Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
A MINIMALIST ANALYSIS
Maria Khristina S. Manueli
Department of Linguistics
University of the Philippines
Introduction
Tagalog verbs, together with other wellknown Philippine languages, have been
analyzed by most linguists because of its complex morphology. Tagalog verbs affect the
syntactical functions of its Noun Phrases (NP)1, thus being analyzed as having the voice
or focus system.
(1) Kinantahan ni Mona si Luis
Singinan erg Mona nom Luis
‘Mona sang for Luis’
(2) Nagluto ng kakanin si Abel
Magcook acc rice cake nom Abel
‘Abel cooked rice cakes’
(3) Lumipat kami ng bahay
Moveum we acc house
‘We moved (to another house)’
In the traditional analysis of Tagalog and other Philippine languages, sentences are
grouped into two: the verbal and the nonverbal sentences (Constantino 1965, 1971).
However, the so called nonverbal sentences in Tagalog, and in all Philippine languages,
have been left out for analysis; few, if not, no studies have been made on this subject.
(4) Maganda ang babae (Adjective Phrase (AP) as predicate)
mabeautiful nom girl
‘The girl is pretty’
(5) Nasa lamesa ang pusa (Prepositional Phrase (PP) as predicate)
on table nom cat
‘The cat is on the table’
(6) Guro ko si Lisa (Determiner Phrase (DP) as predicate)
teacher mine nom Lisa
‘Lisa is my teacher’
Malay2, also an Austronesian language closely related to Tagalog, has nonverbal as
predicates. But an analysis presented by Ramli (1992, 1995) grouped the nonverbal
1
Also referred to as Determiner Phrase (DP).
2
Also known as Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Melayu Brunei
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
sentences as belonging to the verbal sentences. Ada ‘to have, to exist’ is reanalyzed as a
verb, appearing in the nonverbal sentences when transformed to yesno questions, thus
eliminating a separate structure for nonverbal sentences.
(7) Ali seorang guru
Ali a teacher
‘Ali is a teacher’
(8) Adakah Ali seorang guru?
Isqm Ali a teacher
‘Is Ali a teacher?’
(9) Siti cantik
Siti beautiful
‘Siti is beautiful’
(10)Adakah Siti cantik?
Isqm Siti beautiful
‘Is Siti beautiful?’
This paper is an initial analysis to the nonverbal sentences of Tagalog3. This paper
will attempt to explain the structure of the nonverbal sentences of Tagalog using the
Minimalist Program (via the Government and Binding approach) as its framework. This
paper will attempt to answer the following questions: (1) are there really nonverbal
sentences in Tagalog?; (2) can one structure be derived for both verbal and nonverbal
sentences?; (3) how can the Minimalist Program be able to explain this?
Preliminaries
Constantino (1965, 1971) identified two kinds of sentences: verbal and nonverbal.
Sentences grouped under the nonverbal include Noun Phrase (NP), Adjective Phrase (AP)
and Particulate/Prepositional Phrase (PP) as the predicate of the sentence (1965). He gave
one structural description for both verbal and nonverbal sentences, following Syntactic
Structures (Chomsky 1965):
Sentence NP + PRED
NP: noun phrase, PRED: predicate
PRED PM + AV (C)
ADJ
CN
PP
AV: active verb, C: complement, ADJ: adjective, CN: common noun,
PP: particulate phrase
3
This paper is a part of my dissertation for Tagalog and Malay.
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 2
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
However, in his second paper (1971), Constantino argued that in the deep structure
of the sentences, the nonverbal sentences came from the verbal sentences; and the verb
‘maging’, which was supposedly present in the deep structure, was deleted in the surface
structure. Thus;
VS(become) + T + M + {N, ADJ, PP} + AC
VS: verb stem, T: tense, M: mode, N: noun, ADJ: adjective, PP: prepositional phrase
AC: actor (subject)
Given the structure above, it will generate the following sentences:
Following Constantino’s analysis, the VS ‘maging’, will be deleted in the surface
structure to generate these sentences:
(14)titser ang bababe
Nteacher ACthe woman
‘The woman is a teacher’
(15)malaki ang aso
ADJbig ACthe dog
‘The dog is big’
(16)para sa babae ang bulaklak
PPfor the girl ACthe flower
‘The flower is for the girl’
The problem with this analysis is that what motivates the deletion of the VS
‘maging’. Also, both sentences have difference in meaning. Sentences (11) – (13) have the
semantic meaning of the AC as becoming {N, ADJ, PP}, while sentences (14) – (16) have
a stative meaning of the AC as {N, ADJ, PP}.
Kroeger (1994) on the other hand, proposed that Tagalog’s structure is;
IP
SPEC I’
I
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) S 3
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
XP NP
(PRED) (SUBJ)
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
Diagram 1
The inflected verb raises to I while the subject stays in S. Unlike other GB
analyses, the subject position is the [SPEC, IP], thus NP under S should raise up to that
position. Kroger treated this position as the position for fronted constituents; the subject
NP may remain inside S to generate the order VOS.
Kroeger takes note that Tagalog also has prepositional, nominal and adjectival
phrases as predicates. These sentences are also the same as the verb phrase: they are
subjectfinal. He suggested that Tagalog must have two different internal structures for S:
(a) S with predicatesubject configuration
IP
SPEC I’
I S
XP NP
(PRED) (SUBJ)
Diagram 2
(b) flat structure for S
IP
SPEC I’
I S
XP YP YP
Diagram 3
This was suggested mainly because of the clitic placement in Tagalog. However,
Kroegor favors structure (b) for this is more appropriate for both verbal and nonverbal
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 4
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
sentences. Kroeger believes that Tagalog does not have a VP, thus following the (b)
structure. INFL or I carries the feature [+TNS]; however, nouns, adjectives and
prepositions do not have this feature, thus I is irrelevant for sentences with these kinds of
predicate.
Schachter and Otanes (1972) identified three distinct types of predicates:
BASIC SENTENCE
PREDICATE TOPIC
Nominal
Adjectival
Verbal
Diagram 4
No other further explanation was made with regards to the nonverbal sentences
after this. Rackowski (2001) did not mention anything on nonverbal sentences, same with
Miller (1989). Rackowski proposed that Tagalog’s sentence structure is:
TP
T VoiceP
DPDO
DPEA
Voice vP
SUBJECT v VP
V tDO
Diagram 5
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 5
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
The ‘subject’ moves at most to the left edge of the Voice Phrase phase.
DPExternalArgument is always the actor, the rest are Direct Objects of the V. Given these, where
do the nonverbal sentences lie?
The Framework
The central task of generative grammar is to explain how the children are able to
acquire grammatical competence (Hornstein, et. al. 2005). According to the Universal
Grammar (UG), humans are biologically equipped with a set of principles for
constructing grammar. Noam Chomsky in his recent work (1993) proposed that a theory
of grammar should be as simple or as minimal as possible. It should contain no more than
the required elements.
The linguistic system is said to contain two interface levels: the external level
containing the Logical Form (LF) and the Phonetic Form (PF); and the internal level
containing the Dstructure and the Sstructure. According to the Principles and
Parameters theory, our linguistic system looks like this:
[Lexicon]
Internal Level
D – Structure
S – Structure Level of Representation
External LF PF
Interface Semantic Component Phonetic Component
Levels
Diagram 6
The Minimalist Program (MP) or Minimalism questions the existence of the
internal level, since language is only concerned with the sound and meaning interface.
Thus, D and Sstructures become irrelevant under this program.
MP only has the following components:
Numeration
Phonetic Form (PF)
SpellOut
Logical Form (LF)
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 6
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
Diagram 7
where Numeration is the set of elements from a lexicon in a natural language. It is the
starting point of the whole process of language utterance. The line connecting SpellOut,
Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF) is the computation between these three. As
the chosen lexicon passes through this line, it will go through Spellout and diverge to LF
and PF respectively. PF is the phonetic realization, the sounds we hear when a person
speaks, while LF is the semantic or meaning component, the level where we understand
or give meaning to what we hear.
Tagalog’s nonverbal sentences
As mentioned, Tagalog has two sentence types: the verbal and nonverbal. In most
studies on Philippine languages, the verbal sentences are the most analyzed. Verbs in
Philippine languages have a very complex morphological system, affecting its syntax
highly. Nonverbal sentences are left out, with just a small mention of its existence.
Since nonverbal sentences are also a part of Tagalog’s grammar, it should also be
studied and analyzed. Questions have been raised on how to deal this type of sentence.
Nouns (N), adjectives (A) and prepositions (P) do not inflect for aspect. The
Principles and Parameters theory also did not mention whether N, P, or A also inflect for
agreement (AGR). Prepositions assign genitive case to its object. Nouns and adjectives on
the other hand, are not case assigners.
When a lexicon enters the Numeration, all its morphological features are already
included with it. Then, it merges with another element until it is finally complete, and
then proceeds to SpellOut. Featurechecking happens either before SpellOut (PF) or
after SpellOut (LF). If we have:
(18)Estudyante si Susie
student si Susie
‘Susie is a student’
Then, we map it out as:
Agreement Phrase (AgrP)
Agreement’ (Agr’) Specifier (Spec)
Agreement (Agr) Tense Phrase (TP)
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 7
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
Tense ?
Maganda ang babae
‘The girl is beautiful’
(Diagram 8)
The sentence above is grammatical, and it looks ok, but we have a problem: Why
and how is the sentence grammatical? What made it grammatical? The A ‘maganda’ does
not have the same features as the verb: it does not inflect for Aspect (Asp), nor does it
inflect for Agreement (AGR). The same goes with N and P. If they are predicates in
Tagalog, they should have the same features as the verbs. Verbs inflect for Aspect or
Tense, Number and Person, and have its phonological realization as affixes. When the
verb merges with these features, it checks it with its corresponding argument. But N, P
and A do not have this. In this case, how can the elements in the sentence check it
features? If it doesn’t check it features, it will crash and produce an ungrammatical
sentence. But, the sentence above IS grammatical. How can we solve the problem?
In my previous analysis of Kinaraya, I proposed that NP/DP, AP and PP have an
abstract AGR. AGR assigns the nominative case to the Spec in order not to violate Case
Filter. AGR may have the following features4: number, person and case.
Inflection Phrase (IP)
Inflection’ (I’) DP
I Adjective Phrase (AP)
Adjective
(Diagram 9)
This analysis seems to answer the question posited above. But another problem
comes: where do ‘ang babae’ come from? Is it base generated under AP or did it
immediately enter [Spec, IP]?
If we assume that all DPs with an actor or theme role (in the case of NP/DP, PP, or
AP as predicates) are subjects of NP/DP, PP and AP, and they are base generated, we will
have this structure:
AGRP
4
Tagalog does not inflect or check for gender.
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 8
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
AGR’ Spec
AGR TP
T AP
A’ Spec
magandai ti ti tk [ang babae]k
[uNom] [uNom]
(Diagram 10)
We can assume that N, A and P are greedy, in the sense that they need to ‘move’ in
order the get the features of AGR in order to check it with its Spec. It they don’t move, the
features will not be checked, it will escape into SpellOut and PF. Since the features are
uninterpretable, it will crash the convergence. Furthermore, AGR also has the feature EPP
(extended projection principle), requiring a sentence to have a subject, thus generating the
above sentence.
The same case is true for verbs. Verbs merge with features to complete its complex
chain. It then checks its features simultaneously to its ccommanding complements. If
everything is already checked, and all uninterpretable features are eliminated, it can then
go to SpellOut to proceed to PF and LF. Checking can be done before SpellOut (PF) or
after SpellOut (LF).
Pearson (2001) mentions the existence of nonverbal sentences in Malagasy, but he
did not pursue it in his work. He didn’t say if the nonverbal sentences in Malagasy contain
a phonetically null copula.
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 9
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
The same is also true for Malay. Previous analyses in Malay identified two types
of sentences, the same with Tagalog: verbal and nonverbal sentences. Ada was analyzed
as a copula, but its true function is not the same as the copula ‘be’ in English. Ramli
(1992) analyzed ada as a main verb, appearing in YesNo questions in Malay but deleted
at Sstructure when used in a stative sentence. Data presented here are from Ramli (1992)
(25)a. Ahmad guru
Ahmad teacher
‘Ahmad is a teacher’
b. Adakah Ahmad guru?
beQ Ahmad teacher
‘Is Ahmad a teacher?
c. *Ahmad guru?
Ahmad teacher
‘Is Ahmad a teacher’
(26)a. Ahmad pandai
Ahmad intelligent
‘Ahmad is intelligent’
b. Adakah Ahmad pandai?
beQ Ahmad intelligent
‘Is Ahmad intelligent?’
c. *Ahmad pandai?
Ahmad intelligent
‘Is Ahmad intelligent?’
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 10
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
Ramli (1992, 1995) stated the following reasons why ada should be analyzed as a
main verb: (a) to establish an Xbar structure for both verbal and nonverbal sentences, (b)
to have a parallel structure and, (c) theta role assignment.
Given these, Malay will have the structure:
IP
NP I’
I VP
V XP
ada {VP, NP, PP, AP}
(Diagram 11)
Going back to Tagalog nonverbal sentences, two things can be pursued here: (a)
Tagalog sentence structure is like diagram 10, the complement of T will be either VP, NP,
PP or AP; and (b) following Constantino, Pearson and Ramli, Tagalog may possibly have
a phonetically null copula or verb that has the φfeatures that all verbs have. Diagram 10
may possibly present problems as to whether Tagalog’s structural position’s features are
‘greedy’ enough to attract an NP, PP or AP to its position to give its features to them. This
may also be a bit costly for a child acquiring the language. It will also be a little difficult
to explain the possibility of an N, a P or an A to receive φfeatures which are typically
for verbs. A has the feature [+N, +V], making A to possibly get the same, if not, almost
the same φfeatures as a V. P, with the features [N, V], may also be like A, since P
assigns genitive case to its complement (object of the preposition). But for N, which has
the feature [+N, V], it will be unexplainable.
If we are to pursue (b):
AGRP
AGR’ Spec
AGR TP
T VP
V’ Spec
V AP
Øi ti ti maganda tk ang bababek
[uNom] [uNom]
[uAsp] [uAsp]
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 11
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
(Diagram 12)
It can better explain the grammaticality of the sentence: the phonetically null verb
merges with the needed φfeatures in order to complete its complex chain, then checks it
with its compatible complement in order to have a crashproof convergence. Otherwise,
the derivation will crash if the φfeatures are not checked with a compatible one, because
it will survive up to SpellOut and into PF.
A First Attempt
This is only a first attempt to explain the nonverbal sentences of Tagalog under the
Minimalist Program. It is yet to be final, and additional data and analyses are still needed
to further pursue the analyses presented. It is still clear yet whether Tagalog, and the other
Austronesian languages, has nonverbal sentences.
Tagalog’s grammar does not only compose of verbal sentences. Nonverbal
sentences, such as presented above, and other sentences like the socalled nonpredicative
sentences (Constantino 1965) are still needed to be analyzed. Constantino may be right to
say that it could be possible that the other sentences may have been derived from the
verbal sentences. But it is still yet to be proven.
References
Adger, David. 2004. Core Syntax, A Minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press.
Constantino, Ernesto. 1965. The Sentence Patterns of the 26 Philippine Languages.Lingua
15, 71124.
________________. 1971. The Deep Structures of the Philippine Languages. The Archive
1(2):6579. Reprinted in Reading in Philippine Linguistics (1973):33442. Manila:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines
Cook, Vivian and Mark Newson. 1996. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. 2nd edition.
Blackwell Publishers.
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two
Subjects in Austronesian Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375
414.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd ed.
Blackwell Publishers.
Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Understanding
Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 12
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2001. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. The MIT Press.
Kroger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. CSLI
Publications.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Lasnik, Howard and Juan Uriagereka. 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Blackwell
Publishers
Lee Jae Kwon. 1999. Kasus dan Pindahan Sintaksis dalam Bahasa Melayu. Unpublished
PhD Dissertation. Akademi Pengajian Melayu (formerly Jabatan Pengajian Melayu),
Universiti Malaya.
Manueli, Maria Khristina S. 2001. Gramatikal Sketch ng Wikang Kinaraya. Unpublished
MA thesis. Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines, Diliman.
Nik Safiah Karim. 1995. Malay Grammar for Academics and Professionals. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2003. Ang Pagkatransitibo at Ikinaergatibo ng mga Wikang
Pilipino: Isang Pagsusuri sa Sistemang Bose. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Department
of Linguistics, University of the Philippines, Diliman.
Mashudi B.H. Kader. 1981. The Syntax of Malay Interrogatives. Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1999. Introducing Transformational Grammar. From Principles and
Parameters to Minimalism. 2nd ed. Arnold Publishers
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The Clause Structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist Approach.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los
Angeles.
Pollock, JeanYves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. In
Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365424.
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice and the
Distribution of Arguments. PhD Dissertation thesis, MIT.
Radford, Andrew. 2005. Minimalist Syntax, Exploring the Structure of English.
Cambridge University Press.
Ramli Haji Salleh,. 1992. Fronted Constituents in Malay: Base Structures and Move
Alpha in a Configurational NonIndoEuropean Language. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka.
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 13
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
Manueli/NonVerbal Sentences in Tagalog
______________. 1995. Sintaksis Bahasa Melayu: Penerapan Teori Kuasaan dan
Tambatan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Rogayah Haji Abdul Razak. 2003. The Syntax and Semantics of Quantification in Malay.
Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya.
Rosli Bin Abdul Rahman. 2002. Ciriciri Sintaksis dan Semantik Kata Sendi Nama
Bahasa Melayu: Analisis Berdasarkan Pendekatan Teori Kuasaan dan Tambatan.
Unpublished MA thesis, Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya.
Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. University of
California Press.
Webelhuth, Gert (ed). Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) 14
Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines