Volume 46, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1810-7478
  • E-ISSN: 2589-5230
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper presents a corpus-based study of a number of different types of previously undescribed constructions formed with the Tagalog noun ‘companion’. Apart from independent and attributive uses, frequently occurs as the predicate of an adjunct clause that can introduce a comitative participant, a semantically depictive secondary predicate, an event-oriented adjunct, or a predicative complement. The study analyses the frequency of in all of these types of constructions and looks into their specific properties. This includes: the semantic distinction between additive and inclusory constructions with ; animacy agreement between arguments of in additive constructions; variation in case marking of arguments of ; the preponderance of the absence of linkers – commonly known to introduce adverbial clauses in Tagalog – which are used to attach the clause to the main clause; attested controllers of the clause; positions available for the clause in the sentence. Variation in case marking and compatibility with linkers suggests a classification of Tagalog adjunct clauses similar to that of Tagalog adverbials and prepositions. There is also some evidence to believe that is being grammaticalized as a preposition. Comitative and semantically depictive constructions with , which account for a quarter of the corpus sample, have never been studied before, despite the fact that Tagalog is included in several typological studies on comitative and depictive constructions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arkhipov, Alexandre
    2009 Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid category. New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 217, ed. byPatience Epps and Alexandre Arkhipov, 223–246. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cena, Resty M.
    1995 Surviving without relations. Philippine Journal of Linguistics26.1–2:1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. De Guzman, Videa P.
    1978 Syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications16. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawai’i.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1996 Lexical categories in Tagalog. Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, vol.1, 307–321. Bangkok: Mahidol University.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. De Vos, Fiona
    2011Essential Tagalog Grammar: A Reference for Learners of Tagalog. Brussels, Belgium: Learning Tagalog.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Foley, William A.
    1998 Symmetrical voice systems and precategoricality in Philippine languages. Proceedings of the LFG 98 Conference: Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages, ed. byMiriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 13–95. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Foley, William A., and Robert D. Van Valin
    1984Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Frolova, Elena G.
    1983 К вопросу о служебных словах ang и ay в тагальском языке [On function words ang and ay in Tagalog]. Voprosy Vostochnogo Iazykoznaniia [Topics in the Study of Oriental Languages], ed. byV. M. Alpatov, 240–246. Moscow, Russia: Nauka.
  9. Gallego, Maria Kristina S.
    2015 Ang mga nominal marker ng Filipino at Ivatan [Nominal markers of Filipino and Ivatan]. Daluyan: Journal ng Wikang FilipinoXXI:65–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gallego, Maria Kristina S., and Louward Allen M. Zubiri
    2013 Metonymy of NANG. Social Science Diliman9.1:39–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1991The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Arbeitspapier Nr. 15 (Neue Folge). Köln, Germany: Institute für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2005a Tagalog. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. byAlexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 350–376. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2005b The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. byAlexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2008 Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, ed. byPeter Austin and Simon Musgrave, 247–293. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Eva F. Schultze-Berndt
    2006 Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives, ed. byNikolaus P. Himmelmann and Eva F. Schultze-Brendt, 1–68. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hsieh, Henrison
    2016 Distinguishing nouns and verbs: Against nominalism for Tagalog. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, ed. byEmily Clem, Virginia Dawson, Alice Shen, Amalia Horan Skilton, Geoff Bacon, Andrew Cheng and Eric Hanz Maier, 313–336. Berkley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018 Distinguishing nouns and verbs: A Tagalog case study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory37.2:523–569. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9422‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9422-3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jakubíček, Miloš, Adam Kilgarriff, Vojtěch Kovář, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
    2013 The TenTen corpus family. Proceedings of the 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2013), ed. byAndrew Hardie and Robbie Love, 125–127. Lancaster, UK: UCREL.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaufman, Daniel
    2009 Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics35.1:1–49. 10.1515/THLI.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Richlý, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell
    2004 The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, ed. byGeoffery Williams and Sandra Vessier, 105–116. Lorient, France: Université de Bretagne Sud.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Klimenko, Sergei B.
    2019 Criteria for establishing the inventory of semantic participants and voices in Tagalog. Studies in Language43.1:1–43. 10.1075/sl.17056.kli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17056.kli [Google Scholar]
  22. Klimenko, Sergei B., and Divine Angeli P. Endriga
    2016 Semantic verb classes and regularity of voice paradigms in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics55.2:483–502. 10.1353/ol.2016.0022
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2016.0022 [Google Scholar]
  23. Koch, Karsten, and Lisa Matthewson
    2009 The lexical category debate in Salish and its relevance to Tagalog. Theoretical Linguistics35.1:125–137. 10.1515/THLI.2009.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kroeger, Paul R.
    1993a Another look at subjecthood in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics24.2:1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1993bPhrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1998 Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: A reply to Foley. Paper presented at the3rd Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, Asia SIL School, Brisbane.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2014 Nominal and emphatic negation in Borneo. Advances in Research on Linguistic and Cultural Practices in Borneo (A Memorial to Peter Martin), ed. byPeter Sercombe, Michael Boutin and Adrian Clynes, 201–226. Philipps, ME: Borneo Research Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, Celeste, and Loren Billings
    2008 Clitic-pronoun clusters in Central Philippine. Papers from the 14th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2004, SEALS XIV, vol.1, ed. byWilaiwan Khanittanan and Paul Sidwell, 193–203, Pacific Linguistics E-5. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lehmann, Christian, and Yong-Min Shin
    2005 The functional domain of concomitance: A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. Typological Studies in Participation (Studia Typologica 7), ed. byChristian Lehmann, 9–110. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050080536.9
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050080536.9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liao, Hsiu-chuan
    2011 On the development of comitatitve verbs in Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics12.1:205–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lopez, Cecilio
    1950 Reduplication in Tagalog. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania106.2:151–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Malicsi, Jonathan C.
    2013 Gramar ng Filipino [Filipino Grammar]. Quezon City, Philippines: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
  33. Nagaya, Naonori
    2004 Depictive constructions and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Tokyo University Linguistics Papers23:119–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007 Information structure and constituent order in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics8.1:343–372.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Nagaya, Naonori, and Hyun Kyung Hwang
    2018 Focus and prosody in Tagalog. Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, ed. bySonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara and Atsuko Utsumi, 375–388. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Newell, Leonard E.
    1993Batad Ifugao Dictionary: With Ethnographic Notes. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rachkov, Gennadij E.
    1966 Служебное слово ay в тагальском языке [Function word ay in Tagalog]. Исследования по Филологии Стран Азии и Африки [Studies in Philology of Asian and African Countries], 89–94. Leningrad, Russia: Leningrad State University.
  38. 1981 Введение в Морфологию Современного Тагальского Языка [Introduction to Morphology of Modern Tagalog]. Leningrad, Russia: Leningrad State University.
  39. Reid, Lawrence A.
    1992 On the development of the aspect system in some Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics31.1:65–91. 10.2307/3622966
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3622966 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2009 Inclusory constructions and their development in Philippine languages. Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. byAlexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 267–294, Pacific Linguistics 601. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Reid, Lawrence A., and Hsiu-chuan Liao
    2004 A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics5.2:433–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Richards, Norvin
    2009 Nouns, verbs, and hidden structure in Tagalog. Theoretical Linguistics35.1:139–152. 10.1515/THLI.2009.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.008 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schachter, Paul
    1976 The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic or none of the above. Subject and Topic, ed. byCharles N. Li, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1977 Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. Syntax and Semantics: Grammatical Relations, vol.8, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock, 279–306. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368866_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_012 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1996 The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics15:1–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes
    1972Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schultze-Berndt, Eva, and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2004 Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology8:59–131. 10.1515/lity.2004.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.004 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1988 Voice in Philippine languages. Passive and Voice, ed. byMasayoshi Shibatani, 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.16.06shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.16.06shi [Google Scholar]
  49. Shkarban, Lina I.
    1989 Порядок слов в тагальском языке [Word order in Tagalog]. Очерки Типологии Порядка Слов [Sketches on Word Order Typology], ed. byIgor’ F. Vardul’, 75–108. Moscow: Nauka.
  50. 1995 Грамматический Строй Тагальского Языка [Tagalog Grammatical Structure]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura.
  51. Shkarban, Lina I., and Gennadij E. Rachkov
    2007 Reciprocal, sociative, and comitative constructions in Tagalog. Typology of Reciprocal Constructions, ed. byNedjalkov, Vladimir P., 887–932. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.71.33shk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.33shk [Google Scholar]
  52. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh, and Aina Urdze
    2006On Comitatives and Related Categories: A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2009 Varieties of comitative. The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. byAndrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 601–608. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Suchomel, Vít, and Jan Pomikálek
    2012 Efficient web crawling for large text corpora. Proceedings of the 7th Web as Corpus Workshop, ed. byAdam Kilgarriff and Serge Sharoff, 39–43. Lyon: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wolff, John U.
    1973 Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, LSP Special Monograph Issue No. 4, ed. byAndrew B. Gonzalez, 71–91. Quezon City, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zubiri, Louward Allen M.
    2012 It’s not what you think it is: Syntactic categories through the lens of negation. Paper presented at the12th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (12-ICAL), Udayana University, Denpasar.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error