Advertisement

Projection variability in Paraguayan Guaraní

  • Judith TonhauserEmail author
Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Projective content Paraguayan Guaraní Projection variability Cross-linguistic variation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 491–535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrusán, Márta. 2016. Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft-hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics 24: 165–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Abusch, Dorit. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27: 37–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. AnderBois, Scott, and Robert Henderson. 2015. Linguistically established discourse context: Two case studies from Mayan languages. In Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, eds. Ryan Bochnak and Lisa Matthewson, 207–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu, and Robert Henderson. 2015. At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics 32: 93–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaver, David, and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaver, David, and Emiel Krahmer. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bochnak, M. Ryan, and Lisa Matthewson, eds. 2015. Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. 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/.
  12. 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
  13. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2013. “ordinal”: Regression models for ordinal data: R package. Version ordinal_2015.6-28. Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  16. Estigarribia, Bruno. 2017. A grammar sketch of Paraguayan Guaraní. In Guaraní linguistics in the 21st century, eds. Bruno Estigarribia and Justin Pinta, 7–85. Leiden: Brill. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fasoli-Wörmann, Daniela. 2002. Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt in Paraguay. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  18. Gregores, Emma, and Jorge A. Suárez. 1967. A Description of Colloquial Guaraní. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Horn, Lawrence R. 1996. Exclusive company: Only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 1–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hothorn, Torsten, Frank Bretz, and Peter Westfall. 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50 (3): 346–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  26. Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 4: 55–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 369–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murray, Sarah. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics & Pragmatics 7 (2): 1–53. Google Scholar
  30. Potts, Chris. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 165–197. Google Scholar
  31. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  32. R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
  33. 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
  34. Romoli, Jacopo. 2015. The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 32: 173–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. Local contexts and local meanings. Philosophical Studies 151: 115–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simons, Mandy. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) 11, 431–448. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  37. Simons, Mandy, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Judith Tonhauser. 2017. The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factive verbs. Discourse Processes 3: 187–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, E. Allyn, and Kathleen Currie Hall. 2011. Projection diversity: Experimental evidence. In 2011 ESSLLI Workshop on Projective Content, 156–170. Google Scholar
  39. Spector, Benjamin, and Paul Egré. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedding interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese 192: 1729–1784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, and Judith Degen. 2018. How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics 35: 495–542. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89: 66–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. van der Sandt, Rob. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Velázquez-Castillo, Maura. 2004b. Serial verb constructions in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 70 (2): 187–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. von Gleich, Utta. 1993. Paraguay – Musterland der Zweisprachigkeit? Quo vadis Romania 1: 19–30. Google Scholar
  48. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Stuttgart UniversityStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations