See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303702277

The Functions And Linguistic Analysis Of Metaphor In The Holy Qur'an

Article in European Scientific Journal · April 2016

DOI: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n14p164

CITATIONS READS

10 3,429

3 authors, including:

Mohammad Sayel Alzyoud

University of Jordan
46 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Arabs Citizens Perspective Regarding the Impact and Motivations of the Western Countries Initiatives to Promote Democracy in the Arab World Countries View project

Democracy of Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Sayel Alzyoud on 01 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

The Functions And Linguistic Analysis Of Metaphor

In The Holy Qur’an

Ali Al-Ali
Department of European Languages,
The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Ahmad El-Sharif
Department of English Language and Literature,
Al-alBayt University, Mafraq, Jordan
Mohamad Sayel Alzyoud
Department of Educational Administration and Foundations,
The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n14p164 URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n14p164

Abstract
The paper aims to tackle the function of metaphor in the Qur’an
within the theoretical framework put forward by Lakoff & Turner (1989).
This theory is known as the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. It shows how the
Qur’an is structured around the idea of the variety of meaning of lexical
items, and how every correspondence between the two domains of “literal”
and “non-literal” can fit into it. However, such an application of cognitive
semantic approach can provide valuable insights. These insights enhance the
overall aim of this paper which is to prove the linguistic creativity of the
Qur'an through applying the cognitive theory of metaphor. This paper
outlines the basis from which the Qur'an should be considered not only as a
book of religious teachings, but also as a linguistic miracle for Arabs (El-
sharif, 2011). The structure of this paper is presented as follows. First, we
introduce the theoretical background and arguments of this study.
Afterwards, we underline the significance of this study and its contribution to
the field. In the following section, we present the definition and function of
metaphor. Next, we embark on the linguistic analysis of metaphor in the
holy Qur’an, metaphorical language and its use in discourse, and metaphor
and Islamic religious discourse. Finally, we end the essay with a concluding
paragraph.

Keywords: Metaphor, Functions, Linguistic Analysis, Holy Qur’an

164
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Introduction
As defined by Lakoff & Johnson (1980), this paper is concerned with
applying the cognitive linguistic view of metaphor theory to the Qur'an.
However, such an application of cognitive semantic approach can provide
valuable insights. These insights enhance the overall aim of this paper which
is to prove the linguistic creativity of the Qur'an through applying the
cognitive theory of metaphor. These metaphors are used in the Holy Qur’an
as a persuasive tool for both believers and unbelievers. They are used to
persuade disbelievers to have faith in God and, at the same time, to
strengthen the faith of believers in God. On one hand, metaphors act as
heralds of goodness for those who believe in God and have strong faith in
Him, His messages, and His messengers. On the other hand, they act as a
source of punishment for those who disbelieve in Him and deny His
messages and His messengers (Zaid, 2011:78).
The Qur'an was sent in the language of the Arabs, who were known
for their linguistic talent, especially in poetry. Traditionally, poetry and other
literary forms, such as narratives and signaled giftedness is an idea shared by
modern applied linguists and anthropologists. While linguistic
anthropologists focus mainly on traditional oral art, some researchers have
argued that the framing and critical potential of linguistic performance is
keyed by the more fleeting use of poetic and/or other creative language in
everyday interactions (Maybin & Swann, 2007) as stated in Zaid (2011:78).
The Qur'anic text is a linguistic miracle and was intended to challenge Arabs
who are fluent in classic Arabic and poetry at the time it was revealed.
Consequently, poetry is like other literary forms such as narratives, and
signaled linguistic giftedness which is according to traditional teaching (El-
sharif, 2011: 43). Discourse Analysis is the discipline of linguistics which
puts into practice a set of systematic methods that approach the relationship
between the text and its context. Subsequently, it involves a diverse selection
of quantitative and qualitative approaches. These approaches facilitate the
way for the discourse analyst to break through the different components of a
particular discourse and uncover its messages.

Significance of the Study

The study of metaphors in Arabic religious texts has been driven
mainly by the need to interpret the meanings of the Holy Qur’an and the
prophetic Tradition. In fact, the development of the science of interpreting
and explaining the Holy Qur’an (tafsir) has significantly contributed to the
development of Arabic studies, especially rhetoric. In this respect, the
necessity for studying metaphors has been developed based on the need to
deduce religious principles and commandments from the sources on a sound
basis (El-Sharif, 2011). For these reasons, metaphorical language constitutes

165
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

an indispensible linguistic tool in religious discourse. In her book Metaphor

and Religious Language (Soskice, 1985, 1985), Janet Martin Soskice was
among the pioneer researchers to draw attention to the relationship between
metaphor and religious language. Soskice argues in her book that what is
needed to study religious language is not a more literal theology, but a better
understanding of metaphor. She opines that the analysis of metaphor in
religious language illuminates the way in which the clergy speak of God.
Thus, this contributes in revealing how our understanding of metaphors in
religious language can facilitate the way we perceive sciences and other
disciplines. This opinion paper outlines the basis by which we consider the
Qur'an not only as a book of religious teachings, but also as a linguistic
miracle for Arabs (El-sharif, 2011).

Literature Review
The definition of metaphor as a "medium of transfer" has been used
by linguists, semanticists, and discourse analysts to achieve many different
functions. L & J (1980) introduced an approach to metaphor analysis which
is known as the theory of “conceptual metaphor”. Hence, this was
developed in their later works (Lakoff, 1988, 1993; Lakoff, 2008; Lakoff &
Tuner, 1989). L & J asserted the fact that metaphor is a matter of experience
of everyday life rather than a matter of language. They argued that metaphor
pervades "our way of conceiving the world" and is reflected in our
"language, thoughts, and actions”. Additionally, it has influence on how
people think and act. They stress the fact that metaphor is "present in
everyday life. Thus, they regard metaphor as an approach in understanding
the world (1980, p.3). For them, metaphor is a tool that is used
automatically and unconsciously. Furthermore, they stress the fact that the
conceptual experience should be grasped and comprehended through
another conceptual experience.
Subsequently, Kövecses (2002) develops further the idea of the
conceptual metaphor. For him, a domain of experience of something is
understood through another conceptual domain. Furthermore, he sees that the
conceptual metaphor helps to understand the non-physical by contrasting it
with physical reality (p.4). On the other hand, other linguists criticize the
cognitive semantics as an inadequate approach in providing an accurate
account of metaphor. Sadock (1993) argues that metaphor is beyond the
scope of semantics. This is because “it relies on conflict between what is said
and what is intended” (p.110).
Searle (1979) adopts the view that metaphor has a pragmatic function
as it deals with what is intended by the speaker, and not the semantic
reference of the utterance mentioned by the speaker. However, the same
attitude was followed by Levinson (1983). He argues that metaphor has a

166
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

“function that cannot be derived by principles of semantic interpretation; but

rather, pragmatics can provide the metaphorical interpretation” (p.11) (El-
sharif, 2011).

Definition and Function of Metaphor

Metaphor has been traditionally studied and analyzed within the
framework of rhetorics, literary works, and literary studies. It has been
related to figurative language. Also, it has been regarded as "just a kind of
artistic embellishment" or something that is "divorced and isolated from
everyday language" (Murray & Moon, 2006).
Similarly, metaphor is defined in Longman Dictionary (1995) as "a
figure of speech in which a word or phrase is literally denoting one kind of
object or idea that is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy
between them". It can be concluded that metaphor is regarded as a means of
"meaning transfer". Alternatively, Charteris-Black describes it as a medium
through which "meanings are transferred" (2004, 19).
Lakoff & Johnson (1980) present a cognitive assumption which
revolves round the existence of a set of metaphorical concepts. Around this,
we can conceptualize the world or our worldviews. They asserted that
metaphor is rather a matter of experience or everyday life than merely a
matter of language. “Metaphor is a tool so ordinary that we use it
unconsciously and automatically… it is irreplaceable; metaphor allows us to
understand ourselves and our world in ways that no other modes of thought
can.” (Lakoff & Turner, 1989: xi)
However, it has a substantial impact on the poetic character of a
literary work. This is because such work depends on the imaginative use
inferred to it by the writer.
On the other hand, other linguists criticize the cognitive semantics as
an inadequate approach to provide an accurate account of metaphor. Sadock
(1993) argues that metaphor is beyond the scope of semantics as “it relies on
conflict between what is said and what is intended” (p.110). Searle (1979)
adopts the view that metaphor has a pragmatic function as it deals with what
is intended by the speaker, and not the semantic reference of the utterance
mentioned by the speaker. The same attitude was followed by Levinson
(1983) as he argues that metaphor has a function that cannot be derived by
principles of semantic interpretation; but rather, pragmatics can provide the
metaphorical interpretation” (p.11).
The definition of metaphor as a "medium of transfer" has been used
by linguists, semanticists, and discourse analysts to achieve many different
functions. L & J (1980) introduced an approach to metaphor analysis which
is known as the theory of “conceptual metaphor”. Hence, this was developed
in their later works (Lakoff, 1988, 1993; Lakoff, 2008; Lakoff & Tuner,

167
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

1989). L & J asserted the fact that metaphor is a matter of experience of

everyday life rather than a matter of language. They argued that metaphor
pervades "our way of conceiving the world" and is reflected in our
"language, thoughts, and actions”. Additionally, it has influence on how
people think and act.
They stress the fact that metaphor is "present in everyday life and
they regard metaphor as an approach to understanding the world (1980, p.3).
To summarize the functions of metaphor, it can be said that there are two
traditional views with regard to the study of the metaphor: the classical view
and the romantic view (Saeed, 2007). The classical view regards metaphor as
"decorative and does not relate the metaphor to thought” (Deignan, 1999,
2005). The romantic view of the metaphor regards the metaphor as an
integral part to thought and as a way of experiencing the world (Saeed,
2007).

Linguistic Analysis of Metaphor in the Holy Qur’an

‫ﻉ‬
َ ‫ﺍﻟﺰ ﱠﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﺐ ﱡ‬ ُ ‫ﻋﻠَ ٰﻰ‬
ُ ‫ﺳﻮ ِﻗ ِﻪ ﻳُ ْﻌ ِﺠ‬ َ ‫ﻆ ﻓَﺎ ْﺳﺘَ َﻮ ٰﻯ‬ ْ ‫ﻧﺠﻴ ِﻞ ﻛَﺰَ ْﺭﻉ ﺃ َ ْﺧ َﺮ َﺝ ﺷ‬
َ َ‫َﻄﺄَﻩُ ﻓَﺂﺯَ َﺭﻩُ ﻓَﺎ ْﺳﺘ َ ْﻐﻠ‬ ِ ْ ‫َﻭ َﻣﺜَﻠُ ُﻬ ْﻢ ِﻓﻲ‬
ِ ‫ﺍﻹ‬
ٍ
‫ﺎﺭ‬ ْ َ ‫ِﻟﻴَ ِﻐﻴ‬
َ ‫ﻆ ﺑِ ِﻬ ُﻢ ﺍﻟ ُﻜﻔﱠ‬
… THEIR likeness in the Gospel, is like a seed that sends out a stalk,
then makes it firm, and it becomes strong and rises straight upon its stem,
gladdening the cultivator’s heart, in order to fill the unbelievers with
dismay. (in Al-Fat'h,29)
1. One of the beautiful metaphors in Qur’an, this ayah, is about the
companions of the Prophet (salla Allahu alaihi wasallam) on how their
example was described in the original Gospel of Hazrat Isa’s (Jesus). The
metaphor begins with the conjunction ‫( ﻙ‬with fat'ha on it) meaning ‘like’.
Thus, it is in the category of a simile. The main source is a ‘seed’ developed
further in the ayah. As a result, this becomes an ‘extended metaphor’. At a
pure literary level, we might interpret every single element of the extended
metaphor, attributing a target to each feature of the process of the seed
growing up (such as its standing straight, it’s gaining strength, and finally,
becoming a strong trunk, etc.). However, it seems that the interpreted
meaning of the overall metaphor is the growth in the numbers of the
believers and followers when Prophet Mohammad (salla Allahu alaihi wa
sallam) started preaching his religion. As such, the metaphor might be
viewed as a compound one, in which details are added to amplify the main
source (The structure of Entropy, 2012).
ُ‫ﺳﻨﺒُﻠَ ٍﺔ ِ ّﻣﺎﺋَﺔ‬
ُ ‫ﺳﻨَﺎﺑِ َﻞ ﻓِﻲ ُﻛ ِّﻞ‬ َ ‫ﺳ ْﺒ َﻊ‬
َ ‫َﺖ‬ ْ ‫ﺳﺒِﻴ ِﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﱠـ ِﻪ َﻛ َﻤﺜَ ِﻞ َﺣﺒﱠ ٍﺔ ﺃَﻧﺒَﺘ‬
َ ‫ﱠﻣﺜ َ ُﻞ ﺍﻟﱠﺬِﻳﻦَ ﻳُﻨ ِﻔﻘُﻮﻥَ ﺃ َ ْﻣ َﻮﺍﻟَ ُﻬ ْﻢ ﻓِﻲ‬
َ ‫ﻒ ِﻟ َﻤﻦ ﻳَﺸَﺎ ُء ۗ◌ َﻭﺍﻟﻠﱠـﻪُ َﻭﺍ ِﺳ ٌﻊ‬
‫ﻋ ِﻠﻴ ٌﻢ‬ ُ ‫ﻀﺎ ِﻋ‬ َ ُ‫َﺣﺒﱠ ٍﺔ ۗ◌ َﻭﺍﻟﻠﱠـﻪُ ﻳ‬
The example of those who spend their wealth in Allah’s way is
similar to that of a grain which has sprouted seven stalks and in each stalk
are a hundred grains; and Allah may increase it still more than this, for

168
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

whomever He wills; and Allah is Most Capable, All Knowing. (in Al-Baqara,
261)
2. This is another extended and compound metaphor in which the
metaphorical relationship is established explicitly. Hence, it is technically a
simile. Although the target referred to are the people who do the spending,
the target is their wealth spent in the way of Allah, which when spent is like
a seed sown. Thus, this will bring as much reward from God’s bounty as a
single seed sprouting into a bushelful of grain (The structure of Entropy,
2012).
‫ﺻ ْﻠﺪًﺍ‬ َ َ ‫ﻋﻠَ ْﻴ ِﻪ ﺗ ُ َﺮﺍﺏٌ ﻓَﺄ‬
َ ُ‫ﺻﺎﺑَﻪُ َﻭﺍ ِﺑ ٌﻞ ﻓَﺘ ََﺮ َﻛﻪ‬ َ ‫ﻓَ َﻤﺜَﻠُﻪُ َﻛ َﻤﺜ َ ِﻞ‬
ٍ ‫ﺻ ْﻔ َﻮ‬
َ ‫ﺍﻥ‬
… HIS example is like that of a [large] smooth stone upon which is
dust and is hit by a downpour that leaves it bare. (in Al-Baqara, 264)
3. In context, the above ayah is about the spending of those who do it
merely for show; evidenced by the fact that their giving is usually followed
by flaunting it in the society or reminding the taker of their ‘good deed’.
Also, it is followed by some kind of inferior treatment towards the taker.
Again, through a similitude developed by compound elements, the main
target is the true nature of their spending (likened to a hard and bare rock on
which nothing of worth can grow). The spending itself was like some dust
gathered on the flat stone; as soon as some worldly temptation came along
(the rains), the true nature was revealed underneath (The structure of
Entropy, 2012).
‫ُﻭﺭ‬
ِ ‫ﺼﺪ‬ ‫ﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﱠﺘِﻲ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟ ﱡ‬ ُ ُ‫ﺎﺭ َﻭﻟَ ٰـ ِﻜﻦ ﺗ َ ْﻌ َﻤﻰ ْﺍﻟﻘُﻠ‬ َ ‫َﻻ ﺗ َ ْﻌ َﻤﻰ ْﺍﻷ َ ْﺑ‬
ُ ‫ﺼ‬
… IT IS not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the bosoms,
that are blind. (in Al-Hajj, 46)
4. There are two metaphors in here, both absolute. Heart is a well-
known idiomatic reference to ‘sense’, ‘affect’, and ‘feeling’. Blindness is
also a rather common representation of the state of senselessness, lack of
insight, and affective insensitivity.
‫ِﺑﻴَﺪِﻙَ ﺍ ْﻟ َﺨﻴ ُْﺮ‬
In Your Hand is all good (In Al-i-Imran 26).
‫َﻭ َﻣﺎ َﺭ َﻣﻴْﺖَ ِﺇ ْﺫ َﺭ َﻣﻴْﺖَ َﻭﻟَ ٰـ ِﻜﻦﱠ ﺍﻟﻠﱠـﻪَ َﺭ َﻣ ٰﻰ‬
and it was not you [o prophet Muhammed] when you threw [sand at
them], but it was Allah Who threw it (In Al-Anfal 17).
5. In both of these examples, personification occurs by crediting a
human feature or action with God Almighty. Of course, Allah Sub’hana’hu
wa Ta’ala is above any literal comparisons to any creature of His own.
However, for ease of communication and translability to His human subjects,
He makes ample use of personification in the Qur’an and applies it to His
own case.
The first instance here is a common proverbial expression in this case
applied to God. In the second instance, there is a very deliberate

169
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

personification by attributing an act by the Prophet (salla Allahu alaihi

wasallam) to His own self. Thus, this technique achieves particular effects in
meaning. For one, it suggests that all rightful action by His subjects, in
particular, by His prophets, represent the authority and decree of His
Lordship. For another, it shows that great courageous acts performed under
devotion to one’s God are appreciated and endearing. This was so that God
Himself attaches His name and agency to those deeds; thus, declaring the
high status of such actions in God’s reckoning. Note that these effects are not
particular to the Last Prophet as might be suggested by the wording of the
above ayah. In the opening section of this ayah (right before the quoted one),
Allah Ta’ala attributes the general actions of the Muslim army against the
enemy to Himself in the same manner (The structure of Entropy, 2012).

Metaphorical Language and its Use in Discourse

Modern cognitive approaches to metaphor analysis utilize critical
approaches of discourse analysis in order to draw attention to the critical
awareness of particular metaphors within language and culture. Philip
Eubanks emphasizes that the ‘connection between the cognitive and the
cultural is the greatest strength of cognitive metaphor theory’ (Eubanks,
2000, p. 25). He builds his proposition on Lakoff and Johnson’s remark
which states that:
[M]etaphors […] highlight and make coherent
certain aspects of our experience […] metaphors
may create realities for us, especially social realities.
A metaphor may thus be a guide for future action
[…] this will, in turn, reinforce the power of the
metaphor to make experience coherent. In this sense,
metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies. (Lakoff
& Johnson, 1980, p. 156)
Lakoff and Johnson were the first linguists to argue that metaphorical
language holds a vital position in any given language or culture. They stated
that metaphors are not consistently tied to physical explanations of reality. In
fact, their use must be considered as a reflection of the linguistic and social
behaviors of the culture where they emerge. What is meant by the above
proposition is that metaphors contain within them beliefs about the actual
nature of everyday phenomena. To illustrate this, the acquisition of any sort
of knowledge by a child is universally metaphorised in terms of writing.
Consequently, people commonly describe the mind at birth as a tabula rasa
– an empty slate on which all knowledge must be “written” by others. Or, to
give another illustration, it is popular in many cultures to depict the hearts of
the followers of a given religion as empty vessels which should be filled by
the many religious principles and beliefs which religion encompasses. For

170
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

example, the Prophet Muhammad frequently refers to images of the heart,

ink, and the process of writing when talking about the acquisition of spiritual
knowledge and guidance. Therefore, a particular discourse can be perceived
as a mirror of the socio-cultural practices of its society. Furthermore, it
constructs its own context in relevance to the specific social principles and
standpoints of that society or culture. A discourse maker who employs
metaphorical language must make his metaphors conform to these social
principles in order to make his discourse appreciable and influential (El-
sharif, 2011).
The cognitive machinery that a metaphor possesses and the way it
functions in everyday language provides the discourse producer with a tool
that gives his/her metaphors an explanatory power. This power makes a
novel idea more readily comprehensible for the discourse recipient. This is
because a metaphor is mostly based on the common cultural background of
the discourse recipient. Eva Kittay maintains that ‘metaphor has cognitive
value and this stems not from providing new facts about the world, but from
a reconceptualisation of the information that is already available to us’
(Kittay, 1987, p. 39). Metaphorical language can resolve ambiguous and
incomprehensible arguments by bringing to the surface the most
comprehensible aspects of the argument in question and in reference to our
familiar domains of experience. She further claims that metaphor actually
gives us “epistemic access” to fresh experience. In addition, to the extent that
we have no other linguistic resources to achieve this, metaphor is
“cognitively irreplaceable” (Kittay, 1987, p. 39). For these reasons,
metaphorical language constitutes an indispensible linguistic tool in religious
discourse (El -sharif, 2011: 53-55).

Metaphor and Islamic Religious Discourse

Metaphorical language has been valued in Arabic culture mostly for
its rhetorical significance, though early Arab philologists did not recognize it
as an indispensable aspect of language (El-sharif, 2011: 53-58). For
centuries, metaphorical language has been considered as a supportive and an
“ornamental” feature of discourse, especially if the latter involves arguments
and debates which aim to attract the discourse recipient’s attention. Al-
Jurjani (d. 1078 CE), a prominent Arab philologist, maintained that a
metaphor could only reveal deep insight into a few embedded (concealed)
relationships between different things (Jurjani, 1988, p. 57). A metaphor was
essentially regarded as an ornamental device for poetry and speeches. This
view has remained omnipresent in most early Arab discussions and
commentaries regarding the existence of metaphorical language in any
Arabic text.

171
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

A number of early Arab philosophers and theologians have

questioned the existence of metaphors in Islamic religious discourse,
especially in the Holy Qur’an. Some of these questions were presented
because they believed that the word “metaphor” denotes an untrue or false
statement. Further, “literalist” theologians affirmed that whatever the Qur’an
says, is (or should be) literally true because it is the word of God; and God
does not say anything untrue. On the other hand, most early Arab
philosophers recognized the inevitability of using metaphors in religious
discourse. They argued that it is the incomparable nature of the divine
communication that entails the existence of metaphors which can transmit
the divine message into human language. In other words, since religion does
not have a special language of its own, it must resort to ordinary language in
accordance with society’s conventions (caada). Thus, the given language
operates as a means of conversation (muħawarah) (Al-Ghazali, 1904, p. 35).
Accordingly, a prophet easily expresses the distinguishing qualities of the
divine language to his followers through similitude. This is because prophets
have always been sent to speak the language of their people. In spite of the
feasibility of the previous justifications for the existence of metaphors in
religious language, many Muslim theologians have persistently refused to
“blemish” the study of religion with such philosophical arguments. Most
early Muslim theologians feared that such speculations could lead to some
metaphorical interpretations that would contradict the well-established
principles of faith and creed explicitly or implicitly (El-sharif, 2011: 58-60).

