Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Arabic Linguistic Tradition

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 1C8UBLA
    131 views20 pages
    arabic linguistic tradition

    Original Title

    arabic linguistic tradition

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    arabic linguistic tradition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    131 views20 pages

    Arabic Linguistic Tradition

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 1C8UBLA
    arabic linguistic tradition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 20
    Arabic Linguistic Tradition Ramzi Baalbaki The Oxford Handbook of Arabie Linguistics Ezlted by Jonathan Owens jahw and sarf Print Publication Date: Sep 2013, ‘Subject Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Dec DOI: 10.108dioxtordhtve7 80199764 196, 013.0005, 2019 Abstract and Keywords ‘The Arabic linguistic tradition (also termed Arabic grammatical tradition) is the most extensive among the Arabic linguistic sciences. This article focuses on the two major branches of the grammatical tradition: nahw (which refers ‘to granvmar in general but more specifically to syntax); and sart (morphology). Sectons of the article cover early grammar and the origins of the grammatical theory, early works and Sibawayhi's Kitaab, grammar fromthe 3rd/3th century onward, and the study of morphology in the Arabic linguistic tradition Keywords: Arabic Ingusti, grammatical radon, syntax, grammar, nahw, sar, morphoony 5.1 Introduction 1we Arabic linguistic tradition (ALT, also termed Arabic grammatical tradition) is certainly the most extensive among the Arabic linguistic sciences. Although the distinction between the two groups referred to as lugawiyyin and nabwiyyan is often artificial and sirrplistic, as in Zubaydi’s (d. 379/989) Tabagat al-nahwiyyin wa-I-lugawiyyin, the first group largely refers to philologists or lexicographers who, as of the 2nd/Bth century, were concerned with Collecting linguistic data and exploring the meaning of words in garib (strange usage) material and dialectal variants. This trend in linguistic study, which has surely contributed to the early appearance of lexicons as well as lexical collections based on subject rather than root (e.9., plants, animals, human body organs, weapons, natural phenomena; [Sara, “Classical Lexicography"]), survived in works such as af-Sahibt by Ibn Faris (d. 395/104), al- ‘Muhagsas by Ibn Sida (4. 458/106), and as late as the 10th century al-Muzhir by Suydtt (4. 911/1505). In contrast, the term nahwiyyan refers to the grammarians par excellence, that s, scholars whose interest mainly lies in the realm of syntax, morphology (including morphophonology), and, to a lesser extent, phonetics. A third group of scholars is known as the balagiyydn (rhetoricians, [Larcher, “ALT Il"). In spite of the great affinity between their discipline and grammar so much that one of their most prominent authors, Gurgant (d. 471/1078), bases his whole theory of word order and semantic and syntactic interrelationships (L.e., nazm) on the meanings that nahw provides (Dalai! 64, 176, 282, 310, 403-404), the approach of the balagiyydn to linguistic analysis and their subject matter differ significant from those of the nahwiyyan (Baalbaki 1983). To the exclusion of the fields of philology, lexicography, and rhetoric, this chapter deals with the two major branches of the grammatical tradition, namely, nahw (which refers to grammar in general but more specifically to syntax) and sarf (morphology). 5.2 Early Grammar and the Origins of the Grammatical Theory Most biographical sources attribute the founding of Arabic grarmmar to AbG LAswad al-Du'all(d. 69/688). Other early figures credited with laying the foundations of granvrar include Nassr b. ‘Asim (d. 89/708) and ‘ Abdalrahman b. Hurmuz (4. 117/735) (Stafl, Abbar 13; Zubaydf, Tabagat 21-27). But although these reports and the anecdotal ‘material related to them can in no way be substantiated, they serve to highlight the link between early grammatical Arabic Linguistic Tradition | activity and the need to attend to the “corruption” of speech (/ahn) that was blamed on nonnative speakers of Arabic as a result of the futuhat (conquests). Furthermore, the subjects that were claimed to have captured the Interest of these early scholars, namely, the three parts of speech and the particles that govern nouns and verbs, are strongly connected with /ahn and argue that early grammatical activity aimed primarily at adherence to “correct” usage and avoidance of error, An oft cited anecdote, for instance, has it that what prompted AbU F ‘Aswad to author a book (wada‘a kit&ban) on grammar is that his daughter addressed him by saying a ma aSadd-u Pharr what EL-severer-NOM —_DEF-heat-GEN “What type of hot weather is most severe”? In fact, she wanted to exclaim over the hotness of the weather and should have used the exclamatory phrase: @ agadd-a barca what EL-besevere DEF-heat ACC “How hot itis!” (Stra, Abbar 19; cf. Zubaydt, Tabaqat 21). At this stage itis clear that there was no real distinction between the various linguistic disciplines and that early interest in syntax and morphology was strongly related to other areas of Islamic scholarship and, in particular, the gira’at (Quranic readings), hadit (prophetic tradition), igh (jurisprudence), and tafsir (exegesis). itis noteworthy that most of the grammarians before Sibawayhi were readers (qurra') and that many of them narrated hadit or were formally trained in it (Baalbaki 2008: 5). Stbawayhi (d. 180/796) himself comments on several qird’at in his Kitab, and, according to the biographical sources, an error he made in reciting a hadit prompted himto seek a discipline that would guard against linguistic error, hence his pursuit of grammar and subsequent authorship of the Kitab (Zubaydi, Tabagat 66; lon al-Anbar, Nuzha 54-55). But itis the influence of fgh and tafSir on nahw that has largely occupied scholars in the last few decades. Carter (1972) advanced the theory that the origins of Arabic grammar can be traced in the Islamic science of law and that “grammar has no meaning if it cannot be related to the practicalities either of Islamic doctrine or the power and influence of the grammarians in Islamic society” (Carter 1991: 9), His most compelling argumentis that Stbawayhi's criteria of linguistic correctness are expressed by ethical terms such as hasan (good) and mustagim (right) and that a host of grammatical terms such as badal (substitute), Sart (condition), hadd (limit), as! (origin), and niyya (intention) can best be understood in the light of their employment in legal contexts. Carter's "legal thesis” contributes significantly to our understanding of the interrelatedness of grammar and law, butt should be pointed out that the grammatical terms he cites are predominantly methodological terms rather than categorical ones (cf. Versteegh 1993: 35) Further clarfication of the origins of grammatical terminology may be sought in the earliest extant Quranic commentaries. in this respect, Versteegh (1993: 196-197) demonstrates how several terms used by early exegetes constitute the link between everyday vocabulary and the later technical terminology. Examples include habar (predicate), na't (attribute), madi (past tense), ism (noun), istifham (question), taaggub (admiration), and ‘idmar (deletion). It should be borne in mind, however, that our knowledge of the terrrinological situation of early grammar is quite lirited, Baalbaki (2006), for example, discusses the set of previously unknown outlandish morphological terms that Mu'addib, a 4th-century grammarian, uses in his Daga'iq al-tasrif and argues that they belong to an earlier period. Whether or not these terms are peculiar to a group of scholars whose main preoccupation was morphological ‘ial (causes) remains an open question. Butitis certain that a better Arabic Linguistic Tradition | Understanding of early grammatical terminology—hopefully with the emergence of hitherto unknown texts such as Mu'addib's—would have huge implications on our reconstruction of the beginning of grammatical activity, as many of the assumptions related to various aspects of early grammar (e.9., the Basran-Kufan polarization) rely heavily fon our present knowledge of early terminology. ‘Theories that ascribe the genesis of Arabic grammar to foreign influence also rely in part on terminological evidence, Merx (1889) argues that Arabic grammar is based on the Greek model that was available to the Arabs In tvanslation of Greek treatises. He thus traces the terms for the three parts of speech, ism (noun), fi (verb), and harf (particle) to énoma, rhéma, and stindesmos, respectively, and he links /'rab (declension) and habar (predicate) to hellénizein/hellénismés and katégoroimenon, respectively. According to Rundgren (1976), several basic grammatical terms, including nahw, sarf, and qiyas, are direct translations of Greek terms or are inspired by Greek notions, The “Greek thesis" was harshly attacked by a number of scholars, most notably Carter, who convincingly argues that the absence of any reference to foreign influences in the indigenous accounts of Arabic grammar is a major flaw in the theory (Carter 1972: 72). Versteegh (1993: 25) proposes the possibilty that the Arabs only borrowed some of the elements of Greek grammatical teaching since they “became acquainted with Hellenistic culture and scholarship in a watered down version as it was being taught in schools all aver the Byzantine ermpire.” As far as terminology is concerned, Troupeau (1981) demonstrates that, based on Ibn al- Mugaffa’’s (d. 142/75) epitome of the Hermeneutics, there Is no conformity between primitive Arabic grammatical terminology and terminology of Greek lagic. In short, atternpts to trace the emergence of Arabic grammar to foreign influence, be it Greek, Syriac, or Indian, have shown the existence of interesting parallels in terminology and grammatical categories between Arabic grammar and foreign traditions but have largely failed to demonstrate the existence of massive borrowing from foreign sources in the early period. That certain terms and notions might have been borrowed from other traditions is of relatively litle importance given that the distinctive characteristics of the ALT—including its essential terminology of syntactic position and its fundamental notions of dependency, hierarchy, suppletive insertion (tad), and eriginal form or pattern (asl)— argue for predominantly native origins. Most of our primary knowledge about the pre-Stbawayhi grammarians comes from the Kitab itself. Sibawayhi makes no reference to the early figures who later biographical sources credit with the establishment of grammar (.e., Abi Aswad and his contemporaries). He quotes, however, the views of several later authorities who were either his predecessors or his contemporaries. ‘Abdallah b. Abt Ishaq (d. 117/735) is quoted 7 times, ‘isa b. ‘Umar (d 149/766) 20 times, AbU ‘Amr b. ak ‘AIS’ (d. 154/770) 57 times, and AbG Hattab al-Ahfas al-Kabir (d.177/793) $8 times. But the two scholars who had the greatest impact on Stbawayhi were Yunus b. Habib (d. 182/798) and al- Hall b. Ahmad (d. 175/791). Infact, a note found in a copy of the Kitab derived from Harlin b. Mus (d. 401/1010) suggests, contrary to the biographical sources, that YGnus and al-Halil were the only two “real” teachers of Sibawayhi (wa-mu'allima Stbawayhi |-Halll wa-YGnus; cf. Humeert 1995: 9). Yunus is quoted 217 times in the Kitab. From these, it's clear that he had a sophisticated system of grarrmatical analysis whose main features include (1) extensive use of tagdir as an analytcal tool, (2) formulation of grammatical “rules” of universal validity, (3) reliance on anomalous examples in drawing conclusions or formulating “rules,” and (4) description of usage by employing terms that are characteristic of Sibawayhi’s appraisal of his own data, such as gabih (ugly), qalil (infrequent), habit (repugnant), katir (frequent), and wa[001]h (correct or better usage) (Baalbaki 1995: 126-129, 2008: 14-16). For his part, al- Halll was Sibawayh's principal and most influential teacher. There are 608 references to al- Halll in the Kitb, and the amount of data that Sibawayhi reports on his authority is overwhelming indeed. Accordingly, itis practically impossible to exarrine the terminology and analytical tools and methods of elther Sibawayhi or al-Halllin isolation of one another. Al-Hali’s immense influence on Stbawayhiis highlighted in the tradition. ALFabr al-Razi (d. 606/1210), for example, on the authority of Suydtiligtirah 205-206), is reported to have written that Stbawayhi put together (gama‘a) in his book the data (‘uldm, lit. sciences) that he derived (istafadaha) from al- Hall Stbawayhi also mentons 21 times an anonymous group to which he refers as nahwiyyun. Views differ widely as to the exact meaning of the term (cf. Carter 1972: 76; Talmon 1982), but tis obvious that Stbawayhi almost invariably criticizes their views and at times even the views of Yunus when he sides with them. The reason for this is most probably that he disapproves of their speculative approach and their keen interest in creating hypothetical forms and constructions that do not occur in speech in spite of their resemblance to attested usage. This may be corroborated by the fact that in his Kitab al-‘Ayn al-Halll mentions a similarly anonymous group of scholars whom he calls nabdrir (pl of nifrir, skilful or learned) and whom he explicitly accuses of creating words that do conform Arabic Linguistic Tradition | to Arabic word composition and patterns but that are neologisms that are not perrrissible (/é tagdz) in actual usage (Baalbaki 2008: 20). 5.3 Early Works and Sibawayhi's Kitab Itis evident that the Kitab does not emerge froma vacuum but rather builds on previous grammatical activity that Sibawayhi himself, let alone the later sources, refer to. Sibawayhi's contemporaries as of the second half of the 2nd/8th century until the early 3rd/3th century (such as Asma ‘i, who is quoted in the Kitab and died in 216/831 at the ripe age of 91) are reported in the biographical sources to have tirelessly collected linguistic data from the Bedouin—2 process known as Gam’ al-luga “collection of variants.” There are no reports that Sibawayhi himself made any journey to the desert for data collection from the Bedouin, but his frequent references to them in statements like sami‘nd J-‘Arab (we heard the Arabs) or min afwah al-'Arab (from the mouths of the Arabs) strongly indicate that he had direct contact with native speakers whomhe regarded as the ultimate source of the data he seeks, that is, kaldm al-'Arab (speech of the Arabs). Unlike the Kitab, the extant sources authored by Sibawayhi's, contemporaries mainly belong to the lexicographical tradition but incidentally touch upon grarrmatical issues. ‘These sources include the two root-based lexica by al- Hall, Kitab al-/Ayn, and by Abi ‘Ame al-Saybani (d. 206/821), Kitab al-Gim, and the thematically arranged lexicon of Abd ‘Ubayd al-asim b. Sallam (d. 224/838), al- Garib al-Musannat. In addition to several less extensive works on various aspects of lexicography—such as abn al-'mma (common errors), addad (words with two contrary meanings), istiqaq (derivation particularly of proper nouns), nawédir (rare usage), and amt! (proverbs)—two groups of books deserve special attention (cf. Baalbaki 2008: 26). The first of these are three linguistically oriented exegetical works that include a sizable body of grammatical material. These are Farra'’s (d. 207/822) Ma‘ani /-Qur’an, Aba ‘Ubayda Ma'mar b. al-Mutanna’s (d, 209/824) Magiz al-Qur’n, and a-Abfaé al-Awsat’s (d. 215/830) Ma‘Sni /-Qur’ &n. Being Quranic commentaries, these works are structurally different from the Kita since their grammatical content is determined by the text they interpret, none of them offering a comprehensive and systematic study of grammar. The second group comprises two grammatical works attributed to contemporaries of Sibawayhi's. The frst, titled af-Gumal ff -Nahwy, is erroneously attributed to al- Halil, whereas its real author is most probably tbn Sugayr (d. 317/929), as Tandbi (d. 4442/1050) asserts (Térih 48). The other ttle is Mugaddima fe I-Nafwr, and its attribution to Halaf alAhmar (d, 180/796) is extremely doubtful and is not supported by the later grammatical or biographical sources, Even more doubtul is the attribution of grammatical works to pre-Sibawayhi grammarians, such as Sarh al-‘ilal to ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abi Ishaq and /kmal and Gami"to Isa b. ‘Umar, One can safely conclude that the Kitab is the first unquestionably authentic book on Arabic grammar. Whether its approach represents a departure from earlier grammar is open to question. Talmon (2003) compares the grammatical teaching of al-Halil and Stbawayhi with the extra-kitabian linguistically oriented sources of the 2nd/ath and 3ra/Sth centuries and concludes that the two grammarians considered their teaching distinct from the main grammatical theory up to their time. He calls this theory “The Old Iraqi School of Grarrmar,” whose main exponent is the Kufan Farra’, The theory was not restricted to the Kufan milieu since the two Basrans, Abi ‘Ubayda and al- Abfa al-Awsat, also represent a grammatical tradition that is not identical with Sibawayhi's. Accordingly, Talmon speaks of the “innovations” and "reformation" or even “revolution,” which ak Halll and Sibawayhi introduced to grammatical study. Baalbaki (2005; 413-416) points out that, although Talmon admits that the corpus of material presented in the sources is of “fragmentary character” and often talks of the “absence of concrete textual evidence" and of the data being “too meager for definite conclusions,” his hypothesis claims a global Interpretation of the gramrratical activity and the relations among the grammarians in the early period of Arabic grammar. To be sure, the efforts of al- Halll and Sibawayhi represent a major developmentin the history of Arabic grammar, yet itis certainly an exaggeration to talk of a “revolution” that took place at their hands or to claim that. the theoretical differences between them and other grammmarians are due to the different grammatical “traditions” or “schools” atthis stage. Whatever the case may be, the issues presented in the Kitab dominated the grammatical tradition for centuries after Stbawayhi. Largely overshadowing other works, the Kitab was viewed with a kind of sanctity and was often referred to as Qur'an al-nabw (the Quran of grammar; cf. Aba KTayyib, Maratib 106), in a rare instance of associating the word Quran with something other than the Revealed Book, To quote Versteegh (1997: 39), “Without exaggeration one could say that the entire linguistic tradition in Arabic is nothing uta huge commentary on the Kitab Stbawayhi.” With the surge in interest in Arabic linguistics over the last few decades, there has been increasing awareness of the centrality of the Kitab to the ALT as a whole and Arabic Linguistic Tradition | consequently serious appreciation of the ALT itself in the history of linguistic ideas, ‘The bulk of the Kitab comprises a large body of transmitted data that Stbawayhi reports and analyzes. This body of attested material generally known as sama'(lt. hearing) represents for him kaldm al-'Arab (speech of the Arabs), Which falls under four major categories: the Quran; the prophetic traditions (hadi); the speech of the Bedouin (including proverbs and speech patterns or idiomatic expressions); and poetry. There are, of course, methodological problems associated with each of these categories (cf. Baalbaki 2008: 35-47), but Sibawayhi is keen to accommodate the peculiarities of each type within his overall system of grammatical analysis. in the case of poetry, for example, he devotes an early chapter to poetic license ( Kitab |, 26-32) to highlight the inherent differences between Sir (poetry) and kalam (in the narrow sense of prose). He also refers repeatedly throughout the Kitab to the difference between the two genres and discusses in separate chapters phenomena that are unique to poetic usage (Ibid,, |, 269-274; IV, 204-216). But Sibawayhi is not interested merely in reporting and describing attested linguistic phenomena; rather, he tries to justify them, to examine the relationships that exist among the constituents of structure, and to propose theoretical origins (as/, pl. ust) from which forms and patterns might have developed, in this respect, he resorts to the notion of ‘amal (government) in interpreting various syntactical relations among the various constituents of structure and to the notion of taqdir (suppletive insertion; also implied in contexts in which the terms idmar (suppression), hadf (elision), and niyya (intention) appear in ascribing various formal and semantic aspects of the utterance to elements that are not uttered but are essential in analyzing structure), A detailed examination of his analytical methods is beyond the present scope, but a glimose at some of the more fundamental of these is essential for achieving an appreciation of the uniqueness of his approach in the ‘vadition as a whole. Sibawayhi adopts a number of methods and strategies in the analysis of his linguistic data, The distinction between normand anomaly is obviously a vital preliminary step in the process of organizing the vast and often conflicting ‘material at his disposal. His priority is to defend the norm, but since he almost universally accepts attested usage he also has to interpret and justify (at times even criticize but not dismiss) anomalous rmaterial. Commenting on the ‘Tamirni usage dahaba ams-u ("Yesterday-NOM has gone") instead of dahaba amsi, which occurs in all other dialects, he says that the normin ams is to have a final -/ (kasra), hence amsi. However, the Tarrins have modified this normto make the word a triptote, and hence it takes nominative case in the Tarrin usage when itis. agent (Kitab Il, 283). In another instance, he describes the form minhim ("from ther’) in the dialect of Rabl'a, Instead of minhum, as bad usage (luga radia) but justies its occurrence on phonological grounds (ibid, IV, 196— 197). By adopting the concept of “basic rule" (cf. Baalbaki 2008: 134-152), which is implicit throughout the Kitab, Sibawayhi ensures that the usage he considers to be most corrmon or most representative of, for example, a form, pattern, or particle is recognized as the actual manifestation of accepted norm and is not undermined by attested ‘material that does not conformto it The recognition of “basic rules” allows Stbawayhi to make his data much more manageable than would have been the case had he adopted an indiscriminate approach that lends equal weight to the normal and anomalous. ‘The practical side to the distinction between normand anomaly is that Sibawayhi allows the generation of material through giyas (analogy) on the basis ofthe former but not the latter. His approach to the norm-anomaly dichotomy may be viewed as part of his overall effort to demonstrate the coherency of his data and consequently the ability of his analytical system to highlight tis coherency. In this system that not only describes usage but also analyzes and interprets it, a ‘illa (cause) has to be sought for the major phenomena as well as for the minutest details of attested speech. A relatively small number of ‘ila are used to unvell what the ater linguists refer to as the hikma (wisdom) that underlies kam al-“Arab. Among these ‘lal are Katra (frequency), hia (lightness), harm ‘al I-aktar (analogy based on the more frequent usage), sa‘atal-kalam (lattude of speech), and ilm al-mubtab bihi (the addressee's knowledge of an implied element). For instance, tabfi lightening) is cited as the reason for tarkim (euphonic elsion),thatis, the elision of the final parts of certain words, mainly in the vocative. An example ofthis i in the proper noun Hart, which may be changed to Har without the final consonant in y3 Han “O Han" (kitab I, 239-241) Until a few decades ago, early Arabic grammar, including Sibawayhi's Kitab, was judged in the light of later sources and commentaries rather than the early sources therrselves. An unfortunate consequence of this method is the assumption that Stbawayhi, lke later authors, is largely preoccupied with Jafz (form) atthe expense of ma‘nd (meaning). As scholars started to focus on exarrining the text of the Kitab, there emerged an increasing awareness of the interrelatedness of form, lafz and meaning, ma’na in Stbawayhi's method of analysis. Arabic Linguistic Tradition | Expressions of the type ma'nd I-nasb/al-f'/ al-f8Yal-tanwin/al-ta‘aggub (the meaning of the accusative/the verbithe conjunctive fa'/the nunation/the exclamation; Kitab I, 320, 310; Il, 68; l, 229; |, 328, respectively) clearly demonstrate the inseparabilty of form and meaning. A most teling example is the chapter on the f°, which is followed by the subjunctive Kitab il, 28-41). Sibawayhi proposes the construction @ 1 tatent fartushaddit-a-niy fa-tu- haddit-u-ni not you-come-me _and-you-converse-SBj-me/__and-you-converse-INDC-me and ascribes two possiblities of meaning to each of the subjunctive and indicative, In the subjunctive, the sentence means either “You do not visit me, so how can you converse with me"? or “You visit me often, but you do not converse with me," whereas in the indicative it means either “You nelther visit me nor converse with me” or “You do not visit me, and you are conversing with me now” (cf. Baalbaki 2001). In an essentially experimental fashion, he then introduces various changes to the model sentence and illustrates how the case of the verb after {a Is linked to a specific meaning in each construction. For example, he discusses the meaning of both the subjunctive and indicative in each of the following related constructions: (4a) ma ta'tend fa-takallam-a/ fa-takallarm-u a not you-come-us _and-you-speak-SBJ/ and you-speak-INDC except bi-l-gamiti with- DEF-courtesy-GEN “You never visit us and speak but courteously” (4a) a tatena fa-tu-hadalt-a-na/ fa-tu- hadalt- not you-come-us and-you-converse-SB)-us/ and-you- converse-INDC-us ia ledad-na feka ragbat-an except increase-our—_inyouM interest-ACC "You never visit us and converse with us without us becoming more interested in you" and (ae) Arabic Linguistic Tradition | wadd-a lawta-ti-hi ——fa-tu- haddit-a-hu Wished-he if you-come-him _and-you-converse-SB)-hiny fa-tuhaddit-u-hu and-you-converse-INDC-him He wished that you would visit him so that you converse with him.” ‘The claim that Sibawayhi's grammar lacks any systematic semantic component (Ikonen 1991: 148) is thus contradicted by the fact that ma‘nd is inextricably linked to /afz in his analysis of structure. Furthermore, ma’nd in the Kitab is directly related to the intention of the speaker (mutakallim) and the message he seeks to impart to his addressee or listener (muhtab). The role of the linguist is thus to trace the mental operations that accompany the utterance and that dictate its formal and semantic characteristics. Stbawayhi's analysis of language as interaction between the speaker and the listener, that is, as social behavior that takes place in a specific context, is unmatched in the ALT. Successful communication becomes a type of social obligation whose fulfilment depends on the speaker's competence in deciding which utterance can best express his intentions as well as on the listener's competence in the analysis of the utterances he is addressed with and, if necessary, in responding to them correctly, The issue of whether the theoretical frameworks proposed by Sibawayhi (and largely adopted by later grammarians; see Section 5.4) resemble certain modem linguistic theories has been hotly contested. From the typological point of view, for example, Bohas et al, (1990: 38) argue that Sibawayhi's grammatical system belongs to a class which analyzes utterances “in terms of operations performed by the speaker in order to achieve a specific effect on the allocutee.” This is generally true of Stbawayh's analysis of speech and its context of situation. It should be remembered, however, that he at times examines constructions of considerable complexity that he formulates (cf. Kitéb I, 404—406) but that certainly are not used and hence have absolutely no communicative value. One such example is as follows: 6) ayy-u man in ya-'ti-na nut-hi nu-krim-u-hu which-NOM who if he-comeJSV-us _we-giveJSV-him —_ we-honor-INDC-him (roughly translated as "Whomithe comes to us we give him—shall we honor?) Scarce as they are, such constructions—which seem to be precursors of grammatical drs extensively used by Mubarrad (d, 285/898) and other later grammmarians—are probably meant to illustrate the correct syntactical positions that the various components of the structure ought to occupy (Baalbaki 2008: 217) and hence do not negate Stbawayhi's general purpose of describing kaldm al-’Arab so that it can be replicated correctly. In the later tradition, one finds pedagogical examples in which extended sentence structures are constructed showing a large panoply of governed and governing elements in their respective functions. In the following example from the 4th-/10th-century grammerian Saymari (Tabsira |, 123), the verb Is shown governing nine different clausal dependents, eight accusative and the nominative governance of the agent, (6) Arabic Linguistic Tradition | Y mm

    You might also like