Tagalog Focus

Raphael Mercado

     Tagalog has two Focus constructions.  One construction, which I refer to as the Philippine Linguistics Topic- or PLT-focus construction, is used for focalising specific, non-oblique arguments, as in (1).  (Normally, PLTs act as subjects of the sentence.)  The other, which I call the oblique- or OBL-focus construction, is used for focalising obliques, as in (2).

     My objectives are two-fold:  present the different properties of PLT-foci and OBL-foci and provide a structural analysis of Tagalog Focus.

     Applying Szabolcsi (1981)’s exhaustivity test, I show that PLT-foci and OBL-foci are instances of Focus.  By using facts from the Ay-inversion construction of Tagalog (Schachter and Otanes (1972)), I show that the PLT-focus is a predicate in a copular construction, while the OBL-focus is not a predicate and is not in a copular construction.

     These various findings raise many questions:  How can the PLT-focus and the OBL-focus be both true instances of Focus when they have very different properties?  What kind of syntactic structure is involved in these two constructions?

     Following Zubizarreta (1998)’s Generalised TP analysis and Alboiu (2000, 2002)’s analysis of Romanian Focus constructions, and contrary to Rizzi (1997, 2002)’s Expanded CP analysis for Italian, I propose that PLT-foci and OBL-foci raise to Spec-TP, where they check a parasitic [Focus]-feature that has incorporated onto T°.  I adopt Rackowski (2002)’s approach to Tagalog phrase structure, in which Spec-TP is empty and is available for movement; subjects only go as far as the edge of Spec-vP.  I also assume, following Paul (2001, 2002), that the presuppositional statement (in square brackets) in the PLT-focus constructions in (1) and (4) is a headless relative clause in subject position (i.e. at the edge of vP).  As for the OBL-focus construction, the presuppositional statement—in square brackets in (2) and (3)—is a normal declarative sentence. 

     Regarding predication, I assume Massam and Smallwood (1997)’s Predicative EPP analysis.  According to their approach, this [EPPpred]-feature can be checked in two different ways.  In the PLT-focus construction, it is checked via a Spec-Head relationship by moving the VP composed of a null copula and the PLT-focus to Spec-TP.  In the OBL-focus construction, the overt verb moves to T° and checks the [EPPpred]-feature through head movement.

     With this structure, I account for the predicative properties of the PLT-focus and the non-predicative properties of the OBL-focus, while presenting a unified approach to Focus in Tagalog.  I also account for the presence of what Paul (2001, 2002) refers to as the bodyguard (in underlined italics) in the OBL-focus construction, as in (3), and for its absence in the PLT-focus construction, as in (4).  The bodyguard cannot be extracted from the presuppositional statement of a PLT-focus construction because such a presuppositional statement is a complex DP and, thus, forms an island.

     This analysis is ideal because it not only accounts for Tagalog Focus, but it can also be extended to Tagalog WH-questions.  WH-arguments, as in (5), are similar to PLT-foci, and WH-adjuncts, as in (6), are similar to OBL-foci.

Data:

(1)  Ang  pansit   [ang  kinain  ni      Juan  sa  kusina].

       plt   noodles    plt  ate       nom  Juan  in  kitchen

      “It was the noodles that Juan ate in the kitchen.”

(2)  Sa  kusina  [kinain  ni      Juan   ang   pansit].

       in   kitchen   ate        nom  Juan   plt   noodles

      “It was in the kitchen that Juan ate the noodles.”

(3)  Sa  kusina  ni      Juan   [kinain  ang  pansit].

       in   kitchen  nom  Juan     ate       plt  noodles

      “It was in the kitchen that Juan ate the noodles.”

(4)  * Ang pansit    ni      Juan   [ang  kinain   sa  kusina].

          plt   noodles  nom  Juan     plt  ate         in  kitchen

         “It was the noodles that Juan ate in the kitchen.”

(5)  a.  Ano [ang   kinain  ni      Juan  sa  kusina]?  b. * Ano  ni      Juan [ang  kinain sa  kusina]?

           what    plt   ate       nom  Juan  in  kitchen          what  nom  Juan    plt ate       in  kitchen

          “What did Juan eat in the kitchen?”                     “What did Juan eat in the kitchen?”

(6)  a.  Saan [kinain  ni     Juan  ang  pansit]?     b.  Saan   ni      Juan  [kinain  ang  pansit]?

           where  ate       nom Juan  plt  noodles           where  nom  Juan    ate  plt  noodles

           “Where did Juan eat the noodles?”                 “Where did Juan eat the noodles?”

References:

Alboiu, Gabriela.  2000.  The Features of Movement in Romanian.  Doctoral Thesis.  University of Manitoba.  ms.

Alboiu, Gabriela.  2002.  Operator Asymmetries in Romanian: Syntax and/or Phonology?.  Paper presented at LSRL 32, University of Toronto, April 19-21.

Massam, Diane and Carolyn Smallwood.  1997.  Essential Features of Predication in English and Niuean.  Proceedings of NELS 27.  Graduate Linguistics Students’ Association, UMass Amherst.

Paul, Ileana.  2001.  Concealed pseudo-clefts.  Lingua 111:707-727.

Paul, Ileana.  2002.  Multiple Topics:  Evidence from Malagasy.  Paper presented at AFLA 9, Cornell University, April 26-28.

Rackowski, Andrea.  2002.  Voice and Configurational Case in Tagalog.  Paper presented at AFLA 9, Cornell University, April 26-28.

Rizzi, Luigi.  1997.  The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.  in Elements of Grammar.  ed.  Liliane Haegeman.  Kluwer.

Rizzi, Luigi.  2002.  Cartography, Locality and Asymmetries.  Paper presented at the 32^nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Toronto, April 19-21.

Schachter, Paul and Fe T. Otanes.  1972.  Tagalog Reference Grammar.  Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:  University of California Press.

Szabolcsi, Anna.  1981.  The semantics of topic-focus articulation.  in Formal methods in the study of language.  eds.  Jan Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof.  Amsterdam:  Matematisch Centrum.

Zubizarreta, Maria.  1998.  Prosody, Focus and Word Order.  Cambridge:  MIT Press.