Description
Many researchers and scholars who dealt with the Arabic grammar theory differed in explaining the position of "meaning" in this theory, and in its clear role in building its general dimensions, methodological origins, and theoretical controls: Some of them saw that the Arabic grammar theory was based on a purely formal basis, taken from the structural relationships between The worker and the worker are a starting point for describing Arabic and its rules are restricted without regard to the secondary meanings behind the apparent structure or a sense of its influence in the description, analysis and complexity. And this matter - if it happens - then it is located directly in passing signals that do not reflect a clear vision or a specific approach. And some of them saw that the meaning was present a strong presence in the works of grammarians, and that many of their views and their origins were taken by a general theoretical basis upon which the rules are based and formulated - with the exception of - rulings. This difference reflects a lack of clarity in the vision and a bit of leniency in judgment, and justifies dealing with this issue with research by putting it into question and investigation. Where does the meaning fall on its various levels and divisions in building the theory of Arabic grammar? What is its role compared to other language controls, such as Arabic, location, and structure? Did grammar define various forms of meaning, such as the morphological meaning, the grammatical meaning, the grammatical meaning, the ajami meaning, the meaning of composition, and the meaning of the place? Or did they not distinguish between them, and the borders were absent from them and meanings overlapped?
