Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1987. Morphosyntax und Morphologie - Die Ausrichtungsaffixe im Tagalog. München: Fink.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1991. The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Arbeitspapier Nr. 15. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. ”Regularity in irregularity: Article use in adpositional phrases”. Linguistic Typology 2:315-353.
Himmelmann is a pioneer in defining the emerging subdiscipline within linguistics of language documentation and description, as a response to the crisis of endangered languages that has been accelerating over the last century and more. He is quoted at the website of the Hans Rausing Endangered Language Project:
The aim of a language documentation is to provide a comprehensive record of the linguistic practices characteristic of a given speech community... This... differs fundamentally from... language description [which] aims at the record of a language... as a system of abstract elements, constructions, and rules
[p, 166, "Documentary and descriptive linguistics", Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (1998). Linguistics 36. pp. 161-195. Berlin: de Gruyter]
[p, 166, "Documentary and descriptive linguistics", Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (1998). Linguistics 36. pp. 161-195. Berlin: de Gruyter]
At Bochum and Köln, Leila Behrens is looking at the lexical typology of Tagalog.
"Die zweite Datenbankkomponente ist als Grundstein für ein neues Tagalog-Lexikon gedacht"
"Wenngleich wir nichts dagegen haben, unsere "Prinz"-Datenbank oder die "Tagalog"-Datenbank im Netz öffentlich zugänglich zu machen, erscheint uns das momentan aus dem genannten Grund noch als verfrüht."
Behrens & Sasse, H.-J. (1997), Lexical Typology: A Programmatic Sketch. Arbeitspapier Nr. 30 (Neue Folge). Institut für Sprachwissenschaft zu Köln.
- (2000), Semantics and Typology. In: Siemund, Peter (ed.), Methodology in Linguistic Typology. STUF 53 (1), 21-38.
Notes
"This proposal extends to the lexical level recent work challenging the categorial uniformity hypothesis (Bresnan 1994)"
Bresnan, Joan, 1994, ”Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar”. Language 70:72-131
"Therefore, it is not possible to define the subject simply as the phrase marked by ang. Instead, the subject is defined as the ang-phrase which follows the predicate (and there can be only one"
"if the predicate is marked with the CONVEYANCE VOICE prefix i-, then the subject expresses an argument bearing the semantic role of a displaced theme. ...(i.e. the entity viewed as moving) of the event expressed by the predicate"
"The suffix -an marks LOCATIVE VOICE. In locative voice, the subject expresses a locative argument, understood in a very broad sense. This may be the location at which something happened:
(11) tinirhán ko ang bahay na itó
Or the location to which (or from which) motion occurred:
(12) pinuntahán na namán nilá ang bata'
Locative voice is also used for recipients, addressees, and benefactees (13):
(13) tìtirán ninyó akó
Even more generally, locative voice may be used for all kinds of undergoers which are not directly affected by the action denoted by the predicate
(14) hindí'! tingnán mo si Maria
"
"The suffix -in marks PATIENT VOICE. It is the unmarked member of the undergoer-voice-marking affixes and is used for a broad variety of undergoers, including prototypical patients, i.e. entities directly affected or effected by the event denoted by the predicate:
(16) patayín natin itóng dalawang Hapón
The suffix -in differs from the other two undergoer suffixes in that it only occurs in non-realis mood (as in the preceding example). In realis mood, the predicate is simply marked by the realis undergoer voice infix -in-:"
(18) pùpunuín mo iyán ng kuto
pupunuin ng weyter ang baso ng tubigh
Why is the non-subject actor immediately after the predicate? Is linear order governed by thematic role rather than grammatical function?
"The locative marker sa marks a large variety of temporal and local adjuncts (20) and recipients/goals (21), as well as (some) definite patients and themes when they do not occur in subject function (cf. sa mga bata’ in (4) above)
(4) ang langgám rin ang tumulong sa mga bata’
"
I would analyze /bata'/ as a beneficiary, and thus a recipient rather than a patient
"To summarize: the four basic syntactic functions predicate, subject, non-subject argument or adjunct, and modifier are easily identifiable in Tagalog because there is a set of markers which in combination with a few positional restrictions allows a straightforward identification of each of these functions (with the exception of the modifier function which necessarily involves reference to the semantics of the two items joined by a linker)."
"However, it is common to assume that terminal syntactic categories and lexical categories are commensurate in that lexical categories are but further subcategorisations of the more general terminal syntactic categories. That is, declension classes are but a further subcategorisation of the superclass of nouns, verb classes just a further subcategorisation of the superclass of verbs, etc. Such a neat correlation between terminal syntactic categories and lexical categories in fact appears to exist in a number of languages (including, in particular, the Indo-European languages), but this is not universally so."
Of major interest
DeWolf, Charles M. 1979. Sentential Predicates: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis. Honululu: University of Hawaii dissertation.
DeWolf, Charles M. 1988. ”Voice in Austronesian languages of Philippine type: passive, ergative, or neither?”. In: Shibatani (ed.) 143-193.
Wolff, John U. 1993. ”Why roots add the affixes with which they occur”. In: Reesink (ed.) 217-244.
Gil, David. 1993. ”Tagalog Semantics”. BLS 19: 390-403.
Guzman, Videa P. de. 1978. Syntactic Derivation of Tagalog Verbs. Honululu: University Press of Hawaii.
Guzman, Videa P. de. 1997. ”Verbal affixes in Tagalog: Inflection or derivation?”. In: Odé, Cecilia & Wim Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 303-325. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Naylor, Paz B. 1980. ”Linking, Relation-Marking, and Tagalog Syntax”. In: id. (ed.), Austronesian Studies, Papers from the 2. Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, 33-49. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang (ed.). 1984. Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian: Preliminary Studies. Part I, Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya (=NUSA 18).
Clynes, Adrian. 1995. Topics in the phonology and morphosyntax of Balinese, based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali. PhD thesis, The Australian Nationa University.
Artawa, Ketut & Barry J. Blake. 1997. ”Patient Primacy in Balinese”. Studies in Language 21:483-508.
Other references in the paper
Anward, Jan, Edith Moravcsik & Leon Stassen. 1997. ”Parts of speech: A challenge for typology”. Linguistic Typology 1:167-183.
Austin, Peter & Joan Bresnan. 1996. ”Non-Configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:215-268.
Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. ”Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs”. Linguistic Typology 1:123-165.
Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.). 1993. Syntax, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Jelinek, Eloise & Richard A. Demers. 1994. ”Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish”. Language 70:697-736.
Koptevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1988. A typology of action nominal constructions. PhD thesis Stockholm University.
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1982. ”Semantisme des parties du discours et semantisme des relations”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 77:1-39.
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1989. Les parties du discours. Sémantiquie et syntaxe. Paris: P.U.F.
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.
McFarland, Curtis D. 1976. A Provisional Classification of Tagalog Verbs. Tokio: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Naylor, Paz B. 1995. ”Subject, Topic, and Tagalog syntax”. In: Benett, David, Bynon, Theodora and Hewitt, George B. (eds.), Subject, Voice and Ergativity 161-201. London: SOAS.
Pittman, Richard, 1966, ”Tagalog -um- and mag-. An Interim Report”. Papers in Philippine Linguistics 1:9-20 (Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Series A, Nr.8).
Ramos, Teresita V. 1974. The Case system of Tagalog verbs. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (Series B-27) .
Ramos, Teresita V. 1975. ”The Role of Verbal Features in the Subcategorization of Tagalog Verbs”. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 6:1-24.
Reesink, Ger P. (ed.). 1993. Topics in Descriptive Austronesian Linguistics. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië (= Semaian 11).
Rubino, Carl R.G. 1998b. ”The morphological realization and production of a nonprototypical morpheme: the Tagalog derivational clitic”. Linguistics 36:1147-1166.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1993a. ”Syntactic Categories and subcategories”. In: Jacobs et al. (eds.) 646-686.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1993b. ”Das Nomen - eine universale Kategorie?”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46:187-221.
"two kinds of categorisation (lexical and syntactic/phrasal) should be clearly distinguished and that there is no necessary correlation between them."
Linguistics vol. 15. Los Angeles: UCLA/Department of Linguistics.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Verhaar, John W.M. 1984. Affixation in contemporary Indonesian”. in: Kaswanti Purwo (ed.) 1-26.
Walter, Heribert. 1981. Studien zur Nomen-Verb-Distinktionaus typologischer Sicht. München: Fink
Standard references
Müller, Friedrich. 1882. Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft. Bd.II, Abt.2. Wien: Alfred Hölder.
31
Blake, Frank R. 1925. A Grammar of the Tagalog Language. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. 3 vols. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois.
Scheerer, Otto. 1924. ”On the Essential Difference Betweenthe Verbs of the European and the Philippine Languages”. Philippine Journal of Education 7:1-10.
Lopez, Cecilio. 1937. ”Preliminary Study of Affixes in Tagalog”. In: id. 1977, Selected Writings in Philippine Linguistics, 28-104. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Capell, Arthur. 1964. ”Verbal systems in Philippine languages”. Philippine Journal of Science 93:231-249.
Ramos, Teresita V. 1971. Tagalog Structures. Honululu: Univ. Press of Hawaii .
Schachter, Paul & Fay Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. ”The Subject in Philippine Languages, Topic, Actor, Actor-Topic or None of the Above”. In: Li (ed.) 491-518.
Schachter, Paul. 1995. The Subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in
Cruz, Emilita L. 1975. A Subcategorization of Tagalog Verbs. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (= The Archive Special Monograph No.2).
Wolff, John U. with Maria Theresa C. Centeno and Der-Hwa V. Rau. 1991. Pilipino through Self-Instruction. 4 vols. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program.
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. ”Towards a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’”. In: Li (ed.) 305-333.
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge/Mass.: The MIT Press.
English, Leo J. 1986. Tagalog-English Dictionary. Manila: National Book Store.
Panganiban, José V. 1972. Diksyunario-Tesauro Pilipino-Ingles. Quezon City: Manlapaz Publishing Co.
Rubino, Carl R.G. 1998a. Tagalog Standard Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Santos, Vito C. 1983. Pilipino-English Dictionary. 2nd revised edition. Metro Manila: National.
Notes
"This proposal extends to the lexical level recent work challenging the categorial uniformity hypothesis (Bresnan 1994)"
Bresnan, Joan, 1994, ”Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar”. Language 70:72-131
"Therefore, it is not possible to define the subject simply as the phrase marked by ang. Instead, the subject is defined as the ang-phrase which follows the predicate (and there can be only one"
"if the predicate is marked with the CONVEYANCE VOICE prefix i-, then the subject expresses an argument bearing the semantic role of a displaced theme. ...(i.e. the entity viewed as moving) of the event expressed by the predicate"
"The suffix -an marks LOCATIVE VOICE. In locative voice, the subject expresses a locative argument, understood in a very broad sense. This may be the location at which something happened:
(11) tinirhán ko ang bahay na itó
Or the location to which (or from which) motion occurred:
(12) pinuntahán na namán nilá ang bata'
Locative voice is also used for recipients, addressees, and benefactees (13):
(13) tìtirán ninyó akó
Even more generally, locative voice may be used for all kinds of undergoers which are not directly affected by the action denoted by the predicate
(14) hindí'! tingnán mo si Maria
"
"The suffix -in marks PATIENT VOICE. It is the unmarked member of the undergoer-voice-marking affixes and is used for a broad variety of undergoers, including prototypical patients, i.e. entities directly affected or effected by the event denoted by the predicate:
(16) patayín natin itóng dalawang Hapón
The suffix -in differs from the other two undergoer suffixes in that it only occurs in non-realis mood (as in the preceding example). In realis mood, the predicate is simply marked by the realis undergoer voice infix -in-:"
(18) pùpunuín mo iyán ng kuto
pupunuin ng weyter ang baso ng tubigh
Why is the non-subject actor immediately after the predicate? Is linear order governed by thematic role rather than grammatical function?
"The locative marker sa marks a large variety of temporal and local adjuncts (20) and recipients/goals (21), as well as (some) definite patients and themes when they do not occur in subject function (cf. sa mga bata’ in (4) above)
(4) ang langgám rin ang tumulong sa mga bata’
"
I would analyze /bata'/ as a beneficiary, and thus a recipient rather than a patient
"To summarize: the four basic syntactic functions predicate, subject, non-subject argument or adjunct, and modifier are easily identifiable in Tagalog because there is a set of markers which in combination with a few positional restrictions allows a straightforward identification of each of these functions (with the exception of the modifier function which necessarily involves reference to the semantics of the two items joined by a linker)."
"However, it is common to assume that terminal syntactic categories and lexical categories are commensurate in that lexical categories are but further subcategorisations of the more general terminal syntactic categories. That is, declension classes are but a further subcategorisation of the superclass of nouns, verb classes just a further subcategorisation of the superclass of verbs, etc. Such a neat correlation between terminal syntactic categories and lexical categories in fact appears to exist in a number of languages (including, in particular, the Indo-European languages), but this is not universally so."
Of major interest
DeWolf, Charles M. 1979. Sentential Predicates: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis. Honululu: University of Hawaii dissertation.
DeWolf, Charles M. 1988. ”Voice in Austronesian languages of Philippine type: passive, ergative, or neither?”. In: Shibatani (ed.) 143-193.
Wolff, John U. 1993. ”Why roots add the affixes with which they occur”. In: Reesink (ed.) 217-244.
Gil, David. 1993. ”Tagalog Semantics”. BLS 19: 390-403.
Guzman, Videa P. de. 1978. Syntactic Derivation of Tagalog Verbs. Honululu: University Press of Hawaii.
Guzman, Videa P. de. 1997. ”Verbal affixes in Tagalog: Inflection or derivation?”. In: Odé, Cecilia & Wim Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 303-325. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Naylor, Paz B. 1980. ”Linking, Relation-Marking, and Tagalog Syntax”. In: id. (ed.), Austronesian Studies, Papers from the 2. Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, 33-49. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang (ed.). 1984. Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian: Preliminary Studies. Part I, Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya (=NUSA 18).
