1887
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The number of different voice constructions is controversial in Philippine linguistics. There are two approaches to establishing the voice inventory: (1) based on the number of voice affixes; (2) based on semantics of constructions, using opaque definitions of roles without any formal basis. Tagalog data supports neither approach. Many verbal roots form voice paradigms of up to seven members. The ungroundedness in any formal properties in the second approach often leads to different sets of voices with significant subjective variation. This paper suggests employing formal criteria for establishing an exhaustive inventory of semantic roles and voices in Tagalog: (1) Distinct marking in non-subject position; (2) co-occurrence of voice forms in paradigms; (3) co-occurrence of participants in constructions; (4) existence of a co-referential voice form. 16 participants and 13 voices are established in Tagalog, using the suggested criteria, which also provide a possibility for creating a typology of Philippine voice inventories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17056.kli
2019-06-12
2019-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apresjan, Juri D.
    1995Lexical semantics (synonymic means of language) (In Russian: Лексическая семантика (синонимические средства языка)). Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2010A prospectus of the active dictionary of Russian (In Russian: Проспект активного словаря русского языка). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskih kul’tur.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cena, Resty M.
    1971 Case opposition in Tagalog. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics10. 133–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chang, Anna Hsiou-chuan
    2006 A Reference Grammar of Paiwan. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.
  5. Cunningham, Margaret C. & Joan E. Goetz
    1963Pronoun formatives in Amganad Ifugao. Manila: SIL. Goudswaard, Manila: Linguistic Society of Philippines and SIL.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. De Guzman, Videa P.
    1978Syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. De Vos, Fiona
    2011Essential Tagalog Grammar.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dowty, David
    1991 Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language67.3. 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  9. Foley, William A.
    1997Anthropological Linguistics: an introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1998 Symmetrical Voice Systems and Precategoricality in Philippine Languages. InMiriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 98 Conference: Workshop on voice and grammatical functions in Austronesian languages, 45–59. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gallego, Maria Kristina S.
    2015 Ang mga Nominal Marker ng Filipino at Ivatan. Daluyan Journal ng Wikang Filipino, tomoXXI 2015 65–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2005 The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. InK. Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2008 Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. InSimon Musgrave & Peter K. Austin (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages, 247–293. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hohulin, Richard M. & Elma Lou Hohulin
    2014Tuwali Ifugao dictionary ang grammar sketch. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kess, Joseph Francis
    1967 Syntactic Features of Tagalog Verbs. University of Hawai’i PhD dissertation.
  16. Kittilä, Seppo & Fernando Zúñiga
    2016 Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles. InSeppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Advances in Research on Semantic Roles (Benjamins Current Topis 88), 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.88.01kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.88.01kit [Google Scholar]
  17. Kroeger, Paul
    1993a Another look at subjecthood in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics24.2. 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1993bPhrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Latrouite, Anja
    2011 Voice and Case in Tagalog: The coding of prominence and orientation. Dusseldorf: Heinrich-Heine Universität PhD dissertation.
  20. Malicsi, Jonathan C.
    2013Gramar ng Filipino. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Newell, Leonard E.
    2005 (1993)Batad Ifugao Dictionary with Ethnographic Notes. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rachkov, G. E.
    1981Introduction to morphology of contemporary Tagalog (In Russian: Vvedenie v morfologiyu sovremennogo tagal’skogo yazyka). Leningrad State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ramos, Teresita V.
    1974The Case System of Tagalog Verbs. Pacific Linguistics, Series B. No. 27. Canberra: The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Reid, Lawrence A.
    2005 Tagalog and Philippine languages. InPhilipp Skutch (ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 Tagalog. InBernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages (2nd edition), chapter 47. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Reid, Lawrence A. & Hsiu-chuan Liao
    2004 A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages. Language and Linguistics5(2). 433–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ross, Malcolm & Stacy Fang-ching Teng
    2005 Formosan Languages and Linguistic Typology. Language and Linguistics6:4. 739–781.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schachter, Paul
    1961 Structural ambiguity in Tagalog. Language Learning11. 135–145. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1961.tb00751.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1961.tb00751.x [Google Scholar]
  29. 1976 The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1977 Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. InP. Cole & J. M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 8: Grammatical Relations, 279–305. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1993The Subject in Tagalog: Still None of the Above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Number 15. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schachter, Paul & Fe Otanes
    1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley, & Lawrence A. Reid
    2009 The evolution of focus in Austronesian [Unabridged version of paper published in 1982]. InElizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series C6), vol.2, 329–481. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tanaka, Nozomi
    2016An asymmetry in the acquisition of Tagalog relative clauses. PhD dissertation. Manoa: University of Hawai’i.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wolff, John U.
    1973 Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. InAndrew Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17056.kli
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17056.kli
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Philippine languages , semantic participants , syntax , Tagalog and voice
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