Vanessa P.

Mak 2005 -00875 Lingg 166

FUNCTION of ANG and NG in TAGALOG and their COUNTERPARTS in CEBUANO

WHAT IS ANG?

Tagalog ang has been analyzed as: (1) an article, equivalent to English the (2) a particle,

because of its having an uninflectable form; (3) a noun or nominal marker, because it is used to

introduce a nominal phrase; (4) a determiner, being immediately followed by a nominal head

phrase; (5) a thematizer and syntactic thema marker, in that it serves more than the role of a

specifier and acts as an equational syntactic grammaticalizer (Llido 2006 : 2).

Other varying labels for ang are: (6) topic case marker (Yap 1971); (7) relational

marker that marks the topic or focus of the sentence (Ramos 1977); (8) definite phrase

introducer (Wolfenden 1971 : 47-60).

WHAT IS NG?

Tagalog ng has been assumed to be: (1) relational marker, a non-focus marking particle

of actor or goal complements of noun phrases (Ramos 1977); (2) attributive phrase introducer

(Wolfenden 1971 : 47-60).

 The Tagalog ng which is used as a topic or focus marker is not to be confused with the

ng, which is a variant of the ligature na. Ligatures are used to tie the noun phrase into the

construction to which it belongs to (Reid 2002 : 296-97).

Tagalog ng distinguishly marks different grammatical functions: agent/experiencer and

patient/object/theme (de Guzman & Bender 2000 : 224). To differentiate them, they will be

called ng-agent and ng-patient respectively. Ng also functions as a possessive and adverbial

marker.

Both ang and ng perform several grammatical functions and are used to indicate

syntactic relations. They appear to be a combination of particles, markers, and

determiners/articles, as will be seen in their usage in the sentences to follow. For now, we will

use the terms PARTICLE and (relation) MARKER interchangeably in referring to ang and ng.

GRAMMATICAL and SEMANTIC RELATIONS

The grammatical and semantic roles marked by ang and ng will be determined in terms

of case and thematic roles.

CASE pertains to how the arguments of a predicate are formally encoded to distinguish

between S (SUBJECT), A (AGENT), P (PATIENT) and OBLIQUES. S, A, and P may be

referred to as the core cases, while any other argument which is not an A, an S or a P is an

OBLIQUE (Nolasco, 2005 : 4).

 In Philippine languages, case is outwardly expressed by verbal conjugation (through the

use of inflectional affixes) and separate uninflectable morphemes such as ang and ng.

THETA/THEMATIC ROLES refers to the semantic relationship between verbs and

their arguments (Haegeman 1991 : 41). Arguments are said to be elements or constituents which

are obligatory in a sentence. The verb determines the number of arguments needed. As an

example, the Tagalog verb binigay ‘to give’ requires three arguments: the doer of the action, its

object, and its goal. Ergo, Binigay ko ang bayad sa kanya [bini’gaj ko Ɂaŋ ‘bajad sa kan’ja] ‘I

gave the payment to him/her’. The verb binigay assigns the role of AGENT/ACTOR to the

subject argument ko, the role of OBJECT to bayad, and the role of GOAL to kanya.

Other common thematic roles are PATIENT, THEME, EXPERIENCER,

BENEFACTIVE, SOURCE, LOCATION, etc. Some authors have combined the roles of

PATIENT and THEME into one.

Features such as voice, focus and aspect will not be discussed here as they are attributed

mainly to verbs, in which they (voice, focus, and aspect) are morphologically realized as

affixes. The verbal morphology of Tagalog and its properties are not the central topic of the

paper.

SIMPLE VERBAL SENTENCES: TRANSITIVE and INTRANSITIVE SENTENCES

In Philippine languages, an INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTION contains verbs that

require a single obligatory nominal complement or argument known as the subject (Reid & Liao
2004 : 8). The subject is the source of the action and the most affected entity at the same time.

It is assigned the absolutive case. Intransitive verbs are inflected with –um- or m- (Nolasco

2005 : 9).

A TRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTION is one where the agent (the source of the action) is

encoded in the ergative case and the patient (the most affected entity) is encoded in the

absolutive case. Transitive constructions are also indicated by verbs with voice affixes such as –

in, -an, and i- in Tagalog, or their counterparts in other Philippine languages (Nolasco 2005 : 9).

Neither the ERGATIVE-ABSOLUTIVE nor the NOMINATIVE-ACCUSATIVE

grammatical relations system will be used here. Grammatical relations will be described in

terms of agent, patient, object, etc.

The same marker may differ in gloss across sentences in order to describe the function

of the marker in that particular sentence.

INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Ang usually occurs as the head of a nominal phrase. It usually occurs with common

nouns, but it can also occur with proper nouns. Ang is used to indicate the topic of the sentence.

In intransitive constructions, the focus is on the subject, i.e., the doer/source of the action. In

(1a), (1b), and (1c), the doer of the action is the bata ‘child’. Ang also indicates definiteness

and specificity.

(1) a. T<um>ayo ang bata.

 t<um>a’joɁ Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ

1
<AF.PF>stand TM child

‘The child stood.’

b. Ang bata ay t<u>mayo.

Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ Ɂaj t<um>a’joɁ

TM child OrdM <AF.PF>stand

‘As for the child, he stood.’

c. Ang bata, t<um>ayo

Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ t<um>a’joɁ

TM child <AF.PF>stand

‘The child stood.’

(1a) is a basic intransitive construction. If the sentence is inverted, as in (1b) and (1c),

the fronted ang-phrase still has the same relationship with the verb. Therefore, the function of

ang remains the same. The differences between (1a), (1b), and (1c) will not be discussed here.

d. T<um>ayo ang mga bata.

t<um>a’joɁ Ɂaŋ maŋa ‘bataɁ

<AF.PF>stand TM PLZ child

‘The children stood.’

Ang may also occur with the marker mga to indicate plurality, as seen in (1d).
1
Many linguists have referred to ang as indicating the topic or subject of the sentence. Hence, the label TM
for topic marker will be used. This label will be used to cover the general function of ang.
 (2) K<um>ain ng mangga ang bata.

k<u’m>aɁin naŋ maŋ’ga Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ

<AF.PF>eat ObjM mango TM child

‘The child ate a mango.’

Sentence (2) is known as an ANTIPASSIVE or PSEUDO-TRANSITIVE construction

(Reid & Liao 2004 : 9). They are similar to transitive constructions in that there appears to be

an agent and a patient or object. However, the form of the verb is identical to that of an

intransitive. In (2a), ng marks mangga ‘mango’ as the object of the verb. Also ng indicates an

unspecified phrase. The ang-phrase, on the other hand, maintains itself as the primary focus of

the sentence, i.e., as agent or actor.

(3) P<um>utol ng kahoy ang tao sa pamamagitan ng

p<u’m>utul naŋ ‘kahuj Ɂaŋ taɁu sa pamama’gitan naŋ

<AF.PF>cut ObjM wood TM man LM way

InsM

itak.

Ɂi’tak

knife

‘The man cut wood using the knife.’

 In (3), the ng of the phrase sa pamamagitan ng itak ‘using the knife’ shows a different

function. Ng marks itak as the instrument used to fulfill the action.

(4) K<um>ain ng marami ang bata.

k<u’m>aɁin naŋ ma’rami Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ

<AF.PF>eat AdvM many TM child

‘The child ate a lot.’

Again, ng has another usage here, different from the previously described functions. In

(4), ng is used as an adverbial marker.

TRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

(5) K<in>ain ng bata ang mangga

k<i’n>aɁin naŋ ‘bataɁ Ɂaŋ maŋ’ga

<OF.PF>eat AM child TM mango

‘The mango was eaten by the child.’

(6) B<in>ili ng binata ang kendi sa bata

b<in>i’li naŋ bi’nataɁ Ɂaŋ ‘kendi sa

‘bataɁ

<OF.PF>buy AM child TM candy LM child

 para sa dalaga.

‘para sa da’laga

BM LM maiden

‘The candy was brought from the boy by the man for the woman.’

(7) I-b<in>ili ng binata ang dalaga

Ɂi-b<in>i’li naŋ bi’nataɁ Ɂaŋ

da’laga

BF<OF.PF>buy AM bachelor TM

maiden ng kendi.

naŋ ‘kendi

ObjM candy

‘It was the woman that the man bought candy for.’

(8) I-s<in>ulat ng binata ang

Ɂi-s<i’n>ulat naŋ bi’nataɁ Ɂaŋ

OF<OF.PF>write AM bachelor TM

pa'ngalan ng dalaga.

pa’ŋalan naŋ da’laga

name PossM maiden

‘The name of the young woman was written by the young man.’

In sentences (5) to (9), despite the changing forms of the verb, the ang-phrase remains
the focus of the sentence. Ang marks the object of the action in (5) (6) and (8), while ang marks

the benefactor of the action in (7). On the other hand, ng has varying functions. Ng bata ‘the

child’ in (6) and ng binata ‘the young man’ in (7) to (9) are agents. This ng assigns the role of

actor to the subjects in (6) to (9). Ng kendi in (8) is the object of the action. Ng assigns the role

of patient to kendi. Ng dalaga ‘the young woman’ in (9) shows possession. Ang pangalan ‘the

name’ in (9) is the thing owned by ng dalaga ‘of the woman’.

The feature of ng is that of attribution. A ng-phrase can be seen as having the meaning,

‘to be assigned the quality or feature of’. On the other hand, ang is used to identify. An ang-

phrase can be said to mean, ‘to be identified as’. Referring back to (1), Tumayo ang bata ‘The

child stood’ would literally mean, ‘The child is identified to have stood’. As for (5) Kinain ng

bata ang mangga ‘The mango was eaten by the child’, it can be understood to mean, ‘A child is

given the characteristic of having eaten the identified mango’.

OTHER SENTENCES: EQUATIONAL SENTENCES

Other sentences to be discussed here are mainly those of the non-verbal predicate

(marked or unmarked) + ang-phrase sentence types. Non-verbal predicates can be nominal or

adjectival. Such sentences are called EQUATIONAL SENTENCES (Bunye & Yap 1971). A

basic sentence in Tagalog, as well as most Philippine languages, is made up of at least two

constituents, which may both be nouns, or a noun and a modifier. A minimally grammatical

sentence requires that at least one of the constituents be marked by ang (Llido 2006 : 1-3).
 In equational sentences, both constituents are like topics. The predicate adds additional

information about the topic. Ang serves as an identificational marker that introduces the topic as

in the following sentences:

(9) Masipag ang dalaga.

ma’sipag Ɂaŋ da’laga

hard-working TM maiden

‘The young woman is hard-working.’

(10)Abugado ang kapatid niya.

abu’gadu Ɂaŋ kapa’tid n’ja

rd
lawyer TM sibling 3 .SG.GEN

‘His/her brother is a lawyer.’

(11)Ikaw ang napakatamad.

Ɂi’kaw Ɂaŋ napakata’mad

nd
2 .SG.NOM TM very lazy

‘The one who is very lazy is you.’

(12)Ang dalaga ang napakasipag.

TM maiden TM very hard-working

Ɂaŋ da’laga Ɂaŋ napaka’sipag

‘The young woman is the one who is very hard-working.’

 In sentences (9) to (12), the predicate and topic are said to balance out each other. In

(12) Ang dalaga ang napakasipag ‘The young woman is the one who is very hard-working’,

both constituents consist of ang-phrases. We can think of it as two concurrent topics being

introduced – topic 1, ang dalaga and topic 2, ang napakasipag.

(13)Ang bata ang t<um>ayo.

Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ Ɂaŋ t<um>a’joɁ

TM child TM AF.PF-stand

‘The one who stood was the child.’

(14)Mabilis ang takbo ng bata.

mabi’lis Ɂaŋ tak’bu naŋ ‘bataɁ

Fast TM run PossM child

‘The running of the child is fast.’

In (15), it is shown that equational sentences can also be comprised of a noun phrase

and a verb phrase. However, the verb in equational sentences does not act as a verb. In (16), the

verb takbo ‘run’ has been NOMINALIZED. On the other hand, something else happen to the

verb tumayo ‘stand’ in (15). The verb phrase appears to have been RELATIVIZED by ang.

Ang tumayo would therefore be, ‘the one who stood’. Same with adjectives that have ang as

their head (as seen in (11) and (12)), as well as other word classes that occur with ang, they

undergo RELATIVIZATION.

Ang may appear with almost any kind of word in Tagalog, such as:
 (15)Ang dalaga ang may bulaklak.

Ɂaŋ da’laga Ɂaŋ maj bulak’lak

TM maiden TM have flower

‘The young woman is the one who has a flower.’

(16)Ang bulaklak ang para sa dalaga.

Ɂaŋ bulak’lak Ɂaŋ ‘para sa da’laga

TM flower TM for LM maiden

‘The flower is the one that is for the young woman.’

(17)Ang hindi t<um>atawa ay hindi masaya.

Ɂaŋ hin’diɁ t<um>a’tawa aj hin’diɁ masa’jaɁ

TM not <AF.PF>laugh OrdM not mango

‘The one who is not laughing is unhappy.’

(18)Ang lalaki ang walang pera.

Ɂaŋ la’laki Ɂaŋ wa’laŋ ‘pe:ra

TM male TM none money

‘The man is the one without money.’

CEBUANO

The following sentences are for comparison with Tagalog:

(19)Ni-tindog ang bata.

 ni-‘tindug Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ

AF.PF-stand TM child

‘The child stood.’

(20)Ni’ka-on ug mangga ang bata.

ni-‘kaɁun Ɂug maŋga Ɂaŋ ‘bataɁ

AF.PF-eat AdvM mango TM child

‘The child ate the mango.’

(21)Gi-kaon sa bata ang mangga.

gi-‘kaɁun sa ‘bataɁ Ɂaŋ maŋga

OF.PF-eat AM child TM mango

‘The mango was eaten by the child.’

(22)Na-mutod ug kahoy ang tao

Na-mu’tud Ɂug ‘kahuj Ɂaŋ ‘taɁu

AF.PF-cut ObjM wood TM man

p<in>aagi sa sundang.

p<in>a’Ɂagi sa ‘sundaŋ

way InsM heavy knife

‘The man cut wood using the knife.’

(23)Gi-suwat sa ulitawo ang pangan sa daga.

 gi-‘suwat sa Ɂuli’tawu Ɂaŋ pa’ŋaɁan sa ‘daga

OF.PF-sulat AM bachelot TM name PossM maiden

‘The name of the young woman was written by the young man.’

(24)Nikaon ug daghan ang bata.

Ni-‘ka       ŋ ‘bata

AF.PF-eat AdvM many TM child

‘The child ate a lot.’

Ang remains ang in Cebuano. On the other hand, ng varies in form in Cebuano. Ng-

object/patient in Tagalog becomes ug in Cebuano and ng-agent becomes sa. Ng-possessive,

likewise, becomes sa in Cebuano. Ng-adverbial in Tagalog becomes ug in Cebuano.

COMPARISON OF TAGALOG and CEBUANO

Tagalog Cebuano

To indicate the topic/subject Ang Ang

Object marker (intransitive) Ng Ug

Agent marker (transitive) Ng Sa

To mark possession Ng Sa

To indicate function as adverb Ng Ug

To indicate instrument of use Ng Sa

Summary: What are the functions of ang and ng?

ANG NG
 • Identificational • Attributive

• Common noun marker • Agent marker in transitive

• Indicates specificity/definiteness constructions

• Individualizes constituents/elements • Object marker in intransitive

• Focus/topic/subject marker: constructions

topicalization • Object in intransitive constructions

• Nominalizer becomes unspecific

• Relativizer • Instrument marker

• Distribution (as seen in the sentences • Possessive marker

included in this study): _noun, • Adverbial marker

_adjective, _verb, _preposition, • Distribution: _noun. _adjective

_existential, _negative

List of Abbreviations:

AdvM – adverbial marker NOM – nominative

AF – actor focus ObjM – object marker

AM – agent marker OF – object focus

BM – benefactive marker OrdM – order marker

BF – benefactive focus PF – perfective

GEN – genitive PossM – possessive marker

InsM – instrumental marker SG – singular

LM – locative marker TM – topic marker

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bunye M.V. & Yap, E.P. (1971). Cebuano Grammar Notes. Honolulu : University of Hawaii
Press.
Constantino, E. (1965). The Sentence Patterns of the 26 Philippine Languages . Lingua 15 : 71-
124.
De Guzman, V. (2000). Some Remarks on the Grammatical Functions of the Nonabsoultive
Agent in Tagalog. Grammatical analysis : morphology, syntax, and semantics : studies
in honor of Stanley Starosta, 224-239. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.
Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford : B. Blackwell.
Llido, P. (2006). Inflectional Case Assignment in Cebuano. Paper presented at Tenth
International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 17-20 January 2006. Puerto
Princesas City, Palawan, Philippines.
Nolasco, R. (2005). What Philippine ergativity really means. Paper presented at Taiwan-
Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages. 23-24 June 2005. Taipei, Taiwan.
Retrieved August 4, 2007, from:
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~gilntu/data/workshop%20on%20Austronesian/11%20nolas
co.pdf.
th
Nolasco, R. (2006). Ano ang S, A, at O sa mga Wika ng Pilipinas? Paper presented at 9
Philippine Linguistics Congress. January 25-27, 2006. University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines, Retrieved March 2, 2008, from:
http://web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/linguistics/plc2006/papers/FullPapers/II-A-4_Nolasco.pdf
Pei, M.A. (1966). Glossary of linguistic terminology. New York : Columbia University Press.
Pei, M. & Gaynor, F. (1954). A Dictionary of Linguistics. New York : Philosophical library.
Ramos, T. (1977). Tagalog Dictionary. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.
Reid, L. (2002). Determiners, Nouns, or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly
Occuring Forms in Philippine Languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 41 (2) : 295-309.
Honolulu : University of Hawaii.
Reid, L. & Liao, H. (2004). A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages. Language
and Linguistics 5 (2) : 433-490. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.
Schachter P. & Otanes F. (1972). Tagalog Reference Grammar. Los Angeles : University of
California Press.
Trask, R.L. (1997). A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics. London : Arnold.
Wolfenden, E. (1971). Hiligaynon reference grammar. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.
Yap, E.P. (1971). Cebuano-Visayan dictionary. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press.