BOLLAS 1

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES-DILIMAN

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE ANAPHORS OF

TAGALOG, HILIGAYNON, AND ITAWIS

ABIGAIL A. BOLLAS

LINGUISTICS 166 JANUARY 2014

PROF. VIVECA HERNANDEZ

BOLLAS 2

List of abbreviations and symbols used

NP Noun Phrase

GB Government and Binding Theory

UG Universal Grammar

ERG Ergative

ABS Absolutive

PRE-POSS Pre-possessive

POST-POSS Post-possessive

REFLX Reflexive

DET Determiner

PRON Pronoun

ERG PER PRON Ergative Personal Pronoun

PRE-POSS PER PRON Pre-possessive Personal Pronoun

EPP Extended Projection Principle

Tag Tagalog

Hil Hiligaynon

Itw Itawis

PLs Philippine languages

* Ungrammatical

< from

( )

Parenthesized morphemes in the tables mean they are optional; parenthesized words mean they are variants.

BOLLAS 3

1.0 Introduction Syntax is basically the study of how words are related to each other when they are put up into a sentence. Anaphora shows the relation of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns to their antecedents therefore calls the need for syntactic analysis. Anaphora, as simply defined by Carnie (2006), is a noun phrase (NP) that obligatory takes its meaning from another NP in the sentence. The Government and Binding theory is very much needed in discussing anaphors therefore it will be employed in the paper. 1.1 Statement of the topic

The anaphors in Philippine languages are rarely discussed topics in Philippine linguistics. This paper tries to present the anaphors and the anaphoric relations of these anaphors present in the Philippine languages Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Itawis through the Government and Binding theory. 1.2 Scope and Limitations This paper focus on anaphors as expressed in Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Itawis. In relation to this, there will be also necessary explanations and analyses as to why and how these anaphors were considered as what they were, or so as to prove that they are really anaphors. In the Government and Binding theory, only Principle A directly discusses anaphors. This paper then tries to revolve only on this specific principle and will also try to elaborate other essential definitions in the theory. It must also be noted that this paper aims to produce an output of a list of verbs (in the 3 PLs) that are usually seen together with anaphors. This list, though, may not be as exhaustive as it should be due to time constraints. There might be questions on the exclusion of zero anaphora on this paper so it might be as well stated that analyzing zero anaphora is very different (i.e. it contrasts the principles of the theory) from how anaphors i.e. reflexive and reciprocal pronouns are analyzed using the Government and Binding theory.

BOLLAS 4

1.3 Framework Anaphors involve matters of binding and governing which calls for the Government and Binding theory (GB). The Government and Binding theory is developed by Noam Chomsky in 1981 which he originally called Principles and Parameters Theory (Cook & Newson, 2007). This is a development of Chomsky‟s transformational grammar and is under Chomsky‟s theory of Universal Grammar. GB basically covers the topics on the X-bar theory, transformations (deep and surface structures), movements, theta theory, case theory, binding theory, and principles and parameters. Principles and parameters according to Schneider (1998) are summarized as: “The core is common to all languages – these are the principles. The individual languages only differ in parameters. One such parameter is e.g. the order within constituents.” The binding theory which directly addresses anaphors will be the most discussed topic in this paper. The binding theory involves three principles (Haegeman, 1994):

Principle A: An anaphor must be bound in its governing category. Principle B: A pronoun must be free in its governing category. Principle C: An R-expression must be free everywhere.

Principle A will be the foundation of this paper which would also seek the rules on government to verify anaphors. The binding theory also includes concepts that are important in understanding how NPs are interpreted in this theory. One is A-binding which proposes that “(i) A is in an A-position; (ii) A c-commands B; and (iii) A and B are coindexed.” Another is the C-command which proposes that “a node A c-commands a node B if and only if: (i) A does not dominate B; (ii) B does not dominate A; and (iii) the first branching node dominating A also dominates B.” These two concepts verify whether NPs are within the boundaries of their respective Principles. The terms governing category (usually a clause), accessible subject, and subject are also matters of importance in discussing the binding theory (Haegeman, 1994).

BOLLAS 5

1.4 Methodology Secondary sources especially on anaphors and Government and Binding Theory are consulted in this paper. Primary data from elicitation of personally constructed anaphoric sentences and verbs usually seen in anaphoric sentences (see Appendix 2) are also handed to the informants of the respective languages (see Appendix 1). 1.5 Review of Related Literature

Unlike Itawis, Hiligaynon has a fair amount of written academic works. One of the earliest is Wolfenden‟s (1975) on Hiligaynon syntax which provides an introduction on the Hiligaynon language, its phonology and grammatical elements. This work includes a vast amount of discussion on Hiligaynon phrases and clauses using the tagmemic framework. Since this paper uses a GB framework, Wolfenden‟s work will only be used as references for sample clauses.

For Itawis, Jalotjot‟s (1937) master‟s thesis provided only a description of the verbal clauses in Itawis. This work is quite old and innovations in the Itawis language have certainly occurred which might be addressed in this paper though in the GB framework and will of course focus on anaphora. Another work for Itawis is Pamittan‟s (2011) undergraduate thesis. Pamittan (2011) provided a grammatical sketch for Itawis which contains the basics of the phonology of the language up to its syntax. This work though aside from being unpublished yet, uses no particular theoretical framework and is purely descriptive.

There is a very rich collection of references for Chomsky‟s GB theory. One is Haegeman‟s (1994) introduction to GB which provides a very comprehensive and step-by-step lecture, discussions, exercises for the basics and complexities of GB. Haegeman (1994) dedicates one chapter for each important concept in the GB theory. She discussed (as outlined per chapter) the lexicon and sentence structures, the phrase structure (chapter discussing X-bar theory), case theory, anaphoric relations and over NPs (chapter discussing the binding theory), non-overt categories: pro and control, transformations: NP movement, WH-movement, an inventory of empty categories, logical forms, barriers, functional heads and head movement, and relativized minimality. Schneider (1998) on the other hand provides a shorter version of an introductory lesson for GB which did not cover the topics discussed in the latter chapters of

BOLLAS 6

Haegeman (1994). Carnie‟s (2006) chapter on the binding theory provides the simplest explanation to understand the basic tenets of the binding theory. Topics covered in this chapter are notions and antecedents, binding, locality conditions on the binding of anaphors, distribution of pronouns, and the distribution of R-expressions.

BOLLAS 7

2.0 Anaphora in the Philippine languages Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Itawis 2.1 Tagalog (Tagalog-Bulacan [Obando]) In English, anaphora are simply seen in clauses containing reflexives (i.e. itself, himself, herself) and reciprocals (each other & one another) but there also pronouns and referential expressions (at least in the GB framework) that somehow manage to be like anaphors due to maximal projections and coindexation (Haegeman, 1994; Schneider, 1998). In Tagalog, reflexives are partly derived from personal pronouns. Take for example:

(1)Tinignan ko ang sarili ko. „I took a look at myself.‟ Here, ang sarili ko is the anaphor of its coreferent ko. It can be seen that reflexives in Tagalog are formed by the determiner ang, the word sarili „self‟, and any ergative personal pronoun (to be abbreviated as ERG PER PRON; also post-possessive personal pronouns) which must be in agreement with the pronoun in its antecedent i.e. they must be the same in number, person, and case. In short, ERG PER PRON-derived anaphors must have the same pronoun like in its antecedent. If we will see sentence (1), ko in the antecedent is in correspondence with the pronoun ko in the anaphor and this applies strictly to all other ERG PER PRONs. However, the 3rd person ERG PRON-derived anaphors (i.e. ang sarili niya and ang sarili nila) may have NPs such as names of persons as their antecedents therefore not just strictly their respective pronoun counterparts. (2) Tinignan ni Pedro ang sarili niya. „Pedro looked at himself.‟ (3) Tinignan ng mga estudyante ang sarili nila. „The students looked at themselves.‟ (4) *Tinignan ni Pedro ang sarili nila. „*Pedro looked at themselves.‟ Apparently what was stated above is not the only way to form Tagalog reflexives. Pre-possessive personal pronouns (to be abbreviated as PRE-POSS PER PRON) can also be used in place of ERG PER PRONs. Sentence (1) can be rephrased as: (5) Tinignan ko ang aking sarili. „I took a look at myself.‟ In this form, there is still the determiner ang but the order of the PRE-POSS PER PRON and the word sarili „self‟ changed; the pronoun comes before sarili. Likewise in the relationship of ERG PER PRON-derived anaphors to their antecedents, PRE-POSS PER

