Cover not available
Part of
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 131–184

Grammatical relations in Hiligaynon

| University of California

In typological work on grammatical relations, languages of the Philippines have long presented challenges. The challenges are due in part to differences across the languages, and in part to the nature of the data underlying analyses. Here the system is described for one Philippine language, Hiligaynon. Basic clause structures are described, then alternations involving causatives, applicatives, reflexives, middles, and reciprocals. Choices among these constructions are examined in context, revealing effects of referent properties (animacy, identifiability, specificity), and information flow through discourse (topicality, topic shifts, focus). Argument structure constraints on individual syntactic constructions are then detailed: imperatives, quantifier float, conjunction reduction, nominalization, content questions, relativization, secondary predication, and complementation. Examination of alternations in context allows us to refine existing typological generalizations and build new ones.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Clause structure
    • 2.1Arguments
    • 2.2Adjuncts
    • 2.3Predicates
      • 2.3.1Zero transitives
      • 2.3.2Intransitives
      • 2.3.3Transitives
  • 3.Argument structure alternations
    • 3.1Intransitivizers
    • 3.2Transitivizers
      • 3.2.1Basic transitivers
      • 3.2.2Instrumental transitivizers
      • 3.2.3Locative transitivizers
      • 3.2.4Causatives
    • 3.3Reflexives and reciprocals
    • 3.4The status of voice morphology
  • 4.Grammatical relations in use
    • 4.1Referent properties: Animacy, identifiability, and specificity
    • 4.2Information flow through discourse: Topicality
    • 4.3Information flow: Topic shifts
    • 4.4Information flow: Focus
  • 5.Syntactic constructions
    • 5.1Imperatives
    • 5.2Quantifiers
    • 5.3Conjunction reduction
    • 5.4Nominalization
    • 5.5Content questions
    • 5.6Relativization
    • 5.7Secondary-predicate constructions
    • 5.8Complement constructions
      • 5.8.1Syntactic status of the complement
      • 5.8.2Controller S = (Controllee S)
      • 5.8.3Controller P = (Controllee S)
      • 5.8.4Controller P = (Controllee A)
      • 5.8.5Controller S = (Controllee A)
      • 5.8.6Controller A = (Controllee S)
      • 5.8.7Controller A = (Controllee A)
      • 5.8.8The complement
      • 5.8.9Complement constructions: Summary
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.05mit
References
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2011 Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of LinguisticTypology, Jae Jun Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1917 Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis [University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 3]. Urbana IL: UIUC.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objectmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brainard, Sherri
1994 Voice and Ergativity in Karao. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Guzman, Videa P
1988 Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 323–345. Athens OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen &de Swart, Peter
2008 Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar, I: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Foley, William
1998 Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Workshop on voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages. LFG98 Conference. Brisbane.
Gerdts, Donna B.
1988 Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2010 Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson
2014 Introduction. Linguistics 52(2): 271–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, John
1934 Visayan-English Dictionary. ( Kapulúñgan Binisayá-Ininglís ). [URL]
Kayne, Richard S.
1969 The Transformational Cycle in French Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1975 French Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I.
1994 Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47(2): 78–98.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard
1977 Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1993 Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan M.
1976 Notes on quantifier-postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 7(4): 708–718.Google Scholar
McKaughan, Howard P.
1958 The Inflection and Syntax of Maranao Verbs. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
1962 Overt relation markers in Maranao. Language 38(1): 47–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973 Subject versus topic. In Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez, Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), 206–213. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1994 The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Voice: Its Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds), 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motus, Cecile
1971a Hiligaynon Dictionary. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
1971b Hiligaynon Lessons. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E.
1982 Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language 6(1): 75–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1974 On Raising. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, Macario B.
1968 A Study of the Behaviour of Hiligaynon Verb Roots with Particular Reference to the Actor and Goal Focus Affixes. Iloilo City: University Research Center, Central Philippines University.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976 The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe T.
1972 A Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014 A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew & Reid, Lawrence
1982 The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers , Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & Stephen Wurm (eds), 145–170. Canberra: ANU.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Elmer P.
1971 Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
1975 A Description of Hiligaynon Syntax. Norman IL: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Cheryl Lim
2023. Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3 ► pp. 911 ff. DOI logo
Mithun, Marianne
2021. Chapter 2. Antipassive propensities and alignment. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.