A QUD-based account of the
discourse particle naman in
Tagalog
Scott AnderBois
Brown University
AFLA 23 – TUFS, Tokyo, Japan
June 10-12, 2016
Introduction
Discourse particles in Tagalog
I
Tagalog has a rich inventory of 2nd position clitics conveying
modal, evidential, and discourse-related meanings.
I
One of the most puzzling of these is the particle naman.
I
naman is often described as a marker of ‘contrast’ and given
glosses like ‘on the other hand’, ‘but’, and ‘also’:
(1)
Nagaaral
si Linda. Naglalaro
naman si Carmen.
learn.AV.Impf Dir Linda play.AV.Imp naman Dir Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’ Schachter
& Otanes (1972)
Two problems
Problem 1: Not always contrastive
I
While naman often conveys contrast, many examples don’t
involve contrast:
(2)
Context: A asks B “Will you marry me?”. B replies:
Oo naman.
yes naman
‘Yes, of course.’
(3)
Context: The speaker is asked what the speaker and hearer should do
today.
Ma-rami
namang
restaurant sa mall.
Adj-quantity naman.Lnk restaurant Obl mall
‘Well, there are many restaurants at the mall.’
Two problems
Problem 2: naman across sentence types
I
Schachter & Otanes (1972) give very di↵erent
characterizations of naman across sentence types:
(4)
Imperative – “politeness together with mild reproach”
Tulung-an mo
naman ako.
help.Imp-PV 2sg.Indir naman 1sg.Dir
‘Please help me. (Don’t just sit there.)’ Schachter & Otanes (1972)
(5)
Predicative adjective – “critical or negative attitude”
Ma-rumi naman ito
Adj-dirt naman this
‘This is dirty (and I’m displeased).’
Schachter & Otanes (1972)
This talk
naman as marker of a closed QUD
I
Address problem 1 by developing a unified account of naman
as marking closure of the prior immediate QUD.
I
I
I
Contrastive uses are a special case where the prior immediate
QUD is marked closed, and . . .
. . . the utterance containing naman happens to address a
sister QUD.
More tentative thoughts on the prospects for extending the
approach to address problem 2.
Road map
§2 presents data from contrastive uses of naman and
introduces a QUD-based analysis
§3 shows several kinds of cases where naman is
felicitous with no contrast present
§4 refines the QUD-based analysis to handle these cases
with no contrast
§5 preliminarily explores the prospects of extending the
account to two sentence types which Schachter &
Otanes (1972) describe quite di↵erently:
I
I
naman in imperatives: to express “politeness
together with mild reproach”
naman with predicative adjectives, to express
“a critical or negative attitude”
§6 concludes.
§2: Contrastive uses of naman
Semantic opposition uses of naman
I
Schachter & Otanes (1972), p. 425 distinguish 2 uses of
naman with all declaratives.
I
(6)
“to express dissimarility between two situations”:
a. Nagaaral
si Linda. Naglalaro
naman si Carmen.
learn.AV.Impf Dir Linda play.AV.Imp naman Dir Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’
Schachter & Otanes (1972)
b. Bumili
ako
ng
karne kahapon. Ngayon, isda
buy.AF.Perf 1sg.Dir Indir meat yesterday today fish
naman.
naman
‘I bought meat yesterday. Today, (it will be) fish (instead).’
(Schachter & Otanes, 1972)
Comparison with English but
Correction/counterexpectation not due to naman
I
naman in these uses is comparable to ‘semantic opposition’
uses of English but (see, e.g. Toosarvandani (2014)):
(7)
I
a. The player is tall, but agile.
Counterexpectational
b. Liz doesn’t dance, but sing.
c. John is tall, but Bill is short.
Corrective
Semantic Opposition
naman is possible with counterexpectation and certain
corrections, but it is pero or ngunit convey these inferences:
(8)
May umuugoy
talaga-ng duyan ng
bata, pero wala
exist rock.AV.Impf really-Lnk cradle Indir child but not.exist
naman tao.
naman person
‘Something is really rocking the child’s cradle, but no one is there.’
Martin (2004)
Shift of viewpoint uses of naman
Questioner-responder shifts
I
Schachter & Otanes (1972)’s second use they describe is “to
express a shift of viewpoint”:
(9)
Context: Kumusta ka? ‘How are you?’
Mabuti. Ikaw
naman?
fine
2sg.Dir naman
‘Fine. And [what about] you?’ (Alt. ‘Your turn.’)
Schachter &
Otanes (1972)
(10)
Juan ang pangalan ko.
At ang iyo
naman?
Juan Dir name
1sg.Indir and Dir 2sg.Indir naman
‘My name is Juan. And yours?’
Schachter & Otanes (1972)
QUDs & contrastive naman: I
Questions Under Discussion (QUDs) and D-trees
I
QUD: hierarchically structured set of abstract questions we
are jointly endeavored to resolve at a given moment.
(e.g. Ginzburg (1996), Roberts (1996), Rojas-Esponda (2014a))
I
I
Immediate QUD: the highest ranked question in the QUD.
D-trees as a representational tool:
(Büring (2003))
Who ate what?
Who ate the beans?
Fred ate the beans
Mary. . .
Who ate the eggplant?
...
QUDs & contrastive naman: II
Discourse particles and QUDs
I
Since (at least) typically implicit, languages have various
means of encoding aspects of what the speaker takes the
QUD structure to be.
I
Many discourse particles claimed to do just this:
I
I
I
Eckardt (2007): German noch signals a series of prior positive
answers to sisters of the immediate QUD.
Davis (2009): Japanese yo encodes relevance to the immediate
QUD (simplifying significantly).
Rojas-Esponda (2014b): German doch signals a reopening of a
previously closed immediate QUD.
QUDs & contrastive naman: III
Contrastive topic in a QUD framework
I
Büring (2003) analyzes Contrastive Topic (CT) intonation in
English as indicating a QUD strategy:
Who ate what?
I
What did Fred eat?
What did Mary eat?
FredCT ate the beansF
MaryCT ate the eggplantF
CT indicates a shift between sister QUDs . . .
I
. . . and together with focus constrains which QUDs these are
QUDs & contrastive naman: IV
Contrastive uses of naman in a QUD framework
I
In the uses of naman we have seen, there is similarly closure
of the prior immediate QUD and the opening of a sister QUD:
(11)
Nagaaral
si Linda. Naglalaro
naman si Carmen.
learn.AV.Impf Dir Linda play.AV.Imp naman Dir Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’
What is everyone doing?
I
What is Linda doing?
What is Carmen doing?
Linda is studying
Carmen naman is playing
Pragmatic topic and focus may constrain the possible QUDs,
but need not.
(e.g. Kroeger (1993), Kaufman (2005))
Cross-linguistic comparisons
English CT and beyond
I
English CT is ‘forward-looking’, whereas naman is
‘backward-looking’.
I
However, recent work has claimed that CT in other languages
can be ‘backward-looking’
(Constant (2014) in Chinese,
Mikkelsen (2016) in Karuk)
I
Since English CT incorporates intonational focus (setting
aside boundary tones, F= H*, CT = L+H*), it constrains the
QUD in particular ways
I
Given the pragmatics of deaccenting in English (unlike
Tagalog), this means that CT is obligatory in English when
possible
(Büring (2003), Constant (2014))
I
Beyond CT, contrastive naman is most similar to semantic
opposition but (we return to this comparison later)
Non-contrastive naman
Naman is not always contrastive
I
The examples we have seen thus far all intuitively involve
contrast of some kind.
I
I
However, naman is also frequently used in declaratives where
there is no contrast.
Descriptively, there are two uses of this sort:
1. to convey the obviousness of the previous immediate QUD.
2. to signal a move to a sub-question/sub-issue of the previous
immediate QUD.
I
(cf. Bloomfield (1917): naman “expresses transition to
another subject, hence often also mild contrast”)
Obviousness uses
Obviousness uses of naman
I
naman often is used to signal that the resolution of the prior
immediate QUD is (or should be) obvious:
(12)
Context: A asks B “Will you marry me?”. B replies:
Oo naman.
yes naman
‘Yes, of course.’
(13)
Context: A Facebook discussion about whether a recipe which calls
for steaming a chocolate cake counts as ‘no-bake’.
“Of course po. Steaming is definitely not baking. Steamed ang
siopao. Hindi naman yun baked. Lol!”
(14)
Context: Responding to the question ‘Who likes chocolate?’
Lahat naman ay mahilig sa tsokolate
all
naman Top fond
Obl chocolate
‘Everyone likes chocolate (duh!)’
Move to subquestion uses
Raising sub-issues
I
The second non-contrastive use is to shift the immediate
QUD to a sub-question/sub-issue:
(15)
Context: Spkr is asked what the speaker and hearer should do today.
Ma-rami
namang restaurant sa mall.
Adj-quantity naman restaurant Obl mall
‘Well, there are many restaurants at the mall.’
(16)
Context: Addr states that Juan is going to the concert. Spkr replies:
Hindi siya
pupunta, nagcancel naman siya.
Neg 3sg.Dir go
cancel
naman 3sg.Dir
‘He’s not going, he cancelled.’
I
NB: this assumes a more flexible notion of sub-questionhood
than some authors assume (e.g. Rojas-Esponda (2014a))
§4: A unified QUD-based account
(Immediate) QUDs defined
I
We assume Roberts (1996)’s definition of the Common
Ground (CG) and QUD. Informally:
I
I
I
QUD is a function from a discourse “move” m to a stack of
questions ordered by precedence and constrained by
sub-questionhood.
CG is a function from a discourse “move” m to the set of
propositions which is the speaker and hearer’s Common
Ground.
We define the immediate QUD as follows:
(17)
Imm-QUD(m) = the unique question q such that for all q 0 2
QUD(m) where q 6= q 0 , q 0 < q
The e↵ect of naman
naman as a marker of QUD-closure
I
Using naman in a discourse move m signals the following:
(18)
naman(m) indicates that Imm-QUD(m
be) entailed by CG(m)
1) is (or should
I
N.B. naman does not directly indicate anything about the
current QUD-structure (e.g. Imm-QUD(m)).
I
However, regular norms of ‘traversal’ through QUD structures
still apply
(e.g. Büring (2003), Rojas-Esponda (2014a))
I
Crucially, while naman marks Imm-QUD(m 1) as resolved,
it does not indicate any sort of non-monotonic revision to the
overall QUD structure.
Returning to subcases
Three kinds of QUDs
I
The three subcases we have seen, then, represent di↵erent
kinds of Imm-QUD(m)
I
Imm-QUD(m) is determined as elsewhere: by inference and
other linguistic elements (e.g. focus, pero ‘but’, ngunit ‘but’):
Contrastive
Obviousness
...
m
1
Move to subquestion
...
m
(Sisterhood)
m
m
1
...
...
(Identity)
m
1
...
m
...
(Subquestion)
Returning to the data
Analysis of contrastive naman
(19)
Nagaaral
si Linda. Naglalaro
naman si Carmen.
learn.AV.Impf Dir Linda play.AV.Imp naman Dir Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’
I
Imm-QUD(m
I
Imm-QUD(m): ‘What is Carmen doing?’
I
I
1): ‘What is Linda doing?’
Therefore, naman in the second clause, move m, indicates
that Imm-QUD(m 1) is settled by CG(m)
Since m is construed as addressing a sister QUD, naman has
the e↵ect of signalling this shift
Obviousness use revisited
Analysis of obviousness naman
I
Imm-QUD(m
I
Imm-QUD(m): ‘Who likes chocolate?’
I
I
(20)
1): ‘Who likes chocolate?’
Therefore, naman in the second clause, move m, indicates
that Imm-QUD(m 1) is settled by CG(m)
Since m is construed as addressing an identical QUD, naman
has the e↵ect of signalling that the speaker regards this
question as already settled.
Context: Responding to the question ‘Who likes chocolate?’
Lahat naman ay mahilig sa tsokolate
all
naman Top fond
Obl chocolate
‘Everyone likes chocolate (duh!)’
Contexts that don’t allow naman
(21)
#Correction with same QUD:
a. Si John ba ang kumain
ng
tinola?
Dir John Q Dir eat.Pfv.AV Indir soup
‘Was John the one who ate the soup?’
b. Hindi, si Bill (#naman) yung
kumain
ng
tinola.
No
Dir Bill naman
that.Lnk eat.Pfv.AV Indir soup
‘No, it was Bill who ate the soup.’
(22)
#Move to superquestion:
a. Kailan mo
pinatay
si Fred?
when 2sg.Indir kill.Pfv.PV Dir Fred
‘When did you kill Fred?’
b. Hindi ko
(#?naman) siya
pinatay
Neg 1sg.Indir naman
3sg.Dir kill.Pfv.PV
Intended: ‘I didn’t kill him at all.’1
I
Finally, naman is infelicitous with non-sequiturs and other
attempts to change the QUD altogether.
§5: naman across sentence types
Thoughts on naman with imperatives
I
Schachter & Otanes (1972): naman in imperatives:
“politeness together with mild reproach”
I
I
I
(23)
Decision to choose a particular action is the same kind of thing
as a QUD
(see, e.g. Davis (2009))
naman in imperative move m: signal that the decision to
perform the action should already be settled by CG(m).
Preliminary support from contrast like (23):
Tulung-an mo
naman ako.
help.Imp-PV 2sg.Indir naman 1sg.Dir
‘Please help me. (Don’t just sit there.)’
Schachter & Otanes (1972)
a. X Context: You can see that my foot is stuck and that I am in
pain.
b. 7 Context: Unbeknownst to you, my foot is stuck under a table.
Predicate adjectives
I
S&O: naman with adjectives: “critical or negative attitude”
(24)
Mahal
naman ito.
expensive naman this
‘This is expensive (and I am unpleased).’
Predicate adjectives
I
S&O: naman with adjectives: “critical or negative attitude”
(24)
I
Mahal
naman ito.
expensive naman this
‘This is expensive (and I am unpleased).’
However, their examples have naturally negative adjectives –
positive antonyms yield the opposite:
(25)
Mura
naman ito.
a↵ordable naman this
‘This is so a↵ordable (I can buy it).’
Predicate adjectives
I
S&O: naman with adjectives: “critical or negative attitude”
(24)
I
Mahal
naman ito.
expensive naman this
‘This is expensive (and I am unpleased).’
However, their examples have naturally negative adjectives –
positive antonyms yield the opposite:
(25)
Mura
naman ito.
a↵ordable naman this
‘This is so a↵ordable (I can buy it).’
Possibility 1 naman in these cases signals a move to a
sub-question about the degree to which the predicate
holds.
Possibility 2 naman signals that a prior QUD (here, ‘Can I buy
it?’) is resolved.
I
N.B. possibilities not mutually exclusive (cf. English too)
§6: Conclusions
naman as marker of prior QUD being resolved
I
Showed that di↵erent uses of naman are due to di↵erent
current immediate QUDs:
Contrastive: sister to prior QUD
Obviousness: identical to prior QUD
Move to subquestion: subquestion of prior QUD
I
Related naman to other markers of contrast and other
QUD-particles such as German doch, nämlich, etc.
I
Supports the idea that rather than indicating a whole
discourse strategy a la Büring (2003), Contrastive Topic
might be best thought of as indicating closure of a QUD with
focus intonation relating this to a new QUD (similar to
Constant (2014)).
Maraming salamat! Thank you!
Thanks to anonymous AFLA reviewers, Jenny Tan, and especially
to Amber Teng for her hard work and patience as a language
consultant.
References: I
Bloomfield, Leonard (1917) Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. University
of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature III(3).
Büring, Daniel (2003) On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics and
Philosophy 26(5): 511–545.
Constant, Noah (2014) Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Davis, Christopher (2009) Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo.
Journal of Semantics 26: 329–366.
Eckardt, Regine (2007) ‘Was noch? ’ Navigating in Question Answer Discourse.
In Interfaces and Interface Conditions, Volume 6, Mouton de Gruyter, 77–96.
Ginzburg, Jonathan (1996) Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In
Language, Logic, and Computation, vol. 1.
Kaufman, Daniel (2005) Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog. In The many
faces of Austronesian voice systems: some new empirical studies, Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University,
175–196, online at:
https://www.academia.edu/1919247/Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog.
References: II
Krifka, Manfred (1999) Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT
8, CLC Publications, 111–128.
Kroeger, Paul (1993) Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog.
CSLI.
Martin, J.R. (2004) Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog. John
Benjamins, 255–304.
Mikkelsen, Line (2016) Contrastive topic in Karuk, talk at SULA 9.
Roberts, Craige (1996) Information Structure in Discourse. In OSU Working
Papers in Linguistics, revised 1998 version, retrieved from author’s webpage
8/20/09.
Rojas-Esponda, Tania (2014a) A discourse model for überhaupt. Semantics &
Pragmatics 7: 1–45.
Rojas-Esponda, Tania (2014b) A QUD account of German doch. In
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş,
Aritz Irurtzun, & Bryan Leferman, eds., 359–376.
Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes (1972) Tagalog Reference Grammar.
University of California Press.
Toosarvandani, Maziar (2014) Contrast and the structure of discourse.
Semantics & Pragmatics 7(4): 1–57.
EXTRA SLIDES
Extra slides
Ensuring semantic opposition
Ruling out parallelism cases
I
One potential worry: the account seems to predict that
naman can be used in cases of parallelism.
(26)
I
#Nagaaral
si Linda. Nagaaral
naman si Carmen.
learn.AV.Impf Dir Linda play.AV.Imp naman Dir Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen is studying.’
Suppose Imm-QUD(m1 ) = ‘Is Linda studying?’ and
Imm-QUD(m2 ) = ‘Is Carmen studying?’.
Response 1: QUD structures don’t include individual polar
questions (i.e. (26) is bad because Imm-QUD
is ‘Who is studying?’ in both clauses).
Response 2: Parallelism must be expressed overtly with rin.
When expressed, this forces the higher-level
Imm-QUD (see Krifka (1999) on too)
Obviousness used concessively
Concessions as a particular case of obviousness
I
One particular use of this sort is in concessives:
(27)
a. Alam ko
namang
sadya-ng
magkalayo ang
know 1sg.Indir naman.Lnk purpose-Lnk be.far.apart Ang
ating
mundo.
1pl.Indir.Lnk world.
‘I know, of course, there’s a reason our worlds are far apart.’
b. Pero aking
ma-ipa-pangako-ng:
but 1sg.Indir.Lnk will.promise.you.Lnk
‘but I will promise you (this):’
(28)
Kahit
alam namang
walang
pag-asa,
ang puso
although know naman.Lnk not.exist.Lnk Nmlz-hope Dir heart
ko-ng
ito-’y
’di pamimigay
1sg.Indir-Lnk this-Top Neg be.free
‘Even if I know there’s no hope, my heart won’t be free (i.e. available
to anyone else)’