Abstract:
The objective of this study is to compare and synthesize the characteristics of the Manobo verbal predicates and their argument realization systems across the Manobo language family. There are fifteen Manobo languages, all but one spoken in Mindanao, in the South of the Philippines. On the basis of the available grammatical descriptions of five of the languages, we evaluate whether they are representative of the "Philippine-type focus system", by comparing them between themselves and to their Tagalog equivalent. The Philippine-type focus system marks the case of the verb arguments in a dual way, utilizing either pronouns and noun phrase determiners, or focus verbal affixes - along nine cases or grammatical relations established by Schachter and Otanes (1972) in their Tagalog reference grammar. While on the basis of the simple definition above it is quickly obvious that Manobo languages do belong to the Philippine-type focus system, we identify salient differences in three main morphosyntactic areas. First, the non-personal case markers in Manobo languages have only one or two differentiated forms for three grammatical functions, where Tagalog has three (ang / ng / sa). This is, we hypothesize, the reason why Manobo languages use more demonstratives in conjunction with the case markers than Tagalog (observation that we confirm on the basis of an ad-hoc Manobo elicited text and its translation to Tagalog) - as a kind of disambiguation. Second, some of the Manobo languages have a fourth set of personal pronouns, used to replace the expected forms in a few restricted cases of argument fronting, or to avoid the cooccurrence of two monosyllabic, enclitic forms - but the replacement rules differ from one language to another. Third, the mapping of argument semantic roles to globally equivalent determiners or focus affix forms may differ across the languages in their detailed scope. In conclusion, by including six languages in the comparison we are able to identify salient morphosyntactic differences not only with Tagalog but even within the Manobo subfamily; gauging how significant those differences may be from a typological or from a comparative and historical standpoint will require more "indepth" data collection and research on each of the concerned languages.