Terminology

The present study investigates the implantation of political science terminology approved by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature (APLL) in the Hamshahri corpus made up of news text from Hamshahri newspaper and their acceptability among MA students of English translation studies (ETS), English literature (EL), and Political science (PS). To conduct this research the frequencies of the political terms approved by the APLL with their competing terms were compiled from the corpus. For analyzing another group of terms without competing terms, 90 MA students were purposively selected from the abovementioned majors. Accordingly, a 60-item 5-point Likert Scale questionnaire (including 60 political terms) along with an open-ended question were administered. The implantation coefficients (IC) of the first group of the terms with competing terms indicate that the factors such as conciseness and derivative capabilities result in higher IC. The descriptive results indicated that around two third of the ETS and EL students agree with the APLL-approved political science terms, while less than half of the PS students accept these neologisms. Moreover, the Chi-Square test (value of 92.000, p= 0.000 < 0.05) revealed that there is a correlation between the level of agreement and the major. In addition, Cramer’s V test result with the value of 0.092 indicated a weak correlation between the academic major and the attitude. Finally, analysis of the open-ended question showed that conciseness, transparency, morphological well-formedness, and familiarity with neologisms were the main reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with them.

Two traps currently ensnare Heideggerian scholarship: the “language trap” and the “being trap”. To avoid them, the text argues we should follow Heidegger’s important indication that movement (aka ex-sistential becoming or Zeit ) determines all forms of meaning (aka the significance of things or Sein). This requires a radical rewriting of the terminology and the structure of Zeitlichkeit in § 65 of Sein und Zeit . The text also argues for moving beyond Heidegger’s early and late formulations of fundamental ontology and into a meta- ontological ethics that would apply to the economic, social, and political worlds in which we live our daily lives.

Tafsīr literature has a long and rich history among all fields of Islamic sciences. In spite of this, it has not been able to form an independent scientific discipline along with all its dimensions. We believe that to turn Tafsīr into science, it is necessary to take some measures, including redefining the basic terms. This paper aims to provide some possible answers to the problem of defining, namely, what the most important terms in the Tafsīr field are, and how to come up with comprehensive definitions for its terms. Building on terminological evidence, this descriptive-analytical research discusses the formation of the four terms “Tafsīr” (interpretation), “Mabnā” (basis), “Aṣl” (principle) and “Qā'ida” (rule), as the key concepts in the Tafsīr field. We argued that these terms must be redefined through terminological methods. We believe that the very concept of Tafsīr means expressing the meanings and practical contents (Mūfād Isti ‘ mālī) of the Qur’ānic verses and discovering their Purposes (Maqāsid) and Referents (Madālīl). The Mabānī al-Tafsīr are the basic concepts and macro scientific presumptions for the Qur’ānic text. Finally, the term “Uṣūl al-Tafsīr” are radical components with a Qur’ānic nature which are the mediator between “Mabnā” and “Qā‘ida”.