Content uploaded by Hsiu-Chuan Liao
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hsiu-Chuan Liao on Apr 01, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages
Lawrence A. Reid & Hsiu-chuan Liao
University of Hawai‘i
This paper is a brief statement of the typological characteristics of the syntactic
structures of Philippine languages. It utilizes a lexicalist theoretical framework to
provide comparability among the examples cited. The word order of both verbal and
non-verbal predicational sentences is examined, with pronominal and non-
pronominal complements, topicalization, and auxiliary verbs. Philippine languages
are analyzed as morphologically ergative. The morphological criteria for
determining the syntactic transitivity of verbal sentences is examined, concluding
that verbal affixation alone is an insufficient criterion. Attention is paid to the notion
of “focus”, with rejection of the concept of “voice” as an explanation for the
phenomenon. The various forms of syntactically transitive verbs that have been
described by others, for example, as signaling agreement with the Nominative NP,
are here described as carrying semantic features, marking the manner of their
instantiation with reference to the Nominative NP. The structure of noun phrases is
examined. Morphological case marking of NPs by Determiners is claimed for
Genitive, Locative, and for some languages, Oblique NPs, but it is claimed that for
most languages, Nominative full NPs are case marked only by word order. Semantic
agreement features distinguishing forms of Determiners for common vs. personal,
definiteness, specificity, spatial reference, and plurality of their head nouns are
described. Relative clause formation strategies are described. Most are head-initial,
with gapping of the Nominative NP. “Adjectives” in NP’s are typically relative
clauses having stative verbs as predicates.
1. Introduction
Philippine languages are sufficiently distinct from other Austronesian languages that
the label “Philippine Type Language” has sometimes appeared in the literature to
characterize languages that seem to share characteristics such as the so-called “focus
system” that are thought of as defining those found in the Philippines. However,
despite considerable overlap in syntax and morphology, there is a wide range of
typological variety found among the more than one hundred Philippine languages.
This paper attempts to provide both a broad characterization of the overall typological
similarities found in the morphosyntax of Philippine languages, as well as a taste of
the considerable variety which distinguishes one language from another.
Although only a relatively few selected examples are provided in this paper, they are,
unless otherwise noted, usually typical of a fairly broad range of languages. The full
version of this paper contains a much broader range of examples, selected from a
considerable number of the more than one hundred languages across the archipelago,
Originally published in: Language and Linguistics 5(2):433-490.This paper covers in outline much of
the material that will appear in a monograph on the topic that was stimulated by the paper originally
presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues Relating to Taiwan,
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan (December 8-11, 2001). We wish to thank the funding agencies
responsible for the conference for enabling us to attend, and also the participants in the conference for
their comments following the presentation. We are also grateful to John Wolff for his detailed
comments on the paper.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 2
from Batanes in the far north to the Sulu Archipelago in the south and covering the
full range of recognized subgroups within the Philippines. A syntactic typology can
best be achieved when the languages are described within the same theoretical
framework. It should be clear that such a situation is difficult to achieve, in that most
language descriptions are the products of their authors’ distinctive theoretical
orientations, and these are often left implicit. Moreover, the terminology of each
description, even when couched within the same theoretical framework frequently
does not exactly match. Particularly is this true in the labeling of syntactic categories
and case forms. It should be apparent from the outset that we are following a
lexicalist, dependency view of the nature of grammatical structure.1
We have proceeded therefore to reanalyze the data according to our own syntactic
biases, and to provide a common set of terminology in order to make the descriptions
comparable. Data that is cited from published materials therefore reflect the actual
spelling conventions of the original (except that clitics are indicated with an equals
sign whether or not they are written with a space between them or joined to their host
in the original). Literal and free translations reflect where possible that of the
original, although these have also been changed at times to more accurately reflect the
syntax of the example. Grammatical labels are changed to reflect our own usage.
We choose to distinguish between case forms, such as NOMINATIVE, GENITIVE,
LOCATIVE, etc., marked either morphologically (i.e., by the actual form either of the
nominal itself or one of its co-constituents), or syntactically (i.e., by word order), and
case relations,2 namely PATIENT,3 AGENT, CORRESPONDENT, MEANS, and LOCUS,
which are determined by both semantic and morphosyntactic considerations. Since
we claim that all the languages under consideration are probably ergative, we do not
distinguish an Accusative case form. We also assume that there are two semantic
1 Our indebtedness here and throughout the paper to the work of Stanley Starosta should be obvious.
We however refrain from characterizing the theoretical orientation as “Lexicase” in that we depart from
it in several respects, not the least of which is the recognition of an undergoer macrorole, and the
unapologetic use of terms such as affix, where necessary, to explicate the nature of verbal
‘morphology’ in Philippine languages.
2 Starosta (To appear) notes that “Lexicase case roles differ from conventional Fillmorean case
grammar and other ‘thematic relation’ systems in that lexicase case relations are established by
grammatical criteria rather than subjective language-independent situational ones. As a consequence,
lexicase has so far been able to make do with only five case relations.”
3 Our definitions of the case relations are as follows: PATIENT is “the case relation of the entity which is
directly affected, located, or moves through abstract or concrete space, or of which a property is
predicated.” Every verb that requires a nominal complement has one, and only one, complement that
carries a Patient case relation. It is the “perceptual center” of the predication (Starosta 1988:123-4);
AGENT is the case relation that is required, in addition to Patient, by all transitive verbs. Starosta
(1988:124) defines it as “the dynamic/salient argument external to the Patient (cf. Halliday 1985:
147)”; CORRESPONDENT is the case relation defined by Starosta (1988:124) as “the actant perceived as
in correspondence with the Patient… or the external frame or point of reference of the action, state, or
event as a whole”; Correspondent is also the case relation of a genitively marked NP in construction
with a noun head, commonly referred to as “possessive construction”; MEANS is the case relation
defined by Starosta (1988:126) as “the perceived immediate affector or effector of the Patient… the
means by which the action, state, or event is perceived as being realized”; LOCUS is the case relation
defined by Starosta (1988:126) as “the perceived concrete or abstract source, goal, or location of the
Patient… or of the action, state, or event.”
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 3
‘macroroles’ that need to be specified in linguistic descriptions, that is, ACTOR and
UNDERGOER.4
Even though we analyze Philippine languages as ergative, we choose not to use the
term ‘absolutive’, preferring instead the typologically more general term ‘nominative’
for the least indispensable complement of a basic predication, and the one that is most
likely to undergo deletion under conditions of coreference in a relative clause,
whether transitive or intransitive. Similarly, since the case-marking of noun phrases
that are the Correspondents (or ‘possessors’) of possessed nouns is in most Philippine
languages identical to that which marks the Agents of transitive constructions, we
choose to use the more general term ‘Genitive’ as the label for the case that marks
both of these noun phrases.
2. Word Order of Predicational Constructions
Philippine clause structure is typically right branching, that is, heads of constructions
appear in the initial position in the construction. In clausal constructions, this means
that the predicate occurs first, with nominal complements, adjuncts and other
modifiers of the predicate typically occurring after the predicate. Clausal predicates
may be headed by one of a variety of form classes, nouns, prepositions, or verbs, each
being modifiable by the dependents normally allowed by these classes.
2.1. Nominal Predicate Clauses
Since Philippine languages do not typically utilize copula verbs, predicate nouns
constitute the head of nominal clauses. There are several types of such clauses,
depending on the modification or lack of it, of the predicate noun.
2.1.1. Classificational
Classificational nominal clauses are those in which the predicate classifies the entity
expressed in the Nominative noun phrase of the clause. The predicate noun is the
label of a class of objects of which the Nominative noun is an instance. The predicate
noun is typically a bare noun without a specifying determiner, and since it is a
predicate, is interpreted as the head of the predication.
4 Our use of these terms is similar to those described by Foley and Van Valin (1984:29). They state,
“[actor is] the argument of a predicate which expresses the participant which performs, effects,
instigates, or controls the situation denoted by the predicate, and the undergoer [is] the argument which
expresses the participant which does not perform, initiate, or control any situation but rather is affected
by it in some way....the actor is not equivalent to syntactic subject, nor is undergoer equivalent to
syntactic direct object. These non-equivalences are reinforced when we look at single-argument
predicates, some of which have actors and some of which have undergoers as their single argument, an
argument which is always syntactically the subject.” We differ from them in that we also assign
undergoer role to the second argument of transitive “activity” predicates, which do not carry undergoer
role in Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin 1993:49).
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 4
(1) Central Ivatan (Reid 1966:62)5
Motdeh=qako.
child=Nom.1s
‘I am a child.’
(2) Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:34)
Mangongonà hi Pedro.
fisherman Det Pedro
‘Pedro is a fisherman.’
(3) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976:27)
Manga lodzoq ani ini.
Det.plrl bolo.knife be6 this
‘These are bolo-knives.’
2.1.2. Identificational
Identificational nominal clauses are those in which the predicate provides specific
identification for the entity expressed in the Nominative noun phrase of the clause.
Whereas classificational predicates are typically bare nouns, an identificational
predicate is either a definite common noun (usually accompanied by a definite
determiner), or a personal noun, or a personal or demonstrative pronoun.
5 List of Abbreviations
[+bfct] beneficiary affect [+dfct] direct affect
[+drct] directional [+irls] irrealis
[+mfct] manner affect [+lfct] local affect
[-irls] realis [+mprs] impersonal
[prdc] predicate [+sttv] stative
[-trns] intransitive [+trns] transitive
[+xlry] auxiliary 1d first person dual
1s first person singular 1pe first person plural exclusive
1pi first person plural inclusive 2s second person singular
2p second person plural 3s third person singular
3p third person plural actr actor (agreement)
Adv Adverb AGT Agent
cmpl completive cntv continuative
COR Correspondent Dem Demonstrative
Det Determiner Emph Emphatic
Erg Ergative ex exclusive
futr future Gen Genitive
in inclusive Lcv Locative
Lig Ligature LOC Locus
N Noun ngtv negative
Nom Nominative NP Noun Phrase
Obl Oblique PAn Proto-Austronesian
PAT Patient PEF Proto-Extra-Formosan
pfct perfective plrl/pl plural
Poss Possessive prdc predicate
prnn pronoun prog progressive
Pst past sg singular
s.o. someone s.t. something
Top Topic them theme
V Verb Tp.Lk Topic Linker
6 Miller and Miller consider the Mamanwa form ani to be an ‘equative particle’.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 5
(4) Kapampangan (Mirikitani 1972:135)
Ing estudyante ing anak=ku.
Det student Det child=Gen.1s
‘My child is the student.’
(5) Balangaw (Shetler 1976:151)
Haén ah Juan.
Pred.1s Det John
‘I am John.’
2.1.3. Possessive
Possessive nominal predicates are a subclass of identificational predicates. These
contain either a genitive, a possessive pronoun, or a locatively marked noun phrase
interpreted as a possessor in the predicate position.
(6) Central Cagayan Agta (Healey 1960:13)
Kaluhung=ku yi Tinoy.
relative=Gen.1s Det Tinoy
‘Tinoy is my relative.’
(7) Guinaang Bontok7
ásu=n nan sagguŋ=ko nan naŋtb an sika.
dog=Gen Det neighbor=Gen.1s Det bit Lcv you
‘The one that bit you is the dog of my neighbor.’
(8) Tboli (Forsberg 1992:52)
Ke Ting sewel yó.
Lcv Ting trousers that
‘Those trousers belong to Ting.’
2.2. Prepositional Predicate Constructions
A prepositional phrase may constitute a clausal predicate. Prepositions having a wide
range of meanings from beneficiary or purpose (‘for’) to directional (‘to, at, from’,
etc.) are found in languages throughout the Philippines as prepositional heads of
clausal predicates.
(9) Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:35-6)
a. Para koni Jose ya libro.
for Lcv Jose Det book
‘The book is for Jose.’
b. Tongkol ha pag-ong ya kowinto.
about Lcv turtle Det story
‘The story is about the turtle.’
7 Examples throughout the paper without a source reference are either from Reid’s fieldnotes or have
been constructed for the paper from his own knowledge of the languages, and may be over-ridden by
the judgements of native speakers.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 6
(10) Suban’on (Verstraelen 1973:245)
Búat Bonifacio suggĕntáw.
from Bonifacio the.man
‘The man is from Bonifacio.’
2.3. Verbal Clauses
Verbal clauses have verbs as their lexical heads. Since all verbs carry a predicate
feature, they typically appear at the beginning of a sentence, and dependents of verbs
such as nominal and verbal complements follow. In the description that follows we
distinguish between two major classes of verbal constructions, intransitive and
transitive. In this section we are concerned with the word order of the nominal
complements of simple verbal clauses. Later sections will deal with the detailed
description of each of these types, and of constructions requiring dependent verbal
clauses.
2.3.1. Intransitive Constructions
A verb which expects only a single nominal complement, i.e., one that can be
followed by only a single nominal argument, is intransitive, and the construction of
which it is a part is therefore intransitive. Depending on the form of the verb, this
single complement is interpreted as carrying either the actor (in dynamic structures,
see section 3.3.1) or the undergoer (in stative structures, see section 3.3.2) macrorole.
This complement is typically8 the Nominative complement of the construction
(whether it is morphologically marked as such or is morphologically unmarked). It
should be noted that although a verb which expects only a single complement is
intransitive, the number of complements that a construction has does not determine its
transitivity. It is the types of complements that a verb takes that determines its
transitivity, not the number. There are many ‘meteorological’ verbs, such as ‘rain’,
etc., that are intransitive but do not allow any explicit nominal complement, while
there are other verbs that expect more than one complement which may also be
intransitive, as discussed in section 2.3.1.2.
8 There are some languages such as Botolan Sambal, Ivatan, and Tagalog which allow what seem to be
intranstive constructions in that they only expect a single nominal complement but that complement is
morphologically marked as Genitive, not Nominative. These are interpreted as exclamations, e.g.,
Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:50)
Pagkayaman ni Juan!
wealthy Gen Juan
‘How wealthy Juan is!’
Ivatan (Reid 1966:58)
Japia=na no tao!
good=Gen.3s Gen man
‘How good the man is!’
Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:280)
Kaganda ng dalaga!
beautiful Gen girl
‘How beautiful the girl is!’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 7
2.3.1.1. Single complement intransitive clauses
The typical word order of these constructions, as noted above, requires the
Nominative complement to follow the predicate, regardless of whether or not it is a
pronoun or a full noun phrase.
(11) Pangasinan (Benton 1971:195)
a. Onbungá may kiéw.
bear.fruit Det tree
‘The tree will bear fruit.’
b. Onsabí=irá.
arrive=Nom.3p
‘They will arrive.’
(12) Binukid (Post 1992:xvii, xxii)
a. Minulì si Pedro.
go.home Det Pedro
‘Pedro went home.’
b. Napilay su balay=dan.
fall.down Det house=Gen.3p
‘Their house fell down.’
c. Mapurisu=ka.
get.imprisoned=Nom.2s
‘You (sg) might get imprisoned.’
2.3.1.2. Double complement intransitive constructions
Intransitive verbs may also expect two nominal complements. In these constructions
the non-Nominative complement carries the undergoer macrorole. It is typically
marked by either a Genitive or a Locative case form, although some languages such
as Ivatan have a distinct Oblique case form that is used to express this extra
complement. It carries the Correspondent case relation, and is typically interpreted as
indefinite or as partitive. Constructions of this sort in ergative languages are often
referred to as antipassive or pseudo-transitive constructions. The morphology of the
verbs of these constructions however is similar if not identical to that of other
intransitive constructions, and is very different from the morphology of transitive
verbs.
2.3.1.2.1. With a Nominative pronoun
In these constructions word order depends upon whether or not the Nominative is a
pronoun or a full noun phrase. All languages prefer a word order in which a
Nominative pronoun occurs immediately following the verb, with the other
complement following.
(13) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:294)
Humawak=siya ng libro.
hold=Nom.3s Gen book
‘He held a book.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 8
(14) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976:98)
Anhinang=hao ka lagkaw.
build=Nom.1s Lcv house
‘I will build a house.’
2.3.1.2.2. With a Nominative full noun phrase
Languages such as Tagalog prefer that the Nominative full noun phrase occur last and
that the other complement occur between it and the verb, although the alternative
order is possible.
(15) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:325)
Humuli ng magnanakaw ang pulis.
catch Gen thief Det police
‘The police caught a thief.’
Other languages typically place a Nominative full noun phrase immediately after the
verb with the other complement following, but also allow the alternative order.
(16) Arta
Matitim i minabulu ta binarayan.
drink Det widow Lcv wine
‘The widow drank wine.’
(17) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976:70)
Ampalit ya maimpis ka gas.
buy Det child Lcv gas
‘The child will buy gas.’
2.3.2. Transitive Constructions
A verb which expects two nominal complements, one of which is an Agent and the
other a Patient, is transitive, and the construction of which it is a part is a transitive
construction. The Agent carries the actor macrorole, while the Patient carries the
undergoer macrorole. Since most, if not all, Philippine languages are ergative, it is
the undergoer complement that is expressed by the Nominative case form while the
actor complement is expressed by the Genitive case form. The following section
deals with the word order constraints of two complement transitive verbal clauses.
Section 2.3.2.2 will deal with transitive clauses that have more than two complements.
2.3.2.1. Two complement transitive constructions
There is a wide range of transitive verb types in Philippine languages (the so-called
‘non-actor focus’ verbs), however, within a given language the constructions in which
these verbs participate all follow basically the same word order. The relative word
order of these constructions usually depends upon whether or not the complements are
expressed by pronouns or by full noun phrases.
2.3.2.1.1. With two nominal complements
Typically, actors precede undergoers, that is, a Genitive complement precedes a
Nominative complement.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 9
(18) Guinaang Bontok
iníla=n nan laláki nan gayym=na.
saw=Gen Det man Det friend=Gen.3s
‘The man saw his friend.’
(19) Pangasinan (Benton 1971:168)
Ibatík nen Pedro may manók.
run.away.with Gen Pedro Det chicken
‘Pedro will run away with the chickens.’
2.3.2.1.2. With two pronominal complements
The Nominative pronoun in some languages, such as Ivatan and Guinaang Bontok, is
an independent form, in others it is the short, clitic Nominative form that occurs.
Since clitic pronouns in Philippine languages are second-order, they immediately
follow the first verb in the clause, with Genitive clitic pronouns typically preceding
Nominative clitic pronouns.
(20) Ivatan (Larson 1986:75)
Kanen=mo yaken.
eat=Gen.2s Nom.1s
‘You (sg) can eat me.’
(21) Guinaang Bontok
iníla=na sakn.
saw=Gen.3s Nom.1s
‘He saw me.’
(22) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976: 42)
Tambalan=mo=hao pagqisab.
medicine=Gen.2s=Nom.1s again
‘You (sg) medicine me again.’
In some languages such as Tagalog, however, the relative word order of the pronouns
depends upon their relative phonological length, with shorter pronouns preceding
longer pronouns, regardless of their case form. Thus, monosyllabic pronouns always
precede disyllabic pronouns. When they cooccur with post-verbal adverbial clitics,
the order becomes: 1) monosyllabic clitic pronouns always precede adverbial clitics;
2) adverbial clitics always precede disyllabic clitic pronouns.
(23) Tagalog (Schachter 1973:215; Schachter and Otanes 1972:185)
a. Nakita=ko=na=siya.
see=Gen.1s=already=Nom.3s
‘I have already seen him/her.’
b. Nakita=ka=niya.
see=Nom.2s=Gen.3s
‘He saw you (sg.).’
In a number of languages, there are special forms that occur when a Genitive first
person pronoun is followed by a Nominative second person pronoun.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 10
(24) Pangasinan (Benton 1971:86)
Benegán=taka.
leave.behind=Gen.1s+Nom.2s
‘I’ll be going now.’ (Lit., ‘I will leave you.’)
(25) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:185)
Nakita=kita.
see=Gen.1s+Nom.2s
‘I saw you (sg.).’
(26) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976:48)
Tambalan=tako.
medicine=Gen.1s+Nom.2s
‘I will medicine you (sg).’
2.3.2.1.3. With pronominal Genitive and full noun Nominative complements
Most languages require that the word order follow the basic typology of actor
preceding undergoer.
(27) Central Cagayan Agta (Healey 1960:36)
a. Dinangag=ku yi ábe.
hear=Gen.1s Det Ábe
‘I heard Ábe.’
b. Zígutan=da hapa ya abbing.
bathe=Gen.3p also Det child
‘They also bathe the child.’
(28) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:60)
Sinulat=ko ang liham.
write=Gen.1s Det letter
‘I wrote the letter.’
2.3.2.1.4. With full noun Genitive and pronominal Nominative complements
If the undergoer is a pronoun, it may either follow a Genitive full noun phrase (as in
the Central Cordilleran languages, Isinai, Balangaw, Bontok (29), Kankanay, Ifugaw,
Kalinga, etc.), or precede it (as in Ivatan, Ilokano (30), Tagalog, etc.).
(29) Guinaang Bontok (Reid 1992:263)
Dokoyen nan iginaang si imaínit daida.
rush.after Gen Guinaang.person and Mainit.person Nom.3p
‘The Guinaang people and Mainit people rushed after them.’
(30) Ilokano (Rubino 2000:liii)
Nakítan=ak ni Maria.
see.2/3s.actr=Nom.1s Det Maria
‘Maria saw me.’
2.3.2.2. Three complement transitive constructions
Transitive verbs may also expect more than two complements. The third complement
of such verbs is interpreted as carrying the Correspondent case relation, and is often
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 11
encoded with either a Locative or a Genitive case form, and as with dyadic
intransitives, the Correspondent is typically interpreted either indefinitely or
partitively.
The relative positions of the Genitive and Nominative complements in these
constructions is the same as that described in the section above on double complement
transitive constructions. The third complement may occur in any position relative to
the other two depending upon whether the third complement is a pronoun or a full
noun phrase.
(31) Guinaang Bontok
inagtan padal sakn si kindi.
gave Pangchar Nom.1s Lcv candy
‘Pangchar gave me a candy.’
2.3.2.3. Languages with pronominal agreement marking of Genitive and
Nominative arguments
There are a small group of languages in the Philippines that require, or allow,
agreement marking of either or both the Genitive and Nominative third person
arguments. The agreement forms in all cases immediately follow their verbal (or
nominal) heads, usually have forms that are identical to their corresponding third
person Genitive or Nominative clitic pronouns, and are therefore treated here as
though they were case-marked clitic pronouns functioning as agreement markers,
even though there is evidence that at least in some cases the forms may already have
become incorporated into the verb as agreement features of the verb, and are no
longer case-carrying pronominal arguments of the verb (Reid 2001).
2.3.2.3.1. Intransitive constructions with agreement marking
In many Philippine languages, such as Bontok and Ilokano, there is no overt form for
the third person singular Nominative pronoun, so that agreement marking only
appears when the Nominative noun phrase is third person plural.
(32) Ilokano
Natúrog=da dagiti ubbing.
sleep=Nom.3p Det.plrl children
‘The children are asleep.’
2.3.2.3.2. Transitive constructions with agreement marking
In languages that require, or allow, pronominal agreement marking of Genitive and
Nominative arguments, the order of the clitic pronouns is strictly actor preceding
undergoer, although in Kapampangan, phonological processes have reduced some
sequences to a single ‘portmanteau’ syllable (Mirikitani 1972:169-170). Similarly,
the nominal complements which follow the agreement sequence typically follow the
same relative order.
(33) Ivatan (Larson 1986:11)
Oyod=na=sira a chinasi ni Ina o manganak=na=ya.
truly=Gen.3s=Nom.3p Lig pity Gen mother Det children=Gen.3s=that
‘Mother truly pitied her children.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 12
(34) Kapampangan (Mirikitani 1972:173)
Seli=ne ning lalaki ing mangga king tindahan.
bought=Gen.3s+Nom.3s Gen boy Det mango Lcv store
‘The boy bought the mango at the store.’
2.4. Topicalized Constructions
Topicalized constructions contain an initial definite nominal constituent which acts as
the theme of the construction. It is coreferential with one of the nominal
complements of the main clause. Only Nominative and Genitive complements which
are Patients or Agents respectively of main clauses can be topicalized. The Genitive
Correspondent (i.e., possessor) in a Nominative phrase can also be topicalized.
Neither a Genitive or Locative (nor Oblique) complement that is the second
complement of dyadic intransitive constructions, nor the third nominal complement of
transitive constructions can be topicalized, because these are typically indefinite, and
topicalizing would have the effect of definitizing them. Typically, topics are
separated from the following verb by an intonation break, although this may also be
accompanied by a bridging constituent, sometimes referred to in the literature as a
TOPIC LINKER.
In addition to the topicalization of the basic sentence constituents described above,
adjuncts of various sorts may also be topicalized, but without resumptive pronouns.
These constituents include locative and temporal phrases and adverbs.
Topicalized Nominative complements typically require a resumptive clitic nominative
pronoun following the verb (as in (35)-(36)), although in many languages there is no
overt form when a third person singular complement is topicalized (37).
(35) Balangaw (Shetler 1976:147)
Dàni, opat=ani.
Top.1pe four=Nom.1pe
‘As for us (ex), we (ex) are four.’
(36) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976:102)
Izang manga tao, namagsabet=siran nga siran magabaay.
that Det.plrl person decided=Nom.3p Lig Top.3p gathering.wild.root
‘Those people, they decided together that they will go gathering wild root.’
(37) Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:54)
Hay dolo nin damowag ay hay kipit.
Det cover Gen carabao Tp.Lk Det tight
‘The cover of the carabao, it is very tight.’
A transitive construction with a topicalized Genitive Agent requires a resumptive
genitive pronoun (or actor agreement marking) following the verb.
(38) Central Ivatan (Reid 1966:130)
Qía qam palangena qo pagad.
Top.3s Tp.Lk lead.3s.actr Det carabao
‘As for him, he is leading the carabao.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 13
(39) Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:53)
Hi Pedro ay hiniyawan=na ya kabayo.
Det Pedro Tp.Lk saddle=Gen.3s Det horse
‘Pedro, he saddled the horse.’
(40) Kagayanen (Harmon 1977:67)
Mari=an patinugaen=din bataq=an.
Mary=Det make.sleep=Gen.3s child=Det
‘Mary, she will put the baby to sleep.’
The Genitive Correspondent (possessor) noun phrase which is part of a Nominative
phrase may also be topicalized. In some languages a resumptive pronoun is required,
while in others, such as in Cebuano and Tagalog, it is not.
(41) Cebuano (John Wolff, pers. comm.)
Kanang mga artista, púlus artipisyal ang lihok.
that Det.plrl artist total artificial Det behavior
‘Those artists, their behavior is totally artificial.’
3. Structure of Verbal Clauses
In section 2.3 we dealt with the word order of simple verbal clauses in most
Philippine languages. In this section we will discuss expanded verbal structures,
beginning with those which require two verbal predicates. Verbs are of two types,
those that do not require a dependent verb, such as all those that have appeared in the
examples to date, and those that do. The former have been referred to as [–extension]
verbs, the latter as [+extension] verbs. In Philippine languages there are typically two
types of constructions which have extension verbs, those that may not have non-
pronominal complements, and those that may. The former require the following verb
to agree with them in transitivity, and sometimes also in tense or aspect. They attract
to themselves any second-order pronominal or adverbial clitics, and sometimes other
pronominal forms that would otherwise be complements of the following verb. These
are the so-called ‘auxiliary’ verbs, and are considered here to be the heads of their
constructions, with the following ‘main’ verbs acting as their dependents, and are
discussed in section 3.1. Other types of extension verbs will be considered in section
3.2.
3.1. Constructions with Auxiliary Verbs
Extension verbs which agree with their following verbs are more- or less-closely
bound to their following dependent verb. Those that are closest bound do not have
any intervening bridging constituent, often referred to in the literature as a LIGATURE,
between them and their complement, while those that are less loosely bound do.
3.1.1. Closely-Bound Auxiliary Verbs
3.1.1.1. Clauses with full noun complements, headed by auxiliary verbs without
a ligature
The order of the noun phrases in these constructions is that which would be expected
for each language in similar clauses without auxiliary verbs. The second verb (that is
the ‘main’ verb) is a dependent of the initial verb. The most common type of
auxiliary verbs are negatives, with many languages having two different forms
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 14
distinguished by aspect, the ‘main’ verb agreeing with its head verb in its aspectual
form, as in (42)a-b. Far more restricted in Philippine languages are directional (as in
(45), (48) and (51)a) and aspectual auxiliary (as in (49), (50) and (51)b) verbs.
(42) Batad Ifugaw (Newell 1993:21)
a. Agguy nolo han imbaluy=u.
ngtv sleep Det child=Gen.1s
‘My child did not sleep.’
b. Adi lahhīnon Umāngob nan batu ede.
ngtv separate Umāngob Det stone that
‘Umāngob won’t separate the stones from that (soil).’
3.1.1.2. Clauses with pronominal complements, headed by auxiliary verbs
without a ligature
As noted above, clitic pronouns in Philippine languages are second-order type, they
immediately follow the first verb in the clause, and therefore attach to the auxiliary
verb.
3.1.1.2.1. With an intransitive ‘main’ verb
(43) Eastern Bontok (Fukuda 1997:45)
Achi=yak omoy.
ngtv=Nom.1s go
‘I will not go.’
(44) Kagayanen (Harmon 1977:123)
Diliq=ka magsagbak.
ngtv=Nom.2s make.noise
‘Don’t make a noise.’
(45) Ilokano
In=ka=n agdígos!
go=Nom.2s=now bathe
‘Go take a bath!’
3.1.1.2.2. With a transitive ‘main’ verb
As expected, all languages require that a Genitive clitic pronoun follow the auxiliary
verb. Those languages which have clitic pronouns for the Nominative of transitive
verbs maintain the same relative order for the pronouns, typically Genitive followed
by Nominative (see section 2.3.2.1.2) when they follow an auxiliary verb as they do
when they follow a ‘main’ verb. Those languages which have a non-clitic form for
the Nominative of transitive verbs, such as Yami, Ivatan and Bontok, usually allow
alternate word orders for this pronoun, either occurring after the Genitive clitic
pronoun, or following the ‘main’ verb.
(46) Guinaang Bontok
adi=k sika laydn.
ngtv=Gen.1s Nom.2s like
‘I don’t like you (sg).’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 15
(47) Tagalog (Schachter 1973:216)
Hindi=ko=siya nakita ngayon.
ngtv=Gen.1s=Nom.3s see today
‘I did’t see him/her today.’
(48) Ivatan (Larson 1986:11)
Iyangay=mo=sira ipoha o manganak=ta=ya.
go=Gen.2s=Nom.3p throw.away Nom offspring=Gen.1pi=the
‘Take our (in.) children and throw them away.’
(49) Yami (Ho 1990:117)
Ya=na ipianuanuud iniu ni mapapu.
cntv=Gen.3s sing.for Nom.2p Gen Mapapu
‘Mapapu is singing for you (pl).’
(50) Manuk Mangkaw Sinama (Akamine 1996:59)
Bey petak sigala leq ulan.
pfct wet Nom.3p Erg rain
‘The rain wet them.’
3.1.1.2.3. Constructions with sequences of auxiliary verbs
Some languages allow a sequence of auxiliary verbs, the first of which is the head of
the construction and therefore clitic pronouns, if any, immediately follow it in second
position. Non-pronominal noun phrases follow the ‘main’ verb.
(51) Guinaang Bontok
a. adí=da i inms ad dawŋ.
ngtv=Nom.3p go bathe Lcv Chaweng
‘They’re not going to take a bath at Chaweng.’
b. sá=ak adi umy ad mayníla=s wákas.
futr=Nom.1s ngtv go Lcv Manila=Lcv morrow
‘I will not go to Manila tomorrow.’
3.1.2. Less-Closely-Bound Auxiliary Verbs
Auxiliary verbs that require a ligature between themselves and their dependent ‘main’
verb usually carry meanings such as ‘want, need, like, etc.’, although verbs with
adverbial translations can also function in some languages as auxiliaries in the same
manner. Like their closely-bound counterparts described in the preceding section,
they require the following verb to agree with them in transitivity, and sometimes also
in tense or aspect. They attract to themselves any second-order pronominal or
adverbial clitics, and sometimes other pronominal forms that would otherwise be
complements of the following verb.
(52) Ivatan (Larson 1986:11)
Oyod=na sira a chinasi ni ina o manganak=na=ya.
true=Gen.3s Nom.3p Lig pity Gen mother Nom children=Gen.3s=that
‘Mother truly pitied her children.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 16
(53) Kapampangan (Forman 1971:77)
É=ko bísa=ng maniwálaq.
ngtv=Gen.1s+Nom.3p want=Lig believe
‘I don’t want to believe (it).’
(54) Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:70)
Ka-ilangan=ka=n mako ri.
must=Nom.2s=Lk come here
‘You (sg) must come here.’
3.2. Constructions with Non-auxiliary Extension Verbs
The kinds of verbs which head these constructions typically carry modal meanings,
like the less-closely-bound auxiliaries described in the previous section, but differ
from them in that they do not require their following verb to agree with them in
transitivity. Note that the auxiliary verbs in (55) and (56)a are transitive, in that they
require a Genitive complement, but their following verbs are intransitive, while in
(56)b both the auxiliary and the following verb are transitive. Schachter and Otanes
(1972:266) labels them ‘pseudo-verbs’. Most languages require a ligature between
them and the following verb.
(55) Ivatan (Larson 1986:8)
Kakey=da a somidong sira.
want=Gen.3p Lig help Nom.3p
‘They wanted to help them.’
(56) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:266, 268)
a. Gusto=ko=ng mangisdà.
want=Gen.1s=Lig go.fishing
‘I want to go fishing.’
b. Gusto=ko=ng lutuin ni Maria ang pagkain.
want=Gen.1s=Lig cook Det Maria Det food
‘I would like/want Maria to cook the food.’
3.3. The Form of Verbs in Philippine Languages
Much has been made in the literature on Philippine languages of the sometimes
inordinate complexity of verb forms in these languages, only some of which can be
touched on here. The most common view--one that we explicitly reject--is that verbs
carry voice inflection. From this point-of-view, most Philippine languages have an
“active” voice, sometimes called “actor focus”, and a number of “passive” voices,
being variously labelled “goal/object/patient/theme/direct focus”, “instrument/
associative focus”, “locative/referent focus”, “benefactive focus”, etc., which
supposedly determine, or agree with, the case of the “focused/topic/subject” noun
phrase. We claim that the so-called “voice-marking affixes” are not inflectional but
derivational, in that they cannot freely occur on all verbs, do not freely commute with
one another as in a voice-marking system, and are typically maintained in
nominalizations and other derivational processes.
This view of the nature of Philippine verbs has resulted in a tendency for Philippine
languages (and others with similar structures in western Malayo-Polynesian and
Formosan languages) to be viewed as somehow unique among the world’s languages.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 17
Our claim is that these languages are in many respects typologically very similar to
other Austronesian languages, especially those which have an ergative actancy
system, and that the affixes which are said to mark instrument, locative, and
benefactive focus are similar to those that have been described as applicative affixes
for other languages (Mithun 1994:260; Payne 1997:54; Starosta 2002:468).
In addition to the so-called ‘voice-marking’ affixes, there are a number of other
classes of affixal forms, all of which are derivational. These include causatives,
distributives, statives, etc. A number of reduplicative processes typically mark
various tense or aspectual distinctions, and are likewise considered to be derivational,
as are the forms that mark perfective aspect (‘past tense’) in most languages. Very
few of these forms can be mentioned here, and none can be discussed in detail.
3.3.1. Dynamic Verbs
A major distinction has been drawn between two major classes of verbs in Philippine
languages, dynamic versus stative. The distinction is necessary to capture the
pervasive difference between the verbs of intransitive sentences which expect their
Patient to express an actor macrorole, and those which expect it to carry an undergoer
macrorole. In that the derivation of stative verbs is subsequent to the derivation of
transitive verbs, we will need to discuss the various types of both intransitive and
transitive derivation, prior to the discussion of stative derivation.
3.3.1.1. Transitive vs. Intransitive
In sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, a distinction was drawn between transitive and intransitive
constructions. The distinction was drawn on syntactic grounds, within the boundaries
of the theory we are using. Intransitive constructions do not allow an Agent case
relation. Transitive clauses do. The single complement of monadic intransitive
constructions is considered to express a Patient case relation. Every verb carries with
it a feature, whether or not marked by an affix, which specifies whether the
construction which it heads will be transitive or intransitive. In the following
discussion, we will consider some of the features which distinguish these verb types
from one another.
3.3.1.1.1. Intransitive verbs
Intransitive dynamic verbs are verbs which carry the feature [–trns]. They expect at
least a nominal complement carrying the Patient case relation and the actor macrorole,
and may expect other complements as well.
3.3.1.1.1.1. Intransitive verbs with affixation
Most intransitive verbs carry affixation. It would be a mistake however to believe
that the affixes that are commonly found on such verbs are intransitive affixes. Many
of the affixes commonly found on intransitive verbs may also be found occurring on
transitive verbs, and vice versa (see for example section 3.3.2.1.1.2, et. seq.), and
since the affixes are all derivational, they can be carried over into de-verbal
nominalizations, which, when not predicational, are neither transitive nor intransitive.
As noted above, an intransitive verb is one that expects a certain configuration of
nominal complements, specifically, at least a Nominative Patient, and, for some
intransitive verbs, possible additional nominal complements, but never (in Philippine
languages) a Genitive (or Ergative) Agent. Verbs having these specifications often
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 18
carry affixation which is suggestive, although not always proof, that the form is
intransitive. The transitivity of any verb is only clear when it is accompanied by its
panoply of complements and in the context of other sentential elements. In the next
sections we will discuss some of the affixation which is commonly found on
intransitive verbs, and note the features that these affixes add to the verbs on which
they occur. Our discussion will focus on the forms of verbs found as heads of
independent sentences and will not cover at this time special verb forms found in
some languages on verbs that occur as dependents of other verbs.
3.3.1.1.1.1.1. Reflexes of PEF *–um–/*mu–/*m–
Most, if not all, Philippine languages retain a reflex of PEF *–um–/*mu–/*m–. The
alternation was probably originally the result of a phonologically conditioned
metathesis of the first two consonants of a word on which the form occurred, since the
infix occurred following the initial consonant of a word. However, no Philippine
language today maintains all forms as phonological alternates. Some of the Central
Philippine languages (such as Cebuano), however, maintain the form as a prefix,
while Inibaloi has a form on–, in non-perfective verbs, and –im–, in perfective verbs.
The third variant, maintained in at least Ivatan, Batak, Tboli, and Kalamian
Tagbanwa, replaces a word initial bilabial consonant and glottal stop, and probably
developed by syncopation of the initial CV syllable of an infixed word beginning with
two bilabial consonants.
(57) Kalamian Tagbanwa (Ruch 1964:23)
matay < UM+patay ‘will die naturally’
meles <
UM+beles ‘will borrow naturally’
mekel <
UM+qekel ‘will obtain as a matter of course’
For the purposes of this paper, the affix will be referred to as UM, and verbs which
carry this affix as UM verbs.
3.3.1.1.1.1.1.1. Reflexes on historically underived verbs
In Philippine languages, the effect of adding UM to a word depends on the semantics
of the word to which it is added. Forms which signify semantically intransitive
physical actions, such as ‘coming’, ‘going’, ‘walking’, etc., commonly carry UM when
the form is a monadic intransitive verb, or is a nominalization of that form. The verbs
are considered to carry a semantic feature which implies the interpretation of the
Patient. UM verbs always imply that the Patient is an actor. This class of verbs also
includes a number of semantically transitive physical actions, such as ‘eating’,
‘drinking’, ‘buying’, etc. These UM verbs typically imply intentional activity on the
part of their actors. They have also been described as being punctual, or the starting
point of actions that can be durative. In all cases the actor macrorole is associated
with the Patient of clause.
(58) Ilokano
Tumakder dagidiay babbái intóno sumrek ti mayor.
[–trns] [–trns]
stand.up those women when enter Det mayor
‘Those women will stand up when the mayor enters.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 19
(59) Guinaang Bontok
as uminum=da=s wákas.
[–trns]
futr drink=Nom.3p=Lcv morrow
‘They will drink tomorrow.’
In most Philippine languages, there is a class of semantically transitive UM verbs
which are syntactically dyadic intransitive verbs. In addition to the Patient which is
interpreted as actor, the verbs expect an additional complement whose case relation is
always Correspondent and is interpreted as the undergoer. This complement expresses
an entity whose interpretation may be either indefinite, or partitive, but is typically
never definite.
(60) Isnag (Barlaan 1999:40)
Sumiqlat ka ma:n ka bu:lu?
split Nom.2s please Lcv bamboo
‘Would you (sg) please split a piece of bamboo?’
(61) Guinaang Bontok
as lumáku=da=s nan kapi=s wákas.
futr buy=Nom.3p=Lcv Det coffee=Lcv morrow
‘They will buy some of the coffee tomorrow.’ (Lit., ‘They will buy of/from the coffee
tomorrow.’)
Forms which signify qualities, such as ‘tall’, ‘fat’, ‘old’, etc., commonly carry UM
when the form is a (monadic) intransitive verb, or is a nominalization of that form.
Unlike the UM verbs just described which are punctual, these verbs carry an inchoative
feature implying that the actor Patient is becoming, or has become, the state which is
predicated of it. These UM verbs do not imply intentional activity on the part of their
actors.
(62) Ilokano
Lumukmeg=da dagiti ubbing.
fat=Nom.3p Det.plrl children
‘The children are getting fat.’
3.3.1.1.1.1.1.2. Reflexes on historically derived verbs
There are two large classes of verbs that historically developed by attaching UM to a
word that had been previously derived with one of two prefixes, either PEF *paR– or
*paN–, to form PEF *maR– or *maN–, respectively. There are a wide range of
functions associated with each of these verbs, because of the semantic features added
to the verb by the original derivations. Only a few of the common types can be
mentioned here. We shall begin by discussing general features of reflexes of the PEF
*maR– verbs and follow with a brief discussion of the general features of reflexes of
the PEF *maN– verbs.
3.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.1. Reflexes of PEF *maR–
Reflexes of PEF *maR– verbs (henceforth MAG verbs) typically appear as either ag–,
mag–, or may–, in languages in which the expected reflex of *R is g or y. The South-
Central Cordilleran languages, in which the reflex of *R is l, all show the innovated
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 20
form man–, or a further development, such as an–, men–, en–, or in–. In many
languages the historical connection with the earlier derived form is maintained, with
the p- initial forms being maintained in gerundive nominalizations. In others,
however, the association must have been lost, and the p- initial nominalizations of the
verbs are absent, except in a few frozen forms. In contrast to UM verbs, which are
either punctual or inchoative, MAG verbs have been described as being durative.
(63) Ilokano
Agtakder=da=nto dagidiay babbái idiay tugaw=da.
stand=Nom.3p=futr those women Lcv chair=Gen.3p
‘Those women will stand on their chairs.’
Other semantic features associated with MAG verbs are reflexive and reciprocal.
Compare MAG verbs with UM verbs derived from the same source in (64)a, b. The
reflexive MAG verbs in (64)a are all monadic intransitive verbs, with singular or plural
Patient actors as their Nominative complement, while the reciprocal MAG verbs in
(64)b are all monadic intransitive verbs, with non-singular Patient actors as their
Nominative complement.
(64) Tagalog (Pittman 1966:12, 13)
a. maggamót ‘to treat one’s self for an illness’ gumamót ‘to treat illness’
mag-ahit ‘to shave one’s self’ umahit ‘to shave others’
magsanay ‘to train one’s self’ sumanay ‘to train others’
b. magbatì ‘to greet each other’ bumati ‘to greet another’
magkamáy ‘to shake hands with each other’ kumamáy ‘to shake hands with someone’
magsiping ‘to lie down near each other’ sumiping ‘to come near somebody’
3.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.2. Reflexes of PEF *maN–
Reflexes of PEF *maN– verbs are found in most Philippine languages, but have been
lost in some Manobo and other languages in the south of Mindanao. In most
languages which maintain a reflex, the final nasal assimilates to the point of
articulation of the initial consonant of the source from which the verb is derived, with
resulting loss of that consonant if it is a voiceless obstruent. Like MAG verbs, in many
languages the historical connection with their earlier derived form is maintained, with
the p- initial forms being maintained in gerundive nominalizations. In others,
however, the association must have been lost, and the p- initial nominalizations of the
verbs are absent, except in a few frozen forms.
Like the two classes already discussed, reflexes of PEF *maN- verbs (henceforth
MANG verbs) always imply that the Patient is an actor. In contrast to UM verbs, which
are either punctual or inchoative, and MAG verbs which are durative, MANG verbs
(especially those that are monadic) are distributive, implying multiple activities,
actions, or actors over time or space. Whereas MAG verbs are typically monadic
intransitives, MANG verbs are frequently dyadic intransitives with Correspondents
interpreted as undergoers, and in many cases, homophonous monadic forms exist
alongside their dyadic counterparts.
(65) Guinaang Bontok
as maŋan=kami=s tuŋŋa=s masdm.
futr eat=Nom.1pe=Lcv corn=Lcv night
‘We’ll eat corn tonight.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 21
(66) Isnag (Barlaan 1999:40)
naNiqdut ki duqdut na anuq.
cmpl.pluck Lcv feather Gen chicken
‘He plucked a feather of a/the chicken.’
3.3.1.1.2. Transitive verbs
Transitive verbs expect a minimum of two complements to be associated with them,
one an Agent, the other a Patient. The Agent always carries the actor macrorole, the
Patient carries the undergoer macrorole. In many older descriptions of Philippine
languages these verbs (and the constructions which they head) were described as
‘passives’, because the Patient argument is always encoded as the Nominative noun
phrase of the sentence.
3.3.1.1.2.1. Transitive verbs with affixation
Most Philippine languages maintain transitive verb forms that contain one or more of
a number of affixes that are reflexes of forms that have been reconstructed for early
stages of the Austronesian language family (Starosta, Pawley and Reid 1982, Wolff
1973, Ross 1995a, b). As was noted above for affixes found on intransitive verbs
(section 3.3.1.1.1.1), it would be a mistake to consider that these affixes make the
verbs transitive. Verbs can be transitive with, or without, any of these affixes, and
each of the affixes can be found on verbs that are intransitive, often in combination
with the affixes that have been described in the sections above on intransitive verb
affixation, as well as on nominalizations that are derivations of both transitive and
intransitive verbs.
3.3.1.1.2.1.1. Reflexes of PEF *–n
Reflexes of PEF *–n are found in all but a few languages of the Philippines. The
actual form that occurs depends upon the reflex of PAn * in the language. The verbs
of this class (henceforth EN verbs) are those that have commonly been labeled in much
of the literature on Philippine languages as ‘goal/object/patient/theme/direct focus’.
This suffix typically appears on verbs, the semantics of which imply a directly and
entirely affected undergoer. Since, in transitive clauses, an undergoer is always
associated with the Patient complement, and Patients of transitive clauses in ergative
languages are always expressed with a Nominative case form, the directly affected
entity implied in the verb is the Nominative of a transitive clause. Thus semantically
transitive EN verbs typically function as the heads of syntactically transitive
constructions, although examples of their occurrence in syntactically intransitive
constructions also occur, as in (67).
(67) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh 1955:147)
Kotonén ti inapúy.
[-trns,+dfct]
anted Det rice
‘The rice is full of ants.’
As noted in the previous paragraph, the presence of the EN ending on a verb implies
that the undergoer is directly and entirely affected. We interpret this to mean that the
verb carries a semantic feature in order for it to be so interpreted. We call this feature
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 22
the DIRECT AFFECT feature ([+dfct]). Every transitive verb, unless marked by one of
the other affect features, carries the direct affect feature, whether or not there is an EN
ending on the verb. The presence of the EN ending generally marks the activity as
being at least potential or in process, but never completed.
(68) Mamanwa (Miller 1964:90)
Bonalen=mo ya baroy.
[+trns,+dfct]
pound.up=Gen.2s Det leaf
‘You (sg) will pound (completely) the leaf.’
3.3.1.1.2.1.2. Reflexes of PEF *–an
Reflexes of PEF *–an are found in nearly all Philippine languages. The verbs of this
class (henceforth AN verbs), are those that have commonly been labeled in much of
the literature as ‘locative/referent focus’. Most AN verbs imply that their undergoer is
an entity that is only partly, not entirely affected, or only whose surface is affected, or
the end point of the action, the place to which or from which some other entity is
directed. We call the feature that is part of such verb with an AN ending, the LOCAL
AFFECT feature ([+lfct]).
(69) Mamanwa (Miller 1964:90)
Bonalan=mo ya baroy.
[+trns,+lfct]
pound.on=Gen.2s Det leaf
‘You (sg) will pound (on) the leaf.’
3.3.1.1.2.1.3. Reflexes of PEF *i–
Reflexes of PEF *i– (from earlier *Si–) are similarly widespread throughout the
Philippines. The verbs of this class (henceforth I verbs) are those that have commonly
been labeled in much of the literature on Philippine languages as
‘instrument/associative focus’. Most I verbs imply that their undergoer is moved in
space, directed towards, or brought into association with some entity. We call the
feature that is part of such a verb beginning with an I, the MANNER AFFECT feature
([+mfct]).
(70) Guinaang Bontok
iyáli=m man nan kapi=k.
[+trns,+mfct]
come.with=Gen.2s please Det coffee=Gen.1s
‘Please bring (lit., come-with) my coffee.’
3.3.1.1.2.1.4. Beneficiary affect
In addition to the three affect features that imply the semantic interpretation of the
undergoer that we have discussed, Philippine languages can typically also imply the
interpretation of the undergoer as the beneficiary of an action. We refer to this
feature as the BENEFICIARY AFFECT feature ([+bfct]). There are at least five types of
languages in the Philippines, depending on how they mark such verbs: (1) those that
use an I verb and no other for this purpose, such as Ivatan (71); (2) those that use an
AN verb and no other for this purpose, such as Maranao (72); (3) those that use a
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 23
“circumfix” I- -AN on such verbs, such as Balangaw (73), and most languages of the
northern Philippines; (4) those that use either an I verb or AN verb, such as Mamanwa
(74) and Tagalog (depending on the verb); and (5) those that use either an I- -AN verb
or an AN verb, depending on the verb, such as Ilokano (75).
(71) Southern Ivatan (Hidalgo and Hidalgo 1971:180)
Ipangamung ñi Kwan si Kusi.
[+trns,+bfct]
catch.fish.for Gen John Det Jose
‘John catches fish for Jose.’
(72) Maranao (McKaughan and Macaraya 1967:xii, xxxii)
Tabasan o bebai so dati sa dinis.
[+trns,+bfct]
cut.for Gen woman Det chief Obl cloth
‘The woman will cut cloth for the chief.’
(73) Balangaw (Shetler 1976:50)
Iyanopan=yu ah Ama.
[+trns,+bfct]
hunt.for=Gen.2p Det father
‘You (pl) hunt for father.’
(74) Mamanwa (Miller 1964:90)
a. Bonalan=mo si Mam ka baroy.
[+trns,+bfct]
pound.on=Gen.2s Det Mam Lcv leaf
‘You will pound the leaf for Mam.’
b. Ibonal=mo si Mam ka baroy.
[+trns,+bfct]
pound.for=Gen.2s Det Mam Lcv leaf
‘You will pound the leaf for Mam.’
(75) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh 1955:164)
a. Sinaksián=mi ti lakáy.
[+trns,+bfct]
testified.for=Gen.1pe Det old.man
‘We (ex) testified for the old man.’
b. Lukatám ni ína.
[+trns,+bfct]
open.actr.2s Det mother
‘Open for my mother.’
3.3.2. Stative Verbs
In contrast to the dynamic verbs of Philippine languages described in section 3.3.1, in
which the Nominative Patient carries the actor macrorole, there are a large class of
verbs which are stative, in which the Nominative Patient carries the undergoer
macrorole. In some recent descriptions of Philippine languages these verbs have been
referred to as ‘passives’, but we shall maintain the use of the term ‘stative’, to avoid
confusion with other uses of the term ‘passive’ found in the literature, which refer to
the various so-called ‘focus’ types as passives. The status of stative verbs in
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 24
Philippine languages, however, as true passives is probably justified, in that they are
intransitive, there exists a clear derivational relationship between them and transitive
verbs, and that their actors are typically not expressed.
3.3.2.1. Stative verbs with ma–
3.3.2.1.1. Reflexes of PEF *ma–
The reflex of the PEF *ma– affix which typically appears on stative verbs (henceforth
MA verbs), should not be confused with the same phonological sequence that appears
on reflexes of MAG and MANG verbs, each of which are the result of the addition of the
original *–um– form on words first derived with paR–, paN– respectively, so that
alternation still exists in many languages between the m– initial forms as verbs and
the p– initial forms as gerunds or other nominalizations. Stative verbs do not show a
derivational relationship with any p– initial forms.
In many Philippine languages stative verbs can be derived with a perfective aspect
feature, which results in the initial bilabial nasal being replaced with an alveolar nasal.
Phonological processes in other languages have resulted in other patterns of change
affecting the form of MA verbs.
Although intransitive, MA verbs are clearly different from the intransitive verbs
discussed in section 3.3.1.1.1. Dynamic intransitive verbs require that their
Nominative Patients be interpreted as actors. Stative intransitive verbs on the other
hand require that their Nominative Patients be interpreted as undergoers.
Stative verbs typically have a derivational relationship with (dynamic) transitive verbs
and also carry the same affect features as their derivationally related transitive verbs.
The following sections provide examples of stative verbs carrying affect features.
3.3.2.1.1.1. Direct affect statives
Direct affect statives are derivationally related to EN verbs. A MA verb that is not
marked for any other affect feature carries a direct affect feature.
(76) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh 1955:194)
Maála ti págay.
[+sttv,+dfct]
taken Det rice
‘The rice is taken.’
3.3.2.1.1.2. Local affect statives
Many local affect stative verbs are derivationally related to AN verbs. A MA verb that
carries this feature shows both a ma– initial sequence and an –an final sequence.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 25
(77) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh 1955:194)
Nasagádan ti silíd.
[+sttv,+lfct]
swept Det room
‘The room was swept.’
3.3.2.1.1.3. Manner affect statives
Manner affect statives are derivationally related to I verbs. A MA verb that carries this
feature shows a mai– or may– initial sequence, although in some languages (such as
Ifugaw and Inibaloi) the form appears as me–.
(78) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh 1955:195)
Mayáyus ti róot.
[+sttv,+mfct]
carried.away.by.current Det grass
‘The grass is carried away by the current.’
3.3.2.1.1.4. Beneficiary affect statives
Beneficiary affect statives are derivationally related to, and carry the same affect
feature affixes as transitive verbs with a beneficiary affect feature, whether it be i–,
–an, or both i– and –an. A MA verb that carries this feature shows a ma– initial
sequence as well as the appropriate feature marking for the language.
(79) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh 1955:195)
Maidaítan9 ití bádo.
[+sttv,+bfct]
sew.for Det coat
‘(He) has a coat made for him.’
3.3.2.1.1.5. Statives with expressed actors
Although stative verbs typically do not allow actors, some languages do allow actors
to occur with MA verbs, which then also carry a potential or abilitative (in perfective
forms) meaning. In at least some of these languages the structure is apparently being
reinterpreted as a transitive construction, creating a new class of transitive structures,
that is, one that takes a Genitive Agent, as well a Nominative Patient, and that
requires their Patients to be only potentially or involuntarily affected.
(80) Mamanwa (Miller and Miller 1976:82)
Nabelad ya maimpis ka segaq.
[+sttv,+dfct]
be.sunned Det child Det sun
‘The child was overheated by the sun.’
(81) Kabayan Inibaloi (Roberta Ruffolo, pers.comm.)
Maon-an=ko=y aso.
[+sttv,+lfct]
be.seen=Gen.1s=Det dog
‘The dog was seen by me.’ / ‘I happened to see the dog.’
9 The third person singular Nominative pronoun here is zero.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 26
4. Structure of Noun Phrases
4.1. Word Order
Noun phrases in Philippine languages are typically strongly right branching, with
heads preceding modifiers. The only noun phrase constituent which commonly
appears before the head noun is a Determiner.10 Genitively marked possessive noun
phrases always follow their head nouns, as do all relative clauses and other modifying
elements. The great majority of Philippine languages do not have a distinctive form
class of Adjectives, although many descriptions of Philippine languages utilize the
term and some argue for it (e.g., Rubino 2000:liv). Most descriptive terms are either
unmarked, like nouns, or carry affixation which marks them as a type of stative verb.
4.2. Determiners
There is a class of usually monosyllabic morphemes that precede the heads of most
noun phrases in Philippine languages. These morphemes are Determiners and carry a
number of semantic and syntactic features. Probably the most diverse determiner
systems are found in languages in the northern parts of the Philippines, such as Ivatan,
and some of the Negrito languages such as Casiguran Dumagat Agta, with languages
in the south, such as Cotabato Manobo, Tboli, and Blaan having far fewer distinctive
forms, and much simpler systems.
4.2.1. Syntactic and Semantic Agreement Features of Determiner Systems
4.2.1.1. Case-marking agreement features
Philippine languages show a considerable range in the number of distinctively marked
nominal complements in verbal sentences. The languages with the greatest number of
such distinctions, are Ivatan (as in (82)a-b) and Kabayan Inibaloi, with Nominative,
Genitive, Oblique, Locative and Topic marking. Maranao (83) has four distinctive
sets, Nominative, Genitive, Oblique and Locative. Tagalog (84) and Guinaang
Bontok (85) distinguish three sets, Nominative, Genitive and Locative. Ilokano (86)
has only two distinctively marked sets of case-marking Determiners, one that marks
Locative noun phrases, and one that occurs with all other noun phrases, and even this
distinction is being lost, with Locative common noun phrases in Ilokano casual
speech being marked in the same way as other phrases. Blaan (87) has few
Determiners, relying primarily on word order and the form of pronouns to distinguish
the case of its nominal complements. Although in this section we mark the forms
which introduce Nominative nouns as though they are in fact Nominative determiners,
elsewhere in the paper we mark them only as Determiners, that is without case form
specification, since we consider that Nominative full noun phrases are typically
morphologically unmarked (see the following section for more discussion).
(82) Ivatan (Reid 1966:22)
a. Mangamoqmo qo tao so motdeh no boday do vahay.
frighten Nom man Obl child Gen snake Lcv house
‘The man is frightening a child with a snake in the house.’
10 The classification of these forms as Determiners has recently been argued against in Reid (2002),
where evidence is presented that at least some of these forms are better analyzed as a type of noun that
is the head of its construction and requires a following predicate, either noun or verb, as its
complement.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 27
b. No tao qam mangamoqmo so motdeh no boday do vahay.
Top man Tp.Lk frighten Obl child Gen snake Lcv house
‘As for the man, (he is) frightening a child with a snake in the house.’
(83) Maranao (McKaughan 1958)
Pekilana’an o raga so bok= ian sa pomada ki ina’=ian.
put.on.oil Gen girl Nom hair=Gen.3s Obl oil Lcv mother=Gen.3s
‘The girl will have her mother oil her hair with pomade.’
(84) Tagalog
Ibinigay ng laláke ang libro sa bátà sa paaralan.
gave Gen man Nom book Lcv child Lcv school
‘The man gave the book to the child in school.’
(85) Guinaang Bontok
iníla=n nan laláki nan inmáli=d gugga.
saw=Gen Det man Det came=Lcv yesterday
‘The man saw the one who came yesterday.’
(86) Ilokano
Nangan ti kabsat=ko ti innapoy (i)ti balay ti kaarrúba=k.
ate Det friend=Gen.1s Det cooked.rice Lcv house Det neighbor=Gen.1s
‘My friend ate rice at my neighbor’s house.’
(87) Blaan (Abrams 1961:397)
Nbat=ale dad angok benge kayu.
throw=Nom.3p plrl monkey fruit tree
‘The monkeys throw them fruit of the tree.’
4.2.1.1.1. Nominative
Although many descriptions of Philippine languages mark the Determiner which
precedes the head of a Nominative11 noun as a case marker, we claim here that most
Nominative full noun phrases are unmarked morphologically, and are distinguished
primarily by position.12 Typically, the Determiners that are listed as Nominative case
markers (e.g., Tagalog ang (88)a) are also indistinguishable from those that mark any
definite noun, whether predicate (as in (88)b), Topic (i.e., fronted noun phrase, or
theme) whether cross-referenced with a following Nominative or not (as in (88)c), or
phrase internal definite complements, whether part of a Nominative noun phrase or
not. The only agreement feature that is common among these noun phrase types is
not syntactic case, but the semantic feature of definiteness.
(88) Tagalog
a. Pumasok ang babae.
entered Det woman
‘The woman entered.’
11 The Nominative noun phrase in Philippine languages is referred to in the literature in a number of
ways, (primary) topic, subject, the focused noun phrase, trigger (Wouk 1986:136; Schachter 1990), and
most recently, as pivot (Himmelman 1991, Ross 1995b).
12 It should be noted, however, that Nominative phrases with pronominal exponents are case-marked.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 28
b. Ang babae ang pumasok.
Det woman Det entered
‘The one who entered was the woman.’
c. Ang babae, ay pumasok.
Det woman Tp.Lk entered
‘As for the woman, she entered.’
4.2.1.1.2. Genitive
Most languages (but not Ilokano, and some southern Philippine languages), require
the Determiner of a Genitive noun phrase to agree with the case of its head noun, so
that the forms that precede a Nominative noun phrase are different from those that
introduce a Genitive noun phrase. As indicated in section 1, Genitive noun phrases
typically express both the Agent of a transitive clause as well as the Correspondent, or
‘possessor’, of possessed nouns.
(89) Guinaang Bontok
a. iníla=n nan magmaggit nan ásu=n nan sagguŋ=ko.
saw=Gen Det young.woman Det dog=Gen Det neighbor=Gen.1s
‘The young woman saw the dog of my neighbor.’
b. iníla=n Dgym nan ásu=n Takdg.
saw=Gen Chegyem Det dog=Gen Takcheg
‘Chegyem saw Takcheg’s dog.’
c. iníla=k si Dgym.
saw=Gen.1s Det Chegyem
‘I saw Chegyem.’
d. iníla=k nan ásu=m.
saw=Gen.1s Det dog=Gen.2s
‘I saw your (sg) dog.’
f. iníla=m nan ásu=k.
saw=Gen.2s Det dog=Gen.1s
‘You (sg) saw my dog.’
4.2.1.1.3. Locative
All Philippine languages typically have a Determiner set which agrees with the head
of a Locative phrase. In some languages, this form is ambiguous as to whether it is a
Determiner or a Preposition. Unless there is clear evidence that the form is in fact a
Preposition, we take the position here that it is a Determiner. Locative noun phrases
typically encode locative and time expressions ((90)a), and purpose expressions
((90)b), all of which carry the Locus case relation. They may also express Means,
such as instruments ((90)c), and Correspondent, such as the second complement of
dyadic intransitive constructions ((90)d).
(90) Guinaang Bontok
a. as ilák si Dgym as wákas as íli.
futr see.1s Det Chegyem Lcv tomorrow Lcv village
‘I’ll see Chegyem in the village tomorrow.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 29
b. Gumábka man as kapi=k.
saw=Nom.2s Adv Lcv coffee=Gen.1s
‘Please make a cup of coffee for me.’
c. Kláyam man sa as gípan=ku.
peel=Gen.2s Adv that Lcv knife=Gen.1s
‘Peel that one with my knife.’
d. Naŋán=ak as nan ítab.
saw=Nom.1s Lcv Det bean
‘I ate some of the beans.’
4.2.1.1.4. Oblique
A few languages, such as Yami and Ivatan, have a distinctive Determiner which
precedes indefinite nouns that are the second complement of dyadic intransitive
constructions (82).
4.2.1.2. Semantic Agreement Features
Determiners usually agree with their head nouns in one or more of a number of
semantic features, depending on the language. The agreement features that we will
describe below distinguish the forms of determiners occurring with common vs.
personal head nouns (4.2.1.2.1), their definiteness (4.2.1.2.2), spatial distance
(4.2.1.2.3), specificity (4.2.1.2.4), and/or plurality (4.2.1.2.5).
4.2.1.2.1. Common vs. Personal
Probably all Philippine languages mark the distinction between common and personal
nouns with different determiners. A number of Northern Luzon languages continue to
use a reflex of Proto-Extra Formosan *qi either as a personal noun marker (Itawis,
Isnag, Gaddang) or as a common noun marker (the Negrito languages: Arta, Palanan
and Casiguran Dumagat Agta, as well as in Ibanag). Pangasinan, although having
different Determiners before Nominative common and personal nouns when the
preceding word ends in a consonant (si and so respectively, among others), when
following a word ending in a vowel, both personal and common Nominative nouns
are preceded by –y.
Many Philippine languages outside the Northern Luzon group also retain an i (or –y)
as a Determiner on Nominative common noun phrases, however few languages still
maintain a reflex of *qi as a Determiner on Nominative personal nouns.
Kapampangan has both ing (common noun) and i (personal noun) markers, and its
distantly related sister language in the Sambalic subgroup, Sinauna Negrito, although
heavily influenced by Tagalog, still maintains i as its personal noun marker in
Nominative phrases. Murut in Northern Borneo also retains i with this function.
That *(q)i was indeed used to mark personal nouns in the parent of the Northern
Luzon languages and has not simply been generalized to that function from its
common noun marking function is suggested by the fact that the full (i.e., non-
enclitic) form of Nominative personal pronouns must be reconstructed with *qi-
immediately preceding the pronoun base. It is also suggested by the fact that *(n)i
must be reconstructed as the marker for both common and personal Genitive nouns,
and is retained as such in Arta. In Inibaloi and Keley-i Kallahan it is retained only as
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 30
a Genitive common noun marker, but in Ilongot (as in many other Northern Luzon
languages) it appears only as a Genitive personal noun marker.
4.2.1.2.2. Definite vs. Indefinite
In all Philippine languages, Nominative phrases typically have a definite
interpretation, that is, the speaker assumes that the addressee knows the general
reference of the actant which is the head of the phrase. This is especially true of the
Nominative Patients of transitive sentences (except when preceded by a numeral, to
be described in the following paragraph). An indefinite actant is typically expressed
by a phrase carrying the Correspondent case relation in an intransitive clause and is
marked with either a Locative, Genitive, or Oblique Determiner, as described in
section 4.2.1.1. Thus, in (91)a, mansánas ‘apple’ can only be interpreted as definite,
since it is the Nominative Patient of a transitive sentence, while in (91)b, an
intransitive sentence, it can only be interpreted indefinitely, since it is the
Correspondent of an intransitive sentence.
(91) Ilokano
a. Kanem ti mansánas.
eat.2s.actr Det apple
‘You eat the apple.’
b. Mangan=ka (i)ti mansánas.
eat=Nom.2s Det apple
‘You eat an apple.’ or ‘You eat some apples.’
Nominative phrases are interpreted indefinitely under a few specifiable conditions. 1)
When the head of the noun phrase is a numeral, often the numeral ‘one’, especially
when introducing a new participant within a discourse, as in (92) and (93). 2) Under
certain discourse conditions the discussion of which are beyond the scope of this
paper. Bell (1978:4) notes that, “The requirement that indefinite subjects contain a
numeral strongly suggests that final subjects of verbal sentences must be specific,
even if not definite.”
(92) Ilokano
a. Immay ti maysa a balásang.
came Det one Lig young.woman
‘A young woman came.’
b. Pinatay=da ti maysa a nuang.
killed=Gen.3p Det one Lig water.buffalo
‘They killed a water buffalo.’
(93) Cebuano (Wolff 1967:340, cited in Bell 1978)13
a. Usa ka ambunga=ng magti’ayon mi’abot sa syudad sa Manila.
one Lig handsome=Lig couple arrive Lcv city Lcv Manila
‘A handsome couple arrived in Manila.’
13 Bell (1978:3) notes: “While Cebuano permits indefinite subjects, indefinite subject do not occur
freely.…indefinite subjects are better in pre-verbal position, at least in paragraph-initial sentences…
There is another, much more serious restriction on indefinite subjects. An indefinite subject must
contain a numeral.”
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 31
b. Ni’adto=ng panahona, lima ka kinhaso=ng daw salamin nakaplagan sa
that.Obl=Lig time five Lig seashell=Lig like mirror find Lcv
mga bata=ng nagdula sa babayon.
Det.plrl child=Lig play Lcv beach
‘At that time, five shining seashells were found by children who were playing on the beach.’
4.2.1.2.3. Proximate vs. Remote
In the Northeast Luzon languages such as Paranan (Finkbeiner 1983:9), Casiguran
Dumagat (Headland and Headland 1974:xxxii), as well as in Isnag (Barlaan
1977:111-114, 121), a distinction is made between nouns that have been described as
present, seen, known, near, specific, factual, or alive, that is, features that we define as
PROXIMATE, versus those that are past, absent, unseen, unknown, far, general,
fictional, or dead, that is, features that we define as REMOTE. In the Northeast Luzon
languages, proximate nouns are typically marked by Determiners with either an i or
an a vowel, whereas remote nouns are marked by Determiners with a u vowel. In
Isnag, the same association can be made.
Some Central and Southern Cordilleran languages, such as Guinaang Bontok,
similarly have different Determiners for nouns that are either neutral or remote in
terms of time reference and those which, although out of sight, are within the recent
experience of both speaker and addressee, as in (94)a-b.
(94) Guinaang Bontok
a. Dpap=m nan sána ásu!
catch.2s.actr Det that.near.one dog
‘Catch that (near) dog!’
b. Dpap=m san ásu!
catch.2s.actr Det dog
‘Catch that (recent) dog!’
4.2.1.2.4. Specific vs. Non-specific
In the previous section it was noted that in Philippine languages, Nominative noun
phrases typically have a definite interpretation, that is, the speaker assumes that the
addressee knows the general reference of the actant that is the head of the phrase.
Knowing the general reference of an actant does not imply that the addressee knows
the specific actant being referred to. Although Nominative phrases are typically
definite, they may or may not be specific. The degree of specificity often depends on
the presence of a demonstrative, either as the head of the noun phrase, or as a post-
head modifier, or on the presence of some other post-head modifier such as a
genitively marked noun phrase, or a relative clause. A number of languages mark a
distinction between specific and non-specific phrases, with the specific phrase being
invariably marked by a form which is either a demonstrative, or can be shown to be a
demonstrative at some earlier stage of the language. In some languages, such as
Ilokano and Casiguran Dumagat Agta, such forms have actually grammaticalized into
Determiners, in other cases they may continue to be functioning as the head noun of
the phrase.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 32
In most Philippine languages, demonstratives may occur both as the head of a noun
phrase and as a post-head modifier of a non-demonstrative head noun, often in the
same construction (95).
(95) Ilokano
Nakíta=na daydiay nga áso a daydiay.
saw=Gen.3s that.one Lig dog Lig that.one
‘He saw that dog (not some other).’
Such post-head demonstrative modifier phrases have, in a number of Philippine
languages, become phonologically attached to their preceding head noun, usually with
erosion of the final vowel of the demonstrative, forming a class of enclitic
demonstratives. In Paranan, the forms are =en, =ud, or =id, and they may occur
phonologically attached to the head of any noun phrase, Nominative, Genitive, or
Locative which is preceded by a proximate Determiner (96).14 The non-reduced
enclitic forms occur in Paranan as emphatic (“pointing”) demonstratives.
(96) Paranan (Finkbeiner 1983:9)
a. Nagbunga iyan i bayabas=mi=yen.
fruited that.one Det guava=Gen.1pe=that.near
‘That guava tree of ours (ex.) bore fruit.’
b. Madukas i anak=id a maupos.
bad Det child=that.unknown Lig talkative
‘A child who is talkative is bad.’
c. Inkonya=mu i papel=idi?
what.do=Gen.2s Det paper=this
‘What did you (sg) do with this paper here?’
In Arta, a northern Luzon Negrito language, an enclitic =i is commonly attached to
nouns, whether or not it is Nominative, to enhance its specificity, but is never attached
to a Locative Correspondent, which can only have an indefinite, non-specific
interpretation (compare (97)a and b). The same phenomenon is found in Tasaday
(98), and perhaps in some other Manobo languages in the south of the Philippines.
(97) Arta
a. Tinim=di i binarayan=i.
drank=Gen.3p Det wine=Adv
‘They drank the wine.’
b. Matitim i minabulu ta binarayan.
drinking Det widow Lcv wine
‘The widow is drinking wine.’
(98) Tasaday (Reid 1999:9)
Aken sidu=i migdega.
Nom.1s there=Adv lie.down
‘I’ll lie down over there.’
14 Finkbeiner notes, “The present marking suffix /-en/ implies the object is seen, near, and specific or
present in time, while the suffix /-ud/ implies far distance in location or time, but still seen or known.
/-id/ seems to imply future, absence, unknown, or very close.” (Finkbeiner 1983:9).
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 33
4.2.1.2.5. Singular vs. Plural
A distinction between singular and plural Determiners for personal nouns occurs
throughout the Philippines. The forms in the Cordilleran languages of the northern
Philippines, as well as in some of the other languages of the Philippines are usually
the same as the enclitic third person Nominative pronouns. Whereas the pronouns are
second-position clitics, the plural Determiners are free forms, although as unstressed
forms, they may, like other Determiners become phonologically attached to either the
immediately preceding or following stressed form. This can be seen from the position
of the future time adverbial clitic (=to following a consonant, =nto following a vowel)
in Ilokano. In (99)a, it precedes the plural Determiner da, whereas in (99)b, it follows
the clitic pronoun =da.
(99) Ilokano
a. Mapan=to da Juan.
go=futr Det.plrl Juan
‘Juan and companions will go.’
b. Mapan=da=nto.
go=Nom.3p=futr
‘They will go.’
Tboli appears to retain a historically earlier system, in which the plural form is still a
third person agreement pronoun, with an otherwise unmarked head noun immediately
following, as in (100)a-b. That these are in fact pronouns, and not plural Determiners
is suggested by the fact that both first and second person plural pronouns can occur in
the same types of construction, as in (100)c-d.
(100) Tboli (Forsberg 1992:11)
a. Omin le Yê Bong gna.
and.then Nom.3p Mother Big go.ahead
‘And then Big Mother and her companions went ahead.’
b. Wen le Yê.
there.is Nom.3p Mother
‘There is Mother and the rest of the family.’
c. Lewu me Kasi funen.
two Nom.1pe Kasi owner.Gen.3s
‘Kasi and I are the owners.’ (Lit., ‘We two Kasi are the owners.’)
d. Gunun deng nù se tahu blóng ye Dimas?
where.Gen.3s Pst be Emph true division Nom.2p Dimas
‘Where is the true boundary between you and Dimas?’
In most Philippine languages, expansions of the head of plural personal nouns, as also
of plural pronoun heads, such as those in (100)c-d, are typically accomplished with a
Locative expression, interpreted as “with”, as in (101).
(101) Guinaang Bontok
Siya sa nan ásu=mi an takdg.
prdc.3s that Det dog=Gen.1pe with Takcheg
‘The dog that is Takcheg’s and mine is that one.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 34
The marking of plural common noun phrases, although not obligatory in Philippine
languages15 is commonly accomplished by the use of one or more of a number of
pluralizing strategies. These are presented below, in the order in which they appear to
have developed historically.
1. By third person plural pronominal agreement with a marked common noun phrase,
commonly in immediate appositional relationship to it, as in Itawis, Central Cagayan
Agta, Guinaang Bontok, etc., as described above in section 2.3.2.3.
(102) Itawis (Natividad and Solomon 1970:23)
Naguribat=ida ya affi.
dim=Nom.3p Det lights
‘The lights are dim.’
(103) Central Cagayan Agta (Healey 1960:62)
Ayagám=kid mantu sin ya atu ikid na ugta.
call.2s.actr=Nom.3p then here Det dog plrl Det deer
‘Then call here the dog and the deer.’
(104) Guinaang Bontok
Kasí=da umawid nan tapí=na.
again=Nom.3p return Det other=Gen.3s
‘The rest of them returned again.’
2. By means of a common noun Determiner, usually a compound of a third person
plural pronoun, either (da or di) and a common Determiner. This strategy is
commonly found in the languages of the Northern Philippines, as in Yogad danu (as
in (105)a), Ilokano dagiti (106), Isnag daya, and Ilongot díma. These forms have
apparently developed independently in these languages, in that the latter part of each
form reflects the Determiners that have developed in those languages. That they are
in fact functioning as Determiners and not as a sequence of pronoun plus Determiner
is evidenced from the presence of Locative forms in which the compound is itself
prefixed with the appropriate Locative marker, e.g., Yogad takudanu (as in (105)b),
Ilokano kadagiti (106), and Isnag kadayá.
(105) Yogad
a. Akkanan danu tolay yu ma:baw.
eating Det.plrl man Det cooked.rice
‘The men are eating the rice.’
b. Ya:da=m yu kwa:rto takudanu tolay.
give=Gen.2s Det money Lcv.plrl man
‘Give the money to the people.’
(106) Ilokano
Nakíta=k dagiti tattáo kadagiti babbalay=da.
saw=Gen1s Det.plrl men Lcv.plrl houses=Gen.3p
‘I saw the men in their houses.’
15 Common nouns typically can have either singular or plural reference without overt marking. Most
languages also have morphological devices for deriving plural nouns from some subclasses of singular
nouns.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 35
3. By following the head noun with a free (non-enclitic) third person plural pronoun.
Constructions of this type occur in most of the Cagayan Valley languages of Northern
Luzon, such as Central Cagayan Agta (107), Itawis (108), Gaddang, Ibanag and Atta,
but not in Yogad nor in Isnag. It is also found in Paranan (109), on the northeastern
coast of Luzon, and in Isinai, a Central Cordilleran language.
(107) Central Cagayan Agta (Healey 1960:15)
Awán ya lalaki=mi kiden.
ngtv.exist Det man=Gen.1pe Nom.3p
‘Our (ex.) menfolk are not here.’
(108) Itawis (Natividad and Solomon 1970:19)
Lalakay ira nay.
men Det.plrl Nom.that (remote)
‘Those are old men.’
(109) Paranan (Finkbeiner 1984)
Umagum bi en agum hidi a tolay dikoku.
help also Det other Nom.3p Lig person Lcv.1s
‘The other people will also help me.’
4. By a plural demonstrative as the head of the phrase with a following dependent
noun, as in Ilokano (110) and Guinaang Bontok (111). Constructions such as these
occur in probably all languages of the family, since all languages have developed
plural demonstratives.
(110) Ilokano
Aláem dagitoy (a) mangga.
get.2s.actr these.ones Lig mango
‘Get these mangos.’
(111) Guinaang Bontok
Iníla=k nan dyda (ay) lallaláki.
saw=Gen.1s Det those.ones Lig person
‘I saw those men.’
5. The languages of the central and southern Philippines, from Tagalog south,
typically mark common nouns as plural by use of the plural Determiner manga,
commonly abbreviated in the orthographies of Tagalog, Bikol and some of the Central
Philippine languages as mga (as in (112)–(113)). Tboli marks a common noun with
the form kem (114). Manuk Mangkaw Sinama performs the same function with saga
(115).
(112) Bikol (Mintz 1971:99)
Binarakál=ko an mga lápis.
bought=Gen.1s Det Det.plrl pencil
‘I bought pencils.’
(113) Sarangani Manobo (DuBois 1976:9)
Doen menge otaw.
exist some person
‘There are some people.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 36
(114) Tboli (Forsberg 1992:10)
kem gunù ‘houses’
kem kudà ‘horses’
kem libun ‘girls’
(115) Manuk Mangkaw Sinama (Akamine 1996:66)
Maha bilahi paragan saga anak-anak.
ngtv like run Det.plrl child
‘The children do not like to run.’
Tagalog and some sister languages in the Central Philippines also have a set of plural
determiners for personal nouns, sina, nina, and kina (Romblomanon: siná, niná, and
kiná, and Sibalenhon: sína, nína, and kína (Zorc 1977:82)), which are distinct from
those discussed above.
4.3. Relative Clauses
The primary strategy for forming relative clauses in Philippine languages is to
relativize upon the Nominative noun phrase and to replace it with a gap in the relative
clause.
4.3.1. Verbal Relative Clauses
The most obvious examples of these relative clauses are those in which the language
requires a ligature between the head noun in the matrix clause and the relative clause,
and in which the head of the relative clause is a verbal form. In (116)a, the relative
clause is intransitive, with a gap in place of the Nominative actant, which is
coreferential with fiarasang ‘young lady’ of the matrix clause. In (116)b, the relative
clause is transitive. Since Eastern Bontok, like other Philippine languages, is ergative,
it is the Patient of a transitive clause that is Nominatively marked,16 and it is this noun
phrase which is gapped in the relative clause and is coreferential with kinchi tona ‘this
candy’ of the matrix clause. Similar pairs of intransitive-transitive relative clauses are
given in (117)-(118). It should be noted that the pattern is the same for dyadic
intransitive clauses (as in (117)a and (118)a) as for those with a single complement.
Similarly, transitive clauses with an extra complement (as in (118)b) relativize in the
same way as those with only two complements.
(116) Eastern Bontok (Fukuda 1997:66)
a. Ammay hen fiarasang ay inmali ah oswelaqan.
good Det young.lady Lig came [–trns] Det school
‘The lady who came to school is good.’
b. Ammay hen kinchi tona ay kenan hen fiarasang.
good Det candy this Lig ate [+trns] Det young.lady
‘This candy which the lady ate is good.’
(117) Hiligaynon (Wolfenden 1971:167-8)
a. Nawalá’ ang duhá ka nagbakál sang manyíka.
was.lost Det two Lig bought [–trns] Det doll
‘The two who bought a doll were lost.’
16 Referred to in some descriptions as Absolutive.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 37
b. Mahál ang pulá nga ginbakál=ko.
expensive Det red Lig bought [+trns]=Gen.1s
‘The red article I bought is expensive.’
(118) Mansaka (Svelmoe and Svelmoe 1974:55, 57)
a. Kikita=ko si Ilik na yagaloto sang bugas.
see=Gen.1s Det Ilik Lig cook [–trns] Obl rice
‘I see Ilik cooking the rice.’
b. yang bugas na pyapadara nang dato sang maystro
Det rice Lig sent [+trns] Gen leader Obl teacher
‘the rice that the leader sent to the teacher’
Similarly, transitive clauses with applicative affixes17 relativize in the same way.
Thus, in (119)a, the verb carries benefactor-affect marking, while in (119)b, it carries
manner-affect. In each case it is the Nominative noun phrase which is relativized
upon.
(119) Eastern Bontok (Fukuda 1997:66)
a. Cha matoy hen amqama ay iloktowan=mi.
prog die Det old.man Lig get.yam.for=Gen.1pe
‘The old man that we (ex.) go and get yams for is dying.’
b. Nangina hen safon ay imqos=mo.
expensive Det soap Lig bathe.with=Gen.2s
‘The soap that you (sg.) take a bath with is expensive.’
4.3.2. Non-Verbal Relative Clauses
All non-verbal clauses are intransitive, and may be relativized in the same manner as
verbal clauses, that is with a gap replacing the Nominative noun phrase, as in (120)-
(121). Compare the relative clauses in (120)a and c, with the nominal clauses upon
which they are based in (120)b and d, respectively.
4.3.2.1. Nominal relative clauses
(120) Guinaang Bontok
a. Sakn ay amama nan umy.
Top.1s Lig married.man Det go
‘I, who am married, will go.’
b. amama=ak.
married.man=Nom.1s
‘I am a married man.’
c. Nan náay ay bnŋ nan alám.
Det this.one Lig bolo Det get.2s.actr
‘The one you will get is this bolo (not that one).’
17 The so-called ‘focus’, ‘voice-marking’ affixes, ‘trigger-marking’ affixes (Schachter 1990:949-954),
or ‘pivot’ morphemes.
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 38
d. Bnŋ nan náay.
bolo Det this.one
‘This one is a bolo.’
(121) Mansaka (Svelmoe and Svelmoe 1974:57)
Kikita ko kamo na kawbayan.
see Gen.1s Nom.2p Lig women
‘I see you women.’ (Lit., ‘I see you who are women.’)
4.3.2.2. Prepositional relative clauses
All prepositional clauses are likewise intransitive, and may be relativized in the same
manner, that is, with a gap replacing the Nominative noun phrase. Compare the
prepositional clauses in (122)a-b, with the relative clauses which can be formed upon
them, (123)a-b, respectively.
(122) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:259-60)
a. Para sa pagluluto ng kanin ang palayok na ito.
for Lcv cooking Gen rice Det pot Lig this
‘This pot is (used) for cooking rice.’
b Hinggil sa negosyo ang usapan=nila.
about Lcv business Det conversation=Gen.3p
‘Their conversation is about business.’
(123) Tagalog
a. ang palayok na ito=ng para sa pagluluto ng kanin .
Det pot Lig this=Lig for Lcv cooking Gen rice
‘this pot that is (used) for cooking rice’
b. ang usapan=nila=ng hinggil sa negosyo
Det conversation=Gen.3p=Lig about Lcv business
‘their conversation that is about business’
4.3.3. ‘Adjectival’ Relative Clauses
As mentioned in section 4.1, the great majority of Philippine languages do not have a
distinctive form class of adjectives. Most descriptive terms are either unmarked, like
nouns, or carry affixation which marks them as a type of stative verb, so that an
English structure that contains an adjective usually appears in Philippine languages as
a relative clause construction, as in (124)a-b, and (126). The clauses from which such
Ilokano relative clauses are formed are shown in (125)a-b, respectively.
(124) Ilokano (Reid; Rubino 2000:lxxx)
a. dagiti baró a bádo
Det.plrl new.one Lig clothes
‘the new clothes’
b. ti naímas a digó
Det delicious Lig broth
‘the delicious broth’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 39
(125) Ilokano
a. Baró dagiti bádo.
new Det.plrl clothes
‘The clothes are new.’
b. Naímas ti digó.
delicious Det broth
‘The broth is delicious.’
(126) Hiligaynon (Wolfenden 1971:167)
Diútay nga báta si Pédro.
small Lig child Det Pedro
‘Pedro is a small child.’
4.3.4. Position of Relative Clauses in Relation to their Head Nouns
Some linguists claim that there is freedom of word order for relative clauses in
Philippine languages, that the relative clauses in (124)-(126) are actually head final,
while those illustrated in (127) are head initial. By such an analysis, (128)-(129)
would contain both head initial and head final relative clauses. However, in each of
these constructions it is the form which precedes the ligature that acts as the syntactic
head of the construction in that it may stand alone, without the following relative
clause, and it is the relative clause which is the specifying constituent. These claims
are based upon examples such as (130)a-b, and the fact that these relative clauses
have appropriate basic clauses in which their predicates provide specification for their
Nominative complements, as shown in (130)c-d, respectively.
(127) Botolan Sambal (Antworth 1979:58)
a. ya kabayo ya malhay
Det horse Lig large
‘the horse that is large’
b. ya lapis ya nikatak
Det pencil Lig lost
‘the pencil that was lost’
(128) Ilokano
Nakíta=na daydiay nga áso a daydiay.
saw=Gen.3s that.one Lig dog Lig that.one
‘He saw that dog (not some other).’
(129) Mansaka (Svelmoe and Svelmoe 1974:51)
yang mataba na baboy na maitum
Det fat Lig pig Lig black
‘the fat, black pig’
(130) Guinaang Bontok
a. intu nan inmayan nan dakdakl (ay bútug=ku)?
where Det went.place Gen big.one Lig pig=Gen.1s
‘Where has my big (pig) gone?’ (Lit., ‘Where is the gone-place of the big one (that is my
pig)?’)
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 40
b. intu nan inmayan nan bútug=ku (ay dakdakl)?
where Det went.place Det pig=Gen.1s Lig big.one
‘Where has my pig (the big one) gone?’ (Lit., ‘Where is the gone-place of my pig (that is the
big one)?’)
c. Bútug=ku nan dakdakl.
pig=Gen.1s Det big.one
‘The big one is my pig.’
d. Nan dakdakl nan bútug=ku.
Det big.one Det pig=Gen.1s
‘My pig is the big one.’
Examples in which verbal relative clauses appear to be head final, are similarly
actually head initial, nominalized verbs, as demonstrated in (131)a-d.
(131) Guinaang Bontok
a. Sínu nan iníla=m (ay magmaggit)?
who Det seen.one=Gen.2s Lig young.woman
‘Who is the one you saw (that is a young woman)?’
b. Sínu nan magmaggit (ay iníla=m)?
who Det young.woman Lig saw=Gen.2s
‘Who is the young woman (that you saw)?’
c. Magmaggit nan iníla=m.
young.woman Det seen.one=Gen.2s
‘The one you saw is a young woman.’
d. iníla=m nan magmaggit.
saw=Gen.2s Det young.woman
‘You saw a young woman.’
4.3.5. Relativization of Other than Nominative Nouns
The most commonly relativized nouns are Nominative, however a few other nouns
may also be relativized. To our knowledge, there is no Philippine language which
unambiguously allows relativization of either the Genitive Agent of a transitive
sentence,18 nor the Correspondent of either an intransitive or a transitive sentence,
regardless of the formal marking of these phrases in a language. However, the
18 Brainard (1997:120) claims that Karao exhibits a type of relative clause which modifies the argument
of an existential clause. In such cases either an ergative NP (Genitive Agent in our terminology), or an
absolutive (or Nominative) NP can occur. When it is a Genitive Agent, it requires an anaphoric
pronoun in the relative clause. When it is Nominative, there is a gap. An alternative analysis, and one
which we prefer, claims that these are not relative clauses, but complements of the existential verb. An
example follows.
Karao (Brainard 1997: 120)
Gwara di=y ‘iKadasan ‘a ‘in‘anop=to=y ‘aso=tho.
exists there=Det person.Kadasan Lig hunt [+trns]=Gen.3s=Det dog=Gen.3s
‘There was a person from Kadasan who went hunting with his dog.’
Translated as a complement of the existential verb, it would be, ‘There was hunting with his dog, a
person from Kadasan.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 41
“possessor” of a possessed noun (i.e., a Genitive Correspondent in our theory) can be
relativized.
4.3.5.1. Relativization of a Genitive Correspondent Possessor
Two different strategies are found in Philippine languages when the “possessor” of a
possessed noun is relativized. Relativization of such a noun can only take place from
the Nominative noun phrase of an intransitive (verbal or non-verbal) construction.
4.3.5.1.1. Utilizing the gap strategy
This strategy is found at least in Tagalog, Cebuano (132) and in Mansaka (133),
where what may be an inalienable possessor is relativized with a gap where the
possessor would occur in a non-relativized construction. From the ungrammaticality
of (132)b, and similar structures in other languages, there are apparently restrictions
on the kind, and/or distribution of possessives that are relativizable, restrictions that
are not yet fully understood.
(132) Cebuano (Bell 1976:124)
a. Nahadlok siya sa sakop ni Iyo’ Bruno nga nagkadugo’ ang ba’ba’.
fear Nom.3s Lcv group Gen Iyo’ Bruno Lig bloody Det mouth
‘He was afraid of Iyo Bruno’s group, whose mouths were bloody.’
b. *Kusgan ang baka nga giputlan niya ang sungay.
strong Det cow Lig cut.off [+trns] Gen.3s Det horn
‘The cow whose horns were cut off by him was strong.’
(133) Mansaka (Svelmoe and Svelmoe 1974:51)
a. yang otaw na way anak
Det person Lig ngtv.exist child
‘the man who has no child’
b. yang otaw na masakit yang siki
Det person Lig painful Det leg
‘the man whose leg is painful’
4.3.5.1.2. With resumptive pronoun strategy
The other strategy for relativizing a possessor in Philippine languages is to have a
resumptive Genitive pronoun in the position where the possessor would occur in a
non-relativized construction. In these languages the possession that is involved is
either alienable or inalienable, as in (134)-(135).
(134) Guinaang Bontok
a. Nan tágu ay waday ásu=na nan as umy.
Det person Lig exist dog=Gen.3s Det futr go
‘The one to go will be the person who has a dog.’
b. Nan tágu ay insakit nan sikí=da nan as adi umy.
Det person Lig painful Det leg=Gen.3p Det futr ngtv go
‘The ones who will not go are the people whose legs are sore.’
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 42
(135) Kabayan Inibaloi (Roberta Ruffolo, pers. comm.)
a. Bara=d chiyay i kamatis ya enkontiling i dames=to.
exist=Lcv there Det tomato.plant Lig tiny Det fruit=Gen.3s
‘Here there are tomato plants whose fruit are very small.’
b. Yet in’an=to=iray nangkatoling tan katambaleg=a too=n abadeg i
and.then saw=Gen.3s=Det.plrl black.plrl and huge=Lig person=Lig big Det
mata=cha, sangi=cha, tan tangida=ra.
eye=Gen.3p tooth=Gen.3p and tongue=Gen.3p
‘And then he saw those huge, black people whose eyes, teeth and tongues were big.’
4.3.6. Relative Clause Marking
All the examples of relative clauses in the above sections have indicated their
presence following a ligature, a form which historically had its origin in a Proto-
Austronesian demonstrative *(n)a. The general function of the ligature was to
introduce dependent structures, and it occurred not only before relative clauses but
also before sentential complements with verbal heads. In several Philippine languages
such as Ivatan (136) and Hiligaynon (137) the form ka occurs as a special ligature
preceding relative clauses having numeral nouns as their heads.
(136) Ivatan (Reid 1966:101)
qo qása ka kamay
Det one Lig finger
‘one finger.’
(137) Hiligaynon (Wolfenden 1971:168)
Nagalangóy siá sa isá ka piníli’ nga ádlaw.
was.swimming Nom.3s Det one Lig chosen Lig day
‘He was swimming on one particular day.’
In most Manobo languages, and in other languages in the south of the Philippines
such as Manuk Mangkaw Sinama (138), ligatures have been lost, except in what were
originally relative clauses headed by a numeral but which are now probably part of
compound nouns.
(138) Manuk Mangkaw Sinama (Akamine 1996:83-4)
a. anak-anak tuli
child sleep
‘the child who is sleeping’
b. lumaq poteq
house white
‘the white house’
c. lalla ma lepa
man at boat
‘the man in the boat’
5. Conclusion
The space restrictions necessarily imposed on articles of this sort, have unfortunately
meant that much that could and should be said about the syntactic typology of
Philippine languages is left unsaid. Moreover, only the minimum number of
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 43
examples to exemplify our claims could be included. The theoretical basis of the
analysis is hardly more than alluded to, and we encourage interested readers to delve
into the literature referred to for clarification of some of the notions we have here
taken for granted.
A number of areas of syntax for which typological description has not been included
in this paper, and which will be covered in a monograph in preparation, include a
fuller characterization of the typology of verbal complementation structures, of
existential verbal structures, of causative structures, of types of negation, and of
patterns of occurrence of typically monosyllabic clitic adverbs. In this paper,
moreover, we only begin to cover the immense complexity found in verbs and other
form classes. These will also be addressed in the forthcoming monograph.
The amount of literature available today on Philippine languages is immense and
constantly growing, and there is no doubt that our coverage may well have missed
some important works. We hope that readers who know of counter-examples to those
presented, or who believe that our analysis of specific examples is incorrect, will
contact us to enable us to give a better picture of the typology of this group of
languages.
References
Abrams, Norm. 1961. Word base classes in Bilaan. Lingua 10.4:391-402.
Akamine, Jun. 1996. A grammatical analysis of Manuk Mangkaw Sinama. Diliman:
University of the Philippines Ph.D. dissertation.
Antworth, Evan L. 1979. A grammatical sketch of Botolan Sambal. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph Issue No. 8. Manila: Linguistic
Society of the Philippines.
Barlaan, Rodolfo R. 1977. Fact and fiction in Isneg narrative discourse. Studies in
Philippine Linguistics 1.2:110-42.
Barlaan, Rodolfo Rosario. 1999. Aspects of focus in Isnag. Manila: Linguistic
Society of the Philippines.
Bell, Sarah J. 1976. Cebuano subjects in two frameworks. Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.
Bell, Sarah J. 1978. Two differences in definiteness in Cebuano and Tagalog.
Oceanic Linguistics 17.1:1-9.
Benton, Richard A. 1971. Pangasinan reference grammar. PALI Language Texts:
Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Brainard, Sherri. 1997. Ergativity and grammatical relations in Karao. Grammatical
relations: A functionalist perspective, ed. by T. Givón, 85-154.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
DuBois, Carl D. 1976. Sarangani Manobo: An introductory guide. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph Issue Number 6. Manila: Linguistic
Society of the Philippines.
Finkbeiner, Marianne. 1983. Paranan noun markers. Ms.
Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and
universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forman, Michael L. 1971. Kapampangan grammar notes. PALI Language Texts:
Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Forsberg, Vivian M. 1992. A pedagogical grammar of Tboli. Studies in Philippine
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 44
Linguistics 9.1:1-110.
Fukuda, Takashi. 1997. A discourse-oriented grammar of Eastern Bontoc. Studies in
Philippine Linguistics 10.1:1-116.
Harmon, Carol W. 1977. Kagayanen and the Manobo subgroup of Philippine
languages. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Ph.D. dissertation.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. Baltimore: Edward
Arnold.
Headland, Thomas N., and Janet D. Headland. 1974. A Dumagat (Casiguran) -
English dictionary. Pacific Linguistics C-28. Canberra: Research School of
Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.
Healey, Phyllis M. 1960. An Agta grammar. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
Ho, Arlene Y. L. 1990. Yami structure: A descriptive study of the Yami language.
Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University M.A. thesis.
Larson, Virginia. 1986. Ivatan texts. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
McKaughan, Howard P. 1958. The inflection and syntax of Maranao verbs.
Publications of the Institute of National Language. Manila: Bureau of
Printing.
McKaughan, Howard P., and Batua A. Macaraya. 1967. A Maranao dictionary.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Miller, Jeanne. 1964. The role of verb stems in the Mamanwa kernel verbal clauses.
Oceanic Linguistics 3.1:87-100.
Miller, Jeanne, and Helen Miller. 1976. Mamanwa grammar. Language Data:
Asian-Pacific Series No. 8. Huntington Beach: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Mintz, Malcolm W. 1971. Bikol grammar notes. PALI Language Texts: Philippines.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Mirikitani, Leatrice T. 1972. Kapampangan syntax. Oceanic Linguistics Special
Publication No. 10. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai'i.
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice
system. Voice: Form and function, ed. by Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper,
247-277. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Natividad, Mateo C., and Syble Solomon. 1970. A guide to learning Itawis dialect.
Manila: Peace Corps.
Newell, Leonard E. 1993. Batad Ifugao dictionary with ethnographic notes.
Linguistic Society of the Philippines Special Monograph Issue Number 33.
Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pittman, Richard. 1966. Tagalog -um- and mag-: An interim report. Papers in
Philippine linguistics No. 1, 9-20. Canberra: The Australian National
University.
Post, Ursula. 1992. Binukid dictionary. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 9.2:1-210.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1966. An Ivatan syntax. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication
No. 2. Honolulu: Pacific and Asian Linguistics Institute, University of
Hawai'i.
Reid, Lawrence A. 1995. Tasaday cave tape transcriptions. On-line at
http://www.aa2411s.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~reid/Tasaday/index.html.
Reid, Lawrence A. 2001. On the development of agreement markers in some
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 45
Northern Philippine languages. Issues in Austronesian morphology: A
focusschrift for Byron W. Bender, ed. by Joel Bradshaw and Kenneth L. Rehg,
235-257. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
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.
Ross, Malcolm D. 1995a. Some current issues in Austronesian linguistics.
Comparative Austronesian dictionary, Vol. 1, ed. by D. T. Tryon, 45-120.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ross, Malcolm D. 1995b. Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology:
Evidence from Taiwan. Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul
Jen-kuei Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Dah-an Ho, Ying-kuei Huang and Chiu-yu
Tseng, 727-91. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez. 2000. Ilocano dictionary and grammar. PALI
Language Texts. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Ruch, Edward R. 1964. The phonological and morphophonemic systems of
Kalamian Tagbanwa. Ithaca: Cornell University M.A. thesis.
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. Parangay kay Cecilio
Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, ed. by
Andrew B. Gonzalez, F.S.C., 214-231. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Schachter, Paul. 1990. Tagalog. The world’s major languages, ed. by Bernard
Comrie, 936-958. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Shetler, Joanne. 1976. Notes on Balangao grammar. Language Data: Asian-Pacific
Series No. 9. Huntington Beach: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The case for lexicase: An outline of lexicase grammatical
theory. London: Pinter Publishers.
Starosta, Stanley. 2002. Austronesian ‘focus’ as derivation: Evidence from
nominalization. Language and Linguistics 3.2:427-479.
Starosta, Stanley. To appear. Lexicase revisited. Encyclopedia of languages and
linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The evolution of
focus in Austronesian. Papers from the Third International Conference on
Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers, ed. by Stephen A.
Wurm and Lois Carrington, 145-70. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra:
Pacific Linguistics.
Svelmoe, Gordon, and Thelma Svelmoe. 1974. Notes on Mansaka grammar.
Language Data: Asian-Pacific Series No. 6. Huntington Beach: Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1993. A synoposis of Role and Reference Grammar.
Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, ed. by Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., 1-
164. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Vanoverbergh, Morice. 1955. Iloko grammar. Baguio City: Catholic School Press.
Verstraelen, Eugene S.V.D. 1973. Some elementary data of the Suban'on language.
Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-
fifth birthday, ed. by Andrew B. Gonzalez, F.S.C., 236-51. Quezon City:
Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages – Reid & Liao 46
Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1971. Hiligaynon reference grammar. PALI Language Texts:
Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Wolff, John. 1967. Beginning Cebuano. Part II. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wolff, John U. 1973. Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. Parangal kay Cecilio
Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, ed. by
Andrew B. Gonzalez, F.S.C., 71-91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Wouk, Fay. 1986. Transitivity in Proto-Malayo-Polynesian and Proto-Austronesian.
FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian
Linguistics, ed. by Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington and S. A. Wurm, 133-158.
Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The
Australian National University.
Zorc, R. David Paul. 1977. The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping
and reconstruction. Pacific Linguistics C-44. Canberra: Department of
Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National
University.
