Motivation means the existence of a clue in the form for understanding the MEANING, the device which guides us directly towards MEANING. So the relation between form and MEANING isn’t always arbitrary and sometimes this relation may be an iconic one. One sort of motivation is semantic motivation. Those words have semantic motivation that there is a semantic relation between their components and the MEANING of the whole word. Some people believe that primary words were more iconic and by passage of time as well as phonetic changes, this motivation has been reduced.In this research, a more powerful and a more exact attention paid into it. To consider this hypothesis, four travel accounts from the present time were selected and 2800 content words from them were extracted. Then the semantic motivation in those words was analyzed. Afterwards, the results of these texts were compared with the results from considering 2800 words of texts from 200 years ago in order to answer the question that since 200 years ago, motivation in Persian language had been increased or decreased. The Comparison of the results of two courses of time showed a MEANINGful increase in the number of words with semantic motivation in the present time in comparison with 200 years ago. Therefore, it might be claimed that since 200 years ago, words with semantic motivation have increased.

The purpose of this article is to analyze properly the MEANING of "the MEANING of life" and to explain different approaches to it on the base of different grounds and presuppositions. By "life" we mean a conscious process ended by death. We consider life as a whole whose parts are coherently related to each other. In considering "life", we can't merely concentrate on its surface layers. Seeking for its MEANING is going beyond these layers. The word "MEANING" in the expression "the MEANING of life" has two interpretations: one, the "purpose" of the life, and the other, the "value" of the life. We hold that if the purpose of the life is an appropriate goal and has sufficient intrinsic value, it gives MEANING to all the issues related it. The main points of this article are: separation of the theological considerations on the question of MEANING of life from the philosophical ones, religious theories from non- religious ones, analysis and separation of objective views from subjective ones, and finally, the relation of the MEANING of life to matters such as God, the immortality of the soul, the ethical nature of the world, and so on.

Undoubtedly the holy Quran is a unique book in Arabic language, eloquently and rhetorically. Its words are a pure collection of Arabic literature. All poets, jurisprudents and philosophers believe it as a master art. It is a permanent treasure of Arabic and for it many sciences have been generated. It kept the Arabic language active and dynamic during ups and downs of the history. It also contains local Arabic accents which it shows the trustiness of its phonetic and structure.In this article is studied an explanation of grammatical MEANING, understanding the differences between speech patterns, finding out grammatical MEANINGs in speech patterns, and their differences in briefness, Redundancy, transparency and Ambiguity. If the grammar gets excluded of its MEANING it would make it dead and prosaic.It study Arabic grammar based on the holy Quran. Thus we are going to study different grammatical patterns which it would lead to different MEANINGs. We believe that although the statements and MEANINGs used in Quran mention a grammatical pattern, it wouldn’t be so in Arabic poems and texts. In Quranit is not going to introduce grammatical patterns, it was the cause and source of establishment of the science of grammar. So Quran is the base of grammar. This article focuses on the books such as “Ma’ani alnahv” by Fazel Al-samaraee , “nahv alQuran” by Abd alsattar Javari and “Men vahy alQuran” by Ebrahim samaraee which are written for the grammar of the Quran.

Criticising different MEANING theories, this paper aims to challenge the presupposition that “MEANING” is a constituent part of language so that communication among people requires sharing the same MEANING. In this paper, I will offer a critical review of three clusters of theories, i.e. referential, structurist and use approach to MEANING, to show that none succeeds in accounting for the above presupposition. Then, relying on a new interpretation of later Wittgenstein’s theory of language, I will explain why MEANING is a private matter and based on personal experiences, and communication among people is, not sharing MEANING, but a harmony in their lifestyles and behaviors.

The present paper deals with the concept of MEANING in translation. It first challenges the validity of the dominant reductionist techniques of MEANING analysis, i.e. componential and propositional analysis, and then studies the concept of MEANING in terms of the static and dynamic parts of MEANING. It assumes that all the target language versions of a given source text share the static part of MEANING to some extent, but differ in their interpretations of the source text and are open to further interpretations in the target language. The paper further concludes that this fact justifies the plurality and diversity of target language versions.

The paper addresses the main questions to be dealt with by any semantic theory which is committed to provide an explanation of how MEANING is possible. On one side the paper argues that the resources provided by the development of mathematical logic, theoretical computer science, cognitive psychology, and general linguistics in the 20th Century, however indispensable to investigate the structure of language, rely on the existence of end products in the morphogenesis of MEANING. On the other, the paper argues that philosophy of language, which, either in the analytic or the structuralist or the hermeneutical tradition, made little use of such resources (when they are not simply rejected). Left the main question unanswered. Though phenomenology intended to focus on the constitutive process, it ended up mostly with philology. Cognitive semantics paved the way to focus on patterns of bodily interaction within the natural environment out of which basic schemes emerge and are metaphorically "lifted" to any universe of discourse. The explanatory commitment is thus endorsed through two hypotheses: (1) these schemes, of topological and kinaesthetic structure, determine the range of forms of atomic sentences of any natural language, and (2) the category-theoretic notion of universality allows for a proper analysis of how such schemes are "lifted".

This article deals with the dilemma of man's expectations from the environment and the responsiveness of the environment to man's desires. Can we find harmony between these opposing forces? The important issue is to pursue our honorable goals, hopefully, in the expectation of finding every element of harmony we can in the relationship between ourselves and the rest of nature, rediscovering old harmonies and perhaps finding some new ones too. This study focuses on some sample studies such as the Kohala Coast on the island of Hawaii and Abbas Abad hills in Tehran, to clearly play the concepts of preference and affordance against each other and use the criteria for sustainability as a framework. It concludes that in interpreting nature man reeducates himself and in the process his value system changes. Therefore in the long run a new culture will emerge which is more in harmony with the natural processes.