The Philosophy of Analogy in Syntactic Heritage

Abstract

Language is a living organism that grows and develops; it is also a living organism that reproduces and multiplies, producing an endless series of semantic synonyms in the lexicon and functional counterparts in the realm of grammatical and morphological functions. Because it is born of wisdom—for it reproduces with wisdom—it is careful—and wisely so—to ensure that no two linguistic elements burdened with the same function or meaning are combined in its structural system. This is governed by the principle of usefulness and the avoidance of ambiguity, beyond the requirement of clarity, as well as the need to fulfill the demands of brevity and conciseness, and to avoid prolixity and repetition, provided that one of the two similar elements is sufficient to replace the other and render its mention unnecessary. Arab scholars have drawn attention to this linguistic trend since the early stages of the study of Arabic—phonetically, morphologically, and semantically—and it is known among them as "the aversion to the repetition of similar elements." However, modern scholars have given due attention to the phonetic and morphological aspects of this linguistic phenomenon, neglecting its examples at the syntactic level to the point of near-forgetfulness, even though it poses a greater threat to the correctness of speech and has a more significant impact on preventing ambiguity. There is a difference between a similar sound or a sound symbol (a letter) within a word's structure and a similar word within a phrase. There is also a difference between two linguistic elements being similar in form and being similar in meaning and function. This is a pioneering study that aims to outline the features of the phenomenon of "similarity" at the syntactic level, initially identifying its example and ultimately confirming its connection to its general linguistic manifestation. In doing so, it reveals the meaning of similarity and the mechanism of similarity, outlining its rules and defining its scope. It is for this reason that I have written.