[Lingtyp] valence markers and wide scope

[David Gil]

Dear Adam,

The following Tagalog sentence was a ubiquitous campaign slogan during 
the 1986 presidential elections in the Philippines (in support of 
incumbent candidate Ferdinand Marcos and his infamous wife Imelda):

(1) Mag Marcos at Marcos tayo
     TOPFOC.IMPF Marcos and Marcos 1PL.INCL.TOP
     'Let's Marcos and Marcos'

In (1), the conjunction "Marcos at Marcos" is in the scope of "Mag", 
which expresses topic-focus voice and also imperfect aspect.

In standard Tagalog orthography, "mag" (and other similar forms) are 
written joined on to their following hosts, though in recent social 
media I've noticed that occasionally they are written separately. In the 
following article, I used evidence from a ludling to argue that "mag" 
and other similar forms are clitics rather than prefixes:

Gil, David (1996) "How to Speak Backwards in Tagalog", in /Pan-Asiatic 
Linguistics, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on 
Language and Linguistics/, /January 8-10, 1996, /Institute of Language 
and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya, Volume 
1, 297-306.


On the other hand, I think it is pretty clear that these forms are not 
separate words, though obviously this needs to be argued for explicitly ...

I suspect that somebody  with a better knowledge of Tagalog could come 
up with additional examples such as (1).

David




On 16/04/2019 04:24, Adam James Ross Tallman wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has come across cases of 
> valence morphemes/derivations described as "affixes" or "clitics" that 
> can have wide-scope over coordinated verbs, like in English (imagining 
> the passive is just marked by "was").
>
> "The monkey was lifted up and untied (by his mother)"
>
> but where the passive morpheme is analyzed as an affix or a clitic (by 
> someone) - presumably in such cases there would be no "government" of 
> the verb forms as there is in English.
>
> I've found in Chacobo the bound affix/clitics vary in terms of whether 
> they can have wide scope depending on the type of 
> coordinate/subordinate construction, and right now the 
> difference seems to be a somewhat arbitrary structural fact (indeed I 
> just analyze it as a difference in the "size" of the constituent being 
> coordinated).
>
> But I have a suspicion that there is something else about the 
> semantics of valency and its relationship to wide-scope, so any 
> pointers would be very appreciated.
>
> best,
>
> Adam
>
> -- 
> Adam J.R. Tallman
> PhD, University of Texas at Austin
> Investigador del Museo de Etnografía y Folklore, la Paz
> ELDP -- Postdoctorante
> CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
David Gil

Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190416/5ef568a2/attachment.htm>