La: Studies in Language Learning and Spanigh Linguisties eds b 340 rears ermnsarcercestons Peggy Hashemipoury Ricatdoe Maldonado ae, 4 Margaret Van Naewessen, 342-360, New York: MeGraw taking into consideration the theoret vdreu concentrates on the pedagogical to English-speaking students. Basing her ar 6 regarding the relative assertiveness of the verb, niques for classroom inst ‘Two papers offer moor approach. Jorge Guitar’ SPANISH GRAMMAR hae broad range of Tracy Tereell’s research interests Spanish grammar, and his grammar analyses have had lasting imp ther developments in the field. Semantics, the papers inthis section represent the main areas of his expe tise. Several papers deal wit teaching techniques fr fal elements of with theoretical problems sch as t aspect marking. Most papers, however, focus onthe area in which Terrell work was influential: Spanish mood choice ‘prob he wide variety of proposals from I and Joan Hooper ed light on 's on Keenat’s nation of pre his work in synt (-Bybe the eystematization of mood supposition, ditestly corre truth of a propo tions (then common du tion was determined by the relationship between assertion a indicative was to be used in cases of assertion and weak presuppo: subjunctive corresponded to cases of non- sing been influential for subsequent 1 laced by voy a cantar, led anal Jor can see how later developments stem from that seminal fe papers that follow ysflect Terre the theoretical choice, Some address the speci ‘Schane proposes an analysis of comm constituted a problema of speech a of the problem—is reprint further developed as a prok junctive choice accounted for within Fauconni342 rnacy orem Assertion and Presupposition in Spanish Complements ‘Tracy D. Terrell Hy roover0n Much of the recent work in theoretical linguistics has been di understanding of the relationship between sema work of the Kiparskys (1970) est sted to developing an jes and syntactic processes. The Jhed the importance of the semantic notion of PRESUPPOSITION for explaining certain syntactic phenomen sh. Hooper and Terrell (1974) post jon between the semantic notion of ASSEI Nand the use of mood in Spanish sestences containing sentential complement 1 to show that in sentences with seveeal complements the rel tion of both the mood of the verb inthe complement plement is embedded is dependent upon tis factor of assertion, and thatthe choice ‘af mood is meaningful and not transformationally derived: ‘In this paper we analyze the Spanish system of complementation in onder to semantic terms the relationship between ASSERTION and PRESUFPOs in with cettain syntactic processes and theit associated classes of muisin predicates. We make no attempt to formalize our theories: we consider such priate because (8) there is no global theory which would further and (b) we doubt that a syntacti n syntax an the matrix in which 24 ‘The term PRESUPPOSITION has been widely uted by both ‘gists In this paper we are concerned with the notion of presupposi Keenan (1971). which we take to be esse Kiparskys2 Keenan gives to plements. First the truth ofthe complement is presupposed by the emise senten (1) Le sorprendié que Maria se enojara ‘ft surprised him that Mary got mad.” ‘fthe proposition, que Maria se enojac is, in fact, untru is neither true nor false; it simply has no truth valve In ally the same as the m: ia for the recognitio then the entice sentence (1) tion, the trath value of = Repl, by pormson, rom Garent Sir ix Romance Linguine ©. by Mana Ls and Fe ensey, Georgetown University Pree 1976. rion iy Panis compLemenrs — 343 fe processes.* Presupposition was sai ‘70up themselves int In the case of sentences requires the subjunctive: see (I) forms are normal ive it was thought Spanish as well as in Eng played in the use of mood tal acts were considered that fou Karttunen (1971) first suggested that there may with difering semantic and syntact Even ina the complement in (©) Nosupe que se habia eancelado el v do, did nd out that the flight had been canceled In (©), however, the proposition may or may m presupposed.344 tnacy. rennet English which are ambiguous between ig. Let us examine such questions in Spa ‘Did you learn that you had i (7) the speaker assumes that the addressee had not told the truth. In (8), how- 1s of interpretation: one in which the matrix is ques- he complement presupposed, and the other in which the speaker actually wishes to q dor did you not tell the truth?” ‘We assume that it has been demonstrated that in strictly following our definition there are two types of presupposition which we label strong and weak, What remains tobe shown is that the notion of weak presupposition is compatible with the nation of assertion. ian the complement, i. Assertion In this paper we use the term ASSERTION loosely to mean a proposition expressed in 1 declarative sentence. More spe the speaker claims the proposit hhe has announced to be true tothe best of his knovledge.