Clynes, Adrian. 1995. Topics in the phonology and morphosyntax of Balinese, based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali. PhD thesis, The Australian Nationa University.
Artawa, Ketut & Barry J. Blake. 1997. ”Patient Primacy in Balinese”. Studies in Language 21:483-508.
Other references in the paper
Anward, Jan, Edith Moravcsik & Leon Stassen. 1997. ”Parts of speech: A challenge for typology”. Linguistic Typology 1:167-183.
Austin, Peter & Joan Bresnan. 1996. ”Non-Configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:215-268.
Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. ”Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs”. Linguistic Typology 1:123-165.
Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.). 1993. Syntax, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Jelinek, Eloise & Richard A. Demers. 1994. ”Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish”. Language 70:697-736.
Koptevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1988. A typology of action nominal constructions. PhD thesis Stockholm University.
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1982. ”Semantisme des parties du discours et semantisme des relations”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 77:1-39.
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1989. Les parties du discours. Sémantiquie et syntaxe. Paris: P.U.F.
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.
McFarland, Curtis D. 1976. A Provisional Classification of Tagalog Verbs. Tokio: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Naylor, Paz B. 1995. ”Subject, Topic, and Tagalog syntax”. In: Benett, David, Bynon, Theodora and Hewitt, George B. (eds.), Subject, Voice and Ergativity 161-201. London: SOAS.
Pittman, Richard, 1966, ”Tagalog -um- and mag-. An Interim Report”. Papers in Philippine Linguistics 1:9-20 (Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Series A, Nr.8).
Ramos, Teresita V. 1974. The Case system of Tagalog verbs. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (Series B-27) .
Ramos, Teresita V. 1975. ”The Role of Verbal Features in the Subcategorization of Tagalog Verbs”. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 6:1-24.
Reesink, Ger P. (ed.). 1993. Topics in Descriptive Austronesian Linguistics. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië (= Semaian 11).
Rubino, Carl R.G. 1998b. ”The morphological realization and production of a nonprototypical morpheme: the Tagalog derivational clitic”. Linguistics 36:1147-1166.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1993a. ”Syntactic Categories and subcategories”. In: Jacobs et al. (eds.) 646-686.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1993b. ”Das Nomen - eine universale Kategorie?”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46:187-221.
"two kinds of categorisation (lexical and syntactic/phrasal) should be clearly distinguished and that there is no necessary correlation between them."
Linguistics vol. 15. Los Angeles: UCLA/Department of Linguistics.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Verhaar, John W.M. 1984. Affixation in contemporary Indonesian”. in: Kaswanti Purwo (ed.) 1-26.
Walter, Heribert. 1981. Studien zur Nomen-Verb-Distinktionaus typologischer Sicht. München: Fink
Standard references
Müller, Friedrich. 1882. Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft. Bd.II, Abt.2. Wien: Alfred Hölder.
31
Blake, Frank R. 1925. A Grammar of the Tagalog Language. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. 3 vols. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois.
Scheerer, Otto. 1924. ”On the Essential Difference Betweenthe Verbs of the European and the Philippine Languages”. Philippine Journal of Education 7:1-10.
Lopez, Cecilio. 1937. ”Preliminary Study of Affixes in Tagalog”. In: id. 1977, Selected Writings in Philippine Linguistics, 28-104. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Capell, Arthur. 1964. ”Verbal systems in Philippine languages”. Philippine Journal of Science 93:231-249.
Ramos, Teresita V. 1971. Tagalog Structures. Honululu: Univ. Press of Hawaii .
Schachter, Paul & Fay Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. ”The Subject in Philippine Languages, Topic, Actor, Actor-Topic or None of the Above”. In: Li (ed.) 491-518.
Schachter, Paul. 1995. The Subject in Tagalog: Still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in
Cruz, Emilita L. 1975. A Subcategorization of Tagalog Verbs. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (= The Archive Special Monograph No.2).
Wolff, John U. with Maria Theresa C. Centeno and Der-Hwa V. Rau. 1991. Pilipino through Self-Instruction. 4 vols. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program.
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. ”Towards a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’”. In: Li (ed.) 305-333.
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge/Mass.: The MIT Press.
English, Leo J. 1986. Tagalog-English Dictionary. Manila: National Book Store.
Panganiban, José V. 1972. Diksyunario-Tesauro Pilipino-Ingles. Quezon City: Manlapaz Publishing Co.
Rubino, Carl R.G. 1998a. Tagalog Standard Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Santos, Vito C. 1983. Pilipino-English Dictionary. 2nd revised edition. Metro Manila: National.
No comments:
Post a Comment