1932

Abstract

Over the last decade, there has been a slow but steady accumulation of psycholinguistic research focusing on typologically diverse languages. In this review, we provide an overview of the psycholinguistic research on Philippine languages at the sentence level. We first discuss the grammatical features of these languages that figure prominently in existing research. We identify four linguistic domains that have received attention from language researchers and summarize the empirical terrain. We advance two claims that emerge across these different domains: () The agent-first pressure plays a central role in many of the findings, and () the generalization that the patient argument is the syntactically privileged argument cannot be reduced to frequency, but instead is an emergent phenomenon caused by the alignment of competing pressures toward an optimal candidate. We connect these language-specific claims to language-general theories of sentence processing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-102844
2024-01-16
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-031522-102844.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-102844&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alday PM, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. 2014. Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension. Neuroinformatics 12:1143–79
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldridge E. 2004. Internally headed relative clauses in Austronesian languages. Lang. Linguist. 5:199–129
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldridge E. 2008. Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian. Lingua 118:101440–69
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldridge E. 2017. Internally and externally headed relative clauses in Tagalog. Glossa 2:141
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anand P, Chung S, Wagers M. 2011. Widening the net: challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age. SBE 2020: Future Research in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Position Pap. 121 Washington, DC: Natl. Sci. Found. https://people.ucsc.edu/schung/anandchungwagers.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrios AL, Bernardo ABI. 2012. The acquisition of case marking by L1 Chabacano and L1 Cebuano learners of L2 Filipino: influence of actancy structure on transfer. Lang. Linguist. 13:3499–521
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barrios J. 2014. Tagalog for Beginners: An Introduction to Filipino, the National Language of the Philippines North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle
  8. Bickel B, Witzlack-Makarevich A, Choudhary KK, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: evidence from case marking. PLOS ONE 10:8e0132819
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Billings LA 2005. Ordering clitics and postverbal R-expressions in Tagalog: a unified analysis?. Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages A Carnie, H Harley, S Dooley 303–40. Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boland J. 1993. The role of verb argument structure in sentence processing: distinguishing between syntactic and semantic effects. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 22:133–52
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Boland JE, Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey SM, Carlson GN. 1995. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: evidence from wh-questions. J. Mem. Lang. 34:6774–806
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bondoc IP. 2020. Probabilistic and predictive parsing in Tagalog voice alternations PhD Thesis Univ. Hawaii Mānoa Honolulu:
  13. Bondoc IP, Deen K, Or EM, Hemedes MC 2019. Reflexives in adult and child Tagalog. Proceedings of the 43rd Boston University Conference on Language Development MM Brown, B Dailey 82–93. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bondoc IP, Kush D. 2023. Animacy effects in Tagalog relative clause processing Poster presented at 36th Annual Conference on Human Sentence Processing Pittsburgh, PA: March 9–11
  15. Bondoc IP, O'Grady W, Deen K, Tanaka N 2018. Agrammatism in Tagalog: voice and relativisation. Aphasiology 32:5598–617
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bondoc IP, Schafer A. 2022. Differential effects of agency, animacy, and syntactic prominence on production and comprehension: evidence from a verb-initial language. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 76:4302–26
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M. 2006. The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychol. Rev. 113:4787–821
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cayado DKT, Wray S, Stockall L. 2023. Does linear position matter for morphological processing? Evidence from a Tagalog masked priming experiment. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 38:81167–82
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ceña RM. 1977. Patient primacy in Tagalog Paper presented at 52nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Chicago: Dec. 28–30
  20. Ceña RM. 1979. Tagalog counterexamples to the Accessibility Hierarchy. Stud. Philipp. Linguist. 3:1119–24
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ceña RM, Nolasco RMD. 2011. Gramatikang Filipino: Balangkasan Quezon City, Philipp: Univ. Philipp. Press
  22. Ceña RM, Nolasco RMD. 2012. Sintaks ng Filipino Manila: Natl. Comm. Cult. Arts
  23. Chan A, Lieven E, Tomasello M 2009. Children's understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cogn. Linguist. 20:2267–300
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen V, McDonnell B. 2019. Western Austronesian voice. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 5:173–95
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  26. Christianson K, Cho HY. 2009. Interpreting null pronouns (pro) in isolated sentences. Lingua 119:7989–1008
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cooreman A, Fox BA, Givón T. 1984. The discourse definition of ergativity. Stud. Lang. 8:11–34
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Demiral SB, Schlesewsky M, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. 2008. On the universality of language comprehension strategies: evidence from Turkish. Cognition 106:1484–500
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dryer MS. 2013. Order of relative clause and noun. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Erdocia K, Laka I, Mestres-Missé A, Rodriguez-Fornells A. 2009. Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain Lang 109:11–17
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ferreira F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cogn. Psychol. 47:2164–203
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Foley WA. 2008. The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages PK Austin, S Musgrave 22–44. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Frankel DG, Amir M, Frenkel E, Arbel T. 1980. A developmental study of the role of word order in comprehending Hebrew. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 29:123–35
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Frazier L. 1987. Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 5:4519–59
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Frazier L, Clifton C. 1987. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Lang. Cogn. Process. 4:293–126
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Galang R 1988. The language situation of Filipino Americans. Language Diversity, Problem or Resource? SL McKay, SC Wong 229–51. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Galang R. 2001. Language of instruction in the Philippines in the 20th century: policies, orientations, and future directions. Journey of One Hundred Years: Reflections on the Centennial of Philippine Independence CM Brainard, EF Litton 97–117. Santa Monica, CA: Philipp. Am. Women Writ. Art.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Garcia R, Dery JE, Roeser J, Höhle B 2018. Word order preferences of Tagalog-speaking adults and children. First Lang 38:617–40
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Garcia R, Garrido Rodriguez G, Kidd E 2021. Developmental effects in the online use of morphosyntactic cues in sentence processing: evidence from Tagalog. Cognition 216:104859
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Garcia R, Kidd E 2020. The acquisition of the Tagalog symmetrical voice system: evidence from structural priming. Lang. Learn. Dev 16:4399–425
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Garcia R, Kidd E. 2022. Acquiring verb-argument structure in Tagalog: a multivariate corpus analysis of caregiver and child speech. Linguistics 60:61855–906
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Garcia R, Roeser J, Höhle B. 2019. Thematic role assignment in the L1 acquisition of Tagalog: use of word order and morphosyntactic markers. Lang. Acquis. 26:3235–61
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Garcia R, Roeser J, Höhle B. 2020. Children's online use of word order and morphosyntactic markers in Tagalog thematic role assignment: an eye-tracking study. J. Child Lang. 47:3533–55
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Garcia R, Roeser J, Kidd E. 2023. Finding your voice: Voice-specific effects in Tagalog reveal the limits of word order priming. Cognition 236:105424
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gattei CA, Dickey MW, Wainselboim AJ, París L. 2015. The thematic hierarchy in sentence comprehension: a study on the interaction between verb class and word order in Spanish. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 68:101981–2007
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gonzales WDW. 2017. Philippine Englishes. Asian Engl. 19:179–95
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hammerly C, Staub A, Dillon B. 2022. Person-based prominence guides incremental interpretation: evidence from obviation in Ojibwe. Cognition 225:105122
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Haupt FS, Schlesewsky M, Roehm D, Friederici AD, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. 2008. The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. J. Mem. Lang. 59:154–96
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hawkins JA. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  50. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. 2010. The weirdest people in the world?. Behav. Brain Sci. 33:2/361–135
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hsieh H 2016. Prosodic indicators of phrase structure in Tagalog transitive sentences. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association H Nomoto, T Miyauchi, A Shiohara 111–22. Canberra: Asia-Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Huang YT, Zheng X, Meng X, Snedeker J. 2013. Children's assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. J. Mem. Lang. 69:4589–606
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jäger LA, Engelmann F, Vasishth S. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. J. Mem. Lang. 94:313–39
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kamide Y, Altmann GT, Haywood SL. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. J. Mem. Lang. 49:1133–56
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Keenan E, Comrie B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguist. Inq. 8:163–99
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kline M, Demuth K. 2010. Factors facilitating implicit learning: the case of the Sesotho passive. Lang. Acquis. 17:4220–34
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Koizumi M, Yasugi Y, Tamaoka K, Kiyama S, Kim J et al. 2014. On the (non)universality of the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension: a sentence-processing study in Kaqchikel Maya. Language 90:3722–36
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kroeger P. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  59. Lau E, Tanaka N. 2021. The subject advantage in relative clauses: a review. Glossa 6:134
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Law P. 2016. The syntax of Tagalog relative clauses. Linguistics 54:4717–68
    [Google Scholar]
  61. MacDonald MC. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Front. Psychol. 4:226
    [Google Scholar]
  62. MacWhinney B, Bates E, Kliegl R. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 23:2127–50
    [Google Scholar]
  63. MacWhinney B, Pléh C, Bates E. 1985. The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cogn. Psychol. 17:2178–209
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Marzan JB. 2013. Spoken language patterns of selected Filipino toddlers and pre-school children PhD Thesis Univ. Philipp. Diliman Quezon City, Philipp.:
  65. Nagaya N. 2019. Relativization in Tagalog conversation: a typological perspective Paper presented at 13th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology Pavia, Italy: Sept. 4–6
  66. Norcliffe E, Harris AC, Jaeger TF. 2015. Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30:91009–32
    [Google Scholar]
  67. PSA (Philipp. Stat. Auth.) 2021. Philippines in figures Summ. Stat. PSA Quezon City, Philipp.:
  68. Pizarro-Guevara JS. 2014. The acquisition of Tagalog relative clauses: a comprehension study MA Thesis Calif. State Univ. Long Beach:
  69. Pizarro-Guevara JS. 2017. An auditory masked priming study of nasal substitution in Cebuano Paper presented at 2017 Linguistic Institute Morphological Typology and Linguistic Cognition Workshop Lexington, KY: July 22
  70. Pizarro-Guevara JS. 2020. When human universal meets language specific PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  71. Pizarro-Guevara JS, Dillon B 2020. What Tagalog can teach us: the influence of word order in reflexive processing. Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association T Clark, J Dussere, C Ting 138–56. London, Can.: Univ. West. Ontario Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Pizarro-Guevara JS, Dillon B. 2022. When the SRC/ORC asymmetry emerges and breaks down in Tagalog relative clauses Talk presented at 35th Annual Conference on Human Sentence Processing Santa Cruz, CA: March 24–26
  73. Pizarro-Guevara JS, Huerto G, Dillon B. 2022. Interference effects in Tagalog reflexive processing Talk presented at 35th Annual Conference on Human Sentence Processing Santa Cruz, CA: March 24–26
  74. Pizarro-Guevara JS, Wagers M. 2020. The predictive value of Tagalog voice morphology in filler-gap dependency formation. Front. Psychol. 11:517
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pizarro-Guevara JS, Wagers M. 2021. (A)symmetries in Tagalog relative clause processing. Proceedings of the 27th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association H Hsieh, K New 113–28. London, Can.: Univ. West. Ontario Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Primus B. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active Tübingen, Ger.: Niemeyer
  77. Rackowski A, Richards N. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study. Linguist. Inq. 36:4565–99
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Reid L, Liao HC. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Lang. Linguist. 5:2433–90
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Richards N 2009. The Tagalog copula. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association S Chung, D Finer, I Paul, E Potsdam 181–95. Canberra: Asia-Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sauppe S. 2016. Verbal semantics drives early anticipatory eye movements during the comprehension of verb-initial sentences. Front. Psychol. 7:95
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sauppe S, Flecken M. 2021. Speaking for seeing: Sentence structure guides visual event apprehension. Cognition 206:104516
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sauppe S, Næss Å, Roversi G, Meyer M, Bornkessel-Schleswesky I, Bickel B. 2022. The agent bias in comprehension is robust in an OVS language, at least for human referents: evidence from Äiwoo (Solomon Islands) Paper presented at 35th Annual Conference on Human Sentence Processing Santa Cruz, CA: March 24–26
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Sauppe S, Norcliffe E, Konopka AE, Van Valin RDJr., Levinson SC. 2013. Dependencies first: eye tracking evidence from sentence production in Tagalog. Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 35:1265–70
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Schachter P. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 8 Grammatical Relations P Cole 279–306. New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Schachter P, Otanes FT. 1983. Tagalog Reference Grammar Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  86. Segalowitz NS, Galang RG. 1978. Agent–patient word-order preference in the acquisition of Tagalog. J. Child Lang. 5:147–64
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sinclair H, Bronckart JP. 1972. S.V.O. a linguistic universal? A study in developmental psycholinguistics. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 14:3329–48
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tanaka N. 2016. An asymmetry in the acquisition of Tagalog relative clauses PhD Thesis Univ. Hawaii Mānoa Honolulu:
  89. Tanaka N, Bondoc I, Deen K. 2022. Examining main clause similarity and frequency effects in the production of Tagalog relative clauses. J. Southeast Asian Linguist. Soc. 15:270–86
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tanaka N, O'Grady W, Deen K, Bondoc IP. 2019. An asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses: evidence from Tagalog. First Lang 39:6618–32
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey SM. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. J. Mem. Lang. 33:3285–318
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Vasilyeva M, Huttenlocher J, Waterfall H. 2006. Effects of language intervention on syntactic skill levels in preschoolers. Dev. Psychol. 42:1164–74
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wang L, Schlesewsky M, Bickel B, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. 2009. Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24:7/81180–226
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-102844
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-102844
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error