1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper addresses the auxiliation/grammaticalization of (Spanish), (Dutch), (English), against the background of the competition between the vernacular languages and Latin. It shows that the subjective reading of ‘threaten’, expressing a prediction on the basis of some kind of evidence, is a Latin calque, and that the syntactic creativity or syntactic elaboration starts from this calque. In the three cases, ‘threaten’ is combined with the semantics of ‘fall’, which indicates the roofing role of Latin. The paper shows that the pace of the constructional change from ‘threaten’ + to ‘threaten’ + is different from one language to another. Spanish grammaticalizes into an auxiliary during the Renaissance of the 15th and 16th century. In the case of Dutch, by contrast, only in the Golden Age of the 17th century do writers start to use ‘threaten’ as an auxiliary. Finally, English develops the auxiliary one century later than the Dutch one. The chronological differences are explained on the basis of the cultural and linguistic elaborations typical of Golden centuries, which vary from one nation to another.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00023.cor
2020-03-30
2020-10-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, Werner
    2003 “‘Epistemic Creationism’: Myths vs. profunda facie Explanatory Irrefutables on Modal Verbs in German and in Genera.”’ InGrammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer PlatzackVol.II, ed. byLars-Olof Delsin, Josefsson, Gunlög Sigurðsson, Armann Halldor, and Cecilia Falk, 1–88. Lund: Lund University, Department of Scandinavian Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Askedal, Jan Ole
    1997 “Drohen und versprechen als sog. ‘Modalitätsverben’ in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.” Deutsch als Fremdsprache34: 12–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blatt, Franz
    1957 “Latin influence on European syntax.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague11: 33–69. 10.1080/01050206.1957.10420495
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01050206.1957.10420495 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cornillie, Bert, and Álvaro Octavio de Toledo y Huerta
    2015 “The diachrony of subjective amenazar ‘threaten’. On Latin-induced grammaticalization in Spanish.” InNew Directions in Grammaticalization Research, ed. byAndrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale, and Richard Waltereit, 187–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornillie, Bert
    2004 “The shift from lexical to subjective readings in Spanish prometer ‘to promise’ and amenazar ‘to threaten’. A corpus-based account.” Pragmatics14 (1): 1–30. 10.1075/prag.14.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.14.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  6. 2005a “Agentivity and subjectivity in Spanish prometer and amenazar. A study of constructional and diatopical variation.” Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana5: 171–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2005b “A paradigmatic view of Spanish amenazar ‘to threaten’ and prometer ‘to promise’.” Folia Linguistica39 (3/4): 385–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2007Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries. A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014 “Over de subjectieve lezing van dreigen in het 16de- en 17de eeuwse Nederlands. Historische pragmatiek vs contact-geïnduceerde taalverandering.”, InPatroon en argument. Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst, ed. byFreek Van de Velde, Hans Smessaert, Frank Van Eynde, and Sara Verbrugge, 329–348. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.25
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.25 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2016a “Acerca de la locución epistémica tal vez en el siglo de las Luces: innovación y especialización.” InMárgenes y centros en el español del siglo XVIII, ed. byMarta Guzmán, and Daniel Sáez, 183–199. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2016b “On the pace of the grammaticalization of ‘threaten’ and ‘promise’ in the languages of Western Europe.” Paper presented atSLE 2016, University of Naples.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2020 “On grammatical change and linguistic environments.” InCrossing Linguistic Boundaries. Systemic, Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in English, ed. byPaloma Núñez-Pertejo, María José López-Couso, Belén Méndez-Naya, and Javier Pérez-Guerra, 105–125. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350053885.ch‑006
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350053885.ch-006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Diewald, Gabriele
    2001 “Scheinen-Probleme: Analogie, Konstruktionsmischung und die Sogwirkung aktiver Grammatikalisierungskanäle.” InModalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, ed. byReimar Müller, and Marga Reis, 87–110. Hamburg: Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004 “Faktizität und Evidentialität: Semantische Differenzierung bei den Modal-und Modalitätsverben im Deutschen.” InTempus/Temporalität und Modus/Modalität im Sprachvergleich, ed. byOddleif Leirbukt, 231–258. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Diewald, Gabriele, and Elena Smirnova
    (eds) 2010Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110241037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Bois, John W.
