The Foundation of Pragmatic Terminology in Light of the Heritage Principles of Semantic Field Theory: A Study in the Thought of AḥmadʿAzūz

DOI:https://doi-001.org/1025/17687491527383

Radia Ben Ariba
University of Hassiba Ben Bouali, Chlef, Algeria.

Email: f.abderrahmane@univ-chlef.dz‏

Hakima Fekaouni
University of Hassiba Ben Bouali, Chlef, Algeria.

Email: Hakimafekaounidz@gmail.com

Fouzia Taieb Amara
University of Hassiba Ben Bouali, Chlef, Algeria

Email : fouzia3938@gmail.com ; Orcid: 0009-0005-7603-5917

Rachida Abed
University of Khemis Miliana, Algeria

Email: r.abed@univ-dbkm.dz ; Orcid: 0009-0004-7644-3059

Received: 10.02.2025,          Accepted: 02.08.2025,              Published: 18.01.2026

Abstract:
The Arabic Language in Algeria has garnered significant academic interest from a plethora of researchers working to promote revitalisation in a way that maintains authenticity and aids in the teaching and use of contemporary Arabic Language in Algeria. Consequently, it has led to Algerian Linguistic scholarship becoming a fertile ground for research in the areas of meaning, the definition of features of the Arabic Language in Algeria, and the tracing the evolution, development, and growth of the Arabic Language’s semantic range over time, while providing evidence of the abundance and diversity of Arabic Linguistic Heritage, as well as through its ability to be adaptable to emerging trends in the world. Additionally, Ahmed Azzouz provides significant contributions to the field of pragmatics through his attempts to conceptualise and develop the methodology of Pragmatic Analysis using the theory developed by the Arabic Heritage using Semantic Field Theory; through this process, he combined elements from the Arabic Language with modern theories of Linguistics and Pragmatics. Therefore, it is the goal of Ahmed Azzouz to have a unified view of Intentionality and Meaning from both Arabic Heritage and Contemporary Linguistics through the present-day use of the Arabic Language in Algeria.

Keywords: Arabic heritage, grounding (foundations), terminology, pragmatics, semantic fields, Ahmed Azzouz.

Introduction
Professor Dr. Ahmed Azzouz is considered one of the prominent linguistic figures in Algeria and among the leading researchers who have contributed to the service of the Arabic language and the preservation of its authenticity. He has made significant scholarly contributions in the field of linguistic studies, through which he addressed a range of linguistic issues in his works.

This study seeks to highlight the integration between the theory of semantic fields and pragmatics on the one hand, and the Arabic heritage-based approach on the other, while attempting to revive this integration within modern linguistic studies, with the aim of constructing an authentic Arabic perspective on contemporary linguistic and semantic concepts.

1– The Concept of the Pragmatic Term:
A. Linguistically:
The term pragmatics (al-tadāwuliyya) is derived from the linguistic root d-w-l, which carries several meanings. This root is mentioned in Arabic lexicons. In Asās al-Balāgha by al-Zamakhsharī, it is stated:

“Dāwala: sovereignty (or the state) passed to him; the days alternated with such-and-such; God granted victory to the sons of so-and-so over their enemy, that is, He made the turn in their favor. The believers prevailed over the polytheists on the Day of Badr, and the polytheists prevailed over the Muslims on the Day of Uhud. One sought to gain the upper hand over someone so as to prevail over him. The alternation of days means to seek their favor. And God alternates the days among people—at times in their favor and at times against them.”(Al-Zamakhshari, 1998, p. 303), It is stated in Lisān al-ʿArab:
“We tadāwalnā (exchanged/handled in turn) the matter, meaning we took it in alternation; and they say duwālayka, that is, a taking turns over the matter … and dālat al-ayyām means that the days turned (or revolved).”(Manzur, 1992, p. 253)

The linguistic meaning of pragmatics, as reflected through these two concepts, indicates transformation and transition from one place to another, or from one state to another.

B. Terminologically:
The terminological definitions of pragmatics are numerous, and researchers have differed in determining its precise meaning. The term pragmatics returns in its modern sense to the philosopher Charles Morris, who used it in 1938 to denote three branches encompassed by semiotics (the science of signs), namely:

• Syntax (syntactics or syntax): concerned with the study of the formal relations among signs themselves.
• Semantics: which studies the relationship between signs and the objects they denote or refer to.
• Pragmatics: which is concerned with studying the relationship between signs and their interpreters.(Nahla, 2002, p. 9).

Among the most important definitions that have been proposed for pragmatics, we may mention the following:

• The study of language in use, that is, when it is actually employed and circulated among its users(Boujady, 2009, p. 151).
• It is the field of studies concerned with describing and interpreting the relationships that link natural signs (their meanings) with those who use and interpret them(Taha, 2000, p. 28) , In 1970, Taha Abderrahmane proposed the term al-tadāwuliyyāt as an equivalent to the Western term pragmatique (pragmatics), which denotes the meanings of use and interaction. He also introduced the term pragmatic domain (al-majāl al-tadāwulī), which recurs in the text and by which he means: all the doctrinal, cognitive, and linguistic presuppositions shared between the speaker and the addressee that condition the speaker’s use of an utterance in one way or another(Taha, 2000, p. 28).
• Dier and Françoise Récanati define it as follows: “Pragmatics is the study of the use of language in discourse.” It is thus concerned with meaning, like semantics, and with certain linguistic forms whose meaning can only be determined through their use(Buqrah, p. 166).
• Francis Jacques defines it by stating: “Pragmatics addresses language as simultaneously discursive, communicative, and social.” (Buqrah, p. 166)
• Djilali Delash defines it as: “A linguistic discipline that studies the relationship between the users of linguistic signs—the sender and the addressee—and the relations of influence and interaction between them.” (Buqrah, p. 167)

From these definitions, it becomes clear that pragmatics focuses on the actual use of language in communicative situations and is more concerned with meaning in context than with the literal meaning of the sentence.

2– The Relationship Between Pragmatic Linguistics and Semantics:

Semantics represents a branch of modern linguistics, and its relationship with pragmatics is consistent with the relationship between pragmatics and linguistics in general. This relationship can be summarized as follows:

• Both pragmatics and semantics study meaning in language.
• The meaning of a sentence is related to the meaning of the speech unit according to the concept of distinctive use. The meaning of a speech unit requires consideration of contextual factors. For example, linguists generally classify semantics under competence, meaning the ability to know the language, whereas pragmatics is classified under performance, that is, the actual use and realization of language(Lyons, 1987, pp. 30–31).
• Pragmatics relies on semantics, which defines the conditions and nature of meaning. Pragmatics, in turn, is concerned with studying these conditions when meaning is linked to use, and it determines what allows an utterance to succeed or fail in being understood(Boujady, p. 127).
• Pragmatics is an extension of semantic study, and the two overlap in such a way that they complement each other. Semantics deals with interpreting utterances according to their systemic conditions and constraints, specifying their literal meanings and indicating their minimal levels, serving the linguistic system rather than the speaker’s intentions. It describes words and sentence meanings. Pragmatics, on the other hand, is concerned with the speaker’s or writer’s intentions, seeking the appropriate context or situation. Thus, there are two types of meaning: one derived from sentences in relation to each other (semantics), and one derived from the complete speech unit (pragmatic domain)(Boujady, p. 130).

Semantics provides the theoretical foundation for understanding stable meanings, whereas pragmatics contributes to expanding this understanding by studying the shifting and implied meanings that arise from context and communicative situations.

Thus, pragmatics represents an advanced step in the course of semantic research, as it moves meaning from the level of structure to the level of function, and from the domain of the linguistic system to the domain of human communication.

3– Heritage Foundations in the Theory of Semantic Fields:

Arab heritage has dominated many modern linguistic studies, prompting researchers to reread it and draw on its concepts. Among these researchers is Ahmed Azzouz, who drew inspiration from Arab heritage in his works, most notably his book published by the Arab Writers Union in Damascus in 2002, in which he addressed the theory of semantic fields in both Western and Arab heritage.

This book represents a significant milestone in the field of linguistic studies, as its author sought to combine traditional semantic analysis with contemporary linguistic concepts. He presented a foundational vision of the concept of semantic fields, highlighting their impact on understanding meanings and the development of vocabulary within different contexts.

The book consists of an introduction, five chapters, and a conclusion. In it, the author addresses various issues in the theory of semantic fields and the methods of analyzing and studying words. In the first chapter, he presents the concept of the theory of semantic fields and the views of Western scholars on it, emphasizing the necessity of understanding the meaning of words. He argues that a distinction can be made between the lexicon and the language and its vocabulary: the lexicon is the set of words that a language makes available to its speakers, whereas vocabulary refers to the set of words actually used among people. He also organizes terms according to specialization—for example, the term semantic domain is applied to the semantic field.

In the second chapter, he moves on to highlight the roots of the theory of semantic fields in Arab heritage and thought. The researcher believes that there is no explicit term in early Arabic studies indicating the existence of a theory of semantic fields; however, they were aware of the application and practice of the idea of fields. Among the most prominent linguists who devoted attention to the classification of words and entities is Al-Jahiz, particularly in his work Al-Hayawan. He focused on epistles and subject-based dictionaries and called for a rereading and revival of Arab heritage to enrich Arab linguistic thought and to define its horizons and future aspirations.

In the third chapter, he discussed the emergence of the theory of semantic fields in the West and its development over time. The researcher highlighted the idea of value by classifying denotations into semantic fields according to the principles established by Saussure. He argued that words are semantically interconnected, and the meaning of one word can only be understood in relation to the meanings of other words, such as hāb, khashi, khāf (fear, dread, be afraid).

The fourth chapter is titled “The Structural Analysis of Meaning and Its Relationship to Semantic Fields.”Here, the focus was on grouping a number of words within a field that are close in meaning, attempting to determine the semantic features of each word, and highlighting both their common elements and differences. The author also presented the views of Western linguists on the relationships between words and their efforts, through analysis, to develop a theory capable of explaining and clarifying word meanings. The researcher believes that this structural analysis marked significant progress in solving important issues within semantics, by mapping semantic differences between words and ensuring their proper use according to context.

In the fifth chapter, he conducted an applied analytical study of the theory of semantic fields in lexicography, striving to clarify its domain and define its features. The researcher noted that the Arab world kept pace with development and produced various advanced dictionaries over time. He explained the connection between the theory of semantic fields in the Arabic language and dictionaries of meanings, attributing this connection to the idea of organizing lexical entries by subject and processing them within well-defined fields.

This book in our hands provides us with an opportunity to reflect on and examine the approaches that have raised the issue of meaning and the connection of the theory of semantic fields to lexicography. The researcher presented a set of ideas closely related to his contributions in the field of linguistic and linguistic studies, relying in his analysis and discussion of issues on modern methodologies. Among the most important issues addressed in this book, we can mention:

3-1 Definition of the Theory of Semantic Fields:

The theory of semantic fields can be defined as a set of words that are interconnected in terms of semantic proximity and are united by a general concept, remaining connected and associated with it; they can only be understood in its light. Grouping words into sets is considered a characteristic of the human mind, which tends toward classification and the search for relationships that form the components of these groups(Aḥmad 2002).

There is no doubt that ancient Arab linguists early on realized the importance of classifying meanings into semantic and conceptual fields, making them pioneers in this domain. Their composition of epistles, dictionaries of meanings, and distinctions in language is evidence of their classificatory method for meanings. In contrast, the Western world did not produce its thematic dictionaries until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which demonstrates the development of the theory of semantic fields. It has since become a methodology with applications in many areas, such as literary texts, translation, education, lexicography, and other fields. A notable feature of this theory is that it divides into sections or classifications, each containing the set of words relevant to it(Aḥmad 2002, p. 16).

This method of classification reflects the human mind’s tendency toward organization and linking related concepts.

Ancient Arab linguists realized this principle early on, as they classified words into semantically homogeneous groups, which is evident in linguistic epistles and dictionaries of meanings. The Arab world thus preceded the West in this field, as the latter did not compile its thematic dictionaries until the late 19th century.

3-2 Types of the Theory of Semantic Fields:

Researchers have divided semantic fields into several types, the most prominent of which are:

• Synonyms and Antonyms: The relationship between these words takes the form of opposition, since opposites evoke each other in thinking and logic. For example, black evokes white, and tallcontradicts short.
• Derivational Patterns (Morphological Fields): These are morphological fields, which exist in Arabic more than in other languages. For instance, the pattern fi‘āla can indicate professions or crafts, such as butcher, shipbuilder, carpenter, etc. The morphological pattern shows the relationship between words with similar morphological forms.
• Parts of Speech and Their Grammatical Classifications
• Syntactic Fields: These include sets of words linked by usage but not occupying the same grammatical position, for example: dog, bark, food, serve, see, eye / horse, neigh, walk, advance, hear, ear. There is no direct relationship between these words: a dog’s bark applies only to a dog, while a neigh applies only to a horse.
• Gradated Semantic Fields: These are fields in which the relationship between words is hierarchical or graduated, either top-down, bottom-up, or linked by semantic proximity. For example, the human body is divided into major concepts such as head, chest, abdomen, each of which is further divided into smaller concepts like hand, wrist, forearm(Aḥmad 2002, pp. 17-19).

Ahmed Azzouz argues that the study of semantic fields in Arab heritage goes through three foundational stages:

• Defining the concept in light of the Western perspective.
• Inductive analysis of heritage texts.
• Presenting a contemporary Arab critical vision that is open to pragmatic intentions.

3 – 3 The Theory of Semantic Fields in Arab Linguistic Heritage:

Ancient Arab linguists defined semantic fields based on the language itself, as they included a comprehensive classification of its words from the pre-Islamic era up to the emergence of Islam(Aḥmad 2002, p. 22).  The idea of classification is ancient in Arabic authorship. Al-Jahiz refers to it in his book Al-Hayawan, where he classified the main entities in the universe, saying:

“The world and all that is in it consists of three kinds: similar, different, and opposite; all of this can be summarized as: inanimate and animate, animal and plant. As for animals: some walk, some fly, some swim, and some crawl. Among those that walk are humans, domestic animals, wild beasts, and insects.” (Aḥmad 2002, p. 23), There is a fact we wish to emphasize: the theory of semantic fields has Arabic roots. This is evident in the methodology followed by the authors of linguistic epistles and thematic dictionaries, who grouped words under a single meaning(Sulaymān, 2002, p. 315).

• Epistles (Al-Rasā’il):

The stage of collecting Arabic words culminated in the first step of classification: the phase of numerous epistles, each of which contained words organized into small semantic groups, each related to a single subject in a specific context. These epistles are at the very core of semantic fields, even if the ancients did not explicitly use the term.

Examples include Al-Laban wa al-Matar by Abu Zayd al-Ansari, Al-Nabātwa al-Shajar and Khalq al-Insān by Al-Asma‘i (d. 216 AH), and Al-Khayl by Abu Ubaidah Mu‘ammar ibn al-Muthanna. Abu Ubaid al-Qasim (d. 224 AH) wrote on sheep, cattle, wild beasts, birds, and insects of the earth. Ibn al-Sikkit (d. 244 AH) became well-known in this genre of composition.

Thematic epistles continued to develop: some focused on morphological classification, and many linguistic epistles dealt with alternation and forms, such as those by Yunus ibn Habib and Ibn Murrar al-Shibani, including epistles on hamza and verb patterns like fa‘ala and af‘ala. Al-Farrā’ also wrote on these topics. These epistles later evolved into morphological derivations based on sounds, which became analyzed in light of semantic theory(Aḥmad 2002, p. 24).

• Dictionaries (Al-Ma‘ājim):

It cannot be said that general works on various dictionaries, such as Al-‘Ayn by Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi, began until after the completion of the specialized epistles. Given the importance of specialized dictionaries in establishing the theory of semantic fields among the Arabs, we provide examples of works in the field of the creation of humans:

• Kitāb Khalq al-Insān by Al-Asma‘i (d. 216 AH)
• Kitāb Khalq al-Insān by Thabit ibn Abi Thabit (d. 270 AH)
• Khalq al-Insān by Al-Zajjāj (d. 310 AH)
• Maqālahfī Asmā’ A‘ḍā’ al-Insān by Ahmad ibn Fāris (d. 395 AH)
• Kitāb Khalq al-Insān by Al-Iskāfī (d. 421 AH) – manuscript(Aḥmad 2002, p. 26)

Among the dictionaries organized according to the “gates of meanings,” one of the first semantic fields is Kitāb al-Alfāẓ by Ibn al-Sikkit (d. 244 AH), with the phenomenon reaching its peak in Al-Mukhaṣṣaṣ by Ibn Sida (d. 485 AH).

The idea of semantic fields remained confined to epistles and dictionaries of meanings and did not evolve over the centuries into analytical study of language itself, nor into literary texts or the relationship of the theory of semantic fields to other human sciences(Aḥmad 2002, p. 39).

The theory of semantic fields in the Arabic language is closely linked to dictionaries of meanings because the basic idea of a field lies in attempting to organize entries according to topics and process them within interconnected conceptual fields. Early indications of its use appeared in semantic epistles at the beginning of writing in the second century AH, reaching its most complete form with Al-Tha‘ālibī (d. 429 AH) in Fiqh waAsrār al-‘Arabiyya, and with Ibn Sida (d. 458 AH) in Al-Mukhaṣṣaṣ(Aḥmad 2002, p. 90).

Ahmed Azzouz believes that the idea of semantic fields in Arab heritage represents the theoretical foundation of modern theories of meaning. It was not merely a classification of words, but an attempt to understand the semantic relationships among vocabulary within an integrated linguistic system.

From the above, we see that Ahmed Azzouz examined the ideas and statements of ancient scholars, their efforts in studying words and meanings, and their classification of them in linguistic epistles, which were then compiled into dictionaries of meanings. He noted that the Arabs analyzed semantic fields at an early stage without explicitly naming the term, highlighting the contributions of Al-Tha‘ālibī and Ibn Sida.

This study shows that Dr. Ahmed Azzouz presented a serious foundational vision linking Arab linguistic heritage with modern linguistic theories, particularly pragmatics and the theory of semantic fields. Through his methodology, he was able to deconstruct traditional concepts and reconstruct them within a contemporary linguistic framework, using a functional rather than historical reading of the heritage. This approach allows him to employ it in building an Arabic theory of meaning capable of encompassing the pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of the Arab context, thereby contributing to the renewal of Arabic semantic studies and connecting language to actual use and human interaction.

This contribution demonstrates that grounding pragmatic terminology in the heritage foundations of the theory of semantic fields is not merely a formal link between old and modern scholarship, but a knowledge bridge that restores recognition to the early Arab efforts in understanding language as a living entity that develops both semantically and contextually.

What Dr. Ahmed Azzouz has undertaken represents a conscious attempt to read the heritage through the lens of modern linguistics. He did not treat the ancient texts as a closed linguistic legacy, but rather as a pragmatic intellectual system that was ahead of its time in perceiving the relationship between meaning and context. This foundational perspective allowed him to move beyond a fragmented view of meaning toward an integrative vision that sees language as a dynamic communicative act, where text, context, and the linguistic agent intersect. The significance of this approach lies not merely in re-presenting old concepts, but in employing them to construct a modern Arab theory in pragmatics and semantic fields, capable of encompassing meanings within their social and cultural interactions, and fostering productive communication between Western linguistic thought and authentic Arab heritage. It can be said that Ahmed Azzouz’s thought established a hybrid and open vision, one that neither closes in on the heritage nor dissolves into the West, but rather creates a fruitful dialogue between the two, expanding the scope of linguistic research and giving it a comprehensive humanistic character.

Conclusion:

According to this study, Dr. Ahmed Azzouz’s project provides an excellent platform for bringing Arabic linguistic heritage into connection with twenty-first century. For example, through his foundational reading of the literature on Arab linguistic heritage, Dr. Azzouz has proven that Arab linguistic heritage is not simply a repository of historical linguistics, but rather a fully integrated intellectual system composed of both semantic and pragmatic ideas that can be compared with modern linguistic theory.

The results of this study establish that semantic field theory had its roots in Arab linguistic theory; it can be seen in the Arabic epistles concerning the classification of words, the Arabic language dictionaries that define word meanings, and Thematic Word Classifications, thus confirming the pioneering position of Arabic linguists in identifying semantic relationships between words as an integrated system even when they did not specifically call it semantic field theory. Additionally, these findings clearly demonstrate that combining Pragmatics with semantics has shifted the study of Meaning from its original fixed point of Structurism to a new point where it is more Functionally related to Context and what Users are attempting to communicate.

This foundational perspective enabled Ahmed Azzouz to offer a functional reading of the heritage, going beyond a descriptive or historical approach, and employing it to construct a contemporary Arab vision of meaning, open to the pragmatic, cognitive, and social dimensions of language. Thus, it is clear that grounding pragmatics in light of the theory of semantic fields is not merely a formal connection between old and modern thought, but rather a knowledge bridge that restores recognition to early Arab efforts, contributes to the renewal of Arabic semantic and linguistic studies, and opens wider horizons for a balanced scholarly dialogue between Arab heritage and Western linguistic thought.

References

Aḥmad , ʿ. (2002). Uṣūl Turāthiyyah fī Naẓariyat al-Ḥuqūl al-Dalāliyah: Dirāsah (Heritage Foundations in the Theory of Semantic Fields: A Study), Ittiḥād al-Kuttāb al-ʿArab for Printing.

Al-Zamakhshari. (1998). Asās al-Balāghah. Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah for Publishing and Distribution.

Boujady, K. Fī al-Lisānīyāt al-Tadāwuliyyah maʿa Muḥāwalah Taʾṣīlīyah fī al-Dars al-ʿArabī al-Qadīm.

Boujady, K. (2009). Fī al-Lisānīyāt al-Tadāwuliyyah maʿa Muḥāwalah Taʾṣīlīyah fī al-Dars al-ʿArabī al-Qadīm. Algeria.

Buqrah, N. Nuʿmān Buqrah, Muḥāḍarāt fī al-Madāris al-Lisānīyah al-Muʿāṣirah (Lectures on Contemporary Linguistic Schools). Maktabat al-Ādāb for Publishing and Distribution.

Lyons, J. (1987). Al-Maʿnā wa al-Lughah wa al-Siyāq, translated by ʿAbbās Ṣādiq al-Wahhāb. Dar al-Shu’ūn al-Thaqāfīyah for Publishing and Distribution.

Manzur, I. (1992). Lisān al-ʿArab (Vol. 11). Dar Ṣādir.

Nahla, M. A. (2002). Āfāq Jadīdah fī al-Baḥth al-Lughawī al-Muʿāṣir (New Horizons in Contemporary Linguistic Research). Dar al-Maʿrifah al-Jadīdah for Publishing and Distribution.

Sulaymān, Y. (2002). Maʿājim al-Mawḍūʿāt fī ʿIlm al-Lughah al-Ḥadīth (Thematic Dictionaries in Modern Linguistics), . Dar al-Maʿrifah al-Jāmiʿiyyah for Printing, Publishing, and Distribution.

Taha, A. a.-R. (2000). Fī Uṣūl al-Ḥiwār wa-Tajdīd ʿIlm al-Kalām (On the Principles of Dialogue and the Renewal of Theology), . Al-Markaz Al-Thaqafī for Publishing and Distribution.