® An assert truth which, on at least one reading, may be taken as the sem: in the discourse contest. Suppose the speaker wishes certain proposition to be a true statement. This may be done sy 8, depending on whether or not he wishes to 4 He may, of course, qu the use of a (10) Me parece (creo, es seguro, seems to me (I believe, with us Assertions may also be indirect; that is, we may report the assertions of others and s,nhen these is no ditection yegated for negated assertives the indicative can js presup- at sme one else holds the contained propositional comtent a8 te References Comrie, Bernard. 1965, Reflections on Subject and Object Control Journal of Semantics 47 sdky 970. Fast In Proges in Lingustcred by M. Bierwiseh 43-173, The Hague: Mouton nary Acts. In Expression and Manin 25, Cambridge: Cambride® 6. iparsiy, Pash and teed KE. Heid Sear, John Hinpinia 57484495 Presuppesition Inheritance and Mood in Spanish Exrapel Mejias-Bikandi In this paper T exami either the in nim that presupp ‘nthe indi ‘again in techn ‘not be inherited in M's parent space 3 rc, et seeps fll Inte Se376 weatas-nixanot and maxims of conversation (Crice 1975}. In particular, I claims thatthe lack of natu- of relevant presuppositions to be inherit~ T relate the phenomenon under discussion to some re or the subjunctive in Spanish, previous analyses ofthe use of OM INHERITANCE Bo evra: sraces ano Paesurros Sou Linguistic expressions build ment spaces, where elements can be introduced ras can be defined among these elements. Linguistic J spaces are space builders (SB) “The expression ‘Peter sponding to Peter's beliefs. The expression Mary saw John’ esta between Mary and John in Af. A SByy aw space M re included in a parent space M". In the case of space R, which isthe space of the speaker’ rea Iished between Wary and John in M, the space of P. that the parent space R. Th fact the case that Max's son is giving Max wexble. culating about that possi Facconnier (1985;88,) discusses the phenomenon of presupposition inheritance ‘This term refers to eases in which presupy duced by expressions in a space are aleo prewuppostions inthe parent space R.Fauconnier considers the fl- Jeving examples (the sentence used by Fauconnier is 2) repeated below). The speaker A and the hearer B see Max inthe street. Max looks glum. A knows Max and B assuimes that A knows whether Max has a (@) “Maybe Mas som is gi [As we saw abote, the expression "sy parent space is, the space of the speaker’ reali toon.” is ensoiated with the expression ‘M the possiblity space Mf. However, since B assumes that A knows whether Max on or not, Bis inherited in the parent space R. Consequently, the presupps Pp, awocated with the expression Max sn’ in (2) i lno a poemuppositinn in [A presupposes that Max basa son in the real word (as per- nthe porsiilty space created bythe expression ‘maybe.° wn 377 B does not assume that A ated with the express reality; B assumes that A presupposes € hs supposes C has another possible scenario. 4 is 5 Tal ver hija esté en fa cdr Rin this ease. in other words, upon hearing: presupposes that C has a378 wesias-nixanos nae speaker A knows whether the person Chas son oF nt, Consequently iuhecited in Rand B assumes that A presupposes that C has a son inthe rel wor sarily the case when (6) (=SU 1 assumes that the speaker A pre- supposes that C Twill now consider some cases in whi {following scenario. In a press conference, the speaker A deni ‘Bush has given up smoking, A says 2) Noes cierto que el presidente ha dejato de fu {not true that the President has (IND) gi “The negative no establishes a coumerfactual space M, wher President has given up smoking’ is satisfied. Again, the parent spac ponding to the speaker’ reality. The presupposition Pz, “The President used jo “d vith the expression “The Presidem has given up smoking’ in M. whe hearee B assumes that P; is also a presupposition in R. In fe speaker A presupposes thatthe President used to fmoke in the real word ‘her hand, consider Example 8 Vor cierto que el Presidente haya dejado de fama se not eve thatthe President has (SUBJ) give up smoking” dn his cose, Py is also a presupposition in the counterfactual epace M, but the ease WEB may not assume that the speaker A presupposes that George Bush used to sine Frisnor nscenaily inherited i R. Thus, Aight expand (natural ain? (0). Noes cero que el President haya dsjado def {ursado unc ot trie that the President has (SUBJ) stopped smoking ident has never smoked.” Consider nom w presupposition associated withthe word ‘even’ in the following scenario. An epidemic inthe afea is making people sick, Mary isa very Uy wo gt sick. But the speaker A is beginsing to think that ever ary might be sick. Auer Tal sez incluso Marca etd enferma. son who is ni Pye "Some fois also sick.” As before, Pq is 8 presuppo Mace M. In this ease, the hearer B assumes A presupposes that somebody else is nPigin ‘presupposition in R tion. The speaker A is spec ly pale. A thinks that maybe everybody is person in the area. ulters Marta esté enferma. ‘presupposition in R. In other words, B aren neceseunty asvome A presupposes that somebods else is aleady sick? P is presupposed in R. in the ently render the use of the IND awksard. Upon closer exit ‘firs explain why @ speaker A would us ‘when A has a choice. 1. Presuppos Maxine was claimed above that a hear to infer that A. preaupypo intends so, An order to see why which can be paraplraced 96 etapa the SUBS, A knows that the use of the | i“ the SUBY does parent space R. In380 mestas-siKanot use the IND only if (she wanted that information to be conveyed (to be as informative ‘as necessasy) If A did not want that information to be conveyed, (s)he would use the ‘SURE; that is, he would avoid being more informative than requited or conveying is, consider again Examples 5 and 6. The speaker A wants to pro- ‘duce an atterance that expresses the proposition that probably his son is in jail, ‘where ‘his’ refers toa person in the street, C. A can use either the IND or the SUBJ. If, for whatever reason, A wants to convey to the hearer B the information that A. knows that Chas @ son, A will use the IND in order to be as informative as necessary reason the speaker A does not want to convey that information (that A knows that C has a so) tothe heaxer B, A will use the SUBJ, not the IND. By using the SUBJ ‘case, A avoids being more informative than required or conveying flee inform: (Gt might be the ease that A does not know whether C has a son or not) We can further assume that, again in a sentence such as (5), if the speaker A ‘A knows that Chas a son, A does so because A con- hearing (5), the hearer B infers thatthe speaker on that A knows that C has a ‘and B must assume that A does so because A regards such information as relevant for is B to infer that P is a presupposition in R, A does so because A considers such inference relevant for B. This follows from Grice’s Maxim of Relevance: Be relevant. In summary, assuming that both speaker and hearer follow Grice's maxims of con- it must be the case that a speaker will use the indicative in a sentence (in a context where a choice exists hetween the indicative jon that the speaker considers relevant to speaker. Similarly, upon hearing a sentence in the indicative mood, the hearer assumes that the speaker is trying to convey some information that the speaker cone siders relevant for the hearer. 2. Accounting for Problematic Data Now we can try to explain the unnaturalness of @ sentence such as (12) in its IND ler P}2, “Somebody else is not sick.” In a normal, everyday situation (chat I will call a default situation) the information that somebody presupposes P) 2 fan. People are normally assumed not tobe sick; com ‘sequently, Pp does not contribute anything new to the set of assum ‘sents the knowhedgea pereao has about the world. In other words, if Ais following the Maxim of Relevance, it would be unlikely in a default situation that A-would intend B toinfer that A presupposes P}9. Afterall, Py would not provide B with any relevant information. From the perepective ofthe hearer B, upon hearing (12) with the IND, B ‘assumes that A intends to convey some information by using the IND. In this case, the supposes P) in R. But since Po seems obvious, B is puz- ions that repre tv srasisn 38) not fulfiled in (12). A contest is needed where Now, consider the following situation. The speaker A and the heater B are in a hospital, where generally everybody feels bad, Marfa is vhe most wubelthy the fact that A presupposes Py is quite well. A is real (13) Tal ver ni siquiera Marta se siente mal “Maybe not even Mary fels (IND) bad In Example 13 the IND can be naturally used. Py 5, “Somebody does not feel bad,” is ‘presupposition in M. Upon hearing (13), B assumes that P intend B 10 assume that A presupposes P, Consider likewise the resupposes Py in R. When the SUBI is used, Py in R. In this ease, (14) could be Mary might have heen sick the 4 enforma, “Maybe Mary is (SUBWV?7IND) alread As in the case of (23), ths isolated sem supposition associated vith Mary is al before, the information carried by Py ion.1 People not B assumes that Py R, if A follows Grice’s conversational maxims. Compare (15) (16) Tal vez Maria ya esta recuperada. “Maybe Mary is (IND) already Here the presupposi overed. ‘Mary was sick,” wh382 meatans-pixanot ural forthe speaker A touse the IND and to intend the hearer B to assume that A pre= supposes Py in R. ‘To summarize, Ihave examined the phenomenon of presupposition inheritance. 1 hhave claimed that, when the IND is used, a presupposition P ina space M is inherit- 1, P may not e inherited in R. If we ‘assume that the speaker A follows Grice’s maxims of conversation, A will use the IND to cause the hearer B to assume that A presupposes P in R: presumably, A will do so whenever A assumes that P is relevant for B. In the next section I discuss other ansly- ses that have used the notions of presupposition or relevance toexplain the use ofthe IND or the SUBJ in Spanish Hl Previous anacrses The use ofthe indieative has been associated in several previous studies with the pre suppositions of the speaker. Thus, Rivero (1971), Terrell (1976), and Bergen (1978) claim that the use of the IND in'a sentence such as (17) below indicates that the speaker presupposes that the complement is true or considers the complement as an established, objective fact. (17) Pedro no eree que el Presidente estd enfermo. ident is (IND) sick.” sannot be the case that the speaker presupposes that the complement is true. (1) Noes cierto que el presidente ha dejado de fumar. isnot true that the President has (IND) given up smoking.” {In (7) the speaker would be denying what (s)he ought to be presupposing.'? The claim in this paper is slightly different. When the IND is used, it is not that the speaker A presupposes the truth ofthe complement, but rather that A presupposes, in the space of A’ reality R, the presuppositions associated with expressions in the complement clause. Thus, upon hearing (17) the hearer B would assume that A presupposes that there is president, but not sick Lunn (1989) relates the use ofthe IND to the notion of relevance. She claims that when a speaker A assumes that some information is relevant for a hearer B, A tend to use the IND. Lunn’s analysis is related to that presented here in an obvious ‘way, although some differences still exist. To illustrate these, consider Examples 5 and 6 again: ver su hijo esté en Ia eéreel faybe his son is (IND) in jail.” ver su hijo esté en la céreel “Maybe his son is (SUBI) in ‘Lann would claim that when A utters (5) (=IND), A regards the information conveyed as relevant for B, whereas this presumption of relevance on the part of A does not ‘exist when A utters (6) (=SUBD). In the analysis presented here, A utters (5) (=IND) ‘when A intends B to assume that A presupposes that Ps, “He has a son,” holds in the © seantsn 383 real world as perceived by A. Presumably, A woul assumes that Ps conveys some i the other hand, A utters supposes Ps in R. A would do so for pose Ps in R, oF A does not consider tha pose Fy consider th Hl conctusion is paper I present several ca to an everyday, default situation ( thus, where the Maxim of Relevance seems to be vi sidered awkward. Fe pretheort thi sem, relent ith nfirmatie Sperber wt of ele have heen used in this dseusion, ste R to refer to the apace ofthe speakers reality, w space M. " * a and strates ‘FB assumes that A knows wh be regarded by B as a pres 8, IND=indicative; SUBJ-subjunctive