بررسی و تحلیل انواع علل در قیاس (علت، شَبَه و طرد) مورد پژوهی دیدگاه های نحوی ابن انباری در (اسرار العربّیه) و ابن یعیش در (شرح المفصل) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مسئله قیاس (Deduction) در علم اصول نحو، سهم بزرگی را، در استدلال مسائل نحوی در فرایند ساخت قاعده زبان عربی، به خود اختصاص داده است. این اصول عبارتند از: سماع، قیاس، اجماع و استصحاب حال، به عنوان یک اصل کلی حاکم بر علم نحو در علم زبان شناسی زبان عربی است؛ با لحاظ این تفاوت که علم نحو دانش کشف قواعد بر اساس تنظیر موارد مورد استعمال در زبان عربی براساس استقراء، به عنوان جزء است و علم اصول نحو، به عنوان یک امر کلّی حاکم بر آن جزء است و اثبات مسائل نحوی، مبتنی بر چهار اصل مذکور است که قیاس به عنوان منبع دوم از منابع اصول نحو، بعد از مستند سماع (یعنی ملاحظه امر مسموع و استقرای آن)، مدنظر علمای نحو- از دیرباز تا کنون- بوده است. رویکرد قیاسی یا استدلال قیاسی، تلاش مبتنی بر عقل برای قانونمند کردن مسائل نحوی است. مبادرت نحویان بزرگ ایرانی و غیر ایرانی به این مسئله و تلاش دو نحوی بزرگ از جمله، ابن انباری(ت577ه) که خود مبدع تقسیم قیاس به «قیاس علت، شَبَه و طرد» در کتاب «لمع الادله» بوده است، ما را بر آن داشت که با رویکرد توصیفی- تحلیلی و با استفاده از منابع و داده های زبانی موجود، به مقایسه و بررسی و تحلیل چند مبحث متناظر نحوی در کتاب «اسرار العربیه» ابن انباری و «شرح المفصل زمخشری» از ابن یعیش موصلی(ت643ه)، در این دو کتاب بپردازیم. یافته های این پژوهش حاکی از آن است که هر دو عالم نحوی در کتاب های خود جهت تبیین قواعد نحوی، به طریقِ قیاس، استدلال نمودند، منتها با ملاحظه ی این فرق که، ابن انباری با اینکه خود مبدع انواع قیاس بوده، در این کتاب، تقریبا از قیاس شبه، استفاده کرده که از ارزش علمی بسیار کمتری در تبیین قواعد نحوی، نسبت به قیاس علت برخوردار است. ولی این یعیش، در مقام تبیین و استدلال و با برخورداری از دانش زیاد نحوی خود از قیاس علت استفاده نموده است. قابل ذکر است که نه ابن انباری و نه ابن یعیش، هیچکدام در دو کتاب نحوی آمده در عنوان، به نوع قیاسی که از آن استفاده کرده اند، اشاره ای نداشته اند. نگارنده در این مقاله، بر اساس نوع رویکرد هر یک از دو نحوی، مطالب و آرای آنها را در قالب قیاس و انواع آن، دسته بندی نموده و با عنایت به تحلیلات صورت پذیرفته در این مقاله، قیاس علت و رویکرد ابن یعیش را به جهت استفاده از آن بخاطر استدلالی بودنش در تبیین قواعد نحوی، بر قیاس شبه ابن انباری، ترجیح داده است.Assessment and Analysis of Types of Causes in Deduction (Cause, Analogy and Refutation) A Case Study of the Syntactical Views of Ibn Anbari in Asrar Al-Arabyah (Secrets of Arabic) and Ibn Yayish in Sharh Al Mufasal (Unabridged Commentary)
The problem of deduction in the science of principles of syntax has a great role in the argument of the syntactical issues in the process of construction of rules of language. Principles of syntax consist of hearing, deduction, consensus and intellectual association and dominate the science of syntax in the domain of Arabic linguistics. Deduction as the second source of the principles of syntax, after hearing (i.e. consideration of the heard and its induction) has been taken into account by the grammarians since time immemorial. Deductive approach or argument by deduction represents the reason based effort for legalization of the syntactical problems. The contributions of the great Iranian and non-Iranian grammarians to this problem as well as the efforts of two great scholars of syntax including Ibn Anbari (b. 577 A.H.) who has been himself the pioneer of the division of deduction into the deduction of cause, deduction by analogy and deduction by refutation in his Lumah Al-Adillah inspired us to engage in a descriptive-analytic study using the extant linguistic sources and data to assay and analyze a number of parallel syntactical discussions in Ibn Anbari’s Asrar Al-Arabyyah and Ibn Yayish of Mosul’s Sharh Al-Mufasal Zamakhshari (b. 643 A.H.). The findings of this study suggest that both scholars of syntax have explained the syntactical rules by way of deduction though Ibn Anbari despite of his being the inventor of the classification of deduction has almost used the deduction by analogy in his book which is of a lesser scientific value in the explanation of syntactical rules as compared to the deduction by cause. But Ibn Yayish has made use of the deduction by cause in his explanations and arguments and in a more powerful way. It needs to be mentioned that neither Ibn Anbari nor Ibn Yayish has noted the type of the deduction used. The author of the present essay has classified the ideas and debates of these two scholars based on different forms of deduction and preferred Ibn Yayish’s approach in view of its use of deduction by cause given its argumentative power in the explanation of syntactical rules over against Ibn Anbari’s deduction by analogy. Keywords: Science of Principles of Syntax, Deduction, Types of Cause (Cause, Analogy, Refutation), Ibn Anbari, Asrar Al Arabyah, Ibn Yayish, Sharh Al MufasalAssessment and Analysis of Types of Causes in Deduction (Cause, Analogy and Refutation) A Case Study of the Syntactical Views of Ibn Anbari in Asrar Al-Arabyah (Secrets of Arabic) and Ibn Yayish in Sharh Al Mufasal (Unabridged Commentary)AbstractThe problem of deduction in the science of principles of syntax has a great role in the argument of the syntactical issues in the process of construction of rules of language. Principles of syntax consist of hearing, deduction, consensus and intellectual association and dominate the science of syntax in the domain of Arabic linguistics. Deduction as the second source of the principles of syntax, after hearing (i.e. consideration of the heard and its induction) has been taken into account by the grammarians since time immemorial. Deductive approach or argument by deduction represents the reason based effort for legalization of the syntactical problems. The contributions of the great Iranian and non-Iranian grammarians to this problem as well as the efforts of two great scholars of syntax including Ibn Anbari (b. 577 A.H.) who has been himself the pioneer of the division of deduction into the deduction of cause, deduction by analogy and deduction by refutation in his Lumah Al-Adillah inspired us to engage in a descriptive-analytic study using the extant linguistic sources and data to assay and analyze a number of parallel syntactical discussions in Ibn Anbari’s Asrar Al-Arabyyah and Ibn Yayish of Mosul’s Sharh Al-Mufasal Zamakhshari (b. 643 A.H.). The findings of this study suggest that both scholars of syntax have explained the syntactical rules by way of deduction though Ibn Anbari despite of his being the inventor of the classification of deduction has almost used the deduction by analogy in his book which is of a lesser scientific value in the explanation of syntactical rules as compared to the deduction by cause. But Ibn Yayish has made use of the deduction by cause in his explanations and arguments and in a more powerful way. It needs to be mentioned that neither Ibn Anbari nor Ibn Yayish has noted the type of the deduction used. The author of the present essay has classified the ideas and debates of these two scholars based on different forms of deduction and preferred Ibn Yayish’s approach in view of its use of deduction by cause given its argumentative power in the explanation of syntactical rules over against Ibn Anbari’s deduction by analogy. Keywords: Science of Principles of Syntax, Deduction, Types of Cause (Cause, Analogy, Refutation), Ibn Anbari, Asrar Al Arabyah, Ibn Yayish, Sharh Al Mufasal
تبلیغات
