Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp. 501–547

Topicality in Sentence Focus utterances

| NRU Higher School of Economics
Focus and newness are distinct features. The fact that subconstituents of focus can be given or discourse-old has been pointed out in Selkirk (1984) and Lambrecht (1994). Nevertheless, when it comes to Sentence Focus, it is still common to equate Focus with newness, and to treat SF sentences as necessarily all-new. One of the reasons for such bias is that formally or typologically oriented descriptions of SF tend to analyze only intransitive ‘out of the blue’ SF utterances stemming from elicitation. Based on SF utterances in natural speech in Kakabe, a Western Mande language, the present study shows that in natural speech SF utterances are associated with a rich array of discourse strategies. Accordingly, the discourse properties of the referents inside SF are subject to variation and affect the implementation of the focus-marking. The study also shows how the discourse properties of referents define the distribution of the focus marker in Kakabe.
Keywords: sentence focus, inferential, topicality, givenness, subject
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse structure and focus
    • 2.1Question-based model of information structure
    • 2.2Question-Answer Congruence and focus phrase
    • 2.3Givenness and topicality in focus constituents
    • 2.4Two approaches to sentence focus
  • 3.Kakabe: General information
    • 3.1Verbal utterance
    • 3.2Inflectional paradigm
    • 3.3Data and methodology
  • 4.Argument and predicate focus
    • 4.1 In situ focus phrase
    • 4.2Types of focus meanings
    • 4.3Discourse status of referents within the focus phrase
  • 5.Use of SF in discourse
    • 5.1Types of discourse uses of SF constructions
    • 5.2Inferentials as a type of SF use
    • 5.3Inferential SF in Kakabe
    • 5.4Non-explicative inferentials
  • 6.Position of lè in SF and the referential properties
    • 6.1Nominal DPs in the focused constituent
    • 6.2Locutors in the focused constituent
    • 6.3Focus constituent with pronominal non-locutors
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 27 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
References
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arregi, Carlos
2016 Focus projection theories. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 1st edn, 185–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J., & Paola Bentivoglio
1993 Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change 5(1): 61–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bearth, Thomas
1992 Constituent structure, natural focus hierarchy and focus types in Toura. Folia Linguistica 261: 75–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Inferential and counter-inferential markers in Swahili dialogue. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 511: 1–21.Google Scholar
1999a The contribution of African linguistics towards a general theory of focus. Update and critical review. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20(1): 121–156.Google Scholar
1999b The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics 9 (2). 249–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2003 On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Intonation and meaning. (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Lauri
1982 Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984 (Typological Studies in Language 11), 21–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993 A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress. Linguistic Inquiry 241: 239–98.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
1997 Postpositions as a possible origin of certain predicative markers in Mande. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 501: 5–17.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1992 The inferential It is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua 87(3): 203–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P.
1990 Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics. 1–28.Google Scholar
1995 The inferential construction. Pragmatics 5(3): 341–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39(3): 517–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans B.
1994 Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. (Arbeitspapiere Des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen Der Computerlinguistik 51). Stuttgart/Tübingen: Universitäten Stuttgart und Tübingen in Kooperation mit der IBM Deutschland GmbH.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark
1988 Preferred argument structure in an active language. Lingua 74(1): 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline
2011 German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121(13): 1906–1922. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Focus as Prosodic Alignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3): 683–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline, & Vieri Samek-Lodovici
2006 Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82(1): 131–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Anna
1980 Accented subjects in ‘all-new’ utterances.” In Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds.) Wege Zur Universalienforschung, 449–461. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
. “Focus and the Scope of Assertion. Some Bantu Evidence.” Studies in African Linguistics 61 1975, 185–205.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1983 Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. (Typological Studies in Language 3). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 21. Revised edn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom
2003 Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu. Studies in Language 27(2): 323–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 209–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L.
1974 Questions in Montague English. (Foundations of Language 10). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann
2009 Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic). Lingua 119(9): 1340–1365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkinson, Annie & Larry Hyman
1975 Natural topic hierarchies in Shona. Studies in African Linguistics 51: 147–170.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry & John Watters
1984 Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15(3): 233–273.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
1991 Focus ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 8(1–2): 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A.
2011 Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2006 Association with focus phrases. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. In Chungmin Lee, Matthew Kelly Gordon, & Daniel Büring (eds.) Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 82), 139–151. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert D.
1980 The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3): 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
1998 Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. Papers from the Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 33(2): 189–206.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Hans-Jürgen Sasse
(eds.) 1995 S-Order and theticity in European languages. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana
2011 Categorial reanalysis and the origin of the S-O-V-X word order in Mande. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32(2). 251–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nshemezimana, Ernest & Koen Bostoen
2016 The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Kirundi (JD62): A case for its abolition. In Jenneke Wal & Larry M. Hyman (eds.) The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Bantu, 390–425. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1981 Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.) Radical pragmatics, 223–265. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
2006 Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 45). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Stéphane
1986 Le wolof, un exemple d’expression morphologique de l’emphase. Bulletin de La Société de Linguistique de Paris LXXXI1: 319–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 Approche énonciative du système verbal. Le cas du wolof. Paris: Edition du CNRS.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
1998 Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar. In Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 109–160. San Diego: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael
2011 Question answer congruence and focus phrase. Manuscript, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
2016 Givenness. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 1st edn, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11: 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited.” Linguistics 251: 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995a A contrastive study of VS clauses in Modern Greek and Hungarian. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 48 (1–2): 142–188.Google Scholar
1995b ‘Theticity’ and VS Order: A Case Study. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 48 (1–2): 3–31.Google Scholar
1996 Theticity. (Arbeitspapiere, Neue Folge Vol. 27). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan
1976 Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1999 GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1984 Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. (Current Studies in Linguistics Series 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1974 Pragmatic presuppositions. In Milton K. Munitz & Peter K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
1978 Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 315–332. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stutterheim, Christiane von & Wolfgang Klein
1989 Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations 541:39–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanhove, Martine
2010 Deixis, information structure and clause linkage in Yafiʕ Arabic. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 121), 333–354. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, Leah & David Beaver
2016 Question-based models of information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 86–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vydrina, Alexandra
in press). Operator focus in discourse and grammar: The two perfectives in Kakabe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 41(1). Crossref
2017 A corpus-based description of Kakabe, a Western Mande language: prosody in grammar. Paris: INALCO PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Watters, John R.
2010 Focus and the Ejagham verb system. In Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa (Typological studies in language 91), 349–376. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2016 Predicate focus. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 1st edn, 314–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Emily Nava
2011 Encoding Discourse-Based Meaning: Prosody vs. Syntax. Implications for Second Language Acquisition. Lingua 121 (4): 652–669. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Vydrina, Alexandra
2020. Operator focus in discourse and grammar: The two perfectives in Kakabe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 99 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.