AUTHOR DOCUMENT RESUME Studies in Philippine Linguistics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
gok DOCUMENT RESUME ED 253 084 FL 014 804 AUTHOR Otanes, Fe T., Ed.; Hale, Austin, Ed. TITLE Studies in Philippine Linguistics, Volume 5, Number 1. INSTITUTION Lidguistic Society of the Philippines, Manila.; Summer Inst. of Linguistics, Manila (Philippines). PUB 84 ,NOTE 202p.; Papers written at a Research Conference of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Bukidnon, I t Philippines, 1982). PUB TYPE'. Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- Collected Works General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/14C09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS, *Applied Linguistics,' *Discourse Analysis; *Expressive*Languagi; *Grammar; *Indonesian Languages; *Linguittics; Tenses (Grammar); Verbs IDENTIFIERS Kadazan; *Philippines; Sangire; Subanen; Tatana; Tiruray ABSTRACT A collection of seven papers developed for the 1982 ApSummer Iistitute of Linguistics of the Linguistic Society of the Philippides address aspects of the institute's research topic, the interface of the morphosyntax and discourse structure in languages of the Philippines and Sabah.-Ttbey include three papers on general concerns of discourse type in a given language and four concerning hortatory discourse. They are: "Verb Tense/Aspect in Tatana Discourse" (Inka Pekkanen); "Eliminating the Hocus-Pocus of Focus in Sangire" (Arthur tightbody); "Idtersecting Functions of Topic Markers in'Sindangen Subanen" (Felicia Brichodx); "Mitigation in,a Tiruray Sermon" (Steve Doty); "Hortatory Strategy in Subanun II" (Robert mo. Brichoux); "Do As I Say: A Study of Selected Features of Hortatory, Discourse in Eastern Kadazan" (Hope M. Hurlbut); and "Hortatory Mitigation: The Case of the Camouflaged Backtione (Ross Errington). (MSE) ***************************4******************************************** * Repioductions supplied by EDRS are.the best that can be made' . * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** a:)C ir4N STUDIES IN PHILIPPINELINGUISTICS eNt Edited by FeT. Otanes Austin Hale' Managing Editors Helen Viller Rosemary Thomson' 4 ,o U.S , DEPARTMENT OF EDUCRTION THIS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORVATION MATERIAL HAS SEEM GRANTEDBY CENTER IERIC illtipast document has baton reproduced at tinclawee from M. oPeurn or on:proration orowilatoroy or Woof changes have been mete to n'TiprOve reptrAat11011twahty Poorors qt .novie nr ,r)prnto,a stated in Mot docu TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES * rne.yo ,nt rm....twenty .wrotoseint feffiCee) NiE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).- Frxim. r nr,p r. WOO a. VOLUME 5 1984 NUMBER I LINGUISTIC SOCIETY OF THE PHILIPPINES SUMER INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS Mini la TABLE OF COMETS IntrodOction Robert E. Longacre I. GENERAL Verb Tense/Aspect in Tatana DiiCourse Imka P'ekkaUen Eliminating the Hocus-Pocus of Focus in Sangiri Arthur Lightbody Intersecting Functions of Topic Markers in SiUbangen Subanen 47 Felicia Brichoux ;*,* II: EXHORTATION ANp MITIGATION Mitigation in a Tiruray Sermon _ Steve Doty Hortatory Strategy in Subsnun II 80 Robert Brichoux Do as Say: A Study of Selected Features of Hortatory 118 Discourse in Eastern Kadazan, Hope M. Hurlbut Hortatory Mitigation: The Case of the Camouflaged Backbone 161 Ross E1rington Robert E. Longacre Summer Institute of Linguistics 01. As a linguistic research tool, the research conference. is one of the most powerful tools thatcanbe impleyrnted. When a group of people already conversant with various languages of an area are brought together to work jointly_ on a' restricted number of 'common goals a critical mass is established which can result in a chain reaction of mutual stimulus and discovery. The same people working, under supervision and for the same amount of time, but isolated. from each other could not achieve the ,same result. Such a research conference was held at the study center of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Nasuli, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Philippines)' for two months in the summer of 1982. The research topic was 'The Interface of the Morphosyntax and Discourse Structure in lenguages of the .Philippifnes and Sabah.' As 'a visiting overseas consultant I had previous experience in similar workshops in the Philippines in 1967-68, but many advances in the understanding of discourse had taken place during the intervening years. Austin Hale, a veteran at discourse analysis, shared with me thedirecting of the research conference. Other assisting consultants were Charles Peck (Who has edited this volume), Japnette Forster,andElmer Wolfenden, who have also written papers in theme own right which are to _appear elsewhere. Special acknowledgment is due to Charles Peck: Without his indefatigable Labors in getting these articles into final Rim this-volume would not hav seen the light of publAation The research topic around which the conference revolved is based onthe conviction that the grammatical structure of a language, its morphology'and syntax, exists to facilitatediscourse as communication betweenhuman beings. Thus, the morphosyntax of a language can be explained in terms of ita discourse structure. But, conversely, much of the 'discourse structure must be explained in terms of the use of various features of the 1 morphosyntax. In brief, the sorphosyntax of a language and its discourse. structure can be studied together to the mutual elucidation ofrvboth. The papers are grouped under two heads. t'ho'se in Section I reflect more general concerns which range over several discourse types in a given language. The.- papers in Section II deal with hortatory discourse. All the papers of this section are concerned to some ,degree with mitigation of the exhortation, that is, ways to soften, disguise, or blunt a command so as to make it more socially acceptable, and hence more effective. There was also a third group of Papers dealing with narrative discourse which are scheduled to appearin a futurp issue of SIPL. 1 2 Introduction To look at the first section in more detail:Pekkanen's paper (Tatana of Sabah) treats of verb aspects in narrative,procedural, and expository discourse, incorporating basic insights from 'A spectrum and profile approach to discourse' (Longacre 1981). Lighttody's paper.(SAngir4), .buildingon the previous work of other people in addition to his own investigations, deals with the vexed problem of assigning surfacestructure 'focus' (topic-marking by means of ,voice-like features in the verb, as well as in the 'noun phrase which is cross-referenced as 'tgRic' to a verb and to its *acme). Heis able to carry us,a crucial step further thanAdspredecessors) Felicia Brichoux, in a language which apparently suffers from having a superfluity of focus markers.(Sindangan Subanun), is able to sort out markers according to discourse functions, deixis, and clause types. focus of interest s - the papers of the setond section reflect the special and excitement during the research conference: hortatorydiscourse:Here the tie-in with social factor4, inescapablynescapably close. Doty's paper (Ttruray) classifies commands as direct or indirect, explicit or implicit, and hidden. Brichoux's paper, which.. covers some15 hortatory discourses in Subanun, is a follow-up of aearlier joint paperwith Hale, but \breaks fresh ground in relation to he integration of the topic -line with the line of exhortation, and--netess 1rily--pays attention to themitigation of commands As well. Eurlbut's paper (EasternRAdazanof Sabah) uses a Doty-like scheme to classify mitigation, and like BrichouxandErrington, goes a bit into the paragraph structure-of the textsthat they analyze. TheErrington article is one of the meatiest in the volume, and quite consistently based on 'Hale's framework, which is in some waysinterestingly different from my own. st Robert E. Longacre Dallas, June 1983 S vatz temsvAspEcr paium imscoutsz Inka Pekkanen Summer Institute of Linguistics I 0. Introduction 1. Three discourse types 2. Narrative discourse I 2.1 Backbone verbs 2.2 Background verbs 2.3 Peak . 3. Procedural discourse 3,1 Backbone verbs 3.2 Background verbs 4. Explanatory discourse 4.1 Backbone 4.2 Bfckground verbs 4.3 Ptak Notes References 0. Introduction In order to understand how a language worksas a whole, one needs ..to studychunks bigger than isolated sentences. The purpose of thispaper is to compare narrative, procedural, and explanatory discourses in Tetanal as to their use of verb tense/aspect. Verb tense/aspect, is significant in distinguishing discourse types. In narrative discourse, ,mainlineevents are expressed in timeless and completive aspects. Procedural discourse is characterized by noncompletive aspect forms. Explanatory discoursediffers considerably from both in that the most static verb forks and nonverbal clauses convey the mainline information. The narrative texts used for analysis were two folktales plusa legend. The procedural texts were about a traditional wedding and a religious ,ceremony. The explanatory texts dealt with a number of ceremonies and an evaluation of the time of Japanese occupation. Longacre (1981) has 'tpointed out that )1differing forms of tense/aspect/mood/voice do not exist for nothing ina language.' 'He uses the term spectrum to denote a cline of information which ranges from the most dynamic elements of the 'tory to the most'-static elements. The idea of such a cline has been adopted as a relevant theoretical construct for this preliminary study. 4 Verb Tense/Aspect in Tatana Discourse 1. Three discourse types Each discourse type is used for a differentpurpose. This difference can be expected to show in the surface