0. Introduction 1. Observations concerning the structure of morphosyntactically marked focus constructions 1.1 First observation: SF vs. NSF asymmetry 1.2 Second observation: NSF-NAR parallelism 1.3 Affirmative ex-situ focus constructions (SF, NSF), and narrative clauses (NAR) 2. Grammaticalization 2.1 Cleft hypothesis 2.2 Movement hypothesis 2.3 Narrative hypothesis 2.3.1 Back- or Foregrounding? 2.3.2 Converse directionality of FM and conjunction 3. Language specific analysis 4. Conclusionary remarks Reference

Fiedler, Ines

Schwarz, Anne

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   1Focus or Narrative Constructions?  Morphosyntactically Marked Focus Constructions in some Gur and Kwa Languages Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz    sfb632.b1@rz.hu-berlin.de www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de  (Project B1)   0. Introduction 1. Observations concerning the structure of morphosyntactically marked focus constructions 1.1 First observation: SF vs. NSF asymmetry 1.2 Second observation: NSF-NAR parallelism 1.3 Affirmative ex-situ focus constructions (SF, NSF), and narrative clauses (NAR) 2.  Grammaticalization 2.1 Cleft hypothesis 2.2 Movement hypothesis 2.3 Narrative hypothesis 2.3.1 Back- or Foregrounding? 2.3.2 Converse directionality of FM and conjunction 3. Language specific analysis 4. Conclusionary remarks References  0. Introduction  We concentrate on pragmatically marked constituent focus structures which are coded by the following features:   - first, syntactically, so that the focused argument stands at the left periphery of the sentence  (ex-situ)   - by coding of the out-of focus part as dependent predication   - focused argument optionally coded by a FM   - pragmatically, they seem to convey a contrastive reading in most of the cases; in some languages they are only marginally used in answering to a wh-question, in others they convey  more regularly simply new information. 1. Observations concerning the structure of morphosyntactically marked focus constructions 1.1 First observation: SF vs. NSF asymmetry There is an asymmetry found between subject und non-subject focus constructions.  1.1.1 Evidence for this asymmetry This structural asymmetry shows up in several ways in the selected languages: it concerns the focus marker and TAM morphology including tone. (a) Akan  Both subject and non-subject focus are characterized by:  -  same obligatory FM nà     -   “link tone” in the out of focus part of both constructions (Bearth, 2002)  Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   2-  a DEPendent construction marker may occur in both -  difference consists of an  “underspecified” subject pronoun for 3rd person referents restricted to subject focus constructions (Bearth, 2002).   SF (1)  y abrewa     no    na d              adua  no. it.is  old.woman  DEF   FM 3sg.eat.PAST  beans DEF It is THE OLD WOMAN who has eaten the beans.  NSF (2)  The woman kissed Kofi.     daab,  kwame  ano   na   fe             y.   no         Kwame    mouth FM   3sg.kiss.PF   DEP   No, she kissed KWAME.   (b) Ewe  The characteristics of focus constructions in Ewe are as follows:  -  F can be additionally marked by a FM, which is obligatory for subject focus and optional for non-subject focus  -  special pronominal forms for the second and third person singular in non-subject focus constructions  SF (3)  ntu-a-e       t-e. man-DEF-FM  take-3sg THE MAN took it [watch]. (not the woman)  NSF (4)  Did he win or lose the game? ed(-e)  wo        u.  top-(FM)   3sg.DEP  eat He was on TOP. (i.e., He WON the game.)  (c) Lelemi  subject focus construction is characterized by:  -  “relative tenses” (Allan 1973)  non-subject focus construction is characterized by:  -  “simple tenses” (Allan 1973) -  FM nà  SF (5a)  naab umw p   m-d            kutu.   [-d]   boy        one    only  DEP.CONT-eat  orange   ONLY ONE BOY is eating an orange.  Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   3(5b)  naab umw     n-t                 ulokub.    [u-t]   boy       one           DEP.STAT-carry  girl   ONE BOY was  carrying a girl.  (5c)  ll ny  na-s a  .       [l-sa]   lorry  two    DEP.PAST-meet   TWO LORRIES collided.  NSF (6)  akab awd (na)  uloku  m   d. beans  raw      (FM)  woman DEM   3sg.PAST.eat The woman ate RAW BEANS.  (d) Buli  subject focus construction is characterized by:  -  conjunction le  -  special verb tone paradigm (B)  non-subject focus construction is characterized by:  -  conjunction tè  -  special verb tone paradigm (C)  SF (7) (ka)   wa          le      te.      …*TE …  paradigm B   (FM)   3sg:DISJ    CNJ    go   HE went. ~ It is HE who went. (not you)   NSF (8) (ka) sandem    te    wa   te.     rare: ...LE ...  paradigm C   (FM)  Sandema   CNJ  3sg   go It is SANDEMA where he went. (not Navrongo)   (e) Dagbani  subject focus construction is characterized by:  -  “emphatic marker” N (Olawsky, 1999) (in interrogation alternatively: léé) -  existence of a special verb tone paradigm not clear  non-subject focus construction is characterized by:  -  conjunction ka  -  existence of a special verb tone paradigm not clear  Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   4SF (9)  b-pom-bl maa        ka               arm  maa  n.   girl                   DEF  EMPH NEG.be:LOC   boat      DEF   in   THE GIRL is not in the boat. (but someone else is)  (10)  wun   lee      d       tyja    maa.           (almost restricted to interrogation)   3sg:E     EMPH   eat.PF  beans   DEF   WHO has eaten the beans?  NSF (11)  jl    maa  n  ko-o     d.   house  DEF   in    FM-3sg   eat.PF   IN THE HOUSE she ate.   1.2 Second observation: NSF-NAR parallelism There is a formal parallelism between ex-situ non-subject-focus constructions (NSF) and narrative clauses (NAR).  Under NAR we understand with Labov (1972) event clauses which report “what happened”. “Each clause then describes an event that is understood to shift reference time, i.e. it follows the event immediately preceding it, and precedes the event immediately following it.” (1972, cited in Schiffrin 1994: 284). Hence, NAR are characterized by succession of events, and serve for the elaboration of the main story line.  1.2.1 Evidence for this parallelism The formal parallel shows up in several ways in the selected languages: it concerns the focus marker, TAM morphology including tone, and special pronominal forms.  (a) Akan  -  clausal sequential conjunction nà with the meaning “and (then)” (Bearth 2002) which is identical with the FM -  difference to focus constructions: in narration, there is commonly no tonal marking and no verb final DEPendent construction marker   NSF (12=2) The woman kissed Kofi.     daab, kwame ano     na  fe             y.   no        Kwame  mouth   FM   3sg.kiss.PF   DEP   No, she kissed KWAME.   NAR (13)  me-bsa-a  no   mprenu na  o-bua-e.   I-ask-PAST  3sg  twice       CNJ 3sg-respond-PAST-DETRANS    I asked him twice and he responded. (Bearth 2002)   Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   5(b) Ewe  -  dependent pronoun in both constructions -  similarity of the FM with a clause coordinating conjunction éye “and (then)”  NSF (14=4) Did he win or lose the game?   ed(-e)    wo        u.  top-(FM)     3sg.DEP  eat He was on TOP. (i.e., He WON the game.)   NAR (15)  The dog is pushing  the boy down …   eye    wo         l           um.   CNJ    3sg.DEP    PROG  3sg bite.PROG   and is biting him.   (c) Lelemi  -  FM is homophone with the narrative conjunction “and (then)”  -  use of the “simple tenses” (Allan 1973)  NSF (16=6) akab awd na  uloku  m  d. beans raw      FM   woman DEM  3sg.PAST.eat The woman ate RAW BEANS.  NAR (17)  The boy was carrying the girl…   na     benye.   CNJ    3sg.STAT.stand   and they were standing.   (d) Buli  - identical  clausal  conjunction  tè “and (then)” -  identical verb paradigm (C)  NSF (18a)      kwa       te     n    suur    t.   1sg   father.DEF CNJ   1sg   wash     give   For MY FATHER I washed [it].   (18b=8)  ( ka) sandem    te     wa    te.    (FM) Sandema    CNJ    3sg     go It is SANDEMA where he went. (not Navrongo)   Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   6NAR (19)  and his mother was happy with him    te    ba  d dentaa ...   CNJ  3pl  cook soup.DEF   and (then) they cooked the soup ...   (e) Dagbani  -  homophone clausal conjunction ka “and (then)”  -  if the subject of the narrative clause is coreferent with the subject of the preceding clause, it has to be elided after ka (cf. Olawsky 1999)  NSF (20=11)  jl    maa  n  ko-o    d.     house  DEF   in   FM-3sg  eat     IN THE HOUSE she ate.  NAR (21a) and the mother sent the youngest child   ka    b   san maa ta ...   CNJ   child  ?    DEF  go.PF   and the child went ...  (21b) paa   maa daa-la          peter ka   me-o.               not: ... ka *o me-o.   woman DEF push.PF-FM    Peter  CNJ  hit.PF-3sg   The woman pushed and hit Peter.   1.3 Affirmative ex-situ focus constructions (SF, NSF), and narrative clauses (NAR)  (22) Summary   Akan  Ewe  Lelemi  Buli  Dagbani SF  F nà  + tone (+ y)  F (y)é   F + rel. tense  (ká) F le + tone B  F N   + tone? F léé + tone? NSF  F nà  + tone (+ y)  F (y)é   (+ dep. pron.) F nà + simple tense  (ká) F tè + tone C  F  ka  + tone? NAR  ... nà   ... éye   (+ dep. pron.) ... nà + simple tense         ... tè + tone C  ... ka  + tone?  2.  Grammaticalization  2.1 Cleft hypothesis 2.2 Movement hypothesis  Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   72.3 Narrative hypothesis - focus constructions represent a biclausal construction developed out of two coordinated clauses where the first one is reduced to a one argument clause and the second one shows a special narrative morphology - this approach brings us however in a twofold conflict:  2.3.1 Back- or Foregrounding? ex-situ construction: Focus      – Background                                narrative clause:       Foreground – Foreground  2.3.2 Converse directionality of FM and conjunction 3. Language specific analysis The narrative hypothesis can be applied to all languages considered. 4. Conclusionary remarks In all the languages concerned here, the (N)SF-NAR parallelism can be accounted for due to grammaticalization of a narrative clause including a narrative conjunction. A corresponding grammaticalization chaine from conjunction via FM to copula has been noticed by Stassen (1997: 85).  In dealing with Cameroon languages from the Niger-Congo and Chadic language families, Frajzyngier emphasis: „these types of clauses [i.e. specific interrogative clauses, comment-on-focus clauses, relative clauses, sequential  clauses, temporal or conditional protasis or apodosis, and negative clauses, I.F./A.S.] share a pragmatic status in that they must be interpreted in connection with another proposition or event.” (2004:55) He calls them therefore pragmatically dependent.  References Aboh, Enoch O. 2003. Focus constructions across Kwa. In Trends in African Linguistics 5, eds. Cege Githiora, Heather Littlefield and Victor Manfredi. Trenton New Jersey: Africa World Press. Allan, Edward Jay. 1973. A grammar of Buem: The Lelemi language, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London: PhD Thesis. Ameka, Felix. 1992. Focus constructions in Ewe und Akan: A comparative perspective. In Proceedings of the Kwa comparative syntax workshop M.I.T., eds. Chris Collins and Victor Manfredi, 1-15. Cambridge. Ameka, Felix. 2003. “Today is far”: Situational anaphors in overlapping clause constructions in Ewe. In Legon-Trondheim Linguistics Project Colloquium 2002, eds. M. E.  Kropp Dakubu and K. Osam, 9-22. Legon: Linguistics Department. Bearth, Thomas, et al. 2002. Ali Akan. Version 56. CD-ROM.  Bearth, Thomas. 1993. Satztyp und Situation in einigen Sprachen Westafrikas. In Beiträge zur afrikanischen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, ed. W.J.G. Möhlig, 91-104. Köln. Bearth, Thomas. 2002. Fokus im Akan - Outline. Handout of a presentation at the Ling. Colloquium of the Seminar of African Studies at the Humboldt-University, 28.05.2002. Blench, Roger. 2001. Comparative Central Togo: what have we learnt since Heine? Paper presented at 32nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Cambridge. Creissels, Denis. 1991. Description des langues négro-africaines et théorie syntaxique. Grenoble: Ellug. Duthie, A. S. 1996. Introducing Ewe linguistic patterns. Accra: Ghana University Press. Elders, Stefan. 2003. Grammatische Phänomene in Bezug auf Informationsstruktur im Kulango. Handout of a presentation at the Humboldt-University of Berlin SFB 632 / IAA, 27.10.03. Elders, Stefan. 2003. The Dependent Conjunction in Kulango. In Legon-Trondheim Linguistics Project Colloquium 2002, eds. M. E.  Kropp Dakubu and K. Osam, 43-60. Legon: Linguistics Department. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2004. Tense and aspect as coding means for information structure: a potential areal feature. Journal of West African Languages 30:53-67. Topic and Focus: Information Structure     Amsterdam, 3./4.Dec. 2004 and Grammar in African Languages   8Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction.vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Higdon, Lee M. 1998. The line of importance in Gangam narrative discourse. Gur Papers / Cahiers Voltaïques 3:45-53. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2003. Relativization in Buli. In Studies in Buli Grammar. Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 45-84: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language 3:37-64. Kangni, Atah-Ekoué. 1989. La syntax du Ge. Etude syntaxique d'un parler GBE (EWE): le Ge du Sud-Togo. Frankfurt a. M., Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang. Labov, Wilhelm. 1972. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Language in the Inner City, 354-96. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39:463-516. Lefebvre, Claire, and Brousseau, Anne-Marie. 2002. A Grammar of Fongbe. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lewis, Marshall. 1999. From switch reference to recessive subject marking. Third person subject pronoun patterns in Gen, Ewe and Fon., ed. 30th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Olawsky, Knut J. 1999. Aspects of Dagbani grammar. With special emphasis on phonology and morphology: LINCOM studies in African linguistics; 41. München, Newcastle: Lincom. Rongier, Jacques. 1997. Langues autonomes du Togo, entre Gur et Kwa?, Ms. Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford UK Cambridge USA: Blackwell. Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive predication: Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory. Oxford u.a.: Clarendon Press. Tchitchi, Toussaint Y. 1984. Systématique de l'Ajagbe, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris III: Thèse pour le doctorat de 3ème cycle. Westermann, D. 1930. A study of the Ewe language. London: Oxford University Press.     Abbreviations:  CNJ conjunction CONT continuous DEF definite  marker DEM demonstrative  (pronoun) DEP dependent  marker DETRANS detransitive  marker DISJ disjunctive  (pronoun) EMPH emphatic  marker F focus  constituent FM focus  marker IPF imperfective   NAR narrative  (clause) NSF  non-subject focus (construction) PF perfective   PROG progressive  marker REL  relative (clause / construction) SF subject  focus  (construction) STAT stative   SUB subordination  marker   

A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions.

A grammar of Buem: The Lelemi language,

A Grammar of Fongbe.

A study of the Ewe language. London: Oxford University Press. Abbreviations:

African Languages 30:53-67. Topic and Focus: Information Structure Amsterdam,

Ali Akan. Version 56.

Approaches to Discourse: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics.

Aspects of Dagbani grammar. With special emphasis on phonology and morphology:

Comparative Central Togo: what have we learnt since Heine?

Description des langues négro-africaines et théorie syntaxique.

Focus and relativization.

Focus constructions across Kwa. In Trends

Focus constructions in Ewe und Akan: A comparative perspective.

Fokus im Akan - Outline. Handout of a presentation at the Ling. Colloquium of the Seminar of African Studies at the Humboldt-University,

From switch reference to recessive subject marking. Third person subject pronoun patterns

Grammatische Phänomene in Bezug auf Informationsstruktur im Kulango. Handout of a presentation at the Humboldt-University of

Intransitive predication: Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory. Oxford u.a.:

Introducing Ewe linguistic patterns.

La syntax du Ge. Etude syntaxique d'un parler GBE (EWE): le Ge du Sud-Togo.

Langues autonomes du Togo,

Relativization in Buli.

Satztyp und Situation in einigen Sprachen Westafrikas.

Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language.

Systématique de l'Ajagbe, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris III: Thèse pour le doctorat de 3ème cycle.

Tense and aspect as coding means for information structure: a potential areal feature.

The Dependent Conjunction in Kulango.

The line of importance in Gangam narrative discourse.

The transformation of experience in narrative syntax.

Today is far”: Situational anaphors in overlapping clause constructions in Ewe.

Focus or narrative constructions? : Morphosyntactically marked focus constructions in some Gur and Kwa languages

Focus or narrative constructions? : Morphosyntactically marked focus constructions in some Gur and Kwa languages

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main