SFB 441 Kolloquium des SFB 441 19.06.00 Projekt B2: Susanne Winkler H. Bernhard Drubig Edward Göbbel Konstantin I. Kazenin Wolfram Schaffar TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF FOCUS AND POLARITY A Preliminary Report H.B. Drubig K.I. Kazenin W. Schaffar I. GENERAL ORIENTATION 1. Goals Contributions towards - a typology of sentential polarity (declarative, interrogative) - the general syntax of polarity, ellipsis and focus - the method of using comparative data as supporting evidence in the analysis of specific languages ("new comparative grammar") 2. Theories and Methods A Combination of - theories and methods of UG ("new comparative grammar") and linguistic typology - in-depth analysis of selected target languages / language families and large scale comparative work based on the available literature on focus and polarity in typologically diverse languages (cf. Schaffar 2000a for a discussion of methodology) 3. Fields of investigation Comparative work on - negative/affirmative polarity and Association with Focus (AwF) in declaratives - affirmative polarity and AwF in Yes-No-questions - ellipsis as a means of strengthening focus-background contrasts through a) the reduction of a "given" material in presentational focus constructions: phrase ellipsis (VP) b) the elimination of the background in contrastive focus constructions: gapping / stripping (isolation of foci as remnants of deletion) 4. Empirical Basis Language-specific and comparative work on a) focus and polarity - in declaratives: Daghestanian languages [Austronesian languages: had to be abandoned] - in Yes-No-questions: (South) East Asian languages b) focus, polarity and ellipsis - English, Spanish, Russian, ... 5. Motivation The idea underlying the present project derives from the results of an earlier project on the typology of information structure, which studied a somewhat wider range of topics, such as focus - isolating constructions, givenness marking by means of scrambling, clitic doubling and other types of "argument externalization" (Drubig / Winkler, DFG-Schwerpunkt Sprachtypologie, 1994-99) 5.1. Some Assumptions about Focus (For discussion cf. Drubig 1994 and more recent work by S. Winkler, E. Göbbel, and others, esp. Göbbel 2000) (1) Focus Assignment Focus is represented by a feature [aF], which is freely assigned at Numeration (2) Focus licensing A [+F] is licensed a) if it is embedded into a [+F] phrase ("wide focus", "focus projection") b) if it is displaced to a syntactically specified "focus position" either at PF or at LF ("narrow focus", "focus operator") "Focus Projection" (licensing by embedding): (3) (A: What did John do?) B: He [F invited [F MARY]] "Focus Operator" (Kiss 1998): (4) a. I invited [F JOHN] (not Bill, Peter, ...) b. LF (English): JOHNi (I invited ti) c. PF (Hungarian): JANOSTi (hívtam meg ti) John-ACC invited-I PERF 'I invited JANOS' Brody (1990): Narrow focus in an operator that moves to a scope-taking position (Spec FP) where it satisfies the Operator Criterion (i.e., checks its focus feature in a specifier-head configuration) (5) [FP JANOSTi F° [hívtam meg ti]] Piñon (1993): FP = PolP; every narrow focus is associated with a polarity element. (6) [PolP JANOST Pol° [hívtam meg ti]] Two properties of operator focus constructions: 1. Weak Crossover (WCO) effect: (7) ?*His i mother invited JOHNi (8) LF: Focus; [ ... pronouni ... ti ... ] 2. Island effects (9) John didn't invite [CNP the man who loved [MARY]] but JANE (Jane: an alternative to the man who loved Mary, not to Mary) (10) Focusi [ ... [Island ... ti ... ] ... ] Drubig (1994), Kenesei (1996): when focus in Hungarian is embedded in an island, the entire island moves to Spec FP (i.e., PolP). (11) Properties of F(ocus)-Construction: Operator-variable configuration of the following form: a) [PolP Focusi Pol° [ ... xi ... ] b) Conditions: 1. WCO 2. Island sensitivity c) parametric variation: 1. Operator Criterion met a. at PF b. at LF 2. Location of PolP a. in COMP (Standard Arabic, English, ...) b. in INFL (Hungarian, Basque, ...) The concept of F-Construction in (11) was developed in the analysis of languages with a purely phonosyntactic representation of focus structure. How about languages with morphosyntactic focus marking? 5.2. Some Apparent Counterevidence and a New Proposal Contrastive F-construction in Akan (Kwa language, Ghana; cf. Saah 1994, cf. Biloa 1995 for similar data from Tuki (Bantu, Cameroon)) 1. In Akan, focussed WH-questions (12) as well as contrastive F-constructions (13) appear to violate island constraints: (12) Adakai ben na wo nim [DP onipa [CP a [IP me rehwehwe box which FOC you know person REL (s)he is-looking-for ei ]] no] (it) the 'Which boxi do you know the person who is looking for (iti)?' (13) Adakai no na wo nim [DP onipa [CP a [IP me rehwehwe ei ]] no] box this FOC you know person REL (s)he is-looking-for (it) the 'This boxi you know the person who is looking for (iti)' 2. In Akan, WH-phrases as well as contrastive foci do not bind traces, but resumptive pronouns: (14) ¿baai no na me huu noi WOMAN the FOC I saw (her) 'It was the woman that I saw (her)' 3. In Akan, contrastive F-construction do not appear to show any WCO effects (15) Sukunnii yi na me kakyre nei awofo nom se adekyrefo no student this FOC I told to his parents them that teacher the bebo noi will-flunk him '?* I told hisi parents that the teacher will flunk THIS STUDENTi' Conclusion: Akan F-constructions do not conform to the pattern in (11). A reconsideration (and extension) of the data compiled by Saah (1994, cf. Drubig 1998, 2000) shows that Akan F-constructions are a type of copula-free cleft construction also found in other languages (Irish: McCloskey 1979, Indonesian: Cheng 1991). This explains all observed properties: 1. Resumptive pronoun construal is unexpected in WH-questions and focus-fronting constructions, but common in relative clauses. 2. Following Demirdache (1997), we analyze resumptive pronouns as "relative WH in situ" (moving at LF); 3. The apparent "island insensitivity" may be explained as a Pied Piping effect accompanying "relative WH in situ"; 4. The apparent absence of the WCO effects is due to the fact that the pronoun violating the Leftness Condition may always be interpreted as the relative pronoun in situ (It becomes visible if we replace the leftmost pronoun by a pronominal epithet). Structure of (14): (16) PredP Focus ® DP Pred' ¿baai no Pred CPi Background e Spec C' C IP na Foc me hun noi I saw her Relative WH-movement at LF This conclusion is not surprising. It has been shown that African focus particle constructions are the result of a historical development in the course of which biclausal cleft constructions collapsed into monoclausal F-constructions (Heine & Reh 1984; Harris & Campbell 1995). Akan could be viewed as representing an intermediate stage; in certain other languages (e.g. Hausa; cf. Green 1997) reanalysis of the cleft as a focus operator construction is complete. (17) Two types of F-constructions Type I: Focusi [ ... ti ... ] Binding: syntactic movement at PF/LF Type II: [PredP Focusi (Copula) [CPi ... Rel.proni ...] Binding: resumptive pronoun construal plus Predication Direction of diachronic change: Type II tends to develop into Type I. 5.3. Cleft-in-situ Constructions Cleft-in-situ constructions (or "circumnominal clefts"): focus in situ inside the cleft clause (relative clause) component of a cleft construction (Schaffar 1996, 2000b: Altaic; Comrie 1995: Malayalam, Kazenin 2000a: Daghestanian, cf. also Kazenin 2000a for a typological survey) a. Japanese (from Schaffar 1996): (18) [Kono tokei o [ PARI de]F katta no] da This watch ACC PARIS LOC buy-Past NOM COP 'It was in Paris that I bought this watch' Schaffar (2000b): Japanese noda-construction: - Island effects - Pied Piping effects (19) a) Externally headed relative clause: PF/LF: [DP [CP ...ti ... ] DPi ] b) Internally headed relative clause (in premodifying SOV languages): PF: [DP [CP ... DPi ... ] ei ] LF: [DP [CP ...ti ... ] DPi ] (20) Cole (1987) 1. An anaphor cannot both precede and command its antecedent; 2. Internally headed relative clauses are commonly found in SOV language that allow null anaphora. (21) A third type of F-construction: Type III: [PredP ei [ [CP ei ... Focusi ... ] copula ]] (22) A scenario for a cyclic diachronic process (Schaffar 2000b): Step1: Cleft constructions (ex situ, in situ) are a natural metarepresentational source for the diachronic development of Focus (-movement)-constructions. Step 2: F-constructions may then undergo a process of attenuation (e.g. F-marker > Case marking particle). Step 3: Newly formed cleft constructions develop into new F-constructions by reapplication of Step1. b. Malayalam (from Comrie 1995): 1. Ordinary cleft-ex-situ construction (no connectedness interpretation of reflexive possessives) cleft ex situ: (23) *[raaman muricc - a - ti ] svantam viral aaNi Raman cut-PAST ADJ- NT own finger be:PRES "What Raman cut was his own finger." 2. Cleft-in-situ construction with connectedness effects: - Focus in-situ within the background clause - inflected copula right-adjacent to focus in situ cleft in situ: (24) [raaman [svantam viral-ey aaNi] muricc - a - ti ] Raman own finger-Acc be:PRES cut - PAST- ADJ- NT "Raman cut HIS OWN FINGER." Focus-adjacent copula: may be interpreted as V2-effect indicating the beginning reanalysis. Phrases in front of the focus are then reanalyzed as scrambling positions (cf. Jayaseelan 1996). Kazenin (2000b): similar adjacency effects involving agreement in Daghestanian, but strong arguments against a scrambling-based analysis along the lines of Jayaseelan (1996). (25) Possible development of "relational focus particles" (C-type particles) in Malayalam: a. aaNi/aa > affirmative focus particle b. alla [*aaNi-illa] > negative focus particle c. aaNi-oo > interrogative focus particle (Cf. Barss, Hale, Perkins and Speas (1991) on "C-type particles" and Perkins (1974) on the focussed negation marker in Navajo.) Conclusions: 1. The diachronic development of biclausal clefts into monoclausal F-constructions is subject to cyclic iteration. 2. Metarepresentational form feeds the representational system in the course of syntactic change (Cf. the role of "Jespersen's cycle" in the diachronic renewal of negation). 3. The number of different types of relatives (externally headed, resumptive, internally headed) determines the number of different types of possible cleft constructions (ex situ, resumptive, in situ) (Cf. Harris and Campbell 1995 for a similar view). The number of different types of cleft constructions determines the number of different types of cleft-based F-constructions: ex situ, resumptive, and in situ. 4. Cleft-in-situ constructions with a copula adjacent to the internal (Malayalam, Daghestanian ?) focus are the historical source for the development of (relational) F-particles, including focus-related forms of negation. The external copula of an cleft-in- situ construction may develop into a new finite complex. 6. Consequences for the Present Project 6.1. Negative/Affirmative Polarity (26) Preliminary Hypothesis Distinct representations of focussed and neutral (assertive) negation are mostly likely to occur in languages with cleft-based F-constructions (full/reduced clefts or focus operator constructions historically related to cleft constructions). Two types of focussed negation: 1. Focussed negation is phonetically and distributionally distinct Temne (West Atlantic Mel language, Sierra Leone) F-constructions: reduced (copula-free) cleft construction (Nemer 1987) F-marking: each NP is followed by a pronoun whose form ("emphasized") changes when the NP occurs in initial position under focus ("emphasized pronoun"). (27) Ù÷ból ÷í - the pot (neutral) 3rd Ù÷ból ÷Ù - the pot (focussed) 3rd- emph (28) Negation: 1) Tá - focussed negation (in complementary distribution with emphasized pronoun) 2) té - negation in out-of focus clause, relative clause and other subordinate clause. 3) he - main clause negation (29) Ù÷ból ÷Ù ¿là÷ á ¿ té Tila mí THE POT 3rd-emph the man 3rd NEG sell-past 1st 'It's the pot that the man didn't sell me' (30) Ù÷ból Tá ¿là÷ á ¿ té Tila mí THE POT NEG the man 3rd NEG sell-past 1st 'It's not the pot that the man didn't sell me' 2. Focussed negation is only distinguished by distribution. This case is represented by negation in Lak and will be discussed by K. Kazenin in Part II. 6.2. Yes/No-questions Cf. Chen and Schaffar (2000); Schaffar (2000c) - Only few languages seem to have distinct polarity question particles for AwF and neutral Yes/No-Questions Polarity questions in Yawelmani (Yokuts, Hokan, California; cf. Culy 1999): (31) a. Focussed polarity question: gi' follows focus. ma' gi' tan d¿shin you Q Dem report 'Was it you who reported (it)?' b. Neutral polarity question: 'angi' precedes neutral question. 'angi' ma' tan d¿shin Q you Dem report 'Did you report it?' - no such cases occur in our sample - (South) East Asian languages which have distinct Yes/No-questions derived from grammaticalized alternative questions will be discussed by W. Schaffar in Part IV. 6.3. Elliptical Constructions Three types of predicate ellipsis (phrase ellipsis); cf. Kazenin (2000c), Lopez & Winkler (1999), Winkler (2000). 1. Spanish-style predicate ellipsis licensed by negative/affirmative polarity: frequent (Greek, Hungarian, Mohawk) (32) Hungarian Mari nem ment haza, de Kati ipen Mary not went home, but Kati yes 2. Japanese-style predicate ellipsis licensed by a lexical verb allegedly undergoing V-movement prior to ellipsis: not very frequent 3. English-style predicate ellipsis (VPE) licensed by a lexical auxiliary: very rare K. Kazenin: English-style ellipsis in Russian will be discussed in Part III. References Barss, Andrew, Ken Hale, Ellavina Tsosie Perkins & Margaret Speas (1991): "Logical Form and Barriers in Navajo." In: C.-T.J. Huang & R. May (eds.) Logical Form and Lin-guistic Structure: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer., 25-47. Biloa, Edmund (1995) Functional Categories and the Syntax of Focus in Tuki. Munich: LINCOM Europe. Brody, Michael (1990) "Remarks on the Order of Elements in the Hungarian Field of Focus." In: Kenesei, I. and Pléh, C. (eds.) Approaches to Hungarian, Vol.3: Structures and Arguments. Szeged: JATE, 95-121. Cheng, Lisa L.S. (1991) On the Typology of Wh-Questions. Unpubl. Ph.D. Diss., MIT. Comrie, Bernard (1995) "Focus in Malayalam: Synchrony and Diachrony." Journal of Asian and African Studies 48-49, 577-603. Culy, Christopher (1999) "Questions and Focus in Takelma." IJAL 63, 251-274. Demirdache, Hamida K. (1997) "Dislocation, resumption and weakest crossover." In: Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van, and Zwarts, Frans (eds.) Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 193-231. Drubig, H.B. (1994) "Island Constraints and the Syntactic Nature of Focus and Association with Focus." Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Nr.51. Drubig, H.B. (1998) Focus and Connectedness: Towards a Typology of Focus Constructions. Unpubl. ms., University of Tübingen. Drubig, H.B. (2000) "Towards a Typology of Focus and Focus Constructions." Handed in to Linguistics. Göbbel, Edward (2000) "Focus in Triadic Constructions." Handed in to Linguistics. Green, Melanie (1997) Focus and Copula Constructions in Hausa. Unpubl. Ph.D. Diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell (1995) Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh (1984) Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske. Jayaseelan, K.A. (1996) "Question Word Movement to Focus and Scrambling in Malayalam." Linguistic Analysis 26, 67-83. Kazenin, Konstantin I. (2000a) "Focus in Daghestani and Word Order Typology." To appear in Linguistic Typology. Kazenin, Konstantin I. (2000b) "Focus in Daghestani." Handed in to Linguistics. Kazenin, Konstantin I. (2000c) Polarity in Russian and Typology of Predicate Ellipsis. Unpubl. Ms., University of Moscow/University of Tübingen. Kenesei, Istvan (1996) The Syntax of Focus. Unpubl. ms., University of Szeged. Kiss, Katalin É. (1998) "Identificational Focus versus Information Focus." Language 74, 245-273. López, Luis and Susanne Winkler (1999) "Focus and Topic in VP-Anaphora Constructions." To appear in Linguistics. McCloskey, James (1979) Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Meinunger, André (1997) "The Structure of Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Sentences." In: Blight, Ralph C. and Moosally, Michelle J. (eds.) The Syntax and Semantics of Predication: Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference (=Texas Linguistic Forum 38). 235-246. Nemer, Julie F. (1987) "Negation and Clefting in Temne." In: Odden, David (ed.) Current Approaches to African Linguistics, vol. 4. Dordrecht: Foris, 281-299. Perkins, Ellavina (1974): "The Navajo Particle of Constituent Negation." Diné Bizaad Náníl'iih: Navajo Language Review 1, 53-62. Piñón, Christopher (1993) "SigmaP and Hungarian." WCCFL 11, 388-404. Saah, Kofi K. (1994) Studies in Akan Syntax, Acquisition, and Sentence Processing. Unpubl. Ph.D. Diss., University of Ottawa. Schaffar, Wolfram (1996) Typologische Untersuchungen zur Informationsstrukture einiger altaischer Sprachen. Unpubl. ms, University of Tübingen. Schaffar, Wolfram (2000a) "Methodological Problems Concerning the Typological Investigation of Focus Phenomena." STUF 53, 39-45. Schaffar, Wolfram (2000b) Fokuskonstruktionen im japanischen Sprachraum: Eine synchrone, diachrone und typologische Analyse. Ph.D. Diss, University of Tübingen. Schaffar, Wolfram (2000c) Typology of Yes/No Questions in Chinese and Tai Languages. Unpubl. Ms., University of Tübingen. Schaffar, Wolfram and Lansun Chen (2000) "Yes-No Questions in Mandarin and the Theory of Focus." Handed in to Linguistics. Szabolsci, Anna (1996) Focus, Negation and Verb Movement in Hungarian. Unpubl. Ms., UCLA. Winkler, Susanne and Edward Göbbel (2000) "Review Article: Maria Luisa Zubizarreta: Prosody, Focus and Word Order, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press." To appear in Linguistics. Winkler, Susanne (2000) "Silent Copy and Polarity-Focus in VP Ellipsis." In: Schwabe, Kerstin and Zhang, Ning (eds.) Ellipsis in Conjunction. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 221-246.