Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:3 (2016) ► pp.551–590

Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding

| Humboldt University Berlin and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History Jena
Based on data from a range of geographically and genealogically diverse African languages this article describes a little recognized strategy for expressing focus. It is based on marking all material of an utterance as background except for the single focus constituent. This kind of “maximal backgrounding” thus renders focus without overt focus marking, called accordingly “indirect focalization”. It is argued that the recognition of this strategy has several repercussions for the general modeling of focus, and information structure in general.
Published online: 18 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul
References (93)
Aboh, Enoch O. 2006. When verbal predicates go fronting. In I. Fiedler & A. Schwarz (eds.), Papers on information structure in African languages (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46), 21–48. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung.Google Scholar
Anyanwu, Rose-Juliet & Abdourahmane Diallo. 2005. Rhythmic units and stress: Word accent mobility in Fula. In Rose-Juliet Anyanwu (ed.), Tone systems in African languages (Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 17), 65–89. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Apel, Viktoria. 2012. Term focus in Fulfulde: Arguments for a grammaticalization of former cleft constructions. Paper presented at the 20 . Afrikanistentag, Köln, 29 May - 2 June 2012.
Arnott, David W. 1970. The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Banfield, Alexander W. & John L. Macintyre. 1915. A grammar of the Nupe language, together with a vocabulary. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.Google Scholar
Bao, Mingzhen. 2012. Prosody of focus among information structures in Pulaar. Afrikanistik Online 20121. [URL] (Accessed 20 Feb 2016.)Google Scholar
Beacham, Charles G. 1991. Learning Yom: A Voltaic language of the Atacora Province (The Republic of Benin, West Africa). Charlotte, North Carolina: SIL USA.Google Scholar
Bearth, Thomas. 1993. Satztyp und Situation in einigen Sprachen Westafrikas. In Wilhelm J.G. Möhlig, Siegmund Brauner & Herrmann Jungraithmayr (eds.), Beiträge zur afrikanischen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft (IX. Afrikanistentag, Leipzig, September, 24-26, 1992), 91–104. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
. 1999. The contribution of African linguistics towards a general theory of focus: Update and critical review. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20(2). 121–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodomo, Adams B. 2000. Dàgáárè. Languages of the World, Materials 165. München/ Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, 177–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis et al. 2008. Africa as a morphosyntactic area. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), A linguistic geography of Africa, 86–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, part 1: The structure of the clause, Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellison, R.E. 1937. An English-Kanuri sentence book. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas D. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 311. 683–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines. 2006. Focus expressions in Yom. Gur Papers 71. 112–121.Google Scholar
. 2014. Conjoint and disjoint verb forms in Gur? Evidence from Yom. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Ines & Anne Schwarz. 2005. Out-of-focus encoding in Gur and Kwa. In Stefanie Dipper, Michael Götze & Manfred Stede (eds.), Approaches and findings in oral, written and gestural language (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 3), 111–142. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2006. Papers on information structure in African languages (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46). Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2010. The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa (Typological Studies in Language 91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines et al. 2010. Subject focus in West African languages. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, 234–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2004. Tense and aspect as coding means for information structure: A potential areal feature. Journal of West African Languages 30(2): 53–67.Google Scholar
Gajdos, Martina. 2004. Fulfulde: Lehrbuch einer westafrikanischen Sprache. Wien: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
George, Isaac. 1971. The á-construction in Nupe: Perfective, stative, causative, or instrumental. In Chin-Wu Kim & Herbert Stahlke (eds.), Papers in African linguistics, 81–100. Edmonton/ Champaign: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Gimba, A. Maina. 2005. On the functions of ‘ye’ in Bole. Paper presented at the International Conference on “Focus in African Languages” , Berlin, 6-8 October 2005.
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics 6(2). 185–205.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2010. Topic and focus fields in Naki. In I. Fiedler & A. Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa (Typological Studies in Language 91), 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grubic, Mira & Malte Zimmermann. 2011. Conventional and free association with focus in Ngamo (West Chadic). In Ingo Reich et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 151, 291–305. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 1996. Verbalmorphologie und Nebenprädikationen im Bantu: Eine Studie zur funktional motivierten Genese eines konjugationalen Subsystems. Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 27. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
. 2010. The relation between focus and theticity in the Tuu family. In I. Fiedler & A. Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa (Typological Studies in Language 91), 69–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. in preparation. Predicate clefts, verb doubling, and co.: Towards a typology of dissected predicates and focus.
Güldemann, Tom et al. 2010. Preposed verb doubling and predicate-centered focus. Paper presented at the International Conference of the SFB 632 “Information structure” , University of Potsdam and Humboldt University of Berlin, 8-10 July 2010. [URL] (Accessed 20 Feb 2016.)
Haida, Andreas. 2004. Wh- and focus constructions in Gurune. Paper presented at the Workshop on Bantu Grammar: Theory and description , ZAS Berlin, 20041.
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54(3). 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2007. In place out of place? Focus strategies in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form: generalizing across languages, 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hole, Daniel P. 2004. Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and yĕ. London: Routledge Curzon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The deconstruction of Chinese shì…de clefts revisited. In Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1707–1733.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979a. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax (Syntax and Semantics 12), 213–241. New York/ San Francisco/ London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979b. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language 3(1). 37–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (ed.). 1982. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (Typological Studies in Language 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudu, Fusheini. 2006. Focus marking in Dagbani. University of British Columbia: unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
. 2012. Focus particles in Dagbani: A descriptive analysis. Journal of West African Languages 39(1). 97–129.Google Scholar
Hutchison, John P. 1981. The Kanuri language: A reference grammar. Madison: African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry & John Watters. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15(3). 233–273.Google Scholar
Issah, Samuel A. 2008. Information packaging in Dagbani. Tromsø: Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Tromsø M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
. 2013. The function of the post verbal la in Dagbani. Studies in African Linguistics 42(2). 153–174.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Peggy. 2010. On the obligatoriness of focus marking: Evidence from Tar B’arma. In I. Fiedler & A. Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa (Typological Studies in Language 91), 117–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Philip J. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The Hausa perfective tense-aspect used in wh-/focus constructions and historical narratives: A unified account. In Paul Newman & Larry M. Hyman (eds.), West African linguistics: Papers in honor of Rusell G. Schuh. Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 11, 100–133. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Jarrett, Kevin A. 1980. Tense/aspect/mood in Kanuri verb forms. Harsunan Nijeriya 101. 1–28.Google Scholar
Kalinowski, Cristin & Jeff Good. 2014. Non-canonical head-marking of information structure in African languages. Paper presented at the ISHML Workshop , Nijmegen, 28 March 2014.
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2008. The grammar of repetition: Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), The notions of information structure (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6), 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kropp Dakubu, Mary E. 2000. The particle la in Gurene. Gur Papers 51. 59–65.Google Scholar
Lukas, Johannes. 1937. A study of the Kanuri language: Grammar and vocabulary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manessy, Gabriel. 1975. Les langues oti-volta (Langues et Civilisations à Tradition Orale 15). Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKay, Graham R. 1988. Figure and ground in Rembarrnga complex sentences. In Peter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages (Typological Studies in Language 15), 7–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ndumbu, J.M.G. & Wilfred H. Whiteley. 1962. Some problems of stability and emphasis in Kamba one-word tenses. Journal of African Languages 1(2): 167–180.Google Scholar
Olawsky, Knut J. 1999. Aspects of Dagbani grammar: With special emphasis on phonology and morphology (LINCOM Studies in African Linguistics 41). München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Olson, Michael. 1981. Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Canberra: Australian National University Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
Purvis, Tristan M. 2012. Left dislocation in Dagbani: A preliminary survey. In Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Maria Fehn (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne, 17-21 August 2009, 501–513. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 45). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1), 281–337. Dordrecht/ Boston/ London: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 21, 3–15. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua 1161. 836–873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 251. 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 1982. Questioned and focussed subjects and objects in Bade/Ngizim. In Herrmann Jungraithmayr (ed.), The Chad languages in the Hamitosemitic-Nigritic border area (Papers of the Marburg Symposion, 1979) (Marburger Studien zur Afrika- und Asienkunde A27), 160–173. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
. 2005. Yobe State, Nigeria as a linguistic area. In Rebecca T. Cover and Yuni Kim (eds.), Languages of West Africa. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(2). 77–94.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2009. How many focus markers are there in Konkomba? In Matondo Masangu, Fiona McLaughlin & Eric Potsdam (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 38th annual conference on African linguistics: Linguistic theory and African language documentation, 182–192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 71. 141–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N.V. 1967. An outline grammar of Nupe. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Stucky, Susan U. 1979. Focus of contrast aspects in Makua: Syntactic and semantic evidence. Berkeley Linguistics Society 51. 362–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sylla, Yèro. 1993. Syntaxe peule: Contribution à la recherche sur les universaux du langage. Dakar: Les Nouvelles Éditions Africaines du Sénégal.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, volume 4: Syntax, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1985. Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text 51: 85–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (ed.). 1987. Coherence and grounding in discourse (Typological Studies in Language 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Townsend, David J. & Thomas G. Bever. 1977. Main and subordinate clauses: A study in figure and ground. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2011. Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa. Lingua 1211. 1734–1750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1984. A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Berkeley Linguistics Society 101. 542–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W.A.A. 1963. Relative constructions in Dagbani. Journal of African Languages 21. 139–144.Google Scholar
Wolff, H. Ekkehard & Doris Löhr. 2006. Encoding focus in Kanuri verbal morphology: Predication focus and the “Kanuri focus shift”. In I. Fiedler and A. Schwarz (eds.), Papers on information structure in African languages (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46), 185–209. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung.Google Scholar
Ziegelmeyer, Georg. 2011. On argument focus in Kanuri. In Doris Löhr, Eva Rothmaler & Georg Ziegelmeyer (eds.), Kanuri, Borno and beyond: Current studies on the Lake Chad region (Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 22), 191–205. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Zima, Petr. 1991. Le problème des formes verbales dites “relatives” en tchadique. In Herrmann Jungraithmayr & Henry Tourneux (eds.), Etudes tchadiques la phrase complexe, 15–26. Paris: Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
. 2006. TAM verbal paradigms in the West African Sahel as areal (Sprachbund), genetic and sociolinguistic features (Where are we 75 years after Klingenheben?). In Bernard Caron & Petr Zima (eds.), Sprachbund in the West African Sahel (Afrique et Langage 11), 221–237. Leuven/ Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2011. The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic: Variation and uniformity in and across languages. Linguistics 49(5). 1163–1213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Caroline Féry (eds.). 2010. Information structure: Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Zeller, Jochen
2024. Agreeing objects in Zulu can be indefinite and non-specific. Linguistics Vanguard 9:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Bloom Ström, Eva-Marie & Jochen Zeller
2023. Verum in Xhosa and Zulu (Nguni). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:3 ► pp. 493 ff. DOI logo
Kerr, Elisabeth J. & Jenneke Van der Wal
2023. Indirect truth marking via backgrounding: evidence from Bantu. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:3 ► pp. 443 ff. DOI logo
Akita, Kimi
2021. A typology of depiction marking. Studies in Language 45:4 ► pp. 865 ff. DOI logo
Zimmermann, Malte, Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss, Swantje Tönnis & Edgar Onea
2020. (Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages. In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 16], ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Grubic, Mira, Agata Renans & Reginald Akuoko Duah
2019. Focus, exhaustivity and existence in Akan, Ga and Ngamo. Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Nuhn, Patrick
2019. Reversedang-inversion and narrow focus marking in Tagalog. Studies in Language 43:2 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Lovestrand, Joseph
2018. The background markernáin Barayin. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 39:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Reversed ang-inversion and narrow focus marking in Tagalog. In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.