Cover not available

Article published In: Arabic-based Pidgins and Creoles
Edited by Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco
[Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29:2] 2014
► pp. 319–351

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The morphosyntax and prosody of topic and focus in Juba Arabic

 | University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’
 | University of Turin
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.29.2.05man
The article discusses the information structure of Juba Arabic, an Arabic-based pidgincreole of South Sudan, showing how the expression of topic and focus is the result of a complex interaction of morphosyntactic and prosodic means. While the lexical elements used in the expression of topic and focus are Arabic-derived, no such influence can be found in the prosody. Both topic- and focus-marked utterances can be opposed to neutral ones. Topics are marked syntactically through left dislocation as well as prosodically. Morphosyntactic means include the use of the ‘almost-dedicated’ marker zátu for marking contrastive focus and the two dedicated particles yáwu and yawú, both derived from the multifunctional element ya. The articles further explores the grammaticalization path leading to the dedicated focus particles of Juba Arabic.
References (29)
Bakker, Peter. 2008. Pidgins versus creoles and pidgincreoles. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies, 130–157. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bureng, G. Vincent. 1986. Juba Arabic from a Bari perspective. In Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.), Current approaches to African linguistics, vol. 31, 71–78. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caron, Bernard, Cecile Lux, Stefano Manfredi & Christophe Pereira. Forthcoming. The intonation of topic and focus: Zaar, Tripoli Arabic, Juba Arabic and Tamasheq. In Amina Mettouchi, Martine Vanhove & Dominique Caubet (eds.), Corpus-based studies of lesser-described languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken Afroasiatic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Subject and topic, 25–56. London/New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C., Maria E. Hoffmann, Jan R. de Long, Sie Ing Djiang, Harry Stroomer & Lourens Devries. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on functional grammar, 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Manfred Krifka. 2008. Information structure. Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.), Unity and diversity of languages, 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1989. Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2006. Between stress and tone in Nubi wordprosody. Phonology 231. 193–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Types of focus in English. In Chunming Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and focus. Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. In Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th semantics and linguistic theory conference, 92-110.Cornell: Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Basic notions of information structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 61. 12–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manfredi, Stefano. 2013. Juba Arabic corpus. Corpus recorded, transcribed and annotated by Stefano Manfredi. ANR CorpAfroAs – A Corpus for Afroasiatic Languages. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Demonstratives in a Bedouin Arabic dialect of western Sudan. Folia Orientalia 51(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Kordofanian Baggara Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Manfredi, Stefano & Sara Petrollino. 2013. Juba Arabic. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Magnus Huber & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), APiCS, The survey of pidgin and creole languages, Volume III. Contact languages based on languages from Africa, Australia, and the Americas, 54–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Catherine.1993. Restructuration morpho-syntaxique en Juba Arabic et Ki-nubi. À propos du débat universaux/substrat et superstrat dans les études creoles. Matériaux Arabes et Sudarabiques 51. 137–174.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morel, Mary-Annick & Laurent Danon-Boileau. 1999. Grammaire de lintonation. Lexemple du français oral. Paris: Bibliotèque de Faits de Langues.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakao, Shuichiro. 2013. The prosody of Juba Arabic: Split prosody, morphophonology and slang. In Mena Lafkioui (ed.), African Arabic: Approches to dialectology, 95–120. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Owens, Jonathan. 1996. Arabic-based pidgins and creoles. In Sarah G. Thomason (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, 125–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of Discourse-New. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 61. 125–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 1995. A pidgin verbal system: The case of Juba Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics 371. 423–459.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro & Stefano Manfredi. 2013. Pidgins and creoles. In Jonathan Owens (ed.), The Oxford handbook of arabic linguistics, 495–519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wellens, Ineke. 2005. The Nubi language of Uganda: An Arabic creole in Africa. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2007. Contrastive focus. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 61. 147–159.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Gooden, Shelome
2022. Intonation and Prosody in Creole Languages: An Evolving Ecology. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Rifaat, Khaled
2021. The Intonation of Arabic. In The Cambridge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ► pp. 330 ff. DOI logo
Karin Ryding & David Wilmsen
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, DOI logo
Gutiérrez Maté, Miguel
2019. Palenquero Creole. In It’s not all about you [Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine
2019. Étude des particules apparentées aux vocatifs/exclamatifs yā et iyyā (k). In Studies on Arabic Dialectology and Sociolinguistics, DOI logo
Tosco, Mauro & Stefano Manfredi
2013. Pidgins and Creoles. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ► pp. 495 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue