1

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University

Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences
Dhar El Mehraz

Standard Arabic Derived Nominals:

How to distinguish between the verbal and the nonverbal?
Rachid El Ouardi
0. Introduction:
The properties of lexical items are restrictedly specified in the lexicon. It
is claimed that the value of a lexical category is determined on the basis of
that of the functional category(ies) it may encode; the former is dependent
on the latter. Given this, the masdar and participles category should be
specified at the initial state of the lexicon with its features, either as purely
nominal or as verbal-nominal (i.e., as a mixed category), for masdars, or
as purely nominal/adjectival or nominal verbal for participles. The main
proposal here is that by making use of categorial and functional features,
we can theoretically easily differentiate between verbal and nominal
masdars, on the one hand, and between participles and adjectives/nouns,
on the other.

1. Categorial feature specification:

In order to capture the cross-categorial generalisation of such a
view, it has been assumed that a componentional analysis in terms of the
two primitive features [+/-N] (substantive) and [+/-V] (predicative) is often
taken to define traditional parts of speech 1. On the basis of these two

) See Chomsky,1970,1981; Stowell,1982, among others.

features, four major lexical categories are distinguished (Noun, Adjective,

Verb, Preposition):

1)
a)
b)
c)
d)

N: [+N,-V];
A: [+N,+V];
V: [-N,+V];
P: [-N,-V].

As for the functional categories, it has been maintained that there

should be a categorial feature system appropriate to them, assuming their
significance in the syntactic theory. Among various syntacticians, Fukui
(1995) proposes a system of feature specification introducing the notion
[+/-F] ( F for functional) to distinguish lexical from functional categories.
Thus, lexical categories are associated with the feature [-F] while
functional ones have the [+F] feature. The feature specifications of the
major functional categories, as proposed by Fukui (1995:339), are as
follows:
2)
D: [+F,+N,-V] ;
+V]

C: [+F,-N,-V] ;

T: [+F,-N,+V] ;

AGR: [+F,+N,

The [+V] specification for T expresses the fact that T is closely

related to a verbal head. Yet, there is no way to characterise the category
masdar, for example, in this system. In other terms, if masdar is to be
viewed as an ordinary noun, then its categorial features will be [+N,-V] ,
and the functional feature specification for the head associated with it will
be D whose specification captures the intuitively obvious fact that
determiners are closely related to nouns, but are unrelated to verbs. If, on
) Chomsky (1995) assumes that AGR does not project as an independent category, thereby excluding AGR
from the class of major functional categories.
2

the other hand, it is verbal, the categorial specification will be [+N,+V]

which is ambiguous between two categories (i.e., A and N):
3)

A: [+N,+V ]

N (masdar): [+N,+V ]

The question now is: how to get out of such a confusing situation,
i.e., the fact that masdar is still retaining some of the nominal properties
while picking up some verbal elements?
2. Cross-linguistic variations:
It should be noted that there is a general consensus on the notion of
categorial specification across languages of the world. Harada (2000:3),
for example, asserts that
if the categorial feature specification of the lexical
items is not universally fixed, it would not be possible
to explain cross-linguistic variations among lexical
items
For example, while verbs in both English and Japanese show tense
properties, adjectives in English do not bear any tense inflection and
require a copula as a tense bearer, but in Japanese, they do inflect for
tense. Assuming that tense is a selectional relation that holds between T
and a lexical category, T, in both languages, selects V by virtue of having
the categorial feature specification in (4):
4)
V: [ -N,+V ] ;
T: [+F,-N,+V ]
On the basis of this reasoning, since, as defined traditionally, the
masdar is an event without time reference, T would not select a masdar
as there is no selectional relation between the two. Consequently, the fact
that masdars do not inflect for tense can now be accounted for. However,
unless we allow parametric variations in the categorial feature

specification, this account cannot be extended to both Arabic masdar and

Japanese adjectives, and where the former, though not inflected for tense,
is verbal in nature, and the second, though having tense inflection, are not
verbs. Consequently, it seems necessary to show some flexibility to the
way lexical items are characterised. In the same vein, Harada (2000:4)
claims that
variations with regard to the properties of the lexical
categories could be accommodated by allowing featurechanging; for example, a learner of a given language
would change the value of the categorial feature
specifications of V from the default [-N,+V] to [-N,-V],
based on some primary data.
3. Functional feature specification:
We may have the categorial specification for the verbal masdar as
[+N,+V] with the associated functional feature [-T] (to distinguish it from
V), a functional category that has a close syntactic relation with Vs but
which is irrelevant for masdars. Furthermore, having the categorial
property [+N] requires that the functional feature [+D] should be linked to
both verbal and non-verbal masdars. The picture must be as in the
following:

5)
Categorial feature specification

Functional feature

specification

Verbal masdar
+D]
Non-verbal
[+D]

[+N,+V]
masdar

[-T,
[+N,-V]

Within the same vein, the same approach can be applied to

participles in Arabic. In other terms, the situation of Japanese adjectives
appears to be similar to that of the Arabic participles, though with certain
differences which have to be cross-linguistically accounted for. What
seems, however, puzzling is the parallel behaviour of V and A in Japanese
or V and participles in Arabic, with regard to tense inflection. This can
straightforwardly be accounted for, assuming that for participles the
categorial feature specifications have at least a common feature with
verbs [+V]:

6)
V: [-N,+V]
PART: [+N,+V]
Functional feature specification: [+T,+D]
So, the distinction between participles and verbs is the nominal
element D, and between participles and adjectives is presumably T, as is
summarized in the table in (7):
7)
Categorial feature specification

Functional feature

specification

Participle
Adjective

[+N,+V]
[+N,+V]

[+T,+D]
[-T,+D]

4. Conclusion :
Clearly, making use of the functional category [-T], verbal and non-verbal
masdars can be distinguished; participles are also easily differentiated

from verbs by virtue of the functional element D, on the one hand, and
from adjectives by T. Although such an alternation might appear to be
solving the problem elegantly, it may yield less desirable results in that it
would lead to overgeneralisation which would open too many possibilities.

References
-Chomsky, N.

-Chomsky, N.
Press
-El Ouardi, R.

-Fukui, N.

-Harada, N.
-Stowell, T.

(1970) Remarks on Nominalisations in Roderick, A.

Jacobs and Peter, A. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in
English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham,
Mass.
(1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
(2004) Some Aspects of Standard Arabic Nominal
Sentence The Morphosyntax of The Categories
Masdar and Participles, Unpublished Doctorat
thesis, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences,
University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah
(1995) The principles and parameters approach: a
comparative syntax of English and Japanese, in
Bynon, T. And Shibatani, M. (eds.) Approaches to
Language Typology, Oxford, Oxford University
Press (pp.327-372)
(2000) Interactions of lexical and functional categories:
a theory of lexicon, ms. University of Irvine.
(1982) The Tense of Infinitives, in Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.
4, (pp. 561-570)