Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi / Waleed Ridha H.Al-Juwaid

Pragmatics Integrated with OtherDisciplines

Languages

Bibliographic information published by the German National Library:

The German National Library lists this publication in the National Bibliography;detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de .

This book is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred,distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except asspecifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms andconditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicablecopyright law. Any unauthorized distribution or use of this text may be a directinfringement of the author s and publisher s rights and those responsible may beliable in law accordingly.

Imprint:

Copyright © 2019 GRIN VerlagISBN: 9783668872912

This book at GRIN:

https://www.grin.com/document/457395

Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi, Waleed Ridha H. Al-Juwaid

Pragmatics Integrated with Other Disciplines

GRIN Verlag

GRIN - Your knowledge has value

Since its foundation in 1998, GRIN has specialized in publishing academic texts bystudents, college teachers and other academics as e-book and printed book. Thewebsite www.grin.com is an ideal platform for presenting term papers, final papers,scientific essays, dissertations and specialist books.

Visit us on the internet:

http://www.grin.com/

http://www.facebook.com/grincom

http://www.twitter.com/grin_com

Pragmatics Integrated with Other

Disciplines

Edited by

Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi

and

Waleed Ridha H. Al-Juwaid

iii

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to express their gratefulness to all those who

contributed to this work and helped in having it come out in this form.

v

Introduction

This book is an attempt to reveal the linguistic link between pragmatics

and other disciplines which leads to the emergence of new studies

incorporating them together.

In Chapter One, Religiopragmatics, Muhammad-Reza Fakhr-Rohani,

a professor of linguistics in the University of Qom, Iran (Ph.D.), seeks to

study and explore the linguistic pragmatic aspects involved in religious

communication one side of which involves a human agent, whether a

producer or recipient of the message communicated. He also concerns

himself with multiple and oftentimes non-religious uses of religiously-

charged words, phrases, and short sentences that have historically acquired

idiomatic, and sometimes opaque, meanings. Moreover, he clarifies the

notions which the title suggests, namely, ‘religion’ and ‘pragmatics’.

In Chapter Two, Pragmatics and Discourse, Prof. Fareed H. Al-

Hindawi (Ph.D.) and Dr. Mariam D. Saffah have spotted light on the

relationship between pragmatics and discourse in the sense that pragmatics

and discourse analysis are closely interrelated and that there is a

considerable overlap between them to the extent that they can be regarded

as sister disciplines. They discuss the relationship between these two

disciplines within the realm of linguistics. They propose that the

relationship between them is by no means clear-cut and mono directional.

The study attempts to show how the application of insights from

pragmatics to the study of discourse analysis eventually assists to give birth

to the hybrid discipline termed discourse pragmatics.

Chapter Three, Applied Pragmatics: A Theoretical View, coauthored

by F. H. Al-Hindawi and Mariam D. Saffah defines applied linguistics in

terms of solutions for everyday problems in which language is central.

vi

With respect to this general definition, applied pragmatics (AP) is viewed

as solving problems of everyday life in which pragmatics is involved. Like

applied linguistics, although applied pragmatics focuses on some areas like

teaching and learning second language, it includes a wide range of fields

and disciplines. The present chapter is an attempt to present a brief

theoretical background of AP and the fields that it covers. The study aims

at highlighting these fields and how pragmatics contributes to them through

utilizing its various theories like those of politeness and speech acts.

In Chapter Four, Lexical Pragmatics, Professor Al-Hindawi (Ph.D.)

and Dr. Hussein Huwail Ghayadh deal with pragmatics as the relation of

signs to their users and interpreters or the study of linguistic indices which

can be interpreted only when they are used. Besides, they indicate that in

Chomskyan’s tradition, pragmatics is concerned with performance rather

than competence and this makes pragmatics different from lexis which is

concerned with the referential meaning of words. In this vein, in both fields

of study, some linguistic problems cannot be solved by means of any of

them alone. Consequently, a kind of integrity between both fields is

adopted to deal with those problems. This integrity has led to the birth of

another field of study under the name of lexical pragmatics. This

integration makes a need arise to explore the basic tenets of this newly born

field. Furthermore, a distinction should be drawn between this new branch

of study and lexical semantics. It is hypothesized, here, that lexical

pragmatics can be distinguished from lexical semantics through

dependence on the context. In other words, context plays a vital role in

shaping and constraining lexical pragmatics. The study shows that lexical

items have to be pragmatically inferred in context. In other words, lexical

pragmatics considers the meanings of words as often context-dependent.

vii

In Chapter Five, Pragmastylistics: The Integration of Pragmatics

and Stylistics, Al-Hindawi and Lecturer Nesaem Mehdi Al-Aadili (Ph.D.)

give an account of the relationship between pragmatics and stylistics which

has led to the birth of pragmastylistics or pragmatic stylistics wherein

various pragmatic theories are exploited in interpreting literary discourse.

Among these theories are the speech act theory, the cooperative principle

and conversational implicature theory, in addition to politeness theory.

Hence, to form a vivid picture about this newly born field of study, it seems

necessary to account for the narrative structure and the corresponding

method of analysis.

Chapter Six, Basic Tenets of Rhetorical Pragmatics by Professor

Al-Hindawi (Ph.D.), Assistant Professor Hussain H. Ma'yuuf (Ph.D.) and

Lecturer Waleed Ridha H. Al-Juwaid (Ph.D.), addresses itself to the task of

examining the basic tenets of Rhetorical Pragmatics. It starts with a brief

idea about rhetoric; its relationship with dialectics, communication, and

pragmatics and moves to show how rhetoric can work together with

pragmatics under the title of 'Rhetorical Pragmatics' or 'Pragmarhetoric'.

The study adopts Leech's model of communication which entails

explaining the interpersonal rhetoric with its components: the cooperative,

politeness, irony, and Banter principles. An idea concerning 'textual

rhetoric' is also presented in this chapter to shed light on some significant

points of its principles. The chapter also deals with rhetorical pragmatic

strategies, types of arguments, figures of speech and tropes. It ends up with

a brief idea about strategic maneuvering in argumentation focusing on its

rhetorical aspects.

viii

In Chapter Seven, The Basic Foundations of Pragma-Dialectic

Theory, Professor Al-Hindawi, Assistant Professor Hussein Dhahi Muzhir

Al-Hassnawi (Ph.D.), and Lecturer Hussein Huwail Ghayadh (Ph.D.)

investigate the evolution of the pragma-dialectic school, the roots of this

school, and its application. Additionally, they investigate the impact of

pragmatics on argumentation in general and on dialectics in particular. The

study integrates the communicative angle derived from pragmatic insights

rooting in speech act theory with critical insights instigated by rational

approaches. As such, the study attempts to disambiguate the relation

between pragmatic indications and the dialectic insights, namely, the

organization of critical discussion: the rules of critical rationalism in

addition to the fallacies occurred due to the infringement of the rules.

Strategic Maneuvering, which is introduced in Chapter Eight by

Professor Al-Hindawi and Lecturer Ramia Fua'ad Abdulazeez ( Ph.D.), is a

somehow recent theory launched in (2002) by Eemeren and Houtlosser and

proposed as the extended version of the standard pragma-dialectical theory

originally launched in (1984) by Eemeren and Grootendorst. According to

the standard version, resolving a difference of opinion requires discussants

to follow a reasonable code of conduct represented by ten rules of

reasonableness. The extended version, however, postulates that it is not

only important to resolve the difference of opinion reasonably; it is equally

significant to resolve it to an arguer's own good. This is done by making

rhetoric join the queue. That is, every dialectical (i.e. reasonable) move has

at the same time a rhetorical (effective) role of persuading the peer arguer.

Hence, strategic maneuvering is delivered.

The Editors

November 2019

ix

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements.……………………………………..….…iii

Introduction.……………………………………….……….…..v

Chapter One

Religiopragmatics: Islamic Perspective……………………….1

Introduction

Religion

Religion and pragmatics

Linguistic pragmatics

Language and religion

Conclusion

Works cited and consulted

Chapter Two

Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis……………………….….43

Introduction

Pragmatics

Discourse Analysis

Pragmatics versus Discourse Analysis

Context versus Co-text

Trends in Pragmatics

Discourse Pragmatics

Discourse Pragmatics: Frameworks

Speech Acts

x

Conversational Implicature

Presuppositions

Reference

Politeness

Impoliteness

Discourse Pragmatics and Information Structure

Discourse Pragmatics and Argumentation

Critical Discourse Pragmatics

Conclusions

References

Chapter Three

Applied Pragmatics: A Theoretical View……………………85

Introduction

Applied linguistics

Pragmatics: Main theories

Speech act theory

Cooperative principle and the concept of implicature

Hedges

Pragmatic presupposition

Politeness theories

Applied pragmatics: Pragmatics and other disciplines

Teaching pragmatics

Pragmatic Competence

Pragmatic failure

Pragmatic transfer

Pragmatics in classroom

Pragmatics and Translation

xi

Clinical Pragmatics

Literary pragmatics

Legal Pragmatics

Man-machine Interaction

Contrastive Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics

Conclusion

Bibliography

Chapter Four

Lexical Pragmatics……………………………………….…127

Introduction

Relevance Theory and Lexical Pragmatics

Relevance Theory

Lexical pragmatics

Varieties of lexical adjustment

Lexical narrowing

Narrowing in Relevance Theory

Broadening

Approximation

Hyperbole

Metaphor

Category Extension

Lexical Blocking

Neologisms and word coinages

Pun like cases

Discourse particles

Conclusions

References

xii

Chapter Five

Pragmastylistics: The Integration of Pragmatics and

Stylistics……………………………………………………….155

Pragmatics, Stylistics, and Pragmastylistics

Foregrounding vs. Automatization

Literary and Non-literary Discourse

Pragmatic Theories Exploited in the Interpretation of Literary Texts

The Interpretation of Literary Texts by Means of Speech Theory

The Interpretation of Literary Texts by Means of Grice's

Cooperative Principle

Character-level Interaction and Implicatures

Higher-level Interaction: Narrator-reader Implicature

Assessment of the Contribution of CP to the Interpretation

of Literary Discourse

The CP and Symbolism

The Interpretation of Literary Texts by Means

of Politeness Theory

Politeness: Narrator and Reader Level

Politeness: Character to Character level

The Structure of Narrative

Schemata

Genre

The Competent Reader

Conclusions

References

xiii

Chapter Six

Basic Tenets of Rhetorical Pragmatics………………….…191

Rhetoric

Historical Background

Pragmatics and Communicative Intentions

Rhetoric and Dialectic

Rhetoric and Communication

Rhetorical Pragmatics

Leech's Model of Communication

Interpersonal and Textual Rhetoric

The Interpersonal Rhetoric

The Interpersonal Role of the Cooperative Principle

The Interpersonal Role of the Politeness Principle

The Interpersonal Role of the Irony Principle

The Banter Principle

The Textual Rhetoric

The Processibility Principle

The Economy Principle

The Expressivity Principle

Rhetorical Pragmatic Strategies

Rhetoric, Argument and Argumentation

Pragmatic Reasoning of Argument

Pragmatic Structures of Argument

Syllogism

Enthymeme

Argumentative Appeals (Rhetorical triangle)

Ethos

xiv

Pathos

Logos

Figures of Speech

Tropes (Rhetorical Devices)

Destabilization Tropes

Metaphor

Simile

Irony

Pun

Substitution (Emphasis) Tropes

Rhetorical Questions

Overstatement (Hyperbole)

Understatement (Litotes)

Strategic Maneuvering

Maneuvers involving the same arguments

Maneuvers involving the different arguments

References

Chapter Seven

The Basic Foundations of Pragma-Dialectic Theory……..231

Introduction

The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Theory

Components of Pragma-Dialectics

Dialectic

Argumentation

Standpoints

Critical Discussion

xv

The ideal model of a critical discussion

Speech Acts and Pragma-dialectic

Fallacies

Rules of Dialogue

Violations of Rules of Critical Discussion

Application of the pragma-dialectical theory

Conclusion

References

Chapter Eight

Strategic Maneuvering……………………………………….259

Introduction

Pragma-Dialectics

Dialectic, Rhetoric and Strategic Maneuvering

Aspects of Strategic Maneuvering

Parameters in Determining the Strategic Function

of Argumentative Maneuvers

Some Modes of Strategic Maneuvering

Persuasive Definitions

Rhetorical Questions

Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering

Persuasive Effects of Strategic Maneuvering

Effect Size Expressions

Two Varieties of Strategic Maneuvers

Maneuvers Involving the Same Arguments

Gain-loss Appeal Framing

Explicit Conclusions

xvi

Identification of Information Sources

Argument Completeness

Figurative Versus Literal Expressions

Maneuvers Involving Different Arguments

One-sided Versus Two-sided Messages

Adapting Appeals to Cultural Values

Conclusions

Bibliography

1

Chapter One

Religiopragmatics: Islamic Perspective

Muhammad-Reza Fakhr-Rohani

University of Qom, Iran

Abumahdi1061@gmail.com

Introduction

Religiopragmatics seeks to study and explore the linguistic pragmatic

aspects involved in religious communication one side of which involves a

human agent, whether a producer or recipient of the message

communicated. It is also concerned with multiple and oftentimes non-

religious uses of religiously-charged words, phrases, and short sentences

that have historically acquired idiomatic, and sometimes opaque, meanings.

[1] However, it is in order to clarify certain notions of which the title

suggests, namely, ‗religion‘ and ‗pragmatics‘.

Religion

A quick search in the books concerned with academic studies of the

phenomenon of ‗religion‘ reveals that although it is fairly easy to sense and

feel, ‗religion‘ per se proves ―notoriously difficult to define‖ (Peterson, et

al., 1991, p. 4). As expected, it seems to be more difficult to define

2

‗religious language‘. Both the term and the concept of ‗religion‘ are

difficult to define. In the first place, it is a term that connotes various things

and senses to different people in various communities. For a devout

Zoroastrian, ‗religion‘ means Zoroastrianism; for a Jewish rabbi, it means

Judaism; and for a Buddhist monk, ‗religion‘ finds expression only in

Buddhism. Clearly, in a Muslim community, ‗religion‘ refers to Islam.

Nonetheless, Muslims (and/or, are expected to) observe and obey Islamic

religious rules and regulations. Such a kind of religious observance and

obedience cannot (and should not) be expected from a non-Muslim, or even

from an atheist. For example, Muslims perform salat, Islamic canonical

prayer, five times a day. No Muslim should expect any non-Muslim behave

in this regard like a typical Muslim. What does this signify? ‗Religion‘

appears to be essentially a value and/or sanctity-free term; it is religiously

value-laden only before and in the community of those people who (really

and sincerely) believe in it in this way. The sanctity of any religion, if

vividly definable, is thus relative only to its followers. This is not a hard-

and-fast rule, though. For example, Muslims revere all the Divinely

dispatched prophets whose names are mentioned in the Holy Quran, yet

they obey only Islam, neither Judaism nor Christianity, despite numerous

references to them (and their prophets and messengers) as mentioned in

both the Holy Quran and the vast hadith literature. It follows that ―no single

definition [of religion] will suffice to encompass the varied sets of

traditions, practices, and ideas which constitute different religions.‖

(Crystal, 1991, s.v. religion). Smart (2002, p. 359) defines it as ―the pattern

of belief and practice through which men communicate with or hope to

3

gain experience of that which lie behind the world of their ordinary

experience. Typically it focuses on an Ultimate or Absolute, thought of by

some believers as God.‖ In a more categorized way, Geertz (1973, p. 90)

maintains that ―a religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2)

establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in

men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4)

clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the

moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.‖ (Original italics)

The phenomenon of religion received treatment even from the Left

Wing who are famous for pretending to overlook this important

phenomenon. Designated as ―a purely private matter‖ (1968, p. 253), Karl

Marx and Frederick Engels maintain that they ―cannot know anything

about the existence of God‖ (Ibid., p. 379) simply because ―[o]nly material

things [seem] perceptible‖ (Ibid.). Based on such a reasoning, they pay no

attention to any ―charges‖ (Ibid., p. 51) raised against their ―standpoint‖

such they barely deserve any ―serious examination‖ (Ibid., p. 51). Yet, the

phenomenon of ‗religion‘ is described, from the perspective of the same

camp, not only as ―this important social phenomenon‖ (Ilitskaya, 1978, p.

462) and also as ―a part of the spiritual culture of mankind‖ (Ibid., p. 463)

and as ―one of the principle forms of social consciousness, one of the major

components of men‘s intellectual activity‖ (Ibid., p. 464).

There have been some dichotomies based on the presence and absence

of religion. From a Durkheimian perspective, ―a religion is a unified system

of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set

4

apart and surrounded by prohibitions – beliefs and practices that unite its

adherents in a single moral community called a church.‖ (Durkheim, 2001

[1912], p. 46). It is religion that ―divides …the universe into two mutually

exclusive categories, the sacred and the profane.‖ (Cladis, 2001, p. xxi)

There is yet another dichotomy in that Jensen (2014) believes that

‗religion‘ refers to ―semantic and cognitive networks comprising ideas,

behaviours and institutions in relation to counter-intuitive superhuman

agents, objects, and posits.‖ (p. 8) Perhaps on analogy with Chomskyan

linguistics, Jensen introduces ―i-religion‖ as comprising ―individualistic

psychological processes‖ in contrast to ―e-religion‖ which concerns

―religious and social formations.‖ (Ibid., p. 54).

Religion and pragmatics

Since the present paper deals with religiopragmatics, it is in order to

discuss certain aspects of ‗religious language‘. As a Divine creation,

language is certainly a gift to man. This point has received references in the

Holy Quran in that Allah granted the faculty of speech to man (The Holy

Quran, Sura al-Raḥmān [55]: 4) and that languages are amongst several

signs of the existence of Allah (The Holy Quran, Sura al-Rūm [30]: 22).

Besides the Islamic world, in Christianity there are a few Biblical hints in

the New Testament (John, 1: 1-2) that endorse that language is a Divine

gift. The British Archbishop Richard C. Trench referred to ‗language‘ as

―God‘s perfect gift‖ (Trench, 1851; cited in Harpham, 2002, p. 222).

Likewise, Whitney (1892, p. 400) regarded language as ―a divine gift to

5

man‖ (1892, p. 399), and that language had a Divine origin (Ibid., p. 400).

Yet, it appears that there is not any natural, human language which can be

characterized as essentially ‗religious‘ or ‗sacred‘, in contrast any other

language(s) to be identified as ‗irreligious‘ or ‗profane‘. There are certainly

uses of language in ‗semi-, non-, or even anti-religious‘ contexts. Any

given language can virtually be used in any socio-religious context,

whether religious, non-religious, irreligious, profane, or even blasphemous.

Moreover, as ‗religion‘ means different phenomena to different people, a

‗religious language‘ must have different connotations, manifestations, and

effects for different people. While a devout Hindu may regard Sanskrit as a

sacred language, it is seldom regarded as such in a Muslim community. It

follows that ‗sacrality‘, ‗sacredness‘, ‗religiosity‘ and ‗religiousness‘ are

not just attributes to be attested to a language out of nothing; it is after the

advent of a macro-religious phenomenon, or such phenomena, e.g., the

emergence of a religion, the revelation of a sacred book, and so forth, in a

community that the language being used to such an end can gradually be

regarded as a ‗religious language‘. Rather, ―…the sacred is contagious….it

spreads out from this [sacred] hub to things connected to it.‖ (Cladis, 2001,

p. xxii) In a similar vein, the very specific language, particularly the words

and symbols, including abbreviations, can be looked up to as ‗sacred‘ by

those who are adherents of that religion. In a similar way, the very words

used in the Holy Quran as well as the authoritative hadiths from the

Prophet Muhammad and the Shia Infallible Imams are regarded as ‗sacred‘

because of the Divine origin and source of the Holy Quran and the

Infallibility of the Infallible personalities in whom Shiite Muslims believe.

6

This type of belief in the ‗sacredness‘ of the Arabic language, as used in the

aforementioned discourses, cannot be generalized to any text produced in

Arabic. It follows that the ‗sacredness‘ believed to be inherent in the

aforementioned types of discourses is a function of their sources, not the

language utilized.

So far as ‗pragmatics‘ is concerned, it is indisputable that by the term

‗pragmatics‘ the American philosopher Charles Morris meant ―the relations

of signs to their users‘ […] which implies that signs are produced for a

purpose‖ (Posner, 1998, p. 515). By this term, Morris meant ―the science of

the relation of signs to their interpreters.‖ (Davis, 1991, p. 3) Traditionally

divided into Anglo-American vs. Continental European traditions, the

former seems to be more interested in certain discussions mainly in the

philosophy of language and speech-act theory (Chapman, 2011, p. 5), the

latter lays emphasis on ―sociolinguistics and discourse analysis, and

emphasizes the functional perspective on language behavior.‖ (LoCastro,

2012, p. 7).

Linguistic pragmatics

Another topic worthy of discussion here is ‗pragmatics‘, more properly

‗linguistic pragmatics‘. As ―the study of communication – the study of

how language is used‖ (Kempson, 2001, p. 396), linguistic pragmatics is

very much concerned with studying ―what the message intends to

communicate‖ (LoCastro, 2012, p. 6), for this is the real scope pragmatics

in that its task lies in ―understanding intentional human action‖ (Green,

7

1996, p. 2, cited in Grundy, 2000, p. 214). It is with this ―societal character

of pragmatics‖ (Mey, 2001, p. 6) that it is rightly expected to focus on that

aspect of pragmatics ―where one studies how linguistic knowledge and

extralinguistic knowledge interlock in the production of successful

communication‖ (Harris, 2003, p. 58 [emphasis added]). With these

considerations, Verschueren‘s definition of ‗pragmatics‘ seems to be an

encapsulating and all-embracing one: ―a general cognitive, social, and

cultural perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in

forms of behavior‖ (1999, p. 7). To this definition, and specifically

amongst the adjectives listed above, ‗religious‘ can and must be added,

hence the present paper, ―Religiopragmatics‖.

Before embarking on discussing certain aspects of religiopragmatics

as used in a typical Muslim, specifically Shiite, community, it deserves

giving an explanation on the rationale behind developing the present work.

It deserves explanation why the community of linguists, mainly Western

linguists, and even a great majority of those Muslim linguists who have

been trained and educated in that camp of thought, have remained so

inattentive to the interface of linguistics and religious data. Traditionally, in

Muslim communities linguistic considerations have made part and parcel of

religious scholarship. Examples can be found in focusing on training non-

Arab students in learning proper pronunciation of Classical Arabic for the

sake of Quran recitation and how to correctly perform salat – mandatory

Islamic ritual prayer. Apart from this minimal requirement, those who

aspire to make experts in the realms of formal religious education must

8

take lessons in Arabic grammar, rhetoric, and certain linguistic-cum-

rhetorical interpretation of primary resources of religious knowledge, i.e.,

the Holy Quran and the hadiths. [2] There has been a major point of

difference between Western linguistic scholarship from their Eastern,

typically Muslim counterpart. While the latter has remained ―strongly

dominated by religion‖ (Seuren, 1988, p. xii, cited in Harpham, 2002, p.

219), the former has been ―basically secular and nonreligious‖ (Seuren,

1988, p. xii, cited in Harpham, 2002, p. 219). It seems that time is ripe for

considering certain Islamic religious phenomena from a pragmatic

perspective under the rubric of ‗religiopragmatics‘. [3]

Language and religion

Apart from a few other basically human phenomena, e.g., family, both

language and religion make two fundamental characteristics of every

human community. While religion is viewed as ―the primary evolutionary

universal‖ (Darquennes and Vandenbussche, 2011, 5), religion and

language together are regarded as ―anthropological constants in the

evolution of mankind‖ (Darquennes and Vandenbussche, 2011, 5). Granted

a basic social function of language is communication, there seems to be no

religious act devoid of the purpose of communication. However, the other

end of this religious communication can be placed along a continuum,

ranging from the Deity, in Islam called Allah, to ordinary people gathered

in a religious service or function. Based on what was touched upon, there is

no intrinsically and essentially religious language; however, there are

9

indeed many religious occasions wherein language acquires a religious

coloring. [4] All Divine texts are essentially acts of religious

communication from the Deity to mankind via a Divinely-dispatched

prophet. This is accomplished for the sake of religious guidance of

mankind. From a pragmatic perspective, it is a Divine act of

communication accomplished in a human language. The sacredness of this

text emanates from its Divine source. It is such a kind of Divine sacredness

that makes not only the whole text but every bit of it so sacred that its

words, when written or printed out cannot be touched without having

performed wudu, ritual ablution. [5] Such a text is being credited with

having the Deity, Allah, as its ―author‖ (a Goffmanian terminology) Who

has formulated and dictated ―the actual words‖ (Goffman, 1981, cited

without page reference in Keane, 1997, p. 58). The Holy Quran has various

uses in Muslims‘ life, ranging from its recitation at intervals to using and

making references to its fragments for various reasons. In this case, the

person who recites or reads out some fragments of it can be called its

―animator who utters‖ (Goffman, 1981, cited without page reference in

Keane, 1997, p. 58 [original italics]) it for various purposes, [6] yet the

addressee and/or the audience are expected to derive the actually intended

meaning. [7, 8] The case of the Quran recitation is intriguing, in that not

only its recitation but also listening to it is an act of devotion, hence a

bystander‘s attentive listening to its being recited is also a rather passive act

of devotion, even if it is not live recitation but a recorded one. [9]