Content uploaded by Vincent Christopher Santiago
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vincent Christopher Santiago on Apr 21, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Existential, possessive, and locative in Porohanon
Vincent Christopher A. Santiago
University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City
vasantiago@up.edu.ph
Abstract
The three construction types –existential, possessive, and locative—have been traditionally-
viewed as structurally and conceptually related to each other (Lyons 1967). The purpose of this
study is to examine the supposed three construction types in Porohanon, a Bisayan variety spoken
in the Camotes Islands, Cebu. In Porohanon, these constructions share a common predicate ara
[ˈʔaː.ɾaʔ], thereby meriting a collective and provisional label: the ara-clause. It is argued that in
order to give a nuanced description of the ara-clause in Porohanon, three areas have to be taken
into account and resolved: (1) the enclitic particle =y, (2) the semantic roles and interpretation of
the core arguments, and (3) whether the seeming multifunctionality of ara is a case of polysemy,
homophony, or none of the above.
Keywords: existential, possessive, locative, multifunctionality
ISO 639-3 language codes: prh
Introduction
Language information
Porohanon is primarily spoken in the Municipality of Poro, in the Camotes Islands, situated
between the provinces of Cebu and Leyte, in the Visayas Region, Central Philippines. Classified
as “Vigorous” (6a) on the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) (Simons
& Fennig 2019), it was reported to be spoken by around 23,000 people in 1960 (Wolff 1967).
It was Wolff (1967) who first published a linguistic
description of Porohanon—calling it the “Camotes
dialect” (p. 63). Despite his recognition of a
substantial number of shibboleths including
Porohanon’s (1) case-marking system (construction
markers and the meanings which they distinguish),
(2) deictic expressions (the conjugation and
distribution of adverbs referring to place), and (3)
intonation (the way in which slow, careful speech
forms and the rapid forms alternate), Wolff
considered Porohanon already a dialect of Cebuano
Bisayan.1
Figure 1. Google Maps. (2018). Camotes Islands. Map data ©2018 Google. Retrieved 16 May, 2018
________________________________________________________________
1. This is a view that was echoed by Atty. Lourdito D. Borlasa who was actually Wolff’s key language helper and guide
during the Cornell University professor’s 4-day stay in Poro.
Draft only. Comments welcome.
EPL in Porohanon
2
Nevertheless, he forwarded the hypothesis that Porohanon could be what remains of an earlier,
non-Cebuano Bisayan substrate due to the very nature of these acknowledged shibboleths.
According to him, “These features are not of a type that can be transferred from language to
language” (p. 64).
Zorc (1977) also accounted for Porohanon in his monumental study of the Bisayan languages and
dialects. His seems to be the first published work that recognized the endonym “Porohanon”
(puruhánun) (Zorc 1977, p. 14) alongside Wolff’s “Camotes dialect”.2 He assigns Porohanon to
his “Peripheral Central Bisayan” subgroup (alongside North Sorsoganon, Masbatenyo,
Bantayanon, Hiligaynon, Capiznon, and Kawayan) (p. 32) and considers it a “transitional dialect”
(p. 170) between Sebuwano and Hiligaynon.
Objective & Scope
This brief paper is an analysis of the following constructions in Porohanon. I will be referring to
these constructions collectively and provisionally as the ara-clause:
1) Aray Ginoo
ara=y Ginoo
EXIST=PRT God
‘There is a God.’ 3
2) Aray buwak an daga
ara=y buːwak an=daːga
POSS=PRT flower NOM=young.lady
‘The young lady has a flower.’
3) Ara sa bay an daga
ara sa=baːy an=daːga
LOC OBL=house NOM=young.lady
‘The young lady is in the house.’
________________________________________________________________
2. One of my consultants, Mr. Edwin Marquez, also reports the label tinaga-Poro ‘(lit.) of-those-from-Poro’.
3. Symbols and abbreviations to be used in this paper: - - morpheme boundary; = - clitic; 1 – first-person; 2 – second-
person; 3 – third-person; COMP – complementizer; EXIST – existential; GEN – genitive; INTR – intransitive; LKR –
linker; LOC – locative; NEUT – neutral marker; NOM – nominative; OBL – oblique; PL – plural; POSS – possessive;
PRT – particle; SG – singular; REAL – realis; Q - question
EPL in Porohanon
3
Numerous past studies (see Lyons 1967 for a survey of these) have claimed a structural and
conceptual relation among constructions that have propositions of 1) “mere” existence of a single
core argument (Ginoo ‘God’), 2) possession by the privileged syntactic argument (Van Valin
2004) (daga ‘young lady’) of another core argument in the clause (buwak ‘flower’), and 3)
situatedness or physical location of the privileged syntactic argument (daga ‘young lady’) in the
argument cast as the oblique (bay ‘house’). Lyons (1967, p. 390) summarizes that “…in many, and
perhaps in all, languages existential and possessive constructions derive (both synchronically and
diachronically) from locatives.”
In Porohanon, the ara-clause has as its predicate the form ara [ˈʔaː.ɾaʔ], with an obligatory,
enclitic particle =y if a non-pronominal argument immediately succeeds it, as in sentences 1) and
2) above. When there are bound pronominal forms or other enclitic pragmatic particles, the enclitic
particle =y attaches itself to these, as in 4) and 5) below:
4) Ara koy mga igsuon.
ara=ko=y mga=igsuon
POSS=1SG.NOM=PRT PL=sibling
‘I have siblings’ (J. A. Self-introduction)
5) Nangutana siza kun ara ba koy kuwarta nga 200.
n-(p)angutana=siza
INTR.REAL-question=3SG.NOM
kun ara=ba=ko=y kuwarta=nga=200
COMP POSS=Q.PRT=1SG.NOM=PRT money=LKR=200
‘He asked me if I had 200 pesos.’ (J.A. Unforgettable experience)
In order to fully understand the structure and flesh-out the meaning of the ara-clause in Porohanon,
the following strands of evidence and reasoning have to be drawn together to form a cohesive
account:
a) that =y is a “neutral marker” (Tanangkingsing 2009) signifying an indefinite interpretation
of the immediately-succeding argument;
b) that this core argument with an indefinite interpretation possesses the semantic role of
THEME (Kroeger 2005, p. 54); and
c) that the seeming multiple functions of ara are but extensions of the core existential
meaning. (cf: McFarland 1978, for Tagalog)
This analysis of the ara-clause in Porohanon is intended to be part of a more comprehensive
description of the variety’s grammar.
EPL in Porohanon
4
=y as Neutral Marker
Most informal learners or non-native speakers of Binisaya (perhaps I’m just referring to myself
here) are stumped with the meaning and function of the enclitic particle =y. Take, for example,
this true-to-life scene at Laguindingan Airport, Cagayan de Oro:
6) Airport Security: Naa bay durian diha, sir?
‘Is there durian there, sir?’
V. C. S.: *Naay
‘There is’
The ungrammaticality of the response of the person with initials V.C.S. stems from the fact that
the predicate naa ‘EXIST’ is not followed by any argument, and is merely a response to the
question. Thus, it does not need the enclitic particle =y.
Tanangkingsing (2009), in his functional reference grammar of the Binisaya spoken in Cebu,
characterizes this enclitic particle as a “neutral marker” which “marks referents that are mostly
indefinite (in the case of existential clauses and interrogatives) [emphasis mine]” (p. 108).
This neutral marker can also be observed in Porohanon. Going back to the first two examples:
1) Aray Ginoo
ara=y Ginoo
EXIST=NEUT God
‘There is a God.’
2) Aray buwak an daga
ara=y buːwak an=daːga
POSS= NEUT flower NOM=young.lady
‘The young lady has a flower.’
The arguments Ginoo ‘God’ in sentence 1) and buwak ‘flower’ in sentence 2) both have an
indefinite interpretation, i.e. the addressee cannot identify the referent in a given context (Summer
Institute of Linguistics 2003). The opposite definite interpretation of the above arguments does
not seem to work:
1) Aray Ginoo
ara=y Ginoo
EXIST=NEUT God
?‘There is the God. (in that both speaker and addressee identify a single, identical God)’
EPL in Porohanon
5
2) Aray buwak an daga
ara=y buːwak an=daːga
POSS= NEUT flower NOM=young.lady
?‘The young lady has the flower.