Conclusion
In conclusion, the present paper has tackled the function of metaphor
in the Qur’an within the theoretical framework put forward by Lakoff &
Turner (1989). Hence, this is known as the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor.
The use of such a metaphor makes the reader clarify and define the
relationship between object and image. Meanwhile, this process serves two
purposes: first, it forces the reader to participate actively in the Qur’an i.e.
consider its message and follow its teachings. Second, it gives him
knowledge about something he did not know or only partly knew by making
it analogous to something he can imagine (Sharaf Eldin, 2014). To
summarize the functions of metaphor, it can be said that there are two
traditional views with regard to the study of the metaphor: the classical view
and the romantic view (Saeed, 2007). The classical view regards the
metaphor as "decorative and does not relate the metaphor to thought”
(Deignan, 1999, 2005). Subsequently, the romantic view of the metaphor
regards the metaphor as an integral part to thought and as a way of
experiencing the world (Saeed, 2007). Moreover, the concept of the
metaphor as a means of transferring meaning continues to be its principal

172
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

function in current linguistic theories. Therefore, if this is not done, we

would not understand them. Thus, as we have seen, the linguistic creativity
of the Qur’an is extraordinary. As such, basic metaphors are used in novel
unprecedented ways.

References:
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1988). The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and
Commentary, Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc.
Al-Ghazali (1904). Kitab al-Mustasfa min `Ilm al-Usul. Cairo: Al-Matba’ah
AlAmiriyyah.
Aydin Mehmet (1997). Al-Ghazali on Metaphorical Interpretation. Paper
presented at the L.A.U.D Symposium, Duisburg.
Charteris-Black (2005). Politicians & Rhetoric. Basingstoke: Palgrave-
Macmillan.
______ (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis.
Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Deignan (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
_______ (1999). Linguistic metaphor and collocation in nonliterary corpus
data, Metaphor and symbol, 14/1 19-36.
El-Sharif (2011). A Linguistic Study of Islamic Religious Discourse:
Conceptual Metaphors in the Prophetic Tradition, PhD Thesis. Queen Mary,
University of London.
Eubanks (2000). A War of Words in the Discourse of Trade: The Rhetorical
Constitution of Metaphor. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Goatly (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goatly (2006). Ideology and Metaphor. English Today, 22, 25–39.
Hunston & Thompson (2000). Evaluation in text. Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Jurjani (1988). Asrar Al-Balaghah. Cairo: Al-Hayah Al-Ammah Al-
Misriyah.
Kittay (1987). Metaphor: its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Kovecses (2010). Metaphor. Oxford, Oxford: University Press.
Kovecses (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: (1993).
The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.). Kovecses, Z.
Metaphor and thought. 2nd` edition., (pp. 202- 521). USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Lakoff (2008). The Neural Theory of Metaphor. In J. R. Gbbs (Ed.). The
Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (ED.).pp.(17-38) .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

173
 European Scientific Journal May 2016 edition vol.12, No.14 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Lakoff (1991). Metaphor and war: the metaphor system used to justify war in
the Gulf. Online. Internet. 10.10.2005.
Lakoff (1988). Cognitive semantics. In U.Eco, M. Santambrogio and P. Violi
(Eds.). Meaning and mental representation. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
Lakoff & Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London:
The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff & Turner (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Levinson (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995). New York: Peason.
Mohamed (2014). The Metaphor of Nature in the Holy Qur’an : A Critical
Metaphor Analysis (CMA). Journal of Arabic and Human Sciences Qassim
University, Vol. 7, No. 3, PP 83-100.
Murray & Moon (2006). Introducing. Metaphor, London/ New York:
Routledge, 180 S. Annika Kerz, Saarbrücken
Sadock (1993). Figurative speech and linguistics, in Ortony (ed.). Metaphor
and Thought. 2nd`(pp. 42-57). Cambridge & New York: CUP.
Saeed (2007). Semantics. 2nd ed. UK, USA and Australia: Blackwell
Publishing Company.
Searle (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts.
Cambridge: CUP.
Sharaf Eldin (2014). "A Cognitive Metaphorical Analysis of Selected Verses
in the Holy Qur’an ". International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 4,
No. 6; 2014.
Soskice (1985). Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon.
Zaid (2011). "Language Acquisition, Linguistic Creativity and Achievement:
Insights from the Qur'an". KEMANUSIAAN Vol. 18, No. 2, (2011), 75–100
https://structureofentropy.wordpress.com/.../quran-anthologies-illuminati..

174

View publication stats