A Report on the 2nd National Forum for PhD Research Students (Arabic Studies) in Honor of Professor Mohamed Amenzouri 2014

A Report on the 2nd National Forum for PhD Research Students (Arabic Studies) in Honor of Professor Mohamed Amenzouri under the Theme of: Ancient Languages’ Studies and Contemporary Linguistics 2014

October 29 – 30, 2014. Venue: Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences & Faculty of Arabic Language – Marrakesh- The Knowledge Integration and Translation Laboratory (Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences-Marrakesh-) and the Faculty of Arabic Language (University of Al-Qarawiyyin) organized the 2nd National Forum for PhD research students (Arabic studies) under the theme: “Ancient Languages’ Studies and Contemporary Linguistics”. The Forum was held at the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences and at the Faculty of Arabic Language (Marrakesh) on October 29 and 30, 2014. Activities included a number of scientific sessions during which interventions were made by PhD research students. Feedback was given by professors coming from different Arts faculties and research centers in Morocco. The forum was extensively covered by national media. A great number of Moroccan as well as foreign guests attended the meeting. At the end of the forum, special thanks were given to all those who contributed to the success of the event. Tribute was also paid to professor Mohamed Amenzouri for his valuable contribution. Details of the event are presented below: Key-note speech: chaired by Dr. Faisal Chraibi – Faculty of Arts- ( Ain Chok ) – Casablanca. The session opened with a recitation of verses from the Holy Quran, followed by Dr. Faisal Chraibi’s statement. The latter thanked professors who kindly provided constructive feedback on the forum projects. The chairman also thanked the organizing committee headed by Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid and he also praised the efforts made by Dr. Mohammed Amnzwe during his scientific career and noted the initiative of honoring him. He then gave the floor to the organizers of the work of this forum Dr. Mohamed Al-Azhari’s Statement (dean of the Faculty of Arabic language): He began by highlighting the importance of the forum as a gathering place for research students and professors nationwide. He explained that this forum is significant for various reasons, one of which is the importance of ancient languages’ studies in relation to methods and schools of contemporary linguistics. Another reason is the participation of a number of professors who are experts in the field. A third reason relates to the act of tribute itself. He also wished success for the forum as well as subsequent events in the future. At the end of his statement, Mohamed Al-Azhari thanked the organizing committee, namely Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid, the pedagogical team, PhD research students who work at the Laboratory of Translation and Integration of Knowledge, delegates of the dean of the Faculty of Arabic language, as well as the staff of administrators and professors who contributed to the organization of the event. Mr. Abdelali Al-Faqir’s statement (director of the PhD center- Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences – Marrakesh-): He started by greeting the audience, namely professors, students, and the organizing committee. He also praised the act of tribute as a statement of gratitude to professors for their lifelong dedication. He then highlighted the relevance of the theme of the forum since it portrays the relationship between Arab linguistic heritage and contemporary linguistics. The point is that Arab linguistic studies require further research in the light of constant inquiry and different perspectives compared to the already flourishing contemporary Linguistics studies; the reason why, the latter enjoy a prominent status among human sciences. In the end, Mr. Al-faqir reiterated his thanks to the organizing committee for their contribution to the success of the event as well as the audience who took the burden of travel to attend the forum. Dr Ali Al-Motaqi’s statement (director of PhD Arabic studies – Faculty of Arabic language– Marrakesh-): he was pleased to take part in organizing the event alongside with the Laboratory of Translation and Integration of Knowledge, the PHD research centers in the faculty of Arabic and the faculty of Arts and Human Sciences. He also explained that the forum falls under the category of scientific training research students are supposed to take part compliance with the new system. The aim is to make scientific research transcend its unilateral aspect that has characterized Moroccan dissertations for decades into being collective in dealing with problems and issues of common interest. Some of these issues are the problem of methodology and classicalism which is a prime feature of Arab heritage studies, which makes scientific research ruminative. Hence, the forum attempts to implement scientific methodology that has long characterized contemporary Linguistics studies in the reading of Arab linguistic heritage. The forum is fruitful because of the interaction between research students and professors from different Moroccan universities as well as the tributes it pays to prominent professionals, namely Dr. Mohamed Amenzouri. Statement of the Laboratory of translation of meanings of Holy Quran: Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid , head of the Laboratory of Translation and Integration of Knowledge, started by giving credit to organizers. He described the 2nd edition of the forum as a second building block toward training of excellent successors. The laboratory’s activities are meant to be empowering at different levels, namely the accumulation of knowledge, scientific merit, giving credit to people, and surveying great scholars. In this respect, paying tribute to Dr. Mohamed Amenzouri was the cherry on the pie. Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid thanked the following people for their contribution : Dr. Mohamed Al-Azhari (dean of the Faculty of Arabic), Ms. Widad Ettebaa (dean of the faculty of Arts and Human Sciences-Marrakesh-), Mr. Abdelali Al-Faqir (director of the PHD center- Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences – Marrakesh-), Dr Ali Al-Motaqi (director of PHD Arabic studies – Faculty of Arabic language – Marrakesh-), Dr. MY Mamoun El-Merini , and Dr. Abdelhay Al-Abbas. Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid also thanked professors of the faculty of Arabic language and the faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, and all visiting professors, namely Mr. Mustapha Ghelfane. He then thanked members of the Laboratory of Translation and Integration of Knowledge, namely Dr. El-Hassane Darir (faculty of Arts –Marrakesh-), Dr. Abdellah Errashdi (Dar Al-hadith Alhassaniya –Rabat-),and My Mustapha Abou-Hazem. He praised Abdelaziz Ait-Baha, Ms. Lala Meriem El-belghiti, and Ms. Asma Koyahya for their contribution in the organization of the event. He concluded by giving credit to Mr. Rachid Aaerdi and Ibrahim Asikaar (faculty of Arts-Marrakesh-) for assessing research work at the forum as well as the organizing committee for contributing to the success of the event. The First Session: The session was chaired by Dr. My Mamoun El-Mrini (faculty of Arabic language). The opening lecture entitled “A reading into the linguistic heritage from the perspective of contemporary Linguistics: the constraint of culture and the requirements of science” was delivered by Dr. Mustapha Ghelfane (professor of Linguistics at the faculty of Arts, Ain Chok-Casablanca-). Dr. Mustapha Ghelfane started by thanking the organizing committee and the director of the Laboratory of Translation and Integration of Knowledge. He then praised the celebrated Dr. Mohamed Amenzouri before discussing the theme of the forum. He related it to the issue of “modernity and tradition”, a cornerstone in Arab thinking since Renaissance Age according to Dr. Mohamed Aabed Al-Jaberi. Dr. Mustapha Ghelfane tackled the issue by investigating the relationship between ancient Language studies and contemporary Linguistics. According to him, it is three –fold: it is either ambiguous, strained, or deceptive since it is sometimes used to serve purposes. The approach was purely linguistic and tried to answer the following questions: – How did Arab linguistics assimilate principles, assumptions, and models of contemporary linguistics? – How were these linguistic perceptions transmitted to the Arab readership (including experts and lay-people) – To what extent was contemporary linguistics implemented on Arabic? – What are the theoretical implications of such implementation? Dr. Ghelfane attempted to answer these questions through a comparison between research studies conducted in the field and in relation to heritage. For him, no one can deny that the latter is vital to promote development and preserve identity. This is not to preclude the need to keep up –to- date with scientific advances as well as the need for adequate scientific practice. In this respect, we have to tame the tongue about what to say and strike the balance as far as the relationship between Ancient language heritage and contemporary linguistics is concerned. The following questions then come into play: • What are the historical and intellectual contexts for the interpretation of the Ancient Arab language heritage? • In what way did theory and practice impact Ancient language studies? • What is the relationship between heritage and Contemporary linguistics as theories? • To what extent is such interpretation applicable? To answer these questions, Dr. Ghelfane referred to Renaissance age as a starting point in dealing with linguistic activity in Arab culture. This activity is manifested through two types of discourse: A Renaissance linguistic discourse: it deals with Arabic language at the Renaissance age from historical, intellectual, political, and social perspectives. Refaa Attahtaaoui, one of the founding scholars, was the first to simplify Arabic grammar in his book Altuhfa Al-maqtabiya litaqrib Al-qawaaed Al-Arabiya (1868). Other works followed the trend as it tried to investigate into the way language can keep up with the intellectual, social and political changes that characterized Arab society at the Renaissance age. Hence, such a discourse falls within the scope of Arab renaissance. A contemporary linguistic discourse: It started with Ali Abdelouafi‘s Fi 3ilm al-loughat (in the science of language) (1941), a milestone in contemporary Arab linguistic culture that paved the ground for “contemporary discourse”. It is a discourse that took advantage of contemporary western linguistic theories. According to Ali Abdelouafi, there are three variables that regulate contemporary linguistic discourse: topic, methodology and purpose. There are three levels of the topic. The first deals with ancient linguistic studies; the second deals with contemporary linguistic theories; the third, also called Arabic linguistics by Dr. Ghelfane, investigates phonetic, semantic, and syntactic features of Arabic. The aim is to study Arabic in itself and for itself following De Saussure when he said “Linguistics should mainly and exclusively focus on the study of language in itself for itself”. In this respect, linguists are expected to keep up with latest findings in dealing with Arabic. The aim is to achieve a genuine descriptive model in their study of Arabic. Dr Ghelfane mentions one major constraint towards such a model: the issue of “corpus”. It will be hard for linguistics to decide on the type of Arabic to put under scrutiny given the fact that corpus design in linguistics follows certain rules, namely homogeneity, representativeness, and space-time localization. Dr. Ghelfane came to the conclusion that early Arabic lexicologists were better than modern Arabic linguistics both in terms of theory and methodology. In spite of criticism, they followed consistent scientific methodology. In fact, they compiled Arabic corpus in order to formulate Arabic grammar, which is not the case with modern Arabic linguists. The matter is of paramount importance in contemporary linguistic studies since corpus design is a pre-requisite for research activity. According to Dr. Ghelfane, studies that tackled linguistic heritage in the light of contemporary linguistics fell in the trap of bridging the gap between the two since they are incompatible. In this respect, they go against the theory of science when it says “theory cannot be itself and the opposite of itself at the same time”. For instance, readings of Al-jurjaani’s works had different interpretations. In fact, His works were classified as structural, functional, generative, or pragmatic. In linguistics, on the other hand, a clear cut distinction is drawn between these