Event-in-Progress and Habitual readings across three Spanish

MARTÍN FUCHS1 & MARÍA M. PIÑANGO2 1UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, 2YALE UNIVERSITY

SEMANTICS OF UNDER-REPRESENTED LANGUAGES IN THE AMERICAS (SULA) 11 MÉXICO CITY, MEXICO AUGUST 4-7, 2020 Introduction Variation within the Imperfective domain in Modern Spanish partially responds to the dynamics of the Progressive to-Imperfective shift (e.g., Bybee et al. 1994, Deo 2015). Consider the development of Simple Present (PRES) and Present Progressive (PROG, estar + gerund) markers over time with respect to the expression of the event-in-progress (EiP) and habitual (HAB) readings:

1. emergence: PRESEiP/HAB PRESEiP/HAB/PROGEiP

2. categoricalization: PRESEiP/HAB/PROGEiP PRESHAB/PROGEiP

3. generalization: PRESHAB/PROGEiP PROGHAB/EiP How does a language move from one stage to the following? How is this the result of individual communicative exchanges in real-time?

2 The Synchronic Puzzle. Event-in-progress and Habitual in Spanish (1) a. Ana está fumando. (2) a. Ana fuma Ana smoke.3.SG.EiP Ana smoke.3.SG.HAB ‘Ana is smoking’ ‘Ana smokes’ b. Ana fuma ahora. b. Ana está fumando mucho Ana smoke.3.SG.HAB now Ana smoke.3.SG.EiP a-lot ‘Ana is smoking’ ‘Ana is smoking a lot’

PRES-marker (V-a) can express both EiP and HAB. PROG-marker (estar + V-ndo) can express both EiP and HAB.

3 The Diachronic Puzzle. Which stage is Spanish in? (1) a. Ana está fumando. (2) a. Ana fuma Ana smoke.3.SG.EiP Ana smoke.3.SG.HAB ‘Ana is smoking’ ‘Ana smokes’ b. Ana fuma ahora. b. Ana está fumando mucho Ana smoke.3.SG.HAB now Ana smoke.3.SG.EiP a-lot ‘Ana is smoking’ ‘Ana is smoking a lot’

What (factors) can account for the transition between stages?

4 Proposal. Variation in event-in-progress • The use of the Simple Present to convey an event-in-progress reading is constrained by whether speaker and hearer share perceptual access to the event described by the predicate (Fuchs et al. 2020a). • Shared perceptual access as a non-linguistic means to achieve perspective alignment, a communicative goal grounded in Common Ground and Theory of Mind (Fuchs et al. 2020b). • Otherwise, a speaker may use the Present Progressive marker, regardless of shared perceptual access, thus evidencing that this marker is the preferred linguistic means to achieve this communicative goal.

5 Proposal. Categoricalization Synchronic prediction: When this contextual requirement is not met, context construal must takes place for the Simple Present >> increased processing cost.

Diachronic prediction: Increased processing cost for Simple Present leads to preference for Present Progressive >> categoricalization.

6 Proposal. Variation in habitual •The use of the Present Progressive to convey a habitual reading is constrained by whether the context satisfies the presuppositional requirements of estar, the verb in the Progressive periphrasis (Fuchs & Piñango 2019, Fuchs 2020).

•Estar has a presupposition that restricts the prejacent to a specific circumstance of evaluation; it demands the construal of alternative situations at which the prejacent does not hold (e.g., Sánchez Alonso et al. 2017).

• Otherwise, a speaker may use the Simple Present to convey this reading.

7 Proposal. Generalization Synchronic prediction: Use of estar + gerund (when presupposition is independently satisfied) conveys a habitual reading and implicates an alternative >> increased informativity of the marker

Diachronic prediction: General increased use of estar in Spanish + greater informativity >> increased use in more contexts >> decrease in context-dependence >> generalization.

8 Study 1. Categoricalization. • Situations that expressed an event-in-progress reading.

Two Contexts: • a) Rich Contexts [ + Shared Perceptual Access ] • b) Poor Contexts [ - Shared Perceptual Access ]

Three Markers: • a) Simple PRES-marked sentences, • b) PROG-marked sentences, and • c) PRÉTERITO–marked (as a baseline condition) sentences.

9 Study 1. Predictions.

10 Study 1. Results (Central , n= 60; , n = 60)

11 Study 1. Results (Mexican Altiplano Spanish, n = 56)

12 Study 1. Discussion • Present Progressive is the preferred marker across all dialects regardless of context type.

• Simple Present processing is facilitated in Rioplatense and only when shared perceptual access is guaranteed by the context.

• In , shared perceptual access no longer plays a role in improving Simple Present comprehension. This is further along the diachronic path.

13 Study 2. Generalization. • Situations that expressed a habitual reading.

Two Contexts: • a) Supporting Contexts [ + Satisfied Presupposition] • b) Neutral Contexts [ - Satisfied Presupposition]

Three Markers: • a) Simple PRES-marked sentences, • b) PROG-marked sentences, and • c) PRÉTERITO–marked (as a baseline condition) sentences.

14 Study 2. Predictions.

15 Study 2. Results (Central Peninsular Spanish, n = 40, Rioplatense Spanish, n = 40)

16 Study 2. Results (Mexican Altiplano Spanish, n = 40)

17 Study 2. Discussion. • Present Progressive comprehension is facilitated in Rioplatense and Central Peninsular Spanish when contextual information satisfies the presuppositional demands of estar.

• Mexican Altiplano Spanish does not show this facilitating effect, but indicates that in this variety Present Progressive is no longer dependent on context support, and might be even preferred over the Simple Present.

• Generalization is underway in the three varieties, but Mexican Altiplano Spanish appears a step further in the grammaticalization path.

18 General Conclusion

The patterns across dialects are consistent with a model of semantic variation and change that is embedded in a communicative system, visible during real-time comprehension, and subject to isolable contextual factors.

19 Selected References

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliucca. 1994. The Evolution of : Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. / Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. / Deo, Ashwini. 2009. Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32, 475-521. / Deo, Ashwini. 2015. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: the Progressive to Imperfective shift. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1-52. / Fuchs, Martín; Ashwini Deo & María M. Piñango. 2020a. The Progressive-to- Imperfective shift: contextually determined variation in Rioplatense, Iberian, and Mexican Altiplano Spanish. In: Cristina Sanz & Alfonso Morales-Front (eds.). Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics. Selected Proceedings of HLS 2016. Johns Benjamins. / Fuchs, Martín, María M. Piñango & Ashwini Deo. 2020b. Operationalizing the role of context in language variation: the role of perspective alignment in the Spanish Imperfective domain. In: Thomas Gamerschlag et al. (eds.). Selected Papers from CoSt16. Language, Cognition and Mind Series. Springer. / Sánchez-Alonso, Sara, Ashwini Deo & María M. Piñango. 2017. Copula Distinction and Constrained Variability of Copula Use in Iberian and Mexican Spanish. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 23 (1), 25.

20 Thank you!

Research has been funded by NSF-INSPIRE Grant CCF-1248100: “The underpinnings of Semantic change: A Linguistic, Cognitive, and Information-Theoretic Investigation” to María Mercedes Piñango, Ashwini Deo, Todd Constable & Mokshay Madiman, and by a MacMillan International Dissertation Fellowship to Martín Fuchs.

21