Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

Ergative Analysis of Masbatenyo

Michael Wilson I. Rosero

Linguistics 140
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

I. Introduction

The issue regarding the typology of the Philippine languages still remains problematic in

the field of linguistic research. Over the years, there are several attempts to clarify the issue

which up to the present times continues to be controversial. Various claims have been proposed

to classify the Philippine languages as either ergative or accusative or neither of the two types.

Prior to the employment of the ergative analysis, Philippine languages have been always

described using the traditional analysis that was started by the Spanish friars and was maintained

by modern linguists in the present times. The tendency to define transitivity in terms of the

existence of an ‘object’ or of the number of syntactic arguments in the clause has been the

characteristics of the older tradition of linguistics. The idea that it is the voice-affix that identifies

the semantic role of the topic nominal (as actor, goal, instrument, beneficiary, etc) also comes

with it (Nolasco, 2006).

In past analyses, as represented by Bloomfield (1917) and Blake (1925), the different

topic constructions were treated in terms of voice variation; that is, actor-topic sentence was

identified as active voice and goal-topic sentence as the passive voice (Shibatani, 1988). In this

kind of analysis, Philippine languages were treated like English, an accusative language, in

which the active voice is basic and the passive voice is a marked and non-basic category

(Shibatani, 1988).

Philippine languages have been always described under the mold of nominative-

accusative, patterned to that of English. However, recent studies have shown, as pioneered by

Cena (1977), De Guzman (1979) and Starosta (1982), that Philippine languages favor the patient

orientation, as seen in Tagalog basic constructions. In their studies, Starosta, Pawley and Reid

(1980) claimed that Proto-Austronesian, to which Philippine languages belong, is a mixed

 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

ergative language, in the sense of the patient being the primary choice for the unmarked and

syntactically prominent position.

The third view claims that Philippine languages are neither ergative nor accusative.

Shibatani (1988) proposed that Philippine languages, having the characteristics of both ergative

and accusative, should be treated as a separate type of language.

Having shown the long history of controversy that the Philippine linguistic had in the past

years, this paper will now further examine the ergative analysis. This paper will attempt to prove,

using data from Masbatenyo, a Philippine language, that ergative analysis is a much better

approach to Philippine languages.

The discussion will be organized as follows. First, a short history of the past analyses in

Philippine languages will be discussed in the introduction. A brief overview of the ergative

analysis will be presented after. Then, we will introduce Masbatenyo. After which, we will

employ the ergative analysis on the language. The last section will conclude this study.

II. Philippine Ergativity

The following Tagalog sentences illustrate how the focus system works in Philippine

languages:

Actor
(1) Tumakbo ang weyter.
`The waiter ran.’

Actor
(2) `Magtakbo ka nga ng tubig sa table no. 5 ’
`Please bring (or rush) some water to table no. 5’

Goal (theme)
(3) `Itakbo mo ang tubig (na ito) sa table no. 5.’
`Bring (or rush) this water to table no. 5.
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

Goal (beneficiary)
(4) `I(pag)takbo mo nga ng Marlboro sa tindahan ang table no. 5.’
`Please run to the store and get the customer at table no. 5 some Marlboro cigarettes.’

Goal (patient)
(5) `Takbuhin mo siya.’ (siya=customer at table no. 5)

Goal (direction or location)

(6) Tinakbuhan ka ng table no. 5.

Goal (instrument)
(7) Ipinangtakbo niya sa maraton ang aking Reebok.

The accepted view is that the so-called ‘focus’ affixes identify the semantic relation of

the ‘focused item’ as shown in the sentences above (Nolasco, 2005).

As previous studies have shown, and Nolasco (2006) reiterated, Philippine morphosyntax

have been analyzed to be:

a. nominative-accusative

active-passive dichotomy: all goal-topic (goal focus) constructions are ‘passives’

derived from active, which is the actor-topic (actor focus)

the ‘ang’ marked entity is the ‘subject’ or what is talked about’

b. ergative-absolutive

‘goal’ constructions are basic

‘agent’ is marked by ergative marker ‘ng’ and ‘patient’ is marked by absolutive ‘ang’

no. 2 is antipassive

c. neither accusative nor ergative, but belong to a separate type of language

actor focus construction (no. 2) and goal focus constructions are transitive

‘ang’-marked entity is ‘topic’

 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

In the previous analysis, Nolasco (2006) concludes that the commonalities can be found

in the main function of the ‘focus’ affix, which is to identify the semantic role of the ‘focused’

element and the function of ‘ang’, which marked the privileged syntactic argument.

Dixon (1979, 1994) proposes that the fundamental difference between accusative and

ergative languages is the way in which primitive grammatical roles are aligned with respect to

certain morphological and syntactic characteristics. The primitives Dixon identifies are:

transitive subject (A), transitive object (O), and intransitive subject (S).

S is the sole argument of an intransitive construction and the most affected entity while A

is the source of action and O is the most affected entity in a transitive construction (Nolasco,

2006). In an ergative language, the case marker that appears with the subject (S) of an

intransitive verb is the same as that which marks the object (O) of a transitive verb. With this

characterization, De Guzman (1988) claimed that the host of Philippine languages qualifies as

such a type of language.

For traditional linguists, (1) is an intransitive construction while (2) to (5) are all

transitive constructions. They also consider (1) and (2) as active voice and the rest as passive

voice. However, as Shibatani (1988) has shown, the analogy of the topic construction to the

voice system in other languages is eminently possible only if the topic in Philippine language is

interpreted as subject.

Shibatani (1988) also differentiates passivization from topicalization, which is a more

appropriate term for the wide applicability of promotion in Philippine languages. He has also

shown that goal (patient) construction is functionally different from passive construction in terms

of agent defocusing. In most languages, passive does not permit or generally avoid the mention
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

of the agent. However, in Philippine languages, actor is not normally deleted in goal-topic and

non-actor-topic constructions (Shibatani, 1988).

High frequency of patient-oriented constructions is another general characterization of

ergative languages. Cena (1978) gives ample evidence from Tagalog, both syntactic and

morphological and even psychological, that strongly supports the patient orientation of

Philippine languages.

In the following section, we will introduce Masbatenyo, a Central Philippine language

and then we will prove that such language, which is similar to Tagalog, is also an ergative

language.

III. Masbatenyo: A Philippine Language

Masbatenyo is the name used by the speakers of the language and for themselves,

although the term ‘Minasbate’ is sometimes also used to distinguish the language from the

people.

Masbatenyo is a member of Central Philippines family of languages, spoken in Masbate

and some parts of Sorsogon. It is most closely related to Sorsoganon; the language of Sorsogon.

This is because Masbate was a part of Sorsogon Province and was governed from Sorsogon City

until 1920s. Masbatenyo is also closely related to Tagalog, the basis of the national language,

and to Hiligaynon and Cebuano.

Though Sorsogon (the southernmost province of Bicol) and Masbate are very much

closer to Bicol Peninsula, Sorsoganon and Masbatenyo shared the same grammatical systems

which are close to that of Hiligaynon, the trade language of Panay Island rather than that of

Bicol.
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

There are three major dialects of Masbatenyo: the western dialect centered around the

town of Balud on the western coast which is close to Capiz, the southern dialect centered about

the town of Cataingan in the southeastern part of Masbate and the northern dialect covering the

whole northern half of Masbate and centered on Masbate City, capital. In the far southern and

southwestern parts of Masbate Island, Cebuano is spoken as the home language. There are

several lesser dialects spoken in the small towns on the island of Ticao. In Burias, most of the

speakers are Cebuano who migrated from Cebu.

The presence of competing grammatical and lexical subsystems in the language is the

striking characteristics of the language. This has probably been brought on by the influx of

settlers from surrounding major language groups who mixed in elements of their language with

and alongside of the Masbatenyo. This results to a number of semantic concepts that can be

expressed by from two to five alternate and different words for a single concept.

Masbatenyo is so unique in the sense of its being a mixed-up language. Speakers of the

languages often thought that their language is just a mixture of its neighboring languages which

are Bikol, Waray-Waray, Cebuano, Hiligaynon and Tagalog.

IV. Masbatenyo as an Ergative Language

The language data used in this analysis are gathered from the only published literature on

the Masbatenyo language, the two editions of the English-Masbatenyo dictionary. Data are also

gathered from personal communication with other native speakers of Masbatenyo.

This paper will examine the language in comparison to Tagalog to which Masbatenyo is

closely related.
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

A. Case Marking

Pronouns Masbatenyo Tagalog Cebuano

abs erg obl abs erg obl abs erg obl

Personal

Common si ni kan si ni kay si ni kay

nonspec
sinda ninda kanda sina nina kina sila nila kanila
spec
sin sa ng sa ug ug

an san sa ang ng sa ang ng sa

The table shows that basically, Masbatenyo employs the case marking system similar to

that of Tagalog and Cebuano.

Similar to the analysis of Nolasco (2005), case, as used in this study, pertains to how the

arguments of a predicate are formally encoded to distinguish between S, A, P and obliques. S, A,

and P may be referred to as the core cases, while any other argument which is not an A, an S or a

P is an oblique.

The following examples illustrate the similarity of the case marking system of Tagalog

and Masbatenyo. Masbatenyo ‘an’ is the same with the Tagalog ‘ang’ that marks the privileged

syntactic argument of the sentence. It marks the only nominal of (8) which is an intransitive

construction and the patient or object of (9) which is considered as transitive construction. This

clearly indicates that Masbatenyo, like Tagalog and other Philippine languages, also shows an

ergative tendency.
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

(8)

Nagsurmaton an babayi
Nagsalita ang babae
spoke S woman
‘The woman spoke.’

(9)
Lulutuon san babayi an manok
Lulutuin ng babae ang manok
will cook A woman O chicken
erg abs
‘The woman will cook the chicken’

(10)
Magaluto an babayi san manok.
Magluluto ang babae ng manok.
will cook A woman O chicken
abs gen
‘The woman will cook the chicken.’

B. Voice System

Philippine languages are verb initial and nominal forms are generally marked by

prepositional particles. Verbal predicates involve various kinds of affixes. The feature of voice is

marked by the affixes in a verb and indicates the grammatical and semantic relations between the

topic nominal and the verbal predicate. In Masbatenyo, verbs marked by the ag- class of affixes

(ag-, -u-, ang, aki-) is ‘actor focus’, verbs marked by –on and –a is ‘goal focus’. The affixes i-

and iga- indicates that the nominal is the instrument of the action (instrumental focus). In other

cases, i- is also use to indicate the beneficiary of the action. Meanwhile, –an and –i are

directional that indicate the place toward which or from which the verb action occurs. Nolasco

(2005) proposes a new analysis which summarizes the voice forms of Philippine languages into

those which marks the intransitive (-um-, m-) and those that marks the transitive (-in, -an, i-).

The following sentences illustrate the voice system of Masbatenyo.

 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

(11)
Sumulod sa iya isip na kadtuon niya si Juan sa Manila
Pumasok sa kanyang isip na puntahan niya si Juan sa Manila
‘It entered her mind that she should go to Juan in Manila’

(12)
Ginkaon san miya an isda na nakabutang sa plato
Kinain ng pusa ang isda na nakalagay sa plato.
‘The cat ate the fish that was in the plate’

(13)
Inabangan kami sin dako na miya pagpauli namon
Inabangan kami ng malaking pusa pag-uwi naming
‘We were blocked by a big cat on our way home.’

(14)
Iutod mo sa kahoy ini na sundang
Ipamputol mo ng kahoy ang itak na ito.
‘Cut the tree down with this bolo.’

C. Transitivity

In his works, Nolasco proposes that transitivity is a central concept in the organization of

clauses in Philippine languages (Nolasco, 2003, 2004, 2005). In the older traditions, sentences

like (11) is considered as intransitive, having only one argument which is the source of action,

the experiencer and also the most affected entity. Sentences like (12) to (14) are treated as

transitive constructions. In other traditional analyses, (11) which is actor focus is considered as

active sentence while the rest, which are goal (patient) focus, are considered as passives.

However, recent studies have shown that traditional analyses have failed to recognize the

differences that outweigh the similarities between the Philippine topic construction and the

passive construction in English.

Passivization involves agent defocusing which has two consequences; namely that

passive does not normally encode an agent syntactically and that in a passive construction, a non-
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

agentive nominal is promoted to grammatically prominent position. However, as Shibatani

(1988) has shown this is not the case of the ‘passives’ in Philippine languages. Unlike the

passive, actor is not normally deleted in the Philippine non-actor topic construction. Moreover,

not only goal (patient) nominals, but also other nominal adjuncts can be placed in topic position.

Cena (1978) presents grammatical as well as psychological evidence to support this claim.

Shibatani uses the term topicalization for the wide applicability of promotion in Philippine

languages (Shibatani, 1988).

The transitivity and intransitivity in Philippine languages is illustrated in the morphology

and the case marking of the nominal phrase. In a transitive construction, the verb is marked by

any of the transitive affixes -in, -an, i-. In the case of Masbatenyo, they are –on, -an, i-. The

source of action (A) is marked by an ergative case, ng in Tagalog and san in Masbatenyo, while

the most affected entity is marked by an absolutive case, the Tagalog ang and its Masbatenyo

equivalent an. The sole argument (S), which is the source of action and the most affected entity

as well of an intransitive construction is marked by the absolutive case (ang/an), similar to that

of O of an intransitive construction. This clearly shows that the pattern of intransitive and

transitive constructions in Philippine languages follow is the ergative-absolutive (Nolasco,

2006).

V. Conclusion

This paper attempts to further support the claim that the host of Philippine languages

qualifies as ergative language using data from Masbatenyo. It is shown that like Tagalog,

Masbatenyo possesses the characteristics of an ergative language. As presented in this paper, the

language shows enough evidence to support the claim. However, some important entries or
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

information may have been missed due to time limitations and the lack of references on

Masbatenyo language.

Though generalized as closely related to Tagalog, Masbatenyo still has the presence of

competing grammatical and lexical subsystems that needs further discussion. This is due to the

fact that Masbate has been inhabited by the people from the surrounding provinces who speak

the major language groups and that elements have mixed in with and alongside of the

Masbatenyo. It is also on this purpose that this paper is written.

The fact that there is no published literature in Masbatenyo language to refer to is a

manifestation that this language needs to be addressed. This paper, together with the first two

editions of English-Masbatenyo dictionary hopes to promote Masbatenyo as a language and that

it will make a linguistic contribution to the study and maintenance of Philippine languages.
 Ergativity of Philippine Languages 2008

References:

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University dissertation.

___________. General Approaches to Ergativity.

Cena, Resty. 1978. Patient Primacy in Tagalog. Paper presented at the LSA Winter Meeting.

Chicago.

De Guzman, Videa P. 1988. Ergative Analysis for Philippine languages: An Analysis. In

McGinn (ed.).

Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2003. Ang Pagkatransitibo at Ikinergatibo ng mga Wikang Pilipino. Ph.D

Dissertation. University of the Philippines- Diliman

Nolasco, Ricardo. 2005. What Philippine Ergativity Really Means. Paper presented at Taiwan-

Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages, Taiwan: National Taiwan University.

Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Shibatani, Masayoshi, ed. 1988. Passive and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.