classes. Therefore, Dr. Ghelfane suggests setting a framework for the process of reading as a pre-requisite towards an adequate scientific approach to heritage. At the end of his statement, Dr. Ghelfane highlights the importance of ancient Arab linguistic heritage as representative of a specific cultural context; the reason why, orientalists see it as pure Arab thinking. He also called to use linguistics as a means towards establishing a new intellectual history that is characterized by careful systematic observation. The Second Session: It was chaired by Dr. Hassane Darir – faculty of Arts and Human sciences (Marrakesh). There were two interventions. The first intervention “Instruments to analyze the Arabic sentence in the case of ancient Arab linguistic studies and Contemporary linguistic studies” by Fatiha El-yahyaoui (PhD student at the faculty of Arts Fez-Sais) 1. Al-yahyaoui explained that there are various classes of the Arabic sentence, namely the verb, the subject, the nominal, etc. On the other hand, the linguistic study of the sentence was rather structural as it combines distributional features of the sentence. She then moved to discuss issues related to properties of the sentence in the light of traditional as well as contemporary linguistic studies: – The issue of the sentence and speech; – The difference between simple and complex sentences; – Reference and syntactic components of the verbal sentence; – The concept of the sentence in Transformational Generative Grammar; – The difference between classes of the sentence in Linguistic studies: transformed , kernel, surface and deep sentences ; 1. Al-yahyaoui then demonstrated practical examples of the various studies of the sentence. Focus was generally on the following: – Restricted grammar ; – Rules of the sentence ; – Transformational grammar rules ; 1. Al-yahyaoui affirmed that total grammar is a combination of phonetics and logic. In fact, the sentence undergoes a mental processing followed by a process of transfer that gives shape to lexical units. Subsequently, syntax is applied on these units giving shape to the sentence. Dr. Mohamed El-Omari’s commentary (faculty of Arts – Marrakesh): Dr M. El-Omari thanked F. Al-yahyaoui for her insightful presentation which puts the sentence under scrutiny in the light of ancient and contemporary linguistic studies. He then explained that primary focus should be on the instruments that were used by traditional Arabs compared to others. He also stressed the need to scrutinize the general concepts of the traditional Arab linguists as compared to those of the contemporary one as they are incompatible. He also urged F. Al-yahyaoui to do thorough research in linguistics instead of broad survey of different schools and trends. He added that an overall conception of a given study ensures having empirical results. In the case of inflectional words, for instance, Arabs concluded that classes such as the verb affect diacritics at the end of words. At the end of his statement, Dr M. El-Omari recalled major achievements of linguistic studies. As a matter of fact, there were many different views and perceptions as to the structure of the sentence. Arab linguists, such as Al-fassi Al-Fehri and Ahmed Al-Moutaouakil, were more accurate in their studies since they benefited from various schools, namely generative and functional ones. The second intervention: “categorical patterns of relatives: Towards a new classification” by Abdelhaq El-Omari ( faculty of Arts Fez-Sais) PhD student Abdelhaq El-Omari started by defining categorical patterns of relatives. He also stressed the fact that traditional grammar is a reference for all contemporary linguistic studies. He then explained how traditional scholars made a distinction in speech between the noun, the verb, and the letter. He referred to relatives as nouns following Ibn Malek. He concluded that properties of the noun are not all applicable to the relative noun. As to lexical properties, a number of affinities are found between the relative noun and the lexical expression. A similar analogy between the relative noun and the functional expression boils down to the conclusion that the relative noun is a “mercurial” expression that is located somewhere between lexical and functional expressions. Dr. Fatima Essalami’s commentary (faculty of Arabic language– Marrakesh) Dr. Fatima Essalami remarked that the study is of very little relevance since it lacked solid foundation. In fact, she inquired how the relative “that” is not reckoned as a noun. She provided a taxonomy of nouns with supporting examples. She explained that PhD student Abdelhaq El-Omari made generalization of the expression “that” for all relatives. At the end of her statement, she affirmed that the presentation was no more than a literature review that lacked practical analysis. The Third Session: It was chaired by Dr. MY Mamoun El-Mrini (faculty of Arabic language – Marrakesh). There were two interventions. The first intervention “Deletion style from the perspectives of traditional and contemporary rhetoric: A theoretical and practical approach” by Hanan Essalhi and Mahjouba Al-Bafour (PhD students at the faculty of Arts -Marrakesh) The presentation started by surveying a number of questions and issues that are relevant to the topic: • How was deletion style approached in traditional rhetoric? • What contribution did contemporary rhetoric (i.e. stylistics and pragmatics) make to deletion style? • Is there any distinctive methodology in dealing with deletion style? To answer these questions, the presentation was divided into three chapters, deletion style was discussed with reference to ancient linguistic corpus. It was tackled from the perspectives of lexicologists and studies of rhetoric. The second chapter surveys practical examples of the methodology applied by traditional rhetoric in dealing with deletion style. A distinction is made between the methodology followed by authors (such as A. Al-Jurjaani and D. Ibn Al-Athiir) and that followed by narrators ( such as A. Essakaki and A. El-Babarti ). The third chapter discussed deletion style from the standpoint of contemporary rhetoric (i.e. stylistics and pragmatics). The latter, having benefited from theories of traditional rhetoric, came up with a distinctive conceptual system that was applied in terms of both theory and practice. Commentary of the director of the regional center for education and training- Marrakesh. Mr. director started by introducing threshold concepts in research theory. He then praised the two PhD students who displayed great cognitive, methodological, and communicative potentials, namely in terms of the title and bibliography of their presentation. As to the title, it implies a comparative study of deletion style between traditional and contemporary rhetoric. It also takes into consideration the theoretical practical approach. Mr. director inquired whether the students were well-qualified, mainly at the theoretical level, to deal with traditional rhetoric in its multitude of types, principles, and philosophies. Similarly, he inquired whether they were well-qualified to deal with contemporary rhetoric (i.e. pragmatics and stylistics). Therefore, he suggested that the two students get assistance , have a well-defined corpus for the sake of validity and relevance. As far as bibliography is concerned, it comprised 32 items. It seems to be exhaustive in terms of traditional Arabic references. Conversely, he noticed a lack of references that deal with contemporary linguistic studies (i.e. pragmatics and stylistics), except for French reference which was of little relevance as to pragmatics and stylistics. All the books discussing deletion style from theoretical and practical perspectives were not insightful enough to give credibility to the research findings. The second intervention “The rules and signs of stopping (waqf) and significance of the Quranic text” by Abdelaziz Ettazkini (PhD student at the faculty of Arts -Marrakesh) Abdelaziz Ettazkini highlighted the significance of the rules and signs of stopping (waqf). He made reference to traditional and contemporary linguistic studies. As a first step, he defined the concept of (waqf) from linguistic and terminological perspectives. He then described its relation to the notion of meaning for Arabic scientists. He then concluded that it is indispensable in the study of Quran as it is the means to get the essence of the holy text. From another perspective, he studied (waqf) from the perspective of traditional and contemporary linguistics. He came to the conclusion that the notion was not given priority in traditional linguistics. Later on, it was given much attention by phoneticians who realized its importance for the structure of speech. Dr. Ibrahim Asikar‘s commentary ( faculty of Arts – Marrakesh-) He focused on threshold concepts of the study. As far as the title is concerned, he explained that it lacked preciseness as to the kind of significance (grammatical, linguistic, or rhetorical). It could have been more useful if the concept of (waqf) was linked to questions of interpretation. Every process involves a given reader in a given a context. Contextual variables are then useful, namely intention, adaptation, and setting. He criticized the study for its traditional approach to dictionaries. He suggested that “Lissan Al-Arab” (the Arab’s tongue) would have been a more significant alternative as a reference. He also called for a more in-depth analysis of (waqf) in terms of contemporary linguistics. The Fourth Session: It was chaired by Dr. Ahmed Qadem (faculty of Arabic language -Marrakesh-). There were two interventions. The first intervention “A. El-Gharnati’s text structure: description and interpretation” by Redouane Kaaia (PhD student at the faculty of Arts -Marrakesh) Redouane Kaaia started by discussing El-Gharnati’s model that was introduced in his book “ Malak Al-taawiil ALqaati3 Bi thawi Al-il7aad wa Al-taatil fi tawjiih Almutashabih allafth min altanzil”. El-Gharnati respected the order of chapters in his introduction of the similarities. He also surveyed plausible questions and tried to answer them. He made reference to relevant verses of Quran. According to Redouane Kaaia, attention was given to the syntactic level at the expense of phonetic and lexical levels. As a result, he shifted from the descriptive mode of the language to the interpretive mode of the text. He concluded that El-Gharnati’s “malak Al-taawiil” succeeded in making a distinction between text and language structures. He very often resorted to modularity to cater for preciseness of meaning. It is a meaning that cannot be generated by the same rule of modularity. Dr. Mohamed Khattabi’s commentary ( faculty of Arts – Marrakesh) Dr. M. Khattabi praised the presentation namely in terms of its analysis of the syntactic level in “ Malak Al-Tawil”. He ignored the phonetic and levels for their little significance. For an exhaustive formulation of guidelines, the PhD student needed to be equipped with the necessary tools, namely having access to western studies. In this respect, Dr. M. Khattabi suggested two books : Joanna GAVINS’ “ the Text World Theory” and van Dijk’s “Text and context : Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse”. The second intervention “The concept of refrain in traditional linguistic studies and contemporary linguistics” by Houda Raoud (PhD student at the faculty of Arts -Marrakesh) At the beginning, Houda Raoud explained that the concept of refrain was subject of interest for many disciplines (i.e. language, criticism, rhetoric, and linguistic theory). It also stressed that the concept is semantically pregnant from a linguistic perspective in spite of the absence of well defined terminology by traditional Arab scientists. As to contemporary linguistics, she explained that transmission of speech entails deviation from scientific prose, a tool that involves direct language. Riffatere, a leading figure in contextual stylistics, considers language as a deviation from typical expression. It sometimes involves a violation of rules or the use of unconventional expressions. Houda Raoud stated that the concept of refrain had different names such as deviation, abstention, and displacement. She concluded that the concept was associated to the source in Arabic, to norm in the case of Cohen’s poetry, and to stylistic context for stylisticians. At the practical level, she tackled the concept in relation to declension, parsing, and rhetoric. Dr. Abderrazak Jaanid’s commentary (faculty of Arts –El Jadida-) Dr. Abderrazak Jaanid noticed the absence of foreign studies, despite their reference to modern linguistics. The presentation also didn’t meet expectations, namely the analogy suggested in the title. For him, the study doesn’t go beyond doing research in terminology. He also criticized the PhD students for quoting Al-Massdi’ terms since