مقاربتان في نقد نظرية النحو العربي : قراءة تحليلية في أطروحتي ابن رشد و ابن مضاء

Abstract EN

The paper aims at holding a one-to-one comparison between two platforms of analysis of Arabic grammar (i.e.

naḥw).

These are the theses put forward by 'Ibn-maḍā' and 'Ibn Rušd.

These two approaches differ significantly from probably all previous reformation accounts in terms of their goal, scope and methodology.

Although 'Ibn-maḍā's approach has been the most revolutionary to date, very little attention has been cast on the no less competing model of analysis of 'Ibn Rušd, who has, the argument goes, laid the foundation of a relatively unprecedented approach that criticizes the traditional theory of Arabic Grammar.

His primary goal was to restructure the traditional theory of Arabic grammar on logical (analytical) bases, similar to those put forward for other languages (e.g.

Greek and Latin).

The paper concludes that both approaches share the goal but differ in scope and methodology (or treatment).

Whereas 'Ibn-maḍā's approach is form-driven (ẓāhiriyy), 'Ibn Rušd's is relatively more meaning-driven (logic).

What this basically means is that whereas the former calls for skinning the text, the other calls only for a short trim.