The Semantic Effect of Combining the Lexical and Contextual Meanings in Clarifying Intents Lexes (Meaning and Denotation) in Sharh Al-Radhiy ‘alaa Kaafiat Ibn Al-Haajib as a Case Study https://aif-doi.org/AJHSS/106906

Abstract

This research attempted to investigate the semantic effect resulting from the synergy or merging of the lexical and contextual meanings to clarify intents. With the aim of reaching the intent of the analyst, the book Sharh Al-Radhiy ‘alaa Kaafiat Ibn Al-Haajib as a linguistic reading blog was used. The objective of the study was determined by tracing the two lexes (meaning) and (denotation) besides their derivatives in the book in a pursuit to elaborate the different meanings contained in it. To this end, the research was divided into a general introduction and a brief preface that talked about the debatable relationship between lexis and meaning, in addition to two parts where the first section is concerned with meaning and its derivatives (I mean, it means...), and the second which is concerned with denotation and its derivatives (signifier, signification, it signifies).

At the end of the study, a number of results were reached at, with the most important being that Al-Radhiy made use of the word (meaning) in different usages, some being lexical and the others being contextual, in which the intents of speech and the aims of the discourse are clearly manifested. These usages carry the following meanings: signification, the lexical meaning, manifestation of terminology, and interpretation. Further, he used the word (denotation) in the book having the sense of (meaning) to some extent, implying (indication) often, and inferring (evidence) rarely. Moreover, the research refuted the use of the ancient Arab grammarians of denotation as being the meaning, and to their view of the former as synonymous to the latter. This is due to the fact that their use of it in the sense of (meaning) on the one hand, and on the other hand in the sense of the denotation causes a lot of ambiguity and vagueness. And perhaps it does not at present conform with the rules of terminology that stipulate the use of a single term to denote a single concept.