event structure in tagalog - pdfs.semanticscholar.org · thanks to my respondents in padre garcia...

Event Structure in Tagalog

Maureen Joy Saclot

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements

of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2011

School of Languages and Linguistics

Faculty of Arts

The University of Melbourne

i

Abstract

This thesis examines the verbal system of Tagalog through an event structure analysis,

arguing that “focus forms” exhibited by base predicates are expressions of different event

structures determined by the semantic feature of telicity. It provides tests to examine the

telicity property of the predicates and proposes their corresponding logical

representations. These telicity tests and logical representations illuminate the syntactic

behaviour of the focus forms in Tagalog. The thesis further demonstrates that the

(a)telicity property of the predicates and the event structure they denote trigger the

semantic interpretations of the participants in the clause, i.e. the ANG-phrase, NG-phrase

and SA-phrase. The study concludes with an elucidation of the interplay between event

structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog’s verbal expressions.

ii

Acknowledgments

This thesis would not be possible without the encouragement, support, and insights of the

following:

My deepest gratitude to The University of Melbourne for the scholarships awarded that

gave me the opportunity to pursue this project, and to learn and grow as a researcher.

I have been blessed with a supportive committee and my appreciation goes to them. My

deepest thanks to my supervisor, Lesley Stirling. Her supervision allowed me to be a

better researcher. Her intelligence and guidance have honed my critical thinking skills

and have developed my method of expressing my thoughts. I have not only gained an

inspiring supervisor, but also a friend. I also want to thank Rachel Nordlinger for her

helpful comments. Her acute mind has motivated me to develop my ideas clearly and

logically. Thanks also to Janet Fletcher for her support and encouraging words.

I am very grateful to my two external reviewers. Their comments and suggestions have

greatly contributed to the improvement of the thesis. Any remaining errors and

inadequacies are my own.

I have benefited a great deal from the presentations, comments, discussions and insights

of the following Philippine linguists: Ricardo Ma. Nolasco, Resty Cena, Videa P. De

Guzman, Naonori Nagaya, Jeruen Dery, Masumi Katagiri, Randy LaPolla, Meladel

Mistica, and Masayoshi Shibatani. Their works have inspired me to see the verbal system

of Tagalog from a different perspective. In particular, my discussions with Ricardo Ma.

Nolasco and Resty Cena contributed a lot in shaping the arguments presented in some

sections of this thesis. I also wish to extend my deepest gratitude to Robert Van Valin and

Randy LaPolla who read the transitivity section of this thesis. Their invaluable comments

and insights are very much appreciated. Of course, any errors and inadequacies are my

own responsibility. I also benefited from having the chance to present portions of this

work while preparing it. Thanks to the participants in AFLA XV, transitivity workshop in

the RCLT of LaTrobe University, Australian Linguistic Society Conference (ALS), 10th

Philippine Linguistics Congress, Department of Languages and Linguistics’ Postgraduate

Conference, and the students from LING 125 (Field Linguistics) of UP Diliman. Special

iii

thanks to my respondents in Padre Garcia Batangas and other native speakers of Tagalog,

Bisaya and Kapampangan. In particular, I wish to thank Benat, Paulo, Ed and Maridel for

being patient in answering my queries regarding the validity of certain

Tagalog/Kapampangan/Bisaya sentence constructions. Many thanks also to my

proofreaders.

My warmest thanks to my ‘fake’ sister Monica for her unwavering support and

friendship. Life in Melbourne had been wonderful because she has been part of it. Also, a

warm thank you to all the friends I have gained during the course of this study: Maridel,

Ed, Paulo, Ate Joy, Kuya Jorge, Justin, Julian, Ted, Ruby, Vergie, Adam, Annie, Wendy,

Sandra, Natalie, Yob, Stephen, Anne, Vinca, Tina, Sascha, Erin, Peter, Kerrie, Ika, Carol,

Jason, Lai and Cath. Special thanks to my ‘Ph.D group’: Therese, Hyejeong, Van, Ha,

Quynh, Akiko, Yi-ching, and Kazumi for their friendship. Deepest gratitude to Row, my

‘I Thirst Movement’ friends (Tillie, Laura, Olivia, Cheryl, Ignatius, Diane, Raj, Cenie,

Cheryl G), and to Aurelio for making sure I have my highest goal aimed for Jesus and

Mother Mary. Thanks to old friends whose presence in my life anchors me to what is

truly valuable in this lifetime. You have all made my graduate study enjoyable and have

helped me find other avenues to explore a world outside of linguistics.

To my family who has always been my inspiration to do my best, to live my life to the

fullest, and to keep my feet on the ground, my love and thanks.

Lastly, to God , be the glory, praise and thanksgiving!

iv

Para sa aking ama’t ina, Ben at Deling

at sa aking Inang Bayan.

v

Declaration

This is to certify that:

(i) This doctoral thesis contains only original work by the writer, except for other

materials used that have been duly acknowledged. Sections of this thesis

contain works that have been presented at conferences/workshops.

(ii) The length of this thesis, exclusive of tables and references, is less than

100,000 words.

Maureen Joy Saclot

vi

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... vi

INDEX OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... x

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Terminologies defined ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.2 Previous Linguistic Issues................................................................................................................. 6

1.1.2.1 Definiteness................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.2.2 Transitivity ................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1.2.3 Mapping of semantic relations to grammatical relations ......................................................... 12

1.2 Why event structure? ............................................................................................................................... 16

1.3 Aims and Contributions ........................................................................................................................... 16

1.4 Scope: the ‘focus forms’ alternation ........................................................................................................ 20

1.5 Data and Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 23

1.6 Thesis Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 25

THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES ............................................................................................................ 25

2.1 Event structure ......................................................................................................................................... 25

2.1.1 Vendler (1967) and Dowty (1979) ................................................................................................... 26

2.1.1.1 Temporal adverbials and entailments ....................................................................................... 27

2.1.2 Telicity and temporal adverbials ...................................................................................................... 29

2.2 Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) ..................................................................................................... 32

2.2.1 Application of the verb classifications and logical structures in RRG to Tagalog………………...32

2.2.2 Semantic Representation .................................................................................................................. 37

2.2.2.1 Aktionsart and logical structure ............................................................................................... 37 2.2.2.2 Thematic relations .................................................................................................................... 42 2.2.2.3 Macroroles ............................................................................................................................... 45 2.2.2.4 Macrorole transitivity ............................................................................................................... 46 2.2.2.5 Three-place predicates ............................................................................................................. 48

2.3 Krifka: Homomorphism relation of Nominal and Verbal Predicates (1992) .......................................... 49

2.4 The Parameter of Aspect (Smith 1991) ................................................................................................... 52

2.4.1 Viewpoint Aspect ............................................................................................................................ 52

2.4.1.1 Abstract Structure for Situations .............................................................................................. 53 2.4.1.2 Temporal schema of Event structure ........................................................................................ 54 2.4.1.3 General schema for Viewpoint aspect ...................................................................................... 56

2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 57

vii

CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 58

TAGALOG: A GRAMMATICAL SKETCH AND REVIEW OF STUDIES .............................................. 58

3.1 Grammatical sketch ................................................................................................................................. 58

3.1.1 Word Order ...................................................................................................................................... 58

3.1.2 Verbal System .................................................................................................................................. 61

3.1.2.1 Focus system ............................................................................................................................ 62 3.1.2.2 Aspect paradigm ...................................................................................................................... 63

3.1.3 Verbal affixes ................................................................................................................................... 66

3.1.4 Nominal Markers ............................................................................................................................. 69

3.2 Some major studies of the Verbal System of Tagalog ............................................................................. 71

3.2.1 Ramos (1974) ................................................................................................................................... 71

3.2.2 De Guzman (1978)........................................................................................................................... 77

3.2.3 Foley and Van Valin (1984) ............................................................................................................ 81

3.2.4 Nolasco (2003, 2005; Nolasco and Saclot 2005) ............................................................................. 91

3.2.5 Travis (2000, 2005, 2010) ................................................................................................................ 98

3.2.5.1 Telicity in Malagasy................................................................................................................. 99 3.2.5.2 Tafa, Maha and the extra argument ........................................................................................ 100 3.2.5.3 Telicity and Reduplication in Tagalog ................................................................................... 101

3.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 103

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 104

STATES, ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS ................................................................... 104

4.1 States ..................................................................................................................................................... 105

4.1.1 MA-states ....................................................................................................................................... 107

4.1.1.1 Logical structure of MA-states……………………………………………………………….109

4.1.2 Unaffixed states and their LS ......................................................................................................... 110

4.2 Accomplishments .................................................................................................................................. 112

4.3 Achievements ........................................................................................................................................ 115

4.4 Causatives: the case of PA- ................................................................................................................... 118

4.5 Active Achievements? ........................................................................................................................... 122

4.6 Ma and Ma-ka alternation ..................................................................................................................... 125

4.6.1 Positionals ...................................................................................................................................... 127

4.6.2 Perception ...................................................................................................................................... 129

4.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 133

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 136

TELICITY AND UNDERGOER ................................................................................................................ 136

5.1 Traditional analysis of the actor focus and patient focus forms ............................................................ 137

5.2 Telicity and Temporal adverbials .......................................................................................................... 138

5.2.1 Temporal adverbials in Tagalog .................................................................................................... 139

5.2.1.1 Verbs of Consumption and Performance ............................................................................... 140 5.2.1.2 Verbs of Performance ............................................................................................................ 142

5.3 (A)telicity of the AF and PF alternation ................................................................................................ 144

viii

5.3.1 Cancellation ................................................................................................................................... 144

5.3.2 Continuity ...................................................................................................................................... 148

5.3.3 Muntik ‘almost’ ............................................................................................................................ 151

5.4 Activities and Active Accomplishments ............................................................................................... 153

5.5 Semantics of the (A)NG Patient ............................................................................................................ 157

5.5.1 Count and Mass Nouns .................................................................................................................. 160

5.5.2 Bare Plurals .................................................................................................................................... 162

5.6 Semantic contributions of atelic predicates ........................................................................................... 163

5.6.1 Plurality , iterativity and bare plurals ............................................................................................ 163

5.7 Numerical Quantifier isa ‘one’ .............................................................................................................. 167

5.7.1 Definiteness and Specificity/referentiality ..................................................................................... 168

5.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 172

CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 174

MOTION, PATH AND TELICITY ............................................................................................................ 174

6.1 Directed motion, Manner of motion and Path ....................................................................................... 176

6.2 Telicity tests and the predicate tulak ‘push’ .......................................................................................... 178

6.2.1 Tulak ‘push’-class predicate and the ‘moved-object’ ................................................................... 179

6.3 Locative states ....................................................................................................................................... 183

6.3.1 Existential and Possession ............................................................................................................. 186

6.4 Directed Motion Predicates ................................................................................................................... 189

6.4.1 Goal marking ................................................................................................................................. 189

6.4.2 Source Marking ............................................................................................................................. 197

6.5 Manner of Motion ................................................................................................................................. 201

6.6 Locative Alternations ............................................................................................................................ 207

6.6.1 Tagalog locative alternations ......................................................................................................... 209

6.6.1.1 Telicity and Affectedness: change of state and change of location ........................................ 210 6.6.1.2 Clean Verbs: Wipe ‘punas’ , Sweep ‘walis’ and Wash ‘hugas’ ............................................. 213

6.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 214

CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................................................ 216

EVENT STRUCTURE AND VIEWPOINT ASPECT ............................................................................... 216

7.1 Viewpoint aspect ................................................................................................................................... 218

7.1.1 Perfective viewpoint ...................................................................................................................... 219

7.1.2 Imperfective viewpoint .................................................................................................................. 220

7.2 Perfectivity ............................................................................................................................................ 221

7.2.1 ‘Snapshot’ effect : Tingin ‘look’ .................................................................................................... 222

7.2.2 Perfective and Inchoative State ..................................................................................................... 223

7.2.3 (Un) boundedness and (non) completion of activities and active .................................................. 230

accomplishments..................................................................................................................................... 230

7.2.4 Culmination and result stage in achievements ............................................................................... 234

7.2.5 Result stage in accomplishments ................................................................................................... 237

ix

7.3 Imperfectivity ........................................................................................................................................ 239

7.3.1 Some basic facts on reduplication in Tagalog............................................................................... 239

7.3.2 Open and unbounded in reduplicated state .................................................................................... 241

7.3.3 Continuity in perception predicates ............................................................................................... 246

7.3.4 Habituality and Progressivity ......................................................................................................... 247

7.3.4.1 Reduplication in activities and active accomplishments ....................................................... 248 7.3.5 Plurality of events .......................................................................................................................... 251

7.4 (A)telicity and (Im)perfectivity ............................................................................................................. 254

7.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 260

CHAPTER 8 ................................................................................................................................................ 261

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 261

8.1 Contributions of the study ..................................................................................................................... 264

8.1.1 (Non)stative and non-dynamic ....................................................................................................... 265

8.1.2 Non-stative and Dynamic domain ................................................................................................. 267

8.1.3 Semantics of the (A)NG patient and the SA-phrase ...................................................................... 269

8.1.4 In(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect ........................................................... 271

8.2 Further research ..................................................................................................................................... 272

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 273

x

Index of Tables

Table 1.1 Correspondences of case, proper/nominal markers and semantic roles 3

Table 1.2 Split of syntactic properties 14

Table 1.3 Focus forms and the associated event structure and verbal affixes 22

Table 2.1 Vendler’s four-fold schema of events 26

Table 2.2 Proposed logical representations for

locative, motion and Ma-ka/Ma achievements 36

Table 2.3 Event Structure with its features and examples 37

Table 2.4 Tests for Event structure 38

Table 2.5 Logical structure for event structure types 41

Table 2.6 Definitions of thematic relations in terms of arguments’ position

in a logical structure 43

Table 2.7 (Non)alignment of number of arguments 47

Table 3.1 Marker of Common and Proper Nominals 59

Table 3.2 Pronominals 61

Table 3.3 Aspect formation of AF, PF, and LF forms and their semantic features 66

Table 3.4 Some verbal affixes and their focus type 67

Table 3.5 Inherent and non-inherent cases and the associated affixes 72

Table 3.6 Verbal affixes and their case relations 78

Table 3.7 Verbal affixes based on event types and (non)volitional distinctions 88

Table 3.8 Initial taxonomy of Tagalog verbs according to event structure in F&VV 88

Table 3.9 Verbal affixes and event structure frame in F&VV 89

Table 3.10 (A)telicity marking in Malagasy 99

Table 4.1 Event structure and logical structure of (non)stative and non-dynamic

Tagalog predicates 105

Table 4.2 Test for telicity and punctuality of states, accomplishments

and achievements with UM/MA affix 126

Table 5.1 (A)telicity of the predicate and the (A)NG patient 172

Table 7.1. Perfective readings of AF activities and PF active accomplishments 217

Table 7.2 Aspect forms of a predicate 221

Table 7.3 In(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog 260

Table 8.3 Event structure and logical representation of stative and non-dynamic

Tagalog predicates 267

Table 8.4 Event structure and logical representation of non-stative and dynamic predicate 268

Table 8.6 Aspectual interpretation of the in(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint

aspect 271

xi

Abbreviations

1SG first person singular

2-CHO 2 chomeur

2SG second person singular

3SG third person singular

A subject of a transitive clause

ABS absolutive

ACC accusative

ACS accessible

ACTL actual

ACT actor

ADV adverbial

AF actor focus

AGT agent

APPL applicative

ARB arbitrary

AUH actor-undergoer hierarchy

BEG begin

BEN benefactive

BF beneficiary focus

CAUS causative

COMP complete

COMPL complementiser

CONJ conjugation

CONTEMPL contemplated

CS change of state

DAT dative

DET determiner

DF directional focus

DIR directional

DRV derivational

ENC enclitic

ERG ergative

EXCL exclusive (pronoun)

EXT external

F focus (participant in focus)

F final point

FIN finite

GEN genitive

I initial point

IF instrumental focus

INCH inchoative

INCL inclusive

IPFV imperfective

INGR ingressive

INST instrument

INTR intransitive

LF locative focus

xii

LNK linker

LOC locative

LSC layered structure of the clause

MR macrorole

NAT(R) natural endpoint and resultant stage

NEG negative

NMR non-macrorole

NOM nominative

NONVOL non-volitional

NP noun phrase

NUC nucleus

O object of a transitive clause

OBJ object

OBL oblique

PASS passive

PFV perfective

PF patient focus

PL plural

PN proper name/proper noun

PP prepositional phrase

PRED predicate

PROG progressive

R resultant stage

RDP reduplication

REC recipient

RP recent perfective

RRG role and reference grammar

S argument of an intransitive clause

SEML semelfactive

SPEC specifier

STAT stative

SUBJ subject

TER terminal

TH theme

TNS tense

TRANS transient

TOP topic

V verb

VA verbal affix

V.Asp viewpoint aspect

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

This thesis investigates the verbal system of Tagalog through an event structure analysis,

arguing that “focus forms” (e.g. actor focus, patient focus) exhibited by base predicates

are expressions of different event structures determined by the semantic feature of

telicity. The study further demonstrates that the (a)telicity of the predicate and the event

structure it denotes influence the semantic interpretations of its nominal complement(s).

Telicity tests and lexical representations are proposed to capture and define the event

structure classification of focus forms. The study not only offers a new perspective on

analysing the focus system, but also provides a preliminary account of the

in(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog.

In this chapter, I situate the significance of this study by discussing briefly the

‘focus system’, the linguistic issues that arise out of this focus system, and the gap that

this current study is addressing.

1.1 Background

The language under investigation is Tagalog, which is one of the 170 languages in the

Philippines (www.ethnologue.com). It belongs to the Western Malayo-Polynesian group

of the Austronesian Family together with other Philippine Languages.

Tagalog is the native language of the approximately 22 million people from the

provinces of Batangas, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, Marinduque, Mindoro, North of Nueva

Ecija, South of Quezon Province, and Metro Manila. It is the most widely used language

in the Philippines and is the basis for the national language now known as Filipino.

Among Philippine languages, it is the most extensively studied language.

The subject of much linguistic study (and source of many issues) in Tagalog is its

verbal paradigm. The verbal system of Tagalog, which it shares with other Philippine

languages, is known for its rich affixation. The sentences in (1) illustrate this point. In

each sentence below, the predicate inom ‘drink’ has an affix which puts one particular

nominal in focus and encodes the semantic role the nominal bears in relation to its clause.

Consequently, the semantic role of the focused or highlighted nominal participant

2

signifies the focus form of the clause. In (1a) the um affix earmarks the actor Nina as the

salient participant making the clause an actor focus (AF). On the other hand, in (1b) the Ø

allomorph of the in suffix gives prominence to the patient coke ‘cola’ making the clause

patient focus (PF), while in (1c) the affix an highlights the location liwasan ‘park’ and

renders the clause locative focus (LF). In (1d), the prefix i- and the derivational affix

pang (following the analysis of De Guzman 1978 in the classification of verbal affixes)

mark the instrument tumbler ‘tumbler’ and makes the clause instrumental focus (IF).

(1) a. Um-inom si Nina ng coke sa liwasan. (AF)

AF.PFV-drink NOM PN GEN cola DAT park

‘Nina drank cola in the park.’

b. In-inom- Ø ni Nina ang coke sa liwasan. (PF)

PFV-drink-PF GEN PN NOM cola DAT park

‘Nina drank the cola in the park.’

c. In-inom-an ni Nina ng coke ang liwasan. (LF)

PFV-drink-LF GEN PN GEN cola NOM park


d. I-p-<in>-ang-inom ni Nina ng coke (IF)

IF-<PFV>-DRV-drink GEN PN GEN cola

sa liwasan ang pula-ng tumbler.

DAT park NOM red-LNK tumbler

‘Nina drank cola in the park using the red tumbler.’

This verbal system is known in the literature as a ‘focus system’. The term “focus” is

sometimes interchangeably used with “voice”. However, it should be noted that the focus

system, as the term is used in Austronesian linguistic studies, is argued to be not

equivalent to the voice system of the Indo-European languages (Himmelman 2002, Ross

and Teng 2005). In addition, the term ‘focus’ is understood differently in the literature on

Tagalog from the pragmatic use of the term (in the sense of Lambrecht 1994). Thus, in

this thesis, we use the term focus to refer to the relation between the affix on the verb and

the semantic role of the participant made salient by the affix. As mentioned before, this

relation demonstrates the focus type of the clause, i.e. AF, PF, LF, IF. The term verbal affix

is to refer to the affixes that reflect the semantic role of the focused participant. A base

3

verb can exhibit different focus forms, as, here, the base verb inom ‘drink’ exhibits all

four possible focus types, but not every base verb will manifest all of these forms. It

seems that this is due to the inherent semantic nature of the verb. This is discussed further

in Chapter 3.

Notice that, in the sentences above, the nominals in simple verbal clauses are

marked with ANG (pronounced as /aŋ/), NG (/naŋ/) and SA (SI, NI and KAY, respectively, for

proper names). ANG marks the salient participant co-indexed by the verbal affix. On the

other hand, NG marks a nominal that takes a semantic role of agent, patient, theme,

instrument, or possessor. SA generally marks location, but can also be used for recipients,

goals and source. It is a matter of contention whether to treat these nominal markers as

case markers (Reid 2002, Himmelman 2005). Since this is not the focus of this thesis, I

have glossed them according to NOMINATIVE, GENITIVE and DATIVE for the sake of

convenience (following Kroeger 1993). I make no claim about the language typology of

Tagalog that the markers may indicate. We defer discussing further details of the

grammatical features of Tagalog until Chapter 3, but the correspondences among case,

semantic roles, and proper name/nominal markers are shown in Table 1.1 in order to

facilitate the understanding of the constructions that are discussed throughout the study.

Table 1.1 Correspondences of case, proper/nominal markers and semantic roles

CASE NOMINAL/PROPER NAME

MARKERS

SEMANTIC ROLES

NOM ANG/SI focused or salient participant

GEN NG/NI patient

theme

agent

instrument

possessor

DAT SA/KAY location

recipient

goal

source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velar_nasal


4

1.1.1 Terminologies defined

Before we proceed with further discussion, some clarification of concepts and

terminologies as used in this thesis are in order.

The focus forms of a base predicate, such as the actor focus (AF) clause, in (1a),

and the patient focus (PF) clause, in (1b), are also referred to as focus form alternations.

The terms alternation and alternant are used neutrally without any theoretical assumption

about the derivational relationship of the two. They are considered alternations because

they are similar in terms of the number of participants involved, the semantic roles of

these participants and the base predicate. However, they differ in the verbal affix that co-

occurs with the base predicate. Subsequently, the change in the verbal affix correlates

with a shift of nominal/personal name markers of the participants (as I will point out later,

the shift in markers also depends on the predicate/verb class and the event structure that a

verb class denotes).

The three different forms of the marked nominal/personal names, as shown in

Table 1.1 above, are also referred to as ANG-phrase, NG-phrase and SA-phrase. In cases

where the examination of the macrorole (ACTOR and UNDERGOER) status of the

participants in a clause is crucial in the analysis, the nominal marker + the semantic role,

e.g. NG-patient, NG-actor, ANG-patient, are used. I have labelled them as such to avoid any

confusion on the notion of subjecthood, which is a matter of debate in Tagalog. A brief

discussion of this issue is presented in the next section.

As will be made clear in Section 1.3, the alternants occur with the following

verbal affixes: UM/M- for AF, IN/Ø for PF, and –AN for locative focus (LF). However, in

the discussion of Accomplishments and Achievements in Chapter 4, the UM/M- affixes

that are traditionally analysed as actor focus (AF) markers will be referred to as Patient

focus (PF). As we will see in this chapter, achievements and accomplishments that are

derived from state predicates are affixed with either UM or MA. In these two event types,

the UM/M- affixes are occurring with base predicates that are derived from

nouns/adjectives. They are telic but non-dynamic, and are typically intransitive with the

patient argument marked by ANG. In Chapter 4, the verbal affixes MA and MA-KA are

discussed. These verbal affixes refer to the PF and AF alternation, respectively, and can

be expressed depending on the verb class of a predicate. Table 1.3 in Section 1.4

5

illustrates the focus forms and the verbal affixes associated with them, which are

investigated in this thesis.

Event structure, which is also known in the literature as ‘aktionsart’, refers to the

classification of verbs/predicates according to their internal temporal contour (e.g. [±

telic], [± punctual]. On the other hand, viewpoint aspect refers to the perfective-

imperfective dichotomy that emphasises the locus of the event a speaker wants to make

visible to his/her hearer using linguistic mechanisms. In this thesis, these two aspectual

notions are treated as independent aspectual components, but are seen as interacting in

systematic ways.

Telicity and perfectivity are aspectual features of event structure and viewpoint

aspect, respectively. But they have semantic properties that are confounded in the

literature. Thus, telicity, as used in this study, pertains to whether an event has an inherent

endpoint or terminal point. Under telicity, the notion of completion is relevant.

Perfectivity, which is subsumed under viewpoint aspect, pertains to whether an event is

viewed as an integrated whole. Under perfectivity, the notion of boundedness is relevant.

Chapters 2 and 7 discuss in detail these two aspectual notions and the relevant semantic

properties associated with them.

Predicate/verb class refers to verb-specific meaning, such as consumption,

performance, creation, directed-motion, manner of motion, positionals, perception, and

the like.

Homomorphism points to the interaction between the verbal domain and the

nominal domain. It is a semantic-based framework proposed by Krifka (1992) to

determine (a)telicity of a predicate by ‘defining structure-preserving mappings between

them’ (Filip 1999:83). This homomorphism relation appears to be viable for the verb

classes discussed in Chapter 5.

The terms “event types” and “eventualities” are used interchangeably to refer to

all types of event structure. Some other concepts are defined and discussed as needed in

later chapters.

6

1.1.2 Previous Linguistic Issues

As mentioned, the Tagalog focus system described above has been a subject of

considerable discussion in linguistic analysis. I here discuss three major issues that are of

interest to the current study.

The first issue, which is the ‘definiteness hypothesis’, springs from the need to

understand the motivation for the multiple syntactic projections (i.e. focus forms) of a

single verb and to account for the choice of focus. The second issue deals with classifying

the language typology of Tagalog, which raises the question of transitivity. Among the

focus forms, i.e. AF, PF, LF, IF, there appear to be two forms that are candidates for a basic

transitive clause: the AF or the PF form. The exploration of which is the basic one has led

to the ‘transitivity’ issue, particularly of the AF verb with the NG-PATIENT. In the

transitivity issue, the notion of definiteness is invoked particularly in elucidating the

grammatical status of the NG-PATIENT. It appears however that the transitivity problem is

deeply rooted in the issue of grammatical relations vs semantic relations. Hence, the

transitivity issue further led to an examination of the notions of subjecthood and

objecthood.

1.1.2.1 Definiteness

For the choice of focus, the ‘definiteness hypothesis’ plays a crucial role. It has been

postulated that regardless of the type of focus that the combination of the verb root and

the verbal affix gives rise to, the ANG-phrase is contended to always take a definite

interpretation (e.g. Schachter and Otanes 1972, Naylor 1975, Schachter 1976, Bell 1978).

For this reason, it has been proposed that the obligatory definiteness of the ANG-phrase

accounts for the choice of focus (Schachter 1976, 1977). Thus, a sentence structure is in

an AF form if its actor is definite. When it is the patient that is definite, the PF form is

used. Similar lines of reasoning are used for IF and LF forms (see examples in (1)).

However, Adams and Manaster-Ramer (1988:97) refute the general claim of

characterising the Philippine grammatical category of the ANG-phrase in terms of

obligatory definiteness. From their analysis of the data taken from previous works of

scholars and the elicited sentences from their informants, they find that an indefinite

reading of the ANG-phrase is also a regular feature in Tagalog. This reading arises when

there is a presence of an indefinite quantifier. Adams and Manaster-Ramer suggest that

7

indefinite quantifiers provide the following three interpretations: (i) indefinite, (ii)

partitive definite, and (iii) definite. To illustrate1:

Indefinite:

(2) Da-rating bukas ang isa-ng babae-ng

CONTEMPL-come tomorrow NOM one-LNK woman-LNK

na-kilala ko sa probinsya.

PF.PFV-know 1SG.GEN DAT province

‘A woman is coming tomorrow, who I met in the provinces.’

(3) Hoy, mahusay ang iba-ng komiks.

Hey good NOM other-LNK comics

‘Well, some (i.e. other) comics are good.’

(4) <D-um-a>-rating ang isa-ng dyip.

<UM-RDP>.IPFV.AF-come NOM one-LNK jeep

‘A jeep is coming.’

Partitive definite:

(5) A-araruh-in niya bukas ang isa-ng

CONTEMPL-plow-PF 3SG.GEN tomorrow NOM one-LNK

bahagi ng bukid.

part GEN field

‘A part of the field will be plowed by him tomorrow.’

Definite

(6) S-in-abi ng pare na, kung paghatian nila

say-PFV.PF GEN priest that if PF-divided 3PL.GEN

ang isa-ng itlog, ay hindi ma-ka-bu-buti

NOM one-LNK egg AY NEG STAT-AF-RDP-good

sa kanila.

DAT 3PL.DAT

‘The priest said that, if they divided the one egg, it would do them no good.’

1 Examples are adapted from Adams and Manaster-Ramer, but, glossing style is changed to be consistent

with the glosses in this thesis.

8

Interestingly, Adams and Manaster-Ramer have observed that the NG-patient (‘goal’ in

their study) retains an indefinite reading despite being in a possessive construction as in

(7; translation mine). Previous analyses of sentences of this sort argue for the definiteness

reading of the NG-phrase (cf. Wolff 1966; Bell 1978, 1979).

(7) Nag-bayad siya ng kanya-ng utang.

AF.PFV-pay 3SG.NOM GEN 3SG-LNK debt

‘He paid his debts.’

I provide a more comprehensive account of their arguments in Chapter 5. At this point,

what is crucial are the two general observations raised in their work. First, they argue that

the ‘definiteness hypothesis’, particularly the ‘definiteness constraint’ for the choice of

focus form, is too strong. As evidenced by the example sentences from (2) to (6), the

addition of a quantifier allows for an indefinite, partitive definite or definite reading of the

ANG-phrase. Second, the NG-patient has an indefiniteness interpretation despite being in a

possessive construction, as illustrated by the sentence in (7).

As I will show in Chapter 5 Section 5.5, the first observation with regard to the

effects of the quantifier needs further elucidation. At first blush, it seems that the addition

of the numeral isa ‘one’ in the ANG-phrase, such as in (4), gives an indefinite reading. At

least in the English translation, indefiniteness is the interpretation. I will argue that the

ANG + QUANTIFIER suggest a distinction between definiteness and specificity/referentiality

of the nominal. Thus, in (4), the ang isang dyip ‘a jeep’ will be analysed as definite-

specific/referential, i.e. ‘the one jeep’, which is similar to the ANG-phrase in (6). If the two

notions are treated as distinct properties, then, the second observation made regarding the

sentence in (7) is indeed correct. Hence, these assumptions support the claim that

‘definiteness’ is a crucial factor in the choice of focus forms. Crucially, however, it is

claimed in this thesis that the definiteness reading of ANG is influenced by the telicity of

the predicate.

9

1.1.2.2 Transitivity

The notion of transitivity is argued to be a feature that is universal among world

languages. Its traditional meaning is syntactic and is based on the existence of an object.

The object has to have a core argument status. Typically, in languages with a case

marking system, an object that is a core argument receives the ACC case (for nominative-

accusative system) or ABS case (for ergative-absolutive system).

The existing analyses of the Tagalog focus system, in terms of transitivity, have

mostly been based on syntactic grounds. That is, the notion of transitivity is associated

with the number of morphosyntactically encoded arguments in a fully formed clause. This

characterisation puts importance on the concepts of argumenthood and adjuncthood. But

these concepts are not always clear-cut. The two focus forms in the system that have been

at the heart of the transitivity analysis are the actor focus (AF) forms and the patient focus

(PF) forms. Consider the sentences in (8), repeated from (1).

(8) a. Um-inom si Nina ng coke sa liwasan. (AF)



b. In-inom- Ø ni Nina ang coke sa liwasan. (PF)



On a syntactic account of transitivity, the AF forms, as in (8a), and the PF forms, as in

(8b), have generated considerable debate on which would be considered to represent the

basic transitive construction in the language. There are two prevalent views, namely: the

accusative and the ergative2.

2 There are other scholars that have argued that Tagalog does not belong to either of the two previously

mentioned types of language: Maclachlan (1996) suggests a hybrid system for Tagalog in which there are

two transitive clauses: the AF and the PF. In her framework, there are three major cases instead of two

namely, NABS (nominative, absolutive) for the constituent that corresponds to ANG-phrase, ERG for NG-

ACTOR, and ACC for NG-PATIENT. In contrast to Maclachlan, Foley (2008) argues for a symmetrical voice

type for Tagalog. In this type, there is no single NP per clause that is selected to be the PIVOT (Dixon 1979,

1994; Foley and Van Valin 1984) of a clause since all are eligible depending on the verbal affix appended

to the verb root. Shibatani’s paradigm (1999) is akin to the proposal of Foley. He termed his paradigm as a

‘fluid voice system’ of Tagalog in which there is no basic sentence type and all participants in the event can

be admitted to the subject position.

10

The accusative view suggests that an AF form is the basic transitive, while a PF form is

the derived structure (Givon 1979). The problem with this analysis is the adjunct status of

the genitive-marked actor (i.e. NG-actor) in PF forms since it cannot be an optional

argument (Foley 2008).

The ergative analysis claims the opposite; an AF form is treated as intransitive and

the PF form as transitive (e.g Cena 1977, 1995; De Guzman 1988, 1992, 2000, Manning

1994; Nolasco 2003, 2005; Reid and Liao 2004). However, the issue under this

perspective is the adjuncthood of the genitive-marked patient (i.e. NG-patient) in an AF

form. Subsequently, arguing for the intransitivity of the AF form with the NG-patient has

become the central issue. For instance, Kroeger (1993) provides the adjunct-fronting test

to argue against the adjuncthood of the NG-patient in AF forms and gives evidence for its

argumenthood.

(9) a. K-um-ain ang bata ng tinapay.

AF.PFV-eat NOM child GEN bread

‘The child ate some bread.’

b. *ng tinapay k-um-ain ang bata

GEN bread AF.PFV-eat NOM child

‘Some bread the child ate.’

By using the adjunct-fronting test, as in (9b), Kroeger argues that the NG-patient ng

tinapay ‘some bread’ is a core argument since it cannot be fronted, as shown by the

ungrammaticality of the sentence in (9b). In contrast, De Guzman (1988, 2000) argues for

the claim that AF clauses are antipassives and that the NG-patient is an oblique

constituent. Under her analysis in Relational Grammar, the genitive-marked patient in

(9a) becomes a “2-chÔmeur” making it a non-core argument3 (see also Bell 1979, Payne

1982). Since the traditional notion of transitivity is correlated with the presence of a

‘grammatical object’, the debate on the NG-PATIENT in an AF form centred on proving its

‘non-grammatical object’ status. A semantic analysis of transitivity appears to provide a

3 See Kroeger (1993: 57-58) for the other syntactic tests to prove the argumenthood of the NG-patient in AF

forms and the NG-actor in PF forms. Interested readers are referred as well to De Guzman (2000), who

provides a detailed argument on the grammatical alignment of NG-patient with SA-phrase, and the

grammatical distinction between NG-actor and NG-patient.

11

solution for this, where the definiteness of the patient and other semantic parameters play

significant roles.

Invoking the transitivity hypothesis of Hopper and Thompson (1980), some

studies have posited that the AF form with the NG-patient is intransitive since the patient

is indefinite and not totally affected (e.g. Nolasco 2003, 2005; Saclot 2006), non-specific

(De Guzman 2000) and non-individuated (Katagiri 2005). Arguably, when the patient

gets mapped into syntax, it is considered to be an oblique argument.

Under Hopper and Thompson’s transitivity scale, the number of participants in a

clause does not guarantee its transitivity status. Thus, a clause may have two participants,

as in the case of the AF construction, but its ‘object’ provides a partitive reading because

it is partially affected or non-affected. In languages with case marking system, this

‘object’ takes a dative case. On the other hand, when the object is totally affected, it

typically takes an accusative case. Take a look at the dative alternation in English to

demonstrate the semantic and syntactic interaction:

(10) a. The president read his prepared speech,

NOM ACC

b. The president read from his prepared speech.

NOM DAT

It has been established that the object in (10a) is totally affected, hence, its ACC marking.

In contrast, the partitive reading in (10b) signals for the object to be marked in the DAT

and to appear as an argument of a preposition.

Interestingly, aspect has also been claimed to figure in the transitivity status of the

AF and PF forms. In her analysis of Javanese, Toba Batak and Tagalog, Wouk (1986)

finds that the PF forms in these languages are high in transitivity while the AF forms are

low in transitivity. She argues that the ‘individuation of O’ parameter is the key element

for the transitivity differences. By taking her study further into the discourse level, Wouk

(1999:103-104) observes that most Austronesian languages, which have retained the

Proto-Austronesian (PAN) focus system, have AF forms that are associated with ‘low

discourse transitivity tending to occur in clauses that are irrealis, imperfective, durative,

and/or subordinate’. Conversely, the PF forms ‘correlate with high discourse transitivity,

tending to occur in clauses which are realis, perfective, punctual, and/or main’.

12

It is reasonable to doubt the intransitivity of AF clauses with the NG-patient given the

number of arguments in their surface form. In addition, the NG marker in an AF

construction typically marks either patient or theme participant in the clause which gets to

be mapped into syntax, under traditional grammars, as the ‘logical object’. It will be

demonstrated in Chapter 5 that this issue of transitivity in Tagalog, particularly of base

predicates that exhibit the AF and PF alternation, can be best accounted for in terms of

M(acrorole) transitivity. It will become evident that an adequate explanation for the

(in)transitivity of the AF form with the NG-PATIENT requires reference to event structure

and its logical structure, which prediction of macroroles is tied to.

The semantic correlates (e.g. affectedness and individuation of the patient, mode,

and aspect) that have been proposed to affect the determination of transitivity, although

they may be considered as independent properties, interact with the event structure that

the AF and PF forms denote, wherein the notion of telicity plays a significant role.

1.1.2.3 Mapping of semantic relations to grammatical relations

Some earlier works on Tagalog verbs look at the subcategorisation rules to explicate the

mechanism of the focus system (e.g. Ramos 1974, De Guzman 1978). For instance, the

verb bumili ‘bought’ and gumanda ‘become beautiful’ will have the following simplified

subcat frames in (11) and (12), respectively.

(11) bumili V, NP, NP

agent, patient

(12) gumanda V, NP

patient

Ramos and De Guzman propose rules that attempt to explain the syntactic frames a verb

may manifest. In addition, they suggest semantic features of the verb and its argument(s)

to generate the correct syntactic frames. Notice that in the subcat frames in (11) and (12),

semantic roles4 are used to specify the selectional restrictions of the argument(s). The

studies of Ramos and De Guzman are further discussed in Chapter 3.

4 They are also known in the literature as ‘case roles’ (Fillmore 1968), ‘thematic relations’ (Gruber 1965;

Jackendoff 1972, 1975), or ‘theta-roles’ (Chomsky 1981).

13

The notion of semantic roles has been used as a linking algorithm from semantics to

syntax (Gruber 1965; Fillmore 1968; Jackendoff 1972, 1975; Grimshaw 1981; Chomsky

1981, 1986). With English as the primary language of analysis, one important observation

has been made regarding the mapping of semantic roles to particular syntactic positions

occupied by grammatical relations like subject and object. There appears to be a

consistent mapping of agents to the subject position, whereas themes and patients land on

the object position. However, across languages, it has been observed that other semantic

roles, like patient, theme and instrument, can also occupy the subject position; whereas,

source and goal can settle in the object position that patient and theme typically settle in.

Thematic hierarchies are proposed to define further the realisation of these semantic roles

in particular grammatical positions. It is postulated in these hierarchies that the other

semantic roles, after the agent, have to go through syntactic processes in order to be

assigned to the subject position previously occupied by the agent.

(13) a. agent > location / source/ goal > theme (Jackendoff 1972:148)

b. Agt > Pat > Rec > Ben > Inst > Loc > Temp (Dik (1978:70)

Succeeding studies on Tagalog, however, have observed that the mapping of semantic

roles to grammatical relations and the restriction on thematic hierarchy are not

straightforward (e.g. Schachter 1976, 1977, 1995; Cena 1977, 1995; Foley and Van Valin

1984; Foley 2008). For one, if the ANG-phrase is the putatively subject position, any type

of semantic role can occupy that position. Hence, the different focus forms and the issue

of subjecthood (e.g. Kroeger 1993, Cena 1995). Although this issue is not dealt with in

this thesis, a brief discussion is warranted to understand why the notion of macroroles is

considered significant to adequately explain the issue of transitivity.

1.1.2.3.1 Subjecthood

In his 1976 paper, Keenan provides syntactic properties for determining the subject in a

language. The seminal papers of Schachter (1976, 1977) show that the syntactic

properties are split between the NG-actor and the ANG-phrase, as shown in Table 1.2

(Kroeger 1993:27).

14

Table 1.2 Split of syntactic properties

NG-ACTOR ANG-NP

Reflexive binding Obligatory element of every clause

Equi target Launches floating quantifiers

Imperative addressee relativization

Relevance to word order

(in Kapampangan, and Cebuano

languages)

Let us consider the addressee of imperative as an illustration (adapted from Schachter

1976:506).

(14) a. Mag-bigay ka sa kaniya ng kape.

AF.CONTEMPL-give 2SG.NOM DAT 3SG.DAT GEN coffee

‘Give him some coffee.’

b. Big(a)y-an mo siya ng kape.

give-LF 2SG.GEN 3SG.NOM GEN coffee

‘Give him some coffee.’

Keenan (1976) suggests that, generally, the addressee of the imperative can be expressed

by the subject. The sentences above, however, show that this property is expressed by the

actor, whether it is the subject or not. In (14a), the actor ka ‘you’ is the putative subject,

but not in (14b). Thus, Schachter argues that this syntactic property holds for Tagalog,

only if the actor is the subject. But as Table 1.2 above demonstrates, the syntactic

properties of subject are divided into the NG-actor and any nominal that occupies the ANG-

phrase (depending on the verb and the verbal affix). This has led Schachter to conclude

that there is no subject in Tagalog (see also Foley and Van Valin 1984, Cena 1995). On

the other hand, Kroeger (1993) posits that it is the ANG-phrase (nominative-NP in his

work) that is the subject, while others propose that it is the NG-actor (Payne 1982, Gerdts

1988).

In section 1.1.2.2 on transitivity, we have seen that the status of the NG-patient in

an AF form as a grammatical object is problematic. On the other hand, this section has

shown that the notion of subject is also not without its issues. Given that grammatical

15

relations, such as subject and object, are pertinent to the determination of transitivity, but

since these grammatical relations are problematic in Tagalog, referring to ACTOR and

UNDERGOER MACROROLES appear to be promising in elucidating the issue of transitivity,

particularly on base predicates that exhibit the AF and PF alternation and where the status

of the NG-patient is questionable. Chapter 5 deals with this issue.

1.1.2.3.2 Macroroles

In the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) framework, macroroles (MR) are Actor and

Undergoer, which are neutralisations of thematic relations and serve as intermediary roles

to carry out mapping to syntax. Depending on the particular neutralisations in the

language, the Actor MR can subsume particular thematic notions like agent, experiencer,

effector, source, and force; on the other hand, the Undergoer MR can subsume roles like

patient, theme, beneficiary, goal and location. The Actor and Undergoer macroroles are

the two primary arguments of a transitive predication. In an intransitive predication, either

one of the two can be the primary argument. We defer discussing this in detail until

Chapter 2. However, it is to be noted at this point that macrorole selection is not done

randomly. Macrorole selection is regulated by the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH),

which is closely related to the argument positions in a predicate’s logical structure (Van

Valin 2005:61). Consequently, the logical structure (LS) of the predicate is assigned by

determining first the event structure of the predicate, which is further determined by a

number of operational tests.

Although in RRG, macrorole assignment is predicted through a predicate’s LS,

the Actor and Undergoer macroroles appear to exhibit the lexical entailments proposed by

Dowty (1991) for the AGENT PROTO-ROLE and the PATIENT PROTO-ROLE. However in

Dowty’s terms, these two are prototypes of generalised semantic roles, which get to be

realised as subject and object. The lexical entailments of the AGENT PROTO-ROLE and the

PATIENT PROTO-ROLE are given below (p. 572).

(15) Contributing properties for the Agent Proto-role

a. volitional involvement in the event or state

b. sentience (and/or perception)

c. causing an event or change of state in another participant

d. movement (relative to the position of another participant)

(e. exist independently of the event named by the verb)

16

(16) Contributing properties for the Patient Proto-role

a. undergoes change of state

b. incremental theme

c. causally affected by another participant

d. stationary relative to movement of another participant

(e. does not exist independently of the event, or not at all)

The lexical entailments of Dowty will be useful in elucidating the semantic properties of

the participants that are assigned an Undergoer macrorole. Thus, as we will see in the

transitivity analysis of the AF forms with NG-patients in Chapter 5, the NG-patient is not

assigned an Undergoer macrorole since it does not undergo a change of state (among

other entailments).

1.2 Why event structure?

At the outset, I have noted that the typical characterisation of Tagalog’s verbal system

focuses on its rich affixation. In that description, we have observed that a base predicate

can exhibit different types of focus forms depending on the verbal affix that co-occurs

with it. We have seen also that this verbal system has been a source of major linguistic

issues. Three of these issues were discussed in the previous sections, namely:

definiteness, transitivity and subjecthood. These issues centre on the linguistic analyses of

the nominal arguments, i.e. ANG-phrase, NG-PATIENT, and the role that the affixed verb

plays in the linguistic functions of these arguments.

However a more fundamental question arises out of the Tagalog verbal system:

what accounts for the choice of focus? What is the motivation behind the various

syntactic manifestations of a single verb? Do these focus forms signify only the semantic

relation between the affixed verb and the salient participant (i.e. ANG-phrase)?

In answer to the first two questions, the traditional analyses of the focus system

have centred on the notion of definiteness as the semantic determinant that distinguishes

the focus forms of a base predicate and accounts for the choice of focus. More

importantly, definiteness has also figured in the transitivity analysis of the AF and PF

alternation. Consider once again the sentences in (1), here repeated in (17).

17

(17) a. Um-inom si Nina ng coke sa liwasan.



b. In-inom- Ø ni Nina ang coke sa liwasan.



The sentences above depict a drinking event involving three nominal participants: Nina

(actor), coke (patient), and liwasan (location). As noted previously, these participants are

marked differently depending on the affix of the verb. But note that the nominal marker

of the locative participant remains the same regardless of the focus forms (we will

examine SA-phrase in detail in Chapter 6).

When pressed to explain the difference between the sentences above, native

speakers that I have consulted would invariably mention the definiteness of the ANG-

phrase as the factor that differentiates the two. However, they also provide the intuition

that the event in (17a) seems to be non-completed as opposed to (17b) which is

completed. This difference appears to rely on the definiteness of the patient, where

definiteness seems to be correlated with the idea that the cola was completely consumed.

The AF clause in (17a) has an indefinite patient where there is an implication that the cola

wasn’t completely consumed; consequently, this triggers the non-completed reading. The

opposite is the case for the sentence in (17b). The intuition behind the AF clause is an

interesting opposition to its perfective aspect description (discussed in Chapter 3).

Typically, sentences such as in (17) are characterised as perfective (Schachter and Otanes

1972). Under this analysis, the perfective form has the [+ completed] semantic feature.

Thus, it is expected that both sentences in (17) will be construed as completed events. But

native speakers’ intuitions about the meaning of the AF structure in (17a) suggest

otherwise.

As a response to the fundamental question posed above and to the intuition behind

the difference in meaning of the AF and PF forms, as in (17), I make the following claims

in this thesis:

(i) By taking an event structure approach, I view the ‘focus system’ as

linguistic construals of event types motivated and determined by the

semantic feature of telicity. While the notion of definiteness is not

18

disregarded in this thesis, it is considered, together with the notion of

affectedness, to be a distinct semantic property of events and their

arguments which interplay with telicity. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 demonstrate

the significance of an event structure analysis by providing telicity tests,

classifying the focus forms of a predicate into their event structure types

and, accordingly, presenting a lexical representation of the examined

predicates. Furthermore, these Chapters show that through an event

structure approach, the type of focus form in which alternation of a base

predicate figures can be determined, and its lexical representation, which

serves as the linking algorithm, predicts the realisation of the arguments

from semantics to syntax.

(ii) The long-standing issue with regard to the transitivity of the AF and PF

forms is best accounted for in terms of M(acrorole) transitivity, which is

tied to event structure governed by telicity. There is a strong correlation

between telicity and M-transitivity of PF forms, and between atelicity and

M-intransitivity of AF forms. Consequently, the (a)telicity of the

predicates influences the semantic interpretation of the (A)NG-PATIENT.

Chapter 5 particularly deals with this issue. This telicity analysis is

claimed to account also for motion predicates that belong to the directed

motion and manner of motion classes and have the AF and PF/LF

alternation. In motion predicates, the (a)telicity of the predicates influences

the semantic interpretation of the ANG-phrase and SA-phrase. Chapter 6

explicates this assertion in detail.

(iii) The difference in meaning between the AF and PF alternation, as noted in

(17), can be explained by distinguishing their two aspectual components:

event structure and viewpoint aspect. The aspectual meaning of the focus

form alternations investigated in this thesis results from the interaction of

the two distinct aspectual components. It will become evident that the

(non)completion reading of the focus form alternation, such as above,

hinges on the difference in their (a)telicity and, consequently, in the event

structure that each focus form denotes. The [+completed] feature, which is

traditionally characterised for perfective aspect in Tagalog, is posited to be

a semantic property of event structure particularly subsumed under the

notion of telicity. Perfectivity, on the other hand, accounts for the

19

perspective on how a situation is viewed; in this case, in its entirety. Thus,

both sentences in (17) are viewed as an integrated whole in which the

semantic features of complete and boundedness are at play in subtly

different ways. This is the reason why native speakers also claim that

despite the sense of (non)completion, both sentences also convey a sense

of boundedness or closure. Focus form alternation, as in (17), represents

the distinction and interaction of event structure and viewpoint aspect that

is put forward in Chapter 7.

Overall, this thesis argues for the relevance of event structure analysis in elucidating that

the focus forms exhibited by the base predicates are not only expressions of the relation

between the affixed verb and its salient participant, but also (and most importantly) are

linguistic construals of events and denote different event types. Crucially, these event

types are linked to their telicity properties, and, this, in turn, influences the interpretations

of the ANG-phrase, the NG-phrase, and the SA-phrase. In addition, through event structure,

the type of focus form alternation that a base predicate figures in, its corresponding event

type, and the projection of the participants into particular syntactic positions can be

determined.

1.3 Aims and Contributions

This thesis has a two-fold goal. Firstly, it will be demonstrated that the “focus system” is

a surface manifestation of the variety of event structure types that are determined by the

semantic feature of telicity. Specifically, it will be shown that telicity, at least in Tagalog,

is triggered by the aspectual meaning inherent in the verb’s semantics plus the verbal

affix. Subsequently, the (a)telicity of the predicate and the event structure it denotes

trigger semantic interpretations of the patient/goal/source that is assigned an Undergoer

macrorole. Secondly, the thesis argues for a theoretical distinction between the concepts

of (a)telicity and (im)perfectivity, which are often confounded in the literature, and

provides one illustration, with respect to Tagalog, of why this is important and

illuminating.

Although analyses are limited only to certain verb classes, focus form alternations,

and verbal affixes, attainment of the goals leads to the following contributions of the

20

thesis to the study of Tagalog linguistics (and, perhaps, Philippine languages and

Philippine-type languages in general):

(i) present a new perspective on examining the focus forms in terms of event

structure classification, and, thereby, accounts for the choice of focus;

(ii) elucidate the transitivity issue by examining the focus forms in terms of

macrorole transitivity that is triggered by the semantic feature of telicity;

(iii) propose telicity tests and logical structure (lexical representation) of the

analysed predicates, which predicts the realisation of the arguments;

(iv) provide semantic interpretations of the patient that show the interplay of telicity,

definiteness and specificity/referentiality; and ,

(v) offer a semantic explanation of the in(ter)dependence of event structure and

viewpoint aspect in Tagalog.

The thesis is primarily semantic in its perspective and puts importance on lexical

representation and event structure as the conduit for the surface manifestation, i.e. focus

forms, of a single verb. It does not make any pretense of making generalisations for

predicate classes that have not been part of the investigation. However, through this

study, the contributions I have indicated will spur further investigation and research on

Tagalog’s aspectual system.

1.4 Scope: the ‘focus forms’ alternation

The thesis limits its event structure analysis to the following classes of predicates. The

purpose of classifying verbs/predicates according to their class also aids in determining

the focus forms that they can exhibit:

(i) consumption, creation, performance, learning, transaction or change of

possession.

These verb classes exhibit the AF and PF alternation, where the patient participant

gets mapped into the ANG-phrase or NG-phrase. They figure in the transitivity

issue and, normally, will have a SA-phrase as optional. These verb classes that

display the AF and PF alternation also clearly illustrate the notion of

homomorphism between the verbal domain and nominal domain put forward by

21

Krifka (1992, 1998). These focus form alternations denote activity and active

accomplishment event structures. We will see that predicates that belong to the

verb class of transaction or change of possession are exceptions to the rule of

homomorphism. However, the argument that telicity plays a role in this class of

verb is still maintained.

(ii) content-oriented and container-oriented

Verbs that fall into these two types of classes figure in the ‘locative alternation’,

as it is known in the literature. They also denote activity-active accomplishment

event types, except that the active accomplishment is expressed by two focus

forms: patient focus (PF) and locative focus (LF). Verbs, such as buhos ‘pour’,

illustrate this point:

a. Nag-buhos ang magsasaka ng tubig sa balde.

AF.PFV-pour NOM farmer GEN water DAT bucket

‘The farmer poured water in the bucket.’

b. I-b-in-uhos ng magsasaka ang tubig sa balde.

PF-PFV- pour GEN farmer NOM water DAT bucket

‘The farmer poured the water in the bucket.’

c. B-in-uhus-an ng magsasaka ng tubig ang balde.

PFV-pour-LF GEN farmer GEN water NOM bucket

?‘The farmer poured water into the bucket.’

(iii) Directed-motion and manner of motion predicates

Like locative alternation verbs, motion predicates also exhibit the activity-active

accomplishment dichotomy that is expressed by the AF and PF/LF forms.

However, there are differences between the two. First, motion predicates do not

have the ‘moved-object’, i.e. the NG-phrase, which the locative alternation verbs

have. Thus, the second difference relates to the first. That is, the SA-phrase, which

is optional in the AF and PF alternation in verb classes like consumption and

container-oriented, is the one involved in the argument alternation. For instance,

a. L-um-angoy siya sa dagat.

AF.PFV-swim 3SG.NOM DAT sea

‘She swam in the sea.’

22

b. Ni-langoy-Ø niya ang dagat

PFV-swim-PF 3SG.GEN NOM sea

‘She swam the sea.’

c. Ni-langoy-an niya ang dagat

PFV-swim-LF 3SG.GEN NOM sea

‘She swam across the sea.’

The verb classes mentioned above are the major ones examined in this thesis, but there

are other verbs such as positionals, emotions and cognitions used in the discussion of

states, achievements, and accomplishments.

Table 1.3 below summarises the focus forms, the verbal affixes, and the

associated event structures that are part of the investigation. The event structures, as

shown on the table and their properties, are explicated in Chapter 3 and further illustrated

in Chapters 4-7.

Table 1.3 Focus forms and the associated event structure and verbal affixes

Event

affix

State Activity Active

acc

Acc* Achv Active

achv

Caus

UM AF PF PF

IN/Ø PF PF

AN LF

MA PF PF

MAG AF

PA CF

KA PF AF

*Acc=accomplishment; Achv=achievement;Caus=causative

Resolving the issue of what case labels should be used and the issue of subjecthood are

not dealt with in this thesis. This will be left for future research. However, the findings in

this thesis can be a new starting point for investigating the two issues.

I have, in general, used Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) as a descriptive tool

for classifying the focus forms in terms of their event structure and corresponding logical

structure (or lexical representation). In particular, I adopt RRG’s notion of M(acrorole)

transitivity to elucidate the long-standing transitivity issue of the AF with the NG-patient

form and its PF alternate. However, as the notion of telicity in RRG is not elaborated

enough, I have also taken into account a semantic-based definition of telicity based on

Krifka’s (1992) homomorphism concept. In this account, the notions of cumulativity and

quantisation are the defining features of the (a)telicity of a verbal predication. RRG does

23

not have a paradigm for (im)perfectivity; thus, I adopt Smith’s (1991) framework of

viewpoint aspect to address the second goal of the thesis. These frameworks are

introduced in Chapter 2 and then referred to as needed in subsequent chapters.

1.5 Data and Methodology

The data used in this thesis consist of the following: (i) elicited narratives of Frog, where

are you? (Mayer 1969) collected from 25 native speakers of Tagalog; (ii) elicited

sentences from native speakers of Tagalog, Kapampangan and Bisaya; and (iii)

independently existing narratives found on the web, children’s story books published by

Adarna House, and folklore stories published by Books for Children.

For the elicited narratives, the narrators ranged in age from 5 to 65 years old and

came from Padre Garcia, Batangas, Philippines. Each respondent was asked to narrate the

story of a wordless picture story book, Frog, where are you. Narratives were collected

under a number of conditions. Those used here were from the procedure where the

respondents were asked to look first at the pictures without telling the story, while the

researcher was flipping the page. After all the pages were seen, the book was given to the

respondent while the researcher sat opposite him/her. Afterwards, the respondent was

asked to tell a story of the book. From these narratives, sentences that express motion

predicates (particularly those that have directed-motion, e.g. lumabas ‘exited/went out’,

and manner of motion, e.g. umakyat ‘climbed’), locative states (e.g. Na-sa garapon ang

palaka ‘The frog is in the jar’), positionals (e.g. Na-ka-upo ang bata ‘The boy is sitting’),

and perception predicates were extracted. Examples given in the thesis are coded by the

abbreviation of the title (FWAY) and the age of the respondent, e.g. FWAY: 5.

When the data is sourced from blogs, online newspapers, or short story books of

Adarna House or Books for Children, the website or the publisher of the story book and

the year of publication are indicated. Otherwise, all other data used to exemplify, justify

and support the analyses, which are not referenced, are elicited sentences from the

researcher, who is a native speaker of Tagalog.

Other native speakers of Tagalog were consulted to confirm the interpretation/s of

the Tagalog constructions, particularly when applying the telicity tests. For purposes of

comparison, the data from Kapampangan and Bisaya are elicited from a Kapampangan

speaker (native of Tarlac) and Bisayan speakers (natives of Cagayan de Oro and Davao).

24

1.6 Thesis Overview

The thesis is organised as follows. In Chapter 2, I present the theoretical preliminaries of

the thesis: Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, Van Valin 2005,

Van Valion 2007), the homomorphic relation paradigm of Krifka (1992), and the

Parameter of Aspect of Smith (1991). I also provide an account of Vendler and Dowty’s

system of event structure to give a historical view of the development of research on

event structure (i.e. aktionsart). In Chapter 3, I offer a grammatical sketch of Tagalog

emphasising the areas that are essential in the study. Then, I tackle some of the major

studies in the Tagalog verbal system and point out gaps in these studies that are relevant

to the thesis. In Chapter 4, I begin the analysis of event structure with states,

achievements and accomplishments, where the verbal affix MA plays a significant role. I

also demonstrate here the function of the UM affix to denote achievement and

accomplishment eventualities. Finally, we look at the function of the affix KA as a stative

marker and an actor marker. In Chapter 5, I analyse the telicity of the focus forms that

exhibit the AF and PF alternation and denote the activity and active accomplishment

event types. I provide tests to establish the (a)telicity of these two focus forms and their

difference in terms of Macrorole transitivity. In addition, I examine the semantics of the

patient in relation to telicity, definiteness, specificity/referentiality, and the numerical

quantifier isa ‘one’. In Chapter 6, I examine the directed-motion and manner of motion

predicates, and argue that the alternation of the focus forms also denotes activity and

active accomplishment event types. Specifically, I posit that these event types are

strategies for goal/source marking. I also discuss the ‘locative alternation’ in which

predicates have the AF and PF/LF alternation, and show how locative alternation

predicates differ from motion predicates. In Chapter 7, I explore the interplay between

event structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog. I conclude with Chapter 8, where I

present an overview of the main observations advanced in this thesis and the areas that

need further investigation and research.

25

Chapter 2

Theoretical Preliminaries

This chapter begins with a brief account of the study of event structure, focusing on

Vendler’s 1967 and Dowty’s 1979 analyses of event types of English verbs. Following

from this, I present Role and Reference Grammar (RRG; Van Valin and LaPolla 1997,

Van Valin 2005, 2007), emphasising its theoretical orientation of Macrorole transitivity

and event structure. RRG’s event structure framework builds on Vendler’s four-fold

schema of events and Dowty’s logical representations. Krifka’s (1992) semantic-based

definition of (a)telicity and Smith’s (1991) paradigm of viewpoint aspect are also

discussed. These theoretical approaches serve as the descriptive tools in the analyses of

event structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog presented in Chapters 4-7.

2.1 Event structure

Within the study of aspect, researchers distinguish between event structure and viewpoint

aspect5. Event structure, which is also referred to as ‘lexical aspect’, ‘aktionsart’,

‘aspectual classes’, ‘eventuality types’, examines verbal expressions and the event types

they denote. Event structures are not representations of events in the world, but are

linguistic construals of events in the world. That is, they are expressions of how speakers

use language to conceptualise happenings in the world. It is assumed that, since verb

meanings are linguistic construals of events, there are semantic properties of the events

that find their way into the representation and influence the syntactic realisation of

arguments. Furthermore, as Levin and Rappaport-Hovav (2005) argue, a study on verb

meanings through event structure posits that though verbs differ, as expected, there are

verbs that exhibit similar surface structure. Consequently, these groups of verbs could

have similar semantic representations which are motivated by the semantic properties of

events.

To capture event types denoted by the verbal predicates, linguists look into their

internal temporal composition. In RRG, the four parameters that make up the temporal

5 There is much debate in the literature whether to treat event structure and viewpoint aspect (also known in

the literature as ‘grammatical aspect’) as distinct aspectual systems. I refer the reader to Sasse (2002) who

provides a substantive discussion of the issues surrounding these two aspectual notions. In this thesis, I

posit that, although event structure and viewpoint aspect interact with each other, they are distinct aspectual

components. This will be made clear in Chapter 7.

26

constitution are [± static, ± dynamic, ± telic, ± punctual]. Among these four features, the

notion of telicity has received much attention for its purported influence on the syntactic

manifestations of verbal expressions (Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 2005). Its widely held

characterisation is the endpoint feature, which signifies whether events have an inherent

culmination or terminal point.

On the other hand, viewpoint aspect is concerned with the distinction of different

perspectives on events, and they are primarily associated with the notion of perfectivity

and imperfectivity (Smith 1991). This is discussed further in Section 2.4. But, first, we

deal with event structure and start off with Vendler’s and Dowty’s investigations.

2.1.1 Vendler (1967) and Dowty (1979)

The earliest classification of verbs originated from Aristotle’s Metaphysics in which he

made a distinction between ‘kinesis’ (movement) and ‘energia’ (actualities) roughly

corresponding to what are commonly known as accomplishment and activities/states

respectively (Kenny 1963, Dowty 1979, Rothstein 2004). However, it is Vendler’s (1967)

paper that has become influential and marks the beginning of research on event structure.

Vendler, drawing upon Ryle’s (1949) and Kenny’s (1963) works, argues that there

is a four-fold schema of events characterised by their internal temporal composition,

namely states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements. States are considered to be

non-dynamic and persist over a stretch of time. Furthermore, verbs of this nature do not

usually have progressive forms. Activities are similar to states in the sense of

homogeneity of time in which events have no culmination or end; however, activities

differ from states in terms of their being dynamic. Accomplishments are not homogenous

and have a natural endpoint. Achievements are instantaneous events which capture either

the beginning or ending of the action. Below are examples of verb classes from Vendler’s

taxonomy:

Table 2.1 Vendler’s four-fold schema of events

States Activities Accomplishments Achievements

know run make a chair notice

love walk run a mile recognise

want swim paint a picture find

desire push a cart recover from illness spot

have drive a car deliver a sermon lose

draw a circle reach

27

Subsequent studies built on Vendler’s verb classes to make precise the intuition of

classifying eventualities. One of those influential is Dowty (1979) who grounds these

categorisations by providing a predicate decomposition of these verbs couched in a

Montague grammar framework. In addition, he comes up with different tests (drawn from

Lakoff (1965), Ryle, Kenny and Vendler) to make finer distinction among these verb

types according to logical entailments, interaction with temporal adverbials, interpretation

with tense, and occurrence in progressives. I give examples of the tests below (see Dowty

1979: Chapter 2 for a complete list). Some of these tests will be used to examine Tagalog

data in later chapters.

2.1.1.1 Temporal adverbials and entailments

Activities, accomplishments, and achievements are distinguished from each other by the

temporal adverbials that they co-occur with and the entailment they have with these

temporal adverbials. Activities are compatible with for-phrases, while accomplishments

and achievements freely take in-phrases.

(1) a. *Ben built a tree house for an hour. Accomplishment

b. Ben built a tree house in an hour.

(2) a. Albert ran for an hour. Activity

b. *Albert ran in an hour.

(3) a. She noticed the mole on his face in a second. Achievement

b. *She noticed the mole on his face for a second

Semantically similar to the temporal adverbials are spend an hour and take an hour to,

where the former occurs with activities, and the latter with accomplishments and

achievements.

(4) a. It took Ben an hour to build a tree house/? Ben spent an hour building a

tree house6

b. Albert spent an hour running/ * It took Albert an hour to run.

6 Native speakers commented that the sentence is acceptable only if the idea is that the tree house wasn’t

finished.

28

c. It took her a second to notice the mole on his face/* She spent an hour

noticing the mole on his face.

Entailment tests the truth condition of activities and accomplishments with for an hour.

Under the same conditions, the two event types differ in their entailment. The mechanism

behind this test is elaborated in Section 2.1.2.

(5) a. Albert ran for an hour entails Albert has run.

b. Ben built a tree house for an hour does not entail

that Ben has built a tree house7.

Being a complement of finish is only available for accomplishments.

(6) a. Ben finished building a tree house.

b. *Albert finished running.

c. * She finished noticing the mole on his face.

The almost test has different effects on accomplishment and activity. Accomplishments

are ambiguous with almost, but not with activities. The sentence in (7a) appears to have

two readings: (i) Ben intended to build a tree house but changed his mind and did not do

it all, (ii) Ben started to build the tree house and he almost but did not quite finish it. The

sentence in (7b) entails that Albert did not run at all.

(7) a. Ben almost built a tree house.

b. Albert almost ran.

In the next section, we explain further the relation of telicity and temporal adverbials by

providing a semantic definition of the temporal adverbials. These definitions will also be

used in elucidating the atelicity of the AF form with NG-patient (in Chapter 5) and the AF

form with SA-goal/source and the telicity of its PF/LF alternate (in Chapter 6).

7 There are other scholars who find the entailment test problematic, specifically when it examines

accomplishments, such as ‘paint a picture’ or ‘build a house’. Interested readers are referred to works of

Dowty (1979), Bach (1986), Filip (1999), and Zucchi and White (2001).

29

2.1.2 Telicity and temporal adverbials

As mentioned above, there are two common temporal adverbials that are employed to

assess the telicity of verbal predicates. First are durative adverbials, such as ‘for an hour’,

which signify homogeneity of the eventuality. Rothstein (2004: 24) gives the following

semantics of durative adverbials:

“…denote set of intervals and modify VPs (or Vs). The condition

is usually expressed as follows: x P-ed for two hours is true

if at every subinterval of a two-hour period, x P-ed is true.”

Second are the time-span adverbials, like ‘in an hour’, which ‘place an eventuality within

a temporal period of time’ (Dowty 1979); thereby, locating the end of eventualities within

this time period (Rothstein 2004:26), e.g. Alex wrote a haiku in five minutes.

When the two types of adverbials are used in examining if they can co-occur with

verbal expressions, they test the ‘endpoint’ and ‘homogeneity’ features of (a)telicity.

Consider the following sentences in (8).

(8) a. Albert ran for an hour/*in an hour.

b. Alex wrote a haiku ?for five minutes/in five minutes.

It can be observed in (8a) that the verb run being an activity verb is compatible with the

temporal measure phrase for an hour. Since activities have no culmination or terminal

point, they co-occur naturally with the durative measure phrase for an hour, but not with

the time-span adverbial in an hour. The opposite is the case for accomplishment

predicates, as in (8b). Such verbs naturally co-occur with the time-span adverbials since

accomplishments denote eventualities that have natural endpoints. Some native speakers

of English, however, attest that the co-occurrence of for five minutes in (8b) is acceptable.

In this case, the accomplishment eventuality is conceived of as a haiku-writing event in

which the natural endpoint of the eventuality is overridden by its co-occurrence with the

for five minutes adverbial. This temporal adverbial coerces an accomplishment event type

to have an activity event type interpretation. This shift is considered a marked

interpretation (Smith 1991).

The temporal adverbials not only test the ‘endpoint’ feature of telicity, but also

certify its ‘homogeneity’ feature. Recall that Vendler characterises states and activities as

30

being homogeneous; whereas, accomplishments and achievements are non-

homogeneous/heterogenous. Since activities, such as (8a), are homogeneous, the

compatibility of ‘for an hour’ with activity verb, such as run, attests to its homogeneity of

time. Since the event of running is perceived as persisting over stretches of time involving

no culmination or endpoint, the partnership of activities (or states) and durative adverbials

entails that if Albert ran for an hour, then, at any time during that hour it was true that

Albert ran. This is what is meant by the entailment test mentioned above with regard to

the truth condition of activities with for an hour.

In contrast, the sentence in (8b) illuminates that accomplishment verbs occur

comfortably with the time-span measure phrase, such as in five minutes, which entails that

if Alex wrote a haiku in 5 minutes is true, then it is not true that at any time during that 5

minutes he wrote a haiku. This means that if Alex wrote a haiku from 1 minute to 5

minutes any subinterval from 1 to 5 would not be equivalent to the denotation of wrote a

haiku. Thus, in this event, Alex would only have finished writing a haiku at 5 minutes.

This suggests that the endpoint of the event is located within that five minutes and ‘the

whole of the time segment and not just a single moment’ is relevant (Mourelatos 1978:

416). Thus, since accomplishments (and achievements) are non-homogeneous or

heterogeneous, their subintervals cannot be divided to denote an event of the same kind.

Studies have shown that there seems to be a consistency between the appearance

of for an hour with activity verbs and in an hour with accomplishments attesting to the

fact that these temporal adverbials are standard tests for differentiating the two (e.g.

Vendler 1967; Dowty 1979; Tenny 1987, 1994). But the following factors have also been

observed (e.g. Dowty 1979, Mourelatos 1978, Declerck 1979, among others):

(9) a. same verb can be part of more than one event type

b. the relation between a verb and its nominal argument determines

the telicity of the verbal predicates

c. the nature of the object influences telicity

The sentences in (10) illustrate the abovementioned points.

(10) a. Stephanie ate for an hour/ *in an hour

b. Stephanie ate mangoes for an hour/*in an hour

c. Stephanie ate the mango ?for an hour/in an hour.

31

The default reading of a sentence, such as in (10a), is an activity type of event in which

the act of eating is seen as a process. The addition of a bare plural object in (10b) does not

change the activity interpretation of the sentence. Note, however, that the change of the

object of the verb ‘eat’ from bare plural, as in (10b), to a quantised one signalled by the

determiner ‘the’, such as in (10c), shifts the event type from activity to accomplishment

As noted in the above discussion of (8b) sentence, the co-occurrence of an

accomplishment with a temporal adverbial for an hour provides an activity reading of the

event, i.e. haiku-writing event. This is the same interpretation presented by the sentence

in (10c) with the for an hour adverbial. That is, Stephanie is construed to take in portions

of the mango over an hour, with nothing indicated about whether she finished consuming

it by the end of the hour.

The sentences in (10) illustrate the observations made regarding the event

structure classification of predicates. More importantly, it has led to the conclusion that

telicity is not only based on the lexical meaning of the predicate, but also is determined

by the nature of the object argument of the predicate. These observations have led other

researchers to agree and conclude that telicity is calculated compositionally (e.g. Hinrichs

1985, Krifka 1992, Verkuyl 1999, Filip 1999). I will later point out the significance of

these observations in relation to the current thesis.

Succeeding studies on event structure that are both syntactic and semantic based

led to a finer distinction between activities and accomplishment (and other event types)

addressing the concepts of endpoint and/or homogeneity of time features that are

correlated with the notion of telicity (e.g. Mourelatos 1978; Hinrichs 1985; Tenny 1987,

1994, 1995; Krifka 1989; 1992; Van Valin 1990; Verkuyl 1999; Depraetere 1995;

Jackendoff 1996; de Swart 1998; Hay, Kennedy, and Levin 1999; Filip 1999, 2000; Van

Hout 1998, 2000, 2008; Travis 2000, 2005, 2010; Bertinetto 2001; Richardson 2003;

Kratzer 2004; Bohnemeyer and Swift 2004; Rothstein 2004; Tamm 2007; Braginsky and

Rothstein 2008).

By building on Vendler’s (1967) work, some have developed their own theoretical

paradigm of event structure (Smith 1991; Pustejovsky 1991; Rothstein 2004; Levin and

Rappaport-Hovav 1998). In the next section, we discuss Role and Reference Grammar

whose classification of eventualities and system of lexical representation are based on

Vendler’s event typology and Dowty’s (1979) predicate decomposition.

32

2.2. Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)

RRG provides descriptive tools and principles for analysing the interplay of syntax,

semantics and pragmatics in all languages. It is a monostratal theory of syntax which

posits only one level of syntactic representation for each sentence, which is linked to

semantic representation via a linking algorithm. The linking algorithm, which works

bidirectionally, is composed of a set of rules in which discourse-pragmatics may play a

role. In RRG, discourse-pragmatics is one of the significant factors that contribute to the

differences across languages. However, the theory also takes the position that

constructional schemas, which represent the grammatical constructions that are central in

the grammar, are crucial in the linking for they ‘supply the language-specific and

construction-specific details’ required for the correct interpretation of meaning in the

morphosyntax (p.134). The overall architecture of RRG is schematised in Figure 2.1

below (Van Valin 2005: 134):

Figure 2.1 Organisation of Role and Reference Grammar

2.2.1 Application of the verb classifications and logical structures in RRG to

Tagalog

The analyses and formal representations of event structure in Tagalog adopt the semantic

representation of RRG. As this research is more semantic in nature, it will not present the

syntactic representation of this framework. In regards to the schema above, it will only be

concerned with the lexicon level and its semantic representation. This lexical

SYNTACTIC REPRESENTATION

SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION

Linking

algorithm

Constructional

schemas

lexicon

Syntactic

inventory

Parser

Disco

urse-p

ragm

atics

33

representation of RRG is adopted over other theories of lexical conceptual representation

particularly because it has event structure types that distinguish active accomplishments

from accomplishments. Before we proceed with the semantic representation of RRG,

some points of clarification are necessary regarding to concepts in RRG that are used in

the analysis of the predicates in Tagalog.

The first point clarifies the use of accomplishment and active accomplishment.

Note that in Vendler and Dowty’s system discussed above, there are only four event

types: states, activities, achievements and accomplishments. This four-fold schema of

events is the widely used classification in the literature on event structure. RRG, however,

departs from this schema by distinguishing accomplishments from active

accomplishments, and adding semelfactives (which is adopted from Smith 1991) and

causatives. Recall that accomplishments, as widely used in the literature (henceforth,

regular accomplishments), are characterised as telic and non-homogenous. We have seen

that there are proposed tests to validate the telicity and the non-homogeneity of

accomplishments. For instance, they freely co-occur with time-span adverbials such as in

an hour, and they are complements of ‘finish’. Some accomplishments alternate with

activities, as in she ate (activity) vs she ate the pizza (regular accomplishments) or Albert

ran (activity) vs Albert ran a mile (regular accomplishment). Other examples of verbs in

the literature that illustrate this alternation are write (a letter), read (a book), and paint (a

picture).

The accomplishments in RRG are similar to the regular accomplishments in terms

of the telicity feature (i.e. they are telic). However, the latter, as shown in some of the

examples above, signify predicates that are dynamic. In RRG, accomplishments are non-

dynamic. Thus, they depict situations that do not involve action. In English, non-

dynamism of accomplishments à la RRG is attested by their incompatibility with adverbs

like vigorously, actively, strongly. Table 2.3 on p. 38 below illustrates the temporal

composition/feature of an accomplishment and some predicates that are identified with it.

Notably, in RRG, the regular accomplishments are classified as active accomplishments.

They are considered the telic derivation of activity verbs. RRG has observed that this

derivational relation occurs crosslinguistically and relates to classes of predicates like

motion, consumption and creation, as shown in the English examples in (11).

34

(11) Activity vs. Active Accomplishment

a. The soldiers marched in the park. Activity

a'. The soldiers marched to the park. Active Accomplishment

b. Dana ate fish. Activity

b'. Dana ate the fish. Active Accomplishment

c. Leslie painted (for several hours). Activity

c'. Leslie painted Mary’s portrait. Active Accomplishment

There are a few verbs in English that do not alternate with activities, such as devour and

go, which are lexical active accomplishments. It should be noted that the alternation

‘cannot be reduced to the presence or absence of articles’ of the direct object (Van Valin

2005: 33), but may be contributed by the (in)definite status of the object, as in the English

examples, or by other morphological mechanisms, such as verbal affixation like in Amis

(Wu 2005).

In my view, the activity-active accomplishment contrast is significant in

accounting for base predicates that are dynamic and exhibit the AF and PF alternation. In

particular, the contrast is relevant in addressing the difference between the AF with the

NG-patient and its PF alternate that figure in the transitivity issue. This is discussed in

Chapter 5. The activity vs. active accomplishment alternation is relevant as well for

motion and locative predicates that have the AF and PF/LF alternation examined in

Chapter 6. On the other hand, accomplishments á la RRG is relevant in characterising

base predicates that are inherently telic and non-dynamic in Tagalog. Like the AF form of

dynamic predicates, the non-dynamic telic predicates co-occur with UM/M- affix.

However, there is a difference between the two. The AF non-dynamic telic predicates (i.e.

accomplishments and achievements) are typically intransitive and have a patient

argument marked by ANG (we defer discussing these types of predicates until Chapter 4).

On the other hand, regardless of its (in)transitivity nature, the AF dynamic (but atelic)

predicates have an agent argument marked by ANG, and, if transitive, the patient

argument is marked with NG. Thus, based on the (non)dynamic and (a)telicity features, I

find it relevant to distinguish accomplishment event type and activity vs. active

accomplishment event types, as these event structures do hold for certain types of base

predicates in Tagalog. Consequently, the distinctions between these event structures are

neatly captured in RRG.

35

The second point of clarification relates to the use of logical structures. Crucial in

the lexical representation of the AF and PF/LF alternation are the logical structures (LS)

of activity and active accomplishment in RRG. In this thesis, the Van Valin (2007)

version of LS is adopted. A significant change in this version is the use of the atomic

predicate BECOME in the LS of active accomplishment8. The logical structures of

activity and active accomplishment in RRG are adopted for the analysis of predicates in

Chapter 5 that are from the class of consumption, creation, performance, learning and

change of possession. Although the motion and locative predicates in Chapter 6 are also

argued to denote activity and active accomplishment alternation, I propose a different

lexical representation for each event type to account for the notion of path and motion.

Likewise, in my discussion of achievements (with MA-/-UM affix) in Chapter 4, I present

two new lexical representations to account for base predicates that have MA-KA and MA

affixes exhibiting activity and achievement alternation.

Since motion and locative predicates both involve movement and exhibit the AF

vs PF/LF alternation, the feature distinguishing the two types of predicates are indicated

by the atomic predicates be-towards' and MOVE9, which are proposed to be part of the

logical structures of motion and locative predicates, respectively. On the other hand, MA-

KA vs MA- contrast is differentiated by the atomic predicates GET.TO and HAPPEN.TO.

Table 2.2 below summarises the proposed logical representations for the motion and

locative predicates, and for the achievement predicates with MA-KA and MA- contrast

that are investigated in this thesis (cf. Table 2.5 for the LS in RRG).

8 In Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) and Van Valin (2005), active accomplishment has the atomic predicate

INGR. Readers are reminded also that despite similar terminology, the event structures (i.e. aktionsart) and

logical structures used in this thesis differ significantly from the ones used in Foley and Van Valin (1984),

which is discussed in Chapter 3; Van Valin (1990, 1991, 1993); and other works in RRG prior to the

publication of Van Valin and La Polla (1997). 9 Identifying and establishing a small set of atomic predicates is part of the major goal in theories of

semantic decomposition. Although this is an important goal, it is not addressed in this thesis. I leave this

topic for future research.

36

Table 2.2 Proposed logical representations for locative, motion and Ma-ka/Ma achievements

Affix Focus Verb class Event structure Logical representation

UM/MAG AF locative Activity do' (x,[predicate' (x,)]) ʌ be-MOVE'

(y,z)

Motion do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ be-towards'

(y,x)10

{goal marking: locative

interpretation}

do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ NOT be-

towards' (y,x) {source

marking:locative interpretation}

IN/ Ø PF locative Active

accomplishment

do' (x,[predicate' (x)]) & BECOME

be-LOC' (y,z)

motion do' (x, [pred' (x)]) & BECOME be-

LOC' (y,x) {goal marking}

-AN LF locative Active

Accomplishment

do' (x,[predicate' (x)]) ʌ be-MOVE'

(y,z) & BECOME be-LOC' (y,z)

motion do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ be-towards'

(y,x) & BECOME NOT be-LOC'

(y,x) {source/goal marking:directional

interpretation}

MA-KA AF perception activity do' (x, [GET.TO.pred'( x,y)])

MA PF achievement INGR [HAPPEN.TO. pred' (x,y)]

In the next section, the basics of semantic representations will be presented with

particular focus on the notions of thematic relations, macroroles, and their relevance to

transitivity and event structure classification.

10

Many thanks to Robert Van Valin for bringing this type of algorithm ‘ʌ be-towards' (y, x)’ to my

attention. Note that this atomic predicate appears not only in the LS of AF activities but also in the LS of LF

forms, which denote active accomplishments. Since this LS will be discussed in Chapter 6, I will not go

into detail at this point.

37

2.2.2 Semantic Representation

Semantics play a central role in RRG, and the core of the RRG approach is the lexical

decomposition of verbs based on the aktionsart classification, which originated from

Vendler (1967).

2.2.2.1 Aktionsart and logical structure

As mentioned above, RRG bases its event structure classification on Vendler’s four-fold

schema of events: states, activities, achievements, and accomplishments, with the addition

of the ‘semelfactives’ (from Smith 1991), ‘active accomplishments’, and causatives (see

Section 2.1.1 for the definitions of the Vendlerian event types). Semelfactives are

punctual events without a result state. Active accomplishments denote the telic counterpart

of the activity verbs. Causatives are treated as ‘an independent parameter which

crosscuts the five basic and derived aktionsart classes’ (Van Valin 2007: 35). The logical

structures for each type of event are given in Table 2.5.

These aktionsart classes, which we refer to in this thesis as ‘event structures’, are

characterised in terms of the following four features: [± static], [± dynamic], [±telic],

[±punctual]. Except for the causatives, the six classes are purported to bear these four

features. I summarise the event structures, and their features with examples in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Event Structure with its features and examples

Event structure Features Examples in English

State [+ static], [-dynamic], [-telic], [-punctual] know, love, be sick, be tall

Activity [- static], [+ dynamic], [-telic], [-punctual] march in the park, walk, roll

(intransitive), write, drink

Achievement [-static], [-dynamic], [+telic], [+punctual] pop, explode, shatter

(intransitive)

Semelfactive [- static], [± dynamic], [-telic], [+punctual] flash, cough, tap

Accomplishment [- static], [- dynamic], [+ telic], [- punctual] melt, freeze, dry

(intransitive), learn, receive

Active

accomplishment

[- static], [+ dynamic], [+ telic], [- punctual] march to the park, ate the

apple

Verbs are basically distinguished in terms of the stativity feature. Thus, based on the table

above, they are classified either as stative or non-stative. The ‘dynamic’ feature signifies

whether the predicate denotes an action or not. Actions that are dynamic can be identified

38

from those that are not by their co-occurrence with adverbs like vigorously, actively. On

the other hand, telic predicates refer to those that have an inherent endpoint. Lastly, the

feature ‘punctual’ distinguishes events that have internal duration or those that have lack

of it.

An important view taken by RRG is that a logical structure (LS) of a verb or its

lexical representation cannot be assigned randomly. In turn, argument positions of

thematic relations are not assigned arbitrarily. To determine the LS of a verb, it is

imperative that the event structure is first ascertained. This can be done through a set of

operational tests, as shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Tests for Event structure

Criterion States Achieve Accomp Activity Active

Accomp

Seml

1. Occurs with

progressive

No* No* Yes Yes Yes No*

2. Occurs with

adverbs like

vigorously,

actively, etc.

No No No Yes Yes Some*

3. Occurs with

adverbs like

quickly, slowly,

etc.

No No* Yes Yes Yes No*

4. Occurs with X

for an hour, spend

an hour Xing

Yes* No Irrelevant* Yes Irrelevant* No

5. Occurs with X

in an hour

No No* Yes No Yes No*

6. Can be used as

stative modifier

Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

7. Has a causative

paraphrase

No No No No No No

The ‘*’ means that a particular problem arises when this test is applied to a certain event

type such as the for an hour adverbial co-occurring with an accomplishment eventuality

(see Section 2.1.2).

The proposed tests have to be adapted to the features of the language being

investigated. Test 1, for instance, is useful for languages such as English, Turkish, and

Icelandic which have progressive aspect. Verbal predicates that are classified as activities,

active accomplishments, and accomplishments occur with progressives. In contrast, verbs

39

that do not exhibit this behaviour are mostly states or achievements. If this feature does

occur with semelfactives with singular subjects, it produces an iterative reading, as shown

in (12a). It is observed that achievements with plural subjects also provide iterative

readings, as in (12b).

(12) a. The light is flashing.

b. The balloons are popping.

The adverbs in test 2 examine the dynamicity feature of the verbal predicates. The

dynamic feature refers to whether an event or situation involves action or not. If the verbs

are felicitous with adverbs like violently, vigorously, actively, energetically and strongly,

then, they are activities (13b) and active accomplishments (13c). On the other hand, states

(13a), accomplishments (13d), achievements (13e), and semelfactives are not compatible

with these adverbs suggesting that they are not dynamic. However, caution is required

when testing adverbs, as in deliberately, carefully, especially with inanimate subjects.

The incompatibility of these adverbs may be due to the non-agentive participant involved

in the action, e.g. ‘The building shook vigorously/*carefully during the quake in

Christchurch’. Thus, it is advised to use appropriate adverbs that test the dynamicity

feature of the predicate with non-controlling subject.

(13) a. *Owen vigorously knows the answer.

b. Laura ran to the park energetically.

c. Oliver pushed the cart forcefully.

d. *The ice cream is melting vigorously.

e. * The glass shattered vigorously.

Test 3 distinguishes the punctual (i.e. with internal duration) verbs from those that are

non-punctual. The adverbs which are referred to as ‘pace’ adverbs measure temporal

duration of non-stative verbs, regardless of whether they are denoting dynamic actions.

Note the * on the ‘No’ of the achievement and semelfactive verb. This indicates that the

pace adverbs are acceptable to some extent with these verbs suggesting very short

temporal intervals e.g. she slowly recognised him, the tree branch tapped slowly on the

window.

40

The durative (test 4) and time span (test 5) adverbials are tests for telicity. As mentioned

in Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.2, the telicity tests measure the internal temporal contour of an

event (i.e. endpoint and homogeneity). These temporal adverbials are considered standard

test for determining activities from accomplishments. These tests have already been

discussed in previous sections. Thus, we need not elaborate them here.

Test 6 is used for distinguishing two further types of punctual verbs.

Semelfactives are punctual but do not have result state, hence, cannot be used as state

modifiers, e.g the flashed light. On the other hand, achievements have a result state and,

therefore, can be used as stative modifiers, such as the popped balloon.

The last test is designed to examine whether a verb is inherently causative11 or not.

RRG acknowledges that there is no simple syntactic test for determining the inherent

causative trait of a lexical verb for languages that do not have causative morphology, but

paraphrases are a helpful diagnostic. It is to be noted that the causative paraphrase should

have the same number of NPs as the original sentence, as in The hot water caused the ice

to melt is a paraphrase of The hot water melted the ice. It is to be pointed out as well that

the causative relation intended for this type of test is the same one signalled by causative

morphology in other languages such as Lakhota iníhą ‘be scared, frightened, amazed,

awed’ vs iníhą-ya (-ya ‘cause’) ‘scare, frighten, amaze, awe’ (Van Valin 2005: 39).

Although the tests are not equally applicable to all languages, as expected, they

are generally helpful in distinguishing event structure types. Some of these tests are

adapted to classify the Tagalog verbal predications into their event structure types.

Once verbal predications have been tested and examined, the logical structure

(LS), (also referred to in the literature as ‘lexical semantic representation’, ‘lexical

conceptual structure’, ‘predicate decomposition’), can be created according to what event

structure a verb falls into. Table 2.5 illustrates the event structures and their

corresponding logical structures (Van Valin 2007: 35).

11

Each of the six event types has a causative counterpart (e.g. state and causative state, activity and

causative activity). In total, there are 12 event structures in RRG. In Chapter 4 Section 4.5, I discuss the

causative counterpart of accomplishment and achievement, which take the LS of causative shown in Table

2.5.

41

Table 2.5 Logical structure for event structure types

Event Structure Logical Structure

State predicate' (x,(y))

Activity do' (x,[predicate' (x,(y))]

Achievement INGR predicate' (x, (y)) or

INGR do' (x,[predicate' (x,(y))] Semelfactive SEML predicate' (x,(y))

SEML do' (x,[predicate' (x,(y))] Accomplishment BECOME predicate' (x,(y))

BECOME do' (x,[predicate' (x,(y))]

Active Accomplishment do' (x,[predicate1' (x, (y))] & BECOME

predicate2 ' (z,x) or (y) Causative CAUSE, where , are LSs of any type

As noted earlier, RRG based its logical structure on Dowty’s 1979 lexical representation.

However, it differs from Dowty’s since RRG considers states and activities as the basic

event types from which other event structure types are derived. States are represented

with bare predicates, while activities contain the abstract predicate do'. The existence

of the operator do' in activity predicates indicates the presence of a participant

instigating the action and the internal structure of the predicate will suggest the number of

arguments. There are some state and activity verbs that have only one argument while

others take two. Consider the following examples in (14).

(14) a. Margaret knows. State

a’. Margaret knows the answer

b. Sherry ate. Activity

b.’ Sherry ate pizza.

Achievement predicates can be either punctual changes of state or onset of activity; thus,

they are represented with a state or activity algorithm plus an INGR (i.e. ingressive)

operator, e.g. INGR shatter'. The INGR element signifies the punctual onset of an action.

Van Valin provides a Russian example to illustrate this element: plakat ‘cry’ is an activity

verb; whereas, zaplakat ‘burst out crying’ is an achievement. Likewise, semelfactives can

be based on states, e.g. SEML see' (x) or activities SEML do' (x, [cough' (x)]. In

contrast, accomplishments are non-punctual changes of state or onset of activity

42

decomposed as a state or activity plus a BECOME operator, such as BECOME melt' (x).

The active accomplishment is considered to be the telic derivation of activity predicates.

It is, however, distinguished from activities by the additional element of ‘& BECOME

predicate2 (y)’ which signifies the change of state of the second argument. The

BECOME operator indicates the process of the action leading to the change of state of the

y argument. For instance, the sentence Sherry ate the pizza will have the following

semantic decomposition: do' (x, [eat' (x, y)]) & BECOME consumed (y). Lastly,

causatives have a complex structure containing a predicate, usually an unspecified

activity represented as [do'(x, Ø)], indicating the causing action or event linked to a

predicate signifying the resulting situation. The two predicates are linked together by the

CAUSE operator.

RRG acknowledges that these lexical representations are only ‘a first

approximation to the kind of decompositional system which is required for a deeper

lexical semantic analysis (Van Valin 2005:46).

2.2.2.2 Thematic relations

Like other theories, RRG shares the important assumption that the lexical entry of a verb

exhibits the thematic relations associated with it. In RRG, however, there is no listing of

thematic relations, but they are represented in terms of their ‘argument positions in the

decomposed logical structures’ (Van Valin 2005:53). The logical structure (LS) is the

lexical semantic representation of the meaning of the verb and provides the number of

arguments the verb has. RRG posits five possible positions of arguments in the LS (as

shown in Figure 2.2), which are defined in terms of the logical structure of state and

activity that are treated as basic event types. Some examples are shown in Table 2.6 (Van

Valin 2005: 55).

43

Table 2.6 Definitions of thematic relations in terms of arguments’ position

in a logical structure

I. State Verbs

A. Single argument

1. state or condition broken' (x) x=patient

2. existence exist' (x) x=entity

B. Two arguments

1. Pure location be-LOC' (x,y) x=location

y=theme

2. Perception hear' (x,y) x=perceiver

y=stimulus

3. Cognition know' (x,y) x=cogniser

y=content

4. possession have' (x,y) x=possessor

y=possessed

II. Activity Verbs

A. Single argument

1. Unspecified action do' (x, Ø) x=effector

2. Motion do' (x, [walk' (x)]) x=mover

3. Static motion do' (x, [spin' (x)]) x=ST-mover

B. One or two arguments

1. Performance do' (x, [sing' (x, (y))]) x=performer

y=performance

2. Creation do' (x, [write' (x, (y))]) x=creator

y=creation

Table 2.6 shows that thematic relations are defined in terms of the argument positions in

the logical structure of a state verb or an activity verb. Since there is no listing of thematic

relations in RRG, they are represented according to their position in the lexical

representation, where their possible argument positions are indicated in a thematic

relation continuum that reflects their semantic contrasts. The cline is presented below.

44

Figure 2.2 Thematic relations continuum in terms of logical structure argument positions

The thematic relations continuum suggests that at its opposite endpoints are the agent and

the patient which are the participants of a prototypical transitive verb that fit the semantic

characterisation of ‘agent acting on and causing a change on patient’ (Hopper and

Thompson 1980). All activity verbs have effectors, which are the participants that act on

and bring about something. In the continuum, these effectors are contrasted in terms of

whether they imply volition or control. The 1st arg of do' are activity verbs that have

effector arguments that do not imply volition or control. They are contrasted from the

agent, which implies volition and control and becomes the argument of DO. The first two

columns, then, are argument positions of thematic relations that are most agent-like;

whereas, at the other end of the cline are those that are most patient-like. The thematic

relations in the middle of the continuum are contrasted with either the first argument of

do' or the second argument of the predicate. If it is contrasted with the former, then the

first argument in the middle continuum is less agentive, while with the latter, it is less

patient-like. For instance, if the 1st argument of the predicate ‘see’ is contrasted with the

1st argument of the predicate ‘eat’, then 1

st argument of ‘see'’ is less agentive than the

1st argument of ‘eat'; hence, ‘perceiver’ is placed on the right of the ‘effector’. But if

‘perceiver’ is contrasted against the 2nd

argument of ‘eat'’, then, it is more agent-like

than the participant being referred to in the second argument. Note, however, that in

RRG, these thematic relations continuum are simply mnemonics for the argument

Arg of 1st arg. of 1

st arg. of 2

nd arg. of Arg. of state

DO do' (x,… pred' (x,y) pred' (x,y) pred' (x)

AGENT EFFECTOR LOCATION THEME PATIENT

MOVER PERCEIVER STIMULUS ENTITY

ST-MOVER COGNIZER CONTENT

L-EMITTER WANTER DESIRE

S-EMITTER JUDGER JUDGEMENT

PERFORMER POSSESSOR POSSESSED

CONSUMER EXPERIENCER SENSATION

CREATOR EMOTER TARGET

OBSERVER ATTRIBUTANT ATTRIBUTE

USER IDENTIFIED IDENTITY

VARIABLE VALUE

PERFORMANCE CONSUMED

CREATION

IMPLEMENT

45

positions in the LS that indicate the subclass of the predicate. Thus, emoter means the

‘first argument of a two-place state predicate of emotion’, content is the ‘second argument

of a two-place state predicate of cognition’, etc.

Notice that in the cline, there is an operator DO which is not present in any of the

logical structure in Table 2.5 above. Van Valin and Wilkins (1996) argue that agency is

not an inherent lexical property of the verb, but of how the verb is used in the sentence.

Hence, the operator DO appears when verbs have a lexicalised agency. We can illustrate

this point by differentiating kill from murder.

(15) a. The man killed the woman.

b. The man intentionally killed the woman.

c. The man accidentally killed the woman.

(16) a. The man murdered the woman.

b. ?The man intentionally murdered the woman.

c. *The man accidentally murdered the woman.

The above examples show that when verbs have an agentive implicature, as in (15), they

can co-occur with agency-cancelling expressions like accidentally, agentive expressions

such as intentionally, and an inanimate actor. In contrast, verbs that have truly lexicalised

agency do not freely co-occur or marginally accept these expressions, as shown in the

examples in (16). The contrast is shown in the LS of kill and murder in (17).

(17) a. kill: [do’ (x, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME dead’ (y)]

b. murder: DO12

(x, [do’ (x, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME dead’ (y)])

2.2.2.3 Macroroles

RRG recognises that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the number of

arguments in the LS and how they are mapped into syntax. This is where the Actor and

Undergoer macroroles fit in. Verbs have a maximum number of two MRs, the generalised

Actor (A) macrorole and the generalised Undergoer (U) macrorole. Depending on the

particular neutralisations in the language, the Actor MR can subsume particular thematic

notions like agent, experiencer, effector, source, and force. On the other hand, the

12

The DO operator is not used in this thesis.

46

Undergoer MR can subsume roles like patient, theme, beneficiary, goal, and location. The

Actor and Undergoer macroroles are the two primary arguments of a transitive

predication. In an intransitive predication, either one of the two can be the primary

argument.

Macrorole selection is regulated by the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH),

which, as shown in Figure 2.2 above, is closely related to the argument positions in LS

(Van Valin 2005:61). In the default situation, given the logical structure of a transitive

verb, the farther to the left an argument is on the hierarchy, the greater the possibility that

it will be selected as Actor; the farther to the right an argument is positioned on the

hierarchy, the more likely that it will be Undergoer.

Figure 2.3 Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy

2.2.2.4 Macrorole transitivity

RRG differentiates between semantic valency, S(yntactic)-transitivity, and M(acrorole)-

transitivity. Semantic valency refers to the number of argument positions a verb has in its

LS. S-transitivity refers to the direct core arguments of a verb and corresponds to the

traditional notion of transitivity. M-transitivity is the number of macroroles in the clause.

M-transitivity does not necessarily match up with semantic valency or S-transitivity,

although both are semantically based.

Not all core arguments represented in the LS have MR functions. The default MR

assignment principles in (18) state that the number of MRs the clause has is less than or

equal to the number of arguments in the LS. Thus, a transitive clause has 2 macroroles

(the Actor and the Undergoer), an intransitive clause has 1 macrorole (either A or U), and

an atransitive clause has 0 macroroles. The maximum number of macroroles is two, so in

clauses with ditransitive verbs, such as put and give in English, the third argument is a

non-macrorole argument (discussed in Section 2.2.2.5).

ACTOR

UNDERGOER

Arg of 1st arg. of 1

st arg. of 2

nd arg. of Arg. of state

DO do' (x,… pred' (x, y) pred' (x, y) pred' (x)

[ = increasing markedness of realisation of argument as macrorole]

47

(18) Default Macrorole Assignment Principles (Van Valin 2005:63)

a. Number: the number of macroroles a verb takes is less than or equal to the

number of arguments in its logical structure.

1. If a verb has two or more arguments in its logical structure, it will take

two macroroles;

2. If a verb has one argument in its logical structure, it will take one

macrorole.

b. Nature: for verbs which take one macrorole.

1. If the verb has an activity predicate in its logical structure, the

macrorole is actor.

2. If the verb has no activity predicate in its logical structure, the

macrorole is undergoer.

The (non)alignment of number of arguments among S-valency, S-transitivity and M-

transitivity can be illustrated by verbs such as rain, eat, and give in Table 2.7 (Van Valin

and LaPolla 1997).

Table 2.7 (Non)alignment of number of arguments

Semantic-

Valency

S-transitivity M-transitivity

rain 0 1 0

eat (activity) 1 or 2 1 or 2 1

eat (active acc) 2 2 2

give 3 2 or 3 2

Note that in a two-argument activity event type of eat, as in Angela ate pizza, the

macrorole number is only 1. In RRG perspective, an Undergoer MR “represents the non-

instigating, affected participant in a state of affairs” (Van Valin 2005: 63). It is conceived

of as an individuated and independent referent. Thus, multiple-argument and two-

argument activity verbs with a non-referential second argument do not have an Undergoer

MR. In contrast, eat as an active accomplishment, such as Angela ate the pizza, has an

Undergoer MR since the second argument is considered to be an individuated, totally

affected entity. Active accomplishment uses of verbs, such as eat, are fully transitive and

take two macroroles. This illustrates one way in which aspectual type of predicates and

thematic role profile correlate in particular constructions.

48

2.2.2.5 Three-place predicates

As mentioned above, RRG only has two macroroles. Hence, the third argument in a three-

place predicate is a non-macrorole. Three-place predicates are considered complex in

RRG and have the general lexical representation in (19) with the following examples in

English (Van Valin 2007:43-44):

(19) [do' (x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME predicate' (y,z)]

e.g. give, present [do' (x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have' (y,z)]

show [do' (x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME see' (y,z)]

teach [do' (x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME know' (y,z)]

load [do' (x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME be-on' (y,z)]

put [do' (x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME be-loc' (y,z)]

Based on the Actor-Undergoer hierarchy, the LS in (20) of a three-place predicate

illustrates that the default choice for the Undergoer will be the rightmost argument in the

LS. Consider the English sentence ‘Pat gave the book to Kim’ (Van Valin 27:44):

(20) a. [do' (Pat,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have' (Kim,book)]

b. Pat [Actor] gave the book [Undergoer] to Kim. Unmarked choice

c. Pat [Actor] gave Kim [Undergoer] the book. Marked choice

The LS above illustrates that the x argument is Pat, y=Kim (recipient), and z=book

(theme). According to Van Valin, (20b) is the unmarked construction and the default

choice here to be an Undergoer is the z argument. The y argument (=Kim), being a non-

macrorole, is now realised as the object of a preposition and is thus assigned the

appropriate preposition (via the preposition assignment rule; see Van Valin 2007).

However, a sentence such as the above could also appear in its marked form, as in (20c).

This time, the y argument is chosen to be an Undergoer and the z argument, which is the

default choice for an Undergoer, becomes a non-macrorole argument. Presumably, since

the z argument has been downgraded into a lower ranking argument, a preposition with is

to be assigned. But Van Valin argues that there is a small set of dative-shift verbs in

which preposition assignment is not available. This construction is known as ditransitive

49

construction. Compare give with the verb present, which has the same alternations as in

(21b and 21c), except that for the marked choice, the z argument is assigned the with

preposition:

(21) a. [do' (Pat,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have' (Kim,book)]

b. Pat [Actor] presented the book [Undergoer] to Kim. Unmarked

choice

c. Pat [Actor] presented Kim [Undergoer] with the book. Marked

choice

2.3 Krifka: Homomorphism relation of Nominal and Verbal Predicates (1992)

At the outset, I have noted that the notion of telicity in RRG is not expounded. It is,

however, identified as one of the features of an eventuality that is defined in terms of

inherent terminal point, and tested against temporal adverbials. But in Tagalog the

temporal adverbials appear to be not a good diagnostic test to examine the temporal

composition of the focus form alternations, particularly the AF and PF alternation that

figure in the transitivity issue. In this section, we look into a semantic-based definition

and analysis of telicity that will be useful in explaining the semantic difference between

the AF with NG-patient and the patient in its PF alternate, especially predicates that

belong to the transaction or change of possession class. This framework is also useful in

explaining the atelicity of predicates that have achievements as their basic event types,

but have a special interpretation when denoting activity event types.

As mentioned before, it has been observed that the nature of the (direct) object

affects the (a)telicity of a verbal expression. Based on this accepted view, Krifka develops

a theory of telicity which argues for the homomorphism relation between the predicate

and its argument. The theory captures the relations between the nominal argument and the

predicate to determine the temporal constitution that the VP creates by ‘defining

structure-preserving mappings between them’ (Filip 1999:83). This concept has also been

put forward by Bach (1981), Link (1983), and Hinrich (1985).

The idea is grounded on the ‘part-whole’ relations (i.e. mereology) in which the

denotation of the nominal expression or verbal expression as a whole stands in relation to

its part. For instance, in terms of nominal expression, any part of wine, which is a mass

noun, is represented by the same noun wine. On the other hand, in terms of the verbal

50

expression, we can use the verb run to elucidate the same idea; that is, any part of running

is still describable by the same verb run. If, on the other hand, the nominal wine is

depicted as a countable entity, as in a bottle of wine, any subparts of it cannot fall in the

same denotation of a bottle of wine (the subparts cannot be described by the noun phase a

bottle of wine).

Krifka observes that the nominal domain has proper parts which get mapped into

the proper parts of the event to create the temporal constitution of the VP. The space-time

diagram in Figure 2.4 captures the semantic homomorphism between the nominal and the

predicate (Krifka 1992:38):

Figure 2.4 Space-time diagram of homomorphism relation

In the example in Figure 2.4, w stands for the denotation of wine and e for the event drink

wine. Since wine is ‘cumulative’ (or mass), any proper parts of w can be applied to the

subpart w’. Similarly, any part of e ‘drink wine’ can be applied to the subpart of e’. Thus,

if one describes a situation involving ‘drinking wine’, any sum of every subpart, e’…en

, of

the drinking wine event, e, yields the same event of e and would be in the same

denotation of e or of the predicate. This is the semantic definition of an atelic predicate,

which is also captured by the notion of homogeneity.

However, when the denotation of the nominal is ‘quantised’ (or count) as in a

glass of wine, the sum of the two events of drink a glass of wine does not equal to the

same event and does not fall to the same denotation of the predicate.

With the examples given above, Krifka proposes that a cumulative nominal results

in a cumulative or atelic VP. In contrast, a quantised nominal produces a telic VP. Thus,

the homomorphic relation between the nominal and the predicate creates the temporal

composition of the verbal expression. But the relation also goes both ways. That is, a

s

w w'

e' t

e

51

cumulative verbal expression yields a cumulative nominal expression. On the other hand,

a quantised verbal expression yields a quantised nominal expression.

Rothstein (2004:94-95) clearly defines Krifka’s notions of ‘cumulativity’ and

‘quantisation’ as follows:

(22) If X is cumulative then:

xy[X(x) X (y) ¬xy xy [X(x) X(y) X (xy)]

“If a predicate X is cumulative, and X does not denote a singleton set, then

for any two elements in X, their sum is also in X.”

(23) If X is quantised then:

xy [X(x) X(y) yx]]

“If X is quantised, then if x and y are in the denotation of X, y cannot be a

proper part of x.”

The definition above also applies to nominals, hence, the semantic parallelism between

the domain of nominals and verbal predicates. Typical examples of cumulative nominals

are water, gold, apples. The first two are commonly known as mass nouns, while the

latter is referred to as a bare plural. Applying the definition in (22) to a cumulative noun,

such as gold, signifies that any sum of x and y falls in the same denotation as gold.

However, if x and y are non-overlapping and each is in the denotation of, for instance, a

nugget of gold, then the sum of x and y cannot be in the same denotation of a nugget of

gold for there will be two nuggets of gold.

As mentioned before, the homomorphic relation will be relevant in discussing the

relationship between the predicate and its nominal arguments. This semantic definition of

telicity is useful in accounting for the AF focus forms where the tests of cancellation and

continuity appear to be not relevant, but where atelicity of the AF predicate is still argued

for.

52

2.4 The Parameter of Aspect (Smith 1991)

In this section, I present the paradigm of Smith in analysing a two-component theory of

aspect, with particular focus on her framework of viewpoint aspect. In her theory, event

structure and viewpoint aspect are distinct but interacting aspectual categories. I take the

same view regarding aspect in Tagalog, which I discuss in Chapter 7 where I provide a

preliminary account of the in(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect.

2.4.1 Viewpoint Aspect

Viewpoint aspect refers to the perfective-imperfective dichotomy. It emphasises the locus

of the event that a speaker wants to make visible to his hearer using linguistic mechanism.

Smith (1991) draws a parallelism between a camera lens and viewpoint aspect where the

latter is likened to a lens enabling the speaker to focus on either the entirety of the

situation (perfectivity) or only a part of the situation (imperfectivity). Thus, the

perfectivity-imperfectivity dichotomy provides two different ways of viewing a

situation13

. In some languages, such as those in examples (24)-(25), this dichotomy is

morphologically realised. Hence, in the literature, viewpoint aspect is also referred to as

‘grammatical aspect’.

(24) Russian: Braginsky and Rothstein (2008:9; glossing for viewpoint aspect

is changed to be consistent with the glossing in this thesis)

a. Ivan stroil dom

Ivan built.IPFV house

‘Ivan built a/the house.’

b. Ivan postroil dom

Ivan built.PFV house

‘Ivan built the house.’

13

Smith (1991:93) proposes a third viewpoint referred to as neutral viewpoint. Under this viewpoint, the

‘initial point and at least one stage of a situation’ is viewed. This viewpoint is not discussed in this Chapter

and not part of the thesis.

53

(25) Mandarin Chinese: Xiao and McEnery (2004:125)

a. Liu Gangdou ye bei qingqu peitiao-le

Liu Gangdou also PASS invite-go dance-ACTL

haoji ci

many times

‘Liu Gangdou was also asked on several occasions to dance.’

b. Liu Gangdou ye zai tiaowu

Liu Gangdou also PROG dance

‘Liu Gangdou was dancing, too.’

According to Braginsky and Rothstein, the use of the prefix po- in (24b) transforms the

unprefixed verb stroil in (24a), which has the imperfective reading, into perfective

reading. In (25), Xiao and McEnery demonstrate that the use of the actuality marker le

shifts the ‘decomposable’ situation in (25a) into a holistic one. Thus, it presents the

situation with a perfective viewpoint. In contrast, the use of progressive marker zai in

(25b) shows the situation with an imperfective viewpoint. That is, only a part of the event

is focused.

The examples above illustrate the motivation for the two-component model of the

aspectual system. Smith’s 1991 model provides a Universal Grammar account of aspect

proposing for a general abstract schema to explicate the in(ter)dependence of viewpoint

aspect and event structure in the aspectual system of language. In this theory, we will

adopt the general temporal schema of the two aspectual components to be used in Chapter

7.

2.4.1.1 Abstract Structure for Situations

As noted before, viewpoint aspect provides the perspective or locus the speaker takes in

presenting a situation or event. In a perfective view, it appears that he locates himself

‘externally’ such that he sees the situation as complete with its initial and final endpoints.

On the other hand, in an imperfective view, he seems to locate himself ‘internally’ such

that the initial and final points of the situation are invisible to him. The basic schema of

the temporal structure of events is given in (26) below. The capital letters stand for initial

(I) and final (F) points; the dots represent the stages.

54

(26) Abstract schema of all event types

……I……F……

The basic schema accounts for the general representation of temporal constitution of all

event types. The schema can capture the preliminary, internal, and resultant stages of a

given event structure. The locus of viewpoint aspect is organised in terms of its span

along this abstract schema. The schema predicts the ‘range of aspectual meanings’ that

may arise out of the interaction between viewpoint aspect and event structure.

Furthermore, it allows for variations depending on the language under investigation.

2.4.1.2 Temporal schema of Event structure

Smith proposes temporal schema of five event types, namely: states, activities,

achievements, accomplishments and semelfactives. Only the first four of these event

types are considered in this section.

2.4.1.2.1 States

The internal temporal structure of states is characterised as having no internal stages. This

characterisation presupposes the idea that its internal structure is composed of

‘undifferentiated period’ (Smith 1991:37). The temporal schema is represented as

follows:

The line represents the internal temporal contour or the interval during which the state

holds. It shows the consistency of this interval. The initial and final points are

parenthesised to indicate their exclusion from the parameter of state. The initial point

signifies the ‘change into the state’; whereas; the final point is the ‘change out of the

state’ (p. 37).

(I) (F)

55

2.4.1.2.2 Activities

Activities have internal stages unlike states. The interval however of these successive

stages is homogeneous and the final endpoint is arbitrary. It is for this reason that

activities are characterised as non-telic since they do not have inherent endpoint. The

temporal schema of activities is given below:

I …………FArb

The schema above shows an initial point, while the dots represent the successive stages.

Given that the activities’ internal temporal constitution is homogeneous and they have no

inherent endpoint, final point is arbitrary. This is represented by FArb.

2.4.1.2.3 Accomplishments

Accomplishments are similar to activities in terms of having successive stages. They

differ from activities regarding the inherent endpoint. Hence, in the termporal schema,

one notices the change in the representation of the final point.

I……….FNat(R).

Notably, the inherent endpoint represented by FNat signifies the completion of the action.

This is followed by the result state that may continue or not. This is represented by (R)

with a dot that follows it.

2.4.1.2.3 Achievements

As we have noted, achievements are instantaneous. As such, the interval between the

initial point, the final point, and the result stage is not easily discernible. Hence, in its

temporal schema, one finds the initial, final and result point almost occurring

simultaneously, as shown in the diagram:

56

………I (R) ……..

F

The dots before and after the I, F, and R points represent the preliminary stages and the

result stage. This schema tries to account for languages where the preliminary or the

resultant stage appears to be part of the temporal contour of achievements.

2.4.1.3 General schema for Viewpoint aspect

In this section, we look at the schema proposed for viewpoint aspect. Recall that

viewpoint aspect pertains to the focus or locus a speaker takes in viewing a situation.

Events or situations can be viewed perfectively or imperfectively.

2.4.1.3.1 Perfective

A perfective viewpoint sees the situation as an integrated whole. Thus, the span of the

perfective includes the initial and the final points of the situation. The slashes indicate the

span of the perfective view:

I F

//////////////////

According to Smith, the schema represents the unmarked form of the perfective

viewpoint. It emphasises both endpoints of the situation. If there are any perfectives that

have span beyond what the general schema above reflects, these are considered marked

perfectives. Marked perfectives occur when the span goes beyond the final point of what

is talked about. An example of this is the perfect in English.

2.4.1.3.2 Imperfective

The imperfective view focuses only on the internal part of the situation. Thus, it does not

present the initial and final endpoints of a situation being viewed. Given that the locus of

the imperfective viewpoint takes the internal structure of a situation, it can coincide with

57

‘any or all parts of the temporal schema of a situation’ (Smith 1991:111). The general

schema of imperfective is given below:

I…..///////////////////////…..F

This abstract temporal schema generally accounts for a basic concept of imperfectives

and, at the same time, allows for language-specific variations.

2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented the theoretical preliminaries that are adopted for the

investigation of the Tagalog’s verbal system in terms of event structure analysis.

Generally, the three frameworks are used to serve as descriptive tools.

RRG’s semantic representations are specifically chosen since its event types have

classifications that are applicable to Tagalog, particularly the distinction between activity

and active accomplishment, on the one hand, and the distinction between active

accomplishment and accomplishment, on the other. Notably, RRG’s notion of macrorole

transitivity is relevant in explicating the transitivity issue between the AF form with the

NG-patient and its PF alternate. As a whole, the event type classifications, the logical

representations, and the notion of macrorolehood are useful tools to elucidate the

semantic representations of the Tagalog focus forms that are examined in this thesis.

Krifka’s 1992 account of telicity and how it is derived from the parallelism

between the features of the verbal domain and nominal domain is adopted to provide a

semantic account of telicity, as the notion of telicity is not elaborated in RRG. The

semantic definition of telicity of Krifka accounts for the (a)telicity of Tagalog predicates,

such as verbs of transaction or change of possession. By the same token, since viewpoint

aspect is not discussed in RRG, Smith’s 1991 temporal schemas for both event structure

and viewpoint aspect are used to account for the analyses of the in(ter)dependence of the

two aspectual components in Tagalog.

58

Chapter 3

Tagalog: a grammatical sketch and review of studies

This chapter provides a general description of Tagalog grammar. Subsequently, some

major studies in Tagalog that are related to the issues discussed in the thesis are reviewed.

The works of Ramos (1974) and De Guzman (1978) are descriptive in nature. Both

provide rules that would explain the different ‘focus forms’ that a base verb can exhibit.

The difference, however, is that Ramos’ study is a semantic one that examines the deep

structure of the predicate in order to understand the surface structure; whereas, De

Guzman’s study is syntactic in its perspective and investigates the syntactic derivation of

Tagalog verbs. Foley and Van Valin (1984) mark the first attempt to examine Tagalog

verbs through event structure by adopting Dowty’s system, while Nolasco (2003, 2005;

Nolasco and Saclot 2005) tries to capture what ‘transitivity’ means in Philippine

languages to understand the semantic properties that propel the difference among focus

forms. Lastly, Travis (2000, 2005, 2010) proposes the significance of telicity in

Malagasy, and by extension, in Tagalog.

3.1 Grammatical sketch

3.1.1 Word Order

Tagalog is a predicate-initial language. A basic clause (verbal or non-verbal) is formed

with a predicate first followed by one or more pre-marked arguments. The predicates can

be verb, adjective, noun, or prepositional phrase, as shown in the examples in (1).

(1) a. K-um-ain ng mansanas si Pedro.

AF.PFV-eat GEN apple NOM PN

‘Pedro ate apples/some apple/an apple.’

b. Ma-ganda ang guro.

STAT-beauty NOM teacher

‘The teacher is beautiful.’

59

c. Estudyante si Laurize.

student NOM PN

‘Laurize is/was a student.’

d. Na-sa kusina si Maria14

.

STAT.DAT kitchen NOM PN

‘Maria is/was in the kitchen.’

e. Sa simbahan ang pulong.

DAT church NOM meeting

‘The meeting is in the church.’

As we have seen in Chapter 1, a marker commonly precedes the arguments of the

predicates. This marker varies depending on whether the argument is a common or proper

nominal. The marker further differentiates the nominal in terms of its function in the

clause, that is, nominative, genitive, or dative. Recall that it is still a matter of contention

whether the markers are to be treated as case markers. Hence, the use of NOM, GEN and

DAT are not standard in any sense. NOM marks the focused participant. GEN marks a

nominal that functions in the clause as agent, patient, theme, instrument, and possessor.

DAT typically marks location, but also signals the recipient, goal, and source in the clause.

These three forms are also referred to in this study as ANG-phrase, NG-phrase, and SA-

phrase. We summarise the nominal and personal markers, shown in Chapter 1, in Table

3.1.

Table 3.1 Marker of Common and Proper Nominals in Tagalog

NOM GEN DAT

COMMON ANG/YUNG15

NG SA

PROPER SI NI KAY

In a verbal predicate clause, ordering of arguments is flexible. Either a nominative or a

genitive-marked nominal can follow the verb, such that the examples in (2a) and (3a) can

also be optionally stated as in (2b) and (3b) and still maintain the same meaning:

14

This type of clause is characterised as a non-verbal clause, which in this thesis, is typified as a locative

state. I discuss locative state in Chapter 6, Section 6.3. 15

‘YUNG’ pronounced as /ju/ is now commonly found in conversations (Reid 1978, Himmelman 2005,

Nagaya, in press)

60

(2) a. Um-inom si Ben ng kape sa hardin.

AF.PFV-drink NOM PN GEN coffee DAT garden

‘Ben drank coffee in the garden.’

b. Uminom ng kape si Ben sa hardin.

(3) a. Nag-tanim ang magsasaka ng palay.

AF.PFV-plant NOM farmer GEN rice.plant

‘The farmer planted rice plants.’

b. Nagtanim ng palay ang magsasaka.

It is possible for a nominal argument to precede a verb, however, only the nominative-

marked argument or ANG-phrase can do so. When the ANG-phrase is moved to the verb

position, the AY-inversion is used. Thus, sentences in (2a) can be stated as in (4a), and

(3a) as in (4b)16

:

(4) a. Si Ben ay um-inom ng kape sa hardin

NOM PN AY AF.PFV-drink GEN coffee DAT garden

‘Ben drank coffee in the garden.’

b. Ang magsasaka ay nag-tanim ng palay.

NOM farmer AY AF.PFV-plant GEN rice.plant

‘The farmer planted rice plants.’

The ordering of constituents is not as flexible when a pronominal is involved. A

pronominal that takes the semantic role of an actor (regardless of ‘case’, which changes to

GEN when it is not the salient participant in the clause) always follows after the predicate,

as in the following sentences:

(5) a. Nag-basa ako ng libro ni Rizal.

AF.PFV- read 1SG.NOM GEN book GEN.POSS PN

‘I read a book of Rizal.’

16

Note that there is no change in the English translations of these sentences. A question may arise as to

whether there is a difference in meaning between the AY-construction and the typical word order.

Semantically, there is no difference. But discourse-pragmatic wise, it is argued to ‘specify a viewpoint from

which new information is provided’ characterised by being actor-oriented (Katagiri 1998:33).

61

b. B-in-ili-Ø ko ang libro ni Rizal.

buy-PFV-PF 1SG.GEN NOM book GEN.POSS PN

‘I bought the book of Rizal.’

c. Ni-lutu-an namin sila ng spaghetti.

PFV-cook-BF GEN.1PL.EXCL NOM.3PL GEN spaghetti.

‘We cooked spaghetti for them.’

As noted above, personal names have a different set of markers that has the same

distribution to that of YUNG/ANG, NG, and SA (hence, will also be glossed accordingly),

namely: SI, NI, and KAY. It has to be noted, however, that though they may be similar in

terms of their distribution, there are certain differences in the way they mark some

participants in the clause. For instance, NI and KAY always mark a human, non-topical

direct argument (cf. Himmelman 2004a, Himmelman 2005). Table 3.2 presents the

personal pronouns in their corresponding nominative, genitive, and dative forms. Note

that the DAT forms take the marker SA in non-initial clausal position, unlike the NOM and

GEN forms:

Table 3.2 Pronominals

PERSONS NOM GEN DAT

1SG ako ko akin

2SG ikaw (ka) mo iyo

3SG siya niya kanya

1PL (incl) tayo natin atin

1PL (excl) kami namin amin

2PL kayo ninyo inyo

3PL sila nila kanila

3.1.2 Verbal System

The two features that typically characterise the verbal system of Tagalog are focus and

aspect (Schachter and Otanes 1972, Ramos 1974, De Guzman 1978, Reid 1992). The

focus system has been introduced in Chapter 1, but in Section 3.2.1, we provide examples

for the importance of the ‘inherent semantics of the verb’ to express certain focus forms.

In section 3.1.2.2, we explain the aspect system.

62

3.1.2.1 Focus system

It was introduced in Chapter 1 that the verbal paradigm of Tagalog uses a focus system to

form a basic verbal clause. In this system, a verbal affix, such as UM/M, IN/Ø, -AN, co-

occurs with a base predicate and puts a participant in the clause in focus. Consequently,

the relation of the base verb and the affix signals the focus form of the clause, i.e. ACTOR

FOCUS (AF), PATIENT FOCUS (PF), LOCATIVE FOCUS (LF), INSTRUMENTAL FOCUS (IF),

BENEFACTIVE FOCUS (BF). This focused participant receives the ANG marker, and the

other nominals get NG or SA. Notably, it was stated that the focus form a base predicate

can express depends on the inherent semantics of the verb. For instance, a directed-

motion predicate like pasok ‘enter’ can only exhibit the AF, PF, and LF forms, as shown in

(6); while, change of possession/transaction verbs can exhibit four focus forms, as

illustrated in (7).

(6) a. P-um-asok ang tubig-baha sa amin-g bahay.

AF.PFV-enter NOM floodwater DAT 1PL.DAT-LNK house

‘The floodwater entered our house.’

b. P-in-asok-Ø ng tubig-baha ang amin-g bahay.

enter-PFV-PF GEN floodwater NOM 1PL.DAT-LNK house

‘Our house was flooded.’

(lit. Floodwater went inside our house)

c. P-in-asuk-an ng tubig-baha ang amin-g bahay.

enter-PFV-LF GEN floodwater NOM 1PL.DAT-LNK house

‘Our house was flooded in’.

(7) a. B-um-ili si Deling ng pantalon para kay Ben.

AF.PFV-buy NOM PN GEN jeans for DAT PN

sa Megamall.

DAT PN

‘Deling bought jeans for Ben in Megamall.

b. B-in-ili- Ø ni Deling ang pantalon para kay Ben.

buy-PFV-PF GEN PN NOM jeans for DAT PN

sa Megamall.

DAT PN

‘Deling bought the jeans for Ben in Megamall.’

63

c. B-in-ilh-an ni Deling ng pantalon si Ben.

buy-PFV-BF GEN PN GEN jeans NOM PN

sa Megamall.

DAT PN

‘Deling bought jeans for Ben in Megamall.

d. I-p-<in>-ang-bili ni Deling ang kanya-ng ipon

IF-DRV-<PFV>-buy GEN PN NOM 3SG.DAT-LNK saving

ng pantalon para kay Ben sa Megamall.

GEN jeans for DAT PN DAT PN

‘Deling bought jeans for Ben in Megamall using her savings.’

Note that in sentences (6b) and (6c) the same participant is put in focus but different

verbal affixes encode them. I will show in Chapter 6 that this behaviour relates to event

structure.

3.1.2.2 Aspect paradigm

In Tagalog, the occurrence of events in time is expressed through aspect rather than tense

marking. Typically, Tagalog aspect is characterised into three inflectable forms, namely:

the perfective that describes an event that is completed, the imperfective that is not

completed but begun and the contemplated that is not begun (Schachter and Otanes 1972,

De Guzman 1978, Ramos and Bautista 1986; see Reid 1992 for a discussion of the

development of aspect system in Philippine languages where he neatly reconstructs the

development of the voice and aspect affixes that lead to the present paradigm).

Figure 3.1 below illustrates the categories of aspect in Tagalog verbs adopted

from De Guzman (1978; slightly modified in Reid 1992):

64

Figure 3.1 Aspectual Paradigm in Tagalog

Note that every focus form of a base verb can inflect for aspect. Take a look at the

sentences below. The (8) and (9) sentences have the verb root bili ‘buy’ in its AF (8) and

PF (9) forms.

(8) a. B-um-ili ang bata ng kape sa tindahan.

AF.PFV-buy NOM child GEN coffee DAT store

‘The child bought coffee/some coffee in the store.’

b. B-um-i-bili ang bata ng kape sa tindahan.

<RDP- um >.IPFV-buy NOM child GEN coffee DAT store

‘The child is/was buying coffee/some coffee in the store.’

c. Bi-bili ang bata ng kape sa tindahan.

CONTEMPL-AF-buy NOM child GEN coffee DAT store

‘The child will buy coffee/some coffee in the store.’

[+V]

[-fin] [+fin]

[-beg] [+beg]

[-comp] [+comp]

(a) kumuha kukuha kumukuha kumuha

‘to take’ ‘will take’ ‘takes’ ‘took’

(b) itapon itatapon itinatapon itinapon

‘to throw’ ‘will throw’ ‘throws out’ ‘threw out’

contemplated imperfective perfective

65

(9) a. B-in-ili-Ø ng bata ang kape sa tindahan.

PFV-buy- PF GEN child NOM coffee DAT store

‘The child bought the coffee in the store.’

b. <B-in-i>-bili-Ø ng bata ang kape sa tindahan.

<RDP-in>.IPFV-buy- PF GEN child NOM coffee DAT store

‘The child is/was buying the coffee in the store.’

c. Bi-bilh-in ng bata ang kape sa tindahan.

CONTEMPL-buy-PF GEN child NOM coffee DAT store

‘The child will buy the coffee in the store.’

There are two verbal affixations that are purported to encode the semantic features of

[±begun] and [±completed]: the nasal infix -um-/–in- and reduplication.

The perfective form carries the infix -um-/–in- but lacks reduplication. The

formation yields situations that are conceived of as completed [+comp]. The sentences in

(8a) and (9a) are in perfective aspect.

The imperfective form has the infix -um-/–in- and reduplication as in the examples

in (8b) and (9b). Their conjunction provides a begun [+beg] and non-completed [-comp]

interpretation of the action.

The contemplated form, which lacks the infix but exhibits reduplication, signifies

an action that is not begun [-beg]. The sentences in (8c) and (9c) illustrate this point.

Notably, in AF forms with predicates that have the verbal affix m-, such as mag-

basa ‘read’, mag-luto ‘cook’, the infix –in- is realised as a ‘mutation of the initial nasal

stop in a prefix from m- to n-‘ (Maclachlan 1996:14), for instance, mag- to nag-basa ‘.

On the other hand, in the PF forms, when the aspect marker -in- is present, the verbal

suffix -in is realised as the Ø allomorph (see examples in (7b), (9a) and (9b)).

Using the terminology of Schachter and Otanes (1972) and (Reid 1992), we have

a rough outline of the aspect formation of the AF, PF and LF forms, as shown in Table

3.3.

66

Table 3.3 Aspect formation of AF, PF, and LF forms and their semantic features

Focus forms Perfective Imperfective Contemplated Features

AF17

-um RDP-um-V RDP-Ø-V [+beg] [+comp]

PF -in- RDP -in-V RDP-V-in [+beg] [-comp]

LF -in- RDP -in-V-an RDP-V- an [-beg] [-comp]

In this current study, I will only be concerned with the perfective and imperfective

aspects of a focus form alternation and how these forms interact with the telicity and

atelicity of a predicate. This is discussed in Chapter 7. Note that the imperfective aspect

formation is a rough outline only, as base verbs show different ways of forming

reduplication (see Schachter and Otanes 1972 for a list of reduplication formation of

verbs).

3.1.3 Verbal affixes

Early works in Tagalog have proposed numerous listings of possible verbal affixes that a

base verb can co-occur with and highlight a particular participant. Schachter and Otanes

1972, Ramos 1974, Ramos and Bautista 1986, for instance, have proposed for the

following affixes to exhibit major focus types as summarised in Table 3.4.

17

One can observe that in the perfective aspect of the verb, the UM and IN appear to function both as a

focus and aspect markers. Reid (1992) proposes a phonological reasons for the presumably juxtaposition of

these two functions in these markers. He surmises that this is due to a vowel syncopation and assimilation

that resulted in geminate clusters in the perfective form of the AF verb, e.g. k-um-in-uha <um-in>

<um-n>. Subsequently, assimilation happened that <um-n> becomes <um-m>. On the other hand, De

Guzman (1994) proposes the principle of minimal distinction. Under this principle, a word with complex

morphological structure register only one marker when two markers are identical or similar in phonological

structure and one affix adequately captures the separate functions of the form. This happens even if one of

the two markers signifies a different grammatical feature.

67

Table 3.4 Some verbal affixes and their focus type

Focus forms Verbal affixes Example

Actor (AF) um um-alis ‘x leave (from) y’

mag mag-laba ‘x wash y’

mang mang-away ‘x fight with y’

ma ma-ganda ‘x is pretty’

Patient (PF) in b-in-ili ‘ x buy y’

an ni-labh-an ‘x wash y’

i i-b-in-igay ‘x give w to y’

Locative (LF) an b-in-uhus-an ‘x pour y into z’

in akyat-in ‘(x) climb y.’

pag~an p-in-ag-hulug-an ‘x put y into z’; ‘x fall on

z’

Instrumental(IF) i-pam i-pang-li-linis ‘x will use y to clean z’

Beneficiary

(BF)

i i-bili ‘(x) buy y for w’

ipag Ipag-luto ‘x cook y for w’

an bilh-an ‘x buy y for w’

A major observation regarding the verbal affixes is the lack of one to one correspondence

between the verbal affix and the focus type. We will mention three observations here.

First, one affix combined with different base verbs manifests more than one focus type.

For instance:

(10) a. I-b-in-igay niya ang pagkain sa mahirap na bata.

PF-PFV-give 3SG.GEN NOM food DAT poor LNK child

‘He/she gave the food to the poor child.’

b. I-b-in-ili ko ng sapatos ang akin-g Inay.

BF-PFV-buy 1SG.GEN GEN shoes NOM 1SG.DAT-LNK mother

‘I bought shoes for my mother.’

With (10a), the i- affix correlates with the patient in the clause that is made prominent,

while it is the beneficiary of the action in (10b) that is highlighted by the same verbal

affix. There are many instances where one affix can be used for different base verb, and

68

depending on the meaning of the base verb, one of a number of the nominals in the clause

becomes the salient constituent.

A second observation is that different affixes can be used for different base verbs, yet

they mark the same semantic relation and exhibit the same type of focus, as shown in (11)

sentences.

(11) a. B-in-ili- Ø ni Emma ang gulay.

PFV-buy-PF GEN PN NOM vegetable

‘Emma bought the vegetable.’

b. H-in-ugas-an niya ang mga pinggan.

PFV-wash-PF 3SG.GEN NOM PL plate

‘He/she washed the plates.’

c. I-b-in-igay niya ang pagkain sa mahirap na bata.

PF-PFV-give 3SG.GEN NOM food DAT poor LNK child

‘He/she gave the food to the poor child.’

Lastly, there is also an instance that the same base verb, like bili ‘buy’, can take different

verbal affixes: the i-affix for the sentence in (10b), repeated here as (12a), and the –an

affix, as shown the sentence in (12b). Yet, both sentences demonstrate beneficiary focus.

(12) a. I-b-in-ili ko ng sapatos ang akin-g Inay.

BF-PFV-buy 1SG.GEN GEN shoes NOM 1SG.DAT-LNK mother


b. B-inilih-an ko ng sapatos ang akin-g Inay.

PFV-buy-BF 1SG.GEN GEN shoes NOM 1SG.DAT-LNK mother


In Table 3.4, some verbal affixes have been listed to illustrate the number of verbal

affixes available for the formation of focus forms. But, as we have seen in the three

observations given, these affixes and the focus forms that they create is not as

straightforward as they seem. Thus, as I pointed out in Chapter 1 Section 1.3, I have

limited the verbal affixes selected for the study by basing the selection primarily on the

predicate/verb class they belong to, e.g. consumption, performance, manner of motion.

69

By doing so, the focus forms that a base predicate can exhibit and the event structure it

denotes can be determined.

3.1.4 Nominal Markers

In the description of the nominal markers in the previous section, we saw that ANG, NG

and SA mark participant in the clause that has a certain semantic role, which, arguably, is

coded by the relation between the verbal affix and the base verb (recall that the

combination of the nominal markers and the participant are also referred to in this study

as ANG-phrase, NG-phrase and SA-phrase). In this section, we elucidate the combination

by providing the examples below.

As has been stated, ANG marks the nominal that becomes the nominative-marked

nominal in an intransitive and a transitive clause. This ANG-phrase is the nominal co-

indexed by the verbal affix. There are already sufficient examples given above to

elucidate this point.

On the other hand, The NG marker signals the agent, patient, theme, instrument, and

possessors.

(13) a. NG-patient (P)

B-um-ili ang guro ng libro sa National.

AF.PFV-buy NOM teacher GEN book (P) DAT PN

‘The teacher bought a book in National (Bookstore).’

b. NG-agent (A)

B-in-ili-Ø ng guro ang libro sa National.

PFV-buy-PF GEN teacher (A) NOM book DAT PN

‘A teacher bought the book in National (Bookstore).’

c. NG-Instrument (I)

H-in-iwa- Ø ng katulong ng matalas na

PFV-cut-PF GEN maid GEN sharp LNK

kutsilyo ang kalabasa.

knife (I) NOM pumpkin

The helper cut the pumpkin with a sharp knife.’

70

d. NG-theme (T)

B-in-uhus-an ni Pedro ng tubig si Juan.

PFV-pour-LF GEN PN GEN water(T) NOM PN.

‘Pedro poured water onto John.’

SA is characterised, generally, as a marker for location or direction (Shachter and Otanes

1972, Ramos 1974). At times, it also governs the goal, source, recipients or benefactives

(Adams and Manaster-Ramer 1988, Kroeger 1993, Cena 1995).

(14) a. SA-location (L)

P-um-unta si Alex sa Maynila.

AF.PFV-go NOM PN DAT PN (L)

‘Alex went to Manila.’

b. SA-direction (D)

T-um-ingin siya sa akin.

AF.PFV-look 3SG.NOM DAT 1SG.DAT (D)

‘S/he looked at me.’

c. SA-source (S)

L-um-abas ang bubuyog sa butas ng puno.

AF.PFV-exit NOM bee DAT hole (S) LNK tree

‘The bee went out/exited from the hole of the tree.’

d. SA-benefactive/recipient (B/R)

T-um-ulong ang mga bata sa matanda.

AF.PFV-help NOM PL child DAT old.person

‘The children helped the elderly.’

The ANG-phrase has been traditionally analysed as ‘definite’, the NG-phrase as indefinite

and the SA-phrase as definite (Schachter and Otanes 1972, Kroeger 1993). Recall,

however, that Adams and Manaster-Ramer (1988) argue against these typical

71

characterisations of the three forms. We look in detail into the semantics of these forms

particularly the ANG-phrase and the NG-phrase in Chapter 5. The SA-phrase is discussed in

Chapter 6.

Meanwhile, we take a look at the five major works in Tagalog, starting off with a

transformational and lexicase grammar explanation of the focus system by Ramos (1974)

and De Guzman (1978), respectively, into the first application of logical representations

to understand some of the focus forms by Foley and Van Valin (1984). We proceed to a

proposal for semantic parameters that are ‘Philippine-context based’ to understand

‘transitivity’ by Nolasco (2003, 2005), and a proposal for distinguishing the AF with the

NG-patient and its PF alternate in terms of event structure (Nolasco and Saclot 2005). We

conclude with the interesting suggestion by Travis (2000, 2005, 2010) of the place of

event phrase (i.e. event structure) in the architecture of a VP, where telicity plays an

essential role.

3.2 Some major studies of the Verbal System of Tagalog

3.2.1 Ramos (1974)

Ramos approaches the classification of Tagalog verbs according to a case grammar

framework that focuses on semantic-syntactic features. She argues that in order to have an

adequate characterisation of the Tagalog verb system, its deep structure has to be

explored. This approach allows for the examination of the inherent semantic features of

verbs, which trigger their case frames. These semantic features are assigned through

subcategorisation rules and the case frames are conditioned by selectional redundancy

rules. Consequently, semantics is linked to syntax through transformational rules.

Ramos makes a distinction between case and case forms (following Blake 1930),

whereby ‘case’ identifies the role a nominal holds in relation to the verb it co-occurs with.

Case forms (CF), on the other hand, are the surface expressions which indicate the case

relations between the verb and its arguments.

According to Ramos, cases in Tagalog are divided into inherent and non-inherent

cases. The inherent cases are determined by the inherent semantic features of the verb,

while the non-inherent ones are influenced not by the meaning of the verb but are

dependent on their occurrence with the inherent ones. Although the study tries to steer

away from the relation between the case and the verbal affix, the data presented and how

72

the rules work to produce the case form inadvertently show the correspondence between

the inherent and non-inherent cases and the verbal affixes, as shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Inherent and non-inherent cases and the associated affixes

An important component of Ramos proposed system is the semantic features of the verb

and its arguments. She particularly pays attention to these features as she foregrounds the

idea of the centrality of verbs in argument realisations. We look at the features for

agentive type verbs, which explain the surface structure of the verbs that take the UM and

MAG affixes. The tree below shows the proposed features of an agentive verb (Ramos

1974:49, 52):

Cases Features Affixes

Inherent:

Actor [+A] um-, mag-, ma-

Objective [+O] i-, -in, -an

Directional [+Dir] -an

Locative [+L] pag- ~ -an , –an

Instrumental: meteorological [+I] um

Non-inherent:

Instrumental:

Agentive

Non-agentive

[+I]

ipang-, i

maka

Benefactive [+B] i-, ipag-

Affected [+Af] ma-~ -an

[+V]

[+AGT] [-AGT]

[+ext] [-ext] [+exp] [-exp]

[+cf] [-cf] [+dir] [-dir] [+inch] [-inch]

[+ter] [-ter] [+ter] [-ter] [+cf] [-cf] [+trans] [-trans]

[+cs] [-cs] [+met] [-met]

[+t] [-t] [+ter] [-ter]

73

Ramos proposes that in order to understand, for instance the sentence in (15a), one has to

understand the base rule of the verb, which contains the subcategorisation and selectional

rules that further specify its aspectual features and case relation. For agentive verbs, the

tree above summarises the rules. Basically, the verb is marked for [±agentive] or [±

neutral aspect]. We first look at the [±agentive] feature.

(i) [+Agentive] [+external], [+centrifugal],[+terminal], [+change of state], [+total]

A verb that has agentive [+Agt] as part of its innate properties always requires the

presence of the agent. Verbs of this nature have agent as the initiator and instigator of the

activity and are marked with the feature agent [+A]. When it also has the external [+ext]

feature, it indicates that an action is ‘externally induced by an agent’. This [+ ext] feature

generates the occurrence of the objective [+O] case, as shown in (15a). On the other hand,

if the [+Agt] verb has the [-ext] feature, as in (15b), it suggests an action that is ‘internally

induced’ or pertains to an ‘inner motion’ (Ramos 1974:45).

+V

+ ext [+A] [+O]

(15) a. Nagtayo siya ng bahay.

built he a house

‘He built a house.’

+V

- ext [+A] b. Tumayo siya.

stood he

‘He stood.’

In sentences like (15a), there are three important observations she arrives at, particularly

in distinguishing surface structures that have the [+O] case relation. The features

centrifugal [+cf] and terminal [±ter] distinguish sentences that have an object argument

and whether or not the action extends beyond the object. The sentences in (15a) and (16)

demonstrate this point. In (15a), the action terminates [+ter] at the object, while in (16), it

does not terminate [-ter] in the object. Presumably, these selectional rules facilitate in

74

differentiating the AF forms of the verb that belong to the creation (15a) and the locative

alternation (16) class that are part of the current study. Note that in these two sentences,

the object argument is marked with NG.

+V

-ter [+A] [+O] [+Dir]

(16) a. Nagbuhos siya ng tubig sa balde.

poured he water bucket

‘He poured water into the bucket.’

+V

-ter [+A] [+O] [+Dir]

b. Naghagis si Pedro ng mga kendi sa mga bata.

threw Pedro lollies to the children

‘Pedro threw lollies to the children.’

Under the terminal [+ ter] feature, the change of state [±cs] element emerges. This feature

characterises the condition or state of the object argument, which is either total [+t] or

partial change of state [-t]. She relates this feature to the physical condition of the object.

Interestingly, the sentence in (15a), despite having a [+ter] features has not been given the

selectional rule of [+cs]. To explicate the [+cs] feature, Ramos gives examples that have

verbs that do not take the UM or MAG affixes. Instead, she uses verbs that, in the current

study, are under the PF forms (17) and the LF forms (18). Note as well that the object

argument receives the ANG marker when it is interpreted as having a total change in its

condition (from Ramos 1974:47):

+V

+cs

+ t [+A] [+O]

(17) Dinurog niya ang paminta.

crushed he pepper

‘He crushed the pepper.’

75

+V

+cs

+ t [+A] [+Dir]

(18) Pinunasan niya ang mesa.

wiped he table

‘He wiped the table.’

Three important observations regarding Ramos’ selectional rules that have bearing on the

analyses of the focus forms are noted. First, the existence of an object argument (with the

[+ter] feature) in verbs that have the UM or MAG affix, as in (15a), does not

automatically result in a change of state of the object [+O]. This leads to the second

observation. It appears that in order to get the total change of state interpretation,

sentences such as in (17) and (18) have to be used. Third, the terminal [+ter] feature as

used in Ramos’ study pertains to the permanent change in the condition of the object.

Thus, it seems that Ramos attributes the [+ter] feature as a property of an object. This

feature is to be differentiated from telicity which pertains to the inherent endpoint of the

verb; thus, I attribute telicity as a property of the verb.

In the above discussion, we looked at verbs that are marked with the [+Agt]

feature and the associated semantic features for this type of verb. Next, we examine verbs

that are marked as non-agentive [-Agt].

(ii) Non-agentive [-Agt] [-experiential], [+inchoative], [±transient]

[-experiential], [-inchoative], [± meteorological], [±ter]

In the [-Agt] spectrum, the notion of inchoative [±inch] is worth mentioning. Ramos

argues that this feature arises for those verbs that are non-experiential, which in her

terminology expresses ‘a non-psychological change of state or condition of the referent of

the [+O] nominal expression’ (p.50). She further notes that the action denoted by the verb

suggests a ‘process of becoming’ of the nominal expression, which is always marked with

the [+O] case:

76

+V

+inch

-trans [+O]

(19) Gumanda ang bata.

became beautiful the child

‘The child became beautiful.

+V

+inch

+trans [+O] [+I]

(20) Nangitim siya sa init.

became black she sun

‘She became tanned/dark (due to) the sun.’

‘She became sun-tanned.’

In the sentences in (19) and (20), the arguments marked with [+O] have undergone

change of state. They differ, however, in the [± transient] feature. In the example in (19),

the [+O] argument has a [-transient] feature because it has a permanent transformation in

its condition. The opposite is the case for the [+O] argument in (20).

The simplified base rules of the verb that have been discussed so far have looked

into the spectrum of the [±agentive] feature, where we focused on the semantic features

[+terminal], [+change of state] and [+inchoative]. These three semantic features will

figure in the event structure analysis of Tagalog.

At the outset, it is mentioned that verbs are also marked in terms of the aspect

feature. Although aspect has not been expounded in Ramos’ study, it provides a basic

understanding of Tagalog verbs’ aspectual paradigm, as shown in Figure 3.2. Ramos

suggests that Tagalog verbs are marked with the feature [±neutral aspect]. Consequently,

the non-neutral aspect is characterised by the [±begun] and [±completed]. Explanations

for the features [±begun] and [±completed], however, are not given.

77

[+V]

[+neutral aspect] [-neutral aspect]

[+begun] [-begun]

[+completed] [-compl]

[+recent] [-recent]

Figure 3.2 Aspectual Paradigm based on [±neutral aspect]

Essentially, an important facet of Ramos’ work is the proposed semantic features of the

verb formalised through subcategorisation and selectional redundancy rules. These rules

serve as a starting point for understanding the focus forms of Tagalog verbs. As noted by

De Guzman (1978:129), it “provides some valuable insights into the character of each

verb as it relates to its cooccurring actants and can also serve as a springboard for any

further semantic analysis of verbs”. Subcategorisation rules directly project the deep

structure arguments to the surface structure. Consequently, through transformational

rules, Ramos determines what arguments are projected in the subject and object position.

But, as we have noted in the previous chapters, these syntactic relations are problematic

in Tagalog.

3.2.2 De Guzman (1978)

In contrast to Ramos, De Guzman (1978) offers a syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs.

She examines the case relation and case forms in Tagalog adopting the lexicase grammar

paradigm developed by Starosta and his students. This paradigm aims to provide a

generative syntactic model that consists of phrase structure rules, a lexicon and a

phonological component (p. 3).

In her analysis of the case relation and case forms as exemplified in the

subcategorisation and redundancy rules18

, she arrives at six major verbal affixes

18

For a complete set of these rules, please refer to De Guzman (1978:402-407)

78

producing eight case relations, as illustrated in Table 3.6. Among the proposed case

relations, the dative, reason and comitative are formed with a derived verb stem and a

verbal affix. It has to be mentioned that the use of dative in De Guzman’s study is

different from the traditionally known dative case. Dative here is mostly associated with

the EXPERIENCER case – the animate entity affected by psychological event or mental

state expressed by the verb (p.54). It can be observed from the table below that similar to

Ramos, the same verbal affix can co-occur with different case relations. Recall that it has

been generally observed that it is not predictable what verbal affix co-occur with verbs.

This observation has been noted in Section 3.1.3.

Table 3.6 Verbal affixes and their case relations

Verbal affix

Case Relation

um m- -in i- -an Ø

Actor x x

Object x x x x x x

Locative x

Dative x x x

Instrumental x

Benefactive x

Reason x

Comitative x

It has to be emphasised that, although De Guzman’s study is syntactic in nature, there are

important factors relevant to this thesis that have been raised.

Firstly is the identification of the six major verbal affixes namely UM-, IN-, AN-,

I-, M- and Ø and the interplay of these major affixes with aspect. In her analysis, De

Guzman proposes a voice-aspect morphophonemic rules (VAMR) to show the overt

manifestation of aspect, which intersects with the overt realisation of the verbal affixes

(De Guzman 1978:159). This is an important contribution in her study, since it provides

the foundation for understanding why basic transitive and intransitive clauses exhibit only

one affix in their verbs to signify both the focus and aspect categories. This proposal is

particularly significant for the AF and PF alternations. The paradigm of the six major

79

affixes to comprise the focus alternations (case frames in De Guzman’s term) that will be

examined in this thesis is adopted.

Secondly, we observe some similar semantic features that are proposed by Ramos,

such as [±terminal], [±inchoative], and [±change of state]. However, these features have

been expounded and developed in De Guzman’s work to further explain idiosyncratic

behaviour of certain Tagalog verbs that have not been elaborated by Ramos. For instance,

De Guzman (p.226) illustrates that the subcategorisation features of verbs that co-occur

with the affix UM are derived not only from adjectives but also from nouns: [-[+INS],

+[+OBJ], +inch, +ter, -ergative]. These are presented in Ramos work as verbs that take

the ‘inchoative’ semantic features. Consider the examples in (21) and (22)

(21) Nouns

The subcategorisation frame demonstrates that the sole participant in these types of verb

has the [OBJ] relation rather than the [INS]. Moreover, the [+inch] feature suggests the

process the [OBJ] undergoes which is terminated at a certain point [+ter]. The

juxtaposition of [+inch] and [+ter] features leads to the change of state of the [OBJ]

relation. These description and the derivational rules put forward by De Guzman are a

good starting point for the analysis of accomplishment verbs which have in their lexical

representation the BECOME operator. Two important conclusions that both Ramos and

De Guzman arrive at with regard to this type of verb are (1) the argument that is marked

by UM affix, which becomes the subject, is marked as a [+Obj] rather than [+Agt]; (2)

the relation between the features [+terminal] and [+inchoative] leads to [+change of state]

(Noun) (Verb)

laki ‘size’ lumaki ‘become big; increase in size’

bigat ‘heaviness’ bumigat ‘become heavy’

(22) Adjectives

(Adjective) (Verb)

tahimik ‘quiet’ tumahimik ‘become quiet’

laganap ‘widespread’ lumaganap ‘become widespread

80

of the object. Crucially, these two conclusions correlate with the analysis of the verbs that

are classified under the Accomplishment event types examined in Chapter 4.

Third, De Guzman classifies Tagalog verbs by considering verb stems rather than

verb base/roots through derivational rules. Verbs stems are characterised as a root, an

affixed stem derived from a root, or an affixed stem derived from another affixed stem

(p.145). It is for this reason that those affixes considered in Ramos’ classification as part

of the basic verb affixes are categorised as derivational affixes, such as pag-, pang-, ka-,

ma-, maka-, pa- pag-an, pagsa-, and paki-. This is particularly significant in elucidating

the morphological formation of AF verbs that take the MAG verbal affix. Consider, for

instance, the proposed derivational pag- affix:

(23) I-p-<in>ag-luto ni Deling si Ben ng sopas.

BF-DRV <PFV>-cook GEN PN NOM PN GEN soup

‘Deling cooked soup/some soup for Ben.’

Previous studies of i- and pag- affixes conflate the two into just one affix ipag-

expressing what is known as the beneficiary focus (cf. Panganiban 1939, Schachter and

Otanes 1972, Ramos 1974, Ramos and Bautista 1986). In De Guzman’s account,

however, the i- affix is inflectional signifying the correlation with the beneficiary of the

action; whereas, the pag- affix is derivational to form the verb stem pagluto ‘cooking’

derived from the base luto ‘cook’. Apparently, if the analysis is based on the verb roots

and not on the verb stems, as in the case of the previous studies, an unnecessary listing of

numerous affixes will be given. However, by taking verbs stems and distinguishing

inflectional from derivational affixes, a ‘less dubious and completely redundant listing’ of

affixes is avoided (De Guzman 1978:151)19

. The formation, then, of AF verbs that have

MAG affix is m- + pag. Thus, not only do the verbal matrices in De Guzman’s system

provide an adequate description of word formation, but they also suggest that those

19

I do not provide a detailed account of the reason for the combination of these two affixes. In a nutshell,

however, De Guzman proposes for the m- affix to comprise the six major verbal affixes to capture the

differences in the inflectional paradigm of each stem class. In previous analyses, the UM affix, together

with MAG-, MANG-, MA-, MAKI-, is identified with the active forms, i.e. actor focus. In contrast, the

PAG-, PANG, PA, PAKI affixes are identified with the passive forms, i.e. PF, BF, LF, IF. De Guzman

argues that the previous analyses suggest that there are no differences between the two, which is not the

case. Thus, the m-affix is suggested to provide an adequate description of its general application with the

pag- and pang- stems and avoid any indication that a root-stem may be inflected for both the active and

passive forms (p.150).

81

belonging to same stem classes share the same syntactic-semantic features and

corresponding morphological paradigm.

As a whole, De Guzman’s work presents valuable insights as it examines a

number of Tagalog verbs with a description of their case frames and semantic feature

subcategorisations, which adequately provide a feasible operation for predicting the

projection of arguments.

3.2.3 Foley and Van Valin (1984)

Foley and Van Valin (henceforth, F&VV) surmise that the focus system of Tagalog

distinguishes between ‘controlled volitional’ action and ‘uncontrolled non-volitional

action’. The former is exemplified by verbs that co-occur with affixes UM/MAG, IN/Ø, and

–AN, while the latter with verbs that have the MA and MAKA affixes. To illuminate the

difference, F&VV analyse some verbs that have the aforementioned affixes and

categorise them according to Vendler’s (1967) four-fold schema of event types with their

corresponding logical structure (LS) adopted from Dowty (1979).

(i) Controlled volitional action

Controlled volitional actions are expressed by the set of verbs that have the AF, PF,

theme focus (THF), and LF forms. The feature ‘volition’ is reflected in the LS by the

operator DO. To explicate this point, consider the sentences in (24) with the verb bili

‘buy’ (F&VV 1984:63, original gloss).

(24) a. B-um-ili ng isda sa bata ang lalake.

AF-buy TH fish L child F man

‘The man bought some fish from the child.’

b. B-in-ili-Ø ng lalake sa bata ang isda.

PFV-buy-THF A man L child F fish

‘The man bought the fish from the child.’

c. B-in-lh-an ng lalake ng isda ang bata

PFV -buy-LF A man TH fish F child

‘The man bought some fish from the child.’

82

The verb bili ‘buy’, which has different verbal affixes, and thereby, expresses different

focus forms yet has the same number of participants, is posited to have the following LS

(F&VV 1984:64):

(25) [DO (lalake, [do' (lalake)])] CAUSE [BECOME NOT be-at' (isda, bata) &

BECOME be-at' (isda, lalake)].

The LS shows the number of nominals the verb bili has, namely bata ‘child’, lalake

‘man’, isda ‘fish. Any of these nominals can be in focus depending on the verbal affix. As

noted above, the LS of all of the sentences in (24) signals that the actions are all

volitional, with the agent participant acting intentionally. Significantly, F&VV observe

that the notion of volitionality is carried by the verbal affixes. Thus, in AF forms, for

instance, the volitional affixes are UM and MAG, whereby all the sentences in (26) will

have the operator DO in their representation.

(26) a. T-um-akbo sa bahay ang lalake.

AF-run L house F man

‘The man ran to the house.’

b. K-um-ain ng isda ang lalake

AF-eat P fish F man

‘The man ate fish.’

c. Nag-bigay ng libro sa bata ang lalake.

AF-give TH book L child F man

‘The man gave a book to the child.’

The verbs mentioned above are all typified under the accomplishment event type.

(ii) Uncontrolled non-volitional action

F&VV classify verbs that denote non-volitional features through their event types,

namely: states and achievement.

Stative verbs have the LS predicate' (x) and have either MA- or Ø affix to signify

stativity. Note that the predicate' represents not the verb itself but an abstract predicate.

The difference between the two is that MA-, when affixed to a stative verb, expresses the

83

transitory nature of the participant it is predicating (27a), while Ø expresses the

permanent nature of the participant (example sentences in 26, 28, 29 are my own;

however, the glossing style from F&VV is maintained):

(27) a. Ma-dilaw ang mata.

-yellow F eyes

‘The eyes are yellowish’.

b. Ø-dilaw ang mata

-yellow F eyes

‘The eyes are yellow.’

The affix MA- also attaches itself to verbs that express location. This is manifested in the

LS by be-at' (a, b), as in (28):

(28) a. Na-upo sa sahig ang lalake.

-sit L tree F child

‘The man sat on the floor.’

b. Na- sa palengke si Lola.

- L market F Grandma

‘Grandma is/was in the market.’

The example in (28b) shows that the prepositional predicate na-sa palengke ‘in the

market’ indicates a locative state. In (28a), however, which is the example used in F&VV,

na-upo ‘sit’ is not a locative state, but a positional predicate. This is elaborated in Chapter

4. For now, let us move on to another use of the MA-affix.

Achievement verbs with LS: BECOME predicate' (x) are another event type

where the MA- affix, together with the UM affix, can be found. According to F&VV,

verbs with MA-affix differ from the MA stative verbs because of the ‘change of state or

process’ feature that is indicated by the operator BECOME. The observation regarding

the semantic features reiterates the ones made by Ramos and De Guzman. However,

F&VV simplify the features in the subcategorisation rules of Ramos (1974) and De

Guzman (1978) by categorising these verbs as achievement verbs and assigning a lexical

representation with the BECOME operator. Thus, the examples in (29a, b) regardless of

84

their lexical categories have the achievement logical structure, as illustrated in (29a', b').

Examples in (29) have the UM affix, while the one in (30) has the MA-affix.

(29) a. Bigat(N) bumigat ‘become heavy’

a'. BECOME heavy' (x)

a" B-um-igat ang bata. The child became heavy.’

b. Tahimik(ADJ) tumahimik ‘become quiet’

b'. BECOME quiet' (x)

b". T-um-ahimik ang bata. ‘The child became quiet.’

(30) Na-galit ang lalake. (F&VV:67)

-angry F man

‘The man got angry.’

To systematise their analysis of Tagalog verbs that involve state or change of state, Foley

and Van Valin (1984) treat the ma- affix as basic. State verbs (31a), achievements (31b),

and accomplishments (31c) are formed through a derivational process. Let us take the

predicate maputi ‘white’ to illustrate how the system works.

(31) a. Ma-puti si Venn.

-white F Venn

‘Venn is fair’. (lit. Venn is white)

b. P-um-uti si Venn.

became white F Venn

‘Venn became fair.’

c. Nag-pa-puti si Venn.

AF.PFV-CAUS-white F Venn

‘Venn made himself fair.’

As shown in the (31) examples, some predicates register the ma- affix to signify stativity,

but there are others, like basag ‘broken’ in (32a), that do not take any affix. For stative

verbs, as in ma-puti ‘fair/white’(31a), the derivational process from state to achievement

is done by cancelling the ma-affix and replacing it with the um-affix, such that ma-puti

85

‘fair/white’ becomes p-um-uti ‘become fair’ (31b). On the other hand, accomplishment is

formed by dropping the um- affix and adding the mag + pa affixes (31c).

(32) a. Ø-basag20

ang pinggan.

- broken F plate

‘The plate is broken.’

b. Na-basag ang pinggan.

-broken F plate

‘The plate became broken.’

c. Nag-basag ang lasinggero ng pinggan sa lalake.

AF.PFV-broken AF drunkard TH plate L man

‘The drunkard made the man break some plates.’

The sentences in (32) show a different insertion-deletion mechanism of affixes to

manifest state, achievement, and accomplishment event types, respectively. Changing

from state to achievement involves the insertion of the affix ma- for a predicate like

basag, as indicated in (32b), while accomplishments take the mag- affix, as in (32c). In

their logical structure, the change in verbal affixation is the addition of the BECOME

operator in the lexical entry of state verbs. States have the lexical entry predicate' (x),

while achievements have the representation BECOME predicate' (x). On the other hand,

accomplishments have the representation [DO (x, [do' (x)])] CAUSE [BECOME]

predicate' (y).

In general, F&VV suggest that the two forms of stative verbs- MA-stative and Ø-

stative- manifest different verbal affixes when they denote achievement or

accomplishment event types. For MA-stative, achievements have the UM affix, while

accomplishments have the mag- (AF marker) + the pa (causative marker) affixes. On the

other hand, for Ø-stative, achievements have the MA (NA in its perfective form) affix;

whereas, accomplishments have the MAG (NAG in perfective form) affix. These are

further illustrated in (33) and (34).

20

Note the following accent of the root basag derived from 'basag: (32a) ba'sag; (32b) na-'basag; and

(32c) nag-'basag.

86

(33) Ma-stative

a. ma-ganda beautiful State

b. g-um-anda become beautiful Achievement

c. mag-pa-ganda make herself beautiful Accomplishment

(34) Ø-stative

a. Ø-puno full State

b. na-puno become full Achievement

c. nag-puno x filled y with z Accomplishment

The MA affix has another function referred to by F&VV as DO canceller. We have seen

in the discussion of volitional verbs where the UM and the MAG affixes are used that the

focus forms they expressed have the DO component in their lexical entry. However,

F&VV posit that the use of MA or its MAKA affix alternate cancels the DO component

of a volitional verb, such that, the same volitional verb becomes non-volitional. Consider

the examples in (35) and (36).

(35) a. T-um-anggap ng gantimpala ang lalake. (FVV 1984:68-69)

vol. AF-receive TH prize F man

‘The man accepted a prize.’

b. DO (lalake, [BECOME have' (lalake, gantimpala)])

(36) a. Naka-tanggap ng gantimpala ang lalake.

Invol. AF-receive TH prize F man

‘The man received a prize.’

b. [BECOME have' (lalake, gantimpala)

As mentioned before, volitional verbs are posited to have the um or mag affixes, as

illustrated in (35a). Presumably, verbs like tanggap ‘receive/accept’ have actors that are

more agentive which is expressed as DO (x… in the verb’s logical structure, as in (35b).

However, same verbs can depict non-volitional actions with less-agentive actors by

87

replacing um or mag with ma-or maka affixes, as in (36a). Consequently, the DO

component is cancelled, as shown in (36b).

Interestingly, perception verbs in Tagalog are also observed to be sensitive to the

feature of volitionality in which the use of verbal affix alternation is relevant. In this type

of verb, the MA has the DO component, while MAKA is the DO canceller. Consider the

verbs -rinig ‘hear’ in (37) and –kinig ‘listen to’ in (38) used by F&VV to illustrate this

point (p.69; original gloss).

(37) a. Naka-rinig ng ingay ang lalake.

PERCEIVER.F-hear TH noise F man

‘The man heard a noise.’

b. Na-rinig ng lalake ang ingay.

PERCEIVED.F-hear A man F noise

‘The man heard the noise.’

(38) a. Na-kinig ng musik ang lalake.

PERCEIVER.F -listen to TH music F man

‘The man listened to music.’

b. P-in-a-kinig-an ng lalake ang musik.

PERCEIVED.F -listen to A man F music

‘The man listened to the music.’

Foley and Van Valin argue that the verb -rinig ‘hear’, in (37), is a non-volitional

perception verb proposed to have the LS of a state verb: hear' (lalake, ingay). In contrast,

–kinig ‘listen to’, in (38), is a volitional perception verb and has the LS: DO (x, [listen to'

(lalake, musik). Note that instead of the um/mag affixes for volitional verbs, the ma and

pa~an are used. The sentences in (38) are argued to have an activity event type.

Table 3.7 shows the classification of the verbal affixes based on event types and

(non)volitional distinctions (Foley and Van Valin 1984:72):

88

Table 3.7 Verbal affixes based on event types and (non)volitional distinctions

Based on the discussion of the examples shown above, F&VV’s initial treatment of

Tagalog verbs in terms of lexical semantic representation falls into four event structure

types (referred to in their work as ‘verb classes’) with the corresponding logical

structures.

Table 3.8 Initial taxonomy of Tagalog verbs according to event structure in F&VV

Event Structure Logical Structure

State predicate' (x, (y))

Achievement BECOME predicate' (x, (y))

Activity [DO (x, [do' (x)])]

Accomplishment [DO (x, [do' (x)])] CAUSE

[BECOME] predicate' (y)

I summarised Foley and Van Valin’s observations in Table 3.9. Note that the designation

of the event structure of the verbal affix is based on the analysis of F&VV. As mentioned

in Chapter 2, although event types and logical structure have similarities with Role and

Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, Van Valin 2005, 2007), F&VV’s verb

classifications and representations are different. The table shows the verbal affixes that

are examined in the work of Foley and Van Valin (1984), the semantic function or

property of the verbal affix (depends on the verb it co-occurs with), the number of

participant(s) it has in a clause and the semantic role(s) of the participant(s). Example

sentences are also given in the table and the event structure that the verbal affix + verb

denote.

State Achievement Accomplishment

Ø- (Permanent) Ma- Mag- (AF)

Ma- (transitory) -um, maN- Mag + pa- (AF)

VOLITIONAL NON-VOLITIONAL

Perception Ma- AF Maka- AF

Pa-…an THF ma- P/THF

Non-perception -um-/mag- AF Maka- AF

- Ø/-I P/THF Ma- P/THF

89

Table 3.9 Verbal affixes and event structure frame in F&VV (1984)

Verbal

affix

Semantic

Function

Number of

Participant(s)

Semantic

Role(s)

Example Event

Structure

Ma1 attributive 1 ?21

Ma-ganda si Bang

‘Bang is beautiful’

Ma-bait ang madre.

‘The nun is kind.’

State

locative 2 theme/

actor,

location

Na-sa kusina ang

radyo/bata.

‘The radio/child is in the

kitchen.

perception 2 actor,

theme

Na-rinig ng lalake ang

ingay.

‘A man heard the noise.’

Ma2 emotion 1 or 2 actor,

theme

Na-galit ang guro.

‘The teacher became

angry.’

Na-galit ang guro sa

pusa.

‘The teacher got angry

with the cat.’

Achievement

Change of

state

1 or 2 effector,

theme

Na-basag ang pinggan.

‘The plate became

broken.’

Na-basag ni Luke ang

pinggan.

‘Luke broke the plate

(accidentally).

Ma3 perception 2 actor,

theme

Na-kinig ng musik ang

lalake.

‘The man listened to

music.’

Activity

Um1 Change of

state

1 patient ? G-um-anda si Bang.

‘Bang became

beautiful.’

Achievement

Um2 ? 2 actor,

patient/the

me

B-um-ili ng tinapay ang

bata.

‘The child bought some

bread.’

Accomplishment

Mag volitional action

with controlling

actor

2 actor,

patient/the

me

Nag-luto ng adobo si

Cenie.

‘Cenie cooked adobo.’

Accomplishment

Maka non-volitional

action with non-

controlling actor

2 effector,

patient/the

me

Naka-luto ng adobo si

Cenie.

‘Cenie cooked adobo

(surprisingly since she

doesn’t know how to

cook it).

Achievement?

Pa~an perception 2 actor,

theme

P-in-a-kin(i)g-an ng

lalake ang musik.

‘The man listened to the

music.’

Activity

21

In F&VV, the sole argument is glossed as F meaning ‘focussed’. I posit, however, that this argument of

MA- states takes the ‘patient’ semantic role. This will made clear in Chapter 4.

90

Evidently, there are issues that have not been tackled in this initial analysis of Tagalog

verbs based on event structure. One of these parameters is the tests for determining the

event types of the verbs. Although Foley and Van Valin are able to propose the possible

event structure, thus, the logical structure of major AF affixes, they have not provided the

semantic tests that would justify the classification of these affixes in their respective event

types. The tests can be used to examine the lexical aspect of a verbal predicate that

largely determines its appropriate event type. These semantic tests can be based on

standard ones like co-occurrence with temporal adverbials ‘in/for an hour’ (cf. Dowty

1979, Van Valin and La Polla 1997, Van Valin 2005) and/ or language-specific tests,

such as co-occurrence with muntik ‘almost’. Since semantic tests are not provided,

important lexical aspect distinctions are missed. For instance, recall the sentence in (24)

which has the verb bili ‘buy’ projected into AF, THF (theme focus in F&VV’s analysis)

and LF forms. All of these focus forms are argued to be accomplishments in F&VV’s

analysis. But application of the muntik ‘almost’ test, which evaluates the ‘homogeneity’

feature of verbal predicates, will show that AF has different event type from PF (or THF)

and LF forms. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

A second issue relates to the notion of ‘volitionality’. It is very interesting that the

notion of volitionality has been invoked as a semantic feature to influence the analysis of

the affixes. I will show, however, in this study, that it is the notion of telicity that

influences the classification of predicates into their event types.

A third issue relates to the distinction made between UM and MAG. At the outset,

F&VV observe the role of aspect in the use and choice of um and mag affixes. Further,

they posit that mag- prefers transitive verbs compared with um that is impartial to whether

verbs are transitive or not (p.65). As shown in Table 6, the sentences with Um2 and Mag

are both transitives and accomplishments. These are the affixes that express the actor

focus (AF) form with a NG-patient, which figures in the ‘transitivity’ issue. Based on

RRG’s Macrorrole transitivity, it will be argued that they are Macrorole intransitive and

denote activity eventuality.

Despite the issues raised, Foley and Van Valin offer a significant and promising

foundation for examining Tagalog verbs based on their lexical representations.

91

3.2.4 Nolasco (2003, 2005; Nolasco and Saclot 2005)

Nolasco’s 2003 study of Tagalog verbs deals in detail with the semantic parameters that,

presumably, best explain the focus system of Philippine Languages and elucidate the

notion of transitivity in the Philippine context. Consequently, it furthers the idea of

ergativity in Philippine Languages.

Two of the pressing issues arising from the verbal system of Tagalog and, in

general, Philippine languages, are transitivity and ergativity. In response to these issues,

Nolasco proposes semantic parameters, similar to Hopper and Thompson (1980), to point

out the need to understand the notion of transitivity of Philippine languages by proposing

Philippine-based context parameters. We concentrate on his transitivity parameters in

this section. Compare his proposed parameters, in (39), with Hopper and Thompson’s, in

(40):

(39) Nolasco’s parameters:

High Low

A. No. of Arguments Distinct A and P S

B. Kinesis action state

C. Aspect telic atelic

D. Punctuality punctual non-punctual

E. Intentionality deliberate volitional

F. Particularity particular general

G. Directionality external internal

H. Effort effortful effortless I. Affectedness of P P totally affected P not affected

J. Exclusivity of P exclusive P non-exclusive P

(40) Hopper and Thompson’s correlates:

High Low

A. Participants 2 or more participants 1 participant

B. Kinesis action non-action

C. Aspect telic atelic

D. Punctuality punctual non-punctual

E. Volitionality volitional non-volitional

F. Affirmation affirmative negative G. Mode realis irrealis

H. Agency A high in potency A low in potency

I. Affectedness of O O totally affected O not affected

J. Individuation of O O highly individuated O non-individuated

92

The notion of transitivity is argued to be central to human languages. Its traditional

meaning is grammatical. That is, transitivity is correlated with the presence of a direct

object. However, even the status of objecthood has spawned much controversy in the

same way that subjecthood does (cf. Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 2005). Thus, instead of

a syntactic basis, Hopper and Thompson posit clause-level semantic properties of

transitivity. Consequently, transitivity is conceived of in terms of a continuum and the

properties “co-vary extensively and systematically’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980:254;

henceforth H&T). Thus, a clause that exhibits more features along the high scale is more

“transitive” than a clause that has fewer features. H&T claim that these properties are

manifested morphosyntactically or semantically in various languages.

Nolasco claims that despite the apparent similarities of his parameters with

Hopper and Thompson’s, particular values, as in A, E, F, G, H and J, demonstrate the

language-specific semantic features that relate to the Philippine context. For the present

purpose, the parameters regarding ‘participants’, ‘aspect’, ‘punctuality’,

‘intentionality/volitionality’, ‘affectedness’ and ‘ exclusivity/individuation of O’ will be

tackled. We particularly discuss the AF forms and how Nolasco uses the semantic

parameters to justify that semantically transitive AF forms are grammatically intransitive.

In terms of the ‘participant’ parameter, Nolasco argues for the distinction of A and

P versus S arguments. The A, P and S are mnemonics similar to the A and O versus S of

Dixon (1979, 1994). A case marking system is used as a strategy in some languages to

distinguish core arguments from non-core arguments (for instance, most Indo-European

languages). In Philippine languages, not only a case marking system but also the focus

marking system is put forward. Nolasco suggests, however, that aside from case and

focus marking systems, a cross-referencing system identifies the core arguments through

pronominals in Philippine languages. He uses Kapampangan to justify this assertion

(2005:9; original gloss).

(41) a. Malagu ya ing anak. Kapampangan

pretty 3ABS ABS child

`The child is pretty.’

b. Ma-mangan ya=ng bayabas Kapampangan

INT.eat 3ABS=LKR guava

ing anak.

ABS child

`The child ate guavas.’

93

c. Pengan ne Kapampangan

TR.eat na (3ERG) + ya (3ABS)

ning pusa ing asan.

ERG cat ABS fish

‘The cat ate the fish.’

In his analysis, Nolasco posits that (41a) is the prototypical intransitive construction in

Kapampangan where the only argument, ing anak ‘the child’ (S), is co-referenced by the

pronominal ya. Similarly, in (41b), he observes that the semantic agent ing anak and not

the semantic patient bayabas ‘guava’ is the only one cross-referenced by ya. Thus, he

posits that sentences, such as (41b), are semantically transitive, but syntactically

intransitive. In contrast, (41c) shows the portmanteau ne cross-referencing ning pusa ‘the

cat’ (A) and ing asan ‘the fish’ (P). Arguably, this syntactic manifestation signals that

sentences, as in (41c), are semantically and syntactically transitive. Tagalog does not have

a pronominal cross-reference system, but Nolasco argues that nominal markers (e.g. ANG

and NG) and focus markers (e.g. UM, M-, NAG, Ø) are indicators of transitivity.

In Hopper and Thompson’s proposal, the morphosyntactic markings of the

sentences in (41) reflect the saliency of two or more parameters in the high or low scale.

In the Philippine languages that Nolasco (2003, 2005) surveys, PF forms manifest the

parameters on the high scale while AF forms exhibit the low scale values.

Two of the modified parameters are the ‘intentionality’ and ‘exclusivity of P’.

Recall that Foley and Van Valin (1984) invoke ‘intentionality’ under the scope of

‘volitionality’ to refer to a clause that has an agentive participant. Hopper and Thompson

define volitionality where the agent acts purposefully as in He wrote your number as

opposed to He forgot your number (non-volitional). On the other hand, Nolasco classifies

‘volitional’ contrasted with ‘deliberate’ under the semantic value of intentionality.

Nolasco defines a volitional act that is done voluntarily or willingly; whereas, a deliberate

act is more wilful or determined. He uses a narrative to point out the difference (Nolasco

2005:13, original gloss):

94

(42) a. Pagsapit nila sa abangan

NOM.reach 3ERG.PL OBL public transportation stop

h<in>ubad niya ang kanyang jacket

<PAST >take. off.TR(-in) 3ERG ABS his jacket

`When they reached the bus stop, he took off his jacket (and gave it to Fe.)

(PD, p.66)

b. N=aghubad ito ng sapatos

PAST.INT (m-)=[pag=take off] ABS.DEM OBL shoes

at medyas.

and socks

`He took off his shoes and socks.’ (PD, p. 68)

The data are taken from a scene in a novel Puto at Dinuguan by Edgar Reyes (as cited in

Nolasco 2003). In the story, a strong typhoon hits Manila. Andy, who is a truck driver,

decides to pick up Fe, the girl he is courting. However, Fe does not want Andy to go to

her office because she does not want people to gossip about them. He insists and Fe gets

mad at him. To appease her, he does (42a). She relents and ends the argument. On the

other hand, (42b) is used in a situation where Andy and Fe have to get off a public

transportation vehicle after it gets stalled in the middle of a flooded street. They notice

that one of the passengers does the action in (42b) before he wades the flooded street.

Nolasco argues that the use of the PF form in (42a) makes the action purposeful and

deliberate in contrast to (42b) that is natural22

.

22

It could be argued that the notion of volitionality as low in transitivity is hard to see. It may appear to be

confusing for some native speakers of English since ‘purposiveness’ is included in the sense of

volitionality. In terms of Nolasco’s definition, however, a volitional act is conceived of as natural and

voluntary. As a native speaker of Tagalog, I can elaborate this definition of naturalness of the act by looking

at the examples below.

(a) Nag-aral si Aurelio ng Semantics.

AF.PFV-study NOM PN GEN Semantics

‘Aurelio studied Semantics.’

(b) In-aral-Ø ni Aurelio ang Semantics.

PFV -study-PF GEN PN NOM Semantics

‘Aurelio intentionally/deliberately studied Semantics.’

Of course the sentence in (a) conveys a sense of purpose or an act of will on the part of the agent to study

Semantics. The difference, however, between (a) and (b) is that, in the (a) sentence, Aurelio didn’t have to

study Semantics but to do so seems to be ‘a matter of fact’. The sentence in (b) suggests that Aurelio

intended to take and deliberately sought the subject out in order to study and learn it. In the same vein, the

examples in (42) show that both acts of taking off (of clothes/shoes) entail a sense of purpose. But the

95

With regard to the ‘exclusivity of P’, Nolasco differentiates this parameter from the

‘individuation of O’ of H&T by suggesting the semantic exclusivity of a semantic patient.

In turn, the exclusivity of P triggers the semantic patient to be realised grammatically as

P. The following sentences in Cebuano in (43) elucidate what Nolasco means by semantic

exclusivity of P (2005:19; translations mine):

(43) a. N=amukaw pa gani Cebuano

PAST.INT (m-)=(pang= wake up) even had-to

kami kang Manang Tacia. (DAH, p. 3)

1ABS.PL OBL Manang Tacia

`We even woke Manang Tacia up (among others).’

b. Gipukaw pa gani namo Cebuano

gi-PAST-TR.wake up even had.to 1ERG.PL

si Manang Tacia..

ABS Manang Tacia23

.

`We even had to wake Manang Tacia up (and no other).’

Nolasco argues that in (43a) it is not only the ‘patient’ Manang Tacia who is awakened

but other people as well. Hence, since the patient is not individuated or singled out, it is

only realised in the OBL case. In contrast, in (43b), the agent namo ‘we’ specifically

targets the patient to be awakened. Nolasco further states that sentences like (42b) convey

an action that is ‘more direct, more effortful, more immediate, more active, and more

intentional’. For these reasons, the patient is semantically exclusive which, in turn, gets

manifested in it being marked in the absolutive.

There are three parameters that Nolasco retains from Hopper and Thompson’s,

namely: aspect, punctuality and affectedness of O. Particular attention is given to these

three parameters as they figure significantly in event structure in Tagalog.

sentence in (42a) is an act that is expected to be done; something that is normally done. In contrast, the

sentence in (42b) goes beyond what is expected to be done. Thus, it is more purposive and a more direct

action. 23

This sentence can be followed up by Apil si Maria amo sad gipukaw ‘We had to wake up Maria too’.

Despite the follow up sentence, the notion of exclusivity of P and the sense of intentionality are not lost. In

my view, these two sentences exhibit two telic events.

96

Punctuality is a notion that conveys whether an action occurs instantaneously or not. This

is a feature used not only in transitivity parameters, but also as one of the four semantic

features that characterises event structure of verbs (see Chapter 2). Hopper and Thompson

posit that there are actions in which their inceptions and endings are not easily

discernable, thus, they are conceived of as punctual as in kick, stand, break. In Tagalog,

however, a verb such as kagat ‘bite’ that is typically punctual can also be durative, as in

(44). Nolasco provides the following data from the novel Tukso ba ang Umibig (TBAU)

by Gilda Olvidado (2005:12):

(44) P<in>agsusuntok niya ito. Bilang ganti, hinalikan

<PAST>.hit repeatedly 3ERG 3ABS this.in retaliation, PAST.kiss

naman siya sa leeg. N=angagat siya.

truly 3ABS OBL neck PAST.INT (m-)=[pang=bite] 3ABS

Kahit ano, k<in>agat niya.

even anything <PAST>[=biteTR(-in)] 3ERG

`She repeatedly hit him. He retaliated and kissed her in the neck. She bit and

bit…Anything that she could bite, she bit.’ (TBAU)

Nolasco argues that the use of the AF verb nangagat ‘bit’ denotes a ‘generalized

depiction of the victim’s retaliatory action’; thus, he describes the action as durative (but

perhaps the appropriate description is ‘iterated’). In contrast, the PF form kinagat ‘bit’

provides a reading of a particularised action. In his words, kinagat focuses on ‘each and

every bite that the victim exacts on her tormentor’; thus, it is punctual.

I depart from Nolasco’s analysis regarding this type of verb. It will be argued in

this current study that both AF and PF forms of verbs such as kagat ‘bite’ are punctual.

However, they differ in the telicity feature. The AF form has the features [+punctual,

-telic], while the PF form has the [+punctual, +telic] features. Hence, the difference that

Nolasco reads on the verbs above is a matter of telicity and not punctuality. I elaborate on

this in Chapter 4 Section 4.5.

Nolasco does invoke the telicity parameter to make the association between PF

verbs and telicity, on the one hand, and AF verbs and atelicity, on the other. Telicity is a

value classified under the ‘aspect’ parameter which looks at whether an action has an

endpoint or not. This notion has been discussed in Chapter 2. In the following sentences

in (45), Nolasco argues that the use of the PF form of the verb prito ‘fry’ in (45a)

97

provides a reading that the kamote ‘sweet potato’ ends up being fried. In (45b), the AF

form suggests a sweet potato-frying event.

(45) a. Nang mainit na ang mantika, ip<in>rito niya

When hot already ABS cooking.oil TR(i-)<PAST>.fry 3SG.ERG

ang kamote.

ABS camote

`When the oil was already hot, she fried the camote.’ (KKPL, p. 80)

b. Nang mainit na ang mantika, n=agprito

when hot already ABS cooking.oil PAST = INT (m-).[pag=fry]

siya ng kamote.

3SG.ABS OBL camote

`When the oil was already hot, she fried camote.’

While interpretations are correct, the telicity distinction between the PF (45a) and AF

(45b) verbs are based only on a native speaker’s intuition. Nolasco and Saclot (2005)

attempt to formalise this intuition by adopting Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin

and La Polla 1997) and providing a logical decomposition of the alternations. Although

Foley and Van Valin (1984) initiate the event structure analysis of Tagalog verbs,

Nolasco and Saclot develop further the idea and propose for the activity type of AF

forms, such as in (45b), and the active accomplishment of PF forms, as in (45a). In

Nolasco and Saclot’s analysis, the sentence in (45b), as an activity verb, has the four

semantic features and the lexical representation in (46). On the other hand, the PF form in

(45a) has the LS, as shown in (47).

(46) a. [-static] [-punctual] [-telic] [+dynamic] = activity verb

b. LS: do′ (3SG, [fry′ (3SG, kamote)]

(47) a. [-static] [-punctual] [+telic] [+dynamic] = active accomplishment

b. LS: do′ (3SG, [fry′ (3SG, kamote)] & INGR fried′ (kamote).

Note, that, in terms of the semantic features of the verbs, (46) differs from (47) in the

[telic] feature. However, Nolasco and Saclot did not explore this feature in detail. Similar

to Foley and Van Valin, Nolasco and Saclot did not provide the tests to clearly explicate

98

the event type assignment of the focus forms. Significant, however, is the basis for

understanding the nature of the patient due to the identification of event types. Given that

AF forms with the NG-patient are activities, the NG-phrase in this clause is treated as an

indefinite without a result state entailment. In contrast, the PF forms, being active

accomplishments, have the ANG-patient that has undergone a complete change of state

with a result state entailment. Consequently, the contrast in the semantics of the patient

permits the identification of an UNDERGOER MACROROLE. The ACTOR and UNDERGOER

MACROROLES are argued to be relevant in understanding the transitivity issue between AF

and PF forms (more of this analysis in Chapter 5).

In examining the UNDERGOER MACROROLE, the ‘affectedness’ parameter is also

cited. This value measures the degree of affectedness that a patient receives due to the

transfer of action from an agent. In English, it is generally observed that a totally affected

object is realised in the accusative case, while a partially affected object is marked with a

dative case (Tenny 1987, 1994). In Tagalog, it is observed that patients in PF forms are

totally affected and receive the marker ANG in the NOM case. In contrast, the patient

arguments in AF forms are partially affected and receive either the NG or the SA marker

in the GEN or the DAT case, respectively. The ‘total affectedness’ and

‘individuation/exclusivity of P’ are argued to co-vary triggering for the PATIENT in PF

forms to be realised as an UNDERGOER (Nolasco 2005, Nolasco and Saclot 2005).

The language-specific semantic features that Nolasco proposes contribute to a

better understanding of the semantics of Tagalog verbs. They are precisely the intuitions

that native speakers have, particularly with regard to the difference between AF and PF

forms. Moreover, the adoption of Role and Reference Grammar (i.e. Van Valin and

LaPolla 1997) to explore further the relation of the semantic features and the logical

structure of verb meanings illustrates the significance of event structure. Importantly, we

can observe from the discussion of event types above, specifically regarding the verbs

kagat ‘bite’ and prito ‘fry’, that it is the notion of telicity which appears to be the

relevant underlying semantic value influencing the behaviour of verbs and the realisation

of their arguments.

3.2.5 Travis (2000, 2005, 2010)

The works of Travis advance the significance of event structure and explore its

expression in VP structure. In particular, she recognises the role that telicity plays in the

99

internal temporal constitution of verbal expression (Travis 2005). Although her study is

syntactic in its orientation, her proposals are worth considering. Much of her analyses are

based on Malagasy, but her findings can be extended to Tagalog with certain

modifications. In my thesis, I have built on Travis’ general assumptions on Tagalog’s

telicity and further proposed tests to determine the telicity of Tagalog predicates.

Important for our discussion in relation to the present research interest are her

analyses of Tagalog verbal affixes in- (which is a verbal affix for patient focus as used in

the current study, but in Travis (2010), the construction is referred to as “neutral”

following the terminology used by Dell 1983), and the feature of reduplication (that is

considered to be an aspectual indicator), as well as, the telicity tests she employs for

Malagasy. We look first at her observations regarding the role of telicity in Malagasy, and

then proceed to how she extends these observations to Tagalog.

3.2.5.1 Telicity in Malagasy

According to Travis, Malagasy has two sets of verb forms that express the feature of

telicity. These verb forms have the following verbal affixes, as shown in Table 3.10

(Travis 2005:396):

Table 3.10 (A)telicity marking in Malagasy

ATELIC TELIC

ACTIVE/UNERG an-/i-√ 24

aha-√

PASSIVE √-V-na voa-√

UNACCUSATIVE i-√ tafa-√

The verb vory ‘meet’ exemplifies her point. She points out that verbs such as ‘vory’

remains atelic regardless of whether it is transitive, as in (48), or intransitive, as in (49)

(Travis 2000:172, original gloss):

(48) a. namory ny ankizy ny mpampianatra

pst.an.meet the children the teacher

‘The teachers gathered the children’

24

Travis follows Pesetsky’s notation in indicating the root morpheme.

100

b. …nefa tsy nanana fotoana izy

but neg pst.have time they

‘but they didn’t have time.’

(49) a. Nivory ny olona

pst.i.meet the people

‘The people met.’

b. ?...nefa tsy nanana fotoana izy


Significantly, Travis argues that, in this verb, telicity is not entailed but implied as

achievement of the endpoint can be cancelled, as shown in (48b). In order for the verb

vory’ to be telic, another affix like maha has to be used. The sentence in (47a) illustrates

that the endpoint has been achieved. It is further attested by its incompatibility with ‘but

they didn’t have time’ in (50b).

(50) a. nahavory ny ankizy ny mpampianatra

pst.a.ha.meet the children the teacher

‘The teachers gathered the children’

b. *...nefa tsy nanana fotoana izy


3.2.5.2 Tafa, Maha and the extra argument

Another interesting observation from Travis is the function of the prefix tafa. When the

prefix tafa is joined to an intransitive (inchoative in Travis’ work) verb that generally

only has the ‘theme’ argument, it produces another argument. The sentence in (51a)

shows a typical telic inchoative construction, while (51b) is the telic transitive

construction (Travis 2000:174):

(51) a. Tafavory ny olona

tafa.meet the people

‘The people met.’

101

b. Tafavory ny mpampianatra ny ankizy

tafa.meet.gen the teacher the children

‘The teacher was able to gather the children.’

She surmises that it is the telic morpheme tafa that triggers the appearance of an extra

argument. This claim is further supported by the maha affix which appears to be a

causativiser when it co-occurs with adjectives, as shown in (52b). Sentences are from

Travis (2000:175):

(52) a. Tsara ny trano

beautiful the house

‘The house is beautiful.’

b. Mahatsara ny trano ny voninkano

pres.a.ha.beautiful the house the flowers

‘The flowers make the house beautiful.’

Thus, Travis suggests that in Malagasy morphemes like tafa and maha25

induce telicity

and an extra argument. Specifically, the sentences in Malagasy point to the fact that a

telic morpheme, like maha, introduces a causer when agent argument is not present, as in

(52b). However, when it is present, the telic morpheme induces the agent argument to be

non-volitional, as in (52b) (2000: 178).

