MINOWINOraMOWleal mminwcam If t, DOCUMINT RS6111111 ED 030 883 48 AL 002 031 By- Longacre, Robert E. Discourse, Paragraph and Sentence Structure on Selected PhilippineLanguages. Final Report. Volume I, Doscourse and P' aragraph Structure. Sweater Inst. of Linguistics, Santa Ana, Calif. Spons Agency-Office of Education (DHEW), Washington. D.C. Inst. ofInternational Studies. Bureau No- BR -6-2838 Pub Date Dec 68 Contract-DEC -0-8-062838-0391 Note-254p, Available from-The Summer Institute of Linguistics, P.O. Box 1960, Santa Ana, Calif. 92702. EDRS Price MF-51.00 HC-512.80 Descriptors-Connected Discourse. *Discourse Analysis, Linguistic Pattern:, eMalayo PolynesianLanguages. *Paragraphs. Sentence Structure. Structural Analysis,Tagmemic Analysis Identifiers-«Pholoppines Twenty-five Philippine languages and dialectswere studied to determine the manner in which words, clauses, sounds, and sentences group together to makeup units larger than the sentence. Data obtained were analyzed according to tagmemic theory. The introduction to this volume (see also AL 002 032 and AL 002 033)gives a brief orientation to the concepts and terminology oftagmemics. Four points are emphasized: (1) trimodal structuring, (2) pattern and function, (3) hierarchy, and(4) system. Three parts comprise the maiority of the document. Part 1 discusses discourse structure; Part 2 deals with paragraphstructure. The third part presents the grammar and lexicon in Dibabawon proceduralnarrative discourse. Illustrative data are given mostly in the form ofsummary and sampling in English translation. (DO) t-ifie ec c62_. P4,ye At 4....al3fleaLy OF/ps FINAL REPORT Contract No. 0-8-062838-0391 DISCOURSE, PARAGRAPH, and SENTENCE STRUCTURE in SELECTED PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES VOLUME I DISCOURSE and PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE Of EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. December 1968 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Institute of International Studies AL 002031 DISCOURSE, PARAGRAPH,AND SENTENCESTRUCTURE IN SELECTED PHILIPPINELANGUAGES VOLUME I DISCOURSE AND PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE Contract No. 0-8-062838-0391 Robert E. Longacre December 1968 The research reported herein wasperformed pursuant to a contractwith the Office of Education, U.S. Department ofHealth, Edu- cation, and Welfare. The.Summer Institute ofLinguistics P.O. Box 1960 Santa Ana, California 92702 *Z1 0c> 9 Attaa_ Agta7\ Binongan Itneg y V Kalingat BOntodV Balangao 1 ), Inibaloi! Botolan Sambal y Batak Aborlan Tagbanwa Binokidy .Ata of Davao Westein Bukidnon Manobo v T s v Dibabawon Siocon Subanon IIj 1 er Maranao v y Mansaka thanenianoboV y Kalagan Tagabili Y' KorLadal/ Bilaan V Sarangani Bilaan Sangir TABLE OF CONTENTS Frontispiece Map of languages from which subjectdata is drawn for this report Preface. Introduction Tagmemic concepts and terminology;Turkish and Trique data; Tagmemes, syntagmemes, exponence, tagmemic apparatus, bidimensional array,readings, permutation, exponential combinations -primary, secondary, and tertiary exponence. vi Typographical Conventions. xxii AT 1 ICUS TUTR . hoy o icus tutr. 1 . rqety ocrig dsore gne 03 Ls rqety ocrig dsore gne h ARTV ER . hoooia retto. esn oinain 5 . eeaoml o ARTV ICUS. 14 Tgeeht iiit ARTV 6 . amms ta ls ARTV. 16 Ncer tgeef NRAIE DSORE eutn yef NRAIE DSORE . 7 18 CMON ARTV ICUS . 8 . neprgah lnae 191 Ti-ed lnae ad lnaetruh smay .. osctvie hrzn lnae . 1 1 .. ikghog atce. .. eia ikg . 1 1 RCDRL DSORE . 5 . hoooia retto. 6 22 Pro retto . 23 Tgeeht iiit RCDRL DSORE 8 11 . amms ta ls RCDRL DSORE . 25 Ncer tgeef te POEUA ICUS 1 . 2 26 Itraarp ikg , 261 Ti-ed ad smay lnae 2 262 Ha-ed lnae ad cneuie tmoios 3 3 EPSTR ICUS 6 31 Tmn EPSTRICUS 6 32 Pros i XOIOY DSORE 7 CONTENTS 3.3 'The INTRODUCTION tagmeme . 3.4 The tagmeme . : :CONCLUSION;8 7 3.5 Nuclear tagmemes. 29 3.6 Interparagraph linkage . 30 4 HORTATORY DISCOURSE . 32 4.1 Time in HORTATORY DISCOURSE. 32 4.2 Person orientation . 33 4.3 The INTRODUCTION tagmeme in HORTATORY DISCOURSE. 34 4.4 CONCLUSION tagmeme in HORTATORY DISCOURSE 36 4.5 FINIS tagmeme in HORTATORY DISCOURSE . 4.6 7uclear tagmemes of HORTATORY DISCOURSE. 4.7 Interparagraph linkage . 41 5 DRAMATIC DISCOURSE . 5.1 In Ilianen Manobo. 4444 5.2 In Ata Manobo . 45 5.3 Summary of DRAMATIC DISCOURSE. 46 6 The ACTIVITY DISCOURIE(Rntoc). 48 7 The EPISTOLARY DISCOURSE . 50 Appendix . S . S . 51 PART 2. PARAGRAPH STRUCTURES .0 Theory of paragraph structure. 53 0.1 Recursion 6 . 53 0.2 Resemblance to sentence and discourse. 53 0.3 Nucleus versus periphery . 54 0.4 Unlinked material. 55 0.5 Subject datl . 55 1 NARRATIVE PARAGRAPHS 56 1.1 Linkage within the nucleus of the NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH. 56 1.1.1 Grammatical form of the linkage. 57 1.1.2 Lexical form of the linkage . 64 1.1.3 Speech EVENTS reported in BUILD-UP tagmemes 68 1.1.4 SPEECH tagmemes in NARRATIVE PARAGRAPHS. 71 1.1.5 BU tagmemes ane the lexical climax . 74 1.2 Peripheral tagmemes of the NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH . 74 1.2.1 SETTING tagmeme 75 1.2.2 TERMINUS tagmeme . 76 1.2.3 Preterminal SPEECH tagmeme . 79 1.3 COMPOUND NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH . 79 1.4 Embedding in NARRATIVE PARAGRAPHS. 81 2 PROCEDURAL PARAGRAPHSOOOOO OO 86 2.1 Nuclear linkage in PROCEDURAL PARAGRAPHS . 89 2.2 SIMULTANEOUS STEP tagmeme_. 95 2.3 ALTERNATIVE STEP tagmeme 96 2.4 ACTIVITY tagmeme (Sarangani Bilaan). 102 2.5 SETTING AND TERMINUS tagmemes O 102 CONTENTS 2.6 Time horizons of PROCEDURALPARAGRAPHS . 104 . 105 2.7 Embedding in PROCEDURALPARAGRAPHS . 108 2.8 PROJECT PARAGRAPH(Bontoc) . 109 3 EXPLANATORY PARAGRAPH . 111 3.1 TEXT and EXPOSITION tagmemes . 115 3.2 The REASON tagmeme . 120 3.3 The RESULT tagmeme . 123 3.4 The WARNING tagmeme 124 3.5 Mutual relations of these(nuclear) tagmemes . 128 3.6 Peripheral tagmemes of EXPLANATORYPARAGRAPHS. 128 3.6.1 PRELIMINARY and TERMINUS tagmemes. 130 3.6.2 Preterminal SPEECH tagmeme . 131 3.7 Embedding in EXPLANATORYPARAGRAPHS. 133 3.8 COORDINATE EXPLANATORYPARAGRAPHS. 137 3.9 ANTITHETICAL EXPLANATORYPARAGRAPHS. 142 4 HORTATORY PARAGRAPHS O 143 4.1 Analyzed examples of SIMPLEHORTATORY PARAGRAPH. 152 4.2 Conjunctions in the HORTATORYPARAGRAPH 158 4.3 COORDINATE and ANTITHETICALHORTATORY PARAGRLPH. 160 5 DIALOGUE PARAGRAPH . 161 5.1 The SIMPLE DIALOGUEPARAGRAPH. 165 5.2 The COMPLEX DIALOGUEPARAGRAPH . 170 5.3 The COMPOUND DIALOGUEPARAGRAPH. 174 5.4 Non-verbal RESPONSES . 174 5.5 The number of speakers in adialogue 5.6 Grammar versus lexicon inDIALOGUE PARAGRAPH . 117785 . 5.7 General formulations forDIALOGUE PARAGRAPH. 188 6 Possible further types 188 6.1 REASONING PARAGRAPH(Botolan Sambal) . 189 6.2 PRECATORY PARAGRAPH (AtteNegrito) 6.3 Some putative paragraph typesin Kalamian Tagbanwa190 PART 3. GRAMMAR and LEXICONin DIBABAWON PROCEDURALNARRATIVE DISCOURSE . 194 0 Introduction 196 1 Orientation and ParticipantRoles. 197 1.1 On the Discourse Level 198 1.1.1 Participant Roles. 1.1.2 Orientation , 200 . 201 2 Lexicon and Grammar. 2.1 Discourse Level 201, 2.1.1 The L-discourse, theOccurrence. 201 2.1.2 The G-discourse . 202 . 203 2.2 Paragraph Level. 2.2.1 The L-paragraph 203 203 2.2.11 The L-narrative Paragraph. '411 205 2.2.12 The MetalanguageParagiaph . 206 2.2.13 The L-speech Paragraph . CONTENTS 2.2.2 The G-paragraph. 207 2.2.21 The Narrative Paragraph. 2.2.22 207 The Explanatory Paragraph. 207 2.2.23 The Dialogue Paragraph . 207 2.3 The Sentence Level . 209 2.3.1 L-sentence Type I. 211 2.3.11 Minimal L-sentenceType I. 2.3.12 211 Expanded L-sentenceType I 212 2.3.2 L-sentence Type II ii 2.3.3 212 L-sentence Type III. 213 2.3.4 L-sentence TyPe IV . 2.3.5 . 214 L-sentence Type V. 216 2.3.6 L-sentence Type VI . 2.3.7 218 L-sentence Type VII. 220 Note on Orthographies. 224 PREFACE This three-volume report summarizes the results of two field workshops conducted in the Philippines under the Office of Education Contract #0-8-062838-0391 from September, 1967 to May, 1968. As Principal Investigator I worked with colleagues (of the Summer Institute of Linguistics) who had lived among the cultural minorities of the Philippines, learned to speak their languages, and investigated their phonological and grammatical structures. My job was to carry their research to hierarchical levels not regularly investigated by linguists: (a) the discourse; (b) the paragraph; (c) the sentence (as a domain of clause combination). The previous experience of my colleagues, their speaking knowledge of the languages, and their disciplined capacity for work were all important factors in making this project a success. The frontispiece of this first volume is a map on which is indicated the geographical locations of the 25 languages and dialects from which the subject data of this report are drawn. An inspection of this map shows that the languages are from four geographical regions: (1) northern Luzon; (2) Palawan; (3) Mindanao; (4) the Sulu Archipelago. The Visayas--the mass of smaller islands found between Luzon and Mindanao--are not represented in that this region for the most part speaks dialects of one of the major languages of the Philippines: Visayan or Cebuano. The island of Mindoro to the north is likewise unrepresented here even though it is inhabited by a number of cultural minority groups, in that the Summer Institute of Linguistics is not at present studying languages on that island. I list below the names of the linguistic investigators who formally participated in the project along with the language or dialect that each studies and its geographical location.