‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison

The methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and the methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) highlight the similarities and differences in leveraging the text as research data beyond the level of the text’s structure. Questions on similarities and differences between methodologies are addressed in the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Penerbit UKM 2015
Online Access:	http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/1/6660-22067-1-PB.pdf

id	ukm-8264
recordtype	eprints
spelling	ukm-82642015-02-26T15:35:12Z http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/ ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin, The methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and the methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) highlight the similarities and differences in leveraging the text as research data beyond the level of the text’s structure. Questions on similarities and differences between methodologies are addressed in the present study. This study, therefore, compares the similarities and the differences between the methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and the methodology of CDA. Based on the comparison, the present study also constructs a religious discourse analysis model. The selected methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir is al-Sabuniy’s in Safwat al-Tafasir (1979), while the chosen methodology of CDA is Fairclough’s 3D (1992; 1995). The universal principle of discourse and the linguistic goals in the philosophy of language is applied in the analysis. Similarities and differences were identified in the production, meaning and interpretation. The findings strongly suggest that the two methodologies have circumstances which lead to the use of language, the production of language, the features of texts, the nature of meaning and the means of interpretation. One of the main focuses of the comparison is on the differences that constitute barriers to the adoption of CDA for religious discourse analysis, specifically the critical approach towards the sickle and the fixed elements. The obstacles to this alternative are presented in order to prove that there is a linguistic approach that is capable of linking language with social elements. The findings thus have implications for the relatively new methodology of religious discourse in linguistic studies. Penerbit UKM 2015-02 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/1/6660-22067-1-PB.pdf Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin, (2015) ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 15 (1). pp. 129-142. ISSN 1675-8021 http://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/index
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Local University
institution	Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia
building	UKM Institutional Repository
collection	Online Access
language	English
description	The methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and the methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) highlight the similarities and differences in leveraging the text as research data beyond the level of the text’s structure. Questions on similarities and differences between methodologies are addressed in the present study. This study, therefore, compares the similarities and the differences between the methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and the methodology of CDA. Based on the comparison, the present study also constructs a religious discourse analysis model. The selected methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir is al-Sabuniy’s in Safwat al-Tafasir (1979), while the chosen methodology of CDA is Fairclough’s 3D (1992; 1995). The universal principle of discourse and the linguistic goals in the philosophy of language is applied in the analysis. Similarities and differences were identified in the production, meaning and interpretation. The findings strongly suggest that the two methodologies have circumstances which lead to the use of language, the production of language, the features of texts, the nature of meaning and the means of interpretation. One of the main focuses of the comparison is on the differences that constitute barriers to the adoption of CDA for religious discourse analysis, specifically the critical approach towards the sickle and the fixed elements. The obstacles to this alternative are presented in order to prove that there is a linguistic approach that is capable of linking language with social elements. The findings thus have implications for the relatively new methodology of religious discourse in linguistic studies.
format	Article
author	Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin,
spellingShingle	Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin, ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
author_facet	Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin,
author_sort	Munif Zarirruddin Fikri Nordin,
title	‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
title_short	‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
title_full	‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
title_fullStr	‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
title_full_unstemmed	‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
title_sort	‘ilm al-tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison
publisher	Penerbit UKM
publishDate	2015
url	http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/8264/1/6660-22067-1-PB.pdf
first_indexed	2023-09-18T19:51:57Z
last_indexed	2023-09-18T19:51:57Z
_version_	1777406278326288384

‘Ilm al-Tafsir and critical discourse analysis: a methodological comparison

Similar Items