Georg Bossong
MORPHEMIC MARIilNG OF TOPIC AND TOCUS
[(75) in : iviichei Kefer & iohan van cierAuwera (eds.)(i989).
Universals of Language (:Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4),27-511
In theanalysisof basicsentence
relationsandconstituents,
a fundamen(henceforth
andpnncmrrc FUNCTToN
tal distinctionbetweencASEFUNCTToN
CF and PF, respectively)seemsappropriate,at least as a heuristic instrument. Of course,such a binary, apparentlyclear-cutdistinction can be
misleadinginsofar as it is easily taken for a true picture of reality. The
notionaldistinctionbetweenCF andPF is an instrumentfor analyzingthe
basicsyntacticrelations.If suchaninstrumentservesits purpose,it is useful
but at the same
and makesthe analysisclearerand more comprehensive;
time,its instrumentalcharactershouldneverbeforgotten.In everydaycommunication, CF and PF are frequently bound together,thus forming morphosyntacticunitswheretherespective
contributionof CF andPFis difficult
to determine.But even then the differentiationis importantfor an exact
of the categoriesfound in individual languages.
understanding
PrototypicalcASEFUNcrroNs
canbestbedescribedwithin a framework
type:onecentralpredicate"dominates"or"binds"
of thepredicate-argument
"dependent"argumentswhosenumber
a numberof
canvary betweenzero
and perhapsfour or five. In most,perhapsin all languages,thereexistsa
- morphologicallyand,/orsyntacticallydefinable- word classdistinction
betweenvrr.n and NouNwhich is correlatedwith the predicate-argument
domainin the following way: the primary functionof venss is predicativity, the primary functionof Nouttsargumenthood.
and vnnns
Goth NoUNS
can of course be modified in order to serve the oppositepurpose,if
necessary.
Broadly speaking,the domainof vnnnsin argumentfunctionis
subordination;the domain of NouNsin predicatefunction is the so-called
nominalsentence.)
cASEFUNCTIoNs
form a classof semanticallydefinedrelationsbetweenthecore,i.e. thepredicate,andthedependinga-rgument(s).
Theserelationscanbedescribedon differentlevelsof absrraction.
Although
discrepancies
subsiston terminology,theuseof certainratherabstractlahls
28
GeorgBOSSONG
for CF is fairly widespread.In this paper, the labels AGr, AG2, PAT1,
and PAT" will be used without further discussion(AG = AcENs,PAT =
pArIENs;fhe subscriptnumbersrefer to verbal valency).
FUNcrIoNsarenot directly connectedwith the semanticreIRAGMATIC
lations betweenpredicateand argument(s).They presupposethat theserelationsarein fact establishedat the sentencelevel, andthey serveto integrate
the syntacticunits thus establishedin the discourse.They can be described
old vs. new
by a numberof different, but in generalconvergingparameters:
"setting" vs. "core"
information, startingpoint vs. finality of the utterance,
(Mathesius 1939:jddro), and so on. In this contribution, the differences
between theseparameterswill not be totally neglected,but they are not
their
especiallyfocusedon.Whatis focusedon insteadis theirconvergence,
referred
be
to
by
should
denominator
This
common
common denominator.
a pair of widespreadandtheory-neutralterms.In this contribution,theterms
roerc (TOP)andnocus(FOC)will be usedfor thispurpose.They cannotbe
in discourseusually
discussedherein detail.Sufficeit to saythat sentences
referto entities
which
i.e.
linguistic
units
material,
containtopicalandfocal
from
experience/previously
or
from
the
context
oldlknown
which are
mentionedin the contexVbackgrounded[inkedwith precedingunits in the
text,etc.on theonehand,andlinguisticunitswhich areneVunknown to the
hearer/notmentionedearlier/foregroundedlinkedwith following units in
the text, etc. on the other hand.
In contrastto CFs, there is no dependencyrelation betweenPFs:
neither does FOC depend on TOP nor vice-versa. Both are immediate
constituentsof the sentence,in contrastto the caseargumentswhich fill a
framework previously establishedby the predicate.Of course,one and the
samesyntacticunit in a real utterancecanbe lookedupon altemativelyfrom
the CF and the PF perspective.
The expressionof PF differs greatlyfrom what is found with respectto
CF. Evidently, the formal meansfor expressingpmgmatic relations are
basically identical to thosewhich serveto expresscaserelations,since the
possibilities of formal representationof gtammatical meaning are rather
limited in humanlanguage.In fact, the following setof binary oppositions
necessarilyapplies to all instancesof formal expressionof grammatical
categories:
Figure I
implicit vs.;Elicit
\
ta*e :'rc vs.
xmmemlc
. / \
partial vs. total
TOPIC AND FOCUS
29
"Implicitness" means
that the expression of grammatical categories is
lacking, i.e. that the meaningof the categoryis implied. If two constituents,
say M and N, are brought into a grammaticalrelation, this relation may be
left implicit by the grammatical system of a given language.It can be
deducedeitherfrom theinherentmeaningof theconstituentsthemselves,or
from the specific discoursecontext ofa given utterance.A certain classof
temporaladverbsin English (and in many other languages)may servehere
as an example for illustration; in a sentencelike:
(1) Next week he'll comeÆIe'llcomenext week
the grammatical relation ADV ^ V is left unexpressed,in contrast to a
sentencelike:
(2) He was born in 1948
where the prepositionfunctions as a partial grammemicexpressionof the
samerelation (substandardFrenchJ'y vais à Paris would be an exampleof
total grarnrnemicexpression).Note that the construction(1) is called
"implicit" not
only becauseof the lack of a preposition,but also becauseof
the lack of a taxematicdifferentiation:thedifferent placementof the adverb
hasa bearingon the disribution of pragmaticfunctionswithin the sentence,
but it doesnot alter the basicrelationshipADV ^ V.
Explicit expressioncan be purely taxemicor grammemic.This is best
exemplified by the SUBJ ^ V and the OBJ Â V relation. (Note that the
traditional terms "subject" and "object" are used here as abbreviationsof
AG, & AG, and PAT, &.PAT, and that they arevalid only with respectto
lanjuagesdf ttrenomihanve-accusauve
type;non-accusatiïelanguagesare
not takeninto considerationin thiscontribution:the symbol"&" standsfor
categorialfusion.)A grammaticalrelationshipbetweentwo elementsM and
N is said to be expressedtaxematicallyif M ^ N * N ^ M. This is the casein
Chinesesentences
like:
(3) wô
I
ai
nï
love you
vs.
ni
ai
wô
you love me
(Note that the famous English exampleDog bites men vs. Man bites dog
does not belong to the categoryof purely to(ematic expression:the verbal
endingprovidesa partial grammemicexpressionwhich is combinedwith the
taxemicone.) It is evidentthat the possibilitiesof taxemicexpressionare
rather limited; in a relation between two members, only two different
categoriescan be expressed,asfor instanceN ^ V for SUBJ Â V and V ^ N
for OBJ Â V in the Chineseexamplejust quoted.For more differentiated
systemsof grammaticalrelations, therefore,specific elementsare neces-
30
GeorgBOSSONG
"grammemes"
sary; thesephonetically material elementsare termed here
(Pottier l974,Heger 1976).This term is lessambiguous,lessliable to be
"morpheme", since this latter term can refer a) to
misunderstoodthan
grammaticalmorphemes(i.e. grammemes)andb) to any minimal meaning"morpheme" in the b-senseonly.
ful unit in general.I prefer to usethe term
With specific grammemes,any number of categorial distinctions can be
made since the number of grammemesis potentially as unlimited as the
number of lexical items. However, prqtotypical grammemesare limited in
number,and the fact that they form closedclassesis sometimestakenas a
definitionalcriterion (lexemes,of course,form openclasses).
