The Syntax of Pronominal Preposing in Tagalog and Kana

Michael Wilson I. Rosero

Linguistics 206: Grammatical Analysis 1

1. Introduction

The basic word order in Philippine languages is assumed to be predicate-initial. A clause is

typically verb-initial; arguments (which can be nominal, pronominal or anaphora) usually follow
the verb, with pronouns occupying the second position as enclitics. Although predicate-initial
construction is the most common order of constituents in Philippine-type languages, there are
instances where this basic word order is altered due to pragmatic factors. There are
special circumstances in which arguments are placed in a pre-predicate position. In this study,
this movement is referred to as preposing.

In Tagalog, preposed elements occupy the leftmost part of the clause, the pre-verbal position. In
the examples below, the preposed elements are underlined and their previous position in the
clause has been struck out.

(1) Ang bata ang kumain ng mangga ang bata (cleft)

(2) Bukas siya aalis bukas (oblique fronting)

(3) Kay Ampi bumili si Ben ng basi kay Ampi (topicalization)

(4) Siya ay nadistrak siya (ay-inversion)

(5) Madalas nagsisimba si Ampi madalas. (adjunct/oblique fronting)

(6) Kanyang kinain niya ang mangga (pronominal preposing)

(7) *Ni Amado, ininom ni Amado ang basi

As shown in examples (1)-(5), absolutives (ang/si-phrase), oblique and adjunct phrases can be
preposed while in (7), the ergative (ng/ni-phrases) like ni Amado is not allowed. However, in
sentence (6), the ergative pronoun niya is preposed and assumed a different form kanya (which is
morphologically similar to the 3rd person oblique pronoun) combined with a linker na.

The same can be said about Cebuano-Kana. However, while pronominal preposing (6) in
Tagalog is a pragmatically marked construction, it is quite grammaticalized in Kana. Kana
preposed constructions exhibit higher percentage of occurrence than the unmarked postposed
constructions. Kana tends to have predicate-medial tendency, favoring preposed constructions
over postposed ones1.

1
Although Tagalog allows preverbal pronouns to occur, the percentage of its occurrence is not that significant.
Unlike Kana, Tagalog constructions prefer the basic (postposed) constructions over preposed (Rosero, 2011).
This research will examine the preposing phenomenon in Tagalog and Kana, a variant of
Cebuano spoken in Southern Leyte. Speakers of Kana tend to favor preposed constructions over
unmarked postposed constructions. It aims to: a) determine the position that fronted elements
occupy in the clause; b) identify the different types of nominal arguments that can be preposed;
and c) identify the forms of these nominal arguments.

2. Syntactic Structure of Ergative Languages

Tagalog and Kana are both predicate-initial languages. However, Kana deviates from this basic
typology and exhibits predicate-medial tendency which is evident in its preference to preposed
constructions. Both languages also follow ergative pattern (Nolasco, 2003; Rosero, 2011).

In these languages, the sole argument of the intransitive construction and the object (or the most
affected entity) of the transitive construction is marked with absolutive case. The source of the
action is marked with the ergative case. The absolutive case are marked by ang/si while the
ergative case is marked by ng/ni.

In her analysis of Tagalog syntax, Aldridge (2004) assumed an ergative analysis and explored
the cross-linguistic observation that absolutive DPs is the privileged syntactic argument and that
the ability of a DP to undergo A-extraction is correlated with its ability to check absolutive case.

According to Aldridge (2004), external arguments are marked with ergative case and an internal
argument is given absolutive case, in transitive clauses in ergative languages. In intransitive
clauses, including antipassives, it is the highest argument in a clause which checks absolutive
case. The external argument in antipassives is the sole argument in simple intransitives. In
transitive clauses, it is the absolutive case-marked internal argument which can be extracted
while it is the external arguments that are able to undergo A-movement in antipassives.

Furthermore, Aldridge (2004) proposes that in ergative languages, absolutive case is checked by
either v or T, depending on the transitivity of the clause. Ergative languages also have only one
structural case (the absolutive), unlike accusative languages which have two structural cases that
can be checked. Meanwhile, ergative case is inherent which is assigned to the external agument
by v.

The transitivity of v determines which functional head checks absolutive case. If v is transitive, it
is merged with the absolutive case feature. However, since only one structural case is available
in an ergative language, T will not check case in transitive clauses. When v is intransitive, it does
not carry a case feature and absolutive case feature will be merged with T.

The diagram below illustrates Aldridges (2004) analysisof Tagalog transitive clause. As
outlined by Aldridge (2004), the uninterpretable case feature is merged on v. This feature probes
down into c-command domain to establish an Agree relation and value the case feature of the
closest DP.
8. Aldridges (2004) basic transitive clause
TP

V+v+T vP

DP[Erg] v

tV+v[uCase:Abs] VP

tV DP[uCase:Abs]

In an intransitive clause (see 9), v does not carry a case feature. It is the T which checks and
values thecase feature of the closest DP in its c-command domain (Aldridge, 2004). This DP will
be the external argument in an antipassive or unergative clause. In an unaccusative, this will be
the internal argument.

9. Aldridges (2004) basic intransitive clause

TP

V+v+T[uCase:Abs] vP

DP[uCase:Abs] VP

10. Aldridges (2004) applicative construction

TP

V+T vP

DP[Erg] v

v[Abs] ApplP

DP[Abs] Appl

i- VP
 Tagalog also has applicative constuctions. These clauses are always transitive and absolutive
case is being licensed on the applied object. Following Marantz (1993) and Pylkkanen (2002),
Aldridge (2004) proposes that applicative heads a phrase ApplP and selects the applied DP as its
argument. ApplP is merged directly below vP. In such case, the applied argument will always be
the closes available goal for the probe on v and will always have absolutive case in the clause.

3. Preposing in Philippine Languages

Preposing occurs when an argument or a part of a clause moves to the left of the verb, occupying
the leftmost position in a clause. This position can either be [Spec,IP] or [Spec,CP]. Rizzi (1997)
proposes that like IP, CP can also be split into several projections. The diagram below illustrates
the structure of CP:

11. The fine structure of the left periphery (Rizzi, 1997)

ForceP

Force TopP*

specifies
clause type Top FocP

hosts
topics Foc TopP
hosts foci,
wh-phrases
Top FinP
hosts more
topics

Fin IP
marks
finiteness

As viewed from the outside, the complementizer indicates what type of clause it is. From the
inside, the complementizer shows a certain degree of sensitivity to the finiteness of the IP. CP
also host dislocated things (generally topics and foci).

In Tagalog, as well as in Kana, there are different types of preposed constructions. These
constructions are listed below:
13. Cleft/Contrastive Focus (Tagalog)
Ang mangga ang k-in-ain ng bata
ABS mango LKR PERF.TR-eat ERG child
It is the mango that the child ate.

14. Topicalization (Tagalog)

Ang mangga, k-in-ain ng bata
ABS mango PERF.TR-eat ERG child
As for the mango, the child ate it.

15. Focus/Ay-inversion (Tagalog)

Ang mangga ay k-in-ain ng bata
ABS mango LKR PERF.TR-eat ERG child
The mango was eaten by the child.

16. Oblique Fronting (Tagalog)

Linggo-linggo nag-si-simba si Amparo
weekly INT-<IMPF>go.to.church ABS Amparo
Amparo goes to church every week.

17. Topicalization (Kana)

Ang usa political science
ABS NUM N
Ang usa pud hing-proceed sa PhilosophyOBL
ABS NUM PRT INT.PERF-proceed OBL N
Unja nag-teacher na pud
CONJ INT.PERF-teacher PRT PRT
One (took up) political science, the other one continued on to Philosophy, and became a
teacher afterwards.

18. Contrastive construction (Kana)

An lalaki] na-mupu ug piras
ABS N INT.PST(m-)pick OBL N
The man, picked pears.

Different types of preposed elements occupy different positions in a clause. Kroeger (1998)
argues that topicalized arguments occupy the [Spec,CP] position and focus/ay-inverted
arguments occupy the [Spec,IP] in Tagalog, as schematized in the diagrams below:

19. Topicalization 20. Focus/ay-inversion

CP IP

Spec C Spec I

C IP I IP
He explains that clefting applies only to subjects, and the clefted element always bears pragmatic
foucs while ay-inversion normally applies to subjects in which the inverted element has the
properties of a pragmatic topic (Kroeger, 1998).

Cena (2011) argues that topicalized elements move to [Spec,CP] position, outside the IP while
fronting of oblique remains in [Spec,IP].

In this paper, we will follow Cenas (2011) claim and assume that ay-inverted element occupies
the [Spec,CP] position rather than remaining in [Spec,IP].

21. Topic Phrase

Si Ben, bumili siya ng bahay

ForceP

DP
si Ben

Force TopicP

DP
si Ben

Topic IP
#2 bumili ng bahay si Ben

22. Focus Phrase

Si Ben ay uminom ng basi.si Ben

FocusP

DP
si Ben

Focus IP
ay bumili ng bahay si Ben

2
An emphatic pause which heads the Topic phrase
23. Fronting
Kay Ampi bumili si Ben ng basi kay Ampi

IP

I AspP
kay Ampi
Asp

vP

v VP
bumili si Ben ng basi kay Ampi

In Tagalog, the elements that can be preposed include: a) absolutive DPs (which includes NPs
and pronominal arguments; b) adjunct and complement PPs; and d) oblique subordinate clauses.
Non-absolutive DPs are barred from movement.

Moreover, between the fronted elements and the predicate, an emphatic pause (as in
topicalization) or a linker is inserted (as in the case of focus/cleft and ay-inversion constructions).

It is worth mentioning that question clauses in Tagalog and Kana can be considered as a type of
contrastive focus constructions. The first element is the focused element and the second portion
describes, identifies and assigns a value to it. See the following examples:

24.a. [Sino] [ang tatay mo]? 24.b. [Si Jose] [ang tatay ko].

4. Pronominal Preposing in Tagalog and Kana

In the preceding sections, the different types of preposed constructions as well as the preposed
elements and the positions they occupy in a clause have been discussed. This section will
examine further that one type of preposed constructions, namely the pronominal preposing.

Pronouns in Tagalog and Kana are second-position clitics, which occupy the second position in a
clause, following the leftmost head or phrase (which is the predicate) within the CP projection.

Pronouns cliticize to fronted wh-word adjunct

25.a. Bakit niya t-in-awag ang bata?
QW 3ERG PERF.TR-call ABS child
Why did you call the child?
 Pronouns cliticize to a negator
25.b. Hindi niya t-in-awag ang bata
NEG 3ERG PERF.TR-call ABS child
He/She did not call the child.

The same can be said about Kana.

Pronouns cliticize to fronted wh-word adjunct
26.a. Kinsa imo=ng amahan
QW 2GEN=LKR father
Who is your father?

Pronouns cliticize to a negator

26.b. kay wa ja ma-himo
PURP NEG 3ABS INT.NEUT-do
There was nothing he could do.

Kanarek (2005) also observed that when a pronoun occurs in the clause-initial position, it
becomes the host for another clitics.

Absolutive cliticizes to CP-initial ergative

27.a. Kanya siya=ng t-in-awag
3ERG 3ABS PERF.TR-call
He/She called him/her.

Absolutive cliticizes to CP-initial ergative

27.b. Kanya ka=ng t-in-awag
3ERG 3ABS PERF.TR-call
He/She called you.

Although pronouns normally occur after the predicate or some other head in the clause, there are
cases where they can occur before the predicate, clause-initially as with the third-person ergative
pronoun niya in 27.b. The third-person ergative pronoun takes a different form which
morphologically identical to the oblique/genitive form kanya and is connected to the predicate by
the linker na (and its allomorph ng). In Kana, the third-person ergative pronoun niya, takes the
form ija and linked to the predicate by na as in 28.

28. ya=ng gi-dala ang usa ka bukag

3ERG=LKR PERF.TR-take ABS NUM LKR basket
He took one basket.

4.1. Phase Edge and Extraction Theory

Studies on Tagalog movement and extraction claim that only absolutive DPs and adjuncts PP can
move out of vP (Rackowski, 2002); Aldridge, 2004; Manueli, 2010). This is in accordance with
Chomskys (2000) phase theory of syntax. According to this theory, in order for some element to
be extracted out of a phase, it must be located at the edge of that phase, either by merging into
that position or by moving there. Movement to the edge of the phase is accomplished by an EPP-
feature that forces some argument within the domain of the phase head to move to check it.

Aside from its absolutive case-checking feature, Aldridge (2004) proposes that transitive v also
carries an EPP-feature, which attracts the closest DP to its outer specifier. This EPP-feature
allows an internal argument to undergo A-movement. However, in an antipassive, in which v is
intransitive, there is no absolutive case feature and EPP-feature. Thus, an internal argument
cannot be attracted to the vP phase edge. The external argument, however, is merged in the
specifier of v and therefore located in the vP phase edge in its base position and can be attracted
to [Spec, C].

29. Ang mangga ang kinain ng bata ang mangga.

CP

ang mangga C

C AspP
LKR
kain+--+-in- vP

DP[Erg] v
bata
tV+v[uCase:Abs] VP

tV DP[uCase:Abs]
kain mangga

30. Ang bata ang kumain ang bata ng mangga.

CP

ang bata C

C AspP
LKR
Asp

kain+v+-um-[uCase:Abs] vP

DP[uCase:Abs] VP

tV DP[uCase:Abs]
kain bata
Movement and extraction of other arguments is not allowed because of Chomskys (2001) Phase
Impenetrability Condition (PIC) which states that only the edge of the phase (vP, CP) is
accessible to operations. Aldridge (2004) formulated the stranded DP constraint which is the
reason by sentence (7) above, repeated here in 29 is ungrammatical:

31. *Ni Amado, ininom ni Amado ang basi

CP

ni Amado C

C AspP
LKR
inom+--+-in- vP

DP[Erg] v
ni Amado

tV+v[uCase:Abs] VP

tV DP[uCase:Abs]
inom basi

In summary, Aldridge (2004) points out the following claims:

a. In v is transitive, only the internal arguments can be A-extracted when they check
absolutive case and are attracted to the vP phase by the EPP feature on v.
b. In intransitive clauses, like antipassives, internal arguments are prevented from moving
because it does not check absolutive case feature and does not have an EPP feature to
attract a VP-internal DP.
c. In antipassive, only the external argument is eligible for extraction.

The claims above holds for Tagalog, and other ergative languages. However, Rosero (2011)
observed that Kana argument extraction and movement is not only limited to absolutive DPs.
Kana allows extraction of ergative pronouns. Although, not as free as Kana, Tagalog also
exhibits this type of behavior as demonstrated in 31a-b.

30. ya=ng gi-butang sa mga bukag

3ERG=LKR TR.PST-put OBL PL basket
ang ya=ng pinp nga mga pras]
ABS 3ERG=LKR TR.PST-pick LKR PL pears
He put the fruits he picked in the baskets.
31.a. T-in-awag niya ang bata
TR.PERF.call 3ERG ABS child

31.b. Kanya=ng t-in-awag ang bata

3ERG=LKR TR.PERF-call ABS child
He/She called the child. (Naylor 1980 in Kanarek 2005)

Kanarek (2005) observed that although pronouns normally occur to the right of the verb or some
other head in the clause, there are case where they can occur in the initial position of the clause,
to the left of the verb, as in 14.b. As shown in 14.b., the third person pronoun niya in 14.a takes a
different form when it occurs pre-verbally. which is morphologically identical to the
gentive/oblique kanya. The same pattern exists for other ergative pronouns (ko > akin; mo > iyo;
niya > kanya; namin > amin; natin > atin; ninyo > inyo; and nila > kanila).

The phase theory of movement only allow absolutive DPs and PPs (both adjuncts and
complements) to move and be extracted from the phase edge but restrict ergative DPs from
undergoing extraction. However, this only holds for ergative DPs.Tagalog and Kana have
exhibited that ergative pronouns can also be fronted without being ungrammatical.

32. Kanyang kinain niya ang mangga.

CP

kanya C

C AspP
LKR
kain+--+-in- vP

DP[Erg] v
niya
tV+v[uCase:Abs] VP

tV DP[uCase:Abs]
kain mangga
33. Ijang gibutang ang prutas sa bukag.
CP

ija C

C AspP
LKR
butang+--+-gi- vP

DP[Erg] v
niya
tV+v[uCase:Abs] VP

tV DP[uCase:Abs]
butang prutas

In 32, movement and extraction of the third-person ergative pronoun is prohibited by the phase
theory of syntax. Third-person ergative pronoun is not located in the edge and thus cannot be
extracted. Sentence 32 and 33 may be violations of the phase theory. However, this type of
construction is perfectly grammatical in Tagalog and Kana (see 33).

Kanarek (2005) formulated a diagram, shown below, to explain the occurence of pre-verbal
ergative pronouns in Tagalog. This structure may also be used to describe sentence 32 and 33.

34. Kanyang tinawag ang bata

AspP
ergative DP is stranded to
the left of the verb and
Asp
takes the free-standing
form
Asp vP
-in-

DP[Erg] v
kanya

v VP
verb moves to a
lower head
DP[ABS] V
ang bata

V DP[uCase:Abs]
tawag
According to Kanarek (2005), the verb is normally assumed to move to Asp to satisfy the verb-
initial word order. If the verb were only to move to a lower head, then the ergative DP would be
stranded to the left of the verb and that it will take the free-standing form and act as a target for
clitic movement.

Furthermore, Kanarek (2005), suggested that genitive/oblique and ergative pronoun forms are
free-standing and enclitic forms, respectively. The free-standing forms appear only when
cliticization is impossible because the pronoun has been sranded at the left edge of the domain of
cliticization. He derived this analysis from by claiming that verb does not move out of vP , thus
stranding the ergative pronoun to its left in a position where cliticization is impossible.

In this section, we explored the applicability of Chomskys phase theory of syntax to explain the
structure of preposed pronominal constructions in Tagalog and Kana. The theory seems to apply
in all preposed constructions but fail to explain the grammaticality of preposing of ergative
pronominals.

Table 1. Pronominal forms in Preposed and Postposed

Constructions in Tagalog and Kana
Person Ergative Ergative
(Postposed) (Preposed)
Singular Tagalog Kana Tagalog Kana
Singular
st
1 ko nako akin ako
nd
2 mo nimo iyo imo
rd
3 niya niya kanya iya
Plural
st
1 namin namo amin amo
2nd inclusive natin nato atin ato
2ndexclusive ninyo ninyo inyo inyo
rd
3 nila nila kanila ila

5. Summary
So far, we have shown the different types of preposed constructions in Tagalog and Kana,
namely: a) topicalization; b)cleft constructions; c) contrastive/ay-focus constructions; and e)
pronominal preposing. Both Kana and Tagalog transitive clauses allow movement and extraction
of absolutive DPs, adjunct and complement PPs. Both languages also permits ergative pronouns
to move and occupy the clause-initial position.

This study also explored the applicability of Chomskys (2000) phase theory of syntax on
pronominal preposing and found out that both Tagalog and Kana violate Phase Impenetrability
Condition by allowing a non-internal argument in a transitive construction to undergo movement
and extraction. Preposing of ergative pronouns is rather explained by Kanarek (2005), suggesting
that instead of moving to Asp to satisfy the predicate-initial word order or Tagalog, the verb
moves to a lower head, stranding the ergative DP to its left. The ergative pronoun will take the
free-standing form.

References

Abella, Genaline, et al. Kana Preposing and Word Order Re-structuring. Paper presented at the
1st Colloquium on the Waray Language. Tacloban: Leyte Normal University.

Adger, David. Core Concepts

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Phase Theory Account of Absolutive Extraction in Tagalog. Stony Brook
University

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. On Phases. MIT.

Cena, Resty. 2011. Sintaks ng Filipino. Quezon City: Visprint Inc.

Kanarek, Nathan. 2005. Pre-verbal Pronouns in Tagalog Syntax. In Heinz & Ntelitheos (eds),
Proceeding of AFLA XII, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no. 12.

Kroeger, Paul. 1998. Clitic and clause structure in Tagalog. In Bautista (ed), Pagtanaw: Essays
on the language in honor of Teodoro Llamzon. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.

Manueli, Ma. Khristina. 2010. A Minimalist Account of Scrambling and Word Order in Tagalog:
Testing its Grammaticality. In Philippine Social Sciences Review. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Nolasco, Ricardo. 2010. Grammar Notes on the National Language. Quezon City: University of
the Philippines-Diliman.

Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case
Study. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol 36, No. 4. MIT Press.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left-periphery. In Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rosero, Michael Wilson. 2011. Multiple Motivations for Preposing in Philippine Languages.
Paper presented at the 11th Philippine Linguistics Congress. Quezon City: University of
the Philippines-Diliman.