Memoires de la Societe de Linguistque de Paris
Nouvelle serie
Tome XIII
p.99-113

 S.V. Kodzasov (Moscow State University)
VARIETIES OF FOCALISATION IN RUSSIAN: SEMANTICS AND PROSODY

Introduction
Semantic varieties of focalisation and their prosodic correlates in Russian have not received any detailed study until now (though some observations  may be found in Janko (2001)). Moreover, the notion ‘focalisation’ has entered the lexicon of Russian linguists  quite recently. 
     This paper provides  a rather preliminary survey of  focalisation in Russian. The author believes that his  view of focalisation  does not differ considerably from that found in the papers of French colleagues (cf. Robert (1993), Morel et Danon-Boileau (1998), and  the papers of Conference on Thematisation in Caen (1999)). The conditions of focalisation may be described in the following way. There is a set of possible candidates for filling up certain semantic position in a given text, and a speaker  marks a term he introduces as opposed to other members of the paradigm. In other words,  focalisation affects  the prestructured relation between the members of the paradigm indicating a specific status of a given term. 
    There are two basic varieties of focalisation. The first one is connected with the evaluation scales (epistemic, axiological, and of significance) which accompany a given paradigm. The focalisation indicates a need to re-evaluate the position of a term on a scale. This paper deals  mostly with the epistemic re-evaluation. There are several semantic varieties of this kind of focalisation in Russian and they have different prosodic correlates. And the goal of this paper is to demonstrate  these possibilities.  
     It is necessary to notify in advance about the existence of another type of  focalisation in Russian (it will not be discussed in this paper). We mean the cases when  focalisation  relates a term not to a presupposed evaluation scale for a given paradigm but  to the structure of the paradigm itself: it indicates either a reduction or an expansion of a set. Such cases have special phonetic means for their manifestation (different modes  of tonal accents timing). Thus,  ‘accent exclusive' is regarded as an indicator of a choice between competitive members of a paradigm (Fougeron 1989). 
    It is necessary to indicate that the author of this paper regards the sentence intonation as a complex of many prosodic features including not only tone, intensity and duration but also phonation and voice quality (Kodzasov 1999). The two latter features are rather difficult for an acoustical interpretation. Below conventional  labels for  voice qualities will be used but their articulatory and acoustical correlates need a further investigation. 

1. The basic variety of focalisation (unexpected or  abnormal as a focus) 
This variety of focalisation is typical for presenting occasional events in the deictic environment: in a current social activity,  in an observable physical space, and so on. Usually, a non-sentential rhematic constituent functions as a scope of the operation:
(1)  A. – My vchera byli v tsirke. [– Yesterday we visited the cirkus.]
B. – Ja vizhu, vy chasto tam byvajete. (H, +I) (Fig.1) 
[– I see you visit it often.] 
For the author of the reply regular visiting the circus is unusual and, consequently, unexpected. The focalisation of the corresponding item indicates occasional restructuring of the epistemic scale.  
The focalised term (it is underlined) is pronounced on the high level of tone (H) (about 1/3 octave above the neutral level) and with the increased intensity (+I) (see the acoustical traces in the Appendix 2). There is one more prosodic exponent for all varieties of focalisation: two-moraic realization of the accented vowels. This common sign of focalisation is omitted in our transcription for the sake of simplicity. The direction of tone on the accented syllable is not specific for focalisation and also is not indicated in the transcription: it is determined by the illocutionary and modal content of a sentence. 
An appearance of the same rhematic word in a non-focalised context may be demonstrated by means of the following example:
(2) – My vchera byli v tsirke. My tam chasto byvajem. (Fig.2)
 [– Yesterday we visited the cirkus. We visit it often.]
In this case prosodic signs of focalisation are absent.
    One more example of the focalised rhema is:
(3) A. - Chem ty sumel zabit’ gvozd’? [A. - How did you manage to hammer  the nail in?]
     B.	- Zontikom! (H, +I) (Fig.3) [B. - With an umbrella!]
Focalisation  may also have a sentence as a scope (when an unexpected event takes place):
(4) – Smotri – samol’ot letit (H, +I) (Fig.4) [Look – an aeroplane is flying!]
 In this sentence the phrasal accent is placed on the subject (samol’ot),  and  the whole group  has the high level of tone and of intensity. 
    We find a slightly different variety of  focalisation in the case when  an abnormal event  takes place. In such utterances focalisation symbolizes not only the necessity of epistemic restructuring but also difficulties with the mental adaptation of an extreme state of the environment. In this case the tense voice phonation is used as an additional prosodic marker. 
(5) – Smotri! Sorok gradusov s utra! (H, +I, tense v.) (Fig.5)
 [– Look! Forty degrees in the morning!]
The abnormal state of the glottis results in the diminished acoustical intensity while the breath activity is high. In this case the letter ‘I’ symbolizes an increased articulatory intensity. Also the hat construction of tone is typical  for such exclamations. 

2. Contradiction as a variety of focalisation
Another variety of focalisation appears in the situation when a wrong connection of members of two co-ordinated paradigms takes place. Two semantic types of  contradiction may be differentiated: a disaccord in the physical environment (objective contradiction) and a disagreement in the mental or social behaviour (subjective contradiction). Here is an example of the objective contradiction: 
(6) – Uzhe aprel’, a xolodno!  (EH, +I)  (Fig.6)
-[It is April already. But it is cold!]
The extra-high (EH) level of tone is a sign of contradiction. In this case the average tonal level  may reach 2/3 octave above  the neutral one.  
    An example of subjective contradiction is as follows:
(7) – Pochemu on vz’al tvoj kompjuter? Ved’ u nego jest’ sobstvennyj! (EH, +I) (Fig.7)
[– Why he has taken away your computer? He has own one.]
    The prosody of contradiction is characteristic for  disputes. In such cases extra-high tone may be used in combination with extra-low one.  This is quite typical for the confrontation of different points of view or different ways of behaviour:
(8) – Ja teb’a prosil priglasit’ Van’u. (EH, +I)  A ty zachem-to priglasil Pet’u. (EL, +I) (Fig.8)
[I have asked you to invite Van’a. But you have invited Pete instead.] 

3. Contrastive focalisation
The term ‘contrast’ is often used for any kind of opposition. But we prefer to restrict its use to the opposition of polarized members of a paradigm. Several cases may be distinguished here. 
    A direct comparison with the use of  antonyms is the most obvious situation:
(9) - Vchera teplo bylo. A segodn’a xolodno! (VQ1) (Fig.9)
 [It was cold yesterday. But to-day  is cold!]
Here the conventional sign VQ1 stands for a voice quality whose exact phonetic nature is not yet clear. We suppose that it is conditioned by a downward movement of the larynx. It influences considerably the spectrum of vowels. Compare the spectrum of the stress vowel in the  sentence with a non-focalised item:
(10) – Oden’ pal’to – segodn’a xolodno! (Fig.10)
[– Put on your coat – it is cold to-day!]
Contrastive focalisation is quite normal also for objections in which substitution of an item (by an antonym or by a term which has a connotation with an antonym) takes place:
(11) A. – Segodn’a teplo, vrode by. [It is warm to-day, it seems to me.]
       B. – Da kakoje tam teplo! Xolodno! (VQ1) [– Nothing similar! It is cold!]
The situation of choice among members of a paradigm which is correlated with some scale of evaluation presents another typical case: 
(12) A. – Skol’ko eto stoit? B. – 50 dollarov [A. – How much is this? B. – 50 dollars.] 
      A. – Eto dorogo![ A. – It is costly!] . (VQ1)
Not only a terminal constituent but also a phrase may function as a scope of contrastive focalisation:
(13) A. – Ty chto – vs’o naukoj zanimajeshs’a? [– Are you still engaged in science?]
 	B.  – Nichego takogo! Prodaju mashiny! (VQ1) [– Nothing similar! I sell cars!]
In this sentence  VQ1 spreads on the whole focalised constituent. 
    A combination of prosodies for contrast and contradiction  is also possible: 
(14) – Smotri! A segodn’a xolodno! (VQ1, EH, +I) (Fig.11) 
[– Look! But it is cold to-day! (An exclamation in the street after a rather warm weather in previous days)]

4. Focalisation of  expected and  non-contrastive 
A current epistemic revaluation of an introduced term  does not imply an obligatory disaccord with expectations. On the contrary, a speaker may underline that the occurrence  of a given member of the paradigm  is natural. For such cases  low level of tone and  decreased intensity are typical. Normally, they are combined with the contrastive gesture which demonstrates disaccord of another choice with an expectation:
(15) A. - Kto vyigral?
       B. - Natasha, jestestvenno. Kto zhe jesche? (L, -I, 		    	VQ1) (Fig.12)
           [A. - Who has won? B. - Natasha, naturally. Who else?]
   In a similar way, not only a contrast but a complete concord may accompany an introduction of a term:
(16) A. - Mozhet byt’, priglasit’ Natashu? [Will I invite Natasha, probably?]
       B. - Tochno, imenno Natasha godits’a. (H, +I, VQ2) (Fig.13) 
[ -Exactly, just Natasha will fit.]
In this case a sign of  ‘anti-contrast’ (VQ2) is used. It is another kind of a non-neutral  voice quality conditioned presumably by an upward movement of the larynx. Its influence on the vocalic spectrum may be seen when compared with a neutral pronunciation:
(17) - Prishla Natasha. (Fig.14) [ Natasha has come.]

5. Topicalisation as a companion of focalisation
Focalisation may be  accompanied with topicalisation. This is typical for the cases of presenting an information implying changes in the rather constant (non–occasional) knowledge about an object. This object is moved to the initial position as a topic, and  the focalised constituent informs  about a necessary change in its prestructured view.
     Let us compare two focalised utterances which differ in the absence vs. presence of topicalisation. 
(18) – Vy slyshali?! Boris mashinu kupil! (H, +I) [– Have you heard?! Boris has bought a car!] (no topicalisation)
This sentence may be pronounced in a more emphatic way (with the addition of contrastivity). Also variants with topicalisation may have more or less emphatic realisation:
(19) – Boris-to – mashinu kupil! (+I) – (+I).   [Boris – he has bought a car!]
    (20) – Boris-to – mashinu kupil! (+I) – (EH, +I, VQ1) [Boris – he  has bought a car!]
Let us pay attention to an interesting prosodic peculiarity of these sentences: the hat construction of tone is used in their topical parts. This construction is typical for some sort of  exclamations in Russian (Bryzgunova 1980).
   Ch. Bonnot (1999) points on a hidden polemic in such sentences: a speaker tends to change presumptions associated with the topic. But a less controversial setting of a speaker is also possible. 

6. Final remarks
We regard the focalisation as a means  for involving into discourse a prestructured knowledge which is actual for the situation. This operation is obligatory actual: it is impossible in subordinated sentences. That is why focalising intonation disappears in the case of embedding. Compare:
(22)	 – Prixodi k nam! Frantsuzskoje vino budet! (H, +I) 
[– Come to us! There will be French vine!]
(23)	 – On govorit chto budet frantsuzskoje vino.
	 [– He says there will be French vine.] 
In this relation focalisation is similar to other operations involving ‘subjective modality’ (Paducheva 1990). But deactualisation of focalisation may probably occur not only in the position of embedding. The limitations for the use of focalisation in different speech registers need to be examined. It is clear that focalisation is not typical for narrative and descriptive  texts, and also not all speakers are inclined to evaluate the information they deliver on the background of opposing possibilities. 

Referencies
Bonnot Ch. La particule –TO et la polémique cachée en russe moderne. A propos du statut énonciatif du thème. Revue des Etudes Slaves. Paris, LXII-2, 1990.
Bonnot Ch. Pour une définition formelle et fonctionnelle de la notion de thème  (sur l’exemple du russe moderne). In La thématisation dans les langues. (ed. C. Guimier). Peter Lang, SA, Bern,etc. 1999.
Bryzgunova E.A. Intonation. In Russian Grammar, I. Nauka, Moscow. 1980. (in Russian) 
Chafe W.L. Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View. In Subject and Topic. Academic Press, N.Y., 1976.
Fougeron I. Prosodie et organisation du message. Analyse de la phrase assertive en russe contemporain. C.Klincksieck. Paris, 1989.
Janko T.J. Communicative strategies in Russian Speech. Ed. Languages of Slavic Culture. Moscow, 2001. (in Russian) 
Kodzasov S.V. Intonation of Contrast and Contradiction. In:  Contradictions and Anomalies in Text. Ed. by N.D.Arutjunova. Nauka. Moscow, 1990. (in Russian)
Kodzasov S.V. A new descriptive system for  Russian intonation. In: Proceedings of 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. San Francisco, 1999. 
Morel M.-A., L.Danon-Boileau. Grammaire de l’intonation. Ophrys. Paris. 1998.
 Paducheva E.V. Between sentence and utterance: subjective modality and syntactic non-subordinativity. In: Revue des etudes slaves. – LXII, 1-2, 1990, pp. 91-108.  
Robert S. Structure et sémantique de la focalisation. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. LXXXVIII, 1993. Pp. 25-47.

Appendix 1. Transcription
H - high level of tone
L - low level of tone
EH - extra high level of tone
EL - extra low level of tone
VQ1 - voice quality 1 (low position of larynx)
VQ2 - voice quality 2 (high position of larynx)
+I - high intensity 
-I - low intensity

Appendix 2. Acoustical traces

Fig. 1-14 

.