[Lingtyp] from connector to focus marker

Sun Feb 19 13:46:54 UTC 2023

Dear Yury – The content of the subordinate clause is by definition backgrounded. I would say it contains the topic, not that it is topical as a whole, but I suppose that’s a matter of definition.

Whether an erstwhile relative clause subordinator can attach itself to the focus constituent as a cleft is reinterpreted as a mono-clausal focus construction strikes me an empirical question. I’m not personally aware of a case in which this happened, but I certainly don’t see an a-priori reason why it couldn’t happen. Heine & Kuteva cite the following:

“However, since such constructions tend to involve a copular main clause plus a kind of relative clause, it may also
happen that, rather than the copula, it is the relative clause marker that survives and is reinterpreted as a focus marker (see Harris and Campbell 1995:155ff. for an example from Breton).” (Heine & Kuteva (2004 [2002]: 96)

Best -- Juergen

Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University at Buffalo

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
Phone: (716) 645 0127
Fax: (716) 645 3825
Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/

Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
(Leonard Cohen)
--

From: Yury Lander <yulander at yandex.ru>
Date: Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 6:44 AM
To: Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77 at buffalo.edu>, mohammad rasekh <mrasekhmahand at yahoo.com>, LINGTYP LINGTYP <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] from connector to focus marker
Dear Juergen,

I am not sure the first development may result in a complementizer marking focus, because relative clauses in clefts and pseudoclefts normally describe propositions that serve as topics rather than foci.

Best wishes,
Yury

19.02.2023, 04:53, "Juergen Bohnemeyer" <jb77 at buffalo.edu>:

Dear Mohammad – The following may be obvious to you. In which case, please ignore it.

There are two reasonably well-established grammaticalization pathways between connectives (and complementizers in particular) and focus markers (that I’m aware of). Both involve clefts. Clefts may involve a complementizer/subordinator in the subordinate clause, which is often a relative clause or RC-like construction. And clefts may of course grammaticalize into clause-internal focus constructions (or may be misanalyzed as such). You will find examples in Heine & Kuteva (2002). Perhaps the earliest widely cited treatment of this nexus is Schachter (1973).

The second route also involves clefts, but in this case, the connection to complementizers is an indirect one: demonstratives are a common grammaticalization source of both copulas and complementizers, and copulas in turn may find their way into clefts, which may again grammaticalize into clause-internal focus constructions (etc.).  Again, you’ll find examples in Heine & Kuteva (2002).

Best – Juergen

Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and relativization. Language 49: 19–46.

Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University at Buffalo

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
Phone: (716) 645 0127
Fax: (716) 645 3825
Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/

Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
(Leonard Cohen)

--

From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of mohammad rasekh <mrasekhmahand at yahoo.com<mailto:mrasekhmahand at yahoo.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 5:06 AM
To: LINGTYP LINGTYP <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
Subject: [Lingtyp] from connector to focus marker

Dear All,

There is a particle in Persian (Iranian language) which has multiple functions. This particle is ‘ke’, literally meaning ‘that’. Broadly, it has two general/main functions: a)connector (connecting complement, relative and adverbial clauses), b) marking some parts of information structure (focus, rhetorical question, mirativity, indifference, etc.). Concerning this particle, I have two questions:

First, is there any evidence in other languages in which a particle moves from subordinator to information structure marker? If there is, I appreciate providing me with the sources.

Second, the position of ‘ke’ as adverbial clause marker is not fixed. It may appear clause initially, but it moves to different parts of the adverbial clause (not the final position). Actually it ‘shifts’. Is there any evidence in other languages for this ‘subordinator shift’?

Thanks in advance.

Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand

Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand

Linguistics Department,

Bu-Ali Sina University,

Hamedan, Iran.

Postal Code: 6517838695

https://basu.academia.edu/MohammadRasekhmahand<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbasu.academia.edu%2FMohammadRasekhmahand&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C6ca563e971dd45d2cd6f08db126ea21d%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638124038607478365%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r527A9cJKKbx0BCa7x%2B3xlNu54ChV348VrOBaCyiWFU%3D&reserved=0>
,

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.linguistlist.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flingtyp&data=05%7C01%7Cjb77%40buffalo.edu%7C6ca563e971dd45d2cd6f08db126ea21d%7C96464a8af8ed40b199e25f6b50a20250%7C0%7C0%7C638124038607478365%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BJtKA7f1GNZbiNHmztRovXyoYtvTn5%2F5L1%2Bh8DCVs8M%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230219/e0065845/attachment.htm>