Abstract

Objectives: The study aims to elucidate the nature of this disagreement, demonstrate the impact of methodological differences on the interpretation and analysis of the grammatical phenomenon, and draw upon Quranic applications as a basis for examining these issues. Methodology: This study examines the long-standing grammatical dispute between the Basran and Kufan schools concerning the governing element responsible for assigning the accusative case to the direct object, a central issue in the theory of grammatical governance ('amal). It seeks to re-examine this question through the earliest grammatical sources, uncover the theoretical foundations underlying the two schools' positions, and demonstrate how their methodological differences shaped their understanding of the concept of the grammatical governor and its role within the structure of the Arabic verbal sentence. Conclusion: The study concludes that the disagreement between the Basran and Kufan grammarians concerns the source of grammatical governance rather than the accusative status of the direct object itself. It demonstrates that the Kufan arguments primarily establish the close syntactic relationship between the verb and the subject without conclusively proving their joint participation in grammatical governance. The findings further indicate that distinguishing between predicative relations and governing relations provides a more precise understanding of the concept of the grammatical governor. On the basis of textual analysis, critical evaluation, and Qur'anic evidence, the study ultimately supports the Basran position that the verb alone governs the accusative case of the direct object, while acknowledging the Kufan contribution in emphasizing the significance of syntactic structure in explaining grammatical relations.