1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 44, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 44, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
2020-07-27
2025-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ariel, Mira
    1990 Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arregi, Carlos
    2016 Focus projection theories. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 1st edn, 185–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashby, William J., & Paola Bentivoglio
    1993 Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change5(1): 61–76. 10.1017/S095439450000140X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000140X [Google Scholar]
  4. Bearth, Thomas
    1992 Constituent structure, natural focus hierarchy and focus types in Toura. Folia Linguistica26: 75–94. 10.1515/flin.1992.26.1‑2.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1992.26.1-2.75 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1997 Inferential and counter-inferential markers in Swahili dialogue. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere51: 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 1999a The contribution of African linguistics towards a general theory of focus. Update and critical review. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics20(1): 121–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 1999b The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics9 (2). 249–280. 10.1075/prag.9.2.03bea
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.2.03bea [Google Scholar]
  8. Büring, Daniel
    2003 On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy26(5): 511–545. 10.1023/A:1025887707652
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2016 Intonation and meaning. (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carlson, Lauri
    1982 Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. InCharles N. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. InRussell 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. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  13. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1993 A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress. Linguistic Inquiry24: 239–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Creissels, Denis
    1997 Postpositions as a possible origin of certain predicative markers in Mande. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere50: 5–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Declerck, Renaat
    1992 The inferential It is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua87(3): 203–230. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90008‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90008-7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Delahunty, Gerald P.
    1990 Inferentials: The story of a forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics. 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 1995 The inferential construction. Pragmatics5(3): 341–364. 10.1075/prag.5.3.03del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.3.03del [Google Scholar]
  19. 2001 Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics39(3): 517–545. 10.1515/ling.2001.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.022 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63(4): 805–855. 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  22. Durie, Mark
    1988 Preferred argument structure in an active language. Lingua74(1): 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90046‑0.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90046-0. [Google Scholar]
  23. Féry, Caroline
    2011 German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua121(13): 1906–1922. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013 Focus as Prosodic Alignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory31(3): 683–734. 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9195‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9195-7 [Google Scholar]
  25. Féry, Caroline, & Vieri Samek-Lodovici
    2006 Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language82(1): 131–150. 10.1353/lan.2006.0031
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0031 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fuchs, Anna
    1980 Accented subjects in ‘all-new’ utterances.”InGunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds.) Wege Zur Universalienforschung, 449–461. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Givón, Talmy
    . “Focus and the Scope of Assertion. Some Bantu Evidence.” Studies in African Linguistics6 1975, 185–205.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (ed.) 1983 Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. (Typological Studies in Language 3). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2001 Syntax: An introduction. Vol.2. Revised edn.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Güldemann, Tom
    2003 Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu. Studies in Language27(2): 323–360. 10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul [Google Scholar]
  31. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. InMichael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 209–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.17.16gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [Google Scholar]
  32. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hamblin, Charles L.
    1974 Questions in Montague English. (Foundations of Language 10). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann
    2009 Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic). Lingua119(9): 1340–1365. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hawkinson, Annie & Larry Hyman
    1975 Natural topic hierarchies in Shona. Studies in African Linguistics5: 147–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hyman, Larry & John Watters
    1984 Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics15(3): 233–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jacobs, Joachim
    1991 Focus ambiguities. Journal of Semantics8(1–2): 1–36. 10.1093/jos/8.1‑2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/8.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kibrik, Andrej A.
    2011 Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Krifka, Manfred
    2006 Association with focus phrases. InValéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922011.105
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.105 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008 The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. InChungmin 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]
  41. Ladd, Robert D.
    1980 The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607
  43. 2000 When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language24(3): 611–682. 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam [Google Scholar]
  44. Lambrecht, Knud & Maria Polinsky
    1998 Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. Papers from the Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society33(2): 189–206.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Matras, Yaron & Hans-Jürgen Sasse
    (eds.) 1995 S-Order and theticity in European languages. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2011 Categorial reanalysis and the origin of the S-O-V-X word order in Mande. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics32(2). 251–273. 10.1515/jall.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  47. Nshemezimana, Ernest & Koen Bostoen
    2016 The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Kirundi (JD62): A case for its abolition. InJenneke Wal & Larry M. Hyman (eds.) The conjoint/disjoint alternation in Bantu, 390–425. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110490831‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110490831-014 [Google Scholar]
  48. Prince, Ellen
    1981 Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. InPeter Cole (ed.) Radical pragmatics, 223–265. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Reinhart, Tanya
    2006 Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 45). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Robert, Stéphane
    1986 Le wolof, un exemple d’expression morphologique de l’emphase. Bulletin de La Société de Linguistique de ParisLXXXI: 319–341. 10.2143/BSL.81.1.2013699
     https://doi.org/10.2143/BSL.81.1.2013699 [Google Scholar]
  51. 1993 Approche énonciative du système verbal. Le cas du wolof. Paris: Edition du CNRS.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, Craige
    1998 Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar. InPeter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 109–160. San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373167_006
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373167_006 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics5(6): 1–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rochemont, Michael
    2011 Question answer congruence and focus phrase. Manuscript, University of British Columbia.
  55. 2016 Givenness. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 1st edn, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rooth, Mats
    1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1: 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
    1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited.”Linguistics25: 511–580. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 [Google Scholar]
  58. 1995a A contrastive study of VS clauses in Modern Greek and Hungarian. STUF – Language Typology and Universals48 (1–2): 142–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 1995b ‘Theticity’ and VS Order: A Case Study. STUF – Language Typology and Universals48 (1–2): 3–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 1996 Theticity. (Arbeitspapiere, Neue Folge Vol. 27). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Schmerling, Susan
    1976 Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Schwarzschild, Roger
    1999 GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics7(2): 141–177. 10.1023/A:1008370902407
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [Google Scholar]
  63. Selkirk, Elisabeth
    1984 Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. (Current Studies in Linguistics Series 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Siewierska, Anna
    2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  65. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InRobert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Stalnaker, Robert
    1974 Pragmatic presuppositions. InMilton K. Munitz & Peter K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 1978 Assertion. InPeter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 315–332. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368873_013
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stutterheim, Christiane von & Wolfgang Klein
    1989 Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations54:39–76. 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑87144‑2.50005‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87144-2.50005-7 [Google Scholar]
  69. Vanhove, Martine
    2010 Deixis, information structure and clause linkage in Yafiʕ Arabic. InIsabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 121), 333–354. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.121.10van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.121.10van [Google Scholar]
  70. Velleman, Leah & David Beaver
    2016 Question-based models of information structure. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 86–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Vydrina, Alexandra
    . (in press). Operator focus in discourse and grammar: The two perfectives in Kakabe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics41(1). 10.1515/jall‑2020‑2005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2020-2005 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2017 A corpus-based description of Kakabe, a Western Mande language: prosody in grammar. Paris: INALCO PhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Watters, John R.
    2010 Focus and the Ejagham verb system. InInes 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. 10.1075/tsl.91.13wat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.91.13wat [Google Scholar]
  74. Zimmermann, Malte
    2016 Predicate focus. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 1st edn, 314–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Emily Nava
    2011 Encoding Discourse-Based Meaning: Prosody vs. Syntax. Implications for Second Language Acquisition. Lingua121 (4): 652–669. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.013 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
Loading
Topicality in Sentence Focus utterances
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 44, 501 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): givenness; inferential; sentence focus; subject; topicality

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error