A49. 2002 Determiners Nouns What

8/13/2019 A49. 2002 Determiners Nouns What

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a49-2002-determiners-nouns-what 1/17

Determiners, Nouns, or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly

Occurring Forms in Philippine Languages

Lawrence A. Reid

Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Dec., 2002), pp. 295-309.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28200212%2941%3A2%3C295%3ADNOWPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

Oceanic Linguistics is currently published by University of Hawai'i Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/uhp.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgSat Feb 16 23:46:32 2008


http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/uhp.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/uhp.html

http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html




Determiners, Nouns, or What?Problems in the Analysis of

Some Commonly Occurring Forms

in Philippine Languages1

Lawrence A . Reid

This paper deals with the problems inherent in determining the syntactic wordclass of the initial word in many common noun phrases in Philippine lan-

guages such s Tagalog ang Ilokano ti and Bontok nun. These forms havebeen variously called case-marking particles, construction markers, common

noun markers, articles, determiners, specifiers, or simply proclitics. However, a

good syntactic typology of the languages requires that a decision be made as to

their word class, based not simply on func tional characteristics, semantic fea-tures, or translation equivalents, but on their syntactic distribution. Under cer-

tain assumptions, these words would be determiners, with the immediatelyfollowing word being the head noun of its phrase. However, the words that fol-

low appear to be verba l, having the sam e form as in the predicate of a sentence,and this paper thus considers an alternative solution in which the words inquestion are specifying-nouns meaning 'the one' and are the heads of theirphrases. Under this analysis, the immediately following words are verbal con-

structions that constitute relative clauses dependent on the specifying nouns.Corroborating evidence is found in the Talubin dialect of B ontok, in which the

words in question require genitive clitics to be attached to them, rather than toan immediately following content word. H istorical evidence showing that the

forms in question were originally demonstrative nouns (and still function as

such) supports their synchron ic analysis as nouns.

1. INTRODUCTION. Philippine languages an d many of the Austronesian lan-

guag es of For mo sa and elsewhere characteristically have noun ph rases that begin

with on e of a num ber of typically m onosyllabic fon ns, exemplified by the well-

know n Tagalog forms ang ng /nag/, and sa; Ilokano ti, iti Bontok nun us ?

and so forth, each of which introduces a c om mo n noun phrase with dist inct ive

case marking, as in (1)-(3).



1 ) Tagalogpumdsokentered

angA N G

babie.woman

(2) Ilokanoirnmiycame

tiTI

i s odog

'The woman entered.' 'The dog came.'

(3) Bontoklinmayiwran.away

nanN A N

gayyam=ku.f r i e n d = ~ s .G E N

'My friend ran away.'

While the word that usually follows this initial form is normally identified as a

noun, the initial form has received a bewildering array of labels in the literature on

Philippine languages. This paper is an attempt to examine some of the synchronic

and diachronic facts about these forms in order to determ ine in a principled way

what their appropriate syntactic category is.

2. PREVIOUS CHARACTERIZATIONS. A survey of the literature on Phil-

ippine languages provides a great deal of information about the nature of the

forms we are exam ining. They are typically translated as articles in E nglish, and

sometimes as prepositions, so it is not surprising that they are sometimes named as

such in the literature: articles (Scheerer 1905: 107; Vanoverbergh 1955:41; Lam -

brecht 1978:vii); prepositions (Akamine 19 96 46 ).In common with much other linguistic literature from PBnini onward (Lyons

1969:20), short, uninflectable forms such as these that do not fit neatly into any

other part of speech have often simply been labeled as particles (McKaughan

and Meiklejohn 1954:24o ; Forster 1964:36; Lee 1964:50; Mc Kaugh an and

Macaraya 1967:~; olff and Wolff 1967:Lesson 3; Brichoux and Brichoux

1977:I 67; Rosaldo 197 I :292 ); article-like particles (Lamb recht 197 8:vii);

prepositional particles (Akam ine 1996:46).

Most authors, however, attempt to provide som e indication of the distributionor function of the form in the label that they provide. They note that they begin the

phras e: introducing part icles (Hussey 1965 :42); phrase introducers

(Wolfenden I971:62); or that they mark the following constituent as a noun or

noun phrase: marking particles (DuBois 197 6:39 ; Post 1992:xvii; Barlaan

1999154); noun-marking particles (Headland and Headland 1974:xxx), noun

markers (Johnston 1975:50); nominal markers (Brainard 1985:122); phrase

marking particles (Porter 1979139); noun phrase markers (Hussey 1966:35;

Kerr 1 98 84 6) . Other authors note that the forms have something to do with iden-

tifying the construction of which they are a constituent: construction identifiers(Ehrm an 1969); construction markers (Reid 1978; Yamashita I992:21); of ori-

enting the noun phrase to the construction: orientors (Maryott 1963:54); or of



tyingthenounphraseinto theconstructionof whichitisapart:"ligatures" (New-

ell1958:110;Healey 1960:89).

Manynotethattheformsseemtohavegrammaticalfunction,"functionmarker" (delaCruzandZorc1968:149;HidalgoandHidalgo1971:44);"gram-

maticalmarkers"(Mintz1971:7);orthattheyindicatesomekindofsyntactic rela-

tion:"determinantsofrelations" (Asai 1936:41);"relators(akindof particle)"

(Shetler1976: 27-1 28);"relationmarkers" (Reid 1966;Ramos 197 :51);"sub-

stantiverelationalmarkers" (SvelmoeandSvelmoe1974:45);"relational(norni-

nalizing)particles"(Abrams1970:5).

Probablythemostcommondescriptionoftheseformsisonethatidentifies

themasmarkingthecaseofthenounphraseofwhichtheyareapart:"case-mark-

ingparticles" (Benton1971:47;Forman 1971:52;Antworth 1979:6;Bell 1976:5;Zorc 1977 :81;Lambrecht 1978:vii ;Kamp and Kamp 1986 :46;Mayfield

1987: 17),"nominalcasemarkingparticles" (MillerandMiller1976:66);"case

markers"(Brainard1985:123;Ho1990:102;Fukuda 1997:47);"topic/goal-mark-

ers"(Barbian1977:83).

A fewauthorshaveclassifiedtheformsintoa syntacticwordclasscalled

"determiner"(Mirikitani1972: 19-120;Reid 1978:38;Gieser1987: 22;Newell

1993:13;Starosta2000:32;ReidandLiao2001:64).

3 PROBLEMS, Whileitistruethat inexamplessuchas(1)-(3), theform in

questionintroducestheNominativenounphraseof eachsentence,' itscharacter-

izationasacasemarkerisprobablynotappropriate,inthatthesameformcanalso

beused tointroduceapredicatenoun,asin(4)-(6), aswellasafronted,topical-

izednoun,asin(7)-(9)InmostPhilippinelanguages,Nominativenounphrases

are not morphologicallymarked,exceptwhen expressed as a pronoun.Word

orderalonetypicallymarksNominativefullnounphrases.

(4) Tagalogang b ab ie ang pumihok.A N C woman A N C entered

'Theonewhoenteredwasthewoman.'

(5) Ilokanoti is ti immiy.T I dog T came

'Theonethatcamewasthedog.'

(6) Bontoknan gayyam=ku nan linmayhw.N A N f r i e n d = l s . ~ ~ NN A N ran.away

'Theonewhoranawaywasmyfriend.'



7) Tagalogang babie, ay pumisok.A N G woman T P L K entered

'Asforthewoman,sheentered.'

(8) Ilokano

ti hso ket imniiy.T I dog Y P. LK came

'Asforthedog,itcame.'

(9) Bontoknan gayyam =ku, linrnayiw .N A N f r i e n d = r ~ . G ~ ~ an.away

'Asforyourfriend,sheranaway.'

Butthemainproblemwithmostofthelabelsgivenaboveisthattheyarefunc-

tional:theylabelthemeaningof theformo rspecifyoneormoreofitssyntactic

characteristics,buttheydonotspecifythesyntacticwordclass,orcategory,ofthe

formsinquestion.Isubscribetoalexicalisttheoryoflanguagethatclaimsthat

everywordinalanguagecarriesafeaturethatmarksitasbelongingtooneofa

limited,probably universalsetof distributionalclasses,4amongwhicharenoun,

verb,adjective,adverb,determiner,andpreposition,notallofwhich,however,are

necessarilypresentinagivenlanguage-although probablyalllanguagesdistin-guishatleastnounsandverbs.Thesearenotformclasses,dependentontheir

lnorphologicalshape,noronmeaningorfunction,butaredefinedpurelyinterms

of theirdistributionwithinasentenceandtheirpossiblecooccurencepo tential

withothercategories.Oneofthecharacteristicsoftheclassofdeterminersuniver-

sallyisthattheyaredependentsofheadnouns,andtypicallyoccurattheouter

edgeof anounphrase.They cannotthemselvesbemodifiedby anyotherform.5

Theyoftenagreewithsemanticfeaturesoftheheadnoun,suchasdefiniteness,

specificity,commonvs.personal,plurality,andsoforth,andmayalsoagreewith

or"mark"thesyntacticcaseoftheirheadnoun.

Basedonthesefactsaboutdeterminers,itseemsthattheformswearediscuss-

ingare,infact,determiners,inthattheyhavepreciselythedistributionalcharacter-

isticsdescribedaboveandfunctioninwaysconsistentwithwhatisknown about

determinersinotherlanguagesof theworld.

3 1 PROBLEM WITH TYPOLOGY Thefirsthintthattheremaybesome-

thingwrongwiththeirclassificationasdeterminerscomeswhenw econsiderthe

typological characteristics of Philippine languages. They are strongly right-branching, with dependents typicallyoccurring to the right of theirhead.Thus

complement clauses alwaysoccur to therightof the verb upon whichthey are



dependent, and relative clauses and genitively marked possessive noun phrases

always occur to the right of their head nouns. Determiners, however, are typologi-

cally anomalous in that they always occur to the left of their head noun.6

3 2 PROBLEM WITH PHRASE HEADS The second hint that there may be

a problem with considering the forms s determiners comes when we consider the

class of the forms that immediately follow them, forms that typologically would

be expected to be head nouns, if the initial form is a determiner.

3 2 1 Supposed determ iner followed by a lexical verb There is little ques-

tion that if we consider only sentences such as those given in (I-3), the following

form is a noun and it is the head of its phrase, a noun phrase. However, in ( 4 6 ) heword that appears to be the head of the noun phrase in the second half of each sen-

tence carries affixation that identifies it as a verb. Two explanations for this have

appeared in the literature. Theories that require that the head of a noun phrase be a

noun have assumed that these verb look-ahke forms are actually zero-derived

deverbal nominalizations, similar to the effect of -er nominalizations in English,

such as singer teaclzer and so forth, hence their translations in the above examples

as 'the one who . . The other explanation is given by linguists who allow dele-

tion transformations in their theory. They claim (see, for example, Kroeger

1998:2, I I ) that the forms are verbs, as they appear to be, but are the predicates of

headless relative clauses, so that, in effect, the noun phrases in which they appear

a r e - o n the surface at least-headless.

Th e latter explanation is not available to a linguist such s myself, who rejects

transformations and underlying structures, and for who m there is no such thing as

a headless relative clause, or a noun phrase without a head noun.

3 2 2 Supposed determiner followed by an auxiliary verb The explanation

that the verb-like forms after a supposed determiner are zero-derived deverbalnominalizations runs into problems when one considers other examples in which

an auxiliary verb appears to immediately follow the supposed determiner, as in

(10)-(13), in which a negative auxiliary occurs.

(10) Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes 1972:518)

ang hindi matatalino ang tinutuman=niya.A N G N C G ~ntelllgent A N G t e a c h e s = G ~ ~ . 3 ~

'The ones he teaches are the unintelligent ones.'



3 OCEAN IC LINGUISTICS, VOL. 41, NO. 2

I I ) Tagalog (Jose R izal)'

ang hindi magm ahid sa sarili=ng wikh:A N G N E G lo ve si\ s e l f = ~ ~ c la ng ua ge

ay higit pa ang amdy sa mabaho=ng isdh.I'I'.LK uver yet AN(; smell SA s t i n k i n g = ~ r ~ fish

'As for the one wh o doe sn't love his language, he is worse than thestench of rotting fish.'

( I 2) Ilokano (Vanoverbergh r955:246)

asino ti di agayit?n h o T I N E G glad

'Who won't be glad?'

(13) Bontok

sak?an nan ?adi ?um5y.PRDC.1S N A N N E G SO

'The one who won't go is me.'

Even more problematic are examples from languages such as Bontok, in which

a sequence of auxiliary verbs ?J.FU 'future', 'motion away') may appear follow-

ing the supposed determiner and preceding the main lex ical verb, because each of

these would also, in turn, have to be considered nominalizations, as in (14).

(14) Bontok

?intu nan ?asii=k ?i ?umal?an si tipay?where N A N go get.at SI~ ~ ~ . G E N . I S l i c e . b e e r

'Where will I go to get rice beer?'

I consider the first in a series of auxiliary verbs to be the head of its construction,

and any follow ing auxiliary verb and the main lexical verb to be its dependents, so

that if the phrase is a noun phrase with an initial determiner, the auxiliary would have

to be considered a noun. While it might be possible to consider the lexical verbs as

nominalizations when they follow a determ iner, it is unlikely that negative, modal,

directional, and sinlilar auxiliary verbs are nominalizations. To my knowledge, there

are no languages that have nom inaliwd auxiliary verbs.

3 2 3 Supposed determiner followed by an existential verb Just s problematic

arc examples such as ( I g), in which an existential verb appears immediately follow-

ing the supposed determiner.

(15) Tagalog (Ramos 1971:113)

ng babje ang may asiw a.A N G woman N C exist spouse

'The one who has a spouse is the woman.'



3.2.4 Supposed determiner followed by a preposition. A similar problem arises

with constructions such as (16)-(17), in which what is probably a prepositional

phrase immediately follows a supposed determiner.

(16) Tagalog (Lemar hal1g82:21)ang pk a sa b i t iA N G for SA child

'the one that is for the child'

(17) Kaparnpangan (Mirikitani 1972:I 35-136)ing para king anak=ku ing libru.I N G for K IN G C ~ ~ ~ ~ = G E N . I S bookN G

'The book is the one that is for my child.'

Because prepositional phrases are headed by prepositions, it would be necessary

to analyze the preposition as a norninalization, if the phrase is a noun phrase and

the initial form is a determiner, a solution that is not palatable.

3.2.5 Supposed determiner followed by a case marked NP. In (18), a noun

phrase, locatively marked by sa, immediately follows the supposed determiner, as

part of a Nominative noun phrase. Without any noun immediately after the deter-

miner on whlch the Locative noun phrase can be dependent, we are left with the

anomolous situation of a noun phrase that is both nominatively and locatively

marked.

( I 8) Tagalog (Ramos 197I I I 3)ang karnabd ang sa biyan.A N G carnival A N G S A town

'The one that will be in town is the carnival.'

4. A SOLUTION In Reid (2000:38--do), I attempted to provide an explanation

for the historical processes by which determiners in Philippine languages devel-

oped from a proposed Protc-Extra-Formosan noun phrase structure such as that

shown in (19) with a dependency stemma a t t a ~ h e d . ~

(19) Protc-Extra-Formosan [7] in Reid 2000)

[PI[Nom] [N] *nu

'that big one'lit.: 'that one which is a big one'

[+dmns] [PI dak51



302 O CEA N I C LINGUISTICS, V O L. 41 NO.

I notedthat"insomeofthenorthernPhilippinelanguages,suchasthose

belongingtotheCentralCordilleransubgroup,includingBontok,Kankanaey,and

Ifilgao,prepositions becamepostclitics tothepreceding noun, withsubsequen tlossofthefinalvowel,"asin(20).

(20) Pre-Bontok([8]inReid2000)

[N] *-n 'thatbigone'

[+dmns] [PI dukdaE1 lit.:'thatonewhichisabigone'

[+rltv] [N]

[prdcl

[-plrlI

Iclaimedthat"now,however,BON,K N K ,IFG nun isnolongerasequenceof

noun preposition.Ithasbecomegrarnmaticalizedasasinglemorphemefunc-

tioningasadefinitedeterminer,"asin(21).

(21) Bontok g ] inReid2000)

I (lakdak51 'thebigone'

tzatz [N]

Pet1 [-plrll[+dfnt]

IthennotedthewaytheseprocesseshadoperatedtoproducetheTagalogdetermin-

ers."Preciselythesamekindsofchangeshaveoperatedtoproducethewell-known

ag andnclg determinersfoundinTagalog,exceptthattherewasaninnovationintheformoftherelativepreposition(ligature)[i.e.,theprepositionthatintroducesrelative

clauses,conlmonlyreferredtointheliteratureasa"ligature"] nuThepostconso-

nantalvariant*a waslost,and*nuwasgenerahzedto llpositions.Subsequently,the

initialnasalof*nu becameavelarinpostvoc~cosition(22).Therelativepreposi-

tionbecameapostclitictotheprecedingnoun,losingitsfinalvowel( q ) , althougha

relicoftheearlierstageremainsfrozenontheTagalogpluraldeterminerm g u . Nom-

inativenounphraseslosttheircase-marking,andthedemonstrativenounplusprepo-

sitionsequence*a-g becamea~norphologicallyimpled e t e m ~ e r l ~24)"

Althoughthehistoricaldevelopmentjustdescribedappropriatelycapturesthepro-

cessesbywhichdeterminersdeveloped,itassumesthattheformssuchasBontokmn

andTagalogung areinfactdeterminers,butasIhaveshowninthefirstsectionsof



=ng, followed by a relative clause. In Tagalog, the form of the ligature is nu fol-

lowing a consonant; following a vowel, it is the clitic =ng.

(22) Pre-Tagalog (LIZ] in Reid 2000)

[PI a 'that big one'

[Nom] [N] a lit.: 'that one which is big'

2 3 ) Pre-Tagalog ([13] in Reid 2000)

i[PI *a 'that big one'

[Noml [Nl lit.: 'that one which is big'

[+dmns] [PI *malaki[+rltvl [VI

[+st&]

(24) Tagalog ([14] in Reid 2000)

'the big one'

(25) Tagalog (Lemartchal 1982:21)

a. ka rn ab iln a sa biiyancarnival LI SA town

'the carnival that is in town'

b. relds na sa njn aywatch LI SA mother

'the w atch that belongs to mother'c. relds na phra sa ninay

watch LI or SA mother



OCEANICLINGUISTICS, VOL. 41 N O .

(26) Tagalog(Lemarechal1 9 8 2 : ~ ) a . ang sa bhyan

AN(; S tOWI

'theonethatisintown'

b. ang sa njnayA N C S mother

'theonethatbelongstomother'

c. ang p k a sa njnayA N G for s 1 mother

'theonethatisformother'

IbelievenowthatmyearlierexplanationinReid(2000)apparentlywenttoo

farinclaimingthatwhatwereoriginallydemonstrativenounsfollowed by liga-tureshadbecomedeterminersinthemodemlanguages.Beforealllexicalitems,

nouns,verbs,andprepositions aswell,thesupposeddetermine risin factstilla

noun,althoughno longerademonstrative,anditisstilltheheadofthenoun

phrase.Assuch,thelexicalitemthatfollowsitisthepredicateheadofarelative

clause,whilewhatwasoriginallytheligaturehasnowbecomegrammaticalizedas

partoftheprecedingnoun.A formsuchasBontoknun, althoughanoun,maynot

occurwithouta(following)dependentpredicate.Inthisway,suchforms aresimi-

lartoverbalauxiliaries,typicallygramrnaticalizedfromlexicalverbs,whichalso

requireafollowingdependentpredicate.Suchformsaresaidtocarrythefeature

[+extension](Pagotto andStarosta1985:51-52). Nouns thatrequireafollowing

relativeclause,suchasBontoknun,arealsoclaimedtocarrythesam efeatureand

maybeconsideredtobe"auxiliary" nouns,asin(28).

(27) Pre-Bontok([8]inReid2000)

[N] *-n 'thatbigone'

[+dmns] [PI dukdukil lit.:'thatonewhichisabigone'[+rltv] [N]

[prdcl

I-plrll

[Nl 'thebigone'[+xtns] dakdak51 lit.:'theonewhichisabigone'



An alternative analysis, that demonstratives have developed as extension nouns

before verbs but have become determiners before nouns, removes the problem of

headless relative clauses, but it still leaves an anomalous typological situation inthose cases where they actually do occur before a noun. Although it may seem

unlikely that every noun that occurs in a noun phrase beginning with a form such as

TAGung is actually a predicate noun-which would be the expected result of consid-

ering the supposed determiner to be itself the head noun of the phrase-it is just this

analysis that is proposed by LemarCchal(1983) for Tagalog nouns. He states that

ung indicates persons or thmgs as individualized (1983:41o), and even ng ddtor

is basically 'the one being a doctor ' (1983409). Moreover, evidence from the Talu-

bin dialect of Bontok suggests that this is precisely the case. In this dialect, words end-

ing in a high vowel (either i or u) have acquired a final consonant stop, either -k or -7

with the result that earlier possessed noun s such as ?a'su=k 'my dog' beca me

hom ophonous with the unpossessed innovated form ?dsuk 'dog'. Apparently to avoid

such cases of homophony, all genitive possessive pronouns now follow the initial n

of the phrase, regardless of whether the following noun was originally vowel-final, as

n (29)a-b, or consonant-final, as in (29)c. This development would be unlikely if the

initial nu were a determiner, because it would require that the determiner have a

dependent genitive pronoun (a completely aberrant situation for determiners), but it

would be likely if the initial n were still a noun. An alternative analysis is suggested

by the English translations, that the form s nuk 'my', nam 'your', m 'his', and so

forth, are possessive determiners, but such an analysis does not solve the other prob-

lems detailed in 3.2 in connection with the supposed determiners.

(29) Talubin Bontok

a. ?u?fid na=k ?isuk?where N A = G E N . I S dog

'Where is my dog?'

b. ?u?6d na=m ?8suk?where N A = G E N . Z S dog

'Where is your dog?'

c. ?u?ud ni= na ?ivuq?where N A = G E N . 3 S house

'Where is his house?'

(30) Talubin Bontok

'Where is my dog?'



3 0 ~ O C E A N I C L I NG U I S TI C S , V OL . 4 1 , N O . 2

5 CONCLUSION This paper has attempted to provide evidence that the well-

known monosyllabic forms that introduce common noun phrases in Philippine

languages d o not belong, at least in som e cases, to the syntactic category of deter-

miners, but to that of nouns. The evidence has consisted of fairly common occur-

rences of the forms before words that are themselves unlikely to be the heads of

noun phrases, such as prepositions and auxiliary verbs, supported by the other evi-

dence, such as their anomalous typological position in the phrase, and the pres-

ence of apparent dependents in at least Talubin Bontok, which would suggest that

the forms are not determiners. Their analysis as a subclass of extension nouns, that

is, nouns that require a dependent predicate, is consistent with analyses of non-

Philippine languages in which such constructions occur, and adequately accounts

for the problems that arise when they are analyzed as determiners.In this paper, I have only discussed data that are found in N ominative noun

phrase constructions. As noted early in the paper, such constructions are not mor-

phologically case-marked in Philippine languages. However, other noun phrases,

such as Gen itives, Locatives, and-in som e languages-Obliques are formally

case-marked on the initial form of the phrase. It is probable that a careful analysis

of these forms will show that they are also extension nouns, with morphologica l

case-marking , but at this point the analysis has not been done.

A further question that arises is the status of the forms that introduce personal

names, such as Tagalog si ni, and kay Whether these are determiners, nou ns, or

perhaps prepositions requires further research.

One additional point should be m ade here. The form of the Talubin B ontok

construction given in (30) should be familiar to linguists who have worked with

Oceanic languages. It is reminiscent of the Proto-Oceanic general possessive

classifier construction , reconstructed by Pawley (1973) and Lichtenberk (1985)

with classifier na followed by a Genitive clitic pronoun. Although the Talubin

Bontok developm ent is clearly a development independent from the one that

resulted in the sam e type of construction in Proto-Oceanic, it is, however, sugges-tive that the source of the Proto-Oceanic general possessive classifier was the

sam e extension noun, reconstnicted as *na, that occurs in Bontok and in many

other Philippine languages, rather than a preposed common article as proposed

by Ross (1988:98-100).

REFERENCES

Abram s, Norman. 1970. Bilaan morphology. In Pupers in Philippine Linguistic 7 No. 3ed. by S. A . Wurm, 1-62. Series A-24. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Akamine, Jun. 1996 . A grammatical analysis of Manuk M angkaw Sinam a. Ph. D. dis-

sertation, University of the P hilippines, Diliman.



Barbian, Karl-Josef. 1977. The M angyan languages of M indoro. M .A. thesis, Univer-

sity of San C arlos, Cebu City.

Barlaan, Rodolfo Rosario. 1999. A.ypect.5 qf, foc l*s n Isnag. Manila: Linguistic Society

of the Philippines.Bell, Sarah Johanna. 197 6. Cebuano subjects in two framew orks. Ph.D. dissertation,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Benton, Richard A. 97 I . Pangasinan reference grarnmur. PAL1 Language Texts: Phil-ippines. Honolulu: University of Haw ai i Press.

Brainard, Sherri, ed. 1985. Upper Tunudan Kalingu tat.^ Studies in Philippine Linguis-

tics: Supplementary Series: Philippine texts No. r Manila: Linguistic Society ofthe Philippines and S umm er Institute of Lingu istics.

Brichoux, Robert, and Felicia Brichoux. 1977. A sketch of Ilianen Manobo inflection.Studies in Philippine Linguistics I ( I ) :166-172.

de la Cruz, Beato, and R. David Paul Zorc. 1968.A study of the Aklanon dialect, no. I ,Grurnrna,: Kalibo: Aklan Printing Center.

DuBois, Carl D. 1976.Sarcu~ganiMan : An intrnriurtory guide. Philippine Journal of Linguis-

tics Special Monograph Issue Number 6. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Forman, Michael L. 1971. Kaputnpa~zgatr rutrztnur notes. PAL1 Language Texts: Phil-ippines. Honolulu: University of Haw ai i Press.

Forster, Jannette. 1964. Dual structure of Dibabawon verbal clauses. Oceanic Linguis-

tics 3:26-48.

Fukuda, Takashi. 1997. A discourse-oriented grammar of Eastcrn Bontoc. Studies in

Philippine Linguistics I ~ ( I ) : 16.-1

Gieser, Richard. 1987. Gidinuang Kalinga t a t s . Studies in Philippine Linguistics: Supple-mentary series: Philippine texts No. 4. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines

and Sum mer Institute of Linguistics.

Headland, Thom as N., and Janet D. Headland. 1974.A Durnugat (Casiguran)-English

dictionary. Series C-28. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Healey, Phyllis M . 1960. An Agta grammar. Manila: Bureau of Printing.

Hidalgo, Cesar A., and Araceli C. Hidalgo. 1971.A tagm mic grarnmur 41 1~ utu n.hilip-pine Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph No. 2 Manila: Linguistic Society of

the Philippines.Ho, Arlene Y. L. 1990. Yami structure: A descriptive study of the Yami language. M.A.

thesis, National Tsing Hua U niversity, Hsinchu .

Hussey, Jean. 1966. Noun phrase m arkers in Aborlan Tagbanwa. In Papers in Philip-pine linguistic,^ No. r 33-38 Series A-8. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Hussey, Stewart Curtiss. 1965. Aborlan Tagbanwa: Verbal system and related topics.

M .A. thesis, The H artford S eminary Foundation.

Johnston, E Clay. 1975. The verb affixation of Cotabato M anobo, Philippine Jot~rn ul

o f Linguistics 6(1):25-50.Kam p, Randy, and Ruth K amp. 1986 . Karao survey report. Ms.

Ken, Harland. 1988. Cotabato Manobo grammar. Studies in Philippine Lingz~istics

7(1):1-123.Kroeger, Paul. 199 8. Nouns and verbs in Tagalog: A reply to Foley. Paper presented to

the LFGg8 Conference, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.Lambrecht, Frans Hubert. 197 8. Ificguw-English dictionrmp. Baguio C ity: The Catholic

Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province.

Lee, Ernest W. 1964 . Non-focus verbs in Maguindanao. Oceanic Linguistics 3:49-57.



Lyons, John. 1969. lrltrtxluction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Maryott, Kenneth R I 963. Th e s&stuntivephru.tes qf Sungir . Papers on Philippine lan-

guages No. 1. Manila: Institute for Language Teaching, University of the Philip-pine and Summer Institute of Linguistics Philippine Branch.

Mayfield, Roy, ed. 198 7. Centrul Cuguycin Agtu tats. Studies in Ph ilippine Linguistics:

Supplementary series: Philippine texts No. 2. Manila: Linguistic Society of the

Philippines and Summer Institute of Linguistics.

McKaughan , Howard P., and Batua A. Macaraya. 1967. A Mururzuo dictio nary Hono-

lulu: University of H awai i Press.

McKaughan , Howard P., and Percy M eiklejohn. 1 9 5 4 A brief English-Agusan

Man obo word list. University of Munilu Journal qfEust Asilltic Stlulie.~ (2):237-

240.

Miller, Jeanne, and Helen Miller. 1976. Mumunwu grumrnur. Language Data: Asian-Pacific Series No. 8. Huntington Beach : Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Mintz, Malcolm W. 1971 Bikol grurnmur rzote.7. PAL1 Language Texts: Philippines.

Hono lulu: University of Hawai i Press.

Mirikitani, Le atrice T. 1972. Kupurnpungcln syntcu. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publi-

cation No, lo . Honolulu: University Press of Hawa i i.

Newell, Leonard E. 1 9 5 8 An Ifugao text. In Studies in P hilippine linguisitcs ( by mem -

be r. ~~ f t l z e urnrner 1n.rtitute rf li ng ui sl ic s, Pucific Brun ch), ed. by A Capell and S .

A. Wurm, 104-1 lo . Sydn ey: University of Sydne y.

1993. Butad 1f;rguo dictio nciv with ethnographic noter. Linguistic Society of

the Philippines Special Monograph No. 33. Manila: Linguistic Society of thePhilippines.

Pagotto, Louise, and Stanley Starosta. 1985. Lexicase grammatical theory and its

application to English and Japanese grammar. First annual report. Tokyo: NTT

Electrical Colnm unication Laboratory.

Pawley, Andrew. 197 3. Som e problems in Oceanic gramm ar. Oceanic Lin~ui.Ttics

I 2 :103-1 88.

Porter, Doris. 19 79 . Northern Kankanay morphology. Stiulie,~n Philippine Linguistics

3(2):20-62.

Post, Ursula. 1992 . Binukid d ictionary. Studie.7 in Philippine Linguistics 9(2):1 2 10.

Ramos, Teresita V. 1971. Tugulog strucfure.r.Hon olulu: University of Hawai i P ress.

Reid, Lawrence A. 1966. An Ivutun syntux. Oceanic Linguisitcs Special Publication

No. 2. Hon olulu: Pacific and Asian Linguistics Institute, University of H awai i.

1 9 7 8 Problems in the reconstn~c tion f Proto-Philippine con stn ~ct ionmarkers. In

Second Internutiorwl Conference on Awtront?Tiun Linguistics: Procetrlings, No. I , ed.

by S. A. Wurm and L. Canington, 33-66. Canberra: Department of Linguistics,

Research School of Pacific Studies, Th e Australian National University.

2000. S O L I ~ C ~ Sf Proto-Oce anic initial prenasalization: Th e view from outsideOceanic. In Grcimmuticul unulysis: Morphology, sy n tm , und semcmtics: Stu d ic ~ n

horzor of Stunlti) Starostu, ed. by Videa P. De Guzman and Byron W. Bend er, 30-

45. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 29. Honolulu: University of

Hawai i Press.Reid, Lawrence A ,, and Hsiu-chuan Liao, 2001 . Syntactic typology of Philippine lan-

guages. Paper read at 2nd International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures:Issues Relating to Taiwan, Dec. I I , at Academ ia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.



Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes, 1972. Tagalog r4erence grummur Berkeley, LosAngeles, London : University of California Press.

Scheerer, Otto. 1 905. The Nuhaloi dialect Ethnological Survey Publications No. (pts.

and 3). Manila: Bureau of Public Printing.Shetler, Joanne. 1976. Notes on Bulungao grammar Language Data: Asian-Pacific

Series, No. 9 . Huntington Beach: Sum mer Institute of Linguistics.Starosta, Stanley. 2000. Lexicase dependency grammar: An on-line reference manual.

Online at: http://www ling hawaii edu/faculty/stanley/rm~cntn html Svelmoe, Gordon, and Thelma Svelmoe. 1974. Notes o Munsaku grummctr Language

Data: Asian-Pacific Series No. 6. Huntington Beach: Summ er Institute of L inguistics.Vanoverbergh, Mo rice. 1 955 .Iloko grummur Baguio City: Catholic School Press.Wolfenden, Elmer P. 97 I . Hiliguynon reference grum mur PAL1 Language T exts: Phil-

ippines. Honolulu: U niversity of Hawai i Press.

Wolff, John, and Ida W olff. 1967. Beginning Waray-Waray. Ms.Yamashita, Michiko. 1992. Kukilingan Sumha1 ta t s with grummuticul unulysis The

Archive No. 8. Diliman, Quezon City: Cecilio Lopez Archives of the PhilippineLanguages and Philippine Linguistics Circle.

Zorc, R. David Paul. 1977. The Bisuyun dialects u the Philippines: Subgrouping andreconstruction Series C -4 4 Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Department of Linguist ics

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/faculty/stanley/rm~cntn.html

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/faculty/stanley/rm~cntn.html



You have printed the following article:

Determiners, Nouns, or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly OccurringForms in Philippine Languages

Lawrence A. Reid

Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Dec., 2002), pp. 295-309.

Stable URL:


This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References

Dual Structure of Dibabawon Verbal Clauses

Jannette Forster

Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 1, Papers in Philippine Linguistics. (Summer, 1964), pp. 26-48.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28196422%293%3A1%3C26%3ADSODVC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

Non-Focus Verbs in Maguindanao

Ernest W. Lee

Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 1, Papers in Philippine Linguistics. (Summer, 1964), pp. 49-57.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28196422%293%3A1%3C49%3ANVIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

Some Problems in Proto-Oceanic Grammar

Andrew Pawley

Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 12, No. 1/2, Papers of the First International Conference on ComparativeAustronesian Linguistics, 1974: Oceanic. (Summer - Winter, 1973), pp. 103-188.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28197322%2F24%2912%3A1%2F2%3C103%3ASPIPG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28200212%2941%3A2%3C295%3ADNOWPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28196422%293%3A1%3C26%3ADSODVC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28196422%293%3A1%3C49%3ANVIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28197322%2F24%2912%3A1%2F2%3C103%3ASPIPG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28197322%2F24%2912%3A1%2F2%3C103%3ASPIPG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28196422%293%3A1%3C49%3ANVIM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28196422%293%3A1%3C26%3ADSODVC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28200212%2941%3A2%3C295%3ADNOWPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Documents

A49. 2002 Determiners Nouns What