Focus particles in Maltese: A corpus survey

Focus particles in Maltese: A corpus survey

SLAVOMÍR “BULBUL” ČÉPLÖ (PRAGUE/BRATISLAVA)


Taqsira

Fl-istudju tal-ippakjar tal-informazzjoni lingwistika hemm żewġ kunċetti importanti: it-

topik u l-fokus. Għalkemm fil-Malti ngħatat ħafna attenzjoni lit-topik u l-karatteristiċi

sintattiċi u semantiċi tiegħu, ftit huma il-kitbiet li jitrattaw il-fokus. F’dan l-artiklu

nipprova nindirizza dan in-nuqqas billi nistħarreġ tip wieħed minn dawn il-

kostruzzjonijiet: il-fokus realizzat permezz tal-hekk-imsejħa partiċelli tal-fokus. Wara

introduzzjoni qasira fejn nifli teoriji diversi fuq in-natura tal-fokus, nagħti rendikont ta’

dawn il-partiċelli – fosthom anke, ukoll, biss u lanqas – b’referenza għat-tifsira u s-

sintass tagħhom, kif ukoll ir-rwol tagħhom fir-realizzazzjoni tal-fokus fil-Malti u r-

rabta tagħhom ma’ strutturi sintattiċi oħrajn, ngħidu aħna, il-koordinazzjoni u l-qbil

negattiv.

1. Introduction

In the study of Maltese, much attention has been devoted to the analysis of topic and

topicalization, whereas comparatively little has been written on the subject of focus.

For example, in Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander’s 1997 descriptive grammar of Maltese,

an entire chapter is dedicated to topic and topicalization, while focus is addressed in

four discontinuous paragraphs and only in phonological terms. The three major works

that do discuss focus extensively do so primarily in order to analyze the role of focus in

other phenomena (constituent order variation for Fabri 1993 and Fabri & Borg 2002,

phonology for Vella 2009) rather than the semantics and syntax of focus itself.

Consequently, a detailed study of focus in Maltese remains a desideratum. This paper

is a step towards addressing this gap by using corpus data to examine one particular

type of focus structure, that mediated by the so-called focus particles. In addition to

analyzing the syntax and semantics of focus particles in Maltese and their role in the

packaging of information in Maltese, the paper also examines the interaction of these

Slavomír /bulbul/ Čéplö

particles and focus itself with other syntactic phenomena such as coordination and

negation.

2. Focus and focus particles

2.1 Focus

The study of information structure (IS), which concerns itself with how information is

packaged and structured in sentences “within a particular context or discourse”

(Vallduví & Engdahl 1996: 460), revolves around two concepts: focus and topic.

Unfortunately, both are among those terms that are notorious for lacking a coherent and

crosslinguistically consistent definition (insofar as the latter is possible or even

desirable) and have thus been used in various incompatible and oftentimes even

contradictory ways. When it comes to focus, at the most fundamental level it is often

defined in terms of contrast between new and old information (e.g. “The essential piece

of new information that is carried by a sentence will be referred to as its focus”,

Comrie 1989: 62–64 or “The focus typically represents addressee-new information”,

Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1370). Some, particularly adherents of frameworks of the

generative type, are dissatisfied with the vagueness of such concepts as ‘old’ and ‘new’

(cf. Zubizarreta 1998: 159) and prefer to speak of ‘presuppositions’ and focus as “the

information in the sentence that is assumed by the speaker not to be shared by him and

the hearer” (Jackendoff 1972: 230). Others employ the notions of discourse relevance

and emphasis or highlighting (“There is some common agreement on the explanation

of focus in terms of informational relevance and emphasis”, Petrova and Solf 2009:

140 and “focus expresses highlighting and informativeness”, König 1991: 32). Others

still invoke the concepts of givenness and contrastiveness (Chafe 1976) or saliency

(“Focus refers to that part of the clause that provides the most relevant or most salient

information in a given discourse situation”, Aboh et al. 2007: 1), define focus in

structural terms (Kiss 1995b: 6) or speak of focus as an indicator of “the presence of

alternatives that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions” (Krifka

2007: 18). Considering the richness of literature on IS, there are undoubtedly many

more ways of conceptualizing and defining what focus is.

No matter what the exact wording, it is obvious that most of these express the same

basic notion, and the definition of focus thus comes down to a division of the discourse

into two parts: new vs. old, presupposed vs. non-presupposed, not shared vs. shared,

emphasized and non-emphasized, highlighted vs. non-highlighted, contrast vs. given,

or – in the terminology employed by Krifka in his theory of information structure

(Krifka 2007, Féry and Krifka 2008, Krifka and Musan 2012) and the terminology used

in this paper – focus and background. This binary division is then best thought of in


terms of sets (cf. König 1991: 60): the background is a set of entities/propositions

characterized by a particular discourse-relevant property, focus then serves to establish

the relationship of the focused entity/proposition with that set. To illustrate, consider a

stereotypical focus structure, that of an answer to a question led by an interrogative (cf.

Krifka 2007: 21):

Min imiss?

‘Who’s next?’

(1) Il-ġenitur=i ta’ Kristjan Bugeja .

<FOC>DEF-parent-PL GEN [name] [name] .

‘The parents of Kristjan Bugeja.’

[BC – GNIEN TAD-DMUGH pages FINAL.txt]1

Here, the background is information shared by the speaker and the addressee that (a)

there is an activity going which involves an action, as yet incomplete, (b) performed on

persons (or groups of persons) (c) in a particular order. In terms of sets, there exists a

set B(ackground) = {x | action(x)}. The question then seeks to determine the identity of

the next person in queue and the information introduced by the focused part of the

answer (in this case, the entirety of it) then establishes that <FOC>y ∈ B.

It is quite obvious why this distinction has been framed in the terms of ‘newness’,

‘highlighting’ or ‘emphasis’, but it is also equally obvious why such a framing is

inaccurate: these terms are not only inexact – what is the precise nature of ‘emphasis’?

– but they are also relative. This is especially true of newness: in our example (1)

above, it is quite likely that the interlocutors performing the action already came across

the name of Kristjan’s parents (i.e. the referent of the focused expression), for example,

when consulting a list in preparation for the action, so their existence would not be new

to the discourse. Krifka in his criticism of the concept of ‘newness’ (Krifka 2007: 29)

suggests – and then rejects – a different way of understanding ‘newness’ which in our

example would be that it is not the existence of Kristjan’s parents or a reference to

1 All examples given here are taken from the texts collected in the bulbulistan corpus (henceforth:

BC) which is accessible at http://www.bulbul.sk/bonito2/ (login: guest, password: Ghilm3). The

texts are cited in their original – often quite distorted – spelling. For glossing, the Leipzig Glossing

Rules are used with the following modifications: in examples, ‘=’ instead of a hyphen will be used

to separate morphemes with the exception of hyphens already used in Maltese orthography to

separate the definite article; the category labels CL.ACC and CL.DAT will be used for the clitic sets

{-ni, -k, -h/-u, -ha, -na, -kom, hom} and {-li, -lek, -lu, -lha, -lna, -lkom, -lhom}, respectively; the

traditional labels IMPF and PERF will be used for the prefixal and suffixal conjugations; the object

marker lil will be labeled as either ACC or DAT depending on its function; personal pronouns will

be labeled as COP when acting as copulas; square brackets will enclose semantic categories; all

examples will be followed by the reference to the document id in the corpus and, whenever

necessary for the comprehension of the grammatical features illustrated, context and its translation

will be prepended to the glossed example.

http://www.bulbul.sk/bonito2/


them, but rather their involvement in the action to be performed that is new (i.e. the

fact that they are members of the set B is what is new). But this explanation also fails to

account for the relative nature of ‘newness’ – in other words, Krifka fails to answer the

question “new as opposed to what?”. This is particularly striking in the light of the fact

that his own theory of IS provides that answer by using the concept of Common

Ground (CG). Krifka defines CG as a model of “information that is mutually known to

be shared and continuously modified in communication” consisting of presuppositions

(defined as “requirements for the input CG”) and proffered content (“the proposed

change in the output CG”) (Krifka 2007: 15-16). And while the concept of CG is a

useful one, the description of its dynamics is not: Krifka’s framing not only fails define

the possible types of change to the output CG (for example, are deletions even

possible?), but more importantly, it considers the modification of CG to be a simple

linear process: CGinput -> proffered content -> CGoutput. In such a view of CG, there is

indeed very little place for ‘newness’. If, however, one were to think of the

modification of CG as not just modification along the temporal axis, but modification

and reorganization of CG in terms of constantly created, modified, merged and

rearranged collections of presuppositions out of all existing presuppositions (SuperCG,

if you will), then the concept of ‘new’ does begin to make sense: as the conversation

moves along in time and the context changes, new collections of presuppositions are

created from SuperCG and moved to the forefront (or pushed to the top of the pile) and

the old ones are removed from the top of the pile and pushed to the bottom to be

retrieved at a later point if/as necessary. Within that particular context, the collection of

presuppositions currently on the top of the pile then becomes the current version of CG

(immediate CG) and the proffered content can be considered new for this particular

collection of presuppositions. In our example, the reference to Kristjan’s parents in this

particular discourse belongs to one of the lower-level collection of relevant

presuppositions. The information on the action to be performed and that there is a

group of candidates on which the action is to be performed (i.e. the existence of the set

B) is included in the collection of presuppositions on the top of the pile which forms

the background to the focused proposition (Kristjan’s parents ∈ B).

Such an understanding of CG then helps us to define focus/background distinction

as follows:

1. Background is a particular presupposition from a collection of presuppositions

that form the immediate CG.

2. Focus is the proffered content that seeks to modify the immediate CG.

3. The relationship of focus to background is that of sets and their members,

whether individual ones or subsets.

This definition helps to elucidate not only the question of background and focus,

including some of its more complex points (cf. Krifka 2007: 29 on which more below),


but also other issues related to IS, such as the immediate nature of IS and the question

topic and comment. As for the former, Krifka notes that the notion of CG restricts itself

“to those aspects that respond to the temporary state of the addressee’s mind, thus

excluding several other aspects of messages, like reference to long-term background

knowledge” (Krifka 2007: 14). The reasons for this restriction are that if CG contains

long-term background knowledge, this can lead to truth-conditional differences in

interpretation. However, as Krifka notes, topics can often remain “constant over longer

stretches of discourse” (Krifka 2007: 43) and thus topic cannot be, in his strict

understanding of IS, considered to be an IS notion. Such a view of topic/comment

makes only sense if one subscribes to the linear view of CG modification. If one were

to adopt the view of SuperCG outlined above (which by definition must include all the

long-term background knowledge) and the view of CG as being made up of evolving

and constantly reorganized collections of presuppositions, then the topic can be defined

on two levels: as a member of the immediate CG (i.e. Krifka’s “the temporary state of

addressee’s mind”), but – unlike focus – it can also be a member of several collections

of CG simultaneously (“constant over longer stretches of discourse”), thus satisfying

both conditions. Additionally, this view of CG and topic is also consistent with the

traditional view of topic as containing old information (this view has meanwhile been

confirmed empirically by e.g. Gunn Eide 2010: 150), but also with the trivial

observation that topics sometimes introduce new entities (Krifka 2007: 41). And finally,

it establishes a clear distinction between the focus/background structure and the

topic/comment structure: while the relationship between focus and background is to

some degree predictable (in terms of set theory), that of topic to comment is not.

This theory of IS, CG and the role of focus is at this point no more than a working

hypothesis, one that explains some observed facts, including the distinction between

contrastive and exhaustive focus (cf. Krifka 2007: 33) where the former involves the

interaction of two collections of presuppositions, while the latter involves the

interaction between the immediate CG and SuperCG. It does not, however, consider all

its general semantic and pragmatic implications, nor does it provide – as of yet – a

reliable theory of how collections of CG are formed and ordered. Nevertheless, it is

quite useful for the purposes of this paper, especially in its fundamental description of

the focus/background construction, and I will therefore employ it here, elaborating on it

and extending it as necessary.

2.2 Focus particles

2.2.1 Focus particles as a distinct word class

Focus can be expressed in three major ways: phonological (e.g. sentence stress, cf.

Jackendoff 1972: 229), syntactic or structural (a dedicated position within a sentence or


a specific movement, cf. Horvath 1995) and morphological (Schwarz 2007: 140-143)

(cf. also the division of the expression of focus in Vallduví & Engdahl 1996: 460).

Additionally, however, it is generally acknowledged that in many languages, there also

exists a class of function words which are associated with focus (Krifka 2007: 25) or

sensitive to focus (Beaver and Clark 2008: 285), of which the most typical examples

are English also, only and even. They go by many names – in English, they are referred

to, among others, as “focus(ing) particle”, “focus(ing) adverb” (Leech & Svartvik 1975:

109), “focus sensitive particle”, “focus inducer” (both cf. summary in Sudhoff 2010: 9),

“focusing subjuncts” (Quirk et al. 1985: 86) and “focusing modifiers” (Huddleston &

Pullum 2002: 586); in German, they are known as “Gradpartikel” (“scalar particles”,

Helbig 1988: 37-46); the Nueva gramática de la lengua española calls them “adverbios

de inclusion” (section 40.4.4) and in Italian, they are known as “avverbi focalizzanti”

(see De Cesare 2015 for a summary of terms used in English, Spanish, Italian and

French).

Regardless of the label, these function words exhibit a number of common

properties (cf. König 1991: 1-5 and De Cesare 2015: 59-74), of which the major ones

are these five:

1. Focus: they interact with (mediate) the focus/background construction.

2. Semantics: they add a specific meaning to the focus/background structure.

3. Cross-categoriality: they modify a broad number of other word classes.

4. Positional flexibility: their position within the sentence is very flexible.

5. Variability of scope: the change in their position results in the change of their

scope. In this context, I define scope in terms of dependency grammar, i.e. as

the governor the particle depends on.

In Maltese linguistics, the only time these words have been discussed in some detail is

Borg & Azzopardi’s grammar, in section 1.2.5.2.8 on “Emphatic words”: “There is a

small class of emphatic words which follow the noun: stess ‘same’, ukoll ‘as well’,

ilkoll ‘all’ and biss ‘only’. A few others precede the noun: mqar ‘even’, anki ‘also’,

saħansitra ‘also’.2 Biss can occur preceding the noun, in a marked construction.”

(Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 74, emphasis in the original). Additionally, Borg

& Azzopardi-Alexander note one of the functions of ukoll in their discussion of

coordination where they refer to the word as a ‘proform’, a term the authors also use

for pronominal clitics and the adverbial hekk (Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 83-

84).

The somewhat inconsistent terminology Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander employ is a

perfect illustration of the general disagreement as to what word class these words

2 Most likely a typographical error, since Aquilina’s dictionary gives English “even” as a translation

for saħansitra.


belong to. The consensus appears to be split two ways: in some analyses, they are

considered a subset of adverbs, as in the examples of their nomenclature cited above.

This also includes Huddleston & Pullum’s analysis (2002: 586) where only and also

(examples of their “focusing modifiers”) are also classified as adverbs, as well as De

Cesare’s 2015 survey of these words in four European languages which, tellingly,

appears in a volume titled “Adverbs” (Pittner et al. 2015). Others – especially German

scholars (most notably König 1991) and those influenced by them – prefer to analyze

these words as a special subclass of particles. The former analysis has also been tacitly

accepted in Maltese linguistics: while Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander (1997) remain

undecided, Aquilina’s dictionary classifies the stereotypical members of this group –

anke, ukoll, biss and lanqas – as adverbs.

In what follows, I will revisit this classification and show why I have opted to

classify these words as particles rather than adverbs while taking this as an opportunity

to closely examine the general characteristics of these words in Maltese, proceeding in

the order of empirical verifiability.

2.2.2 Cross-categoriality

As pointed out by Givón (2001a: 87), “Of the four major lexical word-classes, adverb

is the least homogenous, semantically, morphologically and syntactically.”

Nevertheless, one of the defining syntactic properties of adverbs is that they generally

modify predicates, i.e. verbs, and/or other modifiers, i.e. adjectives or adverbs

(Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 563). This is generally true of Maltese as well, as evident

from examples (2) and (3):

(2) Fi=r-Rabat assolutament ma baqa=x

in-DEF-[name] absolutely NEG remain.PERF.3SGM-NEG

post fejn ti=sta’ ti=pparkja ...

place where 2.IMPF-can 2.IMPF-park ...

‘In Rabat, there absolutely didn’t remain a place where you can park ...’

[BC – ilgensillum.2011-Awwissu-10.9669]

(3) Din hija assolutament neċessarj=a ...

this COP.3SGF absolutely necessary-F ...

‘This is absolutely necessary ...’

[BC – 20070328_512d_par]

In contrast, the range of word classes that focus particles can modify is much broader

and it even includes word classes that are typically not modified, such as numerals (4)

and personal pronouns (5):

... tant għoġbuh li ried jixtrihom kollha!


‘... he liked them so much that he wanted to buy them all!’

(4) Iżda aħna ta=nie=h tnejn biss ...

but we give.PERF-1PL-CL.ACC.3SGM two only ...

‘But we gave him only two.’

[BC – Tielet qamar 2012.txt]

(5) Jien ukoll hekk kon=t qed na=ħseb .

I also so COP.PERF-1SG PROG 1.IMPF-think .

‘I too used to think so.’

[BC – Tielet qamar 2012.txt]

As expected, there are exceptions: for example, an adverb like assolutament (an adverb

marked morphologically as such) can also modify some types of noun phrases (6):

(6) ... ix-xjenzjat=i Malt=in ma sab=u

... DEF-scientist-PL Maltese-PL NEG find.PERF-3PL

assolutament xejn :

absolutely nothing :

‘... Maltese scientists found absolutely nothing:’

[BC – Nahqa ta' Hmar hi res.txt]

Assolutament is a particularly interesting example here because of its meaning which

would fit under Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander’s label ‘emphatic’. As such, it would

indicate that there exists a subclass of adverbs in Maltese which in addition to

modifying predicates and other modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) also serve a

different function, a subclass where focus particles could potentially fit in. But before

making that judgment, let us consider further properties of focus particles.

2.2.3 Positional flexibility and variability of scope

Positional flexibility – i.e. the fact that they are not limited to a specific slot within the

clause – is generally considered the primary characteristic of focus particles (De Cesare

2015: 70). This is something that is not true of adverbs modifying other modifiers

which tend to have a fixed position within the close vicinity of their headword.

Positional flexibility would, at first glance, seem to be a property of Maltese adverbs

modifying the predicate, as shown in examples (7) and (8) below:

(7) Aħjar n=ieqf=u hawn illum .

better 1.IMPF-stop-PL here today .

‘We better stop here today.’

[BC – 1998_Rena_Balzan_Ilkoll_ta'_Nisel_Wiehed.txt]

(8) I=kun aħjar jekk illum n=ieqf=u hawn .


3SGM.IMPF-COP better if today 1.IMPF-stop-PL here .

‘It’s better if we stop here today.’

[BC – 20091013_043d_soc]

There is, however, a substantial difference here: no matter what the position of the

adverb, its scope remains unchanged and it continues to modify the predicate. In other

words, whatever the position of either of the two adverbs in both sentences, they are

the only correct answer to the question “where do we stop?” and “when do we stop?”,

respectively. In contrast, consider example (9) and its hypothetical but fully

grammatical modifications (10) and (11):

(9) Il-Gvern Malti kien anke

DEF-government Maltese COP.PERF.3SGM also

għamel arranġament=i ma' l-Amerikan=i .

make.PERF.3SGM arrangement-PL with DEF-American-PL .

‘The Maltese government was also making arrangements with the Americans.’

[BC – l-orizzont.40042]

(10) Anke il-Gvern Malti kien

also DEF-government Maltese COP.PERF.3SGM



‘Also the Maltese government was making arrangements with the Americans.’

[*]

(11) Il-Gvern Malti kien għamel

DEF-government Maltese COP.PERF.3SGM make.PERF.3SGM

arranġament=i anke ma' l-Amerikan=i .

arrangement-PL also with DEF-American-PL .


[*]

Were one to use the same diagnostic on these sentences, the question targeting the

constituents modified by anke would have to change depending on the position of anke:

in example (9), the question would have to be “What did the Maltese government do?”;

in example (10), it would be “Who made arrangements with Americans?” and in

example (11), one would need to ask “With whom was the Maltese government

making arrangements?” These questions then make it clear that the function of anke is

to put its constituent (or, again in terms of dependency grammar, its governor) in focus.

However, that is not all anke does – just consider the difference between (9) and its

hypothetical, but still grammatical, modification without anke. To fully grasp what’s

going on, we need to examine the semantics of anke and words like it.


2.2.4 Semantics

Let us now turn from syntactic characteristics of adverbs and focus particles to their

respective semantic properties. As heterogeneous as the adverbs are, various attempts

have been made to subdivide this word class by meaning. Table 1 below summarizes

one such attempt made by Givón using semantic-functional criteria (2001a: 88) as

extended by Sőrés (2014):

Adverb subclass Example

manner EN: fast, hard

instrumental

time and aspectuality EN: often, sometimes

epistemic EN: perhaps, certainly

deontic-evaluative EN: fortunately, sadly

adverbs modifying adjectives EN: very, quite

emphatic EN: just, really

spatial (Sőrés 2014 only) EN: there, here

Table 1: Semantic classification of adverbs (Givón 2001a: 88-94, expanded in Sőrés

2014: 184)

Insufficient as it may be (as will be shown below), I will use this division as a starting

point in the evaluation of this final argument for and against the inclusion of focus

particles among adverbs. The first question to ask is then whether Borg & Azzopardi-

Alexander’s “emphatic words” (1997: 41) (i.e. Maltese focus particles) can be assigned

to any of these subclasses and thus whether they satisfy the semantic condition for

inclusion in this word class. A cursory look through the list narrows the pool of suitable

options to a single one, as ukoll, biss and the other candidates have nothing to do with

either manner or time or any of properties characterizing the subclasses on Givón’s list,

save for one: emphatic adverbs. This subclass of adverbs even shares a label with Borg

& Azzopardi’s classification, but a brief review of the words Givón assigns here shows

that they barely overlap: Givón’s full list of examples contains just, really, only,

absolutely and exactly, and so the only items to make both lists are only and just (both

covered by Maltese biss). Givón describes this subclass of adverbs as “used in

emphatic, contrastive capacity, a function that is not easy to classify in a precise way”

(Givón 2001a: 94) which is certainly accurate – indeed, as pointed out above, the

concept of ‘emphasis’ is a notoriously vague one. There have, however, been several

attempts to classify this particular of type adverbs, for example by Klein (1998) for

Dutch and related languages. Klein uses the concept of gradability, defined as “range

on the scale of the appropriate dimension in which the quality concerned can be

placed” (Klein 1998: 14) to argue that these adverbs constitute a separate subclass, that


of adverbs of degree. This subclass includes adverbs such as extremely, absolutely and

barely which show some similarity with some focus particles, like the aforementioned

gradability. However, gradability/scalarity is the property of a subset of focus particles

only (e.g. English even or Maltese mqar, cf. below) and thus cannot be used as a

defining criterion across the board.

This brings us to the second and more important question: what is it exactly that

words like also and only mean? Like any question involving meaning, this is a difficult

one, but a broad answer can be given using our view of focus and background as a

relationship between a presupposition (background) and proffered content (focus)

defined in relationship to that presupposition. Consider therefore example (12):

(12) Il-Gvern Malti kien anke

DEF-government Maltese COP.PERF.3SGM also





The question “What did the Maltese government do?” is the correct one to inquire

about the constituent modified by anke, but a more appropriate question would be

“What ELSE did the Maltese government do?” because anke performs a double task

here. First, the presence of anke puts its governor – the verb phrase – in focus; in other

words, it establishes a binary division between the focused constituent and a particular

presupposition containing entities or propositions (background). Second, anke provides

information on what the relationship between the focused constituent and the

background is – in this particular case, the relationship is that of a set (B = {x | things

the Maltese government did}) and a newly introduced element (f ∈ B). With biss (and

its English equivalent only), the relationship is that of an element that is explicitly said

not be a member of the set (f ∉ B) as in example (13) below. Note that in this example,

the focus actually covers multiple discrete elements and thus a subset of B:

(13) In-nies ta' Siì j=iekl=u biss

DEF-people GEN [location] 3.IMPF-eat-PL only

ħxejjex u frott u lewż .

vegetables and fruit and nuts .

‘The people of Siì eat only vegetables, fruit and nuts.’

[BC – is-sitt ahwa final hi res.txt]

These are the two fundamental relationships between focus and its background that are

generally expressed by focus particles and which I will refer to – following König

(1991: 30-59) – as additive and exclusive. Additionally, however, some focus particles

contain another level of meaning which is commonly referred to as scalarity (König


1991: 66-93, De Cesare 2015: 62-64). A typical case of a particle with scalar meaning

is Maltese saħansitra in (14):

(14) Saħansitra Reggie kien qed ji=bki …

even [name] COP.PERF.3SGM PROG 3SGM.IMPF-cry …

‘Even Reggie was crying.’

[BC – Wied Wirdien FINAL2010.txt]

In this example, the background constitutes a set of persons who were crying, while the

focused constituent Reggie is a newly introduced element of that set. Saħansitra

therefore functions as an additive particle, yet it also introduces another meaning: in

terms of the theory of focus outlined here, saħansitra orders the elements of the set that

forms the background on a scale of likelihood of displaying the property characteristic

of that set (cf. De Cesare 2015: 63). In this context, the background consists of a

presupposition that there is a set of all people who cried and the focused constituent

(Reggie) not only adds a new member to that set (B = {x | cry(x)}), but also contains

the presupposition that the inclusion of this member is unlikely. Here once again the

stratification of CG outlined above aids us in the analysis of the two levels of meaning:

the background set B = {x | cry(x)} is a part of the immediate CG against which focus

is constructed. The unlikelihood of Reggie’s membership in this set is then based on a

different presupposition or their collection (e.g. his outward tough appearance, his

inability to do so, the social stigma against crying placed on members of his group etc.)

somewhere further down on the stack of collections of CG.

The phenomenon of scalarity is a complex one and deserving of full analysis which

would require much more space than is available here. The purpose of this section – to

describe the meaning of focus particles – will be served by the definition above and

Sudhoff’s observation which summarizes the general consensus that the distinction

between additive and exclusive particles is primary, while the scalar meaning “can best

be seen as an additional feature introducing another meaning component” (Sudhoff

2010: 55).

As König (1991: 30) notes, these semantic properties not only set focus particles

apart from other ways of expressing focus, but also require maintaining a strict

distinction between focus markers and focus particles: the former (as ne in Kikuyu,

Schwarz 2007: 140) are more akin to phonological and syntactic means of expressing

focus in that unlike focus particles they do not hold any semantic content.

2.2.5 Focus particles: summary

We have seen in the previous sections that based on their function (mediating focus),

syntactic properties (cross-configurationality and positional flexibility) and semantic

properties (additivity and exclusivity with optional scalarity for both types), Maltese


focus particles differ from adverbs and are best viewed as a distinct word class. There

are some words, like the aforementioned assolutament, which straddle the fence, but

since they do not mediate the focus/background construction, they will be – pending

further analysis – considered adverbs of degree.

3. Focus particles in Maltese

3.1 Inventory

In this section, I will now turn to the analysis of the members of this class and for that,

we will employ a corpus approach using the latest version of the bulbulistan corpus

(maltiV2, cf. Gatt and Čéplö, forthcoming), see Table 2 for the text types represented

in the corpus and their respective word counts.

Genre Token count

imaginative 2,176,342

scholarly 261,856

journalistic 126,299,669

legal 94,451,528

Total 223,189,395

Table 2: Composition of the bulbulistan corpus (maltiV2)

The first task at hand is to provide an inventory of focus particles in Maltese and the

list provided by Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 74) – stess ‘same’, ukoll ‘as well’,

ilkoll ‘all’, biss ‘only’, mqar ‘even’, anki ‘also’, saħansitra ‘even’ – is an excellent

starting point. A brief review of these items reveals that in terms syntax, one stands out:

while the others function as modifiers only and thus cannot be heads of phrases, ilkoll

can both be a modifier as in example (15) and the head of a noun phrase all by itself, as

in example (16):

(15) Intom ilkoll b=il-għaqal .

you.PL all with-DEF-reason .

‘You’re all smart.’

[BC – WIED PEPRINA finali.txt]

(16) Għax ilkoll kemm huma

because all how many COP.3PL

parti mil=l-misteru !

part from-DEF-mystery !


‘Because they all, each and every one, are a part of the mystery!’

[BC – bnadar]

Even though in example (15) ilkoll modifies a personal pronoun and thus displays

cross-categoriality typical of a focus particle, the fact that it can take the slot of a

subject noun phrase in (16) and is even modified itself disqualifies it from the

membership in the particles category. Additionally, ilkoll does not actually put its

governor in focus: as a quantifier, it refers to the whole set and not its member as a

focus particle would. It should therefore be considered not a focus particle, but rather

an indefinite pronoun or a quantifier.3

The final candidate stess does display some semantic properties that would qualify it

for the status of a scalar focus particle, but only in one particular type of construction. I

will therefore exclude from the list of focus particles and discuss it in the relevant

section.

The provisional inventory of focus particles in Maltese is then listed in Table 3

below together with their division into semantic groups and frequency data. In the

following sections, I will examine the individual syntactic and semantic properties of

these particles by group.

Focus particle Meaning Category Total count Per million

anke/anki/anka also ADDITIVE (SIMPLE) 263,114 1179

ukoll/wkoll4 also ADDITIVE (SIMPLE) 620,128 2778.5

saħansitra even ADDITIVE (SCALAR) 27,614 123.7

mqar even ADDITIVE (SCALAR) 1,394 6.2

biss5 only EXCLUSIVE (SIMPLE) 277,356 1242.7

lanqas biss6 not even EXCLUSIVE (SCALAR) 13,216 59.2

lanqas7 not even EXCLUSIVE (SCALAR) 76,316 341.9

Table 3: Inventory of Maltese focus particles and their frequency in the bulbulistan

corpus

3 Despite its quantifying meaning, in both the bulbulistan and the MLRS corpora, ilkoll is tagged is

as indefinite pronoun (PRON_INDEF) based on its ability to occupy slots usually taken by noun

phrases, as the label QUAN (quantifier) is reserved for those words with quantifying meaning that

are in complementary distribution with the definite article. 4 All occurrences of ukoll/wkoll not preceded by kif. 5 All occurrences of biss not preceded by lanqas. 6 Including variants of lanqas like anqas or inqas. 7 All occurrences of lanqas not followed by biss. This count does not include variants of lanqas like

anqas or inqas which are difficult to separate from their quantifier and adverb

homophones/homographs.


3.2 Simple additive focus particles (anke and ukoll)

In Maltese, anke and ukoll are the stereotypical additive focus particles, i.e. the

relationship of their governor (focus) to its background is that of a set and a member.

Incidentally, the pair also provides a microcosm of Maltese as a contact language both

in terms of etymology – anke is a Romance loanword, ukoll is Semitic – as well as in

terms of the syntactic properties they inherited: anke precedes its governor as it does in

Italian (see examples (9) – (11) above), ukoll follows it as adjectives and other

modifiers do in Arabic (17):

Is-Sur Abela kien xorta waħda tana ħafna somom u taħriġ ieħor x' nagħmlu .

‘Mr. Abela nevertheless gave us a lot of equations and other exercises to do.’

(17) U ta=na l-homework ukoll .

and give.PERF.3SGM-CL.ACC.1PL DEF-homework also .

‘And he also gave us homework.’

[BC – FINAL Trev auwtobio 2012 P.txt]

There are, however, some peculiarities in the syntactic properties of both particles. The

primary one involves the position of the particle within the Maltese verbal chain in the

presence of an auxiliary verb. In such constructions, the focus particle can occur

between the auxiliary (such as kien) and the main verb, as in example (18) below:

Fi ftit sigħat Klawdjo kien sar eċċellenti mhux biss fil-matematika imma anki

f'suġġetti oħra! Kien ġab ċertifikati mill-Universitajiet Ingliżi u mill-

Universitajiet Amerikani.

‘In a few hours, Klawdjo became excellent not only in math, but also in other

subjects! He brought certificates from English universities and from American

universities.’

(18) U kien ukoll biddel

and COP.PERF.3SGM also change.PERF.3SGM

ism=u .

name-POSS.3SGM .

‘And he also changed his name.’

[BC – DE MOLIZZ 2012.txt]

There are two ways of analyzing this construction: either the governor of the focus

particle is the auxiliary or the focus particle is governed by the main verb. In either

case, one of the particles behaves uncharacteristically. The fact that constructions

where the slot of the auxiliary is occupied by a particle are possible, as in example (19)

below, leads to the conclusion that it is indeed the main verb that is modified:

(19) B'detriment ta' dan qed ukoll ji=tilf=u

with damage GEN that PROG also 3.IMPF-lose-PL


mil=l-valur storiku tagħhom .

from-DEF-value historical their .

‘With damage such as this, they also lose a part of their historical value.’

[BC – 19940517_265d_par]

The conclusion to be drawn here is that in such constructions, it is ukoll that behaves

unexpectedly by moving from its usual position behind its governor to the front. One

would be tempted to view this as an exception to the rule valid for the main

verb/predicate only, but a cursory look at corpus data reveals that there are other types

of constructions where ukoll precedes its governor. In addition to predicates, including

verbless ones as in example (20), ukoll can also precede NPs and PPs as clause

constituents (21), subordinate clauses (22) and complement clauses, including those

with verbless predicates (23):

(20) Ukoll hu rakkomand=at li

also COP.3SGM recommend-PASS.PTCP COMP

l-mobajl ma ji=nt=uża=x ...

DEF-cell phone NEG 3M.IMPF-PASS-use-NEG …

‘It is also recommended that cell phones not be used …’


(21) Ukoll nies ta' edukazzjoni tajb=a kell=hom idea=t

also people GEN education good-F have.PERF-3PL idea-PL

vag=i dwar din il-parti ta' l-Imperu .

vague-PL about this DEF-part GEN DEF-empire .

‘Well-educated people as well had unclear ideas about this part of the Empire.’

[BC – 1999_L_Attard_LEmigrazzjoni_Maltija_KK008.txt]

(22) Il-mezz=i neċessarji , ukoll jekk

DEF-measure-PL necessary-PL , also if

mhux fi=l-pront , i=ttieħd=u .

NEG-COP.3SGM-NEG in-DEF-quick , 3.IMPF-take.PASS-PL .

‘Necessary measures will be taken, also if not promptly.’


(23) Mil=l-banda l-oħr=a hemm partitarj=i

from-DEF-side DEF-other-F EXIST party member-PL

li wkoll mhux kuntent=i …

comp also NEG-COP.3SGM-NEG content-PL …

‘On the other hand, there are party members who are also not content…’



Example (23) is particularly interesting since in complement clauses which inherit their

subject from a higher-level clause as this one does, the predicate (including personal

pronouns acting as copulas) generally takes the first slot after the complementizer li.

Whether it is analogy with anke shaping the syntactic behavior of ukoll (possibly aided

by the heaviness of some structures with ukoll following its governor) or we are

dealing with a type of syntactic movement (focus fronting?), is a complex question that

requires as yet non-existent deeper understanding of Maltese constituent order.

And finally, in addition to the syntactic shenanigans described above, there is one

specific construction involving anke and ukoll that underscores the difficulties in

analyzing the nature and meaning of focus particles. As observed by Borg &

Azzopardi-Alexander, “[t]he conjunction jekk preceded by anki or ukoll ‘also, even’

introduces a subordinate conditional clause with the remote possibility of being

fulfilled, thereby emphasizing the certainty expressed by the main clause” (Borg &

Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 83-84, emphasis in the original). This construction is

illustrated by example (24) below:

(24) Il-kandidat anke jekk ma ji=tla=x

DEF-candidate also when NEG 3M.IMPF-elect.PASS-NEG

ji=sta' ji=bqa' importanti …

3M.IMPF-can 3M.IMPF-remain important …

‘The candidate can remain important also when he doesn’t get elected.’

[BC – 11.2013-04-06.ornat-it-all-about-change-de-marco]

At first glance, this is a typical scenario for an additive particle: the background is a set

of scenarios or situations where the candidate is considered important, the focus is then

an example of such a scenario, i.e. a newly introduced member of that set. However,

when considering the full context (in this case, the nature of elections in a democracy),

it becomes obvious that this understanding of the sentence is not quite accurate – after

all, getting elected is the sole purpose of a candidate, so once a candidate has failed to

achieve that purpose, why support them anymore? The subordinate clause therefore

expresses a proposition that is counter to the expectations of the reader or the

likelihood of occurrence – which is in fact the very definition of scalarity as given

above. In these construction (which also involve other subordinating conjunctions such

as meta and kieku), both anke and ukoll thus act as scalar, not additive, particles –

hence Borg & Azzopardi-Alexanders’s correct translation of both as ‘even’ in the

citation given above. This is far from atypical for additive focus particles (Sudhoff

2009: 34), nor is it entirely unexpected: consider example (25) and its use of ukoll:

(25) Ukoll nies ta' edukazzjoni tajb=a kell=hom idea=t

also people GEN education good-F have.PERF-3PL idea-PL

vagi dwar din il-parti ta' l-Imperu .


vague-PL about this DEF-part GEN DEF-empire .

‘Well-educated people as well had unclear ideas about this part of the Empire.’

[BC – 1999_L_Attard_LEmigrazzjoni_Maltija_KK008.txt]

Here the background set consists of (a set of) groups of people who had inaccurate

ideas about a region and the focused constituent adds another element to that set. Note,

however, the description of said group – well-educated people are generally assumed to

be more likely to be better informed – which runs contrary to information provided by

the predicate. A similar reading could also be applied to example (22), showing once

again the complexities involved in the analysis of the semantics of focus particles and

thus need for further detailed work on the subject.

3.3 Simple exclusive focus particles (biss)

In Maltese, the category of simple exclusive focus particles is occupied by a single

lexeme – the familiar Arabic biss – which typically follows its governor:

(26) L-għażla ti=n=sab f'=id=ej=k biss .

DEF-choice 3SGF.IMPF-PASS-find in-hand-PL-POSS.2SG only .

‘The choice can be found only in your hands.’

[BC – 1998_Rena_Balzan_Ilkoll_ta'_Nisel_Wiehed.txt]

However, as Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander note, “Biss can occur preceding the noun,

in a marked construction” (Borg & Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 74, emphasis in the

original). This is certainly true of nouns as example (27) shows, but it also applies to

other word classes modified by biss.

(27) Dan iċ-ċaqliq huwa , għal ħafna ,

that DEF-activity COP.3SGM , on many ,

biss opportuniżmu politiku ...

only opportunism political …

‘This activity is, to many, just political opportunism …’

[BC – it-torca.42916]

As with anke and ukoll, biss can also break up the Maltese verbal chain by inserting

itself between the auxiliary (or a particle) and the main verb as in example (28) or just

modify the predicate directly (29):

(28) Ġej mil=l-Bulgarija fejn xogħl=u

come.PTCP.3SGM from-DEF-Bulgaria where work-POSS.3SGM

kien biss ji=studja l-atletika .

COP.3SGM only 3.IMPF-study DEF-athletics .


‘He’s from Bulgaria where his work consisted solely of studying athletics.’

[BC – illum.2007-12-16.sport]

(29) Biss irnexxie=li na=għmil=lu

only succeed.PERF.3SGM-CL.DAT.1SG 1.IMPF-make-CL.DAT.3SGM

xi mistoqsij=iet .

some question-PL .

‘I only managed to ask him a few questions.’


A full account of the variation would, once again, involve a more detailed analysis of

Maltese constituent order, but also a more profound analysis of semantics and

pragmatics of Maltese in specific contexts. To illustrate the difficulties, consider the

example (30) below:

Le, mietet ukoll.

‘No, she died as well.’

(30) Hawn biss j=għix=u s-siġar .

here only 3.IMPF-live-PL DEF-tree.PL .

‘Only trees live here.’

[BC – 1993_Il-Ktieb_tas-Sibt_Filghaxija.txt]

At first glance, one would be justified in analyzing biss as modifying the adverb, i.e.

the background is a set of all places where trees do not live and hawn i.e. here is the

only place they do. But consider the context, in this case the preceding sentence, and it

becomes obvious that such an analysis is incorrect: the preceding sentence establishes

the background as a set of all people/things that died here. The focus of the exclusive

particle must therefore be the single element that defies that property, i.e. in this case,

the verb. Is it, though? This analysis assumes that the scope of focus particle is the

constituent on its immediate left or right, so the verb in this case, but that does not

square with the nature of the background which is defined based on the as ‘all

people/things that died here’. If that is what the background is, then it is s-siġar “the

trees” that should be the scope of the focus particle. The explanation that it is the entire

clause that is modified by biss is the most likely one, especially considering that

changing the position of biss by moving it behind the verb or behind the subject

actually does not change the pragmatics of the sentence. This is also supported by

sentences such as (31) where the focus particle (be it biss, ukoll or saħansitra)

introduces the clause and is separated from it by a comma or a intonation break.

Jiġifieri, rajt progress u l-interess li qed jintwera naħseb li jista' jiggarantixxi

futur sabiħ.


‘That is, I’ve seen some progress and the interest that is evident, I think it can

guarantee bright future.’

(31) Biss , dan għand=u j=kun il-bidu .

only , this.M have.IMPF-3SGM 3M.IMPF-COP DEF-beginning .

‘This must be only beginning.’


On the other hand, if one were to move biss in (30) in front of hawn (which is felicitous

and attested in the corpus), the scope of biss would change to the adverb. It is thus

obvious that while biss retains its positional flexibility and variability of scope to some

degree, it has nevertheless become somewhat rigid, especially with regard to the core

arguments of the verb. What the nature of said change is (if there is indeed one in

temporal sense) and by what rules it is governed is a question that will have to be

answered elsewhere.

3.4 Scalar additive focus particles (saħansitra and mqar)

In terms of frequency, scalar additive focus particles are the least represented in the

bulbulistan corpus. In further departure from focus particles examined until now with

the exception of anke, both saħansitra (32) and mqar (33) precede their governor

without exception.

(32) Is-sitwazzjoni ta' Hodgson hija

DEF-situation GEN [name] COP.3SGF

saħansitra agħar minn hekk .

even worse from thus .

‘Hodgon’s situation is even worse than that.’

[BC – ilgensillum.2011-Jannar-18.2005]

(33) F'=dis-sħana mqar il-ġebel ja=qbad .

in-this.F-heat even DEF-stone 3M.IMPF-catch .

‘In this heat, even the stone will catch fire.’

[BC – rih isfel 2010 Final]

The semantic and syntactic properties of saħansitra are rather straightforward. The

only notable structure it features in is the one where it is immediately followed by – a

rather redundant – anke as in example (34):

F'dan l-istat ta' gwerra li qegħdin, kollox sar battalja.

‘In this state of war we are in, everything becomes a battle.’

(34) Saħansitra anki t-talb !

even also DEF-prayer !


‘Even prayer!’

[BC – ilgensillum.2011-Jannar-18.5177]

The semantic properties of mqar are much more interesting. Whether Aquilina’s

etymology of mqar as an interjection (“Would to God! I wish it were so!”) is correct or

not,8 mqar straddles the semantic fence in a way typical for some focus particles. In

addition to the meaning described above, it also functions as a quantifier meaning “at

least” as in example (35):

(35) Kien ġie suġġer=it li din

COP.PERF.3SGM come.PERF.3SGMsuggest-PTCP.PAST comp this.F

għand=ha ti=tla' mqar għal € 5 .

have.IMPF-3SGF 3F.IMPF-increase at least on € 5 .

‘It was suggested that this should increase to at least €5.’


This is hardly surprising – after all, there is a connection between

indefinites/quantifiers and focus particles (König 1991: 64). More specifically, some

literature posits the existence of a distinct subclass of scalar additive focus particles

referred to as particularizers (König 1991: 92) which includes such words as English

particularly, German besonders or, most pertinently, Italian almeno. The existence of

this subclass is debatable since – as König himself notes – not all its members display

the syntactic characteristics of focus particles. Nevertheless, there does exist an overlap

in function, especially as far as scalarity and focus association are concerned, and as

long as the syntactic shoes fit (especially with regards to cross-categoriality), these

words should count among focus particles. As such, mqar is definitely one of them, but

there are other candidates in Maltese, for example talanqas (also meaning “at least”)

and its variants talinqas and għallinqas. Consider example (36):

(36) Talanqas jien ma sta=jt=x

at least I NEG can.PERF-1SG-NEG

ni=fhim=ha .

1.IMPF-understand-CL.ACC.3SGF .

‘At least I could not understand it.’


The syntax and pragmatics of (36) are obvious – a set of all people who fail to

understand the issue in question as the background, “I” as the focused constituent in

some relationship to that set – and thus equivalent to mqar/anke/biss jien ma stajtx

8 It is most likely not, considering the existence of a cognate in Andalusian Arabic – makkār –

meaning “even, at least” (Corriente 1997: 507). Note, however, that Corriente also derives makkār

from the Greek ὦ μακάριε “‘lucky you,’ an interjection, turned into adverb or a conjunction.”


nifhimha. But what exactly is that relationship, i.e. what are the semantics here? One

explanation would be that while mqar and saħansitra as scalar particles place its

governor on minimum end of the likelihood scale (i.e. an entity most unlikely to be a

member of the background set), the governor of talanqas (and others like it) can be

found closer to its maximum end. This would be supported by the existence of the

focus particle lanqas: first, this particle shares the etymology of talanqas and its

variants – all are derived from the comparative adjective anqas meaning “less” of

which lanqas is the superlative (“the least”). Second and more importantly, it means

“not even” and as such, it puts its governor at the very maximum end of the likelihood

scale (see Figure 1 for illustration). Whether such an analysis holds up to closer

scrutiny, especially in the light of the semantic properties of talanqas and its variants,

will remain to be seen.

lanqas talanqas saħansitra / mqar

most likely least likely

Figure 1: Scalar focus particles and the likelihood scale

And lastly, stess: in its basic function where it modifies either an NP, a PP or an adverb

(see example (37) below), it functions as an emphatic adverb or perhaps a reflexive

pronoun, without mediating focus. As such, it should be excluded from the focus

particle word class.

(37) Jien stess kapaċi n=agħmil=ha u

I myself capable 1.IMPF-do-CL.ACC.3SGF and

n=ista' na=għmil=hie=lek issa stess .

1.IMPF-can 1.IMPF-do-CL.ACC.3SGF-CL.DAT.2SG now right .

‘I myself am capable of doing it and I can do it for you right now.’

[BC – mastru 2012.txt]

There is, however, one type of structure where stess does exhibit the semantic

properties of a focus particle – more specifically, a scalar additive one. Such

constructions involve the combination of a conditional conjunction – either jekk (realis)

or kieku (irrealis) – and stess as in example (38) where the clause introduced by jekk

stess is placed in focus as the most unlikely scenario:

(38) Jekk stess ti=nsie=h , i=kun

if even 2.IMPF-forget-CL.ACC.3SGM , 3.IMPF-COP

hemm min i=fakkar=u=lek .

EXIST who 3SGM.IMPF-remind-CL.ACC.3SGM-CL.DAT.2SG .

‘Even if you forget, there is someone who will remind you of him.’



3.5 Scalar exclusive focus particles (lanqas)

And finally, the category of Maltese scalar exclusive focus particles (“not even”)

includes a sole item, lanqas, with alternative forms inqas, anqas and ‘qas, all of which

invariably precede their governor, as it is in example (39):

Għaliex? għax hawnhekk ma nistgħux nagħtu dettalji tal-pazjenti.

‘Why? Because here, we cannot give out the details of patiens.’

(39) Lanqas lil omm=ok ?!

not even DAT mother-POSS.2SG ?!

‘Not even to your mother?!’


Lanqas is undoubtedly the most interesting member of this word class with several

properties which have wide-reaching implications. Some of them, including its

etymology, have already been discussed above in reference to other scalar focus

particles. Others, especially its involvement with coordination and negation, will be

analyzed below in the discussion of the respective phenomena.

4. Focus particles and related syntactic structures in Maltese

4.1 Focus particles and coordination

As is evident from the semantic properties of focus particles, they easily lend

themselves to mediating coordination (König 1991: 63) – after all, coordination can

also be reframed in terms of relationships between sets and their members. The

difference between the two functions, although not entirely clear cut, lies in the nature

of the relationship of the governor of the focus particle to the rest of the discourse:

while in the focus/background construction, focus is given in relationship to its

immediate CG, in coordinating constructions, the coordinates joined by the coordinator

constitute the full context and therefore the distinction between background as a set of

propositions or entities and focus as a newly introduced member of this set does not

exist. Consider therefore the most frequent type of coordination mediated by focus

particles, the one involving kif ukoll (40).

(40) Fi=h kien i=koll=na artikol=i dwar

in-3SGM COP.PERF.3SGM IMPF-have-1PL article-PL about

delizzj=i , tagħrif ġenerali , poeżij=i ,

crime-PL , information general , poem-PL ,

stejjer kif ukoll kompetizzjonij=iet u tislib=iet .


story.PL as also competition-PL and crossword-PL .

‘In it we used to have articles about crimes, general interest stories, poems, short

stories as well as competitions and crossword puzzles.’

[BC – FINAL Trev auwtobio 2012 P.txt]

There are 140,881 such structures in the bulbulistan corpus, of which 80,761 feature kif

ukoll on its own, while in the remaining 60,120 the first coordinate is introduced by

kemm, as in example (41):

(41) Kemm Estella kif ukoll Tommy

how many [name] as also [name]

ħall=ew=h i=segwi=hom .

let.PERF-3PL-CL.ACC.3SGM 3.IMPF-follow-CL.ACC.3PL .

‘Both Estella as well as Tommy let him follow them.’

[BC – GNIEN TAD-DMUGH pages FINAL.txt]

Both subtypes of this construction are possible not only with clausal constituents, but

also with subordinate clauses such as conditional clauses introduced by jekk in (42):

(42) Iż-żwieġ għand=u element=i speċjal=i

DEF-marriage have.IMPF-3SGM element-PL special-PL

kemm jekk hu f'=forma reliġjuż=a

how many if COP.3SGM in-form religious-F

kif ukoll jekk hu f'=forma

as also if COP.3SGM in-form

li hija lajk=a .

COMP COP.3SGF civil-F .

‘Marriage has special properties, whether in its religious form or in its civil

form.’

[BC – 20110315_327d_par]

Some elements are familiar, like an interrogative/complementizer accompanying the

focus particle (cf. German sowohl X wie auch Y), and so is the function: kemm

introduces the coordinate, kif ukoll then functions as the coordinator and introduces the

second one. Unlike in, say, English where both X as well as Y is restricted to binary

coordination (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1305), in Maltese, this structure allows

multiple coordination, as in example (43):

(43) Ni=xtieq in=żid li lil=i

1.IMPF-wish 1.IMPF-add COMP ACC-1SG

mlie=ni b=l-imħabba għal-letteratura ,

fill.PERF.3SGM-CL.ACC.1SG with-DEF-love on.DEF-literature ,

kemm Maltij=a , kemm Ingliż=a


how many Maltese-F , how many English-F

kif ukoll Taljan=a .

as also Italian-F .

‘I’d like to add that he filled me with love for literature, be it Maltese, English or

Italian.’

[BC – ilgensillum.2011-April-16.7480]

In all these types of structures, the original function of ukoll as a focus particle is lost:

while the additive meaning remains and thus all these structures entail X, Y and Z, the

division of the information into background and focus no longer exists. In fact, the

coordinates in (42) and (43) are both exhaustive lists, i.e. full sets defined by

enumerating all their elements: the former provides the full list of all forms of

marriage, the latter then lists all languages native to Malta at the time to which the

speaker refers.

In contrast, the other construction where a focus particle mediates coordination still

retains aspects of information packaging. This construction involves a combination of

the negated personal pronoun (overwhelmingly mhux) followed by the exclusive focus

particles biss which together introduce the first coordinate, and an adversative

coordinator which introduces the last one. As with the kif ukoll construction, this one

also allows the coordination of various types of phrases, from NPs through PPs all the

way to full clauses. Consider (44) below as an example of the latter:

(44) Mhu=x biss qiegħed t=mur kontra x-xewqa

COP.3SGM-NEG only PROG 2.IMPF-go against DEF-wish

ta=l-mamà imma se t=għaqqad logħba

GEN-DEF-mother but FUT 2.IMPF-join game

ballun fi=t-triq !

ball in-DEF-street !