(in that both speaker and addressee, without visual cues,
identify an identical flower)’
In order for an argument to receive a definite interpretation in an ara-clause, it has to be marked
with NOM an, i.e. be cast as the most privileged syntactic argument. This is the case in the third
sentence:
3) Ara sa bay an daga
ara sa=baːy an=daːga
LOC OBL=house NOM=young.lady
‘The young lady is in the house.’
It is presumed that both the speaker and the addressee in 3) are able to identify the same, particular
daga ‘young lady’ in the sentence (out of all the possible representatives of daga). Therefore, it
need not be marked with the neutral marker =y.
In the previously-given example 5), the argument kuwarta ‘money’, despite being marked with
the neutral marker =y, requires another constituent, the linked modifier 200 ‘Php 200’ to identify
the exact amount.
5) Nangutana siza kun ara ba koy kuwarta nga 200.
n-(p)angutana=siza
INTR.REAL-question=3SG.NOM
kun ara=ba=ko=y kuwarta=nga=200
COMP POSS=Q.PRT=1SG.NOM=NEUT money=LKR=200 pesos
‘He asked me if I had 200 pesos.’ (J.A. Unforgettable experience)
To summarize, the neutral marker =y, as descibed by Tanangkingsing (2009) for Sebuwano and
which is also present in Porohanon serves to mark an argument with an indefinite interpretation.
The semantic role of this indefinitely-marked argument is discussed in the next section.
Indefinite Argument as THEME
Kroeger (2005, p. 54), in his 13-semantic role inventory, defines THEME as such:
“THEME: entity which undergoes a change of location or
possession, or whose location is being specified”
EPL in Porohanon
6
This seems to be the most appropriate semantic role to capture the relation of the arguments to
the predicate ara, at least in the second (=”possessive”) and third (=”locative”) ara-clauses.
The THEME semantic role, at least as defined by Kroeger (2005), does not seem to adequately
capture the role of the single argument in the clause Aray Ginoo ‘There is a God.’ It does not
undergo any change of location or possession. Nor is its location being specified. Its “mere”
existence is simply being predicated upon.
This stems from the special nature of the meaning we ascribe to the argument Ginoo. Who, at
least according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
being; therefore, whose particular physical location or possession by another entity cannot
be specified.
Ramos & Ceña (1980) point out that for sentences such as the Tagalog:
6) May sunog!
EXIST fire
‘There’s a fire!’
“Our understanding of the meaning of sentences like the above is that the location of the existent
is unspecified. (When such an utterance is heard in real life, one assumes that the location of
the fire is in the immediate vicinity.) [emphasis mine]” (p. 25)
Thus, the seeming inapplicability of the THEME semantic role to the ara-clause Aray Ginoo
‘There is a God’ stems not from a different thematic structure, but the special nature of the
meaning of the argument Ginoo ‘God’. Without trying to offend religious sensibilities, the same
kind of special meaning can be observed if we replace it with other imaginary beings:
7) Aray (kapre, toothfairy, Loch Ness monster,…)
‘There exists a kapre, toothfairy, Loch Ness monster, etc.’
The semantic role THEME still successfully covers and accounts for the relation of the core
arguments of the ara-clause with its predicate ara.
Multifunctionality of ara?
The title of this brief paper is but a nod to other like-titled studies (Lyons 1967, Ramos & Ceña
1980, Zeitoun et al. 1999, and several more). I also intended for the title to echo the “received-
wisdom” from Dr. Constantino’s analysis of Philippine syntax, in which the existential,
possessive, and locative are viewed as “non-predicative sentences” (1965, p. 103). This analysis
is, of course, reflected in the UP Department of Linguistics’ 775-Sentence List in which the
category “Existential, Possessive, and Locative Sentences” is set-apart from “Mga Porma ng
Pandiwa [Forms of Verbs]”.
EPL in Porohanon
7
But as I have discussed in the above sections, for Porohanon, ara is still a predicate that 1) has
its own argument and thematic structure, and, moreover, 2) predicates on the existence of an
argument with an indefinite interpretation. Thus, I depart from the analysis that the existential,
possessive, and locative is non-predicative.
It seems that the supposed, distinct “possessive” and “locative” senses of the predicate ara are
merely extensions of the “existential” proposition in a sentence such as Aray Ginoo ‘There is a
God’. These other supposedly distinct senses are derived from the presence of the other
arguments, whether it be the argument marked as NOM, as in 2), or the one relegated as an
OBL as in 3):
2) Aray buwak an daga
ara=y buːwak an=daːga
POSS=PRT flower NOM=young.lady
‘The young lady has a flower.’
3) Ara sa bay an daga
ara sa=baːy an=daːga
LOC OBL=house NOM=young.lady
‘The young lady is in the house.’
In sentence 2), it is still the existence of the buwak ‘flower’ that is being predicated upon. But it
is extended to its ‘existence-in-posession’ of the daga ‘young lady’. Meanwhile, in sentence 3), it
is still the existence of the daga ‘young lady’ that is being predicated upon. But it is extended to
its ‘existence-in-location’ of the bay ‘house’.
This is a view that is somewhat parallel to the one articulated by McFarland (1978, p.12) for
Tagalog:
“I conclude that there is but one type of existential construction with but one general meaning.”
Furthermore:
“Thus we may conclude that the meaning is not ‘possession’ or ‘indefiniteness’, or existence’, but
some meaning that is an average combination of all three. Whatever we decide, it is a single
meaning and not three distinct meanings. There is one existential construction, not three.
[emphasis mine]”
I share the view that it is a single meaning, with extensions into possession and location owing
the presence of other arguments. However, that single meaning is still an existential proposition,
and not “an average combination of all three”, as per McFarland.
EPL in Porohanon
8
Conclusion and Implications for Further Study
Three main points were made in this brief presentation, regarding the ara-clause in Porohanon:
a) that =y is a “neutral marker” (Tanangkingsing 2009) signifying an indefinite interpretation
of the immediately-succeding argument;
b) that this core argument with an indefinite interpretation possesses the semantic role of
THEME (Kroeger 2005, p. 54); and
c) that the seeming multiple functions of ara are but extensions of the core existential
meaning. (cf: McFarland 1978, for Tagalog)
The very immediate implication of this for my ongoing project of a grammatical sketch of
Porohanon is that I will have to revise (in consultation with my professor) my current outline, in
particular, the section on “Special Construction Types”.
References
Constantino, E. (1965). The sentence patterns of twenty-six Philippine languages. In Lingua 15.
71 – 124. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
0024384165900094.
Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lyons, J. (1967). A Note on Possessive, Existential, and Locative Sentences.
Foundations of Language 3 (4). 390-396.
McFarland, C. D. (1978). Tagalog existentials. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 9(1-2). 1-12.
Ramos, T. V. & Ceña, R. M. (1980). Existential, locative and possessive in Tagalog. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics 11(2). 15-26.
Simons, G. & Fennig, C. (2019). Porohanon. Ethnologue: The Languages of the World (Twenty-
second edition). Last accessed 29 March, 2019. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/prh.
Summer Institute of Linguistics. (2003). What is indefiniteness? Last accessed 29 March, 2019.
https://glossary.sil.org/term/indefiniteness.
Tanangkingsing, M. (2009). A Functional Reference Grammar of Cebuano. Dissertation.
National Taiwan University.
Van Valin, R. (2003). An introduction to syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, J. U. (1967). History of the Dialect of the Camotes Islands, Philippines, and the Spread of
Cebuano Bisayan. Oceanic Linguistics 6(2). 63-79.
Zeitoun, E., et al. (1999). Existential, Possessive, and Locative Constructions in Formosan
Languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38(1). 1-42.
Zorc, D. (1975). The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping and reconstruction.
Dissertation. Cornell University.
