Advertisement

Distinguishing nouns and verbs

A Tagalog case study
  • Henrison Hsieh
Article

Abstract

Many standard tests for identifying syntactic category, such as distribution and morphological potential, fail to distinguish between nouns and verbs in Tagalog. This state of affairs has led some scholars to propose that Tagalog does not treat verbs as a separate syntactic category from nouns. One such proposal by Kaufman (2009) further argues that adopting this so-called nominalist view of Tagalog allows us to straightforwardly understand a number of facts about the syntax of this language that have so far resisted consensus in analysis. This paper argues that the nominalist view cannot be maintained for Tagalog by showing differential behavior between nominal and verbal constituents in this language. It will furthermore be argued that the nominal behavior exhibited by verbal constituents can be attributed to a pervasive process of nominalization, broadly construed, neutralizing the aforementioned differential behavior. The result of this neutralization is reminiscent of phenomena found in other languages, and raises interesting questions regarding the range of nominalization processes observed cross-linguistically.

Keywords

Syntactic category Relativization Nominalization Tagalog Austronesian 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Lisa Travis and Junko Shimoyama for their invaluable guidance and encouragement on this project, as well as Dan Kaufman, Hadas Kotek, Mark Baker, and the audiences at BLS42 at UC Berkeley and SEALS26 in Manila for helpful comments and discussion on some of the ideas in this paper. Thanks also to four anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments and suggestions helped to greatly improve this paper. Finally, maraming salamat to my various Tagalog consultants who endured randomly timed grammaticality judgment questions, sometimes at strange hours of the night.

References

  1. Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge, Edith. 2002. Nominalization and Wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 3 (2): 393–426. Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge, Edith. 2003a. Remnant movement in Tagalog relative clause formation. Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4): 631–640. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldridge, Edith. 2003b. Wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. In Austronesian Formal Linguistics (AFLA) 8, eds. Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards. Vol. 44 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 1–28. Google Scholar
  5. Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. PhD diss., Cornell University. Google Scholar
  6. Aldridge, Edith. 2009. Minimalist questions for the nominalist analysis of Tagalog syntax. Theoretical Linguistics 35 (1): 51–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Jane Grimshaw. 2008. Verbs, nouns and affixation. In SinSpeC: Working papers of the SFB 732, ed. Florian Schäfer, Vol. 1, 1–16. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. Google Scholar
  8. Baker, Mark, and Nadya Vinokurova. 2009. On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85 (3): 517–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barker, Chris. 1998. Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language 44 (4): 695–727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bliss, Heather. 2014. Assigning reference in clausal nominalizations. In Cross-linguistic investigations of nominalization patterns, ed. Ileana Paul, 85–117. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borsley, Robert, and Jaklin Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In The nature and function of syntactic categories, ed. Robert Borsley. Vol. 32 of Syntax and semantics, 101–131. Cambridge: Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  13. Cena, Resty M. 1979. Tagalog counterexamples to the Accessibility Hierarchy. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 3 (1): 119–124. Available at https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/25963. Accessed 19 July 2018. Google Scholar
  14. Gerassimova, Veronica, and Peter Sells. 2008. Long-distance dependencies in Tagalog: The case for raising. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26, eds. Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 190–198. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  15. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical specification and insertion, eds. Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  17. Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10 (3): 375–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell textbooks in linguistics. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishers. Google Scholar
  19. Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2005. Tagalog. In The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, eds. Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus Himmelmann, 350–376. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  20. Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and grammatical functions in Austronesian languages, eds. Peter K. Austin and Simon Musgrave. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  21. Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2016. Notes on “Noun Phrase Structure” in Tagalog. In Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface, eds. Jens Fleischhauer, Anja Latrouite, and Rainer Osswald, 319–342. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. Available at http://dup.oa.hhu.de/id/eprint/526. Accessed 19 July 2018. Google Scholar
  22. Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  23. Johansson, Sara. 2012. Relative clauses, or clause-sized nominalizations? A consideration of Blackfoot. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 21 (2): 1–15. Google Scholar
  24. Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (1): 57–97. Google Scholar
  25. Kaufman, Daniel. 2006. Rigidity versus Relativity in adverbial syntax: Evidence from Tagalog. In Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, eds. Hans-Martin Gärtner, Paul Law, and Joachim Sabel. Vol. 87 of Studies in generative grammar, 151–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35 (1): 1–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufman, Daniel. 2011. The nominalist hypothesis in Austronesian: Problems and prospects. In University of Delaware Linguistics Colloquium Handout. Google Scholar
  28. Kaufman, Daniel. 2017. Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian. In Oxford handbook of ergativity, eds. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Keenan, Edward. 2000. Morphology is structure: A Malagasy test case. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, eds. Ileana Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa deMena Travis. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  30. Kornfilt, Jaklin, and John Whitman. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121 (7): 1297–1313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Dissertations in linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  32. Kroeger, Paul. 1998. Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: A reply to Foley, Brisbane. Paper presented at the 3rd Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference. Available at http://www.gial.edu/images/pdf/Kroeger-reply-Foley-LFG98.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2018.
  33. Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In The syntax of verb-initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Paul, Ileana. 2001. Concealed pseudo-clefts. Lingua 111: 707–727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearson, Matt. 2005. Voice morphology, case, and argument structure in Malagasy. In Austronesian Formal Linguistics (AFLA) 11, ed. Paul Law. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Google Scholar
  36. Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts and the clausal typing hypothesis. Lingua 116: 2154–2182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  38. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4): 565–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richards, Norvin. 2009a. Nouns, verbs, and hidden structure in Tagalog. Theoretical Linguistics 35 (1): 139–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richards, Norvin. 2009b. The Tagalog copula. In Austronesian Formal Linguistics (AFLA) 16. Google Scholar
  41. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  42. Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, eds. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Google Scholar
  43. Schachter, Paul, and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Oakland: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  44. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley, and Lawrence Reid. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the third international conference on Austronesian linguistics, eds. Amran Halim, Lois Carrington, and Stephen Wurm. Vol. 2 of Pacific linguistics series C, 145–170. Canberra: Australian National University. Google Scholar
  45. Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2014. Two types of deverbal nominalization in Northern Paiute. Language 90 (4): 786–833. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Fintel, Kai, and Irene Heim. 2011. Intensional semantics. Available at http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-heim-intensional.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2018.
  47. Wasow, Thomas. 1976. Transformations and the lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1976 MSSB Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language, eds. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 327–360. Cambridge: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  48. Wolff, John. (1973). Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez, ed. Andrew B. Gonzalez. Philippine Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph, 4: 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations