See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329915978

ARABIC LINGUISTICS AND SIBAWAIHI

Article · March 2011

CITATION READS

1 112

1 author:

Abdullah Samarah
Institute of Public Administration Jeddah Saudi Arabia
8 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Discourse Analysis and Sociolinguistics View project

Writing Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdullah Samarah on 26 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

ARABIC LINGUISTICS AND SIBAWAIHI

Abdullah Y. Samarah

Faculty of Social Sciences Under the Supervision and Guidance of the Department of English Language and
Literature Umm Al-Qura University (KSA)

1. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the present study is to discuss some of the important features of Arabic linguistics on the
one hand, and show the importance of one of the greatest grammarians in Arabia -"Sibawa#ihi"- on the other. My
study is mostly based on studies by Itkonen (1991), Savignac, Horsfield (1935: 270), and Grimme (1936: 90-5).

I will focus my present study on the following questions:

1. When did Arabic linguistics start?

2. Who were the most important Arabic linguists?
3. Who was the most famous figure and what did he achieve?
4. What were the most important sources for the Arabic linguists?
5. Finally, Have “Western linguists" really understood the role of Arabic linguistics in Arabia?

These questions have not been discussed enough in most of the articles I have seen, and I have found it
necessary and useful to give additional information (during my previous studies of Sibawaihi's own work) in order to
make the picture more complete in this area of historical studies.

2. INTRODUCTION

The only existing remnants from the most ancient texts in Arabic writing are three graffiti on the wall of the
Temple of Ramm in the Sinai and which have been dated to about 300 AD.
However, I would like to start by giving a short background of the history of the Arabic language.
First: Arabic is a Semitic language, and therefore one should begin by placing it in the context of other
Semitic languages. Semitic is divided into two large branches:
a) Eastern Semitic. Language of ancient Assyria. And Babylonia and written in cuneiform characters.
b) Western Semitic. After a period in which there were only dialects viz. Ugaritic, Amorite, and Eblaitic.
This branch was divided into two groups:
1. Northwest i.e. Canaanite, 2. Southwest i.e. North Arabic (the language that we deal with here) and
South Arabic i.e. Ancient Ethiopian. (Geez). Hebrew and Phoenician also belong to the same family.

3. CULTURAL FACTORS

From a historical point of view, there are two different groups of scientists to consider in the Middle East in
around 700 to 800 AD. The first group consists of Persian (Muslim) scientists, who have made great contributions
in many scientific fields, like for instance: Sibawaihi - one of the greate philologists in his time (the person that this
study mostly will be concerned with), Ibn Sina, the greatest philosopher, Al Razi , the greatest physician, Al
GHazali, the greatest theologician.
The second group was of Arabic (Muslims) origin as in the case of Al-Kindi, the significant Arabic
philosopher. Among his students are Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rush'd. All of them represented the Islamic faith
and qualified as Aristotelians.
Note: In addition to these groups, we could say that most of the philosophers from Arabia were affected
by Greek philosophers whose work they later transferred and adopted to serve their own needs for analysing
language, beliefs, and assumptions. One might say then that the Arabic scientists were affected by Aristotelian
philosophy in the scientific sense, but avoided parts of Greek philosophy that were in conflict with their faith.
Furthermore, I could add that the Arabs were affected by Indian culture as well two examples are:
1. Abdullah Ibn Al Muqaffac=. "Kahliila Wa Dumna" a collection of short and interesting fables for
education all purposes;
2. Arabic numerals. The Arabic numbers which are still in use in Arabia now

3.1. The Main Sources

There are three important sources that the Arabic linguists or laymen depend on for data in language
research. These sources are:

a) The Holy Quraa’-n. The most important work for the Arabic linguists acting as a normative ideal for
linguistic questions. It received much attention from linguists, poets, philosophers, etc. and it includes much
grammatical information which can be found by analysing the language into letter, word, phrase, and sentence. It
provided the linguists with arguments to discuss two main conflicting tendencies in language, analogy and
anomaly.

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 937
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

b) Prophetic Speech (= Al h4adit= Annabawi# as(s(ari#f) = [Al hadi#T Annabawi# ASSari#f] upon the
prophet's Mohammed (PBUH). This is the second source which the Arab depended on as a second choice if and
only if he did not find an answer in the first source (mentioned above). And this is a rich source:
1) [Al BoXaari] Albukhari, 2) and Muslim. They are the most famous novelists in this field, and there are
five others, who came after these two persons. These two writers were outstanding, being very careful by collecting
thousands of the oral prophecies, depending on very strict and precise rules for justifying their statements about
Mohammed's language.

c) Poetry. The poet was a very important man in the tribe; He was its spokesman in the defense of honor,
in praise and in satire.
- Praise. Is extolling the tribe, its chiefs, its ancestors, their recent and their generosity. (Al- madi)h+)
- Satire. Is (Al-hig(a #) satire of the tribe or, the enemy of tribes, in order to diminish them by using the
most biting, most cutting terms, that could tarnish or, diminish the enemy's honor, including also the most base
insults.
The character of the poet. A poet (male or female) has extraordinary knowledge (he is the [Saa÷ir]
s&haac=ir or, she is the [Saa÷iraH] s(hac=iraH, females are fewer than males) through contact with the world of
invisible powers and a familiar genius who inspires him (Ciulio Lepschy 1949). The poet had a very important social
role in the tribe and among the Arabs.
He was the journalist of his day, because every event, great or small, passed into poetry, and this was still
so in the Omayyad (166 - 750) period i.e. the period of the kharig#ite poets, who worked to exalt their sect (from
the same reference above). These sources made and still make Arabic a very rich language.

Additional information
As for Arabic poetry, in later years; Muslim philologists went to the tribes to collect Dawa#wi)n (collection
of poetry) by famous ancient poets from the reciters. i.e:

a) "The Famous Seven Poetry" (Al Zawzani. 1971).

b) "Al-As+mac=iyyat". ( Abdul Malik Al As+mac=i, who died in 216 /831.)

Note: This is only a brief account of the sources I have seen necessary to mention here to give the reader
a clear picture.

3.2. Some of Famous Linguists

- Al khaliil Al farahidi. The man who created and founded the "phonetics" as an independent science in
Arabic, in addition he is the teacher of Sibawaihi and many of the Arbic linguists in his time and after.
- Abo-c=amr ibn Al-c=alaa'. One of the famous linguists who contributed in putting the basic grammar of
the Arabic language before Sibawaihi's period in few years.
- Al-kisaie. The head of Al KofaH school, which has depended on the tradition and anomalies system.
- Ibn Jinni. The linguist who did a great efforts in "Arabic morphology", and his book "Al Xasaai’s" one of
the most value articles in this field.
- Ibn Maalik. The man who put a 95% of the Arabic grammar in a poet form which is still given at the
universities in advanced stages of studying Arabic linguistics
- Al-Faaraabi. He was one of a few persons who did a great efforts in many fields at the same time;
linguistics, philosophy, and music.
In this paper I will concentrate my studies on Sibawaihi, the head of Al-Basra school.

3.3. Introduction about Sibawaihi's Period

The first grammatical treatise of unquestionable authenticity is Sibawaihi's "Kita#b" (this title means 'the
book' or 'Sibawaihi's book') Sibawaihi's died in about 177(emigration date) / 798AD which is probably the first
attempt at a comprehensive and systematic description of the Arabic language at all levels: phonetics, phonology,
morphology, syntax, and semantics (Bohas, Guillaume, and Kouloughli p.1). Besides what has been said,
Sibawaihi had received his basic background from his great teacher, [Al Xhaliil] = Al Khaliil Al Farahidi. (the man
who had the biggest work of creating the metrics, phonetics, lexicology, and some of subjects related with syntax.
Besides Sibawaihi there are some famous schools which represented many grammatical concepts. I will divide
them, according to my opinion, of their importance as follows:

1. Al- Bas4raH. Sibawaihi's school. analogy system .

2. Al- KofaH. Al Kisaaie's school. anomaly system.
3. Al- baqdaadyyaH. (the between) school. analogy + anomaly.
4. Other groups. Who adopted different theories, but they are less important than the previous schools.
In the previous division, I suggested that the most influential school was Al Bas+riyyaH .

1. Al Bas4riyyaH= 40%
2. Al KofiyyaH= 30%
3. Al BaqdadiyyaH= 20%
4. Other groups= 10%

938 | www.ijar.lit.az
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

Note: the percentages given above are merely rough estimations but can be said to reflect the opinions of
myself in interpreting others who have studied the history of Arabic linguistics during the relevant period.

3.3.1 Sibawaihi's “Al Kitaab” = ‘The Book’

Sibawaihi's grammar, known simply as Al- Kita#b (=the book) is the oldest extant grammar of classical
Arabic. Sibawaihi is unanimously regarded not only as the founder of a great linguistic tradition, but also as its best
representative Itkonen (1991) has written that "Sibawaihi founded his grammatical system on the ground work of a
great linguistic tradition school of grammar".
Sibawaihi had to defend his views vigorously during his lifetime. "The Kita#b " was the object of a
continuous battle between Sibawaihi and his opponents. Later on, however, Sibawaihi became the unquestioned
authority, so much that The Kita#b can be described as " unique in Arabic grammar in the conscious novelty of its
approach" (Itkonen p. 290). John's translation of Kita#b (John, 1895 - 1900, in Lepschy 1994) was based on the
explicit statements of the grammarians themselves. Because of this it's true to say this view of Sibawaihi's place
within the development of A.G.T (Arabic Grammatical Theory) embodied in its most representative form.
The traditional interpretation of the Kitaab was a classical instance of husteron proteron, as it relied on the
explanations and, commentaries found in later treatises (peculiarly in the case of John, the
s&arh3 Al-Mufas+s+al . Carter, (in, Lepschy 1994) claimed: "if one made abstraction of these
commentaries and went back to the original text, the picture that emerged of Sibawaihi's system was massively
different from that of the later grammarians, which had come to be assimilated from the time of Silvestre de Sacy
(1831, in Lepschy 1994) with the whole Arabic tradition". But himself (op cit), in opposition to Carter points out:
"many Arabists don't accept the notion that the Kita#b reflects in any relevant way a basically different conception
of grammatical analysis from the classical grammarians".

4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The article of Giulio Lepschy ,1994 (on the history of linguistics) has given the best overview of the
beginning of Arabic and the pioneers, which had described this language and, played an important role in it. This is
also the view expressed by H. Fleiseh in the section of "Arabic Linguistics". His introduction was good by giving a
characterization of the Arabic language and of the situation in that pre-Islam area. Fleiseh has made a wide
analysis of Sibawaihi's "Kitaab" and some of the other linguists' articles, and compared these articles with
Sibawaihi's book. Fleiseh has mentioned also under "Greek influence" Verteegh (in Lepschy1994) a discussion
upon the question of Greek influence that Greek grammar was a model and a starting point for the Arab
grammarians. Fleiseh asks: how can Versteegh see a clear resemblance between Arabic and Greek grammar in
their categorization, when we can see that Arabic grammar adopts a tripartite division ( ism , fic=l , and h+arf ) =
‘noun’, ‘verb’, and ‘letter’, and that the Greek grammarians recognised those other parts of speech which have
come to us through the Latin grammarians? (there was a stage in Greek grammar when they recognized three part
of speech: onoma, rhema, and syndesmos. This is an interesting discussion I found important to include in this
study. On the other hand I have my own comments on his article too:

a) The phonetics of Arabic. He (Lepschy) didn't give it more attention, or even the creator of it "Al Xhalil
Ibn Ahmed Al Farahidi "and he mentioned only his article name "Al c=än ".
b) After the introduction Lepschy, spoke about poetry before: "Quraa’-n" and “Oral Prophetic" and this
order of presentation was rejected by the majority of linguists (or the ordinary) people in Arabia, because these two
sources are represented the highest level of this language (Arabic).
c) Lepschy did not mention anything about "Oral Prophetic" and we have given an explanation of the
importance of these sources.
d) Under the Grammarians section; Lepschy didn't mention anything of Sibawaihi's teacher, "Al Xhalil".
e) Corresponding to Lepschy's claim that the Arab preferred the tradition, he happened to give an
example of one of the worst poets, Abo Nawwas, in terms of personal behaviour. Lepschy should have mentioned
instead some of the poets who deserve to be recognized.
Finally, I would like to say that Lepschy's article (Lepschy's 1994:166-180) has given brief and useful
information, even if it is concerned with only one linguist, Sibawaihi .
Esa Itkonen, in his book (Universal History of Linguistics, Section of Arabia) has concentrated also on
Sibawaihi very much. And under the "general characteristics of the Arab linguistic tradition, he has given a wide
investigation about Sibawaihi's book on the one hand and comparing it with Pani)ni (the Indian linguist) on the
other. Also in the section of "the cultural aspect of the Arabic syntactic theory" he has given an explanation by
showing a model of the basic phenomena which the Arabic grammarians were struck by, and which they found to
be in need of explanation, namely Nominal inflection.
I would now like to mention some of Itkonen's claims and then give my comments or, replies to his claims.
a) Itkonen:126, claimed that all of the elements of the Arabic sciences came originally from Persians
without exception. And very few from India.

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 939
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

Table. 1. Symbols for Arabic in Phonetic, Latin, and Standard Script

Phonological Rep Latin Character Standard Symbols

[÷] a the character c=

[X] kh the character h

[h] h the character h3

[dZ]/[j] j the character g(

[T] t the character t=

[D] th the character d=

[S] sh/ch the character s(

[/] a the character a

[“] q/g the character g#

[q] q the character q

[z] z the character z4

[d] d the character d3

[s] s the character s4

First comment:
I think Itkonen has made an unjustified claim. The Arabs, as any nation, were affected by others, but not in
all respects, and they have by themselves developed and improved these sciences as much as possible, otherwise
how could you explain the huge institutes during the "Islam domains" in Bagdad Damascus, Ciro, Al-Qairawan,
Morocco, and Andaluwsia?! I think it will be very difficult to believe that all of the teachers in these areas were non-
Arabs and their sciences too!

b) Itkonen claimed also that the interest of most linguists are concerned very much in problems like, the
creation of the Quraa’-n, and have spent long time dealing with it p.127.

Second comment:
As I have mentioned before that the Quraa’-n constituted, and still does, a major and the largest data
source for the Arab (or non-Arab who learned the Arabic) from many sides, syntactically, semantically, etc, but this
does not mean that their effort was only concentrated on the creation of Quraa’-n. Their interest was not restricted
to linguistic matters, but they also discussed religious points of view.

c) One should observe that Itkonen has given more concern to the Analogies school .

Third comment:
Itkonen has missed some important points. Because the other main two schools are not less important
than the analogies school (Sibawaihi's school), and still nowadays many people adhere to the other schools like: Al
KufyyaH, and Al Bag#dadiyyaH.

d) Another observation is that Itkonen did not pay any interest to Sibawaihi's teacher: Al Xhalil the man
who educated Sibawaihi.

Fourth comment:
I don't know why most of these articles (Western especially) did not pay attention to his teacher "Al-
Farahidi " who namely as "the intelligent father" in Arabia who did not neglect him and his work also, and I think this
neglect is repeated over and over in new papers too. On the other hand I think maybe because there is so little
information (Western linguists have not understood the importance of this linguist, but Arabic linguists do) about
"Al-Farahi#di" that the scientists in the Western countries do not know, or concentrate on this linguist.

e) Itkonen has done an explicit and long comparison between Sibawaihi and Pani)ni (the Indian linguist)
in his paper.

940 | www.ijar.lit.az
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

Fifth comment:
Even if there is a similarity between Panini and Sibawaihi it does not mean that he (Itkonen) has to make
a very wide comparison between these two linguists. My view is that under this section of Arabia; Itkonen could
give some examples, and or a simple comparison, but not give it a big part of "Arabia section" in his book.
The article of G.Bohas, J. P.Guillaume, and D. E. Kouloughli" (On The Arabic linguistic Tradition) is the
third book I would like to discuss which has given me a little approach under "the early grammatical thinking to the
end of the second - eighth century" from a brief review of Sibawaihi's book(p:1) from the historical point of view.
The other section which they have written was termed "Sibawaihi's Kita#b : an enunciative approach to syntax"
which was very helpful on the following point:
A brief idea about Sibawaihi's book, and his translation, as well as it's place in Europe among the linguists.
This article includes a huge quantity of Arabic tradition from linguistic tradition, but does not include many of the
linguists from Arabia. It accounts for a several kinds of art (poetry, rhetoric, etc) without mentioning the leading
persons (the heads of these arts).

5. SIBAWAIHI'S THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES IN LINGUISTICS

Sibawaihi's had described the Arabic grammar particularly, and some of writers have discussed
Sibawaihi's hypotheses and theories in details like,

(Itkonen 1991):

1. "Sibawaihi achieved his purpose, namely to account for all the phenomena of Arabic which have
caused the apparent fossilization of language" (Itkonen has borrowed this terminology from Carter 1968).
In my point of view that Sibawaihi's book "Al-kitaab" was to describe the Arabic language, and this is
surprising to me because I have another information.

2. Sibawaihi has described the linguistic facts at "two levels":

a) of form. / b) of action (or operation). And his successors retained only the level of from.

3. Sibawaihi has used the examples from "Holly Quraa’-n" in order to support his work, (or the other
sources i.e., Mohammed (PBUH) prophetic speeches, and poetry), he has no systematic interest in the "Quraa’-n"
as a religious source but his interest was in the value of grammar which is expressed in the Quraa’-n.

4. Sibawaihi's grammar was taken to be an intellectual achievement, which transcended the bound at
linguistics, and acquired the general validity.
5. Sibawaihi discovered the formal structure of Classical Arabic in a way that was to remain more of less
definitive. At the same time he retained his predecessors interest in the Speaker - Hearer interaction. He
conceptualized this situation in the following way:

a) First. The behavior of the speaker.

b) Second. The 'behavior' of the words spoken by the speaker.

* And both of these two types of behaviors proceeded in parallel.

As noted above, Sibawaihi views sentences as being uttered in a speech situation which contains both the
speaker and the hearer, or more precisely the speaker's responsibilities and the hearer's expectations (Carter
1968: 239-242).
Itkonen added, questions and commands have an obvious reference to the hearer; indeed, it would be
rather absurd to view them as 'monological' speech acts, and to view the corresponding sentences as part of a
'monological' or 'non-functional' linguistic capacity. Now Sibawaihi manages to show that also statements, and the
corresponding sentences have a reference to the hearer, namely by conceptualizing them as answers to questions
which the hearer could have asked (pp. 245-246). Or in Sibawaihi's own words:

"This is how we speak, even if the listener does not ask out loud,
because what you say follows the extent of the questions he might
pose if he were to ask you".

Sibawaihi pushes his 'interactional' view of language so far as to regard the structure of nominal sentence
as motivated by communicative considerations. What the speaker has mentioned is the topic, which is known to
the hearer, the latter's expectations have been aroused, and then the speaker simply must add the comment. To
quote:

"And that is, as far as the person spoken to expects and anticipates, one of those cases where the
speaker has no choice but to mention the predicate to the listener, because if you start with a noun you
have only done so for the sake of what follows, and if you make an initial term you are obliged to mention
something after the initial term, otherwise what you say will be corrupt and not allowed" (P. 249).

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 941
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

5.1. The Analysis of Tense in the [Kitaab] = ‘Book’

I am going to mention and exemplify the most important tenses treated by "Sibawaihi" as a demonstration
of his work, in the famous Kita#b.

(Lepschy 1994):

Lepschy has translated the grammatical terms from Arabic into English in surprising ways. I will comment
on this in the sections below.

5.1.1 The Perfect Tense: (al-maad3i#) = ‘past’

Lepschy has termed this tense as "The perfect tense"!.
The term al-maad3i) means 'past tense' in Arabic.
In the case of the third person; he sawad+amai)r in the perfect tense suffixes: t a#'. The sentences below
can be translated roughly as 'NP+ did' in English.

a) female sing = fac=al- t i = 'she did' (breaking voc,)

b) female plur = fac=aln- a = 'they did' (opening voc,)
c) male sing = fac=al- t a# = 'you did' (opening voc,)
d) male plur = fac=al- u#. = 'they did' (gathering voc,)
e) two duals = M. fac=al- a# / F. fac=ala-t a#. ='they, you did'. (opening
vocalization)

Note, the term "voc," stands for "vocalization" which are three types in Arabic laguage: opening = a#,
gathering = u#, and breaking = i#.
The fat h+ it receives is the only result of the lack of similarity of the maad+i to the noun.

5.1.2. The Imperfect Tense: [al-mud3aari÷] = ‘Present’

Again Lepschy has used the term "Imperfect tense" referring to the present simple tense here !.
The term al-mud3aaric= means 'present simple tense' in Arabic.
The imperfect is full of complications in the analysis of the Arab grammarians. The sentences below can
be translated into English as
'NP does'.
a) a - fc=al - u =1 st sing : Ziyadah of alif.= 'I do' (gathering voc,)
[af÷alu]
b) na - fc=al - u =1 st plur : Ziyadah of nu#n.= 'we do' (gathering voc,)
[naf÷alu]
c) ta - fc=al - u =2 nd M.sing: Ziyadah of t a#.= 'she, does or,you do'
[taf÷alu] (gathering voc,)
d) ya - fc=al - u =3 rd M.sing : Ziyadah of y a#.= 'he, does'
[yaf÷alu] (gathering voc,)

The final vowel - U belongs to the ic=rab [i÷raab] 'inflection'. As for the prefixes (alif, nu#n , ta# , and ya# )
and Sibawaihi had done agood work when he had formalized these achievements, they are called the four
Zawa#i)d (non radical consonants). They are ancient elements in the grammatical tradition: they are found already
in the Kita#b 'book' by Sibawaihi, they are considered a peculiarity of the mud+aric=, [mudari÷] 'present' which
receives them in the initial position.

5.1.3. The Energetic Mood [altawkiid] = ‘Emphatic’

The so-called energetic mood (which would better be called ‘emphatic’) is formed on the past, but it has
been seen by the Arab grammarians as a particle; a h+arf , the nu#n at - tawkid (n of emphasis). For this reason
they tackle the energetic mood in the section containing the particle. In front of this nu#n (which may be XafifaH =
'light' (-n) or TaqiilaH = 'heavy' (-nna) the verb is mabni c=ala l- fath+ = 'constructed on the opening', on the other
hand the expression 'mabni' describes a word having no ic=rab = 'part of speech' syntactically determined u - i or a
consonant, and is said to be mabni c=ala l -fat h+ / = 'opening', or l - d+amm / = 'gathering', or l - kasr / = 'breaking',
or l- sukun. =' rest'.
The example yafc=al [yaf÷al] = 'he does' is usually translated into English as: 'NP + tense + really do'.

5.1.4. The Imperative: (al-a?mr) = ‘Imperative’

Sibawaihi had divided the imperative into:
nd
1. i’fc=al [if÷al]= 'you do!' 2 person sing, (opening vocalization)
nd
2. i’fc=il [if÷il]= 'you do!' 2 ]person sing, (breaking vocalization)
nd
3. u’fc=ul [uf÷ul]= 'you do!' 2 person sing, (gathering vacalization)

Note, all these three expressions are used in the rest of the pronouns too.
On the other hand all of these basic expression of imperatives mood are mabni c=ala ssukun. =
'constructed on the rest'. This analysis became part of the doctrine of the grammarians in Bas+raH. Grammarians
in Bas+raH argued from two fundamental principles:

942 | www.ijar.lit.az
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

1. The base (al - as+l) in verbs in that they should be mabinyyaH. This principle says that the consonant
phonemes in the verb root have a fixed order.

2. The base (al–a’s+l) in the bina# is that it should be c=ala s-sukun. And they have defended the
autonomy of imperatives against a grammarians from Ku#faH. The imperative (which is mabni c=ala s-sukuwn) is
specific to the second person M.sing = ifc=al, ifc=il, and ufc=ul . The other persons second F.sing, F. plural, dual
receive a suffix respectively = i) , -na) ,u# , and- a# , pronoun as earlier in the case of ya# in tafc=ali - na, in fac=al-
na, yafc=al-na ,wa#w in fac#al -u# , yafc=alu# - na, tafc=al-u#-na. It is appropriate to view it from the Arab point of
view as before bina# of the verb before nu#n (na ), ic=rab with the other three: i) , u# , and a#..
The example ifc=al in Arabic means in English 'do!'.

5.2. Sibawaihi's Hypotheses in his Kitaab = ’The Book'

Below I will give an comment of some of the hypotheses which according to G. Bohas, J. Guillaume, and
P. Kouloughli can be found in Sibawaihi's Kitaab G. Bohas, J. Guillaume, and P. Kouloughli at all claim that
Sibawaihi's aim of these hypotheses was only to provide the reader with some general information about several
basic descriptive concepts and, devices of grammar, and not to state formally what grammar is.
According to Sibawaihi's hypotheses are;

1. Typologically, linguistic grammatical systems can be divided into two rough classes: On the one hand,
those which analyse utterances in terms of formal relationships between their components; on the other hand,
those which analyse them in terms of operations performed by the speaker in order to achieve a specific effect on
the addressee.

2. Sibawaihi's analysis consists in constructing a family of utterances which correspond more or less to
the same global meaning. i.e. the speaker says that he believes that "Zayd" has gone away, although he isn't quite
sure about it.
3. There are new operations which have to be performed in order to give the utterance its definitive form;
these operations related to the word order are traditionally called: "taqdi)m , and wa - ta'Xir " = (ante-position and,
postposition). Sibawaihi's analysis of the semantic aspects of such operations is somewhat perfunctory, he
stresses that [the speakers] antepose what they consider most important for them to make clear and what is most
necessary for them to express.

4. Sibawaihi uses a subtle and sometimes elusively graduated scale of values in order to express
judgements about utterances.
5. According to Sibawaihi; the utterance consists minimally of two elements, not more these elements
being either a (nominal) theme and a predicate, or a verb, and a noun (which is, in the simplest case, the subject).

Note: adding to what has been mentioned, these are only some of Sibawaihi's hypotheses.

6. THE CONCLUSION

I will first make some comments, I have seen it necessary to add to the present study. If someone tried to
investigate some special cases in i.e., Arabic syntax, he/she may find a lot of hard struggles between the different
schools, and linguists, and it might be these struggles had solved problems in this field (syntax), but in my view
these fights (between the grammarians in Arabia) have two results:

a) Through their investigation these grammarians wasted time sometimes (with the question whether the
verb or the infinitive - understood as a nominal expression - was the basic expression in language);

b) Giving the language description richer information from different sides; grammatically, phonetically,
semantically, etc. because each group wanted to support their work, by giving more evidence, etc. then the
language description became richer.

Now I will try to answer the five questions I introduced in the beginning of the present study.

1. The first question concerned the beginning of Arabic linguistics. Since we have said that the Islam
started 1415 EM (emigration of Mohammed), and the Quraa’-n had been written after this period in very few years,
then we may assume that linguistics as an academic discipline, appeared in Damascus (during Ommayad's
domains) which means around 1350 years ago which is about 645 AD.

2. Concerning the second question. The names of some of the most important Arab linguists are: Al-Xhalil
Al-Faraahidi, Abo-c=amr ibn Al-c=ala’, Al-kisaie, Ibn Jinni, Sibawaihi, Ibn Malik, Al-Faaraabi etc.
The main schools which had influence in this period are: Al-BasriyyaH, Al-KufiyyaH, Al-Bag#dadiyyaH,
and some of the other schools which are less important than the schools mentioned above.

3. The third question tries to identify the leading figure. Undoubtedly this was Sibawaihi. His main
achievements were in the field of syntax.

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 943
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 2. March, 2011, Part III

4. Fourth, the basic data sources which they depended on in order to support their claims are three in
number: The Holy Quraa’-n, The Oral Prophetic (upon Mohammed PBUH), and Poetry (mainly pre-Islamic time
and to some extent after Islamic era).

Why did not the Arabic linguists concern themselves with their own language problems instead of creating
some of these complicated examples and using them in theoretical battles? Certainly, they did so in order to
support their claims as far as possible. But the point here is that such types of battle between the grammarians
(and their students too) did come gradually. These battles started when the grammarians began to study the Arabic
language in use (in speech and writing). Obviously, this kind of Arabic differs from the Arabic used in the Holy
Quraa’-n.
Their analyses in both Quraa’-n, and ordinary language became more complicated.

5. Fifth, the Western linguists were ignorant of both Arabic linguistics and Arabic linguists. Because they
were concerned with a very few linguists in order to explain the tradition of the Arabic linguistics, and on the other
hand they did not know how to deal with the main sources of the Arabic language.
Finally, Sibawaihi, was creating and adopting very important theories, and his style was very well known
and acceptable too, as well as easier than many of the previous grammarians and also his successors in Arabic
linguistics.
I realize that to include all of Sibawaihi's work and/or the Arab grammarians productions is very hard, but I
have done my best to collect the main ideas as far as I could in order to show a clear picture to the reader, or the
listener. I hope that I have made a useful historical review of this area, and to have succeeded by giving a good
idea about one of the greatest linguists in Arabia i.e., "Sibawaihi".

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I direct my special thanks and gratitude to the department of English language at Umm Al-Qura
University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who has supported me in order to formulate my paper in to the best
form.
As well as, my grateful thanks to Dr. Ammen Fatani for his unstop/continuous encourage to submit the
present research in order to enrich the academic researches in this field of studies. All were under the command
and the umbrella of Umm Al-Qura University.

My special thanks to my family and parents whose their prayers and spiritual support plays central role to
achieve the present research.

REFERENCES

1. Lepschy, G.(1994) History of Linguistics volume 1. The Eastern Traditions of Linguistics.

Longman London and New York.
2. Savignac, M.-R, Horsfield, G. (1935) Le temple de Ramma, Revue Biblique, 44,245-78. In
Lepschy (1994)
3. Grimme, H (1936) A Props de quelques graffites du temple de Ramm, Revue Biblique, 45,90-5.
In Lepschy (1994)
4. Itkonen, E. (1991) Universal History of Linguistics Arabia. volume 65. (University of Ottawa).
John Benjamins Publishing company.
5. Bohas, G. Cuillaume, J.- P, and Kouloughli, D.E. (1990). The Arabic Linguistics Tradition. Printed
in Great Britain by, Biddles Ltd, Guildford.
6. Al-Zawzany,H. (1971), Explicit Of The Most famous Seven Poetry. Egyptian house for printing.
Egypt.

944 | www.ijar.lit.az

View publication stats