The Controversy of Grammatical Causation: Between Endorsement and Opposition

Abstract

This research investigates the controversy surrounding grammatical causation (تعليل نحوي) in Arabic grammar, examining the viewpoints of both proponents and opponents. Grammatical causation is a fundamental principle in Arabic syntax, crucial for understanding and solidifying rules beyond rote memorization, and was a key method used by grammarians to construct and interpret linguistic phenomena. The study proceeds through two main axes: first, defining the concept of the grammatical cause (العلة النحوية), its significance, and its objectives, highlighting that these rules are not arbitrary but based on a logical linguistic framework. Second, the study reviews the controversy, noting that the debate stems from whether grammar should merely describe usage or also interpret and explain causes. Proponents, such as Al-Farkhan, Ibn Jinni, and Al-Isfara'ini, defended causation, asserting that it reveals the wisdom and underlying logic of the language and requires intellectual effort for comprehension. Conversely, opponents, including Ibn Al-Tarāwah, Ibn Madaa', and Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi, viewed excessive causation as a philosophical burden, leading to complication and deviation from pure linguistic usage. Modern grammarians also reflected this divide, with some advocating for refining the causes and retaining those connected to meaning (like Ali Al-Najdi Nasif), while others called for its abolition to simplify the science (like Ibrahim Mustafa and Shawqi Deif). The research concludes that causation holds significant importance, particularly for specialists, but acknowledges that excessive use of dialectical causation contributed to widespread scholarly disagreement. However, no absolute rejection of all types of causation was found, as even opponents accepted some functional causes.