Cover not available
Part of
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 131–184

Grammatical relations in Hiligaynon

| University of California
In typological work on grammatical relations, languages of the Philippines have long presented challenges. The challenges are due in part to differences across the languages, and in part to the nature of the data underlying analyses. Here the system is described for one Philippine language, Hiligaynon. Basic clause structures are described, then alternations involving causatives, applicatives, reflexives, middles, and reciprocals. Choices among these constructions are examined in context, revealing effects of referent properties (animacy, identifiability, specificity), and information flow through discourse (topicality, topic shifts, focus). Argument structure constraints on individual syntactic constructions are then detailed: imperatives, quantifier float, conjunction reduction, nominalization, content questions, relativization, secondary predication, and complementation. Examination of alternations in context allows us to refine existing typological generalizations and build new ones.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Clause structure
    • 2.1Arguments
    • 2.2Adjuncts
    • 2.3Predicates
      • 2.3.1Zero transitives
      • 2.3.2Intransitives
      • 2.3.3Transitives
  • 3.Argument structure alternations
    • 3.1Intransitivizers
    • 3.2Transitivizers
      • 3.2.1Basic transitivers
      • 3.2.2Instrumental transitivizers
      • 3.2.3Locative transitivizers
      • 3.2.4Causatives
    • 3.3Reflexives and reciprocals
    • 3.4The status of voice morphology
  • 4.Grammatical relations in use
    • 4.1Referent properties: Animacy, identifiability, and specificity
    • 4.2Information flow through discourse: Topicality
    • 4.3Information flow: Topic shifts
    • 4.4Information flow: Focus
  • 5.Syntactic constructions
    • 5.1Imperatives
    • 5.2Quantifiers
    • 5.3Conjunction reduction
    • 5.4Nominalization
    • 5.5Content questions
    • 5.6Relativization
    • 5.7Secondary-predicate constructions
    • 5.8Complement constructions
      • 5.8.1Syntactic status of the complement
      • 5.8.2Controller S = (Controllee S)
      • 5.8.3Controller P = (Controllee S)
      • 5.8.4Controller P = (Controllee A)
      • 5.8.5Controller S = (Controllee A)
      • 5.8.6Controller A = (Controllee S)
      • 5.8.7Controller A = (Controllee A)
      • 5.8.8The complement
      • 5.8.9Complement constructions: Summary
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.05mit
References (41)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of LinguisticTypology, Jae Jun Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis [University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 3]. Urbana IL: UIUC.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objectmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brainard, Sherri. 1994. Voice and Ergativity in Karao. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Guzman, Videa P. 1988. Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 323–345. Athens OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen &de Swart, Peter. 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, I: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Foley, William. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Workshop on voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages. LFG98 Conference. Brisbane.
Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson. 2014. Introduction. Linguistics 52(2): 271–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, John. 1934. Visayan-English Dictionary. ( Kapulúñgan Binisayá-Ininglís ). <[URL]>
Kayne, Richard S. 1969. The Transformational Cycle in French Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1975. French Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1994. Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47(2): 78–98.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan M. 1976. Notes on quantifier-postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 7(4): 708–718.Google Scholar
McKaughan, Howard P. 1958. The Inflection and Syntax of Maranao Verbs. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
1962. Overt relation markers in Maranao. Language 38(1): 47–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973. Subject versus topic. In Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez, Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), 206–213. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Voice: Its Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds), 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motus, Cecile. 1971a. Hiligaynon Dictionary. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
. 1971b. Hiligaynon Lessons. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1982. Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language 6(1): 75–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, Macario B. 1968. A Study of the Behaviour of Hiligaynon Verb Roots with Particular Reference to the Actor and Goal Focus Affixes. Iloilo City: University Research Center, Central Philippines University.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe T. 1972. A Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew & Reid, Lawrence. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers , Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & Stephen Wurm (eds), 145–170. Canberra: ANU.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1971. Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
1975. A Description of Hiligaynon Syntax. Norman IL: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Cheryl Lim
2023. Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3 ► pp. 911 ff. DOI logo
Mithun, Marianne
2021. Chapter 2. Antipassive propensities and alignment. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.