The Philippine chalenge to Universal Grammar

66
INSTITUT FÜR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT UNIVERSITÄT ZU KÖLN . .... ARBEITS PAPIER Nr. 15 (Neue Folge) THE PHILIPPINE CHALLENGE TO UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR Nikolaus P. Himmelmann Oktober 1991

description

Himmelmann 1991

Transcript of The Philippine chalenge to Universal Grammar

INSTITUT FR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT UNIVERSITT ZU KLN ..... ARBEITS PAPIERNr.15(Neue Folge) THE PHILIPPINE CHALLENGE TO UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR Nikolaus P.Himmelmann Oktober 1991 ... ,.-._ .. . ".. HerausgeberderReihe:InstitutflirSprachwissenschaft derUniversittzuKln 0-5000Kln41 (c)beidenAutoren Acknowledgements ThispaperisbasedonmyunpublishedMAthesis(Mnchen 1983)andmyPhDthesis,writtenin1985andpublishedin 1987.IoweveryspecialthankstoJohnWolffwhocommented atIengthonthepublishedversionofthedissertationand encouragedmetoproceedalongthelinesdevelopedthere.I alsothankHans-JrgenSasseandFritzSerziskoforthe pertinentandhelpfulcommentsonthispaper.Last,butnot leastIhavetothankChrisSearlsandVictorFusilerofor brushingupmyEnglish. CommentsonthisworkingpaperversionarehighIywelcome! contents [ 1.Introduction 2.Tagalqgclausestructure 2.1.Preliminaries 2.2.angandtheproblemofsubjecthood 2.3.Thefunctionofang 3.Syntacticcategories 4.Orientation 4.1.Thenatureoforientationmarking PAGE 1 6 6 8 4.2.Thesemanticsoftheorientation f f i ~ e s15 16 25 27 34 4.3.Aspectjmoodinflectionandinherentorientation 36 4.4.Derivationandpredidtion41 5.Syntacticcategoriesandthegrammaticalization argumentstructure of 43 6.Theequationalhypothesisandtheorderof 7.Conclusion Abbreviations References constituents 49 52 55 56 - 1 -1_Introduction Grammaticalrelations- inparticulartherelation'subjectof' - andvoiceareofcentralconcerntoanytheoryofuniversal grammar.Withrespecttothesephenomenatheanalysisof Tagalog(andthePhilippinelanguagesingeneral)hasturned outtobeparticularlydifficultandcontinuestobeamatter ofdebate.Whattraditionallyhasbeencalledpassivevoicein theselanguages(forexamplebyBlake(1925),Bloomfield(1917) andWolfenden(1961appearstobesodifferentfromvoice phenomenainthemorefamiliarIndo-Europeanlanguagesthatthe term'focus'wasintroducedinthelate1950stounderscoreits 'exceptional'nature(cf.Llamzon(1973:168),MatsudaFrench (1988a.Thisterm,however,isamisnomersinceingeneral linguistics'focus'isusedtorefertothepragmatic phenomenonofhighlightingneworcontrastiveinformationand, asmostresearcherstodayagree,the'focus'affixesin Philippinelanguagesdonoth ~ v suchahighlightingfunction.1 ItisalsoquitegenerallyacceptedthatthePhilippine'focus' cannotbeanalyzedaspassive(cf.Shibatani(1988:89-96), DeWolf(1988:150-160),Foley(1991.Thecurrentdebate concernstheissueofwhetherthePhilippinelanguagesshould beconsideredergativelanguages(wherebytheconstruction traditionallycalledactiveistobeanalysedasantipassive). Thisproposalhasbeenmadewithintherespectiveframeworksof relational(Gerdts1988)andlexicasegrammar(deGuzman(1978, 1988),Starosta(1986,1991,asweIlasfromadiscourse-functionalperspective(cf.Payne(1982),Cooremanetal. (1984,1988.2TheergativeanalysisisrefutedbyShibatani (1988:96-115),DeWolf(1988:158-160)andFoley(1991)with basicallythesameargumentsthatmaybeadducedagainstthe passiveanalysis.Themajorpointisthis:whereastheactive andtheergativeconstructioncanbeshowntobetheunmarked constructionsinaccusativeandergativelanguages, 1Forlackofaconvenientalternative,however,mostauthorscontinueto usethetermfocus.ExceptionsareCumming(1986)andSchachter (1987:949ff)whousethetermtriggerinstead. 2Blake(1988)makesaprimarilymorphologicalargumentforergativityin Tagalog.Thiswillbecommenteduponinsect.4.3. - 2-respectively(bothintermsofmorphosyntacticpropertiesand discoursefunction3),thisisnotpossibleforthePhilippine 'active'and'passive'constructions(seesect.4). Furthermore,asalsopointedoutbyShibatani(1988:114)and DeWolf(1988:156f),aninflationaryusehasbeenmadeofthe term'ergative'inthelastdecade;itcanthusnolongerbe assumedthatit hasanunequivocalandspecificmeaningin typologizinglanguages,apartfromthetechnicaldefinitionit mightbegivenwithinaparticularframework.4 Butifthe Philippine'focus'constructionsareneitherpassivenor ergative,howelsecantheybeanalysed?Shibatani(1988)and DeWolf(1988),whobothrefutethepassiveasweilasthe ergativeanalysis,donotofferanalternativeproposal.In thispaperaeasewillbemadefortheclaimthat'focus' markingshouldbeanalysedintermsoforientation5,aconcept usedbyLehmann(1984:151f)forcapturingthedifference betweenEnglish(and,moregenerally,Indo-European)orientated nominalisationssuchasemploy- eroremploy-ee,and unorientatednominalisationssuchasemploy-ing.Thisapproach 3ForTagalog,thefigure sconcerningthediscoursedistributionof 'active'and'passive'(ar'ergative'and'antipassive')constructionsvary accordingtothetheoretica1positionoftheauthors,seeShibatani (1988:95f,111ff). 4Theproblemwasa1readypointedoutin1981byvanValin.Iprefer defining'ergative'asanominalcaseforrn,i.e.thecase - formoftheagent inatransitiveevent .Therei5noergativecase-forminPhilippine 1anguages(asopposedtootherAustronesianlanguagessuchasSamoanor Tongan)andthus ,inmyvi ew,theissueofergativitydoesnotarisefor these1anguages.Thisissueisfurtherdiscussedwithrespecttotheso-ca11edergative1anguagesofCentralandSouthSulawesiinHimmelmann (1991) . 5TheGermantermusedbyLehmannis'Ausrichtung'.Tomyknow1edge , 'orientation'isnotatechnica1termintheEng1ishliterature,a1though itoccasiona11yappearsindiscussionsofvoiceandergativity(cf.,for examp1e,Comrie(1981:69passim)andDeLancey(1982:167.Itis,however, atechnica1termintheUNITYPmodel( cf .intera1iaSeiler(1986)and Seiler& Premper(1991whereitisus edasacovertermforallphenomena re1atedtotheorientationordirectednessofeventexpress ions(Serzisko 1991),inc1udinginherentorientation(accusativevs .ergative1anguages) andmechanismsofreorientation(passive,antipassive,inverseinflexion, etc . ) .A1thoughPhi1ippine'focus'markingisalsocoveredbytheUNITYP usageoforientation ,notethatthistermisusedhereinmorespecific sense,i .e.itreferst oaderivationa1processthatisapplicabletoall kindsofexpr es s ions ,notjus teventexpress ions( sees ect.4.1). -3-impliesthat'foeus'markingisderivationalratherthan infleetionalasoftenpresumedintheliterature.Thisisto saythatwhatistypologieallyeonspieuousinTagalogisnot the'foeus'phenomenonperse,sineethisisverysimilarto orientatednominalisationsinmanyotherlanguages,butrather theveryprominentuseoforientatedformations(i.e., derivationalmorphology)inbasicelausestrueture. Beforepresentingtheanalysisoforientationaffixesin TagalogwewillbrieflysketchTagalogelausestrueturein seetion2whereit willbediseussedwhetherthereisa grammatiealrelation'subjeetof'inTagalogornot.The eontroversyregardingthistopiehasdevelopedalonglines similartothoseeoneerningthephenomenonof'voiee'in Philippinelanguages.Bloomfield(1917)andBlake(1925)use theterm'subjeet'withoutfurtherdiseussion.Thesame reasoningwhiehledtothereplaeementoftheeoneeptof 'voiee'bytheeoneeptof'foeus'alsoledtoreplaeing 'subjeet'by'topie,.6Theeurrenteontroversywasinitiatedby Sehaehter(1976),whoarguesthatthereisnosubjeetin Tagalogsincethepropertiesusuallyattributedtosubjects(as spelledoutinKeenan(1976aresharedbetweentwo partieipants(the'topic'andtheagent).7Foley& vanValin 6SeeMcKaughan(1973),whointhisartic1eexplicit1yreVlseshisposition andreturnstotheuseof'subject'again. 7Shibatani(1988:115 - 130)basical1yfol1owsSchachter'sana1ysis,but drawsadifferentconclusionsinceheoperateswithaprototypeapproachto subjects.Forhirn,actor-topicsareprototypica1subjects(exhibitingall ofthesubjectproperties),whi1enon-topicactorsandnon- actortopicsare non-prototypicalsubjects(exhibitingonlyapartofthesubject properties).Asaconsequenceofthisviewheisforcedtoanalysesome clausesascontainingtwo(non-prototypica1)subjects(1988:126ff).This, inmyview,restsonaseriousmisunderstandingoftheconceptofsubject, whichwasintendedtocapturethefactthatinmany1anguagesthereisone participantwhichismorecentraltotheexpressionofagivenstateof affairsthanothersandtheprimacyofwhichisref1ectedbothin morpho1ogica1markingandmorphosyntacticbehaviour(traditiona11y, 'subject'hasbeendefinedas'whatthesentenceisabout'or,more precisely,that'whichundergoesapredication';fordetails.seeSasse 1982,Foley& vanValin(1984:108ff.Bydefinition,therecanbenotwo primaryparticipants;i.e.iftherearetwoparticipantsthatpartia11y exhibitpropertiesofmorphosyntacticcentrality,neitherofthemisehe primaryorcentra1participant,thoughbothofthemmaybemorecentra1 thanotherparticipantsandthusbecoreparticipants(Fo1ey& vanValin - 4-(1984:134ff)considertheang-phrase(seesect.2)tobethe pragmaticpivotofaTagalogclause.Lateron(p143)thisis furthercharacterisedas'clauseinternaltopic'.Hoekstra (1986)andMcGinn(1988)workingwithinaGBframework- both considertheang-phrasetobethesubject;Carrier-Duncan (1985)andGerdts(1988),however,treattheagentasthe subjectinaltinstanceswithoutpresentinganexplicit argumentfortheiranalysis.InthispaperIprincipallyfollow thearguments . presentedbyDeWolf(1979:67-86,1988:144-150) thatasubjectrelationindeedexistsinTagalog .Themajor problem,t h o u ~ h doesnotseemtometobethedefinitionand identificationofthesubjectrelationinTagalog,butthe recognitionofthefactthatTagalogclausestructureis essentiallyequationalasarguedbyNaylor(1980)andDeWolf (loc.cit.).!nIndo-Europeanlanguagesverbalpredicates exhibitinherentmorphosyntacticrelationality.As ; aresult thereexisttwoaspectstothesubjectrelation:subjectas opposedtoobject(subject1 intermsofMatthews(1981:104ff)) andsubjectasopposedtopredicate(subject2).InTagalog, however,allpredicates(both'verbal'and'nominal')are morphosyntacticallynon-relational;thusonlyoneaspectofthe subjectrelationispresentinTagalog(thatis,theopposition betweensubjectandpredicate).Indeed,theessentially equationalnatureofclausestructureinTagaloghas repercussionsformanyaspectsofclausegrammar:ofcourse,no objectrelationexistsinTagalog.Itiscorrelatedwiththe prominenceoforientatedformationswhich- inasensetobe explainedinsections3and4- arethefunctionalequivalent ofargumentstructureinTagalog .8 Furthermore,it is (1984:77ff);seeDurie(1987)forananalysisofAcehnesealongthese lines).Thisisnotmeanttoimplythattheprototypeapproachmaynotbe usefullyappliedtosubjects.Asubjectlikeit init rainsiscertainlya 1essprototypicalsubjectthantheboyintheboyshothisgrandpa,butit stillexhibitsimportantpropertiesofEnglishsubjectssuchaspreverbal positionandtriggeringagreementonthepredicate.Tobeausefulconcept, however,evenanon -p rototypicalsubjecthastobemoresubject - likethan anythingelseinagivenclause. 