BOLLAS 8

PRON-derived anaphors also call for strictly their ERG PER PRON counterpart like in sentence (5) where the anaphor ang aking sarili is in agreement with its antecedent ko. Again, pronouns in the 3rd person can have names of persons as their antecedents. (6) Tinignan ni Pedro ang kanyang sarili. „Pedro looked at himself.‟ (7) Tinignan ng mga estudyante ang kanilang sarili. „The students looked at themselves.‟ Table 1 – Ergative and Pre- & Post-Possessive Personal Pronouns and their Reflexives

NON

-PLU

RAL

PERSON ERG/ POST-POSS

REFLEXIVES PRE-POSS REFLEXIVES

First Ko ang sarili ko Akin(g) ang aking sarili Dual Natin ang sarili natin Atin(g) ang ating sarili Second Mo ang sarili mo Iyo(ng) ang iyong sarili Third Niya ang sarili niya Kanya(ng) ang kanyang sarili

PLU

RAL

First Namin ang sarili namin Amin(g) ang aming sarili Dual Natin ang sarili natin Atin(g) ang ating sarili Second N‟yo<Niyo ang sarili niyo Inyo(ng) ang inyong sarili Third Nila ang sarili nila Kanila(ng) ang kanilang sarili

Apparently, not only personal pronouns can be used in reflexives. Deictics (so-called) can also be used with the same formula as that of personal pronouns. Like personal pronoun-derived reflexives, deictic-derived ones also use the pronouns in the ergative case. Deictic-derived anaphors strictly require that they are also in agreement with their antecedents i.e. whatever the pronoun in the antecedent, which must be also the pronoun in the anaphor. Table 2 – Ergative Deictic Pronouns and their Reflexives

NON-

PLUR

AL

Location ERG REFLX

Near speaker Nito (Nire) ang sarili nito Near addressee Nyan<Niyan ang sarili niyan Far from both Niyon/

Nun<Noon ang sarili noon

BOLLAS 9

(8) Tinignan nito ang sarili nito. „It (this) took a look at itself.‟ (9) Tinignan niyan ang sarili niyan. „It (that) took a look at itself.‟

It must be noted that the usage of these deictic-derived reflexives are quite rare and usually seen in literary works and very rarely in spoken form. In Tagalog, the reciprocal pronoun seems to be only one: isa‟t isa. Isa‟t isa came from the words isa, at, and isa. Contracted, isa at isa will become isa‟t isa. Reciprocals must be in agreement with their antecedents in number which is always plural. (10) Tignan niyo ang isa‟t isa. „Look at each other.‟ In order to verify whether these reflexives and reciprocals are really anaphors in Tagalog, sentence analysis is indeed inevitable. Haegeman (1994) discusses in her book that NPs can be referential expressions whose reference can be traced into the real world of discourse; pronouns whose reference cannot be traced unless contextualized; and anaphors (a.k.a. “referentially dependent”) whose reference can be traced within the binding domain it is in, regardless of the context. These NPs, as stated by Haegeman (1994) are bound by their respective principles:

“Principle A is the principle that regulates the interpretation of elements which are referentially dependent, such as reflexives. Principle A imposes that reflexives are linked to, or bound by, an NP in an A-position within a certain domain, the binding domain. […] In (lb), for instance, the reflexive himself must be bound by the subject NP Bertie. Principle B constrains the interpretation of pronouns: pronouns should not be linked to an NP in an A-position within the binding domain. Thus while the reflexive element –himself must be bound by the subject NP Bertie in (lb), the pronoun him must not be bound by the subject Poirot in (1a). Principle C, finally, is the principle which determines the distribution and interpretation of referential expressions like the NP Poirot. Principle C says that referential expressions must not be

BOLLAS 10

bound by NPs in A-positions: in (1e), for instance, Bertie cannot be interpreted as being coreferential with he.” (Haegeman, 1994, pp. 205-206)

Antecedents are the NPs where anaphors get their reference and to show that a certain antecedent and an anaphor corefer to each other, they must be coindexed (i.e. having the same index e.g. Poiroti hurt himselfi.) (Haegeman, 1994). When antecedents and their anaphors do not have an agreement in gender, number or person, ungrammaticality occurs (Haegeman, 1994). And because anaphors get their reference from their antecedents, they must be bound by it (antecedent) which makes their antecedents their binders. But Haegeman (1994) adds that anaphors must be locally bound in its binding domain i.e. its antecedent must be near it. After many revisions of his hypothetical rule for anaphors, Chomsky (as cited in Haegeman, 1994) then settled for the rule: Interpretation of anaphors:

An anaphor X must be bound in the minimal domain containing X, X's governor and an accessible subject/SUBJECT.

Hence, An anaphor must be bound in its governing category. (Haegeman, 1994, pp. 223-224)

Let us take for example the sentence (1) which will be (11) here. We can put indices to indicate coreference. (11) [IPTinignan [NPiko][NPiang sarili ko]] This sentence, when put into a tree structure presents a problem. In English, anaphors can be easily distinguished since one just have to identify the governing category the anaphor and the antecedent are in and if the anaphor is bound within that governing category. The anaphor in sentence 11, though can be said to be coindexed, is not bound by the antecedent [NPko] since if this sentence is put into a tree structure, the anaphor will be moved into a higher node than its antecedent (i.e. because it will bear the nominative case due to the „ang‟ determiner which would therefore push it to the subject position) therefore we cannot entirely

BOLLAS 11

say that this is an anaphor, because strictly basing on the rules of Principle A, the sentence does not conform to it. However, with this sentence: (12) [IPTumingin [NPiako] [PPisa sarili ko]] In sentence (12), the antecedent [NPako] and its anaphor [PPsa sarili ko] conforms to the rules of Principle A and the binding theory. If illustrated through a tree, the anaphor is not positioned in a node higher than its antecedent therefore it is bound by its antecedent. This is because the anaphor is bound within a prepositional phrase therefore will not bear a nominative case and would not need to be in the subject position once the EPP (Extended Projection Principle) calls for it. The reason also that can be seen behind this is that sentence (11) is goal-focused while sentence (12) is actor-focused. Schachter (as cited in Kroeger, 1993) mentioned that:

“…the Actor, regardless of case marking, is always a possible antecedent for a reflexive pronoun in the same clause, and that an Actor may never itself be expressed by a reflexive pronoun. He is careful not to claim that the Actor is the only possible antecedent for a reflexive pronoun…” (Kroeger, 1993, p. 36-37)

It can be stated that only anaphors in Actor-focused sentences conform to the rules of the binding theory and of Principle A. Anaphors in goal-focused sentences provides a problematic case in hierarchy of nodes. Jackendoff (as cited in Kroeger, 1993) states in his thematic hierarchy that, “a reflexive must be lower than its antecedent on the thematic hierarchy.” Following this, sentence (11) though grammatical, still does not conform to the rules of binding.

BOLLAS 12

2.2 Hiligaynon (Hiligainon/ Illogo/ Ilonggo) [Dialect from Iligan City, Mindanao] Very similar to Tagalog reflexives, Hiligaynon reflexives are formed by combining the determiner ang, the word kaugalingon „self‟, and ergative or post-possessive personal pronoun. The other way to form a reflexive (like in Tagalog) is to use a pre-possessive personal pronoun and the word kaugalingon. The determiner ang is quite optional before the pre-possessive personal pronoun, so is the plural marker mga is optionally placed before kaugalingon in plural reflexives. Sample sentences: (13) Ginlantaw ko ang kaugalingon ko. „I took a look at myself.‟ (14) Ginlantaw ko akon nga kaugalingon. „I took a look at myself.‟ Like in Tagalog, Hiligaynon anaphors and their antecedents must be in agreement with each other. ERG PER PRON-derived anaphors must have the same pronoun like in their antecedents. PRE-POSS PER PRON-derived anaphors must be in agreement with its antecedent which must be its ERG PER PRON counterpart. Names of persons can also take the place of antecedents which will require a 3rd person ERG PER PRON-derived anaphor. (15) Ginlantaw ni Pedro ang kaugalingon niya. „Pedro looked at himself.‟ (16) Ginlantaw sang mga bata ang kaugalingon nila. „The children looked at themselves.‟ (17) *Ginlantaw mo ang kaugalingon ko. „*You looked at myself.‟

BOLLAS 13

Table 3 – Ergative and Pre- & Post-Possessive Personal Pronouns and their Reflexives NO

N-PL

URAL

PERSON ERG/POST-POSS

REFLX PRE-POSS REFLX

First Ko ang kaugalingon ko Akon (nga) akon nga kaugalingon Dual Naton ang kaugalingon naton Aton (nga) ang aton nga mga

kaugalingon Second Mo ang kaugalingon mo Imo (nga) ang imo kaugalingon Third Niya ang kaugalingon niya Iya (nga) iya kaugalingon

PLUR

AL

First Namon ang kaugalingon namon Amon (nga) ang amon nga kaugalingon

Dual Naton ang kaugalingon naton Aton (nga) ang aton nga mga kaugalingon

Second N‟yo<Niyo ang kaugalingon niyo Inyo (nga) ang inyo nga mga kaugalingon

Third Nila ang kaugalingon nila Ila (nga) ang ila nga kaugalingon On the other hand, unlike Tagalog deictic pronoun-derived reflexives, Hiligaynon deictic pronoun-derived reflexives have the same form: ang iya kaugalingon. Deictic pronoun-derived reflexives are used in sentences in such a way: (18) Ginlantaw sini ang iya kaugalingon. „It (this) took a look at itself.‟ (19) Ginlantaw sina ang iya kaugalingon. „It (that) took a look at itself.‟ In conditions of agreement, it seems that these deictic pronoun-derived anaphors do not follow any particular rule of agreement since deictic pronoun-derived anaphors only have the same forms. Table 4 – Ergative Deictic Pronouns and their Reflexives Location ERG REFLX Near speaker Sini ang iya kaugalingon Near addressee Sina ang iya kaugalingon Far from both Sadto ang iya kaugalingon

BOLLAS 14

Hiligaynon‟s reciprocal pronoun, is isa kag isa „each other‟. It must be in agreement with its antecedent therefore must have a plural antecedent.

BOLLAS 15

2.3 Itawis (Itawes/ Itawit/ Tawit) [Dialect from Tuguegarao City, Cagayan] Itawis, like Tagalog and Hiligaynon also uses the ergative and post-possessive pronouns to form their reflexives. It still follows the established formula DET+respective term for „self‟+ERG/POST-POSS PRON (in Itawis DET=yo, „self‟=sarili). However, it is notable that there is a consistent phonological change occurring in some reflexives i.e. deletion. Yo sarilik is somehow expected to be yo sarili ku but the vowel was deleted. It is the same with yo sarilim which is somehow expected to be yo sarili mu. In na yo sari na, there was also an additional deletion where the syllable /-li/ was deleted from the morpheme /sarili/. Sample sentences: (20) Iningan ku yo sarilik. „I looked at myself.‟ (21) Iningan na yo sari na. „He/She looked at himself/herself.‟ (22) Iningan mi yo sarili mi. „We looked at ourselves.‟ Unlike Tagalog and Hiligaynon, Itawis reflexives are just as presented below and with no other version with the usage of their pre-possessive personal pronouns. These ERG PER PRON-derived anaphors should also be in agreement with their antecedents therefore strictly requiring the same pronoun in their antecedents like in sentences (20, 21, & 22). Like in Tagalog and Hiligaynon, 3rd person ERG PER PRON-derived anaphors can have names of persons as its antecedent, aside from the 3rd person ERG PER PRONs. (23) Iningan y Pedro yo sarili na. „Pedro looked at himself.‟ (24) Inginan yo abbing ira yo sarili da. „The children looked at themselves.‟ (25) *Inginan ku yo sarilim. „*I looked at yourself.‟ Table 5 – Ergative /Post-Possessive Personal Pronouns and their Reflexives

NON-

PLUR

AL

PERSON ERG; POST-POSS

REFLX

First Ku yo sarilik Dual Ta yo sarili tera Second Mu yo sarilim Third Na yo sari na

PLU

RAL First Mi yo sarili mi

Dual Tera yo sarili tera Second Nu yo sarili nu

BOLLAS 16

Third Da yo sarili da Deictic pronoun-derived reflexives in Itawis can be somehow said to be derived from absolutive deictic pronouns. Their reflexives somehow are quite confusing due to the not rigid formula of their combinations. To further understand, here are some sentences: (26) Iningan na yo sarili na. „It (this) took a look at itself.‟ (27) Iningan na yan yo sarili na. „It (that) took a look at itself.‟ (28) Iningan na nay yo sarili na. „It (that over there) took a look at itself.‟ In Tagalog and Hiligaynon, it was somehow fixed that deictic pronoun-derived reflexives are usually comprised of 1) determiner, 2) term for „self‟, and 3) deictic pronoun, given that in Tagalog, it is in the order of 2) then 3) but in Hiligaynon, it is 3) then 2). In Itawis, however, it seemed the same for all deictic pronouns: yo sarili na which is a DET+sarili+personal pronoun na. However, it must be noted that in sentence (26), the deictic yaw should be at least expected between na and yo but it is nowhere to be found in the sentence. In sentences (27) and (28), it can be seen that there seemed to be no problem since yan and nay are deictics and the corresponding anaphors for these two do not possess any irregularity. In terms of agreement, it seems that these deictic pronoun-derived anaphors do not adhere to any particular rule of agreement since deictic pronoun-derived anaphors only have the same forms. Table 6 – Deictic Pronouns

NON-

PLUR

AL Location ABS REFLX

Near speaker Yaw yo sarili na Near addressee Yan yo sarili na Far from both Nay yo sarili na

Itawis‟ reciprocal pronouns are the same with Tagalog: isa‟t isa. Anaphor and antecedent must agree in number which would only be plural. (29) Ayayatan nu yo isa't isa. „Love each other.‟ (30) Innan nu yo isa't isa. „Look at each other.‟

BOLLAS 17

As we have seen in Tagalog, there is a problem in node hierarchy if the anaphor is an NP and if it would take a determiner which would require the anaphor to be in the subject position. All the elicited sentences in Itawis are in this structure (i.e. in goal-focused structure) therefore we cannot make any claims for Itawis. The informants have been questioned about the actor-focused form of the verbs but they only said they are not using such a form.

BOLLAS 18

3.0 Conclusion In this paper, we were able to at least define a hypothetical but data-based formula for reflexives in at least 3 PLs i.e. Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Itawis. Hypothetical Formula: DET + term for „self‟ + pronoun The last two elements changed their places in Hiligaynon. Agreement with their antecedents is also an important factor in verifying the grammaticality of anaphors. To provide further evidences, attached in this paper is the list of verbs that can be used with the anaphors defined in this paper. The reader may test it by substituting the verbs in the verbs used in the sample sentences in the previous parts. Should there be any mistake, it would be an honor if the author will be informed about it. It must also be noted that we have found in this paper that anaphors in actor-focused sentences presents no problem since it adheres with the rules of the binding theory but anaphors in goal-focused sentences (which comprises most of the data in the sentence list) provides a problem in the hierarchy of nodes and therefore do not adhere with the rules of the binding theory. Whether anaphors truly exist in Philippine languages is difficult to confirm since there is a hole in the results of this paper i.e. it was not able to cover other analysis from other focus and because a problem (which is until now unresolved) aroused in anaphors in goal-focused sentences.

BOLLAS 19

References: Carnie, A. (2006). Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Cook V. J. & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky‟s Universal Grammar, 3rd ed. Malden, Mass:

Blackwell. Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers. Jalotjot, E. M. (1937). Diskripsyon ng klos na verbal ng wikang Itawit (Master‟s thesis).

University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. Kroeger, P. R. (1993). Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. CSLI

Publications, Stanford CA. Pamittan, S. L. (2011). A grammatical sketch of Itawis language (Undergraduate thesis).

University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. Schneider, G. (1998, November 2-5). Colloquium Gerold Schneider: An introduction to

Government & Binding Theory. Paper at Englisches Seminarder Universität Zürich. Retrieved on January 18, 2014 at https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/cl/gschneid/dreitaegig.pdf

Wolfenden, E. (1975). A description of Hiligaynon syntax. Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

BOLLAS 20

Appendix 1 - Informant‟s profile For Hiligaynon: Name: Kin Andrea D. Demaisip Provincial Address: Brgy. Jardin, Dumangas, Iloilo Age: 20 years old Contact number: 09175128623 Name: Irish Joy Deocampo Provincial Address: Sook Brgy. Bolilao, Mandurriao, Iloilo City Age: 20 years old Contact number: 09164254548 For Itawis: Name: Jane Frances Taguinod Provincial Address: Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Age: 20 years old Contact number: 09261701732 Name: Princess Angiemore De Guzman Provincial Address: Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Age: 18 years old Contact number: 09173050296

BOLLAS 21

Appendix 2 – Sentence List for Anaphors Filipino Hiligaynon Itawis

Simple Sentences

Personal Pronoun-derived

Tinignan ko ang sarili ko. Ginlantaw/gintulok ko ang kaugalingon ko. Iningan ku yo sarilik.

Tinignan ko kahapon ang sarili ko. Ginlantaw/gintulok ko kagapon ang kaugalingon ko.

Iningan ku yo sarilik kattu kabi.

Tinignan mo ang sarili mo. Ginlantaw/gintulok mo ang kaugalingon mo.

Iningan mu yo sarilim.

Tinignan niya ang sarili niya. Ginlantaw/gintulok niya ang kaugalingon niya.

Iningan na yo sari na.

Tinignan natin ang sarili natin. Ginlantaw/gintulok naton ang kaugalingon naton.

Iningan tera yo sarili tera

Tinignan namin ang sarili namin. Ginlantaw/gintulok namon ang kaugalingon namon.

Iningan mi yo sarili mi.

Tinignan niyo ang sarili niyo. Ginlantaw/gintulok niyo ang kaugalingon niyo.

Iningan nu yo sarili nu.

Tinignan nila ang sarili nila. Ginlantaw/gintulok nila ang kaugalingon nila.

Iningan da yo sarili da.

Pilitin mo ang sarili mo. Pilita ang kaugalingon mo. Pilitan mu yo sarilim. Pipilitin ko ang sarili ko. Piliton ko ang kaugalingon ko. Pipilitan ku yo sarilik.

Deictic Pronoun-derived

Tinignan nito ang sarili nito. Ginlantaw/gintulok sini ang iya kaugalingon.

Iningan na yo sarili na.

Tinignan niyan ang sarili niyan. Ginlantaw/gintulok sina ang iya kaugalingon.

Iningan na yan yo sarili na.

Tinignan noon ang sarili noon. Ginlantaw/gintulok sadto ang iya kaugalingon.

Iningan na nay yo sarili na.

Complex Sentences

Sinabi ni Pedro sa kanyang kaibigan na mahal niya ang sarili niya.

Ginhambal ni Pedro sa iya abyan nga palangga niya ang kaugalingon niya.

Kinahi y pedro kanya kofun na nga kayat na yo sarili na.

Nakiusap si Pedro sa kaibigan niya na siya na ang magpapakain sa sarili niya.

Nagpangabay si Pedro sa abyan niya na siya ang mapakaon sa iya kaugalingon.

Nakergo y pedro kanyo kofun na nga iggina pelaman yo mappakan kanyo sarili na.

Sinabi ko sa kanya na mahal ko ang sarili ko.

Ginhambal ko sa iya nga palangga ko ang akon kaugalingon.

Nekahik kanni gina nga kayak ku yo sarilik.

Sinabihan niya ako na mahal niya ang sarili niya.

Ginhambalan niya ko nga palangga niya ang iya kaugalingon.

Kinayanan na yakan nga kayat na yo sarili na.

Reciprocal Pronouns

Mahal nila ang isa’t isa. Palangga nila ang isa kag isa. Ayayatan da yo isa't isa.

Pinilit nila ang isa’t isa. Ginpilit nila ang isa kag isa. Pinilit da yo isa't isa.

Mahalin niyo ang isa’t isa. Palanggaa niyo ang isa kag isa. Ayayatan nu yo isa't isa.

Pilitin niyo ang isa’t isa. Pilita niyo ang isa kag isa. Pilitan nu yo isa't isa. Tignan niyo ang isa’t isa. Tuluka/lantawa niyo ang isa kag isa. Innan nu yo isa't isa.

BOLLAS 22

Appendix 3 – List of Verbs Usually Used With Anaphors Tagalog Hiligaynon Itawis

Away (Awayin) Away (Awayon) Gungutan

Bili (Bilhan) Bakal (Baklan) Panggatang

Alaga (Alagaan) Atipan/Tatap (Atipanon) Alagan

Alala (Alalahanin) Balaka/Dumdum (Kabalakhan) Karendamman

Ayos (Ayusin) Kay-o (Kay-uhon) Pakapyan

Bigay (Bigyan) Hatag (Hatagan) Idannan

Buhat (Buhatin) Hakwat (Hakwaton) Akkatan

Galang (Galangin/Igalang) Taha (Taha-on)/Respeto (Respetuhon)

Irespetom

Gamot (Gamutin) Bulong (Bulungon/Bulngon) Pammapyan

Guhit (Iguhit) Drowing (Drowingon) Iturak

Intindi (Intindihin) Int(s)indi (Int(s)indihon) Antindyan

Kuha (Kuhanan) Kuha (Kuhaan) Pangalak

Kurot (Kurutin) Kusi (Kusion) Kaddutan

Ligo (Paliguan) Ligo (Paliguan) Pazivutan

Limot (Kalimutan) Lipat/Limtan (Kalimtan) Kaleppanan

Linis (Linisin) Tinlo (Tinluan) Pakarenuwan

Mahal (Mahalin) Palangga (Palanggaon)/ Gugma (Higugmaon)

Ayatan

Nood (Panoorin) Lantaw (Lantawon) Girawan

Patay (Patayin) Patay (Patyon) Patayan

Pilit (Pilitin) Pilit (Piliton) Pilitan

Sabi (Sabihan) Hambal (Hambalan) Kayanan

Sabunot (Sabunutan) Gunit (Gunitan) Gandulan

Sampal (Sampaliin Tampa (Tampon) Tappalan

Suklay (Suklayan) Husay (Husayon) Tetayan

Sulat (Sulatan) Sulat (Sulatan) Turakan

Suot (Suotan) Suksok (Suksukon) Sinunan

Tawad (Patawarin) 1. Pasensya (Pasensyahan) 2. Ayo (Paayu-on) – as in sa

market

Pakoman

Tingin (Tignan) Lantaw (Lantawon)/ Tulok (Tulokon)

Innan

Tiwala (Magtiwala) Salig (Saligan)/Pati (Patihon) Tiwala

Tulong (Tulungan) Bulig (Buligan) Uffunan