Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

brill.com/arab

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic

Najib Ismail Jarad
University of Sharjah
[email protected]

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the process of language change whereby lexical items and
constructions, in specific contexts, come to serve new grammatical functions. Emirati
Arabic provides us with a wide range of grammaticalization phenomena. The aim of
this paper is twofold: to shed light on the basic concepts relating to grammaticaliza-
tion phenomena and to examine the grammaticalization of a number of constructions
in Emirati Arabic, investigating their formation and the changes in their functions. The
development of these grammatical constructions follows a grammaticalization path-
way identified for a wide range of linguistic items cross-linguistically.

Keywords

Emirati Arabic, grammaticalization, volition verb, genitive exponent, reflexive pro-

noun, subordinate conjunction

Résumé

Cet article s’intéresse au processus du changement de la langue dans laquelle des élé-
ments et des constructions lexicales, dans des contextes spécifiques, viennent assu-
rer de nouvelles fonctions grammaticales. L’arabe émirati nous offre un large éventail

* This paper was presented at the 3rd International Conference on “Language, Linguistics,
Literature and Translation: Connecting the Dots in a Globalized World” in 2016, Sultan
Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. I would like to thank the audience for their comments
and suggestions. I am also extremely grateful for the insightful comments of three anony-
mous reviewers whose input has greatly improved this paper. Needless to say, all remaining
errors and shortcomings are my own responsibility.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/15700585-12341473

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 743

de phénomènes de grammaticalisation. L’objectif de cet article est double : mettre en

lumière les concepts fondamentaux relatifs au phénomène de grammaticalisation et
examiner la grammaticalisation d’un certain nombre de constructions en arabe émi-
rati, en étudiant leur formation et les changements dans leurs fonctions. Le dévelop-
pement de ces constructions grammaticales suit un processus de grammaticalisation
identifié pour un large éventail d’éléments linguistiques.

Mots clefs

Arabe émirati, grammaticalisation, verbe de volonté, génitif, pronom réfléchi, con-

jonction subordonnée

1 Introduction

This study deals with some aspects of language change in Emirati Arabic.
Given the dynamic nature of language, language change, according to Bybee,
is “an integral part of language and an inevitable outcome of language use.”1
Language is always evolving and adapting to the needs of its users. Changes are
inherent in language and reflect progress rather than decay.
Cross-linguistic research on grammatical categories has made it possible
to establish and predict regular evolution pathways. The predictability of the
rise of grammatical categories is based on the principle that lexical items (e.g.
nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) in specific contexts attain a grammatical status
(e.g. auxiliaries, connectives, clitics, etc.). The evolution pathways are often
convergent, which means one type of grammatical marker can be shown to de-
velop from a number of distinct lexical sources. Therefore, future markers—in
addition to evolving from motion verbs such as “go” and “come”—also evolve
from verbs of volition (e.g. Greek tha < thelo hina “I wish that,”2 Romanian voi
< Latin velle “to wish,” Bulgarian ŝte < “I want that,” Swahili -ta < taka “want”).3

1  Joan Bybee, Language Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 10.
2  See Ian Roberts and Anna Roussou, Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to
Grammaticalization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (“Cambridge studies in linguis-
tics”, 100), 2003, p. 58-71.
3  See Bybee, Joan and William Pagluica, “The Evolution of Future Meaning”, in Papers from
the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, eds. Anna Ramat, Onofrio Carruba
Giacalone and Giuliano Bernini, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins (“Amsterdam
studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

744 Jarad

When a lexical item in specific contexts attains a grammatical status through

the process of grammaticalization, it undergoes structural, semantic, and pho-
nological change. For example, the English modal will developed out of a verb
of desire (Old English willan “want”). The old (“She makes you will your own
destruction,” George Bernard Shaw; “John can pass the test if he wills it”) and
the new meanings exist side by side (“The results of the test will appear later”).
The degree of grammaticalization of the same lexical item is subject to both
regional and social variation, i.e. the item may vary from one variety to another,
both geographically and socially.4
The aim of this paper is to examine the grammaticalization of a number of
constructions in Emirati Arabic, investigating their formation, as well as the
changes in their functions. Emirati Arabic, a variety of Gulf Arabic, is the va-
riety used in informal situations by the sedentary native people of the United
Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Quwain, Ras al-
Khaima, and Fujaira). It should be highlighted here that there is a high degree
of mutual intelligibility among these Emirates; minor phonological and lexical
differences do exist.5 Synchronic documentation of this variety is scanty. The
googlization of “Emirati Arabic” yielded two results: one doctoral dissertation
titled Morphology of United Arab Emirates Arabic, Dubai Dialect by Benjamin
Theodore Hoffiz (1995),6 and an MA thesis titled A Phonological Description
of Emirati Arabic written by Hana al-Ameri (2009).7 There is only one gram-
mar reference on Emirati Arabic: A Short Reference Grammar of Gulf Arabic
(1977) by Hamdi Qafisheh. The title refers to Gulf Arabic but the book is actu-
ally based on the dialect of Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates. It presents
an explicit outline of the phonology, morphology, and syntax of this variety.
Emirati Arabic is also sporadically mentioned in the four-volume Encyclopedia
of Arabic Language and Linguistics as part of Gulf Arabic.

theory”, 48), 1987, p. 112-114. See also Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca, The
Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World, Chicago-
London, University of Chicago Press, 1994, p. 240 and 53 ff.
4  For detailed discussion of the development of will/shall, see, among others: Joan Bybee,
Language, Usage and Cognition, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge University Press, 2010, and
Rena Torres Cacoullos and James A. Walker, “The Present of the English Future: Grammatical
Variation and Collocations in Discourse,” Language, 85/2 (2009), p. 321-354.
5  Due to the limited scope of the present study and the lack of sufficient data, the differences
between Sedentary and Bedouin Emirati Arabic dialects will not be attempted.
6  This dissertation is available at http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/
187179, accessed 26/07/2017.
7  This thesis is available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI1475967/, accessed
26/07/2017.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 745

The significance of the present study lies in the fact that it provides a de-
scription of some structures in an understudied Arabic variety. It also provides
support for the mechanisms involved in grammaticalization and adds to the
growing literature of studies of grammaticalization on other Arabic spoken
varieties. It is hoped that the present study would contribute to future studies
of Gulf Arabic, particularly the variety of Arabic spoken in the United Arab
Emirates. A study like this might generate more interest in Emirati Arabic in
general and might also pique the curiosity of scholars who work on language
change.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we provide an
overview of some major concepts of the theoretical framework: grammatica­
lization. Next, the paper presents the methods of data collection and analysis.
The main body of the paper provides brief description and analysis of four
examples of grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic: volitional verb > future
marker, noun > subordinate conjunction, noun >reflexive pronoun and, finally,
noun > possessive exponent.

2 Theoretical Preliminaries

Grammaticalization is present in all languages at all times and is a type of in-

novation and linguistic change. Although the use of the term grammaticaliza-
tion goes back to Meillet in 1912,8 studies in this field did not flourish until the
beginning of the 1980’s, and the application of this term to the study of Arabic
is even more recent.9 It is not my purpose here to give a full introduction to
grammaticalization.10 However, it is useful here to explain some of the basic

8  Antoine Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris, Librairie ancienne

Honoré Champion (“Collection linguistique”, 8), 1921, p. 130-148.
9  Balkees Al-Najjar, “Grammaticalization of Lexical Markers in Kuwaiti Arabic,” Folia
Linguistica, 25 (1991), p. 665-674; Mohsen Esseesy, “Grammaticalization,” in Encyclopedia
of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed. Kees Versteegh, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2007, II,
p. 191-198; Mohsen Esseesy, Grammaticalization of Arabic Prepositions and Subordinators:
A Corpus-based Study, Leiden-Boston, Brill (“Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics”,
59), 2010.
10  For more details, see the following works: Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva, World Lexicon
of Grammaticalization, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2002; id., The Genesis of
Grammar: A Reconstruction, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press (“Studies in the
evolution of language”, 9), 2007; Christian Lehmann, “Theory and Method in Grammati-
calization,” Zeitschrift für Germanische Linguistik, 32/2 (2004), p. 152-187; Bernd Heine
and Heiko Narrog (eds), “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization,

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

746 Jarad

concepts relating to grammaticalization phenomena that will be relevant to

the present investigation.
Grammaticalization, according to Hopper and Traugott,11 is “that part of the
study of language change that is concerned with such questions as how lexical
items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammati-
cal functions or how grammatical items develop new grammatical functions”
(1). For example, the English verb “to go” originally denoted only motion in
space (e.g. “I am going to the store”), but has acquired an additional function as
an auxiliary in a verb phrase expressing the immediate future (e.g. “I am going
to wash my car”). Therefore, the English verb phrase “be going to” can be said
to have grammaticalized from a main verb (a lexical word) into an auxiliary
verb (a function word). In other words, lexical items undergo the following
sequence of changes:12

content item → grammatical word → clitic → inflectional affix

The movement of a segment down this cline is largely considered to be unidi-

rectional and accompanied by:13

a. extension (use in new contexts and increasing frequency);

b. desemanticization (“semantic bleaching”)—loss in meaning content;
c. decategorialization (loss in morphosyntactic properties);
d. phonetic reduction (“erosion”)—loss in phonetic substance.

eds Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press (“Oxford
handbooks in linguistics”), 2011; Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Greame Trousdale, “Intro-
duction”, in Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, eds Elizabeth Closs Traugott
and Greame Trousdale, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamin (“Typological studies
in language”, 90), 2010; id., Constructionalization and Constructional Changes, Oxford,
Oxford University Press (“Oxford studies in diachronic and historical linguistics”, 6), 2013;
Sylvie Hancil and Ekkehard König, Grammaticalization: Theory and Data, Amsterdam-
Philadelphia, John Benjamins (“Studies in language companion series”, 162), 2014;
Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Richard B. Dasher, Regularity in Semantic Change, Cam-
bridge, Cambridge University Press (“Cambridge studies in linguistics”, 96), 2002; Andrew
Smith, Graeme Trousdale and Richard Waltereit, New Directions in Grammaticalization
Research, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins (“Studies in language companion
series”, 166), 2015.
11  Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
12  Ibid., p. 7.
13  Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, p. 2.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 747

For example, English will which originally meant “want” or “desire” lost its sense
of “want” or “desire” and was grammaticalized as a marker of futurity. This
means that will was decategorialized as a modal auxiliary and was later pho-
netically reduced, as in “I’ll,” “she’ll,” and so on.14 Through the gradual changes
in the steps along the path of grammaticalization, a linguistic expression is
decategorized from an open-class category into a closed-class item. That is,
grammaticalization proceeds from concrete to abstract but not vice versa, and
from the more linguistically autonomous to the more linguistically dependent.
Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott indicated that grammaticaliza-
tion is “hypothesized to be prototypically a unidirectional phenomenon.”15 It
is interesting to note that these unidirectional tendencies are not language
specific but are governed by cross-linguistically or even universally valid prin-
ciples.16 For example, certain types of words may develop into grammatical
morphemes, but grammatical morphemes do not tend to develop into words.
There is a tendency for personal pronouns to become clitics and then verbal
affixes, but not for verbal affixes to become personal pronouns.17
At first sight, there seems to be a problem with the cline of grammaticaliza-
tion because the generalizations it involves do not seem to hold. For example,
a change from lexical to grammatical status may not trigger phonetic reduc-
tion by itself. However, the hypothesis of unidirectionality does not mean that
grammatical entities inevitably move through all stages of development, or
that these cannot fall into disuse at any stage along the way, but simply that
changes tend to occur in a predictable direction.18

14  For more details, see Ilse Wischer, “Markers of futurity in Old English and the grammati-
calization of shall and will,” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 42 (2006), p. 165-179.
15  Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, p. 99.
16  Providing evidence from several languages, Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca show that verbs
denoting “want” or “desire” are common sources of future markers. See Bybee, Perkins
and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar.
17  Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, p. 15.
18  For criticism of the hypothesis of unidirectionality, see the special issue of Language
Sciences, 23/2-3 (2001). Although some instances of change in the opposite direction,
viz. from abstract to concrete have been identified, such cases are far fewer than the nu-
merous examples concerning the unidirectionality hypothesis (see Martin Haspelmath,
“Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?,” Linguistics, 37/6 (1999), p. 1043-1068; Martin
Haspelmath, “On Directionality in Language Change with Particular Reference to
Grammaticalization,” in Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, eds
Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde and Harry Perridon, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins
(“Typological studies in language”, 59), 2004, p. 17-44.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

748 Jarad

Grammaticalization involves semantic, syntactic, and phonological changes.

First, the lexical item undergoes a shift in meaning or extension of meaning
to new contexts, followed in later stages by a weakening or loss of its original
semantic content (also called “bleaching”). Second, the lexical item undergoes
syntactic change or “decategorialization” (i.e. loss of syntactic properties of the
category it belonged to before it grammaticalized), which might be accompa-
nied by phonological reduction.19 According to Heine and Kuteva,20 phono-
logical erosion is “usually the last to apply in grammaticalization processes,
and it is not a requirement for grammaticalization to happen.” In other words,
phonetic reduction is neither a necessary nor a sufficient property of gram-
maticalization. Heine and Kuteva emphasized that extension is the central
principle among the four interrelated principles: desemanticization, exten-
sion, decategorialization, and phonetic erosion.21 Regarding the precedence
of semantic change, Heine and Kuteva stated that grammaticalization “tends
to begin with extension, which triggers desemanticization, and subsequently
decategorialization and erosion.” Generally, shifts in meaning lead to changes
in word type.
It is crucial to note that while desemanticization, decategorialization and
erosion of a linguistic item result in a loss in semantic, morphosyntactic, and
phonetic substance, extension involves gain in properties characteristic of the
uses of the linguistic item in new contexts.22 Concurrent with these changes,
there is a generalization of grammatical function. That is, grammatical forms
tend to be used in a wider range of morphosyntactic functions. For example,
the English “going to” at one time referred primarily to movement in space,
but “going to/gonna” in future expressions is no longer restricted to that spatial
sense.
One of the aspects of language change is the relationship between frequen-
cy and the process of grammaticalization. Joan Bybee proposed that as a con-
struction becomes more frequently used, it becomes a distinct, autonomous
new construction, and lexical items associated with the construction may be-
come semantically bleached and/or phonologically reduced.23 For example,

19  Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, p. 94-98 and 100-106.

