DRAFT/Comments Welcome/

WHAT PHILIPPINE ERGATIVITY REALLY MEANS

Ricardo Ma. Nolasco
University of the Philippines (Diliman)
(rnolasco_upmin@yahoo.com)

1. Introduction:

The following Tagalog sentences illustrate how the “focus” system works in
Philippine languages (PLs).

Actor
(1) Tumakbo ang weyter.
NEUT.run PART1 waiter
`The waiter ran.’

Actor
(2) `Magtakbo ka nga ng tubig sa table no. 5 ’
NEUT.bring you (the waiter) please PART2 water PART3 table no. 5
`Please bring (or rush) some water to table no. 5’

Goal (theme)
(3) `Itakbo mo ang tubig (na ito) sa table no. 5.’
NEUT. bring you PART1 water (this) PART3 table no. 5
`Bring (or rush) this water to table no. 5.

Goal (beneficiary)
(4) `I(pag)takbo mo nga ng Marlboro sa tindahan ang table no. 5.’
NEUT. run.get you please PART2 Marlboro PART 3 store PART1 table no. 5
`Please run to the store and get the customer at table no. 5 some Marlboro cigarettes.’

Goal (patient)
(5) `Takbuhin mo siya.’ (siya=customer at table no. 5)
NEUT. run after you he (PART 1)
`(You) run and try to reach him.’

___________________________________________________________________________
ABBREVIATIONS: A =Agent or Source of the Action; ABS = Absolutive; ERG = Ergative;
FOC = Focus; FUT = Future; GEN=Genitive; INT=Intransitive Affix; LKR= linker ; NEG =
Negator; NEUT=Neutral Tense-Aspect; NOM=Nominalization; NPAST = Non past; OBL=
Oblique; P = Patient or most affected entity; PER= Personal name; PART= particle; PAST =
Past; Q= question; TR= transitive affix; S = only argument of intransitive construction; TA =
tense-aspect; 1 = 1st person; 12 = 1st and 2nd person; 2=2nd person; 3=3rd person.

1
Goal (direction or location)
(6) Tinakbuhan ka ng table no. 5.
PAST. run away from you (the waiter) PART2 table no. 5
`Table No. 5 ran away from you without paying the bill.’

Goal (instrument)
(7) Ipinangtakbo niya sa maraton ang aking Reebok.
PAST. used for running he PART3 marathon PART1 my Reebok shoes
`He used my Reebok shoes for running in the marathon.’

The received view is that the so-called “focus” affixes (bold faced) identify the
semantic relation (sentence headings) of the `focused item’ (underscored) in the
sentences above.

2. How has Philippine morphosyntax been analyzed?

Philippine languages have been analyzed to be:

a) Nominative-accusative
• Active-passive dichotomy: all “goal-focus” constructions are passives derived
from active.
• “ang” marked entity is “subject” or “what is being talked about.”

b) Ergative-absolutive
• “goal” constructions are basic.
• “agent” marked by ergative case (PART2), “patient” marked by absolutive
(PART1)
• no. 2 is “antipassive”

c) Neither nominative nor ergative, but belong to a separate language type

• “actor focus” construction (no.2) and “goal focus” constructions are all transitive.
• “ang” marked entity is “topic.”

Commonalities in previous analysis (but not all) :

• The main function of the “focus” affix is to identify the semantic role of the
“focused” element.
• “Ang” marks the privileged syntactic argument.

3. Goals of the study

In this presentation, I will concur with the characterization that the grammatical
patterns in pragmatically simple sentences in PLs are ergative. To me, the question of
language type crucially depends on what constitutes a transitive construction in PLs. In
identifying a transitive from an intransitive construction, I will invoke a set of
parameters similar to those laid down by Hopper and Thompson (1980), but I have made

2
some adjustments to the parameters to suit the Philippine condition. Evidence will be
presented from several PLs illustrating how speakers use this set of parameters in
assigning case to arguments and in choosing a particular voice form. In sum, I point to
the robust manifestation of the ergative-absolutive relation in PLs and affirm in substance
the findings in Mithun 1994 for Kapampangan.

4. Data:

The data used in this study were taken from:

a) Stories in Bannawag, an Ilokano weekly magazine, namely

Kaputotan ni Anteb (KA), Dec. 31, 2001, by Rodrigo Manongdo;

Kartib (KAR), Feb. 19, 2001, by Emidio R. Rosal;
Lakay Igme Maysa nga Ama (LIMA) by Manuel Benosa;
Taraddek (TAR), March 15, 199, by Robert A. Fernandez;
Ti Aningaas (TA), February 19, 2001, by Jovito F. Amorin;
Ti Dalagan (TD), Dec. 24, 2001, by Delfin P. Dumayas;
Umaykan Ponso, di ka Agbabati (UPDKA), April 22, 2002, by Juan S.P Hidalgo, Jr.;

b) Cebuano Folktales 1, San Carlos Publications, Cebu City and the following stories in
Bisaya, a Cebuano weekly magazine, namely:

Ang Inyong Sexpert (AIS), Dec. 13, 2000, by Greg Laconsay

Kadaogan sa Gugma (KG), Aug. 5, 1998, by Edgar S. Godin;
Dahlia (DAH), May 13, 1998, by Dodds Giagonia;
Pinaskuhan ni Marilou (PM), Dec. 29, 1993, by Loreto Sardovia;
Ugang Dugo sa Kamot ni Manoling (UDKM), Dec. 13, 2000, Edgar Godin;

c) Three (3) Tagalog romance novels:

Kung Kulang pa ang Lahat (KKPAL), 1996, by Veronica Siasoco

Puto at Dinuguan (PD), 1994, by Edgar Reyes;
Tukso ba ang Umibig (TBAU), 1982, by Gilda Olvidado

d) Donya Dulimanan kan Prinsipe Agtanang (DDPA), an Itneg narrative by Jane P.

