You are on page 1of 41

HOW DO PHILIPPINE

LANGUAGES WORK?
Ricardo Ma. Nolasco, PhD
Associate Professor
UP Diliman
Prototypical characteristics of
Philippine-type languages
a) syllable-timed speech rhythm

b) affix dependent word formation

c) predicate-initial word order

d) ergative morpho-syntax
Speech rhythm
a) stress timed - intervals between
stresses or rhythmic feet are said to
be near equal length.
b) syllable-timed - successive syllables
are said to be near-equal length.
c) mora-timed - contain sub-syllabic
units called morae which are more or
less equal in duration
Syllable-timed languages
In most languages, the more syllables there
are, the longer it takes to say something.
Each syllable is more or less the same
length as other syllables.
Example:
Usa nga dlaw, may usa nga lalki nga
nangungha sang baybas.
Stress-timed languages
In English, the syllables are not similar in
length. It is not each syllable which
receives equal time in pronunciation but
each segment bounded by primary stresses.

Dnt pay any attn tion to


what thers say.

English is a stress-timed language


English as a stress-timed
language
In English, the amount of time it takes to say
something does not depend on the number
of syllables.
a. Dogs chase cats
b. The dogs chase cats.
c. The dogs chase the cats.
d. The dogs will chase the cats.
e. The dogs will be chasing the cats.
Language classification
according to speech rhythm
Precategoriality in Philippine-
type languages
a) Roots - any form to which an affix
may be added (e.g. bhay, bong)
b) Affixes - dependent forms (e.g. -in)
c) Particles - forms to which you cannot
add an affix (e.g. daw, manen, diay)
You can only know the parts of speech
membership of a form when you use it
in speech or add an affix
Roots
Waray balay Tag ganda Ilk taray

To what parts of speech do the following


roots belong?

Answer: All these forms can be used as


nouns, adjectives or verbs.
What are the parts of speech
in Philippine-type languages?
Cross-linguistic categories:
nouns verbs linkers
pronouns numerals conjunctions
case markers particles

And maybe adjectives, although they may


also be classified as stative verbs.
How about adverbs and
prepositions?
In Philippine type languages, some words
which are translated into adverbs or
prepositions in other languages are
actually:
Nouns: English: under the table
Tag: sa ilalim ng mesa
Adjectives: English: He left quickly.
Tag Mabilis siyang umalis.
Root-based and Stem-based
morphological analysis
How do we analyze forms like:

Tag pag-aralan
Waray ikalipay
Ilk kinapintas
Root based vs. stem based
morphological analysis
Root based: Tag [pag--an] + aral
Waray [ika-] + lipay
Ilk [kina-] + pintas
Stem based: Tag [pag-aral] + -an
Waray [i-] + [kalipay]
Ilk [-in-] + [kapintas]

What is a stem?
A stem is a form to which the last affix is
added.
beautifully = beautiful + ly
not: beauty + fully
beautiful = beauty + ful

Sapin-sapin hypothesis = a word has a


layered structure.
Some advantages of stem-
based analysis
1. Captures formal relationship among affixed
forms:
Example: Seb ikalipay ( i- + kalipay)
nalipay (n- + kalipay)

Ilk kinapintas (-in- + kapintas)


napintas (n- + kapintas)
Some advantages of stem
based analysis
2. Simplified analysis
Traditional Sapin-sapin
mang- + root > m- + pang- stem
mag- + root > m- + pag- stem
maka- + root > m- + paka- stem
maki- + root > m- + paki- stem
ma- + root > m- + ka- stem
Quiz 1:
What are the stems in the following group
of words?
1. maloy, ikaloy, kaly-an
2. maningkmut, paningkamtan
3. mabalka, ikabalka, kabalk-an
Two kinds of clauses

1. Dumalgan hi Juan.
Tumakbo si Juan.
P S
2. Gindalagnan ni Juan hi Maria.
Tinakbuhan ni Juan si Maria.
P A O
S, A, O (and OBL)
S = the only argument of an intransitive
verb
A = the most agentive argument of a
transitive verb
O = the most patientive argument of a
transitive verb
OBL = all others which are not S, A or O
Word Order
Predicate Initial = PS, PAO (e.g.
Sugbuanong Binisaya)

Predicate Medial = SP, APO (e.g.


English)

Predicate Final = SP, AOP (e.g.


Nihonggo)
Motivations for altering word
order
a) Clitics

b) Scene setting function

c) Listing

d) Exclusive contrast
Clitic word order
1. a) Pag-ndam kamu. (PS)
P S
`You (pl.) get ready.
b) Ayaw kamu pag-ndam. (SP)
S P
`Dont you (pl.) get ready.
Clitic Word Order
2. a) Luta nyu an sd. (PAO)
P A O
`You (pl.) cook the fish.)
b) Ayaw nyu pagluta an sd. (APO)
A P O
`Dont you (pl.) cook the fish.
Clitic Order
3. a) Luta nyu ini. (PAO)
P A O
`You cook this.
b) Ayaw nyu ini pagluta. (AOP)
A O P
`Dont you cook this.
Scene setting function
1. Maya-maya pay nagpasya na ring
bumab ang mestisahing babe. (Tag)
2. Waray kaha, nblik hi Huwan. (Waray)
3. Paglabay sa panahon, gitawg sa tong
Ginoo si San Pedro. (Bis)
Listing
Yung isang friend ko, nag-boyfriend.
Nagkaanak lang. Tinakbuhan. Yung isa
pa, dadalawang taon pa lang na
nakakasal, hiwalay na. At yong isa pa,
nagtitiis na lang para hindi sila
maghiwalay. Dalawa na kasing anak,
e. Pero ang dalas mabugbog!
Exclusive contrast
1. (Seb) Nan, amerikna ug saptos ko, kamo
may gisilbihan ni hring Wat. O
P A
2. (War) Hiya an nagdl-ung han ya patud.
S P OBL
3. (Tag) Napagkayarian (na si Luz ang pipili
ng petsa ng kasal ) S P
OBL
How has Philippine
morphosyntax been analyzed?
a) Nominative accusative subject-object
and active-passive constructs are
applicable.
b) Ergative-absolutive - subject is not
meaningful because of patient primacy;
what is important is the most affected
entity;
c) None of the above (the "focus" analysis)
Earlier studies
Earlier studies used to describe the Philippine
voice system in terms of the active-passive,
and of the notion of subject.

Recent studies have shown that that the two


systems are incommensurable to each other,
and that the subject relation does not exist in
Philippine languages
The starting point relation
In English, it is the starting point relation (or
what is known as the subject) which
is embedded into the grammar. Consider
the following:
(1) a. The pilot flew the plane to safety.
b. The plane was flown to safety.
(2) a. The policeman caught the criminal.
b. The criminal was caught redhanded.
Quiz # 2 Anu an boot ipasabot
sa matag paris?
1. a) Sumalpok ang lon sa bangk. (Tag)
b) Sinalpok ng lon ang bangk. (Tag)
2. a) Ginbsa ko an libro. (Hil)
b) Nagbsa ako sang libro. (Hil)
3. a) Gikaguol nko ang yang paglakaw. (Seb)
b) Naguol ko sa yang paglakaw. (Seb)
4. a) Nagtanom siya sin mais sa yang uma.
b) Gintmnan niya sin mais an yang uma.
(Sor)
5. a) Isublim ti nagastok iti panagadalna.
b) Mangisubli ka iti nagastok ti panagadal na.
Definition of Transitivity in the
Philippine context
a) An intransitive construction is one
where the source of the action is also
the most affected entity, the S.
Example: Sumikat ang araw.

b) The S is marked by the absolutive case


(ang/si)
c) The verb is marked by um- or m-
Transitive constructions
a) A transitive construction is one where
the source of the action (A) is distinct
from the most affected entitiy (O).
Ex. Hinawakan ko siya.
b) The A is marked by the ergative case
(ng/ni, han/hi), and the O is marked by
the absolutive case (ang/si, an/hi);
c) Verb is marked by in/-en, -an or i-.
Transitivity High Low
Parameters
A. Arguments Distinct A and O Distinct S
B. Kinesis Action State
C. Aspect Telic Atelic
D. Punctuality Punctual Non-punctual
E. Intentionality Deliberate Volitional
F. Particularity Particular General
G. Directionality External Internal
H. Effort Effortful Effortless
I. Affectedness of Fully Affected Partially Affected
O
J. Exclusivity Exclusive O Non-Exclusive
Case Forms in Three (3)
Philippine Languages
Case Determiners in Three (3)
Philippine Languages
References
Adams, Karen L. and Alexis Manaster-Ramos. 1988. Some questions of
topic/focus choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. XXVii, 79-101.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Brainard, Sherri. 1994. Why the focus NP is not the subject in Philippine
languages: evidence from Karao. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, vol. 27,
nos. 1 and 2: pp. 1-47.
Cena, Resty M. 1977. Patient primacy in Tagalog. Paper read at the LSA
Winter meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
Cubar, Ernesto H. and Nelly I. Cubar. 1994. Writing Filipino grammar:
traditions and trends. Quezon City: New Days Publishers.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Guzman, Videa P. 1996. Lexical categories in Tagalog. Pan-Asiatic
Linguistics (Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on
Language and Linguistics), Vol. 1, Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol Univeristy,
pp. 307-321.26
References
De Guzman, Videa P. 1978. Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: an
analysis. McGinn (ed.) Studies in Austronesian linguistics. Athens, Ohio: Ohio
University Monographs in International Studies, Southeast Asian series no. 76,
pp. 323-345.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59-74.
Dubois, John. W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805 -
955. Fox, Barbara P. (ed.). 1994. Voice: form and function. Typological Studies
in Language 27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gil, David. 1993. Syntactic categories in Tagalog. In Pan Asiatic Linguistics.
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics.
Vol. III. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn Univeristy Printing House, 1136-1150.
Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 1991. The Philippine challenge to universal grammar.
Arbeitspapier Nr. 15, Koln: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and
discourse. Language 56: 251-299.
References
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1988. Affectedness and control: A typological study of voice
systems. In Masayoshi Shibatani, ed. Passive and voice. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 25-83
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of
language. In Charles N. Li, ed. 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press,
457-489.
McFarland, Curtis D. 1989. A frequency count of Filipino. Manila: Linguistic Society of
the Philippines.
Mithun, Marianne 1991. The role and motivation in the emergence of grammatical
categories: the grammaticization of subjects. In Elizabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine,
eds. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II, 159-184. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In
Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper, eds. Voice: form and function.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247-277.
Mithun, Marianne and Wallace Chafe. 1999. What are S, A, and O? In Studies in
Language 23.3:569-596. John Benjamins Publishing Company 27
References
Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2003. Ang pagkaergatibo at pagkatransitibo ng mga
wikang Pilipino: Isang Pagsusuri sa Sistemang Bose. Ph.D Dissertation.
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Diliman Quezon City.
Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2006. Ano ang S, A, at O? Papel na binasa sa ika-9 ng
Kongreso ng Linggwistika sa Pilipinas. NISMED, UP Diliman, Quezon City.
Reid, Lawrence A. 2002. Determiners, nouns or what? Problems in the
analysis of some commonly occurring forms in Philippine languages. Oceanic
Linguistics 41.2:295-309.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: actor, topic,
actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li, ed. 491-518.
Schachter, Paul S. and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar.
Berkeley: University of California.
Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. 1940. Balarila ng wikang pambansa. Manila:
Bureau of Printing.
Van Valin, Robert and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dm nga salmat!
Dios Mabalos!
Daghang salmat!
Dios ti agngina!
Maraming salamat po!