20  Heine and Kuteva, The Genesis of Grammar, p. 42.
21  Ibid., p. 35.
22  Ibid., p. 34.
23  Joan Bybee, Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language, Oxford-New York, Oxford
University Press, 2007.
 This claim is not without problems, for linguistic items with high frequency do not
necessarily undergo grammaticalization. Also, it is not unusual for grammaticalization

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 749

the English construction going to [verb] lost the sense of motion and was pho-
netically reduced to gonna in the course of grammaticalization as a marker of
futurity. Joan Bybee and William Pagliuca stated that “as the meaning genera­
lizes and the range of uses widens, the frequency increases and this leads auto-
matically to phonological reduction and perhaps fusion.”24 In other words, as
the lexical item gains grammatical function, it becomes more abstract.

3 Data Collection and Analysis

The data for this study were collected from several sources: field work in Abu
Dhabi, Dubai, Fujairah, Ajman, Ras Al-Khaima, and Sharjah, personal com-
munication with native speakers, television series, and interviews and discus-
sions with native speakers of Emirati Arabic. The native speakers with whom
I communicated refused to be tape recorded but unhesitatingly provided ex-
tensive comments on and explanations of the data. The informants, who were
university students from different Emirates, were sometimes invited to verify
the authenticity of examples gleaned from TV series, interviews, and shows.25
Transcriptions of the material ignored the minimal phonological differences
between the sedentary dialect areas of the United Arab Emirates. Instead, a
unified representation of words was used to make it easier for readers who
are not familiar with the phonological distinctiveness of each of the Emirati
dialect areas to recognize words and read the examples provided.
The Emirati Arabic examples of grammaticalization highlighted in this
study will be presented briefly since I hope to discuss them in more depth in a
future study. In addition, the present study is far from being complete in that

to occur to linguistic items with low frequency. See Sebastian Hoffmann, “Are Low-
Frequency Complex Prepositions Grammaticalized? On the Limits of Corpus Data and
the Importance of Intuition,” in Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, eds
Hans Lindquist and Christian Mair, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins (“Studies
in corpus linguistics”, 13), 2004, p. 171-210; and Lieselotte Brems, “The Grammaticalization
of Small Size Nouns: Reconsidering Frequency and Analogy,” Journal of English Linguistics,
35/4 (2007), p. 293-324.
24  Joan Bybee and William Pagluica, “Crosslinguistic Comparison and the Development of
Grammatical Meaning,” in Historical Semantics-Historical Word Formation, ed. Jack Fisiak,
The Hague, Mouton (“Trends in linguistics”), 1985, p. 59-83.
25  I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following native speakers for their
help with the data: Nada Alhammadi, Noora Mohamed Alsahi Alzaabi, Amna I. Yousuf
Almoosa Alnuaimi, Maitha K. Abdalla Ali Shuhail Alshuhail, Aisha A. Khalifa Ali Falah
Alsuwaidi, Sumaiya A. Ahmed Almarzooqi, and Fatima M. Abdulla Ahli.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

750 Jarad

the diachronic aspect of the development of these constructions is not taken

into account because there is no documentation of these examples in Emirati
Arabic. However, on the basis of the findings and generalizations of grammati-
calization theory and synchronic evidence from Emirati Arabic, this paper at-
tempts to provide a reconstruction of the step-by-step evolution of the markers.

4 Analysis of Results

4.1 Volitional Verb > Future Marker

In Emirati Arabic, the future is formed by prefixing b(a)- on the imperfect form
of the verb. According to Holes, the future particle, which is believed to be a
shortened form of the Classical/Standard Arabic lexical verb abġi (I want), has
a “modal coloring” which conveys speaker intent.26 In 1991, Al-Najjar proposed
that the future marker in Kuwaiti Arabic had developed from the lexical verb
abi (I want) which in turn had evolved from the Classical Arabic verb abġi (I
want).27 In 1967, Johnstone considered the b(a)- prefix to have future meaning
with a sense of volition in Kuwaiti, Bahraini and Qatari dialects and is also
used to signal future time in the dialects of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and the Buraimi
oasis on the border between the United Arab Emirates and Oman.28 Consider
the following examples from Emirati Arabic:

(1) Abi aʿrris s-sana l-yāyya

I-want I-marry the-year the-coming
“I want to get married next year.”

(2) Huwwa gāl inna ma yibī-ha

He said that NEG want-her
“He said that he did not want her.”

(3) Iḏa ṣār maʿi šayy ba-ṭṭiṣil fīk

If happen with-me thing FUT-call you
“If anything happens, I will call you.”

26  Clive Holes, Gulf Arabic, London-New York, Routledge (“Croom Helm descriptive gram-
mars series”), 1990, p. 188.
27  Al-Najjar, “Grammaticalization of Lexical Markers in Kuwaiti Arabic,” p. 666-667.
28  Tomas Muir Johnstone, Eastern Arabian Dialect Studies, London, Oxford University Press,
1967, p. 143, 152, 163, 169.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 751

(4) Ba-kammil dirāsti fī amrīka

FUT-complete study-my in America
“I will complete my study in America.”

As we can see, the lexical verb (y)abi in examples (1) and (2) expresses desire or
intention in the present tense, whereas in (3) and (4) it is reduced to the future
marker b(a)-. When the verb (y)abi has reached the stage in which it becomes
dependent on another item (i.e. on the verb following it), it has lost its lexical
status. Moreover, its lexical content was “bleached” or desemanticized, and,
therefore, it has undergone grammaticalization.
But the examples given above do not actually give the whole picture be-
cause the b(a)- prefix is used to express other meanings in Gulf Arabic dialects.
Maria Persson29 argued that not only does the b(a)- prefix encode future tense
or intentive mood or a combination of both but also a generalized marking of
irrealis mood, which is expressed by a combination of a future marker with a
past tense marker to form a conditional.30 In his study of the spoken Arabic
of the Šarqiyya region of northern Oman, Domenyk Eades also came to the
conclusion that the b(a)- prefix is frequently used as a marker of futurity and
in “non-future contexts marking meanings of future in the past, condition, and
hypotheticality.”31
The assumption that the b(a)- prefix that marks the future derives from the
verb yabḡā > yabī > yabā > yibbi > ba > b- (want, desire) in Gulf Arabic is sup-
ported by the fact that a volitional verb is used to express the future in many
Arabic dialects: bi-widd > badd > ba-, bi-, b- (want) in Levantine varieties,32
yašāʾ > ša (want) in Yemeni Arabic,33 bat, biti, bit, ba- which derive from bḡā,
bḡāt, bḡit (want) in Moroccan Arabic, and yāba > yibbi > ba- (want) in Libyan.34

29  Maria Persson, “The Role of the b-prefix in Gulf Arabic Dialects as a Marker of Future,
Intent and/or Irrealis”, Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 8 (2008), p. 26-52.
30  Clive Holes, Dialect, Culture and Society in Eastern Arabia, Leiden-Boston-Köln, Brill
(“Handbook of oriental studies. Section 1, the Near and Middle East”, 51/1), 2000, I
[Glossary], p. 34 and 145.
31  Domenyk Eades, “Grammaticalization and the Irrealis b-prefix in an Arabic Dialect of
Oman,” in Grammaticalization in Semitic, ed. Domenyk Eades, Oxford, Oxford University
Press (“Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement”, 29), 2012, p. 49-66.
32  Terence Frederick Mitchell and Shāhir El-Hassan, Modality, Mood and Aspect in Spoken
Arabic with special reference to Egypt and the Levant, London-New York, Kegan Paul
International (“Library of Arabic Linguistics”, 11), 1994, p. 19.
33  Kees Versteegh, The Arabic Language, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2014, p. 109.
34  Devin J. Stewart, “Clitic Reduction in the Formation of Modal Prefixes in the Post-Classical
Arabic Dialects and Classical Arabic Sa-/Sawfa,” Arabica, 45 (1998), p. 104-128. For northern

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

752 Jarad

In some Arabic varieties, especially Levantine Arabic, it is hypothesized

that there are two separate b(a)- prefixes, each with its own origin.35 That is,
the b(a)- prefix that marks the future derives from the verbal noun bi-widd >,
badd > ba-, bi-, b- (want),36 whereas the b(a)- prefix that marks the indicative
mood, progressive or habitual aspect derives from the preposition bi- (in, by,
with).37 The assumption that the b(a)- prefix that marks the indicative mood,
progressive or habitual aspect derives from the preposition bi- (in, by, with) is
supported by the fact that this b(a)- prefix is obligatory in progressive contexts
in Egyptian Arabic and Syrian Arabic.38 This is further supported by Comrie’s
assumption that progressive constructions are locative in origin39 The progres-
sive use is extended to describe habitual and generic situations (i.e. progres-
sives tend to develop into general imperfects).40 In Egyptian Arabic, Ernest N. 
McCarus stated that when the meaning of the verb is progressive, the indica-
tive mood marker bi- is “obligatory, optional but usual if the meaning is ha-
bitual, and usually deleted if the meaning is stative.” McCarus added that the
spread of the b(a)- prefix to stative verbs in Egyptian Arabic “was relatively
recent, and is limited in this usage.”41
Further evidence derives from Yemeni varieties, which use b-, ba-, bi-, bin-,
bēn-, bīn-, bayn- for expressing progressivity. Following Wolfdietrich Fischer

Omani dialects, see Adrian Brockett, The Spoken Arabic of Khābūra on the Bātina of Oman,
Manchester, University of Manchester (“Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph”, 7), 1985;
and, for Saudi dialects, see Bruce Ingham, Najdi Arabic: Central Arabian, Amsterdam-
Philadelphia, John Benjamins (“London oriental and African language library”, 1), 1994.
35  For the evolution of the b(a)- prefixes, see Najib Jarad, “The Evolution of the b-Future
Marker in Syrian Arabic,” Lingua Posnaniensis, 13/1 (2013), p. 69-85.
36  The use of the symbol > is a crude approximation of the assumed development, which
cannot be certainly pinpointed because the diachronic clue is lacking. There might be
some phonological mechanisms at work.
37  Johnston, Eastern Arabian Dialect Studies, p. 143, 152, 163, 169.
38  See Esseesy, Grammaticalization of Arabic Prepositions and Subordinators, p. 252.
39  Bernard Comrie, Aspect, Cambridge-London-New York, Cambridge University Press
(“Cambridge textbooks in linguistics”, 2), 1976, p. 103. The b(a)- prefix, which is used to
describe progressive aspect, might have originated from the preposition/conjunction
baynā which indicates “distance, between, or while” in Classical Arabic. I am grateful to
an anonymous reviewer for this point.
40  Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar, p. 141.
41  Ernest N. McCarus, “A Case of Semantic Reconstruction: The Egyptian Arabic Verbal
Prefix Bi,” in Studies in Near Eastern Culture and History in Memory of Ernest T. Abdel-
Massih, ed. James A. Bellamy, Ann Arbor, Center for Near Eastern and North African
Studies-The University of Michigan (“Michigan series on the Middle East”, 2), 1990, p. 104.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 753

and Otto Jastrow,42 Stewart suggested that these forms derive from the Classical
Arabic baynamā (while) or its variant baynā.43
In a nutshell, the verb (y)abi, originally a verb meaning “want, desire,” has
gradually developed into a grammatical particle expressing volition and fu-
ture. As this lexical verb becomes grammaticalized, it is reduced to an affix.
Furthermore, the frequency with which the affix is used in addition to its con-
tiguity to the verb stem has led to its eventual fusion with the verb.

4.2 Noun >Subordinate Conjunction

Semantically, in addition to its primary lexical meaning (day, time), yōm also
serves as a subordinate conjunction introducing time clauses. This means that
yōm as a subordinate conjunction has undergone semantic bleaching. As a
lexical item, yōm has a dual form yōmēn (two days) and a plural form ayyām
(days).

(5) a.
Ṭarriša l-yōm
Send-it the-day
“Send it today.”

b.
Ḫams marrāt fī l-yōm
Five times in the-day
“Five times a day.”

c.
A-šūf-ak mbačir l-yōm
I-see-you early the-day
“I see that you came early today.”

d.
Bigi hni yōmēn
remained-he here day-two
“He stayed here two days.”

e.
Ma fī ʼamn halʼayyām
NEG-in security these days
“There is no security these days.”

42  Wolfdietrich Fischer and Otto Jastrow (eds), Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte,
Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz (“Porta linguarum orientalium. Neue serie”, 16), 1980, p. 74.
43  See also Aaron D. Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.
(“Harvard Semitic Studies”, 57), 2005, p. 146.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

754 Jarad

However, the noun yōm has developed into an adverbial subordinate clause
conjunction meaning “when, while.”

(6) a.
Yōm simaʿ l-ḫabar yilas yi-ṣīḥ
When heard-he the-news sat-he he-weep
“When he heard the news, he started to weep/he sat weeping.”

b.
Ṭāḥ ʿala-l-arḍ yōm kān yi-ḥāwil yi-rkab s-sīkil
Fell-he on the-ground when was he-try he-ride the bicycle
“He fell down to the ground when he was trying to ride the bicycle.”

c.
Kint yālis i-dris yōm ʿomar farr l-ḥaṣa
Was-I PROG I-study when Omar threw the-stone
ʿa- d-drīša
on the-window
“I was studying when Omar threw the stone against the window.”

d. Yōm radd ṣulṭān l-bēt nura kānat yālsa

When returned Sultan the house Nora was-she PROG
ti-dris
she-study
“When Sultan came home, Nora was studying.”

e.
Ams ṣ-ṣabāḥ ṭāḥ ʿala-l-arḍ yōm kān yi-ḥāwil
Yesterday morning fell-he on the gound when was he-try
yi-rkab s-sīkil
he-ride the bicycle
“Yesterday morning, he fell down to the ground when he was trying to
ride the bicycle.”

In these particular examples, the noun yōm has been reinterpreted as an ad-
verbial subordinator in a subordinate temporal clause, following a universal
grammaticalization path TIME > TEMPORAL.44 The compatibility of yōm
with a temporal adverb like ams ṣ-ṣabāḥ (yesterday morning) in (6) shows that
yōm has clearly lost its lexical content in Emirati Arabic.45

44  Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, p. 298-299.

45  I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for raising the question of the possibility of using
a temporal adverb with yōm.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 755

4.3 Noun > Reflexive Pronoun

A reflexive marker typically denotes a referent that is identical with the one
of the subject noun phrase. Generally, the reflexive marker has the syntactic
function of an object, as in (12):

(7) a. John hurt himself.

b. The children dressed themselves.
c. The CEO paid himself a huge salary.

Cross-linguistically, reflexive pronouns evolve from several sources: body part

names, nominal sources denoting something like person, self, owner, empha­
tic pronouns, object personal pronouns, locative prepositions, etc.46
The Classical Arabic nouns nafs (soul) and rūḥ (soul) have evolved into a
reflexive pronoun in Emirati Arabic and some other spoken varieties as well.47
The examples in (8) show rūḥ (soul) used as a noun whereas the ones in (9)
show rūḥ (soul) used as a reflexive pronoun.

(8) a.
Allah yi-ġammid rūḥ-a l-yanna
God He-protect soul-his the-paradise
“May God rest his soul in paradise?”

b.
Nifd-i ʼimārāt-na b-ʼarwāḥ-na
Sacrifice-we Emirates-our with-souls-our
“We sacrifice our souls for our Emirates.”

(9) a.
Sāfart landon b-rūḥi
Travelled-I London by-REFLEX
“I travelled to London by myself.”

b.
Yaddat-i ʿāyša b-rūḥha
Grandmother-my living by-REFLEX
“My grandmother lives alone or by herself.”

46  See Mathias Schladt, “The Typology and Grammaticalization of Reflexives,” in Reflexives:
Forms and Functions, eds Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl, Amsterdam-Philadelphia,
J. Benjamins (“Typological studies in language”, 40), 2000, p. 102-124.
47  Holes, Gulf Arabic, p. 166; Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization, p. 19.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

756 Jarad

The grammaticalization process of rūḥ (soul) can be summarized as follows:

(i) rūḥ (soul) is used in new contexts, (ii) undergoes gradual loss of original
lexical meaning, and (iii) loses its nominal status and becomes a reflexive
pronoun.

4.4 Noun >Possessive Exponent

Possessive relations can be expressed by three types of construction, either
(i) a synthetic construction (Arabic iḍāfa), (ii) a preposition + pronoun suffix
construction, or (iii) as an analytic possessive construction with a possessive
exponent or connector.48 The choice of the synthetic possessive over the ana-
lytic construction has to do with a set of inalienable nouns which includes kin-
ship terms (e.g. mother, father, uncle, etc.) and body part terms (e.g. head, foot,
arm, stomach, etc.). In addition, the choice between the synthetic, for example
laḥmi (my flesh) and the analytic construction il-laḥm bitāʿi “meat that belongs
to me [e.g. that I bought],” according to Janet Watson, “may at any one time be
due to formal reasons to avoid the complexity and ambiguity of the synthetic
genitive, or to stylistic and/or rhythmic factors.”49 The synthetic possessive,
also known traditionally as the construct state, is a possessive construction
in which the “possessed” and the “possessor” are juxtaposed [possessed-
possessor], as in ktāb ṣulṭān (sultan’s book), or the possessor is represented by
a pronoun suffixed to the possessed element, as in ktāb-ha (her book).
The common prepositions that can show possession are ʿand (with, by, at);
maʿ (with); li- (to, for).

(10) a. ʿInd-ī sayyāra yidīda

To-me car new
“I have a new car.”

48  The synthetic genitive is also known in the literature as inalienable (i.e. a construction
used with kinship and/or body part terms) while the analytic genitive is known as alie­
nable (i.e. a construction not used with kinship and/or body part terms). See Kristen
Brustad, The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: a comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian,
and Kuwaiti dialects, Washington, Georgetown University Press, 2000, p. 70; and Östen
Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, “Alienability splits and the grammaticalization of
possessive constructions,” in Papers from the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics,
ed. Timo Haukioja, Turku, University of Turku (“Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen
kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja”, 60), 1998, p. 38-94.
49  Janet Watson, “Arabic Dialects,” in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, ed
Stefan Weninger, Berlin-Boston, De Gruyter-Mouton (“Handbooks of linguistics and com-
munication science”, 36), 2011, p. 864.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 757

b.
L-walad li-ʼabūh
The-boy to-father
“Like father like son/the son belongs to his father.”

c.
Maʿa flūs wāyid
With-him money much
“He has a lot of money.”

The third type is the analytic possessive construction, which makes use of a
possessive exponent or connector to express that relationship. Most modern
spoken varieties of Arabic have developed possessive exponents or connec-
tors, which are particles that are used under certain conditions for an analytic
linking of two nouns or a noun and a pronoun suffix instead of a direct annexa-
tion. Diachronically, most of these particles originated from a word meaning
“right, property” or “wealth, property.” Kerstin Eksell Harning provided an ex-
tensive survey of possessive constructions in spoken Arabic varieties.50 Here
are some examples:

(11) Syrian Arabic tabaʿ

Lebanese Arabic tabaʿ
Egyptian Arabic bitāʿ
Iraqi Arabic (Baghdad) māl
Sudanese Arabic ḥagg/ḥaġġ
Yemeni Arabic ḥaqq/ḥagg
Omani Arabic māl/ḥagg

In these spoken varieties, the synthetic coexists with the analytic possessive
constructions, which differ from one variety to another. The choice of the geni-
tive construction is in some cases obligatory, due to semantic constraints. For
example, the analytic possessive construction is not used with terms of kin-
ship or parts of the body, as in:

(12) a. *Ḫāl māli/ḥaggi (analytic possessive)

Uncle POSS
“My maternal uncle.”

50  Kerstin Eksell Harning, The Analytic Genitive in the Modern Arabic Dialects, Göteborg,
Göteborgs universitet (“Orientalia gothoburgensia”, 5), 1980.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

758 Jarad

b. *ʿAyn māli/ ḥaggi

Eye POSS
“My eye.”

c.
Ḫāl-i (synthetic genitive)
Uncle-my
“My maternal uncle.”

d.
ʿAyn-i
Eye-my
“My eye.”

Speakers of Emirati Arabic frequently use the possessive exponents, ḥagg

(right, property) or māl, (wealth, property), instead of a true synthetic con-
struction to show possession or belonging. The structure of the analytic pos-
sessive construction consists of [possessed + ḥagg/māl + possessor]. According
to Hamdi A. Qafisheh, ḥagg is usually used with animate or inanimate nouns
while māl is used with inanimate nouns, especially appliances, spare parts, etc.
This observation is borne out by the following examples:51

(13) a. L-ktāb ḥagg l-walad

The-book POSS the-boy
“The boy’s book.”

b.
S-sayyāra ḥagg d-dīwwān l-ʼamīri
The-car POSS the-court the Emiri
“The car belongs to the Emiri Court.”

c.
L-līsan hagg l-drēwil
The-license POSS the-driver
“The driver’s license.”

(14) a. L-jaw māl halʼiyyām ḥārr wāyid

The-weather POSS these days hot too
“The weather is too hot these days.”

51  Hamdi A.  Qafisheh, A Short Reference Grammar of Gulf Arabic, Tucson, The University of
Arizona Press, 1977, p. 117.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

Grammaticalization in Emirati Arabic 759

b.
L-brēkāt māl s-sayyāra yidīda
The-breaks POSS the-car new
“The car brakes are new.”

c.
Yōm šayy mob māl-ak ma y-ḫṣṣak -tihibša
When thing NEG POSS-yours NEG you-concern-touch
“When something is not yours, do not touch it.”

d. D-dūbi ʿaṭ-ni ġitra mob māl-i

The-launderer gave-me headcloth NEG POSS-my
“The launderer gave me a headcloth which did not belong to me.”

In the above examples, the lexical item indicating “possession, property” has
undergone a degree of semantic bleaching and subsequently acquired the ad-
ditional grammatical function of indicating possessive relationships between
nouns or NPs. Therefore, in Emirati Arabic, the lexical forms ḥagg (right,
property) and māl (wealth, property) have acquired this possessive function,
which corresponds closely to the cline PROPERTY (property, possession) >
A-POSSESSIVE.52 What is common to all varieties of spoken Arabic is that the
lexical item used in an analytic construction has undergone a degree of seman-
tic bleaching, and subsequently acquired the additional grammatical function
of indicating possessive relationships between nouns or noun phrases.53

5 Concluding Remarks

This paper has attempted to present analyses of selected Emirati Arabic gram-
maticalizations in the light of grammaticalization concepts and mechanisms
of language change. It has been shown that Emirati Arabic offers a wealth of
linguistic materials which can be topics for further developmental research.
The examples investigated in this study verify the theoretical tenets of gram-
maticalization in two ways. First, when a lexical item moves toward grammati-
calization, its original form may remain as an autonomous lexical element.
This kind of situation, where two homophonous words exist side by side, one

52  Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, p. 245-246.

53  See Harning, The Analytic Genitive in the Modern Arabic Dialects; Brustad, The Syntax of
Spoken Arabic; and Watson, “Arabic Dialects,” among many others.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760

760 Jarad

functioning as a lexical category and the other as a grammatical one, is what

has been described as “divergence” by Hopper and Traugott.54 This amounts to
saying that grammaticalization of a form does not result in the elimination of
old forms. Second, these examples reflect universal linguistic tendencies and
provide an excellent starting point for a more comprehensive investigation.

54  Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, p. 114 ff.

Arabica 64 (2017) 742-760