ResMetLing 2019: The 2nd International Conference on Research Methods in Linguistics

The Nominalist Hypothesis in Austronesian:

A Tagalog case study
Daniel Kaufman ,
1 Laurence Gretsch Sevilla2

1Departmentof Linguistics, Queens College, CUNY, Queens, New York | e-mail: daniel.kaufman@qc.cuny.edu
2Department of Linguistics and Basque Studies, College of Letters, UPV-EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain | e-mail: laurence.sevilla@ehu.eus

Introduction Nominalist Analysis

Do all languages have verbs? The present study looked into Tagalog, a genitive-ergative
Austronesian language, and found that there is evidence pointing towards it lacking a verbal Derivation Description
category. This finding has important implications in current syntactic and typological Roots surface only after it merges with functional head n,
√+n
following Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993)
analyses, such as Austronesian extraction restrictions and universals. It also provides a way to
nP[Poss n’[n √P [√ [Theme-θ]]]] nP merges a non-agent element with GEN Case
distinguish between languages with genitive-ergative systems like Mayan and those with (Possessor) in specifier position
genitive-ablative ones like Basque.
The Nominalist Hypothesis’ predictions were found to hold based on observations found in VoiceP[VoiceP’[Voice+n nP[Poss n’[n
Voice may merge nP. Root n merges with Voice
the root-level through the nature of independent lexical roots, in the word-level when √P [√ [Theme-θ]]]]]]
lexical roots interact with voice, and in the phrase- and clause-level in their behavior in DPs
and PredPs.
VoiceP[Poss(Agent-θ) VoiceP’[Voice+ n
Possessor raises to [Spec, VoiceP] and gets Agent-θ
Independent Lexical Roots nP[Poss n’[n √P [√ [Theme-θ]]]]]]

Tagalog lexical roots denote entities, even event-denoting ones (Himmelmann, 2008) DP[…….[VoiceP[…√P [√ ]]]] VoiceP eventually merges to DP
Tagalog root bigay lagay hagis
English translation give place throw
Meaning That which is given That which is placed That which is thrown
DP containing
In predicate position they are entity-denoting not predicates of a subject Null operator ang phrase
lakad iyon *lakad=siya coindexed with (subject) – no
walk that.NOM walk=3S.NOM ang phrase VoiceP
“That’s a walk/errand” “He walks”

Bare roots have possessors, not agents

sulat ni=Juan *sulat si=Juan
write 3S.GEN=Juan write 3S.NOM=Juan DP with VoiceP
“Juan’s letter” “Juan writes” Fig 1. nP structure showing
root and possessor
Fig 2. Bare minimal canonical structure

Voice and Lexical Roots Ø Canonical predicate-initial word order is base generated (not derived via predicate
Lexical roots inflected for voice maintain nominal interpretation fronting)
ang=b<um>ili ang=b<in>ili
NOM=<AV.BEG>buy NOM=<PV.BEG>buy Implications
“the one who bought” “the (thing) bought”
Islands - Possessor extraction is restricted (Keenan & Comrie, 1977); ay topicalization
Spanish eventive predicates borrowed into Tagalog are nouns K<in>ontrata ni Ronaldo ang=mga=bata
Mag-trabaho p<um>arada <PV>hire GEN=Ronaldo NOM=PL=child
[Ang mga bata]i ay kinontrata ni Ronaldo ti “The children are employees of Ronaldo”
AV-work <AV>stop Note:
*[Ni Ronaldo]i ay kinontrata ti ang mga bata “*[Of Ronaldo]i the children are employees ti”
Voice construed as -er/-ee
Tagalog roots in English syntax require light verb make (assessor vs. assessee) not as
traditional active/passive Coordination - [[Pred Gen] & [Pred Gen] Nom]]; *[[Pred Nom] & [Pred Nom] Gen]]
Let’s make pasok (‘enter’) na (‘already’) to our class (assessed vs. was assessed) Hu~hugas-an=ko at pu~punas-an=mo ang=mga=pinggan
*We can’t hintay (‘wait’) anymore! IMPF~wash-PV=1S.GEN and IMPF~wipe-LV=2S.GEN NOM=PL=plate
“I’ll wash and you dry the dishes”
Behavior in DPs and PredPs
*H<in>ugas-an ang=mga=pinggan at p<in>unas-an ang mesa ni=Juan
All word types can appear in argument or clause initial predicate position <PV.BEG>wash-PV NOM=PL=plate and <PV.BEG>wipe-PV NOM=table GEN=Juan
“Juan washed the plates and wiped the table”
Nag-ingay ang=aso Aso ang=nag-ingay
AV.BEG-noise NOM=dog dog NOM=AV.BEG-noise
“The dog made noise” “The one that made noise was a dog” Secondary Predicates - if joined to predicate they also scope over subject
Nag-hain na lasing ang=babae ng=isda #Ini-hain na lasing ng=babae ang=isda
AV.BEG-serve LNK drunk NOM=girl GEN=fish PV.BEG-serve LNK drunk GEN=girl NOM=fish
Behavior of roots in DPs and PredPs: ‘The girl was the drunk server of fish’ ‘The fish were the drunk servees of the girl’ or
‘The girl served the drunk fish (to someone)’
DPs PredPs
References
No major structural difference Possessor predicates in Tagalog
between voice/aspect inflected require obliques, not genitives like Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S.J.
Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111-
words and unambiguous nouns English. 176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2008). Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In P. K. Austin & S. Musgrave (Eds.),
DPs which can take genitive case as Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages (pp. 247-293). Stanford, CA: CSLI
Lexical heads within DP share a Publications.
modifiers must take oblique when
nominal macro-category Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal gramar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-69.
serving as predicates
Extraction restrictions are due to a Acknowledgments
Bare deictics also can’t head DPs
ban in genitive predicates We would like to thank Juan Corza for his invaluable insights into the Tagalog language. This research was
funded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (HUM2019 - 12885 -CO2- 02/FILO) and
the National Research Council of the Philippines (PHLANG 2019 - LIN-00290143).

RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2015

www.PosterPresentations.com