درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

After the decline of positivism, the interpretive paradigm (structuralism) gained favor among Qur'anic scholars due to its emphasis on subjectivity, the role of values in cognition, attention to human interactions, and the interconnectedness of the knower and the knowable. However, despite the fact that this paradigm seems to be more compatible with the religious view than the positivist paradigm, there are still significant paradigmatic differences between it and the Islamic paradigm that need to be considered. The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenges of using common qualitative methods in Qur'anic studies, while proposing the method of component analysis as a more appropriate approach. With the help of this method, it is possible to create a comprehensive set of verses that are related to and consistent with any concept of research in the field of humanities. The method consists of four stages: data collection, data coding, summarization, and searching for verses consistent with the extracted components.In this way, it can serve as a valuable tool for Qur'an scholars to overcome the challenges associated with the use of common qualitative methods, and it allows for a systematic and comprehensive approach that enables researchers to bridge the Holy Qur'an and the humanities, preparing the ground for interdisciplinary studies in these fields.

Due to the ambiguity, complexity, and context-sensitiveness of discourse markers, their presentation becomes more comprehensive in the process of translation. Additionally, Qur’anic discourse markers enjoy a special delicacy. This article thus investigated the translations of the Qur’anic elaborative discourse marker <em>wæ</em> in two Persian and English translations by Ali Maleki and Tahereh Saffarzadeh, respectively. To this end, 1475 examples of this discourse marker from six randomly selected ajzā of the Qur’an were analyzed using a descriptive and qualitative method. The results show that in numerous cases this discourse marker has not been translated literally but the translators have translated it communicatively, dynamically, and constructively by appealing to different linguistic procedures and by applying 118 different categories and combinations of various contrastive, inferential, temporal, and elaborative Persian and English discourse markers. The translators' approaches affirmed that translation is a dynamic and innovative discourse construction and structuration process influenced by the context of the natural processing of language in social contexts. It is so because of the versatility and dynamicity of interlocutors’ mental conditions and world knowledge as well as the situational circumstances that have bearings on the interpretation and application of meta-communicative elements by translators.