Determining the scope of Tagalog clitic adverbs
Henrison Hsieh1 and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine2
Linguistic Society of America, January 2024

1

Introduction

Austronesian languages of the Philippines, including Tagalog, are well-known for their inventory of second-position clitics.
(1)a. Umi~inomkana

rin daw ng alak.

av.ipfv~drink 2sg.nom already also evid gen alcohol‘You’re also drinking alcohol now (somebody said).’b. Hindi ka
negna

rin daw umi~inomng alak.

2sg.nom already also evid av.ipfv~drink gen alcohol‘You’re also no longer drinking alcohol (somebody said).’
As seen in (1), there are pronominal clitics and adverbial clitics.
 The order of multiple clitics within a cluster is (mostly) fixed, based on their type (pronoun
vs adverbial) and phonological shape.
(2) The order of Tagalog second-position clitics:
1𝜎 pronouns < 1𝜎 adverbs < 2+𝜎 adverbs < 2𝜎 pronouns
See e.g. Schachter 1973 and Schachter and Otanes 1972: pp. 411–414.
Prior work on Tagalog second-position clitics (e.g. Richards, 2003; Anderson, 2009; Kaufman,2010) propose that their surface word order is determined postsyntactically, both for secondposition placement and cluster-internally (pace Tanenbaum, 2020a,b).
• Richards (2003) and Erlewine and Levin (2021) argue that clitic pronouns originate inargument positions and move to (or Agree with) a higher position outside of the predicate.
• But previous work has not determined the exact logical positions of clitic adverbs.
Today: We report on the semantic scope of clitic adverbs in Tagalog, based primarily on thenative speaker intuitions of the first author.
• No prior work has conducted a systematic investigation of clitic adverb scope.
• The clitic adverbs show heterogeneous scope behavior despite uniform surface syntax.
• The semantic scope of adverbs tells us about their logical positions at LF, and therefore
clarifies the exact extent and shape of their postsyntactic displacement.
1 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, henrison.hsieh@polyu.edu.hk
2 University of Helsinki / National University of Singapore, mitcho@nus.edu.sg

1

2

Clitic adverb inventory

We first introduce the inventory of second-position clitics in Tagalog — with approximate glosses— building on Schachter and Otanes 1972: §6.2 and Kaufman 2009: 9:(3)a.

speech act/clause type:
pò/hòpolitenessbaquestion marker
sána
hortative/counterfactual
discourse coherence:
naman
switch topic
kasi‘because’tuloy‘as a result’ngà“emphasis”

b.

c.

◯

d.

temporal:napa‘already’‘still’◯◯focus:mandinlang/lamang‘even’‘also’‘only’

other:
talagamúna‘really/very’‘first’?

e.

f.

speaker attitude/status:talaga‘really/certainly’
dawreported speechkayà‘hopefully’
palasurpriseyátà‘perhaps’◯◯◯• We expect the meanings of the “speech act/clause type” (3a) and “discourse coherence”(3b) type — and probably most of the “speaker attitude” (3c) type — to be high, taking
scope over the entire proposition expressed by the clause.
• In addition, the semantics of some clitic adverbs are themselves not yet clear (e.g. ngà,múna), so we set them aside.
 We therefore take a closer look at the scope of adverbs with ◯, whose semantic contributions are relatively clear and which may potentially take scope in different ways. We
concentrate on instances where we have the clearest evidence for relative scope relations.

3

Scope with respect to negation

Here we consider the scope of temporal and focus particles with respect to negation.3

3.1 na / pa
We begin with na and pa, which reflect well studied temporal particles in many other languages.
Pa has semantics similar to German noch and English still; see e.g. Löbner 1989; Krifka 2000.

3 We do not consider the scope of man ‘even’ with respect to negation, as such combinations yield “scale reversal”
behavior, which can be analyzed as involving scope-taking (e.g. Karttunen and Peters, 1979) or with a crosslinguistically common lexical ambiguity (see e.g. Rooth, 1985; von Stechow, 1991).

2

(4) pa(p)a. at-issue: 𝑝 trueb. presupposes: 𝑝 true at a (recent) prior time
(5)a. Masaya pa si
happy

Gina.

b. Hindi pa masaya si

still nom Gina

neg

‘Gina is still happy.’

still happy

Gina.

nom Gina‘Gina is still not happy.’(pa > not, *not > pa)

Let 𝑝 = ‘Gina happy’◯ “pa > not”: predicts 𝑝 false now and false at a prior time
⨉ “not > pa”: predicts 𝑝 false now, but was true recently (presupposition of pa(p) projects)
Na expresses a “change of state” meaning akin to that of German schon, Mandarin sentence-final
le, and certain uses of English already; see e.g. Löbner 1989; Krifka 2000; Soh and Gao 2008.
(6) na(p)a. at-issue: 𝑝 trueb. presupposes: 𝑝 false at a (recent) prior time(7) Hindi ka
neg

umi~inomna

ng alak.

simplified from (1b)2sg.nom already av.ipfv~drink gen alcohol‘You’re no longer drinking alcohol now.’(na > not, *not > na)

Let 𝑝 = ‘you’re drinking alcohol’◯ “na > not”: predicts 𝑝 false now, but 𝑝 true (¬𝑝 false) at a prior time
⨉ “not > na”: predicts 𝑝 false now and was also false before (presupposition of na(p) projects)
 As noted by Richards (2003: 243–244), na ‘already’ and pa ‘still’ must scope over negation.

3.2 dinDin (postvocalically: rin) is an additive focus particle (‘also’), presupposing the truth of adiscourse-salient alternative proposition.
(8)a. ✓ Hindi b<um>ili si
neg<av>buy

Juan ng [isda]F , atnom Juan gen fishhindi rin siya

and negb<um>ili ng itlog.

also 3sg.nom <av>buy gen egg‘Juan didn’t buy [fish]F , and he also didn’t buy [eggs]F .’b. #B<um>ili siJuan ng [isda]F , pero hindi rin siya

<av>buybut

nom Juan gen fishneg

(also > not)b<um>ili ng itlog.

also 3sg.nom <av>buy

Intended: ‘Juan bought [fish]F , but he did not also buy [eggs]F .’ din must take scope over negation.
3

gen egg(*not > also)

3.3 lang
Lang (and its variant lamang) is an exclusive focus particle (‘only’). Although it often associateswith a fronted focus, it can also associate with a postverbal argument focus (Richards, 2019).
(9)

a. Umi~inomlang siJuan ng [kape]F .

av.ipfv~drink only nom Juan gen coffee‘Juan only drinks [coffee]F .’ (He doesn’t drink anything else.)b. Hindi lang umi~inom
neg
✓
✓

3.4

si

Juan ng [kape]F .

only av.ipfv~drink nom Juan gen coffee‘Juan doesn’t only drink [coffee]F .’ (He drinks other things too.)‘Juan only doesn’t drink [coffee]F .’ (He drinks everything else.)(not > only)(only > not)Summary

The evidence above suggests that not all clitic adverbs behave the same in their scope withrespect to negation:• na ‘already,’ pa ‘still,’ and din ‘also’ strictly scope over negation;• lang ‘only’ can take scope above or below negation.

4

Scope in adverb clusters

Next we consider the relative scope of two clitic adverbs in the same cluster.

4.1 na/pa × lang ‘only’
Word order: na lang, *lang na(10)[English]F na
Englishlang ang alam niya.

already only nom know 3sg.gen‘S/he only knows English now.’4(11)a. Context (lost all but one): This person used to speak several languages, but got into
an accident and suffered a brain injury. Because of this, they’ve lost the ability speak✓
all those languages except for English. (Predicts “na > only” true.)(10)b. Context (acquired only one): A child is growing up in a multilingual environment.
After some time, they’re able to speak English, but not any of the other languages
yet. (Predicts “only > na” true.)# (10)

4 The argument ‘English’ is clefted here. The judgments in (11) are the same with ‘English’ being the predicate itself:(i)

Nag-i~English na
lang siya.
av-ipfv~English already only 3sg.nom≈ ‘S/he now only [Englishes]F .’4

Word order: pa lang, *lang pa
(12)

[Si

John]F pa lang ang nasa

nom Johnbahay.

still only nom pred.obl house‘Still only John is at home.’(13)

a. Context (still only one): After the meeting, everyone goes back to their respective
homes. Thirty minutes after the meeting, only John has arrived at home. Now, onehour after the meeting, John is still the only one at home. The others are still on their✓way. (Predicts “pa > only” true.)(12)b. Context (one still at home): Friends have agreed to meet at the mall at 1pm. At
12:30pm, everyone was at their respective homes. Now at 12:45, there is just one
person who still hasn’t left their home: John. (Predicts “only > pa” true.)# (12)

 Only na/pa > lang scope is possible!

4.2 din ‘also’ × lang ‘only’
Word order: din lang, lang din orders both ok, with some preferences (not yet understood)
Nag-i~English {lang din / ? din lang} si(14)

av-ipfv~English only also

also only

Mary.

nom Mary‘[Mary]F2 alsoF2 speaks onlyF1 [English]F1 .’(15)

a. Context 1: John speaks onlyF1 [English]F1 . [Mary]F2 alsoF2 speaks onlyF1 [English]F1 .
✓(Predicts “also > only” felicitous.)(14)
b. Context 2: Everyone here speaks Tagalog. OnlyF1 [Mary]F1 alsoF2 speaks [English]F2 .
(Predicts “only > also” felicitous.)#(14)

 Only din ‘also’ > lang ‘only’ scope is possible, regardless of word order.5

4.3 na/pa × talaga ‘really’
Tagalga invites the translation ‘really,’ but has two distinct uses: as an epistemic adverb (‘certainly/actually’) and as a degree intensifier (‘very’).
 The two talaga take different scope with respect to na and pa.
5 The two intended readings can be expressed more clearly by fronting the nominal argument, creating two separate
domains for clitic placement. The fronting in (iia) is topicalization, as opposed to clefting in (iib).
(ii)

a.

Si
Mary din ay nag-i~English lang.
nom Mary also top av-ipfv~English only
‘Mary also speaks only English.’ (✓C1, #C2)

b.

5

Si
Mary lang ang nag-i~English din.
nom Mary only nom av-ipfv~English also
‘Only Mary also speaks English.’ (#C1, ✓C2)

Word order: na talaga, *talaga na(16)

Buntisnatalaga si

pregnant already really

Susan.

nom Susan‘Susan is really pregnant now.’6(17)

a. Context (confirming pregnancy): Susan thought she was pregnant based on an athome test, but she hasn’t looked or felt different at all, so she went to a doctor to✓check. The doctor confirmed that Susan indeed is now pregnant.
(16)
b. Context (became very pregnant): The last time I saw Susan, she told me she waspregnant but she wasn’t showing yet. Now I saw her at 8 months, and she’s really✓pregnant. (Predicts na > talagadeg true.)(16)⎛ Although we constructed (17a) so that talagaepist > na is true (≈ ‘It’s certain that she became ⎞⎜ pregnant’), the context may also support a na > talagaepist reading (≈ ‘It’s now certain (and ⎟⎟⎜⎟⎜ wasn’t certain before) that she is pregnant.’) Here’s an example to specifically test this:
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜ (18) Si Rob natalaga ang mamamatay-tao.
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
nom
Rob
already
reallynom
killer-person⎟⎜⎟⎜
literally: ‘The killer is Rob’ + na + talaga⎟⎜⎟⎜⎜ (19) Context (became certain): This town has had a serial killer, and Rob is a prime ⎟
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
suspect.
Now,
new
DNA
evidence
came
back
from
the
lab
which
shows
that
it
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
indeed was Rob.
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
(Predicts
na>talagatrue;
talaga>na
false.7
)
#
(18)
epist
epist
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜
⎠
⎝
 The infelicity of (18) in (19) shows that talagaepist cannot take scope under na.8
Word order: pa talaga, *talaga pa(20)

Buntispa talaga si

pregnant still really

Susan.

nom Susan‘Susan is really pregnant still.’(21)

a. Context (confirmed still pregnant): Susan was pregnant and had an accident, andso was worried if there was a miscarriage. An at-home test confirmed she’s still
pregnant, but she wanted to be sure so she went to a doctor. The doctor confirmed✓(20)that she is still pregnant. (Predicts talagaepist > pa true.)b. Context (still very pregnant): The last time I saw Susan, she was 8 months pregnant
and showing a lot. Now she’s at 9 months and hasn’t given birth yet, so she’s still✓
very pregnant. (Predicts pa > talagadeg true.)(20)

 Like na, pa naturally takes scope under talagaepist but above talagadeg .9
6 Talaga also has a use as a predicate, embedding a clause with a linker (ng), which only has the epistemic use:(iii) Talaga-ng buntis
na
si
Susan
certain-lk pregnant already nom Susan‘It’s certain that she is now pregnant.’
7 The latter would informally predict a meaning like ‘It is certain that the killer is now Rob / Rob became the killer.’
8 We do not specifically test for a talagadeg > na interpretation, as it is unclear what this would mean.
9 Unlike with na which we tested in (18), it seems impossible to construct an example where pa > talagaepist would be

6

4.4

Summary

From the interpretation of clitic adverbs in clusters, we learn:• na ‘already,’ pa ‘still,’ din ‘also’ strictly scope over lang ‘only’;• epistemic talaga scopes above na/pa but degree talaga scopes under na/pa.
In sum, we have learned that clitic adverbs exhibit certain fixed scope effects with respect toother clitic adverbs and with functional heads, reflected in (22):(22)

5talagaepist > na/pa/din10 > {lang} > negation > {lang} > talagadeg

Proposal• The scope of clitic adverbs reflects fixed structural positions for their LF interpretation.
• The clitic adverbs are then linearized postsyntactically, à la Richards 2003, Anderson
2009, Kaufman 2010.

Concretely, we assume the following functional sequence for the clausal spine in Tagalog,
combining proposals in Kaufman 2005 and Hsieh 2020:(23)

Tagalog functional sequence, without heads for clitic adverbs:
C11 > (Top*) > (Neg1 ) > (Foc) > (Neg2 ) > Asp > Voice ...
• Voice is the lower phase head (Hsieh to appear; = v in Erlewine and Levin 2021). The
verb moves up to Asp, preceding postverbal arguments in the lower phase.
• Foc hosts non-DP focus; DP focus constructions are biclausal (see e.g. Hsieh, 2020).
Top hosts ay-marked topics.
• Kaufman 2005 proposes two positions for negation, which we discuss below.

Each clitic adverb has a designated logical position in relation to the functional sequence.
(24)

Logical positions of clitic adverbs:(speech act modifiers) > (epistemic adverbs, e.g. talagaepist ) > (na/pa/din) >Top/Neg1 > Foc(=lang) > Neg2 > (predicate-internal adverbs, e.g. talagadeg )• We assume these LF positions reflect their positions in narrow syntax.
• Formally, each adverb may correspond to its own functional head (à la Cinque, 1999,2004) or adjoin but restricted to this order (cf Ernst, 2002).
• Note that we specifically identify lang ‘only’ with the head Foc.

 Clitics are linearized to follow the first overt head or phrase in the clitic domain (TopP).12

true but talagaepist > pa would be false, in order to test the availability of the wide scope pa. Again, it is unclear what
a talagadeg > pa reading would be.
10 Na and pa never cooccur. It’s possible that the scope of na/pa vs din have ordering restrictions on their scope too,but see Appendix A on the difficulty of determining this scope relationship.
11 Hsieh (2020) further splits the C into Force > Rel.
12 For clitic adverb placement, this may be after one prosodic word, inside the first phrase; see Kaufman 2005. We set
such examples aside here.

7

Support for the proposal comes from data such as in (25):13
a. Hindi {lang} [dito]F {*lang} ma-sarap

(25)

neg

only

here

ang kape.

adj-delicious nom coffee*‘The coffee is only not good [here]F .’ (It’s good everywhere else.)‘The coffee is not only good [here]F .’ (It’s good elsewhere too.)✓b. [Dito]F {lang} hindi {*lang} ma-sarap
here

only

neg

(*only > not)(not > only)

ang kape.

adj-delicious nom coffee‘The coffee is only not good [here]F .’ (It’s good everywhere else.)*‘The coffee is not only good [here]F .’ (It’s good elsewhere too.)✓(only > not)(*not > only)• At first glance, the pattern here seems simple: each allows only the surface scope reading.
• But it is not generally the case that both hindi lang and lang hindi orders are possible. Notethat the position of lang is fixed in each example.
 The scope of ‘only’ reflects the position of Foc, reflected by the linear position of its
specifier dito ‘here,’ with respect to negation. Lang is linearized postsyntactically.
a. Structure for (25a):(26)[Neg1PPF:

Neg1
hindi=lang[FocP[dito]F[dito]F

Foconly[AspP

Asp ...
ma-sarap ...

Neg2
hindi

[AspP

Asp ...
ma-sarap ...

b. Structure for (25b):
[FocP
PF:

[dito]F[dito]F =lang

Foconly[Neg2P

Recall that there are also examples where ‘only’ and negation are scopally ambiguous. Suchexamples involve no focus-fronting, so the height of negation with respect to FocP is unclear.
(9b)

Hindi lang umi~inom
neg
✓
✓

(27)

si

Juan ng [kape]F .

only av.ipfv~drink nom Juan gen coffee‘Juan doesn’t only drink [coffee]F .’ (He drinks other things too.)‘Juan only doesn’t drink [coffee]F .’ (He drinks everything else.)(not > only)(only > not)a. Structure for “not > only” reading:[Neg1PPF:

Neg1
hindi=lang[FocP

Foconly[AspP

Asp ...
umiinom ...

[AspP

Asp ...
umiinom ...

b. Structure for “only > not” reading:
[FocP
PF:

Foconly[Neg2P

Neg2
hindi=lang

These derivations illustrate that the linear placement of clitics is not limited to one particular
structural “direction”:• lang must raise across intervening material in (26a).
• lang must lower across intervening material in (27b).
13 We thank an anonymous AFLA reviewer for leading us to rethink our analysis of these facts.

86Conclusion• We have reaffirmed the idea that Tagalog second-position clitics are linearized postsyntactically(e.g. Richards, 2003; Anderson, 2009; Kaufman, 2010). But the exact extent and shape of
resulting mismatches between linear order and logical position have been unclear.
• The scope of Tagalog clitic adverbs shows us that each clitic adverb is associated with its
own designated structural position. Clitic adverbs are not all the same.
– Many languages exhibit a (generally) fixed relative order for adverbs (see e.g. Cinque,
1999, 2004; Ernst, 2002). Interestingly, Tagalog shows us that similar restrictions holdof relative scope-taking, independent of their linear order.
• The scope of clitic adverbs shows that, descriptively, both lowering and raising arenecessary for the placement of clitic adverbs with respect to their logical positions.

References
Anderson, Stephen R. 2009. Second-position clitics in Tagalog. In The nature of the word: Studies
in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas, 549–566. MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax. Lingua 114:683–710.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Theodore Levin. 2021. Philippine clitic pronouns and thelower phase edge. Linguistic Inquiry 52:408–425.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, Henrison. 2020. Beyond nominative: A broader view of Ā-dependencies in Tagalog.
Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University.
Hsieh, Henrison. to appear. Locality in exceptional Tagalog A’-extraction. Linguistic Inquiry .
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics,
volume 11: Presupposition, ed. Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dinneen, 1–56. Academic Press.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2005. Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog. In The many faces of Austronesianvoice systems: some new empirical studies, ed. I Wayan Arka and Malcolm Ross, 175–196. Pacific
Linguistics.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study.
Theoretical Linguistics 35:1–49.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010. The morphosyntax of Tagalog clitics: A typologically driven approach.
Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. In
Proceedings of BLS 26, 401–412.
Kripke, Saul. 1990/2009. Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the
projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 40:367–386.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1989. German schon - erst - noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics andPhilosophy 12:167–212.
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Why there is an EPP. Gengo Kenkyu 123:221–256.
Richards, Norvin. 2019. Association with lang ‘only’ in Tagalog. Presented at AFLA 26.

9

Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. In Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez:
Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, ed. Andrew B. Gonzalez, number 4
in Philippine Journal of Linguistics Special Monographs, 214–231. Quezon City: LinguisticSociety of the Philippines.
Schachter, Paul, and Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. University of California
Press.
Soh, Hooi Ling, and Meĳia Gao. 2008. Mandarin sentential le, perfect and English already.
In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. Johannes Dölling, Tatjana HeydeZybatow, and Martin Schäfer, 447–473. Walter de Gruyter.
von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Discourse particles:
Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse
particles in German, ed. Werner Abraham, 37–84. John Benjamins.
Tanenbaum, Russell. 2020a. Order and chaos in the cluster: A typology of pronominal andnonpronominal clitics. Doctoral Dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Tanenbaum, Russell. 2020b. Untangling the Tagalog clitic cluster. In Proceedings of AFLA 25,
ed. Henry Yung-li Chang and Hui-Chuan J. Huang, 80–96. University of Hawai‘i Press.

Handout with appendices: tinyurl.com/clitics-lsa
10Appendix A: Challenges to scope determination
For some particle combinations, the predicted semantics for the two scope possibilities are
difficult to distinguish. One such combination is na ‘already’ × din ‘also.’
Word order: na rin, *din na
We assume the semantics for na as in (6) and that din presupposes a true contextual alternative, as for English also/too (see Kripke, 1990/2009). Depending on assumptions regarding
presupposition projection, we predict:(28)

na(din(𝑝))a. at-issue: 𝑝 true now
b. presupposes: there is a focus alternative 𝑝 ′ , 𝑝 ′ true now; 𝑝(∧𝑝 ′ ) false at a prior time(29)

din(na(𝑝))a. at-issue: 𝑝 true now
b. presupposes: 𝑝 false at a prior time; there is a focus alternative 𝑝 ′ , 𝑝 ′ true now (and𝑝 ′ false at a prior time)

So there are three possible interpretations:(i) weak (indistinguishable between na > din / din > na)(ii) strong na > din(iii) strong din > na(i) is asymmetrically entailed by both (ii) and (iii). Now consider:
(30)

Tao

na

rin siAriel.

person already also nom Ariel‘Ariel’s a person now too.’(31)

a. Context (no changed antecedent): The little mermaid Ariel’s friends are all (naturalborn) humans. A witch cast a spell, and now Ariel’s a human too. (Predicts weak na✓> din / din > na (i) felicitous.)(30)
b. Context (only alternative changes): Ariel is a (natural-born) human, but all her
friends are mermaids. A witch cast a spell, and now one of her friends is a humantoo. (Predicts strong na > din (ii) felicitous.)
#(30)
c.

Context (with changed antecedent): Ariel is a mermaid and Barbara is a turtle. A
witch cast a spell and made Barbara a human. Next, the witch cast a spell and madeAriel a human too. (Predicts weak (i) as well as strong din > na (iii) felicitous.) ✓ (30)

We learn...
• the weak interpretation (i) is possible, from the felicity in (31a);• the strong interpretation of na > din (ii) is not possible;• these facts are compatible with only the weak interpretation (i) being available, and wethen can’t distinguish between na > din and din > na scope.
11

Appendix B: Clitics and ellipsis
Richards (2003) investigates “complement-of-negation ellipsis” in Tagalog. He shows that
pronominal clitics are deleted in complement-of-negation ellipsis, but pa is not:(32)

Hindi konegalam kung nag-bigay ako

1sg.nom know if

s<in>abi

ni

ng

pera

sa

simbahan, pero

av.pfv-give 1sg.nom gen money obl church

butMaria na hindi pa (*ako).

<pfv>say[pv] gen Maria lk neg

still

1sg.nom‘I don’t know if I gave money to the church, but Maria said that <I> still haven’t <given
money to the church>.’(Richards, 2003: 237)

Against this background, we note that lang ‘only’ with “Neg > only” scope interpretation must
be deleted in complement-of-negation ellipsis (33), like pronominal clitics but unlike na/pa:14(33)

Nagbi~bigay lang ako
av.ipfv~giveng perasa[simbahan]F , pero akala ni

only 1sg.nom gen money obl church

butMaria nathink gen Maria lk

hindi (*lang) (*ako).
neg

only

1sg.nom‘I only give money to the [church]F , but Maria thinks that <I> don’t <only give money tothe church>.’ (Maria thinks I give money to other places too.) Complement-of-negation ellipsis targets the complement of Neg (here, Neg1 ), which
includes Foc (=lang) but not pa or other higher clitic adverbs.

14 The antecedent clause may be more natural with fronting of the oblique: [Sa simbahan]F lang ako nagbibigay ng pera...,but the ellipsis facts are the same.

12