Projection variability in Paraguayan Guaraní
- 40 Downloads
Projective content is heterogeneous, with classes of projective content differing in several properties (e.g., Potts 2005; Tonhauser et al. 2013). Recently, Tonhauser et al. (2018) found that projective content in English varies in its projectivity both between and within classes, and also that there is by-participant and by-lexical content projection variability. This paper shows that projection variability is not unique to English but also attested in Paraguayan Guaraní, a Tupí-Guaraní language that is genetically unrelated to and typologically different from English. This finding suggests that projection variability may be a cross-linguistically universal property of projective content. The comparison of English and Paraguayan Guaraní also reveals parallels in how projective the content associated with a translation pair is. This finding strengthens the empirical support for the position that some projective content is nondetachable (e.g., Levinson and Annamalai 1992; Simons 2001; Abrusán 2011, 2016; Tonhauser et al. 2013). The paper discusses implications for analyses of projective content, which differ in whether they lead us to expect projection variability and cross-linguistic similarities in projection variability. The paper also addresses methodological considerations in exploring projection variability in fieldwork-based research.
KeywordsProjective content Paraguayan Guaraní Projection variability Cross-linguistic variation
I am grateful to the native speakers of Paraguayan Guaraní who worked with me on this project, including Ansia Sabina Maciel de Cantero, Evelin Leonor Jara Cespedes, Jeremias Ezequiel Sanabria O., Marité Maldonado, Perla Valdéz de Ferreira, Ricardo Aranda Locio, Robert Ariel Barreto Villalba and Vicky Barreto. For helpful comments on the work reported on here, I thank Judith Degen, Amy Rose Deal, the anonymous reviewers for Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, as well as audiences at the University of California in Los Angeles and in San Diego, and at the 2019 Experimental Pragmatics conference in Edinburgh. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge research support from the National Science Foundation grants BCS-0952571 and BCS-1452674.
- Abusch, Dorit. 2002. Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presupposition. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 12, 1–19. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
- Anand, Pranav, and Valentine Hacquard. 2014. Factivity, belief and discourse. In The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, 69–90. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
- Bochnak, M. Ryan, and Lisa Matthewson, eds. 2015. Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2016. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.19, retrieved 13 June 2016 from http://www.praat.org/.
- Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. An experimental approach to adverbial modification. In Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory, eds. Uli Sauerland and Kasuko Yatsushiro. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Google Scholar
- Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2013. “ordinal”: Regression models for ordinal data: R package. Version ordinal_2015.6-28. Google Scholar
- Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
- Fasoli-Wörmann, Daniela. 2002. Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt in Paraguay. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
- Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 64–75. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
- Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 2, eds. Michael Barlow, Dan Flickinger, and Michael Westcoat, 114–125. Google Scholar
- Horn, Laurence R. 2002. Assertoric inertia and NPI licencing. In 38th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS): Parasession on negation and polarity, Vol. 38, 55–82. Google Scholar
- Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
- Levinson, Stephen C., and E. Annamalai. 1992. Why presuppositions aren’t conventional. In Language and text: Studies in honour of Ashok R. Kelkar, ed. Ravindranatha Srivastava, 227–242. Delhi: Kalinga Publications. Google Scholar
- Murray, Sarah. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics & Pragmatics 7 (2): 1–53. Google Scholar
- Potts, Chris. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 165–197. Google Scholar
- Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
- Roberts, Craige. 2011. Only: A case study in projective meaning. In Formal semantics and pragmatics: Discourse, context, and models, the Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, eds. Barbara Partee, Michael Glanzberg, and Jurgis Skilters, Vol. 6. Kansas: New Prarie Press. Google Scholar
- Simons, Mandy. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 11, 431–448. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
- Smith, E. Allyn, and Kathleen Currie Hall. 2011. Projection diversity: Experimental evidence. In 2011 ESSLLI Workshop on Projective Content, 156–170. Google Scholar
- Stewart, Andrew. 2017. Jopara and the Spanish-Guarani language continuum in Paraguay: Considerations in linguistics, education, and literature. In Guaraní linguistics in the 21st century, eds. Bruno Estigarribia and Justin Pinta, 379–416. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar
- Tonhauser, Judith, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Shari R. Speer, and Jon Stevens. 2019. On the information structure sensitivity of projective content. In Sinn und Bedeutung 23, eds. M. Terea Espinal et al., Vol. 2, 365–391. Bellaterra: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. Google Scholar
- Velázquez-Castillo, Maura. 2004a. Guaraní (Tupí-Guaraní). In Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, eds. Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, and Stavros Skopeteas, Vol. 2, 1421–1432. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
- von Gleich, Utta. 1993. Paraguay – Musterland der Zweisprachigkeit? Quo vadis Romania 1: 19–30. Google Scholar
- Xue, Jingyang, and Edgar Onea. 2011. Correlation between projective meaning and at-issueness: An empirical study. In 2011 ESSLLI workshop on projective content, 171–184. Google Scholar