Focus Constructions and Language Transfer

TERENCE ODLIN

Introduction

As with several other terms in linguistics, the word focus means different things to different analysts. For example, it sometimes serves as a synonym for topic or topicalisation (e.g. Keesing, 1991), while at other times it indicates something quite distinct. Attempting to review all the different possible meanings or to develop an entire theory of focus, topic, and related notions is beyond the scope of this chapter, but a definition of focus is nevertheless essential. One given by Carston provides a useful point of departure: 'focus is the syntactic constituent in which dominates all the information that contributes directly to relevance' (Carston, 1996: 311).

The last word in Carston's definition is no accident, as her approach is grounded in relevance theory (e.g. Wilson & Sperber, 1993). Later in her article Carston illustrates how a particular focus construction known as an it-cleft sentence plays a special role in contributing to relevance. She contrasts a simple sentence A ROTTWEILER bit me with an it-cleft: It was a Rottweiler that bit me. According to Carston, the special syntactic structure of the latter sentence 'constrains the sort of context in which it can be appropriately used' (Carston, 1996: 312). The structure leads hearers 'to treat as a background assumption that something bit the speaker and to derive cognitive effects from the information that the entity responsible was a Rottweiler' (Carston, 1996: 312). The implied meaning (which is certainly one of the cognitive effects) could vary depending on the context, where the sentence might serve, as Carston observes, to forestall a hearer's interpretation that the dog that bit the speaker was a neighbour's Alsatian. Alternatively, the cleft might serve a speaker's aim to persuade the listener of the great danger of Rottweilers. Whatever the context, the it-cleft can function as a bridge between the information in the focused constituent and backgrounded information that might be either implicit or explicit in the communicative situation.

The metaphor of a bridge has in fact a fairly long history in discussions of the relation between grammar and meaning, as seen in a study by Haviland and Clark (1974) and in one by Prince (1978), who illustrates the bridge with, among other examples, a wh-cleft sentence found in a popular magazine: 'Nikki Crane, 19, does not want to be a movie star. What she hopes to do is be a star on the horse-show circuit' (Prince, 1978: 887, emphasis added).

According to Prince,

... one cannot know from the first sentence that N.C. wants to do something. When one hears the cleft, however, one simply constructs an inferential bridge – N.C. wants to do something – which is quite compatible with our knowledge of the world and of 19-year-olds. (Prince, 1978: 887)

Although the bridge metaphor helps to understand what focus constructions do, there exist important differences in the types of inferential bridges built with different grammatical structures. Much of Prince's classic article attempts to sort out differences in meaning between it-clefts and wh-clefts (the latter sometimes called pseudo-clefts), and with the former type of structure, she identifies subtypes that function quite differently, as will be discussed further on. In subsequent work Prince has attempted to distinguish the differences in other focus constructions as well (e.g. Prince, 1998). Similar efforts have been pursued by others (e.g. Birner & Ward, 1998) for English, but also with comparable work on other languages (e.g. Doherty, 1999, 2001).

Carston formulated her definition of focus broadly enough to accommodate not only specialised structures such as cleft sentences but also simple sentences, which often have a prominent stress on the final constituent as in her example John invited LUCY (Carston, 1996: 310). However, the more specialised structures will be the concern of this chapter. Although learning focal stress in simple sentences might itself pose problems for second language learners, there is a much greater challenge posed by wh-clefts, it-clefts, and other cases that Carston terms 'syntactically marked structures'. Since this chapter will concentrate on such cases, the use of focus will have here the specialised sense of Carston's three-word phrase. The main theoretical issue that will be pursued with regard to these structures is cross-linguistic influence (also known as language transfer). The discussion will show that understanding transfer in this area requires a more detailed understanding of complex problems of related to form, meaning, and cross-linguistic correspondences. These problems shape much of the learning environment that teachers must take into account if they wish to develop effective pedagogies.

Before the questions of transfer and pedagogy are addressed, it is necessary to consider variations both within and across languages in forms and meanings. After that survey there will be a brief consideration of cognitive effects and then a discussion of of translation equivalence, a problem that both linguists and learners face. The analysis of transfer will review evidence of cross-linguistic influence on focus constructions but also indications of possible limits on such influence. Finally, some implications of the preceding analysis will be considered.

Variation...