‘Not only do you go against mom’s wish, but you also play with a ball in the

street!’

[BC – JACOB text with illustrations.txt]

There are two interesting aspects to this construction: first, this is the most common

type of structure involving biss (not preceded by lanqas) in the bulbulistan corpus with

67,710 occurrences out of 277,356, second only to VERB + biss. Additionally, of the

three Maltese adversative coordinators – imma, iżda and però – only the first two are

used in this construction.

In terms of semantics, it is obvious that kemm X kif ukoll Y and this construction are

equivalent in their basic function, as they both entail the proposition X, Y and Z. The

mhux biss construction, however, retains aspects of the original function of the focus

particle by separating the sentence into focus and background as follows: the first


coordinate introduced by mhux biss provides the background, i.e. a set of

presuppositions, a set which is in this case defined by a single element thereof. The

second coordinate introduced by the coordinating conjunction then adds a new

member. In addition, the juxtaposition of the two coordinates makes it clear that the

latter’s membership in the background set is unexpected or unlikely and thus in effect

turning the adversative coordinator into a scalar additive particle (compare the analysis

of the English not only X but also Y construction by Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1315).

4.2 Focus particles and negation

And finally, negation is another major syntactic phenomenon that is closely related to

focus (cf. Jackendoff 1972: 254). Even in the theory of focus applied here, the

relationship is obvious – if we define focus and background in terms of relationships

between sets and their members, then negation is simply that of a set and its

complement. A full account of that relationship is, sadly, beyond the scope of this

paper, but I will note three types of structures where focus particles interact with

negation, all of which involve lanqas (and its variants) and predicate negation.

As is well known, Maltese predicate negation consists of the prefix ma and the

suffix -x which are both compulsory (except in prohibitives where only -x is required).

However, when the clause contains an indefinite pronoun such as ħadd or xejn, the -x is

no longer permitted, a phenomenon that is referred to as x-dropping (see Lucas 2014

for a detailed analysis of these structures). As example (45) below shows, x-dropping

also takes place when the clause contains lanqas:

(45) Lanqas deżerta ma kell=hom paċenzja

not even dessert NEG have.PERF-3PL patience

j=iekl=u !

3.IMPF-eat-PL !

‘They didn’t even have the patience to eat their dessert!’

[BC – 2009_R_Attard_Il-Kodici_Vassalli.txt]

The question is now whether x-dropping is compulsory in all clauses with lanqas and a

verb or a verb-like predicate. To determine that, a random sample of 100 occurrences

of lanqas was extracted and analyzed manually. Of those, there were 34 cases total

where the sentence/clause features a predicate negated by ma and of those, 2 instances

where the sentences featured another indefinite were discounted. In the remaining 32

sentences, x-dropping occurred in 27 cases and failed to occur in 5. One example of the

latter is (46):

(46) Huwa ma weġib=x lanqas għal=l-mistoqsija


he NEG answer.PERF.3SGM-NEG not even on-DEF-question

jekk j=af=x fejn hi Triq Santa Marija .

if 3M.IMPF-know-Q where COP.3SGF street [name] .

‘He didn’t even answer the question whether he knows where the Santa Marija

street is.’

[BC – 2.2013-06-10.ornat-ma-riedx-iwie-eb-ax-kien-ajjien]

The conclusion to be drawn here is that x-dropping is not compulsory in all clauses

with lanqas and a verb or verb-like predicate. What exactly are the rules here is a

question that will require further study of semantic and syntactic properties of lanqas

as well as of Maltese constituent order, since there are indications that some type of

dislocation or movement may be involved in cases where x-dropping with lanqas takes

place as in examples (45) and (47). In what follows, I will concentrate on the

constructions where x-dropping does take place.

As noted above, there exists a connection between focus particles and

indefinites/quantifiers and lanqas with its etymology (“the least”) definitely fits the

bill. It is therefore not surprising that it would join the ranks of other indefinites that

trigger x-dropping. What is surprising is the types of governors that lanqas can modify

in this structure: the Maltese indefinite pronouns that trigger x-dropping are either NP

replacements or modifiers (ħadd, xejn, ebda) or adverbials (qatt, mkien). In contrast,

the scope of lanqas in this structure is broader: x-dropping is triggered when the

governor of lanqas is an NP as in (45) or a PP (47), but also when lanqas modifies the

predicate (48):

(47) Allura lanqas fuq=ek ma ta=ħdem ...

now not even on-2SGM NEG 3F.IMPF-work ...

‘Now it doesn’t even work on you...’

[BC – GNIEN TAD-DMUGH pages FINAL.txt]

(48) Il-gazzetta lanqas ma għaml=et l-iċken

DEF-newspaper not even NEG make.PERF-3SGF DEF-smallest

riferenza għal=l-Instituteuropa .

reference on-DEF-[name] .

‘The newspaper didn’t even make the tiniest reference to Instituteuropa.’

[BC – illum.2006-12-31.l1]

Of the 27 instances of x-dropping from the random sample of 100 occurrences of

lanqas referred to above, 20 involve an NP modified by lanqas, 2 involve a PP and 5

involve the verb/predicate. Constructions with lanqas modifying an NP and triggering

x-dropping are expected and those with PP are not surprising – such PPs tend to be

adverbials (as are, after all, some types of NPs) and so not a stretch from qatt or mkien.


Verbs/predicates modified by lanqas and triggering x-dropping, however, are

unexpected in this context if some type of negative polarity is all this is about.

The picture is further complicated by the next type of structure where lanqas

interacts with negation. This structure exemplified by (49) also involves a negation

marker, but an unexpected one:

(49) F'medda ta' ftit sigħ=at la t=ara u

in=period GEN few hour-PL NEG 2SG.IMPF-see and

lanqas t=apprezza r-rikkezz=i arkeoloġiċ=i u

even 2SG.IMPF-appreciate DEF-richness-PL archeological-PL and

attrazzjonij=iet oħrajn fuq il-gżira ta' Calypso .

attraction-PL other.PL on DEF-island GEN [name] .

‘In a period of just a few hours, you can neither see, nor (much less) appreciate

the archeological and other riches of the island of Calypso.’


This la (not to be confused with its subordinating conjunction homophone/homograph)

is the only remnant of the Classical Arabic verbal (or predicate) negator lā in Maltese9

and this construction with lanqas is the only one it appears in. As evident from

example (49) and the involvement of the conjunction u, this is actually a coordinated

construction of the neither X nor Y or weder X noch Y type. As such, it also allows the

coordination of other types of constituents, such as NPs (50), PPs and even adverbs:

(50) La l-Olanda u lanqas Spanja

NEG DEF-Netherlands and not even Spain

qatt ma rebħ=u=ha qabel .

never NEG win.PERF-3PL-CL.ACC.3SGF before .

‘Neither the Netherlands, nor Spain ever won it before.’


Note the difference here: when la and lanqas modify anything other than the clausal

predicate, the predicate is always negated by ma (with optional x-dropping). However,

when they modify coordinated predicates, each is the only negator in the respective

clause. Since they always appear in a pair, one would be tempted to analyze this

construction as la negating the first coordinate and lanqas mimicking its function in the

second. Before we do, however, let us examine one more type of structure where

lanqas interacts with negation. And while the previous two both contain an additional

negator, in this one, lanqas and its variants function as the sole marker of negation.

Consider example (51) below:

9 The Maltese le is obviously etymologically related as well, but it does not function as a verbal or

predicate negator.


(51) Lanqas kon=t induna=jt li

not even COP.PERF-1SG realize.PERF-1SG COMP

wasl=et in-nanna mi=x-xogħol .

arrive.PERF-3SGF DEF-grandma from-DEF-work .

‘I didn’t even realize that grandma was back from work.’

[BC – 2007_Mario_Azzopardi_Alicia_titkellem_mill-Imwiet.txt]

This structure is far from infrequent – in the same random sample of 100 occurrences

of lanqas in the bulbulistan corpus referred to above, it occurs 37 times, second only to

lanqas in its function as the focus particle. In addition, lanqas as the sole negator also

occurs in the lanqas biss construction, as in example (52):

Il-Fiddien ma qal xejn.

‘The Silversmith didn’t say anything.’

(52) Lanqas biss tħarrek .

even only move.PERF.3SGM .

‘He didn’t even move.’

[BC – 2007_Mario_Azzopardi_Alicia_titkellem_mill-Imwiet.txt]

The lanqas biss construction is particularly interesting for two reasons. First, judging

by its function, it is lanqas (and its variants) that provides the lion’s share of its

semantic content. This then invites the comparison with lanqas appearing on its own.

And since lanqas invariably precedes its governor, such a comparison can be made

with regards to the statistical distribution of its governors. This is where marked

differences become apparent: lanqas on its own is equally likely to be governed by a

verb or a noun, as approximately 25% of occurrences of lanqas are followed by a verb,

a pseudoverb, a negator or the auxiliary kien while 29% of them are followed by a

noun, a proper noun or a prepositional phrase. Lanqas biss, on the other hand, is almost

exclusively governed by a verb with approximately 92% of occurrences of lanqas biss

(and its variants) being followed by a verb, a pseudoverb, the auxiliary kien or one of

the verbal particles. It is thus apparent that lanqas biss, in addition to its function as a

scalar exclusive focus particle, has also assumed the role of the sole verbal negator in

such types of clauses and sentences.

What then are we to make of lanqas and its role in Maltese verbal negation? The

way the three structures in the analysis above are arranged hints at one option, a

diachronic development along the lines of the Jespersen cycle, but restricted to one

particular type of construction:

1. lanqas with ma-, but without -x

2. lanqas with la without ma

3. lanqas as the sole negator with lanqas biss as the vanguard


Alternatively, one could consider the influence of Italian where neppure in preverbal

position “can be the only negative word in the clause: it contributes a sentential

negation and the following verb must not be negated” (Mari & Tovena 2006: 189). The

fact that lanqas can, like neppure (Mari & Tovena 2006: 190) form a fragment answer

as in (53), may serve as a further indication for that influence:

IS-SUR MICHAEL GONZI: Mela hemm grey areas. THE CHAIRMAN:

‘Mr. Michael Gonzi: Well, there are grey areas. The Chairman:’

(53) Lanqas .

not even .

‘Absolutely not.’

[BC – 20090310_021d_soc]

Whether the Jespersen cycle development outlined above or the influence of Italian is

likely or even possible and thus whether either theory can be sustained requires further

research for which this paper has hopefully provided a solid basis and further impetus.


4. Future work

In this paper, I have sketched out a theory of the focus/background construction in

Maltese and provided an overview of Maltese focus particles and their syntactic and

semantic properties. In particular, I have extended existing theories of information

structure and Common Ground (CG) – as formulated by Krifka (2007) – by casting the

issue in terms of set theory and introducing the concept of SuperCG as a stack of

collections of presuppositions containing the entire breadth of the person’s knowledge

with those relevant to the current state of discourse on top (immediate CG), constantly

evolving and reorganizing with the flow of the discourse. This concept explains some

contradictions in the current understanding of the concepts of focus and topic,

especially the concept of newness as relating to the former and the permanence of

latter. In addition to using Maltese focus particles to illustrate the above, I also

demonstrated the relationship between focus particles and other syntactic phenomena.

Of those, the interaction between focus particles and verbal/predicate negation is the

most interesting, where – as this paper is the first to point out – a Jespersen cycle-like

development seems to have taken place from structures involving one type of focus

particle accompanying negation to those where the focus particle is the only negator in

the sentence or clause.

This venue, however, has space only for the broadest strokes and as I noted in

a number of places, much more work needs to be done to fully describe the wide range

of phenomena in question. My own work will concentrate on the role of information

structure in the constituent order of Maltese, from more detailed analysis of the scope

of focus particles and the position with regard to their governor briefly discussed in

sections 3.2 and 3.3, through the effect of the position of lanqas on x-dropping, to the

study of other lexical and syntactic ways in which Maltese expresses the

focus/background distinction. Additionally, there are several avenues of research to be

followed for those interested in various aspects of Maltese linguistics, from semantics

(such as the study of the relationship between quantifiers, adverbs of degree and focus

particles in Maltese) through comparative studies (in contrast and comparison to both

Arabic and Romance) to diachronic exploration. The last one is particularly promising

as the increasing availability of historical texts and corpora can aid in providing insight

into the development of Maltese – for example, preliminary research indicates that in

texts dating to the period before 1950, anke is virtually non-existent which is a fact

interesting both in itself and in its implications for the syntax of focus particles and

Maltese syntax in general.


References

Aboh, Enoch Oladé; Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte (2007): Focus and

grammar: The contribution of African languages, in: Aboh, Enoch Oladé; Hartmann,

Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte (eds.), Focus Strategies in African Languages:

The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic. Berlin /

New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-12.

Aquilina, Joseph (1987–1990): Maltese-English dictionary. 2 vols. Malta: Midsea

Books Ltd.

Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z. (2008): Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus

Determines Meaning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Borg, Albert & Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie (1997): Maltese. London: Routledge.

Borg, Albert & Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie (2009): Topicalisation in Maltese, in:

Comrie, Bernard; Fabri, Ray; Hume, Elisabeth; Mifsud, Manwel; Stolz, Thomas &

Vanhove, Martine (eds.), Introducing Maltese linguistics. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins, 71–81.

Chafe, Wallace (1976): Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and

points of view", in: Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic

Press, 25-55.

Cinque, Guglielmo (1999): Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic

Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Comrie, Bernard (1989): Universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press.

Corriente, Federico (1997): A Dictionary of Andalusi Arabic. Leiden / New York /

Köln: Brill.

De Cesare, Anna-Maria (2015): Defining Focusing Modifiers in a cross-linguistic

perspective: A discussion based on English, German, French and Italian, in: Pittner,

Karin; Elsner, Daniela & Bartfeld, Fabian (eds.), Adverbs. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47-82.

Fabri, Ray (1993): Kongruenz und die Grammatik des Maltesischen. Tübingen: Max

Niemeyer.

Fabri, Ray & Borg, Albert (2002): Topic, focus and word order in Maltese, in: Youssi,

Abderrahim; Benjelloun, Fouzia; Dahbi, Mohamed & Iraqui-Sinaceur, Zakia (eds.),

Aspects of the dialects of Arabic today. Rabat: Amapatril, 354-363.

Féry, Caroline & Krifka, Manfred (2008): Information structure: Notional distinctions,

ways of expression", in: Van Sterkenburg, Piet (ed.), Unity and Diversity of

Languages. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 123-135.

Gatt, Albert & Čéplö (2017): Maltese Corpora. Forthcoming.

Givón, Talmy (2001): Syntax: An Introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gunn Eide, Kristinne (2010): Prosody, Information Structure and Word Order Changes

in Portuguese, in: Ferraresi, Gisella & Lühr, Rosemarie (eds.), Diachronic Studies


on Information Structure: Language Acquisition and Change. Berlin / New York:

Walter de Gruyter, 143-159.

Helbig, Gerhard (1988): Lexikon deutscher Partikeln, Leipzig: VEB Verlag

Enzyklopädie.

Horvath, Julia (1995): Structural Focus, Structural Case, and the Notion of Feature-

Assignment, in: Kiss, Katalina É. (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 28-64.

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey (2002): The Cambridge Grammar of the

English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972): Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Kiss, Katalina É. (1995a): Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Kiss, Katalina É. (1995b): Discourse Configurational Languages: Introduction, in Kiss,

Katalina É. (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, Oxford, 3-27.

König, Ekkerhard (1991): The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective.

London: Routledge.

Krifka, Manfred (2007): Basic Notions of Information Structure, in: Féry, Caroline &

Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6.

Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, 13-56.

Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate (2012): Information structure: Overview and

linguistic issues, in: Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate (eds.), The Expression of

Information Structure. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1-44.

Leech, Geoffrey N. & Svartvik, Jan (1975): A Communicative Grammar of English.

London: Longman.

Mari, Alda & Tovena, Lucia M. (2006): A Unified Account for the Additive and Scalar

Uses of Italian Neppure, in: Nishida, Chiyo & Montreuil, Jean-Pierre Y. (eds.), New

Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Vol. I: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and

Pragmatics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187-200.

Petrova, Svetlana & Solf, Michael (2009): On the methods of information-structural

analysis in historical texts: A case study on Old High German, in: Bisang, Walter;

Hock, Hans Henrich & Winter, Werner (eds.), Information Structure and Language Change. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 121-160.

Pittner, Karin; Elsner, Daniela & Bartfeld, Fabian (2015): Adverbs. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.

London: Longman.

Schwarz, Florian (2007): Ex-situ focus in Kikuyu, in: Aboh, Enoch Oladé; Hartmann,

Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte (eds.), Focus Strategies in African Languages: The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic. Berlin /

New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 139-159.


Sőrés, Anna (2014): On the borders of neglected word classes: From preverbs to

“satellites” via adverbs and particles, in: Simone, Raffaele & Masini, Francesca

(eds.), Word Classes. Nature, Typology and Representations. Amsterdam /

Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-200.

Sudhoff, Steffan (2010): Focus particles in German. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Vallduví, Enric & Engdahl, Elisabet (1996): The linguistic realization of information

packaging. Linguistics 34, 459-519.

Vella, Alexandra (2009): Maltese intonation and focus structure. Il-Lingwa Tagħna 1,

63-92.

Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1998): Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Documents

Focus particles in Maltese: A corpus survey