There are many possible criteria for classifying grammemic
markers - criteria related to semantics,morphology and syntax. Among
thesecriteria,thepartialvs. totaldistinctionis consideredhereasbeingthe
most basicandthe mostuniversallyapplicableone.It follows immediately
from thevery natureof grammaticalrelations:givena relationbetweentwo
elementsM andN, thegrammemecanbeaddedeithertooneof theelements,
or to both of them. Grammemic expressionof M À N can take the form
"partial", or the form
pM ^ N / M ^ qN, in which caseit will herebe called
"total". Total grammemic
^
qN, in which case it will be termed
pM
"agreement"in somedomains of grcmmar. Note,
expressionis known as
however,that the notion of total grammemicexpressionis more abstractand
"agreement"in traditional grammar
thereforemore generalthan the term
and linguistics.It appliesnot only to certainspecificlevelsof grammatical
organization,suchasnounandadjective,orverb andsubject,but to all kinds
of grammaticalrelationsin general.TheTurkish genitiveconstructionoffers
a good illustrative exampleof the differentiation betweentotal and partial
marking within a given relation (noun-noundetermination)in a single
language:
(4) ev-in
kapr-st
house-GEN door-its
'the
door of the house'
vs.
vs.
kapt-st
ev
house
door-its
'the housedoor'
of gramIt is evidentthat other criteriafor distinguishingsubclasses
memesareimportantaswell. For instance,it canbe relevantto distinguish
betweensuffixationand prefixation,
betweenboundand free grammemes,
betweenagglutinationandinflexion,andsoon. In thepresentcontext,such
distinctionsare of minor interest.
The main point to be made in this paper has to do with the degteeof
grammaticizationof casefunctionsin general,andthe individual pragmatic
functionsin particular.At the outset,it is evidentthat PF'sarefar lessgrammaticizedthan CF's.The most significantcorrelatesof this high vs. low
degreeof grammaticizationcan be summarizedin the following way:
TOPIC AND FOCUS
3I
- CF is necessaryin all sentences.An utterancebecomesan utteranceby the
presenceof CF. This statementis valid within individuallanguagesasïell
as in the perspectiveof cross-linguisticcomparison.
- The reasonfor this seemsto be that the speechact of assertionis primarily
boundto the expressionof CF. In contrastto CF, the expressionof PF is not
obligatory in all sentenceswithin individual languages,nor is its formal
expressionobligatoryin a cross-linguisticperspective.
- As will be shownin greaterdetail below, the expressionof PF dependson
the degreeof pragmaticcontrast,i.e. the contrastbetweentopical and focal
elementsin the sentence.
This degreeof contrastvariesgeatly; thereis no
neat yes-no distinction,but rather a continuousscalewith an unlimited
number of intermediatevalues.From the point of view of CF, a given NP
eitheris, or is not, a subject;from thepoint of view of PF it makessenseto
speakof high vs. low topicalityand/orfocality.
- With respect to CF, there is no clear predominanceof predicate over
argumentor vice-versa;if we considerthe grammemicexpressionof the
OBJ ^ V relation, for instance,we find that partial expressionis frequent:
the grammememay be addedonly to the noun (Chinese)or only to rheverb
(Swahili); on the other hand,total grammemicexpressionalsooccursrather
frequently (Basque).In contrastto that, in the domain of PF the marking of
TOP clearly predominatesover the marking of FOC.
- The degree of gtammaticization according to the criteria just outlined
correlateswith the meansof formal expressionof grammaticalrelations as
they are classified in figure 1. This figure can be consideredas the formal
counterpartof the functional hierarchy of grammaticization:implicitness
correspondsto the focal point of low grammaticization,total grammemic
expressioncorrespondsto the focal point of high grammaticization.
- Accordingly, it canbe observedthat the expressionof CF is very rarely left
implicit (e.g. Burmese);usually, it is explicit, either taxematicallyor
grammemically. Total grammemic expressionis relatively frequent. (Of
course,there are important differenceswith respectto the individual case
functions,but this cannotbe discussedhere.)
- On the other hand,the expressionof PF is usuallyleft implicit. If PF is
expressed
explicitly,purelytaxemicmeansareby far themostfrequentones.
Grammemic expressionof PF is compilrativelyrare.
- Given thepredominance
of TOP overFOC,it is evidentthatin the caseof
partial grammemic expressionit is the TOP and not the FOC that will be
marked.Total grammemicexpressionis extremelyrare(Quechua,Classical
Arabic (seebelow)).
- If it occurs, there is a clear differencebetweenTOP and FOC insofar as
grammemic marking of TOP is frequent or nearly obligatory, whereas
32
GeorgBOSSONG
grammemic marking of FOC is always optional and far less frequent in
running text than TOP marking.
In this paper, the rare case of grammemic marking -of PF.will be
considered.lwo groups of sample languageswill be analyzed in some
detail: languageswittr partiat and with total grammemicexpressionof PF.
According-to *hat hai been stated in the preceding-Pg-aqaphs,partial
gtam-eniic expressionin this casemeânsmarking of TOP alone,-withthe
markingofTOPand
éxclusionofpOC. T.od grammemicexpressionmeans
marking.
FOC
of
exclusive
FOC. I do not know instances
Foreach of thesetwo groups,two geneticallyunrelatedbut geographicontiguous languagesplus one totally unrelated lancally and culrurally
-chosen
as a sample-.For TOP marking, the sample
guage have been
éo*lprises Japaneseand Korean plus Pâez,a Chibcha languagespokenin
Columbia. FôrTOP andFOC marking, the samplecomprisesQuechuaand
Aymara plus ClassicalArabic. Special emphasisis given to Japanese,
Quechua,and ClassicalArabic.
-wa is
Among linguists all over the world, the Japanese-p-ostposition
in
any
markingTOP
grammemic
probably th-ebelt-known example_qf
-ga_(SURJ
-wa
has
marker)
(TOP
and
marker)
î-guugê. The oppositionof
to
It
is
impossible
past
decades.
two
for
the
bee-nd'iscussed-intensely
summarizeherethe findingsandresultsof this extendedlinguisticdiscussion; I will only stress some points which are importalt fo1 1 qeel-er
understandingof therelationshipbetweenthemarking of CF andof PF. The
peculiarity of the -wa/-ga distinction in Modern Japanesecannot be fully
understoodwithout a basicknowledgeof its historicaldevelopment.Therefore, a few remarks on the function of these glammemes in Classical
Japanesearein order.
First of all it must be stressedthat -8d in the function of SUBJ marker
is a relatively recent innovation. In Classical Japanesethis grammeme
servedas a marker of the genitive; -ga was not the only genitive marker: it
was used side by side with the posçosition -no which is still in use in the
modernlanguagê.The differencebetween-ga and -ng ls cgTPalable to the
difference iound in the two genitive constructionsof Turkish (seeabove,
example (4)): -no marks the determinativerelation in general,the determining noun ranks low on the animacyhierarchy,and it is often usednonrefereitially; -g4 puts emphasison the determiningnoun whictr ranks high
on the animaèy hierarchy and which is usually referential. The most
characteristicdomainof -ga is the deictic personalpronoun'but it occurs
also with personalproper namesand other animateand/or specific nouns.
The distinôtionbetweenthe -ga andthe -za gpnitive seemsto be stmcturally
similar to the distinction of markedandunmarkedobjectsin languageswith
Differential Object Marking (Bossong1985).Comparethe following example(Lewin 1959:76):
TOPICAND FOCUS
(5) Masamune-gakatana
'Masamune'ssword'
vs.
vs.
33
Masamune-nokatana
'a Masamunesword'
Since the postposition -ga usually occurredin combination with animate
nouns(which areof courseprototypicalagents),andsinceit wasnecessarily
usedfor marking the agentin subordinateconstructions(wherethe relation
"lowered" toDETÂN) itcametobe usedforagentsingeneral.
SUBJ^ V is
In modem standardJapanese,-ga hasbecomea SUBJ marker.It should be
notedthattherearedialectswhere-no hasbeengeneralizedinstead,or where
-no and-ga areusedalternativelyin the subjectfunction.
It is ofparticularinterestto our presentdiscussionthattheconstruction
which we
N ^ no ^ V is not unknownin the classicallanguagein sentences
would translateby main clauses,i.e. in constructionswhich are not subordinate. Comparethe following example(Lewin 1959:202):
(6) aki=kaze-no
fuku
blow
autumn=wind-GEN
'The autumnwind is blowing'
"Thereis blowingof theaurumnwind".
A moreprecisetranslationwouldbe:
"Il y a le vent
In colloquial French,the sentencecould be renderedas
d'automnequi souffle". This constructionis a typical exampleof the socalledthetic(asopposedto categorical)judgment(Sasse1987):thereis no
pragmatic contrastwhatsoever,all differencesbetweenTOP and FOC are
levelled down. According to a widespreadopinion, in such casesthe
sentenceas a whole hasrhematicvalue.
Usually,however,a subjectwhich is not specificallymarkedasa topic
This languageshows
doesnot take any casemarkerin ClassicalJapanese.
"normal" in a typological
a markednesspanernwhich mustbeconsideredas
perspective:the subjectis unmarked,all othercasefunctionsaremarkedby
The oppositionof SUBJvs. OBJ @AT, ADV, etc.)is
specificgrammemes.
morphologicallyprivative:0 vs. -wo (-ni, -de, elc.).Two simpleexamples
(intransitiveand transitive)will illustratethis point (Lewin 1959:201-203):
(7) tsuki akiraka-ni
teru
moon bright-ADV shine
'The moon is shiningbrightly'
(8) otôto mon-wo hiraku
brother door-OBJ open
'Brother opensthe door'
GeorgBOSSONG
(6) to (8) havedisappeared
All the constructionsexemplifiedin sentences
from the modernlanguage.The postposition-ga would be obligatory in all
thesecasesto mark the SUBJ function.
In contrastto CF, therewereno suchfarreachingchangeswith respect
to PF. The FOC marker -wahad in ClassicalJapaneseapproximately the
same functional range and syntactic behaviour as it has in the modem
language.It must be stressed,however,that certainminor modifications of
the marking systemhave taken place in the meantime.In the classical
from the casemarking system:
was completelyindependent
language,-14ldr
noun phrase,regardtopicalized
to
the
posrposition
simply
added
was
this
lessôf iti casefunction.SincethefunctionSUBJhadthemarkerO, thisrule
implied that a topical subjecthad -wa as its only ending.The OBJ was
marked by the postposition-wo (today pronounced-o, but still written as
<wo>); it could be accompaniedby the FOC marker-wa, the resultbeing
-woba.Note,however,thatthepostposition-wa alonewassufficientto mark
a topicalized OBJ; -wa and -woba were in free variation, in contrastto the
dative complementwhere the regularpostpositionwas obligatoryevenin
presenceof theTOP marker-wa; thiscanbe seenin thefollowing examples
(Lewin 1959:93,207):
(9) ware sake-wa noma-zu
I
sake-TOP drink-NEG
'I do not drink sake' ("Sake I do not drink')
makase-mu
ten-nl
(10) seihai-woba
success=or=failure-OBJ+TOPheaven-DAT entrust-INTENT
'As for victory or defeat,I will leavethe decisionto Heaven'
(11)oya-ni-wa
musuko ni-zari-ki
resemble-NEG+CONIN-PAST
parent-DAT-TOP son
'The sondid not resemblehis parents'("To his parents,the sondid not
resemble")
may be summaThe main featuresof the systemin ClassicalJapanese
rized as follows:
(r2)
\PF
CF\
SUBJ
OBJ
GEN
DAT
DrR (...)
-TOP
+TOP
-O (-no(-Sa))
-wo
-ga/-no
-ni
-e
-wa
-woba/-wa
-niwa
-ewa
TOPIC AND FOCUS
35
As for the thetic-categoricaldistinction, ClassicalJapaneseexhibits a
tripartite formal differentiation: there is a neutral form SUBJ-0 n Y, a
marked thetic form SUBJ-no ^ V, and a marked categorical form
SUBJ-wa ^ V. The postposition-no links the subjectclosely to the verb;
-lrd separatesit from the verb very sharply.Consequently,sentenceswith
-no subjectsare event-oriented,whereassentenceswith -wa subjectsshow
aclearpragmaticprofile:theyareconstitutedby
topic-orientedpredications.
(i.e.sentences
It is naturalthatnominalsentences
with a nominalpredicate)
always havea topicalizedsubject;comparethe following examples(Lewin
1959:92,20I):
(13) dôsho-wa meishi-no ato-ni
tsuku
verb-TOP noun-GEN rear-at follow
'The verb is a word which follows the noun'
kotoba-nari
word-is
(14)nihon-wa shima=guni-nari
Japan-TOPisland=country-is
'Japanis an archipelago'
In Modern Japanese,the tendencytowards setting off the basic
functionsof SUBJandOBJfrom all otherCF,a tendencywhich wasalready
discemiblein the classicallanguage,wasbroughtto its final consequence.
The SUBJfunctionis necessarily
expressed
by theposçosition-ga,andthe
OBJ function by the posçosition -wo (pronounced-o); in the caseof topicalization, both theseposrpositionsare replacedby the TOP marker -wa,
whereasall otherpostpositionsarecombinedwith it. The new systemcanbe
summarizedas follows:
(ls)
\ PF
CF\
-TOP
+TOP
SUBJ
OBJ
GEN
DAT
DIR (...)
-ga
-o
-no
-ni
-e
-wa
-wa
-niwa
-ewa
In contrastto ClassicalJapanese,in the modern languagethe explicit
grammemicmarkingof CF andPFhasbecomeincompatiblewith respectto
the basic syntacticrelationsSUBJ and OBJ: the grammemesmust either
distinguishAG andPAT, or mark an undifferentiated
TOP which canfullfil
bothfunctions.Themorphologicaloppositionshavechangedfromprivative
to equipollent(-wc vs. -o and-wavs.-ga).This configurationdistinguishes
Modern Japanesefrom the greatmajority of other languages.As for the use
of theseforms,it wouldbea simplificationto saythat-gais theSUBJmarker
GeorgBOSSONG
However,
in theticjudgments,and-wc theSUBJmarkerincategoricalones.
probably
be
It
would
far
from
the
truth.
very
not
be
would
sucha siatement
more adequateto say rhat-wa sentencesarealwayscategorical,andthat -ga
can representthetiCutterançesas well as neutral ones,where the
Sentençes
thetic-categoricaldistinction is difficult to establish.The SUBJ slot is
frequentlyempty; the subjectis usuallyleft unexpressedifrecoverable from
the context. To a certain extent,the distinction of topical -wa subjectsand
non-topical-ga subjectsis arbitrary;in many cases,the choice betweenthe
grafirmemesis not governedby strict rules but left to the speaker'sdiscreiion. Coyaud(1977)madeanexperimentwherebytheplaceof theposçosition in a contemporarytext on the history of chemistrywas left in blank and
a number of informants were asked to fill the blanks oul The result is
ambiguous:whereasin the majority of the cases,a cleartendencytowards
the useof either-wa or -ga canbeobserved,unanimityis ratherrare.As one
"on
dirait que les gensjouent à pile ou face".
of the informantsput it:
it is neverAlthough sucha conclusionmay seemsomewhatexaggerated,
Topicalization
compulsory.
far
from
being
are
thelessevidentthat the rules
is a shadeadded to the basic information carried by the verb-argument
the
structure;even if its expressionis grammaticized,as it is in Japanese,
constraintsgoverningits useseemto be relativelyweak.
and-ga with theticnesscan
The correlationof -wa with categoricalness
be illustrated by the following examplestakenfrom the text on the history
of chemistryjust mentioned(Coyaud1977:85ff.):
jijitsu-to kasetsu-to-no
aida-ni
(16)jikken=teki
interspace-in
hypothesis-and-RLT
reality-and
experiment=al
araware-ta
mujun-ga
ôku-no
much-RLT contradiction-SUBJappear-PAST
'Great contradictionsappearedbetween experimentalreality and
hypothesis'
motsu
(17) subete-no kagôbutsu-wa nigen=tekikôsei-o
composition-OBJhave
compound-TOP twofold
all-RLT
'All chemicalcompoundshavea twofold composition'
"to
Cross-linguisticcomparisonshowsthatverbsmeaning appeat",or more
"to
generally comeinto being",ordinarilyhavea rhematicsubject,andthat
the sentenceswhere they occur form prototypical thetic judgments. A
sentencelike (16) forms one singlepragmaticconstituent.Therecan be no
doubt about the non-topical characterof the subject; therefore,the use of
-ga is compulsoryin the modernlanguage,and all 17informantsof Coyaud
agreewith the authorwith respectto the useof -ga.In contrastto that,(17)
TOPIC AND FOCUS
37
has the typical bipartite constituencyof a categoricaljudgment; all informants agreein this casein topicalizing the subjectby -wa.
It is impossible here to give a complete account of all the intricate
I wouldjust_liketo mention
problemsof TOP marking in modem Japanese.
ône fact aboutword order.Japaneseis known asbeing an SOV languageof
the most rigid subtype.It is all themoreremarkablethat in colloquial speech
the topicalizedsubjectfrequentlyfollows ùe rhematicpredicate.This is the
afterthoughtpatternwhich is well attestedin numerousotherlanguages,too:
becauseof its primary importancefor the speaker'smind, the focal elements
comefirst in the sentence;the topic is thenaddedfor clarity's sake,but with
a loweredintonationalcontour.This right dislocatedtopic must be followed
by the topic marker -wa in colloquial Japanese.This construction thus
provides an indirect proof (if necessary)that in languageswithout grammemic topic marking,e.g.in colloquialFrench,suchafterthoughtelements
must be consideredas ordinary topics, and not as somethingelse. In the
following examples,the French translationshows the similarity of the
(Kuwae1980:484):
constructions
(18) kirei desu-ne, ano ie-wa
nice is-indeed that house-TOP
'Elle estjolie, cettemaison'
(19) yomimashi-taka, sono hon-wa?
read-PAST Q that book-TOP
'L'avez-vouslu. ce livre?'
This structural convergencein two languageswith exactly opposedword
order properties shows once more that the pragmatic rcgularities which
influencetheorderof constituentsareindependentfromthetypologicallaws
and tendencieson the CF level: they arelesssubjectto typological variation
and more governedby universal tendencies(seeBossong 1980for a more
detaileddiscussion).
Modern Korean behavesexactly like Modern Japanese:the topicalizer replacesthe subjectandobjectpostpositions,whereasit is combined
theoppositionof SUBJandOBJ
As in Japanese,
with all otherpostpositions.
aswell astheoppositionof SUBJandTOP aremorphologicallyequipollent.
The only difference between these languagesis quite superficial: the
postpositions
do not showanyallomorphism,but theKoreanones
Japanese
do. ttris allomorphismis conditionedby the phoneticenvironment:the
markersof SUBJ,OBJ, andTOP havedifferent allomorphsafter vowel and
after consonant(symbolizedhere as x - y). In two out of threecases(OBJ
and TOP) the relationshipbetweenthe allomorphsis synchronically quite
obvious.The systemcan be summarizedas follows:
38
(20)
GeorgBOSSONG
\PF
CF'
SUBJ
OBJ
GEN
DAT
DIR (...)
-TOP
+TOP
-84 - -l
-rûl - -irl
-iti
-e(ge)
-ro - uro
-nun - -un
-nitn - -ùn
-etge)nùn
-ronun- -uronun
v
A few exampleswill show the striking structuralsimilarities of Korean and
in ùis domain fl-ewin and Kim 1976:118):
Japanese
(21) nae-ga
masi-mnida
sur-ùl
I-SUBJ
sake-OBJ drink-PolmE
'I
am drinking sake' [neural description]
(22)na-nirn
masi-ji=anssii-mnida
sur-iil
I-TOP
sake-OBJ drink-NEG-POLITE
'(As for me,) I do not drink sake'
(23) sur-ùn
nae-ga
sake-TOP I-SUBJ
'Sake,I
drink it'
masi-mnida
drink-POLITE
"subject"
Kholodovié(1954:235)statesthatthe
takestheform (n)in in the
"subjects"
greatmajority of cases;
with -i - -ga arc significantlyrarer,and
even more so are other postpositionsfollowed by the TOP marker. This
seemsplausible,althoughno detailed statisticfigures are given. As in
Japanese,
the functionaldistinctionof thetic and categoricaljudgmentsis
fundamentalfor theformal distinctionof -i - -ga vs. -(n)ùn.Sincecategorical judgmentsarein generalfar more frequentin discoursethan thetic ones,
of -(n)itnover -i - -ga canbe
statisticpredominance
the above-mentioned
easilyexplained.
The third languagewith partial grammemicmarking of PF is Pâez,the
mostimportantChibchalanguagewhich is spokenby approximately44,000
peoplein the Caucaprovincein south-western
Columbia.The following
structuralsketchis basedon Jung1984;in themeantime,Junghaspresented
a newversionof herdescription(Jung1989)whereseveralgoodillustrative
examplesof the topic-marking constructionhavebeensuppressed.I prefer
to quote the examplesfrom the older version of her work. The structureof
TOP markingin Pâezis basicallysimilarasthatfoundin thetwo East-Asian
languagesdiscussedso far. The main differenceresultsfrom the fact that
Pâezis a languagewith DifferentialObjectMarking @OM), wherebythe
OBJ is markedby theDAT endingwheneverit is definite,but left without
TOPIC AND FOCUS
39
any marker if it is indefinite.Definitenessis not equivalentto topicality,
accordingiy,we find markedobjectswith and without the TOP marker; on
the other hand, it is obviously impossiblefor an indefinite object to be
topicalized.Thereis an independentsubjectform of pronounsand nouns
which always endsin a vowel; this can be the original vowel of the stemor
the vowel -o which is addedto the final consonant.(Indefiniteobjectslack
thisfinal -a.)The TOP markerl' | (glottalstop)is addedto this SUBJending;
theresultis a phoneticallyconditionedalternationof /'/ aftervowel, and/a' /
after consonant.After anotherl'1, the endingtakesthe form /sa'/; this latter
variantis infrequentandwill notbementionedinthefollowing diagram.The
TOP marker can be added to any sentenceconstituent.The rules can be
summarizedas follows (sameconventionsas above,plus  for variation
accordingto DOM):
(24)
YF
-TOP
+TOP
Q--a
@L : s - - a ' s
-'--a'
- ' s a '- a ' s a '
C F \
SUBJ
oBJ,8
OBJpr
GEN
DAT.s
DATpr
LOC (...)
@L -ry- ryi
a- ' s -
-a's
-ry-ryi
-te
-rya'- -a'tya'
-'sa' - a'sa'
-tya' - -a'tya'
-te'
A few examples(from Jung 1984: 167ff., 185; cf. Jung 1989: 774) may
illustratetheserules.Notethat<j> is pronouncedasin Spanish([x]) andthat
<y> afterconsonantmarkspalatalization;theglossesaresomewhatsimplified, leavingasidecertainsubtletiesof the verbal system.
yu'ptje-na u'j-ue-ts-na
(25) een-a
time-SUBJ change-ing go-IMPF-PROGR-3SG
'Times arechanging'
uy
(26) wagas-a'
tyl' nasa-yakj-a' puuty
White-TOP DEM Pâez-with-TOPeach=othersee
fi'nze-'
we=fri-mee-ne
want=ed-NEG-3SGlive-HABIT
'White peopleand the Pâezlive without wantingto seeeachother'
pand-na
frs-a'
(27)yat
pand-na ùs-a'
vs. yat-a's
house-OBJ' sweep-ing be-3SG
house sweep-ing be-3SG
'S/he is occupiedwith house-sweeping'vs. 'S/he is sweepingthe
house'
40
GeorgBOSSONG
(28) tyâ'-sa-'s-a'
kim=yujva jii-me-a'
understand
DEM-ABS-OBJ -TOP nobody
'This isn't understoodby anybody'
(29) âch een-su-'
ùs-a'
tyâ'wë seena tjèy-sa
hard-ABS be-3SG
too
today time-in-TOP so
'Today, there is too much hardship'
Sometimes,thetopicalsubjectis righçdislocated;asin colloquialJapanese,
suchconstructionsarefound heredespiteofthe fact thatPiiezis basically an
SOV languageof the rigid subtype(Jung1984: 165):
(30) tyâa-ty
ùus yajky-wa'j ji'p-da'u nasa-'
DEM-OBJpI heart think-OBLIG must-lPl Pâez-TOP
'It is aboutthese
[schools]that we must takecare,we the Pâez'
In mostvarietiesof Quechua,thereis onegrammeme-qa which marks
the sentencetopic or the sentencetopics, and another grammeme -m(i)
which servesto mark the focal elementin the sentence.Accordingly, in this
languagethe expressionof both topic and focus is equally grammaticized.
There is somedialect variation asto the form of thesegrammemes:-qamay
berealizedas -ka or -xa; in mostdialects,-rni losesits final vowel if preceded
by a vowel, keepingit if precededby a consonant,but in somevarietiesthe
form -mi is preserved in all phonetic environments. In some southern
dialects,-n is addedto -mi, or it replaces-rni. Among the varietieswhich I
hâve examinedthereis only one which seemsto lack the focus marker -rni
altogether(Olto, spokenin Amazonas/Peru).
The main differencesbetweenthe topic and the focus marker can be
summarizedas follows:
- There is one absoluterule: whereasthe topic marker can occur more than
oncein a sentence,the focus markeris strictly limited to one occurrenceper
of a universallaw: if we
This ruleis of coursea directconsequence
sentence.
define the sentenceas the minimal independentutterance,it is evident that
there must be exactly one assertivespeechact per sentence;on the other
hand, the topics about which something is assertedcan be indefinitely
multiplied,at leastin theory.It shouldbe noted,however,that,statistically,
sentenceswith more than one topic are but a small minority.
- Two otherdifferencesbetweenthe two grammemesarenot strict laws, but
statisticaltendencies.First, it must be notedthat the topic marker is always
relatively morefrequentthanthefocusmarker.The frequencyof useof these
grammemesmay vary geatly accordingto dialect,text class,andindividual
habits,but regardlessof thesevariationsthe topic marker always predominatesover thefocusmarker.Secondly,althoughboth the topic andthe focus
TOPIC AND FOCUS
4l
markers can be addedto any sentenceconstituent,the topic marker is of
course particularly frequent in combination with the subject; the focus
marker displaysmore variability, but it is evident that it is more frequentin
combination with objects, verbal predicates,and predicative nouns than
with subjects.There is no one-to-onecorrespondencebetweenpragmatic
functions and casefunctions, thesedimensionsare independentfrom each
other; but thereis a close affinity betweenTOP and SUBJ, and a lessclose
affinity between FOC and OBJ and the other predicate-relatedsentence
constituents.
- Finally, the paradigmsto which thesegrammemesbelong show different
patterns.The TOP markeris the only memberof its class,whereasthe FOC
marker -rni is the basicelementin a paradigmof markerswhich compriseat
least one more other member in most dialects; -mi is the basic element
becauseit markstheassertivespeechactin its prototypicalform: the speaker
has witnessedthe assertedfact himself, or he is as sureabout it as if he had
witnessed it personally. This FOC marker is directly opposed to -s(i/
(frequentlypalatalizedto -sài) which marks the assertionof facts known to
the speakerby others:the speakerdeclaresthat he is not himselfresponsable
thathehasonly heard
ofthetruthvalueofwhatheis saying,butheunderlines
"reportative"
aboutit. This grammaticalcategory,which will be termedhere
(REP),isofcourseawell-knownandfrequentlyattestedphenomenon
in the
world's languages.
Whatdistinguishes
Quechuafrom otherexamplesof this
categoryis the fact that in this languagetheREP markeris formally opposed
to a basicassertivemarkerwhich explicitly expressesthe speaker'scommitment to the truth of what he is saying.Normally, if a reportativeexists in a
given language,it is a part of the verbal conjugation,and it is positively
markedoff againstthebasicassertionwhich is leftimplicit; in Quechua,both
the basic assertionand the reportative assertionare marked explicitly by
specific grammemes.It should be noted that the reportative marker is
particularly frequentin traditionalnarrativetextswhenstoriesaretold which
could not have been witnessedby the narrator.Apart from basic -ni and
reportative -s(À)i some grammariansdescribe certain other suffixes as
"focus markers", but it is doubtful that markerssuchas the "emotive" -yd,
"impressive" -ma belong to the same category. These grammemes
the
cannot be analyzedhere in detail.
Summarizingthe main pointsof the precedingdiscussion,one might
saythatthe structureofQuechuashowsclearly thatthetypologicalpredominance of TOP marking over FOC marking, which can be establishedby
cross-linguistic comparison,is also valid within a given individual language.Furthermore,it shows a basic difference betweenthe syntagmatic
and the paradigmaticaxis of language:syntagmatically,the FOC is unique
whereasthe TOP canbe multiple within a given sentence;paradigmatically,
there is only one kind of topicalizing, but severalmodalitiesof focalizing,
GeorgBOSSONG
which are related with the different degreesof conviction of the speaker.
There is one truth per sentence,but it can be assertedabout severaltopics;
on the other hand,thereis only one way of establishinga topic, but different
forms of telling the truth.
The systemof markersof TOP andFOC works independentlyfrom the
casemarking system.Quechuanounsaremarkedfor caseby a setof suffixes
which is cross-referencedfor SUBJ and OBJ by suffixes on the verb. The
nominative is formally unmarked,all other caseshave their own specific
marker; there is no Differential Object Marking, all objects being equally
marked by the accusativeending -ta (originally -kta, a form which is
preservedin the Huanca dialect). From the perspectiveof typological
èomparisonof casemarking systems,Quechuais a representativeof the
"normal" structure,which is characterizedbya privative
mosi frequentand
oppositionbetweenùe basiccase(herethe nominative)and all the lest. If
sùôtra systemis combinedwith a setof PF markers,theresultis obvious;it
can be summarizedas follows (dialectof Ayacucho):
(31)
.. PF
CF\
-TOP
+TOP
+FOC
SUBJ
OBJ
GEN
DAT
DIR (...)
A
-ta
-pa
-paq
-man
-qa
-taqa
-m(i)
-tam
-paqqa
-manqa
-paqmi
-manmi
(Syllable-final[ql is pronouncedas a uvular fricative; consequently,an
endinglike -paqqadoesnot containa lengthenedconsonantbut a combination of uvular fricative and stop.)
Although they arevery frequentin normalrunning text, the PF markers
are not obligatory in sentenceswith averbal predicate:the sentencemay be
topicless,and/orthe verb with its agrcementmarkersis sufficient asa focus
in-itself. There is one type of sentence,however,where the useof both the
withoutthe
TOP andtheFOC markersis compulsory:thenominalsentence
the
is explicitly expressed,
copulaverb.If the subjectof a nominalsentence
copula verb ka- is omitted.The subjectmust be accompaniedby the TOP
marker -qa, andthe nominal predicateis followed by the FOC marker -mi.
In other words: in sentenceswithout a verbal predicate(i.e. without a
valencyrelatedframework of casefunctions),explicit grammemicmarking
of TOP andFOC is necessaryand sufficient to constitutethe sentenceasan
assertiveutterance.
Sinceboth topic andfocusaremarkedby grammemes,word orderis not
"free" but it is not primarily usedasa meansfor expressingpragmatic
only
TOPIC AND FOCUS
43
functions as such. In many languages,there is a strict separationbetween
grammemic CF marking on the one hand, and taxemic PF marking on the
other hand.In a languagelike Quechua,where PF marking is grammemic,
too, word order is freely available for other things. I have the impression
(which hasto beverified - or falsified - by deepenedempirical research)that
it is usedin Quechuaforexpressingemotionalovertones.In living dialogue,
the focal elementof the sentenceis very frequently found at the beginning
of the sentence,and the topic, if present,is relegatedto its end.On the other
hand,in traditional narrativesthe orderTOP ^ FOC is far more frequentand
It seemsthatthe availability
probablyùe dominatingorderof constituents.
"emotive" order
of word order had led to an increasedfrequency of the
^
permits
to distinguishnot only
FOC TOP: sincethe grammemicmarking
SUBJ andOBJ but alsoTOP andFOC, thetaxemicdistinctionof TOP ^ FOC
vs. FOC ^ TOP is freely availablefor expressinga shadeof meaningwhich
is provisionally termed here [*srne1ive1.
muststill be shownby a detailedanalysis
V/hetherthistermis adequate
of Quechuatexts. In any case,the following generalconclusioncan be
drawn.Two constituentswhich arein a gtammaticalrelationwith eachother
must necessarilybe brought into somelinear order, becauseof the linear
taxemicexpressionis always
characterof humanlanguage.Consequently,
possible. On the other hand, grammemic expressionof a grammatical
relationis not a logical necessity;if it is madeuseof, taxemicexpression
becomesavailablefor other things. A languagesystemmay, but need not,
take advantageof this availability. In the caseof the fundamentalsentence
relations,thereseemsto be a hierarchywith respectto theuseof grammemic
marking:if thereis anygrammemicmarking,it will applyto casefunctions,
taxematically;if both casefuncwith pragmaticfunctionsbeingexpressed
tions andpragmaticfunctionsareexpressedgrammemically,thentaxematics
becomesavailablefor still more subtle,less rigid distinctions(such as
[+emotive]) which are probably never expressedin a fully grammaticized
way.
A few exampleswill illustrate the use of TOP and FOC marking in
Quechua.In the first place,somebasicregularitieswill be exemplifiedby
Ayacucho Quechua.In the nominal sentence,both markersare obligatory:
(32) hatun-mi wasi-qa
big-FOC house-TOP
'The houseis big'
Although the order FOC ^ TOP is exremely frequent,the inverseorder is
of coursealsofound, especiallyin thecaseof TOP contrast;in the following
example,the TOP marker is addedto a place adverb:
GeorgBOSSONG
kawsay-kuna
wif,a-n
(33) kay-pi-qa
sumaq-ta-m
this-LOC-TOP good-ACC(=Any;-FOC grow-3SG crop-PL
'Here, the crops are glowing well'
The TOP marker may occur severaltimes in the sentence;in the following
example,it is addedto the time adverband to the subject.Note, moreover,
that the negationconsistsof the preverbalsentenceadverbmanain combination with theverbal suffix -chuwhich servesto mark the interrogativeand
moods;it is highly instructiveto observe
the negative,i.e. the non-assertive
that thè negationadverbmana is practically always followed by the FOC
marker: in negative sentences,it is the negation itself which attracts the
andthereforeunfocusable.
focus,whereastheverbal predicateis Unasserted
(34) paqarin-qa
tayta-qa mana-mhamu-nqa-chu
iomorrow-TOP father-TOPno-FOC come-FUT+3SG-NONASSERT
'Tomorrow, my father will not come'
Both the TOP and the FOC marker can stand alone in a sentence.The
following exampleprovides a minimal pair of different focusing, with no
topic specificallymarked(SotoRufz 1976:I17ff.):
kachu-ru-ra
(35) pay-pa
allqo-n-mi
dog-his-FOC bite-'unexpectedly'-PAST
he-GEN
'He was bittenby his ddg!'
vs,
kachu-ru-ra-m
pay-pa
allqo-n
bite-'unexpectedly'-PAST-FOC
dog-his
he-GEN
'His dog hasbitten him!'
The reportativefocalizer functions in exactly the sameway as -ni itself. Its
usecan be exemplifiedby ùe following minimal pair:
paqarin-si
paqarin vs. hamu-nqa
(36) hamu-nqa-s
come-FUT+3SG-REPtomorrow come-FUT+3SG tomorrow-REP
'He'll cdmetomorrow(theysay)'vs.'He'llcome tomdrrow(theysay)'
As for textfrequency,nothingdefinitivecanbe said.Thereis still much
researchto bedone.However,thecountof pragmaticmarkersin atraditional
niurative text may give an approximateidea of the distribution of the TOP
of
andtheFOC markers.In 1l pagesof runningtext I found 80 occurrences
-q4 but only 15 occurrences
of -mi (Uhle,Kelm andTrimborn 1968:25-35)'
The reportative marker -si occurs only twice,.in the first sentenceof the
narrativeand in a sentencewhich is quotedbelow (38). It seemsthat, once
the reportative assertionmood is established,it is no longer necessaryto
TOPIC AND FOCUS
45
insist upon the fact that the reportedeventsareknown by hearsayandnot by
personal experience.The category of the reportative is grammaticized
formally, but not functionally: it is expressedby a simplesuffix which forms
a paradigmwith the ordinary FOC marker,but its useis not obligatory. The
following examplesare instructive for the text function of the pmgmatic
markers (Cuzco dialect). First, the use of the reportative marker at the
beginningof a narrativecanbeobserved;thefocusis on themainprotagonist
which is introducedfor the first time in this sentence:
hoq atoq-wan
(37) hoq kontor-si
apuesta-ta
rura-sqa
one condor-REPbet tSp.l-ACC make-PAST+3SGone fox-with
'A condor,so it is told, oncemadea bet with a fox'
The following sentencesare takenfrom a long narrativepassage.When the
fire-rain is mentionedfor the first time, it is accompaniedby a focalizer, in
this casethe reportative-si; lateron, it is part of a theticjudgment;finally,
it is referred to as a topic in a categoricaljudgment:
(38) nina=para-s chaya-nqa[...]
cheqa-paq-mi nina-para
fire=rain-REP arrive-FUT+3SG truttr-for-FOC fire=rain
cheqa-paq-mi nins=para-Qa
chaya-sia-sqa
[...]
arrive-CONT-PA ST+3SG truth-for-FOC fire=rain-TOP
chaya-ska-sqa
arrive-'still' -PAST+3SG
'Fire-rain will come, I'm told.
[...] Really, fire-rain is coming! [...]
Really, the fire-rainis still falling!'
The following sentencesexemplify the positionalvariability of the marked
the predicateis marked by the FOC
topic; in two successivesentences,
marker, whereasthe TOP marker is addedto the time adverb which may
precedeor follow theverb; in anotheroccurrenceof the sameverb, the FOC
marker is addedto the time adverb,the verbal predicatebeing left without
any pragmaticmarker:
(39) (a) kunan-qa
now-TOP
(b) miqhu-ru-lla-sqa-y-ki-f,
a-n
-' only' -' immediately'- 1SG SUBJ-2SG OBJeat-'unexpectedly'
'already'-FOC
kunan-qa
now-TOP
GeorgBOSSONG
(c) kunan-mi ichaqa miqhu-pu-lla-sqa-y-ki-fla
now-FOC but
eat-'against'-'only'-'immediately'-lSGSUBJ2SG OBJ-'already'
'(a) Now I'll kill you immediately,(b) andl'lleatyou up immediately,now.
(c) But it's now that I'll eat you up immediately'
Aymara is geneticallyunrelatedwith Quechua,althoughthe contact
between the two languageshas been very close since immemorial times.
This case is comparable in some respects to the relationship between
oflong andintensivecontacts,there
Japanese
andKorean.As a consequence
is not only a great amount of lexical borrowing, but also of mutual
grammaticalinfluence.Aymara resemblesQuechuain much the sameway
This meansthat, despitethe absenceof
as Korean resemblesJapanese.
geneticrelationship,the grcmmaticalcategoriesaremoreor lessidenticalin
boththeselanguagepairs.Frequentlyit is possibleto translateQuechuainto
Aymara, and vice-versa,not only word by word, but morphemeby morpheme. Of course,there are also differences,but on the whole the fwo
languages
arestrikinglysimilarin theirgrammaticalstructure.ln thedomain
of the basicrelations,the most importantdifferenceis the fact that Aymara
has Differential Object Marking whereasQuechuadoesnot. As we have
seenbefore, in Quechuaany object takesthe marker -ta; in Aymara, only
animateand/or definite objectstake the marker -rz, which is identical with
the obligatory dative marker. The structureof Aymara resemblesthat of
Spanishin this respect.
The marking of PF works asin Quechua:thereis a TOP marker-7a and
a FOC marker-wa.In the dialectspokenin thePeruvianprovinceof Puno,
from which most examples are taken, there is a morphonological rule
comparableto what is found in Quechua:after most consonants,the final
-c is preserved,
it is deleted.As in Quechua,
aftervowelandnasalconsonants
the TOP marker is frequent and may occur several times in a sentence,
whereasthe FOC marker is restrictedto one occurrenceper sentence;it is
less frequently used than the TOP marker. In a short narrativeof approxi198I ), I havecounted7 I
mately10pagesof runningtext(Porterie-Gutierrez
occurrencesof the TOP marker -ya and 18 occurrencesof the FOC marker
-wa. Theseproportions are roughly equivalent to what has been found in
Quechua.Therulesarealsovery similar.A few selectedexampleswill serve
necessarilyhave the FOC
here to illusrate this point. Nominal sentences
marker and the TOP marker, usually in this order (comparc(32)):
(40) p"a1si-ki-w
uka quta-n-1
moon-'only'-FOC that lake-in-TOP
'The moon was on that lake'
TOPIC AND FOCUS
A1
The focus frequently precedesthe topic, but it may also follow it (compare
(33)):
mistl-iritajna_
apena-w
(41) pobre
tiwula-1
poor tSp.l Tiwula-TOP with difficulty tSp.l-FOC comeout-PAST
'Poor Tiwula cameout with geat difficulty'
The topic marker may occur more than once in a sentence(compare(34)):
(42) uka-ru-1
uka pul"a=puÀaacakana-1 wali winlat-iritajna
thorn-TOP much cover-PAST
that-DAT-TOP that cactus
'Moreover,he coveredhim thickly with that thorny cactus'
The negationmarkernecessarilyattractstheFOC suffix; asin Quechua,the
negatedverb is followed by the non-assertivesuffix -ri which is also a
question marker; moreover, the negative sufTrx-k(a) is added (compare
(34)):
(43)xani-w iras-k+(a)-ti
no-FOC take out-NEG-ISG-NONASSERT
'I didn't take it out'
ClassicalArabic providesanotherexampleof grammemicmarkingof
both TOP and FOC. In this language,a cleardistinctionis madebetween
"verbal" sentencesand "nominal" sentences.The latter ones may
truly
from the tntly "verbal"
contain a fully conjugatedverb, but they differ "verbal"
bgin
sentences
with respectto theorderof constituents:
sentences
with the verb, which is followed optionally by SUBJ, OBJ and/or other
"nominal" sentences
consistof a sentenceinitial TOP
nominal arguments;
(X is Y), or be composedof
purely
nominal
and a predicate,which may be
"verbal"
reasonable
to arguethatthe
It
seems
its
complement(s).
a verb and
sentencetype is a grammaticizationof the thetic judgment,whereasthe
"nominal" sentencepatternprovidesa gnmmaticized frame for categorical
judgments:in the verb-initial sentence,the whole utteranceis rhematic,
there is no pragmatic foregrounding; on the other hand, the syntagmatic
"nominal"
conFastbetweentopicalandfocalelementsis constitutiveof the
sentence which can be described as verb-second. Normally, we are
accustomedto languageswhere the categoricaljudgment constitutesthe
"basic" or "unmarked"case;in ClassicalArabic, theticjudgmentslie at the
baseof the unmarkedsentencepattern,and categoricaljudgments aremordistribuphologicallyandfunctionallymarked.This patternof markedness
languages.
generally
in
verb-initial
perhaps
valid
tion ofPF is
"verbal" andthe "nominal" patterndepends
The text frequencyof the
"verbal" pattern
largely on the discoursetype. In narrativediscourse,the
48
GeorgBOSSONG
prevails whereasall kinds of argumentativediscourseshow an inclination
"nominal" pattern. When reading narrative prose, like for
iowards the
instancetheA rabian Nights,the orderof constituentsis V(S)(O) over pages
and pages,without any topicalizationor focalization of sentenceconstituents.Itls a continuousflow of successiveactionsand events.On the other
hand, scientific, or religious, or philosophical prose shows a much more
"dramatic" contrastof pragmatic"peaks" and "valleys".
"nominal" sentencemay be marked by the order of
Formally, a
constituentsonly; as in all other languagesconsideredso far, morphemic
order TOP ^ PRED is
marking of PF is by no means compulsory. The
"nominal",
i.e. categorical.
sufficient in itself for marking a sentenceas
However, gtammemic marking of PF is very frequentin ClassicalArabic'
Here again, it can be observedthat TOP marking is far more frequent in
running text than FOC marking. Both the TOP marking and the FOC
not word-bound.Thesemarkers
marking grammemesare sentence-bound,
are not integrated in some morphological paradigm, and they are not
cliticized.The only formal constraintis a syntacticone: both the TOP and
theFOC markersmustbeplacedatthebeginningof therespectivepragmatic
constituent.
