Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T11:27:39.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definiteness without D: The case of ang and ng in Tagalog

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Ileana Paul ,
Key Cortes  and
Lareina Milambiling
Ileana Paul
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Key Cortes
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Lareina Milambiling
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers the syntactic and semantic properties of two vocabulary items in Tagalog, ang and ng. It is shown that although ang and ng appear to encode definiteness (via familiarity), they are in fact unmarked for definiteness, being compatible with both familiar and novel readings. Crucial data from modification by weak quantifiers are presented in favour of this description. The default interpretation of ang and ng as familiar and novel, respectively, arises due to their syntactic position (subject versus object). Given that ang and ng mark case, it is argued that they are case markers in K° and not determiners.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article s’intéresse aux propriétés syntaxiques et sémantiques de deux items lexicaux en tagalog, ang et ng. Nous montrons que bien que ang et ng semblent encoder la définitude (via la familiarité), ils sont non-marqués pour la définitude puisqu’ils sont compatibles à la fois avec une lecture familière et une lecture nouvelle. Nous présentons comme éléments de preuves des données qui incluent la modification par des quantificateurs faibles. L’interprétation par défaut de ang et ng comme familier et nouveau, respectivement, dépend de leurs positions syntaxiques (sujet versus objet). Étant donné que ang et ng sont des marqueurs casuels, nous soutenons l’idée selon laquelle qu’ils sont des marqueurs de cas de type K° et non pas des déterminants.

Keywords

Tagalogdeterminerscase markersdefinitenessfamiliarityscopetagalogdéterminantsmarqueurs de casdéfinitudefamiliaritéportée
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 361 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Stephen. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Adams, Karen and Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1988. Some questions of topic/focus choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27:79–101.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2012. Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122:192–203.Google Scholar
Arkoh, Ruby and Matthewson, Lisa. 2013. A familiar definite article in Akan. Lingua 123:1–30.Google Scholar
Bell, Sarah. 1978. Two differences in definiteness in Cebuano and Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 17:1–9.Google Scholar
Billings, Loren. 2005. Ordering clitics and postverbal R-expressions in Tagalog. A unified analysis? In Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Dooley, Sheila Ann, 303–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bobaljik Jonathan, David and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1:37–71.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. In name only: Structuring sense, volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Elfner, Emily and Walkow, Martin, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, ed. Grewendorf, Günther and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede, 179–242. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chen, Sihwei. 2012. Indefinites in Atayal: Scope interactions and case. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Sybesma, Rint. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30:509–542.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Sybesma, Rint. 2012. Classifiers and DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43:634–650.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. On reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339—405.Google Scholar
Cortes, Key, Milambiling, Lareina, and Paul, Ileana. 2012. On Tagalog determiners. In Proceedings of the 2012. annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Caxaj, Paula. Wilfrid Laurier University. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2012/Cortes_Milambiling_Paul_2012.pdf Google Scholar
Despic, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of Determiner Phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Despic, Miloje. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 239–270.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Langues et Grammaire 1, ed. Nash, Lea and soulas, George, 119–137. Paris: University of Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina, eds. 2009. Determiners: Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie and Solveiga, Armoskaite. 2011. Diagnosis: D. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Toronto.Google Scholar
Gorrie, Colin, Kellner, Alexandra, and Massam, Diane. 2010. Determiners in Niuean. Australian Journal of Linguistics 30:349–365.Google Scholar
De Guzman, Videa. 1988. Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In Studies in Austronesian linguistics, ed. McGinn, Richard, 323–345. Athens, OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite NPs. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline and Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30:365–397.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:547–593.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1998. Regularity in irregularity: Article use in adpositional phrases. Linguistic Typology 2:315–353.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2013. Notes on “noun phrase structure” in Tagalog. Ms., University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35:1–49.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Subject and topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maclachlan, Anna. 1996. Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantiftcational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana. 2009. On the presence versus absence of determiners. In Determiners: Universals and variation, ed. Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina, 215–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carme. 1991. nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3:279–316.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In Modern studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, ed. Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A., 73–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence. 2002. Determiners, nouns, or what? Problems in the analysis of some commonly occurring forms in Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 41:295–309.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. In Formal issues in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa, 105–116. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. Cross-linguistic evidence for Number Phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37:197–218.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joey. 2009. Existential sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:675–719.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joey. 2016. Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000025 Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 493–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. In Handbook of comparative syntax, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard, 806–838. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subjects, specifiers and X-bar theory. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony, 232–262. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar