First 1. Introduction in the Preceding Chapter, We

Chapter 10

FOCUS: First

1. Introduction In the preceding chapter, we examined two languages from the perspective of FOCUS and its alliance with the Patient function and the morphosyntax of sentence-initial position. The unifying link was a reliance on Behagel’s First Law. One of the conclusions to that discussion was that word order typologies which rely on syntactic (meaningless) tokens do not reveal the relations among languages that our descriptions suggest to be present. Witness the actual connections between the FOCUS initial languages Warao & Urarina, Bella Coola & Yogad, and Haida where their word orders (OVS/OSV, VSO, and no basic order, respectively) show no similarity. A semantic typology (Chapter 13) should be more illuminating. This chapter exists only because some languages have ended by invoking word order in the expression of FOCUS, and they are not random in that usage. Since not all languages turn to word order in signalling FOCUS, not all languages will find a place in this discussion. In that sense, this is not a true typology of FOCUS. But because FOCUS has impinged to shape the syntactic contour of clauses in at least some languages, the phenomenon touches upon the matter of word order typology more generally. Before proceeding to further discussion of FOCUS in relation to biases in its morphosyntactic expression, we will look a bit more at the notion of typing languages with syntactic word order. Recognizing failures in attempts to type languages using orders of the three tokens S, O, and V, Dryer (1997) proposes an alternative based on the couplets OV, VO, SV, and VS. Dryer relies on frequency to identify a basic order and he requires that an order appear at least twice as frequently as its competitors in order to be basic (Dryer 1997.74). Languages seem in this way always to select a basic order from among the couplets OV, VO, SV, and VS, while it is not uncommon for a language to fail to reveal one of the triads (SOV, SVO, etc.) as basic, especially when the 2X criterion is used. This system produces four types: VS&VO, SV&VO, 390 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

SV&OV, and VS&OV. Dryer adduces eight arguments in support of it. First, languages which are indeterminately VSO or VOS (Fijian) now have a typological home in VS&VO. Second, with respect to language types providing “the basis for predicting other typological characteristics” (Dryer 1997.75), collapsing VOS and VSO into the VS&VO type is an advantage since “there are no known differences between VSO and VOS languages.”1 Third, languages that are VSO or VOS “can easily change from one order to the other” (Dryer 1997.76). Fourth, tactically, the observed frequency with which languages elide A and O makes typing them using all three terms of the S, O, and V triumvirate difficult to execute. Using VS&VO and so forth will yield a type while using SVO and so forth will not (again using the 2X frequency criterion) (Dryer 1997.79). Fifth, some languages exploit the morphosyntax of word order so effectively that no single one stands out when using the 2X frequency criterion. Such languages will continue to exemplify one of the four types based on the doublet orders. Sixth, some languages will fail to reveal a choice between VO or OV or between SV or VS, but never both. “It is not clear, for most of the languages cited here, that they can be classified by the traditional typology. The proposed typology allows it to be clear exactly where one can assign a basic order” (Dryer 1997.86). Seventh, the doublet typology recognizes that “the order of the subject and verb is much less important than the order of the object and verb. By distinguishing these two parameters, as the typology proposed here, we explicitly separate out the more important parameter from the less important one” (Dryer 1997.66).2 VO/OV is the “more important parameter” because the VO languages which combine VSO and SVO appear more similar to each other than either does to the OV type, which combines SOV and OSV.3 Eighth, the

1 Except that they are not the same.

2 This is one expression of the pattern of Verb-Object Bonding (Tomlin 1986.73-101).

3 The similarities within this syntactic type can be expressed by other syntactic properties. For example (Dryer 1997.86), SVO languages are like verb-initial languages in being predominately prepositional ...[and] prenominal relative clauses are ... rare in both SVO languages (1%) and verb-initial languages (0%). For various other characteristics too, SVO languages pattern much like verb-initial languages. This demonstrates the validity of the claim that there is a fundamental distinction between VO and OV languages, a distinction which is isolated in the typology proposed here. The claim of similarity between VSO and SVO to the exclusion of OSV/OVS contradicts the fact that VSO, OSV, and OVS languages are that way because they have melded FOCUS with either EVENT/Verb or PATIENT and then associated the result with sentence-initial position. FOCUS: First 391 typology which Dryer proposes easily incorporates intransitive expressions, whereas the alternative S, O, and V typology “is based entirely on the word order of transitive clauses and ignores intransitive clauses” (Dryer 1997.87). Although both Tomlin (1986), as the representative of the traditional six- way typology, and Dryer yearn for some semantic component to their types, it remains by and large elusive.4 Their types are formal ones created with

4 Although the title of Greenberg’s seminal 1963 paper refers to “the Order of Meaningful Elements”, it describes a goal that is as yet unrealized. Tomlin (1986.138-139) There seem to be two paths that typological research must take. In its initial stages, both for the sub-discipline as a whole and for specific studies, attention must be devoted to the systematic observation of structural regularities and variation exhibited cross-linguistically ... But in its second stage typological research turns the order of inquiry around. It begins with the functional principles and inquires how they are manifested structurally in the languages of the world ... By turning the order of inquiry around a new sort of opportunity arises. no structural presuppositions are made, and the resulting typological observations can be more fine grained ... The vocabulary of this new typology continues, however, to be one of how functional “information is manifested cross-linguistically” and not one in terms of how the functional/semantic contents are interrelated independently of its morphosyntax. It continues to be a syntactic typology. It is more motivated, but it is also uncertain that the same syntactic types would emerge. Dryer (1997.82), while proposing a purely syntactic typology based on frequency, nevertheless asks: Do we not also want to say something about what conditions the choice of VS and VO as opposed to the less frequent orders SV and OV [in Hanis Coos and in Papago]? The answer of course is yes ... And clearly what determines the choice among the different orders is more important than the relative frequencies of the different orders. He then points to his answer in this specific case: “Definite nominals generally follow the verb, while indefinite nominals generally precede.” If “what determines the choice” is more important, why is the typology not in terms of that, whatever it may be. Both Tomlin and Dryer end by trying to explain or justify their types. Tomlin 1986 is devoted to explaining the relative frequencies of the types with reference to three functional principles: the Theme First Principle, Verb-Object Bonding, and the Animated First Principle. Except that they are not all functional. Verb-Object Bonding is the name given to a collection of syntactic observations: (i) noun incorporation on the verb prefers objects (Tomlin 1986.79), (ii) sentence qualifies “occur on the side of the verb opposite the object” (Tomlin 1986.81), (iii) “sentence adverbials are not permitted to inervene between the verb and object” (Tomlin 1986.84), (iv) “the distribution of modal elements is such that in general the object is not separated from the verb” (Tomlin 1986.87), and so forth. Verb-Object Bonding is not a “functional principle” (Tomlin 1986.73). As depicted by Tomlin, it is not a principle that is prior to grammar; it follows from observed grammar. In no way can it “shape[...] the grammars of natural languages.” Dryer 1997 only sporadically, as noted above, refers his types to another explanation, and it is not clear that all SV and OV languages would have the same explanation. 392 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS reference to formal criteria. In bypassing semantics and semantic regularities, any such typology is ultimately arbitrary.5 Either way constructs a Procrustean Bed which many languages find uncomfortable. Haida, for example, has no use for ordering in terms of S’s, O’s, and V’s whether arrayed as triplets or doublets. They are simply irrelevant for Haida as they are for Toba Batak (Chapter 28, section 6), which adapts the device of word order to the expression of PROPOSITIONAL ROLES leaving EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES to appear with either one of the PROPOSITIONAL ROLES. The regularity of order is then not seen in the occurrence of EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES (i.e., S’s, O’s and V’s).6 Toba Batak has used order in a way not recognized by either the six-way word order typology (Greenberg 1963, Tomlin 1986, etc.) or the word order couplets of Dryer (1997, 2013). Palauan, while it seems to be VOS, has its a ... a morphosyntax, a strong complement to the VOS grammar. The Palauan a ... a grammar exists without reference to S’s, O’s, and V’s, and

5 Dryer (1997.75) suggests that there is a way in which the arbitrariness can be diminished and the type justified: “A typological distinction is more significant if it provides the basis for predicting other typological characteristics.” However, Haspelmath’s (2007.126) conclusion appears more accurate (By “categories,” Haspelmath intends “formal categories such as affix, clitic, and compound” (124)) : The most important consequence of the non-existence of pre-established categories for language typology is that crosslinguistic comparison cannot be category-based, but must be substance-based, because substance (unlike catetories) is universal. Hear, hear.

6 Payne (1987) adds Papago to this group and cites others (801-802, 794-794): ... order may be primarily correlated with the pragmatic status of information encoded. Papago order is almost completely accounted for by ... [these] principles ... (a) Non-identifiable (indefinite) information precedes the verb when the hearer is instructed to open a new active discourse file for it, making it available for further deployment. (b) Pragmatically marked information (including all information question words) precedes the verb. (c) Information follows the verb when the hearer is not instructed to open a new active discourse file for it. This category includes items for which active cognitive files are already available (e.g. identifiable, definite, and unique items) — as well as entities for which files are not to be established, including non-referential mentions. The manner in which Papago order sidesteps reference to S’s, O’s, and V’s is different from Toba Batak, but the result is the same. Papago, like Toba Batak, does not participate in an order typology based on S, O, and V. FOCUS: First 393 it resists attempts to reduce it to such. Like Palauan, Yogad appears to be a typical VSO language, yet it pairs its VSO grammar with an alternative X ay Y syntax in the expression of TOPIC (Chapter 17). Like the Palauan a ... a, Yogad X ay Y does does not decompose into S’s, O’s, and V’s. Wolof complements its SVO morphosyntax with the addition of non-SVO grammar in giving expression to degrees of FOCUS. Wolof has a collection of four morphosyntactic expressions.

2. Syntagmatic FOCUS, Bipartite FOCUS, Paradigmatic FOCUS & Singularity of FOCUS Although the primary purpose of this chapter is the discussion of word order as an expression of FOCUS, along the way, we will encounter languages which exemplify some combination of a four-way distinction in the semantic organization of FOCUS ... of a particular sort. These dimensions to the organization of FOCUS will provide one of the primary ways of creating a typology of FOCUS. The differences among the four can be preliminarily sketched as follows. If FOCUS is, roughly, the semantic enhancement of some component of an utterance, that enhancement must occur against a background. “Enhance- ment” (or whatever other word is chosen) is a relationship.7 It implies that the enhanced has “more” of something than the other content that is not enhanced, and the nature of the “other” will produce, ultimately, at least four variations of FOCUS. First, the “other” can be the other component functions of the PROPOSITION (e.g., the Agent is focused, but not the Patient nor the EVENT) within the reach of the semantics of ROLE and VOICE. Second, the enhancement may occur against a background of competitors to manifest a single propositional function (e.g., the one individual that is the Agent, and not an alternative one). The first enhancement has a syntagmatic cast to it, and the second, a paradigmatic one. In Syntagmatic FOCUS, those components of the PROPOSITION which lack FOCUS continue to be present and expressed.8 Somali (section 6 below) provides us an example of Syntagmatic FOCUS (Saeed 1984.125):

(1) (a) Yaa Ø yeelay? [who it did] ‘Who did it?’

7 The substantive character of “enhancement” will occupy us more centrally in Chapter 13.

8 This is the “both-and” that makes it syntagmatic. 394 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(b) Axmed baa Ø yeelay [Ahmed FOCUS it did] ‘Ahmed did it’

“If the verb does not appear, then neither can baa ...” (Saeed 1984.125). The Syntagmatic FOCUS is primus inter pares. There is further organization within Syntagmatic FOCUS. (i) There can exist a condition in which all components are treated equally with respect to FOCUS. Either all have it to an equal degree or none do,9 probably the former. A VSO utterance with neutral intonation in Mordern Greek (section 4 below) selects no particular component for FOCUS. (ii) Some languages have a structure such as this, but then will also use the same form to signal that some particular component in fact does bear FOCUS. This produces the FOCUS in situ phenomenon (Chapter 12). Greek is not like this, in that it has a separate morphosyntax when some one component carries FOCUS. (iii) It is also possible for the Syntactic FOCUS to be expressed against a smaller range of co-existing candidates. The “as well as” FOCUS in Hungarian (Chapter 7, section 2.3) is like this, and Finnish (Chapter 11) has a Culminative FOCUS, that is the last in a series. In the frame of Syntagmatic FOCUS, FOCUS may be actualized as all, some, or one from among those in the syntagm. Northern Sotho (Chapter 12, section 3.1) provides an example of Paradigmatic FOCUS. The language contains an element ke that marks ASSERTION (Lowrens 1991.71):

(2) Phahlane ke [Phahlane ASSERT teacher] ‘Phahlane is a teacher’ which is also involved in Paradigmatic FOCUS (Zerbian 2006b.397 & 2007b.326):

(3) (a) Ké mang (yo) a nyaka-ng [ASSERT who RPRN.CL1 CL1 look.for-REL

9 On the absence of FOCUS, see the discussion of Wolof (Chapter 31, section 1.1). FOCUS: First 395

nga:ka? CL9.doctor] ‘Who is looking for a doctor?’

(b) Ké a nyaka-ng ngaka [ASSERT SC1-old.man SC1 look.for-REL CL9.doctor] ‘The old man is looking for a doctor’

Unlike the Somali in (1c), the Northern Sotho in (3c) can respond to the question of (3a) without mention of the remaining functions of the question. Mokgalabje ‘the old man’ stands in an exclusionary relation with other possible answers (e.g., Ke moruti ‘the teacher’) and not in a combinatory relation with the other components of its PROPOSITION. In the paradigmatic organization of FOCUS, possible FOCUSES (e.g. the EVENT, another PARTICIPANT, Place, etc.) are absent from the PROPOSITION.10 The third dimension of FOCUS has properties of both the Syntagmatic and the Paradigmatic FOCUSES, and probably stands between them. This utterance from Modern Greek provides an example (Georgiafentis 2005.165):11

(4) O Janis tin efaje tin turta [the-nom John it ate-3s the-acc cake] ‘What John did was eat the cake’

The English gloss of (4) is misleading. It suggests the morphosyntax of a free relative clause, What John did, but the Modern Greek which the free relative clause translates is completely other. The Verb efaje is the FOCUS of the utterance, and will have a distinguishing focal stress. The material which precedes is minus any focal stress and simply names two of the PARTICIPANTS of the PROPOSITION: O Janis ‘John’ and tin ‘it’. The morphology of o Janis identifies it as Agent, and the shape of the pronoun identifies it as Patient.

10 This is the “either-or” that makes it paradigmatic. Commonly, after the PARTICULAR that bears this FOCUS is named, the unfocused alternative may appear in some expression of ‘not Y’.

11 For discussion of Modern Greek, see section 3.1.1 below and especially Chapter 12, section 3.2. 396 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Preverbal, sentence-initial position without focal stress is one of the grammatical marks of what is termed TOPIC in Modern Greek. (As for) John, it ... (he) ate would be a more literal gloss for (4).12 There is in (4) no morpology that might be taken as an expression of ASSERTION, although ASSERTION must be present, or (4) would not be an declarative utterance.13 It might be thought that the EVENT/Verb in (4) — because it is the EVENT — is signalling ASSERTION. But ... (5) is parallel to (4) in its Bipartite FOCUS, yet the FOCUS (and ASSERTION?) is o Janis ‘John’ and not the EVENT/Verb (Keller & Alexopoulou 2001.306):

(5) Tin apelis-e o Janis ti Maria [her fired-3s the-nom John the-acc Mary] ‘John fired Mary’

By and large, (4) and (5) seem to consist of two parts, a TOPIC and a FOCUS.14 Hence, the label “bipartite” for this FOCUS. Syntagmatic FOCUS operates within the semantics of the PROPOSITION, meaning the EVENT, its PARTICIPANTS, ROLE, and VOICE. The element that is focused is contained in the PROPOSITION along with the non-focused ones. Bipartite FOCUS works without the semantics of EVENT, ROLE, and VOICE. The elements that are candidates for FOCUS are arrayed with the non-focused ones assembled together (initially in Modern Greek) and marked off in some manner15 from the focussed.16 In Paradigmatic FOCUS, the elements against

12 Which may, however, itself be multiple.

13 The following from Somali (section 6 below) illustrates the contrast when there is an overt morphological mark for ASSERTION: (i) Baabuur-kii baa i dhaafay [truck-the INDPART me passed] ‘The truck passed me’ (ii) Baabuur-kii i dhaafay [truck-the me passed] ‘The truck that passed me’

14 The tin turta ‘the cake’ that completes (4) is an unnecessary part that can be ignored. The same is true of ti Maria in (5). Their function is discussed in Chapter 12, section 3.2.

15 In Modern Greek, it is the focal stress.

16 Traditionally, the initial material has been identified with TOPIC, and it has been asserted that languages always order TOPIC before FOCUS (or “comment”). It seems intuitively FOCUS: First 397 which the focused term contrasts are not mentioned at all. If present, they exist in the context in which paradigmatic FOCUS is used. This scheme of FOCUS is differentiated not by the “scope” of FOCUS. In all three types, Tom, for example, could be syntagmatically, bipartitely, or paradigmatically focussed. It is the frame within which the FOCUS is accomplished that differentiates the types. As we move from Syntagmatic FOCUS through Bipartite FOCUS to Paradigmatic FOCUS, the background against which the FOCUS occurs seems to be successively diminished in each stage. This diminution can continue until there is no background frame at all. There is only pure, unalloyed FOCUS, a Singularity of FOCUS.17 Somali (section 6) provides an example of this (Saeed 1987.211):

(6) (a) Waa rún-táa [INDPART truth-FEM.your] [Lit. ASSERTION/FOCUS your truth’ or ‘Your truth is’] ‘You are right’

(b) Wàa kúwan appropriate that the background against which FOCUS is set forth should be known at the time the FOCUS is announced. When speaking of bipartite FOCUS, it may be true that TOPIC precedes FOCUS, but more broadly, this cannot be correct. Bella Coola is clearly FOCUS initial, followed by TOPIC (Cf. Chapters 2 & 14). But the Bella Coola FOCUS and TOPIC are implemented within a semantic frame of the PROPOSITION, created of EVENT, PARTICIPANT, ROLE, and VOICE, unlike the bipartite FOCUS, which has none of that. At the same time, it also seems clear that the TOPIC of bipartite FOCUS is not “topic” in precisely the same way that TOPIC is otherwise. Cf. Chapters 14 - 23.

17 Lambrecht’s (1994. 213) definition of FOCUS:

FOCUS: The semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition. requires the copresence of “presupposition,” but then he adds: ... [The definition] implies (?) that if a sentence evokes no presupposition, focus and assertion coincide.

The coincidence of FOCUS and ASSERTION is what is happening with Singularity of FOCUS in Somali. Such circumstances would seem to be troublesome for a definition dependent on presupposition, which would become:

FOCUS: The semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition ... except when FOCUS isn’t defined that way.

As far as I can tell, in this book, “presupposition” has no place in the description of FOCUS. 398 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[INDPART these.ones] ‘Here they are’

The Indicator Particle waa is one of a set of Somali morphemes that signals ASSERTION and FOCUS simultaneously. When propositional organization is present, the Indicator Particle waa will exhibit subject agreement, and participate in a Syntagmatic FOCUS with ASSERTION/FOCUS on the EVENT (Saeed 1987.207):

(7) W-uu i Ø siiyey [INDPART-he me it gave] ‘He gave it to me’

When there is no content in the PROPOSITION other than the FOCUSSED term, agreement is absent, and the ASSERTION/FOCUS of waa is compacted with what is there. (Cf. section 6.4 below for discussion) Both the Bipartite FOCUS of TOPIC + FOCUS and Paradigmatic FOCUS may seem to be composed of two formal parts. But the Bipartite FOCUS may have additional pieces that are neither TOPIC nor FOCUS. Cf. Modern Greek in Chapter 12, section 3.2. The common English gloss of a Paradigmatic FOCUS takes the form of a pseudocleft, e.g., sentence (4) above, What John ate was the cake or The cake was what John ate, with the copular grammar giving Paradigmatic FOCUS the appearance of consisting of two pieces ... grammatically and semantically. The impression is mistaken. Finnish (Chapter 11, section 2) employs a Paradigmatic FOCUS that is clearly not bipartite and which has no grammatical hint of the Finnish equivalent of a free relative clause. Finnish places the Paradigmatic FOCUS in sentence-initial position with a focal stress and then follows it with what appears to be a TOPIC, followed in turn by the remainder of the propositional content. The semantic distinctions among the varieties of FOCUS which we have proposed generates multiple empirical questions. Must a language have one or the other sort? What is the relation among them? Etc.18

18 Some additional questions that come immediately to mind are: “Are the distinctions valid ones?” “Is there a language that does have all types?”, “Why can a language not have only a Paradigmatic (or Bipartite) configuration of FOCUS?”, “Why is Syntagmatic FOCUS universal?” etc. Lambrecht (1994.221-238), using a more “abstract” (210) idea of FOCUS, proposes three “Types of focus structure”: predicate-focus structure, argument-focus structure, and sentence-focus structure. The typological dimension proposed in this section and illustrated below in this chapter and the following two is clearly not the same as Lambrecht’s. FOCUS: First 399

In the remainder of this chapter and the next, we will develop the contrasts between Syntagmatic, Bipartite, Paradigmatic FOCUS, and Singularity of FOCUS as we encounter them.19 In sections 3 - 8, we will continue our consideration of the use of word order to express FOCUS reviewing FOCUS in FOCUS initial languages. Some FOCUS initial languages will be unmarked/ basic/neutral verb-initial. Some FOCUS initial languages will be unmarked/ basic/neutral verb-final, and some will be unmarked/basic/neutral subject- initial. In section 4, we will examine initial FOCUS in a VSO language (Modern Greek). In section 5, we will look at initial FOCUS in VOS languages (Tzotzil and Mayan). In sections 6 & 7, we introduce initial FOCUS in two SOV languages (Somali and Argentine Sign Language), and in section 8, we describe initial FOCUS in an SVO language.

3. FOCUS Initial languages 20 When a language uses sentence-initial position in the expression of FOCUS, certain content may associate preferentially with that FOCUS and to appear “unmarked” in sentence-initial position. Such appeared to be the case with the O-initial languages. We will examine several V-initial languages, and our conclusion will be similar to the one concerning languages with O-initial order. Where a language appears to be V-initial, in the neutral case, it will have associated FOCUS preferentially with the semantics of the EVENT/Verb and then exploited initial position for its expression. Where the language appears to be O-initial, the preference of sentence-initial FOCUS is transferred to the O. Our claim will be a variant of Greenberg’s (1963.65) about VSO languages:21

19 At the same time I will try to justify the claims of this paragraph, which for the moment are just that, claims.

20 In this typology of FOCUS and word order, the type of FOCUS intended is Syntagmatic. It happens that a language may have two (or more) types and then use order in different ways. For example, Modern Greek will use initial position to express its Syntagmatic FOCUS, but it will then use final position to express its Bipartite FOCUS. Finnish (Chapter 11) seems to use final position for Syntagmatic FOCUS and to structure a Paradigmatic FOCUS using initial position.

21 Dryer (1997.77) cites 7 VSO languages “With Opposite Property” with respect to “Initial Q.” There are 5 VSO languages and 2 VOS languages “With Opposite Property” with respect to “Initial wh.” “Initial Q” refers to “Sentence initial question particle in yes/no questions.” Our primary caution is then with “Initial wh”: “wh-expression obligatorily in sentence-initial position.” Assuming that responses in these languages match the initial wh-syntax, this is what we expect. FOCUS is sentence-initial, but the alternative case, in which “wh-expression [is] not obligatorily in sentence-initial position (typically in situ),” raises our interest. Our claim here is not that all FOCUS in unmarked verb-initial languages is sentence-initial, but 400 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Universal 12. If a language has dominate order VSO in declarative sentences, it always puts interrogative words or phrases first in interrogative word questions ...

The assertion here, however, is the more extreme one that all VSO, all VOS, all OVS, and all OSV languages are FOCUS initial. FOCUS initial languages may also exist without FOCUS being associated with other semantics. Such was the case with Haida, and such will be the case for some, but not all, SVO and for some SOV languages languages as well. In a subject-initial language which also uses the sentence-initial position for FOCUS, the subject-initial clause (SVO or SOV) will itself always express a FOCUS that never falls on the S. The Subject, when FOCUSSED, will require other expression than being placed sentence-initially. Cf. Wolof (Chapter 5), Kinyarwanda (Chapter 3), and Argentine Sign Language (Section 7, this chapter). Finally in this introduction, we should note (anticipatorily) that FOCUS initial languages and FOCUS final languages are not mirror images of each other. While languages that are VSO will turn out to be consistently FOCUS initial, languages that are Verb final may, or may not, also be FOCUS final. Independently of everything else, whatever meaning the raw initial or final positions may impart, favor, or foster, the two positions will differ in those meanings or in the degree to which they impart it.

4. FOCUS Initial Languages that Are VSO: Modern Greek 22 that at least some expression of FOCUS in response to wh-questions will be. Such languages, e.g. Modern Greek below, may have a second expression of FOCUS that employs in situ morphosyntax. Modern Greek could then plausibly be one of the 5 VSO languages cited by Dryer, and Palauan could then be one of the 2 VOS languages. The issue is not that FOCUS in these languages is not sentence-initial, but that there exists at least a second implementation of FOCUS, and its grammar — because it is a second, distinctly constituted FOCUS — cannot exploit also sentence-initial position.

22 In this section, when I refer to “the literature,” I intend the following sources: Alexiadou 1996 & 1999b, Alexiadou & Anagnastopolou 2000, Georgiafentis 2001, Georgiafentis 2005, Georgiafentis & Sfakianaki 2002 & 2004, Georgiafentis & Lascaratou 2007, Haidou 2000, Keller & Alexopoulou 2001, Holt, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997, Horrocks 1983, Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987, Lascaratou 1998, Le Gac & Yoo 2002, Mennen & Den Os 1994, Philippaki-Warburton 1985 & 1994, Roussou & Tsimpli 1994 & 2006, Tsimpli 1990, 1995 & 1998, and Tzanidaki 1998. With the exception of Joseph & Philappaki-Warburton 1987, all these studies reference some avatar of Generative Grammar, GPSG or the like in trying to explain Modern Greek syntax. They, nevertheless, often contain useful examples and comments about them. I have recently been made (re)aware of the subgenre of passive-aggressive grammars. Holt, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton’s 1997 grammar of Modern Greek is by and large useless to a nonspeaker of MG. All the examples are transcribed using the Greek alphabet. FOCUS: First 401

In this section, we will review briefly a number of languages that have been reported to have an unmarked, neutral or basic word order that is VSO. In the past 20 years or so, verb-initial languages have attracted much attention: The Pragmatics of Word Order: Typological dimensions of verb initial languages (Payne 1990), The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages (Carnie & Guilfoyle 2000), Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial languages (Carnie, Harlie & Dooley 2005). And portions of others: Basic Word Order: Functional principles (Tomlin 1986), Word Order Rules (Siewierska 1988), and Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility (Payne 1992). While most of the work is informed by some version of formal theory, in which shape exists on its own,23 some nevertheless approach the conclusions put forth here:

But that is not the issue. Linguists should certainly be able to make out the Greek alphabet. The problem is that the authors fail to include a line of grammatical glosses in their examples, and they do not segment the Greek. This means that if one wants to learn from an example, it is necessary to refer to a glossary (should there have been one) or to go through the grammar hunting for other examples that have shared lexicon. Unless one is obsessed, that will not happen. Similarly, Elsaid Bardawi, Michael G. Carter & Adrian Gully’s 2004 Modern Written Arabic: A comprehensive grammar is 812 pages of intellectual effort to no purpose. Like Holt, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton’s MG grammar, there is no line of grammatical glosses to any of the Arabic examples, and to make things impossible, the Arabic utterances are given in the Arabic writing system. There must be at least 4 people in the world with both the desire and the training to use that book. The Greek grammar was published in the old Croom Helm descriptive grammar series, and the Arabic one is published in the successor Routledge series. One suspects that it could be the publisher, but Rudolf P. G. de Rijk’s 1,370 page Standard Basque: A progressive grammar, published in 2008, is of the same sort. Even though the transcription uses latin characters, it is just as useless as the others, but now the publisher is The MIT Press. Newman’s (2000) 760 page grammar, The Hausa Language (Yale University Press), is of this sort, and Jagger’s (2001) Hausa (John Benjamins), has grammatical glosses accompanying perhaps 5% of the examples. To add to the difficulty of Newman’s The Hausa Language, the 80 chapters are presented according to the alphabetical order of their titles so that, for example, Focus is Chapter 29 after Chapter 28, Expressions of Contempt, and before Chapter 30, Frequentives. Newman (2000.4) explains: The grammar is designed as a reference work. The eighty topics covered are each treated in separate units and presented in alphabetical order. The expectation is that the grammar will be consulted like an encyclopedia or a dictionary rather than being read from the beginning to end like a novel ... The hope is that once the reader becomes accustomed to the approach adopted here, he or she will find this to be a user-friendly manner of presentation ....

23 In this way of thinking about things (Carnie, Harlie & Dooley 2005.2): One important topic ... [is] the role of methodology and data sets in determining how V-initial order is derived. “Derivation” and “movement” are central in this mode (Davis 2005.31-32): As work on the syntax of predicate-initial languages has progressed, it has 402 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

We aim to show how the unmarked (or default) verb-initial, or — more generally — predicate-initial feature of Wanyi finite clauses is actually an instance of the obligatory focus-initial property of these clauses in an informationally ‘neutral’ clause (Laughren, Pensalfini & Mylne 2005.367)24 In languages commonly identified as VI [Verb Initial], predicates occur initially in temporally sequenced clauses. Pragmatically marked information is also initial. In etic terms there are different degrees of pragmatic markedness. In more rigid VI languages only the most marked situations (e.g. focus of contrast) will trigger preverbal position, while information question words, answers to information questions, and other less highly marked information may follow the verb. (Payne 1995.479)25

It was pointed out in the previous chapter (footnote 76) that the implementation of “neutral”, “unmarked” or “basic” was various. Different researchers often appealed to different indicators. While declining to accept the attribution of neutral, purely syntactic order as a useful typological device, we will assume that the perception of “neutral” is nevertheless real, but that neutral/basic VSO order is itself something that requires explanation. In all cases, they will also be FOCUS initial, and in all cases they have matched the semantics of FOCUS with the semantics of EVENT.

become clear that even though they constitute a small minority of the world’s languages, their grammars exhibit considerable internal diversity. For example, whereas a V(head)-raising analysis has become fairly standard for VSO languages such as Irish ..., a VP(predicate)-raising analysis has met with greater success in accounting for VOS systems such as Zapatec ... and Niuean .... These analyses are based on underlying SVO order, with subsequent movement of the verb or one of its projections ..., but it has also been argued that some V-initial systems have base-generated VOS order ... with VSO order derived by movement of the subject.

24 That sounds promising, but then the authors conclude (392): In attempting to account for the data presented, we have argued that both verbal and nominal predicates are XPs, which can occupy specifier (and complement) positions, but which cannot be phrasal heads. We argue that the specifier of CP is where focus is assigned to an XP through its relationship with a feature [+focus] in the head of CP. The head of CP may also be the locus of the features [+wh] or [+negative]. These three features, [+wh], [+negative] and [+focus], contrast in C; the presence of one precludes the presence of the other. One of the features must be present in C, with [+focus] being the default feature.

25 Since, for better or worse, we have assumed that the morphosyntax of answers to wh- questions is also the morphosyntax of FOCUS, the proposal made in this section with respect to verb-initial languages must differ a bit from Payne’s. Namely, if a language is correctly identified as verb-initial, then at least one expression of FOCUS will employ initial position as well (and it will answer a wh-question). This, of course, does not preclude other implementations of FOCUS, semantically and morphosyntactically. FOCUS: First 403

We will accept a researcher’s declaration of a neutral order at face value unless another researcher has challenged the conclusion. Cf., for example, the disagreement about Apuriña in the preceding chapter and Modern Greek in this section.

Modern Greek is spoken natively by some 12,000,000 to 13,000,000 people. The vast majority of these — some 9,000,000 — are found in the country of Greece itself, where 95% of the population speaks Greek. Some 5,000,000 Greek speakers are to be found in Cyprus (where Greek is one of two official languages) with the remainder scattered in small enclaves in Southern Italy, the Ukraine, and Egypt, and in the numerically more significant communities in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States that make up most of the “Hellenic diaspora”. (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987.1)

Modern Greek may seem a strange language with which to initiate a section on verb-initial languages because there is no agreement on what its basic word order in fact is, or whether it has one. Philippaki-Warburton (1985.138 et passim) was one of the first to argue “that V-S-O is the basic pattern” in Modern Greek. Most of those now working on Modern Greek appear to share her opinion. Tsimpli (1995.177) concurs: “... the basic order in MG is VSO.” Haidou (2000.165) confirms the earlier judgments: “VSO is the unmarked focus information string. VSO strings are the ones that can be uttered out of the blue and the whole sentence is the new information.” Thus:26

(1) Vrike o Janis dhulya (Philippaki-Warburton [found-3s the-nom John work] 1985.124) ‘John found work’

(2) Estile o Janis to dhema (Tsimpli 1995.177) [sent-3s the-nom John the-acc parcel] ‘Yanis sent the parcel’ Similarly, intransitives are VS:

26 There is variation in the transliteration of the Modern Greek examples. Sometimes Tsimpli will employ i (1998.216) and sometimes dh- (1995.199) for see. Haidou (2000.175) writes diavasi ‘read’ where Alexiadou (1999b.58) writes dhjavasa. Alexiadou (1999.59) writes aghorase ‘bought’. Tsimpli (1995.193) writes agorase, and she (1998.207) also writes . I have arbitrarily written the fricatives with h and chosen j over i. In the choice between Yanis and Janis ‘John’, I have generalized the j, replacing y here and elsewhere. In the matter of grammatical glosses, I have regularized them to Tsimpli’s notation. I have also occasionally regularized the transliteration of lexical items, i.e. turta ‘cake’ is always that, and not tourta. Efage ‘ate’ and not efaje, etc. 404 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(3) Eklapse o Janis (Roussou & Tsimpli 2006.318) [cried-3s the-nom John] ‘John cried’

These patterns are the ones used to respond to the equivalent of ‘What happened?’ (Philippaki-Warburton 1985.123, Alexiadou 1996.41 and 1999b.54):27

(4) (a) Ti ejine? [what happened-3s] ‘What happened?’

(b) Panreftike o Petros tin Ilektra [married-3s the-nom Peter the-acc Ilektra] ‘Peter married Ilektra’

Sentence (4c) is inappropriate as a response to (4a) because “SVO orders ... are unacceptable as thetic statements” (Alexiadou 1996.41).28 The VSO order of (4b) is the appropriate answer to (4a): ... V-S-O is not thematic, and as such it is very appropriate as an answer to questions requiring only new information, such as ... Ti ejine ‘What happened’?

27 While the SVO utterance of (4c) fails in response to (4a), there is this interesting wrinkle to the pattern (Keller & Alexopoulou 2001.309): (i) Kana neo? [any new] ‘Any news?’

(ii) O Janis pulis-e TO AFTOKINITO. [the-nom John sold-3s the-acc car] ‘John sold the car’ While SVO (4c) fails, SVO (ii) succeeds. The difference is focal stress on to aftokinito ‘the car’. Sentence (ii) has the form of TOPIC FOCUS, a strategy which we will examine further in Chapter 12, section 3.2, in the discussion of in situ FOCUS in Modern Greek.

28 Alexiadou (1999b.54) and Alexiadou & Anagostopolou (2000.176) repeat this assertion; “SVO orders ... are unacceptable in these contexts....” SVO utterances are acceptable in other contexts. See (5), (6a) and the discussion below. FOCUS: First 405

(Philappaki-Warburton 1985.122)

...VSO orders in MGr are best understood as answers to the question ‘what happened’. (Alexiadou 1996.41)

The most natural answer to the question ‘What happened?’, i.e. when all information is new, is the VSO order, which is morphologically, intonationally and pragmatically least marked .... (Lascaratou 1998.156)

... VSO may also converge with a neutral intonation ... [and be] a natural answer to a wide-focus question of the ‘What happened?’ type (Roussou & Tsimpli 2006.318)

“Neutral intonation” seems to be “the generally falling intonation of statements” that Joseph & Philappaki-Warburton (1987.4) describe. In Figure 1, (a) is the statement intonation, which contrasts with (b), the yes-no question intonation, which “is a rising one, with a slight fall at the end of the utterance ....” Tsimpli (1998.204) observes further that there is a “‘default’ sentential

(a) O tákis píje s to nosokomío [the-nom Takis went-3s to the-acc hospital] ‘Takis went to the hjospital’

(b) O tákis píje s to nosokomío? [the-nom Takis went-3s to the-acc hospital] ‘Did Takis go to the hospital?’

Figure 1: Modern Greek Statement Intonation and Yes-No Question Intonation. stress which falls on the sentence-final constituent in languages like Greek.” It’s presence goes unmarked in the examples cited in the literature on Greek syntax. Nevertheless, there are those who are not convinced that Modern Greek is VSO.29 Alexiadou (1996.43) seems less certain: “MGr has an SVO order in

29 Still others follow another tact. Tzanidaki (1998) discusses Modern Greek word order within a theoretical frame of Word Grammar and concludes (349) “that the exhibited patterns in Greek word order variation may be accounted for by reference to two grammatical 406 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS the VP, other orders being derived via movements,” and (1999.46) says, “Gr permits VSO orders.” If we take frequency as the criterion for basic word order, then the language is clearly not VSO. Lascaratou (1998.157) provides these percentages of transitive utterances in a textual corpus of 2,530 sentences:30

Order Percentage

SVO 49.2 SOV 0.7 VSO 1.1 VOS 0.7 OSV 0.4 OVS 8.7 VO 34.7 OV 4.3

Figure 2: Percentages of Transitive Utterances in a Textual Corpus.

Intransitive sentences are SV, 49.7% of the time (Lascaratou 1998.159). She (1998.153) then observes, “SVO is the main clause order par excellence, which justifies the widely view that M. Greek is an SVO language,” but then concludes “M. Greek could plausibly be classified as having free word order with SVO as its dominant active transitive order.”31 My suggestion here is that it is the typological frame which forces one response to “What is the ‘basic’ order?” that is unproductive. We will see that Modern Greek has at least two major morphosyntactic configurations. One implements a proposition which expresses a continuing TOPIC, and the second is used when the proposition lacks TOPIC continuity, and does not meld its content with the context, but stands alone, in isolation. The first gives expression to the TOPIC in initial position and then follows it with a FOCUS.

principles, the V →O and ← V → principles.”

30 Lascaratou does not, however, record the use of strong stress. So we do not know which percentage of the SVO utterances are implementing a FOCUSED S and how many are a TOPIC S.

31 In a footnote, Lascaratou (1998.168) describes some of the “controversial theoretical discussion.” FOCUS: First 407

Because Agents are frequent TOPICS,32 the syntax of SVO is a common manifestation, but others are possible expressions of the TOPIC initial formula. See (9c), (14c), and (17c) below. The second morphosyntactic configuration employs a grammar which appears to be VSO, and which places FOCUS in initial position. Modern Greek has both a TOPIC initial syntax and also a FOCUS initial syntax, used when there is no continuing TOPIC. The two can intersect in such a way that sentence stress is the sole distinguishing mark. In the absence of a continuing TOPIC, when a piece of propositional content assumes the semantics of FOCUS, it will occur initially and assume a stronger stress (Roussou & Tsimpli 2006.341):33

(5) SINADELFI dhjamartirithikan s-ton pritani [colleagues protested-3p to-the-acc rector] ‘It was colleagues who protested to the Rector’

“Emphasis [FOCUS, PWD] is marked by placing stronger than normal stress on the emphatic [focused, PWD] element” (Joseph & Philappaki-Warburton 1987.96).34 When there is content which reaches into the context and connects with it as TOPIC, that content will be initial as well, but it will contrast with (5) in not having a stronger stress (Roussou & Tsimpli 2006.341):35

32 Cf., for example, the expression of TOPIC in Bella Coola and the reliance on the S position in the VSO formula (Chapter 15).

33 There is some inconsistency in the notation. Tsimpli (1990) does not mark the presence of the stress of FOCUS at all in her examples, but she does recognize its presence in her discussion of the examples. Holt, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton (1997.434) employ bold italics. Georgiafentis & Sfakianaki (2004.939) use underlining to note “the most prominent constituent in the order” and CAPITALIZATION to indicate “contrastive focus” (943). Roussou & Tsimpli (2006.336) decide to “use capital letters to indicate focus.” That would probably be equivalent to Georgiafentis & Sfakianaki’s use of underlining. Tsimpli 1995 employs UPPER CASE. For Philippaki-Warburton (1985.118), “capitals indicate prominent stress.” However, later in the same paper (131), she uses the same notation for content that “is emphatically stressed,” and it notes “an emphatic focus.” Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987.97) use “italics in the Greek and boldface in the translation to indicate emphasis.”

34 Tsimpli (1995.178) notes the presence of “heavy/focal stress, typical of focus phrases in general”. Haidou (2000.166) further confirms, “the focus of the sentence must also carry the main stress in the sentence.”

35 Alexiadou & Anagnostopolou (2000.175, 208) have these examples:

(i) (a) O JANIS aghorase to aftokinito [the-nom John bought-3s the-acc car] ‘John bought the car’ 408 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(6) (a) I sinadelfi dhjamartirithikan s-ton pritani [the-nom colleagues protested-3p to-the-acc rector] ‘The colleagues protested to the Rector’

(b) *Sinadelfi dhjamartirithikan s-ton pritani [colleagues protested-3p to-the-acc rector] ‘Colleagues protested to the Rector’

The contrasting behaviors of (5) and (6) illustrate the absence and the presence of TOPIC, respectively. Because TOPIC extends into the context to

(b) O Janis ekapse ti supa [the-nom John burnt-3s the-acc soup] ‘John burned the soup’ These examples are from Tsimpli (1990.228-229 and 1995.177): (ii) (a) To vivlio edhose i Maria sto [the-acc book gave-3s the-nom Maria to.the.acc Jani John] ‘Maria gave the book to John’ (b) To vivlio to-edhose i Maria sto [the-acc book it-gave-3s the-nom Maria to.the.acc Jani John] ‘Maria gave the book to John’ (iii) (a) Sto Jani edhose i Maria to [to.the-acc John gave-3s the-nom Maria the-acc vivlio book] Maria gave the book to John’ (b) Sto Jani tu-edhose i Maria to [to.the-acc John him-gave-3s the-nom Maria the-acc vivlio book] ‘Maria gave the book to John’ Tsimpli’s (1990.238-239) explanation of them is this:

...the preposed object receives heavy stress, typical of focussed phrases, and is not related to a resumptive pronoun, while in [sic] the other preposed object is not heavily stressed and is related to a resumptive pronoun ... I will refer to the preposed object in ... [(iia)] as Focus, while the preposed object in ... (iib)] will be referred to as Topic. FOCUS: First 409 make a connection with some portion of it, sinadelfi in (6b) fails. The absence of a determiner — present in (6a) — asserts that sinadelfi is being introduced into the c ontext with this utterance and therefore cannot constitute the link with content already present in the context. Hence, the content of sinadelfi contradicts the grammar of TOPIC (sentence-initial position & absence of strong stress), which asserts the presence of that connection. Placing sinadelfi after the V in a VSO order avoids that contradiction because there is no continuing TOPIC asserted (Roussou & Tsimpli (2006.349):

(7) Dhjamartirithikan sinadelfi s-ton pritani [protest-3p colleagues to-the-acc rector] ‘Colleagues protested to the Rector’

The Patient function may show the same contrast of being sentence-initial and then carrying strong stress or not, and thereby carrying FOCUS or expressing a continuing TOPIC (Tsimpli 1995.177):36

(8) (a) To VIVLIO edhose i Maria [the-acc book gave-3s the-nom Maria s-to Jani to-the.acc Jani] ‘It is the book that Maria gave to Jani’

(b) To vivlio to-edhose i Maria [the-acc book it-gave-3s the-nom Maria s-to Jani to-the.acc Jani] ‘The book, Maria gave it to Jani’

Several observations amplify the use of an unstressed sentence-initial constituent as TOPIC. First, we have seen above that a VSO expression is the response to a question such as Ti ejine ‘What happened?’, but if the question is a bit more specific such as (Philappaki-Warburton (1985.121):

(9) (a) Ti ekane o Janis? [what did-3s the-nom John] ‘What did John do?’

36 Note that TOPIC Patients differ from TOPIC Agents in that the former also occur with an agreement prefix attached to the verb. 410 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(b) %Filise o Janis ti Maria [kiss-3s the-nom John the-acc Maria] ‘John kissed Maria’

(c) O Janis filise TI MARIA [the-nom John kiss-3s the-acc Maria] ‘John kissed Maria’ then the VSO sentence of (9b) is not the answer: “This sentence is not at all appropriate in contexts which require a theme [TOPIC, PWD]” (Philappaki- Warburton 1985.122). Sentence (9c) is. Although o Janis is not itself in sentence-initial position in (9a), its very mention acts to establish it in the context, and sentence (9c) recognizes that. Alexiadou (2000.119) offers examples that clearly demonstrate the presence of TOPIC:

(10) (a) I Maria mu estile ena grama. [the-nom Maria me wrote-3s a letter. To grama irthe simera. the-nom letter arrived-3s today] ‘Maria wrote me a teller. The letter arrived today’

(b) %I Maria mu estile ena grama. [the-nom Maria me wrote-3s a letter. Irthe to grama simera. arrived-3s the-nom letter today] ‘Maria wrote me a teller. The letter arrived today’

Ena grama ‘a letter’ is introduced in the first sentence, and continued reference to it, i.e. TOPIC, has to be effected by sentence-initial position in the following utterance. The VS order in (10b) — Irthe to grama simera — is acceptable Greek, but it is not appropriate to its context. “It is clear that first position, whatever else it might be, is the characteristic position for thematic NPs [In the absence of strong stress, of course, PWD]” (Philappaki-Warburton 1985.122).37

37 Kanis ‘no one’ can appear initially only when it is focused (Philappaki-Warburton 1985.131):

(i) KANIS dhen irthe FOCUS: First 411

Having a TOPIC in sentence-initial position, then allows FOCUS to occur with the sentence-final constituent when the default sentence stress is on that constituent, as in (9c), or to occur on other constituents following the TOPIC (Tsimpli 1990.247):

(11) (a) O Janis edhose to vivlio STI MARIA [the-nom gave-3s the-acc book to-the-acc Maria] ‘John gave the book TO MARIA’

(b) O Janis edhose TO VIVLIO sti Maria [the-nom gave-3s the-acc book to-the-acc Maria] ‘John gave the BOOK to Maria’

As one might expect now, since any degree of semantic FOCUS that selects some portion of a PROPOSITION, in place of applying to the entirety of the PROPOSITION, by that very fact of discriminating and selecting, it is natural that only one portion of a Modern Greek utterance may carry strong stress and be FOCUS. Otherwise, it would not be FOCUS. Thus, two FOCUSES in the same utterance will fail (Alexiadou & Anagnostopolou 2000.175, Tsimpli 1995.181, 191):38

[no.one not come-3s] ‘No one came’ Semantically, kanis “is the indefinite nonspecific item par excellence in MG, and as such it is very difficult for it to be used as theme [TOPIC, PWD].”

38 “... sentences with multiple focalization are ungrammatical” (Horrocks 1983.107); “... the sentence can have only one focused element” (Alexiadou & Anagnostopolou 2000.175); and “... only one focused argument can be preposed” (Tsimpli 1995.181). This is also true of questions (Tsimpli 1990.250): (i) *Pjos ti efage? [who-NOM what-ACC ate-3s] ‘Who ate what? (ii) *Ti pjos efage? [what-ACC who-NOM ate-3s] ‘Who ate what?

But if the multiple FOCUSES are joined by ke ‘and’, then two or more (i.e. actually still one) are acceptable (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997.418 and Lascaratou 1998.162): (iii) Me pjo-n ke jati malón-es? [with whom and why quarrel-2s] ‘With whom and why are you quarreling?’ 412 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(12) (a) *STO JANI TA VIVLIA dhosame [to-the-gen John the-acc books gave-3s] ‘It is John we gave the books to’

(b) *TIS MARIAS TA VIVLIA estile [the-gen Maria the-acc books sent-3s o Janis the-nom John] ‘John gave the BOOKS to MARIA’

In contast to FOCUS, TOPIC is not so constrained. An utterance may make multiple connections to its context. Thus, we find the sentences of (13) each with two TOPICS (Tsimpli 1995.180-181):39

(iv) Pj-os pu, póte, jati ke pos xtipis-e tin Elen-i? [who-NOM where when why and how hit-3s the-ACC Helen-ACC] ‘Who, where, when, why and how hit Helen?]

More generally, more than one FOCUS may appear in a single utterance, so long as there is still but a single FOCUS sentence-initially (Tsimpli 1998.222):

(v) KANENAS dhen ipe TIPOTA se KANENA [no one not said-3s nothing to no one] ‘Nobody said anything to anyone’

The restriction on the number of FOCUSES applies to the sentence-initial FOCUS, and not the in situ FOCUS(ES). The semantic differences between them permit this contrast in behavior. See Chaper 10, section 3.2.

39 We may note that both the Patient and the Recipient, as TOPICS, are followed by a pause intonation (noted by the commas), and both are reflected on the verb by clitics: (i) #To grama egrapse o Petros [the-acc letter wrote-3s the-nom Peter] ‘Peter wrote the letter’

Example (i), with no stress of FOCUS on the Patient to grama, is from Roussou & Tsimpli (2006.338). They comment on it as follows (2006.343): “This construction is marked as odd [Their “#,” PWD], as the object bears no focus, and [it] is not a topic either, since there is no associated clitic present.” Notice that this comment appears to imply that the use of a clitic will mark the constituent which it reflects as a TOPIC. The Agent is neither followed by a pause, nor is it reflected on the verb by clitics, except in a “highly restricted” context (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987.212, 216), i.e. occurrence with ná ... ‘Here [he is]!’ and pú n ‘Where is [he]?’ The order of Patient and Recipient as preverbal TOPICS can vary (Alexiadou 1999b.55): (ii) Tis Maria to vivlio tis to edhose [the-gen Mary the-acc book cl-gen cl-acc gave-3s] FOCUS: First 413

(13) (a) Tus fitites, oli i kathigites [the-acc students all the-nom lecturers tus-ispostiriz-un them-support-3p] ‘All the lecturers support the students’

(b) Tis Maria, ta vivlia, tis-ta-estile [the-gen Maria the-acc books her-them-sent.3g o Janis the-nom John] ‘John sent the books to Maria’

Since both FOCUS and TOPIC may appear before the EVENT/Verb, and since they do not conflict semantically, there is the possibility of an utterance containing both (Tsimpli 1990.244-245):

(14) (a) Tis Maria TA VIVLIA tis-edhose [the-gen Maria the-acc books her-gave.3s o Janis the.nom John] ‘To Maria, John gave the BOOKS’

(b) Afto to grama TIS MARIAS [this-acc the-acc letter the-gen Maria to-estile o Janis it-sent.3s the-nom John] ‘This letter, John sent to MARIA’

The possible grammatical conflict — the competition for sentence-initial position — is resolved by placing the TOPIC sentence-initially and letting the FOCUS follow.40 They are additionally distinguished by the presence or

‘Sh/e gave the book to mary’ (iii) To vivlio tis Maria tis to edhose [the-acc book the-gen Mary cl-gen cl-acc gave-3s] ‘Sh/e gave the book to Mary’

No attempt is made to describe the semantic contrast between these usages. Alexiadou says that it is a “free ordering.” Alexiadou records no pauses in (ii) and (iii) to match those in (13).

40 The reverse sequence of FOCUS - TOPIC fails (Tsimpli 1995.183): 414 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS absence of strong stress. Furthermore, it seems that an utterance may be complete if both a TOPIC and a FOCUS is present. Consider this question and answer (Haidou 2000.180):41

(15) (a) Pjos efage tin turta? [who ate-3s the-acc cake] ‘Who ate the cake?’ (b) Tin efage tin turta o Janis [it-acc ate-3s the-acc cake the-nom John] ‘John ate the cake’

(i) (a) *TO PETRO i Maria simbathi [the-acc Peter the-nom Maria likes-3s] ‘It is Peter that Maria likes’

(b) TO PETRO simbathi i Maria [the-acc Peter likes-3s the-nom Maria] ‘It is Peter that Maria likes’ Cf. also Tsimpli 1998.199. Russou & Tsimpli (2006.334-335) add these examples: (ii) O Petros to grama to estile [the-nom Peter the-acc letter it sent-3s] ‘Peter sent the letter’ (iii) O Petros to estile to grama [the-nom Peter it sent-3s the-acc letter] ‘Peter sent the letter’

Because the presence of the clitic conflicts with the semantics of FOCUS, in (ii), to grama ‘the letter’ cannot bear the stress of FOCUS and is therefore signaled as TOPIC. And because the potential conflict in signaling preverbal TOPIC and FOCUS has been solved by placing TOPIC first in the sequence, o Petros in (ii) must also be TOPIC. Sentence (ii) is TOPIC + TOPIC + FOCUS, where the EVENT estile bears the stronger stress. In (iii), the EVENT can be focused as it was in (ii) (but not to grama), or o Petros can be FOCUS since making it such does not conflict with a TOPIC as in (ii).

41 Haidou uses underlining to mark “the most prominent stress in the sentence.” As is not infrequent in the literature, there is some disagreement about the data. Keller & Alexopoulou (2001.306) add these examples: (i) Pjos apelis-e ti Maria? [who fired-3s the-acc Mary] ‘Who fired Mary?’

(ii) ??Tin apelis-e ti Maria O JANIS [her fired-3s the-acc Mary the-nom John] ‘John fired Mary’ where (ii) is exactly parallel to (15b), but judged questionable. FOCUS: First 415

Notice the presence of the clitic tin reflecting the Patient tin turta ‘the cake’, a pattern repeated from (8b) and (11) where a non-Agent functions as TOPIC. Given the question of (15a), it would appear that ‘ate the cake’ is the TOPIC continuing from the question into the response, and that the FOCUS in the response is ‘John’. The utterance of (15b) is then composed entirely of a TOPIC, Tin efage tin turta, followed by a FOCUS, o Janis. We turn our attention now to the FOCUS initial, V-initial morphosyntax. Wh-questions “Are those interrogative sentences formed with one of a set of question words, many of which share as a formal element the initial element p- ... The question word is typically fronted to the beginning of the main clause” (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987.5).42 Thus (Tsimpli 1998.197 and Roussou & Tsimpli 2006.318):43

(16) (a) Pjon idhe o Stefanos? [whom saw-3s the-nom Stefanos] ‘Whom did Stefanos see?’

(b) TI MARIA idhe o Stefanos [the-acc Maria saw-3s the-nom Stefanos] ‘It was Maria that Stefanos saw’

(17) (a) Pjos episkevase ton ipolojistisu? [who repaired-3s the-acc computer your] ‘Who repaired your computer?’

(b) O Janis episkevase ton ipolojisti mu

42 “There is no special intonation associated with such [question-word] questions, though the yes-no question rising-falling intonation can occur in question-word questions” (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987.6).

43 Tsimpli actually has these utterances paired: (i) (a) Pjon idhe o Stefanos? [whom saw-3s the-nom Stefanos] ‘Whom did Stefanos see?’

(b) TON STEFANO idhe i Maria [the-acc Stefano saw-3s the-nom Maria] ‘It was Stefano that Maria saw’ I have taken the liberty of swapping Maria and Stefano(s) so that the answer is appropriate to the question. 416 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[the-nom John repaired-3s the-acc computer mine] ‘John repaired my computer’

Georgiafentis & Sfaniaki (2004.951) offer this as one of the conclusions to their experimental investigation into word order in Modern Greek. It pertains to how wh-questions are answered :44

The second major finding of our experiments is that the order used by the subjects in answering questions designed to elicit subject focus ... was not VOS, but rather SVO or OclVS ....

Thus (Georgiafentis & Sfakianaki 2004.951):

(18) (a) Pjos dhjavaz-i to vivlio? [who read-3s the-acc book] ‘Who’s reading the book?’

(b) O Janis dhjavaz-i to vivlio [the-nom John read-3s the-acc book] ‘John is reading the book’

We have two ways to respond to a question. The first exploits the FOCUS initial, or VSO, resource. That is the answer found in (18b). When an O or S co-occurs with FOCUS in sentence-initial position it will bear the stress of FOCUS (and is sometimes notationally distinguished with upper case or the like). The second way to respond is to place a TOPIC initially — To vivlio todhjavazi — and then follow that with a FOCUS — o Janis. Tsimpli (1998.215) provides this contrast that adds some detail to the semantic composition of Modern Greek FOCUS:45

44 Others concur that in response to a question such as (18a), that an Agent initial utterance with strong, focal stress is the “most acceptable pattern” (Georgiafentis & Sfakianaki 2004.951).

45 We noted above that Tsimpli (in this same article) has described a “‘default’ sentence stress” on the final constituent. In (19a), that would be o Jani. She (1998.204) also says “If this is correct, then the possibility of the contrastive interpretation is also available here due to the default intonation pattern associated with the in-situ object.” That is, the upper case O FOCUS: First 417

(19) (a) Idhes TO JANI? [see-3s the-acc John] ‘Did you see John?’

(b) TO JANI idhes? [the-acc John see-3s] ‘Is it John that you saw?’

“... whereas in ... [(19a), with the default sentence-final stress, PWD] the yes/no question ranges over the whole proposition, in ... [(19b)] the presupposition is that you saw someone and the question operator refers to the individual variable identified by the focus operator, namely Jani” (Tsimpli 1998.215). This is clearly the now familiar semantics of FOCUS.46 In addition

JANI in (19a) is not phonologically distinct from the default sentence stress. Tsimpli (1998.215) reports in a footnote that Philippaki-Warburton has said that (19a) can have an alternative intonation “starting low and rising on JANI without any significant fall at the end.” In this case, (19a) “can also have the reading of” (19b). My guess is that (19a) should probably be written without upper case TO JANI if the notation is used consistently. Georgiafentis (2001.138-139) cites this contrasting pair: (i) Efage tin turta o Janis [ate-3s the-acc cake the-nom John] ‘John ate the cake’

(ii) Efage tin turta O JANIS [ate-3s the-acc cake the-nom John] ‘JOHN ate the cake (not Thanassis)’ ‘It was JOHN that ate the cake’ Although these are VOS utterances, the facts of prosody may carry over. In sentence (i), o Janis “receives the main prominence” by virtue of the default sentence-final stress, an “information focus interpretation” (Georgiafentis 2001.152). There is no pause before the S as there can be (cf. below). In (19a), Georgiafentis’ “information focus” “ranges over the whole proposition,” and so does not single out to Jani. In (ii), o Janis is “contrastively focused.” “Contrastive focus” appears to exist only in sentence-final position where the default stress would otherwise be. I have found no indication in the literature of a contrast between focal stress and contrastive stress in any other position, although occasionally sentence-initial FOCUS will be called “contrastive”, semantically, not phonologially. If this distribution is true, then Modern Greek maintains a consistent two-way contrast between the presence of FOCUS and its absence. “Contrastive focus” — meaning the pronunciation transcribed by the UPPER CASE in (ii) — is just how Modern Greek distinguishes between default stress and something more.

46 Of (i), with focal stress on ton Petro: (i) Ton Petro idh-a 418 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

to combining the stress of FOCUS with one of the actants in sentence-initial position, it is also possible to place the stress of FOCUS on the EVENT/Verb itself (Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987.98):

(20) Léne pos o Jánis dhen théli [say-3pl comp the-nom John neg want-3s na fígi prt leave-3s] ‘They say that John does not want to leave’

Sentence (20) “has several different implications depending on which constituent is emphatically stressed. With emphatic stress on léne, the implication is that this is only a rumour ....”47 The second response to (18) exploits a TOPIC-FOCUS organization in the manner of (15b) above. That is the answer of (18c).48 Georgiafentis (2005.165) provides another example which supports interpreting Tin efage tin turta in (15b) and To vivlio to-dhjavazi in (18c) as TOPIC:

(21) O Janis tin efage tin turta

[the-acc Peter saw-1s] ‘I saw Peter’

Tzanidaki (1998.243) reports these two “readings” of FOCUS: (ii) It was not John I saw; it was Peter. (iii) I did indeed see Peter (though you did not expect me to).

47 Alexiadou (1999b.55) has this example:

(i) KSERI Ispaniki i Meropi [know-3s Spanish the-nom Meropi] in which “the verb is focalized.” In Alexiadou 2000, the example is (128):

(ii) KSERI o Janis Germanika [know.3s the-nom John German]

48 Notice that the Patient in (18c) precedes the verb whereas in (15b), it follows. Haidou calls tin a “clitic” (as do Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton 1987.211-215) and separates it from the verb in his notation. Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004.963) argue that “clitics are not affixes but full words.” Others adjoin clitics to the verb with a hyphen. I have not regularized this difference. The formal contrast is that to is 3rd singular accusative neuter, and tin is 3rd singular accusative feminine. FOCUS: First 419

[the-nom John it ate-3s the-acc cake] ‘What John did was eat the cake’

In (21), “a weak pronoun (a clitic), i.e. a grammatical element, has been added. The result is that the object tin turta ‘the cake’ can no longer be accented and thus focused ... The verb efage ‘ate’ will receive the main accent [the default, sentence-final stress, PWD] and thus be the focus ... The object tin turta ‘the cake’ can only be old information ....”49 One must assume that on the model of (13a), that (22) is also possible:

(22) Tin turta, o Janis tin efage [the-acc cake the-nom John it ate-3s] ‘What John did was eat the cake’

Sentences (21) and (22) appear to be composed enitrely of TOPIC and FOCUS: TOPIC + FOCUS + TOPIC & TOPIC + TOPIC + FOCUS. It is unknown what the semantic difference might be. They are variations of the TOPIC + FOCUS utterances (9c) and (15b) above.50 While the sentence-initial contents that are focused are often written with uppercase, no one ever seems to write PJOS ‘Who?’, and no one comments on it.51 The clear implication is that the wh-question words do not carry the stress of FOCUS. Since Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987.98) assert “an emphatic [i.e. focused, PWD] element is always accompanied witht emphatic stress,” we must wonder whether the wh-question words themselves express FOCUS, or to what degree. Tsimpli (1995.192) observes that “single clause sentences cannot contain both a wh-phrase and a focus phrase, irrespective of whether any of them is preposed or in situ.” A “focus phrase” here is one that bears a nondefault stress (or if sentence-final, then a stress that is “emphatic”). Wh-words appear occupy a middle ground on a scale of FOCUS. They do not themselves occur with the stress of FOCUS, but they occur in the FOCUS position and do not permit FOCUS to appear elsewhere. (Recall from above

49 FOCUS is generally incompatible with the preverbal clitic (Tsimpli 1995.179):

(i) *TO JANI ton sinantisa xtes [the-acc John him met-1s yesterday] ‘It is John I met yesterday’

50 We speculate on this in Chapter 12, section 3.2.

51 Recall the earlier observation that the presence of non-default stress is marked in various ways and, seemingly, not consistently. 420 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

that utterances do not allow more than one FOCUS.) Modern Greek has two partially overlapping exploitations of syntax. The first is based on a syntactic verb-initial order that is semantically FOCUS initial. This syntax places non-EVENT content before the verb and marks it with strong stress in order to signal FOCUS. The second morphosyntactic pattern places TOPIC sentence-initially and signals it as TOPIC by not accompanying it with strong stress. The presence of two distinct constructions one marking TOPIC and a second that is appropriate to the absence of a continuing content and which marks FOCUS is repeated in Yogad (Cf. Chapter 17). Like Modern Greek, Yogad appears to be VSO and to use its sentence- initial position to signal FOCUS, and like Modern Greek, Yogad has a second construction X ay Y, which is used to track content which continues from the preceding contenxt.52 It is TOPIC. In the implementation of FOCUS and TOPIC, languages may ensconce both within a single morphosyntactic complex (like Bella Coola. Cf. Chapters 2 & 15), or languages may factor them into two or more syntaxes. As do Modern Greek and Yogad. Our initial assertion that a verb-initial language will also be FOCUS initial appears to be supported by Modern Greek. In semantic terms, the VSO syntax is FOCUS initial. The semantic association between sentence-initial FOCUS and the EVENT in Modern Greek, which produces the impression of VSO, is further amplified by usages which disallow a VSO or a VS expression (Alexiadou 1996.36, 42)

(23) (a) *Agapai o Janis ti Maria [loves-3s the-nom John the-acc Maria] ‘John loves Mary’

(b) O Janis agapai ti Maria [the-nom John loves-3s the-acc Maria] ‘John loves Mary’ (c) Agapai o Janis ti Maria [loves-3s the-nom John the-acc Maria] ‘John fell in love with Mary’

52 Modern Greek differs from Yogad in that it has a morphosyntactic possibility that is VOS. On the surface, Modern Greek and Palauan would appear to be similarly organized. The VOS order has elicited some special attention from those working on Modern Greek (Alexiadou 1999b, Haidou 2000, Georgiafentis 2001, Georgiafentis 2005, Georgiafentis & Sfakianaki 2004). Because FOCUS in the VOS pattern is exclusively in situ, it will be discussed Chapter 11, section 3.2 FOCUS: First 421

(24) (a) *Epeze o Janis [play-imp-3s the-nom John] ‘John was playing’

(b) O Janis epeze53 [the-nom John play-pst-imp-3s] ‘John was playing’

(25) (a) *Kinigai i gata pondikja [chases-3s the-nom cat mice-acc] ‘Cats chase mice’

(b) I gata kinigai pondikja [the-nom cat chases-3s mice] ‘Cats chase mice’

What we are seeing here is the semantics of FOCUS refracted through the prism of EVENT semantics. The following is an explication for how that is and why the (a)-sentences of (23) - (25) fail. We begin with a preliminary rationale for why EVENTS/Verbs, more than any other semantics, should have an affiliation with FOCUS. When human intelligence encounters human experience, the interaction will not be homogeneous. Some experience will inevitably be more abrupt, different, exciting than other experience. Differentiation in experience is mirrored by differentiation in eliciting the orienting reflex.54 The variety of the encounter will be unending, but when it

53 This expression is not contained in Alexiadou 1996, but I assume that — given the way things are going — that it is acceptable.

54 The orienting (startle) reflex is a “response to novelty” (Hinde 1970.131.ff). The response is a general one, and for this reason this class of behavior has been also called fear (Hinde 1970.349): “Fear ... is elicited by stimuli that are strange, novel, or surprising, and is associated with fixation on the source.” 422 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS is present and encoded into language (as it is and will be),55 the human response is to direct the listener, “Heed!” In some languages, the EVENT is, by that fact alone, able to satisfy the animus of FOCUS. In others, namely Modern Greek, some EVENTS will, in themselves, fail to achieve the “novelty” required to support FOCUS. There is not enough happening to justify ‘Heed!’ Thus in (23a), agapai ‘loves’ is so ongoing and without noticeable change that it fails as FOCUS. But if the sense is ‘fell in love’ as in (23c), then a change has been effected that is sufficiently abrupt to support FOCUS ... and then the sentence-initial position of FOCUS is available to it. Alternatively, (23b), which avoids the syntax of sentence-initial FOCUS will suffice. In (24a), there is more kinesis, but it is undirected and unshaped, like a swarm of gnats. But when the EVENT is formed and made abrupt by a conclusion (the perfective aspect), the congealed act stands out sufficiently against its background to satisfy the noticeability requirement of FOCUS. The same bounding shaping can be achieved by introducing a qualifying space (Alexiadou 1996.45):56

(26) (d) Edo pezun pedja [here play-3pl children] ‘Children are playing here’

In (25a), the lack of formation is manifest in the generic sense, i.e. cats, attributed to it. But it the sense is more specific, i.e. the cat, as in (25c), then the EVENT is more precise and noticeable, and the utterance succeeds. Reversing the order in (25b), allows the generic meaning because sentence- initial FOCUS no longer places any demands on kinigai. Finally, we find (Alexiadou 1996.45):

(27) (a) *Kseri o Janis ti Maria [klnows-3s the-nom John the-acc Maria] ‘John knows Mary’

55 The ontogenesis is described in Chapter 12.

56 But if the space is itself too general to bound the event, it will continue to fail: (i) *se spilies pezun pedja [in caves play children] ‘Children are playing in caves’ The vague “in caves” fails. One must assume that if the phrase were ‘in those caves’, then (i) would pass muster. FOCUS: First 423

(b) KSERI o Janis ti Maria [klnows-3s the-nom John the-acc Maria] ‘John knows Mary’ in which FOCUS reveals itself directly as the facilitator. If the EVENT is by itself so languid that it does not support sentence-intial position, just pump it up with strong stress. In complementary fashion, Holt, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton (1997.427) identify “various factors which contribute to the choice of sentences where the verb is placed before the subject and object ... [among which is] The verb is one of appearing, entering, being, coming, beginning, etc.” These are EVENTS which exhibit transitions. A change is effected, which in turn supports the novelty that prompts FOCUS, i.e. sentence- initial position.57 One can, of course, never predict precisely how the nature of EVENTS will play out in ascending to sentence-initial FOCUS. But we should always be able after the fact to recognize the patterns. Returning to our motivation for examining Modern Greek, the conclusion is that yes, to the degree that it makes sense to say that the language is VSO, it is FOCUS initial.58

5. FOCUS Initial Languages that are VOS: Tzotzil & Mayan59 There are approximately 31 Mayan languages, spoken across southern Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala (Bright 1992, vol. 2, p. 401). Yucatec has the greatest number of speakers, 500,000.60 Itzá has the fewest. In 1986, there

57 There is no example of “being.” It is the odd one on the list and is probably not ινε.

58 We will return to complete the discussion of Greek FOCUS in Chapter 12, in the context of in situ FOCUS.

59 The work on Mayan is extensive, and much of it is contained in dissertations. In the list that follows the dissertations are cited in bold-face. The basis for the description of Tzotzil presented here and for the comments on Mayan in general includes: Aissen 1983, 1987, 1992, 1996, 1997 & 1999, Attinasi 1973, Ayres 1983, Barrett 1999, Berinstein 1984, Brody 1978, 1982, 1984a & 1984b, Brody & Furbee-Losee 1978, Canger 1969, Cowan 1969, Craig 1977, Datz 1980, Dayley 1978, 1981a, 1981b & 1985, DuBois 1981, Durbin & Ojeda 1978, Edmonson 1988, England 1983, 1988, 1991 & 1995, Fought 1967 & 1972, Haviland 1981, Hofling 1982, 1984 & 2000, Hopkins 1967a & 1967b, Knowles 1984, Knowles-Berry 1987, Larsen 1988, Laughlin 1977, 1980 & 1988, Lopez Ixcoy 1997, Macri 1988, Mondloch 1978 & 1981, Myhill 1983, Peñalosa 1987, Quizar 1979 & 1994, Robinson 2002, Sarles 1966, Schumann 1973, Stiebels 2006, Trechsel 1981 & 1993, Verhoeven 2007, Weichsel 2006, Vail & Jiménez 1997, Warkentin & Scott 1980, and Zepter 2003.

60 England, however, says (1995.124) that K’ichee [= Quiché] is the largest of the Mayan languages, with well over a 424 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS were “12 elderly speakers of Itzá” reported (Bright 1992, vol. 2, p. 406).61 Although Itzá is not yet extinct, Aissen (1992.43) reports 30 Mayan languages:62 Mayan languages are generally assumed to be ‘basically’ predicate-initial; most of the presently spoken 30 languages are VOS, but a few contiguous languages manifest VSO instead ... At the same time, most Mayan languages allow the subject or object (as well as other constituents) to precede the verb, giving rise to claims that various of the languages allow all of the six possible permutations of subject, verb, and object.

England (1995.124) adds: Mayas form a majority of the population of Guatemala, and additionally occupy million speakers. Itzaj [= Itzá] is the smallest, with only a few hundred speakers. The number of 30 (or 31) Mayan languages is arrived at by recognizing variations of, for example, Tzotzil as distinct languages: Chamula Tzotzil, Chenalhó Tzotzil, Huixtán Tzotzil, San Andrés Larrainzar Tzotzil, and Zinacanteco Tzotzil are five distinct languages in this count (Bright 1992, Vol. 2, p. 406). In this way, there are six K’ichee’s/Quiché’s: Central Quiché (210,000 speakers), Coastal Quiché (152,000), Cunén (5,000), Eastern Quiché (13,000), Joyabaj Quiché (40,000), West Central Quiché (355,000), and Western Quiché (99,000). The total of 874,000 speakers for the six K’ichee’s/Quiché’s indeed exceeds the 500,000 Yucatecan speakers. There is one Yucatec, yet Hofling (1982.vi) describes a ... lowland Maya Yucatecan family, which includes the closely related languages (or dialects) Itza, Mopan, Lacandon, and Yucatec. “Largest” depends on how “families”, “languages’, and “dialects” are counted. The names of most Mayan languages have a “Mayan spelling” and a “traditional spelling” (England 1995.143). K’ichee is “Mayan”, and Quiché is “traditional”. Some Mayan languages have only one spelling. Mam is Mam. Cf. Figure 4 below.

61 Hofling (1982.vi) reports Although San Jose [“Peten, a town on the shore of Lake Peten-Itza” in the Department of Peten, Guatemala] has a larger number of Itza speakers than found elsewhere, that number is quite small, perhaps a hundred, and steadily diminishing. As a result of external socio-cultural pressures, there are avery few Itza speakers under fifty years of age. Virtually all of them are also fluent in Spanish. In 2000, Hofling (2000.xi) reports: Although the intergenerational language transmission was seriously disrupted in the 1930s, San José is an isolated pocket where the language has survived until the present.

62 Quizar (1979.30) also writes “Of the thirty Mayan languages ...,” but England’s (1991.453) family tree diagram of Mayan again has 31 languages. The final number is probably yet to be determined. Unknown varieties of Mayan are still being discovered and their distinctiveness as languages debated (cf. DuBois 1981.vii-viii). FOCUS: First 425

the adjacent areas of southern Mexico, Belize and Honduras (in very small numbers). The great majority of Guatemalan Mayas speak one of twenty Mayan languages indigenous to the country, and many, especially among the older population, are still monolingual in a Mayan language.

5.1 Tzotzil Cowan (1969.3) reports this of Tzotzil:

They live in the central mountainous region of the State of Chiapas, Mexico. They number about 65,000 speakers. There are seven main dialects of Tzotzil, all mutually intelligible to a high degree.

Cowan’s grammar is of Huixtecan Tzotzil, while Aissen’s, Haviland’s, and Laughlin’s descriptions are all of Zinacantecan Tzotzil.63 Even though the seven varieties of Tzotzil are mutually intelligible, it is not possible to say in what way they differ. To promote consistency, the dialect of Tzotzil discussed here is Zinacantecan (Laughlin 1977.3-4):

Tzotzil, the language of the 12,000 Zincantecans is spoken in nineteen townships in the state of Chiapas. With a total of over 120,000 speakers it ranks sixth in importance in the Mayan language family. Of the native languages in Mexico, Tzotil [sic] has the seventh highest number of speakers. Until recently, aside from their ability to carry out the most elementary commercial transactions with ladinos (non-Indians), more than half the men and an overwhelming majority of the women were unable to converse in Spanish.

5.1.1 Some preliminaries of Tzotzil grammar Zinacantecan Tzotzil is a VOS language:

“Tzotzil is a verb-object-subject (VOS) language.” (Aissen 1987.1) “... the Mayan language Tzotzil ... is solidly VOS ...” (Myhill 1983.157)

Aissen’s conclusion is based on her own work with Tzotzil. Myhill apparently did not collect data from Tzotzil, and his description of it as VOS reflects

63 Haviland’s 1981 grammar appears on-line at this url: http://www.zapata.org/Tzotzil/. There are several significant differences between the printed version of Sk’op sotz’leb el Tzotzil de San Lorenzo Zinacantas and the on-line equivalent. The on-line edition is in English, and it has a Table of Contents. Neither has an index. The on-line edition is not paginated, and the diagrams of the paper edition are lacking, as is the Vocabulario Corto. The website that contains the Tzotzil grammar also has audio examples of Tzotzil in AIFF or WAV formats and nine Tzotzil dialogs. In the discussion that follows, I cite the printed 1981 edition. 426 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Laughlin’s texts.64 These utterances are representative (Haviland 1981.234, 243, 272, 246. 216, 212):65

(1) I-s-k’ak’-es j-na li Xun e [CP-A3-burn-TR my-house the Juan CL]66 ‘Juan burned my house’ ‘Juan quemó mi casa’

(2) I-s-maj s-bankil li Xun e [CP-A3-strike his-brother the Juan CL] ‘Juan his his brother’ ‘Juan le golpeó a su hermano’

(3) I-s-mil Xun li Petul e [CP-A3-kill Juan the Pedro CL] ‘Pedro killed Juan’ ‘Pedro mató a Juan’

(4) Ch-k-ak’-be tak’in li Petul e [ICP-A1-give-IO money the Pedro CL]67 ‘I’m giving the money to Pedro’ ‘Yo doy el dinero a pedro’

64 “... all data from Tzotzil is taken from Laughlin ...” (Myhill 1983.166).

65 A glottal catch is sometimes noted , sometimes 7, and sometimes ’. I have not regularized the transcription.

66 Haviland (1981), for the most part, does not provide grammatical parsings for his examples. I will consistently use Aissen’s (1987.xxiii) grammatical glosses. Sometimes, the glosses are mine. Haviland (1981.373) has k’ak’ ‘quemarse’. The transitive ‘encender’ is k’ak’es. Aissen’s list of abbreviations suggests no gloss. CP is ‘completive aspect’. CL is ‘classifier’. The CL gloss ends up being attributed to several grammatical forms. In Aissen 1992, the final e is ENC ‘intonational phrase enclitic’ (Aissen 1992.49). “The phrase-final clitic e almost always cooccurs with a definite article ...” (Aissen 1987.3).

67 ICP is ‘incompletive aspect’. Haviland (1981.247) calls it ‘aspecto imperfectivo directo’. Aissen (1987.41) elaborates: “Incompletive aspect (icp) is formed by combining the particle ta with neutral aspect [x-] ... ta x- frequently contracts to ch- ....” Haviland (1981.246) writes of -be: “Para indicar la presencia de un complemento indirecto se añade el sufijo -be al verbo.” Aissen’s gloss is IO ‘indirect object”. FOCUS: First 427

(5) li Xune e [CP-B3-work the Juan CL] ‘Juan worked’ ‘Juan trabajó’

(6) ta k’obol [ICP-B1-work with hand] ‘I work with my hands’ ‘Trabajo con las manos’

In Zinacantecan Tzotzil, verb “agreement in person ... is obligatory” (Aissen 1987.43), and the agreement follows an ergative pattern. Transitive Agents have one set of affixes (Figure 1), and intransitive Agents and transitive Patients share another (Figure 2):

Prevocalic Preconsonantal A1 k- j- A2 av- a- A3 y- s-

Figure 1: Zinacantecan Tzotzil Ergative Affixes.

Suffixes Prefixes B1sg -on -i- B2sg -ot -a- B1plinc -otik B1plexc -otikotik B2pl -oxuk

Figure 2: Zinacantecan Tzotzil Absolutive Affixes. In the tradition of Mayan linguistics, the ergative affixes are called “A”, and the absolutive ones are “B” (Aissen 1987.2). The absolutive prefixes are used when an aspectual prefix is present. Elsewhere, the suffixes are used.68 “No overt affix cross-references the person of 3rd person absolutives” (Aissen 1987.44). The ergative affixes also mark possession, e.g., j-na ‘my house’ in (1), s-bankil ‘his brother’ in (2), and the examples in (7) (Haviland 1981.53):

68 That is “the basic generalization” (Aissen 1987.44). 428 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(7) (a) k-osil [A1-land] ‘my land’ ‘mi terreno’

(b) av-osil [A2-land] ‘your land’ ‘tu terreno’

Zinacantecan Tzotzil has three prepositions: xchi7uk ‘with’, k’al ‘until, as far as’, and ta, which expresses place, time, origin, goal, instrument, agent, “and probably other relations” (Aissen 1987.11).69 Expressions with one of the prepositions and adverbial expressions may occur after any of the terms in the VOS formula (Aissen 1987.12). Consider these two alternatives (Haviland 1987.37):

(8) (a) [there70 exist rice in basket] ‘There is rice in the basket’ ‘Ahí hay maíz en la canasta’

(b) [there exist in basket the rice CL] ‘There is rice in the basket’

69 According to Haviland (1981.23), “Ta es la única preposición, y tiene un sentido muy general: tanto temporal como locativo (con o sin movimiento).”

70 “... las oraciones locativas pueden basarse en frases con ta. El lugar, la locación, se indica con la preposición ta; la palabra central del predicado es te ‘en tal lugar’ junto con . Y la palabra puede perderse” (Haviland 1981.34). There is this alternative to (8b) (Haviland 1981.37): (i) FOCUS: First 429

‘Ahí hay maíz en la canasta’ In (8a),

... ta moch ‘en la canasta’ es más definida [que ], aunque no lleva el artícula definido li. En realidad, los complementos de la preposición ta nunca llevan artículos; o mejor dicho, los artículos parecen perderse después de ta, preposición que contiene un sentido definido de por sí.

About the occurrence of li ‘the’ in (1) - (5) and (8), Haviland (1981.30-31) explains:

Li es el artículo definido que señala la proximidad de una cosa específica; li equivale al castellano “el, la, los, las” pero no tiene distinciones ni de género ni de número ... Además el articulo ti indice que el sustantivo, definido y especifico como si llevará li, está remoto o alejado en tiempo o especio. li vinik e el hombre (a quien ya referimos, y que está cercado o próximo) ti vinik e el hombre (a quien ya referimos, pero que está ya muerto, or que está lejano, remoto)

In (8a),

... el sustantivo “maíz” es indefinido — quiere decir “algo de maíz, un cantidad de maíz no específica”; no lleva artículo, y queda en posición indermedia.

In general:

El sustantivo más definido en cada oración ocupa la posición final.

The sentence-final distribution of the semantics of ‘definiteness’ found in (1) - (5) and (8) may be the most common one, but it is not absolute (Haviland 1981.255):

(9) L-i-s-maj jyakubel [CP-B1-A3-strike drunk.man] ‘A drunk man hit me’ ‘Un borracho me golpeó’ Terms other than the transitive S may appear finally. Zinacantecan Tzotzil 430 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS has no independent third persons pronouns that function as actants.71 Consider the examples in (10) (Haviland 1981.253, 271, 254, 260):

(10) (a) Ta j-mak li na e [ A1-close the house CL] ‘I’m going to close the house’ ‘Voy a cerrar la casa’

(b) I-j-maj li e [CP-A1-strike the dog CL] ‘I hit the dog’ ‘Golpeé al perro’

(c) I-s-mil li e [CP-A3-kill the Antonio CL] ‘Antonio killed him’ ‘S/he killed Antonio’ ‘Antonio mató a él’ ‘Él mató a Antonio’

(d) I-y-ak’-be tak’in li Xun e [CP-A3-give-IO money the Juan CL] ‘Juan gave him/her money’ ‘S/he gave money to Juan’ ‘Juan le dió dinero’ ‘A Juan le dió dinero’

In (10a) and (10b), it is the transitive O’s that are final, and they are accompanied by one of the definite articles. Because Zinacantecan Tzotzil does not morphologically mark a distinction between S’s and O’s, and because the pronoun expression of third person S and O is null,72 (10c) is vague. Li e can be either O or S.73 Sentence (10d) has a similar

71 The first and second person pronominal forms ‘I’ and ‘you’ can be used grammatically as nouns are. See, for example, li vo7ot e in (21a).

72 “Tzotzil is a pro-drop language: nonemphatic pronouns are not pronounced. In fact, there are no overt third-person personal pronouns” (Aissen 1992.48-49).

73 About (10c), Haviland (1981.254) writes: FOCUS: First 431 indeterminacy. Li Xun e can be either the Agent or the Recipient. Final O’s may also occur without the definite article (Haviland 1981.287, 342):

(11) (a) Ta j-man bek’et [ A1-buy meat] ‘I’m buying meat’ ‘Compro carne’

(b) [CP-A1-hear rumor] ‘I heard a rumor’ ‘Oí un rumor’

An overt absolutive S in an intransitive utterance seems most often to be definite, as transitive S’s are most often definite (in Haviland’s examples), e.g., (Haviland 1981.177):

(12) li j-pixol e [black the A1-hat CL] ‘My hat is black’ ‘Mi sombrero es negro’ but this appears to be an accident of usage. Zinacantecan Tzotzil does permit, when the circumstance is correct, an intransitive S to occur without a definite article (Haviland 1981.196):

(13) (a) Ch-chap [ICP-prepare load-INDEFINITE.POSSESSION] ‘Someone’s load is being made ready’ ‘La carga (de alguien) se prepara’

(b) I-lik chamel-il [CP-begin menstruation-INDEFINITE.POSSESSION]

En una conversación tzotzil los sustantivos se omiten muy a menudo. Por éso, una oración como ... [(10c)] es muy posible ... Pero qué significa esta oración? Hay dos posibilidaded: o “Antonio mató a él (alguien especificado)” o “El (otra persona) mató a Antonio”. In (10a) and (10b), both the agreement marking and common sense of who/what does what to what/whom precludes more than one interpretation. 432 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

‘Menstruation began’ ‘Se empezó la menstruación (literalmente: la enfermidad [de personas])’74

The sense of definiteness is then not necessarily present in the final term of an utterance, but when it is, any preceding content will lack a mark of definiteness (Haviland 1981.55):

El tzotzil zinacanteco evita sequencias de sustantivos definidos, sólo el ultimo sustantivo lleva el articulo.

And (Aissen 1987.3):

In general, only the last NP in a sentence can [but not ‘must’. Cf. (9), (11) & (13)] contain a definite article, regardless of its grammatical relation.

Haviland’s observation that “sólo el ultimo sustantivo lleva el articulo” is only part of a larger pattern that guarantees that the sentence-final third person PARTICIPANT will outweigh the preceding along some dimension. Consider (14) (cited in Aissen 1997.726 from Laughlin 1975.63):

(14) I-y-ixtalan ik’ li j-chob-e [CP-A3-ruin wind the A1-cornfield-CL] ‘The wind ruined my cornfield’

This is an unusual VSO order for Tzotzil, and its acceptability is enabled by the fact that ‘my cornfield’ has greater definiteness than ‘the wind’.75

74 “Muchos sustantivos tzotziles tienen una forma de ‘posesión indefinida’, con el sentido de ‘la X de alguien, de un persona ya entendida, o no especificada, or de personas en general’” (Haviland 1981.195). The morphological mark is -il. Chamel is apparently any ‘illness’, but chamel-il is more narrowly “menstruation” (Haviland 1981.369).

75 The existence of sentences like (14) are quite interesting for Tzotzil since the language is supposed to be VOS. This one is cited in Laughlin’s The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán without context or comment. It should contrast with (i) I-y-istalan j-chob li ik’-e CP-A3-ruin A1-cornfield the wind-CL] ‘The wind destroyed my cornfield’ which is parallel to (Haviland 1981.234): FOCUS: First 433

Sentence (14) also suggests that animacy is not a necessary part of what composes an acceptable ergative Agent. This same appetite of sentence-final position for the greater definiteness extends to these (Aissen 1997.728, 727, 727):

(15) (a) I-s-vok’ p’in li Maruch e [CP-A3-break pot the Maria CL] ‘Maria broke the pot’

(b) *I-vok’-e yu’un Maruch li p’in e [CP-break-PSV by Maria the pot CL] ‘The pot was broken by Maria’

(16) (a) *I-x-poxta Xun li pox e [CP-A3-cure Juan the medicine CL] ‘The medicine cured Juan’

(b) I-poxta-at ta pox li Xun e [CP-cure-PSV by medicine the Juan CL] ‘Juan was cured by the medicine’

In (15a), sentence-final li Maruch e is appropriately the greater along this dimension, while in (15b), li p’in e is not, even though it is accompanied by the definite article li. Whatever constitutes this semantic dimension, it extends beyond mere definiteness and mixes into the semantics of personalities. Because (16a) parallels (15b) in placing in sentence-final position a PARTICIPANT (li pox e) which is inherently semantically outweighed by the PARTICIPANT before it (Xun), (16a) likewise fails. Comparison of (16a) with (14) indicates that the dimension is not a matter of animacy, but (14) also makes us wonder whether there is not an utterance such as (16c), which would be analogous to (14):

(16) (c) I-x-poxta pox li Xun e [CP-A3-cure medicine the Juan CL] ‘The medicine cured Juan’

(ii) I-s-k’ak’es j-na li Xun-e [CP-A1-burn A1-house the Juan-CL] ‘Juan burned down my house’ 434 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Given that the asymmetry is confined to transitive utterances and given that it centers upon sentence-final position, it appears that the occurrence of transitive Agents in sentence-final position is another component of the pattern. Whatever the semantics of sentence-final position may ultimately reveal itself to be, definiteness, personality, and the semantics of transitive Agent are aspects of it. The addition of transitive Agents to this assemblage would also explain why Tzotzil is VOS.76

5.1.2 FOCUS in Tzotzil “There are three WH roots, distinguished by sort: buch’/much’u for humans, k’u(si) for nonhumans, and bu(y) for situations” (Aissen 1999.455), and these wh-roots appear initially in wh-questions (Laughlin 1977.271):77

76 In Chapter 22, the suggestion is strong that an ongoing TOPIC is tracked by sentence-final position and the variation we have found in the previous sentences follows from being unable to determine — except post hoc — what the specific TOPIC of an utterance happens to be/have been. The semantic affinity of transitive Agents for the semantics of sentence-final position — and TOPIC — motivates Zinacantecan Tzotzil VOS order, and it simultaneously suggests that if the Tzotzil pattern under discussion here recurs in other Mayan languages, it will be confined to those languages that are also VOS, and it will not appear in any of the VSO languages. Rather than seeing this pattern as an interaction between the semantics of sentence-final position, or TOPIC, and the semantic content that occupies that position, Aissen (1997) interprets it as an example of obviation in which the essential observation is the semantic relation between two PARTICIPANTS in the utterance, independently of final position. Obviation would seem, however, to say nothing about VOS and the limitation of obviation to Mayan VOS languages (if that is so). In the view I propose here, obviation is an epiphenomenon of the operation of sentence-final semantics and the semantics which are appropriate to that position.

77 The wh-words in Zinacantecan Tzotzil are indefinite pronouns that can be made to question in the appropriate sentence-initial position. Elsewhere, although they continue to precede the verb, they combine with following content to compose nonce NAMES (Laughlin 1977.215, 217), e.g. ‘what-had-happened’, ‘the-place-where-they-went-to-incriminate-him’: (i) ... mu s-na7 k’u x-7elan i ... [ NEG A3-know what NT-is/exist ...] ‘... he didn’t know what had happened ...’ (ii) X-ut la ti rey to yo7 ti bu ba s-tik’-be [NT-say CL the king still in.order.to the where A3-place-IO li s-mul 7un-e the A3-crime CL-CL] ‘They told the king there where they went to incriminate him’

The form 7un will be glossed ‘CL’ as is Aissen’s (1987.7 et passim) practice. In Chapter 22, we will discover that it is, however, involved with TOPIC. FOCUS: First 435

(17) (a) ... k’usi 7a-cha7le78 li vo7ot-e, k’usi 7a-pas-be [... what A2-do the you-CL what A2-happen-IO li vo7ot-e xi the you-CL say] ‘“You, what did you do? You, what did you do to it?” asked [the king]’

(b) Pwes, 7i-j-k’opon k-ajval-tik79, [well CP-A1-speak.with A1-lord-1plINC k-ajval-tik ta vinajel A1-lord-1plINC in heaven] ‘Well, I prayed to Our Lord, Our Lord in heaven’

When the question is a general inquiry after the entire content of a PROPOSITION as in (17a), the response is as in (17b). A global FOCUS is expressed by the VOS syntax, but when the FOCUS is narrowed to some syntagmatic component of the PROPOSITION, a different pattern emerges. The content that expresses the corresponding responses to such questions — a Syntagmatic FOCUS (cf. section 2) — occurs initially:

(18) (a) Buch’u i-s-kolta li tzeb-e (Aissen 1999.459) [who CP-A3-help the girl -CL] ‘Who did the girl help?’

(b) S-vixtak i-s-kolta (Aissen 1999.474) [A3-sisters CP-A3-help] ‘It was her sisters she helped’

(19) (a) K’usi i-s-ti’? (Aissen 1999.464) [what CP-A3-eat] ‘What did he eat?’ (b) S-tz’i’ i-s-ti’ (Aissen 1999.474) [A3-dog CP-A3-eat] ‘It was his dog he ate’

(20) (a) K’usi l-a-s-ti’? (Aissen 1999.465)

78 “- , vt. tratar, efectuar” (Haviland 1981.369).

79 “ -il, s. dueño, propietario” (Haviland 1981.567). 436 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[what CP-B2-A3-bite] ‘What bit you?’

(b) J-tz’i’ l-i-s-ti’80 [A1-dog CP-B1-A3-bite] ‘It was my dog that bit me’

(21) (a) Buch’u i-s-kolta li tzeb-e (Aissen 1999.476) [who CP-A3-help the girl-CL] ‘Who helped the girl?’

(b) S-vixtak i-s-kolt-on (Aissen 1999.474) [A3-sisters CP-A3-help-AF] ‘It was her sisters who helped her’

(22) (a) Pero buch’u s-tam, (Laughlin 1977.353) [but who A3-take] ‘But who took it?’

(b) pero y-u7un vo7ot 7av-elk’an-ik81 ... [but A3-by you A2-steal-SUBJ] ‘It must be you who stole it ...’

As expected, the sentence-initial syntax occurs outside the context of questions and answers, for example (Laughlin 1977.57):

80 Aissen (1999.465) does not provide a direct answer to (19a), but (19b), built on the model of (i) (Aissen 1999.465), (i) Te nan k’usi l-i-s-maj [there CL WH CP-B1-A3-hit] ‘Something must have hit me’ should be correct.

81 The clauses in (22) are preceded by — in English translation —

It happened that there was a man who went, went and swallowed it [the ring]. He went and swallowed the ring so that it couldn’t be discovered. “Who knows where it went,” said [the King]. Question (22a) follows this, and the answer follows in (22b). FOCUS: First 437

(23) (a) “7Aa, va7i, buy ch-i-muy, k-a7uk me ta [Ah say82 where ICP-B1-climb A1-see83 CL to jol na-uk ch-i-muy vay-ik-on” ceiling house- ICP-B1-climb sleep-SUBJ-B1sg84 x-ut la ti s-me7 noxtok 7un-e NT-say CL the A3-mother again CL-CL] “Ah, I see where I should climb, then! I thought I was to climb into the rafters to spend the night,” he told his mother again.

(b) “7I7i, ta sba me l-av-ajnil ch-a-muy-e ... [no onto top85 CL CP-A2-wife ICP-A2-climb-CL] “No, you should climb on top of your wife ...”

In “The Man Who Didn’t Know How” (Laughlin 1977.54-57), a newlywed husband is receiving instruction on how to consummate the marriage. He is told to ‘climb on top’.86 He stupidly thinks that he is to climb to the rafters over his wife. Only in (23a), does he finally grasp where he is actually supposed to be: lit. 7Aa ‘Ah’ of a problem solved, then ‘Where I am to climb I realize’. As FOCUS, the buy ch-i-muy ‘where I am to climb’ precedes the normally sentence-initial transitive verb k-a7uk ‘I [now] understand’. In (23b), his instructor (his mother) addresses his mistaken grasp of the situation expressed in ta jol na-uk ch-i-muy vayikon ‘I was to climb to the rafters for the night’. She corrects with a sentence-initial FOCUS, ta sba me l-av-ajnil ‘on top of your wife’, which precedes the verb ch-a-muy-e ‘you should climb’: ‘On top of your wife [is where] you should climb’. ‘Discovery’, ‘dismay’, and ‘correction’ are frequent applications of FOCUS, and we find them here in a short span of Zinacantecan Tzotzil text.

82 Haviland (1981.380) glosses va7i/ as Oye ‘Listen!’

83 ‘Pensar equivocadamente’ (Haviland 1981.367).

84 SUBJ is ‘Subjunctive’ (Aissen 1987.15).

85 “ta ba ... on, on top of ... ta sba mesa, on the table” (Laughlin 1988.161).

86 Haviland 1977.56: 7Aa, pero x-a-muy xa me ta 7otro jun 7ak’ubal che7e [Ah, but NT-A2-climb already CL at next one night then] “Ah, but the next night you climb on top, then” 438 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

‘Clarification’ is also allotted to FOCUS (Laughlin 1977.214):

(24) ... mu x-av-il ja7 li sutum 7ik’-e , [NEG CP-A2-see PRO the whirlwind wind-CL s-k’an-oj taj sutum 7ik’-e, A3-ask-STAT that whirlwind wind-CL s-k’an-oj ta ch’en i A3-ask-STAT in cave and j-soktom-etik-e, lok’em one-Chiapa.de.Corzo-PL-CL whirlwind y-u7un-ik ta ch’en A3-ask.for-PL in cave] ‘Don’t you see, it was a whirlwind [the Chiapanecs] had asked for. It was a whirlwind they asked for in the cave’

As are other usages. Consider these (Laughlin 1977.325):

(25) (a) Bweno k’u ch-a-sa7 li vo7ot e, vo7ot-e [well what ICP-A2-look.for the you CL you-CL mu 7a-kwenta-uk x-7ut-at la 7un NEG A2-business- NT-tell-PSV CL CL] ‘“Well, what are you looking for? You have no business here,” Coyote was told’

(b) Pero yu7un vo7on l-i-kom tz-k’exol [but because I CP-B1-stay -substitute ta werta in garden] ‘But it’s because I’m staying as his successor in the garden’

(c) vo7ot ta j-chik’ l-a-chak 7une che7e x-7ut-at [you A1-burn CP-B2-red CL then NT-tell-PSV li 7ok’il 7une the coyote CL] ‘“It’s you whose ass I’ll burn,” Coyote was told’

Sentence-initial vo7ot in (25c) is the object of confrontation and threat.87

87 Vo7ot-e in (25a) is probably an example of what Aissen (1992) calls “topic”. See Chapter 22. FOCUS: First 439

Sentence-initial position is also used to express FOCUS of place, manner, time (Laughlin 1977.83, 35, 43, 67):

(26) (a) Bu ch-i-bat 7un? xi la 7un [where ICP-B1-go CL say CL CL] ‘“Where am I to go?,” he asked’

(b) Te 7onox jun ta ba mukenal te nox [there again one to graveyard there again ch-a-bat ICP-B2-go] ‘“To the graveyard again, you are just to go there”’

(27) (a) Buy ch-a-7abtej? xi la 7un [where ICP-B2-work say CL CL] ‘‘Where do you work?”, he asked’

(b) 7A, muk’ bu ch-i-7abtej ... [Ah NEG where ICP-B1-work ...] ‘Oh, I don’t work anywhere’

(28) (a) ... k’u x x-7elan 7av-a7i 7un? ... [... what NT-be/exist A2-hear CL ...] “... What did it sound like? ...”

(b) 7Aa batz’i yan x-al [Ah truly strange88 NT-say] ‘Oh, it sounded very strange’

(29) (a) K’u 7ora ch-a-nupun? xi la ti 7ok’til-e [what time ICP-B2-marry say ENC the coyote-ENC] ‘“What time are you getting married?” the coyote asked’ (b) 7Aa x-mal tana ch-i-nupun xi la ti t’ul-e [Ahh NT-old time ICP-B1-marry say CL the rabbit-CL] ‘“Oh, I’m getting married late this afternoon,’ said Rabbit’

5.1.3 Agent FOCUS in Tzotzil

88 ’Diferente, distinto, desagradable” (Haviland 1981.381). 440 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Finally, on sentence-initial FOCUS, notice that in (21b), there is a verbal suffix -on. This suffix is said to appear on transitive verbs only, and to interact with the content that is placed preverbally, including content that is focused. The semantics of -on is relevant at this point because it seems to modulate the semantics FOCUS when it combines with the semantic function of transitive Agents. Haviland’s (1981.273) assessment of the suffix is this:89

La forma anti-pasiva con el sufijo -on es muy restringida y no muy común. Muy a menudo es possible evitarla, porque el contexto verbal esclarace cual sustantivo es el agente y cual el complemento ... El anti-pasivo es más frecuente en preguntas, o con frases introducidas por pronombres interrogativos: much’u, k’usi, etc.

Haviland’s comments suggest that he sees the primary function of -on to be the avoidance of the ambiguity present in (30a) (Aissen 1999.466):

(30) (a) Buch’u i-s-kolta li tzeb-e? [who CP-A3-help the girl-CL] ‘Who helped the girl?’ ‘Who did the girl help?’

(b) Buch’u i-kolta-on li tzeb-e? [who CP-help-AF the girl-CL] ‘Who helped the girl?’

89 Attribution of this morphosyntax to anti-pasiva or antipassive has been abandoned (Aissen 1999.451). Haviland (1981.274) warns us against confusing this -on with the -on of verbal agreement, the B1sg suffix (cf. Figure 2): Nótese que el sufijo anti-pasivo -on ne so debe confundir con el sufijo nominativo de primera persona -on. This is good advice. Consider the following from Laughlin (1977.142): (i) K’usi ch-a-k’al-b-on? [what ICP-A2-look-IO- ] ‘What are you looking at?’ The gloss that Laughlin has chosen suggests a third person Patient; but that conflicts with the -on. The combination of grammatical marks points to -on as somehow combined with the k’usi ‘What?’. The gloss, however, is the culprit. It is better: (ii) K’usi ch-a-k’al-b-on? [what ICP-A2-look-IO-B1sg] ‘What are you looking at me for?’ FOCUS: First 441

Without the -on of (30b), (30a) is vague. The elided term is either the Agent or the Patient, and the function of the preverbal noun complements the function of the elision. The ergative-absolutive agreement of Tzotzil fails to distinguish who is the Agent and who, the Patient. In (30b), the suffix -on resolves the indeterminacy, and simultaneously, verbal agreement abandons the ergative-absolutive pattern. Either there is no agreement for person or the null third person absolutive is present.90 When non-wh words appear in response to buch’u ‘who’, the relation shifts (Aissen 1999.474):

(31) (a) S-vixtak i-s-kolta [A3-sisters CP-A3-help] ‘It was heri sisters shei helped’

(b) S-vixtak i-kolt-on [A3-sisters CP-help-AF] ‘It was heri sisters who helped heri’

In contrast with (30a), in (31a), with i-s-kolta, there is only one meaning, while in (30a), also with i-s-kolta, there are two.91 The semantic contrast between contentless, indefinite wh- words and contentful nouns can interact with the meaning of -on, but the relation is not consistent (Aissen 1999.474):

(32) (a) Buch’u i-y-ik’ s-primo? [who CP-A3-marry A3-cousin] ‘Who married his own cousin?’ ‘Who did his cousin marry?92

(b) *Buch’u ik’-on s-primo?

90 “Agreement is quite impoverished on AF verbs in Tzotzil” (Aissen 1999.458). Agreement for number is possible, but it may be with either the Agent or the Patient.

91 I have to assume that the presence of a noun li tzeb-e in (30a) and its absence in (31a) does not interact with the differences in meaning. No one comments on the possibility. I also have to assume that the coreference between the possessive her and she/her is not relevant. We are not told how the utterance might change if, in (31b), it were ... heri ... herj.

92 Aissen does not actually provide this second gloss for (40a), but if it does not exist, there is no way to ask ‘Who did his cousin marry?’ 442 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[who marry-AF A3-cousin] ‘Who married his own cousin?’

The analog of (30b) — (32b) — is absent in (32), and it is difficult to understand why. Assuming that the difference between cousins and girls is not the issue, the only contrast is the semantics of ‘help’ versus ‘marry’. This provides little basis for speculation. Example (32) is paralleled by (33) (Aissen 1999.459):

(33) (a) Buch’u s-pas mantal?93 [who A3-give order] ‘Who’s giving the orders?’

(b) 7Aa, k’usi ch-a-pas? [Ah what ICP-A2-do] ‘Ah, what are you doing?’

The semantics of buch’u and mantal preclude a second gloss for (33a), but (33b) — from Laughlin 1977.66 — suggests that pas permits either an Agent FOCUS as in (33a) or a patient FOCUS as in (33b). Comparison of (31), (32), and (33) does little to advance an understanding of -on. Aissen (1999.458 et passim) notes that “AF clauses are used for agent extraction in Tzotzil only when the patient is more prominent than the agent along the dimensions of definiteness, humanness, and topicality.” But even then, “the AF verb is not obligatory in Tzotzil.” and she argues that the natural semantic class of “definiteness,” “humanness,” and “topicality” seems to be “prominence” : “Prominence is partly a function of inherent semantic features like animacy, and partly a function of discourse prominence, which involves notions like topicality” (Aissen 1999.468).94

93 This example also occurs in Laughlin 1977.83: (i) Buch’u xi, buch’u s-pas mantal? [who say who A3-give order] “Who said so? Who’s giving the orders?”

94 The “prominence” that Aissen constructs here may be, in fact, the “prominence” of . FOCUS: First 443

The contrast between utterances such as (30b) and (32b) strongly suggests that the sense of -on is not to be found solely in the semantics of the components of the utterance, but in the context of usage. Recall from above (5.1.1) that in transitive VOS utterances, it is the final S that is the most definite, leaving the non-sentence-final O devoid of the marks of definiteness, li, ti, etc. If the transitive S is not final, then the transitive O is, and it is now free to exhibit the marks of definiteness, topicality, etc. It is perhaps -on that indicates that the O is doing just that. Aissen (1999.470) cites an example from Laughlin (1977.230):

(34) Pero buch’u x-mil-on? [but who NT-kill-AF] ‘But who killed her?’

The narrative is concerned with a woman who is ultimately killed, and the question follows after the discovery of her body by the magistrate, who precedes his question with “There is a dead woman over there ... Because I came by, next to the barbed wire fence. A woman is lying there! She was stabbed with a knife in her throat or her chest I think ....” Then (34) occurs. The context seems to support the conclusion that the transitive O has risen above its usual comparative obscurity. The TOPIC is the victim, not the murderer. But, on the other hand, consider (35) (Laughlin 1977.353):

(35) Pero buch’u s-tam? [but who A3-take] ‘But who took it?’

This question occurs in a narrative about a king and a ring. The text preceding the question is: “It happened that there was a man who went, went and swallowed it [the ring]. He went and swallowed the ring so that it couldn’t be discovered. ‘Who knows where it went,’ said [the king].” Then (35) occurs ... without -on. The TOPIC is the thief, not the ring. It seems that, as matters stand in the description of Zinacantecan Tzotzil, we have reached a waiting point. More needs to be done before we understand precisely what -on is doing.95 The essential thing for us, in this discussion, is

Cf. Chapter 22.

95 Aissen (1999) argues that the question has an answer, and that understanding -on turns on 444 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS that even without this information about -on, there appears to be no problem with concluding that FOCUS is present in Tzotzil and that it is expressed by placing content in sentence-initial position. Still, Tzotzil and the Mayan languages remind us of an unresolved issue in the semantics of FOCUS. We have seen that languages differ in how the semantics of their Agent-like function interacts with the semantics of FOCUS. Some languages, e.g. Bella Coola and Yogad, have no compunction with combining the two. Others show that there, nevertheless, exists a relation between the two semantics in that the Agent-like function exhibits its own morphosyntax when in the company of FOCUS. Kinyarwanda and Wolof are like this. There is a covert conflict between the semantics of AGENT and FOCUS, yet every language must — and will — achieve the combination.96 The Mayan languages cover the range of possibilities with respect to the interaction of Agent and FOCUS (Stiebels 2007). The affix -n- (Tzotzil -on, Itza -n-, and Mam -n) has varying functions across the Mayan languages, and where a Mayan language exhibits interaction between Agent and FOCUS, that affix will be involved. Some are like Tzotzil and have a tangled relationship and -on functions primarily in the placing of Agent content in the position of FOCUS. In Itza (section 5.3 below), it appears to play no role in that way. Cf. (45) & (46). Hofling (1982.192) refers to it as a “detransitive -n- marker ... that appears in all cases of object demotion in the completive.” Mam appears seeing the working of obviation in the AF verb form (Aissen 1999.453, 454, 459, 479):

I believe that the inverse analysis can be conclusively established for AF verbs in Tzotzil ... the AF verb in Tzotzil is an inverse along the dimension of obviation ... Obviation refers to a system of prominence that ranks third persons ... [it is] an abstract but salient category in Tzotzil. This is the same solution that was proposed in Aissen 1997 for the asymmetric distribution noted above at the end of section 5.1.1. Our conclusion there extends, I think, to the introduction of obviation here.

96 There is a complement antipathy that exists between the Patient-like function and TOPIC. Some languages, like Bella Coola (Chapter 15), Mam (Chapter 21), and Tzotzil (Chapter 22) strongly associate TOPIC with the Agent-like function. Other languages, like Chatino (Chapter 16), do not, although all four rely on elision. Still others, like Yogad (Chapter 17), ignore the propositional function of TOPICS and turn to a distinct grammar. In Yogad, it is a morphosyntax that exploits ay to express TOPIC. Overall, the Patient-like function of language seems to avoid association with TOPIC. Languages in which this is strong can still combine the two, PATIENT with TOPIC, but analogous to Kinyarwanda’s and Wolof’s combining AGENT with FOCUS, they turn to expressions adapted for that purpose. In Bella Coola, the grammar that allows combination of PATIENT and TOPIC is the Passive, which is then in a sense the complement of the grammar that combines the semantics of the AGENT and FOCUS. In Kinyarwanda, that grammar has been termed “cleft” (Kimenyi 1980), and in Wolof, it appears to be juxtaposition of two clauses (Chapter 5). FOCUS: First 445 to stand between Tzotzil and Itza in that the morphosyntax of -n is about equally implicated in the signalling of Agent FOCUS and in the VOICE of “object demotion”.97 While the Mam antipassive grammar appears necessary when transitive agents are questioned and answered (England 1983.214-215, 250),98 intransitive agents are focused solely by placing the focused Agent in sentence-initial position (England 1983.181):99

(36) T-wiiixh o Ø-kub’ t-ee ich’ [3s-cat PAST 3sA-go.down 3s-RN.PAT mouse] ‘His cat killed mice’

“twiixh ‘his cat’ is focused in the pre-verb position” and the verb is intransitive, ‘go down at’. Note the absolutive agreement with the Agent. The manners in which Tzotzil, Itza, and Mam arrange the mating of Agent with FOCUS may be sorted out and compared to other languages as in Figure 3.100 Tzotzil, and languages like it, occupy the middle ground in sometimes working like Itza and the others, and at other times, like Mam and its cohorts.

97 England (1983.110) refers to the -n suffix as the “antipassive” and abbreviates its grammatical gloss as ap: This suffix has the syntactic function of deriving an intransitive verb from a transitive stem whereby the original agent (only) is cross-referenced by thge absolutive markers on the verb and the original patient, if it appears, is in an oblique phrase. The antipassive is used for various functions ....

98 “... agent focus would most likely [?] use the antipassive construction” (England 1983.229). England (1983.251) suggests that the motivation for the use of the antipassive in expressing Agent FOCUS lies in disambiguation: “The use of the antipassive for agent question[s], with the patient in the oblique phrase, disambiguates agent from patient question[s].”

99 “It is not possible to focus a patient with the antipassive construction, since the construction serves basically [?] for agent focus” (England 1983.229).

100 Stiebels (2006.538) arrangement of the Mayan languages differs from this one. She considers Agent FOCUS in several Mayan languages, and discovers a cline from the most restrictive Tzotzil to the most tolerant Itza. Between the two, some Mayan languages restrict marked Agent FOCUS (i) to utterances with third persons as Agent & Patient. Then some appear to have extended the compass of Agent FOCUS (ii) to include speech act Agents with third person Patients, and then further (iii) to third person Agents with speech act Patients, and finally (iv) to all combinations of persons (Stiebels 2006.538). In terms of Figure 3, Stiebels’ (i) - (iv) would merge with Mam in that they all have some consistent morphosyntactic treatment of AGENT FOCUS that is distinct from other FOCUS. Tzotzil stands out in this because grammatically distinct AGENT FOCUS is sometimes present and sometimes not. 446 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Mixing with the semantics of AGENT and FOCUS are the semantics of their transitive environment. Agents in intransitive sentences like (36) in Mam do not show this sensitivity to FOCUS. Stiebels (2006.545) adds, “... Mayan agent focus ... does not apply to all subjects; intransitive subjects are not affected.”

The grammar of The grammar of AGENT FOCUS is not AGENT FOCUS is distinct distinct from the grammar from the grammar of FOCUS of FOCUS with other with other functions, functions, e.g. PATIENT101 e.g. PATIENT

Itza Tzotzil Mam Bella Coola Kinyawranda Yogad Wolof

Figure 3: The Grammatical Treatment of AGENT in Combination with FOCUS.

It is yet to be determined whether the Tzotzil context is (partially) abetting the combining of AGENT with FOCUS or whether the context is retarding the combination. When the semantics of a focused Agent is disentangled from its environment in languages like Tzotzil, we shall simultaneously learn more about the semantics of AGENT and more about the semantics of FOCUS.102

101 There is a further difference within this group. Itza is at the extreme in failing to treat Agent differently from other functions engendering the vagueness of (45) & (46). Bella Coola, while treating Agent like Patient with respect to FOCUS, continues to mark a distinction between the ROLES: (i) Snac

Snac

102 Stiebels (2006.542) sees the pattern as originally one that “arose as a means of disambiguation” and that “once the Mayan languages developed the morphological means to disambiguate subject and object focus, these means developed their own life” (563). The semantics that was “their own life” is not described by Stiebels. The Tzotzil implementation of AGENT FOCUS, in its interaction with variation in its environment, seems clearly not to be based on “disambiguation”. FOCUS: First 447

5.1.4 In situ FOCUS in Tzotzil There is still another unresolved issue in the description of Tzotzil FOCUS. Myhill (1983.161) asserts:

In Tzotzil, focusing places arguments in preverbal position and is a marked construction ... answers to questions are not normally [?] focused ....

Myhill understands ‘focusing’ to be represented by one of the Tzotzil wh- words. It is not certain what ‘answers’ are, if not ‘focused’. But Myhill’s (1983.161) one example — taken from Laughlin (1980.5) — is instructive:

(37) (a) Bu ch-a-bat Lol? [where ICP-B2-go Larry] ‘Where are you going, Larry?’

(b) Ch-i-bat ta Jobel [ICP-B1-go to Cristóbal] ‘’I’m going to Cristóbal’

The pattern represented in (37) appears to be an in situ implementation of FOCUS. Cf. Chapter 12. The pattern is confirmed by these examples, also taken from Laughlin (1977.74, 87):

(38) (a) Bu l-a-7ay? [where CP-B2-come.from] ‘Where did you go?’

(b) L-i-7ay ta pana, l-i-7ay [CP-B1-come.from from outside CP-B1-come.from ta k’abnel from urinate] ‘I went outside. I went to pee’

(39) (a) Bweno bu ch-a-bat? [well where ICP-B2-go] ‘Well, where are you going?’

(b) Ch-i-bat ta paxyal. [ICP-B1-go to hunting] 448 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

‘I’m going hunting’

In addition to the expressions of Location in situ, there are examples of a Patient and a Recipient FOCUS in situ (Haviland 1981.255, 260 & Laughlin 1977.257):

(40) (a) Buch’u i-s-mak? [who CP-A3-ask] ‘Who did he ask for?’ ‘A quién pidió?’ [Con quién está comprometido?’]

(b) I-s-mak s-tzeb li mol Petul e [CP-A3-ask A3-daughter the Pedro CL] ‘He asked for the daughter of don Pedro’ ‘Pidió la hija de don Pedro’

(41) (a) Buch’u tak’in? [who CP-give-IO-PSV money] To whom was money given?’ ‘A quién le fue dado dinero?’

(b) tak’in li Xun e [CP-give-IO-PSV money the Juan CL] ‘The money was given to Juan’ ‘A Juan le fue dado dinero’

(42) (a) Ch’abal 7av-ixim? [none103 A2-corn] ‘You haven’t any corn?’

(b) Ch’abal a7a! [none truly104] ‘None at all!’

In some ways, the descriptive condition of FOCUS in Zinacantecan Tzotzil approximates that of Hausa in the early 2000’s (Chapter 12, section 3.2),

103 ‘no existente’ (Haviland 1981.370).

104 ‘en verdad, de veras’ (Haviland 1981.367). FOCUS: First 449 when “the non-canonical in situ versions were hidden ‘below our radar’ — we didn’t see, but only because we weren’t actually looking” (Jagger 6006.53). The existence of an in situ FOCUS does not alter the observation that there exists a sentence-initial FOCUS in this VOS language, but it does say that there is still more to FOCUS in Tzotzil than has yet been described.

5.2 Mayan Figure 4 lists 31 Mayan languages (England 1991.453).105 The arrangement is England’s, and it approximates the genetic affinity of the languages. The closer one language is to another in the list, the closer is their

Q’eqchi’/Kekchi VOS Q’anjob’al/Kanjobal VSO Poqomchi’ /Pocomchi VOS? Mocho’ VOS106 Poqomam/Pocomam VOS? Tojolab’al/Tujolabal VOS? K’iche’/Quiche VOS Chuj/Chuj VSO Achi Tzotzil/Tzotzil VOS Sipakapense/Sipacapa — Tzeltal/Tzeltal VOS

105 This figure requires several comments. First it is a composite of England’s list and Quizar’s (1979.25) list, plus Quizar’s conclusions (1979.93-95) about Mayan “basic word order”, plus information I have taken from other sources. Quizar’s orders, in four cases, are uncertain enough to have a question mark following. The word orders should “be viewed fairly tentatively” (Quizar 1979.92). The attribution of word order is Quizar’s unless there is a footnote accompanying the specification of order. Where there is a dash and nor order, Quizar has listed the language with no entry for order. In the case of Achi, Quizar has not listed the language, and there appears to be no information on it. A nearly identical list by England (1983.7) has 30 languages. Achi is not among them. Second, the two lists do not accord. Quizar’s list of Mayan languages is from “[Terrence] Kaufman’s ... [(1974)] classification”. England’s list is from her earlier 1988 work (Introducción a la lingüistica Idiomas Mayas. Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüistico Francisco Marroquín.). The list in England 1991 and the 1988 version are “after Kaufman 1974”. Although England’s and Quizar’s two lists begin from the same source, they end in slightly different shapes. England’s is longer by two languages: Achi & Mocho’. The language map in England 1991 (p. 452) notes that Chikomuselteko is “dead”. It, nevertheless, appears in England’s 1983 list of 30 “extant Mayan languages”. Third, England prefers to use the language names as they are in Mayan, and Quizar uses the Spanish version of the name. In Figure 4, the Mayan version is first followed by a solidus, then the Spanish equivalent. Where there is no second version, the language is absent from Quizar’s list.

106 “Mocho’, another (greater) Q’anjob’alan language, seems also to be a basically VOS language that permits VSO under at least some circumstances” (England 1991.476). 450 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Sakapulteco/Sacapultec VOS107 Ch’ol/Chol SVO108 Tz’utujil/Tzutujil VOS109 Chontal/Chontal SVO110 Kaqchikel/Cakchiquel VOS111 Ch’orti’/Chorti SVO Uspanteko/Uspantec — Yukateko/Yucatec SVO~ VOS112 Mam/Mam VSO Lakandon/Lacandon SVO~ VOS113

107 “In sentences with two full noun phrase arguments, word order is relatively free (in isolation from discourse context). VOS is the normal order in these circumstances (so-called ‘basic’ word order), but all orders which do not separate verb from object are fully acceptable” (DuBois 1981.239).

108 Schumann (1973.36) attributes an SVO order to Chol as does Coon (2010a.47). Quizar (1979.93 et passim) assigns Chol a VOS? order.

109 “VPA [VerbPatientAgent] order is the most basic, neutral, or unmarked word order with respect to the discourse notions mentioned [topic, definiteness, and new, given, and contrastive information]” (Dayley 1981.416).

110 “Occasionally, both nominal arguments of a transitive verb are expressed, resulting in SVO, VOS, SOV, OVS, or VSO word orders. SVO is, by far, the most common of these word orders” (Knowles 1984.314).

111 England (1991.472) observes that Kaqchikel “[s]peakers have a fair amount of difficulty understanding verb-initial sentences ...”, yet “In spite of these difficulties modern analyses of Kaqchikel still propose VOS as the basic order ...” (England 1991.473).

112 “YM has a basic word-order consisting of SVO equally alternating with VOS with the independent subject noun being obligatorily marked [+specific]” (Durbin & Ojeda 1978.450). Norcliffe (2009.14) writes “When lexical NPs are present in thte clause, word order is canonically VOS. Topical subject NPs are frequently left dislocated (clause external), giving the appearance of SVO ordering.”

113 Bruce (1968) says nothing about word order per se, but he does provide several SVO Lacandon examples (Bruce 1968.105): (i)

indica un dueño de tercera persona en todos los casos.” Cf. also Bruce 1968.110, sentences #2 & #6 in La creación de la tierra y de los dioses. Hofling (1984) using texts from Bruce 1974 concludes that Lancandon is like the other three Yucatecan languages (Itza, Yucatecan, and Mopan) in that they are all nearly balanced SVO ~ VOS (Hofling 1984.47): In all dialects both VOS and SVO orders occur, which are of low markedness FOCUS: First 451

Tektiteko/Teco VSO114 Mopan/Mopan SVO~ VOS115 Awakateko/Aguacatec VSO Itza/Itza SVO~ VOS116 Ixil/Ixil VSO Wasteko/Haustec(o) SVO117 Jakalteko/Jacaltec VSO Chikomuselteko/Chicomuceltec— Akateko/Acatec VOS118

Figure 4: The Mayan Languages. historical relation. However one arrives at the conclusion of representative word order, two notable observations are (i) the diversity of word orders and (ii) the disagreement (actually to be expected) about which one(s) are the more “basic”. In Figure 4, the seven VSO languages occasion the greatest degree of agreement. About “those that have fixed VSO order,” England

according to the BWO marking criteria .... Cf. section 5.3 below for a discussion of Itza.

114 England 1991.451.

115 Although Quizar (1979.93) lists Mopan as VOS, Hofling (1984) sees all four Yucatecan languages, including Mopan as having two basic orders.

116 “... in Itza ... only two [SVO & VOS] of the six possible word orders are both unambiguous and unmarked semantically ...” (Hofling 1982.41).

117 Edmonson (1988.565): Basic transitive word order is A V O IO; basic intransitive word order is VS. O and S are in the same relation to the verb, following it, while A uniquely precedes it. Even so, England (1991.462) places Huasteco along with Tzeltal and some dialects of Chuj in a group of VOS ~ VSO languages. Robinson (2002.51 et passim), however, “argue[s] that, contrary to previous claims ...the ‘basic word order — more accurately, ‘basic constituent order’ (BCO) — of Tenejapa Tzeltal is VOA. Departures from VOA word order are principled and can be understood in terms of “information packaging” ... “or information structure” ....” The erosion of VOS ~ VSO as a language-type of “basic” order suggests that, while both orders may exist in a language, some other function is operating ... as in the SVO ~ VOS Itza below.

118 “Acatec is a verb-initial language in which patient normally precedes agent. Although other orders are possible, the most general order of sentence constituents is as follows: Verb + Object + Subject + Prepositional Phrase (Indirect Objects, Agentives, Instrumentals, Locatives)” (Peñalosa 1987.283). 452 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(1991.451) writes, “These languages [the same seven in Figure 4] unequivocally have VSO for sentences that meet the criteria for basic word order and in fact in most sentences have transitive verbs and explicit subjects and objects.”Writing of “those that have VOS order,” England (1991.451,454) says,

Languages in this group have VOS in sentences that meet the criteria for basic word order, but the majority also permit SVO in most of the basic word order contexts. In general, it is difficult to decide on which is more “basic.” VOS certainly tends to be less frequent than SVO, but since this is NOT a criterion for basic word order, other factors need to be taken into account in analyzing basic word order. These languages do not permit VSO or do so only under highly pragmatically marked circumstances. Ixil of Cotzal does not permit unmarked [?] SVO with transitive verbs.

The eight languages that England places in this group are marked by bold face roman type in Figure 4.119 This contrasts significantly with the fifteen that have been otherwise identified as VOS languages. The differences between the two lists are of two sorts. England’s list may omit a language which the other list cites as VOS, e.g., Q’eqchi’/Kekchi. And England’s list may describe a language as VOS, whereas the other list does not, e.g. England has Ixil as VOS, while the other list has it as VSO. Then, there are “those that have both VOS and VSO” (England 1991.454):

These languages permit both VOS and VSO in basic word order contexts and usually also permit SVO in most of these contexts and usually also permit SVO in most of these contexts. It is difficult to analyze which of these orders is more basic. The difference between VOS and VSO seems usually to depend on some difference in animacy or in definiteness, but analysis is not clear for all languages.

Languages that England places in this group are listed in Figure 4 in bold face and italic type, and the differences between the two lists are of the same sort as the differences found among the VOS languages. Of “those with SVO” (England 1991.455),

While many Mayan languages permit SVO, some as a relatively marked and some as a relatively unmarked order, only Ch’orti has been analyzed as an SVO language (Quizar 1979).

119 England’s list actually has nine VOS languages, but I have omitted sixteenth century Yukateko. FOCUS: First 453

Even so, having placed Kaqchikel among the VOS ~ VSO languages, England (1991.472) later adds:

Kaqchikel is the language of the K’ichean branch that is perhaps the most insistent on SVO order today.

Cf. section 5.4 below for further discussion of the SVO order in Mayan. One of the striking properties of discussion of Mayan word order is its unsettled nature.120 Although most or all the Mayan languages can be assigned some basic word order (cf. Figure 4 above), they continue to show orders that complement the one they have chosen as basic. For example, Tojolabal may be a VOS language, but it also uses VSO, SVO, OVS, SOV, and OVS (Brody 1978.407). In this context, England (1991.455) makes a suggestion:

It is also necessary to examine more carefully the details of the VOS and mixed order languages to understand better the factors that contribute to variation in these languages.

One of the few constants seems to be agreement that most Mayan languages are verb-initial.121 Against this background, the key is England’s “factors”. One speculation is this. There are two primary “factors”. Given that, with a few exceptions, Mayan languages are verb-initial, then sentence-initial, preverbal position will be exploited for the expression of FOCUS (cf. section 3 above). Preverbal position is associated with the expression of FOCUS, and occasionally with the expression of FOCUS in combination with TOPIC. (Cf. Itza in section 5.3 below. Cf. also Culminative FOCUS in Finnish, Chapter 11, section 2.5.) The expression of FOCUS is the first “factor”. Second, the condition that holds in Tzotzil, in which sentence-final position is in some sense the complement of FOCUS, requiring that whatever appears in that position to satisfy the semantics of the position, recurs in some form in the verb-initial, non-SVO Mayan languages. Writing of the co-presence of VOS and VSO in Mayan, England (1991.462, 463, 464) notes that Tzeltal,

120 And its often fragmentary nature. Writing in 2002, Robinson (2002.51) can say: In fact, many core parts of Tzeltal grammar have never received sustained investigation, even though a few book-length studies of Tzeltal grammar have been published ... and the language has been the subject of a good deal of work in linguistic anthropology and language acquistion ....

121 “Mayan languages are usually analyzed as verb-initial ...” (England 1991.451). 454 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Wasteko, and Chuj of San Mateo Ixtatán “seem to rely on animacy features in establishing the two orders,” and that “All of the other Mayan languages that permit both VOS and VSO make the distinction on the basis of definiteness rather than animacy ....” In the view of syntax and semantics that will emerge in this work, the semantics of “(in)definiteness” and “(in)animacy” will not play a primary role in determining the organization of morphosyntax. The elemental players are FOCUS, TOPIC, DETERMINACY, VOICE, ROLE, EVENT, PARTICIPANT, and a contrast between NUCLEUS & PERIPHERY. (Cf. Chapter 1, section 3). If this is so, then the appearance of “(in)definiteness” and “(in)animacy” must be indices of one of the preceding more elemental semantics. This is an empirical claim about what we will find in examining the semantics of syntax, and it can be easily falsified. In Chapters 21, 22 & 23, we return to challenge this conjecture in detailing the presence of TOPIC in three Mayan languages: a more-or-less strict VSO Mam, a more-or-less strict VOS Tzotzil, and a more variable VSO ~ VOS Chuj of San Mateo Ixtatán. In the following section, we look at one of the Mayan languages that has had two basic orders attributed to it, and in the section following that we look briefly at the SVO Mayan languages.

5.3 Itza Itza is worthy of attention here because is it one of those Mayan languages that is apparently unsettled, having both SVO and VOS as basic.122 Nevertheless, it still employs sentence-initial position as a mark of FOCUS (Hofling 1982.49, 50):

(43) (a) K-u-kin-s-ik keeh a’-winik-eh? [INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM deer the-man-TOP] ‘Did the man kill the deer?

(b) Ma’, balum k-u-kin-s-ik a’-winik-eh [no jaguar INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-man-TOP] ‘No, the man killed a jaguar’

(44) (a) Max k-u-kin-s-ik a’-balum-eh? [who INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-jaguar-TOP] ‘Who kills the jaguar?’

122 “All of the criteria of Basic Word Order are met by both SVO and VOS sentences ... Thus it appears that there are two basic word orders in Itza” (Hofling 1982.45, 46). FOCUS: First 455

(b) A’-winik k-u-kin-s-ik a’-balum-eh [the-man INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-jaguar-TOP] ‘The man kills the jaguar’ Hofling elsewhere (1982.42) notes that (51b) is ambiguous and also has the gloss ‘The jaguar kills the man’. The FOCUS is constant. The variable is the attribution of ROLE. The nominal prefix a’- is a “determiner ... prefixed to the noun it modifies and marks only that the noun is specific” (Hofling 1982.96). The -eh suffix “... frequently occurs to mark given, topical NPs, often in topic- shift constructions where the nominal is fronted ... In narratives it often marks a new discourse section ... The topic marker is a default marker for definite NPs with the determiner a’, which ordinarily requires an NP-final definite marker ...” (Hofling 2000.249).123 Similar indeterminacy in identifying Agent and Patient is found in these (Hofling 1982.42, 48):

(45) Winik k-u-kin-s-ik balum [man INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM jaguar] ‘Man kills the jaguars’ ‘Jaguars kill man’

(46) Winik k-u-kin-s-ik a’-balum-eh [man INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-jaguar-TOP] ‘Man kills the jaguar’ ‘The jaguar kills man’

The constant in (44b), (45), and (46) is that FOCUS is sentence-initial, preceding the verb. The sense of Agent or Patient fits variably into the frame. The ambiguity disappears only when the sentence-initial term is also accompanied — at least — by the marker for TOPIC (Hofling 1982.41):

(47) A’-winik-eh k-u-kin-s-ik a’-balum-eh [the-man-TOP INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-jaguar-TOP] ‘The man kills the jaguar’

(48) A’-winik-eh k-u-kin-s-ik balum [the-man-TOP INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM jaguar] ‘The man kills jaguar’

123 “The -eh suffix appears to serve the function of highlighting old information in all cases and appears at the end of the NP constituent modified” (Hofling 1982.101). 456 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

The ambiguity has disappeared in (47) & (48), as well as the sense of Syntagmatic FOCUS. Sentence-initial TOPIC marked with -eh — as it is by -e in Tzotzil — is necessarily associated with a transitive Agent, as it is in Tzotzil.124 Hence, (47) & (48) must have a unique attribution of ROLE. Itza permits a sentence-initial TOPIC to be followed by a FOCUS. Compare (47) - (48) with (49) (Hofling 1982.54):

(49) A’-balum-eh winik k-u-kin-s-ik [the-jaguar-TOP man INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM] ‘As for the jaguar, it kills man’ ‘As for the jaguar, man kills it’

Tzotzil allows the same usage (Aissen 1992.51 & Laughlin 1977.204):

(50) ... 7a ti prove tzeb-e, sovra la ch-7ak’-b-at [ the poor girl-CL leftovers CL ICP-give-IO-PSV] ‘[As for] The poor girl[, she] was given the leftovers’

A sentence-initial TOPIC can also occur with a second TOPIC (Hofling 1982.52), and when a second TOPIC is present, Syntagmatic FOCUS is absent as before:125

(51) A’-balum-eh a’-winik-eh k-u-kin-s-ik [the-jaguar-TOP the-man-TOP INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM] ‘As for the jaguar, it kills the man’ ‘As for the jaguar, the man kills it’

In (51), one of the TOPICS must be a transitive Agent; but if so, the second TOPIC can be a transitive Patient. But which is which? ... hence the ambiguity. The same extends somehow to (49). Tzotzil has no equivalent of (51). “En frases indicativas un sólo constituyente puede anteponerse” (Haviland 1981.57). Both (49) and (51) are indeterminate with respect to the identification of Agent and Patient. Itza exploits these sentence-initial patterns: (52) (a) FOCUS ... (b) TOPIC ...

124 Where the sentence-initial TOPIC is a nominal.

125 Apparently, Itza does not permit two prevebal TOPICS and a FOCUS. FOCUS: First 457

A combination of FOCUS + FOCUS “is of questionable grammaticality” (Hofling 1982.55). Itza has the possibility of placing a verb in sentence-initial position (Hofling 1982.43):

(53) K-u-kin-s-ik` balum a’-winik-eh [INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM jaguar the-man-TOP] ‘The man kills jaguars’

(54) K-u-kin-s-ik` a’-balum a’-winik-eh [INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-jaguar the-man-TOP] ‘The man kills the jaguar’

(55) K-u-kin-s-ik` balum winik [INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM jaguar man] ‘The man kills jaguars’ ‘Jaguars kill man’

(56) *K-u-kin-s-ik` a’-balum-eh a’-winik-eh [INC-3PRS-die-CAUS-PM the-jaguar-TOP the-man-TOP]

Because TOPIC is preferentially associated with a transitive Agent, (53) is not ambiguous, nor is (54). Because TOPIC — and FOCUS — is absent from (55), neither TOPIC nor FOCUS prejudices either argument towards Agent or Patient. Sentence (55) is indeterminate. Sentence (56) fails because it has two sentence-final TOPICS.126 With respect to word order, it is clear that it is not productive to think of Itza in terms of V, O, and S. The essential observations — Aissen’s “factors” — are to be made with respect to function/meaning: (i) sentence-initial position (without -eh) before the verb marks FOCUS, (ii) sentence-initial position with -eh marks TOPIC, (iii) sentence-final position with -eh marks TOPIC, and (iv) when there is one TOPIC, it is perceived as the transitive Agent. Viewed in this way, the essential sameness between Tzotzil and Itza is apparent. Both languages structure the PROPOSITION in terms of a sentence-

126 The fact that Itza permits two sentence-initial TOPICS, while restricting TOPIC to one appearance sentence-finally should be instructive of the meaning of TOPIC in Itza. 458 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

initial EVENT/Verb; both use sentence-initial position before the EVENT/Verb to mark TOPIC and/or FOCUS — with TOPIC preceding FOCUS if both are present. Both preferentially associate TOPIC with the transitive Agent (excluding the transitive Patient from this semantics unless the patient is passivized), and both use sentence-final position for a continuing TOPIC.

5.4 Mayan SVO: Cholan & Huasteco We have seen that two of the 29+ Verb-initial Mayan languages employ sentence-initial position to mark FOCUS. The claim of section 3 in this chapter, i.e., that all Verb-initial languages employ sentence-initial position to mark FOCUS, has so far survived. In the context of a language family that is so thoroughly Verb-initial, it is then interesting to find this statement by Aissen (1992.43):

... most Mayan languages allow the subject and/or object (as well as other constituents) to precede the verb ...

The implication of the ‘most’ is that there are some Mayan languages — at least one — that do/does not employ sentence-initial position for FOCUS (or any other function). If there is such a Mayan language, then our expectation is that that language is not one of the Verb-initial ones. It would be a striking (but indirect) support for our conjecture if the language(s) that do(es) not “allow the subject and/or object (as well as other constituents) to precede the verb” were precisely the Mayan language(s) that is/are SVO. England (1981.455) cites a single Mayan language that has been identified as SVO: Ch’orti’. However, other sources extend SVO order to Chontal and to Chol so that the three languages of the Cholan sub-family exhibit a basic SVO order. At least one additional Mayan language, Huasteco (Edmonson 1988) is fundamentally SVO.

5.4.1 Cholan As it turns out, our initial expection — prompted by Aissen’s statement — that some one(s) of the Cholan languages will not employ sentence-initial position for FOCUS is not borne out. Quizar & Knowles-Berry (1988.91) immediately advise us that:127

... the Cholan languages are like other Mayan languages in utilizing SVO order to indicate agent-focus ...

127 They do not provide an example. FOCUS: First 459

In the following sections, we will look briefly at Ch’orti’, Chontal, and Chol.

5.4.1.1 FOCUS in Ch’orti’ Fought (1967.1) provides this information about the speakers of Ch’orti’:

Chortí is a Mayan language spoken by some 20,000 persons in the state of Chiquímula, in eastern Guatemala. Most of these speakers live on the slopes surrounding the town of Jocotán. A few thousand live in he municipios of Olopa, to the south of Jocotán, and in La Unión, to the north. A few dozen live on the eastern border of Guatemala in the municipio of Camotán. These few speak a dialect which is quite different from that of the inhabitants of the first three municipios.

The primary sources for Ch’orti’ are Fought 1967 & 1972, Quizar & Knowles-Berry 1988, and Quizar 1994. Fought worked with speakers in two villages of Jocotán. In a discussion of “normal order of constituents”, Fought (1967.146) provides this example:

(57) +. ‘e’uin”ik ‘u’io”?pi ‘e’i”xik + [ the-man his-striking-it the-woman] ‘The man is hitting the woman’ and says:128

The normal order of constituents is shown in these U constructions; director-axis. Some examples occur where there is an apposed U construction, called the subject, which precedes the director if an axis follows, and which either precedes or follows it if there is no axis.

128 The “director-axis” terminology comes from the mid-20th cenetury, pre-Generative tradition. It is used to described exocentric constructions. There are three major types of exocentric constructions, one of which is a “directive construction” (Hockett 1958.191): The most widespread subtype of directive construction — found, apparently, in all languages — is the objective type: the director is a verb and the axis an object.

About the “U constructions”, Fought (1967.145) explains: Chortí constructions are of the U type or the A type. An A construction is aspectual and appositive, whereas a U construction is anaspectual and directive. 460 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Ch’orti’ is SVO, and its intransitive sentences are either SV or VS:

(58) (a) +. ‘e’ui”nik ‘a’io”?pon + [ The-man he-strikes]

(b) +. ‘a’io”?pon ‘e’ui”nik+ [ He-strikes the-man]

There are no free glosses provided for (58a) & (58b). Quizar & Knowles- Berry (1988.90) cite the following as “a normal transitive construction in Chorti”:

(59) E winik war u-pak-i-Ø [the man PROG A3s-doubleover-THEME-B3s e nar the cornstalks] ‘The man is doubling over the cornstalks’

Quizar (1994.123), “... transitive word order can be determined as ‘basic’ AVO by the criteria of frequency and markedness ... But in Intransitive constructions the ordering is much freer, with SV and VS occurring approximately equally ....” This confirms Fought’s assessment of Ch’orti’ intransitives. The AVO order is attributed to the observation that “A is by far the most common role for topics in transitive constructions, while O is almost never a topic.” The SV ~ VS order follows from the fact that “SV is used when the subject is a previously established topic in the discourse ... The contrasting VS order is used in intransitive constructions whenever the subject is not the topic of discourse” (Quizar 1994.129). Of this Ch’orti’ example taken from Fought 1972.216:

(60) Entónses che e winik, “E chíle, akay ink’uxi” [then say the man the chile AUX I-eat-it] Then the man said, “Chile, I eat that.”

Quizar (1994.126) says, “Where O precedes the transitive verb, the O noun phrase is under focus ... as in example ...[(60)].”

5.4.1.2 FOCUS in Chontal FOCUS: First 461

Knowles (1984.314) writes, “Occasionally, both nominal arguments of a transitive verb are expressed, resulting in SVO, VOS, SOV, OVS, or VSO orders. SVO is by far, the most common of these word orders.” For example:129

(61) [MG Fernando A3 hit-IMPF-B3 MG John] ‘Fernando hits John’

One example of sentence-initial FOCUS in Chontal is this (Knowles 1983.315)

(62) [beans A3 eat-IMPF-B3 MG John] ‘John eats beans’

“The OVS word order is rare and may occur only when the object is inanimate or focused and the subject is animate.”

5.4.1.3 FOCUS in Chol Schumann (1973.36) says this about Chol word order:

Tanto en las formas transitivas como en las intransitivas, aperece generalmente un sujeto en primera posición, o sea antecediendo al predicado; el objeto aparece siempre después del predicado ....

There are no examples of SVO sentences in Schumann 1973, but Warkentin & Scott (1980.33, 35, 63) have these:130

(63) Jini x’ixic ti’ chombey-on i mut [the woman sold -B1s chicken] ‘The woman sold me a chicken’ ‘La mujer me vendió un pollo’

129 MG is Masculine Gender.

130 Warkentin & Scott (1980.33) have this VOS example without comment:

(i) Ti’ ñ ixim jini winic [ buy rice the man] ‘The man bought rice’ ‘El hombre compró maíz’ 462 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(64) Jini winic ti majii [the man left] ‘The man left’ ‘El hombre se fué’

(65) Majlemix Juan ti juli José [gone Juan came José] ‘Juan had already gone when José came’ ‘Ya había ido Juan (Cuando) vino José’

Although no one discusses FOCUS specifically in Chol, Schumann (1973.39- 40) has this exchange in a short text:

(66) A: Baki ora ma’-tol-el? [which time -come- ] ‘When are you coming?’ ‘¿Cuando vienes?’

B: Ba ora aw-om mik-tol-el [whatever time -come -want- ] “I’ll come when you want me to’ ‘Cuando quieres yo vengo’

5.4.2 Huasteco Although Edmonson (1988.565) is confident that Huasteco is an SVO language, the morphosyntax of FOCUS is less certain: “Information about focus is not complete” (Edmonson 1988.590). There appear to be at least two formulations to Huasteco FOCUS. The first employs sentence-initial position as in the Cholan languages (Edmonson 1988.571):

(67) [afterwards the leaves AUX SUBJ-A4 spread.out] ‘After that, the leaves, we’re going to spread them out’

(68) [this water all not SUBJ-A3 throw.out] ‘All this water, he shouldn’t throw it out’

(69) FOCUS: First 463

The three examples come from connected speech, and in (67), “attention shifts to the penultimate task [in making the Huastec ceremonial tamale] of spreading out papatla leaves in a wheelbarrow ....” In (68), “the protagonist is told that he is forbidden to throw away the water, but must carry all of it to the ocean daily, an onerous task imposed as punishment for his sins.” In (69), “the despised father is being left drunk and naked, as punishment.” And there is this question and answer (Edmonson 1988.572):

(70) (a) [what SUBJ-A1 do now] ‘What should I do now?’

(b) [well not thing AUX SUBJ-A2 do] ‘Well, you’re not going to do anything’

The second formulation of Huasteco FOCUS uses a strategy that was identified above in section 2 as Paradigmatic FOCUS: “The most frequent way to indicate focus is by use of the equative predicates ... in conjunction with clauses” (Edmonson 1988.591):

(71) (a) [he he.me told that B3 died A3 pig] ‘He told me that his pig died’

(b) [he he.me told that be A3 pig

that B3 died] ‘He told me that it was his pig that died’

(72) [not the John who

the Tom] ‘It wasn’t John who bought the horse, it was Tom’ 464 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Although (71b) and (72) focus either a transitive or an intransitive Agent, the same morphosyntax can focus a Patient: (73)

that A1 saw] ‘I didn’t notice if it was your grandmother that I saw’

It is not clear from Edmonson 1988 whether the sentence-initial position may also focus an Agent. Even though Huasteco lacks the Mayan morphology associated with an Agent FOCUS (Stiebels 2006.507), it may still manage to code the combination of AGENT with FOCUS in ways different from the combination of FOCUS with other semantics. But the major point is that even these Mayan SVO languages will resort to sentence-initial position to mark FOCUS.

5.5 Conclusion If any of the Mayan languages were not to employ the grammar of sentence-initial position to express FOCUS, the SVO Ch’orti’, Chontal, Chol, and Huasteco would be those languages. Since they all seem to be like Tzotzil and Itza in this regard, we must expect that all Mayan languages resort to sentence-initial position to code FOCUS.

6. FOCUS Initial Languages that are SOV: Somali131

Somali (af soomaali) is spoken by more than four million people in the Horn of Africa. This includes all the citizens of the Somali Democratic Republic (Somalia), probably a majority of Djibouti citizens, and substantial minorities in Ethiopia and Kenya. It is the official language of Somalia and is the sole medium throughout Somali society, including schools, local and national administration ... Genetically, Somali is an East Cushitic language ... Somali has three basic dialect groups: Common (Northern), Central, and Benaadir (Coastal) ... Common Somali is the most widespread and prestigious of the dialects and was a lingua franca among dialects in earlier times. Now, with some minor influences from the Benaadir dialect of the capital Mogadishu, it has become the national standard in Somalia. (Saeed 1984.11-13)

131 The comments here depend on the following work: Andrzejewski 1975, Antinucci 1980, Gebert 1986, Hetzron 1965, Lecarme 1991, 1994 & 1999, Livnat 1983 & 1984, Saeed 1984, 1987 & 1999, and Svolacchia, Mereu & Puglielli 1995. FOCUS: First 465

Somali is probably an SOV language:

Somali is usually said to have a word order of Subject-Object-Verb (S-O-V) ... However, accepting this basic order of S-O-V, a survey of the examples given in this study [Saeed 1984] will clearly reveal that in a great many cases this is not the surface word order; and this fact would be true of any corpus of Somali sentences ... much of the divergence away from S-O-V word order is caused by focus and topic structures.” (Saeed 1984.35-36)

The verbal piece is the basic element of a sentence and consists obligatorily of a verb and, optionally, or verbal pronouns, locative, and deictic prepositions The order of these elements within the verbal piece is fixed regardless of the order of any elements, noun phrases etc., outside the verbal piece; and is as follows:

subject — object — locatives — deictics — verb pronoun pronoun (Saeed 1987.200)

Somali is a free word order language, though the preferred, unmarked order is probably SOV. (Livnat 1983.90 & 1984.6)

Le Somali est une langue OV qui se charactérise, parmi les autres langues cuchitiques, par l’extrême liberté de l’ordre de mots (en ce qui concerne tout au moins les NPs argumentaux). (Lecarme 1994.26)

Word order in clauses seems to be remarkably free. (Lecarme 1999.278)

6.1 ASSERTION While grammatically correct, the SOV (a)-members of (1) - (3) (Saeed 1984.23, 84, 91, 97, 126, 171 & 178, Saeed 1987.206, 212, and Saeed 1999.170) fail as complete ASSERTIONS:132

(1) (a) Niman-ka baabuur-ka wata133

132 These orthographic choices are standard for Somali (Saeed 1987.15): c for a voiced pharyngeal fricative, dh for a voiced post-alveolar retroflex stop, and kh for a voiceless velar or uvular fricative. Somali is a tone language with “three basic tones, using two levels of pitch: HIGH tone ... e.g. á ... LOW tone ... left unmarked e.g. a ... FALLING tone e.g. àa” (Saeed 1987.20-21). Not every author marks tone in their examples. I have cited them as I found them.

133 Saeed 1987.63 has this version: (i) Nimánka baabùurka wadá [the men the truck drive] 466 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[men-the car-the drive] ‘The men who drive the truck’

(b) Nín-kii bàa gaadhígíi cusbáa watáy [man-the INDPART car.the new drove] ‘The man drove the new car’

(2) (a) Niman-kii lacag-tii xaday [men-the money-the stole] ‘The men who stole the money

(b) Cali lacag-tii wuu keenay [Ali money-the INDPART brought] ‘Ali brought the money’

(3) (a) Baabuur-kii i dhaafay [truck-the me passed] ‘The truck that passed me’

(b) Baabuur-kii baa i dhaafay [truck-the INDPART me passed] ‘The truck passed me’

While the (a)-utterances fail as ASSERTIONS, they succeed as NAMES. To achieve the status of a free standing ASSERTIONS, the (a)-utterances require additional morphosyntax, namely the material in bold italics. The same is true of these intransitives (Saeed 1999.170, 1984.69, 105 and Saeed 1984.101- 102):

(4) (a) Nin wanaagaan [man good] ‘A man who is good’

(b) Nin-ka ayaa wanaagsán

‘The men who drive the truck’ FOCUS: First 467

[man.the INDPART good] ‘The man is good’

(5) (a) Nin-kii yimi [man-the came] ‘The man who came’

(b) Isaga yimi [he came] ‘He who came’

(d) Niman-kii ayàa yimi [men-the INDPART came] ‘The men came’

(e) Isaga wuu yimi [he INDPART came] ‘He came’

The three forms represented in (1) - (5) are baa, ayaa, and w-uu. In the tradition of Somali linguistics, these are called “Indicator Particles” (Andrzejewski 1975), and I have used “INDPART” as their grammatical gloss in the examples. Comparison of the respective (a)-sentences with the (b)- and (c)-sentences indicates that these morphemes are the carriers of the force of semantic ASSERTION.

En somali, tout énoncé déclaratif est caracterisé par l’usage complémentaire et obligatoire de baa/ayaa ou waa. (Lecarme 1991.34)

... either baa or waa ... must obligatorily occur in declarative main clauses. (Lecarme 1999.276) 468 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

EVENTS in isolation, e.g., yimi ‘came’ in (5a), by themselves fail to carry ASSERTION sufficient to complete a PROPOSITION.134 Before proceeding, we need to make three explanatory comments on the forms and their morphophonemics. First, baa and ayaa appear to be free alternates:

... in the present study baa and ayaa will continue to be treated as optional variants. (Saeed 1984.79)

The difference between baa and ayaa is mainly stylistic. In different environments one focus marker may be the speaker’s first choice, but the other is almost invariably accepted when suggested. The focus marker ayaa is slightly preferred in writing and in slow, deliberate and emphatic speech. When a speaker of Somali is asked to repeat a sentence with baa he has just uttered, very often he would repeat it using ayaa in stead of baa. (Livnat 1984.85)

J’admettrai ici que baa et ayaa sont en variation libre, et que ayaa inclut l’élément baa. (Lecarme 1991.34)

Baa and ayaa are held to be wholly equivalent apart from some stylisic differences, ayaa being a more formal, slow speech variant of baa. (Svolacchia, Mereu & Puglielli 1995.93)

Second, the Indicator Particle baa takes different shapes when inflected. There are two sets of Somali pronouns (Independent & Verbal) with one of them having a distinction between Subject and Object forms (Saeed 1984.158, 187.162-163). When a nominal (or Independent Pronoun) Subject is followed by an Indicator Particle, it will be sentence initial and the shape of the Particle will be baa.135 When a non-Subject is followed by baa, the complex will also normally be sentence initial, and the Subject will follow (Gebert 1986.46):136

(6) Maryam b-uu Cali dilay

134 “Every indicative, affirmative sentence in Somali must contain one and only one indicator particle” (Livnat 1983.91). “... Somali uses the obligatory focus markers (F) [i.e., baa, ayaa, and waa, PWD] in every independent declarative sentence” (Gebert 1986.43). “Somali requires that in every main sentence a focus particle be present” (Svolacchia, Mereu & Puglielli 1995.66).

135 “When the indicator particle baa marks a subject in a sentence, it always occurs in its unconjugated form baa” (Livnat 1983.96).

136 “NPs focused by baa or ayaa occur leftmost within their sentence ...” (Saeed 1984.24). FOCUS: First 469

[Maryam INDPART-he Ali beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

In that circumstance, baa is inflected, reflecting the person and number of the Subject. The form buu in (6) is the morphophonemic product of the third person singular verbal pronoun of Figure 3 following baa. When the Subject

Independent Verbal Subject Object

‘I’ aniga aan i ‘you’ adiga aad ku ‘he’ isága uu — ‘she’ iyáda ay — ‘we (Incl)’ innága aynu ina ‘we (Excl)’ annága annu137 na ‘you (Pl)’ idínka aydín138 idín ‘they’ iyága ay —

Figure 3: Somali Pronouns. is not overtly expressed, that pronoun inflection is still present (Saeed 1984.79):

(7) Nin-k-uu dilayaa [man-the-INDPART.he is.beating] ‘He is beating the man’

Here, the sequence nin-ka + baa + uu reduces to ninkuu. The combination of baa plus the Verbal Subject Pronouns in Figure 3 produces the shapes of Figure 4 (Heztron 1965.118). Third, the form wuu in (2b), (3c), and (4c) is morphophonemically parallel to buu in Figure 4. In utterances with a Verb as the EVENT, the Verb will be preceded by a Verbal Pronoun for the Subject, and for the Object, if present. Cf. Figure 3. They will appear between the Indicator Particle waa and the Verb. The Subject Verbal Pronoun will then combine with waa to produce

137 Saeed 1984.99 has aannu. Livnat 1983.96 has aanu.

138 Livnat 1983.96 has aydu. 470 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS forms parallel to the Inflected Indicator Particles in Figure 4 (Saeed 1984.101,

Indicator Verbal Inflected Particle Subject Pronoun Indicator Particles

‘I’ baa aan ⇒ baan ‘you’ baa aad ⇒ baad ‘he’ baa uu ⇒ buu ‘she’ baa ay ⇒ bay ‘we (Incl)’ baa aynu ⇒ baynu ‘we (Excl)’ baa annu139 ⇒ baannu140 ‘you (Pl)’ baa aydín141 ⇒ baydin142 ‘they’ baa ay ⇒ bay

Figure 4: Somali Indicator Particle Plus Pronouns.

141 and Gebert 1986.44):

(8) (a) Cali w-uu Ø tiriyey [Ali INDPART-he it counted] ‘Ali counted it’

(b) Cali w-uu ku arkay [Ali INDPART-he you saw] ‘Ali saw you’

(d) Isagu w-uu dhintay [he INDPART-he died] ‘Him, he died’

139 Saeed 1984.99 has aannu. Livnat 1983.96 has aanu.

140 Livnat (1983.96) has baanu.

141 Livnat 1983.96 has aydu.

142 Livnat 1983.96 has baydu. FOCUS: First 471

The necessity of using one of the Indicator Particles in order to form a free standing declarative utterance suggests their absence is equally exploited. And it is, as we saw above in the expression of relative clauses. But the non-use of Indicator Particles goes beyond relative clauses to effect a variety of semantics where absence of ASSERTION is appropriate. In the formation of relative clauses, the initial position is the prominent one in establishing the component which the clause qualifies, i.e. the “head” (Saeed 1987.63)

(9) (a) Baabùur-ka nimán-ku wadàan [truck-the men-the drive] ‘the truck which the men drive’

(b) Nimán-ku baabùur-ka wadá [men-the truck-the drive] ‘the men who drive the truck’

Initial position continues to be important in the construction of other non- assertive expressions. The following illustrate some of those uses (Saeed 1999.224):

(10) (a) Mark-aan arkay (w-uu Ø kéenayay) (Saeed [time-I saw INDPART-he it bringing] 1987.65) ‘When I saw him (he was bringing it)’

(b) Islá márkíi uu yimíd (shàqùu bilaabay) (Saeed [ time he arrived began work] 1987.240) ‘As soon as he arrived (he began working)’

galay) (Saeed 1987.241) came] ‘While she was dining (my friend came in)’

(d) Hadd-àad tagtó, (is jir) (Saeed 1987.243) [occasion-you go take care] ‘If you go (take care!)’ 472 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(e) Wax kast-ùu is-ku143 dayó (lacág b-ùu [thing each-he self-with tries money INDPART-he ká sameeya) (Saeed 1987.244) with makes] ‘Whatever he tries (he makes money at it)’

(f) Ín-uu imánayó (ay-áan ógahay) (Saeed [that-he is.coming INDPART-I know] 1999.234) ‘(I know) that he is coming’

(g) Xaggee-d tagtay? (Saeed 1999.202) [where-you went] ‘Where did you go?’

(h) Xaggee b-aad tagtay? (Saeed 1999.201) [where INDPART-you went] ‘Where did you go?’

(i) Kú shúb! (Saeed 1987.202) [in pour] ‘Pour it in!’

(j) Há tago!144 (Saeed 1987.203) [CLASSIFIER go] ‘May he go!’ ‘Let him go!’ (k) Shòw kúu keenee145 (Saeed 1999.208) [CLASSIFIER for.you bring] ‘Perhaps he will bring it for you’

143 “The combination of is and kú does not form a cluster, though the two words together are often written as if joined ... Together they convey a meaning of ‘joining, together, likeness’ ...” (Saeed 1987.195).

144 “... the minimum optative sentence is simply the verbal piece, or há with the verbal piece for the third person” (Saeed 1987.203).

145 “Potential sentences ... usually occur with the word shòw, which we shall treat as the classifier for this sentence type. The minimal potential sentence consists of shòw with the verbal piece, which for these sentences does not contain subject verbal pronouns” (Saeed 1987.204). FOCUS: First 473

Another sentence-initial form wáxa(a) will play a role in the formation of FOCUS (cf. below). In (10a) - (10f), the initial element — like the sentence- initial head of the relative clause — determines the character of the non- ASSERTION, which amplifies the co-occurring clauses (in parentheses). “They [i.e., the Indicator Particles] act thus as signals of completeness of the sentence and their absence, in certain structures, acts as a signal of dependence of a verbal form on the preceding noun or its equivalent” (Andrzejewski 1975.125). Sentences (10i) - (10k) show that absence of Indicator Particles is possible in independent utterances if they are not assertive. The Imperative (10i),146 Optative (10j), and Potential (10k) are marked by a “special verb form” (Saeed 1987.202, 203 & 204).

6.2 FOCUS We have seen that the Indicator Particles carry the semantic force of ASSERTION. We now discover that they simultaneously carry the semantics of FOCUS.147 Consider the following (Gebert 1986.48, Saeed 1984.24, 25, 28 & 125, 177-178, and Saeed 1999.192, 231):

(11) (a) Max-aa dhacay? [what-INDPART happened] ‘What happened?’

(b) Cali baa Maryam dilay148 [Ali INDPART Maryam beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

146 “Note that, possibly as a result of the egalitarian nature of traditional Somali society, imperatives do not have the same associations of power and impoliteness as in English and are consequently much more commonly used” (Saeed 1987.73). This suggests diminished ASSERTION for the Imperatives as indicated by the missing Indicator particles.

147 Antinucci & Puglielli (1980.90) call this “the focus of assertion”.

148 Confusingly, Svolacchia, Mereu & Puglielli (1995.91) have this utterance parallel to (11b) (i) Maryan baa Cali dilay [M. FM C. beat] ‘Ali beat MARYAM’ but with an odd gloss. Following the grammar of (11b), (i) should mean ‘MARYAM beat Ali’, and not the reverse. Recall that the uninflected Indicator Particle baa follows the Subject. 474 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(12) (a) Kuma ayaa kalluun-kii cunay? [who INDPART fish-the ate] ‘Who ate the fish?’

(b) Cali ayaa kalluun-kii cunay [who INDPART fish-the ate] ‘Ali ate the fish’

(13) (a) Y-aa Ø yeelay? [who-INDPART it did] ‘Who did it?’

(b) Axmed baa Ø yelay [Ahmed INDPART it did] ‘Ahmed did it’

(14) (a) Y-áa yimi? [who-INDPART came] ‘Who came?’

(b) Cali bàa yimi [Ali INDPART came] ‘Ali came’

(15) (a) Kuma ay-aad aragtay? [who INDPART-you see] ‘Who did you see?’

(b) Amina ay-aan arkay [Amina INDPART-I saw] ‘I saw Amina’ (c) %Amina w-aan arkay [Amina INDPART-I saw] ‘I saw Amina’

(16) (a) Cali baa lacag-tii keenay, sow ma aha? [Ali INDPART money-the brought QM not be.NEG] ‘It was Ali who brought the money, wasn’t it?’ FOCUS: First 475

(b) Haa, Cali baa lacag-tii keenay [yes Ali INDPART money-the brought] ‘Yes, Ali brought the money’

(d) %Haa, lacag-tii b-uu keenay [yes money-the INDPART-he brought] ‘Yes, he brought the money’

(17) (a) Cali lacag-tii b-uu keenay, sow ma aha? [Ali money-the INDPART-he brought QM not be.NEG] ‘Ali brought the money, didn’t he?’

(b) Haa, Cali lacag-tii b-uu keenay [yes Ali money-the INDPART-he brought] ‘Yes, Ali brought the money’

(18) (a) Wìi-kii má maragay? [boy-the QM vomit] ‘Did the boy vomit?

(b) Haa, w-ùu matagay [yes INDPART-he vomited] ‘Yes, he vomited’ (c) Haa, wìi-kii w-ùu matagay [yes boy-the INDPART-he vomited] ‘Yes, the boy vomited’

(d) %Haa, wìi-kii ayàa matagay [yes boy-the INDPART vomited] ‘Yes, the boy vomited’ 476 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Relying on the heuristic that responses to questions will point us to the morphosyntax of FOCUS, we find that baa, ayaa, and waa are the indicators of FOCUS as well as the bearers of ASSERTION. Although Somali appears to distribute ASSERTION/FOCUS either to the end of a PROPOSITION (if the EVENT is asserted/focused) or to the beginning (if some other content is asserted/focused),149 it shares significantly with Mupun (Chapter 12, section 3.3) and with Bella Coola (Chapter 3). Each language manifests ASSERTION and FOCUS as a portmanteau. They differ in fairly trivial ways, i.e., how the grammar of ASSERTION and FOCUS is expressed. Somali is as we have seen. Mupun likewise employs morphology as the carrier of ASSERTION/FOCUS, but then places ASSERTION/FOCUS at the desired location in a language that is SVO. Bella Coola restricts ASSERTION/FOCUS to sentence initial position in a language that is VSO. The content that is to be asserted/focused is then cycled through sentence initial position. Like Rwanda (Chapter 3), in Somali, content that is being introduced into the conversation requires FOCUS (Saeed 1984.170):

(19) (a) Baabuur baa i dhaffay [truck INDPART me passed] ‘A truck passed me’

(b) *Baabuur w-uu i dhaafay [truck INDPART-it me passed] ‘A truck passed me’

(d) Baabuur-kii w-uu i dhaafay [truck INDPART-it me passed] ‘The truck passed me’

(20) Waxa jiray nin (Saeed 1984.30) [what existed man] ‘There was a man’

149 Somali will later reveal itself to be more generally cast as a TOPIC + FOCUS language. Cf. below. FOCUS: First 477

While the sentences of (19) use Syntagmatic FOCUS, sentence (20) exemplifies a Bipartite FOCUS expressed by a TOPIC + FOCUS grammar. Cf. below. Either is a satisfactory way to introduce new content.

6.3 TOPIC Although the combination of ASSERTION/FOCUS baa with a non-EVENT is said to appear in sentence-initial position,150 there is at least one consistent pattern in which that is not so. Some element(s) will precede the term qualified by baa/ayaa. Cf., for example, (17a) above in which Cali preceded the focused/asserted lacagtii buu.151 We begin to make sense of this by considering the question of (21a) and possible answers and non-answers (Gebert 1986.47):

(21) (a) Mux-uu Cali sameyay? [what-INDPART.he Ali do] ‘What did Ali do?’

(b) Cali Maryam b-uu dilay [Ali Maryam INDPART-he beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

Sentences (21b) and (21c) are both acceptable Somali utterances, yet (21b) — with Cali before the focused/asserted Maryam — properly answers (21a), while (21c) does not. Both (21b) and (21c) place ASSERTION/FOCUS on the Patient Maryam so they must differ in some other semantics ... which appears to be TOPIC. Question (21a) mentions Cali, who continues into the answer as

150 “NPs focused by baa or ayaa occur leftmost within their sentence ...” (Saeed 1984.24).

151 Contrast the shape of the Indicator Particle b-uu in (17a) with the shape baa in (16a). In (17a), Cali itself is outside ROLE and VOICE semantics of the PROPOSITION, and the propositional AGENT is present formally as the Verbal Pronoun uu. In (16a), the AGENT Cali is within ROLE and VOICE system of the PROPOSITION, but it is the FOCUS as well; hence, no Verbal Pronoun is present, and the shape of the Indicator Particle is baa. 478 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

TOPIC. And to signal TOPIC, position to the left of FOCUS is employed.152 Position to the right of ASSERTION/FOCUS as in (21c) signals a lack of continuity that is not appropriate in response to (21a). The following from Gebert (1986.47), with a context analogous to (21), confirms the use of the pre-ASSERTION/FOCUS position to mark TOPIC:

(22) (a) Mar-kii Cali guriga u soo nogday, Maryam [time-the Ali house-the to here came Maryam jikaday ku jirtay. kitchen in was] ‘When Ali came home, Maryam, was in the kitchen.

(b) Dabadeed Cali Maryam b-uu dilay [then Ali Maryam INDPART-he beat] ‘Then Ali beat Maryam’

Beginning with (22a), only the conclusion of (22b) succeeds. The conclusion in (22c) has Cali following the ASSERTION/FOCUS in a position that is not semantically compatible with continuing content. Conversely, if content is placed initially in the position of TOPIC, as Cali is in (23b), and if the context appropriate to TOPIC is missing, for example, the question (23a), then there can be no continuity, and TOPIC is misused. Neither (21b)/(23b) nor (23c) is an appropriate response to (23a) (Gebert 1986.48, 51):

(23) (a) Max-aa dhacay? [what-INDPART happened] ‘What happened?’

(b) %Cali Maryam b-uu dilay [Ali Maryam INDPART-he beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

152 As in Modern Greek. FOCUS: First 479

[Maryam Ali INDPART beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

It is a sentence like (23d) that answers (23a):

(23) (d) Cali baa Maryam dilay [Ali INDPART Maryam beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

The candidate answers (23b) and (23d) share an SOV order, and the difference between them lies in the absence of pre-ASSERTION/FOCUS content in (23d), i.e., the Cali of (23b). Although I do not find this in the literature, I assume that (23e) would also be acceptable in answer to (23a):

(23) (e) Maryam b-uu Cali dilay [Maryam INDPART-he Ali beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

The essential thing is that there is no TOPIC content expressed where none is justified. Pre-ASSERTION/FOCUS position can be used to establish TOPICS as well as to note continuing ones. Context such as Time can be a self-establishing TOPIC (Gebert 1986.56):

(24) (a) Max-aa dhacay? [what-INDPART happened] ‘What happened?’

(b) Shaley Cali baa dhintay [yesterday Ali INDPART died] ‘Ali died yesterday’

And Saeed (1984.31) adds examples of this sort:153

153 The comma following a sentence-initial TOPIC is an inconsistent mark:

(i) Nin-kii, w-uu yimi (Saeed 1984.34) [man-the INDPART-he came] ‘The man, he came’ (ii) Wii-kii w-uu matagay (Saeed 1999.231) 480 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(25) Suuqa, hilib geelku aad b-uu [market-the meat camel very INDPART-it qaalisan yahay expensive is] ‘The market, camel’s meat is very expensive’

There is one other usage in which non-asserted/focused terms precede ASSERTION/FOCUS, namely, waa. Appropriate to the pre-ASSERTION/FOCUS position as a marker of TOPIC, no content which is not established in the context may appear before waa (Saeed 1984.34):

(26) (a) Lacag-tii, w-aan helay [money-the INDPART-I found] ‘The money, I found it’

(b) *Lacag, w-aan helay [money INDPART-I found] ‘Some money, I found it’

Gebert (1986.50) adds this example:

(27) Cali Maryam w-uu dilay [Ali Maryam INDPART-he beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

Gebert (1986.50) evaluates (27) as follows:

... [(27)], with the focus on the verb, requires a context in which both NPs stand for given information ... Therefore ... [(27)] is to be considered a marked pattern with quite a limited distribution, used in specific contexts ... In fact, Somali informants are rather reluctant to accept patterns represented for ... [(27)] since it is difficult to create an approriate context for them.

[boy-the INDPART-he vomited] ‘The boy vomited’

Both nan-kii ‘the man’ and wii-kii ‘the boy’ are TOPICS in (i) and (ii). If they are not TOPICS, then the Verbal Pronoun is absent from the Indicator Particle waa (Saeed 1984.172): (iii) Baabuur-kii waa yimi [truck-the INDPART came] ‘The truck came’ FOCUS: First 481

Saeed (1984.177-178) provides such a context:

(28) (a) Cali lacag-tii b-uu keenay, sow ma aha? [Ali money-the INDPART-he brought QM not be.NEG] ‘Ali brought the money, didn’t he?’

(b) Haa, Cali lacag-tii w-uu keenay [yes Ali money-the INDPART-he brought] ‘Yes, Ali brought the money’

Sentence (28b) is also a response to (29):

(29) Cali lacag-tii w-uu keenay, sow ma aha? [Ali money-the INDPART-he brought QM not be.NEG] ‘Ali brought the money, didn’t he?’

In (28b), both Cali and lacagtii are repeated from the preceding utterance, and like Cali in (21b), both function as TOPIC.154 This meshes with Gebert’s statement that “both NPs stand for given information”. Post-verbal position has a function similar to the sentence-initial, pre- ASSERTION/FOCUS TOPIC position (Gebert 1986.54):

(30) Y-aa Maryam dilay? [who-INDPART Maryam beat] ‘Who beat Maryam?’

(31) Cali baa Maryam dilay [Ali INDPART Maryam beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

(32) Maryam Cali baa dilay

154 Saeed (1984.170) confirms this: “... this means that waa does not occur with indefinite NPs.” Sentence (29), however, is left without an explanation. How are both Cali and lacagtii the TOPICS the grammar says they are? Saeed does not remark on this, but I suspect the explanation lies in sow ma aha, that is glossed as a tag question ‘Is it not so?’ (Saeed 1999.205). In (29), sow ma aha suggests a context in which Cali and lacagtii are already present and continue into the tag query of (29). 482 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[Maryam Ali INDPART beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

(33) Cali baa dilay Maryam [Ali INDPART beat Maryam] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

When content has been mentioned in the preceding utterance, it has an option in addition to appearing in initial TOPIC position as in (32). Sentence (33) shows that it may also appear after the EVENT. As in the case of TOPIC, this option is denied when the content is not continuing from the preceding utterance (Gebert 1986.53):

(34) Max-aa dhacay? [what-INDPART happened] ‘What happened?’

(35) %Cali baa dilay Maryam [Ali INDPART beat Maryam] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

Now, (33)/(35) is not a possible answer, nor is (32); only (31) will do. Saeed (1984.33) recognizes the post-Verbal expressions as “‘afterthought’ topics”:

These ‘afterthought’ topics ... share many of the characteristics of topics proper. They may, for example, be separated by a pause from the sentence. They also play no grammatical role in the sentence; and thus like topics may always be deleted leaving a grammatical sentence.

“Afterthought” topics and TOPICS have an unexplored interplay (Saeed 1984.26, 41):

(36) Cali mux-uu ku sameeyey kalluun-kii? [Ali what-INDPART.he with did fish-the] ‘What did Ali do with the fish?’

(37) Kalluun-kii Cali waa cunay [fish-the Ali INDPART ate] FOCUS: First 483

‘Ali ate the fish’

Kalluunkii is “afterthought” in (36), but TOPIC in (37).

6.4 FOCUS of Singularity There is still more to waa. Consider this exchange (Gebert 1986.60)

(38) (a) Cali ma yimid? [Ali Q come] ‘Did Ali come?

(b) Haa, w-uu yimid [yes INDPART-he came] ‘Yes, he did’

(d) Haa, waa yimid [yes INDPART came] ‘Yes, [he] did’

(e) %Haa, w-uu yimid [yes INDPART-he came] ‘Yes, he did’

The form waa can appear inflected for a Subject as in (38b) or without inflection.155 The response in (38b) is itself questioned in (38c), asking for confirmation. Now, the first answer of (38b) will not suffice. The only

155 The inflected shapes of waa are (Saeed 1984.55): 1st w-aan keen-ay ‘I brought it’ 2ndSg w-aad keen-tay 3rdSgMsc w-uu keen-ay 3rdSgFem w-ay keen-tay 1Pl w-aannu keen-nay 2Pl w-aydin keen-teen 3rdPl w-ay keen-een The verb as well shows agreement with the Subject. 484 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

response is (38d), in which there is no constituent save the EVENT, which bears the ASSERTION/FOCUS. There is no ROLE and VOICE, nor is there a TOPIC. The EVENT with waa in (38d) is a Singularity of ASSERTION/FOCUS, while the EVENT with w-uu in (38b) serves in a pattern of Syntagmatic FOCUS.156 Gebert (1986.60) comments:

... the truth value of the event expressed by the verb in ... [(38d)] is asserted with more intensity than in ... [(38b)]. In other words, ... [(38d)] appears as more marked for the focus of assertion on the verb than ... [(38b)].

Contrasts such as (38b) & (38d) and the following illustrate the extreme in the compaction of FOCUS (Gebert 1986.61):

(39) (a) Cali w-uu yimid [Ali INDPART-he came] ‘Ali came’

(b) Cali waa yimid [Ali INDPART came] ‘Ali came’

Gebert again comments on the contrast between the two:

It seems in that that ... [(39a)] can be uttered in a context announcing a new state of affairs; it is considered thus an unmarked sentence .... On the other hand ... [(39b)] can apparently be used as an announcement (confirmation) of an expected event [Emph mine, PWD]. This means, again that sentences such as ... [(39b)] are marked for assertion on the verb.

Even though there is a TOPIC in (39b), the isolation of the EVENT in combination with ASSERTION/FOCUS maintains its intensity. And of (40a) & (40b):

(40) (a) Nin-kii w-uu yimid [man-the INDPART-he came] ‘The man came’

(b) Nin-kii waa yimid

156 Cf. section 2 above. FOCUS: First 485

[man-the INDPART came] ‘The man came’

... a sentence like ... [(40b)] cannot be uttered in isolation, but has to be followed by some other sentence. It functions, then, as the beginning of a story ... where as ... [(40a)] can be uttered as an autonomous statement ... Obviously, these differences are sometimes very subtle and difficult to isolate. Nevertheless, what is interesting about these data is the fact that the loss of the privileged status of the subject is expressed by the absence of the subject pronoun on the F-marker following either a NP different from S, or the verb.

The “privileged status” is the presence of ninkii, i.e. -uu, as a ROLE in the ROLE/VOICE organization of the PROPOSITION in (40a). Sentence (40b) has no ROLE/VOICE organization. It seems that the Indicator Particle waa, uninflected, exceeds the inflected Indicator Particle w-uu in some dimension. Gebert’s term “announcement” is suggestive of the variety of these waa’s. In addition to describing the contrast between (39a) & (40b), “announcement” — a presenting or a setting forth — is adequate to describe the introduction of content that is (40b). The act of announcing, presenting, or setting forth is an isolated one ... Here! Announcing that “The man came” differs from telling/relating that the man came in that it invites explanation.157 Something is to follow in order to motivate the announcement.158 Given the property of announcing, it is consistent that waa “occurs only in sentences in the present tense” (Livnat 1984.98). Other examples of the FOCUS of Singularity are these (Saeed 1987.210- 212 & 1999.188-189, 239-240):

157 Conversational implicature?

158 A contrast between an inflected and an uninflected Indicator Particle b-uu and baa is possible with a semantic difference that compares with the difference between w-uu and waa (Hetztron 1965.122-123): ... the alternation between bàa and bùu after a non-subjectal element is possible only when an explicit nominal subject is present — in its absence, only the conjugated form can occur ... From the sometimes vague indications of the informants, the following tentative conclusions can be drawn: when buu is used, the connection of the emphasized element with both the preceding and the following sentences is closer, it serves as a link between them. On the other hand, the use of bàa implies an anticipated element, which, in the case of temporal and modal expressions, serves as a general ‘back-ground’ for the following sentence by disconnecting it from the preceding one. It marks a change of scene, a shift of the time-axis, a discontinuity. 486 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(41) Waa nabád [INDPART peace] ‘Peace!’ [Reply to a greeting]

(42) Waa yahay [INDPART be] ‘Okay’

(43) Waa in-aad tagtó159 [INDPART that-you go] ‘You must go’

(44) Wàa dhakhtar [INDPART doctor] ‘He is a doctor’160

(45) Wàa gabdhó [INDPART girls] ‘They are girls’

(46) Waa kúma? [INDPART who] ‘Who is it?’

(47) Waa xaggée? [INDPART where] ‘Where is it?’ ‘Where are they?’

This expression can signal a literal setting forth (Saeed 1987.211):

(48) Wàa i kan [INDPART me this]

159 Sentence (35) asserts/focuses the nominalized ‘that you go’, and the implication of that content being set forth is that it is so, hence the ‘must’. Andrzejewski’s (1975.146) gloss for a similar example, ‘It is necessary (or obligatory) ...’ suggests that this is a deontic ‘must’.

160 “If the first NP in a ‘A waa B’ sentences [sic] is omitted, a third person subject, ‘it’ or ‘he, she, they’, is understood” (Saeed 1987.210). FOCUS: First 487

‘Here I am’

6.5 Waxa(a) and Paradigmatic FOCUS In summary to this point, it appears that Somali ASSERTION/FOCUS is initial in any utterance in which it appears, and it fails to be initial only when it is preceded by content that is TOPIC.161 That applies to ASSERTION/FOCUS when it combines with non-EVENTS, as well as when FOCUS/ASSERTION occurs with EVENTS. Somali is then structured as

TOPIC + ASSERTION/FOCUS162

161 Saeed (1999.229) states that the pre-FOCUS/ASSERTION material is unordered: “full NPs which are known or given ... occur freely in any order.” (i) Cali warqád-dii w-uu li dhiibay [Ali letter-the INDPART-he me.to passed] ‘Ali passed the letter to me’

(ii) Warqád-dii Cali w-uu li dhiibay [letter-the Ali INDPART-he me.to passed] ‘Ali passed the letter to me’

162 Matters in Somali are, however, a bit more complex than presented above. Consider, for example, this question (Gebert 1986.50): (i) Cali y-uu dilay? [Ali who-INDPART.he beat] ‘Who did Ali beat?’

We would expect that, because Cali precedes the grammar of ASSERTION/FOCUS, it would be TOPIC and in a following utterance, if Cali were present, it would continue to precede the grammar of FOCUS/ASSERTION. That is, Cali would continue as TOPIC, and (ii) would be the appropriate answer: (ii) Cali Maryam b-uu dilay [Ali Maryam INDPART-he beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’ The response (ii), that we would expect, “is supported by the data” (Gebert 1986.51), but “In fact ... [(iii)] is a perfect answer to ... [(i)]” as well (Gebert 1986.51): (iii) Maryam b-uu Cali dilay [Maryam INDPART-he Ali beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

For some reason, the question (i) is behaving as a context different from (21a). The context of (i) allows us to ignore the presence of Cali in the question when the answer is formed. The context of (21a) does not permit us to ignore Cali in the context. Sentence (i) questions the Patient, but if we question the Agent, we discover the same possibilities (Gebert 1986.51): 488 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

We now encounter difficulty with Somali. Recall from above that the sense of a relative clause is affected by composing a normal utterance, but omitting the mark of ASSERTION/FOCUS, e.g.,

(49) (a) dukaan-kii niman-ku doonayaan (Saeed 1984.107) [shop-the men-the looking.for] ‘the shop the men are looking for’

(b) Akhri buugag-ga aan kuu keenay (Antinucci & [read books-the I you.to brought] Puglielli 1980.89) ‘Read the books that I brought to you!’

A mark of definiteness appears on dukaan ‘shop’, niman ‘men’, and buugag ‘books’ in (49), and on wax ‘thing’ in (50) & (51):

(50) Wix-ii baa jebay (Saeed 1984.59) [thing-the INDPART broke] ‘The thing broke’ (51) Wáx-a la íi sheegay ín-uu (Saeed 1987.237) [thing-the one me told that-he tagó go] ‘I was told that he goes] [Lit. ‘The thing one told me is that he goes’]

(52) (a) Wáx b-aan akhrinayaa (Saeed 1999.238)

(iv) Y-aa Maryam dilay? [who-INDPART Maryam beat] ‘Who beat Maryam?’ (v) Maryam Cali baa dilay [Maryam Ali INDPART beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’ (vi) Cali baa Maryam dilay [Ali INDPART Maryam beat] ‘Ali beat Maryam’

A non-TOPIC looking Maryam is possible in (vi), as the non-TOPIC looking Ali was acceptable in (iii). It may be that dabadeed ‘then’ in (22b) and (22c) is operative in enforcing TOPIC continuity. As matters now stand, there are contexts in which TOPIC continuity must be maintained and those in which it may not be. FOCUS: First 489

[thing INDPART-I am.reading] ‘I am reading something’

(b) Wax ma dheceen? (Saeed 1984.59) [thing QUESTION happen] ‘Did anything happen?’

About the morphology of ‘definiteness’ Saeed (1987.150, 152) explains:

There are two definite articles, meaning ‘the’, and each occurs in a masculine and a feminine form, agreeing with the noun to which it is attached:

the first is ka (masc.), ta (feminine) the second is kíi (masc.), tíi (feminine)

The difference between the two types is one of remoteness in space and time from the speaker: if the noun is distant or in a sentence referring to the past, the article kíi/tíi will be used. If the noun is physically close to the speaker, or, in an expression of time, refers to the present or future, then ka/ta will be used .... there is no indefinite article ....

The shape -ku & -ga (41), -ii (50), and -a in (51) are normal morphonemic variants.163 The absence of a suffix in (52) expresses indefiniteness. We have also seen that in addition to the relative clause, there is a second kind of clause that lacks ASSERTION/FOCUS, but which does not have the sense of a relative clause. I repeat a couple of them here:

(53) Hadd-àad tagtó, is jir! (Saeed 1987.243) [occasion-you go take care] ‘If you go, take care!’

(54) Wax kast-ùu is-ku dayó lacág b-ùu [thing each-he self-with tries money INDPART-he ká sameeya (Saeed 1987.244) with makes] ‘Whatever he tries he makes money at it’

163 Among the morphophonemic rules are these: “k becomes g after g, w, y, or i ... k is dropped after h, x, q, c, kh ... t becomes d after all vowels and d, x ....” (Saeed 1987.151). 490 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

These clause initial terms appear to carry a mark of definiteness. For example, in (53) the initial word is “haddíi ‘the time, occasion’ ... which convey[s] the meaning ‘if’” (Saeed 1987.243). Haddíi seems composed of had ‘time’ and díi (< tíi Fem. Definite). In (54), the sequence is wax kastá plus the verbal pronoun uu. Kasta is composed of kas plus the Feminine Definite ta. The combination wax kas-ta-uu is realized as wax kastuu. The relative clauses of (49) are distinguished from those in (53) & (54) in two ways. First, the initial terms in the relative clause occupy a syntactic position which marks them as filling a ROLE in the PROPOSITION, e.g., Patient in (41). The clause initial terms of the second type do not fill a ROLE function. Second, the relative clauses themselves usually occupy a syntactic position within a larger clause that identifies the term they name as functioning as some ROLE in that more inclusive PROPOSITION. The clauses of the second sort accompany another PROPOSITION, but do not have a function within it. This leads us finally to our point:

(55) Wux-uu yidhi w-aan ka haqay (Saeed 1984.76) [thing-he said INDPART-I at feared] ‘I was afraid of the thing/what he said’

(56) Wúx-uu sheegay inaanu garánéyn (Saeed 1999.225) [what-he reported that.not.he understand.NEG] ‘He said that he didn’t understand’ [Lit. ‘What he said (was) that he did not understand’]

There seems to be a difference here in the two wax-clauses. In the first, wax identifies more concrete, specific content, whereas in the second, wax is more a vague semantic holder, to be made whole only when the second part of the utterance provides the substance, i.e. inaanu garaánéyn ‘that he didn’t understand’. The contrast is recognized in the literature by accepting an element waxa in Somali, distinct fom wax. Waxa has a range of glosses ‘a concrete thing, an object,’ ‘something, anything,’ ‘a person, people’ (Saeed 1984.58) and which is a lexicalised version of wax & ka: “The status of waxa is clear ... [It] is the lexical item wax ‘thing’ plus the definite article -a ...” (Saeed 1984.42).164,165

164 Saeed (1984.77) comments further: The translation of the lexical item wax-a (where -a is the definite article ‘the’) into English presents difficulties since its range of meaning corresponds to no FOCUS: First 491

The waxa-clauses appear only in the morphosyntax of the TOPIC + FOCUS sort,166 and are further confined to expressing the TOPIC. In Andrzejewski’s (1975.135) view:167

... I propose to introduce a new term and call them “heralding sentences.” The choice of the term is suggested by the fact that the indicator wáxa places emphasis on the noun or its equivalent which somes later in the sentence, thus heralding as it were, its arrival.

Andrzejewski’s “heralding” appears to be a fair recognition of the semantics of TOPIC. The following question and answer pairs demonstrate the FOCUS part of the TOPIC + FOCUS morphosyntax:

(57) (a) Kuma ay-aad aragtay? (Saeed 1984.24) [who INDPART-you see] ‘Who do you see?’

(b) Wax-aan arkay Amina

one English word ...The closest approximation is ‘who, what’, but while ‘What brought it was a train.’ is possible, ‘Who brought it was me.’ is a little strange. For this reason two translations are usually given: waxa as ‘the one(s)’ in ‘The one(s) who VP be NP’; and a cleft version ‘It be NP who VP.’ (where the underlined NP is in focus).

165 There is also a contrast between waxa and waxaa when (at least) the waxa-clause specifies an intransitive Subject: (i) Wáxa yimi nimán-kii (Saeed 1984.213) [what came men-the] ‘What came was the men’ (ii) Waxaa tagay Cali (Livnat 1984.87) [F left Ali] ‘Ali left’ The difference is unexplained, except for Livnat’s (1984.89) postulation that waxaa is actually wax+baa. Saeed (1999.194) notes “the word waxa (waxaa)” and then cites it (et passim) as “waxa(a)”.

166 I have found no examples that contradict this.

167 In Andrzejewski’s 1975 description, waxa is an Indicator particle as are baa, ayaa, and waa. Note that waxa is not always an Indicator Particle. Compare sentences (49) & (50). It is only in the morphosyntactic context of TOPIC + FOCUS that waxa might be an “Indicator”. Note also that if waxa is an Indicator Particle, this will produce utterances with two Indicators, whereas otherwise, the limit has been one per utterance. Cf. below. 492 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[who-I saw Amina] ‘Who I saw was Amina’

(58) (a) Kuma ayaa kalluun-kii cunay? (Saeed 1984.25) [who INDPART fish-the eat] ‘Who ate the fish?’

(b) Waxa kalluunn-kii cunay Cali [who fish-the ate Ali] ‘Who ate the fish was Ali’

The (b)-utterances of (57) & (58) express FOCUS as do the (c)-expressions, with the contrast between them being that the former employ Paradigmatic FOCUS and the latter, Syntagmatic FOCUS. Consistent with this Paradigmatic formation of FOCUS, Saeed (1987.213) observes. “wáxa only focuses noun phrases which follow its verb.”168

168 Cf. also Saeed 1999.194. Livnat’s (1984.89) solution to waxa syntax of TOPIC + FOCUS is this: I suggest that waxaa is not a different focus marker from baa but rather an instantiation of a structure containing baa which results from the application of syntactic and phonological rules. According to this hypothesis, in sentences with waxaa (or one of its conjugated forms) the focus marker baa follows a dummy NP, waxa (‘the thing’ from wax ‘thing’), and the focused NP is extraposed to sentence final position ... The form waxaa is phonologically derived from the combination of the word waxa and the focus marker baa. If baa is followed by a subject clitic, the result is one of the conjugated forms waxaan, waxaad, wuxuu, etc. If this is so, then an underlying form such as wax+baa+aan contradicts the otherwise universal Somali pattern of allowing one ASSERTION/FOCUS per sentence. Cf. (52b). It violates Livnat’s earlier pronouncement: “Every indicative, affirmative sentence in Somali must contain one and only one indicator particle” (Livnat 1983.91). Another problem with this solution is that it relies on an abstract morphonemics that completely hides the element baa. It never reveals itself phonologically. There is no way to factor waxaad nonarbitrarily into wax + baa + aad or wax + aad. Saeed (1984.151-152) FOCUS: First 493

The TOPIC + FOCUS expressions of (57b) & (58b) are unusual in two ways: (i) They appear to require a TOPIC built exclusively with wax (or waxa?) and (ii) The grammar of those utterances is odd in that they lack any morphological mark of ASSERTION/FOCUS. There is no baa/ayaa or waa in (57b) or (58b), yet they pass as acceptable independent utterances. It is not always unambiguous that we are looking at an example that has wax or one that is built on waxa, or whether there is a distinction:

(59) (a) Waxa yimi tareen (Saeed 1984.42) [thing came train] ‘What came was a train’

(b) Waxa yimi waa tareen [thing came INDPART train] ‘The thing that came was a train’

(60) (a) Wáx-aan dóonayaa sháah (Saeed 1999.196) [thing-I want.PROG tea] ‘What I want is tea’

faces a similar problem with question words. For example: (i) Maxay b-aad sameynayssa? [what indpart-you do] ‘What are you doing?’ (ii) Max-aad sameynayssa? [what-you do] ‘What are you doing?’

In place of seeing the possibility of wh-questions with or without FOCUS as yes-no questions occur (Saeed 1987.219-220): (iii) Ma Ali bàa yimi? [QUESTION Ali INDPART come] ‘Did Ali come?’ (iv) Cali má yimi? [Ali QUESTION come] ‘Did Ali come?’

Saeed (1984.152) proposes an ad hoc looking solution: Wh-NPs not ending in a long vowel generally allow a phonological coallescense [sic] rule to combine the focus particle baa (and any pronoun) with the NP .... 494 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(b) Wáx-aan dóonayaa waa sháah [thing-I want.PROG INDPART tea] ‘The thing that I want is tea’

Saeed (1984.43, 50-60) develops an argument that the (a) & (b) pairs are related by a “waxa-cleft reduction rule,” so that (59a) is derived from (59b). In Saeed 1999, the derivational relation “is probably best seen as a historical process” (196). The TOPIC + FOCUS expressions with waa are “verbless waa sentences containing a relative clause” and the TOPIC + FOCUS without waa are are “clefts” (196). This would explain Saeed’s contrasting glosses for the pairs in (59) & (60), but it unfortunately moves the contrast between the members of the pairs from where it is (e.g., tareen vs. waa tareen) to where it is not (e.g., Waxa yimi).169 In spite of the homophony of the waxa yimi clauses in (59) and the like, Saeed persists detecting a contrast between them in which “the NP wáx-a in ... [(59b)] is reanalysed as a unit wáxa in ... [(59a)] and its head no longer participates in nominal morphosyntax” (Saeed 1999.196). I.e., (59a) no longer contains a relative clause like (59b) — a clause like those in (49) — but has an initial clause like the clauses in (53) & (54). You just cannot hear the difference.170

169 Saeed (1984.43) notes the problem of “the waxa’s being merely homophones,” which confirms that the contrast between the (a)- & (b)-pairs lies in the FOCUS portion of the utterance.

170 This may not be entirely accurate. Andrzejewski (1975.135) provides one example of a tonal contrast between the waxa clause and the relative clause, writing “Even in cases which give the impression of similarity[,] heralding sentences are always differentiated formally from other sentences”: (i) Wáx-ay tidhi anígu garán máayó [what-she said I understanding not.am] ‘What she said was ‘I don’t understand’” (ii) Wáx-ay tidhí anígu garán máayó [thing-she said I understanding not.am] ‘I don’t understand what [i.e. the thing that] she said’ Sentence (ii) contains a relative clause built upon wax ‘thing’, and (i), a waxa clause. Andrzejewski makes no more of the contrast than to note it, “It must be observed that the noun w˘ax (+ the def. art. gen.) frequently occurs as the headword of a nominal clause containing a dependent clause which may outwardly [!] resemble the first part of a heralding sentence.” Saeed (1984.60), citing Andrzejewski, mentions the possibility of an audible contrast: “It has been claimed that these two items are ‘formally differentiated’ by tone patterns.” Other than to provide and to cite the one contrasting pair above, neither Andrzejewski nor Saeed pursues the issue. It is curious that a pattern so central to the grammar of Somali would not receive more attention. FOCUS: First 495

The helpful, missing datum would be to know more precisely what it means to say tareen rather than waa tareen in (59). There is a semantic contrast. One indication of the difference is that a waa FOCUS in a TOPIC + FOCUS expression is permitted when the TOPIC is other than one built on waxa:

(61) Wax-ani waa hub (Saeed 1984.43) [thing-this INDPART weapon] ‘This thing is a weapon’

(62) Meesh-aad tegin waa Marka (Saeed 1984.112) [place-you went INDPART Merca] ‘The place you went to is Merca’

(63) Lacag waa wax-aan doonayaa (Saeed 1984.136) [money INDPART what-I want] ‘Money is what I want’171

(64) Cali waa cidda uu raadinayo (Saeed 1984.141) [Ali INDPART person he looking.for] ‘Ali is the person he is looking for’

(65) Nimán-ka Ø kéenayaa waa askár (Saeed 1987.96) [men-the it bringing INDPART soldiers] ‘The men who are bringing it are soldiers’

TOPICS formed without waxa (e.g., those in [61] - [65]) may not appear without the ASSERTION/FOCUS marker waa. I.e.,

There is one additional mark of the contrast. In the waxa clause, there is agreement for gender (but not number [Saeed 1984.76] nor person-number [Saeed 1984.56]) between the TOPIC and the FOCUS (Saeed 1984.53): (ii) Waxa timi gabadh [who came.FEM girl] ‘Who came was a girl’ (iii) *Waxa yimi gabadh [who came.MASC girl] ‘Who came was a girl’

171 Saeed glosses (54) as ‘MONEY is what I want’, but that seems almost certainly a mistake. 496 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(66) *Wax-ani hub

This asymmetry indicates that the choice between sháah and waa sháah in (60), and the like, is a meaningful one.172 The constraint between the kinds of TOPIC that are compatible with the kinds of FOCUS suggests that the more specific ones of (61) - (65) require waa-FOCUS. Then, the waa-less FOCUS matches the less specific waxa clause TOPIC. Compare these two questions:

(67) Wáxa Ø keenáy áyo? (Saeed 1999.238) [ it brought who] ‘Who brought it?’ [Lit. ‘The one who brought it (was) who?’]

(68) Nin-kii ay raaceen wàa ayó? (Saeed [man-the they accompanied INDPART who] 1999.212) ‘Who is the man they travelled with?’

The open, unlimited Wáxa keenáy ‘Whoever bought it’ appears with ayo ‘Who?’ alone. The more limited, defined Ninkii ay raaceen ‘The man they travelled with’ needs waa to accompany ayo. Additional examples of waxa clauses as TOPIC are these:173 (69) Wax-aan aqaan in-uu imanayo (Saeed 1984.320) [what-I know that-he come] ‘What I know is that he is coming’

172 An additional observation that suggests a contrast is “the semantic restriction in ... [TOPIC + FOCUS expressions with waa] that the complement [FOCUS] be inanimate (to match wáx ‘thing’)” (Saeed 1999.196) This appears, however, to be contradicted by sentences such as (65) and also (Saeed 1984.51): (i) Cali waa askari [Ali INDPART soldier] ‘Ali is a soldier’ Unless (i) is not, for some reason, a “verbless sentence”.

173 The waxa-clauses appear in the TOPIC + FOCUS morphosyntax of (69) - (75), but they also occur in other uses as naming expressions. “Note that waxa relative clauses are genuinely free relatives, and are not limited to equational sentences” (Saeed 1984.76): (i) Cali wúx-uu cabbó síi! (Saeed 1999.143) [Ali thing-he drinks give] ‘Give Ali something to drink!’ FOCUS: First 497

(70) Wáxa la íi sheegay ín-uu tagó (Saeed 1987.239) [what one me told that-he went] ‘I was told that he went’ [Lit. ‘What one told me (was) that he went’]

(71) Wáx-aan joojiyey in-aan mùus cunó (Saeed 1987.238) [what-I stop that-I bananas eat] ‘I stopped eating bananas’ [Lit. ‘What I stopped (was) that I eat bananas’]

(72) Wáx-aan joojiyey shaneemáda tagisteeda (Saeed 1987. 239) [what-I stop cinema going.its] ‘I stopped going to the cinema’ [Lit. ‘What I stopped (was) its going to the cinema’]

(73) Wáx-aan doonayaa lacag (Saeed 1984.42) [what-I want money] ‘What I want is some money’

(74) Wáx-aan raadinayaa niman-ka Ø kéenayá (Saeed [what-I searching.for men-the it bringing] 1999.96) ‘What I am searching for are the men who are bringing it’

(75) Waxaa la doortay goor-tii Cismaan (Saeed 1987.239) [what one chose time-the Cismaan la dilay one killed] ‘He was chosen when Osman was killed’ [Lit. ‘What one chose him the time one killed Osman’]

Sentences (69) - (71) show a nominalized form, e.g.,‘that he is coming’, as FOCUS. And the asymmetry suggests that the waxa clause as TOPIC in a TOPIC + FOCUS utterance encodes an expression of Paradigmatic FOCUS.

6.5 Conclusion Somali appears to fairly illustrate the typology suggested in section 2. Syntagmatic FOCUS is found in (76) (Saeed 1987.191): 498 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(76) Nín-kíi b-àan cèel-ka xádhig ka-gá [man-the INDPART-I well-the rope with-from sóo saaray there pulled] ‘I pulled the man out of the well with a rope’

There is no TOPIC in (76), and there are other terms co-occurring with nankii within the frame of the ROLE & VOICE semantics of the PROPOSITION that might have been, but were not selected for ASSERTION/FOCUS. Bit by bit, the content that occurs between the initial FOCUS and the EVENT can be placed outside semantics of ROLE & VOICE, thus reducing the background against which FOCUS is made (Gebert 1986.59):

(77) (a) Cali w-uu ka shaqeeyaa warshad-da [Ali INDPART-he in works factory-the] ‘Ali works in the factory’

(b) Cali waa ka shaqeeyaa warshad-da [Ali INDPART in works factory-the] ‘Ali works in the factory’

In the (a)-sentence Cali and ka remain within the ROLE & VOICE organization of the PROPOSITION. Warshadda is outside that structure. In the (b)-sentence, Cali is also outside that structure. The successive removal of content from eligibility for ASSERTION/FOCUS continues until there is no semantics of ROLE & VOICE, just TOPIC and ASSERTION/FOCUS:

(78) Nin-kii shanda-dii uu keenay waa tan (Saeed [man-the suitcase-the he brought INDPART this] 1984.195) ‘The man, the suitcase he brought is this one’ (79) Cali wux-uu doonayaa waa shaah (Saeed [Ali thing-he want INDPART tea] 1984.208) ‘Ali, the thing he wants is tea’

(80) In dhakhtar-kii yimi, war-kaas waa run (Saeed [that doctor-the came news-that INDPART truth 1984.213) ‘That the doctor came, that news is true’ FOCUS: First 499

And finally there is no TOPIC, just ASSERTION/FOCUS, a Singularity of FOCUS:

(81) Waa Júmce (Saeed 1999.188) [INDPART Friday] ‘It’s Friday’

(82) Waa hagàag (Saeed 1999.189) [INDPART straightness] ‘Okay’ [Lit. ‘It is straightness’]

Then, the mark of ASSERTION/FOCUS is removed from the PROPOSITION creating a symbiotic TOPIC-FOCUS, that expresses Paradigmatic FOCUS (Saeed 1999.196):

(83) Wáxa timi gabádh dhèer oo qurúx badán [what came.FEM girl tall and beauty much] ‘There came a tall, very beautiful girl’ [Lit. ‘What came was a tall, very beautiful girl]

Outside this morphosyntactic expression, Wáxa timi ‘What came’ is not possible, nor is gabádh dhèer oo qurúx badán ‘a tall, very beautiful girl’ possible. Here, Wáxa timi and gabádh dhèer oo qurúx badán are exist only in their co-occurrence, TOPIC-FOCUS. We must conclude finally that Somali is, as several have claimed, only an uncertain SOV language. In this context, our concern with SOV was/is the prediction that no S should be the preferred FOCUS. That is, in an SOV language, FOCUS should not be, like the S, placed in neutral fashion in initial position. There must be some other morphosyntactic expression for it. Somali seems not to challenge that prediction. 7. FOCUS Initial Languages that are SOV: Argentine Sign Language 174 About Argentine Sign Language, Massone & Curiel (2004.68) report:

174 Most of the published work on Argentine Sign Language appears to involve María Ignacia Massone, Mónica Curiel, Robert E. Johnson, Silvana C. Veinberg and Emilia Machado, in various collaborative configurations. Cf. the references in Massone & Curiel 2004. 500 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Members of the deaf community use LSA175 in their everyday interactions, and when participants in conversations are hearing or hard of hearing people with some knowledge of sign language, deaf people may switch to either signed Spanish or Spanish. Deaf people may use LSA when conversing with hearing participants who are not only fluent signers but also members of the Deaf community ... In brief, it is important to state that historically all education in our country has been and still is purely oral and conducted entirely in spoken Spanish. Only recently — in 1983 — was signed Spanish introduced in a few schools as the medium for teaching Spanish; however, it has not been used as a systematic or planned methodology. The Deaf community is marginalized culturally and linguistically from hearing society; however, it is embedded economically. Deaf people in Argentina constitute a nonliterate community in which most members are virtually monolingual in LSA or are at least subordinate bilinguals ...... all deaf people, beginning in childhood and even when nonnative, use LSA as their first language.

And (Massone & Johnson 1991.348):176

LSA is the first and primary natural language of deaf children in Argentina. The deaf children of deaf parents acquire LSA through normal language acquisition processes beginning in infancy and those with hearing parents acquire LSA at school through their peers ... In spite of these pressures from the educational system, most deaf people become skilled signers. The process whereby this happens is similar to that in other industrialized societies and involves the socialization of young deaf children, primarily by their peers. It is our observation that most adult men in the community have little skill in lip reading and speaking and could be classed as virtually monolingual signers in LSA. Women, on the other hand, tend to integrate with mainstream society to a somewhat greater degree than men.

Finally (Veinberg 1993.96):

Oralism — i.e. education without signing — is the only way parents, medical

175 The acronym for Argentine Sign Language is LSA, Lengua de Señas Argentina.

176 Massone & Menendez (1997.76) repeat: ... in spite of the pressures of the oral educational system most deaf people become skilled signers. The process whereby this happens is similar to that in other industrialized societies and involves socialization of young deaf children, primarily by their peers at school. This implies that a deaf child either remains incommunicado for the first 5 to 6 years of his/her life, or depends upon home signing. FOCUS: First 501

doctors, and educators consider to integrate the deaf person into hearing, majority society. However, most deaf adults do not learn the official language (Spanish) in spite of efforts of educators over many years. On the other hand, the very few deaf people who finally learn Spanish and can understand and interpret a simple paragraph think of Spanish as the prestigious way to communicate and despise their natural language as a low, variant or deviant way to communicate.

The number of deaf signers of LSA is not stated, but (Massone & Menendez 1997.76):

... deaf people are in close contact all through the country177 ... Social activities and sports are the most important events within the group ... As schools are eminently oral[,] the gathering places for developing these activities have been the deaf associations. Deaf associations constitute hierarchical institutions conformed by an Executive Committee plus deaf members. The members of such Committee are usually the deaf leaders who are very much respected within the whole community.

Data on LSA have been collected in various ways.178 Curiel & Massone (1993.29-30) attempt to neutralize the negative perception of LSA by its signers:

Debido al prestigio que tiene el español oral en la comunidad lingüística sorda argentina y al consecuente desprestigio de la LSA ..., la mayoría de la informantes al señar con oyentes tiende a producir los enunciados señalados en el orden del español y una seña de la LSA, falseando, de este modo, la realidad gramatical de la lengua. Por este causa, parte del corpus especialmente preparado ha sido elicitado por una persona sorda, quien es la asesora sorda de nuestro proyecto; luego, dicho corpus fué presentado a un grupo consultor de diez informantes sordos para corroborar su validez. Posteriormente, fué verificado en textos espontáneos de diferente extensión y a través de observación participante.

177 Massone & Johnson (1991.350): Most social interaction of deaf individuals in Argentine society is with other deaf individuals. Most deaf people’s lives are centered completely in their interaction with other deaf people in clubs, sporting groups, and less formal social groupings.

178 Cf. Curiel 1993.29, Veinberg 1993.96-97. Massone 1994.123, Massone & Curiel 2004.69-72. Veinberg (1993.96) notes It is not easy to collect the appropriate material in Argentina. Spanish language still has a privileged position within the deaf community, making it difficult to find competenent signers. 502 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Because of this circumstance, we cannot always be certain how to interpret an utterance that seems to contradict the descriptive statement. Is it truly a contradiction, or is it an utterance with an intrusion of Spanish?179

7.1 The order of signs The use of order in the expression of meaning is a bit more complicated in Sign Language overall than it is in the language of the hearing. A speaker of oral-aural language has but one mouth with which to articulate. A speaker of Sign Language has at least four independent means of embodying content. Kimmelman (2012.417) notes:

... signers have at their disposal two identical articulators, and, thus, for instance, an argument can be signed simultaneously with a verb. This, of course, makes the notion “word order” inapplicable.

Besides the hands, the head (including the mouth, eyes, and eyebrows) and the remainder of the body (upper body, at least) can be employed.180 With respect to (1) in LSA,

(1) BOY181 GET-UP (perf) / FROG NOT-HAVE DISAPPEAR IN-THE-PAST. CALL FROG CALL (locative-distributive). TREE MALE LOOK-FOR TREE LOOK-FOR ‘When the boy got up, the frog had disappeared. (The boy) calls the frog in all directions. In the tree the boy looked for (the frog).’

Massone & Curiel (2004.74-75) observe:

These entities [Subject and Object] had to be located in space by either body shift or movement, eye gaze or manual indices. These strategies establish reference to subject and/or object. In ... [(1)] the second sentence exhibits elision of the subject, and the third sentence shows elision of the object ... We also observed that eye gaze marks personal reference in the lexical domain. Personal pronouns are 179 “...el gran prestigio que tiene español dentro de la comunidad sorda resulta difícil elicitar enunciados en LSA sin interferencias del español” (Veinberg & Massone 1992.79).

180 Veinberg & Massone (1992.80) provide this list: head, body, lips, eyebrows, eyes, cheek, and forehead.

181 Veinberg & Massone (1992.79): Debemos recordar que la glosa en letras mayúsculas españolas [or English] indica el significado de la seña, y no es una traducción palabra española-seña. FOCUS: First 503

distinctively marked nonmanually, with eye gaze addressed to a different locus in the sign space where the second or third person reference has been located ...

Curiel & Massone (1993.27) describe the proliferation of syntactic channels:

Una de ellas es la característica de ser polisintética182, es decir, que su estructura permite la superposición de más de un morfema, generando, por ejemplo verbos espaciales-locativos, donde la configuración de la mano [CM] tiene significado propio y la ubicación [UB] y el movimiento [M] expresan otro significado, que refiere el lugar del espacio — real o hipotético — en que se localiza el objeto especificado. Estos rasgos morfononológicos ocurren simultáneamente, presentando una realidad lingüística inexistente en las lenguas orales.

The expressive resources of LSA are polysyntactic and parsed into manual and non-manual signs. In addition to the polysyntactic distinction between LSA (and other sign languages) and oral language, LSA (and other sign languages) exploits the space about the signer.183 That space does more than contain the manual and non-manual gestures. It is organized so that it provides semantic substance to a signed utterance. Cf. Figure 1 (Massone 1994.124). The A dimension is a “Time-line ... where past, present and future are marked ....” The B dimension is a “Time-line ... [which] runs left to right at the torso level in front of the signer and represents duration in time.” The C dimension is a “Time-line ... [which] is used to indicate succession and duration in time and is placed in front of the torso at the ipsilateral side ... and moves toward

182 Polisintética would probably be glossed as English polysynthetic, which has been historically applied to oral languages to identify heavy reliance on morphology to express semantics, as in this Mohawk utterance:

[contrastive-translocative-aorist-masculine.singular.agent-esophagus-epenthetic - crooked-reversive-causative-punctual] ‘He drank it right down’ Perhaps a better label for this condition would be polysyntactic. Brennan (1994.30) notes that its existence is well-established: A major claim made again and again in the literature is that signed languages exhibit not only a temporal sequential ordering, but a spatial simultaneous patterning.

183 Systematically grounding meaning with reference to the human body may uncommon, but it is not unique to LSA (or signed languages). Bella Coola, for example, resorts to human anatomy for a large number of affixes, which can then be projected on non-anatomical experience (Saunders & Davis 1975a). 504 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS the extention of the full arm.” Dimension D “is used to show something growing or growing up or in maturity or decreasing ....” (Massone 1994.124).

The singular pronouns in LSA have the manual shapes in Figure 2 (Curiel & Massone 1993.45).

Figure 2: Signs for Pronominal Reference in LSA. FOCUS: First 505

Massone & Curiel (2004.74) add:

We also observed that eye gaze marks personal reference in the lexical domain. Personal pronouns are distinctively marked nonmanually, either eye gaze addressed to a different locus in the signing space where the second or third person reference has been located ... Eye gaze always accompanies manual index reference in the second-person pronoun but not the third-person pronoun ....

Further (Curiel & Massone 1993.35 and Massone & Curiel 2004.74):

La persona del coloquio se establece a través de la seña pronominal correspondente; en general, la forma de citación sin especificación personal coincide con la de sujeto en primera singular.

The ellipsis of the subject frequently occurs when it refers to the first-person singular because of the fact that the first person is the implicit pronoun of verbs without person inflection.

7.2 SOV Within this frame of expressive devices, Argentine Sign Language is Verb final (Curiel & Massone 1993.31):

El verbo es la categoria gramatical cuya función esencial es la predicación; constituye el centro de los sintagmas predicativos y a su alrededor se aglutinan diferentes sintagmas nominales cumpliendo múltiples funciones complementarias, tanto en el plano sintáctico como semántico ... El verbo es el núcleo de la frase verbal y su ubicación no marcada dentro del singtagma oracional es posterior al sintagma nominal sujeto del que predica.

Complementarily, Nouns will precede the Verb (Curiel & Massone 1993.37):

El sustantivo es la categoria gramatical que cumple la función de núcleo del sintagma nominal; como tal desempeña las funciones sintácticas de sujeto y de objeto en el sintagma oracional, siendo su ubicación no marcada en ambos casos, antes de la aparición del verbo.

And “The unmarked sign order of LSA sentences with transitive verbs is SOV”184 (Massone & Curiel 2004.73):

184 Further (Massone & Machado 1993.138): Los informantes de la comunidad sorda marcaron como inaceptable la intercalación del sujeto, entre el verbo y el objeto: *VSO. Del mismo modo, 506 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

(2) PRO1 WINDOW CLOSE IN-THE-PAST ‘I have closed the window’

(3) BOY GLASS WINDOW THERE BREAK (perf.) ‘The boy broke the glass of the window’

(4) PEDRO PRO1 FLOR DAR185 (Curiel & Massone 1993.39) [Pedro flower give] ‘Pedro gives me the flower’ ‘Pedro me da la flor’

(5) PRO1 TORTA GUSTAR (Curiel & Massone 1993.39) [I cake like] ‘I like cake’ (‘Me gusta tortas’)

The semantics of Verbs recognizes a contrast between deictic and non- deictic depending on their use of space to encode content.186 The deictic use of space either encodes contrasts between the semantic ROLES of PARTICIPANTS or configurations of space encode spatial relations.187 The non-

rechazaron la posición del posición del sujeto detrás de la frase verbal, ya sea manteniendo la sequencia VO o invirtiéndola: *VOS y *OVS.

185 Here the Indirect Object precedes the Direct Object, but in (i)

(i) TEACHER MATHEMATICS PUPIL TEACH (Massone & Curiel 2004.80) ‘The teacher teaches mathematics to the pupils’ the order is reversed: DO + IO. It is not clear what is at play. Massone & Curiel (3004.80) remark: The present study of LSA sign order also considered transitive verbs that need two different objects, one corresponding to a non-personal referent and the other to a personal one. In this case, the unmarked order is SO [-animate] O [+animate] V, similar to SOV with a split object.

186 “si utilizan el espacio con valor sintáctico y/o morfológico” (Curiel & Massone 1993.30).

187 Curiel & Massone (1993.30): FOCUS: First 507 deictic Verbs express ‘process’ or ‘state’188 “The sign order of sentences with intransitive verbs is SV” (Massone & Curiel 2004.82):

(6) Det JAR BREAK IN-THE-PAST ‘The jar broke’

(7) MAN BE-TALL ENGINEER ‘The tall man is an engineer’

(8) MÉDICO TRABAJAR (Curiel & Massone 1993.38) [doctor work] ‘The doctor is working’ (‘El médico trabaja’)

(9) LIBRO SER-INTERESANTE (Curiel & Massone 1993.38) [book be-interesting] ‘The book is interesting’ (‘El libro es interesante’)

7.3 Syntagmataic FOCUS in LSA The grammar of LSA exploits the position after the ‘final’ V for the expression of a range of semantics. Their presence is often accompanied by a characteristic non-manual sign that extends semantically to the preceding content. That is, the non-manual gesture begins before the sur-final expression and continues through it.

7.3.1 Utterance final terms: NEGATION. Negative utterances maintain the order of positive ones (Massone & Curiel

verbos de condordancia — que utilizan espacio para marcar las relaciones de sujeto y objeto — y verbos espaciales-locativos — que usan el espacio y las configuraciones de la mano en forma significativa.

188 “La classificación de no deícticos abarca los verbos de proceso y los de estado.” The opposition between ‘process’ and ‘state’ is also relevant to the Verbs of Agreement (los verbos de concordancia) (Curiel & Massone 1993.31):

Cabe señalar que los verbos de concordancia ser reagrupados según la determinación de su marco casual, ya que por el mismo perternecen también a los verbos de proceso, de acción or de estado. Cf. below for further discussion of Verbs of Agreement. 508 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

2004.81, Curiel & Massone 1993.48 & Veinberg & Massone 1992.86).

The constituent sign order in negative sentences with transitive as well as intransitive verbs is the same as in affirmative sentences. Negative adverbs such as NEVER, NOBODY, NO, and NOTHING are generally placed either in sentence-final position or before or after the modified sign. Negative verbs, such as TO-SAY-NO, TO-BE-IMPOSSIBLE are sentence final.

La negación en las LSA se expresa a través de adverbios manuales y no-manuales. Se ha constatado la presencia de los adverbos NO, NUNCA, JAMAS, NINGUNO, TAMPOCO, NADA.

La negación en la LSA puede estar marcada por un desplazamiento craneal lateral alternado, ceño fruncido, constricción nasal, desvio de la mirada y cuerpo ligeramente hacia atrás. Estos rasgos no-manuales pueden ocurrir todos en forma simultánea o algunos de ellos separadamente.

Veinberg (1993) describes the non-manual negative signing:189

The side-to-side headshake has a major role in signaling negation in LSA ... other nonmanual markers were found and in some cases, those markers appeared without the negative headshake (99) ... The headshake occurred rarely as the only nonmanual marker; it was generally accompanied by other nonmanual markers, such as lowering the corners of the mouth, narrowing the eyes, and squinting the brow. Protruding lips and constricting the nose were also observed but with less frequency (102) ...no single nonmanual gesture was observed functioning alone as the nonmanual component, except for the NH [head shake] (103).

Thus (Veinberg 1993.99, 100) ______Cñfr+OJsc+NA+LAab190 ______alt

189 Massone & Curiel (2004.77) observe that when negative semantics are present, their manual expressions are accompanied by nonmanual behaviors that spread along the negated phrase or over the negated signs. The nonmanual, negative features are head shaking, partially closed eyes, frowning eyebrows, and lowering of the lips.

190 “La linea representa el uso que hace el señante de una combinación particular de actividades no-manuales y las letras que colocan al final y por encima de dicha linea indican el tipo particular de actividad no-manual presente a lo largo de la seña o secuencia de señas por debajo esta” (Veinberg & Massone 1992.86). Cñfr is ‘Brow squint’. Ojsc is ‘Eyes narrowed’. NA is ‘Nose wrinkled’. LAab is ‘Mouth corners down’. (Veinberg 1993.112). alt transcribes a negative headshake (Veinberg 1993.99). FOCUS: First 509

(10) VACUNA COMBATIR GRIPE191NO-PODER ENCONTRAR NO [vaccine to-fight flu not-able find no] ‘They couldn’t find the vaccine against influenza’

In (10), “nonmanual features are spread along the negated phrase or over the negated signs. The nonmanual features are head shaking, partially closed eyes, frowning eye brows, and lowering of the lips” (Massone & Curiel 2004.81).

______Cñfr_ ___alt (11) SI J-O-S-E VENIR PRO1 IR NO-PODER [if John come I go not-able]

191 LSA identifies qualifying content by placing it after the content qualified (Curiel & Massone 1993.35):

(i) NIÑO CORRER ESCUELA SER-PRIVADA INGLES ESTUDIAR [boy run school be-private English study] ‘The boy who is running studies English in a private school’ ‘El niño que corre estudia inglés en una escuela privada’

The LSA phrase VACUNA COMBATIR GRIPE ‘vaccine against influenza’ in (10) similarly places qualifying material following, but the OV order is lost. Note that if the ‘canonical’ order, VACUNA GRIPE COMBATIR, were used, the sequence might be interpreted as an SOV assertion in itself, ‘The vaccine fights the flu’, and not as qualifying content. Compare (ii)

______NA-Ojsc-Cñfr+LAab______alt____ (ii) PRO1 ESPOSO NUNCA NO-GUSTAR MIRAR ESPECTACULO TV [I husband never not-like watch TV shows] ‘My husband never likes to watch television shows’

In (ii), PRO1 ESPOSO NUNCA NO-GUSTAR expresses the ASSERTION ‘My husband doesn’t like’, and the following MIRAR ESPECTACULO TV — with an apparent VO order — states ‘to watch television shows’. That sign sequence simply identifies the content that is not liked without an accompanying semantic ASSERTION of that content. Curiel & Massone (1993.33-34) comment further:

La oración ... [CASA SER-LINDO SER-SUCIO EN-PRESENTE (house be-pretty be- dirty at-present) ‘The pretty house is dirty’] tiene dos verbos de estados de se relacionan con la frase nominal de dos maneras diferentes; esta distinción se pone de relieve con la presencia de modalizador aseverativo y temporal en- presente ..., que delim ita la attribuión de la frase nominal (característica propria del sustantivo) a la predicación. La oración ... [NIÑO SER-RUBIO CORRER (boy be-blond run) ‘The red-headed boy is running’] presenta la misma estructura pero con verbos de dos clases distintas; tampoco es viable, en este caso, interpretarla como dos predicaciones coordinadas al mismo nivel, sino que se debe distinguir entre una atribución con el verbo es estado [SER-RUBIO] con el proceso [CORRER]. 510 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

‘If John comes, I cannot go’

Compare (11) with (12), which contains two expressions of NEGATIVE (Veinberg 1993.100):

____CAad192+alt______alt______(12) S-I J-O-S-E NO VENIR NO PRO1 IR NO-PODER [if John come I go not-able] ‘If John does not come, I cannot go’

There is a boundary between the two marks of NEGATIVE, and it occurs consistently in final position in the utterance (Veinberg 1993.100):

Although the negative protasis combines a movement of the head forward (to signal the condition: with the NH, the apodosis uses only the NH. The boundary between the clauses is marked by a pause in the movement of the head.

Negation can alternatively be marked lexically (Veinberg & Massone 1992.88),

La negación puede además estar marcada por adverbios de negación: NO, NINGUNO, TAMPOCO, NADA, NUNCA, JAMAS, etc. o por el verbo DECIR-NO. and the signs of negation appear to occur finally193

(13) CASA SOTANO PRO1 CONOCER NO [house basement I know no] ‘I don’t know of any houses with basements’ (‘Yo no conozco casas con sótano’)

(14) FIESTA PRO1 IR TOILETTE JAMAS [party I go bathroom never] ‘I never go to the bathroom at parties’ (‘En las fiestas jamás voy al baño’)

(15) HOMBRE SER-BUENO APURARSE NUNCA

192 CAad is Head forwards.

193 Cf. also (10), (11), and (12). FOCUS: First 511

[person be-good get.into.dither never] ‘A good man never loses it’ (‘El hombre bueno nunca se apura’)

7.3.2 Utterance final terms: WH-Questions. “Wh-questions are produced with the interrogative pronoun WHAT (“qué”) in final position” (Massone & Curiel 2004.81)194

______int (16) PRO2 SAY3 2AUX3195 WHAT ‘What did you tell her?’ __mouthing:when _____int (17) BUS VEHICLE BUS BE-BLUE COME WHAT ‘When does the blue bus come?’

In (16) and (17), the interrogative WHAT is accompanied a non-manual sign, and by a mouthing of cuándo in (17). Without the interrogative pronoun, the non-manual int marks ‘yes-no’ questions (Massone & Curiel 2004.81):

______int (18) PARIS CITY BE-MODERN?

194 Other interrogatives involve non-manual signing (Massone & Curiel 2004.81):

The different interrogative pronouns — HOW (“cómo”), WHEN (“cuándo”), WHO (“quién”), WHERE (“dónde”), WHY (“porqué”) — are differentiated by mouthing, a characteristic present only in these LSA signs, except for WHAT, which presents no mouthing. HOW-MANY (“cuánto”) employs a different sign. “Mouth gestures”, which are non-manual signing using the mouth, are distinct from “mouthing,” which consists of “mouthed words from the surrounding spoken language” (Bank et al. 2016.1282). Mouthing combined with signing produces “code blends” (Bank et al. 2016.1281).

195 The 2aux3 is an “agreement auxiliary” (Massone & Curiel 2004.76): Our data also show another sign produced as a smooth hold followed by a curved movement between two different loci in the sign space, also ending with a smooth hold ... this agreement auxiliary, obviously derived from the co- occurrence of two distinct pronominal signs, manifests the relationship between two people involved in the event and thus expresses a movement of the action from one person to the other. 512 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

‘Is Paris a modern city?’

When occurring with an interrogative pronoun, the non-manual interrogative signs (Veinberg & Massone 1992.89):

consisten en cabeza hacia atrás, cejas elevados y elevamiento de la mandibula196....

When the non-manual sign occurs as in (18) (Veinberg & Massone 1992.88),

la marca no-manual para la interrogación absoluta consiste en la cabeza y el cuerpo hacia adelante, el ceño fruncido, los ojos semicerrados y los labios distendidos ....

7.3.3 Utterance final terms: MODALITY of temporal modality. In addition to Negatives and Interrogatives, a third semantics is sentence final.197 First, Curiel & Massone (1993.35) observe:

Con respecto a la marca temporal verbal, Massone (1992) ha observado que no se registra como inflexión en la mayoría de los verbos, excepto un grupo restringido que evidencia morfológicamente la marca de pasado, a través de una tensión rápida del movimiento propio del verbo; estos verbos son DECIR. CONTAR, LLEGAR, SABER, IR, VENIR, DAR, REGALAR, ESPERAR, entre otros. El tiempo, sin embargo, generalmente, se expresa a través de lexemas modales or adverbios temporales, cuyo centro de influencia es el verbo. Consideramos que el tiempo se especifica en estructura profunda en forma independiente del verbo, junto a otros valores de modalidad, como ser aserción, duda, deseo, hipótesis or posibilidad. ... La realización de estructura profunda se conserva en la LSA mediante la aparición de las señas glosadas como EN-PRESENTE, EN-PASADO y EN-FUTURO.

And then (Massone & Curiel 2004.78):

The sign order SOV has been indicated with modality temporal markers localized in final position. These modality markers present a fixed order; they always appear as the final sign in the sentence or the text. Because of their anaphoric scope, these markers indicate the time and the type of modality of the sentences and modify the whole previous sentence or the whole previous text.

196 “consideramos esta descripción como temporaria ya que hace falta estudiar más detalladamente este tipo de interrogación” (Veinberg & Massone 1992.89).

197 Massone (1994.128): ‘These signs ... are always located at the end of the signed production.” FOCUS: First 513

Three modality temporal markers have been identified: IN-THE PRESENT, IN-THE PAST, and IN-THE-FUTURE ... The modality marker IN-THE-PAST also implies an undeniable fact ...; the whole sentence that it modifies does not then indicate past time.

See (1), (2), and (6) above, and these:

(19) DROGARSE SER-FEO EN-PASADO (Curiel & Massone [drugs be-nasty IN-THE-PAST] 1993.46) ‘To take drugs is utterly nasty’

(20) JAPON LEJOS EN-PASADO (Curiel & Massone 1993.46) [Japan far IN-THE-PAST] ‘Japan is far away’

______af (21) DECIR-SI DAR (pdo) EN-PASADO (Curiel & Massone [say-yes give IN-THE-PAST] 1993.46) ‘Yes, I’ve already given it to you’ (‘Sí, si ya te lo di’)

Curiel & Massone (1993.46):

La seña EN-PASADO es un adverbio temporal que indica el tiempo anterior e la finalización de la acción afectada por el adverbio; se ubica en la posición final de la oración. Asimismo, se ha verificado el uso de esta seña en conversaciones indicando la modalidad aseveritiva intensificada del enunciado, utilizándose con frecuencia para expresar verdades absolutas (como en ... [19] y ... [20], o la conclusión de un tema o asunto (come en ... [21]) ....

Like IN-THE-PAST, IN-THE-FUTURE has a sense that exceeds future time (Curiel & Massone 1993.46):

La seña EN-FUTURO es también un adverbio temporal equiparable al significado de FUTURO; el valor principal es el de otorgar una modalidad hipotética a la emisión. Con esta seña se expresa que la oración realizada es una probalidad, posibilidad o deseo.

As in (Curiel & Massone 1993.46):

(22) CAMPO ANDAR-EN-BICICLETA GUSTAR EN-FUTURO 514 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

[field walk-on-bicycle like IN-THE-FUTURE] ‘I’d like to do outside and ride a bicycle’ (‘Me gustaría ir al campo a nadar [sic] en bicicleta’)

Lastly,

La seña EN-PRESENTE, como se observa en ... [(23)], otorga una modalidad aseverative no enfática al enunciado coincidente con el tiempo presente.

(23) HOUSE BE-NICE BE-DIRTY IN THE PRESENT ‘The nice house is actually dirty now’

Like Negation and Interrogative, the semantic force of the Modality Temporal Markers qualifies what has preceded. Two of them, at least are accompanied by non-manual signing (Curiel & Massone 1993.46):

Estas dos señas, EN-PASADO y EN-FUTURO, presentan rasgos no-manuales especificos ...

7.3.4 Utterance final terms: AFFIRMATION. On AFFIRMATION198, Veinberg (1993.104, 110) remarks:

An asserted statement will be defined ... as an assuring or confirming proposition ... A nodding movement of the head backward and forward (HN) was observed to mark assertive propositions in LSA. This movement affirms the validity of the proposition and appeared in various forms: (a) as a repeated and rhythmic movement [CAB], (b) as a single movement [CAB1], and (c) as a rapid and short movement [CABr] ... No manual adverbs were found to mark assertion.

Curiel & Massone (1993.49)

La afirmación ha sido registrada con un adverbio afirmativo de ejecución no- manual, consistente en el meneo de la cabeza hacia adelante y hacia atrás y redondeamiento labial, el cual produce aislado o en coincidencia con la secuencia señada ....

“The head nod tends to accompany all the manual signs in the proposition asserted” (Veinberg 1993.105). Compare (24a) with (24b) and (24c) (Massone & Machado 1993.138):

198 In the literature, AFFIRMATION is variously noted as CAB, CABr, CAB1, and AF. FOCUS: First 515

(24) (a) PRO1 TENER-HAMBRE [I be.hungry] ‘I’m hungry’ (‘Tengo hambre’)

______af (b) PRO1 TENER-HAMBRE [I be.hungry] ‘I’m hungry’ (‘Yo tengo hambre’)

___af (c) PRO1 TENER-HAMBRE PRO1 [I be.hungry] ‘I’m hungry’ (‘Yo tengo hambre’)

“En el caso de que el sujeto es un pronombre, éste puede repetirse después sin que eso ocasione ninguna topicalización del sujeto.” In (24b) the entire utterance is selected for AFFIRMATON, and in (24c), only the Subject.

______af (25) PRO3 ESTOMAGO TENER-HAMBRE TENER [ stomach be-hungry be] ‘I’m really hungry’ (‘Sí, yo tengo hambre’) (Curiel & Massone 1993.48)

Further, CABr______(26) PERRO CORRER GATO LLEGAR CASA [dog run cat arrive home] ‘The dog that chased the cat arrived home’ (Veinberg 1993.105)

OJsc______CAB1______CAB______(27) PRO1 TOMAR VINO MAREARSE POR-ESO PRO1 NO-GUSTAR [I drink wine be.dizzy therefore I not-like] ‘When I drink wine I get dizzy, that’s why I don’t like it’ (Veinberg 516 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

1993.105)

Notice that AFFIRMATION combines with the PROPOSITIONAL final content and extends its force to the preceding content unless it is not itself ASSERTED. In (26), PERRO CORRER GATO ‘the dog that chased the cat’ contains the VSO sequence that seems to mark the absence of ASSERTION (and to thereby effect ATTRIBUTION). In (27), PRO1 TOMAR VINO MAREARSE ‘When I drink wine, I get dizzy’, as explanation for the distaste stands apart from the AFFIRMATION that follows. Consistently, in (28a), the non-ASSERTED and conditional SI J-O- S-E VENIR ‘If John comes’, precedes and is not marked by AFFIRMATION:

CAB1______(28) (a) SI J-O-S-E VENIR PRO1 PRO1 IR [if John come I I go] ‘If John comes, I will go’ (Veinberg 1993.105)

CAB (b) SI J-O-S-E VENIR NO PRO1 IR PRO1 [if John come I go I] ‘If John does not come, I will go’ (Veinberg 1993.105)

Sentence (28b) is curious for two reasons: (i) because the AFFIRMATION of the head nod is not accompanying final material, and (ii) because it is not co- occurring with a manual sign. “The affirming head nod, [CAB], was also observed without accompanying manual signs [in (28b)] ... In this case, the nonmanual assertive adverb could be anticipating the assertive clause while marking the boundary between the two parts of the sentence.” (Veinberg 1993.105, 108-109).

7.3.5 Utterance final terms: Agreement auxiliary. Massone & Curiel (2004) describe one last expression that occurs in utterance final position, the Agreement Auxiliary (Massone & Curiel 2004.76):

... [a] sign produced as a smooth hold followed by a curved movement between two different loci in the signing space, also ending with a smooth hold. We have identified this sign as an agreement auxiliary, which is empty of lexical meaning and marks the transitive relation ... Therefore, this agreement auxiliary, obviously derived from the co-occurrence of two distinct pronominal signs, manifests the relationship between two people involved in the event and thus expresses a FOCUS: First 517

movement of the action from one person to the other. However, its difference in production from the repetition of two pronoun signs, as well as its specific position within the sentence, is shown by these facts: It forms a constituent with the principal verb of the sentence ...; pronouns may appear with this sign but not the agreement verbs ...; and it expresses the agreement relation between subject and object. The auxiliary almost always appears in the final position of the sentence ....

For example (Massone & Curiel 2004.80):

(29) JOHNa MARYb LOVE aAUXb ‘John loves Mary’

Sentence (29) is probably acceptable without the Agreement Auxiliary,199 but the semantic increment that its use may add is not recognized.200 7.4 Paradigmatic FOCUS in LSA The preceding five sections demonstrate that the semantics of utterance final position in LSA supports not only the ASSERTION of the EVENT/Verb, but also the denial of NEGATION, the inquisitiveness of WH-Questions, the intense MODALITY of Temporal Modality, the force of AFFIRMATION, and the semantics of the Agreement Auxiliary. Utterance-final position reasonably marks a kind of Syntagmatic FOCUS. Cf. section 2, this chapter. Sentence-final EVENTS/Verbs along with the sentence-final expression of the semantics detailed in sections 7.3.1 - 7.3.5 are manifestations of ASSERTION, and they stand in contrast with the post-verbal expression of qualifying content in the absence of ASSERTION (e.g., PERRO CORRER GATO ‘the dog that chased the cat in [26]). The prominence of FOCUS is maintained by the semantics themselves of the five sorts of forms in final position. Recall also that their semantics — like Harris’ long components or

199 Compare (29) to (i) without the Agreement Auxiliary, but with the non-manual sign of FOCUS (Massone & Curiel 2004.80): ____t (i) MARY JOHN LOVE ‘Máry loves John’

200 Massone & Curiel (2004.80) appear to suggest that it has the function of disambiguation:

In sentences with reversible subject and object, the auxiliary or agreement marker disambiguates the sense of the relationship as it marks personal agreement. But the order of signs has already prevented ambiguity. 518 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Firth’s prosodies — typically covers more than just the termination of an utterance and that there is not a more prominent semantics which selects a piece of the utterance. To describe a specific portion of an utterance for Paradigmatic FOCUS, use of utterance-initial position and non-manual signage is required. The semantics of Syntagmatic FOCUS is distributed and imprecise whereas the selective precision of the semantics of Paradigmatic FOCUS is reflected in its grammar. As noted above, the sign order of a transitive utterance is SOV (Massone & Curiel 2004.72):

(30) (a) PAST DOG MEAT EAT ‘The dog ate meat’

(b) *PAST MEAT DOG EAT

Sentence (30a) is the acceptable statement in LSA, and the OSV order in (30b) is apparently meaningless, unless the sign for the initial O is accompanied by a non-manual sign:

(31) ______t PAST MEAT DOG EAT ‘It was the meat that the dog ate’

(32) _____t PIZZA MÓNICA SEASON (Massone & Curiel 2004.79) ‘It is the pizza that Mónica seasons’ ____t (32) PRO.1pl CONFUSE. NO. PRO.1 PRO2.pl CONFUSE ‘We are all confused. No. It is me that you all confuse’ (Massone & Curiel 2004.79)

______top ______af (Curiel & Massone 1993.58) (33) CIGARRILLO PRO1 QUERER [cigarette I want] ‘It’s cigarettes that I want’ (‘Cigarrillos yo quiero’)

Massone & Curiel (2004.73): FOCUS: First 519

The object cannot precede the subject unless it is topicalized201; in this case the topicalized object must be accompanied by the set of manual and nonmanual features characteristic of the topic. Therefore, OSV is an ungrammatical order in LSA when the topic marking is not simultaneously produced with the object sign.

Sentence (31) contrasts with (30b) by virtue of its utterance-initial non-manual sign: Head back & eyebrows raised.202 There is a small set of Verbs in LSA, termed Agreement Verbs (or verbos de concordancia). Massone & Machado (1993.102-103):

Los verbos de concordancia son aquellos cuyo referenciadad espacial manifesta el sujeto y/o el objeto de la transitividad o intransitividad por ellos expresados. En estos verbos la lexicalización de los pronombres a través de una seña es innecesaria, ya que éstos se explicitan en la articulación fonológica del verbo, manifestada en el movimiento y en la dirección en el espacio ... No todos los verbos de concordancia flexionan los dos argumentos de la relación. Algunos de ellos sólo expresan el objeto y otros, únicamente el sujeto. Así los verbos como VISITAR, VER, MIRAR, PREGUNTAR, como otros necesitan señar la persona que desempeña la función de sujeto con las señas proprias de los

201 Massone & Curiel use the term ‘topic’ in place of ‘focus’, although it seems clear that FOCUS is what is intended. This difference in terminology appeared in the literature on Haida (Chapter 4), where Elizabeth Edwards (1979 and elsewhere) used ‘topic’ to reference ‘focus’. However, having terminologically chosen to use topic for FOCUS, the literature on LSA appears, then, conceptually, to confuse TOPIC with FOCUS (Massone & Curiel 2004.83): ... topic is theoretically very difficult to define or is an elusive concept. Furthermore, we believe that further documentation of topic constructions in LSA is needed. However, since we have found that the topic alters canonical sign order in LSA, we also believe that similar data about other sign languages would be of interest. The topic position in LSA is sentence initial and is always marked by the same set of nonmanual features plus a change in duration in the internal structure of the last topicalized sign. Different constituents of the sentence may be topicalized in order to identify or make information accessible as has been shown for other sign languages ... Examples from LSA texts show that signers use topicalization to present new information about a topic that already has been presented. The topic is the “center of attention” (Li & Thompson 1976) or “sets a spatial, temporal, or individual framework within which the main predication holds” (Givón 1976).

It is the last sentence that evidences the confusion. The semantics and grammar of TOPIC has not, as far as I can determine, been broached in LSA.

202 Veinberg & Massone (1992.91):

RNM CAat = Rasgo No-Manual Cabeza atrás CEar Cejas arriba “También se observó un alargamiento en la producción de la seña topicalizada”. 520 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

pronombres, mientras que el objeto está flexionado espacialmente en el verbo.

With Agreement Verbs, the presence of a separately expressed Object is more than “innecesaria”, it is ungrammatical (Massone & Machado 1993.139):

(34) (a) PRO1 1ENSEÑAR2 [I taught.you] ‘I taught you’

(b) *PRO1 PRO2 1ENSEÑAR2 [I you taught.you] ‘I taught you’

Massone & Machado (1993.139) describe (34):

Los verbos transitivos, con especificación deíctica de la relación entre S y O, o verbos de concordancia presentan particularidades sintácticas proprias. Al ser el S y el O inflexiones internas del verbo su orden no puede variar. Los verbos de concordancia manifestan su relación a través de la orientación de la seña, cuyo punto inicial representa el sujeto y el final, el objeto [e.g., 1ENSEÑAR2] ... Pero una de sus características es que se pueden marcar estos roles gramaticales de manera adicional, con las señas pronominales. Es gramatical, entonces, producir el pronombre correspondiente al sujeto al comenzar su ejecución [e.g., (34a)]. Sin embargo, es agramatical la lexicalización pronominal de ambos funciones gramaticales intercalando el verbo [e.g., (34b)] o el objeto unicamente [i.e., *1ENSEÑAR2 PRO2].

The Object PARTICIPANT of Agreement Verbs does appear, however, when it is FOCUSSED (Massone & Machado 1993.139):203

203 Compare (35) with (i) (Massone & Curiel 2004.79): ____t (i) JOHNb DOCTORa 3aVISIT3b YESTERDAY ‘It is John that the doctor visited yesterday’

Sentence (i) parallels (35) in its grammar and semantics, and VISIT seems like ENSEÑAR to be an Agreement Verb. But we do not know the effect of removing FOCUS from JOHN. What happens to JOHN? Sentence (ii) (Massone & Curiel 2004.80):

(ii) PRO.1 STORY PRO.1 SON 1TELL3 ‘I tell a story to my son’ suggests that there is more to this pattern since a Pronoun Subject can accompany a Noun Object with an Agreement Verb, but a Pronoun Subject cannot accompany a Pronoun Object, FOCUS: First 521

__top (35) PRO2 PRO1 1ENSEÑAR2 [you I taught.you] ‘It’s you whom I taught’

Massone & Curiel (2004.84) conclude:

The basic marked order for topicalization of the direct object is the anteposition of the object in the initial position of the sentence, accompanied by a set of nonmanual features: head backward, eyes opened, eyebrows upraised, plus a longer duration of the last segment of the last sign topicalized.

Since the Subject is marked as such by its sentence-initial position, when it is additionally FOCUSSED, one need only add the non-manual sign of FOCUS. (Massone & Curiel 2004.80):

(36) PRO.1 THINK MARY JOHN MARRY NO. MARY MOTHER ____t JOHN NO-LIKE. MARY JOHN LOVE. ‘I think that Mary will not marry John. Mary’s mother does not like John. But Mary loves John.’ In (36), Mary’s mother’s negative opinion of John is set in opposition to Mary’s positive opinion of him, and FOCUS points to that difference.204

i.e., (34b).

204 There is at least one variation in focussing Subjects (Massone & Curiel 2004.79): ____t (i) PRO.3 PRO.1 PRO.3 FRIGHTEN ‘It is she who frightens me’ The normal

(ii) PRO.3 PRO.1 FRIGHTEN ‘She frightens me’ acquires Paradigmatic focus in (i), but the grammar is accompanied by a repetition of PRO.3. It is not certain whether (iii)

____t (iii) PRO.3 PRO.1 FRIGHTEN ‘It is she who frightens me’ is possible, and if so, what the contrast is between (i) and (iii). 522 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

Compare also (Massone & Curiel 2004.85):205

______t (37) WOMAN det HOUSE LIKE. ‘As for the woman, she likes the house’

_____t (38) PRO.1pl PRO.3 LIKE AUX. ‘As for us, we like her’

___t (39) BOB UNITED-STATES TEACHER THEATER LIKE. ‘As for Bob, the teacher from the United States, he likes the theater’ The LSA Verb similarly appears initially when FOCUSSED:

____top ______af (40) FUMAR PRO1 QUERER (Massone & Machado 1993.138) [smoke I want] ‘To smoke is what I want’ (Fumar es que lo quiero)

“En el caso de la topicalización el verbo puede ir al principio de la oración” (Curiel & Massone 1993.30). Lastly, non-PARTICIPANTS participate in the semantics of FOCUS (Massone & Curiel 2004.86):

______t (41) BUENOS-AIRES HE LIVE/LA-PLATA NO. PRO.2 CONFUSE

205 When a Subject Noun is the FOCUS, its referent may appear again as a Pronoun (Massone & Curiel 2004.85): ______t (i) CHILDREN CANDY PRO.3pl LIKE ‘As for the children, they like candy’

______t (ii) CHILDREN PRO.3pl PRO.1 LIKE AUX ‘As for the children, they like me’ No explanation is offered for this syntax. Cf. also (i) in the previous footnote. FOCUS: First 523

‘It is Buenos Aires that he lives, not in La Plata. You are confused’

______t (42) YESTERDAY SCHOOL EXAM HAVE ‘It was yesterday that I took the exam at school’

The canonical order of locative and temporal phrases is sentence initial or sentence final. When these expressions are topicalized, they must be placed in initial position, and they are realized with the topic morpheme.

7.5 Conclusion Argentine Sign Language, like Somali, has an unmarked order of constituents that is SOV, and again, like Somali, FOCUS is expressed by exploiting sentence-initial position and a suprasegmental. Like some other FOCUS-initial languages (e.g., Haida), Argentine Sign Language does not appear to combine its Paradgmatic FOCUS with the semantics of ASSERTION. Cp. (40), that maintains the sentence-initial paradigmatic FOCUS ___top separate from the sentence-final ASSERTION of ___af.

8. FOCUS Initial Languages that Are SVO In Chapter 5, we examined FOCUS in Wolof at some length. Wolof seems to be reliably taken to be an SVO language, and its description will suffice as an example of an SVO language that uses sentence-initial position to signal FOCUS. 9. Conclusion We began this chapter with several hypotheses. We supposed that FOCUS would show one of five semantic configurations: global, syntagmatic, bipartite, paradigmatic, or singular. FOCUS in Modern Greek, Tzotzil, and Somali appear to fall within this frame and at the same time to exhibit distinctions in the semantics of FOCUS that require it. We also supposed that any language that was appropriately indentified as Verb-initial would necessarily turn to sentence-initial position to mark FOCUS.206 Modern Greek, Tzotzil, and the Mayan languages accord with this expectation. While all Verb-initial languages seem to employ initial position to signal FOCUS, there remains at least one significant distinction among them. We have noted that various languages resort to the semantics of ASSERTION,

206 Although all Verb-initial languages will use sentence-initial position to express FOCUS, they may also use other syntactic mechanisms. E.g., Modern Greek, which is VSO, also has an in situ FOCUS. Cf. Chapter 12. 524 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS

using it to implement FOCUS. Languages may do that independently of their basic word order. SOV Somali, in the preceding section, is an example of a language that makes the association. SVO Wolof, in Chapter 5, is another language that intertwines FOCUS and ASSERTION. Other languages that make this close association are the VSO languages, Bella Coola and Yogad. In these, sentence-initial position is the mark of ASSERTION, and simultaneously, the mark of FOCUS. Additionally, the most normal semantic association is the combination of ASSERTION, FOCUS, and the EVENT of the PROPOSITION. This merger is what gives Bella Coola and Yogad the appearance of being Verb- initial. Further, any focused term in Bella Coola and Yogad, if it is to be focused, must therefore also adopt the semantics of EVENT.207 VSO languages such as Bella Coola and Yogad now differ from the VSO Mayan languages, Modern Greek (cf. section 4 above and Chapter 12), and Modern Standard Arabic (cf. Chapter 12) in that the latter group of VSO languages do not make the absolute association of FOCUS with ASSERTION. VSO languages of the second sort will, of course, continue to employ sentence-initial position for FOCUS. The difference is that their FOCUSSES are not also ASSERTIONS. There seems to be one last correlate to this distinction between VSO languages. Those languages like Bella Coola do not permit the fusion of FOCUS with TOPIC in a single morphosyntactic expression. Those like Mayan do permit that fusion. (Cf. above and Chapter 21).208 Finally, we suggested that a typology that turned on the order of elements would be useful only if the terms of the order were semantic and not formal. It appears that in Itza such an orientation can be useful in the argument of whether Itza is SVO or VOS.

[Completed: February 17, 2010] [Version: December 23, 2020]

207 I.e., the focused item must appear to be a grammatical Verb. If we were to assume that EVENTS are grammatical Verbs and that PARTICIPANTS are grammatical Nouns, then these languages do not parse their lexicons into Verb and Noun. Cf. also the discussion of Makah in Chapter 1.

208 These conclusions are, as usual, not conclusive. They raise further questions. First, how precisely does ASSERTION function in a PROPOSITION, and how does it function to grade PROPOSITIONS (e.g. in Wolof. Cf. also Davis Ms.C.). Second, what is it about the semantics of FOCUS, TOPIC, and ASSERTION that allows permits the melding of FOCUS & TOPIC and FOCUS & ASSERTION, but not TOPIC & ASSERTION. FOCUS: First 525