AN HPSG ANALYSIS OF ARABIC VERB
Md. Shariful Islam Bhuyan*, and Reaz Ahmed*
*
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
sharifulislam@cse.buet.ac.bd, reaz@ cse.buet.ac.bd
ABSTRACT
In spite of being a successful syntactic theory in many
respects, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar
(HPSG) has inadequate coverage for morphological
constructions, especially for nonconcatenative
morphology, which is prominent in the Semitic
languages such as Arabic, Hebrew etc. In this paper,
we extend the HPSG framework to support rich
nonconcatenative morphology of the verbal system of
Arabic, the best instance of nonconcatenative
morphology among the living languages. We also
introduce necessary features for syntactic and semantic
aspects of an Arabic Verb.
Keywords: Nonconcatenative Morphology, Head-driven
Phrase Structure Grammar, Arabic Verbal
Morphology, Constraint-based Grammar
1. INTRODUCTION
Broad-coverage precision grammar [1]-[3] and
computational lexicon development for deep linguistic
processing is a research-intensive area with several
potential applications [4]. Amidst the vast literature on
formal linguistic theory [5], Head-driven Phrase
Structure Grammar (HPSG) [6] has a unique position
since it combines the best features of the contemporary
approaches as well as establishes an integrated
framework for cross-layer representation comprising
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics
and discourse. Although, HPSG successfully describes
numerous syntactic and semantic phenomena, it lacks
rigorous analyses for morphological phenomena,
especially for non-concatenative morphology [7].
Nonconcatenative morphology illustrates an interesting
paradigm of morphological operations, which is
prominent in the Semitic languages such as Arabic,
Hebrew etc [10]-[11].
Among the living languages, Arabic demonstrates
the best instance of nonconcatenative morphology.
Arabic verb system exhibit both concatenative and
nonconcatenative morphology, capable of lexically
expressing diverse syntactic and semantic phenomena.
Formalisms of existing morphological analyzers for
Arabic are not powerful enough to capture this higher
layer diversity. In this paper, we extend the HPSG
framework to support rich nonconcatenative
morphology for the first comprehensive HPSG-
construction of Arabic verbal system.
2. ARABIC VERBAL SYSTEM
Arabic language exhibits an extremely rich morphology
[8]-[9]. Both concatenative and nonconcatenative
operations take place in the formation of an Arabic
word. Inflection is made by concatenative operations
whereas derivation is made by non-concatenative
operations.
Morpho-syntactic operations performed over the
morphemes come with two flavors: concatenative and
nonconcatenative. Concatenative operations are those
where morphemes are linearly concatenated. For
example:
i. Prefixation: clear | unclear
ii. Suffixation: walk | walked
iii. Circumfixation: mind | unmindful
Nonconcatenative operations are those where
morphemes are nonlinearly embedded. For example:
i. Infixation: kataba | kattaba
ii. Simulfixation: eat | ate
iii. Modification: man | men
iv. Suppletion: go | went
There are many other morpho-syntactic operations
also. In this paper, we mainly focus on
nonconcatenative operation and give a mathematical
formalism to capture their rich diversity.
Arabic word formation is an excellent example of
nonconcatenative root-pattern morphology. A
combination of root letters are plugged in a variety of
morphological pattern with priory fixed letters and
particular vowel melody that gives rise to corresponding
syntactic and semantic phenomena. To feel the richness
of Arabic morphological patterns, which we call
“measure” in this paper, following example is given.
Here, the root letters ‘k’, ‘t’, ‘b’ bearing a concept of
writing, are plugged in various measures to get a myriad
of syntactic and semantic phenomena. The measures
with a particular semantic paradigm are called “Form”.
Arabic has many forms. Among them, ten forms are
used regularly. The root letters ‘k’, ‘t’, ‘b’ can be
plugged in among nine of them.
i. Form I (Transitive): kataba – He wrote
 Table 1 Derivational Paradigm of root “ktb”
FORM I FORM II FORM III FORM …
Active perfect katab-a kattab-a kaatab-a …
Passive perfect kutib-a kuttib-a kuutib-a …
Active imperfect ya-ktub-u yu-kattib-u yu-kaatib-u …
Passive imperfect yu-ktab-u yu-kattab-u yu-kaatab-u …
Active imperative u-ktub kattib kaatib …
Passive Imperative litu-ktab litu-kattab litu-kaatab …
Verbal noun kitaab-atun ta-ktiib-un kitaab-un …
Active participle kaatib-un mu-kattib-un mu-kaatib-un …
Passive participle ma-ktuub-un mu-kattab-un mu-kaatab-un …
Locative participle ma-ktab-un … … …
Instrumental participle mi-ktab-un … … …
… … … … …

2) Suffix: hu – the object pronoun attached as a

ii. Form II (Causative): kattaba – He caused to
write
iii. Form III (Ditransitive): kaataba – He
corresponded
iv. Form IV (Factitive): aktaba – He dictated
v. Form V (Reflexive): takattaba – It was written
on its own
vi. Form VI (Reciprocity): takaataba – They wrote
to each other
vii. Form VII (Submissive): inkataba – He was
subscribed
viii. Form VIII (Reciprocity): iktataba – They wrote
to each other
ix. Form X (Control): istaktaba – He asked to write
The above example illustrates the derivational
paradigm of Arabic word. However, there is also an
inflectional paradigm, which is governed by the
agreement information. Every entry of the table 1, can
take fourteen inflectional form according to there
number gender and person. For imperfect form, there
are three such inflectional paradigms. Table 2 and 3
show the inflectional paradigm for active perfect and
passive perfect entry of form I.
An Arabic word can encode a complete sentence.
For example, sayaktubuhu - He will write it. We can
break the word in the following component.
(Writing concept)
root
prefix sa-yaktubu-hu suffix
(future particle) measure (it-attached
pronoun)
(3rd/sg/masc/ind/perf/act/form-I)
From the diagram, we can conclude that an Arabic
word has four components. We can break the word in
the following components.
1) Prefix: sa – the particle indicating future
clitic
3) Root: k, t, b – the root letters bearing the
concept of writing
4) Measure: ya_ _u_u – bearing the syntactic and
semantic information of the event
It may be possible to concatenate multiple prefixes
and suffixes. However, there must be a single measure
and single set of root letters, where the measure
packages syntactic and semantic features and root
supplies the core concept. Here the measure indicates
that – the actor is in 3rd person, singular number,
masculine gender; the verb is in indicative case, active
voice and derived form I; it also indicates that the event
has not yet been completed. If we plug in another set of
root letters, for example, n, S, r – which bears the
concept of helping, we get sayanSuruhu – He will help
him.
In our analysis, a measure may contain two parts –
stem-measure and affix-measure. From the above
tables, we note a crucial point that, for a particular
inflectional paradigm, a certain portion of the word,
containing all the root letters, is always constant. For
table 2 and 3, these are “katab” and “kutib”
respectively. We call this fixed portion, the “stem-
measure” and the remaining part, containing prefix
and/or suffix, the “affix-measure”.
Table 2 Inflectional Paradigm of Form I-Active-
Perfect
Ind/Sub/Juss Singular Dual Plural
3rd/Masc. katab-a katab-aa katab-uua
3rd/Fem. katab-at katab-ataa katab-na
2nd/Masc. katab-ta katab-tuma katab-tum
2nd/Fem. katab-ti katab-tuma katab-tunna
1st katab-tu katab-na katab-na
Depending on this analysis, we can give the
following model of an Arabic word.
A root-derived Arabic word =
Prefix + affix-measure (stem-measure (Root)) + Suffix
 Table 3 Inflectional Paradigm of Form I-Passive- mathematical object Construct (a formal representations
Perfect of grammar rules or schema that are used to license
Ind/Sub/Juss Singular Dual Plural signs). Both sign and construct are described using
3rd/Masc. kutib-a kutib-aa kutib-uua feature structure - a collection of features of
3rd/Fem. kutib-at kutib-ataa kutib-na corresponding linguistic objects along with their values.
2nd/Masc. kutib-ta kutib-tuma kutib-tum These features and their values constitute a very
2nd/Fem. kutib-ti kutib-tuma kutib-tunna detailed type hierarchy (see figure 1). We use
1st kutib-tu kutib-na kutib-na constructional HPSG [6] in this paper.

There are syntactic and semantic features, which

governs the derivational and inflectional paradigms for
Arabic roots. With a linguistic investigation, we have
listed some features that will be used in this paper.
Attributes in the table 4 and 5, govern the derivational
and inflectional paradigm for an Arabic root
respectively.

Table 4 Attributes Governing Derivational

Paradigm
Attribute Values
POS noun, verb, particle
FORM I, II, III, IV, … Figure 1: An HPSG Type Hierarchy
VOICE active, passive
VFORM perfect, imperfect, imperative An utterance can have linguistic feature spanning
multiple layers, e.g. phonological, morphological,
Table 5 Attributes Governing Inflectional syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and others. To capture
Paradigm these features, the description of a typical HPSG sign
Attribute Values looks like figure 2. To capture grammatical rules, the
MODALITY emphatic, uncertainty feature structure of a construct has a mother (MTR)
MOOD indicative, subjunctive, jussive feature and a daughters (DTRS) feature. The value of
PERSON 1st, 2nd, 3rd the MTR is a sign and the value of the DTRS is a
NUMBER singular, dual, plural nonempty list of signs. the description of a typical
GENDER masculine, feminine HPSG construct looks like figure 3. The licensing of
signs follows The Sign Principle which states that
CASE nominative, accusative, genitive
“Every sign must be lexically or constructionally
DEFINITENESS definite, indefinite
licensed, where, lexically licensed only if it satisfies
POLARITY affirmative, negative
some lexical entry, and constructionally licensed only if
it is the mother of some construct” [6].
This is not the whole story of Arabic morphology.
Another facet of Arabic morphology is the concept of
root class. We call a set of roots, which share a common
derivational and inflectional paradigm, a root class.
Depending on the characteristics of root letters, the
class is determined. The roots ‘k’, ‘t’, ‘b’ and ‘n’, ‘S’,
‘r’ both are member of same root class – the sound root
class.

3. AN HPSG PRIMER Figure 2: An HPSG Sign

Natural languages are generally consists of two
components. First, the utterances that can be used by
human. Second, the linguistic rules that license those
utterances. For example, in English, ”He writes books”,
”writes books”, ”writes” – all are valid utterances.
However, “Writes he books”, “writes he”, “rwite” are
not valid, since the rules do not license them. HPSG is a
mathematical theory for natural languages that formally
captures these two core linguistic components.
Utterances are modeled using a mathematical object
Sign (a formal representation of linguistic objects
phrase, words, etc.) and rules are captured using another
From the type hierarchy of figure 1, we can see that
there are two type of feature structure. Functions are the
feature structure that is described using an attribute
value matrix (AVM). They maps features to feature
structure. Atoms are atomic types that can be used as
the value of features. Notable functions are sign, cxt
(construction), lexeme, phrase and others. To model a
linguistic phenomenon we first need to identify the
involved signs with their hierarchy. Next, we need to
design functional feature structures for them with
linguistically motivated features.
 FRAMES feature. Next, the feature MEASURE, which
contains the morphological, syntactic and semantic
information contributed by measure. First, the feature
FORM, which denotes the semantic paradigm. kataba
Figure 3: An HPSG Construction

Then we also need to define the necessary constructs as

well as the atomic type hierarchy. In the next section,
we build these ingredients for Arabic verbs.

4. ARABIC IN HPSG
Here we give the attribute value matrix (AVM) for an
Arabic verb kataba – “He wrote”, in active form and its
corresponding passive form kutiba – “It was written”,
using our analysis. In the figure 4, we have three
features associated with morphology. First, the feature
TYPE, which denotes the associated root class. Arabic
roots are classified into several root class according to
their derivational and inflectional paradigm. This
feature affects both root and measure. Therefore, it has
been taken out to a first level morphological feature. In
this case, its value is sound. Next, the feature ROOT,
which has a list of root letters as well as the CONTENT
feature, which gives the semantic contribution made by
root letters. In this case, its value is structure-shared
with the write-fr in the

Figure 5: An HPSG Sign for kutiba

is a form-I derivative. Next, the feature PATTERN that

captures the stem along with the root letters using
structure sharing. Then, the feature CAT, which
contains the syntactic category for this measure. Its
value is structure-shared with the syntactic feature CAT.
Finally, the feature PNG, which captures the PERSON,
NUMBER and GENDER information of our semantic
actor in the case where it is not syntactically realized.
We present the syntactic and semantic information
using the SYN and SEM feature, for the word - kataba.
First, the CAT features identifies the syntactic category
of - kataba. It contains the VFORM and VOICE feature
of Arabic, which governs the derivational paradigm of
verb lexeme. In this case, their values are perfect and
active respectively. Next, the VAL feature that captures
the subcategorization of verbs. VAL is a list of signs,
which are required by the syntactic head. In this case,
the verb - kataba, requires an object. The verb - write is
a transitive verb that takes an object. We should note
that the hidden pronoun - he is encoded by the
inflectional morphology, when no explicit subject is
used. The semantic actor is not realized syntactically.
So, the verb only subcategorizes for syntactic object.
We can also see the constraints imposed over the object.
In this version, its syntactic head should be a noun
Figure 4: An HPSG Sign for kataba
phrase with the value of its CASE feature set to
accusative. The negative value of the OPT feature
indicates that this object is not optional, rather required
to be syntactically correct.
Figure 6: An HPSG Sign for yaktubu
Next, we need to consider some semantic features.
Here, we use a type feature version of predicate logic to
capture semantics of natural language. First, we
consider the INDEX feature, which is a reference to a
discourse entity. Then, the PNG feature, which capture
the semantics of PERSON, NUMBER and GENDER.
Next, the FRAMES feature, which serves as a bag for
elementary-predicates to describe the situation at hand.
For example, in the case of kataba, the event of writing
is expressed. The event is completed in the past and
there is a discourse referent to the actor. To capture the
core event, write-predicate is introduced. To capture the
temporal constraint, we use the perfect-predicate.
Finally, to express the actor of the event, the hidden
pronoun, we introduce a discourse referent with
corresponding PNG feature. Predicates have their
respective arguments. write-predicate has a situation
hook, expressed by the feature SIT. There are two
semantic role associated with this predicate. First, we
consider the role of writer, who plays a doer role,
expressed by the feature ACTOR. Second, we consider
the role of written, who plays an undergoer role,
expressed by the feature UNDGR. The perfect-predicate
takes a situation hook as an argument, which is
expressed as the feature ARG. We use the technique of
co-indexing for sharing semantic objects. The discourse
referent predicate is actually the actor of the write-
predicate. To denote this constraint, the INDEX value
of hidden pronoun and the ACTOR value of the write-
predicate are co-indexed, both are given the value i.
This is an example of reference co-indexing. We also
use event co-indexing. The event hook SIT of write-
predicate, situation hook of the entire scenario and
argument ARG of the perfect-predicate, all are co-
indexed and expressed using the value s. Another
important issue of HPSG representation is the syntax-
semantics interface. In this example, this is done by co-
indexing the INDEX value of the syntactic object and
the UNDGR value of the write-predicate with a value j.
This indicates that the syntactic object is our semantic
undergoer whereas from our previous discussion we can
note that the semantic actor is not syntactically realized.
Figure 7: An HPSG Sign for yuktabu
In the figure 5, we show the HPSG representation of the
passive - kutiba. We identify the associated changes for
this conversion. The PATTERN feature is changed to
capture the derivational morphological operation. Next
change can be found obviously in the feature VOICE,
changing its value to passive. Unlike English, which
can have a prepositional complement in passives,
Arabic passives do not subcategorize for a subject or
any other argument. For this reason, the VAL list is
empty. Moreover, the discourse referent in the feature
FRAMES is now co-indexed with the UNDGR feature
of the write-predicate, expressed by the value j.
Semantic actor now completely unknown by not having
 any syntactic or semantic reference, which is a
distinctive property of Arabic passives. In figure 6 and
7, we also give the HPSG sign for yaktubu and yuktabu,
- active imperfect and passive imperfect form of kataba.
There is a newly introduced feature is MOOD that take
the value indicative in this case as well as VFORM
change to imperfect. An imperfect-predicate denotes
the non-completion aspect of the event.
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we give the proposal how to capture
nonconcatenative morphology, especially Arabic verb
morphology within the framework of HPSG. There are
lot of works to do in the future. To construct matrix from
table 1 we need to cope with a wide range of diversity
that an Arabic verb can take. Results will be immensely
helpful for the construction of resource grammar for
languages with rich nonconcatenative morphology.
REFERENCES
[1] Copestake A., and Flickinger D. “An open-source
grammar development environment and broad-
coverage English grammar using HPSG,” Second
conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation, 2000.
[2] Marimon M., Bel N., Espeja S., and Seghezzi N.,
“The Spanish Resource Grammar: pre-processing
strategy and lexical acquisition,” ACL Workshop
on Deep Linguistic Processing, 2007.
[3] Comrie B., Fabri R., Hume B., Mifsud M., Stolz T.,
and Vanhove M., (Eds), “Towards an HPSG
Analysis of Maltese,” 1st International Conference
on Maltese Linguistics, 2007.
[4] Bond F., Oepen S., Siegel M., Copestake A., and
Flickinger D., “Open source machine translation
with DELPH-IN,” Open-Source Machine
Translation Workshop at the 10th Machine
Translation Summit, pp. 15-22, 2005.
[5] Sells P., Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic
Theories, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1985.
[6] Sag I., and Wasow T., Syntactic Theory: A Formal
Introduction, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1999.
[7] Bird S., and Klein E., “Phonological Analysis in
Typed Feature Systems”, Computational
Linguistics, vol. 20, pp. 55-90, 1994.
[8] Beesley K., “Finite-State Morphological Analysis
and Generation of Arabic at Xerox Research: Status
and Plans in 2001”, ACL Workshop on Arabic
Language Processing: Status and Prospects, pp. 1–
8, 2001.
[9] Smrž O., Functional Arabic Morphology. Formal
System and Implementation, PhD Dissertation,
Charles University in Prague, 2007.
[10] Riehemann S., A Constructional Approach to
Idioms and Word Formation, PhD Dissertation,
Stanford University, 2001.
[11] Riehemann S., “Type-Based Derivational
Morphology,” Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 49-77, 1998.