Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Dear Colleagues, I'm looking for information/sources of the linguistic differences of 'Sierra Leonian' Pular and 'Guinean (Conakry)' Pular. Mariette TimmerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Dear Linguists, I'm looking for information about the presuppositionality of change of state sentences -- sentences whose main verbs are change of state predicates like "stop," "start," "become," arrive," "leave," and so on -- in languages other than English. In English, such sentences give rise to presuppositions: specifically, that the relevant entity was in the necessary start state immediately prior to the reference time of the sentence. So for example, sentence (1) entails that Jane was laughing immediately prior to the reference time (the necessary start state). (1) Jane stopped laughing. Its negation, sentence (2), would also normally be understood to mean that Jane was laughing, but that she didn't stop. This is the "presuppositional" reading of the sentence. (2) Jane didn't stop laughing However, sentence (2) is compatible with a situation in which Jane didn't laugh at all; this is the so-called "metalinguistic negation" reading. The preferred or default reading for all change of state sentences, though, is the presuppositional one. My assumption is that this generalization holds cross-linguistically, i.e. that in all languages, change of state sentences give rise to the same kinds of presuppositions. I'm looking for support for, or disconfirmation of, this assumption. In particular, I'm interested in any examples of change of state predicates in any language which either: 1. Don't allow a presuppositional reading. 2. Allow but don't prefer a presuppositional reading. I'll be glad for any other information about preferred readings of change of state sentences in languages other than English. Thankyou, Mandy SimonsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue