Abstract:
The linguistic intellectuality emerged theories that considered language as a system that is governed by structural bases that appear in the organized phonological formation in a form of morphological structures united by grammatical relations that enable its procedure to care formally indefinite from definite and semantic theories that established semantic motifs in accord with these linguistic levels individually and altogether. These theories emphasized the difficulty of studying the meaning. This huge quantity of linguistic studies including both sides of the structure and semantics belong to two issues. The first is about the difference in the linguistic systems from one language to another. The second is the meaning dynamic and its instability in use for it expresses the user’s intention and impossibility of observing concepts of producing meaning and its bases with a stable form that limits the discourse style. So, the problem of studying meaning does not stop at (the meaning of expressions and structures) but at the meaning dynamic of these structures in use. Then, the thesis work came in the limits of this area to include expression and meaning to observe the latter’s move and the former’s dependency based on the intention saying that raise about the linguistic saying individually or totally judged by (the intention saying ) procedure of the prominent discourse event by a combination of its elements.
Observing meaning dynamic starts from its starting point. Therefore, the study relied on the internal linguistic context ( the structural harmony ) employing the structuralists’ saying to observe what the linguistics presents whether it is in the limits of the morphological form or the structural form, or the lexical form as – the linguistic context – the first aspect of the structural organization in use without its production circumstances to stop at boundaries of this moral move. Later, the study area expands to observe structures in place of its use. So, it melts the linguistic structures with nonlinguistic circumstances to participate in limiting the intended meaning and uncover the move of the linguistic structure used to enrich the study in these theories that depended on the language interpretation on its production circumstances with pragmatics and argumentation to be a comprehensive analytical approach that is adopted in the study in its procedure to uncover the move of the structure meaning because observing the move of the structure meaning cannot be achieved without this analytical eclectic linguistic study syllabus.
Anyone who observes bodies that are connected with the standard discourse – the holy ones and others – represented by the holy Quran, Nehjula Belagha, and poetry finds the types of interpretations and explanations that can be judged that there is a moral move for these structures which made every interpreter and explanatory work hard – according to his cognitive and faithful devices to reach the meaning. Hence, the title was settled after a journey of modifying it with the consultancy of specialized masters to be in this form” Meaning dynamic from Structure to Discourse: A Study in Concept and Procedure”. It is a motif for selecting the title and aims to the researcher to indulge in studying meaning that forms the most significant linguistic study joints, in a new study that does not stop at studying the meaning. Rather, it searches about bases and limits of the linguistic structures meaning move in use through what difficulty implied to require the wide curiosity about the linguistic syllabus that studied meaning and language, as well observing the high source standard bodies to follow the success meaning principles of its dynamic in accord with a methodological approach away from mixing and interference to gain these theories outcomes and follow the best ones. This is in addition to increasing the researcher’s wide culture by noticing the linguistic meaning concepts and the selected bodies procedure in analysis.
What added difficulty to the title also is its openness. So, the study worked hard to include its concepts and to choose procedure that clarify these concepts to form a clear image of the meaning dynamic.
In order to achieve the aims of the study, it was divided into three chapters preceded by a preface entitled ‘ concepts from title to the subject ‘ to uncover concepts of dynamic, meaning, structure, and discourse ‘ with a brief statement to the most significant discourse analysis directions that the study relied on.
