117.43K

Category:

lingvistics

Focalization in two Mande languages: Mandinka and Soninke

1.

Typological perspectives on focus marking in African languages
Paris, May 27, 2021
Focalization in two Mande languages:
Mandinka and Soninke
Denis Creissels
Université Lumière (Lyon 2)
[email protected]
http://deniscreissels.fr
1

2.

1. Introduction
Mandinka and Soninke belong to two distinct sub-branches of the Western
branch of the Mande language family. Mandinka has approximately 1.5 million
speakers in the Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea Bissau. It is the westernmost
member of the Manding dialect cluster, whose best-known members are Malian
Bambara and Guinean Maninka. Soninke has approximately 2 million speakers in
Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, and the Gambia. Its closest relatives are Bozo
languages.
This presentation is devoted to focalization in these two Mande languages. In
both languages, focalization involves enclitic focus markers (Mandinka lè, Soninke
`yá) that do not differ in their syntactic properties, but greatly differ in their
morphological interaction with the other elements of the constructions in which
they are involved.
2

3.

2. Some basic information on Mandinka and Soninke morphosyntax (1)
The most striking characteristic of verbal clauses in Mandinka and Soninke (and
more generally, in Mande languages) is the extreme rigidity of the typologically
unusual Subject-Object-Verb-Obliques constituent order in verbal clauses, with
a clearcut contrast between core terms preceding the verb and obliques
(standardly expressed as adpositional phrases or adverbs) in post-verbal
position.
With the exception of some types of adjuncts, noun phrases or adpositional
phrases cannot occur in topic position (on the left edge of the clause) without
being resumed by a pronoun occupying the position they would occupy within
the clause if they were not topicalized.
Pronouns occupy the same positions as lexical noun phrases, and there is no
indexation of either subjects or objects. Null subjects or objects are not
allowed: with the exception of the subject slot in imperative clauses, whatever
the discursive context, the subject slot in independent intransitive clauses and
the subject and object slots in independent transitive clauses cannot be left
empty.
3

4.

3. Some basic information on Mandinka and Soninke morphosyntax (2)
In Mandinka and Soninke, the inflection of verbs in the role of nucleus of
independent verbal clauses is very reduced. The expression of grammaticalized
TAM values and of polarity mainly relies on auxiliary-like elements called
PREDICATIVE MARKERS in the Mandeist tradition.
Predicative markers are portmanteau morphemes encoding grammaticalized
aspectual and modal distinctions and expressing polarity. They immediately
follow the subject phrase, which means that, in transitive clauses, they are
separated from the verb by the object phrase.
Examples (1) and (2) on next slide illustrate transitive clauses in Mandinka and
Soninke. A particularity shared by Mandinka and Soninke is that, in assertive
and interrogative transitive clauses, there is always an overt predicative marker
between the subject phrase and the object phrase.
4

5.

4. Some basic information on Mandinka and Soninke morphosyntax (3)
(1a) Fàatú yè
kínòo tábì lúntáŋò-lú yè.
MDK Fatou CPL.TR meal.D cook guest.D-PL for
S
pm
O
V
X
‘Fatou prepared the meal for the guests.’
(1b) Yáayáa kà à téerímáa máakóyì kód-òo tó.
MDK Yaya
ICPL 3SG friend
help
money.D LOC
S
pm O
V
X
‘Yaya helps his friend financially.’
(2a) Múusá dà
qálìsí-n !kínì Dénbà yí.
SNK Moussa CPL.TR money-D give Demba POSTP
S
pm
O
V
X
‘Moussa gave the money to Demba.’
(2b) Yàxàré-n nà
tíyè-n qóbó sáxà-n
ŋá.
SNK woman-D SBJV.TR meat-D buy market-D POSTP
S
pm
O
V
X
‘The woman should buy meat at the market.’
5

6.

5. Some basic information on Mandinka and Soninke morphosyntax (4)
As a rule, the same predicative markers are used in transitive and intransitive
clauses, but there are exceptions. In particular, in both languages, in the
completive aspect, a predicative marker occurs in transitive clauses (Mandinka yè,
as in (1a), Soninke dà, as in (2a)), but not in intransitive clauses. In intransitive
clauses, the completive aspect is marked by a verbal suffix -ta in Mandinka, zeromarked in Soninke.
(3) Yíróo bòyí-tà
sílòo kâŋ.
MDK tree.D fall-CPL.ITR road.D on
S
V
X
‘The tree fell down on the road.’
(4) Wùllê-n ló
kónpè-n dí.
SNK dog.D enter room-D in
S
V
X
‘The dog went into the room.’
6

7.

