Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focus marking in Bura: semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present article introduces a theory of (morpho-)syntactic focus marking on nominal categories in Bura, a Central Chadic SVO language spoken in the northeast of Nigeria. Our central claim is that the particle an plays a crucial role in the marking of subject and non-subject focus. We put forward a uniform analysis of an as a focus copula that selects for syntactic predicates of type <e,t> and a focused constituent of type <e>. This uniform semantic representation is transparently mapped onto different syntactic structures: In a clause with a focused subject, the focus copula appears between the subject in SpecTP and the predicative VP. On the other hand, syntactically focused non-subjects are fronted and appear in a bi-clausal cleft structure that contains the focus copula and a relative cleft-remnant. The non-uniform analysis of focus marking is further supported by the structure of predicative constructions, in which the focus copula separates the focused subject and the adjectival or nominal predicate. It is also shown that alternative unified analyses fail to account for the full range of Bura data. The latter part of the article provides an analysis of the Bura cleft construction. Based on syntactic and semantic evidence, we come to the conclusion that the clefted constituent is base-generated in its initial surface position, and that an empty operator moves within the relative clause. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the potential conceptual reasons behind the observed subject/non-subject asymmetry in Bura.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bura is spoken by approximately 250,000 speakers in the Nigerian states of Borno and Adamawa (estimation by Ethnologue in 1987). Syntactically, Bura is an isolating SVO-language with rigid word order and no overt case marking. The only systematic linguistic description of Bura is Carl Hoffmann’s grammar from 1955. In addition, there is an online dictionary for Bura by Roger Blench (2009a), which is based on a missionary dictionary from 1950, as well as an online manuscript on its phonology (Blench 2009b). Blench’s (2009b: 7) claim that Bura is a tone language with only two tone levels, high and low, is confirmed by our own findings. In this article, high tones are marked with an acute accent on the tone bearing unit (v́), and low tones with a grave accent (v̀). In the absence of a tonological analysis of Bura, we only mark phonetic surface tones based on acoustic impressions and on visual inspection of the corresponding f0-contours in praat. Tones on ungrammatical sentences are not marked.

    The data in this article represent the Bura variety of Garkida, a city in Adamawa State, Nigeria. The data were mainly elicited from Mr. Chris Mtaku, a highly educated Bura speaker born in 1963 in Garkida. All the examples were confirmed by another speaker of Bura, Mrs. Talatu Wakawa, from the same city.

  2. The absence of morphological marking in the perfective aspect is not restricted to Bura but is attested in other African languages as well; see, e.g., Hyman et al. (2002) on zero perfective marking in Leggbó (Benue-Congo), and Hartmann and Zimmermann (2009) on the absence of perfective morphology in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic).

  3. The following abbreviations are used: acc = accusative, cond = conditional complementizer, dem = demonstrative, def = definite marker, ec = existential closure, fcop = focus copula, foc.perf = perfective focus, fut = future, fv = final vowel, link = linker, m = masculine, neg = negation, obj = object, pl = plural, pol = polarity, prog = progressive, prt = particle, q = question marker, rel = relative marker, subj = subject, rp = resumptive pronoun, sg = singular, top = topic marker, vn = verbal noun.

  4. Sometimes, the two elements are also amalgamated in the morphologically complex expression wan, as in the object wh-question in (i):

    1. (i)
      figure e

  5. We take the question particle to be lexically underspecified for tone, as it emerges both with H and L surface tones. The large majority of question particles in our sample bear the same tone as the preceding tone-bearing unit, i.e., either H or L, but the question particle and the preceding tone-bearing unit can also surface with different tones. The structural and prosodic factors behind the tonal variation are in need of further tonological investigations, but the different tonal realizations of question-final ri show at least that Bura wh-questions are not realized with an interrogative final phrasal tone (H or L), unlike declarative clauses that always come with a low phrasal tone at the end.

  6. Bura thus differs from West-Chadic SVO languages like Tangale, in which both focused subjects and focused objects must occur in a postverbal position. This is illustrated for Tangale in (i) (subject focus) and (ii) (object focus); see Hartmann and Zimmermann (2007b).

    1. (i)
      figure f
    1. (ii)
      figure g

  7. The existence of unmarked in situ focus with non-subjects is attested for a variety of West-Chadic languages. In Hausa, for instance, focus can be marked syntactically by means of fronting (see Newman 2000). But focused constituents may also remain in situ, as first noticed by Jaggar (2001) and illustrated in (i).

    1. (i)
      figure j

    It appears that in situ focus in Hausa is not only syntactically unmarked, but unmarked in general; see Jaggar (2001, 2004), Green and Jaggar (2003), and Hartmann and Zimmermann (2007a). Hartmann and Zimmermann (2007a) investigate whether the two focus positions in Hausa correlate with different focus interpretations. They carry out a pilot study which reveals a tendency for corrective foci to occur in the sentence initial position, whereas information foci tend to remain in situ. So far, no similar study has been executed for Bura. Hence, the question whether ex situ foci are preferably interpreted as contrastive has to await future research.

  8. Whether or not in situ focus is prosodically marked in Bura has to await a detailed phonetic analysis. At the moment, we tentatively assume—based on acoustic impressions alone—that in situ focus is not made prominent by prosodic features, such as, e.g., pitch accent, duration, or intonational phrasing.

  9. In (11A), the verb is followed by the pronominal expression ri, which differs formally from the regular 3sg object pronoun ni, and which—according to Hoffmann (1955: 268)—signals an anaphoric relation to a preceding discourse referent across clause boundaries. Apart from its discourse-anaphoric function in (11A), ri is also used as a resumptive pronoun in complex sentences; see Sect. 2.2.2, and in particular fn. 11, for more discussion.

  10. Apart from the dominant reading given in the translation in (12), the sentence has an additional interpretation, given in (i), in which the focus particle associates with the right-adjacent locative adverbial:

    1. (i)

      He didn’t only take a/the book from the SHOP, (but from the market, too).

    Association with focus to the right appears to be marginal in Bura (see Hartmann and Zimmermann 2008) and does not have an impact on the argument to come.

  11. The same distributional difference between progressive and perfective clauses is attested for the second function of ri as a discourse-bound pronoun across clause boundaries; see fn. 9: In the progressive clause (iA), ri is present, but it is missing from the corresponding clause (iiA) in the perfective aspect.

    1. (i)
      figure q
    1. (ii)
      figure r

    The parallel behavior of ri in its two core functions as a resumptive and a discourse anaphoric pronoun calls for a unified account. We propose that the presence of the progressive marker triggers an intervention effect that is obviated by insertion of the resumptive pronoun ri. Independent support for this analysis comes from the examples in (iii) and (iv). In (iii), the additional modal verb bara intervenes. In (iv), from Hoffmann (1955: 272), the dependency between the focused constituent and the covert element in the relative clause is blocked by the presence of the TAM-focus marker ku, which marks focus on the perfective aspect of the clause (Hartmann et al. 2008). In both constructions, the resumptive pronoun is obligatory.

    1. (iii)
      figure s
    1. (iv)
      figure t

  12. Unlike with wh-subjects, the focus-indicating element an is preferred, but not 100 % obligatory, in non-subject wh-questions. Given that the marked information-structural status of the initial wh-expression is easily identifiable on the basis of lexical and structural factors alone, the occasional absence of an is not so surprising. More interestingly, the presence of the focus copula an is altogether excluded in pair-list answers to multiple wh-questions, as in (i):

    1. (i)
      figure x

    In this article, we will not be concerned with the reasons for the obligatory absence of an in (iA). Hartmann and Zimmermann (2008) suggest that subjects in pair-list answers to multiple questions are (contrastive) topics rather than foci, and hence cannot be followed by the focus marker an. This claim is supported by the fact that the subject in the second part of the answer in (iiA) can be followed by the topic marker tsuwa. É. Kiss (1993) comes to a similar conclusion in her discussion of multiple wh-questions in Hungarian and English. She argues that they have a reading where the subject wh-phrase is interpreted as a contextually given topic that is distributively quantified over by the subject denotations of the individual (partial) answers, and the other wh-phrase is interpreted as focus. Thanks to Marcel den Dikken for bringing this reference to our attention.

  13. By saying this, we do not exclude the possibility that relevant focus alternatives can also be introduced covertly, e.g., in cases of in situ focus discussed in Sect. 2.2. In such cases, which are frequently attested, the identification of the relevant alternatives is not conditioned by structural factors, but solely by the context of the utterance.

  14. The mandatory presence of an in (27b) is due to the fact that daci ‘only’ associates with a subject focus. By contrast, presence of an is illicit when daci associates with non-subject foci that are realized in situ, such as in (12) and (13), as an cannot co-occur with in situ foci in general.

  15. A comparable structural split is not found in closely related languages, such as, e.g., South Marghi (also Central Chadic). In the following examples, subject focus (i) and object focus (ii) are marked alike by focus fronting to a position preceding the focus marker . Unlike in Bura, there is no evidence for a cleft structure with focused non-subjects in form of relative morphology.

    1. (i)
      figure ar
    1. (ii)
      figure as

  16. The focus copula an functions simultaneously, first, as an (overt) Roothian F-marker, by marking the focused constituent, and, second, as the Roothian squiggle operator, by marking the entire sentence as the focus domain and by providing the focus presupposition. The reference to alternative propositions is directly encoded in the lexical entry of an in (39). Alternatively, one might think of an as an operator over structured propositions (Krifka 2006) that, apart from separating the F(ocus) from the B(ackground), has the semantic import of the squiggle operator, as in (i):

    1. (i)
      figure ax

  17. For simplicity, the representation in (39) is non-intensional. In what follows, we omit the C-variable from the syntactic representation of sentences where nothing hinges on it.

  18. The analysis in the main text is at odds with the—by now—standard assumption that subjects are base-generated inside the (extended) VP/vP (Zagona 1982; Speas and Fukui 1986; Koopman and Sportiche 1991), and according to which (extended) VPs/vPs are of semantic type <t>. A possible way of reconciling the analysis proposed in the text with the VP-internal subject hypothesis would consist in assuming that the focus copula an is located in a lower functional (voice-) head inside the vP.

    1. (i)

      [TP SUBJi [vP ti an [AspP ∅/akwa/ata [VP V OBJ]]]]

    In the structure in (i), the subject is base-generated inside the (extended) VP, from where it moves to Spec,TP, but, crucially, the complement of an, here AspP, is of semantic type <e,t>. In the absence of further evidence, we will continue to assume that the focus copula an is located in T in the main text, leaving open the issue of the base-generated position of subjects in Bura for future research.

  19. Comparable cleft structures with zero expletives have been proposed for other African languages, such as, for instance, Kikuyu (Bergvall 1987) and Malagasy (Law 2007). The reasons for assuming a complex CP-structure with a zero expletive in Spec,TP in (45) will emerge in Sect. 3.2.2 in the discussion of asymmetries between subject and non-subject foci in Bura.

  20. Optional addition of na in (48a), as in (i), effects a difference in interpretation in terms of a uniqueness effect on the denotation of the focused constituent, as illustrated in the English paraphrase.

    1. (i)
      figure bh

    Based on this interpretive difference, we propose to analyse sentence (i) with relative marker na as a special instance of the pseudocleft-structure discussed in Sect. 2.4.

  21. The analysis of focus as the semantic (or psychological) predicate of the clause originates with Paul (1880). Modern variants of the predicative analysis are found, e.g., in Löbner (1990), and specifically for Hungarian in É. Kiss (1998, 2006) and Wedgwood (2005).

  22. Focused bare indefinites in the absence of adi can be interpreted in either of two ways: (i) their underlying <e,t>-interpretation could be shifted to a type <e>-interpretation via Chung and Ladusaw’s (2003) choice-function mechanism specify, giving rise to an episodic existential reading; (ii) alternatively, it could be shifted to a kind-interpretation via Chierchia’s (1984) ∩-operator, giving rise to a kind reading.

  23. The idiomatic interpretation appears to become available again when the object position is overtly filled with the pronominal expression ri, as shown in (i):

    1. (i)
      figure bx

    Since the insertion of ri is not required for grammatical reasons with non-subject foci in perfective clauses (see Sect. 2.2.2), its optional occurrence in (i) must be interpreted as a discourse anaphor that picks up the value of the left-peripheral focus constituent kilir nga. Given that ri stands in a local sister relationship with the main verb kila ‘carry’ in (i), the availability of an idiomatic interpretation follows.

  24. The behavior of focused reflexives in regular non-subject focus clefts with respect to binding is diametrically opposed to that found with pseudoclefts discussed in Sect. 2.4. Unlike regular focus clefts, pseudoclefts with the final determiner ni do allow for focused reflexives, as in (ia). Conversely, unlike in regular focus clefts (see (78) below), focused R-expressions cannot be co-indexed with a pronoun in the free relative clause, as in (ib).

    1. (i)
      figure ca

    Whatever the exact reason is for the structural licensing of the reflexive pronoun in (ia) and for the impossibility of co-reference in (ib), it is important to observe that parallel connectivity effects obtain for English pseudoclefts and it-clefts, as illustrated in (iia, b); see e.g. den Dikken et al. (2000).

    1. (ii)
      figure cb

    In light of the cross-linguistic parallels, the binding facts in (ia, b) provide additional evidence in favor of the analysis of pseudoclefts as structurally different from regular non-subject clefts that was proposed in Sect. 2.4.

  25. Interestingly, focus-clefted instances of reciprocal wada appear to be licensed when occurring as part of complex picture noun phrases.

    1. (i)
      figure ch

    At present, we have no explanation for the licitness of picture noun phrases with reciprocals under focus.

  26. It appears that, in addition to wada, Bura has a second expression nvada that can be used for expressing reciprocity when c-commanded by a plural antecedent; see (i).

    1. (i)
      figure ci

    Somewhat surprisingly, though, focus clefting with nvada is possible, as witnessed by the grammaticality and interpretation of (ii):

    1. (ii)
      figure cj

    We propose that the difference between wada on the one hand, and nvada on the other, is that the latter does not have to be locally licensed under c-command (i.e., it is not an anaphor in the Chomskian sense). In the absence of further evidence concerning the structural and semantic nature of nvada, and in particular of the form nva, we will have to delegate this question to future research.

  27. The fact that the counterpart of (74a) in (i) with the wh-expression in situ is also not licit on the intended interpretation would seem to suggest that in situ wh-expressions must raise covertly at LF.

    1. (i)
      figure cq

    The only grammatical way of expressing the intended interpretation is given in (ii), in which the subject wh-expression does not move across the reflexive pronoun in object position:

    1. (ii)
      figure cr

  28. This subject/non-subject asymmetry is not an idiosyncratic trait of Bura, but is attested in a wide range of (African) languages of different genetic affiliations; see, for instance, Zerbian (2007) on Northern Sotho (Bantu), Hartmann and Zimmermann (2007a) on Hausa (Chadic), van der Wal (2009) on Makhuwa (Bantu), and Fiedler et al. (2010) on a range of West African languages from different families (Kwa, Gur, Chadic), as well as Lambrecht (2001) on European French, and Skopeteas and Fanselow (2009) on Quebecois French.

  29. See, e.g., Chafe (1976), Givón (1976), Lambrecht (2001). See also Frazier (1999) for psycho-linguistic evidence in favor of the default topic status of grammatical subjects in English.

References

  • Aboh, Enoch O. 2004. The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: Clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aboh, Enoch O. 2007. Focused versus non-focused wh-phrases. In Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmerman, 287–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, David, and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, Adriana. 2002. Aspects of the low IP area. In The structure of IP and CP: The cartography of syntactic structures 2, ed. Luigi Rizzi, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, Adriana. 2008. The CP of clefts. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33: 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall, Victoria Lee. 1987. Focus in Kikuyu and universal grammar. PhD diss., Harvard University, Cambridge.

  • Blench, Roger. 2009a. A dictionary of Bura. Ms., Kay Williamson Educational Foundation, Cambridge. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language%20data/Afroasiatic/Chadic/Central/Bura/Bura%20dictionary.pdf.

  • Blench, Roger. 2009b. Bura phonology and some suggestions concerning the orthography. Ms., Kay Williamson Educational Foundation, Cambridge. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language%20data/Afroasiatic/Chadic/Central/Bura/Bura%20phonology.pdf.

  • Brody, Michael. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 201–225. London: University College London

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 22–55. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD diss., UMass, Amherst.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Sandra, and William A. Ladusaw. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, Maxwell J., and Arnim von Stechow. 1982. De re belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 503–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54: 41–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 1991. Logical structure in syntactic structure. In Logical structure and linguistic structure: Cross-linguistic perspectives, eds. C. T. James Huang and Robert May, 111–148. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 1993. Wh-movement and specificity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 85–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 2006. Focussing as predication. In The architecture of focus, eds. Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 169–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, Gisbert, and Denisa Lenertová. 2011. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(1): 169–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donka, and Katalin É. Kiss. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 417–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, Ines, Katharina Hartmann, Brigitte Reineke, Anne Schwarz, and Malte Zimmermann. 2010. Subject focus in West African languages. In Information structure from different perspectives, eds. Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 234–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Narrow focus, clefting, and predicate inversion. Lingua 120: 2121–2147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frascarelli, Mara, and Annarita Puglielli. 2007. Focus in the force-fin system. Information structure in Cushitic languages. In Trends in linguistics: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic languages, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmerman, 161–184. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, Lyn. 1999. On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Melanie. 1997. Focus and copular constructions in Hausa. PhD diss., SOAS, London.

  • Green, Melanie, and Philip J. Jaggar. 2003. Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa: Syntax, semantics and discourse. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar 2: Current issues in linguistic theory, eds. Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, and U. Shlonsky, 187–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2007a. In place—out of place? Focus in Hausa. In On information structure, meaning and form, eds. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2007b. Focus strategies in Chadic—the case of Tangale revisited. Studia Linguistica 61: 95–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2008. Not only “only” but “too” too. Alternative sensitive particles in Bura. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, ed. Atle Grønn, 196–211. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2009. Morphological marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic). Lingua 119(9): 1340–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina, Peggy Jacob, and Malte Zimmermann. 2008. Asymmetric focus marking in Bura. In Interdisciplinary studies on information structure vol 8. Working papers of the SFB 632, eds. Shinshiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz, and Anne Schwarz, 45–92. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76: 891–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, Bernd, and Tanja Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, Carl Friedrich. 1955. Untersuchungen zur Struktur und sprachlichen Stellung des Bura. PhD diss., Universität Hamburg, Hamburg.

  • Hyman, Larry, Heiko Narrog, Mary Paster, and Imelda Udoh. 2002. Leggbó verb inflection: A semantic and phonological particle analysis. In Proceedings of the 28th annual Berkeley Linguistic Society meeting, eds. Julie Larson and Mary Paster, 399–410. Berkeley: BLS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggar, Philip J. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggar, Philip J. 2004. More on in situ wh- and focus constructions in Hausa. In Chadic linguistics/linguistique Tchadique/Tschadistik 3, eds. Dimytr Ibriszimow, Henry Tourneux, and Ekkehard H. Wolff, 49–73. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Architecture of focus, eds. Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3/4): 243–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, Paul. 2007. The syntactic structure of the cleft construction in Malagasy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 765–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, Sebastian. 1990. Wahr neben falsch. Duale Operatoren als die Quantoren natürlicher Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge.

  • Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof. Vol. 8 of GRASS, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Hermann. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 8th edn., 1970. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In Proceedings of NELS 27, ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto, 337–351. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reineke, Brigitte. 2007. Identificational operation as a focus strategy in Byali. In Focus strategies: Evidence from African languages, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmerman, 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reintges, Chris. 2007. Coptic relative tenses: The profile of a morpho-syntactic flagging device. In Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmerman, 185–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Craige. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. In Handbook of contemporary pragmatic theory, eds. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 197–220. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge.

  • Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.

  • Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49: 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, Florian. 2007. Ex-situ focus in Kikuyu. In Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmerman, 139–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopeteas, Stavros, and Gisbert Fanselow. 2009. Focus types and argument asymmetries: A cross-linguistic study in language production. In Contrastive information structure, ed. Carsten Breul, 169–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speas, Margaret, and Naoki Fukui. 1986. Specifiers and projections. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert L. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert L. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, eds. Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrence, Harold. Submitted. The morphosyntax of Wolof clefts: A′-movement properties. In The structure of clefts, eds. Andreas Haida, Katharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1991. Parameters of phrase structure and verb-second phenomena. In Principles and parameters in generative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 339–364. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 21: 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Current issues in the theory of focus. In Semantik—Ein Internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 90–148. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood, Daniel. 2005. Shifting the focus: From static structures to the dynamics of interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagona, Karen. 1982. Government and proper government of verbal projections. PhD diss., University of Washington, Seattle.

  • Zerbian, Sabine. 2007. Subject/object-asymmetry in northern Sotho. In On information structure, meaning and form, eds. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 323–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Malte. 2007. Overt existential closure in Bura (Chadic). In Proceedings of SALT 17, eds. Masayuki Gibson and Tova Friedman. Cornell: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Malte, and Edgar Onéa. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, Jan Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. PhD diss., University of Groningen, Groningen.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was carried out within the projects B2 “Information Structure in Chadic Languages” and A5 “Focus realization, focus interpretation, and the use of focus from a cross-linguistic perspective,” funded by the German Science Association (DFG) as part of the collaborative research centre SFB 632 “Information Structure”. We would like to express our gratitude to our main Bura consultant, Mr. Chris Mtaku. Thanks are also due to our colleague Andreas Haida, to Marcel den Dikken and the anonymous reviewers of NLLT for valuable comments and discussion, to Joseph DeVeaugh-Geiss, Marianna Patak and Katharina Nimz for proofreading, and to Henning Reetz for technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Katharina Hartmann

  2. Universität Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Malte Zimmermann

Authors
  1. Katharina Hartmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malte Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Hartmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartmann, K., Zimmermann, M. Focus marking in Bura: semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 30, 1061–1108 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9174-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9174-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation