Cover not available
Article published In:
Concentric
Vol. 46:2 (2020) ► pp.240–298

A corpus study of kasama ‘companion’ in Tagalog

| Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
This paper presents a corpus-based study of a number of different types of previously undescribed constructions formed with the Tagalog noun kasama ‘companion’. Apart from independent and attributive uses, kasama frequently occurs as the predicate of an adjunct clause that can introduce a comitative participant, a semantically depictive secondary predicate, an event-oriented adjunct, or a predicative complement. The study analyses the frequency of kasama in all of these types of constructions and looks into their specific properties. This includes: the semantic distinction between additive and inclusory constructions with kasama; animacy agreement between arguments of kasama in additive constructions; variation in case marking of arguments of kasama; the preponderance of the absence of linkers – commonly known to introduce adverbial clauses in Tagalog – which are used to attach the kasama clause to the main clause; attested controllers of the kasama clause; positions available for the kasama clause in the sentence. Variation in case marking and compatibility with linkers suggests a classification of Tagalog adjunct clauses similar to that of Tagalog adverbials and prepositions. There is also some evidence to believe that kasama is being grammaticalized as a preposition. Comitative and semantically depictive constructions with kasama, which account for a quarter of the corpus sample, have never been studied before, despite the fact that Tagalog is included in several typological studies on comitative and depictive constructions.
Keywords: Tagalog, comitative, depictive, Philippine languages, adverbials
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of Tagalog grammar
    • 2.1Lexical classes
    • 2.2Substantivation and nominalization
    • 2.3Case marking and prepositions
    • 2.4Voice and aspect
    • 2.5Inversion constructions
    • 2.6Linkers
    • 2.7Comitative and depictive
  • 3.Composition of the sample
    • 3.1Independent
    • 3.2Dependent
      • 3.2.1Substantive
      • 3.2.2Attributive
      • 3.2.3Clausal
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Controller of the kasama clause
    • 4.2Marking of the argument of kasama
    • 4.3Constituent order
    • 4.4Linkers introducing the kasama clause
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00019.kli
References (56)
References
Arkhipov, Alexandre. 2009. Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid category. New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 217, ed. by Patience Epps and Alexandre Arkhipov, 223–246. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cena, Resty M. 1995. Surviving without relations. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 26.1–2:1–32.Google Scholar
De Guzman, Videa P. 1978. Syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 161. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
1996. Lexical categories in Tagalog. Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, vol. 11, 307–321. Bangkok: Mahidol University.Google Scholar
De Vos, Fiona. 2011. Essential Tagalog Grammar: A Reference for Learners of Tagalog. Brussels, Belgium: Learning Tagalog.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoricality in Philippine languages. Proceedings of the LFG 98 Conference: Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 13–95. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Foley, William A., and Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frolova, Elena G. 1983. К вопросу о служебных словах ang и ay в тагальском языке [On function words ang and ay in Tagalog]. Voprosy Vostochnogo Iazykoznaniia [Topics in the Study of Oriental Languages], ed. by V. M. Alpatov, 240–246. Moscow, Russia: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gallego, Maria Kristina S. 2015. Ang mga nominal marker ng Filipino at Ivatan [Nominal markers of Filipino and Ivatan]. Daluyan: Journal ng Wikang Filipino XXI1:65–95.Google Scholar
Gallego, Maria Kristina S., and Louward Allen M. Zubiri. 2013. Metonymy of NANG. Social Science Diliman 9.1:39–63.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1991. The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Arbeitspapier Nr. 15 (Neue Folge). Köln, Germany: Institute für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
2005a. Tagalog. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 350–376. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2005b. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, ed. by Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, ed. by Peter Austin and Simon Musgrave, 247–293. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Eva F. Schultze-Berndt. 2006. Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives, ed. by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Eva F. Schultze-Brendt, 1–68. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Henrison. 2016. Distinguishing nouns and verbs: Against nominalism for Tagalog. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, ed. by Emily Clem, Virginia Dawson, Alice Shen, Amalia Horan Skilton, Geoff Bacon, Andrew Cheng and Eric Hanz Maier, 313–336. Berkley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
. 2018. Distinguishing nouns and verbs: A Tagalog case study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37.2:523–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubíček, Miloš, Adam Kilgarriff, Vojtěch Kovář, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2013. The TenTen corpus family. Proceedings of the 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2013), ed. by Andrew Hardie and Robbie Love, 125–127. Lancaster, UK: UCREL.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35.1:1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Richlý, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell. 2004. The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, ed. by Geoffery Williams and Sandra Vessier, 105–116. Lorient, France: Université de Bretagne Sud.Google Scholar
Klimenko, Sergei B. 2019. Criteria for establishing the inventory of semantic participants and voices in Tagalog. Studies in Language 43.1:1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klimenko, Sergei B., and Divine Angeli P. Endriga. 2016. Semantic verb classes and regularity of voice paradigms in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 55.2:483–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Karsten, and Lisa Matthewson. 2009. The lexical category debate in Salish and its relevance to Tagalog. Theoretical Linguistics 35.1:125–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993a. Another look at subjecthood in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 24.2:1–16.Google Scholar
1993b. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1998. Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: A reply to Foley. Paper presented at the 3rd Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, Asia SIL School, Brisbane.
2014. Nominal and emphatic negation in Borneo. Advances in Research on Linguistic and Cultural Practices in Borneo (A Memorial to Peter Martin), ed. by Peter Sercombe, Michael Boutin and Adrian Clynes, 201–226. Philipps, ME: Borneo Research Council.Google Scholar
Lee, Celeste, and Loren Billings. 2008. Clitic-pronoun clusters in Central Philippine. Papers from the 14th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2004, SEALS XIV, vol. 11, ed. by Wilaiwan Khanittanan and Paul Sidwell, 193–203, Pacific Linguistics E-5. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian, and Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance: A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. Typological Studies in Participation ( Studia Typologica 7), ed. by Christian Lehmann, 9–110. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2011. On the development of comitatitve verbs in Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 12.1:205–237.Google Scholar
Lopez, Cecilio. 1950. Reduplication in Tagalog. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania 106.2:151–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malicsi, Jonathan C. 2013. Gramar ng Filipino [Filipino Grammar]. Quezon City, Philippines: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.Google Scholar
Nagaya, Naonori. 2004. Depictive constructions and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 231:119–150.Google Scholar
. 2007. Information structure and constituent order in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 8.1:343–372.Google Scholar
Nagaya, Naonori, and Hyun Kyung Hwang. 2018. Focus and prosody in Tagalog. Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, ed. by Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara and Atsuko Utsumi, 375–388. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Newell, Leonard E. 1993. Batad Ifugao Dictionary: With Ethnographic Notes. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Rachkov, Gennadij E. 1966. Служебное слово ay в тагальском языке [Function word ay in Tagalog]. Исследования по Филологии Стран Азии и Африки [Studies in Philology of Asian and African Countries], 89–94. Leningrad, Russia: Leningrad State University.Google Scholar
1981. Введение в Морфологию Современного Тагальского Языка [Introduction to Morphology of Modern Tagalog]. Leningrad, Russia: Leningrad State University.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. 1992. On the development of the aspect system in some Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 31.1:65–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Inclusory constructions and their development in Philippine languages. Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. by Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 267–294, Pacific Linguistics 601. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A., and Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 5.2:433–490.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2009. Nouns, verbs, and hidden structure in Tagalog. Theoretical Linguistics 35.1:139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic or none of the above. Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. Syntax and Semantics: Grammatical Relations, vol. 81, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock, 279–306. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. The subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 151:1–61.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva, and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 81:59–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Voice in Philippine languages. Passive and Voice, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shkarban, Lina I. 1989. Порядок слов в тагальском языке [Word order in Tagalog]. Очерки Типологии Порядка Слов [Sketches on Word Order Typology], ed. by Igor’ F. Vardul’, 75–108. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1995. Грамматический Строй Тагальского Языка [Tagalog Grammatical Structure]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura.Google Scholar
Shkarban, Lina I., and Gennadij E. Rachkov. 2007. Reciprocal, sociative, and comitative constructions in Tagalog. Typology of Reciprocal Constructions, ed. by Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., 887–932. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh, and Aina Urdze. 2006. On Comitatives and Related Categories: A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Varieties of comitative. The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 601–608. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suchomel, Vít, and Jan Pomikálek. 2012. Efficient web crawling for large text corpora. Proceedings of the 7th Web as Corpus Workshop, ed. by Adam Kilgarriff and Serge Sharoff, 39–43. Lyon: ACL.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1973. Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, LSP Special Monograph Issue No. 4, ed. by Andrew B. Gonzalez, 71–91. Quezon City, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Zubiri, Louward Allen M. 2012. It’s not what you think it is: Syntactic categories through the lens of negation. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (12-ICAL), Udayana University, Denpasar.