Advertisement

Definiteness determined by syntax

A case study in Tagalog
  • James N. Collins
Article

Abstract

Using Tagalog as a case study, this paper provides an analysis of a cross-linguistically well attested phenomenon, namely, cases in which a bare NP’s syntactic position is linked to its interpretation as definite or indefinite. Previous approaches to this phenomenon, including analyses of Tagalog, appeal to specialized interpretational rules, such as Diesing’s Mapping Hypothesis. I argue that the patterns fall out of general compositional principles so long as type-shifting operators are available to the grammatical system. I begin by weighing in a long-standing issue for the semantic analysis of Tagalog: the interpretational distinction between genitive and nominative transitive patients. I show that bare NP patients are interpreted as definites if marked with nominative case and as narrow scope indefinites if marked with genitive case. Bare NPs are understood as basically predicative; their quantificational force is determined by their syntactic position. If they are syntactically local to the selecting verb, they are existentially quantified by the verb itself. If they occupy a derived position, such as the subject position, they must type-shift in order to avoid a type-mismatch, generating a definite interpretation. Thus the paper develops a theory of how the position of an NP is linked to its interpretation, as well as providing a compositional treatment of NP-interpretation in a language which lacks definite articles but demonstrates other morphosyntactic strategies for signaling (in)definiteness.

Keywords

Definiteness Tagalog Austronesian Syntax-semantics interface Quantification Type-shifting Bare NPs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

With thanks to Dylan Bumford, Ivano Caponigro, Cleo Condoravdi, Lelia Glass, Vera Gribanova, Henrison Hsieh, Masoud Jasbi, Paul Kiparsky, Christopher Potts, Barry Schein, Lisa Travis, audiences at NELS 46 (Concordia University), Stanford University and UC Berkeley for many helpful comments. Thanks also to Henriette de Swart, and four anonymous reviewers for detailed reviews which greatly improved the paper.

