Constituent Structure in a Tagalog Text*

Abstract

If there are no classes of noun or verb in Tagalog, how can there be noun phrases and verb phrases? This paper contributes to the discussion on form classes in Tagalog by taking a detailed, inductive, line-by-line look at the structures and constituents found in a randomly selected Tagalog text, to create a typology of the structures found therein. It is shown that, while there are very obvious constructions with generally clearly differentiated functions, they do not correspond with noun phrases and verb phrases in Indo-European languages, as it cannot be said that one form is used for predication and another for reference.

Headnote

If there are no classes of noun or verb in Tagalog, how can there be noun phrases and verb phrases? This paper contributes to the discussion on form classes in Tagalog by taking a detailed, inductive, line-by-line look at the structures and constituents found in a randomly selected Tagalog text, to create a typology of the structures found therein. It is shown that, while there are very obvious constructions with generally clearly differentiated functions, they do not correspond with noun phrases and verb phrases in Indo-European languages, as it cannot be said that one form is used for predication and another for reference.

Key words: Austronesian languages, form classes, linguistic typology, phrase structure, Tagalog

(ProQuest: Foreign text omitted.)

1. Introduction

This paper presents an inductive examination of the constituents found in a randomly selected Tagalog text, Bob Ong's Alamat ng Gubat.1 The analysis is based on the full text, but we are able only to go through the first few lines of it here, which we do individually, sequentially, and discussing the structures found in each line. At the end of the paper, we pose some important questions about the structures found in Tagalog based on this text.

2. The text

(1) Alamá t ng Gú bat

[alamá t ng gú bat]Y/TITLE

legend REL 2 jungle

(The) Legend of the Jungle

The first type of phrase we find here in line 1 (the title of the book) is what I will be calling a 'Y' PHRASE (or relator phrase): one formed by ng ([nan]), if the word following the marker is not a common name, or ni, if the word following the marker is a human, proper name (nina when more than one proper name follows). This sort of structure manifests the following set of modifying functions: part-whole (inalienable possession), possession (alienable), 'possession' with locative and abstract concepts (such as in line 1), 'adverbial'3 modification, and predicate-argument structure when the argument is not the topic of the clause or a locative argument marked by sa. In this structure, the head of the phrase is the first constituent, and the modifying element follows ng or ni/nina.

(2) Noó ng ú nang panahó n,

[noó n=ng ú na=ng panahó n]X/TOP

that.time=LNK first=LNK time/epoch/weather

long ago (at the time of the first epoch),

The second type of phrase found is what I will call the 'X' PHRASE (or linker phrase): one formed by -ng (following an open syllable) or na (following a closed syllable). This structure manifests a much more varied set of modifying functions than does the Y phrase: 'adjectival' modification, numeral and measure modification, relative clause modification (restrictive and non-restrictive), demonstrative modification, (intensifier) 'adverbial' modification, intra-predicate structure (e.g. the relationship between a positive or negative existential and an existent-the thing that exists-in an existential predicate), indirect quotes, certain types of possessive modification, non-possessive modification, and the relationship between a predicate and its arguments in certain types of referential use (i.e. when they together form part of a (higher) clause argument). Unlike the Y phrase, this sort of structure does not link predicates and arguments in clauses acting as main clauses, but only marks relationships within clausal constituents.

The semantics of this sort of phrase are often difficult to determine: in many cases, it seems to be simply marking the fact that the elements form a phrase. The grammatical head of the phrase cannot consistently be identified by position, as in many cases the two (or more) elements can be reversed (magangdang babae / babaeng maganda; 'beautiful woman').

(3) sa isá ng liblíb na kahariá n

[sa [isá =ng liblíb na kaharián4]X/LC]LP

LOC one=LNK remote LNK kingdom

in a remote kingdom

(4) sa ilá lim ng dá gat,

[sa [ilá lim ng dá gat]Y/LC]LP

LOC bottom REL ocean

at the bottom of the sea,

The third type of phrase, found here in lines 3 and 4, is the locative phrase (LOC), which is marked by sa. The LOC phrase can be used for many sorts of locational and directional senses (e.g. allative, ablative) and for most other arguments not appearing in X or Y phrases.5

The 'preposition' sa can take a single word, an X phrase, or a Y phrase as its complement. In line 3 it takes an X phrase as its complement, and in line 4 it takes a Y phrase as its complement. It is somewhat problematic to call sa a preposition (as e.g. Himmelmann (in press) appears to do), because normally, a preposition is preposed to a noun phrase. This is not clearly the case here, as neither the X nor Y phrase is obviously nominal in a grammatical sense, but, as the form is preposed to something, I will continue to use the term 'preposition'.

There are two LOC phrases in lines 3 and 4, and they are both functioning at the clause level. That is, the second one is not embedded as a modifier within the first one, and could appear after the predicate rather than before it, as it is here.

(5) ay may nakatirá ng magandá at mabaít na siré na.

ay [may [naka-tirá =ng

FT EXIST OS-live=LNK

[[[ma-gandá at ma-baít]CONJP na]MOD siré na]X]X/EX]PRED

STAT-beauty CONJ STAT-goodness LNK siren(mermaid)

there was a beautiful and nice mermaid who lived there.

A fourth type of construction is formed by the linker ay, seen here at the beginning of line 5. It marks the fact that the element before it is part of the same construction (the clause) as the element following the marker, which is always the predicate of the clause. Lines 2-4 all relate to the predicate in line 5.6 This construction contrasts with clauses in which all elements follow the predicate. The item fronted can be a locative/temporal expression (often a scene-setting element) or the topic of the clause (often contrastive). 'Topic' here refers to the grammatical pivot (grammatically privileged argument) of the construction, the argument singled out for special morphosyntactic treatment (when realis, irrealis, conveyance, or locational affixes are used on the predicate, they co-reference the semantic role of the topic-this is the so-called 'focus system' of Philippine languages, and the topic itself, if a pronoun, takes a special form, or, if a lexical form, takes a marker of specificity). In Tagalog, this argument is the topic in the pragmatic sense of being what the clause is about (see Lambrecht 1994 on the definition of 'topic'), and so it is also appropriate to call it the topic.

Much is made of the fact that a clausal argument preceded by ng cannot appear in the prepredicate position of an ay phrase (see e.g. Kaufman 2009), but there is confusion concerning the difference between a clausal argument preceded by ng, on the one hand, and arguments preceded by sa or ang, which can appear in the pre-predicate position of an ay phrase, on the other hand, owing to the assumption that ang, sa, and ng are all the same type of marker, often called case markers. If, instead, we see ng as a linker (which links two elements in a Y phrase and requires two elements to be used), rather than as a case marker, much like the =ng/na linker and ay, then there is no confusion about why we do not find arguments standing alone with ng in any position, just as we don't wonder why elements preceded by =ng/na don't stand alone, as ng creates a Y phrase in which the two elements are the head and the modifier-in this case, the predicate and the relevant argument. That is, I am arguing that, just as, for example, we would not expect to achieve the particular modificational relationship between dá gat and ilá lim in ilá lim ng dá gat ('bottom of the ocean') without them being in the order they are in and linked by ng, we shouldn't expect to achieve the particular relationship between kumú ha and sá ging (i.e. predicate and argument) in kumú ha ng sá ging ('get a/the banana') without them being in the order they are in and linked by ng. This is why there can be no 'extraction' of this sort of phrase.

The predicate in line 5 (everything in this line after ay) takes the form of an existential phrase (EX), based on the existential may; this word can take a single word, an X phrase, or a Y phrase as its complement. In this case, it takes an X phrase as its complement. If the remote demonstrative doon/roon compounds with may in the predicate (e.g. in line 27, later: mayroon s'yang karamdá man ('he has an illness')), then the combined form mayroon is linked to the existent in an X phrase. This structure is also used for possession, with the possessor as topic, as in line 27.

A sixth type of structure, seen in the latter part of line 5, is the conjunction phrase (CONJP), marked by at; it conjoins two elements of any level. In this example, the conjunction phrase is embedded within an X phrase, and links two 'adjectival' modifiers.

(6) Pé ro wala siyang kinalá man

pé ro [wala? <siya>TOP=ng [kinalá man7]EX]X/PRED

but N.EXIST 3sgT=LNK involvement

But she doesn't have anything to do

(7) sa kwé ntong ito.

[sa [kwé nto=ng ito]X/LC]LP

LOC story=LNK PROXT

with this story.

In line 6, we find a negative existential phrase, where the predicate is based on the negative existential wala. As with the positive existential phrase, in this type of phrase the existent can appear as part of the predicate. This structure is also used for (negative) possession, as in this example, with the possessor as topic. See line 12, later, for a further example. It is also possible for the existent to appear as an ang-marked topic (see below on ang), as in Walá na ang sakít [N.EXIST CSM SPEC pain] 'The pain is gone'.

Because the personal pronouns are second-position clitics when they are functioning as arguments, and not functioning as predicates, they often occur linearly (but not grammatically) within the predicate, even if they represent the topic, as in this case, where the predicate is walang kinalá man, but the pronoun representing the topic appears after the first element of the predicate. This shows that the elements of the X phrase making up the predicate do not need to be contiguous, and that the linker ng ~ na is not necessarily marking a relationship between the element carrying the linker and the element following it.

In line 7, we have another LOC phrase with an X phrase complement.

(8) Ká ya ang pagtutuú nan na lang natin ng pansín

ká ya [ang [{pag-tu-tuó n-an8 na lang natin}Y

therefore SPEC GER-REDUP-emphasis-LFS CSM only/just 1pinclNT

ng pansín]Y]TOPz

REL attention

Therefore the one we will be focusing our attention on [lit: our focusing of attention]

In line 8, we find an ang phrase: the particle ang (or si for personal names / sina for more than one personal name) marks the constituent that is the topic of the clause as specific. It is historically a demonstrative followed by the linker (Reid 2000, 2002), and, in conversation, is often replaced by a form of the remote demonstrative iyon plus the linker: 'yung (iyung). The particle ang/'yung can be followed by a single word, an X phrase, or a Y phrase. In line 8, two Y phrases (pagtutuú nan ng pansín and pagtutuú nan natin) overlap, and are both broken up by two second-position clitics, na and lang. The form of the pronoun, natin, shows it participates in the Y phrase, and so does not require the use of ng to mark the relationship with pagtutuú nan.9

(9) ay si Tong,

ay [si [Tong]

FT SPEC 10 PN

is Tong,

Here, again, ay marks the constituent before it as the topic, and the constituent following it as the predicate. The clause formed by lines 8 and 9 is similar to a cleftconstruction, where what would otherwise be the topic is the focus (in this case, the predicate), and what would otherwise be the predicate acts as topic. Although the proper name Tong does not function as a topic here, it takes the particle si, which generally marks personal names that function as topics. This is because proper names (in the singular) must be marked by si or ni or kay, except when used as vocatives, but the use of ni (which is functionally equivalent to ng, but is used before personal names) would imply its participation in a Y phrase, which is not the case here, and kay (roughly, the equivalent of sa for proper names) would imply it is a locative argument, which it isn't, and so si is used here.

(10) ang pinakabá tang aná k ni Há ring Talangká ?

[ang [[pinaká -bá ta=ng aná k]X ni {{Há ri=ng Talangká ?}X/TOPi]Y

SPEC SUPER-young=LNK child REL king=LNK crab

the youngest child of King Crab,

(11) na tú lad ng mará ming há ri

[na [[tú lad ng [ma-dá mi=ng há ri]X]Y]

LNK just.like REL STAT-many=LNK king

who, like many kings,

(12) ay walá ng ibá ng papé l sa kwé nto

ay {<<walá ?=ng [ibá =ng papé l]X/EX>X/PRED [sa [kwé nto]LC]LP

FT N.EXIST=LNK other=LNK role LOC story

has no role in (the) story

(13) kundí? ang magkasakít.

kung [[hindí?]PRED [ang magka-sakí t]TOP]CL>CC}PREDi]AM]PREDz

COMP NEG SPEC POSPREF-illness

other than to be the one who becomes sick.

The passage from line 7 to line 13 involves several intertwined phrases: si Tong, ang pinakabá tang aná k ni Há ring Talangká ? is the predicate for the fronted topic ang pagtutuú nan na lang natin ng pansín, with ang pinakabá tang aná k ni Há ring Talangká ? modifying si Tong as an appositional modifier; pinakabá tang aná k ni Há ring Talangká ? is a Y phrase, which includes the X phrases pinakabá tang aná k and Há ring Talangká ?.

Há ring Talangká ? also forms an X phrase with (is modified by) the non-restrictive modifier na tú lad ng mará ming há ri and is also the topic of the predicate walá ng ibá ng papé l sa kwento kundí? ang magkasakit, the latter being itself a clause complex with two clauses, the first of which has Há ring Talangká ? as the (sub)topic and the second of which (a subordinate clause marked by kung) has ang magkasakít as the topic.

(14) At í to na ngá ang dahilá n

at [[{íto na nga}PREDj {ang [dá hil-an

CONJ PROXT CSM EMPH SPEC because-LFS

(15) kung bá kit isá ng á raw

[kung [bá kit [isá =ng á raw]X/TOPz

COMP why one=LNK day

and it is the reason why one day

(16) ay biglá na lang ipinatá wag

ay [{biglá ? na lang i-in+pa-tá wag}PREDi

FT sudden CSM only CON-RPUT-CAUS-call

(17) si Tong ng kanyá ng iná ng ré yna.

{si Tong}TOPi [ng [kanyá =ng iná =ng ré yna]X]A]Y/CL/PREDz]CL]CP]AC}TOPj

SPEC PN REL 3sgPOSS=LNK mother=LNK queen

Tong's mother, the Queen, suddenly summoned him (had him called).

Line 14 begins with the conjunction at, which, here, links the following clauses (lines 14-17) with the preceding ones (lines 7-13).

In lines 14-17, again, we have a very complex structure, where the (fronted) topic of the highest level structure is a complex structure: itó na ngá ang dahilá n kung bá kit isá ng á raw ay biglá na lang ipinatá wag si Tong ng kanyá ng inang réyna has itó na ngá as predicate and ang dahilá n kung bá kit isá ng á raw ay biglá na lang ipinatá wag si Tong ng kanyá ng inang réyna as topic, with this topic including the subordinated modifier kung bá kit isá ng á raw ay biglá na lang ipinatá wag si Tong ng kanyá ng inang réyna.

In line 16, we have the fronted topic marker, followed by the predicate of the embedded clause, which is itself a full clause, with a predicate and topic.

In the predicate of the embedded clause, biglá and ipinatá wag seem to form a phrase (even though they are separated by the second-position clitics), but there is no morphological marking of their relationship.

The representation of the actor of the embedded clause is an X phrase, but the whole of it forms a Y phrase with the predicate, and the Y phrase is interrupted by the topic.

(18) 'Tong, aná k, ang iyó ng amá

[[Tong]VOC [aná k]VOC [ang [iyó =ng amá ]X]TOPi

PN child SPEC 2sgPOSS=LNK father

'Tong, Child, your father

(19) ay may karamdá man', wíka ng ré yna.

ay [may [ka-ramdá m-an]EX]PREDi]PREDz/QUOTE [wíka? ng ré yna]Y/TOPICz

FT EXIST ASSOC-feeling-LFS language REL queen

has an illness', said the Queen.

Lines 18-19 form another clause type, an equative clause (with no copula). In this instance, the predicate is an embedded quote, and the topic of that predicate is the quoting phrase. The quote starts with a vocative, and, within the quote, there is a fronted topic that takes the form of an X phrase marked by ang, and the predicate takes the form of an existential phrase. This sort of structure can be used for interrogative word questions, such as [Ano] [ang gusto mo]? [what SPEC want 2sgNT] 'What do you want?'; for attributive predication, such as [Titser] [ako] 'I am a teacher'; and for identificational predication, such as [Ito] [ang gusto ko] [PROXT SPEC want 1sgNT] 'What I want is this'.

The topic of the higher structure (the clause that has the quote embedded as the predicate) is a Y phrase, wí ka ng ré yna-literally, '(the) language of the queen'. This phrase is not marked as a topic, but, in line 27 we have the same structure, and it is marked overtly as the topic. (See LaPolla & Poa 2005, on speech act constructions in Tagalog.)

(20) 'Hindí na s'ya naká kalangó y.

[hindí? na <siya>TOP naká ka-langó y]PRED

NEG CSM 3sgT INHERENT.ABLE-swim

'(He) is not able to swim anymore.

In line 20, again, two elements (hindí? and naká kalangó y) seem to form a phrase (separated by the second-position aspect clitic and the topic), but there is no morphological marking of the relationship between the two elements.

(21) Kailá ngan mong umá hon ngayó n din

[kailá ngan <mo>=ng [um-á hon ngayó n din11]]X/PRED

need 2sgNT=LNK RPAT-get.up now also

You need to get up right now (and)

(22) papú nta sa lú pa

[pa-pú nta]PRED [sa lú pa]LP

PROSP-go LOC land

go to the land

(23) ú pang kumú ha ng pú so ng sá ging-

ú pang [um+kú ha ng [[pú so? ng sá ging]Y

in.order.to RPAT+get REL heart REL banana

to get the heart of the banana-

(24) ang tá nging prutas na makakapá gpagaling sa kanya.'

[ang [tangi=ng prutas na [maká ka-pag-pa-galing [sa kanya]LP]MOD]X]AM]]Y

SPEC only=LNK fruit LNK SIT.ABLE-GER-CAUS-recover LOC 3sgPOSS

the only fruit that can cure him.'

In line 21, mo forms a Y phrase with kailangan, but this phrase is intertwined with the X phrase formed by kailangan and =ng umá hon ngayó n din papú nta, due to the nature of mo as a second-position clitic. This X phrase functions as the predicate of the clause. The second-person pronoun takes the form mo because it is a non-locative argument, but not the topic, of kailangan. The second person does seem to be the topic of the predicate umá hon, though, as it is marked for 'actor topic' and it is assumed that it is the addressee that will get up.

In line 22, we have another clause, which might be seen as part of a serial construction with the predication in line 21.

In line 23, we have a subordinate clause giving the reason why Tong has to get up and go to the land. Again, there is no overt topic, though, as the predicate is marked as an actor topic, we assume the actor (Tong) is the topic intended.

Line 24 is an appositional modifier, modifying sá ging ('banana'). It takes the form of a complex X phrase marked by ang. One element in the X phrase is a predicate plus a sa phrase, makakapá gpagaling sa kanya ('able to cure him'), which, in the context, is seen as acting as a modifier of prutas ('fruit'). That is, it functions like a relative clause, but the structure it forms with prutas is just like any other X phrase. Again, there is nothing in the structure that identifies prutas as a grammatical head, so we identify prutas as the element being modified simply by inference; that is, it makes more sense in the context than the other way around.

(25) Sumagó t si Tong, 'Ngú nit iná ng ré yna,

[um+sagó t]PREDi [si Tong]TOPi [[ngú nit [iná =ng ré yna]X/VOCATIVE

RPAT+answer SPEC PN however mother=LNK queen

Tong answered, 'But, Mother Queen,

(26) hindí ba't talagá namang hindí naká kalangó y12

[hindí? ba at talagá namá n=ng hindí? naká ka-langó y]X/PREDz

NEG Q CONJ really also=LNK NEG INHERENT.ABLE-swim

ang amá ng há ri?'

[ang [amá =ng há ri]X]TOPz]QUOTE

SPEC father=LNK king

isn't it the case that my father, the king, actually can't swim (anyway)?'

(27) 'Dá hil nga mayroon s'yang karamdá man!', ang sagó t ng ré nya.

[[dá hil nga [may-doon <siya>TOPi=ng [ka-ramdá m-an]EX]PREDi]PREDz/QUOTE

because EMPH EXIST-DISLOC 3sgT=LNK ASSOC-feeling-LFS

[ang sagó t ng ré yna]TOPz

SPEC answer REL queen

The reply (answer) of the queen was, 'Because he has an illness!'

In lines 25-27, we have two different speech act constructions. In the clause that makes up lines 25-26, the predicate is the quoting expression, here inflected for the actor topic, and the quote is an unmarked, non-topic, non-sa argument. Within the quote, there is a clear predicate-topic construction, though the predicate is rather complex.

In line 27, the structure is quite different, as the quoting expression, ang sagó t ng ré yna ('the answer of the queen'), is the topic, and the quote itself is the predicate for this topic, the two forming an equative clause (compare line 19, above).

3. Summary and conclusion

In the text analysis above, we have identified the following phrase types:

* X phrase: links elements of many types in a modificational relationship. The head cannot be identified consistently using word order.

* Y phrase: links elements in an essentially possessive relationship. The semantic head (modified element) always appears in the initial position. The predicate and a non-topical, non-sa-marked argument in a non-equative clause also form a Y phrase.

* LOC phrase: marked by what appears to be similar to a preposition, but which takes an X or Y phrase (or single word) as its complement.

* Topic phrase: a single word, X phrase, or a Y phrase (including a whole clause) can appear as a topic, marked by ang/'yung, or, in the case of pronouns, have the topic form, or, in the case of proper human names, be marked by si/sina.

* CONJ phrase: conjoins two elements at any level.

* ay phrase: links a topic or locative or temporal element with the predicate when it appears before the predicate, contrasting with clauses where the topical elements appear after the predicate.

* Unmarked phrase: existential may can take an element within the predicate without overt marking of the relationship (may might include what was, historically, a linker). Certain other elements seem to be able to be combined into a predicate without overt marking of linkage as well (see lines 16 and 20, earlier).

The question, then, is whether these phrases correspond with the types of phrases we find in many other languages, such as noun phrases, verb phrases, and preposition phrases, or is this a system that works differently?

When writing reference grammars of languages, we often will have chapters on the noun phrase and the verb phrase, with sections within each chapter on the structure of that particular phrase type. If we were to write a reference grammar of Tagalog, could we legitimately have a chapter, for example, on the noun phrase, with a section on the structure of the noun phrase, where that structure is significantly different from the structure we would describe in the chapter on the verb phrase? It seems, from the discussion above, that the answer to this question would be 'no'. In which case, how then should we describe Tagalog?

My conclusion is that we should describe it on its own terms, as I have endeavored to do here, and not try to fit it into any a priori grammatical categories when such an approach is not appropriate.

Sidebar

...

Footnote

* This paper was presented as a keynote address to the 10th Philippine Linguistics Congress, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, December 10-12, 2008. I would like to thank all those who commented on the paper at that time, as well as Carl Rubino and Ricardo Nolasco for their very helpful feedback on drafts of this paper following its presentation at the Congress.

1 Ong, Bob. 2004. Alamat ng Gubat. Makati City, Philippines: Visual Print Enterprises. 'Bob Ong' is the pen name (real name unknown) of an author known for using vernacular language to poke fun at life in the Philippines. His works are considered classics of Pinoy culture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ong).

2 When written alone, ng is pronounced [nan]. Please refer to the table at the end of this paper for a guide to glossing abbreviations used herein. An acute accent marks a stressed syllable, and a macron means the pitch stays high for that syllable (the stress marks and the glottal stops do not appear in the Tagalog orthography). Spanish and English loan words are in italics in the morpheme analysis line. Phrases are marked for their syntactic type and their functions in the text; for example, 'Y/TITLE' marks the phrase as a Y phrase that is acting as the title of the story. I have not been able to maintain the paragraph breaks that appear in the published version of this text, which should be consulted directly for a review of that level of structure.

5 For locational predications, nasa, rather than sa, is generally used; for example, Nasa gubat siya ('He is in the forest').

6 I did not use brackets to mark offthis phrase because it is so long, and the initial bracket might have confused the reader when discussing the first line.

7 The word kinalá man ('involvement') is formed from the root alá m ('know'), plus ka- (ASSOC) and -an (LFS), together forming kaá laman ('knowledge, wisdom'), and then the infix -in- (RPUT) appears within the kaprefix. The resulting form *kinaalaman reduces to kinalá man accordingly.

8 See tutuú nan ('concentration'), but it seems the order of affixing is, first, to add pag-, forming pagtutuon, and then -an is added to that.

9 Although personal pronouns (e.g. natin here) and demonstrative pronouns, such as noon in line 2, form possessive phrases when they follow reference to a referent, similar to expressions preceded by ng in Y phrases, as in pagtutuú nan natin or aso natin ('our dog'), they are morphosyntactically more free than expressions preceded by ng in Y phrases, appearing often as second-position clitics and phrase-initially and taking the -ng/ na linker when linked to preceding phrases (e.g. Nagulat akong noong nakita kita; 'I was surprised when I saw you'), and they can be used without a possessive sense as simply a non-topical argument.

10 A reviewer questioned why I use SPEC for the gloss of this form and ang, suggesting I might use 'Topic' instead. I use SPEC following Himmelmann (2008), but also because it does not always mark a topic; it simply marks the referent as identifiable, as in line 9.

11 The combination of ngayon ('now') and din ('also') means 'right now'.

12 Notice that hindí naká kalangó y 'never could swim' differs from hindí na naká kalangó y 'can't swim anymore' in line 20 only in the use of the change of state marker na in the latter.

References

References

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, ed. by Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave, 247-293. Stanford: CSLI.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. (in press.) Notes on noun phrase structure in Tagalog. Special issue of Australian Journal of Linguistics, ed. by Michael Ewing & Simon Musgrave. http://www.unimuenster. de/imperia/md/content/allgemeine_sprachwissenschaft/dozenten-unterlagen/himmel mann/himmelmann_np_dp_pp_structure_20_12.pdf.

Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: a Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35.1:1-49.

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

LaPolla, Randy J. 2010. Feilübin Tagaluoyu (Tagalog) de cilei fanchou [The lexical categories of the Tagalog language of the Philippines]. Yuyanxue Luncong [Essays on Linguistics] 41:1-14. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

LaPolla, Randy J., & Dory Poa. 2005. Direct and indirect speech in Tagalog. Workshop on Direct and Indirect Speech, Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, June 8, 2005. Melbourne: La Trobe University. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/Direct_and_Indirect_Speech_in_ Tagalog. pdf

Reid, Lawrence A. 2000. Sources of proto-oceanic initial prenasalization: the view from outside Oceanic. Grammatical Analysis: Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics: Studies in Honor of Stanley Starosta, ed. by Videa P. De Guzman & Byron W. Bender, 30-45. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

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.

[Received 2 September 2013; revised 3 April 2014; accepted 8 April 2014]