Focus Structure in Persian Interrogative Sentences: An RRG Analysis

The studies regarding information structure and its distribution in sentences are traced back to works of Prague School linguists such as Mathesius in 1920s. Recently, the issue of information structure has been dealt with by functionalists. In Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), information structure constitutes one of the main components of syntax. In this theory, information structure is mainly based on the Lambrechtiyan information structure which regards the formal structure of sentences as highly related to the discourse-pragmatic functions. Information structure investigates the way information is structured in clauses and sentences. This paper aims at dealing with information structure in interrogative sentences according to RRG. At first a brief introduction to works on information structure and RRG is presented. Then the theory is applied briefly to Persian language declaratives and dominantly to interrogatives.


Introduction
Persian, a verb-final Indo-Iranian language, is said to have some flexibility in the ordering of constituents within a sentence, however, it does not have a complete free word order and some constructions are more acceptable than others.Prague school linguists call the principles underlying the flexibility in word order the "functional sentence perspective (FSP)" (Mathesius, 1983).Mathesius (1929, p. 127), an early Prague School linguist, divided the parts of an utterance into "theme" and "rheme".The theme is what "one is talking about, the topic", and the rheme is "what one says about it, the comment".
As Rezai (2003a) states Lambrecht's information structure theory provides an alternative to Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP).In his theory of information structure, Lambrecht (1994) identifies TOPIC and FOCUS as the two primary information statuses.He divides a proposition into pragmatic presupposition and pragmatic assertion.The pragmatic assertion is "the proposition expressed by a sentence which the hearer is expected to know or take for granted as a result of hearing the sentence uttered" (p.52).The pragmatic presupposition is "the set of propositions lexicogrammatically evoked in an utterance which the speaker assumes the hearer already knows or believes or is ready to take for granted at the time the sentence is uttered" (p.52).The focus of the assertion is "the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition" (p.213).Thus, focus is a part of the assertion.It is a semantico-pragmatic category which creates the assertion when added to the pragmatic presupposition.Focus structure conventionally associates focus meaning with sentence form (p. 222)."The syntactic domain in a sentence which expresses the focus component of a pragmatically structured proposition" is the focus domain (p.214).Pragmatic presupposition is similar to the FSP concept of theme.Rheme and focus are overlapping but not mutually inclusive concepts.Both rheme and focus are associated with the sentence final position in unmarked utterances.Lambrecht (1994) suggests that the formal structure of sentences is related to the communicative situations in which sentences are used.He states that "this relationship is governed by principles and rules of grammar, in a component called information structure" (as cited in Rezai 2003a).In Lambrecht's theory, the unmarked placement for focused material is final.It is not always the final element in the sentence, but it can rather occur anywhere within the sentence, in which case it is regarded as marked position.

Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar
The analysis in this paper is based on a syntactic theory called Role and Reference Grammar, specially the version put forward in Van Valin's Exploring Syntax-Semantic Interface (2005).In this theory, sentences have a layered structure.It is based on two fundamental contrasts: between predicate and non-predicating arguments, on the one hand, and, among the non-predicating elements, between arguments and non-arguments, on the other.The primary constituent units of the clause are the 'nucleus', which contains the predicate (usually a verb), the 'core' which contains the nucleus and the arguments of the predicate, and a 'periphery' which subsumes non-arguments of the predicate (Van Valin 2005, p. 4).The core along with the periphery, which is adjunct material (usually PP's and adverbs), make up the clause.The clausal layer can also contain a pre-core slot (PrCS) and/or a post-core slot (PoCS), that are positions within the clause but outside the core.An example of an element occurring in a pre-core slot (PrCS) is a wh-NP in a wh-question in English such as, 'Who saw the thief?'The sentence level contains the clause level, as well as, potentially, a left-or right-detached position (LDP, RDP).These are positions containing elements, such as AdvP's or PP's set-off from the rest of the sentence by a pause or intonation break (p.6).Each of the layers of the clause has some operators that is specific to it.Operators are grammatical categories, such as tense, aspect, and illocutionary force.Table 1 shows the various layers of the clause along with the operators which function at any level (from Van Valin 2005, p. 9).Focus in RRG, is determined using Lambrechtian paradigms.Three focus types are differenciated: predicate, sentence, and narrow focus.RRG further provides for a focus domain, the syntactic constituent in which the focus occurs (p.75).The potential focus domain is the entire syntactic domain where focus may occur in a given language, while the actual focus domain is the part of the sentence that is actually in focus in a given construction.These can be equal or different.In Persian, like English, the potential focus domain is the whole clause (Rezai, 2003a).
In this theory, syntactic knowledge is stored in the form of constructional templates.The templates give the morphosyntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties specific to a given type of construction.RRG provides a formal theory within which the structure of the sentences can be examined.Each construction entails a specific syntactic template associated with a focus structure.These syntactic templates show the layered structure of the sentence, and how the various constituents in the sentence fit together.This, combined with the focus structure, which includes both potential and actual focus domains, illuminates how the various constructions differ and why they are found to occur felicitously in different contexts.The framework offered by RRG which incorporates focus with syntactic structure will be used in this paper to examine various constructions in Persian.

Declarative sentences
Lambrecht (1994) divides focus into three types: narrow, predicate, and sentence.Narrow focus occurs when a single constituent is focused upon.Predicate focus, the universally unmarked type of focus structure, is a topic-comment structure where the comment or predicate is what is focused upon.In sentence focus, the entire sentence is being focused upon.Lambrecht illustrates these focus types in English, Italian, French, and Japanese.

Predicate Focus
Predicate focus is obtained when the predicate comments upon the topic.In Persian, overt subjects are often not expressed when the referent is presupposed.Omitted subjects can often easily be deduced by a listener because of the fact that the verbal morphology shows person and number agreement with the non-overt NP.Thus, the most natural way to express the answer to the question, what happened to your car, is to omit car.The subject might occur preverbally, but this sounded rather odd.Thus, (2a) seemed more natural than (2b).

Sentence Focus
In order to elicit sentence focus, a question is asked in which the reply has no presupposition.For example, when asked, what happened?a speaker cannot assume any pragmatic presupposition when replying.

Q: What happened?
A: a.My CAR broke down.English b.Mi si e$ rotta la MACCHINA.Italian c. J'ai ma VOITURE qui est en PANNE.French d.KURUMA ga KOOSYOO-si-ta.Japanese No presupposition is involved in the above.The subject of the sentence is not a presupposed one.Rather both subject and predicate are asserted.Thus, the reply is completely focus and wholly assertion.So, when a sentence is entirely asserted, the subject is always intonationally prominent (stressed).This differs from when the subject is presupposed, as in (2), where it was not stressed and preferrably omitted.Lambrecht(1994, p. 274) states that a constituent in focus cannot be omitted without depriving the utterance of some or all of its information value.In fact, subject in the above answers is not topic, so its omission results in infelicitous answer.

Narrow Focus
In contrast to sentence focus, narrow focus places a single constituent in focus.Such a situation may occur in answer to a question or when an interlocutor has created a statement which is correct except for one false constituent.An addressee replying to such an erroneous statement corrects the wrong constituent and, thus, focuses on this single constituent.
A very common example of narrow focus sentence is a WH-question like What did you buy? and the answer I bought ____; the WH-word and the NP filling its slot in the reply are both narrow focus.Now, consider this example from Lambrecht: 5. Q: I heard your motorcycle broke down.
A: a.My CAR broke down.English b.Si e rotta la mia MACCHINA./ Italian E la mia MACCHINA che si e rotta.
c. C'est ma VOITURE qui est en panne.French In the above, only car is not presupposed.The focus, the unpredictable information added to the presupposition is car.In English, the focal car is given intonational prominence.Italian can postpose the subject or use a special cleft construction (5b).Each time, the subject is stressed.Now, we consider the similar example in Persian: In these examples, the focus is given intonational prominence.In (6a) it occurs after the material given as pre-verbal (in its normal position).However, placement of subject after predicate is prohibited (6b), so this position is not within the actual focus domain in Persian.Lambrecht (1994) distinguishes unmarked narrow focus from marked narrow focus, the difference being where the focus falls.In verb-final languages (like Persian) the unmarked focus position is the immediate preverbal position (Van Valin 2005, p.72).
In Persian transitive sentences, focus structure may affect the order of constituents (Rezai & Tayyeb, 2006) 7 Here, narrow focus is on subject.The focal subject of a transitive sentence is placed either clause-initially as in (7a) or between the object and the verb as in (7b).Post-verbal focal subject as in (7c) is completely infelicitous, as it was the case in intransitive sentence.Ali break-PAST-3sg glass The focal object of a transitive sentence is placed either in preverbal position (unmarked focus position) as in (8a) or clause-initially as in (8b).Again post-verbal focal object as in (8c) is infelicitous.Focus position in Persian is in-situ, that is, in preverbal position, or it can occur in initial position which is marked narrow focus (Rezai, 2003b).According to Roberts (2005) this position is pre-core slot.However, this position can only be occupied by specific object not non-specific one.Mahdi buy-PAST-3sg book In the above, the ungrammaticality of (9b) is due to the occurrence of non-specific object in marked focus position.(9c) is infelicitous, since it is post-verbal focal object.Karimi (2003, p. 93) considers these examples as constituent movement.However, she considers movement of specific object as an instance of scrambling which is itself a reflection of discourse information such as topic and focus.However, scrambling is not possible for non-specific object.
In sum, in Persian, predicate (unmarked) focus involves a stressed predicate and optional subject.Sentence focus places stress on the subject and does not allow for the omission of the subject because of its being focal.Narrow focus on the subject stresses it intonationally.Also, such subjects occur pre-verbally, both in-situ or in immediate preverbal position.In Persian, focus (information) structure is indicated syntactically by constituent order and prosodically by stress placement.All nouns and adjectives in Persian are stressed on the final syllable (Yarmohammadi 2002).
Sentence stress in Persian, in unmarked case, falls on the element before the final verb.So, the unmarked focus position is pre-verbal position.Predicate focus is indicated when primary sentence stress falls on the last stressed syllable before an affirmative verb.

Yes-No Questions
This section explores the various possibilities of focus placement within a yes-no (non-wh) question sentence in Persian.The possibilities of focus in the question are explored by looking at the possible felicitous replies.First, SOV word ordered questions are explored using intransitives, transitives and ditransitives.Then, non-SOV word orders are considered.

SOV-ordered Yes-No Questions
Now that focus in answers has been explored to a certain level of resolution, question structure must be examined.In order to elucidate where focus is placed in a question, the possible felicitous replies must be looked at.The reply in (11a) negates the subject.This attributes marked narrow focus on the subject to the original interrogative.Or, the verb alone may be addressed in the reply, as in (11b).As, there are no objects or adjuncts, (11b) might be analyzed as involving either nuclear or predicate focus.Finally, a question like, Did John sing?, might be completely negated, focusing on each of the constituents in the clause (11c).Thus, any component of the sentence seems to be able to be focused upon in a yes-no question.Transitive sentences provide another level of complexity.( 12) provides an example of a transitive yes-no question and its replies.
12. Q: (âyâ) Rezâ Maryam râ did?The constituent most easily focused upon is verb, as in (12a).Narrow focus on 'Maryam' is also possible (12b), where the reply contradicts the object, providing a felicitous answer.Narrow focus upon the subject (12c) is also possible.Focus on both the subject and verb was not possible as shown by the infelicity of (12d).However, in (12e) focus on both the verb and indirect object is felicitous.It is likely due to pragmatic factors.It is hard to find a context where such answers would be natural.
Next, clauses with a ditransitive verb must be examined to further elucidate possible focus positions in the questions.Example ( 13) gives a ditransitive question and its answers.
no, he to-she-OP bicycle-POSS-3sg OBM debt give-PAST-3sg 'No, he borrowed his bicycle to her.' d. na, un ro be S R qarz dâd.
no, it OBM to Sara debt give-PAST-3sg 'No he borrowed it to Sara.' The ditransitive question can be posited to have nuclear focus as marked by the contradiction of the verb (13a).All three answers in (13a) are felicitous.The subject, not being focal, can be omitted; direct or indirect objects may be replaced by a pronoun, since they are not within actual pocus domain.This question may also have marked narrow subject focus (13b), and marked narrow object focus (13c).Additionally, marked narrow focus can be placed on the indirect object, as in (13d).Indeed, the entire core is under the scope of potential focus as any argument or the nucleus may be focused upon.
So far, all of the single arguments have been examined.Example ( 14) examines the possibilities for focus with larger components within the core.no, (he) bicycle-POSS-3sg OBM to-she-OP sell-PAST-3sg.
'No, Reza borrowed his car to Sarah.' (14a) is a reply which implies focus on all the constituents within the predicate; the verb, its object, and the indirect object are all contradicted.It seems not so natural, because of the fact that so much information changed.
Only in a very specific context might it serve as an answer.
Focus on the verb and either the direct object (14b) or the indirect object (14c) is also possible.Focus on both the direct and indirect objects is also felicitous (14d).(14e) shows that the verb and the subject can also be focused upon at the same time.In (14f), both subject and direct object are focused upon, while, in (14g) focus is on the subject and indirect object.In a ditransitive, two components (nucleus + argument (14b,c,e) or argument + argument (14d)) can be negated in felicitous replies, while, only one component of a monotransitive (nucleus or argument) can be negated.However, study of actual spoken dialogue within context would probably regularize the data more.But with yes-no questions, the potential focus domain encompasses the entire core, restricted here only by pragmatic ability to relate the reply to the question.
It is appropriate to note that, in written formal Persian, yes-no particle "âyâ" is obligatory.Kahnemuyipoor (2001) regards its most common position as in clause initial; however, it can appear in other positions as well: âyâ rais jomhur name râ be noxost vazir dâd?
president QM letter OBM to prime minister give-PAST-3sg 'Did the president give the letter to the prime minister?' But, it cannot occur post-verbally, as in: *rais jomhur name râ be noxost vazir dâd âyâ?
'No, Reza sang.' (16) shows that the VS question may be interpreted as focusing on the nucleus, but not the subject, which according to Roberts (2005), occupies Post-Core slot.Thus, with yes-no questions in non-canonical order, the post-verbal or final position cannot be focus position.Since object is in post-verbal position, it cannot be focused.
In sum, both canonical and non-canonical yes-no questions show that while the potential focus domain of yes-no questions with SOV ordering is the entire core, in non-SOV ordered yes-no questions, a final focus position is not possible and yields infelicitous replies.

Wh-questions
This section examines wh-questions, beginning with one wh-word and continuing to multiple wh-word questions.

Questions Involving a Single Wh-word
Constructions containing wh-question words often differ fundamentally in their placement of focus from those without such wh-question words.The following gives an example of two questions in English, one with a wh-question word (18a) and one without (18b).The wh-object in (18a) occurs in initial position whereas the non-wh object in (18b) remains in its in-situ post-verbal position.Ali see-PAST-3sg where whom-OBM?* f.Ali did ki-o kojâ?
When a question has two wh-words and one is an adjunct, grammatical readings are obtained when the argument wh-word is placed before the adjunct wh-word (28a,c) but, If the adjunct precedes the argument, it is ungrammatical or at least less grammatical (28b,d).In (28b) subject is placed after adjunct and in (28d), it is the object that is placed after adjunct.So, only arguments can precede adjuncts, not vice versa.Also, neither argument nor adjunct may occupy final position (28e,f).Now, ditransitives are examined in a sentence with four elements where both the direct and indirect objects are wh-words (29).Due to the number of possible orders of a four element sentence, the orderings will be divided in groups according to the placement of the wh-words -both initial (29a,b), one initial and one medial (29c,d), both medial with either order(29e,f), and both final (29g,h).Ali what-OBM to whom give-PAST-3sg?f.Ali be ki či ro dâd?
Ali to whom what-OBM give-PAST-3sg? in interrogatives, felicitous replies were provided.The RRG analysis of data accounted for both yes-no and wh-interrogatives, with their fundamental differences from declaratives.
In yes-no questions, both canonical and non-canonical yes-no questions showed that while the potential focus domain of yes-no questions with SOV ordering was the entire core, in non-SOV ordered yes-no questions, a final focus position is not possible and yields infelicitous replies.
The analysis of wh-questions revealed that all wh-words could be placed sentence initially and they could occur in other positions in final position after the verb.Also, a hierarchy of subject>direct object, indirect object>adjunct was organized for the wh-words which must be placed before the other ones in multiple wh-word questions.Transitivity does not govern word order in Persian by itself.Word order is determined by the information structure of sentences.
As Van Valin (1998) mentions, both yes-no and wh-questions are kinds of focus construction, often narrow focus, and accordingly, the focus of yes-no question or wh-expression must be interpreted as being within the actual focus domain.Actually, wh-words are the most prominent element of the sentence and receive the main stress (Rezai, 2003b).
On the whole, this study shows the importance of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics interface.It demonstrates the interaction of form and function in language.The findings show that syntax and semantics must be integrated with information structure, in order to provide a comprehensive account of facts found in languages.
18. a.What did you eat? b.Did you eat a sandwich?

Table 1 .
Layers of the clause and their operators Focal objects, too, receive stress and may occur in immediate preverbal position or initially.Neither focal element can occur post-verbally.Hence, intonational or prosodic prominence is always a correlate of focus in Persian, as it was for the other languages cited.Even, there are cases in which only stress is the indicator of focal element and it is possible for the focal stress to fall on any constituent of the sentence.
When asked, what are you eating?, the reply may include I am eating as in I am eating bananas, but the new information bananas is what makes it a valid reply; it is the focus.Thus, the plausible answers to a given question permit one to see what was exactly able to be focused upon (answered) in the question.
c. No, he bought it, but he didn't eat it.In (10a), narrow focus is on the subject in the question.(10b), places narrow focus on the object.(10c) negates the assumed verb of the question.This is possible, since questions can have nuclear focus on the verb.Now, the same type of construction in Persian can be examined.First, a question and its replies are considered for a clause containing an intransitive predicate (11).('âyâ' is a question marker which is obligatory in written Persian.)11.Q: (âyâ) SAMAN âvâz xând?QM Saman song read-PAST-3sg?'Did Saman sing?' A: a. na, REZ âvâz xând.
also provides other exaples to show the impossibility of question marker to be placed