Interpreting clitic adverb combinations in Tagalog
Henrison Hsieh1 and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine2
AFLA 30, Lund University, October 2023

1

Introduction

Tagalog has a number of second-position clitic adverbs (Schachter and Otanes, 1972, Kaufman,
2010, a.o.). When two such clitic adverbs cooccur, the combined effect sometimes appears to
be semantically transparent, but other times less so:(1)

a. Context: The parents already ate breakfast. How about the kids?
K<um>ain na

rin silang almusal.

<av>eat(pfv) already also 3pl.nom gen breakfast‘They have also already eaten breakfast.’

semantically transparent

b. Context: I thought the guests would take a shower.
K<um>ain na

lang sila

ng almusal.

<av>eat(pfv) already only 3pl.nom gen breakfast‘They ate breakfast instead.’

not so transparent

Today We discuss the semantics of such clitic adverb combinations in Tagalog, with a focus
on the less transparent cases:• pa ‘still’+ lang ‘only’ ↝ low progress• na ‘already’ + lang ‘only’ ↝ ‘instead’• pa ‘still’+ rin ‘also’↝ ‘still’ (despite threat to plan)• man ‘even’ + lang ‘only’ ↝ NPI ‘even’• na ‘already’ + naman topic change (AnderBois, 2016) ↝ ‘again’

Roadmap• Background on Tagalog second position clitics• The individual ingredients• The combinations

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

Background

Second-position clitics in Tagalog can be pronominals or adverbs. Their defining property isthat they appear linearly after the “first element” in the clause:(2)

a. Bi~bigy-an kana

rin daw nila

ng regalo.

fut~give-lv 2sg.nom already also evid 3pl.gen gen gift

‘They will now also give you a gift (reportedly).’b. Hindi ka
negna

rin daw nila

bi~bigy-an

ng regalo.

2sg.nom already also evid 3pl.gen av.ipfv~give-lv gen gift

‘They will also no longer give you a gift (reportedly).’ The order of multiple clitics within a cluster is (mostly) fixed, based on their type (pronoun
vs adverbial) and phonological shape.
(3) The order of Tagalog second-position clitics:
1𝜎 pronouns < 1𝜎 adverbs < 2+𝜎 adverbs < 2𝜎 pronouns
See e.g. Schachter 1973, Schachter and Otanes 1972: pp. 411–414, Anderson 2009.
(4)

a. Umi~inomlang akong tsaa.

* ... ako lang ...

av.ipfv~drink only 1sg.nom gen tea‘I’m only drinking tea.’b. Umi~inomka* ... lang ka ...

lang ng tsaa.

av.ipfv~drink 2sg.nom only gen tea‘You’re only drinking tea.’ The linear order of two clitic adverbs does not directly indicate their semantic scope.
For example, din ‘also’ and lang ‘only’ always contribute “only > also” scope:(5)

Nag-i~English {lang din / ? din lang} si
av-ipfv~English only also

also only

Mary.

nom Marya. ✓ Context: John speaks onlyF1 [English]F1 .
‘[Mary]F2 alsoF2 speaks onlyF1 [English]F1 .’(also > only)b. * Context: Everyone here speaks Tagalog.
‘OnlyF1 [Mary]F1 alsoF2 speaks [English]F2 .’(only > also)This accords with approaches where the linear positions of clitics are determined postsyntactically (see e.g. Richards, 2003; Anderson, 2009; Kaufman, 2010), but runs counter to thepredictions of purely syntactic accounts for clitic adverb placement such as Tanenbaum 2020a,b.

2

3Ingredients

We briefly introduce the individual semantics for a few clitic adverbs, before discussing their
combinations.
We treat propositions as world and time dependent; where composition necessitates,

Note:

we type-shift using Intensional Functional Application (Heim and Kratzer, 1998) or similar(more in §6). Where not specified, expressions are interpreted with respect to the actual world
𝑤 ∗ and actual time 𝑡 ∗ .

