Grammatical relations in Hiligaynon
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
References (41)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of LinguisticTypology, Jae Jun Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis [University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 3]. Urbana IL: UIUC.
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objectmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
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.
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP.
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.
de Hoop, Helen &de Swart, Peter. 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, I: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton.
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.
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson. 2014. Introduction. Linguistics 52(2): 271–279.
Kaufmann, John. 1934. Visayan-English Dictionary. (
Kapulúñgan Binisayá-Ininglís
). <[URL]>
Kayne, Richard S. 1969. The Transformational Cycle in French Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1994. Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47(2): 78–98.
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221.
Maling, Joan M. 1976. Notes on quantifier-postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 7(4): 708–718.
McKaughan, Howard P. 1958. The Inflection and Syntax of Maranao Verbs. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
McKaughan, Howard P. 1962. Overt relation markers in Maranao. Language 38(1): 47–51.
McKaughan, Howard P. 1973. Subject versus topic. In Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez, Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), 206–213. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Motus, Cecile. 1971a. Hiligaynon Dictionary. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Motus, Cecile. 1971b. Hiligaynon Lessons. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116.
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.
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.
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe T. 1972. A Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313.
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.
Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1971. Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1975. A Description of Hiligaynon Syntax. Norman IL: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two 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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 2024. 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.