A structural-cognitive semiotic analysis of the Qur'anic story "Joseph and his Brothers"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work on the semiotics of Qur'anic narration is fairly sparse (cf. Hassanein, 2009b). In this paper I try to provide a semiotic analysis of the Qur'anic story Joseph and his Brothers, employing a model developed by Grambye and Sonne (2003a). The model draws heavily on the theories of structural-cognitive semiotics (Greimas, 1983; Brandt, 2004) and narratological terminology (Prince, 2003) and illustratively analyses the story's descriptive, narrative and argumentative propositional content, as well as enunciation, and discourse. The three facets of propositional content are examined in light of 3-D, transport, and thematic models, respectively. Enunciation and discourse are tested against enunciative and discursive models, respectively. The application of the general model offers a rich and insightful analysis of the story's text in a religious context, with particular focus placed on enunciation to serve a religious purpose. I find the model efficient in analysing narratives in a genre other than the folktale for which it was developed and I am thus recommending testing it against other narrative texts to figure out what it can further reveal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".