Thesis Improvement Report
Researcher
Thesis Topic
Supervisor
Suggestions made by Dr Fauzia Janjua
# Suggestion
1. The main purpose of the work is not clear as on
page 07, it says that “The study has
endeavored to gauge that up to what extent
the narrative theory links Labov’s structure
model, assist or desist in understanding of
narrative whereas on page 11 it says “endeavor
to find Qur’anic narrative techniques with
reference to Surah Yusuf, so it is not clear that
either the theory was tested or applied. This
should be clarified.
2. There is a need to problematize the study in
the whole write up.
3. Sample of the study has not been identified
properly; at page 50, the number of
respondents is written as 25 and at page 51, it
is stated that ’More than fifty students
interacted, then at page 52 the number given is
50. Please fix the issue and give justification for
Furquan Ahmad
Narrative Structure of Surah Yusuf: A study
Through William Labov’s Model
Prof. Dr Rubina Kamran
External Examiner
Response
The researcher has tried to find out that
whether the narrative structure elements
delineated in Labov model aligns with the
narrative structure techniques employed in the
Surah and the researcher applied Labov model
on Surah and found that it helped in
understanding of the Surah.
The whole study revolves around the ‘purpose
statement’ that is bringing today’s youth to
Qur’an and its teachings and by arousing their
interest in the narratives of Qur’an with the
application of modern technique.
The researcher first tested the probability and
applicability of Labovian model on students of
English language and literature by first
conducting pilot study. For this purpose, the
researcher approached to the students of BS
English through his niece Aden Kafait. Due to
 the selection of only girls.
4. There are a number of typos and redundant
statements throughout the document. Please
look into it.
Name Prof. Dr. Raja Nasim Akhtar
Suggestions made by
Ser No Suggestion
1. Starting from the end, the Conclusion Recommendations made by the worthy
Chapter Is quite weak in that what it only
does is kind of restating which has been
done in previous chapters. That is, it does
not contribute to tie the loose ends and
present an overall overview of what has
been found out in the study.
For instance, a clear picture of what
students could do before their familiarity
with the Labov model and what difference
of level of understanding they acquired
after this has not been portrayed.
Secondly, what about those who reported
Covid 19 the IIUI was closed and researcher
had no option except gathering data through
Google app along with sending the relevant
explanatory material for the students through
class CR.
When the situation of the pandemic eased the
researcher approached IIUI through parent
University and conducted the study in two
sections of BS English boys’ Campus and
gathered the required data.
The matter is addressed and resolved.
Response
examiner have been inculcated in the draft.
The clear picture portrayed in comparative
analysis of pre and post Labovian model
discussion.
The question 4a of the questionnaire
deals with the point mentioned.
Similarly question 2b also addresses the
issue mentioned by the reverend examiner.
 that they were already (pre-Labov Model
state)?

But the study makes an across the board

claim that the enhancement in their level
of understanding stemmed from their
knowledge of narrative structure they
obtained after studying Labov.

2. There is lack of consistency and coherence The researcher has addressed the
among Problem Statement, Objectives and observation made by the worthy evaluator.
Outcome. Need to be reviewed for
alignment.

3. The work is poorly referenced, in particular The researcher has addressed the
in the Introduction Chapter the claims observation made by the worthy evaluator.
made need to be substantiated by
references.

4. A justification is required why a forty-eight The essential feature of William Labov

years old model is used. This required to be
updated in the light of works carried out
under this model incorporating their
insights.
5. There is a repetition of Literature Review,
part of Introduction Chapter (Section 1.5)
as well as a devoted chapter on it. The
model is that it is like a living organism
which kept on reviving with the passage of
time. The model firstly was conceived in
1967 along with the one of the comrades of
Labov named Waletzky. Afterword’s Labov
kept on adding and editing the model in the
subsequent years like 1972, 1997 and by
2013 Labov expanded it into a complete
book and Labov himself suggested to the
researcher through an email, the copy is
attached in the appendix.
The researcher has addressed the
observation made by the worthy evaluator.
 space can be utilized for strengthening
results and findings.
6. The Literature Review spends a lot of time
in reviewing studies conducted on the
structure of the Quran but then it goes to
be back burner. The researcher needs to
comment (in Conclusion may be) how the
structure of Surah Yusuf (dis)conforms to
the overall structure of the Quran; or it has
distinctive characteristics etc.
7. One of the major objectives of the study is
to determine the suitability of Labov 1972
model, whether it can adequately account
for the structure, has not been fully dealt
with. If this object is pursed faithfully, then
the study should spend enough time on
commenting which parts of Surah Yusuf
conform to the prescribed components and
which fall out of its purview, and if so, what
additional semantic roles they play in
making this revelation a unique linguistic
feat.
8. The Research Gap is given at the end of LR
One third part of Qur’an consists of
narratives; the researcher has mentioned
that the study had been conducted on the
same Surah by (Afsar, 2005) and Surah Al-
Kahf by (Bajwa, 2012) who addressed the
structure of the Surah and made the
analysis with semantic perspective and
found that every Surah may not have all
features as Labov himself of the opinion
that a narrative may not have all the six
schematic features. Whereas the
researcher has focused that how far
Labov’s model knowledge assists the
students in the comprehension of the Surah
and has enabled them to unravel the
hidden message in the Surah Yusuf.
It is not in the scope of the study, as it has
already been explored by Ayaz Afsar in his
study on Surah Yusuf, in which he has
identified the features in the surah, as
mention in the literature review. The
researcher taking the study as the platform
only focusses on the applicability of the
Labov model and its outcomes of the study.
The literature is reviewed keeping in view
 chapter, whereas the objectives have been
set in the First Chapter. Can’t we move it
prior to setting our objectives because the
latter is guided by the former.
the objectives of the study.
Relevant studies are discussed exhaustively
therefore the gaps in the studies are given
at end of the literature review after
discussion.

9. On page 81, the researcher claims: “The The researcher gathered the responses in
researcher has been successful in the pre and post stage questionnaire and
enhancing the interest of students in the after the analysis of the responses the
narratives of Quran like Surah Yusuf with researcher reached to the proclamation.
the help of developing the understanding
of the Lobov model”. How was this
measured?

Suggestions made in the viva examination

# Suggestion Response
1.
2.

Declaration of Incorporation of Changes

This is to affirm that I Furquan Ahmad have incorporated all the changes suggested by the examiners
and also the suggestions made during the viva-voce examination. I also declare that I have offered a
rebuttal wherever I have felt that the suggestion is not in line with my vision of the thesis and making
the suggested change will affect my work adversely. I realize that the department will exercise its
discretion to decide the matter in such cases and the decision will be acceptable to me.

__________________
Furquan Ahmad

Endorsement by the Supervisor

This is to certify that Furquan Ahmad worked under my supervision to incorporate the changes
suggested by the examiners in their reports, on the thesis documents and the viva-voce examination.

_________________
Supervisor
Prof. Dr Rubina Kamran