    1985 “Competing motivations.” InIconicity in Syntax, ed. byJohn Haiman, 343–365. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  17. Heine, Bernd, and Hiroyuki Miyashita
    2004 “Drohen und versprechen–zur Genese von funktionalen Kategorien.” Neue Beiträge zur Germanistik3 (2): 9–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heine, Bernd and Hiroyuki Miyashita
    2008 Accounting for a functional category: German drohen ‘to threaten’. Language Sciences30: 53–101. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
    2006The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297337.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297337.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hernanz, María Lluïsa
    1999 “El infinitivo.” InGramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. byIgnacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2195–2356. Madrid: RAE – Espasa Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 “Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?”. InWhat makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes, ed. byWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Bjoern Wiemer, 21–42. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 “On some principles of grammaticalization.” InApproaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.I, ed. byElizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 17–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  23. Kabatek, Johannes
    2005 “Las tradiciones discursivas del español medieval: historia de textos e historia de la lengua.” Iberoromania63 (2): 28–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (ed.) 2008Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las Tradiciones Discursivas. Frankfurt/ Madrid: Vervuert/ Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013 “¿Es posible una lingüística histórica basada en un corpus representativo?” Iberoromania77 (1): 8–28. 10.1515/ibero‑2013‑0045
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ibero-2013-0045 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kissine, Mikhail
    2010 “Metaphorical projection, subjectification and English Speech Act verbs.” Folia Linguistica44 (2): 339–370. 10.1515/flin.2010.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2010.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kloss, Heinz
    1978Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. [Sprache Der Gegenwart 37]. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koch, Peter, and Oesterreicher, Wulf
    2011Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. 2ª. ed.Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110252620
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252620 [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1995 “Raising and transparency.” Language71 (1): 1–62. 10.2307/415962
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415962 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2000 “Subjectification and grammaticization.” InGrammar and Conceptualization, ed. byRonald W. Langacker, 297–315. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2006 Subjectification, Grammaticization, and Conceptual Archetypes. InSubjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity, ed. byAngeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis, and Bert Cornillie, 17–40. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892970.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970.17 [Google Scholar]
  32. Metzger, Kai
    2003 “Die Lesarten von drohen und versprechen und ihre Konstruktionsarten. eine korpusanalytische Untersuchung.” Zulassungsarbeit zur Staatsprüfung für das Lehramt an Gymnasien. Universität Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pinto de Lima, José
    2014Studies on Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. Estudos de Gramaticalização e Lexicalização. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pons Rodríguez, Lola
    2010 “La historia de los marcadores discursivos en español.” InLos estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, ed. byÓscar Loureda, and Esperanza Acín, 523–615. Madrid: Arco / Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Reis, Marga
    2004 “Modals, So-Called Semi-Modals, and Grammaticalization in German.” Paper presented atBerkeley Germanic Linguistics Roundtable. April 2–3 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rooryck, Johan
    1997 “On the interaction between Raising and Focus in sentential complementation.” Studia Linguistica50: 1–49. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00016
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00016 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2000Configurations of sentential complementation: perspectives from Romance languages. Routledge: London. 10.4324/9780203187654
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203187654 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruwet, Nicolas
    1972Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 1983 “Montée et contrôle. Une question à revoir.” Revue Romane24: 17–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sánchez González de Herrero, Mª Nieves
    2011 “La importancia de la lengua de partida en las traducciones medievales al castellano del De Proprietatibus Rerum de Bartolomé Anglico.” InAsí se van las lenguas variando. Nuevas tendencias en la investigación del cambio lingüístico en español, ed. byMónica Castillo, and Lola Pons Rodríguez, 411–435. Frankfurt, Bern, etc.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1993 “The Conflict Promises to Erupt into War.” Berkeley Linguistics Society, 348–358. 10.3765/bls.v19i1.3380
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v19i1.3380 [Google Scholar]
  42. 1997 “Subjectification and the development of epistemic Meaning: the case of promise and threaten.” InModality in Germanic Languages, ed. byToril Swan, and Olaf Jansen Westvik, 185–210. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110889932.185
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.185 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1999 “The role of pragmatics in semantic change.” InPragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Vol.II, ed. byJef Verschueren, 93–102. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Van der Horst, Johannes
    2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. van der Meulen, Paul
    1955Het Roerspel en de Comedies van Coornhert. Leiden: Leidse Drukken en Herdrukken.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet, and Lobke Ghesquière
    2013 “On multiple source constructions in language change.” Studies in Language37: 473–489. 10.1075/sl.37.3.01int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int [Google Scholar]
  48. Vázquez-Laslop, María Eugenia
    2001 “Epistemic prometer and full deontic modal verbs.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics207–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Verhagen, Arie
    1995 “Subjectification, syntax, and communication.” InSubjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language, ed. byStein Dieter, and Susan Wright, 103–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.006 [Google Scholar]
  50. 1996 “Sequential conceptualization and linear order.” InCognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, ed. byEugene H. Casad, 793–817. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110811421.793
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811421.793 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2000 “‘The girl that promised to become something’: An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch.” InThe Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1997: the Dutch Language at the Millennium, ed. byThomas F. Shannon, and Johan P. Snapper, 197–208. Lanham MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Vliegen, Maurice
    2006 “The relation between lexical and epistemic readings: the equivalents of promise and threaten in Dutch and German.” InTopics in Subjectification and Modalization, ed. byBert Cornillie, and Nicole Delbecque, 73–95. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00023.cor
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): auxiliation , Dutch , English , grammaticalization , Latin calque , Spanish , syntactic elaboration and vernacular languages
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error