The Conjoint/Disjoint Alternation in Bantu 2016
DOI: 10.1515/9783110490831-003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3. Locating the Bantu conjoint/disjoint alternation in a typology of focus marking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It therefore seems most likely that a predecessor of Bantu featured a postverbal focus domain, even if this was not the only position for focus. We have not seen any clear correlation so far between the location of the focus position (IAV, IBV, final) and other parameter settings in the languages, but an interesting follow-up research question would be to investigate what in a language determines where a focus position develops (see also Gibson et al 2017 for correlations with morphological focus marking).…”
Section: Variation In Dedicated Focus Positionsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…It therefore seems most likely that a predecessor of Bantu featured a postverbal focus domain, even if this was not the only position for focus. We have not seen any clear correlation so far between the location of the focus position (IAV, IBV, final) and other parameter settings in the languages, but an interesting follow-up research question would be to investigate what in a language determines where a focus position develops (see also Gibson et al 2017 for correlations with morphological focus marking).…”
Section: Variation In Dedicated Focus Positionsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In contrast, in Rwanda and Rundi, the syntactic position associated with focus is the clause-final position (cf. Ndayiragije 1999;Ngoboka 2016;Gibson et al 2017). The apparently exceptional compatibility with PI may be relevant to this kind of subcategorisation.…”
Section: Interplay Between Focus and Inversion Constructionsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, it should also be noted that there is a considerable range of variation observed in terms of syntactic focus marking across Bantu languages. Besides the most typical IAV position, the following are also attested as a locus of a constituent focus, namely the immediately before the verb (IBV) position, as illustrated in (11), the clause-initial position in (12), and the clause-final position in (13) (see also Gibson et al 2017 for a typological overview of syntactic focus position in Bantu). Their geographical distribution is plotted on Map 4.…”
Section: Syntactic Focus Positionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These are exemplified in (52), where the focused referent is underlined and a morphological marker of focus is in boldface. In Kîîtharaka (52), we see the focus marker ni marking a clause-initial focused referent (see Abels & Muriundi 2008); Aghem (53) is famous for its Immediate After Verb focus position (but note that it is not just the Immediate After Verb position that indicates focus, but the shape of the noun too: kí-bɛ ́ vs. bɛ ́-kó); in Kituba (54) the focus marker (derived from the word for 'person') follows a clause-initial focused referent (see also the overview of focus positions and morphological marking in Gibson et al 2017). These are only some examples of the wide variety of strategies to express focus in the Bantu languages (see also e.g.…”
Section: Marking Exhaustivity On the Nounmentioning
confidence: 99%