Paul R. Kroeger 
                            
                            
                 Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics 
                      Stanford University 
                        August, 1991 
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
       (Note: some corrections and other minor editorial changes are included in this version, but the 
       list of references has unfortunately been lost.) 
                    
        		
          This dissertation presents an analysis of Tagalog within the framework of Lexical*Functional 
        Grammar.  Tagalog is a non*configurational language in which the grammatical subject does not 
        occupy a unique structural position.  Nevertheless, the grammar of Tagalog makes crucial 
        reference to the notion of grammatical subjecthood.  This fact shows that grammatical 
        subjecthood cannot be defined in terms of a specified position in surface phrase structure.  More 
        generally, the Tagalog data shows that grammatical relations must be defined independently of 
        phrase structure, semantic structure and pragmatic functions, strongly supporting a conception of 
        linguistic structure in which these various kinds of information are modeled as independent 
        subsystems of the grammar. 
          A large number of syntactic tests are presented which uniquely identify the nominative 
        argument as the grammatical subject.  It is argued that the apparent ambiguity of subjecthood 
        properties in Tagalog is due to the Actor’s semantic and pragmatic prominence, together with the 
        fact that non*subject Actors are always terms (non*oblique arguments) in Tagalog, unlike passive 
        agents in English.  Evidence is presented which shows that the nominative argument does not 
        have the properties of a “topic”, as it is frequently analyzed, whether this concept is defined in 
        terms of discourse continuity or pragmatic function. 
          Crucial evidence for the non*configurationality of Tagalog comes from rules governing the 
        co*reference of personal pronouns and the position of clitic elements.  An analysis of Tagalog 
        phrase structure is developed using a modified version of the X*bar theory of Chomsky (1986).  
        The analysis is shown to provide an account for the structural properties of Clause Reduction, a 
        construction similar in many ways to “restructuring” in Romance languages, in which two verbs 
        appear in a single monoclausal structure.  Finally, it is argued that long*distance dependencies 
        (“Wh*movement”) in Tagalog are best described in terms of grammatical relations, rather than 
        phrase structure configuration. 
                       
        
	












            
            
           Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. 
               Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. 
           In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat — 
               for he grants sleep to those he loves. 
               (Psalm 127:1*2) 
         
                       
        
	












           
                               		
          		
	
          1.  Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1 
          2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................................ 4 
           2.1 Phrase structure ..................................................................................................................... 4 
           2.2 Functional structure ............................................................................................................... 9 
          3.  Some essential aspects of Tagalog morphology ...................................................................... 13 
           3.1 Modifiers, linkers etc........................................................................................................... 13 
           3.2 Voice and case*marking ...................................................................................................... 14 
           3.3 Aspect and mood ................................................................................................................. 15 
          	
	
 
          1.  The history of the problem ....................................................................................................... 19 
          2.  Nominative properties .............................................................................................................. 22 
           2.1  Quantifier Float .................................................................................................................. 22 
           2.2  Relativization ..................................................................................................................... 23 
           2.3  Number agreement ............................................................................................................. 24 
           2.4  Raising ................................................................................................................................ 25 
           2.5  Control of secondary predicates ......................................................................................... 29 
           2.6  Subject obviation ................................................................................................................ 30 
           2.7  Possessor ascension ............................................................................................................ 31 
           2.8  Conjunction reduction ........................................................................................................ 32 
          3  Actor properties ......................................................................................................................... 35 
           3.1  Reflexive binding ............................................................................................................... 35 
           3.2  Equi .................................................................................................................................... 36 
          4.  Termhood ................................................................................................................................. 38 
           4.1  Non*obliqueness of Actors ................................................................................................. 38 
             4.1.1  Participial complements .............................................................................................. 39 
             4.1.2  Participial adjuncts ...................................................................................................... 40 
             4.1.3  Adjunct Fronting ......................................................................................................... 41 
           4.2  On the termhood of genitive patients:  evidence against the ergative analysis .................. 44 
          5.  “Subjectless” sentences ............................................................................................................ 45 
           5.1  Subjectless sentence patterns ............................................................................................. 46