Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 1–52 | Cite as

Past interpretation and graded tense in Medumba

  • Anne Mucha
Article

Abstract

This paper provides a formal semantic analysis of past interpretation in Medumba (Grassfields Bantu), a graded tense language. Based on original fieldwork, the study explores the empirical behavior and meaning contribution of graded past morphemes in Medumba and relates these to the account of the phenomenon proposed in Cable (Nat Lang Semant 21:219–276, 2013) for Gĩkũyũ. Investigation reveals that the behavior of Medumba gradedness markers differs from that of their Gĩkũyũ counterparts in meaningful ways and, more broadly, discourages an analysis as presuppositional eventuality or reference time modifiers. Instead, the Medumba markers are most appropriately analyzed as quantificational tenses. It also turns out that Medumba, though belonging to the typological class of graded tense languages, shows intriguing similarities to genuinely tenseless languages in allowing for temporally unmarked sentences and exploiting aspectual and pragmatic cues for reference time resolution. The more general cross-linguistic implication of the study is that the set of languages often subsumed under the label “graded tense” does not in fact form a natural class and that more case-by-case research is needed to refine this category.

Keywords

Graded tense Past interpretation Grassfields Bantu 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch D.: Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 1–50 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arregui A.: When aspect matters: The case of would-conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 15, 221–264 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arregui, A., and K. Kusumoto. 1998. Tense in temporal adjunct clauses. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 8, 1–18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Ashton, E., E.M.K. Mulira, E.G.M. Ndawula, and A.N. Tucker. 1951. A Luganda grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., and C. Condoravdi. 2003. A uniform analysis of before and after. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 13, ed. R. Young and Y. Zhou, 37–54. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, M., and B. Partee. 1978. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Bittner M.: Future discourse in a tenseless language. Journal of Semantics 22, 339–388 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bittner, M. 2011. Time and modality without tenses or modals. In Tense across languages, ed. M. Rathert and R. Musan, 147–188. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  9. Bochnak M.R.: Past time reference in a language with optional tense. Linguistics and Philosophy 39, 247–294 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bochnak, M.R., and P. Klecha. 2015. Temporal remoteness and vagueness in past time reference in Luganda. In Proceedings of the 45th annual conference on African linguistics (ACAL). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bohnemeyer J.: The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Lincom Europa, Munich (2002)Google Scholar
  12. Bohnemeyer, J. 2009. Temporal anaphora in a tenseless language: The case of Yucatec. In The expression of time, ed. W. Klein and P. Li, 83–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Botne, R. 2012. Remoteness distinctions. In The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, ed. R.I. Binnick, 536–562. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Botne R., Kershner T.L.: Tense and cognitive space: On the organization of tense/aspect systems in Bantu languages and beyond. Cognitive Linguistics 19(2), 145–218 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bybee J., Perkins R., Pagliuca W.: The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  16. Cable S.: Beyond the past, present, and future: Towards the semantics of ‘graded tense’ in Gĩkũyũ. Natural Language Semantics 21, 219–276 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cable, S. 2015. Graded tenses in complement clauses: Evidence that future is not a tense. Handout from a talk given at The Semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian Languages (TripleA) 2, University of Potsdam. http://people.umass.edu/scable/papers/EmbeddedGradedTense-Handout.pd. Accessed 26 April 2016.
  18. Cinque G.: Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  19. Comrie B.: Tense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, and L. Casillas, 59–88. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Enç M.: Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 633–657 (1987)Google Scholar
  22. Hayashi, M. 2011. The structure of multiple tenses in Inuktitut. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  23. Hayashi M., Oshima D.: How multiple past tenses divide the labor: The case of South Baffin Inuktitut. Linguistics 53, 773–808 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Heim, I. 1994. Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In Ellipsis, tense and questions, ed. H. Kamp, 143–170. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Heim, I. 2015. Embedded referential tense. Talk given at Sinn und Bedeutung 20, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  27. Hornstein N.: Towards a theory of tense. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 521–557 (1977)Google Scholar
  28. Hyman L.: Relative time reference in the Bamileke tense system. Studies in African Linguistics 11, 227–237 (1980)Google Scholar
  29. Kamp H., Reyle U.: From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  30. Klein W.: Time in language. Routledge, London (1994)Google Scholar
  31. Klein, W. 2009. How time is encoded. In The expression of time, ed. W. Klein and P. Li, 39–81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. König E.: Temporal and non-temporal uses of schon and noch in German. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 173–198 (1977)Google Scholar
  33. Kouankem, C. 2012. The syntax of the Medumba determiner phrase. PhD Thesis, University of Yaounde I.Google Scholar
  34. Kratzer, A. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 8, ed. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 92–110. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Krifka, M. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar (Studies in linguistics and philosophy, vol. 70), ed. S. Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Krifka, M. 2000. Alternatives for aspectual particles. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 401–412. Washington, D.C.: LSA.Google Scholar
  37. Kubota Y., Lee J., Smirnova A., Tonhauser A.: The cross-linguistic interpretation of embedded tenses. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, 307–320 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. Kusumoto, K. 1999. Tense in embedded contexts. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  39. Kusumoto K.: On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13, 317–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee J., Tonhauser J.: Temporal interpretation without tense: Korean and Japanese coordination constructions. Journal of Semantics 27, 307–341 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis D.: Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88(4), 513–543 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin J.W.: Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 259–311 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin J.W.: Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23, 1–53 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lin J.W.: A tenseless analysis of Mandarin Chinese revisited: A response to Sybesma 2007. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 305–329 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Löbner S.: German schon-erst-noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 167–212 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Löbner S.: Why German schon and noch are still duals. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 45–107 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matthewson L.: On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70, 369–415 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthewson L.: Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 673–713 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merchant J.: Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merchant, J., L. Frazier, C. Clifton Jr., and T. Weskott. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In Brevity, ed. L. Goldstein, 21–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mittwoch A.: The relationship between schon/already and noch/still: A reply to Löbner. Natural Language Semantics 2, 71–82 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mucha, A. 2012. Temporal reference in a genuinely tenseless language: The case of Hausa. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 22, ed. A. Chereches, 188–207. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Mucha A.: Temporal interpretation in Hausa. Linguistics and Philosophy 36, 371–415 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mucha, A. 2015. Temporal interpretation and cross-linguistic variation. PhD Thesis, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  55. Mucha, A., and M. Zimmermann. to appear. TAM-coding and temporal interpretation in West African languages. In Mood, aspect, modality revisited. New answers to old questions, ed. Joanna Blaszczak, Anastasia Giannakidou, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska, and Krzysztof Migdalski. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nganmou, A. 1991. Modalité verbales. Temps, aspect et mode en Medumba. PhD Thesis, University of Yaounde I.Google Scholar
  57. Nurse D.: Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  58. Ogihara, T. 1989. Temporal reference in English and Japanese. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  59. Ogihara T.: The semantics of tense in embedded clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 663–679 (1995)Google Scholar
  60. Ogihara T.: Tense, attitudes, and scope. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ogihara, T., and Y. Sharvit. 2012. Embedded tenses. In The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, ed. R. Binnick, 638–668. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Percus O.: Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8, 173–229 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reichenbach H.: Elements of symbolic logic. Macmillan, New York (1947)Google Scholar
  64. Sato, Y., and Y. Dobashi. 2012. Functional categories and prosodic phrasing in English: Evidence from that-trace effects and pronominal object shift. National University of Singapore and Niigata University. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/00149.
  65. Selkirk E.: Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. MA: MIT Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  66. Sharvit Y.: Embedded tense and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 669–681 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sharvit Y.: On the universal principles of tense embedding: The lesson from before. Journal of Semantics 31, 263–313 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith, C.S. 2008. Time with and without tense. In Time and modality: Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, ed. J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, 227–249. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Smith C.S., Erbaugh M.S.: Temporal interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 43, 713–756 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith C.S., Perkins E., Fernald T.: Temporal interpretation in Navajo. Proceedings of SULA 2, 175–192 (2003)Google Scholar
  71. Smith C.S., Perkins E., Fernald T.: Time in Navajo: Direct and indirect interpretation. International Journal of American Linguistics 73, 40–71 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sproat, R., and C. Shih. 1991. The cross-linguistics distribution of adjectival ordering restrictions. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  73. Stowell, T. 1995a. The phrase structure of tense. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  74. Stowell, T. 1995b. What do the present and past tenses mean? In Temporal reference, aspect, and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, ed. P. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, and M. Squartini, 381–396. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
  75. Thomas G.: Nominal tense and temporal implicatures: Evidence from Mbyá. Natural Language Semantics 22(4), 357–412 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tonhauser J.: Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 34, 257–303 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tonhauser J.: Cross-linguistic temporal reference. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 129–154 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Truckenbrodt H.: On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 219–255 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van der Auwera, J. 1993. ‘Already’ and ‘still’: Beyond duality. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 613–653.Google Scholar
  80. Vander Klok J., Matthewson L.: Distinguishing already from perfect aspect: A case study of Javanese wis. Oceanic Linguistics 54, 172–205 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vendler Z.: Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1967)Google Scholar
  82. Vendler Z.: Adjectives and nominalizations. Mouton, The Hague (1968)Google Scholar
  83. von Stechow, A. 1984. Structured propositions and essential indexicals. In Proceedings of the 4th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. F. Landman and F. Feldman, 385–404. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  84. von Stechow, A. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 5, ed. T. Galloway and M. Simons, 362–386. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  85. von Stechow, A. 2009. Tenses in compositional semantics. In The expression of time, ed. W. Klein and P. Li, 129–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  86. von Stechow, A., and A. Grønn. 2013a. Tense in adjuncts, part 1: Relative clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 295–310.Google Scholar
  87. von Stechow, A., and A. Grønn. 2013b. Tense in adjuncts, part 2: Temporal adverbial clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 311–327.Google Scholar
  88. Wurmbrand S.: Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 403–447 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department LinguistikUniversität PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS)MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations