enunciative approach’s failure against better-known approaches (e.g. pragmatic, semantic-pragmatic, cognitive pragmatic, functional pragmatic, sociolinguistic), and she reaches her goals empirically, theoretically and methodologically. Finally, the book can lead to more studies with a similar approach but focusing on other DMs, and conceivably this trend may be welcomed in an excellent manner outside the French academic community. However, while everything seems quite pleasant, particularly reconciling enunciation with pragmatics, the negative effect of the absence of spoken corpus data is troublesome, since it leaves us in ignorance of a great deal of DM occurrences. Lansari is aware of the significance of spoken corpora, but she leaves it to future research.

中文翻译：

---

书评：侯赛因·阿卜杜勒-拉夫，古兰经话语的文本语言学：分析

相对于更广为人知的方法（例如语用学、语义-语用学、认知语用学、功能语用学、社会语言学），陈述式方法的失败，她在经验、理论和方法上达到了她的目标。最后，这本书可以用类似的方法引导更多的研究，但专注于其他 DM，可以想象，这种趋势可能会受到法国学术界之外的热烈欢迎。然而，虽然一切看起来都很令人愉快，特别是调和语用学的发音，但缺乏口语语料库数据的负面影响是麻烦的，因为它让我们对大量的 DM 事件一无所知。Lansari 意识到口语语料库的重要性，但她将其留给未来的研究。