8ThatargumentstructureinTagalogrequiresadistinctlydifferent treatmentisalsopointedoutbyFoley(1991)whooffersaproposalfor dealingwiththiswithintheframeworkofalexically-basedfunctional - 5-correlatedwiththefactthatthesyntacticcategoriesnounand verbaredifficult,ifnotimpossible,todistinguishin Tagalog(seesect_3)_ Thenatureofthedistinctionbetweennounsandverbswill thusbeofmajorconcerninthispaper_Itisimportanttokeep inmindthatthisdistinctionpertainstoatleasttwolevels: it pertains,ontheonehand,tolexicalsemanticclasses (wordsdenotingentitiesvs_wordsdenotingevents),andonthe other,tomajorsyntacticcategories,i.e.classesofwords exhibitingcommonmorphosyntacticproperties.9 Inthispaper thetermsnounandverbwillbereservedforthelatter,while lexicalsemanticclassesarereferredtobytermssuchas entity orevent.Entityisusedtoembracelexicalsemantic classesthataretypicallyexpressedbynounssuchaspersons, things,institutions,etc.,whereaseventisusedfortypically verbaldenotatasuchasstates,processes,andactions.In Tagalogitisdifficulttofindamorphosyntacticallyrelevant differencebetweeneventexpressionsandentityexpressions. Thus,thereisnoneedtomakeadistinctionbetweenthe syntacticcategoriesnounandverb.This,however,doesnot meanthatformaldifferencesdonotexistatall.Indeed,the mostpervasivedifferenceconsistsinthedifferentstress patterns10 foundincertainderivedformations,aquiteunusual phenomenonwhenseenfromatypologicalpointofview. unificationgrammar.Webrieflycomrnentonthisinsect.4.1. 9AsCroft(1991:37ff)pointsout,theformercanberegardedasthe ontologicalbasisforthelatterandisthususedbyhimasoneofthe externalparametersinhissupposedlyuniversaldefinitionofthemajor syntacticcategories(chapters2and3inCroft1991). 10StressinTagalogisunmarkedinstandardorthography.Itsanalysisis highlycontroversialsincesomeauthors(e.g.,Schachter& Otanes 1972:15-18)considervowellengththeprimaryphenomenon,whileothers considervowellengthanepiphenomenonofstress(cf.Bloomfield1917:141f; MatsudaFrench1988b:63f).Inthispaper,bothstressandvowellengthare indicated,but,sincestressassignmentinTagalogisnotfullyunderstood, allremarkspertainingtothisphenomenonmustberegardedwithcaution. NotethatmuchoftheliteratureonTagalogignoresstressaltogether. StressisphonemicinTagalog;comparebukas'tomorrow'andbukas'open', andplaysanimportantrleinaffixation.Primarystressonthepenultima willremainunmarked(thusbukasfor'tomorrow'),elsewhereitwillbe ma rkedbytheacuteaccent.Thegraveaccentmarksvowellength(along vowel,ofcourse,isalsoclearlystressed). -6-2_Tagalogclausestructure 2.1.Preliminaries Indiscussing ' Tagalogclausestructureit isusefultomakea distinctionbetweenfullwords.andfunctionwords(or particles;cf.Bloomfield1917:146).Functionwordsmaynotbe inflected;theymarkmorphosyntacticslotsorappearinclitic positions.Fullwordsmaybeextensivelyaffixedandoccurin thelimitedsetofmorphosyntacticslotsprovidedbythe functionwords.Therearesixmorphosyntacticslotsforfull wordsinaTagalogclause,fourofwhichcanbeillustratedby thefollowingexample : (1a)i-ni-ab6tng UGT-REAL(UG)-withinreachGEN mang-ga-gamot IRR_ACT-RDP2-medicine (Bl30/13) 11sasundaloangit16g, LOCsoldierREFegg 'Thephysicianhandedtheeggtothesoldier' Exceptforthefirstword,allfullwordsinthisclauseare precededbyfunctionwords(thefunctionmarkersang,ng,and sa).Theclauseinitialpositionisthepredicateposition, whichisunmarkedunlessanotherconstituentprecedes.Inthis case,the constituentismarkedbythepredicate marker(PM)ay,asin (1b)atangpareatsiyaynag-hinty andREF'priestand3 . SGPMREAL.ACT-wait ngsa-sabih-inngsundalo . '(loc.cit . ) GENRDP1-say-UGGENsoldier 'andthepriestandhewaitedforwhatthesoldierwould say. ' Fullwordsinpre-predicateposition,thefifthmorphosyntactic 11MostTagalogexamplesinthispaperarefromB1oomfield'sco11ectionof texts(=Bl) .Fortheseexamples,thepageandlinenumbersinBloomfield (1917)aregiven .AlthoughtheBloomfieldtextsareover70yearsoldand althoughtheyhavebeenproducedbyasinglenativespeaker,theystill representanadequateandreliabledatabaseforcontemporarystandard Tagalog(foranappreciation,seeWolff(1987)).Asfortheotherexamples. examp1e(20)isfromSchachter& Otanes(1972 : 163),examples(24)and(29) arefromTagalogletterstotheauthor,andtheremainingexampleshave beenelici ted . - 7-slot,maybeunmarkedortheymaybemarkedbythefunction markersangorsa_Fullwordsinpost-predicatepositionare alwaysprecededbyoneofthefunctionmarkers_Thesemarkers havethefollowingfunctions: saisagenerallocativepreposition(LOC)markingall kindsofobliqueparticipants.Itisthefinalconstituentof allofthemorespecificprepositionsinTagalog,suchas hanggangsa'until'orparasa'for'. ng[na9]marksgenitiveattributes(GEN) .Intheliterature itiscommontodifferentiatebetweenangmarkingnon-topic agents(e.g.ngmanggagamotin(1a)),onemarkingpatientsand themes,anotheroneforinstruments,adifferentoneformanner adverbials,andstillanotheroneforpossessors,etc.But,as convincinglyarguedbyNaylor(1980:37-42),ngitselfmarks nothingbuttheattributiverelation.Thisdoesnotmean,of course,thatthesemanticrolesmentionedcannotbe distinguishedineachcase(thelexicalsemanticclassofthe participantandtheorientationaffixofthepredicate expressionarethemostimportantcluesinthisrespect) .The claimissimplythatngisnotamulti-functionalcasemarker, andthefactthatneedstobeexplainediswhyparticipantsmay beconstructedasgenitiveattributesinTagalogirrespective oftheirsemanticrole. Beforediscussinganginthenextsecti o n,letusbriefly lookatthesixthmorphosyntacticslot,nots howninexample (1).Itisconstitutedbythelinker(orligature)na/_ng.12 Thisfunctionmarker'links',theelementsofamodifying constructionsuchasu161naungg6''fooli s hmonkey'butalso occursincompoundssuchaspuno-ng-saging'tree -LK-banana'and incomplementclauses(seeGonzales1971) .Theorderof modifyingconstructionsisnotfixedinTagalog;thusungg6'na u161isequallypossible.Thedifferencebetweenngandthe linkerpertainsto 'referentiality,i.e.ngi sacombinationof ang,markingreferentiality(seesect.2 . 3),andna(the 12-ng,asimplevelarnasal,istheallopmorphofthelinkerafterwords endinginavowel.Itisnottobeconfusedwiththegenitivemarker[na?] whichi sconventionallyspelledng. - 8-linker),markingattribution;comparethefollowing'minimal pair' : (2)a)bata-ngdalaga child-LKyoungwoman 'girl' b)bata'ngdalaga childGENyoungwoman 'childofth.eyoungwoman' Correspondingtothemarkersang,ngandsathereisa specialsetoffunctionmarkersforpropernouns,i.e.si,ni andkay,respecti vely.Similarly,thereareang-,ng- andsa-formsofthepersonalandthedeicticpronouns(cf.Schachter& Otanes(1972:88ff. 2 . 2.angand.theproblemofsubj ecthood angisgenerallycalledatopic(orsubject)markerinthe li terature.Asbrieflymentionedinsect.1,thediscussionhas mainlybeenconc.ernedwiththefactthatanon-agentang-phrase suchas-angit16gin(1 a)exhibitsonlypartofthesubj ect propertiesdi splayedbysubj ectsinIndo -Europ.eanlanguages. Thisisnosurprisegiventhefactthattheprototypical subjectinmodern'3Indo-Europeanlanguagesisacombinationof thepragmaticroletopicandthesemanticroleagent.Thereis nodoubtaboutthefactthattheang-phraseexhibitsmostof thetopic-relatedproperttesofsubjects.Thefactshavebeen , widelydiscussedintheliteratureandneednotberepeated here(seethereferencesinsect.1).Ofparticularimportance inthepresentcontextisthefactthattheorientationalaffix onthepredicate(i- in(lasignalsthesemanticroleofthe participantdenotedbytheang-phrase.Thismeansthatthereis aspecialrelation,apredicativerelation,betweentheang-phraseandthepredicate(asdistinctfromng- andsa-phrases). Inotherwords,theang-phrasedenotestheparticipant'the sentenceisabout',whichisthetraditionaldefinitionfor subjects(butalsofortopics,whichisamajorcauseforthe 13SeeSasse(1982)forasketchofthedevelopmentofthesubjectrelation inIndo -Europ.eanlanguages. - 9 -confusionsurroundingtheseterms}.Moreprecisely,this definitioncharacterizessubjectsasopposedtopredicates (subject2 intheterminologyofMatthews1981:104-113).I proposetousethetermpredicationbasetodenotethisaspect ofsubjecthoodsincetopic,whichhasalsobeenusedinthe sameway,hassomanyotherdifferentmeanings.Thuswemaysay thatthereisasubjectrelationinTagaloginthesensethat theang-phraserepresentsthepredicationbaseinclausessuch as(1a). Theinterrelationbetweentopicsandpredicationbasesis highlycomplexandcannotbespelledouthere.Clause-leve114 topicsrepresentpresupposedinformationandbasicallyhavea scene-settingfunction.Thisscene-settingfunctionmaybe furthersubdividedintothescene-settingfunctionproper(Ona lovelymorninginApril1965Clairesetoutto... ),the explicitrepresentationofwhatisunderdiscussion(asfor topics,Idonotbelievethatwewilleverbeabletocomeup withasatisfactorydefinition),andtherepresentationofthe discoursetopic(usuallybypronominalisationorzero anaphora).Althoughtopicsinthelattertwosensesoften coincidewithpredicationbases(seeforexampleang manggagamotatsiyain(1b}),thisisnotnecessarilythecase (foraTagalogexample,see(9)below).Indeed,topicsand predicationbasesarereltatedinsofaraspredicationbasesare grammaticalizedtopics(ofdiscussion),whichisalsothe reasonwhyidenticaldefinitionshavebeenproposedforbothof them.Inotherwords,predicationbasesaretopicswhichhave beentightlyintegretatedintocore-levelclausestructure(as evidencedbythewell-knownsubjectpropertiessuchas agreement,obligatoriness,etc.),andintheprocesstheyhave lostthepragmaticfunctionofscene-settingtovarying degrees.Toexemplifythelossofthepragmaticfunctionnote thatit wouldbenonsensetoattributet ~ functionofsetting 14Ihavenothingtosayhereaboutdiscourse-topicalityasdefinedin Giv6n(1983)_AsshownbyCooremanetal.(1984)ang-phrasesinTagalogdo notrepresentdiscoursetopics.Foley& vanValin(1984:143ff)consider relative-clauseconstructions'thecrucialnexus'intheinterrelation betweentopicandpredicationbase(=pivotintheirterminology). - 1 0-thesceneorprovidingthetopicofdiscussiontothemost grarnrnaticalizedpredicationbases,i_e.dummysubjectssuchas it init rains.InTagalogtheneedtodifferentiatebetween topicsandpredicationbasesisrelatedtothefactthatboth mayco-occurinthesameclause(seebelow). Intheprecedingdiscussionwehaveindiscriminatelydealt withtheang-phraseasapredicationbase,therebyimplying thatangmarkspredicationbases.This,however,isnot correct.Thefactthatangbyitselfmarksneitherpredication basesnortopicsisevidentfromclausescontainingtwoang-phrases: I (3)angmgabuh6klamangangp-in-u-putolngpata+im REFPLhaironlyREFRDP1-REAL(UG)-cutGENblade 'onlythehairwascutbytheblade'(Bl58/36) Infact,oneofthetwoang-phrasesappearinginthisclause hastobethepredicate.SinceTagalogpredicatesareusually inclause~ n i t i l positionandsincenoevidencecanbe presentedtothecontrary,angmgabuh6klamangmustbe analysedasthepredicateexpressioninthisclause.Amore literaltranslationwouldbe'thatbeingcutbytheblade(was) onlythehair'.Thus,predicateandpredicationbasemustbe definedconfigurationallyinTagalog:thepredicateexpression appearsinclauseinitialposition(orimmediatelyfollowing ay),whereasthepredicationbaseistheang-phrasefollowing thepredicateexpression.Topiesarealsodefinedbyposition, i.e .theyappearinpre-predicateposition,separatedfromthe predicatebyay.Topicsmaybeofvariedsemanticandformal make-up:wefind,forexample,unmarkedtemporalexpressions (4),sa-phrasesindifferingfunctions(5),ang-phrases(1b), complexconjunctions(6),gerundialconstructions(7)and eompleteclauses(8): (4)isa-ngkatanghali'anayma-tahimikangbayan one-LKnoonPMIRR.STAT-quietREFtown 'Onenoonthetownwasquiet.'(B1120/37) - 11-(5),sa106bngbaDngniy6gay LOCinsideGENshellGENcoconutPM i-ni-la-lagayangisa-ngpirasu-nglaman UGT-REAL(UG)-RDP1-positionREFone-LKpiece-LKmeat ngniy6g(Bl120/108) GENcoconut 'Insidethecoconutshellisplacedapieceofthemeatof thecoconut, (6)dahilditoayt-in-awagniyaangpare' causeDEM.LOCPMREAL(UG)-call3.SG.GENREFpriest 'Thereforehecalledthepriest... '(B164/25) (7)pag-ka-wika'niyanit6ayb-um-aliksiya GER-??-language3.SG.GENDEM. GENPMREAL.ACT-return3.SG 'Havingsaidthishewentback , (Bl20/4Q)... ( 8 )nangd-um-atingsilasaisa-nggubatay whenREAL.ACT-arrive3.PLLOCone-LKforestPM in-iwansi langkanila-ngmagulang(Bl32/25) REAL(UG)-abandon3.PLGEN3.PL.DAT-LKparent 'Whentheycametoajungle,theirparentsleftthem, Thus,topicsareneitherlimitedtoang-phrasesnoristhe presenceofangsufficienttoidentifythepredicationbase. Thattopicandpredicationbasemustbedistinguishedin Tagalogandthatneitherissolelyidentifiedbyangisshown bythefollowingclause: (9)kanyaangmgabuntisnababayesabayangya6nay thereforeREFPLpregnantLKwomanLOCtown:LKDEMPM lalo-ngma-lakiangtakot(Bl36/16) surpassing-LKIRR.STAT-bigREFfear 'Thereforethepregnantwomeninthetownhadgreatfear.' Here,thefirstang-phraseinpre-predicateposition(angmga buntisnababayesabayangya6n)denotesthetopic,thesecond ang-phrase(angtakot) ,whichfollowsthepredicate,functions asthepredicationbase.Amoreliteraltranslationofthis clauseis'therefore,thepregnantwomeninthetown,very great(was)thefear'. Giventhisstateofaffairsthequestionarisesastohow clausessuchas(1b),whereanang-phraseoccursintopic positionandnoang-phrasefollowsthepredicateexpression, - 1 2-shouldbeanalysed.Isangmanggagamotatsiyathetopie,the invertedpredieationbase(asit iseommonlyassumedinthe literature,viz.thetermay-inversion(Sehaehter& Otanes , (1972:485ff,orboth?Therearetwofactswhiehstrongly suggestthatit issimplythetopie:First,inelausessuchas (6)and(8) ~ inversionanalysiswouldbehighlyartifieial sineetheeorrespondingnon-invertedeonstructionsdonot oeeur.In(4)and(7)thenon-invertedconstructionsare possiblealthoughextremelyrare.Thisstronglysuggeststhat thetopicpositionshouldbeeonsideredanoptionalconstituent ofbasicelausestructureinTagalogratherthantheoutputof someBortofmovementrule.Seeond,thepredicationbaseisnot , anobligatorypartofaTagalogclausebutmayremain unexpressedifit isreGoverablefromthecontext:15 (10)d-um-atingangaswang,um-akyatsaisa REAL.ACT-arriveREFvampireREAL.ACT-climbLOCone puno-ng-suha',atna-rinigniya-ng tree-LK-grapefruitandREAL.STAT-hear3.SG.GEN-LK p-um-itasngmarami-ngbunga(BI36/34) REAL.ACT-pickGENmany-LKfruit ' thevampirecameandclimbedonagrape-fruittree,and he[i.e.,apoliceman]heardit pickingmanyfruits.' Here,boththepredieatesumakyatandpumitas(moreprecisely, thisisacomplexpredicatenarinignapumi tas'beheard picking')lacktheexpressionofapredicationbase.The , vampire(angaswang) ,whichtheisthe'subject'ofthese predications,isnotanaphorieallyreferredtobyapronounin theseelauses.Anotherexample,involvinganentityexpression asapredicate,is: 15Ofcourse,therearec1ausetypesinTagalogwhichneverinve1ve predicationbases,forexample ,existentialclausessuchasmay-roonding ila - ngbahaynatabla'therewerealsosemeframehouses'(Bl34/37).Here weareonlyconcernedwithclauseswhereapredicationcanbeexpected . - 13-(11)anghitsurangkulamayhindi' REFappearanceGENPMNEG pare-pareho. RDP3-same Kung if minsanayisa-ngbat60isa-ngmanika(Bl40/13) oncePMone-LKstone . orone-LKdoll 'Theappearanceofthekulamisnotalwaysthesame. Sometimes(it)isastoneorasmalldoll... ' ThiskindofzeroanaphoraisquitecommoninTagalogtextsand providesindependentevidencefortheclaimthatthe predicationbaseinaTagalogclausemayoptionallyremain unexpressed.Giventhisfactandthefactthattopicsshould notbeanalysedasinvertedorextractedconstituents,themost simpleandeconomicalanalysisofclausessuchas(1b)liesin assumingthattheycontainatopicconstituentandthattheco- predicationbaseremainsunexpressed.16 Letussummarize: therearebothtopicsandpredicationbasesinTagalog clauses .Bothhavetobeconfigurationallydefined(in termsoforderingbe foreandafterthepredicate). neithertopicsnorpredicationbasesareobligatorily expressedineveryclause. thereisnoone-to-onecorrespondencebetween morphosyntacticfunctionandmorphologicalmarking .Though predicationbasesareobligatorilymarkedbyang,ang-phrasesmayaisofunctionastopics(1b,9)andpredicates (3) . Theanalysismaybeillustratedmoreschematicallywiththe helpofthefollowingformulas.17 Optionalconstituentsare giveninparentheses: 16McGinn(1988:278)proposesasomewhatsimilaranalysiswithintheGB frameworkwhichalsoinvolvesellipsis.Inhisanalysis,however,the functionsareassignedexactlyoppositetothewayitisdonehere(andhas beendoneinmostprecedinganalyses).ang-phrasesprecedingthepredicate areconsideredproperlygovernedsubjects(aybeingthegovernor),andang-phrasesfollowingthepredicateareconsideredinvertedsUbjects .Asfaras Icansee,examplesinvolvingtwoang-phrases(suchas(9cannotbe adequatelydealtwithinthisanalysis. 17Theseformulasarenottobemisunderstoodasaproposalconcerningthe formalizationofTagalogclausestructure! - 1 4-I.Tagalogclausestructure (TOPICay)PREDICATE(PREDICATIONBASE)(OBLIQUE) Theinternalstructureofeachoftheseconstituentsis basicallythesame.Inmostcasesthereisanobligatory functionmarker,followedbyafullword18 whichmayb ~modifiedfurtherbynon-referentialmodifiers(whichare linked),genitivesand/orobliques. II.Tagalogphrasestructure FUNCTIONMARKERFULLWORD(MODIFIER(S(GENITIVE(S(OBLIQUE(S Thisstructureofthephrase,ofcourse,alsoappliesto genitivesandobliques.Example(1a)thusconsistsofa predicatephraseandapredicaMonbase.Thepredicatephrase inturncons,istsofafullword t h ~ eventexpressioniniab6t) , agenitive(ngmanggagamot)andanoblique(sasundalo).There isnofunct {onmarkerforthispredicatephrase.The predicationbaseconsistsofanobligatoryfunctionmarker (ang)andafullword(i t16g) Thefollowingcorrespondencesholdbetweenmorphosyntactic functionsandfunctionmarkers(inthecaseseveralmarkersmay , beusedinagivenmorphosyntacticfunction,theyarelistedin theorderoft 'he'irrelativefrequency): III.Morphosyntacticfunctionsandfunctionmarkers: TOPIC: PREDICATE: PREDICATIONBASE : OBLIQUE: GENITIVE: MODIFIER: sa,ang,(Iif) ld',ang,sa ang sa ng na/-ng 18Theidentificationanddefinitionofphrasa1headsisextreme1y difficultinmOdifying(1inked)constructions.SinceIdonotwanttoe'nter intoalengthydiscussionofthisissueatthispoint,Irefrainfrom identifyingaphrasalheadinthisformula.Inthepresentanalysis,there is00needforadistinctionbetweennounphrasesandverbphrasesin Tagalogwhichisthereasonthetermfullwordisusedintheformula ratherthanthemorecommontermsnounorverb. - 15-2.3.Thefunctionofang Thefollowingtableliststhefunctionsoftheang-phrasesin theBloomfieldtexts: IV.FunctionsoEang-phrases>nBloomEieldtexts TOPlC PREDlCATlONBASE

REST TOTAL 458 693 31 37 1219 Thesenumbersclearlysupporttheclaimmadeabovethatang doesnotmarkamorphosyntacticfunction.Giventhisfact,the questionarisesastowhatthefunctionofangisoInthe literatureit isoftenclaimedthatangphrasesarenecessarily definite.This,however,isnottrue,asshownbythefollowing example: (12)a)do6nayna-kitanilangisa-ng DEM.LOePMREAL.STAT-see3.PL.GENREFone-LK ma-Iaki-nghigante(BI32/31) IRR.STAT-big-LKgiant 'Theretheysawagreatgiant Infact,ang-phrasesarealwaysreferential,buttheymay involveallkindsofreferentiality(definite,indefinite, generic:fordetailsseeAdams& Manaster-Ramer1988).Thus, notdefinitenessbutreferentialityistherelevantparameter here.Thisclaimcanbefurthersupportedbylookingbackto example(3)whereanang-phrasefunctionsasthepredicate.If angmarks thisclaus6shouldinvolvetwo referentialexpressions,andthepredicationshouldbeacase ofanidentificational20 predication(thethe-murderer-is-the-19Thisincludescaseswhereang'phrasesappearintitles(21times)which maybeconsideredaspecialcaseofthetopicfunction .Furthermore,it includestheuseofangintermsofaddresssuchasangiyopO'ngkamahalan 'YourMajesty'(BI26/23)andafewmorecomplexconstructions,cf.,for example,BI28/10or56/19andBI46/37. 20Theterminologyforclausesinvolvingnominaloradjectivalpredicates (e.g.,Johnisateacher,Thewallisgreen)isquitevariedandthus highlyconfusing(seeDeclerk(1988:lff)forabriefsurvey).Following Schachter& Otanes'(1972:61)usageforTagalog ,Iwilluseequational clause(ratherthancopularornominalclause)asacoverterm.Onemajor subgroupofequationalclausesareclausesassertingtheidentitybetween , . - 1 6-gardenertype)_Furthermore,itshouldbepossibletodropthe angofthepredicateexpression,andtheresultingclause shouldinvolveacharacterizationalpredication(thegardener isa murderer)_Thisis,infact,thecase:mgabuh6klamang angpinuputolngpatalimmeans'thatbeingcutbytheblade (was)onlyhair'_Whilein(3)angmgabuh6kreferstothe specificha.irofoneoftheprotagonistsofthestory,mga buh6kintheprecedingclausespecifiesthekindofobjectthat isbeingcut.Allinstancesofang-phrasesfunctioningas predicatesknowntomecanbeexplainedwiththehelpofthis analysis(for. furtherdiscussion,seedeGuzman1982).Tosum up,wemaystatethatthefunctionofangisbasicallysimilar tothatofanarticle(asassumedbytraditionalgrammar,cf. Blake1925: 205f).Thisisalso- shownbythefactthatangmay bemissingfromphrasesinwhichtheang-formofoneofthe demonstrative'pronounsprecedesotherfullwordsasin: (12)b)kungiyo-ngda-dalh-inito-ngsupotko if2.SG. DAT-LKRDP1-carry-UGDEM-LKbag1.SG.GEN ngkuwaltasaakingasawa(Bl34/4) GENmoneyLOe1.SG.DAT:LKspouse 'Ifyouwillcarrythisbagofmoneyofminetomy wife' Strictlyspeaking,however,i tisnotadefinitearticle,but, moregenerally ,areferencemarker(REF).Asopposedtongand sa,angthenisnotacasemarker. 3_Syntacticcategories Ithaslongbeenrecognisedthatthedistinctionofmajor syntacticcategories(orpartsofspeech)inPhilippine languagesisdifferentfromthatfoundinotherlanguages.The majorconcernhasbeenwiththedistinctionbetweennounsand tworeferentialexpressions.The searecalledidentificationalclauses(de Guzman1982andStarostaetal.1982 : 150usethesameterm,Declerkuses specificational).Theothermajorsubgroupofequationalclausesinwhich thereferentofthesubjectexpressionisfurthercharacterizedbythe predicateexpression(byascribingsomepropertytoitorspecifyingits classmembership')arecalledcharacterizational(Starostaetal.' s descriptive,Declerk'spredicational)clauses.Clausesinvolvingverbal predicates(callednarrationalbySchachter& Otanes(loc .cit.are simp1ytermedverbalclauses. - 1 7-verbs,21andtheclaimhasoftenbeenmadethatPhilippine verbsareactuallynouns .Traditionally,thisclaimhasbeen restrictedtoundergoer-orientatedeventexpressions(the various'passives') .Themajorevidenceadducedwasthefact thatintheseconstructionstheexpressionfortheagentis identicaltothatofapossessor(i.e.it appearsinang-phrase,seeexamples(1a),(6),(8)}. 22Schachter&Otanes (1972:62)claimthat'Tagalogverbsandverbphrasesare... muchmorenoun-likethantheirEnglishcounterparts' .This claimreferstoallkindsof'verbs'andisbasedon distributionalevidence :'thereisvirtuallynocontextin whichanounoccursinwhichit cannotbereplacedbyaverbor verbphrase'.Theyneverthelessdistinguishbetweennounsand verbsintheirTagaloggrammar,primarilybecause,intheir view,verbsareinflectedforaspect(1972:65).Starostaetal. (1982:146f)brieflydiscussandrefutesomeofthearguments againstthesupposedlynominalcharacterofPhilippine'verbs'. Intheirview,Philippine'verbs'historicallywerenounswhich werelaterreinterpretedasverbsbutwhichretainedastrong nominalcharacter(1982:158ff).Themainevidenceforsucha reinterpretationisthepositionofthesubject(predication base)wewillsaymoreaboutthisinsect.6.Themost radicalstandinthisdebateistakenbyLemarechal(1982)who claimsthatnodistinctionofmajorsyntacticcategoriesin Tagalogispossible(andnecessary);therearejustfullwords (whichhecallssuperpartiedudiscours).Again,hisevidence isdistributional,i.e .everyfullwordcanoccurinevery majormorphosyntacticfunction. 21Inthispaperwewillbeconcernedwiththedistinctionbetweenonly nounsandverbs.Butregardingtheothermajorsyntacticcategory , adjectives(andadverbs),thesameclaimcanbemadeandsubstantiated:the evidenceforsuchacategoryismarginal,thereisnone edtomakeuseof itinanalyzingTagalogmorphosyntax. 22 ,The ' mostelaborateaccountofthisclaimisCapell(1964)wherethe earlierliteratureisbrieflyreviewed.Notethattheclaimhasalong traditioninAustronesianstudies,particularlyinearlyDutchworkon WesternAustronesianlanguages.Forabriefdiscussionandreferences,see Milner(1980). - 18-ThereisnoneedtoreviewallofLemarechal'sevidence here.Thefollowingobservationsmaysufficetosupporthis (and, ' somewhatmorecautiouslyphrased,Schachter& otanes') claimwithrespecttothedistributionoffullwords.Inthe precedingsections,sixbasicmorphosyntacticfunctionsina Tagalogclausewereidentified.Insection2.2thefunctions predicate,predicationbase,andtopicweredefined.Insection 2.1it wasbrieflymentionedthattherearethreefurtherbasic functions :genitive(orreferential)attributes(markedbyng), non-referentialmod'ifiers(markedbythethelinkernaj-ng) , andobliquecomplements(markedbysaandvariousmorecomplex prepositions.allof ' whichinvolvesa).Thefactthatentity expressions- words "whichpotentiallymaybeclassifiedas nouns- fnrtherderivation)inallsixfunctions isevidentfrom presentedthusfar(example(2) involvesthelinker"(11)exemplifiesthepredicatefunction). r The.factthatthere-.isnocopulainTagalogisofmajor importanceinthissincethepresenceofacopula distinguishesverbalfromnominalpredicatesinmany languages .23 In theevidenceforeventexpressionswe willlimitthediscussiontothesupposedlyhardestcase,that ..a...-- '*-.-is,aspectuallyinflectedformsappearinginpresumablynominal functions(forexample,asobliquecomplements;recallthat aspectualinflectionhasbeenproposedasadefiningfeature forverbsbySchachter& otanes).WithSchachter& otanes' (1972 : 66f)aspectterminologyinmind,notethatin(3)an IMPERFECTIVEform(pinuputol)appearsasthepredicationbase;in (1b)acontemplatedform(sasabihin)appearsasagenitive attribute .InthefollowingexamplewefindanIMPERFECTIVEform (pinatutunguhan)asalocativecomplement: 23Notethatthereisalsonodistinctionwithregardtonegation,ascan befound,forexample,inIndonesianwherebukanmayservetodistinguish nominalfromverbal(andadjectival)predicates(negatedbytidak). - 19-(13)na-ka-tanawsiyangbahaynama-ilaw REAL.STAT-??-visible3 . SGGENhouseLKIRR.STAT-light sap-in-a-tu-tunguh-anngkalabaw LOCCAUS-REAL(UG)-RDP1-gotowards-UGi GENwaterbuffalo 'hesawalightedhouseinthedirectiontowardwhichthe caribouwasgoing.'(Bl72/6) Althoughexamplessuchas(13)arerare,aspectuallyinflected formsinang-phrases(functioningaspredicationbasesoras topics)and,toalesserextent,ng-phrasesareverycommon. Intheliteratureit isoftenimpliedthatthefunction markersang,ng,andsahaveanominalisingfunctioninthe examplesinvolving(inflected)eventexpressions(cf.,for example,Schachter& Otanes(1972:150ff.Butthisisanad hocexplanationforwhichnoevidencecanbeadduced.Thereis nodifferencebetweenang-,ng- orsa-phrasescontaining (uninflected)entityexpressionsandthosecontainingevent expressions.Rather,thedistributionalfactsjustmentioned suggestthefollowinginterpretation:thecross-linguistically well-supportedobservationthatentityexpressionsinthe unmarkedcasehaveareferentialfunctionwhileevent expressionsintheunmarkedcaseareusedaspredicatesdoes notholdinTagalag.24 Fullwordsdonotdifferinmarkedness withrespecttomorphosyntacticfunction.Everyfullwordthat servesareferentialfunctionhastobemarkedbyoneofthe prepositivemarkersang,ngorsa.Thus,thesethreefunction markershave,notanominalising,butareferentializing function;inturneveryTagalogfullword,includingentity expressions,mustbemarkedbyoneofthesethreemarkersin ordertoserveasreferentialexpressions.Similarly,every fullwordmaybeusedwithoutfurthermarkingasa (characterizational)predicate.Therefore,Tagalogfullwords areneithertrulynounsnortrulyverbs.Theyseemtobe precategorial,asclaimedpyFoley(1991:5f).Helimitsthis 24Thepresentargumentisphrasedintheframeworkandtermin010gyof Croft(1991chapters2and3,cf.especia11yp#62ff;notethatinsteadof entityandeventheusesobjectandaction);theargumentdoesnot, however,dependonthisframeworkbutmaybeexpressedwi thinanyframework thatpropos esacross-1inguisticdefinitionofnounsandverbs. -20-claim,however,tobaseforms,whilehe retheclaimismadefor allfullwords,includingorientatedones.Notethatthis phrasingismorepreciseandlesspronetomisinterpretations thansuchsweepingstatementsas'allverbsinlanguageXare actuallynouns'.AspointedoutbyWalter(1981)andHopper& Thompson(1984),nounandverbarecorrelativeconcepts;the degreetowhichtheyaredistinguishedassuchmaybeplotted onacontinuumrangingfrompre- (ora-)categorialitytofully implementednoun/verbhood.Toputit differently,wherethere arenonounstherecanalsobenoverbs.Totalkaboutthe 'nominal'characterofverbsinagivenlanguageisa potentiallymisleadingshortcuttosayingthatexpressionsthat aresemanticallysimilartoverbsinIndo-Europeanlanguages displaymorphosyntacticproperties -cornrnontoIndo-European nouns.Whatisnecessaryinthissituationisnotthe impressionisticlabel'nominalcharacter'butacareful investigationofcategoriality. What,then,isimpliedbytheclaimthatTagalogfullwords areprecategorial?Basically,therearetwopropertiesofnouns andverbswhichTagalogfullwordslack:ontheonehand,they lacktheinherentreferentialitycharacteristicofnouns,hence thepervasiveuseofmarkersforreferentialitywhichisa majorcharacteristicofTagalogclauses.Ontheotherhand, theylackaprop.ertyinherenttoverbs,onehoweverwhichis somewllatmoredifficul ttodetermine.Themaj orfunctionof verbsistopredicate(cf.Croftloc.cit.).Tagalogfullwords maybeusedinthisfunctionwithoutrequiringfurther function-markingmorphologycharacterizational)predicatesin Tagalogareunmarked);thusit maybehypothesizedthatTagalog fullwordsareinherentlypredicative.Theyareunlikeverbal predicates,however,inthattheyseemtolackmorphosyntactic relationality(orvalency).Thus,Tagalogfullwords,including eV'entexpressions,donothaveaninherentargumentstructure (seeagainFoley(loc.cit)).Thishypothesisissupportedby thefOllowingfacts: - 21-'arguments'maybefreelyomittedinTagalog .25 Any Tagalogtextwillprovidenumerousexamplesforthisclaim. assumingTagalogeventexpressionswereinherently relational,it wouldbedifficulttoexplainwhytheymay occurunalteredinreferentialfunction.Englishverbal predicatessuchascuts,isjwasbeingcut,etc.maynotbe usedasnominals(*ajtheisbeingcut)whilethisis perfectlypossiblewiththecorrespondingTagalog expressions(cf.(3)above). Foley(1991:8f)notesthattheTagalogorientation morphologydoesnotallowdifferentiationofargumentsfrom non-arguments.Instead,orientationmaytakeplacewith regardtopracticallyanyargumentrole.Ifarguments cannotbedistinguishedfromnon-arguments,theassumption ofaninherentargumentstructuremakesnosense. thishypothesisprovidesanaturalexplanationforthe factthatallargumentsofaTagalogeventexpression (apartfromthepredicationbase)aremarkedaseither genitiveattributes(ng)orobliquecomplements(sa).In thisregardtheyresemblecertainEnglishnominalisations (viz.thegivingofanappletoMarybyPeterinmy backyard). NotethatthehypothesisthatTagalogeventexpressionslack inherentmorphosyntacticrelationalitydoesnotmeanthatthey arenotsemanticallyrelational.Ofcourse,alexemesuchas bigay'give'semanticallyevokesaframewhichpossibly includesanagentwhodoesthegiving,thethinggiven,the persontowhomsomethingisgiven,theplacewherethegiving happens,theinstrumentwithwhichsomethingisgiven,etc.-justasitsEnglishequivalent.ButtheEnglishequivalentis differentinthatsomeofthe ' argumentsarenotmerely semanticallyevoked;rather ctheslotsforagent,themeandgoal arepartoftheinherentargumentstructureoftheEnglish lexeme,whichisevidentfromthefactthatintheunmarked 25cf,McGinn(1988:276)whoalsopointsoutthatinthisrespect,Tagalog resemblesJapaneseratherthanapro-droplanguageoftheItaliantype (p291,endnote1) , -22-casetheyareobligatorilyexpressedandthattheyare expressedascorearguments(subject,directandindirect object)_Thedifferencebetweeninherentmorphosyntactic relationalityandsemanticrelationalitymayalsobe illustratedbyEnglishnominalisations:Asopposedtotheverb 'give'theactionnominalisation'giving'doesnotobligatorily requiretheexpressionofanargumentthough,ofcourse,it is possibletoexpressthem.Iftheyareexpressed;theyare expressedintheformofadnominalmodifiers(genitives)or prepositional.complements(Peter' Sgivingofanappleto Mary).26Thus"theframewhichissemanticallyevokedbythe verb'give'andthenominalisation'giving'isthesame,but thewayinwhichthesemanticallyevokedargumentsarerealized morphosyntacticallyisdistinctly-different.Nominalisationis, ,. ofcourse,acomplexissue(seeComrie& Thompson(1985)fora cross-linguisticreviewofthephenomenaandSpencer(1991 chapters6-8)forareviewofthetheoreticalissuesinvolved) . Noteinparticularthatwearenotconcernedherewiththe intricaciesofargumentinheritance.Whatisofinteresthere isonlythefactthatthemorphosyntacticstatusofthe argumentsofverbsisdifferentfromthemorphosyntacticstatus ofthe'arguments'ofnominalisations,andthatTagalogfull wordsmorecloselyresemblethelatterthantheformerinthis regard. Sineethedistinctionbetweeninherentmorphosyntactic relationalityandsemanticrelationality27willbeimportant throughoutthispaperletusintroducethefollowing 26Forthesakeofourargumentwewillabstractfromthefactthat n g ~ i s hgerundformationsalsoallowfora'verbalway'ofexpressingthearguments (PetergivinganappletoMary). 27Thisdistinctionissimilartothedistinctionbetweenargument structureandlexicalsemantic(orconceptual)structureproposedin variousgenerativeframeworks(cf.,amongothers,Jackendoff(1990), Grimshaw(1990),Lefebvre(1991:44f),Spencer(199l:342f.However,the conceptualstructuresintheseframeworksarefairlyclosetoargument structureandtheyinvolvecompositionalrepresentationsofthemeanings denotedbyaneventexpression .Semanticrelationality hereistobe understoodinabroadersense,i . e.astheeventframeorsceneevokedby aneventexpreBsionwhichincludesnotonlythosepart"icipantsa compositionalrepresentationprovidesslotsfor,butinsteadincludesany imaginableparticipantandtheplacewhereaneventhappens. -23-terminologicalconventions:Thetermargumentwillbelimited toargumentsthatfillslotsprovidedbyamorphosyntactically relationalexpression(i.e.thataregovernedbyaverb/are partoftheinherentargumentstructure) .'Arguments'thatare merelyevokedsemanticallyarecalledparticipants.Theconcept ofsemanticevocationneedstobefurtherrefined,since,as willbeseenbelow,notallparticipantsinTagalogdisplay exactlythesamemorphosyntacticproperties.Thatis,the expressionofparticipantsasgenitiveattributesorobliques isnotarbitrarybutislinkedtothesemanticrolestheyplay inthee ventexpressed(thesameholdsforparticipantsin actionnominalisations) .Asaconsequnceofthis,itis possibleinTagalogtodifferentiatebetweencentraland peripheral(orcoreandnon-core)participants.Thisinturn meansthatthedistinctionbetweenmorphosyntacticandsemantic relationalityreferredtointheprecedingparagraphsisnot absoluteandthatthereisnosuchthingaspuresemantic relationality.Putdifferently,thedifferencebetweenan EnglishverbandaTagalogeventexpressionis,strictly speaking,notthefactthattheformerismorphosyntactically relationalandthelatternot;rather,argumentstructureis grammaticalizedinEnglishtoahigherdegreethaninTagalog. Wewillreturntothispointinsections5and6 .Forthetime being,however,wewillcontinuetorefertotheoversimplified two-waydistinctionmorphosyntacticvs.semanticrelationality. Tosumup:Tagalogfullwordsareinherentlypredicative, butunlikeverbalpredicatestheylackaninherentargument structure.Thustheymostcloselyresemble(characterizational) nominalpredicates(isastonejathingbeingcut),whichare bothnon-referentialandpredicativebutmorphosyntactically non-relational .Thischaracterizationholdsforbothentityand eventexpressions(and,thoughnotdiscussedhere,property expressions)sincetheysharethesame properties . Severalpointshavetobeaddedtothisdiscussionof categorialityinTagalog : -24-First,notethatitisnotclaimedthatfurthermorphosyntactic subclassificationofTagalogfullwordsisimpossible;rather itisclaimedthataclassificationintomajorsyntactic categoriesisimpossible.Alow-levelclassificationisboth necessaryandpossibl,e.Twoexamplesmaysufficeas illustrations.Oneexamplearepropernounswhichobviously formasubclassoftheirownsincetheyrequireadifferentset ofprepositive,markers(si,ni,kayinsteadofang,ng,sa)and allowforaplMralformationthatisuniquebothformallyand semantically(seeSchachter& Otanes(1972:93f,113).Another exampleis groupofauxiliariesorpseudo-verbsmeaning 'like','want '"'can',etc.,whosedistributionandmorphology clearlysetthemapartfromallotherfullwords,eventhough theymayalsoappear- :rnthesixmajorslotsdiscussedabove (cf.Schachter& Otanes(1972:261ff)). Second,wehavediscussedcategorialityonlywithrespectto function(asreflectedindistribution).Thus thereisstillthepossibilitythatTagalogfullwordsmaybe classifiedintomajorsubclassesonpurelymorphological grounds(theresultbeingmorphologicalcategoriesratherthan syntacticones,thoughJhelabelswouldbethesame(noun, verb,etc.)).Thisisnottheplacetopursuethispoint further(seeHimmelmann(1987:78ff)formoredetails),though itseemsreasonablysafetopredictthattheresultwouldbe similartotha tobt'ainedhere. - Themajorparameteris compatibilitywiththeorientationalaffixes(towhichthe aspectualinflectionisinherentlylinked,seebelow).Ascan beeasilygleanedfromthemajorgrammars(Bloomfield1917, Blake1925,Schachter& Otanes1972)anddictionaries (Panganiban(1972),Santos(1983)),thereisnoorientational affixwhichiscompatiblewithalleventexpressions.Asfor entityexpressions,thereareonlyveryfewwhichare incompatiblewithorientationalaffixes.Theorientational possibilitiesofexpressionsforanimateandhumanbeingsare themostlimited,thoughevenhe rewefindformationssuchas langgam-in'infestedwithants'langgam'ant')orma-lalakih-an'subjugatedbysomeone'svigorousmanliness'ormag--25-lalaki'actlikeaman'lalaki'man,male'). Third,wehavenotclaimedthatTagalogfullwordsmaynotbe semanticallyclassifiedintomajorlexicalsemanticclasses (using,forexample,thecriteriaproposedbyCroft (1991:62ff.Giventheappropriatequalifications,thesemight alsobelabelednoun,verb,etc.,thoughinthispaperthe labelsentity,event,etc.arepreferredinordertounderscore thesemanticnatureoftheclassification.Thereisnodoubt thateventandentityexpressionsaresemanticallydistinctin Tagalog:bat6clearlydenotestheobject'stone',whilelakad clearlydenotestheactionofwalking.Moreimportantly,the distinctionbetweenthesetwokindsofexpressionsisoften formallymarked(bystress),i.e.it isgrammaticallyrelevant. Asanexamplenotethatmanggagamot'doctor'in(1a)is segmentallyidenticaltomanggagamot'willheal,heal habitually'.Botharederivedfromthebasegamot'medicine' andbotharesemanticallycloselyrelated(adoctoris obviouslyonewhohabituallyheals).Thesemanticdifference expressedbythedifferentstresspatternsshowsthatthe formerunambiguouslydenotesanobject(aperson)whilethe latterdenotesanaction .Thisandvariousothersimilar patternsarehighlyproductiveinTagalog .Theproblemof categorialityinTagalogisthereforesomewhatmorecomplex thanhasbeenpresentedintheprecedingparagraphs.The distinctionbetweeneventandentityexpressionsisnota purelysemanticonebuthassomeformal(suprasegmental) correlates.Note,however,thatitisstillvalidtoclaimthat thedistinctionisnotrelevantmorphosyntactically. 4.Orientation Tagalogeventexpressionsusuallydisplayanaffixthat indicatesthesemanticroleofoneoftheparticipantsinvolved inthestateofaffairsdenotedbytheeventexpression.Using thetermsforsemanticmacro-rolesintroducedbyFoley& van Valin(1984:27-32),theseaffixesareglossedasACTOR(ACT)or UNDERGOER(UG,plussubscriptswhichareexplainedbelow)inthe presentpaper.Thefollowingexamplesillustratethebasicfour - 26-affixes : ( 1 4)t-um-ang6'angungg6'(Bl16/6) ACT - nodREFmonkey 'themonkeynoddedinassent' (15)dikdik-insiyasalus6ng(Bl16/27) crush-UG3.SGLOCmortar '(that)he(i.e .theturtle)becrushedinamortar' (16)hulug-anmoak6!(Bl16/17) drop-UGi 2.SG.GEN1.SG 'dropme(sorne)!' (17)kungi-ta-tanimniyaangkaniya-ngka-parte ifUGT-RDP1-plant3.SG.GENREF3.SG.DAT-LKASSOC - part 'ifhewouldplanthispart(forhirn)'(Bl16/6) Intheseexamples,theaffixesindicatethesemanticroleof thereferentwhichappearsintheang: phrase(siyain(14)and ak6in(15)areang-formsofthepronoun).Thus,theinfix-um-in( 14)indicatesthatit isthemonkeywhodoesthenodding, andin(15)thesuffix-inindicatesthattheturtleistobe theUNDERGOERofthecrushing(ratherthantheACrOR). Asalreadyindicatedinsection1,thegrammarofthese affixesishighlycontroversial.Apartfromthecentraipoint whetherorientationmarkingisavoicephenomenonornot,the followinginterrelatedproblemsareinvolved: thenatureoftherelationbetweenthepredicationbase andtheorientationaffixesisunclear .Mostanalyses, however,agreeinassumingaspecialrelationbetweenthe predicationbaseandtheorientationaffix(see4.1) . areorientationaffixesinflectionalaffixesor derivationalones ?AlthoughweagreewithBybee(1985 chapt .4)thatthereisnoclearandabsoluteborder beb.eeninflectionandde.rivation,itisnevertheless importantfortheunderstandingofagivenaffixation processwhetheritislocatedclosertooneortheother endofthecontinuum.Theissuehashardlyeverbeen explicitlydiscussedwithrespecttoTagalogorientation affi xes.AnotableexceptionisdeGuzman(1978,seealso 1991),whowasthefirsttoquestionthetraditional -27-inflectionaltreatmentandtoproposeacleardistinction betweenwhatisinflectionalandwhatisderivationalin orientationmarking.Thepresentaccountradicalisesher positionbyclaimingthatallorientationmarkingis derivationalratherthaninflectional(forasimilar position,seeStarosta1986andendnote4indeGuzman (1991:46)28,Foley1991) . thenumberofaffixesordistinctly-codedsemanticroles variessubstantially:Thetraditionalapproachrecognized fourbasicformations(oneactiveandthreepassives,cf. Blake1906and1925 : 38ff;Bloomfield(1917 : 154);Scheerer (1924);Lopez(1937:46-48);Llamzon(1973: 169;1976:89). Wolfenden(1961: 14-16),Ramos(1971:21-23,56-69),and Foley(1976:105-113)claimthattherearefivebasic formations;McFarland(1976:16-24)proposesseven,de Guzman(1978eh .111)andRamos(1974:19-40)eight, Schachter& Otanes(1972:344)eleven,andfinallyDrossard (1983:87f,1984:86)twelve. 4.1.Thenatureoforientationmarking Thewayourexamples(14-17)havebeenpresentedsuggeststhat amajorrelationexistsbetweenorientationalaffixesandthe predicationbase.Manyproposalshavebeenofferedastothe natureofthisrelation:thattheorientationalaffix highlightsorfocusesonthepredicationbase,thatit determinesthesemanticrelationshipbetweenpredicateand predicationbase,thatitexpressesthecaseofthepredication base,etc.Thus,mostapproachesattributesomekindof relationalqualitytotheorientationalaffixes.Thatthese approachesallheadinthewrongdirectionisevidentfromthe followingfact:Althoughorientatedwordsoccurmostcommonly inpredicativefunction,theyarenotatallrestrictedtothis functionbutoccurinsteadinallthefunctionsavailableto fullwordsinTagalog(seesection3).Inexamplessuchasthe followingitisimpossibletoidentifyapredicationbasefor 28IagreewithdeGuzman ' spointthataspectinTagalogshouldbe consideredaninflectionalcategory. -28-nagsasabuy: (18)athulih-inangnag-sa-sabuysakanya andeateh-UGREFREAL.ACT:GER-RDP1-spatterLOC3.SG.DAT ngbuhangin(BI68/8) GENsand 'andeatehtheonewhowasthrowingsandonhirn Inthisexample,therearetwoorientatedeventexpressions (hulihinandnagsasabuy) ,butthereisapredieationbasefor onlyone(hulihin).Notethatthisisnotaeaseofellipsis; inprineiple,it isimpossibletointrodueeapredieationbase fornagsasabuy.Instead,nagsasabuyispartofthedefinite deseriptionthatfunetionsaspredieationbaseforhulihin.Let usemphasizeoneemorethatthiskindofeonstruetionisquite eommoninTagalogtexts;it isnotamarginalandhighlymarked construction.Therefore,anyattempttogivearelational analysisoforientationmarking,i.e.onethatreferstothe predieationbase,isdoomedtofail.Inexamplessuchas(14-17)thereisnospecialrelationbetweenthepredicationbase andtheorientationaffix.Thereisonlythepredicative relationbetween ' predicationbaseandpredicatethatholdsin anyTagalogclause.Thispredicativerelationisnotdependent ontheorientationaffixbutpertainstostructuralpositions inTagalog(seesection2.2) .Thus,it seemsmorepromisingto investigateorientationmarkinginmorelocalterms,i.e.in relationtothebasestowhichtheaffixesareapplied. It hasbeensuggestedthatorientationaffixesare functionallysimilartonominalisingaffixesinotherlanguages (cf.- amongmanyothers- Starostaetal.(1982:147f.Te callthemnominalisingaffixes,however,isnotveryrevealing aslengasit remainsunexplainedwhyinalanguagesuchas Tagalogtheoverwhelmingmajorityofpredicatesappearsina 'nominalised'form.Furthermore,itisnecessarytodelimit morepreciselythederivationalprocessinvolvedsincemany differentnominalisationstrategiesarefoundinthelanguages oftheworld.Inparticular,it isnecessarytodistinguish betweenthemorphosyntacticandthesemanticaspectsinvolved -29-innominalisations(seesect.3above) . Asformorphosyntax,thetermnominalisationimpliesa changewithregardtothepartofspeechofagivenitem:A verbisturnedintoanounandthismeansthatthemorpho-syntacticpropertiesoftheword(itsdistribution,affixation, etc.)change.Insection3it wasshownthatthereisno morphosyntacticallyrelevantdistinctionbetweennounsand verbsinTagalog.Thus,tocallorientationaffixes nominalisingaffixesseemsmisleadingsinceitcannotbeshown thatthereareanyverbstobeginwith. Thereis,however,asimilaritytothesemanticsideof certainnominalisingstrategies.Orientationaffixeschangethe orientationofagivenwordinsuchawaythatit maybeused torefertooneoftheparticipantsinvolvedinthestateof affairsdenotedbythebase-formoftheword.Forexample,-um-isanACT-orientatinginfixwhichisusedtoderivefromaroot suchastang6''nod,nodding~ assent'theexpressiontumang6' 'onewhonods,nodder'.Thisexpressionnolongerdenotesthe actionofnodding,butrathertheparticipantwhonods. Inthisregardtheorientationaffixesarefunctionally similartothoseaffixesinotherlanguages(includingIndo-European)whichareusedtoformagentivenouns(nomina agentis),objectivenouns(nominaacti(patientis,locative nouns(nominaloci),instrumentalnouns(nominainstrumenti), etc.Lehmann(1984:151f),whointroducedthetermorientation ('Ausrichtung')forthisprocess,characterizesitinthe followingway:Therearetwomajortypesofnominalisation strategiesinmanylanguagesoftheworld.29 Inoneofthese types,resultinginactionnominals(nominaactionis),thecore 29Comrie& Thompson(1985:349ff)proposethesamedistinctionbetween nominalisationsthatresultinthenameoftheactivit ydenotedbytheverb andthosethatrepres entoneoftheargumentsoftheunde rlyingverb.Note aga inthatthefollowingdiscussionofnominalisationisextremelybrief andsurfaceoriented.Itspurposeistopointoutthesimilaritybetween nominalisationinEnglishandorientationmarkinginTaga log.Althoughthe Tagalogdata,ifanalysedthewayithasbeendonehe re.areof considerableimportanceforthelivelydebateconcerningthenatureof nominalisationand,consequently,theinterfacebetweens yntaxand morphology,itisnotthepurposeofthispapertosupportoradvanceany particulartheoryinthisregard. -30-argumentsoftheformerverbmaystillbeaddedasadnominal modifiers,asinPeter'semployingof mybrother.Herethe nominalisedverb(employing)simplydenotesastateofaffairs andimpliesnoorientation.Intheothernominalisation strategyorientationisinvolved:theexpressionforthestate ofaffairsactuallydenotesoneoftheparticipantsinvolvedin theprocessofemploying,e.g.employerwhichinvolves orientationtowardstheACTOR(nomenagentis).Asaresult,the ACToR-argument.oftheverbemploycannolongerbeaddedasan adnominalmodifier,i.e.Peter'semployercannotmeanthat Peterwasthe. agentoftheemploying.Inordertoexpressthis (withthenominalisedform),onewouldhavetousean equationalconstructionsuchasPeteristheemployerofmy , brothe.r.Notethatthesameconstructionisimpossiblewi th nominaactionis(*peteristheemployingof mybrother) .Thus, thetwonominalisationstrategiesdifferinthewaytheydeal withtheargumentslotsoftheunderlyingverb.Theformer basicallyleavesthemuntouched,whilethelatterallowsoneof theargumentslotstobefilledbytheorientationaffixandno longerbyanadnominalexpression.3D Notethatthisdifference pertainstothesemanticrelationalityoftheitemsinvolved; morphosyntactically- andthispertainstobothstrategies-thenominalisedformsnolongerhaveargumentslotsthathave tobefilledobligatorily.Bakingisnotoneofmyfavorite activitiesisawell-formedexpression,whilebakesthatbananil cakeis,asitstands,incomplete. InTagalogwefindtwoderivationalstrategieswhich displayexactlythesameproperties: 1)Orientationaffixesareusedtoderiveorientated expressionsfromagivenbase.Theparticipanttowardswhich theexpressionisorientatedcannotbeexpressedasagenitive 30OneofthemanymoreformalwaystoexpressthisisDiSciu1loand Williams'(1987:4Df)notionof'controlofanargumentbyanaffix'. Theconceptoforientationmayberelatedtosemantical1ybasedaccountsof nominalisationssuchtheonebyBooij(seeSpencer1991: 342f)whoargues thatorientatedderivat ionsinvo1vethebindingofvariablesinlexico-conceptualstructureratherthanoperationsonthepredicate-argument structureofagivenverb. - 31-orobliquecomplement.Thus,in(16)thepronounmo(2.SG.GEN) canneverrefertotheUNDERGOERofthedroppingsincehulugan isanUNDERGOER-orientatedexpression.Theonlypossible morphosyntacticrelationbetweentheorientatedexpressionand anexpressionfortheparticipanttowardswhichitis orientatedisthatofanequationalpredication.Amoreliteral translationof(16)wouldthusbe'I(be)theplaceofyour dropping/yourdroppery'.Similarly,(14)is'nodd-erinassent (was)themonkey" ,(15)'he(be)crush - eeinthemortar',and (17)'ifhisplant-ee(wouldbelhispart'(cf.DeWolf 1988:157f).Thissupportsourclaimproposedabovethatthere isnospecialmorphosyntacticrelationbetweenanorientation affixandthepredicationbase.AllTagalogpredicationswhich involveapredicationbasearesimplyequational,irrespective ofwhetherthepredicateexpressionisorientatedornot. 2)Anotherveryproductivederivation,commonlycalledgerund formation(prefixpag-,fordetailsseeSchachter& Otanes (1972:159ff)),isusedtoderiveeventexpressionswhichare notorientated.AsintheEnglishcase,allparticipantsmaybe expressedasgenitiveandobliquecomplements : (19)atpag-ka-sabiniyanit6 andGER-??-say3.SG.GENDEM.GEN 'andwhenhehadsaidthis.. .' (BI80/1) Gerundsgenerallymaynotbepredicatedaboutapredication base,thus*pagkasabisiyanit6or*pagkasabiniyait6are ungrammatical.Gerundsmayfunctionasequationalpredicates onlyinthefollowingkindofconstruction: (20)pag-Iu-Iuto'ngpagkainangtrabaho GER-RDP2-cookGENfoodREFwork 'His/herjobiscookingfood.' niya. 3.SG.GEN Tagalogorientationmarkingandgerundformationthusshow considerablesimilaritytothetwonominalisationstrategies consideredabove. Ofcourse,manydifferencesexistbetweennominalising affixesin,forexample,Indo-EuropeanlanguagesandTagalog orientationaffixeswithregardtotheirproductivityand -32-semantics_Orientationaffixesmaybeappliedtobasesdenoting actionsasweilastothosedenoting:things(e.g.,bat6 'stone '-)batuh-in'throwstonesat(x)'),masses(e.g.,tubig 'water'-)tubig-an'addwaterto(x)'or'ricepaddy'),states (e . g . ,bago' new'-)baguh-in'change(x)'ori - bago'move(x) toanotherposition'),oranimatebeings(e.g.,baboy'pig'-) babuy- in' make(x)dirty ' ) .Orientationisthusamuchmore prevalentprocessinTagalogthanorientatednominalisationsin Indo-Europeanlanguages .Butapartfromthefundamental differencethatTagalogorientationaffixesarenot nominalisingintermsofmorphosyntax,theoverallsimilarity inthefunctionoftheseaffixesisconspicuous. Incidentally,thederivationalpossibilitiesjustmentioned showthatinsteadofcallingtheorientationaffixes nominalising,acasecouldbemadetoanalysethemas verbalisingaffixes .ThisisinfactFoley's(1991)approach, whichistosomeextentareversalofthenominalisation analysis .Accordingtohisapproachthebaseformsare precategorial,andorientationmarkingisusedtoderiveverbs fromthesebases .Inthisprocesstheverbsreceivetheir argumentst+,uctureandatthesametimethe'topic'function (predicationbase)isassignedtooneofthesearguments .This analysisisclearlypreferabletomostotheranalysesthathave beenproposedtodate .Ourpointofcontentionshouldbe obviousfromtheprecedingdiscussion(seealsosect.3):.Where istheevidenceforasyntacticcategoryverband, consequently,forargumentstructure? Theanalysisproposedherehasseveraladvantagesasweil asrepercussionsformanyareasofTagaloggrammar.Tomention justtwo :Firstandforemost,theabilityoforientated expressionstofunctionasreferentialexpressions(cf.(1b), (3),(13) ,(18))isaccountedfornaturally.Second,another oddityofTagaloggrammariseasilyresolved .Abrieflookat thelistofaffixesinSchachter& Otanesfornouns (1972:97 - 106),adjectives(1972 : 198f;216-229),andverbs (1972:344-355)immediatelyrevealsthatbasicallythesame affixesareinvolved(bothformallyandsemantically).The -33-differencesthatdoexistonlypertaintostressand,in correlationwithstress,tothewayaconceptisdenoted(as event,entity,orproperty).Theanalysisproposedhereallows forconsiderablesimplificationinstatingtheregularitiesof affixationsincetheseonlyhavetobestatedonce.The differencesthatexistbetweenentityandeventexpressionsare statedwithreferencetothelinguisticleveltowhichthey pertain,i . e.stressassignment.Togivejusttwoexamplesof formationswhereso-callednominalandverbalderivations clearlyoverlap:1)mag- tplusunstressedreduplication)occurs informationsdenotingprofessionals;thusfromnakaw'steal' mag-na-nakaw'thief'maybederived.Thisformdiffersonly withrespecttostressfromtheactiondenotingformation mag-na-nakaw'willsteal'(cf.sect.3andBloomfield 1917:242f;Schachter& Otanes1972:103).Bothformationsare clearlyACTOR-orientated.Thereisnoevidencetosupportthe distinctionbetweenmag- asanominalisingaffixandmag- asa verbalaffix.2)Thesuffix-inmaydenotetheentities undergoingtheactiondenotedbytheroot,e . g.,aral'study' -)aralin'lesson'.Again,itisthestressthat(often) differentiatesactionandthing,cf.aralin'study(x)'.Other examplesarekumpuni'repair'-)kumpunihin'thingstorepair' vs.kumpunihin'repair(x)';kain'eat'-)kanin'boiledrice' or'eat(x)'(nodifferencewhatsoever,comparealsokakanin 'sweets');in6m'drink'-)inumin'drinkingwater'or'drink (x)',cf.alsoinumin'beverage' (seeBloomfield1917:247; Schachter& Otanes1972:99f).Again,alltheseformationsare UNDERGOER-orientatedexpressions.Thedistinctionbetweenevent andentity,ifitisformallyexpressedatall,pertainsto stressandnottothesuffix.31 31Informationsinvolvingthesuffix-anstressalso(often)distinguishes aneventandanentityexpression .Butwiththissuffixthematteris furthercomplicatedbythefactthatathirdmeaningmaybedistinguished, i.e.collectiveaction(cf.Bloomfield1917:250-262) .Ther eareno formationswith-um- ori - whichmaydenoteentities. -34-4_2.Thesemanticsoftheorientationaffixes Thediscussionintheprecedingsectionshowedthatorientation affixesaretobeconsideredneitherassomekindof inflectionalmarkernorasmarkersofachangeinsyntactic category.Instead,theresultsoftheprecedingsection stronglysuggestaderivationalapproachtotheseaffixesand, morespecifically,aderivationalapproachbasedon compositionalsemantics.Therefore,thehypothesiswillbe advancedherethatorientationalaffixationmaybeanalysed withthehelpofderivationalrules,oneswhichreferbothto thesemanticsoftherootandthesemanticsoftheaffixes.The semanticsofthebasewillbediscussedinthenextsection.In thissection,wewillbrieflypresentourviewonthesemantics oftheaffixes. Inourview,boththeformalandthesemanticevidence stronglysupportsthetraditionalclaimthatthereare basicallyfourorientationsinTagalog:onetowardstheAGTOR, andthreekindsofUNDERGOER-orientation.Theunificationofthe latterthreeorientationsundertheheadingofUNDERGOER-orientationissupportedbythefactthattheydisplaythesame modalinflection(theREALISinfix-in-,see4.3).Infact,the existenceofanaspectual/modalinflectionalparadigmforall fourofthebasicorientationsisthemajorformalevidencefor combiningfourotherwiseformallyverydifferentformations undertheheadingoforientation.Thatis,apartfromthefact thatorientatedformsallowforthesameaspectual/modal inflections,theyarefarfromuniform,neithersemantically norformally. AGTOR-orientationismarkedbyaninfix(-um-)andis relativelystronglygrammaticalizedtotheextentthatit denotesnotonlyAGTORSthatcontrolanaction(asin(14))but alsoparticipantsinvolvedinaprocess,asinp-um-ula'become red'orl-um-u-lutang'befloating'.Furthermore,it occursin expressionsfornaturaleventssuchasum-ulan'rain'or l-um-ind6l'earthquake'.Thisinfixisnottheonlywayto signalACT-orientation.Theprefixmag- (REALISnag-)also indicatesthisorientation,cf.examples(1b)and(18). -35-FollowingdeGuzman(1978Chapt_3),thisprefixisanalysed hereasconsistingoftheprefixpag- usedingerundformation (seeabove),ACTOR-orientation(andmood)beingsignalIedby consonantalternation_32 Thedifferencebetweenthese formationspertainstothekindofactiondenotedandis furthercommentedoninHimmelmann(1987:178ff) _ UNDERGOER-orientationisexpressedbytwosuffixesandone prefix: ( 2 1 ) -inindicatesadirectlyaffectedUG,suchastheturtle in(15),thatwhichisbeingcut(inexample(3,the persontobecaught(inexample(18,orit6ininum-inmo it6'drinkthis'_1tistheunmarkedandthemoststrongly grammaticalizedmemberofthethreeUNDERGOER-orientations sincethereisnosuffixintheREALISmood(see4 _3)and sinceit isusedinallcaseswhichdonotclearlypertain totheothertwoUNDERGOER-orientations(formore discussion,seeHimmelmann(1987:107ff). -anindicatesthelocationtowardswhichanactionis orientated,suchasthe1. SGin(16)(calIeddirectional focusintheliterature)orthelocationwhereanaction takespI ace(theso-calledlocativefocus) ,e.g.: ni-Iakar-anko REAL(UG)-walk-UGi 1.SG. GEN 'Iwalkedonastonyroad' angma-bat6-ngkalye REF1RR.STAT-stone-LKstreet IpreferthetermINDIRECTUNDERGOER(UGi)becauseof examplessuchasbuks-anmoangpint6''openthedoor', wheretheparticipantdenotedisneitherlocativenor 32Theargumentforthisanalysis,aspresentedbydeGuzman,maybe summarizedasfo1lows:A numberofprefixpsdisplayregularalternationof theinitialconsonant:theI p/ -initialformisthebasicform(usedas gerundorimperative),I mlmarksIRREALISandI nlREALIS,compare pag-Imag- I nag-,pang' l mang-Inang-,paki -Imaki -Inaki -.Thealternation betweenthetwonasalformsalsooccurswiththeSTATIVEprefix(ma - Ina - ) , althoughforthesenoIp/-initia1basicformexists .Furthermore ,asma1l numberofI p/ -initialroots(containingafossilizedprefix)exhibitsthis alternation,e . g.pakinigmakinignakinig'listen',pano6dmano6dnano6d 'watch'.Thisalternationprobab1yd e v e 1 ~ e d frominfixedformations,with 10ssofthefirstsy1lable.Thus,mag- (pumag- andnag- (*pinag- (note, however,thatpinag- isaproductiveformation,i.e . ,REALIS(UG)of pag-derivedbas es. -36-directionalbut,moregenerally,anindirectlyaffected undergoer.Furthermore,thereisaclearopposition between-inand-anpertainingtodirectness,whichis evidentfrommanycontrastivepairs(compare,forexample, inum-inmoit6abovewithinum-anmoit6'drinkfrom/some ofthis'. i- indicatesanUGthatismoved(thematicUG(UGT) ,cf. Kroeger(1988:231-33)whousestheterm'translative focus'),suchastheeggin(1a)orthehalfofthetreein (17) .Theanalysisofthisprefixissomewhatmore controversial.Itisoftenanalysedasamarkerforthe instrumentalrolebecauseofexamplessuchas (22)angitkayi-p-in-utolkongsaging REFboloPMUGT-REAL(UG)-cut1.SG.GENGENbanana 'Icutbananaswiththebolo.' Thisusage,however,islessprominentandmayeasilybe accountedforasUGT (cf.Himmelmann(1987:139f.Buti-isalsousedtoindicatethebeneficiaryofanactionwith afewroots,asini-bili'buyfor(x)',whichis difficulttoaccountforunderanyanalysisproposedso far.33 Notethati- is outstanding butisalsoformallyhighlyconspicuoussinceit isthe onlyprefixamongtheorientationalaffixesaswellasthe mostirregularoftheTagalogprefixes(unlikeother prefixes,it isneverstressednorreduplicated). 4.3.Aspect/moodinflectionandinherentorientation Oneofthemostconspicuouscharacteristicsoforientation markinginTagalogisthefactthatthebase-formsdonotseem tohaveaninherentorientation;bothACT- aswellasUG-orientationinvolvemorphologicalmarkingwhile,forexample, inEnglishonlyUG-oriehtation(passive)isexplicitlymarked. 33Onepossibilityistoanalysethisasacaseofhomophony,i.e.,there aretwoUNDERGOERprefixes,athematiconeandabenefactiveone(which wouldimplythattherearefivebasicorientationsinTagalog).Themajor argumentagainstthisapproachisthefactthatbenefactiveparticipants mayaIsobeindicatedby-an ,thatis,asINDIRECTUNDERGOERs(whichmakes moresensesemantically) .Furthermore,benefactivei- ismarginalbothin termsoftypeandtokenfrequency(seeHimmelmann(1987:141f . -37-Thequestiorrwhetherthereisanyevidencefororientation inherenttothebaseformshas,tomyknowledge,neverbeen posedbefore.Theissueisquitecomplexandonlysome preliminaryremarksarepossiblehere.Wewillstartby pointingouttwoasymmetriesintheaspect/moodparadigmwhich maybeusedinformulatingahypothesis. FororientatedformsTagalogdistinguishesbetweentwo aspects(PERFECTIVEandIMPERFECTIVE)andtwomoods(REALISand IRREALIS).34IMPERFECTIVEaspectisindicatedbystressed reduplication(RDP1);PERFECTIVEaspectisunmarked.REALISmood isindicatedbytheinfix-in- orconsonantalternation(/m/-) , /n/,cf.fn32),IRREALISagainbeingunmarked.Ininteraction withorientationmarking,thefollowingparadigmscanbe establishedfortherootbili'buy',oneofthefewrootswhich iscompatiblewithallorientationalaffixes: IRR/pRF IRR/IMPF REAL/PRF REAL/IMPF IRR/PRF IRR/IMPF REAL/PRF REAL/IMPF IRR/PRF IRR/IMPF REAL/PRF REAL/IMPF ACT 'buy' b-um-ili bibi li b-um-ili b-um-ibili UG bilh-in bibilh-in b-in-ili b-in-ibili UG i-bili i-bibili i-b-in-ili i-b-in-ibili ACT 'seIl' mag-bili mag-bibili nag-bili nag-bibili UC bi1.h-an bibilh-an b-in-ilh-an b-in-ibilh-an Asmaybeimmediatelyobservabletherearetwoasymmetriesin theseparadigms(seetheIRRoftheum-infixedformsandthe 34ThisistheanalysisproposedbyB1oomfie1d,who,however,usesan over1yidiosyncratictermino1ogy(1917:217).Schachter& Otanes(1972:66ff, 361ffproposeasomewhatdifferentanalysisinvo1vingabasicform (=IRR/IMPF)andthreebasicaspects:CONTEMPLATED(=IRR/PRF),PERFECTIVE (REAL/PRF),andIMPERFECTIVE(REAL/IMPF).Theformalevidencesupports Bloomfield'sanalysis.Furthermore,thereisanotheraspectualformation, RecentPERFECTIVE(withprefixka'),whichisnotorientated.Thiswillnot beconsideredfurtherhere. -38-REALoftheUG-forms).Nevertheless,it seemsjlistifiedto establishtheseparadigmaticarrangementsandtospeakof aspectualandmodalinflection,sincetheseformationsare highlyregular(theyexistforeveryorientatedformandare alsopossibleforotheraffixcombinations,e.g.maki-, makiki-,naki-,nakiki-)andthecontextstheyareusedinare alsoidentical.Thus,IRR/PRFisusedinhypotheticaland complementclausesandincommands(cf.(15)and(16));IRR/IMPF isusedforfutureevents(cf.(17)),whereasREAL/PRFand REAL/IMPFareusedforpastandpresentevents. Theasymmetriesarerelevantindiscussingtheinherent orientationofTagalogroots.Strictlyspeaking,REALISUG-orientatedformsdonothaveamarkerfororientation. Similarly,thereisnomarkerforACT-orientationinthe IRR/IMPFoftheum-paradigm.Thismaybeinterpretedasevidence fortheclaimthatbaseformsofeventexpressionshave,notan inherentorientation,butratheradefaultorientation(which remainssegmentallyunexpressed)dependingonthecontextin whichaneventexpressionisused.InIRR/IMPFcontextsthe defaul torientationistowardstheACTOR;inREALIScontexts (bothPERFECTIVEandIMPERFECTIVE) towardstheUNDERGOER.Such acorrelationisnotuncommoncross-linguistically(notethe variouscasemarkingsplitsbasedontense/aspectsplits (Tsunoda1981,Mallinson& Blake1981:59ff)).Blake(1988:79f) eventakestheasymmetriesasevidencefortheclaimthat Tagalogisamorphologicallyergativelanguage,moreprecisely, asplitergativelanguage.Theproblemwithhisargument(and alloftheotherergativeproposalsmentionedinsect.1)is thefactthatBlakeisforcedtoclaimthatACTOR-orientation isakindofantipassive,i.e.ACTOR-orientatedconstructions areclaimedtobeintransitive(loc.cit.81).Thisclaim, however,isimpossibletosupportsinceACTOR-orientated predicationsarepossiblewithmorethanoneparticipant: .(23) nag-da-dal REAL.ACT-RDP1-bring -39-silngsarilenil-ng 3.PLGENown3.SG.GEN-LK (BI48/33)banda band 'they ngmusika GENmusic bringtheirownband' Thematteriscomplicatedbythefactthatthereisacertain prominenceofUNDERGOER-orientationinTagalog:Whenevera clauseinvolvesadefiniteundergoerthisisusuallymadethe predicationbase .Thisistakenbysomeauthorsasevidencefor theintransitivestatusofACTOR-orientatedconstructionssince inmanylanguageseventsinvolvingnon-specificandspecific-indefiniteundergoersareexpressedbyintransitiveclauses (cf.Hopper& Thompson1980) .AsforTagalog,however,thedata concerningthisphenomenonaremisrepresentedinthe literature.Itisoftenassumedthatinsteadofbeingavery generaltendencytheprominentuseofUNDERGOER-orientationisa syntacticruleofTagalog,whichitisnot,asshownbyexample (23).35Furthermore,thistendencyisnotsufficienttoproove theintransitivestatusofACTOR-orientatedexpressions,andI cannotseehowthiscanbedone.Onthecontrary,ifthe analysispresentedheresofarisbasicallycorrect,thewhole approachseemstorestonthewrongassumptionthattransitive andintransitiveverbsmaybedistinguishedinTagalog;this cannotbethecase,however,sincethereisnosyntactic categoryverbtobeginwith.Further,wherethereisno transitivitydistinctionwithrespecttoverbs,noergativity ispossible. Returningtotheasymmetrieswhichexistintheaspect/mood paradigmof a g a l o ~ orientatedexpressions,notethatthereis furtherevidencefortheclaimproposedherethatbaseslackan inherentorientation.Althoughthisishardlyeveracknowledged 35SeeAdams& Manaster'Ramer(1988)formorediscussionoftheissues involved,hutnotethatthoughtheiraccountisprobablythemostdetailed andconsiderateaccountavai1abletodateitstillhassomeflaws.In accordancewithalloftherelevantliteraturetheyclaim(1988:92ff)that apartfrompossessedundergoersasin(23)- whichintheiranalysisare not(!)definite- definiteundergoersmayneveroccurasgenitivesin Tagalog .Thisisnottrue;compareexamp1e(19)whereadefiniteundergoer ismarkedasgenitive(nit6). -40-intheliterature(themajorexceptionbeingBloomfield (1917:218ff),itispossibletouseunaffixedrootsdenoting eventsinpredicatepositionwhichareUG-orientatedinaREALlS context(oftenwitharesultativeconnotation): (24)antaykoangsag6tmo wait1.SG.GENREFanswer2.SG.GEN 'Iwaitforjexpectyouranswer' ACTOR-orientationwithunaffixedrootsinREALIScontextsis impossible: (25)a) b) *uwi'siyasabahay return3.SGLOChouse 'Hereturnedhorne.' *dalangman6kangkuya bringGENchickenREFolderbrother *'mybrotherbroughtachicken' ?.'thechickenbroughtmybrother' ko 1 . SG. GEN Theinformantsclaimedthat(25b)wasacceptableinthesense of'thechickenbroughtmybrother'(thoughthisis,ofcourse, peculiarpragmatically).Butunaffixedrootsmayoccurwith ACT-orientationinimperatives(i.e.,anIRREALIScontexts), e.g .,hintayka'youwait!'.Furthermore,theymaybeusedto denoteaneventwithoutorientation(andthusresemblethe gerundformationsmentionedabove)inbasicallythesame contextsinwhichUNDERGOER - orientationispossible: (26)iyak cry 'His angsag6tniyasaakin REFanswer3.SG.GENLOC1.SG.DAT answertomewascryingjtocry' Theconditionsapplicabletotheuseofunaffixedformsandthe natureofpossiblesemanticdifferencesbetweenaffixedand unaffixedformsarestillunclear(formorediscussion,see Himmelmann1987:157ff) .Thedatainvestigatedsofar,however, supportthehypothesisthateventexpressionswhichlack orientationaffixesalsolackaninherentorientation(andare thusneitheraccusativenorergative). - 41-4_4 _Derivationandprediction Ouranalysisoftheorientationaffixesultimatelydependson thehypothesisthatorientationmarkingisaderivational processratherthananinflectionalone,asisoftenassumedin theliterature.Inthissectionwewillpresentsomefurther observationstosupporttheclaimthatorientationmarkingin Tagalogisderivationalor,atleast,morederivationalthan inflectional. Synchronically,thederivationalcharacteroforientation markingisevidentfromthefactthatthereisnobasic orientatedformfromwhichotherformationsmaybepredicted . Thatis,ifoneknows,forexample,thatagivenrootallows fortheinfix-um- thereisnowaytopredictwhichother orientationsarepossible.McFarland,whohasinvestigatedthe orientationalpossibilitiesfor332rootsintexts,concludes: 'ThefocusinflectionsinTagalogaresubjecttoagreat amountofidiosyncraticbehavior .Thedegreeof predictabilityfromonefocusformtoanotherisvery 1 ow.'( 1 976 : 32) Thisisparticularlynoteworthybecauseofthefactthatother formationsinTagalogaremuchmoreregularandcanbe predictedonthebasisofbasicforms.McFarlandwrites: 'Asidefromthefocusinflections,theverbalinflectional systemexhibitsahighdegreeofregularity.Theformation ofgerunds,aptativeforms,causativeforms,etc.follow highlypredictablepatterns.'(loc.ci t. ) Furthermore,therehavebeenseveralattemptstodealwiththe idiosyncraticbehaviourofTagalogorientationmarkinginterms ofverbclasses:Blake(1925 : 38f)postulated17classes; Schachter& Otanes(1972:295ff)operatewith43classes;Cruz (1975)recognizes38classes;McFarland(1976:101ff)has53 classes;Ramos(1974,1975)postulates15classes;andde Guzman(1978)recognizes7mainclasseswith48subclassesfor 'primaryverbsterns'and14mainclasseswith32subclassesfor 'secondaryverbsterns'.Althoughthedifferencesamongthese authorsareinpartduetodifferencesintheirrespective frameworks,thisenormousrangeofproposedclasses,inmy -42-opinion,supportstheclaimthatanapproachintermsof inflectionalclassesissimplyinappropriate.Thederivational approachproposedhe repredictsthatvariousidiosyncracies willoccurinorientationmarkingandthusseemstobeclearly preferable(forapreliminarysketchofsuchaderivational approach,s"eeHimmelmann1987:129ff). Intheprecedingdiscussiontheheterogeneityofthe orientationmarkingaffixeswasalreadypointedoutseveral times.Althoughthisinitselfdoesnotproovethatthese affixationsarederivational,it isclearthatsuchavariety offormalexpressionsforonecategoryseldomarisesin inflectionalparadigms.Theheterogeneityclearlyshowsthatwe aredealingwithformationswhichhavedevelopedfromquite differenthistoricalsourcesandareprobablyofavaried historicalage .Itisbasicallytheaspectualjmodalinflection commontoallorientationaffixeswhichallowsustounitethis ratherheterogeneoussetofaffixesunder "thelabel orientation.The'holes'intheaspectualjmodalparadigm pOintedoutintheprecedingsectionsuggestthatweare dealingwithalanguagewhereatacertainstagethe derivationalmorphology'hasgonewild'.Thatis,atanearlier stageeventexpressionsprobablywereinflectedonlyforaspect (reduplication)andmood(infix_in_).36Lateron,theuseof orientatedforms- whichwereformerlyusedinasimilarwayas orientatednominalisationswereinIndo-Europeanlanguages-wasgeneralizedand,asaconsequence,theequationalpattern becamethedominantpatterninTagalogclausestructure.In thislineofevents,orientatedformsalsoacquiredregular aspectjmood-inflection.Onlythemostcommonformations 'survived',namelyreduplicationforACTOR-orientated IRREALISjIMPERFECTIVEand- in- infigationforUNDERGOER- orienta ted 36ThepresentdistributionoftheREALISinfix(itoccursonlyin UNDERGOER-orientation)clearlyisarecentdevelopment.Oldersourceson TagalogsuchasMller(1882:140)andBlake(1906and1925:41)adducethe followingREALIS-allomorphforthe-um-infix:-ungm-,e.g.,s-ungm-ulat 'wrote 'ands-ungm-u-sulat'is/waswriting'.Furthermore,inseveral Philippine-typelanguagestheACTOR-orientating-um- isstillcompatible withtheRELAIS-infix(see,forexample,Tondano(Sneddon1975:211)). .\ I -43-REALIS.Theirdistributionwhichprobablyusedtoberestricted tothepredicativefunctionchangedinsuchawaythatthe earliermorphosyntacticdistinctionbetweennounsandverbs becameobsolete.Thiswasduetotheirinteractionwiththe (formerlynominal)orientatedforms.Whatwethen synchronicallyanalyseasaspect/moodparadigmforTagalog eventexpressionshistoricallyconsistsofnominalizedand verbalforms.Ishallnotgointothisdiachroniescenarioin detail.37 It maysuffice,however,toindicatethatitis possibletosketchaplausiblediachroniescenarioastohow theTagalogstateofaffairsmighthavearisen.Notethat withintheAustronesianfamilyonlyTagalog(and,tovarying degreestheotherPhilippine-typelanguages)haveevolvedthe peculiarmorphosyntaxweareinvestigatinghere. 5.Syntacticcategoriesandthegrarnrnaticalizationofargument structure Theprecedingdiscussionwasbasedonthehypothesisthatthere isnodistinctionbetweenthesyntacticcategoriesnounand verbinTagalog.Therelateddistinctionbetweeneventand entityexpressions,however,doesexistandis(sometimes) formallymarkedbystress.Thusoneofthetraditional definitionsfordistinguishingbetweennounsandverbs,that nounsandverbsaredifferentwaysofdenotingconcepts(modus significandi),isapplicabletoTagalogfullwords. Furthermore,therecanbenodoubtthatTagalogevent expressionsaresemanticallyrelational,asopposedto(most) entityexpressions.Themajorreasonforthehypothesisedlack ofadistinctionofsyntacticcategorieswasthefactthatthe differenceinsemanticrelationalitybetweenentityandevent , expressionsisnotclearlyreflectedintheirmorphosyntax.In otherwords,bothentityandeventexpressionsallowforthe samekindofcomplements(genitiveattributesorobliques),and neitherobligatorilydemandstheexpressionofacomplement . 37ThemajorevidenceisprovidedbyFormosanlanguageswherenounsand verbsaremoreclearlydistinguishedthaninTagalogandthefactthatin PANtherewereprobablytwoaffixes(* - iand*-aken)whichcouldbeused onlywithverbs(forsomediscussion,seeStarostaetal.(1982. -44-Therefore,thehypothesishasbeenputforwardthatallTagalog fullwordslackinherentmorphosyntacticrelationality(and inherentreferentialityaswell,seesect.3).Thishypothesis allowsforaconsistent,surface' -orientedandrelativelysimple statementofthecoreofTagalogmorphosyntax.Thefollowing characteristicsarethuseasilyaccountedfor: thedistributionoffullwords theuseofthemajorfunctionmarkersang,ng,andsa thebasicequationalcharacteroftheTagalogclause theveryexistenceandpervasivenessoforientation marking Thepurposeofthissectionistotestfurtherandrefine thehypothesilithatTagalogfull _wordslackinherent morphosyntacticrelationality.Itisnotthecasethatthere arenom?rphosyntacticdifferencesatallbetweenevent expressionsandentityexpressionsinTagalog;rather,the hypothesisproposedhereisthatthedifferencesthatdoexist aredistinctfromthoseencounteredinotherlanguagestosuch adegreethatananalysisinterms ,ofsyntacticcategories (nounsandverbs)isinappropriate.Putdifferently,syntactic categoriesarebutweaklygrammaITdlizedinTagalog.Letus illustratethiswithanexample: (27)a) b) mang-ga-gamot IRR.ACT-RDP2-medicine 'Heisadoctor.' mang-ga-gamot IRR.ACT-RDP,-medicine 'Hewillheal.' siy 3.SG siy 3.SG manggagamotin(27a)clearlydenotesaperson,while manggagamotin(27b)clearlydenotesanaction'.Onepertinent differencebetweenthetwoisthatthelatterdoesallowfor aspectual/modalinflection(manggamot,nanggagamot,nanggamot) whiletheformerdoesnot.Thishasoftenbeenusedasthe majorcriteriontodistinguishnounsandverbsinTagalog,but sincetheinflectedformsmayappearinallmorphosyntactic environments(functions),Idonotconsiderthisevidencefora -45-distinctioninsyntacticcategory(seesect.3) .Unliketheir Englishequivalents,theTagalogentityexpression , (manggagamot)mayfunctionaspredicatewithoutfurther morphosyntacticfunctionmarking.Furthe rmore,complementsmay beaddedinthesameway :mang-ga-gamotngbata'siyameans'he isadoctorof(for)children',mang-ga - gamotngbata'siyais 'hewillhealchildren' .Infact,thepervasiveuseofthe genitive(ng-phrase)inTagalogisthemajorfactorinthelack ofamorphosyntacticdistinctionbetweennounsandverbs .The twocasesavailableinTagalog,genitiveandoblique,arecases which,viewedfromcross-linguisticpersepctive,aregenerally usedforeitheradnominalcomplementsorperipheral participants.Thefactthatcomplementsofeventexpressions havetobeexpressedinthiswayinTagalogdeprivesthemof thecentralmorphosyntacticfeatureofverbhood,thegoverning ofcorearguments .Putdifferently,obliquecomplementsare equallypossiblewithbothnounsandverbs ,whereasgenitive complementsaretypicalfornounsinmost,ifnotall languages .Tagalogeventexpressionsthuslacktheexpression ofcomplementstypicalforverbs;insteadtheyexhibita 'nominal'charactersinceparticipantsareexpressedas genitivesandobliques. This,however,isnotthewholestorysincethereare variouscomplexitiespertainingtodefiniteundergoers.In example(27a)it ispossibletoaddadefinitecomplement markedasgenitive : (28)a)siyayangmang-ga-gamotngmga 3.SGPMREFIRR . ACT-RDP2-medicineGENPL 'heistheonewhoisthedoctorofthese bata-ngito child-LKDEM children' . Thisisnotpossiblein(27b) .Instead,thedefiniteundergoer hastobeexpressedasanoblique : (28)b)siyayangmang-ga-gamotsamgabata-ng 3.SGPMREFIRR.ACT-RDP1-medicineLOCPLchild-LK ' heistheonewhowillhe althesechildren'. ito DEM Herethecomplementofanentityexpressionandtheundergoer ofaneventexpressionareclearlymarkedinadifferentway; -46-thedifferenceinsemanticrelationalitybetweenentityand eventexpressionsisreflectedinthemorphosyntax.This,in fact,maybeinterpretedasevidencethatatleastaminor differenceinsyntacticcategorybetweeneventandentity expressionsexistsinTagalog. Ashintedatabove(sect.3),thedistinctionbetween semanticandmorphosyntacticrelationalityisnotanabsolute one.Instead,morphosyntacticrelationalityistheresultof thegrammaticalizationofsemanticrelationality:certain aspectsoftheframeevokedbyarelationalconceptare reflectedinitsmorphosyntacticexpression.Themajorfactor inthegradualformationofthesyntacticcategoriesnounand verbisthefactthatthewayinwhichtheparticipantsevoked byasemanticallyrelationalaremorphosyntactically linkedtothisexpressiondiffersatleastinsomedetailfrom thewayattributesarelinkedtonon-relationalexpressions (i.e.themajorityoftheentityexpressions).Asiswell known,themajormorphosyntacticreflectionsofsemantic relationalityareagreementandgovernment(cf.,forexample, Lehmann1982,1985),andalthoughthereisnoclearevidence foreitherinTagalog,someevidenceforthegrammaticalization == ofsemanticrelationalitycanbediscerned.Thatdefinite undergoersofeventexpressionsmustbemarkedasobliquesisa caseinpoint.Furtherfactspointinginthesamedirection includethefollowing: Participantrolesaremappedontoeitherthegenitiveor theobliquefunctionsinanon-arbitraryway.Wemaynotethe followingregularities(theseregularitiesaretobeunderstood asincludingthequalificationthatanyparticipantmayalsobe chosenaspredicationbase):agentsandexperiencersarealways expressedasgenitives;instrumentseitherasgenitivesor markedwithacomplexpreposition,butneverwithsimplesa; locativesalwaysasobliques;patients,themesandgoalseither asgenitivesorasobliques.Asforgoals,thesearegenerally markedasobliques,butoccasionallyagenitiveconstruction alsooccurs.Compare: (29) -47-b-um-aliknauli'ak6 REAL.ACT-returnLKagain1.SG 'Ihavereturnedoncemoreto ng GEN the probinsya province province. ' Theregularitiesforpatientsandthemesarequitecomplexand interactwiththefactorsinvolvedinchoosingaparticular orientation.Themostimportantparameterinthisregardisthe specificityofundergoers;thatis,specific,especially definite,undergoersareusuallymadethepredicationbase. Otherwise,specificundergoersaregenerallymarkedasobliques (butseefn35)andnon-specificundergoersasgenitives(for morediscussionseeNaylor1975and1986,Adams& Manaster Ramer1988).Asalreadyhintedatinthediscussionofexample (23)above,thefactsaremorecomplexthanthissimplified statementsuggests.Butthesewillnotbefurtherinvestigated here.Inthepresentdiscussionthefollowingobservationisof particularinterest:themorphosyntacticcodingofparticipant rolesinpartallowsforthedistinctionofmorecentralfrom lesscentralparticipants.Porexample,agentsareclearly centralparticipantsbecausetheyarealwaysmarkedas genitives;locativesaremoreperipheral,fortheyarealways markedasobliques.Thedistinctionbetweencentralandless centralparticipantsisobviouslyanecessarystageinthe grammaticalizationofargumentstructure.Notethatthe evidenceregardingthecentralityoftheundergoerrolesisnot decisive. Theasymmetriesintheaspectualjmodalparadigmsof orientatedformspointedoutinsect.4.3couldbeadducedas evidencefortheclaimthatactoranddirectundergoer (basicallypatient)arethemostcentralparticipantsin Tagalogeventexpressions,sincetheorientationdoesnothave tobeexpressedsegmentallyinsomecontexts(REALlSfor undergoers,IRREALISjIMPERFECTIVEforactors) . Withregardtosomeeventexpressionsthederivational morphologymayalsobeusedtodeterminethecentralityofa givenparticipantroleinthattheorientationtowardsone participantroleismorphologicallymorecomplexthanthatfor others.Porexample,thereisagroupofrootswhichallows -48-ACT-orientationonlywithmag- (thatis,firstagerundhasto bederivedbyprefixingpag- whichinturnisorientatedby consonantalternation,cf.fn32),whileuG-orientationis possible apriorderivation.Fromluto''cook'onemay notderive*lumuto'butratheronlymagluto',whiletheUG-orientatedformissimplyiluto'orlutu'in.Otherroots belongingtothisgroup,whichdoesnotexhibitacommon semanticdenominator,aredasal'prayer',hugas'wash',punas 'wipeoff',libing'burial',bayad'payment',kahoy'wood', hubad'naked',etc.(cf.Himmelmann1987:179f).Thusforthese rootstheclaimcouldbemadethattheundergoersaremore centralparticipantsthantheactorsinceorientationtowards themrequireslessmorphologicalmarking. Furthermore,thereisonemorpheyntacticcontextinwhich onlyentityexpressions,butnoteventexpressions,mayoccur: unaffixedrootsmaybeusedasimperativesonlyiftheydenote events(see4.3).Thereisno*lalakikat'beaman!'or*bat6 kasakaniya!'throwstonesathirn!'Thatis,atleastinthis somewhatmarginalcontextthereisamorphosyntacticdifference betweeneventandentityexpressionwhichcouldbeadducedas foradistinctionofthesyntacticcategoriesnounand :..-:=;.:0-" verbinTagalog.Butthenthisfactmayeasilyandnaturallybe statedintermsoflexicalsemanticclassesandthus,inmy viewdoesnotconstitutecompellingevidencet6alterthe analysisofsyntacticcategoriesproposedaboveinsect.3. Allofthefactsmentionedintheprecedingparagraphs doub