Martinez;
e) Mga Sugilon no Minanubo (MSM), a collection of Agusanon stories by Teofila Bada;
f) A Manuvuq oral narrative by Mercedes Allan;
g) A Blaan oral narrative by Isidro Pandan;
h) Two taped conversations with Narding Solomon and Babes Jetajobe of Sorsogon,
Sorsogon.

3
5. Definition of transitivity, case and voice in PLs:

Transitivity may be defined in terms of the conceptual statuses of `source of

action’ and `most affected entity’, partly following Klaiman (1988).

a) A transitive construction is one where the source of action (A) is viewed as distinct
from the most affected entity (P). An intransitive construction is one where the source of
the action is also viewed as the most affected entity. When the A and the P refer to the
same entity, it may also be labeled the S.

b) Case, as used in this study, pertains to how the arguments of a predicate are formally
encoded to distinguish between S, A, P 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.

c) Voice as used in this study, refers to the alternations in verbal morphology which
encode the distinction in viewing how the action’s effects accrue to the clausal elements.

d) In this study, voice is derivational, while tense-aspect (TA) is inflectional. But it is

sometimes hard to tease apart TA from voice (see example no. 1). Almost all verbs
(except root verbs) can be inflected for TA. The prototypical Tagalog verb has at least
four members in its TA paradigm: “past (begun), present (begun and continuing), future
(not begun) and nonfinite (neutral). There will be no further discussion of TA in this
paper.

Table 1. Sarangani Manobo Personal Pronouns

Personal Person Set 1 Set II Set III Set IV

Pronouns

Singular 1 a ku kanak siak

(Minimal) 12 ki ta kenita siaken
2 ka ta kemno sikemno
3 0 din kandin sikandin

Plural 1 kay day kenami sikami

(Maximal) 12 kidon tadon kenitadon sikitadon
2 kaw niyo keniyosa sikiyo
3 dan dan kandan sikandan

Source: Dubois, Carl. 1976. Sarangani Manobo: an introductory guide. PJL Special
Monograph Issue, 6. Manila: LSP.
_______________________________________________________________________

Table 2. Sorsogonan Demonstratives

ABS ERG OBL FOC
this near speaker ini sadi didi ini
that near hearer ina sana dida ina
that far from both idtu sadtu didtu idtu

4
 Source: Author
_______________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Binukid Manobo Case Determiners

Topic Attributive Oblique

Personal sg. si hi ki
pl. say hay kay
Common non specific sa hu hu/ta
specific su ku ku

Source: Otanes, Fe T. and Hazel J. Wrigglesworth, eds. 1992. SIPL/Binukid Dictionary 9:2,
Manila: LSP and SIL, p. xxvii.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 4. Personal Pronouns in Ilokano, Tagalog and Sebwano

Ilokano Tagalog Sebwano

Sg Pl Sg Pl Sg Pl
1 -ak -kami ako kami (a)ko (a)ko
S 12 -ta -ta kita tayo kita kita
2 -ka -kayo ikaw kayo ikaw ikaw
3 0 ~ isuna -da siya sila siya sila
1 -ku -mi ko namin nako namo
A 12 -ta -tayo natin natin nato nato
2 -mo -yo mo ninyo nimo ninyo
3 -na -da niya nila niya nila
1 -ak -kami ako kami (a)ko (a)ko
P 12 -ta -ta kita tayo kita kita
2 -ka -kayo ikaw kayo ikaw ikaw
3 0 ~ isuna -da siya sila siya sila
1 kanyak kadakami sa akin sa amin sa ako kanamo
12 kanyata kadatayo sa atin sa atin sa ato kanato
OBL 2 kenka kadakayo sa iyo sa inyo sa imo kaninyo
3 kanyana kanyada sa kaniya sa kanila sa iya kanila
______________________________________________________________________
Table 5. Case Determiners in Ilokano, Tagalog and Sebwano

TAGALOG ILOKANO SEBWANO

ABS ERG OBL ABS ERG OBL ABS ERG OBL

PER sg si ni kay ni ni kenni si ni kay
SON pl sina nina kina da da kada sila nila kanila
COM nspec ng ng ug ug
MON spec ang ng sa ti ti Iti ang ng sa

5
6. How many voice forms are there?

Earlier analyses: -um-, mag-, mag-…-an, mag-…-um-…-an, mang-, maki-, makipag-,

magpa-, ma-, ma-…-an. mai-, i-, ika-, ipa-, ipakipag-, ka-…-an,
ipag-, ipang-, pa-…-in, etc.

Proposed analysis: -um- ~ m-, -in, -an and i-

a) Morphological classes: roots, stems, affixes and particles. A root is any form to
which an affix may be added. A stem is that form to which the last affix is added. An
affix is a dependent form which attaches to a root or stem. A particle is any unaffixable
form.

b) The verb stem can consist of a root, or a root plus a derivational stem forming affix.
In (8), the verb shows a simple root rugi with the tense-aspect infix -in- and the voice
affix –an.

Ilokano
(8) R<in>ugi=an=na ketdi ti nangisuro. (TAR, p. 11)
PAST=[start=TR(-an)]=3ERG.SG again ABS teach
`She started again to teach.’

c) The most frequent and productive of the stem-forming affixes are the following:
(p)ag-, pang-, paka- , paki- and ka-. Stems formed with these derivational affixes
frequently end up being affixed by an allomorph of the –um- voice affix, namely the
replacive m- affix. The m- affix replaces the first sound of the stems, producing so-
called mag-, mang-, maka-, maki- and ma- verbs. The examples below illustrate the
layered use of these verb stems.

Sorsoganon

(9) a. dili n=abuhay an mga tanom ko.

NEG PAST. INT(m-)=(ka=life) ABS PL plant 1GEN,SG
`My plants didn’t grow.’

b. waraq ka=buhay an mga tanom ko.

NEG ka=buhay ABS PL plant 1GEN.SG
`My plants didn’t grow.’