3.1

Temporal adverbs• Tagalog pa ‘still’ and na ‘already’ parallel well-studied temporal particles in other languages, such as German noch and schon as well as Mandarin adverb hái and sentence-final
le; see e.g. Löbner 1989; Krifka 2000; Soh and Gao 2008; Zhang and Ling 2016.
• Schachter and Otanes (1972) describe a number of uses of pa and na, but here we taketheir “phase quantification” (à la Löbner) uses to be their core.

(6) pa(𝑝)(𝑡 ∗ )a. at-issue: 𝑝(𝑡 ∗ ) trueb. presupposes: ∃ salient time 𝑡 ′ < 𝑡 ∗ , 𝑝(𝑡 ′ ) true (with no interruption)c.

possible implicature: 𝑝 will be false > 𝑡 ∗ (following Beck 2020, citing Wolfgang Klein)(7) Context: I was cooking a while ago.
Naglu~luto pa ako.
av.ipfv~cook still 1sg.nom‘I’m still cooking.’ (progressive)(8) na(𝑝)(𝑡 ∗ )a. at-issue: 𝑝(𝑡 ∗ ) trueb. presupposes: ∃ salient time 𝑡 ′ < 𝑡 ∗ , 𝑝(𝑡 ′ ) false(9) Context: I didn’t cook before.
Naglu~luto na

ako.

av.ipfv~cook already 1sg.nom‘I cook now.’ (habitual)
In addition, na can introduce an ‘earlier than expected’ inference (and pa, ‘later than expected’).
We discuss this briefly in section 5 below.
33.2 lang
Lang (and its variant lamang) is a focus particle with both exclusive (10) and scalar (11) uses,
similar to English only (Schachter and Otanes, 1972). Lang prefers (but does not require) its
associate to be fronted or a cleft pivot (Richards, 2019).
(10)

a.

[Si

Christine]F lang ang k<um>a~kain ng gulay.

nom.p Christine

only nom av.ipfv~eat

gen vegetable‘Only [Christine]F eats vegetables.’ ⇒ nobody else eats vegetablesb.

K<um>a~kain lang si
av.ipfv~eat

Christine [ng gulay]F .

only nom.p Christine

gen vegetable‘Christine only eats [vegetables]F .’ ⇒ they don’t eat other things(11)

Context: Various kinds of people compete together in this race. There is a unique winner.
{ [Di-kilalang tao]F
unknown/ #[Magaling na atleta]F } lang iyong nanalo sa karera.

personskillful

lk athlete

only nom≈ ‘The winner of the race was merely [an unknown person]F .’wonobl race(scalar / #exclusive)

The felicitous use of lang in this context, and its compatibility with ‘an unknown person’ but
not with ‘a skilled athlete,’ indicates the possibility of purely scalar uses of lang, which plays arole in our discussion below.
 We adopt from Coppock and Beaver 2014 a unified account of exclusive and scalar usesof only-like particles:(12)

lang𝐶 (𝑝)(𝑤 ∗ )a. at-issue: ¬∃𝑞 ∈ 𝐶[𝑞(𝑤 ∗ ) ∧ 𝑞 >𝐶 𝑝]
no true alternative in 𝐶 is stronger than 𝑝b. presupposes: ∃𝑞 ∈ 𝐶[𝑞(𝑤 ∗ ) ∧ 𝑞 ≥𝐶 𝑝]some true alternative in 𝐶 is at least as strong as 𝑝

Exclusive uses involve an ordering >𝐶 based on logical strength, whereas scalar uses involve
another contextually specified ordering.

4

Low progress pa lang

Combining pa ‘still’ and lang ‘only’ results in a low progress meaning that is reminiscent ofGerman erst (Löbner, 1989). Both pa and lang are required for the low progress reading.
(13)

Tatlo=ng libro pa lang ang naba~basaniPaula.

three=lk book still only nom ipfv.nvol~read[pv] gen.p Paula‘Paula has only read three books (so far).’(patterned after Neeleman and van de Koot, 2021)
4 Low progress pa lang requires non-zero progress:
(14)

Nasa

[bahay]F pa lang ako.

pred.obl house

(15)

Nasa

still only 1sg.nom

pred.obl house still 1sg.nom≈ ‘I’m still/only at [home]F (so far).’(16)

bahay pa ako.

‘I’m still at home.’

Contexts: I’m meeting friends for dinner. I’m running late so they ask me where I am...
a. It’s the weekend so I’m leaving from home.

#low prog. (14)b. I came from work, but I had to go home first.

✓

low prog. (14)✓‘still’ (15)# ‘still’ (15)Analysis We propose that low progress pa lang can be derived compositionally as pa > lang.
We first discuss the case of context (16b), where we start from work:(17)

lang𝐶 (home):a. Alternatives in 𝐶 are ordered by expected progression:
𝐶 = {work < home < train < dinner}

where home etc. stand in for propositionsb. at-issue: I am not further along than being at home, i.e. ¬train ∧ ¬dinnerc.

presupposes: I am at least as far as being at home, i.e. home ∨ train ∨ dinner Lang can’t take the strongest alternative as its prejacent, as the result will be vacuous. This
ensures that pa lang conveys a non-final state.

Let the salient time 𝑡 ′ refer to the start state time. work(𝑡 ′ ) is in the Common Ground or easily
accommodated.
(18)

pa(lang𝐶 (home))(𝑡 ∗ ):a. at-issue: (17b) ¬train ∧ ¬dinner is true at 𝑡 ∗b. presupposes: (17c); (17b) ¬train ∧ ¬dinner was true at 𝑡 ′c.

possible implicature: (17b) ¬train ∧ ¬dinner will be false sometime > 𝑡 ∗ The implicature in (18c) (following Beck 2020) conveys that continued progress is expectedin the future.

If instead, we use pa alone:(19)

pa(home)(𝑡 ∗ ):a. at-issue: home is true at 𝑡 ∗b. presupposes: home was true at 𝑡 ′predicts felicity in (16a), where it is known we start at home;5

predicts infelicity in (16b), where it is known we start at work (unless another, earlier
at-home time is made salient).
c.

possible implicature: home will be false sometime > 𝑡 ∗Furthermore, in context (16a), the addition of lang is vacuous in (18), and therefore its use
would violate a Non-Vacuity condition on particle insertion (see e.g. Crnič, 2011a,b; Alxatib,
2020; Erlewine and New, 2021).
 This derives pa lang’s requirement of non-zero progress.
Summary

Where alternatives describe an expected temporal progression, pa lang expresses...

• being in a non-final state in a progression,• being in an earlier state before, and• a cancelable expectation of future continued progress.

Change of plan na lang5

The combination of na and lang can be used in contexts where it invites the English translation‘instead.’ Both na and lang are required for this use.
(20)

a. Context: I was originally planning to [eat out]F tomorrow.
[Mag-lu~luto]F na
av-fut~cooklang ako

bukas

already only 1sg.nom tomorrow‘I will [cook]F tomorrow instead.’ (e.g. instead of eating out)b. [Bukas]Fnalang ako mag-lu~luto.

tomorrow already only 1sg av-fut~cook‘I will cook [tomorrow]F ’ + na lang
Assuming some compositionality, na conveys that something was false before and became true.
 What changed in (20a,b) is a plan about the future.

– Informally, Plan(‘I cook tomorrow’) was false before, and is true now.
– The relevant change that licenses na is not about ‘tomorrow’ vs an earlier time (eventhough it may appear that way in (20b)).

In addition, na lang can also apply to reports of what actually happened:

6

(21)

Context: We had originally planned to go someplace special to eat.
K<um>ain na

lang kamisa [ma-lapit]F .

<av>eat(pfv) already only 1pl.excl.nom obl

adj-near‘We ate [nearby]F instead.’
What licenses the use of lang?
 The prejacent of na lang is less desirable than the original plan or expectation:(22)

Assuming stereotypical (but perhaps not universal) expectations regarding the relative
desirability of professor- versus TA-taught classes:
Ang { [TA]F / #[propesor]F } nanomTAprofessor

lang ang mag-tu~turo ng klaseng ito.

already only nom av-fut~teachgen classthisa. ✓ ‘[The professor was supposed to teach this class, but now...] the TA will teach it instead.’b. # ‘[The TA was supposed to teach this class, but now...] the professor will teach it instead.’Analysis We can derive the ‘instead’ use from na > lang, scoping over a metaphysical necessity
modal evaluated at a particular time, ◻MP,𝑡 (or simply, ◻).3
 To interpret claims of metaphysical necessity in the future, we use Copley’s (2009) notionof a plan. Formally, for 𝑡1 < 𝑡2 , ◻MP,𝑡1 (𝑝 𝑡2 ) = Plan𝑑,𝑡1 (𝑝 𝑡2 ) where 𝑑 is the plan’s director.4(23)

lang𝐶 (◻ TA):a. Let propositions such as TA stand for ‘the TA teaches the class at 𝑡 class ’; 𝑡 ∗ < 𝑡 classb. Assume propositions ranked by desirability: student < TA < profc.

...with a corresponding ranking of plans: 𝐶 = {◻ student < ◻ TA < ◻ prof}d. at-issue: no one ranked higher than a TA is planned to teach, i.e. ¬ ◻ profe. presupposes: a TA or someone ranked higher is planned to teach,i.e. ◻ TA ∨ ◻ prof
(24)

na(lang𝐶 (◻ TA))(𝑡 ∗ ):a. at-issue: (23d) ¬ ◻𝑡 ∗ prof is trueb. presupposes: (23e) ◻𝑡 ∗ TA ∨ ◻𝑡 ∗ prof; (23d) ¬ ◻𝑡 ′ prof false ⇒ ◻𝑡 ′ prof true

3 Following discussion in Copley 2009 (ch. 1), a “metaphysical” modal base refers to what Kratzer (1991 et seq) calls
a “totally realistic circumstantial” modal base, which includes all propositions that are true in the actual world 𝑤 ∗at that time.
4 The director is the entity responsible for a plan. Copley (2009) proposes that Plan𝑑 (𝑝) presupposes that “the director
has the ability to ensure that a 𝑝-eventuality happens” and asserts that “the director is committed to a 𝑝-eventuality
happening.”

7

Summary

Together, na lang > ◻ expresses that there was a prior plan (at 𝑡 ′ ), but now (at 𝑡 ∗ )there is a contrasting plan, which is less preferred.
• Without lang, na > ◻ would simply convey the current plan, which did not exist before;lang ensures that there already was some contrasting plan, and clarifies the precise pointof change. (Note that na lang combinations which do not involve a covert ◻ operator exist;
see Appendix. In such examples, na always takes scope over lang.)• Here we assumed lang > ◻ scope, but their relative scope is not clear.5
On expectations Na often raises ‘earlier than expected’ inferences, but na lang does not:(25)

Mag-lu~luto na
ako bukas.
av-fut~cook already 1sg tomorrow(20b)‘I will cook tomorrow’ + na

(26)

[Bukas]F nalang ako mag-lu~luto.
tomorrow already only 1sg av-fut~cook‘I will cook [tomorrow]F ’ + na langContexts:
a. I was originally planning to cook today...

# ‘already’ (25)✓‘tomorrow instead’ (20b)b. I was originally planning to cook next week...

✓‘already’ (25)✓‘tomorrow instead’ (20b) We propose that na(𝑝) introduces an ‘earlier than expected’ inference when describing a
progression à la Neeleman and van de Koot 2021: i.e. where we expect development from¬𝑝 to 𝑝 over time.6– For (25), ‘tomorrow’ describes the event time which na comments on:na(cook)(𝑡 tomorrow ). We indeed expect a change over time from ¬cook to cook, so
the ‘earlier than expected’ inference arises.
– For (20b), ‘tomorrow’ is under ◻ and na describes the plan time:na(lang𝐶 (◻cook𝑡 tomorrow ))(𝑡 ∗ ). There is no expected change from ¬lang𝐶 (◻cook𝑡 tomorrow )to lang𝐶 (◻cook𝑡 tomorrow ), so the ‘earlier than expected’ inference does not arise.

5 Notably, Copley (2009) shows that under her proposal, where the presuppositions of Plan holds, “either all themetaphysically accessible worlds are 𝑝-worlds, or none are” (p. 32). Therefore Plan¬ ≡ ¬Plan.
6 This effect may be conventionalized, due to na often (although not always) being used to mark counterexpectationalsituations. If 𝑝 is part of a progression (expected development from ¬𝑝 to 𝑝, as with na), 𝑝(𝑡 ∗ ) may convey that𝑝 is earlier than expected. (See relevant discussion in Michaelis 1993 and Beck 2020: note 8, and citations there.)
Similarly, pa can raise a ‘taking longer than expected’ inference when 𝑝 to ¬𝑝 is an expected regression.

8

6

On din and pa rin

6.1 Din/rin ‘also’
Din (rin especially after vowels) is an additive particle, akin to English ‘also.’ We treat din as
having a simple existential additive presupposition.
(27)(Uma~awit si

Linda.) Uma~awit din [siav.ipfv~sing nom.p Linda

Carmen]F .

av.ipfv~sing also nom.p Carmen‘(Linda is singing.) [Carmen]F is singing too.’(28)

din𝐶 (𝑝)(𝑤 ∗ )a. at-issue: 𝑝(𝑤 ∗ )b. presupposes: ∃ salient 𝑞 ∈ 𝐶[𝑝 ≠ 𝑞 ∧ 𝑞(𝑤 ∗ )] (on salience, see e.g. Kripke 1990/2009)

There are also uses of din that at first glance are less clearly additive, such as (29). We proposethat din here associates with the evaluation world(s), as in (30).
(29)

Na-taposdin natin

ang trabaho.

pfv.nvol-finish[pv] also 1pl.incl.gen nom work

≈ ‘We’ve finally/actually finished the job.’
Specifically, we suggest that (29) is felicitous in a discourse where it is clear that the propositionis true in the speaker or addressee’s (counterfactual) ideal world(s), similar to (30).
(30)

Sa panaginip ko,
obl dream

na-tapos

ang trabaho.

1sg.gen pfv.nvol-finish 1sg.gen nom work

Sa totoo=ng buhay, na-tapos
obl real=lk

ko

life

ko

rin ang trabaho.

pfv.nvol-finish 1sg.gen also nom work

‘In my dream, I had finished the job. In the real world, I also finished the job.’

6.2

Concessive and threatened plan pa rin

Pa can also co-occur with rin (allomorph of din ‘also’) to generate the inference of an event
happening or persisting despite expectations otherwise.
(31)

Context: I wanted to make dinner tonight, but some of my errands took much longer
than expected, so I wasn’t sure if my plan could push through. In the end, I managed toget home with a bit of time to spare, so...
Nakapag-lutopa #(rin) ako

av.nvol.pfv-cook stillng hapunan.

also 1sg.nom gen dinner‘I still managed to cook dinner.’
We might think din is licensed by the preceding mention of other errands: the mention of othererrands licenses ‘also cooking dinner.’ But no such mention of other events are necessary:
9

(32)

Context: I never eat out or get delivery for dinner on principle. Even if my schedule ispacked for a particular day...
Naglu~luto pa #(rin) ako
av.ipfv~cook stillng hapunan.

also 1sg.nom gen dinner‘I still cook dinner.’
Or an even clearer, “concessive still” (cf Michaelis, 1993; Ippolito, 2007) like use:
(33)

Context: A man was in a car accident and was taken to the hospital.
T<in>ulung-an nila
<pfv>help-lv

siya,

pero na-matay pa #(rin) siya.

3pl.gen 3sg.nom but

pfv-diestillalso 3sg.nom‘They helped him, but he still died.’

Analysis We propose that din is licensed by the proposition’s truth in belief worlds — under
the operator B, where B 𝑝 = ∀𝑤 ∈ Dox 𝑝 𝑤 — relative to some belief holder.7 We then use pa to
shift this claim into a requirement on prior belief worlds.
(34)

din𝐶 (died𝑡 ∗ )a. 𝐶 = {died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗ , B𝑡 ∗ died𝑡 ∗ }b. presupposes: B𝑡 ∗ died𝑡 ∗trivial(35)pa(died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗ )presupposes: ∃𝑡 ′ < 𝑡 ∗ died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ′too strong(predicts satisfaction by dying earlier, but not helpful here)(36)

pa(din𝐶 (died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗ ))a. din presupposes: B𝑡 ∗ died𝑡 ∗trivial (as above)b. pa presupposes: ∃𝑡 ′ < 𝑡 ∗ died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ′too strong (as above) We propose Locally Accommodating (LA; Heim, 1991) the presupposition of din, so it
feeds the semantics of pa:(37)pa(LA(din𝐶 (died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗ )))a. LA(din𝐶 (died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗ )) = B𝑡 ∗ died𝑡 ∗ ∧ died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗b. To compose with pa, we must abstract over some time variables:↝ 𝜆𝑡 . B𝑡 died𝑡 ∗ ∧ died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗(We shift only the time of the belief worlds, keeping the dying times de re.)c.

pa presupposes: ∃𝑡 ′ < 𝑡 ∗ [B𝑡 ′ died𝑡 ∗ ∧ died𝑤 ∗ ,𝑡 ∗ ]7 In these examples, the relevant beliefs/expectations are likely shared by both the speaker and addressee. Unlikewith na lang above, we want evaluations of beliefs about the future — i.e. B𝑡1 𝑝 𝑡2 for 𝑡1 < 𝑡2 — to be about thestereotypical course of events, not tied to any particular plan. For instance, concretely, the man dying after a car
accident in (33) may be an expected belief about the future, but not part of any agent’s plan.

10 We furthermore hypothesize that pa rin requires B𝑡 𝑝 to be non-constant (at least for𝑡 ∈ [𝑡 ′ , 𝑡 ∗ ]), so that the added presupposition introduced by pa rin is not trivial.
Summary The combination of pa and din — with the help of Local Accommodation — holds
precisely where:• we had believed before — at time 𝑡 ′ — that 𝑝 would hold later,• 𝑝 does hold at 𝑡 ∗ , and• other events occurred in the intervening time, such that we may not have always believedthat 𝑝 would hold.

7

Discussion and future directions

Despite prior work on the fine-graind description and analysis of the meaning of various clitic
adverbs in Tagalog (see especially AnderBois, 2016, 2023; Avelino, 2022, 2023), no prior work
has considered the combined effect conveyed by clitic adverb combinations (except for somevery brief descriptions in Schachter and Otanes 1972).
 Today, we presented the first detailed semantic descriptions and our work-in-progress
analyses for three quite common particle combinations with limited transparency:– pa ‘still’+ lang ‘only’ ↝ low progress– na ‘already’ + lang ‘only’ ↝ ‘instead’– pa ‘still’+ rin ‘also’↝ ‘still’ (despite threat to plan)In future work, we hope to consider other particle combinations with non-obvious combined
effects as well. These include:(38) man ‘even’ + lang ‘only’ ↝ NPI ‘even’
Hindi kaneg

man lamang nakapag-almusal.

1sg.gen even only

av.pfv.nvol-breakfast‘You didn’t even get to eat breakfast.’(Schachter and Otanes, 1972: 419)(39) na ‘already’ + naman switch.topic (AnderBois, 2016) ↝ ‘again’
La~labh-ankona

ito=ngnaman

damit.

fut~launder-pv 1sg.gen already switch.topic this[nom]=lk clothing‘I’m going to wash these clothes (yet) again.’11

References
Alxatib, Sam. 2020. Focus, evaluativity, and antonomy: A study in the semantics of only and its interaction with gradable
antonyms. Springer.
AnderBois, Scott. 2016. A QUD-based account of the discourse particle naman in Tagalog. In Proceedings of AFLA
23, ed. Hiroki Nomoto, Takuya Miyauchi, Asako Shiohara, and Takuya Miyauchi, 20–34. Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
AnderBois, Scott. 2023. Tagalog pala: An unsurprising case of mirativity. In Discourse particles in Asian languages,ed. Hiroki Nomoto and Elin McCready, volume 2: Southeast Asia, 9–36. Routledge.
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.
Avelino, Gérard. 2022. The Tagalog particle sana: Preference modality at the syntax-semantics interface. Manuscript,
Rutgers University.
Avelino, Gérard. 2023. Shifty modal meaning in Tagalog embedded clauses. Presented at APLL 15.
Beck, Sigrid. 2020. Readings of scalar particles: noch/still. Linguistics and Philosophy 43:1–67.
Copley, Bridget. 2009. The semantics of the future. Routledge.
Coppock, Elizabeth, and David Beaver. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31:371–432.
URL https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007.
Crnič, Luka. 2011a. Getting even. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Crnič, Luka. 2011b. On the meaning and distribution of concessive scalar particles. In Proceedings of NELS 41, ed.
Nicholas LaCara, Lena Fainlib, and Yangsook Park, 1–14.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Keely New. 2021. A variably exhaustive and scalar focus particle and pragmatic
focus concord in Burmese. Semantics & Pragmatics 14:1–54.
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und definitheit. In von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991).
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Hsieh, Henrison, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2023. On the scope and position of Tagalog clitic adverbs. In
Handbook of the 24th meeting of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, 109–112.
Ippolito, Michela. 2007. On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. Natural Language Semantics 15:1–34. URL
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9004-0.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010. The morphosyntax of Tagalog clitics: A typologically driven approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991), 639–650.
Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. In Proceedings of theTwenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Aspect, 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 and Philosophy 12:167–212.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still. Journal of
Semantics 10:193–237.
Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2021. The interpretation and distribution of temporal focus particles. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09526-x.
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Why there is an EPP. Gengo Kenkyu 123:221–256. URL https://doi.org/10.11435/
gengo1939.2003.123_221.
Richards, Norvin. 2019. Association with lang ‘only’ in Tagalog. URL https://www.uwo.ca/linguistics/afla26/
abstracts/Richards_AFLA_26_paper_33.pdf, paper presented at the 26th meeting of the Austronesian Formal
Linguistics Association.
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
Monograph, 214–231. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Schachter, Paul, and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: 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 Heyde-Zybatow, and Martin Schäfer, 447–473. De
Gruyter Mouton. URL https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.447.
von Stechow, Arnim, and Dieter Wunderlich, ed. 1991. Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen
Forschung. HSK. Walter de Gruyter.
Tanenbaum, Russell. 2020a. Order and chaos in the cluster: A typology of pronominal and nonpronominal 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.
Zhang, Linmin, and Jia Ling. 2016. Additive particles with a built-in Gricean pragmatics: The semantics of Germannoch, Chinese hái and Hungarian még. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, volume 1, 1–15. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v1i0.3743.

12

Appendix: Transparent scope evidence
Particle scope in more semantically transparent combinations, from Hsieh and Erlewine 2023:

pa vs lang(40)

[Ako]Fpa lang ang nasa

party.

1sg.nom still only nom pred.obl party‘It’s only me at the party so far.’(41)

a. Context (last one left): You and your friends went to a party. Because it’s getting late,they all went home, leaving you the last one from the group.
(Predicts “lang > pa” true.) # (40)b. Context (first one): You and your friends planned to go to a party. You arrived early
and realized you were the first one there.
(Predicts “pa > lang” true.) ✓ (40)na vs lang(42)

[English]F na
Englishlang ang alam niya.

already only nom know 3sg.gen‘S/he only knows English now.’8(43)

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 > lang” true.) ✓ (42)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 “lang > na” true.) # (42)8 The argument ‘English’ is clefted here. The judgments in (43) 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 .’13