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

References

• Abdul-Ghafour, A. K. M., Mat Awal, N., Zainudin, I. S., & Aladdin, A. (2019). The interplay of Qur’ānic synonymy and polysemy with special reference to al-asfār and al-kutub (the books) and their English translations. 3L the Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 25(1), 129–23. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2019-2501-10
   Google Scholar
• Al-`awā, S. M. (1998). Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-Qur’aān al-karīm (1st) ed.). The Sense and Referents in the Glorious Qur’an.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Damaghaānī, A. M. (1983). Qāmūs Al-Qur’aān ‘aw ‘iṣlāĥ al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-Qur’aān al-karīm (The Dictionary of the Qur’an or Adjustment of Senses and Referents in the Glorious Qur’an). Dār Al-’ilm li-Al-Malāyīn.
   Google Scholar
• Alhaj, A. A. (2015). A study of polysemous words in Qur’an translation: A textbook for students of linguistics and translation. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ali, A. Y. (1983/1934). The holy Qur’an: Text, translation, and commentary. Amana Corp.
   Google Scholar
• Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., & Nordin, M. Z. F. (2014). Transferring POLYSEMIC words from Arabic into english: A comparative study of some samples from the Holy Quran. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(23), 38–43.
   Google Scholar
• Allan, K. (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Allan, K. (2014). Referring to ‘what counts as the referent’: A view from linguistics. In A. Capone, F. Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy (pp. 263–284). Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Qaāri’, H. M. 1988. Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-Qur’aān al-karīm (The Sense and Referents in the Glorious Qur’an). Dār Şadām li-Al-Makhṭūţāţ
   Google Scholar
• Al-Qar`aāwī, S. Ṣ. (1999). Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-Qur’aān al-karīm – Dirāsah wa-muwāzanah (The senses and referents in the Glorious Qur’an – A study and a comparison). Maktabat Al-Rushd li-Al-Nashr wa-Al-Tawzī`.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Qurtubī, ʾ. A. M. (2006). Al-jaāmi` li-’aĥkaām Al-Qur’aān (The Complete Judgments of the Quran). Mu’asasat Al-Risālah.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Siyūtī, G. (2008). Al-’itqān fi `ulūm Al-Qur’aān (The Prefect Guide to the Sciences of the Quran). Mu’asasat Al-Risaālah.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Tha`aālibī, A. 1932. Al-’ashbaāh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi al-’alfāẓ Al-Qur’aānīyah allaty tarādafat mabaānīhā wa-tanawa`at ma`aānīhā (The Senses and Referents of Qur’anic Lexemes with Similar Forms and Variant Meanings). ālam Al-Kutub li-Al-Ṭibaā`ah wa-Al-Nashr wa-Al-Tawzī`
   Google Scholar
• Al-Zamakhsharī, A. J. (2009). Tafsīr al-kashāf - `an ĥaqā’iq at-tanzīl wa-`uyūn al-’aqaāwīl fi wujuūh at-ta’wīl. The Interpretation of the Investigator – On the Facts of Revelation, Commentaries in the Facets of Interpretation. Dār Al-Ma`rifah.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Zarkashī, A. B. (1984). Al-burhān fi `ulūm Al-Qurʾaān (The evidence in the sciences of the Quran). Dār Al-Turāth.
   Google Scholar
• Antonova, M. B. (2020). The container image schema as the conceptual basis of English adjectives’ semantics. Journal of Language & Education, 6(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.9751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ar-Rāzī, M. F. (1981). Tafsīr al-fakhr al-rāzī (Interpretation of Al-Faḫr Ar-Rāzy). Dār al-fikr li-Al-Ṭibaā`ah wa-Al-Nashr wa-Al-Tawzī`.
   Google Scholar
• Ar-Rāzī, M. A. A. (1986). Mukhtaār al-şaĥĥāĥ. Maktabat Libnān.
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 21–74). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of Semiology. Cape.
   Google Scholar
• Bin-Sallām, Y. (2007). At-taşaārīf – Tafsīr Al-Qur’aān mimā ishtabahat ‘asmaā’uhu wa-taşarraft ma`aānīh (Declension -The Interpretation of the Qur’anic Lexemes with similar forms and different senses). Mu`asasat `aāl Al-Bayt Al-Malakīyah li-Al-Fikr Al-`islamī.
   Google Scholar
• Bin-Sulaymaān, M. (2011). Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-Qur’aān Al-’aẓīm (the senses and referents in the great Quran). Maktabat Al-Rushd.
   Google Scholar
• Blutner, R. (1998). Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics, 15(2), 115–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.2.115
   Google Scholar
• Blutner, R. (2004). Pragmatics and the lexicon. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 488–514). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, D. A. (2017). The lexicon. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 235–255). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, B. (2014). How many kinds of glue hold the social world together? Perspectives on Social Ontology and Social Cognition, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9147-2_4
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280, 20–32.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. (2007). Frame semantics. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 238–262). Chippenham.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–340). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Words and meanings. Lexical semantics across domains, languages and cultures. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.3514
   Google Scholar
• Hogeweg, L. (2019). Suppression in interpreting adjective noun combinations and the nature of the lexicon. Journal of Semantics, 36(4), 721–751. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ‘Ibn Al-’imād, M. M. (2004). Kashf As-saraā’ir fi ma`na al-wujuūh wa-al-’ashbāh wa-an- nažaā’ir (Disclosing the secrets of the meaning of senses and referents). Al-Maktabah Al-Maṣrīyah li-Al-Ṭibaā`ah wa-Al-Nashr wa-Al-Tawzī`.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Ibn Al-Jawzī, G. A. (1987). Nuzhat al-`uyuūn an-nawāžir fi `ilm al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir (The journey of scrutinizing eyes in the science of senses and referents). Muʾsasat Al-Risaālah.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Ibn `ashūr, M. A. (1984). Tafsīr At-taĥrīr wa-at-tanwīr (The interpretation of compilation and enlightenment). Al-Dār At-Tunisīyah.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Ibn Manžūr, A. M. (1993). Lisaān Al-`Arab (The Tongue of the Arabs). Dār Şadr.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, E. W. (1968). An Arabic-English lexicon. Librairie du Liban.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Löbner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Löbner, S. (2021). Frames at the interface of language and cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7(1), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620
   Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A-Z of applied linguistics research methods. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics – An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Musahar, S. J., Talib, H., Musahar, R., Azmi, F., & Zakaria, M. Z. (2018). Ambiguity in holy Qur’an commentaries: The use of polysemic words “Imam & Ummah”. Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2016), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0203-9_41
   Google Scholar
• Norén, K., & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.3.03nor
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, F. R. (1976). Semantics (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raghunath, R. (2022). Possible worlds theory, accessibility relations, and counterfactual historical fiction. Journal of Literary Semantics, 51(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2022-2047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rambaud, M. G. (2012). Basic semantics (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia).
   Google Scholar
• Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10(2), 123–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/10.2.123
   Google Scholar
• Rice, S. (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The Construal of space in Language and Thought (pp. 135–165). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale (Course in general linguistics). Bibliothèque Scientifique Payot.
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (2017). Reference and necessity. A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972090.ch35
   Google Scholar
• Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In Pick & Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11
   Google Scholar
• Tribushinina, E. (2008). Cognitive reference points: Semantics beyond the prototypes in adjectives of space and colour. LOT Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Ullmann, S. (1953). Descriptive semantics and linguistic typology. WORD, 9(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1953.11659471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullmann, S. (1957). The principles of semantics (2nd) ed.). Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar