Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory

Author(s): Jonathan Owens

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1991), pp. 225-
238
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/604016
Accessed: 06/05/2010 17:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org
 MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MEDIEVAL ARABIC GRAMMATICAL THEORY
JONATHAN OWENS
UNIVERSITYOF BAYREUTH

The most fundamental concept in the conceptualization of early Arabic grammatical theory
(c. 175-320 A.H./ A.D. 920-790) is that of the Basran and Kufan linguistic schools, constructs which
go back at least to the 4th/ 10th century. Weil (1913) and more recently Carter (1973) have called
into question the historical validity of the schools, and even studies sympathetic to a more literal
historical interpretation of them (Baalbaki 1981) fail to find evidence for their early (2nd/8th
century) existence. A question which remains unanswered, however, is what the historical reality of
early Arabic grammatical thinking was, if it was not dominated by the two schools. Using as
sources not only Sibawayh and al-FarrA', but various minor linguists as well, it is argued that the
earliest period was one of linguistic heterogeneity, where linguists were relatively free to mix ideas
and terminology from different sources. This period gave way to one of greater homogeneity,
culminating in al-SarrAj's Al-'UsLil fl l-Nahw, a work which effectively standardized Arabic
grammar. The emergence of the linguistic schools in the late 3rd/9th and early 4th/ 10th centuries
can be understood as a reflex of this standardization, allowing linguists to recognize the diversity of
the earlier period by assigning ideas and terminology which did not become standard to a
subordinate Kufan position.

IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE DIVISION OF ARABIC
GRAMMATICAL THINKING into the Basran and Kufan
schools is among the most important classificatoryexer-
cises developed by the medieval Arabic grammarians.*
To a greater or lesser degree, all grammatical treatises
from the 4th/ 10th century onwards utilize these con-
cepts in their descriptions of the Arabic language and
attendant grammatical theory. However, it is another
question to determine whether the notion of the two
schools clarifies or obfuscates an understanding of the
developments of Arabic grammatical theory for the
contemporary observer. There would appear to be two
opposing viewpoints on the matter. On the one hand,
the traditional Arabic account, represented, inter alia,
by al-Zajjajl and al-Anbari, and still, I suspect,' largely
* Earlier versions of this paper were delivered at the 1988
German Orientalistentag in Cologne and at the colloquium,
Linguistics in the Middle Ages: A Cross-Cultural View, orga-
nized by the Henry Sweet Society at Oxford (Sept. 1988).
I would like to thank W. Heinrichs and P. Cachia for their
comments, corrections, and criticisms, as well as R. Talmon,
who also kindly provided me with a copy of Baalbaki 1983.
Their critique indicates that a number of points in the present
article deserve more scrutiny; shortcomings are my own
responsibility.
Cf. e.g., Ansiri 1964: 358.
225
accepted in many parts of the Arab world, would have
it that in the late 2nd/8th and early 3rd/9th centuries
Basra and Kufa were academic centers whose linguistic
scholars held to distinct linguistic precepts. Recently
Versteegh (1977; 1987: 155, 156) has supported this
position, while allowing that later Arabic grammarians
exaggerated the degree to which sharp theoretical divi-
sions existed between the Basrans and Kufans.
A refutation of this interpretation was put forward
by Weil (1913) in which he attempted to show that
Basra and Kufa as conceptualizations of coherent lin-
guistic schools were post hoc creations of early 4th/
10th century grammarians. Carter (1973: 303) makes
this theme more specific, suggesting that "Kufan"came
simply to stand for any aspect of linguistic thinking
that could not be accredited to Sibawayh. For both,
the notions of Basra and Kufa would be of scant help
in describing the actual historical development of
Arabic grammatical thinking from its origins until the
early 4th/ 10th century.
Baalbaki's (1981) position is ambiguous. On the one
hand, he shows quite clearly (pp. 2-6) that neither for
SIbawayh nor for al-Farra', the main protagonists of
the Basran and Kufan schools, did the notions Basra
and Kufa imply linguistic schools. Moreover, he notes
that the later grammarians tended to "generalize the
views of particular grammarians by attributing them to
226 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)
their 'schools,' to the detriment of our proper under-
standing of the earlier periods of grammar"(1983: 16-
17). On the other hand, he adduces a good number of
examples (1981: 8-26) in which he indicates that many
viewpoints ascribed by grammariansfrom the 4th/ 10th
century and onwards to the Basran (= Sibawayh) and
Kufan (= al-FarrA') schools do indeed reflect actual
differences between these linguists. Thus, while Baal-
baki suggests that this correspondence represents evi-
dence for a very early (pre-4th/ 10th century) division
into linguistic schools, 2 he must at the same time ac-
knowledge that there are no early references to them by
the major protagonists themselves.
As Baalbaki (1981: 26) emphasizes, further examina-
tion of this question will have to be based on the
linguistic data from the earliest grammarians them-
selves. To avoid any circularity of reasoning, I would
suggest that this should in the first instance be carried
out without any referenceto the notions Basran/ Kufan
at all, for Basran/Kufan are the very constructs one is
trying to explain. I examine the question of the early
development of Arabic syntactic thinking in three parts.
In sec. 1, I attempt to define the breadth of linguistic
ideas in the 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries, while in
sec. 2, I define the limits of their development. With
such a classification of early grammatical thinking in
hand, the status of Basra and Kufa can then be re-
examined (sec. 3). In the following only a small sam-
pling of issues can be offered, a detailed account being
left for a longer work.
1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARABIC LINGUISTIC THINKING
An initial step toward understanding the develop-
ment of Arabic linguistic thinking requires a catalogu-
ing and classification of the linguistic ideas themselves:
what were they and who are they associated with?
when did they appear and perhaps disappear? how and
why, if at all, did they change? Using these general
parameters, I will discuss the main categories into
which some of the ideas of 2nd/8th- and 3rd/9th-
century linguists fall.
1.1 Early and Later Ideas
As Carter (1973), Baalbaki (1981), Talmon (1988),
and others have emphasized, there are significant re-
2
Baalbaki's only evidence here is speculative: "the possibility
that the second- and third-century Basran and Kufan gram-
marians whose works we do not possess agreed respectively
with Sibawayh and al-Mubarrad on the one hand, and with
al-Farr&'on the other" (1981: 24).
spects in which earlier and later grammarians differed
in their linguistic thinking. On the one hand, on some
points earlier grammarians can be seen to stand as a
group against later ones; on the other, ideas can be
identified which are associated uniquely with individual
linguists. I will give one example of each.
1.1.1 Shagala: linguisticpriority.3 Sibawayh, as Carter
(1972: 80) has noted, has two sorts of linguistic termi-
nology, one pertaining to fixed grammatical categories,
like zarf "locative,"the other to grammatical processes.
Shagala belongs to the second category, and can be
roughly translated as "syntactic priority." I illustrate
this with three examples. A line links the items in the
shagala relation, an "x" marking the item which fails to
assume the relation.
I I x
(1) kusiya 'abd-u lidhi tawban
dressed Abdullah robe
"Abdullah was dressed in a robe"
(1:14, 1. 17)
x m
(2) zayd-an idrib-hu
zayd-a hit-him
"Zayd, hit him!"
(1:61,1.7)
x
(3) rubba rajul-in wa 'axl-hi
many man-gen. and brother-his
"many a man and his brother"
(1:209,1.20)
That the shagala relation pertains neither to a fixed
governance relation, nor to a fixed set of linguistic
categories is clear from the examples: in (1) 'abdulldhi
is in the nominative case; in (2) -hu is in the position of
an accusative object; in (3) rajulin is a genitive. The
categories in the shagala relation include verbs (kusiya/
idrib), nouns (zaydan, 'abdulldhi, rajulin), pronouns
(-hu) and particles (? rubba). Further, as will be seen in
the discussion of (3), shagala is not always used to
explain inflectional form.4
3 I arbitrarily choose 3 m. sg. as the invariable citation form
and will not generally adapt its morphological shape to its
English context.
4 Further uses of shagala are found in 1:10, 1. 15; 10, 1.22; 14,
1. 17; 17, 1. 11; 93, 1. 20, etc. (nominative case); 1:31, 1. 21
(accusative); 1:324. 1. 11 (genitive); and 1:390, 1. 8 (jussive).
 OWENS: Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory
In (1) the question is which noun is construed as the
agent taking the nominative form. This is resolved in
favor of the noun that is "mashgul" with the verb,
which in (1) is 'abdullahi. The syntactic priority goes to
cabdulldhiover tawban. Idrib in (2) takes an accusative
object, of which there are potentially two, zaydan and
-hu. The latter, however, takes priority-it is mashgkul
with the verb-and so the accusative form of zaydan
must be clarified in some other way, which for Slba-
wayh was the postulation of an understood verb (see
below). Finally, in (3) Sibawayh has to explain how
'axihi, a definite noun, can occur as dependent on
rubba, which otherwise takes only indefinite comple-
ments. He answers this by saying that when an indefi-
nite (rajulin in [3]) noun takes priority and occurs
immediately after rubba, the definite 'axihi can then be
added as a conjunct. Here the notion of syntactic prior-
ity is used to explain definiteness (of 'axihi) and se-
quence (indefinite rajulin occurs first).
Like so many other aspects of Arabic grammatical
terminology, whether shagala in the sense of syntactic
priority was Sibawayh's invention or not will probably
remain forever a mystery. In any case, it apparently
had widespread currencyin the earliest period of Arabic
grammar. Al-Farra', for example, uses this idea to
explain the contrast between
(4a) haid l-'asad-u maxaf-un
this def-lion-nom. fearsome-nom.
"this lion is fearsome"
and
x construction (see sec. 2.2). In any case, the above will
(4b) hadd l-Vasad-u maxuf-an
fearsome-acc.
"behold the lion, fearsome."
More will be said about this construction in sec. 1.1.2.
For now it is sufficient to note that in (4a) maxufun
occurs as predicate to hadd with l-Vasaduas its qualifier
(na't), while in (4b) maxufan takes the accusative
form because, as al-Farra' puts it, "lion is associated
(shugila) with its nominative governor (murdfica), the
demonstrative hadd, as its predicate, and the predicate
maxufan is made accusative as a [syntactically5] ex-
traneous item" (Macdnl, 1:13, 1. 1). Again shagala in-
volves the notion of syntactic priority in (4b), with
l-'asadu taking priority over maxufan.
Similarly al-'Axfash uses the concept to account for
the accusative form of dahaban in
s Baalbaki (1983: 15) suggests that the accusative comple-
ment is semantically necessary.
227
x
(5) mil'u l-Vard-i dahab-an
measure land-gen. gold-acc.
"a measure of land in gold"
(1:209,1.11)
'Arditakes priority over dahaban as the genitive depen-
dent of mil'u, and dahaban therefore takes the accusa-
tive case (what later became known as a tamyiz).6
Al-'Axfash further uses the notion of shagala at p. 57,
1. 5; p. 158, 1. 5; p. 159, 1. 9; p. 464, 1. 3 (nominative
contexts) and p. 176,1. 9; p. 525, 1. 10 (accusative).
While the notion of shagala in the sense of syntactic
priority did not end with al-'Axfash-it is attested
in this sense in the early 4th/ 10th century in Lughda
(311 A.H./A.D. 923), for instance (pp. 224, 242)-as early
as al-Mubarrad (11:76)it becomes largely confined to a
single context, namely that exemplified in (2) above.
This construction, with initial accusative object fol-
lowed by a resumptive pronoun, in the 4th/ 10th century
became known as the 'ishtikaflconstruction (al-Zajjaji,
Jumal, 39; al-Saymari, I:326).' One observes here the
term passing from representing a syntactic process in
the earlier era, to a fixed grammatical construction by
the 4th/ 10th century. The causes for this change are
presumably to be found in the fact that shagala in the
early sense could be applied to an open-ended set of
grammatical constructions. As the total range of con-
structions became fixed and ever more closely defined,
the need for a free-floating processual term to be
applied to different constructions decreased, until ulti-
mately the term itself came to stand for a single fixed
have shown that there were certain concepts employed
by all of the earlier grammarians (so far as our modest
record of them goes) which fell into disuse or were
radically re-interpreted by the early 4th/ 10th century.
1.1.2 Al-Farra' as loner. It is becoming increasingly
accepted that in important respects al-Farra' had a
system of grammatical ideas different both conceptually
and terminologically from Slbawayh (Talmon 1988,
Kinberg 1987); indeed, Baalbaki (1981, also Versteegh
1987) uses precisely this point to argue for the plausi-
bility of an early Basran/ Kufan dichotomy. While the
6 "Shagalta l-'i~kifa bi 1-ismi 11adidana l-dahab, wa huwa
l-'ard" (1:209, 1. I 1).
The only place Ibn KaysAn(299 A.H./A.D. 311 or 320A.H./
A.D. 932) uses shagala (Kitab, 118) is with examples like
(2). He allows an accusative in the fronted noun only if it is
non-initial. I have not found shagala/'ishtigdl employed by
al-SarrAjin any of the senses relevant here.
228 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)

degree to which al-Farra"s ideas were indeed different
is a question requiring a great deal more comparative
work, it is relevant to cite an example of a theoretical
distinction drawn by al-Farra' which found only
limited resonance among later grammarians and is
completely unattested among his early contemporaries.
The examples cited in (4) belong to a three-termed
system fully illustrated in (6). The brief parsing into
topic/comment, etc., mostly follows standard practice
and is not al-Farra"s, though it serves to give the
reader an idea of the contrasts involved. I leave al-
Farra's term fi'/ untranslated, as its precise status
requires more careful definition.
(6a) topic comment
noun na't
hddd l-Vasadu maxmf-un
this def-lion fearsome
"this lion is fearsome" = a specific lion
(1:12,1.6-13,1. 8)
(6b) topic comment fi'l (a predicative
element)
h da
l-dasadu maxfif-an
"this is the lion, a fearsome animal" = generic
(6c) topic comment fi'l
taqrib
l-dasadu
hdda maxaf-an
"(look) the lion, the fearsome one" = taqrib
In (6a) maxiufunis comment to the topic hadd (see [4a]
above). In (6b) hkida is topic, l-9asadu comment, and
maxufan is accusative--the sentence expressing a ge-
neric idea. The same form as (6b), repeated in (6c), has
another interpretation, namely to designate an item (or
class of items) with a unique referent, as if it is only
lions that are fearsome, that fearsomeness resides quin-
tessentially in the lion. Similar examples include
(7a) ha-da l-qamar-u nur-an
this def -moon light-acc.
"(look) the moon, shining"
(7b) hddihi I-shams-u (diyd?-an li-l-'ibddi
this def -sun light-acc. for-def-people
"(look) the sun, glowing on the people."
(1:13,1.6)
In this construction hddd is, as it were, optional or
unnecessary (mustagniyan) and nonreferential since it
is sufficient to say, for instance, tala'a l-qamaru "the
moon rose." Since the moon is unique, reference to it
with a demonstrative adds nothing to the proposition.
It is this construction that al-Farra' terms taqrib.8
While sentences like (6c, 7) were discussed by Siba-
wayh (1:218, 11.6ff.), he drew no contrasts of the type
sketched above between (6b/c), and he never distin-
guished (6c) as a unique structural type, as Talmon
(1986: 153) has pointed out.
The same construction was discussed by Tha'lab
(291 A.H./A.D. 904), who in many respects was faithful
to his Kufan (spiritual) master. He explains, for in-
stance, that al-qfi'ima in
(8) hadd zaydun al-qd'ima
this zayd def -standing
"(look) Zayd standing"
(1:359; v. 43, 44)
is in the position of taqrib, applying an operational test
to identify this constituent: "Whenever you see that
hdda can indifferently be added or taken away without
changing the meaning, it is the taqrib" (Majalis, 360).
Tha'lab's operational rule is identical with al-Farra"s
(see above), though, in the example, Tha'lab appears
to ignore the "unique referent" aspect of the construc-
tion. Whether or not his zayd example (8) is meant as a
simplified illustration is not clear; earlier (p. 44), he
notes that the taqrfb is used only for items with unique
referents.
After Tha'lab, the taqrib construction is not entirely
forgotten. It merits brief mention in al-Zajja'j'sMacani
(1:474), and much later al-Suyft! (Ham'. 113) cites it
approvingly, giving it an updated parsing (icrdb, see
Carter 1981: 171) such as neither al-FarrA' nor Thaclab
ever provided it.9
Nonetheless, in most standard grammars (e.g., those
of al-Sarraj, al-Farisi, al-Jurjini [Muqtasid], and al-
8 W. Heinrichs raises the question of what the term taqrib
"bringing near" actually refers to, suggesting either that it
describes the semantic function of hadd in (6c), namely to
focus on the following noun, or the syntactic function of
hfdf, paralleling verbs like kUna"be"(see Baalbaki 1983: 14).
Both suggestions perhaps capture an intended ambiguity in
al-Farra"s terminology.
9 Al-SuyutI says the Kufans parse (8), for instance, as
follows: hadd would be the taqrib, zaydun the noun after
taqrib = ism taqrib, while the accusative is the xabar of the
taqrib. Particularly interesting is al-Suyfiti's interpretation of
the accusative as a xabar, what al-Farra' designates as fici.
Baalbaki (1983: 16) notes that Ibn 'Usffjr also discusses the
taqrib, though had a less subtle appreciation of it than did
al-SuyCiti.
 OWENS: Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory
Zamaxshari) there is no mention of the taqrib construc-
tion, and it never became a standard sub-category of
the nominal sentence.
1.2 A Gradualistic Development
Al-FarrA', as seen in the previous two instances, at
times appears an isolated figure, either as against later
development (sec. 1.1.1) or against both his contempo-
raries and later grammarians (sec. 1.1.2). This was by
no means always the case, however. In certain respects
he can be seen as a vital link between Sibawayh, on the
one hand, and later grammarians, on the other. One
example of this concerns the notion of tabica "follow,
agree with."
It was either al-Sarraj (II:9ff.) or Ibn Kaysan (Kitib,
I 1) who coined the term tdbic, pl. tawdbic,to designate
the five nominal concordants that agree in case form
with the noun they modify (na't "adjective," badal
"substitute," takid "emphasis," 'atf "conjunct," 'atf
al-baydn "classificatory conjunct"; see Owens 1984).
The term itself reflects the fact that these items can be
conceived of as following the noun they modify.
1.2.1 Sibawayh. In Sibawayh, however, tabica no-
where describes the modifier relation. He does use the
term tabica (with derivatives, 96 times in Troupeau
1962: 46, 47) where a common meaning pertains to a
relation between a primary and secondary item, the
secondary following the first in some way. Generally
this relates to morpho-phonological form, as in the
following example.
(9) 'ashhadu 'inna-hu la- ddhibun
I swear that-he indeed going
wa'innahu muntaliqun
and that-he leaving
"I bear witness that he is going and that he is
leaving"
(1:422,1.8)
The second complementizer is 'inna, rather than 'anna,
because it "follows" the form of the first. The notion of
sequence and agreement in form is certainly present,
but neither here nor elsewhere does this pertain to
agreement between the concordants.
1.2.2 Al-Farr&'. Al-FarrA' equally uses tabica in the
sense of one sound following the form of another (e.g.,
11:184, 1. 7; 310, 1. 16; 330, 1. 1, 111:266,1. 1) but, more
interestingly, consistently uses it to describe a situation
where one item agrees in inflectional form with another.
229
Usually the agreeing forms are nominals (active parti-
ciples, adjectives, relative pronouns, coordinate nouns,
etc.), as in (10) below, though in a few cases they are
verbs (1:235, 1. 8; 11:70,1. 9; 341,1. 7).
(10) marartu bi l-rajul-i wa l-mar'at-i
went by def.-man-gen. and def-woman-gen.
"I passed by the man and the woman"
(1:106,1.3)
Here the conjunct l-mar'ati is said to follow the geni-
tive form of l-rajuli.'0 Al-FarrA"s language is note-
worthy in one place where he discusses agreement of
noun and qualifier. In
(11) ft yawm-in 'dsif-in
in day-gen. storm-gen.
"on a stormy day"
(11:73,1. 12)
he says that "the stormy wind (Cdsifin) is made to agree
(ju'ila tdbican) with yawmin in its inflectional form
(Jicnrb)."sThe phrase t?bicanfi icrdbihi reminds one of
al-Sarraj's summary of the concordants: "the inflection
of the second item [i.e., concordants] has applied to it
what applies to the first in terms of nominative, accusa-
tive or genitive form" (11:19)." While al-Farrat' by no
means isolated the class of concordants,'2 he is the first
grammarian we know who clearly isolated the criterion
"agreement in inflectional form" which al-Sarrajwould
later seize on to pull this class together.
1.3 Sibawayh, the Dominant Figure
There are, then, significant ways in which al-Farra'
contributed to the mainstream of Arabic grammatical
description. It would, however, be quite wrong to em-
phasize his importance at the expense of Sibawayh.
One can only guess what form Arabic grammar would
have had without Sibawayh (see Versteegh 1987: 153),
'0 Cf. also 1:166, 1. 7; 310, 1. 11; 11:347,1. 3 (for na't); 1:166,
1. 14; 234, 1. 8; 11:298,1. 17 (for exception).
"
Or see al-Zamaxshari, "the concordants are nominals
which have no case inflection except insofar as they follow
that of another one" (Mufagal, 110).
12 In fact, he had a less subtle conceptualization of the (later)
category than did Sibawayh; see Talmon 1981. In three con-
texts (Mafini, 218, 1. 15; 255, 1. 22; 260, 1. 7) al-'Axfash uses
tabi'a in the sense of agreement in inflectional form, though
he uses it far more sparingly in this sense than does al-FarrAl.
230 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)

whereas the absence of any other figure would have With due consideration to all possible caveats, how-
had a less central effect. Sibawayh's influence can be ever, one general observation holds for the above list,
exemplified with two examples. namely, that in nearly all cases where Sibawayh's and
al-Farrii's terminology diverge, it is Sibawayh's that
1.3.1 Paired terminology. First, as has often been became standard in later theory. It can be noted that
noted (e.g., Weil 1913), Sibawayh and al-Farr&' (the the dominance of Sibawayh's terminology is not to be
Basrans and Kufans) frequently used different terms to explained by ignorance of al-FarrA"s work. In text-
describe roughly (usually, not exactly) the same phe- book after textbook (al-Sarraj, 11:125,al-Zamaxsharl,
nomena. These include the following. 133, IY, III:1O), as well as in works of other genres
(al-Zajjaj, 1:37, 446) for example, it is pointed out that
(12) Sibawayh al-Farra' what the Basrans calledfasl the Kufans termed `imtd.
negative indicative nafy jaMd None of them, however, adopt 'imdd as the standard
fully inflected ma yansarif md yajrf term. The best that Kufan terminology can do is sur-
substitute badal takrir vive as a standard alternative to a Basran term, as with
locative zarf sifa xafd (alongside jarr), or partially displace Sibawayh's
hatl hatl qat'lhdl term, which happens in one instance for "coordina-
govern 'amila waqa'a! tion." Sibawayh's shirdk disappears as a categorical
'awqa'a designator, while al-Farra"s nasq continues to be used,
genitive inflection jarr xafd though only as a standard variant to the more common
coordination C aJ/shirak catf/nasq 'atf, which Sibawayh also used.
particle Iarf -adah
separative pronoun fasl cimtd 1.3.2 Accusative complements. The overriding influ-
ence of Sibawayh's work on later formulations is fur-
The list is intended to give but a general idea of the ther evident in the cluster of accusative complements
dual terminology utilized by Sibawayh and al-FarrA', which al-Sarraj (I:159ff.) termed objects, mafid'il. He
and with the possible exception of ma'yansarif/yajri, divided these into two sets, true and pseudo (shibh
close comparison would reveal certain discrepancies al-mafc'ul), the former made up of five members, abso-
between the two. Sibawayh's concept of jarf, for in- lute (mutlaq), direct (bihi), locative (fihi, or zarf),
stance, does not exactly correspond to sifa (see Owens accompaniment (maahu) and reason (lahu). The latter
1989) and al-Farra' does use, in a few instances, camila contains three sub-classes, the hal, specifier (tamyiz)
in the sense of govern." and exception ('istitnd'). The grouping of the eight
members into the class of objects has a functional basis
going back to al-Mubarrad (though no further, so far
131:139,1. 3; 334,1. 6; 422,1. 3; 111:56,1.13; 169,1. 2; 338,1. 3.
as the available evidence goes), where al-Mubarrad
Against this I count waqaca in the sense "govern" at least 34
notes that "all accusatives are due either to occurrence
times. Weil (1913: 72 n. 1) identifies al-Farra"s waqaca with
as object or what resembles an object" (IV:299). What
"transitive verb," though he was working with second-hand
is not clear is why there are two main sub-classes, true
sources and the interpretation is not correct, even if in the
and pseudo-objects. There are no common syntactic
majority of instances waqaca describes the governance prop-
grounds for distinguishing the two. For example, the
erty of a transitive verb. In 1:469,1. 13, for instance, to describe
distinction is irrelevant to al-Mubarrad's functional
the occurrence of subjunctive and jussive governors of the
explanation ("what an object is") and linguistically
verb, al-Farra' notes that "the governors of the jussive (jdzim)
there are no grounds for calling the accompaniment
and subjunctive only govern (yaqafin 'ala) a verb which has
object a true object and the haula pseudo-object.14 I
ya-, ta-, na-, or 'a- prefixes."
The fact that not only does al-Farral's terminology often
fail to exhibit a perfect isomorphism with later practice, but between Sibawayh and al-SarrAj,allowing the separative pro-
that Sibawayh's does as well, would indicate that a difference noun (his cimfdd)to occur after zanna, kUna, and also 'inna
in content alone is not sufficient to ensure their rejection by (e.g., 111:299,1. 11, though al-FarrA"s cimdd further overlaps
the later grammarians. For example, Sibawayh's separative with the .damiral-sha'n of later grammar).
(fasl) pronoun occurs only after verbs of the class kUna and 1' The reason suggested in Owens 1988, n. 211, that the
zanna (e.g., 1:346.17), whereas in later theory the separative pseudo-objects all modify the agent in some way is at best
pronoun occurs in any nominal sentence (see al-Sarraj, 11:125). only partially correct since pseudo-objects like the tamyfz and
In passing, it can be noted that al-Farra' stands midway hdl also describe constituents other than the agent.
 OWENS: Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory
would suggest that the term "object," mafcll, was sim-
ply taken over directly from the Kitdb; all categories
which Sibawayh termed maf1a (bihi, e.g., 1:11, 1. 1;
ma'ahu, 1:116, 11.14 and 125, 1. 11, lahu, 1:155, 1. 12;
flhi, 1:165, 1. 5) were converted into the class of "true"
objects, while other accusatives which Sibawayh never
designated as objects were consigned to the class of
pseudo-objects.
There are two problems in this explanation. First,
the absolute object (mutlaq) was never termed an "ob-
ject" by Sibawayh-a fact I can offer only a circum-
stantial explanation for. What later would become
known as the mafci mutlaq is treated by Sibawayh in
such a way that it clearly has properties of other ob-
jects. It is a noun and is part of the transitivity system,
exactly as a direct object is. 5
The second problem is that Sibawayh in one place
mentions an object, the mafC12 minhu, which never
became a standard type of object. He mentions it but
once, saying that
(13a) 'iyyd-ka wa l-'asad-a
and def.-lion-acc.
"watch out for the lion"
(1:116,1. 12)
is to be understood as
(13b) 'iyyd-ka fa ttaqiyanna wa l-'asad-a
and protect-yourself and def.-lion-acc.
Sibawayh mentions the paraphrase only by way of
clarification and notes that the verb is not overtly
expressed. 'iyyika and l-'asada are respectively "direct
object and object from it" (maf0l wa mafWl minhu,
1:116, 1. 14). 16 The maf 'ul minhu thereafter disap-
'5 al-fi'l alladi la yatacaddf al-ftiil 'ilayhiyatacaddd Lilasmi
l-hadie, 1:11, 1. 6 (see Levin 1981). Furthermore, while
Sibawayh did not discuss its behavior in passives, al-
Mubarrad's discussion (IV:51) clearly sets the absolute object
in the paradigm with direct objects (and zarf ) in respect of its
ability to assume agent position. Given his formulation of the
passive where the object (mafcl) "takes the place of the
agent" (IV:50),.al-Mubarrad must include the absolute object
among his objects. That is, although Sibawayh did not desig-
nate the absolute object an "object,"his description of it by no
means runs counter to such an analysis, and the logic of the
later formulation of, inter alia, the passive, virtually required
that the absolute complement be termed an object.
16 Sibawayh implies that both direct object and maf'(Clminhu
could become derived agent, 1:116. 1. 13.
231
pears from the linguistic terminology.'7 Al-Mubarrad
(111:212ff.)explains constructions like (13a) in terms of
an obligatorily deleted verb, since (13a) is a command
('amr) and "commands are expressed only with verbs."
He makes no mention of a new category of object, and
would appear to suggest that 'asada and 'iyydka are
both objects "because it [9iyyaka] and 'the lion' are
both 'on their guard' [muttaqiytni]."
The problem with al-Mubarrad's analysis, though
not one he recognizes, is that the assumed verb 'ittaqfi
is not bi-transitive, as, one can assume, Sibawayh real-
ized in setting up a new category of object for 'asada.
At the same time, it is not surprising that this type of
object failed to gain a foothold in Arabic grammatical
theory. The structure itself is uncommon-Sibawayh
discusses it in only one chapter-and, as al-Mubarrad
notes, it is restricted to imperative contexts. Taking it
as an object would moreover entail setting up a cate-
gory of object whose distribution is limited to contexts
where the verb is elided.
The overall conclusion to be drawn is that the later
grammarians took over from Sibawayh more or less
literally the term mafci in its various sub-categoriza-
tions. The distinction between the true and pseudo-
objects rested then simply on the fact that Sibawayh
had termed some accusative complements mafc1 and
others something else. The two exceptions to this for-
mulation are to be explained by reference to general
developments in later Arabic theory (the case of the
maf'll mutlaq) or to the marginality of the category
maf'll minhu in Sibawayh's original description.
Both examples adduced in this section attest to the
overriding importance of Sibawayh's terminology for
later grammarians. On the one hand, his vocabulary is
systematically favored over, for example, al-Farra's,
and on the other, certain distinctions which, on lin-
guistic grounds, appear quite arbitrary are to be ex-
plained as reflecting Sibawayh's original categorical
designations.
It might be suggested that Sibawayh's dominance
derives from the fact that until al-Mubarrad (who based
so much of his description on Sibawayh anyway) no
'7 Significantly, this construction receives a different termi-
nology in the Muqaddimafl Nahw (p. 53, see sec. 1.4, below),
the author saying that it was termed qat' by the Basrans,
'istifi' by the Kufans and tamfm by "some experts in Arabic."
I have found none of these terms applied to this construction
by other writers, which reinforces my impression of the eclectic
nature of this work. The presence of such "non-standard"
terminology in it, I think, speaks for a relatively early date
(see n. 19 below).
232 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)
comprehensive grammar of Arabic other than Siba-
wayh's existed. There certainly were short treatises,
like the early Muqaddimafi l-Nahw or, I would sug-
gest, al-Farra"s IHudeid.For the latter work, Ibn al-
Nadim (Fihrist, 100) lists only 44 chapters, and,
assuming a chapter size comparable to the Kitdb, the
work would have been no more than a tenth the size of
Sibawayh's. Moreover al-Farra"s Mactni, undoubt-
edly a work of great linguistic sophistication, could
hardly have served as any sort of reference grammar
for students or teachers. Accessibility and comprehen-
siveness would have thus guaranteed the dominant
influence of Sibawayh's Kitdb.
1.4 Minor Linguists and Non-standard Traditions
The picture that is beginning to emerge of Arabic
linguistics in the 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries is one
of some complexity. Sibawayh is the dominant figure
(sec. 1.3), yet al-Farra' had a not inconsiderable influ-
ence as well (sec. 1.2), while all grammarians in the
earliest era operated with common concepts which were
more or less ignored by later ones (sec. 1.1.1), and all of
the earlier grammarians assumed concepts specific to
their individual thinking which equally were ignored
by their later followers (secs. 1.1.2, 1.3.2 on the mafc'6l
minhu). In this context it is interesting to look at minor
linguists of this era, where it will emerge that, not
surprisingly, they used terminology associated with
both al-FarrA'and Sibawayh. More than this, however,
it will be seen that certain repeating formulations occur
that relate to neither of the main traditions.
I very briefly cite evidence from four works. The
Muqaddima fi l-Nahw (MN) is attributed to Xalaf
al-Ahmar (180 A.H./A.D. 796) and even if not by him,
as at least some scholars assume (e.g., Belguedj 1973:
176), has a pre-850 provenance.'8 The Kitab l-Nahw
was written by a Baghdadianlinguist, Lughda (311 A.H./
A.D. 923); Ibn Kaysan (299 A.H./A.D. 911 or 320 A.H./
A.D. 932) wrote Al-Muwaffaqi fi l-Nahw; the Kitdb
al-Jumalfi l-Nahw (KJN) has not implausibly been
attributed (by the editor) to the Baghdadian Abu Bakr
ibn Shuqayyir (318 A.H./A.D 930).
18 Briefly, two sorts of internal evidence favor an early date.
First, the work lacks any specifically later ideas. The term
tamyiz, first used by al-Mubarrad, is absent, for example.
Secondly, the use of harf for "word" (never kalima) and sifa
rather than zarf argue for a date before the standardization of
Arabic terminology; see sec. 2.2.
Three main points relevant to the present discussion
emerge from an examination of these works. First,
none of the writers orient themselves exclusively toward
either Sibawayh or al-Farra', as the following table of
terms briefly illustrates (Sibawayh's term is the top
member of the pair).
(14) MN Lughda Kaysan KJN
declension
md yansarif + + +
m yajri - + - +
negative
nafy - + + +
jahd + + + +
locative
zarf _ + + +
sifa + - - +
Rather than employ exclusively Sibawayh'sma yansarif/
nafy/zarf or al-Farra"s ma yajril/jahd/sifa, the writers
mix the two in different terminologies. In some cases,
one and the same writer employs alternative terms for
the same category (e.g., KJN, negative, nafy [p. 47],
jahd [pp. 200, 201, 295, 304], Lughda, negative, nafy
[pp. 240, 242], jahd [p. 241]. In other cases, one
"source" is applied for one category, another for an-
other (e.g., MN, ma yansarif [p. 87] but negative
jahd [p. 69], locative = sifa [pp. 43-47]).
It is probably-not here a question of the writers
reading directly from Sibawayh and al-FarrA'and arbi-
trarily choosing now one term, now another. Rather,
the varying terminology is evidence that in the 3rd/9th
and early 4th/ 10th centuries there was a considerable
degree of heterogeneity in linguistic terminology, that
different terms were current throughout the era, and
that writers were free to choose from sources of diverse
origin. '9
The second point underlines this impression, namely,
that among these linguists one finds unique terminology
(see n. 17) and categorizations of data. This is particu-
larly the case with the MN and KJN. For example, in
the MN the class of sifa includes not only the preposi-
tions bi,fi and adverbs xalf, as with al-Farra', but also
'9 Examination of these "minor"works must constitute prima
facie evidence against Baalbaki's suggestion (1981: 24, see
n. 2, above) that there were early lost grammatical works
which followed Sibawayh's or al-Farra3's methodology and
terminology. What is striking in these works, especially MN
and KJN, is their rampant eclecticism.
 OWENS: Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory
elatives 'azraf "more generous" and words that typi-
cally occur possessed, like mit1 and gayr (pp. 43-47).
The MN is unique in gathering all such words under a
single category, and, I would guess, reflects a very early
tradition in the classification of such items.
Thirdly and more interesting, there are found clusters
of traits in the minor writers which are completely
absent in Sibawayh or al-Farra'. For example, the MN
(p. 36), Lughda, and the KJN (pp. 167-70) all distin-
guish a class of words that govern a nominative noun.
These include the question words hal, kayfa "how" for
all three writers, and also demonstratives and indepen-
dent pronouns for the MN and KJN, while the MN
adds 'innamd as well.20
(15) hal 'abuka hadirun
Q father present
nom. governor topic comment
"is your father present?"
(KJN 167)
Neither Sibawayh (e.g., 1:364, 1. 6; 408, 1. 7) nor al-
Farra' consider such words as a class to be governors
of the nominative, though, of course, they typically
occur sentence-initially and hence often are placed be-
fore a nominative noun.
Admittedly there are not many such clusters, and it
could by no means be suggested that these four writers
in any way constitute a coherent group in their own
right, as the brief list in (14) already has suggested.
Nonetheless, the significance of these linguists lies in
two related directions. First, they further confirm that
the 3rd/9th and early 4th/ 10th centuries were by no
means dominated by the Basran and Kufan traditions.
Secondly, the fact that there are traits which are un-
related to Sibawayh and al-Farra', traits that in some
cases apparently had an independent line of transmis-
sion, would lend circumstantial support to Fischer's
(1985) and Talmon's (1985) suggestion that there were
very early grammatical traditions independent of, and
likely pre-dating, Sibawayh and al-Farral.
2. THE CONSOLIDATION OF ARABIC SYNTACTIC THEORY
Thus far, I have argued that Arabic syntactic theory
in the early era is characterizedby a considerable degree
of heterogeneity. The question should be posed how-
20
The lumping together of all sentence-initial items as
governors of a nominative is indicative of a rather unsubtle
approach to linguistic analysis.
233
ever: how long did this situation obtain? I will suggest
in sec. 2.2 below a concrete date for the end of this
period. First, however, I will confirm with one example
that the era of heterogenity did indeed have an end.
2.1 Al-Batalyuis: The "Classificatory Conjunct"
Al-Batalyulsi's review and criticism of al-Zajjajf's
Jumal is interesting for the fact that it gives us a direct
insight into the development of Arabic theory between
al-Zajjaji (A.D. 940) and al-Batalyfisi (A.D. 1140). Inter
alia, he locates the 'aif al-baydn, "classificatory con-
junct" (CC), within the sub-class of concordants (ta-
wabic) by systematically contrasting its properties, first,
with those of the nact, adjective, and then with the
badal, substitute. He mentions the following points,
among others.
(16) adjective vs. CC
(a) adjectives are basically derived from verbs,
whereas CCs are underived nouns
(b) adjectives can be definite or indefinite, CCs
only definite
(c) the adjective is a part of the noun in that
together with it it creates a new referent; the
CC merely repeats the referent of the noun
(17) substitute vs. CC
(a) while the substitute can designate a part of the
noun, the referent of the CC must be the same
as that of the noun
(b) the substitute can modify any noun, the CC
only definite nouns
Al-Batalyisi then discusses individual cases where,
in accordance with the criteria he outlines, a certain
word must be interpreted as a CC rather than as one of
the other concordants. One such example is
(18) ra'aytu hadd l-rajul-a
"I saw this man."
(Kitdb,106)
Generally, as he points out, 1-rajulais considered a
na't by grammarians (e.g., al-Sarraj, 11:32, al-Farisi,
923, al-Saymari, 171, al-Zamaxshari, 116), though in
fact it should be classified as a CC, presumably because
1-rajulais not a derived noun (see [16a]). Although he
perhaps would find support for this analysis of al-rajula
among some earlier grammarians (e.g., al-Mubarrad,
IV:220), he does not insist on its designation as a CC
234 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)
and it continues to be analyzed as an adjective." I would
suggest that this is because al-Batalyfisi was writing at
a time when the terminology and classification of gram-
matical items had become so standardized that a re-
consideration of the established canon, even on the
minor scale suggested by al-Batalyfisi, was virtually
impossible to effect.
I do not thereby wish to suggest that Arabic grammar
as a whole had completely atrophied. On the contrary,
the brilliant contributions to pragmatic theory by
al-JurjAni,al-Sakkaki and AstarAbadi, among others,
are perhaps in part to be understood as a reaction
against the straightjacket imposed by the standard ver-
sion of Arabic grammar. I would, however, contend
that at a certain point grammar, nahw, did resist any
attempt at reform and innovation.
2.2 Consolidation
Exactly when this point was reached I will not
attempt here to determine exactly. In any case, a topic-
by-topic search will be necessary since different con-
structions reached their final form at different times
(see Owens 1989). What can be suggested is that two
circumstances were instrumental in bringing it about.
2.2.1 The 'Arabiyya. The first is the fact that by the
4th/ 10th century Arabic no longer was a living lan-
guage, that its transmission was ensured primarily
through its codification in the grammatical tradition.22
Al-Sarraj, for example, implies that the object of the
study of grammar is to learn to speak like the Bedouins
spoke (past tense, takallamat, 1:35). This inevitably
influenced the style and content of the grammatical
works, since it meant that the only acceptable sources
for the determination of correct Arabic were dead ones:
the written Arabic of poetry, the Qur'fn, and the de-
scriptions of the earlier linguists (see al-Suyfiti, Iq, 48-
56). The following example illustrates what effect this
situation had.
21 Despite the observations of a linguist like Ibn Hisham
(Mughn?, 742), who complains that many grammarians err in
considering al-rajula an adjective, in examples like (18), al-
rajula continues to be regarded as an adjective (nact) (e.g., IY,
VI:57, Kamal Basha, 164 [16th century]).
22 Even by Hick's (1950) conservative reckoning Classical
Arabic hardly had native speakers by the 4th! 10th century.
On the other hand, another tradition (e.g., Zwettler 1978)
holds that the classical language as defined by the Arabic
grammarians never had native speakers, being originally a
stylistically defined oral-poetic variety.
In his discussion of the adjective, nact, al-Sarraj
distinguishes five classes (11:24-39), those that denote a
tangible quality, like tawil "tall," those of the form
faiil (qa~im "standing"), those designating origin (cara-
bi), the adjective dii "possessing," and those that repre-
sent neither tangible attributes nor have a governing
active participle form, like Cdlim "learned" and zarif
"gracious." The division is effected by a mixed bag of
formal and notional criteria. Nonetheless, it has the
virtue of summarizing the adjective class in a readily
comprehensible form. In addition to these five classes,
however, there are types of adjectives which al-Sarraj
discusses in two places, 11:27-31 (under various titles)
and 11:33-45, dealing with "special questions." Here,
on the one hand, points of syntactic complexity are
discussed and on the other, more or less idiomatic
constructions which do not fit into the five-member
sub-classification of adjectives, such as 'ayyumf rajulun
"what a man!" or hayyatun dirdcun "a snake a cubit in
length."
It is, however, precisely these unusual constructions
that Sibawayh spent considerable time trying to expli-
cate (e.g., 1:187-210). Indeed, Sibawayh nowhere offers
anything like al-Sarraj's five-member characterization
of the nact, inter alia, one can suspect, because this
could hardly do justice to the many idiosyncratic, yet
for Sibawayh still living, adjectival expressions. Orga-
nization for him had not yet gained the upper hand.
2.2.2 Al-Sarraj's 'Usfl. Given the linguistic reality
sketched in the preceding section, it was no doubt
inevitable that grammars should be written which were
explicit and comprehensive and readily accessible to
the populace in a way Sibawayh's KitfTbsurely was not.
So far as one can tell,23it was al-Sarraj's three-volume
Al-'Usulfi l-Nahw that first fulfilled this function.24
This work set the tone for all future reference gram-
mars, its very success ensuring that criticisms such as
al-Batalyusi's (see sec. 2.1) should go largely unheard.
A brief contrast with Sibawayh will throw al-Sarraj's
method into relief.
Al-Sarraj's solution to organizing the complexities
and details of Arabic syntax was to define and charac-
2 It should always be emphasized that today only a mitority
of the potentially publishable works are edited and readily
available.
24 Al-Mubarrad's Muqta~dabis an important step in this
direction, though his overall organization is, if anything, more
chaotic than Sibawayh's. Significantly, it is with al-Mubarrad
that Sibawayh's reputation as the paramount linguist begins
to be established (Bernards 1987).
 OWENS: Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory
terize in detail a small number of syntactic positions at
which various items occur. For example, the second
position he describes in his grammar is the comment
(xabar, 1:62-72). He gives the major categories which
can fill it: sentence, a single noun, or locative (jarf ).
Locatives in turn divide between time and place, and
sentential comments are required to have a resumptive
pronoun co-referential with the topic. Beyond a sum-
mary of the items which occur at this position, how-
ever, he ascribes to it other properties: it is the unit
which combines with topic to make a sentence (1:62);it
can be verified as true or false; it has four specific
distributions of definiteness vis-a-vis the topic (1:65-
68); and it can be deleted under various conditions
(1:68-72). For al-Sarraj the comment is an abstract
entity manifesting a more general set of properties than
any item which realizes it.
To a large extent Sibawayh, in one place or another,
makes the same observations about the comment as
does al-Sarraj.25However, his observations are scat-
tered from one end of the Kitab (vol. 1) to the other.
One learns that nominals (1:39,1. 17; 218,1. 9; 239,1. 8),
locatives (sec. 98), and sentences (1:39,1. 17; 44, 1. 1; 52,
1. 18; 62,1. 23; 415,1. 7), which must contain a resump-
tive pronoun (1:31, 1. 17), can occur as comment. The
comment is typically indefinite (1:17, 1. 10), or less
definite than the topic (L:131,1. 17), but can (1:20, 1. 10)
or sometimes must (1:348, 1. 1) be indefinite, and it can
be deleted (1:240, 1. 6). As can be discerned from the
scattering of page references, however, SIbawayh never
emphasizes the value of the comment as a holistic
entity. Rather, its characteristics emerge in the discus-
sion and comparison of numerous individual examples
found throughout the work.26
Furthermore, as seen in the previous section, al-
Sarraj tends to relegate more difficult problems to an
appendix (mas iV), introducing in his main chapter
only the most basic cases. The methodology eventually
leads to unusual constructions being treated as isolated
25 There are a few, like the truth value of the
comment,
which Sibawayh does not mention.
26 Moreover, the comment of a nominal sentence is rendered
by Sibawayh as both xabar and mabniyy 'ala l-mubtada'. The
former term also frequently designates a ha1 (e.g., 1:184, 1. 4;
189, 1. 7; 200, 1. 3; 233, 1. 18) or a declarative sentence (e.g.,
1:58, 1. 1; 141, 1. 1; 250, 1. 12), and the latter, in the general
formula al-mabniyy 'ala x, is used in a number of different
sentence types, including nominal (x = mubtada'), and verbal
(x = fitl, see Levin 1985:303). Much more so than in al-Sarraj,
one finds a variation in terminology surrounding the descrip-
tion of the comment position.
235
idioms, in the words of the 13th-century grammarian
Ibn 'Usffr, "what one should not use for analogical
extensions" (Sharh Jumal, 304).
It is, then, with al-Sarraj that a small set of abstract
positions are definitivelydefined and the principleis con-
firmed that these positions should be illustrated and
defined relative to the most transparent of examples-
more difficult cases being relegated to appendices." To
these two points I would add a third organizational
principle, namely that the description follows certain
patterns, for example, nominative/indicative (rafc)
inflections are discussed before accusative/subjunctive
(nasb) and these before genitive/jussive (jarr/jazm)
(see Owens 1988: sec. 1.8 for further discussion).28
With these simple yet remarkably effective organi-
zational principles, I would suggest that a major era of
Arabic grammatical theory comes to a close. Virtually
all subsequent reference grammars reflect these prin-
ciples to a greater or lesser degree. The heterogeneity
described in sec. 1 and which characterizes the early era
of Arabic syntactic practice, c. 780-930, does not
disappear completely; it survives, however, only by
undergoing a systematization of its own. I now turn
briefly to this theme.
3. BASRANS AND KUFANS
With the background of secs. 1 and 2, we are now in
a position to inquire into the status of Basra and Kufa
as linguistic schools. It will first be useful to determine
when the terms Basra and Kufa became established in
the Arabic grammatical canon, relying in the first
instance on statistical data. The following chart gives a
rough summary of the number of times Basra and
Kufa were referredto as linguistic entities in the earliest
grammatical works.29Slbawayh and al-Farra' are left
out, for as Baalbaki has already shown (1981), Basra
2 The use of simple examples is as old as Arabic linguistics
itself-both Sibawayh and al-Farra' frequently resorting to
"zayd" (or `'abdulldh,"which al-Farra' often used) sentences.
Al-Sarrhj's major step is the relegation of the more complex
constructions to appendices.
28 That there was the need for a simple organizing principle
is evident in the fact that the author of the KJN, probably
al-SarrAj's contemporary, suggested a different order, one
beginning with accusatives. Al-SarrAj's organization, which
went beyond considerations of inflectional form, won out,
however.
29 The author will provide detailed page references for any-
one interested. Figures are only for actual mention of the
words "Basra" and "Kufa," which glosses over finer problems
236 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)
and Kufa for these writers are not used in the sense of
linguistic schools. I have not found any references to
the schools in al-'Axfash's Macani.
(19) Basra Kufa
MN(c. 850) 1 1
al-Sikkit (244/858) 1 0
Ibn Qutayba (276/889) 1 130
al-Mubarrad (285/898) 8 1 First, as I have mentioned above, a preliminary
Ibn Kaysan (?299/91 1) 0 0 examination of the data does indeed confirm Weil's
Tha'lab (291/904) 16 3 view that the debate was created long after most of the
al-Zajjaj (311/923) 43 2531
Lughda (311/923) 0 0
The bare figures are suggestive in particular because
they would confirm Weil's conclusion (1913: 58) that it
was the generation of linguists after al-Mubarrad and
Tha'lab who began in earnest to create the Basran and
Kufan schools. While an increase is discernible from
the very first references, it is only with al-Mubarrad's
student al-Zajjaj that the dichotomization appears
institutionalized.
Nevertheless, it must still be asked what the nature
of the opposition is for these writers. The fact that
neither of al-Zajja'j'scontemporaries, Lughda or Ibn
Kaysan, who, as seen in sec. 1.4, mixed Sibawayhian
and FarrA'an terminology, uses the terms at all shows
that grammars could be written without any reference
to the Basran-Kufan debates (see Troupeau 1962: 399).
Equally significant is the fact that even al-Zajjajgener-
ally does not extensively develop opposing Basran-
Kufan positions. On twelve occasions, where both are
mentioned together, for instance, he says that the two
schools agree (e.g., 1:312, laysa bayna l-nahwiyyina
l-basriyyina wa l-kafiyyina xildfun); in other cases,
differences simply are terminological (fal = Basran,
'imdd = Kufan, 1:37); and in still other cases, Kufan
ideas are mentioned without expression of opinion
(e.g., 1:309). In only 6 instances in the first two volumes
do I count specific disapproval of Kufan ideas (e.g.,
11:42, 218, 336). Basrans, not surprisingly, are never
considered to have been wrong.
Thus, while the ground is being prepared for a
Basran-Kufan debate, at the turn of the 4th/ 10th cen-
of classification. For instance, I leave out of the count refer-
ences like Tha'lab's "we" or "our friends," though these are
probably references to Kufa.
'3 This is a minimum figure; I have only a secondary source,
Rick 1950: 74.
31 The figures are based on only the first two books of his
Ma'dni.
tury it is not yet in full swing. I will not follow the
genesis of this debate into the tenth century, beyond
noting that with Sir~ff and al-Zajjaji it began to take
on the character of a highly structured linguistic forum.
Two points are in order, however.
3.1 Weil Reconsidered
supposed protagonists were gone from the scene. Here
it should be pointed out that Weil does not claim that
later grammarians created the actual issues in the de-
bate. He is quite clear on this: "Die Streitfragen sind
vielmehr von den Grammatikerndes 4 Jahrhunderts ...
gesammelt.... Nachdem man die verschiedenen wider-
sprechenden Meinungen gesammelt hatte und nebenei-
nander vor sich auf dem Papiere stehen sah, lag es bei
dem manchmal uberaus scharfen Gegensatz beider
nahe, daraus wirklich diskutierte Streifragenzu machen,
und die beiden Trager dieser verschiedenen Meinungen
als Vertreter zweier 'Schulen' einander gegenuberzu-
stellen" (1913: 60).32
While one can agree with Weil that later grammarians
were responsible for the structure of the actual debates,
it should be noted that his claims that the early linguists
could not have debated the issues themselves because
they had little contact with each other (1913: 53) is con-
tradicted by the content of Sibawayh's and al-Farra"s
own works (see Versteegh 1977: 109). Sibawayh, for
example, on at least four occasions (e.g., 1:99, 1. 16;
176, 1. 7; 409, 1. 7; see Talmon 1988: 85) speaks of
mutual governance, usually of topic and comment
acting on each other, usually when they serve as com-
plement to a locative.
(20) kUna ddka zamana zaydun 'amirun
was that time zayd prince
"that was the time when Zayd was prince"
(1:409, 1. 20)
This is traditionally (al-AnbArl, ex. 5, pp. 44ff.)-and
factually as well-regarded as essentially al-FarrA"s
conceptualization of the governance relation between
topic and comment. Similarly, al-Farra', in one place
32 Baalbaki (1981: 24) misinterprets Weil on this point, con-
cluding that Weil held that the later grammarians themselves
created the actual issues.
 OWENS: Models for Interpreting the Development of Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory
(MM, 109), notes that the term for locative is variously
sifa (his favored term), mahall (which he rarely used,
e.g., 1:340,1.6) or zarf, which happens to be Sibawayh's.
Clearly, from the earliest times, linguists were aware of
what others were doing. On the other hand, there is
little evidence here of a systematic, open, structured
debate, and the data in sec. 1.4 would rather indicate
that the various ideas and terminology circulated quite
freely among the community of linguists and did not
come pre-packaged as "Basran"or "Kufan."
3.2 The Function of Basra and Kufa in the History of
Arabic Linguistics
As a second and final point, I think it no accident
that the Basran and Kufan schools should emerge as
linguistic entities, schools with a defined content, at
precisely the time when a work like al-Sarraj's 'UsWl
standardized Arabic reference grammars. The relation-
ship works in two ways. On the one hand, without
standardization there is no need for sharply defined
schools, because linguists are free to obtain their ideas
from whomever they want (see sec. 1.4). On the other,
in standardizing the linguistic terminology and classifi-
cation, grammarians would necessarily have had to
choose between similar, often equally viable terms and
conceptualizations of data. Should the notion of taqrib
be included? shouldfasl or cimddbe used for separative
pronoun? and so on. Not all terms and ideas could be
given equal consideration, or at least not in a standard
grammar. However, the attribution of the minority
positions to one fixed entity, the Kufans, allowed the
ABBREVIATIONSAND REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
al-'Axfash, Abu Hasan. Ma'cnf l-Qur'fn. Ed. Fa'iz Faris.
Kuwait, 1979.
al-'Astarabadi, Radi 1-Din. Sharh Kitdb al-Kdfiya. Beirfit:
Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, n.d..
Basha, Kamal. Asrdr al-Nahw. Ed. Ahmad Hamid. Amman:
Dar al-Fikr, n.d..
al-Batalyfisi, Abfi Muhammad. Kitib al-IHulal fl 'Isldh
al-Xalal min "Kitdbal-Jumal".Ed. Sa'id SaWWdi. Bagh-
dad: Wizarat al-Thaqafa wa 1-''1lm, 1982.
al-Farisi, Abfi-'Ali. al-'fddh (text in al-Jurjani[a]).
al-Farra', Abfi Zakariyya. (a) Ma'fni l-Qur'dn. Ed. M. 'Ali
l-Najjar and A. Yfisuf Najati. Beirfit: 'Alam al-Kutub,
1983.
. (b) al-Mudakkar wa l-Mu'annat [ = MM]. Ed. R.
al-Tawwab. Cairo: Dar al-Turath, 1975.
237
ideas to be standardized and given official, if only
secondary, recognition.33
4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARABIC SYNTACTIC THEORY
In this paper I have argued that an understanding of
the development of Arabic syntactic theory must de-
pend in the first instance on an examination of the
separate linguistic positions taken by individual lin-
guists. The notions of "Basra" and "Kufa" themselves
constitute linguistic abstractions developed by Arabic
linguists. As such they deserve the modern interpreter's
full attention-but as dynamic notions reflecting the
development of Arabic grammatical theory, not as cate-
gories that provide independent tools for the classi-
fication of early Arabic grammatical thinking.34
33 Looking further afield than nahw, it is surely not a coinci-
dence that Ibn Mujahid's work standardizing the qiraddtalso
appears in the early 4th/ 10th century.
34 Accepting Weil's thesis, one can look at the Basran and
Kufan schools in another way, namely, as the first historiog-
raphy of early Arabic grammatical thinking (the second being
modern attempts to describe it). From this perspective the
results of the two historiographies will display a general iso-
morphism, for example, both leading to the conclusion that
Sibawayh (= Basran) was the dominant figure of early Arabic
grammatical thinking (see sec. 1.3). This parallel breaks down,
however, in the fact that the Arabic "historiography" mani-
fests a circularity, since the Sibawayhian/ Basran positions it
describes are integrated into the standardized grammar which
is used as the basis for regarding Sibawayh/ Basra as superior.
Ibn al-Anbari, Abu l-Barakat. Kitdb al-'Instf fi Masd'il
al-Xildf bayna l-Nahwiyyina l-Basriyypnawa l-Kufiy-
yina. Ed. M. 'Abd al-Hamid. Beirfit: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.
Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad. Mughni l-Labib. Ed. Mazin
Mubarak. Beirfit: Dar al-Fikr, 1969.
Ibn Kaysan, Abfi l-Hasan. Kitdb al-Muwaffaqifl Nahw. Ed.
'Abd al-Husayn al-Fatli and H. Thalathi. Al-Mawrid 4
(1975): 103-24.
Ibn Mujahid, Abfi Bakr. Kittb al-Sab'a fl l-Qirdait. Ed.
Shawqi l-Dayf. Cairo: Dar al-Ma'&rif, 1979.
Ibn al-Nadim, Muhammad. al-Fihrist. Beirfit:Dar al-Ma'rifa,
1978.
Ibn al-Sarraj, Abfi Bakr Muhammad [= al-Sarraj]. al-'Usialfl
l-Nahw. Ed. 'Abd al-Husayn al-Fatli. Beirfit: Mu'as-
sasat al-Risala, 1985.
Ibn 'Usffir al-'Ishbili, Abu l-Hasan. Sharh Jumal al-Zajjj i.
Ed. S. Abuil-Janah. Baghdad:Wizarat al-'Awqaf, 1980.
238 Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (1991)
Ibn YaWish,Ibn 'All [ = IY]. Sharh al-Mufassal. Cairo: Makta-
bat al-Mutanabbi and Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub, n.d.
(no editor).
al-Jurjani, 'Abd al-Q~hir. (a) al-Muqtasidfi Sharh al-fd4h.
Ed. K. B. al-Murjan. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture
and Information, 1982.
. (b) Daha'il al-'I'jaz. Ed. Muhammad Rida. Beirut:
Dar al-Ma'rifa, 1978.
Kitib al-Jumalfi I-Nahw [ KJN]. Ed. Faxraddin Qabawa.
Beiruit,1985.
Lughda, Abu 'All. Kitib al-Nahw. Ed. 'Abd al-Husayn
al-Fatli. Al-Mawrid 3 (1974): 221-46.
Muqaddima fi I-Nahw[= MN]. Ed. 'Izz al-Din al-Tanftxi.
Damascus, 1961.
al-Mubarrad, Ibn Yazid. al-Muqtagdab. Ed. 'Abd al-Xaliq
'Ud.ayma. Beirut: 'Alam al-Kutub, n.d.
al-Saymari, Abu Muhammad. al-Tabsira wa l-Tadkira. Ed.
F. 'Ali 1-Din. Makka: Umm al-Qura University, 1982.
Sibawayh, Abu 'Uthman. al-Kitdb. Ed. H. Derenbourg. New
York and Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970.
al-Suyuti. (a) Kitib al-'Iqtirjh [- Iq]. Ed. Ahmad Qasim.
Cairo: Maktabat al-Sa'ada, 1976.
. (b) Ham' al-Hawdmi' Sharh Jam' al-Jawdmi' [=
Ham']. Ed. M. Na'san!. Beirut: Dairal-Ma'rifa, n.d.
Tha'lab, Abu l-'Abbas. Majdlis. Ed. 'Abd al-Salam Haruna.
Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, n.d.
al-Zajjaj, Ibn Ishaq. Ma'cnil bQur'jn wa JIcribuhu. Ed. 'Abd
al-Xalil Shalabl. Beirut: Maktabat al-'Asriyya, 1973.
al-Zajjaji,Abu l-Qasim. (a) al-'dkhfif'Ilal al-Nahw[=
f1d=h].
Ed. M. al-Mubarak. Beirut: Dar al-Nafa'is, 1979.
(b) al-Jumalfil -Nahw [= Jumal]. Ed. 'Ali 1-Hamad.
Irbid:Dar al-'Amal; Beirfut:Mu'assasat al-Risala, 1984.
al-Zamaxsharl, Abu 1-Qasim.al-Mufassalf 'Ilm al-Arabiyya.
Beirut: Dar al-Jil, n.d.
SECONDARY STUDIES
Ansari, Ahmad. 1964. Abu Zakariyya al-Farrd' wa Madha-
buhu fl I-Nahw wa l-Lugha. Cairo: Nashr al-Rasa'il
al-Jami'iyya.
Baalbaki, R. 1981. "Arab Grammatical Controversies and the
Extant Sources of the Second and Third Centuries
A.H." In Studia Arabia et Islamica: Festschriftfor Ihsan
Abbas, ed. Wadad al-Qadi. Pp. 1-26. Beirut: Ameri-
can University of Beirut Press.
. 1983. "A Difficult Passage in Farra's Mafini
1-Qur'fin."Bulletin d'Etudes Orientales 35: 13-18.
Belguedj, Mohammad. 1973. "La Demarche des premiers
grammariens dans le domaine de la syntaxe." Arabica
20:168-85.
Bernards, M. 1987. "The Position of al-Jarmi between Siba-
wayh and al-Mubarrad." Paper presented at-the Sec-
ond Colloquium for the History of Arabic Grammar,
Nijmegen.
Carter, M. 1972. "Les Origines de la grammaire arabe." Revue
des Etudes Islamiques 40:485-98.
. 1973. "'Xarfet xildf Contribution a la grammaire
arabe." Arabica 20:292-304.
. 1981.Arabic Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fischer, W. 1985. "The Chapter on Grammar in the Kitdb
Mafitih alIcUlum." ZAL 15:94-103.
Fick, J. 1950. al-Arabiyya. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Kinberg, N. 1987. "The Terms Radda, Radd and Mardad in
Macini I-Qur'dn by al-Farra'." Paper delivered at the
Second Colloquium for the History of Arabic Gram-
mar, Nijmegen.
Levin, Aryeh. 1981. "The Meaning of tacadda al-fiq 3ild in
Sibawayhi's Kitdb." In Studia Orientalia, Memoriae
D. H. Baneth Dedicata. Pp. 193-210. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press.
. 1985. "The Syntactic Technical Term al-mabniyy
'alayhi." Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6:299-
352.
Owens, J. 1984. "The Noun Phrase in Arabic Grammatical
Theory." al-Arabiyya 17:47-86.
. 1988. The Foundations of Grammar: An Introduc-
tion to Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
. 1989. "The Syntactic Basis of Arabic Word Classi-
fication." Arabica 36:211-34.
Talmon, R. 1981. "Appositional 'atf An Inquiry into the
History of a Syntactic Category." Arabica 28:278-93.
. 1985. "Who was the First Grammarian? A New Ap-
proach to an Old Problem." ZAL 15: 128-45.
_ 1986. "al-Mas'ala al-Zanbt2riyya:Dirsafl Mdhiyyat
Ixtildf al-Madhabayn al-Nahwiyyayn." al-Karmal 7:
131-64.
. 1988. "A Study in the History of Sentence-concept
and the Sibawayhian Legacy in Arabic Grammar."
ZDMG 138:74-98.
Troupeau, G. 1962. "La Grammaire a Bagdad du IXe au XIIIe
siecle." Arabica 9:397-405.
. 1976. Lexique-index du cKitdb' de Sibawayhi. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Versteegh, C. 1977. Greek Elements in Arabic Linguistic
Thinking. Leiden: Brill.
. 1987. "Die arabische Sprachwissenschaft." In Grund-
rinf der arabischen Philologie, ed. H. Gatje. Vol. II,
pp. 148-73. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Weil, Gotthold. 1913. Die grammatischen Streitfragen der
Basrer und Kufer. Leiden: Brill.
Zwettler, M. 1978. The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic
Poetry. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.