and waves from all sides to remind them of their ungratefulness to God’s blessings. The deictic shift from the second person pronoun in يُسَيِّرُكُمْ ‘yusayyirukum (makes you to travel) and كُنْتُمْ ‘ kuntum (you were) to the third person pronoun in جرَيْنَ بِهِمْ jarayna bihim (run with them) and فَرِحُوا بِهَا fariĥū bihā (they exult with it) marks a shift from addressing both believers and disbelievers and reminding them of God’s blessings to addressing ungrateful disbelievers.

Furthermore, rīĥ is used to denote predominance to warn believers not to dispute lest their power be taken away. In other words, as far as the sense of predominance is concerned, rīĥ foregrounds loss of power. Consider verse [8:46] below.

• • [8:46] وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَا تَنَازَعُوا فَتَفْشَلُوا وَتَذْهَبَ رِيحُكُمْ

wa ‘aţī`ū allaha wa rasūlahu wa lā tanāza`ū fatafshalū wa tadhhaba rīĥukum

“And obey Allah and His Messenger; and fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart and your power depart”

In verse [8:46], God advises believers to obey Him and not fall into disputes; otherwise, their predominance would depart (tadhhaba rīĥukum). Here, a new cognitive frame is offered, that of a powerful state. A true powerful state is established on strict policies to maintain unity and obedience to God and His messenger. However, Al-Qurtubī (2006, Part 10, pp. 40–41) accepts the literal meaning of wind. He mentions that this wind is known as Aş-şabā, and that it was made to support Mohammed and his followers against the Jews. Al-Qurtubī’s claim might be based on other intertextual information retrieved from the Prophetic Hadith: “nuşirtu bi-aş-şabā wa-’uhlikat`aādun bi-ad-dabūr” [I was granted victory with Aş-şabā and the people of `aād were destroyed by Ad-dabūr]. However, M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 15, p. 177) goes for the sense of predominance, as disputes among believers could not affect the blowing of the wind. However, I maintain that metaphorizing a powerful state as a powerful wind stresses the idea of predominance, and therefore it could be concluded that the frame of natural force is conceptually blended with the frame of a powerful state. Just as a gentle wind could be beneficial in different ways, a powerful state is beneficial to its people. Also, just as a massively powerful wind is destructive, disputes are destructive.

Finally, rīĥ appears only once in the sense of smell, in verse [12:94], to indicate the conclusion of the prophet Joseph and his brothers’ story.

• • [12:94] وَلَمَّا فَصَلَتِ الْعِيرُ قَالَ أَبُوهُمْ إِنِّي لَأَجِدُ رِيحَ يُوسُفَ

wa lammā faşalati al-`īru qāla “abūhum ”innī la’ajidu rīĥa yūsufa

“When the caravan left [Egypt], their father said: “I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph”

Verse [12:94] recounts a euphoric episode in Joseph’s narrative. Prophet Jacob, Joseph’s father, lost Joseph for twenty-two years, and all people, except Jacob, thought that Joseph was eaten by a wolf. Jacob told his family that he indeed smelt the presence of Joseph, and therefore he cheered up. Al-Qurtubī (2006, Part 11, p. 447) and Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 18, p. 212) argue that such a smell represents a miracle, as a real wind carried Joseph’s smell to Jacob from Egypt to Canaan (the Levant). Contrarily, ‘ibn `‘Ibn `ashūr (1984, Part 13, p. 52) argues against the idea of a real wind, and he regards such a smell as a kind of extraordinary inspiration from God to Jacob. Either interpretation is favored, the positive connotation of rīĥ in this context is emphasized, as rīĥ is schematized as a herald of glad tidings represented by an expected familial reunion. From a cognitive perspective, there is a transfer between two cognitive frames: wind as a natural force and smell as a meronym of Joseph. Such a wind and Joseph are conceptually blended, and this blend is supported by Jacob’s assertive tone in the verse.

Table 3 below summarizes the referential range of rīĥ and the cognitive frames underlying them.

Table 3. The referential range of rīĥ

Lexical item	Lexical relation	Referential range	Cognitive frame	Connotations
rīĥ	polysemous	moving air	Wind as a natural force	Positive, negative and neutral
		power and predominance	Powerful state
		smell	Herald of good tidings (Familial reunion)

Having fully analyzed and instantiated the referential range of rīĥ, the next section analyses the referential range of riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text.

5.2. Riyāĥ

Throughout the Qur’anic text, the lexeme riyāĥ is repeated ten times to signify moving air. Therefore, the cognitive frame of wind as a natural force is claimed to underlie all the verses containing the lexeme riyāĥ. Riyāĥ is used with two main verbs, “يُرْسِلُ” yursil (send) and “تَذْرى” taḏri (winnow). If decontextualized, both verbs tend to have neutral connotations. While the verb “yursil” signifies the processes of wind creation, direction, and adjustment, the verb tadhri (winnow) signifies one of the common actions of winds as they scatter things around. Other contextual clues in the verses under exploration could help to figure out the connotations associated with riyāĥ.

In verses [2:164] and [45:5] below, riyāĥ is associated with مَاءٍ mā’ (rain) and سَّحَاب as-saĥāb (clouds) that carry rain to give life to the dead land.

• • [2:164] وَمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مِنْ مَاءٍ فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا وَبَثَّ فِيهَا مِنْ كُلِّ دَابَّةٍ وَتَصْرِيفِ الرِّيَاحِ وَالسَّحَابِ الْمُسَخَّرِ بَيْنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ لَآَيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

wa mā ’anzala allāhu mina as-samā’i min mā’in fa’aĥyā bihi al-’arđa ba`da mawtihā wa baththa fīhā min kulli dābbatin wa taşrīfi ar-riyāĥi wa as-saĥābi al-musakhkhari bayna as-samā’i wa al-’arđi la’āyātin liqawmin ya`qilūn

In the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth; [Here] indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.”

• • [45:5] وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ وَمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مِنْ رِزْقٍ فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا وَتَصْرِيفِ الرِّيَاحِ آَيَاتٌ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

wa akhtilāfi al-layli wa an-nahāri wa mā ’anzala allāhu mina as-samā’i min rizqin fa’aĥyā bihi al-’arđa ba`da mawtihā wa taşrīfi ar-riyāĥi ‘āyātun liqawmin ya`qilūn

“And in the alternation of Night and Day, and the fact that Allah sends down Sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds, are Signs for those that are wise.”

Both verses above emphasize the role riyāĥ plays in the process of rain formation and land nourishment. Further, in the same verses, God reminds people of the signs of His power, including the change of winds (taşrīfi ar-riyāĥ). The verbiage of the two verses above captures the notion that God changes winds to suit different circumstances as a sign of His existence and power. Al-Qurtubī (2006, Part 2, pp. 498–502) holds that ‘تَصْرِيفِ” taşrīf (change) may refer to three possible meanings. First, wind may blow in different forms and states, viz., winds may be impregnating, devastating, supportive, hot, cold, gentle, or violent. Second, winds blow from different regions with different features. Therefore, different names for winds abound, such as “Aş-şabā” (hot and dry), “Ad-dabūr” (cold and humid), “Ash-shamāl” (cold and dry), “Al-janūb” (hot and humid), and ‘An-nakbaā” (a wind that blows between two winds). Third, winds are made to blow in a way that suits both huge and small ships. Taking these meanings into consideration, it could be claimed that if the schema of changing winds is invoked, neutral connotations are manifested.

Maintaining the same positive connotations of riyāĥ, in verses [7:57], [25:48], [27:63] and [30:46] below, riyāĥ is described as بُشْرًا bushrāan (heralding glad tidings), مُبَشِّرَاتٍ mubashshirāt (heralds of glad tidings), andرَحْمَه raĥma (mercy).

• • [7:57] وَهُوَ الَّذِي يُرْسِلُ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ

Wa huwa al-ladhī yursilu ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi

“It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy”

• [25:48] وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ

wa huwa al-ladhī ’arsala ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi

“And He it is Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy”

• • [27:63]أَمَّنْ يَهْدِيكُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَنْ يُرْسِلُ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ

‘amman yahdīkum fī žulumāti al-barri wa al-baĥri wa man yursilu ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi

“Or, Who guides you through the depths of darkness on land and sea, and Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His Mercy?”

