1887
Volume 14, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In Spanish, and + infinitive are modal periphrases that convey deontic meanings. The present investigation analyzes these periphrases as variants used in diverse communicative settings by different kinds of participants, acting as either speakers/writers or addressees. + infinitive tends to appear in those contexts where a more striking implication or unavoidable recommendation is needed. + infinitive is used more in a wide range of genres promoting a desubjectivizing-deontic meaning. As for the sex/gender of the participants, men more frequently use + infinitive, whereas women tend to employ + infinitive. The latter feature was also found to be significant when the sex/gender of the addressee is unknown; also, + infinitive resulted more frequently in texts to be read or listened by women. The sociolinguistic distribution of the meanings conveyed by each periphrasis helps to delineate communicative styles based on the objectivity-subjectivity dimension.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20040.ser
2023-04-18
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel. A.
    2019Constructing us. The First and Second Persons in Spanish Media Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110643442
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110643442 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel and María José Serrano
    2013Style in Syntax. Investigating Variation in Spanish Pronoun System. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016 “A Matter of Style: Gender and Subject Variation in Spanish”. Gender and Language10 (2): 240–269. 10.1558/genl.v10i2.18325
    https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v10i2.18325 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell, Allan
    2014The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bodine, Ann
    1975 “Sex Differentiation in Language”. InLanguage and Sex: Difference and dominance, ed. byBarrie Thorne and Nancy Henley, 130–151. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boogart, Ronny and Egbert Fortuin
    2016 “Modality and Mood in Cognitive Linguistics and Construction Grammars”. InThe Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. byJan Nuyts and Johan van Auwera, 514–534. Oxford: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bravo, Ana and Luis García Fernández
    2016 “Perífrasis Verbales”. InEnciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica, ed. byJavier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 785–796. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315713441‑69
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713441-69 [Google Scholar]
  8. Broccias, Cristiano
    2016 “Cognitive Approaches to Grammar”. InCognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, ed. byGitte Kristiansen, Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Michel Achard and René Dirven, 81–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan and Suzanne Fleischman
    1995 “Modality in Grammar and Discourse: an Introductory Essay”. InModality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. byJoan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman, 1–14. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cameron, Deborah
    1985Feminist and Linguistic Theory. London: McMillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑17727‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17727-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coates, Jennifer
    1986Women, Men and Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny
    2001 “Girls’ Oppositional Stances: The Interactional Accomplishment of Gender in Nursery School and Family Life”. InGender in Interaction, ed. byBettina Baron and Helga Kotthoff, 21–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.93.05coo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.93.05coo [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, William and Allan D. Cruse
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cuyckens, Hubert, Kristin Davidse and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2010 “Introduction”. InSubjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. byHubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse and Lieven Vandelanotte, 1–26. Mouton: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.0.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Drager, Katie
    2015Linguistic Variation, Identity Construction and Cognition. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603352
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603352 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eckert, Penelope
    1993 “Cooperative Competition in Adolescent Girl Talk”. InGender and Conversational Interaction, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 32–61. Oxford: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. The Linguistic Construction of Social Meaning in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    2003Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791147
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147 [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken
    2007 “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise: an Overview”. InThe Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. byVyvyan Evans, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken, 2–36. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Giddens, Anthony
    2009Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gili Gaya, Samuel
    1980Curso Superior de Sintaxis Española. Barcelona: Biblograf.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Giora, Rachel
    2001 “Theorizing Gender: Feminist Awareness and Language Change”. InGender in Interaction, ed. byBettina Baron and Helga Kotthoff, 329–347. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.93.17gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.93.17gio [Google Scholar]
  23. Gómez Torrego, Leonardo
    1988Perífrasis verbales: sintaxis, semántica y estilística. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992La impersonalidad gramatical: descripción y norma. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goutier, N.
    2009 “The Origin of Social Approach in Language and Cognition Research Exemplified by Studies into the Origins of Language”. InLanguage and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind, ed. byHanna Pishwa, 25–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216080.1.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216080.1.25 [Google Scholar]
  26. Herring, Susan C.
    2003 “Gender and Power in Online Communication”. InThe Handbook of Language and Gendered. byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 202–223. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756942.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Herring, Susan C. and Sharon Stoerger
    2014 “Gender and (A)nonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication”. InThe Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, ed. bySusan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 567–586. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584248.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  28. Holmes, Janet
    2009 “Men, Masculinities and Leadership: Different Discourse Styles at Work”. InGender and Spoken Interaction, ed. byPia Pichler and Eva Eppler, 186–210. London: Palgrave McMillan. 10.1057/9780230280748_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280748_9 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2014 “Language and Gender in the Workplace”. InThe Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexualityed. bySusan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 433–452. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584248.ch22
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  30. James, Deborah
    1996Derogatory Terms for Men and Women: A New Look. Paper Presented atGender and Belief Systems: Fourth Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: California.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Labov, William
    1990 “The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change”. Language Variation and Change2(2), 205–254. 10.1017/S0954394500000338
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000338 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, George
    1990 “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics1 (1): 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, Robin
    1973Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper. 10.1017/S0047404500000051
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1985 “Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity”. InIconicity in Syntax, ed. byJohn Haiman, 109–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  35. 1999a “Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise”. InCognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology, ed. byTheo Janssen and Gisela Redeker, 15–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110803464.13
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.13 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1999bGrammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2016 “An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar”. InThe Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. byVyvyan Evans, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken, 444–480. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Leon, Felipe
    2017 “From Modal Skepticism to Modal Empiricism”. InModal Epistemology after Rationalism, ed. byBob Fischer and Felipe Leon, 247–262. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44309‑6_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44309-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Maltz, Daniel N. and Bolker, Ruth A.
    1982 “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication”. InLanguage and social identity, ed. byJohn. J. Gumperz, 196–216. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McCormick, K. M.
    2001 “Gender and Language”. InConcise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, ed. byRajend Mesthrie and R. E. Asher, 336–345. London: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Meyerhoff, M.
    2014 “Variation and Gender”. InThe Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality, ed. bySusan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 87–102. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584248.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mills, Sara
    2012Gender Matters. Feminist Linguistic Analysis. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mittelberg, Irene, Thomas A. Farmer and Linda R. Waugh
    2007 “They Actually Said That? An Introduction to Working with Usage Data through Discourse and Corpus Analysis”. InMethods in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byMónica González-Márquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson and Michael J. Spivey, 19–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.18.07mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.07mit [Google Scholar]
  46. NGLE
    NGLE 2010 Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. Nueva gramática de la lengua española, Madrid, Espasa Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nuyts, Jan
    2007 “Cognitive Linguistics and Functional Linguistics”. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byDirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 543–566. Oxford: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2016 “Analyses of the Modal Meanings”. InThe Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. byJan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera, 31–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Palmer, John
    2007Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Perkins, Michael R.
    1983Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pishwa, Hanna
    2009 “Linguistic Structures as Cues for Social Cognitive Functions: Introduction.” InLanguage and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind, ed. byHanna Pishwa, 1–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216080.0.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216080.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Portner, Paul
    2009Modality. Oxford: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ramson, Evelyn N.
    1977 “On the Representation of Modality”. Linguistics and Philosophy11: 357–379. 10.1007/BF00353454
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353454 [Google Scholar]
  54. Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española
    Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2005Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas. Madrid: Santillana.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sharifian, Farzad
    2009 “On Collective Cognition and Language”. InLanguage and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind, ed. byHanna Pishwa, 163–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216080.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216080.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  56. Serrano, María José
    2011 “Morphosyntactic Variation in Spain”. InHandbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics, ed. byManuel Díaz-Campos, 187–204. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444393446.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444393446.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2016 “La variación sintáctica”. InEnciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica, ed. byJavier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 809–821. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315713441‑146
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713441-146 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2020 “La textualización de la desubjetivización: variación entre la perífrasis haber que + infinitivo y el clítico se”. Oralia23 (1): 131–164. 10.25115/oralia.v23i1.6603
    https://doi.org/10.25115/oralia.v23i1.6603 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2021 “La modalidad deóntica como (de)subjetivación del discurso: variación entre las perífrasis haber/tener que+infinitivo», Anuario de Letras. Lingüística y Filología” IX (2): 43–79. 10.19130/iifl.adel.2021.9.2.47362
    https://doi.org/10.19130/iifl.adel.2021.9.2.47362 [Google Scholar]
  60. Serrano, María José and Miguel Ángel Aijón Oliva
    2011 “Syntactic Variation and Communicative Style”. Language Sciences331: 138–153. 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  61. Siewierska, Anna
    2004Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sunderland, Jane
    2004Gendered Discourses. New York: Palgrave McMillan. 10.1057/9780230505582
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505582 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2006Language and Gender. An Advance Resource Book. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203456491
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203456491 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tagliamonte, Sally
    2012Variationist Sociolinguistics. Change, Observation, Interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Talbot, Mary
    2010Language and Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Talmy, Leonard
    2007 “The Relation of Grammar to Cognition”. InThe Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. byVyvyan Evans, Bettina Bergen and Jörg Zinken, 481–544. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tannen, Deborah
    1986That’s not what I meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks your Relation with Others. New York: Morrow.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1991You Just Don’t Understand. London: Virago.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 1993 “The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies. Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance”. InGender and Conversational Interaction, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 165–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1997 “Yes: Women and Men Talking: an Interactional Sociolinguistic Approach”. InWomen, Men and Gender: Ongoing Debates, ed. byMary Roth Walsh, 82–90. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tyler, Andrea
    2008 “Introduction”. InLanguage in the Context of Use: Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language, ed. byAndrea Tyler, Kim Young and Mari Takada, 1–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1057/9780230612044_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612044_1 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-Jörg Schmid
    1996An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Herk, Gerard
    2012What is Sociolinguistics?Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Weatherall, Ann
    2000 Gender Relevance in Talk-in-Interaction in Discourse. Discourse and Society111: 290–292. 10.1177/0957926500011002012
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926500011002012 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zappavigna, Michele
    2012Discourse of Twitter and Social Media. London: Continuum Publishing group.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20040.ser
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20040.ser
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Deontics; Objectivity; Periphrasis; Sex/gender; Style; Subjectivity; Syntactic variation
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