The Covert Focus Marker in Igbo

Cite this article as: Nzewi, E. U. (2026). The covert focus marker in Igbo. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(2), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i02.011

By

Esther U. Nzewi

Department of Linguistics and Languages,

AdekunleAjasin University,

Akungba-Akoko,

Ondo state, Nigeria

Abstract

In Igbo, the kà morpheme is a focus marker which immediately follows the object in the object DP focus construction, Nwachukwu (1995), Agbo (2013) and Nweya (2016). The marker is also found in cleft constructions and in other constituent focus other than the subject DP focus. However, it has been observed that whenever the object DP carries (new) information focus (Agbo (2013)), more specifically, when the object DPs are focused in a way that they are found in responses to wh-questions, the focus marker kà is not found. The same is true for subject DPs. This paper, therefore, adopting a descriptive approach seeks to investigate that form/nature of the focus marker employed in object DP (new) information focus and in subject DP focus. Data were mostly collected through secondary sources which include published articles and unpublished thesis. Additional data were obtained from some native speakers through a syntactic checklist. The paper reveals that a covert variant of the focus marker is employed in subject DP focus and in object DP focus constructions where the object DP is found in the VP; when it presents (new) information focus in responses to content word questions, and in verbal focus constructions.

Keywords: Focus marker, covert, subject DP, object DP, (new) information focus.

1.0 Introduction

Focus is an information-structural category; the constituent in focus is the most salient part of an utterance in a given discourse and signals the presence of alternatives that are relevant in the discourse for the interpretation of an utterance (see among others Jackendoff 1972; Dik 1997; Rooth 1985; Krifka2008; Zimmermann, 2007, Zimmermann and Onea 2011).

Most commonly, the following three subtypes of focus are postulated: (i) new information focus as in answers to questions (ii) corrective focus where a different element from the set of contextually relevant alternatives replaces a previously mentioned alternative, and (iii) contrastive focus where alternatives are contrasted in their properties.

There are three basic ways of coding focus in Igbo, they include: the in-situ strategy, the ex-situ strategy, and the cleft strategy.

Consider the examples below:

1a. Ònyéhụ̀-rụ̀Àdán’-áhíá

 Who see-PST Ada P-market

 Who saw Ada at the market?

b. Òbíhụ̀-rụ̀Àdán’-áhíá

 Obi see-PST Ada P-market

 OBI saw Ada at the market

2a. ÒnyékàÒbíhụ̀-rụ̀n’-áhíá

 Who FOC Obi see-PST P-market

 Who did Obi see at the market?

b. ÀdákàÒbíhụ̀-rụ̀ n’-áhíá

 Ada FOC Obi see-PST P-market

 Obi saw ADA at the market

3. Ọ́bụ̀onyéhụ̀-rụ̀Àdán’áhíá?

 ItCOP who see-PST Ada P-market

 Who was it that saw Ada at the market?

b. Ọ́bụ̀ Òbíhụ̀-rụ̀Àdá n’-áhíá

 It COP Obi see-PST Ada P-market

 It was Obi that saw Ada at the market

4a. Ọ́bụ̀onyékàÒbíhụ̀-rụ̀ n’-áhíá?

 It COP who FOC Obi see-PST P-market

 Who was it that Obi saw at the market?

b. Ọ́ bụ̀ ÀdákàÒbíhụ̀-rụ̀ n’-áhíá

 It COP Ada FOC Obi see-PST P-market

 It was Ada that Obi saw at the market

The examples (1-4) are instances of new information focus where different constituents are focused. While examples (1a-4a) are content-word questions demanding new information not known to the speaker, the (b) counterparts are responses to the questions supplying the new information, thereby containing the focused constituents. In (1b), the subject DP is focused, and in (2b), the object DP is focused. Examples (3b) and (4b) are both instances of subject and object DPs, respectively. However, they are presented by means of clefting. A close examination of (1b) and (2b) also shows that while the former is an instance of in-situ focus, the latter is ex-situ. This study, therefore, attempts to examine the variant of the focus marker attested in expressions such as (1b) and (3b).

2.0 Literature Review

Scholars have worked extensively on focus constructions and the focus marking strategies in Igbo and have in their works, identified the ‘ka’ as the focus marker, Nwachukwu (1995), Agbo (2013), Nweya (2016), Amaechi and Georgi (2017), and Nzewi (2018).Nweya (2016) concentrated on the identification of focused constituents representing salientinformation in focus constructions, the form and various other functions of the focus marker and the derivation of focus constructions. He also examined how focus constructions help to determine the order or hierarchy of clausal constituents in the various domains especially the CP domain. Agbo (2013b), drawing insights from Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) examined the morphological coding of focus in Igbo. He identified some markers which are found in different constituent focus and concludes that these markers license the morphological coding of focus in the language. Nwachukwu (1995) differs in his view as he posits that there is no morphological coding of focus in Igbo. According to him, focus is featured in Igbo through the syntactic strategy. This involves the movement of the object DP to a focalized position and leaving a trace at the extraction site. He opines that the particle kàis only a complementizer of some sort. However, this contradicts the position maintained by information and clause structure. In other words, maintaining thatkà is simply a complementizer rather than a focus marker leaves a focus construction without any form of clause-typer. Amaechi and Georgi (2017), in their attempt to examine the subject and non-subject extraction asymmetries in Igbo, agreed with other scholars on the form of the focus makerkà. This marker according to them is obligatorily used in the focus of non-subjects and absent in subject focus. The subject is focused by means of clefts.

As observed by Amaechi and Georgi (2017), the focus markerkà is only found in the non-subject focus that are focalized via the ex- situ and cleft strategies. The question then becomes what then marks focus when the in-situ strategy is employed, and in subject focus, hence, the need for the study.

3. Data and Methodology

Data were mostly collected through secondary sources which include published articles and unpublished thesis. Additional data, obtained through the primary source, were elicited from observation and native speaker introspection. Data gathered from the native speaker introspection were subjected to validation by other native speakers. The variety of Igbo used for the study is the standard variety often used in formal domains. Data were subjected to interlinear glossing and descriptive analysis.

4. Analysis and Findings

4.1 The Focus Marker: In-situ Focus

In the in-situ strategy, the element that is focused occurs in its canonical position, i.e. in the position it also occupies in all new out-of-the-blue-sentences. Hence, there is no overt syntactic marking of focus in the sentence; there is also neither a morphological indication of focus (e.g. by a focus marker) nor phonological highlighting (e.g. by stress) of the focused constituent.

In Igbo, this strategy can be employed when the focalised constituent gives new information focus as in being an answer to awh-question.

Consider the following examples:

5a. ÒnyékàÒbíhụ̀-rụ̀ n’-áhíá

 Who FOC Obi see-PST P-market

 Who did Obi see at the market?

b. Òbíhụ̀-rụ̀Àdá n’-áhíá

 Obi see-PST Ada P-market

 Obi saw ADA at the market

6a. GínikàÀdá gò-rò n’-áhíá

 What FOC Ada buy-PST P-market

 What did Ada buy at the market?

b. Àdá gò-rò ákwà n’-áhíá

 Ada buy-PST cloth P-market

 Ada bought CLOTHES at the market

7a. Gínikà Nkechi mè-rè

 What FOC Nkechi do-PST?

 What did Nkechi do?

b. Nkechisù-rù ákwà

 Nkechi wash-PST clothes

 NkechiWASHED THE CLOTHES

Note that questions (5) and (6) can be answered employing the ex-situ and the cleft strategy. Nevertheless, the in-situ focus strategy is used preferably to express new information focus in these examples. In (7) however, the in-situ focus strategy is the only appropriate answer that can be given. This study proposes that the focus marker in the above (b) examples is phonetically null. This null element is the functional head related to focus (= Focoin the split CP-system, cf. Rizzi 1997 et seq.) And it is present in in-situ focus. One important diagnostic to prove that even though the focus marker in these expressions is covert or phonetically null, it is syntactically present is Information Structure evidence. Information structure means how speakers of language package and transfer messages to hearers in communication. More precisely, the study of information structure focuses on how the syntactic structure of a sentence depends on the context it is uttered in and the mental state of the interlocutors. There are three core information structural categories, namely, question, topic, and focus.

The information structure evidence has to do with the fact that the interrogative counterparts encode focus. It is impossible for a content-word question which encodes focus to have a non-focused construction as its response. It is not far-fetched to propose that we can have constructions with a covert focus marker as Nzewi (2021) in her analysis of Bound Cognate nominals (BCNs) opines that even in the absence of an overt focus marker, BCNs encode a special kind of focus known as the contrastive predicate focus which contrasts the action of verb from other possible actions as exemplified below:

9. Ha rè-rè àlà ahụ̀ è-re

 3pl sell-PST land that NOM.sell

 They SOLD that land

The paper holds that BCN is an instance of verb focus: whereby the verb has been nominalized and moved to occupy a prominent position in the VP left edge, thus, an instance of in-situ focus. In this paper, I propose that there is a covert focus marker in such a construction which licenses the focus marking.

4.2. The Focus Marker: Subject Focus

As it has been established earlier, subjects DPs can never co-occur with the morpheme kà’. If the subject DP is to be syntactically focused, it will be done by means of the cleft strategy. Consider the examples (1) and (3) repeated here in (9) and (10) for ease of reference

9a. Ònyéhụ̀-rụ̀Àdá n’-áhíá

 Who see-PST Ada P-market

 Who saw Ada at the market?

b. Òbíhụ̀-rụ̀Àdán’-áhíá

 Obi see-PST Ada P-market

 OBI saw Ada at the market

10a. Ọ́bụ̀ònyéhụ̀-rụ̀Àdá n’-áhíá

 It COP who see-PST Ada P-market

 Who was it that saw Ada at the market?

b. Ọ́bụ̀ Òbíhụ̀-rụ̀Àdá n’-áhíá

 It COP Obi see-PST Ada P-market

 It was Obi that saw Ada at the market

Interestingly, as noted by Amaechi and Georgi (2017), long distance ex-situ focus is possible for subjects, by implication; a long ex-situ focused subject must be accompanied by the marker kà, as can be observed in (11) below. However, this marker is covert when the subject is not extraposed as in (12).

11. ÒbíkàÚchèchè-rè (*nà) hụ̀-rụ̀ Àdá n’-áhíá

 ÒbíFOC Úchè think-PST(*that)see-PST Àdá P-market

 ‘Úchè thought that ÒBÍ saw Àdá at the market.’

12. Úchèchè-rènàÒbíhụ̀-rụ̀ Àdá n’-áhíá

 Úchè think-PSTthat Obi see-PST Àdá P-market

 ‘Úchè thought that ÒBÍ saw Àdá at the market.’

5. Conclusion

The paper concludes that a covert variant of the focus marker is employed in subject DP focus and in constructions focalized by means of in-situ focus, such constituents are object DPs and VPs when they present (new) information focus in responses to content word questions.

References

Agbo, M. 2013. A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis of the Igbo Verb.Ph.D. Dissertation.University of Ibadan.

Amaechi, M.&Georgi, D. 2017.On Subject and Non-Subject Extraction Asymmetries in Igbo. Ms., University of Potsdam, submitted.

Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar (part 1). The Structure of the Clause. Vol. 1(Functional Grammar Series 20). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jackendoff, R. S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Krifka, M. 2008. Basic Notions of Information Structure.ActaLinguisticaHungarica,55(3), 243–276.

Nwachukwu, P. A. 1995. “Topic, Focus and Move-Alpha in Igbo” in Issues in African Languages and Linguistics: Essays in Honour of Kay Williamson. Aba: NINLAN Publishers.

Nweya, G. O. 2016. The Igbo clause structure and the Cartography of the Complementizer Phrase Domain.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Nzewi, E. U. 2018.Focus Constructions in Nnewi Dialect of Igbo.M. A. Dissertation, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Nzewi, E. U. 2021. Bound Cognate Nominals in Igbo: A Morpho-Syntactic Analysis. Inquiry in African Languages and Literature. No. 14, 124-132(Nigeria)

Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In L Haegeman (Ed.) Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht: 281-337.

Rooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Zimmermann, M. 2007. Contrastive Focus. In C. Féry, G. Fanselow and M. Krifka (Eds.) Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 6. 147-159. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

Zimmermann, M.&Onea, E. 2011. Focus Marking and Focus Interpretation. Lingua 121.1651-1670.