they did not relate to the concept of refrain. An example of this is that refrain, being a traditional concept, has nothing to do with the modern concept of displacement. The multitude of terms seems in this respect pointless. The Fifth Session: It was chaired by Dr. Abdellah Errashdi (Dar Al-Hadith Al-Hassaniya- Rabat-). There were two interventions. The first intervention “The sentence in traditional linguistic studies and contemporary linguistics” by Mohamed Ouasseksou (PHD student at the faculty of Arts -Marrakesh) The presentation comprised three chapters (in addition to introduction and conclusion). The first chapter discussed the sentence in traditional linguistic studies. The second chapter tackeld the concept in contemporary linguistics. The third chapter focused on the distinction between the sentence and the vocal. He came up with significant findings. Dr. Adil Abdellatif‘s commentary (faculty of Arabic language -Marrakesh-) Dr. Adil Abdellatif praised the study in terms of foundations. He made reference to the issues related to the concept, the use of systematic methodology namely in terms of description and analogy, the use of well defined conceptualization, and the use of effective referencing. From another perspective , he criticized the study for the synonymy of the concepts of sentence and speech. He quoted Sibawayh when he used the concept of speech to refer to language, underused language, and poetry. The study was also criticized for exclusive reference to Sibawayh and not making reference to scholars such as Ibn Jenni and Al-Jurjani. As to contemporary linguistics, it was criticized for exclusive reference to John Cohen and Decrou and not making reference to generative and functional linguists who had significant contributions in the field. From another scale, referencing primary sources was not always the case in the study. This was the case, for instance, when he referenced Kolodni instead of Benfenst. As to modern Arab linguists, the study followed the steps of H. Abdellatif when he discussed Arab linguists ‘contribution in defining the concept of the sentence. In the end, Dr. Adil Abdellatif discussed the underlying goals and objectives of the study. The second intervention “Functional linguistic theory and issues of Arabic in the Moroccan university: toward an evaluative and epistemological approach” by Abdelouahed Essediqi (PhD student at the faculty of Arts -Agadir) Abdelouahed Essediqi tackled issues of Arabic in the Moroccan university in relation to functional linguistic theory with special reference to syntax and semantics in functional grammar from a pragmatic perspective. This theory was the outcome of applying functional linguistics on natural language. It also set conditions for speech acts and the context of interaction. Having set the main underlying concepts of functional linguistic theory, A. Essediqi investigated its implementation in Moroccan universities. By focusing on communication, this theory asserted itself as a subject of research. Special attention was given to relating speech to its conditions of use. 1. Essediqi focused on the teaching of Arabic. He investigated aspects of the functional linguistic competence as it made it easier to teach linguistic phenomena in Moroccan universities. Focus on communication, avoiding abstraction, and the use of simplified Arabic concepts and terminology were keys to its success. Another asset of this theory is that it acknowledges traditional linguistic concepts. At the end of his statement, A. Essediqi highlighted the functional approach of M. El-Motaouakil who focused on the extensive evolutional aspect of the relation between linguistic thinking and contemporary functional linguistics. The latter implemented traditional linguistics to empower Functional Arab linguistics and contemporary functional models. The aim is to achieve cross-fertilization between traditional and contemporary trends. This will pave ground for a better understanding of Arabic grammar unlike generative linguistics which makes a clear cut distinction between the two trends in linguistics. By extension, A. Essediqi thought that there was still a lot of pavement to be covered concerning functional linguistic theories in Arab culture in relation to issues of Arabic and Moroccan students. More research has to be done on theoretical and practical levels so as to construct an original linguistic theory that bridges the gap between traditional and contemporary linguistics. This will help compensate for the shortcomings of contemporary Arab thinking which made linguistic studies in Arab culture seem more archaic and outdated. Dr. Moatassim Al-Kartouti’s commentary (faculty of Arabic – Marrakesh) At the beginning of his statement, Dr. M. Al-Kartouti praised the presentation before introducing a number of methodological issues that can be summarized as follows: • The need for an in-depth analysis of epistemological perspective since the study of epistemology is a time consuming process. • Syntactic structure of some scientific academic works needs to be revisited. • The need for further research in the field of functional linguistics. • The need for empirical analysis of functional linguistic theory by investigating practical examples that foster implementation of the theory. He also stressed the idea that functional linguistics succeeded in bridging the gap with traditional linguistics. The Sixth Session: It was chaired by Dr. Mohamed Khattabi (faculty of Arts- Agadir). There were two interventions. The first intervention “Modality and modeling of the implicit in Moroccan Arabic” by El-Mostapha Fettouh (PhD student at the faculty of Arts –Beni-Mellal) El-Mostapha Fettouh started by explaining that some statements are not meant to have an explicit meaning, but an implicit one. He then set the goal of his presentation: how do we shift from explicit to implicit meaning in Moroccan Arabic? Having compiled a corpus of Moroccan Arabic statements with implicit meaning, M. Fettouh had resort to two theories: Es-Sekkaki’s theory of logic and Grice’s theory of conversational implicature. He concluded by explaining that the shift from the explicit to the implicit entails a violation of at least three out of four conventional principles: quality, quantity, and modality. In terms of implicit meaning, injunctive modality is less significant compared to others. Dr. Hayat Al-Qartaoui’s commentary (faculty of Arts – Marrakesh-) Dr. Hayat Al-Qartaoui thanked the organizing committee for the event which served as a thesis preparation. She praised the study for daring to deal with Es-Sekkaki’s and Grice’s theories. There were a number of limitations, though. • Unlike what was stated in the introduction, the study mainly focused on Grice’s theory instead of drawing analogy with Es-Sekkaki’s theory. • There were several instances where conversational principles were mentioned with little insight into their definitions. • Bibliography was criticized for not being exhaustive and pertinent enough. The second intervention “Modulation of (Laysa) in Arabic and other languages” by Mohamed Menyati (PhD student at the faculty of Arts –Ben Msik – Casablanca) Mohamed Menyati started by stressing the fact that there are not enough modulation studies in the Arab world. His task was in this respect restricted to redefining and reorganization. His study of (Laysa) was of three types: (Laysa) as a linking verb, as a negative particle, and as an auxiliary verb. Mohamed Menyati explained that Arab terminologists discussed (Laysa) in spite of the fact that their studies were not extensive enough. Subsequently, he discussed the three types giving examples from a variety of languages. As far as the first type is concerned, he defined transition sentences and discussed some examples, namely the ones with a linking word, the ones whose predicate becomes a linking word, and the ones whose linking word is a pronoun. As to the second type ((Laysa) as a negative particle), it is justified by the following: first, (Laysa) is a linking word that fulfills negation, etymology, and representation. Second, (Laysa) is also considered as a linking verb. Concerning the third type ((Laysa) as an auxiliary verb), he discussed the definition of auxiliary verbs as well as issues of auxiliaries, negative words, and etymological representation of the word (Laysa). Dr. Mustapha Ghelfane’s commentary (faculty of Arts – Ain Chok –Casablanca ) Dr. Mustapha Ghelfane’s feedback was insightful and constructive. At first, he inquired whether the study was part of a thesis or a presentation that was meant for the forum. He praised the spirit of knowledge displayed in the research. Conversely, he criticized the study for the lack of well-defined methodological approach as well as the ambiguity of the title, the word modulation. He also called for the use of simple terminology to make the study more comprehensible to its readership. Workshop 1: “phonology and integration of knowledge” chaired by Dr. Mohamed Adiwan (faculty of Arts – Rabat-). Date: October 30th, 2014. Venue: faculty of Arts- Marrakesh- Dr. Mohamed Adiwan started by thanking the organizing committee, namely Dr. Abdelhamid Zahid (director of laboratory of translation and integration of knowledge) for his dedication and unquenched quest for research. He then gave the floor to the workshop facilitator Dr. A.Zahid. The latter thanked Mr. chairman , attending professors, namely Dr. Mustapha Ghelfane, and Dr. Mourad Mawhoub, dean of the faculty of Arts – Ain chok- Casablanca, who was supposed to assist him in the workshop but couldn’t for administrative reasons. At first, Dr. A.Zahid explained that this forum was an attempt to draw a link between two eras of thinking. Nevertheless, conclusions and findings have to be unified and coherent. He explained that complementarity is key to knowledge that can be perceived worldwide. It is a consciousness that dates back to antiquity. According to Dr. A.Zahid, there are two types of complementarity in phonology: traditional complementarity between phonology and other sound related disciplines, and modern complementarity between modern and traditional approaches to phonology. He quoted Ibn Jenni’ s sir sina3at Al-i3raab ( the secret of the craft of parsing) as he highlighted the complementarity between music and phonology. It paved ground for his book Al-sawt fi 3ilm al-mousiqa al-arabiya: dirasat sawtiya (Arab music and sound: a phonological study). He came down to the conclusion that both disciplines are important for mutual comprehension. Complementarity is also a feature of non-linguistic disciplines such as philosophy, souphism, rhetoric, and reciting. For instance, he referred to Mohamed Adiwan’s Assawt fi rasael ikhwan assafa (sound in the journals of Assafa). And Assawt fi al-dirasat al-balaghiya wa annaqdiya athuratiya wa alhaditha (sound in traditional and modern critical rhetorical studies). The latter features complementarity between phonology and rhetoric. Traditional complementarity is of two types: explicit and implicit. Implicit complementarity is traced at works of linguists (Sibawayeh’s Al-kitab(the book), lexicographers ( Ibn Darid’s Al-jamhara (the collection), and reciting scholars. Explicit complementarity is traced in eloquence, rhyme, and rhetorical devices… as well as music. Examples of the fore mentioned disciplines were stated in the case of implicit complementarity. As to explicit complementarity between phonology and music, he referred to the issue of “the witty and the unhumorous” and “repetitive sounds” (fricatives). In the case of implicit complementarity between phonology and rhetoric, he referred to the issue of “the congruous and the incongruous”. Dr. Zahid then moved to discuss modern complementarity between modern and traditional phonology. He stated examples of inclination, namely Ibn Jenni who used modern sound mechanisms to describe the process of inclination. He concluded that modern studies are necessary to revisit traditional texts provided interpretation is rational and motivated. As usual, he gave an example from everyday life. Another evidence to that complementarity is the complementarity between phonology and prosody (e.g. Al-iqwaa ). The latter was traditionally analyzed, just like other prosodic and linguistic features, from a segmental perspective. This was to contradict orientalists who claimed that Arabs, who had no sense of the segment, adopted an alphabetical approach instead. Dr. Zahid explained that the problem was related to phonology and not prosody. The same applies to Al-isnad. In this respect, distinction had to be made between prosodic and phonological features. In fact, ambiguity was a prime feature of Hazem’s attempt to define emulation in Poetic purposes. Phonological features were ignored. Prosodic problems were defined as being phonological and not vice versa. Mr Zahid then concluded his statement giving room for discussion. Dr. Mohamed Adiwan thanked Dr. Zahid for his presentation. He qualified him as being modern in spite of the claim that he is traditional. He also explained that traditional approaches to phonology had aspects of modernity. He justified for the reason why their theories failed to be considered as sciences giving examples of many scholars. He also shed light on some aspects that promote deep understanding of heritage in the light of modern sciences, namely phonology. Dr. Mohamed Adiwan then opened the floor for discussion. Subsequently, Dr. Zahid raised three points for reflection. Firstly, a distinction had to be made between two faculties, namely Abdurrahman’s concept of universalism vs. particularism. He explained that universal faculties (time, region, event…) are not found in linguistics. The matter is therefore left to philosophy. Secondly, a distinction had to be made between traditional and modern terms since they are time-specific. Finally, he explained that phonology is subsequent to phonetics. Mr. Chairman then called for a ten minute coffee break. Workshop 2: “Traditional linguistic studies and Linguistics” chaired by Dr. My Mustapha Abou Hazem (faculty of Arts – Marrakesh-). At the beginning of his statement, Mr. Chairman introduced a number of points for the record: • “Traditional linguistic studies” is very often related to linguistics and language –based studies that were relative Islamic culture. This dated back to the origin of sciences at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century of Al Hijra. Special reference is also made to the overlap between traditional and modern linguistics. Traditional linguistics is based on two principles: • The first related to time and knowledge in the history of civilization (over 12 centuries) • The second related to language in relation to people and geography. The aim was to raise awareness of the researchers to the seriousness of the issue when dealing with traditional linguistics. Dr. Abou Hazem then suggested that the term “modern linguistics” should encompass all schools and theories of linguistics provided they all apply to Arabic. In fact, all schools and theories in this workshop are put under scrutiny on equal footing in spite of the fact that each professor or researcher may be biased toward a particular school or theory. Dr. Abou Hazem also recalled the fact that researching in modern linguistics is pretty challenging since all the questions , theories, perceptions, and objectives along with related sciences and literatures are of a particular cognitive nature. In this respect, studying linguistics requires specialization in the field. • Another point concerns the particle ‘waw’. Does it entail disassociation or cognitive detachment? Is it used to display comparison? Does it mean agreement or contradiction? He also stressed that neither traditional nor modern linguistics were independent, which raised questions as to the cognitive links between them. According to Dr. Abou Hazem, there are two rules to offer interpretations in these disciplines: specialization in the field and setting the necessary epistemological and cognitive conditions as well as sticking to a clear non-ornamental style. This will help spare methodological issues. Dr. Abou Hazem then put the following points under discussion: • The conceptual level of the study: “Interpreting modern linguistics in the light of traditional linguistics and vice versa”. This presupposed answering questions relative to subject matter, style, conditions and scope of the study. • The second level related to disciplines other than phonology, namely grammar, rhetoric, semantics, pragmatics, and acoustic linguistics. • The third level deals with experiences and models in an abstract way with particular reference to post -2000 periods. An example of this was Ahmed El-Moutaouakel’s model as illustrated in his book ‘ Massa’il Al-Nahw Al-Arabi fi Qadaya al-Nahw Al-Wathifi’ ( Issues of Arabic Grammar in the case of functional Grammar). • The fourth level had to do with horizons of the study. After that, he opened the floor for subsequent interventions. Dr. M. Ghelfane’s intervention: In his intervention, Dr. M. Ghelfane discussed the four levels and set forth his thoughts about horizons, experiences, and the conceptual level. He made reference to the first day of the forum to discuss aspects of the particle ’waw’. The latter becomes more ambiguous when it loses its cognitive function. He also classified interpretation into three categories: • A pro- heritage interpretation: He argued against such interpretations. • An interpretation that aims to make adjustments at the level of terminology of grammar: An example of this is Tamam Hassan. • An ‘interactive’ interpretation (as defined by Al-Moutaouakel) that attempts to properly define traditional Arabic linguistic theory in the different stages of linguistic intellect: it is an objective interpretation that aims to adequately define the linguistic intellect. Dr. M. El-Mellakh’s intervention: Dr. El-Mellakh discussed the relationship between linguistics and heritage from an epistemological perspective in such a way that maintains parting and pairing between concepts, inference tools and described phenomena in both traditional Arabic and modern linguistics. A thorough understanding of this relationship requires a mastery of the underlying methodological, philosophical, cognitive and formal aspects. Dr. El-Mellakh also discussed illusion which was a feature of some studies and interpretations. The idea is that conceptual and philosophical origins of both traditional and modern linguistics are the same. This goes against regeneration that stands at the heart of human thinking development. In fact, revolution of knowledge is perceived in sensory linguistics as it intersects with other disciplines (i.e. Biology, computer neurological sciences, cognitive sciences, etc). The cognitive map is then different from those that shaped traditional Arabic linguistic studies. It is then noticed that research in language is similar to that in properties of matter, which marks the beginning of a new concept as to the relationship between human and exact sciences. As a result, many assumptions in human sciences that are mainly subjective are to be put in perspective. Many judgments and fallacies that are still omnipresent in cognitive discourse are to be revisited. This is due to the fact that new cognitive concepts lack foundation, namely the concepts of modeling and description. Founding will indeed grant these concepts the opportunity to be part of public and academic debates in many fields of knowledge rather than be based on preconceptions. Dr. El-Mellakh raised the issue of cumulative balancing. The latter has to be internal and intermediate. He quoted Dr. Zahid’s concept of ‘integrative intermediate’ balancing. Dr. El-Mellakh justified for the establishment of Heritage-oriented approach in Moroccan universities as follows: – Ideology – Lack of adequate pedagogical conception: A number of traditional subjects (i.e. grammar, rhetoric, and prosody) are grouped with linguistics regardless of subsequent epistemological relations. This is not to mention the fact that linguistic subjects are taught, not from a constructive analytical perspective, but from a diachronic one, which definitely impacts research. Besides, grouping is not very often conceptually, cognitively, and epistemologically motivated. Epistemological foundations are ignored, namely the concept of comparison (as between traditional and modern concepts). As a matter of fact, comparison requires a thorough understanding of the subject matter, cognitive foundations, concepts as well as their underlying maps. The absence of such pedagogical approaches impacts the end product. Comparison is always possible. An example to follow is El-Moutaouakel who managed to develop concepts and analytical instruments, implement them in functional grammar, and then export them to the English speaking community worldwide. In the end, Dr. El-Mellakh stressed the fact that research has to adopt a scientific approach that follows a holistic institutional perspective and that avoids subjectivity in favor of modernity. Research projects should be coherent and should pave ground to reflection on universal questions. Dr. M. Adiwan’s intervention: At first, Dr. Adiwan discussed the issue of the particle ‘waw’. He related it to the relationship between traditional Arabic linguistic studies and modern linguistics. He quoted Karl Cooper’s words in ‘structure of scientific revolutions’ “no scientific revolution is made possible unless there is a constant argument between two cognitive poles that compete in their quest for truth.” In his discussion about the science of knowledge, epistemology, Dr. Adiwan referred to Gaston Bachlar who discussed the concept of cognitive ruptures. The latter don’t imply an ultimate cognitive break-off, but one that refers to former patterns of thinking to provide answers to current issues. He also distinguished between non- scientific traditional thinking and the so- called added value of previous knowledge. After that, Dr. Adiwan discussed the particle’waw’ from an intellectual perspective. He explained that the particle ‘waw’ attempts to bridge the gap between two different tendencies as they try to answer the same questions. In fact, Arabic traditional linguistic studies provided answers that are congruent with the cognitive theoretical framework and coherent with answers provided by other sciences in the same era. The outcome is pretty much the same in all fields of knowledge that were connected to Arabic mentality of that time, as well as in all times that were defined by those answers. Scientists came up with congruent and almost similar answers. Different viewpoints punctuate subjective interpretation. Nevertheless, all patterns of thinking had to abide by the predominant model which was the example to follow for all scientists. The second issue, the particle ‘waw’ opens door to discussion between linguistics and linguistic intellect or traditional linguistic studies. This is indeed needed provided that: • It doesn’t generate a derogatory interpretation. • It doesn’t eclipse the pros of that linguistic intellect • It gives way to constructive criticism. In this respect, the particle ‘waw’ would draw its significance as it works on traditional linguistics and promotes it in such a way that it keeps up with current issues. That way, the analysis would be adequate and up-to-date. • It provides for a rationale interpretation. An example of this is T.Hassan’s ‘Allougha Al-Arabiya: Ma3naaha w Mabnaaha’ (Arabic: its meaning and phraseology). The latter used linguistics to tackle issues of traditional grammar. From another scale, this interpretation should provide a framework for the meaning and use of concepts. It should avoid reiteration by investigating traditional linguistic intellect from a general cognitive perspective. An example of this is F. Qabaouah‘s ‘Ashbaah al-jumal w al-jumal’ (clauses and sentences) Dr. Adiwan also affirmed that traditional linguistic studies get significance from the fact that they never claimed that traditional terminologists exhausted research about grammar. An adequate interpretation is needed in the sense that traditional linguistics fits modern linguistics with all due respect to the differences between the two poles. Dr. F. Mesbah’s intervention Dr. Mesbah expressed his interest as a researcher in linguistic studies. Similarly, he expressed interest in the name of the regional center of professions of education and training namely in terms of didactic, technical and pedagogical issues. He also raised a number of questions such as the scope of studies that tackle the issue at tertiary level. Subsequently, he discussed the significance of the particle ’waw’ and raised questions about its function: Does it aim to oversimplify linguistic studies or understand and interpret them? Does it target to promote traditional linguistics by means of modern linguistics? What implications do these studies have on language acquisition, language teaching, and language learning? As a matter of fact, language acquisition is a central issue at the center of education and training. In his words, normative perspective was not successful. He then discussed functional studies. The latter comprised other disciplines such as rhetoric and prosody in addition to grammar. This concludes the scientific work of this forum, and the evening session was devoted from the second day to honor Professor M. Amenzouri. Words of appreciation were addressed by some of his students and colleagues at the faculty of Arts –Marrakesh since early 80s. At the end, he was offered a ‘crystal shield’ by the Laboratory of Translation and Integration of Knowledge as a token of gratitude for his efforts in the fields of teaching and supervision.