3.2.5.3 Telicity and Reduplication in Tagalog

Travis analyses the Tagalog affixes like pag-, pa, and ka to argue for the place of ‘event

phase’ in syntax. We will not discuss them here, but our interest lies in her two

assumptions regarding the form that has the in- affix and the reduplication. Consider the

sentence Travis adopted from Dell (1983) below.

25

Travis follows Phillips’ (1996) analysis of the maha morpheme which is composed of m- as the actor

focus affix, a- as a stative morpheme, and ha as the telic morpheme. She adopts the same morphological

template for the maka affix in Tagalog. But for the purposes of our discussion in this section, I will use the

complex form maha that Travis indicated in Table 3.10.

102

(53) S-in-ipsip- niya ang buko pero may

PFV-aspirate-PF 3SG.GEN NOM coconut but have

naka-bara sa istro, kaya hindi niya na-sipsip.

?-obstruct DAT straw hence NEG 3SG.GEN AF.PFV-aspirate

‘He sucked at the coconut milk, but the straw was blocked and nothing

(came into his mouth).’

A sentence, such as (53), which is treated in this current study as the PF form, is analysed

by Travis as ‘atelic accomplishment’. She admits that the term accomplishment is not the

appropriate term for the verbal expression, but maintains the use of the term, because it

appears to be ‘telic’ in initial reading. However, the fact that it can be defeasible makes

her conclude that it is atelic. There are interesting concepts underlying Travis’

assumptions regarding the sentence above. First is that the use of her test is, I believe,

correct in identifying whether a predicate is atelic or not. This is also the test proposed in

the current study. Second is that telicity is implied rather than entailed in Tagalog. I

totally agree with her on this matter, but on a different account26

.

We conclude this section with Travis’ observation regarding Tagalog’s

reduplication. Travis (2010) posits that reduplication in Tagalog functions more as a

feature of viewpoint aspect (perfective-imperfective), rather than event structure i.e.

situation aspect. She suggests that reduplication is similar to the progressive in English

and does not encode the (in)completive feature which is the direction taken by some

researchers (e.g. Rackowski 2002). She justifies this claim by examining the prefix ka in

Tagalog, which she posits is a telic morpheme and can co-occur with its reduplicated

form, as in (54) (Travis 2006:74).

(54) a. ROOT: √sulat ‘√write’

b. APTATIVE(INF): makasulat ‘able to write’

c. APTATIVE (CONT): nakakasulat ‘was managing to write’

n- a- RED- ka- √sulat

TERMINATIVE V1 PROG COMPLETIVE

26

In this thesis, the second observation is appropriate for verbs that exhibit the AF form, particularly verbs

that belong to the class of consumption, creation, learning, among others. These classes of verb have the AF

forms and their PF alternates, which is the telic derivation. Thus, the sentence in (53) is argued in this

current study to be telic active accomplishment. This difference is examined and discussed in Chapter 5.

103

According to Travis, the fact that reduplication and KA co-occur supports the claim that

reduplication is a feature outside of the event structure (‘inner aspect’ in her terms) and

does not signify the ‘incompletive’ feature.

In English, progressive (PROG) is taken to be the representation of imperfectivity.

In Tagalog, Naylor (1986) and Zack (1994) posit that reduplication is a feature

characterising imperfectivity. Thus, it is interesting to examine whether reduplication in

Tagalog correlates with the progressive in English and how these notions interact with

telicty. This is explored in Chapter 7.

3.3 Conclusion

In this Chapter, I have presented a grammatical sketch of Tagalog. Out of this sketch

emerged different approaches to understand primarily the focus system of Tagalog.

Naturally, the more one studies a specimen, the more interesting features arise that bring

out issues and more room for inquiry. The five studies that have been presented in this

Chapter demonstrate some of the advances made in Tagalog linguistics. Ramos (1974)

and De Guzman (1978) provided subcategorisation and selectional redundancy rules to

explicate the verbal system of Tagalog. The former is semantic based, while the latter is

syntactic based. Foley and Van Valin (1984) examined the ‘focus system’ by providing

lexical representations of some selected verbal affixes, such as UM and MAG, and

pointed out the feature of ‘volitionality’ as the factor that distinguishes perception verbs

from non-perception verbs, for instance. Their work provided an initial foundation for

investigating Tagalog verbal system in terms of event structure. Nolasco (2003, 2005)

argued for a Philippine-based context parameters of transitivity and put forward the

significance of the notion Actor and Undergoer Macrorole in the transitivity issue. Lastly,

Travis (2000, 2005, 2010) posed a challenging research arena on telicity in Tagalog. The

succeeding Chapters begin the exploration of this arena.

104

Chapter 4

States, Accomplishments and Achievements

This chapter deals with states, achievements and accomplishments and how these event

structures are coded in Tagalog. In Chapter 3, we have seen that there are verbal affixes

that code these three event types according to the analysis of Foley and Van Valin

(1984)27

. They examined a number of affixes, but we focus only on the following: MA-/

Ø-, UM, and KA28

. In this chapter, analyses of these affixes are expounded.

Specifically, I show the significance of classifying non-dynamic Tagalog

predicates into accomplishments. Recall that in Chapter 2, I pointed out that an

accomplishment analysis does hold for certain base predicates in Tagalog. In Section 4.2,

it will become clear that non-dynamic predicates, which are derived from nouns or

adjectives and take either the MA or UM affix, denote accomplishments. They are telic

and typically monovalent. Consequently, analyses of achievements in Tagalog illustrate

the same features as accomplishments. To differentiate Tagalog accomplishments and

achievements, telicity tests are provided. Furthermore, I put forward in Section 4.6 that

the affix KA may function as a stative or actor marker and its co-occurrence with the MA

affix denotes an activity event type.

Hence, in this chapter, issues that were raised in Foley and Van Valin’s work

(F&VV) are addressed. The first issue deals with the semantic tests that were missing in

F&VV’s study. In this chapter, I provide tests that distinguish event types expressed by

the affixes MA-/ Ø-, UM, and KA, particularly in distinguishing accomplishments from

achievements. The second issue is the notion of volitionality. In F&VV, volitionality

plays a significant role in the event type classification of predicates. I demonstrate,

however, that the defining features of states, achievements and accomplishments are

(a)telicity and the result state entailment of the Undergoer, which is the argument marked

with ANG. Nevertheless, the role of volitionality is not undermined as its influence is

observed in predicates that indicate agency as in the case of the affix KA.

27

Readers are reminded that despite similar terminology, Foley and Van Valin’s (1984) verb classification

and representation are different from RRG (1997, 2005, 2007). 28

Other classes of predicates, such as cognition, and emotion, are not discussed in this chapter. However,

they will be part of the discussion in Chapter 7 when I explicate the in(ter)dependence of event structure

and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog. In this chapter, I focus only on state event types that have base predicates

derived from nouns/adjectives, as these predicates are the basis for achievements and accomplishments.

105

Table 4.1 shows the affixes examined in this chapter, the event structure that these affixes

denote, and their proposed corresponding logical structure.

Table 4.1 Event structure and logical structure of (non)stative and non-dynamic

Tagalog predicates

Affix Event structure Logical structure

ma-

Ø-

state be' (x, [pred'])

pred' (x, (y))

ma-/-um accomplishment BECOME pred' (x, (y))

ma-/-um achievement INGR pred' (x, (y))

INGR[HAPPEN.TO. pred' (x,y)])

ka activity do' (x, [GET.TO.pred'( x,y)])

4.1 States

We begin this chapter by looking at the Tagalog predicates denoting state eventualities

classified as MA-states and Unaffixed states. As defined in Chapter 2, states are non-

dynamic, homogeneous and atelic. In English, one of the typical tests of stativity is

incompatibility with the progressive. If a predicate is stative, it cannot suggest the notion

of dynamism which is associated with the semantics of progressives, as in (1).

Furthermore, it doesn’t generally occur in the imperative, as in (2), and it is incompatible

with the expression of ‘agency’, such as in (3).

(1) a. *She is knowing the answer.

b. *She is fearing the impending deadline of her thesis.

(2) a. * Know the answer!

b. * Fear the monster!

(3) a. *Peter deliberately knows the answer

b. * Sherry carefully fears the monster.

106

However, there are instance where progressives are found to occur in state predicates, for

instance:

(4) a. The book is lying on the floor.

b. The vase is sitting on the edge of the table

(5).* Paulo’s house is sitting on top of Mount Pinatubo.

Dowty (1975) suggests that there are other semantic criteria that have to be considered

when testing predicates like those in the sentences in (4), such as permanent/transient

condition/property of the object and agency. Carlson (1977a) distinguishes these

properties in terms of (i) stage-level predicate (situation is temporary) where the

progressive is allowed, such as (4a) and (4b); (ii) individual-level predicates (situation is

permanent) where the progressive is not allowed, as in the example in (5).

On the other hand, in Tagalog, stativity is morphologically encoded. In the

previous chapter, we have seen two affixes that signify stativity, namely ma- as shown in

(6), (7), (8) sentences and Ø – (unaffixed) form of the base predicate in (9), (10), (11)

sentences.

(6) Ma-ganda si Nene.

STAT-beauty NOM PN

‘Nene is beautiful.’

(7) Ma-tangkad ang pulis.

STAT-tall NOM police

‘The policeman is tall.’

(8) Ma-talino si Ismail.

STAT-intelligent NOM PN

‘Ismail is intelligent.’

(9) Ø –basa ang salamin.

STAT-broken NOM mirror

‘The mirror is broken.’

107

(10) Ø-durog ang paminta.

STAT-crush NOM pepper

‘The pepper is crushed.’

(11) Ø-tuyo ang damit.

STAT-dry NOM shirt

‘The shirt is dry.’

Note that the examples above signify states that are generally characterised as ‘property-

denoting’ predicates. The difference, however, is that states in (6), (7) and (8) indicate

property/quality/attribute that is inherent to the nominative argument (cf. Ramos 1974, De

Guzman 1978, Foley and Van Valin 1984, Himmelman 2004). On the other hand, the

states in (9), (10) and (11) are argued to be the result state of the nominative argument (cf.

Foley and Van Valin 1984:71). I will refer to the former as MA-states and the latter as

Unaffixed states. I elaborate on these two types of states in the following section29

.

4.1.1 MA-states

I have mentioned that MA-states indicate property of the argument that is inherent or

permanent (in Carlson’s 1977 terms, this is known as individual-level predicates). The

base of this type of state is typically derived from nouns that suggest the property/quality

of the object being described. Some other examples of MA-states derived from nouns are

shown in (12).

(12) MA-state Noun

mabilis ‘fast’ bilis ‘speed’

mabagal ‘slow’ bagal ‘slowness’

mainit ‘hot’ init ‘heat’

matamis ‘sweet’ tamis ‘sweetness’

matapang ‘brave’ tapang ‘bravery’

maliit ‘small’ liit ‘smallness’

malamig ‘cold’ lamig ‘coldness’

29

See also Dixon (1977) for classification of these types of predicates. Interestingly, Wu (2005) observes

the same affixation in Amis, an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan.

108

maliwanag ‘clear,bright’ liwanag ‘radiance,brightness’

masama ‘bad’ sama ‘badness’

matatag ‘stable’ tatag ‘stability’

The MA-affix can also be seen manifesting in locative states such as (13) and (14). We

will discuss locative states in detail in Chapter 630

.

(13) Ang palaka ay na-sa garapon. (FWAY:8)

NOM frog AY STAT-DAT jar

‘The frog is/was in the jar.’

(14) Siya’y may alaga rin-g (FWAY:45)

3SG.NOM-AY have pet also-LNK

isa-ng aso.

one-LNK dog

Ito’y na-sa kuwarto niya.

this-AY STAT-DAT room 2SG.GEN

He also has a dog. It is in his room.’

4.1.1.1 Logical structure of MA-states

The examples in (12), like those in (6), (7), and (8), are adjectives that function

predicatively. In RRG, there are four types of predicative adjectives that are treated as

state predicates: attributive, identificational, specificational and equational31

. The

sentences in (15) show the logical structure of each state predicate (Van Valin 2005:48).

(15) a. Pat is tall. Attributive

a'. be' (Pat, [tall'])

b. Kim is a lawyer. Identificational

b'. be' (Kim, [a lawyer'])

30

The existential and possession constructions discussed in Chapter 6 also exemplify state eventualities. I

do not discuss them in this chapter as I want to focus on adjectival predications that are affixed (i.e. MA) or

Unaffixed and from which accomplishments and achievements are derived. Thus, the proposed telicity

tests, such as magdamag ‘throughout the night’, are meant to test MA-states and Unaffixed states. 31

Van Valin (2005) followed Schwartz (1993) in providing the logical structures for attributive and

identificational predications, while specificational predication is based on Pavey (2004).

109

c. Chris is the winner. Specificational

c'. be' (Chris, [the winner])

d. Kim’s sister is Sandy’s lawyer. Equational

d'. equate' (Kim’s sister, Sandy’s lawyer)

Note that the be' in the logical structures signifies only the attributive, identificational and

specificational predications. It does not stand for the English be and is not part of the

predicate in a copular construction (Van Valin 2005:48). In attributive, identificational

and specificational predications, the be stands for the auxiliary that is part of the nucleus32

but not the predicate. Only in equational predications does the English be act as the

predicate in the nucleus.

The logical structures of attributive and identificational predications show that an

adjectival or nominal predicate fills the second argument position of be'. On the other

hand, a referring expression, which serves as the nucleus, fills the LS in a specificational

predication. In this representation, the first argument signifies a variable while the second

its value (Van Valin 2005 following DeClerk 1988). In a result state predication, as in

The rabbit is dead, be' is not present in its LS: dead' (rabbit).

Notice that the examples for MA-states indicate the attribute state of the

nominative argument. Thus the logical representation for this type of state is as follows:

be' (x, [pred']). The sentences in (6), (7) and (8), repeated here as (16a), (16b) and (16c),

respectively, will then be represented as in (16).

(16) a. Maganda si Nene.

a'. be' (Nene, [beautiful']

b. Matangkad ang pulis.

b'. be' (pulis, [tall']

c. Matalino si Ismail.

c'. be' (Ismail, [intelligent']

32

In RRG (2005), a nucleus is one of the primary constituent units of a clause. It contains the predicate,

which is normally a verb.

110

4.1.2 Unaffixed states and their LS

As shown in examples (9), (10) and (11), Unaffixed states are also adjectives that

function predicatively. However, the difference with MA-states is that the unaffixed ones

denote transient or result state of the nominative argument (in Carlson’s 1977 terms, this

is known as stage-level predicates). Unaffixed states are argued to be derived from nouns

and/or verbs (Schachter and Otanes 1972). Other examples are shown below (from

Schachter and Otanes 1972: 196-19733

).

(17) Unaffixed states Noun and/or verb Base

bali ‘fractured’ /ba·li'/ ‘fracture’

buhay ‘living’ /bu·hay/ ‘life’

galit ‘angry’ /ga·lit/ ‘anger’

gutom ‘hungry’ /gu·tom/ ‘hunger’

hilo ‘dizzy’ /hi·loh/ ‘dizziness’

punit ‘torn’ /pu·nit/ ‘tear’

pagod ‘tired’ /pa·god/ ‘tiredness’

putol ‘cut’ /pu·tol/ ‘cut’

sira ‘damaged’ /si·ra/ ‘damage’

sunog ‘burned’ /su·nog/ ‘fire’

The logical structure representation of this type of state is pred' (x, (y)). The atomic

predicate be' is not present, indicating the transient/result state of the argument. The

sentences in (9), (10) and (11) are represented as in (18a', b', c').

(18) a. Ø –basag ang salamin.

a'. broken' (salamin)

b. Ø –durog ang paminta.

b'. crushed' (paminta)

c. Ø –tuyo ang damit.

c'. dry' (damit)

33

Schachter and Otanes (1972) classify this type of state into a first subclass of unaffixed adjectives where

the adjective lacks an inherent long vowel and its noun/verb derivation has an inherent long vowel in the

penultimate syllable.

111

There are instances where the base of the predicate designates color or shape. A base of

this nature exhibits both the MA-states and the unaffixed states. In cases like this, the

unaffixed states convey the permanent condition/property of the argument, while the MA-

states signify the transitory and result state condition (see also Schachter and Otanes

1972, Foley and Van Valin 1984). The following sentences in (19) and (20) demonstrate

these points.

(19) a. Ma-itim ang kanya-ng buhok.

STAT-black NOM 3SG.DAT hair

‘His/her hair is black’. (e.g. dyed)

a'. black' (kanyang buhok)

b. Ø-itim ang kanya-ng buhok.

STAT-black NOM 3SG.DAT hair

‘His/her hair is (naturally) black.’

b'. be' (kanyang buhok, [black']

(20) a. Ma-bilog ang buwan.

STAT-round NOM moon

‘The moon is full.’

a'. round' (buwan)

b. Ø-bilog ang buwan.

STAT-round NOM moon

‘The moon is round.’

b'. be' (buwan, [round']

Based on the thematic relations continuum (Chapter 2, Figure 2.2), the single argument in

the LS representations of the MA-states and the Unaffixed states takes the patient role.

Patient can be defined as the ‘participant in a state or condition’ (Van Valin 1990:228). A

significant implication of determining the thematic relation of participants is the

assignment of macroroles (MR), which serve as intermediary roles to carry out mapping

to syntax. Recall that thematic relations in RRG are defined in terms of their argument

positions in the logical structure of a state or an activity verb. Hence, the single argument

of a one-place state predication is a patient, which is assigned an Undergoer MR

according to the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH; Chapter 2, Figure 2.3). Notice that

112

the patient participant that is assigned an Undergoer MR in MA-states and unaffixed

states is marked by ANG. Consequently, it has a result state entailment.

Distinguishing between MA-states and unaffixed states of base predicates appears

to be significant as the classification and the corresponding lexical representation signal

the other event structure that they denote. That is, the MA-states figure in

accomplishments, while the unaffixed states exhibit achievements. The following sections

explore this point. I argue in these sections that accomplishments and achievements being

derived from MA-states and Unaffixed states, respectively, manifest the following

features: a typical intransitive accomplishment and achievement has its sole argument

marked by ANG and is assigned an Undergoer MR with a result state entailment. In

addition to the result state entailment, the notion of change of state also surfaces as part of

the entailment. Importantly, the shift from states to accomplishments or achievements

indicates the atelic-telic change in the internal temporal contour of the predicates.

Consequently, although the non-dynamic feature of the predicates is maintained, there is a

shift from being stative to non-stative.

4.2 Accomplishments

Accomplishments are characterised as telic and non-homogeneous. Being telic, they have

an inherent endpoint, and, thus, have a non-homogeneous internal temporal contour. An

example of this in English is shown below. The compatibility of the time-span adverbial

‘in an hour’ suggests the inherent endpoint of the predicate melt and learn (see also

Chapter 2 on the discussion of event structure).

(21) a. The butter melted in an hour/*for an hour.

b. Therese learned Spanish in a year/ for a year.

In Tagalog, the base predicates denoting accomplishments are affixed with UM or MA.

As stated in the previous section, accomplishments are derived from MA-states.

Significantly, once base predicates are affixed with an UM or MA affix, the internal

temporal composition of these predicates becomes telic. We can test their telicity status

by examining their compatibility with time-span adverbials sa loob ng isang oras ‘within

an hour’ and the durative adverbial magdamag ‘all night long’. Consider the sentences in

(22) and (23).

113

(22) G-um-anda si Sharon sa loob ng isang oras/

PF34

.PFV-beauty NOM PN within an hour/

*magdamag35

.

all night long

‘Sharon became beautiful within an hour/all night long.’

(23) G-um-aling siya sa sakit

PFV-recover 3SG.NOM DAT sickness

sa loob ng isang oras/*magdamag.

within an hour/all night long

‘S/he recovered from sickness within an hour/all night long.’

It is widely accepted that time-span adverbials freely co-occur with accomplishments

while durative adverbials do not. It appears that this is also a good diagnostic test for

determining a typical intransitive accomplishment in Tagalog. The sentences in (22) and

(23) demonstrate the compatibility of the accomplishment verbs, such as gumanda

‘became beautiful’ and gumaling ‘recovered’, with the time-span modifier sa loob ng

isang oras ‘within an hour’, signifying the telicity of the predicates. Furthermore, we can

observe that not only are the predicates telic, but also the arguments have undergone a

change of state leading to their final result state or outcome. In the case of the sentence in

(22), the argument Sharon was in a state of being not beautiful changing to become

beautiful. The argument in (23) was in a state of being sick which changed to being well.

34

It appeals to me to refer to this kind of focus form as an Undergoer Focus rather than a patient focus form

(PF). However, for ease of reference, and because PF is more established in the literature, I will maintain its

use. It also has to be emphasised that the UM affix is known to mark an actor in a clause of a bivalent verb.

But as this chapter demonstrates, monovalent verbs with UM affix mark an Undergoer. As a reviewer of

this section commented, event structure does appear to play a role in argument selection, particularly in

monovalent predicates. This shows too the multifunctionality of verbal affixes. It will not be surprising to

find the UM affix in a dynamic situation to mark a different participant, as in the case of bivalent

predicates that are presented in Chapter 5, where it marks the actor. 35

I am aware that predicates such as gumanda ‘become beautiful’ and gumaling ‘recovered’ can co-occur

with a point adverbial such as bigla ‘suddenly’. This co-occurrence introduces the notion of coercion.

Coercion occurs when adverbial modifiers seem to force an interpretation of the verbal predicate to be

interpreted as if it belongs to another event structure. In this case, the co-occurrence of the accomplishments

gumanda and gumaling with a point adverbial such as bigla ‘suddenly’ appears to coerce these predicates

into achievements. One of the problems that is raised with regard to the notion of coercion is whether there

is truly a distinction between event types such as accomplishment and achievement. This appears to be the

sentiments of other linguists such as Verkuyl (1972, 1989, 1993). This is an important issue but will not be

dealt with in this thesis. I posit, however, that it is relevant in Tagalog to distinguish predicates into

accomplishments and achievements. The above sections illustrate that they are derived from two different

types of state predication and the telicity tests further illuminate the distinction between accomplishments

and achievements. For investigations regarding the notion of coercion, readers may find the following

works relevant: Smith 1991, Pustejovsky 1995, De Swart 1998, Filip 1999, Michaelis 2004, Travis 2010.

114

As mentioned in the previous section, accomplishments contain states within them.

Notice that in the representations in (24), we have the LS representation of result state

predication. However, the addition of the operator BECOME indicates the shift of the

internal temporal composition of the predicate from atelic to telic. Furthermore, the

operator BECOME signifies the process leading to the result state of the patient

participant. Note that the process leading to the change of state is not punctual36

. The

participants undergoing a result state are arguments of the BECOME operator and are

assigned an Undergoer MR. Following RRG, the predicates gumanda and gumaling have

the LS in (24a) and (24b), respectively:

(24) a. BECOME beautiful' (Sharon)

b. be.from' (sakit, [BECOME well' (3SG)])

In (24b), the component be.from' designates the locative state predication with sakit

‘sickness’ and the LS of gumaling ‘recover’ as its arguments. The operator be.from' and

its first argument sakit ‘sickness’ are mapped as the SA-phrase. We defer discussing

further the atomic predicate be-LOC' for locative state until Chapter 6. At this point,

what is important is to introduce the algorithm be-LOC' (x, y) and the SA-phrase. In

accomplishments, the SA-phrase is considered to be an adjunct modifier. We can observe

similar lexical representations to (24a), in other intransitive accomplishment verbs like

lumaki ‘become big’, pumayat ‘become thin’, tumaba ‘become fat’, pumuti ‘become

white/become bleached’, tumangkad ‘become tall’.

As mentioned above, accomplishments have base predicates that are not only

affixed with UM, but also with MA. The following test validates the telicity of

accomplishments that take the ma- affix, with their corresponding logical structures.

36

There is an issue concerning whether punctuality and change of state should be part of the basis for

building linguistically relevant verb classification. The major claim is that these two features seem to be

more of a world knowledge issue rather than a linguistic one. This is an issue often raised with regard to the

classification of predicates into event types. But this can be clarified on the ground that although some of

these properties like punctuality, change of state, homogeneity, may perhaps be real world categories rather

than linguistic ones, it is widely accepted that it is at the lexical level that world knowledge and linguistic

knowledge converge (see Fillmore 1977, Dowty 1979, Partee 1980). Thus, as event structure is a linguistic

construal of events, it is part of the tasks of a semanticist to discover the semantic properties of the world

knowledge that get registered in the linguistic constructions that a language speaker uses.

115

(25) a. Na-bulok ang mansanas

PF.PVF-rotten NOM apple

sa loob ng isa-ng oras/*maghapon.

DAT within in one-LNK hour/ all day long

‘The apple became rotten in an hour/all day long.’

b. BECOME spoiled' (mansanas)

(26) a. Na-lanta ang rosas

PF.PFV -wilted NOM rose

sa loob ng isa-ng oras/*maghapon.

DAT within in one-LNK hour/ all day long

‘The rose wilted in an hour/all day long.’

b. BECOME wilted' (rosas)

Some other examples of predicates that form the MA-accomplishments are punit ‘tear’,

gutom ‘hungry’, tapos ‘end’, tunaw ‘melted’, dala ‘carry’, tuyo ‘dry’, basa ‘wet’, sira

‘broken’, ayos ‘fixed’, bulok ‘spoiled’, baliw ‘crazy’, tunaw ‘melted’, lanta ‘wilted’.

It must be noted that accomplishments in Tagalog are typically intransitive with

an Undergoer MR marked by ANG. It is possible for accomplishments to be transitive,

but to be so they have to denote a causative event type. We elaborate on causative

accomplishments in Section 4.5 below.

4.3 Achievements

In achievements, base predicates can also take the UM- and MA- affixes. Achievements

and accomplishments are similar in terms of telicity, but the onset of time and endpoint in

achievement verbs are instantaneous or punctual. The instantaneous or punctual feature is

represented in the LS with the INGR operator. In English, these verbs are tested with

‘pace adverbs’, such as instantly, quickly, slowly, to measure their temporal contour. The

co-occurrence of an achievement verb with bigla ‘suddenly’ and its incompatibility with

dahan-dahan ‘slowly’ validate its punctuality.

116

(27) a. S-um-abog ang bulkan-g Pinatubo.

PF.PFV-explode NOM volcano-LNK PN

‘Mount Pinatubo erupted.’

b. Bigla-ng s-um-abog ang bulka-ng Pinatubo.

suddenly-LNK PF.PFV-explode NOM volcano-LNK PN

‘Mount Pinatubo erupted suddenly.’

c. *Dahan dahan-g s-um-abog ang bulka-ng Mayon.

slowly-LNK PF.PFV-explode NOM volcano-LNK PN

‘Mount Pinatubo slowly erupted ’

(28) a. Bigla-ng p-um-utok ang lobo.

suddenly-LNK PF.PFV-pop NOM balloon

‘The balloon popped suddenly.’

b. *Dahan dahan-g p-um-utok ang lobo.

slowly-LNK PF.PFV-pop NOM balloon

‘The balloon slowly popped.’

The verb sumabog ‘erupted’ in (27) can be decomposed into: INGR erupted' (bulkan

Pinatubo), while the verb pumutok ‘popped’ in (28) has the following LS: INGR popped'

(lobo). Although achievements differ from accomplishments in terms of the INGR

operator, both of these event types have Undergoers, i.e. a patient that has undergone a

change of state leading to the result state.

The telicity of verbs, such as sumabog ‘erupted’ and pumutok ‘popped’, can be

examined by their co-occurrence with magdamag ‘all night long/throughout the night’.

(29) S-um-abog ang bulkan-g Pinatubo #magdamag

PF.PFV-explode NOM volcano-LNK PN throughout.the.night

‘Mount Pinatubo erupted throughout the night.’

(30) P-um-utok ang lobo *magdamag

PF.PFV-pop NOM balloon throughout.the.night

‘The balloon popped throughout the night.’

The sentence in (29), in its natural reading, is not compatible with a durative adverbial

such as magdamag. Native speakers, however, attest that this is possible. It is indeed

117

possible but in its derived meaning. The event of Mount Pinatubo erupting throughout the

night is conceived of in its iterative or repetitive sense, i.e. ‘successive occurrence of

several instances of a given situation’ (Comrie 1976:27). Thus, one occurrence of

volcanic eruption is an achievement. If it erupted the whole night, then there appears to be

a series of eruptions. But this does not make the internal temporal composition of

achievements atelic. In contrast, the sentence in (30) clearly suggests the telicity of the

verb pumutok ‘popped’. It cannot have an iterative sense like the sentence in (29) even if

the nominative argument is pluralised37

.

In Foley and Van Valin (1984), we saw that predicates such as na-basag have

been initially analysed as an accomplishment, which indicates a non-punctual feature. At

first blush, the idea of a process leading to a result state appears to be compelling.

However the incompatibility of the co-occurrence of the verb na-basag ‘broke’ with

dahan dahan ‘slowly’ in (31) shows that the predicate nabasag ‘broken’ has a punctual

quality.

(31) *Dahan -dahan-g na-basag ang salamin.

-slowly-LNK PF.PFV -broken NOM mirror

‘The mirror broke slowly.’

Thus, even though there appears to be a starting and end point reading of this type of

verbal expression, the interval from the initial to the end point is not discernable.

Consequently, the internal temporal contour is envisaged as instantaneous. As Smith

(1999) has noted following Dowty (1979), ‘the duration may involve some unit of

measurable time, but this is irrelevant to the notion of an instantaneous event’. In

addition, the end point is the more pronounced segment of the event with the NOM

argument bearing the end result denoted by the predicate. Other Tagalog verbs that fall

into the same category are given in (32) with their counterparts in Kapampangan, which

interestingly is observed to manifest the same denotation.

37

A question may be raised as to whether ‘laughing for two hours’ is iterative. In English, this can be

analysed as an activity event type in the imperfective (with the progressive signifying imperfectivity). This

is a two-component analysis (distinguishing grammatical aspect from event structure). In Tagalog,

dalawang oras tumawa is iterative. I posit that the predicate tumawa is typically an achievement by its

compatibility with bigla ‘suddenly’ and incompatibility with dahan-dahan ‘slowly’. Hence, it will be a

series of events of laughing. What happens here is that the durative adverbial ‘for two hours’ induces a

multiple-event activity made up of a series of sub-events of laughing seen as a single but on-going event.

118

(32) Tagalog Kapampangan

na-tawa mi-pakayli ‘burst out laughing’

na-palo me-palu ‘hit’

na-bali me-pakli ‘break, snap’

na-suntok me-tumbok ‘hit (with a fist)

?na-buksan me-buklat ‘open’

na-gising me-gising ‘wake up’

na-paso me-pali ‘burn/scald’

na-talo me-sambut ‘lose (a game)

Analyses of accomplishments and achievements have shown that, although both event

types manifest the same argument realisation, that is, the patient gets is assigned as

Undergoer with a result state entailment, they need to be distinguished. The telicity tests

validate the distinction of the two. Consequently, the operator in the lexical representation

signals the difference in their internal temporal composition despite both being telic. In

accomplishment, we see the BECOME operator signifying the process to result state of

the Undergoer; whereas, in achievements, the INGRessive operator indicates the

punctuality of the event. In the following sections, I show further the distinction of the

two by demonstrating their capacity to denote other types of eventualities.

4.4 Causatives: the case of PA-

It is uncontroversial that the causative morpheme PA- introduces another argument into

the construction (De Guzman 1978; Maclachlan, 1996; Travis 2000, 2005; Rackowski

2002). It is also widely known that the argument of PA, the causer, is not realised as a

NOM argument. In a two-place predicate verb frame, the causer takes the genitive marker.

In the previous sections, we have seen accomplishments and achievements in their

typical intransitive construction. These two event types have causative event types, as

shown in the examples in (33) and (34).

(33) a. G-um-anda si Nene. accomplishment

PF.PFV-beauty NOM PN

‘Nene became beautiful.’

119

b. P-in-a-ganda- Ø ng nanay niya causative

CAUS- PFV-beauty-PF GEN mother 3SG.GEN accomplishment

si Nene

NOM PN

Her mother made Nene beautiful.’

(34) a. Na-basag ang salamin. achievement

PF.PFV-broken NOM mirror

‘The mirror broke.’

b. P-in-a-basag-Ø ni nanay kay causative

CAUS-PFV-dry-PF GEN mother DAT achievement

tatay ang salamin

father NOM mirror

‘Mother made father break the glass.’

Despite the ability to participate in the causative eventuality, we observe that

accomplishments and achievements behave differently in the number of participants they

realise. Interestingly, despite the difference in the number of argument realisation, the

Undergoer status of the patient is maintained. That is, Nene remains the Undergoer in

(33a) and (33b), and as does salamin ‘mirror’ in (34a) and (34b).

Now let us look closely at the accomplishment-causative accomplishment

alternation, using the sentences in (35) to examine it. At first blush, it might appear that

the telicity of pa- causatives licenses the assignment of patient as an Undergoer. But in

fact, it is because causative accomplishments are derived from telic accomplishments.

Subsequently, this triggers the telic feature of pa- causatives. Furthermore, as the pa –

causatives attach to accomplishments, the reading of CAUSE TO BECOME is produced.

(35) a. P-um-ayat si Lala.

PF.PFV-thin NOM PN

‘Lala became thin.’

b. P-in-a-payat ng diwata si Lala.

CAUS-PFV-thin GEN fairy NOM PN

‘The fairy caused Lala to become thin.’

120

Based on our discussion of accomplishments, the sentence in (35a) has the representation

BECOME thin' (Lala), with the argument lala being assigned the Undergoer status. In

contrast, the sentence in (35b) will have the logical representation in (36):

(36) [do' (diwata, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME thin' (lala)]

In RRG, causative events are composed of two event structures of any type. Their logical

representation is summarised as: CAUSE , where , are LSs of any type. In (36), we

see the algorithm [do' (x, Ø)] which signifies unspecified activity. In this representation,

the operator CAUSE, morphologically realised by the PA- affix, sanctions the presence of

the causer diwata ‘fairy’ to take the slot in the activity algorithm. However, it can be

observed that, in the second part of the lexical entry, the accomplishment logical

representation is maintained.

We notice that causative achievements behave similarly to causative

accomplishments, except of course for the second part of the representation that depicts

the achievement algorithm. Consider the sentences in (37) and their corresponding logical

structures. As the pa –causative joins with the achievement, the meaning derived is

CAUSE TO ‘INGR’, where ‘INGR’ represents the instantaneous action denoted by the

predicate.

(37) a. S-um-abog ang kampo.

PF.PFV-thin NOM PN

‘The camp exploded.’

a'. INGR' exploded (kampo)

b. P-in-a-sabog ng mga bandito ang kampo

CAUS-PFV-explode GEN PL bandit NOM camp

‘Some bandits caused the camp to explode.’

b'. [do' (bandito, Ø)] CAUSE [INGR' exploded (kampo)]

121

However, unlike causative accomplishments, causative achievements can also manifest

three participants, as in (38).

(38) a. P-in-a-basag-Ø ni nanay kay tatay ang salamin.

CAUS-PFV-dry-PF GEN mother DAT father NOM mirror

‘Mother caused father to break the glass.’

b. [do'(nanay, Ø)] CAUSE [do'(tatay, Ø)] CAUSE [INGR broke'(salamin)]

The LS in (38b) demonstrates that all of the arguments in the algorithm are syntactically

manifested. It can be observed that these arguments are part of a particular event structure

that associates with them particular event roles. The first part of the representation

indicates the causer argument nanay ‘mother’ which is introduced by the causative

marker pa-. If we take the first part out of the logical representation, the second part can

represent a PF clause, Binasag ni tatay ang salamin ‘Father broke the glass’ which

depicts an active achievement event type (I will discuss this further in the next section). If

analysed under the second logical representation, the nominal argument tatay ‘father’ is

projected as an Actor and salamin ‘mirror’ as an Undergoer. The juxtaposition, however,

of the two event structures places two agent arguments as candidates for the Actor

macrorole. The lexical representation in (38b) resolves the competition. Based on the

Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH; Section 2.2.2.3, Figure 2.3), the leftmost argument in

the representation is assigned an actor MR. In the case of the LS in (38b), it is the causer

nanay that gets to be an Actor MR. On the other hand, the argument in the rightmost

position, which is the object salamin ‘mirror’, is assigned the Undergoer. As we have

seen in previous analyses of achievements, when its patient is given the Undergoer status,

it takes the ANG (or SI) marker. Consequently, the Actor MR takes the NG (or NI)

marker. But what happens now to the participant in the middle of the algorithm? In RRG,

the agent tatay ‘father’ is considered to be a non-macrorole argument. The non-MR

argument then receives a dative marker. In Tagalog, the non-MR will take the SA (or

KAY) marker.

122

4.5 Active Achievements?

Van Valin (2005:44) points out that active accomplishments are more accurately termed

active achievements since they are composed of ‘activity + termination with result state’.

But he has retained the former label as it is the standard term used. However, a distinction

between active accomplishments and active achievements seems particularly appealing in

Tagalog. Take, for instance, the predicate basag ‘broken’ in (39; repeated from (9) and

(34) for ease of reference) and the sentences in (40).

(39) a. Ø –basag ang salamin. Unaffixed state

STAT-broken NOM mirror

‘The mirror is broken.’

b. Na-basag ang salamin. Achievement

PF.PFV-broken NOM mirror

‘The mirror broke.’

(40) a. Nag-basag ang tatay ng salamin. Activity

AF.PFV-broken NOM father GEN mirror

‘The father broke some mirrors.’

b. B-in-asag-Ø ng tatay ang salamin. Active

PFV-break-PF GEN father NOM mirror Achievement

‘Father broke the mirror.’

We have seen that the basic event type that the base predicate basag can denote is state,

as in (39a). But, we have also found that it can signify achievement with the insertion of

the MA affix expressing patient focus (PF), as shown in (39b). However in the sentences

in (40), we see that it can exhibit the AF and PF focus forms, which, as I will argue in

Chapter 5, denote the activity and active accomplishment event type alternation for base

predicates that fall under the class of consumption, performance, creation, and learning.

We defer discussing this until the next chapter. At this point, we are focusing on another

possible event type for achievement verbs that can exhibit the AF and PF forms.

If we are to designate the PF form of the achievement verbs, as in (40b), as

denoting active accomplishment, it signifies that their internal temporal contour is

123

composed of process (PROC) + change of state + result state. However, the ‘process’

composition contradicts the punctuality feature of achievements. In fact, Van Valin notes

that since PROC does not entail transition, it could not characterise ‘some kind of pre-

onset process’ (2005:44). I propose then that verbs of this nature in Tagalog should be

referred to as ‘active achievements’ with the following logical structure:

(41) do' (x, [predicate1' (x, (y))]) & INGR predicate2' (y)]

It is to be emphasised that the representation above is essentially the one proposed by Van

Valin and La Polla (1997) and Van Valin (2005) for active accomplishments. But it is

considered here as the LS of active achievements. The algorithm above differs from the

active accomplishment in the second part of the representation to indicate the

instantaneous onset of time, which is expressed in the algorithm by the INGR operator.

Similar to the analysis of active accomplishments, the second part of the representation

clearly shows the y argument to take the Undergoer macrorole with a result state

entailment, as has also been pointed out in the discussion of achievements. Following the

LS above, (40b) have the representation in (42):

(42) do' (tatay, [break' (tatay, (salamin))]) & INGR broke' (salamin)

Like the active accomplishments, active achievements have Actor and Undergoer MRs

that render these event types as Semantic-bivalent, Syntactic-transitive and Macrorole-

transitive.

One of the things that seems contradictory to the nature of achievements is their

appearance in activities, which are atelic and homogeneous. But, as shown in the (43a)

example, they can appear in AF forms and denote activities. Note that as achievements,

they have telic internal temporal contour and they are punctual. When a base predicate,

which typically denotes achievement eventuality, appears in an activity eventuality,

which is exhibited by the AF form, its temporal composition changes to atelic. We can

confirm the atelicity of the sentence in (40a) by its co-occurrence with magdamag ‘all

night long’, as shown in (43a). On the other hand, we can validate the telicity of the

sentence in (40b) by its special interpretation when co-occurring with the temporal

adverbial magdamag, as in (43b).

124

(43) a. Magdamag na nag-basag

all.night.long LNK AF.PFV-broken

ang tatay ng salamin.

NOM father GEN mirror

‘Father broke mirrors all night long.’

b. #Magdamag na b-in-asag-Ø

all.night.long LNK PFV-break-PF

ng tatay ang salamin.

GEN father NOM mirror

‘Father broke the mirror all night long.’

We have seen in Section 4.3 that achievements are not compatible with durative

adverbials attesting to their telicity. However, the sentence in (43a) signifies that they can

materialise in activity event types and even co-occur with durative adverbials. When they

do appear as activities, the achievement’s INGR feature is deactivated and the result state

of the patient becomes implied. Thus, not only is the INGR feature of an achievement

predicate affected when appearing as an activity predicate, but also the role of the

patient38

. As an activity event type, an achievement predicate appearing in a sentence,

such as (43a), provides an interpretation of a cumulative event. That is, the action, for

instance, of breaking a mirror is construed as a mirror-bashing event. In (43b), the co-

occurrence with magdamag ‘all night long’ suggests that it took the whole night to break

a piece of mirror. This reading is odd unless the mirror is enormous and the agent intends

to break it into a thousand pieces, or it is made of particularly hard material.

Let us return to the analysis of Nolasco (2005) concerning the verb kagat ‘bite’ in

Chapter 3. We repeat here only the AF and PF forms of the verb as used in the example

given by Nolasco (see Section 3.24 for the complete version of the example):

(44) a. Nang-gagat siya.

AF.PFV-bite 3SG.NOM

‘She bit (and bit).

38

Activity predicates are atelic and, as I argue in Chapter 5, trigger a semantic interpretation of their NG-

patient, one of which is the interpretation of ‘bare plural’.

125

b. Kahit ano, k-in-agat-Ø niya.

even what, PFV-bite-PF 3SG.GEN

‘Anything (that she could bite), she bit.’

Nolasco claims that the sentence in (44a) depicts a generalised action that makes it non-

punctual; whereas, the one in (44b) is punctual since the action is more particularised. I

posit that both of these sentences are punctual, but they differ in terms of event types. The

predicate kagat ‘bite’ is inherently punctual and telic. But when it denotes an activity

event type, the ‘durativity’ entailment that Nolasco suggests for (44a) is in fact the

homogeneity feature of the verbal expression nanggagat. Somehow the expression of the

predicate kagat ‘bite’ in the AF form provides a conceptualisation of the event as a series

of ‘biting’ events. On the other hand, the ‘particularised’ reading in (44b) is a by-product

of the telic or non-homogeneous feature of a patient focus (PF) form, which denotes

active achievement. I assume that its expression in the PF form, which is a telic predicate,

allows for a ‘particularised’ reading in the sense that the inherent endpoint of the

predicate is reinforced by the telicity and non-homogeneity of the PF telic predicate. In

the PF form, we do not get a ‘biting-event’ interpretation of the event (we discuss further

the AF-PF alternation in the next chapter).

4.6 Ma and Ma-ka alternation

We have seen so far that a base predicate that serves as an adjectival predication denotes

states, which is the basic event type. The same base predicate can then signify

achievement or accomplishment derived from states. As states, it co-occurs with the MA-

affix or it is Ø- (unaffixed). As accomplishments and achievements, the base can be

affixed with MA- or UM. To distinguish whether a base predicate with UM or MA affix

is an achievement or an accomplishment, we have provided the following tests,

summarised in Table 4.2 (# indicates that a special interpretation is induced when

applying this test; * not applicable; x is not compatible; √ is compatible).

126

Table 4.2 Test for telicity and punctuality of states,

accomplishments, and achievements with UM/MA affix

Adverbial test

Event

Structure

Dahan-

dahan

‘slowly’

Magdamag

‘all night

long’

Sa loob

ng isang

oras

‘within

an hour’

States: ma/Ø x x x

Accomplishment:

ma-/um

√ x √

Achievement:

ma-/um

x # *

In this final section, we look at the affix MAKA-. In their analysis of the MAKA affix,

Foley and Van Valin (1984) posit that this affix signals an actor focus form (AF) with an

agent that is non-volitional (see also Himmelman 2004b who proposes the same function

of MAKA). Consider the examples below.

(45) a. Naka-kita ng anghel si Mau.

AF.PFV-see GEN angel NOM PN

‘Mau saw an angel.’

b. Na-kita ni Mau ang anghel.

PF.PFV-see GEN PN NOM angel

‘Mau saw the angel.’

The alternation of MA and MAKA (in their perfective forms) in the sentences above has

been described as providing a reading of a non-volitional action, where the agent is

construed to be ‘less agentive’ in the sense that it is not acting purposively or deliberately

(Foley and Van Valin 1984, Himmelman 2004b). The affix MAKA has also been

analysed as having an ‘abilitative’ sense (Dell 1983, Phillips 1996).

What will become evident in the following section is the function of MAKA to denote

stative eventuality. However, since MA is a stative marker, its co-occurrence with KA

127

appears to make the function of MA redundant. It seems safe to argue that KA also has a

morphological paradigm of its own, in the same way as the MA- affix (Himmelman

2004b).

The following section demonstrates the KA affix denoting a stative event type.

Positional predicates provide evidence for this conjecture. Predicates forming the class of

perception illustrate that the MA-KA affix may indeed be bimorphemic (following

Phillip’s 1996 analysis of MA-HA in Malagasy). This follows the fact that the affix KA

may function as a stative or actor marker.

4.6.1 Positionals

Verbs that fall into this category are described as taking the ‘spatial configuration specific

to the verb’ (Levin 1993:262). We look at dapa ‘lie face down’ in (46), and upo ‘sit’ and

taas ‘raise’ in (47). In these examples, we notice the function of the KA affix to signify

stativity.

(46) a. Um-i-iyak yung bata at… (FWAY:62)

AF.-RDP-cry NOM child and

na-ka-dapa siya,

PF.PFV-STAT-lie.face.down 3SG.NOM

katabi yung aso

beside NOM dog

‘The child was crying and he was lying on his chest,

with his dog beside him.’

b. Na-dapa ang bata sa damo. (FWAY:6)

PF.PFV-trip NOM child DAT grass

‘The child tripped on the grass.’

In the data above, we can find event type alternation of the base predicate dapa, which

can be translated to English as ‘lie face down’. In (46a) the predicate dapa ‘lie face down’

denotes state event type, while in (46b), it denotes achievement. Notice that it is the

presence of the affix KA in (46a) that seems to have activated the stative nature of the

predicate. We can observe the same behaviour in (47a) where we have the state predicate

128

nakaupo ‘sitting’ and its achievement predicate naupo ‘sat down’ in (47b). The

achievement naupo ‘sat’ can be coerced to denote accomplishment since it can co-occur

with the adverb dahan-dahan ‘slowly’, but nadapa ‘tripped’ in (47b) cannot shift its

event type, e.g. *dahan-dahang nadapa ‘slowly tripped’. The sentences in (47) show us

another instance of the state-achievement alternation of the base predicate upo ‘sit’.

(47) a. na-ka-upo at ang bata ay na-ka-dungaw

PFV-STAT-sit and NOM child AY PFV-AF-look.out

sa bintana, na-ka-taas ang kamay

DAT window PFV-AF-raise NOM hand (FWAY:62)

‘…sitting and the child was looking out the window with his hand raised.’

b. Na-upo sa ibabaw ng bato si Matsing

AF.PFV.-sit DAT top GEN stone NOM monkey

‘Monkey sat on top of the boulder.’

(Si Pagong at si Matsing, Adarna House, 1978)

We can further certify the stativity nature of positional predicates such as upo ‘sit’ by its

co-occurrence with habang ‘while’, which suggests an indefinite interval of time. In (48),

na-ka upo ‘is/was sitting’ is acceptable.

(48). Na-ka- upo ang bata habang gabi pa. (FWAY:6)

PFV-STAT-sit NOM child while night still

‘The child was sitting while it was still night.’

Other state-achievement event type alternation examples are given in (49):

129

(49) State Achievement

‘KA” ‘ MA’

ma-ka-higa ‘lying’ ma-higa ‘lie down’

ma-ka-tayo ‘standing’ ma-tayo ‘stand up’

ma-ka-himlay ‘resting’ ma-himlay ‘rest up’ ‘

ma-ka-sandal ‘leaning’ ma-sandal-an leaned on’

ma-ka-yuko ‘(head) bending’ ?ma-yuko ‘(head) bent down’

In Table 4.2, the tests indicate that MA-states and unaffixed states are not compatible

with dahan-dahan ‘slowly’, magdamag ‘all night long’, and sa loob ng isang oras ‘within

an hour’. However, in the examples in (49), the adverbial modifier magdamag ‘all night

long’ agrees with the positional predicates that denote state eventuality, such as ma-ka-

higa ‘lying’, ma-ka-tayo ‘standing’. The compatibility of the two reinforces the atelicity

and stative nature of these positional predicates that have the KA affix. On the other hand,

the achievement alternates of positional predicates that take the MA affix are

incompatible with magdamag ‘all night long’. This suggests that the MA + positional

base predicate has an instantaneous internal temporal composition and is telic. Compared

to the MA-KA + positional base predicate that indicates the state of being in a certain

position, the achievement alternate is taken to be assuming the position signified by the

predicate.

4.6.2 Perception

Perception verbs are those that represent the senses of smell, hearing, touch, taste and

sight. The following predicates such as kita ‘see’, amoy ‘smell’, and rinig ‘hear’ are

instances of this category. These verbs have the actor focus (AF) and patient focus (PF)

alternation denoting an activity and an achievement eventuality. In this category which

exhibits the AF and PF form alternation, the affix KA functions as an actor marker39

.

39

In her analysis of MA-HA of Malagasy, Phillip (1996) argues that the MA affix specifies stativity and

HA a causer. Though I follow her analysis of a bimorphemic MA-KA, I differ from her in assigning an

actor role for the KA affix following Kroeger (1990).

130

(50) a.Na-ka-kita sila ng butas at (FWAY:11)

PFV-AF-see 3PL.NOM GEN hole and

t-in-awag-an ng bata ang palaka doon.

. PFV-call-LF GEN child NOM frog there

‘They got to see a hole and the child called the frog there.

b. Pero hindi niya ito na-kita.

but NEG 3SG.GEN this PF.PFV-see

But he didn’t find it.’

The perception predicates behave differently from the positional predicates. In the

positional predicates, we see the function of KA as a stative marker; whereas, here, in the

perception predicates, it arguably functions as an actor marker. Consider the other

examples of perception verbs in (51)-(52).

(51) a. Ang pang-amoy daw ng mga aso ay limampu-ng beses

NOM DRV.INST-smell ENC.INDQUO GEN PL dog AY fifty-LNK times

na mas sensitibo kesa sa tao. Ibig sabihin kung na-ka-amoy

LNK more sensitive than DAT human like say if PFV-AF-smell

ka ng ni-lu-luto-ng adobo,

2SG.NOM GEN <PF-RDP>.IPFV-cook-LNK adobo

‘It is said that the sense of smell of dogs is 50 times more sensitive than

humans. This means that if you smelled an adobo being cooked…,’

b. detalyado-ng na-amoy ng aso yung suka, yung toyo,

detail- LNK PF.PFV-smell GEN dog NOM vinegar NOM soy sauce

paminta, karne, bawang, at laurel na g-in-a-gamit

pepper meat garlic and laurel LNK <PF-RDP>.IPFV-use

nung nag-lu-luto. Ang mga pating naman,

that AF-RDP-cook NOM PL dolphin ENC

na-amoy nila ang isa-ng kutsara-ng

PF.PFV-smell 3PL.GEN NOM one-LNK spoon- LNK

dugo mula sa isa-n-daan-g metro-ng

blood from DAT one- LNK- hundred- LNK metre- LNK

layo ng pinanggagalingan nito.

distance LNK origin this

131

‘…a dog smelled in detail the vinegar, the soy sauce, pepper, meat, garlic and

laurel

that are being used by the one who is cooking. On the other hand, the

dolphins

smelled a spoonful of blood a hundred metres from its origin.’

(http://kuwadradongbasket.blogspot.com.au/)

(52) a. Na-ka-rinig si Emma ng balita

PFV-AF-hear NOM PN GEN news

tungkol kay Andro.

about DAT PN.

‘Emma heard news about Andro.’

b. Na-rinig ni Emma ang balita

PF.PFV-hear GEN PN NOM news

tungkol kay Andro.

about DAT PN.

‘Emma heard the news about Andro.’

Notice that in the sentences above, the KA affix appears in the predicates of the sentences

in (50a), (51a) and (52a), but not in the sentences in (50b), (51b) and (52b). The

appearance of KA in those predicates puts focus on the agent participant and renders the

construction an AF form. In contrast, the predicates that do not have the KA affix focus

on the patient and give the structure a PF form. Despite the appearance of KA in the AF

form, the AF and PF form alternation of the predicate kita ‘see’ in (50), amoy ‘smell’ in

(51), and rinig ‘hear’ in (52), exhibit the non-volitional and non-intentional reading.

What then is the ‘twist’ that the KA affix gives to the AF form? Perhaps the logical

representations of the two can illustrate the difference.

(53) a. do' (x, [GET.TO.predicate'( x,y)]) AF (Activity)

b. INGR [HAPPEN.TO. predicate' (x,y)]) PF (Achievement)

The lexical representations in (53) show that the addition of the affix KA changes the

event structure of the perception verbs, which are inherently non-dynamic as in (53b),

into dynamic, such as (53a). I assume that (53a), with the introduction of KA, introduces

an agent that somehow consciously makes an action to perceive something as opposed to

132

(53b) where the agent is passive. The y argument = stimulus also manifests different

behaviour. In achievement event types, the stimulus acted upon the experiencer; whereas,

in an activity event type, it is passive. The following examples highlight these

observations:

(54) Na-ka-dapo noon si Alitaptap sa dahon

PF.PFV-STAT-alight then NOM firefly DAT leaf

ng puno-ng bayabas. Na-rinig niya

GEN tree-LNK guava PF.PFV-hear 3SG.GEN

ang usapan ng dalawa. Awa-ng awa

NOM conversation GEN two mercy-LNK mercy

siya kay langgam. Hindi siya na-ka-tiis.

3SG.NOM DAT ant NEG 3SG.NOM PFV-AF-bear.calmly

Nag-laglag siya ng dahon.

AF.PFV-drop 3SG.NOM GEN leaf

‘Firefly was settling on top of the leaf of a guava tree. She overheard the

discussion of the two. She felt so much pity for Ant. She could not bear it

anymore. She dropped a leaf.’

(Ang alamat ng Makahiya, Books for Children, 2002)

In this segment of the story (The Legend of Makahiya40

), Ant was asking Makahiya if he

could shelter himself under her leaves because it was raining hard. But Makahiya turned

him down twice. Because Firefly was on top of the leaf of a guava tree, he happened to

hear the conversation between Makahiya and Ant. In this instance, the achievement

predicate narinig ‘happened to hear’ was used instead of na-ka-rinig ‘got to hear’. If the

activity version of ‘hear’ was used, it would signify a sense of volition on the part of the

firefly. The ‘volitionality’ reading is best exemplified by the predicate na-ka-tiis ‘bore

calmly’. Because the firefly felt so much compassion for Ant, he could not just stand by

and let him wander in the rain. The predicate na-ka-tiis ‘bore calmly’ suggests a

conscious effort on the part of the firefly compelling her to drop a leaf for Ant. We can

extend the same interpretation for the predicate nakakita ‘got to see’ in (55) where the

40

A bashful mimosa plant with numerous heads of pink flowers and sensitive leaves which fold in when

touched (English 1986).

133

agent Buboy was not simply passively receiving the stimulus, but somehow actively and

consciously acting upon the stimulus.

(55) Isa-ng araw na-ka-kita si Buboy

one-LNK day PFV-AF-see NOM PN

ng palaka sa tabi ng kanila-ng hardin.

GEN frog DAT beside GEN 3PL.DAT-LNK garden

‘One day, Buboy got to see a frog beside their garden.’ (FWAY:31)

4.7 Conclusion

This chapter focused on the analyses of MA, Ø, UM and KA affixes. Generally, we

expounded the findings of Foley and Van Valin (1984) with regard to the event types

denoted by these affixes. We paid particular attention to base predicates that are derived

from nouns/adjectives which serve as adjectival predication. Out of these predicates, we

distinguished between MA-states and Unaffixed states that are both stative and non-

dynamic. We found the relevance of differentiating the two types of state to be that their

base predicates, which co-occur with MA or UM affix, belong to different event types

that have the non-dynamic and non-stative features, namely: accomplishments and

achievements. Furthermore, the analysis of the affix KA demonstrated the activity event

type alternate of achievements in perception and positional predicates, which introduced

the dynamic feature. Figure 4.1 illustrates these points.

134

N /ADJ

stative and non-dynamic

state (ma/Ø)

non-dynamic and non-stative

accomplishment achievement (ma-/um)

non-stative and dynamic

activity (ma-ka)

Figure 4.1 (Non)stative and non-dynamic domains derived from N/ADJ

Notably, this chapter pointed out the significance of accomplishments in Tagalog (which

are distinguished from the regular accomplishments widely known in the literature).

Accomplishments in Tagalog are typically intransitive and, as mentioned above, are non-

dynamic. Given that accomplishments and achievements co-occur with the same affixes,

have the same argument realisation and are telic, tests were provided to examine their

punctuality feature. The diagnostic tests showed that accomplishments are non-punctual;

whereas, achievements are punctual or instantaneous. The difference in terms of [±

punctual] is illuminated in the logical structure of accomplishments and achievements.

The former has the BECOME operator in its LS, signaling the process and result state of

the Undergoer MR; whereas, the latter takes the INGRessive operator, signifying the

instantaneous feature.

Consequently, by examining the verb classes of positionals and perceptions, we observed

that the MAKA affix is possibly bimorphemic with KA functioning as a stative (as

135

exemplified by positional predicates) or actor marker (as demonstrated by perception

predicates).

Finally, in our analyses of states, accomplishments and achievements in Tagalog,

we found that telic predicates have an Undergoer that entails a result state. That telic

predicates have a result state will be significant in examining the AF and PF form

alternation which is at the heart of the transitivity issue in Tagalog and is the main topic

addressed in the next chapter.

136

Chapter 5

Telicity and the Undergoer

In the previous chapter we have seen that the verbal affix UM co-occurs with predicates

that denote accomplishments and achievements. In these derived event types, which are

non-stative and non-dynamic, the combination of the base predicate and the UM affix

produces a telic predicate, where the single participant is assigned an Undergoer

macrorole and is realised as the ANG-phrase. As an Undergoer, the participant has

undergone a change of state leading to its result state.

In this chapter, we will find the verbal affix UM co-occurring with non-static and

dynamic base predicates and alternating with the verbal affix IN/Ø. We refer to the focus

form that the UM affix expresses as the actor focus (AF); whereas, the focus form with

the IN/Ø affixes is the patient focus (PF). We have noted in the preceding chapters that

these two alternations have been at the heart of the transitivity issue, where the role of the

patient participant has been deliberated.

This chapter has two-fold goals. First, I will demonstrate the relevance of telicity

and event structure in explicating the transitivity issue in Tagalog. I focus in particular on

the transitivity of predicates that exhibit the actor focus (AF) forms with a NG-patient and

their patient focus (PF) alternation. It will become evident that the transitivity issue of the

AF and PF alternation is best accounted for in terms of M(acrorole) transitivity. It is

argued that Actor and Undergoer macroroles of these two verbal forms are predicted from

their logical structures, which are tied to event structure. Furthermore, it is shown that the

relation between macrorole assignment and event structure is governed by telicity.

Telicity tests are provided to determine the (a)telicity of the AF and PF forms. I

demonstrate this argument using verbs of consumption, creation and transformation,

performance, transaction and learning verbs. The second goal relates to the first one.

After establishing the (a)telicity and event structure of the AF and PF forms, I will

examine the effects that the (a)telicity and the event structure of these two verbal

predicates have on their (A)NG-patient argument.

137

5.1 Traditional analysis of the actor focus and patient focus forms

Recall that the traditional analysis of the AF with the NG-patient and PF forms has tied

transitivity with the notion of definiteness. Let’s consider once more the examples in

Chapter 1, here repeated in (1).







We noted earlier that a syntactic analysis of transitivity has led to the debate that both

sentences in (1) are candidates for what constitutes a basic transitive clause in Tagalog.

We presented in Chapter 1 the two prevalent views regarding the analysis of the AF and

PF clauses. Essentially, the transitivity of the PF clauses as in (1b) is not in question since

the notion of definiteness licenses the patient participant in the PF clause to be realised as

the ‘grammatical object’. However, it is different for an AF clause, such as (1a). Since the

traditional notion of transitivity is correlated with the presence of a ‘grammatical object’,

the debate on the NG-patient in an AF form centred on proving its ‘non-grammatical

object’ status. A semantic analysis of transitivity appears to provide a solution for this,

where the definiteness of the patient plays a crucial role.

Invoking the transitivity hypothesis of Hopper and Thompson (1980), some

studies have posited that the AF form with the NG-patient is intransitive since the patient

is indefinite and non-affected (e.g. Nolasco 2003, 2005; Saclot 2006), non-specific (De

Guzman 2000) and non-individuated (Katagiri 2005). Arguably, when the patient gets

mapped onto syntax, it is considered to be an oblique argument. In contrast, the patient in

the PF clause is definite, specific and individuated. Arguably, these semantic correlates

certify the grammatical object status of the patient in the PF forms.

The definiteness of the patient also figures in the non-completed/completed

reading of the AF and PF forms. Recall that native speakers would invariably mention the

138

definiteness of the ANG-phrase as the factor that differentiates the AF and PF forms.

However, they also provide the intuition that the event in (1a) seems to be non-completed

as opposed to (1b) which is completed. This difference appears to rely on the definiteness

of the patient in (1b) that provides the completed reading, and the indefiniteness of the

patient in (1a) that gives the non-completed reading. The definiteness of the patient and

the completed interpretation of the clause in (1b) seem to rely on the idea that the patient

has been completely consumed; whereas, the indefiniteness and non-completed reading in

(1a) arise as the patient is not completely consumed. I will show in the succeeding

sections that this sense of (non)completion can be accounted for in terms of (a)telicity,

which triggers an (in)definite interpretation of the patient and influences the M-

(in)transitivity of the clause.

5.2 Telicity and Temporal adverbials

We have seen in Chapter 2 that temporal adverbials ‘in/for an hour’ are standard tests for

distinguishing atelic verbs from telic verbs. In English, the temporal adverbials are good

diagnostic tests in calculating the telicity of the predicate (e.g. Vendler 1967; Mourelatos

1978; Tenny 1987, 1994; Jackendoff 1996; among others). An example of this is from the

verb of consumption eat:

(2) a. Monica ate for an hour.

b. Monica ate apples for an hour.

c. Monica ate the apple in an hour/?for an hour41

.

Verbs of consumption, such as ‘eat’ or drink’, are often cited in studies of telicity. In

these studies, these verbs are known to be atelic when they are objectless, as in (2a). If an

object does exist but it is a bare plural, such as in (2b), they remain atelic and are posited

to express activity event types. On the other hand, when objects are definite, as in (2c),

these verbs become telic. Consequently, the event structure type shifts from activity to

41

Some native speakers of English find the quantised nominal ‘the apple’ to be compatible with the

durative adverbial ‘for an hour’. But it seems to force a non-telic reading of the active accomplishment

event. In this case, the durative adverbial coerces a reading that the apple has not been totally eaten. It

seems to focus on the apple-eating activity rather than the culmination of the event associated with the total

consumption of the patient.

139

active accomplishment42

. The atelicity contour of activity verbs, such as ‘eat’ in (2a) and

(2b), is validated by its co-occurrence with the durational adverbial phrase ‘for an hour

(for-PP)’. On the other hand, the telicity contour of active accomplishments of the verb in

(2c) is substantiated by its co-occurrence with the time-span adverbial ‘in an hour (in-

PP)’. Other examples, in English, that show these distinctions are given in (3) and (4).

(3) a. ?Wendy painted a picture for an hour. Active Accomplishment

b. Wendy painted a picture in an hour.

(4) a. Sandra walked for an hour. Activity

b. *Sandra walked in an hour.

Now we turn to Tagalog and see how the application of the temporal measure phrases

determine the telicity of the AF and PF alternation of predicates that are categorised under

the verbs of consumption, creation and transformation, performance, transaction and

learning verbs.

5.2.1 Temporal adverbials in Tagalog

For the temporal adverbial test, the following measure phrases are used:

(5) ng α oras ‘in α time’ which measures the time from the beginning to the end of

the interval. This expression is similar to the function of in-PP in English that

represents a time-span adverbial and validates the telicity of a verbal predicate.

(6) maghapon ‘all day long’, hanggang umaga ‘until morning’, and maraming taon

‘for years’ are expressions of durative adverbials that entail duration of time and

test the atelicity of a verbal predicate.

42

Note that this term is used in Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997, Van Valin

2005, 2007). As explained in Chapter 2, active accomplishments in RRG correspond to the regular

accomplishments as used in other studies (e.g. Vendler 1967, Smith 1991, Rothstein 2004).

140

5.2.1.1 Verbs of Consumption and Performance

To apply the temporal adverbials, we use the verbs kain ‘eat’ (7) and inom ‘drink’ (8) for

verbs of consumption, and the verb kanta ‘sing’ (9) for verbs of performance.

(7) a. K-um-ain ang guro ng tinapay .

AF.PFV-eat NOM teacher GEN bread

maghapon/ng isang oras.

all.day.long/in an hour

‘The teacher ate bread/some bread all day long/in an hour.’

b. K-in-ain-Ø ng guro ang tinapay

PFV-eat-PF GEN teacher NOM bread



‘The teacher ate the bread all day long/in an hour.’

(8) a. Um-inom ang lasenggero ng palamig

AF.PFV-drink NOM drunkard GEN refreshment


all.day.long/ in an hour

‘The drunkard drank refreshments/some refreshment all day long/in an

hour.’

b. In-inom-Ø ng lasenggero ang palamig.

PFV-drink-PF GEN drunkard NOM refreshment


all.day.long/ in an hour

`The drunkard drank the refreshment all day long/in an hour.

If we leave out the temporal phrases, the sentence in (7a) can be interpreted as stating that

that the teacher was involved in an eating event. However, though it is mentioned that she

ate some bread, the sentence is unclear as to whether the teacher consumed the whole loaf

or slice of bread or ate only a portion of it. The example in (8a) entails a similar reading

of vagueness as to whether the refreshment has been fully consumed by the drunkard or

not. What we would expect in sentences (7a) and (8a) is that, given their perfectivity

141

forms, there would be a sense of completion43

of the situation. But, intuitively, they

appear to native speakers to denote a process or a sense of continuity. In contrast, the PF

sentences in (7b) and (8b) provide the readings that the bread, in (7b), and the

refreshment, in (8b), are totally consumed. Thus, the sentences are conceived of as

completed and finished. As noted above, the (non)completion reading is associated with

the (in)definiteness of the patient.

Now, we further measure the telicity of the sentences above with temporal

adverbials. In (7a), it has to be noted that, in English, the sentence ‘The teacher ate

bread/some bread all day long/*in an hour’ is infelicitous with the time span in-phrase.

Likewise, the sentence in (8a) ‘The drunkard drank refreshments all day long/*in an hour’

does not allow the combination. However, it appears that Tagalog AF constructions with

the NG-patient permit both durative and time-span adverbials. Furthermore, regardless of

the nature of the patient whether it is interpreted as a bare plural or an indefinite, its co-

occurrence with both the durative and time-span adverbials is acceptable. If this is the

case, what are the functions of the temporal adverbials in the AF constructions with

perfective aspect, and by extension, to their PF alternates?

With durative adverbials, such as maghapon ‘all day long’ or hanggang umaga

‘until morning’, the AF perfective verb is ambiguous in terms of the quantity of entity

involved: on the most prominent reading, there is only one (portion of) bread/refreshment

associated with the event with the AF sentences denoting a process. Given that each

nominal used in these sentences has the notion of increments (thus, these nominals are

referred to as ‘incremental theme’ (Dowty 1991) or ‘Gradual Patient’ (Krifka 1989,

1992), one can conceive of these as events in which a particular entity is gradually being

consumed, but without a clear indication of completion or endpoint. There is only an

inference of terminal point. This prominent reading is shared by the AF sentences with

the time-span adverbial ng isang oras ‘in an hour’. The second reading suggests that there

are more than one (portion of) bread/refreshment involved in the events, as illustrated in

(7a) and (8a). In these examples, the durative adverbials induce a plurality or multiple

reading of the actions in which these objects are construed as ‘sums’ of same entities or

homogenous quantities of the same substance. It appears that the relation between the

43

I will argue later on that the notion of completion is a property of telicity. In this thesis, I refer to this

reading as ‘boundedness’, which is the semantic feature I posit for perfective forms. Nevertheless, I use

‘completion/completed’ for the purposes of this discussion and as ‘completion and completed’ are the terms

used by native speakers when they were asked regarding the two focus forms.

142

nominal and the predicate creates a cumulative sense resulting in the homogeneity of time

(cf. Bach 1981, Link 1983, Krifka 1992). Hence, in (7a), there was some eating of bread

that the teacher did all day long and, in (8a), there was some drinking of refreshments that

the drunkard did all day long.

In contrast, the PF forms, as in (7b) and (8b), have only one reading: there is only

one entity involved in the event and this entity seems to be individuated. The

characteristic of this entity to be distinct does not license the entailment of ‘cumulativity’

in Krifka’s sense. Thus, an event such as the bread-eating event depicted in (7b) yields

the following interpretations: when it collocates with the durative adverbial maghapon

‘all day long’, the event of kinain ng guro ang tinapay ‘the teacher ate the bread’ denotes

that it took the teacher the whole day to eat a loaf of bread (or other portion), for instance.

The sentence in (8b) has the same reading. When it co-occurs with the time span

adverbial, there is an interpretation that a single entity was consumed in an hour. Thus, as

opposed to the AF forms in which endpoint is only inferred, the PF forms assert the

endpoint of the event.

5.2.1.2 Verbs of Performance

A verb of performance, such as kanta ‘sing’, and its co-occurrence with the temporal

measure phrases provides the same interpretation as discussed above. Consider the

sentences in (9).

(9) a. K-um-anta si Lesley ng kundiman

AF.PFV-sing NOM PN GEN folk.love song



‘Lesley sang some folk love song all day long/in an hour.’

b. K-in-anta- Ø ni Lesley ang kundiman

PFV -sing-PF GEN PN NOM folk.love song



‘Lesley sang the folk love song all day long/in an hour.’

The sentence in (9a) with the durative adverbial maghapon ‘all day long’ gives the

interpretation that Lesley sang an undetermined number of folk love songs all day long

143

without a clear indication as to whether she has finished singing every song that she sang

the whole day. With the temporal adverbial ng isang oras ‘in an hour’, the undetermined

number of folk love songs were sang in just an hour. However, as to whether Lesley

finished singing these songs is also not clear. On the other hand, the sentence in (9b)

implies that there is only one folk love song that she sang. Interestingly, the (9b) sentence

when co-occurring with the durative adverbial maghapon provides an iterative reading.

With the ng isang oras, however, the song was sung in a span of an hour (to be more

realistic we could say, in a span of 3 minutes) and there is an interpretation in the

sentence in (9b) that the song was sung from the beginning till the end.

We have seen that the AF and PF forms when modified by temporal adverbials are

equally grammatical. It appears that the function of the temporal adverbials, in the

perfective form of the AF and PF predicates, is to bound or limit the event to a temporal

dimension. Thus, the durative adverbials bound/limit the event of eating, drinking and

singing within the duration of the time denoted by the adverbial; whereas, the time span

adverbial bound/limit the event within the span of the given time period. Yet, regardless

of the co-occurrence of the AF and PF predicates we have examined above with durative

or time span adverbials, the sense of ‘non-completion’ is maintained in the AF sentences

in (7a, 8a, 9a); whereas, the sense of ‘completion’ is maintained in PF sentences in (7b,

8b, 9b).

We can observe in the sentences discussed above the independence, but at the

same time, the interaction of the (im)perfectivity and (a)telicity of the predicates (this is

explicated in detail in Chapter 7). The perfective form of the AF and PF predicates bound

the event in time. Although both of the situations in the sentences given above are bound

or limited, the AF forms with the NG-patient also provide the sense of ‘non-completion or

process’. The non-completion, I argue, is due to the atelicity of the predicate. The

‘completion’ and the ‘endpoint’ readings in PF forms, on the other hand, are triggered by

the telicity of the predicate.

In the next section, I provide the tests that validate the assumptions raised above

regarding the (a)telicity of the AF and PF alternation.

144

5.3 (A)telicity of the AF and PF alternation

In Chapter 4, I presented the accomplishments with UM affix and the achievements with

UM or MA affix as telic. In this section, I will show base predicates that exhibit the AF

and PF alternation, like those given in the examples in (7), (8), and (9), manifest the

atelicity-telicity dichotomy.

Three telicity tests are put forward to prove this point. The first one is the

‘cancellation’ test. Recall that telicity is characterised by the feature endpoint, which

signifies whether the situation has an inherent culmination or terminal point. This test

confirms the atelicity of the AF forms, as its endpoint can be defeasible. This goes to say

that endpoints in AF forms are a result of implicature rather than entailment. To entail the

endpoint, their PF alternates have to be used. The second test is ‘continuity’, which

confirms the ‘process or homogeneity’ feature of the atelicity of the AF form and the

telicity of the PF form. The third one is the muntik ‘almost’ test, which also examines the

feature of homogeneity for verbs that denote change of possession.

5.3.1 Cancellation

We use verbs of creation, such as ‘gawa’ ‘build’, and learning verbs, such as basa ‘read’,

to show that endpoint in AF forms are defeasible, but not in the PF forms.

(10) a. Nag-basa siya ng libro

AF.PFV-read 3SG.NOM GEN book

pero hindi niya na-tapos.

but NEG 3SG.GEN PF.PFV-finish

‘S/he read a/some books but did not finish.’

b. B-in-asa- Ø niya ang libro

PFV -read-PF 3SG.GEN NOM book

*pero hindi niya na-tapos.


‘S/he read the book but did not finish.’

145

(11) a. G-um-awa si Ben ng bangko

AF.PFV-build NOM PN GEN bench

pero hindi niya na-tapos


‘Ben built a bench/some benches but he didn’t finish.’

b. G-in-awa-Ø ni Ben ang bangko

PFV-build-PF GEN PN NOM bench

*pero hindi niya na-tapos

but NEG 3SG.GEN PF.PFV -finish

‘Ben built the bench *but he didn’t finish.

The sentences in (10) and (11) show that a cancelling phrase clearly demonstrates the

difference in terms of the internal temporal contour of the AF verb construction as

opposed to the PF verb construction. The acceptability of the cancelling phrase pero hindi

natapos (but did not finish), in (10a), suggests the inception of the action of reading a

book but not its completion and implies that the inherent endpoint of the event need not

be achieved. In contrast, the combination of the PF verb with a cancelling phrase, as in

(10b), is anomalous, pointing to the fact that PF verbs entail an endpoint of the reading

event. We can use the same test for the sentences in (7a), (8a), (9a) and (11a), and we

observe the same pattern of interpretation: the agent started to do the action, but the

endpoint has not been reached. In contrast, the notion of continuity does not agree with

(7b), (8b), (9b) and (11b).

Some other examples of verbs that would behave the same way with temporal

adverbials and the cancelling phrase are the following:

(i) verbs of creation: asembol vs. in-asembol-Ø (PF) ‘assembled’; sumulat vs.

sinulat- Ø ‘wrote’; tumahi vs. tinahi- Ø ‘sew’; nag-pinta vs i-pininta ‘painted

(a picture)’

(ii) verbs of performance: sumayaw vs. sinayaw- Ø ‘danced’ ; nag-tala vs i-tinala

‘record (a speech)’; tumula vs i-tinula ‘recite (a poem); nag-dula vs i-dinula

‘performed (a play)’; nag-salyasay vs i-sinalaysay ‘narrated’

146

(iii) learning verbs: nag-aral vs inaral- Ø (studied); nag-saliksik vs. sinaliksik- Ø

‘researched’44

Interestingly, the AF and PF forms in Bisaya (BIS), a variant of Cebuano spoken in

Cagayan de Oro City, Mindanao (12-14), and Kapampangan (KAP), primarily spoken in

the province of Pampanga (15-16), yield the same interpretations as shown below:

(12) a. Ni-kaon ang bata ug pan BIS

AF.PFV-eat NOM child GEN bread

pero wala niya na-hurot.


‘The child ate bread/some bread but he didn’t finish.’

b. Gi-kaon sa bata ang pan.

PF.PFV-eat GEN child NOM bread

*pero wala niya na-hurot.


‘The child ate the bread/*but he didn’t finish.’

(13) a. Ni-inom ang palahubog ug mainom BIS

AF.PFV-drink NOM drunkard GEN refreshment

pero wala niya na-hurot.


‘The drunkard drank some refreshment but didn’t finish it.

44

It can be questioned whether the PF alternate is really telic. Consider the following examples for the

predicate aral ‘study’:

(a). Nag-aral ako ng Nihongo maghapon

AF.PFV-study 1SG.NOM GEN Nihongo all.day.long

pero marami pa rin-g dapat aralin.

but much ENC ENC-LNK should study

‘I studied Nihongo all day long but there is still much to be studied.’

(b) In-aral- Ø ko ang Nihongo maghapon

PFV-study-PF 1SG.GEN NOM Nihongo all.night.long

*pero marami pa rin-g dapat aralin.

but much ENC ENC-LNK should study

‘I studied Nihongo all day long but there is still much to be studied.’

Native speakers that I consulted all say that the sentence in (a) is more natural than the sentence in (b). In

(a), it provides the reading that only a portion of what has to be learned in Nihongo was studied. Hence, the

cancelling phrase is compatible with the AF predicate nag-aral. However, with the PF predicate inaral,

unacceptability of the cancelling phrase proves the telicity of the PF alternate. The PF predicate inaral

conveys a sense of process leading to an endpoint. It provides an interpretation that what has to be studied

in Nihongo was completely studied. The same analyses can be argued for the predicate saliksik ‘research’.

147

b. Gi-inom sa palahubog ang mainom

PF.PFV- drink GEN drunkard NOM refreshment

*pero wala niya na-hurot.


‘The drunkard drank the refreshment/*but he didn’t finish.’

(14) a. Nag-sulat si Sha ug alamat BIS

AF.PFV-write NOM PN GEN fable

pero wala niya na-human.


‘Sha wrote a fable but she didn’t finish.’

b. Gi-sulat ni Sha ang alamat

PF.PFV-write GEN PN NOM fable

*pero wala niya na-human.


‘Sha wrote the fable but she didn’t finish.

Based on the examples in (12)-(14), the AF constructions in (12a), (13a) and (14a) with

base verbs that can take ni-/ nag in their perfective forms, exhibit the same notion of

process or continuity as that of the AF forms in Tagalog, as evidenced by their

compatibility with the cancelling phrase. The opposite is the case for the PF constructions

signified by the affix gi- in (12b), (13b) and (14b). Now consider the sentences in

Kapampangan.

(15) a. M-engan yang tinape ing anak KAP

AF.PFV-eat GEN bread NOM bread

pero ali ne agisan

but NEG 3SG.GEN finish

‘The child ate bread/some bread but he didn’t finish.’

b. P-engan ne ning anak ing tinape

PF.PFV-eat 3SG.GEN/3SG.NOM GEN child nom bread

*pero ali ne agisan


‘The child ate the bread but he didn’t finish.’

148

(16) a. M-inum yang palamig ing lasenggeru KAP

AF.PFV-drink GEN refreshment NOM drunkard

pero ali ne agisan


The drunkard drank refreshments/some refreshment but he

didn’t finish.’

b. Inom ne ning lasenggeru

PF.PFV-drink 3SG.GEN/3SG.NOM GEN drunkard

ing palamig *pero ali ne agisan

NOM refreshment but NEG 3SG.GEN finish

‘The drunkard drank the refreshment but he didn’t finish.’

Recall that in Kapampangan, exemplified in (15) and (16) sentences, the occurrence of

the pronominal ‘ne’ in the PF forms is argued by Nolasco (2005) as a pronominal co-

reference marker to indicate the core arguments in the constructions. We can now extend

this analysis to relate to the event structure of the two forms. The pronominal ne is a

syntactic by-product of the internal temporal contour of the PF constructions. As this

construction is telic, the patient is assigned as an Undergoer and the occurrence of ne

confirms such status.

That the AF and PF alternations in Bisaya and Kapampangan have the same

pattern of behaviour under the cancellation test applied to Tagalog provides further

support for the analysis of the atelicity of AF forms and the telicity of their PF alternates.

5.3.2 Continuity

In this section, we examine the ‘homogeneity’ feature of the AF forms and the non-

homogeneity feature of the PF forms. The ‘continuity’ test is an assertion that a situation

is on-going. We use the examples in (9) and (10), repeated here in (17) and (18), to show

this point.

(17) a. K-um-anta si Lesley ng kundiman

AF.PFV-sing NOM PN GEN folk.love song

at patuloy pa rin siya sa pagkanta.’

and continue still 3SG.NOM DAT singing

‘Lesley sang some folk love songs and she is still singing.’

149

b. K-in-anta- Ø ni Lesley ang kundiman

PFV-sing-PF GEN PN NOM folk.love song

* at patuloy pa rin siya sa pagkanta.’

and continue still 3SG.NOM DAT singing

‘Lesley sang the folk love song and she is still singing.’

(18) a. Nag-basa siya ng libro

AF.PFV-read 3SG.NOM GEN book

at patuloy pa rin siya sa pagbasa

and continue still 3SG.NOM DAT reading

‘S/he read a/some book(s) and s/he is still reading.’

b. B-in-asa- Ø niya ang libro

PFV -read-PF 3SG.GEN NOM book

*at patuloy pa rin siya sa pagbasa.’

and continue still 3SG.NOM DAT reading

‘S/he read the book and s/he is still reading.’

The sentences in (17a) and (18a) show that the AF constructions are compatible with the

assertion of continuity. This behaviour validates the homogeneous internal temporal

composition of the AF predicates. Since we can cancel the implicature of the endpoint of

the AF clauses, such as those above, it seems reasonable to argue that the assertion of

continuity is feasible. Thus, one can make an inference that the situations denoted by the

AF sentences, as in (17a) and (18a), are in process. In contrast, we can observe that the

assertion of continuity does not freely co-occur with the PF sentences in (17b) and (18b).

Given that the endpoint in PF sentences, such as above, is already entailed, as confirmed

by its incompatibility with the cancellation test, it follows that the assertion of continuity

is also incongruent to the achieved endpoint entailed by the PF predicates. There is

nothing to be cancelled or to be continued in the PF alternates of the AF sentences in

(17a) and (18a), since they already entail that the inherent endpoint has been achieved.

That PF clauses of verbs, such as kanta ‘sing’ in (17b) and basa ‘read’ in (18b), are

incompatible with the tests of cancellation (of endpoint) and continuity confirm the telic

nature of the PF predicates.

It could be objected that the atelicity of the AF predicates can be cancelled by the

use of the quantifier isa ‘one’. However, the examples below demonstrate that despite the

addition of the quantifier isa ‘one’ in the sentence in (19a), the cancellation of endpoint is

150

still compatible with the AF clause (and by extension, the assertion of continuity).

Consider the sentences in (19).

(19) a. G-um-awa si Ben ng isa-ng bangko

AF.PFV-build NOM PN GEN one-LNK bench



‘Ben built one bench but didn’t finish (it).’

a’. G-um-awa si Ben ng isa-ng bangko

AF.PFV- build NOM PN GEN one-LNK bench

at patuloy pa rin siya sa paggawa.’

and continue still 3SG.NOM DAT building

‘Ben is building one bench and he is still building (it).’

b. G-in-awa-Ø ni Ben ang isa-ng bangko

build-PFV-PF GEN PN NOM one-LNK bench

* pero hindi niya na-tapos.


‘Ben built the bench but didn’t finish (it)

b’. G-in-awa-Ø ni Ben ang isa-ng bangko

build-PFV-PF GEN PN NOM one-LNK bench

* at patuloy pa rin siya sa paggawa.’

and continue still 3SG.NOM DAT building

‘Ben is building one bench and he is still building (it).’

Notice that in the sentences above, the addition of the numerical quantifier isa ‘one’

suggests the specificity in terms of the quantity of the patient, but it does not affect the

internal temporal contour of the predicates. The influence of the (a)telicity of the AF and

its PF alternation on the (A)NG patient will be returned to in Section 5.5. For now, we

continue with the last test for determining the (a)telicity of the AF and PF forms, which is

the muntik ‘almost’ test for class of predicates that denote change of possession.

151

5.3.3 Muntik ‘almost’

There are verbs that will not be compatible with the cancelling phrase whether they are in

their AF or PF forms. An example is the verb bili ‘buy’, an instance of what is sometimes

referred to in the literature as ‘change of possession’, ‘transaction’, or ‘transfer’ verbs. It

is illogical to argue that one bought something and did not buy it or did not acquire what

someone bought. This does not mean, however, that the distinction of telicity between the

AF and PF forms of predicates of this nature does not exist. We can determine the

(a)telicity of this type of verb in terms of their compatibility with muntik ‘almost’ and

examining the feature of ‘homogeneity’.

In English, accomplishment verbs are ambiguous with ‘almost’, but not activities.

For instance:

(20) Marvin almost swam. Activity

(21) Marvin almost built a house. Active accomplishment

The adverb ‘almost’ may point to the start or final point of an action (Smith 1991). Hence

with activity verbs, ‘almost’ definitely entails that Marvin did not swim since activities

are homogeneous and action persists over stretches of time. In contrast, the occurrence of

‘almost’ with active accomplishment sentences, like (21), is ambiguous: (1) Marvin

started to build a house, but he did not finish it; (2) Marvin intended to build a house, but

changed his mind and did not even start building it. ‘Almost’ produces ambiguous

readings because active accomplishments are heterogeneous or non-homogeneous, thus,

‘almost’ can pertain either to active accomplishments’ process or endpoint feature.

We can note another difference of the manifestations of this test in Tagalog. The

first difference is in terms of entailment. Consider the sentences in (22). The default

interpretation of a sentence, as in (22a), would be the same as the activity verbs in

English, such as in (20). That is, the woman did not buy the gold ring at all. However,

AF predicates also manifest the second of the two interpretations of active

accomplishment indicated for active accomplishments in the sentence in (21). That is, the

woman intended to buy the gold ring, and then decided not to. Thus, with the muntik

‘almost’ test, the AF predicates are the ambiguous ones. On the other hand, when muntik

combines with PF predicates, as exemplified by the sentence in (22b), it takes scope over

the start of the action. Thus, in (22b), it can be perceived that the woman is holding on to

152

the gold ring, almost on the verge of paying for it, and then returns it back to the seller.

This can be further elucidated by the example in (25).

(22) a. Muntik nang b-um-ili ng ginto-ng

almost LNK AF.PFV-buy GEN gold-LNK

singsing ang babae

ring NOM woman

‘The woman almost bought a gold ring.

b. Muntik nang b-in-ili- Ø ng babae

almost LNK buy-PFV- PF GEN woman

ang ginto-ng singsing.

NOM gold-LNK ring

‘A woman almost bought the gold ring.’

The sentences in (23) and (24) from naturally occurring data, such as blogs, get the

activity interpretation; whereas, (25) have the active accomplishment reading.

(23) sa Quiapo may Gloria scandal na

DAT PN have Gloria scandal LNK

vcd. Kala ko porn

vcd thought 1SG.GEN porn

yun pala yung phone conversation lang..

Instead NOM phone conversation only

muntik na ‘ko-ng b-<um>-ili

almost ENC 1SG.NOM AF.PFV-buy

‘In Quiapo, there is a VCD of Gloria’s scandal. I thought it was porn.

Instead, it was a phone conversation. I almost bought (it).

(http:ultraelectromagneticblog.blogspot.com/2005)

(24) Sino ang muntik ng s-um-ubsob

who NOM almost GEN AF.PFV-fall.face.down

sa sobra-ng kalasingan.

DAT too.much-LNK drunkenness

‘Who almost fell face down because of drunkenness?

(teamtown.wordpress.com/category/blogs)

153

(25) na-sa shop na ko kanina,

STAT-DAT shop already 1SG.GEN a.while.ago

muntik ko na lng bilh-in yung xonar.

almost 1SG.GEN ? only buy-PF NOM xonar

‘I was already in the shop a while ago, I almost bought the xonar.’ (www.tipidpc.com/viewtopic.php?tid=193441)

What we can observe from all the sentences above is the atelicity of the AF predicates.

The compatibility of cancelling phrase and continuity phrase, unlike the temporal

adverbials, with the AF clauses suggests that the action/event denoted by the AF forms

with the NG-PATIENT is ‘open-ended’ or homogeneous. This characterisation typifies

activity event structure. On the other hand, the incompatibility of cancelling phrase and

continuity phrase, with the PF clauses suggest that the construction has a non-

homogenous internal temporal make up. In PF clauses, events have clearly reached an

endpoint; thus, they are telic and denote active accomplishment event structure.

5.4 Activities and Active Accomplishments

Now that the event structures of the AF and PF verbs are determined, their LS can be

assigned. In RRG, activity verbs have the following logical structure:

(26) do' (x, [predicate' (x,(y))])

The existence of do' (x,.. indicates the presence of a participant instigating the action and

the internal structure of the predicate suggest the number of arguments. There are some

activity verbs that have only one argument, while others take two. The AF sentences

presented in the previous section show that the verbs have two arguments and assume the

LS do' (x, [predicate' (x, y)]). Thus, the AF sentences in (7a), (8a), (9a), (10a), (11a),

and (22a) are proposed to have the following logical representations, respectively:

(27) a. do' (guro, [eat' (guro, tinapay)]).

b. do' (lasenggero, [drink' (lasenggero, palamig)]).

c. do' (Lesley, [sing' (Lesley, kundiman)]).

d. do' (3SG, [read' (3SG, libro)]).

http://www.tipidpc.com/viewtopic.php?tid=193441

154

e. do' (Ben, [build' (Ben, bangko)]).

f. do' (babae, [buy' (babae, singsing)]).

The logical structure representations of the verbs in (27) illustrate that the verbs kumain

‘ate’, uminom ‘drank’, kumanta ‘sang’, nagbasa ‘read’, gumawa ‘built’ and bumili

‘bought’ have two arguments in terms of S(emantic)-valency. Recall that in RRG

thematic roles are simply mnemonics to refer to the argument positions in the logical

structure. Thus, for instance in (27a), the ‘consumer’ is the first argument of the predicate

of consumption positioned as the x argument; whereas, the ‘consumed’ is the second

argument of the predicate positioned as the y argument. In a fully formed clause, these

two arguments are overtly expressed, presumably, making these sentences syntactically

transitive. However, it is argued in this study that AF forms denoting activity event types

with a y argument, i.e. NG-patient, are S(yntactically)-intransitive, since the y argument is

a non-macrorole argument. The S-intransitivity of this type of construction can be

elaborated in terms of its number of macroroles. Again, RRG acknowledges that a

predicate may have two core arguments, as shown in its LS like those found in (27), but

core arguments in RRG can be classified in terms of direct core argument and oblique

core argument, which are based on the macrorole assignment. At this juncture, I assume

that the NG-patient being a non-macrorole argument is an oblique core argument. The

non-macrorolehood of the NG-patient is determined by its activity event type denotation,

which, as I argue in this study, hinges on the atelicity of the predicate. Recall that the

assignment of LS is not done randomly. It is imperative to know first the event structure

that the predicate denotes. Once event structure has been determined, then, the

appropriate LS can be assigned. I have shown in the previous section that the AF

predicates of consumption, creation, performance, learning and transaction have the

activity event type established through telicity tests. As activity event type, these classes

of verbs have second arguments that are considered non-macrorole. Certain lexical

entailments are also noted for patients that appear as arguments of verbs that denote

activity event type.

It has been observed that verbs of consumption, creation, and performance that

denote activity event types have a y argument that semantically is not individuated,

indefinite and non-referential or non-specific. In some languages, they are characterised

as ‘non-referential; inherent argument’ (Van Valin and La Polla 1997), ‘content

arguments and are in principle optional’ (Grimshaw 1990), an internal argument within

155

the inner predication which asserts the existence of the object without ascribing any

property to it (Basilico 1998). The second argument serves to characterise the nature of

the event without singling out the object. The y argument in the activity verbs are similar

to Hopper’s ‘effective verbs’ that function as ‘presentatives’; reporting events in which

“the verb and the object are not conceptually separable, but in which an object is in a

sense incorporated into the verb” (1985:87). The second argument in activity event types

has been argued to be non-referential, non-specific and a non-affected entity and,

therefore, does not match the defining features of a prototypical patient (De Guzman

2000, Nolasco 2003, Reid and Liao 2004, Katagiri 2005, Nagaya 2008). I argue here that

the NG-patient of an AF verb examined in the above sentences is indefinite, non-affected,

non-individuated45

. More importantly, it does not entail result state. Consequently, it

cannot be an Undergoer and is considered to be a non-macrorole argument (NMR). Thus,

classes of predicate like those examined in this section with two arguments in their AF

forms are S(emantically) bivalent, S(yntactically) intransitive and M(acrorole)

intransitive.

We can further distinguish the nature of the patient in the AF verbs from those in

the PF verbs by looking at the semantic decomposition of the latter. The meaning

structure of the PF verbs is postulated to represent an active accomplishment predicate:

do' (x, [predicate1' (x, (y))]) & BECOME predicate2 (y), which is the telic derivation of

the activity verbs.

The sentences in (7b), (8b), (9b), (10b), (11b), and (22b) are then proposed to

have the following lexical representations in (28), respectively:

(28) a. do' (guro, [eat' (guro, tinapay)]) & BECOME consumed' (tinapay)

b.do' (lasenggero, [drink' (lasenggero, palamig)])

& BECOME consumed' (palamig)

c. do' (Lesley, [sing' (Lesley, kundiman)])& BECOME sang' (kundiman)

d. do' (3SG, [read' (3SG, libro)]) & BECOME read' (libro)

e. do' (Ben, [build' (Ben, bangko)]) & BECOME built' (bangko)

f. do' (babae, [buy' (babae, singsing)]) & BECOME have' (singsing)

45

In an AF clause, if there are no other quantificational elements present for the NG-patient, it can also be

read as non-affected, non-referential/non-specific. In the next section, we will see, however, that the non-

referential/non-specific feature is disambiguated with the use of the quantifier isa ‘one’, but this does not

affect the indefiniteness reading of the patient.

156

Note that the decomposition of the PF verbs shares with the AF verbs the activity

algorithm, however, it is further differentiated from the latter by the additional element of

‘& BECOME predicate2 (y)’ which signifies the change of state of the second argument. I

assume that it is the definiteness, individuation and the result state entailment that

differentiate the patient in an active accomplishment eventuality from the activity. The

BECOME operator indicates the process of the action leading to the change of state of the

y argument and the result state entailment.

What do we mean by result state? It can be generally described as the total change

of state/condition of the 2nd

argument of the predicate depending on the verb classes. For

instance, the 2nd

argument of the predicate ‘consumed’ has to be in a state of being totally

consumed or the 2nd

argument of the predicate ‘creation’ has to be in a state of being

created to entail result state. If we recall, the argument of accomplishments in Chapter 4

are Undergoers because they appear in a telic predicate and entail result state. We will

notice that because both active accomplishments and accomplishments undergo change of

state and entail result state, they share the LS component of BECOME predicate (y).

Thus, the second argument acts as the most patient-like argument and, based on

the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH), is at the rightmost of the hierarchy rendering it

the Undergoer macrorole. The logical structures in (28) demonstrate that PF forms of the

verbs of kain ‘eat’, inom ‘drink’, kanta ‘sing’, basa ‘read’, gawa ‘build’ and bili ‘buy’,

although similar to AF forms in terms of number of arguments in the logical structure,

have x and y arguments that are assigned Actor and Undergoer MRs. Hence, they are

S(emantically)-bivalent, S-transitive and M-transitive.

Based on the analyses of the AF and PF forms above, it appears that there is a

strong correlation between telicity and M-transitivity of PF forms, on the one hand, and

atelicity and M-intransitivity of AF forms, on the other. Consequently, the PF forms

denote active accomplishments, while the AF forms with the NG-patients denote

activities.

Having established the event structure of AF and PF alternations of verbs that fall

into the class of consumption, creation, performance, learning and transaction, and how

they relate to their transitivity status, we now move to the influence of the (a)telic nature

of these predicates and their event structure denotations on their patient argument, i.e.

(A)NG-patient.

157

5.5 Semantics of the (A)NG Patient

The arguments put forward in this section underline the importance of the (a)telicity of

the predicate on the interpretations of the patient participant. But first, let us recall that, as

stated in Chapter 2, there are other studies that have put forward the interaction between

the patient participant and the predicate to determine (a)telicity. Apparently, what is

crucial in this interaction is the nature of the patient participant. We have seen a sentence

in English, as shown in (29), exemplifying this point. As mentioned before, the verb of

consumption, such as ‘eat’, is atelic if it does not have any patient argument, as in (29a),

or, if it has, its argument is a bare plural, such as ‘mangoes’ in (29b). On the other hand,

the definite argument ‘the mango’ in (29c) forces a telic reading. The same observations

are made for the sentences in (30) and (31).

(29) a. Stephanie ate for an hour/ *in an hour (activity)

b. Stephanie ate mangoes for an hour/*in an hour (activity)

c. Stephanie ate the mango ?for an hour/in an hour. (active

accomplishment)

(30) a. Ben drank beers for an hour/*in an hour (activity)

b. Ben drank the beer *for an hour/in an hour. (active

accomplishment)

(31) a. Laurize built houses for a year/*in a year. (activity)

b. Laurize built the house *for a year/in a year. (active

accomplishment)

There are two properties of the patient argument that are given in the sentences above,

namely: bare plural nominal in (29b), (30a) and (31a), and the definite nominal in (29c),

(30b) and (31b). It is clear from the English examples above that these properties of the

patient argument can trigger the atelic-telic shifting of the same base predicate. This

effect on the internal temporal constitution of the verbal predicate has been observed in

other languages, such as Russian in (32) (The author’s original glosses are maintained).

158

(32) Russian (Richardson 2003: 64)

a. Ja pročitala (plemannice) skazku za čas. (telic)

I read-PFV (niece-DAT) story-ACC in hour

‘I read (my niece) the story in an hour.

b. * Ja pročitala ( plemannice) poèziju za čas. *(telic)

I read-PFV (niece-DAT) poem in hour

(To mean) ‘I read (my niece) poetry in an hour.’

Richardson argues that the patient arguments in Russian and not the grammatical aspect

(i.e. perfectivity) that play a crucial role in determining the event structure of the verbal

predicate. Using the verb čitat ‘to read’, she shows that a quantised (count) patient

argument, such as in (32a) example, triggers a telic interpretation of the verb phrase. This

is validated also by the compatibility of the verbal expression pročitala ‘read’ with the

adverbial measure phrase za čas ‘in an hour’. Apparently, the opposite is the case for

(32b) where a cumulative (mass) patient argument is present. A striking difference

between telicity in Russian, as put forward by Richardson, and telicity in Tagalog, as

argued in this study, is that the nature of the patient argument determines telicity in

Russian, but in Tagalog it appears to be telicity that triggers the interpretation of the

patient argument. Let us look at the sentences in (33) to see what motivates this

observation.

(33) a. Kasi, diet ako kahapon, k-um-ain

because diet 1SG.NOM, yesterday AF.PFV-eat

lang ako ng mansanas na b-in-ili-Ø

only 1SG.NOM GEN apple LNK PFV-buy-PF

mo sa Divisoria

2SG.GEN DAT Divisoria

‘Because I was on a diet yesterday, I only ate an apple/a portion of an

apple/ apples that you bought in Divisoria.

159

b. Kasi diet ako kahapon, k-in-ain- Ø

because diet 1SG.NOM yesterday PFV-eat-PF

ko lang ang mansanas na b-in-ili-Ø

1SG.GEN only NOM apple LNK PFV-buy-PF

mo sa Divisoria

2SG.GEN DAT Divisoria

‘Because I was on a diet yesterday, I only ate the apple/all the apples that

you bought in Divisoria.’

Both the sentences in (33) have a count (or quantised) patient argument, i.e. (A)ng

mansanas. If the patient argument determines telicity, then the sentence in (33a) has to be

telic. But, as we have seen in our discussion and from the cancellation and continuity tests

that we have applied before, verbs of this nature that are expressed in the AF form are

atelic. What seems to be at work here is that the atelicity of the predicate enforces an

indefinite/partitive/bare plural interpretation on the patient. On the other hand, in (33b),

the telicity of the PF form provides the interpretation that a piece of apple/all the apples

was/were totally consumed. Now let us see whether a mass (or cumulative) patient

argument will affect the telicity of the PF form.

(34) a. K-uma-in lang ako ng lugaw

AF.PFV-eat only 1SG.NOM GEN porridge

‘I only ate porridge.’

b. K-in-ain-Ø ko lang ang lugaw.

PFV-eat-PF 1SG.GEN only NOM porridge

‘I only ate the whole portion of porridge.’

In (34), we have a patient argument lugaw ‘porridge’ that is considered to be a mass

noun. Regardless of the nature of the patient, however, the telicity of the PF form in (34b)

is retained. It seems that regardless of the inherent nature of the nominal, whether they are

count or mass, they can appear in both AF and PF forms, but their interpretation differs

depending on the type of predicate they co-occur with, i.e. telic or atelic predicate.

Thus, it seems safe to argue that the atelicity and homogeneity of the AF predicate

on the NG-PATIENT are ambiguous in terms of the following interpretations when no other

quantificational elements are present in the clause:

160

(35) a. indefinite singular interpretation when patient argument is a count noun:

e.g. an apple, some apple (or other)

b. bare plural when patient argument is mass or count: e.g. apples, porridge

c. partitive: a portion of x, some of x

On the other hand, when no other quantificational elements are present, the telicity and

the non-homogeneity of the PF predicate on the ANG-PATIENT assigns a definite ‘all’ or

‘totality’ interpretation of the patient, e.g. the whole of x/all of x.

The interesting part now is to see whether adding a quantificational element, such

as isa ‘one’, will affect the (a)telicity of the two focus forms. We discuss this in Section

5.7 below. But first, we will explore further the properties of the noun phrase that are

argued to affect the internal temporal contour of a verbal predicate.

5.5.1 Count and Mass Nouns

The binary features that characterise nouns in terms of countability are count and mass.

Count nouns entail that ‘at least part of its referent be discrete and/or bounded, and

subject to being counted’ (Bale and Barner 2009:219). The opposite is the case for mass

nouns, i.e. no part of the referent can be discrete or some part be not discrete. In English,

the count and mass features are syntactically realised and distinguished in terms of their

‘co-occurrence with articles, quantifiers, numerals and various other expressions of

quantity and measure (Filip 1999:55; see also Lønning 1987 and Higginbotham 1994).

Although, some scholars argue that some of these expressions of measure are

‘countability-neutral’ (Wienrich 1966, Huddleston and Pullum 2002). The following are

some examples46

:

(36) a. Count nouns:

Determiner: a(n), the

Quantifier: each, every, either, both, many, several, (a) few

and some (stressed)

Numerals: one, two, three

46

There are issues regarding the mass-count distinctions that will not be of concern in this section (but see

Allan 1980; Jackendoff 1991; Gillon 1999; Bale and Barner 2009)

161

b. Mass nouns:

Determiner: the

Quantifier: much, all, most, a lot of, an amount of, (a) little,

Note that the determiner ‘the’ can co-occur with both mass and count nouns. Consider the

example in (37a), which is an answer to a query as to whether beet root juice lowers high

blood pressure, and the example in (37b) that is a comment from a ‘threw up cereal rice’

thread.

(37) a. My mom did this too. She just said she bought canned beets, not the

pickled kind and drank the juice.

(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214121435AAkP3CC)

b. We use the organic oatmeal. she threw up the rice cereal, as well.

(http://community.babycenter.com/post/a22862221/

threw_up_after_eating_rice_cereal)

In (37a) and (37b), the nominal arguments (in bold) are typically characterised as mass

nouns. But the use of the determiner ‘the’ appears to make these nouns quantized (count).

Presumably, the quantized nominal arguments are acceptable in a context where it is

presupposed that the ‘juice’ is in a glass, or the ‘oatmeal’ and the ‘rice cereal’ are in a

bowl, or what is being referred to is a type or kind of juice. Thus, they are conceived of as

being countable. In English, the combination of the determiner ‘the’ and the mass noun

produces a definite interpretation of the noun phrase. Note, however, that (in)definiteness,

which is syntactically manifested in the use of determiners in English, may not

necessarily produce a telic predicate in other languages. This observation reinforces the

assumption that definiteness is an independent notion from telicity (Filip 1999) and does

not determine telicity (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214121435AAkP3CC

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a22862221/

162

5.5.2 Bare Plurals

The examples in (29b) ‘mangoes’, (30a) ‘beers’ and (31a) ‘houses’ show patient

arguments that are bare plurals, here repeated in (38) for ease of reference.

(38) a. Stephanie ate mangoes for an hour/*in an hour

b. Ben drank beers for an hour/*in an hour

c. Laurize built houses for a year/*in a year.

In English, sentences with bare plurals are argued to have ambiguous meanings.

Consider the sentences below.

(39). a. Dinosaurs are extinct.

b. Dinosaurs are intelligent.

c. Dinosaurs are running from Noah’s flood.

The sentences in (39a) and (39b) are said to provide a ‘kind-reference’ interpretation

(Carlson 1977b). That is, in (39a), the bare plural ‘dinosaurs’ refers to the kind dinosaurs

predicated by the property-denoting predicate ‘extinct’. On the other hand, it can also be

interpreted as a predication of a characterising property of the kind dinosaurs, as in (39b),

which suggests that, in general, every dinosaur is intelligent. (39c) has the ‘existential’

interpretation, which says that some dinosaurs are running from Noah’s flood. Among

these interpretations, the existential interpretation will be relevant in our discussion in this

chapter. For instance,

(40) Eto ang na-kita ko kanina-ng umaga

this NOM PFV-see 1SG.GEN a.while.ago-LNK morning

nung nagtapon ako ng basura sa

when AF.PFV-throw 1SG.NOM GEN rubbish DAT

likod ng bahay namin.

back GEN house 1PL.DAT

(www.alenlen.multiply.com)

‘This is what I saw just this morning when I threw rubbish/some rubbish at the

back of our house.

The example above shows that the atelicity of the AF predicate nagtapon ‘threw’ can

produce ambiguous interpretations of the patient argument basura ‘rubbish’. Primarily, it

163

can be interpreted as a mass noun. Secondarily, it can be interpreted in an existential way

as in ‘some rubbish’.

5.6 Semantic contributions of atelic predicates

In the following discussion, we will look at how the atelic predicate provides semantic

interpretation of the NG-phrase and the event being construed.

5.6.1 Plurality, iterativity and bare plurals

The notion of plurality has always been associated with the nominal domain. Japanese and

Chinese, for instance, have classifiers to indicate countability (and thereby, plurality) of

nouns, while English has the plural morpheme –s to map a singular noun denoting a single

entity into another noun denoting a number of that entity (e.g. chairchairs). On the other

hand, Tagalog has the morpheme mga (pronounced as /maŋa/) to indicate plurality of a

nominal argument. It can appear within the slot of the ANG-phrase, NG-phrase and SA-phrase,

as in the following sentences:

(41) a. Nag-basa ng libro [ang mga tambay]ANG-NP.

AF.PFV-read GEN book NOM PL idler

‘The idlers read a book/some books/books.’

b. B-in-asa-Ø [ng mga tambay]NG-NP ang libro.

PFV-read-PF GEN PL idler NOM book

‘The idlers read the book.’

(42) a. B-um-ili si Pedro [ng mga libro] NG-NP sa Borders.

AF.PFV-buy NOM PN GEN PL book DAT PN

‘Pedro bought some books/*the books at Borders.’

b. B-in-ili-Ø ni Pedro [ang mga libro] ANG-NP sa Borders.

buy-PFV-PF GEN PN NOM PL book DAT PN

‘Pedro bought the books at Borders.’


164

(43) a. P-um-asok ang mga pulis [sa mga sinehan]SA-NP.

AF.PFV-enter NOM PL police DAT PL cinema

‘The policemen entered the cinemas.’

b. P-in-asok-Ø ng mga pulis [ang mga sinehan]ANG-NP

enter-PFV-PF GEN PL police NOM PL cinema

‘The policemen entered the cinemas’.

In (41), we see the pluralisation of the agent participant in both the AF and PF clauses in the

ANG-phrase and NG-phrase. The examples in (42) illustrate that a patient participant can

also be pluralised. Likewise, locative arguments typically marked with SA, as in (43), are

eligible to undergo the same process of pluralisation. However, the picture is not as simple

as this.

Although the morpheme mga (PL marker) makes it explicit that there is more than

one entity involved and referred to by the ANG noun phrase, there appear to be certain

ambiguities that arise brought about by the (a)telicity of the predicate when another NP is

not marked with any quantifier. Consider the sentences in (41). The sentence in (41a), where

the NG-phrase does not have any quantifier, can be interpreted in the following ways:

First, if it is interpreted with an indefinite singular like ‘a book’, the readings would

be: (i) each of the idlers reads one book (same books or different books) providing a

plurality reading of the NG-phrase, even without the marker mga, or (ii) each could read one

same book in turn.

Second, it can be assigned a bare plural category. As a bare plural noun, the patient

argument ng libro gets the existential interpretation of ‘some but not all’. As mentioned in

Section 5.5.2 above, bare plurals in English get an existential interpretation. I presume

that the NG-libro constituent in (41a), having no other quantificational element present,

gets the same reading, as influenced by the atelicity of the AF predicate.

Third, the bare plural interpretation creates a plurality effect not only on the NG-

patient involved, but also on the event. The homogeneity of the predicate + the bare plural

generate a cumulative series of events without an associated outcome or result state. Here

we can see the homomorphic relation of the verbal domain and the nominal domain to

create a plurality of events. The AF predicate and the bare plural interpretation of the NG-

libro constituent denote a book-reading event such that any sum of every subpart, e'…en

,

of the book-reading event, e, yields the same event of e and would be in the same

denotation of e or the predicate. That is, if e represents the book-reading event which

165

occurred at t1 to t3, where t stands for time, any book-reading event within the interval of

t1 to t3 will still be part of e. Given that the predicate is presented in the perfective view,

there is a sense of termination or boundedness, but not completion of the event (this is

further discussed in Chapter 7). However, the perfective viewpoint does not change the

plurality effect that an atelic predicate produces.

I posit that the three readings are available for the AF predicates with an

unquantified patient argument depending on whether the patient argument is a mass or

count noun (and the context, pragmatic knowledge and conventions). Thus, in some

cases, one reading such as the indefinite singular may not apply, as in (44a). Since we

know that in order to sell something one must have a number of things to sell, it seems

unlikely that an indefinite singular will arise as one of the readings of ng damit even

though ‘clothing’ is a countable entity. In (44b), asukal ‘sugar’ is a mass noun, thus, it

gets either a ‘partitive’ interpretation ‘some sugar’ or the bare plural ‘sugar’.

(44) a. Nag-tinda sila ng damit

AF.PFV-sell 3PL.GEN GEN clothing

galing sa HongKong.

from DAT PN

‘They sold some clothing/clothing from HongKong.’

b. B-um-ili si Alex ng asukal

AF.PFV-buy NOM PN GEN sugar

‘Alex bought sugar/some sugar.’

The combination of the AF predicate and bare plural also yields a habitual reading, which

produces a conceptualisation of plural events. But to produce the habitual reading, the AF

predicate is reduplicated and takes an imperfective viewpoint. The sentences in (45)

demonstrate this.

166

(45) a. <S-um-u>-sulat si Bang ng tula.

<RDP-UM>IPFV-write NOM PN GEN poem

‘Bang writes poems47

.’

b. * S-um-ulat si Bang ng tula.

AF.PFV-write NOM PN GEN poem

‘Bang wrote poems.’

Notice that there are no changes in the syntactic realisation of the arguments for both

sentences in (45). What changes is the perspective or viewpoint of the situation. This

points us to the distinction between event structure and viewpoint aspect, but we defer

discussing this issue until Chapter 7. At this point, we are concerned with presenting the

role of reduplication in creating plurality of event through the AF atelic predicate. The

reduplication process in (45a) gives the situation an ongoing reading in the habitual sense.

Presumably, the atelicity of the predicate, which can activate a bare plural interpretation

of the NG-PATIENT, and the reduplication process produce the habitual interpretation. By

habitual sense, we mean that there appears to be a regular pattern but vague number of

occurrences of the same event ‘associated with an interval of time that is (in most cases)

large and undefined’ (Filip 1999:121).

Frequency adverbials can further elucidate the habitual interpretation of the

imperfective form of the AF predicates and can disambiguate the same structure from the

progressive interpretation.

(46) a. <Um-i>-inom ng kape si Benat

<UM-RDP>IPFV.AF-drink GEN coffee NOM PN

tuwing umaga noon-g na-sa

every morning then-LNK STAT-DAT

kolehiyo pa siya.

college still 3SG.NOM

‘Benat drank coffee every morning when he was still in college.’

47

The imperfective construction, such as the example in (45a), is ambiguous between habitual and

progressive reading. We can disambiguate this sentence by using frequency adverbials, such as tuwing

linggo’every Sunday’, noong isang taon ‘last year’, and the like. The temporal adverbials are more

compatible with a habitual reading than with a progressive reading. This is further discussed in Chapter 7.

167

b. *Um-inom ng kape si Benat

AF.PFV-drink GEN coffee NOM PN

tuwing umaga noon-g na-sa

every morning then-LNK STAT-DAT

kolehiyo pa siya.

college still 3SG.NOM

‘Benat drank coffee every morning when he was still in college.’

(47) a. <T-um-a>-takbo ang mga sundalo sa bundok

<RDP-UM>IPFV-run NOM PL soldier DAT mountain

tuwing may training.

every exist training

‘The soldiers run in the mountain when there is/are training/s’

b. * T-um-akbo ang mga sundalo sa bundok

AF.PFV-run NOM PL soldier DAT mountain

tuwing may training.

every exist training

‘The soldiers run in the mountain when there is/are training/s’

The use of tuwing umaga ‘every morning’, in (46a), and tuwing may training ‘when there’s

training’, in (47a), overtly indicate the habitual sense of the reduplicated form of the AF

atelic predicate. Note that the perfective forms of the same predicate in (47b) and (48b) do

not permit the habitual reading, as shown by their incompatibility with the frequency

adverbials. Presumably, the incompatibility is the result of the perfective form being

bounded in time and the occurrences of a habitual situation in an interval of time that is large

and undefined.

5.7 Numerical Quantifier isa ‘one’

The above discussion has shown us the effect of the AF atelic predicate on an unquantified

NG-PATIENT. To reiterate, these effects are to give indefinite singular, bare plural and

partitive ‘some’ readings. Our interest now lies in whether adding a numerical quantifier,

such as isa ‘one’, changes the atelicity of the predicate. I posit that numerical quantifiers, in

the domain of an atelic predicate, serve as a ‘specificity’ device that merely counts the

quantity of the entity involved in the event. Before we proceed with the explanation, I

168

provide first the definition of definiteness and specificity/referentiality that is used in our

analysis of isa ‘one’.

5.7.1 Definiteness and Specificity/referentiality

In Chapter 1, we noted the observations regarding the definiteness interpretation of the

ANG-phrase and the indefiniteness reading of the NG-phrase. A counter-evidence for the

predominant view on the ‘definiteness hypothesis’ was provided by Adams and

Manaster-Ramer (1987). Adams and Manaster-Ramer argue that the ANG-phrase48

, when

a quantificational element such as isa ‘one’, iba ‘other’ is present, provides the following

interpretations: an indefinite, partitive definite or definite reading. Consider the sentence

in (48), which is repeated from Chapter 1.

(48). <D-um-a>-rating ang isan-ng dyip.

<RDP-UM>IPFV-come NOM one-LNK jeep

‘A jeep is coming.’

Adams and Manaster-Ramer claim that the ANG-phrase in (48) has an indefinite reading. I

will show that the sentence above remains definite but specific with the introduction of

the numerical quantifier isa ‘one’.

I follow Givon (1978, 2001), Comrie (1981), Payne (1997), Lyons (1999) and

Guerin (2007) in defining definiteness based on the following parameters: identifiability,

familiarity, and accessability. I will not defend any particular position here, but consider

these three as useful parameters to identify a definite nominal argument in the clause. I

am more concerned with how telicity influences the definiteness interpretation of the

(A)NG-patient argument. We can summarise the definition of definiteness in the following

way (Guerin 2007: 539).

48

Some scholars of Philippine Languages posit that the ANG-phrase is interpreted specific rather than

definite (e.g. Maclachlan 1996; Rackowski 2002; Himmelman 1998, 2005, 2008; Travis 2010). However, I

argue in this section that the notion of definiteness is relevant for ANG-phrase and NG-phrase (except for

NG-agent that is always interpreted as definite). However, I also noted the significance of the notion of

specificity/referentiality as an additional semantic distinction for the ANG-phrase and the NG-phrase.

169

A definite expression is used when a speaker makes the presupposition that

the referent of the expression is accessible to the hearer. That is, the speaker

assumes that there is a unique referent that the hearer can identify, either (i)

because the referent was previously mentioned in the context of discourse,

or (ii) because the referent is part of the interlocutors’ shared knowledge, or

(iii) because there is enough descriptive content in the sentence to identify

the referent: the referent becomes identifiable as the sentence is processed.

In contrast, indefiniteness interpretation of the NPs is prompted when noun phrases are

newly introduced in the discourse. The speaker does not assume that the hearer can

identify or access the referent of the NP; hence, an indefinite expression is used. It is also

the case that the referent of the NP is not familiar to the hearer; although, he may be

aware of the kind or class of the referent.

A noun phrase is specific or referential when a speaker assumes that the referent

being referred to by the NP ‘exists’ in the universe of discourse. This definition entails

that specificity/referentiality crosscuts with the meaning of definiteness. When a speaker

refers to an identifiable entity, he is also pertaining to its specificity/referentiality. An

indefinite expression can also be specific/referential when the speaker assumes the

existence of the referent, but does not identify it because the speaker does not assume that

the hearer can identify or access the referent of the NP (Guerin 2007). For instance:

(49) He wanted to marry a Filipina, but she refused.

In (49), the speaker assumes the existence of a Filipina that ‘he’ wanted to marry, but

does not assume that the hearer can identify her or her identity is not important to the

discourse. In contrast, when the speaker does not want to specify the existence of the

referent but only wants to indicate its ‘kind’ or ‘class’, the noun phrase is understood to

have a non-specific/non-referential meaning. With this definition, non-specificity/non-

referentiality crosscuts with the reading of indefiniteness.

With the above definitions, I assume that it is possible for an indefinite NP to be

(non)specific/ (non)referential and for the definite NP to be specific and referential. When

a numerical quantifier is added to the NG-phrase, the aim of the speaker is to be

specific/referential, but does not commit to the idea that the hearer can identify what he is

referring to or the speaker is assuming that the hearer knows the ‘class’ that the NP

belongs to. Hence, the (a)telicity of the predicate is not affected by the presence of a

quantificational element, such as isa ‘one’. Consider the following sentences:

170

(50) K-um-ain siya ng isa-ng

AF.PFV-eat 3SG.NOM GEN one-LNK

plato-ng pansit pero hindi niya na-ubos.

plate-LNK dried but NEG 3SG.GEN PF.PFV-finish

‘S/he ate a (one) plate of dried noodles but didn’t finish it.’

(51). G-um-awa si Ben ng isa-ng bangko

AF.PFV-build NOM PN GEN one-LNK bench



‘Ben made a (one) bench but didn’t finish them.’

The above examples demonstrate that the addition of a cardinal number to quantify a mass

noun, in (50), and a count noun, in (51), does not affect the atelicity of the predicate, as

shown by their compatibility with the cancelling phrase. It appears that the expression isa

‘one’ establishes the number or quantity involved in the discourse, but does not have bearing

on the internal temporal contour of the AF predicate. That is, its presence does not make the

atelic predicate into a telic one. In an atelic predicate, the patient argument is still not an

Undergoer NP despite being modified by the quantifier isa ‘one’. Although the patient

participant may be specific/referential, it remains indefinite and without a result state

entailment. The expression isa ‘one’ indicates the number of plates in (50) or the number of

benches in (51). However, the NG-phrases in these sentences are still indefinite and are most

likely considered partitive.

It seems safe to assume that in the PF alternates of the predicates in (52) and (53), the

numerical quantifier isa ‘one’ reinforces the telicity of the predicate by making it specific

and referential. The effect of the telicity of the PF predicate is to provide the ‘totality’

reading of the NP. Thus, to indicate a numerical quantifier isa ‘one’ provides the meaning of

‘the one whole piece’ of the entity being referred to by the NP.

(52) K-in-ain-Ø niya ang isa-ng

eat-PFV.PF 3SG.GEN NOM one-LNK

plato-ng pansit *pero hindi niya na-ubos.

plate-LNK dried.noodle but NEG 3SG.GEN STAT-finish

‘S/he ate the (one) plate of dried noodles but didn’t finish it.’

171

(53). G-in-awa- Ø ni Ben ang isa-ng bangko

build-PFV.PF GEN PN NOM one-LNK bench

*pero hindi niya na-tapos.

but NEG 3SG.GEN STAT-finish

‘Ben made the (one) bench but didn’t finish it.’

Returning to the example in (48), the ang isang dyip, which was analysed to have an

indefinite reading ‘a jeep’, can now be re-analysed as ‘the one jeep’ with a definite,

specific/referential reading. In order for the sentence in (48) to be indefinite, the

existential construction has to be used, as in (54).

(54) May d-um-a-rating na dyip.

exist <RDP-UM>IPFV-come LNK jeep

‘There is a jeep coming.’

In the example below, the existential construction is used to provide an indefinite

meaning of the NP, as in (55a), instead of the verbal construction, in (55b), which

expresses a definite NP.

(55) a. Isa-ng umaga, may d-um-ating na

one-LNK morning exist AF.PFV-come LNK

mag-asawa-ng mayaman sa nayon.

couple-LNK rich DAT town

‘One day, a rich couple came to town.’

(Ang unang Paru-paro, Books for Children, 2002)

b. Isang umaga, d-um-ating

one-LNK morning AF.PFV-come

ang mag-asawa-ng mayaman sa nayon.

NOM couple-LNK rich DAT town

‘One day, the rich couple came to town.’

I summarise the above observations in Table 5.1 (NQE stands for no quantificational

element).

172

Table 5.1 (A)telicity of the predicate and the (A)NG patient

ANG/NG

(A)telicity

ANG-patient

NG-patient

Entailment

NQE isa ‘one’ NQE isa ‘one’

AF (atelic) -indefinite

Singular

-bare plural

-partitive

-some of x

-indefinite

and non-

specific/non-

referential

-indefinite

but specific/

referential

non-result

state

PF (telic) -totality,

i.e. all of x

-definite singular

or plural

-?definite and

non-specific/

Non-referential

-totality

-definite and

specific/

referential

result state

The table above shows that it is possible for an AF atelic predicate to have a NG-phrase

that has an indefinite but specific/referential reading, or an indefinite and non-

specific/non-referential reading. There is no result state entailment of the NG-phrase. In

contrast, the ANG-phrase in the telic predicate has the ‘all of’ or ‘totality of’ reading of a

specific/referential referent. Whether a non-specific/non-referential reading of an ANG-

phrase is possible needs further investigation.

5.8 Conclusion

In this chapter, I demonstrated that transitivity in Tagalog, particularly of predicates that

exhibit the actor focus (AF) and their patient focus (PF) form alternates, is best accounted

for in terms of Macrorole (M) transitivity. It was shown that the Actor and Undergoer

macroroles of these two verbal forms are predicted from their logical structures, which

are tied to event structure. Furthermore, it was shown that the relation between macrorole

assignment and event structure is governed by telicity. Telicity tests reveal that there is a

strong correlation between telicity and M-transitivity of PF forms, on the one hand, and

atelicity and M-intransitivity of AF forms, on the other.

173

I have shown also that the (a)telicity of the predicates of consumption, creation,

performance, learning, and transaction influences the semantic interpretation of the A(NG)-

patient. In an AF atelic predicate, the NG-patient is indefinite and without a result state

entailment, hence it cannot be assigned an Undergoer macrorole. On the other hand, in its PF

alternate, the ANG-patient is definite, has a result state entailment and is assigned an

Undergoer macrorole. Specifically, it has been demonstrated that when the NG-patient has

no other quantificational element present, its co-occurrence with the atelic AF predicate

yields the following interpretations: (i) indefinite singular interpretation when the patient

argument is a count noun; (ii) bare plural when the patient argument is either a mass or a

count noun; (iii) partitive: a portion of x or some of x. On the other hand, the co-occurrence

of the ANG-patient, which has no other quantificational element present, with the telic PF

predicate yields the following reading: definite all or totality: the whole of x or all of x.

Subsequently, it has been shown that adding the quantifier isa ‘one’ does not affect the

atelicity of the AF predicates or the telicity of the PF predicates. But it does provide an

additional interpretation of the (A)NG-patient, as summarised in Table 5.1 above.

In the next chapter, we will see how telicity plays a role in the linguistic construal

of motion events. We will pay particular attention to motion predicates that belong to the

classes of directed and manner of motion predicates. Accordingly, in this chapter, we will

focus on the AF, PF and LF alternations and the SA-phrase.

174

Chapter 6

Motion, Path, and telicity

In this chapter, I show how the features of telicity, which are endpoint and homogeneity,

and the entailment of result state are manifested in motion predicates. One of the standard

observations in the study of motion verbs in relation to event structure is the contribution

of the prepositional phrases (PP) in determining the telicity of the predicates. Recall that

in the preceding chapter, arguments for the homomorphic relation between the nominal

domain and the verbal domain to determine the internal composition of the predicates

were put forward (e.g. Krifka 1992; Filip 1999, 2000; among others). Apparently, motion

predicates operate similarly, except that the parallelism is between the prepositional

phrases and the motion predicates. This relation has been observed in English sentences,

such as those in (1).

(1) a. Steph ran (for/*in an hour).

b. Steph ran in the park (for/*in an hour).

c. Steph ran to the park (*for/in an hour).

The application of temporal adverbial tests determines the telicity of the motion verb

‘run’ in (1). Without the prepositional phrase, the sentence in (1a) is atelic, as shown by

its compatibility with the durative adverbial ‘for an hour.’ However, the (1b) and (1c)

sentences are interesting. We can observe that both have PPs except that they differ in the

choice of preposition. That is, (1b) has the in preposition and, based on its free co-

occurrence with ‘for an hour’, is atelic like (1a). On the other hand, (1c) has the to

preposition that is compatible with the time-span adverbial ‘in an hour’ and shifts the

internal temporal composition of the predicate into telic. Jackendoff (1996) has aptly

observed that the choice of preposition affects and determines the telicity of the verbs of

motion in English.

I argue, however, that in Tagalog, it is not the prepositional phrase that determines

telicity. Similar to the assumptions put forward in Chapter 5, the lexical semantics of the

predicate and the verbal affix establish (a)telicity. Consequently, it will become evident

that since Tagalog lacks prepositions that the English language productively has to

indicate telic motion or atelic motion predicates, it uses event structures expressed by the

175

‘focus forms’ to provide the interpretation for the SA-phrase. Evidence for this claim is

presented when we examine the telicity of the motion predicate tulak ‘push’ in Section

6.2. Section 6.2 also establishes the argument for the atelicity of the AF motion clause as

opposed to the telicity of the PF or LF motion clause.

The analysis for the AF and PF/LF alternation is significant, as we investigate the

predicates known in the literature as directed motion verbs and manner of motion verbs. I

will explain what these categories are in Section 6.1. What is essential at this point is the

implication of these distinctions for the SA-phrase in AF forms and the ANG-phrase in

PF/LF forms. I assume that the focus forms that the directed and manner of motion verbs

exhibit, particularly the AF and PF/LF alternation, are strategies for marking goals or

sources. That is, goals/sources maintain their thematic roles whether they appear in the

SA-phrase or the ANG-phrase; but, because the AF, PF/LF forms are denotations of

different event types, the SA-phrase and the ANG-phrase, in turn, receive different

interpretations depending on their macrorole rather than their thematic role.

Consequently, it is macrorolehood, determined by the event structure and its logical

representation, which establishes the interpretation of the SA-phrase in the AF forms and

the ANG-phrase in the PF/LF forms. Below are examples of manner of motion verbs that

can have the AF and PF/LF alternations, as shown in (2), and directed motion verbs that

can have the AF and LF alternation, given in (3).

(2) a. L-um-angoy siya sa dagat. (AF)

AF.PFV-swim 3SG.NOM DAT sea

‘She swam in the sea.’

b. Ni-langoy-Ø niya ang dagat (PF)

PFV-swim-PF 3SG.GEN NOM sea

‘She swam the sea.’

c. Ni-langoy-an niya ang dagat (LF)

PFV-swim-LF 3SG.GEN NOM sea

‘She swam across the sea.’

176

(3) a. L-um-abas yung ibon sa butas ng puno. (AF)

AF.PFV-exit NOM bird DAT hole GEN tree

‘The bird exited from the hole in the tree.’ (FWAY:42)

b. *I-ni-labas ng kuwago ang butas ng puno. (PF)

PF-PFV-exit GEN owl NOM hole GEN tree

‘An owl put out the hole in the tree.’

c. Ni-labas-an ng kuwago ang butas ng puno. (LF)

PFV-exit-LF GEN owl NOM hole GEN tree

‘The owl exited (from) the hole in the tree.’

I posit that the AF form of motion predicates denotes activities, while the PF and the LF

forms signify active accomplishments. Thus, a goal or a source that occurs in the AF form

where it appears on the SA-phrase takes a non-macrorole status. Consequently, the SA-

phrase acquires a locative interpretation. On the other hand, a goal or a source that occurs

in the PF/LF forms where it is marked by ANG receives an Undergoer macrorole.

Subsequently, the ANG-phrase takes a directional interpretation, such as (2b, c) and (3c).

Notably, active accomplishments can be expressed in the PF or LF form or both

depending on the semantics of the motion predicates. Although both are telic and have

result state entailments, they differ in the way PATH is encoded. I will postpone

discussing the notion of path until Section 6.3 below; however, a brief explanation is

provided in Section 6.1.

In this chapter, I further investigate the verb class that expresses the ‘locative

alternation’, examples of which are buhos ‘pour’ and lagay ‘load/put’. This type of

alternation involves motion or movement that can also be expressed in the AF, PF/LF

forms. We will see that ‘locative alternation’ differs from motion predicates in terms of

the number of participants they take, and the ‘moved object’. The interaction of the notion

of telicity and affectedness is also covered.

Before we proceed with the analyses, some clarifications with respect to the use of

concepts are given in the next section.

6.1 Directed motion, Manner of motion, and Path

Research on motion verbs and their correlation with telicity has mostly centred on two of

its types: directed motion verbs (DMV) and manner of motion verbs (Levin 1993; Levin

177

and Rappaport 1998; Jackendoff 1987, 1996; Van Valin and La Polla 1997, Van Valin

2005; Gawron 2004; Croft 2010; see Talmy 1975, Slobin 2004; Berman and Slobin 1987,

1994 for a typological perspective of manner, path, and motion).

Levin (1993:264) defines directed motion verbs (DMVs) as those that specify the

‘direction of motion, even in the absence of an overt directional complement’. The DMVs

are distinguished from manner of motion verbs, as they do not indicate the mode, way or

style that a motion is enacted. Some examples of DMVs in English are advance, arrive,

climb, descend, enter, escape, go, leave, plunge, and rise (Levin 1993:263). In the

literature on semantic typology of motion verbs, the DMVs are classified as ‘path verbs’

(cf. Slobin 2004, Huang and Tanangkingsing 2005).

‘Path verbs’, i.e. direction motion verbs, are not to be confused with the ‘notion of

path’ as used in this study. Although inherent in the meaning of DMVs is the traversal of

path of the agent, the ‘notion of path’ that this study is concerned with is the overt path-

denoting phrase or path-denoting Prepositional Phrase (PP) that are argued to influence

the telicity of the motion predicates. This can be clarified in the following sentences:

(4) a. Miguel went into the room.

AGENT DMV PATH GOAL

path-denoting PP

b. P-um-unta si Miguel sa kuwarto

AF.PFV-go NOM PN DAT room

DMV AGENT LOC GOAL

locative PP

c. P-in-untah-an ni Miguel ang kuwarto

PFV-go-LF went PN NOM room

DMV AGENT PATH GOAL

path-denoting PP

In English, the prepositions are posited to encode the ‘path’ that an agent traverses to

reach a goal/destination. They are represented by prepositions like across, along, around,

down, from, off, onto over, through, to, over, out of, and into. These prepositions are

argued to affect the (a)telicity of a motion predicate in English, while there are

prepositions that simply indicate the location of the referent, such as in, at, on.

178

Tagalog, as mentioned before, does not have a number of prepositions to indicate path-

denoting phrases or PPs like those in English. Thus, I posit that the different focus forms

of a motion predicate will signal the path-denoting phrases or the locative phrases. As

shown in the examples in (4), the directed-motion verb punta ‘go’ can be expressed in the

AF form, as in (4b), and in the LF, as in (4c). However, in order to signal a path-denoting

phrase, the sentence in (4c) has to be used and not the sentence in (4b), where the SA-

phrase simply indicates a location regardless of the thematic role of the argument of SA.

Recall that these interpretations are triggered by the event types that the AF form denotes.

By the same token, the interpretation of the ANG-phrase in the LF form, as in (4c), is

prompted by the LF’s event structure.

The same line of argument for the SA-phrase and ANG-phrase in manner of motion

verbs are put forward. The manner of motion verbs are described as those that specify the

means, mode, or way of bringing about the motion. Some examples of manner verbs in

English are run, march, walk, skip, crawl, fly, swim, and bounce.

In the next section, we will provide a test to examine the (a)telicity of the AF and

PF/LF motion forms using the motion predicate tulak ‘push’.

6.2 Telicity tests and the predicate tulak ‘push’

At the outset, I have put forward the idea that the AF forms of motion verbs are atelic and

homogenous, while the PF and LF forms are telic and non-homogeneous. I make this

claim based on the directed motion verb punta ‘go’, as shown by the cancellation test in

(5).

(5) a. P-um-unta si Deling sa Australya

AF.PFV-go NOM PN DAT PN

pero hindi siya nakarating.

but NEG 3SG.NOM able.to.arrive

‘Deling went to Australia but she wasn’t able to get there.’

b. P-in-untah-an ni Deling ang Australya

PFV-go-LF GEN PN NOM PN

*pero hindi siya nakarating.

but NEG 3SG.NOM able.to.arrive

‘Deling went to Australia but she wasn’t able to get there.’

179

Note that the predicate ‘go’ in English only have the ‘to’ preposition to indicate the path.

Presumably, the path-denoting PP to Australia renders the motion predicate telic. Thus,

when a sentence such as Deling went to Australia is tested against a cancelling phrase,

like ‘but she wasn’t able to get there’, it naturally becomes self-contradictory. However,

this contradiction attests to the telicity of the predicate. In Tagalog, this is shown by the

sentence in (5b). On the other hand, the sentence in (5a), which has the same English

translation as (5b), is reasonable in Tagalog but not in English. Hence, it is sound to say

in an AF form that ‘x go to y’ and at the same time assert that ‘x did not actually get to y’.

The acceptability of the cancelling phrase in (5a) confirms the atelicity and homogeneity

of the AF form of the motion predicate punta ‘go’, while its unacceptability in (5b)

demonstrates the telicity and non-homogeneity of the LF form of the same predicate. As

was the case for verbs of consumption, performance, creation, transaction and others that

are discussed in Chapter 5, the AF and PF/LF alternation of the directed motion verbs and

manner of motion verbs denote the activity and active accomplishment event types,

respectively.

The motion verb punta ‘go’ does not have any PF alternate. However, there are

directed and manner of motion predicates that can exhibit the PF forms. I maintain that, if

they can exhibit the PF form, they remain telic. We examine the verb tulak ‘push’ to

validate this point.

6.2.1 Tulak ‘push’-class predicate and the ‘moved-object’

It has been observed for a motion verb like ‘push’ that a nominal argument, irrespective

of whether it is quantised or cumulative, does not influence the telicity of a verb phrase

(e.g Vendler 1967, Mourelatos 1978, Dowty 1979, Jackendoff 1996, Van Hout 1998,

Braginsky and Rothstein 2008). Consider the examples in (6) from English and in (7)

from Dutch.

(6) a. Noy pushed trolleys for an hour/*in an hour.

b. Noy pushed the trolley for an hour/*in an hour.

(7) Paola heft urenlang de auto geduwd

P. has hours-long the car pushed

‘P. pushed the car for hours’ (Van Hout 1998:237)

180

In these sentences, neither the cumulative argument in (6a) represented by the bare plural

nominal ‘trolleys’ nor the quantised nominal argument ‘the trolley’ in (6b) and de auto

‘the car’ in (7) contribute to the determination of telicity of the verbal phrase. These

manifestations have led to the proposal of the path-denoting PP or spatial measure

adverbial as the factor that establishes telicity (Jackendoff 1996). Take the sentences in

(8) for instance.

(8) a. Bill pushed the cart to NY in/??for two days.

b. Bill pushed the cart four miles in/??for two days.

From his examples in (8), Jackendoff (1996:308) illustrates the role of the path-denoting

PP to NY in (8a) and the spatial measure adverbial four miles in (8b) in making the

predicate telic, as validated by their compatibility with the time-span adverbial phrase in

two days. Likewise, an example in Dutch appears to confirm the contribution of the PP

naar de kant ‘to the side’ in establishing the telicity of the predicate duwen ‘push’.

(9) Paola duwde de auto in 5 minuten

P. pushed the car in 5 minutes

naar de kant.

to the side

‘Paola pushed the car to the side in 5 minutes.’ (Van Hout 1998:238)

According to Van Hout, the verb duwen ‘push’ needs the PP to activate telicity and

provide the endpoint reading. The role of the participant that lands in the object position,

in this case the auto, ‘identifies the final state’ of the motion event (1998:238). Thus, it is

not an incremental theme or a gradual patient but a ‘moved-object’ (to borrow a term

from Tenny 1995). As a ‘moved-object’, it cannot provide the temporal scale to build up

the homomorphic relation between the predicate and the nominal argument.

Subsequently, it has no influence on establishing the temporal composition of the verbal

phrase.

It appears that the AF and PF alternation of the predicate tulak in Tagalog

correlates with the aspectual composition of the English verb ‘push’ in the way that the

object argument does not determine the telicity of the predicate. If we leave out the SA-

phrase sa mall, both sentences in (10) are, arguably, atelic and homogeneous. However,

subjecting both the AF and PF sentences to a ‘continuity test’ show the difference in

181

(a)telicity. As shown in the previous Chapter, a continuity test asserts that the event is on-

going.

(10) a. Nag-tulak si Jose ng kart (sa mall).

AF.PFV-push NOM PN GEN cart DAT mall

at patuloy pa rin niya

and continue still also 3SG.GEN

ito-ng i-<t-in-u>-tulak.

this-LNK PF-<IN-RDP>IPFV-push

‘Jose pushed the cart (in the mall) and he continued pushing it.’

b. I-t-in-ulak ni Jose ang kart (sa mall).

PF -PFV-push GEN PN NOM cart DAT mall

* at patuloy pa rin niya

and continue still also 3SG.GEN

ito-ng i-t-<in>-u-tulak.

this-LNK PF-<IN-RDP>IPFV-push

‘Jose pushed the cart (down to the mall) and he continued pushing it.’

If we leave out the SA-phrase and test the occurrence of the AF form and the PF form of

the predicate tulak ‘push’ with the assertion of continuity, we see that the AF form is

acceptable, as shown in (10a). But the PF form is not, as illustrated in (10b). If we include

the SA-phrase sa mall in both constructions, we still get the same results: acceptability for

(10a) and unacceptability for (10b). Arguably, it is not the SA-phrase (or the ANG-phrase)

that triggers telicity. In fact, the (a)telicity of the predicate and the event structure it

denotes activate the macrorole status of the participants and the interpretation of the

ANG/SA-phrase.

Note that in both sentences in (10), the locative PPs are both marked with SA49

.

Despite having the same marking, the SA-phrase sa mall receives different

interpretations. In (10a), it takes a locative interpretation. It does so since the AF form of

the predicate is atelic and homogeneous, as shown by the acceptability of the expression

at patuloy pa rin niya itong itinutulak ‘and he continued pushing it’. Consequently, it

49

One may argue that SA is not a preposition in Tagalog but a Dative/Locative case marker. Note that it is

still a matter of contention whether to treat SA (along with ANG and NG) as case markers. However, it is

widely accepted that it is a locative marker. As mentioned at the start of this chapter, Tagalog lacks

prepositions. I assume that to compensate for the lack of preposition, the focus forms (particularly of

motion predicates) with their corresponding event type denotation will convey the notion of locative or

directional preposition. Thus, I consider, SA-phrase as roughly corresponding to a prepositional phrase in

languages that have this.

182

denotes an activity event type. Having an activity event structure, the AF form is

construed as a cart-pushing event in which the SA-phrase sa mall takes a locative

interpretation. Thus, it is taken to be the place where the event of cart-pushing happened.

In contrast, the PF form in (10b) is telic and non-homogeneous, as shown by its

incompatibility with the assertion of continuity. Accordingly, this form denotes an active

accomplishment that triggers the SA-phrase sa mall to be a path-denoting PP and to have

a directional reading. In this event type, the situation is construed as ‘the cart traverses

along a path and ends up in the mall’.

Notably, the predicate tulak ‘push’ differs in some ways from directed motion and

manner of motion predicates. Firstly, it behaves similarly with predicates involved in the

locative alternation. That is, in an AF and PF alternation, the locative PP and path-

denoting PP are realised in the SA-phrase. For instance, compare the locative alternation

predicate lagay ‘load/put’ in (11) with the sentences in (10). Both the AF and PF form of

tulak ‘push’ and lagay ‘load/put’ are the same in terms of the realisation of their

participants.

(11). a. Nag-lagay ang lalaki ng kahon sa trak.

AF.PFV-load NOM man GEN box DAT truck

‘The man loaded boxes in the truck.’

b. I-in-lagay ng lalaki ang kahon sa trak.

PF-PFV-load NOM man GEN box DAT truck

‘The man loaded the box in the truck.’

c. Ni-lag(a)y-an ng lalaki ng kahon ang trak.

PFV-load-LF GEN man GEN box NOM truck

‘The man loaded the truck with boxes.’

Secondly, because it is somewhat similar to the locative alternation-class, we notice the

change of macrorole assignment on the ‘moved-object’, i.e. NG-phrase in (10a, 11a), ANG-

phrase in (10b, 11b, c), and not on the path-denoting phrases, i.e. SA-phrase, in a telic

predicate. Thus, in (11b), the moved-object takes the ANG marker since it is an

Undergoer. Being an Undergoer, the moved-object ang kart ‘the cart’ has a ‘change of

location’ result state entailment.

183

However, the difference between the motion predicate tulak ‘push’ and the locative

alternation predicates, as in lagay ‘put/load’, is that the former does not exhibit an LF

form, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the sentence in (12).

(12). *T-in-ulak-an ni Jose ng kart ang mall.

PFV-push-LF GEN PN GEN cart NOM mall

‘Jose pushed the cart to the mall’

intended meaning:’Jose pushed the cart down the mall.’

The above discussion demonstrates that motion predicates exhibiting the AF and PF/LF

alternation display the atelic-telic dichotomy, respectively. It further shows us the event

type that each focus form denotes. In Sections 6.4 and 6.5 below, we examine closely the

directed and manner of motion predicates and the SA-phrase. However, before we

proceed with these analyses, we first look at locative states and their semantic

representation to better understand the locative component be-LOC'.

6.3 Locative states

In Chapter 4, we saw that the SA-phrases denote state eventuality when they are expressed

as predicates of a non-verbal clause. When they function as predicates, the SA-phrase co-

occurs with the stative marker MA- (NA in perfective form50

). Under this construction,

the SA-phrase or locative PP serves as a state predication. The examples in (13) and (14)

show that the clauses are characterised as nonverbal because of the absence of a copula

verb, which is present in English, as shown in the translations (but see Richards 2009

arguing for maging as a copula marker).

(13) a. Ang palaka ay na-sa garapon. (FWAY:8)

NOM frog AY STAT-DAT jar


50

A question may be raised with regard to the imperfective form of MA-. At this stage, it is not yet clear to

me what will be the imperfective form of MA- in a state predication. I suppose that in a state eventuality,

the base without the MA- affix signifies its imperfective viewpoint. Consider the cognition predicate, such

as alam ‘know’ (IPFV) vs. nalaman ‘got to know’ (PFV). Of course, this is still open for debate. Thus, I

leave it for further research.

184

b. Na-sa garapon ang palaka.

STAT-DAT jar NOM frog


(14) a. Siya’y may alaga rin-g isa-ng aso.

3SG.NOM-AY have pet also-LNK one-LNK dog

Ito’y na-sa kuwarto niya.

this-AY STAT-DAT room 3SG.GEN

‘He also has a dog. It is in his room.’ (FWAY:45)

b. Na-sa kuwarto niya ito.

STAT-DAT room 3SG.GEN this

‘It’s in his room.’

The examples in (13) and (14) illustrate two ways in which locative PP can be expressed.

In (13a) and (14a), the predicative locative PP is in the AY inversion construction (see

Chapter 3 for a discussion of word order in Tagalog). However, the sentences in (13b)

and (14b) show the predicative locative PP in the initial position of the clause, which is

the typical predicate position. Irrespective of its word order, the clause signifies a locative

state event. Consequently, both contexts reveal similar logical structure, as in (15).

(15) be-LOC' (x, y)

Under this decomposition, the x= location and the y=theme (cf. Chapter 2, Table 2.4). In

RRG, all the predicative PP have the logical structure shown in (15) reflecting the

position of the participants in the thematic relation hierarchy. According to Van Valin

(2005:54), the order of arguments in this logical structure is true for all languages

regardless of their word order; consequently, their order of mapping onto syntax is

mediated by the semantic representation of the lexicon.

In representing the logical structure in (15), the components be-in', be-on', be-at', and

be-via' have been proposed as constants51

(e.g. Dowty 1979). Recall from Chapter 2 that

constants are semantic metalanguage. Thus, despite their very close resemblance to the

English locative prepositions in, on and at, these prepositions and the constants in the

semantic decomposition are not to be taken as having a one-to-one correspondence.

Following Dowty (1979) and Jolly (1993), we ignore the spatial orientations of the three

51

This term will be alternately referred to as ‘atomic predicates’ (cf. Van Valin 2005).

185

English prepositions and assume a basic entailment of the four, as indicated in (16). It has

to be emphasised also that the element be' specifies the locative state predication. In other

cases, it serves to indicate ‘attributive, identificational, and specificational predications’

(see Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.1 for the discussion of these three types).

(16) a. be-in' = containment Jolly (1993:289)

b. be-on' = adjacency above a horizontal surface

c. be-at' = adjacency

d. be-via' = specifies the conjunction of two state changes52

Under the representations in (16), the sentences in (13) and (14) are proposed to have the

following logical structure representations, as shown in (17).

(17) a. be-in' (garapon, palaka)

b. be-in' (kuwarto, ito)

As shown in the LS of the locative state clauses, there are two argument positions. In

(17a), x=garapon and y=palaka; while (17b), has x=kuwarto and y=ito. As mentioned

above, the 1st argument of a predicative preposition is the location (x variable) while the

2nd

argument is the theme (y variable).

In RRG analysis, the predicative PP, which is signified by the SA-phrase in

Tagalog, can also function as an adjunct PP or argument-adjunct PP. As an adjunct PP,

the predicative PP takes the ‘logical structure of the main verb as one of its argument’

(Van Valin 2005:49), as in (18). In contrast, the argument-adjunct PP takes the logical

structure, as indicated in (15) coupled with the BECOME operator, i.e. BECOME be-

LOC'. As an argument-adjunct PP, the predicative PP takes the location and the theme as

its arguments, as in (19). In (19), the argument-adjunct PP specifies the location of the x

argument.

(18) a.The soldiers marched in the plaza.

b. be-in' (plaza, [do' (soldiers, [march' (soldiers)])])

(19) a. The soldiers marched to the plaza.

b. do' (soldiers, [march' (soldiers)]) & BECOME be-at' (plaza, soldiers)

52

This constant specifies the path from NOT being at point A (the starting point) to being in point B (the

endpoint).

186

6.3.1 Existential and Possession

As shown in the examples in (13) and (14), the stative marker Ma- co-occurs with the SA-

phrase to express a stative locative event. However, we observe the marker Ma-

disappears when the SA-phrase occurs with predicates signifying the meaning of

‘existence’. Consider the sentences in (20) and (21). As shown in these sentences, the

morpheme may/mayroon ‘exist’ conveys the meaning of existence of an entity in a certain

location. Subsequently, this location is expressed without the stative marker MA-, as

exemplified by the locative PP sa likod ng kubo ‘at the back of the hut’ and sa harap nito

‘in front of it’, in (20), and sa batis ‘in the spring’, in (21).

(20) May ma-linaw na sapa sa likod ng kubo

exist STAT-clear LNK stream DAT back GEN hut

at may isa naman-g balon sa harap nito.

and exist one also-LNK well DAT front this

‘There is a clear stream at the back of the hut and there is also a well in

front of it.’

(Ang Tabong Bituin sa Langit, Book for Children 2002)

(21) May tubig sa batis!53

exist water DAT spring

‘There is water in the spring!’

(Ang Tabong Bituin sa Langit, Book for Children 2002)

The above existential clauses (in bold) will have the following LS representation in (22):

(22) exist ' (x)

This logical structure yields the following representations for the sentences in (20) and

(21), as illustrated in (23a) and (23b), respectively (ignoring the representation of the

nominal modifier).

(23) a. be-at' (likod ng kubo, [exist' (sapa)])

b. be-in' (batis, [exist' (tubig)])

53

Interested readers are referred to Freeze (1992) who provides a syntactic perspective using the

Government and Binding Theory on the analysis of existential, possession and locatives in which Tagalog

is one of the examples.

187

Under the decomposition in (23), the atomic predicate exist' has x=entity, as its

argument. That is, in (23a), x=sapa; whereas, in (23b), x=tubig. Note that in both (23a)

and (23b) logical structure representations, the SA-phrases take an adjunct PP status.

Hence, their LS be-LOC' (x, y) component is represented as such. In (23a), the predicate

be-at' takes as its arguments x=likod ng bahay (location) and the LS of the predicate

exist' (theme). On the other hand, in (23b), the predicate be-in' has x=batis and y= exist'

(tubig) as its arguments. It is interesting to note that the ‘theme/entity’ participants like

‘sapa’ stream, in (23a), and tubig ‘water’, in (23b), are not pre-marked with the ANG

marker despite their status as Undergoers of the clause. As I put forward in the previous

chapter, the existential construction is a strategy to make the Undergoers have an

indefinite reading (see Chapter 5 Section 5.7.1).

In the above discussion of the two examples of non-verbal stative clauses, the

occurrence and non-occurrence of the stative marker ma- has been mentioned. There

appears to be a close correlation between the marker ma- and the predicative PP. The LSs

of the locative stative clauses without the ‘existence’ interpretation, as in (17a) and (17b),

suggest the realisation of the ma- marker + the SA-phrase (i.e. be-loc' component) when

the SA-phrase is the predicate of the clause. In contrast, when the ‘existence’

interpretation is present in a non-verbal stative clause, the SA-phrase is without the MA-

stative, while the constant exist' is realised as the word may (and in some cases,

mayroon). I assume that the co-occurrence of ma- + the SA-phrase is triggered by the

placement of the SA-phrase in the predicate position. Arguably, as it moves away from

this position and becomes an adjunct PP, the ma- marker is dropped.

Other examples of the locative states in the predicate position, as in (24), and in

the non-predicate position, like (25), are the following:

(24) a. Na-sa Melbourne si Ruby.

STAT-DAT PN NOM PN

‘Ruby is/was in Melbourne.’

(25) a. May tama-ng balita sa GMA News TV.

exist correct-LNK news DAT GMA News TV

‘There is an accurate news report on GMA News TV.’

(Pilipino Star Ngayon, Peb. 24, 2011)

188

b. ?May tama-ng balita.

exist correct-LNK news

‘There is accurate news.’

In (25b), the existential construction is questionable without the SA-phrase. I have

indicated that this kind of existential construction is questionable because it seems to need

the SA-phrase. Recall the sentences in (20) and (21). It may be argued that the SA-phrases

in those sentences appear to be obligatory. However, one can also just simply have an

existential construction without the indication of the location of the entity. The examples

in (20), (21), and (25) suggest the need for the SA-phrases. I assume that the case is more

pragmatics rather than semantics, where the notion of old vs. new information plays a

role. I will leave this for further research.

Interestingly, the SA-phrase is clearly optional in non-verbal clauses that entail

‘possession’. Sentences that signify the ‘possession’ meaning also use the word may;

however, their predicate decomposition differs from those that have the atomic predicate

exist' as there is the addition of the atomic predicate have'. Consider the sentences below.

(26) a. Sinasabi na may hukuman

it.is said that exist.have court

si Maria sa bundok ng Arayat…

NOM PN DAT mountain GEN PN

‘It is said that Maria has a court in Mt. Arayat…’

(Ang Hukuman ni Sinukuan, Adarna House 2005)

The above sentence with the possession construction may hukuman si Maria ‘Maria has a

court’ is proposed to have the following representation in (27a); whereas, the same

possession construction with the SA -phrase is represented in (27b):

(27) a. exist' [have' (x, y)]

b. be-in' (bundok ng Arayat, [ exist' ([have', (Maria, hukuman)])])

The representation in (27) suggests that the atomic predicate have' embedded in exist'

provides the meaning of ‘possession’. The LS has the possessor=Maria and

possessed=hukuman as its arguments. The be-in' component, on the other hand, has the

PP=bundok ng Arayat as its argument and the LS of the predicate have'. As mentioned

189

above, the SA-phrase in this construction is optional. Thus, it serves as an adjunct

preposition. The sentence in (28) further illustrates the optionality of the SA-phrase in

possession construction.

(28) a. May dalawa-ng anak na babae si Tiya Justa.

exist.have two-LNK child LNK woman NOM aunt PN

‘Aunt Justa has two children.’

(Si Mariang Alimango 1992)

b. exist' [have', (Tiya Justa, dalawang anak na babae)]

The above discussions have shown the behaviour of the SA-phrase when it occurs in state

event types. We have identified three types of locative states, where the SA-phrase occurs,

namely: locative states, existential and possession. In the succeeding sections, we will

look at the occurrence of the SA-phrase in non-stative events, particularly its appearance

in directed and manner of motion predicates.

6.4 Directed Motion Predicates

Inherent in the meaning of directed motion predicates is the sense of ‘going to’ a certain

destination or ‘coming from’ a certain origin, even without the specification of an overt

prepositional phrase. In examining the (a)telicity of directed motion verbs, the overt

manifestation of prepositional phrases (PPs) appears to be significant, as they contribute

to the calculation of the internal composition of motion predicates. We have seen above

that, in English, the use and the type of PP determine telicity. But, as I have illustrated in

Section 6.2 above, Tagalog uses event structure which hinges on the telicity of the

predicate to provide the meaning of locative prepositions and directional prepositions.

In the succeeding sections, we look at how a goal and a source, both of which can

appear in AF, PF and LF forms of a directed motion predicate, are interpreted in the focus

forms that they appear in.

6.4.1 Goal marking

The motion events characterised by the predicate tulak ‘push’ consist of an agent

participant and a moved-object traversing along a path towards a certain destination. On

190

the other hand, a directed motion event is composed of an agent participant traversing

along a path towards a certain destination. This destination takes a ‘goal’ thematic role.

Compare the directed motion predicate pasok ‘enter’, in (29), with the ‘push’ predicate, in

(10), here repeated as (30) for ease of reference.

(29) a. P-um-asok ang bubuyog sa butas ng puno.

AF.PFV-enter NOM bee DAT hole GEN tree

‘The bee entered the hole in the tree.’

b. P-in-asok-Ø ng bubuyog ang butas ng puno.

enter-PFV-PF GEN bee NOM hole GEN tree

‘The bee went into the hole in the tree.’

c. P-in-asuk-an ng bubuyog ang butas ng puno.

enter-PFV-LF GEN bee NOM hole GEN tree

‘The bee went through the hole of the tree.

(30) a. Nag-tulak si Jose ng kart sa mall.

AF.PFV-push NOM PN GEN cart DAT mall

‘Jose pushed carts in the mall.’

b. I-t-in-ulak ni Jose ang kart sa mall.

PF-PFV-push GEN PN NOM cart DAT mall

‘Jose pushed the cart down to the mall.’

We can observe that the noun phrases butas (ng puno) ‘hole (in the tree)’, in (29), and the

NP ‘mall’, in (30), have the ‘goal’ thematic role. However, in (29), we see that it is

marked by ANG when expressed in the PF and LF forms. In (30), the goal is still marked

with SA. However as shown in Section 6.2.1, when it appears in the AF form, the SA-goal

takes a locative interpretation, while in the PF form, it receives a directional

interpretation. I have claimed that it is the atelicity of the AF and the telicity of the PF

motion predicate, the event structure they denote plus the (non)macrorole status of the

‘goal’ participant that determine its realisation in syntax and its interpretation. Hence, in

tulak ‘push’ predicate, the SA-goal (or SA-phrase) receives different interpretations. In

directed motion predicates, as in (29), the change in interpretation is clearly apparent as

they are realised either as SA-phrase or ANG-phrase. Let us explore this further by looking

at the sentences in (31).

191

(31) a. B-um-alik ang prinsipe sa palasyo.

AF.PFV-return NOM prince DAT palace

‘The prince returned to the palace.’

b. *I-b-in-alik ng prinsipe ang palasyo.

PF-PFV-return GEN prince NOM palace

‘The prince returned the palace.’

(intended meaning: The prince returned to the palace)

c. B-in-alik-an ng prinsipe ang palasyo.

return-PFV-LF GEN prince NOM palace

‘The prince returned to the palace.

In (31), the nominal argument palasyo ‘palace’ takes a goal participant role regardless of

the focus forms it occurs in. Similar to the goal participant in (29), the goal in (31) is

realised in the SA-phrase and the ANG-phrase. We can extend the same interpretations in

(29) to (31), except that the motion predicate balik ‘return’ cannot exhibit a PF form, as

in (31b), that would have the meaning of ‘x return to y’. In (31b), the clause provides the

meaning of ‘x return y’ and is ungrammatical.

I have claimed that the realisation on ANG or SA of the goal hinges on two

factors: (a)telicity of the predicate and its corresponding event type. The test presented in

Section 6.2 above demonstrates the atelicity of the AF form and the telicity of the PF/LF

form. Accordingly, the former denotes an activity event type, while the latter signifies an

active accomplishment. Based on the (a)telicity and the event type denotation of the

predicate, I further assume that a nominal argument taking a goal participant role is

assigned its macrorolehood, which determines whether it is marked by ANG or SA.

We further illustrate this point by looking at the proposed logical structures of the

directed motion predicates in their AF, PF and LF alternation in (32), (33), and (34),

respectively (cf. Jolly 1993, Van Valin 2005).

(32) AF: do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ be-towards' (y, x)

(33) PF: do' (x, [pred' (x)]) & BECOME be-LOC' (y, x)

(34) LF: do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ be-towards' (y, x)

& BECOME NOT be-LOC' (y, x)

192

In the above logical structures, (32) introduces a new constant for the LS be-LOC',

namely: ʌ be-towards'. This component signifies the locative interpretation of the SA-

phrase in an AF form of a directed motion predicate. Given that the AF form is atelic, the

be-towards' component further indicates that the endpoint of the movement is arbitrary.

Thus, whether the goal has been reached or not is undetermined. Like the other constants,

e.g. be-in', the be-towards' constant does not equally correspond to the English

preposition towards, but a semantic metalanguage that signifies the direction to or from.

Hence, be-towards' specifies locative-goal for directed motion predicates, where the y in

the LS represents the goal. We further notice the element ʌ (this means ‘and

simultaneously54

’) in the second part of the LS. This element suggests that we do not have

two subevents making up the activity event type of an AF directed motion predicate, but

the component ʌ be-towards' also indicates that the locative-goal realised in the SA-

phrase is not omissible.

Naturally, the LS of the PF alternate in (33) differs from the one of the AF form.

The addition of the operator BECOME in the configuration be-LOC' (y, x) indicates the

directional movement of the x argument and its change of location, i.e. BECOME be-

LOC' (y, x). With respect to the decomposition of the predicates in LF forms (34), we

notice the additional component ʌ be-towards' (y, x). This component indicates a

difference in interpretation between the PF and the LF forms of motion predicates. I will

argue that the difference lies in the delimitation of path or the marking of endpoint of the

path. In the PF forms, the path is delimited as well as the events. This emphasises the

endpoint of the path and the attainment of the goal, i.e. the goal has been reached. On the

other hand, the LF form delimits the event, but not the path. Thus, we can observe that

for both forms the goal participant remains an Undergoer marked by ANG. However,

since the path is not delimited in LF forms, there is a specification of the continuity of the

path that might be semantically represented as the ʌ be-towards' (y, x) configuration and

realised morphologically by the –AN affix. We can see that the ʌ be-towards' (y, x)

component is not part of the PF forms, as the path-denoting phrase is underspecified in

this form. We can further demonstrate the difference among the three focus forms by

looking at the following schema, where I stands for initial point and F for final point.

54

This symbol is considered in RRG (2005:59) as an implement which is not part of a causal chain.

193

(35) (a) AF forms: activity (b)PF forms: active accomplishment

(c) LF: active

accomplishment

The schema accounts for the intuition and basic notion of the (a)telicity and homogeneity

of the motion predicates that are expressed by the different focus forms. The schema in

(35a) demonstrates the internal temporal contour of the AF directed motion predicates

(this can also be applied to manner of motion) where initial point represented by ‘I’

indicates the starting point of the movement; but, the arrow line on top of the final point

‘F’ signifies the continuity or homogeneity of the clause. The diagram also shows that the

clause signifies no endpoint. In (35b), the schema illustrates the marking of endpoint of

the path and event. In (35c), we can observe the same delimitation of event as in PF, but

the non-delimitation of path is schematically represented with the broken arrow which is

represented as the component be-towards' (y, x).

Crucially, the logical structures in (32) and (33)/(34) show the difference between

the PPs in activity event types and those in active accomplishments. In (32), which is

posited to be an activity eventuality, the LS of the SA-phrase is similar to a predicative

preposition found in locative state eventuality in a sense that the PP expresses the location

of the event; hence, the locative interpretation. Given that both are atelic and

homogeneous, it seems safe to argue for the similar behaviour of the SA-phrase in the AF

clause and the locative states. But there is a difference. The SA-phrase in the AF directed

motion predicates serves as an argument-adjunct PP. As an argument-adjunct PP, it is

both semantically and syntactically necessary. Thus it becomes a subcategorised core

locative argument of the predicate. Based on the LS in (32), the sentence in (29) will have

the following representation in (36a):

. I F

. I F

. . I F

194

(36) a. [do' (bubuyog, [enter' (bubuyog)])

ʌ be-towards' (butas ng puno, bubuyog)

b. be-towards' (butas ng puno, [do' (bubuyog, [enter' (bubuyog)])])

If the PP is an adjunct preposition, it will take the (36b) representation where it is not a

subcategorised locative argument of the predicate. Despite the argument-adjunct status of

the SA-phrase in (36a), the whole LS representation shows that there is only one

macrorole for the AF form of the predicate pasok ‘enter’. Under the Actor-Undergoer

Hierarchy, only the x argument bubuyog ‘bee’ can be assigned the Actor MR while the y

argument butas ng puno ‘hole in the tree’ can only be assigned a non-macrorole status.

The y argument butas ng puno ‘hole in the tree’ can only be assigned an Undergoer MR if

the BECOME operator is part of the configuration, as in (33) or (34). The prepositional

phrase in (33), unlike the one in (32), expresses the location of the x argument and not the

event. In (33), the change of state entailment in this motion predicate is signified by the

change of location of the x argument. In the LS, the change of location is signalled by the

operator BECOME. The LS representation in (37) is proposed for the LF form of pasok

‘enter’ (example in (29c) above).

(37) do' (bubuyog, [enter' (bubuyog)]) ʌ be-towards' (butas ng puno, bubuyog)

& BECOME NOT be-at' (butas ng puno, bubuyog)

Notice that the 3rd

component of the decomposition ‘& BECOME NOT be-at'’ makes

the thematic role of the participant butas ng puno ‘hole in the tree’ assumes a ‘dual’

thematic role. On the one hand, it serves as a ‘goal’ since it is the destination of the mover

bubuyog ‘bee’, as signified in the LS by the be-towards' component. But, it also serves

as the ‘source’ to indicate that the ‘mover’ has reached the destination, but is no longer

present there and has moved on, as signified by the 3rd

part of the LS. This kind of

‘duality’ of thematic roles is one of the issues surrounding the use of thematic roles in

argument alignment. The advantage of using logical structures is to disambiguate these

dual roles by assigning their macroroles based on their position in the logical structure,

and not on their thematic roles. The logical structure, as noted in Chapter 2, is not

assigned randomly and neither is the event structure. In the LS in (37), it shows that,

195

regardless of the thematic role of the NP butas ng puno ‘hole in the tree’, the NP is

assigned an Undergoer MR and, thus, takes the ANG marker.

Notably, although the predicates pasok ‘enter’ and balik ‘return’ are both directed

motion predicates, the former has a PF construction, while the latter appears not to allow

this construction. Thus, the sentence in (29b) has the following decomposition in (38):

(38) do' (bubuyog, [enter' (bubuyog)])

& BECOME be-at' (butas ng puno, bubuyog)

In directed motion predicates, it appears that only pasok ‘enter’ exhibits a PF form, as

illustrated in (29) above. The discussion of source marking strategy in Section 6.4.2

below provides evidence that directed motion predicates do not normally exhibit PF

forms. If they do, they convey a special interpretation. Consider, for instance, the

appearance of the predicate pasok ‘enter’ in a PF clause in (29b). This clause conveys an

additional meaning of ‘purposiveness/deliberateness’. Thus, native speakers are likely to

say that the use of this construction presupposes the idea that the ‘mover’ has planned to

enter a certain location intentionally. I assume that since path is delimited, the action

becomes more goal oriented. It is for this reason that the PF form conveys a meaning of

being purposeful or deliberate. In some cases, the use of the PF form of pasok ‘enter’

provides a negative connotation of the action of entering, as the example in (39b)

illustrates:

(39) a. P-um-asok siya sa simbahan upang mag-dasal

AF.PFV-enter 3SG.NOM DAT church to AF-pray

‘S/he entered the church to pray.’

b. # P-in-asok-Ø niya ang simbahan upang mag-dasal

enter-PFV-PF 3SG.GEN NOM church to AF-pray

‘S/he broke into church to pray.’

(intended meaning: S/he entered the church to pray)

The sentences in (39) suggest, that, if there is a situation being described where the mover

participant went inside a church to pray, the sentence in (39a) is the construction most

likely to be chosen, as it naturally expresses the idea that it is natural to go to church to

196

pray. The sentence in (39b) is odd, since the act of breaking into a church and the purpose

of praying do not seem to coincide with each other, as the PF form of the predicate

‘pasok’ expresses a meaning of entering ‘with force’. Thus, it is commonly found being

used in describing a situation involving forceful entry, such as the examples below.

(40). Kailan lang ay muli-ng p-in-asok-Ø ng magnanakaw

when only AY again-LNK enter-PFV-PF GEN thief

ang bahay ng mga Magalona sa isa-ng subdivision

NOM house GEN PL PN DAT one-LNK subdivision

sa Marikina City.

DAT PN

‘Recently, a thief broke into the house of the Magalona in one of the

subdivisions in Marikina City.’

(www.pep.ph, 2 May 2009)

In order for the AF form of pasok ‘enter’ to have a deliberate/forceful interpretation, there

are other words like bigla ‘suddenly’ or pabalagbag ‘crosswise to block a way’ that have

to co-occur with it, as in (41; in bold).

(41). Na-<pag>-alam-an sa naging pagsisiyasat ni

AF.PFV-<DRV>-know-? DAT become.PFV survey GEN

PO2 Wilmer Privado na dakong ala-1:00 ng madaling-araw

police.officer PN LNK about -1 GEN dawn

kamakalawa nang bigla na lamang umanong

day.before.yesterday LNK suddenly LNK only allegedly

pabalagbag na p-um-asok sa bahay ang suspek

crosswise.to.block.a.way LNK AF.PFV-enter DAT house NOM suspect

at t-in-adyak-an ang lamesa…

and kick.backwards-PFV-LF NOM table

‘It was found out from the survey of PO2 Wilmer Privado that about

1am the day before yesterday the suspect entered (deliberately)

the house and kicked back the table …’

(‘Di invited sa party, nanaga’, Abante Online, March 10, 2011)

Hence, what we can observe in directed motion predicates is that the goal-marking

strategy is influenced by the (a)telicity of the predicate. Presumably, the typical directed

motion predicate alternation is AF and LF, but there are instances where the PF forms are

http://www.pep.ph/

197

used to indicate a delimited path and event. Consequently, the delimited path and event

make the endpoint of the path more salient. This saliency of marking the endpoint of the

path is realised in the goal taking an ANG marker. The PF forms of manner of motion

predicates, to be discussed in Section 7, provide clear evidence for this assumption.

Up to this point, I have shown the semantic differences between the AF, PF and

LF alternations of directed motion predicates. I have argued that these alternations are

strategies for goal marking in which telicity plays a crucial role. We have seen that goals,

which are arguments of the SA marker and which co-occur with the atelic AF predicates,

are non-macrorole. Thus, they take a locative interpretation. In contrast, the goal takes a

directional interpretation when it is the argument of the ANG marker and it co-occurs

with the telic PF or LF predicates.

6.4.2 Source Marking

The sentences in (42)-(43) show directed motion predicates where SA marks the ‘source’

of the motion. This type of directed motion predicate appears to have restrictions in

exhibiting the PF forms, while in the LF forms they may either be in an embedded

clause55

, as in (43c), or in a simple basic clause, as in (44c).

(42) a. Um-alis si Rizal sa Pilipinas.

AF.PFV-leave NOM PN DAT PN

‘Rizal left the Philippines.’

b. *I-n(i)-alis ni Rizal ang Pilipinas.

PF-PFV-leave GEN PN NOM PN

‘Rizal put away the Philippines.’

(intended meaning: ‘Rizal left the Philippines.’)

c. #In-alis-an ni Rizal ang Pilipinas.

PFV-leave-LF GEN PN NOM PN

‘Rizal left the Philippines.’

(43) a. L-um-abas ang kuwago sa butas ng puno.

AF.PFV-exit NOM owl DAT hole GEN tree

‘The owl exited from the hole in the tree.’

55

In a natural discourse, the LF forms of directed or manner of motion predicate are normally in an

embedded construction. This is shown particularly in our discussion of manner of motion in Section 6.5.

198

b. *I-ni-labas ng kuwago ang butas ng puno.

PF-PFV-exit GEN owl NOM hole GEN tree

‘The owl put out the hole in the tree.’

(intended meaning: ‘The owl exited from the hole in the tree.’)

c. Iyan ang butas ng puno na

that NOM hole GEN tree LNK

ni-labas-an ng kuwago

PFV-exit-LF GEN owl

‘That is the hole in the tree where the owl exited from.’

(44) a. T-um-akas si Royette sa rehab

AF.PFV-escape NOM PN DAT rehabilitation

na p-<in>-ag-dalh-an sa kanya.

LNK DRV-<PFV>-carry-LF DAT 3SG.DAT

‘Royette escaped from the rehab where he was taken.’

(gmanewstv/story/70341)

b. *I-t-in-akas ni Royette ang rehab

PF-PFV-escape GEN PN NOM rehabilitation



‘Royette took away the rehabilitation where he was taken.’

(intended meaning: Royette escaped from the rehab where he was taken.)

c. T-in-akas-an ni Royette ang rehab

PFV-escape-LF GEN PN NOM rehabilitation



‘Royette escaped from the rehab where he was taken.’

For the directed motion predicates above, there is a common interpretation for the PF

forms. They are ungrammatical under the sense of directed motion, since what appears to

be happening is a shift in meaning to locative alternation class. That is, the ‘source’ takes

a ‘theme’ thematic relation; consequently, instead of being the ‘origin’ of the movement,

it has become a moved-object. Thus, when it takes a ‘theme’ relation, the nominal

participant Pilipinas ‘Philippines’, in (42b), is perceived to be put away from its location

199

to be taken somewhere else. On the other hand, the NP ang butas ng puno ‘the hole in the

tree’, in (43b), is seen as being pulled out and taken out from the tree. In (44b), the NP

ang rehab ‘the rehabilitation (centre)’ is conceived of as being taken away.

Turning our attention to the AF and LF alternation of the predicates alis ‘leave’,

labas ‘exit’,and takas ‘escape’, we argue that the SA-phrase in the AF forms also have

the locative interpretation, as the predicate is atelic; whereas, those in the LF alternates

have the directional interpretation, since the predicate is telic. These are the same

arguments put forward for the goal-marking strategy. However, the LS representations of

the predicates in the source-marking strategy differ from those of the goal-marking

strategy, with the former containing an atomic predicate NOT, as (45) illustrates (cf. LS

for goal marking strategy in (32) and (34)).

(45) a. AF: do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ NOT be-towards' (y, x)

b. LF: do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ be-towards' (y, x)

& BECOME NOT be-LOC' (y, x)

Thus, the sentences in (42), (43) and (44) can be represented, as in (46), (47), and (48).

(46) a. do' (Rizal, [leave' (Rizal)]) ʌ NOT be-towards' (Pilipinas, Rizal)

b. do' (Rizal, [leave' (Rizal)]) ʌ be-towards' (Pilipinas, Rizal)

& BECOME NOT be-in' (Pilipinas, Rizal)

(47) a. do' (kuwago, [exit' (kuwago)])

ʌ NOT be-towards' (butas ng puno, kuwago)

b. do' (kuwago, [exit' (kuwago)]) ʌ be-towards' (butas ng puno, kuwago)

& BECOME NOT be-in' (butas ng puno, kuwago)

(48) a. do' (Royette, [escape' (Rizal)]) ʌ NOT be-towards' (rehab, Royette)

b. do' (Royette, [escape' (Royette)]) ʌ be-towards' (rehab, Royette)

& BECOME NOT be-in' (rehab, Royette)

The directed motion predicate is a bit tricky in terms of determining telicity, since

inherent in its meaning is the sense of continuity, as the ‘source’ points out the origin of

the motion. In this case, the atelicity of the AF form is already confirmed without any

tests to be taken to check homogeneity or endpoint. Perhaps, the inherent atelicity of this

type of motion predicate is the reason for the unavailability of its expression in the PF

200

form, which is a telic predicate. To do so result in the change in meaning of the directed

motion predicate and, in turn, the verb class it belongs to. However, we can observe the

directed motion predicate with ‘source’ participant to exhibit an LF form. The task now is

to determine the telic composition of an LF form. We can use the cancellation tests to

examine its telicity using the verb labas ‘exit’ in (49) and takas ‘escape’ in (50).

(49) Iyan ang butas ng puno na

that NOM hole GEN tree LNK

ni-labas-an ng kuwago

PFV-exit-LF GEN owl

*pero hindi ito tuluyan-g na-ka-labas.

but NEG this complete-LNK PFV-AF-exit

‘That is the hole in the tree where the owl exited from

but it wasn’t able to completely leave.’

(50) T-in-akas-an ni Royette ang rehab

PFV-escape-LF GEN PN NOM rehabilitation



*pero hindi ito tuluyan-g na-ka-takas

but NEG this complete-LNK PFV-AF-escape

‘Royette escaped the rehab where he was taken, but he wasn’t able to

completely escape.’

The cancellation tests for the predicates labas ‘exit’, in (49), and takas ‘escape’, in (50),

negate the entailment of successfully leaving the hole in the tree (49) and escaping the

rehabilitation centre (50). Arguably, the test confirms the telicity of the LF form.

The analyses of directed motion predicates demonstrate that thematic relations

like ‘goal’ and ‘source’ can occur in different focus forms, like AF and LF. In situations

where there is a special reading, such as ‘intentionality/deliberateness/purposiveness’, the

PF forms are used. However, we have observed that these thematic relations assume

different interpretations when they occur in a particular focus form. We have seen that

these interpretations are governed by the (a)telicity of the predicate and the event type it

denotes. In addition, we have observed that, based on this event type, the position of

‘goal’ or ‘source’ in the logical structure determines their macrorolehood, which, in turn,

determines whether they are linked to the SA-phrase or the ANG-phrase.

201

6.5 Manner of Motion

As defined in Section 6.1, the manner of motion predicate describes the manner or means

of movement of the agent participant. In this type of motion predicate, the SA-phrase is

optional. We have seen in example (1), repeated here as (51), that the type of preposition

used in English influences the telicity or atelicity of the predicates.

(51) a. Steph ran (for/*in an hour).

b. Steph ran in the park (for/*in an hour).

c. Steph ran to the park (*for/in an hour).

The sentences in (51a) and (51b) are both atelic and denote activity event type. On the

other hand, the sentence in (51c) is telic and denotes active accomplishment. The

semantic representations in (52) show the internal decomposition of the meaning of the

verb ‘run’ according to its event structure: (52a) represents activity eventualities with an

unspecified path, while (52b) is also an activity that has a specified path, i.e. in the park,

considered to be an adjunct preposition. In contrast, the LS representation in (52c)

represents the active accomplishment event type in which the specified path-denoting PP

is considered an argument-adjunct PP.

(52) a. do' (Steph, [run' (Steph)])

b. be-in' (park, [do' (Steph, [run' (Steph)])])

c. do' (Steph, [run' (Steph)]) & BECOME be-at' (park, Steph)

Unlike the directed motion predicate, the manner of motion in Tagalog is closely similar

to English in terms of the behaviour of the PP, not in the way that it determines the

(a)telicity of the predicate, but with respect to its optionality, particularly in the

denotation of activity event types.

Essentially, the manner of motion in Tagalog when denoting activity eventualities

can have the (52a) or (52b) representation, while the active accomplishments have the

(52c) representation. However, the difference between English and Tagalog is that the

latter also has the LF forms to express an active accomplishment event type. Consider the

following sentences in (53).

202

(53) a. T-um-akbo si Noy sa liwasan.

AF.PFV- run NOM PN DAT park

‘Noy ran in the park.’

b. T-in-akbo-Ø ni Noy ang liwasan.

run-PFV-PF GEN PN NOM park

‘Noy ran to the park.’

c. T-in-akbuh-an ni Noy ang liwasan

run-PFV-LF GEN PN NOM park

(pa-punta sa baryo)

(going to the barrio)

‘Noy ran through the park (on his way to the barrio).

In AF forms, such as (53a), the event of running is conceived of as continuous and the SA-

phrase serves as the location rather than the endpoint of running. We can confirm this

assertion using the ‘continuity test’, as in (54a), while (54b) represents the LS of the

clause.


AF.PFV- run NOM PN DAT park

at patuloy pa rin siya-ng <t-um-a>-takbo.

and continue still 3SG.NOM-LNK <UM-RDP>IPFV.AF-run

‘Noy ran in the park and (he) is still running.’

b. be-in' (park, [do' (Noy, [run' (Noy)])])

On the other hand, the test in (55a) suggests the telicity and non-homogeneity of the PF

forms. The decomposition in (55b) represents the internal meaning of the predicate that is

indicative of the event structure it denotes.

(55) a. T-in-akbo-Ø ni Noy ang liwasan.


*at patuloy pa rin siya-ng t-<um>-a-takbo.


‘Noy ran to the park and he was still running there.

b. [do' (Noy, [run' (Noy)]) & BECOME be-at' (park, Noy)

203

(55a) shows that the incompatibility of the PF form with the continuity phrase confirms

the telicity of the PF predicate. Note that takbo ‘run’ is inherently atelic; thus, there is no

inherent endpoint entailed in such a predicate. Its appearance in the AF form does not

negate its atelicity, but further confirms its homogeneity. When it exhibits the PF form,

the speaker is putting an endpoint to the event of running and the ungrammaticality of the

continuity phrase confirms the endpoint. Likewise, the LF forms are non-homogeneous

and telic. It gets the same result as the PF forms with respect to the ‘continuity test’, as

shown in (56a). The representation in (56b) also illustrates the delimitation of event

through the marking of endpoint signified by the third part of the LS; whereas, the second

part demonstrates the non-delimitation of the path (see LS in (34)).

(56) a. T-in-akbuh-an ni Noy ang liwasan

run-PFV-LF GEN PN NOM park

(pa-punta sa baryo)

(going to the barrio)

*at patuloy pa rin siya-ng t-<um>-a-takbo.


‘Noy ran through the park (going to the barrio)

and he was still running there.’

b. do' (Noy [run' (Noy)]) ʌ be-towards' (liwasan, Noy) &

BECOME NOT be-at' (liwasan, Noy)

Arguably, the LF forms of manner of motion are unnatural in the sense that the LF forms

are rarely found in a basic construction, as exemplified by the sentence in (56a). In

natural discourse, they are mostly found in embedded clauses as in the following:

(57) Malalim ang dagat na ni-languy-an ko.

deep NOM sea LNK PFV-swim-LF 1SG.GEN

‘The sea where I swam is deep.’

(www.cegetigan.multiply.com/journal)

http://www.cegetigan.multiply.com/journal

204

(58) Na-gulat na lang ako nang

AF.PFV-surprsie LNK only 1SG.NOM LNK

fully furnished na apartment

fully furnished LNK apartment

ang amin-g in-akyat-an.

NOM 1PL.EXCL-LNK PFV-climb-LF

‘I got surprised when we went up to a fully furnished apartment.’

(www.bioutloud.blogspot.com/2008/06/mga-lihim-ng-disyerto-ang-mga-

real.html)

Despite the syntactic environment that the LF predicates such as those above occur in,

their internal temporal contour, I argue, remains telic and non-homogeneous.

The manner of motion verbs, such as langoy ‘swim’ in (59), lakad ‘walk’ in (60),

akyat ‘climb’ in (61), and martsa ‘march’ in (62), exhibit the AF and PF/LF alternation

and are argued to denote the activity and active accomplishment alternation similar to the

verb takbo ‘run’ in (53).

Although the events being construed in (59)-(62) are different events, the fact that

these sentences denote the same event structures indicate underlying similarities in their

interpretation. That is, as activity predicates, the sentence in (59a) conveys a situation

where someone swam and this event took place in Ilog Pasig. In the same vein, the

sentence in (60a) signifies a walking event in the garden, the sentence in (61a) tells an

event of climbing a tree, and the sentence in (62a) states a marching event in Luneta. The

sentences in (59b-62b) describe the same event as those in the AF forms, in the sense of

having the same number of participants and the situation or state of affairs denoted by the

predicate; yet, they are construal of events that have reached an endpoint or terminal

point. The sentences in (59c-62c) are similar with the sentences in (59b-62b) in terms of

having a terminal point; however, the sentences suggest that the action has gone beyond

the destination/goal. Let us now consider each of the sentences below in order to

explicate what has been stated.

(59) a. L-um-angoy siya sa Ilog Pasig.

AF.PFV-swim 3SG.NOM DAT river PN

‘S/he swam in the Pasig River.’

http://www.bioutloud.blogspot.com/2008/06/mga-lihim-ng-disyerto-ang-mga-

http://www.bioutloud.blogspot.com/2008/06/mga-lihim-ng-disyerto-ang-mga-

205

b. Ni-langoy-Ø niya ang Ilog Pasig.

PFV-swim-PF 3SG.GEN NOM river PN

S/he swam the Pasig River.’

c. Ni-langoy-an niya ang Ilog Pasig

PFV-swim-LF 3SG.GEN NOM river PN

(papunta sa kabila-ng dako ng lungsod)

(going to the other side of the city)

‘S/he swam across the Pasig River (to go to the other side of the city).’

If (59a) tells of an event that the swimming event takes place in Ilog Pasig ‘River Pasig’

and that the swimming event seems to be on-going, the sentence in (59b) suggests that the

swimming event began and culminated at Ilog Pasig ‘River Pasig’. The sentence in (59c)

shows another version of the swimming event by asserting that the x argument has

traversed the whole stretch of Ilog Pasig ‘River Pasig’ to go to another destination. The

sentences in (60a), (60b) and (60c) yield the same interpretation as (59a), (59b) and (59c),

respectively.

(60) a. Nag-lakad si Sherry sa hardin.

AF.PFV-walk NOM PN DAT garden

‘Sherry walked in the garden.’

b. Ni-lakad-Ø ni Sherry ang hardin.

PFV-walk-PF GEN PN NOM garden

‘Sherry walked the garden.’

c. Ni-lakad-an ni Sherry ang hardin

PFV-walk-LF GEN PN NOM garden

(papunta sa palasyo).

(going to the palace)

‘Sherry walked across the garden (to go to the palace).’

The sentences in (61a) and (61b) describe an event of climbing a boulder, but expressed

in the AF (61a) and PF (61b) forms. In this scene (from the FWAY picture-book), the

little boy was being pursued by the owl. In order to avoid the owl, the little boy went to a

boulder and climbed up the boulder. The scene of climbing the boulder was presented on

two consecutive (facing) pages. On the first page, the boy was just beginning to climb the

206

boulder; whereas, on the second page, the boy was already on top of the boulder. It may

be argued that the AF sentence in (61a) is describing the second page. If that is the case,

what makes the AF sentence in (61a) different from the PF sentence in (61b)?

In the discussion above of motion predicates, I have shown that the AF motion

predicates, like the AF creation or performance predicates, have endpoints that are

defeasible. The endpoint or culmination point is a result of implicature rather than

entailment. Thus, when native speakers are using the AF motion predicates they are

merely implying the achieved result, which can also be cancelled, as shown in (61a'). It is

also possible to conceptualise this AF predicate in the process of climbing the boulder.

The sentence in (61b'), although it appears to be feasible for some native speakers, is not

compatible with cancelling the entailment of achieved result state, i.e. being on top of the

boulder. The sentence in (61c) definitely entails the achieved result state of having been

on top of the boulder, but presupposes also the idea that the agent is no longer on top of

the boulder.

(61) a. T-um-akbo siya at um-akyat (FWAY: 14)

AF.PFV-run 3SG.NOM and AF.PFV-climb

sa isa-ng bato.

DAT one-LNK stone

‘He ran and climbed the boulder.’

a' Um-akyat siya sa isa-ng

AF.PFV-climb 3SG.NOM DAT ONE-LNK

malaki-ng bato pero hindi niya

big-LNK stone but NEG 3SG.GEN

na-abot ang tuktok.

PF.PFV-reach NOM peak

‘He climbed the boulder but wasn’t able to reach the top.’

b. In-akyat- Ø niya yung malaki-ng bato-ng yun

PFV-climb-PF 3SG.GEN NOM big-LNK stone-LNK that

‘He climbed that boulder.’

(literally: he climbed the big stone (which is) that) (FWAY:18)

207

b' ? In-akyat-Ø niya yung malaki-ng bato-ng yun

PFV-climb-PF 3SG.GEN NOM big-LNK stone-LNK that

pero hindi niya na-abot ang tuktok.

but NEG 3SG.GEN PF.PFV-reach NOM peak

c. In-akyat-an niya yung malaki-ng bato.

PFV-climb-LF 3SG.GEN NOM big-LNK stone

‘He climbed over the boulder.’

The sentences in (62), like all the other sentences given above, provide the same reading

for the activity event type in (62a), and the active accomplishments, in (62b) and (62c).

(62) a. Nag-martsa ang mga sundalo sa Luneta.

AF.PFV-march NOM PL soldier DAT PN

‘The soldiers marched in Luneta

b. M-in-artsa- Ø ng mga sundalo ang Luneta.

march-PFV-PF GEN PL soldier NOM PN

‘The soldiers marched to Luneta.’

c. M-in-artsah-an ng mga sundalo ang Luneta.

march-PFV-LF GEN PL soldier NOM PN

‘The soldiers marched through Luneta.’

The discussions of the above predicates have demonstrated that the AF directed motion

and manner of motion predicates are atelic and homogeneous and, accordingly, denote

activity event type. On the other hand, the PF/LF alternations of the AF predicate are telic

and signify active accomplishment.

In the next section, a brief examination of the predicates that belong to the

locative alternation class is provided. The aim of this section is to see how locative

predicates differ from motion predicates like tulak ‘push’ and takbo ‘run’.

6.6 Locative Alternations

Locative alternation refers to the alternation that a class of verbs enters into wherein

‘locatum’ or a ‘location’ can be realised in the object position. The English locative

alternations have been widely studied for indicating two types of variants, namely:

208

locatum-as object variants, as in (63a) and (64a), and location-as-object variants56

, as in

(63b) and (64b), respectively (Fillmore 1968, Anderson 1971, Rappaport and Levin 1988,

Pinker 1989, Jackendoff 1990, Croft 1991, Goldberg 2002, Iwata 2008):

(63) a. Margaret sprayed paint on the wall.

b. Margaret sprayed the wall with paint.

(64) a. Don loaded boxes onto the truck.

b. Don loaded the truck with boxes.

The general observation with this type of alternation hinges on the notion of ‘change of

location vs change of state’ features. The two notions are based on a much broader

semantic feature known as ‘affectedness’. Consider the sentences in (63b) and (64b). It is

argued that when location is expressed as an object, it takes a ‘holistic’ or ‘totally

affected’ interpretation (e.g. Anderson 1971). Being totally affected entails a change in

the state of the location and; consequently, licenses it to be expressed in the object

position, i.e. location-as-object variant. The holistic/totally affected reading is cancelled

when the location appears as the object of the preposition, such as (63a) and (64a). In this

surface realisation, the location takes a partitive or partially affected interpretation.

The following English verbs are posited to figure in the above type of alternation

conditioned by the following basic senses: (a) content-oriented, (b) container-oriented

(Pinker 1989:126-127):

(65) content-oriented classes

a. Smear-class: simultaneous forceful contact and motion of mass against a

surface, e.g. brush, dab, drape, dust, hang, plaster, settle, slather, smear, smudge,

spread, swab, streak

b. Pile-class: vertical alignment on a horizontal surface, e.g. heap, pile, stack

c. Spray-class: force is imparted to a mass, causing ballistic motion in a specified

spatial distribution along a trajectory, e.g. drizzle, inject, shower, spatter, splash,

splatter, spray, sprinkle, squirt

d. Scatter-class: mass is caused to move in a widespread or non-directed

distribution, e.g. plant, scatter, seed, sew, sow, strew

56

These terms are borrowed from Iwata 2008.

209

(66) container-oriented classes

a. Cram-class: a mass is forced into a container against the limit of the capacity,

e.g. cram, crowd, jam, stuff, wad

b. load-class: a mass of a size, shape or type defined by the intended use of a

container is put into the container, enabling it to accomplish its function, e.g.

load, pack, stock.

In the following section, I will demonstrate the interaction of telicity and affectedness in

Tagalog verbs’ locative alternation. It will become evident that the locative alternation

verbs are similar to directed and manner of motion predicates in terms of the influence of

(a)telicity on the behaviour of the participants. However, unlike directed and motion

predicates, the notion of affectedness partners with telicity in bringing out the result state

entailment of the Undergoer.

6.6.1 Tagalog locative alternations

As I have noted in the discussion on directed and manner of motion predicates, the verbs

that fall into the locative alternation class have the same focus form alternations as the

motion predicates. That is, locative alternation verbs can also exhibit the actor focus (AF),

patient focus (PF) and locative focus (LF) forms. Consider the following example from

the verb buhos ‘pour’ in (67).

(67) a. Nag-buhos ang magsasaka ng tubig sa balde.

AF.PFV-pour NOM farmer GEN water DAT bucket

‘The farmer poured water in the bucket.’

b. I-b-in-uhos ng magsasaka ang tubig sa balde.

PF-PFV- pour GEN farmer NOM water DAT bucket

‘The farmer poured the water in the bucket.’

c. B-in-uhus-an ng magsasaka ng tubig ang balde.

PFV-pour-LF GEN farmer GEN water NOM bucket

‘The farmer filled the bucket with water.’

In a simple verbal clause, the Tagalog verbs that display locative alternation differ from

motion predicates concerning the number of participants involved. In the sentences in

210

(67), we notice three participants: ANG-phrase, NG-phrase and SA-phrase. In a motion

predicate, there are only two participants: ANG-phrase and SA-phrase. Despite the

difference in the number of participants involved, the locative alternation predicates and

the motion predicates (with few exceptions) can exhibit the AF, PF and LF alternation. It

will be shown that the AF, PF and LF of the locative alternation class also denote activity

and active accomplishments. However, the denotation of event structure of these locative

alternation verbs hinges on the subtypes, i.e. basic sense, of the verbs. It is through these

subtypes that telicity appears to be sensitive to.

6.6.1.1 Telicity and Affectedness: change of state and change of location

Affectedness has been used to mean a property of an argument which ‘undergoes a

change of state during the course of the event’ (Tenny 1987:66). The notion of

affectedness as a semantic determinant for telicity has been implicated in various studies

of event structure (e.g. Anderson 1977; Hale and Keyser 1987; Tenny 1987, 1994; but see

works of Levin and Rappaport for a different view). In addition, affectedness is invoked

to explain the properties of the object and its syntactic behaviour. For instance, Anderson

(1977) observes that the object/location alternation in English is motivated by the notion

of the affectedness of the object, as shown in (68).

(68) a. The farmer plowed the field. (Anderson 1977:369)

b. The farmer plowed in the field.

The idea is that, in (68a), the field is completely ploughed, while in (68b) this need not be

the case. Being completely ploughed entails a total change in the state of the object. Thus,

an argument which is totally affected is expressed as an object argument; whereas, those

that are partially affected are expressed as either oblique or dative arguments.

Let us examine the following Tagalog verbs: karga/lagay ‘load/put’, pahid

‘smear’ and buhos ‘pour’.

211

(69) a. Nag-karga ang lalaki ng kahon sa trak.

AF.PFV-load NOM man GEN box DAT truck

pero hindi pa rin ito puno

but NEG still this full.

‘The man loaded boxes in the truck, but it’s still not full.’

b. I-k-in-arga ng lalaki ang kahon sa trak.

PF-PFV-load GEN man NOM box DAT truck

‘The man loaded the box in the truck.’

c. K-in-argah-an ng lalaki ng kahon ang trak.

PFV-load-LF GEN man GEN box NOM truck

? pero hindi pa rin ito puno

but NEG still this full.

‘The man loaded the truck with boxes, but it’s still not full.

The Tagalog locative alternation strategy is different from English, as it involves three

variants. The sentence in (69a) corresponds to the locatum-object variant (e.g. Don loaded

boxes onto the truck), while (69c) signifies the location-object-variant (e.g. Don loaded

the truck with boxes. The sentence in (69b) is interesting, since its alternation involves the

agent and the patient, and not the location. Nevertheless, the AF form of karga ‘load’ is

argued atelic, while the PF and LF forms are telic, as shown by the cancellation test for

(69a) and (69c). The PF alternate in (69b) is interesting, since it is not relevant to subject

it to the cancellation test, as there is only one entity being moved to the location.

Definitely, the truck will not be filled. But this does not mean that it is not telic. The

semantic definition of telicity is important to determine the telicity of this form. In

Krifka’s term, we get a quantised reading of the box loading event, such that if x loaded y

at t1 and then x loaded y at t2, these events of box loading are two distinct events.

There appears to be a relation and independence between telicity and affectedness

in the sentences above, particularly in (69b) and (69c). Because of the telicity of both

sentences, it gives the Undergoer a result state entailment. In the case of the box, i.e. ang

kahon ‘the box’ in (69b), the change of location is the result state. The notion of

affectedness does not seem to have any implications for the PF construction. In contrast,

the LF construction has the location, i.e. ang trak, as the Undergoer. This is a result of the

predicate being telic. Essentially, the Undergoer ang trak ‘the truck’ also provides the

212

total affectedness reading, as it is construed as being filled with boxes. The sentence in

(69a) is neither telic nor entails affectedness of the patient and the location.

The same interpretation for the sentences in (69) can be extended to the sentences

in (67) and (70). In the sentence below, the effect of the telic predicate is observed in the

‘totality’ reading of the Undergoer. Recall that in Chapter 5, we saw the influence of the

telic predicate on the reading of the ANG-phrase. It provides a totality interpretation of the

ANG-phrase. It appears that the predicate pahid ‘smear’ seems to behave in the same way.

Consider the sentences in (70).

(70) a. Nag-pahid siya ng margarine sa kawali.

AF.PFV-smear 3SG.NOM GEN margarine DAT frying.pan

‘S/he smeared margarine on the frying pan.’

b. I-p-in-ahid niya ang margarine sa kawali.

PF-PFV-smear 3SG.GEN NOM margarine DAT frying.pan

‘S/he smeared the margarine on the frying pan.’

c. P-in-ahid-an niya ng margarine ang kawali.

PFV-smear-LF 3SG.GEN GEN margarine NOM frying.pan

‘S/he smeared the frying pan with margarine.’

In (70a), the frying pan may or may not be totally smeared with margarine. The same

reading is inferred from the sentence in (70b), but the effect of the totality reading is on

the Undergoer. It can be deduced that the whole portion of the margarine was spread on

the frying pan. But the effect on the frying pan, on whether it is totally smeared with

margarine is clearly entailed in (70c); hence, its assignment as an Undergoer and its

realisation in the ANG-phrase.

The logical representations of the AF, PF and LF alternations of predicates

involved in the locative alternation are proposed in (71). Note that the atomic predicate

be-MOVE' (z, y), where z=location and y=moved object, differentiates verbs of this class

from directed and manner of motion predicates.

(71) a. AF: do' (x, [predicate' (x,)]) ʌ be-MOVE' (y, z)

b. PF: do' (x, [predicate' (x)]) & BECOME be-LOC' (y, z)

c. LF: do' (x, [predicate' (x)]) ʌ be-MOVE' (y, z)

& BECOME be-LOC' (y, z)

213

6.6.1.2 Clean Verbs: Wipe ‘punas’, Sweep ‘walis’ and Wash ‘hugas’

In this class of verb, we can observe the same alternations, as those presented above,

except that there is no PF form. It will be shown that the AF and LF alternates of clean

verbs show a locative-object variant in which the notion of ‘change of state/result state’ is

apparent in the LF alternate.

(72) a. Nag-punas si Olivia ng mesa.

AF.PFV-wipe NOM PN GEN table

‘Olivia wiped the table.’

a’. Nag-punas si Olivia ng dumi sa mesa.

AF.PFV-wipe NOM PN GEN dirt DAT table

‘Olivia wiped off the dirt on the table.’

b. *I-p-in-unas ni Olivia ang mesa.

PF-PFV-wipe GEN PN NOM table

intended meaning: ‘Olivia wiped the table.’

c. P-in-unas-an ni Olivia ang mesa.

PFV-wipe-LF GEN PN NOM table

‘Olivia wiped the table off.’

The sentence in (72a’) shows that the locative argument sa mesa ‘on the table’ can be

expressed as the object argument of the verb, as shown in (72a). The same process holds

for the sentences in (73a) and (74a).

(73) a. Nag-walis si Ed ng sahig.

AF.PFV-sweep NOM PN GEN floor

‘Ed swept the floor.’

b. W-in-alis-an ni Ed ang sahig.

PFV-wipe-LF GEN PN NOM table

‘Ed swept up the floor.’

(74) a. Nag-hugas si Aget ng plato

AF.PFV-wash NOM PN GEN plate

pero hindi niya natapos.


‘Aget washed some plate/plates but she didn’t finish washing them.’

214

b. H-in-ugas-an ni Aget ang plato.

PFV-wash-LF GEN PN NOM plate

‘Aget washed the plate/plates.’

c. H-in-ugasa-an ni Aget ang plato

PFV-wash-LF GEN PN NOM plate

* pero hindi niya natapos.


‘Aget washed the plate, but she didn’t finish washing it.’

We can observe from the AF and LF alternation of clean verbs that they manifest the

same atelic-telic shifting; consequently, the same activity-active accomplishment

alternation, as verbs of consumption, performance, creation, etc. The acceptability of the

cancellation test in (74a) shows the atelicity nature of the predicate; whereas, the non-

compatibility of the same test in (74c) attests to the telicity of the predicate. The ‘clean

verbs’; however, need further investigation particularly in the logical representations as

they seem to differ with the verbs that are part of the locative alternation. Their AF and

LF alternation seems to behave the same way as the AF and PF alternate of the verbs that

form the classes of consumption, performance and creation predicates.

6.7 Conclusion

I have argued in this chapter that (a)telicity in directed motion and manner of motion

predicates is not influenced by the prepositional phrases that they have. I have shown that

it is the (a)telicity of the motion predicates that triggers the interpretation of the SA-phrase

and the ANG-phrase. If assigned a non-macrorole argument, the participant, i.e. source or

goal, is linked to the SA-phrase and receives a locative interpretation. This is typically

expressed by the actor focus (AF) form of directed and manner of motion predicates,

which is posited to denote an activity eventuality. In contrast, if the participant is assigned

an Undergoer macrorole, it is linked to the ANG-phrase and signifies a directional

interpretation. The PF and the LF forms, which are the alternants of the AF forms, are the

bearer of the Undergoer, i.e. ANG-phrase. The PF and LF forms are argued to have an

active accomplishment denotation. Despite having similar event type, the PF and LF

215

forms differ in the way path is encoded and the difference is clearly shown in the logical

structure of the focus form.

In this chapter, I have also shown the predicates that figure in the locative

alternation. We have seen that, although both motion predicates and locative alternation

predicates provide a sense of movement, and both can have base predicates that can

express the AF, PF and LF forms, they differ in the number of participants involved and

the manner in which telicity plays a role. Essentially, within the locative alternation class,

variations occur in terms of the way telicity influences the expression of focus forms. The

variations appear to be governed by the subtype that a Tagalog locative alternation

predicate belongs to; that is, whether the predicate belongs to a class that has the basic

sense of content-oriented class or container-oriented class.

From Chapter 4 until this Chapter, we have classified the event structure that the

AF, PF and LF forms of Tagalog predicates denote. Although there are variations in the

logical structure representation of the predicates, as expected since they belong to

different verb classes, we have observed that they denote similar event structure, which

captures the general semantic interpretations of the clause.

In the next chapter, we explore how these event structures that we have identified

interact with viewpoint aspect.

216

Chapter 7

Event Structure and Viewpoint Aspect

In the preceding chapters, we have seen that base predicates co-occurring with a verbal

affix yield atelic or telic predicates, which, in turn, denote event structures. In particular,

we have observed that the focus form alternations an affixed base predicate exhibits

highlight event type alternations. We have arrived at the classifications of base predicate

+ verbal affix = event structure by focusing on their occurrence in their perfective form.

The preceding chapters highlight the significant role that event structure plays on the

verbal system of Tagalog. In particular, telicity has been argued as the semantic factor

that triggers the event structure classifications in Tagalog, and influences the behaviour of

the participants in the clause. That telicity is the significant semantic property governing

the denotation of event types of the Tagalog focus form constructions is motivated by the

following observation between the actor focus (AF) and patient focus (PF) alternation of

a base predicate, such as in (1), repeated from Chapter 1, Section 1.2.







As noted in Chapter 1, the AF and PF alternation differs in terms of the (non)completion

interpretation correlated with the patient participant, i.e. (A)NG-patient. Native speakers

provide the intuition that the AF clause in (1a) has a non-completion reading, since the

NG-patient is construed to be not completely consumed. The opposite is the case for the

sentence in (1b). Interestingly, we get different interpretations of the sentences in (1) even

though both constructions are in the perfective aspect. In order to explicate this intuition, I

have claimed for the distinction between event structure and viewpoint aspect. In this

chapter, I provide a preliminary account of the in(ter)dependence of these two aspectual

components.

Based on the analyses in the previous chapters, I have shown that the AF and PF

forms, such as the examples in (1), express different event structures, which are

217

essentially tied to telicity. An AF clause, as in (1a), denotes activity eventualities where

the NG-patient is not an Undergoer and does not entail definiteness and result state;

whereas, a PF clause, such as (1b), signifies active accomplishment eventualities where

the ANG-patient is an Undergoer and entails definiteness and result state 57

.

Having established the significant role of telicity and event structure in the focus

form alternation, the function of the perfective aspect cannot be denied. Although there is

a sense of (non)completion, both the AF and PF focus alternations in their perfective

forms also provide the aspectual information of closure or boundedness. The sense of

closure or boundedness manifests differently depending on the event structure of the

predicate. Thus, in the AF clause, as in (1a), the perfective view, which looks at a

situation as (an) integrated whole(s), provides a terminated reading of the situation. This

reading is registered since atelic predicates are homogeneous; thus, when the situation is

presented perfectively, an arbitrary endpoint is included (cf. Smith 1991, Xiao and

McEnery 2004). It is different with PF clauses, as in (1b). Since a PF clause is telic, its

inherent endpoint/culmination point is included when presented perfectively. Hence, the

telicity nature of the situation, in (1b), and the perfective view in which it is presented

provide the completion reading. Table 7.1 illustrates these manifestations, but further

details are given in Section 7.2.3.

Table7.1 Perfective readings of the AF activities and PF active accomplishments

AF (atelic)/activity PF (telic)/active accomplishment

Perfective

view

Complete, but terminated

since endpoint is arbitrary

Completed and finished; endpoint

is not arbitrary and is naturally

included when viewed as a whole

In this chapter, we will explore further the observations noted above. We will examine

how viewpoint aspect, which subsumes the perfectivity and imperfectivity dichotomy, is

independent of but interacts with the event structure denoted by the Tagalog focus forms.

57

Note that these event type alternations are highlighted by base predicates that belong to particular verb

classes: consumption, performance, learning, creation, transaction, directed and manner of motion, and

locative alternation. These verb classes are all non-stative and dynamic. The event structure alternations of

base predicates that are inherently static differ from those aforementioned. Nevertheless, we have observed

that in cases where a static predicate shifts into another event type, such as achievement or accomplishment,

the patient participant is assigned an Undergoer macrorole that entails definiteness and result state (see

Chapter 4).

218

Before we begin our analyses, we clarify and classify the features underlying viewpoint

aspect and event structure, as used in this chapter.

7.1 Viewpoint aspect

We begin this section by reiterating that when talking about event structure and telicity,

we are looking at a speaker’s linguistic construal of event, as represented or encoded by

linguistic devices. We are not dealing here with ontological representations of events, for,

naturally, if a speaker makes an utterance, such as I ran, the event of running will

eventually have to reach its terminal point. However, there is nothing in the statement I

ran that encodes and suggests the endpoint of the event of running. As such, telicity is

characterised in terms of inherent endpoint and homogeneity. We observed from the

preceding chapters that these characterisations intersect with the feature of perfective

viewpoint that brings about the terminated reading for atelic situations and completion

interpretation for telic situations.

Viewpoint aspect provides the perspective or locus the speaker takes in presenting

a situation or event. In a perfective view, it appears that he locates himself ‘externally’

such that he sees the situation as complete with its initial and final endpoints. On the other

hand, in an imperfective view, he seems to locate himself ‘internally’ such that the initial

and final points of the situation are invisible to him. The basic schema of the temporal

structure of events is given in (2) below (Smith 1991). The capital letters stand for initial

(I) and final (F) points; the dots represent the stages.

(2) Abstract schema of all event types

……I……F……

The basic schema accounts for the general representation of temporal constitution of all

event types. Thus, the schema can capture the preliminary, internal, and resultant stages

of a given event structure. Viewpoint aspect is understood in this schema as a focus or

span on parts or on the whole situation. The schema below shows the organisation of the

two aspectual components in the sentence in (1b), which is an active accomplishment

event type. The temporal schema of this event type is represented by the capital letter I

indicating the initial stage, the F signalling the inherent (natural) endpoint, and the R

219

specifying the result stage. The dots indicate the successive stages from I to F. Since the

sentence in (1b) is viewed perfectively, the span or focus of this perspective encompasses

the initial point until the final point, as shown in the schema below. The slashes represent

the span or focus.

I…………FNat(R)

/ / / / / / / / /

We discuss this more in detail in Section 7.2.3. In the next section, we look at the two

viewpoint aspects and how they are defined and characterised in this thesis.

7.1.1 Perfective viewpoint

For the perfective viewpoint, I will assume the semantic meaning, as stated in (3)

following Comrie (1976), Swift (1991), Krifka (1989, 1997) and Filip (1999).

(3) Perfective denotes events represented as (an) integrated whole(s).

The characterisation of perfective aspect in (3) implies the ‘topological notion of limit or

boundary’ (Filip 1999: 185). This is so since a situation or event that is presented in its

entirety would be limited or bounded in its temporal extent. The advantage of the

semantics of perfective represented in (3) allows for the distinction of event structure

from viewpoint aspect (i.e. grammatical aspect), but it permits as well the mapping of any

kind of event structure, if permissible in a language, to an integrated whole event (Filip

1999). This is represented by the basic schema in (2).

As an integrated whole and as viewed in its entirety, the perfective viewpoint

focuses on the initial point (I) and the final point (F) of the event. Smith (1991:95)

provides the temporal schema of perfectives below, where, as mentioned before, the I and

F stand for the two endpoints of the event type being viewed and the slashes specify the

part of the event type that is being focused by viewpoint:

I F

/ / / / / / / / / /

220

For instance, consider the sentences in (4).

(4) a. Rachel was building a sandcastle.

b. Rachel built a sandcastle.

The creation predicate ‘build’ is widely accepted as an (active) accomplishment. Hence,

English speakers know that the event denoted by the sentences in (4) have a natural

endpoint. However, the events differ in terms of viewpoint aspect. In (4a), only a part of

the event is viewed. Thus, only the internal segment of the situation is focussed and the

endpoint is not included in the segment58

. In contrast, in (4b), the event is viewed in its

entirety. That is, perfective viewpoint focuses on the initial point of the event of reading

the manuscript to its endpoint. Under the label of perfective, the features complete and

bounded are properties or features that reflect the holistic viewpoint of an event.

7.1.2 Imperfective viewpoint

Generally, the simple denotative use of the imperfective is to focus on the internal

structure of the event; hence, the initial and final points are not visible. The imperfective

viewpoint is commonly associated with the following interpretations (e.g. Comrie 1976,

Filip 1999):

(5) a. ‘on-going’ (progressive use)

b. habituality

c. partitivity (non-completion use)

d. iterativity

58

The example in (4) is a classic example of the ‘imperfective paradox’ (Dowty 1979). The progressive

form of the (active) accomplishment predicate ‘build’ is said to be paradoxical because the predicate’s

inherent nature is to have an endpoint. However, in the progressive form, this inherent endpoint is not

presented and may not even have occurred. In addition, if the sentence in (4a) is the same as a sentence like

Cheryl was walking to school, then they should also have similar entailments. But this is not the case, since

Cheryl was walking to school entails Cheryl walked; but, Rachel was building a sandcastle does not entail

Rachel built a sandcastle. To address this paradox, there are other scholars who put forward the two-

component aspectual systems. Smith (1991), for instance, argues that no paradox is inferred in the

progressive forms of the predicate if its event structure is distinguished from its viewpoint aspect. Thus, the

paradox in the progressive form of the predicate ‘build’’ can be accounted for by attributing the inference of

an inherent endpoint to its event type, and the suspension of this endpoint to its viewpoint aspect. Note that

the AF and PF alternation presented in Chapter 1 and in the introduction of this Chapter conveys almost the

same paradox, except that the alternants are in their perfective form (can be dubbed the ‘perfective

paradox’). Thus, in this thesis, I also argue for the in(ter)dependence of the two-aspectual components. I

further provide another basis for the distinction of the two and the notion of the ‘integrated whole’ in

perfective viewpoint in Section 7.2.1.

221

The sentence in (4a) has an imperfective viewpoint. As imperfective, the initial and final

points of the active accomplishment event type are not put in focus. We know that the

sentence denotes an event type with an endpoint, but because it is viewed imperfectively,

that endpoint is excluded and what appears to be salient is the internal part of the event.

This internal part is realised syntactically using the progressive form in English. The

temporal schema is presented below (Smith 1991:111) in (6):

(6) I . . / / / / / / / / / / / / / / . . F

Note that the basic schema of the theory accounts for language-specific variations. It

allows predictions for the differences that may occur in the aspectual system of the

language under investigation. As Smith (1991:22) states, ‘it has the basic aspectual

categories that generally occur in languages of the world, and on which particular

variations depend’. Having defined (im)perfectivity and identified the features

characterising the two viewpoint aspects, we now begin our analysis of viewpoint aspect

in Tagalog and its interaction with event structure.

7.2 Perfectivity

Let us recall the characterisation of the three inflectable forms of Tagalog predicates in

terms of viewpoint aspect using the predicate bili ‘buy’ in its AF and PF forms (refer to

Chapter 1). This is summarised in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Aspect forms of a predicate

Aspect AF PF Formation

PFV b-um-ili b-in-ili -um-/-in-

IPFV <b-um-i>-bili <b-in-i>-bili RDP-um-V/RDP-in-V

CONTEMPL bi- Ø- bili bi- Ø- bili RDP-Ø-V

In the succeeding sections, we focus our analyses on the interaction of the perfective and

imperfective viewpoints with the event structures that have been identified in the

preceding chapters.

222

7.2.1 ‘Snapshot’ effect

To begin our analysis of the notion of the ‘integrated whole’ meaning of perfective view,

we look at the perception predicate tingin ‘look’. Consider the sentences in (7).

(7) a. Na-ka-tingin lahat59

ng mga (FWAY:13)

PFV-STAT-look all GEN PL

palaka sa kanya.

frog DAT 3SG.DAT

‘All frogs are/were looking at him.’

b. T-um-ingin siya sa bintana (FWAY:13)

AF-PFV.look 3SG.GEN DAT window

at h-in-anap-Ø niya ito.

and PFV-look.for-PF 3SG.GEN this

‘He looked at the window and looked for him.’

The perception verb tingin ‘look’, in (7a) and (7b), are expressed in the same focus forms,

that is, actor focus (AF). However, notice that the predicate takes different verbal affixes.

In (7a), the predicate tingin ‘look’ is marked with NA-KA, while in (7b) it is affixed with

UM. Furthermore, we observe that the co-occurrence of the same base predicate with the

two affixes yields two different event structures. The former is state and the latter is

activity.

Both of these eventualities are atelic and have a non-homogeneous internal

temporal contour. The activity verb tumingin ‘looked at’, in (7b), differs from the state

verb nakatingin ‘are/were looking’, in (7a), in the ‘dynamic’ feature suggesting the

presence of an agent. It might appear that tumingin ‘looked at’ is an achievement verb

because there is a sense of punctuality. However, the punctuality reading here manifests

because of the perfective aspect, where the event is viewed as an integrated whole. As

Dahl (1985:78) points out, the event is seen ‘as a single transition from one state to its

opposite’. The perfective aspect bounds the event being viewed and puts a closure on that

event. Let me make this clear by relating the idea to taking a picture.

Whenever we take pictures of an event, a single shot captures a particular moment

of that event. Perfective view seems to have that effect of capturing a moment of event

59

Presumably, lahat ‘all’ will have to be marked with ANG. However, this data is taken from the elicited

narrative of the picture storybook Frog, where are you where the respondent did not use the ANG marker.

223

viewed in terms of its entirety. Note that despite the ‘snapshot’ effect, there is a sense of

homogeneity or continuity. This homogeneity or continuity is the activity reading. What

we see here is an interaction between perfective, which is a viewpoint aspect, and

activity, which is an event structure. Depending on the event types of the predicate and

their verb class, their interaction with perfective viewpoint provides the following

readings: complete but terminated, inceptive, completion and finished, delimited and

terminated. The following sections elucidate these points further.

7.2.2 Perfective and inchoative state

Recall that state event structure is characterised as having a homogeneous internal

temporal composition. Thus, it persists over a stretch of time and within that stretch of

time, there are no stages. States are also typified as non-dynamic. In Tagalog, we have

seen that this type of event structure is exemplified, for instance, by adjectival predicates,

locative states, emotion and cognition predicates.

(8) Ma-tamis ang guyabano. (adjectival predicate)

STAT-sweet NOM soursop

‘The soursop is sweet.’

(9) Na-sa tuktok ng puno ang kuwago. (locative)

STAT-DAT top GEN tree NOM owl

‘The owl is on top of the tree.’

(10) Galit ang tigre sa daga. (emotion)

angry NOM tiger DAT rat

‘The tiger is angry at the rat.’

(11) Alam ni Bang ang sikreto mo. (cognition)

know GEN PN NOM secret 2SG.GEN

‘Bang knows your secret.’

The sentences above denote events that are static, as in (9), or persisting over a period of

time, as in (8), 10) and (11). These sentences clearly provide instances of state event

types. Taken in isolation, Tagalog state event types are used to describe situations in

reference to the present time. That is, when the speaker is describing a situation, he is

temporally locating it simultaneously with the moment of speaking. Hence, the most

224

prominent reading that the sentences above have will be a present time reading. We can

further elucidate this point by looking at the sentences in (12) and (13). These sentences

are from elicited narratives of Frog, where are you? The narrators, who are children, are

describing a scene inside the room of the little boy. In this room, there is a frog inside a

jar and the little boy with his dog. Both are looking at the frog (see Section 1.4. for the

methodology of the elicited narratives).

(12) Isa-ng araw, meron-g bata na may alaga-ng

one-LNK day have- LNK child LNK exist s/o.cared.for-LNK

palaka at aso. Ang palaka ay na-sa garapon.

frog and dog NOM frog AY STAT-DAT jar

‘One day, there is a child who has a frog pet and a dog pet.

The frog is inside the jar.’ (FWAY:9)

(13) Si Carl may isa-ng alaga-ng palaka.

NOM PN exist one- LNK s/o.cared.for- LNK frog

‘Carl has a frog pet.’ (FWAY:5)

Given that the scene shows the little boy and the dog watching a frog inside a jar, it

appears to be natural to describe it in the existential construction, as illustrated in (12)

and (13). In addition, the temporal reference of the construction seems to be anchored to

the present time of speech. Hence, the state event structure expressed by the existential

constructions in (12) and (13) would most likely be taken to refer to present time.

Arguably, it can also be anchored to a past reference time; hence, the suggestion for a

case of relative tense in Tagalog (see Kroeger 1993)60

.

Interestingly, state eventualities can be viewed perfectively. However, if state

events have indivisible interval of time or they are conceived of as extended in time

without a clear onset and termination of occurrence, how can it be viewed as an

integrated whole? We consider the temporal schema of states adopted from Smith

(1991:37) to examine this interaction.

60

Although this is a very interesting topic, I will not pursue it further in this chapter. I leave this for further

research. The sentences in (11)-(12) can be presented in the past tense too as in ‘The frog was inside the jar

and ‘Carl had a frog’.

(I) (F)

225

In this schema, the line represents the time that the state holds. Since occurrence of state

events extends in time, the initial point (I) and the final point (I) are not visible. They are,

presumably, not part of the schema of the state itself; hence, they are in parenthesis. In

addition, the line reflects the intuition that the occurrence of state events in that period

holds consistently; thus, the idea of indivisible interval of time. Presumably, when a state

event holds for a certain period, it will be true for every interval of that period. Consider

the sentence in (14) to illustrate this point.

(14) She was sick for a week.

In (14), there is nothing that suggests she had not been sick throughout the week. The

construal of this same event is expressed in Tagalog using the possession construction, as

in (15).

(15) May sakit siya buo-ng linggo.

exist.have sick 3SG.NOM whole-LNK week

‘S/he was sick the whole week/for a week.’

Interestingly, the situation depicted in ‘she was sick for a week’, can also be expressed in

the following way:

(16) Nag-ka-sakit siya buo-ng linggo.

AF.PFV-STAT-sick 3SG.NOM whole-LNK week

‘She got sick the whole week/for a week.’

The sentence in (16) still denotes a state eventuality. However, we can detect a degree of

difference between the two state events in (15) and (16). In (15), the Undergoer is already

in the state of being sick; whereas, in (16), it suggests that the Undergoer had entered into

a state of sickness and being sick for a week. It appears that the prefix- NAG induces the

‘inchoative’ interpretation: ‘entering into’ ‘or coming about of a state’. This

interpretation is similar to the interpretation that a sentence construction gets when it is

denoting an activity event type (as in the perception predicates in Chapter 4 that have the

MA-KA affix). Given that both state and activity event types have a homogeneous

feature, it is not surprising that the inchoative interpretation figures in state event types.

In the sentences in (15) and (16), we see the presence of the temporal adverbials.

Recall that in Chapter 5, we demonstrated the co-occurrence of the temporal adverbials

226

with the AF and PF clauses presented in the perfective form to certify the temporal

boundary of the event. In the sentences in (15) and (16), we observe the same effect of the

temporal adverbial buong linggo ‘whole week’, which provides the boundary on how the

event is viewed. In the possession construction, we see the event of ‘being sick’ as

bounded. It is being viewed in its entirety. The state of being sick happened in the span of

a week. It is complete. What is not clearly visible in this perfective view are the initial

point and the final point of the situation of being sick. The same interpretation can be

inferred regarding the effect of the temporal adverbial in the state event expressed by the

sentence in (16). The situation is seen holistically. The difference is that, in the sentence

in (16), there is a notion of ‘coming about’. We can argue that the possession clause, in

(15), is the typical representation of state event structure with a perfective viewpoint. On

the other hand, (16) is a derived state indicating the inchoative interpretation of a state

event structure. We can refer to this as ‘inchoative state’. The following are other

examples of ‘inchoative state’:

(17) wala-ng gusto-ng mag-pa-hiram ng

none-LNK want-LNK CONTEMPL.AF-CAUS-borrow GEN

notes nung nag-ka-bulutong

notes then PFV.AF-STAT-chicken.pox

siya nung 6th grade

1SG.NOM then 6th grade

‘No one wants to lend her/him notes when s/he had chicken

pox in 6th

grade.’

(glazeinasurereality.blogspot/2009/06/100.html)

The bound or complete perspective of the event depicted in (17) is easy to see because of

the temporal adverb nung 6th

grade ‘in 6th

grade’. This temporal adverb provides the limit

of period in which the state of acquiring chicken pox happened. The inchoative state

event is then located within this period. It is not clear, however, when the event started

and when it ended. What is clear is that within the 6th

grade period, there is a consistent

interval of time that the agent entered into a state of having a chicken pox. Hence, the use

of the predicate nagkabulutong which can be roughly translated into ‘enter into a state of

acquiring and having a chicken pox’.

We can apply the same analysis to the sentence in (18) where the adverb of time

‘last year’ put a sense of closure to the event of entering into a state of acquiring a job, i.e.

227

nagkatrabaho. Notice that in the sentence in (18), the use of the same predicate

nagkatrabaho continues to denote state eventuality despite the difference in the

accompanying temporal expressions. In the first sentence, the state eventuality happened

‘last year’; whereas, in the second sentence, it is located in the present time ngayon

‘now’. Both of the temporal expressions are deictic locating the event in a particular time.

With ‘last year’, however, we know that the event is bounded. That is, the event of having

and getting a job was terminated ‘June of last year’. On the other hand, the time

expression ‘now’ points to the present moment that simply locates the time when the job

was acquired.

(18) Last ako-ng nag-ka-trabaho June (last year)

last 1SG.NOM-LNK PFV.AF-STAT-job June last year

almost one year na. Ngayon lang

almost one year already now only

ako nag-ka-trabaho ulit.

1SG.NOM PFV.AF-STAT-job again

‘The last time I had a job was in June (last year), almost a year already.

It’s only now that I got a job again.’

(www.abs-cbn.com/Celebrity/Article/3158/Jay-R-Siaboc-returns-to-the-

small-screen-via-Kambal-sa-Uma.aspx)

So far, we have been discussing states that co-occur with temporal adverbs. The temporal

adverbs clearly make the boundary or closure of state eventualities visible. Note,

however, in (18), the inchoative state nagkatrabaho has the prefix MAG- in its

purportedly perfective form NAG-. This signifies that the event provides a perfective

reading regardless of the presence or non-presence of a temporal adverb such as ‘June last

year’ or ‘now’, as in the example in (18).

It can be argued that, taken in isolation, the inchoative state nag-ka-trabaho

‘entered into a state of having a job’ can have an inference that the initial point of this

event has occurred, although this is not clearly visible. On the other hand, the final point

is quite part of the perspective, but the perspective is focused on the interval after the final

point because of the stative nature of the predicate. Presumably, the NAG- affix makes

the perfective reading available particularly the final point suggesting a closure, before

entering into a new state, while the KA- affix provides the ‘sustained’ reading after the

closure. This can be diagrammed as follows:

http://www.abs-cbn.com/Celebrity/Article/3158/Jay-R-Siaboc-returns-to-the-small-screen-via-Kambal-sa-Uma.aspx

http://www.abs-cbn.com/Celebrity/Article/3158/Jay-R-Siaboc-returns-to-the-small-screen-via-Kambal-sa-Uma.aspx

228

The sentence in (19) further illustrates this analysis, except that instead of NAG- prefix,

the NA- prefix is used.

(19) a. Ang aso ay i-s-in-uot ang ulo

NOM dog AY PF-slip.on-PFV NOM head

sa loob ng garapon.

DAT inside GEN jar

At ang aso ay na-hulog na

and NOM dog AY PFV.PF-fall LNK

na-ka-suot ang garapon

PFV.PF-STAT-slip.on NOM jar

sa kanya-ng ulo.

DAT 3SG-LNK head

‘The dog slipped his head inside the jar. And the dog fell

with his head inside the jar.’ (FWAY:51)

b. Dahan dahan-g i-s-in-uot / bilis bilis na i-s-in-uot

carefully-LNK PF-slip.on-PFV / quickly LNK PF-slip.on-PFV

‘ carefully slipped on/quickly slipped on’

c. *dahan dahan-g na-ka-suot/

carefully-LNK PFV.PF-STAT-slip.on

* bilis bilis na na-ka-suot

quick RDP LNK PFV.PF-STAT-slip.on

The example in (19a), told by a 51 year old respondent, described a scene where the dog’s

head is inside the jar. To describe this event, she uses the PF form isinuot and also the

MA-KA form nakasuot. Note that both of these predicates are viewed perfectively; yet,

they are different in terms of their event types. (19b) provides a test to show that the PF

form of suot ‘slip on, don, wear’ is dynamic, as it can co-occur with ‘pace’ adverbs, such

as dahan dahan ‘carefully/slowly’ or bilis bilis ‘quickly’. In contrast, (19c) demonstrates

that nakasuot is stative and non-dynamic, as it is not compatible with the pace adverbs.

As mentioned above, in terms of perfective viewpoint, the state predicate nakasuot

signifies the coming about of the state of donning or wearing with the perfective aspect

focusing on the interval after the final point. Positional predicates, as in tayo ‘stand’ in

I……….F…………..

/ / / / / / / / /

229

(20) and dapa ‘lie.face.down’ in (21), and perception predicate, such as tingin ‘look’ in

(22), also convey the same perfective reading when they are affixed with the MA-KA

affix in its perfective form NA-KA. When these state predicates are presented

perfectively, they are considered bounded where the final point is the change out of the

state.

It has to be noted that the English translations of the sentences in (20)-(22) appear

to contradict the perfective viewpoint of the sentences, as the English translations reflect

an imperfective viewpoint. However, this supposedly ‘imperfective’ reading that might

register to an English speaker is really the homogeneity feature of the Tagalog state

predicates. Reduplication, which is argued to signify imperfectivity (Naylor 1986), will

not provide the same interpretation of ‘x being in a state of y’. For the positional and

perception predicates, the process of reduplication does not suggest what in English will

be a progressive reading, but instead it gives an abilitative reading, e.g. na-ka-ka-tayo

‘able to stand’, na-ka-ka-tingin ‘able to look’.

(20) …habang ang aso ay na-ka-tayo (FWAY:13)

while NOM dog AY PFV.PF-STAT-stand

at <h-in-a>-hanap kung nasaan ang palaka.

and <RDP-IN>IFPV-search if where NOM frog

‘…while the dog was standing up and searching for the frog.’

(21) Um-i-iyak yung bata at na-ka-dapa

<UM-RDP>IPFV.AF-cry NOM child and PFV.PF-STAT-lie.

siya, katabi yung aso.

3SG.NOM beside NOM dog

‘The child is/was crying and he was lying on his stomach beside the dog.’

(22) Nan-di-dito ang isa-ng bata, ma-lungkot

here-RDP NOM ONE-LNK child STAT-sad

na na-ka-tingin sa isa-ng garapon

LNK PFV.PF-STAT-look DAT one-LNK jar

na may lamang palaka.

LNK have contain frog (FWAY:51)

‘There is a child, he was looking sadly at a jar that contains a frog.’

In all the state predicates examined in this section, we have observed that when states are

presented perfectively, the result is an inchoative state. That is, there is a sense of ‘coming

230

about or entering into’ a state where the locus of the perfective zooms in on the interval

after the final point.

7.2.3 (Un)boundedness and (non)completion of activities and active

accomplishments

In Smith’s version of the activities temporal schema (1991:45), there is an initial point

with dots that follow indicating the stages toward the final point. The final point,

however, is considered arbitrary. Take a look at the schema below.

Recall that activities are homogeneous. When viewed perfectively, any part of the

successive stage of an activity can be bounded, hence the arbitrariness of the final point.

When we bound the arbitrary endpoint of an activity event type, it is construed as being

terminated. This is different from the temporal schema of active accomplishment, such as

below:

The dots represent the successive stages which culminate in the final phase (F) where it

signifies the natural endpoint of the situation. Subsequently, the endpoint indicates the

new state of the Undergoer represented by R. As mentioned before, the perfective

presentation of an active accomplishment registers a completion reading. It has also been

noted at the start of this chapter that when a telic predicate is presented perfectively, its

endpoint is included in the view; hence, the completion reading.

At the outset, it has been noted that some native speakers find the AF forms with

an activity denotation to have a non-completion interpretation even though the action has

already been done. We have shown that this intuition of non-completion, but boundedness

of the situation arises because of the interaction of the atelicity of the predicate and the

perfective viewpoint. Consider the following motion event described in the following

sentences:

I …….FArb

I…….FNAT(R).

//////////

231

(23) Dahil sa aso, l-um-aglag ang bahay ng bubuyog.

because DAT dog PF.PFV-fall NOM house GEN bee

Um-akyat ang bata sa puno.

AF.PFV-climb NOM child DAT tree (FWAY:9)

‘Because of the dog, the house of the bees fell.

The child climbed up the tree.’

(24) In-akyat-Ø ng bata ang puno.

PFV-climb-PF GEN child NOM tree

‘The child climbed the tree.’

Let us consider the predicate umakyat ‘climbed’ in (23). It can be assumed that when the

speaker is describing the situation, the starting point is the bottom of the tree (although

this is not realised syntactically). The final point, however, is very salient, as manifested

in the locative PP sa puno. In Chapter 6, I argued that the SA-phrase does not determine

the telicity of the motion predicate. Thus, the AF form of the verb akyat ‘climb’ remains

atelic and the SA-phrase sa puno receives a locative interpretation.

In viewpoint aspect, however, the SA-phrase helps determine the final point or

boundary of the event. It sets boundary on the perspective of the event of climbing the

tree. Thus, the sentence in (23) provides a reading of the event being delimited or

bounded. This perfective reading also holds for the active accomplishment PF version, as

shown in (24). In (24), the event is considered complete. However, there is an added

interpretation. Since the predicate in (24) is telic and non-homogeneous, the [+ bound]

and [+telic] features also provide a [+delimited] interpretation. I argued in Chapter 6 that

when motion predicates exhibit the PF construction, the path and the event are delimited;

hence, the motion stops upon reaching the destination. This is different from the LF forms

where the notion of delimitation seems to apply to the event rather than the path (see

Chapter 6 Section 6.4).

In other cases, when the verbal predicates indicate a sense of homomorphic

relation with the patient argument (as in the AF and PF alternation we discussed in

Chapter 5), the notion of termination or stop is applicable to the AF construction when

viewed perfectively; whereas, the completed and finished readings are available for the

PF ones. Given that the final point of the AF activity predicates is arbitrary, the

application of perfectivity can limit the event at any point. Hence, in a perfective view,

232

the AF activity clauses are stopped and terminated, but not finished. This can be

diagrammed by indicating the initial point represented by the capital letter I followed by

the successive stages of an activity predicate indicated by dots. The circle represents the

perfective view, as if looking at the situation as a whole, where the initial and final point

of the view crosscuts the successive stages (or homogeneity ‘H’) of the activity; thus,

terminating a situation arbitrarily.

te

The opposite is the case for the PF active accomplishments. Because they are telic, the

boundary that perfective view sets encompasses the whole ‘chunk’ of the event. That is,

when presented with a perfective view, this ‘chunk’ with initial stage and final stage is

wholly represented such that the meaning conveyed is completed and finished. The

diagram below illustrates the intersection of perfective view and active accomplishment.

It shows that the locus of perfective (represented by the slashes) encompasses both

endpoints of active accomplishment eventualites. Hence, the initial point and final point

of the two aspectual components coincide to project completed and finished

interpretations.

The interpretations and schema shown above apply for simple events like those found in

(25)-(29). The examples in (25a) – (29a) denote activity eventy types, as established in

Chapter 5. When presented in the perfective aspect, the conceptualisation of events in the

AF form is a complete but terminated event. The juxtaposition of the two aspectual

components produces an ‘inceptive’ reading of the event. Thus, the examples in (25a) -

(29a) are interpreted as having started but not completed and finished. The opposite is the

case for the PF forms, as in (25b)-(29b). These are all active accomplishments that

produce the completed and finished interpretations, as noted above.

I FArb H

//////////////

I………………..F

/////////////////////////

233

(25). a. S-um-ulat siya ng tula maghapon

AF.PFV-write 3SG.NOM GEN poem whole.afternoon

‘S/he wrote a poem/poems/some poems the whole afternoon.’

b. S-in-ulat-Ø niya ang tula maghapon.

write-PFV-PF 3SG.GEN NOM poem whole.afternoon

‘S/he wrote the poem the whole afternoon.’

(26) a. S-um-ayaw ng Tinikling ang mag-asawa.

AF.PFV-dance GEN Tinikling NOM couple (husband and wife)

‘The couple danced a Tinikling.’

b. S-in-ayaw- Ø ng mag-asawa ang Tinikling

dance-PFV-PF GEN couple NOM Tinikling

‘The couple danced the Tinikling.’

(27) a. Isa-ng oras t-um-akbo si Owen sa oval.

one-LNK AF.PFV-run NOM PN DAT oval

‘Owen ran in the oval (for) an hour.’

b. Isa-ng oras t-in-akbo- Ø ni Owen ang oval.

one-LNK run-PFV-PF GEN PN NOM oval

‘Owen ran to the oval (in) an hour.’

(28) a. P-um-asok ang pari sa templo.

AF.PFV enter NOM priest DAT temple

‘The priest entered the temple.’

‘The priest went inside the temple.’

b. P-in-asok- Ø ng pari ang templo.

enter-PFV-PF GEN priest NOM temple

‘The priest entered the temple (forcefully).’

(29) a. L-um-angoy si Maridel sa 100m na pool.

swim-AF.PFV nom PN DAT 100m LNK pool

‘Maridel swam in a 100m pool.’

b. Ni-langoy-Ø ni Maridel ang 100m na pool.

PFV-swim-PF GEN PN NOM 100m LNK pool

‘Maridel swam the 100m pool.’

234

The examples in (25) and (29) illustrate event types accompanied by measure phrases,

such as maghapon ‘whole afternoon’ in (25) and ‘100m’ in (29). In Chapter 5, it was

noted that the temporal adverbials-durative or time-span- are both compatible with the AF

and PF alternation of the same base predicate, except that they provide different

interpretations for each of these alternations. In this section, we see the validity of this

assertion. It is acceptable to have both types of temporal adverbials, since their function is

to put limit/boundary on how the event is viewed. In (25), we have an event that

happened the whole afternoon. The I and F points of the temporal adverbial maghapon

‘whole afternoon’ suggest the perfective locus of the event. However, since (25a) is an

activity event type, its inherent characteristic of being homogeneous provides the non-

completion reading. The example in (25b) is also located in the time interval of

maghapon ‘whole afternoon’, but it differs from (25a) in terms of the completion reading

that is triggered by its inherent characteristic of being non-homogeneous and having an

inherent endpoint.

We can extend the same analyses to the sentences in (29), where the measure

phrase ‘100m’ provides the boundary. However, because of the event types of the AF and

PF forms, in (29a) and (29b), respectively, we get different interpretations of the event

when presented perfectively (cf. example in (23)).

7.2.4 Culmination and result stage in achievements

Achievements are instantaneous, telic and punctual events that result in a change of state

of the Undergoer. As posited in the preceding chapters, the verbal predicates that

typically denote this event type are marked with either MA- or UM affix. Since

achievements are telic, their projection as perfective emphasises the inherent endpoint of

the predicate. However, because achievements are instantaneous, their initial and final

stages are not easily discernable. Both stages might even be construed as overlapping or

occurring simultaneously. Its temporal schema is given below following Smith (1991:58):

The temporal schema above illustrates that the I and F points happen simultaneously. The

dots before the initial stage indicate the preliminary stages, while those after the R stage

signify the stages after the change of state. However, Smith posits that the preliminary

……I (R) ……

F

235

and the result stage are conceptually detached from the actual achievement event itself.

For instance, ‘win the race’ has an achievement event type. However, in order to be at the

exact point of winning, one must have run the race first. Another example is ‘notice the

announcement’. This achievement may or may not have a preliminary stage (represented

by the dots in the schema). It is possible that while perusing so many fliers on the board,

one eventually notices the announcement. On the other hand, the announcement can be

instantly noticed; thus, no preliminary stage is necessary. It is suggested that when

viewed perfectively, either the preliminary or result stage is put in focus and languages

differ on which stage is emphasised (Smith 1991).

I demonstrate in this section that a perfective viewpoint of achievements in

Tagalog typically focuses on the result stage of the event. The following sentences in (30-

32) illustrate this point with the predicates affixed with MA.

(30) Na-dapa ang bata sa damo.

PFV.PF-trip NOM child DAT grass

‘The child tripped (and fell forward) on the grass.’

(31) Na-tumba ang bata

PFV.PF -fall.down NOM child

‘The child fell down.’

(32) Na-dapa ang aso.. sa.. bangin. Bangin?

PFV.PF-trip NOM dog DAT ravine ravine?

Na-basag niya ang garapon. Na-galit ang bata.

PFV.PF -break 3SG.GEN NOM jar PFV.PF-angry NOM child.

‘The dog tripped and fell on the ravine. Ravine? He (accidentally) broke

the jar. The child got angry.’ (FWAY: 5)

The three examples above describe scenes where a little boy is looking for his missing

frog. All of these predicates nadapa ‘tripped and fell’, natumba ‘fell down, nabasag

‘broke’, and nagalit ‘got angry’ might be conceived of as involving a process leading to

the achievement of the result. The telicity tests proposed in Chapter 4 established that

such verbs are achievements, as they are not compatible with pace adverbs such as

dahan-dahan ‘slowly’ (unless coerced to be interpreted to do so, or conceived of as

236

occurring in a slow motion). This process invoked as the stage that leads to the result state

is the preliminary stage that is not conceptually attached to the achievement predicates.

Indeed, there must be a driving force that has led to the result stage of the Undergoer. But

in a perfective view, this preliminary stage (though it may be inferred) is not visible.

Given that the I and F points of achievements are not clearly distinguishable and

the interval between the Final and the Result stage also appears to be not discernable, a

perfective viewpoint of the achievement situation takes the I, F and R stages to be

contained in one whole circle occurring at the same time, with the result state eventually

being the one in focus.

Interestingly, the predicates above can appear in PF forms which can be

characterised as causative achievement for (33) and (34), and active achievement for (35)

(see Chapter 4 for the analysis of causative/active achievement). Viewed in their entirety,

it seems that the preliminary stages + the initial, the final and the result phases are part of

the perspective of the situation. Consider the following.

(33) I-t-in-umba ng bata ang bote sa mesa.

PF-to.fell-PFV GEN child NOM bottle DAT table

‘A/the child felled the bottle on the table.’

(34) G-in-alit-Ø ng bata ang kuwago.

angry-PFV-PF GEN child NOM owl

‘A/the child made the owl angry.’

(35) B-in-asag- Ø niya ang garapon.

break-PFV-PF 3SG.GEN NOM jar

‘S/he broke the jar.’

When looking at all these situations, one can think of the Actor as initiating an action that

leads to the Undergoer being in a certain state or condition. The action is momentous or

punctual, but the preliminary stage is not. Presumably, the preliminary stage consists of

intervals before the punctual event happened, which is also the culmination point.

Afterwards, the achieved state is put into view. These are all encompassed in a perfective

lens. The preliminary stage with intervals is represented in the lexical representation as

the activity component, while the punctual point, which is also the final stage, is

237

represented by the achievement algorithm signified by the second component, as shown

in (36).

(36) a. be-in (mesa, [do' (bata, Ø)]) CAUSE [INGR felled' (bote)]

b. [do' (bata, Ø)] CAUSE [INGR angry' (kuwago)]

c. do' (niya, [break' (niya, (garapon))]) & INGR broke' (garapon)

We note a difference in the LS of the predicates in (36a) and (36b) from the LS in (36c).

The first two representations have the CAUSE operator, but the last one does not. It might

be the idiosyncratic nature of the semantics of the lexicon, but the predicates in (33) and

(34), when they appear in PF forms, convey a sense of ‘intentionality’ on the part of the

Actor. To further understand this notion see Depraetere (2007) who argues that

‘intentionality’ is a pragmatic factor that can determine telicity.

Other examples are from the motion predicates, such as hulog ‘fall’, bangga

‘collide’, and other predicates that indicate some sense of ‘impact’, e.g. sumalpok

‘smashed’. In this class of motion predicate, the view presented is the result state of the

Actor.

(37) Tapos na-hulog yung bahay ng bubuyog

then PFV-PF-fall NOM house GEN bee

‘Then the house of the bees fell.’

(38) B-um-angga ang kotse sa puno.

AF.PFV-collide NOM car DAT tree

‘The car smashed into the tree.’

7.2.5 Result stage in accomplishments

The view of the temporal schema of accomplishment adopted in this analysis is different

from Smith (1991), since the notion of accomplishment she employs includes events that

are considered in this study as the active accomplishments.

Accomplishments, like achievements, put emphasis on the result stage. This is not

surprising since both are telic with result state entailment. However, they differ in the way

the initial point and the final point are viewed. We have seen in the previous section that

238

these two points in achievements are not clearly perceptible. However in

accomplishments, the initial and final phases are distinguishable.

A perfective view of an accomplishment can be seen in two ways depending on

how the initial stage leading to the final stage is registered. The first and the most salient

viewpoint is the focus on the final-result stage and the detachability of the initial stage

from the whole perspective. That is, one may infer that there is a starting point to the

event that has led to the outcome, but, this is not what is put into view by the perfective

operator. This is illustrated in the diagram below where the slashes represent the focus of

the perfective operator.

Let us consider the sentences in (39) and (40) to explicate this point.

(39) Dahil sa tindi ng init, na-tunaw ang sorbetes.

because DAT extreme GEN heat PFV-PF-melt NOM ice cream

‘Because of extreme heat, the ice cream melted.’

(40) Na-muti ang mukha niya dahil

PF.PFV-white NOM face 3SG.GEN because

g-um-amit siya ng papaya soap.

AF.PFV-use 3SG.NOM GEN papaya soap

‘Her face became white because she used papaya soap.’

In the above examples, it can be argued that the durative nature of the accomplishments

natunaw ‘melted’, in (39), and namuti ‘became white’, in (40), presupposes the idea of a

process with an initial stage and a final stage. In Tagalog, the use of the MA- affix in its

perfective function seems to put more emphasis on the final state and result state of the

Undergoer. Let’s consider this scenario. The ice cream is not put in the freezer, but on the

table where it is exposed to extreme heat. After a while, the speaker noticed that the ice

cream has melted. It is this latter stage of the event which is being focused when the

construction in (39) is used. The preliminary stage when the ice cream is still intact is part

of the accomplishment event, but is detached from the perfective view. Similar reading is

I…. F/R ……

/ / / / / / /

239

inferred from the sentence in (40) where the predicate namuti ‘become white’ + the

perfective view zoom in on the final-result stage.

In the preceding sections, we have looked at the relationship between the event

types of a predicate and the perfective viewpoint. In the following section, we turn to the

interaction between event structure and imperfective viewpoint.

7.3 Imperfectivity

In this section, we look at how the process of reduplication, which is argued to be a

mechanism to induce an imperfective view, interacts with the event types of a predicate.

The general schema of situations or events viewed imperfectively is shown in (41):

(41) I. . / / / / / / / / / / / / / / . . F

Under this schema, the internal structure of the event is the focus of the view, with the

initial and final points not made visible. We find that reduplication combined with the

event type of the predicate may produce the following imperfective readings: (a)

continuity, (b) plurality of events, (c) progressivity, and (d) habituality. These

imperfective readings reflect the properties of the universal grammar of imperfectives

where neither the initial point nor the final point of the event is visible.

7.3.1 Some basic facts on reduplication in Tagalog

Reduplication in Tagalog has been widely studied semantically (e.g. Blake 1917, Naylor

1986, Zack 1994). However, most of these studies focus on the formation of

reduplication and the semantic interpretations they provide. Some of these interpretations

are as follows (see Blake 1917 for a detailed list).

(42) a. Intensification

maganda-ng maganda

beautiful-LNK beautiful

‘very beautiful’

240

b. madali-ng madali

easy-LNK easy

‘very easy’

c. konti-ng konti

little-LNK little

‘very little’/just a bit

d. malinaw na malinaw

clear LNK clear

‘very clear’

In these examples, we see reduplication of the word to provide the interpretation of

intensification or emphasis.

(43) Pluraliser

a. ma-ga-ganda-ng babae

STAT-RDP-beauty-LNK woman

‘beautiful women’

b. mag-ka-ng-hu-hulog

AF.CONTEMPL-STAT-LNK-RDP-drop

‘fall over the place’

The example in (43a) illustrates that reduplication of a syllable within the nominal can

indicate plurality of the noun phrase, while the reduplication of syllable in the verbal

domain indicates a sense of iterativity of the action, as in (43b). On the other hand, the

examples in (44) show that reduplication derives another noun, which in English is

achieved through compounding. The example in (45) shows reduplication of a predicate,

which is considered as ‘repetitiveness’. It will be demonstrated in our analysis of

reduplication that ‘repetitiveness’ is a manifestation of plurality of events.

(44) Facsimile

a. bahay-bahay-an

house house-LOC

‘play house’

b. anak-anak-an

child child-LOC

‘foster child’

241

(45) Repetitiveness

a. Wala kami-ng g-in-awa kundi

none 3PL.NOM-LNK PF.PFV-do but

um-inom ng um-inom.

AF.PFV-drink LNK AF.PFV-drink

‘We did nothing but to keep on drinking’

(lit. We did nothing but drink and drink)

Naylor considers reduplication as a ‘morphological process by which all or part of the

root is repeated to express a variety of syntactic or semantic distinctions. The duplicate

may be subject to phonetic modifications based on language-specific rules’ (1986:177).

Our concern is not on how reduplication is done, but on the manifestation of the

reduplicated verbal form to indicate the imperfective viewpoint and provide the different

interpretations that are derived from its interaction with event structures.

7.3.2 Open and unbounded in reduplicated states

One of the issues raised in Chapter 3 is to find out whether the process of reduplication

functions similarly to progressives. Progressives are used to distinguish states from other

dynamic predicates. We have observed that, in English, progressives cannot co-occur

with state predicates, as shown in (46).

(46) a. *I am knowing the secret.

b. * She is understanding him.

Apparently, for cognition predicates such as those above, Tagalog does not permit the use

of reduplication either. Look at the sentences in (47).

(47) a. Alam ko ang sikreto.

know 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I know the secret.’

b. *A-alam ko ang sikreto.

RDP-know 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I am knowing the secret.’

242

The use of reduplication for cognition predicates, such as alam ‘know’, renders the

sentence in (47b) ungrammatical. This appears to be a simple but good reason to assume

that reduplication is not allowed in this class of predicate. But, unlike English, the

cognition predicate alam ‘know’ can shift into another event type in which reduplication

can be permitted, as shown in (48b).

(48) a. In-alam-Ø ko ang sikreto.

PFV-know-PF 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I did something to find out the secret.’

b. In-a-alam-Ø ko ang sikreto.

<IN-RDP>.IPFV-know-PF 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I am doing something to find out the secret.’

c. Na-laman61

ko ang sikreto.

PFV.PF-know 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I found out the secret’

d. ?Na-la-laman ko na ang sikreto.

PFV.PF-RDP-know 1SG.GEN just NOM secret

‘I am beginning to know the answer

It can be observed that an inherently state predicate can shift into another event structure,

but when it does, it is manifested in another event structure that is telic and has a result

state entailment. In (48), we see the predicate alam ‘know’ shifts into an active

accomplishment (48a) and achievement (48c). There are interesting manifestations of the

process of reduplication in the above examples. First, in (48b), reduplication appears

because the predicate becomes dynamic when it shifts into an active accomplishment

type, i.e. the PF structure. Second, once cognition predicates enter into the non-stative

paradigm, reduplication can change the perspective of the situation from perfective, as in

(48a), to imperfective, as in (48b). Due to the reduplication process, the situation is now

projected as on-going. Third, the change from perfective to imperfective does not change

61

The base of this predicate is alam ‘know’. However, it can be observed that the cognition predicate

‘know’ appear with the base predicate laman. I suppose that alam, when denoting an achievement event

type, co-occurs with ma- an affixes. We discussed the nature of the MA-affix in Chapter 4 and we have

seen that the suffix –AN indicates locative focus. It can be argued that the –AN affix signifies the mental

space/location where the 2nd

argument of the predicate alam, which is the content sikreto ‘secret’, is then

placed or located. Hence, in this predicate malaman ‘get to know’, we can posit for three morphemes m-

alam-an. This supposition needs further investigation and I will leave it for further research.

243

the telicity of the predicate; hence, the participant’s macrorole assignments are retained.

Consider now the achievement version of alam ‘know’ in (48c). The analysis in

the previous section of this kind of predicate is perfective with a result stage where the

perfective viewpoint focuses on the result stage. The sentence in (48c) has the same

analysis. In contrast, in (48d), the result stage has not yet been attained, but the

protagonist is starting to learn or find out the secret. (48d) suggests that when

reduplication occurs with achievements, it focuses on the preliminary stages of the

knowing event before the achievement stage is attained.

The above examples illustrate that reduplication appears to be similar to the

function of progressives in denoting a sense of continuity and dynamism. Presumably, it

is permitted to occur when predicates have a non-stative status. Other un-affixed state

predicates, such as the emotion predicates galit ‘angry’, gusto ‘like’ and ayaw ‘dislike,

seem to behave the same way as the predicate alam ‘know’ in terms of the use of

reduplication.

However, there are other predicates that can be categorised as ‘mental activity’,

such as na-alala ‘remembered’ and na-intindih-an ‘understood’, which can undergo

reduplication even without shifting to a non-stative event type. They can be classified

under the ‘inchoative state’ (see Section 7.2.2). It seems that reduplication in these

predicates functions differently from the reduplication in non-stative predicates. This

leads to the question of whether reduplication has different features or whether it only has

one feature that maps on to different event structures to bring out, for instance, a

progressive or habitual meaning. We can explicate this further by examining the predicate

naintindihan ‘understand’.

(49) a. Ma-laki na ang bata,

STAT-big already NOM child

na-i-intindih-an na niya ang

<N-RDP>.IPFV-understanding-LF LNK 3SG.GEN NOM

mga nangyayari…

PL happening

‘The child is already old enough, he understands what’s going on…’

(www.timog.com/forum/short -stories)

244

b. Ma-laki na ang bata,

STAT-big already NOM child

na-intindih-an na niya ang

PF.PFV-understanding-LF LNK 3SG.GEN NOM

mga nangyari…

PL happened

‘The child is already old enough, he understood what happened …’

(50). a. In-intindi-Ø ko na lamang

PFV-understanding 1SG.GEN LNK just

ang ugali niya.

NOM personality 3SG.GEN

‘I just tried to understand his personality (and did so).’

b. In-i-intindi-Ø ko na lamang

<IN-RDP>.IPFV-understanding 1SG.GEN LNK just

ang ugali niya.


‘I am trying to just understand his personality.’

The reduplicated state predicate na-i-intindih-an ‘understood’ in (49a) might suggest the

dynamic feature of the predicate. However, asking a question, such as Anong ginawa

mo?62

‘what did you do’ or forming a pseudo-cleft construction such as Ang ginawa ko ay

______. ‘what I did was _________’, tests the dynamic feature of a predicate, as the

question suggests, using the predicate gawa ‘do’, that there is an activity that happened

initiated by an agent. Let’s test the predicates na-intindih-an ‘understood’ in (49b) and in-

intindi ‘tried to understand’ in (50a):

(51) a. Ano ang g-in-awa-Ø mo?

what NOM do-PFV-PF 2SG.GEN

‘What did you do?

62

As a viable test for dynamiticity, this test could, arguably, have been used in earlier chapters. However,

the focus of the earlier discussions was telicity rather than dynamicity; hence, it is introduced here just to

illustrate the dynamic characteristic of ‘mental activity’ predicates when they appear with the IN/Ø affix or

with the MA-AN affixes.

245

b. In-intindi-Ø ko na lamang

PFV-understanding 1SG.GEN LNK just

ang ugali niya.


‘I just tried to understand his personality (and did so).

(52) a. Ano ang g-in-awa-Ø ng bata?

what NOM do-PFV-PF GEN child

‘What did the child do?

b* na-intindih-an na niya ang mga nangyari…

PFV-understanding-LF LNK 3SG.GEN NOM PL happened

‘He understood what happened …’

The test shows that the predicate in (52b) is ungrammatical suggesting that it is not a

dynamic predicate. In contrast, the grammaticality of (51b) illustrates that the predicate is

dynamic. We can further test the (non)stativity of the predicates by applying the adverb

pilit ‘forced’ to examine agentivity.

(53) a. Pilit niya-ng in-intindi-Ø/

forced 3SG-LNK PFV-understanding-PF/

<in-i>-intindi-Ø ang sitwasyon.

<IN-RDP>.IPFV- understanding-PF NOM situation

‘S/he deliberately tried to understand the situation (and did so)/is trying to

understand the situation.’

b. * Pilit niya-ng na-intindih-an /

forced 3SG-LNK PFV-understanding-LF/

na-i-intindih-an ang sitwasyon.

PFV-RDP-understanding-LF NOM situation

‘S/he deliberately understood/understands the situation.’

The acceptability of the adverb pilit ‘forced’ in (53a) shows that the Actor acts

volitionally and with will. This suggests the agentivity of the predicates in (53a) as

opposed to the one in (54b). Agentivity entails non-stativity of the predicate (but not vice

versa). The test in (53) further demonstrates the non-stativity nature of the predicate in

(53a) as opposed to the stativity nature of the predicate in (53b).

246

Now that we have established the (non)stativity status of the predicates, it leads to the

question of the function of reduplication. If the predicate na-intindihan ‘understood’, in

(52b), is a state, but then it allows reduplication, as shown in (49a), what accounts for the

acceptability of reduplication in a state predicate? If we look at the (49b) sentence, which

we claim is an inchoative state, the viewpoint suggests the coming about of the state of

understanding in a bounded perspective. The reduplication of the same predicate, as

shown in (49a), suggests the same inchoative status in an unbounded perspective. That is,

the state of having understood something is still in progress. It’s not about the change in

the degree of understanding, for it remains the same from one point to another. But, it is

about being in the state of understanding from one point to another. One can argue that

(49b) also has that sense of continuity. However, this sense is available because of being

a state event. The perfective view terminates the situation at some point, while the

reduplication, in (49a), provides the perspective that the situation is open/unbounded.

7.3.3 Continuity in perception predicates

It has been observed that perception verbs manifest different types of event structure

(Viberg 1983). They are typically states, but can also be achievements. When they appear

as achievements, they denote an inceptive sense, focusing on the initial point of the

situation. Normally, the shift to any type of event structure is considered a marked

construction, as certain modifiers are needed to make the shift. The sentences in (54)

illustrate this point.

(54) a. Monica saw the accident from her bedroom window.

b. Suddenly, Monica saw the fairy.

The example in (54a) shows a perception verb as a state eventuality, but in (54b), the

existence of the point adverbial ‘suddenly’ shifts the verb ‘see’ into an achievement

eventuality. Achievements like this are argued to be in perfective viewpoint.

In Tagalog, perception predicates, such as tingin ‘look’, are naturally stative using

the MA-KA-prefix, e.g. nakatingin ‘looking’. They can also shift to non-stative where

reduplication is again permitted to indicate continuity. When they are reduplicated, they

are viewed imperfectively.

247

(55) <T-in-i>-tingn-an niya yung lalagyan ng palaka.

<IN-RDP>.IPFV-look-LF 3SG.GEN NOM container GEN frog

‘He is/was looking at the container of the frog.’

(56) <In-a>-amoy- Ø ng aso ang bahay ng lulumbo.

<IN-RDP>.IPFV-smell-PF GEN dog NOM house GEN bee

‘The dog is/was smelling the house of the bees.’

The sentences in (55) and (56) show the state predicates tingin ‘look’ and amoy ‘smell’

can only be non-stative when they shift to another event type, as in achievement, as

exhibited by the LF form of tingin ‘look’ in (55) and the PF form of amoy ‘smell’ in (56).

As achievements, they are telic; thus, they have an inherent endpoint. However, when

they are viewed imperfectively, the endpoint is suspended and not made visible. Thus, in

this perspective, only the internal structure of the event of looking and smelling is the

locus of the perspective. With this type of predicate, reduplication provides a continuity

reading.

7.3.4 Habituality and Progressivity

Habituality is a feature of a situation characterised as protracted over an extended period

of time. There is regularity in the occurrence of the situation during that extended period

of time, such that ‘the situation becomes a characteristic of that whole period (Xiao and

McEnery 2004:25). Habituals are considered one of the semantic categories subsumed

under imperfectivity. Notably, it is distinguished from iterativity (Comrie 1976).

The typical habitual sentences in English are expressed through the ‘used to’

construction, such as ‘I used to play guitar in college’, ‘I used to write poems.’ However,

habitual patterns could also be indicated by frequency adverbials, as illustrated in (57).

(57) a. Eric drinks coffee after dinner.

b. Therese wrote reports every fortnight.

c. Rowee jogs every morning.

On the other hand, the progressive is most associated with the meaning of continuity

denoting a sense of dynamicity. Hence, because of the notion of dynamicity, the

248

progressive view mostly applies to non-stative predicates and relates to their proper

internal parts (Rothstein 2004).

Notably, in Tagalog verbal clauses, the process of reduplication is necessary in

order for the habitual and progressive interpretations to take place. However, the

formation seems to interact with the type of eventuality the focus forms exhibit. As I

show in the next section, what will be evident is that habituality can only be exhibited by

activity event types and not the active accomplishments. In contrast, the progressive

reading is available for both the activity and active accomplishment eventualities.

7.3.4.1 Reduplication in activities and active accomplishments

The use of reduplication in predicates with activity event types is ambiguous between

habituality and progressive, particularly in the AF and PF alternation where the

homomorphic relation between the verbal domain and nominal domain is quite evident.

The ambiguities are exemplified by predicates of consumption, performance, creation,

and learning verbs. Consider the following sentences.

(58) a. K-um-a-kain ako ng durian.

<RDP-UM>IPFV.AF-eat 1SG.NOM GEN durian

‘I eat durian.’

‘I am/was eating a durian.’

b. K-in-a-kain-Ø ko ang durian.

<RDP-IN>IPFV-eat-PF 1SG.GEN NOM durian

‘I am/was eating the durian.’

(59) a. Um-i-inom si Betong ng Red Horse

<RDP-UM>IPFV.AF-drink NOM PN GEN PN

‘Betong drinks Red Horse.’

‘Betong is/was drinking Red Horse.’

b. In-i-inom-Ø ni Betong ang Red Horse.

<RDP-IN>IPFV-drink-PF GEN PN NOM PN

‘Betong is/was drinking the Red Horse.’

249

(60). a. Nag-ba-basa si Denise ng National Georaphic.

<RDP-UM>IPFV.AF-read NOM PN GEN PN

‘Denise reads National Geograhic.’

‘Denise is/was reading a National Geographic (magazine).’

b. B-in-a-basa-Ø ni Denise ang National Georgraphic.

<RDP-IN>IPFV-read-PF GEN PN NOM PN

‘Denise is/was reading the National Geographic.’

Presumably, the ambiguity in all the AF constructions, such as (58a)-(60a), arises

because of the atelicity of the predicate and the reduplication process. In Chapter 5, we

saw that the atelicity of the AF predicate triggers a bare plural interpretation of the NG-

phrase. We also established in that chapter that it is the (a)telicity of the predicate that

influences realisation of argument(s). This explains why the realisation of the arguments,

even in a reduplicated form of the AF predicate, is maintained. Interestingly,

reduplication can also provide a ‘generic’ reading of the clause.

Krifka (1995) suggests that sentences providing a generic (or characterising

property) reading would not refer to any episodic or isolated fact, but instead refer to a

general property. Arguably, a habitual sentence is a kind of sentences which provide

characterizing property, as exemplified by the sentences in (57). Having the

characterising property, a habitual clause expresses a generalisation over situations

predicated of an individual. As a habitual sentence, the predicate um-i-inom ‘drank’, in

(59), expresses generalisations over Betong’s drinking of Redhorse activity. The

protracted or multiple occurrences of um-i-inom ‘drinking’ are represented by the same

eventive predicate. On the other hand, the progressive reading of the same predicate

suggests not multiple occurrences of the eventive predicate um-i-inom, but an ongoing

occurrence of the event of drinking.

We can disambiguate the habitual and progressive readings of the AF predicates

by using temporal adverbials and contexts (i.e. provided by the relative clause). The

sentences below illustrate this point.

(61) a. <K-um-a>-kain ako ng durian


noon-g <nag-ta>-trabaho ako sa Davao.

then-LNK <N-(ag)-RDP>IPFV.AF-work 1SG.NOM DAT PN.

‘I used to eat durian when I was working in Davao.’

250

a'. <K-um-a>-kain ako ng durian


?noon-g nag-trabaho ako sa Davao.

then-LNK PFV.AF-work 1SG.NOM DAT PN.

‘I used to eat durian when I worked in Davao.’

b. <K-um-a>-kain ako ng durian


nang d-um-ating si Maria.

LNK AF.PFV-arrive NOM PN.

‘I was eating durian when Maria arrived.’

b'. <K-um-a>-kain ako ng durian


*nang <d-um-a>-dating si Maria.

LNK <UM-RDP>.IPFV.AF-arrive NOM PN.

‘I was eating durian when Maria was arriving.’

The sentence in (61a) shows that the habitual reading is compatible with temporal

clauses. However, the predicate in the temporal clause must be in the reduplicated form to

agree with the habitual interpretation. The unacceptability of the temporal clause with the

predicate in the perfective form in (61a’) confirms the point made for the sentence in

(61a). In contrast, the sentence in (61b) provides a progressive reading and the predicate

in the relative clause, which provides the context, has to be in the perfective and not in the

imperfective form, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the sentence in (61b').

Another example of reduplication that provides a progressive reading is the

sentence in (62). In this example, the ‘on going’ occurrence of event is projected.

(62) Patuloy ang ulan.

continue NOM rain

T-in-a-tangay-Ø pa rin ng agos ang dahon.

<IN-RDP>.IPFV-carry.away-PF still GEN current NOM leaf

‘The leaf is/was still carried away by the current.’

(Ang alamat ng Makahiya, Books for Children 2002)

251

The examples in (61b) and (62) show that reduplication not only presents the events

imperfectively to suggest the ongoing interpretation of the situations, but also to create

the sense of dynamicity in the events. The sentence in (63), however, gives a habitual

reading.

(63) Guston-ng gusto niya na i-ni-lu-lubog

like-LNK like 3SG.GEN LNK PF-<NI-RDP>.IPFV-submerge

ang kanya-ng mga kamay sa tubig

NOM 3SG.DAT-LNK PL hand DAT water

habang <um-a>-andar ang bangka.

while <UM-RDP>IPFV.AF-move NOM canoe

‘She really likes/liked it that (she) submerges her hands in

the water while the canoe is/was moving.’

(Saan galing ang Bulkang Taal, Books for Children 2002)

In this section, we have seen that reduplication in activities and active accomplishments

expressed by the AF and PF alternation provide two interpretations: habituality and

progressive. It is shown that temporal clause, which provides the context, can

disambiguate the readings. To get the habituality reading, the temporal clause must be in

the imperfective viewpoint. In contrast, to infer the progressive interpretation, the

temporal clause must be in the perfective viewpoint.

7.3.5 Plurality of events

In our discussion of the atelicity of the AF predicates in Chapter 5, we demonstrated that

its effect on the NG-patient invites the inference of a plurality of events, as in the example

in (64), where the situation is construed as a book-reading event. In Chapter 4, the

plurality of events interpretation was also argued for achievements that co-occur with

durative adverbials, as in (65), where the event is construed as happening one after the

other. Note that both of these examples are in perfective forms.

(64) Nag-basa siya ng libro ni Rizal.

AF.PFV-read 3SG.NOM GEN book GEN PN

‘She read a book of Rizal/Rizal’s books.’

252

(65) S-um-abog ang bulkan maghapon.

PF.PFV-erupt NOM volcano whole.afternoon

‘The volcano erupted all afternoon.’

The examples in (66) demonstrate that it is possible to reduplicate event types denoted by

the focus forms to create multiplicity of activities and present the series of activities

imperfectively. Recall that multiple activities have achievements as subevents (see fn.10,

Chapter 4). Thus, multiple activities can be induced by the use of an achievement +

adverbial modifier, as in (64) and (65), or the achievement predicate can be reduplicated,

as in (66).

(66) Achievement + Achievement

(a) Naku, ang ga-ganda-ng mga bulaklak!

Wow NOM RDP-beauty-LNK PL flower

P-um-itas tayo.

AF-PFV-pluck 1PL.NOM

‘Wow, beautiful flowers! Let’s pluck (them).’

(b) Sige, p-um-itas tayo nang p-um-itas.

Ok AF-pluck 1PL.NOM LNK AF-pluck

Sino kaya ang may-ari nito?

who MOD NOM owner this

‘Ok, let’s keep on plucking (them). Who could be the owner of this?’

(Ang unang Paru-paro, Books for Children 2002)

In the example in (66), the predicate pumitas ‘pluck’ denotes an achievement event type.

Its reduplication in (66b) suggests that there will be a series of flower picking events.

Achievements, when reduplicated, create a conglomeration of the achievement events that

are taken as an activity event as a whole. The presentation of the events, as an activity,

provides the imperfective viewpoint. Interestingly, when achievements are presented in

the imperfective viewpoint, the initial point appears to be visible but the endpoint is not.

The example in (67) and (68) provide the same interpretation.

253

(67) T-um-awag ng t-um-awag yung bata-ng lalaki

AF.PFV-call LNK AF,PFV-call NOM child-LNK boy

sa pag-ha-hanap ng kanila-ng alaga-ng palaka.

DAT DRV-RDP-look.for GEN 3SG.DAT-LNK pet-LNK frog

‘The little boy kept on calling as he looked for their pet frog’. (FWAY:22)

(68) Hanap sila ng hanap.

look.for 3PL.NOM GEN 3PL.NOM

‘They kept on looking for him.’ (FWAY:22)

In (67), we have the reduplication of the achievement predicate tumawag ‘called’. Note

that the achievement is presented in the perfective form suggesting that the initial and

final endpoints are visible. Presumably, this is contradictory to the presentation of the

plurality of event as imperfective. However, that is not the case. What appears to be

presented here is that the speaker looks into each event as an integrated whole. They are

completed and finished, which is how achievements are constructed in perfective forms.

In (67), however, it seems that the speaker tries to portray one whole single event made

up of individual perfective achievement events. What we have here, then, is that the

initial and endpoint might be overlapping with each other that they are not becoming

visible at all. The schema below helps clarify this supposition:

(I)…..………I (R) ……I(R)……….I(R)………….(F)

F F F

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the diagram above, it shows that the initial point and the final point of the cluster of

achievement events are not visible. However, the initial, final, and result state of the

achievement within this cluster is discernable. The plurality of events is easily observable

in activity predicates, such as hanap ‘look for’, which is also reduplicated in the sentence

in (68). The reduplication of hanap ‘look for’ exhibits a cluster made up of activity

events. Given that activity event types are homogeneous, the imperfective locus of the

situation is reinforced. Thus, the internal structure of this cluster of activities is simply

254

composed of successive stages that do not terminate and where neither the initial point

nor the final point is clearly visible.

I…………………….F

//////////////////////////

7.4 (A)telicity and (Im)perfectivity

In this final section, the claim on the orthogonal but interacting relationship between

(a)telicity and (im)perfectivity is further elucidated. The preceding sections have shown

that the event structure a particular focus form denotes influences the perfective or

imperfective viewpoint of the clause. For instance, the telicity of an accomplishment

predicate is reinforced when viewed in the perfective, since perfective view puts a

boundary on the event. Thus, the associative relation of an accomplishment predicate +

perfectivity yields a completed event, as in (69a). On the other hand, when the same

accomplishment predicate interacts with imperfectivity, the association yields a non-

completed event, such as (69b). Reduplication, which is the mechanism used to induce

imperfective view, triggers a continuity reading of an accomplishment event.

(69) a. G-um-anda si Sharon Accomplishment+PFV

beauty-PFV.PF NOM PN

‘Sharon became beautiful.’

b. G-um-a-ganda si Sharon. Accomplishment+IPFV

<UM-RDP>IPFV.PF-beauty NOM PN

‘Sharon is becoming beautiful.’

The important role of telicity, thereby the event structure of a predicate, is also

manifested in the way it permits reduplication or the imperfective view. In the above

examples, reduplication is permissible since the internal temporal composition of the

predicate, although telic, is durative. Hence, the successive stages of accomplishment

allow the intersection of reduplication to create a progressive view. We further affirm the

significant role of event structure by looking at achievements. Consider the sentences in

(70).

255

(70) a. Na-basag ang pinggan.

PFV.PF-break NOM plate

‘The plate broke.’

b. *Na-ba-basag ang pinggan.

PFV.PF-RDP-break NOM plate

‘The plate is breaking.’

c. <B-in-a>-basag-Ø niya *ang pinggan/?ang mga pinggan

<RDP-IN>IPFV-break-PF 3SG.GEN NOM plate/ ?NOM PL plate

‘S/he is breaking the plate/the plates.’

d. <N(ag)-ba>-basag siya ng pinggan/.

<N-(ag)-RDP>IPFV.AF-break 3SG.NOM GEN plate/

ng mga pinggan

GEN PL plate

‘S/he is breaking plates/some plates.’

Presumably, given that achievements are instantaneous, they are not compatible with a

durative reading or a progressive reading. For instance, as shown in (70b), reduplication

is not compatible with achievements, such as basag ‘break’. In English, it appears to be

permitted but with a special interpretation. That is, by presenting it in an imperfective

viewpoint, it takes an ingressive interpretation in which the achievement event happens at

the end of the interval. Although preliminary stages that lead to the achievement event

are conceivable, they are actually detachable from the achievement event itself. An

example of this is the expression ‘He is reaching the peak of Mt. Fuji’. In this sentence,

the use of progressive form suggests the preliminary stages the person goes through

before reaching the summit. The achievement part is the time when he has reached the

summit. In Tagalog, it appears that there are basic forms of achievements that are allowed

to reduplicate and present their internal stages. Some examples are given in (72),

however, let us continue discussing the other sentences in (70) above.

In (70c), the imperfective viewpoint is not allowed when the Undergoer is

considered a single entity (unless one is describing a scene where the plate is so hard to

break that the agent is trying his best to break it). When the Undergoer is pluralised, the

imperfective view of achievement appears acceptable. However, it is permitted with a

256

special interpretation. Since the predicate is an active achievement, part of its lexical

representation is an activity algorithm that denotes a process (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5

for the discussion of this event type). Presumably, it is the activity part of the algorithm

that the reduplicated form gets mapped on to produce a distributive reading of the event.

That is, the Actor is breaking the plates one by one. If this is presented in the perfective

form, the reading will be breaking all the plates at the same time (i.e. totality

interpretation of the Undergoer). Consider the logical structure of the sentence in (70c)

given in (71) where R stands for result stage and F for the final point.

(71) do' (niya, [break' (niya, (plato))]) & INGR broke' (plato)

I…………………………………..(R)

F

/////////////////////////////////////////////////

Supposedly, the initial point, the final point, and the result state all happen at the same

time, as the intervals of achievements are not easily discernable. However, in the above

diagram, it shows that the reduplicated form represents the stages that have been

prolonged, which is the activity algorithm in the LS. This activity component represents

other preliminary actions that the agent might be doing prior to the actual breaking of the

plate. The final point (F) and the result stage (R) represented by the second component of

the LS ‘& INGR broke' (plato)’, which is the achievement representation, signify the

actual breaking of the plates.

In (70d), the imperfective view is permitted even when the patient participant is

the argument of NG. In Chapter 5, we indicated that because of the atelicity of the

predicate, the NG-patient gets ambiguous interpretations when no other quantificational

element is present. Thus, an imperfective view of an activity version of the predicate

basag ‘break’ is grammatically acceptable to give an iterative reading of the event.

Now, we look at other achievement predicates that can be reduplicated even in

their basic achievement form.

(72) <Na-hu>-hulog ang bahay ng bubuyog.

<NA-RDP>IPFV.PF-fall NOM house GEN bee

‘The house of the bees is falling.’

257

(73) <Na-tu>-tuyo na ang mga damit.

<NA-RDP>IPFV.PF-dry already NOM PL clothe

‘The clothes are already drying.’

The examples in (72) and (73) show that it is possible to present achievements

imperfectively. In this view, they have the same interpretation as the English example ‘he

is reaching the peak of Mt.Fuji’. That is, in (72), the preliminary stages suggest that the

speaker is presenting the internal structure of the act of falling. This reading is feasible

when the distance between the initial point and the final point are far (e.g. the tree where

the house of the bees is located is very tall). In (73), the imperfective view invites the

inference that it took the clothes some time to dry, and this interval is reflected by the

reduplication process. The schema of the sentences in (72) and (73) will be different from

those in (70c) or (70d). This is shown below. The slashes points to the imperfective view

signalled by the reduplicated form.

I……………..(R)

/////////////// F

The examples above point us to the last significant reason for distinguishing (a)telicity

and (im)perfectivity and that is the realisation of the arguments. I argue in this study that

telicity is the semantic determinant that influences the realisation of arguments. The

preceding chapters have presented the event structure of some predicates that belong to a

particular class and exhibit the AF/PF alternation or the AF/LF alternation. In this

chapter, we have discussed that this focus form alternation can be viewed perfectively

and imperfectively. In our examples, notice that the arguments of the predicate do not

change their macrorole assignments or their realisation in syntax. Arguably, this

highlights the fact that viewpoint aspect affects only the perspective of the situation, but

not the argument realisation. Examples are given below to illustrate these assertions

classified according to their event structure.

258

States

(74) a. Alam ko ang sikreto.

know 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I know the secret.’

b. In-alam-Ø ko ang sikreto.

PFV-know-PF 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I did something to find out the secret.’

c. In-a-alam-Ø ko ang sikreto.

<IN-RDP>IPFV-know-PF 1SG.GEN NOM secret

‘I am doing something to find out the secret.’

In our previous discussion above, we mentioned that the cognition predicate alam ‘know’

does not allow reduplication. If a speaker wants to present this predicate in a reduplicated

form, it has to change its event structure. By doing so, it is also changing its nature from

being static (74a) to dynamic (74b and 74c).

Notably, when alam ‘know’ shifts into another event structure, it takes the PF

form, which is a telic predicate. Being a telic predicate, it assigns its y ‘content’ argument

an Undergoer MR and x ‘cogniser’ argument an Actor MR. Notice that in (74c) the only

change that can be observed is the reduplicated form of the predicate. However, the

position of the arguments on surface structure remains the same. The shifts that happen

are on the viewpoint of the situation—from perfective in (74b) to imperfective in (74c).

To explicate this, let us look at the LS in (75).

In-a-alam-Ø ko ang sikreto.

(75) <V.AspRDP<do' (x, [know' (1SG.GEN, (sikreto))]) & BECOME known' (sikreto)]>

The LS above shows the representation of the PF version of the cognition verb alam

‘know’ in an imperfective view (74c). In the LS, the added feature is the viewpoint aspect

Cogniser

(x)

Content

(y)

Actor

Undergoer

259

that is on the left-edge side of the lexical representation signifying its role as one of the

nuclear operators. As a nuclear operator, it takes scope over the nucleus, i.e. verb + core

arguments, and modifies the action, event or situation. The same analysis holds for

activity event type of manner of motion predicates, such as takbo ‘run’.


AF.PFV-run NOM PN DAT park

‘Noy ran in the park.’

b. <T-um-a>-takbo si Noy sa liwasan.

<UM-RDP>IPFV.AF-run NOM PN DAT park

‘Noy is/was running in the park.’

c. <V.AspRDP <be-in' (park, [do' (Noy, [run' (Noy)])])>

When telic predicates are expressed in the PF forms or LF forms, such as the example in

(77a), and are viewed in the imperfective form, as in (77b), their telicity is not cancelled

but only suspended. Since imperfective viewpoint does not make the endpoint of the

situation visible, a telic predicate is then viewed as having not reached its endpoint. But it

is seen as ‘in progress’ with an indefinite final stage. The sentence in (77b) is still telic,

however, since it is reduplicated, it invites the inference that the agent is in the middle of

the running event and the goal is far from being reached (cf. fn.2, Section 7.1.1). The

logical representation in (77c) illustrates that no change occurs in the telicity nature of the

predicate, but there is a change in the viewpoint, as indicated by the RDP operator.

(77) a. T-in-akbo-Ø ni Noy ang liwasan.


‘Noy ran to the park.

b. <T-in-a>-takbo-Ø ni Noy ang liwasan.

<RDP-IN>IPFV-run-PF GEN PN NOM park

‘Noy ran to the park and he was still running there.

c. <V.AspRDP < [do' (Noy, [run' (Noy)]) & BECOME be-at' (park, Noy)>

260

The analyses on the in(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect is

summarised in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 In(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog

Telic Atelic

7.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I provided a preliminary account of the interaction of viewpoint aspect

and event structure in Tagalog. I argued that their interaction provides different

interpretations of the verbal expression signifying the perspective the speaker is

presenting the situation/event from, yet maintaining its event type.

Thus, by taking a two-component aspectual system approach, we can elucidate,

for instance, the intuition that Tagalog native speakers have with regard to the

(non)completion reading of the dynamic base predicates that exhibit the AF and PF

alternations in their perfective forms and that denote the activity-active accomplishment

event type dichotomy. I have also shown the significance of the in(ter)dependence of

event structure and viewpoint aspect on non-dynamic predicates that denote the state,

accomplishment and achievement eventualities. The exploration of this in(ter)dependence

has provided a preliminary account of the aspectual interpretations of the predicates that

have been part of this investigation.

Significantly, the independence of event structure of a verbal clause from

viewpoint aspect has demonstrated that it is the predicate’s event type, triggered by

telicity and expressed by the focus form, which influences the behaviour of its arguments

and their realisation in syntax.

PFV PF,LF:(active) accomplishment,

achievement

AF: activities

IPFV PF,LF:(active) accomplishment,

achievements (for some only,

with special interpretation)

AF: activities

(inchoative) states

261

Chapter 8

Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

At the beginning of this thesis, I raised three fundamental questions arising from the

Tagalog verbal system: (1) what accounts for the choice of focus; (2) what is the

motivation behind the syntactic manifestations of a single predicate; and, (3) do these

focus forms signify only the semantic relation between the affixed predicate and the ANG-

phrase.

To address the first two linguistic issues stated above, the traditional analysis of

the verbal system of Tagalog has emphasised the correlation of the base predicates with

verbal affixes to form what is known in Austronesian linguistics as the ‘focus system’.

We saw that this focus system has been a source of linguistic issues such as the

‘definiteness hypothesis’, the transitivity status of the AF clause with the NG-patient and

the viability of the notion of subjecthood in Tagalog. Most of the studies that try to

address these issues have looked to syntax to investigate the rich affixation of the verbal

system, and based on the frameworks adopted, different solutions have been proposed.

This thesis, however, has turned to semantics to account for the three

aforementioned questions and makes the following claims:

(i) Event structure analysis is relevant in accounting for the verbal system of

Tagalog. Event structure is widely used to refer to the lexical semantic

representation of verb meanings where verb meanings are decomposed into

basic components. It works under the assumption that because verb

meanings are linguistic construals of events, there are semantic properties of

the events which find their way into the representation and influence the

realisation of arguments. Guided by this principle, this dissertation,

specifically in Chapters 4-6, has shown that the focus forms exhibited by the

base predicate are linguistic construals of events and denote different event

types. These event types are crucially linked to their telicity property, and

this, in turn, influences the interpretations of the ANG-phrase, the NG-phrase

and the SA-phrase. In the current work, the significance of the notion of

definiteness is seen as a by-product of the correlation between the (a)telicity

of the predicate and its event structure denotation.

262

(ii) M(acrorole) transitivity, which is tied to event structure governed by telicity,

accounts for the long-standing issue regarding base predicates that exhibit

the AF and PF alternation. By examining predicates that belong to the class

of consumption, performance, creation, learning, transaction or change of

possession in Chapter 5, we have found a strong correlation between telicity

and M-transitivity of PF forms, and atelicity and M-intransitivity of AF

forms. Subsequently, we have observed that the (a)telicity of these

predicates influences the semantic interpretation of the (A)NG-PATIENT.

Furthermore, I have demonstrated in Chapter 6 that this telicity analysis also

accounts for directed motion and manner of motion predicates that have the

AF and PF/LF alternation. In these motion predicates, I have shown that the

(a)telicity of the predicates influences the semantic interpretation of the

ANG-phrase and the SA-phrase.

(iii) It is important to distinguish event structure and viewpoint aspect. In

Chapter 7, I explicated the significance of a theoretical distinction between

these two aspectual components by examining the event structures I

identified from Chapter 4 to Chapter 7 when they are presented in the

(im)perfective viewpoint. Table 8.6 below summarises the aspectual

interpretations of the in(ter)depence of event structure and viewpoint aspect

in Tagalog, as discussed in Chapter 7.

Generally, the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) framework has been used as a

descriptive tool for classifying the focus forms in terms of their event structure and

corresponding logical structure (or lexical representation). In particular, the notion of

M(acrorole) in RRG has been adopted to elucidate the long-standing transitivity issue of

the AF with the NG-patient form and its PF alternate. However, as the notion of telicity in

RRG is not fully discussed, the semantic-based definition of telicity of Krifka’s (1992)

homomorphism concept has been adopted. The homomorphic relation between the verbal

domain and the nominal domain has aided in explaining the effect of the AF atelic

predicate on its nominal argument, particularly in verb classes like transaction or change

of possession and also for those predicates that can be coerced to denote another event

type, such as achievement to activity. RRG does not have a paradigm for (im)perfectivity;

thus, Smith’s (1991) framework of viewpoint aspect has also been employed to provide

263

the general schema in explicating the in(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint

aspect in Tagalog.

The thesis has limited its event structure analysis to specific verb classes. (1)

consumption, creation, performance, learning, and transaction or change of possession.

These verb classes exhibit the AF and PF alternation, where the patient participant gets

mapped into the ANG-phrase or NG-phrase. These are the verb classes which figured in the

transitivity issue and, normally, have a SA-phrase as optional. (2) content-oriented and

container-oriented, which express the locative alternation. Predicates that fall into the

locative alternation class differ from motion predicates. They were chosen to highlight

their difference from the motion predicates despite displaying similar behaviour in terms

of the focus form alternations. (3) Directed-motion and manner of motion predicates

illustrate the significance of the (a)telicity of the predicate and its event structure

denotation on the interpretation of the SA-phrase and the role it takes in the focus form

alternation. Generally, these three verb classes belong in the domain of non-stative and

dynamic predicates. Stative and non-dynamic predicates have also been examined using

predicates that fall into the classes of perception, positional, cognition, and those that take

the MA-/Ø affixed derived from nouns/adjectives.

Table 8.1, repeated from Table 1.1, summarises the focus forms, the verbal affixes

and the associated event structures that have been part of the investigation.

Table 8.1 Focus forms and the associated event structure and verbal affixes

Event

affix

State Activity Active

acc

Acc* Achv Active

achv

Caus

UM AF PF PF

IN PF PF

AN LF

MA PF PF

MAG AF

PA CF

KA PF AF

*Acc=accomplishment; Achv=achievement;Caus=causative

264

8.1 Contributions of the study

I have shown in this thesis that the focus system of Tagalog does not simply signify the

semantic relation between the affixed verb and the salient participant, i.e. ANG-phrase.

Significantly, the analyses in Chapters 4-7 demonstrated that these focus forms are, in

fact, linguistic construals of events and denote event structure types. I have illustrated that

telicity is the key semantic property to determine the event type that an affixed predicate

can denote and provided telicity tests to support this claim. Taking Foley and Van

Valin’s (1984) logical representations of some perception predicates and extending from

Nolasco and Saclot’s (2005) initial treatment of RRG’s 1997 event type distinctions of

the AF and PF alternation with the insights from Travis’ (2000, 2005, 2010) exploration

of telicity, I have expounded and demonstrated the relevance of event structure analyses

on Tagalog’s focus system.

Furthermore, through an event structure analysis, the issue of the transitivity of the

AF forms with the NG-patient and their PF alternates has been elucidated by invoking

RRG’s (1997, 2005, 2007) notion of Macrorole transitivity, which hinges on event

structure and telicity. The analyses revealed that there is a strong correlation between

telicity and M-transitivity of the PF forms, on the one hand, and atelicity and M-

intransitivity of the AF forms, on the other. In particular, I have shown that the AF forms

are M-intransitive since the NG-patient is not an Undergoer, hence a non-macrorole. The

opposite is the case for the patient participant in the PF forms, which is an Undergoer and

has a result state entailment. Examination of these two focus forms, in terms of their

telicity properties and event structure types, has further illuminated the semantic

properties of the (A)NG-phrase and has shown the interplay of telicity, definiteness and

specificity/referentiality.

Finally, this thesis has provided a preliminary account of the distinction between

event structure and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog. By distinguishing these two aspectual

components, the event structure of an affixed predicate is maintained while it interacts

with viewpoint aspect. The interaction of these two aspectual systems can differentiate,

for instance, the complete but terminated reading of the AF activity predicates from the

completed and finished reading of the PF active accomplishment predicates.

265


activity (ma-ka)


activity (ma-ka)

The sections below highlight the specific contributions of this thesis. Based on the

analyses of the focus forms in this thesis, the verbal system of Tagalog can be classified

into two major domains: (1) (Non)stative and non-dynamic and (2) Non-stative and

dynamic. Predicates that are typically part of these two domains manifest different types

of focus form alternations and, accordingly, event structure denotations.

8.1.1 (Non)stative and non-dynamic

The investigation of the affixes MA, Ø, UM and KA has shown that these affixes can be

grouped into two types of domain when derived from nouns (N) or adjectives (ADJ), as

shown in Figure 8.1.

N /ADJ

stative and non-dynamic

State (ma/Ø)

non-dynamic and non-stative

accomplishment achievement (ma-/um)

Figure 8.1 (non)stative and non-dynamic domains derived from N/ADJ

In the (non)stative and non-dynamic domain, the predicates denote a state event type as

the basic construction. The same base predicates from the state eventuality build the

achievements and accomplishments. Essentially, states are classified under ma- states or

unaffixed states, which are derived from nouns or adjectives. The achievements and

accomplishments, which are derived from states, are formed with the MA- or UM- affix.

266

The broken lines suggest that the feature (e.g. non-dynamic, non-stative) of the predicate

is carried over when that same predicate denotes another type of event structure.

Since achievements and accomplishments co-occur with MA- or UM- affix,

telicity tests are proposed to distinguish the two, as shown in Table 8.2, repeated from

Table 4.1. (# indicates that a special interpretation is induced when predicates are

subjected to this test; * not applicable; x is not compatible; √ is compatible).

Table 8.2 Test for telicity and punctuality of states,

accomplishments, and achievements with UM/MA affix

Adverbial test

Event

Structure

Dahan-

dahan

‘slowly’

Magdamag

‘all night

long’

Sa loob

ng isang

oras

‘within

an hour’

States: ma/Ø x x x

Accomplishment:

ma-/um

√ x √

Achievement:

ma-/um

x # *

In addition to the analyses of predicates that co-occur with MA- and UM- affixes, the

affix KA has also been examined. In support of the analyses of Kroeger (1990) and

Phillips (1996), the affix KA has been found to exhibit two types of function, namely:

stative marker and actor marker. By examining, in particular, the positional and

perception predicates, these two aforementioned roles of KA- are observed.

The analyses of event structure in this domain have revealed the relationship

between telic predicates having an Undergoer and a result state entailment. This is

predicted from the logical representations that are proposed for the base predicate +

verbal affix that have been investigated in this thesis. In sum, these affixed predicates are

proposed to denote the following event structure with their corresponding logical

representation presented in Table 8.3. The table shows also the non-basic event types that

accomplishments and achievements can denote, as demonstrated in Chapter 4.

267

Table 8.3 Event structure and logical representation of stative and non-dynamic

Tagalog predicates

Affix Event structure Logical representation

ma-

Ø-

state be' (x, [pred'])

pred' (x, (y))

ma-/-um accomplishment BECOME pred' (x)

ma-/-um achievement INGR pred' (x, (y))

INGR[HAPPEN.TO. pred' (x,y)])

ka activity do' (x, [GET.TO.pred'( x,y)])

*mag activity do' (x, [pred' (x, (y))])

*in/ Ø Active achievement do' (x, [pred1' (x, (y))]) & INGR pred2'

(y)]

* non-basic event types

In addition to the classification of the predicates into their event types, the contribution of

the study is the logical representations of the AF and PF alternation of perception verbs,

as expressed by the MA-KA and MA affixes, respectively. To capture the intuition of

‘non’volitionality and ‘unintentionality’, the LS with the atomic predicate HAPPEN.TO

is proposed for the achievement event type, i.e. MA + perception predicate. On the other

hand, the atomic predicate GET.TO is proposed for the MA-KA + perception predicate

to account for the shift to activity event type and the emergence of an agent who provides

a ‘dynamic’ reading of the typically non-dynamic perception verbs.

8.1.2 Non-stative and Dynamic domain

The predicates that are classified under the non-stative and dynamic domain exhibit the

AF, PF and LF focus forms and denote the activity-active accomplishment dichotomy.

Their focus form alternations and event type denotations hinge on the verb class to which

they belong. Accordingly, their logical structures vary to some degree to signify the

difference in their verb class. Despite varying logical structures, the verbal affixes that co-

268

occur with the base predicate are similar. Table 8.4 is the summary of the analyses of

these predicates according to their verb classes.

Table 8.4 Event structure and logical representation of non-stative and dynamic predicates

Affix Focus Verb class Event structure Logical representation

um/mag AF Consumption,

etc

Activity do' (x,[predicate' (x,(y))]

Locative do' (x,[predicate' (x)]) ʌ be-MOVE'

(y,z)


(y,x) {goal marking: locative

interpretation}

do' (x, [pred' (x)]) ʌ NOT be-

towards' (y,x) {source

marking:locative interpretation}

in/Ø PF Consumption,

etc

Active

accomplishment

do' (x,[pred1' (x,(y))] & BECOME

pred2' (y)

Locative do' (x,[predicate' (x)]) & BECOME

be-LOC' (y,z)

Motion do' (x, [pred' (x)]) & BECOME be-

LOC' (y,x) {goal marking}

-an LF locative Active

Accomplishment

do' (x,[predicate' (x)]) ʌ be-MOVE'

(y, z ) & BECOME be-LOC' (y, z)


(y,x) & BECOME NOT be-LOC'

(y,x) {source/goal

marking:directional interpretation}

To classify the predicates in terms of their event types and corresponding logical

representations, three types of telicity tests have been put forward, namely: (1) the

cancellation test, (2) the continuity test, and (3) the muntik ‘almost’ test. Temporal

adverbials, which are good diagnostic tests for English, have a different effect on

Tagalog’s non-stative and dynamic predicates. It appears that temporal adverbials are

269

good for confirming the (im)perfectivity status of the (a)telic predicates by attesting to the

‘(un)boundedness’ effect that the viewpoint aspect imposes upon the verbal expressions

(analyses of this have been presented in Chapters 5 and 7).

The classification of predicates in these two domains can predict the focus forms

and alternations they can exhibit and the basic and non-basic event types that they can

denote. Consequently, the argument realisation of the predicates’ participants and their

semantic interpretations can be forecasted.

8.1.3 Semantics of the (A)NG patient and the SA-phrase

The thesis has also shown the significance of an event structure analysis and the notion of

telicity in the semantic interpretations of the ANG-phrase and the NG-phrase. This is

particularly evident for those predicates that have the AF with NG-patient and PF

alternation and where the notion of transitivity is problematic. Table 8.5, repeated from

Table 5.1 summarises the points raised and argued for in Chapter 5.

Table 8.5 (A)telicity of the predicate and the (A)NG patient

ANG/NG

(A)telicity

ANG-patient

NG-patient

Entailment

NQE isa ‘one’ NQE isa ‘one’

AF (atelic) -indefinite

Singular

-bare plural

-partitive

-some of x

-indefinite

and non-

specific/non-

referential

-indefinite

but

specific/

referential

non-result

state

PF (telic) -totality,

i.e. all of x

-definite

singular

or plural

-?definite and

non-specific/

Non-referential

-totality

-definite and

specific/

referential

result state

270

The analyses in Chapter 5, Section 5.5, summarised in the table above, show that when no

other quantificational elements are present to characterise the feature of the NG-phrase,

the atelicity of the predicate triggers an indefinite singular or bare plural interpretation of

the NG-phrase. Interestingly, the presence of the quantifier isa ‘one’ does not affect the

atelicity of the predicate, but it does have an influence on the semantics of the patient by

providing the NG-phrase with an indefinite but specific/referential reading. On the other

hand, the telicity of the predicate triggers a ‘totality’ reading of the ANG-phrase. The

occurrence of the quantifier isa ‘one’ provides the definite and specific/referential reading

of the ANG-phrase.

Notably, the event structure analysis of the AF and PF alternation of the predicates

from the consumption, performance, creation, learning, and transaction verb classes have

shown a correlation between the AF atelic predicate and Macrorole intransitivity on the

one hand, and the PF telic predicate and Macrorole transitivity on the other. Most

importantly, through this correlation, the status of the NG-patient in the AF form has been

established as a non-Undergoer without a result state entailment. The opposite is the case

for the ANG-patient in the PF form, where it is assigned an Undergoer macrorole with a

result state entailment.

The relevance of an event structure analysis for motion predicates, particularly of

the directed and manner of motion predicate types that have been part of the study,

supports the assumption that the focus forms of motion predicates are strategies for goal

and source marking to compensate for the lack of prepositions in Tagalog. By classifying

the AF atelic motion predicates into the activity event type, the SA-phrase is triggered to

provide a locative interpretation that roughly corresponds to English locative

prepositions, e.g. at, in, on. Thus, the activity event type of directed and manner of

motion predicates provides the interpretation that an event/situation occurred/happened in

a certain location. On the other hand, the PF telic motion predicates shift the

interpretation of the goal or source marked by ANG into a directional reading to indicate

the change of location of the Actor and not simply to indicate where the Actor is.

271

8.1.4 In(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint aspect

The last chapter of this thesis has provided a preliminary account of the interaction and

independence of event types and viewpoint aspect in Tagalog. The intuition of the

Tagalog native speakers on the (non)completion reading of the AF and PF alternation, but

at the same time the ‘boundedness’ or closure interpretation of this alternation has been

explicated by invoking a two-component aspectual system. That is, by assigning the

notion of completion to event structure and the notion of boundedness to viewpoint

aspect, the thesis has presented a systematic way to address the intuition of non-

completion but bounded, on one side, and completion and bounded, on the other.

Viewpoint aspect, which subsumes the perfectivity-imperfectivity dichotomy,

when interacting with the event structure of a predicate, provides the following

interpretations presented in Chapter 7 and summarised in Table 8.6.

Table 8.6 Aspectual interpretation of the in(ter)dependence of event structure and viewpoint

aspect

Viewpoint aspect

Event structure

Perfective Imperfective

(reduplication process)

State Inchoative Open and unbounded*

Activity inceptive; terminated, non-

completion,delimited, stopped,

not finished

Habituality, progressive,

plurality of events

Active accomplishment completion, finished,

completed

progressive

Accomplishment invites the inference of

preliminary stages, but main

focus is on the resultant state

Achievement Result state Inceptive (for the active

achievement)

The * in the imperfective reading of state event types is intended to flag that there are

some state predicates that do not undergo reduplication to indicate an imperfective view.

272

8.2 Further research

The following areas have not been part of the present study, but would certainly

contribute to the advancement of an event structure analysis of Tagalog (or Philippines

languages more generally for that matter):

(1) Inclusion of more verb classes in the analyses to provide a more comprehensive

account of a grammatically relevant and semantically-coherent event structure

classification of Tagalog focus forms;

(2) Linking of the semantic representation to syntax;

(3) Determination of case assignment;

(4) Exploration of the reduplication operator as a carrier of a homogeneity feature that

triggers different semantic behaviour and interpretations depending on the event

type of the predicate and also non-predicative lexical categories;

(5) Examination of the relationship between viewpoint aspect and event structure

using narrative discourse and/or laboratory experiment;

(6) Investigating the interrelation between speech time, viewpoint aspect and event

structure.

(7) It might be argued that semantic interpretation is subject to more than one

interpretation and that no rigorous amount of formalisation can completely

disallow other plausible interpretations. I posit that though there may be other

viable interpretations, there will always be the most natural and default

interpretation of a focus form anchored to its event type. As we have found in the

classes of predicates that have been part of the investigation, these predicates are

always associated with certain type of event structure. Recall also that assignment

of these event types is not arbitrary but is governed by certain semantic tests.

Thus, logical structure representations are also not arbitrary. For these reasons, the

most plausible semantic interpretations are produced. Future research, however,

would strengthen and improve the current thesis by discovering semantic and

syntactic tests to examine further the telicity of the predicates.

In sum, this thesis has approached the verbal system of Tagalog through an event

structure analysis arguing that the focus forms that an affixed predicate can exhibit

correspond to the different linguistic construals of an event. Crucially, these event

construals hinge on the semantic notion of telicity, and interact with the notion of

(im)perfectivity.

273

REFERENCES

Adams, Karen and Alexis Manaster-Ramer. 1988. Some questions of topic/focus

choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics, 17:79-101.

Allan, Keith. 1980. "Nouns and countability". Language, 56 (3): 541–567.

Anderson, Stephen, R. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic

interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3): 387-396.

Anderson, John M. 1977. On case grammar: prolegomena to a theory of

grammatical relations. London: Croom Helm.

Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: an essay in English metaphysics.

In Cole, P, ed., Radical Pragmatics, 63-81.

Bale, Alan and David Barner. 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: using

comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics,

26(3): 217-252.

Basilico, David. 1998. Object position and predication forms. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory, 16(3): 541-595.

Bell, Sarah J. 1978. Two differences in definiteness in Cebuano and Tagalog.

Oceanic Linguistics, 17(1): 1-9.

Bell, Sarah. J. 1979. Cebuano Subjects in Two Frameworks: Indiana University

Linguistics Club.

Berman, Ruth. A. and Dan I. Slobin. 1987. Five ways of learning how to talk

about events: A cross-linguistic study of children's narratives. Berkeley

Cognitive Science Report.

Berman, Ruth. A. and Dan I. Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A

crosslinguistic developmental study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2001. On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-

aspectual domain: The ‘perfective-telic confusion’. In Ceccheto, C, Gennaro

Chiercha and Maria Teresa Guasti, eds., Semantic Interfaces: reference,

anaphora and aspect, 177-209. CSLI Publication.

Blake, Frank R. 1917. Reduplication in Tagalog. The American Journal of

Philology, 38:425-431.

Blake, Frank R. Dec 1930. A semantic analysis of case. Language, 6:34-49.

Bloomfield, Leonard and A.V. Santiago 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical

Analysis.University of Illinois.

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen and Mary Swift. 2004. Event realization and default aspect.

Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 263-296.

Braginsky, Pavel and Susan Rothstein. 2008. Vendlerian classes and the Russian

aspectual system. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 16(1): 3-55.

Carlson, Greg N. 1977a. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Massachusetts.

274

Carlson, Greg N. 1977b. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics

and Philosophy, 1(3):413-456.

Cena, Resty. 1977. Patient primacy in Tagalog. LSA Annual Meeting, Chicago,

28-30.

Cena, Resty. 1995. Surviving without relations. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,

26:1-32.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New

York: Praeger.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The

cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Croft, William 2010. Verbs: aspect and argument structure. (Draft). University of

New Mexico.

Dahl, Östen. 1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded)

distinction. Syntax and Semantics, 14: 79-90.

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect System. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Declerck, Renaat. 1979. Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic)

distinction. Linguistics 17: 761-794.

De Guzman, Videa P. 1978. Syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs. In Oceanic

Linguistics Special Publication No. 16. The University Press of Hawaii.

De Guzman, Videa P. 1988. Ergative analysis for Philippine Languages: An

analysis. In Richard McGinn, ed., Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, 323-

345. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University.

De Guzman, Videa. P. 1992. Morphological evidence for primacy of patient as

subject in Tagalog. Papers in Austronesian linguistics, 87–96.

De Guzman, Videa P. 1994. Verbal Affixes in Tagalog: Inflection or Derivation?

Paper presented at Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on

Austronesian Linguistics, Amsterdam.

De Guzman, Videa. P. 2000. Some remarks on the grammatical functions of the

nonabsolutive agent in Tagalog. In De Guzman, Videa P and Byron Bender,

eds., Grammatical Analysis: Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics: Studies in

Honor of Stanley Starosta, 224-240. University of Hawai’i Press.

Dell, François. 1983. An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics,

22-23:175-206.

Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. In the necessity of distinguishing between

(un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18:1-19.

Depraetere, Ilse. 2007. (A)telicity and intentionality. Linguistics, 45:243-269.

275

De Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory, 16(2):347-385.

Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. North-Holland: Amsterdam.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language

1(1): 19-80.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language. Journal of the Linguistic Society of

America Baltimore, Md, 55:59-138.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity: Cambridge University Press.

Dowty, David. 1975. The stative in the progressive and other essence/accident

contrasts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6(4): 579-588.

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language,

67:547-619.

English, Leo J. 1986. Tagalog-English Dictionary. Manila: National Bookstore.

Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York:

Garand Publishing Inc.

Filip, Hana. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In Carol Tenny and James

Pustejovsky, eds., Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives

of lexical semantics and syntax, 39-93. CSLI Publication.

Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach and R Harms, eds.,

Universals in linguistic theory, 1-88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Foley, William. A. and Robert. D. Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and

Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foley, William A. 2008. The Place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice

systems. In Peter K. Austin and Simon Musgrave, eds., Voice and grammatical

relations in Austronesian languages, 22-44. CSLI Publication.

Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68: 553-595.

Gawron, Jean Mark. 2004. Motion, scalar paths, and lexical aspect. Paper

presented in Workshop on event structures. Leipzig, Germany.

Gerdts, Donna. B. 1988. Antipassive and causative in Ilokano: Evidence for an

ergative analysis. In Richard McGinn, ed., Studies in Austronesian Linguistics,

295-321. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University.

Givon, Talmy. 1978. Definiteness and referentiality. In Joseph Greenberg, ed.,

Universal of human language, vol. 4, 292-330. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Givon, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press,

Inc.

Goldberg, Adele. 2002. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations.

Cognitive Linguistics, 13: 327-356.

276

Grimshaw, Jane. 1981. Form, function and the language acquisition device. In

C.L. Baker and J. McCarthy, eds., The logical problem of language

acquisition, 165-82. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT, Press.

Gruber, J.S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge,

MIT.

Guérin, Valérie. 2007. Definiteness and specificity in Maϋea. Oceanic Linguistics,

46(2): 538-553.

Hacohen, Aviya .2006. The psychological reality of the telic/atelic distinction:

Evidence from adult and child Hebrew. Proceedings of the 21st Annual

Meeting of the Israel Associations for Theoretical Linguistics.

Hale, K.L and S.J. Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon project

working papers 10. MIT, Cambridge: Center for Cognitive Science.

Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure

underlies telicity in degree achievements. SALT 9, 127-44. Cornell University,

Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.

Higginbotham, Jim. 1994. Mass and Count Quantifiers. Linguistics and

Philosophy, 17(5):447-480.

Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 1998. Regularity in irregularity: Article use in

adpositional phrases. Linguistic Typology, 2: 315-353.

Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 2002. Voice in Western Austronesian: An update. In

Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, eds., The history and typology of western

Austronesian voice systems, 7-16. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 2004a. Tagalog (Austronesian). In Geert Booji,

Christian Lehmann and Joachim Mugdan, eds., Morphology: A handbook on

inflection and word formation, vol.2, 1473-1490. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 2004b. On statives and potentives in Western

Austronesian. In Paul Law, ed., Proceedings of Austronesian Formal

Linguistics Association, 11:103-119.

Himmelman, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and

Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In A. Adelaar and N.P. Himmelmann,

eds., The Austronesian languages of South East Asia and Madagascar, 110-

126. London: Routledge.

Himmelman, Nikolaus P. (in preparation). Notes of noun phrases in Tagalog. In:

Michael Ewing & Simon Musgrave, eds., Special issue of Australian Journal

of Linguistics.

Hinrichs, E. 1985. A compositional semantics for aktionsarten and NP reference

in English. Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University.

Hopper, Paul J. 1985. Causes and affects. CLS 21. Papers on the parasession on

causatives and agentivity, 67-88.

Hopper, Paul. J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and

discourse. Language, 56:251-299.

277

Huang, Shuanfan and Michael Tanangkingsing. 2005. Reference to motion events

in six Western Austronesian languages: toward a semantic typology. Oceanic

Linguistics, 44(2): 307-340.

Hout, Angeliek van. 1998. Event semantics of verb frame alternations: A case

study of Dutch and its acquisition. New York & London: Garland Publishing,

Inc.

Hout, Angeliek van. 2007. Acquiring perfectivity and telicity in Dutch, Italian and

Polish. Lingua, 118: 1740-1765.

Hout, Angeliek van. 2008. Acquiring telicity crosslinguistically: On the

acquisition of telicity entailments associated with transitivity. In Bowerman,

M. & Penelope Brown, eds., Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument

Structure, 255-277. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of

the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative Alternation: a lexical-constructional approach.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar.

Cambridge: MIT, Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicons.

Language, 51: 639-671.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory.

Linguistic Inquiry. 18:369-412.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT, Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The proper treatment on measuring out, telicity and

perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory. 14(2):305-354.

Jolly, Julia. 1993. Preposition assignment in English. In Robert Van Valin, ed.,

Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 275-310. Amsterdam;

Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Katagiri, Masumi. 2005. Voice, ergativity and transitivity in Tagalog and other

Philippine languages. In I Wayan Arka and Malcolm Ross, eds., The Many

Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies, Canberra:

Pacific Linguistics.

Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, emotion and will. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.

Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of "Subject". In

Charles Li, ed., Subject and Topic, 303-33. New York: Academic Press.

Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case. In

Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, eds., The Syntax of Time, 389-424.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

278

Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and

quantification in event semantics. In . Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem, and

Peter van Emde Boas, eds., Semantics and Contextual Expressions, 75--115.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and

temporal constitution. Lexical Matters, 29-53.

Krifka, Manfred, et.al. 1995. Genericity: an introduction. In G. N. Carlson and F.

J. Pelletier, eds., The Generic Book, 1-124. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein, ed., Events and

grammar, 197-235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kroeger, Paul. 1990. Stative aspect and unaccusativity in Kimaragang Dusun.

Oceanic Linguistics, 29(2):110-131.

Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog.

CSLI Publications.

Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Ph.D. dissertation.

Indiana University.

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: A theory of

topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary

Investigation. Chicago, IL.

Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport-Hovav. 1998. Morphology and lexical

semantics. In A. Spencer &A.M.Zwicky, eds., Handbook of morphology, 248-

271. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport-Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization.


Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass terms. In Bauerle,

Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, eds., Meaning, use and interpretation of

language. 302-323.

Lønning, Jan T. 1987. Mass Terms and Quantification. Linguistics and

Philosophy, 10 (1): 1-52.

Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maclachlan, A. E. 1996. Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. Ph.D. dissertation,

McGill University.

Manning, Christopher. D. 1994. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical

relations. Ph.D Dissertation. Stanford University.

Mercer, Mayer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young

Readers.

Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: an integrated

approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15: 1-67.

279

Mourelatos, Alexander P.D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and

Philosophy, 2:415-434.

Nagaya, Nori. 2008. Middle voice in Tagalog. Journal of the Southeast Asian

Linguistic Society, 1: 159-187.

Nagaya, Nori. To appear. Referentiality of ANG. In Foong Ha Yap and Janick

Wrona,eds., Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological

Perspectives. Volume II: Asia-Pacific Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Naylor, Paz Buenaventura. 1975. Topic, focus, and emphasis in the Tagalog

verbal clause. Oceanic Linguistics, 14:12-79.

Naylor, Paz Buenaventura. 1986. On the semantics of reduplication. In FOCAL I:

Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics.

Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2003. Ang Pagkatransitibo at Ikinaergatibo ng mga Wikang

Pilipino: Isang Pagsusuri sa Sistemang Bose. Ph.D. dissertation. UP Diliman,

Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.

Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2005. What Philippine ergativity really means. Paper

presented at Taiwan-Japan joint workshop on Austronesian languages. Taiwan:

National Taiwan University.

Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. and Maureen Joy Saclot. 2005. M- and S-transitivity in

Philippine type languages. Presented at the 2005 International Course and

Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. Academia Sinica, Taipei,

Taiwan, June 26-30.

Panganiban, Jose Villa. 1939. Ang anim na panahunan ng mga pangbadyang

Tagalog. Manila: Bureau.

Payne, Thomas E. 1982. Role and reference related subject properties and

ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language, 6:75-106.

Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguistics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, Vivianne. 1996. Uprooting the prefix maha- in Malagasy. MA Thesis.

McGill University.

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument

structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure, Cognition, 41: 47-81.

Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice and the

distribution of arguments. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.

Ramos, Teresita. V. 1974. The case system of Tagalog verbs. Canberra: Pacific

Linguistics Series B-27.

Ramos, Teresita V. and Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. 1986. Handbook of Tagalog

verbs: Inflections, modes, and aspects. University of Hawaii Press.

280

Reid, Lawrence A. 1978. Problems in the reconstruction of Proto-Philippine

construction markers. In S.A. Wurm and Lois Carrington, eds., Second

international conference on Austronesian linguistics: Proceedings, Fascicle I,

Western Austronesian, 33-66. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Reid, Lawrence A. 1992. On the development of the aspect system in some

Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 31:65-91.

Reid, Lawrence A. 2002. Determiners, nouns, or what? Problems in the analysis

of some commonly occurring forms in Philippine Languages. Oceanic

Linguistics, 41:295-310.

Reid, Lawrence A. & Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of

Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics, 5:433-490.

Richards, Norvin. 2009. The Tagalog copula. The proceedings of AFLA 16, 181-

195.

Richardson, Kylie R. 2003. The case for meaningful case: The interaction of

tense, aspect and case in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.

Ross, Malcolm and Stacy Fang-ching Teng. 2005. Formosan languages and

linguistic typology. Languages and Linguistics, 6:739-81.

Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: a study in the semantics of lexical

aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of the mind. London: Hutchinson.

Saclot, Maureen Joy. 2006. On the transitivity of the actor focus and patient focus

constructions in Tagalog. Presented at the tenth International Conference on

Austronesian Linguistics, Palawan, Philippines, January 17-20.

Sasse, Han-Jürgen. 2002. Recent activity in the theory of aspect:

Accomplishment, achievements, or just non-progressive state? Linguistic

Typology, 6: 199-271.

Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine Languages: Topic, actor, actor-

topic or none of the above. In Charles Li, ed., In Subject and Topic. New York:

Academic Press.

Schachter, Paul. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In

Cole Peter and Jerrold M. Sadock, eds., Syntax and Semantics. New York:

Academic Press.

Schachter, P. 1996. The subject in Tagalog: still none of the above. UCLA

Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15:1-61.

Shibatani, Masayoshi., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1999. Grammatical

Constructions: Their Form and Meaning: Oxford University Press.

Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and

the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven, eds.,

Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives, vol. 2,

219-257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, Carlota. 1983. A Theory of Aspectual Choice. Language, 59 (3): 479-501.

281

Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Smith, Carlota, 1999. Activities: States or Events? Linguistics and Philosophy, 22

(5):479-508.

Talmy, Givon. 1975. Semantics and the syntax of motion. In J.P. Kimball, ed.,

Syntax and Semantics 4, 181-238. New York: Academic Press.

Tamm, Anne. 2007. Perfectivity, telicity and Estonian verbs. Nordic Journal of

Linguistics, 30(2):229-255.

Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D.

dissertation. MIT.

Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.

Springer.

Tenny, Carol 1995. How motion verbs are special: The interaction of semantic

and pragmatic information in aspectual verb meanings. Pragmatics and

Cognition, 3(1): 31-73.

Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Carol Tenny and James

Pustejovsky, eds., Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives

of lexical semantics and syntax, 145-85. CSLI Publication.

Travis, Lisa. 2005. Passives, states, and roots and Malagasy. In Heinz &

Ntelitheos, eds., UCLA working papers in Linguistics 12. Proceedings of

AFLA XII.

Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner Aspect: the articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.

Van Valin, Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language,

66:221-260.

Valin, Robert D. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical

relations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 9:145-194.

Van Valin, Robert D. 1993. Advances in role and reference grammar:

Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Van Valin, Robert D. and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning,

and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge:


Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2007. The Role and Reference Grammar analysis of

three-place predicates. Suvremena Lingvistika, 33.1.63:31-64.

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66 (2):143-160.

Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht:

Kluwer.

Verkuyl, Henk J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics

and Philosophy 12: 39-94.

Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

282

Verkuyl, Henk J. 1999. Aspectual issues: Studies on time and quantity. CSLI

publications.

Viberg, Ake. 1983. A universalization hierarchy for the verbs of perceptions. In F.

Karlsson, ed., Papers from the 7th

Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics.

Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.

Weinrich, Uriel. 1966. Exploration in semantic theory. In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed.,

Current trend in Linguistics III: Theoretical foundations, 395-477.

Wolff, John. 1966. Beginning Cebuano. Vol.1. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Wouk, Fay. 1986. Transitivity in Toba Batak and Tagalog. Studies in Language,

10:391-424.

Wouk, Fay. 1999. Sasak is different: a discourse perspective on voice. Oceanic

Linguistics 38(1): 91-114.

Wu, Joy. 2005. Verb classification, case marking and grammatical relations in

Amis. Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo.

Xiao, Richard and Tony McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-

based study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Zack, Ronald. 1994. Imperfectivity as a unifying feature of reduplication in

Tagalog and Hiligaynon. In K.L. Adams and T.J. Hudak, eds., Papers from the

second annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 389-398.

Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies.

Zucchi, Sandro and Michael White. 2001. Twig, sequences and the temporal

constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24: 223-270.

event structure in tagalog - pdfs.semanticscholar.org · thanks to my respondents in padre garcia...

Documents