6. Some basic information on Mandinka and Soninke morphosyntax (5)
In Mandinka and Soninke, non-verbal predication involves a nominal copula
and an adverbial copula. The adverbial copula is used typically (but not
exclusively) to express locational predication. The copulas occur in clauses
structurally similar to intransitive verbal clauses, but the copulas differ from
intransitive verbs in that they do not combine with predicative markers and
have suppletive negative forms.
(5a) Yáayàa mú
nùmôo
lè tí.
MDK Yaya
NomCOP blacksmith.D FOC as
‘Yaya is a blacksmith.’
(5b) Yáayàa té
nùmú
tì.
Yaya NegCOP blacksmith as
‘Yaya is not a blacksmith.’
(6a) Dénbà wá
kónpè-n dí.
SNK Demba AdvCOP room-D in
‘Demba is in the room.’
(6b) Dénbà ntá
kónpè-n dí.
Demba NegAdvCOP room-D in
‘Demba is not in the room.’
7

8.

7. Some basic information on Mandinka and Soninke morphosyntax (6)
Non-verbal predication interferes with verbal predication in two ways. On the
one hand, the expression of TAM variation requires using copular verbs
(‘become’ for nominal predication, ‘be found’ for adverbial predication) instead
of the non-verbal copulas. On the other hand, the adverbial copula is also used
as a predicative marker in verbal clauses.
8

9.

8. Focalization in Mandinka: term focus and the focus marker lè
In Mandinka, the general rule is that the focalization of noun phrases, adverbs
or secondary predicates triggers no change in constituent order. The enclitic
focus marker lè (nè if the preceding word ends with a nasal) is simply inserted
immediately after the focalized phrase, regardless of its function.
(7a) Áadámà lè yè
kódòo
kîi Músáa yè.
MDK Adama FOC CPL.TR money.D send Moussa to
‘ADAMA sent money to Moussa.’ (subject focus)
(7b) Áadámà yè
kódòo
lè kîi Músáa yè.
Adama CPL.TR money.D FOC send Moussa to
‘Adama sent MONEY to Moussa.’ (object focus)
(7c) Áadámà yè
kódòo
kîi Músáa lè yè.
Adama CPL.TR money.D send Moussa FOC to
‘Adama sent money to MOUSSA.’ (oblique focus)
(7d) Fàatú lè lá kódòo
fìlí-tà.
Fatou FOC GEN money.D get.lost-CPL.ITR
‘FATOU’s money got lost.’ (adpossessor focus)
(7e) Ŋ́
ŋá
Fàatú táa-tòo
lè jé.
1SG CPL.TR Fatou leave-SIMULT FOC see
‘I saw Fatou AS SHE WAS LEAVING.’ (secondary predicate focus)
9

10.

9. Focalization in Mandinka: the particular case of temporal adjuncts
Temporal adjuncts differ from the other obliques in that they can be topicalized
by moving to the left periphery of the clause without being resumed by a
pronoun or adverb. They also differ from all other types of constituents by
their ability to be focalized in a position on the left periphery of the clause.
This construction requires special marking by means of lè mú (optionally
realized as lǒŋ), where lè is the general focus marker, and mú is the nominal
copula. Note that the second part of the construction is not different from a
plain independent clause, so that the construction has the appearance of a
juxtaposition of two independent clauses.
(8) Ñàŋkúmòo-lú kôomá lè mú
MDK cat.D-PL
behind FOC NomCOP
ñínòo-lú
kà tántánlúwóo lǒo.
mouse.D-PL ICPL dancing.circle set.up
‘It’s in the absence of cats that mice form the dancing circle.’
lit. It’s in the absence of cats, mice form the dancing circle.
10

11.

10. Focalization in Mandinka: negation and term focus (1)
The focalization of noun phrases or adverbs in negative clauses (as in English
It’s John who did’nt come) is easy to elicit with consultants.
(9) Fàatú lè máŋ
nǎa bǐi.
MDK 1SG FOC CPL.NEG come today
‘It’s Fatou who didn’t come today.’
It is, however, remarkable that focalization in negative clauses does not occur
in my corpus of naturalistic texts with the meaning of exclusive identification
of a non-participant in a given event, but only with other values, as will be
commented below.
11

12.

11. Focalization in Mandinka: negation and term focus (2)
As regards negative focalization (as in English It’s not John who came),
Mandinka has no grammaticalized construction expressing this meaning. The
only way to express negative focalization is by combining relativization and
negative nominal predication into a plain cleft construction expressing the
meaning of negative focalization compositionally (10a). This is also the only
possibility for rendering negative focalization in a negative clause (10b).
(10a) Míŋ nǎa-tá
bǐi, Fàatú ǹté.
MDK REL come-CPL.ITR today Fatou NegCOP
‘The one who came today, it’s not Fatou.’
(10b) Mîŋ máŋ
nǎa bǐi,
Fàatú ǹté.
REL CPL.NEG come today Fatou NegCOP
‘The one who didn’t come today, it’s not Fatou.’
However, such pain cleft constructions are extremely rare in spontaneous
discourse, contrasting with the very high frequency of positive clauses in which
the mere insertion of lè expresses the exclusive identification of a participant in
a presupposed event.
12

13.

12. Focalization in Mandinka: focalization and restriction (1)
In positive clauses, phrases marked by one of the two restrictive particles dóróŋ
or dàmmâa ~ dàmmâŋ ‘only’ are also marked by the focus marker lè following
the restrictive particle. In their use as restrictive particles attached to noun
phrases or adverbs.
(11a) Ŋ́ sí wǒo dóróŋ nè kée nǒo
í
yè.
MDK 1SG POT DEM only FOC do be.able 2SG for
‘It’s the only thing I can do for you.’
lit. ‘I can do ONLY THAT for you.’
(11b) Ŋ́ nǎa-tà
ítè dóróŋ nè yé jǎŋ.
1SG come-CPL.ITR 2SG only FOC for here
‘It’s only for you that I came here.’
lit. ‘I came for YOU ONLY here.’
(11c) Fàatú dàmmâa lè nǎa-tà?
Fatou only
FOC come-CPL.ITR
‘Did Fatou come alone?’
lit. ‘Did FATOU ONLY come?’
13

14.

13. Focalization in Mandinka: focalization and restriction (2)
dóróŋ and dàmmâa ~ dàmmâŋ can also be cumulated to give additional
emphasis, as in (11d).
(11d) Ŋ́ ŋá
íté dàmmâŋ dóróŋ nè kànú dúníyáa kónò.
1SG CPL.TR 2SG only
only FOC love world in
‘You are really the only person I love in the world.’
lit. ‘I love YOU ONLY ONLY in the world.’
By contrast, in negative clauses, the restrictive particles are not accompanied by
the focus marker.
(12a) Ǹtèlú
lá màafáŋò lá
mùsôo-lú
búká
màanôo dóróŋ sèné.
MDK 1PL.EMPH GEN region.D POSTP woman.D-PL ICPL.NEG rice.D
only cultivate
‘In our region, women do not cultivate only rice.’
(12b) Tùbàabùdùu-táa dàmmâa búká
mòô
ké
nàafùlùtíyòo tí.
Europe-go(ing).D only
ICPL.NEG person.D make rich.person as
‘Just going to Europe does not make one rich.’
14

15.

14. Focalization in Mandinka: wh-words and focalization
In Mandinka, wh-words occupy the same positions as the corresponding
phrases in assertive clauses. They are commonly marked as focalized, especially
jìmáa ‘who?’, as in (13).
(13) Í
yé
jìmáa lè tàrá jèe?
MDK 2SG CPL.TR who FOC find there
‘Who did you find there’
However, this is not absolutely obligatory. Wh-words occur sporadically without
the focus marker, and this does not seem to imply a difference in meaning.
The only absolute constraint is that the presence of a wh-word makes it
impossible to mark another term of the clause as focalized (unless in echoquestions).
15

16.

15. Focalization in Mandinka: subordination and term focus
The focalization of noun phrases or adverbs is impossible in relative clauses
and some other types of subordinate clauses.
By contrast, in complement clauses introduced by kó (quotative /
complementizer) the focus marker lè can be used in the same way as in
independent clauses.
16

17.

16. Focalization in Mandinka: nominal predication and focalization (1)
As regards term focus, adverbial predication behaves exactly like verbal
predication. By contrast, nominal predication is characterized by specific
constraints concerning the use of the focus marker.
Nominal predication is characterized by the use of the copulas mú (positive)
and té ~ ǹté (negative). Two varieties of nominal predication must be
distinguished:
• a construction that can be schematized as N mú/té, with a single core
nominal term N representing a predicate whose argument is not expressed
and must be retrieved from the context,
• a construction that can be schematized as N1 mú/té N2 tí, with two nominal
terms N1 and N2., the second one being obligatorily flagged by the
postposition tí, also used in verbal clauses to flag functive adjuncts (i.e.,
equivalents of English as-phrases in clauses such as He was sent as a
negotiator).
17

18.

17. Focalization in Mandinka: nominal predication and focalization (2)
In verbal or adverbial predication, the focus marker is never syntactically
obligatory, and when it is present, it can attach to any nominal term.
In nominal predication, in the conditions in which the general rule is that term
focalization by means of lè is impossible (for example, in relative clauses),
term focalization is impossible in nominal predication too.
By contrast, in the conditions in which the rule in verbal clauses is that term
focalization by means of lè is optional, in nominal predication, the presence of
the focus marker is obligatory, and it can only attach to the noun phrase in
predicate function.
18

19.

18. Focalization in Mandinka: nominal predication and focalization (3)
(14a) illustrates the syntactically optional focalization of a functive adjunct in a
verbal clause, whereas (14b) illustrates the obligatory attachment of the focus
marker to the noun phrase in predicate function in nominal predication.
(14a) Jínòo yè
í
kálâŋ
yíròo (lè) tí.
MDK jinn.D CPL.TR REFL take.the.form.of tree.D FOC as
‘The jinn took the form of a tree / A TREE.’
(14b) Sìtôo
mú
yíròo *(lè) tí.
baobab.D NomCOP tree.D FOC as
‘The baobab is a tree.’
When the focus marker is required, the only possible variation is that, if the
noun phrase in predicate function includes a genitival modifier, the focus
marker may attach to it, as in (15b).
(15a) Fàatú là kódòo
lè
mú.
MDK Fatou GEN money.D FOC NomCOP
‘This is Fatou’s money.’
(15b) Fàatú lè lá kódòo
mú.
Fatou FOC GEN money.D NomCOP
‘This is FATOU’s money.’
19

20.

19. Focalization in Mandinka: nominal predication and focalization (4)
Moreover, in the presence of the focus marker, nominal predication with two
core terms is characterized by the possibility of ARGUMENT-PREDICATE REVERSAL:
• in the absence of the focus marker, the noun in predicate function can only
occupy the second position (i.e., the position flagged by the postposition tí ‘as’);
• in the presence of the focus marker, the noun in predicate function and its
argument can interchange their positions, with just a modification of information
structure: in (16c) the argument in topic role is followed by the comment
constituted by the noun phrase in predicate function, whereas in (16d), the
predicate/comment precedes the argument in afterthought role.
(16a) Káñjòo té
yírì tí.
MDK okra.D NegCOP tree as
‘The okra is not a tree.’
(16b) *Yírì té
káñjòo tí.
tree NegCOP okra.D as
(16c) Sìtôo
mú
yíròo lè tí.
baobab.D NomCOP tree.D FOC as
‘The baobab is a tree.’
(16d) Yíròo lè mú
sìtôo
tí.
tree.D FOC NomCOP baobab.D as
‘It’s a tree, I mean, the baobab.’
20

21.

20. Focalization in Mandinka: nominal predication and focalization (5)
Note in particular the existence of four possibilities when the construction
expresses the equivalence between two definite descriptions of the same
entity, as in (17).
(17a) Làamíní Sìisée mú
ŋ̀ ná sàatée àlìkáalòo lè tí.
MDK Lamine Cissé NomCOP 1PL GEN village.D chief.D FOC as
‘Lamine Cissé is the chief of our village.’
(17b) Ŋ̀ ná sàatée àlìkáalòo lè mú
Làamíní Sìisée tì.
1PL GEN village.D chief.D FOC NomCOP Lamine Cissé as
‘He is the chief of our village, Lamine Cissé.’
(17c) Ŋ̀ ná sàatée àlìkáalòo mú
Làamíní Sìisée lè
tí.
1PL GEN village.D chief.D NomCOP Lamine Cissé FOC as
‘The chief of our village is Lamine Cissé.’
(17d) Làamíní Sìisée lè mú
ŋ̀ ná sàatée àlìkáalòo tí.
Lamine Cissé FOC NomCOP 1PL GEN village.D chief.D as
‘It is Lamine Cissé, the chief of our village.’
21

22.

21. Focalization in Mandinka: term focus constructions that do not express
exclusive identification of participants (1)
An important aspect of grammaticalized term focus constructions, in contrast to
plain clefts, is the possible development of functions other than the exclusive
identification of a participant in a presupposed event. A first example is the use
of the focus marker in the expression of comparison: starting from a clause
expressing that an entity has a given property (18a), a comparative construction
can be formed by adding an oblique tí-phrase representing the standard, and by
focalizing the comparee, as in (18b).
(18a) Kàlâa lá tíñáaróo wàrá-tà.
MDK pen.D GEN damage.D be.big-CPL.ITR
‘The pen causes a lot of damage.’
lit. ‘The pen’s damage is big.
(18b) Kàlâa lè lá tíñáaróo wàrá-tá
tàmbôo tí.
pen.D FOC GEN damage.D be.big-CPL.ITR spear.D in.comparison.with
‘The pen causes more damage than the spear.’
lit. ‘The PEN’s damage is big in comparison with the spear.’
22

23.

22. Focalization in Mandinka: term focus constructions that do not express
exclusive identification of participants (2)
A second example is the use of a term focus construction to single out a
prominent participant in a sentence explaining the current situation. For
example, in the context from which (19) has been extracted, it could not be
felicitously replaced by a sentence unambiguously implying reference to a
presupposed love affair (such as The one she loves is a sàayêe fish). This
sentence could rather be paraphrased as ‘What explains her behavior is that
she is in love, and her lover is a sàayêe fish’.
(19) À
kà mîŋ bêe ké těŋ, à
kà sàayêe lè kànú.
MDK 3SG ICPL REL all do thus 3SG ICPL sàayêe FOC love
‘Everything she is doing, it’s because she is in love with a sàayêe fish.’
lit. ‘Everything she does, she loves A SAAYEE FISH.’
In (19), the assertion is about a presupposed event (the strange behavior of the
girl, referred to as À kà mîŋ bêe ké těŋ), but the remainder of the sentence
consists of new information presented as explaining the girl’s behavior. The
focus marker attached to sàayêe highlights the role of a particular participant
(‘What’s happening is that she is in love, and the object of her love is a sàayêe),
but does not reflect an articulation between presupposition and assertion.
23

24.

23. Focalization in Mandinka: term focus constructions that do not express
exclusive identification of participants (3)
Similarly, the meaning expressed by the main clause in (20) cannot be
glossed as ‘What is hurting him is his right hand’, since nothing in the context
implies that something is hurting the person in question. The intended
meaning is rather as ‘What’s happening is that something is hurting him, and
it’s his right hand’.
(20) Níŋ í
yé
kèebáa
màrâa
jé kínòo kónò
MDK if 2SG CPL.TR oldman.D left.hand.D see meal.D in
à
búlúbàa
lè kà à dímîŋ.
3SG right.hand.D FOC ICPL 3SG hurt
‘If you see an oldman eating with his left hand, it’s because his right
hand is painful.’
lit. ‘If you see an oldman eating with his left hand, HIS RIGHT HAND is
painful.’
24

25.

24. Focalization in Mandinka: term focus constructions that do not express
exclusive identification of participants (4)
As already mentioned, my corpus includes no occurrence of the focus marker
in negative clauses with the meaning of exclusive identification of a nonparticipant in a given event, but negative clauses expressing an explanation in
which a non-participant playing a key role is focalized, such as (21), are
common.
(21) Níŋ í
yè
móoròo
jé sèewù-sùbù-ñímòo lá,
MDK if
2SG CPL.TR marabout.D see pig-meat-eat(ing).D POSTP
bàa-súbòo lè tí
jěe.
goat-meat.D FOC NegCOP there
‘If you see a marabout eating pork, it’s because there is no goat meat
available.’
lit. ‘If you see a marabout eating pork, GOAT MEAT is not there.’
25

26.

25. Focalization in Mandinka: verb focus (1)
When encliticized to the verb or to the verb phrase, lè expresses emphasis on
the particular action or process expressed by the verbal lexeme, in opposition to
some other action or process (either mentioned in the context or implied), but
can also be interpreted as emphasizing the whole sentence or clause.
(22a) Bàa-mùsù-bâa yè
kùlúŋò míŋ jìijâa,
MDK goat-female-old CPL.TR mortar.D REL rock
à díŋò bé
à bòyìndì-lá
lè.
3SG kid.D AdvCOP 3SG make.fall-GER FOC
‘The mortar that the old goat rocked, its kid will OVERTURN it
(22b) Í
màŋ
ñánnà í
là dómóféŋò dáanì-lá,
2SG CPL.NEG must 2SG GEN food
beg-GER
í
ñân-tá
dòokúwòo kélà
lè.
2SG must-CPL.ITR work.D
do-GER FOC
‘You should not beg for your food, you should WORK.’
(22c) Ŋ́
ŋá
í
kànú lè dóróŋ,
1SG CPL.NEG 2SG love FOC only
wó lè yè
ŋ́ fànìyà-ndí
í
yè
DEM FOC CPL.TR 1SG tell.lies-CAUS 2SG to
‘I just LOVE you, this is what made me tell you lies.’
26

27.

26. Focalization in Mandinka: verb focus (2)
Example (23) illustrates the contrast between lè inserted between a noun
phrase in oblique role and the postposition that marks its function (23a), and
lè following a postpositional phrase (23b). In (23a), lè focalizes the noun
phrase, whereas in (23b), it focalizes the verb phrase.
(23a) À táa-tà kúŋkòo lè tó.
MDK 3SG go-CPL.ITR field.D FOC to
[Where did Yaya go?] He went to THE FIELD.
(23b) À táa-tà kúŋkòo tó lè.
3SG go-CPL.ITR field.D to FOC
[How is it that Yaya is not here?] He WENT TO THE FIELD.
This use of the focus marker is much more frequent in Mandinka than in the
other Manding languages, and in Mandinka, the emphasis expressed in this
use of the focus marker is rather weak, as evidenced by the fact that
sentences with lè marking verb focus are often spontaneously given by
informants in elicitation without any apparent reason. This particularity of
Mandinka is probably due to the long-lasting contact with Atlantic languages,
in which the grammaticalization of verb focus is common.
27

28.

27. Focalization in Soninke: introductory remarks (1)
Although Manding languages and Soninke belong to relatively distant subbranches of the Western branch of the Mande family, their syntactic structures
are strikingly similar. This is probably the result of intense contact.
By contrast, Soninke has a much richer morphology than Manding languages,
both segmentally and tonally. This general characterization applies in particular
to the focalization system.
Soninke has an enclitic focus marker `yá (`ñá after a word ending with a nasal).
The notation `yá means that the underlying tonal contour of this clitic is LH.
However, since in Soninke, contour tones are not allowed at surface level, it
surfaces as yá or yà depending on the tonal context.
28

29.

28. Focalization in Soninke: introductory remarks ( 2)
Within the limits of the data I have been able to gather, the syntactic properties
of `yá are not different from those of Mandinka lè, apart from the fact that the
use of the focus marker in wh-questions is less common in Soninke than in
Mandinka.
By contrast, focalization in Soninke is involved in differential subject flagging (a
mechanism that does not exist in Mandinka), and triggers several other
morphological phenomena that have no equivalent in Mandinka.
In the remainder of the presentation, I will not repeat the description of the
distribution of the focus marker, since with the exception just mentioned, the
indications given in §3 about the distribution of Mandinka lè also apply to
Soninke `yá. I will concentrate on the morphological manifestations of
focalization other than the mere presence of the focus marker `yá.
29

30.

29. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and differential subject flagging (1)
As a rule, Mande languages have no flagging of either subjects or objects,
Soninke is an exception, with a mechanism of subject flagging conditioned by
information structure. In Soninke, an enclitic -n obligatorily attaches to
interrogative phrases or focalized noun phrases in subject function, in
transitive clauses and intransitive clauses, but never occurs with interrogative
words of focalized noun phrases in other syntactic roles, or with noun phrases
other than interrogative words of focalized noun phrases in subject role.
(24a) Múusá dà
Hàatú qírí.
SNK
Moussa CPL.TR Fatou call
‘Moussa called Fatou.’
(24b) Kó-n
dà
Hàatú qìrì? (24c) Múusá yà-n
dà
Hàatú qìrì.
who-SF CPL.TR Fatou callL
Moussa FOC-SF CPL.TR Fatou callL
‘Who called Fatou?’
‘MOUSSA called Fatou.’
(24d) Múusá dà
kó qìrì?
(24e) Múusá dà
Hàatú yà qìrì.
Moussa CPL.TR who callL
Moussa CPL.TR Fatou FOC callL
‘Who did Moussa call?’‘Moussa called FATOU.’
30

31.

30. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and differential subject flagging (2)
(25a) Múusá táaxú bòotón kànmá.
SNK
Moussa sit
bag.D on
‘Moussa sat on a bag.’
(25b) Kó-n tàaxù bòotón kànmá? (25c) Múusá yà-n tàaxù bòotón kànmá.
who-SF sitL bag.D on
Moussa FOC-SF sitL bag.D on
‘Who sat on a bag?’
‘MOUSSA sat on a bag’
(25d) Múusá táaxú màní kànmá? (25e) Múusá táaxú bòotón ñà kànmá.
Moussa sit
what on
Moussa sit
bag.D FOC on
‘On what did Moussa sit?’
‘Moussa sat on A BAG.’
Typologically, in the ergative languages that have a mechanism of differential
agent flagging, it is common that focalization triggers overt flagging of agents in
transitive clauses. Soninke shows that non-ergative languages may have a
mechanism of subject flagging in transitive and intransitive clauses involving the
same conditioning.
31

32.

31. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and the tonal inflection of verbs (1)
Soninke verbs have a tonal inflection with two forms: a form in which the verb
shows its lexical tonal contour, and a form in which all verbs, whatever their
lexical tone, show an entirely L tone pattern. Note that, in Soninke, no verb
has an entirely L contour as its lexical tonal contour.
In (26a) and (26c), the verbs qírí ‘call’ and séllà ‘sweep’ show their lexical tone
pattern (HH and HL, respectively), whereas in (26b) and (26d), the negative
predicative markers má (completive negative) and ntá (incompletive negative)
trigger the replacement of the lexical tone pattern by the L tone pattern.
(26a) Ó dà
Múusá qírí.
SNK 1PL CPL.TR Moussa call
‘We called Moussa.’
(26b) Ó má
Múusá qìrì.
1PL CPL.NEG Moussa callL
‘We didn’t call Moussa.’
(26c) Ń
ŋá ké kónpé séllà-ná.
1SG ICPL DEM room sweep-GER
‘I am sweeping this room.’
(26d) Ń ntá
ké kónpé sèllà-nà.
1SG ICPL.NEG DEM room sweep-GERL
‘I am not sweeping this room.’
32

33.

32. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and the tonal inflection of verbs (2)
The replacement of the lexical tone pattern by the all-L tone pattern is also
triggered by the presence of an interrogative phrase or of a focalized noun phrase
in subjet or object role. By contrast, with interrogative phrases or focalized noun
phrases in oblique role,the verb maintains its lexical tonal contour.
(27a) Ó dà
Múusá qírí.
SNK 1PL CPL.TR Moussa call
‘We called Moussa.’
(27b) Kó-n
dà
Múusá qìrì?
who-SF CPL.TR Moussa callL
‘Who called Moussa?’
(27c) Ó yà-n
dà
Múusá qìrì.
1PL FOC-SF CPL.TR Moussa callL
‘WE called Moussa.’
33

34.

33. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and the tonal inflection of verbs (3)
(27d) Qá dà
kó qìrì?
2PL CPL.TR who callL
‘Whom did you call?’
(27e) Ó dà
Múusá yà qìrì.
1PL CPL.TR Moussa FOC callL
‘We called MOUSSA.’
(27f) Qá dà
Múusá qírí kó dànŋá?
1PL CPL.TR Moussa call who for
‘For whom did you call Moussa?’
(27g) Ó dà
Múusá qírí Dénbà yá dànŋá.
1PL CPL.TR Moussa call Demba FOC for
‘We called Demba for MOUSSA.’
34

35.

34. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and predicative markers (1)
In Soninke, the adverbial copula wá (typically used in locational clauses) is also
used in verbal clauses as a predicative marker expressing incompletive aspect.
The copula / predicative marker wá is sensitive to the presence of an
interrogative phrase or a focalized noun phrase in the clause. Contrary to the
phenomenon of tonal replacement affecting verbs, this change occurs
irrespective of the position of the interrogative phrase or focalized noun
phrase in the clause.
In non-verbal clauses the presence of an interrogative phrase or a focalized
noun phrase triggers the replacement of wá by nà.
(28a) Múusá wá
kónpèn dí.
SNK
Moussa AdvCOP room.D in
‘Moussa is in the room.’
(28b) Kó
nà
kónpèn dí?
who AdvCOP.FOC room.D in
‘Who is in the room?’
35

36.

35. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and predicative markers (2)
(28c) Múusá yà nà
kónpèn dí.
Moussa FOC AdvCOP.FOC room.D in
‘MOUSSA is in the room.’
(28d) Múusá nà
ké kónpé yà dí.
Moussa AdvCOP.FOC DEM room FOC in
‘Moussa is in THIS ROOM.’
The replacement of wá by nà also occurs in transitive clauses with the
adverbial copula in the role of predicative marker.
(29a) À wá Dénbà kán
mùndù-nú.
SNK 3SG ICPL Demba house.D look.for-GER
‘He is looking for Demba’s house.’
(29b) À nà
Dénbà yá kán
mùndù-nù.
3SG ICPL.FOC Demba FOC house.D look.for-GERL
‘He is looking for DEMBA’s house.’
36

37.

36. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and predicative markers (3)
In intransitive verbal clauses, the presence of an interrogative phrase or a
focalized noun phrase triggers the replacement of wá by a phonologically
null predicative marker.
(30a) Qùnbàné, ó wá dàgà-ná sáxàn
dí.
SNK
tomorrow 1PL ICPL go-GER market.D in
‘Tomorrow, we will go to the market.’
(30b) Qùnbàné, ó yà-n
Ø
dàgà-nà sáxàn
dí.
tomorrow 1PL FOC-SF ICPL.FOC go-GERL market.D in
‘Tomorrow, WE will go to the market.’
The same changes in the form of the copula / predicative marker wá occur if
`yá attaches to the verb (phrase) to express verb focus, as in (30).
(31) Ó Ø
tóorè-né yà yírígí,
kànmé má
tèxè.
SNK 1PL ICPL.FOC suffer
FOC this.year rain
CPL.NEG fallL
‘We will SUFFER this year, (since) it didn’t rain.’
37

38.

37. Focalization in Soninke: focalization and the tonal inflection of third person
pronouns
In Soninke, the third person pronouns à (singular) and ì (plural) have a tonal
inflection that has no equivalent for any other nominal. Their L-toned form can
be analyzed as basic or default, but they also have a H-toned form that cannot be
predicted in phonological terms, and must consequently be analyzed as
conditioned syntactically. The H-toned form of the personal pronouns is in
particular the form selected in combination with the enclitic focus marker `yá.
(32a) À dà
ké létárá sáhà dáàrú.
SNK 3SG CPL.TR DEM letter write yesterday.
‘He wrote this letter yesterday.’
(32b) Á
yà-n
dà
ké létárá sàhà.
3SGH FOC-SF CPL.TR DEM letter writeL
‘HE wrote this letter.’
38

39.

38. Conclusion
In this presentation, after describing the syntactic properties of the Mandinka
focus marker, I have described the various phenomena conditioned by the
presence of the focus marker in Soninke.
The interest of this comparison is to show that two languages may have
focalization devices quite similar syntactically, with, however, a sharp contrast
in terms of morphological complexity.
In Mandinka, the insertion of the enclitic focus marker in a construction has
no incidence on the remainder of the construction, whereas in Soninke, the
insertion of the focus marker interferes with several mechanisms that have no
necessary relationship with focalization, which contributes to enhancing the
distinction between plain assertive clauses and clauses involving focalization:
• differential subject flagging,
• the tonal inflection of verbs,
• the form of the adverbial copula (also used as a predicative marker in verbal
clauses),
• the tonal inflection of personal pronouns.
39

40.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
40

English Русский Rules