Pragmatic Focus and Word Order Variation in Tagalog*

Microsoft Word - LL8.1-11-Dery 20061216.docPragmatic Focus and Word Order Variation in Tagalog*
Jeruen E. Dery University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
This paper is an application of the theory of information structure and its interface in syntax as outlined in Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin 2005). It will be shown that the pragmatic relations of topic and focus play a significant role in the selection of word order in Tagalog. Both declarative and interrogative sentences will be analyzed, showing how Lambrecht’s (1994) focus types are reflected in the language. For interrogative sentences, it will be shown how canonicity of word order is significant in the variability of focus placement. Key words: syntax-pragmatics interface, Tagalog, focus structure, word order
1. Introduction
Ever since Constantino’s (1965) study on the different sentence patterns of Philippine languages appeared, most of the studies regarding sentence structure only deal with the problem in purely syntactic terms. In fact, Constantino’s classic paper merely lists the different types of sentences that are found in the various Philippine languages. One of the recent studies on Tagalog only gives an attempt on the derivations of the different sentence forms, but does not explain why these sentence forms occur (Ceña 1994). In the current study, however, the assumptions of RRG are utilized in order to give an analysis based on the interface of syntax and pragmatics as seen in Tagalog. Assuming that focus structure affects the syntax, analyses of the different sentence forms are given, in which the effect of the pragmatic factors in the syntax are clearly seen.
Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) is a theory of language that focuses not just on the syntactic factors of the language, but also on semantic and pragmatic factors as well. This paper will thus discuss the ways in which the different factors concerning information structure intersect and affect the syntactic structure of the language.
* I would like to express gratitude to Maria Khristina Manueli, who was patient enough to let me
begin this research in the first place; and to Robert Van Valin Jr., who gave theoretical insights pertaining to RRG. I also appreciate the feedback received during the 2005 International RRG Conference in Taipei, Taiwan, and also the comments and constructive criticisms that two anonymous reviewers have sent me. Nevertheless, all mistakes are my own.
Jeruen E. Dery
374
Spoken by about 57 million people, Tagalog is one of the major languages spoken in the Philippines. It is a Western Malayo-Polynesian language within the Austronesian language family. It is a predicate-initial language, although, as this paper shows, certain pragmatic factors influence the word order of the language and thus one can find sentences with constituents other than the predicate in initial position.
Being a study of language in its actual use, this research has been done using two methods of data gathering. The first method used a fairly long survey, which was intended to simulate a discourse fragment. A question was presented, and the respondent was asked to choose all the natural answers from among all the grammatical choices. Only grammatical answers are included in the choices. However, not all are felicitous with regard to the question. The second method used a free interview. This time, pictures were shown to different respondents, and they were asked questions that pertained to the pictures. These questions were designed to have different focus types; thus, the respondents were free to use whichever sentence form they preferred.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 details the interface of syntax and pragmatics in declarative simple sentences. Section 3 will then expand on the interface of syntax and pragmatics in interrogative simple sentences. Section 4 serves as the conclusion of this study.
2. Declarative sentences
This section is divided into three parts. The first part expounds on the three types of focus construction as proposed by Lambrecht (1994). The second part will try to revise the RRG concept of predicate focus. Evidence from Tagalog suggests that there is actually a “predicate focus” in which the Privileged Syntactic Argument (PSA) is included in the actual focus domain. The third part will examine the possibility of a special focus position for narrow focus. Initial analyses have suggested that the clause- initial position is the default position for focus. Since Tagalog is a predicate-initial language, this means that the focus would fall in the position where the predicate is usually found, the Nucleus (NUC). This hypothesis implies that any constituent that appears before the NUC but not in the Left Detached Position (LDP), in short, in the Pre-Core Slot (PrCS), will be a constituent receiving narrow focus. 2.1 Types of focus constructions in Tagalog
Originally proposed by Lambrecht (1994) and expounded by Van Valin & LaPolla (1997), there exist three focus types: sentence focus, predicate focus, and narrow focus.
In sentence focus, the speaker presupposes nothing in the discourse, implying that
Pragmatic Focus and Word Order Variation in Tagalog
375
every constituent in the utterance is brand-new. Consider the following example.1
(1) Q: Ano ang nangyari?2 what LINPF happen-PFT ‘What happened?’ A: a. Tumirik ang kotse ko. stall-PFT.AV SUBJ car 1SG.GEN ‘My car stalled.’ b. ??Tumirik. stall-PFT.AV ‘(My car) stalled.’ c. # Ang kotse ko ang tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN LINPF stall-PFT.AV ‘MY CAR stalled.’ d. ? Ang kotse ko ay tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN LINPT stall-PFT.AV ‘My car STALLED.’ e. ? Ang kotse ko tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN stall-PFT.AV ‘My car stalled.’ f. ? Ang kotse ko, tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN stall-PFT.AV ‘Regarding my car, it stalled.’
The discourse fragment can be analyzed as follows.
(2) Sentence: Tumirik ang kotse ko. Presupposition: ∃ x [do′ (x, [pred′ (x, y)])] Assertion: ∃ x [do′ (x, [break.down′ (x)])] where x = ang kotse ko Focus: ‘tumirik ang kotse ko’ Focus domain: clause
As shown above, the most felicitous response is (1a). This is the construction that
1 Instead of transcribing the data in standard IPA, I will opt to use the traditional colloquial
spelling, as the choice is tangential to the topic of this paper. 2 ? – unacceptable to about 30% of the sample population, ?? – unacceptable to about 65% of the
sample population, # – infelicitous
Jeruen E. Dery
376
satisfies the conditions of sentence focus, where no variables are presupposed. Thus, the focus is the whole clause, encompassing all the variables. If we examine the examples, sentence focus requires that the sentence be formed as a canonical construction, with the predicate appearing before the arguments. All the other constructions, such as the ones involving dropped constituents, and the constructions that involve an argument appearing in the PrCS, are unacceptable as replies.
Transitive sentences do not exhibit any difference with regard to sentence focus, as the following examples show.
(3) Q: Ano ang nangyari? what LINPF happen-PFT ‘What happened?’ A: a. Nakalmot ng pusa ang mukha ni Juna. scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat SUBJ face GEN Juna ‘A cat scratched Juna’s face.’ b. ??Nakalmot ng pusa. scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘A cat scratched (Juna’s face).’ c. # Ang mukha ni Juna ang nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face GEN Juna LINPF scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘It was JUNA’S FACE that the cat scratched.’ d. ? Ang mukha ni Juna ay nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face GEN Juna LINPT scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘Juna’s face was SCRATCHED BY A CAT.’ e. ? Ang mukha ni Juna nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face GEN Juna scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘A cat scratched Juna’s face.’ f. ? Ang mukha ni Juna, nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face GEN Juna scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘Regarding Juna’s face, it was scratched by a cat.’
Sentence focus can thus be visually represented in Figure 1.
377
Figure 1: Sentence focus
With regard to predicate focus, Van Valin & LaPolla (1997) note that predicate
focus is the universally unmarked type of focus structure. In this focus type, there is a topic, which is contained in the presupposition, and the constituents in focus are the ones that give a comment on it. Van Valin (2005) states that this topic-comment pragmatic dichotomy corresponds to the Subject-predicate syntactic dichotomy, where the Subject is a topic and the predicate is the comment.
The following example illustrates this focus type and how it is analyzed.
(4) Q: Ano ang nangyari kay Juna? what LINPF happen-PFT DAT Juna ‘What happened to Juna?’ A: a. Nahimatay siya. faint-PFT.UV 3SG.SUBJ ‘She fainted.’ b. Nahimatay. faint-PFT.UV ‘(She) fainted.’ c. # Siya ang nahimatay. 3SG.SUBJ LINPF faint-PFT.UV ‘It was SHE who fainted.’
Jeruen E. Dery
d. ? Siya ay nahimatay. 3SG.SUBJ LINPT faint-PFT.UV ‘She FAINTED.’ e. ??Siya nahimatay. 3SG.SUBJ faint-PFT.UV ‘She fainted.’ f. ? Siya, nahimatay. 3SG.SUBJ faint-PFT.UV ‘With regard to her, she fainted.’
(5) Sentence: Nahimatay (si Juna). Presupposition: ∃ x [do′ (x, [pred′ (x)])] where x = Juna Assertion: pred′ = faint Focus: ‘nahimatay’ Focus domain: predicating element
Most of the respondents actually prefer the “incomplete” sentence form, where the presupposed constituent is actually dropped from the sentence.3 Since the argument of the sentence is already known to the speakers, the reply does not require it to be stated again. Thus, (4b) is the most preferred construction. However, (4d) and (4f) are also used frequently. Even though these constructions are marked with a “?”, this can still be explained. Here, the linker ay is marked as a post-topical linker. Contrasted with the other linker ang, the post-topical linker is a linker that is used when an argument that serves as a topic appears in front of the predicating element. It should be pointed out that in Tagalog, the predicating element appears as the first constituent in canonical word order. If for some reason the first constituent is not a predicate, there might be a pause or a linker that is inserted between the predicate and the argument. By inserting a pause, the argument takes the LDP and is thus outside the Potential Focus Domain (PFD), since the LDP is not in the scope of the PFD. If a linker is inserted, the linker may be ang or ay. The assumption here is that ang is a post-focal linker (LINPF), while ay is a post-topical linker (LINPT). In other words, the LINPF is used when the argument at the beginning of the sentence is in narrow focus. The LINPT, on the other hand, is used when the argument at the beginning of the sentence is the topic and is not in focus.
This analysis of the linker ay is different from traditional analyses of Tagalog
3 This however does not imply that Tagalog is a pro-drop language. Speakers prefer to drop the
constituent ONLY when it is already accessible from previous discourse, as in the above example. If that is not the case, then the constituents are present in the sentence, since there is no way of identifying the nature of the arguments from the form of the verb, unlike other pro- drop languages.
379
sentence constructions. For example, Alejandro (1954) treats ay as a copula or a linking verb, although he says that the copula can be suppressed in the inverted form. Llamzon (1975) on the other hand posits an Ay-Rule which inverts the sentences from a verb- initial configuration to an NP-initial configuration. Analyses based purely on syntactic terms such as these mentioned above treat these sentences as simple variations with the same semantic content. Called ay-preposing, this is treated as a simple inversion of arguments and predicates. However, as the data indicates, a consideration of the pragmatic factors of the language indicates that there is a difference in usage of the said constructions. The constructions involving the post-topical linker has a different focus structure compared to the constructions using the canonical order.
As the following examples show, the same is the case for transitive sentences.
(6) Q: Ano ang nangyari sa mukha ni Juna? what LINPF happen-PFT DAT face GEN Juna ‘What happened to Juna’s face?’ A: a. Nakalmot ng pusa ang mukha niya. scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat SUBJ face 3SG.GEN ‘A cat scratched her face.’ b. Nakalmot ng pusa. scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘A cat scratched (her face).’ c. # Ang mukha niya ang nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN LINPF scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘It was HER FACE that the cat scratched.’ d. ? Ang mukha niya ay nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN LINPT scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘Her face WAS SCRATCHED BY A CAT.’ e. ??Ang mukha niya nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘A cat scratched her face.’ f. ? Ang mukha niya, nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘Regarding her face, it was scratched by a cat.’
The following are visual representations of the three types of predicate focus.
Jeruen E. Dery
Figure 3: Predicate focus (argument in PrCS)
381
Figure 4: Predicate focus (argument in LDP)
The final focus type is narrow focus. Only one constituent is focused this time, and
the following discourse fragment illustrates this in the Tagalog language.
(7) Q: Nabalitaan ko na tumirik daw overhear-PFT.UV 1SG.NSUBJ CLM stall-PFT.AV EVD ang motor mo. SUBJ motorcycle 2SG.GEN ‘I heard that your motorcycle stalled.’ A: a. ? Tumirik ang kotse ko. stall-PFT.AV SUBJ car 1SG.GEN ‘My car stalled.’ b. ??Tumirik. stall-PFT.AV ‘(My car) stalled.’ c. Ang kotse ko ang tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN LINPF stall-PFT.AV ‘MY CAR stalled.’ d. # Ang kotse ko ay tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN LINPT stall-PFT.AV ‘My car STALLED .’
Jeruen E. Dery
382
e. ??Ang kotse ko tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN stall-PFT.AV ‘My car stalled.’ f. ? Ang kotse ko, tumirik. SUBJ car 1SG.GEN stall-PFT.AV ‘Regarding my car, it stalled.’
(8) Sentence: Ang kotse ko ang tumirik. Presupposition: ∃ x [do′ (x, [break.down′ (x)])] Assertion: x = ang kotse ko Focus: ‘ang kotse ko’ Focus domain: referential phrase
As shown above, the most felicitous reply is (7c). It is a sentence form that has an argument, the focused one, in the clause-initial position, and the post-focal linker ang is inserted between the focused argument and the predicating element. Again, this shows the functional difference of the linkers ang and ay. The former is used in narrow focus when an argument appears in clause-initial position to show its focused status. The latter is used in predicate focus when an argument appears on the clause-initial position to serve as a topic, while the predicate following it is in focus.
The same is the case for transitive sentences, as the following discourse fragment shows.
(9) Q: Nabalitaan ko na nakalmot daw overhear-PFT.UV 1SG.NSUBJ CLM scratch-PFT.UV EVD ng pusa ang kamay ni Juna. NSUBJ cat SUBJ face GEN Juna ‘I’ve heard that a cat scratched Juna’s hand.’ A: a. ? Nakalmot ng pusa ang mukha niya. scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat SUBJ face 3SG.GEN ‘A cat scratched her face.’ b. ??Nakalmot ng pusa. scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘A cat scratched (her face).’ c. Ang mukha niya ang nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN LINPF scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘It was HER FACE that the cat scratched.’ d. # Ang mukha niya ay nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN LINPT scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘Her face WAS SCRATCHED BY A CAT.’
383
e. ??Ang mukha niya nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘A cat scratched her face.’ f. ? Ang mukha niya, nakalmot ng pusa. SUBJ face 3SG.GEN scratch-PFT.UV NSUBJ cat ‘Regarding her face, it was scratched by a cat.’
It must be noted that not only core constituents can be subjected to narrow focus but also peripheral constituents as well. Consider the following discourse fragment.
(10) Q: Kailan sinuntok ni Ronald si Mark? when punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald SUBJ Mark ‘When did Ronald punch Mark?’ A: a. Sinuntok ni Ronald si Mark kahapon. punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald SUBJ Mark yesterday ‘Ronald punched Mark yesterday.’ b. Sinuntok kahapon ni Ronald si Mark. punch-PFT.UV yesterday NSUBJ Ronald SUBJ Mark ‘Ronald punched Mark yesterday.’ c. Kahapon sinuntok ni Ronald si Mark. yesterday punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald SUBJ Mark ‘Ronald punched Mark YESTERDAY.’ d. ? Kahapon ni Ronald sinuntok si Mark. yesterday NSUBJ Ronald punch-PFT.UV SUBJ Mark ‘Ronald punched Mark yesterday.’ e. # Si Mark ang kahapon sinuntok ni Ronald. SUBJ Mark LINPF yesterday punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald ‘It was MARK whom Ronald punched yesterday.’ f. ??Si Mark ay kahapon sinuntok ni Ronald. SUBJ Mark LINPT yesterday punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald ‘Mark was punched by Ronald yesterday.’ g. # Si Mark kahapon sinuntok ni Ronald. SUBJ Mark yesterday punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald ‘Ronald punched Mark yesterday.’ h. ??Si Mark, kahapon sinuntok ni Ronald. SUBJ Mark yesterday punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald ‘Regarding Mark, he was punched by Ronald yesterday.’
Jeruen E. Dery
384
i. # Si Mark ang sinuntok ni Ronald kahapon. SUBJ Mark LINPF punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald yesterday ‘It was MARK whom Ronald punched yesterday.’ j. ??Si Mark ay sinuntok ni Ronald kahapon. SUBJ Mark LINPT punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald yesterday ‘Mark was punched by Ronald yesterday.’ k. # Si Mark sinuntok ni Ronald kahapon. SUBJ Mark punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald yesterday ‘Ronald punched Mark yesterday.’ l. # Si Mark, sinuntok ni Ronald kahapon. SUBJ Mark punch-PFT.UV NSUBJ Ronald yesterday ‘Regarding Mark, he was punched by Ronald yesterday.’
The examples above show three felicitous constructions for peripheral narrow focus. Normally, the periphery appears after the arguments, but since it is in focus, it is allowed to appear in the clause-initial position. The other constructions which have the periphery in a non-initial position is made felicitous due to accent placement. This is discussed in the third part of this section.
The following diagrams illustrate argument and peripheral narrow focus in Tagalog.
Figure 5: Narrow focus (argument in PrCS)
385
SENTENCE
SPEECH ACT
Figure 6: Narrow focus of peripheral constituent
In summary, the three focus types as proposed by Lambrecht (1994), namely,
sentence focus, predicate focus, and narrow focus all appear to be valid after being tested using data from Tagalog. However, there are certain data that seem to be unexplainable using these three focus types. Certain constructions seem to exhibit properties that do not fit in these three focus types alone. These constructions will be discussed in the second part of this section. 2.2 Predicate focus revisited
As stated previously, predicate focus is the universally unmarked focus type characterized by a construction that has a topic (which is a pragmatic relation), that coincides with the PSA (which is a syntactic relation) (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997). The focus, which is one of the pragmatic relations, coincides with the predicate, which consists of the predicating element plus the remaining arguments that are not PSA. This focus type is illustrated by the following felicitous discourse fragments.
(11) Q: Ano ang ginagawa ng lalaki? what LINPF do-PROG.UV NSUBJ man ‘What is the man doing?’
Jeruen E. Dery
386
A: a. Tumatakbo. run-PROG.AV ‘(He is) running.’ b. Tumutugtog ng piano. play-PROG.AV NSUBJ piano ‘(He is) playing piano.’ c. Umiinom ng alak. drink-PROG.AV NSUBJ wine ‘(He is) drinking wine.’
All of these felicitous constructions form a VP-like grouping. In Generative Grammar, these VP-like groupings form the predicate, hence the term predicate focus, since the syntactic Subject is excluded from the Actual Focus Domain (AFD). However, not all constructions exhibit this VP-like grouping in Tagalog. Consider the following examples.
(12) Q: Ano ang ginawa ng lalaki? what LINPF do-PFT.UV NSUBJ man ‘What did the man do?’ A: a. Nagbasa ng libro. read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book ‘(He) read a book.’ a’. Binasa ang libro. read-PFT.UV SUBJ book ‘(He) read the book.’ b. Umakyat sa bundok. climb-PFT.AV DAT mountain ‘(He) climbed a mountain.’ b’. Inakyat ang bundok. climb-PFT.UV SUBJ mountain ‘(He) climbed the mountain.’ c. Uminom ng tubig. drink-PFT.AV NSUBJ water ‘(He) drank water.’ c’. Ininom ang tubig. drink-PFT.UV SUBJ water ‘(He) drank the water.’ d. Nagbuhat ng sanggol. carry-PFT.AV NSUBJ baby ‘(He) carried a baby.’
387
d’. Binuhat ang sanggol. carry-PFT.UV SUBJ baby ‘(He) carried the baby.’
The above pairs of replies are similar to Lambrecht’s (1994) and Van Valin & LaPolla’s (1997) examples of predicate focus. But with regard to the primed examples, the predicating elements are undergoer voice. Since all of these examples take lalaki to be the actor, the examples that utilize a predicating element in the undergoer voice must have the undergoer as its PSA, or in traditional terms, Subject. If the Subject is included in the focus domain, it is violating the definition of “predicate focus”, since this focus type takes a VP-like grouping, the predicate, to be its focus domain.
Due to the fact that one can have a Subject as the newly-introduced constituent in the sentence, as in the primed examples above, the notion of “predicate focus” cannot be an appropriate term for an intermediate multi-constituent focus construction. Tagalog certainly exhibits constructions where there is not a VP-like quasi-predicate grouping, as voice modulation certainly has consequences that must be explained. There must be a focus construction that can account for the focus type where a PSA is included in the focus domain, and yet still does not include the whole clause in its domain.
With this in mind, it is proposed here to revise the notion of “predicate focus” to become “multiple focus”. Multiple focus is a focus type that allows many constituents to be in its actual focus domain, yet it does not take the whole clause as its domain. It can be thought of as an intermediate, mid-level focus type between narrow focus and sentence focus. Multiple focus also does not restrict the PSA from appearing in the focus domain. By doing so, the primed examples in (12) can thus be explained. This results then, in a new set of focus types, namely: narrow focus, which pertains to the focus type in which only one constituent is in focus, be it an argument or a periphery; multiple focus, which pertains to a multiple-constituent focus type, but at the same time, does not enclose the whole clause in its domain; and sentence focus, which pertains to the focus type where all the constituents in the clause are in focus. 2.3 Designating a special position for narrow focus
As the examples above show, most of the constructions with narrow focus utilize the clause-initial position as the locus of the narrow focus, both for arguments and peripheries. However, as seen by the felicity of the constructions in (10a) and (10b), not all instances of narrow focus are found at the beginning of the clause. The construction in (10a) especially has no difference whatsoever with a construction utilizing sentence focus, since it has the canonical predicate-initial construction. However, Selkirk (1996)
Jeruen E. Dery
388
proposes a rule regarding accent placement and focus marking (in Selkirk’s terms, F- marking). Her rules on F-Assignment are as follows (quoted in Schwarzschild 1999).
(13) F-Assignment Rules a. Basic F-Rule An accented word is F-marked. b. F Projection 1) F-marking of the head of the phrase licenses the F-marking of the
phrase. 2) F-marking of an internal argument of the head licenses the F-
marking of the head.
Even though this study does not use any acoustic analysis to study the accent of the individual words, it can still be discerned which word is in focus and thus have an accent. By looking at the presupposed constituents, one can see in (10a) that it is only logical to put the focus on the periphery, since it is the only constituent that is not presupposed.
Aside from this, there are instances in which not only peripheries but also arguments can have narrow focus but not be in the clause-initial position. This is possible if these focused arguments are not the PSA of the sentence. Consider the following examples.
(14) Q: Kumain ng ano si Mark? eat-PFT.AV NSUBJ what SUBJ Mark ‘Mark ate what?’ A: a. Kumain ng pansit si Mark. eat-PFT.AV NSUBJ noodles SUBJ Mark ‘Mark ate NOODLES.’ b. # Si Mark ang kumain ng pansit. SUBJ Mark LINPF eat-PFT.UV NSUBJ noodles ‘It was MARK who ate noodles.’ c. ? Si Mark ay kumain ng pansit. SUBJ Mark LINPT eat-PFT.UV NSUBJ noodles ‘Mark ate NOODLES.’ d. ??Si Mark kumain ng pansit. SUBJ Mark eat-PFT.UV NSUBJ noodles ‘Mark ate noodles.’ e. ??Si Mark, kumain ng pansit. SUBJ Mark eat-PFT.UV NSUBJ noodles ‘Regarding Mark, he ate noodles.’
389
f. ? Pansit ang kinain ni Mark. noodles LINPF eat-PFT.AV NSUBJ Mark ‘NOODLES were what Mark ate.’
In the above discourse fragment, the focused constituent in the question, the WH- word, is not the PSA of the construction. Thus, the reply must exhibit narrow focus, but since it is not the PSA, it cannot appear in the clause-initial position. There is no choice but to retain the canonical predicate-initial sentence form. And as (14f) shows, the option to modulate the PSA and make the focused constituent the PSA of the reply does not result in a felicitous sentence either. This is because of the difference of the Aktionsart verb class between an actor voice predicate and an undergoer voice predicate.
In summary, most of the constituents with narrow focus are found in the clause- initial position, as long as they are the PSA of the sentence. Focused peripheries can be seen in any position within their scope, since they are not constrained by rules of word order. However, there is variation in the position of the narrow focus if the focused constituent is not the PSA of the sentence. There is no choice for these constructions but to retain the canonical order of the sentence. However, one finds that these non-clause- initial focused constituents still satisfy certain rules such as Selkirk’s (1996) F- Assignment Rules, in order for the constituent to be in focus. The following are the visual representation of the narrow focus construction that is not found in the clause- initial position.
SENTENCE
SPEECH ACT
Jeruen E. Dery
SPEECH ACT
NUC ARG
Figure 8: Narrow focus on non-PSA argument
Thus, it might be said that Tagalog has a flexible focus position. It may be found
on different areas of the clause, provided that it satisfy certain restrictions regarding its status as a focused constituent.
3. Interrogative sentences
This section is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the interface of syntax and pragmatics in WH-questions while the second part handles Yes/no-questions. Mainly, this part concerns itself with the scope of negation. It is assumed that a certain constituent can only be negated if it is in the AFD of the interrogative sentence. 3.1 WH-questions
To start with, consider the following examples.
(15) Q: Sino ang nahimatay? who LINPF faint-PFT.UV ‘Who fainted?’ A: a. ? Nahimatay si Juna. faint-PFT.UV SUBJ Juna ‘Juna fainted.’
391
b. Si Juna. SUBJ Juna ‘Juna did.’ c. ? Si Juna ang nahimatay. SUBJ Juna LINPF faint-PFT.UV ‘It was JUNA who fainted.’ d. # Si Juna ay nahimatay. SUBJ Juna LINPT faint-PFT.UV ‘Juna FAINTED.’ e. ??Si Juna nahimatay. SUBJ Juna faint-PFT.UV ‘Juna fainted.’ f. ? Si Juna, nahimatay. SUBJ Juna faint-PFT.UV ‘Regarding Juna, she fainted.’
The WH-word in the interrogative sentence is in narrow focus. This fact is also supported by the presence of the post-focal linker ang after the WH-word. Based on the data, the most felicitous reply is (15b), dropping all the other constituents and leaving only the element that is not presupposed. This can be analyzed as follows.
(16) Sentence: Sino ang nahimatay? Presupposition: ∃ x [do′ (x, [faint′ (x)])] Assertion: x = sino Focus: ‘sino’ Focus domain: WH-word
This is the case for intransitive sentences. The same is the case for transitive sentences, as the following discourse fragment shows.
(17) Q: Ano ang nahiwa ng kutsilyo? what LINPF cut-PFT.UV NSUBJ knife ‘What did the knife cut?’ A: a. ? Nahiwa ng kutsilyo ang daliri ni Mark. cut-PFT.UV NSUBJ knife SUBJ finger GEN Mark ‘The knife cut Mark’s finger.’ b. Ang daliri ni Mark. SUBJ finger GEN Mark ‘(The knife cut) Mark’s finger.’
Jeruen E. Dery
392
c. ? Ang daliri ni Mark ang nahiwa ng kutsilyo. SUBJ finger GEN Mark LINPF cut-PFT.UV NSUBJ knife ‘It was MARK’S FINGERwhich the knife cut.’ d. # Ang daliri ni Mark ay nahiwa ng kutsilyo. SUBJ finger GEN Mark LINPT cut-PFT.UV NSUBJ knife ‘Mark’s finger WAS CUT BY A KNIFE.’ e. ??Ang daliri ni Mark nahiwa ng kutsilyo. SUBJ finger GEN Mark cut-PFT.UV NSUBJ knife ‘Mark’s finger was cut by a knife.’ f. ? Ang daliri ni Mark, nahiwa ng kutsilyo. SUBJ finger GEN Mark cut-PFT.UV NSUBJ knife ‘Regarding Mark’s finger, it was cut by a knife.’
However, not all WH-words appear at the clause-initial position. If the WH-word is the PSA of the sentence, then it will appear at the beginning of the sentence. But if it is not the PSA, then it will appear in its original clause-internal position, as the examples in (14) show. Narrow focus can also appear clause-internally in interrogative sentences, provided that it is not the PSA of the construction.
Peripheral WH-questions, on the other hand, can appear in the clause-initial position, even if they are not the PSA. This is illustrated by the example in (10). The following diagrams illustrate the different types of narrow focus on WH-questions.
SENTENCE
CORE
CLAUSE
NUC
PRED
393
SENTENCE
IU IU IU IU Kailan sinuntok ni Ronald si Mark?
CORE
CLAUSE
PRCS
Figure 11: Narrow focus (Peripheral WH-question)
In summary, this section has explained that WH-questions are instances of narrow
focus. Their position is not restricted to a clause-initial position, but can appear in any place in the clause, provided that they satisfy certain restrictions. An argument WH-
Jeruen E. Dery
394
word can only appear at the PrCS if it is a PSA, and it appears in its canonical clause- internal position if it is not the PSA. A peripheral WH-word can appear in the PrCS but is not obliged to do so. Wherever it may appear, it still is in focus. All of these are instances of the narrow focus type. 3.2 Yes/no questions
This subsection is further divided in two. The first part will deal with Yes/no questions that have canonical word order. These questions are the ones that retain the predicate-initial word order. The second part deals with Yes/no questions that do not have canonical word order. These are the interrogative sentences that make use of the PrCS in the Layered Structure of the Clause (LSC). 3.2.1 Yes/No questions with canonical word order
To start with, consider the following examples.
(18) Q: Nahimatay ba si Juna? faint-PFT.UV Q SUBJ Juna ‘Did Juna faint?’ A: a. Hindi, si Lara ang nahimatay. NEG SUBJ Lara LINPF faint-PFT.UV ‘No, It was LARA who fainted.’ b. Hindi, nadapa siya pero hindi siya nahimatay. NEG trip-PFT.UV 3SG.SUBJ but NEG 3SG.SUBJ faint-PFT.UV ‘No, Juna TRIPPED but she did not faint.’ c. # Hindi, si Lara ang nadapa. NEG SUBJ Lara LINPF trip-PFT.UV ‘No, It was LARA who TRIPPED .’
(19) Q: Nagbasa ba si Ronald ng libro? read-PFT.AV Q SUBJ Ronald NSUBJ book ‘Did Ronald read a book?’ A: a. Hindi, si Mark ang nagbasa ng libro. NEG SUBJ Mark LINPF read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book ‘No, it was MARK who read a book.’ b. Hindi, magasin ang binasa niya. NEG magazine LINPF read-PFT.UV 3SG.NSUBJ ‘No, he read A MAGAZINE.’
395
c. Hindi, pumunta siya sa aklatan pero NEG go-PFT.AV 3SG.SUBJ DAT library but hindi siya nagbasa. NEG 3SG.SUBJ read-PFT.AV ‘No, he WENT TO THE LIBRARY but he did not read.’ d. # Hindi, si Mark ang nagbasa ng magasin. NEG SUBJ Mark LINPF read-PFT.AV NSUBJ magazine ‘No, it was MARK who read a MAGAZINE.’
The above examples are discourse fragments of intransitive and transitive Yes/no questions. As the examples show, there are many felicitous replies, which shows the fluctuation of the position of narrow focus. As Eschenberg (1999) points out, the constituent that is being negated is the constituent receiving focus in the original question. And since there are numerous felicitous replies, one can discern that the focus in the interrogative question is variable.
The variability of focus in the interrogative sentence results in the variable felicitous replies. Depending on the focused constituent in the question, the answer changes to accommodate the required focus of the question. However, as can be discerned by the infelicitous replies, a multiple focus construction is impossible in interrogative sentences, since changing two constituents only results in infelicity. The following diagrams illustrate the variable positions of narrow focus in Yes/no questions.
Figure 12: Narrow focus on Yes/no question (focus on PSA)
Jeruen E. Dery
396
Figure 13: Narrow focus on Yes/no question (focus on non-PSA argument)
Figure 14: Narrow focus on Yes/no question (focus on predicate)
397
3.2.2 Yes/no questions with non-canonical word order
Yes/no questions with non-canonical word order pertain to sentences that do not begin with a predicate. To begin with, consider the following examples.
(20) Q: Nagbasa ba si Ronald ng libro kagabi? read-PFT.AV Q SUBJ Ronald NSUBJ book last night ‘Did Ronald read a book last night?’ A: a. Hindi, kanina siya nagbasa ng libro. NEG a while ago 3SG.SUBJ read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book ‘No, he read a book A WHILE AGO.’ b. Hindi, si Mark ang nagbasa ng libro kagabi. NEG SUBJ Mark LINPF read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book last night ‘No, it was MARK who read a book last night.’ c. Hindi, magasin ang binasa niya kagabi. NEG magazine LINPF read-PFT.UV 3SG.NSUBJ last night ‘No, he read A MAGAZINE last night.’ d. Hindi, may libro siya kagabi NEG exist book 3SG.SUBJ last night pero hindi niya binasa. but NEG 3SG.NSUBJ read-PFT.UV ‘No, he HAD A BOOK last night but he did not read it.’
(21) Q: Kagabi ba nagbasa si Ronald ng libro? last night Q read-PFT.AV SUBJ Ronald NSUBJ book ‘Did Ronald read a book LAST NIGHT?’ A: a. Hindi, kanina siya nagbasa ng libro. NEG a while ago 3SG.SUBJ read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book ‘No, he read a book A WHILE AGO.’ b. # Hindi, si Mark ang nagbasa ng libro kagabi. NEG SUBJ Mark LINPF read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book last night ‘No, it was MARK who read a book last night.’ c. # Hindi, magasin ang binasa niya kagabi. NEG magazine LINPF read-PFT.UV 3SG.NSUBJ last night ‘No, he read A MAGAZINE last night.’ d. # Hindi, may libro siya kagabi NEG exist book 3SG.SUBJ last night pero hindi niya binasa. but NEG 3SG.NSUBJ read-PFT.UV ‘No, he HAD A BOOK last night but he did not read it.’
Jeruen E. Dery
398
(22) Q: Si Ronald ba ang nagbasa ng libro kagabi? SUBJ Ronald Q LINPF read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book last night ‘Was Ronald the one who read a book last night?’ A: a. # Hindi, kanina siya nagbasa ng libro. NEG a while ago 3SG.SUBJ read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book ‘No, he read a book A WHILE AGO.’ b. Hindi, si Mark ang nagbasa ng libro kagabi. NEG SUBJ Mark LINPF read-PFT.AV NSUBJ book last night ‘No, it was MARK who read a book last night.’ c. # Hindi, magasin ang binasa niya kagabi. NEG magazine LINPF read-PFT.UV 3SG.NSUBJ last night ‘No, he read A MAGAZINE last night.’ d. # Hindi, may libro siya kagabi NEG exist book 3SG.SUBJ last night pero hindi niya binasa. but NEG 3SG.NSUBJ read-PFT.UV ‘No, he HAD A BOOK last night but he did not read it.’
The examples in (20) illustrate a question with canonical word order. Since the focus is variable in this case, all replies are felicitous. However, the examples in (21) and (22) differ in the sense that the first constituent is not the predicate. The clause- initial constituents are a periphery, as seen in (21), and an argument in the PrCS, as seen in (22). In these cases, the focus position is not variable in the question. The only felicitous reply is the one that has a narrow focus that corresponds to the original focus position. There is no variation in focus if the question has non-canonical order. The following are diagrams of these types of focus.
399
Kagabi ba nagbasa si Ronald ng libro?
Figure 15: Narrow focus on fronted periphery in a Yes/no question
Figure 16: Narrow focus on fronted argument in a Yes/no question
Jeruen E. Dery
400
In summary, this section has dealt with Yes/no questions that are both canonical and non-canonical in their word order. The ones with canonical word order exhibit variable focus structure, since the locus of the focus is variable as long as it is within the PFD. In non-canonical interrogative sentences, however, the focus structure is rigid, since the locus of the focus is only found on the clause-initial position. Thus, unlike the occurrence of multiple felicitous replies in the canonical type, only one felicitous response is found in the non-canonical type.
4. Conclusion
This paper has shown a pragmatically-driven approach in the analysis of the variation in sentence forms in Tagalog. It has provided a motivation for the different forms that exist in the language in the area of pragmatics.
It has been argued that Tagalog exhibits the three focus types as proposed by Lambrecht (1994). However, the notion of “predicate focus” has to be revised in order to accommodate the facts of the language, which has a rather complex voice system. It has also been shown that although the clause-initial position is particularly favored for narrow focus, it is not always the case that sentence forms with narrow focus always take the clause-initial position for the focus position. The exceptions that appear are the sentence forms that involve narrow focus on non-PSA constituents. It can thus be said that Tagalog is a language with flexible syntax and flexible focus.
It has also been demonstrated that interrogative sentences feature only narrow focus, and that word order plays a part in the variability of the focus position. Interrogative sentences with canonical word order exhibit variable focus positions, resulting in multiple felicitous replies. Interrogative sentences with non-canonical word order, on the other hand, restrict the focus position to the clause-initial position. Thus, there can only be one felicitous reply.
401
References Alejandro, R. 1954. A Handbook of Tagalog Grammar. Manila: University Book
Supply. Ceña, R. 1994. Tagalog Syntax: A First Course. Toronto: Software Foundation. Constantino, E. 1965. The sentence patterns of twenty-six Philippine languages. Lingua
15:71-124. Eschenberg, A. 1999. Polish Focus Structure. Buffalo: The State University of New
York MA thesis. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press. Llamzon, T. 1975. Modern Tagalog: A Functional-Structural Description. The Hague:
Mouton. Schwarzschild, R. 1999. GIVENness, AVOIDF, and other constraints on the placement
of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7.2:141-177. Selkirk, E. 1996. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. The Handbook of
Phonological Theory, ed. by J. A. Goldsmith, 550-569. Cambridge: Blackwell. Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, R. D. Jr., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and
Function. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
[Received 15 December 2005; revised 1 June 2006; accepted 1 August 2006] Department of Linguistics University at Buffalo The State University of New York 609 Baldy Hall Buffalo, NY 14260 USA [email protected]
Jeruen E. Dery

−
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /All /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /SyntheticBoldness 1.00 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /FRA <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> /ENU (Use these settings to create PDF documents with higher image resolution for improved printing quality. The PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Reader 5.0 and later.) /JPN <FEFF3053306e8a2d5b9a306f30019ad889e350cf5ea6753b50cf3092542b308000200050004400460020658766f830924f5c62103059308b3068304d306b4f7f75283057307e30593002537052376642306e753b8cea3092670059279650306b4fdd306430533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103057305f00200050004400460020658766f8306f0020004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d30678868793a3067304d307e30593002> /DEU <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> /PTB <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> /DAN <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> /NLD <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> /ESP <FEFF0055007300650020006500730074006100730020006f007000630069006f006e006500730020007000610072006100200063007200650061007200200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f0073002000500044004600200063006f006e0020006d00610079006f00720020007200650073006f006c00750063006900f3006e00200064006500200069006d006100670065006e00200070006100720061002000610075006d0065006e0074006100720020006c0061002000630061006c006900640061006400200061006c00200069006d007000720069006d00690072002e0020004c006f007300200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730020005000440046002000730065002000700075006500640065006e00200061006200720069007200200063006f006e0020004100630072006f00620061007400200079002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000200079002000760065007200730069006f006e0065007300200070006f00730074006500720069006f007200650073002e> /SUO <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> /ITA <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> /NOR <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> /SVE <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> /KOR <FEFFd5a5c0c1b41c0020c778c1c40020d488c9c8c7440020c5bbae300020c704d5740020ace0d574c0c1b3c4c7580020c774bbf8c9c0b97c0020c0acc6a9d558c5ec00200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020b9ccb4e4b824ba740020c7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c2edc2dcc624002e0020c7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020b9ccb4e000200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e> /CHS <FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe7f6e521b5efa76840020005000440046002065876863ff0c5c065305542b66f49ad8768456fe50cf52068fa87387ff0c4ee563d09ad8625353708d2891cf30028be5002000500044004600206587686353ef4ee54f7f752800200020004100630072006f00620061007400204e0e002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020548c66f49ad87248672c62535f003002> /CHT <FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d5b9a5efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef65305542b8f039ad876845f7150cf89e367905ea6ff0c4fbf65bc63d066075217537054c18cea3002005000440046002065874ef653ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0030002053ca66f465b07248672c4f86958b555f3002> >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

Documents

Pragmatic Focus and Word Order Variation in Tagalog*