1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Subjectification and conativity
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Conative constructions have enjoyed considerable attention over the past decade from a typological perspective. However, the historical development of conativity in individual languages has been largely neglected to date. In this paper, we put forth an exhaustive diachronic analysis of the Spanish verbal construction  + INF (currently ‘to attempt to INF’, whereby originally means ‘handle’). We show that, unlike many periphrases, + INF does not originate in a single construction, but emerges via the conflation of separate members in a constructional network whose meanings slowly converged (in the manner of mutually supporting constructions) around a volitional meaning to generate a conative structure. The discussion sheds light on likely constructionalization paths for the development of conative meaning and highlights the role of non-periphrastic constructions as a principal means of conveying certain core modal contents in particular languages.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
2024-02-27
2024-12-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W.
    (2012) (Inter)subjectification of foreign consciousness / Other’s mind alignment as synchronic and diachronic concepts of change?InW. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Covert patterns of modality (pp.–). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, G.
    (2004) Auxiliary verb constructions in Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beijering, K.
    (2012) Expressions of epistemic modality in mainland Scandinavian. A study into the lexicalization-grammaticalization-pragmaticalization interface. Zutphen: Wöhrmann Print Service (Groningen dissertations in linguistics 106). [Available online: irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/345722167 (accessed16 January 2019)]
  4. Bosque, I.
    (1985) Sobre las oraciones recíprocas en español. Revista Española de Lingüística, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cinque, G.
    (2001) Restructuring and the order of aspectual and root modal heads. InG. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp.–). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780585473949_009
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585473949_009 [Google Scholar]
  7. CORDE. Real Academia Española
    CORDE. Real Academia Española (2000) Corpus diacrónico del español. [Available online: corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html (accessedAugust-October 2018)]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cornillie, B.
    (2008) On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of Spanish evidential (semi-)auxiliaries. InE. Seoane & M. J. López Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.77.05cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.05cor [Google Scholar]
  9. Coupe, A.
    (2007) A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198522
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198522 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2018) Grammaticalization processes in the languages of South Asia. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Benito Moreno, C.
    (2022) The middle voice and connected constructions in Ibero-Romance: A variationist and dialectal account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/silv.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.29 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Smet, H., & Fischer, O.
    (2017) The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. InM. Hundt, S. Pfenninger & S. Mollin (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.011 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dowty, D.
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, , –. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, N., Levinson, S., Enfield, N., Gaby, A., & Majid, A.
    (2004) Reciprocal constructions and situation type. InAsifa Majid (Ed.), Field manual Volume 9 (pp.–). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernández de Castro, F.
    (1999) Las perífrasis verbales en el español actual. Madrid: Gredos.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Foley, W.
    (1986) The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. García Fernández, L., Carrasco, Á., Camus, B., Martínez-Atienza, M., & García, M.Á.
    (2006) Diccionario de perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Gredos.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2019) Explain me this. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grano, Th.
    (2011) Mental action and event structure in the semantics of try. Proceedings of SALT, , –. 10.3765/salt.v21i0.2607
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2607 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2017) Control, temporal orientation, and the cross-linguistic grammar of trying. Glossa, (), –. 10.5334/gjgl.335
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.335 [Google Scholar]
  23. Guentchéva, Z., & Rivière, N.
    (2007) Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in French. InV. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.71.19gue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.19gue [Google Scholar]
  24. Hagège, C.
    (2010) Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Haspelmath, M.
    (2023) On what a construction is. [Online draft, https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007200].
  26. Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F.
    (1991) Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Isačenko, A.
    (1964) On the connative function of language. InJ. Vachek (Ed.), A Prague school reader in linguistics (pp.–). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakobson, R.
    (1963) Essais de linguistique genérale. Paris: Minuit.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Knjazev, J.
    (2007) Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. InV. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.71.07knj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.07knj [Google Scholar]
  30. Koch, P.
    (2001) Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, , –. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc [Google Scholar]
  31. (2004) Metonymy between pragmatics, reference and diachrony. Metaphorik.de, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kulikov, L.
    (2011) Voice typology. InJ. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, R.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewis, C. T., & Short, Ch.
    (1879) A Latin dictionary. New York & Oxford: Harper & Brothers Publishers/Clarendon Press [Avalaible online: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059 (accessedAugust-October 2018)]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Morera, M.
    (1991) Diccionario crítico de las perífrasis verbales del español. Fuerteventura: Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Narrog, H., & Heine, B.
    (2011) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nedjalkov, V.
    (2007) Overview of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. InV. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.71.06ned
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.06ned [Google Scholar]
  39. Nuyts, J.
    (2012) Notions of (inter)subjectivity. InL. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersections of intersubjectivity (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Olbertz, H.
    (1998) Verbal periphrases in a functional grammar of Spanish. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110820881
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110820881 [Google Scholar]
  41. RAE / ASALE. Real Academia Española / Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española
    RAE / ASALE. Real Academia Española / Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009) Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Rákosi, G.
    (2008) The inherent reflexive and the inherent reciprocal predicate in Hungarian: Each to their own argument structure. InE. König & V. Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Cross-linguistic and theoretical explorations (pp.–). Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199147.411
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199147.411 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosemeyer, M., & Garachana, M.
    (2019) De la consecución a la contraexpectación: la construccionalización de lograr/conseguir + infinitivoStudies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/shll‑2019‑2018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2019-2018 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rumsey, A.
    (2003) Language, desire, and the ontogenesis of intersubjectivity. Language & Communication, , –. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(02)00042‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00042-3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Siloni, T.
    (2012) Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural language and linguistic theory, (), –. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9144‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9144-2 [Google Scholar]
  46. Strauss, S.
    (2002) Distinctions in completives: The relevance of resistance in Korean V-a/e pelita and V-ko malta and Japanese V-te shimau”. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80009‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80009-1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tamm, A.
    (2012) Scalar verb classes: scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the Estonian aspectual lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press. 10.36253/978‑88‑6655‑055‑6
     https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-6655-055-6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Thegel, M., & Lindgren, J.
    (2020) Subjective and intersubjective modality: a quantitative approach to Spanish modal verbs. Studia Neophilologica, (), –. 10.1080/00393274.2020.1724822
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2020.1724822 [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Constructions in grammaticalization. InB. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.–). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InK. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.–). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  51. Traugott, E. C., & Hopper, P.
    (2003 [1993]) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Vincent, N.
    (2013) Conative. Linguistic Typology, (), –. 10.1515/lity‑2013‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2013-0012 [Google Scholar]
  54. Voinov, V.
    (2013) ‘Seeing’ is ‘Trying’: The relation of visual perception to attemptive modality in the world’s languages. Language and Cognition, , –. 10.1515/langcog‑2013‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Yllera, A.
    (1980) Sintaxis histórica del verbo español: las perífrasis medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Zeisler, B.
    (2004) Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908183 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
Loading
Subjectification and conativity
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: conative constructions ; verbal periphrases ; supporting constructions ; historical linguistics (Spanish)

Most Cited

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