• • [30:46] وَمِنْ آَيَاتِهِ أَنْ يُرْسِلَ الرِّيَاحَ مُبَشِّرَاتٍ وَلِيُذِيقَكُمْ مِنْ رَحْمَتِهِ

Wa min “āyātihi ”an yursila ar-riyāĥa mubashshirātin wa liyudhīqakum min raĥmatihi

“Among His Signs is this, that He sends the Winds, as heralds of Glad Tidings, giving you a taste of His [Grace and] Mercy”

As far as the modifier “بُشْرًا” (bushrāan) is considered, it could be argued that such winds are metaphorized as messengers sent with glad tidings. Furthermore, the same idea of changing winds to produce rain that gives birth to the dead land is repeated in verse [35:9]. Similarly, verse [30:48] offers a detailed description of the process of rain formation that originally starts with creating winds. God sends winds that raise clouds, and then He spreads these clouds in the sky. As God breaks the clouds into fragments, rain starts to fall. In addition to causing rain, winds help to sail ships, as manifested in verse [30:46]. Taking all these descriptions into account, riyāĥ is is seen as an integral part of a larger metaphor that compares the resurrection of the dead on the Day of judgment to giving birth to a dead land by causing rain to fall on it. Keeping the same ecolinguistic context, verses [15:22] and [18:45] below associate riyāĥ with plants in two distinct contexts.

• • [15:22] وَأَرْسَلْنَا الرِّيَاحَ لَوَاقِحَ فَأَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَسْقَيْنَاكُمُوهُ وَمَا أَنْتُمْ لَهُ بِخَازِنِينَ

wa “arsalnā ar-riyāĥa lawāqiĥa fa’anzalnā mina as-samā’i mā’an fa’asqaynākumūhu wa mā ”antum lahu bikhāzinīn

“And We send the fecundating winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith providing you with water [in abundance]”

• • [18:45] وَاضْرِبْ لَهُمْ مَثَلَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا كَمَاءٍ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فَاخْتَلَطَ بِهِ نَبَاتُ الْأَرْضِ فَأَصْبَحَ هَشِيمًا تَذْرُوهُ الرِّيَاحُ

wa ađrib lahum mathala al-ĥayāati ad-dunyā kamā’in “anzalnāhu mina as-samā’i fākhtalaţa bihi nabātu al-”arđi fa’aşbaĥa hashīmāan tadhrūhu ar-riyāĥu

“Set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: It is like the rain which we send down from the skies: the earth’s vegetation absorbs it, but soon it becomes dry stubble, which the winds do scatter”

The context of verse [15:22] ascribes a positive connotation to riyāĥ as winds are described as لَوَاقِحَ lawāqiĥ (impregnating), i.e., carriers of benefits. That is, such winds, blowing from the south and known as Ad-dabūr, carry water, dust, clouds, pollen, and other benefits. Moreover, impregnating winds fertilize plants and inject clouds with water vapor to form rain. In this regard, ‘ibn `‘Ibn `ashūr (1984, Part 14, p. 37) holds that winds in verse [15:22] are metaphorized as pregnant she-camels that are also referred to in Classical Arabic as لَوَاقِحَ lawāqiĥ. Wind fertilizes plants and clouds in the same way that camels fertilize she-camels. In verse [18:45], on the other hand, riyāĥ is used as part of a metaphor in which life is compared to the rain that God sends to earth, causing plants to grow; however, these plants soon become chaff that winds winnow. Like plants, wealth and power are not permanent. The context thus ascribes both positive and negative connotations to riyāĥ in the same verse. That is, winds that create rain and help with the growth of plants could be a disgrace as they cause plants to get dry and finally winnow. Table 4 summarizes the referential range of riyāĥ.

Table 4. The referential range of riyāĥ

Lexical item	Lexical relation	Referential range	Cognitive frame	Connotations
riyāḥ	monosemic	moving air	wind as a natural force	Positive, negative and neutral

Based on the analysis of the referential range of rīĥ and riyāĥ, it can be concluded that the plural form riyāĥ is used in verses associated with divine mercy and profit, while the singular form rīĥ is used in verses associated with divine penalty and punishment. That is, riyāĥ signifies different winds that gently blow every day and night to refresh the air, form clouds, fertilize plants, and sail ships. Meanwhile, rīĥ is often presented as blowing across long periods of time to perform specific, mostly punitive, missions.

6. Discussion

The present study applied a mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) descriptive/cognitive semantic approach to analyze twenty-eight verses where the lexical pair rīĥ and riyāĥ are used. Such a lexical pair has been selected as a representative of the etymologically-related Qur’anic lexical pairs that are markedly frequent, and whose referential range is considerably varied. Rīĥ and riyāĥ are textually represented as tokens of the same type as they are derived from the tripartite verb “رَوَحَ” r-w-ĥ (pronounced rawaĥa(. In what follows, we offer empirical answers to the research questions raised in this study.

The study’s first question concerns the analysis of the referential range of the lexical pair rīĥ and riyāĥ. Findings showed that the singular form rīĥ has been proven to be polysemous as it denotes three senses (or lexical units): (1) moving air, (2) power/predominance, and (3) smell, while the plural form riyāĥ is monosemic as it only marks different states of moving air. Based on normal ontological assumptions and the high frequency of using rīĥ to mark the conceptual schema of moving air (or wind), it could be concluded that the conceptual schema of rīĥ as a nature force represents the core node or the central reference point from which the senses of predominance and smell developed. Though such senses are identified, their underlying contexts fettered Qur’an interpreters, and various exegeses are offered due to the elastic scope of rīĥ.

The study’s second and third questions concern the role of co(n)text in marking the connotations associated with the referential range of the lexical pair, as well as the discourse functions communicated through the cognitive frames evoked by such a lexical pair. In this regard, the present study correlates with Cruse’s (2000) argument that words’ senses are sensitive to the environment where they are used. Though rīĥ and riyāĥ are contextually distinct, their senses merge via metaphorical extension. Furthermore, both lexemes are manipulated to mark both a process sense and a product sense. That is, in some contexts, the process of creating, initiating, and sending good and evil winds is focalized. Conversely, in some other contexts, the impact of winds is much stressed. Therefore, they are perceived as independent lexical items that cannot be used interchangeably in all contexts. This finding is consistent with both Goddard’s (1998) and Goddard and Wierzbicka’s (2016) contention that the validity of the multiple meanings of a lexical item could be tested by substitution.

Further, the effective role played by context in the interpretation of the lexical pairs under investigation accentuates the semantic connection between words and their combinations, which goes in conformity with Norén and Linell’s (2007) theory of “meaning potentials,” which is used to describe “the connection between word meaning and context” (p. 389), argues for the assumption that lexical items and expressions are used in combination with contextual properties of texts to communicate the situated meanings of language users. This harmoniously semantic correlation between lexical items and contextual factors is also similar in nature to Gibson’s (1979, as cited in Norén & Linell, 2007, p. 389) “semantic affordance” theory, which also proposes that lexical units provide language users with affordances of meanings.

The cognitive frame of wind as a natural force is divinely manipulated in the Qur’anic text to spot a set of scenarios, based on actual historical events or similitudes, signifying positive, negative, and neutral connotations. All positive, negative, and neutral connotations of the lexical pair in question are identifiable by virtue of its lexical environment (in the form of a group of related predicates, mainly verbs, adjectives, and nouns) as well as by virtue of its underlying historical and theological contexts. On the one hand, rīĥ demonstrated the ability to conjure divinely bestowed graces (as in the case of Solomon’s wind), herald a familial reunion (as in the case of Jacob and Joseph), punish disbelievers, polytheists, and ungrateful people, warn against clash and disunity, and support believers.

In the case of rīĥ, given the metaphorically extended senses of predominance and smell, it has been proven that there is a transfer between two cognitive frames. In verse [8:46], the transfer holds between the cognitive frame of wind (as a natural force) and the cognitive frame of powerful states. The way to keep such power is to unite and obey God and His messenger. In verse [12: 94], given the context of Joseph and his brothers, the transfer holds between the cognitive frame of wind (as a natural force) and the frame of smell. Indeed, the three conceptual frames of natural force, powerful state, and smell have been proven to be conceptually coherent as they intrinsically complement the prototypical sense of moving air.

Likewise, riyāĥ has been proven to have positive, negative, and neutral connotations, marking several graces bestowed by God on the universe, including the formation of clouds, causing rain, sailing ships, fertilizing plants, expelling insects, moderating temperature, etc. (positive), assuming the role of a divine warning to disbelievers regarding the ephemerality of power (negative), and representing winds of varying strength, blowing from different regions (neutral). Overall, despite the various schemas that riyāĥ motivated in the Qur’anic text, it could only be perceived as a natural force within the cognitive frame of wind.

Based on this discussion, we argue that clarifying the referential range of etymologically related polysemous in a systematic way, taking into consideration the cognitive frame(s) underlying their usage in the Qur’anic counterargues against the untranslatability of polysemous lexemes (cf., Alhaj, 2015; Ali et al., 2014).

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study offered empirical evidence that etymologically-related lexemes in the Qur’anic text have the potential to generate distinct referential ranges as far as their historical and theological contexts are considered. A word form in the Qur’anic text could evolve into a polysemy network, with one sense serving as the core node and other senses emerging through metaphorical extension. Each sense represents an independent cognitive frame through which the whole meaning of a verse is communicated. Moreover, even if etymologically related lexemes share one aspect of meaning, they could develop different connotations, each of which is manipulated to perform a particular discourse function. Based on the findings of the present study, further revealing studies are required to offer more in-depth analysis into the grammatical-based typology and discourse functions of etymologically related lexemes in the language of the Qur’an and in other genres in Arabic and English. Complementarily, future studies are recommended to apply a corpus-driven approach to the study of etymologically related lexemes in variant texts (e.g., classical Arabic poetry) in order to identify prospective registerial differences in their usage and functions.

Acknowledgements

This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, project number (PSAU/2023/R/1444)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes

1. Chapters and verses are notationally represented between two square brackets. For instance, [2:42] refers to verse number [42] in sūrat Al-Baqarah (the Cow) whose order in the Qur’an is number [2].

Appendix

List of the transliteration symbols and their phonetic description

Table

1. Consonants
Arabic letter	Transliteration symbol	Phonetic description
ء	‘	voiceless glottal stop
ب	b	voiced bilabial stop
ت	t	voiceless dental stop
ث	th	voiceless dental fricative
ج	j	voiced post-alveolar fricative
ح	ĥ	voiceless pharyngeal fricative
خ	kh	voiceless uvular fricative
د	d	voiced dental stop
ذ	dh	voiced dental fricative
ر	r	voiced alveolar trill
ز	z	voiced dental fricative
س	s	voiceless dental fricative
ش	sh	voiceless palatal fricative
ص	ş	voiceless (emphatic) dental fricative
ض	đ	voiced (emphatic) dental stop
ط	ţ	voiceless (emphatic) dental stop
ظ	ž	voiced (emphatic) dental fricative
ع	`	voiced pharyngeal fricative
غ	gh	voiced velar fricative
ف	f	voiceless labiodentals fricative
ق	q	voiceless uvular stop
ك	k	voiceless velar stop
ل	l	voiced alveolar lateral
م	m	voiced bilabial nasal
ن	n	voiced alveolar nasal
هـ	h	voiceless glottal fricative
و	w	voiced bilabial glide
ي	y	voiced palatal glide
2. Vowels
Arabic symbol	Transliteration symbol		Phonetic description
ى	á		front-open long slightly rounded vowel
-ُ	u		half-close back short rounded vowel
-ِ	i		close-front short unrounded vowel
-َ	a		half-front open short unrounded vowel
-ُو	ū		close-back long rounded vowel
ـِي	ī		close-front long unrounded vowel
ـَا	ā		back-open long unrounded vowel