(10) dili na ako n=akasulod, waraq na kami

NEG LKR 1ABS PAST.INT (m-)=[(paka=enter)] NEG LKR 1ABS.PL

paka=sulod (sa mina). (Transcribed interview with Narding Solomon)

paka=enter (OBL mine.)

6
 `I wasn’t able to enter, we were not able to enter the mine.’

Agusan Manobo

(11) …napoyok si Jun su wada og=pakabulig kandin

worried ABS.PER Jun because NEG NPAST=(paka=help) 3OBL.SG

`Jun got worried because there was no one to help him (harvest rice.) (MSM, p. 18)

Sebwano

(12) …ayaw na pakig=dula nila=ng Beth…

don’t anymore (paki = g)= play 3OBL.PL=LKR Beth
`Don’t play with Beth and her companions anymore.’ (PM, p. 3)

(13) “Wa ko m=akigduwa nila=ng Beth…”

not 1ABS NEUT.INT(m-)=(pakig=play) 3OBL.PL=LKR Beth
`I didn’t play with Beth and her companions.’ (PM, p. 3)

Ilokano

(14) N=agisagana a dagus ni baket

PAST.INT (m-)=[ag=(i=prepare)] LKR immediately ERG.PER wife

iti pangaldaw mi. (KA, p. 20)

OBL breakfast our

`My wife went to prepare our breakfast.’

(15) N=angaldaw=kami
PAST.INT (m-)= [pang=morning]=1ABS.PL (KA, p. 20)

`We took breakfast.’

d) The claim of the layered composition of the verb in PLs captures a generalization
which the other analyses have failed to make. It simplifies the analysis of the voice
forms and accounts for the similarities and differences between verbs with the same root
or stems but with different voice affixes. It also draws attention to the highly
derivational character of the process of affixation in these languages.

7
7. Transitivity Parameters:

Hopper and Thompson (1980) came out with a set of semantic criteria for
determining how transitive or how intransitive a particular construction is in a certain
language. They saw transitivity as a cline or continuum and set up two columns of ten
features associated with high and low transitivity. They put forward the hypothesis that if
a certain construction exhibits one feature on one side of the high-low transitivity table,
chances are that that particular construction will most probably exhibit the other features
on the same side. The original parameters of Hopper and Thompson are given below:

a) Hopper and Thompson (1980)

High Low
A. Participants 2 or more participants 1 participant
B. Kinesis action non-action
C. Aspect telic atelic
D. Punctuality punctual non-punctual
E. Volitionality volitional non-volitional
F. Affirmation affirmative negative
G. Mode realis irrealis
H. Agency A high in potency A low in potency
I. Affectedness of O O totally affected O not affected
J. Individuation of O O highly individuated O non-individuated

b) Proposed Transitivity Parameters for PLs:

Nolasco (2003) reformulated Hopper and Thompson’s list to suit Philippine

conditions and came out with a language-specific set of features. The original
reformulation has been further revised as follows:

High Low
A. No. of Arguments Distinct A and P S
B. Kinesis action state
C. Aspect telic atelic
D. Punctuality punctual non-punctual
E. Intentionality deliberate volitional
F. Particularity particular general
G. Directionality external internal
H. Effort effortful effortless
I. Affectedness of P P totally affected P not affected
J. Exclusivity of P exclusive P non-exclusive P

From a cursory look at the revised list, one can easily discern the similarities with the
original Hopper and Thompson (1980). But there are certain noticeable differences as

8
represented by the bold faced items. We now turn to a discussion of these differences
and provide examples.

A. Distinct A and P versus S. In a prototypical transitive construction, we require not

only the existence of a semantic agent and a semantic patient, but also that these
participants be GRAMMATICALLY encoded as A and P. In an intransitive construction,
the A and the P are encoded grammatically as one argument (S). The S takes absolutive
case and receives co-indexing from the verb. In a prototypical transitive construction,
the grammatical encoding as A and P entails that: (a) A is assigned the ERG case with
the P assuming the ABS case. (b) P is co-indexed by the voice affix. A semantic
patient encoded as an OBL cannot be interpreted as receiving the full effects of an action
and therefore cannot be a P. A construction with a semantic agent and semantic patient,
where the agent takes ABS case and the semantic patient OBL, is semantically transitive
but grammatically intransitive. The semantic agent is not a true A but only an S. The S
and not the OBL patient is interpreted as the most affected entity in the clause.

In addition to a voice system and a case system, some Philippine-type languages

also possess a cross-referencing or person marking system, which identifies the core
arguments of the clause through the use of pronominals. The geographical
distribution of this subtype indicates that this is probably a very old feature of the
Philippine ancestral language. It is also probably the origin of the person-marking
system which Oceanic languages are known for.

Kapampangan

(16) Malagu ya ing anak.

pretty 3ABS ABS child
`The child is pretty.’

(17) a. Mamangan ya=ng bayabas ing anak.

INT.eat 3ABS=LKR guava ABS child
`The child ate guavas.’

b. Pengan ne ning pusa ing asan.

TR.eat na (3ERG) + ya (3ABS) ERG cat ABS fish
`The cat ate the fish.’

The Kapampangan examples above show how the co-referencing system in that language
formally identifies core arguments from non-core. It also disambiguates a transitive construction
from an intransitive construction. (16) may be considered the prototypical intransitive
instruction where the only argument (ing anak `the child’) is coreferenced by the third personal
absolutive ya. (17a) is a semantically transitive construction, but is formally and grammatically
intransitive. Like (16). only the semantic agent (ing anak `the child’) in (17a) is represented by
the co-referent pronoun ya. The semantic patient (bayabas `guava’) in (17a) is not co-referenced
by a pronoun. (17a) therefore contains only one core argument, an S. On the other hand, (17b) is
not only semantically but also grammatically transitive. The cross-referent pronouns for the core

9
arguments A (ning pusa `the cat’) and the P (ing asan `the fish’) are encoded in the
portmanteau pronoun ne.

B. Action vs. State. This parameter distinguishes a state or stative event from a
dynamic one which contains more action.

Sebwano
(18) a. Gi=kaguol kini pag-ayo sa amahan ug anak.
PAST. TR (i-)=[ka=sad] ABS.this very ERG father and child
`The father and daughter took it (the mother’s death) very hard.’ (KG, p. 3)

b. N=aguol pag-ayo ang amahan ug anak

PAST. INT (m-)=[ka-=sad] very ABS father and daughter

tungod ni=ini.
because OBL=this
`The Father and daughter were deeply saddened by it (the mother’s death).

Gi-kaguol and naguol both have the same stem (kaguol) which more or less means `sad’
or `sadness.’ “Naguol” which is the past form of maguol refers to the natural emotional
state a person finds oneself in when a loved one or someone close to him/her passes
away. Gikaguol packs a lot more action and presupposes a greater amount of
suffering and of will on the part of the experiencers. In the immediately following
section of the story from where (18a) was taken, the daughter was described as always
in tears, and the father as frequently having bouts of high blood pressure and chest pains.

Tagalog
(19) a) Sumalpok ang alon sa bangka
PAST.INT (-um-) ABS wave OBL boat
`The wave struck the boat.’ (Schachter, 1972, p. 70)

b) Sinalpok ng alon ang bangka

PAST=[strike=TR(-in)] ERG wave ABS boat.
`The wave struck the boat . (Schachter, 1972, p. 70)

These obviously elicited examples come from Schachter (1972), whose glosses have
been retained here. Even so, it must be mentioned that 19b describes the boat as being
struck and pounded more forcefully by the waves, compared to the natural striking of the
boat by the waves in 19a.

Ilokano
(20) Dayta a lalaki, s<in>errak=n=ak
ABS. DEM LKR man, PAST. forcibly enter.TR(-en)=3ERG.SG=1ABS.SG

ket kayat=n=ak a gundaway=an (TLD, p. 14)

CONJ wants=3ERG.SG=1ABS.SG LKR NEUT.abuse=(TR-an)

10
 `This man, he forcibly entered my house and he wants to abuse me.’

(21) In=serrak=n=ak ni Marian iti maysa a kuwarto.

PAST. TR (i-). enter=3ERG.SG=1ABS.SG ERG Marian OBL a LKR room.
`Marian led me to a room.’ (TD, p. 18)

(22) (idi) s<um>rek ti maysa a baket.

(when) NEUT.INT (-um-) ABS a LKR woman (TD, p. 18)
`(Their conversation was interrupted when) a woman entered the room.’

The transitive examples in (20) and (21) contrast sharply with the simple action of
entering a room in (22).

C. Telic vs. Atelic. By telicity or completion of an event, it is meant that the action or
activity terminates with a clear accomplishment of some kind. In the following Sebwano
example, the difference between being acquainted with someone and recognizing
someone is foregrounded.

Sebwano
(23) a. N=akaila ka ba sa biktima?
PAST. INT (m-)= [paka=know] 2ABS.SG QPRT OBL victim
`Were you acquainted with the victim?’ (UDKM, p. 23)

b. N=ailhan ba nimo ang biktima

PAST.INT (m-)={[ka=ila]=TR(-an)} QPRT 2ERG.SG ABS victim
`Did you recognize the victim?’

Ilokano
(24) “No ania ti makuna=m, Marian, ulien=ta=nto a dua.
If what ABS say=2ERG, Marian, climb.TR(-en)=we=FUT LKR two
`What are you implying, Marian, that we two scale it (the mountain).’ (TD, p. 16)

(25) Imm=uli kami ti agdan xxx

PAST.INT (-um-)=climb 1ABS.PL OBL stairway
`We went up the stairway…’ (KA, p. 16)

As its gloss clearly indicates, ulien refers to a more causative and more purposeful
activity which results in the mountain being scaled and conquered. Umuli
is a more internally directed activity which merely moves or transfers the effector theme
into a different place or location.

Tagalog
(26) a. Nang mainit na ang mantika, ip<in>rito niya ang kamote.
When hot already ABS cooking oil TR (i-)<PAST>.fry 3ERG.SG ABS camote
`When the oil was already hot, she fried the camote.’ (KKPL, p. 80)

11
 b. Nang mainit na ang mantika, n=agprito siya ng kamote.
When hot already ABS cooking oil PAST=INT (m-).[pag=fry] ABS OBL camote
`When the oil was already hot, she fried camote.’

In (26a). the most likely interpretation is that the camote strips ended up being fried, while in
(26b), what is being asserted is only the activity of frying camote.

D. Punctual vs. Durative.

The next examples come from Shibatani (1988). We have retained the original
gloss for (27a), but changed the gloss for (27b). This was done to faithfully capture the
difference in meaning between long term knowledge of a secret and its instantaneous
discovery.

Sebwano
(27) a. N=akahibalo si Juan sa tinaguan.
PAST.INT (m-)=[paka=know] ABS.PER Juan OBL secret
` Juan knows the secret.’ (Shibatani, 1988, p. 104)

b. N=ahibaloan ni Juan ang tinaguan.

PAST.INT (m-)={[ka= know]=TR(-an)} ERG.PER Juan ABS secret
(Shibatani, 1988, p.104)
`Juan discovered the secret.’

More interesting are the Tagalog examples where biting which is

presumably a punctual act comes in two forms. The author begins with a
generalized depiction of the victim’s retaliatory action described in nangagat as
plural, random, indiscriminate and therefore durative. But when the author
focuses however on each and every bite that the victim exacts on her tormentor,
the verb used is the punctual kinagat

Tagalog
(28) P<in>agsusuntok niya ito. Bilang ganti, hinalikan
PAST.hit repeatedly 3ERG 3ABS.this In retaliation, PAST.kiss

naman siya sa leeg. N=angagat siya.

truly 3ABS OBL neck PAST.INT (m-)=[pang=bite] 3ABS

Kahit ano, k<in>agat niya.

Even anything <PAST>[=biteTR(-in)] 3ERG

`She repeatedly hit him. He retaliated and kissed her in the neck. She bit and bit.
Anything that she could bite, she bit.’ (TBAU, p. )

Ilokano
(29) T<in>akder=an=na ti dadaiten=na…
PAST.stand up=TR(-an)=3ERG ABS sewing=3ERG
`He stood up from his sewing.’ (TD, p. 10)

12
(30) a. B<imm>angon ni Ponso sana matmat=an
PAST. INT (-um-)=sit upright ABS.PER after.this gaze=TR(-an)

ti bola. xxx T<imm>akder. (UKPDA, p. 17)

ABS ball. xxx PAST.INT (-um-)=stand up

`Ponso sat upright and gazed at the ball. xxx He stood up.’

b. Nabayag a n=agtakder iti asideg

long LKR PAST.INT (m-)=(ag=stand) OBL near

ti tawa ti kuarto=da
ERG window ERG room=ERG.PL (TA, p. 31)

`She was standing by the window for a long time.’

The difference between timmakder and nagtakder is one of telicity and punctuality. The
action of timmakder requires that the agent starts from a sitting or non-standing position
at which point the agent stands up. Nagtakder does not presuppose a non-standing
position from which to begin the standing activity. In fact, it is unclear when the
standing stance begins or ends, a truly non telic and non-punctual affair. Tinakderan is a
different matter. Unlike the first two which are intransitive, takderan is a punctual,
telic and transitive verb which contains an ergative A and an absolutive P.

E. Deliberate vs. Volitional. An action or activity may either be voluntary or carried out
willingly, in which case it is volitional; or it can be more determined or wilful, in
which case it is deliberate.

Sebwano
(31) a. …gi=undang ko na ang pagpanigarilyo…
PAST=stop. TR (-un) 1ERG.SG already ABS smoking
`I already stopped smoking (in the early 1960s).’ (AIS, p. 17)

b. …mi=undang ko na sa pagpanigarilyo…
INT.PAST=stop 1ABS already OBL smoking
`I already stopped smoking (in the early 1960’s)

(31a) comes from a column of Greg Laconsay in the Bisaya magazine. The verb gi-
undang denotes that it took a large amount of discipline on the part the author to stop
smoking. 31b is a colorless and bland way of describing the event in a matter-of-fact
fashion.

The next examples were taken from a scene in the Tagalog novel Puto at
Dinuguan by Edgar Reyes. Manila has been hit by a powerful typhoon, and many of the
streets are flooded. Andy, who is driving a truck, decides to pick up Fe, the girl he is
courting. Fe had warned Andy not to pick her up at her place of work because this might

13
provoke a lot of gossip. She refuses to go with Andy and insists that they take public
transportation. They quarrel. To appease Fe, this is what Andy does.

Tagalog
(32) Pagsapit nila sa abangan
NOM.reach 3ERG.PL OBL public transportation stop

h<in>ubad niya ang kanyang jacket

<PAST>take. off.TR(-in) 3ERG ABS his jacket

`When they reached the bus stop, he took off his jacket (and gave it to Fe.) (PD, p.66)

Fe hesitates but eventually takes Andy’s jacket and wears it, signifying the end of the
spat. The claim is that Andy’s action in (32) is purposeful and deliberate. Let us now
compare this to a similar event, that of taking off one’s socks and shoes. Andy and Fe
manage to get a ride on a jeepney. The jeepney stalls in the middle of the flood. A co-
passenger decides to wade through the flood but before doing so, he naturally and
understandably does this.

Tagalog
(33) N=aghubad ito ng sapatos at medyas.
PAST. INT (m-)=[pag=take off] ABS.DEM OBL shoes and socks.
`He took off his shoes and socks.’ (PD, p. 68)

The distinction between a volitional and a deliberate action is nicely portrayed in

two clauses in an Itneg tale about Donya Dulimanan kan Prinsipe Agtanang (Lady
Dulimanan and Prince Agtanang). In this scene, Kulimbibita, the future Donya
Dulimanan, goes swimming with the other children by the river, when a goat appears
and proceeds to defecate on their clothes. This purely involuntary bodily function is
depicted in two different ways in the story. First, when the goat appears:

Itneg
(34) …ta uwad ta ni=lumtaw nga ugsa
when there. OBL.DET PAST.INT.(-um-).appear LKR deer

ket mapan takkiya=n dadin bado= da.

and went NEUT.defecate.TR.(-an) 3ABS,PL clothes= 3ERG.PL

`There appeared a deer and (it) went on to defecate on their clothes.”

After seeing what the animal appears to be doing, the other children begin to drive the
animal away. They lead it to Kulimbibita’s clothes instead. (The deer’s droppings
turned out to be pure gold. )

(35) “Adi ka t<um>akki kanta,

Don’t 2ABS.SG NEUT.INT.(-um-)=takki there

14
 in=ka kanta=n bado ni Kulimbibita.”
go=you OBL.DEM=LKR clothes GEN.DET Kulimbibita

`Don’t you defecate (on our clothes), go do it on Kulimbibita’s clothes.’

The verb takkiyan with the voice affix –an attributes a more deliberate and conscious
action on the part of the deer in (34) than simply tumakki (35) which is the more
volitional, unmarked and natural action. In (34), the storyteller strongly hints that the
deer was intentionally leaving its waste on the clothes of those it wanted to make rich.

F. Particular vs. General action. It is common to find verbal alternations where the
opposition or difference in meaning lie in the generality and particularity of the action to
which the same verb stem refers.

Ilokano
(36) n=agisagana a dagus ni baket
PAST=[ag=(i=prepare)] LKR immediately ERG wife

iti pangaldaw mi. (KA, p.20)

OBL breakfast our

`My wife immediately went to prepare our breakfast.’

(37) in=sagana amin=en dagiti masapsapul.

PAST=[TR(i-)=prepare] all=already ABS.PL needs

`She put out all that was needed (for the natural delivery of a child).’ (KA, p. 21)

In (36), the verb nagisagana encompasses all the activities involved in the preparation
of breakfast. This would include cooking rice, frying eggs, preparing coffee, setting
the table and the like. In (37), the activity is limited to simply bringing out what a
mother and her new born baby would be needing at birth.

Sebwano

(38) a. “Dro, adto=on ta si Haring Wati …”

St. Peter. NEUT. go.to=TR(-on) 12ERG.SG ABS.PER King Worm
`St. Peter, let’s go check up on King Worm.’ (HW, p. )

b. “Dro, mangadto ta kang Haring Wati…”

St. Peter, NEUT.INT (m-).pang=go 12ERG OBL.PER King Worm.’
`St. Peter, let’s go to King Worm’s house.’

38a comes from a story about King Worm who asks God to make him a human
being so that he could purportedly serve God’s subjects. God grants the worm’s

15
wish. After some time, God and St. Peter pay King Worm a visit. They dress
themselves up as paupers to find out if he would still be able to recognize them.
The particular motive for the visit—which is to put King Worm to the test-- is
captured by adtoon. The use of mangadto in this context would simply mean that
God and St. Peter planned to go to King Worm’s house with no specific intention
in mind.

Tagalog
(39) a. N=agbasa siya ng libro.
PAST.INT(m-).[pag=read] 3ABS.SG OBL book.
`He did book-reading.’

b. B<in>asa niya ang libro.

<PAST>. read.TR(-en) 3ERG.SG ABS book.
`He read the book.’

In these made up Tagalog examples, reading as a general and leisurely activity (39a)
and as a conscious, deliberate and particular act undertaken to affect a book (39b) is
illustrated.

G. Internal vs. External action. Intransitive actions are inherently internal, while
transitive actions seek external targets.

Tagalog
(40) a. B<in>alik=an niya si Fe sa Broadway Centrum.
PAST=[return=TR (-an)] 3ERG.SG ABS.PER Fe at Broadway Centrum
`He went back to pick Fe up at the Broadway Centrum. ‘ (PD, p. 76)

b. B<um>alik siya sa pick-up.

PAST.INT (-um)=return 3ABS.SG OBL pick up truck
`He went back to the pick-up truck.’

The next examples involve the use of the “causative” pa- construction in Tagalog.
Earlier accounts highlight the “addition” of a causee in this clausal type. What is
glaringly omitted in those accounts are the reflexive reading in 41a and the purely
causative interpretation in 41b.

Tagalog
(41) a. N=agpaluto ako ng adobo sa nanay ko.
INT (m-)=[pag=(pa=cook)] 1ABS.SG OBL adobo OBL mother my
`I asked my mother to cook adobo (for me).’

b. P<in>aluto ko ng adobo ang nanay ko.

PAST.pa=cook)=TR(-in) 1ERG.SG OBL adobo ABS mother my
`I asked my mother to cook adobo.’

Ilokano

16
(42) <in>asitgan=na ni Mauricia.
PAST=[go.near=TR (-an)]=ERG.SG ABS Mauricia
`He (the referee) approached Mauricia.’ (FM, p. 9)

(43) S<in>itsit=an ni Diputado Agaton

PAST.psst=TR (-an) ERG Congressman Agaton

ti guardia. <imm>asideg daytoy

ABS guard PAST.INT (-um-)= near ABS.here

`Congressman said “psst” to the guard. He (the guard) drew closer.’ (TA, p. 8)

In (42), the female boxer Mauricia has just hit the canvas from a powerful blow from her
opponent. The referee quickly approaches to start counting her out. In (43), what is
predicated is the internally directed movement of the guard drawing closer to the one who
has called him.

The following example was taken from the King Worm story. King Worm
couldn’t recognize God and St. Peter in their pauper’s clothes. When God asks him for a
drink of water, he orders a servant to bring him water given to chickens. God decides
to reveal himself to King Worm and takes him to task.

Sebwano

(44) Unya, gi=atubang sa atong Ginoo si Haring Wati..

Later <PAST> turn towards.TR (-un) ERG our Lord ABS.PER King Worm
`Later, the Lord confronted King Worm.’

The intransitive counterpart of giatubang is miatubang which means `to turn one face
towards someone.’ The use of miatubang in the above context is patently too weak a
depiction of this confrontation scene.

H. Effortful vs. effortless. To me, one of the hallmarks of a transitive construction is

the great amount of effort that an agent pours into carrying out an action or activity.

Sebwano
(45) a. “N=angita ko sa isda=ng
PAST.INT(m-)=(pang=look for) 1ABS.SG OBL fish=LKR

wala=y bukog.’ (CFT1, p.41)

no=LKR bone.

`I am looking for the fish with no bones.’

b. `Gi=pangita nako ang isda=ng

PAST=[(pang=look for)=TR(-in)] 1ERG.SG ABS.NPER fish=LKR

17
 wala=y bukog.’
no=LKR bone.

`I am searching for the fish with no bones.’

Tagalog

(46) a. L<um>angoy sila sa ilog.

PAST.INT (-um-).swim 3ABS.PL OBL river
`They went swimming in the river.’

b. Ni=langoy nila ang ilog.

PAST.swim=TR (-in) 3ERG.PL ABS river
`They swam the river ( and conquered it).’

The Sebwano and Tagalog examples are fairly clear and straightforward, but the
Manuvuq examples need elaboration.

Manuvuq

(47) a. Id=susu rin kon en ini so togotong.

PAST=[(suck milk)]=TR(-en) 3ERG.SG heresay already ABS.DEM LKR eggplant.

`It is said that he (the baby) sucked the eggplant of its milk.’

b. Idsusu sikandin kon en dutut togotong.

PAST=[INT(-um-)=suck milk] 3ABS.SG heresay already OBL.there eggplant

`It is said that he (the baby) nursed at the eggplant.’

(47a) was lifted from a story narrated to me by Mercedes Alan about three children
whose mother had died and whose father had remarried. As expected, the stepmother
was of the cruel kind who didn’t care for the children. The youngest was still a baby
who constantly cried of hunger. One day, an eggplant suddenly emerged from the
ground. It so happened that the tip of the eggplant touched the baby’s lips. The hungry
baby sucked and sucked into the eggplant until he was able to extract milk from it --
doubtless an effortful enterprise. 47b is the effortless alternative to 47a, as if milk is
naturally obtainable in an eggplant. The two verb forms in (47a) and (47b) are the same,
except that the baby in (47a) is encoded in the ergative and the eggplant in the absolutive,
while in (47b) the baby is absolutive and the eggplant oblique.

I. Exclusivity and non-exclusivity of the P. Hopper and Thompson (1980) spoke of

semantic individuation and how referents may be rendered specific through the use of
pronouns, names, pronouns and definitizers. In this article, we distinguish between
semantic individuation from grammatical individuation of the P, where voice and case

18
mutually signal exclusivity and non-exclusivity of a semantic patient. The next examples
are illustrative:

Sebwano
(48) a. N=amukaw pa gani kami
PAST. INT(m-)=(pang= wake up) even had-to 1ABS.PL

kang Manang Tacia. (DAH, p. 3)

OBL Manang Tacia

`We even woke Manang Tacia up.’

b. Gipukaw pa gani namo si Manang Tacia..

gi-PAST.-TR.wake up even had.to 1ERG.PL ABS.DET Manang Tacia.

`We even had to wake Manang Tacia up.’

The clause in (48a) was taken from a love story in Bisaya magazine. Cita, while on
vacation from school, meets Dading in Cagayan de Oro, a city in the southern
Philippines. He courts her, but just as they were getting to really know each other,
vacation is over. She has to board a ship back to Oroquieta City to resume her studies.
Cita promises to give her answer to Dading’s proposal when he sees her off at the pier.
Dading fails to make it to the send-off. Cita leaves him a note in the care of Trining
and Charing. They take the note to Dading’s boarding place late at night. But, Manang
Tacia, the caretaker, is already fast asleep. The clause in (48a) is what Trining and
Charing tell Dading when they meet him.

The analysis of 48a and 48b is as follows. 48a means that Manang Tacia may
have not been the only one awakened from her sleep. The entire house or even the
neighbors may have been, too. 48a also indicates that the rousing may have been
accomplished by knocking at the front door or gate or by shouting from the street.
This probably explains why others may have been unduly awakened. The verb gipukaw
means that it was Manang Tacia who was the only target of the waking event and she was
awakened directly at her bedside. This is what we mean when we say that Manang
Tacia is more individuated in 48b when it is marked as the absolutive than when it is
marked by a mere oblique, as in 48a, In this regard, we claim that there is only one
grammatical argument , an S, (kami) in 48a, compared to the distinct A (namo) and
distinct P (si Manang Tacia) in 48b. Notice, too, the more direct, more effortful, more
immediate, more active, and more intentional character of the action in 48b than in
48a. This is what is meant by grammatical individuation and exclusivity of the P.

(49) a. B<um>ili rin siya ng isa pa=ng pares ng

PAST.INT (-um-).=buy also 3ABS.SG OBL one more=LKR pair OBL

rubber sandals para kay Fe.

rubber sandals for OBL.PER Fe

19
 `He also bought another pair of rubber sandals for Fe.’

b. Ib<in>ili rin niya si Fe ng isa pa=ng

PAST. TR (i-)=buy also 3ERG.SG 1ABS.PER.SG Fe OBL one more=LKR

pares ng rubber sandals.

pair OBL rubber sandals.

`He also bought Fe another pair of sandals.’

(49a) comes from the novel entitled “Puto at Dinuguan” by Edgar Reyes. Andy and Fe
have just escaped from a street flood, caused by heavy rains. They decide to wait it out
in a shopping mall. Andy thinks of buying new clothes and changing the wet ones he’s
wearing. He buys a pair of rubber sandals and buys another pair for Fe. While Fe is
individuated and the beneficiary of Andy’s action, it is contended that Fe is not the sole
beneficiary of the buying action. She is not singled out as the most affected entity, and
therefore this explains why the clause is intransitive and the beneficiary is merely
encoded as an oblique. It would have been different, had (49b) been used. 49b speaks
of a buying action where Fe is the exclusive semantic beneficiary. In fact, this
construction in 49b puts in an added sense in that Fe gains a second pair of sandals.

J. Wholly Affected and Partially Affected P.

Consider the following Ilokano example in (50a). It comes from another love
story in the Bannawag magazine, entitled: “Lakay Igme: Maysa nga Ama” (Old Igme:
A Father). The story opens with Mando asking Lakay Igme’s only daughter ‘s (Elsa)
hand in marriage. Lakay Igme agrees but only under the following condition:

(50) a. “Sipapalubos=ak nga ag=kasar=kayo ngem masapul

agree=1ABS.SG LKR INT.ag=marry=2ABS.PL but necessary

nga i=subli=m ti nagasto=k

LKR i-.TR=return=2ERG.SG ABS.DET spent=I

iti panagadal na. Lima ribu!”,

OBL.DET studies her five thousand (pesos)

`I agree, but you must return (all) the money I spent in sending her
to school. Five thousand pesos!’

b. “…mang=i=subli ka iti nagasto=k…

…m-(pang=i-.TR=return) 2ABS.SG OBL spent=I

The verb in 50a (boldfaced) can be replaced by that in 50b, but not without a
corresponding drastic change in meaning. Under the same circumstances, 50b would
have a more generalized meaning of giving back something, which may or may not be

20
in the form of money. Pragmatically, the default reading is to return a portion of what
was spent, and not the entire amount. In other words, the ti nagastok iti panag-adal na
in 50a is a wholly affected entity than the same argument appearing in the oblique in 50b.
Moreover, there is also a difference in intensity in these imperative constructions. The
more intense, more urgent and more command-like is 50a. 50b is more like a request
than anything else, which the addressee is free to comply with or not. Under our
analysis, 50a is more transitive while 50b is more intransitive.

The Koronadal Blaan examples below also demonstrate the partitive and wholistic
reading in the affectedness of a semantic patient.

Koronadal Blaan

(51) tumu ni, aluwaq gu ni alas gu ni.

Good this give out 1ERG this poison 1ERG this

“It’s better if I just give out all of my poison.”

(52) amti la amsut dee na m=inum ale dituq di

all they appeared then and INT(m-)=drink 3ABS here OBL

alas alwaq.
poison gave.out

`All of them came and drank from the poison given out.’

The above examples originated from a story told to me by Isidro Pandan. The python
used to be the most poisonous of all the snakes, but was tricked by the crow into giving
out all its poison. The snake had just bitten a girl who was bathing by the river. The
snake did not know what became of the girl, and so he asked the crow to go to her house
and check. The crow learned that the girl had indeed died but reported to the snake that
she continued to live. This drove the snake into depression, and so he decided to give
out all his poison, as quoted in (51) as him saying. Even if there is no voice affix in the
verb, we know this to be a transitive construction because the A is assigned the ergative,
while the P is assigned the absolutive. To continue the story, the snake invited all his
subjects to partake of the poison that he has just released in a large leaf. (52) tells that
many came and drank from the poison. Notice how the verb `drink’ is encoded. It is
with an intransitive voice affix. The agent is encoded in the absolutive while the poison
is in the oblique. In (52), the poison is only partially affected, compared to (51), where
it is fully affected.

8. Generalizations:

21
 It would appear then that transitivity has been fully grammaticized into the case
marking strategies and in the voice system of PLs. I interpet this to mean that case and
voice are indicators of transitivity in PLs so much so that the following generalizations
can be made with a high degree of confidence. First, a transitive construction is one
where the A (the source of the action) is encoded in the ergative case and the P (the most
affected entity) is encoded in the absolutive case. An intransitive construction is one
where the S-- representing the source of the action and the most affected entity at the
same time—is assigned the absolutive. Second, a transitive construction is one where
the verb contains any of the voice affixes –in, -an and i-, or their equivalents in the other
PLs. An intransitive construction is one when the verb contains the voice affix –um- or
its allomorph m-.

9. Conclusion:

While more linguists have come to accept the ergative nature of Philippine
morphosyntax, many more have remained skeptical of, and unconvinced by, this view.
The reason for this is understandable considering that most work subscribing to the
ergative analysis has tended to focus on the formal aspects of the phenomenon,
downplaying its semantic, pragmatic and discourse motivations, with a few notable
exceptions like Mithun 1994. The meaning–based and formal evidence all points to the
robust manifestation of the ergative-absolutive relation in Philippine-type languages and
conversely to the weak grammaticization of the starting point or subject-object relation.
This presentation has attempted to deepen our understanding on how transitivity
influences speaker’s choice of grammatical structures, especially in the assignment of
case to arguments and in the selection of voice affixes. To understand Philippine
ergativity, one must understand Philippine transitivity. Our proposal has been for a
conceptual (re)formulation of transitivity in PLs in terms of source of action and most
affected entity. In sum, what Philippine ergativity really means is that speakers give the
highest degree of prominence to the most affected entity.

Selected references:

Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edition.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic typology, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 329-
394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd Edition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooreman, Ann. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In Barbara A. Fox and
Paul J. Hopper, eds., Voice: form and function, 49-88. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
DeLancey, Scott. 1982. Aspect, transitivity and viewpoint. Tense aspect: Between
semantics and pragmatics, ed. by Paul J. Hopper, 167-183. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

22
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Lg. 55.59-74.
Dryer, Matthew. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In J. Bybee, J. Haiman,
and S. Thompson, eds., Essays on language function and language type, 115-143.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dubois, Carl. 1976. Sarangani Manobo: an introductory guide. PJL Special Monograph
Issue, 6). Manila: LSP.
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in
syntax, 343-365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805-855.
Du Bois, John W., William Ashby, and Lorraine Kumpf, eds. 2003. Preferred argument
structure: the next generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fox, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper, eds. 1994. Grammatical voice: Its form and function.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T., ed. 1998. Grammatical relations. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in
language 14:25-72.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse.”
Language 56, 2:251-299.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical
categories in universal grammar. Lg. 60.4: 703-752.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new
typology of language, 457-489. In Charles N. Li, ed., Subject and topic. New
York: Academic Press.
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1988. “Affectedness and control: A typologicalstudy of voice
systems. In Shibatani, 1988.
Mallinson, Graham and Barry Blake. 1981. Language Typology. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Co.
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67.
510-546.
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. “The role and motivation in the emergence of grammatical
categories: The grammaticization of subjects.” In Elizabeth Traugott and Bernd
Heine (eds). Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II, 159-184. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. “The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system.”
In Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice Form and Function, 247-277.
Amstersam: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne and Wallace Chafe. 1999. What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language
23.3: 569-596.
Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. 2003. Ang Pagkatransitibo at Ikinergatibo ng mga Wikang Pilipino.
Ph.D Dissertation. University of the Philippines- Diliman
Otanes, Fe T. and Hazel J. Wrigglesworth, eds. 1992. SIPL/Binukid Dictionary 9:2,
Manila: LSP and SIL,
Schachter, Paul and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference Grammar, Berkeley:
University of California Press.

23
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passive and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Lg.
61:821-848.
Shibatani, Masayoshi, ed. 1988. Passive and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shopen, Timothy, ed. 1985. Language typology and syntactic description (3 volumes).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and
argument structure: evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee and Paul J.
Hopper, eds., Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Van Valin, Robert and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Verhaar, John. 1990. How intransitive is intransitive? Studies in Language 14.1: 93-168.

24