Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp.501–547

Topicality in Sentence Focus utterances

ORCID logo | 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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
References (75)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bearth, Thomas. 1992. Constituent structure, natural focus hierarchy and focus types in Toura. Folia Linguistica 261: 75–94. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Intonation and meaning. (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39(3): 517–545. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1988. Preferred argument structure in an active language. Lingua 74(1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121(13): 1906–1922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Focus as Prosodic Alignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3): 683–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline, & Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82(1): 131–150. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited.” Linguistics 251: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stutterheim, Christiane von & Wolfgang Klein. 1989. Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations 541:39–76. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logo
. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Khachaturyan, Maria
2023. From copula to focus, vice versa, or neither?. Mandenkan :69 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Khachaturyan, Maria
2023. Mano correlatives are non-subordinating. Mandenkan :70 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.