¹ ‘Dimensions of grammatical constructions’, Lg. 38.221–44 (1962).

² ‘Some principal grammatical relations of Bilaan’, Oceania linguistic monographs 3.59–64 (1958). For convenience I have changed a few of Dean's orthographic symbols. For description of the sound system, see his article ‘The phonemes of Bilaan’, Philippine journal of science 84.311–22 (1955). The Bilaan dialect represented is spoken in Kablan, Tupi, Cotabato, Mindanao.

³ Additional illustrations have been supplied to me by Dean when those in his article lack the redundancy of lexical items required for the paradigm. Some of these he was unable to check in the field. To be sure, therefore, the reader must use Dean's published forms, which include illustrations of the types and morpheme classes (but not always with the identical morphemes) shown here.

⁴ Sometimes called voice. See Howard McKaughan, The inflection and syntax of Maranao verbs (Publications of the Institute of National Language; Manila, 1958).

⁵ The term focus applied directly to the actor or to the goal is found in A. Healey's ‘Notes on Yogad’, Oceania linguistic monographs 3.77–82, and in Phyllis M. Healey's An Agfa grammar (Manila, 1960). The latter is based on a master's thesis written at the University of Sydney, 1958.

Some students of Philippine language—among them McKaughan and Wolfenden—tell me that this use of focus makes the actor or goal too prominent. This in turn leads to difficulty in distinguishing between focus and emphasis, and fails to give central attention to the activity itself and its relationships. For this reason I have developed the phrases ‘focussed activity-relation’ and ‘focus complement’ in order to place priority on the verb.

⁶ Any well-defined unit must be seen in reference (a) to the contrastive components which set it apart from other units and which simultaneously allow its identification; (b) to the variant forms in which it physically occurs; and (c) to its distribution in a class of units, in a hierarchical sequence (or string or spacial display) of units, and in a matrix (or contrastive pattern) of units. Thus the units in (1) comprise a matrix and are in part defined, in turn, by their place in this matrix pattern. See also the reference in fn. 1.

⁷ Norman D. Abrams, The verb complex in Bilaan (unpublished master's thesis, University of Washington, 1960). This contains many details of the general verb morphology and of the morphological and syntactic aspects of focus. It amplifies Dean's shorter paper, and implies types of verb bases not treated there. The dialect described is that of the Sanangani district of southeast Cotobato, and of the Koronadal area.

⁸ The emphatic set, however, is ambiguous with the nonfocus object set except for third person singular kanen versus dun. Otherwise the contrast is neutralized. (For complete lists, see Dean 60.) Dean feels, however, that the contrast is vital to an understanding of the system.

⁹ Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior 1.84b (Glendale [now Santa Ana], 1954), 3.14(z) (1960).

¹⁰ See Velma B. Pickett, The grammatical hierarchy of Isthmus Zapotec (Language dissertation No. 56; Baltimore, 1960). She sets up for various purposes simultaneous tagmemes in Double Function. See 69–71, 78–79, for relative or interrogative tagmeme simultaneous with subject, object, time, location, and manner tagmeme. See 56 and 35 for her clause and phrase formulas in tagmemic notation. Presumably English who etc. could well be handled by related techniques. See also my Language 3.71b, 74a (1960).

¹¹ Or of ‘topic‘—the term used by McKaughan (18) for the meaning and name of the focus complement. See fn. 5.

¹² See reference in fn. 4.

¹³ The same data must be known, I believe, tacitly or explicitly, for an adequate test, regardless of the theory under which the analysis is made or the style in which it is presented.

Note that this claims no more than when we affirm that a phonemic description cannot be checked for accuracy against the data, nor used for producing accurate pronunciation, unless the (ernic) phonological symbols are accompanied by an (etic) commentary or by an (etic) symbolism relating the systemic generalizations to physical articulation. No variety of phonemic theory can avoid this requirement.

¹⁴ See fn. 6.

¹⁵ Either because of morphophonemic changes due to the particular phoneme sequence beginning the stem, or because of some complexity of relation between intransitive and stative relationships not discussed in Dean's article but perhaps implied by Abrams. (See fn. 7).

¹⁶ Compare similar alternative treatments of allomorphs and allophones.

¹⁷ This fact adds weight to our treatment of focussed actor (or goal) as a focus complement to the predicate rather than as a central topic or as a center of focus itself. It suggests, further, that we have here a structural argument from noun-phrase analogy for treating the predicate as the nucleus of the clause with both actor and goal as in some sense marginal or lateral to it.

¹⁸ See the table in McKaughan 19. See also McKaughan, ‘Overt relation markers in Maranao’, Lg. 38.47–51 (1962).

¹⁹ See Table 5 in Elmer Wolfenden, A re-statement of Tagalog grammar 16 (Manila, 1961).

²⁰ From Abrams 10.

²¹ See my Language 1.131 (1954), 3.13a(c), 16a(jj) (1960).

²² Thus, Abrams indicates (11) that there is in variation the order of kayu ‘tree’ and balo ‘bolo knife’ in k-an-lang-gu kayu balo : k-an-lang-gu balo kayu. The degree to which variation occurs in that dialect, however, is not clear from his material. Possibly a special order sometimes occurs when one of two (or more) substantives is a noun and the other a pronoun.