Document Type : Research Article
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Qur’anic Sciences and Jurisprudence, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
2
PhD student of Quranic Sciences and Hadith, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
Since the late 19th century, when language began to acquire a philosophical dimension, the groundwork for understanding the proper function of language alongside other sciences was established. The term “pragmatics” emerged in the late 1930s in the United States, marking a development that spanned over a century and positioned pragmatics in relatively comprehensive relation with ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology (Niu, 2023: 54). In 1938, Charles Morris, a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, proposed pragmatics as a component of a semiotic theory (the theory of signs), which studied signs in terms of their relations to objects (semantics), to one another (syntax), and to persons (pragmatics) (Morris, 1938). Many scholars assert that pragmatics originates from the concept of “how to do things with words,” introduced by John L. Austin (1911–1960). C. Levinson (1947–), Geoffrey Leech (1936–2014), Noam Chomsky (1928–), and others have continually developed and expanded speech act theory, which has now significantly matured and flourished (Niu, 2023: 54–55).
A review of pragmatics studies in Iran, based on searches in databases such as Elmnet and the Iranian Scientific Information Database (GANJ), shows the earliest research dating back to the 1980s. In 1983, a master’s thesis in English Language and Literature titled “The Effect of Explicit Pragmatic Instruction on the Comprehension and Production of Speech Acts by Iranian EFL Students” was completed by Azizollah Fattahi Milasi under the supervision of Zohreh Eslami Rasekh at Iran University of Science and Technology, utilizing John Searle’s speech act theory (Fattahi Milasi, 1983). Gradually, further research emerged across various disciplines, including studies related to the Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an, as the eternal miracle of Islam, represents one of the most important sacred text-based treasures, which has been the subject of significant pragmatic studies. This paper attempts a systematic review to examine approaches and orientations in pragmatic research on the Qur’an in Iran. A systematic review of studies in any thematic field reveals statistical data in various dimensions, approaches, orientations, research gaps, challenges, and opportunities.
Research background
A comprehensive and systematic review of pragmatic studies on the Qur’an in Iran, covering 281 works (books, theses, and articles), has not yet been conducted. While scholars like Ali Sharifi (2020), Sajedeh Banaei et al. (2021), Amini et al. (2022), and Haji Akbari & Hosseini (2023, 2024) have explored related areas—such as linguistic approaches, interdisciplinary trends, and meta-analyses of Qur’anic research—these studies have been limited in scope or focused on specific journals, models, or themes. The present study stands out for its systematic review of four decades of pragmatic Qur’anic research in Iran, offering both statistical analysis and a critical evaluation of trends, approaches, and scholarly orientations.
Research method
The present study is a systematic review. Systematic review is, in fact, an observational study of existing research (Cook, 1997) and, like other research types, consists of three main stages: 1) precise identification of the problem, 2) collection and analysis of information, and 3) interpretation of results (Hall, 2003: 92–98). Accordingly, after clearly defining the issue and setting the objective—namely, to identify and analyze pragmatic studies on the Qur’an in Iran—the authors conducted keyword searches such as “pragmatics,” “discourse analysis,” “utterance,” “speech act,” “context,” “intentionality,” “intended meaning,” “speaker meaning,” “implicit meaning,” “speech act,” “text,” “contextual meaning,” “intent analysis,” and “textual analysis” in search engines and databases including IranDoc, Elmnet, NoorMags, Magiran, Civillika, as well as websites of linguistics journals. Relevant research works were thus collected. For data extraction and analysis of the identified studies, an analytical-content table was used, containing sections such as research title, authors, academic specialization and field, year of publication, abstract, keywords, and finally the determination of affiliation to a particular linguistic theory. It should be noted that if the research was a published journal article, the journal’s name was recorded, and if it was a thesis, the university name was included. The authors classified the studies in four separate tables according to the decades of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 1400s (Persian calendar).
Result
Pragmatic-oriented research in Iran has generally been produced since at least the 1980s (Persian calendar decade 1360s), with the majority being master’s theses in the field of English Language. According to conducted reviews, the first Qur’anic study with a pragmatic approach dates back to the 1990s (Persian calendar decade 1370s) and is a master’s thesis in English Language entitled “Context and the Holy Qur’an,” completed at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Until the 1990s, only researchers in the English Language field engaged in pragmatic studies related to the Qur’an, with their number not exceeding four. Statistically, the most frequently used theories are those of Austin and Searle. In terms of authors’ specialization and academic discipline, the field of Qur’anic and Hadith Sciences ranks first, followed by Arabic Language and Literature, and English Language in second and third places, respectively. Although, out of a total of 490 authors identified in the extracted studies, 290 belonged to various language-related fields (including Arabic Language and Literature, Linguistics, English Language, Persian Language and Literature, French, and German), indicating a clear dominance of pragmatic Qur’anic research by scholars from language disciplines. Among theses, Shiraz University holds the highest frequency. Among journals, the Journal of Linguistic Studies of the University of Isfahan ranks first. Three main approaches were identified in pragmatic studies of the Qur’an: 1) Discourse analysis and speech acts in the Qur’an, 2) Comparison and evaluation of Qur’anic translations, and 3) Ontology, assessment, and localization of pragmatic theories in Qur’anic studies. The first approach is analyzed through three orientations: “problem-solving and addressing doubts,” “application of Qur’anic teachings,” and “implementation and discovery of speech acts.” A potential drawback in applying pragmatic theories is the neglect of the linguistic theories’ origin and validity concerning the sacred text and the Qur’anic language. The second approach compares and evaluates translations in various ways, such as examining the influence of the translator’s discourse gender or the translators’ success in conveying the situational context of the Arabic text into Persian, based on linguistic theories. In the third approach, most studies focus on the ontology of pragmatic theories, their validation and verification, and efforts toward localization, innovation, and integration of pragmatic theories specific to the Qur’anic text. Other approaches may have been overlooked by the authors, warranting further research. Additionally, as a limitation, it was found that searching scientific databases such as NoorMags, Elmnet, and Magiran does not always retrieve all relevant studies using the chosen keywords. Therefore, despite being time-consuming, reviewing individual journal websites yielded more accurate results for researchers.
Keywords
Subjects
