The work of Lakoff (1987), Lakoff and Kovecses (1987), and Kovecses (1990, 2000a, 2002) on anger situates it within the bounds of "PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF AN EMOTION STAND FOR THE EMOTION," thus implying a universal form of physiological embodiment for anger. The main contribution of this article is that anger in Tunisian Arabic (TA) shows many more dimensions of embodiment than physiological embodiment. Anger in TA comes as physiological embodiment, culturally specific embodiment, and culturally tainted embodiment. Similar to English, physiological (...) embodiment yields expressions of anger where the part of the body used for conceptualization is also actually physiologically affected. Culturally specific embodiment involves parts of the body that are culturally correlated with the emotion of anger. Culturally tainted embodiment uses animal behaviors and cultural ecological features to taint physiologically embodied anger expressions. These types of embodiment are shown to generally correlate physiology-based anger with metonymy, and culture-based anger with metaphor. (shrink)

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

The article is devoted to comparative analysis of metaphysical studying of a Samaritan theologian and exegete al-Ghazzāl ibn ’Abū Surūr (d. after 1755) and a representative of Shiraz Illuminationism school, philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Ghiyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr al-Dashtakī (d. 1541). Based on a scrupulous analysis of the doctrines by al-Ghazzāl and Ghiyāth al-Dīn, the author comes to the conclusion about their genetic link – supposedly, as a result of perception of Illuminationist systems in the Middle East in 17th–18th centuries. It (...) is noticed that a Samaritan exegete, acquainted with Arab-Mus­lim philosophic literature as a prominent specialist, taught about ontologistic primacy of light, metaphysical nothingness of dark, stated about light nature of action and com­plete dependence of matter on the will of the Creator. Separately it discusses the desire of both authors to deconstruct the classic for Arabic philosophy thesaurus. It is expressed in the convergence of the categories ‘movement’ (ḥaraka) and ‘action’ (fi‘l), as well as in the consistent replacement of the concept ‘self’ (ḏāt) with the concept of ‘light’ (nūr). The differences between the concepts of al-Ghazzāl and ad-Dashtakī are also discussed separately: while the first author inscribes the opposition ‘light – dark’ in a creation onto­logical context, the latter professes belief in the ‘total unity’ of the lights, their eternity and uncreation. The research is preceded by a short excursion into the history of Samari­tan theology of the 11th–18th centuries. Moreover, the article provides the description of unpublished documents which served the textological basis for the author’s work – in particular, the manuscript of al-Ghazzal’s interpretation of Genesis and Exodus ‘Dis­persion of the darkness [covering] the secrets of the Giver’ (Kashf / Kāshif al-Ghayāhib ‘alā Asrār al-Wāhib; British Library, Add MS 19657). (shrink)