The TOP marker behaveslike a verb in one respect:it governsthe
accusativecase,asif it were a transitiveverb.This particle,which is'inna
in Arabic, has preservedits verbal characterto a higher degtee than in
Hebrew (hinne). It is not a true verb, however, but rather a kind of
interjection.Its original meaningis perhapsbestbe renderedinto English by
the particle lo!. T\e correspondingFOC marker la-, on the other hand,
behâvesrather like a sentenceadverb.Its original meaningmust have been
"truly, verily".
somethinglike
'innc mustbefollowedby a nounphraseof somekind.This
Theparticle
can be a noun not accompaniedby a preposition,or a prepositionalphrase.
Prepositionalphrasesdo not change their form. Other noun phrasesare
normally put in the accusative,regardlessof their casefunction.It is also
if innais
possibleto leavethe SUBJ= TOP in its original nominativeform'lightened'
'in (a constructioncalledmulaffaf
"lightened"
form
usedin its
in nativegrammars);in this case,theuseof theFOC marker/a- is obligatory.
This construction is rather rare, however. Normally, the marked topic
'inna + PP (after a preposition,the noun is
consistsof inna + N^^^ or
automaticallyin the gJnïive). The FOC marker la- canbe followed by any
part of speechor sentenceconstituent.The mostfrequentcasesarepredicate
nouns and predicateadjectives,but prepositionalphrasesand conjugated
verbsare alsopossible.
As for text frequency,a count of the first 100versesof the third suraof
'innc
occurs38 times, andla- 6
the Koran hasgiven the following results:
TOPICAND FOCUS
49
times;in 35 cases,it is the SUBJ which is topicalized,in 3 casesit is a PP;
asfor the focalizedpredicate,be it with or without the explicit FOC marker
/a-, it is nominal in 20 cases,andverbal in 15cases.Oncemore, we find that
grammemicTOP marking is more frequentthangrammemicFOC marking.
Surprisingly enough,the figures found in this text passageof the Koran are
not too far away from thosefound in Quechuaand Aymara narratives.The
ratio of TOP : FOC marking rangesfrom approximately6 : 1 in Koranic
Arabic to 5.3 : 1 in Quechuaand 4 : 1 in Aymara. Of course,none of the
analyzedsamplesis representative,and much more researchis necessaryin
this domain before anything can be said with certainty.
A few exampleswill show someof the regularitiesof PF marking in
ClassicalArabic. The following casesare the most frequent and important
ones (finer subdivisionsare ofcourse possibleand necessary,but they are
omitted here for reasonsof space):
(44) TOP,. (NPAcc)^ FOC.. (nominal)
'inna l-dina
'inda llâh-i
l-'islàm-u
TOP DEFART-religionby
God-GEN DEFART-devotion-NOM
'The religion by God is devotion' (Q 3,20)
(45) TOP,- (Mn..) ^ FOC-. (verbal)
'âdam-a
'inna llâh-a
wa-nûlr-an
$tafà
TOP God-ACC choose+3scPERF Adam-ACC and-Noah-ACC
'God haschosenAdam and Noah' (Q 3,34)
(46) TOP* (NPAcc)^ FOC*- (nominal)
'inna llâh-a
la-huwa l-'azlz-u
TOP God-ACC FOC-he DEF ART-almighty-NOM
l-hakim-u
DEF ART-omniscient-NOM
'God is
almighty,all-knowing' (Q 3,63)
(47) TOP,. (NPAcc)^ FOC*. (verbal)
'a-'inna-kumla-ta-3had-ùna
'anna ma'a llâh-i
FOC-2IMP-testify-PL that with God-GEN
Q-TOP-2PL
'âlihat-an 'ulrà
gods-ACC others
'Do you
testify that there are other godswith God?' (Wright 1874-5:
II, 86)
50
GeorgBOSSONG
(48) TOP.. (NPN.M)^ FOC* (nominal)
'in
la-Éâhir-âni
hâ{-âni
TOP.,,*rrrNpo,this-DUAL NOM FOC-sorcerer-DUAL NOM
'Thesetwo are sorcerers'(Wright 1874-5:II,88)
(49) TOP.- (PP) " FOC,* (nominal)
'inna fî
la-kum
{alika la-'âyat-an
FOC-token-ACC for-you
that
TOP in
'Thereinthereis a tokenfor you' (Q 3,50)
(50) TOP.- (PP) " FOC_-(verbal)
'inna bi-hi
l-'umùr-u
tu-q'à
DEF
ART-thing+PL-NOM
PASS-cicatrize
3IMP
TOP by-him
wa-tu-r'abu
and-3IMPPASS-repair
'By him all thingsare healedandrestored'(Nôldeke1897:41)
TOPIC AND FOCUS
5I
REFERENCES
pragmatiques.
Bulletindela
BossoNc,
etuniversaux
Georg.1980.Variabilitépositionnelle
Sociétéde Linguistique 75, 39-67.
DifferentielleObjektrnarkierung
in den
1985.EmpirischeUniversalienforschung.
Ttibingen:GunterNarr.
neuiranischen
Sprachen.
Covruo,Maurice.1977.L'emploi deWA et GA (étuded'un textescientifique:histoirede
(ed.).Recherches
la chimie).In A. TVlodarczyk
en syntâxe(Travauxdu Groupede
LinguistiqueJaponaise,
UniversitédeParisVII, vol. IV), 79-97.Paris:L'Asiatheque.
lbcrn, Klaus.1976.Monem,Wort, SatzundText.Tûbingen:Max Niemeyer.
Jwc, Ingrid. 1984.GrammatikdesPâez.Ein AbriB.Diss.Osnabrûck:Ms. [newversion
printedasa dissertation,
Osnabrûck19891.
jazyka.Moskva:Izd.Literaturyna
KHor-ooovrë,
A.A. 1954.OËerkgrammatikikorejskogo
Inostrannykh
Jazykakh.
Kr;w.a.r,
Kunio. 1980.Manueldejaponais2. Paris:L'Asiatheque.
LrwN,Bruno.l959.AbriBderjapanischenGrammatikaufderGrundlagederklassischen
: Otto Harrassowitz.
Schrifsprache.Wiesbaden
and TschongDae Ktu. 1976.Einftihrungin die koreanischeSprache.Heilbronn:
GustavScherer.
M,c,rlssrus,
Vilém. 1939.O tak zvanémaktualnfmëlenénimvéty.Slovoa Slovesnost
5,
17l-r74.
Arabisch.Wien [DarmNôroexr,Theodor.1897U9631.Zur Grammatikdesklassischen
Buchgesellschaftl.
stadt:Wissenschaftliche
tæsrelationsactancielles
Ponrrnm-Gunmnrz,Lrliane.l980.
en Aymara.Amerindia5, 729.
Paris:Klincksieck.
Porrmn,Bernard.1974.Linguistiquegénérale-Théorieetdescription.
DistinctionRevisiæd.Linguistics25,
1987.The Thetic/Categorical
Sessr,Hans-Jiirgen.
5 l l-580.
Lima: Institutode
Soro Rr'12,Clodoaldo.1976.GramâticaQuechuaAyacucho-Chanca.
EstudiosPeruanos.
Urlr, Max, Ande Krw, and HermannTnnûoRN.1968.Vom Kondorund vom Fuchs.
Hirænmârchen
ausdenBergenPerus.KetschuaundDeutsch.Berlin:Gebr.Mann.
1874-5.
A Grammarof the Arabic Language.Seconded. l,ondon:
Wrucrr, William.
FredericNorgate,2 vol.