References

  1. Adams, Karen L, and Alexis Manaster-Ramer. 1988. Some questions of topic/focus choice in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27: 79–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. PhD diss., Cornell University. Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge, Edith. 2006. Absolutive case in Tagalog. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 42, Vol. 2, 1–15. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  4. Beaver, David. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, David, and Elizabeth Coppock. 2015. Novelty and familiarity for free. In 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Thomas Brochhagen, Floris Roelofsen, and Nadine Theiler, 50–59. Google Scholar
  6. Beaver, David, and Emiel Krahmer. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (2): 147–182.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008371413822. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaver, David, and Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 533–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  9. Chen, Victoria. 2017. Philippine-type “voice” affixes as A’-agreement markers: Evidence from causatives and ditransitives. In Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) 23. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. Google Scholar
  10. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4): 509–542. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2000. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Collins, Chris, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1996. VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 27 (3): 391–444. Google Scholar
  14. Collins, James N. 2017. Samoan predicate initial word order and object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35 (1): 1–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coppock, Elizabeth, and David Beaver. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy 38: 377–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (4): 393–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deal, Amy Rose, and Julia Nee. 2017. Bare nouns, number, and definiteness in Teotitlán del Valle Zapotec. In Sinn und Bedeutung 21, eds. Chris Cummins, Nikolas Gisborne, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern, Hannah Rohde, and Robert Truswell. Google Scholar
  18. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Dionisio, Michelle. 2012. The syntax and semantics of the Tagalog plural marker mga, MA thesis, The Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  20. Farkas, Donka F. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Langues et grammaire 1, eds. Lea Nash and George Tsoulas, 119–137. Paris: Université de Paris VIII. Google Scholar
  21. Foley, William A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) 3, Brisbane. Google Scholar
  22. Foley, William A, and Robert D Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik: 25—50. Translation: 1980. On Sense and Reference. In Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, 3rd edn., eds. Peter Geach and Max Black. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  24. Geurts, Bart. 2006. Take ‘five’: The meaning and use of a number word. In Non-definiteness and plurality, eds. Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  25. 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 (3): 375–414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  27. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Regularity in irregularity: Article use in adpositional phrases. Linguistic Typology 2 (3): 315–354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005a. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian languages of South East Asia and Madagascar, eds. K. A. Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–181. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  29. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005b. Tagalog. In The Austronesian languages of South East Asia and Madagascar, eds. K. A. Adelaar and Nikolaus P Himmelmann, 350–376. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  30. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, eds. Peter K. Austin and Simon Musgrave, 247–293. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  31. Hung, Henrietta. 1988a. Derived verbs and nominals in Malagasy. Ms., McGill University. Google Scholar
  32. Hung, Henrietta. 1988b. The structure of derived nouns and verbs in Malagasy. Ms., McGill University. Google Scholar
  33. Jasbi, Masoud. 2015. The semantics of differential object marking in Persian. Paper presented at Linguistics Society of America (LSA) 89, Portland. Google Scholar
  34. Karimi, Simin. 2003. On object positions, specificity, and scrambling in Persian. In Word order and scrambling, 91–124. Malden: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4 (2): 169–193. Google Scholar
  36. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  38. Kroeger, Paul R. 1988. Verbal focus in Kimaragang. Pacific Linguistics: Series A. Google Scholar
  39. Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Voice and case in Tagalog: The coding of prominence and orientation. PhD diss., Heinrich-Heine University. Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4 (4): 279–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ludlow, Peter, and Gabriel Segal. 2004. On a unitary semantical analysis for definite and indefinite descriptions. In Descriptions and beyond, eds. Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuindenhout. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
  43. Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maclachlan, Anna, and Masanori Nakamura. 1997. Case-checking and specificity in Tagalog. The Linguistic Review 14 (4): 307–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19 (1): 153–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7(1): 79–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McFarland, Curtis D. 1978. Definite objects and subject selection in Philippine languages. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 2 (1): 139–182. Google Scholar
  48. Neale, Stephen. 2004. This, that, and the other. In Descriptions and beyond, eds. Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuindenhout, 68–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  49. Partee, Barbara. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  50. Partee, Barbara, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, 334–356. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  51. Paul, Ileana, Key Cortes, and Lareina Milambiling. 2015. Definiteness without D: The case of ang and ng in Tagalog. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 60 (3): 361–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A’-element. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23 (2): 381–457.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-1582-7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24 (2): 433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Potts, Christopher. 2015. Presupposition and implicature, 2nd edn. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, eds. Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox, 168–202. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Quine, Willard V. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  56. Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The structure of Tagalog: Specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  57. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4): 565–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reid, Lawrence. 2000. Sources of Proto-Oceanic initial prenasalization: The view from outside Oceanic. In Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax, and semantics: Studies in honor Stanley Starosta, eds. Videa P. De Guzman and Byron W. Bender, 30–45. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Google Scholar
  59. Reid, Lawrence A. 2002. Determiners, nouns, or what? Problems in the analysis of some commonly occurring forms in Philippine languages. Oceanic Linguistics 41(2): 295–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (4): 335–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sabbagh, Joseph. 2016. Specificity and objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics 52 (3): 639–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Saclot, Maureen Joy. 2006. On the transitivity of the actor focus and the patient focus constructions in Tagalog. Paper presented at International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (ICAL) 10, Palawan, Philippines. Google Scholar
  63. Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles Li, 491–518. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  64. Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes. 1982. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  65. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19 (3): 289–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and voice, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, 85–142. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stanley, Jason, Szabo, and Zoltan Gendler. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15, 219–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strawson, and Peter Frederick. 1950. On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89 (1): 66–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Travis, Lisa. 2005. Agents and causes in Malagasy and Tagalog. In The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, eds. Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport, 176–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  71. Travis, Lisa deMena. 2010. Inner aspect. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  73. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Google Scholar
  74. von Fintel, Kai. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1): 137–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. von Heusinger, Klaus, and Jaklin Kornfilt. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9: 3–44. Google Scholar
  76. Westerstahl, Dag. 1985. Determiners and context sets. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language, eds. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  77. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1 (2): 149–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2006. Monotonicity in opaque verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (6): 715–761. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Hawai‘i at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations