Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper offers an analysis of insubordinate subjunctive complement clauses (ISCs) in Spanish and aims to contribute to the general debate in Construction Grammar on how to deal with a highly pragmatically specified surface form that expresses several meanings. We explore whether the meanings expressed by ISCs are encoded in the construction or can be derived via independently existing principles of pragmatic interpretation. The results of the analysis are represented in a constructional network.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barberá, P.
    (2018) streamR: Access to Twitter streaming API via R. R package version 0.4.4.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Corr, A. V.
    (2016) Ibero-Romance and the Syntax of the Utterance. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2018) The syntax of Ibero-Romance quotation. InG. Pană Dindelegan, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula & A. Nicola (Eds.), Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives on Romance Syntax (pp.255–288). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O.
    (2007) La periferia izquierda oracional y los complementantes del español. InJ. Cuartero & M. Emsel (Eds.), Vernetzungen: Kognition, Bedeutung, (kontrastive) Pragmatik (pp.133–147). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2009) Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus, 21, 23–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013) El que citativo, otros elementos de la periferia izquierda oracional y la recomplementación: Variación inter e intralingüística. InD. Jakob & K. Plooj (Eds.), Autour de que – El entorno de que (pp.47–69). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2014) Evidentiality and illocutionary force: Spanish matrix “que” at the syntax-pragmatics interface. InA. Dufter & Á. S. Octavio de Toledo (Eds.), Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist, and typological perspectives (pp.217–252). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. D’Hertefelt, S.
    (2018) Insubordination in Germanic: A typology of complement and conditional constructions. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110548686
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110548686 [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Hertefelt, S. & Verstraete, J. C.
    (2014) Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift?Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 89–102. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Rycker, T.
    (1990) Imperative Subtypes in Conversational British English: An empirical investigation. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Elvira García, W.
    (2016) La prosodia de las construcciones insubordinadas conectivo-argumentativas del español. PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Etxepare, R.
    (2010) From hearsay evidentiality to samesaying relations. Lingua, 120, 604–627. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, N.
    (2007) Insubordination and its uses. InI. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp.366–431). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1996) The pragmatics of constructions. InD. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis & J. Guo (Eds.), Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp.53–69). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.
    (2002) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gagolewski, M. & Tartanus, B.
    (2016) R Package Stringi: Character String Processing Facilities. www.gagolewski.com/software/stringi/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gras, P.
    (2011) Gramática de construcciones en interacción: Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2016a) Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: Que-initial sentences in Spanish. InN. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp.113–144). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2016b) Entre la codificación y la inferencia: Los valores citativos de que inicial átono en español. InR. González Ruiz, D. Izquierdo Alegría & Ó. Loureda Lamas (Eds.), La evidencialidad en español: Teoría y descripción (pp.200–223). Vervuert/Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jørgensen, A. M.
    (Ed.) (2016) Corpus Oral del Lenguaje Adolescente (COLA). www.colam.org/om_prosj-espannol.html
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kay, P. & Michaelis, L.
    (2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. InC. Maienborn, K von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.2271–2296). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110253382.2271
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253382.2271 [Google Scholar]
  22. Panther, K. & Thornburg, L.
    (2011) Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. InM. Brdar, S. Gries & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp.87–114). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.32.09pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.09pan [Google Scholar]
    PRESEEA (2014–) Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América. Universidad de Alcalá. preseea.linguas.net
    [Google Scholar]
  24. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2018) Gramática de la lengua Española. Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rizzi, L.
    (1997) The fine structure of Left Periphery. InL. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar (pp.281–336). Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ronan, P.
    (2015) Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39, 25–45. 10.1515/icame‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  29. Samper, J. A., Hernández Cabrera, C. E. & Troya, M.
    (Eds.) (1998) Macrocorpus de la norma lingüística culta de las principales ciudades del mundo hispánico (MC-NLCH). CD-ROM. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sansiñena, M. S.
    (2015) The multiple functional load of que. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2017) Eliciting evidence of functional differences: The imperative versus free-standing que-clauses in Spanish. InD. Van Olmen & S. Heinold (Eds.), Imperatives and Directive Strategies (pp.265–289). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.184.09san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.184.09san [Google Scholar]
  32. Sansiñena, M. S., De Smet, H. & Cornillie, B.
    (2015) Displaced directives: Subjunctive free-standing que-clauses vs. imperatives in Spanish. Folia Linguistica, 49, 257–285. 10.1515/flin‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, S. Thompson & E. Schegloff (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmid, H.
  36. Siemund, P.
    (2018) Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a cross-linguistic context. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E.
    Introduction: The nature of the node and the network. Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Takahashi, H.
    (2012) A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.35 [Google Scholar]
  39. Traugott, E.
    (2018) Modeling language change with constructional networks. InS. Pons Bordería & Ó. Loureda Lamas (Eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New issues in the study of language change (pp.17–50). Brill. 10.1163/9789004375420_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375420_003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar (pp.141–179). Walter De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Olmen, D.
    (2011) The Imperative in English and Dutch: A functional analysis in comparable and parallel corpora. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Verstraete, J. C., D’Hertefelt, S. & Van linden, A.
    (2012) A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language, 36, 123–153. 10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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