Introduction

Muslim scholars such as Al-Qurṭubī, Al-Siyouṭī, Al-Ṭabarī, Al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn Kathīr, and Ibn Taymīya (Al-Shāy’, 1993, pp. 175–180) deny the occurrence of absolute synonymy (i.e., words with similar meanings) in the Holy Qurʾān. Though Arabic is known for its synonymous words (Parkinson, 2006), the Holy Qurʾān has no absolute synonyms because of its eloquence (Imran and Ismail, 2019). Abu-Odeh reported that “Synonymy exists in literary texts within limits, but it does not exist in the Holy Qurʾān” (Seada and Berrim, 2017, p. 19). Each word is selected carefully to convey a specific meaning (Bint Al-Shāṭi’, 1996, p. 14). Abu-Odeh illustrated his argument with examples claiming that the word ħalafa ‘swear’ is a negative reference to the act of swearing untruthfully, whereas ˈʔaqsama ‘swear’ denotes a positive meaning of swearing truthfully. Further, checking concordances (i.e., verses where the word is used), one will find that ħalafa ‘swear’ collocates (i.e., occurs) mainly with negative words as opposed to ˈʔaqsama ‘swear’ which occurs with positive words. The word ħalafa ‘swear’ occurs with alˈkaðib ‘lie’ and maˈhiːn ‘worthless,’ whereas ˈʔaqsama ‘swear’ is used with ʕaˈðˁiːm ‘great’ and rabb ‘the Lord.’ In general, ħalafa ‘swear’ is used in contexts referring to disbelievers and breaking promises, whereas ˈʔaqsama ‘swear’ is employed to comment on believers and in contexts of fulfilling promises (Abdelaal and Md Rashid, 2015) and praising God. Table 1 below illustrates some of the words’ contexts. Positive contexts are underlined, whereas negative ones are given in bold. Neutral contexts are neither underlined nor given in bold.

Table 1 Example contexts of ħalafa and ˈʔaqsama in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

Based on the above advanced argument, negativity or positivity of words or their semantic prosody is another way used to differentiate between words that are considered to be synonyms in dictionaries. Semantic prosody, also termed discourse prosody, pragmatic prosody, emotive prosody (Stubbs, 2001a), collocational prosody (Stubbs, 1996), or evaluative prosody (Morley and Partington, 2009; Partington, 2015), of a node word (i.e., the word in question) results from its habitual occurrence with certain positive or negative words (i.e., collocates). Such node words adopt a special affective meaning which can be positive (i.e., of favourable meaning), neutral, or negative (i.e., of unfavourable meaning), and they impose it onto new contexts (Hauser and Schwarz, 2016). In other words, the semantic prosody of a given word is the attitudinal aspect of meaning that results from its typical collocates (Omidian and Siyanova-Chanturia, 2020). This type of meaning is not given in dictionaries but arises as one reacts to a specific combination of words used in a particular context. Hence, though synonymous words share the same core meaning (i.e., denotation; Partington, 1998), each suggests a specific attitudinal or evaluative meaning known as semantic prosody (Stubbs, 2002; Xiao and McEnery, 2006). As opposed to lexicographers, corpus linguists drew some attention to the use and frequency of words than solely to their meanings. When frequently used with certain words, node words will eventually partner much efficiently with such collocates (Selmistraitis, 2020; Xiao and McEnery, 2006). According to corpus linguists, only corpora can help researchers scientifically identify typical collocates of a certain word.

Deictic verbs, defined by Huang (2012) as words marking the direction of an entity movement, sometimes suggest nearly the same meaning and refer to basic actions. Though they are common in the Holy Qurʾān, only a few research papers (see Alhusaiyan, 2023; Al-obaidi, 2013; Al-Sofi et al. 2014) examined their semantic prosody. However, some studies (e.g., Alhusaiyan, 2023; Al-obaidi, 2013; Al-Sofi et al. 2014) did not make use of statistics to decide on the significance of frequent collocates, whereas others (Al-obaidi, 2013) did not check the contextual use of verbs to determine their prosody. In general, such studies (Alhusaiyan, 2023; Al-obaidi, 2013; Al-Sofi et al. 2014) considered a few verbs with a few occurrences in the Holy Qurʾān. For example, Alhusaiyan (2023) has examined one deictic verb that has occurred 13 times, whereas Al-obaidi (2013) and Al-Sofi et al. (2014) have investigated four. As opposed to studies by Al-obaidi (2013) and Al-Sofi et al. (2014), this study aims to explore a bigger group of deictic verbs of different forms. The goal is to fill the existing research gap and strengthen one’s understanding of the usage of verbs and their nuances. Thus, the present study aims to answer two questions:

  1. 1.

    What is the semantic prosody of deictic verbs sharing the same root or the same meaning?

  2. 2.

    If semantic prosody is associated with meaning, which deictic meaning is significantly associated with positive, neutral, and negative attitudinal evaluations?

Collocation and semantic prosody

The linguistic concept of collocation has been defined by Firth (1957) as the frequent occurrence of words with others. For example, make collocates with decision but not homework though do and make give nearly the same meaning. As manifested in the examples, a collocation is composed of two words (i.e., the node word and the collocate). In the case of make decision, the node word is make, whereas the collocate is decision. Corpus linguists are interested in examining the collocational behavior of node words (Stubbs, 1996). In other words, they are interested in identifying typical collocates for a word.

Stubbs (2002) states that there are semantic relations between node words and their collocates. As noted by Xiao and McEnery (2006), the type of evaluative meaning that is induced from the frequent occurrence of a node word with its collocates is called semantic prosody. The expression was first used by Bill Louw in 1993 who chose the word prosody to imitate Firth’s (1957) phonological prosody that is traditionally used to describe phonological features that go beyond semantic constraints. As adjacency is important in phonological prosody, collocability is essential for determining semantic prosody. As stated above, the linguistic phenomenon of semantic prosody has been proposed by corpus linguists who followed the phraseological tradition believing that the typical behavior of a group of lexical items can be inferred from its use in concordance lines (Sinclair, 2004a).

It is important to differentiate between semantic preference, colligation, connotation, and semantic prosody. Node words show some tendency to occur with a set of collocates sharing some semantic features (Stubbs, 2002). For instance, large prefers to collocate with words that denote ‘quantities’ or ‘sizes’ (Stubbs, 2001b). This phenomenon is known as semantic preference, and it contributes to semantic prosody, which affects the whole text. While semantic prosody is a defining feature of node words, semantic preference distinguishes one set of collocates from another (Partington, 2004a). On the other hand, colligation is defined as the grammatical environment of a word. For example, functioning as a transitive verb, build up is positive (e.g., building up trust), but it can be used negatively as an intransitive verb as in cholesterol builds up (Louw, 1993). As for connotation, it is the evaluative meaning attached to single words, and it is peripheral to their core meanings (e.g., skinny and slim; Lyons, 1977). Connotation is schematic, but it is never collocational as in the case of semantic prosody (Louw, 2000). According to Sinclair (1996a) and Stewart (2009), the phenomena of collocation, semantic preference, and colligation should be considered as part of the extended lexical unit in the study of semantic prosody.

It is crucial to note that there is some disagreement in the way of how semantic prosody is conceptualized and used. For example, Xiao and McEnery (2006) and Partington (2004a) argued that semantic prosody is a feature of words and can be used to differentiate between near synonyms. On the other hand, Sinclair (2004a) noted that semantic prosody is a feature of a sequence of a group of co-occurring words that constitutes a unit of meaning. Because of these two viewpoints, one group of scholars became concerned with how specific node words are affected by semantic polarity (i.e., positivity or negativity in meaning, e.g., cause and sit through are basically negative; Bublitz, 1996; Hunston, 2002; Louw, 1993; Stubbs, 1995). Another group, on the other hand, contended that semantic prosody is the product of an extended unit of meaning (Zethsen, 2006), and it is never predictable, as it varies with respect to different grammatical constructions, genres (i.e., texts performing the same function; Wales, 2001), registers (i.e., texts identified situationally by field, tenor, and mode; Halliday and Hasan, 1985), text categories, and more importantly authors’ intentions (e.g., Hunston, 2007; Lin and Chung, 2016; Morley and Partington, 2009; Partington, 2004a, Sinclair, 2004a). In other words, they examined semantic prosody from a discourse perspective.

John Sinclair is considered to be the father of semantic prosody studies. He examined semantic prosody from a discourse or pragmatic perspective arguing that it is “attitudinal and on the pragmatic side of the semantics-pragmatics continuum” (Sinclair, 1996a, p. 87). He explained that “The initial choice of semantic prosody is the functional choice which links meaning to purpose; all subsequent choices within the lexical item relate back to the prosody” (Sinclair, 1996a, p. 86). Therefore, Louw (2000) noted that semantic prosody is beneficial in expressing one’s negative or positive attitude (Louw, 2000). One notable contribution to the study of semantic prosody is by Stubbs who described semantic prosody as “a particular collocational phenomenon” (Stubbs, 1996, p. 176). Stubbs (1996) divided semantic prosody into three types (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative). If a node word collocates frequently with words having a strong negative meaning, the node word will assimilate the negative prosody, and the same goes for node words with positive meanings. However, if negative and positive collocates occur frequently with a node word, and they have the same frequency score, the node word is considered neutral. As opposed to derogatory words that inherently have one of the senses (i.e., positive or negative), node words acquire positive or negative meanings once they are associated with certain collocates.

Hauser and Schwarz (2016) reported that semantic prosody is “the covert valenced connotation of a word” (p. 3) that is acquired from frequent occurrence with some words. They differentiated between semantic prosody and valenced meaning. Some words have positivity or negativity as part of their core meanings. The words right and evil are examples of words with valenced meanings. Hauser and Schwarz (2016) commented that words with positive or negative core meanings do not have “non-valenced synonyms” (p. 883). Hence, there is no neutral word for evil. On the other hand, words with acquired semantic prosodies do not have any valence in their core meanings. The acquired positive or negative meaning never appears in dictionary definitions or definitions by language users. Further, words with semantic prosody have synonyms, and they can “share a neutral core meaning with other non-valenced words” (p. 883). Hauser and Schwarz (2016) emphasized the role of context in determining the semantic prosody of a word. More notably, Hunston (2007) postulates that semantic prosody results from the frequent co-occurrence of certain words in a sequence and the typical discourse function associated with that sequence. For example, cause is basically negative if it is used to refer to human beings, but this is not the case in scientific research because semantic prosody of a sequence of words is determined by a specific register. Thus, she draws the attention to checking the immediate and the extended co-text (i.e., words surrounding a specific word) where the word occurs besides phraseology (i.e., lexical and grammatical combinations).

As shown above, the concept of semantic prosody is slightly controversial. While some place greater importance on the list of frequent collocates accompanying a word, others believe that the sequence where the word occurs and one’s subjective, attitudinal evaluation of that sequence in a specific register determine its semantic prosody (Hunston, 2007). In short, semantic prosody has been explored by Sinclair (1991), Stubbs (1995, 1996, 2001a, 2001b), Louw (1993, 2000), Partington (1998), Schmitt and Carter (2004), Hunston (2002), and Xiao and McEnery (2006). Some of the verbs examined are provide, cause, set in, bring about, etc. Previous research indicated that the majority of verbs explored in the literature are negative (e.g., Partington, 2004a; Sinclair; 1991; Stubbs, 2001b; Ünaldi, 2013).

Semantic prosody in the Holy Qurʾān

Only a few studies (see Al-Nasser and Khashan, 2008; Al-obaidi, 2013; Alshahrani et al. 2018; Al-Sofi et al. 2014; El Attar, 2019; Elewa, 2004; Younis, 2018) have been conducted to examine the semantic prosody of words in the Holy Qurʾān. For example, Al-obaidi (2013) examined the semantic prosody of some Qurʾānic verbs (e.g., ðaːqa ‘tasted,’ kaʃafa ‘removed,’ massa ‘touched’) and confirmed that they are negative. Additionally, he explored the verb ˈnazzala ‘sent’ and reported that it is positive collocating with the Qurʾān, the Book, angels, etc. As for kaʃafa ‘removed,’ though it collocates with negative words such as punishment, evil, etc., it eventually leads to a positive meaning of relief.

Similarly, Al-Sofi et al. (2014) examined four frequent verbs (e.g., ðaːqa ‘tasted,’ kaʃafa ‘removed,’ massa ‘touched,’ and dʒaːʔ ‘came’) using the Qurʾānic Corpus. The researchers employed exegesis and dictionaries to check the core and peripheral meanings of verbs. Further, corpus analysis was not limited to listing typical collocates, but it icluded checking their concordances within a contextual window (i.e., span). Thus, to fully examine the co-text or the extended unit of meaning, the window span was set to four to five words to the left and four to five words to the right. The first verb, massa ‘touched’ is used metaphorically to mean inflicting disbelievers with calamity (Ibn-Ashoor, 1984), and hence it collocates mainly with hell, harm, and adversity. Moreover, it has been used 50 times in contexts suggesting a negative prosody such as those commenting on disbelievers or punishment on the Day of Judgment. The second verb, ðaːqa ‘tasted,’ employed 36 times in the Holy Qurʾān, is used metaphorically to mean experiencing pain. Hence, it occurs closely with penalty, torment, hell, and fire. It is found mainly in contexts suggesting negativity. Its only occurrence with tree reflects a favourable meaning. The last verb, kaʃafa ‘removed,’ is used metaphorically to mean ‘remove’ with harm, evil, and penalty. When it is used with negative words in the Qurʾān, it gives positive meanings. For example, when it occurs with punishment, it denotes the end of it. The last verb, dʒaːʔ , suggests the meaning of brought, and it is used with the book, the prophet, the proof, the guidance, the truth, etc. It has been used only four times with negative meanings when it collocates with lie, blood, etc. As shown above, Al-Sofi et al. (2014) paid attention to concordances and frequent collocates of verbs to decide on their semantic prosodies.

Using corpus-based tools, Alshahrani et al. (2018) investigated the semantic prosody of terms related to nature (i.e., moon, sun, sky, mountain, day, night, earth) in translations by Yusuf Ali, Abdel Haleem, Pickthall, Arberry, and Saheeh International. Such terms were selected specifically because they do not suggest any valence as part of their core meanings. Using commentaries by Muslim scholars, the researchers found that the same term can denote positive, neutral, or negative meanings depending on its contexts and associative collocations, and each term can fulfill a pragmatic function in a specific context. Such words give positive meanings if they are associated with the cosmos and landscapes and suggest negative meanings if they occur with terms related to weather. As for their pragmatic functions, such words are positive if they are used in contexts of glorification of God and negative in contexts dealing with punishment or Judgment Day calamities. Nature-related words can be neutral only in relation to Islamic teachings. The researchers laid emphasis on relating the concept of semantic prosody to context and pragmatic functions. They also reported that Abdel Haleem’s translation is the closest to the source text in terms of preserving semantic prosodies of words related to nature. Likewise, El Attar (2019) used the Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus to explore the semantic prosodies of nouns sharing the same root as nahar‘river’ and ʔanˈhaːr‘rivers.’ The researcher reported that ʔanˈhaːr ‘rivers’ is positive, but nahar ‘river’ is neutral. While nahar ‘river’ occurs with mub’taliːkum ‘will test you’ and fadʒdʒarnaː ‘We caused to gush forth’ denoting power, abundance, etc., ʔanˈhaːr‘rivers’ is used more frequently with gardens, the pious, reward, etc. Checking translations by Pickthall, Ghali, and Yusuf Ali, the researcher found that Yusuf Ali adhered to the associated semantic prosodies in his translations of words related to nature.

Another important study is by Alhusaiyan (2023) who considered only one deictic verb, waqaʕa ‘fall down,’ with 13 occurrences. Though the verb inherently gives a negative meaning, the researcher has found that it can suggest other meanings (e.g., occur, fall down, fulfill, to be revealed, cause, etc.) in the Holy Qurʾān and thus used in contexts that are basically not negative. Nevertheless, Alhusaiyan (2023) reported that it is used negatively in 8 (61.53%) out of 13 contexts to give the meanings of occur, fulfill, and the metaphorical meaning of fall down. Further, it is used in contexts of addressing disbelievers, punishment, Resurrection and thus the typical collocates of punishment and Resurrection. On the other hand, waqaʕa ‘fall down,’ is used neutrally to give the meaning of physical fall down or prostrate in three contexts (i.e., 23.07%). It is important to note that Alhusaiyan (2023) gave sufficient attention to the co-text and not only to collocating words.

In relation to prepositions, Younis (2018) examined how prepositions play a role in determining the semantic prosody of a verb using ArabiCorpus and the Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus. Checking the collocational behavior of each verb and analysing concordances, Younis (2018) reported that if ˈʔalqaː ‘threw’ is followed by ʕalaː ‘on/upon’, it is negative, whereas when it is followed by ʔilaː ‘to/towards,’ it suggests the meaning of giving something. Other verbs explored are kataba ‘wrote,’ istaˈmaʕa ‘listened,’ ˈnazzala ‘sent down,’ sˤabara ‘was patient,’ ʔawħaː ‘reveal,’ and hadaː ‘guide.’ Younis (2018) concluded that ʕalaː ‘on/upon’ is negative because it is associated with commitment or something done with effort, whereas ʔilaː ‘to/towards’ and li- ‘for’ are positive since they indicate delivering something good or assigning something, respectively.

As noted above, while Alshahrani (2020) and El Attar (2019) considered a number of words related to nature, Al-Sofi et al. (2014) examined one deictic verb (i.e., dʒaːʔ ‘brought’) and Al-obaidi (2013) explored two (i.e., dʒaːʔ ‘brought’ and ˈnazzala ‘sent’). On the other hand, Alhusaiyan (2023) considered one (i.e., waqaʕa ‘fall down’) that is inherently negative. However, Younis (2018) examined the role prepositions play in determining the semantic prosody of a verb. Hence, more research is needed to explore the topic of semantic prosody in the Holy Qurʾān especially of verbs having the same root or sharing the same meaning.

Deictic verbs

Bühler (1934) defined deixis as words referring to persons, things, activities, processes, etc. using spatial or temporal parameters. Deixis is encoded in lexical items such as demonstratives, personal pronouns, tenses, some adverbials of time and place, and motion verbs such as come, bring, and send. The focus of the present study is on Arabic verbs denoting some movement towards the speaker. This section elaborates on the meanings of such verbs.

Generally speaking, Levin (2007) classified deictic verbs as those belonging to bring and take category (i.e., including only bring and take), send verbs (e.g., send, mail, ship), give verbs (e.g., give, pass, sell), carry verbs (e.g., carry, push, pull), etc. Such verbs are also described as motion verbs since they encode information about the path and manner of an event. Clark and Garnica (1974) interpreted bring as cause to come and send as cause to go. Hence, bring and send are causative verbs.

Abdulrahim (2013) examined a group of Arabic verbs, and she called them come verbs because they denote the meaning of ‘come.’ She reported that they can have literal and non-literal meanings. She described them as basic verbs since some of them may refer to eating, drinking, going, coming, taking, or giving, and they are used more frequently than others (Newman, 2004). Thus, come verbs are basic deictic motion verbs. Behaving like the English come, ʔataː , ħaˈḍara, qadima , and dʒaːʔ suggest movement towards a deictic centre (i.e., the speaker’s location at the time of utterance).

To explore the semantic prosody of deictic verbs, one needs to first investigate the meanings of such verbs as outlined in Arabic dictionaries. According to Arabic grammarians (see Al-Sāmurāī, 2019), there are a few differences in meaning between some deictic verbs. For example, dʒaːʔ implies difficulty and that movement is closer to the speaker. It also indicates sitting or settlement after the act of coming. More notably, coming is done with clear intention (Al-Omari and Abu-Melhim, 2014). However, ʔataː suggests easiness and coming from a distant place. The speaker does not know where the agent comes from, which means that the action of coming is executed unintentionally (Al-Omari and Abu-Melhim, 2014). On the other hand, ħaˈḍara suggests a planned action of coming and the speaker’s pre-knowledge of the action of coming. More importantly, dʒaːʔ comes in the past form only in the Qurʾān compared to ħaˈḍara and ʔataː As for send verbs, ˈnazzala means that the action of sending is done more than once, and the whole action is thus incomplete, whereas ˈʔanzala implies that the action of sending is done only once, and it is hence complete. The former verb is used to refer to Qurʾānic revelation. On the other hand, the second (i.e., ˈʔanzala ) is utilised in reference to the gospel and Torah (Abdelaal and Md Rashid, 2015). As for baʕaθa , it indicates intensity in action, movement, hard work, and a planned action. Nevertheless, ʔarsala denotes that there is a message involved in the act of sending. As advanced above, the Arabic deictic verbs defined in this section do not indicate any positivity or negativity as part of their core meanings.

Methods

Corpus analysis was not restricted to identifying significantly occurring collocates for a specific deictic verb. Adopting a discourse standpoint, I followed Hunston (2007) and Sinclair (2004a) who proposed that concordances should be checked to specify the pragmatic function (i.e., the communicative purpose) associated with each sequence where the deictic verb occurs. Further, as suggested by Stubbs (1996), I relied on my attitudinal evaluation of the co-text which can be positive, negative, or neutral. This was achieved after I had made a decision on the purpose (i.e., pragmatic function) of each Qurʾānic verse. Additionally, corpus linguists have utilised a number of statistical measures to explore collocability using corpora (see Hunston, 2002; McEnery and Wilson, 2001; Partington, 1998; Sinclair, 1991; Stubbs, 1995). Statistically speaking, if the collocate significantly occurred with a node word, it would be considered a typical one. Hence, I utilised a number of statistical measures to decide on how typical are collocates for a node word. Further, I employed a statistical test of ANOVA to identify which deictic meaning (i.e., sent, came, brought) suggested by different lemmas (i.e., basic forms of words listed in dictionaries as headwords from which other morphologically related words are derived; Knowles and Don, 2004) and six verb patterns (i.e., and ) is significantly associated with which attitudinal evaluation. Since my approach is statistical and textual, the study is thus considered qualitative and quantitative.

The sampling procedure of deictic verbs

Selecting only frequent words is part of any corpus study that depends on aggregation of occurrences (Omidian and Siyanova-Chanturia, 2020). Hence, in the present study, basic verbs that are synonymous and denote the meanings of come, bring, and send were chosen since they are very frequent in the Qurʾān, and there is no positivity or negativity in their core meanings (Hauser and Schwarz, 2016). As noted by Hauser and Schwarz (2016), such verbs denoting come, bring, and send have synonyms that give neutral meanings. Thus, one expects that deictic verbs may acquire favourable or unfavourable meanings from their typical collocates in specific contexts. Checking Arabic dictionaries, the researcher focused on (a) verbs giving the meaning of came (i.e., dʒaːʔ ħaˈḍara , ʔataː ), (b) those with the meaning of brought such as ʔaħḍara dʒaːʔ (bi- ) ʔaːtaː (bi- ) and (c) verbs that mean sent (i.e., ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala ʔarsala , baʕaθa ). Table 2 below illustrates groups of Arabic synonymous verbs that share the same deictic meaning.

Table 2 Groups of Arabic synonymous verbs sharing the same deictic meaning in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

As shown in Table 2, the sample includes verbs followed by the particle (bi- ), as it significantly alters the deictic meaning of the verb from came to brought as in ʔataː (bi-) () and dʒaːʔ (bi-) () where both mean brought instead of came after the addition of (bi- ). Additionally, verbs that are polysemous (i.e., contributing meanings that are semantically related, e.g., ʔataː ) were specifically selected for the purpose of the study because the researcher wanted to examine whether or not verbs sharing a specific word pattern (i.e., root) but with subtle differences in meaning have the same semantic prosody. Omidian and Siyanova-Chanturia (2020) and Lin and Chung (2016) assert that words with different senses may contribute to different semantic prosodies.

Corpus scholars, such as Xiao and McEnery (2006), Bednarek (2008), Stewart (2009), and Omidian and Siyanova-Chanturia (2020), note that prosodic meaning is not only determined by word forms but more importantly by contexts and genres. Hence, verbs of different conjugated forms in the past and the present such as ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala ħaˈḍara ˈʔuħḍira nuˈħḍir jaˈħḍur ˈʔaħḍara , dʒaːʔ dʒaːʔ (bi-) () ʔaːtaː ʔataː ʔataː (bi-) () , baʕaθa and ʔarsala sharing the same pattern (i.e., and ) and giving sometimes the same meaning were selected for the present study, as they might or might not suggest the same semantic prosody. The total number of verbs with different forms investigated is 14, and the number of verb patterns examined is 6.

As shown above, the sample of verbs selected reflect the meanings of come, bring, and send. Therefore, other meanings given by deictic verbs and suggested by concordance lines such as give and commit for ʔataː and revive for baʕaθa were not considered in the study. Hence, the following verse was not included in the concordance analysis of co-texts because the verb, ʔataː suggests the meaning of commit, and thus it is not used in a deictic manner.

Mohsin Khan: If they commit illegal sexual intercourse, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried) women. (sūrat an-nisāa, āyah 25).

Data collection and analysis

I used two corpora to conduct a corpus study of the semantic prosody of frequent deictic verbs in the Holy Qurʾān. The first corpus was the Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus, and the second was the Qurʾān Annotated Corpus in Sketch Engine. The Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus is capable of providing concordances besides the specific meaning each verb gives in a particular context (see Fig. 1). Specifically, the Qurʾān Dictionary Feature, in the Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus, was used to search for verbs and their contexts. On the other hand, the Qurʾān Annotated Corpus provides frequency scores of node words and their collocates, the MI (i.e., mutual information) score, a statistical measure of collocational strength that holds a node word and its collocates (Xiao and McEnery, 2006), the t-score, a statistical test of confidence without considering the level of significance, and the logDice, a very reliable measure of typicality that does not give value to rare combinations, and it is used to compare scores obtained from different corpora (Rychly’, 2008).

Fig. 1: The concordance of the verb ‘ʔataː أتى’ in the Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus.
figure 1

The figure shows that the verb gives the two deictic meanings of come and bring as illustrated by verses from the Holy Qurʾān.

Full size image

To identify collocates for a specific deictic verb, I considered an MI score of 3 and above and a t-score higher than 2 (cf. Hunston, 2002). The t-score is a reliable test since it addresses frequency, and it is very useful in confirming any association (Baisa and Suchomel, 2014). Hence, frequent collocates have high t-scores (Bartsch, 2004). As for the logDice, negative values indicate no statistical significance between the node and the collocate. A value of 0 shows that there is less than one co-occurrence. The maximum score is 14, and it reveals that the node occurs with its collocate in all the occurrences (Rychly’, 2008). Further, to look for collocates of a given word in Sketch Engine, the window span of a co-occurrence was set to four words on each side, as this is a common way to search for collocates of a node word. However, I did not entirely rely on such statistical measures to determine how a word behaves in context. For example, baʕaθa as sent is used more frequently and significantly with raˈsuːl ‘messenger’ (freq = 10, T-score = 3.1, MI = 10, logDice = 12.15), jawm ‘Day of Resurrection’ (freq = 9, T-score = 2.95, MI = 6.09, logDice = 9.50), and ʔalˈlaːh ‘God’ (freq = 13, T-score = 3.34, MI = 3.7, logDice = 7.3), but it occurs more in negative contexts.

Similar to the previous studies that focused on the semantic prosody of near-synonyms (Al-Otaibi, 2022; Jurko, 2022; Phoocharoensil, 2021; Xiao and McEnery, 2006), this study is no exception. Additionally, similar to studies by Alshahrani et al. (2018), Al-Sofi et al. (2014), and Hauser and Schwarz (2016), focus was on frequent collocates and contexts where each verb occurs. Additionally, I used Arabic dictionaries (e.g., Almaany) that provide important information on the meanings of various verb patterns besides example sentences. Almaany includes important dictionaries in Arabic such as Lisān Al-ʻarrab and Al-qāmūs Al-muḥīṭ. It is considered another method for verifying the meanings given to verbs in specific contexts in the Qurʾānic Corpus. Further, similar to Alshahrani et al.’s (2018), I used exegeses available in Al-Bāḥiṯh Al-Qurʾānī (https://exegesis.app/) to decide on the positivity or negativity of contexts. The Website includes exegeses by Al-Ṭabarī, Al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr, Al-Siyouṭī, Al-Sa’dī, Al-Baghawī, etc.

Identifying the pragmatic functions of verses and the semantic prosodies of verbs

According to Omidian and Siyanova-Chanturia (2020), meaning is viewed as a means of communication, which can serve a communicative function only when it is used in a specific discourse. To identify the semantic prosodies of verbs, following Alshahrani et al. (2018) and Hunston (2007), I explored the pragmatic function associated with each use of a verb in its context. As noted by Alshahrani et al. (2018), if the verb was used in relation to Islamic teachings or narrating stories of past events, it would be considered neutral even if it occurred with words suggesting positivity. Further, if the verb was utilised in contexts of condemnation and threatening disbelievers, Judgement Day calamities, etc., it would be considered negative. However, if the verbs were employed in contexts where there was some mention of God’s blessings, praising God, complimenting believers, etc., the verb would evoke a positive meaning. Such pragmatic functions have been given by interpreters such as Ibn-Ashoor (1984) in his book Tafsīr At-tahrīr w At-tanwīr. They have never been clearly stated in the Qurʾān but understood from verses. Since such functions are implied in verses and contextualized, they are often referred to as pragmatic. Table 11 in the Appendix illustrates some of the common pragmatic functions found in the Holy Qurʾān and manifested by the examples in the present study. As recommended by Hunston (2007), I checked the immediate and the extended co-text to determine the semantic prosody of a verb, as sometimes the immediate co-text did not help much in suggesting any attitudinal evaluation. For example, in the following verse, one cannot determine the semantic prosody of a verb by reading . Thus, reading the whole verse helps in understanding that the verb functions to disapprove how People of the Book argue about Abraham, the Messenger.

Arberry: People of the Book! Why do you dispute concerning Abraham? The Torah was not sent down, neither the Gospel, but after him. What, have you no reason? (sūrat āl-ʿim’rān, āyah 65).

Reliability

About 20% (i.e., the 192 occurrences of the verbs ˈnazzala and ʔarsala ) of the data was recoded for semantic prosody categories after six months of coding them the first time to achieve intra-rater reliability. Intra-rater reliability is defined as achieving consistency in evaluation if evaluation is done twice by the same rater (Miles and Huberman, 1994). To calculate intra-rater reliability, percent agreement was employed (Susilawati et al. 2018). According to Miles and Huberman (1994), percent agreement is calculated by dividing the number of agreements in assigning the same code to the same category by the total number of agreements and disagreements. Thus, 166 is divided by 192; that is, the total of 26 and 166, and the resultant number is 86.4%, after being multiplied by 100, which suggests a sufficient level of agreement (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Disagreement was because of the occurrence of some overlapping categories in the same verse such as those of narrating stories of the past and punishment of disbelievers or that of narration of stories with blessings that God endowed past people. Thus, in such cases, the precedence would be given to categories of blessings or punishment. If the verse did not contribute any prosody in terms of these two, the occurrence of a deictic verb would be considered neutral because of the category of narration. The following example is illustrative.

Pickthall: And we sent among them a messenger of their own, saying: Serve Allah, Ye have no other Allah save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)? (sūrat al-mu’minūn, āyah 32).

As shown above, the words surrounding the verb suggest a blessing for people to have a prophet from them, but the extended co-text clearly denotes that it is a narration of what happened to Hūd’s people, so the verb was coded positive because of the surrounding co-text and the positive category of blessings.

Analytical software

The data was analysed qualitatively using MAXQDA 2022. Developed by Udo Kuckartz, from VERBI Software, a company located in Berlin, the Program is designed to handle qualitative and quantitative data (MAXQDA, 2024), and it is also capable of visualizing data (Atmane, 2024). MAXQDA 2022 was helpful in coding concordances retrieved from the Qurʾānic Arabic Corpus. The Code System feature was mainly used, and it assisted in creating three main codes of positive, negative, and neutral prosodies and subcodes of God’s blessings, Judgment Day’s calamities, threatening disbelievers, etc. Thus, the Software would prevent any category overlap, and that the same occurrence of a verb is not coded twice. The Program is also capable of counting the occurrences of each category item. Figure 2 below is illustrative.

Fig. 2: Qualitative analysis of the semantic prosody of the deictic verb ˈnazzala using MAXQDA.
figure 2

Verses with negative evaluative meanings are highlighted in red, whereas positive ones are given in green.

Full size image

Results

This study examined the collocational behavior and semantic prosody of synonymous deictic verbs. Deictic verbs of ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala ħaˈḍara ˈʔaħḍara nuˈħḍir , jaˈħḍur ˈʔuħḍira , dʒaːʔ dʒaːʔ bi- ʔaːtaː ʔataː (bi-) baʕaθa and ʔarsala denoting the meanings of came, sent, and brought have occurred 930 times in the Qurʾān. More specifically, sent verbs (i.e., ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala baʕaθa ʔarsala ) have been used 397 times, whereas came verbs (i.e., ħaˈḍara dʒaːʔ ʔataː ) have occurred in 383 contexts. On the other hand, brought verbs (i.e., ʒaːʔ and ʔataː and conjugated forms of ħaˈḍara) are employed in 150 examples (see Table 8).

Starting with the first group of verbs suggesting the meaning of came or brought, the verb dʒaːʔ has occurred about 274 times to give the meanings of came or brought. More specifically, it gives the meaning of brought in 61 instances and came in 213 examples in the Holy Qurʾān. In both cases, the verb is negative. Giving the meaning of came, dʒaːʔ suggests positivity in 59 (27.6%) contexts and negativity in 124 (58.2%) other contexts. However, it has been used neutrally 30 (14.08%) times. The verb, dʒaːʔ collocates with kiˈtɑːb ‘the Book,’ raˈsuːl ‘messenger,’ ʕilm ‘knowledge,’ ħaqq ‘the truth,’ and baj.jiːˈnɑːt ‘clear evidences,’ and ʔaʤal ‘one’s term.’

Regarding dʒaːʔ with the meaning of brought, it has occurred 24 (39.3%) times in positive contexts, 33 (54.09%) times in negative ones, and 4 (6.5%) times in a neutral way. It is found commonly with bajˈjiː.nah ‘clear evidence,’ baj.jiːˈnɑːt ‘clear evidences,’ and ħaqq ‘the truth.’ Generally, dʒaːʔ collocates with ru.sul ‘messengers’ (freq = 20, T-score = 4.4, MI = 6.7, logDice = 10.7), ħaqq ‘the truth’ (freq = 23, T-score = 4.6, MI = 5.4, logDice = 10.4), raˈsuːl ‘messenger’ (freq = 20, T-score = 4.3, MI = 5.4, logDice = 10.3), bajˈjiː.nah ‘clear evidence’ (freq = 9, T-score = 2.9, MI = 7.8, logDice = 9.9), and rabb ‘Lord. It suggests negativity because it is associated with waʕd ‘God’s promise,’ baɣi.jan ‘out of envy or jealousy,’ and baʔs ‘punishment.’ Though dʒaːʔ collocates more significantly with positive words, it occurs more frequently in negative contexts to condemn what some People of the Scripture did to the messengers and threaten disbelievers. Table 3 illustrates the contexts where dʒaːʔ as ‘came’ or ‘brought’ is used.

Table 3 Example contexts of dʒaːʔ in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

Based on the contexts above in Table 3, dʒaːʔ as came is positive when it is associated with the sequence of God, Victory, and conquest of Makkah by early Muslims (Example 1) and complimenting and assuring believers who fear God (Example 2), and it becomes negative in contexts of calamities of the Judgement Day (Example 3) and threatening disbelievers by mentioning horrors of the Day of Resurrection (Example 4). As for dʒaːʔ or dʒaːʔ bi- as brought, it is positive in reference to the Holy Qurʾān as one of the blessings that is appreciated by believers (Example 5) and in relation to truth (Qurʾān and Islam), which has been brought by Prophet Muḥammad, and thus God compliments the Prophet’s followers as the righteous in the verse (Example 6). On the other hand, dʒaːʔ as brought becomes negative in contexts of accusation (e.g., accusing Mary of committing adultery when she gave birth to Jesus as in Example 7) and condemnation of liars (i.e., Joseph’s brothers) who made up a tale to deceive their father, Jacob (Example 8). As shown above, dʒaːʔ followed by bi- to give the meaning of brought occurs in negative as well as positive contexts.

As for ħaˈḍara it has occurred seven times to denote the meaning of came and three times to give the meaning of brought. However, for the latter meaning,ˈʔaħḍara took different forms such as nuˈħḍir and ˈʔuħḍira but for the former meaning there is jaˈħḍur besides ħaˈḍara Data analysis showed that ħaˈḍara with came is basically used in a neutral way (i.e., 71.4%) except for two times. It typically occurs with death (i.e., freq = 7, T-score = 2.6, MI = 10.9, logDice = 11.9). However, the verb did not assimilate the negative meaning because of its use in contexts explaining Islamic teachings and narrating the prophets’ stories. On the other hand, suggesting the meaning of brought, ˈʔaħḍara is twice used negatively (66.6%) and once (33.3%) in a neutral manner. Table 4 below shows some contexts of ħaˈḍara and ˈʔaħḍara and their related forms.

Table 4 Example contexts of ħaˈḍara and ˈʔaħḍara and their conjugated forms in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

As illustrated above, ˈʔaħḍara as brought is neutral in association with Islamic teachings as in Example 9, and it becomes negative in verses revealing deeds of good and evil to people on the Day of Judgement (Example 10) and warning disbelievers of Hell (Example 11). However, ħaˈḍara as came is basically neutral because of its use in the narration of the prophets’ stories. For instance, in Example 12, Jacob’s story is meant to be a lesson for readers and does not evoke any affective reaction. Nevertheless, in Example 13, there is another condemnation of disbelievers and thus the negative semantic prosody. As shown in Table 4, verbs based on the root of do not suggest the same semantic prosody.

Regarding ʔataː it has been used 249 times in the Qurʾān to give the meaning of came in 163 instances and brought in 86 examples. Considering verb forms, the deictic verb ʔataː can give the meaning of came or brought, whereas ʔataː bi- and ʔaːtaː strictly give the meaning of brought. For the former meaning of came, ʔataː is positive 34 (20.8%) times, negative in 106 (65.03%) instances, and neutral in 23 (14.11%) examples. As for the latter, ʔataː bi- and ʔaːtaː denote positivity in 27 (31.3%) contexts, negativity in 38 (44.18%) occurrences, and neutral use in 21 (24.4%) cases. In both senses, the verb is basically negative. Giving the meaning of came, ʔataː is associated with jawm ‘Day’ (freq = 30, T-score = 5.5, MI = 5.3, logDice = 10.5), baɣ.ta.tan ‘unexpectedly’ (freq = 8, T-score = 2.8, MI = 8.1, logDice = 9.8), saːʕah ‘the Hour’ (freq = 10, T-score = 3.12, MI = 6.5, logDice = 9.9), ru.sul ‘messengers’ (freq = 7, T-score = 2.5, MI = 5.2, logDice = 9.3), ʕaˈðæːb ‘punishment’ (freq = 26, T-score = 4.9, MI = 5.4, logDice = 10.5), maˈlæː.ʔi.kah ‘angels’ (freq = 5, T-score = 2.1, MI = 5.08, logDice = 8.8), and ʔaːˈjɑːt ‘signs’ (freq = 7, T-score = 2.4, MI = 4.04, logDice = 8.9). When it suggests the meaning of brought, it frequently occurs with ʔaː.jah ‘sign,’ ˈsuː.rah ‘chapter,’ kiˈtɑːb ‘the Book,’ and sulˈtˤɑːn ‘authority.’ The āyas in Table 5 are examples.

Table 5 Example contexts of ʔataː in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

As shown above, ʔataː as ‘came’ is essentially negative because it occurs in contexts of threatening disbelievers (Example 14). However, it can be used in a neutral way when God addresses his Messenger, Prophet Muḥammad (Example 15). As for using ʔataː to suggest the meaning of ‘brought’ in a favourable way, the positive semantic prosody is evident when God mentions His miracles of revealing clear evidences to people (Example 16). Nonetheless, to suggest a negative meaning, ʔataː was employed by Prophet Solomon to threaten the hoopoe bird of severe punishment if it could not justify its absence (Example 17). On the other hand, the verb can be used neutrally to refer to Islamic teachings as in Example 18 where God instructs female believers not to commit adultery. Another neutral use is when God narrates the story of the Cave People (Example 19). As illustrated above, ‘ʔataː followed by bi- is used in negative, neutral, and positive contexts.

The third group of verbs give the meaning of sent (i.e., ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala ʔarsala baʕaθa ). The first verb, ˈnazzala is of 62 occurrences, and it is considered positive because it is used positively in 41 (66.12%) contexts and negatively in 16 (25.8%) instances and neutrally in five (8.06%) examples. All the collocates significantly used with ˈnazzala are positive. It is used with mæːʔ ‘rain’ (freq = 6, T-score = 2.4, MI = 7.5, logDice = 10.5), saˈmæːʔ ‘sky’ (freq = 10, T-score = 3.14, MI=7.3, logDice = 10.7), ʔalˈlaːh ‘God’ (freq = 15, T-score = 3.5, MI = 3.5, logDice = 7.5), and kiˈtɑːb ‘the Book’ (freq = 6, T-score = 2.4, MI = 9.9, logDice = 11.2).

By the same token, ˈʔanzala has occurred 182 times, and it is also positive because of the 103 (56.5%) positive contexts. It is employed negatively in 55 (30.2%) contexts and neutrally in 24 (13.1%) examples. All the collocating words significantly used with ˈʔanzala are positive. It is found more commonly with mæːʔ ‘rain’ (freq = 20, T-score = 4.4, MI = 8.3, logDice = 11.7), kiˈtɑːb ‘the Book’ (freq = 12, T-score = 3.3, MI = 5.6, logDice=10.0), ʔalˈlaːh ‘God’ (freq = 27, T-score = 4.7, MI = 3.4, logDice = 8.3), saˈmæːʔ ‘sky’ (freq = 26, T-score = 5.07, MI = 7.7, logDice = 11.7), ʔaːˈjɑːt ‘verses’ (freq = 7, T-score = 2.5, MI = 5.1, logDice = 9.4), and ˈsuː.rah ‘chapter’ (freq = 6, T-score = 2.4, MI = 9.4, logDice = 10.5). As shown above, ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala have similar collocates. Table 6 gives examples of their positive occurrences.

Table 6 Example contexts of ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

As shown above, ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala suggesting the meaning of sent are basically positive because ˈʔanzala is utilised to remind believers of God’s blessings as in Examples 20, 21, 22, and 23. On the other hand, ˈnazzala is used positively for the same purpose as in Examples 25, 26, 27, and 28. However, ˈʔanzala can be used to educate people as in Example 24 and thus the neutral use. Additionally, ˈnazzala can be used negatively as in Example 29 where God condemns the actions of some disbelievers on how they wanted to challenge Him. As opposed to the verbs sharing the root of verbs based on the root of evoke the same semantic prosody.

Regarding ʔarsala and baʕaθa , which mean sent, ʔarsala has occurred 130 times, and baʕaθa is used in 23 instances. However, as ʔarsala is used more in positive contexts, baʕaθa is employed more in negative ones. More specifically, ʔarsala is found in positive contexts 47 (36.1%) times, in negative ones in 44 (33.8%) occurrences, and in neutral contexts in 39 (30%) examples. On the other hand, baʕaθa is employed in 9 (39.13%) positive contexts and in 11 (47.8%) negative ones. It has been used neutrally three (2.6%) times only.

The “sent” verbs of ʔarsala and baʕaθa occur with positive and negative words. The deictic verb ʔarsala occurs more frequently with raˈsuːl ‘messenger’ (freq = 8, T-score = 2.8, MI = 8.4, logDice = 10.8), ru.sul ‘messengers’ (freq = 5, T-score = 2.23, MI = 9.08, logDice = 10.8), riˈjɑːħ ‘winds’ (freq = 12, T-score = 3.4, MI = 10.3, logDice = 11.5), and ˈkaː.fi.ruːn ‘disbelievers’ (freq = 5, T-score = 2.22, MI = 7.23, logDice = 10.05). Similarly, baʕaθa is used more frequently with raˈsuːl ‘messenger’ (freq = 10, T-score = 3.1, MI = 10, logDice = 12.15), jawm ‘Day of Resurrection’ (freq = 9, T-score = 2.95, MI = 6.09, logDice = 9.50), and ʔalˈlaːh ‘God’ (freq = 13, T-score = 3.34, MI = 3.7, logDice = 7.3). Some of the contexts of ʔarsala and baʕaθa are given in Table 7.

Table 7 Example contexts of ʔarsala and baʕaθa in the Holy Qurʾān.
Full size table

As illustrated above, baʕaθa is used negatively in contexts of condemnation of disbelievers whose prophets brought them clear evidences (Example 30), but they chose to ignore such signs. Further, another negative meaning is evoked when God shows His might and threatens disbelievers of punishment (Example 31). Nonetheless, it is commonly used in a more positive way in contexts of supplication (Example 32). Focusing on ʔarsala it is employed favorably in mentions of blessings such as those of Prophet Muḥammad and Islam (Example 33) and Moses with his clear evidences (Example 35) and unfavourably in case of punishment (Example 34). It is important to note that the deictic verbs of sent, including ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala ʔarsala and baʕaθa share the same collocates such as maˈlæː.ʔi.kah ‘angels,’ alqurˈʔaːn the ‘Holy Qurʾān,’ kiˈtɑːb ‘the Book,’ mæːʔ ‘rain,’ raˈsuːl ‘messenger,’ and sakīnah ‘tranquility’. From the results advanced above and based on the occurrences of verbs in each affective category (see Table 8), one concludes that ħaˈḍara as came is essentially neutral. Further, dʒaːʔ and ʔataː as came and brought and ˈʔaħḍara and other related verbs suggesting the meaning of brought are basically negative. Yet, ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala as sent are primarily positive.

Table 8 Frequency scores of verb occurrences in positive, negative, and neutral contexts.
Full size table

Since verbs of the same root do not suggest the same attitudinal evaluation and that bring and come verbs are essentially negative, the second research question attempts to find out which deictic meaning is significantly associated with which semantic prosody. Therefore, the statistical test of ANOVA was utilised. Before applying ANOVA, the normality tests of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk have been used. As shown in Table 9 below, both Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests yielded p-values greater than 0.05. For example, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test result for the deictic meaning of come is 0.301 with a p-value of 0.200. On the other hand, the Shapiro-Wilk test result for the distribution of the meaning of bring in prosodic categories is 0.851 with a p-value of 0.115. As a rule of thumb, p-values that are less than 0.05 indicate non-normality (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965). Thus, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test results suggest that the data is normally distributed.

Table 9 Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk test results of the distribution of deictic meanings across different semantic prosodies in the Qurʾān.
Full size table

As for ANOVA test results, there is a statistically significant difference in the mean number of occurrences for the meanings of “come,” “bring,” and “send” across different affective categories (i.e., positive, negative, and neutral). This means that the observed differences in usage frequencies are not likely due to chance and that there is a genuine relationship between verb usage to denote a specific meaning and attitudinal reaction. As shown in Table 10, send verbs (i.e., ˈnazzala ˈʔanzala baʕaθa ʔarsala ) have the highest mean number of occurrences (72.90) in positive contexts, followed by come (49.34) and bring (25.59) verbs. This suggests that verbs with the meaning of send are more likely to be used in positive contexts compared to other verbs. However, employed in a negative way, come verbs (i.e., ħaˈḍara dʒaːʔ ʔataː ) have the highest mean number of occurrences (115.21), followed by send (42.37) and bring (34.75) verbs (i.e., dʒaːʔ and ʔataː and ˈʔaħḍara and its conjugated forms). This indicates that come verbs are more likely to be used in negative contexts compared to other verbs. As for the neutral usage, send verbs have the highest mean number of occurrences (30.01), followed by come (25.07) and bring (17.62) verbs. This shows that send verbs have a relatively neutral usage compared to other verbs although such verbs of send still lean slightly towards positive contexts. On the other hand, bring verbs have a relatively balanced distribution across evaluation categories which suggests their neutral nature. The p-values for all the three categories are less than 0.05, confirming the significant statistical difference in verb usage frequencies.

Table 10 ANOVA test results on the association between the meanings of deictic verbs and affective evaluations.
Full size table

Discussion

The present study explores the semantic prosody of deictic verbs in the Holy Qurʾān. Deictic verbs are very common and considered to be basic, as they refer to basic actions such as coming, sending, bringing, etc. Generally, more than half of the examined deictic verbs (e.g., dʒaːʔ and ʔataː as came and brought and ˈʔaħḍara and other related verbs suggesting the meaning of brought) are negative, but some (e.g., ħaˈḍara as came and ʔarsala and baʕaθa as sent) are neutral. However, other verbs such as ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala are positive. Obviously, verbs sharing the same root do not necessarily suggest the same semantic prosody. On the other hand, ANOVA test results indicate that send verbs are more likely to be used in positive contexts, whereas come verbs lean towards negativity. More importantly, there is no one-on-one correspondence between the dictionary meanings of verbs and their semantic prosodies. For example, dʒaːʔ implies difficulty in actions, whereas ʔataː suggests easiness. However, results reveal that both verbs primarily indicate negative prosodies in context.

Such results reflect Louw’s (1993, 2000) conclusion who found that words with negative semantic prosodies are more frequent in language than those with positive ones. This is partially attributed to researchers’ general tendency to target words that they thought might express negative semantic prosodies. Additionally, such results are consistent with those of Al-obaidi’s (2013) and Al-Sofi et al.’s (2014) who found that some of the examined verbs in the Holy Qurʾān are negative. However, this study reveals results that are inconsistent with Al-Sofi et al.’s (2014) regarding the deictic verb dʒaːʔ with the meaning of brought, where they reported that it is positive. The reason behind this inconsistency is that such researchers consider the accompanying words following the verb (e.g., bajˈjiː.nah ‘clear evidence,’ baj.jiːˈnɑːt ‘clear evidences,’ ħaqq ‘the truth,’ etc.) without considering the wider context (i.e., co-text) where the verbs occur, which can reveal the pragmatic functions of condemnation and criticism of disbelievers. Further, this study shows results that are inconsistent with those of Al-Sofi et al.’s (2014) and Al-obaidi’s (2013) who confirm the negativity of ðaːqa ‘tasted’ because of its negative collocate, death. However, the present study shows that ħaˈḍara ‘came’ is neutral with the same collocate because after examining the extended context, the verb basically occurs in contexts of Islamic teachings. This illustrates that accompanying words, no matter how significantly they occur with certain verbs, are sometimes not sufficient to impose a certain semantic prosody on the verb. Apparently, this study gives sufficient attention to discourse and pragmatic functions, but most previous studies (Al-Sofi et al. 2014; Al-obaidi, 2013) have followed a strictly corpus-based perspective, as outlined by Alcaraz-Mármol and Almela (2016), where analysis has focused on the meaning and frequency of accompanying words.

The frequent occurrence of deictic verbs with negative semantic prosodies is well-justified in this study. I selected frequent deictic verbs that give the meanings of came or brought in a way similar to Xiao and McEnery’s (2006) study. Such verbs do not suggest any valenced meaning as part of their denotations. Further, the main function of semantic prosody is to convey writers’ attitude through the use of specific words or phrases (Bednarek, 2008; Louw, 2000). However, the whole text of the Holy Book cannot be attributed to one pragmatic function or one intention. Verses in the Holy Qurʾān have been revealed for a number of reasons including instructing God’s followers, warning disbelievers, rewarding believers, etc. (Al-Waḥidī, 1991). Though there are verses that dwell on the stories of past nations, their function is either to warn polytheists or reassure God’s followers of winning Jannah due to their good deeds (Al-Waḥidī, 1991). Another justification is that verses in the Holy Qurʾān that dwell on threatening disbelievers and condemning their actions are associated more with deictic verbs than those of complimenting believers because the Holy Qurʾān gives equal weight to both functions (Ibn Kathīr, 1998). Hence, the majority of verbs explored in this study are with negative semantic prosodies. Apparently, the Holy Qurʾān, as a genre of scripture, is a book of guidance. One does not expect neutral use of words as in other genres or text categories (i.e., scientific writing; Al-Otaibi, 2022; Hunston, 2007; Omidian and Siyanova-Chanturia, 2020; Partington, 2004a; Stubbs, 2001a).

Though ˈʔaħḍara as brought and ħaˈḍara as came share the same root each suggests a distinct semantic property. The former is basically negative, as it is mainly used in Makkī sūrahs, and the latter is roughly neutral because it is employed primarily in Madanī sūrahs. This is predictable, as the themes of Makkī sūrahs centre around calling for worshipping God (i.e., monotheism), condemning polytheists, revealing their deeds, narrating stories of the prophets and their people, reassuring Prophet Muḥammad, and asking him to be patient, etc. On the other hand, Madanī sūrahs dwell on Islamic teachings, social relations, legislative issues, duties, traits of hypocrites, calling People of the Book to Islam, etc. (Az-zarqānī, 1948). Though this study does not address the variable of which theme or sūrah one deictic verb is commonly used in, the theme of each sūrah might colour deictic verbs with a particular semantic prosody and hence the different semantic prosody each verb selects.

Although results indicate that some nearly synonymous verbs such as dʒaːʔ and ʔataː as came and brought and ʔarsala and baʕaθa as sent share the same semantic prosody, such verbs cannot be used interchangeably in the Qurʾān. Each selects a different set of collocates, and hence deictic verbs are differentiated collocationally (Greenbaum, 1974; Selmistraitis, 2020; Xiao and McEnery, 2006). As shown in the results, riˈjɑːħ ‘winds’ is unique to ʔarsala whereas jawm ‘Day of Resurrection’ is peculiar to baʕaθa. Similarly, ħaqq ‘the truth’ and ʔaʤal ‘term or end’ are associated with dʒaːʔ but ʕaˈðæːb ‘punishment,’ baɣ.ta.tan ‘unexpectedly,’ and faː.ħi.ʃah ‘immorality’ are with ʔataː Hence, confusing dʒaːʔ with ʔataː will negatively affect the naturalness of the verses (Partington, 1998; Phoocharoensil, 2021). They will sound awkward for a native speaker of Arabic, as such speakers are fully aware of collocational appropriateness. Further, in terms of contextual use in the Qurʾān, Al-Omari and Abu-Melhim (2014) assert that ʔataː is associated with lying and ignorance, whereas dʒaːʔ is with belief and clarity. Though this finding is not based on enough examples, the distinctness of node words is applicable to all pairs of synonyms including nearly synonymous verbs in the Qurʾān. In general, this study supports the conclusion of various Muslim scholars (e.g., Al-Qurṭubī, Al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr) who report that there are no examples of absolute synonymy in the Holy Qurʾān (Al-Shāy‘, 1993). Many recent studies (e.g., Almakrob and Al-Ahdal, 2020; Dawood, 2007) confirm the same finding arguing that the Holy Qurʾān is the word of God, and having no absolute synonyms is only one example of its eloquence (Almakrob and Al-Ahdal, 2020). Eloquence in the Qurʾān is considered an example of its miraculous nature (Bint Al-Shāṭi’, 1996).

More importantly, the present study indicates that nature terms of living creatures or astronomical bodies such as heart, people, soul/s, angels, sky, and earth collocating with deictic verbs can contribute to positive meanings in contexts of God glorification or emphasizing the message of the Qurʾān. However, they can make deictic verbs negative if they occur with calamities related to the Judgement Day. This finding is also emphasized in studies by Alshahrani (2020) and El Attar (2019). To illustrate this, in Example 36 below, samæːʔ ‘sky’ is used with the positive ˈnazzala and occurs in contexts of God glorification. Further, mæːʔ ‘water,’ as opposed to ma.tˤar ‘rain,’ which is employed negatively in the Qurʾān (Maghfirullah, 2024), occurs more commonly with ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala to give a favourable meaning.

Shakir: and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you (sūrat al-anfāl, āyah 11).

On the other hand, the same collocate samæːʔ ‘sky’ occurs in a negative context of punishment (see Example 37 below) and used with ˈʔanzala but the verse is one of the few instances where ˈʔanzala is used in an unfavourable way.

Sahih International: so We sent down upon those who wronged a punishment from the sky because they were defiantly disobeying (sūrat al-baqarah, āyah 129).

Prior studies drew some attention to the role of the prepositions in determining the semantic prosody of the colligation (i.e., verb + preposition; Younis, 2018). Further, various researchers confirm that phrases and some constructions behave prosodically differently from single words (Xiao and McEnery, 2006). For example, the present study illustrates that dʒaːʔ and ʔataː followed by bi- to denote the meaning of brought are used both in negative and positive contexts, which suggests that bi- is neutral compared to ʕalaː ‘on/upon,’ ʔilaː ‘to/towards,’ and li- ‘for’ in which the former can add negativity to the verb and the last two can contribute some positivity to context (Younis, 2018). This illustrates the difference between the following āyahs:

Pickthall: and We sent down upon the evil-doers wrath from heaven for their evil-doing (sūrat al-baqarah, āyah 59).

Yusuf Ali: We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah (sūrat an-nisāa, āyah 105).

In the first āyah, with ˈʔanzala the preposition ʕalaː ‘on/upon’ is used, and the collocating word is riʤ.zan ‘wrath,’ and the whole context is negative suggesting punishment. On the other hand, in the second āyah, Example 39, ʔilaː ‘to/towards’ is used with the same verb, and the collocating verb is kiˈtɑːb ‘the Book.’ The context, however, suggests positivity where the verb occurs in mention of God’s blessings. More importantly, the cases where ʕalaː ‘on/upon’ imposes a negative meaning with ˈʔanzala are only a few which indicates that the verb and its related forms denoting the meaning of sent are basically positive.

As emphasized above, results in the present study indicate that a specific pattern or root cannot dictate a particular prosodic environment. In other words, semantic prosody is linked to the meaning of extended lexical units, not roots of individual words. More specifically, writers impose a certain meaning nuance on words and a particular semantic prosody. This clearly illustrates that semantic prosody is triggered by writers’ attitudes and their intentions (Stubbs, 1995; 2001a). In other words, writers employ words in a way that make them convey more than meaning such as attitude. Thus, regarding the Holy Qurʾān, the semantic prosodies of deictic verbs might function locally in relation to a specific sūrah and its theme and function. Tribble (2000) argues that some local prosodies are peculiar to some genres, and one semantic prosody of a word in a specific genre is not predictable in a different genre. In the case of the Holy Book, local prosodies might be peculiar to some sūrahs. Nonetheless, the present study did not address the semantic prosody of deictic verbs in relation to every sūrah. Thus, generally, ANOVA test results reveal that send verbs (i.e., ˈnazzala , ˈʔanzala baʕaθa ʔarsala ) are associated with blessings (Example 39) than punishment (Example 38). On the other hand, come verbs (i.e., ħaˈḍara dʒaːʔ , ʔataː ) occur more commonly in contexts of Judgment Day calamities (Example 14). However, bring verbs (i.e., dʒaːʔ and ʔataː and ˈʔaħḍara and its conjugated forms) lean towards contexts of Islamic teachings (Example 18).

In general, deictic verbs, giving nearly the same meaning, such as dʒaːʔ and ʔataː as ‘came,’ compared to ħaˈḍara as ‘came’ and ʔarsala and baʕaθa as ‘sent,’ as opposed to ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala as ‘sent down,’ are associated with different words, employed to serve various pragmatic functions, and thus used to evoke different semantic prosodies. As shown above, some verbs with the same word pattern, such as in ˈnazzala and ˈʔanzala suggest the same semantic prosody, but this does not apply to those of such as ˈʔaħḍara nuˈħḍir and ħaˈḍara which indicates that semantic prosody is determined by intentions, contexts, pragmatic functions, collocates, and grammatical constructions including accompanying prepositions. Analysis of concordances also shows that dʒaːʔ and ʔataː followed by bi- to give the meaning of brought occur in positive, neutral, and negative contexts which suggests that bi- is neutral compared to other prepositions following deictic verbs. With regard to associated meanings, the ANOVA test results manifest that bring verbs tend to be neutral compared to come verbs that are basically negative and send verbs that are essentially positive.

Conclusion

Deictic verbs are frequently used in the Holy Qurʾān, as they refer to basic actions of coming, bringing, and sending. However, previous studies on the semantic prosody of Qurʾānic verbs have selected verbs that are infrequent or inherently negative. Further, some researchers ignore the role of context. Hence, the present study examines common synonymous verbs in the Qurʾān that suggest no evaluative meaning as part of their denotations. The study is not only corpus-oriented, where a list of significantly occurring collocates for each verb is generated to decide on its semantic prosody, it also adopts a discourse perspective where the context of each verb is checked to determine its pragmatic function. Results reveal that more than half of the examined verbs are negative because they are basically associated with the pragmatic functions of condemning disbelievers for their deeds and Judgement Day calamities. More notably, verbs based on the same root do not necessarily suggest the same semantic prosody. Results indicate that send verbs explored in the study are generally positive, whereas come verbs are negative. On the other hand, bring verbs are neutral. This study proves that two synonymous deictic verbs are associated with distinct sets of collocates, employed to serve various pragmatic functions, and therefore used to suggest different semantic prosodies. Moreover, accompanying words, no matter how significantly they occur with certain verbs, are not sufficient to impose a certain semantic prosody on the verb. Semantic prosody is induced by meaning, context, collocates of nouns and prepositions, and authors’ intentions. Very peculiar to deictic verbs in the Holy Qurʾān is the role of the preposition following the verb in evoking some evaluative meaning. In this study, the preposition bi- acts in a neutral way compared to other prepositions. Therefore, semantic prosody is determined by grammatical constructions (i.e., form) as well as meaning and authors’ intentions (i.e., content). Hence, node words cannot be explored in isolation but as part of a sequence. More importantly, the present study does not address how each sūrah might colour deictic verbs with a specific semantic prosody, as semantic prosody might function locally. Nonetheless, even if two synonymous verbs have been assigned the same prosody in one sūrah, such verbs are differentiated collocationally. Thus, this study confirms Muslim scholars’ observation that the Holy Qurʾān has no example of absolute synonymy. Though there are a few words that are considered to be nearly synonymous, previous research and the present study emphasize that semantic prosody is another criterion used to differentiate between synonymous words.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

One important limitation marking the present study is that the sample is restricted to frequent deictic verbs that denote some movement towards the speaker. Thus, future studies should consider other verbs with a different deictic focus. Further, the study addresses deictic verbs but not other related forms of nouns that are morphologically different from the verbs in question, such as muħ.ðˤar muħ.ta.dˤar mun.zal and munˈzzal which suggest the meanings of brought and sent down, because they may evoke a different affective meaning. Hence, such nouns should be closely examined for their semantic prosodies. More notably, the present study does not tackle how different grammatical constructions, where the verb occurs, determine some semantic polarity. Further, it treats different tenses as belonging to the same lexeme though previous research has proven that verbs in the past behave prosodically differently from those in the present. Moreover, researchers may examine the semantic prosody of other deictic verbs (i.e., ʔaʕ.tˤaː wa.rada ʔaq.ba.la ) that suggest movement towards the speaker because they do not suggest positivity or negativity as part of their denotations. More importantly, in this study, it has been confirmed that there is no relationship between roots and semantic prosody. Therefore, it would be intriguing if further investigation explores the relationship between semantic prosody and word patterns. The relationship between Arabic verbs of certain awzāns and semantic prosody needs some further exploration, because deictic verbs like zuħ.ziħa ‘dragged away’ and ʕas.ʕasa ‘depart’ in the Holy Qurʾān matching the succession of sounds in ˈfaʕ.la.la suggest positivity in their meanings. Additionally, researchers can analyse the role of prepositions following deictic verbs in determining the semantic prosody of such verbs in the Holy Qurʾān and how this affects translation. It would be insightful if future research explores whether the preposition bi- contributes more to positive or negative meanings. Moreover, semantic prosody can be used as a measure of translation accuracy, as the same deictic verb can give two meanings with slight differences, and in each case it should be given a different translation. Finally, researchers may examine how deictic verbs are used by modern native speakers of Arabic and whether or not verbs preserve their positivity or negativity in modern use. Some corpora such as ArabiCorpus can give information on how such verbs are used throughout time. Researchers might also explore whether or not send, come, and bring verbs are associated with any semantic prosody in English translations of scriptures (i.e., Old Testament and New Testament). More importantly, the prosody of verbs might be explored in relation to specific Makkī and Madanī sūrahs where one can relate the theme of each sūrah to the semantic prosody of verbs because semantic prosody can function locally or globally. Moreover, examining such verbs in a corpus of texts of a different genre might reveal different results, as previous research confirm that node words behave prosodically differently in different genres and registers.

Implications of the study

The study has important implications for Arabic lexicographers and language instructors. It is known that the Holy Qurʾān is established as the main source of Arabic, and Arabic grammarians always resort to the Holy Qurʾān to decide on how words should be used. Thus, Arabic lexicographers should include information about the semantic prosodies of words that sound synonymous for language users after examining their use in the Holy Book and Arabic corpora. Considering that the Qurʾān is revealed in Arabic, this gives more value to the inclusion of more information about the use of words including their semantic prosodies in dictionaries. Pedagogically, language instructors should be cautious when they provide learners of Arabic with synonyms of an Arabic word. They should aim at helping learners of Arabic acquire the essential collocational knowledge of deictic verbs. Since the semantic prosody of words cannot be achieved through mere intuition, language instructors should pay more attention to the use of words in context using various corpora of naturally occurring texts and corpus tools instead of resorting to definitions of words in dictionaries. Loan words and false friends (i.e., words that share the same form in two languages but give different meanings) are more problematic than others, as they may contribute different evaluative meanings in the two languages. Instructors should also draw learners’ attention to the fact that meaning is capable of achieving a certain communicative purpose only if it is used in its suitable context. Additionally, since knowledge of semantic prosody is unconscious, persuasive writing instructors ought to encourage learners of Arabic to use words carefully if they want to effectively convey their attitude and support their stance.