Textual Analysis of Kinship Terms in Selected Quranic and Biblical Verses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol2.iss10.251Abstract
The study of kinship has attracted the attention of many scholars in various linguistic, anthropological, and religious contexts. Because kinship terms are one of the linguistic systems of any language, the researchers adopted Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics theory as an analytical tool. This is because this SFL can explicate different fields of study such as linguistics and discourse analysis. Such fields are regarded as fields of language socialization that cannot be studied inseparable from their social or cultural contexts.To achieve a textual analysis of kinship terms, the researchers used selected sampled texts taken from the Glorious Quran and the Holy Bible. The main findings pointed out that Halliday’s model can be applied to different social fields such as religious, political, and economic texts. Such an analysis of these texts may lead to give some solutions to the social and economic problems in which human beings may face in everyday life.
Downloads
References
Abuamsha, D. (2010). Terms of Address in Palestinian Arabic.Unpublished Masteral Thesis. Ball State University: Muncie, Indiana, USA.
Agha, A. (2007). Language and social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Al-Hasan, I. M. (1975). An Introduction to Modern Sociology. Baghdad: University of Baghdad.
Ali, A.Y. (trans.) (1937). The Holy Quran: Arabic Text with an English Translation and Commentary. Lahore: Ripon Printing Press.
Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People. In Bazerman, C. And Prior, P. (2004). What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Biber, D., Johansson, S. Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Cap, P. and Kozanecka, M. (Eds.). (2002). Studies in Language and Linguistics. Selected Readings for Students of English Philology. Łódź: The Academy of Humanities and Economics Press.
Clarke, M. (2009). Islam and New Kinship: Reproductive Technology and the Shariah in Lebanon. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of Address and Terms of Reference. Journal of linguistics, 33, 255-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006488
Dousset, L. (2002). Accounting for context and substance: the Australian Western Desert kinship system. Anthropological Forum, 12(2): 193-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/006646702320622806
Downes, W. (2011). Language and Religion: A Journey into the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[12] Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006). A University Course in English Grammar. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Duranti, A., Ochs, E., Elinor , A., and Schieffelin, B. B. (2012). The Handbook of Language Socialization. USA: Blackwell Publishing Limited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444342901
Eggins, S.. (2004). An Introduction to Systematic Functional Linguistics. 2nd Edition. London: Pinter Publisher, Ltd.
El Guindi, F. (2012). Milk and Blood: Kinship among Muslim Arabs in Qatar. Anthropos 107. P.P (545-555). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2012-2-545
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
______. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge.
Ferguson, C. A. (1982). Religious Factors in Language Spread. In R. L. Cooper (Ed.), Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change (pp. 95–106). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
________. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
________. (2003). On Language and Linguistics. Volume 3 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. Reprinted in 2004. Great Britain: MPG Books Ltd, Bodrnin, Cornwall.
________. (2005). Computational and Quantitative Studies. Volume 6 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. London. NewYork: Jonathan J. Webster.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1991). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. 3rd impression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. And Martin. J.R. (1981). Readings in Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (Eds.) (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.
Halliday, M. A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Arnold, (revised by C.M.I.M.).
Hatim, B., and Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
House, J. (2006). Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (2006) 338–358.University of Hamburg, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Von-Melle-Park 6, 20146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.021
Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics.2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166843
Jones, D. (2010). Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33, 367–416, doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000890
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural Anthropology. London: Allen Lane.
_______. (1969). The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon.
Luke, A. (1995-1996). Text and Discourse in Education: An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 21 (1995-1996), pp.3-48.Published by: American Educational Research Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1167278
Matthiessen, C. (1989). Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English systems. Mimeo: Linguistics Department, University of Sydney.
McKee, A. (2003). Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. London: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020017
Meyer, C.F. ( 2009). Introducing English Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757822
Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, v.17. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.29577
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: Macmillan Co.[41] Nanda, S. and Warms, R. L. (2012). Culture Counts: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Omoniyi, T., and Fishman, J. A. (eds.) (2006). Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.20
Parkes, P. (2005). Milk Kinship in Islam. Substance, Structure, History. Social Anthropology 13: 307–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2005.tb00015.x
Parkin, R. (1997). Kinship: an Introduction to Basic Concepts. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Parkinson, D. B. (1985). Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857351
Pitt-Rivers, J. (1973). The Kith and the Kin. In J.R. Goody (ed.), The Character of Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp: 89-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621697.009
Pooya, M. M. and Ali, M. A. (2013). The Holy Quran: Commentary and Tafsir.Sura 26-30. islamicmobility.com.
Poynton, C. (1987). Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Qin, X. (2007). Choices in Terms of Address: A Sociolinguistic Study of Chinese and American English Practices. The Ohio State University.
Rapport, N.and Overing, J. (2000). Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge.
Read, D. (1984). An Algebraic Account of the American Kinship Terminology. Current Anthropology, 25(4): PP. 417–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/203160
________. (2001). Formal Analysis of Kinship Terminologies and Its Relationship to What Constitutes Kinship. Anthropological Theory, 1(2):239–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/146349960100100205
________. (2013). Reconstructing the Proto-Polynesian Terminology: Kinship Terminologies as Evolving Logical Structures. In Kinship Systems: Change and Reconstruction. Edited by P. McConvell, I. Keen and R. Hendery, pp. 59-90. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., and Osborn, R. N. (2002). Organizational Behaviour. 7th Edition. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Spolsky, B. (2003). Religion as a Site of Language Contact. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 81–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190503000205
Stone, L. (2010). Kinship and Gender: An Introduction. 4th Edition. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press.
Van Dijk, T. A (2009). Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273
Wardhaugh, R.(2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 4th Edition. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
White, E. H. (1978). Legal Reform as an Indicator of Women’s Status, in Beck, Lois and Keddie, Nikki, Women in the Muslim World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Zeitlyn, D. (2005). Words and Processes in Mambila Kinship: the Theoretical Importance of the Complexity of Everyday Life. USA: Lexington Books.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Hashim Aliwy Mohammed Al-Husseini, Ghayth K. Shaker Al-Shaibani, Sawsan Kareem Al-Saaidi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author for more visit Copyright & License.
How to Cite
