Less regular ex-situ focus marking by pseudo focus marker:

Transcription

1 Focus markers that link topic and comment Anne Schwarz, Humboldt University, Berlin The alleged focus markers ( FM ) in some West African Oti-Volta languages (Buli, K nni, Dagbani, Konkomba and others; Gur, Niger-Congo) link predicates to topical subjects. Language background: - tone languages with lexical and grammatical function - basic SVO order, head-final associative constructions - noun class systems with several genders and mainly suffixing morphology - aspectually organized verb system with unmarked perfective - preverbal auxiliaries, serial verb constructions and double negation 1. The Pseudo Focus Markers - serve pragmatic functions and have been analyzed as focus markers (Olawsky 1999 regarding Dagbani, Schwarz, in press, regarding all languages considered here) Obligatory in-situ focus marking by pseudo focus marker: 1. Buli S 1 : Did you sweep in the room? S 2 : a a ya, m va a ka da b a ka po. no % 1s sweep FM yard:def in No, I swept in the YARD. Less regular ex-situ focus marking by pseudo focus marker: 2. Buli (ka ) ch ka te ba =pa l a ka, a ch. FM cut:vn CNJ CL=take axe:def IPF cut They are CUTTING [the tree] with the axe. - pseudo focus markers with in-situ object are independent of the communicative focus type and occur with non-contrastive and contrastive focus 3. S 1 : What did the woman eat? S 2 : She ate BEANS. ([-contrast]) S 1 : The woman ate yams. S 2 : (No) She ate BEANS. ([+contrast])

2 31. Jahrestagung Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft DGfS März 2009, Osnabrück a. Buli = b ka tu e. CL=eat FM beans b. K nni = b -wa tu o. CL=eat- FM beans c. Dagbani o = u b -la tuya. CL=eat- FM beans d. Konkomba u = ma n! tu u n la. CL=eat beans FM Disjoint occurrence of pseudo focus marker in K nni and Dagbani: 4. Dagbani (Olawsky 2002: 221) o daa d i ba la bi-hi ata. 3sg PRX give.birth 3pl FOC child-pl three She gave birth to (them) three children. 5. K nni (Schwarz, in press: 14) =wa a s-a wa!ma n. CL=call-IPF FM 1s He is calling ME. 2. Pros and Cons for the Focus Marker Analysis - the postverbal pseudo focus markers are not restricted to verb arguments 6. Konkomba (Schwarz 2009: 185) S 1 : Where did the woman eat? S 2 : u =j!u!do la. CL=eat house FM She ate AT HOME. - information structurally relevant position of pseudo focus marker 7. Buli a. ta a che ka du la chu m. 1p:IPF walk FM there tomorrow We re going THERE tomorrow. b. ta a che du la ka chu m. 1p:IPF walk there FM tomorrow We re going there TOMORROW. 2

3 Focus Markers that Link Topic and Comment Anne Schwarz, Humboldt University, Berlin - restriction of pseudo focus marker on a single occurrence per clause 8. Buli *ta a che ka du la ka chu m. 1p:IPF walk FM there FM tomorrow We re going there tomorrow. (see ex. 7) 9. Buli *ba =pa =ka l ra t =ka Jonathan. CL=take= FM money give= FM J. They gave money to Jonathan. - The pseudo focus markers are largely absent from negation: focus inherent negation (Givón 1975, 1979, Hyman 1979, Marchese 1983) 10. Buli m =n va a (*ka ) da b a ka po. 1s=NEG sweep FM yard.def in % I didn t sweep in the yard. 11. Dagbani When a phone was ringing, this woman didn t pick up her phone because I think that d =pa -la =d n!ma a... CL=not.be- FM CL=own DEF it was not her own... - high variation with narrow verb focus 12. Konkomba (Schwarz 2009: 186) S 1 : Where did they buy it? S 2 : b =su la. CL=steal FM They STOLE it. 13. Buli S 1 : What did you do? a. S 2: m su u r =ya. 1S wash=ass I WASHED. (new: assertion) b. S 2: m su u r ka -ma. 1S wash FM -PRESUP I WASHED. (presuppositional: confirmation) 3

4 31. Jahrestagung Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft DGfS März 2009, Osnabrück - ambiguity between focus interpretation on postverbal complement and on VP including complement 14. Buli A: What did you take? What did you do? B: m ne =ka m t mu. 1s swallow= FM 1sg medicine:def I took MY MEDICINE. I TOOK MY MEDICINE. - complementary subject focus and sentence focus particles 15. S 1 : Who ate the beans? S 2 : THIS/THE WOMAN ate them. ([-contrast]) S 1 : The child ate the beans. S 2 : (No) THE WOMAN ate them. ([+contrast]) a. Buli (ka ) n po o wa a =le b. ( FM ) woman:def &=PTL eat.ass b. K nni h wa b -na =ha. woman:def eat-ptl=cl c. Dagbani pa a n = u b =l. woman DEM PTL=eat=CL d. Konkomba u p w (le ) ma n. woman DEM (PTL) eat - subject-object asymmetry in K nni, for instance: 16. K nni a. S 1 : What happened? S 2 : Mary n -na Peter. Sentence Focus M. hit-ptl P. MARY HIT PETER. b. S 1 : Who hit Peter? S 2 : Mary n -na Peter. / Mary n -na =wa. Subject Focus M. hit-ptl P. M. hit-ptl=cl MARY hit Peter / him. c. S 2 : (d =y -wo ) Mary n -na =wa. CL=be- FM Mary hit-ptl=cl (It is) MARY (who) hit him. d. S 1 : Who did Mary hit? S 2 : Mary n -wa Peter. / =n -wa Peter. Object Focus M. hit- FM P. CL=hit- FM P. Mary / She hit PETER. 4

5 Focus Markers that Link Topic and Comment Anne Schwarz, Humboldt University, Berlin - use of alleged complementary focus marker in relative and adverbial clauses 17. Buli: Head-internal relative clause w e n [ja a -bu u i a =le -a da a n -fu =la ], a =te t =m. say thing-ind &=PTL-IPF disturb-2s=det &=CNJ 1p=get.to.know Explain your problem (lit. the thing disturbing you) so that we ll understand. 18. Buli: Tail-head-linkage clause He just came and caned me. wa =ne m m =la, m ya a ka la a ku m, wa =ya a che che... CL=PTL cane 1s=DET 1s TP be.sit:ipf cry CL=TP walk RED When he had caned me, and I was sitting crying, he walked around..., - what is the reason for marking a cross-linguistically well attested unmarked focus position? Table 1: Pros and cons for the focus marker analysis PRO CON 1. occurs with verb arguments and other 1. is only partly attested with narrow verb focus postverbal constituents 2. can disambiguate which of two postverbal 2. is ambiguous between narrow object and wide constituents is focal VP focus 3. is limited to one occurrence per clause 3. is not obligatory with subject and sentence focus 4. avoids focus-inherent negation 4. represents morphological marking in a crosslinguistically unmarked focus position 3. Reanalysis - the particle is a pragmatic device, but one that operates on the topic-comment rather than on the focus-background level of the utterance - the pseudo focus marker marks categorical predicates 3.1 The thetic/categorical distinction Table 2: The thetic/categorical distinction (Ulrich 1988, Sasse 1995 and references therein) thetic categorical judgement (logical level) presenting a fact as an unseparable unit giving a statement about an argument, predicative linkage utterance (pragmatic level) unstructured topic-comment structure 5

6 31. Jahrestagung Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft DGfS März 2009, Osnabrück - principally independent from language-specific grammatical rules 19. German: thetic Romanian: categorical Es regnet. Vine. It is raining. She is coming. (Ulrich 1988: 390) 3.2 The thetic/categorical distinction - topic-comment structure corresponds to the subject-predicate layer of the canonical sentence, pseudo focus marker occurs in comment 20. { S } TOP { V (O) } COM FM categorical - the thetic/categorical distinction prestructures the potential focus domain: primary focus is restricted to comment 21. { S } TOP { V (O) } COM (FOC) FOC categorical - syntactic, but no information-structural boundaries for focus in thetic utterances 22. { S [V (O)] } FOC thetic - non-subject (contrastive) topics require specific devices, blocking the pseudo focus marker in the main predicate 23. Buli S1: What did the woman give to her family? wa =b ka te wa =pa y a na t =wa. CL=child:DEF CNJ CL=take fruits give=cl S2: (As for) her CHILD, she gave him FRUIT. postverbal FM exluded:... te wa =pa =*ka y a na 24. Major types of categorical utterances in Buli { S } TOP { V ká (O) } COM canonical: intra-clausal relation { Non-S } TOP { tè V (O) } COM marked: inter-clausal relation - additional sentence-initial categorical encoding 25. Buli ka d n te ba =pa t Jonathan-. FM how.many CNJ CL=take give J.-Q HOW MUCH did they give Jonathan? 6

7 Focus Markers that Link Topic and Comment Anne Schwarz, Humboldt University, Berlin - stacked information structural patterns 26. { { Ø } TOP { ka d n } COM } TOP { te ba =pa t Jonathan- } COM (see ex. 24) 27. { Ø } TOP { ka { n po o wa a =le b. } } COM (see ex. 15a) 4. Conclusion - the alleged focus markers do not mark focus but rather categorical predicates that are linked to topical subjects - they cannot relate comments to topics that lack grammatical subject function - focus is less regularly marked in terms of morphological structure - phrasing may act on pseudo focus marker for focus-background structure Table 3: The thetic/categorical distinction categorical subject marker 1 (verb prefix) [+ png agreement] pseudo focus marker (postverbal / verb suffix) [- png agreement] thetic subject marker 2 (verb prefix) [- png agreement] particle (prepositional / verb suffix) [- png agreement] Lelemi, Siwu, etc. (subgroup of Kwa) Buli, K nni, etc. (subgroup of Gur) References Cahill, Michael C Aspects of the morphology and phonology of K nni. Dallas: SIL International. Dakubu, M. E. Kropp The particle la in Gurene. Gur Papers / Cahiers Voltaïques 5: Dakubu, M.E. Kropp, and Saanchi, Angkaaraba Broad and narrow focus in Dagaare. Ms. Legon. Fiedler, Ines, Hartmann, Katharina, Reineke, Brigitte, Schwarz, Anne & Zimmermann, Malte. In press. Subject focus in West African languages. In Information structure from different perspectives. eds. Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry. Oxford: OUP. Givón, Talmy Focus and the scope of assertion: some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 6: Güldemann, Tom Verbalmorphologie und Nebenprädikationen im Bantu. Eine Studie zur funktional motivierten Genese eines konjugationalen Subsystem. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Hyman, Larry M Aghem grammatical structure. (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 7.) Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Krifka, Manfred Basic notions of information structure. In The notions of information structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS), eds. Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow and Manfred Krifka, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. 7

8 31. Jahrestagung Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft DGfS März 2009, Osnabrück Lambrecht, Knud Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manessy, Gabriel Les particules affirmatives postverbales dans le groupe voltaïque. BIFAN 25 (B): Marchese, Lynell On assertive focus and the inherent focus nature of negatives and imperatives: Evidence from Kru. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 5: Molnár, Valeria Das Topik im Deutschen und im Ungarischen. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Olawsky, Knut J Aspects of Dagbani grammar. With special emphasis on phonology and morphology. Munich, Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen The thetic/categorial distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: Sasse, Hans-Jürgen Theticity and VS order: A case study. In Verb-subject order and theticity in European languages (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 48: 1/2), eds. Yaron Matras and Hans-Jürgen Sasse, Berlin. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen Theticity. In Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, eds. Giuliano Bernini and Marcia L. Schwarz, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schwarz, Anne How many focus markers are there in Konkomba? In Selected Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, eds. Masangu Matondo, Fiona Mc Laughlin and Eric Potsdam, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Schwarz, Anne. In press. Tonal focus reflections in Buli and some Gur relatives, Lingua (2008), doi: /j.lingua Ulrich, Miorita Thetisch vs. kategorisch und Informationsstruktur. In Energeia und Ergon: Sprachliche Variation Sprachgeschichte Sprachtypologie, eds. John Albrecht, Harald Thun and Jens Lüdtke, Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wehr, Barbara Diskurs-Strategien im Romanischen.vol. 22: Romanic Monacensia. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. anne.schwarz@rz.hu-berlin.de www2.hu-berlin.de/gur_und_kwa_fokus 8