Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) 9780198847182, 0198847181

Citation preview

Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N D IAC H R O N I C AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Oxford recently published in the series 39 Dative External Possessors in Early English Cynthia L. Allen 40 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, and David Willis 41 Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar Edited by Sam Wolfe and Martin Maiden 42 Phonetic Causes of Sound Change The Palatalization and Assibilation of Obstruents Daniel Recasens 43 Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by Jo´hannes Gı´sli Jo´nsson and Tho´rhallur Eytho´rsson 44 Romance Object Clitics Microvariation and Linguistic Change Diego Pescarini 45 The Diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Romanian Virginia Hill and Alexandru Mardale 46 Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish Patrı´cia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 185–89

Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish PAT RÍC IA A M A R A L MA N U E L DE L IC A D O C A N T ERO

1

3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. © Patrı´cia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero 2022 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021936322 ISBN 978-0-19-884718-2 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third-party websites are provided by Oxford University Press in good faith and for information only. Oxford University Press disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third-party website referenced in this work.

Para Dieter Wanner, maestro y amigo mestre e amigo

Contents Series preface Acknowledgments List of figures and tables List of abbreviations

1. Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Aims and motivation for this book Theoretical issues and broader contributions Corpus data and data use Summary of the book

2. Syntactic and semantic change in clause-taking nominal constructions 2.1 Clause-taking nominals 2.1.1 Nouns taking clauses 2.1.2 Constructions

2.2 Current approaches to semantic and syntactic change 2.2.1 Language-internal mechanisms of syntactic change 2.2.2 Semantic change 2.2.3 Consequences of syntactic and semantic change

2.3 Nouns taking finite clauses: the common analogical change

3. Clausal adjunction 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Abstract entities and their linguistic realization: events and facts 3.3 Present-day overview: hecho (Spanish) and feito/facto (Portuguese) 3.4 The historical data 3.4.1 Spanish hecho and el hecho de (que) 3.4.2 Portuguese feito and facto

3.5 Syntactic change: discussion 3.6 Semantic change: discussion 3.7 Conclusion

4. Connectives 4.1 Introduction

ix x xi xii

1 1 4 6 8

11 11 11 16 18 18 21 25 28

33 33 34 40 45 45 53 63 67 78

80 80

viii

contents

4.2 Spanish sin embargo (de que) and Portuguese sem embargo (de que) 4.2.1 The historical data 4.2.2 Interim conclusion

4.3 Spanish so pena de (que), Portuguese sob pena de (que) 4.3.1 The historical data

4.4 Syntactic and semantic change 4.4.1 Reanalysis, recategorization, and syntactic compositionality 4.4.2 Paths of semantic change

4.5 Conclusion

5. Light verb constructions 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Introduction The concept of ‘light verb’; LVCs in diachrony LVCs in Spanish and Portuguese Synchronic overview: present-day Spanish and Portuguese 5.4.1 Spanish consejo and Portuguese conselho 5.4.2 Spanish dar (Det) consejo de and Portuguese dar (Det) conselho de

5.5 Diachronic overview 5.5.1 Spanish consejo and Portuguese conselho 5.5.2 The LVC: Spanish dar (Det) consejo de and Portuguese dar (Det) conselho de

5.6 Continuity and change 5.7 Conclusion

6. Conclusion 6.1 Chronology of the properties of the nouns and constructions 6.2 Recategorization, compositionality, and mechanisms of change 6.3 From theory to historical data and back again

References Index

80 82 93 94 95 104 104 107 117

119 119 120 122 130 130 133 141 143 147 153 155

157 160 162 165

169 183

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past, and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focussing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science, as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

Acknowledgments The origins of this book go back to the summer (winter in the south) of 2015 and the conversations we had then in the campus of Australian National University in Canberra. Several people and institutions have helped us during this journey. We wish to thank ANU’s Research School of the Humanities and the Arts (RSHA) for supporting our research with RSHA External Visitor funds, which allowed Patrı´cia to visit the ANU in June–July 2015, and for funding Manuel’s trip to Indiana University a year later. Patrı´cia gratefully acknowledges the support of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Indiana University for a Faculty Residential Fellowship during the Spring of 2020, which supported part of the research for this book. She also thanks Eliot Raynor and Juan Escalona Torres for their contributions as research assistants at different stages of this work. Manuel would like to acknowledge the support of an OSP (Outside Studies Program) granted for semester 2, 2017. At a personal level, we are grateful for the support and advice provided by many of our colleagues. At ANU, we specially want to thank Cindy Allen, Catherine Travis, Josh Brown, Zhengdao Ye, and Kate Mitchell for their support at different times along the process. At Indiana University, we want to thank Kim Geeslin, Manuel Dı´az Campos, Clancy Clements, Sandra Ku¨bler, and Steve Wagschal. Beyond the ANU and IU, we want to thank the many colleagues whose comments and feedback at international conferences have benefited our research, in particular, the audiences at HLS 2015 (UI Urbana-Champaign), ICHL 23 (UT San Antonio), ICHL 24 (ANU, Canberra), and LSRL 50 (UT Austin). We also thank three anonymous reviewers of the book proposal and the final manuscript for insightful comments, as well as Julia Steer and the entire OUP editorial team for their help. Finally, we are grateful for the constant support and encouragement from Lino Mioni and William Steed, sine quibus non, and our families and friends around the world, los que esta´n y los que se fueron demasiado pronto.

List of figures and tables Figures 3.1. Diagram of types of abstract objects, from Asher (1993: 57).

38

Tables 3.1. Syntactic properties of fecho/hecho in diachrony.

49

3.2. Syntactic properties of feito in diachrony.

59

3.3. Syntactic properties of facto in diachrony.

62

3.4. Classification of the meanings of hecho in Spanish and feito/facto in Portuguese.

76

4.1. Syntactic properties of sin/sem embargo in diachrony.

87

4.2. Syntactic properties of the noun embargo in diachrony.

89

4.3. Syntactic properties of so(b) pena (de) in diachrony.

99

4.4. Syntactic properties of pena (de) in diachrony.

102

5.1. Summary of the distribution of dar (Det) consejo/conselho de.

138

5.2. Distribution of the nouns consejo and conselho in isolation.

147

5.3. Summary of the distribution of dar (Det) consejo/conselho de over time.

152

6.1. Summary of earliest attestations of the nouns (in isolation) in Spanish.

161

6.2. Summary of earliest attestations of the constructions in Spanish.

161

6.3. Summary of earliest attestations of the nouns (in isolation) in Portuguese.

162

6.4. Summary of earliest attestations of the constructions in Portuguese.

162

List of abbreviations ASALE AxPart AxPartP c. CdE CdP CEN CIPM CORDE CP CREA DA DACL Det DP DRAE DVPM ex. GNMCC IITSC KP LFG LVC N NMCC NP NumP P P PlaceP PP RAE RN S SEN vP

Asociacio´n de Academias de la Lengua Española axial part axial part phrase century Corpus del español (Davies) Corpus do português (Davies) complex event noun Corpus informatizado do português medieval Corpus diacro´nico del español complementizer phrase Corpus de referencia del español actual Diccionario de autoridades Diciona´rio da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa determiner determiner phrase Diccionario de la Real Academia Española Diciona´rio de verbos do português medieval example general noun-modifying clause construction invited inferencing theory of semantic change Kase phrase Lexical Functional Grammar light verb construction noun nominal modifying clause construction noun phrase number phrase Portuguese preposition place phrase prepositional phrase Real Academia Española result noun Spanish simple event noun light verb phrase

list of abbreviations

Abbreviations used in glosses inf fut pl prs pst refl sg subj

infinitival Future (tense) Plural (number) Present (tense) Past (tense) se pronoun; reflexive or with pronominal verbs Singular (number) Subjunctive (mood)

xiii

1 Introduction 1.1 Aims and motivation for this book The goal of this book is to explore the semantic and syntactic evolution of three types of noun-based constructions in Spanish and Portuguese, namely (i) complex DPs with clausal adjunction as in (1), (ii) complex prepositions/complementizers and complex connectives, illustrated in (2), and (iii) complex predicates containing light verbs as in (3). Albeit syntactically different, what these constructions have in common is that they are clause-taking complex expressions containing a noun followed by a functional preposition, typically de (‘of ’): (1) O chova é um grande O facto facto de de que que não the fact of that not rain-prs.subj.3sg be.prs.3sg a big problema (Portuguese) problem ‘The fact that it is not raining is a big problem’. (2) si el medio cambia, la especie … necesariamente if the environment change-prs.3sg, the species necessarily so pena pena de de que que se so también lo hara´, also it do-fut.3sg, on pain of that refl extinga (Spanish, CREA, Spain) extinguish-prs.subj.3sg ‘if the environment changes, so will the species, lest it go extinct’. dio el (3) Les fueran (Spanish) dio el consejo consejo de de que que se them give-pst.3sg the advice of that refl leave-pst.subj.3pl ‘S/he advised them to leave’. The nouns examined here are clause-taking nouns. Historically, these constructions were all affected by a syntactic change in the 16–17th centuries by which the noun comes to take a finite clause introduced by a preposition (Tarr, 1922; Dias, 1959; Brandão, 1963; Bogard and Company Company, 1989; Serradilla Castaño, 1995, 1997; Delicado Cantero, 2013). They are found both in Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish. Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero, Oxford University Press. © Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero (2022). DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.003.0001

2

introduction

Portuguese and in Spanish, which allows us to do a comparative examination of their changes. A number of theoretical questions arise in connection with these complex expressions: How did they emerge and evolve? What were the mechanisms involved? Is their development best explained in terms of loss of internal structure/syntactic analyzability, i.e. the creation of a “chunklike” unit in the sense of Bybee (2010)? Does the loss of categorial properties, especially the possible recategorization or decategorization of the noun, play a role in their development? How did the meaning of the noun change when considered in isolation and when compared to the meaning of the whole construction? Are the semantic changes idiosyncratic or can we identify regular patterns? The answers to these questions will help us better understand mechanisms of semantic and syntactic change, the nature of syntactic categories, and the ways in which categories change over time. In addition, we hope to use the comparison between two closely related languages (especially when developments diverge) to inform theories of syntactic and semantic change. The constructions in (i)–(iii) that we focus on have been studied separately and typically with focus just on one language. The complex DPs in (i) have been explored by linguists interested in clausal modification, nominalization, and semantic notions like factivity. Demonte (1977), Leonetti (1999), Barbosa (2013), and Brito (2013) explore the interface between syntax and semantics of clausal nominalization, as well as factivity in Spanish and Portuguese, from a formal point of view. The nature of the embedded clause figures prominently in recent syntactic discussions, e.g. de Cuba (2017) argues against the nature of the embedded clause as a relative clause. Bogard and Company Company (1989) explore the diachrony of nouns taking finite clauses in Spanish from a functional point of view. Serradilla Castaño (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997) provides a general explanation of the evolution of clausal complementation and adjunction to nouns, verbs and adjectives in the history of Spanish (see also Cano Aguilar, 1985 and Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, 2005). Huber (1933), Dias (1959) and Mattos e Silva (1989) discuss the properties of these constructions in Portuguese. Delicado Cantero (2013) examines the diachrony of finite clauses introduced by lexical and functional prepositions in the history of Spanish and other Romance languages, including Portuguese, thus providing groundwork for the current project. However, these studies have focused mostly on the syntactic properties of either one DP or a group of DPs without taking into account its semantic development or the properties of the noun in the complex construction.

1.1 aims and motivation for this book

3

A second shortcoming of earlier studies, in particular works on the grammaticalization of connectives in (ii), is that they have investigated each construction in isolation. For example, Garachana Camarero (1997, 1998) analyzes the evolution of sin embargo (‘however’) and assumes a metaphorbased semantic change for the whole construction in its grammaticalization toward a connective. Such a perspective tends to overlook the internal structure of these complex units containing nouns and thus disregards structural properties shared with other complex prepositions and connectives (i.e. the shared structure

). The evolution of complex prepositions has been explored mainly from a functional grammaticalization perspective (Cifuentes Honrubia, 2003). Classic works on complex complementizers include Tarr (1922), who investigates the evolution of all sorts of complex complementizers in the history of Spanish, and Herman (1963), who studies many Romance languages. Barreto (2002) explores the evolution of Portuguese complex complementizers. In synchrony, Pavo´n Lucero (1999) studies several complex complementizers in present-day Spanish from a formal perspective, as does Duarte (2003b) for contemporary Portuguese (see also Delicado Cantero, 2013). While these works attest to the considerable theoretical interest of these constructions, they leave a number of unresolved puzzles: What is the relation between syntactic and semantic change in their development and the overall mechanisms that explain their change as a class? Are there commonalities in their chronology that can be explained by their structure? Work on light verb constructions (LVCs) in (iii) has focused on the nature of light categories and the role of the light verb vis-à-vis the noun. Recent treatments of these constructions fall into two groups. In the first group, stemming mainly from formal frameworks, the focus is on contemporary data. These studies discuss the division of labor between the light verb and the noun in terms of argument projection and selection: whether the verb projects its own arguments or whether it is the noun that controls the arguments of the whole complex predicate. Other issues addressed within these frameworks are semantic compositionality and the syntactic properties of the resulting complex structure (i.e. noun incorporation or lack thereof, the presence or absence of a determiner). For contemporary Spanish and Portuguese, such works include Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999), Piera and Varela (1999), Bosque (2001), Alonso Ramos (2004), and de Miguel (2008, 2011) for Spanish, and Duarte (2003a: 311–14), Scher (2005), Gonçalves et al. (2010), and Gonçalves and Raposo (2013: 1214–18) for Portuguese. A second group of works has focused on diachronic data. The diachronic perspective has received much less attention, as pointed out for light verbs in general by Bowern (2008).

4

introduction

There is some research on change in light verb constructions in Spanish (Dubsky, 1963; Cano Aguilar, 1985; Blanco, 1995; Serradilla Castaño, 1996b; Alba-Salas, 2007, 2016, 2017). To our knowledge, there are no such studies on Portuguese. Given the high number of light verbs and LVCs in both Spanish and Portuguese in the Middle Ages, this scarcity of studies leaves us with an incomplete picture of the verbal domain in older stages of these languages. Such knowledge would help us better understand the landscape of complex predicates in the history of Ibero-Romance. Another missing aspect is a diachronic study of the nouns that are part of LVCs. What types of nouns do we find in these constructions? How did they behave in isolation and in the LVCs? We need a detailed analysis of the syntactic and semantic properties of the LVCs in Spanish and Portuguese over time, e.g. with respect to compositionality and syntactic analyzability. Such an approach makes it possible to investigate the behavior of the noun and the properties of the LVC within the context of broader changes taking place in these languages. In sum, owing to their limited scope (only syntactic or semantic analysis; analysis of one construction in isolation; focus on either synchrony or diachrony), the existing studies on complex constructions in Spanish and Portuguese leave many unresolved puzzles. In addition, existing studies failed to notice the chronological coincidence of changes involving the three types of constructions containing nouns in (i)–(iii). A change in clausal structure in Spanish and Portuguese in the 16th–17th centuries systematically affected clause-taking nouns as well as the complex expressions containing those nouns. This change, which also affected verbs and adjectives, provides more than historical background. Not only is this syntactic change instrumental in the development of the complex constructions but it also reveals the role of the noun in their development, which has been overlooked in previous diachronic studies of both languages. In all three complex constructions examined, a view of the relation between the noun and finite clauses is essential to understand the creation of the complex construction. This insight also allows us to look more closely at the properties of such nouns in diachrony.

1.2 Theoretical issues and broader contributions The book contributes to current conversations on three theoretical issues in the field. The first is the relation between (re)categorization and change. We ask, how are categorial properties affected by language change? It is well known that lexical categories like noun undergo “bleaching” in meaning and lose

1.2 theoretical issues and broader contributions

5

structural properties when they become part of a complex expression with grammatical meaning (Bybee et al., 1994; Hopper and Traugott, 2003). But which structural properties resist change and remain, and which ones do not, is important to know in order to understand what “nouniness” (Ross, 1973) is and how it is affected by change. All languages have the category noun (Baker, 2003), so it is imperative to understand how language change affects a category at the grammatical core. To our knowledge, few studies have compared the changes undergone by a noun in isolation to its changes when the noun is part of a complex expression. Such a comparison is crucial if we want to examine whether the creation of the complex unit is necessarily related to a loss in categorial properties of the noun. In addition, we examine what happens to the noun in different syntactic environments (e.g. within a complex preposition and in an LVC). The relation between categorial properties and change also matters from a semantic perspective. In studies on semantic change, most claims about changes in the meaning of nouns rely on object-denoting nouns, e.g. cell (as in cell phone) or mouse. In fact, these are textbook examples of changes of meaning in the lexical domain (Campbell, 2013; Hamilton et al., 2016). Such nouns have undergone changes that were driven by technological and cultural shifts, which are unpredictable and hence not of interest to linguists studying language-internal mechanisms of change. By contrast, the current work focuses on nouns that denote events or results of events, and hence aims to contribute to diachronic semantics by bringing these nouns to the forefront. Second, this book sheds new light on the role of compositionality in diachrony. The principle of compositionality has been mostly prevalent in synchronic studies of languages. While compositionality may seem to blur or even disappear in the creation of complex expressions, new items nevertheless continue to enter into constructions compositionally (Vincent, 2013; Deo, 2015). Discussions of compositionality often assume radical changes, i.e. from a compositional stage to a loss of compositionality at the target stage, assumed as final. We examine this question in a stepwise manner, which allows us to obtain a more fine-grained picture of the creation of complex expressions over time. In addition, we also trace the diachronic properties of the nouns outside the complex expression in a stepwise manner. Understanding how each element in a complex construction contributes to the meaning of the whole is essential in testing the relevance of compositionality in language change. Third, our work engages with current debates on mechanisms of language change. Specifically, we offer an empirically based examination of the concept

6

introduction

of multiple causation (Fischer, 2013; De Smet et al., 2015), which has been proposed but never systematically investigated beyond isolated changes in individual languages. Our large, comparative corpus analysis of Portuguese and Spanish makes it possible to tease apart individual from general changes. Existing studies of the three types of constructions we analyze, owing to their partial focus, failed to explain the chronological clustering of changes involving complex constructions in both languages. As we show, the fact that the constructions containing nouns all display similar patterns of distribution and a similar chronology is not a coincidence, but rather stems from the change in clausal structure in these languages in the 16th–17th centuries. The three cases we examine allow us to tease apart mechanisms that affect one specific construction from mechanisms that have an impact on the entire language, and to understand how they are related. Unlike earlier studies, which either focus on one construction in isolation or explore only either the syntactic or the semantic side of the change, this book has a wider scope and hence provides a broader perspective on mechanisms of language change and their outcomes in two sister languages. To the best of our knowledge, this book provides the first systematic comparison of complex constructions containing nouns in the history of Portuguese and Spanish. There is a dire need for detailed empirical studies of closely related languages, which can reveal distinct developments occurring in parallel over time, a crucial test case for theories of language change.

1.3 Corpus data and data use This study is corpus-based, in the sense of Jenset and McGillivray (2017). Unless otherwise indicated, we obtained our data from commonly consulted online corpora, freely available to any researcher. For Spanish, we obtained the historical data from Mark Davies’s Corpus del Español (henceforth, CdE; www.corpusdelespanol.org/hist-gen/) and the Real Academia Española’s (RAE) Corpus Diacro´nico del Español (henceforth, CORDE; corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html). The CdE includes more than 100 million words. The CORDE includes 236,709.914 words. For Portuguese we used Mark Davies’s Corpus do Português (henceforth, CdP; www.corpusdoportugues.org/hist-gen/), as well as the Corpus Informatizado do Português Medieval (referred to as CIPM; cipm.fcsh.unl.pt/), which contains Portuguese texts from the 12th to the 16th centuries. The CdP is smaller than its Spanish counterpart, with more than 45 million words; the CIPM includes 2,053.582 words. For verbs, we have used Xavier et al.’s

1.3 corpus data and data use

7

(2003) online Diciona´rio de Verbos do Português Medieval (DVPM), from clunl.fcsh.unl.pt/recursos-em-linha/dicionario-de-verbos-portugues-medieval-dvpm/. Some additional Portuguese examples are from Cunha (2014). For contemporary data, we used both the contemporary (20th–21st centuries) sections in CdE and CdP, RAE’s Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA, corpus.rae.es/creanet.html), and web searches when necessary. The Internet provides us with naturally occurring utterances from a variety of sources (e.g. newspaper articles, blogs). Given the size of the Internet corpus, it is impossible to collect all instances of the relevant noun or construction; our purpose is simply to provide evidence for the existence of these forms, i.e. to document attested uses in contemporary varieties of Spanish and Portuguese. We do not make claims about frequency of a particular structure or interpretation. For each example, we provide the information on the corpus and the country, if it is a corpus example. For online examples not extracted from a corpus, we provide the link and date of access as footnotes in each case. This ensures that the examples can be retrieved later for further consultation to the best of our abilities. Furthermore, in each example we provide the language, noted S (Spanish) or P (Portuguese), to assist the reader. The use of historical data brings with it well-known methodological challenges, including some philological problems (Sa´nchez-Prieto Borja, 2015; a.o.). We are aware that manuscript transmission may affect spelling as well as lexical, morphological, and syntactic properties of the texts (Ferna´ndezOrdo´ñez, 2002, 2006; Wanner, 2006; Brocardo, 2019). To provide the reader with all the information regarding textual sources, the details of medieval manuscripts contain both the date of composition and the date of the copy to the best of our knowledge and when the information is available, in line with Wanner (2006), Alba-Salas (2017) and others. For Spanish, we have consulted Gago Jover’s (2011) online Digital Library of Old Spanish Texts, Faulhaber et al.’s (1984) Bibliography of Old Spanish Texts (third edition), both projects by the Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, Faulhaber’s (1997) online resource PhiloBiblon and Alvar and Lucı´a Megı´as (2002). In line with Wanner (2006), we provide both the century of composition and the century of the actual copy when they differ, as follows:

15th c.–16th c.–16th c. c. (4) a. Carrillo, Cro´nica del halconero de Juan II, 15th b. Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th 13th c. c. 15th/16th c. 15th/16th c. c. Gran cro´nica de Alfonso XI, 14th c.–

8

introduction

In (4a) we want to convey the fact that, according to our sources, the date of composition is the 15th century, but the actual manuscript was copied in the 16th century. In (4b) the single date is meant to convey that both the date of composition and copy are in the same century. In (4c) the copy in the corpus is from the 15th or 16th century; we mark this span across centuries by using a / between the century numbers. For Portuguese, we have relied on the information available in the CdP, which for medieval texts uses the versions from the CIPM. The information provided by the CIPM is generally considered the reference for these texts.1 Unfortunately, there is no indication of the actual manuscript, thus we are unable to check PhiloBiblon to provide more accurate information about the date of copy of the Portuguese texts. When we provide a definition from the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española (DRAE), we are referring to the online version (dle.rae.es) and the same holds for the Diccionario de Autoridades (DA) (web.frl.es/DA.html). For Portuguese, we use the Diciona´rio da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa (2001) (DACL) and several dictionaries in print that also appear in the references. Finally, given the large number of examples in the book, example numbering restarts in each chapter. We provide glosses for the first examples in each chapter in order to illustrate the structure of the relevant construction. Owing to the number and size of the examples and especially to the limited role of morphological features in the overall (diachronic) discussion, detailed glosses are unfeasible in the rest of the chapter. Hence, we just provide the translation and underline the relevant part of each example. Our English translations are idiomatic and do not try to reproduce the structure of the original examples.

1.4 Summary of the book In the following we provide a brief summary of each chapter. Chapter 2, “Syntactic and semantic change in clause-taking nominal constructions,” provides an overview of the literature on clause-taking nouns as well as previous studies focusing on Spanish and Portuguese. This chapter also reviews the theoretical approaches to language change that will provide the framework for our analysis in subsequent chapters. Finally, we summarize the 1 There are a few cases in which the CIPM explicitly mentions the difference between the date of the text and the date of the copies, e.g. for the Vidas de Santos de um Manuscrito Alcobacense: the text is from the 13th to the 14th centuries and the copies are from the 15th century. All editions used as sources for the texts are provided on the CIPM website.

1.4 summary of the book

9

syntactic change affecting clause-taking nouns in the history of Spanish and Portuguese and we identify gaps in the knowledge of how they developed that will be addressed in the book. Chapter 3, “Clausal adjunction,” analyzes the properties of the clause-taking nouns hecho and feito/facto in Spanish and Portuguese. We present the divergent development of the Latin noun factu(m) in these languages from the 13th to the 21st centuries. We show how the different outcomes of factu(m) in these languages—Spanish hecho and Portuguese feito and facto—reveal patterns of syntactic and semantic change that have been overlooked in the literature on nouns. First, we show how the semantic shift undergone by hecho and facto explains their compatibility with finite clauses from the 17th century onward. While the semantic change has this syntactic correlate, we show that there is no loss of nominal status of the nouns hecho and facto; they continue to allow modification and pluralization both in isolation and while taking clauses. The noun feito in Portuguese retains its original eventive meaning and accordingly cannot combine with finite clauses. We also show that there is a difference between “fact” as an ontological category within typologies of abstract entities and the actual denotation of its cognate nouns across languages. Our examination of the corpus data of Spanish and Portuguese leads us to question the definition of “fact” as the denotation of a factive clause, with consequences for both historical and contemporary data. We show that historically the nouns hecho and facto first displayed an eventive meaning and then acquired a fact-like meaning as well as an additional value of ‘subject matter, topic,’ hence bringing a historical perspective to semantic typologies of abstract entities in discourse. To our knowledge, this is the first study that analyzes such semantic notions in diachrony. In Chapter 4, “Connectives,” we investigate the role played by two nouns in the development of Spanish and Portuguese sentence connectives. We outline the properties of two nouns, embargo ‘impediment, obstacle’ and pena ‘penalty’ over time, alongside the creation of two sentence connectives containing these nouns: sin/sem embargo ‘however’ and so/sob pena de (que) ‘lest; under penalty of; unless.’ A detailed comparison between these connectives and the syntactic properties of nouns shows that a sweeping change affecting clause structure in both languages in the 15th and 16th centuries also affected the nouns embedded in these constructions. The development of the connectives follows the same chronology, which shows that the properties of the nouns involved were not entirely lost in the complex expression. The findings of this chapter provide evidence against the current view of constructions as unanalyzable units in language change (Torres Cacoullos, 2006) and

10

introduction

hence make two crucial contributions. First, we show the need for a more compositional view of constructions, that can accommodate the fine-grained interplay between the properties of the nouns and the emerging unit. Second, we show that in complex expressions nouns lose certain categorial properties (e.g. the ability to occur with articles and adjectives) but not others (their subcategorization). The latter properties affect the development of the sentence connectives. These findings allow us to propose a new typology of nominal properties based on the behavior of nouns in the diachrony of complex expressions. Chapter 5, “Light verb constructions,” analyzes one example from a set of complex constructions found abundantly in Medieval Spanish and Medieval Portuguese, Light Verb Constructions (LVCs). These complex predicates are formed by verbs with reduced content—light verbs—and nouns (e.g. English give a shout). Specifically, the chapter focuses on the LVC dar consejo (Spanish) and dar conselho (Portuguese). Following the format of previous chapters, we compare the properties of the construction over time with the properties of the noun in isolation. This comparison allows us to address long-standing questions in the study of LVCs concerning the role of the verb and the role of the noun, from a diachronic perspective. We discuss issues like argument structure and the presence or absence of reanalysis, and we test extant hypotheses regarding compositionality, using data from the 13th to the 21st centuries. In this specific case we observe little semantic change and some syntactic change; as is the case for other LVCs across languages, there is relative stability over time. Our findings contribute to the relatively small set of studies of the history of LVCs across languages. Our focus is on the lexical properties of nouns forming part of LVCs and the syntactic and semantic properties of these complex predicates in Ibero-Romance. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the book with a summary of the main findings and their implications and identifies new lines of research suggested by this work.

2 Syntactic and semantic change in clause-taking nominal constructions This chapter presents the theoretical background for the historical analysis of the nominal constructions studied in this book. First, we give an overview of previous research on clause-taking nouns and then we review current approaches to language change, which we build on in the next chapters. Finally, we summarize the previous literature on the history of clause-taking nouns in Spanish and Portuguese.

2.1 Clause-taking nominals 2.1.1 Nouns taking clauses All the constructions studied in the following chapters involve nouns taking a clause, albeit in different ways. For this reason, we begin with an overview of research examining the syntactic and semantic literature on clause-taking nouns. Two aspects are particularly relevant: (i) the nature of nouns taking clauses, especially the concept of eventive noun, and (ii) the link between the clause and the noun, which is related to the general question of the argument structure of nouns. We start by reviewing existing definitions of eventive noun. Bosque (1999), Picallo (1999), and Raposo (2013) examine the nature of eventive nouns in Spanish and Portuguese. Consider the following Spanish example: (1)

´´nn de los datos de la encuesta (S, Picallo, 1999: 368) La evaluacio evaluacio ‘The evaluation of the data from the survey’.

The interpretation of the derived noun in this example is ambiguous between the developing process1 of evaluating the data, and an object, namely the 1 Eventive nouns include all sorts of events, i.e. activities, achievements, and accomplishments (Raposo, 2013; a.o.). Much of the discussion about the syntactic nature of eventive nouns revolves

Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish. Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero, Oxford University Press. © Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero (2022). DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.003.0002

12

syntactic and semantic change

resulting evaluation of the data, the final report. The first interpretation is said to be that of an eventive noun, while the second is typical of a result/noneventive noun (Picallo, 1999: 369). Bosque (1999: 51) extends the label eventive to include both deverbal (e.g. cacerı´a ‘hunting’) and non-deverbal nouns (e.g. curso ‘course’). Raposo (2013: 1048–9) does the same for Portuguese. The main criterion here is semantic: an event interpretation as opposed to an object interpretation. The denotation of eventive nouns may take place, begin, and end (Bosque, 1999: 51). As with the deverbal noun evaluacio´n, the same noun may have both interpretations according to the context; in (2a) the non-deverbal noun concierto (‘concert’) refers to the event of music playing, while in (2b) it refers to a written object, a musical composition (‘concerto’): (2)

a. Llegamos tarde al concierto concierto (S, Bosque, 1999: 52) Eventive ‘We arrived late at the concert’. b. El concierto concierto está escrito en Re menor (S, Bosque, 1999: 52) Object, non-eventive ‘The concerto is written in D minor’.

Thus, the label eventive is linked to event-denoting nouns, both deverbal and non-deverbal. De Miguel (2008: 575), (2011: 141) remarks that a noun may be coerced or reinterpreted as eventive, in the sense of Pustejovsky, 1995; i.e. novela (‘novel’) in empezar una novela (‘to start [reading] a novel’). Such nouns may co-occur with predicates denoting duration, beginning, and ending (of an event). Much of the literature on these types of nouns goes back to Grimshaw (1990). Grimshaw argues for subtypes of nouns, complex event nouns (CENs) (a) and “other nouns” (b): (3)

a. The examination of the patients took a long time (Grimshaw, 1990: 49). b. The exam was on the table (Grimshaw, 1990: 49).

In (3a) we see a noun that refers to a process and thus may be measured in time; in contrast, in (3b) we see a noun denoting an object, which is the result around derived nouns, especially cases of deverbal nominalization such as evaluación (‘evaluation’) or the nominalized –ing forms in English; however, as we will soon see, non-derived nouns may also be eventive.

2.1 clause-taking nominals

13

of some process; this is exactly what we saw above for Spanish and Portuguese. CENs are characterized by several key syntactic behaviors, including their inability to combine with determiners other than the definite article (4a), their inability to pluralize (4b) or to occur predicatively or with copular be (4c), among other features (Grimshaw, 1990: 54ff.): (4)

a. They observed the/*an/*one/*that assignment of the problem (Grimshaw, 1990: 54). b. *The assignments of the problems took a long time (Grimshaw, 1990: 54). c. *That was the/an assignment of the problem (Grimshaw, 1990: 55).

So far we have seen a binary classification, eventive as opposed to result/object. However, one key addition in Grimshaw is her introduction of a third subtype of noun, the simple event noun (SEN). SENs are not CENs but are still eventive precisely because “[t]here are many nominals that seem to denote events but do not behave like the complex event nominals” (Grimshaw, 1990: 58). Typical SENs include trip, event, race, exam. These behave like the Spanish non-derived eventive nouns curso or concierto listed above when denoting events (Bosque, 1999). As event-denoting nouns, SENs are compatible with predicates denoting ‘occur’ or ‘take place’, may combine with determiners such as that but disallow frequent and constant unless they are in plural form (Grimshaw, 1990: 59): (5)

a. b. c. d.

That trip/event took three weeks (Grimshaw, 1990: 59). That trip/those trips took three weeks (Grimshaw, 1990: 59). *The frequent trip/event was a nuisance (Grimshaw, 1990: 59). The frequent trips/events were a nuisance (Grimshaw, 1990: 59).

However, since they lack an internal event structure, SENs do not accept any aspectual modifiers: (6)

in five five hours/for hours/for five five hours hours was interesting *Jack’s trip in (Grimshaw, 1990: 59).

Hence, we have a tripartite division: on the one hand, two types of eventive nouns, namely truly eventive CENs and SENs, and on the other hand, result nouns, which must be limited to non-event-denoting nouns. Unfortunately, it seems to us that the actual difference between SENs and result nouns continues to be somewhat unclear (Grimshaw, 1990: 59). One difference seems to be that SENs denote events and may have complements (Grimshaw, 1990: 92);

14

syntactic and semantic change

result nouns (RNs) do not denote events in any way and may only have modifiers. This would account for the difference between SEN trip and RN concierto. Ogawa (2001: 188) suggests two differences between RNs and SENs: (i) only RNs may be pluralized; (ii) only SENs may take temporal modifiers. However, it is unclear to us how pluralization would work as a distinctive property since Grimshaw (1990: 59) cites those trips took three weeks precisely as an example of SEN. In fact, as Melloni (2015) indicates, the (syntactically oriented) literature has tended to conflate SENs and RNs. Therefore, we will assume here that SENs and RNs differ only in their denotation. The tripartite division presented above is relevant to the goals of this book because it is closely tied to the discussion about the argument structure of nouns. The literature suggests that both deverbal and non-deverbal nouns may have arguments. Consider the following Spanish (7a, b) and Portuguese (7c) examples: (7)

a. La evaluación evaluación de los datos de la encuesta (S, Picallo, 1999: 368) ‘The evaluation of the data from the survey’. b. La fotografía fotografía del coleccionista de Capa de un miliciano herido (S, Picallo, 1999: 388) (Lit.) ‘The photograph of the collector of Capa of a wounded militiaman’. c. O abraço abraço do Pedro à Joaquina (P, Raposo, 2013: 1049) (Lit.) ‘Pedro’s hug of Joaquina’.

In (7a) we have a deverbal noun, evaluacio´n, denoting a process, and de los datos ‘of the data’ expresses the theme of the evaluation. In (7b) we have a non-deverbal, non-eventive noun which nevertheless is argued to have arguments; for instance, the PP de un miliciano herido is listed as the theme of the photograph (Picallo, 1999: 388). Likewise, the noun abraço in (7c) is said to take two arguments (agent: the hugger, and patient: the hugged), exactly like the denominal verb abraçar ‘to hug’ (Raposo, 2013: 1049). A subgroup of nouns may combine with a clause. As for the relationship between the noun and the clause, Grimshaw (1990) puts forward a three-way classification: true clausal arguments, clausal complements, and clausal modifiers (adjuncts). Clausal arguments and clausal complements differ in that the latter are always optional (8), but clausal arguments are not. (8)

The announcement (that an investigation has been initiated) was inaccurate (Grimshaw, 1990: 74).

2.1 clause-taking nominals

15

And here is a crucial theoretical assumption in Grimshaw’s work: only CENs have arguments. SENs may only take clausal complements, but complements are not mandatory. Referring to (8), the author states that “the announcement that seems to refer not to an event of announcing but to an announcement of which the complement specifies the content” (Grimshaw, 1990: 74). Grimshaw relies on an LFG differentiation between arguments and complements2 (Grimshaw, 1990: 5): the first are selected both semantically and syntactically, whereas the second are selected only semantically (semantic participants). The author adds that “nouns can take arguments only through the mediation of a preposition” (Grimshaw, 1990: 71) and concludes that “nouns never take sentential arguments” (Grimshaw, 1990: 78). Since English CPs cannot be introduced by a preposition, finite clauses may never be arguments to nouns. Finally, the differences between clausal complements and clausal modifiers (adjuncts) may be summarized as follows (Grimshaw, 1990: 96–8): (i) modifiers can be separated from the noun by the copula (they are licensed by predication), which is impossible for complements and arguments, and (ii) complements are semantically selected while modifiers are not. To sum up, beyond theory-internal discussions, the key conclusion is that for Grimshaw (1990) only CENs are argued to have arguments because only CENs, being deverbal and truly eventive (in having an event structure), require the arguments of their base verbs. No other nouns, SENs or nouns such as fotografı´a, have argument structure.3 2 Other (formal) frameworks would not necessarily differentiate between complements and arguments; in fact, the complement position in X’-Theory, for instance, is the internal argument. 3 Matsumoto et al. (2017) explore nominal modifying clauses (NMCCs) in several Asian languages. NMCCs subsume clauses typically labeled as relative and also those similar to the ones we are exploring here, their content noun NMCC. In Japanese, their model language, several subtypes of NMCCs are expressed in a similar way, thus supporting the proposal of the existence of a general construction consisting of a noun plus a clause, which they call general noun-modifying clause construction (GNMCC). A content noun NMCC, as in (ia), is formally equal to an NMCC with a relative interpretation (ib) (examples from Matsumoto et al., 2017: 6): (i) a. hon o katta sirase book acc buy-pst news ‘the news that X bought a book’. b. hon o katta gakusei book acc buy-pst student ‘the student who bought the book’. As Matsumoto et al. (2017: 14) note, such GNMCCs found in Japanese are atypical of many European languages, which tend to differentiate subclasses of noun-modifying clause formally. Spanish and Portuguese seem to lack GNMCCs. While a GNMCC-like analysis is not directly applicable to our languages, it nevertheless highlights the current discussion in the syntactic literature regarding the relation between nouns and the clauses they combine with. For example, Kayne (2014) and Arsenijević (2009) have argued for a (total or partial) unification of complementizers and relative pronouns, subsuming the former into the latter and thus rendering our noun-based—and possibly other—finite

16

syntactic and semantic change

The data explored in this book will allow us to engage with the literature on eventive nouns and their argument structure (or lack thereof), with particular attention to clauses. For instance, in Chapter 3, we examine the diachrony of the clause-taking noun hecho (Spanish) and the Portuguese doublet feito/facto as part of the construction equivalent to English the fact (that). Initially eventive as SENs, both hecho and facto undergo a semantic change as they lose their eventive properties and come to combine with finite clauses. The nouns examined in this book show that Grimshaw’s generalizations regarding arguments and nouns are too strong. For instance, in Chapter 5 we will focus on the nouns consejo and conselho in LVCs with the light verb dar. These nouns are not deverbal and do not qualify as CENs. However, they take arguments. As a consequence, they pose a challenge to Grimshaw’s exclusive link between CENs and argument structure, since nouns in LVCs at the very least share some of their arguments with the light verb. Additionally, all the constructions in Chapters 3–5 share one syntactic property: they may introduce (finite) clauses with a functional preposition de ‘of ’, as they all participated in a grammatical change that we describe in Section 2.3. Hence, the ability to take clauses introduced by a preposition sets apart nouns in Portuguese and Spanish from Grimshaw’s discussion based on the ungrammaticality of the same configuration in English.

2.1.2 Constructions In this book we explore a number of constructions involving a core syntactic configuration, namely a noun combing with a CP. We will use the term

complement clauses as relative clauses (see also Krapova, 2010, who does not delve into noun-based constructions). Kayne (2014) argues that sentential that is a subtype of relative that. Importantly, an analysis à la Kayne (1994) would make the CP (the relative clause) the complement of a Det, with the N starting off inside the CP. This seems to argue for a complement analysis, although the N itself is not the category selecting for the CP. On his part, Arsenijević (2009) speaks of complement clauses. In fact, he extends this analysis to complement clauses dependent on verbs by assuming an underlying structure of the kind usually labeled as light verb constructions; hence (iib) is the underlying structure of (iia) (examples from Arsenijević, 2009: 43) (ii)

a. John claimed that Mary came late. b. John made claim that Mary came late.

Consequently, his hypothesis means that all complement clauses are in fact complements to nouns, either overtly or underlyingly (Arsenijević, 2009: 45). While the relative unified hypothesis has attracted some support in the recent literature, others have provided conclusive evidence against it, e.g. de Cuba (2017). Thus, we will not adopt a relative analysis in this book.

2.1 clause-taking nominals

17

construction in line with Svenonius’s (2015) definition, whereby “[a] construction is a characteristic formal pattern of syntactic categories or features, usually associated with some meaning and/or discourse function” (Svenonius, 2015:16). In this view, a construction is a regular pattern revolving around certain syntactic categories, with the possibility of some semantic homogeneity. It is not a theoretical primitive but rather a matter of convenience based on “the properties of their heads” (Svenonius, 2015: 21). Semantics, while relevant, is not the defining factor; for instance, several constructions may express impersonality, but they would still count as separate constructions so long as their syntax is different (e.g. se-impersonals vs the impersonal use of the third person plural in Spanish). Thus, the definition of construction adopted here differs from the one adopted in Traugott and Trousdale (2013), which builds both on Construction Grammar (e.g. Goldberg, 1995, 2006) and on research on grammaticalization, and is a primitive in diachronic construction grammar. In this approach, a construction is any form-meaning pairing and the basic unit of grammar. This concept of construction is too broad for our purposes and does not allow us to examine the combinatorial properties or the changes in distribution of the different elements within the complex expressions we examine. When talking about idioms, Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 20) point out that: Construction grammarians are interested in the extent to which such noncompositional meanings pervade the grammar of a language, treat both compositional and non-compositional examples as conventionalized pairings of form and meaning, and consider the non-compositional set to be stylistically, pragmatically or semantically marked in various ways… [I]n many cases change over time results in reduced compositionality, most especially at the micro-constructional level.

Although change over time often results in reduced compositionality, the examination of the intermediate stages of change reveals varying degrees to which the expression remains compositional. Our next chapters show that the properties of each element inside a complex structure, in particular the properties of the noun, are crucial to the development of the whole.

18

syntactic and semantic change

2.2 Current approaches to semantic and syntactic change 2.2.1 Language-internal mechanisms of syntactic change The reconstruction of syntactic units of past stages of a language poses challenges that are different from those encountered in phonological or morphological studies (Viti, 2015). For this reason, historical syntax has been less studied than other areas within historical linguistics and there is no consensus about the approaches and methods in the field (see Viti, 2015 for a thorough discussion). We present here the mechanisms of change that we assume in our analysis as well as the theoretical background behind our approach. Reanalysis Reanalysis has been the main mechanism in explaining syntactic change; it alters “the underlying structure of a syntactic pattern and . . . does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface manifestation” (Harris and Campbell, 1995: 61; cf. Langacker, 1977: 59; Timberlake, 1977). Reanalysis can introduce a new structure into a language. This mechanism affects constituency and hierarchical structure, grammatical relations, and cohesion of a linguistic sequence, and operates on the underlying structure. Reanalysis is abrupt and silent; it can be perceived only when there is extension of the reanalyzed structure to new syntactic contexts, i.e. when actualization has occurred. Actualization creates surface structures that are no longer licensed by the former syntactic representation. As for the motivations for reanalysis, while some have argued for structural ambiguity as the main cause (Timberlake, 1977), others have explored a combination of semantic and pragmatic factors (exploratory expressions, in Harris and Campbell, 1995: 72–5). Harris and Campbell (1995) provide examples of changes in constituency that in a first stage do not affect the surface structure of the language. Instances are the origin of the English complementizer construction for . . . to and the German infinitival construction um zu + infinitive, both reanalyzed from a structure in which the preposition (for, um) + NP belonged to the main clause, i.e. a change from (9a) to (9b), from Harris and Campbell (1995: 62): (9)

a. [er ging aus um Wasser] [zu holen] (German) ‘He went out for water, to fetch (it).’ b. [er ging aus] [um Wasser zu holen] (German) ‘He went out (for) to fetch water.’

2.2 current approaches to change

19

The reanalysis only becomes visible when the new structure can be shown at the surface; in this case, when um zu appears without an object (like the prepositional object Wasser in [9a]). This example also illustrates another aspect of reanalysis, which the authors call change in category labels. The preposition um becomes a complementizer in (9b) as the whole sequence um Wasser zu holen is analyzed as a subordinate clause. Although the authors do not mention this aspect, there is also a change in meaning: um now combines with a proposition, not with an entity. Another example of change in category labels is the change from a Twi verb meaning ‘be at’ that is reanalyzed as a preposition ‘at’ (Lord, 1973: 274, apud Harris and Campbell, 1995: 63). This change also affects the surface grammatical relations as these words gain new functions. Finally, reanalysis may affect cohesion, i.e. “the status of a linguistic sequence as a fully independent word, a clitic, and affix, or an unanalyzable part of a larger unit” (Harris and Campbell, 1995: 63). The formal literature on historical change has tended to focus on reanalysis as the main (and only) mechanism for syntactic innovation. In this framework, grammaticalization is equivalent to syntactic reanalysis, by which functional categories are created from lexical ones via upward movement (merging higher in the tree) and other economy-based changes (Roberts and Roussou, 2003; van Gelderen, 2004). We will explore these approaches in the section on recategorization in Section 2.2.3.2. Analogy Analogy is a mechanism with a long tradition in historical linguistics, particularly in morphology (Hock, 1991, 2003; Anttila, 2003; a.o.). It consists in the generalization of a pattern based on similarity at the paradigmatic level. Analogy is traditionally considered irregular, since it seems to happen randomly, but research has shown that it is governed by frequency and cognitive principles that are sensitive to different dimensions of similarity, whether of form, meaning, or grammatical function (see Elvira, 1998; Wanner, 2006; Fischer, 2015).⁴ For Wanner (2006), analogy is ubiquitous: it is expected in all contexts and situations and unavoidable as a tendency. However, it is asystematic: similarity between forms does not automatically guarantee analogical change. The role of analogy in syntactic change has been subject to debate. Harris and Campbell (1995) consider analogical extension to be one of the three mechanisms of syntactic change. Extension is defined as the mechanism ⁴ The role of analogy as a mechanism of change has traditionally been sidelined in formal approaches to syntactic change, this being due precisely to its (perceived) asystematicity (see Fischer, 2007: 135–45 for a review and criticism of this rejection).

20

syntactic and semantic change

that results in a superficial change without affecting immediately or intrinsically the underlying structure; it may eliminate exceptions and irregularities. In this debate, some authors have highlighted the role of analogy and questioned the abrupt nature of reanalysis and its dependence on ambiguity. De Smet (2009) points out that the creation of an entirely new structure on the basis of structural ambiguity is problematic because “it is logically impossible for an innovation to be introduced on the basis of an ambiguity that strictly speaking exists only in retrospect—that is, after the change has taken place” (De Smet, 2009: 1729). Instead, De Smet proposes to decompose reanalysis into gradual steps consisting of successive analogical changes. Crucially, each analogical change relies on a perceived similarity between structures that were previously available in the language. He analyzes the development of gerundial constructions with worth and worthwhile in English as well as the for . . . to structure mentioned above, two cases traditionally explained through reanalysis. De Smet argues that the former development can be explained by gradual semantic change as well as similarity to an existing pattern, the gerund clause extraposition construction. As for the latter, he argues that the change was caused by a number of other changes taking place in English, in particular with respect to passive infinitives. In his view, reanalysis is an epiphenomenon of change rather than a mechanism. However, this proposal does not explain how syntactic innovation comes about. An important aspect of De Smet’s proposal is that his focus on analogy leads to diachronic analyses that explain a specific change in the context of other patterns in the language, and ongoing changes possibly affecting them. His approach takes into account the whole language system, rather than only one individual change in a structure. This is particularly important when there is a coincidence in the chronology of changes in a given language, as is the case for the data studied in this book. We will come back to this approach in Chapters 3–5. Other linguists have argued for a combination of reanalysis and analogy in explanations of syntactic change. While Hopper and Traugott (2003) see reanalysis as primary and analogy (understood as extension or rule generalization) as secondary, Fischer (2007, 2013) argues for the primacy of analogy: “It is the superficial similarity (analogy) that a language user perceives between two structures and between two communicative uses of them that causes a reanalysis in one of them, so as to bring it in line with the other” (Fischer, 2007: 123–4). As Fischer points out, the fact that analogy plays a crucial role in the way in which humans process language makes it a major mechanism impinging on language change: “The structure of the language is shaped by the

2.2 current approaches to change

21

properties of the mechanism which puts it to use” (Berg, 1998, apud Fischer, 2013: 517). Others argue for a higher potential role of analogical reasoning in all mechanisms of syntactic change, e.g. Harris (2017: 109), who states that “[a]nalogy is such a basic kind of reasoning that it cannot be limited to a single type of change”; thus, it may contribute to reanalysis and borrowing. For instance, based on Joseph and Pappas (2002), Harris (2017) argues that the development of the Greek future involves reanalysis facilitated by analogy. Due to regular phonological change, the infinitive in Greek came to look like a thirdperson form, and thus it was reanalyzed as such “by analogy to third-person forms” (Harris, 2017: 109). The focus on analogy has thus revealed that multiple sources may play a role in a particular change, a topic that we turn to in the next section. Multiple mechanisms may participate in syntactic change, as Viti (2015: 6) points out. Unlike the situation with sound change, syntactic units are meaningful and hence interpretation strategies may affect their development, i.e. mechanisms of semantic change may also be involved in instances of syntactic change, as changes in structure and meaning often happen together. Our chapters will show syntactic and semantic mechanisms having different weights in the developments we describe: while in some instances the change is mostly syntactic, in others the construction acquires a completely new meaning with corresponding structural changes.

2.2.2 Semantic change Semantic change is the least studied area of historical linguistics. It has been assumed that unlike sound change, changes in meaning are irregular, idiosyncratic, and hence not amenable to scientific study, since they result from cultural and historical facts (Hock and Joseph, 2009: 215–52; Campbell, 2013). However, research on the creation of function words in studies of grammaticalization across languages has unveiled recurring patterns and unidirectional tendencies. For this reason, semantic change has been considered regular (see e.g. Traugott and Dasher, 2002). First, there are systematic correlations between lexical source domains and classes of function words. For example, words that denote temporal origin or duration come to express cause and may later acquire adversative or concessive meanings; when modal verbs have both a deontic and an epistemic meaning, the former precedes the latter in the history of the given language (Traugott, 1989); future markers typically have as lexical sources either modals of desire and obligation or verbs of motion toward a goal, but not the other way around (see Traugott and Dasher, 2002);

22

syntactic and semantic change

determiners and quantifiers come from adjectives, with definite determiners originating in demonstrative adjectives in many languages (Greenberg, 1966); verbs of possession come to denote existence, but not the other way around (Lyons, 1977; Herna´ndez-Dı´az, 2006). Second, as stated by von Fintel (1995: 177), “the syntactic projection of functional items reflects the projection of original lexical items”, i.e. the functional items that are reflexes of lexical items are structurally related to their source. In sum, there are cross-linguistically attested patterns that recur in genetically unrelated languages, and processes of syntactic and semantic change follow certain constraints. When semantic and syntactic change happens, meanings expressed by items with proposition-internal scope (e.g. manner adverbs) come to have scope over the entire proposition (e.g. speaker-oriented adverbs) and sometimes even scope over a discourse fragment (e.g. discourse markers).⁵ It has also been noted that semantic change tends to happen not to words in isolation, but rather to constructions or words in particular collocations, a point to be further developed in Section 2.2.3. While lexical meanings tend to be lost (or “bleached”), this does not mean that grammaticalized function words are vacuous in meaning, as pointed out by von Fintel (1995). One of the tendencies identified in semantic change is that meanings become increasingly abstract and come to encode the speaker’s beliefs or attitudes, a process called subjectification (Traugott, 1995)⁶ that may later lead to intersubjectification, if meanings become centered in the social context of the utterance. This is represented as objective > subjective > intersubjective. Semantic change is regular because it is constrained by pragmatic mechanisms—invited inferencing, a term originally used by Geis and Zwicky (1971). Building on Neogricean pragmatics, Traugott and Dasher (2002) propose that new coded meanings result from the conventionalization of inferences originally triggered in context, the “Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change” (IITSC). In their model, specific context-dependent inferences, “utterance-token meanings” (Levinson, 1995), may become utterancetype meanings, i.e. inferences systematically associated with the use of a word in a set of contexts, i.e. conventions of use (similar to Grice’s generalized conversational implicatures). These implicatures may eventually become part of the conventional meaning of a word, i.e. semanticized. According to this model, the properties of the contexts in which a word occurs affect its meaning; contextual implications may be reanalyzed as the conventional content of the ⁵ For a discussion of increase in scope in syntactic and semantic change, see Tabor and Traugott (1998) and Narrog (2012), the latter with a particular focus on modal verbs. ⁶ Finding criteria to identify subjective meanings is not without controversy.

2.2 current approaches to change

23

word (cf. the negative meaning of French pas). When this process is completed, we end up with a new coded meaning, which often coexists over centuries with the previous one. In Traugott and Dasher’s (2002) model, as well as in current formal theories of semantic change, the agent of change is the Speaker/Writer, an adult language user who innovatively exploits implicatures in conversation. Hence, innovation is production-based.⁷ The idea that semantic change results from the conventionalization of inferences originally arising in specific contexts (bridging or “onset” contexts; Diewald, 2002; Traugott, 2012) is accepted in research with a functional approach as well as in formal diachronic semantics (Eckardt, 2006; Gianollo et al., 2015; Deo, 2015). Eckardt (2006) sees semantic change as the result of semantic reanalysis by which the full utterance meaning is compositionally reassigned to its parts,⁸ often in response to a principle of pragmatic overload: when interpretation requires too much effort, the hearer incorporates the meaning components into a new lexical representation. The step from innovation to actuation, i.e. diffusion of the change in a community, falls outside the model itself. In order “[t]o have a full understanding of the changes . . . and their impact on language-users, it will be important to know, among other things, in which text-types particular changes are favored, and among which groups of people” (Traugott and Dasher, 2002: 283). However, the authors emphasize that the mechanisms of semantic change are distinct from, and independent of, the diffusion of the change: “the processes leading to semasiological change will be the same, whether or not these changes spread” (Traugott and Dasher, 2002: 284). Our approach to syntactic and semantic change will reflect this focus on internal mechanisms of change. Despite the fact that some patterns of semantic change have been robustly attested across languages (e.g. deontic to epistemic modality, temporal to causal to concessive, etc.), the issue of unidirectionality of change remains controversial, in particular when it is identified with grammaticalization (see e.g. Janda, 2000; Fischer, 2015; Narrog, 2012 for modality, a.o.). According to the IITSC, “[M]embers of a far larger range of conceptual domains, especially lexemes that are verbal and (in relevant languages) adjectival or adverbial, also exhibit regular patterns of semantic change” (Traugott and

⁷ For a discussion of this model, see Amaral (2021). ⁸ Semantic reanalysis is defined as “[t]he process of semantic reorganization of a sentence whereby the salient overall conveyed information remains the same, but is composed in a different manner. What may have previously been in part assertion, in part implication, turns entirely into a literal assertion after reanalysis” (Eckardt, 2006: 236).

24

syntactic and semantic change

Dasher, 2002: 3) Crucially, nouns are absent from this quote because it is assumed that most nouns undergo semantic change owing to social and historical factors: “[I]rregular meaning changes seem to occur primarily in the nominal domain, which is particularly susceptible to extralinguistic factors such as change in the nature or the social construction of the referent” (Traugott and Dasher, 2002: 3–4). However, nouns denoting abstract entities, like propositions or events, have not been thoroughly examined.⁹ Our findings show that such nouns also undergo systematic patterns of change and are subject to linguistic generalizations. Traugott and Dasher’s (2002) model, as much related research, relies on the assumption that communicative factors are implicated in semantic change. A recent, computational-based approach to semantic change has explored other factors that can be quantified. In a recent study, Dubossarsky et al. (2016) examine whether part-of-speech assignment and prototypicality of the word in a cluster also play a role in this process. Employing a distributional semantic model of word meaning1⁰ that is trained on a very large corpus, the authors analyzed English verbs, nouns, and adjectives that met a certain frequency threshold. The authors show that the meanings of verbs tend to change at a faster rate than those of nouns, and the meanings of nouns tend to change at a faster rate than those of adjectives (the Diachronic Word Class Effect). The authors hypothesize that this happens because the predicate is the main element of a clause, and if the hearer cannot interpret the sentence, the interpretive strategy adopted will be to adjust the meaning of its predicate (which is in line with theories of semantic change that argue that interpretation strategies of language users drive semantic change). In addition, the word’s degree of prototypicality, defined as “the degree by which a word resembles its category prototype” (Dubossarsky et al., 2016: 16), is also a factor implicated in semantic change: the further the word is from the prototype of its category, the more likely it is to change (the authors call this the Diachronic Prototypicality Effect). One of the implications of these findings is that categorial information plays a role in diachrony, both in absolute terms (i.e. a verb may undergo change faster than a noun) and in terms of category structure (i.e. speakers’ knowledge of the prototypical category members affects the diachrony of the members of the category).

⁹ Research on semantic change undergone by event-denoting nouns is not abundant (but see Andersen, 2007 and Scott, 2010 for studies of semantic change affecting deverbal nouns). 1⁰ Word meaning is represented in terms of the co-occurrence properties of words, i.e. the words they collocate with, following the seminal work of Firth (1957) and Harris (1954).

2.2 current approaches to change

25

While our research is qualitative-oriented, we will discuss our findings in the light of these recent results. We will not focus on frequency, but we will see that the nouns we are concerned with denote events or results, and over time may become members of a different syntactic category, which would distance them from prototypical nouns in frameworks that favor such classification of categories. We contribute to this ongoing research by analyzing both the meaning of the noun in isolation and its development in a complex unit or construction over time.

2.2.3 Consequences of syntactic and semantic change Loss of compositionality Instances of change affecting lexical items occurring in complex constructions that become function words often involve loss of compositionality. The degree of compositionality of the construction at different stages of development, at the syntactic and semantic levels, is an important indication of change, and will be crucial to our analyses in Chapters 3–5. The principle of compositionality, which is attributed to Gottlob Frege originally, states that the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the meaning of its parts and the rules to combine them. It has been prevalent mostly in synchronic studies, as pointed out by Vincent (2015), who argues for its importance in diachrony. He claims that a compositional approach makes it possible to rigorously understand each diachronic stage. The importance of compositionality in semantic change is also highlighted in Eckardt (2006), as we have mentioned, and in Deo (2015). Vincent remarks that, while compositionality may seem to disappear owing to change, the new items may nevertheless continue to enter into further constructions compositionally, that is, with their new meaning (see Vincent, 2015: 110–11, who refers to this as Dahl’s paradox). Vincent establishes an important distinction between analyzability and compositionality (see also Bybee, 2010; Langacker, 1987): while the former refers to the morphological/syntactic transparency of an expression to speakers, the latter refers to the possibility of calculating the meaning of the whole from the syntactic-semantic combination of the parts. We discuss syntactic analyzability in the next section. The outcome of change may be a unit that is not compositional on syntacticsemantic terms, e.g. we cannot combine the meaning of the preposition sin and the noun embargo to reach the meaning of sin embargo ‘however’ in contemporary Spanish. However, the creation of the connective reveals different degrees of compositionality over time; this allows us to trace the mechanisms of change

26

syntactic and semantic change

as well as the way in which different categories contribute to the development of this new expression. As pointed out by Vincent (2015: 104), we learn from “the lessons that evidence from the diachronic domain can provide for our accounts of language structure and change and the relation between them.” Our studies in Chapters 3–5 provide an empirically based account of compositionality in diachrony. By examining the meanings of the parts and the way those meanings are combined at different stages we expect to trace both the changes affecting the noun and its contribution to a complex expression. We show how this diachronic compositional approach allows us to account for the syntax and the semantics of the nouns involved when combined with the other categories in the complex expressions examined in this book, especially clauses. Not only does this approach shed light on the role of the nominal element in the construction but it also allows for a more fine-grained notion of construction than has been assumed in diachronic studies. Recategorization and syntactic analyzability One possible change in reanalysis is recategorization, that is, the change in category of a lexical item (Harris and Campbell, 1995: 61; a.o.).11 Categorial changes are well attested in the literature. In fact, the categorial reduction from lexical to grammatical is the key ingredient in typical definitions of grammaticalization, in both formal and functional frameworks, whether as a separate mechanism (Hopper and Traugott, 2003) or as another term for reanalysis (see, for instance, Roberts and Roussou, 2003). Heine (2003: 578–9), from a functionalist perspective, regards decategorization as one of the mechanisms in grammaticalization involving the loss of morphosyntactic properties of the original forms. Typical examples of recategorization include the change from lexical verb to other categories such as object markers, as is the case with Chinese ba (Harris and Campbell, 1995: 63, citing work by Li and Thompson), and prepositions. In formal approaches, Roberts and Roussou (2003) explain reanalysis (i.e. grammaticalization as reanalysis) as upward movement in a tree: lexical items merge lower in the tree, whereas their reanalysis leads to them merging higher, as is typical of functional categories; “[c]ategorial change, then, goes along with the different positions that the reanalysed element assumes in the clause structure” (Roberts and Roussou, 2003: 126). Examples of this include the reanalysis of lexical 11 It is not always clear in the literature whether recategorization is the product of reanalysis or rather precedes it.

2.2 current approaches to change

27

verbs as modals, determiners as complementizers, and verbs of saying also as complementizers. Regarding prepositions, Kortmann and Ko¨nig (1992) explore the categorial reanalysis of deverbal prepositions. Originally verbal forms, such as regarding, are reanalyzed (recategorized) as prepositions (10), as evidenced by the lack of verbal syntax (and other semantic changes): (10)

Regarding your recent inquiry… (Kortmann and Ko¨nig, 1992: 681).

A second example is the evolution of complex prepositions. Within a functionalist framework, Hoffmann (2005) explores the historical evolution of English complex prepositions and argues that they are reanalyzed as units; in view of, for instance, “now functions as the head of a prepositional phrase” owing to decategorization (Hoffmann, 2005: 57). The author interprets several tests as evidence, such as the absence of a determiner or modifiers and the loss of the semantic compositionality of the original expression via abstraction of the original literal meaning, as evidence for the unithood of the complex preposition, that is, for the loss of its original syntactic analyzability. The former noun (e.g. view in in view of ) is said (to) “no longer be interpreted as an independent lexical item but must instead be seen as an integral part of the entire construction” (Hoffmann, 2005: 168; see also Hagège’s, 2010: 166–8). Torres Cacoullos (2015: 266) defines (syntactic) analyzability as “a morphosyntactic parameter that has to do with the degree to which the internal structure is discernible.” Importantly, it does not necessarily correlate with semantic compositionality, since her example, pull strings, is not semantically compositional but remains syntactically analyzable, since speakers of English can still understand that the idiom comprises a verb, pull, and a noun, strings. Torres Cacoullos (2015) explores the evolution of the Spanish progressive (estar + gerund) as an example of the gradual loss of syntactic analyzability of a construction until it reaches unithood due to the effect of repetition (frequency of use leading to chunking). Further syntactic evidence comes from clitic climbing and from the lack of priming, i.e. if the Spanish progressive is syntactically analyzable, the hypothesis is that “it should also be primed by other constructions composed of estar and another unit” (Torres Cacoullos, 2015: 281); the author finds that such priming is reduced by the 19th century.

28

syntactic and semantic change

Torres Cacoullos (2006) analyzes Spanish a pesar de (‘despite, in spite of ’) as a case of decategorialization (loss of nominal features) and loss of syntactic analyzability of a connective. The author traces the diachronic loss of adjectival modification of the noun pesar (lit. and originally ‘sorrow’), loss of combination with determiners, and loss of plural form over time. These changes, along with semantic bleaching, are analyzed as evidence of the grammaticalization of a former PP (a pesar de = P + N + P, lit. ‘to sorrow of ’) into an unanalyzable concessive connective (a unit). However, we will see that recategorization/reanalysis and syntactic analyzability do not have to be intertwined. The reduction of properties of a noun may be due to its recategorization as a member of a different category, hence with different syntactic properties (see Rauh, 2010 a.o. on the diversity of lexical and functional syntactic categories and their differences from classical word classes). A noun may be recategorized while the structure in which it occurs remains analyzable. Such is the analysis of complex prepositions put forward by Svenonius (2006, 2010). Based on evidence similar to Hoffmann’s (no determiners, no modifiers, loss of plurality, etc.), Svenonius points to the recategorization of former full nouns into lexically reduced nouns, his axial parts (AxParts). In the case of the complex preposition in front of, the former noun front was reanalyzed as an AxPart, a syntactic category different from that of regular nouns, which accounts for those syntactic properties atypical of fully lexical nouns. Linked to this is the crucial contribution of this syntactic analysis, namely the fact that syntactic analyzability remains in complex prepositions; in front of is a PlaceP, and thus internally structured, not a chunk or a unit: in is Place, front is the head of an AxPartP and of heads a functional preposition phrase (Svenonius, 2006: 56), (2010: 131). We will discuss the applicability of this model to our data, especially in Chapter 4.

2.3 Nouns taking finite clauses: the common analogical change Notwithstanding their diversity, the constructions explored in this book present some syntactic similarities; they all may take DPs and nonfinite and finite clauses. They share one key syntactic change; consider first the following pair of medieval Spanish examples:

2.3 nouns taking finite clauses

(11)

29

a. & ouo miedo miedo de de perder perder ell Jmperio por el (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘and he was afraid of losing his empire because of him’. miedo que que perderie ell Jmperio por ell b. con enuidia & con miedo (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘with envy and with fear that he would lose his empire because of him’.

While in (11a) the noun miedo is attested taking an infinitival clause by means of the preposition de (‘of ’), the same preposition is not present in its finite counterpart in (11b), where the same noun takes a finite clause directly. This latter syntactic pattern will change from the 16–17th centuries12 in both Spanish and Portuguese, resulting in a generalization of the prepositional option to finite clauses as well. This change is shared by other clause-taking categories such as verbs and adjectives (see Delicado Cantero, 2013 and references therein). A brief theoretical note is required here. The constructions we examine in this book involve semantically and argumentally poor prepositions, especially de (‘of ’) but also a (‘to’) and en/em (‘in’), commonly labeled as functional prepositions or K(ase) (Lamontagne and Travis, 1987; Travis and Lamontagne, 1992; a.o.).13 The nature of functional prepositions contrasts with that of lexical prepositions such as por (‘for’), which are semantically rich (Rauh, 1993, 2002). These lexical prepositions may select for both nonfinite and finite clauses early in both languages; we illustrate this point with the latter configuration in (12): (12)

a. por por que que este Theuderico fue el primer godo que ouo el sennorio despanna (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘because this Theuderico was the first Gothic ruler of Spain’. porque queremos senpre sseer a uosso serviço (P, Textos b. porque Notariais, 13th c.) ‘because we want to be always at your service’.

12 Some sporadic early examples have been noted in the literature; see Tarr (1922: 145, 254–6); Serradilla Castaño (1995: 149–50); Mollica (1995); Castilho (2004). 13 Rauh (1993, 2002) provides evidence in favor of the differentiation between functional and lexical prepositions. One of the characteristics of the former is the lack of argument structure (Rauh, 2002: 17). Lack of argument structure does not equal lack of Case; in fact, the label K[ase] is intended to show that such functional prepositions are types of Case itself, the spell-out of Case. In Delicado Cantero (2013) this difference is key for the explanation of the syntactic change involved in the introduction of (functional) prepositions in cases like the ones we are examining in this book: the non-prepositional alternative licenses the clause positionally, whereas, once analogy has played its role, functional prepositions assume that role as the spell-out of Case themselves.

30

syntactic and semantic change

There is an important syntactic difference: these lexical prepositions project their own PPs and select clauses as their objects, resulting in adverbial clauses (syntactic adjuncts). These adverbial clauses lie outside the focus of this book, so we will not examine them here. Going back to clause-taking nouns, we have attested many examples of nouns taking infinitival clauses since the earliest texts, both in our corpora and in previous studies. In (11a) we documented the Spanish noun miedo ‘fear’; in (13) we provide evidence of Portuguese (see Beardsley, 1921 and Cano Aguilar, 1977–8 for Spanish; Mattos e Silva, 1994 for Portuguese): (13)

ouve grande temor temor de de seer seer alli preso (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘he had a great fear of being held prisoner there’ .

The use of prepositions with infinitives in the medieval period is subject to extensive variation in both languages (Dias, 1959; Cano Aguilar, 1977–8; Mattos e Silva, 1994; Serradilla Castaño, 1997; Schulte, 2004; Delicado Cantero, 2013; a.o.). Schulte (2004, 2007) shows that the range of infinitival clauses introduced by a preposition was limited in medieval texts and became more frequent around the 16th century (Schulte, 2004: 106, 2007: 525; see also Bogard, 2014). Schulte (2004, 2007) argues that initially these prepositional infinitive clauses were all adverbial clauses—adjuncts—, later reanalyzed as prepositional complements.1⁴ Regarding finite clauses combining with nouns, Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga (2005: 89–93) provides early documentation in Spanish. These initial attestations show no preposition, either in Portuguese (14a) or in Spanish (14b):1⁵ (14)

a. Samuel ouve temor temor que que o chamavam pera o juizo de Deus (P, Corte Enperial, 15th c.) ‘Samuel feared that he was being called for God’s trial’ . que se tornasse el Rey a su tierra b. Ca los unos dauan conseio conseio que (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘Because some advised that the king should return to his land’ .

1⁴ Reanalysis is argued to be limited to the infinitival construction. Schulte (2004) does not provide specific information on nouns taking infinitival clauses with a preposition. Company Company and Flores Dávila (2014: 1304–5) argue for a periphrastic (e.g. monoclausal) analysis of V-a-infinitival clause already in medieval Spanish, which would preclude an adjunct analysis. See also Company Company and Sobrevilla Moreno (2014) for a review of the different semantic values of de in the history of Spanish. 1⁵ Mattos e Silva (1994: 109) points out that a systematic study of the presence or absence of the preposition in complement clauses in old Portuguese is still to be done.

2.3 nouns taking finite clauses

31

As mentioned, we start to find the prepositional option in both languages in the 16th century (Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, 2005: 90; Serradilla Castaño, 1995, 1997; Dias, 1959: 260–3; Delicado Cantero, 2013; a.o.): (15)

a. fico com maior temor temor de de que que me faltem nestes correios em Roma as cartas de V. S. (P, Vieira, Cartas, 17th c.) ‘I have more fear of missing out on Your Honor’s letters in this mail in Rome’ . b. no tengáis miedo miedo de de que que otro os quite vuestra honra (S, Jiménez, Diálogo de la verdadera honra militar, 16th c.) ‘don’t be afraid someone else could take your honor’ .

The original nonprepositional pattern coexists with the innovative, generalized prepositional option1⁶ (see Dias, 1959: 260–1; Brandão, 1963: 545; Said Ali, 1966; Mollica, 1995 for Portuguese; Cano Aguilar, 1985: 83 for Spanish). The generalization of the prepositional alternative with finite clauses has been explained as a case of syntactic analogy (Tarr, 1922; Bogard and Company Company, 1989; Serradilla Castaño, 1995, 1997; Garcı´a Cornejo, 2006: 238; Delicado Cantero, 2013), either with the use of the P with DPs or with infinitival clauses.1⁷, 1⁸ Bogard and Company Company (1989) speak of disambiguation as the factor behind the creation of (16a) out of (16b): (16)

a. Tengo miedo de de que que vengas (S, Bogard and Company Company, 1989: 258) ‘I am scared that you will come’ . b. Tengo miedo ø que vengas (S, Bogard and Company Company, 1989: 258) ‘I am scared that you will come’ .

Bogard and Company Company (1989: 260) argue that (a) develops in order to avoid a potential misunderstanding of (b) as a relative clause. However, Serradilla Castaño (1995: 158) proves that the presence of a preposition does not always eliminate the ambiguity between a complement clause and a relative one. In addition, this change affected not only nouns but also other 1⁶ This variation has produced a substantial body of literature, both descriptive and prescriptivist, on the so-called phenomena of queísmo and, at times mislabeled, dequeísmo; see Delicado Cantero (2014) for discussion on these terms and for other references cited there. 1⁷ See Barra Jover (2002) for an alternative explanation based on Case and Delicado Cantero (2013) for criticism of this explanation. Moreno Cabrera (1985–6) argues that the prepositional option was in fact the original one; the direct selection P-que resulted from speakers dropping the intervening pronoun, as in de lo que > de ø que (see Delicado Cantero, 2013: 87 for criticism of this explanation). 1⁸ The literature has suggested other possible models for this case of analogical extension; see Tarr (1922), Brandão (1963: 545), Serradilla Castaño (1997: 236–60) and Delicado Cantero (2013: 81–7).

32

syntactic and semantic change

clause-taking categories such as verbs or adjectives. Moreover, the presence of the preposition de was already attested in a few early examples in Spanish (Serradilla Castaño, 1995), which is expected in analogical change. To sum up, infinitival clauses are Attested and introduced by functional prepositions, usually de (‘of ’), before their finite counterparts. This prepositional pattern does not extend to finite clauses introduced by the complementizer que until around the 16th century. Interestingly, Schulte (2004, 2007) shows that the 16th century is also a period of increased use of prepositional infinitival clauses. This change ties all the constructions studied in this book together since it affects all of them, showing the effect of analogical extension. This change also demonstrates that the evolution of the noun-based constructions explored in the following chapters did not take place in isolation; rather, it was part of a general syntactic change affecting nouns (and other clause-taking categories) in both languages.

3 Clausal adjunction 3.1 Introduction Both Spanish and Portuguese allow for structures in which a noun takes a subordinate clause, either finite or nonfinite, as Spanish hecho ‘fact’ in (1) and Portuguese ideia ‘idea’ in (2): (1)

el hecho hecho de de que que le el Le molesta estén Him bother-prs.3sg the fact of that him be-prs.subj.3pl tomando el pelo taking the hair ‘The fact that they are making fun of him bothers him’. (S, Leonetti, 1999: 2101)

(2)

A da sua quinta um local a visitar A ideia ideia de de fazerem fazerem The idea of make-inf.3pl of-the their land a place to visit-inf surgiu quando perderam 15 hectares de terra. emerge-pst.3sg when lose-pst.3pl 15 hectares of land (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘The idea of having their farm be a place to be visited arose when they lost 15 hectares of land’.

Previous studies on clause-taking nominals in Spanish and Portuguese have explored either (i) the relation between nominalization and factivity or (ii) the syntactic classification of the embedded clause. As for (i), research has followed the model of studies on English factive verbs, as in examples like (1) (Demonte, 1977; Leonetti, 1999; Delbecque and Lamiroy, 1999; Barbosa, 2013; Brito, 2013). As for (ii), the discussion has focused on the syntactic relation between the noun and the subordinate clause, i.e. whether the clause is a complement or an adjunct of the noun. On the other hand, historical linguists have focused on the mechanisms underlying the evolution of clause-taking categories in Spanish; Serradilla Castaño (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997) provides a general account of the evolution of clausal complementation/adjunction to

Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish. Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero, Oxford University Press. © Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero (2022). DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.003.0003

34

clausal adjunction

nouns, verbs and adjectives in terms of analogy (see also Cano Aguilar, 1985 and Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, 2005). What these studies have not addressed is the syntactic and semantic evolution of the nouns that take clauses, and how the properties of the nouns affect the development of the clause-taking construction. Our goal here is not to analyze clausal complementation or adjunction per se but rather to examine the syntactic and semantic changes of the nouns involved, both independently and within these constructions. The nouns analyzed (hecho in Spanish and feito/facto in Portuguese) participate in the syntactic change involving the ability of nouns to take finite clauses introduced by prepositions in Ibero-Romance around the 16th century, described in Chapter 2. Our corpus-based analysis shows that the meaning of the clause-taking construction reflects the semantic and syntactic changes undergone by the individual nouns in each language. Our data also provide evidence against the standard analysis of el hecho de/o facto de as factivity tests. In addition, the diachrony of these nouns reveals patterns of syntactic and semantic change that have been overlooked in the literature and allow us to analyze semantic entities such as facts and events from a historical perspective. We start by providing a select overview of the semantic literature on facts and events. In Section 3.3 we present the syntactic properties of el hecho de/o facto de in contemporary Spanish and Portuguese, and briefly review the literature on the status of the subordinate clause (argument or adjunct) in Ibero-Romance and cross-linguistically. Section 3.4 examines the evolution of fecho/hecho in Spanish and feito, facto1 in Portuguese. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 delve into the syntactic and semantic changes described for both languages. Section 3.7 concludes the chapter by summarizing the implications of our findings.

3.2 Abstract entities and their linguistic realization: events and facts In Chapter 2 we have reviewed the literature on the syntactic classification of clause-taking nouns. Here we focus on the semantic classification of abstract entities denoted by nominals, which has been the topic of much research (Vendler, 1967; Lyons, 1977; Asher, 1993, 2000; Delbecque and Lamiroy, 1999;

1 The orthography used here for the noun facto follows the former orthographic norm of European Portuguese. In Brazilian Portuguese the spelling is fato. However, spelling is irrelevant for our findings and claims, which are true for both varieties. For an analysis focused on the diachrony of fato, see Rauber (2015).

3.2 abstract entities, linguistic realization

35

Roy and Soare, 2013; Zucchi, 2015; a.o.). We first review Vendler’s seminal work on this topic, and then Asher’s, which builds on Vendler’s distinctions. Vendler (1967, Chapter 5; 1968)2 points out that we must distinguish between the event in (3) and the fact in (4): (3)

The collapse of the Germans was gradual (Vendler, 1967: 132).

(4)

The collapse of the Germans is undeniable.3

While both sentences contain the same nominal expression, The collapse of the Germans, its denotation is not the same in (3) and (4): “[I]t does not follow that some events are facts, or that some facts are events . . . For one thing, those of us who followed the collapse of the Germans followed an event, but, surely, did not follow a fact” (Vendler, 1967: 123). The noun collapse is ambiguous; each of its interpretations can be targeted by a number of tests. In this chapter we argue that the ambiguity displayed by some of these nominals can be traced historically, and the meanings associated with such nouns diachronically follow a direction, from event to fact. This is shown by our Spanish and Portuguese data and may be the case for similar nominals in other languages; hence, our proposal leads to a testable hypothesis. In order to tease apart the meanings of different abstract entities, Vendler (1967: 125) uses their distribution as criterion: the predicates that nominals may combine with are “selective hosts,” i.e. they are sensitive to the semantic properties of the nominal. In Vendler’s proposal, nominalized sentences and event-denoting nouns (“nominals”) can be divided into: (i) imperfect nominals, i.e. finite clauses, and (ii) perfect nominals: deverbal nouns; event-denoting nouns that are not deverbal; the gerund in English (because the verb is still “alive” in restricting the distribution). We add to this list of perfect nominals infinitival clauses in Portuguese and Spanish. Hosts that accept imperfect nominals are modal adjectives (e.g. possible, certain, likely); verbs like surprise and cause (where the nominal is the subject); verbs like mention, deny, remember (nominal as object); English nouns like fact and result.⁴ A noun like fact leads us to the interpretation of “existence”

2 This brief review is far from exhaustive. We acknowledge that there is a vast literature on facts and events both in the semantic and analytic philosophy literature (for a review of semantic accounts, see Zucchi, 2015). Here we restrict ourselves to Vendler’s and Asher’s proposals, as they provide the necessary background to analyze the semantic change undergone by hecho and feito/facto. 22 Example adapted from Vendler (1967). ⁴ Vendler points out that these nouns are themselves nominals. Later he says “Fact is more selective, but this is understandable in view of the strong achievement-sense of this word: remember that true fact is redundant and false fact is a contradiction” (Vendler, 1967: 136). However, expressions with the meaning ‘false fact’ are found in contemporary Spanish and Portuguese corpus data, as discussed in Amaral and Delicado Cantero (2019).

36

clausal adjunction

(Vendler, 1967: 140). On the other hand, hosts that accept perfect nominals are adjectives like slow, fast, sudden, gradual; nouns like event, process, action; container verbs like see, watch, hear, feel, observe; postnominal verbs like occur, take place, begin, last, end, and temporal prepositions like before, after, since, until. Containers (hosts) for perfect nominals work for imperfect nominals as well, but not the other way around. Vendler (1967: 141) notes that some nouns, though not deverbal, are also event-denoting because they exist in time: “Fires and blizzards, unlike tables, crystals, or cows, can occur, begin, and end, can be sudden or prolonged, can be watched and observed—they are, in a word, events and not objects.” Vendler’s ontology is comprised of (i) objects (and persons); (ii) events, processes, actions; and (iii) facts. Setting aside objects, the distinction between (ii) and (iii) crucially relies on events being temporal entities, unlike facts: “[i]t is events, processes, and actions, and not facts or results, that occur, take place, begin, last, and end. The former, and not the latter, can be watched, heard, followed, and observed; they can be sudden, gradual, violent, or prolonged” (Vendler, 1967: 141). Vendler notes that although we can mention and deny events, generally we talk about them to refer to their occurrence. On the other hand, “facts (and their kin, like results) are not in space and time at all. They are not located, cannot move, split, or spread, and they do not occur, take place, or last in any sense. Nor can they be vast or fast” (Vendler, 1967: 144). As shown in this passage, Vendler offers a negative characterization of facts (Jayez and Godard, 1999), i.e. he shows that they are not eventualities, but it is not clear in his characterization what they are. Facts do not take place; instead, “facts are about things in the world” (Vendler, 1967: 145, emphasis in the original). The distinction established by Vendler between events and facts, as well as the host expressions that allow us to tease them apart, provides us with tests to analyze the meanings of hecho/fecho and feito over time. However, the concept of fact is not enough to account for the semantic properties of these nouns, so we now turn to a subsequent proposal that builds on Vendler. Asher (2000) builds on the system developed in Asher (1993). He proposes an ontology of abstract objects on the basis of several properties: distribution (“hosts” or container contexts, following Vendler), behavior with anaphora, and quantification. He proposes to distinguish events from facts, as in Vendler’s model, but also facts from propositions. Asher proposes the following criteria for the distinction between events and facts (Asher, 2000: 130–1):⁵ ⁵ Lyons (1977) establishes a tripartite ontological distinction. Crucial for our purposes is his distinction between second-order entities such as events that are “observable . . . and have a temporal

3.2 abstract entities, linguistic realization

37

(i) The domain of events has two closure principles: summation (events can be added like individuals, they behave both as mass and as count nouns) and complementation (the negation of an event is not an event). (ii) Events cannot be disjunctive or conditional. (iii) Events are tested by the “standard perfect nominal containers” (Asher, 2000: 131) like occur, last, take place at. (iv) Facts can be conditional, negative, or disjunctive, owing to the syntax of that clauses. Facts may be the complements (or the contradictories) of other facts. We can refer to disjunctive facts. Events can be summed up and referred to by a singular expression, but facts cannot, as shown by the contrast between (5a,b): (5) a. The “liberation” of the village had been a disaster. [First on a sweep through the town some of the Marines had gone crazy and killed some innocent villagers. To cover up the “mistake,” the rest of the squad had torched the village. To cap it off, the lieutenant called in an air strike.]i At first the battalion commander hadn’t believed iti (Asher, 1993: 226). b. #This facti (these factsi ) made the senior officer call for an investigation. While in (5a) the pronoun it picks out an entire chunk of text as antecedent, which refers to the event of the liberation of the village comprised of several events, in (5b) it is not possible to have the same type of abstract anaphora: rather than the singular DP this fact, the plural DP these facts must be used to anaphorically refer to the multiple facts mentioned before. This distinction between events and facts with respect to summation will be relevant below. Asher uses several tests to establish the distinction between facts and propositions: (i) Identity conditions: factual contexts allow for substitution of expressions denoting the same property, while propositional contexts do not; the arguments of factual contexts (facts) are different from the argument of propositional attitude contexts (e.g. verbs like believe), whose arguments are propositions. (ii) Existence criteria: while propositions exist independently of whether they are true or not (the proposition that ϕ exists in a possible world duration,” and third-order entities, e.g. propositions, that can be “asserted or denied, remembered or forgotten” (Lyons, 1977: 445).

38

clausal adjunction

w whether it is true or not), this is not the case for facts: the fact that ϕ only exists in w if it is true in w. Propositions must not be realized in order to exist. Facts are tied to a real world, to a specific realization. (iii) Causal efficacy: facts and events can be caused and can cause something, facts can be the subject of the verb cause, while propositions do not have causal efficacy; (iv) One can refer to facts anaphorically by using the noun fact, but this is not the case for propositions. In addition, Asher considers that facts, possibilities, and situations are closely related. Possibilities and facts are distinct from propositions in that they must be actual in only one world (they can be false in others). While events are temporal and transitory, facts are atemporal (they are “timeless” objects) that may be realized through events: “I say that f is a fact at w if and only if there is an event in w that realizes f ” (Asher, 2000: 135). On the other hand, possibilities do not have to be realized. Asher (1993) proposes the following divisions within types of abstract objects shown in Figure 3.1. Saturated Abstract Objects

Eventualities Events

Purely Abstract

States Proposition-like Objects

achievements accomplishment processes

activities

Pure Propositions Projective Propositions

Fact-like Objects questions commands desires possibilities facts situations states of affairs? Spectrum of Abstractness Fig. 3.1 Diagram of types of abstract objects, from Asher (1993: 57). Source: Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature, from Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse by Nicholas Asher. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993.

3.2 abstract entities, linguistic realization

39

This tree assumes that there is an increased degree of abstraction from left to right, i.e. as we move from eventualities (which take place in space and time) to fact-like objects (which may be realized through events and are true in at least one world) and to proposition-like objects (which do not have to be true in a world). Asher points out that the typology of abstract entities is fluid: there can be anaphoric links between contexts containing different types of abstract objects. In addition, there is no one-to-one correspondence between form and type of abstract entity: e.g. that clauses may denote several types of abstract entities (facts, propositions, possibilities). In addition, as pointed out by Asher (1993), abstract objects in discourse depend on the categorization and the perspective of speakers and hearers, a point we will return to. Despite these limitations, we will adopt Asher’s typology of abstract objects in the analysis of the meaning of hecho, feito, and facto. The ontology and the tests proposed by Vendler and Asher are not entirely satisfactory for several reasons. First, in terms of distribution, there is no single test that sets apart facts from other categories. For example, within Asher’s category of “Fact-like objects,” it is not totally clear how to distinguish facts from situations and possibilities. Second, both Vendler and Asher rely on the English noun fact and the structure the fact that S when defining the category of facts. They both assume that factual contexts are necessarily true in at least one possible world, and hence that the collocation false fact is ruled out. Neither Vendler nor Asher intended to analyze the meaning of the English noun fact⁶ by considering naturally occurring data. However, they use this noun both in isolation and with clauses in order to test the properties of the category “fact,” hence conflating the ontological category with the denotation of the noun. In general, linguists are interested in facts because of factive predicates like regret, i.e. predicates that presuppose the truth of their complement clauses (Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 1970; Karttunen, 1971; Peterson, 1997). Crucially, in the tests provided by Asher (and Vendler), it becomes clear that “facts are what factive clauses refer to, express, or introduce” (Peterson, 1997: 91), i.e. the properties of the ontological category fact rely on the properties of the embedded sentence in examples such as John regrets (the fact) that house. that he he has has bought bought the the house house ⁶ An exception to this approach is Jayez and Godard (1999), who study the behavior of the noun fait. They point out that the French noun fait is compatible with adjectives that can occur with informational objects like words meaning ‘idea’ or ‘theory,’ but not with all; for example, while it is compatible with adjectives meaning ‘clear,’ ‘evident,’ ‘doubtful,’ it cannot co-occur with adjectives meaning ‘true’ or ‘false.’ However, this is actually possible in Spanish and Portuguese, as shown in Amaral and Delicado Cantero (2019). The classification of fait as an abstract object defined as “the set containing the property of warranting the truth of a certain proposition” (Jayez and Godard, 1999: 152) thus does not apply to Portuguese and Spanish. For this reason, we will consider that the best analysis is along the lines of an informational object, within the category of “Fact-like objects” (Asher, 1993).

40

clausal adjunction

As we show below (see also Jayez and Godard, 1999), the denotation of the noun ‘fact’ across languages does not correspond to the ontological category “fact,” but this distinction is often overlooked in the literature. In addition, previous research has not analyzed the diachrony of nouns meaning ‘fact,’ as we do in the next sections for Spanish and Portuguese.

3.3 Present-day overview: hecho (Spanish) and feito/facto (Portuguese) The three nouns analyzed in this chapter are reflexes of the Latin participle factu(m) ‘(thing) done, realized.’ The DRAE defines Spanish hecho as ‘action or work,’ ‘thing that happens,’ as well as ‘matter, topic.’ In Portuguese there is a vernacular term, feito, and a learned term,⁷ facto. The Diciona´rio da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa defines feito as ‘what has been realized, what has been done, work,’ as well as ‘memorable event, feat.’ Facto is defined as ‘thing done, action,’ ‘happening,’ as well as ‘situation, circumstance, state,’ and also ‘what is true or real, evidence,’ ‘reason, cause,’ and ‘matter, topic’ (our translations). The number of definitions of hecho and facto gives us a hint of their semantic development. In contemporary Portuguese the nouns feito and facto have different meanings, as can be shown by the difference in interpretation with a possessive PP. While the interpretation of (6) is that Pedro is an agent (the individual who realized certain actions), in (7) Pedro is the person assumed to believe certain facts, or to have talked about or described the facts: (6)

o feito/os feitos do Pedro ‘the feat(s) realized by Pedro, the thing(s) done by Pedro’.

(7)

?o facto/os factos do Pedro ‘the things believed by Pedro, the states of affairs he assumes or he talks about’.

In both languages, the singular and the plural forms are semantically different (cf. Jayez and Godard, 1999), with hecho and facto grouping together: while feito is perfectly acceptable with a possessive PP, as in (6), the singular forms of facto and hecho are not: ⁷ While feito results from regular sound change and general community transmission, facto presumably entered the language at a later time, without having gone through regular changes, most likely in order to emulate a Latin model and hence was (at least initially) restricted to the speech of certain groups of erudite speakers.

3.3 present-day overview

(8)

41

a. ?el hecho de Pepe b. ?o facto do Pedro ‘the fact of P’.

Nowadays the nouns facto and hecho also behave similarly with respect to clausal adjunction: while feito can only be modified by an infinitival clause, as shown below, both facto and hecho may be modified by both infinitival and finite clauses. Spanish hecho and Portuguese feito are etymologically related to the verbs hacer/fazer (‘to do/make’), however, we cannot assume an active morphological derivation from the latter verbs with a simple morphological process, unlike truly deverbal derivatives such as hazedor/fazedor (‘doer, maker’). The nominals we analyze here fall within weak/conceptual eventivity as simple event nominals (SEN), rather than strong/grammatical eventivity (CENs, see Chapter 2). These nouns mean ‘deed, act.’ The eventive nature of Spanish hecho and Portuguese feito nowadays is demonstrated by their distribution, i.e. Vendler’s tests with host or container verbs presented in the previous section. Both nouns may happen or take place, as made explicit by the verb acaecer ‘take place’ in (9a), they may be located (9a) and delimited in time (9b), they are compatible with phases of the event (9c), and may only combine with frecuente (‘frequent’) in plural form (9d,e), denoting either a repetition or a pattern of events (Vendler, 1967; Lyons, 1977: 483; de Miguel,1999; Roy and Soare, 2013; a.o.).: (9)

durante el el fin fin de de semana semana a. Los hechos acaecieron durante ‘The events took place during the weekend’. durante 55 horas horas horas 55 horas b. Este hecho se desarrolló durante horas/duró ‘This event developed during five hours/lasted five hours’. inicio del hecho/la conclusión conclusión del hecho c. El inicio ‘The beginning of the event/the conclusion of the event’. hecho frecuente frecuente fue un problema d. *El hecho ‘*The frequent fact was a problem’. e. En cualquier caso insistían en que todo se trataba de algo derivado hechos frecuentes frecuentes de una avería y que en ningún caso se trata de hechos (CdE, Spain) ‘In any case, they insisted that it all had to do with something linked to a technical breakdown and that these weren’t by any means frequently occurring events’.

42

clausal adjunction

The properties just presented support their classification as eventive, as weak eventualities in terms of Roy and Soare (2013). As for facto, while it is compatible with the verb acontecer ‘to happen,’ it can be found only in rare examples with the hosts exemplified in (9b–d). With respect to clausal adjunction, in the construction o facto/el hecho de + clause, the noun does not display eventive properties, especially when in combination with finite clause, as the following ungrammatical examples with Spanish hecho illustrate: (10)

tuvo lugar lugar ayer ayer (Location in time) *El hecho de que vinieras tuvo ‘*The fact that you came took place yesterday’. b. *El hecho de que vinieras se desarrolló durante durante 55 horas/duró horas/duró 55 horas horas (Duration) ‘*The fact that you came developed during five hours/lasted five hours’. El inicio/la inicio/la conclusión conclusión del hecho de que vinieras (Phases) c. *El ‘*The beginning/the conclusion of the fact that you came’. Los hechos hechos frecuentes frecuentes de que vinieras (Repetition/pattern) d. *Los ‘*The frequent facts of that you came’.

a.

In this construction hecho and facto are not eventive but rather denote a different type of abstract entity. We will show that this new meaning is the result of semantic change. This stark difference in the semantics of facto/hecho−but not feito−is one of the crucial changes affecting this noun-based construction.⁸ Both hecho and facto may combine with finite and nonfinite clauses. Following Grimshaw (1990) but moving away from part of her LFG theoretical ⁸ Eventive counterparts to el hecho/o facto de + clause, though not very frequent, are still documented in present-day Spanish and Portuguese, and may be seen as an instance of layering (in the sense of Hopper, 1991). In (i) the fact that Casanello was waiting in the hall is said to happen at a certain moment; in (ii), the fact that a set of computers may have been used by a certain type of people is presumed to have happened. All these examples of the fact + clause are the subjects of a clearly eventive verb, suceder/acontecer ‘to happen, take place’: (i) la doctora Fernández me llamó en ese momento y sucedió el hecho de que Casanello estaba en un hall sentado esperando para su despacho (S, CdE, Argentina) ‘Dr Fernandez called me at that moment and it so happened that Casanello was in a hall sitting down waiting for his visit’. (ii)

Esses computadores ou devem ser uns computadores especiais ou então são utlizados por acontecido oo facto facto de de terem sido utilizados por profissionais especiais. Pode muito bem ter ter acontecido pessoas de grande elevação de carácter (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘Those computers must be either some special computers or they must be used by special professionals. It may well have been the case that they may have been used by people of high character’.

3.3 present-day overview

43

assumptions (see Chapter 2), Leonetti (1999: 2090–7) argues that nouns such as hecho, idea, rumor, asunto, noticia take adjunct clauses, not argument clauses, based on a battery of tests (cf. also Schmid, 2000; see Rodrı´guez Espiñeira, 2003 for a different perspective). Since Leonetti (1999) focuses on Spanish, we exemplify each of his tests with Portuguese examples, showing their applicability to this language too: (i). The clause may be restated between commas as it only specifies the content of the N: vindo àà festa festa é bom (11) O facto em si, que festa, que tenhas tenhas vindo ‘The fact itself, that you have come to the party, is good’. (ii). The N may be predicated of the clause with a copular verb as modifiers occur predicatively: um facto facto (12) Que vieste à festa éé um ‘That you came to the party is a fact’. (iii). The adjunct clause may only be introduced by the preposition de (‘of ’); other prepositions such as em (‘in’), com (‘with’) or a (‘to’) are ungrammatical: em/*com/*a/ de de que tenhas vindo à festa (13) O facto *em/*com/*a/ ‘The fact that you have come to the party’. De could be seen as the default preposition in adjunction. Contra Grimshaw (1990), we must add that the presence or absence of a preposition is not enough to differentiate between argument and adjunct clauses in Spanish and Portuguese (Delicado Cantero, 2013). (iv). The definite article is frequently the only grammatical option, as in other appositive/adjunct constructions: (14)

A cidade de Madrid/ *uma uma cidade de Madrid a. A ‘The city of Madrid/*A city of Madrid’. b. *Um Um facto de que tenhas vindo à festa ‘*A fact that you have come to the party’.

While the definite article is indeed the most frequent determiner in this construction, in the following sections we provide evidence that other definite determiners were possible in historical Spanish and Portuguese and are still grammatical for some speakers today.

44

clausal adjunction

(v). The subordinate clause may not be substituted by a pronoun, as other appositions/adjuncts: ela (15) a. A cidade de Madrid/ *A cidade dela ‘The city of Madrid/*The city of it’. isto é bom b. *O facto disto ‘*The fact of this is good’. (vi). Pluralization is ungrammatical unless there is more than one embedded clause, as is the case in appositions/adjuncts: As cidades cidades de de Madrid Madrid as cidades de Coimbra e Albacete (16) a. *As Madrid/ ‘*The cities of Madrid/the cities of Coimbra and Albacete’. que tenhas conversado Os factos factos de de que que tenhas vindo à festa e de de que b. ?Os muito ‘?The facts that you have come to the party and that you have talked a lot’. c. o advogado da ré Sónia Neves … disse que estão a favor da sua constituinte os os factos factos de de ser ré primária, de de responder em liberdade e a apreensão de meios (CdP, Portugal) ‘the lawyer of the defendant, Sónia Neves, … says that the facts that she is a first-time defendant, and that she answered in freedom, as well as the confiscation of goods, are in her favor’. (vii). The subordinate clause cannot be left-dislocated, once again like other appositions/adjuncts: (17) *De que tenhas vindo à festa, gosto muito do facto ‘*That you have come to the party, I like the fact much’. (viii). The mood of the clause is not determined by the N, rather by other elements in the context: (18) a. Surpreendeu-nos o facto de que tenhas tenhas vindo à festa ‘The fact that you have come to the party surprised us’. b. Ignorámos o facto de que tu vieste vieste à festa ‘We ignore the fact that you came to the party’. The subjunctive in (18a) is selected by the main verb surpreender. In (18b), with the verb ignorar, the embedded mood is indicative. (ix). When the adjunct clause is infinitival, subject control is usually not exerted by any arguments inside the DP:

3.4 the historical data

45

(19) Não nos preocupa o facto de termos termos ignorado ignorado a tua presença ‘The fact that we have ignored your presence does not bother us’. The clitic pronoun nos (‘us’) is controlling the interpretation of the (covert) subject of the infinitive termos ignorado, but it is outside o facto de (see Leonetti, 1999: 2096–7). Given these tests, we accept that the syntactic relationship between the embedded clause, whether finite or infinitival, and the nouns facto and hecho is one of adjunction, not one of argumental selection (see Amaral and Delicado Cantero, 2019).

3.4 The historical data 3.4.1 Spanish hecho and el hecho de (que) The noun fecho—later hecho, after regular sound change in Spanish—had the general meaning of ‘feat, deeds, act,’ that is, an event (Vendler, 1967; de Miguel, 1999; Lyons, 1977: 483; a.o.). Like its contemporary counterpart, medieval fecho may be generally categorized as a SEN/result noun, a weak eventuality. In this section we examine its syntactic and semantic properties over time. Since the earliest attestations, fecho displays all the semantic properties of an eventive noun, as can be shown by the Vendler and Asher’s tests that we have presented. First, it takes place, is located in time, has initial and end points (Bosque, 1999: 51), as in (20a), and has internal duration (20b) (see Picallo, 1999: 368–71): los fechos fechos del del año año de de 1449 1449 años años (S, Carrillo, (20) a. E aquí comiençan los Crónica del halconero de Juan II, 15th c.–16th c.) ‘And here the feats of the year 1449 start’. b. Tráesme cartas del Senado para que dexe alongar alongar el el fecho fecho de de la la vatalla vatalla que que yo yo he he començado començado (S, García de Salazar, Istoria de las bienandanzas e fortunas, 15th c.) ‘You bring me letters from the senate so that I approve extending the development of the battle that I have started’. Second, it may be counted/pluralized, as in (21a,b), and modified by an adjective (21b): del anno anno ueynteno ueynteno (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de (21) a. De los los fechos fechos del España I, 13th c.) ‘On the feats of the 20th year’.

46

clausal adjunction

b. Et despues, deuen fazer quanto pudieren por que tomen plazer en grandes fechos fechos et de las grandes conquistas leerlas coronicas de los los grandes et de de cauallerias cauallerias que acaesçieron (S, D et de los los fechos fechos de de armas armas et Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, 14th c.) ‘And afterward they must do what they can in order to enjoy reading the chronicles of the great feats, the great conquests and the feats of battle and of chivalry that happened’. Third, each eventuality could be individuated, as in (22). Notice again that the noun is modified by an adjective: (22) E tanto andaua perdudo & coytado por ende que ouo a assacar un un fecho fecho much much estranno estranno (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘And he was so lost and concerned for this that he came up with a very strange fact’. In terms of distribution, fecho is attested with DPs from the earliest texts, always with the (functional) preposition de. These may denote participants in the event (e.g. the agent, [23a], the theme [23b]), or a locative (23c), which we assume to be syntactically adjuncts, following Leonetti (1999) and Moreno de Alba (2009): (23) a. E catan mas el fecho de de dios dios que el delos omnes (S, Maestre Pedro, Libro del Consejo y de los Consejeros, 13th c.) ‘And they pay more attention to the feat of god than to the feats of men’. todas las. las. vij. vij. planetas planetas es uno. tal como el de venus b. Et el fecho de planetas; de todas (S, Alfonso X, Libros del saber de astronomía, 13th c.) ‘And the making of the seven planets is one, exactly like that of Venus’. c. & el abenimento que contesciera a ell. & alos sos en el fecho de de athenas athenas (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria IV, 13th c.) ‘and the event that happened to him and to his people in the feat of Athens’. It may also combine with event-denoting nominals, including deverbal nouns like ida ‘going,’ and other nouns denoting events, like pelea ‘fight’ and batalla ‘battle’ (Gross and Kiefer, 1995: 50; Bosque, 1999: 51): (24)

a. E esa noche quedo tratado entre el rrey e don Joan que viniese el rrey otro dia alli a Peña Fiel y que fablasen mas sobre el el fecho fecho de de la la yda yda de Gibraltar (S, Gran crónica de Alfonso XI, 14th c.–15th/16th c.)

3.4 the historical data

47

‘And that night the King and D Joan agreed that the King would come to Peñafiel and that they would talk more about the actions/matter of the going to Gibraltar’. b. E de alli enbio a dezir al rrey el el fecho fecho de de la la pelea pelea como acaesçiera, e el que se yua para Seuilla (S, Gran crónica de Alfonso XI, 14th c.–15th/16th c.) ‘And from there he sent someone to tell the King how the feat of the fight had taken place and that he was leaving for Seville’. c. Agora pues aves oydo como el el fecho fecho de de la la batalla batalla del del salado salado fue (S, Martínez de Toledo, Atalaya de las Crónicas, 15th c.) ‘Now you have heard how the action/feat of the battle of Salado was’. Importantly, in these examples the singular noun fecho denotes more than one event, as a planned attack or battle consists of a sequence of events. We will return to this issue in the next section. The earliest attestations of fecho modified by infinitival clauses date back to the 13th–14th centuries; it continues to be attested past the medieval period to this day: (25) que auie mucho de fablar con el en el el fecho fecho de de yr yr sobre Cordoua (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España II, 13th c.–13th/14th c.) ‘that he had much to talk to him about the event of descending upon Cordoba’. The earliest instances with nonfinite clauses are introduced by the definite determiner el, as in (25), but also by demonstratives (este) or as a bare noun, as in (26a,b): (26) a. Nuestro sennor por mostrar que por la so uertut. & por la su merçet. & non por la muchedumbre dellos. uenie este batalla. este fecho fecho de de uencer uencer ellos ellos aquella aquella batalla batalla dixo a Gedeon (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria II, 13th c.–15th c.) ‘Our lord, in order to show that it was his virtue and grace rather than their big crowds that led to their victory in that battle, said to Gideon’. Fecho de de rreçebir rreçebir testimonjo es de muchas guisas (S, Alfonso X, b. Fecho Espéculo, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘The act of receiving testimony is in many ways’.

48

clausal adjunction

The use of determiners in instances with finite clauses is documented to this day. The first attestations with finite clauses are from the 16th to 17th centuries, with the preposition de. Chronologically, this is as expected (see Chapter 2). Earlier examples of fecho/hecho followed by que-clauses in the CdE are relative clauses. (27) Se pregunta si es causa justa de hacer la guerra la infidelidad de los bárbaros, y el el hecho hecho de de que que rechacen el evangelio (S, Acosta, Predicación del Evangelio en las Indias, 16th c.) ‘One wonders whether the barbarians’ irreligiosity and the fact that they reject the gospel would be fair cause to go to war’. The determiner el (‘the’) is frequently used, as in (27), but there are also some attestations of el hecho de with finite clauses and demonstratives in the 19th century (28), and even pluralized (29): (28) Pero ya que este este hecho hecho de de que que el cuerpo electoral en España no tenga en este instante las condiciones que tiene en otras partes, ya que este hecho evidentemente no sea culpa del actual Gobierno (S, Cánovas, Discursos, 19th c.) ‘But given this fact that the electoral body in Spain doesn’t have the same conditions as in other places right now, given that this fact is evidently not the current government’s fault’. (29) En esta influencia de la temperatura exterior sobre el momento de la aparición de los individuos perfectos de la Melolontha vulgaris, hallan explicación los los hechos hechos de de que que se encuentren melolontas aparecidos desde Octubre, y aun antes, y en el invierno; de de que que se vea en los templados otoños volar estos insectos durante esta estación (S, Ascárate, Insectos y criptógamas, 19th c.) ‘This influence of external temperature on the moment of appearance of the perfect melolontha vulgaris explains the fact that there are melolonthas since October, and even before, and in winter, and the fact that one can see these insects flying in temperate autumns’. In sum, fecho/hecho displays the distributional properties of an event (e.g. takes place, has duration, location in time). Syntactically, it may combine with DPs. Early attestations show that fecho could take infinitival clauses. Finite clauses are first attested in the 16th–17th centuries. In both cases the most frequent determiner is the definite article el (‘the’) and pluralization is limited.

3.4 the historical data

49

Table 3.1 Syntactic properties of fecho/hecho in diachrony.

Fechos/hechos Det fecho Adj Fecho/hecho de + DP Fecho/hecho de + inf Hecho (de) que

Properties

Earliest attestation

Pluralization Adjectival modification With a nominal phrase With infinitival clauses With finite clauses

13th c. 13th c. 13th c. 13th/14th c. (13th c.) 16th c.

Table 3.1 summarizes the syntactic properties of fecho/hecho over time. The date between parentheses indicates the original date of composition when it differs from that of the copy the example is taken from. Focusing now on its interpretation, as we have seen, fecho/hecho had an eventive meaning in the early attestations and co-occurred wtih DPs containing event-denoting nouns. The meaning of the singular noun fecho may correspond to a sum of events rather than a single action, as in (30): war and conquests are made up of multiple events. (30) ca el el fecho fecho de de guerra guerra que es todo lleno de peligros & de auenturas (S, Alfonso X, Siete Partidas, 13th–15th c.) ‘because the act of war is full of dangers and adventures’. This ability of the singular noun fecho to refer to multiple events reveals the summation properties of events mentioned in Section 3.2. Crucially, a sum of deeds can be told or narrated, as in (31), i.e. it is also a story. (31) començaron a contar el el fecho fecho de de los los Godos Godos (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘they started to recount the feat of the Goths’. Examples with verbs meaning ‘tell’ or ‘narrate’ show that fecho can also mean ‘story, report of the facts.’ Stories, like events, have duration and may have beginnings and ends, and the event of storytelling takes place in time. In these contexts containing verbs of saying, we also find examples of fecho combining with nominals that resist an eventive classification, like unidad ‘unity,’ creencia ‘belief,’ or lealdad ‘loyalty’ (32a–c): el fecho fecho de de la la unidad unidad de Nuestro (32) a. predigava toda vía Abraham el Señor Dios (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria I, 13th c.) ‘Abraham preached everywhere the remarkable feat of the unity of God’.

50

clausal adjunction

b. Mas esta razon non la pusiemos nos aqui en esta estoria por al; fecho de de la la creencia creencia de los si non porque es cosa que tanne al al fecho xristianos (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘But we brought up this reason in this story for no other reason that because it has to do with the matter of the belief of the Christians’. c. por todas estas razones que dixemos de bondades que an los mastines en si & sennalada miente en fecho fecho de de lealdad lealdad (S, Alfonso X, Libros del saber de astronomía, 13th c.) ‘for all those reasons we mentioned about the good features that mastiffs have, especially on the topic of loyalty’. Note that in these examples it is possible to see how the original meanings of fecho are related: one may narrate someone’s feats or actions, and this becomes the topic or subject matter of a conversation. In (32a) the unity of God (as told in the Scriptures) is a remarkable feat that can be shared by being predicated, in (32b) the beliefs of Christians can be mentioned and hence be a subject matter, and in (32c) the speaker can either refer to the things that mastiffs usually do that demonstrate their loyalty or to the topic of loyalty. These examples show that fecho could combine with nouns denoting states, not only with events, already in the 13th century. This option continues to be attested later in the data ([33], with the noun death being ambiguous between the act and the resulting state, and [34]): (33) Pero si no se duda del hecho sino del nonbre dél, como si la muerte de Juan, que es ya cierta, fue alevosía, o Assasinato, u Homicidio sinple, es estado difinitivo. I llámase estado Difinitivo porque, sabido el hecho hecho de de la la muerte muerte se procede a la difinición del nonbre del el muerte, crimen (S, de Robles, El culto sevillano, 17th c.) ‘But if there is no doubt about the act but rather about its name, that is, whether John’s death, already certain, was premeditated, assassination, or homicide, it is a definite state. And it is called a definite state because, once the act/result of death is known, the name of the crime is to be defined’. el hecho hecho de de la la existencia existencia de este Motu propio, (34) quando quiera negarse el a lo menos no se negará que ha avido Concilio de Trento (S, Mayans, Informe canónico-legal, 18th c.) ‘when they want to deny the reality of the existence of this motu proprio (document), at least they will not deny that there has been a Council of Trent’.

3.4 the historical data

51

Under the interpretation of ‘matter, topic,’ fecho/hecho is compatible with both event-denoting and stative nouns.The ambiguity between ‘topic’ and ‘actions, happenings’ may remain, as shown by the later example (35): (35) El filósofo Polístoro dijo que en ninguna cosa era la fortuna más incierta y en que menos guardase su palabra que era en casamientos, en hecho hecho de de casamientos casamientos porque no había casamiento en que no se hallase en algo dél alguno engañado … El filósofo Azuarcho dijo que en ninguna cosa era la fortuna más incierta y sospechosa en hecho hecho de de armas armas yy guerra guerra afirmando que en manos de los que en guerra, hombres era el dar las batallas, y en las de la fortuna dar las victorias (S, Guevara, Arte de Marear, 16th c.) ‘The philosopher Polistoro said that fortune was never more uncertain and less true to its word than in the matter of marriages, because in every marriage someone would find themselves tricked … The philosopher Azuarcho said that fortune was never more uncertain and suspicious than in matter of weapons and war, stating that battles were put in the hands of men, while victories were in the hands of fortune’. This semantic interpretation of the noun provides the conditions for the emergence and development of el hecho de que (and o facto de que in Portuguese), where hecho no longer denotes an event but rather a more abstract informational entity. The following sections will track the evolution of el hecho de + clause, paying attention to the first attestations of stative readings too. With infinitival clauses, fecho/hecho refers to physical acts, events (e.g. yr ‘to go,’ prender ‘to grab,’ tomar ‘to take’) similar to their DP counterparts: (36) a. que auie mucho de fablar con el. en el el fecho fecho de de yr yr sobre Cordoua (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España II, 13th c.) ‘that he had much to talk to him about the fact of descending upon Cordoba’. b. mataron muchos de aquellos traydores que fueran enel consseio & en el el fecho fecho de de prender prender a ysen su Rey (S, Crónica de veinte Reyes, 14th c.–14th/15th c.) ‘they killed many of those traitors who were part of the council and involved in the act of capturing Ysen, their King’. Notice that (36a), containing a verb of saying, is again compatible with the interpretation of a story or matter to be talked about, as well as with an eventive meaning: the act of descending over Cordoba to conquer it.

52

clausal adjunction

The first attestations of hecho with an infinitival clause with stative predicates, like ser soldados or ser hombres ‘to be soldiers/men’ and no tener ‘to not have’ appear in the 16th–17th centuries. soldados, (37) a. Así que, no todos los soldados, por el el hecho hecho de de ser ser soldados soldados pueden requerir a batalla a cualquier soldado (S, Jiménez de Urrea, Diálogo de la verdadera honra militar, 16th c.) ‘Therefore, not all soldiers, by the fact of being soldiers, may request any other soldier to fight’. el hecho hecho de de ser ser hombres hombres son b. todos, aunque les falte lo demás, por el dignos de gracia (S, Sigu¨enza, Teatro de virtudes políticas, 17th c.) ‘all of them, even if they lack the rest, are worthy of grace for the fact of being men’. c se mostró agraviado de que personalmente no hubiese ido a visitarle. A que el Gobernador satisfizo con el el hecho hecho de de no no tener tener navío ni fragata decente ni otra embarcación (S, de San Agustín, Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas, 17th c.) ‘he felt aggravated at not having been visited in person, which the governor excused with the fact that he had no adequate ship or frigate or any other type of boat’. Finally, the earliest data of el hecho de que (16th–17th c.) are not interpretable as events (38a,b). These two sentences instantiate a factive and a nonfactive interpretation of hecho: (38) a. Se pregunta si es causa justa de hacer la guerra la infidelidad de los bárbaros, y el el hecho hecho de de que que rechacen el evangelio (S, Acosta, Predicación del Evangelio en las Indias, 16th c.) ‘One wonders whether the barbarians’ irreligiosity and the fact that they reject the gospel are fair causes to go to war’. el hecho hecho de de que que fuese muerto por nuestros segovianos hay b. En el mucha duda (S, Colmenares, Historia de la insigne ciudad de Segovia, 17th c.) ‘It is highly doubtful that he was killed by our people from Segovia’. In (38a) the finite clause is coordinated with a DP (la infidelidad de los ba´rbaros), both of which form the subject of a copular sentence, namely, to be a fair cause. The main predicate of the embedded clause, rechazar el evangelio ‘reject the gospel,’ is an activity which is, in this context, assumed to be true (it is taken for granted that the barbarians reject the gospel). In (38b) el hecho de

3.4 the historical data

53

que is the object of the preposition en ‘in’ and the interpretation is ‘topic, subject matter.’ Here there is no assumption of truth of the proposition denoted by the finite clause in the subjunctive, but rather the opposite: the speaker asserts the doubt of whether the death was perpetrated by the people from Segovia. We return to these examples below. The non-eventive interpretation of el hecho de que continues to be present in the 18th century and beyond: (39) Este discurso supone el el hecho hecho de de que que la agua fría es remedio de la hydrophobia, lo qual es mui dudoso, o falso (S, Feijoo, Teatro crítico universal, 18th c.) ‘This speech assumes the fact that cold water is a remedy for hydrophobia, which is very doubtful or false’. In (39b) the context cancels the truth of the predication embedded in el hecho de que, that is, that cold water cures hydrophobia. In sum, we have observed a change in the meaning of fecho/hecho from an event to a fact-like object. We have examined the distribution of the noun by showing the compatibility with event-denoting and stative DPs, as well as the compatibility with infinitival and finite clauses. Our earliest documented unambiguous examples of el hecho de que as a fact-like object appear in the 17th century. By the 18th century, hecho de is attested combining with event-denoting nominals, stative nominals, and finite and nonfinite clauses. Moreover, we have shown that the eventive interpretation of el hecho de + clause is present with infinitival clauses, and the fact-like interpretation is present with finite ones. We discuss below the mechanisms of syntactic and semantic change involved in these changes.

3.4.2 Portuguese feito and facto The form feito is the strong participle of fazer ‘to do’ that underwent regular phonetic change from Latin factu(m) (Williams, 1962 §§92.7, 159.3). It is attested since the 13th century with the variants feito/feyto/fecto, either as a participle or a noun (the same chronology is provided by Houaiss, Villar, and Franco, 2003). Only feito (not facto) appears in Cunha (2014), a work that covers the Portuguese lexicon from the 13th–15th centuries. Since the earlier attestations, and to this day, the noun feito meant ‘deeds, works (of someone), feat, achievement (i.e. things done, by contrast with things

54

clausal adjunction

said or thought)’ as in (40a–c).⁹ This eventive meaning is the same as the original meaning of hecho in Spanish: seu feito feito se(40) a. E por que me creades esta çinta me quis dar, e que de seu jades todos fis; que eu vi o seu corpo (P, Cantigas de Santa Maria, 13th c.) ‘And so that you believe me, she gave me this waistband, and rest assured of her feat, since I saw her body’. gran feito feito dum dum miragre miragre vos direi que fez mui freb. E daquesto un un gran mos’ afeito a Madre do alto Rey, per com’ eu escrit’ achey (P, Cantigas de Santa Maria, 13th c.) ‘And of this I will tell you a great deed of a miracle done very beautifully by the Mother of the high Lord, according to the writings I have found’. todo seu seu feito feito parecia cristãão e por esto fiava delle o Cide e c. E em em todo amavao muyto (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘And in all his actions he behaved like a Christian and that is why Cid trusted him and loved him so much’. Given the nature of the medieval texts, the feats pertain either to miracles performed by a saint or to military achievements. This eventive meaning is captured in the Tesouro da Lı´ngua Portuguesa from the 17th century, in which the noun feito is used to translate the following Latin terms: (41) Opus, eris. Manuspretium, ii. * Feito, ou feitos. Acta, orum. Res gestae. Gesta, orum. * Feito, ou façanha. (P, Tesouro da Língua Portuguesa, 17th c.). And one century later, Bluteau’s Vocabulario Portuguez e latino acknowledges the same meaning: (42) Acção Feito, obra < Actio, onis. Factum, i. (P, Bluteau, Vocabulario, 18th c.). ⁹ The noun feito also had and still has to this day a juridical meaning ‘deeds that can be brought to trial and eventually prosecuted,’ exemplified in (i). Here the noun occurs with a DP containing an event-denoting noun (furto). We will not further examine this meaning here: (i)

O primeiro he quando o ssenhor fosse acusado de traiçom que ouuesse feita. Ou que quisesse fazer. Contra elRey. Ou contra o Reyno. Ou sobre feito de furto (P, Afonso X, Terceira Partida, 14th c.) ‘The first is when the nobleman was accused of an act of treason that he had committed, or that he planned on doing, against the King or against the kingdom or of an act of stealing.’

3.4 the historical data

55

Accordingly, the noun feito may occur with container verbs meaning ‘to happen, to take place’ (Vendler, 1967; Peterson, 1997; Asher, 2000), as in (43a,b), it can be witnessed and narrated, it can be located in time and place, and thus is compatible with temporal and spatial adverbials, as well as with an explicit agent. Given the nature of the older texts, the feats reported are either miracles performed by a saint or military achievements. acontecera e a maneira (43) a. e disse lhe as novas de todo o feito como acontecera em que se fezera. (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘and told him the news of the whole event as it had happened and how it had occurred’. b. e escreveo huua carta ao conde dom Joham Affonsso seu tio que estava em Santarem, rrecontando-lhe em ella todo o que lhe avehera com Vaasco Gomez d’Aavreu … e que lhe rrogava que lhe enviasse dizer per sua carta a verdade d’aquell feito como sse passara passara (P, Fernão Lopes, Crónica de D. Fernando, 15th c.) sse passara. ‘and he wrote a letter to the count D. JA, his uncle, who was in Santarém, telling him all that had happened with VGA … and that he asked him to tell him in a letter the truth about how that event had occurred’. In terms of its distribution, feito could be modified by determiners and quantifiers (e.g. meu, este, aquele, qualquer), as in (44a, b) as well as adjectives (44c), and it could be pluralized (44d): (44) a. E cuidando que era de poçõy’ aquel aquel feito feito de coovr’ ou d’aranna (P, Cantigas de Santa Maria, 13th c.) ‘And thinking that that action was due to the poison of a snake or a spider’. b. E, pois que vos levades esto ë jogo, este este feito feito e tal desonrra, mande Deus que vos nõ arrependades ende (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘And since you take this as a joke, this happening and such dishonor, may God grant that you do not come to regret this’. c. E el-rei meesmo foi ledo por que seus homeës aconselhavam em em tam tam gram gram feito feito como era matar Pompeeo (P, Mateus, Julio Cesar, 15th c.) ‘And the King himself was happy because his men counseled such a great deed as to kill Pompeus’.

56

clausal adjunction

d. E, veendo elles como oo feito feito dos dos mouros mouros hya pera mal e como nõ poderiam aver acorro de nenhûa parte, … e, veendo outrossy como os os feitos feitos del del rey rey dom dom Fernando Fernando hyam de bem en melhor todos (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘And when they saw how the work of the Moors was progressing badly and they could not receive help … and seeing also how the deeds of King Fernando were advancing very well’. In the previous examples, the singular noun feito can refer either to a single event or to a sum of events: e.g. o feito dos mouros likely refers to the course of events of multiple battles and efforts, which can be narrated. A narration of events, like the events themselves, has duration, a beginning, and an endpoint. These instances often involve anaphoric reference; the antecedent is introduced in the text and can be later retrieved by using a demonstrative or a relative clause, as in (45): (45) A hordenança de bem estoriar nos rrequere tornarmos dar fim ao teemos, ao feito feito da da cisma cisma que que começado começado teemos teemos posto que brevemente seja contado (P, Fernão Lopes, Crónica de D. Fernando, 15th c.) ‘The commitment to good story-telling requires that we finish the actions/narration of the [Papal] schism that we have started, even if only briefly narrated’. The noun feito is found since early examples introduced by the (functional) preposition de ‘of,’ where the prepositional object could denote an agent, as in (44d), or a theme, as in (46a), or a locative (46b): feito da da morte morte del del rei (46) a. Ca ja elle sabya mui bë todo oo feito rei dõ dõ Sancho Sancho (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘Since he was already aware of the occurrence of King D. Sancho’s death’. feito de Quiloa como atras disse, se partio b. O Vizo-Rei, acabado oo feito Quiloa, de Quiloa com’armada que tinha (P, Correia, Lendas, 16th c.) ‘The vice-king, once the feat of Quiloa was finished, as said before, left with the army he had’. The noun feito occurs as the complement of the verbs ouvir ‘to hear,’ ver ‘to see,’ saber ‘to know,’ fazer ‘to do,’ mostrar ‘to show,’ fazer [alguém] certo de, ser ou fazer fis de [um feito] [a alguém] ‘to guarantee, to promise, to make [someone] sure [of something],’ aduzir, outorgar ‘to give.’

3.4 the historical data

57

(47) a. Quand’este este feito feito fezerom, tornaron pera Sevilla (P, Cantigas de Santa Maria, 13th c.) ‘When they performed this feat, they returned to Seville’. As we have seen with hecho, in contexts with verbs of saying, feito may also have the meaning of ‘narration, story’ (as in [48]), as well as ‘topic, subject matter,’ as in (49). (48) E outrossy lhe contou todo o que disera o astrologo em em seu seu fecto fecto (P, BARL. 1v26, from Cunha, 2014: 1278) ‘And also he told him everything that the astrologist had said in his narration’. (49) homde faremos fim, assy de seus feitos como de sua vida. E por agora tornemos ao feito feito dos dos mouros mouros que temos amtre maãos, os quaes amdarão assy em suas voltas sem fazemdo cousa çerta (P, Crónica do Conde D. Pedro de Meneses, 15th –16th c.) ‘where we will find the end, both of his deeds and of his life. As for now, let us return to the deeds/narration of deeds of the Moors that we are talking about, [the Moors] who kept moving about without doing any particular thing’. It is also possible to find early instances in which the noun in the DP does not denote an event and feito unambiguously means ‘topic, subject matter,’ as in (50). (50) E este rey dom Sancho era muy grosso së guisa, em maneira que nõ podya cavalgar, se nõ com grande trabalho. E porende lhe disserom este sobrenome dõ Sancho, o Gordo. E por esso foy filhar conselho gordura, com el rey dom Garcia por feito feito daquella daquella gordura gordura pera saber que lhe poderya fazer pera a perder (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘And King D. Sancho was so fat, that he could not ride a horse but with great effort. And for this reason he was named D. Sancho the Fat. And for this he consulted King D. Garcia on the topic of that fatness, in order to find out what he could do to lose it’. Some instances with event-denoting nouns are ambiguous between the eventive meaning and this meaning of ‘topic, subject matter,’ as in (51)–(52): (51) Quando o meestre vio que mais nom podia saber da rrainha em feito prisom, feito de de sua sua prisom prisom espedio-sse d’ella e foi-sse logo ao Viimeiro (P, Fernão Lopes, Crónica de D. Fernando, 15th c.)

58

clausal adjunction

‘When the master saw that he could not find out any more from the queen on the happening/topic of her imprisonment, he took farewell from her and went swiftly to Vimeiro’. feito de de seu seu negoçio negoçio bem emtemdeo el Rei dom (52) & o comde sobre o feito pedro (P, Fernão Lopes, Crónica de D. Pedro, 15th c.) ‘and the count understood King D. Pedro regarding the actions/topic of his dealings’. The first attestation of feito with an infinitival clause, which continues to this day,1⁰ is from the 14th century: de seer seer solto solto dom Afomso (53) a. E ella disse todo o que quis em feito feito de (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘And she said all that she wanted regarding the actions/events of D. Afonso’s being released’. b. que se lembrasse, que conforme ao pregão que mandou dar, este feito feito de de lhe lhe descubrir descubrir oo Nebri Nebri & fazer lho auer era perpor este Nebri, doado (P, Trancoso, Contos & historias de proveito & exemplo, 16th c.) ‘that she should remember that, according to the announcement he ordered, he was pardoned owing to the fact that he had discovered and brought him the hawk’. Examples (53a,b) show an ambiguity between the interpretation of events or actions and the interpretation of ‘topic, subject matter’: example (53a) could also be translated as ‘she said everything she wanted on the topic of D. Afonso’s release.’ In Portuguese, the only instances in which feito takes a finite clause is with a relative clause.11 Only facto may take a finite clause, as we discuss below. The syntactic properties of feito in diachrony are summarized in Table 3.2. 1⁰ The eventive meaning of ‘feat, deed’ is clear in the contemporary examples as well: Krisztina Egerszegi … conseguiu ooofeito feito feito de ser a primeira atleta a conquistar cinco medalhas de ouro olímpicas (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘KE attained the achievement of being the first athlete to win five gold Olympic medals.’ Note that the noun retains its full nominal distribution, as can be seen by the possible modification by an adjective, as in (ii): (ii) Carlos César conseguiu o raro raro feito rarofeito feito de ser reeleito líder sem um único voto contra ou abstenção (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘CC attained the rare achievement of being re-elected as leader without any votes against him or abstentions.’ 11 An early example with a relative clause is (i): (i)

3.4 the historical data

59

Table 3.2 Syntactic properties of feito in diachrony.

feitos Det feito Adj feito de + DP feito de feito de que

Properties

Earliest attestation

Pluralization Adjectival modification With a nominal phrase With infinitival clauses With finite clauses

13th c. 13th c. 13th c. 14th c. (1 ex.) —

Turning now to the noun facto, a learned word, the earliest examples attested in the CdP are either in Latin (e.g. ipso facto) or in formulaic language in legal documents. The first attestations of the noun facto in the CdP apart from such cases are from the 15th century. Houaiss, Villar, and Franco (2003) date the first occurrence of facto as 1548 in the letters of Padre Manoel da No´brega (Houaiss, Villar, and Franco, 2003: 1684), but we have found earlier instances in which facto occurs with the meaning of ‘actions, deeds’ (54a–c), and in the expression de facto, as in (55): (54) a. e he neçesario, que tome hordem e regra, por que me conforme factos do outro mundo, que com os deste (P, Fernão mais com os factos Lopes, Crónica de D. Fernando, 15th c.) ‘and I must join the [religious] order and the rule, so that I adjust more to the actions/doings of the other world than to those of this world’. b. Ho Jffante dom Anrrique … determinou a descubrir esta costa em longo porque tinha noticia dos mouros que hiam por ouro contra esta parte ocidental E por ysso mandou per muytas vezes grandes factos factos amtre outros forom homens que per esperiencia de grandes auantajados (P, Códice Valentim Fernandes, 16th c.) ‘Prince D. Anrrique decided to discover this coast in length because he had news of Moors seeking gold on its western part, and for this reason sent many times men who, by having experience of great actions/deeds, would be in a better position [to do this]’.

(i)

saluo se testemunho fosse sobre feito de que podesse naçer morte ou perdimëto de nëbro (P, Afonso X, Terceyra Partida, 14th c.) ‘unless there was a testimony about an act/happening that could lead to death or to the loss of a limb.’

60

clausal adjunction

c. E mandou que os embaixadores se fosem a Granada trautar estas entregas con el Rey, o qual ele tomaua por meo neeste facto, neeste facto facto e lhe prazia do que ele fezese (P, Frei João Alvarez, Vida do Infante D. Fernando, 15th c.)12 ‘And he ordered the ambassadors to go to Granada to deal with these renderings with the King, whom he took as intermediary in this action/matter, and he was pleased with what he would do’. (55) E mandou-lhe dizer que elle fose muj bem vindo e que loguo de facto facto loguo partio com mujta jente se vinha a Qualecut, como de depos sy (P, Diário da viagem de Vasco da Gama, 15th c.) ‘And he had someone deliver the message that he was welcome and that he would go to Calecut very soon, and in fact he left soon after, taking many people with him’. Facto displays the eventive meaning of ‘action, deeds,’ i.e. it refers to an eventuality with a spatiotemporal realization, as shown by the temporal adverbial in (56a): the actions of sacking the pagoda lasted for two days. Given that events exist in time and space, they can be witnessed (Vendler, 1967; Asher, 1993), as in (56b): (56) a. E cometendo o pagode, que estava sem guarda, o entrou, mandando-o buscar todo, e cavando-o por tôdas as partes, sem achar nele mais, que uma panela de ouro, que servia de levarem água pera lavarem o idolo, que quando muito podia ter três, ou facto se deteve dous dias (P, Diogo quatro mil cruzados, e neste facto do Couto, Quinta Década, 16th c.) ‘And attacking the pagoda, which was unguarded, he went in, ordering them to search it entirely and everywhere, but couldn’t find in it more than a gold pot used to carry water to wash the idol, which wouldn’t have more than three or four thousand cruzados, and in these actions he remained for two days’. b. Da maior parte daqueles factos factos foi e é Vossa Senhoria testemunha, e assim não será necessário recorrer aos registos (P, Cunha Brochado, Cartas, 18th c.) ‘You have been and are the witness of the majority of these actions, hence it won’t be necessary to resort to the [written] records’. 31 This example appears in the CdP as Crónica de D. Fernando de Fernão Lopes, but this is incorrect: it is actually from the Vida do Infante D. Fernando, whose author lived in the 15th century. However, the publication is from 1540 according to Mendes dos Remédios.

3.4 the historical data

61

We find attestations of facto de + DP since the 17th century, both with event-denoting nominals (acção, proclamação) and with stative nouns (sociabilidade): facto das das primeiras primeiras acções acções e o (57) a. Leio nesta última carta de V. S.ª oo facto acções, juízo ou juízos das futuras (P, Vieira, Cartas, 17th c.) ‘I read in Your Honor’s latest letter the deeds of the first actions and the judgment or judgments of the future ones’. Este facto facto da da intentada intentada acclamaçao acclamaçao de de rei rei que nao acceitou rei, b. Este Amador Bueno, se lê no Archivo da camara da villa capital de S. Vicente (P, Leme, Nobilarquia paulistana, 18th c.) ‘This action/this fact of the attempted proclamation of the King, which AB did not accept, can be read in the Archive of the town hall in the capital of S. Vicente’. (58) porque a natureza humana foi e há-de ser sempre a mesma, e a infinita variedade de circunstancias que surgem, de espaço a espaço, do do facto facto da da sociabilidade sociabilidade não exercem sobre ela outra influência sociabilidade, mais do que alterar-lhe os modos por que exteriormente se manifesta (P, Gama, A última dona de S. Nicolau, 19th c.) ‘because human nature was and has to be always the same, and the infinite variety of circumstances that arise, from time to time, from the event/happenings of sociability, do not influence it more than to alter the manner in which it manifests externally’. The earliest instances with infinitival clauses denoting dynamic eventualities are documented very late in the CdP, in the 19th century: (59) a. na qual o poeta allude habilmente aoo facto facto de de têr têr passado passado Buthroto a ser colonia romana (P, Mendes, Eneida Brasileira, 19th c.) ‘in which the poet alludes to the fact that Buthroto had become a Roman colony’. facto de de errarem errarem os os Troianos Troianos longamente (P, b. Virgilio … refere oo facto Mendes, Eneida Brasileira, 19th c.) ‘Virgil mentions the fact that the Trojans wandered for a long time’. Instances with finite clauses are also first attested in the 19th century, as in (60). Examples with both types of clauses continue to be attested to this day.

62

clausal adjunction

Table 3.3 Syntactic properties of facto in diachrony.

factos Det facto Adj facto de + DP facto de + inf facto de que

Properties

Earliest attestation

Pluralization Modification With a nominal phrase With infinitival clauses With finite clauses

15th c. 15th c. 17th c. 19th c. 19th c.

facto de de que que ela é uma descrente e eu sou um velho (P, Ortigão, (60) peloo facto Cartas a Emília, 19th c.) ‘because of the fact that she is skeptical and I am an old man’. The syntactic distribution of facto over time is summarized in Table 3.3. In later examples we find several constructions, em facto de ‘on the topic of,’ pôr ao facto de ‘to inform, to keep someone up to date on a topic,’ estar ao facto ‘to be up to date,’ constructions that rely on the original meaning of facto as ‘happening’: facto de de religiao, todos discursam bem, (61) a. o certo é que, em em facto quando têm diante dos olhos a necessidade e o perigo (P, Cunha Brochado, Cartas, 17th c.) ‘the truth is that in matters of religion, all are good speakers when they face necessity and danger’. ao facto facto do do que se b. Gonçalo, sem perda de tempo, pôs a criadita ao passava (P, Pinheiro Chagas, A mantilha de Beatriz, 19th c.) ‘Gonçalo, without wasting time, updated the maid on what was happening’. In sum, both words feito and facto remain in contemporary Portuguese, feito keeping the original meaning of ‘feat, deed, story (which may be true or fictional)’ and allowing for a temporal-spatial location and co-occurrence with an infinitival clause. This noun also retains an agentive interpretation, with the prepositional complement in the PP realizing the agent (e.g. o feito da equipa ‘the feat of the team’) but is no longer compatible with nouns that do not denote events, e.g. gordura (as was the case in the medieval period). On the other hand, the learned word facto can display the semantic value of ‘actions, things done’ (its original value) as well as ‘fact-like object’ (as we have also seen for fecho/hecho). Hence, we have two different lexical items in Portuguese corresponding to the two meanings that result from the semantic change of fecho/hecho

3.5 syntactic change: discussion

63

in Spanish: feito denotes the event while facto denotes a fact-like abstract entity in Asher’s sense as well as ‘subject, topic of conversation.’ One may assume that the semantic change that feito was undergoing was stopped by facto’s entering the language in the 15th century (at least according to our corpus attestations), hence leading to a division of labor between the two nouns.

3.5 Syntactic change: discussion The data in this chapter allow us to trace the evolution of the vernacular nouns hecho and feito, as well as the late learned word facto. Eventive hecho/feito are attested from the first texts and retain the eventive meaning today. Abstract non-eventive hecho/facto are the result of changes. In this section we will explore to what extent syntactic change was involved in the evolution of el hecho/o facto de (que) in contexts with non-eventive hecho/facto, i.e. with finite clauses). As per our discussion in Chapter 2, three issues are relevant here: the role of reanalysis and recategorization, internal analyzability (i.e. syntactic compositionality) of the construction, and the presence of the preposition in those cases where the nouns take a finite clause. Beginning with reanalysis and recategorization, previous literature on fact has argued that abstract fact is a sort of functional element with little semantic content. Schmid (2000) argues that nouns such as fact are functional shell nouns. His concept of functional is usage-based: “[t]he right way of thinking about shell nouns is as particular types of uses of certain nouns, rather than as shell lexemes in their own right” (Schmid, 2000: 13). While semantics plays a role in this concept of functional, no actual discussion of the original meaning or of categorial properties is part of Schmid’s proposal. Schmid’s analysis of fact as a shell noun shows that fact (and other nouns like reason, cause) has a discourse function, specifically to “encapsulate” information conveyed by one or more sentences (i.e. it is an information unit).13 For Schmid, the noun has lost its lexical meaning and simply provides a resource to summarize textual information. 13 The discourse function of hecho as introducing a topic has been noted in the literature (Rodríguez Espiñeira, 2015). The same is true for Portuguese, as in (i): (i)

ooofacto facto facto é que eu—que sou naturalmente positivo e realista—tinha vindo tiranizado pela imaginação e pelas quimeras (P, Eça de Queirós, Singularidades de uma rapariga loura, 19th c.) ‘the fact is that I, naturally positive and realistic, had been enslaved by imagination and chimeras’.

64

clausal adjunction

We have seen above that for Spanish hecho and Portuguese facto, this discourse function can be traced syntactically over time by the possibility of clausal adjunction from the 16th century onward. In addition, the categorial status of the noun is not lost, as we discuss in this section. In view of the evidence presented before, we contend that both Spanish hecho and Portuguese facto as clause-taking nouns do not seem to have recategorized. Unlike nouns in complex prepositions (see Chapter 4), hecho retains its categorial nominal features. Despite its semantic change from eventive to abstract, it has never undergone a categorial change to a functional noun such as Svenonius’s (2006, 2010) Axial Parts. The morphosyntactic changes that can be observed reveal a semantic change rather than a categorial change. As already mentioned above, following Leonetti’s (1999) tests, we have seen that pluralization of hecho as a clause-taking noun is limited diachronically1⁴ but not completely ruled out, and the same is true in contemporary Spanish and Portuguese, as shown by (62)–(63): los hechos hechos de de que que el receptor de tipo II está constitutiva(62) Destacan los mente autofosforilado, y que que el acoplamiento del ligando no provoca cambio alguno en esta actividad (S, CdE, Spain) ‘Two salient facts are: the fact that the type II receptor is essentially self-phosphorylated and the fact that adding the linker does not alter this activity’. (63) Não se podem negligenciar os os fatos fatos de de que que o avanço [da produção industrial] se dá sobre uma base bastante enfraquecida e que que o setor produtivo mal havia se recuperado de um período recessivo quando se viu acuado pela crise da pandemia (P, Brazil)1⁵ ‘One cannot ignore the facts that the advance [of the industry] is happening on a rather weakened basis and that the productive system had barely recovered from a recession when it was affected by the crisis of the pandemic’. 1⁴ El hecho de + infinitival clause is commonly documented in singular but we found one example in the plural: (i)

ira Acaso, ni en los los otros hechos de irritar, mitigar la ira, losotros otroshechos hechosde deirritar, irritar,ooomitigar mitigarla laira ira tampoco hay mucho que admirar (S, Feijoo, Cartas eruditas y curiosas, 18th c.) ‘Perhaps there isn’t much to admire either in the other actions of irritating or mitigating one’s wreath’.

3⁴ Retrieved from otempo.com.br/opiniao/editorial/sinais-da-industria-1.2368113 (last accessed August 5, 2020).

3.5 syntactic change: discussion

65

These examples show that both clause-taking hecho and facto retain their nominal properties. Leonetti (1999: 2095, fn 15) points out that only some clause-taking nouns are common in plural form in Spanish. These examples also confirm that the abstract object facts act like count nouns (Asher, 2000: 56–7): the singular noun fact cannot refer to multiple facts. Another constraint showing nominal status is the very frequent use of the definite determiner. We have mentioned above that other determiners are attested and are grammatical for some speakers in present-day Spanish and Portuguese: (64) este este hecho hecho de de que que los cabestros estén demasiado entrenados … ha provocado numerosas quejas por parte de algunos corredores (S, CdE, Spain) ‘the fact that the bulls are too trained has led to many complaints by some runners’. (65) a. A este este facto facto de de ter ter recebido recebido as Constituições se refere Nóbrega (P, Portugal)1⁶ ‘Nóbrega mentions this fact of having received the constitutions’. b. este este facto facto de de que que as coisas espirituais, em si por nós inatingíveis, possam ser investigadas simbolicamente tem a sua raiz naquilo que acima se disse (P, Portugal)1⁷ ‘The fact that spiritual things, unassailable by us, may be symbolically researched stems from that mentioned above’. Este and el/o are both determiners marking definiteness and uniqueness, which are the semantic properties commonly associated to this construction in the literature (Leonetti, 1999; Lyons, 1999; see also Asher, 1993: 177). Finally, those constraints are not exclusive to el hecho/o facto de que. Leonetti’s (1999) tests mentioned above prove that these syntactic properties are those of apposition, as in la ciudad de Madrid (‘the city of Madrid’). Thus, we conclude that hecho in el hecho de que, as well as facto in o facto de que, remain as nominal as ciudad (‘city’) is in la ciudad de Madrid. Syntactic compositionality has not been compromised either. While internal analyzability is not a sufficient indication of the categorial nature of the noun (see Chapter 4), it is additional evidence for the lack of syntactic reanalysis, 3⁵ From Cartas do Brasil e mais Escritos do Pe. Manuel da Nóbrega, introdução e notas críticas de Serafim Leite, 1955, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, p. 207. 3⁶ From João Maria André (2019). Douta Ignorância. Linguagem e Diálogo: O poder e os limites da palavra em Nicolau de Cusa, Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 317.

66

clausal adjunction

especially of the absence of univerbation or fossilization of the construction. First, adjectival modification continues to be grammatical in both Spanish and Portuguese: cierto de de que que existe la (66) La primera premisa verdadera es el el hecho hecho cierto discriminación hacia la mujer en nuestra sociedad (S, Spain)1⁸ ‘The first true premise is the certain fact that discrimination against women exists in our society’. facto essencial essencial de de que que todos os gestos (67) o que ele nos dá a ver é oo facto envolvem valores (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘what he makes us see is the essential fact that all gestures have values’. Second, the nouns hecho and facto continue to be syntactically referential by allowing e.g. anaphoric reference (68) and ellipsis (el/o ø de que) (69, 70): (68) Así “la ambición de Duvalier” designa o significa el el hecho hecho de que ese hecho Duvalier es ambicioso. Y ese hecho es también lo significado por la oración “Duvalier es ambicioso,” pues significa, ni más ni menos, (el hecho de) que Duvalier es ambicioso. (S, Googlebooks, Spain)1⁹ ‘Thus, ‘Duvalier’s ambition’ designates or means the fact that Duvalier is ambitious. And this fact is also the meaning carried by the sentence ‘Duvalier is ambitious,’ since it clearly means (the fact) that Duvalier is ambitious’. (69) al editor de su próximo libro le tienen sin cuidado tanto ese hecho como el el de de que que el fotógrafo haya registrado un crimen en las que debían ser sus fotos más apacibles (S, Googlebooks, Colombia)2⁰ ‘the editor of their next book doesn’t care about that fact or the fact that the photographer has captured a crime in what should be their most peaceful photos’. de que que a guerra é, para as nações, a essência da sua (70) E esse facto é oo de luta por uma vida livre (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘And that fact is the fact that war is, for nations, the essence of their fight for a free life’.

3⁷ Retrieved from elpais.com/cultura/2012/03/02/actualidad/1330717685_771121.html#sumario_7 (last accessed August 5, 2020). 3⁸ From Lorenzo Peña (1987). Fundamentos de ontología dialéctica, Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, p. 38. 3⁹ From Santiago Andrés Gómez (2010). El cine en busca de sentido, Antioquia: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia, p. 79.

3.6 semantic change: discussion

67

Given this evidence we can conclude that no recategorization or loss of internal syntactic structure has taken place. Both hecho and facto participate in the general syntactic change whereby nouns, and other categories such as verbs and adjectives, combine with finite clauses with the preposition de (see Chapter 2 for an overview), resulting in the de que. Spanish and Portuguese are chronologconstruction el hecho/o facto de ically different here. In Spanish, the first cases of el hecho de que—with the preposition de—are attested in the 16th–17th centuries. At that time other clause-taking nouns are attested with the preposition de too. El hecho de + infinitive is attested earlier, thus demonstrating the same chronological pattern observed with other clause-taking categories: the prepositional option is attested first with DPs and with infinitival clauses and, around the 16th century, it extends to finite clauses, a case of analogy (see Chapter 2). The CdE shows an increase in the number of examples from the 18th century (nine) but especially in the 19th century (some seventy examples). The Portuguese counterpart o facto de que is not attested until much later, the 19th century. This difference is not due to a lack of similar patterns in the language. In fact, Portuguese starts to show the prepositional option with nouns, verbs, and adjectives around the 17th century (Delicado Cantero, 2013). A couple of facts may help explain the late chronology of facto. First, facto is a learned word that does not enter the language until the 15th century. Second, the later combination with finite clauses is still in line with the evolution of other clause-taking nouns: the prepositional infinitival shows up before its finite counterpart. Third, facto is not the only learned noun to show a late chronology, compared to Spanish. Corpus data reveal that the noun ideia is also not commonly attested with finite clauses in the CdP until the 19th century. To summarize, our findings indicate that the nouns hecho and facto retain their nominal properties, the construction el hecho de (que) and o facto de (que) is internally analyzable, and the nouns have participated in the broader syntactic change affecting both languages, by which nouns take infinitival and finite clauses introduced by a preposition.

3.6 Semantic change: discussion We can now trace the semantic change of hecho and facto from the original meaning of an event to an abstract object that we classify as “fact-like,” adopting Asher’s (1993) terminology. The noun feito in Portuguese retains the eventive (older) meaning. The semantic change is accompanied by the syntactic change we have described: the nouns hecho and facto become compatible

68

clausal adjunction

with finite clauses as their denotation becomes increasingly abstract,21 while the noun retains syntactic autonomy. In sum, the two meanings of hecho correspond to two different lexical items in Portuguese (where the fact-like meaning is the one we find mostly after the 16th century). In this section we focus on this semantic shift and address the following issues: (i) bridging contexts for the change; (ii) the absence of a factive presupposition of the nouns hecho and facto (contra claims found in the literature), which historically did not display factivity either; (iii) mechanisms and paths of semantic change that affect event-denoting nouns; and (iv) implications of our findings for the literature on the ontology of abstract entities. The semantic change of hecho and facto that we have documented corresponds to increased abstraction in Asher’s ontology (according to Figure 3.1): the change is from ‘deeds, feat,’ i.e. a less abstract object (eventuality) to a purely abstract object (fact, possibility). We argue that the crucial contexts for this change (“bridging contexts,” Diewald, 2002) are those allowing for an ambiguous interpretation between events and narration of events: “facts, like events and s.o.a. [states of affairs], can be described, discussed, etc.” (Jayez and Godard, 1999: 153). In the historical data we have reported that from early on, contexts with verbs of saying allowed for the meaning of ‘story,’ which was compatible with “host” predicates (in Vendler’s sense) describing duration, beginnings, and ends. Importantly, the ‘story, narration’ meaning is more abstract than the eventive meaning: a narration of an event lacks a necessary connection to the original concrete time/space and real participants; one can tell a story many years after it has happened, or immediately after, and it can be retold many times, something which is not possible of the event itself. While the story exists in discourse 21 Schmid (2000: 69) notes that the noun campaign, which denotes an event, cannot be used with that-clauses. As shown above, feito does not occur with a finite clause either, only with nonfinite clauses, that denote events: (i) ?o feito de que a Ana tenha ganho medalhas de ouro ‘?the feat that Ana has won gold medals’. (ii) O feito de a Ana ter ganho medalhas de ouro ‘the feat of Ana’s having won gold medals’. (iii) A Ana ter ganho medalhas de ouro é um feito. ‘That Ana has won gold medals is a feat’. Accordingly, feito with an infinitival clause is compatible with a verb meaning ‘to happen,’ as other event-denoting nominals. This is shown in (iv): (iv) aconteceu aconteceu aconteceu o feito de terminarem Super Mario Bros. 3 em dois segundos ‘it so happened that they finished SMB3 in two seconds’. (P, Brazil; retrieved from arkade.com.br/super-mario-bros-3-zerado-apenas-dois-segundosdurante-speedrun, last accessed August 21, 2020)

3.6 semantic change: discussion

69

and has a duration, can be started and ended, it is less concretely grounded in spatiotemporal coordinates than the event it is about. In this respect, both stories and facts are abstract objects: recall that facts, in Vendler’s terms, are also “about” things. Contexts of ambiguity between both meanings favored a semantic reanalysis of the entire sentence, i.e. an algebraic change of the meaning of the sentence components (in the sense of Eckardt, 2006; see Chapter 2). There is another reason why we consider that the meaning of ‘story, narration’ is important for understanding the semantic change of hecho and facto: it allows us to account for the generation of the full range of meanings attested in the data. Our data show that hecho, feito, and facto are not restricted to factive uses, and have never been historically, i.e. both factive and non-factive interpretations of these nouns are attested. Assuming pragmatic enrichment of meaning, according to the Invited Inferencing Model of Semantic Change presented in Chapter 2, the meaning ‘story, narration’ supports factive interpretations: if a story reports events that have happened in the past and have been witnessed by the speaker, as is often the case e.g. in chronicles, there is a contextual implication that the events are true. On the other hand, the meaning of story arguably also allows for nonfactive interpretations: stories can be false and their veracity may be questioned (as we have seen in some early examples in which miracles are reported and the speaker tries to convince the audience that they happened, or provides information about the type of evidence, as in [40a,b]). Thus, the truth of the events being narrated could be contextually implicated or not, and for this reason we find both examples in which it is taken for granted that the events are true, and other examples in which they are not presupposed to be true. While for contemporary data Leonetti (1999) and Delbecque and Lamiroy (1999) claim that el hecho de (que) conveys a factive presupposition, and so does Barbosa (2013: 1847) for o facto de (que),22 we have found a number of historical examples of el hecho de + clause that resist a factive reading, i.e. the entire sentence does not presuppose the truth of the embedded predication. In examples (71a-c) the truth of the proposition denoted by the adjunct clause does not project:

22 In the section on el hecho de que, Delbecque and Lamiroy (1999) state “[l]a realización del evento referido se da por incuestionable” ‘The realization of the mentioned event is taken as undisputable’ (Delbecque and Lamiroy, 1999: 1969, our translation). By the same token, Barbosa (2013) defines factive predicates like lamentar as those whose complement clauses may be integrated in noun phrases headed by the noun facto (Barbosa, 2013: 1847).

70

clausal adjunction

(71) a. el hecho de degollar a su hijo de de ninguna ninguna suerte suerte lo lo consintió consintió (S, Acosta, Historia natural y moral de las Indias, 16th c.) ‘the fact of slitting his son’s throat, he didn’t allow it at all’. b. En el el hecho hecho de de que que fuese muerto por nuestros segovianos hay mucha duda (S, Colmenares, Historia de la insigne ciudad de Segovia, 17th c.) ‘It is highly doubtful that he was killed by our people from Segovia’. c. Este discurso supone el hecho de que la agua fría es remedio de la hydrophobia, lo qual es mui mui dudoso, dudoso, oo falso falso (S, Feijoo, Teatro crítico universal, 18th c.) ‘This speech assumes the fact that cold water is a remedy for hydrophobia, which is very doubtful or false’. In all three examples there is either a negated implicative verb, in the sense of Kartunnen (1971) and Nairn et al. (2006), here consentir ‘to allow’ (71a), that takes hecho as an argument, or the sentence contains a propositional attitude verb of doubt (71b,c). Other examples contain modal operators (‘to consider certain,’ ‘to be probable’), as (72a,b): consideras como como cierto cierto el hecho de que ese hombre (72) a. ¿De modo que consideras ame a doña Catalina y a doña María? (S, Carrillo, Los caballeros del amor, 19th c.) ‘So you consider it to be true that that man loves lady Catalina and lady María?’ b. Pero yo supongo que hubiese una clasificación de todo, y fuese probable probable el hecho de que hubiese una necesidad estrecha (S, Romero, Intervenciones en las Cortes Ordinarias, 19th c.) ‘But I assume that there was a classification for everything, and that it would be probable that there would be a clear need’. In the interrogative sentence (72a), one of the tests for presupposition from the Family of Sentences (Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet, 1990), the proposition that that man loves D. Catalina and D. Marı´a does not project. Hence, in the examples presented, hecho introduces a clause denoting a proposition toward which the speaker may have different degrees of commitment: it can be presented as doubtful, uncertain, more or less likely, etc. But crucially, sentences (71, 72) do not presuppose the truth of the proposition expressed by the adjunct clause modifying hecho.

3.6 semantic change: discussion

71

The 18th-century Enlightment author Feijoo uses instances of el hecho de with the nonfactive predicates dificultar ‘to render difficult’ and juzgar imposible ‘to consider impossible’: (73) Me ocurre ahora, que no faltarán quienes dificulten, impossible, dificulten, oo juzguen juzguen impossible impossible el hecho de que un hombre sepultado en la forma ordinaria, en la falsa suposición de muerte, recobre el sentido, passadas algunas horas después de enterrado (S, Feijoo, Cartas eruditas y curiosas, 18th c.) ‘It occurs to me now that there will be those who may consider it difficult or impossible that a man buried in the ordinary way, falsely taken for dead, may come to hours after having been buried’. Our data also show the possibility of denying the noun hecho in isolation. This confirms the importance of paying attention to the semantics of the noun itself: (74) Así me parece que en este asunto seguramente se puede negar negar el el hecho hecho contra el común de los Historiadores, y afirmar la posibilidad contra el común de los Matemáticos (S, Feijoo, Teatro crítico universal, 18th c.) ‘Thus I think that in this matter one can surely deny the fact, against the opinion of historians, and affirm the possibility, against the opinion of mathematicians’. Similarly, there are examples with facto in which the event denoted by the DP or the adjunct clause are not presupposed to be true. For example, in (75) the truth of the proposition is asserted rather than presupposed: (75) Nesta ocazião escrevo outras cartas a V. E., esta hé para lhe dizer facto que em huma dellas refiro do que passou na India soque oo facto verdade (P, Marquês de Sande, Cartas, bre a entrega de Bombaim he he verdade 17th c.) ‘On this occasion I write other letters to Your Excellency; this one has the purpose of telling you that the fact that I mention in one of them, about what happened in India regarding the delivery of Bombay, is true’. This example is thus similar to nonfactive readings of hecho.

72

clausal adjunction

Crucially, this is also true for feito; (76) has a futurate reading in which the happening of the events is doubtful: (76) Bruto ho ajudou a matar. Em quanto o feito de Pompeeo estava em dúvida, Catom se foi aa hoste de Pompeeo (P, Mateus, Júlio César, 15th c.) ‘Brutus helped to kill him. While the feat of Pompeus was in doubt, Cato went to Pompeus’s army’. This example is akin to (25), in which an event is at a planning stage, i.e. it has future reference and hence it is not yet settled that it will take place. Hence, since early attestations of these nouns we see that nonfactive interpretations are possible in the data. In sum, only a proper subset of the data is compatible with a definition of fact as a proposition presupposed to be true in the context or taken for granted. It is important to point out that many examples in the corpus have factive readings, i.e. the entire sentence presupposes the truth of the embedded predication. This is to be expected, considering that often events are narrated and discussed after they have happened (consider the perfective meaning of factum), they have been witnessed or observed, and hence the very mention of these events strongly implicates their existence.23 However, the nouns hecho, feito, and facto could also be used to denote possible events (with future reference, as in [76]) or to mention events whose existence is not taken for granted, and that constitute the topic of conversation. The factive or nonfactive interpretation ultimately depends on the veridicity properties (in the sense of Karttunen and Zaenen, 2005) of the whole sentence, e.g. the temporal reference of the clause, contextual information about who has witnessed the events, or how likely such events are (e.g. a battle vs. a miracle). From a linguistic point of view, crucial factors in determining the factivity of the sentence are positive or negative implicative verbs as well as modal operators (for a comparison with contemporary Spanish and Portuguese, see Amaral and Delicado Cantero, 2019). 23 An additional factor that may support a factive implication is that often the nouns hecho and facto display the meaning of ‘things done, concrete things’ as opposed to ‘words, precepts,’ as in (i): (i) Entom seram as conciências de cada hûu a todos descubertas, ca todos os pecados de dito feito e penssamento, de que homem nom fez emmenda em sua vida, pareceróm a todo o e feito mundo (P, Castelo Perigoso, 15/16th c.) ‘Then will the consciences of everyone be revealed to all, as all the sins of word, deed and thought that have not been corrected in life will appear for everyone to see’.

3.6 semantic change: discussion

73

In Asher’s ontology, the semantic change from an eventuality to a purely abstract object entails increased abstraction. This change involves semantic bleaching: loss of spatiotemporal location and loss of event participants (i.e. agent, locative). At the same time, a new meaning is acquired as we observe a broadening of distribution (loss of co-occurring restrictions): the nouns hecho and facto can occur with DPs containing stative nouns and each noun is compatible with both nonfinite and finite clauses. As Asher (1993: 59) points out, that clauses may denote facts, propositions, and possibilities, but not events. As hecho comes to denote a fact-like object in Asher’s sense over time, it begins to combine with that-clauses and its patterns of anaphoric behavior change as well. Observing some contemporary data further supports the analysis of the meaning of the nouns hecho and facto as abstract entities, while feito retains the original eventive meaning. This difference can be seen in (77a,b), in which both feito and facto co-occur: feito occurs with the determiner esse ‘that’ and refers to a previously mentioned event, while the content of facto is provided by the clause it introduces. (77) a. Um dado que tem chamado atenção da opinião pública, prende-se com oo facto facto de de o MPD ganhar as eleições autárquicas nos últimos, esse feito feito nas eleições legislativas (P, US, mas não conseguindo esse Portuguese language news site)2⁴ ‘One issue that has called the attention of the public has to do with the fact that MPD won the latest city elections, but such a fact was not achieved in the legislative elections’. feito e oo facto facto de de ter eliminado gigantes como Gabriel Esse b. Esse feito feito, Medina, Kelly Slater e Jordy Smith, deveriam valer a Ibelli a continuidade entre a elite mundial (P, Portugal)2⁵ ‘That feat, and the fact that they eliminated big names such as GM, KS and JS should suffice to grant Ibelli a continuing place among the world’s elite’. The distributional properties of hecho and facto help us further characterize the type of abstract object they denote, and tease apart different categories like facts, propositions, and possibilities. The nouns hecho and facto are nowadays compatible with conditional (78) and disjunctive clauses (79)–(80):

⁴3 Retrieved from voaportugues.com/a/article-07-05-2012-cape-verde-elections-voa-news-161, 457,135/1,450,695.html (last accessed November 11, 2019; archived in arquivo.correiodobrasil.com.br /cabo-verde-analista-comenta-resultado-das-autarquicas, last accessed May 9, 2021). ⁴⁴ Retrieved from beachcam.meo.pt/wsl/2019/06/adriano-de-souza-recupera-a-tempo-de-entrarna-etapa-do-rio (last accessed November 11, 2019).

74

clausal adjunction

se for for chamado chamado àà canarinha canarinha ee não não quiser quiser ir ir é problema (78) O facto de se dele (P, Portugal)2⁶ ‘The fact of being called (lit. if he is called) to join the Brazilian national team and not wanting to go is his problem’. (79) Questão: acha que é possível o lince viver aqui na região? ‘Há duas situações: a falta de alimento e o facto de se caça’ se éé uma uma zona zona livre livre ou ou se se éé zona zona de de caça caça (P, Portugal)2⁷ ‘Question: do you think that it is possible for the wildcat to live here in this region? “There are two issues: the lack of food and the fact of whether it is a hunting area or not”’. (80) También se ve beneficiada por el hecho de, o bien ser un centro pequeño, pequeño, oo bien bien esforzarse esforzarse por por hallar hallar espacios espacios más más de de intercambio intercambio (S, Spain)2⁸ ‘It also benefits from the fact that either it is a small center, or he/she makes an effort to find more informal spaces for exchanges [to take place]’. Fact-like objects can be conditional and disjunctive (Asher, 1993), so these naturally occurring examples provide evidence for this classification. One should point out that, as noted by Asher (1993: 37), it is not always easy to find tests that tease apart propositions from facts. However, a difference between them is a difference in identity conditions with respect to referential expressions, as shown by the different truth conditions of a factive context (81a) and a propositional attitude context created by the deverbal noun crença ‘belief ’ (81b): Cícero foi foi oo filósofo filósofo mais mais respeitado respeitado do do (81) a. O facto de que Cícero Amicitia foi seu seu tempo tempo éé idêntico idêntico ao ao facto facto de de que que oo autor autor de de De De Amicitia o mais respeitado filósofo do seu tempo. (P) ‘The fact that Cicero was the most respected philosopher of his time is identical to the fact that the author of De Amicitia was the most respected philosopher of his time’.

⁴⁵ Although the site is Portuguese, it is not possible to know the country of the speaker who authored this post. Retrieved from relvado.aeiou.pt/seleccao/pepe-seleccao. Posted on August 29, 2007 (last accessed November 15, 2019). ⁴⁶ Retrieved from areasprotegidas.icnf.pt/lince/images/docs/documentacao/entre-guadiana-e-olince.pdf (last accessed November 15, 2019). ⁴⁷ Retrieved from www.redalyc.org/pdf/567/56754639006.pdf (last accessed May 7, 2021).

3.6 semantic change: discussion

75

b. A crença de que Cícero Cícero foi foi oo filósofo filósofo mais mais respeitado respeitado do do de que que oo autor autor de de De seu seu tempo tempo éé idêntico idêntico àà crença crença de De Amicitia Amicitia foi o mais respeitado filósofo do seu tempo. (P) ‘The belief that Cicero was the most respected philosopher of his time is identical to the belief that the author of De Amicitia was the most respected philosopher of his time’. While (81a) is true, (81b) is false, because someone may believe that Cicero was the most respected philosopher of his time but not know that Cicero wrote De Amicitia. In this respect facto behaves like a fact, not a proposition. Typically, only propositions, not facts, are the objects of epistemic verbs meaning ‘to know,’ ‘to doubt,’ ‘to believe’ (in Vendler’s terms, these predicates are “containers” for propositions). However, facto and hecho may co-occur with predicates meaning ‘to doubt’ and with adjectives meaning ‘false,’ as in (82) (see also Amaral and Delicado Cantero, 2019): (82) Estoy convencido de que la única razón del éxito que ha tenido este el hecho hecho falso falso de que sustituye a la procedimiento … se apoya en el cirugía (S, CREA, Spain) ‘I am convinced that the only reason for the success of this procedure… is the false fact that it is a substitute for surgery’. Facts have causal efficacy, while propositions do not (facts can be the subject of the verb cause). In this respect facto patterns with facts, not with propositions, as shown by (83): (83) a. O facto de estar a chover provocou um atraso no trânsito. ‘The fact that it was raining caused a traffic delay’. b. #Que estivesse a chover provocou um atraso no trânsito. ‘That it was raining caused a traffic delay’. Another piece of evidence is that facto may co-occur with the verb ‘announce,’ a predicate that Asher considers a container for facts but not for propositions: (84) Depois da boda, o músico anunciou anunciou oo facto facto de já não ser um homem solteiro, na rede social Twitter: “Sou um homem casado …” (P, Portugal)2⁹ ‘After the wedding, the musician announced the fact that he is no longer a bachelor in the social medium Twitter: “I am a married man …”’. ⁴⁸ Retrieved from www.destak.pt/artigo/189776 (last accessed November 15, 2019)

76

clausal adjunction

Table 3.4 Classification of the meanings of hecho in Spanish and feito/facto in Portuguese. Event

Fact-like

with DPs (DPs denote event participants) Event has spatiotemporal location can be heard, witnessed, followed cannot be disjunctive and conditional

with finite clauses ((de) que) Fact-like does not have spatiotemporal location can be believed, certain, false can be disjunctive and conditional

S hecho P feito

P facto

However, facto may also occur with the verb ‘fear,’ a predicate that Asher considers to be compatible with possibilities (which is a type of “fact-like” object) but not with facts, see Asher (1993: 31–2): (85) Apesar de saber que iria ser muito motivante para o aluno, temia o facto de ele não conseguir ultrapassar as dificuldades técnicas (P, Portugal)3⁰ ‘Despite knowing that this would be very motivating for the student, he feared the fact that he might not be able to overcome the technical difficulties’. These tests show that the denotation of the nouns hecho and facto in contemporary Spanish and Portuguese do not fit neatly within the category of fact or possibility in Asher’s classification because we obtain mixed results with distributional tests. However, given that the nouns meet most of the criteria for “fact-like” objects, we consider that the best analysis is along the lines of this type of informational abstract object. The classification of the nouns hecho, feito, and facto based on the semantic change described and the properties just discussed is summarized in Table 3.4. To sum up, we have shown that there is a difference between “fact” as a category of abstract entities and the denotation of the cognate nouns across languages. In both the historical and the contemporary data, the meaning of the clause-taking nouns hecho and facto is not necessarily associated with a ⁴⁹ Retrieved from repositorio.ipl.pt/bitstream/10400.21/4484/1/Disserta%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20de %20Mestrado%20em%20ensino%20de%20Musica%20-%20Zofia%20Mendanha.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2021)

3.6 semantic change: discussion

77

factive presupposition (contra Asher’s and Vendler’s claims about the fact that p in English and the literature on factivity devoted to Spanish and Portuguese). Asher states that the abstract entity fact, as in the fact of that phi, has to be necessarily true in a world. There is no evidence for this assumption in our data for the Spanish and Portuguese counterparts of fact. The diachrony of the lexical items hecho and facto has been glossed over, or ignored, in accounts of factivity that rely on an assumed lexicosyntactic feature to justify presupposition tests. Second, our findings contribute to the refinement of the classifications of abstract entities created in discourse. Our data support the inclusion of a broader range of entities than those considered in Asher and Vendler’s typologies. As we have seen, hecho and facto do not fit squarely within the tests proposed by Asher; in most tests they each behave like a fact-like object (hence our classification). But according to some criteria they pattern like propositions, which are considered yet more abstract in Asher’s model. In addition, as we have seen, both hecho and feito/facto can denote ‘matter, topic of conversation,’ a type of object not included in Asher’s or Vendler’s typologies. Third, the diachrony of the nouns hecho and the vernacular vs. learned pair feito/facto instantiates a semantic change by which an event-denoting noun comes over time to denote an entity considered more abstract in Asher’s spectrum of abstract objects. Hence, as we extend Asher’s model to describe the developments we observe in diachrony, we bring a historical perspective to the study of abstract entities. Although Asher points out some similarities between the categories he identifies (e.g. events and facts are similar in some respects, but events and propositions are not), he does not discuss how they may be related historically, i.e. how an expression originally denoting one type of entity may come to denote another. One may hypothesize that the similarities between these entities may underlie paths of change, e.g. event > fact-like object, as we have proposed. This proposal provides a testable diachronic hypothesis for the development of words denoting abstract entities cross-linguistically. In general, it has been pointed out that nouns are more likely to undergo semantic change due to cultural and technological changes rather than to regular linguistic mechanisms of change (Traugott and Dasher, 2002), While this may be true of nouns referring to objects or societal constructs, where changes in the referents are likely to trigger irregular, unpredictable shifts, nouns referring to abstract entities in discourse may be subject to more regular mechanisms of change. Specifically, we have observed semantic bleaching and relatedly an increase in abstraction or generalization (e.g. events are realized in space and time, but fact-like objects are not), both well-known, regular processes of change in word meaning (Campbell, 2013; Traugott and Dasher,

78

clausal adjunction

2002; Eckardt, 2006). The semantic changes of these nouns also point to a tendency from propositionally based meanings (i.e. denoting an event that is part of the propositional content of the sentence) to a discourse-based meaning (i.e. story, the topic of the utterance). This semantic path has been proposed and documented for instances of grammaticalization, e.g. in the emergence of discourse markers (Traugott and Dasher, 2002), but to our knowledge it has not been documented in the realm of nouns.

3.7 Conclusion The nouns analyzed in this chapter participate in the general change affecting the syntax of clause-taking nouns in Spanish and Portuguese that we have reviewed in Chapter 2. We have found that there has been no recategorization of the noun or loss of internal analyzability in the creation of the clause-taking construction. On the other hand, the semantic change undergone by these nouns is reflected in the meaning of the expression el hecho de (que) and o facto de (que). We have shown that the semantic change of these nominals follows the direction event > fact-like, in Asher (1993) classification. The original interpretation of hecho and of feito as an event continues to be present to this day. With infinitival clauses, the eventive interpretation is attested from the beginning and continues to be attested after the non-eventive interpretation becomes available for hecho, from the 16th century. This semantic evolution, which occurred relatively early, seems to have combined with the syntactic changes that affected clausal structure in Spanish and Portuguese, leading to the creation of the constructions el hecho de que and o facto de que. This could be seen as an instance of multiple causation: there is convergence of independent semantic and syntactic changes which eventually become related. With finite clauses the nouns hecho and facto display a non-eventive interpretation, although we have found sporadic examples with an eventive meaning. Regarding its potential evolution as a construction, el hecho de (que), o facto de (que) has not developed into a factive construction, as is assumed in the literature; rather, we have shown both factive and nonfactive readings in diachrony. This provides evidence against considering factivity as a lexical feature of these nouns; a range of linguistic and contextual factors contribute to factive and nonfactive interpretations of the noun as well as the adjunct clause over time.

3.7 conclusion

79

We have documented how the polysemy of hecho in contemporary Spanish has its origins in its diachrony and have compared it with the meanings of the Portuguese nouns feito and facto. Interestingly, the Portuguese vernacular noun feito instantiates the older, eventive meaning, while the learned noun facto instantiates the more recent fact-like meaning. We have argued that the meaning of ‘story’ has played a role in this change, allowing the new semantic value of ‘situation, possibility’ to emerge, and explaining both factive and nonfactive interpretations. Our findings regarding the semantic change undergone by hecho and facto show a pattern of increased abstraction in the domain of nouns that contribute a diachronic perspective to a semantic inquiry that so far has been exclusively synchronic.

4 Connectives 4.1 Introduction The constructions in this chapter, sin/sem embargo de (que) and so(b) pena de (que), have a similar structure: a PP including a noun which may take clauses (both nonfinite and finite) with the functional preposition de. Both evolve into connectives of different syntactic types. In this chapter, we define connective as an element that links two constituents in a sentence, DPs or clauses, and establishes a semantic relation between them (e.g. concessive, causal; see Traugott and Dasher, 2002; Ko¨nig, 1988, 1991). This term allows us to group together the constructions studied in this chapter around their common function in spite of differences in their syntactic category and evolution. We differentiate, thus, between connective as a general label and syntactic categories such as complementizer or preposition (RAE-ASALE, 2009: 53, a.o.). This chapter is organized as follows: first we present the diachrony of sin embargo and sem embargo, and then compare it to the diachrony of the noun embargo in isolation in both languages. Then we examine the diachrony of so pena de and sob pena de, again followed by the diachrony of the noun pena. After explaining the evolution of each construction, we discuss the mechanisms of syntactic and semantic change involved, and consider their theoretical contribution in terms of semantic and syntactic compositionality as well as recategorization.

4.2 Spanish sin embargo (de que) and Portuguese sem embargo (de que) We start with the development of sin embargo (de que) (Spanish) and sem embargo (de que) (Portuguese) from complex prepositions to contrastive connectives. Despite their diachronic similarities, in contemporary Spanish and

Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish. Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero, Oxford University Press. © Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.003.0004

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

81

Portuguese only the discourse marker sin/sem embargo ‘however’ exists; it is common in Spanish, while its Portuguese counterpart is restricted to formal registers. The grammatical development of concessive connectives is a main topic of research in syntactic and semantic change (Ko¨nig, 1988, 1991; Schwenter and Traugott, 2000; Pérez Saldanya and Salvador, 2014; a.o.). In contrast to other classes of connectives, the origin of concessives tends to be formally transparent, i.e. compositional. As Ko¨nig (1988: 151) notes, “[c]oncessive connectives are complex in nature, their components are easy to identify and can easily be related to another, original—or at least earlier—meaning.” A cross-linguistic comparison of these expressions shows that the meaning of their basic components can be systematically related to other domains: they develop from conditional clauses, free-choice quantifiers, and nouns meaning ‘obstinacy, will, sorrow’ originally applicable to human agents or experiencers (Ko¨nig, 1988). Previous research on the evolution of sin embargo in Spanish has focused on the recategorization of the PP sin embargo into a unit, a concessive connective, and its semantic change. Garachana Camarero (1998) proposes a metaphorical change by which the meaning “lack of a physical obstacle” is transposed to a more abstract domain and the construction comes to denote “lack of an epistemic obstacle.” This change in meaning is analyzed within the grammaticalization process; the PP, an intra-clausal constituent, acquires wider scope and becomes, in the words of the author, a procedural concessive connective. The increase in scope is the consequence of the metaphorical change (Garachana Camarero, 1998: 209). While the co-occurrence with nonfinite and finite clauses is not discussed by the author, her data show instances of both sin embargo de and sin embargo que since the 15th century. In a study devoted to concessive constructions in the history of Spanish (Pérez Saldanya and Salvador, 2014), sin embargo is discussed in comparison to other concessives in Spanish and Romance. The authors mention the link between the verb embargar ‘to hinder, to impede’1 and the deverbal noun embargo (Pérez Saldanya and Salvador, 2014: 99), but they do not explore this link to analyze the semantic or syntactic properties of the noun. Other studies have focused on the creation of concessives as constructional units (e.g. a pesar de ‘despite,’ Torres Cacoullos, 2006). For Portuguese, Lima (1997) has studied the creation of the concessive embora ‘although’ from the PP em boa hora ‘in a good hour,’ focusing on the semantic and pragmatic factors 1 According to Corominas & Pascual (1980–1991), embargar is found in Ibero-Romance as well as Occitan and comes from the Vulgar Latin or early Romance verb *imbarricāre (an etymology attributed to Diez).

82

connectives

behind its development and the fit of this change within a grammaticalization framework. However, to our knowledge Portuguese sem embargo (de que) has not been studied to date. In the following, we first provide a summary of the syntactic properties of sin embargo (de que) and sem embargo (de que) from the 13th to 17th centuries. Then we lay out the properties of the noun embargo in diachrony and show their connection to the development of the concessive. We focus exclusively on historical data; in present-day Spanish and Portuguese only the discourse marker equivalent to English however remains. We do not discuss the changes to a discourse marker (see Portolés La´zaro, 1995).

4.2.1 The historical data The first attestations of the PPs sin embargo (Spanish) and sem embargo (Portuguese) meaning ‘without obstacle/impediment’ date from the 13th century. In this structure in both languages the noun embargo allowed for modification, as in (1)–(4); a modifier could be either postposed to the noun or interpolated between the preposition and the noun, as otro in (1): sin otro (1) quel desempare sin otro embargo embargo ninguno ninguno toda that.him give.up-prs.subj.3sg without other obstacle any all su heredat his land ‘that he shall give up, with no other opposition/obstacle, all his land’. (S, Fuero General de Navarra, 13th c.–14th c.) In (1) and (2) the noun embargo has a postnominal modifier (ninguno, nenhum). In (2) embargo nenhum constitutes the antecedent to a relative clause with a nonspecific interpretation:2 (2) E que el e a dicta sua ordem façam delas e em And that he and the said his order do-prs.subj.3pl of-them and in sem embargo ellas o que lhe prouuer prouuer sem embargo neh nehûu ûu que them the what him please-fut.subj.3sg without obstacle any that

2 This example also shows the synchronic co-existence of the gerund of the verb embargar in the concessive construction nom embargando ‘in spite of ’. A variant of this form with the present participle (non embargante) is also found in the data and is acknowledged as a locution of old Portuguese by Cunha (2014). Similar forms are documented in Spanish (Pérez Saldanya and Salvador, 2014: 99).

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

83

lhe sobrello seia posto nom embargando quaaesquer him on-it be-prs.subj.3sg put not blocking whatever leis djreitos custumes … nem outras quaaesquer laws rights customs … nor other whatever cousas que seiam contra esta doaçam things that be-prs.subj.3pl against this bestowal (P, Chartularium Universitatis Portugalensis vol. 1, 14th c.) ‘And that he and his order mentioned above shall do what they please of these, without any obstacle that may be imposed on it despite any laws, rights, or customs … or any other things that may be against this bestowal’. The noun embargo could also be coordinated with other nouns such as contrario ‘opposition’ in (3) and empedimento ‘impediment’ in (4): sin embargo embargo ee contrario contrario alguno alguno de los dichos clérigos (3) e señorio de ella sin 3 (S, Concordia-Acuerdo, 14th c.) ‘and [have] dominion over it with no impediment or opposition from the said clergymen’. (4) que quando e cada que os dictos bachalleres ou outrem en seu nome se quisesen colher aa dita parede cõ madeira … que a aiam outro enbargo enbargo ee enpedjmëto enpedjmëto nëhû nëhû (P, Documentos do Mosteiro de sen sen outro Santa Cruz de Coimbra, 14th c.) ‘that, whenever those scholars or others on their behalf wanted to secure the aforementioned wall with wood, … that they have it [the wall] without any other obstacle or any impediment’. Examples with this type of internal modification become scarce around the 16th century. The latest instances we have been able to document date from the 16th century in Portuguese and from the early 17th century (1612) in Spanish, both with internal coordination: (5) mas como siempre adonde ay hombres moços paran sus conversaciones sin embargo embargo yy respeto respeto del hábito eclesiástico que en successos de amor, sin teníamos delante, yo enpecé a maltratar al rapacillo ciego (S, Céspedes y Meneses, Varia fortuna del soldado Píndaro, 17th c.)

⁵2 No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

84

connectives

‘but given that whenever there are young men around conversations tend to revolve around love, without obstacle from or respect for the religious dress in front of us, I started to mistreat the blind young man’. (6) mando que assym o cumprão e fação inteiramente comprir e guardar, sem sem embargo embargo nem nem duvida duvida alguma alguma que a elle seja posta (P, Pai dos Cristãos, 16th c.) ‘I order that they shall do it in this way and have it respected, without impediment or any doubt that may arise with respect to it’. In the 14th century, we find examples of the noun embargo combining with the preposition de; such prepositional object denotes the individual that may impose the obstacle (agent) or be the source of the impediment: (7) daqui adelante que la canten sus capellanes syn embargo embargo del del abbat abbat ee del del convento convento de de Onna Onna (S, Carta de sentencia syn 4 de don fray Juan, 14th c.) ‘and hereafter may their chaplains sing it without obstacle from the abbott or the convent of Onna’. (8) et que aja o dito moesteyro & abbade & conuëto del sem sem embargo embargo de de mî mî & & de de toda toda mîna mîna uos (P, Textos Notariais. História do galego-português, 14th c.) ‘and that he shall have the said monastery and abbot and his convent without obstacle from me or my word’. Other instances introduce an obstacle created by an individual, like a law, or potential obstacles due to human affections, as in (9) and (10): sem embargo embargo das das leis leis nem (9) a. E queremos e outorgamos que sem hordenações que forom fectas per el rrey meu senhor (P, D. Duarte, Chancelaria Portuguesa, 15th c.) ‘And we want and order that with no impediment from the laws or ordinances created by the King, my lord’. b. a segunda, que ame, guarde e faça guardar Justiça, sem embargo embargo do do odio odio affeiçam, ou remissam sem odio, (P, Crónica de D. Duarte, 15th c.) ⁵3 No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

85

‘the second [obligation], that he shall love, respect, and impose Justice, without the [potential] obstacle of hate, affection, or guilt’. sin embargo embargo de de lo lo por por vós vós otros otros dicho dicho ee alegado alegado (S, Real provisión de (10) e sin Enrique IV, 15th c.) ‘and with no impediment of that which was said and claimed by you’. Example (10) shows that the complement of de, although nominal, may have propositional content. This foreshadows the possibility of combination with a clausal element, like the infinitival clauses in (11) and (12): del fuir fuir (S, Villena, Tratado de consolación, 15th c.) (11) sin sin embargo embargo del ‘without obstacle/risk of fleeing’. (12) mas todos Juntamente pagaram hum soo foro dos vinta cimco reaes e sem embargo embargo de de per per outra outra maneira maneira se se costumar costumar (P, Foraes, mais nam. sem 15th c.) ‘but all [of them] paid together a single pension of 25 reais [a coin] and not more than that. With no impediment that this was different from what was the custom’. Combination with a clause is found in Portuguese with the inflected infinitive (faltarem) in (13), in a coordinated structure with an anaphoric DP that refers to a proposition previously expressed in the text: (13) e assy em favor da christandade daquella parte, se cumprão e guardem inteiramente, posto que algumas dellas não sejão quá no Reino registadas em algumas partes—onde por meus regimentos e provisõis que tenho mandado que as tais provisõis e cartas se registem—porque, sem embargo embargo disso disso ee de de lhe lhe faltarem faltarem os os ditos ditos registos registos ey por bem e sem registos, mando que se cumprão e guardem inteiramente (P, Pai dos Cristãos, 16th c.) ‘and so in favor of Christianity in that region, [these rules] shall be entirely respected, though some of them are not registered here in the Kingdom in some parts—in which by my ordinances and provisions I have ordered that such provisions and letters should be registered— because, despite that and the fact that such records are missing, I want and order that [such rules] shall be followed and fully respected’.

86

connectives

Starting in the 15th century, we document finite clauses introduced by que:⁵ (14) E sy non tommo cosa alguna del dicho rromero syn syn enbargo enbargo que que non fiziese la dicha manda Peche a nos seysçientos marauedis (S, Díaz de Montalvo, Ordenanzas reales, 15th c.) ‘And if he didn’t take anything from the aforementioned pilgrim, despite not having made said order, he must pay us 600 maravedis’. (15) & chegamdo ao Castello poseram çevada & partyrã amte da mea noyte, sem sem embargo embargo que que o comtrario levassem ordenado, porque primeiro foram avisados que nõ partyssem dally senã des que passasse hûa ora depois de mea noite (P, Crónica do Conde D. Pedro de Meneses, 15th c.) ‘and when they arrived at the castle they put barley and they left before midnight, despite having being told to do the opposite, as they had been previously advised not to leave the castle until one hour after midnight’. Finally, we find examples with de que since the 16th century in Spanish, and since the 17th century in Portuguese: embargo de de que que haya de salir a hacer sus visitas como le está sin embargo (16) sin mandado (S, Francisco de Toledo, Nuevas ordenanzas de la coca, 16th c.) ‘despite the fact that he may have to leave in order to pay his necessary visits’. sem embargo embargo de de que que não há hum só vintem, e me hei de valer de (17) sem empréstimos (P, Diário do Conde de Sarzedas, 17th c.) ‘despite the fact that there is no money at all and that I have to rely on loans’. The syntactic properties of sin/sem embargo de (que) during the period under consideration are summarized in Table 4.1, with indication of the earliest attestations. The centuries indicated between parentheses in the tables in this chapter refer to the original date of composition when it is different from the date of copy. We turn now to the syntactic and semantic properties of the noun embargo in diachrony. In both languages the properties of embargo over time are very similar to the development we just described for sin embargo and sem embargo. ⁵ We are excluding cases of relative clauses introduced by que.

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

87

Table 4.1 Syntactic properties of sin/sem embargo in diachrony.

Sin/sem X embargo

Sin/sem embargo de + DP Sin/sem embargo de + infinitive Sin/sem embargo que Sin/sem embargo de que

Properties

Earliest attestation Spanish

Earliest attestation Portuguese

Modification Coordination with other Ns With a nominal phrase

14th c. (13th c.) 14th c.

14th c. 14th c.

14th c.

14th c.

With infinitival clauses

15th c.

15th c.

With finite clauses With finite clauses with de

15th c. 16th c.

15th c. 17th c.

Examples (18a–c) illustrate the typical nominal features of embargo, including adjectival and quantificational modification (18a), coordination with other nouns (peligro ‘danger,’ temor ‘fear’) (18b), and pluralization (18c): (18)

a. por enffermedat de ssu cuerpo o por otro otro grant grant enbargo enbargo que Acaesçiesse por que non lo podiesse ffazer en njnguna manera (S, Alfonso X, Espéculo, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘due to illness or other big obstacle that may happen which would prevent him from doing it in any way’. b. quien puede entender el enbargo o peligro que puede en el fecho acaesçer ante que acaesca (S, D Juan Manuel, Libro de los estados, 14th c.) ‘who can understand the obstacle or danger that may come about before it does’. c. E el-rey contiuuou seu çerco e nom pode filhar Alcantara por alguns embargos que se lhe seguiram (P, Estoria de Dom Nuno Alvares Pereyra, 15th c.) ‘And the king kept the siege and could not capture Alcântara owing to some obstacles that ensued’.

In (19), one may analyze both coordinated nouns as taking the infinitival clause introduced by de: embargo ee temor temor de hyr (19) E, quando Cepyon vyo que elles filhavam embargo aa Spanha, leixou aquella terra de Macedonya … e tomou Spanha (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.)

88

connectives

‘And when Scipio saw that they were getting hindrance to and fear of going to Spain, he left that land of Macedonia and took Spain’. Both nominal phrases and clauses may specify the nature of the obstacle and are introduced via de. The former is shown in (20): (20) Pero si les acaesçiessen enbargos enbargos de de grand grand enfermedad enfermedad oo de de romeria romeria (S, Alfonso X, Fuero Real, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘But if they were to suffer from the hindrance of great sickness or peregrination’. Combination with an infinitival clause occurs as early as the 13th century in both languages; in Portuguese we find instances with both the inflected infinitive (22a) and the noninflected one (22b): (21)

porque non oviessen ellos miedo nin embargo embargo de de catarle catarle (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria I, 13th c.) ‘so that they would not have fear or impediment to see him’.

(22)

embargo de de os os ouvirem ouvirem a. por lhes fallarem de seus feitos logo tomam embargo (P, Dom João, Livro da montaria, 15th c.) ‘as they [the powerful men] talk about their feats, they [the others] soon show a resistance of listening to them’. embargo de de as as fazer fazer (P, Livro da b. E outros nom averiam algûû embargo Ensinança de Bem Cavalgar Toda Sela, 15th c.) ‘And others would not have any obstacle to do them’.

The earliest Spanish example with a finite clause is in a 15th-c. copy of a 13th-c. manuscript: (23)

nasçe ende enbargo enbargo que que el otro que ficare biuo: no puede casar con ninguno de los parientes del muerto (S, Alfonso X, Siete Partidas, 13th c.–15th c.) ‘Whence the obstacle is created that the one who remains alive cannot marry any relatives of the deceased one’.

In the Portuguese data we found no examples of the noun embargo in isolation selecting for a clause headed by que;⁶ the examples with que only occur ⁶ The only examples with que are relative clauses, as in (18c) above, hence not the structure we are interested in.

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

89

Table 4.2 Syntactic properties of the noun embargo in diachrony.

Embargo = N

Embargo de + DP Embargo de + infinitive Embargo que

Properties

Earliest attestation Spanish

Earliest attestation Portuguese

Modification Coordination with Ns Plural form With a nominal phrase With an infinitival clause With a finite clause

14th c. (13th c.) 14th c. 14th c. (13th c.) 14th c. (13th c.)

14th c. 14th c. 15th c. 14th c.

13th c.

15th c.

15th c. (13th c.)

X

with sem embargo. In both languages the use of de que is only attested with sin/sem embargo. Corpus data indicate that embargo no longer means ‘obstacle’ after the 16th century.⁷ From this period on, the noun in isolation appears to have narrowed in meaning to ‘prohibition to participate in trade’ as well as ‘sequestration of goods (under judicial order)’ as in present-day Portuguese and Spanish. With this meaning, the noun does not accept clausal modification. The syntactic properties of the noun embargo are summarized in Table 4.2, with the earliest attestations for each context. The data presented show that the syntactic properties of the noun embargo in diachrony are the same as described for sin/sem embargo (de que); the noun and the complex construction do not have a separate development but rather follow the same patterns in the period under consideration here. We consider now the semantics of the noun embargo. In (24), the noun embargo can only be interpreted as ‘physical or material obstacle’: (24)

& si no al menos que sea .iiij. cobdos rasos el camino embargo ninguno ninguno del del altar altar ata la puerta maor de la glesia (S, Fuero sin sin embargo General de Navarra, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘and, otherwise, at the very least the path must be three elbows (length unit) long, without any obstacle from the altar to the main entry of the church’.

⁷ The Spanish Diccionario de Autoridades still lists this sense in 1732. However, the example provided comes from El conde Lucanor, a 14th-century text. The first sense listed in the DA is the judicial meaning ‘prohibition of use or access of one’s property,’ for which they cite Quevedo, a 17th-century poet: “Sequ¨estro y detención de bienes y hacienda, hecha por mandamiento de Juez competente” (‘Sequestration and detention of goods and property, done by order of a designated judge,’ our translation) (DA, tomo III, 1732). We have excluded this meaning from the analysis of the noun embargo in the rest of this chapter.

90

connectives

The same is true in (25a,b): (25) a. ëno quynto ãno prenderõ os Vandallos hûû bispo dos cristããos em Africa por que preegava a pallavra de Deus aas gentes; e por esso cortaronlhe a lyngua. Mas, despois que lha ouveron cortada, começou elle de preegar muy mais claramente que ante e mais sen sen embargo embargo de de sua sua lingua lingua (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘in the fifth year the Vandals captured a Christian bishop in Africa because he was preaching God’s word to the people, and for this reason they cut his tongue. But, after they cut it, he began preaching much more clearly than before and more without the impediment of his tongue’. b. porque o lugar era muyto forte, e polo aguoa, polo embarguo embarguo da da aguoa aguoa o nom podia elRey filhar (P, Crónicas dos 7 primeiros reis de Portugal, 15th c.) (Cunha, 2014: 1000) ‘since the place was a stronghold, and due to the obstacle/impediment of the water, the king was not able to take it’. In addition to the meaning of ‘physical obstacle,’ the noun embargo displays other semantic values, e.g. ‘obstacle in general, obstacle of some sort, hindrance to achieve something,’ as in (26a,b).⁸ Some examples allow for ambiguity. (26) a. E assy tëë algûûs tam grande vergonha ou empacho de fazer algûas cousas, que ante se porriam a ssofrer algûû grande perigoo, que as fazerem em lugar de praça, por receo de prasmo das gentes ou empacho que de sy filham. E outros nom averiam embargo de de as as fazer fazer (P, Livro da Ensinança de Bem Cavalgar algûû algûû embargo Toda Sela, 15th c.) ⁸ This interpretation is found with the verb fazer (‘to do/make’): (i)

ca me temo que a multidooe dos demoes faça faça enbargo façaenbargo enbargo aa mínha alma polla mu˜ltidooe das mínhas ignorançias. (P, Lenda de Barlaam e Josaphate, 38.13, 14th c.) (Cunha, 2014: 1000). ‘Since I fear that the multitude of demons creates impediment to my soul owing to the multitude of my failings’.

Other examples of embargo in light verb constructions found in the corpus are dar embargo, tomar embargo, filhar embargo (see Chapter 5 for the discussion of light verb constructions).

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

91

‘So some people are so ashamed or feel so embarrassed at doing certain things that they would rather undergo a big danger than doing them in public, as they are afraid of other people being shocked or that they may get embarrassed. Others, on the other hand, would not have any impediment to doing such things’. b. E Jsso meesmo aJmda que per rrazom d’outras duas linhas colde paremtesco paremtesco ou ou cunhadia cunhadia amtre uos no lateraaes seia embargo embargo de quarto graao liçitamente per matrimonio uos podessees aiuntar Nos per apostollica autoridade d’espiçiall graça: todo tiramos & rremouemos (P, Fernão Lopes, Crónica de Dom Pedro, 15th c.) ‘And in the same way even if by two collateral lines there may be an obstacle of kinship or close relationship between both of you on the fourth degree regarding the licit possibility that you be united by marriage, we take and remove them all, per apostolic authority of special grace’. In the following early examples, embargo denotes a psychological or moral obstacle, and accordingly is either juxtaposed or coordinated to nouns denoting moral obstacles to salvation: (27) a. A molher he cabeça do peccado, corrompimento de ley. E, segundo o que diz o filosofo, a molher he confuson do homë, besta sen fartura, cuidado de cada dia, batalha que nunca falece, cousa desejada, grande grande embargo embargo de cada dia, perigoo do homë que se nõ conpõe, vaso maao e cheo de perigoo, animalia maa (P, Virgeu de consolaçon, 15th c.) ‘The woman is head of sin, perversion of the law. And, as the philosopher says, the woman is confusion for the man, beast with no abundance, care of each day, battle that never stops, object of desire, great impediment of each day, danger to the man who does not resist, bad pot which is full of danger, bad animal’. b. assy o jeju˜u mata o mal e os maos pensamentos e os enbargos do diaboo (P, Virgeu de Consolaçon, 15th c.) (from Cunha, 2014: 1000) ‘in this manner fasting kills the evil and the bad thoughts and the obstacles [to salvation] from the devil’.

92

connectives

In sum, the noun embargo allowed for interpretations of both physical and mental obstacles since its first attestations in both Spanish and Portuguese, as well as an interpretation of ‘hindrance, impediment, resistance’ that could be a situation or an act. Hence, it is not necessary to posit a metaphorical process at the origin of the concessive connective, as proposed by Garachana Camarero (1998). With respect to the nominal classification presented in Chapter 2, embargo is a deverbal noun. It may occur or take place, hence it behaves as an event: (28) Et si por auentura algun embargo acaheciesse acaheciesse por que uos non gelo pudiessedes entregar (S, Alfonso X, Documentos castellanos de Alfonso X—Andalucía, 13th c.)⁹ ‘And if by chance some impediment happened because of which you could not deliver it to him’. acomteçesse tal embargo ao (29) & sse começando a dyzer as palauras acomteçesse saçerdote que as nom podesse acabar (P, Vercial, Sacramental, 15th c.) ‘and if as he began saying the words such an impediment occurred to the priest so that he could not finish those words’. In (27) above, embargo is coordinated to other event-denoting nouns, e.g. batalha, perigo. As our examples with an eventive interpretation show no obligatory arguments, we must conclude that embargo qualifies as a SEN (Grimshaw, 1990). Further support comes from the discussion on the denotation of the content expressed by clauses. Remember that one of Leonetti’s (1999) tests to tease clausal arguments and modifiers/adjuncts apart (based on Grimshaw, 1990) has to do with the possibility of reformulating as a copular sentence. While we have not been able to find explicit data with this syntactic context, it seems possible to convert (17), repeated here, with clauses in copular structures, as in (17’): (17) (17’)

sem embargo embargo de que não há hum só vintem, e me hei de valer de empréstimos (P, Diário do Conde de Sarzedas, 17th c.). o embargo/obstáculo = que não há um só vintém.

⁵⁸ No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

4.2 sin/sem embargo (de que)

93

The obstacle is the fact that he has no money. If the test is valid, it suggests that the clause is a modifier of the noun (apposition), not an argument, as would be mandatory should embargo be a CEN. Moreover, as we have seen, we can also find examples in which embargo is a result of a process and refers to a physical or moral obstacle, i.e. an object rather than an event, which means that it could qualify as a RN. An object may be found (a), removed (b), or encountered (c): (30) a. Et desi acogieron se al Castiello. & entraron le luego. que non embargo ninguno (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España II, fallaron y embargo 13th–13/14th c.) ‘And they sheltered in the Castle, and entered it immediately, as they did not find there any obstacle’. b. por quitar quitar del mundo tan peligroso enbargo enbargo (S, Villena, Doce trabajos de Hercules, 15th c.) ‘by removing such a dangerous obstacle from the world’. c. e espicialmente pollo embargo embargo que avia de nom poder passar o ryo do Miuho (P, Estoria de Dom Nuno Alvares Pereyra, 15th c.) ‘and especially because of the difficulty that came from not being able to cross the Minho river’.

4.2.2 Interim conclusion The comparison between the development of the noun embargo with the history of sin embargo de (que)/sem embargo de que is revealing. The noun embargo could take propositional complements, first with an infinitival clause and then with a finite clause with que. We argue that this property of embargo— having scope over a proposition at least since the 13th century in Spanish and the 15th century in Portuguese—created the syntactic conditions for the development of sin/sem embargo de (que) as a connective. This development was possible as a direct consequence of the combinatorial possibilities of the noun embargo and is not idiosyncratic of a unitlike construction, as previously claimed in the literature. Focus on the noun has allowed us to obtain a more fine-grained picture of the history of the connective. The noun embargo and the PP sin embargo share the same patterns and chronology; the selectional restrictions of the complex PP were inherited from the distributional properties of the noun. These

94

connectives

findings show that rather than being an opaque, unanalyzable unit, sin embargo maintained some compositionality and syntactic analyzability, even if some categorial features of the noun changed. This will be discussed in detail in Section 4.4.1.

4.3 Spanish so pena de (que), Portuguese sob pena de (que) In this section we examine the diachrony of a second noun-based construction, present in both Spanish and Portuguese. So(b) pena de (que) (‘on pain of/that’) allows us to expand our analysis of the role of nouns in the evolution of constructions and again it provides an opportunity to study both common evolution and divergences between Spanish and Portuguese. Previous research on the evolution of so pena de (que) in Spanish highlights a grammaticalization/lexicalization process, loss of compositionality and syntactic analyzability (see Chapter 2) and semantic change (Elvira, 2007; Codita, 2016). In terms of syntactic change, Elvira (2007: 3) indicates that the construction originally allowed internal modification of the noun with presence of a determiner, which was lost over time (Codita, 2016: 281–3). As for the prepositional object of de, initially, owing to the legal nature of the old texts in which it appears, so pena is commonly attested with nouns denoting objects of currency, damage(s), as well as the nouns merced (‘mercy’), gracia (‘grace’), amor (‘love’). From the 16th century onward, the types of nouns attested are more diverse, this being mainly due to the presence of other types of texts (Codita, 2016: 283). The use of the infinitive with so pena de increases from the 13th century, which the author also attributes to a change in the types of texts (Codita, 2016: 285). Both Elvira (2007) and Codita (2016) agree that so pena de (que) lost its original meaning by the 17th century (Elvira, 2007: 9) and acquired a more abstract meaning, with two outcomes in Spanish: ‘at risk of ’ and ‘unless’ (Codita, 2016: 278). Codita (2016: 286) argues that the semantic change of so pena de is caused by the combination with infinitives and by a frequency increase; the semantic evolution of so pena que/so pena de que, however, is only briefly noted. These previous studies leave several questions unanswered, including the diachronic behavior of the noun pena or the specific semantic and syntactic mechanisms at play. We aim to answer these questions for both Spanish so pena de (que) and Portuguese sob pena de (que), which, to our knowledge, has not been previously studied.

4.3 spanish so pena de (que), portuguese sob pena de (que)

95

4.3.1 The historical data The PP so(b) pena de is attested with a DP specifying the penalty (amount of money, legal punishment, etc.) from the 13th century in Spanish (31) and from the 14th century in Portuguese, as in (32): pena de de CCC CCC moravedís moravedís (S, Pleito entre el (31) e este pleito fue puesto so so pena abad de Valbona y el concejo de Velosiello, 13th c.)10 ‘And this plea was put under a penalty of 300 maravedis’. (32) En fim mandaron os prellados, so d’escomunhõ, que non ouvesse so pena pena d’ d’ hy preitesia (P, Textos Notariais, 14th c.) ‘In the end the prelates ordered, on pain of excommunication, that there would not be a pact there’. Modification of the noun within the PP is documented until around the 17th century (Elvira, 2007; Codita, 2016); pena could be modified by adjectives, participles, relative clauses, as well as determiners, both in Spanish (33) and in Portuguese (34). The DP containing pena has a referential interpretation, as it anaphorically refers to a previously mentioned penalty or sanction:11 (33) e non consientan que njnguno les passe a njnguna destas cosas la pena pena sobredicha sobredicha (S, Alfonso X, Documentos sobredichas so so la castellanos–Andalucía, 13th c.)12 ‘and they should not consent that anyone would go through any of the aforementioned things under the aforementioned penalty’. ⁵⁹ No information on date of manuscript copy is available. 11 Examples displaying an anaphoric interpretation are not attested after the 16th century, from which we have (i): so so pena que sopena penaque que si el señor del dicho ganado lo sacare syn faser la dicha diligencia yncurra en pena de seyscientos maravedís . . . e sy fuere ganadero o pastor que sacare el tal ganado syn haser [. . .]//de suso contenyda que alyende de yncurrir la misma en en misma pena de suso declarada enla mismapena penade desuso susodeclarada declarada cayga en pena de cient açotes (S, Ordenanzas del Concejo de Gran Canaria, 16th c.) ‘On pain that, if the owner of said cattle took it without following said procedure, he will incur a penalty of 600 maravedis . . . and if it were a farmer or shepherd taking the cattle without following [the procedure] mentioned before, that, in addition to incurring in the same penalty as mentioned above, he should receive a penalty of 100 lashes’. ⁶1 No information on date of manuscript copy is available. (i)

96

connectives

Other anaphoric instances are found in Portuguese (34); we also find modification by a PP (34a) as well as by relative clauses (34b), and pluralization was possible (34c). (34) a. E asy as ditas partes todo outorgarã e pormeterã de Recom coprir ssob aa dita dita pena pena de todos seus bees (P, Documentos do e mãteer ssob Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra, 14th c.) ‘And thus the aforementioned parts agreed upon all of this and promised to keep everything under the said penalty of all their goods’. so aa dita dita pena pena que que oo dito dito Afomso Afomso Domïguez Domïguez pera pera ello ello obligou obligou b. & so (P, Documentos do Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra, 14th c.) ‘And under the said penalty that said A D imposed for it’. ssob as as penas penas aqui aqui comtheudas comtheudas (P, Cortes portuguesas, 15th c.) c. ssob ‘Under the penalties mentioned here’. There are limited instances of coordination with another noun, as in (35)–(36). Notice the plural penas in (35): (35)

pena oo penas penas que el dicho nuestro alcalde les pusiere (S, Díaz de So la la pena Montalvo, Ordenanzas reales, 15th c.) ‘Under the penalty or penalties that our mayor would impose on them’.

(36)

pena ee treminaçom treminaçom de excomunhom de anatema mandando mais sob pena que dy em diamte nom atentase alguum de fazer semelhavel cousa (P, Crónica da Ordem dos Frades Menores, 15th c.) ‘also ordering under penalty and decision of excommunication and anathema so that from that date on no one would attempt to do a similar thing’.

The first attestations with infinitival clauses date from the 13th century in Portuguese (38); in the case of Spanish, the earliest examples in the CdE are dated in the 13th century, but they seem to be manuscripts copied much later.13 In (37) we find an early example from a text originally composed in the 13th century but transmitted in a copy of the 15th century. In both cases pena displays its original meaning of ‘penalty’:

13 Codita (2016: 284) indicates that the earliest examples are from the 13th c.; however, she does not provide any examples in her paper, so we are unable to confirm their dates of copy.

4.3 spanish so pena de (que), portuguese sob pena de (que)

97

(37)

& que eneste tienpo no sea osado de entrar enellas so so pena pena de de perder perder los otros sus bienes (S, Alfonso X, Siete partidas, 13th c.–15th c.) ‘And that in this time he does not dare enter them on pain of losing his other goods’.

(38)

pea pea1⁴ Conuë a ssaber que poserõ toda esta contenda en mha mao so so pea de perder perder a demanda (P, Documentos Portugueses da Chancelaria de D. de Afonso III, 13th c.) ‘You should know that they put this dispute in my hands on pain of losing the judicial action’.

In this period we also find sob pena de with both the inflected and noninflected infinitive in Portuguese: (39)

Que os scollares e seus homens nom andem de noyte com armas sob sob pena pena de de as as perderem perderem (P, Chartularium Universitatis Portugalensis, 14th c.) ‘That the scholars and their men do not walk with weapons at night on pain of losing them’. b. E se obligou a dita uendedor a fazer a dita uenda ao dito conprador de paz & de bóó tjtollo & lha ljurar & defender de quall pena de de lho lho conpoer qeer pesoa que lha embarge so so pena conpoer em dobro (P, Documentos do Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra, 14th c.) ‘And the said seller was forced to make said sale to said buyer in a good way and to release and protect the sale from any person who blocks it on pain of compensating it with twice its value’.

The first attestations of so pena with a finite clause—excluding relative clauses—appear in the 15th century in Spanish1⁵ and in the 16th century in Portuguese. In both cases pena shows its original meaning of ‘penalty,’ either as a fine (40) or as a punishment (41): (40)

so pena pena que que si Et de non yr nin venir contra ello nin contra parte d’ello, so contra ello veniéremos nos o otro por nos, que pechemos e paguemos a

⁶3 We are assuming that pea is pena, due to intervocalic loss of the nasal, which is a common phonological change in the history of Portuguese. 1⁵ The alternative spelling sopena que is also attested in the same period in both languages.

98

connectives

vos el dicho conçejo de la dicha villa de Segura … dosientas veses mill maravedis (S, Carta de concordia y licencia real, 15th c.)16 ‘And to not go in favor or against it or against any part of it, under penalty that, if we or someone else on our behalf did so, we shall pay you said town hall of the city of Segura 1000 maravedíes [currency] 200 times’. (41)

E se të necessidade de gasto pera cõcerto dos muros, ho veedor da sob pena pena que que se por elle fazenda he obrigado a lhe dar ho necessario, sob ficar ho concerto que nam se faça ser tãbë castigado (P, Enformação das cousas da China, 16th c.) ‘And if there were need of expense in order to fix the walls, the commissary of the treasury is forced to give him whatever is necessary, on pain that, if the fixing could not be made because of him, he should be punished too’.

The first attestation with de is dated in the 15th century in Spanish (year 1463, CORDE), as in (42), likewise as a punishment or fine:1⁷ (42)

so pena de que qualquiera que lo contrario fiziere, que pierda el tal vino (S, Ordenanzas antiguas del vino en Guadalajara, 15th c.)18 ‘On pain that anyone doing the opposite would lose that wine’.

We have obtained only one example in Portuguese from the 17th century (43): (43)

pergunta também a hua Dama … outra tal questão que se deduza da so pena pena de de que que se for em tudo diversa, se lhe não responde primeira, so que, (P, Melo, Apolo, 17th c.) ‘He also asks a lady … another such question deduced from the first one, on pain that, if it were completely different, it might go unanswered’.

⁶⁵ No information on date of manuscript copy is available. 1⁷ Sopena de que is also attested in Spanish: (i) sopena sopena de que sopenade deque que si ansi no se hiciere, lo pague (S, Antiguas ordenanzas para la conservación del Monte Castañar de la villa de Béjar, 16th c.) ‘On pain that, if it were not done thus, he should pay for it’. Bajo la pena de que (lit. ‘under the penalty of that’) is attested relatively late: (ii) bajo bajo la pena de que bajola lapena penade deque que se le despreciara su censura totalmente si no lo hace ási (S, Llorente, Discursos sobre el orden de procesar en los tribunales de Inquisición, 18th c.) ‘Under the penalty that his censorship would be rejected completely if he were to act thus’. ⁶⁷ No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

4.3 spanish so pena de (que), portuguese sob pena de (que)

99

Table 4.3 Syntactic properties of so(b) pena (de) in diachrony.

So(b) X pena

So(b) pena de + DP So(b) pena de + infinitive So(b) pena que So(b) pena de que

Properties

Earliest attestation Spanish

Earliest attestation Portuguese

Modification Plural form Coordination with Ns (limited) With a noun phrase With an infinitival clause With a finite clause With a finite clause with de

13th c. 15th c. 15th c.

14th c. 15th c. 15th c.

13th c. 15th c. (13th c.)

14th c. 13th c.

15th c. 15th c.

16th c. 17th c.

The syntactic properties of so(b) pena de from the 13th to the 17th centuries are summarized for both languages in Table 4.3. We now turn to the noun pena in order to examine the extent to which its syntax and semantics contributed to the evolution of so(b) pena (de que). In both medieval Spanish and medieval Portuguese, it is easy to attest pena modified by other categories (e.g. determiners, PPs, relative clauses), and in plural form (44c): (44)

a. pechar la pena de de suso suso dicha dicha (S, Alfonso X, Fuero Juzgo, 13th c.) ‘pay the aforementioned penalty’. b. deue auer la la pena de de descomunión descomunión que que fue fue puesta puesta en en el el undécimo undécimo concejo concejo de de Toledo Toledo (S, Alfonso X, Fuero Juzgo, 13th c.) ‘he must receive the penalty of excommunication which was set at the 11th council of Toledo’. c. por lo qual cayó e yncurrió en grandes grandes ee graues graues penas penas çeuiles çeuiles ee criminales criminales (S, Carta de merced de la veinticuatría de don Íñigo, 15th c.)1⁹ ‘for which reason he received great and serious civil and criminal penalties’.

⁶⁸ No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

100

(45)

connectives

a. E en todos aqueles que for achado que reuenderë o pam aiam aa pena pena de de suso suso dita dita (P, Posturas do concelho de Lisboa, 14th c.) ‘And those suspected of reselling the bread, may they receive the aforementioned penalty’. pena de de escomunhom escomunhom ee d’interdito d’interdito posta posta b. sometendo-sse aa pena sobr’elle e em seus rregnos (P, Lopes, Cronica de Dom Fernando, 15th c.) ‘submitting to the penalty of excommunication and prohibition imposed on them and on their kingdoms’. c. por que reçebese aa pena pena que que merecesse merecesse (P, Crónica da Ordem dos Frades Menores, 15th c.) ‘so that he would receive the penalty he deserved’.

Pena may also coordinate with semantically related nouns such as calopna (‘penalty’) (46) and sentença (‘judiciary sentence’) (47): (46)

pena oo aquella que pechassen aquella aquella pena aquella calopna calopna que el oujera a pechar (S, Alfonso X, Espéculo, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘that they should pay that penalty or that penalty that he would have to pay’.

(47)

Foi mais outorgado que elrrei dom Fernando perdoasse … toda sanha sanha ee pena pena ee sentenças sentenças per quallquer modo contra elles passadas (P, Fernão Lopes, Crónica de Dom Fernando, 15th c.) ‘It was accepted that kind Fernando would pardon … all penalties and sentences approved against them in any way’.

The first attestations of pena de with an infinitival clause date from the 13th century in Spanish (48) and from the 15th century in Portuguese (49), including the inflected infinitive (49a): (48)

que no cae en en la la pena pena de de seer seer uedado uedado de no entrar en la eglesia por un mes (S, Alfonso X, Siete Partidas I, 13th c.) ‘that he will not incur the penalty of being banished from the church for a month’.

(49)

em pena pena de de oo pagarem pagarem em dobro a. E dando alga encouram em (P, Cortes portuguesas, 15th c.) ‘And if they give some [of this] may they incur a penalty of having to pay it double’.

4.3 spanish so pena de (que), portuguese sob pena de (que)

101

b. & não o fazendo, encorresse em em pena pena de de perder perder outro tanto dinheiro (P, Lião, Leis extravagantes, 16th c.) ‘And not doing so, he would incur the penalty of losing the same amount of money’. The first attestations with a finite clause (pena que)—once again excluding relative clauses—are from the 15th century in Spanish, and the 16th century in Portuguese: (50)

pena que que qualquier que cortare robre o enzina por el a. E posieron pena pie que pague diez mrs (S, Amojonamiento, 15th c.)20 ‘And they set the penalty that anyone who felled oaks should pay 10 mrs’. con pena con pena que que la persona que incurriere le será quitada la ración de b. aqueldía (S, Queiros, Historia del descubrimiento de las regiones austriales, 16th c.) ‘the penalty being that whoever did it shall lose their food portion that day’.

(51)

com com pena pena que que a parte ou partes que comtra esto for e o asi nam comprirem pagarem de pena e em nome de pena vimte cruzados douro (P, Textos Notariais, 16th c.) ‘the penalty being that those against it or those that did not comply should pay 20 gold cruzados [currency] as a penalty or in name of the penalty’.

The overt presence of the preposition de with a finite clause (pena de que) is attested in Spanish in the 16th century. Our corpus search did not retrieve any such examples for Portuguese: (52)

sino que se diesen a hazer heredades con que perpetuar la tierra, con pena pena de de que que si en ello fuesen negligentes o descuydados … (S, Aguado, Historia de Santa Marta y Nuevo Reino de Granada, 16th c.) ‘rather they should create estates in order to control the land, on pain that, if they were useless in it …’ .

The syntactic properties of pena (de), with the earliest attestations, are summarized in Table 4.4.

⁶⁹ No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

102

connectives

Table 4.4 Syntactic properties of pena (de) in diachrony.

X pena

Pena de + DP Pena de + infinitive Pena que Pena de que

Properties

Earliest attestation Spanish

Earliest attestation Portuguese

Modification Coordination Plural form With a noun phrase With infinitival clauses With finite clauses With finite clauses with de

12th c. 13th c. 13th c. 13th c. 13th c.

14th c. 15th c. 15th c. 15th c. 15th c.

15th c. 16th c.

16th c. X

We turn now to the nominal type of pena in Grimshaw’s (1990) classification. While pena may have the meaning of an event of applying or suffering punishment, hence with duration, we have not been able to find examples of pena co-occurring with verbs meaning ‘to last’ or ‘to occur.’ The noun may be understood as the result of an act of punishment or an object (‘fine,’ specific punishment), hence as an RN. In this case, a penalty may be paid (53a, 54) or removed (53b, 54b): (53)

pechar la la pena pena de los sessaenta sueldos a. si no que el sea tenudo de pechar (S, Alfonso X, Documentos castellanos de Alfonso X – Murcia, 13th c.)21 ‘otherwise, may he be forced to pay the penalty of 60 sueldos [currency]’. b. Et sobresto el obispo de Buros rogome por el quel quitasse quitasse la la pena pena en que cayera. Et yo touelo por bien e quitegela (S, Alfonso X, Documentos castellanos de Alfonso X - Castilla la Vieja, 13th c.)22 ‘About this the archbishop of Burgos begged me to remove the penalty he had incurred. And I agreed and removed it’.

(54)

a. E pagada pagada a dita pena (P, Documentos do Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra, 14th c.) ‘And once the said penalty has been paid’.

⁷⁰ No information on date of manuscript copy is available. ⁷1 No information on date of manuscript copy is available.

4.3 spanish so pena de (que), portuguese sob pena de (que)

103

b. perdoou perdoou a pena a aquelle que auia de morrer (P, Orto do Esposo, 15th c.) ‘he forgave the penalty to the one who would die’. To finish this section, we need to return to so(b) pena (de) que to add that in the 16th–17th centuries there is a construction in which the bare noun pena introduces a finite clause in the same contexts as we have documented for so pena (de) que in the same period (55): (55)

los que orinando hacen señales con la orina, …, se les manda no lo hagan, pena que, pena que que si perseveraren, serán castigados de su juez (S, Alemán, Guzmán de Alfarache, 16th c.) ‘those who make signals with their urine, …, are ordered to not do it, on pain that, if they continue, they will be punished by a judge’.

We have found just one example in Portuguese: (56)

se algum destes sujeitos (…) fizesse hua escritura de contrato a seu que se intentasse que, vizinho, lha havia de guardar pontualmente, pena pena que quebrantá-la, lha faria cumprir a Justiça da terra (P, Melo, Apolo, 17th c.) ‘if any of these subjects … created a lease for their neighbour, they must keep it exactly, on pain that, if they tried to break it, Justice would enforce it’.

Note that both in (55) and (56) pena que co-occurs with conditional sentences headed by ‘if ’ (si in Spanish and se in Portuguese). We return to this semantic connection in Section 4.4.2. This use of bare pena is attested introducing both DPs (57) and infinitival clauses (58), i.e. it is not limited to finite clauses. As we can see in (57a), the DP may refer to something that can be lost (here, one’s life). In (57b), the DPs co-occurring with pena show that the penalty can be of a moral type (a selfimposed punishment) as well as an economic penalty: (57)

a. Nadie tome tierra, soldados … ; ni salte en ella, pena vida, pena de de la la vida vida antes que yo, ninguno. (S, Lope, Las grandezas de Alejandro, 16th c.) ‘May no one take the land, soldiers, … or jump on it, on pain of (loss of) their life, before I do’.

104

connectives

b. pena pena del del cargo cargo de conciencia que tendrán lo contrario haciendo, yy de de diez diez pesos pesos (S, Sínodo de Santiago de Cuba, 17th c.) ‘On pain of the bad conscience they will have if they did the opposite and on pain of 10 pesos’. (58)

les volvemos a dar cumplimiento a tres términos perentorios, dentro pena de de ser ser tenidos de los cuales traigan certificación de su emmienda, pena por precitos (S, Alemán, Guzmán de Alfarache, 16th c.) ‘we remind you of three mandatory terms, within which you must bring a certificate of your amendment, on pain of/at risk of being taken for damned to hell’.

In sum, our findings show that in both the syntactic and semantic development of the complex construction the properties of the noun pena have played a crucial role. First, the combinatorial possibilities of the construction rely on the distribution of the noun. Second, the lexical meaning of pena is crucial in order to understand the meanings developed by the construction. In the next section we explore the mechanisms of change involved in the creation of the two connectives studied so far.

4.4 Syntactic and semantic change 4.4.1 Reanalysis, recategorization, and syntactic compositionality The constructions sin/sem embargo de and so(b) pena de have been argued in the literature to have lexicalized and become a unit. In this section we argue for the role of reanalysis in their evolution, resulting in recategorization, and we discuss the degree to which the resulting complex categories can be analyzed internally. We show that embargo and pena lost some of their nominal properties over time, e.g. plurality and possibility of modification of the N. But this reduction in nominal features did not eliminate syntactic analyzability. Additionally, that reduction did not completely sever the link between the full nouns embargo and pena and the constructions sin/sem embargo (de que) and so(b) pena (de que) as evidenced by their common combinatorial properties, e.g. their ability to combine with clauses. The first syntactic change concerns the evolution of sin embargo de and so(b) pena de into complex prepositions (see Chapter 2). The literature provides

4.4 syntactic and semantic change

105

a set of tests to assess the degree of univerbation for complex prepositions (RAE-ASALE, 2009: 2277). Building on Pavo´n Lucero (1999: 581–5), Aarts (2007: 176–7), and Cifuentes Honrubia (2003: 116–23), we can summarize the syntactic tests in two levels:23 first, reduction in the internal structure, shown by absence of modification or interpolation, absence of determiners or quantifiers, and limited morphological variation or modification of the noun involved; second, limited phrasal syntax, namely limited syntactic flexibility of the individual elements. There is a vast literature on the recategorization of nouns in complex prepositions, especially locative ones. For instance, Ayano (2001: 64–71) speaks of locative nouns (nonreferential and part of a layered PP) and referential nouns, both with a noun categorial feature. Stringer (2007: 385) differentiates between locative (e.g. top in on top of ) and lexical nouns.2⁴ Roy and Svenonius (2009: 4) argue that the internal nature of complex prepositions (e.g. on top of ) results from the evolution of PPs with a former full noun into PPs2⁵ with a recategorized nominal-like element which lacks a number of nominal properties. These lexically reduced nouns are labeled AxParts (axial parts) owing to their focus on locative complex prepositions (e.g. top). Svenonius (2006, 2010) concludes that, while AxParts have been typically analyzed as nouns, they belong to a different syntactic category. This is not to say that “many of the items which I have identified as AxParts may have N uses as well as AxPart uses” (Svenonius, 2006: 66), but rather that “AxParts are not nouns, or not fully nouns, or not ordinary nouns” (Svenonius, 2006: 69). To illustrate this change, let us summarize the syntactic nature of the complex preposition on top of. The complex preposition is a PlaceP headed by the locative preposition on. This P takes an AxPartP headed by the AxPart (reduced noun) top, which takes a KP, headed by the functional preposition of, in its stead. Importantly, the resulting complex preposition continues to be internally analyzable, there is no univerbation. We may extend this discussion to our analysis. Roy and Svenonius (2009: 6) apply their conclusions regarding AxParts to nonlocative complex prepositions, e.g. French causative à cause de (‘because of ’). If we follow their 23 As Cifuentes Honrubia (2003: 122–3) notes, however, none of these tests are necessary or sufficient to conclude that a certain phrase is indeed a complex P. For the tests applied to present-day so pena de, see Cifuentes Honrubia (2003: 255). 2⁴ Botwinik-Rotem (2008: 339–41) and Terzi (2010: 214) include a nominal component in the internal structure of PPs. However, this nominal component is not the same as Svenonius’s AxPart but rather a phonetically null noun PLACE modified by behind, top, etc., which behave like adjectives (Terzi, 2010: 199–200). 2⁵ Actually, PlacePs in both cases, assuming a richer internal structure for PPs; Svenonius (2010: 129).

106

connectives

lead and extend an AxPart-like analysis to our nonlocative nouns, we may account for the key syntactic change undergone by embargo and pena: their recategorization as lexically reduced “nouns” (see Ayano, 2001: 67). Given the loss of some typically nominal properties around the 16th and 17th centuries, we assume that embargo and pena at one point instantiate two different but related syntactic categories: (i) a full, lexical N and (ii) a functional kind of noun,2⁶ with typical nominal features reduced (e.g. no determiners, i.e. no ability to project a full NP and be embedded under a DP, and no plural, that is, no NumP, no phi-features, etc.). The resulting construction is complex in that it requires a group of categories combining together, but complex prepositions sin/sem embargo de (que) and so(b) pena de (que) did not lose their syntactic analyzability.2⁷, 2⁸ One more syntactic change is necessary here. If we accept that SENs and RNs do not have arguments, the creation of the complex prepositions requires a secondary reanalysis whereby the modifiers introduced by the functional preposition de (e.g. clauses) become integrated in the complex category and cease to be modifiers to a (full) noun. The ability of sin/sem embargo de and so(b) pena de to take clauses, especially finite clauses introduced by the complementizer que, must be contextualized in the general evolution of clausal complementation and modification to nouns in the history of Spanish and Portuguese. This change in the presence of the preposition de, an instance of analogical extension, was explained in Chapter 2. We observe this common syntactic change for sin/sem embargo de que and so(b) pena de que. The same chronology is attested for other connectives such as a pesar (de que) (Torres Cacoullos and Schwenter, 2005/2007). Thus, it is not these constructions in isolation that display this development and chronology, but rather many other clause-taking nouns. 2⁶ Svenonius (2006: 71) indicates that “I am assuming what Borer (2005) calls ‘Neo-Constructivism’, the hypothesis that certain aspects of meaning are contributed by syntactic structure, while other aspects of meaning come from the lexical content of the words inserted into the syntax. A lexical item like English front is polysemous. Inserted under an N node in a tree, it expresses a noun, and will combine with plural and determiners and so on . . . Inserted under an AxPart node, it will express an Axial Part.” This is in agreement with current discussion about the categorization of roots, as in Panagiotidis (2015), who argues that a noun is not such until it merges with the nominalizer n. Under this view, embargo and pena would merge with n and become full Ns while, after reanalysis, they would merge with a different sort of nominal-reduced category akin to Svenonius’s AxPart. 2⁷ Pena de, as in (57), could be accounted for as a case of raising of the AxPart-like noun into the position otherwise occupied by the P so, along the lines of the syntax of casa in some Italian languages (Longobardi, 2001: 289). 2⁸ For these reasons we do not consider sin embargo (de) que or so(b) pena (de) que as separate categories from their related complex prepositions, that is, as complex complementizers with no categorial connection to their corresponding complex prepositions. The nature of so-called complex complementizers or conjunctions (e.g. de que, hasta que) is still subject to debate (see Delicado Cantero, 2013; see also Duarte, 2003b: 614 for Portuguese and Pavón Lucero, 1999: 631, 2003 for Spanish).

4.4 syntactic and semantic change

107

The initial absence of de with so(b) pena que runs against accepting the absolute internal syntactic opaqueness of so(b) pena de and further supports an internal analysis of the resulting complex construction à la Svenonius, as we have argued. For this reason, we disagree with Codita’s (2016: 294) claim that “[l]a presencia constante de la preposicio´n de a lo largo de los siglos” (‘The constant presence of preposition de (of) across the centuries,’ our translation) is key in the grammaticalization/lexicalization of Spanish so pena de; in fact, the first examples with finite clauses did not include de. The same conclusion is extensive to the evolution of sin/sem embargo de que. In sum, we have argued that embargo and pena lost part of their nominal features within the constructions. However, such recategorization does not entail that “a noun has been absorbed into a connective” (Torres Cacoullos, 2006: 39).2⁹ Rather, we have provided evidence that (i) the nouns embargo and pena allow for an abstract interpretation early on and outside of the combination with a preposition, and that (ii) both nouns in isolation may introduce clauses. Therefore, we argue that the role of the nouns in this historical development is key in that the properties of the noun provide a template for the creation of the connective. Through analogy, a construction may build on an existing pattern in the language that is associated with one of its elements (as proposed by Amaral, 2016).

4.4.2 Paths of semantic change The mechanisms of semantic change that we observe in the development of sin embargo/sem embargo and so(b) pena de are pragmatic enrichment through invited inferencing, bleaching, and subjectification. Starting with sin/sem embargo, its creation fits within attested patterns in the creation of concessives. Concessive connectives typically have derived meanings and display their semantic sources transparently. Cross-linguistically they tend to develop from conditional clauses, free-choice quantifiers, and nouns meaning ‘obstinacy, will, sorrow’ (Ko¨nig, 1985, 1988). The lexical meaning of

2⁹ An additional issue related to the analysis of the connective as an unanalyzable collocation has to do with frequency. Torres Cacoullos (2006) shows that the relative frequency of the collocation a pesar de has a twelvefold increase in the corpus data from the 12th to the 20th centuries, and proposes that relative frequency may turn out to be “an impetus of morphosyntactic and semantic change” (Torres Cacoullos, 2006: 47). Our findings may provide a different interpretation of this change in frequency: given the general pattern of subcategorization observed with clause-taking nouns in Spanish in this period, the broader grammatical change motivated by analogy may be the motivation for the frequency increase. In other words, the frequency increase is a side effect, rather than the cause of the change.

108

connectives

embargo, though not directly related to these nouns, can be seen as denoting opposition. Concessive adverbial clauses assert the truth of two propositions and convey the implication that an opposition was expected between them, i.e. under normal circumstances, both situations do not co-occur, they are not expected to be true at the same time.3⁰ The contribution of clauses connected by sin embargo can thus be decomposed in two implications:31 (i) p ∧ q (p and q are true), and (ii) p → ¬ q (p is usually considered to be incompatible with q, cf. Ko¨nig and Sigmund, 2000). As shown above, in the historical data the PP sin embargo occurs with DPs before introducing clauses. The DP could denote a situation that is perceived as an obstacle or impediment to another situation’s taking place, where the former may be expressed by a neuter demonstrative (e.g. esto, aquello, todo esto in Spanish and isso, aquilo in Portuguese), an anaphoric element referring to a previously expressed or recoverable proposition, as in (59)–(60): (59)

enbargo de de aquello aquello devedes fazer e cumplir lo E ansi toda via sin aquello, sin enbargo contenido en las dichas mis cartas. (S, Abreviación del Halconero, 15th/16th c.–16th c.) ‘And, in spite of that, you must still do and fulfill what is written in my letters’.

(60)

“Monge som, monge som de Çister.” E sem sem embargo embargo desto desto foy tomado e posto ë prisom e garda. (P, Sam Bernardo, 15th c.) “‘I am a monk, I am a monk from the order of Cister.” And despite this he was captured and imprisoned’.

In these examples, the prepositional object anaphorically refers to a proposition that can be retrieved from the context (e.g. in [60] the proposition could be ‘he being a monk’ or ‘he having said these words’), and often is not fully determined (Reig Alamillo, 2015; Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, 2016). In these examples two situations are contrasted: one situation could be seen as preventing or potentially impeding the other, e.g. monks were expected to receive special treatment, hence not to be subject to imprisonment.

3⁰ “[L]o negado por las concesivas no es la causa en sí, que puede ser enunciada como hipotética o bien como real, sino las inferencias esperables en el sentido de que un determinado hecho o representación semántica implica una determinada consecuencia” (Pérez Saldanya and Salvador, 2014: 3701). 31 The term implication is used here as a cover term including assertion, presupposition, and conventional implicature. The theoretical status of the meaning components of concessives is a debated issue that goes beyond the scope of this chapter.

4.4 syntactic and semantic change

109

We can thus understand the meaning of the connective in a compositional manner through the negative meaning of sin, i.e. ‘with no impediment of p, which is generally expected to prevent q.’ There is ample cross-linguistic evidence that negated expressions become concessive connectives. Examples of this tendency are German ungeachtet, English regardless, notwithstanding, French n’empêche que, Latin nihilo minus, Finnish huolimatta (Ko¨nig, 1985; Ko¨nig and Sigmund, 2000: 347). In Ibero-Romance, other examples are no obstante (Spanish), não obstante (Portuguese); see Pérez Saldanya and Salvador (2014) for a thorough overview. Although concessive adverbial clauses connect two factual propositions, concessive meanings may also be associated with situations that are not asserted to be true. In the literature, such cases are treated as concessive conditionals,32 in which q is asserted to be true, but p is not. Concessive conditionals may assume several forms.33 In our data, from early on we identify instances of concessive conditionals with universal quantification and free-choice items, as underlined in (2), repeated here as (61): (61)

E que el e a dicta sua ordem façam delas e em ellas o que lhe prouuer sem sem embargo embargo nehûu nehûu que lhe sobrello seia posto / nom embargando custumes … nem nem outras outras quaaesquer quaaesquer cousas cousas quaaesquer leis djreitos custumes que seiam contra esta doaçam. (P, Chartularium Universitatis Portugalensis vol. 1, 14th c.) ‘And that he and his order mentioned above shall do what they please of these, without any obstacle that may be imposed on it/despite any laws, rights, or customs … or any other things that may be against this bestowal’.

Here, the PP sem embargo introduces the negation of any potential opposition to the rights of the religious order. Although at an early stage and still with possibility of modification of the noun, this example shows that a potential contrast between situations is implied, with the use of the subjunctive, and the 32 The diachronic connection between concessive conditionals and concessive adverbial clauses has been vastly discussed and is beyond the scope of this book. For detailed discussion, see Ko¨nig (1985, 1988), a.o. 33 According to Ko¨nig (1985: 3–4), concessive conditionals may be of three main types: “(a) Whether p or not-p, q (Irrelevant antecedent conditions are specified by disjunction); (b) ( x) (if px , q) (a universal or free-choice quantifier introduces all the conditions that are irrelevant for the truth of the consequent); (c) Even if p, q (a scalar expression introduces an extreme value on a scale of likelihood that does not prevent the truth of the consequent). Entailments: q.” A

110

connectives

universal quantification widening the domain to which the predication applies i.e. invalidating any possible impediment taking place at a future time. In sum, the creation of the connective sin embargo shows some loss of lexical meaning of the noun (which becomes reduced to ‘impediment’ or ‘opposition’) and pragmatic enrichment. Interestingly, in the data we also observe the co-occurrence of sin embargo with adversative and concessive connectives (empero, pero, todavı´a) in the initial stages of the creation of the concessive (15th–16th centuries, see e.g. toda vı´a in [34]; see Montero Cartelle, 1993; Pérez Saldanya and Salvador, 2014), a reinforcement mechanism that is common in cases of semantic change (Traugott, 2012). Turning now to the semantic evolution of so(b) pena, we have seen that pena3⁴ conveys the meaning of ‘penalty’ from the very first attestations. In earlier examples the noun refers to a concrete penalty described in the text (e.g. to pay a certain amount of money, to be excommunicated), a meaning that is still maintained to this day, but could also refer to punishment more generally. Around the 15th–16th centuries, so(b) pena de can be interpreted as ‘under threat of, possibly undergoing the consequences of,’ as in (62) for Spanish and (63) for Portuguese. In these examples so(b) pena de combines both with infinitival and with finite clauses: (62)

pena de de incurrir incurrir la ira espantosa del mando les por sus cartas so so pena poderoso dios: que cessassen de se fazer la guerra. (S, Vagad, Crónica de Aragon, 15th c.) ‘he ordered them in his letters, on pain of incurring the powerful god’s horrible wrath, that they should stop fighting each other’.

(63)

sob pena pena de de ficar ficar infame, não admitem outro homem fora deste género, sob como atrás escrevemos. (P, Barros, Décadas da Asia, 16th c.) ‘they don’t admit any other type of man, on pain of becoming infamous, as we mentioned before’.

This interpretation follows from the original coded meaning of so(b) pena de and the pragmatic enrichment licensed in these contexts: if a future punishment is being asserted for a certain individual, it is implicated that the individual is possibly at risk of undergoing that punishment or incurring the consequences of his actions.

3⁴ Pena is a polysemous noun in present-day Spanish and Portuguese, as it was in historical periods of both languages. In this study, we have eliminated all examples where pena means ‘sadness,’ ‘sorrow,’ ‘pity.’ Those interpretations are never attested in the construction so(b) pena de.

4.4 syntactic and semantic change

111

Codita (2016: 286) argues that so pena de changes its meaning when taking an infinitive, suggesting that this could be the original locus of the semantic change. Although this semantic change is more apparent when so(b) pena de combines with a clause, as the subject of the clause is the individual who is undergoing the risk or threat, this interpretation is available in earlier examples in which so(b) pena de selects for a DP as long as they allow for an invited inference of possible risk affecting an individual. Such sentences express future threats to the person who may incur a penalty. The contexts in which the punishment or fine is presented have the interpretation of conditional sentences (i.e. ‘if you do this you will be subject to the following fine’), inviting the inference that the punishment is a looming possibility (either a positive or a negative one) as a consequence of someone’s actions. This can be seen early on; in the 13th-century example (64) the DP mi merced denotes a positive reward, and the PP so(b) pena de mi merced is understood as ‘on pain of losing my mercy’: (64)

Et mando a los alcaldes e al alguazil, so so pena pena de de mi mercet, que gelo non consientan. (S, Alfonso X, Documentos castellanos de Alfonso X—Andalucía, 13th c.)3⁵ ‘And I order the mayors and the sheriff, on pain of [losing] my mercy, that they do not allow it’.

In both (64) and (65), the hypothetical or modal context allows for an implicature of certain individuals being affected by or suffering a punishment. Nouns often found in this period are nouns meaning ‘mercy, price, blessing,’ i.e. a positive reward that could be either bestowed upon or removed from an individual by a figure of power, as in (65): (65)

Mas el rey dom Denis, quando o soube, mandoulhe dizer, so beeçom, so pena pena de de sua sua beeçom beeçom que nõ veesse a Lixboa, ca nõ avya hi que fazer. (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘But the King Dom Denis, when he found out, sent people to tell him that, on pain of losing his blessing, he should not come to Lisbon as he had nothing to do there’.

Hence, it is not the combination with an infinitival clause per se which gives rise to the modal (epistemic) interpretation. The same inference regarding the

⁸⁴ No information on the date of the manuscript copy is available.

112

connectives

possibility of an impending threat is licensed in earlier examples in which so pena de takes a DP. In examples with DPs denoting a pecuniary fine the inference is less likely to be triggered: in these examples, there is agency and a document stipulating the fine is explicitly mentioned. It is the loss of agency in the implementation of the penalty/threat (i.e. no longer ‘authority X will impose penalty Y on Z’) or the absence of an edict itself that reinforces the meaning of epistemic possibility, as in (66):3⁶ (66)

a.

b.

c.

so pena pena de de incurrir incurrir la ira espanmando les por sus cartas so tosa del poderoso dios: que cessassen de se fazer la guerra. (S, Vagad, Crónica de Aragon, 15th c.) ‘He ordered them in his letters, on pain of incurring the powerful god’s horrible wrath, that they should stop fighting each other’. Las mujeres no hablaban con ellas, so so pena pena de de haber haber el mismo ser trasquiladas en público y dadas por infames y ser ser nombre y ser repudiadas de los maridos si eran casadas (S, Inca Garcilaso, Comentarios reales, 16th c.) ‘The women didn’t speak with them, on pain of having the same name, having their hair trimmed in public and being considered infamous, and being rejected by their husbands if they were married’. Es tanto el amor y voluntad que os tengo, por las muchas y muy so pena pena de de ser ser buenas obras que de vosotros he rescebido, que so muy ingrato, estaba obligado a hacer (S, Cervantes de Salazar, Crónica de la Nueva España, 16th c.) ‘My love for you is so great, owing to the so many good deeds that I have received from you, that, on pain of being ungrateful, I was obligated to do it’.

In all these examples the potential penalization is not the result of a written document or an edict imposed by an agent in charge. In (66a) the threat is divine wrath, not under the control of the person giving the order; in (66b) the risk is socially imposed isolation and bullying but there is no written document forcing it; in (66c) it is a self-evaluation of the negative consequences

3⁶ Hence, there is a possible connection between the contexts favoring the new meaning and textual genre. This has been pointed out by Codita (2016), who sees the semantic change as a consequence of a change in the genre of the texts. While we acknowledge the change in genre, we argue that it is the linguistic properties of these texts that create the conditions for the semantic change.

4.4 syntactic and semantic change

113

of not behaving in a particular way. All of them contain a potential penalization: something that may occur to an individual, rather than a pecuniary fine that the person is under the obligation of conforming to (i.e. a deontic meaning). This path from deontic to epistemic possibility is a path of semantic change well attested cross-linguistically: expressions denoting (external) obligation come to denote possibility that results from a subjective evaluation of the circumstances (Bybee et al., 1994; Traugott and Dasher, 2002). In (67) there is ambiguity between the two interpretations: (67)

obliga a creer, so so pena pena de de no no ir ir a gozar Esto es lo que la fe nos enseña y obliga de estas personas divinas con gran gloria en el cielo; sino ir condenados para siempre a las penas del infierno (S, Meneses, Luz del alma cristiana, 16th c.) ‘This is what faith teaches us and forces us to believe, on pain of not going to enjoy those godly people with great glory in heaven, but rather of going to hell forever’.

The context (‘nos obliga’) is ambiguous as to whether there is an actual law (e.g. a religious text or edict) that is broken or whether it is just a risk or impending possibility (‘at risk of ’). It depends on the author’s as well as on our interpretation regarding the degree of agency that ‘faith’ may have. Hence, we observe a semantic change to epistemic modality: the meaning of the construction changes from denoting a specific sanction (often mentioned in the previous text and originating from a certain agent) to a potential sanction (not necessarily mentioned and with no specific agent) that can be inferred. This instance of semantic change is a well-attested development by which a meaning becomes more centered in the speaker’s beliefs, that is, it is an instance of subjectification (Traugott, 1989, 1995). The construction no longer refers to a concrete penalty but rather to the possibility that some punishment, which is expressed by the propositional content of the infinitival clause, could be carried out. The diachronic link between ‘penalty’ and ‘risk’ is evident in examples like (68); the original meaning of economic penalty and the interpretation of possibility may coexist: (68)

mandamos a los dichos jueces que después de dada la dicha sentencia y pronunciada en regimiento la ejecuten luego sin dilación alguna, so so pena pena que que incurran en pena pena de veinte mil maravedís (S, Ordenanzas sobre apelaciones de pleitos de cuantia inferior a sesenta mil maravedís, 16th c.)

114

connectives

‘we order said judges that, after declaring said sentence and declared to be in place, they should execute it immediately without any delay, on pain that they would incur a penalty of 20,000 maravedis’. This interpretation of epistemic possibility can be easily paraphrased by a conditional clause; (69) can be rendered as ‘If you don’t go early, you may not get a ticket.’ (69)

Debes ir temprano, so pena de quedarte sin entrada. (S, DRAE, pena1 ) ‘You should go early, otherwise you may not get a ticket [for the venue]’.

Crucially, the order of the clauses as exemplified in (69) further reinforces the connection with a conditional interpretation: the antecedent of a conditional provides the context for the proposition denoted by the consequent to be assessed (von Fintel, 1997). This pattern is found across languages: Greenberg’s universal 14 states that cross-linguistically, conditionals tend to have a canonical order with the antecedent first (Greenberg, 1966: 84). In sum, the semantic change described in this section can be schematically represented as follows: (70)

obligated/under the concrete penalty of > subject to a risk or incurring possible consequences > at possible risk or threat of > under the possibility that

In addition to the interpretation of ‘at risk of/that,’ so pena (de) que acquired the interpretation of ‘unless’ in Spanish (Moliner, 1998: 625–6; Elvira, 2007), absent in Portuguese. Attestations are very late, from the 19th century (71). This interpretation is documented only with finite clauses and appears to require the subjunctive (underlined below), which is also the case for Spanish a menos que ‘unless’: (71)

pena de de que que uno de a. y sería en fin, el cuento de nunca acabar, so so pena nosotros agarrase agarrase la maza y le aplastase aplastase la cabeza; y esto me parece que ninguno de vosotros se hallará dispuesto a hacerlo (S, Torrijos, La infanta Doña Teresa, 19th c.) ‘And it would end up being the never-ending story, unless one of us would grab the mace and crush his head; and I suspect none of you will be willing to do it’.

4.4 syntactic and semantic change

115

b. accede el hombre por complacerme, aunque protestando que no pena de le haría cambiar de opinión, so so pena de que que le abonase abonase un pico de tres mil reales en el acto, pico que él tenía que satisfacer a fin de mes por unas fincas compradas a plazos (S, Pereda, Tipos y paisajes, 19th c.) ‘The man agrees just to please me, although protesting that I would not make him change his mind, on pain that [unless?] I paid him 3000 reales on the spot, an amount that he had to pay by the end of the month for some land he had bought in instalments’. In (71a), the dispute would have an end only if one person used a mace to crush the head of his opponent. Likewise, in (71b), the pay is presented as the sole condition under which the person would change his opinion, hence rendering the connection between the two interpretations apparent: the man would change his mind if the speaker paid 3000 reales on the spot and only under such condition. This conditional interpretation of exceptive negation establishes a relation between two propositions p and q, where q is asserted to be realized in every case except in the unique case that p is realized, where p is often contextually presented as exceptional (Orlandini, 2001: 164–5). In terms of clausal order, the sentence expressing q is presented before the sentence expressing p (Geis, 1973; Traugott, 1997b; Dancygier, 1999; Orlandini, 2001). We believe that this semantic change involves two steps that build on the conditional meaning of sentences with so pena de. Using example (68), we can paraphrase the conditional meaning of so pena de as in (68’): (68’) Si no ejecutan la sentencia sin dilación, [incurrirán en pena de veinte mil maravedís] Note that the clause containing so pena in the original (68) corresponds here to the main clause (in square brackets), the apodosis of the conditional, and the if-clause (or protasis) has a negative operator. The first stage of the change undergone by so pena consists in the hypothetical (conditional) interpretation of so(b) pena de being strengthened to an interpretation of ‘if and only if.’ As is often attested with conditional sentences, they can be strengthened to an interpretation in which only if the protasis is true, the apodosis is true. This is an inference of “conditional perfection”3⁷ or “conditional strengthening” (Geis

3⁷ Geis and Zwicky (1971) have described this “connection between linguistic form and a tendency of the human mind—a tendency to “perfect conditionals to biconditionals”,” formulated by the authors

116

connectives

and Zwicky, 1971; Van der Auwera, 1997; Levinson, 2000, a.o.), i.e. the tendency for conditionals to be interpreted as expressing necessary conditions in addition to sufficient ones (if is interpreted as if and only if ). We do not have enough data to determine whether this inference has become conventionalized or is merely at a pragmatic stage, i.e. generated as a generalized conversational implicature. But importantly, we need to assume a stage at which for a speech community the shared meaning of so pena can be only if p, q, since this is precisely the meaning of an exceptive conditional (von Fintel, 1991; Traugott, 1997b) that we have in (71a,b). Note that crucially in (71a,b) the order of apodosis and protasis is inverted, i.e. so pena now introduces the protasis, i.e. the sole condition that renders the apodosis true, as in (71a’): (71a’) Esto solamente acabaría [si uno de nosotros agarrase la maza y le aplastase la cabeza] Examples like (71a,b) show that in a second stage of the change the connective so pena has been reanalyzed as a conditional connective and introduces the exceptive clause; in (71a) the only circumstance under which the fight would end is one in which one person applies a blow (all other possible circumstances are excluded, as they would not have the intended effect). While the exceptive conditional meaning is attested in dictionaries (see Moliner, 1998), we do not have enough corpus evidence to document it more. This second stage of the semantic change is hypothesized by us because we have both an exceptive conditional meaning and a reinterpretation of the connective as a conditional function word. While the conditional meaning of an entire, biclausal sentence containing so pena was already available, in this last stage we see that the clause containing so pena acquires an exceptive conditional meaning and has a verb in the subjunctive. This semantic change of so pena de can thus be described through the following stages: (72)

obligated/under the concrete penalty of > under the possibility or condition of receiving the penalty > under the possibility or condition of something happening > only under the condition of, under the sole condition of, unless

While it may seem strange that under the meaning ‘unless’ so pena de introduces the protasis, this instantiates an observed generalization in studies of as “A sentence of the form X ⊃ Y invites an inference of the form ~X ⊃ ~Y” (Geis and Zwicky, 1971: 562). Although this is logically a fallacy, it is a well-attested interpretation tendency.

4.5 conclusion

117

meaning change. The sentences in which so pena de occurred were conditional at the level of interpretation, though not formally conditional. The connective so pena de has “absorbed,” and eventually come to semantically encode, its contextual meaning (see e.g. the development of pas and other negative markers). In a study investigating cross-linguistically attested sources of conditional constructions, Traugott presents verbs belonging to the domain of epistemic modality, as the English verb suppose and Mandarin yào ‘wish, be necessary’ (Traugott, 1985). The development of so(b) pena de to mean ‘unless’ is yet another instance of the connection between epistemic modality and conditionality but outside of the realm of verbs, and provides one more piece in the puzzle of the creation of ‘unless’ conditionals (von Fintel, 1991). Both the semantic development of sin/sem embargo and so(b) pena show the role of pragmatic enrichment in the interpretation of biclausal structures. While the nouns embargo and pena have suffered bleaching, the complex constructions, which are functional items, have acquired new meanings that are defined by rhetorical relations between propositions. While it is difficult to operationalize the concept of subjectification (Traugott, 1989; a.o.), one may say that the resulting meanings are more subjective in that they pertain to the likelihood of propositions.

4.5 Conclusion The findings of this chapter can be summarized as follows. First, the role of the noun in the evolution of the connectives sin/sem embargo (de que) and so/sob pena (de que) has proven to be more relevant than previously assumed. The parallel evolution of the nouns in isolation and the complex constructions show similarities in chronology that cannot be ignored. The distributional properties of the nouns were instrumental in the creation of the connectives, even when we assume that there is recategorization into functional nouns. Such recategorization did not sever the link between embargo and pena and the complex prepositions sin/sem embargo de and so/sob pena de in the 16th–17th centuries. Second, we have shown that there is reduction in nominal properties but not loss of syntactic analyzability. While the nouns in the original PPs are recategorized by the 16th/17th centuries, such reduction does not equal opacity, since we can still argue for internal structure. In fact, we argue that the complete loss of internal structure—and semantic compositionality—is only evidenced at later stages, with the development of the discourse marker equivalent to

118

connectives

English ‘however,’ which falls outside the scope of this chapter, and in the evolution of so pena de que in Spanish, which has been semantically reanalyzed as an exceptive conditional connective. Third, we have found similarities in the changes undergone by both nouns. Embargo and pena have a similar evolution in their clause-taking properties. In both cases we observe the extension from accepting DPs first toward infinitival clauses and then toward finite clauses, with the functional preposition de soon after. This chronology is shared by both nouns and is part of the general evolution of clause-taking nouns in Spanish and Portuguese described in Chapter 2. Fourth, our approach involving two very closely related languages proves informative in that, beyond the expected similarities, we can also see different outcomes: e.g. loss of sem embargo (or at least restriction to certain registers) and in the semantic development of sob pena de, with no meaning of ‘unless’ in Portuguese. Although in both cases we see multiple mechanisms acting in their development, as well as a change in patterns of clausal complementation playing a role in both languages, the ultimate development is not the same, thus providing additional data to explore how different outcomes come about despite the presence of the same lexical items.

5 Light verb constructions 5.1 Introduction We turn now to a construction in which the noun is a predicate: the light verb construction (henceforth, LVC). In the literature on LVCs, there is an unresolved question: to what extent do LVCs undergo change, and what does that reveal about the structure of these? We contribute to this question through our analysis of LVC data from medieval to contemporary Portuguese and Spanish, a domain in which little research has been done. We ask if there is change, which mechanisms are involved, and how much syntactic and semantic compositionality can be observed over time. Building on the syntax and semantics of LVCs, with attention to the literature on Spanish and Portuguese, we focus on the changes undergone by the LVC dar consejo/conselho, which may combine with clauses. We illustrate the relevant LVC with the following present-day examples: (1) a. Juan me dio el consejo de que leyera ese libro (S) Juan me give-pst.3sg the advice of that read-pst.subj.3sg that book ‘Juan advised me to read that book’. b. Aos consumidores é dado o conselho de exigir To-the consumers be.prs.3sg given the advice of demand-inf este tipo de informação detalhada (P, CdP, Portugal) this type of information detailed ‘The advice is given to consumers to demand this type of detailed information’. This LVC is relevant to our discussion because it allows us to track and analyze the evolution of a construction that exists in both languages but with important syntactic and usage differences. As in previous chapters, this is also a clause-taking construction, and it allows us to examine the properties of the noun both in isolation and within the LVC through time. We will see that, in line with research in other languages, Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish. Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero, Oxford University Press. © Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero (2022). DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.003.0005

120

light verb constructions

this LVC tends to be historically stable (Bowern, 2008; Butt and Lahiri, 2013), with some syntactic changes.

5.2 The concept of ‘light verb’; LVCs in diachrony The literature on light verbs and the complex predicates they are part of (LVCs) is vast and relies on a variety of theoretical approaches.1 The term light verb was originally coined by Jespersen (1965, vol. VI: 117) as applying to English verbo-nominal constructions like have a rest and give a shout.2 Light verbs are argued to be “structurally defective in some way” (Bowern, 2008: 163), i.e. they display some or all of the following properties: an empty or reduced argument structure, no theta-role assignment, a light semantic contribution; they may be phonologically null or, if overt, they are only hosts for agreement and tense morphology (Bowern, 2008: 163). In N-V complexes, the result is a complex predicate which will vastly vary in semantic compositionality and in syntactic analyzability (Langer, 2004: 2). Other typical characteristics include the presence of a predicate noun—with the associated issue of the argument structure, as we will discuss—and the fact that they are usually equivalent to a full verb, e.g. LVC to give advice is equivalent to the full verb to advise (Langer, 2004; Mohanan, 2006; a.o.). The categorial nature of light verbs is generally seen as problematic as light verbs seem to fall between fully lexical verbs and functional categories. Early syntactic studies focused on their reduced weight, equating them to auxiliary verbs or mere licensors of predication, with the noun being the main predicate (Gross, 1981; Grimshaw and Mester, 1988). However, more recent studies have remarked their semantic contribution (Butt and Geuder, 2001; Mohanan, 2006; Butt, 2010), or even deny any categorial difference between light and full verbs (Bruening, 2016). In a well-known study, Butt and Geuder (2001: 338–43) argue that light verbs such as English give retain the basic syntax of their full counterparts, that is, the light verb give continues to display a typical ditransitive syntax: an agent transfers a theme to a recipient. The only difference between full give and light give, they argue, is the fact that the latter is semantically a subset of the former 1 Likewise, the literature uses a variety of terms (support verbs, light verbs, etc.). Throughout this chapter we will use the terms light verb—regardless of our commitment to the degree of lightness of the verb itself—and LVC. We will introduce other terms as necessary when engaging with specific relevant literature. 2 The term light has been applied to other categories. See Bosque (2001) and Gallego’s (2010) comments on Bosque (2001).

5.2 the concept of ‘light verb’; lvcs in diachrony

121

(see also Ramchand, 2014: 218). This applies to English give advice, which is similar to the LVC studied here; this give is light in that advice, unlike objects that can be moved (i.e. physically transferred) or change possession (e.g. money from agent to recipient), only vaguely resembles such transfer (Butt and Geuder, 2001: 341). Semantically, they propose a Parsons-style analysis of the meaning of light verbs by claiming that these verbs are modifiers of events, the event information now being carried by the noun in the LVC. They propose a lexical decomposition of the complex predicate in which the light verb contributes the manner of the event, GIVE-TYPE (Butt and Geuder, 2001: 354–6). In any case, the “precise semantic interpretation [of light verbs] is determined through contextual factors,” depending on the noun (Butt and Geuder, 2001: 356). In sum, recent literature has called into question the supposed functional nature of light verbs; at the same time, the nouns in LVC are commonly analyzed as key to the syntax and semantics of the whole construction (Mohanan, 2006: 469; a.o.). Diachronic research in this area has been comparatively scarce and the matter of the degree of change undergone by LVCs (and other complex predicates) continues to be an open question (Bowern, 2008; Butt, 2010; Butt and Lahiri, 2013). As Bowern (2008) points out, some authors have assumed that light verbs are historically part of a “cline” starting with parataxis and ending with affixes, a view that has been questioned owing to the historical stability of LVCs and their relation to lexical verbs (Butt and Lahiri, 2013). For example, Anderson (2006) treats light verbs on a par with auxiliary verbs as verbs that are partially grammaticalized, hence on an intermediate stage of the verb cline of grammaticalization from full verb to affix. Some authors have argued against classifying light verbs together with auxiliaries, by showing that light verbs and auxiliaries have different properties (see Butt, 1995, 2010; Butt and Geuder, 2001). Bowern (2008) argues that light verbs and auxiliaries behave differently in synchrony: they display different behavior with respect to argument structure and light verbs do not have defective paradigms, while auxiliaries do. They also have distinct diachronies: “they have different origins and do not readily change into one another. LVCs tend to originate in the reanalysis of VPs. Therefore, representing them on the same cline is misleading” (Bowern, 2008: 167). Furthermore, light verbs do not undergo reduction in form—of which the extreme case is affixation, as can be the case for auxiliary verbs— and they do not lead to the development of functional categories (Traugott,

122

light verb constructions

1999; Butt, 2010). A light verb always has the same form as a main verb in the language. In addition, the paradigm of light verbs seems to remain relatively stable across time in a given language (Traugott, 1999). According to Bowern (2008), complex predicates containing light verbs are created by known processes of syntactic change like reanalysis, extension, or borrowing. As she points out, it seems plausible that many LVCs have developed by analogical extension once the verb has partially lost its semantics, rather than each LVC being derived individually by reanalysis from a full lexical verb. She presents the Middle English example ‘have war’: “It is clear that these structures are prone to creation by analogy and, somewhat like idioms, they can drop in and out of use” (Bowern, 2008: 168).3 As she notes, “the etymology of a construction like “have a shower” does not lie in the components “havefull ” + X, which was reanalysed, but rather in the construction “havelight ” + X. This leads to questions about how light meanings arise from full verbs in the first place, and which verb + noun combinations are particularly prone to reanalysis in this way” (Bowern, 2008: 169). As we show in the next sections, this stability is instantiated by Spanish and Portuguese dar consejo/conselho, although we do observe some internal changes in this construction over time. Our findings thus seem to support Bowern (2008)’s nuanced view of the stability of LVCs, against the stronger position of LVCs as “dead ends” (Butt and Lahiri, 2013).

5.3 LVCs in Spanish and Portuguese There is an ongoing debate on the syntactic nature of LVCs in Ibero-Romance and on whether they form a reanalyzed syntactic and semantic unit⁴ (Piera and Varela, 1999: 4415–18; a.o.). The basic question asked in this research is how the task of predicating is divided between verb and noun. Current literature on Spanish and Portuguese LVCs highlights the shared role of the noun and the verb in the syntax and semantics of the complex predicate, with some relevant differences (for Spanish, Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999; Alonso Ramos, 2004; de Miguel, 2008, 2011; de Miguel and Batiukova, 2017; 3 Although the author does not mention this point, it is possible that textual genre as well as social factors have played a role in the diffusion of these forms. ⁴ This type of V-N LVC is a subtype of complex predicate. Other complex predicates such as idioms (e.g. English kick the bucket) have substantially different properties, e.g. reduced or no semantic compositionality and reduced syntactic analyzability. In line with Mendívil Giró (1999) or Alonso Ramos (2004), we will not focus on these other types in this chapter.

5.3 lvcs in spanish and portuguese

123

for Portuguese, Duarte, 2003a; Scher, 2005; Duarte et al., 2006; Gonçalves et al., 2010; Gonçalves and Raposo, 2013). The main issues brought up in this literature are as follows: 1. Syntactic Syntactic structure structure and and analyzability. analyzability. The literature tends to agree that LVCs remain internally analyzable, especially when determiners are present. In the absence of determiners, the literature is divided between those who argue for reanalysis (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999) and those who claim that LVCs are always internally analyzable. Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999) subdivides LVCs into several classes.⁵ LVCs with verbo vicario (‘vicarious verb’) involve the reanalysis of the noun into the verb (noun incorporation; see Baker, 1988); an example of this is hacer mencio´n (lit. to do mention, ‘to mention’), with a bare noun. LVCs with verbo de soporte (‘support verb’) require a determiner, e.g. hacer una mencio´n (lit. to do a mention, ‘to mention’);⁶ no incorporation/reanalysis has taken place. This classification relies on the following (morpho-)syntactic tests: (i) The nouns in LVCs with verbo vicario may not pluralize (2a); the opposite holds for LVCs with verbo de soporte (2b): (2) a. *Hice menciones de Pedro (S) (Lit.) ‘I made mentions of Pedro’. b. Hice varias menciones de Pedro (S) (Lit.) ‘I made several mentions of Pedro’. Pluralization is seen as evidence of lack of incorporation (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 254–5). (ii) No coordination is possible between reanalysed nouns and argumental nouns in LVCs with verbo vicario (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 259–61): (3) a. *Juan hizo mencio´n de Luis y una alusio´n a Pedro (S, Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 259) (Lit.) ‘Juan made mention of Luis and an allusion to Pedro’. ⁵ A third type, verbos operadores (operator verbs), is introduced, especially linked to verbos vicarios. We will not focus on them as they are not relevant for the discussion in this chapter. ⁶ This is not completely true either. The author states that a determiner may not be present in all cases of verbo de soporte (Mendívil Giró, 1999: 158–9, 197, 214–15), although we will see that this presence or absence of a Det is nevertheless essential to his study. There are cases of incorporation which do not involve an LVC or also extreme cases of syntactic incorporation and high semantic idiomaticity such as idioms (tomar el pelo, ‘to pull one’s leg’), also not LVCs in his classification (Mendívil Giró, 1999: 160). This discussion is not relevant in this chapter, so we will not return to it.

124

light verb constructions

b. Juan hizo una mención de Luis y una alusión a Pepe (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 261) (Lit.) ‘Juan made a mention of Luis and an allusion to Pepe’. (iii) While modification is grammatical in both types, LVCs with verbo vicario may accept only adjectives, also assumed to be incorporated alongside the noun. LVCs with verbo de soporte impose no constraints for modification, assuming their full internal syntax (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 246–7). Temporal modifiers of internal duration or repetition of the noun are ruled out or interpreted differently in LVCs with verbo vicario (4a,5a): (4) a. *Juan hizo mención de Pedro en cinco minutos (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 249) (Int.) ‘Juan made mention of Pedro in five minutes’. b. Juan hizo la mención de Pedro en cinco minutos (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 249) (Lit.) ‘Juan made the mention of Pedro in five minutes’. (5) a. Hice frecuente mención de Pedro = Lo mencioné frecuentemente (S) (Lit.) ‘I made frequent mention of Pedro’ = ‘I mentioned him frequently’. b. Hice una frecuente mención de Pedro = Repetí una que se ha hecho frecuentemente (Lit.) ‘I made a frequent mention of Pedro’ = ‘I repeated a frequent one’. En cinco minutos (‘in five minutes’) is ungrammatical in (4a) and frecuente (‘frequent’) in (5a) is interpreted as the common repetition of the whole predication rather than of the specific mention/comment, as in (5b). This is argued to reflect the lack of internal structure in LVCs with verbo vicario and the full internal syntax of LVCs with verbo de soporte. (iv) LVCs with verbo vicario do not accept quantifiers while LVCs with verbo de soporte do (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 252–3). Any quantifiers and operators have scope over the whole LVC with verbo vicario (6a), and narrow scope on coleccio´n is deemed ungrammatical; rather, only must have wide scope of the whole hacı´a coleccion de sellos; the opposite obtains with verbo de soporte (6b):

5.3 lvcs in spanish and portuguese

125

(6) a. *Dijeron que solo hacía colección colección de sellos (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 253) (Lit.) ‘They said that he only made collection of stamps’. una colección colección de sellos (y no una subasta) b. Dijeron que solo hacía una (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 253) ‘They said that he only made a collection of stamps (and [did] not [have] an auction)’. In sum, Mendı´vil Giro´’s (1999) study revolves heavily around differences in the internal syntactic structure of subtypes of LVCs: full internal syntax for LVCs with verbo de soporte versus lack of internal syntax due to noun incorporation—reanalysis of the noun into the verb—for LVCs with verbo vicario. However, other linguists do not support such classification. Laca (1999: 920) rejects the reliability of that the presence or absence of a determiner in Spanish as a test of the lexicalization or lack of internal structure of a complex predicate. Alonso Ramos (2004) rejects the idea of incorporation for LVCs (her CVAs or construcciones con verbo de apoyo, e.g. dar un consejo Alonso Ramos (2004: 53))⁷ and regards the presence or absence of a determiner as anecdotal. Syntactically, LVCs are fully syntactically analyzable; no reanalysis takes place in any case. Their perceived unity is semantic rather than syntactic (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 248). She supports her analysis with several tests (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 214–18). For instance, the fact that the nouns can be relativized,⁸ and thus ⁷ Alonso Ramos (2004: 52–3) classifies verb-noun constructions in three groups: 1. 2. 3.

Idiomatic expressions such as tomar el pelo. They are noncompositional and must be listed as lexical units. Compositional verb-noun combinations such as cumplir una promesa (‘to fulfill a promise’). Both the verb and the noun are meaningful but they form a collocation, in that it is the noun which selects a particular verb. Verb-noun combinations, her CVAs, which are the relevant ones in our discussion.

⁸ A related test is the so-called dual analysis, whereby the noun may be moved with only some of its arguments when it combines with a light verb: (i)

a. La admiración por María que siente Pedro es sorprendente (S, Alonso Ramos, 2004: 217) ‘The admiration for María that Pedro feels is surprising’. b. La admiración que siente Pedro por María es sorprendente (S, Alonso Ramos, 2004: 217) ‘The admiration that Pedro feels for María is surprising’.

In (ia) the noun admiración has been displaced with por María; in (ib) the noun has been extracted while leaving por María behind. Each is said to correspond to a different syntactic analysis, hence the duality, as follows: (ii) a’. [sentir] [admiración por María] (S, Alonso Ramos, 2004: 218) ‘to feel admiration for Maria’. b’. [sentir admiración] [por María] (S, Alonso Ramos, 2004: 218) ‘to feel admiration for Maria’.

126

light verb constructions

moved out of the VP projected by the light verb, suggests that there is no syntactic unit: (7)

El caso que le hace su marido es mı´nimo (S, Alonso Ramos, 2004: 216) ‘The attention that her husband pays to her is minimal’.

Romero Méndez (2005: 14–16) is also in favor of considering LVCs in Spanish as syntactically internally analyzable. One key test is the possibility of pronominalization of the noun, as also pointed out by Piera and Varela (1999: 4415): (8)

Ella hace referencia a este tema / La/*Lo hace (S, Piera and Varela, 1999: 4415) (Lit.) ‘She makes reference to this topic. / She makes it’.

The noun referencia is pronominalized as expected of any regular DO despite the absence of a determiner, with gender agreement between the noun and the pronoun. The literature on Portuguese (e.g. Duarte et al., 2006; Gonçalves et al., 2010) also accepts that LVCs, while being complex predicates, are nevertheless internally analyzable (Gonçalves et al., 2010: 452). In fact, Gonçalves and Raposo (2013: 1215) list LVCs with and without determiners with no further syntactic differences noted: (9)

a. Os miúdos deram deram animação animação à festa (P, Gonçalves and Raposo, 2013: 1215) (Lit.) ‘The kids gave animation to the party’. fizeram um um resumo resumo da lição (P, Gonçalves and Raposo, b. Os alunos fizeram 2013: 1215) ‘The students made a summary of the lesson’.

The nature nature of of light light verbs verbs A second issue relates to the lexical or functional 2. The verbs. nature of light verbs, and their argument structure or lack thereof. Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999: 277–8) argues that verbos vicarios lose their argument structure—the N takes over the argument structure of the whole LVC— whereas verbos de soporte continue to project their own argument structure, with more or less lexical meaning, in combination with the argument structure of the noun. Alonso Ramos (2004: 19–24) argues that all light verbs have no argument structure and little to no semantic content. In an LVC the noun selects the However, the validity of the test is challenged by data provided by Bosque (2001), who shows that some verbs which do not fully qualify as typical light verbs (his heavier light verbs) may also show such dual analysis (see also Alonso Ramos, 2004: 220).

5.3 lvcs in spanish and portuguese

127

verb and carries the semantic weight of the construction, while the role of the verb is limited to providing the syntactic skeleton for the noun to project its semantic roles onto. Semantically, light verbs in LVCs may be empty in two ways: either by carrying very abstract meaning (e.g. dar un paseo, lit. ‘to give a walk,’ ‘to go for a walk’) or by carrying lexical meaning but only contributing tense information to the LVC (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 87). The verbs in LVCs may be empty in the first way but they are all empty in the second one (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 89). Duarte (2003a), Duarte et al., (2006), Gonçalves et al., (2010) and Gonçalves and Raposo (2013) argue that light verbs do contribute to the complex construction, they are not functional categories devoid of argument structure. They may keep the same argument structure (10b) as their corresponding full verbs (10a): (10) a. O Pedro deu deu o livro à Maria (P, Duarte et al., 2006: 316) ‘Pedro gave a book to Maria’. b. O Pedro deu deu um empurrão à Maria (P, Duarte et al., 2006: 316) ‘Pedro gave a push to Maria’. The preposition marking the second argument is a (contracted with the definite article as à) in both cases, whether dar (‘to give’) is a full verb (10a) or a light verb (10b). Semantically, light verb dar continues to include the transference sense of full verb dar (Duarte et al., 2006: 318). They also reject the idea that light verbs are auxiliary verbs. The latter do not impose semantic restrictions on the predicates they combine with, whereas the former combine only with semantically coherent nouns; while auxiliary ter (‘to have’) is compatible with the stative verb admirar (‘to admire’) (11a), light verb fazer (‘to do’) is not compatible with a stative noun such as admiração (‘admiration’) (11b): (11) a. O João tem admirado a persistência da Maria (P, Duarte et al., 2006: 316) ‘Joao has admired Maria’s persistence’. b. *O João faz uma admiração à persistência da Maria (P, Duarte et al., 2006: 316) (Lit.) ‘Joao does an admiration to Maria’s persistence’. Likewise, auxiliaries do not impose semantic restrictions on their subjects; light verbs do:

128

light verb constructions

(12) a. O João/a casa tinha caı´do (P, Duarte et al., 2006: 317) ‘Joao/the house has fallen’. b. O João/*a casa deu uma queda (P, Duarte et al., 2006: 317) Lit. ‘Joao/*the house gave a fall’. In short, Duarte et al., (2006) and others evidence that all light verbs are not just meaningless functional categories without argument structure. The same point is made by de Miguel (2008, 2011). 3. The noun. The nature nature of of the the noun noun The nouns in LVCs are categorized as predicates. As such, they maintain at least some of the same arguments when used on their own (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 164; de Miguel, 2008: 568; a.o.): Pepe les les dio un aviso aa sus sus amigos amigos (S) (13) a. Pepe ‘Pepe gave a warning to his friends’. de Pepe Pepe aa sus sus amigos amigos (S) b. El aviso de ‘Pepe’s warning to his friends’. The predicative nature of the nouns in LVCs requires them to have arguments (see Duarte et al., 2006; Gonçalves et al., 2010; a.o.). However, for Grimshaw (1990) only CENs project a syntactic argument structure, but not all the nouns in LVCs qualify as CENs, which poses a theoretical challenge. Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999: 130–4) notes that Grimshaw’s classification is at odds with the Spanish data. By their very definition, LVCs with verbo vicario require nouns with argument structure whereas LVCs with verbo soporte do not (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 197). Therefore, a noun such as mencio´n must have syntactic arguments when it is part of an LVC with verbo vicario but only has complements if it combines with a verbo de soporte. Alonso Ramos (2004: 129, 155) argues that all nouns in LVCs are predicates and thus have semantic participants; in some cases these semantic arguments will be mapped onto the syntax. She also finds Grimshaw’s classification too strict on the basis that many non-deverbal nouns are grammatical in LVCs and owing to the fact that in her analysis all arguments are projected from the noun (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 136–41; see also Alba-Salas, 2002: 38). She rejects Mendı´vil Giro´’s duplication of lexical items on the basis of the presence or absence of a determiner (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 135, fn 48, 142, fn 60). the LVC LVC An analysis following Mendı´vil Giro´ 4. Argument LVC. Argument structure structure of of the (1999) would call for different subtypes: (i) an LVC with verbo vicario relies on the argument structure of the noun; (ii) LVCs with verbo de soporte assume a combination between verb and noun.

5.3 lvcs in spanish and portuguese

129

The argument structure of the nouns is essential for Alonso Ramos (2004) as well, as we have just discussed. De Miguel (2008, 2011) argues that LVCs involve verbs not fully devoid of semantics which nevertheless are “filled up” by the lexical features of nouns. Evidence for the semantic features of these verbs comes from examples where the theta-role of the subject is dependent on the argument structure of the light verb dar (a); the equivalent full verb in (b), golpear ‘to hit,’ does not impose the same [+agent] theta-role constraints to its subject (de Miguel, 2008: 570): (14) a. Juan/*El viento dio un golpe al coche (S, de Miguel, 2008: 571) (Lit.) ‘Juan/*The wind gave a hit to the car’. b. El fuerte viento … golpeó el coche en la carretera … (S, de Miguel, 2008: 571) ‘The strong wind hit the car on the road’. Light verbs have underspecified features which are necessarily flexible to be contextually determined depending on the noun they combine with (de Miguel, 2008: 570, 575). When combined, the underspecified verb will agree with the features carried by the noun, creating an LVC. Thus, both light verbs and nouns contribute to the argument structure of the LVC. Similarly, Duarte et al., (2006) and Gonçalves et al., (2010) remark that the light verb and the noun must be compatible in terms of Aktionsart. They also argue that the properties of the LVC result from the combination of the argument structure of the light verb and that of the noun. Gonçalves et al., (2010) highlight that dar may combine with activities (15b) but not with stative nouns (15a): (15) a. *O João deu um gosto (P, Gonçalves et al., 2010: 458) (Lit.) ‘*Joao gave a like’. b. O João deu um passeio (P, Gonçalves et al., 2010: 458) (Lit.) ‘Joao gave a walk’. The syntactic derivation accounting for the argument structure of an LVC has received different names in the formal literature. For instance, Grimshaw and Mester (1988), in their seminal paper, operationalize it as Argument Transfer, whereby the arguments of the noun are transferred to the verb. Within the Ibero-Romance literature, Duarte et al., (2006: 323) assume a pre-syntactic operation of argument sharing between the verb and the noun, which results in the arguments of the noun being transferred to the verb, except the theme. The theme continues to be selected by the verb, with the addition of an event

130

light verb constructions

feature. The argument structure of the noun provides the interpretation for the subject and the second argument (the recipient). In the syntactic derivation itself, they assume that light verbs are vPs that take an EventP as their argument. The DP is the complement of the head of this EventP. We must notice that they always assume a DP, whether there is a determiner or not. Gonçalves et al., (2010: 459–62) work within a Distributed Morphology approach, hence no presyntactic argument sharing but the general assumptions remain the same: an array of semantic features for the verb dar are collated against the noun; only nouns that share features with the light verb will result in a grammatical LVC. In short, we can see that the literature differs in how the argument structure of the LVC is composed. While many argue that the argument properties of the light verb and the noun are shared or combined, others such as Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999) or Alonso Ramos (2004) have either argued for subtypes or support the proposal that the argument structure comes only from the nouns. We will see how these different approaches fare when assessing the evidence of dar consejo/conselho de.

5.4 Synchronic overview: present-day Spanish and Portuguese 5.4.1 Spanish consejo and Portuguese conselho The nouns conselho and consejo are polysemous. The DRAE defines Spanish consejo as ‘advice’ but also as ‘administrative board.’ Portuguese conselho is defined in the DACL as ‘that which is said to a person to help her make a decision about something or to influence her behavior; the result of the act of advising’ (our translation). According to Silva (1949–59), it is defined as ‘opinion, warning, judgment or advice that is either given to someone, or received, about what should be done’ (our translation). Both nouns are related to denominal verbs, aconselhar/aconsejar (‘to advise’). In order to determine the properties of the nouns consejo/conselho, we consider first their distribution. They may combine with DPs:⁹

⁹ Some of these are also grammatical when introduced by the preposition sobre (‘about’). However, we will not consider the data with sobre since sobre may not take a finite clause, which is a key context in this book.

5.4 synchronic overview: present-day spanish and portuguese

131

(16) a. siguiendo el consejo de de los los médicos médicos (S, CdE, Chile) ‘following the doctor’s advice’. b. El consejo aa los los políticos políticos de de hoy hoy es que no tienen que ofrecer cosas que nunca van a cumplir (S, CdE, Argentina) ‘The advice to present-day politicians is that they must not offer things they won’t ever deliver’. c. Díaz-Álvarez coincide en el consejo de de compra compra de de pesos pesos mexicanos mexicanos (S, CdE, Spain) ‘D-A agrees on the advice on buying Mexican pesos’. dos advogados advogados (P, CdP, Portugal) (17) a. porque ouvi o conselho dos ‘because I heard the lawyers’ advice’. aos cientistas cientistas (P, CdP, Portugal) b. Um conselho aos ‘A piece of advice to the scientists’. de compra compra de de títulos títulos SAD SAD “tem-se mostrado difícil” c. obter um conselho de (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘to obtain a piece of advice on SAD bond sale has proven difficult’. In (16a and 17a) the DP, introduced by the preposition de, expresses the source of the advice. In (16b and 17b) the DP, introduced by the preposition a, is the recipient of the advice. Examples (16c and 17c) show a DP introduced by the preposition de spelling out the content of the advice. Infinitival and finite clauses (with que or de que) may likewise express such content: (18)

un decálogo que comienza con el consejo de mantener mantener la la higiene higiene diaria diaria de de los los pies pies (S, CdE, Spain) de ‘a decalogue that starts with a piece of advice on keeping your feet clean daily’.

(19)

O conselho de de ir ir ver ver um um médico médico encobre muitas vezes sugestionar o indivíduo sobre algum mal não detectado (P, CdP, Brazil) ‘The advice on going to see a doctor frequently hides the suggestion to people of an undetected problem’.

que gastemos gastemos un un 150% 150% menos menos (S, CdE, (20) a. de ahí viene el consejo que Ecuador) ‘hence the advice that we should spend 150% less’. b. a pesar de mi sabio consejo de de que que no no lo lo hiciera hiciera (S, CdE, Mexico) ‘despite my wise advice that he should not do it’.

132

light verb constructions

(21) a. A ilusão da tecnologia não é, porém, ignorar o conselho que que se se deve deve pensar pensar antes antes de de escrever escrever (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘The illusion of technology is not to ignore the advice that one must think before writing’. b. os fundadores de empresas tecnológicas ignoram demasiadas vezes de que que devem devem escutar escutar oo cliente cliente (P, CdP, Portugal) o conselho de ‘the founders of technological companies many times ignore the advice that they must listen to their clients’. Consejo/conselho may be pluralized, modified by adjectives, and combine with determiners; all of them are attested with infinitival and finite clauses: (22)

los consejos consejos de de comer comer sano, sano, beber beber menos, menos, hacer hacer ejercicio ejercicio quienes siguen los yy amamantar amamantar reducen el riesgo de enfermedades (S, CdE, Argentina) ‘those who follow the advice on eating healthily, drinking less, exercising, and breastfeeding reduce their risk of disease’.

(23)

seus conselhos conselhos de de evitar evitar açúcar e bebidas adoçadas arcontradizem os os seus tificialmente (P, CdP, Brazil) ‘they contradict their advice on avoiding sugar and artificially sweetened drinks’.

(24) el el ferviente ferviente consejo consejo de que ambos hermanos hicieran terapia (S, CdE, Argentina) ‘the heartfelt advice that both brothers should do therapy’. (25) oo tradicional tradicional conselho conselho de imaginar todos os presentes em suas roupas íntimas (P, CdP, Brazil) ‘the traditional advice to imagine everyone in the audience in their underwear’. As for their lexical classification, while consejo and conselho are nouns related to an activity verb (aconsejar/aconselhar), they do not pass Grimshaw’s tests for CENs: (26) a. *El consejo de Pepe a sus hijos llevó cinco minutos (S) ‘*Pepe’s advice to his children took five minutes’. b. *El consejo de Pepe en/durante dos horas fue interesante (S) ‘*Pepe’s advice in/for two hours was interesting’. c. *El consejo de Pepe empezó a las 5 (S) ‘*Pepe’s advice started at 5’. The ungrammaticality of these examples shows that our nouns are incompatible with the modifiers of duration and internal phases. However, note that the

5.4 synchronic overview: present-day spanish and portuguese

133

nouns are compatible with some adjectival modifiers denoting duration, as in the following Portuguese example: (27)

A filha lembrou-se do conselho demorado/do conselho demorado demorado longo longo conselho conselho do Pai (P) ‘The daughter remembered the protracted/long advice of her father’.

In (27), the noun conselho denotes the activity of providing advice, which has duration; in this respect, the noun may be seen as an SEN. In addition, consejo and conselho may refer to the product or result of an act of providing advice (i.e. its content: so the noun can be modified by adjectives meaning ‘good, wise, thoughtful,’ etc.), that is, RNs and thus non-eventive. This dual nature was encountered with nouns embargo and pena in Chapter 4. The fact that consejo and conselho qualify as SEN and as RN raises the question of their argument structure, as we discussed above. Picallo (1999: 382–9) concludes that RNs may have semantic participants that behave nevertheless as syntactic arguments, even if they are optional. If we focus on the combination with clauses, the following examples show that the clause may be restated between commas (28a) and that the noun and the clause can also be restated as a copular sentence (28b). Both are evidence of the syntactic adjunct status of the clause (apposition) (Leonetti, 1999): (28) a. El consejo, que te quedes en casa, es por tu salud (S) ‘The piece of advice, that you stay home, is for your health’. b. El consejo es que te quedes en casa (S) ‘The advice is that you stay home’. As for the argument structure regarding sources and recipients of the advice, we have summarized above how Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999) and Alonso Ramos (2004) resolved this theoretical issue in LVCs, which is the topic of the next section.

5.4.2 Spanish dar (Det) consejo de and Portuguese dar (Det) conselho de We turn now to the LVC dar (Det) consejo/conselho de. Dar (‘to give’) as a full verb is a typical ditransitive verb of physical transfer, with source, theme, and recipient arguments:

134

light verb constructions

libro aa su su hijo hijo (S) (29) a. El El padre padre le dio un un libro ‘The father gave a book to his son’. b. O O pai pai deu um um livro livro ao ao filho filho (P) ‘The father gave a book to his son’. In these examples, the source is expressed as the syntactic subject, the theme is expressed as the direct object, and the recipient is the indirect object, with clitic doubling in Spanish. In the LVCs, DPs introduced by the preposition de may specify the content of the advice: (30) Hace unos dı´as se dio dio consejo consejo de de compra compra (S, CdE, Spain) ‘The purchase advice was given some days ago’. (31) Os membros do Fed não dão dão conselho conselho de de mercado mercado (P, CdP, Brazil) ‘Fed members do not give market advice’. (32) Pero no le da da el el mismo mismo consejo consejo de de ajuste ajuste del del gasto gasto aa Rita Rita Martín Martín (S, Spain)1⁰ ‘But he does not give RM the same advice on expenditure control’. (33) destacando que o líder de A França Insubmissa “agiu de forma um conselho democrática” “a o não dar dar um conselho de de voto voto aos aos seus seus eleitores” eleitores” (P, CdP, Portugal) ‘highlighting that the leader of AFI democratically agreed to not give voting advice to his voters’. The examples with content DPs—with the expected preposition de—are limited and difficult to document, both in cases without the determiner (bare singulars) and with it. The source is expressed as the subject. The recipient of the advice is also expressed by a DP, normally introduced by a. The Portuguese example (31) is Brazilian, but in this dialect bare singulars may be intended as semantically plural (Schmitt and Munn, 2002), rendering the example questionable. In fact, it seems that the bare singular option is not grammatical for many speakers of (European) Portuguese, contrary to what we find in Spanish: (34) a. Pepe dio consejo a Luis (S) ‘Pepe gave advice to Luis’. b. Pepe dio un consejo a Luis (S) ‘Pepe gave a piece of advice to Luis’. ⁹⁶ Retrieved from eldiario.es/canariasahora/economia/Cronica-autorizada-viaje-Islandia_0_3604 6436.html (last accessed February 4, 2020).

5.4 synchronic overview: present-day spanish and portuguese

135

(35) a. *O Pedro deu conselho ao Luı´s (P) ‘Pedro gave advice to Luis’. b. O Pedro deu um conselho ao Luı´s (P) ‘Pedro gave a piece of advice to Luis’. Bare singulars tend to combine with indirect interrogative infinitival clauses (36, 37); with determiners, all types of infinitival clauses are easily documented, including the inflected infinitive in Portuguese (39): (36)

da consejo consejo al al público público de de cómo cómo administrar administrar los recursos de manera le da adecuada (S, CdE, El Salvador) ‘she gives advice to the public on how to adequately administer resources’.

(37)

Havia os que vinham dar dar conselho conselho de de como como defender defender (P, Brazil)11 ‘There were those who went on to give advice on how to defend him’.

(38)

le dio dio el el consejo consejo de de no no precipitarse precipitarse (S, CdE, Spain) ‘he gave him/her the advice not to rush it’.

(39)

conselho de de leres leres ee informares-te informares-te melhor (P, CdP, agora eu dou-te dou-te oo conselho Portugal) ‘now I give you the advice to read and to inform yourself better’.

The bare singular examples are limited. The one Portuguese example is Brazilian, which again raises the issue of the plurality of bare singulars. In the case of the Spanish example, the same syntax is possible, with a very similar interpretation of repetitive advice giving (activity) with a bare plural: (40)

Van a hablar sobre el clima y dar dar consejos consejos al al público público de de cómo cómo vestirse vestirse (S, Honduras)12 ‘They’re going to talk about the climate and give advice to the public on how to dress’.

As before, finite clauses are easier to attest with a determiner, as in (43,44):13 (41)

que no se viniera (S, US)1⁴ El papa´ le dio consejo consejo que ‘His father advised him that he should not come’.

⁹⁷ Retrieved from piaui.folha.uol.com.br/materia/um-crime-celebre-marcos-matsunaga (last accessed March 13, 2020). ⁹⁸ Retrieved from sites.google.com/a/amschool.org/estudios-sociales-elem/4to-grado (last accessed May 21, 2020). 13 Prescriptively, these are all cases of queísmo. 1⁰⁰ Retrieved from impactolatino.com/guatemala-inicia-repatriacion-de-migrantes-muertos-enaccidente-en-mexico (last accessed March 13, 2020).

136

light verb constructions

(42)

conselho que que ele estude (P, CdP, Brazil) Mas dou dou conselho ‘But I advise him to study’.

(43)

consejo que que se pasara a la televisión (S, CdE, Él fue quien le dio el el consejo Nicaragua) ‘He was the one who advised him to transfer to TV’.

(44)

conselho que que em vez de utilizarem a maldade, a difamação e a deu oo conselho mentira, lutem pelos objetivos (P, Portugal)1⁵ ‘he advised that, rather than using evil, defamation and lies, they should fight for their goals’.

Even with bare singulars, the presence of a finite clause forces an interpretation as single, individuated, specific piece of advice. In (41), the father provided a specific piece of advice, which was to not come. Their counterparts with de que are attested in Spanish, though they are rare and not all speakers find them grammatical: (45)

a. le dio consejo consejo de de que que por favor se comportase como Maribel (S, Spain)1⁶ ‘he advised him that he should behave like M’.

(46)

consejo de a. me dio el el consejo de que que todo se hace con cariño (S, CdE, Peru) ‘she advised me that everything is done with love’. consejo de de que que no ignore b. Carlota revela que Lozano le ha dado el el consejo a sus enemigos (S, CdE, Spain) ‘C. reveals that L has advised her that she should not ignore her enemies’.

(47)

a. A SNI me deu oo conselho conselho de de que que minha vida é perfeita assim 17 mesmo como ela é (P, Brazil) ‘The SNI gave me the advice that my life is perfect as it is’. conselho de de que que os jovens b. A repórter da Tribuna de Minas … deu oo conselho profissionais valorizem a reportagem (P, Brazil)1⁸ ‘The TM reporter advised that the young professionals should value reporting’.

1⁰1 Retrieved from cm-benavente.pt/downloads/camara-municipal/actas/2019/5758-ata-de-01-042019-e-anexo/file (last accessed March 13, 2020). 1⁰2 Retrieved from europapress.es/chance/tv/noticia-supervivientes-isabel-pantoja-discute-alberthabla-hijo-kiko-rivera-20190517105458.html (last accessed March 6, 2020). 17 Retrieved from revistaepoca.globo.com/Revista/Epoca/0„EDF44712-15243-3,00.html (last accessed March 13, 2020). 1⁸ Retrieved from brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/em-foca/daniela-arbex-aconselha-jovens-a-invest irem-na-reportagem-especial (last accessed March 13, 2020).

5.4 synchronic overview: present-day spanish and portuguese

137

The bare singular option is very rare in Spanish—we only found a couple of examples online and not all speakers will find them grammatical—and is not documented in Portuguese. The examples with a determiner are common in Spanish; in Portuguese, these examples are grammatical but limited to formal speech. Both moods in the subordinate clause are attested. In terms of internal syntax and the syntactic properties of the nouns, pluralization, quantification, and adjectival modification are documented in several contexts: (48)

varios consejos consejos de que no se debe hacer en esta fase planetaria dan varios (S, CdE, Ecuador) ‘they give some advice on what not to do during this planetary phase’.

(49)

conselhos de como começar seu negócio online (P, CdP, para dar conselhos Brazil) ‘to give advice on how to start your business online’.

(50) a. Los resultados de la investigación servirán para dar dar consejo consejo genético genético a las parejas (S, CdE, Spain) ‘The results of the study will be used in giving genetic advice to the couples’. el sencillo sencillo consejo b. le dio dio el consejo de disfrutar del momento (S, CdE, Peru) ‘he gave her the simple advice to seize the moment’. c. Le daría daría a la ministra el el consejo consejo urgente urgente de de que que organice menos sesiones de fotos (S, CdE, Spain) ‘I would give the minister the urgent advice that she should organize fewer photo calls’. conselho amoroso amoroso não (P, CdP, (51) a. E não é só a nonna que sabe dar conselho amoroso, Brazil) ‘It is not just a granny that can give love advice’. básicos de cuidados do bebé (P, CdP, Portugal) b. dava conselhos conselhos básicos ‘it [the book] provided basic advice about baby care’. In sum, consejo and conselho in the LVC with dar show a similar behavior to their use in isolation. We have noted some contexts that appear to be limited in our corpora or online (see Table 5.1). We have seen that in Portuguese and Spanish the light verb dar substantially continues to show the ditransitive argument structure of its full verb counterpart: dar consejo/conselho retains the semantics of transfer—a source transfers a theme (the advice) to a recipient—the only difference being that the transfer is not physical. This is typical of light verb to give cross-linguistically (Butt

138

light verb constructions

Table 5.1 Summary of the distribution of dar (Det) consejo/conselho de.

S Dar consejo S Dar Det consejo P Dar conselho P Dar Det conselho

De DP √ √ (rare) (rare)

De + inf √ √ (interrog)

+ finite clause √ √ (rare)

De que (fin) √ √ (rare)

Possible in Brazilian Portuguese √ (rare)

Possible in Brazilian Portuguese √

Possible in Brazilian Portuguese √ (formal)

X √

(formal)

and Geuder, 2001: 338–43; Ramchand, 2014: 218). The recipient is not always overtly expressed but we find that it can be at least semantically inferred. We have already discussed the problem linked to the argument structure of these nouns, which are SEN or RN but never CEN. If we assume that they have an argument structure, we can understand why theirs is compatible with that of the verb dar, e.g. the recipient of the advice is the same as the one the verb dar requires. Furthermore, the subject (the source) seems to be controlled by the noun, since the source must be an agentive source who can give advice; otherwise, the result is anomalous: (52)

#El libro le dio el consejo de irse a casa (S) (Lit.) ‘The book gave him the advice to leave home’.

The content adjunct, expressed by DPs or clauses normally introduced by the preposition de, can only be due to the nouns. The internal syntactic structure of the LVC is fully present in both languages. In addition to the evidence provided above regarding pluralization, internal adjectival modification, and quantification, the noun remains syntactically overt even when no determiner is present in the LVC in Spanish. A reanalysis/noun incorporation runs into several problems. First, one problem highlighted in the literature on noun incorporation is the extraction of the supposedly incorporated noun (Bosque, 1996: 99; Masullo, 1996: 191, a.o.), as in (b): (53) a. El representante me dio consejo de ir (S) (Lit.) ‘The representative gave me advice to go’. El consejo de ir que me dio el representante (S) b. El ‘The advice to go that the representative gave me’. If the bare noun consejo is incorporated into the verb in (53a), the presence of the determiner in (53b) is unexpected. Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999: 211) suggests

5.4 synchronic overview: present-day spanish and portuguese

139

there may be cases of double analysis, that is, dar consejo in (53a) vs. dar el consejo (53b): noun incorporation in (53a) but full DP in (53b). However, the same relativization strategy is grammatical with LVCs where no determiner is possible and yet the result is similar (Alonso Ramos, 2004: 216): (54) a. Su marido no le hace caso (S) ‘Her husband does not pay her any attention’. b. El caso que le hace su marido es mínimo (S, Alonso Ramos, 2004: 216) ‘The attention her husband pays her is minimal’. In (54b) el caso ([lit.] ‘the case,’ ‘attention’) is in the same syntactic position as el consejo in (53b) but hacer caso ([lit.] ‘to do case,’ ‘to pay attention’) does not have a counterpart with the article *hacer el caso ([lit.] ‘to do the case’): (55) a. Pepe no le hace caso (S) ‘Pepe does not pay her any attention’. b. *Pepe no le hace el/un caso (S) (Lit.) ‘Pepe does not do her the/a case’. Second, consider the following Spanish example: (56)

le gusta dar consejo consejo de todo, aun cuando no se lo lo piden (S, CdE, Mexico) ‘she likes to give advice on everything, even when it is not requested’.

The pronoun lo (‘it’) is referring back to a bare singular consejo in the LVC. Even though the bare noun is semantically unspecific or indefinite, it may still be anaphorically referred to as any other typical direct object may (Piera and Varela, 1999: 4415–18; Alba-Salas, 2002, 2007; Alonso Ramos, 2004: 237– 8; a.o.). This is contrary to expectations in noun incorporation (Masullo, 1996: 176), decategorization of the noun (Tornel Sala, 2000: 219–20) or V-N lexicalization (Bustos Plaza, 2003: 115–16). Third, further theoretical evidence for a nonincorporation analysis comes from Dobrovie-Sorin et al., (2006), who argue that the bare singulars found in Romance LVCs are a case of pseudo-incorporation. No morphological/syntactic incorporation takes place, as bare singulars are argued to project only NPs and, crucially, may be arguments even if they do not project a full DP, that is to say, “property-denoting constituents can occupy syntactic argument positions” (Dobrovie-Sorin et al., 2006: 61). Thus, bare consejo can be a predicate NP—in not being a full DP—and still function as the DO of the verb (in line with Alonso Ramos, 2004: 253; and Duarte et al., 2006; Gonçalves et al., 2010; or Gonçalves and Raposo, 2013 for Portuguese LVCs).

140

light verb constructions

In addition, we do not have any evidence in favor of analyzing dar consejo/conselho de, in our data, as thematically different to their more common counterparts with a determiner. In both cases pluralization and quantifiers are grammatical in both languages with the same argument structure: (57) a. Dio consejos a los pacientes (S) ‘She gave advice to the patients’. b. Dio varios consejos a los pacientes (S) ‘She gave several pieces of advice to the patients’. (58) a. Deu conselhos aos pacientes (P) ‘She gave advice to the patients’. b. Deu varios conselhos aos pacientes (P) ‘She gave several pieces of advice to the patients’. If pluralization is evidence of lack of incorporation/reanalysis (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 254–5), noun incorporation must be ruled out in both these cases. Mendı´vil Giro´ shows that no coordination is possible between reanalyzed and non-reanalyzed nouns in LVCs with verbo vicario (59a) (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999: 259; see examples [3a,b]): (59) a. *Juan hizo mención de Luis y una alusión a Pedro (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 259) (Lit.) ‘Juan made mention of Luis and an allusion to Pedro’. b. Juan hizo una mención de Luis y una alusión a Pepe (S, Mendívil Giró, 1999: 261) (Lit.) ‘Juan made a mention of Luis and an allusion to Pepe’. Indeed, (59a) is ungrammatical. However, the results for dar consejo/conselho are not as conclusive: (60) a. ?Pepe dio consejo a los estudiantes y un aviso a los padres (S) ‘Pepe gave advice to the students and a warning to their parents’. b. nos dio consejo y ejercicios para hacer en casa (S, Spain)1⁹ ‘s/he gave us advice and exercises to do at home’. We contend that (60a) is at least acceptable. In addition, the example in (60b) shows that the bare noun consejo may be coordinated with the bare plural noun ejercicios. If plural nouns are incompatible with noun incorporation, it should not be grammatical to find the same light verb with an incorporated consejo and at the same time with a bare plural noun as a full direct object (see also Alonso Ramos, 2004: 234–47). 1⁹ Retrieved from http://federopticosbernardez.com/federclub (last accessed May 7, 2021).

5.5 diachronic overview

141

Finally, the scope of modifiers such as solo (‘only’) does not behave as expected of an LVC with verbo vicario since it may take narrow scope on the direct object without a determiner (consejo literario, ‘literary advice’): (61)

solo consejo consejo literario literario pero nunca Fernández-Cid les daba solo literario, pautas pautas musicales musicales (S, Spain)2⁰ ‘FC only gave them literary advice, but never musical guidelines’.

All this suggests that no syntactic reanalysis has taken place, i.e. no lexicalization or noun incorporation as argued in Mendı´vil Giro´ (1999) for LVCs with verbo vicario or in Bustos Plaza (2003). Thus, we agree with Alonso Ramos (2004: 237–8), Romero Méndez (2005), a.o. The internal analyzability of dar (Det) consejo/conselho remains unaltered. Any sense of unity may be due to the semantics of the LVC as a whole (Alonso Ramos, 2004), to the argumentsharing process between the light verb and the noun (de Miguel, 2008, 2011; Duarte et al., 2006; a.o.), or as a case of semantic incorporation—but not noun incorporation—as suggested in Carlson (2006). To sum up, in this section we have learned that the LVCs dar (Det) consejo/conselho maintain syntactic analyzability. The syntactic options we document for the nouns in isolation are grammatical in the LVC, with some contexts being easier to document than others. In addition, we have seen that both the light verb and the noun contribute to the complex predicate.

5.5 Diachronic overview The literature on LVCs in historical Spanish and Portuguese is limited.21 Beyond some notes in historical grammars, Dubsky (1963, 1965), Blanco (1995), Serradilla Castaño (1996a, 1996b) and Alba-Salas (2007, 2016, 2017) are the main references providing a more detailed documentation and analysis for historical Spanish. For Portuguese, Cunha (1995) collects instances of some LVCs (e.g. with dar, ‘to give’) on a par with auxiliary verbs like estar (‘to be’), confirming the tendency found in the literature to conflate light verbs with auxiliary verbs. 2⁰ Retrieved from elpais.com/ccaa/2012/10/26/madrid/1351282814_751143.html (last accessed May 28, 2020). 21 More broadly for Romance, the literature on the evolution of French and Italian LVCs is equally limited (see, for instance, Alba-Salas’s, 2002: Chapter 2 and 2007: 211–13 overviews), but some key early works were devoted to these languages, such as Chaurand (1983) on old French donner (‘to give’) and La Fauci (1979) on old Italian LVCs.

142

light verb constructions

Dubsky (1963) provides lists of examples with what he considers to be auxiliary verbs (including dar) and certain types of nouns, which form complex predicates (formas descompuestas, ‘decomposed forms’). This traditional view as a unit is supported by Blanco (1995). Typical light verbs include aver, fazer, and dar (‘to have’, ‘to do/make,’ ‘to give’); some LVCs may include modification (aver muy grand duelo; lit. ‘to have great grief ’) and prepositions (poner en dubda, lit. ‘to put in doubt,’ ‘to call into question’) (Blanco, 1995: 412–13). Semantically, the verbs involved are described as vague; syntactically, the nouns are not direct objects as they cannot pronominalize; they are integrated in the verbs, which is reminiscent of Mendı´vil Giro´’s (1999) noun incorporation analysis. Since the verb is regarded as an auxiliary, the noun is the main predicate (Blanco, 1995: 413–15, 418). Thus, we can see that the hypothesis that LVCs—formas descompuestas or formas analı´ticas (‘analytical forms,’ Yllera, 1980: 12)—form a unit has been traditionally accepted in the Spanish literature (Cano Aguilar, 1985: 90; see Serradilla Castaño, 1996a: 13–16 for an overview). Alba-Salas (2007, 2016, 2017) assumes that the nouns involved are predicates and that light verbs are, for the most part,22 semantically empty (e.g. dar in dar + action noun, as in our dar consejo/conselho; Alba-Salas, 2007: 209), thus it is the noun which selects the verb in an LVC, all in line with Alonso Ramos (2004). LVCs are deemed to be syntactically analyzable (Alba-Salas, 2007: 209–10). In fact, in his study on dar miedo (lit. ‘to give fear,’ ‘to cause fear’), Alba-Salas (2007) shows that miedo (‘fear’) is the direct object of the light verb dar in medieval Spanish as it is in contemporary Spanish (Alba-Salas, 2007: 220–21). Alba-Salas’s works focus on quantitative analyses of frequency of use (Alba-Salas, 2007, 2016, 2017), language-internal influences such as the effects of generalized syntactic changes in Spanish as well as metaphorical cognitive processes connecting different semantic domains (Alba-Salas, 2016, 2017), and language-external influences such as koineization (Alba-Salas, 2007). However, these studies do not explore the evolution of the semantic and syntactic properties of the nouns involved vis-à-vis the development of the relevant LVCs over time.

22 Alba-Salas (2007: 209) argues that the dar in dar + stative noun, as in dar miedo (‘to cause fear’), is in fact semantically a causative, unlike the dar in dar + action noun, as in our dar consejo/conselho. This is reminiscent of Mendívil Giró’s (1999) third subtype of LVC, with an operator verb. This discussion is not relevant to our analysis of dar consejo/conselho de, so we will not return to it in this chapter.

5.5 diachronic overview

143

5.5.1 Spanish consejo and Portuguese conselho The nouns consejo (Spanish) and conselho (Port.) derive from Latin consĬlĬum ‘deliberation, consultation,’ ‘assembly,’ ‘advice, opinion.’ According to Houaiss, Villar, and Franco (2003), the earliest attestations of the Portuguese noun conselho and the verb (and also of conselhar) are from the 13th century. The Spanish Diccionario de Autoridades defines consejo as ‘advice; way/path/means to obtain something; high court (both people and building)’.23 Consejo as ‘advice’ is attested in old Spanish (62a) and in present-day Spanish (62b): (62) a. E si te dieren buen consejo toma lo (S, Maestre Pedro, Libro del Consejo y de los Consejeros, 13th c.) ‘And, if they gave you good advice, take it’. b. Y, si te dan un buen consejo, tómalo (S) ‘And, if they give you good advice, take it’. The related denominal verbs are aconsejar and aconselhar (‘to advise’). In old Spanish, the variant consejar is attested until the 15th century, with aconsejar being the general form since the 16th–17th centuries (Corominas and Pascual, 1980–91: 885). Both variants, aconselhar and conselhar, are attested in medieval Portuguese (according to the DVPM). We first explore the diachronic syntax and semantics of the nouns consejo and conselho in isolation, for two main reasons: first, it will allow us to discard those contexts where the noun does not show the sense of ‘advice’; second, it will allow us to document the syntax of the nouns outside of the LVC. Semantically, medieval consejo and conselho displayed several senses other than the meaning of ‘advice’; related meanings such as ‘agreement through consultation,’ ‘assembly,’ etc. are not uncommon. A third meaning is that of ‘help,’ which, despite not being listed in the Diccionario de Autoridades, is documented in old French as well (Chaurand, 1983: 18). Both Spanish consejo—also spelled conseio in medieval Spanish—and Portuguese conselho are attested with adjectival modification and in plural form: (63)

malos (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España II, se guyauan por sus conseios conseios malos 13th c.–13th/14th c.) ‘they followed their bad advice’.

23 The sense of ‘consultative assembly’ is equally commonly attested today in both Portuguese and Spanish as it was in the older periods of both languages; this sense is not part of the LVC and thus will be excluded in this study.

144

light verb constructions

(64)

paremos mentes nos maaos maaos conselhos conselhos que derom a el rey Rodrigo (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘let’s think about the bad advice they gave King R’.

Notice that these examples include some sort of determination. Since this section will revolve around the syntax of the nouns in isolation, the presence or absence of the determiner, an issue in the LVC, is irrelevant. Both nouns may take DPs, introduced by the preposition de, expressing the source: (65) a. & nenguno de uos non iulgue senero muerte de omne ninguno. nin nengun iuyzio de otras cosas. mas delante los sacerdotes de dios. & con su conseio. & con conseio conseio del del pueblo. pueblo. & & delos delos principes principes dela dela tierra tierra (S, Alfonso X, Fuero Juzgo, 13th c.) ‘And may none of you pass a sentence of death on anyone or any other sentence for anything else but in the presence of priests and with their advice and with advice of the people and the best men of the land’. b. Fechas deuen ser las leyes con consejo consejo de de onbres onbres entendidos entendidos & & sabidos sabidos (S, Alfonso X, Siete Partidas, 13th–15th c.) ‘The laws must be made on advice from learned men’. (66)

madre foy aviindo con Como el rey dõ Fernando, per conselho madre, conselho de de sua sua madre a raynha dona Tareyja e cõ suas filhas (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘Since King F, on his mother’s advice, was in good terms with Queen T and her daughters’.

Semantically, (65a) may be interpreted as ‘advice,’ while (65b) illustrates an ambiguous reading of ‘advice’ and ‘help’ in the same context. Likewise, in (66), the mother provides advice. The recipient of the piece of advice may also be present, marked with the preposition a (‘to’): (67)

Dize el cuento que este Cauallero Zifar fue buen cauallero de armas e consejo aa quien gelo demandaua (S, Zifar, 14th c.–15th c.) de muy sano consejo ‘The story says that this knight Z was a good knight and would give great advice to whoever asked it from him’.

This example shows the noun conseio with the recipient of the advice, since Zifar is described as a knight giving great advice to whoever would ask for it. Infinitival and finite clauses are also attested. Consider the following data with infinitival clauses:

5.5 diachronic overview

145

de matar matar aa el el (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España (68) a. & que eran en conseio conseio de I, 13th c.) ‘And that they were in agreement to kill him’. b. E eleno & Casandra muy afyncada mente rrequirieron al rrey & a consejo de de fazer fazer prenda prenda en greçia que çesase toda la corte que aquel aquel consejo (S, Leomarte, Sumas de la historia troyana, 14th c.–14th/15th c.) ‘And E and C firmly required the king and the whole court that that advice to make a pledge in Greece should stop’. c. no es menos impío que imprudente el el consejo consejo de de despojar despojar las iglesias con ligero pretexto de las necesidades públicas (S, Saavedra Fajardo, Idea de un príncipe político cristiano, 17th c.) ‘the advice to despoil the churches on the questionable excuse of public need is as impious as it is unwise’. (69) a. se per mãdado daquel seu senor fezer moeda ou for en conselho conselho de de aa fazer fazer ou for encobridor (P, Afonso X, Fuero Real, 13th c.) ‘if, on his lord’s orders, he made money or was in agreement to make it or tried to cover it up’. conselho de de te te leixar leixar leixar-te-ei (P, A b. E, pois, se achar em meu leixar, meu conselho Demanda do Santo Graal (cópia do século XV), 15th c.) ‘And, thus, if I thought about my advice to leave you, I’d leave you’. c. O O conselho conselho de de aguar aguar o vinho é de Platão (P, Bernardes, Nova Floresta, 17th c.) ‘The advice to water wine down is Plato’s’. The earliest examples appear in an LVC, estar/ser en conseio de, but with a meaning of ‘agreement’ rather than ‘advice’ in both Spanish (68a) and Portuguese (69a). (68b) appears to be the earliest example in the CdE with conseio as ‘advice’ outside of an LVC. Portuguese (69b) also seems to be a good example of ‘advice.’ The nouns accept infinitival modification with de in classical Spanish and Portuguese, as (68c) and (69c) illustrate. In all these examples, the infinitival clause introduces the content of the noun. With finite clauses, the earliest Spanish examples are in other LVC such as ser en consejo que (70a) or tomar consejo que (70b). While they may not be perfect examples of the noun outside of the LVC, they do highlight the fact that consejo could take a finite clause explaining the advice itself from very early on. The earliest example we have been able to retrieve which appears to be completely outside of an LVC is dated in the 15th century. The Portuguese data tell the same story: notice once again that the noun may combine with a

146

light verb constructions

finite clause in the very same text inside an LVC (71a) and—arguably—outside one (71b): (70) a. Traydor es qui mata su sennor natural … o que yaze con mugier de su sennor o que es en en consejo consejo que que yaga otro con ella (S, Fuero de Soria, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘A traitor is the person who kills his natural master or sleeps with his master’s wife or who is in agreement that another man sleeps with her’. b. e tomaron su su conseio conseio que que quando fuesse de noche que fuxiessen e fizieronlo assi (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España I, 13th c.) ‘And they took his advice that, once it was night-time, they should flee; and that’s what they did’. c. no deliberaua saluar la vida / la qual por ventura en breue paresceria. Pero toda via approuo el el consejo: consejo: que que se fuessen de noche de aquel monte (S, Vidal de Noya, Guerra de Jugurtha de Caio Salustio Crispo, 15th c.) ‘he didn’t think about saving his life, which he would soon lose, but he still set out the advice that they should leave that mount at night’. conselho que (71) a. e ouverõ seu seu conselho que fossem por o iffante dom Fernando e o trouvessem pera Castella (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘and they had his advice that they were to go get prince F. and take him back to Castile’. este conselho: conselho: que que nem hûû homë do b. os de Cordova acordaronsse em este linhajem d’Aben Humeya que nõ ficasse em toda a cidade (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘Those from Cordoba agreed on this advice: that no one from AH’s lineage would remain anywhere in the city’. The combination with finite clauses introduced by de is attested from the 17th century in Spanish (72). The CdP does not retrieve any examples in historical Portuguese, although the construction is grammatical in present-day Portuguese: (72)

el consejo consejo de de que que Su Majestad Mal puede disculparse de temerario el salga en persona (S, Quevedo, La Hora de todos y la Fortuna con seso, 17th c.) ‘The advice that Your Majesty should go out in person may hardly be discounted as reckless’.

5.5 diachronic overview

147

Table 5.2 summarizes the chronology of earliest attestations of the nouns consejo and conselho in use outside of an LVC. The centuries indicated between parentheses in the tables in this chapter refer to the original date of composition when it is different from the date of copy.

Table 5.2 Distribution of the nouns consejo and conselho in isolation.

Consejo/conselho de + DP Consejo/conselho de + inf Consejo/conselho que Consejo/conselho de que

Properties

Earliest attestation Spanish

Earliest attestation Portuguese

With a nominal phrase With infinitival clauses With finite clauses

13th c.

15th c.

14th/15th c. (14th c.) 15th c.

15th c.

17th c.

X; grammatical today

With finite clauses with de

14th c.

5.5.2 The LVC: Spanish dar (Det) consejo de and Portuguese dar (Det) conselho de The LVC dar consejo/conselho is already attested in early texts; this is unsurprising given that it already existed in Latin (Martı´nez Rodrı´guez, 1996). Semantically, the equivalence between the LVC and the denominal verb conseiar/conselhar is evident from the earliest texts as they can be used in the same context: (73)

conseio o por manE las quatro maneras … son estas. por fecho o por conseio. por conseio del conseio es quando del conseio damiento o por defendimiento … La segunda conseio; conseio a quien le conseie conseia conseia uno a otro que mate a alguno o da da conseio conseie que lo faga (S, Alfonso X, Siete partidas I, 13th c.) ‘And the four ways are these: by fact, by advice, by order or by defense. The second one, the advice one, is when one advises another to kill someone or gives advice to someone to advise the other one to do it’.

Syntactically, consejo and conselho are easily attested in old Spanish and Portuguese as part of other LVCs, especially aver consejo, aver/ter conselho, demandar/prender consejo, and filhar conselho, and not always with the meaning of ‘advice’:

148

light verb constructions

que oujeron oujeron los turcos dela postura que aujan delas (74) a. Del consejo consejo que dela postura pazes con ponpeo (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria V, 13th c.–13th/14th c.) ‘On the advice that the Turks had about the way peace with Pompeo was going’. demandole consejo consejo que que faria faria o para qual tierra yria (S, Vida de b. & demandole Santa María Egipciaca, 14th c.) ‘And he asked him for advice on what to do or where to go’. demandou conselho conselho aos idollos e aos adevynhos que que farya farya (75) a. demandou (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘he asked the idols and the seers for advice on what to do’. se partir partir de b. E, veendo el-rey tam gram tormenta, ouve ouve conselho conselho de de se hy com todos seus filhos (P, Estoria de Dom Nuno Alvares Pereyra, 15th c.) ‘And, seeing a big storm, the king received advice to leave with all his sons’. Some of these other LVCs are attested in the same text as dar conseio/conselho: (76)

& este don deuemos aver em nos para que possamos aver aver conosco conosco comselho comselho para vyuer onestamëte … & deuemos dar conselho conselho aos nosos proximos quando errarem corregelos & dar castigalos (P, Vercial, Sacramental, 15th c.) And we need to have this gift in us so as to have good advice to live honestly and we must give advice to our closest ones to correct and punish them whenever they err’.

During the medieval period, the nouns may occur with and without determiners, with adjectival modification, and in plural form, in both languages: (77)

et cada uno de uos de buen buen conseio conseio & buen exiemplo alos suyos (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria I, 13th c.) ‘and each one of you must give good advice and a good example to your people’.

(78)

melhor conselho conselho que hoj’eu sei (P, Cantigas de Sta. Maria, dar-lh’-ei oo melhor 13th c.) ‘and I will give him the best advice I know today’.

5.5 diachronic overview

149

(79)

Después que los Rey, los consejos consejos les les ovo ovo dado dado el el Rey Rey hecháronse anbos a dos a sus pies agradeciéndole quánta merced les hazía (S, Zifar, 14th c.– 15th c.) ‘Once the king had given them several pieces of advice, both knelt to thank him for his mercy’.

(80)

nos maaos maaos conselhos conselhos que derom derom a el rey Rodrigo paremos mentes nos (P, Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.) ‘let’s consider the bad pieces of advice that they gave King R’.

The LVC may take a DP with de. The DPs express the content of the advice. The source is now expressed as the subject of the verb. In Spanish we have documented examples with the determiner or without it (bare singulars) (81). In Portuguese, we have obtained only examples with the determiner (82): (81)

Et cuedando los fisicos darle conseio sanidad; conseio de de sanidad sanidad cresciol la enfermedad cada dia mas (S, Alfonso X, Estoria de España II, 13th c.–13th/14th c.) ‘And the doctors took care of giving him advice on health; the illness got worse day by day’.

(82)

conselho do do remedio remedio (P, Livro de vita Christi, 15th c.) Aquel que deu oo conselho ‘The person who gave advice on the remedy’.

The recipient may be expressed by a DP introduced by the preposition a:2⁴ (83)

damos buen conseio ala ala gente gente & & ala ala tierra tierra (S, Alfonso X, Fuero Juzgo, 13th c.) ‘we give good advice to the people and the land’.

2⁴ Not all cases of dar conseio/conselho can be interpreted as ‘advice.’ Consider the following examples, where conseio/conselho seems to be better interpreted as ‘solution.’ In these cases, the PPs introduced by a, which appear to be an indirect object (‘give a solution to X’), are not recipients but rather matters to be solved; de is not used here: (i)

quando el cauallo a corrido o anda luenga iornada … meten lo en el establo onde conuiene de dar dar conseio esta dolencia darconseio conseioaaaesta estadolencia dolencia (S, Borgognoni, Libro de los caballos, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘when the horse has run or is walking for a long time, they take him into the stable, where it is necessary to provide a solution for this ailment’.

(ii)

Ai de mim que por ser molher soube dar dar conselho tantas coitas darconselho conselhoaaatantas tantascoitas coitas (P, Coronica troiana em linguajem purtuguesa, 15th c.) ‘Poor me, for being a woman I knew how to give a solution to plenty of problems’.

150

light verb constructions

(84)

Demays semelha moyto estranha cousa dauer nëgûû vergõça en descobrir seus pecados que ha feytos & ditos a deus da hûã parte por que o sabe todo & da outra por que pode dar dar conselho conselho aa elle elle (P, Afonso X, Primeyra Partida, 14th c.) ‘It seems weird to have any shame in revealing one’s sins to god because he knows everything and because he can give him advice’.

With infinitival clauses the examples are limited and mostly rather late. The earliest example, with the bare singular option (85a), is attested in Spanish in the 13th century (manuscript dated in the 14th century): diere consejo consejo de de cristiano cristiano vender vender (S, Fuero (85) a. Enpero rresponda el que diere de Úbeda, 13th c.–14th c.) ‘But may the one who gave advice to sell a Christian answer’. b. el le daua daua consejo consejo de de yr yr a Toro (S, López de Ayala, Crónica del rey don Pedro, 15th c.) ‘he advised him to go to Toro’. dieran el el consejo consejo de de venir venir a Judea (86) a. mataron muchos delos malos que dieran (S, Biblia ladinada I-i-3, 15th c.) ‘they killed many bad people who gave the advice to come to Judea’. (87)

por nam tomar ho ho conselho conselho que lhe lhe dera dera de de se se ir ir a Madril (P, Góis, Cronica do Príncipe Dom João, 16th c.) ‘for not taking the advice he had given him to go to Madrid’.

The Portuguese inflected infinitive is attested much later in the CdP, in the 18th century: (88)

seus pais pais eu tenho grande contentamento de que oo conselho conselho que dei dei aa seus de de oo mandarem mandarem a essa escola conduzisse para um tão feliz sucesso da sua educação (P, Gusmão, Cartas, 18th c.) ‘I am very happy that the advice I gave his parents about sending him to that school led to such a happy outcome in his education’.

As opposed to the limited evidence with infinitival clauses, the combination with finite clauses is more common in our corpora, especially in Spanish:2⁵ (89)

dieron le le conseio conseio que que fiziesse assi comol fuera dicho enel suenno & ellos dieron (S, Alfonso X, General Estoria IV, 13th c.) ‘and they gave him advice to act exactly as he had been told in his dream’.

2⁵ Ramos Méndez (1989) shows that this pattern with a finite que-clause and without the article is common with other LVCs in medieval Spanish.

5.5 diachronic overview

(90)

151

E o sabedor lhe lhe deu deu conselho conselho que que mãdasse fazer hûa cassa de muy altas paredes (P, Orto do Esposo, 15th c.) ‘And the wise person gave him advice to order the building of a house with very high walls’.

The finite clause, introduced by the complementizer que, expresses the content of the advice provided; it is a modifier. For instance, in (89) the advice given is that he should proceed as in his dream. In Spanish, we have documented examples from the 13th century up until classical Spanish. The Portuguese examples are dated later, in the 15th century. Finite indirect interrogative clauses are documented in both languages:2⁶ (91)

a. rogo abdarramen quell diese diese consejo consejo commo commo guaresciese de aquella gordura (S, D Juan Manuel, Crónica abreviada, 14th c.–15th c.) ‘A begged him to give him advice on how to protect himself from that fatness’.

(92)

don Martino e Lourenço scola pedirõ conselho ao Bispo e aos outros oméés bóós que suso son escritos que lhis dissessë e lhis lhis dessë dessë conselho conselho que que fariam fariam en este feyto (P, Textos Notariais. Arquivo de Textos Notariais em Português Antigo, 13th c.) ‘M and L asked the bishop and the other aforementioned good men to tell them and to give them advice on what to do in this situation’.

Dar el consejo que (lit. ‘to give the advice that’) is rare in medieval Spanish; we have obtained only one example (93a). Notice that this example shows relativization and, thus, the DP is displaced and separated from the verb dar while the finite clause (que cassase . . .) is kept as its modifier; we may assume that the DP is coreferent with a silent operator DP inside the relative clause, which keeps the link with the verb dar. The example in (93b), without relativization, is from the 16th century: el buen buen consejo consejo que el Sol(93) a. Et todo este bien vino al conde por el dan le le dio dio que que casasse casasse su fija con omne (S, D Juan Manuel, Conde Lucanor, 14th c.–15th c.) ‘And the count got all this good owing to the good advice S gave him to marry his daughter’. 2⁶ Let us remember that in the previous section we documented equally early examples with the nouns in other LVCs with finite clauses, thus highlighting the fact that consejo/conselho could take adjunct finite clauses introduced by the complementizer que, even if our examples show them mainly inside arguable LVCs.

152

light verb constructions

b. También la echamos al que dio dio el el consejo consejo que que la víspera de la Trinidad, sábado, en la noche viniésemos la vuelta de tierra (S, Lizárraga, La descripción de las Indias, 16th c.) ‘We also blamed whoever gave the advice that on the eve of the Trinity, Saturday, at night-time we were to return’. In Portuguese we have documented examples in the 16th century, with relativization. In our searches we have only attested one early medieval example, (94a), showing the contraction of the indirect pronoun lho or lhe and the article o: lh’oo conselho conselho dou dou que que leix’est’a que se filhou, diz que ando (94) a. E eu que lh’ pol’enganar! (P, Cantigas de Escárnio e Maldizer, 13th c.) ‘And I, who advise him to leave this one he has grabbed, he says that I try to trick him’. conselho que lhe deu deu que que fugisse do arraial (P, Barros, b. noo conselho Décadas da Asia, 16th c.) ‘on the advice I gave him to flee the village’.

Table 5.3 Summary of the distribution of dar (Det) consejo/conselho de over time. Properties

Earliest attestation Spanish

Earliest attestation Portuguese

Dar consejo/conselho de + DP Dar consejo/conselho de + inf Dar consejo/conselho que Dar consejo/conselho de que Dar Det consejo/conselho de + DP Dar Det consejo/conselho de + inf

With a nominal phrase With infinitival clauses With finite clauses With finite clauses with de With a nominal phrase With infinitival clauses

13th/14th c. (13th c.) 14th c. (13th c., 1 ex.)/15th c. 13th c. X

X

13th c.

15th c.

15th c.

Dar Det consejo/conselho que Dar Det consejo/conselho de que

With finite clauses

15th c. (14th c., 1 ex.)/16th c. 17th c.

16th c. Inflected infinitive 18th c. 13th c. (1 ex.)/ 16th c. 18th c. (rare)

With finite clauses with de

X 15th X

5.6 continuity and change

153

Finally, the option with de que is first attested in Spanish in the 17th century: (95)

si el el consejo consejo que me das das de de que que me case es porque sea luego rey en matando al gigante (S, Cervantes, El Quijote, 17th c.) ‘if the advice you give me to get married is so that I become king once I’ve killed the giant’.

For Portuguese, the CdP did not retrieve any examples; a search online using Google Books, however, produced a couple of quite late examples, including the following from the 18th century: (96)

conselho, de de que que rezasse a S. João Nepomuceno este lhe deu deu oo conselho, (S, Velasco, Prodigiosa vida, heroicas virtudes, e portentosas maravilhas do taumaturgo, 18th c.) ‘this one advised him to pray to S. JN’.

The syntactic properties of dar (Det) consejo/conselho de (que) in diachrony are summarized in Table 5.3, organized by earliest example attested.

5.6 Continuity and change We can now focus on examining what the history of this LVC reveals about the role of nouns in noun-based constructions (with clauses) and about the interaction of different mechanisms of change. The first issue that stands out is the lack of semantic change. The nouns consejo and conselho, when used outside of the LVC with dar, showed the same denotation throughout our data as nowadays. In the LVC their semantics has remained stable, e.g. older examples are as compositional as present-day ones: an agentive source transfers advice to someone about a certain topic.2⁷ The syntactic evolution deserves further attention. First, the nouns consejo and conselho, both in isolation and inside the LVC, are responsible for the introduction of clausal modification, since the content of the advice is not part of the argument structure of the verb. As for the presence or absence of a determiner, the bare singular dar conselho has disappeared from contemporary European Portuguese; when attested in Brazilian Portuguese, we cannot rule out a plural interpretation. We saw that in contemporary Spanish its use is limited, especially when combining with 2⁷ This is not to say that LVCs are truly dead ends or that no semantic change took place anywhere else. Some examples of dar consejo a have the interpretation ‘find a solution.’ However, these cases did not involve any modifiers with de. Furthermore, consejo and conselho had different meanings, e.g. ‘help,’ in combination with other light verbs in other LVCs.

154

light verb constructions

arguments or modifiers. Our data show that throughout the centuries both options are attested but the numbers of attestations differ in certain contexts. One such context is dar conseio/conselho modified by a que-finite clause, particularly common in the medieval period, whereas the option with the determiner is limited until the 16th century. The syntactic relevance of the presence or absence of the determiner depends on how we analyze our evidence. We could analyze dar conseio/conselho que as a case of reanalysis, noun incorporation (Mendı´vil Giro´, 1999), with a fixed complementizer for finite clauses and arguably reduced internal analyzability. Given the reduction in use of the bare singular options with clauses in Spanish and the loss in Portuguese, we would need to posit a further syntactic change in the opposite direction, that is, a loss of noun incorporation and reanalysis and the restoration of syntactic analyzability. However, we contend that none of that is necessary since we argue that no reanalysis/noun incorporation took place. First, the complementizer que was not the only option; indirect interrogative clauses are documented as well: (97)

diese consejo consejo commo commo guaresciese de aquella rogo abdarramen quel diese gordura (S, D Juan Manuel, Crónica abreviada, 14thc.–15th c.) ‘A begged him to give him advice on how to protect himself from that fatness’.

The type of finite clause does not necessarily challenge the possible reanalyzed/unitlike analysis of the LVC. A noun incorporation analysis runs into problems similar to those mentioned above for contemporary Spanish: the determiner reappears in cases of movement in relativization (Bosque, 1996: 99, Masullo, 1996: 191, a.o.) (a), the noun consejo is syntactically open to anaphora (b): (98) a. Et todo este bien vino al conde por el el buen buen consejo consejo que el Soldio que que casasse casasse su fija con omne (S, D Juan Manuel, Conde dan le le dio Lucanor, 14th c.–15th c.) ‘And the count got all this good due to the good advice S gave him to marry his daughter’. b. njn le cae bien de dar consejo a quien no gelo lo demanda (S, Castigos e documentos de Sancho IV, 13th c.–14th/15th c.) ‘neither does he agree to give advice to whoever doesn’t request it’. This type of anaphoric reference is documented with the determiner—notice the nonspecific interpretation of the DP—and even with a bare singular in other LVCs, including in Portuguese:

5.7 conclusion

(99)

155

consejo que el que lo más sufiçiente deve ser el que da el el consejo lo reçibe (Tratado de la Comunidad (S, Biblioteca de El Escorial MS. &-II-8), 14th c.– 15th/16th c.) ‘the person who gives the advice must be more suitable than the one who receives it’.

(100) por teer conselho e pedillo lo a taaes pessoa (P, Rui de Pina, Crónica de D. Duarte, 15th c.) ‘to get advice and request it from such people’. Therefore, the bare noun was as syntactically transparent as we argued above for contemporary Spanish and Portuguese (see Blanco’s, 1995: 414 discussion). The limited presence of the determiner in older stages may be due to two factors. First, the fact that the source of this construction is Latin dare consilium (ut) could have contributed to the common use of its literal translation in certain medieval texts, thus without a determiner. Second, it is known that at least for Spanish bare nouns were more frequent in the medieval period than in classical or contemporary Spanish (Company Company, 1991). Finally, as the other constructions in this book, this LVC participated in the analogical change bringing about the de que option from around the 17th century in Spanish; in this case the Portuguese data is scarce although we find it documented at a later time. To sum up, no recategorization or reanalysis (noun incorporation) took place and we find no semantic change, which results in a construction that has remained semantically compositional and syntactically analyzable throughout the centuries.

5.7 Conclusion The nouns consejo and conselho are attested throughout the centuries. They are documented with nominal expressions denoting sources and recipients of the advice, with several full verbs (e.g. ‘accept the advice’) and arguably light verbs (aver, tener/ter), and with clausal modifiers. Unlike other idiomatic complex constructions which display significant semantic and syntactic change (e.g. darse cuenta/dar conta de ‘to find out, to realize’), the syntactic analyzability of dar consejo/conselho de (que) is maintained throughout the centuries. We must conclude that no reanalysis took place in

156

light verb constructions

any way: neither univerbation/lexicalization to the point of an absence of internal syntax, nor recategorization of the nouns involved. No semantic changes took place either. Hence, this construction differs from the complex constructions analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4, which underwent significant syntactic and semantic changes. Our findings show continuity from Latin and contribute to the limited research on LVCs in the diachrony of Spanish and Portuguese. As shown in previous research on other languages cited in the introduction to this chapter, this LVC has been historically quite stable, with only some limited syntactic changes.

6 Conclusion In this book we set out to examine the historical development of three types of complex constructions in Spanish and Portuguese: (i) DPs taking a clausal adjunct, (ii) connectives, and (iii) light verb constructions. All these constructions contain clause-taking nouns that originally denoted either an event or a result of an event. The contribution of these nouns is what lies at the core of our study. We have traced the developments of both the nouns and the complex constructions in order to compare their properties over time. As we have shown, all the expressions examined participated in the analogical syntactic change allowing the noun to introduce a finite clause with the functional preposition de that took place in the 16th–17th centuries in these languages. Examining the changes both of the nouns and of the constructions in which they participate has allowed us to establish a strong empirical basis to test claims about compositionality in language change as well as (noun) recategorization in the creation of complex constructions. With respect to (i), we have traced the semantic change of hecho in Spanish and facto in Portuguese from an event to a “fact-like” object (in the sense of Asher, 1993). While polysemous hecho displays the different meanings acquired over time, feito retains the eventive meaning and facto has the more recent, fact-like interpretation. Accordingly, hecho and facto, but not feito, may introduce a finite clause; this construction with clausal adjunction that begins to occur in the 17th century in Spanish and in the 19th century in Portuguese1 is the correlate of the semantic change undergone by the noun. The semantic shift is one of increased abstraction, similarly to what has happened to the noun ‘fact’ in other languages, in constructions like in fact or indeed (< in deed, cf. Traugott, 1997a). However, in el hecho de (que)/o facto de (que) there is no loss of the nominal status of hecho and facto; we can pluralize the noun and modify it with an adjective to this day. Thus, although the semantic change has a syntactic correlate (the compatibility with adjunct finite clauses), the noun retains its categorial properties. The analysis of this 1 It is possible that this change happened earlier. We are basing our chronology on the data available.

Noun-Based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish. Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero, Oxford University Press. © Patrícia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero (2022). DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847182.003.0006

158

conclusion

clause-taking DP in both languages has allowed us to provide a diachronic perspective on semantic typologies of abstract entities. While Asher (1993) points out that some abstract entities, e.g. eventualities and facts, display similarities, to our knowledge this is the first study addressing their relatedness from the perspective of semantic change. The similarities between types of abstract entities may guide hypotheses about paths of change; e.g. if events and facts are similar, but events and propositions are not, we expect nominals denoting events to come to denote facts, but not propositions. Such hypotheses can be tested by further examining further cross-linguistic evidence. In addition, the semantic shift we describe shows that at least for this class of nouns, semantic change happens outside of an instance of grammaticalization. As for (ii), the study of connectives reveals a different development: a case of both semantic and syntactic change with loss of some typically nominal properties of the nouns involved, pena and embargo. Here the nouns have lost the ability to be pluralized and to be modified by determiners and adjectives, which we have analyzed as a categorial change from lexical noun to a functional noun akin to the Axial Parts in locative complex prepositions (Svenonius, 2006, 2010). However, we showed that the recategorization of the nouns did not completely sever the link between full nouns embargo and pena and their lexically reduced counterparts inside the complex prepositions sin/sem embargo de (que) and so(b) pena de (que); embargo and pena display the same combinatorial properties, e.g. the ability to combine with infinitival and finite clauses. Observing the compositionality of these constructions over the centuries is crucial to understanding their change over time. By showing the parallelism between the changes in the distributional properties of the nouns and the creation of the constructions we have revealed that these constructions are related to a broader change in Ibero-Romance, namely the analogical expansion of patterns of clausal complementation starting in the 16th century. Furthermore, the focus on the noun also allows us to explore the relation between these constructions and the paradigm of other connectives containing nouns that may have provided an additional template for their development, based on similarity of form. These two aspects could provide explanations for previously observed increases in frequency of complex constructions like a pesar de noted in the literature (Torres Cacoullos, 2006) and hence shed new light on existing work on instances of grammaticalization in Spanish and Portuguese. The developments in Chapter 4 differ from those examined in Chapter 3 because eventually the nouns and the constructions split in their evolution; accordingly, the nouns embargo and pena no longer combine with

conclusion

159

finite clauses. The sense ‘obstacle’ of the former is unattested from the 16th century onward, and pena ‘penalization’ remains attested with DPs (e.g. pena de privacio´n de libertad, ‘custodial sentence’), but we have not attested it with finite clauses. As for (iii), we have traced the properties of the nouns consejo and conselho over time and compared them to the properties of the LVC dar consejo/conselho, one of many light verb constructions found in the medieval period of both languages. We showed that both the distributional properties of the LVC and the noun and the changes they underwent largely overlap, with the noun taking adjunct clauses at least since the 15th century in Spanish and since the 14th century in Portuguese (later, with de que, attested for Spanish). We also show that the LVC remains semantically and syntactically stable over time. Syntactically, it changes from the Middle Ages to the 16th century by beginning to allow for the presence of the determiner as modifying the noun (e.g. dar el consejo de (que), dar o conselho de (que)). The construction is compositional and fully analyzable and continues to this day to display similar properties, with its argument structure being shared by the verbal and nominal components. Of course, this does not mean that all LVCs and Spanish and Portuguese behave in the same way or have a similar development; compare, e.g. to dar cuenta/dar conta (‘to account for’), which seems to have undergone more syntactic and semantic changes and a loss of compositionality. However, the LVC dar consejo/conselho allows us to observe a construction in which syntactic change is limited and there is no semantic change. The findings in this chapter provide support for claims that LVCs tend to be historically stable and light verbs are a distinct verbal category, not to be conflated with the category of auxiliary verbs. The three types of construction we examine allow us to observe three possible developments in the relation between the noun and the complex expression, from full syntactic and semantic reanalysis (the connectives in [ii], Chapter 4) to a case of very reduced syntactic change and virtually no semantic change (the LVC in [iii], Chapter 5). The nouns with clausal adjunction in Chapter 3 (i) represent a case in between, with semantic change of the noun but no loss of its syntactic properties. The diachronic relationship between the noun and the finite clause is symptomatic of these three developments. In (i), hecho and facto combine with finite clauses when the nouns have acquired a non-eventive interpretation, i.e. after they have undergone semantic change (and accordingly, the finite clause denotes a fact-like object). In (ii) the nouns embargo and pena in isolation no longer combine with finite clauses. In (iii) the nouns consejo and conselho could combine with a finite clause (the

160

conclusion

theme of the advice) and still do, as no significant syntactic or semantic change has taken place. Our findings pertaining to the clause-taking nouns examined in the book point to some limitations of Grimshaw’s (1990) proposal regarding the argument structure of eventive and non-eventive nouns. We have shown that none of the nouns we study in this book meets the criteria for complex event nominals (CENs). Instead, they are either SENs or RNs, as we propose in Chapters 3–5. For instance, in Chapter 5 we discussed that LVCs involve at the very least some argument sharing between light verb and noun, which requires that non-CEN nouns such as our consejo and conselho be able to project their own true argument, not only semantic (optional/adjunct) participants. In line with criticism put forward by previous literature, we conclude that the distinction proposed by Grimshaw between argument-taking deverbal nouns (CENs) and other nominals is too coarse-grained to account for our data. In addition, all the constructions in Chapters 3–5 share one syntactic property: they may introduce finite clauses with de ‘of.’ Hence, this ability to take such clauses introduced by a preposition sets apart nouns in Portuguese and Spanish from Grimshaw’s discussion, which was based on the ungrammaticality of the same configuration in English.

6.1 Chronology of the properties of the nouns and constructions In order to summarize our findings, we present the chronology of the distribution of nouns and constructions in Tables 6.1–6.4. These allow us to obtain an overview of the changes undergone by both in Spanish and in Portuguese. The dates between parentheses indicate the original date of composition when it differs from that of the copy the example is taken from. Table 6.1 shows the similarity among the nouns with respect to the chronology of the changes they underwent: all the nouns are attested from the 13th century, they combine with infinitival clauses before they combine with finite clauses, and they participate in the syntactic change regarding clausal structure in Spanish in the 16th century. The behavior of the nouns is paralleled by that of the constructions, as shown in Table 6.2. As for Portuguese, there is a striking difference between the vernacular terms and the learned word facto. We see that all the vernacular terms are attested from early on and as in Spanish, they combine with infinitival clauses before they combine with finite clauses. Note that in Portuguese, infinitival

6.1 chronology of nouns and constructions

161

Table 6.1 Summary of earliest attestations of the nouns (in isolation) in Spanish. Combinatorial properties

hecho

embargo

pena

consejo

+ de DP + de infinitival clause + finite clause (que) + de que

13th c. 13th c. 16th c. 16th c.

14th c. (13th c.) 13th c. 15th c. (13th c.) X

13th c. 13th c. 15th c. 16th c.

13th c. 14th/15th c. (14th c.) 15th c. 17th c.

Table 6.2 Summary of earliest attestations of the constructions in Spanish. Combinatorial properties

El hecho (noneventive)

Sin embargo

So pena

Dar consejo

Dar Det consejo

+ de DP

N/A

14th c.

13th c.

13th c.

+ de infinitival clause

16th c.

15th c.

15th c. (13th c.)

+ finite clause (que)

16th c.

15th c.

15th c.

13th/14th c. (13th c.) 14th c. (13th c., 1 ex.)/15th c. 13th c.

+ de que

16th c.

16th c.

15th c.

X

15th c. 15th c. (14th c., 1 ex.)/ 16th c. 17th c.

clauses may display either the inflected or the noninflected infinitive, as we have shown in Chapters 3–5. The learned word facto displays a different development since it entered the language later, presumably owing to the influx of Latinisms originating in the Classicist period. O facto de que is documented in Portuguese in the 19th century, at a time when the use of the preposition de with nouns taking clauses was already common. The specialization of facto in the so-called “factive construction” leads to a neat division between the two reflexes of Latin factu(m), with their semantic and syntactic developments going on a par. In addition, the comparison between Tables 6.3 and 6.4 shows that the noun conselho in isolation may combine with clauses to a larger extent than when it occurs in the LVC. As a final note, it is possible that the dates we present could go back in time if more historical data were available; as shown in the Introduction, the number of words of the historical corpora of Portuguese is significantly smaller than that of the Spanish historical corpora.

162

conclusion

Table 6.3 Summary of earliest attestations of the nouns (in isolation) in Portuguese. Combinatorial properties

feito

facto

embargo

pena

conselho

+ de DP + de infinitival clause + finite clause (que) + de que

13th c. 14th c. X X

17th c. 19th c. X 19th c.

14th c. 15th c. X X

15th c. 15th c. 16th c. X

15th c. 15th c. 14th c. No historical data in CdP; grammatical today

Table 6.4 Summary of earliest attestations of the constructions in Portuguese. Combinatorial properties

O facto (noneventive)

Sem embargo

Sob pena

Dar conselho

Dar Det conselho

+ de DP + de infinitival clause + finite clause (que)

17th c. 19th c.

14th c. 15th c.

14th c. 13th c.

X X

15th c. 16th c.

X

15th c.

16th c.

15th c.

+ de que

19th c.

17th c.

17th c.

X

13th c. (1 ex.)/ 16th c. 18th c. (rare)

Overall, these findings make apparent the parallelism between the properties of the nouns and the properties of the complex constructions over time, showing that the diachronic developments considered specific to the constructions in previous work are actually shared with the nouns.

6.2 Recategorization, compositionality, and mechanisms of change We now consider the three main theoretical points related to language change that we purported to address at the beginning of this book. First, we asked to what extent the creation of complex constructions involves recategorization (or decategorization) of its components, particularly the noun. Our data from the three types of constructions analyzed show a range of possibilities, making apparent that recategorization is not a necessary consequence of the creation of a complex construction. All the nouns explored have lost some typical nominal features at some point, be it the ability

6.2 recategorization, compositionality, change

163

to combine with determiners and adjectives or the ability to pluralize. The constructions explored in this book showcase different outcomes. On the one hand, present-day Spanish connective sin embargo (‘however’) is unanalyzable and noncompositional; we reached the same conclusion for current Spanish so pena que as ‘unless.’ Furthermore, the historical evolution of sin/sem embargo de (que) and so(b) pena de (que) evidences that recategorization of a noun does not entail loss of syntactic analyzability of the complex construction. Rather, we have argued that embargo and pena, as part of complex prepositions, were recategorized as members of a different syntactic category, akin to Svenonius’s (2006, 2010) Axial Parts, and the construction retained internal structure. On the other hand, the evolution of hecho/facto de que and dar consejo/conselho (de que) showed no recategorization of the noun. Our findings also bear on the discussion regarding compositionality and change. While we cannot deny the role of constructions in language change, we have shown the need for a more nuanced concept of construction that can account for variation within constructions and adequately acknowledge the properties of their internal components as they change over time. The three types of complex constructions we have studied show a range of behaviors with respect to compositionality and analyzability. Providing a fine-grained picture of their compositionality is important not only in order to better grasp the changes but also to acknowledge the role of the noun in their creation. We demonstrate how broad, systemic patterns that have an effect on the combinatorial properties of a category (here, nouns) influence the changes undergone by complex constructions in which those nouns participate. The constructions we have studied show similarities in the changes analyzed. Embargo and pena, as well as hecho/facto and consejo/conselho share a similar evolution in their clause-taking properties. In all cases we observe the extension from accepting DPs first toward infinitival clauses and then finite clauses, with the functional preposition de soon after. This chronology is shared by all the nouns examined here and is also part of a general evolution of clausetaking nouns in Spanish and Portuguese. We now ask the question, what were the mechanisms of language change involved? The data show multiple causation in our findings and the involvement of multiple levels (i.e. both semantic and syntactic changes). On the one hand, we have analogical change,2 the extension of a pattern of that 2 As mentioned by Fischer (2007), when talking about analogy in the context of syntactic and semantic change, it is often difficult to restrict all the levels of what counts as “similar”: for example, a complex expression like so pena de may have been influenced both by the patterns of clausal complementation and adjunction with nouns and by the template of similar constructions, e.g. so color de,

164

conclusion

is attested in the history of both Spanish and Portuguese, which explains the coincidence in chronology and the existence of the same patterns (with infinitival clauses and finite clauses) that we find repeatedly in our data. Note that the clausal adjunction pattern (found with nouns, verbs, and adjectives) was frequent, and hence speakers had exposure to this construction. On the other hand, we have, at least for some of our constructions, a reanalysis that involves the syntax/semantics of the noun (recategorization as evidenced by the loss of some typically noun features; loss of lexical meaning and specificity), with syntactic and semantic reanalysis affecting the compositionality and analyzability of the whole construction, e.g. sin embargo as a discourse marker ‘however’ in present-day Spanish and so pena de que as ‘unless’ from the 19th century in Spanish. Hence, it seems that both language-wide and specific mechanisms affecting each construction must be invoked in order to explain the changes; just one or the other is not enough to explain the outcome or the observed chronological patterns. For example, while pena was part of the evolution of the complex construction so(b) pena (de), the same changes did not automatically affect all related nouns. Consider that nouns like miedo or temor (‘fear’), which also participated in the analogical extension , are not part of complex prepositions. In addition, although several constructions containing similar nouns underwent change (e.g. a pesar de, ‘in spite of ’), the outcomes of the semantic change were different, showing that the syntactic and semantic reanalysis of each construction requires a separate account and builds on the lexical meaning of the noun. In sum, both the findings of our work and other historical developments in both languages justify our claim that multiple causes must have been at play, i.e. a combination of analogy at a broader, system-wide level, with individual reanalysis of each specific construction. A comparative approach such as the one adopted here, involving two closely related languages, proves informative in that, beyond the expected similarities, we can also locate differences or different outcomes (see also the studies in Amaral and Carvalho, 2014). One such example is provided by the reflexes of factu(m), with Spanish hecho displaying a polysemy that results from the semantic change the noun underwent and Portuguese feito showing the original eventive meaning while facto shows the more recent, fact-like meaning. Another example is the loss of sem embargo (or at least restriction to certain cf. Codita (2016) (we can think of so pena de, so color de, as being in the same “paradigm”). Thus, there are different levels of analogy.

6.3 from theory to data and back again

165

registers) in Portuguese and in the semantic development of sob pena de que, with no meaning of ‘unless’ attested in Portuguese. Furthermore, Spanish dar Det consejo de que contrasts with the very scarce use of the equivalent dar Det conselho de que in Portuguese. We cannot dismiss, then, the relevance of comparing closely related languages to gain a deeper understanding of the effects of semantic and syntactic change. The constructions analyzed here are just examples among many complex expressions for which a comparative approach would be illuminating. Another case in point would be the development of conditional constructions with the noun caso ‘case,’ as Spanish en caso de and Portuguese caso (see Gravnik, 2018 for Spanish; Gerards and Kabatek, 2018 and Longhin, 2020 for Portuguese), which follow the patterns of connective development we identified in Chapter 4. The noun caso also participates in the syntactic change involving patterns of clausal complementation and adjunction with de from the 16th century onward. While in Spanish the noun maintains some of its properties within the construction (e.g. ability to occur with a determiner), in Portuguese the noun itself has been reanalyzed as a function word, a conditional marker. Thus, the two languages show the range of possibilities from a complex expression that retains some compositionality (Spanish en caso de) to a noun that has recategorized and become a complementizer (Portuguese caso). The crucial role of the noun and its syntactic and semantic properties, highlighted in this book, is confirmed yet again in these developments.

6.3 From theory to historical data and back again A broader point that we would like to make pertains to the relevance of historical linguistics studies for syntactic and semantic theories in general. In Chapter 3, examining the diachrony of the nouns contained in the clause-taking constructions enriches the synchronic analysis of these nouns, as it allows us to better understand the properties of nouns that denote abstract objects. The semantic change undergone by these nouns sheds light on the similarities between different types of abstract entities that cannot be fully grasped if one adopts only a synchronic perspective. On the other hand, using the formal synchronic classification of abstract objects based on Vendler (1967) and Asher (1993) allows us to tease apart the stages of the semantic change and to investigate the mechanisms driving the development of these nominals. Furthermore, our historical examination further supports the synchronic claim that these constructions are not factive, as is usually

166

conclusion

assumed in the literature. The historical data provide evidence that these nouns and the clausal adjunction constructions were never factive in the presuppositional sense (that for certain theories was based on a lexical feature realized in the syntactic analysis). Rather, given the original eventive meaning of the noun and a combination of factors (e.g. the event being told having occurred in the past, contextual information to the effect that an event is taken for granted by the interlocutors), some examples allowed for a factive interpretation, while others (e.g. with futurate reference, or with the interpretation of a narration being told) did not. Hence, an empirically based analysis that takes into account diachronic data provides a stronger background for theories that may be too narrowly based on synchronic constructed data. In Chapter 4, we have shown how the creation of complex connectives containing nouns helps test for theories of “nominal” categories. The diachrony of sin embargo/sem embargo de and so(b) pena de supports a theory that establishes a syntactic and semantic distinction between full nouns and other (e.g. functional) nouns. Hence, we propose to extend such a syntactic category of functional nouns to include, not just former spatial nouns (Svenonius, 2006, 2010) and nouns expression cause (Roy and Svenonius, 2009), but also nouns from other domains, e.g. ‘obstacle, opposition’ and ‘penalty,’ all of which participate in complex prepositions at some point in history. We expect that further syntactic studies in other languages will provide additional empirical and theorical support to this extension to nonlocative complex PP and contribute to a better understanding of the nature of syntactic categories in general. The theoretical literature on the division in predication between noun and verb informs our diachronic analysis of the properties of dar consejo/conselho in Spanish and Portuguese, by giving us the tools to investigate their argument structure and test for the compositionality of the complex predicate. At the same time, as we saw in Chapter 5, studying LVCs in diachrony with an empirically based study allows us to better understand the distinctions between categories like auxiliary verbs and light verbs, hence providing further evidence that these should not just be considered “intermediary categories” between full verbs and affixes on a grammaticalization cline. There are reasons to believe that LVCs are a distinct class of (stable) construction in language, and our data support such an approach. In addition, the diachronic data help us better understand the category of nouns we are studying: consejo/conselho are not eventive in the sense of CENs à la Grimshaw but they select for arguments. A more fine-grained classification of event- and result-denoting nominals,

6.3 from theory to data and back again

167

based on both historical and synchronic data, is called for; the criteria for eventive nominals previously found in the literature seem too coarse. It has been argued that nouns are more likely to undergo semantic changes that result from cultural or societal changes, and hence undergo unpredictable, irregular semantic shifts (Hock and Joseph, 2009; Traugott and Dasher, 2002; Hamilton et al., 2016). These are not directly of interest to historical linguistics, given the unsystematic nature of such changes. Rather, diachronic semantics is concerned with regular, systematic paths of change caused by general mechanisms of change, e.g. reanalysis, subjectification, as observed e.g. in grammaticalization processes leading to the creation of functional items. However, such generalization applies to nouns with referents that are objects and belong to the material world; in such cases we have an extension to other referents (e.g., besides referring to a set of animals, mouse comes to also refer to a handheld device used with a computer). The nouns examined here, embargo, pena, hecho, do not refer to objects. One question one could ask is whether these nouns have a potential to undergo semantic bleaching, and if so, which semantic factors make some nouns more likely candidates for semantic change (with or without grammaticalization) than others. Nouns like embargo and pena denote events or results of events, so the ability to refer to specific, unique objects may be a semantic factor disfavoring bleaching. Abstract nouns have been associated with change (Pavo´n Lucero, 1999; Aarts, 2007), although it is not exactly clear how one can provide criteria for what counts as abstract (see Bosque, 1999 for discussion). Sweetser (1990) has suggested that words that explicitly encode semantic aspects of their source domain which cannot be mapped onto another domain are less likely to undergo grammaticalization. However, little is known about how to formally exclude semantic dimensions that cannot be mapped from one domain to another, or how to identify those meaning components of nouns that are grammatically relevant from the perspective of favoring or leading to semantic change. The semantic change undergone by the nouns hecho and facto, embargo, pena show a change in the direction of increased abstraction of meaning (i.e. loss of spatiotemporal realization, participants) and from propositionally based to discourse-based meanings in the realm of nouns. While one could claim that eventive nouns are more prone to undergo change in this direction (cf. other instances such as thing in English or nego´cio in Brazilian Portuguese, which show a similar development) we need to better understand the conditions that lead to semantic change, and why other nouns like action or meeting have not undergone the same change.

168

conclusion

While this book does not answer this question, it nevertheless lays the ground to further investigate the properties of these nouns on a broader scale. As Levin (1995) points out, not all aspects of verb meaning are grammatically relevant. In her verb classification, she aims to identify those components of verb meaning that have a bearing on the syntactic and semantic behavior of the verbs (for example, with respect to argument realization), while abstracting away from meaning components that are idiosyncratic and not systematic. The same question is relevant for nouns: which components of the meaning of nouns are grammatically relevant and more specifically, which ones are predictive of the changes they may undergo? With respect to clause-taking nouns, Schmid notes that “the clauses fill the fairly abstract and unspecific shells provided by the nouns with more specific information” (Schmid, 2007: 315). However, the contribution of the nouns cannot be limited to being a “shell,” i.e. the noun is far more significant than previously assumed, as the specific information contributed by the clauses differs depending on the noun, as we have shown through the different cases examined in this work. Complex expressions like the ones analyzed in this book are found not only in the Romance languages but also across unrelated languages. Understanding their creation provides insight into language change and compositionality, as well as into the nature of linguistic categories like nouns that may be part of such complex expressions. What types of knowledge do we associate with nouns, considering how they (along with verbs) are universally found across languages? What aspects of their meaning may change over time? Which distributional properties of nouns affect the development of the constructions in which they participate? What syntactic category do they belong to? This book has addressed such questions and shows that the role of nominal elements, especially those denoting events or results, has been overlooked in studies on complex expressions. The development of complex expressions such as the ones studied in this book gains from being analyzed piece by piece, word by word.

References Corpora and other textual sources CdE: Davies, Mark. Corpus del Español, available online at www.corpusdelespanol.org /hist-gen/ CdP: Davies, Mark. Corpus do Português, available online at www.corpusdoportugues.org /hist-gen/ Real Academia Española. Corpus Diacro´nico del Español (CORDE), available online at corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html Real Academia Española. Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA), available online at corpus.rae.es/creanet.html Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Corpus Informatizado do Português Medieval (CIPM), available online at cipm.fcsh.unl.pt/

Additional textual sources in Chapter 3 André, João M. 2019. Douta Ignorância. Linguagem e Dia´logo: O Poder e os Limites da Palavra em Nicolau de Cusa. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Go´mez, Santiago A. 2010. El Cine en Busca de Sentido. Antioquia: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia. Leite, Serafim (ed.) 1955. Cartas do Brasil e mais Escritos do Pe. Manuel da No´brega. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Peña, Lorenzo. 1987. Fundamentos de Ontologı´a Dialéctica. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

General Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Academia das Ciências de Lisboa-Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. 2001. Diciona´rio da Lı´ngua Portuguesa Contemporânea da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa. Lisbon: Verbo. Alba-Salas, Josep. 2002. Light verb constructions in Romance: A syntactic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation: Cornell University. Alba-Salas, Josep. 2007. “On the life and death of a collocation. A corpus-based diachronic study of dar miedo/hacer miedo-type structures in Spanish.” Diachronica 24: 207–52. Alba-Salas, Josep. 2016. “El triunfo del experimentador dativo: las colocaciones con ‘entrar + nombre de estado’ en diacronı´a”. Revista de Filologı´a Española 96.1: 9–38. Alba-Salas, Josep. 2017. “Venir vergu¨enza: cambios histo´ricos en las colocaciones con venir.” Zeitschrift f u¨r Romanische Philologie 133: 115–40.

170

references

Alonso Ramos, Margarita. 2004. Las Construcciones con Verbo de Apoyo. Madrid: Visor Libros. Alvar, Carlos and José Manuel Lucı´a Megı´as. 2002. Diccionario Filolo´gico de Literatura Medieval Española. Textos y Transmisio´n. Madrid: Castalia. Amaral, Patrı´cia. 2016. “When something becomes a bit.” Diachronica 33.2: 151–86. Amaral, Patrı´cia. 2021. “Social factors contributing to semantic change.” In Manuel Dı´az-Campos (ed.), Handbook of Variationist Approaches to Spanish, 509–20. London: Routledge. Amaral, Patrı´cia and Ana Maria Carvalho (eds). 2014. Portuguese/Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, Synchrony, and Contact. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Amaral, Patrı´cia and Manuel Delicado Cantero. 2019. “Not a fact: a synchronic analysis of el hecho de and o facto de.” Probus 31: 1–27. Andersen, Øivin. 2007. “Deverbal nouns, lexicalization and syntactic change.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30.1: 55–86. Anderson, Gregory. 2006. Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anttila, Raimo. 2003. “Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition.” In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 425–40. Malden: Blackwell. Arsenijevic´, Boban. 2009. “Clausal complementation as relativization.” Lingua 119.1: 39–50. Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Asher, Nicholas. 2000. “Events, Facts, Propositions, and Evolutive Anaphora.” In James Higginbotham, Fabio Pianesi, and Achille C. Varzi (eds), Speaking of Events, 123–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van der Auwera, Johan. 1997. “Conditional perfection.” In Angeliki Athanasiadou and René Dirven (eds), On Conditionals Again, 169–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ayano, Seiki. 2001. The Layered Internal Structure and the External Syntax of PP. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: Thew University of Chicago. Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barbosa, Pilar. 2013. “Implicação e pressuposição na subordinação argumental finita.” In Eduardo B. P. Raposo, Maria Fernanda B. do Nascimento, Maria Anto´nia Coelho da Mota, Luı´sa Seguro, and Ama´lia Mendes (eds), Grama´tica do Português (vol. 2), 1821–97. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. Barra Jover, Mario. 2002. Propiedades Léxicas y Evolucio´n Sinta´ctica. El Desarrollo de los Mecanismos de Subordinacio´n en Español. La Coruña: Toxosoutos. Barreto, Therezinha Maria Mello. 2002. “Observações sobre as conjunções no século XVI.” In Rosa Virgı´nia Mattos e Silva and Américo Venãncio Lopes Machado Filho (eds), O Português Quinhentista. Estudos Lingu¨´ısticos, 161–93. Salvador: Editora da Universidade Federal de Bahia/Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Beardsley, Wilfred A. 1921. Infinitive Constructions in Old Spanish. New York: Columbia University Press. Berg, Thomas. 1998. Linguistic Structure and Change. An Explanation from Language Processing. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Blanco, Marta. 1995. “Acerca de lagunas lexı´as complejas del español medieval.” Moenia 1: 411–20.

references

171

Bogard, Sergio. 2014. “Oraciones subordinadas sustantivas enunciativas. Sujeto, predicado nominal y régimen prepositivo.” In Concepcio´n Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis Histo´rica de la Lengua Española. Tercera Parte: Preposiciones, Adverbios y Conjunciones. Relaciones Interoracionales, 3107–248. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica-Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de México. Bogard, Sergio and Concepcio´n Company Company. 1989. “Estructura y evolucio´n de las oraciones completivas de sustantivo en el español.” Romance Philology 43: 258–73. Borer, Hagit. 2005. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bosque, Ignacio. 1996. “Por qué determinados sustantivos no son sustantivos determinados: repaso y balance.” In Ignacio Bosque (ed.), El Sustantivo sin Determinacio´n: la Ausencia del Determinante en la Lengua Española, 13–119. Madrid: Visor. Bosque, Ignacio. 1999. “El nombre común.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 3–76. Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española. Bosque, Ignacio. 2001. “On the Weight of Light Predicates.” In Julia Herschensohn, Enrique Mallén, and Karen Zagona (eds). Features and Interfaces in Romance: Essays in Honor of Heles Contreras, 23–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Botwinik-Rotem, Irena. 2008. “Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs.” In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen (eds), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, 331–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bowern, Claire. 2008. “The diachrony of complex predicates.” Diachronica 25.2: 161–85. Brandão, Cla´udio. 1963. Sintaxe Cla´ssica Portuguêsa. Belo Horizonte: Universidade de Minas Gerais. Brito, Ana M. 2013. “Tensed and non-tensed nominalization of the infinitive in Portuguese.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 12.1: 7–40. Brocardo, Maria Teresa. 2019. “Sobre fontes para a histo´ria do português: testemunhos, edições e variantes.” Zeitschrift f u¨r romanische Philologie 135.3: 818–44. Bruening, Benjamin. 2016. “Light Verbs are Just Regular Verbs.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22.1, Article 7, available online at repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/7 Bustos Plaza, Alberto. 2003. Combinaciones Verbonominales Institucionalizadas y Lexicalizadas, Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI. Butt, Miriam. 2010. “The light verb jungle: still hacking away.” In Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker, and Mark Harvey (eds), Complex Predicates: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Event Structure, 48–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butt, Miriam and Wilhelm Geuder. 2001. “On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs.” In Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Semi-Lexical Categories. The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words, 323–69. Berlin: De Gruyter. Butt, Miriam and Aditi Lahiri. 2013. “Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs.” Lingua 135: 7–29. Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. Boston, MA: The MIT Press. Cano Aguilar, Rafael. 1977–8. “Cambios en la construccio´n de los verbos en castellano medieval.” Archivum 27–8: 335–79.

172

references

Cano Aguilar, Rafael. 1985. “Sobre el régimen de las oraciones completivas en español cla´sico.” In Julio Ferna´ndez-Sevilla, Humberto Lo´pez Morales, José Andrés de Molina, Antonio Quilis, and Gregorio Salvador (eds), Philologica Hispaniensa in Honorem Manuel Alvar. II. Lingu¨´ıstica, 81–93. Madrid: Gredos. Carlson, Greg. 2006. “The meaningful bounds of incorporation.” In Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski (eds), Non-Definiteness and Plurality, 35–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Castilho, Célia Maria Moraes de. 2004. “Primeras histo´rias sobre a diacronia do dequeı´smo: o clı´tico locativo en e o dequeı´smo das orações relativas no PM.” VI Semina´rio do Projeto para a Histo´ria do Português Brasileiro. Available online at www.mundoalfal.org /de-que-ismo.htm Chaurand, Jacques. 1983. “Les Verbes-Supports En Ancien Français. ‘Doner’ Dans Les Œuvres De Chrétien De Troyes.” Lingvisticæ Investigationes 7.1: 11–46. Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1990. Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics. Boston, MA: The MIT Press. Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis. 2003. Locuciones Prepositivas. Sobre la Gramaticalizacio´n Preposicional en Español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Codita, Viorica. 2016. “La diacronı´a de so pena de.” In Marı´a Teresa Echenique, Marı´a José Martı´nez Alcalde, Juan Pedro Sa´nchez Méndez, and Francisco Pedro Pla Colomer (eds), Fraseologı´a Española: Diacronı´a y Codificacio´n, 273–94. Madrid: CSIC. Company Company, Concepcio´n. 1991. “La extensio´n del artı´culo en el español medieval.” Romance Philology 44.4: 402–24. Company Company, Concepcio´n and Rodrigo Flores Da´vila. 2014. “La preposicio´n a.” In Concepcio´n Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis Histo´rica de la Lengua Española. Tercera Parte: Adverbios, Preposiciones y Conjunciones. Relaciones Interoracionales, 1195–340. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica-Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de México. Company Company, Concepcio´n and Zazil Sobrevilla Moreno. 2014. “Las preposiciones de, des y desde.” In Concepcio´n Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis Histo´rica de la Lengua Española. Tercera Parte: Adverbios, Preposiciones y Conjunciones. Relaciones Interoracionales, 1341–477. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica-Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de México. Corominas, Joan and José A. Pascual. 1980–91. Diccionario Crı´tico Etimolo´gico Castellano e Hispa´nico. Madrid: Gredos. Cunha, Antônio Geraldo da. 1995. Os Verbos Dar, Dizer, Estar e Fazer no Vocabula´rio do Português Medieval. (Com a colaboração de Ayla Pereira de Melo e Dylma Bezerra). Rio de Janeiro: Ministério da Cultura, Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa. Cunha, Antônio Geraldo da. 2014. Vocabula´rio Histo´rico-Cronolo´gico do Português Medieval. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa. Dancygier, Barbara. 1999. Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Cuba, Carlos. 2017. “Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers.” Glossa 2.1: 1–46. Delbecque, Nicole and Beatrice Lamiroy. 1999. “La subordinacio´n sustantiva.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 1965–2082. Madrid: RAE/Espasa-Calpe. Delicado Cantero, Manuel. 2013. Prepositional Clauses in Spanish. A Diachronic and Comparative Syntactic Study. Berlin: De Gruyter. Delicado Cantero, Manuel. 2014. “Dequeı´smo and queı´smo in Portuguese and Spanish.” In Patrı´cia Amaral and Ana Maria Carvalho (eds), Portuguese-Spanish Interfaces. Diachrony, Synchrony, and Contact, 95–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

references

173

de Miguel, Elena. 1999. “El aspecto léxico.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 2977–3060. Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española. de Miguel, Elena. 2008. “Construcciones con verbos de apoyo en español. De co´mo entran los nombres en la o´rbita de los verbos.” In Inés Olza, Manuel Casado and Ramo´n Gonza´lez (eds), Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional de la SEL, 567–78. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra. de Miguel, Elena. 2011. “En qué consiste ser verbo de apoyo.” In M. Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti Jungl, and Cristina Sa´nchez Lo´pez (eds), 60 Problemas de Grama´tica: Dedicados a Ignacio Bosque, 139–46. Madrid: Akal. de Miguel, Elena and Olga Batiukova. 2017. “Compositional mechanisms in a generative model of the lexicon.” In Sergi Torner and Elisenda Bernal (eds), Collocations and Other Lexical Combinations in Spanish: Theoretical, Lexicographical and Applied Perspectives, 92–113. London: Routledge. Demonte, Violeta. 1977. La Subordinacio´n Sustantiva. Madrid: Ca´tedra. Deo, Ashwini. 2015. “Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change.” In Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 393–409. London: Routledge. De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. “Analysing reanalysis.” Lingua 119: 1728–55. De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde (eds). 2015. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dias, Augusto Epiphanio da Silva. 1959. Syntaxe Historica Portuguesa. Lisbon: Livraria Cla´ssica Editora. Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. “A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization.” In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 103–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Tonia Bleam, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2006. “Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation.” In Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski (eds), Non-definiteness and Plurality, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Duarte, Inês. 2003a. “Relações gramaticais, esquemas relacionais e ordem de palavras.” In Maria Helena Mira Mateus, Ana Maria Brito, Inês Duarte, Isabel Hub Faria, So´nia Frota, Gabriela Matos, Fa´tima Oliveira, Marina Viga´rio, and Alina Villalva (eds), Grama´tica da Lı´ngua Portuguesa. 275–321. Lisbon: Caminho. Duarte, Inês. 2003b. “Subordinação completiva – as orações completivas.” In Maria Helena Mira Mateus, Ana Maria Brito, Inês Duarte, Isabel Hub Faria, So´nia Frota, Gabriela Matos, Fa´tima Oliveira, Marina Viga´rio, and Alina Villalva (eds), Grama´tica da Lı´ngua Portuguesa, 593–651. Lisbon: Caminho. Duarte Inês, Anabela Gonçalves, and Matilde Miguel. 2006. “Verbos leves com nomes deverbais em português europeu.” In XXI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguı´stica, 315–28. Lisbon: APL. Dubossarsky, Haim, Daphna Weinshall, and Eitan Grossman. 2016. “Verbs change more than nouns: a bottom-up computational approach to semantic change.” Lingue e Linguaggio XV. 1: 5–25. Dubsky, Josef. 1963. “Formas descompuestas en el español antiguo.” Revista de Filologı´a Española 46.1–2: 31–48. Dubsky, Josef. 1965. “Intercambio de componentes en las formas descompuestas españolas.” Bulletin Hispanique 67: 343–52. Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization. An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

174

references

Elvira, Javier. 1998. El Cambio Analo´gico. Madrid: Gredos. Elvira, Javier. 2007. “Algo ma´s que palabras: uso y significado en las locuciones del español.” Verba Hispanica 15: 109–25. Faulhaber, Charles B. (dir.). 1997–. PhiloBiblon. Bancroft Library; University of California, Berkeley. Available online at bancroft.berkeley.edu/philobiblon/index.html Faulhaber, Charles B., Ángel Go´mez Moreno, John MacKenzie, John J. Nitti, and Brian Dutton (eds), 1984. Bibliography of Old Spanish Texts. 3rd edition. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. Ferna´ndez-Ordo´ñez, Inés. 2002. “Tras la collatio o co´mo establecer correctamente el error textual.” La Coro´nica 30.2: 105–80. Ferna´ndez-Ordo´ñez, Inés. 2006. “La historiograffa medieval como fuente de datos lingu¨´ısticos. Tradiciones consolidadas y rupturas necesarias.” In José Luis Giro´n Alconchel and José Jesús de Bustos Tovar (eds), Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua española, 1779–1808. Madrid: Arco/Libros. von Fintel, Kai. 1991. “Exceptive conditionals: the meaning of unless.” In K. Broderick (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 22(1) Article 10. Amherst: GLSA. von Fintel, Kai. 1995. “The formal semantics of grammaticalization.” In Jill N. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25(2): Papers from the Workshops on Language Acquisition and Language Change, Article 14, 175–89. Amherst: GLSA. von Fintel, Kai. 1997. “Conditionals in a dynamic context.” MS, MIT. von Fintel, Kai. 2001. “Conditional strengthening: A case study in implicature.” Available online at http://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2001-condstrength.pdf. Firth, J. R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Olga. 2013. “An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 37.3: 515–33. Fischer, Olga. 2015. “The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: the case of the auxiliation of HAVE-to once again.” In F. Toupin and B. Lowrey (eds), Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English, 120–50. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gago Jover, Francisco (ed.). 2011. Digital Library of Old Spanish Texts. Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. Available online at http://www.hispanicseminary.org/textconc-en.htm Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. “Predicados ligeros y valoracio´n de rasgos.” Dicenda. Cuadernos de Filologı´a Hispa´nica 28: 27–55. Garachana Camarero, Mar. 1997. Los Procesos de Gramaticalizacio´n. Una Aplicacio´n a los Conectores Contraargumentativos. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona. Garachana Camarero, Mar. 1998. “La evolucio´n de los conectores contraargumentativos: la gramaticalizacio´n de no obstante y sin embargo.” In M. Antonia Martı´n Zorraquino (ed.), Los Marcadores del Discurso: Teorı´a y Ana´lisis, 193–212. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Garcı´a Cornejo, Rosalı´a. 2006. Morfologı´a y Sintaxis de “Que” en la Edad Media. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla. Geis, Michael L. 1973. “If and unless.” In Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Petrangeli, and Sol Saporta (eds), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 231–53. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1971. “On invited inferences.” Linguistic Inquiry 2.4: 561–6. van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

references

175

Gerards, David Paul and Johannes Kabatek. 2018. “Grammaticalization, distance, immediacy and discourse traditions: the case of Portuguese caso.” In Salvador Pons Borderı´a and Óscar Loureda Lamas (eds), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. 115–59. Leiden: Brill. Gianollo, Chiara et al. (eds). 2015. Language Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonçalves, Anabela, Luı´s Filipe Cunha, Matilde Miguel, Purificação Silvano, and Fa´tima Silva. 2010. “Propriedades predicativas dos verbos leves: estrutura argumental e eventiva.” In Ana M. Brito, Maria de Fa´tima Henriques Da Silva, João Veloso, and Alexandra Fiéis (eds), Textos Seleccionados. XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguı´stica, 449–64. Porto: APL. Gonçalves, Anabela and Eduardo B. P. Raposo. 2013. “Verbo e sintagma verbal.” In Eduardo B. P. Raposo, Maria Fernanda B. Do Nascimento, Maria Anto´nia Coelho da Mota, Luı´sa Seguro, and Ama´lia Mendes (eds), Grama´tica do Português, 1155–218. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. Granvik, Anton. 2018. “The development of the conditional caso construction in Spanish.” In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson, and Joel Olofsson (eds), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar, 205–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Universals of Language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester. 1988. “Light verbs and θ-marking.” Linguistic Inquiry 19.2: 205–32. Gross, Gaston and Ferenc Kiefer. 1995. “La structure événementielle des substantifs.” Folia Linguistica 29.1-2: 43–66. Gross, Maurice. 1981. “Les bases empiriques de la notion de prédicat sémantique.” Langages 63: 7–52. Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, William L., Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. “Cultural shift or linguistic drift: comparing two computational measures of semantic change.” In Jian Su, Kevin Duh, and Xavier Carreras (eds), Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2116–21. Austin: Association for Computational Linguistics. Harris, Alice C. 2017. “Analogy and Extension.” In Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 92–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Zellig S. 1954. Transfer Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 20.4: 259–70. Heine, Bernd. 2003. “Grammaticalization.” In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 575–601. Malden: Blackwell. Herman, Jo´zsef. 1963. La Formation du Système Roman des Conjonctions de Subordination. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

176

references

Herna´ndez Dı´az, Axel. 2006. “Posesio´n y existencia. La competencia de haber y tener en la posesio´n y haber existencial.” In Concepcio´n Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis Histo´rica del Español. Primera parte: la Frase Verbal, 1053–160. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica-Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de México. Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, Francisco Javier. 2005. Sintaxis Histo´rica de la Oracio´n Compuesta en Español. Madrid: Gredos. Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, Francisco Javier. 2016. “La elisio´n en la formacio´n de conjunciones y marcadores discursivos.” In B. Garcı´a-Herna´ndez and M. A. Penas Iba´ñez (eds), Sema´ntica Latina y Roma´nica. Unidades de Significado Conceptual y Procedimental, 351–86. Bern: Peter Lang. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hock, Hans Henrich. 2003. “Analogical Change.” In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. 441–60. Malden: Blackwell. Hock, Hans Henrich and Brian D. Joseph. 2009. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (2nd edition). Berlin: De Gruyter. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. A Corpus-based Study. New York: Routledge. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. “On some principles of grammaticalization.” In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization: Vol.1. Theoretical and Methodological Issues, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Houaiss, Antônio, Mauro de Salles Villar and Francisco Manoel de Mello Franco. 2003. Diciona´rio Houaiss da Lı´ngua Portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Cı´rculo de Leitores. Huber, Joseph. 1933. Altportugiesisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universita¨tsbuchhandlung (Portuguese trans. Grama´tica do Português Antigo, trad. Maria Manuela Delille. Lisboa: Gulbenkian, 1986). Janda, Richard. 2000. “Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’. On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization.” Language Sciences 23.2–3: 265–340. Jayez, Jacques and Danièle Godard. 1999. “True to fact(s).” In P. Dekker (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium, 151–6. Amsterdam: ILLC. Jenset, Gard and McGillivray, Barbara. 2017. Quantitative Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI, Morphology. London: Allen and Unwin. Joseph, Brian D. and Panayiotis A. Pappas. 2002. “On the development of the future in Medieval and Modern Greek.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26.1: 247–73. Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. “Implicative verbs.” Language 6.1: 340–58. Karttunen, Lauri and Annie Zaenen. 2005. “Veridicity.” In Frank Schilder, Graham Katz, and James Pustejovsky (eds), Annotating, Extracting and Reasoning about Time and Events. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05151. Available online at http://drops .dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/314/ Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. 2014. “Why isn’t this a complementizer?” In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Functional Structure from Top to Toe: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 9, 188–231. New York: Oxford University Press.

references

177

Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. “Fact.” In Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds), Progress in Linguistics, 143–73. The Hague: De Gruyter. Ko¨nig, Ekkehard. 1985. “On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence.” Lingua 66.1: 1–19. Ko¨nig, Ekkehard. 1988. “Concessive connectives and concessive sentences. Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles.” In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, 146–66. Oxford: Blackwell. Ko¨nig, Ekkehard. 1991. “Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations.” In Dietmar Zaefferrer (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, 190–209. Dordrecht: Foris. Ko¨nig, Ekkehard and Peter Sigmund. 2000. “Causal and concessive clauses: formal and semantic relations.” In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, 341–60. Berlin: De Gruyter. Krapova, Iliyana. 2010. “Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer.” Lingua 120.5: 1240–72. Laca, Brenda. 1999. “Presencia y ausencia de determinante.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 891–928. Madrid: EspasaReal Academia Española. La Fauci, Nunzio. 1979. Costruzioni con Verbo Operatore in Testi Italiani Antichi. Esplorazioni Sintattiche. Pisa: Giardini. Lamontagne, Greg and Lisa Travis. 1987. “The syntax of adjacency.” In Megan Crowhurst (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 6: 173–86. Stanford: CSLI. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. “Syntactic reanalysis.” In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langer, Stefan. 2004. “A linguistic test battery for support verb constructions.” Linguisticae Investigationes 27.2: 171–84. Available online at pdfs.semanticscholar.org /fe09/e6a6d70989aec3e9e941efa3f7cc97289f12.pdf Leonetti, Manuel. 1999. “La subordinacio´n sustantiva: las subordinadas enunciativas en los complementos nominales.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 2083–104. Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española. Levin, Beth. 1995. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. “Three levels of meaning.” In F. R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and Meaning. Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lima, José Pinto de. 1997. “Caminhos semântico-pragma´ticos da gramaticalização: o caso de embora.” In Ana Maria Brito, Fa´tima Oliveira, Isabel Pires de Lima, and Rosa Maria Martelo Porto (eds), Sentido que a Vida Faz. Estudos para Óscar Lopes, 643–55. Porto: Campo das Letras. Longhin, Sanderléia. 2020. “Gramaticalização de construções condicionais em português: trajeto´rias de mudança do nome caso.” Estudos de lingu¨´ıstica galega 12: 1–29. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. “Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: the history of French chez.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302. Lord, Carol. 1973. “Serial verbs in transition.” Studies in African Linguistics 4: 269–96. Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

178

references

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martı´nez Rodrı´guez, Antonio M. 1996. “Dare, auxiliaire lexical en latin.” In Michèle Fruyt and Claude Moussy (eds), Structures Lexicales du Latin, 49–64. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne. Masullo, Pascual J. 1996. Los sintagmas nominales sin determinante: una propuesta incorporacionista.” In Ignacio Bosque (ed.), El Sustantivo sin Determinacio´n: La Ausencia del Determinante en la Lengua Española, 169–200. Madrid: Visor. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Bernard Comrie, and Peter Sells (eds). 2017. Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia. Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mattos e Silva, Rosa Virgı´nia. 1989. Estruturas Trecentistas. Elementos para uma Grama´tica do Português Arcaico. Lisbon: Impresa Nacional-Casa da Moeda. Mattos e Silva, Rosa Virgı´nia. 1994. O Português Arcaico: Morfologia e sintaxe. São Paulo: Contexto. Melloni, Chiara. 2015. “Result nouns.” In Peter O. Muller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 2. 1253–67. Berlin: De Gruyter. Available online at www.academia.edu/12546395/Result_Nouns. Mendı´vil Giro´, José Luis. 1999. Las Palabras Disgregadas. Sintaxis de las Expresiones Idioma´ticas y los Predicados Complejos. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. Mohanan, Tara. 2006. “Grammatical Verbs (With Special Reference to Light Verbs).” In Martin Everaert and Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 459–92. Malden: Blackwell. Moliner, Marı´a. 1998. Diccionario de Uso del Español. Madrid: Gredos. Mollica, Maria Cecilia. 1995. (De) Que Falamos? Rio de Janeiro: Edições Tempo brasileiro Ltda. Montero Cartelle, Emilio. 1993. “Las construcciones concesivas pleona´sticas y el modo en el castellano medieval y cla´sico.” In Universidad de Granada (ed.), Antiqua et Nova Romania: Estudios Lingu¨´ısticos y Filolo´gicos en Honor de José Mondejar en su Sexagenario Aniversario, 163–92. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos. 1985–6. “Tipologı´a de la cata´fora parata´ctica: entre la sintaxis del discurso y la sintaxis de la oracio´n.” Estudios de Lingu¨´ıstica Universidad de Alicante (ELUA) 3: 165–92. Moreno de Alba, José G. 2009. “Sintagmas completivos del nombre: complementos adnominales y oraciones subordinadas completivas del nombre.” In Concepcio´n Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis Histo´rica de la Lengua Española. Segunda Parte: la Frase Nominal, 1321–410. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica-Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de México. Nairn, Rowan, Cleo Condoravdi, and Lauri Karttunen. 2006. “Computing relative polarity for textual inference.” In Johan Bos and Alexander Koller (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics. Available online at https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W06-3907.pdf. Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2001. A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Orlandini, Anna. 2001. Négation et Argumentation en Latin. Louvain/Paris: Peeters. Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2015. Categorial Features. A Generative Theory of Word Class Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

references

179

Pavo´n Lucero, M. Victoria. 1999. “Clases de partı´culas: preposicio´n, conjuncio´n y adverbio.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 565–655. Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española. Pavo´n Lucero, M. Victoria. 2003. Sintaxis de las Partı´culas. Madrid: Visor. Pérez Saldanya, Manuel and Vicent Salvador. 2014. “Oraciones subordinadas concesivas.” In Concepcio´n Company Company (ed.), Sintaxis Histo´rica de la Lengua Española. Tercera Parte: Preposiciones, Adverbios y Conjunciones. Relaciones Interoracionales, 3699–839. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica-Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de México. Peterson, Philip L. 1997. Fact Proposition Event. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Picallo, M. Carme. 1999. “La estructura del sintagma nominal: las nominalizaciones y otros sustantivos con complementos argumentales.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 363–93. Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española. Piera, Carlos and Soledad Varela. 1999. “Relaciones entre morfologı´a y sintaxis.” In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), Grama´tica Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 4367–422. Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española. Portolés La´zaro, José. 1995. “Diferencias gramaticales y pragma´ticas entre los conectores discursivos pero, sin embargo y no obstante.” Boletı´n de la Real Academia Española 75: 231–69. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ramchand, Gillian. 2014. “On Structural Meaning vs Conceptual Meaning in Verb Semantics.” Linguistic Analysis 39.1–2: 207–44. Ramos Méndez, Manuel. 1989. “Formas descompuestas + cla´usula completiva objeto en tres textos medievales castellanos.” Verba 16: 339–56. Raposo, Eduardo B. P. 2013. “Complementos, modificadores e adjuntos no sintagma nominal.” In Eduardo B. P. Raposo, Maria Fernanda B. do Nascimento, Maria Anto´nia Coelho da Mota, Luı´sa Seguro, and Ama´lia Mendes (eds), Grama´tica do Português, 1043–113. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. Rauber, André Luiz. 2015. “Usos e funções das construções com fato/facto no Português: evidências da gramaticalização da factualidade?” Caletrosco´pio 3.5: 33–60. Rauh, Gisa. 1993. “On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English.” In Cornelia Zelinksy-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, 99–150. Berlin: De Gruyter. Rauh, Gisa. 2002. “Prepositions, features, and projections.” In Heinrich Bellermann (ed.), Perspectives on Prepositions, 3–23. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Rauh, Gisa. 2010. Syntactic Categories. Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Real Academia Española. 1732. Diccionario de Autoridades (Tomo III). Madrid: Real Academia Española. Available at http://web.frl.es/DA.html Real Academia Española. Diccionario de la Real Academia Española, 23rd edition. Available at dle.rae.es Real Academia Española-Asociacio´n de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva Grama´tica de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa. Reig Alamillo, Asela. 2015. “Propositional null objects in Spanish and the completeness of the proposition.” Linguistics 53: 959–94. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

180

references

Rodrı´guez Espiñeira, Marı´a José. 2003. “Sobre dos tipos de completivas en frases nominales.” Verba 30: 163–202. Rodrı´guez Espiñeira, Marı´a José. 2015. “El sustantivo ‘hecho’ como ejemplar de nombre encapsulador factual.” In Alfredo I. Álvarez, Ramo´n de Andrés, Álvaro Arias, Félix Ferna´ndez de Castro, Antonio Ferna´ndez, Teresa Ferna´ndez, Serafina Garcı´a, Hortensia Martı´nez, Antonio J. Meila´n, Ana I. Ojea, Javier San Julia´n, and Juan Carlos Villaverde (eds), Studium Grammaticae: homenaje al Profesor José A. Martı´nez, 655–74. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo. Romero Méndez, Rodrigo. 2005. Spanish Light Verb Constructions: Co-predication with syntactically formed complex predicates. Available online at http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu /~rrgpage/rrg/Romero-%20Light%20Verbs.pdf Ross, John R. 1973. “Nouniness.” In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, 123–257. Tokyo: The TEC Corporation. Roy, Isabelle and Elena Soare. 2013. “Event-related Nominals.” In Gianina Iordăchioaia, Isabelle Roy, and Kaori Takamine (eds), Categorization and Category Change, 123–52. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Roy, Isabelle and Peter Svenonius. 2009. “Complex prepositions.” Available online at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000850/current.pdf Said Ali, Manuel. 1966. Grama´tica Histo´rica da Lı´ngua Portuguesa. São Paulo: Edições Melhoramentos. Sa´nchez-Prieto Borja, Pedro. 2015. “Español antiguo.” In Maria Iliescu and Eugeen Roegiest (eds), Manuel des Anthologies, Corpus et Textes Romans, 113–46. Berlin: De Gruyter. Scher, Ana Paula. 2005. “As categorias aspectuais e a formação de construções com o verbo leve dar.” Revista do GEL 2: 9–37. Schmid, Hans-Jo¨rg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schmid, Hans-Jo¨rg. 2007. “Non-compositionality and emergent meaning of lexicogrammatical chunks: a corpus study of noun phrases with sentential complements as constructions.” Zeitschrift f u¨r Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55.3: 313–40. Schmitt, Cristina and Alan Munn. 2002. “The syntax and semantics of bare arguments in Brazilian Portuguese.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook, vol. 2.1, 185–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schulte, Kim. 2004. Pragmatic causation in the rise of the Romance prepositional infinitive. A statistically-based study with special reference to Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. Schulte, Kim. 2007. “What causes adverbial infinitives to spread? Evidence from Romance.” Language Sciences 29: 512–37. Schwenter, Scott and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2000. “Invoking scalarity: the development of in fact.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 7–25. Scott, Alan. 2010. Accounting for the semantic extension of derived action nouns. Journal of Linguistics 46: 711–34. Serradilla Castaño, Ana. 1995. “Sobre las primeras apariciones de construcciones preposicionales ante que completivo en español medieval. Factores determinantes.” EPOS 11: 147–63. Serradilla Castaño, Ana. 1996a. “Las formas analı´ticas de ‘entendimiento y lengua’ ante que completivo en español medieval. Breves notas acerca de su evolucio´n en la época cla´sica.” Revista de Filologı´a Roma´nica 13: 13–38. Serradilla Castaño, Ana. 1996b. Diccionario Sinta´ctico del Español Medieval. Verbos de Entendimiento y Lengua. Madrid: Gredos.

references

181

Serradilla Castaño, Ana 1997. El Régimen de los Verbos de Entendimiento y Lengua en Español Medieval. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid. Silva, Anto´nio de Morais. 1949–59. Grande Diciona´rio da Lı´ngua Portuguesa. 10a. Edição Revista, Corrigida, Muito Aumentada e Actualizada. Edited by Augusto Moreno, Cardoso Júnior, and José Pedro Machado. Lisbon: Confluência. Stringer, David. 2007. “Extending the PP hierarchy: the role of bare nominals in spatial predication.” In Tatjana Scheffler, Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam, and Laia Mayol (eds), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 13.1: 379–92. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Department of Linguistics. Svenonius, Peter. 2006. “The Emergence of Axial Parts.” Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33.1: 49–77. Svenonius, Peter. 2010. “Spatial P in English.” In Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi (eds), Mapping Spatial PPs. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 127–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Svenonius, Peter. 2015. “Syntactic Constructions.” In Tabor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook. Vol. 1, 15–23. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. “Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization.” In Anna Giacalone and Paul J. Hopper (eds), The Limits of Grammaticalization, 229–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tarr, Frederick Courtney. 1922. “Prepositional complementary clauses in Spanish with special reference to the works of Pérez Galdo´s.” Revue Hispanique 56: 1–264. Terzi, Arhonto. 2010. “Locative prepositions and place.” In Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi (eds), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Timberlake, Alan. 1977. “Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change.” In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 141–77. Austin: University of Texas. Tornel Sala, José Luis. 2000. Gramaticalizacio´n y Vectores Lingu¨´ısticos. Las Perı´frasis Verbonominales. Alicante: Editorial Club Universitario. Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2006. “Relative frequency in the grammaticization of collocations: nominal to concessive a pesar de.” In Timothy L. Face and Carol A. Klee (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 37–49. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2015. “Gradual loss of analyzability: diachronic priming effects.” In Aria Adli, Marco Garcı´a Garcı´a, and Go¨z Kaufmann (eds), Variation in Language: Systemand Usage-based Approaches, 265–88. Berlin: De Gruyter. Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Scott Schwenter. 2005/2007. “Towards an operational notion of subjectification.” In Rebecca T. Cover and Yuni Kim (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 347–58. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1985. “Conditional markers.” In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 289–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. “On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change.” Language 65.1: 31–55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. “Subjectification in grammaticalization.” In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

182

references

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997a. “The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester, 1995. Unpublished MS. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997b. “Unless and But conditionals: a historical perspective.” In Angeliki Athanasiadou and René Dirven (eds), On Conditionals Again, 145–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. “A Historical Overview of Complex Predicates.” In Laurel J. Brinton and Minoji Akimoto (eds), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English, 239–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012. “The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes.” In Merja Kyto¨ (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, 221–55. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Construcionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Travis, Lisa and Greg Lamontagne. 1992. “The Case Filter and licensing of empty K.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 37: 157–74. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press. Vendler, Zeno. 1968. Adjectives and Nominalizations. The Hague/Paris: De Gruyter. Vincent, Nigel. 2013. “Compositionality and change in conditionals and counterfactuals in Romance.” In Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith (eds), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, 116–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vincent, Nigel. 2015. “Compositionality and change.” In Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 103–23. London: Routledge. Viti, Carlotta. 2015. “Introduction.” In Carlotta Vitti (ed.), Perspectives on Historical Syntax, 3–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wanner, Dieter. 2006. The Power of Analogy. An Essay on Historical Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Williams, Edwin B. 1962. From Latin to Portuguese. Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Portuguese Language. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Xavier, Maria Francisca, Graça Vicente, and Maria de Lurdes Crispim (orgs) 2003. Diciona´rio de Verbos Portugueses do Século 12 e 13/14. Available online (as Diciona´rio de Verbos do Português Medieval, DVPM), at clunl.fcsh.unl.pt/recursos-emlinha/dicionario-de-verbos-portugues-medieval-dvpm/. Yllera, Alicia. 1980. Sintaxis Histo´rica del Verbo Español: Las Perı´frasis Medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Zucchi, Alessandro. 2015. “Events and situations.” Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 85–106.

Index actualization 18 adjunction 30, 43, 44, 45, 46, 138 clausal 1, 2, 14, 15, 30, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 64, 69, 70, 71, 78, 89, 92, 106, 133, 138, 145, 151, 153, 157, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166 analogy: in morphology 19, 21 in syntax 19–21, 28–9, 31, 32, 34, 67, 106, 107, 122, 155, 157, 158, 163, 164 anaphora 36, 37, 38, 39, 56, 66, 73, 85, 95, 96, 108, 139, 154 argument 3, 10, 15, 29, 34, 37, 44, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127–30, 133, 137–8, 139, 140, 141, 153, 154, 159, 166, 168 argument structure in nouns 3, 10, 11, 14–6, 43–5, 70, 92–3, 106, 120, 125, 126, 128–30, 133, 138, 141, 159, 160, 166 assertion 23, 37, 53, 71, 108, 109, 110, 115 auxiliary verb 120, 121, 127, 141, 142, 159, 166 axial part (AxPart) 28, 64, 105–6, 158 clausal complementation 2, 14–5, 28, 33–4, 106, 118, 158, 163, 165 complementizer 15, 18–9, 27, 32, 80, 106, 151, 154, 165 complex 1, 3, 106 as a relative 2, 15–6 complex predicate 1, 3, 4, 10, 119–122, 125, 126, 141, 142, 166 compositionality 3, 4, 5, 10, 17, 25–6, 27, 63, 80, 81, 94, 109, 117, 119, 120, 122, 125, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 165, 166, 168; see also syntactic analyzability connective: adversative 21, 110 causal 23, 80 concessive 28, 81–2, 92, 107–10 conditional 103, 109, 111, 114–17, 165

contrastive 80 temporal 21, 23 construction: defined 17 nominal modifying clause construction (NMCC) 15 noun-based 1, 15–16, 32, 42, 94, 153 coordination 52, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 99, 100, 102, 123, 140 decategorization 2, 26–7, 28, 139, 162; see also recategorization deontic 21, 23, 113 doublet 16 epistemic 21, 23, 75, 81, 111–4, 117 event (abstract entity), defined 34–9 exceptive conditional 115–7 fact (abstract entity), defined 36–40 fact-like object 38, 39, 53, 62–3, 67–8, 73–4, 76–7, 78, 79 factivity 2, 9, 33, 34, 39, 52, 68–9, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 161, 165–6 grammaticalization 3, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 78, 81, 82, 94, 107, 121, 158, 166, 167 implication 22, 23, 69, 72, 108 implicature: generalized conversational 22, 116; see also utterance-type meaning inflected infinitive 85, 88, 97, 100, 135, 150, 152, 161 invited inference 22, 107, 111 invited inferencing theory of semantic change (IITSC) 22, 69 intersubjectification 22; see also subjectification

184

index

lexicalization 94, 107, 125, 139, 141, 156; see also univerbation light verb: defined 120–1 light verb phrase (vP) 130 manuscript: transmission 7 copy 8 metaphor 3, 81, 92, 142 modification: clausal, see adjunction, clausal internal modification in complex constructions 9, 28, 49, 58, 59, 62, 66, 82, 83, 87, 89, 94, 95, 96, 99, 102, 104, 105, 109, 124, 137, 138, 142, 143, 148 combination with determiners or quantifiers 13, 28, 43, 55, 65, 95, 99, 105, 106, 123, 126, 132, 135, 137, 138, 144, 148, 158, 163; see also pluralization multiple causation 6, 78, 163, 164 nominalization 12 clausal 2, 34, 35 noun: bare 47, 103, 123, 138, 139, 140, 155 complex event noun (CEN) 12–13, 15, 16, 41, 93, 128, 132, 138, 160, 166 eventive, defined 11–16 functional 64, 158, 166 locative 105 referential 66, 95, 105 result noun (RN) 14, 45, 93, 102, 106, 133, 138, 160 simple event noun (SEN) 13–14, 15, 16, 41, 45, 92, 106, 133, 138, 160; see also axial part noun incorporation 3, 123, 125, 138–41, 142, 154–5; see also reanalysis pluralization 9, 13, 14, 45, 48, 49, 55, 59, 62, 64, 87, 96, 123, 132, 137, 138, 140, 157, 158, 163

NumP 106 possibility (abstract entity) 38, 68, 76, 79 pragmatic enrichment 22, 69, 107, 110, 111, 117 preposition: complex 1, 3, 5, 27, 28, 64, 80, 104–6, 117, 158, 163, 164, 166 functional 1, 2, 16, 28, 29, 32, 46, 56, 80, 105, 106, 118, 157, 163 as K(ase) 29, 105 with a finite or infinitival clause 16, 29, 32, 43, 46, 48, 56, 67, 80, 101, 105, 106, 107, 118, 131, 138, 157, 161, 163 presupposition 39, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 108, 166 reanalysis 10, 18–21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 63, 65, 104, 106, 121, 122, 123, 125, 138, 140, 141, 154, 155, 159, 164, 167 semantic 23, 69, 159, 164 recategorization 2, 19, 26, 28, 63, 67, 78, 80, 81, 104, 105–7, 117, 155–6, 157, 158, 162–3, 164; see also decategorization; reanalysis; univerbation subcategorization 10, 107 subjectification 22, 107, 113, 117, 167; see also intersubjectification subjunctive 44, 53, 109, 114, 116 syntactic analyzability 2, 4, 9, 19, 25, 26–8, 63, 65, 67, 78, 94, 104, 105, 106, 107, 117, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 141, 142, 154, 155, 159, 163, 164; see also compositionality unidirectionality 21, 23 univerbation 66, 105, 156; see also lexicalization; reanalysis utterance-token meaning 22; see also implicature utterance-type meaning 22; see also implicature veridicity 72

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N D IAC H R O N I C AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge published 1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto 8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent

9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen 17 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe 18 Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu 19 The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan 20 Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reino¨hl 21 The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill

22 Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso 23 Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell 24 The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert 25 Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John. J. Lowe 26 Quantitative Historical Linguistics A Corpus Framework Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray 27 Gender from Latin to Romance History, Geography, Typology Michele Loporcaro 28 Clause Structure and Word Order in the History of German Edited by Agnes Ja¨ger, Gisella Ferraresi, and Helmut Weiß 29 Word Order Change Edited by Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso 30 Arabic Historical Dialectology Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes 31 Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective Edited by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine 32 Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou 33 Indefinites between Latin and Romance Chiara Gianollo

34 Verb Second in Medieval Romance Sam Wolfe 35 Referential Null Subjects in Early English Kristian A. Rusten 36 Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective Alexandru Nicolae 37 Cycles in Language Change Edited by Miriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert, and Elisabeth Witzenhausen 38 Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives André Zampaulo 39 Dative External Possessors in Early English Cynthia L. Allen 40 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, and David Willis 41 Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar Edited by Sam Wolfe and Martin Maiden 42 Phonetic Causes of Sound Change The Palatalization and Assibilation of Obstruents Daniel Recasens 43 Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by Jo´hannes Gı´sli Jo´nsson and Tho´rhallur Eytho´rsson 44 Romance Object Clitics Microvariation and Linguistic Change Diego Pescarini 45 The Diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Romanian Virginia Hill and Alexandru Mardale

46 Noun-based Constructions in the History of Portuguese and Spanish Patrı´cia Amaral and Manuel Delicado Cantero in preparation Redevelopment of Case Systems in Indo-Aryan Miriam Butt Functional Heads Across Time Edited by Barbara Egedi and Veronika Hegedűs Classical Portuguese Grammar and History Charlotte Galves, Aroldo de Andrade, Christiane Namiuti, and Maria Clara Paixão de Sousa Morphological Borrowing Francesco Gardani Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τoς and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Reconstructing Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialects Alexander Magidow Iranian Syntax in Classical Armenian Robin Meyer