Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 48 no. 1 (2025)

Morphological Analysis of Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Cebuano Languages

Ferlyn Mae Fernandez

Discipline: Asian Studies

 

Abstract:

Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Cebuano are major Philippine languages with shared Austronesian roots but distinct morphological characteristics. This study examined the affixes used in Hiligaynon and Cebuano—both part of the Bisayan language group—and analyzed how these affixes influenced the meanings of the root words to which they were attached. Tagalog served as the baseline language for comparison. The primary objective was to identify and compare the morphological structures of affixed nouns, adjectives, and verbs across the three languages. Using a qualitative analytical design, data were gathered from the book Hambingang Wika by Aceron, which presents morphological comparisons among Philippine languages. The study focused on selected affixes to observe patterns of morphological shifts and semantic changes. A comparative matrix was used to analyze affixation and its effects on word meaning. Findings revealed that while many affixed root words shared similar structures across the three languages, notable differences emerged in the usage of prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. For instance, the noun-forming affix (mangga)han in Tagalog becomes ka(mangga)han in both Cebuano and Hiligaynon. The word (ani)han transforms into ting(ani) in Cebuano and ti(alani) in Hiligaynon. In adjective formation, Tagalog's ma(bait) corresponds to (buot)an in both Bisayan languages. Verb affixes such as i- were consistently used across the three, e.g., i(hagis) in Tagalog becomes i(labay) in Cebuano and i(haboy) in Hiligaynon. The study contributes to understanding the morphological diversity of Philippine languages and highlights the need for further comparative study across other parts of speech. These findings can serve as a foundation for developing mother-tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) teaching materials tailored to different linguistic regions



References:

  1. Aceron, G., Quizon A., Flordeliza F., Dingcong, P., Militar, E, Moksir, M., Manuzo., L., and Ticzon, A. (2019). Hambingang wika: mga hambingang pag-aaral sa panlapi at cognates ng Tagalog at mga katutubong wika.  Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.
  2. Adeoye, M. A. (2024). Mastering the basics: A guide to research methodology for effective writing and publication. Chalim Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.31538/cjotl.v4i1.1345
  3. Bromham, L., Yaxley, K. J., & Cardillo, M. (2024). Islands are engines of language diversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8(10), 1991-2002.
  4. Ciruela, D. M. (2024). Structural Classification of Surigaonon, Cebuano, and Tagalog Languages: A Comparative Morpho-Lexical Analysis. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 16-37.
  5. Cruz-Lucero, R., Fernandez, D. G., Barrios, J. E., & Yap, J. (2018). Etymology, geography, language, and population. Word Press.
  6. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the Education of Multilingual Learners: A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Concepts. Multilingual Matters (19).
  7. De Leon, J. I. B. (2020). Si Ernesto Constantino at ang Wikang Filipino: Intelektuwal na Talambuhay ng isang Haligi ng Lingguwistika at Pagpaplanong Pangwika sa Pilipinas. Malay, 33(1).
  8. Escarda, G. M., Petiluna, S., Perdaus, S. A. M., Mendoza, R., & Bula, M. C. (2024). Exploring English Teachers’ Experiences on Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence (IMJRISE), 1(3), 1-10.
  9. Fortes, A. C. (2022, October). Morphological paradigm of nouns and verbs: meaning and functions in Bisakol, a Philippine-type language. In Proceedings of the 36th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 234-242).
  10. Kaufman, D. (2010). The morphosyntax of Tagalog clitics: A typologically driven approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
  11. Mahadi, T. at Jafari, S. (2012). Language and Culture. Malaysia: International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_17_September_2012/24.pdf
  12. Obeyd, S. (2021). Research methods in linguistics: An overview. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 9(1), 54-82.
  13. Ong, G. A. M., & Ballera, M. A. (2022, September). A feature-based stochastic morphological analyzer for Filipino affixed words. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering and Technology (IICAIET) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
  14. Oxford, W. (2015). Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems. Language, 91(2), 308-357.
  15. Reid, L. A. (2013). Who are the Philippine Negritos?: Evidence from language. Human biology, 85(1), 329-358. DOI:10.1353/hub.2013.a530636
  16. Tektigul, Z., Bayadilova-Altybayev, A., Sadykova, S., Iskindirova, S., Kushkimbayeva, A., & Zhumagul, D. (2023). Language is a symbol system that carries culture. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 11(1), 203-214.
  17. Tubice, J. G. (2017). Varayti at Varyasyon ng Wikang Hiligaynon sa bansang Pilipinas. Academia. https://www.academia.edu/35132757/Varayti_at_Varyasyon_ng_Wikang_Hiligaynon_sa_bansang_Pilipinas
  18. Yeh, A. (2022). Teaching English as a foreign language in the Philippines. In Philippine English (pp. 353-362). Routledge.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic