Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Pilipino
Resty Cena
Universidad ng Pilipinas-Diliman
Buod “Abstract”
Tatlong pag-aaral ang gumanyak sa kasalukuyang pagsusuri. Una, ang
mungkahi ni Foley (1998) na ang mga salitang ugat sa Pilipino ay “pre-
categorial” o walang kategoryang panggramatika hanggat hindi sila
nababanghay sa tinig “voice” (pandiwa at pangngalan lang ang sinuri ni Foley).
Kung kaya’t ang salitang bilis, halimbawa, ay hindi pang-uri, o pandiwa, o
pangngalan, o ano pa mang bahagi ng salita, samantalang ang bumilis ay
pandiwa sapagkat may banghay. Ikalawa, ang mungkahi ni Himmelmann (1991)
na hindi lang ang mga ugat ang pre-categorial kundi pati na ang mga buong
salita, at, ikatlo, ang mungkahi ni Gil (1993) na iisa lang ang bukas na
sintaktikang kategorya “open syntactic class” ng mga salita sa Pilipino (sa halip
na apat: pangngalan, pang-uri, pandiwa, at pang-abay). Layunin ng pagtalakay
na ito na ipakita na may mga kategoryang panggramatika ang mga salitang ugat
at mga buong salita sa Pilipino.
Ubod ang argumento kung ang relasyon nito sa pandiwa ay direct, ibig sabihin,
hindi pinamamagitan ng ibang salitang pangrelasyon tulad ng pang-ukol
“preposition”. Halimbawa, sa unang pangungusap sa ibaba, ang dalawang ubod
na argumento ng pandiwang ate ay fish at Ben. Hindi kabilang sa ubod na
argumento ang restaurant. Maaring maging simuno ang isa sa dalawang ubod na
argumento, tulad ng ipinakikita sa (2)(a) at (2)(b), pero hindi maaring gawing
simuno ang hindi ubod na argumento na restaurant, tulad ng ipinakikita sa (2)(c).
(Ang pangungusap na The restaurant was where the fish was eaten at by Ben, kung
tinatanggap man, ay may karagdagang balangkas na hindi angkop sa usapan.)
Sinasabing sa leksikon ang pandiwang eat ay may takda ng dalawang ubod na
argumento, tulad ng ipinakikita sa (1).
(Medyo artipisyal ang mga halimbawa dahil gusto nating ipakita ang tatlong
sabit na argumento sa isang pangungusap, pero matatag ang ipinakikitang
balangkas.)
Para kay Foley, kung gagawing ubod na argumento ang mga sabit na pariralang
ito, tulad ng ipinakikita sa ibaba, masisira ang konsepto ng “argument structure”
na matatag na konsepto sa maraming wika.
Ang konklusyon ni Foley: Kung walang argument structure ang mga salitang
ugat hanggat hindi nababanghay sa Tinig, walang batayan para ituring na
magkaiba ang kategorya ng mga ugat na pandiwa at ugat na pangngalan.
Pansinin na isang methodological necessity ang konklusyon ni Foley. Hindi siya
nagladlad ng mga data na diretsong nagpapatunay ng kawalan ng argument
structure.
Mahalaga kay Foley ang tayong walang kategoryang gramatika ang mga salitang
ugat. Kung tutuo ito, walang syntactic argument structure ang pandiwa. At
sapagkat walang syntactic argument structure, walang orihinal na mga ubod na
argumento. At kung wala nito, masasabing isang hakbang sa deribasyon ng
pangungusap ang pagbuo ng argument structure. Sa bubuuing argument
structure, isasama pati na ang alinman sa mga sabit na argumento kung ito ay
tatayong simuno. Sa ganitong paraan, naisalba ni Foley ang ideya na ang pivot
ay pinipili mula sa mga ubod na argumento. At sa ganito ring paraan, nabigyan
ni Foley ng batayan ang kanyang haka-haka na naiiba sa lahat at katangi-tangi
ang sistemang Tinig “voice system” ng mga WP.
First, we define roots negatively: operationally any form that shows a function-
indicating morphosyntactic element is not a root. By this definition the italicized
words in the sentences below are not roots. The root forms are the bolded words
in the second column.
(8)
(a) Mabilis si Ben. (the root bilis is adjectivalized via ma- prefixation)
(b) Tumakbo si Ben. (the root takbo is verbalized via voice affixation)
(c) Tuwang-tuwa si Ben. (the root tuwa is intensified via reduplication)
(d) Sundalong-sundalo siya.(the root sundalo is intensified via reduplication)
(e) Magtulog ka. (the root tulog is intensified via stress shift)
(f) Takot si Ben. (the root takot is adjectivalized via stress shift)
Second, we head out already armed with a notion of the lexical category
membership of roots – noun, verb, adjective. Such labeling is based on the
traditional correlation of the semantic notions of event, entity, and property with
verb, noun, and adjective. Such correlation can be supported using
morphological information (de Guzman 1996). At issue is whether root and full
words in the language belong to syntactic categories. As Himmelmann (1991)
says, syntactic categories can only be established by syntactice means. If a class of
words with a particular lexical category, and no others, performs a unique set of
sentential functions , we say that the class of words form a syntactic category; we
label that syntactic category after the lexical category of the words. We will use
three sentential functions found in most languages: predication, modification,
and reference.
Predication
To appear in predicate position, verb roots and most classes of adjective roots
must carry function-indicating morphosyntax.
(10) (a) Tumakbo ang aso. (voice affixation with -um- indicates verb)
(b) Mabilis ang aso. (ma- prefix indicates adjective)
(c) Takot ang aso. (stress shift to signal a change to adjective)
(d) Ihing-ihi na ang aso. (reduplication to show ‘eager’ mode of verb)
[I see that verb and adjective roots must be marked for parts of
speech before they can appear in predication head. So?]
There is a class of affixless adjectives, and these adjective roots can appear in
predicate position. They, in fact, reject the ma- adjectivalizer, as the examples in
the second column show.
With ma-
adjectivalizer
(11) (a) Pikon si Ben. *mapikon
(b) Pangit ang palabas. *mapangit
(c) Pandak ang bahay. *mapandak
While affixless verb forms may not appear in typical indicative sentences, they
may appear in exhortative constructions, thus.
[Shall we get back to the main point? I’d like to see how
predication does indeed require syntactic category.]
Not related to our present concern, it is nonetheless interesting that the inherent
predicatability of nouns, and the lack of such property by the verb and (for the
most part) adjective, suggests that the basic predicational sentence in Tagalog is
of a nominal type. This is an analysis of the basic verbal clausal structure that has
its proponents (Naylor 1980).
[Footnote this.]
[Aha! Now come the obligatory ‘apparent counterexamples’. These
are examples that appear to argue against the point being made,
but, on closer examination, turn out to be supportive!]
At first glance, the following predicate roots may appear to belie the claim being
made here that predication filters out non-noun words (with the exception of
bare adjective roots). Thus, not only does it allow noun roots, as (14)(c) shows,
but also verb roots (iyak in (14)(a)) and adjective roots (ganda in (14)(b)) that do
not belong to the bare class.
However, the above are complex predications, in particular, iyak, ganda, and anak
are clefted predicates from the sentences:
In these sentences, iyak, ganda, and anak function as themes, and are referential.
So iyak and ganda are referential in (14); iyak does not express an event and ganda
does not express an attribute. Only nouns in Pilipino may be clefted (Ricky
Nolasco, pers. comm.)
[Ok! So they are nouns, and the point is that only nouns appear
as predicate head. Now I get the point of the apparently
irrelevant examples above: that predication must discriminate
among the lexical categories, otherwise it is useless as a test
for categories. This should be made clear above. Predication is a
syntactic process.
While the root forms convey the colors in absolute terms, strangely, the ma-
forms, as in the second column above, convey the colors in less than absolute
terms. Thus, while the dress in Dilaw ang damit is yellow, it is merely yellowish in
Madilaw ang damit.
These examples show that for predication with root words to work properly,
roots must carry some categorial information. Noun roots and a small class of
adjective roots (bare adjectives and color terms) are immediately predicative, but
verb roots and the vast majority of adjective roots must first acquire categorial
information derivationally to serve successfully as predicate. The lexicon must
include roots, and root entries must include word class information.
Modification
Adjective roots typically function as noun modifiers. But adjective roots (except
again the morphologically unmarked variety) and verb roots may not appear in
this construction in Pilipino. Nouns and bare adjective roots may do so.
(18)
(a) ang panday na *lakas (cf. ang panday na malakas)
(b) ang panday na *takbo (cf. ang panday na tumakbo)
(c) ang panday na pikon (bare adjectives may function as modifiers)
(d) ang panday na anak (ni Ben) (noun roots may function as modifiers)
(19)
(a) Lumaking panday si Ben. (noun as modification complement)
(b) Lumaking pikon ang panday. (bare adject as modification)
(c) Lumaking *lakas ang panday. cf. Lumaking malakas ang panday
(d) Lumaking *sagot ang panday. cf. Lumaking sumasagot ang panday
Modification and predication behave similarly in this respect, suggesting that
modification is embedded predication. The data shows that modification is
another syntactic construction that relies on root category to function properly.
Exclamations
The third type of sentential function often cited in the literature on word
categories is referencing. Words that indicate references are considered as nouns.
In Pilipino, the marker ang is considered to be a referentializing marker
(Himmelmann 1991).
Exclamations in Pilipino are introduced by the marker ang. The “pivot”, that is to
say, the lexeme that the pivot marker ang introduces, can be a root word. And
here, adjective roots, as expected, can be the pivot, but verb roots may also serve
as pivot. Curiously, nouns may not serve as pivot in exclamations.
(“Curiouser and curiouser,” as Alice would say. “First, event roots may not serve
as predicates. Then attribute roots may not serve as modifiers. And now, entity
roots may not appear in a referential position.”)
(21)
(a) Ang bibilis ng mga panday! (adjective roots may be pluralized)
(b) Ang pipikon naman ng mga dalaga! (bare adjectives may also be pluralized)
Verb roots don’t undergo this elaboration, as expected, since Tagalog verbs don’t
show plurality, although they may show discontinuous, repetitive, or intense
actions, thus
They appear to have been referentialized by the particle ng, that is to say, they are
nouns. Now they serve as head of the genitive ng panday. But, then, what of bilis
and lakas? They appear to be heads of ng takbo and ng iyak, respectively, that is to
say, they are nouns. But based on examples (), they should be either adjective or
verb since nouns are not allowed in this position (cf. Ang *panday ni Ben).
Clearly they cannot be verb. So they must be adjectives, and, in fact, their
attributive relation to takbo and iyak, respectively, is unmistakable. But this is
puzzling: this is the only construction in the language in which attribution is
expressed using the genitive ng. By virtue of the fact that bilis and lakas function
as the possessed entity, a role reserved for nouns, they must be nouns. Thus we
have gone from a position based on observed data that exclamatives don’t allow
noun roots (Ang *panday ni Ben!) to a position where for logical reasons we must
admit that exclamatives accept noun roots as pivot (Ang lakas ng iyak ng panday!).
Adjective Bare
Verb Root Noun Root Root Adjective Root
Comparison *mas takbo (see Note 1) *mas bilis mas pangit
Superlative *pinakatakbo (see Note 1) *pinakabilis pinakapangit
Intensification *napakatakbo *napakapanday napakabilis napakapangit
Taga- tagatakbo (see Note 2) *tagabilis tagapangit
Nominalization (see Note 4)
Pag- pagtakbo *pagpanday pagbilis pagpangit
Nominalization (see Note 3)
Plural affixation * * bibilis papangit
Depictives *nang takbo *nang panday *nang bilis nang hubad
Existentials May takbo *May panday May bilis *May pangit
Naging * Naging takbo Naging panday *Naging bilis Naging pangit
(see examples)
Notes
1. Mas panday is acceptable, but here panday has become generic. True noun roots don’t allow
comparison, thus: senador > *mas senador. Similarly, the superlative pinakapanday makes the root
panday generic. Again, true noun roots don’t allow superlatives, thus: presidente >
*pinakapresidente.
2. Tagapanday is acceptable, but it is from panday as a verb root. True noun roots don’t allow
nominalization with taga-, thus: sundalo > *tagasundalo.
3. Pagpanday is acceptable, but, again, it is from panday as a verb root. True noun roots don’t allow
nominalization with pag-, thus: sundalo > *pagsundalo.
We don’t include other forms of nominalizations because they have added
morphosyntax, for example, ka- … -an, with expresses reciprocity, and mang-, which requires CV
reduplication, thus:
4. Clearer examples are: tagapikon, Tagasungad si Ben ng ilong (aray!), Tagapandak si Bertong
Maton.
Examples of existentials:
() (a) Naging *takbo si Ben. Cf. Naging takbo ang lakad ni Ben.
Takbo here is a noun, not a verb.
(b) Naging panday si Ben.
(c) Naging *bilis si Ben.
(d) Naging pangit si Ben.
But clearly this part of the paper has gotten out of hand. Clean
it up.]
We have shown several constructions that require roots to belong to some lexical
category or other. We will now show that roots can be characterized to have
argument structure. The main thrust of Foley’s paper is that roots don’t have
argument structure.
Regular nouns serve as heads of possessors, and root nouns also serve this
function. Thus, the noun head root panday in ()(a) allow a genitive phrase as
complement. But, as shown in ()(b), being a noun and not an adjective, panday
rejects a comparative complement. The argument structures are shown in bold.
() (a) (Mas) pikon kay Obet si Ben. pikon Adj. (‘comparee’, ‘attributee’)
(b) (Mas) palalo kay Obet si Ben.
() (a) Ang higpit ((ni Ben) (sa anak)). higpit Adj. (attributee, oblique)
(b) Ang bagal ((ni Ben)
(sa bunot ng pitaka)).
Verb roots serving as pivots of exclamations also maintain argument structures.
Thus:
These examples clearly show that roots maintain argument structures that are
similar in the pattern of roles of argument structures of their full word
counterparts. Minimally, noun roots allow possessors, adjective roots show
comparisons, and verb roots
Implicatives
Foley’s point of view with respect to voice system as a typological tool is that
English and other European languages have an asymmetrical voice system, that
is to say, one voice, performed by the actor macro-role, is unmarked and the
other voices, for example, the passive voice, require special morphosyntax. In
contrast, the expression of up to at least seven semantic focuses in Philippine
languages are no more marked than one another in verb morphology, hence, the
term symmetrical voice system.
There is an emerging view (Cena 2007) that the suffix –an and the prefix i- are
better viewed as expressions of verbal mode rather than voice. This point can be
easily explained using the i- prefix. Consider again the following sentences:
What gives the correct semantic roles of the pivots of these sentences is not the
so-called voice affix i-, for, after all, they all have the same affix. We are able to
assign the correct roles by considering the potential of the pivot phrases with
respect to the action in the verb. For example, in ()(a), we read baboy as the
affected entity rather than the benefactor. (The sentence Iluto mo ang baboy ng
pagkain would make baboy benefactor.) The roles can be made explicit using
modality affixes, thus:
(Ipag- has a non-benefactive sense, as in Ipagbili mo ang baboy, where the pivot is
theme, and in Ipagdusa mo ang kasalanan ng ama mo, where I don’t even know
what role the pivot plays.)
In other words, morphosyntactically what gives the pivots their role of patient,
benefactor, instrument, and reason, respectively, is their modality. Thus there is a
good reason that the prefix i- itself is part of the modality affix, if only because it
appears in what now can be called the locus for modality. The voice affix in the
above is null. (A null voice affix is not unusual since the –in patient affix in the
non-contemplated aspect is also null, for example: Bibili- si Ben ng basi.)
[But the patient voice affix is not null. It only has zero
realization in some constructions. Whereas what you are proposing
here is a total null affix. There is a difference.]
[Now this is where the paper lives gloriously ever after, or dies
pathetically.]
What we claim here is that election to pivot position of the phrases co-indexed by
the modality markers in the verb is a process of derived or applied pivot
formation, a two-step process. First, they get elected to core by virtue of the
expression of their modality. From core position, they then promote to pivot, by
virtue of the fact that they do have a voice marker as well, the zero voice marker,
indicating neither actor nor patient voice.
(i) Verb roots need not be pre-categorial, an expensive proposition any way
you look at it, and an idea that has been discounted here in any case.
(ii) The concept of the pivot emanating from the set of core arguments is
preserved.
(iii) What emerges is a simpler set of voice affixes: -in for patient, -um- for
actor, -an for locus, and zero for everything else.
(iv) The status of i-, pa-, pag-, pang-, and ka- as mode affixes is clarified.
Occasionally these are treated as voice or aspect affixes, resulting in much
confusion (de Guzman 1978).
(v) Another drawback in Foley’s position, at least from the point of view of
the Minimalist approach to syntax, is that, with the suggested elemination of the
argument structure for verb roots, the underlying representation of verbal
phrases take on a non-configurational structure (Kroeger 1993), a base-
configuration that goes against the strictly binary-branching requirement of the
the Minimalist syntax.
Summary
(missing)
Kung ang dalawang posisyong ito, panaguri at layon ng ang, ang gagamiting
bitsay sa pagtanto ng mga kategoryang panggramatika ng salita, lilitaw nga na
kahit na aling salita o parirala ay makatatayo sa mga posisyong ito. Katunayan,
hindi lang pariralang pandiwa at pariralang pangngalan ang pinapayagan sa
dalawang posisyon, kundi lahat ng uri ng parirala.
Sa madaling salita, malalaki ang butas ng bitsay ng ginamit ni Gil. Lumusot lahat
ang mga salita at parirala, hindi lang ang malalarawang salita tulad ng
pangngalan, pang-uri, pandiwa, at pang-abay, kundi pati na mga pariralang
ipinakikilala ng mga matungkuling salita, tulad ng para, na-, pa-, may, at iba pa.
Hindi naman ibig sabihin na mali ang lapit ni Gil (ang paggamit ng posisyon sa
pangungusap sa pagtatag ng kategoryang panggramatika), kundi hindi lang
lapat ang pagsusulit na ginamit.
Ang layunin ng “inang” papel ay para ipakita ang pamamaraan ng maka-
balarilang pananaliksik at pag-iisip. Isang kakulangan ito sa kurikula ng balarila.
Maka-agham na pag-iisip ang balarilang pag-iisip. Kapakipakinabang na
matutuhan ang kagalingan ito, hindi lamang para magtagumpay sa pag-aaral ng
balarila, kundi para magamit na gabay tungo sa mabisang lapit sa mga pang-
araw-araw na karanasan.
Ang Paksa
Kroeger (1998), in reply to Foley, attempted to show that Tagalog voice affixation
has a different function on nominal roots than it does on verbal roots. Kroeger
claimed that “this implies that Tagalog roots are not in fact pre-categorial; rather,
their lexical entries must include information about their basic category (N, V, A,
etc).”
This behavior is common among languages (for example, English: How pretty it
is!, How the rabbit runs!, *How soldier he is!). Its relevance to the topic at hand is
that it is a behavior that can be described only with reference to word class
information, suggesting again that Tagalog roots need to carry category
information to function properly in yet another construction type.
But not:
If exclamations allow adjective and verb pivots, this then weakens the claim of
the ang particle as a referentializer.
The following sentences show that an adverb may also be the pivot of an
exclamation construction.