Background and Purposes: Many researchers have realized that ideas presented in modern Western linguistic theories had, in fact, been discussed centuries earlier by Muslim scholars. One example is Aḥmad al-Mutawakkil, a Moroccan linguist influenced by Simon Dik, the Dutch linguist and a leading theorist of Functional Grammar, who developed a new definition of Arabic grammar within a functional framework. Al-Mutawakkil proposed this definition across three levels: semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic. When he discusses situational rules that regulate the movement of sentence constituents based on the pragmatic level, he briefly notes that Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani, in his linguistic theories, had already reached principles resembling modern pragmatics—particularly regarding word order. This study thus compares the views of these two scholars concerning the phenomenon of preposing and postponing (taqdim wa takhir), a syntactic process that both of them analyzed. The central question is: What analytical methods did each scholar use, and what are the common aspects of their views?
Methodology: This paper employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine the similarities and differences between al-Jurjani’s and al-Mutawakkil’s views on preposing and postponing.
Discussion and Results: Al-Mutawakkil argues that Arabic syntax is situationally structured according to (Verb + Subject + Object), with elements fixed at the semantic and syntactic levels. A sentence following this pattern is, in functional grammar terminology, unmarked. However, when elements acquire pragmatic roles in communicative interaction, they shift according to al-Mutawakkil’s situational rules, producing marked sentences. He arranges Arabic sentence constituents as: م۴, م۲, م۱, م۰, ف, (م، آ), فا, مف, ص, م۳, representing vocative (munada), topic (mubtada), discourse introducer, verb, subject, object, semantic structure, and complement. Pragmatic roles are divided into internal (Focus and Axis) and external (Topic (mubtada), Vocative (munada), and Tail (dhayl)). He identifies two types of focus: (1) new focus: introduces new information unknown to the listener; the element does not change position at semantic or structural levels, for example, «من سافر لیلا؟ سافر زیدٌ لیلا», and (2) contrastive focus: contains information that is questioned or denied. It appears in preposing (occupying م۰, e.g., «أ فی المکتبة قرأت أم فی الدار؟ فی المکتبة قرأت»); restrictive structures (postposed, e.g., إنما الشاعر سعدی); and relative clauses (before or after, e.g., «الَّذی جاءک خالدٌ» and «خالدٌ الَّذی جاءک») The topic appears at م۰ without pronominal deletion (e.g., «ماذا فعلت فی المکتبة؟ فی المکتبة قرأت کتابی»); at م۰ with pronominal deletion (e.g., «ما الخبر عن صدیقک؟ صدیقی التقیت به فی الشارع»); or between verb and subject (e.g., «من کتب الرسالة؟ کتب الرسالة صدیقی»). Al-Mutawakkil thus proposes another structure: م۴, م۲, م۱, م۰, ف, (م، آ), فا, مف, ص, م۳. Among external roles, the topic (mubtada) occupies م۲. However, the functional grammar topic differs from the traditional syntactic subject: In «زیدٌ قائم», زیدٌ is the predicate’s subject, not a mubtada. But in «خالدٌ جاء», «أما العروبة فهی شعارهم», «زید أبوه قائم», «العلمُ هل أتقنته», these elements are pragmatic topics representing the discourse domain; such sentences are marked due to topic displacement, sometimes with and sometimes without a pronominal trace. العلم, العروبة, خالد, and زید are considered pragmatic topics, representing the discourse domain. Such sentences are marked, since the topic is displaced from its canonical position—sometimes without and sometimes with a pronominal trace. However, the sentence «زیدٌ قائمٌ» remains unmarked. In the above examples, the predicate subjects are respectively «هو», «هی», the pronoun «ت» and «أب». The vocative (munada) likewise carries no semantic role. In contrast, al-Jurjani examined the phenomenon of preposing and postponing (taqdim wa takhir) and proposed several binary classifications, some of which he discussed in detail: Preposing the noun before the verb: when the listener doubts or denies the action’s occurrence (e.g., «أنا بنیت الدار» → The listener knows that the building occurred but doubts who performed it); preposing the noun before the verb due to importance or topicality: for example, «هُوَ یُعطِی الجَزیل» → emphasizing habitual giving; preposing one complement over another: for example,«قَتَلَ الخارجیَ زیدٌ» → The object (الخارجیَ) is preposed for greater relevance to the listener; and Preposing subject (mubtada) and predicate (khabar) when both are definite: In «زیدٌ المنطلق», the listener knows a departure occurred but is unsure whether it was زید or عمر who departed. In «المنطلق زیدٌ», the listener knows that someone departed but does not know who that person is.
Conclusion: The findings reveal significant commonalities between traditional Arabic linguistic thought and the principles of modern functional–pragmatic linguistics, particularly regarding the mechanisms of linguistic analysis examining the relationship between structure and function. In his analysis of preposing and postponing (taqdim wa takhir), al-Jurjani relied on the pragmatic dimension—the speaker’s intention and prior assumptions about the listener’s knowledge. His view is essentially pragmatic: when a word is preposed due to the listener’s doubt or uncertainty, it assumes the role of a contrastive focus (burat al-muqabil); when preposed due to centrality or topical importance, it fulfills the role of a topic—though al-Jurjani used the terms “interest” (ihtimam) and “attention” (inayah). This topical element, according to him, may even appear between the verb and the subject. Therefore, it can be concluded that al-Jurjani also interpreted preposing and postponing within a pragmatic framework. The main difference between the two scholars lies in the concept of the “pragmatic topic” (al-mubtada al-istimali)—which is one of the external roles—which does not appear in al-Jurjani’s analysis in Maani al-Naḥw.