‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬

Discourse is not produced without context and

cannot be understood without taking context
into consideration ... Discourses are always
connected to other discourses which were
produced earlier, as well as those which are
produced synchronically and subsequently."

‫تعّدُد األصوات في القرآن‬

‫خافير فيرنانديز‬
‫ محمد نور الّد ين‬:‫ترجمة‬
 ‫قبل الخوض في تحليل الخطاب‪ ،‬ال بّد أْن‬
‫نعرف أّن ال وجود لخطاٍب دون وجود‬
‫نٍّص ‪ ،‬كما ال يمكن فهم الخطاب دون أخذ‬
‫الّنّص بنظر االعتبار؛ والخطاب غالبًا ما‬
‫يكون ذا صلٍة بخطاب آخر سابق أو الحق‬
‫له‪ ،‬وأحيانًا يكون متزامنًا معه‪.‬‬
‫إّن الهدف من تحليل الخطاب هو الّتحّقق‬
‫من وظائف الّلغة‪ ،‬وكيفية صياغة المعنى‬
‫في سياقات مختلفة‪ .‬وإذا تناولنا النّص‬
‫القرآني فكيف لنا أْن نفهَم المراد اإللهي في‬
‫نٍّص متعّد ِد األصوات؟‬
‫لنلقي نظرة إلى سورة الفاتحة من زواية‬
‫تحليل الخطاب ‪،discourse analysis‬‬
 ‫ففي اآليات التالية‪{ :‬الحمُد ِهلل رِّب‬
‫العالميَن ‪ ،‬الّرحمن الّرحيم‪ ،‬مالِك يوِم‬
‫الّد ين} نسمع صوت المتكّلم ‪the‬‬
‫‪ speaker‬وهو "اإلنسان" حين يرفع يديه‬
‫في الّصالِة ويقرأ اآليات الثالث األولى‪،‬‬
‫ولكن ما إْن تبدأ اآليتاِن الرابعة والخامسة‬
‫{إّياك نعبُد ‪ ،‬وإّياك نستعين‪ }...‬إلى آخر‬
‫الّسورة نشعر بوجود ُم خاطب‬
‫‪ ،addressee‬فحرف الكاف في كلمة‬
‫"إّياك" يعود على "المقّد س" أي هللا‪.‬‬
‫أما في سورة الكوثر فصوَت المتكّلم هو‬
‫"المقّد س" {إّنا أعطيناك الكوثر} فـ "إّنا"‬
‫تتكّو ن من حرف وضمير‪" :‬إّن " حرف‪/‬‬
 ‫أداة للّتأكيد و"نا" ضمير المتكّلم وهو‬
‫بصيغة الجمع داللة على رفعة ومكانة‬
‫المتكّلم‪ ،‬أما المخاطب هنا فهو حضرة‬
‫النبي الكريم‪ ،‬فكاف المخاطب في‬
‫"أعطيناك" ُيشير إليه بوضوح‪ ،‬بمعنى‪ :‬إّنا‬
‫أعطيناك الكوثر يا محمد‪.‬‬
‫وفي سورة آل عمران ( ‪ )38‬دعا زكريا‬
‫رّبه قائًال‪{ :‬قال رّبي هْب لي ِم ن لُد نَك‬
‫ذّرّيًة طّيبًة إّنَك سميُع الّد عاء} صوت‬
‫المتكّلم هنا هو زكريا كما هو واضح‪ ،‬أما‬
‫المخطاُب فهو "المقّد س"‪ ،‬ولكن صوت‬
‫المالئكِة هو َم ن استجاب لدعائه في اآلية‬
‫‪{ :39‬فنادته المالئكة وهو قائم ُيصّلي في‬
 ‫المحراب أّن َهللا ُيبّش رك بيحيى‪ .}...‬هنا‬
‫نرى إنابًة وتداخًال بين صوِت المقّد س‬
‫(هللا) وصوت المالئكة‪ ،‬ولكن هل المالئكة‬
‫التي حاورت زكريا وغيره من األنبياء‬
‫والصالحين والصالحات هي نفس المالئكة‬
‫على الّد وام؟‬
‫في اآلية ‪ 40‬عاد زكريا ليسأل رّبه‪{ :‬قال‬
‫رّبي أّنى يكون لي غالٌم وقد بلغني الِكبر‬
‫وامرأتي عاقٌر‪ }...‬واضح أّن صوت‬
‫المتكّلم في هذه اآلية هو زكريا والمخاطب‬
‫هو "المقّد س"‪ ،‬ولكن ما هو غامٌض هو أْن‬
‫ياتي الّر ُد ‪ ...{ :‬قاَل كذلَك ُهللا يفعُل ما‬
‫يشاء}‪ .‬يبدو أن المالئكة لم يتوب عن‬
‫المقّد س في اإلجابة‪ ،‬لكّن الّسؤال االهم هنا‬
‫هو َم ن الذي "قاَل "؟ هل هذا هو صوت‬
‫"المقّد س" أم غيره؟ لو كان صوت‬
‫المالئكة لجاء الفعل بصيغة المؤّنث‬
‫"قالت"‪.‬‬
‫نجد صوَت المتكّلَم ‪ ،‬في اآلية التي جاءت‬
‫بعدها‪ ،‬هو صوت اإلنسان بينما صوت‬
‫المخاطب هو المقّد س (هللا) {قال رّبي‬
‫اجعل لي آيًة}‪ .‬وفي اآلية نفسها ُيجيب‬
‫المخاطُب (هللا) المتكّلَم وكأننا نستمع إلى‬
‫حوار بين اثنين‪{ :‬آيُتك أال ُتكّلَم الّناَس‬
‫ثالثة أياٍم }‪.‬‬
 ‫ومن اآلية ‪ 41‬إلى اآلية ‪ 47‬تتعّد د‬
‫األصوات إال إّن الّنّص يبقى ُم تماسكًا‪،‬‬
‫فتارة ُيخاطب المقّد ُس مريَم وتارة ُأخرى‬
‫ُتخاطُبها "المالئكة" ثّم يعود "المقّد س"‬
‫لُيكمَل الحوار بدًال عن "المالئكة"؛‬
‫وسأحصر المتكّلم والمخاطب بين ظفرين‬
‫للّتوضيح وحسب‪ ..‬وهذه هي اآليات‪{ :‬وإذ‬
‫قالت "المالئكُة" يا "مريُم " إّن َهللا‬
‫اصطفاِك وطّهرِك واصطفاِك على نساء‬
‫العالمين}‪ .‬نجد أّن صوَت المتكّلم هنا هو‬
‫المالئكة‪ ،‬بينما صوت المخاطب هو مريم‪.‬‬
‫ويستمّر الحوار بين المتكّلم والمخاطب في‬
‫اآلية‪{ 43 :‬يا مريُم اقنتي لرّبِك ‪ }...‬ولكن‬
 ‫فجأًة تتغّيُر األصوات في اآلية ‪ ،44‬إذ ال‬
‫ندري إْن كان صوَت المتّك لم هو هو‬
‫"المقّد س" أم "المالئكة"‪ ،‬أما المخاطب‬
‫فليس بمريم‪{ :‬ذلك من أنباِء الغيِب نوحيه‬
‫إليَك ‪ .}...‬وقد يكون صوت المتكّلم هنا هو‬
‫"المقّد س" أو قد يكون صوت "المالئكة"‬
‫وهذا يعتمد على أّي وجه ُنترجم كلمة‬
‫"نوحيه"‪ ،‬إال إّن المخاطب هنا هو النبي‬
‫ُم حّم د‪ ..‬ثّم تعود المالئكة (صوت المتكّلم)‬
‫في اآلية ‪ 45‬لُتكمَل حوارها مع مريم‬
‫(المخاطب) دون أْن يتأّثر الّسرد أو أن‬
‫يختّل الّنّص ‪{ :‬إذ قالت المالئكة يا مريُم إّن‬
‫َهللا ُيبّش ُر ِك بكلمٍة منه‪ }...‬وتستمّر المالئكة‬
 ‫(صوت المتكّلم) في الحوار مع مريم‬
‫(المخاطب) حتى اآلية ‪ 46‬ولكن سرعان‬
‫ما يحدُث تغييٌر مفاجٌئ في اآلية ‪{ 47‬قالت‬
‫رّبي أّنى يكون لي ولٌد ولم يمسسني‬
‫بشٌر‪ }...‬هنا يصبح المقّد س (هللا) هو‬
‫المخاطب بدًال من المالئكة‪ ،‬أما صوت‬
‫المتكّلم فهو (مريم)‪ ،‬فما هو الّسُّر ‪ ،‬أو ما‬
‫هو هذا اإلنتفال من مخاطٍب إلى آخر؟‬

‫يبدو أّن المقّد س‪ /‬هللا في الّنص القرآني‬

‫يستخدُم الكالم المباشر تارة ُم عّبرًا به عن‬
‫نفسه بضمير المتكّلم (أنا‪ ،‬نحُن ‪ ،‬إّني‪،‬‬
‫إّنني‪ ،‬إّنا)‪ ،‬وتارة ُأخرى ينوب عنه صوت‬
 ‫المالئكة الذي هو صوت المقّد س نفسه‪.‬‬
‫هذه "اإلنابة" وما يبدو صوتان هو‬
‫صوت واحد‪" ،‬صوت المقّد س" أي صوت‬
‫"هللا"‪ ،‬ولهذا ال نشعر بإخالل في المعنى‬
‫رغم تعّد د األصوات‪ ،‬تداخلها أو اختالفها‬
‫في الّظاهر‪.‬‬

‫في الّنّص القرآني وعيٌد ‪ threat‬أيضًا‬

‫وهناك وعٌد ‪ ،‬ففي آيات الوعيد هناك‬
‫صوت المتكّلم وهو "المقّد س"؛ صوٌت‬
‫يشتمل على قّو ٍة وجبروت‪ ،‬ويختلف‬
‫المخاطب باختالف الّسياق‪ ،‬فتارة يكون‬
‫أّفاكًا {فويٌل لكِّل أّفاٍك أليم} وتارًة يكون‬
‫كافرًا {فويٌل للذين كفروا‪ }...‬وتارة ُأخرى‬
‫يكون ظالمًا {فويٌل للذين ظلموا من عذاِب‬
‫يوٍم أليم}‪ ،‬وقد يكون المخاطُب ُم شركًا‬
‫{وويٌل للمشركين} وقد يكون أيضًا كّذ ابًا‬
‫{فويٌل يومئٍذ للمكّذ بين}‪ ،‬وثمة وعيٌد للذين‬
‫قست قلوبهم‪ ،‬الذين ال يذكرون هللا {فويٌل‬
‫للقاسيِة قلوبهم من ذكِر ِهللا ُأولئَك في‬
‫ضالٍل ُم بين}‪.‬‬
‫ولهؤالء صوت ولكن ُسرعان ما يخفُت‬
‫أمام قّو ِة وهيمنِة صوتّ المقّد س"‪.‬‬
‫لعّل ما ُيلفت الّنظر هو ما ورد في اآليات‬
‫(‪ )58 /57 /56‬من سورة الّذ اريات‪:‬‬
 ‫{وما خلقُت الجَّن واإلنَس إال ليعبدوِن }‬
‫‪{ 56‬ما ُأريُد منهم من رزٍق وما ُأريُد منهم‬
‫أْن ُيطعموِن } ‪{ 57‬إّن َهللا هو الّرزاُق ذو‬
‫القّو ِة المتيِن } ‪.58‬‬
‫في اآليتين ‪ 56‬و ‪ 57‬نجد أّن صوت‬
‫المتكّلم مستتُر في الفعلين "َخ َلْقُت " و‬
‫"ُأريُد " وهو غير الّصوُت المسموع في‬
‫اآلية ‪ ..58‬فالمتكّلم في هذه اآلية هو‬
‫صوٌت آخر‪ ،‬إذ ال هو صوت "المالئكة"‬
‫وال هو صوُت "المقّد س" إال إذا كان‬
‫"المقّد س" يتحّد ُث عن نفسه في ُأسلوٍب ال‬
‫يألفُه أّي خطاٍب آخر في الّلغة العربية‪..‬‬
‫فالّسياق الّلغوي المتعارف عليه يكون‪:‬‬
 ‫"إّني أنا الّرزاُق ذو القّو ِة المتيُن " وبذلك‬
‫ و‬56 ‫يتفق "صوُت "المتكّلم" في اآليتيِن‬
.58 ‫ مع "صوُت المتكّلم" في اآلية‬57

**

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of

language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is
constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social,
cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.
For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would
need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve
looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for
presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the
country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are
always multiple contextual factors).
 Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power
imbalances, including how this is developed and maintained, how
this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this
power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example,
you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example,
a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level
employee).
Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:
 Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent
individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
 How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a
social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
 Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared
using language (like in political speeches)
 How communication is used to achieve social goals (such
as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)
As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool
for assessing social issues, as well as power and power
imbalances. So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented
around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for
you.

Discourse Analysis: The main

approaches
There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are
the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and
talk) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most
commonly Critical Discourse Analysis). Let’s take a look at each of
these.
Approach #1: Language-in-use
Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language
used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and
phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom
seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.
Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to
different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when
something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing
discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying
key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how
the features are used within a particular social context.
For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in
“unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t
typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other
words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say
something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a
language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated
by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then
answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What
is the goal of using such an infix?”
How to “do” discourse analysis
As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what
steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the
following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt
discourse analysis for your research.
Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach
The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you
will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a
socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this,
you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research
questions. Of course, this means that you need to have these
components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these,
check out our video post covering topic development here.
While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out
about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to
have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis.
Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to
your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context,
it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying
language within context.
Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you
need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your
needs. You can get an overview of the available options here, so I won’t
go into detail in this post. The main takeaway, however, is that
you need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s
purpose. So, think carefully about what you are investigating and
what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options
available within discourse analysis.
It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from
the get-go, so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your
data without any specific plan.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes
and patterns. To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes, which are
specific topics within your data. You can find more information about
the qualitative data coding process here.
Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes
are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that
pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about
the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s
perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be
“safety” or “convenience”.
In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data
saturation. This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and
analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be
found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data
set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time.
This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but
it’s essential.
Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an
almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step
– final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.
This final step requires you to return to your research
questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis.
Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly,
and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your
data.
Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are
referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for
reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings)
and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess
your work.
When answering your research questions, make you should
also revisit your research aims and objectives, and assess your
answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and
give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the
analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand
the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive
view of the topic.

Let’s recap…
In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways
are:
 Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to
draw meaning from language in context.
 You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to
analyze the functions and underlying meanings of
language in context.
 The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis
are language-in-use and socio-political approaches.
 The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are
deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research
questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your
data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data,
and reviewing your work.
If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a
comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book
an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we
can help.

"Discourse analysis ... [focuses] on the way in

which your respondents draw on differing
interpretive repertoires depending on their
interpretation of the context in which your
interview takes place.
The technique focuses on the way in which
language is used in given settings, and in a
discourse analysis, your task is to identify the
context; the various interpretive repertoires;
and attempt a matching of one to the other, to
arrive at an understanding of the function, from
the point of view of your respondent, of the
different stories being told."
Critical discourse analysis uses three levels of
analysis (Nielson and Nørreklit, 2009; p. 205):
1. The text of the communicative event itself,
with reference to its vocabulary, its use of
metaphor and rhetorical forms, its grammar
and the relationship between sentences, the
types of argument used.
2. The discourse practice – i.e. how the
particular communicative event changes or
copies existing practice within that particular
discourse.
3. The wider social practice of which the
communicative event forms part.