This study attempts to examine how rhetorical speech acts interface at the lexicosemantic and pragma-emotive levels in the Qur’an. It examines how these acts are interpreted and translated into English despite the fact that one speech act may convey two or more figures of speech i.e., irony, exaggeration, understatement, satire, etc.   The selected data samples are methodologically classified and interpreted according to Allusional Pretence Theory by Nakamura, and Nida’s Theory of Equivalence. The data samples are qualitatively analysed. The findings show first that there is a vast body of multiple functions and dissociative thoughts resulting from rhetorical speech acts interface in the Qur’anic discourse. The findings show that translating interrelated rhetorical speech acts is a formidable challenging task due to fundamental differences in the syntactic, semantic, phonological and pragmatic aspects differentiating the Arabic linguistic system from its English counterpart. Componential Analysis Approach is found essential in solving the semantic ambiguities of the source language lexical items into the target language text.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the function and use of English complementizers ‘that and for’ and to examine how these complementizers interact with(in) the semantic scope of complex sentences. The study argues that the transformational processes of English complementizers have the potential to change and manipulate the sentence/speaker's meaning. This manipulative change of meaning is firstly abode by the complementizer used within the matrix of (complex) sentence and secondly by the type that the propositional content of the sentence refers to (whether the information conveyed expresses objective knowledge, subjective mood, moral judgment, emotional state or open, uncertain question). The study concludes that the classification of verbs plays an essential role in selecting the complementizer to be properly used in covering the necessary cognitive status of the sentence at the syntactic and semantic levels. Thus, each complementizer has its own semantic restrictions, which differentiate it from other complementizers.

Abstract---