Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:49:18.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2016

JOSEPH SABBAGH*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Arlington
*
Author’s address: University of Texas, 132 Hammond Hall, Arlington, TX 76019-0559, USAsabbagh@uta.edu

Abstract

The relationship between the semantic function of noun phrases and the way(s) in which they are realized morphosyntactically in a clause has been a topic of intensive research in the typological literature as well as for theories concerned with the syntax–semantics interface. Considering just noun phrases that function as direct objects, it has been shown for language after language that that there is a systematic relationship between the semantic function of an object (e.g. whether it is pronominal, definite, indefinite, etc.) and its morphosyntax (e.g. whether it requires special case marking, whether it triggers agreement, whether it exhibits special distribution in terms of word order, etc.). This paper aims to contribute to the already large body of evidence documenting the relationships between form and semantic function by providing a comprehensive survey of the morphosyntax of transitive constructions in Tagalog, focussing, specifically, on the relationship between the semantic function of the theme argument and the morphosyntactic strategies by which theme arguments are realized. Contrary to what previous studies have claimed, I show that specific noun phrases are attested as direct objects of active clause in Tagalog. An exception to this is pronoun and proper name themes, which must either be oblique marked to function as a direct object or be realized as a subject. Developing and expanding upon analyses in Rackowski (2002), I propose that the differential behavior of specific themes (pronoun/proper names on the one hand versus non-pronoun/proper name specific themes on the other) follows from a clausal architecture in which there are at least two VP-external positions to which specific themes must raise – a relatively high position for pronoun and proper name themes, and a position intermediate between vP and VP for all other specific themes. The distribution of syntactic positions available for the theme argument is claimed to follow from a proposal in Merchant (2006), pre-figured in Jelinek & Carnie (2003) and related work, that relational hierarchies of the type familiar from typological research – in particular, the definiteness hierarchy – are directly encoded in the phrase structure.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbot, Barbara. 2006. Definite and indefinite. In Brown, Keith (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 3, 2nd edn. 329399. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Adams, Karen L. & Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1988. Some questions of topic/focus choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27, 79101.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 673711.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435483.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithica, NY.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2005. Antipassive, clefting, and specificity. In Arunachalam, Sudha, Sundarsan, Sandhaya, Scheffler, Tatjana & Joshua, Tauberer (eds.), 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11), Department of Linguistics, University of Pensylvania. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol11/iss1/2Q12.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2006. Absolutive case in Tagalog. The Annual Meeting of CLS (CLS 42.2), 115. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122, 192203.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Vinokurova, Nadya. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 593642.Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 1998. Object position and predication forms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 541595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard & Santigago, Alfredo Viola. 1917. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Wanner, Dieter & Kibbee, Douglas (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 2003. Weak indefinites. In Coene, Martine & D’Hulst, Yves (eds.), From NP to DP: On the syntax and pragma-semantics of noun phrases, vol. 1, 195210. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2005. A phase-geometric approach to multiple marking systems. In McGinnis, Martha & Richards, Norvin (eds.), Perspectives on phases (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49), 87102.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew & Cash, Phillip. 2006. Tree-geometric relational hierarchies and Nuumiipuutímt (Nez Perce) case. In Johns, A. et al. (eds.), Ergativity, 229244. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and ‘referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 144.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A.. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. Relative readings of many, often, and generics. Natural Language Semantics 9, 4167.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 391444.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 3, 1321.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Culwell-Kanarek, Nathaniel. 2005. Word order and the syntax of ang in Tagalog. In Shields, Rebecca (ed.), Proceedings of WIGL 2005 (LSO Working Papers in Linguistics 5), 4050. http://ling.wisc.edu/?q=node/23.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 369427.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly & Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3, 123176.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31, 409466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 125.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi. 2005. Quantification and domain restriction in Basque. Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Basque Country-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi. 2008. On quantification in Basque and on how some languages restrict their quantificational domain overtly. In Matthewson, Lisa (ed.), Quantification: A crosslinguistic perspective, 225276. Emerald.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi. 2009. Contextually restricted quantification in Basque. In Giannakidou, A. & Rathert, M. (eds.), Qp structure, nominalizations, and the role of DP (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics Series), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi & Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2010. Contextual domain restriction and the definite determiner. In Stojanovic, Isidora, Recanati, François & Villanueva, Neftalí (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective and relativity (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 6), Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1978. Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian. In Farkas, Donka et al. (eds.), Papers from the regional meeting of CLS, vol. 14, 8897. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1985. Intentional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive mood (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics), New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2000. Varieties of definites. Ms., UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Nash, Leah & Tsoulas, G. (eds.), Langues et grammaire, vol. 1, 119137.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean & Sag, Ivan A.. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355398.Google Scholar
Foley, William. 1998. Symmetrical voice and precategorality in Philippine languages. Presented at Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages, 1998 International Lexical Functional Grammar Conference, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, July 1.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2004. Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. Proceedings of SALT 14, 110126. LSA and CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 35–52.Google Scholar
Gívon, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, 291330. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2004. NP-interpretation and the structure of predicates. Language 80, 707747.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19, 245274.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011a. Specificity, referentiality and discourse prominence: German indefinite demonstratives. In Reich, Ingo et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15, 930. Saarbücken, Germany: Sarland University Press.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011b. Specificity. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 10241057. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1987. Indefinites and predication. In Reuland, Eric & ter Meulen, A. (eds.), The representation of (in)definteness, 4370. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, James. 1986. The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 331336.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Halen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Minimalism and quantifier raising. In Epstein, Samuel & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), (Working Minimalism), 4575. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2006. This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14, 175234.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. Ergative ‘splits’ and argument type. In Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Phillips, Colin (eds.), (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18), 1542.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise & Carnie, Andrew. 2003. Argument hierarchies and the mapping principle. In Harley, Heidi, Carnie, Andrew & Willie, MaryAnn (eds.), Formal approaches to function in grammar, 265296. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 577636.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, Theo M. V., Janssen, Jeroen & Martin, Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, part 1 (Mathematical Centre Tracts), 277322. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1968. What do referential indices refer to? Technical Report 3854.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In McCawley, James (ed.), Notes from the linguistics underground (Syntax and Semantics 7), 363385. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong, Ionin, Tania & Wexler, Ken. 2010. The role of presuppositionality in the second language acquisition of English articles. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 213254.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82, 1032.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maclachlan, Anna & Nakamura, Masanori. 1997. Case-checking and specificity in Tagalog. Linguistic Review 14, 307333.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Reuland, Eric (ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 1130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9, 145189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Mercado, Rafael. 2004. Focus constraints and wh-questions in Tagalog: A unified analysis. (Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23), 95118.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. In Bunting, Jackie et al. (eds.), The Annual Meeting of CLS (CLS 42), 5776. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5, 152.Google Scholar
Naylor, Paz Buenaventura. 1975. Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics 14, 1279.Google Scholar
Otanes, Fe T. & Schachter, Paul. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an a-element. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 381457.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223256. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 565599.Google Scholar
Ramos, Teresita V.1974. The case system of Tagalog verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Australia.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between qr and choice functions. Linguistics & Philosophy 20, 335397.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Philips, Vivane, Paul, Ileana & Travis, Lisa (eds.), Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, 105116. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics & Philosophy 26, 287350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In Wouk, Fay & Ross, Malcom (eds.), The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, 1762. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey. 1998. Noun phrase licensing (Oustanding Dissertations in Linguistics), New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2009. Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 675719.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2014. Word order and prosodic-structure constraints in Tagalog. Syntax 17, 4089.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and topic, vol. 491, 491518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1996. The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15, 161.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa de Mena. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 399467.Google Scholar
Wolter, Lynsey Kay. 2006. That’s that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar