대한언어학회 전자저널

Song, Kyung-An & Lee, Eun-Ha. (2018). On typological issues of the Tagalog language. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 26(4), 177-201. The purpose of this paper is to explore typological issues and characteristics of the Tagalog language through which we would like to contribute to the typological discussion of this language in Korea. Tagalog is one of the frequently cited and discussed languages in modern studies of typology. Important issues thereby include ergativity,subject- hood, basic word order, and voice, which are closely related to one another. Because of the characteristic features of this language, a new linguistic term was invented, i.e. the Philippine type clause, indicating the difficulties in finding a clear solution to the issues. In this paper we examine these issues on the basis of the language data we collected through interviews with a native speaker of Tagalog. Through our analysis of this data, we reached the conclusion that Tagalog could basically be considered an ergative language with the VSO basic word order, and a rich voice system. Beside this, the copula construction, the distinction between nouns and verbs, the development of articles, the tense system, and the relative prominence of aspect are also important typological issues of the Tagalog language. No copula or copula-like element is attested in this language. Contrary to previous discussions such as those by Himmelmann (1987) and Sasse (1993), there seems to be a clear-cut distinction between nouns and verbs in Tagalog: only the verbs are conjugated, but not the nouns. It is also noteworthy that Tagalog has no tense system and it is an aspect-prominent language, i.e. the aspect is generally realized in sentences, unlike the tense and mood.

# 타갈로그어(Tagalog) # 능격언어(ergative language) # 필리핀식 문장구조(Philippine type clause) # 계사구조(copula construction) # 무관사 언어(article- less language) # 상중심 언어(aspect-pro

• 송경안. (2008). 격의 유형론. 송경안, 이기갑 외. 언어유형론 2 (pp. 9-53). 서울: 월인출판사.
• 송경안. (2011). 독일어의 새로운 이해. 개정판. 서울: 신아사.
• 송경안, 이기갑 외. (2008). 언어유형론 1. 서울: 월인출판사.
• 윤경원. (2012). 한국어와 타갈로그어 대조연구 -형태론적 특징과 어순을 중심으로-. 겨레어문학, 48, 301-326.
• 정규영. (2008). 아랍어의 품사. 송경안, 이기갑 외. 언어유형론 1 (pp. 146-157). 서울: 월인출판사.
• 진남택, 손재현 역. (2013). 언어학. 서울: 제이엔씨. (風間喜代三·上野善道·松村一登·町田 健. (2004). 言語學. 東京: 東京大學出版會.)
• 허성태, 임흥수. (2008). 러시아어의 품사. 송경안, 이기갑 외. 언어유형론 1 (pp. 134-145). 서울: 월인출판사.
• Andrew, A. (2007). The major functions of the noun phrase. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language tpology and syntactic description. Vol. 1 (pp. 132-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Aspillera, P. S., & Hernandez, Y. C. (2014). Basic Tagalog for foreigners and non-Tagalogs. North Clarendon: Tuttle Publishing.
• Baker, M. (2003). Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bhat, S. D. N. (1999). The Prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Bisang, W. (2011). Word classes. In J.-J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 280-302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Blake, B. (1994). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Churchward, C. M. (1953). Tongan grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Comrie, B. (2018). Alignment of case marking. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (Chap. 81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• De Vos, F. (2011). Essential Tagalog grammar: A reference for learners of Tagalog. Laguna/Berlin: Learning Tagalog.
• Dixon, D. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dryer, M. (2005/2018). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 330-333). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dryer, M. (2007). Word order. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1 (pp. 161-131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dryer, M. (2018a). Definite articles. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (Chap. 37). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (on-line version).
• Dryer, M. (2018b). Indefinite articles. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (Chap. 38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (on-line version).
• Gerdts, D. (1988). Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In R. McGinn (Ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics (pp. 295-321). Athens: Ohio University Press.
• Gil, D. (2000). Syntactic categories, cross-linguistic variation and universal grammar. In P. Vogel, & B. Comrie (Eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (pp. 173-216). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Hawkins, J. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
• Himmelmann, Jr., N. (1987). Morphosyntax und Morphologie - Die Ausrichtungs- affixe im Tagalog. München: Wilhelm Fink.
• Keenan, E., & Dryer, M. (2007). Passive in the world's languages. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Second edition (pp. 325-361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kroeger, P. (1993). Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1976). Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457-490). New York: Academic Press.
• Palancar, E. (2009). Varieties of ergativity. In A. Malchukov, & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 562-571). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Payne, T. (1982). Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language, 6(1), 75-106.
• Perlmutter, D. M., & Postal, P. (1983). Toward a universal characterization of passivization. In D. Perlmutter (Ed.), Studies in relational grammar (pp. 11- 29). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Plank, F. (1979) (Ed.). Ergativity. New York: Academic Press.
• Pustet, R. (2003). Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
• Ramos, T. (1985). Conversational Tagalog. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
• Rijkhoff, J. (2000). When can a language have adjectives? In P. Vogel & B. Comrie (Eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (pp. 217-257). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Sasse, H.-J. (1993). Syntactic categories and subcategories. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook (pp. 646-685). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Schachter, P. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 491-518). New York: Academic Press.
• Schachter, P. (1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 8. (pp. 279-306). New York: Academic Press.
• Schachter, P. (1985). Parts of speech system. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. (pp. 3-61). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.
• Schachter, P. (1996). The subject in Tagalog: still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Schachter, P., & Otanes, T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Siewierska, A. (1984). The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.
• Siewierska, A. (2005). Passive constructions. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 434-437). Oxford: Oxford University Press.