Abstract
Focus is a universal category of information structure. However, focus is encoded by different focus marking strategies in world languages such as prosodic, morphological, or syntactic marking. In addition to the cross-linguistic perspective distinctions, one-to-one mapping is not observed in the coding of focus in individual languages. In contrast to the view that argues there is one-to-one mapping between focus and immediately preverbal position in Uyghur, this paper will argue that in-situ focus is also possible. In other words, it will be claimed that there are two focusing devices in Uyghur, syntactic and prosodic. The two focusing strategies can be used interchangeably, with some limitations in the distribution of non-focal elements, and these can encode different pragmatic focus subtypes.
References
Aboh, Enoh O. 2008. Focused and non-focused wh-phrases. In Enoh O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages, 287–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199093Suche in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in romance and the theory of universal grammar (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195142693.003.0003Suche in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2006. Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 363–385. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197723.5.363Suche in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2021. The greater the contrast, the greater the potential: On the effects of focus in syntax. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 3. 1–30.10.5334/gjgl.1100Suche in Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. & Muzappar A. Uchturpani. 2010. On Uyghur relative clauses. Turkic Languages 14. 69–93.Suche in Google Scholar
Drubig, Bernhard. 2001. Focus Constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals. An international handbook, 1079–1104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, Eser. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Erkü, Feride. 1983. Discourse pragmatics and word order in Turkish. Minnesota: University of Minnesota dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1986. Wh-questions and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(2). 117–149.10.1007/BF00635608Suche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & A. Sumru Özsoy. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages; Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Turkish Linguistics (Turcologica 46), 219–228. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Gürer, Aslı. 2015. Semantic, prosodic, and syntactic marking of information structural units in Turkish. İstanbul: University of Boğaziçi dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2009. Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic). Lingua 119. 1340–1365.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002Suche in Google Scholar
Hendriks, Herman. 1996. Information packaging: From Cards to Boxes. In Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory VI, 75–92. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications.10.3765/salt.v6i0.2765Suche in Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110849165Suche in Google Scholar
İşsever, Selçuk. 2003. Information structure in Turkish: The word order–prosody interface. Lingua 113. 1025–1053.10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. Focus ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 8. 1–36.10.1093/jos/8.1-2.1Suche in Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2014. Principles for studying information structure in Turkic languages of China. Lecture given at Minzu University of China, 12 August.Suche in Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2021. Turkic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139016704Suche in Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Suche in Google Scholar
Kennelly, Sarah D. 1997. The presentational focus position of nonspecific objects in Turkish. In Kamile İmer & Nadir E. Uzun (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIIth international conference on Turkish Linguistics, 25–36. Ankara: Ankara University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783050080116.287Suche in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922011.105Suche in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276.10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2Suche in Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Suche in Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan. 2003. Topic, Focus, and discourse structure. Ancient Greek word order. Studies in Language 27. 573–633.10.1075/sl.27.3.05matSuche in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.). 2012. The syntax of topic, focus and contrast: An interface-based approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614511458Suche in Google Scholar
Qadir, Tursun & Bei Wang. 2013. Wei wu er yu zhong yi wen he jiao dian dui yu diao de gong tong tiao jie zuo yong [Parallel realization of focus and interrogative meaning in intonation of Uyghur]. Journal of Computer Applications 33(3). 784–788.10.3724/SP.J.1087.2013.00784Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (eds.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures. 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1978. A theory of stylistic rules in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Blackwell, Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.10.1111/b.9780631207498.1997.00013.xSuche in Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2015. The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody. A study of Italian clause structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198737926.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In John A. Goldsmith (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory. 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on speech prosody, 643–646. Aix-en-Provence, France.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2002-146Suche in Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Current issues in the theory of focus. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 804–825. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.10.804Suche in Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl. 1996. The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34. 459–519.10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459Suche in Google Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2014. Tests for focus. Grazer Linguistische Studien (Frühjahr 2014). 105–134.Suche in Google Scholar
Wang, Bei & Tursun Qadir and Xu Yi. 2013. Weiwueryu chenshujuzhong jiaodian de yunlu shixian ji ganzhi [Prosodic encoding and perception of focus in Uygur]. Acta Acustica 38(1). 92–98.Suche in Google Scholar
Yakup, Abdurishid. 2016. Focus in Turkish and Uyghur. A priliminary report on an ongoing contrastive investigation. Turkic Languages 20(1). 113–131.10.13173/TL/2016/1/113Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 347–360.10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.9Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121. 1651–1670.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Production of vowel reduction by Jordanian–Arabic speakers of English: an acoustic study
- The linguistic realization of focus in Uyghur: can the two focusing strategies be used interchangeably?
- Thematic role mappings in metaphor variation: contrasting English bake and Spanish hornear
- A probability distribution of dependencies in interlanguage
- Croatian (mor)phonotactic word-medial consonant clusters in the early lexicon
- The impact of gestural representation of metaphor schema on metaphor comprehension
- Licensing Case-mismatches and dependent plural markers in Korean left-node-raising
- Mandarin Chinese peer advice online: a study of gender disparity
- The pragmatics of ‘it is well’ in Nigerian English
- Active verbs with inanimate, text-denoting subjects in Polish and English abstracts of research articles in linguistics
- Book Reviews
- Book review. Melissa Yoong. 2020. Professional discourses, gender and identity in women’s media. Springer Nature Switzerland. 149pp. 49.99€, ISBN 978-3-030-55543-6.
- The status, roles, and dynamics of Englishes in Asia
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Production of vowel reduction by Jordanian–Arabic speakers of English: an acoustic study
- The linguistic realization of focus in Uyghur: can the two focusing strategies be used interchangeably?
- Thematic role mappings in metaphor variation: contrasting English bake and Spanish hornear
- A probability distribution of dependencies in interlanguage
- Croatian (mor)phonotactic word-medial consonant clusters in the early lexicon
- The impact of gestural representation of metaphor schema on metaphor comprehension
- Licensing Case-mismatches and dependent plural markers in Korean left-node-raising
- Mandarin Chinese peer advice online: a study of gender disparity
- The pragmatics of ‘it is well’ in Nigerian English
- Active verbs with inanimate, text-denoting subjects in Polish and English abstracts of research articles in linguistics
- Book Reviews
- Book review. Melissa Yoong. 2020. Professional discourses, gender and identity in women’s media. Springer Nature Switzerland. 149pp. 49.99€, ISBN 978-3-030-55543-6.
- The status, roles, and dynamics of Englishes in Asia