Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish 9783110820881, 9783110154023

Citation preview

Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish

w DE

G

Functional Grammar Series 22

Editors

A. Machtelt Bolkestein Casper de Groot J. Lachlan Mackenzie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish

by

Hella Olbertz

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1998

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data Olbertz, Hella, 1953Verbal periphrases in a functional grammar of Spanish / by Hella Olbertz. p. cm. - (Functional grammar series ; 22) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN 3-11-015402-1 (alk. paper) 1. Spanish language - Verb. 2. Funktionalism (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series. PC4315.P4063 1998 465-dc21 98-4782 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication-Data Olbertz, Hella: Verbal periphrases in a functional grammar of Spanish / by Hella Olbertz. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1998 (Functional grammar series ; 22) ISBN 3-11-015402-1

© Copyright 1998 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. - Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

To Ysolde Paul Rob Herman Ton and Leo

Acknowledgem ents

My decision to start working on this book is probably largely attributable to Simon Dik's very best efforts to convince me that I was capable of doing linguistic research. Sadly, he has not lived to see the outcome of his encouragement. This book reflects the supervision I received from Kees Hengeveld for more than six years. During our many lengthy meetings, he taught me a lot about linguistics in general and about Functional Grammar in particular, and helped me to order my ideas, which were sometimes quite disorganized. Nevertheless, he took me and my plans seriously from the very beginning, which made me feel that I was his colleague rather than his student. He provided countless ideas and suggestions that I incorporated into this study. I would like to express my deeply felt gratitude to him for all he did for me, which certainly was much more than he was obliged to. I am also very grateful to Henk Haverkate, who devoted much of his time to discussing each major step in the process of writing this book with me. Due to his unbiased view as a relative outsider with respect to the theory of Functional Grammar, he often came up with unexpected criticism, which considerably enhanced the quality and the readability of the final text. I have received invaluable contributions to my investigation from the people who I have been questioning for years about their mother-tongue. Most of them, in addition to scrupulously answering my questions, took great pains to find possible explanations for the linguistic data they supplied. All I can do in return is express my profound gratitude to Choni Alonso, Ana Alvarez, Silvia Berniell, Gema Casino Pardos, Amapola Cabrera, Vicky Escandell, Daniel Garcia Velasco, Joaquin Garrido, Pilar Guerrero, Manuel Leonetti, Juan Carlos Moreno, M s Carmen Portero, Encarni Sanchez Gala, Esperanza Torrego, and Jesus de la Villa. Important support in preparing this study came from the people I encountered in the Functional Grammar working group at the University of Amsterdam. There I learned about other people's work and had the opportunity to present and discuss my own research in a friendly and informal environment. In particular, I would like to thank Inge Genee, a member of this group and my closest colleague, with whom I had discussions that were very valuable to me. For commonsense advice, which helped me in the frequent moments of utter despair, caused by seemingly unsurmountable problems posed by the data or the theory, I am most grateful to Leo Lemmers. I am also indebted to Inge Genee, Casper de Groot, Brenda Laca, Lachlan Mackenzie, Harm Pinkster, M* Carmen Portero, Jesus de la Villa, and Gerry Wanders, who, at various stages of its completion, made com-

viii Acknowledgements ments on parts of the manuscript that improved both its content and its style. Furthermore, I am grateful to Evelien Keizer for correcting my English and to Ysolde Bentvelsen for proofreading the final draft, thus helping me to eliminate a considerable number of textual inconsistencies. Finally, I would like to thank Casper de Groot, Kees Hengeveld, Lachlan Mackenzie and Yvonne Sanders for their moral and practical support in the months that preceded the publication of this book. The research for this study was financed by the Linguistic Research Foundation, which is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Ν WO also granted generous financial support for three stays in Madrid (spanning a total of four months), where I collected a large part of my data.

Amsterdam, November 1997

Hella Olbertz

Contents

List of tables and figures

xix

List of abbreviations and symbols

xxi

0. Introduction

1

1. Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

5

1.0. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9.

Introduction Basic and derived predicates Basic and derived terms Nuclear predications and the typology of SoAs Semantic, syntactic and pragmatic functions The hierarchical structure of the clause Terms, entities and subordination Expression rules Two recent proposals: predicates and places Notational conventions

5 6 7 8 11 13 18 19 21 24

2. The data

27

2.0. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

27 27 28 29

Introduction The corpus The informants Matters of presentation

3. What are verbal periphrases?

31

3.0. Introduction 3.1. Definition and criteria 3.1.0. Introduction 3.1.1. Definition 3.1.2. Non-periphrastic constructions 3.1.3. Tests 3.2. Preview of chapters 4-6

31 32 32 32 33 38 44

χ

Contents

4. Lexical constructions

47

4.0. Introduction 4.1. Productive constructions 4.1.0. Introduction 4.1.1. Obvious cases 4.1.1.0. Introduction 4.1.1.1. tender a, liarse a, darle a uno por 4.1.1.2. soltarse a 4.1.1.3. quedar en 4.1.1.4. hartarse dela, hincharse dela, inflarse dela 4.1.1.5. empezarlcomenzar por 4.1.2. Deviant cases 4.1.2.0. Introduction 4.1.2.1. tratarde 4.1.2.2. parecer 4.2. Non-productive constructions 4.2.0. Introduction 4.2.1. Phraseological units 4.2.1.0. Introduction 4.2.1.1. salir + gerund 4.2.1.2. echar(se) a + infinitive 4.2.1.3. romper a + infinitive 4.2.1.4. estar para + infinitive 4.2.1.5. dejar + participle 4.2.1.6. estar al + infinitive 4.2.1.7. acertar a + infinitive 4.2.1.8. querer + infinitive 4.2.1.9. alcanzar a + infinitive 4.2.2. Marginal constructions 4.2.2.0. Introduction 4.2.2.1. darse a + infinitive 4.2.2.2. ver de + infinitive 4.3. Summary

47 47 47 49 49 50 54 56 57 60 62 62 62 64 67 67 68 68 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 80 82 83 83 83 84 85

5. Semi-auxiliary constructions

91

5.0. Introduction 5.1. Infinitival constructions 5.1.0. Introduction 5.1.1. Aspectuals 5.1.1.0. Introduction

91 92 92 93 93

Contents

xi

5.1.1.1. empezarlcomenzar α and acabarlterminar de . . . 93 5.1.1.1.0. Introduction 93 5.1.1.1.1. Semi-auxiliaries versus periphrases . . 94 5.1.1.1.2. The semi-auxiliary constructions . . . . 99 5.1.1.1.3. Transitive ingressive and egressive verbs 107 5.1.1.2. pararde 109 5.1.1.2.0. Introduction 109 5.1.1.2.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis 110 5.1.1.2.2. Intransitive and reflexive parar . . . . 114 5.1.1.3. tardar en 116 5.1.1.3.0. Introduction 116 5.1.1.3.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis . . 116 5.1.1.3.2. The semi-auxiliary construction . . . . 119 5.1.1.3.2. Intransitive tardar 123 5.1.1.4. soler 124 5.1.2. Modals 130 5.1.2.0. Introduction 130 5.1.2.1. Facultative and Deontic Modality 131 5.1.2.2. poder 136 5.1.2.2.0. Introduction 136 5.1.2.2.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis . . 136 5.1.2.2.2. puede que 146 5.1.2.2.3. Lexical uses 150 5.1.2.3. deber(de) 151 5.1.2.3.0. Introduction 151 5.1.2.3.1. Semantic and morphological preliminaries 151 5.1.2.3.2. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis . . 154 5.2. Gerundial constructions 161 5.2.0. Introduction 161 5.2.1. Properties of lexical gerundial constructions 161 5.2.2. seguirlcontinuar 166 5.2.2.0. Introduction 166 5.2.2.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis 167 5.2.2.2. Potential counterarguments 172 5.2.2.3. Other lexical uses 175 5.2.3. llevar 178 5.2.3.0. Introduction 178 5.2.3.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis 179 5.2.3.2. Transitive llevar 184 5.2.4. empezarlcomenzar 187 5.2.4.0. Introduction 187

xii

Contents

5.2.4.1. The semi-auxiliary construction 5.2.4.2. empezarlcomenzar with lexical gerund constructions 5.2.4.3. Periphrastic empezarlcomenzar + gerund? . . . . 5.3. Participial constructions 5.3.0. Introduction 5.3.1. Participles and lexical participial constructions 5.3.2. llevar 5.3.2.0. Introduction 5.3.2.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis 5.3.2.2. Other uses of llevar + participle 5.4. Summary and discussion

190 193 194 194 194 200 200 201 206 208

6. Periphrastic constructions

213

6.0. Introduction 6.1. Infinitival periphrases 6.1.0. Introduction 6.1.1. Partially periphrastic constructions 6.1.1.0. Introduction 6.1.1.1. Periphrases based on semi-auxiliaries 6.1.1.1.0. Introduction 6.1.1.1.1. comenzarlempezar a, soler, deber

..

213 215 215 215 215 216 216 216

6.1.1.2. Lexically based periphrases 6.1.1.2.0. Introduction 6.1.1.2.1. meterse a 6.1.1.2.2. pasara 6.1.1.2.3. A borderline case: ponerse a 6.1.2. Fully periphrastic constructions 6.1.2.0. Introduction 6.1.2.1. Periphrases with non-periphrastic homonyms . . 6.1.2.1.0. Introduction 6.1.2.1.1. ir a, venir a, volver a 6.1.2.1.2. pensar 6.1.2.1.3. acabar/terminar de 6.1.2.1.4. acabarde 6.1.2.1.5. poder and deber 6.1.2.1.6. estarpor 6.1.2.1.7. tenerque 6.1.2.2. Periphrases without non-periphrastic homonyms 6.1.2.2.0. Introduction 6.1.2.2.1. llegara

219 219 219 222 225 229 229 230 230 231 234 238 241 243 246 249 256 256 257

6 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 2 . poder

188

218

Contents xiii 6.1.2.2.2. acabar/terminar por 6.1.2.2.3. dejarde 6.1.2.2.4. cesar de 6.2. Gerundial periphrases 6.2.0. Introduction 6.2.1. Partially periphrastic construction: continuar/seguir . . . 6.2.2. Fully periphrastic constructions 6.2.2.0. Introduction 6.2.2.1. Periphrases with non-periphrastic homonyms . . 6.2.2.1.0. Introduction 6.2.2.1.1. acabar/terminar 6.2.2.1.2. ir 6.2.2.1.3. venir 6.2.2.1.4. andar 6.2.2.1.5. quedar(se) 6.2.2.2. Periphrasis without non-periphrastic homonym: estar 6.3. Participial periphrases 6.3.0. Introduction 6.3.1. Partially periphrastic construction: llevar 6.3.2. Fully periphrastic construction: tener 6.4. Summary and discussion

261 263 266 268 268 269 270 270 271 271 271 277 280 284 293 299 303 303 303 305 317

7. The semantics of periphrases

323

7.0. Introduction 7.1. Aspect 7.1.0. Introduction 7.1.1. Inner Aspect 7.1.1.0. Introduction 7.1.1.1. Inner Phasal Aspect 7.1.1.1.0. Introduction 7.1.1.1.1. Ingressive 7.1.1.1.2. Progressive, Persistive, Continuative 7.1.1.1.3. Egressive 7.1.1.1.4. Summary 7.1.1.2. Qualificational Aspect 7.1.1.2.0. Introduction 7.1.1.2.1. Manner: Gradual 7.1.1.2.2. Degree: Completive 7.1.1.2.3. Summary 7.1.2. Outer Aspect 7.1.2.0. Introduction

323 324 324 325 325 325 325 326 328 336 338 339 339 340 343 345 346 346

xiv

Contents

7.1.2.1. Outer Phasal Aspect 7.1.2.1.0. Introduction 7.1.2.1.1. Prospective 7.1.2.1.2. Resultative and Experiential Perfect . 7.1.2.1.3. Perfect of Recent Past 7.1.2.1.4. Conclusions 7.1.2.2. Quantificational Aspect 7.1.2.2.0. Introduction 7.1.2.2.1. Repetitive 7.1.2.2.2. Distributive 7.1.2.2.3. Habitual 7.1.2.2.4. Summary 7.2. Modality 7.2.0. Introduction 7.2.1. Participant-oriented Modality 7.2.1.0. Introduction 7.2.1.1. Inherent 7.2.1.2. Volitional 7.2.1.3. Deontic 7.2.1.4. Summary 7.2.2. Event-oriented Modality 7.2.2.0. Introduction 7.2.2.1. Inherent 7.2.2.1.0. Introduction 7.2.2.1.1. Intrinsic Inherent 7.2.2.1.2. Extrinsic Inherent 7.2.2.2. Volitional 7.2.2.3. Deontic 7.2.2.4. Epistemic 7.2.2.4.0. Introduction 7.2.2.4.1. Possibility, high probability, certainty 7.2.2.4.2. Irreality in conditional clauses . . . . 7.2.2.5. Summary 7.2.3. Proposition-oriented Modality 7.2.3.0. Introduction 7.2.3.1. Epistemic 7.2.3.1.0. Introduction 7.2.3.1.1. Declarative sentences 7.2.3.1.2. Rhetorical questions 7.2.3.2. Inferential 7.2.3.3. Summary 7.2.4. Unmarked necessity versus absolute necessity

346 346 347 352 358 364 365 365 365 370 372 377 377 377 379 379 380 381 383 385 385 385 386 386 386 387 389 390 393 393 394 396 398 400 400 402 402 402 406 410 413 413

Contents

xv

7.3. Polarity: negation 7.4. A hybrid category: Actual Evaluation 7.4.0. Introduction 7.4.1. Culminative 7.4.2. Conclusive 7.4.3. Summary 7.5. Illocution 7.5.0. Introduction 7.5.1. Expression of Illocution: Exhortative Imperative 7.5.2. Illocutionary Modification: mitigation 7.6. Summary and discussion

414 416 416 418 422 429 430 430 431 433 436

8. The syntax of periphrases

445

8.0. Introduction 8.1. Periphrastic derived predicates 8.1.0. Introduction 8.1.1. Ingressive: meterse a + infinitive and ponerse a + infinitive 8.1.2. Persistive: quedar(se) + gerund 8.1.3. Egressive: cesar de + infinitive 8.1.4. Perfect: llevar + participle 8.1.5. Distributive: andar + gerund 8.1.6. Discussion 8.2. Periphrastic expressions of π-operators 8.2.0. Introduction 8.2.1. Predicate operators: Inner Aspect 8.2.1.0. Introduction 8.2.1.1. Ingressive: empezarlcomenzar a + infinitive, pasar a + infinitive 8.2.1.2. Progressive: estar + gerund 8.2.1.3. Continuative: continuarlseguir + gerund 8.2.1.4. Anterior-Persistive: venir + gerund 8.2.1.5. Egressive: dejar de + infinitive 8.2.1.6. Gradual: ir + gerund 8.2.1.7. Completive: acabarlterminar de + infinitive . . 8.2.1.8. Interaction of periphrases at the level of π! . . . 8.2.2. Predication operators 8.2.2.0. Introduction 8.2.2.1. Outer Aspect periphrases 8.2.2.1.0. Introduction 8.2.2.1.1. Prospective: ir a + infinitive

445 446 446 447 456 459 464 468 471 472 472 474 474 476 478 479 480 482 483 485 486 488 488 489 489 489

xvi

Contents 8.2.2.1.2. Resultative and Experiential Perfect: tener + participle 491 8.2.2.1.3. Perfect of Recent Past: acabar de + infinitive 495 8.2.2.1.4. Repetitive: volver a + infinitive . . . . 497 8.2.2.1.5. Habitual: soler + infinitive 497 8.2.2.2. Participant-oriented modal periphrases 498 8.2.2.2.0. Introduction 498 8.2.2.2.1. Volitional: pensar + infinitive and estar por + infinitive 499 8.2.2.2.2. Inherent and Deontic: tener que + infinitive 501 8.2.2.3. Event-oriented modal periphrases 502 8.2.2.3.0. Introduction 502 8.2.2.3.1. Possibility: poder + infinitive 503 8.2.2.3.2. Necessity: deber + infinitive 505 8.2.2.3.3. Absolute Necessity: tener que + infinitive 506 8.2.2.3.4. Irreality: llegar a + infinitive 507 8.2.2.4. Polar periphrasis: dejar de + infinitive 509 8.2.2.5. Actual Evaluation periphrases 511 8.2.2.5.0. Introduction 511 8.2.2.5.1. Culminative: llegar a + infinitive . . 511 8.2.2.5.2. Conclusive: acabar/terminar + gerund, acabar/terminarpor + infinitive . . . 512 8.2.2.6. Interaction of periphrases at the level of π 2 . . . 514 8.2.2.7. Predication operators versus predicate operators 519 8.2.3. Proposition operators 523 8.2.3.0. Introduction 523 8.2.3.1. Periphrases expressing truth commitment . . . . 523 8.2.3.1.0. Introduction 523 8.2.3.1.1. Epistemic Possibility: poder + infinitive 524 8.2.3.1.2. Epistemic Absolute Necessity: tener que + infinitive 525 8.2.3.1.3. Inferential Necessity: deber + infinitive 525 8.2.3.2. Periphrasis expressing falsehood commitment: ir a + infinitive 525 8.2.3.3. Lack of interaction of periphrases at the level of π3 528 8.2.3.4. Proposition operators versus predication operators 529

Contents

xvii

8.2.4. Illocutionary operators 8.2.4.0. Introduction 8.2.4.1. Exhortative Imperative: ir a + infinitive 8.2.4.2. Hedge: vetiir a + infinitive 8.2.4.3. Illocutionary operators versus other «-operators 8.2.5. Summary and discussion 8.3. Conclusion

532 532 533 534 536 539 541

9. Conclusions

543

Appendices

547

I. The corpus and additional sources of examples II. Frequencies of verbal periphrases in the corpus III. Glossary of Spanish verbs in analytic constructions IV. List of periphrastically expressed π-operators with key examples

547 549 551 552

References

559

Index of names

575

Index of subjects

579

List of tables and figures

Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Allegedly periphrastic verbal constructions Productive lexical constructions Phraseological units Semi-auxiliary constructions Periphrastic constructions Periphrastic expressions of Inner Phasal Aspect Periphrastic expressions of Qualificational Aspect Periphrastic expressions of Quantificational Aspect Periphrastic expressions of Participant-oriented Modality . . . . Periphrastic expressions of Event-oriented Modality Periphrastic expressions of Proposition-oriented Modality . . . . Periphrastic modification of the core predication Periphrastic modification of the extended predication Periphrastic modification of the proposition Periphrastic modification of the speech act Periphrastically expressed otj-operators Periphrastically expressed Jt2-operators Periphrastically expressed jt 3 -operators Periphrastically expressed %4-operators Periphrastic expressions of π-operators

45 86 88 209 317 339 345 377 385 399 413 437 438 440 440 486 515 528 536 539

Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Dynamicity, Telicity, Momentaneousness The typology of States of Affairs The hierarchical structure of the clause Lexical verbs, semi-auxiliaries, auxiliaries Facultative Participant-oriented Modality Modals expressing Facultative and Deontic Modality Typology of verbal periphrases Inner Phasal Aspect Aspectual expressions of progression and persistence Phasal Aspect Modal distinctions and their meanings Auxiliary expression of modal distinctions Culminative meaning in affirmative contexts

10 10 17 91 133 136 214 325 335 365 378 379 419

xx

List of tables and figures

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Culminative meaning in negative contexts 420 Conclusive meaning in affirmative contexts 426 Conclusive meaning 427 Actual Evaluation 429 Limits of applicability of partially periphrastic constructions . . 454 Mutual interaction of periphrastically expressed π,-operators . . 488 Mutual interaction of periphrastically expressed ^ - o p e r a t o r s . . 519 The hierachical ordering of π-operators 540 Derived predicates versus expressions of operators 541 Degrees of grammaticalization of verbal constructions 543

List of abbreviations and symbols

General A1 A2 A3 FG

first argument second argument third argument Functional Grammar

lit. SoA t;

literally State of Affairs reference-time

MASC PART PF PL PREP REL REFL

masculine participle perfective plural preposition relator reflexive pronoun singular subjunctive first person second person third person

In interlinear translations ACC ADJ ADV COND DAT DIMIN FEM FORM FUT GER INF IMP IMPF

accusative adjectival adverbial conditional dative diminutive feminine formal future gerund infinitive imperative imperfective

SG SUBJ 1 2 3

In representations Part-of-speech β A Adv Ν V

classes any part of speech adjective adverb noun verb

Variables a f χ e X Ε ρ t σ

any entity predicate individual event (=SoA) proposition speech act place time satellite

xxii

List of abbreviations and symbols

Semantic functions Sf Ag Dir Exp Fo Go ImpLoc Loc Pos Proc Quant Ree So 0

any semantic function Agent Direction Experiencer Force Goal Imprecise Location Location Positioner Processed Quantity Recipient Source Zero

Predicate

operators

any predicate operator ANT-PERS Anterior-Persistive COMPL Completive CONT Continuative Egressive EGR GRAD Gradual IMPF Imperfective Ingressive INGR PF Perfective Progressive PROGR STATE-INGR State-Ingressive jt,

Predication %2

Syntactic Subj Obj PrepObj

Pragmatic Foe Top

functions Subject Object Prepositional Object

functions Focus Topic

ABS-NEC ANT ASP CONCL CULM DEO EPI EV EXTR-INH FUT HAB IND INT-DEL

Term operators INT-DES ω d i 1 m Q

any term operator definite indefinite singular plural any quantifier

INTR-INH IRR NEC NEG NEG-NEG PA

operators any predication operator Absolute Necessity Anterior Aspect Conclusive Culminative Deontic Epistemic Event-oriented Extrinsic Inherent Future Habitual Indicative IntentionalDeliberative IntentionalDesiderative Intrinsic Inherent Irreality Necessity Negative Double Negative Participant-oriented

List of abbreviations and symbols PERF-EXP PERF-RECPAST PERF-RES POS POSS PRES PROSP REPET VOL

Experiential Perfect Perfect of Recent Past Resultative Perfect Positive Possibility Present Prospective Repetitive Volitional

Illocutions and operators x4 DECL EXCL EXHORT IMP INT

xxiii

illocution

any illocution operator Declarative Exclamative Exhortative Imperative Interrogative

Other Proposition 3I3 ABS-NEC EPI FALSE INDET INF NEC PR POSS TRUE

operators any proposition operator Absolute Necessity Epistemic Falsehood commitment Indeterminate Inferential Necessity Propositionoriented Possibility Truth commitment

A an im con count dyn ger hum inf mom part pred S tel

{}

addressee animate controlled countable dynamic gerund human infinitive momentaneous participle predicate Speaker telic set of alternatives

0. Introduction

This book contains a corpus-based description of all the different types of verbal periphrases used in modern Peninsular Spanish. Periphrases occupy an intermediate position between grammar and lexicon, a fact that can be illustrated by means of, for instance, the English periphrasis keep on + gerund; what betrays the ambivalent character of a construction like this one is the fact that the question of whether or not keep on is an auxiliary cannot be answered in a straightforward way. This study strives to account for the partly lexical and partly grammatical status of periphrases within the theoretical framework of Functional Grammar. The Spanish language is rich in verbal periphrases of differing degrees of grammaticalization and with a great variety of meanings, and it is even richer in constructions that share some but not all of the properties of periphrastic constructions. Thus, Spanish periphrases form an intriguing subject for linguistic research and, as a consequence, there is a large number of studies on periphrases. However, most of the studies of periphrases in modern Spanish deal with some formally or semantically defined subset of periphrases. As regards the formally defined subsets, interesting descriptions have been provided by Hernanz (1980) and Veyrat Rigat (1991), on infinitival periphrases, Stone (1980) on gerundial periphrases, and Roca Pons (1958) on participal periphrases. As regards semantically defined subsets, there are quite a few studies on periphrastic Aspect (e.g. Dietrich 1973; Quesada 1994) and some on Modality (e.g. Klein 1968; Martinez de Lopez 1990). Of the studies that deal with the entire set of Spanish periphrases some have a primarily didactic character, i.e. they were written for students of Spanish as a foreign language (e.g. Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972; Garcia Gonzalez 1992) and others mainly scrutinize the question of how to distinguish verbal periphrases from non-periphrastic analytic constructions (e.g. Fernandez de Castro 1990). A notable exception is the study provided by Gomez Torrego (1988), who deals with the syntactic difference between periphrases and non-periphrastic constructions as well as with the semantics and certain syntactic properties of periphrases. None of the studies concerning the entire set of periphrases is based on a well-defined corpus of authentic linguistic material and none makes consistent use of a theoretical framework. The aim of this study is to fill this gap. The use of a corpus makes it possible, on the one hand, to consider individual instances within their context, which can be relevant for the assessment of pragmatic, semantic and syntactic aspects of the ways in which periphrases are used; on the other hand, it enables one to assess the relative frequency of the individual constructions, and thus, their relevance within

2

Introduction

the grammatical system. The use of a theoretical framework has the obvious advantage of facilitating an analysis of all facets of the problem from a consistent point of view. The framework of Functional Grammar is particularly suitable for the description of periphrastic constructions within the context of actual usage, because it is a model that views language as a tool of verbal communication rather than as an autonomous system and, therefore, strives for pragmatic adequacy in linguistic description. It is the aim of this study not only to use Functional Grammar as a framework for the linguistic description to be carried out, but also to find out whether the theory is capable of accounting for all the problems to be solved and to adapt the theory where it is proven to be incomplete. The organization of this study is as follows. The first two chapters will have a preliminary character. Chapter 1 will contain a brief outline of Functional Grammar; particular attention will be paid to those aspects of this theory that will play a crucial role in the description of periphrases. Chapter 2 will describe the way in which I arrived at the data that form the empirical basis of this study and deal with some matters of presentation. Chapter 3 will give an introduction to the subject matter. In this chapter I will provide a definition of verbal periphrases as productive verbal constructions with a partially grammaticalized finite verb and present a number of syntactic tests for distinguishing periphrases from non-periphrastic analytic verbal constructions. These tests concern, firstly, the possibility of replacing the non-finite constituent of the construction with other linguistic items and, secondly, the possibility of omitting the non-finite constituent. Chapter 3 will end with a list of 53 analytic verbal constructions that are generally held to be periphrases. Chapters 4 - 6 will form the first part of the descriptive study, in which the tests introduced in the third chapter will be applied to the 53 verbal constructions presented at the end of that chapter. In accordance with the results of the tests these 53 analytic constructions will be divided into four groups: (i) productive and (ii) non-productive lexical constructions, (iii) semi-auxiliary constructions and (iv) periphrastic constructions. Chapter 4 will deal with productive (4.1.) and non-productive (4.2.) lexical constructions. In principle, productive lexical constructions fail all the tests for the identification of periphrases, while non-productive constructions do not comply with the prerequisite of productivity. Chapter 5 will be devoted to what I will call "semi-auxiliary constructions", i.e. constructions that pass the substitution test but fail the omission test. Chapter 6, finally, will concern the constructions that pass all syntactic tests and which, consequently, can be identified as periphrastic constructions. These will be further subcategorized into partially and fully periphrastic constructions. Partially periphrastic constructions behave as periphrases only in contexts that do not

Introduction

3

allow for a literal, non-metaphorical reading of the finite verb, while fully periphrastic constructions behave as periphrases in any context. Chapters 7 and 8 will form the second part of the descriptive study, which will be devoted to the semantic and syntactic description of the 28 verbal periphrases identified in the sixth Chapter. Chapter 7 will be devoted to the description of the meanings expressed by verbal periphrases, which mainly concern Aspect and Modality. The semantic description will be organized in accordance with the Functional Grammar classifications of aspectual (Dik 1987, 1989) and modal meanings (Hengeveld 1988, forthc.). Chapter 8 will deal with the syntax of verbal periphrases. Depending on their relative degrees of grammaticalization, which will be assessed by means of a syntactic test, the individual constructions will be accounted for either as derived predicates (8.1.) or grammatical formatives (8.2.). The periphrases that are weakly grammaticalized are derived predicates. In 8.1., each individual periphrasis will be assigned a predicate formation rule that reflects the specific restrictions on its applicability. Highly grammaticalized periphrases are considered grammatical formatives, which in terms of Functional Grammar means that they are expressions of operators. The semantic classification provided in the seventh chapter will serve as the point of departure for the assignment of operator rules to each individual periphrasis in 8.2. In Chapter 9, I will present my conclusions with regard to the constructions described and with regard to Functional Grammar as the tool used in this description.

1. Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

1.0. Introduction In this chapter, I will give a brief outline of Functional Grammar, focussing on those aspects of the theory that will play a crucial role in the description of Spanish periphrases. For a more detailed description, the reader is referred to Dik (1989) and Siewierska (1991). In this introductory section (1.0.), I will briefly describe the basic principles of Functional Grammar. Sections 1.1.-1.7. will deal with the internal structure of the clause according to the theory of Functional Grammar as described in Dik (1989). In 1.8. I will discuss two proposals made within Functional Grammar after the publication of Dik's (1989) monograph, and, finally, in section 1.9.1 will briefly describe the notational conventions used in this study. Functional Grammar is "functional" in the sense that its approach to language is oriented towards the function of language as an instrument of verbal interaction between "natural language users" (NLUs). The human capacities that are essential in verbal interaction are complex; one of them is the NLU's linguistic capacity, part of which can be described in terms of a grammatical model like Functional Grammar (henceforward: FG). It is, therefore, the aim of FG "to reconstruct part of the linguistic capacities of NLU" (Dik 1989: 2) in such a way that this reconstruction fits into a wider model of verbal interaction. As a consequence, FG seeks to be a grammatical model that is not only descriptively, but also psychologically and pragmatically adequate. As, furthermore, it is the aim of FG to be a model with crosslinguistic validity, a third standard of adequacy FG strives to attain is that of typological adequacy. There are three important constraints on the power of Functional Grammar, which are, above all, related to the standard of psychological adequacy. Firstly, in the course of the generation of the underlying clause structure as well as in its expression transformations are avoided, because it would be counter-intuitive for a NLU first to generate some construction and subsequently, at some moment before its actual realization, to change it radically either by deletion, substitution or permutation. "Transformations" are, however, allowed in the form of derivational operations within the Fund, which is the component that contains the set of predicates and terms that form the input to the formation of the clause structure. In other words, these "transformations" do not form part of the formation of the underlying clause structure.

6

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

Secondly, filtering devices are avoided in FG, because "the filtering device would imply that NLUs are designed in such a way as to produce an enormous number of construction types which will go to the mental dustbin before they are uttered" (Dik 1989: 20). Thirdly, abstract semantic predicates are avoided, i.e. the meanings of predicates are defined by means of other, more basic predicates rather than by means of abstract semantic representations, "mainly because, once they are accepted, there is hardly any limit to the analyses which can be argued to underlie lexical items" (Dik 1989: 21-22). Functional Grammar is a bottom-up productive model which tries to simulate the NLU's linguistic production as adequately as an abstract model can (cf. Dik 1989: 52 on the shortcomings). At the same time it is assumed that FG is capable of functioning as a parsing model, too.

1.1. Basic and derived predicates Predicates form the "basic building blocks at the morpho-semantic level" (Dik 1989: 52) from which linguistic expressions are built up. There are at least three types of predicates to be distinguished: verbs (V), nouns (N) and adjectives (A). Verbal, nominal and adjectival predicates are listed as predicate frames in the lexicon together with a description of their meanings. The predicate frame contains the following information: (i) the phonological shape of the predicate, which, by convention, is represented by the written form, and, in the case of verbs, by the infinitive; (ii) the syntactic category of the predicate; (iii) the quantitative valency of the predicate; (iv) the qualitative valency of the predicate, i.e. the semantic functions of the arguments and the selection restrictions which the predicate imposes on them. Thus, the predicate frame provides a "blueprint" for the predications in which it can be used (Dik 1989: 54, 69). Consider the following examples: (1)

eatv (xx: (x,))Ag (x2: (x 2 )) 0o

(2)

appleN (x^ (x,)) 0

(3)

ripeK (x^ ( x ^ e

In the bracketed expressions (x) refers to some entity, the colon should be read as "such that" and the expressions between angle brackets are selection restrictions. Thus, the description of the argument of e.g. ripe in (3) should be read as follows: "any entity such that organic is a property of this entity". What (1) expresses is that the verbal predicate eat has two arguments with the semantic functions Agent and Goal ("Patient" in other approaches),

Basic and derived predicates

7

which must refer to an animate entity and some foodstuff, respectively. The non-verbal predicates given in (2) and (3) have only one argument, with the semantic function Zero. This argument position is filled with the term that is assigned the properties designated by apple and ripe, respectively. These three examples illustrate the basic functions of predicates: predicates with more than one argument express relations, predicates with one argument express properties. Apart from the one-word predicates illustrated in (l)-(3), there are also basic predicates consisting of more words, i.e. idioms. Idioms are listed in the lexicon analogously to one-word predicates, namely as predicate frames the argument positions of which have been partly filled with lexical material (cf. Dik 1989: 86-87 and section 4.2. of this study). So far, I have only considered basic predicates. Derived predicates are the output of predicate formation rules, which take basic predicates as input and which operate within the fund. Predicate formation takes care of productive lexical processes such as derivational morphology but also of the productive combination of words that function as unified predicates. Predicate formation can affect the form and meaning of a predicate (e.g. diminutive formation). In addition, it can affect the syntactic category of the predicate (e.g. agentnoun formation) and the valency of predicates (e.g. first-argument reduction) (cf. Dik 1988 for details).

1.2. Basic and derived terms Terms are expressions that serve to refer to entities in some world. Basic terms are linguistic items that serve the exclusive function of referring, such as pronouns and proper names. These are contained as such in the lexicon. Most terms are derived by means of term formation rules, which, like predicate formation rules, operate in the fund. The general template according to which terms are formed is the following: (4)

Derived term: (ωχ^ φ,ίχ;): φ 2 (χ 4 ): ... φ„(χ;))

In this representation, (χ;) is a term variable, ω symbolizes one or more term operators and each "φίχ^" is an "open predication in X;", i.e. "a one-open predication of which the open term position is occupied by Xj" (Dik 1989: 115). The entire set of open predications given in (4) "φ,ίχ;): φ2(Χί): ... φ„(χί)" is the set of restrictors, which serve to specify the referent of (xj). The relation between the individual restrictors is hierarchical, i.e. "the restrictors are "stacked" onto each other, rather than being conjoined with each other" (Dik 1989: 116). The first restrictor-slot is usually filled with a

8

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

nominal predicate, also named "the head" of the term. The restrictors that follow the head are also called "modifiers"; they are typically adjectives, but they may also be relative clauses, non-finite modifying clauses, or adpositional phrases. By inserting the non-verbal predicates given in (2) and (3) above in the restrictor slots, the following term can be built up: (5)

(dlxj: apple χ (x;)0: ripeA (x;)0)

the ripe apple

In this term structure, "d" is a definiteness operator and "1" is a singular operator, which, in English, trigger the expression of the definite article the and the singular form of the noun. The nominal predicate apple is the head of the term and the adjectival predicate ripe is the modifier. The semantic functions of (x;) in the open predications are Zero, because the predicates serve to assign properties to the referent of the term in a way that is analogous to their predicative use. More concretely, the relation between (xj) and the predicates equals that of property assigning predications such as the following: (6)

apple (x;)0

(x) is an apple

(7)

ripe (x;)0

(xj) is ripe

The difference between (5) on the one hand and (6)-(7) on the other is that the latter two are copula constructions. This does not, however, imply a semantic difference, since the copula is considered a supportive device that is introduced by an expression rule (Dik 1989: 165-169) (cf. also 1.7.).

1.3. Nuclear predications and the typology of SoAs Nuclear predications are built by inserting terms into the argument slots of a given predicate frame. Consider the following example: (8)

a. Pamela eats a ripe apple b. [eatw (dlxj: PamelaN (Xi))Ag (ί1χ;: apple (Xj)0: ripeA (xj)0)Go]

Nuclear predications are linguistic representations of a State of Affairs (SoA), which is a "conception of something which can be the case in some world" (Dik 1989: 89). SoAs can be categorized into different types according to the semantic properties of the predicates and the terms that fill the argument positions. These semantic properties are given in Dik (1989: 91):

Nuclear predications and the typology of SoAs

(9)

± ± ± ±

Dynamic Control Telic Momentaneous

[± [± [± [±

9

dyn] con] tel] mom]

Only the first of these parameters concerns a property that is inherent in the semantics of the predicate and that cannot be influenced by the nature of the arguments. Control, Telicity and Momentaneousness are not inherent properties of predicates; they can form part of the semantics of the predicate, but can also be modified, e.g. through the referents of the arguments and the term operators involved. Dynamicity, Control, Telicity and Momentaneousness are Aktionsarten (also called "Aspect" in some approaches) in the sense that they concern the internal structure of the nuclear predication. 1 The following examples may serve to illustrate the parameters given in (9): (10)

a. Pamela eats an apple. b. The apple lies on the table.

[+ dyn] [- dyn]

(11)

a. Pamela stays at home. b. The substance is red.

[+ con] [- con]

(12)

a. John sings a love song. b. John sings love songs.

[+ tel] t- tel]

(13)

a. The mirror cracks. b. John sings a love song.

[+ mom] [- mom]

The hierachical relations between Dynamicity, Telicity and Momentaneousness can be described as follows:

1. My own definition of Aktionsart is stricter: in my view, Aktionsarten are only those distinctions that concern the internal temporal structure of a SoA, i.e. Dynamicity, Telicity and Momentaneousness. The relevance of this point will become obvious in chapter 5, where I will deal with a number of aspectual distinctions which influence the Aktionsart of the SoA without, however, affecting Control. There is a vast number of publications dealing with this subject from various points of view. For references see Dik (1989:90). The studies that have had the greatest impact on my own view on Aktionsart are Vendler (1967), Verkuyl (1972) and Comrie (1976).

10

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar SoA t-dyn]

[+dyn] [-tel]

[+tel] [-mom]

[+mom]

Figure 1. Dynamicity, Telicity, Momentaneousness This figure, from Dik (1989: 95), reveals that only dynamic SoAs can be telic and only telic SoAs can be momentaneous. This implies that, for a typology of SoAs, the parameter of Telicity is less relevant than that of Dynamicity, and that the parameter of Momentanenousness is, again, less relevant than that of Telicity. The three most important parameters, Dynamicity, Control and Telicity, yield a basic typology of SoAs as represented in the following tree (Dik 1989: 98): SoA f-dyn] Situation

/

[+con] Position

\

[+dyn] . Event [+con] Action

[-con] State [+tel] Accomplishment

f-tel] Activity

^ [+tel] Change

[-con] Process

\

[-tel] Dynamism

Figure 2. The typology of States of Affairs These types of SoAs can be related to the semantic functions of the first argument in the nuclear predication in the following way (Dik 1989: 101): (14)

Agent:

the animate entity controlling an Action (= Activity or Accomplishment) Positioner: the animate entity controlling a Position the non-controlling (usually inanimate) entity instigating Force: a Process Processed: the entity that undergoes a Process the entity primarily involved in a State Zero:

Semantic, syntactic and pragmatic Junctions

1.4. Semantic, syntactic and pragmatic functions (i) Semantic functions. The semantic functions defined in (14) above concern the first arguments of predicates. In addition to these, there is a number of less central semantic functions; the most important of these are the following (Dik 1989: 103): (15)

Goal:

the entity affected or effected by the operation of some controller (Agent/Positioner) or Force Recipient: the entity into whose possession something is transferred Location: the place where something is located Direction: the entity towards which something moves/is moved Source: the entity from which something moves/is moved Reference: the second or third term of a relation with reference to which a relation is said to hold

Goal and Reference typically are second argument semantic functions, while Recipient typically is a third argument semantic function. Location may be the semantic function of an argument of certain localizing verbs, and Direction and Source may be the semantic functions of an argument of certain movement verbs. In most cases, however, the semantic functions Location, Direction and Source will not belong to arguments, but to satellites, additional participants in SoAs. The crucial difference between arguments and satellites lies in the fact that the specification of the former is obligatory,2 while the specification of the latter is optional. The role of satellites will be discussed in 1.5. below. The semantic functions presented so far are "primary semantic functions". In addition to these, there is one secondary semantic function, Experiencer, which may appear in combination with certain nuclear semantic functions such as Processed and Goal (cf. Dik 1989: 101). (ii) Syntactic functions. Apart from semantic functions, which are attached to the argument or satellite slots to be filled, arguments can be assigned syntactic functions in the course of the formation of the underlying clause structure (cf. 1.5. below). These syntactic functions are Subject and Object. Subject forms the primary syntactic vantage point from which the SoA is presented; Object marks the secondary syntactic vantage point. Consider the following examples:

2. This does not exclude the possibility that, under specific contextual conditions, arguments may be left unexpressed.

11

12

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

(16)

a. Pamela (AgSubj) gave the apple (GoObj) to John (Ree) b. Pamela (AgSubj) gave John (RecObj) the apple (Go) e. The apple (GoSubj) was given to John (Ree) by Pamela (Ag) d. John (RecSubj) was given the apple (Go) by Pamela (Ag)

The variants (16a) and (16b) differ from each other with regard to the secondary vantage point: in (16a) this is the Goal argument, while in (16b) it is the Recipient. As regards the primary vantage point, in (16a) and (16b) it is the Agent, in (16c) the Goal and in (16d) the Recipient. This example is illustrative of the fact that syntactic functions are assigned, whereas semantic functions are constant. However, it should be noted that the assignment of syntactic functions is restricted to arguments with relatively "central" semantic functions. The semantic functions that allow for Subject and Object assignment can be ordered cross-linguistically along the Semantic Function Hierarchy (Dik 1989: 223-228). Individual languages differ with respect to their "cut-off point" on this hierarchy. 3 With respect to the assignment of Subject function, there is one point in which I disagree with Dik's view presented above: in my opinion, the distinction between active and passive in languages like English and Spanish is not in the first place a matter of Subject assignment. I start from the assumption that English and Spanish both make use of non-verbal predications for the expression of the passive (cf. 3.1.2. and 5.3.1. on Spanish passives). If this is correct —and it is claimed to be so by Dik in his study on copula constructions in English (1983: 133)— it is inconsistent with the basic assumptions of FG to consider passivization a matter of Subject assignment, because outside the fund, no operations are allowed involving the change of the syntactic category of a predicate. A viable alternative is Vet's (1985: 50-52) proposal to deal with passivization as a matter of predicate formation. An additional argument in favour of this approach is the fact that the status of the Agent, too, changes in passive constructions: its specification is obligatory in active predications, while it is optional in passive predications; i.e. the Agent-term turns from an argument into a satellite. A point that has not been considered by Dik (1989), but is relevant in the context of the study of Spanish periphrases (cf. e.g. 4.1.), is the fact that there is a set of verbal predicates where one of the arguments does not have a semantic function in the sense described above, but an oblique syntactic function instead. These are the so-called "prepositional verbs" (Quirk et al. 1985: 1155-1156); an example of such a verb is look at, where at is not the expression of a specific semantic function but is syntactically associated with the verb and must obligatorily precede its second argument. The oblique

3. In Spanish Object assignment is not relevant.

Semantic, syntactic and pragmatic functions syntactic function of the second argument will be labelled "Prepositional Object" (PrepObj). The predicate frame of look at will, therefore, be: (17)

lookv (x,: ( x ^ ) ^ at (x2: (x2))Prepobj

(Hi) Pragmatic functions. After the assignment of syntactic functions, arguments can be assigned yet another type of function: pragmatic functions. Pragmatic functions specify the informational status of the constituents of the linguistic expression. They may concern clause-internal constituents or extra-clausal constituents. The basic intra-clausal pragmatic functions are Topic, "characterizing 'the things we talk about*" (Dik 1989: 264) and Focus "characterizing the most important or salient parts of what we say about the topical things" (Dik 1989: 264). As the analysis of actual discourse requires a further refinement, both functions are further specified according to the specific communicative functions they fulfil (Dik 1989: 266-285). I will, however, not go into further detail, but will confine myself to giving a simple example in order to illustrate the assignment of intra-clausal pragmatic functions: (18)

a. Marianne (AgSubjTop) doesn 't eat FISH (GoFoc) b. MARIANNE (AgSubjFoc) doesn't eat fish (GoTop)

Extra-clausal pragmatic functions are equally complex as intra-clausal ones, but, as yet, have not been studied in detail. Basically, they can be distinguished on the basis of the position of the constituents they concern, which may either "precede, interrupt or follow the clause proper" (Dik 1989: 265).

1.5. The hierarchical structure of the clause4 Thus far the FG representations of linguistic expressions considered are nuclear predications, i.e. descriptions of sets of States of Affairs. However, utterances do not consist of descriptions of SoAs only. Instead, they have a double function, a representational one and an interpersonal one. The representational function concerns the description of SoAs and their location in time and space. The interpersonal function concerns the speaker's attitude towards the information he/she presents and the communicative intention

4. The layered structure of the clause to be discussed in this section has been introduced into FG by Hengeveld (1988, 1989, 1990). It has been adopted, with slight modifications, by Dik (1989). Unless otherwise indicated, this section is based on the view presented in Dik's (1989) monograph.

13

14

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

with which the utterance is produced. These two aspects of verbal interaction correspond to the four levels of representation in the FG-structure of the clause, where the lower two (core predication and extended predication) correspond to the representational function and the upper two (proposition and speech act5) to the interpersonal one. In this section, I will briefly present the way in which, from the nuclear predication onwards, the structure of the clause is built up. In what follows, it will become clear that a crucial is played in the formation of the structure of the clause by satellites and operators at all the four levels. Operators capture the meanings expressed by grammatical formatives and satellites the meanings expressed by lexical items. The specification of operators may be obligatory, that of satellites is always optional. The "input" to the formation of the underlying clause structure is the nuclear predication, as exemplified in (8). The general format of the nuclear predication is: (19)

Nuclear predication: [pred e (ωχ": pred N (xn))Sf]

[n > 0 ]

In this representation "β" stands for "predicate of any part-of-speech class", the superscript "n" indicates that the number of arguments may be any number greater than or equal to 1, and "Sf" stands for any semantic function. (i) Core predication. At the first level of the underlying clause structure we find the core predication. At this level the potential referent of the set of SoAs designated by the nuclear predication is further narrowed down by means of the specification of predicate satellites (σ,) and predicate operators («ι):

(20)

a. b.

Popeye eat spinach PROG [Popeye eat spinach] (from a can)

Let us assume that (20a) is a nuclear predication. In (20b) the nuclear predication is further specified by means of the Source satellite from a can and the predicate operator Progressive (PROG). Together with these extensions, the nuclear predication forms a core predication: (21)

Core predication: [π, predB: (ωχ": pred N (x"))Sf]

5. Given the fact that FG is a sentence grammar, it departs from the assumption that the boundaries of the speech act coincide with those of the clause.

The hierarchical structure of the clause

15

As is obvious from this representation, predicate operators take the whole expression, including the satellite, in their scope. (ii) Extended predication. The next level in the formation of the underlying clause structure is that of the extended predication. The core predication is embedded in the predication-variable (e), which turns the core predication into a referring expression. In analogy to terms, which refer to individuals, represented by the variable (x), predications refer to SoAs, represented by the variable (e). For the identification of the Event or the Situation that is being referred to by the predication, the SoA needs to be situated in time and space. Predication operators (x2) serve to situate the SoA in time, and predication satellites (σ2) can give additional information with respect to the time and place of the occurrence of the SoA: (20)

c. Popeye (be) eating spinach from a can d. PAST [Popeye (be) eating spinach from a can] (on the boat) (yesterday)

In (20d), the time of occurrence of the SoA described in (20c), which is a simplified representation of the core predication given in (20b) above, is further specified by the temporal satellite yesterday, while the place of occurrence is specified by means of the locative satellite on the boat, and the whole expression is situated in the past by means of the Past Tense operator. In addition, operators and satellites on the level of the predication may specify the frequency and the actuality of the occurrence of the SoA. Together with the variable and the operators and satellites, the core predication forms an extended predication: (22)

Extended predication: (x2 e t : [core predication] (e^: a2 (e^)

The relation between predication operators and predication satellites is such that the satellites are within the scope of the operator. (Hi) Proposition. The extended predication marks the completion of the description of the SoA. Accordingly, this is the point in the FG representation of the clause structure at which the representational level ends and the interpersonal level begins. The fully specified SoA represented by the extended predication forms the propositional content of an utterance. For the representation of the underlying clause structure this means that the extended predication is embedded in the variable (X), which turns it into an expression referring to a propositional content. Proposition satellites (σ3) and operators (it3) specify the speaker's propositional attitude towards the content of his or her utterance:

16 (20)

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar e. f.

Popeye was eating spinach from a can on the boat yesterday [Popeye was eating spinach from a can on the boat yesterday] (allegedly) g. CERT [Popeye was eating spinach from a can on the boat yesterday]

(20e) stands for the extended predication specified in (20d) above. In (20f), the proposition satellite allegedly specifies the source of the proposition as being external to the speaker. In (20g) the propositional content represented by the extended predication is assigned the truth value of Certainty by means of the Certainty operator. The general format of propositions is, therefore, as follows: (23)

Proposition: (π 3 X ; : (λ 2 e^ [core predication] (es): σ 2 (e^): σ 3 (X;))

Proposition operators have proposition satellites within their scope. (iv) Speech act. With regard to the way in which the underlying clause should be developed further, Dik (1989) deviates from Hengeveld's (1988, 1989, 1990) proposals. In Dik's theory, the proposition is embedded in the speech act, represented by the variable (E), which is modified by illocution operators such as Declarative, Interrogative etc. In Hengeveld's theory, which I will follow here, the proposition is the third argument of an abstract illocution frame. The first and the second arguments of this illocution frame are the speaker (S) and the addressee (A). Example (20h) below represents the proposition in (20g): (20)

h.

Popeye must have been eating spinach from a can on the boat yesterday.

In (20i) this fully specified proposition is inserted into the proposition slot of a Declarative illocution frame: (20)

i.

DECL (S) (A) (Popeye must have been eating spinach from a can on the boat yesterday)

The general format of illocution frames is: (24)

Illocution frame: ILL (S) (A) (X)

In this representation, "ILL" represents any basic illocution (Declarative, Interrogative, Imperative) (Hengeveld 1990: 6-8). The illocution frame may

The hierarchical structure of the clause

17

again be modified by illocution operators (π4) and illocution satellites (04). Illocution operators are grammatical means of expressing reinforcement and mitigation, while illocution satellites are lexical means of expressing reinforcement or mitigation. An example of a migitating satellite in English is the adverb honestly. Together with these extensions the illocution frame forms a clause, represented by the clause variable (E): (25)

Clause: (Ε,: [π4 ILL: σ 4 (S) (A) (X)] (E,))

As in the case of the core predication, the scope relation between illocution operators and illocution satellites is obvious: the satellites are inside the scope of the operators. The clause variable may further be specified lexically by clause satellites, which help to establish the textual cohesion of the clause with other clauses. An example of such a clause satellite in English could be the conditional if I may say so, "which contemplates the felicity of the speech act [represented by the clause, H.O.] within the actual communicative setting" (Hengeveld 1990: 13) or an adverb like finally, which indicates the relative position of the utterance with respect to other utterances within the discourse. (v) Clause structure. The layered structure of the clause can be schematically represented in the following model, taken from Hengeveld (1990: 12): (E;: [xJLL: σ„ (S) (A) (*3Xi: [

] (Xj): σ, (X,))] (Ej): σ, (Ε,))

' x2ei- [*ipredB: σ, (coXj! predN (x,)...(x°)] (ej: σ2 (e.) I Layers and frames

Operators

term pred predicate frame predication proposition X ILL illocution frame clause Et

ω *2 *3 *4

term operator predicate predication operator proposition operator illocution operator

Satellites

σ2 o4 5

σ

predicate satellite predication satellite proposition satellite illocution satellite clause satellite

Figure 3. The hierachical structure of the clause Read from the centre to the periphery, this structure represents the way the formation of the underlying clause structure proceeds in FG, from the bottom (the nuclear predication) to the top (the clause). When the extended predication (et) has been formed, syntactic functions are assigned; when the argument slots of the illocution frame have been filled, pragmatic functions are assigned.

18

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

1.6. Terms, entities and subordination In the course of the above sections, I have introduced four variables: (x), referring to individuals like persons and things; (e), referring to SoAs; (X), referring to propositions; and (E), referring to speech acts. Following Lyons (1977: 442-447), the concepts identified by means of these variables are categorized as entities of different orders; thus, individuals are first-order entities, events second-order entities, propositions third-order entities and speech acts fourth-order entities. So far, I have used the variable (x) as the term variable for argument and satellite slots, thus tacitly assuming that terms always refer to individuals. However, nouns like lecture and party refer to events, opinion and hope refer to propositions and promise and question refer to speech acts. These differences are accounted for by employing the corresponding variables in the predicate frames of these nouns. Consider e.g.: (26)

apple χ (x^

(27)

lectureN

(e t )

(28)

opinionN

(X,)

(29)

questionN

(E,)

The argument slots of verbal predicate frames must be specified analogously. While the verb eat can only have first-order arguments (cf. the predicate frame in (1) above), the predicate frame of the verb attend must have an SoA variable for the second-argument slot: (30)

attend^ (x^ ( x ^ ) ^ (e2: (e 2 )) 0 o

The verb believe takes a proposition as its second argument: (31)

believev

(χ,: (XI)) AgE xp

(XI)GO

The predicate frame of believe accounts for the use of the verb in instances like the following: (32)

a. b.

I don't believe your story. I don't believe that Martians are about to invade the earth.

In (32a) the argument slot is filled with a nominal term; in (32b) it is filled with a finite clause. Arguments that have referents of a higher order can,

Terms, entities and subordination

19

thus, not only be filled by terms, but also by clauses. As the following pair illustrates, subordinate clauses designating third-order entities can be either finite or non-finite clauses in English6: (33)

a. She believed that her daughter was a genius. b. She believed her daughter to be a genius.

Conversely, the use of a finite expression of second-order entities is severely restricted. For instance, English verbs of immediate perception, such as watch, always have non-finite complements: (34)

a. I watched Pamela eat a ripe apple. b. *I watched that Pamela ate a ripe apple.

The ungrammaticality of (34b) is illustrative of the relation between the syntax of the subordinate clause and the entity type it represents (cf. also 4.1. and 4.3.).

1.7. Expression rules The mapping of the fully specified underlying clause structure onto actual linguistic expressions is effected by expression rules, "which determine the form, the order, and the prosodic contour of the constituents" (Dik 1989: 289). The rules that are relevant in the present study are those that determine the form of the constituents. The rules concerning the morpho-syntactic form of the linguistic expression can be subdivided into two types: replacive rules and supportive rules (Hengeveld 1992b: 13). The function of the former type of rule is to turn an abstractly coded meaning element in the underlying structure into the corresponding grammatical item in the linguistic expression. Such abstractly coded meaning elements may be, for instance, semantic functions or operators. The following example illustrates the expression of the predicate operator Progressive: (35)

[PROG sleepy (x;: Johnu (x;))0] —> bew sleep(x;:

JohnN (x ; )) 0

The expression rule of Progressive Aspect introduces the auxiliary be as the finite verb, which is indicated by the subscript "V" in the output. The lexical

6. There is a subtle difference in meaning between (33a) and (33b); this difference is, however, irrelevant to the point I want to make here.

20

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

verb sleep receives a non-finite, gerundial form, which is indicated by the subscript "ger". As is obvious from this example, the replacement of operators by linguistic forms is only one of the many expression rules that have to operate in order to turn the underlying structure into an actual linguistic expression. In this example, at least two other rules must operate in order to yield a grammatical linguistic expression of the verbal complex: verb agreement and the replacement of " s l e e p f t " by the "terminal form" sleeping (cf. Dik 1989: 302-304). An example of a supportive rule is copula support, which obtains in languages, such as English and Spanish, which make use of copulas when nonverbal predicates are used predicatively. In such a case it is necessary to have a copula as a verbal element for the expression of Tense, Mood and Aspect. The following example illustrates the effect of the copula support rule: (36)

(FUT ej: [ripeA (x;: apple N (Xi)0] (β;)) --> (FUT e ; : [bew ripeA (x(: appleN (x;)0] (β;))

This example illustrates that supportive rules add linguistic elements to the input structure, which creates the condition under which the replacive rule for the expression of Future Tense (FUT) can apply (cf. Hengeveld 1992b: 14). At this point, an observation with respect to copulas in Spanish is called for, since the theory of copula support, which deals with copulas as meaningless auxiliary elements, apparently fails to account for the difference between the copulas ser and es tar in Spanish. These two copulas alternate in contexts where the predicate is adjectival and the argument is a first-order entity: 7 ser is used in predications in which inherent properties are assigned, while estar is used in predications in which contingent properties are assigned: (37)

a.

Juan es Juan ser.3SG 'Juan is stupid.'

tonto. stupid

b. Juan estä tonto. Juan estar. 3SG stupid 'Juan is being stupid.'

7. In all other contexts, ser and estar are in complementary distribution.

Expression rules

21

The semantic difference illustrated by means of (37a) and (37b) motivates Hengeveld's (1986: 400) view "that estar, when combined with an adjectival predicate, serves to express progressive meaning". For the assessment of the function of estar this implies that estar is not a true copula, but that it should be considered a semi-copula, i.e. a copular element that "adds an element of meaning to the construction in which it occurs" (Hengeveld 1992b: 35). Consequently, in the context of adjectival predications, estar is not the output of a supportive expression rule, but of a replacive one (the expression of a Progressive operator), whereas, in the same context, ser is the output of a supportive expression rule.

1.8. Two recent proposals: predicates and places The recent proposals I will discuss in this section concern the introduction of two further variables in addition to (x) for individuals, (e) for SoAs, (X) for propositional contents and (E) for speech acts. The first proposal concerns the introduction of a variable for predicates (f), and the second one the introduction of a variable for places (p). (i) Predicates. Hengeveld (1992a) and Keizer (1992a) advocate the introduction of a variable (f) for predicates as "zero-order entities". The crucial argument in favour of the introduction of (f) is the possibility of referring to predicates by means of anaphoric and relative pronouns, exemplified in (38) and (39), respectively. Both examples are quoted from Keizer (1992a: 4): (38)

Ernest is sleeping. So is Jack.

(39)

Gwendolen is intelligent,

WHICH

you are not.

The introduction of a variable for the reference to predicates as the expression of properties and relations, independently of the individuals and events they serve to describe, has a number of advantages. A crucial advantage is the possibility of correctly accounting for adverbial predicates such as the adverb in the following example: (40)

a

PRETTY

good piano player

Making use of the predicate variable, the relation between the adverb pretty and the adjective good can be represented as follows (Hengeveld 1992a: 33): (41)

(f,: goodA (f;): (fy prettyAdv (f,) (f,))

22

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

This representation reflects the fact that the adverb modifies the adjective in the same way as an adjective modifies a nominal head (Hengeveld 1992a: 36). However, the introduction of "zero-order entities" is not unproblematic. Treating predicates as referring expressions does not appeal to intuition, because predicates are quite different from what one would consider a prototypical referring expression. Prototypical referring expressions are those that refer to individuals and events, because these entities exist outside verbal interaction. Reference to propositional contents and speech acts is less prototypical, because, although they form the constituing parts of verbal interaction, their existence outside verbal interaction is difficult to conceive of. Reference to predicates is least prototypical, because predicates do definitely not exist outside verbal interaction, and within verbal interaction, they are nothing more than atomic constituents (cf. Keizer 1992a: 8-10, 1992b: 141148). It is, therefore, unsurprising that the possibilities of linguistic reference to predicates is more restricted than linguistic reference to other entities. In Spanish, anaphoric reference to verbal predicates is severely restricted. Consider (42): (42)

a. Ernest fainted. So did Mary. b. *Ernesto se desmayo. Lo hizo tambien Maria.

The Spanish literal translation of the English example is ungrammatical, because hacer, the Spanish counterpart of do, is not an auxiliary but an agentive verb and, therefore, hacer cannot be used as a supportive device in the context of anaphoric reference to verbal predicates such as desmayarse 'faint' that designate non-controlled events. However, given the fact that, although restricted, reference to predicates is possible, and given the obvious necessity to have such a predicate variable for the analysis of adverbial constructions, the introduction of a predicate variable constitutes an improvement of the FG model. As will become obvious in 4.1.1.2. and 6.3.2., the predicate variable can also play a role in predicate frames of verbs. (ii) Places. In Functional Grammar studies, places are generally treated as first-order entities with the semantic functions of Location, Direction, or Source. This view is challenged by Mackenzie (1992a), who argues that places are not entities. The most obvious reason to conceive of first-order entities and places as distinct from each other is the fact that "the former are defined as being located is space, i.e. at some place (...). If places were entities, the definition would be surely circular;" (Mackenzie 1992a: 254). Rather, place is "the environment for the objects recognized" (Mackenzie 1992a: 255). The fact that places are often referred to in terms of the objects that occupy them can be accounted for by resorting to the distinction

Two recent proposals: predicates and places between denotation and reference (e.g. Lyons 1977: 176, 215): places can be referred to by means of entity-denoting nouns (43) but also by means of place-denoting nouns (44): (43)

I'll meet you at the car. (Lyons 1977: 693)

(44)

We ΊI meet in London.

In (43), the car metonymically refers to the space that is occupied by the car, i.e. what (43) means is "I will meet you at the place where the car is" (Lyons 1977: 693). Evidence for the linguistic relevance of the distinction between reference to places on the one hand and reference to first-order entities on the other can be found in pronominalization. Mackenzie (1992a: 256) gives the following examples: (45)

I'm sitting in the lee of the wind, and Mary is sitting there/*in it too

(46)

I'm wrapped up in the blanket, and John is wrapped up ?therelin it too

Terms referring to places such as the lee of the wind in (45) require there as an anaphoric pronoun, while the entity-referring term the blanket requires an entity-referring pronoun — it in the case of (46). The difference between first-order entities and places is, however, not sufficiently accounted for by means of different semantic functions: Location, Direction, and Source (and others) for places, and Agent, Force, Zero etc. for persons and things, because place-referring terms are not restricted to argument- and satellite slots with the semantic functions Location, Direction or Source. Mackenzie (1992a: 261) quotes the following examples from Lyons (1977: 474): (47)

London is the capital of England.

(48)

This place is where we agreed to meet.

In both examples, terms referring to places, London and this place, respectively, are the argument of non-verbal predicates, the capital of England and where we agreed to meet. The non-verbal predicates are again constituted by terms that refer to places. None of these terms fulfils the semantic function of Location (Mackenzie 1992a: 261). In view of these facts, Mackenzie proposes to introduce the variable (p) for reference to places. The introduction of such a variable has a number of

23

24

Some basic concepts of Functional Grammar

advantages, among which is the possibility of accounting for (i) semantically complex prepositions such as under or outside and (ii) complex prepositional terms such as from under the table, both of which, so far, have been difficult to accommodate in FG (cf. Mackenzie 1992a: 268-270, 1992b). Furthermore, Mackenzie emphasizes that what holds for places, may as well hold for time and possibly other ontological categories as well. While reference to places is only indirectly relevant to the subject of my study (cf. 4.1.1.1.), reference to time is more important (5.1.1.3.2. and 5.2.3.1.). Following Mackenzie's argumentation, I will introduce a variable for reference to time (t) in section 5.1.1.3.2.

1.9. Notational conventions In the FG-representations to be given in the course of this study, legibility has preference over completeness, i.e. the notation will be as simple as possible and as complete as necessary. Apart from leaving out irrelevant details in all representations, I will simplify FG representations in two respects. Firstly, I follow Dik's (1989: 261-262) suggestion to leave out the bracketed co-indexed variable to the right of the colon. This means that, in principle, (49) will be written as (50): (49)

Operator Variable^ [Specification] (Variable;)

(50)

Operator Variablei: [Specification]

The notation as given in (50) should be read as a shorthand of (49) in order to avoid excessive complexities in the representation of simple clauses (cf. Dik 1989: 261-262). The following example may illustrate this difference: (51)

the ripe apple a. (dlx,: (f i: appleN (f;)) ( Xi ) 0 : (f j: ripeK (ty) (χ,) 0 ) b. (dlxj: (ί;: appleN): ( f y ripeA))

Secondly, I will refrain from representing the "zero-level", whenever it does not represent the highest level to be specified. On the one hand, this means that I do not write the variable (f) in order to account for the insertion of predicates in term slots of a higher order. For example, I will write (51c) instead of (51b) for the representation of (51): (51)

c.

(dlXj: appleN: ripeA)

Notational conventions

25

On the other hand it means that I do not employ the variable for the representation of verbal predicates, i.e. I will not write (52a), but (52b): (52)

a. b.

(f;: pred v (a t ) (a 2 ) (a n )) pred v (c^) (a 2 ) (a")

It should be noted that neither of these simplifications implies any deviation from the theoretical model described in the above sections. More concretely, although I refrain from representing the argument variable of non-verbal predicates, I continue to maintain that non-verbal predicates have arguments, 8 and although I do not represent the zero-level whenever it can be avoided, I continue to maintain that it is correct to deal with predicates as zero-order entities.

8. Cf. Mackenzie (1987) and Keizer (1992a: 15-18, 1992b: 163-167) for an alternative view.

2. The data

2.0. Introduction The empirical study of periphrases in Peninsular Spanish presented in this book is based on data obtained from a corpus of authentic linguistic material as well as from informants. In the first two sections of this chapter, I will describe the texts that form the corpus (2.1.) and briefly go into the reasons why, in addition, I resort to consulting native speakers (2.2.). In 2.3. I will deal with the way I present the data throughout this study.

2.1. The corpus The most important source of my data is a corpus of 303,590 words of Peninsular Spanish in a computer-readable form.1 The corpus consists of three parts, 148,195 words of oral texts, 106,836 words of literary texts and 48,559 words of journalistic texts. The total of these texts may be supposed to be fairly representative of present-day Spanish as employed by educated speakers in Spain. The oral texts consist of 24 transcribed dialogues between educated speakers from Madrid that have been compiled for the purpose of linguistic analysis by Esgueva & Cantarero (1981). The largest section of this compilation are sixteen interviews (96,002 words) held by a linguist with speakers of either sex between 15 and 86 years of age. This section is followed by four texts spoken by students who conversed with each other knowing that their conversation was being taped (36,037 words) and four further conversations between students that were taped secretely (16,156 words). The subjects of the interviews and conversations are the speakers' everyday lives. As regards its content, the text is characterized by a very low density of information. Linguistically, the text is characterized by repetitions, false starts and syntactic breaks. The journalistic texts consist of interviews with Spanish politicians, artists, sportsmen and others taken from eight issues of the weekly magazine Cambiol6 published in May and June of 1990 (nos. 963-970). In addition, there are interviews from a special issue of the supplement Espana Economi-

1. Part of the machine-readable versions have been provided —with the permission of the authors— by Professor Chris Butler from the University of York and Professor Kjaer Jensen from the University of Arhus.

28

The data

ca (no. 3719), dedicated to the world exhibition in Sevilla in 1992.2 The interviews are edited in such a way that they approach oral texts without having the disadvantages of oral texts, i.e. errors are eliminated and the information is presented in a more concentrated way. The literary texts are nine short stories and seven fragments of novels written by 15 different authors all published in Spain between 1970 and 1990. They represent different literary styles and contain relatively few dialogues. In addition to these texts, I use a number of literary and journalistic texts from which I extract instances of constructions of which my corpus yields insufficient examples. These texts, too, have been published recently, and, with one exception, they have all been produced in Spain. The exception is a Chilean novel, which contains a number of instances of constructions that —although grammatical— are relatively infrequent in Peninsular Spanish. From this source I quote only examples whose grammaticality and acceptability in Peninsular Spanish has been checked. The function of the corpus differs from that of the other texts in the sense that it does not only serve as a source of examples, but forms the basis for all quantitive data on periphrases to be presented throughout this study. An overview of these data is given in Appendix II, where absolute and relative numbers (the number of instances per 10,000 words) are given to indicate the frequency with which the individual periphrases occur in the corpus. A complete list of the works that form the corpus and the additional sources of examples is given in Appendix I of this book.

2.2. The informants In the course of the investigations for this study, I worked with a group of informants, of varying size and composition. With the exception of one informant from Argentina, who I consulted for a contrastive opinion in a few specific cases, they are all native speakers of Peninsular Spanish. With two exceptions, all of them are professors or students of linguistics. 3

2. The extraction of examples from this part of the corpus was partly carried out by a working group on periphrases at the Spanish Department of the University of Amsterdam (Casino Pardos et al. 1993). 3. The names and afiliations of the informants with whom I worked regularly are: Choni Alonso Garcia (University of Amsterdam, UvA), Ana Alvarez (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, UAM), Silvia Bemiell (UvA), Gema Casino Pardos (UvA), Amapola Cabrera (UvA), Vicky Escandell (Universidad National de Educaciön a Distancia), Daniel Garcia Velasco (Universidad de Oviedo), Joaquin Garrido Medina (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Pilar Guerrero (Universidad de Cördoba), Manuel Leonetti (Universidad de

The informants

29

The main purpose of these consultations was to have the informants judge the grammaticality and authenticity of the results of different syntactic tests. These tests concerned the identification of periphrases (chapters 4-6) and the syntactic analysis of the periphrastic constructions (chapter 8). The number of speakers consulted depended on the complexity of the problem. Except in very obvious cases, more than one informant was consulted for each test. Furthermore, I consulted native speakers in order to obtain information on the meanings and the productivity of a few constructions that occur with a low frequency.

2.3. Matters of presentation All examples to be given in the course of this study are provided with an interlinear morphemic translation and a translation proper. All translations are mine. The interlinear morphemic glosses only contain the information that is necessary to understand the grammatical structure of the Spanish example. Information that is irrelevant in this context, such as nominal and adjectival agreement, is not given. 4 In the interlinear translations, morphological information is separated by a full stop from the lexemes it concerns, and morphemic boundaries are indicated by a hyphen. A hyphen is, furthermore, used in the interlinear glosses to combine several English words that serve the translation of one word in the Spanish example. Conversely, "_" is used to combine words in the Spanish examples that are written separately in order to indicate that they are translated by one word in the interlinear gloss. The sources of the examples quoted from the corpus are indicated by means of abbreviations of the source plus the page number to the right of the example. The oral part of the corpus (also: "Madrid-corpus") is referred to by means of "M"; e.g. "(M 356)" indicates that the example comes from page 356 of the Madrid-corpus. A code consisting of the first three letters of the author's name serves to identify the source of examples from the literary part of the corpus (also: "modern-fiction-corpus"); e.g. "(DEL 45)" indicates that the example comes from page 45 of Miguel Delibes' novel. With examples from the journalistic part of the corpus, "C" stands for Cambiol6; the letter "C" is followed by the number of the issue, which, in turn, is followed by the page number, both numbers being separated by a full stop; e.g. "(C 963.12)" means that the example comes from page 12 of num-

Alcalä), Juan Carlos Moreno Cabrera (UAM), M1 Carmen Portero (Universidad de Cordoba), Encami Sanchez Gala (UvA), Esperanza Torrego (UAM) and Jesus de la Villa (UAM). 4. However, information on agreement is given in the context of participial constructions, as in these constructions, agreement phenomena are crucial to the analysis.

30

The data

ber 963 of Cambiol6. In Appendix I, the abbreviations are listed together with the titles to which they refer. The sources of the examples that do not stem from the corpus are indicated by means of the author's name or the name of the magazine plus the page number. These indications follow the translation of the example. In the course of the description of the testing procedures in chapters 4-6 and chapter 8, it will become obvious that there are quite a few examples that are neither ungrammatical nor entirely acceptable. The following signs are used in order to indicate different degrees of inappropriateness: V means that the example is grammatically correct but has a different meaning than the one intended in the given context; question marks indicate syntactic, semantic or pragmatic deviance; a single question mark indicates a slight deviance or deviance observed by relatively few informants, and a double question mark indicates a considerable deviance; an asterisk, finally, indicates ungrammatically. When referring to a given construction for the first time in a chapter I will give an English translation of the construction. These translations usually reflect what I consider the most concrete, literal meaning of the constituents of the construction in question. Given the fact that most of the verbs in the constructions to be dealt with can be used in a variety of contexts where they express different meanings, the decision as to which one is the most basic one is bound to be arbitrary to some extent. Therefore, the translations should be taken only as loose approximations to the meanings of these words. A list of all translations is given in the glossary in Appendix III.

3. What are verbal periphrases?

3.0. Introduction In modern Peninsular Spanish there are approximately 64 predicative constructions that are commonly held to be periphrases. What these constructions have in common is that they are all analytic constructions consisting of a finite verb plus a non-finite form 1 (an infinitive, a gerund or a participle 2 ) of a lexical verb. The function of the finite verb in these constructions can be regarded as an auxiliary one in the pre-theoretical sense that in some way or other this verb serves to modify the non-finite predicate. However, the syntactic structures and the meanings of these 64 analytic constructions are heterogeneous. Thus, the first question that has to be answered in order to come to an adequate description of verbal periphrases in Spanish is whether all of these constructions are indeed periphrases. In current linguistic terminology, the term "periphrasis" refers to the use of combinations of words, rather than inflection or agglutination, for the expression of some sort of grammatical meaning (Crystal 1985: 225). 3 Although, as a general description of the phenomenon, this definition is certainly useful, it is not sufficient for the purpose of this study. As it stands, the definition suggests that any sequence of two or more words expressing some meaning which in any other language might be expressed by inflectional or agglutinational means is a periphrasis. This is not the case, because what is a grammatical distinction in one language need not be grammaticalized in another. 4 In order to be able to decide whether the meaning of some sequence of words in some language forms part of the grammar of this language, we need to know whether this sequence of words is itself grammaticalized. Only when this is the case, can we say that the construction under

1. Serial constructions, i.e. constructions consisting of two coordinated finite verbs, the first of which fulfilling some kind of auxiliary function, are not dealt with within this study. These constructions are considered periphrases by Coseriu (1966) and his followers (cf. e.g. Cartagena 1976: 32-33; Quesada 1994: 189-193). 2. Since modem Spanish does not have a present participle, the term "participle'* is used here to refer to the past participle. 3. For a detailed description of the development that the concept of "periphrasis" has undergone in the history of linguistics cf. Hoffmann (1993). 4. In Japanese, for instance, we find that the function of Topic is obligatorily expressed by means of the affix -wa (Naganuma—Mori 1962: 5), and in Wambon (De Vries 1985: 172-173) Focus is coded through the suffix -tide, whereas in Romance and Germanic languages the expression of pragmatic functions is not tied to any specific grammatical form.

32

What are verbal periphrases?

consideration is a periphrasis. Thus, what is needed for the distinction of periphrases as a discrete group among the total of analytic constructions in Spanish, is a definition that provides the criteria on the basis of which the periphrastic or non-periphrastic nature of each analytic construction can be assessed. In the first section of this chapter I will put forward a definition of periphrastic constructions which gives the criteria that are necessary for the distinction of periphrases from non-periphrastic constructions. The second section consists of a preview to the following three chapters, which are dedicated to the application of the definition and the criteria.

3.1. Definition and criteria 3.1.0.

Introduction

In this section, I will first present and illustrate the definition on which this study of periphrases will be based (3.1.1.) and then briefly review three construction types that, from the outset, are excluded by the definition and which, consequently, will not be dealt with any further (3.1.2.). Subsequently, in 3.1.3., I will present the criteria that will serve to distinguish periphrastic constructions from non-periphrastic ones and discuss a few alternative criteria that have been put forward in the literature on this subject.

3.1.1.

Definition

What I mean by the term periphrasis is the productive and indissoluble combination of an auxiliarized lexical verb with a verbal predicate in a specific non-finite form in which the finite verb agrees with the first argument of the non-finite verb. The function of this combination is the semantic modification of what is expressed by the non-finite predicate and its arguments. The non-finite form can be an infinitive —in most cases preceded by a preposition— a gerund or a participle. A frequently used periphrastic construction which may serve to illustrate this definition is ir a + infinitive. Ir is a lexical movement verb, which, as far as its meaning is concerned, is the equivalent of English go. When ir fulfils its lexical function, the lexical elements introduced by the preposition a will either fill an argument or satellite slot with the semantic functions of Direction and Purpose, respectively. Consequently, the element introduced by the preposition a must refer to some place as in (1), or to some purpose, as in (2).

Definition and criteria

33

(1)

ni vamos al teatro nor go.IPL to-the theatre 'nor do we go to the theatre'

(M 415)

(2)

van (a Rusia) a hacer turismo go.3PL to Russia to do.INF tourism 'they go (to Russia) for tourism'

(M 161)

In the following example, however, ir cannot be taken to express its lexical meaning, because the lexical group following the preposition does neither refer to a place nor to a purpose: (3)

no va a haber clase not go.3SG to there-be.INF class 'the class is not going to take place'

(M 146)

In (3) ir no longer imposes selection restrictions on the expression introduced by a, and this expression does not serve as an argument or a satellite of ir. Rather, ir fulfils a subservient function with respect to haber clase·, this function consists in locating the SoA expressed by haber clase in time relative to the moment of speaking. We may therefore conclude that in (3) ir is auxiliarized. Ir a + infinitive thus matches the above definition of periphrases insofar as it consists of an auxiliarized lexical verb (here followed by the preposition a) plus a main verb in a specific non-finite form (here an infinitive); the finite form of ir agrees with the first argument of the combining predicate, and the combination serves to semantically modify the the SoA expressed by this predicate. There are only very few constructions that are so easy to classify as ir a + infinitive. In order to come to a satisfactory treatment of the other cases let us now return to the definition given in the beginning of this section.

3.1.2. Non-periphrastic constructions There are three construction types which, from the outset, are excluded by the definition, viz. (i) constructions with true auxiliaries, (ii) passive constructions, and (iii) causative constructions. In this section, I will discuss these construction types one by one. (i) Constructions with true auxiliaries. In the definition of periphrases in 3.1.1., I stipulated that the auxiliarized verb which forms the first component of the periphrasis (henceforward: periphrastic auxiliary) must function as a lexical verb outside the periphrasis. Lexical verbs are verbs that have argu-

34

What are verbal periphrases?

ments on which they impose their selection restrictions. Verbs that do not have arguments and, consequently, do not impose selection restrictions, are auxiliaries (Hengeveld 1992b: 30-31). In Spanish, there are only two verbs that fully match this characterization, viz. haber 'have' and ser 'be'. Haber is the auxiliary for the formation of the perfect, like English have, with the crucial difference, however, that it has disappeared as a lexical verb. 5 Ser is a copula and serves as a passive auxiliary. 6 In the following I will give a set of examples of both auxiliaries in their prototypical functions of perfect auxiliary and copula, respectively, in order to illustrate the fact that they do not impose selection restrictions. In these examples, I will add to each auxiliary a functionally comparable item that is grammaticalized to a lesser degree, thus demonstrating the unrestricted applicability of the auxiliary as opposed to the restricted applicability of the less grammaticalized item. In the examples with haber, the less grammaticalized item is the periphrastic auxiliary tener 'have', and in the examples with ser it is estar in its semicopular function: 7 (4)

a.

Haltiene comido un plätano. have.3SG eaten a banana 'He/she has eaten a banana.'

b. Ha/*tiene llorado. have.3SG cried 'He/she has cried.' c.

Hal*tiene nevado. have.3SG snowed 'It has snowed.'

5. In earlier stages of Spanish, haber, which originates from the Latin possessive verb habere, co-existed as a lexical verb with diverse periphrastic constructions derived from it. From medieval Spanish onward, the lexical use of haber gradually decreased, while its auxiliary use increased (cf. e.g. Pountain 1985: 341-347; Olbertz 1993: 252-256). In modern Spanish haber has no lexical function at all, except for the expression haber menester de + infinitive 'need', which, however, isrestrictedto literary language use. 6. From the present considerations I exclude the use of the copula as an existential verb such as in Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum Ί think, therefore I am', because such use is confined to philosophical jargon and does not form part of current usage. 7. Apart from its copular use, estar also functions as an intransitive verb meaning 'be here/there' (cf. 6.2.2.2.).

Definition and criteria

35

d. Ha/*tiene sido interesante. have.3SG been interesting 'It has been interesting.' (5)

a.

Es/estä en el aula numero diez. be.3SG in the classroom number ten 'It takes place/is located in classroom number ten.'

b. Es/estä guapo. be.3SG good-looking 'He is good-looking/is looking good.' c.

Es/*estä interesante. be.3SG interesting 'He/she/it is interesting.'

d. Es/*estä bombero. be.3SG fireman 'He/she is a fireman.' e.

Es/*estä una bobada. be.3SG a silly-thing 'It is nonsense.'

f.

Es/*estä tuyo. be.3SG yours 'It is yours.'

These examples show that haber can occur with verbal predicates of any valency (4a-c) and also with auxiliaries (4d) and that ser can combine with any non-verbal predicate, such as locative predicates (5a), adjectives (5b-c), bare nominals (5d), nominal terms (5e) and possessive predicates (5f). Conversely, the corresponding semi-lexical items are considerably less flexible: the use of periphrastic tener is restricted to transitive verbs (cf. 8.2.2.1.2. below) and the use of copular es tar is restricted to predications about concrete entities and by the fact that, within this area, it can only combine with locative predicates and adjectives describing temporary states. 8 Although

8. It should be noted that the relationships between haber and tener on the one hand and ser and estar cm the other are not altogether comparable, as there is an area within the domain of copula constructions where ser and estar are complementarity distributed. An instance which illustrates this complementary distribution is example (5a): ser must be used

36

What are verbal periphrases?

haber and ser certainly deserve a more detailed treatment, it will suffice for the purpose of this study to conclude that the two are not lexical verbs in the sense described above. It follows that constructions with haber and ser cannot be periphrases because haber and ser do not comply with the prerequisite of functioning as a lexical verb outside the periphrasis. (ii) Passive constructions. Passive constructions are excluded from the realm of periphrases because of the fact that the participles of verbs that allow for passivization, i.e. transitive verbs, behave more like adjectives than like verbs, regardless of the presence or absence of the specification of the Agent. In the first place, the participles of transitive verbs can also function as (complex) attributive adjectives: (6)

ventanas con los cristales rotos, sustituidos (VAZ 36) windows with the glasses broken substituted por papeldeembalar by wrapping-paper 'windows with broken glasses, substituted with wrapping paper'

Secondly, they allow for pronominal reference with lo, as becomes clear from the following example adapted from the Madrid-corpus (M 79): (7)

era un hombre (...) con una amargura was.IMPF.3SG a man with a bitterness.(FEM) que, ademäs estaba condicionada por la which moreover was.IMPF.3SG conditioned.FEM by the politico de su epoca... vamos ... icomo no lo va a politics of his time well how not it go.3SG to estar? be.INF 'he was a man (...) of some bitterness, which, moreover, was conditioned by the political situation of his time... well ... how could it not be'

when the argument refers to an event, estar must be used when the referent is a first-order entity. In fact, using ser in locative predications on first-order entities is ungrammatical in modem Spanish, while it is grammatical according to the rules of early medieval Spanish (Bouzet 1953: 46-47). Estar has ousted ser in this domain, and there are indications that one day it may oust ser in neighbouring domains, too, cf. Hengeveld (1991), Harre (1991:178), and, for a case study, De Jonge (1993). There is no such complementary distribution of tener and haber, the former being a periphrastic alternative to the latter with a slightly distinct shade of meaning.

Definition and criteria

37

In this example, the pronoun lo anaphorically refers to the participle plus Agent-specification condicionada por la politica de su epoca, a procedure that is equally possible with adjectives: (8)

CONTEXT: Perdi buena parte de el (del tiempo) en hacer planes ingenuos descabelladosy paradojicos Ί wasted quite a part of it (of the time) on making naive plans, preposterous and paradox' como lo era toda mi situation (SOR 121) as it was.IMPF.3SG whole my situation psicologica psychological 'as was my entire psychological state'

These factors make that passive constructions in Spanish are often considered not to belong to the verbal paradigm (Iglesias Bango 1991: 228-229). A possible approach to passive participle constructions in Functional Grammar is to view them as the output of a predicate formation rule. This rule turns the originally transitive verb into a non-verbal predicate, where the original second argument has come to occupy the slot of the first (and often only) argument. The item that is the first argument of the transitive verb comes to occupy a satellite slot with the participle (cf. Vet 1985: 50-52; section 1.4. of this book) The following pair will illustrate this view: (9)

a.

los americanos estaban a punto de the Americans were.IMPF.3SG at point of Hiroshima Hiroshima 'the Americans were about to bomb Hiroshima'

bombardear bomb.INF

b.

estaba a punto de ser (GAR 33) were.IMPF.3SG at point of be.INF bombardeada Hiroshima (por los Americanos) bombed.FEM.SG Hiroshima(FEM) by the Americans 'Hiroshima was about to be bombed (by the Americans)'

The satellite status of the original first argument accounts for the fact that it may but need not be specified, and the first-argument status of what originally was the second argument accounts for the fact that the participle assigns a property to this very argument (cf. also 5.3.1.). 9

9. For a discussion of Spanish passives from the viewpoint of Functional Grammar, cf. Hengeveld (1986: 405-411).

38

What are verbal periphrases?

Summing up, passive constructions do not fit the definition of verbal periphrases, because the participle has the syntactic properties of a nonverbal predicate. It is important to note that most of the passive constructions that are generally considered to be periphrases are constructions with lexical verbs, such as verse 'see oneself' + participle (e.g. Roca Pons 1958: 374-381; Hohn-Berghorn 1983: 377-378) and ir 'go' + participle (e.g. Gomez Torrego 1988: 190). As opposed to the constructions with ser and es tar, which I have used in the example above, constructions with these lexical verbs share most of the characteristics of verbal periphrases. This is why I would like to emphasize that the fact that they should not be regarded as verbal periphrases does not imply that they should be rejected as periphrases altogether. Although they are beyond the scope of the present study, it may be worthwile to study these constructions as part of an investigation into non-verbal periphrases. 10 (iii) Causative constructions. Causative constructions like hacera alguien hacer algo 'have someone do something', which is given as an example of a periphrasis in D'Introno—Guitart—Zamora (1988: 86), do not fit within my definition of verbal periphrases because the finite verb of a causative construction does not agree with the first argument of the main predicate. In Functional Grammar, causative constructions are considered the output of a valency extension operation (Dik 1985: 104-105). Having seen which constructions are excluded from the category of verbal periphrases on the basis of the definition in 3.1.1., let us now deal with those features constructions must have in order to be included in this category.

3.1.3. Tests There are two major syntactic tests whose application will yield a limited number of verbal periphrases. The principle underlying these tests is the following. Lexical constructions with infinitives, gerunds and participles can be paraphrased and otherwise manipulated, depending on the specific syntagmatic relationship between the finite and the non-finite component. If these manipulations are not possible, we can conclude that the construction is a periphrasis. In the case of lexical infinitival constructions, the relation between the finite and the non-finite component is such that the finite verb embeds the non-finite verb and its arguments. The case of gerundial and participial constructions is more complex because there are several ways in

10. For detailed studies on periphrastic passive constructions, cf. Hohn-Berghom (1983: 361-430) and Green (1982).

Definition and criteria

39

which the two components may be mutually related. For this reason, I will take a periphrastic infinitive construction for the presentation and illustration of the tests, postponing the discussion of gerundial and participial constructions to the sections devoted to these construction types (cf. 5.2.1. and 5.3.1., respectively). It should be noted that, in spite of the syntactic differences between the three construction types, the basic principles of the tests to be discussed here are the same for all the three of them. The first test is connected with the fact that with lexical constructions with non-finite verb forms it is always possible to replace the non-finite form with some other linguistic expression. Consider the following examples: (10)

sonaron con ser arrastrados por (TUS 29) dreamt.PF.3PL with be.INF dragged by las ninfas α las mäs tiernas y desenfrenadas orgias the nymphs to the most tender and unbridled orgies 'they dreamt of being dragged by the nymphs to the most tender and unbridled orgies' a.

con eso sonaron with that dreamt.PF.3PL 'that's what they dreamt of'

b. iCon que sonaron? with what dreamt.PF.3PL 'What did they dream of?' c.

sonaron con tiernas y desenfrenadas dreamt.PF.3PL with tender and unbridled 'they dreamt of tender and unbridled orgies'

orgias orgies

d. sonaron con que fueran arrastrados por dreamt.PF.3PL with that were.SUBJ.3PL dragged by las ninfas α las mäs tiernas y desenfrenadas orgias the nymphs to the most tender and unbridled orgies 'they dreamt of being dragged by the nymphs to the most tender and unbridled orgies' Example (10) and its variants illustrate that, with lexical constructions, the infinitival complement may be pronominalized (10a), questioned (10b), and

40

What are verbal periphrases?

replaced by a nominal construction (10c) or by a finite clause (lOd).11 Such manipulations are not possible in the case of periphrases (Fontanella de Weinberg 1970: 65-66; Hernanz 1980: 431; Gomez Torrego 1988: 15-17; Fernandez de Castro 1990: 39-40). More concretely, it is impossible to replace the main verb with its arguments by a pro-form, a non-verbal lexical item, or a finite clause. In the following two examples, the main-verb construction is substituted by a personal pronoun: (11)

no not la the 4 1 am a.

les voy a contar toda you.PL.DAT go.lSG to tell.INF all historia story not going to tell you the whole story'

(M 220)

* no voy a eso not go.lSG to that idiomatic reading: 'that's not what I am aiming at' literal reading: Ί do not go to such a thing'

The pronoun eso in (11a) does not refer to the infinitive and its arguments in (11). Hence, although (11a) is fully grammatical, ir in this instance cannot be interpreted in the same way as in (11), but can only be read as a lexical verb; depending on the context, this particular combination can either be interpreted as an idiomatic expression or in the literal sense of 'to go'. Questioning the main-verb constituent yields an analogous result: (12)

voy a tener cuerda para un ano (M 47) go.lSG to have.INF rope for one year Ί am going to have enough to talk about for a whole year' a.

Φ ιΑ que vas? to what go.2SG 'What are you going for?'

b.

* ιAdonde vas? to-where go.2SG 'Where are you going to?'

11. The possibility of replacing a non-finite complement by a noun or a finite clause varies, depending on the semantics of the complement. In the case of (10), replacing the complement by a nominal construction is not possible without adapting the example.

Definition and criteria

41

The interrogative pronouns in (12a) and (12b) do not refer to tener cuerda, the main predicate of (12). In questions like these the finite verb ir is automatically interpreted lexically. In accordance with the two possible semantic functions that can be expressed by the prepositional construction with lexical ir, there are two ways of questioning this construction: by means of (12a) some purpose is asked for, and by means of (12b) some place is asked for. Theoretically, one could now proceed to testing pragmatically marked, i.e. focalizing, ways of pro-form reference such as clefts and pseudo-clefts, as is generally done in transformational approaches (e.g. Hadlich 1971: 59; Hernanz 1980: 431; Launay 1980: 46). However, I will restrict the test frame to unmarked pro-form reference in order to prevent interference of pragmatic aspects with the syntactic behaviour of the construction. In fact, my corpus shows that clefting is marginally possible with constructions that do not allow for unmarked pro-form reference. For more details cf. 5.1.2.3.2. on deber. In example (13), the non-finite construction is substituted by a non-verbal lexical item, viz. a noun, which, if ir were a lexical verb, would be functionally equivalent to the infinitive and its arguments. (13)

usted desdeluego va a estudiar (M 217) you (FORM) of-course go.2SG.(FORM) to study.INF 'you are of course going to study' a. ?? usted desde luego να α los estudios you of-course go.3SG to the studies 'of course you go to the studies'

Although (13a) may be marginally acceptable 12 , the construction is not a paraphrase of the periphrastic construction in (13). In the combination with a nominal expression, ir cannot but express its lexical meaning of movement. In (14), finally, the non-finite construction is replaced by a finite clause: (14)

no va a ser posible not go.3SG to be.INF possible 'it is not going to be possible'

(M 146)

12. Direction terms do not normally refer to second or higher order entities, which explains the doubtfulness of this example. However, the example is fully acceptable when los estudios is interpreted as an expression referring to a concrete, i.e. fiist order, entity meaning 'the studios'.

42 (14)

What are verbal periphrases? a.

* no va a que sea not goes.3SG to that be.SUBJ.3SG 'it goes not that it be possible'

posible possible

(14a) is not only unacceptable as a paraphrase of the periphrasis in (14), but is also ungrammatical, because the predicate frame of ir does not allow for a finite complement in second argument position. With lexical constructions, it may be possible to omit the non-finite component altogether. This possibility, too, is excluded with periphrases. This property forms the basis of the second test for the distinction of periphrases from non-periphrastic constructions. This can be illustrated by means of the following lexical construction with a complement in a satellite function, as it must always be possible for satellites to be left out: (15)

me fui a trabajar REFL.1SG went.PF.lSG to work.INF Ί went away to work with him* a.

con έΐ with he

(Μ 151)

me fui REFL.1SG went.PF.lSG Ί went away'

Such a procedure is not possible with periphrases; for example, (16a) is not a suitable answer to (16): (16)

ι Vas a empezar? go.2SG to begin.INF 'Are you going to begin?' a.

Φ Si, claro que yes of-course that 'Yes, of course I go.'

(M 415)

voy. go.lSG

Independent occurrences of the periphrastic auxiliary are thus impossible. The application of the two tests shows that the periphrastic auxiliary can express its grammatical meaning only in combination with the specific nonfinite verb form it modifies. In addition to these two tests, Fontanella de Weinberg (1970: 63), Launay (1980: 49) and Gomez Torrego (1988: 56-57) use the possibility of passivization of the main verb as a test. They accept as periphrastic auxiliaries only those verbs which allow for passivization of the main verb. I will not employ this test, which, in my view on the passive boils down to testing the applicability of the periphrasis to copula constructions, because among the con-

Definition and criteria

43

structions that do not pass this test are constructions which on the basis of other criteria should be considered periphrases. I will come back to this test in chapter 8. Furthermore, Launay (1980: 46-48) suggests the possibility of moving a clitic from enclitic position (following the non-finite verb) into proclitic position (preceding the entire construction) as a possible criterion to distinguish periphrases from non-periphrastic constructions. In the literature on this phenomenon, the spontaneous placement of clitics in proclitic position has been called "clitic climbing" (cf. e.g. Myhill 1988a, 1988b). Following Harre (1991: 22-23) I will refer to the corresponding testing procedure as "clitic pronoun raising". When dealing with clitic climbing and clitic pronoun raising respectively, both Myhill and Harre show that the position of the clitic is not a reliable indicator of grammaticalization; firstly, because the position of the clitic is also influenced by pragmatic factors (Myhill 1988b: 241-245), and, secondly, because also a few clearly lexical verbs allow for clitic pronoun raising (Harre 1991: 22-23). A practical disadvantage of this test is that it cannot be applied to all potentially periphrastic constructions, since participial constructions allow for pronouns in proclitic position only. Nevertheless, it may be used as an additional test because when clitic pronoun raising is impossible, we can be sure that the finite verb is not a periphrastic auxiliary. In pre-generative literature on periphrases, reduction or loss of meaning is often used as the one and only criterion for the identification of periphrastic auxiliaries (Roca Pons 1958: 11; Gili Gaya 1961: 105; Hamplovä 1968: 209; Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 6-7; Real Academia Espanola 1973: 444-443). Given the fact that "desemanticization" is an important aspect of grammaticalization (Lehmann 1982: 125, 1985: 307), using semantic loss as a criterion is intuitively attractive. However, such a criterion is too vague to be operationalized, because, firstly, there can be no objective criteria for the assessment of some lexical meaning as the "proper" meaning of a verb, and, secondly, it is impossible to define the limits between meaning variation, which is inherent in the functioning of lexical items, and loss of meaning (Launay 1980: 45; Klein 1982: 114). Harre (1991: 18) illustrates this point by comparing the context-specific meaning variation of lexical tener 'have' with the meanings of tener as a periphrastic auxiliary and finds that in some contexts lexical tener has as little semantic impact as has the periphrastic auxiliary. As a result of the vagueness of the semantic criterion, almost all the authors who employ it are inconsistent to some extent: Hamplovä (1968: 209), for instance, infringes her own criteria by including constructions where there is no semantic loss to be observed, such as the constructions with empezar 'begin', seguir 'go on' and terminar 'finish' (cf. Launay 1980: 42), and so do Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 7) by including constructions with seguir and quedar 'remain'.

44

What are verbal periphrases?

Dietrich (1973: 56-57) finally, suggests a test which, at first glance, seems to be brilliant in its simplicity and effectiveness: in order to find out whether the finite verb in some analytic construction fulfils an auxiliary function, one should try to substitute the finite verb with a synonymous or near-synonymous lexical verb that would embed the non-finite predicate and its arguments. The author gives the following example (Dietrich 1973: 56): (17)

Iba a comprar el traje en la went.IMPF.3SG to buy.INF the suit in the 'He was going to buy the suit in the city' a.

ciudad city

* Marchaba a comprar el traje en la ciudad walked.IMPF.3SG to buy.INF the suit in the city 'He walked to buy the suit in the city'

The example itself illustrates the major weakness of this test: appart from not being synonymous, ir and marchar have different syntactic structures. While lexical ir normally requires a direction argument, marchar is a truly intransitive verb; it specifies a manner of movement rather than movement into some direction. This difference accounts for the ungrammaticality of (17a). The reflexive variant of marchar, marcharse 'go away', more closely approaches the syntactic structure of ir, given the fact that, with marcharse, it is not deviant to specify a direction term. On the other hand, the direction term with marcharse is not obligatory, and, thus, marcharse is closer to irse 'go away' than to ir. This example shows that Dietrich's test does not take the valencies of the different verbs into account. Moreover, there is the problem that, on the one hand, there are not always (near-)synonyms available and, on the other, there is no way of checking whether or not the synonyms or near-synonyms are periphrastic auxiliaries as well. To conclude, the substitution and omission tests are necessary and sufficient for the distinction of periphrases from non-periphrastic constructions. In chapters 4 and 5, the different non-periphrastic construction types that can be distinguished on the basis of the application of these tests will be discussed one by one.

3.2. Preview of chapters 4-6 The material which I will deal with in the next three chapters has been supplied by six hispanists who have worked on verbal periphrases in modern Peninsular Spanish. From their monographs on the subject, viz. Fente— Fernandez—Feijoo (1972), Gomez Torrego (1988), Fernandez de Castro (1990) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992), I have compiled the list of 40 infinitival

Preview of chapters 4-6

45

constructions, 10 gerundial constructions and 3 participial constructions presented in Table 1 below. Table 1. Allegedly periphrastic verbal constructions13

INFINITIVAL CONSTRUCTIONS

acabar/terminar de acabarlterminar por acertar a alcanzar a cesar de darle a uno por darse a deber (de) dejar de echar(se) a empezarlcomenzar a empezar/comenzar por estar al estar para

estar por hartarse de hincharse de inflarse de ir a liarse a llegar a meterse a parar de parecer pasara pensar poder

ponerse a quedar en querer romper a soler soltarse a tardar en tender a tener que tratar de vemr a ver de volver a

GERUNDIAL CONSTRUCTIONS

acabarlterminar andar co ntinuarlsegu ir empezarlcomenzar

estar ir llevar

quedar(se) salir venir

PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTIONS

dejar

llevar

tener

The following 11 allegedly periphrastic constructions put forward by (some of) these authors are not mentioned in Table 1: the infinitival constructions dejar a alguien hacer algo 'let someone do something' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 105), haber de 'have to' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 76-80; Fernandez de Castro 1990: 71-72), haber que 'be necessary' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 80-82; Fernandez de Castro 1990: 72-73), serde 'be to' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 185188), and the participial constructions with andar 'walk' (Fente—Fernandez —Feijoo 1972: 41), dar por 'regard as' (Fente—Fernandez— Feijoo 1972: 46-48; Gomez Torrego 1988: 195; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 41-42), estar 'be

13. For the literal meanings of the finite verbs in these constructions see Appendix III.

46

What are verbal periphrases?

located' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 188-190), ir 'go' (Fente—Fernandez— Feijoo 1972: 39-41; Gomez Torrego 1988: 190; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 3840) quedar 'remain', 'be left' (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 45-46; Gomez Torrego 1988: 193-194), seguir 'go on' (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 41-42) and ser 'be' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 185-188). The constructions with haber and ser have been excluded because these two are authentic auxiliaries and thus fall outside the scope of my definition of periphrases; the participial constructions with andar, dar por1*, estar, ir, quedar and seguir have been excluded on account of their being passive, and hence, nonverbal constructions; finally, dejar a alguien hacer algo, has been excluded because it is a causative construction. Quite a few of the constructions in Table 1 are not periphrases according to the definition given in 3.1.1., because they do not comply with both of the criteria derived from this definition. Using these criteria, the non-periphrastic constructions can be subdivided into two major construction types, viz. lexical constructions, which will be discussed in chapter 4, and semi-auxiliary constructions, to be dealt with in chapter 5. I will first discuss constructions in which the non-finite form can be substituted by some other linguistic unit or by a clause, i.e. constructions formed by means of two mutually independent lexical verbs (4.1.). Subsequently, in 4.2., I will deal with a set of basically lexical constructions which share one important characteristic with periphrases —the inseparability of its components— but which are excluded by my definition because they do not comply with the prerequisite of productivity, i.e. they are idioms or near-idioms. Chapter 5 will be devoted to constructions with semi-auxiliaries, also called "verba adiecta" in the literature (e.g. Dietrich 1973: 51). These are constructions which never allow for the substitution of the main verb, but which, in specific contexts, do allow for the omission of this component. In chapter 6, finally, the criteria will be applied to the constructions from the list which will not have been excluded by then, in order to show that these are indeed periphrases.

14. Dar por + participle deviates from the remaining passive constructions in the sense that dar is a transitive verb, whereas the other passive auxiliaries are all intransitive. Furthermore, the agreement relations are different from those of the other passive constructions: the second —rather than the first— argument of dar por is co-referential with the argument of the combining non-verbal predicate, i.e. with the second argument of the verb on which the participle is based. The following example may illustrate this: (i) daba por terminadas las holganzas (GAR 15) gave.IMPF.3SG PREP finished.FEM.PL the leisure(FEM).PL de sobremesa of after-table 'she considered the after-dinner leisure to be finished'

4. Lexical constructions

4.0. Introduction Among the analytic constructions in which the finite verb functions as a lexical verb rather than an auxiliary two basic types can be distinguished. The first type consists of freely variable combinations of mutually independent lexical predicates. The constructions that belong to this type will all fail the tests for the identification of periphrases as they will all allow for some kind of pronominal and/or lexical substitution of the non-finite component. The second type consists of idiomatic or near-idiomatic constructions, i.e. the components of the combination are not mutually independent and cannot be freely varied. The constructions of this type will probably not fail the tests for the identification of periphrases, but fall outside the scope of the definition of periphrases because they are not productive. Rather than resulting from a productive lexical or grammatical coding procedure, combinations of this type should be viewed as complex lexical items. One might ask at this point why these constructions have not been excluded from the outset, just like auxiliary, passive and causative constructions in section 3.1.2. above. The reason is that, unlike the constructions excluded in section 3.1.2., non-productive constructions cannot be identified on syntactic grounds, since productivity is a complex matter in which semantics and pragmatics play a crucial role. Furthermore, productivity is a matter of "more or less" rather than of "yes or no". Given the fact that the non-productive constructions to be dealt with form a heterogeneous set with varying degrees of productivity, it is necessary to account for each construction separately. Productive lexical constructions will be discussed in 4.1.; 4.2. will be devoted to non-productive lexical constructions.

4.1. Productive constructions 4.1.0.

Introduction

In this section I will apply the tests for the identification of periphrases introduced in 3.1.3. in order to prove that certain constructions given in Table 1 are productive lexical constructions. All these constructions are combinations of a lexical verb with an infinitive. When an infinitival construction has a lexical rather than a periphrastic structure, the finite verb embeds the infinitive and its arguments (henceforward: infinitive con-

48

Lexical constructions

struction), or, conversely, the infinitive construction forms a complement of the finite verb, filling either an argument or a satellite slot. As a general rule, it would have to be possible to use some sort of pronoun to refer to the infinitive construction, because the same is possible with nominal terms and complement clauses. Pronominal reference to a nominal element includes anaphora and questioning, as shown in the following examples from Gomez Torrego (1988: 16): (1)

Pense en arreglar thought.PF.lSG in fix.INF Ί thought of doing the garden' a.

Pense thought.PF.lSG Ί thought of it*

b.

ιΕη que pensaste? in what thought.PF.2SG 'What did you think of?'

el the

jardin garden

en eso in this

The corresponding test, which has been put forward by Fontanella de Weinberg as early as 1970, has since been adopted by almost every linguist working on Spanish periphrases. As we will see in the course of this section, it may sometimes be preferable to try lexical substitution instead of pronominalization. Embedded infinitive constructions may be substituted by nominal terms and/or finite clauses, as exemplified below: (1)

c.

Pense en el arreglo del thought.PF.lSG in the fixing of-the Ί thought of the fixing of the garden'

jardin garden

d.

Pense en que arreglaria el thought.PF.lSG in that fix.COND.lSG the Ί thought of that I was going to fix the garden'

jardin garden

It is important to note that not all lexical constructions allow for all of these manipulations. First of all, a distinction must be made between verbs that embed predications and those that embed propositions (cf. 1.5. above). Verbs embedding predications do not allow for finite complementation when the first arguments (henceforward: A1) of both the finite and the non-finite verb are coreferential; while verbs embedding propositions do not impose such a restriction. Quite a few of the verbs of the former type even require the A1 of both verbs to be coreferential, put differently, these verbs are subject to

Productive constructions

49

the so-called "like-subject constraint". In the course of this section, I will come back to these differences. Quite a few of the 40 supposedly periphrastic infinitival constructions fail the pronominalization test for the identification of periphrases. These are comenzar / empezarpor 'begin with/by', darle a uno por 'take to', hartarse dela (lit. 'more than saturate oneself with') 'do an awful lot of', hincharse aide (lit. 'inflate oneself with') 'do an awful lot of', inflarse aide (lit. 'inflate oneself with') 'do an awful lot of', liarse a (lit. 'get tied up with') 'take to', quedar en 'agree on' and soltarse a 'begin (=acquire some permanent skill)', tender a 'tend to'. Three of these, viz. hartarse dela, hincharse aide and inflarse aide, pass the pronominalization test with some difficulty, but can clearly be proven to be lexical constructions through substitution of the infinitive construction with a nominal term. The matter is somewhat more complicated withparecer 'seem' and tratar de 'attempt to', because, with these constructions, pronominalization of the infinitive construction is impossible. Nevertheless, using the criteria given above it is possible to provide evidence of their lexical character. This section will be subdivided as follows: 4.1.1. will be devoted to the nine obvious cases, and in 4.1.2., I will deal with those constructions to which the pronominalization test cannot be applied.

4.1.1. Obvious cases 4.1.1.0. Introduction The constructions to be dealt with in this section are: empezar / comenzar por 'begin by', darle a uno por (lit. 'give to someone by') 'take to', hartarse dela (lit. 'more than saturate oneself with') 'do an awful lot of', hincharse aide (lit. 'inflate oneself with') 'do an awful lot of', inflarse aide (lit. 'inflate oneself with') 'do an awful lot of', liarse a (lit. 'get tied up with') 'take to', quedar en 'agree on', tender a 'tend to' and soltarse a 'begin to (=acquire a permanent skill)'. The discussion of these constructions will be organized in such a way that I proceed from the simplest cases, viz. liarse a, darle a uno por and tender a (4.1.1.1.) to increasingly "difficult" ones, i.e. soltarse a (4.1.1.2.), quedar en (4.1.1.3.), hartarse dela, hincharse aide, inflarse aide (4.1.1.4.), empezar / comenzar por (4.1.1.5.).

50

Lexical constructions

4.1.1.1. tender a, liarse a, darle a uno por The three verbs tender a, liarse a, darle a uno por have the common property of embedding a complement that refers to some State of Affairs (SoA) and of requiring A'-coreference. (i) tender a. Out of the 10 occurrences of tender a 'tend to' in my corpus, there are only 6 with an infinitive construction; the remainder consists of nominal constructions, such as the following: (2)

las modas (de hoy) tienden (...) the fashion.PL of today tend.3PL a la comodidad to the comfortableness '(today's) fashion tends to be comfortable'

(M 90)

An example of an infinitive construction with tender a is: (3)

Entonces para usted el tecnicismo thus for you (FORM) the technicality I tiende a quitar libertad al hombre tend.3SG to reduce.INF freedom PREP-the man 'So in your opinion technical revolution tends to reduce the of men, doesn't it?'

(M 174) ο no? or not freedom

The following is an answer that might be given to the question asked in (3), where the infinitive is substituted by a pronoun: (3)

a.

Claro que tiende a eso. of-course tend.3SG to this 'Of course it does.' (lit. 'Of course it tends to this')

In the following example with tender a, the place of the infinitive construction is occupied by an interrogative pronoun: (4)

ι A que to what oferta ο offer or 'What do

tienden ustedes? ^A aceptar la tend.2PL.(FORM) you(FORM).PL to accept.INF the a rechazarla? to refuse.INF-it you tend to? To accepting the offer or to refusing it?'

Tender a + infinitive is put forward as a periphrastic construction by Fernandez de Castro (1990: 93), who refrains from giving any explanation for this

Productive constructions 51 decision. The above examples show that with tender the preposition a introduces an argument of the verb. The semantic function of this argument is that of Direction, because the preposition a does have some directional meaning in this context. Evidence of this is the fact that, with tender, a 'to' quite freely varies with hacia 'towards': (5)

lPor que cada vez se tiende mas (C 968.163) why every time REFL.3 tend.3SG more en television a hacer periodismo de opinion? in television to do.INF journalism of opinion 'Why is it that on TV one tends more to making programs concerned with public opinion?' a. ^Por que cada vez se tiende why every time REFL.3 tend.3SG television hacia hacer periodismo de television towards do.INF journalism of 'Why is it that on TV one tends more towards concerned with public opinion?"

mäs en more in opinion? opinion making programs

Consequently, tender a should be seen as a two-place verb tender, whose second argument has the semantic function of Direction. A simplified representation of the predicate frame of tender would have to be: (6)

tenderv (ai)Pn>c (e2: {predN, [pred„ (α;) (a")]})Dir

The expression between braces in the representation indicates that there are two ways of expressing the second argument (henceforward: A2). It can either be expressed by means of a nominal term, or by means of an embedded predication. In the latter case, the first arguments of both verbs must be coreferential. This coreferentiality is represented through co-indexation of the variable (a). Furthermore, the respresentation reflects two other properties of the construction. Firstly, the A1 of tender can refer to an entity of any order, even to a propositional content, as in the following example: (7)

Lo que acabas de decir tiende a la what finish.2SG PREP say.INF tend.3SG to the discriminacion. discrimination 'What you have just said tends to be discriminatory.'

Secondly, the embedded predication can contain a non-verbal predicate, which is indicated by the subscript "ß", which stands for "any predicate".

52

Lexical constructions

Consider the following example: (8)

Aqui tendemos a ser tolerantes. here tend. 1 PL to be.INF tolerant 'Here we tend to be tolerant.'

In (8), tolerantes is the predicate while the copula ser is a supportive device that does not form part of the underlying structure but is introduced by an expression rule (cf. 1.7. above). (ii) liarse a. Like tender a, liarse a (lit. 'get tied up with') 'take to' occurs with both infinitive constructions and nominal terms; liarse a differs from tender a in that it is restricted to colloquial speech (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 93), where it is not used very frequently either. My corpus contains no instance of liarse a. Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 24-25) give the following example: (9)

Cuando se lia a hablar when REFL.3 get-tied-up.3SG PREP talk.INF no hay quien lo pare. not there-is who him stop.SUBJ.3SG 'When he takes to talking, there is nobody who can stop him.'

According to my informants, the infinitive construction in this example can be replaced by a pronoun: (9)

a.

Cuando se lia a eso when REFL.3 get-tied-up.3SG PREP this 'When he takes to it (...)'

(...)

Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 25), who do not base their definition of periphrases on any syntactic criterion at all, also give an example of liarse a with a nominal argument: (10)

Se liaron REFL.3 got-tied-up.PF.3PL 'They took to smacking.'

a PREP

bofetadas. slaps

In fact, (10) is an additional argument in favour of considering liarse a a lexical verb rather than a periphrasis. In FG liarse a should be given almost the same representation as tender a, with the following differences: firstly, liarse a requires A1 to refer to an animate entity; secondly, A2 will be assigned the function of Prepositional Object, because a does not express any

Productive constructions

53

specific semantic value in this context (cf. 1.4.). The predicate frame of liarse a would thus be something like: (11)

liarv-se (x^ )Proc a (e2: {predN, [predv (x;)Ag (an)]})Prep0bj

This representation is similar to the representation of tender a with respect to the alternatives offered for the expression of the A2. An important difference is the fact that the non-finite complement must contain an agentive verb. (Hi) darle a uno por. The somewhat more frequently occurring darle a uno por parallels tender a and liarse a in occurring as frequently in verbal as in nominal constructions. My corpus contains one example: (12)

De_repente me habia dado por (GIR 26) suddenly me.DAT had.IMPF.3SG given PREP analizar las facciones de los demäs analyzeJNF the features of the others 'Suddenly I had taken to analyse the features of the others'

Elsewhere, I found the following example of darle a uno por with a noun: (13)

ιTe ha dado por el violin? you.DAT has.3SG given PREP the violin 'Have you taken to the violin?' (Trueba—Ladoire 46)

Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 28-29), who suggest that the construction be regarded as a periphrasis, give examples of both uses, too. Gomez Torrego (1988: 14) rejects the idea that darle a uno por is a periphrasis and demonstrates that the construction can always be followed by a pronoun. Thus, analizar las facciones de los demäs in (12) can be anaphorically referred to by eso as in: (12)

a.

De repente me dio por eso suddenly me.DAT gave.PF.3SG PREP this 'Suddenly I took to it'

Interestingly, the infinitive construction cannot only be referred to by means of pronouns like eso, but also by the locative pro-form ahi: (12)

b. De_repente me dio por ahi suddenly me.DAT gave.PF.3SG PREP there 'Suddenly I took to it'

54

Lexical constructions

This possibility indicates that por has to be interpreted as a locative preposition. As opposed to the locative preposition en, which indicates an exact location of some entity at some place, por indicates that some entity is somewhere near some place. I will account for this in an ad hoc manner, by introducing the semantic function of Imprecise Location. 1 As regards the predicate frame to be attributed to darle a uno por, the quotation form of the verb indicates that it differs from the ones I have discussed so far. Darle a uno por is a so-called impersonal verb, i.e. a verb without a subject. In order to account for the specific structure of darle a uno por, its predicate frame would have to be as follows: (14)

darw (x^ )RecExp (e2: {predN, [pred v (Xj)Ag (an)]})ImpLoc

The functions of the arguments of this variant of dar are such that none can be assigned Subject function: both Recipient / Experiencer (A1) and Location (A2) are incompatible with Subject assignment in Spanish. In the absence of a term that could be assigned Subject function, the third person singular form of the verb is generated as a default form through the expression rules, which function on the basis of the instructions contained in the predicate frame and its further specifications. Apart from this and the semantic function of the second argument, the predicate frame parallels that of liarse a.

4.1.1.2. soltarse a In combination with a + infinitive, the verb soltarse 'free oneself' comes to mean 'acquire some skill', 'begin' (='do for the first time in one's life'). This construction, of which my corpus contains no example, is regarded as a periphrasis only by Gomez Torrego (1988: 114-115). Indeed, the verb is, like the ones discussed above, subject to the so-called "like subject constraint" and can, therefore, not occur with finite complement clauses. However, soltarse a does not pass the pronominalization test: (15)

(el nene) se solto a hablar the baby REFL.3 freed.PF.3SG PREP speak.INF '(the baby) began to speak' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 115)

1. An alternative would be to implement the proposal made in Mackenzie (1992b), according to which certain non-basic prepositions should be dealt with as a sub-class of adverbial predicates. Given the fact that the Spanish prepositional system is probably less complex than the English one, the decision whether or not to follow Mackenzie (1992b) requires a detailed study of this matter. Such a study is beyond the scope of this book.

Productive constructions a.

PorJin el nene se solto finally the baby REFL.3 freed.PF.3SG 'Finally the baby began doing it'

a PREP

55

ello it

It follows that soltarse is a lexical verb. Since it can express the specific meaning of 'begin' only in combination with the complement introduced by the preposition a, soltarse a should be regarded as a prepositional verb. However, the predicate frame to be attributed to soltarse a is different from the ones presented so far. So far it has been tacitly assumed that arguments can refer to first- or higher order entities. However, under special circumstances, also predicates, so-called zero-order entities (cf. 1.8.), can be the referents of arguments. Such circumstances are given in the case of soltarse a: the meaning of soltarse a is such that it does not express the beginning of some singular event; for example in (15) hablar must be interpreted in a generic sense, i.e. it does not refer to the activity of speaking, but to the capability of speaking, which is a property rather than an event. It is the function of soltarse a to indicate that such a property begins to apply to some person. The syntactic correlate of this semantic property of the verb is the fact that the infinitive construction following soltarse a cannot be replaced with an event-nominal: (16)

Se solto a nadar REFL.3 freed.PF.3SG PREP swim.INF 'He began to swim' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 115) a.

* Se solto a la natacion REFL.3 freed.PF.3SG PREP the swimming 'He began the swimming'

The fact that the argument slot of soltarse a cannot be filled with a nominal term referring to an event may be seen as evidence of the distinct status of the argument. Due to these two factors, it seems more appropriate to represent the second argument as a predicate, rather to represent the argument as a term. The predicate frame of soltarse should thus be: (17)

soltarv-se a (f 0 : pred v : ) Prep0bj (x,: ) Ag

In this predicate frame, the position of the predicative argument immediately after the main verb accounts (i) for the double function of the predicative argument: one is to predicate something about the first order argument and the other is to function as an argument of soltarse a, and (ii) for the fact that

56

Lexical constructions

the A1 is shared by both verbs. The selection restriction of the predicate accounts for the impossibility of combining soltarse a with stative verbs: 2 (18)

*

Se solto a saber REFL.3 freed.PF.3SG to know.INF 'He began to know English.'

ingles. English

The semantic function of Agent of A1 accounts for the fact that soltarse a refers to an event whose realization requires an effort and hence control.

4.1.1.3. quedar en Quedar en 'agree on' is presented as a periphrasis by Fente—Fernandez— Feijoo (1972: 30). With the following example and its variant, Gomez Torrego (1988: 46) shows that Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo are mistaken: (19)

Quede en ayudaros agreed.PF.lSG in help.INF-you.PL Ί agreed on helping you' a.

lEn que quedaste? in what agreed.PF.2SG 'What did you agree on?'

(19) and the pronominal variant (19a) show that quedar en + infinitive is not a periphrasis but that the infinitive construction following quedar en is an embedded predication. In the example of quedar en given above the A1 of the predicate of the embedded SoA is coreferential with the A1 of quedar. However, this is not necessarily so: (20)

Hemos quedado en que no habia sitio (M 207) have. 1 PL remained in that not there-was.IMPF place 'We have agreed on that there was no room'

In (20) the first arguments of the two verbs are not coreferential and the place of the infinitive construction is taken by a finite complement clause. This distinguishes the syntactic structure of quedar en crucially from that of the verbs discussed so far. It is important to note that finite and non-finite complements are not freely interchangeable. They are complementarily

2. I am indebted to Brenda Laca for drawing my attention to this point.

Productive constructions

57

distributed in such a way that finite complementation is only possible when the first arguments of quedar en and of the predicate in the complement refer to different entities, as in (20), and the possibility of non-finite complementation is restricted to cases in which the referents of the first arguments of the two verbs are identical, as in (19). This complementary distribution of finite and non-finite clauses is not only found with quedar en but forms a general rule in Spanish complementation on the predicational level. Verbs that express volition belong to the group of matrix verbs that subordinate predications and are, therefore, subject to this rule (cf. Subirats 1987: 22). 3 The predicate frame of quedar en will, therefore, have to be something like: (21)

quedarv (χ,: )Ag en (e2: [pred„ (a n )]) Prep0bj

A'-coreferentiality between the matrix verb and the embedded predication will trigger non-finite complementation in the expression component.

4.1.1.4. hartarse dela, hincharse dela, inflarse de/a Hartarse dela 'more than saturate oneself with', hincharse aide 'inflate oneself with', inflarse aide 'inflate oneself with' (all given by Fente— Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 23-24) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 93-94)) are all metaphorical expressions of the frequency or intensity with which an SoA occurs. The analysis of these constructions is complicated by the fact that they are restricted to oral use in popular speech; there is no instance of any of the three constructions in my corpus. As a combining preposition of hartarse, Moliner (1966, 2: 21) only mentions de, whereas according to Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 23-24) and to the majority of the six informants I consulted on these constructions, a is also possible when the non-literal reading is intended. With hincharse and inflarse most of my informants agreed that a corresponds to the non-literal reading and de only to the literal reading. According to Gomez Torrego (1988: 61), constructions of this type are not periphrases, because they do allow for pronominalization:

3. This rule also holds for certain proposition embedding verbs. Subirats (1987: 20-23) shows that evaluative verbs like lamentar 'lament' require non-finite complementation when the two first arguments are «»referential (cf. also Haverkate 1989: 98). Doxastic verbs, on the other hand, allow for both finite and non-finite complementation, irrespective of whether or not the two first arguments are coreferential. There are, however, exceptions (cf. e.g. Haverkate 1989: 181 on dudar 'doubt').

58 (22)

Lexical constructions El otro dia nos hartamos the other day REFL.1PL more-than-saturated.PF.IPL de hablar de la boda de Olga. PREP talk.INF about the wedding of Olga 'The other day we did an awful lot of talking about Olga's wedding.' (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 24) a.

(23)

eso this

me hincho a trabajar REFL.1SG inflate. 1SG PREP work.INF Ί do an awful lot of working' (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 24) a.

(24)

nos hartamos de REFL.1PL more-than-saturated.PF.IPL PREP 'we did an awful lot of it'

me hincho a REFL.1SG inflate. 1SG PREP * I do an awful lot of it'

eso this

esta tarde me infle a this afternoon REFL.1SG inflated.PF.lSG PREP α mäquina PREP machine 'this afternoon I did an awful lot of typing' (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 24) a.

me infle a REFL.1SG inflated.PF.lSG PREP Ί did an awful lot of it'

escribir write.INF

eso this

Most of my informants, however, expressed their doubts about the authenticity of (23a) and (24a). On the other hand, they all accepted the combinations of these verbs with nouns, given in (25) and (26), which supplies sufficient evidence of the non-periphrastic nature of the respective constructions (cf. 3.1.3. above). (25)

Me he hinchado a REFL.1SG have.lSG inflated PREP 'I've had an overdosis of museums.'

museos. museums

(26)

Me he inflado a REFL.1SG have.lSG inflated PREP 'I've had an overdosis of serials.'

telenovelas. serials

Productive constructions

59

As regards the status of hartarse dela, hincharse aide, and inflarse aide, we can conclude that they are lexical verbs, as the infinitive constructions they combine with function as their prepositional objects. With hincharse and inflarse we are approaching the limits of the pronominalization test, because the possibility of pronominalization is not only syntactically but also semantically restricted. With respect to the latter restriction, the possibility of unmarked pronominalization depends on the question whether the respective argument fully complies with the selection restrictions imposed by the verb. Selection restrictions form part of the predicate frame and supply information about the semantic characteristics of potential terms to be inserted into argument positions. Like all other information contained in a predicate frame, selection restrictions reflect the basic, non-metaphorical use of a predicate. Metaphorical uses are arrived at by neglecting (part of) the selection restrictions, i.e. by inserting some term into an argument position whose semantics is not fully compatible with the given selection restrictions. This will lead to a clash which the addressee will try to reconcile by reinterpreting either the argument or the predicate (cf. Dik 1989: 79). Here we are concerned with the latter, a reinterpretation of the predicate. Let us consider the example of hincharse. The predicate frame of hincharse can be roughly represented as follows: (27)

hincharv-se (x^p^ de (x2:)Prep0bj

The A2 of hincharse must refer to some substance, which, in unmarked usage, will often be air or some liquid. In the use of hincharse as exemplified in (23) and (25), however, the referent of A2 is an event, designated by trabajar 'work* in (23) and museos 'museums' (referring to the event of visiting them) in (25). A (simplified) FG representation of the -way hincharse is used in (23) would be: (28)

hincharv-se (xj:[+S])Proc a (e^ [trabajarv (Xi)Ag])Prepobj

This means that the selection restriction imposed on A2 of hincharse is violated in that not only the semantic specification of the potential referent, but also the specification with respect to its entity type is neglected: a predication, i.e. a linguistic expression referring to a second-order entity, is inserted instead of a term, a linguistic expression referring to a first-order entity. The insertion of a predication in the A2 position of hincharse triggers the construal of the metaphorical meaning of 'do an awful lot of'. When A2 is pronominalized, as in (23a), the immediate context of the verb does not contain any instruction for the addressee to construe a metaphorical meaning for the verb, and, consequently, by default, the basic

60

Lexical constructions

meaning will be attributed to the verb. By basic meaning I mean what might be called "the most concrete meaning" of the verb, or, to put it more precisely, the meaning which the verb expresses when predicating a property about or a relation between first-order entities. If the wider context and the situation are sufficiently clear, it is possible to construe a metaphorical meaning when the argument in question is pronominalized. However, generally speaking, the attribution of some metaphorical meaning to transitive verbs is severely hampered through the pronominalization of A2.

4.1.1.5. empezar / comenzar por The synonyms empezar por and comenzar por, both meaning 'begin by', deviate from what we have seen so far in the sense that, in combination with a /»or-construction, empezar and comenzar can be either semi-auxiliaries or transitive or intransitive lexical verbs (cf. also Cuervo 1953, 2: 208-212 and 1953, 3: 149-157). The former two variants will be discussed in detail in chapter 5, which deals with semi-auxiliary constructions (5.1.1.1.). What I want to argue here is independent of the nature of the verbs, since it concerns the status of the infinitive construction with por, which, as I will presently show, functions as a locative satellite. Empezar / comenzar por are considered to form a periphrasis by Fernandez de Castro (1990: 69) because of their analogy with periphrastic acabar / terminar por. However, the similarity between the two sets is only superficial: while in Modern Spanish the latter construction type does not occur with anything but infinitives (cf. 6.1.2.2.2.), the former hardly ever occurs with infinitives. My corpus contains four occurrences, all with nominal or pronominal terms. Consider the following two examples: (29)

puesto que hay que hablar de algo (M 129) since is-necessary talk.INF about something vamos a comenzar por ello go.IPL to begin.INF by it 'since we have to talk about something, let us begin with this'

(30)

este ano empiezan por Literatura francesa this year begin.3PL by literature French 'this year they begin with French literature'

(M 388)

The satellite status of the prepositional constituent can be proven by omitting it, which will yield grammatical result ((29a) and (30a)). However, given the fact that the satellites transport focal information, these results are pragmatically deviant. This is why I add another variant ((29b) and (30b)), where

Productive constructions

61

a distinct satellite takes the place of the prepositional constituent. (29)

a. puestoque hayque hablar de algo since is-necessary talk.INF about something a comenzar to begin.INF 'since we have to talk about something, let us begin'

vamos go.IPL

(30)

a.

(29)

b. puesto que hay que hablar de algo vamos since is-necessary talk.INF about something go.IPL a comenzar ahora mismo to begin.INF now same 'since we have to talk about something, let us begin immediately'

(30)

b.

este ano empiezan this year begin.3PL 'this year they begin'

este ano empiezan pronto this year begin.3PL early 'this year they begin early'

In (29b) and (30b), temporal satellites are introduced to fill the pragmatic blank left through the omission of the /7or-constructions. As regards the semantic function that should be assigned to the satellites introduced by por, Location seems to be appropriate, particularly when we take examples like (31) into consideration: (31)

me puse (...) en la segunda mesa, (M 416) REFL.1SG put.PAST.PF.lSG at the second table empezando (a contar) por el final begin.GER to count.INF by the end Ί sat (...) at the second table, beginning (to count) by the end'

In this example, por el final indicates the place from which the counting has to begin in order to understand which 'second table' is meant. On the other hand, por does not indicate some sort of imprecise location here, as it does in other contexts. In her detailed discussion of the possible meanings of por, Beale (1978: 216-217) comes to the conclusion that with empezar and comenzar (also with continuar) por has a specific value, namely to indicate the first element out of a series of predictable elements. Rather than inventing a semantic function that only goes with three verbs, it seems preferable

62

Lexical constructions

to consider the prepositional term a Prepositional Object rather than a satellite because Prepositional Objects do not have a specific semantic function. This option has, however, the serious disadvantage that it does not account for the fact that the />or-construction can combine with all possible variants of empezar and comenzar (the semi-auxiliary, the transitive and the intransitive one) in a uniform way. Since the solution of this problem is not of crucial importance in the present context, I will leave this problem unsolved. For the present it will suffice to conclude that empezar / comenzar por do not form a periphrasis, but that the construction with por has some sort of adverbial function.

4.1.2. Deviant cases 4.1.2.0. Introduction There are two lexical constructions that never allow for pronominalization of the non-finite component. These are the infinitival constructions with tratar de 'attempt to* (4.1.2.1.) andparecer 'seem' (4.1.2.2.). However, on the basis of the tests introduced in 3.1.3., they can nonetheless be proven to be lexical constructions rather than periphrastic ones.

4.1.2.1. tratar de The infinitive construction in the following instance of tratar de + infinitive 'attempt to' cannot be substituted, neither by a pronoun nor by a nominal term: (32)

es to es tan superfluo como tratar de (DEL 74) this is as pointless as try.INF PREP determinar el sexo de los ängeles determine.INF the sex of the angels 'this is as pointless as trying to determine the sex of angels' a.

* (,Hay gente que ha tratado de there-is people which has.3SG dealt PREP 'Are there people that have dealt with this?'

eso? this

Productive constructions b.

63

* Ζ Hay gente que ha tratado de la there-is people who has.3SG dealt PREP the determination de eso? determination of this 'Are there people that have dealt with the determination of this?'

The variants of (32) are not ungrammatical, but have an entirely different meaning. When the infinitive construction is pronominalized tratar de can only mean 'deal with'. Consider also: (33)

Se reunen esta tarde para REFL.3 meet.3PL this afternoon in-order-to tratar del programa de festejos deal.INF with-the program of festivities 'They meet this afternoon in order to deal with the program of events' (Moliner 1966, 2: 1375) a. Se reunen esta tarde para REFL.3 meet.3PL this afternoon in-order-to tratar de eso deal.INF with that 'They meet this afternoon in order to deal with it'

The fact that pronominalization is impossible with tratar de in the meaning of 'attempt to' prevents (33a) from being ambiguous, i.e. (33a) cannot have the reading: 'They meet in order to give it a try'. Probably, the existence of this homonym is not the cause of the syntactic behaviour of tratar de 'attempt to'. Rather, given the fact that the English counterparts have similar characteristics (Garcia 1967: 859-860), it may be taken to indicate that tratar de is approaching the status of an auxiliary. On the other hand, tratar de clearly has lexical properties, as shown by the fact that it can have a complement clause where (32) has an infinitive construction. Consider the following example: (34)

Pudicamente, Carvalho trata de que la (VAZ 31) chastely Carvalho try.3SG PREP that the toalla pase del culo al sexo towel pass.SUBJ.3SG from-the bottom to-the genitals sin espacio ni tiempo de transition without space nor time of transition 'Chastely, Carvalho tries to cause the towel to move from his bottom to his genitals without leaving space or taking time of transition'

64

Lexical constructions

When we manipulate the complement clause in such a way that the A1 of the verb refers to the same entity as the A1 of the matrix clause, the result will be an infinitival construction: (34)

a.

Piidicamente, Carvalho trata de pasar la toalla chastely Carvalho try.3SG PREP move the towel del culo al sexo sin espacio ni from-the bottom to-the genitals without space nor tiempo de transition time of transition 'Chastely, Carvalho tries to move the towel from his bottom to his genitals without leaving space or taking time of transition'

These examples are sufficient evidence of the fact that tratarde + infinitive is not a periphrasis (although it may be developing into this direction) but rather, tratar de is a complement-taking lexical verb. The behaviour of tratar de parallels that of quedar en discussed in 4.1.1.3. Both verbs express an intention and, as such, belong to the group of predication embedding predicates that allow for both finite and non-finite complements, depending on the reference of the first arguments of both predicates. As I argued in 4.1.1.3. on quedar en, non-finite complementation is obligatory with predication embedding predicates when the first arguments of both clauses have the same referent. Given this analogy, the predicate frame of tratar de is similar to that of quedar en: (35)

tratar^ (x t : )Ag de (e2: [predg (ccB)])Prep0bj

This representation does not account for the fact that the Prepositional Object of tratar de cannot be pronominalized. The fact that tratar de mostly occurs with complements in which the A1 of the verb refers to the same entity as the A 1 of tratar de, as well as the idiosyncrasy that tratar de does not allow for (pro)nominalization of the complement, makes that the construction is sometimes mistaken for a periphrasis (cf. Gomez Torrego 1988: 114-115; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 93; Dietrich 1973: 145).

4.1.2.2. parecer What motivates Fernandez de Castro (1990) to include the infinitival construction with parecer 'seem' into his list of periphrases is the fact that, in clauses like (36), there is no way of replacing the infinitive construction.

Productive constructions (36)

65

CONTEXT: (in a massage session) Siguen las manos operando, ahora sobre la columna. 'The hands go on operating, now on the spinal column.' Parecen haber encontrado algo que (VAZ 30) seem.3PL have.INF found something that llama su atencion, insisten en un punto call.3SG their attention persist.3PL in one point 'They seem to have found something that attracts their attention; they persist on one point'

a.

* Han encontrado algo... ο por_lo_menos have.3PL found something or at-least lo parecen. it seem.3PL 'They have found something... or at least they seem it.'

However, the example in (36) is entirely synonymous with: (36)

b.

Parece que han encontrado algo que seem.3SG that have.3PL found something that llama su atencion, insisten en un punto. call.3SG their attention persist.3PL in one point 'It seems that they have found something that attracts their attention; they persist on one point.'

Parecer is not an auxiliary, but a one-place verb which takes a proposition as its argument (Hengeveld 1992b: 40). In fact (36) is a variant of (36b), where the Subject of the subordinate clause is "raised", i.e. comes to occupy the position of the Subject in the matrix clause. The possibility of Subjectraising (cf. Dik 1979) is restricted to one-place verbs with a sentential argument. 4 The non-auxiliary character of parecer is further corroborated by the following paraphrases of (36b), where the complement clause has been pronominalized (Gomez Torrego 1992: 39):

4. A similar case, although not an instance of subject-raising, is the relation between the epistemic modalpoder 'can' and the impersonal expressionpuede que 'it is possible that', which will be discussed in detail in 5.1.2.2.2. With parecer, subject-raising does not occur frequently, since it seems to be restricted to cases where parecer is used with reference to physically perceptible phenomena. An alternative construction with a similar pragmatic effect is the so-called "left dislocation" of the subject of the emdedded clause, as in:

(i) Los precios parece

que suben

the prices seem.3SG that rise.3PL 'The prices, they seem to be rising' For a FG account of this phenomenon cf. Combe (1981: 190-193).

66 (36)

Lexical constructions c.

Eso parece, γα que insisten en un punto. this seem.3SG since persist.3PL in one point 'So it seems, since they persist on one point.'

d. Lo parece, yaque insisten en un it seem.3SG since persist.3PL in one 'It seems so, since they persist on one point.'

punto. point

Contrary to what might be expected, the complement clause is not the subject of parecer, as becomes obvious from the following example and its variant: (37)

Parece que la cosa puede marchar. seem.3SG that the thing can.3SG work.INF 'It seems that the business may turn out well.' a.

(ORT 123)

* Que la cosa puede marchar parece. that the thing can.3SG work.INF seem.3SG 'That the business may turn out well it seems.'

Parecer (like darle a uno por in 4.1.1.1.) is a subjectless verb (Combe 1981: 191-193). All the variants of (36) as well as example (37) are based on the same predicate frame: (38)

parecerv (X,: (e: [pred e (a n )])) t0l

The restrictor of the argument indicates that a sentential argument must be inserted into this slot. Furthermore, the argument has been assigned the semantic function of Pseudo-Zero, which is an ad hoc way of accounting for the impossibility of assigning Subject-function to the complement, based on Tweehuysen (1988) and Dik (1989: 87); the otherwise appropriate semantic function Zero would allow for Subject assignment. 5

5. This treatment of parecer is in line with the one suggested by Vet (1981: 153-157) for French sembler 'seem' andparaitre 'appear'. There is, however, a slight difference. Vet suggests that a possible explanation of the impossibility of Subject assignment to the propositional argument could be therelativelylow semantic impact of sembler and paraitre. Departing from this idea, he proposes to deal with the sentential argument as a "pseudoargument" (Vet 1981: 154). Questioning the argument status of the proposition as Vet does seems to be inadequate for parecer in Spanish, given the fact that there are verbs in Spanish with a similarly low semantic impact, such as constar 'be a fact', that do allow for Subject assignment to the prepositional argument (Combe 1981: 186).

Non-productive constructions

67

4.2. Non-productive constructions 4.2.0.

Introduction

The constructions to be dealt with in this section will probably pass all the syntactic tests for the identification of periphrases introduced in 3.1.3., which is the reason why they are often considered to be periphrases. However, with these constructions, the positive results of the syntactic tests are due to the high degree of lexical specialization of these constructions rather than to their grammaticalization. Thus, although the constructions in question may be supposed to comply with the syntactic criteria for the identification of periphrases, they will not be regarded as periphrases, since they do not comply with the prerequisite of productivity as stipulated in the definition in 3.1.1. Following Dik (1981b: 39-40), I define productivity as the unmarked applicability of a coding procedure to an unrestricted number of cases. As regards analytic constructions, productivity means that —within the limits of its predicate frame— it must in principle be possible for the finite verb to be used in combination with any predicate without having the language users raising an eyebrow at any of these combinations. When non-productive constructions are used with predicates outside the restricted range of predicates with which they usually occur, such usage will attract the addressee's attention and be understood as an instance of creative language use (cf. Dik 1981b: 40-41). The restricted set of specific predicates non-productive constructions combine with is such that it cannot be predicted on the basis of any grammatical rule. This means that the appropriate place to account for such constructions is the lexicon and not the grammar of the language. Therefore, I will represent these constructions as complex predicates in the lexical fund. The relative productivity of a construction is not always related to the frequency with which it occurs: there are quite a few frequently used nonproductive constructions, such as romper a + infinitive, whereas some of the constructions which I consider to be periphrases are only rarely used, e.g. cesar de + infinitive (cf. 6.1.2.2.3.). Nevertheless, cesar de + infinitive is a productive construction, since, in principle, it can occur with any verbal predicate, its low frequency being due to the fact that it has to "compete" with two other, near-synonymous, constructions. Conversely, the verbs which occur with romper a + infinitive do not form a specific grammatical subcategory; rather, romper a combines with five distinct intransitive verbs which might perhaps be subsumed under a common semantic denominator, although, as we will see, even this is problematic. None of the constructions to be discussed in this section are true idioms according to the definitions provided by Dik (1992a: 241 -242) and Weinreich

68

Lexical constructions

(1969: 42). According to these authors, true idioms are expressions whose meaning cannot —not even partially— be derived from the meaning of its components. Rather, the constructions under review comply with Weinreich's definition of "phraseological units" since they are expressions "in which at least one constituent is polysemous and in which a selection of a subsense is determined by the verbal context" (Weinreich 1969: 42). More concretely, in non-productive analytical constructions the finite verb acquires a specific non-literal meaning when occurring with a restricted set of verbs; the meaning of the latter verb is not influenced by this combination. The list of allegedly periphrastic constructions given in Table 1 in section 3.2. contains nine phraseological units, seven of which are infinitival constructions and two are gerundial and participial constructions, respectively. In alphabetical order, these are acertar a 'succeed in' + infinitive, alcanzar 'reach' a + infinitive, dejar 'leave' + participle, echar(se) a 'throw (oneself) to' + infinitive, estar al 'be at the' + infinitive, estar para 'be in order to' + infinitive, querer 'want' + infinitive, romper 'break' a + infinitive, salir 'go out', 'leave' + gerund. These phraseological units will be discussed in 4.2.1. Section 4.2.2. will be devoted to two constructions that play only a marginal role in modern Peninsular Spanish and which, consequently, should not be considered phraseological units.

4.2.1. Phraseological

units

4.2.1.0. Introduction The nine expressions to be discussed in this section will be arranged in accordance with their relative degrees of lexical specialization. I will start off with the phraseological unit that combines with the greatest variety of predicates, viz. salir + gerund (4.2.1.1.). Subsequently, I will deal with echar(se) a + infinitive (4.2.1.2.), romper a + infinitive (4.2.1.3.), estar para + infinitive (4.2.1.4.), dejar + participle (4.2.1.5.), estar al + infinitive (4.2.1.6.), acertar a + infinitive (4.2.1.7.) and querer + infinitive (4.2.1.8). I will end with the expression with the highest lexical specialization, viz. alcanzar a + infinitive (4.2.1.9), which, in addition to combining with a small set of near-synonymous verbal predicates, is restricted to negative contexts.

Non-productive constructions

69

4.2.1.1. salir + gerund All the authors dealing in some detail with salir 'go out', 'leave' + gerund agree on the doubtfulness of its periphrastic character. Fente—Fernandez— Feijoo (1972: 35) call the construction "semi-periphrasis" and Gomez Torrego (1988: 172-173) says that it is something in between a "locucion" 'idiomatic expression* and a periphrasis, while Fernandez de Castro (1990: 81-82) rejects it as a periphrasis, considering the occurrences of salir with gerunds as idioms. Salir occurs with gerunds of (i) verbs expressing rapid movement, like correr 'run* and volar 'fly', (ii) the antonymsganar 'win' andperder 'loose' and (iii) the verb decir 'say' and perhaps other verbs of saying. My corpus yields several occurrences of the first two types, of which the following two are examples: (39)

El ex boxeador gritaba su nombre como un obseso, 'The ex-boxer shouted his name as if he were obsessed' incapäz quizä de salir corriendo tras el (VAZ 13) incapable maybe of go-out.INF run.GER after he 'incapable maybe of hurrying off after him'

(40)

siempre sale ganando la mujer always come-out.3SG win.GER the woman 'in the end the woman always wins'

CONTEXT:

(M 375)

As an example of the third type Gomez Torrego (1988: 173) suggests the following: (41)

nos salio diciendo que nos us came-out.PF.3SG say.GER that REFL.1PL fueramos went.SUBJ.IPL 'he suddenly told us that we should leave'

As regards the first type, the inchoative Aktionsart of salir as an independent predicate serves to render the verbs of rapid movement inchoative, too. In this function, salir combines with correr, volar andpitar 'whistle', 'smoke'. The latter combination is beyond the scope of the present analysis, because it is a true idiom, pitar only occurring as a movemement verb in combination with salir.6

6. The reflexive variant of pitar,pitarse 'beat it', is a movement verb. The combination salir pitando, however, is not reflexive.

70

Lexical constructions

In combination with ganar and perder, as exemplified in (40), the semantic contribution of salir consists in conveying the meaning of 'getting out of some situation'. Thus, it is a metaphorical application of the basically spatial meaning of salir to the domain of time. The result is that in combination with these two verbs, salir expresses the meaning of 'in the end'. The combination of the third type (example (41)) is related to a different basic meaning of salir, that of 'protrude'. In this combination salir serves as a semantic indicator of saliency: by combining decir with salir the speaker focusses the addressee's attention on the content of the utterance introduced by the verb of saying, suggesting that this is going to be quite an exceptional thing. Concluding, we can say that salir + gerund consists of three different phraseological units, each of which should have a separate representation in an FG lexicon. These representations would have to be as follows: (42)

salirw {correrw ger, volarv ger} (x^ )Ag meaning: '{run, fly} off

(43)

salirw {ganarv ger, perderv ger} (xt: )Plt)cExp meaning: ' {win, loose} in the end'

(44)

salirv decirv ger (x,: )Ag (E2)0o meaning: 'say unexpectedly'

In representations of this kind7, the subscript on the first verb indicates that this is the verb to be inflected. The braces indicate that one element out of the set may be chosen. The representations of the gerundial phraseological units with salir reflect the fact that here salir behaves like an auxiliary of the verb in the gerundial form, in the sense that it is this latter verb on which the valency of the combination depends. What makes salir + gerund different from auxiliary constructions is its restricted applicability and the variety of its meanings.

7. The meaning descriptions given in these and the following representations of lexical entries are simplified and, as such, do not reflect all the shades of meaning the phraseological unit in question may express. Since giving an all-embracing description of the meanings of lexical items is almost impossible, meanings in a FG lexicon are generally described through a number of meaning postulates and only in exceptional cases by a meaning definition. For a more detailed discussion of this issue cf. Dik (1989: 81-86).

Non-productive constructions

71

4.2.1.2. echar(se) a + infinitive Both echar 'throw' and the reflexive variant echarse 'throw oneself' form phraseological units with the preposition a plus an infinitive construction, and both indicate the abrupt beginning of the event in question. The constructions, which probably derive from the —by now marginal— use of echar and echarse as inchoative movement verbs (Cuervo 1953, 3: 18-21), are generally considered periphrases. However, all the manuals emphasize the restricted applicability of the constructions (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 20; Gomez Torrego 1988: 111-113; Fernandez de Castro 1990: 74-75; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 69-70). Echar a occurs with the infinitives of certain movement verbs, andar 'walk' caminar 'walk', correr 'run', volar 'fly' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 112), but not with e.g. ir 'go'(cf. also Fernandez de Castro 1990: 75). 8 My corpus contains two occurrences of echar a andar and one of echar a volar, exemplified by (45) and (46) respectively: (45)

echo a andar threw.PF.3SG to walk.INF 'he began to walk slowly'

lentamente slowly

(46)

(el päjaro) querria salirse (...) the bird want.COND.3SG get-out.INF-REFL.3 y echar a volar and throw.INF to fly.INF '(the bird) would like to get out (...) and fly o f f '

(MER 154)

(M 333)

According to Gomez Torrego (1988: 112) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 69), the movement verbs can occur with the reflexive variant echarse, too. The latter author observes that the combination with echarse stresses the controlledness of the event of movement. Similar observations have been made spontaneously by three of six informants consulted about this construction. Moreover, echarse combines with reir, llorar and temblar (Fente— Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 20; Gomez Torrego 1988: 112; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 69). My corpus contains three occurrences of echarse a llorar and one of echarse a reir, exemplified by (47) and (48):

8. Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 20) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 69) claim that, in addition, nadar 'swim* may appear with echar, but my informants doubted the grammaticality of this combination.

72

Lexical constructions

(47)

Julio Hurtado se echo a llorar (POM 99) Julio Hurtado REFL.3 threw.PF.3SG to weep.INF desconsoladamente. inconsolably 'Julio Hurtado burst out crying inconsolably.'

(48)

Don Fortunato se echo a reir (MER 144) Don Fortunato REFL.3 threw.PF.3SG to laugh.INF 'Don Fortunato burst out laughing'

In a lexical FG representation, I suggest that two predicate frames be assigned to echar(se) a + infinitive, in order to account for all the variations presented above. These predicate frames would have to be something like: (49)

echarva {andarV M, caminarVM, correry M, volarv meaning: 'abruptly begin to {walk, run, fly}'

taf}

(x,: )Ag

(50)

echarw-se a {llorarW m(, reirWM, temblarWm(} (x,: )Proc meaning: 'abruptly begin to {cry, laugh, tremble}'

In principle, it would have been possible to add a third predicate frame, one that would account for the combination of echarse with the movement verbs, and that slightly varies in meaning from the non-reflexive variant. I have chosen not to do so, because the possible semantic modification through reflexivization is a productive procedure that can be applied to a large number of diverse non-reflexive predicates. Therefore, rather than accounting for the differences between the two variants in the fund, "energetic reflexives" should be accounted for through a predicate formation rule (cf. Maldonado 1988).

4.2.1.3. romper a + infinitive Romper 'break' a + infinitive is an ingressive expression, which, in addition, indicates that the event in question is not expected to happen. As in the case of echar(se) a, Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 22), Fernandez de Castro (1990: 73-74), Gomez Torrego (1988: 113-114) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 70-71) all consider romper a + infinitive a periphrasis, at the same time stressing its restricted applicability. They agree that the verbs with which romper a generally appears are reir 'laugh', llorar 'weep', gritar 'yell', chillar 'yell' and hablar 'speak'. Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 23) and Gomez Torrego (1988: 114) also give andar 'walk' as a candidate for a possible combination with romper a for which Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo

Non-productive constructions 73 (1972: 23) give the example (51). My informants, however, unanimously reject this usage of romper a as unnatural. (51)

?? Este nino parece que va a romper a this child seem.3SG that go.3SG to break.INF to andar de un momento a otro. walk.INF from one moment to another 'This child looks as if it is going to start walking within very short.'

We may therefore conclude that romper a occurs with the infinitives chillar, gritar, reir, llorar and hablar. My corpus yields two examples of occurrences with each of the latter two, e.g.: (52)

Entonces, rompi a hablar de_prisa, (SOR 119) then broke.PF.lSG to speak.INF rapidly creo que tartamudeando believe. 1SG that stammering 'Then, I suddenly began to talk rapidly, stammering, I believe'

(53)

Mi hermana ha roto a llorar my sister have.3SG broken to weep.INF 'My sister has burst into tears'

(LLA 22)

The verbs with which romper a combines have in common that they describe the emission of sounds by human beings. To the semantics of these verbs romper a adds the component of sudden beginning and uncontrolledness. This meaning is quite unrelated to the meanings expressed by romper in modern Spanish. In the eighteenth century, however, which was probably when the construction first occurred, romper could also mean 'erupt' and 'burst' (cf. Alonso 1958, 3: 3651), which in modern Spanish would be expressed by irrumpir and reventar. In this meaning the verb has been metaphorically applied to human behaviour, which could explain the restriction of romper a to this specific set of verbs designating the emission of something. However, not every verb designating the emission of sounds can occur with romper a. My informants rejected llrompera declarar 'suddenly begin to declare' (suggested by Dietrich 1973: 145), Π romper a hipar 'suddenly begin to hiccup' and llromper a estornudar 'suddenly begin to sneeze'. From this we can conclude that for a verb to combine with romper a belonging to the semantic field of "human emission of sounds" forms a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Hence, the only way to represent romper a + infinitive in a FG lexicon is to enumerate the verbs with which

74

Lexical constructions

romper a can combine. The lexical entry of romper a could be as follows: (54)

romperv a {chillarv gritarv hablarv taf, llorarv M, reiry taf} (xi: )Ploc meaning: 'suddenly begin to {yell, speak, weep, laugh} in an uncontrolled way'

In this representation, the first and only argument of the phraseological unit has the semantic function of Processed. This semantic function reflects the semantic impact of romper a on the phraseological unit, which consists in suggesting a lack of control of the "agent" over what he/she does.9 4.2.1.4. estar para + infinitive Gomez Torrego (1988: 115) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 67-68) regard estar para 'be in order to' + infinitive as a periphrasis, the function of the construction being to express that an event is about to occur, i.e. that 'something is ready and prepared to begin' (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 68). Both authors give almost identical examples: (55)

Estä para llover. is.3SG for rain.INF 'It is about to rain.' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 115; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 68)

(56)

El tren estä para salir. the train is.3SG for leave.INF 'The train is about to leave.' (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 68)

(57)

Estaba para salir was.lSG/3SG for leave.INF Ί/he/she/it was about to leave' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 115)

Garcia Gonzalez stresses the restricted applicability of the construction, saying that it is in fact restricted to the combination with salir 'go out',

9. One might doubt the appropriateness of applying this semantic function in combination with an agentive verb like hablar. It should be noted, however, that the fiist argument is an argument of the entire phraseological unit, i.e. of romper a hablar and not of hablar only. The fact that romper a hablar does indeed express lack of control is obvious in example (52).

Non-productive constructions

75

'leave' and llover 'rain'. My corpus contains no occurrence of this construction. Given the distinct valencies of llover and salir, each combination would have to be accounted for through a separate predicate frame: (58)

estarvpara lloverVM meaning: 'be about to rain'

(59)

estarv para salirV illt (x1)0 meaning: 'be about to leave'

Although, as we will see in the discussion of semi-auxiliaries (5.4. below), meteorological verbs do in some contexts behave like agentive verbs, a representation of such verbs as zero-place predicates is the appropriate way to account for their default third-person-singular agreement and the fact that it is not possible to specify a nominal or pronominal subject. The semantic function of the first argument of estarpara salir is Zero because the phraseological unit designates the state of the referent of the argument immediately before moving rather than the Action of moving itself.

4.2.1.5. dejar + participle As Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 46), Gomez Torrego (1988: 193-194) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 40-41) observe, dejar 'leave' + participle does not behave as a periphrasis in most of its occurrences, the potentially periphrastic combinations being restricted to the participles of verbs expressing orders.10 Since the semantics of the construction are generally described only in vague terms, we will have to consider a few examples. Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 41) gives the following examples, which exhaust all the combinations in which dejar can occur in this function:

10. In passing it should be noted that in these constructions the first arguments of dejar and the verbs in the participial form are «»referential, which means that such constructions, in principle, are within the scope of the definition of verbal periphrases given in section 3.1.1. For more details on the distinction between potentially periphrastic participial constructions and passive participial constructions cf. section 5.3.1.

76 (60)

,

Lexical constructions Os he dejado escrito loque teniaisque you.PL have.lSG left written what had.IMPF.2PL-to hacer. do.INF Ί have left you written instruction what you had to do.' (lit. Ί have left you written what you had to do')

(61)

He dejado encargada la comida. have.lSG left ordered the meal Ί have ordered the meal.'

(62)

Deje dicho que me llamaran a left.PF.lSG said that me called.SUBJ.3PL a Ί have ordered them to call me at three o'clock.'

las tres. the three

In the first of these examples, dejar is used quite literally to express the fact that some message, expressed through the participle and its second argument, has been left. In a less idiomatic way, the content of this example could be rendered as follows: (60)

a.

Os he dejado una nota diciendo lo que you.PL.DAT have.lSG left a note say.GER what teniaisque hacer. had.IMPF.2PL-to do.INF Ί have left you a note saying what you had to do.'

In the remaining examples, the oder-construction, we can, so far, conclude that poder is a semi-auxiliary when used to specify Participant-oriented Modality, and that in the other cases poder + infinitive is a periphrasis.

Infinitival constructions

141

There is one important exception, though. This exception concerns cases in which reference is made to an animate entity, but this reference is nonspecific. This is the case in the following example: (87)

CONTEXT: (a student complains to a fellow student about a professor) y luego en los exämenes, no podias (M 416) and then in the exams not could.IMPF.2SG copiar porque se llevaba dos ο tres crib.INF because REFL.3 brought.IMPF.3SG two or three ayudantes assistants 'and then, during the exams, you couldn't crib, because he would bring two or three assistants with him'

In this example, the second person agreement of poder does not serve the purpose of referring to the addressee but is used for non-specific reference. In fact, what the poder-construction in the example means is: (87)

a.

era imposible copiar was.IMPF.3SG impossible crib.INF *it was impossible to crib'

So, obviously, poder serves as an expression of Event-oriented Modality in this context. Nevertheless, poder is a semi-auxiliary in this context, which becomes clear from the fact that it is possible to leave out the infinitive: (87)

b. ...

asi que, con tanta gente para so that with so-many people in-order-to vigilarte, ... claro, no podias watch.INF-you clearly not could.IMPF.2SG '... so that, with so many people to watch you, obviously, you couldn't'

Therefore, the above conclusion must be somewhat attenuated: poder is a semi-auxiliary when expressing Participant-oriented Modality and also in those cases where Event-oriented Modality is expressed through non-specific reference to animate first arguments in a way which syntactically parallels the expression of Participant-oriented Modality. Let us now turn to the discussion of the semi-auxiliary in its facultative and its deontic functions. I will first discuss the properties which the two variants have in common; next, I will briefly deal with the one and only respect in which they differ.

142

Semi-auxiliary constructions

Given the fact that the semi-auxiliary poder expresses capability or permission, it is reasonable to assume that the argument of poder must refer to an animate entity (cf. also Klein 1968: 31). The following example seems to contradict this assumption: (88)

CONTEXT: el cuarto de bano pequeno era la unica habitation de la casa 'the small bathroom was the only room of the house' a la_que no podia alcanzar ningun (GAR 11) to which not could.IMPF.3SG reach.INF no.ADJ proyectil projectile 'which no projectile could reach'

The way in which poder is used here is representative of quite a few occurrences of poder with inanimate referents: it allows for both the participantoriented and the event-oriented interpretations, as can be gathered from the two possible paraphrases: (88)

a.

Ningun proyectil era capaz de no.ADJ projectile was.IMPF.3SG capable PREP alcanzar al pequeno cuarto _de_bano reach.INF to-the small bathroom 'No projectile could reach the small bathroom'

b. No era posible que algun proyectil not was.IMPF.3SG possible that any projectile alcanzara al pequeno cuarto_de bano reached.SUBJ.3SG to-the small bathroom 'It was impossible for any projectile to reach the small bathroom' In the first, the participant-oriented, interpretation, the projectiles should either be seen as malignant, aggressive entities, which are eager to reach their goal, or as metonymic representatives of the people who shoot them (cf. Lakoff—Johnson 1980: 35-40); in either case, they are personified. The second interpretation is the one which normally corresponds to combinations of poder with inanimate entities: according to this interpretation, poder serves as an expression of Event-oriented Facultative Modality. From the fact that interpreting instances like (88) as expressions of Participantoriented Modality implies the personification of the inanimate participant in question, we may conclude that semi-auxiliary poder does indeed require an animate referent for its argument. This selection restriction can be violated

Infinitival constructions

143

in metaphorical or metonymic language use (cf. Dik 1989: 78-81 and also 4.1.1.4. above). With regard to the semantic function of the argument of poder, let us have a look at a few more examples of independent occurrences of poder: (89)

nos agarrota un miedo insoportable, no (DEL 78) us strangle. 3SG a fear unbearable not podemes vencerlo. ;Ah, si pudieramos! can. 1 PL overcome.INF-it oh if could.SUBJ.IPL 'an unbearable fear is strangling us, we cannot overcome it. Oh, if we only could!'

(90)

Pues he hecho lo que he well have.lSG done what have.lSG 'Well I've done what I could'

(91)

CONTEXT: —Nopodemos dejaresta conversation inacabada... '—We cannot leave this conversation unfinished...' — (,Νο podemos? jClaro que podemos! (POM 102) not can. 1 PL of-course that can. 1 PL '—We cannot? Of course we can!'

In the first two of these examples, the predications have the semantic function of well as in (79), which I repeat here, the designating controlled States, and the A's Positioner. (79)

podido could

(RIC 75)

A's in the (partially) omitted Agent. But in the third one, as predications are non-agentive, have the semantic function of

no puedo aguantar sus closes not can.lSG stand.INF his classes Ί can't stand his classes'

(M 413)

From this we must draw the conclusion that we have to assess the semantic function of the argument of poder independently of the semantic functions which are fulfilled by the coreferential A1 in the combining predication. Departing from the meaning of poder as an expression of Intrinsic Facultative Modality, a meaning which may be paraphrased as 'possess some capacity', one could think of Positioner as the semantic function of this argument. On the other hand, the semantic function of Positioner implies Control (cf. Dik 1981a: 33, 1989: 101), while ability or inability to participate in some event, as expressed by poder, is beyond the control of the person involved. This is why I prefer regarding poder as the expression

144

Semi-auxiliary constructions

of some State, which means that the semantic function of its argument must be Zero (cf. also Goossens 1985: 212). It is with regard to the predication to be specified by poder that the facultative and the deontic variants behave in different ways. While the facultative variant is compatible with any type of State of Affairs, the deontic variant can only be combined with controllable States of Affairs, because granting permission presupposes control, i.e. when a speaker (S) allows an addressee (A) to do something, he must not only presuppose that A is able to do so, but also that A is able to refrain from doing so (cf. Haverkate 1979: 44-45). Therefore, the following example, where poder occurs with a non-controllable predication, can only have a facultative interpretation: (92)

CONTEXT: (During a massage-session, the client tries to observe the masseuse; so far, this has been difficult because he has been lying on his belly; presently, she has ordered him to lie on his back:) Ahora puede verla (VAZ 31) now can.3SG see.INF-her 'Now he can see her'

For the representation of poder in Functional Grammar this means that the deontic variant requires the combining predication to have the feature [+con]23 whereas facultative poder does not impose such a restriction. Note that the fact that the event must be controllable does not imply that A1 must have the semantic function of Agent. For both facultative and deontic poder we must answer the question whether the combining construction is a core predication, as in the case of the Inner Aspect semi-auxiliaries, or an extended predication, as in the case of soler. In this context, the distinction between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Facultative Modality becomes relevant again: when expressing Extrinsic Facultative or Deontic Modality, poder modifies the extended predication, while as an expression of Intrinsic Facultative Modality it modifies the core

23. There are, however, counterexamples. Particularly when deontic poder is negated, therestrictiontends to be violated to some extent, as in the following example: (i) CONTEXT: estaba empapada de sudory las piernas me temblaban, pero como estaba sola Ί was soaked with sweat and my legs were trembling, but as I was alone'

no

me

podia

desmayar

(PUE132)

not REFL.1SG could.IMPF.lSG faint.INF Ί could not faint (=1 was not allowed to faint)' Obviously, the question whether some potential participant is or is not able to control his/her taking part in an event is less relevant when the only thing that is at stake is the prevention of his or her participation in that event (cf. also Goossens 1987: 25-26).

Infinitival constructions 145 predication. Consider the following examples of extrinsic facultative (93) and deontic (94) uses of poder·. (93)

(94)

CONTEXT: (during an interview for a job) iPuedes empezar a trabajar a can.2SG begin.INF PREP work.INF at 'Can you begin to work at eight a clock?'

las ocho? the eight

iPodemos empezar a tocar can. 1 PL begin.INF PREP play-an-instrument.INF a las siete? at the seven 'May we begin to play at seven?'

Examples (93) and (94) illustrate that in these functions the semi-auxiliary poder can have a phasal semi-auxiliary within its scope. The reverse is not possible: (93)

a.

* lEmpiezas a poder trabajar a las ocho? begin.2SG PREP can.INF work.INF at the eight 'Do you begin to be able to work at eight o'clock?'

(94)

a.

* lEmpezamos a poder tocar begin.1PL PREP can.INF play-an-instrument.INF a las siete? at the seven 'Do we begin to be able to play at seven?'

When poder expresses Intrinsic Facultative Modality, the scope relations are different: (95)

CONTEXT: (about a deaf child) Julito no puede oir. Julito not can.3SG hear.INF 'Julito cannot hear' a.

* Julito puede empezar a oir un poco. Julito can.3SG begin.INF PREP hear.INF a bit 'Julito may begin to hear a bit.'

b. Julito empieza a poder oir un poco. Julito begin.3SG PREP can.INF hear.INF a little 'Julito begins to be able to hear a little'.

146

Semi-auxiliary constructions

While (95a) cannot have a facultative interpretation, but only an epistemic one, (95b) is grammatical as an expression of Intrinsic Facultative Modality. From these data I conclude that, as an expression of Intrinsic Facultative Modality, poder operates on the same level as the phasal semi-auxiliaries, the level of the core predication. On the basis of these data, I propose different predicate frames for each of the meanings of semi-auxiliary poder·. (96)

Intrinsic Facultative: poderv (x^ ) 0 [predVillf: ax (χ;) (a11)]

(97)

Extrinsic Facultative: poderv (x·: ) 0 (e: [ÄJ pred Villf : σ 1 (χ) (α η )]: σ2)

(98)

Deontic: poderv (χ;: ) 0 (e: [π, pred Vinf : σ, (x^ (α")]: : σ2)

Except for the semantic functions of the arguments and the restrictions on the combining predication, the representation in (96) is similar to that of empezar / comenzar a and the representations in (97) and (98) to the representation of soler. As the combining predication may be of any semantic type, there is no restriction on the semantic function A1 is to fulfil, while the semantic function of the coreferential argument of poder is Zero. Before proceeding to the discussion of the second presumedly periphrastic modal deber, I will deal with two problems that further complicate the case of poder, which are on the one hand the apparent possibility of poder to function as a complement-taking predicate inpuede que 'it is possible that' and on the other the existence of a few unambiguously lexical uses.

5.1.2.2.2. puede que In the following example poder appears to be a complement taking predicate: (99)

Puede que haya un contexto (C 965.16) can.3SG that there-is.SUBJ a context que yo ignoro. which I not-know.lSG 'It is possible that there is a context which I am unaware of.'

From the fact that poder can be used in this way, one might conclude that poder is a subjectless verb of the type of parecer, and that the instances of

Infinitival constructions

147

semi-auxiliary poder are "raised" variants of basically complex clauses (cf. 4.1.2.2.).24 However, the complement taking capacity of poder is highly restricted: in the complement construction, poder can be used only in the Present Tense, it cannot be negated nor be questioned: (99)

a.

* Podia que hubiera un contexto (...) could.IMPF.3SG that there-was.SUBJ a context 'It was possible that there was a context (...)'

b. * Podrä que haya un contexto can.FUT.3SG that there-is.SUBJ a context 'It will be possible that there is a context (...)'

(...)

c.

(...)

* No puede que haya un contexto not can.3SG that there-is.SUBJ a context 'It is not possible that there is a context (...)'

d. * iPuede que haya un contexto can.3SG that there-is.SUBJ a context 'Is it possible that there is a context (...)?'

(...)?

Furthermore, even in the Present Tense, poder does not properly subordinate the combining clause, since the "complement" cannot be pronominalized: (99)

e.

* Lo puede, claro. Pero no creo que it.ACC can.3SG of-course but not believe. 1SG that sea asi. is.SUBJ.3SG like-this 'It is possible, of course. But I don't believe that it is so.'

f.

* Es ο puede, claro. Pero no creo que this can.3SG of-course but not believe.lSG. that sea asi. is.SUBJ.3SG like-this 'It is possible, of course. But I don't believe that it is so'.

24. Klein (1968), who distinguishes poder, (Event-oriented Facultative and related meanings),poder2 (Participant-oriented Facultative) andpoder3 (Participant-oriented Deontic) (1968: 24-26), argues that occurrences of poder, are derived through "subject-incorporation" and "VP-promotion" transformations from complement constructions with puede que. In this way he comes to the conclusion that poderv the variant which in my analysis is a periphrastic auxiliary, must be a main verb (1968: 35-38).

148

Semi-auxiliary constructions

Given its rigidity, puede que syntactically resembles a modal adverb rather than a modal verb. Semantically, too, it is closer to the adverb quizäs than to jvoder + infinitive. Generally, puede que can be more adequately paraphrased by means of the former than by means of the latter: (100)

(101)

CONTEXT: (An elderly couple is witnessing a public trade-union meeting without understanding what it is all about:) —iQue vende este? —pregunta la vieja a su marido. —Palabras, de momento solo eso, '—What does this one sell? —the old woman asks her husband. —Words, so far nothing else,' al final puede que lo diga. (PAL 76) at-the end can.3SG that it say.SUBJ.3SG 'at the end he'll possibly tell.' a.

al final quizäs lo diga at-the end maybe it say.SUBJ.3SG 'at the end maybe he'll tell'

b.

* al final puede decirlo at-the end can.3SG say.INF-it 'at the end he can tell'

CONTEXT: (a conversation about friendship in general and in particular about the case where two friends have quite different characters) para mi es positivo, para otras personas (M 368) for me is.3SG positive for other persons puede que sea negativo ino? can.3SG that is.SUBJ.3SG negative not 'for me this is positive, for other people it is possibly negative, don't you think so?' a. para otras personas quizäs sea negativo for other persons maybe is.SUBJ.3SG negative 'for other people maybe it is negative' b.

* para otras personas puede ser negativo for other persons can.3SG be.INF negative 'for other people it can be negative'

As regards example (100), the paraphrase with quizäs (100a) equals the original, whereas the infinitival paraphrase (100b) will spontaneously be interpreted as an instance of Deontic Participant-oriented Modality. The

Infinitival constructions

149

difference is more subtle in (101): in the original and in the variant with quizds (101a), the speaker expresses the fact that she is inclined to believe in the truth of the proposition para otras personas es negativo, which may have been expressed by other people in a conversation about this matter. In (101b) she asserts that what is good for herself is potentially bad for others. 25 The obvious conclusion, that puede que is a periphrastic adverb, is, however, not entirely justified, since both components of the expression still have some mutual independence. In the first place, que can independently function as a subordinating conjunction in the context of puede, as in the following example, where puede has two "complements" but need not occur twice: (102)

Puede que tengasrazon tu y que can.3SG that are-right.SUBJ.2SG you and that este equivocada yo. am.SUBJ.lSG mistaken I 'Maybe it is you who is right and it is me who is wrong.'

Secondly, puede can occur without the finite clause: (99)

g. Puede que haya un can.3SG that there-is.SUBJ a ignoro. Puede. Pero no not-know.lSG can.3SG but not sea asi. is.SUBJ.3SG like-this 'Possibly there is a context which I I don't believe that it is so.'

contexto que yo context which I creo que believe. 1SG that

do not know. Possibly. But

In view of these intricacies, it is obvious that the case of puede que cannot be settled in a satisfactory way within this context. Hence, I confine myself to the conclusion that puede que occupies some intermediate position in between a verbal construction and a periphrastic adverb. However, it will have become clear that the existence of puede que does not mean that poder

25. This semantic difference corresponds to the distinction of Event-oriented ("objective") Modality on the one hand and Proposition-oriented ("subjective") Modality on the other, which has been discussed, among others, by Lyons (1977: 797-809), and has been introduced into Functional Grammar by Hengeveld (1988). For a more detailed discussion, cf. Hengeveld (forthcoming) as well as section 7.2.3.0. of this study and for a critical view, cf. Nuyts (1992).

150

Semi-auxiliary constructions

is a complement taking predicate, and consequently, that puede que does not represent any challenge to the semi-auxiliary analysis. 5.1.2.2.3. Lexical uses There are three truly lexical uses of poder, which I will briefly deal with, as they might be confused with semi-auxiliary poder. Consider the following examples: (103)

Habia sobrevivido de milagro, escondiendose aquiy allä, 'He had survived miraculously, hiding here and there,' hasta_que no pudo mas (GIR 34) until not could.PF.3SG more 'until he could not bear it any longer'

(104)

Los celos pudieron conmigo. the jealousy.PL could.PF.3PL with-me 'My jealousy was stronger than me.'

(105)

CONTEXT: (the female narrator describes her reaction one evening when her husband comes home late) Mira que me habia jurado a mi misma ser distante e indiferente, 'You see, I had sworn to myself that I would be cool and indifferent,' pero me puede mi maldito cardcter (RIC 93) but me can.3SG my damned character 'but my damned character is stronger than me'

CONTEXT:

(GIR 49)

None of the three uses is directly related to poder as described above. The intransitive no poder mds is an idiom and is as such not representative of productive usage (cf. also 4.2. above). The prepositional verb poder con and the transitive verb poder are synonymous, the latter being a colloquial variant of the former. The two variants can no longer be said to be modals,26 since they do not express any of the Modality types described above. Rather, they express the lexical meaning of 'be stronger than', and, hence, it is quite unsurprising that they behave as independent lexical predicates.

26. Poder con and transitive poder must be of relatively recent origin, since they are not mentioned in the Diccionario de Autoridades (Real Academia Espafiola [1969]), nor in Keniston (1937).

Infinitival constructions

151

5.1.2.3. deber (de) 5.1.2.3.0. Introduction The discussion of deber 'must' will be structured as follows: in section 5.1.2.3.1., I will deal with the semantic and morphological issues that are relevant to the question of whether and to what extent deber is a semiauxiliary rather than a periphrasis, which will be at issue in section 5.1.2.3.2.

5.1.2.3.1. Semantic and morphological preliminaries In the following examples, the targets of modal evaluation by means of deber are the relation between the participant and the event (106)-(107) and the event itself (108), respectively. (106)

debo hablarle a usted must.lSG speak.INF-you.DAT to you(FORM) con toda franqueza with all frankness Ί must speak with you quite frankly'

(DEL 64)

(107)

sabta muy bien que no debia (ORT 117) knew.IMPF.3SG very well that not must.PAST.IMPF.3SG propasarse en horas de trabajo go-too-far.INF-REFL.3 in hours of work 'he knew very well that he must not take liberties during working hours'

(108)

CONTEXT: (a conversation about the relationship philosophers should entertain with politics) El compromiso con la realidad debe (C 969.147) the commitment with the reality must.3SG ser prioritario para ellos. be.INF priority.ADJ for them 'The commitment to reality must have priority for them.'

It is important to note that when negated, as in (107), deber, like English must, does not express non-obligation but non-permission, which boils down to the obligation of refraining from participating in some event. 27 This

27. Thanks are due to Brenda Laca for drawing my attention to this point

152

Semi-auxiliary constructions

means that, semantically, the negation is inside the scope of deber rather than the reverse. In this respect participant-oriented deber differs from participant-oriented poder, which may be negated both externally and internally (cf. Klein 1968: 27-28). Consider the following examples based on Klein (1968: 27-28). (109)

a.

No debo cantar. not must.lSG sing.INF Ί must not sing.'

b.

* Debo no cantar. must.lSG not sing.INF Ί must not sing.'

c.

No puedo cantar. not can.lSG sing.INF Ί may / must not sing.'

d. Puedo no cantar. can.lSG not sing.INF Ί am free not to sing.' A representation of (109) in terms of modal logic is given in (110), where ρ represents "proposition", as this term is used in modal logic (cf. e.g. Lyons 1977: 787-788), and where the brackets indicate scope relations. (110)

a. c. d.

necessary (not p) not (possible p) possible (not p)

From this we can conclude, firstly, that although the negation particle must precede deber, negation with deber is internal negation, i.e. the main predicate is negated, not the modal; secondly, that there is no way of negating deber as well. Interestingly, the reverse obtains with tener que, the periphrastic 'rival' of deber. (109)

e.

No tengoque cantar not have.lSG-to sing.INF Ί do not have to sing'

f.

* Tengo que no cantar have.lSG-to not sing.INF Ί do not have to sing'

Infinitival constructions

153

While the position of the negation particle is the same as in the case of deber, it is obvious from the translation that negation with tener que is always external negation, i.e. the modal is negated. (109e) can be represented logically as: (110)

e.

not (necessary p)

The relation between deber and tener que is in this respect exactly parallel to the relation between English must and have to (Quirk et al. 1985: 795796). The next point to be discussed is related to the difference between deber and the prepositional variant deber de, and the alleged functional difference betweti: the two. The following example represents a type of Modality we have not yet been concerned with and whose target is not the event but the proposition: (111)

CONTEXT: Mientras me inclinaba sobre dicha mano, me fije en todo el brazo, como siempre hago ante este miembro femenino al descubierto. 'While I bowed above this hand, I stared at the entire arm, as I always do with this feminine body part when being exposed to view.' Yo debo tener eso que llaman (SOR 111) I must.lSG have.INF that what call.3PL "fetichismo" por los brazos fetishism for the arms Ί must have what they call "fetishism" for arms'

Example (111) is an instance of Inferential Modality (Hengeveld forthcoming: 111.20-21)28 (cf. also Goossens 1985: 204): from his behaviour at the sight of the arms of women, the first-person narrator infers that tener "fetichismo " por los brazos must be the case with him. Generalizing this analysis, we may say that, as an expression of Inferential Modality, deber serves to relate the speaker's belief in some possible fact to some piece of explicit or implicit evidence of the truth of this fact. As I said above, the target of Inferential Modality is not the event but the proposition. The difference between Event-oriented and Proposition-oriented Modality —which has already been touched upon in the discussion of puede que above— consists in the fact that the latter is concerned with the truth-value

28. Inferential Modality is a subcategory of Evidential Modality. Since other types of Evidential Modality are not relevant in the present context I will simply use the term "Inferential" to refer to this type of modal meaning.

154

Semi-auxiliary constructions

of some proposition, whereas the former is related to the occurrence of some event (cf. 7.2. below). According to the grammar of the Real Academia Espanola (1973: 448) inferential (usually termed 'conjectural' meaning should be expressed preferably by deber de + infinitive. Deviation from the Academic preference is presented as incorrect in normative grammars (e.g. Sanchez—Martin— Matilla 1980: 131; Gomez Torrego 1989, 2: 94). However, Yllera (1979: 128) shows that this linguistic norm does not emanate from real language use: from the first literary texts onwards, deber mainly occurred without a preposition and has only incidentally been used with de or a in analogy with synonymous periphrases based on non-modal verbs. In fact, the Academy has artificially imposed this norm in order to reflect the distinction between obligation and conjecture in the form of the verb. In colloquial and —to a lesser extent— also in literary language use, the norm is not respected: in my corpus, deber is predominantly used without the preposition; most of the occurrences of deber de in the modern-fiction corpus express non-deontic meanings, whereas in the interview corpora deber de is equally frequent with deontic and non-deontic meanings (cf. also Seco 1986: 135-136). It follows that, for our purposes at least, the question of whether or not deber is followed by de is irrelevant; therefore, I will treat deber de as a free variant of deber.

5.1.2.3.2. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis Deber + infinitive is analyzed as a periphrasis in Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 28)29, Gomez Torrego (1988: 87-92), Fernandez de Castro (1990: 57-61) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 84-87). Apart from the syntactic arguments, to which I will turn presently, Gomez Torrego argues that modal deber + infinitive should be seen as a periphrasis on semantic grounds, since there is a transitive lexical verb deber, which has a distinct, although related meaning, namely 'owe'. In my view, this is not a valid argument, because the modal function is so old that it was already fulfilled by the Latin ancestor of deber (cf. e.g. Bolkestein 1980: 4-6), and the two meanings have continued to co-exist throughout the history of Spanish. Against this background, it would be more adequate to regard the fact that, in modern Spanish, deber has a modal as well as a non-modal meaning as a matter of

29. Fente—Fernandez—Feijöo (1972: 28), who take desemanticization as the only criterion for the identification of periphrases, consider only deber de + infinitive a periphrasis, because only the conjectural meaning differs from the meaning of obligation, which the authors regard as the basic meaning of deber.

Infinitival constructions

155

homonymy, rather than insisting on a genetic affinity which, as we will see, is irrelevant to the syntactic functioning of the modal. The most important argument in favour of regarding deber + infinitive as a periphrasis is the impossibility of referring to the infinitive construction by means of a pronoun, a noun or a nominal clause, as the following examples of participant-oriented (112) and event-oriented (113) deber will show: (112)

(113)

debia continuar su andada (MER 154) must.PAST.IMPF.3SG continue.INF his course sin mäs pausas without more breaks 'he must continue his course without having any more breaks' a.

* aunque no quisiera, lo debia though not wanted.SUBJ.3SG it must.PAST.IMPF.3SG 'although maybe he did not want, he must it'

b.

* aunque no quisiera, eso debia though not wanted.SUBJ.3SG that must.PAST.IMPF.3SG 'although maybe he did not want, that he must*

c.

* debia la continuacion de su andada must.PAST.IMPF.3SG the continuation of his course 'he must the continuation of this course'

d.

* debia que continuase must.PAST.IMPF.3SG that continued.SUBJ.3SG andada course 'he must that the continued his course'

su his

(In an interview with a member of the socialist party, the is the inefficiency and disloyalty of a few members at the top) debe ser corregido (C 970.32) must.3SG be.INF corrected must be corrected'

CONTEXT:

topic Esto this 'This a.

* Debe ser corregido, seguro que must.3SG be.INF corrected certain that 'It must be corrected, it certainly must it.'

lo it

debe. must.3SG

156

Semi-auxiliary constructions b.

* Debe ser corregido, seguro que eso must.3SG be.INF corrected certain that that debe. must.3SG 'This must be corrected, it certainly must it.'

c.

* Debe una correction. must.3SG a correction 'It must a correction.'

d.

* Debe que sea corregido. must.3SG that is.SUBJ.3SG corrected 'It must that it be corrected.'

The fact that all the above variants are ungrammatical indicates that the infinitive construction does not fill an argument slot of deber, from which it follows that deber is not a lexical verb. What could be seen as a counterargument in this context is the incidental occurrence in spontaneous speech of deber in pseudo-cleft constructions: (114)

?

creo que los museos lo_que believe. 1SG that the museums what deben es estar en el centro, para que must.3PL is.3SG be.INF in the centre so-that todo_el mundo pueda verlos con everybody can.SUBJ.3SG see.INF-them with Ί believe that what museums must is be in the city that everybody can visit them easily'

(M 224)

facilidad easiness centre so

Although this instance is considered doubtful by most of my informants, it is a not an isolated instance, since Bolinger (1970: 574) reports about similar "slips of the tongue" in cleft constructions. The explanation for "misuses" of this kind is probably related to the fact that pseudo-cleft constructions are an ideal means for underscoring the crucial part of the utterance. As we may assume that fulfilling his or her communicative needs is more important to a speaker than uttering a grammatically impeccable sentence, the pseudocleft construction will be chosen whenever the need is felt to focus the addressee's attention on some element of the utterance. However, there is a natural boundary to ungrammatical language use for communicative purposes, which is the point at which mutual understanding may be endangered. Therefore, an instance like the following, where a true auxiliary construction is clefted, will probably not be used:

Infinitival constructions

(115)

*

157

Lo_que hemos es ganado. what have. 1 PL is.3SG won 'What we have is won.'

Summing up, an instance like (114) does not prove that deber has a lexical character; it does show, however, that deber is closer to a lexical verb than is a true auxiliary. Returning to the question of to which extent deber + infinitive is a periphrasis, I will apply the omission test for the identification of periphrases to the examples given at the beginning of this section: (106)

a. — De bo hablarle a usted must.lSG speak.INF-you(FORM) to you(FORM) con toda franqueza. with all frankness — Claro que debe, a ver, ique pasa? of-course must.2SG.(FORM) well what happen.3SG '—I must speak with you quite frankly. —Of course you must, well, what's up?'

(107)

a. no debia propasarse en not must.PAST.IMPF.3SG go-too-far.INF-REFL. 3 in horas de trabajo y αύη sabiendo que no hours of work and though know.GER that not debia lo hizo must.PAST.IMPF.3SG it did.PF.3SG 'he must not take liberties during working hours, and although he knew that he must not, he did it'

(108)

a.

— El compromise con la realidad debe ser the commitment with the reality must.3SG be.INF prioritario para ellos. priority.ADJ for them * — Efectivamente debe. Pero para muchos no indeed must.3SG but for many not es nada prioritario. is.3SG nothing priority.ADJ *—The commitment to reality must have priority for them. —Indeed, it must, but for many of them it does not have priority at all.'

158

(111)

Semi-auxiliary constructions

a.

— Yo debo tener eso que llaman I must.lSG have.INF that what call.3PL "fetichismo " por los brazos. fetichism for the arms * — Si, dada tu manera de mirarme, debes. yes given your way of look.INF-me must.2SG '—I must have what they call "fetishism" for arms. —Yes, given the way you're looking at me you must.'

In (106) and (107) deber is used to express the obligation of some person to participate in some SoA and to refrain from participating, respectively. From the fact that deber can express this notion independently of the corresponding infinitive construction, we can conclude that the participant in question fills an argument slot of deber. This means that deber is a semi-auxiliary serving to express Participant-oriented Deontic Modality. Deber cannot occur independently in the non-participant-oriented functions, which it fulfils in examples (108) and (111), from which we can conclude that deber + infinitive is a periphrasis in these functions. Like poder, deber, too, is a semi-auxiliary when expressing Eventoriented Modality in cases of non-specific reference to animate entities. This means that, in such a case, it may occur independently, although this will not happen too frequently: (116)

se la debe dar a la mujer una (M 68) one her must.3SG give.INF to the woman a autonomia (...) de tipo economico autonomy of kind economic 'one should give women some kind of (...) economic autonomy' a. — Se la debe dar a la mujer una one her must.3SG give.INF to the woman a autonomia (...) de tipo economico. autonomy of kind economic — Claro que se deberia, pero iquienes of-course that one must.COND.3SG but who.PL lo van a realizar? it go.3PL to realize.INF '—One should give women some kind of (...) economic autonomy. —Of course one should, but who is going to realize this?'

Let us now consider the properties of the semi-auxiliary. To begin with, it should be noted that deber is not as likely to occur independently as is

Infinitival constructions

159

poder. In this respect, deber rather parallels the aspectual soler. In fact, my corpus does not contain any instance of deber without the infinitive construction. There is one example, however, where deber occurs alone and the infinitive construction is only resumed after an intonation break. According to all informants I consulted on this example, it would have been much more natural if the infinitive construction had been left out altogether: (117)

CONTEXT: —Nopodemos dejar esta conversation inacabada... '—We cannot leave this conversation unfinished...' — No podemos? ;Claro que podemos! (POM 102) not can. 1 PL of-course that can. 1 PL Podemos, y debemos... dejarla inacabada. can. 1 PL and must. 1 PL leave.INF-it unfinished '—We cannot? Of course we can! We can and must... leave it unfinished.'

In his discussion of gerundial periphrases, Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 54) inadvertedly provides another example of independent deber, where, however, only part of the infinitival construction is omitted: (118)

Andan preguntando lo que no deben. walk.3PL ask.GER what not must.3PL 'They go about asking what they mustn't (ask).'

A possible reason for its lesser degree of independence is that deber, due to its directive meaning, is pragmatically more marked than poder. I will return to the matter of independence in section 5.4.30 As obligations can only felicitously be imposed on entities that have the capability of fulfilling them, it follows that the A1 of deber must have an animate referent (cf. Haverkate 1979: 94, 134). As in the case of deontic poder, the combining predication must have the property of being controllable, since imposing an obligation presupposes that the person on whom the obligation is imposed is able to what is required. In a combination of deber with a non-controlled predication such as (119) below, deber cannot be interpreted as a participant-oriented modal, but can only receive an event-oriented interpretation:

30. Contrary to what might be expected, the lesser independence of deber is probably unrelated to the fact that it cannot be followed by a negation particle, because soler, whose independent occurrence is as rare as that of deber, does not share this characteristic.

160 (119)

Semi-auxiliary constructions La gente deberia morirse the people must.COND.3SG die.INF-REFL.3 en el cuarto_de_bano con la radio puesta. in the bathroom with the radio turned-on 'People should die in the bathroom with the radio on.'

(VAZ 14)

As to the question of whether the combining predication is a core predication or an extended predication, my data indicate that it must be the latter. In the following examples, deber takes an expression of Irrealis Mood, i.e. an expression of a predication operator, in its scope: (120)

Lo debias haber it must.PAST.IMPF.2SG have.INF 'You should have done it'

hecho done

tu11 you

(RIC 83)

Like poder, deber may have phasal auxiliaries within its scope, whereas the reverse is not possible: (121)

Debemos empezar a trabajar a las ocho. must. 1 PL begin.INF PREP work.INF at the eight 'We must begin to work at eight o'clock.' a.

* Empezamos a deber trabajar a las ocho. begin. 1 PL PREP must.INF work.INF at the eight 'We begin to have to work at eight o'clock.'

For the predicate frame of deber this means that the combining predication is an extended predication. A Functional Grammar representation of deber should, therefore, read as follows: (122)

deberw (xj: ) 0 (e: [π, pred Vinf : σ, (χ;) (α°)]: : σ2)

This predicate frame parallels that of deontic poder.

31. The participial construction with haber in this example does not serve to express Tense or Aspect, which is obvious from the fact that the meaning of the example changes when transposed into a Present Tense context:

(120)

a.

* Lo debes

haber

hecho ίύ

it must.2SG have.INF done you 'You must have done it* This variant can no longer be read deontically; rather, the only possible interpretation is an inferential one.

Gerundial constructions 161

5.2. Gerundial constructions 5.2.0. Introduction As gerundial constructions have not yet been dealt with in any detail, we must first see how periphrastic gerundial constructions can be distinguished from lexical ones. This distinction is relevant for our present purpose insofar as semi-auxiliary constructions behave like lexical constructions in some respects and like periphrastic constructions in others. Section 5.2.1. will be devoted to this matter. The semi-auxiliaries I will discuss here are seguir / continuar 'go on' (5.2.2.), llevar 'carry', 'wear' (5.2.3.), both of which play a role of some importance in present-day Spanish, and the infrequent empezar / comenzar 'begin' (5.2.4.). Each section will be structured as follows: first I will give arguments in favour of considering the item under review a semi-auxiliary construction and not a periphrasis and then discuss its syntactic properties. In addition, I will distinguish between the semi-auxiliary variant and other closely related variants, as they may be confused.

5.2.1. Properties of lexical gerundial constructions When a gerundial construction has a lexical rather than a periphrastic nature, the gerund and its second and following arguments (henceforward: gerund construction) mostly fulfil some adverbial, i.e. satellite function. The satellite functions that gerund constructions can fulfil are of three kinds. Firstly, they can specify additional properties of the predicate, such as the manner in which some activity is performed or the means through which this is done. Secondly, they can provide additional information on the predicational level by specifying e.g. the time or the cause of the event described by the finite construction. Thirdly, they can provide additional information on the propositional level through specifying e.g. the reason that the person involved has for executing the action expressed by the finite verb and its arguments. When any such adverbial function is fulfilled, it is possible to substitute the gerund construction in the following ways: when specifying the predicate, the gerund construction can be questioned by means of como 'how* or be substituted by asi 'like this* (Fontanella de Weinberg 1970) or by any other non-gerundial expression of the corresponding semantic function, e.g. Manner or Means; when specifying the event or the proposition as a whole, the substitute will be a finite adverbial clause of e.g. Time, Cause

162

Semi-auxiliary constructions

or Reason. 32 Regardless of its function, the adverbial gerund construction can be omitted; the grammaticality of the remainder of the sentence will not be affected. The following two examples illustrate gerunds as predicate (123) and predication or proposition (124) satellites: (123)

en_vez_de irnos corriendo, instead-of go.INF-REFL.IPL run.GER nos vamos andando REFL.1PL go.IPL walk.GER 'instead of running away, we go walking away'

(M 313)

(124)

CONTEXT: —Cogelo y calla —impone el, en tono seco (...)—. Escuchame bien, Angel. Teneis que marchar lejos cuanto antes, pasar a la otra zona, si podeis. Estän buscdndoos. No. No saben que estdis aquf— *—Take it and shut up —he commands, sharply (...)—. Listen carefully, Angel. You must leave as soon as possible, get through to the other zone, if you can. They are looking for you. No. They don't know that you are here—') continua el leyendo en mi mirada la sorpresa (LLA 26) go-on.3SG he read.GER in my look the surprise 'he goes on, seeing that I look at him with surprise'

In the first of these examples, the gerund construction has the function of Manner; it can be questioned with como and be replaced by the adverb of Speed lentamente, which corresponds to what is meant by andando: (123)

a.

ι Como os vais? how REFL.2PL go.2PL 'How do you go away?'

b.

nos vamos lentamente REFL.1PL go.IPL slowly 'we go away slowly'

In the second example, leyendo en mi mirada la sorpresa specifies either the Time or the Reason of the action described by the predication continua el·, the gerund construction can thus be replaced by a finite adverbial clause of either Time or Reason:

32. For a detailed description of adverbial functions of gerundial constructions, cf. Reese (1991). For a classification of adverbial functions in relation to the difference between the levels of the predicate and the predication, cf. Dik et al. (1990: 32).

Gerundial constructions (124)

a.

continua el ya_que lee en mi mirada la go-on.3SG he as read.3SG in my look the sorpresa surprise 'he goes on, as he sees that I look at him with surprise'

b.

continua el cuando lee en mi mirada la go-on.3SG he when read.3SG in my look the sorpresa surprise 'he goes on, when he sees that I look at him with surprise'

163

Furthermore, the gerund construction can, in principle, be left out in both examples: 33 (123)

c.

nos vamos REFL.1PL go.IPL 'we go away'

(124)

c.

continua el go-on.3SG he 'he goes on'

Apart from expressing a satellite function, a gerund construction can also be used lexically as a predicative adjunct, i.e. to express a secondary event that is somehow temporally related to the primary event described by the finite verb and its arguments. This temporal relation may be one of simultaneity or of posteriority. 34 As we will see presently, this relation is not one of subordination as in the case of the satellites. Consider the following example:

33. For pragmatic aspects of the omission of Manner adverbials, see die discussion of examples (125d) and (126d) below. 34. On the so-called gerundio de posterioridad 'gerund of posteriority' cf. e.g. Garrido Medina (1990) and Reese (1991: 254-256). The following example from the weekly jHola! is quoted from Reese (1991: 255): (i) Contrajeron jnatrimonio en 1976 divorciändose α dos meses married.PF.3PL in 1976 get-a-divorce.GER-REFL.3 at two months de la boda from the wedding 'They got married in 1976 getting a divorce two months after the wedding'

164 (125)

Semi-auxiliary constructions Andaba por las Calles oscuras walked.IMPF.3SG through the streets dark recitando versos en voz alta recite.GER verses in voice loud 'He walked through the streets reciting verses aloud'

(GIR 50)

The gerund construction in (125) expresses an event that occurs simultaneously with the event described by the finite verb and its arguments (cf. Reese 1991: 250-254). This temporal relation can be reflected through a coordinated finite clause: (125)

a.

Andaba por las calles walked.IMPF.3SG through the streets (al mismo tiempo) recitaba at-the same time recited.IMPF.3SG en voz alta. in voice loud 'He walked through the streets and (at the verses aloud.'

oscuras dark versos verses

y and

same) time recited

When we paraphrase the sentence using the conjunction mientras 'while', we find that there is no semantic difference 35 whether we paraphrase the gerund construction as a subordinate or as a superordinate clause: (125)

b. Andaba por las calles oscuras mientras walked.IMPF.3SG through the streets dark while recitaba versos en voz alta. recited.IMPF.3SG verses in voice loud 'He walked through the streets while he recited verses aloud.' c.

Mientras andaba por las calles oscuras while walked.IMPF.3SG through the streets dark recitaba versos en voz alta. recited.IMPF.3SG verses in voice loud 'While he walked through the streets he recited verses aloud.'

35. There is, however, a pragmatic difference between the two variants, which concerns the relative prominence of the two events: the event described in the main clause is presented as being more salient than the event in the embedded clause. For this reason, I consider (125c), where recitaba versos en voz alta is the main clause, to be a more faithful reproduction of the original meaning than (125b).

Gerundial constructions

165

The temporal relation between the primary and the secondary predication is similar in the following example, and thus a paraphrase of the gerund construction through a co-ordinated main clause is possible: (126)

CONTEXT: Habian puesto una bomba en el coche del juez 'They had placed a bomb in the judge's car' que exploto en una zona residencial matando which exploded.PF.3SG in a zone residential kill.GER α dos transeuntes. PREP two passers-by 'which exploded in a residential area killing two passers-by.'

a.

que exploto en una zona residencial y which exploded.PF.3SG in a zone residential and mato a dos transeuntes killed.PF.3SG PREP two passers-by 'which exploded in a residential area and killed two passers-by'

However, the two predications are not simultaneous in the strict sense of the word, because the primary predication is momentaneous. This is why temporal subordination by means of mientras is excluded. Temporal subordination with cuando 'when' yields the following: (126)

b. que which cuando when 'which area' c.

mato α dos killed.PF.3SG PREP two exploto en una exploded.PF.3SG in a killed two passers-by when it

transeüntes passers-by zona residencial area residential exploded in a residential

* que exploto en una zona residencial which exploded.PF.3SG in a area residential cuando mato α dos transeüntes when killed.PF.3SG PREP two passers-by 'which exploded in a residential area when it killed two passers-by'

While (126b), in which the originally finite clause is subordinated, adequately renders the contents of (126), (126c), in which the original gerund construction is subordinated, is sheer nonsense. Summing up, gerund constructions that are predicative adjuncts can be paraphrased as coordinated or temporally superordinated finite clauses; depending on the Aktionsart of the predications, the conjunction may be mientras or cuando.

166

Semi-auxiliary

constructions

Predicative adjuncts, too, can be omitted; the grammatically of the remainder of the clause will not be affected: (125)

d. Andaba por las calles walked.IMPF.3SG through the streets 'He walked through the dark streets.'

(126)

d.

oscuras. dark

CONTEXT: Habian puesto una bomba en el coche del juez 'They had placed a bomb in the judge's car' que exploto en una zona residencial. which exploded.PF.3SG in a zone residential 'which exploded in a residential area'.

It should be noted, however, that predicative adjuncts —as well as Manner adverbs— tend to carry focal information. The omission of focal information —such as in (123c) and in (125d) and (126d)— may make utterances partially or entirely pointless, such that it can sometimes be difficult to decide on the wellformedness of such instances. For the testing procedure this means that the mere fact that a gerund construction cannot be omitted is insufficient to prove the non-lexical character of the construction. From this presentation of the potential lexical functions of gerund constructions it follows, that, in order to assess the lexical, semi-auxiliary or periphrastic character of the construction, four tests have to be carried out: (i) substitution by asi or questioning with como, (ii) substitution by a subordinate adverbial clause, (iii) substitution by a co-ordinate clause or a superordinate temporal clause, (iv) omission.

5.2.2. seguir / continuar 5.2.2.0. Introduction Although seguir and continuar, both meaning 'go on', are distinct as lexical verbs36, they do not differ from each other in the functions to be discussed here, except for the fact that seguir is definitely preferred in colloquial

36. Transitive seguir 'follow' is a movement verb, whereas transitive continuar 'continue' is not (cf. also Gomez Torrego 1988: 156-157). As transitive synonyms seguir / continuar are rare; their meaning is 'continue', and they take event-nouns as their second argument. Since transitive continuar does not express anything else, the overall frequency of continuar is considerably lower than that of seguir. The intransitive variants will be discussed in 5.2.2.3.

Genmdial constructions 167 Spanish. Consequently, I will deal with both verbs as if they were the same, although seguir will appear more often in the examples. In this section, I will first consider the distinction between semi-auxiliary and periphrastic uses of seguir and continuar and give a Functional Grammar representation of the semi-auxiliary (5.2.2.1.). In 5.2.2.2., I will discuss the relation between the semi-auxiliary and a lexical variant of seguir / continuar, both variants being so closely related that they might be taken to be different realizations of one and the same item, such that this relationship could be a counterargument against the analysis given in section 5.2.2.1. Section 5.2.2.3., finally, will be devoted to a few more lexical variants of seguir / continuar which might be confused with the semi-auxiliary.

5.2.2.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis Seguir / continuar + gerund is considered to be periphrastic by Gomez Torrego (1988: 156-158), Fernandez de Castro (1990: 84-85) and also by Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo (1972: 33), who generally refrain from considering constructions with semi-auxiliaries as periphrases, since in the view of Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo, constructions of this type have not undergone any semantic change (1972: 7). Let us again begin by considering the reasons which have motivated this decision. Seguir / continuar + gerund pass the substitution tests for the identifiction of periphrases. Consider the following examples with seguir: (127)

Se nos colo mucha (PUE 112) REFL.3SG us slipped-past.PF.3SG much gente mientras Ernesto, sentado en su maleta, people while Ernesto seated on his suitcase seguia leyendo went-on.IMPF.3SG read.GER 'Many people slipped past us, while Ernesto, sitting on his suitcase, kept on reading' a. * Ernesto, sentado en su maleta, seguia Ernesto seated on his suitcase went-on.IMPF.3SG asi. like-this 'Ernesto, sitting on his suitcase, went on like this.' b. Ζ Ernesto, sentado en su maleta, seguia Ernesto, seated on his suitcase went-on.IMPF.3SG mientras/ porque leia.

168

Semi-auxiliary constructions while because read.PAST.IMPF.3SG 'Ernesto, sitting on his suitcase was going on while / because he was reading.' c.

(128)

* Cuando Ernesto, sentado en su maleta, When Ernesto seated on his suitcase seguia, leia. went-on.IMPF.3SG read.PAST.IMPF.3SG 'When Ernesto, seated on his suitcase, was going on, he was reading.'

vivir en Madrid (...) sigue teniendo live.INF in Madrid go-on.3SG have-got.GER muchas ventajas many advantages 'living in Madrid (...) still has a lot of advantages'

(M 73)

a.

* vivir en Madrid sigue asi live.INF in Madrid go-on.3SG like-this 'living in Madrid goes on like this'

b.

* vivir en Madrid (...) sigue mientrasl porque live.INF in Madrid go-on.3SG while because tiene muchas ventajas have-got.3SG many advantages 'living in Madrid (...) goes on while / because it has a lot of advantages'

c.

* cuando vivir en Madrid (...) sigue, when live.INF in Madrid go-on.3SG tiene muchas ventajas have-got. 3SG many advantages 'when living in Madrid goes on, it has a lot of advantages'

The inappropriateness of the variants of (127) and the ungrammaticality of those of (128) prove that seguir + gerund is not a lexical construction. Another argument in favour of classifying seguir / continuar + gerund as a periphrasis is the broad applicability of the construction: (129)

yo sigo pagando la cuota I go-on. 1SG pay.GER the membership-fee Ί continue to pay the membership fee'

(M 299)

Gerundial constructions

169

(130)

seguiremos charlando en un bar go-on.FUT.IPL chat.GER in a cafe 'we will go on chatting in a cafe'

(PAL 81)

(131)

Creia que era correcta (C 969.44) believed.IMPF. 1SG that was.IMPF.3SG correct (aquella politico) y sigo creyendolo that policy and go-on. 1SG believe.GER-it Ί believe that (that policy) was correct, and I continue to believe so'

(132)

Han pasado mäs de treinta anos y (VAZ 17) have.3PL passed more than thirty years and sigue habiendo hospicios go-on.3SG there-be.GER orphanages 'More than thirty years have gone by and still there are orphanages'

(133)

los indices de natalidad seguirän siendo the indices of birth-rate go-on.FUT.3PL be.GER el veinte por mil the twenty per mille 'the birth rate will remain twenty per mille'

(M 176)

In the above examples seguir / continuar + gerund occur with transitive (129), (131) and intransitive verbs (130), with the existential verb haber (132) and with a copula construction (133). The examples further illustrate that, seemingly, seguir and continuar do not impose any restrictions on the semantic function of the A1 of the main predicate, because the semantic functions of the first arguments are quite heterogeneous in the examples: Agent in (129) and (130), Experiencer in (131), Zero in (132) and (133). However, as in the case of the other phasal semi-auxiliaries, the application of the omission test will show that seguir / continuar do in fact impose selection restrictions: (129)

a. Los demäs han dejado de pagar la the others have.3PL stopped PREP pay.INF the cuota pero yo sigo. memebership-fee but I go-on. 1SG 'The others have stopped paying the membership-fee but I go on.'

170 (130)

Semi-auxiliary constructions a.

Oye, esto no es tuen lugar para listen.IMP.SG this not is.3SG good place to Vamos a un bar y seguimos alii. iQue go.IPL to a cafe and go-on.IPL there what parece? seem.3SG 'Listen, this is not a good place to talk. Let's go to continue there. What do you think?'

charlar. chat.INF te you a cafe and

(131)

a. * Creia que era correcta believed.IMPF.lSG that was.IMPF.3SG correct y sigo. and go-on. 1SG Ί believed that it was correct and I continue.'

(132)

a. * Siempre hajiabido hospicios y sigue. always there-have-been orphanages and go-on.3SG 'There have always been orphanages and it continues.'

(133)

a.

* Este aAo los indices de natalidad han sido this year the indices of birth-rate have.3PL been el veinte por mil, y estoy seguro de que the twenty per mille and be.lSG certain of that seguiran. go-on.FUT.3PL 'This year the birth rate was twenty per mille, and I'm certain that it will continue.'

Only the examples with an agentive A1, (129) and (130), allow for omission of the gerund construction. It follows that, like the infinitival semiauxiliaries, seguir / continuar have one argument, which they share with the A1 of some combining verb. The argument has the semantic function of Agent and must refer to an animate entity. In (131M133) this selection restriction is violated. Hence (129) and (130) are instances of the semiauxiliary, whereas examples (131)-(133) are instances of the periphrasis seguir / continuar + gerund. Let us now turn to the syntactic and semantic properties of the semiauxiliary variant of seguir / continuar. From the fact that A1 must have the semantic function Agent, it follows that the predicate must designate some action. As in the case of empezar / continuar and acabar / terminar this action cannot be momentaneous:

Gerundial constructions (134)

171

?? Pili continua matändole α Alberto. Pili go-on.3SG kill.GER-him PREP Alberto 'Pili goes on killing Alberto.'

Example (134) is grammatical only when the Action of killing a person is viewed as being non-momentaneous. Seguir / continuar furthermore resemble the Inner Aspect semi-auxiliaries in infinitival constructions in that they codetermine the Aktionsart of the predication: seguir and continuar render telic predications atelic. (135)

Carlos leyo el Quijote en dos Carlos read.PAST.PF.3SG the Quixote in two 'Carlos read Don Quixote within two days time.'

dias. days

As shown by the time adverbial en dos dias, the above example is telic. Applying seguir or continuar yields a correct sentence only when en dos dias is left out: (135)

a. * Carlos siguio leyendo el Quijote Carlos went-on.PF.3SG read.GER the Quixote en dos dias. in two days 'Carlos went on reading Don Quixote within two days time.' b. Carlos siguio leyendo el Quijote. Carlos went-on.PF.3SG read.GER the Quixote 'Carlos went on reading Don Quixote.'

Seeing these properties, seguir / continuar should be accounted for in Functional Grammar in a fashion similar to that of the other Phasal Aspect semi-auxiliaries: (136)

a. seguirv (xj: )Ag [predVger: Oj (χ;)^ (a n ): ] b. continuarv (x4: )Ai [predVgw: σ ( (x()Ag (a11): ]

These representations parallel those given for empezar / comenzar and acabar / terminar in section 5.1.1.1.2. The core predication in brackets must have at least one argument, which must have the function of Agent and be co-referential with the first and only argument of seguir and continuar. The core predication cannot be momentaneous.

172

Semi-auxiliary constructions

5.2.2.2. Potential counterarguments There is one important objection which might be raised to classifying the agentive uses of seguir and continuar as semi-auxiliaries: many occurrences of seguir / continuar + gerund allow for a paraphrase of the gerund construction through a nominal term referring to an event, introduced by the preposition con 'with'. This possibility suggests the conclusion that the gerund construction and the prepositional construction are alternative ways of expressing one and the same thing, viz. a satellite with some specific semantic function. Consider the following examples of seguir / continuar in combination with con plus a nominal term: (137)

Hazme_caso a mi y continua do.IMP-me-attention to me and go-on.IMP con tu Diario. with your diary 'Listen to me and go on with your diary.'

(GIR 50)

(138)

CONTEXT:(a trade union boss dictates a communique to a journalist on the phone; after interrupting himself by giving some comment on the issue, he proceeds:) sigo con el comunicado (PAL 72) go-on. 1SG with the communique Ί go on with the communique'

Although Diario in (137) and comunicado in (138) refer to concrete entities, what is meant is in fact an event, namely the event of writing the diary and the event of dictating the communique. Both examples allow for a paraphrase through a gerundial construction: (137)

a.

Hazme_caso a mi y continua redactando do.IMP-me-attention to me and go-on.IMP write.GER tu Diario. your diary 'Listen to me and go on writing your diary."

(138)

a.

sigo dictando el comunicado go-on. 1SG dictate.GER the communique 'I go on dictating the communique'

Conversely, seguir / continuar con can sometimes be used as an alternative of the gerundial construction:

Gerundial constructions (139)

Sigo leyendo. go-on. 1SG read.GER Ί go on reading.' a.

173

(RIC 71)

Sigo con la lectura. go-on. 1SG with the reading Ί go on reading.'

Although these facts do indeed suggest the existence of a relation between the two uses of seguir / continuar, such that the gerundial construction should be an alternative way of expressing the semantic function of the nominal construction, there are two reasons why I refrain from taking this position. Firstly, the above relation is not systematic: in some contexts, the gerundial construction would be more appropriately paraphrased by means of transitive seguir / continuar (140) and in a number of cases, any nominal paraphrase is "strange" (141) or hardly possible (142): (140)

Di a nuestros amigos que seguiremos (PAL 81) say.IMP to our friends that go-on.FUT.IPL charlando en el bar chat.GER in the cafe 'Tell our friends that we will go on chatting in the cafe' a. seguiremos la charla en el bar go-on.FUT.IPL the chat in the cafe 'we will continue the chat in the cafe'

(141)

Muchas tiendas seguian vendiendo (VAZ 17) many shops went-on.IMPF.3PL sell.GER loque siempre habian vendido what always had.IMPF.3PL sold 'Many shops went on selling what they had always sold' a.

? Muchas tiendas seguian con la venta many shops went-on.IMPF.3PL with the sale de lo que siempre habian vendido. of what always had.IMPF.3PL sold 'Many shops went on with the sale of what they had always sold.'

174

Semi-auxiliary constructions b.

(142)

??

Muchas tiendas seguian la venta de many shops went-on.IMPF.3PL the sale of lo_que siempre habian vendido. what always had.IMPF.3PL sold 'Many shops continued the sale of what they had always sold.'

Mi madre (...) continuaba andando my mother went-on.IMPF.3SG walk.GER descalza por el piso barefoot about the flat 'my mother went on walking barefoot about the flat* a.

??

b.

Φ continuaba sus paseos descalzos went-on.IMPF.3SG her walks barefoot.PL 'she continued her barefoot walks'

(GIR 54)

continuaba con sus paseos descalzos went-on.IMPF.3SG with her walks barefoot.PL 'she went on with her barefoot walks'

Secondly, if there were indeed a consistent semantic relation between seguir / continuar + gerund and seguir / continuar con, this should be reflected in a common pro-form. However, the pro-forms appropriate for seguir / continuar con cannot be used to refer to the gerund construction: (143)

Nosotros seguiremos produciendo lo mismo we go-on.FUT.IPL produce.GER the same 'We will go on producing the same things' a.

* Nosotros seguiremos con eso we go-on.FUT.IPL with that 'We will go on with this'

b.

/ iCon qui seguireis? with what go-on.FUT.2PL 'With what will you go on?'

(C 969.79)

In section 4.2.1 discussed a few verbal constructions which did not allow for pronominal reference to the non-finite construction but which I nevertheless considered to be lexical constructions, such as querer + infinitive and acertar + infinitive. These constructions, however, involved some deviant use of the verb in question, which explained the impossibility of pronominal

Gerundial constructions

175

reference. In the present case, such an explanation is out of the question, since the use of seguir and continuar under review is by no means deviant; on the contrary, it is the most frequent, prototypical, application of these verbs. Hence, I consider seguir / continuar + gerund a semi-auxiliary and seguir / continuar con a prepositional verb.

5.2.2.3. Other lexical uses Before turning to the other Inner Aspect semi-auxiliaries, I would like to review two types of non-literal usage of seguir and continuar as intransitive movement verbs, which are closely related to the semi-auxiliary and might be confused with it: the metaphorical movement and the pseudo-copular use. Let us first consider two examples of the former: (144)

Por otra parte, seguia creciendo. (GIR 46) PREP other part went-on.IMPF.lSG grow.GER (...) "Como continues asi, parecer&s if go-on.SUBJ.2SG like-this seem.FUT.2SG la Torre de Babel." the tower of Babel 'On the other hand, I went on growing. (...) "If you go on like this you will become like the Tower of Babel".'

(145)

para mantenerse en su sitio (C 967.150) in-order-to stay.INF-REFL.3 in one's place hayque seguir en la lucha is-necessary go-on.INF in the battle 'in order to stay in one's job one has to go on in the battle'

In (144) the movement verb continuar is used metaphorically, referring to movement in time. The adverbial pro-form asi does not anaphorically refer to creciendo in the preceding clause, but is used deictically to refer to the rapid growth of the first-person narrator as it is perceived by the speaker whose comment is quoted here. Hence, continuar asi is an intransitive movement verb combined with a manner adverb and is syntactically unrelated to seguir creciendo in the preceding sentence of the same example, which is an instance of the periphrasis seguir + gerund. The same sort of metaphorical movement is expressed through seguir in (145), where en la lucha is a locative adverbial phrase. Seguir / continuar also occur with locative expressions which completely contradict the movement meaning. In such cases the movement meaning is further reduced so that only the semantic notion of persistence is left:

176 (146)

Semi-auxiliary constructions Marcos Flores, Marcos Flores, en casa de in house of 'Marcos Flores,

el nino huerfano, continuaba (GIR 49) the child orphan went-on.IMPF.3SG Raquel. Raquel the orphan, still stayed with Raquel.'

This very meaning is also expressed by seguir and continuar in combination with adjectives and participles indicating non-permanent states: (147)

j Sigue tan guapa? go-on. 3SG so pretty 'Does she still look so good?'

(VAZ 42)

(148)

cuando llego la mujer de la limpieza (ORT 113) when arrived.PF.3SG the woman of the cleaning (la luz) seguia encendida the light went-on.IMPF.3SG turned-on 'when the cleaning lady arrived, (the light) was still turned on'

In these instances seguir and continuar fulfil a function which resembles that of a copula, since in none of them the main predicate can be omitted, whereas it can be anaphorically referred to: (146)

a.

/ Marcos Flores continuaba. Marcos Flores went-on.IMPF.3SG 'Marcos Flores went on.'

b. Marcos Flores continuaba Marcos Flores still-was.IMPF.3SG 'Marcos Flores still stayed there.' (147)

alii. there

a.

— Siempre ha estado muy guapa... always have.3SG been very pretty * — iY sigue? and go-on.3SG '—She has always looked very pretty... —And does she still?'

b.

— Siempre ha estado muy guapa... always have.3SG been very pretty — IY sigue asi? and go-on.3SG like-this '—She has always looked very pretty... —And does she still?'

Gerundia I constructions (148)

a.

177

* La luz estd encendida y seguird the light is.3SG turned-on and go-on.FUT.3SG hasta_que nos vayamos. until REFL.1PL go.SUBJ.IPL 'The light is turned on and it will remain until we leave.'

b. La luz estd encendida y seguird asi the light is.3SG turned-on and go-on.FUT.3SG like-this hasta_que nos vayamos. until REFL.1PL go.SUBJ.IPL 'The light is turned on and it will remain so until we leave.' In these examples seguir and continuar establish some sort of pseudo-copular relation (Hengeveld 1992b: 39-45) between the non-verbal predicates and their arguments while at the same time expressing the meaning of persistence. This relation is not truly copular, since the predicates still fulfil an adverbial function, witness the use of the adverbial pro-form asi instead of the pro-form lo for adjectival predicates. In fact, the locative expression in (146), the adjective guapa in (147) and the participial form encendida in (148) are predicative adjuncts whose function is to describe the situation of the referent of the argument of the movement verb. On the other hand, the fact that the verbs cannot occur alone indicates that with non-verbal predicates of location and state seguir and continuar do no longer fulfil their functions as independent movement verbs. From this ambivalent situation we may conclude that in such use, seguir and continuar occupy some intermediate position in between independent lexical predicates and semi-copulas. The process of copularization of lexical verbs, which has been described in detail in Hengeveld (1992b: 237-256), is similar to the auxiliarization process, since both processes are forms of grammaticalization. In both cases an originally secondary predication gradually becomes the primary predication, while the verb in the originally primary predication is reduced to an auxiliary (cf. also Lehmann 1988: 201-204). The difference between the two consists in the fact that with auxiliarization the originally secondary predication is a verbal one, whereas with copularization it is a non-verbal predication.

178

Semi-auxiliary constructions

5.2.3. llevar 5.2.3.0. Introduction Llevar 'carry', 'wear' occurs in a gerundial construction only in combination with some expression of duration, as illustrated by the following examples: (149)

Llevo una hora esperändote. carry. 1SG one hour wait-for.GER-you.ACC Ί have been waiting for you for an hour.'

(RIC 71)

(150)

llevaba deambulando por (PUE 126) carried.IMPF. 1SG stroll.GER PREP el hotel desde el principio de la tarde the hotel since the beginning of the afternoon Ί had been strolling through the hotel since the early afternoon'

The expression of duration can take the form of a quantified nominal predicate expressing some span of time37, as in (149), or it may be an expression which temporally locates the beginning of the SoA in time, as is the case in (150). With such a duration term llevar can occur in diverse construction types, where it invariably expresses a meaning which Comrie (1976: 60) has labelled "perfect of persistent situation". As Gomez Torrego (1988: 156) observes, the meanings of llevar and seguir / continuar are complementary to one another, in the sense that the former expresses the persistence of some situation from some anterior moment to the reference point in time, whereas the latter expresses the persistence of some situation from the reference point onwards. There is, however, a significant semantic difference: apart from their aspectual meaning, seguir and continuar express a controlled Action, whereas llevar does not express anything but its grammatical meaning. It is due to the common meaning of persistence that both semiauxiliaries combine with gerunds rather than with infinitives and that they share a few other syntactic properties as well. The structure of this section will be such that I will first show that llevar + gerund is a semi-auxiliary construction in all possible contexts and then discuss the way in it should be accounted for in Functional Grammar

37. Albeit rarely, the duration element can also specify an amount of space, such as in the following example:

(i) Llevo

un

kilometro

corriendo trasjle

cany.lSG one kilometre run.GER after Ί have been running after you for one kilometre'

ti you

(RIC 74)

Gerundial constructions

179

(5.2.3.1.). Subsequently, in section 5.2.3.2., I will consider the uses of the transitive verb llevar that are relevant within this context.

5.2.3.1. Semi-auxiliary versus periphrasis As in the case of seguir I continuar + gerund, all the authors referred to thus far agree upon the periphrastic character of llevar + gerund (cf. Fente— Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 35; Gomez Torrego 1988: 152-154; Fernandez de Castro 1990: 83; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 59-61). Like seguir and continuar + gerund, llevar + gerund does indeed pass the substitution test for the identification of periphrases: (151)

(152)

ya llevamos media hora hablando already carry.IPL half hour talk.GER 'we have been talking for half an hour already'

(M 164)

a.

Φ ya llevamos media hora asi already carry.IPL half hour like-this 'we have been like this for half an hour already'

b.

* ya llevamos media hora mientras/porque already carry.IPL half hour while because hablamos talk. 1 PL 'We have been for half an hour while / because we have been talking'

c.

* cuando ya llevamos media hora, hablamos when already carry.IPL half hour talk. 1 PL 'when we have been for half an hour, we talk'

La deuda publica lleva porjojnenos veinte anos the debt public carry. 3SG at-least twenty years incrementändose continuamente. increase.GER-REFL.3 continually 'National debt has been increasing continually for at least twenty years.'

180

Semi-auxiliary constructions a.

/ La deuda publica lleva porjojnenos veinte the debt public carry.3SG at-least twenty anos asi. years like-this 'National debt has been like this for at least twenty years.'

b.

* La deuda publica lleva porjojnenos veinte the debt public carry.3SG at-least twenty aAos mientras/ porque se incrementa years while because REFL.3 increase. 3SG continuamente. continually 'National debt has been for at least twenty years while / because it continually increases.'

c.

* Cuando lleva por lojnenos veinte anos, se when carry.3SG at-least twenty years REFL.3 incrementa continuamente la deuda publica. increase.3SG continually the debt public 'When it has been for at least twenty years, national debt continually increases.'

From the inappropriateness of the a.-variants and the ungrammaticality of the b.- and c.- variants we may safely conclude that llevar + gerund is indeed not a lexical construction. However, the application of the omission test to these examples reveals that llevar + gerund is not a periphrasis either: (151)

d.

No quiero hablar mds, porque ya llevamos not want.lSG talk.INF more because already carry.lPL media hora. half hour Ί don't want to talk any longer because we have been doing so for half an hour.'

(152)

d.

La deuda publica lleva porjojnenos veinte anos the debt public carry. 3SG at-least twenty years incrementdndose continuamente, ... y hay increase.GER-REFL.3 continually and there-is gente que dice que lleva ya treinta. people who say.3SG that carry.3SG already thirty 'National debt has been increasing continually for at least twenty years, ...and there are people who say that is has been doing so for thirty years already.'

Gerundial constructions

181

In (151) the A1 of the main verb refers to a person and has the semantic function of Agent, whereas in (152) the referent of A1 is an abstract entity. This means that omitting the main verb is possible regardless of the nature of A1. Let us consider a few more examples: (153)

Llevaba un tiempo oyendo sirenas (GIR 29) carried.IMPF.lSG a time hear.GER sirens de barcos que no existian of ships which not existed.IMPF.3PL 'For some time I had been hearing sirens of ships which did not exist' a. —

) Q „ „ , [ p r e d e g „ : a , (t2: < p o i n t > ) S o [ p r e d B g , r :

(a)

[predeinf: σ,

MEANING: ' b e l o n g i n

(a°):

(n

(since

]

time)' ]

n)'

]

(So/l-ing)'

(t2: < e x t e n s i o n > ) Q n l B 1

MEANING: ' t a k e

(a,) (aD):

(α() (α°):

MEANING: ' h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d i n (SoA)

tardary (a)0

]

(doing)'

de [ p r e d V i n f : (SoA-'mg)'

tardarv (at)0 en

]

σ , (x;)Ag (a"):

MEANING: ' h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d i n ( S o A ) ( f o r η

llevarv (α)0

]

(doing)'

seguirv ( x i : < a n i m > ) A g [ p r e d V g „ : continuar„ ( x i : < a n i m > ) A s [ p r e d V g , t :

MEANING: ' s t o p

]

(doing)'

acabarv ( x i : < a n i m > ) A g de [ p r e d V i n f : σ,^ terminarv ( X j : < a n i m > ) A g de [ p r e d v i n f : σ ,

pararv

(a°):

(χ^Λ, (a°):

time) to

en

[pred,

iof:

al (a)

(a°):

]

(SoA)'

OUTER ASPECT

solery

( x , : < a n i m > ) P o , ( e : [%! p r e d v i l l f : σ , ( x j ^ ( α ° ) ] :

MEANING: ' b e i n t h e h a b i t o f ( d o i n g ) , u s u a l l y

empezary (\: < a n i m > ) A g ( e : Κ comenzary (Xj: < a n i m > ) A g ( e : MEANING: ' b e t h e f i r s t t o

llevary

(x^anim;»)^

σ2)

(do)'

p r e d V g „ : σ, (x,)^ (α0)]:

σ2)

p r e d V g „ : σ ( (Xj)Ag ( α ° ) ] :

( i Q x ^ c c o u n t : » ) ^ (e: [π, p r e d y , » , , : a ,

MEANING: ' h a v e d o n e (n

σ2)

(do)' (Xi)Ag(x,)(J]:

A2)'

MODALITY podery

(xj: < a n i m > ) 0 [ p r e d V i „ f :

MEANING: ' b e a b l e t o podery

(x,: < a n i m > ) 0 (e: [ x t p r e d v

MEANING: ' c a n podery

(α")]

Μ·.

σ , (Xi) ( α ° ) ] :

σ2)

(extrinsically)'

(Xj: < a n i m > ) 0 ( e : [ ä , p r e d v i n f :

(χ() ( α ° ) ] : < c o n > :

σ2)

(x^. < a n i m > ) 0 ( e : [JC, p r e d v i n f : σ , ( χ ; ) ( a ° ) ] : < c o n > :

σ2)

MEANING: debery

(χ,)

(intrinsically)'

MEANING:

'may'

'must'

°2>

209

210

Semi-auxiliary constructions

The modal semi-auxiliaries operate on different levels, too. Although they all express participant-oriented modal distinctions 43 , poder in its strict sense of intrinsic ability modifies the core predication, while in its other senses it modifies the extended predication, as does deber. This differentiation is based on the fact that poder in its intrinsic ability function cannot take J t r operators in its scope, whereas in its other functions it can, as can deber. The comparison of the predicate frames of the semi-auxiliaries yields yet another parameter of subcategorization: the selection restriction on the potential referents of the argument of the semi-auxiliary. The semiauxiliaries that do not require an animate referent for their argument are semi-auxiliaries in any context, i.e. they do not have periphrastic variants. These are parar de (+ infinitive), tardar en (+ infinitive) and llevar (+ gerund). Only the semi-auxiliaries that do require an animate referent for their argument have periphrastic variants, which, as a general rule, consist in the use of these semi-auxiliaries in contexts in which this selection restriction is not complied with. There are two details which could not be explained before now, for the simple reason that their explanation requires a comparison of the semiauxiliaries. The first detail I would like to discuss is the question why the phasal semi-auxiliaries empezar / comenzar and acabar / terminar are the only ones that can occur independently even when the predication which they modify cannot be retrieved from the linguistic context. The reason for this is related to the concreteness of their meanings. In fact, empezar / comenzar and acabar / terminar are the only semi-auxiliaries which denote actions that can be immediately perceived in some situation. In this respect they are unique among the semi-auxiliaries, as the following example may serve to illustrate. (194)

a.

Pedro empieza a Pedro begin.3SG PREP 'Pedro begins to paint.'

pintar. paint.INF

b.

Pedro termina de Pedro finish.3SG PREP "Pedro finishes painting.'

pintar. paint.INF

c.

Pedro tarda mucho en pintar un cuadro. Pedro take.3SG much in paint.INF one painting "Pedro takes a long time in making a painting.'

43. For the sake of the argument, I will not take into consideration the event-oriented use of modal semi-auxiliaries, i.e. their use with non-specific referents of A1.

Summary and discussion d. Pedro suele Pedro do-usually.3SG 'Pedro (usually) paints.'

211

pintar. paint.INF

e.

Pedro puede pintar. Pedro can.3SG paint.INF 'Pedro can paint.'

f.

Pedro debe pintar. Pedro must.3SG paint.INF 'Pedro must paint.'

g. Pedro sigue pintando. Pedro go-on.3SG paint.GER 'Pedro goes on painting.' h.

Pedro no para de Pedro not stop.3SG PREP 'Pedro paints continually.'

pintar. paint.INF

i.

Pedro lleva tres horas pintando. Pedro carry.3SG three hours paint.GER 'Pedro has been painting for three hours.'

j.

Pedro empieza pintando. Pedro begin.3SG paint.GER 'Pedro begins (=is the first in) painting.'

k.

Pedro lleva tres cuadros pintados. Pedro carry.3SG three paintings painted 'Pedro has made three paintings (so far).'

Of these examples, the SoAs described in the (194c-f) are not actions but in fact predications assigning non-perceivable properties. Examples (194g-i) describe what is perceived against the background of the knowledge about what is the case with the painting-event at some moment other than the reference point. Example (194j) describes what is perceived against the background of the knowledge of painting-events other than the one described, and (194k) describes the result of previous painting events. Only (194a) and (194b) describe a perceivable event without any further implications. It is, therefore, not astonishing that only empezar / comenzar a and acabar / terminar de as exemplified in (194a) and (194b) can occur without a contextually retrievable predication.

212

Semi-auxiliary constructions

The second point I would like to discuss concerns the combination of meteorological verbs like llover 'rain*. Throughout this chapter, I have carefully avoided using examples with any verb of this type, because they run counter all my other findings. According to my informants, llover can be omitted easily with the phasal verbs empezar, acabar, parar, seguir. The case of parar is perhaps not really surprising, but the others are. (195)

CONTEXT: Parece que va a haber una tormenta. ... Ahora mismo va a empezar a nevar.... 'It looks as if we were going to have a storm ... Right now it is going to begin to snow...' jMira!, ;mira!, ;ahora empieza! look.IMP look.IMP now begin.3SG 'Look, look, now it's beginning!'

(196)

iLlueve todavia? Parece que nunca va rain.3SG still seem.3SG that never go.3SG 'Is it still raining? It looks as if it would never end.'

(197)

Cuando entramos en el cine llovia, when got-in.PF.IPL in the cinema rained.IMPF.3SG cuando salimos seguia. when got-out.PF.IPL went-on.IMPF.3SG 'When we entred the cinema it was raining; when we got out it was still raining.'

a acabar. to end.INF

Generally, meteorological verbs are regarded as zero-place verbs44, and therefore, would have to be expected to form periphrastic constructions with empezar, acabar and seguir, i.e. to be inseparable from the auxiliaries. The fact that, instead, llover and nevar 'snow' behave as agentive verbs suggests that there may be a difference between an intuition-guided human conception of natural phenomena on the one hand and our knowlegde of the same phenomena on the other. It may be that, in this respect (and perhaps in others too), language reflects a "backward" look at the world, which does in fact no longer correspond with our knowlegde of the world. Be it as it may, there may be doubt as to whether it is correct to consider meteorological predicates zero-place predicates.

44. In fact, I represented them as such in sections 4.2.1.4. and 4.2.1.8.

6. Periphrastic constructions

6.0. Introduction The principal aim of this chapter will be to show that the constructions from Table 1 in section 3.2. which as yet have not been excluded are indeed periphrases. These constructions pass both the substitution and the omission tests for the identification of periphrases and, furthermore, comply with all the other criteria which follow from the definition given in section 3.1.1. Thus, the finite verb functions as a lexical item outside the construction, the finite verb agrees with the subject of the entire construction, and the construction is productive. Although the semantic and syntactic properties of periphrases will be globally sketched where necessary, I will not go into any semantic or syntactic details in this chapter. The semantics of the periphrases to be presented here will be discussed in chapter 7, and the syntactic structures of periphrases as well as their representation in Functional Grammar will be at issue in chapter 8. Periphrases can be roughly subdivided into two types. The first type, which I will label "partially periphrastic", consists of constructions that are periphrastic only in those contexts that are incompatible with a non-periphrastic reading of the construction. Such a situation of incompatibility occurs whenever any of the restrictions imposed by the finite verb are violated; these restrictions may concern either the selection restrictions, which restrict the set of potential referents of some argument, or the semantic function to be assigned to some argument. We have already encountered a number of partially periphrastic constructions in chapter 5 on semi-auxiliaries; most the semi-auxiliaries discussed have periphrastic variants which are only partially periphrastic, because they are periphrases if and only if the context does not fit the restrictions of the semi-auxiliary. The second type, which will be called "fully periphrastic", consists of constructions that may have a periphrastic reading in any context. An example of such a construction is ir a + infinitive, which was discussed in chapter 3. The second type of periphrases can be further subdivided into constructions that are parallelled by a homonymous non-periphrastic counterpart and constructions that do not have such a counterpart. It should be noted that the non-existence of a non-periphrastic homonym of the construction does not imply that the periphrastic auxiliary does not have a lexical variant; rather, it means that the lexical variant of the periphrastic auxiliary does not occur in the same contexts as does the periphrastic variant. An example is acabar,

214

Periphrastic constructions

which as a lexical verb can never occur with por + infinitive; this construction pattern is exclusively periphrastic. Schematically, this typology can be represented as follows: Partial

Periphrases

with

non-periphrastic homonym Full without non-periphrastic homonym Figure 7. Typology of verbal periphrases This subdivision will be relevant for the testing methods to be applied in this chapter, because each type will behave differently. The application of the tests for the identification of periphrases to partially periphrastic constructions will yield positive results only in a restricted number of contexts. On the other hand, fully periphrastic constructions with non-periphrastic homonyms will be ambiguous whenever the context is compatible with a lexical interpretation, such that, in these contexts, the tests will yield both a positive and a negative result. Finally, fully periphrastic constructions without a nonperiphrastic homonym will show positive results in any context. Furthermore, the distinction between partially and fully periphrastic constructions allows for inferences with respect to the way in which the periphrases came into being. Whereas partially periphrastic constructions come about through the non-literal use of the finite verb, the origin of fully periphrastic constructions is less obvious and in some cases can only be guessed at. The origin of the fully periphrastic constructions forms a secondary issue of this chapter. The discussion of the periphrases will be structured in the same way as that of lexical and semi-auxiliary constructions, i.e. according to the nonfinite form of the lexical predicate: section 6.1. will concern infinitival constructions, section 6.2. gerundial constructions and section 6.3. participial constructions. Each section will be further subdivided according to the typology sketched above. In the concluding section 6.4., I will give an overall classification of periphrases and briefly discuss the grammaticalization channels through which the distinct types may have developed.

Infinitival periphrases

215

6.1. Infinitival periphrases 6.1.0. Introduction The same tests that have been applied in chapters 4 and 5 to prove the nonperiphrastic character of the various infinitival constructions will be used in the present section in order to show that the infinitive constructions from Table 1 (section 3.2.) which have not been excluded so far are indeed periphrases. The application of these tests, which consist in (i) the substitution of the infinitive construction through a pronoun, a nominal term or a nominal clause and (ii) the omission of the infinitive construction, will yield positive results. This means that the finite verb in the construction does not embed the infinitive construction because, in that case, substitution should be possible, and that it does not bear a semi-auxiliary relationship to the infinitive construction because, in that case, omission should be possible. In accordance with the classification given in the introduction to this chapter, I will distinguish between partially periphrastic infinitival constructions (6.1.1.) and fully periphrastic infinitival periphrases (6.1.2.).

6.1.1. Partially periphrastic constructions 6.1.1.0. Introduction Partially periphrastic constructions are periphrases only in those contexts where a non-periphrastic reading is syntactically impossible. Hence, partially periphrastic constructions are in a complementary distribution with the lexical or semi-auxiliary constructions (henceforward I will also use "(semi-) lexical" to refer to both groups) on which they are based. Semantically, they are very close to their non-periphrastic counterparts, so that a distinction of this type of periphrases on semantic grounds is almost impossible.1 The following infinitival periphrases are periphrases only in contexts that do not allow for a (semi-)lexical reading: comenzar / empezar a 'begin', deber (de) 'must', meterse a 'put oneself to', pasara 'proceed to', 'go on to', poder 'can', ponerse a 'put oneself to', soler 'usually do', 'be in the habit of*. This set of partially periphrastic constructions comprises four constructions whose periphrastic auxiliary is a semi-auxiliary outside the periphrasis and three constructions whose periphrastic auxiliary is a lexical verb outside

1. It is no coincidence that this type of periphrastic constructions has often been adduced as an argument against utilizing the semantic criterion (cf. e.g. Launay 1980: 44; Femändez de Castro 1990: 28).

216

Periphrastic constructions

the periphrasis, namely meterse a, pasar a and ponerse a. In this section, I will first briefly consider the periphrases based on semi-auxiliaries (6.1.1.1.) and then discuss the lexically based periphrases in more detail (6.1.1.2.).

6.1.1.1. Periphrases based on semi-auxiliaries 6.1.1.1.0. Introduction In the discussion of semi-auxiliaries in chapter 5, it has been shown that all semi-auxiliaries impose certain restrictions on their argument and on the combining predication. When any of these restrictions is violated, the construction turns into a periphrasis. In view of the detailed account of each infinitival semi-auxiliary and its periphrastic variant in section 5.1., I will confine myself here to giving a very short overview of these periphrases, dealing only with the most important possible violations of their selection restrictions. For this purpose, I will subdivide the semi-auxiliaries into two groups, according to the strictness of their restrictions. The first group will consist of empezar / comenzar a, soler and deber (6.1.1.1.1.) and the second of poder (6.1.1.1.2.).

6.1.1.1.1. comenzar / empezar a, soler, deber The three semi-auxiliaries comenzar / empezar a, soler and deber have the common property of imposing two restrictions, one on their argument and one on the predication they modify. On their argument they impose the restriction that it must have an animate referent. On the predication they impose the restriction that it must designate a controlled SoA. In the following set of examples, the restriction on A1 is violated; as a result, the infinitive construction cannot be left out: (1)

la cosa empieza a funcionar the thing begin.3SG PREP work.INF 'the plan begins to work' a.

CONTEXT: La cosa empieza a funcionar.

(PAL 64)

'The plan begins to

work'.

* No habiamos pensado que de verdad not had.IMPF.IPL thought that really funcionara pero ahora si empieza worked.SUBJ.3SG but now indeed begin.3SG 'We had not believed that it would actually work, but now it begins'

Infinitival periphrases (2)

el ombligo rasgado suele delatar the navel slanted usually-do.3SG betray.INF un vientre abultado a belly massive 'a slanted navel normally betrays a massive belly' a.

(3)

(DEL 82)

* el ombligo redondo no suele delatar la the navel round not usually-do.3SG betray.INF the forma del vientre como suele el form of-the belly as usually-do.3SG the ombligo rasgado navel slanted 'a round navel does not betray the form of the belly as a slanted navel usually does'

el agua (para el te) no debe the water for the tea not must.3SG hervir boil.INF 'the water (for tea) must never boil' a.

217

nunca never

(TUS 31)

— El agua para el te no debe nunca hervir. the water for the tea not must.3SG never boil * — Quizäs no deberia, pero si lo hace. perhaps not must.C0ND.3SG but yes it do.3SG 4 —The water for tea must never boil. —Perhaps it shouldn't, but in fact it does.'

In the following set of examples, the selection restriction on A1 is complied with but the combining predication does not describe a controlled SoA. Again, the infinitive construction cannot be omitted: (4)

comence a dormir began.PF.lSG PREP sleep.INF Ί began to sleep better' a.

mejor better

(SOR 134)

CONTEXT: El medico me habia dado unas pildoras para que durmiese mejor "The doctor had given me some pills so that I should sleep better' * y efectivamente α los dos ο tres dias and indeed at the two or three days comenci. began.PF.lSG 'and, indeed, after two or three days I began.'

218 (5)

Periphrastic constructions (las mujeres) solemos tener_que luchar (M 185) the women usually-do.IPL have-to.INF fight.INF 'we women usually have to fight' a. * (las mujeres) solemos tener_que luchar, the women usually-do.IPL have-to.INF fight.INF los hombres no suelen the men not usually-do.3PL 'we women usually have to fight; men usually don't'

(6)

La gente deberia morirse the people must.COND.3SG die.INF-REFL.3 en el cuarto de bano con la radio puesta in the bathroom with the radio turned-on 'People should die in the bathroom with the radio on' a.

(VAZ 14)

* La gente deberia morirse en el the people must.C0ND.3SG die.INF-REFL.3 in the cuarto_de_bano; deberia porque me bathroom must.C0ND.3SG because me.DAT parece la muerte mas bonita. seem.3SG the death most beautiful 'People should die in the bathroom; they should because I believe it is the most beautiful way of dying.'

With all these examples, the omission test for distinguishing semi-auxiliary constructions from periphrastic constructions yields a positive result. Hence all these examples are instances of periphrases.

6.1.1.1.2. poder

As shown in section 5.1.2.2.1., the semi-auxiliary poder can either have a facultative or a deontic meaning. The only restriction imposed by facultative poder is that the argument must have an animate referent. The predicate frame of deontic poder is analogous to that of deber, i.e. in addition to the animacy restriction on the argument, the combining predication must designate a controlled SoA. Thus, the animacy restriction is the minimal restriction of poder. In the following example, this miminal restriction is violated: the predicate hacerse 'be done' is a detransivized verb, the first argument of which refers to cosas 'things':

Infinitival periphrases (7)

219

hay cosas que se pueden hacer (C 964.26) there-are things which REFL.3 can.3PL do.INF 'there are things that can be done' a.

* hay cosas que se pueden hacer y there-are things which REFL.3 can.3PL do.INF and hay otras cosas que no se pueden there-are other things which not REFL.3 can.3PL 'there are things that can be done and there are others that can't'

This example and its ungrammatical variant show that the infinitive construction cannot be omitted when the selection restriction on the argument of poder is violated. Therefore, in this context poder + infinitive is a periphrasis.

6.1.1.2. Lexically based periphrases 6.1.1.2.0. Introduction In this section, I will deal with each of the partially periphrastic constructions based on lexical verbs, presenting the total of the restrictions imposed by the lexical verb, i.e. its selection restrictions, the semantic function of its arguments and the entity type to which the arguments must refer, and demonstrating that it is on the basis of these restrictions that a distinction can be made between the lexical and the periphrastic use. The order in which the constructions will be dealt with is the following: meterse a 'put oneself to' (6.1.1.2.1.), pasar a 'proceed to', 'go on to' (6.1.1.2.2.) and ponerse a 'put oneself to' (6.1.1.2.3.).

6.1.1.2.1. meterse a My corpus does not contain any example of meterse a 'put oneself to' in any of its uses. Therefore, the discussion below is based exclusively on examples from the manuals and examples made up by my informants. In its most common lexical use meterse a means 'become' and combines with bare nominals indicating some profession: (8)

Juan se metio a vendedor Juan REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to salesman 'Juan became a salesman' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 111)

220

Periphrastic constructions

In this function, meterse a can also combine with infinitives, although the nominal expression is more current: (9)

Juan se metio a vender coches Juan REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to sell.INF cars 'Juan started selling cars' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 111)

(10)

Pili se mete a trabajar con ancianos. Pili REFL.3 put.3SG to work.INF with old-people 'Pili starts working with old people.'

Evidence of the non-periphrastic nature of (9) and (10) are the following variants, where the place of the infinitive construction is taken by a pronoun: (9)

a.

Como no sabia otra cosa que hacer, as not knew.IMPF.3SG other thing which do.INF se metio a eso. REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to this 'As he did not know anything else to do, he started this.'

(10)

a. — Pili se mete a trabajar con Pili REFL.3 put.3SG PREP work.INF with ancianos. old-people — iPili? Nunca pense que ella se Pili never thought.PF.lSG that she REFL.3 fuera a meter a algo asi. went.SUBJ.3SG to put.INF to something like-this '—Pili starts working with old people. —Pili? I never thought SHE would start such a thing.'

Departing from these data, the following predicate frame should be assigned to meterse a: (11)

meters-se a (f 0 : prede: )Prep0bj (χ,: )Ai

β = {Ν, V}

This predicate frame parallels that of soltarse a discussed in section 4.1.1.2. in having a predicative argument. There is syntactic evidence of the predicate status of the argument: when nominal, the argument must be realized as a bare nominal, rather than as a nominal term. This means that it cannot be modified by means of an article or demonstrative pronoun, and it cannot be restricted by means of an adjective or a relative clause (Dik 1989: 170-171).

Infinitival periphrases

221

As Hengeveld (1992b: 74-77) shows, the syntactic status of bare nominale is equal to that of adjectives. There is a difference with regard to the semantics of both types of predicates, in the sense that predicatively used adjectives typically function in property-assigning expressions, whereas predicatively used nouns typically function in "status-assigning" expressions, since bare nominals tend to designate "membership of some established functional, professional or ideological group" (Dik 1980: 98). The predicative argument fulfils a double function: on the one hand it serves to predicate on the first order argument, while, on the other it functions as an argument of meterse a. This fact is accounted for by the position of the predicative argument within the predicate frame. Furthermore, this position is meant to indicate that the first-order argument (x,) is shared by both predicates, the nominal and the verbal one. Let us now turn to the periphrastic instances of meterse a + infinitive. In the following examples, the infinitive construction cannot be pronominalized: (12)

Se metio a hablar de arte sin REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to speak.INF of art without tener idea. have.INF idea 'He/she began to speak about art without having the slightest notion of it.' (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 23) a. * lEse se metio a hablar de that-one REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to speak.INF of arte? Yo no me meteria a eso. art I not REFL.1SG put.COND.lSG to this 'That guy started to speak about art? I wouldn't start this.'

(13)

se metio a cortar un traje y REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to cut.INF a suit and estropeo la tela spoiled.PF.3SG the cloth 'he/she began to cut a suit and spoiled the cloth* (Morera 1991: 128) a. * iComo se ha podido meter a how REFL.3 have.3SG could put.INF PREP 'How could he/she start this?'

eso? this

The reason for this is that the infinitive constructions with which meterse a combines in these examples are not generically used to designate a profession, but designate incidental activities. As such, they do not comply with the selection restrictions in the predicate frame in (11). Therefore, meterse

222

Periphrastic constructions

a + infinitive is a periphrasis in examples (12) and (13). It is probably due to the meaning of meterse a in its lexical function that the ingressive periphrasis has a pejorative undertone. In its lexical function, the predicative argument refers to a profession, i.e. a generic activity. In the periphrasis, a predicate referring to an incidental activity takes its place. In the above examples (and in all other examples I have come across) the infinitive construction in the periphrasis refers to some activity that could be a profession. Now, having an incidental activity taking the place of a professional activity may evoke the idea of inappropriateness, which, in turn, may be responsible for the pejorative undertone. Another possible explanation may be semantic contamination due to the use of meterse with the preposition en 'meddle in' (cf. Quesada 1994: 128).2

6.1.1.2.2. pasar a

As a lexical verb pasar 'proceed to', 'go on to' can express purposeful movement in both space and time. It can occur with direction arguments which refer to a location (14) and with nominal (15) or infinitival (16) direction arguments referring to a situation: (14)

de Londres pas6 a Paris from London proceeded.PF.3SG to Paris 'from London she proceeded to Paris'

(M 265)

(15)

CONTEXT: este ano empiezan por Literatura francesa medieval y a mi, el periodo medieval es quizä el que menos me seduce de toda la Literatura en generaly entonces 'this year they start off with French medieval literature and as far as I'm concerned, the medieval period probably is what least fascinates me in Literature in general and thus' prefiero ya pasar (...) a siglos (M 388) prefer.lSG already proceed.INF to centuries posteriores posterior Ί prefer to proceed right away to posterior centuries'

2. In any case, the pejorative shade of meaning must be of a relatively recent origin, since meterse a + infinitive was one of the historical predecessors of the semantically neutral ponerse a + infinitive (Yllera 1979: 180).

Infinitival periphrases (16)

de estar estudiando el Mester from be.INF study.GER the Mester pasaba, directamente, proceeded.IMPF.lSG immediately el clima monzonico the climate monsoon 'from studying the Mester de Clerecia I immediately proceeded to studying

223

de Clerecia (...) (M 304) de Clerecia a estudiarme to study.INF-REFL.1SG

[medieval intellectual poetry], the monsoon climate'

That the example with the infinitival construction is indeed an instance of lexical pasar can be shown by applying the pronominal and the nominal variants of the substitution test: (16)

a. de estar estudiando el Mester de Clerecia from be.INF study.GER the Mester de Clerecia pasaba, directamente, a eso proceeded.IMPF.lSG immediately to this 'from studying the Mester de Clerecia, I immediately proceeded to this* b. (...) pasaba, directamente, a la proceeded.IMPF.lSG immediately to the preparacion de los exämenes de geograßa preparation of the exams of geography '(...) I immediately proceeded to the preparation of the geography exams'

The lexical use of pasar can be represented by means of the following (simplified) 3 predicate frame: (17)

pasarv (x;: )Ag (a 2 : {(p), (e: {predN, [predv (xj)Ag (an)]})}Dir

This predicate frame accounts for the fact that purposeful movement in its spatial and its temporal sense is a controlled activity which involves a animate Agent and a Direction. The Direction argument will refer to a place when pasar is used to express the movement from one location in space to another and to a controlled event when it is used to express the movement from one situation to another. The preposition a will be triggered in the

3. In this and the other representations to be given in the course of this chapter, I refrain from including variables for unspecified operators and satellites.

224

Periphrastic constructions

expression component as an expression of the semantic function of Direction. The following two examples pass the substitution test for the identification of periphrases: (18)

(19)

(eso) no that not paradigma paradigm '(this) may

puede pasar a ser el (C 966.143) can.3SG proceed.INF to be.INF the de la proeza periodistica of the exploit journalistic not become the paradigm of the journalistic exploit'

a.

* no puede pasar a not can.3SG proceed.INF to 'it may not proceed to that*

eso this

b.

* no puede pasar a la posicion not can.3SG proceed.INF to the position de paradigma de la proeza periodistica of paradigm of the exploit journalistic 'it may not proceed to the position of paradigm of the journalistic exploit'

CONTEXT: (the rise of European cinema in America) sus peliculas pasardn a engrosar las /Has their films proceed.FUT.3PL to swell.INF the rows de cläsicos de Hollywood of classics of Hollywood 'their films will come to extend the canon of Hollywood classics' (El Pais 111)

a.

* sus peliculas pasardn their films proceed.FUT.3PL 'their films will proceed to this'

a to

eso this

b.

* sus peliculas pasardn a una contribucion their films proceed.FUT.3PL to a contribution importante α los cläsicos de Hollywood important to the classics of Hollywood 'their films will proceed to an important contribution to the Hollywood classics'

The cause of the ungrammaticality of (18a-b) and (19a-b) is the violation of the selection restrictions imposed by pasar. In both examples, the selection

Infinitival periphrases

225

restrictions on A 1 are violated: the first arguments in (18) and (19) refer to inanimate entities. Furthermore, the restrictions with respect to the combining predication are violated, too: the SoA designated by the infinitive construction in (18) is not dynamic and in neither of the examples the SoA is controlled. In these examples, the argument structure is not imposed by pasar but by the combining predicate; pasar fulfils an auxiliary function. It follows that, here, pasar a + infinitive is a periphrasis. The functional difference between the lexical and the periphrastic variants of pasar can also be seen in their semantics: while, in (14)-(16), pasar expresses the purposeful movement in space from one place to another, and the purposeful movement in time from one situation to another, in (18) and (19) it expresses the grammatical meaning of ingression.

6.1.1.2.3. A borderline case: ponerse a The lexical verb ponerse 'put oneself', 'take a seat (or some other position)' is a movement verb which requires an animate, normally human, referent for its A1, the A 2 referring to some location. (20)

Ponte alii. put.IMP-REFL.2SG there 'Sit / stand / lie there.'

When the place of the locative argument is taken by an infinitive construction, the verb in the infinitive must be an agentive verb. In that case ponerse a has a double function: it expresses both the ingression of the action expressed by the infinitive construction and the movement that the Agent must effectuate in order to begin the action: (21)

me voy a mi habitacion y me (M 366) REFL.1SG go.lSG to my room and REFL.1SG pongo a estudiar... algo put.lSG to study.INF something 'I go to my room and start studying (=reading) ... something'

Given an appropriate context, it is possible in cases like (21) to pronominalize or omit the infinitive construction; the resulting sentences were not, however, equally acceptable to all of my informants:

226 (21)

Periphrastic constructions a.

CONTEXT: no tenia ganas, pero, sabiendo que ese tio me queria suspender, no quedaba mäs solucion que estudiar Ί did not feel like it, but, knowing that this guy was keen on having me fail, I had no choice but study' ? asi que me puse a ello so that REFL.1SG put.PAST.PF.lSG to it 'so that I set to it'

b.

? (...)

asi que me puse so that REFL.1SG put.PAST.PF.lSG '(...) so that I got started'

Consider two more examples of independent and pronominal use of ponerse: (22)

CONTEXT: (a conversation about how the lack of practice leads to the loss of ability to play the piano; the speaker, formerly a professional pianist, now a housewife with seven children, complains that she never finds the time to carry out her plans to practice again) algvtn dia me pondre, y ese (M 209) some day REFL.1SG put.FUT.lSG and that algvtn dia no llega nunca some day not arrive.3SG never 'some day I will start, but that some day never comes'

(23)

CONTEXT: (The first-person narrator, a man with an ugly face, tells that he had a painter make a beautiful portrait of his) Dijo el: 'Nadie puede captar lo que no existe'. Yo dije: 'lntentelo; la gloria sera mayor'. 'He said: "Nobody can capture what does not exist". I said: "Make an effort; the greater the glory will be."' Y se puso a ello. and REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to it 'And he set about it.' (Delibes 112)

In the examples we have seen so far, the infinitive construction designates fairly concrete and non-complex actions, which, moreover, have the common property of requiring some physical movement of the Agent at the start of the action in question. In example (24) the action is more complex in the sense that it consists of a number of "sub-acts", while (25) involves mental action and, as such, does not imply movement: (24)

a_lo_mejor me pongo a estudiar marketing(M 43) perhaps REFL.1SG put.lSG to study.INF marketing 'perhaps I start studying marketing'

Infinitival periphrases (25)

227

si nos ponemos a pensar en las /rases (POM 98) if REFL.1PL put.IPL to think.INF in the sentences que decimos en la vida which say. 1 PL in the life 'if we start thinking about the sentences that we say in our lives'

With instances of this type, the substitution of the infinitive construction becomes quite doubtful and its omission is generally considered ungrammatical. (24)

(25)

a.

??

a_lo_mejor me pongo a estudiar perhaps REFL.1SG put.lSG to study.INF marketing pero igual me pongo a otra marketing but evenly REFL.1SG put.lSG to other cosa thing 'perhaps I start studying marketing, but perhaps I start something else'

b.

* ajojnejor me pongo a estudiar perhaps REFL.1SG put.lSG to study.INF marketing pero igual no me pongo marketing but evenly not REFL.1SG put.lSG 'perhaps I start studying marketing, but perhaps I start something else'

a.

??

b.

* ιPonerse a pensar en esas cosas?... no put.INF-REFL.3 to think.INF in these things not se ... mejor que no nos pongamos know.lSG better that not REFL.1PL put.SUBJ.IPL 'Start thinking about these things? ... I don't know ... we'd better not start'

'—He was sentimentally attached to it —Don Fortunato added— pero pensaba vendermelo algun (MER 147) but thought.IMPF.3SG sell.INF-me.DAT-it some dia day 'but he intended to sell it to me some day'

With these instances, a lexical reading would be completely absurd, because normally a person can only be said to believe in the occurrence of some event, if the realization of the event is not under his/her control. However, the realization of the acts of selling a ring and writing a letter crucially depends on the willingness of the person to whom the A1 of the construction refers. Therefore, finite variants of the infinitival constructions in these examples are of doubtful grammaticality: (38)

a.

?? pense que yo te iba a thought.PF.1SG that I you went.IMPF.lSG to escribir enseguida write.INF immediately Ί believed that I would write you immediately'

(39)

a.

?? pensabas que me lo ibas thought.IMPF.2SG that me.DAT it went.IMPF.2SG a vender to sell.INF 'you believed that you would sell it to me some day'

A lexical interpretation of (38)-(39) is so unlikely that we may assume pensar to unambiguously express intentionality in these examples. Consider the results of the substitution and omission tests when applied to these examples of pensar + infinitive:

236 (38)

(39)

Periphrastic constructions b.

* Pense escribirte enseguida. Pero thought.PF.lSG write.INF-you.DAT immediately but aunque realmente lo pense, no pude. although really it thought.PF.lSG not could.PF.lSG Ί had intended writing you immediately. But though I had really intended it, I couldn't.'

c.

* Pense escribirte enseguida. Pero thought.PF.lSG write.INF-you.DAT immediately but aunque realmente pense, no pude. although really thought.PF.lSG not could.PF.lSG Ί had intended writing you immediately. But though I had really intended, I couldn't.'

b.

— Pensaba vendermelo algün thought.IMPF.3SG sell.INF-me.DAT-it some * — Quizä lo pensaba, pero no lo perhaps it thought.IMPF. 3SG but not it hizo. did.PF.3SG '—He intended to sell it to me some day. —Perhaps he intended it, but he didn't do it.'

c.

— Pensaba vendermelo algün dia. thought.IMPF.3SG sell.INF-me.DAT-it some day * — Quizä pensaba, pero no lo hizo. perhaps thought.IMPF.3SG but not it did.PF.3SG '—He intended to sell it to me some day. —Perhaps he intended, but he didn't do it.'

dia. day

These applications prove that the construction is a periphrasis. The existence of instances that are ambiguous between a lexical and a periphrastic reading is evidence of the fact that pensar + infinitive is a fully periphrastic construction. (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. The difficulty of finding an unambiguously periphrastic example of pensar + infinitive indicates that the relation between the periphrasis and its non-periphrastic homonym is problematic. The problem is that the restrictions imposed by the homonymous lexical construction are less strict than those of the periphrasis. Lexical pensar as used in (36a) and (37a) has the following argument structure: (40)

pensarv

(x t : ) AgExp (X2)Go

Infinitival periphrases

237

From this representation it appears that the A 1 of pensar must refer to a person and that the second argument may be any proposition. The periphrasis pensar + infinitive imposes the same restriction on A 1 but has more specific requirements with respect to the infinitive construction: the infinitive construction must designate a controlled SoA. Given this situation, it is impossible to find an instance of the periphrasis where the restrictions imposed by the lexical verb are violated, since the use of the lexical construction is less restricted than that of the periphrasis. On theoretical grounds, this relation between the periphrasis and the homonymous lexical construction excludes the possibility that the former might have developed from the latter, because the grammaticalization of periphrases virtually consists of the gradual loss of (selection) restrictions. This means that verbal periphrases come into existence through the use of some (semi-)lexical verb beyond the restrictions it normally imposes. From this viewpoint, the homonymy of pensar + infinitive and the lexical variant of pensar exemplified above can only be interpreted as a coincidence. The linguistic facts support this view. Of the meaning definitions of pensar offered by Moliner (1966, 2: 694-695), the variant with a nominal second argument 'think up', 'plan* as exemplified below is semantically closer to the periphrasis than is the complement-taking variant. (41)

iQue piensa usted para what think.2SG.(FORM) you(FORM) for su vida futura your (FORM) life future 'What do you plan for you future life?'

(M 22)

This lexical variant of pensar requires a controlled SoA in its second argument position, and, as such, is also syntactically closer to periphrastic pensar + infinitive. The assumption that the periphrasis has developed from this variant of pensar rather than from the complement-taking one, is further corroborated by etymological data. The Latin ancestor of pensar is pensäre 'weigh', from which two Spanish verbs have developed, viz. pesar 'weigh' to convey the concrete meaning and pensar 'to weigh (up)' to convey the abstract meaning (Penny 1991: 264, 157). In my view, the meaning of 'believe' is no closer to the original meaning of pensar than is 'intend', which means that it is, semantically speaking, more probable that the expressions of both meanings have evolved independently of each other. Pensar + infinitive has probably inherited its periphrastic syntax from the medieval periphrasis pensar de + infinitive, which had an ingressive meaning. As Yllera (1979: 186-188) documents, pensar could incidentally occur without the preposition in this function. In the 15th century the periphrasis definitively lost its ingressive function and pensar de dissappeared.

238

Periphrastic constructions

6.1.2.1.3. acabar / terminar de Acabar de and terminar de form a periphrasis when they express a meaning that in English can only be rendered by means of an adverb: 'completely' or 'entirely'. Anticipating on the discussion of the semantics of periphrases in chapter 7, I will refer to this meaning as "Completive". (i) Fully periphrastic construction. There are a few occurrences of acabar / terminar de that allow for both a periphrastic and a semi-auxiliary reading: (42)

CONTEXT: (a novel about the Civil War: Franco's troops are about to enter a village in the Republican zone; the Republicans, among whom the personage Goyo, are forced to flee) Goyo, antes_de marcharse, acabo de (GIR 57) Goyo before go.INF-REFL.3 finished.PF.3SG PREP destrozar las cruces del cementerio destroy.INF the crosses of-the cemetery semi-auxiliary reading: 'Before leaving, Goyo finished destroying the crosses of the cemetery' periphrastic reading: 'Before leaving, Goyo entirely destroyed the crosses of the cemetery'

In its semi-auxiliary reading acabar de describes the final phase of an Action, while in its periphrastic reading it serves to specify the intensity or the degree to which the Action is executed. The infinitive construction can be omitted only when acabar de functions as a semi-auxiliary: (42)

a.

CONTEXT: El dia antes de que llegaran las tropas de Franco, Goyo habia empezado por la manana a destrozar las cruces en el cementerioy 'The day before Franco's troops arrived, in the morning Goyo had begun to destroy the crosses on the cemetery and' acabo por la noche, antes_de marcharse finished.PF.3SG PREP the evening before go.INF-REFL.3 semi-auxiliary reading: 'he finished in the evening, before leaving' periphrastic reading: —

Before considering some unambiguously periphrastic examples of acabar / terminar de + infinitive, let us recall the selection restrictions of the semiauxiliary, which I discussed in section 5.1.1.1.2. above, proposing the following predicate frame:

Infinitival periphrases (43)

239

a. acabar^ (xs: )Ag de [predVinf: Oi ( x ) ^ (a"): ] b. terminarv (χ·. ) Ai de [predVillf: θ! (Xj)^ (a11): ]

According to this representation, the argument of the semi-auxiliary must refer to a person or animal and the combining core predication must be controlled, non-momentaneous and potentially telic. In the first of the following two examples, the selection restriction imposed by acabar / terminar de on their argument has been violated; in the second example, there is a violation of the stipulations with respect to the combining core predication only: (44)

CONTEXT: Luego la dejamos reposar y nos pusimos a observarla, aguardando que el antidoto surtiera su efecto benefico ο "Then we laid her down and sat to watch her, waiting for the antidote to produce its profitable effect or' acabara de mandarla al otro mundo finished.SUBJ.3SG PREP send.INF-her to-the other world 'to definitively send her to the other world' (Mendoza 147) (lit. 'to finish sending her to the other world')

(45)

termine de acostumbrarme (SOR 134) completed.PF.lSG PREP get-accustomed.INF-REFL.lSG a no hacer nada PREP not do.INF nothing Ί got completely accustomed to not doing anything' (lit. Ί finished getting accustomed to not doing anything')

Both instances pass the omission test6 for the identification of periphrases: (44)

a.

* Un antidoto asi no puede matarla, an antidote like-this not can.3SG kill.INF-her no puede ni empezar, ni acabar not can.3SG neither begin.INF nor end.INF 'An antidote like this cannot kill her, neither can it begin nor can it finish'

6. Since the lexical base of this periphrasis is a semi-auxiliary, i.e. a verb that does not embed the combining infinitival construction, the application of the substitution test would be pointless, because neither variant allows for substitution of the infinitival construction (cf.

5.1.1.1.1.).

240

Periphrastic constructions

(45)

a.

* no queria acostumbrarme, not wanted.IMPF.lSG get-accustomed.INF-REFL.lSG pero termine but finished.PF.lSG Ί did not want to get accustomed, but I finished'

In the first of these examples, acabar de occurs with a verb whose A1 refers to a substance rather than a living being. Although the combining predicate is telic, it is not an Action. Given the fact that inanimate first arguments can never be involved in Actions, any violation of this very selection restriction implies the incompatibility of the combining predication with the semi-auxiliary. In the second example, the referent of A meets the requirements of terminar de, but the combining predication is not a potentially telic Action. (ii) Origin of the fully periphrastic construction. Given the fact that the egressive and the completive meanings of acabar / terminar de are quite close to each other and are difficult to distinguish in some contexts, they are generally not distinguished in the literature on Spanish periphrases. Yllera (1979: 196) quotes three examples of acabar de7 from 13th century literature, where acabar de fulfils a "perfective" function, a label that Yllera employs to cover both the egressive and the completive meanings. In one of these examples, where acabar appears without a preposition, the function of the construction is obviously completive: (46)

todos cobdigiauan acabar uenger et ganar all.PL desired.IMPF.3PL finish.INF win.INF and earn.INF prez pora siempre prestige for ever 'they all desired to definitively triumph and become famous forever' (Primera Cronica General, 1270-89, quoted from Yllera 1979: 196)

Since (46) is one of the first examples of acabar de Yllera found in early Spanish literature, it may be tentatively concluded that the completive periphrastic construction with acabar de is as old as the semi-auxiliary construction.

7. Terminar de was only introduced in the post-medieval period (Yllera 1979: 196).

Infinitival periphrases

241

6.1.2.1.4. acabar de In addition to the fully periphrastic construction with acabar de and terminar de, which has been discussed in section 6.1.2.1.3. above, acabar de occurs in another periphrastic construction, in which it is not synonymous with terminar de: (47)

mi hermano acaba de terminar ahora (M 304) my brother finish.3SG PREP finish.INF now el (...) sexto de bäsica the sixth of primary-school 'my brother has just finished the sixth grade of primary school' a.

* mi hermano termina de terminar ahora el (...) my brother finish.3SG PREP finish.INF now the sexto de bäsica sixth of primary-school 'my brother has just finished the sixth grade of primary school*

As the translation shows, acabar de expresses the grammatical notion of recent past in this construction. Terminar de cannot express this meaning; it can only be used for the expression of egressive and completive meanings (cf. also Gomez Torrego 1988: 120-121). (i) Fully periphrastic construction. Some occurrences of acabar de allow for both an egressive and a recent past reading: (48)

Flora acababa de planchar Flora finished.IMPF.3SG PREP iron.INF semi-auxiliary reading: 'Flora finished ironing' periphrastic reading: 'Flora had just ironed' (Tomeo, Preparativos de viaje 124)8

The application of the omission test serves to disambiguate this example:

8. The context reveals that the example should be read as an instance of Egressive Aspect: (48) CONTEXT: mientras Flora acababa de planchar, prepare el despertador para que sonase a las seis 'while Flora finished ironing, I prepared the alarmclock so that it should ring at six o'clock' This is remarkable, because outside this context, the recent past reading seemed much more probable, given the fact that most occurrences of acabar in the Imperfective Past have a recent past meaning (cf. Olbertz 1991: 33).

242 (48)

Periphrastic constructions a.

ι Ya estaba acabando? already was.IMPF.3SG finish.GER semi-auxiliary reading: 'Was she finishing already?' periphrastic reading: —

In section 5.1.1.1.2. I have shown that the argument of the semi-auxiliary must refer to a person and the combining core predication must be controlled and potentially telic, while it cannot be momentaneous. In the following occurrences of acabar de, these restrictions have been violated; here, acabar de can only be interpreted as an expression of recent past: (49)

acabo de oir por la radio que (PAL 81) finish.1SG PREP hear.INF PREP the radio that η os hart matado α dos companeros us.DAT have.3PL killed PREP two comrades Ί have just heard on the radio that they have killed two of our comrades'

(50)

Acabo de estar en el despacho del (PAL 94) finish.1SG PREP be.INF in the office of-the jefe del personal chief of-the personnel Ί have just been in the office of the personnel manager'

In (49), acabar de combines with a non-controlled dynamic predication. In (50) acabar de occurs with a non-dynamic predication, which can never be telic, since telicity is a property of dynamic predications only. Syntactic evidence of the periphrastic nature of these examples is the fact that it is impossible to omit the infinitive construction: (49)

a.

— Acabo de oir por la radio que finish. 1SG PREP hear.INF PREP the radio that nos han matado a dos companeros. us-DAT have.3PL killed PREP two comrades * — Acabas ahoramismo? finish.2SG just-now '—I have just heard on the radio that they have killed two of our comrades. —Do you finish just now?'

Infinitival periphrases

(50)

a.

243

— Acabo de estar en el despacho del finish.1SG PREP be.INF in the office of-the jefe del personal. chief of-the personnel * — ι F quejal, ahora que acabas? and how-are-you now that finish.2SG '—I have just been in the office of the personnel manager. —And how do you feel now that you finish?'

(ii) Origin of the fully periphrastic construction. According to Keniston (1937: 457-458), the first examples of acabar de as an expression of recent past can be found in 16th century literature. The recent past construction and the egressive semi-auxiliary are semantically close to each other. This, as well as the relatively recent origin of acabar de as an expression of recent past allows for the assumption that the periphrasis has diachronically developed from the aspectual semi-auxiliary. The relation between the two is not one of metaphor, as in the case of the movement verbs, but one of hyperbole: the recentness of the occurrence of some event is underscored by means of an overstatement, i.e. by stating that the event is ending. In the chapters on the semantics and the syntax of periphrases the semantic delimitation of the periphrastic variants of acabar de and their syntactic correlates will be dealt with in more detail.

6.1.2.1.5. poder and deber Apart from the partially periphrastic constructions with the modalspoder and deber, which have been briefly examined in section 6.1.1.1., these modals occur in fully periphrastic constructions. In the partially periphrastic construction, poder 'can* and deber 'must' serve to express Event-oriented Facultative and Deontic Modality. In the fully periphrastic construction to be discussed here, they serve the purpose of expressing epistemic meanings, i.e. they specify the possibility and necessity, respectively, of the occurrence of some event or of the truth of some proposition from the perspective of what is known of the world (Hengeveld forthcoming).9 The distinction between event-oriented and proposition-oriented epistemic meanings will be at issue in chapter 7. The present section will be restricted to providing evidence of the fully periphrastic character of epistemic poder + infinitive and deber + infinitive. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, I refrain from involving

9. For the sake of simplicity, I do not distinguish between Epistemic and Inferential Modality in this context, but employ the label "epistemic" to refer to both distinctions.

244

Periphrastic constructions

the partially periphrastic construction into this discussion. Instead, I will contrast the epistemic, fully periphrastic construction with the semi-auxiliary variants of poder and deber only. (i) Fully periphrastic constructions. The following instances of poder + infinitive and deber + infinitive allow for both a semi-auxiliary and a periphrastic reading: (51)

(52)

CONTEXT: (about the partly state-owned Tabacalera and its possibilities to cope with financial problems) Tabacalera tiene que dedicar la mitad de su negocio a otros productos. 'Tabacalera has to dedicate half of the commerce to other products' Incluso puede cambiar de nombre (C 970.71) even can.3SG change.INF of name 'It may even change its name' semi-auxiliary reading: 'It even has permission to change its name' periphrastic reading: 'It is even possible that it changes its name* CONTEXT: (about young twins)

nunca deben de ir vestidos never must.3PL PREP go.INF dressed semi-auxiliary reading: 'They should never periphrastic reading: 'It seems that they clothes'

igual (M 368) equal.ADV wear the same clothes' never wear the same

The omission test yields a positive result in the periphrastic reading only: (51)

a. —

ιTabacalera puede cambiar de nombre? Tabacalera can.3SG change.INF of name — Claro, ι como no va a poder? of-course how not go.3SG to can.INF semi-auxiliary reading: '—Is Tabacalera allowed to change its name? —Of course, why not?' periphrastic reading: —

(52)

a.

No deberian, es verdad. Pero es que not must.COND.3PL is.3SG truth but is.3SG that a muchos les gusta. PREP many them.DAT please.3SG semi-auxiliary reading: 'They shouldn't, that's true. But then there are many who like it.' periphrastic reading: —

Infinitival periphrases

245

In the discussion of modal semi-auxiliaries, I have shown that both poder and deber require animate referents for their first and only argument. Additionally, deber requires the combining predication to be controlled. In the following examples, these selection restrictions are violated, and, therefore, the application of the omission test yields ungrammatical results: (53)

yo creo que (...) puede resultar (M 405) I believe. 1SG that can.3SG turn-out-to-be.INF facil (la entrevista) easy the interview Ί believe that (...) it (the interview) may turn out to be easy' a.

(54)

* Las preguntas pueden ser faciles, pero las the questions can.3PL be.INF easy but the respuestas no creo que puedan answers not believe. 1SG that can.SUBJ.3PL 'The questions may be easy, but I don't believe that the answers may'

Aquellas primeras audiciones junto_al piano (GAR 12) those first auditions by-the piano debieron tenerjugar en las semanas de must.PAST.PF.3PL take-place.INF in the weeks of la sarna the scabies 'Those first auditions by the piano must have taken place in the weeks of scabies' a.

* Los bailes y todo eso quizds no the dances and all that perhaps not tuvieronlugar entonces pero aquellas audiciones took-place.PF.3PL then but those auditions si debieron yes must.PAST.PF.3PL 'The dances and all that perhaps did not take place at that time, but those auditions surely must have'

In the above examples poder and deber combine with verbs whose first arguments have inanimate referents. In these cases, the modals form unambiguously periphrastic infinitival constructions. In conclusion, it has been shown that as expressions of epistemic modality poder + infinitive and deber + infinitive are fully periphrastic construc-

246

Periphrastic constructions

tions, since an epistemic —and hence periphrastic— reading is possible even when the selection restrictions of the semi-auxiliary are not violated. (it) Origin of the periphrases. The reinterpretation of deontic modals as expressions of epistemic meanings is a development that has been observed in many typologically diverse languages (Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca 1994: 202-204). The meaning of obligation and permission which is originally directed towards a willful animate participant, is gradually generalized to apply to the actuality of an event or to the truth of a proposition (Bybee 1988: 255; Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca 1994: 195-205). From this it follows that participant-oriented deontic meanings must be diachronically prior to epistemic meanings. As regards Spanish, deber and poder are infrequent in epistemic meanings in the first texts,10 but debere and posse, the Latin ancestors of these modals have fulfilled epistemic functions contexts from the earliest texts onward.11 This means that the origin of the epistemic meanings of these modals must go back to an even earlier stage. Being beyond the scope of this study, I will not pursue this matter here.

6.1.2.1.6. estarpor (i) Fully periphrastic construction. The following instance of estar por + infinitive allows for two readings, a non-periphrastic one, in which estar por means 'be in favour of', and a periphrastic reading, in which it corresponds to English 'feel tempted to': (55)

estoy por montar un negocio (M 121-122) be.lSG PREP set-up.INF a business non-periphrastic reading: Ί am in favour of setting up a business' periphrastic reading: Ί feel tempted to set up a business'

The case of estar por + infinitive is a bit more complicated than the ones discussed so far, because in the non-periphrastic reading estar is not a lexi-

10. Yllera (1979: 139-140) finds only very few examples of epistemic deber until the 15th century. As regards poder, the reader is referred to Menendez Pidal's (1944, 3: 799) analysis of El poema de mio Cid [1140-1180], where no occurrence with an epistemic meaning was found. From the 13th century onwards, there are occurrences of epistemic poder (Yllera 1979: 139). Yllera does not specify the relativefrequencywith which poder fulfils this function. 11. Cf. Bolkestein (1980: 123-127) for debere and the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Glare 1982: 1411) for posse. The reason why the numbers of epistemic examples in the Spanish texts is lower than that of the Latin texts is probably due to the text-type: while many of the Latin texts deal with philosophy, the medieval Spanish texts are primarily narratives.

Infinitival periphrases

247

cal verb, but a semi-copula. With this semi-copula, prepositional expressions introduced by por have the function of non-verbal predicates, which by means of the copular verb are put to a predicative use (cf. Dik 1983: 128132; Hengeveld 1986: 397). In such prepositional predicates por can have various functions, one of which may lead to syntactic ambiguities as the one above. In all other respects, the prepositional predicate is quite distinct from the infinitive construction in the periphrasis. Being a non-verbal predicate, the prepositional phrase can be put to attributive use as well: (56)

la option por comprarlo todo es la the option in-favour-of buy.INF-it all is.3SG the que menos partidarios tiene which less supporters have.3SG 'the option in favour of buying it all is the one which has the fewest supporters'

The preposition por 'in favour of' can also combine with nominal or pronominal terms: (57)

Frente a otras opciones yo estuve por esta. facing other options I was.PF.lSG in-favour-of this-one 'Facing alternative options, I was in favour of this one.'

When estar por + infinitive has the meaning of 'feel tempted to', the infinitive construction with por cannot be used attributively: (55)

a. * me encontre con un tipo por montar REFL.1SG found.PF.lSG with a guy PREP set-up.INF un negocio a business Ί met a guy tempted to set up a business'

From this we can conclude that estar does not fulfil a copular function within this construction. That it does not fulfil the function of a lexical verb either becomes obvious when we apply the substitution and omission tests. The pronominalized variant (55b) can either be read as a copula construction with a prepositional predicate, or as the combination of intransitive estar 'be here / there' with a causal satellite. In its independent use, in (55c), estar can only be read as an intransitive verb. (55)

b. * estoy por eso be.lSG PREP this 'I am in favour of this' (copular reading of estar) Ί am here because of this' (intransitive reading of estar)

248

Periphrastic constructions c.

Φ estoy be.lSG Ί am here'

The possible meanings of (55b) and (55c) do not correspond to the periphrastic reading of estar por as exemplified in (55). We may thus conclude that, since in this construction por + infinitive is neither a non-verbal predicate nor a non-finite complement of estar, estar por + infinitive is indeed a periphrasis. The restrictions on the use of the homonymous copular construction also hold for the periphrasis: both constructions can only occur when the referent of A1 is human. The reason is obvious, since being for or against something or feeling like doing something requires some mental capacity. Hence, there are no occurrences of the periphrasis that are not potentially ambiguous. (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. The semantic relation between the periphrasis and its homonym is not such that the former should necessarily be assumed to have developed from the latter. Alternatively, one might think of estar por and its medieval predecessor ser por as having developed from (semi-)copular constructions in which por expressed imprecise location (in time or space) (cf. Beale 1978: 179, 185), like in the following modern Spanish example: (58)

Estare por la zona de Opera. be.FUT.lSG near the area of Opera Ί will be somewhere near Opera.'

Another possible source of estar por is por + infinitive as used with inanimate arguments, as in constructions of the following type: (59)

Dejo mil cosas por hacer y otras mil leave. 1SG thousand things PREP do.INF and other thousand por conocer PREP know.INF Ί leave a thousand things to be done and another thousand to get to know' (Mendoza 257)

In this construction, the combination of the preposition with the infinitive expresses the necessity of some action to be undertaken in which the element specified by the construction is the 'effected or affected object' of the verb

Infinitival periphrases

249

in the infinitive construction (cf. also Keniston 1937: 538-539).12 However, the semantics of por are extremely complex13, so that it is not possible to come to a satisfactory solution of this problem within the context of this study. (iii) Pelevance of the periphrasis to the system. Estar por + infinitive is one of the least frequent periphrases. My corpus contains only one example, and I have not come across the construction elsewhere; of the six informants who I consulted, two said they would never use this construction. But, although infrequent, estar por cannot be said to be non-productive, since its use is not unsystematically restricted to certain predicates, as is the use of the near-synonymous estar para (cf. 4.2.1.4.) and estar al (cf. 4.2.1.6.); therefore, estar por + infinitive should certainly be considered part of the gramrr.T of Spanish and not of the lexicon. On the other hand, frequency data should be taken seriously in the sense that the low frequency of some grammatical item should be seen as an indication of its low degree of relevance to the system (cf. also De Kock 1975: 89, 1985: 292). For estar por this means that it is practically irrelevant within the grammar of modern Peninsular Spanish.

6.1.2.1.7. tener que The construction tener que 'have to' + infinitive differs from all the constructions dealt with in this and the previous chapters as it is the only construction with a non-prepositional relator between the finite form and the infinitive. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, in the context of transitive predicates, there are two near-synonymous variants of tener que + infinitive, which differ with regard to the position of A2. In example (60), the A2 of the combining predicate is inserted between tener and que, whereas in the variant (61) the A2 follows the main predicate.

12. The function of the infinitival form in this construction type is parallel to that of the infinitive in lexical constructions with tener que, which will be discussed in section 6.1.2.1.7. below. 13. The problem is not only the polysemy of por but above all its relation to para, which has gradually developed from por in ancient Spanish. Cf. Riiho (1979) for an account of the diachronic development of por and para in Spanish and other Iberoromance languages, and Lunn (1987) for a description of the semantics of por and para in modern Spanish.

250

Periphrastic constructions

(60)

Juan Gabriel, acuerdate que tienes (GAR 12) Juan Gabriel remember.IMP-REFL.2SG that have.2SG muchos temas que repasar many subjects REL revise.INF 'Juan Gabriel, remember that you have many subjects to revise'

(61)

Juan Gabriel, acuerdate que tienes Juan Gabriel remember.IMP-REFL.2SG that have.2SG que repasar muchos temas REL revise.INF many subjects 'Juan Gabriel, remember that you have to revise many subjects'

As the translations suggest, the relationship between the two variants of tener que exactly parallels the variants of have (got) to in English (cf. Brinton 1991). In this section, I will show that the variant exemplified in (61) (henceforward: tener que2) is a fully periphrastic construction and that the construction as exemplified in (60) (henceforward: tener quej is a lexical construction. For this purpose, I will first go into the origin of the construction in order to show how the two constructions are related to each other and to shed some light on the function of que. Subsequently, I will adapt the test-frame for the identification of periphrases to this special case and then discuss both variants one by one. (i) Historical background. Tener que and its historic predecessor haber que have developed from constructions with non-finite relative clauses 14 with or without antecedent, of which Keniston (1937: 511) quotes quite a few instances from 16th century literature. Of the following examples, (62) is given in YUera (1979: 110) and (63)-(64) are quoted in Keniston (1937: 511). (62)

en aquestol' avemos mucho que gradeger in that-him have. 1 PL much which be-grateful.INF 'in that respect we have much to owe him' (Poema de Fernän Gonzälez, ±1250)

(63)

No si mäs que dezirte not know.lSG more which tell.INF-you Ί don't know what else to tell you' (Sancho de Munon, Tragicomedia de Lisandro y Roselia, Elicia, 1542)

llamada

14. The view expounded here is by no means uncontroveisial. For a discussion cf. Mori (1974: 155-157) and Guti6rrez Ordönez (1980).

Infinitival periphrases (64)

251

dards que decir a las gerttes give.FUT.2SG which say.INF to the people 'you will give the people something to talk about' (Sancho de Muftön, Tragicomedia de Lisandro y Roselia, llamada Elicia, 1542)

The syntactic structure of these constructions is such that the second argument of the matrix clause forms the (implicit) antecedent of the relative clause and is coreferential with the second argument of the relative clause. In most cases the matrix verb is a possessive verb, and in all cases the meaning of the verb is related to the semantic field of possession.15 Therefore, the semantic structure of such relative constructions can be informally described as follows: some person has (gives, seeks, lacks) some entity, to which something may or must be done. Now, the first question that should be answered is how it has come about that some obviously modal meaning is expressed through a relative pronoun and an infinitive. That the modal meaning does not depend on que, as has been suggested by Hernandez Alonso (1967: 268), is obvious when we look at other modal constructions, such as haber de + infinitive in modern Spanish and haber aide + infinitive and infinitive + haber in medieval Spanish. In his discussion of infinitive + habere in Latin, Pinkster (1987: 208-209) offers a convincing explanation for the use of the infinitive for the expression of the deontic modal function in Latin. He compares the infinitive constructions with habere to those with dare 'give', such as dare aquam bibere 'give water to drink', where the infinitive is used as an alternative of the gerundivum, a Latin non-finite form that serves to express "non-factive, i.e. future oriented meaning" (Pinkster 1987: 209). The gerundivum variant of dare aquam bibere would be dare aquam bibendam 'give water to drink'. It is probable that in parallel constructions with habere the same rule was applied and the infinitive gradually took over the function of the gerundivum in constructions of this type. The non-existence of a gerundivum form in Romance languages may be taken as an indication of the correctness of Pinkster's view. The second point that calls for an explanation is how tetter que + infinitive has come to develop two alternative uses, which I have labelled tener quel and tener que2. The origin of these developments can be traced back to the auxiliarization of haber, which did not only lead to the complete disappearance of haber as a possessive verb, but also involved the intrusion of tener into the modal domain of haber. Since there was a pre-existing quasi-

15. This also holds for saber 'know' in (63) if one interprets the concept of knowledge as 'intellectual possession*.

252

Periphrastic constructions

modal relative construction that occurred mainly with verbs related to the semantic field of possession (cf. examples (62)-(64) above), tener que was the most obvious candidate to take the place of the modal constructions with haber. Even more so as the antecedent of the relative clause was most of the times implicit, so that que, like a preposition, immediately followed the finite verb and preceded the infinitive: (65)

non tenemos que comer not have. 1 PL which eat.INF 'we do not have (anything) to eat' (Poema de Alfonso XI, ±1350, quoted from Yllera 1979: 117)

(66)

no tiene que se cobijar not have.3SG which REFL.3 cover.INF 'he does not have (anything) to put on* (Mufton, op. cit., quoted from Keniston 1937: 511)

Of the above-mentioned medieval modal constructions with haber only haber de + infinitive has survived into post-medieval Spanish, competing with tener que2 and the newly created tener de. Until the second half of the nineteenth century haber de was by far the strongest. At that time, however, tener que2 rapidly took the lead and tener de ceased to exist (Casino Pardos 1993: 13). In 20th century Spanish tener que2 has almost entirely ousted haber de in oral use and is much more frequent in literary use than is haber de.16 Unaffected by the development of tener que2 as a modal periphrasis, the relative construction with an explicit antecedent, of which tener quet is a possible realization, has continued to exist as a lexical construction: (67)

la chica (...) dio media vuelta y the girl gave.PF.3SG half turn and fue en busca de algun gerente went.PF.3SG in search of some executive desplumar fleece.INF 'the girl (...) turned round and went away in executive to fleece* (Mendoza 37)

se REFL.3 que which

search of some

16. The literary corpus contains 103 occurrences of tener que and only 9 of haber de, and a representative cross-section of the Madrid-corpus yields one occurrence of haber de versus 70 occurrences of tener que. However, it should be noted that, probably due to the influence of Catalan, haber de is quite popular in spoken Spanish in the Barcelona area.

Infinitival periphrases

253

(68)

tenia siempre un chiste oportuno que contar had.IMPF.3SG always a joke suitable which tell.INF 'he always had a suitable joke to tell' {El Pais Semanal no. 84, 110)

(69)

CONTEXT: Asipues, si no existe argumento interno 'So that, if there is no internal argument' tampoco existe caso que absorber neither exist.3SG case which absorb.INF 'there is no case to be absorbed either' (Bosque 1990: 189)

(ii) Adaptation of the tests. In the introductory lines of this section, I claimed that constructions with tener quex are not periphrastic. Now, the question is: how can the periphrastic or non-periphrastic character of tener que constructions be tested? We have seen that, in the lexical construction, the infinitive construction is a relative clause, i.e. it is a restrictor which helps to identify the referent of its antecedent. As such, it must be possible to substitute the infinitive construction and, if present, the noun preceding que by a pronoun. If this is not possible, then tener is not a possessive verb and the tener que construction is a periphrasis. Another test is the omission of the infinitive construction, which yields a grammatical result only when tener is a possessive verb. (iii) tener que2. The application of both tests to three examples of tener que2 yields the following: (61)

a.

— Juan Gabriel acuerdate que Juan Gabriel remember.IMP-REFL.2SG that tienes que repasar muchos temas. have.2SG REL revise.INF many subjects * — Si, si que los tengo, pero no yes know.lSG that them have.lSG but not tengo ganas. have.lSG desires '—Juan Gabriel, remember that you have to revise many subjects. —Yes, I know that I have them, but I don't feel like it.'

b.

* —(...) — Si, si que tengo, pero no yes know.lSG that have.lSG but not tengo ganas. have.lSG desires '—(...) —Yes, I know that I have, but I don't feel like it.'

254 (70)

(71)

Periphrastic constructions ahora tienes que saber idiomas now have.2SG REL know.INF languages 'nowadays you must know languages'

(VAZ 39)

a.

* ιTienes que saber idiomas? No creo have.2SG REL know.INF languages not believe. 1SG que lo tengas. that it have.SUBJ.2SG 'You have to know languages? I don't believe that you have it.'

b.

* ι Tienes que saber idiomas? No creo have.2SG REL know.INF languages not believe que tengas. that have.SUBJ.2SG 'You have to know languages? I don't believe that you have.'

esas ruedas tendrian que ser de these wheels have.COND.3PL REL be.INF of hierro iron 'these wheels should be of iron'

(TOM 153)

Tienen que ser de hierro, pero algunos have.3PL REL be.INF of iron but some-people dicen que no lo tienen. say.3PL that not it have.3PL 'They must be of iron, but some people say they don't have it.' b.

* Tienen que ser de hierro, pero algunos have.3PL REL be.INF of iron but some-people dicen que no tienen. say.3PL that not have.3PL 'They must be of iron, but some people say they don't have.'

From these examples we learn that tener que2 is a periphrasis. In order to see whether tener que2 is a partially or a fully periphrastic construction we have to consider the behaviour of the periphrasis in relation to a non-periphrastic homonym. Tener que2 still has such a homonym, which is the —by now marginal— relative construction with an implicit antecedent. My corpus contains one example:

Infinitival periphrases (72)

255

CONTEXT: (conversation about the scarcity of interesting books in the stock of a book club) al ano yo ya_no tengo que pedir, (M 299) at-the year I no-longer have.lSG which order.INF no tengo, porque (...) hay una serie de cosas not have.lSG because there-is a series of things que no me interesa which not me interest.3SG 'within a year's time I don't have anything to order any more, I don't have, because (...) there are a number of things I am not interested in'

Taken out of its context, the construction is ambiguous between a lexical and a periphrastic reading: (72)

a. yajio tengo que pedir no-longer have.lSG REL order.INF lexical reading: Ί don't have anything to order any more' periphrastic reading: Ί don't have to beg any more'

Such ambiguity is only possible with verbs like pedir which have both a transitive and an intransitive reading, with the transitive reading corresponding to the lexical interpretation and the intransitive reading to the periphrastic interpretation. With an exclusively transitive verb, a periphrastic reading is excluded, because there is no referent for the second argument. However, given the extreme infrequency of exclusively transitive verbs on the one hand and of lexical constructions of the tener que2 type on the other, we may safely conclude that tener que2 is a fully periphrastic construction, i.e. a construction that may be read periphrastically also in those cases where a lexical reading is possible. (iv) tener que,. In my corpus, I have encountered six tener que1 constructions, to two of which I will apply the tests described above: (60)

a. —

Juan Gabriel, acuerdate que Juan Gabriel remember.IMP-REFL.2SG that tienes muchos temas que repasar. have.2SG many subjects which revise.INF — Si, se que los tengo, pero no yes know.lSG that them have.lSG but not tengo ganas. have.lSG desires '—Juan Gabriel, remember that you have many subjects to revise. —Yes, I know that I have them, but I don't feel like it.'

256

Periphrastic constructions b.

(73)

—(...) — Si, se que tengo muchos yes know.lSG that have.lSG many temas pero no tengo ganas. subjects but not have.lSG desires '—(...) —Yes, I know that I have many subjects, but I don't feel like it.'

tenia muchas cosas que decir had.IMPF.3SG many things which say.INF 'he had many things to say' a.

El anuncio he announced.PF.3SG que decir y which say.INF and 'He had announced that he had many.'

b.

Yo no tenia nada I not had.IMPF.lSG nothing el si tenia muchas he yes had.IMPF.3SG many Ί didn't have anything to say, but

(M 293)

que tenia muchas cosas that had.IMPF.3SG many things deverdad tenia muchas. indeed had.IMPF.3SG many he had many things to say, and, indeed,

que decir, pero which say.INF but cosas. things he did have quite a lot.'

The grammaticality of (60a) and (73a), in which the infinitive construction plus the preceding noun phrase are pronominalized and of (60b) and (73b), in which the infinitive construction is left out, shows that in constructions of the type tener quex, tener is a possessive verb and the infinitive construction a non-finite relative clause. It follows that tener que1 constructions are not periphrases but lexical constructions.

6.1.2.2. Periphrases without non-periphrastic homonyms 6.1.2.2.0. Introduction The infinitival constructions with llegara (6.1.2.2.1.), acabar / terminarpor (6.1.2.2.2.), dejarde (6.1.2.2.3.) and cesar de (6.1.2.2.4.) are not parallelled by a non-periphrastic homonym. This does not mean that, like the constructions with haber and ser (cf. 3.1.2.), they should be regarded as truly auxiliary constructions, since llegar, acabar, cesar, dejar, terminar do occur as lexical verbs and/or semi-auxiliaries in constructions other than the ones discussed here. As such, the constructions fit into the definition of periphrases

Infinitival periphrases

257

given in section 3.1.1. However, there is one important difference between llegar on the one hand and acabar I terminar, cesar and dejar on the other: llegar does occur with the preposition a in its lexical function, whereas the combination of acabar and terminar with por and that of cesar and dejar with de does not occur outside the periphrastic use of these verbs. As a consequence, the periphrastic status of llegar a + infinitive is less obvious than that of the other constructions to be discussed in this section. In this section I will deal with each construction separately, first demonstrating that they are indeed periphrases and subsequently discussing their relations with the corresponding (semi-)lexical verbs in order to shed some light on the question of what may have been their origin.

6.1.2.2.1. llegar a The infinitival construction with llegar a 'arrive at' + infinitive can fulfil two functions. In most contexts it expresses a meaning that is similar to English 'come to', but, in addition, it can be used as a colloquial substitute of the Past Subjunctive in the protasis of counterfactual conditionals. The latter use can only be found in Peninsular Spanish and is particularly popular in Castile. In this section, I will give examples of the two uses in order to show that both are periphrastic. (i) Periphrastic construction. Consider the following example of llegar a + infinitive and its variants: (74)

CONTEXT: Comenzo contigo la carrera; creo que 'He began his university studies together with you; I believe that' el tampoco llego a acabarla (ORT 116) he neither arrived.PF.3SG at finish.INF-it 'he didn't come to finish them either'

a.

* Tu no la acabaste, y el tampoco you not it finished.PF.2SG and he neither llego a ello. arrived.PF.3SG at it 'You didn't finish them, and he didn't come to it either.'

b.

* Tu no la acabaste, y el tampoco you not it finished.PF.2SG and he neither llego. arrived. PF.3SG 'You didn't finish them, and he didn't come either.'

258

Periphrastic constructions

Examples (74a) and (74b) illustrate that the infinitive construction can neither be replaced by a pronoun nor be omitted, which shows that, when expressing the meaning 'come to', llegar a + infinitive is a periphrasis. The following example and its variants show that the same holds when the construction with llegar a is used to indicate counterfactuality: (75)

Si llegas a decirmelo ayer, te if arrive.2SG at say.INF-me.DAT-it yesterday you.DAT habria traido el libro. have.COND.lSG brought the book 'If you had told me yesterday, I would have brought you the book.' a.

* ^Por que no me lo dijiste ayer?, si why not me it told.PF.2SG yesterday if llegas a ello, te habria traido arrive.2SG at it you.DAT have.COND.lSG brought el libro. the book 'Why didn't you tell me yesterday? If you arrive at it, I would have brought you the book.'

b. * £Por_que no me lo dijiste ayer?, si why not me it told.PF.2SG yesterday if llegas te habria traido el libro. arrive.2SG you .DAT have.COND.lSG brought the book 'Why didn't you tell me yesterday? If you arrive, I would have brought you the book.' As becomes obvious from this example, llegar a cannot express its counterfactual function without the infinitive construction, i.e. llegar a + infinitive is a periphrasis in this case, too. (ii) Potential counterargument. In some cases, infinitival constructions with llegar a in the meaning of 'come to' have a nominal counterpart, as in the following near-synonymous pair: (76)

has podido llegar a pensar que (RIC 93) have.2SG can.PART arrive.INF at think.INF that te pongo los cuernos you.DAT put.lSG the horns 'is it possible that you have come to think that I'm cuckolding you'

Infinitival periphrases

259

a. has podido llegar a la idea de que have.2SG can.PART arrive.INF at the idea of that te pongo los cuernos you.DAT put.lSG the horns 'is it possible that you have come to the idea that I'm cuckolding you' Conversely, a nominal construction with llegar a can be replaced by an infinitival construction: (77)

Yo creo que la Universidad sera un medio idoneo para (...) que (...) los hombres del pueblo Ί believe that the university will be the ideal instrument (...) so that common people' lleguen tambien (...) a la captation (M 38) arrive.SUBJ.3PL also at the understanding un poco de los problemas de los de arriba a bit of the problems of the of above 'would also come (...) to an understanding... a bit... of the problems of the upper classes' CONTEXT:

a.

(...) lleguen tambien a captar los arrive.SUBJ.3PL also at understand.INF the problemas de los de arriba problems of the of above 'would also come to understand the problems of the upper classes'

This type of substitution is possible when the infinitive construction with llegar a designates the result of some cognitive process. Outside the context of cognition, the infinitive construction cannot be replaced by a nominal construction: (78)

aquella musica podia llegar a (GAR 28) that music could.IMPF.3SG arrive.INF at provocarme identica (...) morbidez emocional evoke.INF-me.DAT identical delicay emotional que una sonatina romäntica as a sonatina romantic 'that music could come to evoke within me the same emotional delicacy as a Romantic sonatina'

260

Periphrastic constructions

a.

* Nunca habia creido never had.IMPF.lSG believed podia llegar a could.IMPF.3SG arrive.INF at tal morbidez en mi. such delicacy in me 'Never had I believed that music of such delicacy in me.'

que la miisica that the music la provocation de the evocation of could come to the evocation

But even within the context of cognition, there is no systematic relation between the use of an infinitive construction and that of a nominal construction. This is due, first of all to the fact that the mutual interchangeability is restricted by the availability of semantically parallel verbs and nouns of cognition: (79)

mi madre llego a saber (SOR 136-137) my mother came.PF.3SG at know.INF algo de mi aventura something of my adventure 'my mother came to know something of my adventure' a.

?? mi madre llego al conocimiento de my mother arrived.PF.3SG at-the knowledge of algo de mi aventura something of my adventure 'my mother came to the knowledge of something of my adventure'

Secondly, in most cases, nominal and verbal constructions with llegar a are not entirely synonymous. Consider the following example: (80)

Llego a un acuerdo con mi padre arrived.PF.3SG at a agreement with my father 'He came to an agreement with my father' a.

(GIR 44)

Φ Llego a ponerse_de acuerdo con mi arrived.PF.3SG at reach-an-agreement.INF with my padre. father 'He came to reach an agreement with my father.'

Infinitival periphrases

261

b. Se_puso_de_acuerdo con mi padre. reached-an-agreement.PF.3SG with my father 'He reached an agreement with my father.' Example (80) is a case where the nominal construction with llegar a is semantically equivalent to a verbal construction without llegar a (80b), while the verbal construction with llegar a (80a) adds a semantic nuance which is not present in the original. It expresses that reaching the agreement was not easy, i.e. that it was the culmination of a process. Thus, verbal and nominal constructions with llegar a are not systematically interchangeable, which means that there is reason to distinguish periphrastic llegar a + infinitive from the metaphorical use of lexical llegar a in nominal constructions like (77) and (80). (iii) Origin of the periphrasis. Both the use of llegar a with a nominal term designating an event or a situation and llegar a + infinitive can be found from the first literary texts onwards (Pountain 1984: 105; Yllera 1979: 192), both expressing an ingressive meaning. Given this semantic similarity, it is probable that llegar a + infinitive originates from a metaphorical extension of the movement meaning of llegar 'arrive' from the domain of space to that of time; i.e. 'reach a place' has come to mean 'reach a situation*. As regards the function of llegar a + infinitive in counterfactual conditionals, the construction is neither mentioned in any of the historical sources nor in reference grammars or dictionaries. I have found no explanation of how llegar a + infinitive has come to fulfil this function.

6.1.2.2.2. acabar / terminar por (i) Periphrastic construction. The following examples of acabar / terminar por 'end up' and their variants show that the construction is indeed a periphrasis: (81)

la gente acabarä por olvidarse (ORT 122) the people end.FUT.3SG PREP forget.INF-REFL.3 'people will end up forgetting (about it)' a. * Seguro que lo van a olvidar, la gente certain that it go.3PL to forget.INF the people siempre acaba por eso. always end.3SG PREP this 'Certainly, they will forget it, people always end by this.'

262

Periphrastic constructions b.

(82)

* Seguro que lo van a olvidar, la gente certain that it go.3PL to forget.INF the people siempre acaba. always end.3SG 'Certainly, they will forget it, people always end.'

Tambien las oyentes en la sala_de_costura (GAR 30) also the listeners in the sewing-room terminaban por saciarse de musica ended.IMPF.3PL PREP satiate.INF-REFL.3 of music 'The listeners in the sewing room, too, ended up getting satiated with music' a.

* Nunca habian cretdo que iban a never had.IMPF.3PL believed that went.IMPF. 3PL to saciarse de musica pero despuesde tanto satiate.INF-REFL.3 of music but after so-much escuchar ellas tambien terminaron por eso. listen.INF they.FEM too ended.PF.3PL PREP this 'Never had they believed that they would get satiated with music, but, after so much listening, they, too, ended by this.'

b.

* Nunca habian creido que iban a never had.IMPF.3PL believed that went.IMPF.3PL to saciarse de musica pero despues de tanto satiate.INF-REFL.3 of music but after so-much escuchar ellas tambien terminaron. listen.INF they.FEM too ended.PF.3PL 'Never had they believed that they would get satiated with music, but, after so much listening, they, too, ended.'

From these examples we learn that acabar / terminar por do not allow for pronominalization or omission of the infinitive construction, which shows that they do not embed the combining predication but function as auxiliary modifiers. (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. The periphrasis must be of relatively recent origin since it is not mentioned in Yllera's (1979) description of medieval periphrases nor in Keniston's (1937) work on the syntax of 16th century prose. Cuervo's (1953, 1: 89) earliest examples date from the beginning of the 19th century. Probably, acabar / terminar por + infinitive has developed from a lexical construction where por introduces a satellite in analogy with combinations of empezar / comenzar with a construction with por (cf. section 4.1.1.5.). Cuervo (1953, 1: 89) gives two examples of this use, one of which

Infinitival periphrases

263

is the following: (83)

El_que quisiere aprovechar en el camino who want.SUBJ.FUT.3SG be-worthy.INF in the way del cielo debe comenzar y acabar por of-the heaven must.3SG begin.INF and end.INF PREP este santo ejercicio this holy exercise 'Who wants to be worthy on the way of heaven must begin and end by this holy exercise' (Luis de Granada, Introduction del simbolo de la fe, 1583)

In modern Spanish, acabar / terminarpor

6.1.2.2.3.

can no longer be used in this way.

dejarde

The infinitival construction with dejar de has two meanings, one is 'stop', the other is 'refrain from*. In this section, I will give examples of both, showing that in both cases the construction has a periphrastic character. (i) Periphrasistic construction. Consider the following examples of dejar de 'stop' and their variants: (84)

(85)

dejo de trabajar stop.lSG PREP work.INF Ί stop working'

(M 425)

a.

* me he cansado de tanto trabajar, REFL.1SG have.lSG tired of so-much work.INF asl que ahora dejo de ello so that now stop.lSG PREP this 'I'm exhausted with working so much, so that now I stop with it'

b.

* me he cansado de tanto trabajar, REFL.1SG have.lSG tired of so-much work.INF asi que ahora dejo so that now stop.lSG 'I'm exhausted with working so much, so that now I stop'

Mi hermana ha dejado my sister have.3SG stopped 'My sister has stopped crying'

de PREP

llorar cry.INF

(LLA 23)

264

Periphrastic constructions

a. * Mi hermana yajio llora. Ahora que ha my sister no-longer cry.3SG now that have.3SG dejado de ello, podemos hablar. stopped PREP it can. 1 PL talk.INF 'My sister doesn't cry any longer. Now that she has stopped with it, we can talk.' b. * Mi hermana yajio llora. Ahora que ha my sister no-longer cry.3SG now that have.3SG dejado, podemos hablar. stopped can. 1 PL talk.INF 'My sister doesn't cry any longer. Now that she has stopped, we can talk.' These examples show that, in its egressive function, dejar de can only occur in combination with an infinitive and never on its own. The same holds when dejar de means 'refrain from': (86)

no deje de apreciar tambien (SOR 111) not refrained.PF.lSG PREP appreciate.INF also el resto de su ßsico visible the remainder of her body visible Ί did not refrain from appreciating what else was visible of her body' a.

* no quise fijarme not wanted.PF.lSG pay-attention.INF-REFL.lSG en el resto de su ßsico, pero tampoco PREP the remainder of her body but also-not deje de ello refrained.PF.lSG PREP it Ί did not want to pay attention to the remainder of her body, but did not refrain from it either'

b. * no quise fijarme en not wanted.PF.lSG pay-attention.INF-REFL.lSG PREP el resto de su fisico, pero tampoco the remainder of her body but also-not deje refrained.PF.lSG Ί did not want to pay attention to the remainder of her body, but did not refrain either'

Infinitival periphrases

265

Examples (84)-(86) and their variants show that dejar de + infinitive is a periphrasis. (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. Outside the periphrasis, dejar 'leave', 'give up* is a transitive verb and the infrequent dejarse de 'stop' is a reflexive prepositional verb: (87)

entonces decidi dejar el trabajo then decided.PF.lSG give-up.INF the work 'then I decided to give up my job'

(88)

dejate de conas stop.IMP-REFL.2SG PREP jokes 'stop joking'

(M 341)

(PAL 71)

Transitive dejar allows for first-order entities and events as referents of its second argument, whereas the reflexive variant only allows for events and abstract concepts in this position. In earlier stages of Spanish, the reflexive construction was apparently more frequent, given the relatively large number of examples quoted by Cuervo (1953, 1: 853). In Cuervo's examples, the Prepositional Object slot is usually filled with a nominal term or a pronoun, but he also gives one example with an infinitive. This and the fact that quite a few of the occurrences of the egressive periphrasis in early Medieval Spanish quoted in Yllera (1979: 194) are reflexive, suggest that the periphrasis has developed from the reflexive prepositional variant of dejar. The first occurrences of the periphrasis date from the 13th century. From the outset, the periphrasis expressed both meanings, 'stop' and 'refrain from' (Yllera 1979: 194-195, 215). Quite a few of Yllera's examples allow for both readings, because the contexts given are not sufficiently large for disambiguation. In modern Spanish, dejar de expresses the meaning of 'refrain from' exclusively when negated,17 although the negation of dejar de is not a sufficient condition for the construction to express this meaning; in the

17. The only affirmative context in which dejar de signifies 'refrain from' is the idiomatic expression hacer ο dejar de hacer 'do or refrain from doing' as in the following example: (i) ^Por quS se preocupan tanto por loque puedan hacer why REFL.3 wony.3PL so-much PREP what can.SUBJ.3PL do.INF ο dejar de hacer unos_cuantos ciudadanos de tercera ο or refrain.INF PREP do.INF some citizens of third or cuarta categoria? fourth category 'Why do they worry so much about the comings and goings of a bunch of third or fourth class citizens?' (Tomeo, El mayordomo miope 116-117)

266

Periphrastic constructions

following example, negated dejar de means 'stop': (89)

Llegue al hotel en un cuarto de hora (PUE 135) arrived.PF.lSG at-the hotel in a quarter of hour sin mirar aträs, sin dejar un solo instante without look.INF back without stop.INF a only instant de pedalear PREP pedal.INF Ί arrived at the hotel within a quarter of an hour without looking back, without stopping to pedal for one moment only.'

The relation between the two meanings will be at issue in section 7.6. 6.1.2.2.4. cesar de (i) Periphrastic construction. The following examples and their variants show that cesar de 'stop', 'cease* + infinitive is a periphrasis: (90)

Los the que that 'The a.

seismölogos no cesan de repetir seismologists not cease.3PL PREP repeat.INF el peligro ha pasado. the danger have.3SG passed seismologists do not cease to repeat that the danger has gone.'

Los seismö logos no cesan de repetir the seismologists not cease.3PL PREP repeat.INF que el peligro ha pasado, sin_embargo that the danger have.3SG passed however * aunque no cesan de ello, no sirve para although not cease.3PL PREP it not serve.3SG for nada. nothing 'The seismologists do not cease to repeat that the danger has gone, however, although they do not cease to it, it is of no use.'

b. * (...) sinjembargo, aunque no cesan, no sirve however although not cease. 3PL not serve.3SG para nada for nothing '(...) however, although they do not cease, it is of no use'

Infinitival periphrases

(91)

267

es el tronco que estä en la chimenea is.3SG the log which is.3SG in the chimney y que no cesa de arder and which not cease.3SG PREP burn.INF 'it is the log which is in the chimney and which doesn't stop burning* (Tiempo 116) a. * el tronco the log cesa cease. 3SG 'the log in

en la chimenea arde y no in the chimney burn.3SG and not de ello PREP it the chimney bums and does not cease to it'

b. * el tronco en la chimenea arde y no the log in the chimney burn.3SG and not cesa cease. 3SG 'the log in the chimney burns and does not cease' (90a) and (91a) illustrate that it is impossible to pronominalize the infinitive construction, which shows that cesar de does not embed the infinitive construction. From (90b) and (91b) it becomes clear that cesar cannot occur without the infinitive construction.18 (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. Cesar de + infinitive is very infrequent and practically non-existent in oral usage; in written Spanish it almost exclusively occurs in combination with negation. An example of the lexical use of cesar is the following:

18. The expression sin cesar 'without ceasing' looks as if it were an instance of independent use of cesar, but it is not. Sin cesar is a periphrastic adverb, and its meaning is 'continually'. Evidence of the non-verbal character of sin cesar is the following example and its passivized variant, where passivization bears no effect on the form of sin cesar, although it should if it were indeed a verbal form: (i) Repetia sin cesar la misma /rase (GIR 43) repeated.IMPF.3SG without cease. INF the same sentence 'He incessantly repeated the same sentence' a. La misma frase era repetida sin cesar the same sentence was.IMPF.3SG repeated without cease.INF 'The same sentence was continually repeated'

268 (92)

Periphrastic constructions durante unos minutos cesaba la during some minutes ceased.IMPF.3SG the actividad de las mujeres activity of the women 'for a few minutes the activity of the women stopped'

(GAR 11)

In this example cesar is an intransitive verb. As the example illustrates, the argument of intransitive cesar must refer to a second-order entity. The intransitive verb cesar has been inherited from Latin. Apart from the intransitive verb, there was a lexical use of cesar de in the Spanish of the 16th and 17th century, which, according to Cuervo (1953, 2: 137), was very popular: (93)

el no cesaba de sus bien cantadas y he not ceased.IMPF.3SG PREP his good.ADV sung and mejor lloradas quejas better wept complaints 'He did not cease with his finely sung and better wept complaints' (Miguel de Cervantes, Obras, ±1600)

It may be assumed that, as a prepositional, verb cesar de has developed from the intransitive verb cesar and that it lost its lexical character at some moment in the 17th or 18th century to form the periphrasis cesar de + infinitive.

6.2. Gerundial periphrases 6.2.0. Introduction In this section I will apply the tests introduced in section 5.2.1. in order to demonstrate that the gerundial constructions to be presented here are indeed periphrastic. To recapitulate, the tests are based on the potential functions of lexical gerund constructions; these have either the function of predicate, predication or proposition satellites or that of a secondary predication (or: predicative adjunct). If the gerund construction is a predicate satellite it may have the semantic functions of e.g. Means, Manner or Speed, if it is a predication satellite its semantic function may be Time or Cause, if it is a proposition satellite its semantic function will generally be that of Reason (cf. Dik et al. 1990: 32-38; Hengeveld 1995). When the gerund construction is a predicate satellite, it must allow for questioning with icomo? 'how' and/or substitution by means of the deictic pro-form asi 'like this'. When it is a predication or proposition satellite, it must allow for substitution through a finite adverbial clause of e.g. Time, Cause or Reason. When the gerund con-

Germdial periphrases

269

struction functions as a predicative adjunct, it must allow for paraphrasing as a co-ordinate or superordinate finite clause. Additionally, omission must be possible in all of these cases (however, cf. 5.2.1. for pragmatic restrictions). The gerundial constructions to be discussed here will be shown to allow for none of these procedures, which means that the finite verb and the gerund construction form an inseparable unit, i.e. that the constructions are periphrases. The constructions at issue are gerundial constructions with acabar / terminar 'finish', 'end', andar 'walk', continuar / seguir 'go on', estar 'be here / there', ir 'go', quedar(se) 'stay', 'remain', venir 'come'. In accordance with the overall classification of periphrases given in section 6.O., I will distinguish between partially periphrastic gerundial constructions (6.2.1.) and fully periphrastic gerundial constructions (6.2.2.).

6.2.1. Partially periphrastic construction: continuar / seguir To begin with, let us briefly recall what "partially periphrastic" means. A construction is partially rather than fully periphrastic, when it behaves like a periphrasis only in those contexts that do not allow for a non-periphrastic reading. Such contexts have the property of violating some restriction that holds for the lexical use of the periphrastic auxiliary and/or of being incompatible with its lexical meaning. As regards semantics, there is generally no big difference between the meanings of the non-periphrastic construction and the corresponding periphrasis. There is only one partially periphrastic gerundial construction, the one with continuar / seguir, which is based on a semi-auxiliary construction. As we have seen in section 5.2., on gerundial semi-auxiliary constructions, it is the common property of all semi-auxiliaries that they do not allow for any kind of substitution of the combining non-finite verb construction. As partially periphrastic constructions are in fact context-specific variants of the verbs they are based on, I refrain from applying the substitution tests to the constructions in question, because the result is entirely predictable and, thus, would not yield any further insight into the subject matter. In section 5.2.2., on the gerundial construction with the synonymous semi-auxiliaries continuar and seguir, both meaning 'go on', I showed that the semi-auxiliaries require an animate referent for their first and only argument and that the semantic function of this argument is Agent. In this respect, continuar / seguir parallel the phasal semi-auxiliaries empezar / comenzar and acabar / terminar. In the following examples, the restrictions imposed by the semi-auxiliary are violated; in (94) the A1 of the construction refers to an inanimate entity and in (95) the semantic function of the A1 of the construction is not that of Agent:

270

Periphrastic constructions

(94)

la tela sigue siendo preciosa the cloth go-on.3SG be.GER beautiful 'the cloth is still beautiful'

(95)

Para mi el maestro continuaba for me the teacher went-on.IMPF.3SG Don Julio. Don Julio 'For me the teacher still was Don Julio.'

(MAR 152)

siendo be.GER

(GIR 33)

The application of the omission test to these instances yields the following results: el traje es viejo, pero la tela sigue siendo preciosa, 'the dress is old, but the cloth is still beautiful,' * es raro que siga, siendo tan is.3SG strange that go-on.SUBJ.3SG be.GER so vieja old 'it is strange that it goes on, though it is so old'

(94)

a.

CONTEXT:

(95)

a. * Para mi el maestro era Don Julio y for me the teacher was.IMPF.3SG Don Julio and pese_a todo continuaria. inspite-of all go-on.COND.3SG 'For me the teacher was Don Julio and, in spite of all, he would go on.'

This shows that, under these conditions, continuar / seguir do not behave as semi-auxiliaries, but form an inseparable unit with the gerund construction, i.e. continuar and seguir form a gerundial periphrasis when their restrictions as semi-auxiliaries are violated.

6.2.2. Fully periphrastic constructions 6.2.2.0. Introduction Unlike partially periphrastic constructions, fully periphrastic constructions are constructions whose reading as a periphrasis is not dependent on specific contexts. Some of these periphrases are parallelled by homonymous lexical constructions, others are not. The former construction type can be ambiguous between a lexical and a periphrastic reading whenever it occurs in contexts

Gerundial periphrases

271

that are compatible with a lexical reading of the construction. The latter have a periphrastic reading only (cf. 6.0.). Fully periphrastic gerundial periphrases are the constructions with acabar / terminar 'finish', 'end', andar 'walk', estar 'be here / there', ir 'go* , quedar(se) 'stay', 'remain' and venir 'come'. With the sole exception of estar + gerund, all these constructions have homonymous non-periphrastic counterparts. 6.2.2.1. Periphrases with non-periphrastic homonyms 6.2.2.1.0. Introduction This section will be subdivided in accordance with the semantics of the periphrastic auxiliaries when functioning as lexical items. I will begin by acabar / terminar 'finish', 'end', which are phasal verbs (6.2.2.1.1.), and then proceed to the movement verbs ir 'go' (6.2.2.1.2.), venir 'come' (6.2.2.1.3.) and andar 'walk' (6.2.2.1.4.). The last construction to be presented is the periphrasis formed with the positional verb quedar(se) 'stay', 'remain* (6.2.2.1.5.). As in section 6.1.2., on fully periphrastic infinitival constructions, the discussion of each construction will be structured in such a way that I will first argue that the construction is indeed a periphrasis and then consider its possible origin.

6.2.2.1.1. acabar / terminar With the notable exception of acabar de + infinitive as an expression of recent past, we have seen that terminar and acabar are fully synonymous. This is also true of the use to be discussed in this section. Hence, as in the above sections, whatever will be stated on one of the two verbs will be valid for the synonym, too.19 Before discussing acabar / terminar + gerund, let us first briefly consider the three functions these two verbs can have outside the periphrasis. Firstly, acabar and terminar can function as semi-auxiliaries meaning 'finish' or 'end' (cf. 5.1.1.1. on acabar / terminar de). Secondly, they can be used in the same meaning as transitive verbs (cf. 5.1.1.1.3.). Thirdly, acabar I terminar can occur as intransitive verbs expressing the end of some extension in

19. It should be noted, however, that acabar occurs more frequently in the construction in question than terminar. Out of a total of 22 occurrences in my corpus, there are 17 instances of acabar and only 5 of terminar. Of the five instances of terminar, four come from the oral corpus. In written texts, acabar is definitely preferred.

272

Periphrastic constructions

time (i.e. some event) or of some extension in space (e.g. a street), analogous to the intransitive verbs empezar / comenzar, which designate the beginning of some extension in time or space (cf. Dik 1973: 169). What all these three uses of acabar and terminar have in common, is that they designate the factual end of something. Conversely, the construction we are concerned with here means 'end up', 'eventually (do)' and, as such, does not specify the end of some SoA; rather, it serves to introduce a new SoA. How this meaning is related to the other meanings of acabar and terminar will be dealt with briefly at the end of this section. (i) Fully periphrastic construction. In the following example, acabar and the gerund construction can be interpreted lexically as well as periphrastically: (96)

Placido Domingo acabo desafinando. Placido Domingo ended.PF.3SG go-out-of-tune.GER lexical reading: 'Placido Domingo ended going out of tune.' periphrastic reading: 'Placido Domingo ended up going out of tune.'

In the lexical reading, (96) is an instance of semi-auxiliary acabar, as is made explicit in the following variant: (96)

a.

Pläcido Domingo acabo de interpretar Placido Domingo finished.PF.3SG PREP interpret.INF su cancion favorita desafinando. his song favourite go-out-of-tune.GER 'Placido Domingo finished interpreting his favourite song by going out of tune.'

From this paraphrase it becomes clear that, in the lexical reading, the gerund fulfils the function of an adverb specifying the manner in which the 'finishing'-event takes place. In the periphrastic reading, on the other hand, the gerund is the main predicate and acabar serves to modify the event described by this gerund, in this case the event of 'going out of tune'. The syntactic difference that corresponds to the two readings becomes obvious when we substitute the gerund construction with asi (96b) or omit the gerund construction (96c): (96)

b.

Pläcido Domingo acabo asi. Pläcido Domingo finished.PF.3SG like-this lexical reading: 'Placido Domingo finished like this.' periphrastic reading: —

Gerundial periphrases

273

c. Pläcido Domingo acabo. Placido Domingo finished.PF.3SG lexical reading: 'Placido Domingo finished.' periphrastic reading: — These variants demonstrate, firstly, that acabar + gerund is indeed a periphrasis and, secondly, that acabar + gerund can be a periphrasis in contexts which allow for a lexical reading of the construction as well. However, it is not only when a reading of the finite verb as a semi-auxiliary is possible that acabar / terminar + gerund may be ambiguous, but also when acabar / terminar can be interpreted as intransitive verbs. The following example allows for a periphrastic and an intransitive reading of terminar: (97)

Termino habiendo diez alumnos en ended.PF.3SG there-be.GER ten students in lexical reading: 'When it (e.g. the possibility to there were ten students in my class.' periphrastic reading: 'Eventually, there were ten class.'

mi clase. my class inscribe) ended students in my

As the translation corresponding to the lexical reading indicates, the gerund construction serves to specify what is the case at the time of the occurrence of the 'finishing'-event. This means that the gerundial construction fulfils the function of a predicative adjunct, and, as such, can be paraphrased as (97a) where termino is replaced by a subordinate temporal clause and the gerund construction by a main clause: (97)

a.

Cuando termino habia diez alumnos en when ended.PF.3SG there-was.IMPF ten students in mi clase. my class lexical reading: 'When it ended, there were ten students in my class.' periphrastic reading: —

In its function of a predicative adjunct, the gerund construction can also be omitted; although the omission of the gerund construction seriously reduces the content of (97), the remainder is not ungrammatical: b.

Termino. ended. PF.3SG lexical reading: 'It ended.' periphrastic reading: —

274

Periphrastic constructions

Summing up, we have seen that instances of acabar / terminar + gerund may be ambiguous between a lexical and a periphrastic reading when the conditions for either a semi-auxiliary reading or an intransitive reading are fulfilled. However, most of the 22 examples of this construction in my corpus are not ambiguous for various reasons. In quite a few cases, the context is such that a lexical reading would be extremely far fetched, as in the following example: (98)

CONTEXT: (about the dissection classes in medical studies) lo_que ocurre luego es que termina guständote (Μ 135) what happens then is that end.3SG please.GER-you 'what happens then is that it ends up being fun* (lit. '(...) it ends up pleasing you')

Example (98) does in principle allow for an alternative reading, in analogy to that of (97), in which the two verbs belong to two distinct predications, with the gerund construction functioning as a predicative adjunct. In such a reading, the example could be paraphrased as follows: (98)

a. Lo_que ocurre luego es que, cuando termina what happen.3SG then is that when end.3SG te gusta. you .DAT please. 3SG 'And what happens then is that when it ends it is fun.'

As it is extremely improbable that this reading is the intended one, (98) will generally be read as an unambiguously periphrastic construction. In other cases, a lexical reading is definitely excluded; this is, however, for reasons that are not directly related to the syntactic restrictions imposed by the lexical and/or semi-auxiliary variants of acabar / terminar. The following example may serve to illustrate this point: (99)

CONTEXT: y ademas que en estas peliculas, por lo general, siempre sale ganando la mujer, quiero decir (...) la casada, no la amante (...) 'and, moreover, it is that in these films, in general, in the end, the woman / wife always wins, I mean (...) the wife, not the lover (...)' siempre se termina yendo el marido (M 375) always REFL.3 end.3SG go.GER the husband con la mujer with the woman/wife 'always the husband ends up going off with his wife'

Gerundial periphrases

275

Theoretically, one could think of example (99) as allowing for a lexical reading, according to which the A1 of terminar would refer to some film and would not be coreferential with the A1 of irse 'go off', viz. el marido 'the husband*. Such a reading is, however, excluded because the reflexive clitic precedes the finite form of terminar. Although, in general, the position of the clitic in front of the finite verb cannot be taken as evidence of the auxiliary character of the finite verb (cf. 3.1.3.), we can take it for granted that whenever some clitic precedes the finite verb, this clitic must agree with or refer to some argument of this finite verb. In (99), this is not the case, since the reflexive pronoun se agrees with el marido. Agent of irse. Hence, the only possible reading of the example is the periphrastic one. (ii) Potential counterargument. Before proceeding to a discussion of the origin of this construction, there is one potential counterargument against regarding acabar / terminar as periphrastic auxiliaries which I would like to go into. Gomez Torrego (1988: 171) argues that with acabar / terminar the gerund construction fulfils an adverbial function, due to which he regards acabar / terminar as a semi-periphrasis only. There are some examples of acabar / terminar with adverbs and adverbial constructions in my corpus that seem to corroborate Gomez Torrego's view: (100)

acabaremos como ellas si seguimos (LLA 28) end.FUT.IPL like they.FEM if continue.IPL encerrados aqui locked-up.MASC.PL here 'and we will end up like them if we remain locked up here'

(101)

Nunca crei que terminariamos asi (POM 102) never believed.PF.lSG that end.COND.IPL like-this Ί had never believed that we would end up like this'

(102)

No vuelvo porque acabo en la cärcel (C 965.15) not return. 1SG because end.lSG in the prison Ί won't come back, because then I'll end up in prison'

As the translations indicate, semantically this use of acabar / terminar largely parallels the periphrasis. Syntactically, it resembles the periphrasis in that, firstly, omission of the adverbial construction is impossible without affecting the meaning of the clause: (100)

a.

?? acabaremos si seguimos encerrados end.FUT.IPL if continue.IPL locked-up.MASC.PL aqui here 'we will end if we remain locked up here'

276 (102)

Periphrastic constructions a.

??

No vuelvo porque acabo not return.lSG because end.lSG Ί won't come back, because I'll end'

A second point of resemblance is that gerund constructions can be used to fill the adverbial slot such as in: (101)

a.

Nunca cret que terminariamos never believed.PF.lSG that end.COND.IPL separändonos. separate.GER-REFL.IPL Ί had never believed that we would end up getting a divorce.'

However, given the fact that the converse, i.e. having an adverbial phrase fill the slot of the gerund construction in the periphrasis, is impossible (cf. example (96b)), we cannot but conclude that the two constructions must be different. A closer look at the semantics of the constructions in (100)-(102) reveals the nature of this syntactic difference. In these examples, acabar and terminar actually designate the ends of the persons referred to, a metaphor which serves to express the end of (some period in) their lives. This means that acabar / terminar function as an intransitive predicate the way it does in example (97) above. The adverbial phrase functions as a predicative adjunct, transmitting the relatively most salient information and thus reducing the semantic impact of the finite verb, such that acabar / terminar fulfil some sort of pseudo-copular function, similar to that of continuar / seguir with predicative adjuncts (cf. 5.2.2.3.). (iii) Origin of the periphrasis. Acabar / terminar + gerund must be of recent origin: it is not mentioned in Yllera's (1979) description of medieval periphrases or in Keniston's (1937) work on 16th century syntax; nor does Cuervo (1953, 1: 91), who comments on literary sources up to the 19th century, give any periphrastic instance. From the observations above, we can guess that the periphrasis has developed from instances of intransitive acabar / terminar with a gerundial predicative adjunct in which acabar / terminar and the predicative adjunct share their A1, such as the following: (103)

Tal es la pepitoria que contiene esta fäbula (...) 'Such is the hotchpotch which this fable contains (...),' la cual acaba amenazando con segunda parte which end.3SG menace.GER with second part 'which ends menacing with a second part' (Diego de Clemencin, 1833-38, Comentario del Quijote, quoted from Cuervo 1953, 1: 91) CONTEXT:

Gerwdial periphrases

277

In this example, acabar designates the actual end of an entity with some extension in time. In example (98), which parallels Cuervo's example in that the A1 of gustando refers to an extension in time, acabar / terminar does no longer refer to the actual end of the event, but to the moment in the course of the development of the event that leads to a change of situation with respect to the person involved in the event: the participation in the event turns into a pleasure. Read in this way, acabar / terminar can be applied to any entity that can be conceived of as being able to develop in some respect.

6.2.2.1.2. ir

(i) Fully periphrastic construction. gerund has two distinct readings: (104)

The following instance of ir 'go' +

los turistas fueron bajando por las escaleras the tourists went.PF.3PL walk-down.GER PREP the stairs lexical reading: 'the tourists went by walking down the stairs' periphrastic reading: 'slowly, the tourists were walking down the stairs'

In the periphrastic reading ir expresses a meaning in which the concepts of progression and gradualness are somehow fused. In this specific case, for instance, the construction expresses that each individual member of the set referred to by los turistas is involved the in activity of walking down, and the implication is that the activity is continued until the goal has been reached by each individual. Obviously, it is almost impossible to fully convey this meaning in the English translation of the example. I will deal with the semantics of ir + gerund in detail in section 7.1.1.2.1., where I will label this meaning "Gradual Aspect". The lexical reading of example (104) is appropriate when it is followed by something like e.g.: (105)

(...)

mientras que el guia tomo el ascensor whereas the guide took.PF.3SG the lift '(...) whereas the guide took the lift'

In such a reading, the Direction argument of ir, being situationally retrievable, is being left implicit (e.g. some place at the foot of a steep hill). In the lexical reading, the gerund construction specifies the means by which the action of movement is carried out. As such, it can be questioned with icomo? or be substituted by a non-gerundial Means satellite:

278

(104)

Periphrastic constructions

a. ι Como fueron los iuristas? how went.PF.3PL the tourists lexical reading: 'How did the tourists go?' periphrastic reading: — b. Los turistas fueron a_pie. the tourists went.PF.3PL on-foot lexical reading: 'The tourists went on foot.' periphrastic reading: —

The following instances allow for a periphrastic reading only. In (106) the selection restrictions of ir are violated, as el bar is not a movable entity; in (107) it is the meaning of the combining predicate that makes a lexical reading impossible, since 'go' and 'remain' designate opposite events. (106)

El bar se fue despoblando. (PUE 125) the bar REFL.3 went.PF.3SG become-depopulated.GER 'The bar was gradually getting empty.'

(107)

CONTEXT: Hubo un momento en el que habia muchos hombres separados 'There was a time when there were many separated men' pero ahora van quedando pocos (PUE 113) but now go.3PL remain. GER few 'but by now there remain fewer and fewer'

I will now test these two examples, in order to show that the gerund construction is not a predicate satellite (106a/107a), nor a predication or proposition satellite (106b/107b), nor a secondary predication (106c/107c). Additionally I will apply the omission test in order to prove that ir is not a semi-auxiliary either (106d/107d): (106)

a.

* iComo fue el bar?20 how went.PF.3SG the bar 'How did the bar go'?

b. * El bar iba porquel cuando the bar went.IMPF.3SG because/ when se despoblo. REFL.3SG became-depopulated.PF.3SG 'The bar went when it got empty.'

20. The Perfective Past Tense forms of ir and the copula ser are homonymous. The example given here is impeccable when file is read as a form of the copula.

Gerundial periphrases c.

279

* Cuando el bar fue, se when the bar went.PF.3SG REFL.3SG despoblo. become-depopulated.PF.3SG 'When the bar went, it got empty.'

d. * El bar fue. the bar went.PF.3SG 'The bar went.' (107)

a. * ι Como van pocos? how go.3PL few 'How do few go?' b. * van porquel cuando quedan go.3PL because when remain. 3PL 'they go because / when they remain' c.

* cuando van, se quedan when go.3PL REFL.3 remain. 3PL 'when they go, they remain'

d. * Van pocos. go.3PL few 'Few go.' In my corpus most instances of ir + gerund are unambiguously periphrastic, mainly because they lack a Direction term for the A2 of lexical ir to refer to. In quite a few cases there is no movement involved at all, and, thus, a lexical interpretation is out of the question. This is the case in the following example: (108)

CONTEXT: El doctor Romero me receto esto con la pretension de que comprobara que numero de gotas me hacian efecto 'Doctor Romero prescribed me this with the intention of checking the number of drips which would work out with me' para ir rebajando la dosis poco a poco (DEL 91) to go.INF lower.GER the dosis little by little 'to gradually lower the dosis little by little*

In movement contexts, it is possible to leave the Direction argument implicit only when its referent is obvious in the given situation or context (cf. (104) above). Therefore, the potential ambiguity of ir + gerund is restricted to

280

Periphrastic constructions

those exceptional cases where it occurs in a movement context that satisfies the condition of retrievability of the implicit argument. There is no such instance in my corpus. (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. In the first Spanish literary source, El poema de mio Cid (±1140-80), ir had a more abstract, existential use (Yllera 1979: 57; Michael 1973: 415): (109)

Grand alegrya va entre essos christianos great happiness go.3SG among these christians 'there is great happiness among these christians' (El poema de mio Cid, ±1140-1180, edition by Michael 1973: 134)

In occurrences like this, the verb serves to "locate" an abstract entity, (here: grand alegrya) in the expression of existence. As we will see in the discussion of the gerundial periphrases with andar, quedar(se) and estar, verbs of movement and, above all, positional verbs are regularly used in this way. Hengeveld (1992b: 96) shows that in quite a few typologically divergent languages existential constructions closely parallel locative constructions (cf. also Lyons 1977: 723). Following Hengeveld's (1992b: 94) suggestion, I will use the term 'localizing predicate* to cover predicates that express either concept. The use of ir in this function, as exemplified in (109), in combination with a gerundial predicative adjunct may have formed the basis of the periphrasis. An argument in favour of this theory is the fact that in El poema de mio Cid, ir + gerund occurs three times as often as does estar + gerund.21 At this stage, ir occurs with movement verbs and with verbs that specify some development, e.g. creger 'grow', which may be taken as an indication that ir is semantically less specific than estar, which, by then, combines with stative verbs only. The development of the specific meaning of ir + gerund takes place from the 13th century onwards, when ir and estar come to be used with the same verbs (Yllera 1979: 60).

6.2.2.1.3. venir As a lexical verb, venir expresses the movement of some entity towards the deictic centre, which corresponds to the location of the speaker (Comrie 1985: 15). This location may but need not be explicitly referred to, which means that venir is an intransitive verb. The gerundial construction at issue expresses the aspectual notion of perfect of persistent situation (Comrie

21. In modern Spanish, the situation is reversed: in my corpus, estar + gerund occurs more than three times as often as ir + gerund (cf. Appendix Π).

Gerundial periphrases

281

1976: 60), and is as such closely related to llevar + gerund. 22 (i) Fully periphrastic construction. The following example can be interpreted in two distinct ways: (110)

La plebe venia tirando piedras contra los the mob came.IMPF.3SG throw.GER stones against the guardias. guards lexical reading: 'The masses came throwing stones against the guards.' periphrastic reading: 'The masses had been throwing stones against the guards.'

On the lexical reading, the gerund construction expresses in a secondary predication an event that takes place parallel to the movement activity described by means of venir and its argument. On the periphrastic reading it expresses the fact that the event described in the gerundial construction has been occurring before reference time and continues to occur at reference time. Both the lexical (110a) and the periphrastic (110b) readings are facilitated when some context is added: (110)

a.

CONTEXT: El rey estaba en su palacio pacificamente asomändose a su ventana gozando su vista favorita cuando de repente vio que 'The king was in his palace peacefully leaning out of his window savouring his favourite view when suddenly he saw that* la plebe venia tirando piedras contra the mob came.IMPF.3SG throw.GER stones against los guardias. the guards 'the masses came throwing stones at the guards.'

22. As G6mez Torrego (1988:167-168) points out, venir can substitute llevar, when the temporal term, which is obligatory with llevar, specifies a point on the time axis, but not when it specifies a span of time (cf. 5.2.3.).

282

(110)

Periphrastic constructions

b.

CONTEXT: Desde que habia empezado la dictadura, la pobreza se habia incrementado enormemente, asimismo, se habia incrementado el odio del pueblo contra los militares, asi que en las manifestaciones, 'From the beginning from the dictatorship onwards, poverty had enormously increased, likewise, the hatred against the militaries had increased, so that at demonstrations' la ρ lebe venia tirando piedras contra the mob came.IMPF.3SG throw.GER stones against los guardias. the guards 'the masses had been throwing stones at the guards.'

The lexical reading of the example corresponds to the following unambiguous paraphrase: (110)

c. cuando venia la plebe tiraba piedras when came.IMPF.3SG the mob threw.IMPF.3SG stones contra los guardias against the guards lexical reading: 'when they came, the masses threw stones at the guards' periphrastic reading: —

In my corpus, there are 10 occurrences of venir + gerund, three of which are unambiguously lexical. Of the seven periphrastic occurrences three are syntactically incompatible with a lexical reading. Consider the following example: (111)

Cuando restanpoco menos de dos anospara la inauguracion de la Exposicion Universal de Sevilla sus organizadores reconocen 'At a moment when there remain less than two years until the inauguration of the World Exhibition in Seville, its organizers admit' algo que ya se venia (C 3719.26) something which already REFL.3 came.IMPF.3SG comentando desde_hace tiempo: comment.GER for time 'something which has been talked about for some time already:' CONTEXT: las previsiones iniciales de gastos e inversiones de la EXPO '92 (...) han sobrepasadopräcticamente en un 100% los cälculos iniciales 'the initial forecasts on expenses and inversions of the EXPO'92 (...) have surpassed the initial calculations with practically CONTEXT:

100%'

Gerundial periphrases

283

As we can see from the context, algo, the A1 of the construction with venir, cataphorically refers to a proposition. Before going into more detail, let us consider the results of the application of the tests for the identification of periphrases: (111)

a.

* ιComo venia algo? how came.IMPF.3SG something 'How did something come?'

b.

Φ algo venia cuandol porque se something came.IMPF.3SG when because REFL.3 comentaba commented.IMPF.3SG 'something came when / because it was talked about'

c.

/ cuando algo venia, se when something came.IMPF.3SG REFL.3 comentaba commented. IMPF. 3SG 'when something came, it was talked about'

d.

algo venia something came.IMPF.3SG 'something came'

Only the first of these variants is ungrammatical in any context, because the question word como asks for the Manner, Means etc. of the action of 'coming', its application presupposing the use of the verb in its concrete movement sense. As venir does not necessarily express movement in its literal sense, all the other variants would be grammatical if algo referred to some preexisting and identifiable abstract concept (i.e an event or a proposition). In example (111), however, algo refers to the proposition that is made explicit in the context which follows the example. Propositions are mental constructs, and, as such, have the property of being non-existent as long as they have not been made explicit. Hence, in (111), algo does not refer to any preexisting concept, and ( l l l b - d ) are not paraphrases of (111). My corpus contains one similar, unambiguously periphrastic occurrence, where the A1 of the construction is a speech act which is only realized after the construction has been employed. (ii) Origin of the periphrasis. As Yllera (1979: 73-74) convincingly argues, the periphrasis originates from the fact that venir can take events as referents of A1, such that venir could not only designate movement in space but also movement in time. Such uses of venir have been found from the

284

Periphrastic constructions

earliest texts onwards. In literary texts of the 13th century, venir + gerund is incidentally used as an expression of Progressive Aspect with movement verbs, as in the following example: (112)

Ya sse viene llegando la fin already REFL.3 come.3SG arrive.GER the end 'The end is coming near' (El poema de Alfonso XI, ±1350, quoted from Yllera 1979: 73)

It was as late as the 16th century that venir + gerund came to express the persistence of events from some moment in the past to the present: (113)

Viene en estos anos poco_a_poco creciendo come.3SG in these years little-by-little grow.GER este deseo this desire 'In these years this desire has been growing little by little' (Sta. Teresa de Jesus, Tratado de las moradas, 1588, quoted from Spaulding 1926: 260)

According to both Yllera (1979) and Spaulding (1926) the periphrasis is extremely infrequent up to the 19th century. In comparison with gerundial periphrases with estar and ir, it is still relatively infrequent in modern Spanish (cf. Appendix II).

6.2.2.1.4. andar Before dealing with andar + gerund, we must first briefly consider the functions of the verb andar 'walk' in constructions other than the gerundial construction. As a movement verb andar can fulfil two functions. Firstly, it can be used to designate the activity of walking as such; in this function it is generally accompanied by a Manner adverbial. Secondly, it can be used in the same way as ir·, in this function it occurs in combination with some locative argument. Andar differs, however, from ir in that the semantic function of the locative argument is Location, rather than Direction, because andar specifically designates non-directional movement. Moreover, as opposed to ir, andar is often used with arguments that refer to abstract locations, i.e. it serves as a pseudo-copula in localizing predications like the following:

Gerundial periphrases (114)

285

Ernesto llego cuandoyo andaba (PUE 135) Ernesto arrived.PF.3SG when I walked.IMPF.lSG por mi segundo whisky sour. about my second whisky sour 'Ernesto arrived when I was at my second whisky sour.'

As the example shows, andar is quite close to the semi-copular es tar in this function, as a consequence, it has been described as "merely a lively, and colloquial substitute" of the latter (Spaulding 1926: 259; cf. also Roca Pons 1954: 181). As Garcia Padron (1990) meticulously documents, andar may, with certain stylistic and idiomatic restrictions, occur in all the functions belonging to the domain of estar, and, as far as I can see, andar occurs at least as often in this copular function as in its function as a movement verb. The reason why I nevertheless refer to andar as a pseudo-copula rather than a semi-copula is that andar does never allow, as a semi-copula would, for anaphoric reference to the predicate by means of lo (cf. also 5.2.2.3., on seguir and continuar) ,2i As we will presently see, the semantics of the periphrasis is similar to that of the pseudo-copula. (i) Fully periphrastic construction. The only occurrences of andar that can be ambiguous are those that can be read as expressions of the activity of walking as such: (115)

El demente anda torciendo los pies y los brazos. the lunatic walk.3SG twist.GER the feet and the arms lexical reading: 'The lunatic walks twisting his feet and his arms' periphrastic reading: 'The lunatic goes about twisting his feet and his arms.'

In the periphrastic reading, the construction expresses the fact that the SoA in question happens repeatedly, or, when it is a complex event, that it takes place by stages. I will refer to this meaning, which will be dealt with in detail in section 7.1.2.2.2, as "Distributive" Aspect. 24 In the lexical reading of (115), the gerund construction fulfils the function of a Manner adverbial, as is apparent from the following paraphrase:

23. Interestingly, in the past anaphoric reference to the predicate by means of lo has not only been possible with andar, but in the 16th and 17th centuries has even been common practice (Cuervo 1953, 1: 45 quedar(se) seguir/continuar

f point reference Figure 9. Aspectual expressions of progression and persistence

336

The semantics of periphrases

This representation5 shows that the meaning of estar + gerund is essentially stative, i.e. that the SoA is not represented with respect to any temporal dimension whatsoever. The only information estar + gerund provides is that some SoA is occurring at the point of reference. The gerundial periphrasis with vetiir specifies what has been the case with respect to the occurrence of the SoA up to the reference point; this aspectual distinction will be called "Anterior-Persistive". Quedar(se) + gerund specifies what is the case with respect to the occurrence of the SoA from the reference point onwards; this aspectual distinction will be called "Posterior-Persistive". Seguir / continuar + gerund, finally, specify what has been the case with respect to the occurrence of the SoA up to the reference point and will be the case from the reference point onwards; this aspectual distinction will be called "Continuative".

7.1.1.1.3. Egressive There are two periphrases for the expression of Egressive Aspect, dejar de + infinitive and cesar de + infinitive, both meaning 'stop', 'cease to". Contrary to what might be expected, I do not consider acabar / terminar de + infinitive to be egressive periphrases. I will show in section 7.1.1.2., on Qualificational Aspect, that these periphrases express an aspectual meaning that is closely related to, but nevertheless distinct from, Egressive Aspect. Let us now turn to the semantics of dejar de and cesar de, both fully periphrastic constructions. Consider the following examples: (30)

es el tronco que estä en la chimenea is.3SG the log which is.3SG in the chimney y que no cesa de arder and which not stop.3SG PREP burn.INF 'it is the log, which is in the chimney and which doesn't stop burning' (Tiempo, 12/02/90, p. 116)

5. As regards the periphrases with estar, venir and continuar / seguir, the representation corresponds to Coseriu's categorization of Inner Phasal Aspect in Spanish, which he calls "Schau" 'vision' (Coseriu 1976: 100-103; cf. also Cartagena 1976: 29; Rohrer 1977: 101). Within his "Schau", Coseriu also includes andar + gerund and ir + gerund, whose semantics, in my view, do not fully parallel those of the periphrases with estar, venir and continuar / seguir (cf. 7.1.1.2.1. on ir + gerund and 7.1.2.2.2. on andar + gerund). A further difference is the fact that Coseriu does not include quedar(se) + gerund.

Aspect (31)

Habia dejado de reir. had.IMPF.3SG stopped PREP laugh.INF 'She had stopped laughing.'

337

(PUE 121)

These examples show that both periphrases express the disruption of an event rather than its reaching a natural inherent end-point. This subcategory of Egressive Aspect will be labelled "Cessative Egressive" as opposed to "Completive Egressive Aspect", which is expressed by the semi-auxiliaries acabar / terminar de 'finish'. Apart from this, cesar de + infinitive and dejar de + infinitive differ considerably from each other. The application of dejar de + infinitive is as unrestricted as that of estar + gerund, whereas cesar de + infinitive occurs only in predications that are both dynamic and atelic. In this respect, cesar de + infinitive parallels the semi-auxiliary parar de (cf. 5.1.1.2.1.). In the following examples the periphrasis with dejar de occurs with a dynamic and atelic predication (32), with a dynamic and telic predication (33) and with a stative predication (34). (32)

El Gobierno tieneque dejar de meter (C 965.164) the government must.3SG stop.INF PREP put.INF sus pecadoras manos en los medios de comunicacion its sinful hands in the means of communication "The Government must take its filthy hands off the media'

(33)

Pedro dejo de leer la carta. Pedro stopped.PF.3SG PREP read.INF the letter 'Pedro stopped reading the letter.'

(34)

aquello habia dejado that had.IMPF.3SG stopped importante important

de ser PREP be.INF

(ORT 121)

'that had stopped being important' The following examples illustrate the restrictedness of cesar de + infinitive: (35)

CONTEXT: (ladies listen to music while doing needlework) —Ahora diga Maria lo que vamos a oir. —Lo del ruisenor—ordenaba Maria sin titubeos '—Now let Maria say what we are going to listen to. —The one with the nightingale —Maria ordered without hesitation' y sin cesar de pespuntear (GAR 28) and without stop.INF PREP backstich.INF velozmente rapidly 'and without ceasing to backstich rapidly'

338

The semantics ofperiphrases

(33)

a.

* Pedro ceso de leer la carta. Pedro stopped.PF.3SG PREP read.INF the letter 'Pedro stopped reading the letter.'

(34)

a.

* aquello habia cesado de that had.IMPF.3SG stopped PREP importante important 'that had ceased to be important'

ser be.INF

Given its restricted applicability as well as the fact that cesar de + infinitive is confined to literary language, where it tends to be used almost exclusively in combination with negation, there is a considerable difference in frequency between the two egressive periphrases: my corpus contains one instance of cesar de + infinitive against 38 instances of dejar de + infinitive. It should be noted, however, that not all of these 38 instances are expressions of Egressive Aspect. As I already mentioned in section 6.1.2.2.2., periphrastic dejar de does not only mean 'stop' but also 'refrain from'. The latter meaning will be at issue in the context of Polarity (7.3. below).

7.1.1.1.4. Summary Table 6 gives an overview of periphrases expressing Inner Phasal Aspect departing from the subdivision of Inner Phasal Aspect into three basic phases: ingression (1), progression and persistence (2), and egression (3) (cf. Figure 8, section 7.1.1.1.0.). The meaning descriptions serve, on the one hand, to give a rough indication of the semantic differences between the possible realizations of one and the same aspectual distinction. On the other hand, their function is to give a general idea of the restrictions certain periphrases impose. The term "SoA-ing" indicates that in principle any predication may occur with the periphrasis in question, provided that it is not momentaneous. "Doing" indicates that an agentive predication is required. These indications should not be understood as a full account of the restrictions applying to the use of the periphrases. These restrictions will be dealt with in Chapter 8 on the syntax of periphrases.

Aspect

339

Table 6. Periphrastic expressions of Inner Phasal Aspect Phase 1

2

3

Distinction

Expression

Meaning description

Ingressive (general)

comenzar / empezar a + inf

begin SoA-ing

Action-Ingressive

ponerse a + inf meterse a + inf

start doing start doing (without being competent)

State-Ingressive

pasar a + inf

come to SoA

Anterior-Persistive

venir + ger

have been SoA-ing so far

Progressive

estar + ger

be SoA-ing

Posterior-Persistive

quedar(se) + ger

keep SoA-ing

Continuative

continuar / seguir + ger

continue SoA-ing

Cessative Egressive

cesar de + inf dejar de + inf

stop SoA-ing stop SoA-ing

7.1.1.2. Qualificational Aspect 7.1.1.2.0. Introduction Periphrastic expressions of Qualificational Aspect can most effectively be defined as all those periphrases that are not concerned with a phase in the development of some SoA, but concern the internal temporal constituency of the SoA as a whole. The term "qualificational" is meant to indicate the fact that these distinctions concern properties of the SoA like the manner in which it develops and the degree to which it develops, which, alternatively, could be expressed through adverbial satellites of Manner and Degree. 6 In

6. In fact, the label "qualificational" has been chosen for want of a more suitable term. In a sense, all Inner Aspect distinctions are "qualificational" because they modify the "quality", i.e. the internal temporal constituency of the predication. Hengeveld (1989: 137), for instance, uses the term "Qualificational Aspect" to refer to Inner Aspect.

340

The semantics of periphrases

this section these distinctions and their periphrastic realizations will be presented one by one.

7.1.1.2.1. Manner: Gradual The only periphrasis expressing the manner in which a SoA develops is ir 'go* + gerund. Ir + gerund expresses that some event, usually a Process or an Activity, takes place gradually; this I will refer to as "Gradual Aspect". Consider the following examples: (36)

es un proceso en el que tu vas (M 298) is.3SG a process in which you go.2SG aprendiendo learn.GER 'it is a process in which you are gradually understanding*

(37)

el edificio se iba alzando the building REFL.3 went.IMPF.3SG rise.GER 'the building was gradually rising'

(38)

las inversiones hart ido aumentando the investments have.3PL gone increase.GER 'the investments have been gradually increasing'

(39)

la sospecha se fue haciendo the suspicion REFL.3 went.PF.3SG make.GER certeza certainty 'the suspicion gradually turned into certainty'

(GAR 31)

(C 3719.28)

(GAR 30)

In these examples, ir + gerund expresses that the Processes in which the referents of A1 are involved develop gradually. Although the construction most frequently occurs with predications designating atelic Processes, it can also occur with telic Processes and with Actions: (40)

CONTEXT: (about Felipe Gonzalez) El Felipe de los primeros anos tenia un swing admirable (...) 'The Felipe of the early years had an admirable swing (...)' pero ha ido perdiendolo (C 967.53) but have.3SG gone loose.GER-it 'but he has been gradually losing it'

Aspect (41)

Goyo iba convirtiendo su casa en Goyo went.IMPF.3SG convert.GER his house in un museo. a museum 'Goyo was gradually turning his house into a museum.'

341

(GIR 40)

When one of the arguments of the combining predicate has a plural referent the periphrasis may, in certain cases, foster a distributive reading: (42)

CONTEXT: (a group of tourists that have arrived and are getting into a bus in order to be brought from the airport to their hotels) Fue subiendo gente, con tanta (PUE 114) went.PF.3SG get-in.GER people with as-much inseguridad como habiamos subido nosotros uncertainty as had.IMPF.IPL got-in we 'People were boarding one by one, as apprehensive as we, too, had been on boarding'

(43)

CONTEXT: (at the hairdresser's) Ahora Carmen lepasa

el cestito con laspinzasy rulos, y lepide 'Now Carmen passes her the little basket with the pins and hair-curlers and she asks her' que se los vaya dando (MAR 155) that to-her them go.SUBJ.3SG give.GER 'to hand them to her bit by bit'

But the possibility of such an interpretation is restricted to movement verbs. 7 With intransitive movement verbs, the distributive reading concerns the A 1 of the lexical predicate (42), with transitive movement verbs it concerns the A 2 (43). Apart from dynamic SoAs, ir + gerund can also modify non-dynamic SoAs. This results in their conversion into dynamic ones: (44)

CONTEXT: Hubo un momento en el que habia muchos hombres separados, 'There was a time when there were many men that had divorced,' pero ahora van quedando pocos (PUE 113) but now go.3PL remain.GER few 'but now they are becoming fewer' (lit. 'but now there are gradually remaining few')

7. I consider verbs of giving such as dar 'give' in (43) transitive movement verbs because, normally, giving a thing to someone implies changing its place.

342

The semantics ofperiphrases

(45)

pero la gente (...) va teniendo psicosis but the people go.3SG have.GER psychosis 'but people are becoming obsessed' (lit. 'but people are gradually having a psychosis')

(M 57)

The core predications combining with ir + gerund designate States in both examples. As non-dynamic predications are incompatible with the dynamicity expressed through ir + gerund, the periphrasis forces a process-reading on both instances. Ir + gerund sometimes redundantly co-occurs with adverbials specifying the gradualness of the development of the SoA: (46)

no me queda otro remedio que ir (DEL 91) not me.DAT remain.3SG other remedy than go.INF aumentando progresivamente la dosis augment.GER progressively the dosis Ί have no choice but (gradually) augmenting the dosis progressively'

(47)

es un proceso en el que tu vas (M 298) is.3SG a process in which you go.2SG aprendiendo poco a poco learn.GER little by little 'it is a process in which you are (gradually) learning little by little'

In the literary corpus, there is an adverbial specification of gradualness in four of the 63 occurrences of ir + gerund. The Madrid-corpus yields 64 occurrences of ir + gerund, three of which are specified by an adverbial of this type. In spite of its relatively low frequency, this phenomenon may be seen as an indication of a weakening of the semantic impact of the periphrasis. A deviant, context-dependent reading is triggered through the combination of ir + gerund withya 'already': (48)

ι Que, ya what already de algo of something 'What, are you

te vas acordando REFL.2 go.2SG remember.GER mds? else already remembering something else?'

(GAR 21)

Aspect (49)

343

CONTEXT: (father and stepmother are trying to help their drunken fifteen-year-old boy) —Antonio, quitale tu los pantalones, que serä mäs fäcil. —ι Yo? Υο nunca Ιο he desnudado. —;Pues mira, '—Antonio, take off his trousers, that's easier. —Me? I have never undressed him. —Now look,' ya va siendo hora que lo hagas (RIC 92) already go.3SG be.GER hour that it do.SUBJ.2SG 'it is getting time by now that you do it'

Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 56) observes that the construction gains an ingressive character when co-occurring with ya (cf. also Spaulding 1926: 255). I agree with Garcia Gonzalez insofar as through the adverb ya the periphrasis loses its dynamic character. The reason for this is XhaXya designates a reference point that coincides with some moment within the development of the SoA, and the degree to which the SoA has developed is considered with respect to this reference point. Hence, in this specific context, ir + gerund functions as an expression of Phasal Aspect similar to estar + gerund. I do not agree with the idea that^a makes the SoA ingressive. Rather, ya indicates that —contrary to what is being presupposed— the SoA has already begun to obtain. Ir + gerund has often been related in the literature on the subject to Progressive, Persistive and Continuative Aspect (e.g. Coseriu 1976:100-101; Cartagena 1976: 29; Rohrer 1977: 101; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 55-57). What ir + gerund as the expression of Gradual Manner Aspect has in common with Progressive, Persistive and Continuative Aspect is that in both cases the SoA is viewed from within, i.e. its internal temporal constituency is described. The crucial difference between them is that with aspectual distinctions of progression and persistence the development of the SoA is considered with respect to one specific reference-point internal to the SoA, whereas with Gradual Aspect the development of the SoA is considered in its totality.

7.1.1.2.2. Degree: Completive There is only one periphrasis that serves to express the degree to which the SoA is realized, acabar / terminar de + infinitive. The meaning of the periphrasis with acabar de and terminar de is that the event in question obtains totally or has been totally achieved. Let us consider a few examples:

344

The semantics of periphrases

(50)

CONTEXT: (the first-person narrator is tried by the Inquisition) al levantar la frente me encontre con la mirada del fiscal, que me parecioya claramente amistosa. 'when I looked up, I saw the prosecutor looking at me in a way that by now seemed to be outrightly sympathetic.' Aquello acabo de desconcertarme (TOM 150) that finished.PF.3SG PREP puzzle.INF-me 'That got me worked up altogether*

(51)

Seguidamente, tuve que incorporarme al servicio militar (...) 'Next, I had to join military service (...)' donde termini de acostumbrarme (SOR 134) where finish.PF.lSG PREP get-accustomed.INF-REFL.lSG a no hacer nada to not do.INF nothing 'where I got completely accustomed to not doing anything'

(52)

no acaban de ser sinceros not finish.3PL PREP be.INF honest 'they are not entirely honest'

CONTEXT:

(M 186)

None of these examples is compatible with the egressive meaning of the semi-auxiliaries acabar de and terminar de, because neither desconcentrarse 'get lead astray' in (50), nor acostumbrarse 'get acustomed' in (51), nor ser sincere 'be honest' in (52) designate a process that might lead to any inherent endpoint. What acabar / terminar de + infinitive express is not the end of the SoA but its completion, i.e. its being totally achieved or fully obtaining. The periphrasis most frequently occurs with verbs designating cognitive processes and above all in combination with negation: (53)

no me acabo de entusiasmar (M 186) not REFL.1SG finish.1SG PREP get-enthousiastic.INF con el futbol with the football Ί do not get really enthousiastic about football'

(54)

las frases tertian un sentido obsceno que the sentences had.IMPF.3PL a sense obscene which yo no terminaba de entender I not finished.IMPF.lSG PREP understand.INF 'the sentences had an obscene sense which I did not fully understand' (Cuentos hispdnicos, quoted from Dominicy 1983: 50)

Aspect

345

In such a combination, acabar de can be used as a pragmatic device in order to mitigate the negative, which might otherwise be felt as being blunt and offensive. Compare in this respect (55) with (55a): (55)

No acabo de ver que quieres not finish.1SG PREP see.INF what want.2SG decir say.INF Ί don't quite understand what you mean to say'

(POM 95)

a. No veo que quieres decir not see.lSG what want.2SG say.INF Ί don't understand what you mean to say' Although the expression of Degree by means of acabar / terminar de + infinitive is not systematically distinguished from Egressive Aspect in the literature on this subject (e.g. Rohrer 1977: 119-120; Quesada 1994: 135137),8 Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca (1994: 57-61) show that the meaning expressed by this periphrasis has been grammaticalized in many typologically divergent languages (cf. also Dahl 1985: 95). Following Bybee—Perkins— Pagliuca, I will label this aspectual distinction "Completive".

7.1.1.2.3. Summary In this section I have shown that there are three periphrases, two of which are synonymous, that express two Qualificational Aspect distinctions. Table 7 gives an overview of the aspectual distinctions and their periphrastic expression: Table 7. Periphrastic expressions of Qualificational Aspect

Distinction

Expression

Manner: Gradual Degree: Completive

ir + ger acabar!terminar

Meaning description

de + inf

SoA little by little SoA entirely

8. Dominicy (1983: 50) mentions this meaning of acabar / terminar de but denies the periphrastic character of the construction. In Olbertz (1991), I analyse this construction as a periphrasis but only consider its use in negative contexts, as do Fente—Femändez—Feijöo (1972: 25-26) and Gömez Torrego (1988: 121).

346

The semantics ofperiphrases

The use of "SoA" in the meaning descriptions (instead of "do") indicates that the periphrases of Qualificational Aspect can be combined with all kinds of predications, including non-controlled and/or non-dynamic ones.

7.1.2. Outer Aspect 7.1.2.0. Introduction So far, I have discussed only aspectual distinctions that view the SoA from within. Outer Aspect views the SoA from outside, a property which the category of Outer Aspect has in common with Tense. The difference between Outer Aspect and Tense is that Tense has the exclusive function of situating some SoA on the time axis, whereas Outer Aspect serves either (i) to establish a complex —not exclusively temporal— relation between some SoA and a situation previous or posterior to its occurrence, or (ii) to quantify a set of SoAs. The type of Outer Aspect that relates an individual SoA to some other situation is Outer Phasal Aspect. The type of Outer Aspect that serves the quantification of a set of SoAs is Quantificational Aspect. An important syntactic difference between Outer and Inner Aspect is that Outer Aspect distinctions are not sensitive to the Aktionsart of the predication, i.e. Outer Aspect can in principle apply to any kind of State of Affairs and does not influence the internal temporal structure of the SoA. Section 7.1.2.1. will be dedicated to Outer Phasal Aspect and its periphrastic expression and section 7.1.2.2. will deal with Quantificational Aspect and its periphrastic expression.

7.1.2.1. Outer Phasal Aspect 7.1.2.1.0. Introduction As stated above, Outer Phasal Aspect establishes a complex relation between some SoA and the situation that temporally precedes or follows its occurrence. This complex relationship is such that it provides the answer to the following question: "What can be said on the basis of the information available at some reference point tj about the occurrence of some SoA at some interval t/Γ (Dik 1989: 190). The Outer Phasal Aspect distinctions are Prospective on the one hand and Perfect on the other. Describing some SoA in Prospective Aspect is describing an SoA whose "seeds" are already present at the moment of speaking (in Present Tense contexts) or reference point (in Past Tense contexts) (Comrie 1976: 65). Analogously, describing some SoA in the Perfect is describing an SoA whose consequences are still

Aspect

347

present at the moment of speaking or at the reference point (cf. Comrie 1976: 52). Although Prospective and Perfect Aspect are parallel insofar as they have both complex meanings, Perfect Aspect covers a wide area of distinct aspectual meanings, whereas Prospective is a uniform concept which cannot be further broken down. Following Comrie (1976: 56-61), I subdivide Perfect Aspect into Resultative Perfect, Experiential Perfect and Perfect of Recent Past.9 While the semantic difference between Resultative Perfect and Experiential Perfect is relatively small, the semantic difference between these two on the one hand and Perfect of Recent Past on the other is considerable. This section will be subdivided as follows: I will first discuss Prospective Aspect (7.1.2.1.1.), then turn to Resultative and Experiential Perfect (7.1.2.1.2.) and subsequently to Perfect of Recent Past (7.1.2.1.3). I will end with a summary (7.1.2.1.4.).

7.1.2.1.1. Prospective Following Dik (1987: 62), I will define the meaning of Prospective Aspect as follows: (56)

PROSPECTIVE ASPECT

It is stated at t; that (i) there is some indication at t, that (ii) SoA will obtain after tj

In this definition t; is the time corresponding to the moment of speaking or the reference point. Contrary to the complex meaning of Prospective Aspect, the meaning of Future Tense is simplex; it consists only of the second component of the meaning of Prospective Aspect: (57)

FUTURE TENSE

It is stated at t; that SoA will obtain after tj

The periphrastic expression of Prospective Aspect is ir a + infinitive. Consider the following examples:

9. Apart from these three, Comrie (1976: 60) distinguishes a perfect of persistent situation. Given the fact that the perfect of persistent situation expresses the fact that the SoA continues to obtain up to or after the reference point, I consider the perfect of persistent situation (which I have labelled "Anterior-Persistive") an Inner Phasal Aspect distinction (cf. 7.1.1.1.2.).

348

The semantics ofperiphrases

(58)

(about the fact that even bad students pass exams in private schools) yo sabia que les iban (M 305) I knew.IMPF.lSG that them went.IMPF.3PL a pasar to pass.INF Ί knew that they would let them pass'

(59)

CONTEXT: (a firm has sold polluted mineral water and the manager's wife is afraid that her husband will be held responsible, but he is quite sure he will not, because:) la empresa era una sociedad anonima 'the firm was a limited liability company' y su nombre ni habia aparecido (ORT 122) and his name neither had.IMPF.3SG appeared ni iba a aparecer nor went.IMPF. 3SG to appear.INF 'and neither had his name appeared nor was it going to appear'

(60)

Estalis levanta otra vez la mano; va (PAL 79) Estalis put-up.3SG another time the hand go.3SG a pronunciar la palabra sarcasmo to pronounce.INF the word sarcasm 'Estalis puts up his hand once again; he is going to pronounce the word sarcasm' CONTEXT: que la aprendio de un diputado en la cärcel y la suelta siempre 'because he learned it from a deputy [of the Communist Party] in prison and says it every time'

These examples illustrate nicely what I mean by Prospective Aspect: on the basis of what is known at ti( the occurrence of the SoA can be foretold. In all three examples the immediate context of the periphrasis contains explicit information on which the prediction is based. In (58), ira + infinitive occurs in a complement clause introduced by a knowledge predicate, i.e. the prediction les iban a pasar is explicitly related to the speaker's knowledge. In (59) the fact that the firm in question is a sociedad anonima forms the base of the prediction that the president's name will never appear in the papers. In (60) the predictability of the utterance of the word sarcasmo by the person nicknamed Estalis is related to the speaker's experience. In quite a few occurrences of the prospective periphrasis, the prediction is explicitly motivated, as in the above examples, especially when the predictions concern things or

Aspect

349

persons outside the speaker's control. 10 In this respect, Prospective Aspect clearly differs from Future Tense, where the relation between tj and the time at which the SoA is going to occur is a purely temporal one. When Prospective Aspect is expressed with first-person-singular Subjects, such a motivation is hardly ever given. Let us look at some examples: (61)

me voy a fumar otro REFL.1SG go.lSG to smoke.INF another 'I'm going to have one more cigarette'

cigarro cigarette

(M 399)

(62)

Dame un trozo de miga, voy a (PAL 63) give.IMP-me a bit of breadcrumb go.lSG to rebanar la lata sweep-up.INF the can 'Give me a piece of bread, I'm going to sweep the can clean'

(63)

CONTEXT: (on a graveyard in the middle of the night, a priest and a young boy have opened a grave in order to steal a ring from the finger of the corpse; while trying to get the ring off the finger, the priest asks Virgin Mary to forgive him in advance) Mil misas te voy a decir (MER 150) thousand masses you.DAT go.lSG to say.INF Ά thousand masses I am going to celebrate for you'

There is no motivation of the prediction in these examples, because what is predicted coincides with the speaker's intention, and as it may be assumed that the speaker knows what he/she intends to do, such a motivation would be unwarranted. The expression of intention is often considered a separate function of ir a + infinitive (Bauhr 1989: 338; Gomez Torrego 1988: 69; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 78). However, a closer look at the semantic structure of these instances reveals that there is in fact no reason for doing so. In the above examples, the speaker is the referent of the first arguments of agentive predicates, and, at ti( the speaker has the intention of realizing the Action designated by the predication. His/her intention is the indication at t; that the Action will be realized after tj. Therefore, the combination of Prospective Aspect with agentive predications and a first-person Subject automatically

10. Nineteen of the 49 occurrences of prospective ir a + infinitive with third-personsingular Subjects contain such an explicit motivation of what is been predicted.

350

The semantics ofperiphrases

yields an intentional reading. 11 The following example is not agentive and thus ir a + infinitive cannot be read as the expression of intentionality: (64)

Mama, me voy a desmayar. Mama REFL.1SG go.lSG to faint.INF 'Mama, I'm going to faint.' (Julia Maura, Jaque a la juventud, quoted from Bauhr 1989: 124)

Summing up, we find that in all the instances of the prospective periphrasis some future SoA is presented on the basis of what is perceived, known, intended or otherwise forefelt at t;. The intimate relation between the situation at the moment of speaking or reference point and the occurrence of the SoA also concerns the temporal dimension. When the time at which the SoA will occur is not specified, which is usually the case, prospective ir a + infinitive implies that the SoA will occur immediately or shortly after t ; . When there is a temporal specification, the temporal adverbial does not serve to situate the occurrence of the SoA in the future. Rather, it either stresses the imminence of the SoA through specifying tf (examples (65)-(66)), or it indicates that the SoA will take place at some moment in the future which is as yet unknown (67)-(68): (65)

a jiartir de ahora vamos a vernos from-on now go.IPL to see.INF-REFL.IPL mucho much 'from now on we will see each other often'

(ORT 120)

(66)

tQue vas a hacer ahora? what go.2SG to do.INF now 'What are you going to do now?'

(67)

CONTEXT: (a man remembers his father's attitude towards women) a buena hora iba a consentir a (PAL 92) opportunely went.IMPF.3SG to allow.INF PREP mi madre lo_que yo le consiento a Paquita my mother what I her allow. 1SG PREP Paquita 'sooner or later, he was going to allow my mother what I am allowing Paquita'

(VAZ 22)

11. Moreover, the expression of intentionality is not restricted to Prospective Aspect. As Bauhr (1989: 97-117) documents, intentionality can, with slight meaning differences, be expressed by both Prospective Aspect and Future Tense forms.

Aspect (68)

351

CONTEXT: (about the perspectives for the future of an orphan boy; the speaker intends to motivate the necessity of sending him to an orphanage) Un dxa va a hacer una barbaridad (VAZ 21) one day go.3SG to do.INF a atrocity 'One day he is going to do something terrible'

These examples show, once again, that it is not the function of Prospective Aspect to situate the SoA in some specific moment in the future, but rather to relate the future SoA to the moment of speaking or reference point. The grammatical correlate of this semantic function of Prospective Aspect is that the periphrasis with ir a occurs only with Imperfective Aspect, i.e. with Present Tense or Imperfective Past Tense. This is due to the fact that the specification of Tense concerns not the SoA itself but the situation that precedes the occurrence of the SoA. This situation is by definition unbounded, since its boundaries are irrelevant for the prediction of the SoA. There is, however, one exception, the conative Prospective. In such a case, the situation that precedes the occurrence of the SoA becomes bounded because its end-point is specified. This end-point is the moment at which the development towards the realization of the SoA is interrupted. Consider the following example: (69)

Fue a decir algo mäs pero se went.PF.3SG to say.INF something more but REFL.3 interrumpio cuando alguien golpeo con interrupted.PF.3SG when somebody hit.PAST.PF.3SG with los nudillos en la puerta the knuckles on the door 'He was about to say something else but he interrupted himself when somebody hit with his knuckles on the door' (Tomeo, El mayordomo miope 71)

In this example the Perfective Past in fue a decir pinpoints the precise moment at which the interruption takes place. However, as Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 80) shows, the use of the Perfective Past is not obligatory in such cases. It is sometimes claimed that ir a + infinitive is gradually taking over the functions of the synthetic future (e.g. Yllera 1979: 170; Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 78), above all in oral use. This would mean that ir a + infinitive would be in the process of losing the first part of its complex meaning retaining only the second part, which is the meaning of futurity (cf. the meaning definitions (56) and (57) in the beginning of this section). Although such a development is not at all improbable, I have not found any semantic

352

The semantics ofperiphrases

indication in my data that it does indeed occur. On the other hand, the quantitative data seem to confirm a certain tendency towards the indistinctive use of the periphrasis in oral speech. While data on a large literary corpus collected by Bauhr (1989) show that the synthetic future occurs more than twice as often as the periphrasis (Bauhr 1989: 355), a random comparison from a (much smaller) collection of oral texts, the Madrid corpus, yields quite a different proportion: the use of the synthetic future is still predominant (55.2 % of the total), but the difference in frequency between the synthetic future and the periphrasis is only slight. As a detailed analysis of the relation between the two forms and their usage falls outside the scope of this study, I will have to leave this question unsettled.

7.1.2.1.2. Resultative and Experiential Perfect Comrie (1976: 56) describes the meaning of the Resultative Perfect as follows: "In the perfect of result, a present state is referred to as being the result of some past situation". His description of Experiential Perfect is as follows: "The experiential perfect indicates that a given situation has held at least during some time in the past leading up to the present" (Comrie 1977: 58). Resultative and Experiential Perfect can be expressed periphrastically with tener + participle and llevar + participle. Both periphrases are restricted to the combination with transitive verbal predicates. The obligatory transitivity of the combining predicate is relevant in this context because with transitive predicates "the resultant change of state is attributed primarily to Ρ [Patient, H.O.], rather than A [Agent, H.O.], in the perfect" (Comrie 1981: 70). For the semantic distinction between Resultative and Experiential this means that, as a general rule, Resultative will concern the relation between the past SoA and its effect on the referent of the A2 of the predicate (mostly the Patient), while Experiential will concern the relation between the past SoA and its effect on the referent of the A1 of the predicate (mostly the Agent). In the following, I will first consider the periphrastic expression of Resultative Perfect (i), then the periphrastic expression of Experiential Perfect (ii) and end with a presentation of the common properties of the two Perfect Aspect distinctions (iii). (i) Resultative Perfect. Consider the following examples with the tenerperiphrasis:

Aspect

353

(70)

CONTEXT: (the inventor of the aircraft is being tried for heresy by the Inquisition) ya tenia disenado el (TOM 139) already had-got.IMPF.lSG outlined.MASC.SG the artefacto que permitiria a los artefact.(ΜASC) which allow.COND.3SG PREP the hombres volar men fly.INF Ί had already outlined the artefact which would allow men to fly'

(71)

CONTEXT: (about what to do with worn-off blue jeans) los tengo yo repasados them.MASC have-got. 1SG I patched-up.MASC.PL a mano by hand 'These I have patched-up by hand'

(72)

(M 410)

tengo puesto el salon (M 118) have-got. 1SG furnished.MASC.SG the sitting-room.(MASC) Ί have furnished the sitting room'

In all these examples, it is stated that some result is obtained at t;. The result concerns A2. This A 2 may be either the effected object, as in (70), or the affected object, as in (71)-(72), of the SoA. The transitivity of the verbal predicates has the further consequence that, in addition to expressing a state resulting from a SoA that occurred previously, the result is related to the person who brought it about. Concretely, (70) means that there exists an outline of a flying machine and that the speaker made it, (71) means that the blue jeans are in the state of being repaired and that the speaker did it, and (72) means that the sitting-room is in the state of being furnished and that the speaker did it. Resultative Perfect can also be expressed periphrastically by llevar + participle. However, llevar + participle is only a partially periphrastic construction, and, as I have shown in section 5.3.2.1., it behaves as a periphrasis only with non-agentive predicates or with so-called "reflexive passives". Given the fact that with non-agentive transitive predicates the expression of Resultative Perfect is improbable, the use of the //evar-periphrasis in this function is in practice restricted to "reflexive passives":

354 (73)

The semantics ofperiphrases Ya se llevan escritos miles de already REFL.3 carry.3PL written.MASC.PL thousands of libros sobre este tema. books.(MASC) on this subject 'There have already been written thousands of books on this subject.'

The following definition captures the complex meaning of Resultative Perfect as expressed by the periphrases with tener and llevar. (74)

RESULTATIVE PERFECT OF TRANSITIVE VERBS

It is stated at t; that (i) A 2 is such at t ; that (ii) A 1 pred v -ed A 2 before tj As can be inferred from the above examples, the referent of A 2 must be a concrete entity, and the result of the SoA will be visible or otherwise physically perceptible. (ii) Experiential Perfect. In principle, Experiential Perfect concerns the relation between some past SoA and the referent of the A 1 of the lexical predicate. Since only animate, and typically human, entities can have experiences, Experiential Perfect may be expected to concern the relation between a past SoA and the person primarily (as the referent of A1) involved in this SoA. Let us first consider the expression of Experiential Perfect through tener + participle: (75)

tenia abandonado (SOR 122) had-got.IMPF. 1SG abandoned.MASC.SG por_completo el repaso de asignaturas para el completely the revision.(MASC) of subjects for the e:tarnen de selectividad exam of selectivity Ί had completely abandoned the revision of subjects for the university entrance exam'

(76)

Yo ya la tengo aprobada I already it.FEM have-got. 1SG passed.FEM.SG (la Bibliografia) the bibliography. (FEM) Ί have already passed it (the Bibliography exam)'

(M 413)

Aspect

355

(77)

CONTEXT: (in the middle of the night, while waiting for her husband to come home, a woman imagines the row they are going to have) y, naturalmente, tiene preparadas (RIC 90) and of-course has-got.3SG prepared.FEM.PL todas las respuestas all the answers. (FEM) 'and, of course, he has prepared all his answers'

(78)

tengo entendido que (trabajan) en (M 30) have-got. 1SG understood that work.3PL in construction construction Ί have understood that (they are working) on a building site*

These examples have in common that the referents of A2 are abstract entities, el repaso de asignaturas in (75) and la Bibliografia in (76) refer to events, respuestas in (77) refers to a set of propositions and the sentential argument que (trabajan) en construction in (78) refers to a single proposition. The SoAs expressed in the above examples do not result in an effect on these abstract entities but rather affect the referent of A1: not being prepared for the exam in (75), being free from the obligation of studying in (76), knowing how to answer possible questions in (77), and knowing where certain people are working in (78) are the states in which the referents of A1 are as a consequence of their participation in the events in question. Furthermore, tener + participle is used for the periphrastic expression of Experiential Perfect with speech act verbs: (79)

;Te tengo dicho que no te you .DAT have-got. 1SG said that not REFL.2SG metas en jaleos! put.SUBJ.2SG in mess.PL Ί have told you not to get mixed up in a mess!' (Luis Bunuel, Tristana, quoted from Kuttert 1982: 340)

(80)

Recuerda lo_que me tienes prometido remember.IMP what me.DAT have-got.2SG promised 'Remember what you have promised me' (J. Isaac, Maria, quoted from Morera 1991: 306)

The periphrasis endows the speech act with pragmatic prominence; it implies that the speech act has been realized either with much emphasis or more than once. In (79), the use of the periphrasis expresses the fact that the speaker is impatient, that he/she is psychologically affected by the propositional

356

The semantics ofperiphrases

content of the past speech act. The same holds for (80), with the important difference, however, that he/she was the addressee of the past speech act, rather than the speaker (as in (79)). We see thus that, with speech act verbs, the periphrasis with tener can express the same experiential involvement of both the speaker and the addressee of the past speech act. 12 Therefore, in this specific case, the relation between the past event and the present situation does not necessarily concern the referent of A 1 , but can concern the referent of the third argument, too. As stated above, the periphrastic expression of Experiential Perfect with llevar is restricted to combinations with non-agentive constructions, due to the fact that llevar + participle is a partially periphrastic expression. A typical example could be the following: (81)

ya llevo oidos muchisimos already carry.lSG heard.MASC.PL very-much.MASC.PL cuentos_chinos tall-stories. (MASC) Ί have already heard an awful lot of tall stories (so far)'

Summing up, we find that the relation between the past SoA and the present situation concerns some animate participant in the SoA. Therefore we can define Experiential Perfect as follows: (82)

EXPERIENTIAL PERFECT OF TRANSITIVE VERBS

It is stated at t{ that (i) animate A 1 or A 3 is such at t; that (ii) A1 pred v -ed A2 (to A3) before t; (Hi) Generalization. All the examples considered above have in common that a relation is established between a past event and a present situation. In the case of Resultative Perfect Aspect, this relation concerns the referent of the A2 of the lexical predicate; in the case of Experiential Perfect Aspect it

12. The reason for this is related to the fact that tener owes its aspectual meaning to its possessive lexical base. By using tener + participle, the Agent establishes some sort of abstract possessive relation between him/herself and the Action realized. With speech act verbs, this possessive relation conflicts with the fact that there is also a Recipient, the addressee, because one cannot give something to somebody and at the same time keep it. The necessity to solve this semantic conflict between the lexical meaning of tener and the valency of the speech act verb establishes a close relation between the speaker, the addressee and (the propositional content of) the speech act, in the sense that both the speaker and the addressee are considered to be in the "possession of the speech act" (cf. also Seiler 1973: 841-845).

Aspect

357

usually concerns the animate referent of the A1 of the lexical predicate. The following definition covers both the Resultative and the Experiential Perfect meanings: (83)

RESULTATIVE/EXPERIENTIAL PERFECT ASPECT OF TRANSITIVE VERBS

It is stated at t; that (i) some participant in SoA is such at t : that (ii) A1 pred v -ed A 2 (to A3) before t. It is the common characteristic of these two Perfect distinctions that they specify the past SoA exclusively by relating it to some present situation: the moment at which the event takes place is entirely irrelevant. When there are adverbials with temporal reference, they never specify the moment of the occurrence of the SoA, but they specify t;. Therefore, (84) is ungrammatical and ahora 'now' in (85) designates the moment of speaking: (84)

*

Tengo regadas las flores have-got. 1SG watered.FEM.PL the flowers.(FEM) esta manana. this morning Ί have watered the flowers this morning.'

(85)

ahora tengo escritos cuatro now have-got. 1SG written.MASC.PL four 'now I have written four chapters'

capitulos chapters.(MASC)

This crucially distinguishes the periphrastic expression of Perfect Aspect from Perfect Tense (or: Hodiernal Past) as expressed by means of the participial construction with the auxiliary haber, with which temporal adverbials specify the event-time: 13 (84)

a. He regado las flores esta manana. have.lSG watered the flowers this morning Ί have watered the flowers this morning.'

(85)

a.

* ahora he escrito cuatro capitulos now have.lSG written four chapters 'now I have written four chapters'

13. Hodiernal Past refers to a moment in the past which belongs to an interval that has not yet ended at the moment of speaking (Dahl 1985: 136; cf. also Hengeveld 1986: 409). It is important to note that haber + participle can also fulfil aspectual functions.

358

The semantics ofperiphrases

7.1.2.1.3. Perfect of Recent Past With the Perfect of Recent Past "the present relevance of the past situation referred to is simply one of temporal closeness" (Comrie 1976: 60). The only periphrasis expressing recent past is acabar de + infinitive. Consider the following examples: (86)

Vazquez Montalbän acaba de publicar (C 696.128) Vazquez Montalban finish.3SG PREP publish.INF una novela, Galindez a novel Galindez 'Vazquez Montalban has just published a novel, Galindez'

(87)

tradüceme este articulo de Jacques (RIC 68f) translate.IMP-me.DAT this article by Jacques Delors que acaba de llegarnos Delors which finish.3SG PREP arrive.INF-us.DAT 'translate for me this article by Jacques Delors, which we have just received'

(88)

Acabo de estar en el despacho del (PAL 94) finish. 1SG PREP be.INF in the office of-the jefe del personal chief of-the personnel Ί have just been in the office of the personnel manager'

In these examples acabar de + infinitive indicates that the event has occurred immediately before ti( the moment of speaking or the reference point. Given this function, the question arises whether one should indeed consider acabar de + infinitive an expression of Aspect. Put differently: is there indeed evidence of "present relevance" of the past SoA? The argumentation in favour of considering acabar de + infinitive as an expression of Aspect is complex and will be the subject of the remainder of this section. To begin with, let us consider time-reference: (89)

CONTEXT: (Severo Ochoa, Nobel price winner in Physiology and Medicine about his relation to Professor Ramon y Cajal) cuando yo empece Medicina el se (C 970.132) when I began.PF.lSG medicine he REFL.3 acababa de jubilar finished.IMPF.3SG PREP retire.INF 'when I began to study Medicine he had just retired'

Aspect

359

The time referred to in (89) is indicated by the temporal clause cuando yo empece Medicina, which is not the time when the event of jubilarse el (the retirement of Ramon y Cajal) took place. More generally, in constructions with acabar de + infinitive, when used to express recent past, reference-time is not event-time. 14 This is a property which the Perfect of Recent Past has in common with the Resultative and Experiential Perfect on the one hand and Prospective Aspect on the other. However, this fact alone does not prove the aspectual character of the Perfect of Recent Past, because with relative Tenses such as Past Perfect, reference-time and event-time do not coincide either. Let us now proceed to the semantic properties that distinguish the Perfect of Recent Past from relative Tenses. Acabar de + infinitive serves the expression of "hot news" (cf. McCawley 1971: 109-110): (90)

— jA_que no sabeis — pregunto sin saludar I-bet not know.2PL asked.PF.3SG without greet.INF ni nada — a quien acabo de ver? nor nothing PREP who finish.lSG PREP see.INF '—I bet you don't know —she asked without saying hello or anything —who I have just seen?' (Mendoza 177)

Instances like (90) are indicative of the aspectual character of acabar de + infinitive as the expression of recent past, because by definition hot news is what has occurred very recently and is deemed by the speaker to be of utter relevance to the situation at the moment of speaking. In the following examples, the event in question as well as the recentness of its occurrence produces an effect on the situation at t;: (91)

CONTEXT: (in a letter to his lady pen-pal a man comments on a photo of hers) sospecho que ese tono azulado que se observa en las unas de tu mano derecha (...) es defecto del carrete (...) Ί assume that this bluish tint which can be observed at the nails of your right hand (...) is a defect of the film (...)' ο causado por el frio del agua de (DEL 85) or caused by the cold of-the water from donde evidentemente, acabas de salir where evidently finish.2SG PREP come-out.INF 'or caused by the cold of the water, from which you, obviously, have just emerged'

14. The present analysis departs from Reichenbach's (1947: 287-298) logical analysis of Tense.

360

The semantics ofperiphrases

(92)

CONTEXT: (about the dissection classes in medical studies) los cadäveres que recuerdo con mas detalle son los de las Ultimas practicas, (...) que eran de accidentados; (...) 'the bodies which I remember more closely are those of the last classes (...), which were those of casualties; (...)' (M 136) eso si te impresiona mäs; porque te this yes you.DAT impress.3SG more because REFL.2SG das_cuenta que aquello es una persona que realize.2SG that that-thing is.3SG a person who acaba de morirse finish.3SG PREP die.INF-REFL.3 'this does impress you more; because you realize that this thing is a person who has just died'

(93)

Acababa de pasar una gran guerra, finished.IMPF.3SG PREP occur.INF a great war una gran destruccion: habia cascos rotos y a great destruction there-were.IMPF helmets broken and trozos de alambradas y metralla. pieces of barbed-wire-entanglements and shrapnel 'There had just been a great war, a great destruction: there were broken helmets and pieces of entangled barbed-wire and shrapnel.' (Barrero Perez 116)

In (91) the effect of the past event on the situation at t ; concerns a person who has been involved in the past event, while in (92) the effect concerns a person who has not been involved in the event. In example (93) there are no persons involved at all, but the situation at t; is presented as a consequence of the recent occurrence of the SoA. In the following instance, acabar de + infinitive is used in an irrealisconstruction: (94)

Pareces en luna de miel. Hablas α tu mujer seem.2SG in honeymoon speak.2SG to your wife como si te acabaras de casar. as if REFL.2SG finished.SUBJ.2SG PREP marry.INF 'You appear to be in your honeymoon period. You talk to your wife as if you had just got married.' (Mario Vargas Llosa, La ciudady los perros, quoted from Dominicy 1983: 51)

Aspect

361

(94) is a further indication of the aspectual character of the Perfect of Recent Past, because reference is made to a behaviour that is characterized exclusively by the fact that another event has occurred immediately before. 15 Summing up, we have seen that with the Perfect of Recent Past periphrasis, the temporal reference point does not coincide with the event but with the situation immediately following the event. Furthermore, we have seen that acabar de + infinitive expresses both recentness of the occurrence of the SoA and relevance of the SoA for situation at reference-time. For the presentation of a further piece of evidence of the aspectual function of acabar de + infinitive, we have to return to the matter of temporal reference. When recent past is expressed together with a time adverbial, this adverbial is normally in pre-verbal position and specifies the reference-time. Consider the following examples: (95)

Ahora_mismo acabo de tener right-now finish.1SG PREP have-got.INF el septimo (hijo) the seventh child 'Right now I have just got the seventh child'

(M 199)

(96)

ahora acababa de ser destinado (SOR 116) now finished.IMPF.3SG PREP be.INF appointed a la conflictiva Africa del Sur to the troubled South-Africa 'now he had just been appointed to troubled South-Africa'

15. At this point one might object that, alternatively, one could think of the possibility that a person's behaviour could be characterized by his or her having been married for a long time already. However, the difference is that this cannot be appropriately expressed in an Action-predication analogous to (94), but must to be expressed through a State-predication:

(94)

a.

?? (...)

como si

te

as

REFL.2SG hadSUBJ.2SG married ago

if

hubieras

casado hace

veinte anos twenty years '(...) as if you had married twenty years ago'

b.

(...) como si

llevaras

veinte

anos casado

as if carried.SUBJ.2SG twenty years married.MASC.SG '(...) as if you had been married for twenty years' This shows that the periphrasis with acabar de, though specifying a past Action in (94), has a state-value, i.e. a situation-descriptive value, at the same time.

362 (97)

The semantics ofperiphrases Y entonces, este Institute (...) acababa (M 152) and by-then this institute finished.IMPF.3SG de crearse PREP found.INF-REFL.3 'And by then this Institute (...) had just been founded'

Incidentally, temporal adverbials occur in post-verbal position. In that case, the adverbial does not specify the reference-time but the event-time (cf. Flydal 1943: 105; Vetters 1988: 316): (98)

mi hermano acaba de terminar ahora (M 304) my brother finish.3SG PREP finish.INF now el (...) sexto de bäsica the sixth of primary-school 'my brother has just now finished the (...) sixth grade of primary school'

In the above example, the fact that it is the event-time, rather than the reference-time, that is specified may easily pass unobserved, because, given the temporal closeness of the moment of speaking and the occurrence of the SoA, ahora can serve to specify both event-time and reference-time. The case is different in the following examples, which have been observed in spontaneous usage: (99)

CONTEXT: (talking about too long imprisonment for minor delicts) —-y uno se choriciaba (sic) un librillo en la (...) Universaly iba a dartres anos '—and one pinched a book from the (...) Universal and got three years' —y acabo de leer ayer en (...) and finish. 1SG PREP read.INF yesterday in La Nacion, (sobre) dos indios qu' estuvieron La Nacion about two indians who were.PF.3PL dos anos presos, ιuste lo vio? two years imprisoned you(FORM) it saw.PF.2SG.(FORM) '—and I have just read yesterday in (...) La Nacion, about two Indians who had been kept in jail for two years, did you see it?' (Quesada 1994: 141)

Aspect

(100)

363

CONTEXT: (about a monograph in humanities) Es el libro que acaba de publicarse is.3SG the book which finish.3SG PREP publish.INF-REFL.3 el ano pasado. the year last 'It is the book that was published only last year.' (lit. 'It is the book that has just been published last year.')

In such instances, the temporal reference of the adverbial is seemingly incompatible with the meaning of recentness expressed through acabar de + infinitive.16 However, from an extralinguistic perspective, there is no conflict: yesterday's news is relatively recent news (example (99)) and, in humanities, last year's monographs are recent publications (example (100)) (cf. also Vetters 1988: 312-314). In fact, there is no conflict from a linguistic perspective either, because the temporal reference of the acabarconstruction is the present situation and not the event, whereas the temporal reference of the adverbial is the event and not the expression of its recentness. Paraphrases of (99) and (100), in which acabar de + infinitive is substituted with the auxiliary perfect, are ungrammatical: (99)

a. * he leido ayer (...) have.lSG read yesterday Ί have read yesterday (...)'

(100)

b. * se ha publicado el ano pasado REFL.3 have.3SG published the year last 'it has been published last year'

The reason for this is the fact that haber + participle fulfils the function of Hodiernal Past when co-occurring with temporal adverbials. The above variants are ungrammatical because they are incompatible with the hodiernal meaning of haber + participle. Essentially, it is due to the fact that the Perfect with haber serves to locate the past event in time that there is no way of reconciling this incompatibility. Conversely, the fact that such a possibility does exist in the case of acabar de + infinitive proves that the periphrasis specifies what is the case at t, by relating the past event to the present situation.

16. Although there are no combinations of this type in my corpus, they are, according to my informants, not uncommon in oral usage. With the French periphrasis of recent past, venir de + infinitive, it occurs with some frequency in written usage that there are temporal adverbials specifying some point in the past which does not coincide with tj (Vetters 1988: 306-309).

364

The semantics of periphrases

The last point I want to make in this context is that, like in the case of the other expressions of Outer Phasal Aspect, the use of the infinitival periphrasis with acabar de is restricted to imperfective contexts, i.e. the Present Tense and the Imperfective Past (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 26-27; Cartagena 1976: 36).17 If it were its function to pinpoint the event to some moment in time, it would combine with the Perfective Past. The above data allow for the conclusion that acabar de + infinitive is an aspectual construction whose semantics can be defined as follows: (101)

PERFECT OF RECENT PAST

It is stated at t{ that (i) the situation is such at t; that (ii) SoA occurred shortly before tj 7.1.2.1.4. Conclusions In section 7.1.2.1.1., I gave the following meaning definition of Prospective Aspect: (56)

PROSPECTIVE ASPECT

It is stated at t, that (i) there is some indication at t, that (ii) SoA will obtain after t; Analogously, the meanings of the three distinctions of Perfect Aspect can be given the following, generalized, definition: (102)

PERFECT ASPECT

It is stated at t, that (i) there is some indication at t; that (ii) SoA obtained before t; Thus, the meanings of Prospective and Perfect Aspect are complementary: ir a + infinitive as the expression of Prospective Aspect "projects a state obtaining at the moment of speaking into a future State of Affairs" (Dik 1987: 62), and tener + participle, llevar + participle and acabar de + infini-

17. The same rule applies to French venirde (Vetters 1988: 298-299). Dominicy (1983: 52) quotes a few counter-examples from Mexican Spanish. For a discussion cf. Olbertz (1991: 34).

Aspect

365

tive as the expressions of Perfect Aspect function as "a projection of a present state into a past State of Affairs" (Dik 1987: 62). The fact that the expressions of Outer Phasal Aspect occur exclusively in combination with Imperfective Aspect is the grammatical correlate of their semantic function, which is not to specify the event-time but the relation between the event and the lapse of time that precedes or follows it. The following representation, based on Dik (1987: 61), shows the position of Outer Phasal Aspect in the total of Phasal Aspect and reflects its relative nature: State of Affairs

0 ->

1

2

3

-

4 ->

Figure 10. Phasal Aspect In this representation, Prospective corresponds to position 0, Ingressive to position 1, Progressive, Persistive and Continuative to position 2, Egressive to position 3, and Perfect to position 4.

7.1.2.2. Quantificational Aspect 7.1.2.2.0. Introduction Quantificational Aspect specifies the number of occurrences of some SoA or the frequency with which some SoA occurs. In Spanish, there are three periphrastic expressions of Quantificational Aspect. Volvera "return to' + infinitive indicates that the SoA occurs again, i.e. for at least the second time (Repetitive Aspect); andar 'walk' + gerund indicates that SoA takes place repeatedly at different occasions and/or with different participants (Distributive Aspect); and soler 'be in the habit of' + infinitive indicates that the SoA usually occurs (Habitual Aspect). Section 7.1.2.2.1. will be devoted to Repetitive Aspect, section 7.1.2.2.2. to Distributive Aspect and section 7.1.2.2.3. to Habitual Aspect. I will end with a brief summary (7.1.2.2.4.).

7.1.2.2.1. Repetitive Repetitive Aspect is expressed by means of the infinitival periphrasis with volver a 'return to'. Volver a + infinitive indicates that the SoA happens again, without specifying the number of times the SoA has happened so far.

366

The semantics ofperiphrases

Consider the following examples: (103)

dile tell.IMP-her.DAT a llamar esta to call.INF this 'tell her that (...) I

que (...) la volvere that her return.FUT.lSG tarde afternoon will call again this afternoon'

(SOR 114)

(104)

CONTEXT: (about the experiences of a person who has been kidnapped for 249 days) tuve la sorpresa y alegria de volver (C 963.28) had.PF.lSG the surprise and gladness of return.INF a tener contacto con la naturaleza, la familia (...) to have.INF contact with the nature the family Ί was surprised and glad to be in contact again with nature, my family (...)'

(105)

Dios sabe cuando nos volveremos God know.3SG when REFL.1PL return.FUT.IPL a ver to see.INF 'God knows when we will meet again'

(106)

las calles de Madrid se volverian (GAR 19) the streets of Madrid REFL.3 retum.COND.3PL a llenar de pioneros desfilando to fill.INF PREP pioneers march-by.GER 'the streets of Madrid would again be filled with pioneers marching by'

(SOR 123)

In these examples Actions (103), Positions (104), Experiential Processes (105), and Processes (106) are described as happening at least for the second time, while the identity of the participants remains constant. This, however, is not necessarily the case, as the following examples may illustrate: (107)

volvio a llenarse el vaso returned.PF.3SG to fill.INF-REFL.3 the glass de güisky of whiskey 'he refilled the glass of whiskey'

(ORT 116)

Aspect (108)

habria_que volver a pintarlo is-necessary.COND return.INF to paint.INF-it 'it would be good to paint it again'

367

(MAR 151)

In the these examples, the identity of the referent of A 1 is not necessarily constant. In (107) it may but need not be the case that the same person filled the glass on both occasions. In (108) it is even probable that the people who are going to paint the room this time will not be the same as the ones who did so last time. Furthermore, volver a + infinitive is used in contexts where the fact that the SoA is repeated is largely irrelevant; these are cases where the verbal predicate designates an action or process that results in the restoration of a previous state. The function of volver a + infinitive in such contexts is to indicate that this state is the original one: (109)

CONTEXT: (plea of a member of the jury in an Inquisition trial) Cada vez que alguien ha tratado deperforar el cuerpo/also de un demonio con una espada, no ha podido, 'Every time that somebody tried to pierce the forged body of a demon, he did not succeed,' porque las dos partes de aire volvieron (TOM 145) because the two parts of air returned.PF.3PL a unirse inmediatamente to unite.INF-REFL. 3 immediately 'because the two parts of air immediately reunited'

(110)

CONTEXT: (awaiting her husband for dinner, the first-person narrator takes a small piece of a pre-cooked potato omelet; she has been waiting for hours already and feels tempted to eat it all up) La vuelvo a tapar (RIC 81) it return. 1SG to cover.INF Ί cover it again'

What volver a + infinitive is supposed to convey in (109) is not so much that the two parts of air (=of the demon) repeat the process of uniting but that this process results in restoring the original, i.e. undamaged, state of the air (=the demon). Similarly, what is of interest in (110) is not that the woman repeats the act of covering the dish which has first been carried out by the one who cooked it, but that, resisting temptation, she restores the dish in its original state in order to keep it for dinner. There are also cases where there is no repetition of any SoA at all, but only the restoration of an original state:

368

The semantics of periphrases

(111)

CONTEXT: Se han llevado a tu padre al cuartel. ιY qui? Le harän unas cuantas preguntas 'They have picked up your father. So what? They'll ask him a few questions' y volverän a soltarle (LLA 24) and return.FUT.3PL to set-free.INF-him 'and they'll set him free again'

(112)

CONTEXT: (a housewife, who is feeling bored and dissatisfied with herself, has finally made up her mind to go to the hairdresser's, but then:) Piensa que puede ser una bobada cortarse elpelo, que lo mas fäcil es que no le guste a Antonio, 'She thinks that it may be silly to have her hair cut, that it is not improbable that Antonio will not like it' y vuelven a derrumbarse sus (MAR 153) and return.3PL to collapse.INF-REFL.3 her nacientes propositos newly-made plans 'and her newly made plans collapse again'

In (111) the action designated by soltarle 'set him free' is not repeated, but the action restores the situation in which the person in question was originally. Given the abstract context in (112), the relation between the process modified by volver a and its result is somewhat less straightforward: the collapse of the newly made plans of the person described is not repeated, nor does it restore the original state of the plans; rather, it restores a situation in which there was no plan at all. The fact that, in (109) and (110), the repetition of the SoA is not of interest, and that, in (111) and (112), there is no repetition of any SoA at all should not be interpreted as an indication of semantic variation of volver a + infinitive, because the meaning of the periphrasis does not vary from the one exemplified in (103)-(108). What we do find when comparing the use of volver a + infinitive in these various examples is that, in (103)-(108), volver a + infinitive provides additional information, whereas it is increasingly redundant in (109)-(112). In (111) and (112), where there is no repetition at all, the periphrasis can be omitted, while the meanings of the sentences remain the same: (111)

a. y lo soltaran and him set-free.FUT.3PL 'and they will set him free'

(112)

a. y se derrumban sus nacientes propositos and REFL.3 collapse.3PL her new-found plans 'and her new found plans collapse'

Aspect

369

The difference between (111) and (112) on the one hand and (111a) and (112a) on the other is that in the original examples the verbal predicate is endowed with more pragmatic prominence, so that the restoration of the original state is emphasized. Apart from this, the periphrasis with volver a co-occurs with adverbial or derivational expressions of repetition: (113)

muchas experiencias many experiences volverlas a return.INF-them to Ί would have to get

(...)

habria_de (GAR 32) have-to.COND.lSG conocer dejiuevo know.INF again to know (again) many experiences again'

(114)

hay que volver nuevamente a hacer is-necessary return.INF again to do.INF las präcticas the hospital-trainings 'one has to repeat the hospital training again'

(115)

CONTEXT: Lo que hay que hacer es olvidarnos de la educacion que hemos recibido para ser mujeres 'What we have to do is forget the education we have received in order to become women' y volver a replantearnos las (C 970.153) and return.INF to raise-again.INF-us.DAT the relaciones que deverdad queremos tener relations which really want. 1 PL have-got.INF 'and reconsider again the relations we really want to have'

(116)

CONTEXT: (about aliens) si... alguna parte se les pone enferma (...) no tienen mäs que cortarsela, entonces 'if... some part of their bodies falls ill (...) the only thing they have to do is cut it off, then' se les vuelve a reproducir otra_vez (M 56) REFL.3 them.DAT return.3SG to grow-again again 'it (again) gets reproduced again'

(M 94)

In addition to periphrastic volver a, adverbial expressions of repetition, viz. de nuevo and nuevamente, both meaning 'again', are used in (113) and (114) and a derivational expression of repetition, replantear 'raise again', is employed in (115). In (116), there is even a triple expression of repetition: volver a + infinitive, the derivational reproducirse 'grow again', and adverbial otra vez 'again'. Redundancies of this kind have been found in 6 of the

370

The semantics ofperiphrases

84 instances of my corpus. 18 Four of them occur in the Madrid corpus, which yields a total of 24 instances, i.e. the percentage of redundant instances is high in the oral text. Despite the relatively low overall frequency of redundant instances, their relatively high frequency in the oral texts suggests that the periphrasis may be in a process of a semantic erosion.

7.1.2.2.2. Distributive The periphrastic expression of Distributive Aspect is andar + gerund. According to Dik (1989: 204) "Distributive Aspect" means that some event occurs "several times, with different participants". In this section I will argue that this definition must be further refined in order to account for all possible realizations of Distributive Aspect. My corpus contains only two examples: (117)

anduvo gestionändose el walked.PF.3SG negotiate.GER-REFL.3 the nombramiento nomination 'he went about arranging for himself to be nominated'

(PAL 63)

(118)

CONTEXT: porque siempre, cuando quieres que te dejen apuntes, 'because every time you want some one to lend you his notes,' (...) tienesque andar buscando un poco (M 414) (...) have-to.2SG walk.INF seek.GER a bit a la persona y tal PREP the person and such 'you have to go about looking around a bit for the right person and so on'

In these two examples there is no variation of participants, in the sense that the referents of the arguments remain constant. Andar + gerund is used to describe that the referent of A1 repeats an action several times in different situations and with distinct people in order to achieve his or her goal. Although (117) describes a telic event, and (118) an atelic one, the instances have the common property of being "goal-oriented", which means that there is some explicitely mentioned aim to be achieved. This feature is relevant: because it is goal-oriented, the action will go on occurring, but only until the

18. Similar redundancies have been observed in the use of ir + gerund, cf. section 7.1.1.2.1.

Aspect

371

moment when the goal has been achieved, while this is not the case in the examples to be presented below. In the following example, the event is a speech act and andar + gerund expresses the fact that the speaker complains at various occasions to various people. The combination of andar + gerund and siempre 'always' indicates that the event occurs with a high frequency: (119)

En_lugar_de andar siempre lamentändose instead-of walk.INF always complain .GER-REFL.2. (FORM) deberia consolarse must.COND.2SG.(FORM) console.INF-REFL.2.(FORM) pensando que (...) think.GER that 'Instead of always going about complaining you should comfort yourself thinking that (...)' (Tomeo, El mayordomo miope 130)

In example (120) below, the lexical predicate is a speech act verb, too. But here, there is a non-specific, plural referent for the A1 of a speech act verb; in this case there may be variation with respect to the participant, i.e. the speaker, in the individual speech-events: (120)

Andan diciendo cosas — escupio Don Jeronimo walk.3PL say.GER things spit.PAST.PF.3SG Don Jeronimo 'People go about telling things —Don Jeronimo spit out* (Mario Vargas Llosa, ι Quien mato a Palomino Molero?, quoted from Morera 1991: 207)

In (121) and (122), andar + gerund does not modify Actions but Experiences. In both cases, there is a singular specific referent of A1, i.e. the primary participant in the event remains constant. An important difference between (121) and (122) is that in (121) there are additional participants, viz. visiones, whereas in (122) there are no such participants. The distributive meaning of (122) will thus concern different occasions rather than different entities. (121)

Sospecho que ando viendo visiones como suspect.lSG that walk.lSG see.GER visions as un anciano lunatico a old-man lunatic Ί suspect I go about seeing things like a lunatic old man' (Allende 262)

372

The semantics ofperiphrases

(122)

Jaime (...) andaba halucinando Jaime walked.IMPF.3SG hallucinate.GER 'Jaime (...) went about hallucinating' (Allende 193)

To sum up, Distributive Aspect means that some event takes place several times at different occasions and/or with different participants.

7.1.2.2.3. Habitual The periphrastic expression of Habitual Aspect is soler 'be in the habit o f ' , 'usually do' + infinitive. Habitual Aspect forms part of Quantificational Aspect in a wider sense. It differs from the Quantificational Aspect distinctions I have discussed so far in the sense that it does not concern the number of occurrences of some SoA. Rather, Habitual Aspect expresses that, in a given extended period of time, some SoA typically occurs or obtains (cf. Comrie 1976: 27-28; Dahl 1985: 97). Before I go into more detail, let us consider a few examples: (123)

CONTEXT: (on the immigration of the poor into America around

1900) Pero los que habian escapado de la persecution, but the who had.IMPF.3PL escaped from the persecution del hambre, los pioneros (...) solian from-the hunger the pioneers usually-did.IMPF.3PL carecer de incentivos que les empujaran a lack.INF PREP incentives which them pushed.SUBJ.3PL to regresar. go-back.INF 'But those who had escaped from prosecution, from hunger or the pioneers (...) usually lacked the incentives that would motivate them to go back.' {El Pais 28) (124)

(125)

CONTEXT: (about people going on a package tour) Suelen ser solitarios usually-do.3PL be.INF single 'Usually they are single'

(PUE 112)

CONTEXT: (about people who cannot bear sunbathing) suelen ser seres de epidermis ceriilea (DEL 85) usually-do.3PL be.INF beings of epidermis light-blue fria, viscosa cold viscous 'they usually are beings of a light blue, cold, viscous skin'

Aspect

373

In these examples it is stated that (in the period indicated) the properties predicated typically hold for the people in question. In this case, where there is a plural referent of A1, "typically" means that with most of the individual members of the set the SoA is supposed to obtain. Example (123) describes a situation in the past, and the regular occurrence of the SoA is thus temporally restricted to this period. In Present Tense contexts, as in (124) and (125), the regular occurrence of the SoA is presented as not temporally restricted. Let us consider a few more examples: (126)

CONTEXT: (a librarian about the contacts with nuns at her work) suele ser pesadito (M 127) usually-do.3SG be.INF though.DIMIN 'it usually is somewhat tough'

(127)

En mi caso, las molestias de estomago y (DEL 92) in my case the discomforts of stomach and vientre suelen ir unidas bowels usually-do.3PL go.INF united 'In my case, the troubles of the stomach and of the bowels usually go together'

With dynamic SoAs, like the one in (127), soler indicates repetition, whereas with Stative SoAs (examples (123)-(126)) it indicates that the SoA obtains permanently, though maybe not in all cases. All the examples (124)-(127) show that the number of occurrences of the SoA is irrelevant with Habitual Aspect. The frequency of the SoA can be specified independently of soler + infinitive (cf. also 5.1.1.4): (128)

es lo que suele pasar siempre is.3SG what usually-do.3SG happen.INF always 'this is what tends to happen always'

(M 123)

As soler + infinitive is a partially periphrastic construction, the periphrasis applies only to non-agentive SoAs, because agentive SoAs are expressed through the corresponding semi-auxiliary (cf. 5.1.1.4.). The lexical predicates with which periphrastic soler occurs typically predicate on indefinite concrete entities (examples (123) and (124)) and on events (examples (126)(128)). Furthermore, most of the occurrences in my corpus are combinations with property assigning predications or identifying predications, almost all of which have present time-reference. As stated above, when occurring in Present Tense contexts, Habitual Aspect generally indicates that the occurrences of the SoA to be modified are not temporally restricted. When,

374

The semantics ofperiphrases

furthermore, the property assigning or identifying SoAs in Present Tense contexts concern non-specific entities, the SoA often has a gnomic character: (129)

CONTEXT: (in an Inquisition trial, a monk comments on the incapability of men to understand the complexities of the universe concluding that any intent to come to a scientific understanding is imbued by the devil) £se suele ser el medio por (TOM 154) this usually-do.3SG be.INF the means by el_que Satän engana a muchos. which Satan cheat. 3SG PREP many 'This usually is the means by which Satan cheats many humans.'

In this example, the pronominal Subject refers to the human endeavour to understand the universe, which is a timeless phenomenon. This timeless phenomenon is identified with an equally timeless phenonemon, the methods of the devil. Therefore, (129) is a typical example of a gnomic predication (Lyons 1977: 681). Soler + infinitive is by no means the only way of expressing habituality in Spanish. Like in many other languages, habitual meaning may be implicit in the Present and Imperfective Past in Spanish, too (cf. Rodriguez Espineira 1990: 200). 19 Let us now see how implicit and explicit expression of habituality interact. Consider the following gnomic example: (130)

el ombligo rasgado suele delator un (DEL 82) the navel slanted usually-do.3SG betray.INF a vientre abultado (...) belly massive 'the slanted navel usually betrays a massive belly (...)'

The gnomic meaning of (130) remains basically unaltered when soler + infinitive is left out: (130)

a.

el ombligo rasgado delata un vientre abultado the navel slanted betray.3SG a belly massive 'the slanted navel betrays a massive belly'

19. Dahl (1985: 202) and Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca (1994: 159) show that in many genetically unrelated languages Habitual Aspect does not have any overt expression, but habitual meaning tends to be included in the meaning of the Imperfective or of the Present Tense.

Aspect

375

Nevertheless, explicit marking of habituality is not redundant; rather, it specifies that the SoA is bound to occur in most, but not necessarily all cases, whereas the implicit expression of habituality cannot express such a restriction. This becomes obvious when we consider (130) within its context: (130)

b.

el ombligo rasgado suele delator un the navel slanted usually-do.3SG betray.INF a vientre abultado, pero no necesariamente es asi belly massive but not necessarily is.3SG like-this 'the slanted navel usually betrays a massive belly (...) but this is not necessarily so'

Here, in the context that follows the habitual gnomic statement, its validity is explicitly restricted. This is entirely grammatical when habituality is explicitly marked; however, if habituality is only implicit in the Present Tense, the statement is contradictory: (130)

c.

* el ombligo rasgado delata un vientre abultado, the navel slanted betray.3SG a belly massive pero no necesariamente es asi but not necessarily is.3SG like-this 'the slanted navel betrays a massive belly, but this is not necessarily so'

This does not only hold with gnomic predications, as the following example shows: (131)

CONTEXT: —Que los dioses te guarden —bromeo, mientras doblaba su cuerpo en comica reverencia. '—May the gods protect you —he joked, while he bent his body in a funny bow.' Solia dar resultado (ORT 117) usually-did.IMPF.3SG give.INF result 'It usually was effective'

(131)

a.

Solia dar resultado, pero usually-did.IMPF.3SG give.INF result but vez no. time not 'It usually was effective, but not this time.'

b.

* Daba resultado, pero esta gave.IMPF.3SG result but this 'It was effective, but not this time.'

esta this

vez no. time not

376

The semantics of periphrases

We can conclude that soler + infinitive differs from implicit expressions of habituality in explicitly indicating that the SoA need not obtain on all possible occasions.20 On the other hand, implicit and explicit expression of habituality are interrelated in the sense that the use of soler + infinitive is restricted to those Tenses that can serve the implicit expression of habituality, namely the Present and the Imperfective Past. On the basis of the above considerations, it is tempting to compare the function of habitual soler + infinitive with that of an expression of epistemic modality like poder + infinitive. There is indeed some similarity.21 Compare in this respect: (128)

es lo_que suele pasar siempre is.3SG what usually-do.3SG happen.INF always 'this is what always tends to happen'

(M 123)

a. es loque puede pasar siempre is.3SG what can.3SG occur.INF always 'this is what always can happen' At the first glance, the habitual and the epistemic predications seem to differ only with regard to the frequency with which the SoA is expected to occur. There is, however, one crucial difference: soler indicates that the SoA occurs more than once, while poder does not at all indicate that the SoA occurs. Put differently, the actuality of the SoA is presupposed with soler, whereas poder serves the specification of the degree of (non-)actuality of the SoA (Chung—Timberlake 1985: 241). To sum up, as an explicit expression of Habitual Aspect, soler + infinitive indicates that some SoA occurs or obtains on most but not necessarily all occasions.

20. From a pragmatic viewpoint, one could label the explicit expression of habituality through periphrastic soler + infinitive or some adverbial "hedged habituality", since by using explicit expressions of habituality, the speaker avoids full truth-commitment: he/she indicates that what he/she states does not necessarily hold in all cases (cf. Lakoff 1972: 195-201). 21. In fact, soler is often categorized as a modal verb (cf. e.g. Hadlich 1971: 58; Hernandez Alonso 1984: 389; Narbona Jimenez 1981: 183-184). For a critical comment on the treatment of soler by Spanish grammarians cf. Casado Velarde (1983).

Aspect

377

7.1.2.2.4. Summary In this section I have shown that there are three periphrases that specify Quantificational Aspect. Table 8 gives an overview of the aspectual distinctions and their periphrastic expression: Table 8. Periphrastic expressions of Quantificational Aspect Distinction

Expression

Meaning description

Repetitive Distributive Habitual

volver a + infinitive andar + gerund soler + infinitive

SoA occurs again go about SoA-ing SoA occurs usually

The use of "SoA" in the meaning descriptions indicates that the periphrastic expressions of Quantificational Aspect can be combined with all kinds of predications, including non-controlled and/or non-dynamic ones. The meaning description of andar + gerund differs from the others in order to account for the fact that andar + gerund in principle occurs with verbs that require animate referents for the A'-position, which the periphrases with volver a and soler definitely do not.

7.2. Modality 7.2.0. Introduction Following Hengeveld (forthcoming) I will classify modal meanings along two parameters, one concerning the target of modal evaluation and the other concerning the domain of modal evaluation. The possible targets of modal evaluation are (i) the relation between the primary animate participant and the event, (ii) the event itself, (iii) the proposition. With respect to target (i) modal evaluation means the specification of the possibility or the necessity for some person or animal to be the primary participant in some event. Being the primary animate participant in an event may but need not imply being the Agent. This is why this type of modal evaluation is labelled "participant-oriented" rather than "agentoriented", as it is commonly called. Target (ii) concerns the possibility or the necessity of the occurrence of some event, and target (iii) concerns the commitment of a speaker to the truth of some propositional content, which also can be categorized in terms of possibility and necessity. The domains of modal evaluation concern "the perspective from which

378

The semantics ofperiphrases

the evaluation is executed" (Hengeveld forthcoming: 111.10). The domains that are of interest here are (i) inherent, (ii) volitional, (iii) deontic, (iv) epistemic and (v) inferential. Inherent Modality (i), which covers inherent possibility, i.e. Facultative Modality (cf. 5.1.2.1.), plus inherent necessity, can be further subdivided into Intrinsic and Extrinsic Inherent Modalities. Intrinsic Inherent Modality evaluates from the perspective of the abilities of an animate participant and of what is physically possible. Extrinsic Inherent Modality evaluates from the perspective of what is circumstantially possible and necessary. 22 Volitional Modality (ii) evaluates from the perspective of what is desirable. Deontic Modality (iii) evaluates from the perspective of what is mandatory or permissible, Epistemic Modality (iv) evaluates from the perspective of what is known, and Inferential Modality (v) from the perspective of what can be inferred from evidence.

Target of Evaluation Domain of Evaluation Inherent - intrinsic

Participant

Event

A1 is able to SoA A1 can/must SoA due to circumstances

Occurrence of SoA is physically possible Occurrence of SoA is circumstantially possible/necessary

Volitional

A1 wants to SoA

Occurrence of SoA is desirable

Deontic

A1 is allowed/ obliged to SoA

Occurrence of SoA is permissible/mandatory

- extrinsic

Epistemic

—

Inferential

—

Occurrence of SoA is possible/certain

—

Proposition

—

—

—

Truth of proposition is possible/certain Truth of proposition can be inferred

Figure 11. Modal distinctions and their meanings

Figure 11 schematically represents the possible combinations of the targets

22. The same distinction is called "circumstantial" by Kiefer (1987: 70η) and "causal" or "conditional" by Rescher (1968: 25-26).

Modality

379

of evaluation with the domains of evaluation in Spanish, as far as they are expressed by means of semi-auxiliary or periphrastic verbal constructions. As regards the construction types that serve the expression of these modal distinctions, Figure 12 shows the distribution of semi-auxiliary and periphrastic verbal expressions: Target of Evaluation Domain of Evaluation

Participant

Event

Inh.: intrinsic Inh.: extrinsic Volitional Deontic Epistemic Inferential

semi-auxiliary semi-aux/periphrasis periphrasis semi-aux/periphrasis

semi-aux/periphrasis semi-aux/periphrasis semi-aux/periphrasis semi-aux/periphrasis periphrasis

Proposition

periphrasis periphrasis

Figure 12. Auxiliary expression of modal distinctions

This section will be structured primarily according to the different targets of evaluation. In section 7.2.1. I will discuss the periphrases expressing Participant-oriented Modality, in section 7.2.2. the periphrases expressing Event-oriented Modality, and in section 7.2.3. those that express Propositionoriented Modality. As regards terminology, I will follow traditional grammar in using the term "Modality" for both general reference to the semantic domain and the grammatical expression of Modality, reserving the term "Mood" for the synthetically expressed Modality distinctions Indicative, Subjunctive and Imperative. 23

7.2.1. Participant-oriented

Modality

7.2.1.0. Introduction Partipant-oriented Modality concerns the possibility or the necessity of some animate primary participant to engage in some SoA. By "animate primary participant" I mean the animate referent of the A1 of the lexical predicate.

23. It would probably be more correct to use "Mood" for grammaticalized modal distinctions, as is done in e.g. Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca (1994: 181), but as this is not yet common practice, I prefer the traditional terms in order to avoid unnecessary terminological confusion.

380

The semantics ofperiphrases

The periphrastic expressions of Participant-oriented Modality concern Inherent Modality (7.2.1.1.), Volitional Modality (7.2.1.2.), and Deontic Modality (7.2.1.3.).

7.2.1.1. Inherent As I have argued above, Inherent Modality can be further subdivided into a domain that concerns the intrinsic properties of the target and another domain that concerns the external circumstances that determine the possibilities and necessities with respect to the target. Participant-oriented Intrinsic Inherent Modality concerns innate or acquired abilities of the primary animate participant, and thus coincides with what in section 5.1.2.1. I have labelled "Intrinsic Facultative Modalitity". Participant-oriented Extrinsic Inherent Modality concerns the possibility and the necessity of the primary animate participant to engage in some SoA as determined by the circumstances, regardless of the abilities of the participant him- or herself. Extrinsic Inherent Possibility coincides with what in section 5.1.2.1. I have labelled "Extrinsic Facultative Modality". The modal distinction we will be concerned with in the present section concerns Extrinsic Inherent Necessity, which is expressed through tener que + infinitive: (132)

La tuve que vender porque me it had.PF.lSG REL sell.INF because me.DAT haciaJalta el dinero was-wanting.IMPF.3SG the money Ί had to sell it because I needed the money'

(M 275)

(133)

me tengo que levantar a las (RIC 95) REFL.1SG have.lSG REL get-up.INF at the siete y cuarto. Tengo una cita a las ocho seven and quarter have.lSG a appointment at the eight Ί have to get up at a quarter past seven. I have got an appointment at eight'

(134)

La carne tuvimos que tirarla: la (LLA 28) the meat had.PF.IPL REL throw-away.INF-it the humedad la habia corrompido. humidity it had.IMPF.3SG spoiled 'We had to throw the meat away: it was rotten due to the humidity.'

In all these cases the necessity for the person in question to carry out some action is rationally or even physically motivated. Although not obligatory,

Modality

381

it is typical of this function of tener que + infinitive that an explicit motivation of the necessity to engage in the SoA be given (cf. also Haverkate 1979: 122). In (132) the lack of money makes that the action needs to be executed, in (133) it is a personal commitment that determines the necessity to execute the action, and in (134) the state of the meat is such that there is no alternative but to execute the action.

7.2.1.2. Volitional Volitional Modality is the only modal subcategory that cannot be fruitfully accommodated into a framework of modal logic that distinguishes between possibility and necessity, because although Volition can be viewed as a type of modal necessity, it is difficult to conceive of such a thing as "volitional possibility". 24 The periphrastic expressions from the domain of volition have an intentional meaning. The two periphrastic expressions arepensar 'think' + infinitive and es tar por 'be about' + infinitive. Pensar + infinitive expresses an intention that results from deliberation: dia day

(MER 147)

(135)

pensaba vendermelo algün thought.IMPF.3SG sell.INF-me-it some 'he intended to sell it to me one day'

(136)

ιQue piensas hacer en el futuro? what think.2SG do.INF in the future 'What do you intend to do in the future?'

(137)

vivir ni trabajar como filosofo (M 22) no pienso live.INF nor work.INF as philosopher not think. 1SG Ί do not intend either to live nor work as a philosopher'

(M 195)

The examples (135)-(137) are representative of the meaning of this periphrasis, which expresses the intention to realize some (long-term) plan. Apart from this, pensar + infinitive can express the firm determination of a person to realize or refrain from realizing some action in spite of any objection that might come up:

24. Such an attempt has been made by Carretero (1992: 47), who proposes aceptacion 'acceptance' as a category that covers volitional possibility; a possible expression of this category could be no me importa que 'it is alright with me that'. However, as far as I can see, there is no grammatical expression of "acceptance".

382

The semantics ofperiphrases

(138)

no pensaba soltar un duro (ORT 114) not thought.IMPF.3SG release.INF one duro 'he was determined not to cough up one duro [= 5 pesetas]'

(139)

Felipe Gonzälez (...) piensa seguir en (C 966.33) Felipe Gonzalez think.3SG continue.INF in el Gobierno hasta el ano 2000 the government until the year 2000 'Felipe Gonzalez (...) is determined to stay in the Goverment until the year 2000'

(140)

(on a holiday, a man refuses his friend's offer to go out) Yo no pienso salir de la habitacion (PUE 122) I not think.1SG go-out.INF of the room Ί am definitely not going to leave the room' CONTEXT:

The intentional meaning of estar por + infinitive is clearly different: (141)

CONTEXT: /Prestar dinero a un sinvergiienza semejante que no lo devolverä jamas! 'Lend money to such a villain who will never give it back!' Es toy por darte una paliza... am.lSG about give.INF-you.DAT a slap Ί feel like slapping you in your face ...' (Carmen Laforet, quoted from Coste—Redondo 1965: 498)

(142)

Estuvo por darle un abrazo; be.PF.3SG about give.INF-him.DAT a embrace 'He felt like embracing him;' CONTEXT: pero el otro, aunque sonriente, se mostro menos expansive. 'but the other, though smiling, appeared to be less affable.' (Jose Corrales Egea, quoted from Coste—Redondo 1965: 498)

(143)

CONTEXT: (an informant tells which is so nice that he even estoy por montar am.lSG about set-up.INF cobrar diez duros la charge.INF ten duros the Ί fancy setting up a business to my house'

about the fine view from his terrace, might exploit it commercially) un negocio (...) y (M 121-122) a business and entrada (...) a mi casa entrance to my house and charge 10 duros for the entrance

Modality

383

In (141) and (142), estar por + infinitive expresses the impulsive wish to execute some action and in (143) it expresses the fancy to realize some playful idea. In all these cases, the SoAs do not concern well-thought-out projects, but rather ideas that, for some reason or other, are spontaneously found attractive. This view is in line with Coste—Redondo (1965: 498), who translate the meaning of estar por into French as etre tente de 'feel tempted to' (cf. also Gomez Torrego 1988: 108; Veyrat Rigat 1990: 200-201). However, there are others who regard estar por + infinitive as an expression of conative prospectivity rather than Modality (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 67; Quesada 1994: 133). In my opinion, the fact that the intentions brought out in the context of estar por + infinitive tend not to be realized is due to the fact that they never have a solid base, i.e. they are not serious intentions. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to me to consider estar por + infinitive an expression of Volitional Modality. In order to distinguish the two types of intentional meanings, I will label them "Intentional-Deliberative" (pensar + infinitive) and "IntentionalDesiderative" (estar por + infinitive), respectively. As a consequence of its specific meaning, estar por + infinitive occurs with Actions only, while pensar + infinitive can also occur with non-dynamic SoAs such as exemplified in (139) above.

7.2.1.3. Deontic Participant-oriented Deontic Modality means that somebody has permission or is obliged to engage in some SoA. The source of Partipant-oriented Deontic Modality is a person. The source may but need not be in accordance with some moral, social or legal norm. Participant-oriented Deontic Possibility is expressed by means of the infinitival semi-auxiliary constructions with poder (cf. 5.1.2.2.). Participant-oriented Deontic Necessity can be expressed either by means of the infinitival semi-auxiliary construction with deber (cf. 5.1.2.3.) or by means of the periphrasis with tener que. In the following examples Deontic Necessity is expressed by means of tener que + infinitive: (144)

CONTEXT: (wife to her husband who is returning home late)

No tienes que decirme donde has (RIC 93) not have.2SG REL say.INF-me.DAT where have.2SG estado been 'You don't have to tell me where you have been'

384

The semantics of periphrases

(145)

Ahora loque now what volver a return.INF to 'Now what you

tienes que hacer es have.2SG REL do.INF is.3SG la cama. the bed have to do is go back to bed.'

(LLA 23)

(146)

tenia que volver a verla (SOR 120) had.IMPF.lSG REL return.INF to see.INF-her cuanto antes y declararle mi pasion as-soon-as-possible and declare.INF-her my passion Ί had to see her again as soon as possible and declare her my love'

In (146), the speaker is at the same time the primary participant, so that, in this case, the source and the target of Deontic Necessity coincide.25 Less frequently, tener que + infinitive is used to express necessities that derive from conventions: (147)

CONTEXT: (about the access to the books in a library) Teniamos que pedir permiso had.IMPF.IPL REL ask.INF permission 'We had to ask for permission'

(M 263)

Tener que + infinitive semantically differs from semi-auxiliary deber, which also expresses Participant-oriented Deontic Necessity, in the sense that with tener que + infinitive the obligation is categorical: the participant has no choice but to engage in the SoA in question (cf. Dumitrescu 1988: 141).26 This property of tener que + infinitive is related to its meaning of Inherent Modality discussed in section 7.2.1.2. above, where the lack of choice is shown to be a property of the semantic domain itself. As will become clear in the discussion of Event-oriented and Proposition-oriented Modality, tener que expresses unconditioned necessity in all of its functions.

25. Cases of "self-imposed" Deontic Necessity differ from others in the sense that they do not normally occur in directive speech acts like (144) and (145). 26. The semantic difference between tener que + infinitive and deber parallels that between have to and must in English (Brinton 1991: 3).

Modality

385

7.2.1.4. Summary In this section I have shown that there are four periphrases that serve the expression of Participant-oriented Modality with respect to three different domains. Table 9 gives a synoptic picture: Table 9. Periphrastic expressions of Participant-oriented Modality

Domain

Expression

Meaning

Extrinsic Inherent

tener que + inf

A 1 is forced to engage in SoA by the circumstances

Volitional: -Intent.-Deliberative -Intent. -Desiderative

pensar + inf es tar por + inf

A 1 intends to engage in SoA A 1 feels tempted to engage in SoA

Deontic

tener que + inf

A 1 is forced to engage in SoA by a person

Tener que + infinitive appears twice as an expression of Participant-oriented Modality. The meaning descriptions account for the fact that tener que + infinitive expresses inexorable necessity in both cases, although the sources of the necessity differ.

7.2.2. Event-oriented

Modality

7.2.2.0. Introduction Event-oriented Modality evaluates the possibility or the necessity of the occurrence of some event. The perspectives from which event-oriented evaluation can take place are inherent, volitional, deontic and epistemic. Except for Epistemic Modality, Event-oriented Deontic Modality distinctions can be expressed by means of both semi-auxiliary constructions and periphrases. As I have pointed out in section 5.1.2.2.1., semi-auxiliaries express Event-oriented Modality when they occur in agentive contexts with nonspecific agents. In all other contexts, the expression of Event-oriented Modality with poder and debet21 is periphrastic. Inherent Modality is expressed through the periphrases with poder 'can', tener que 'have to' and

27. In any function, deber may be followed by the preposition de (cf. 5.1.2.3.1.). For the sake of simplicity, I will use the quotation form deber for both deber and deber de.

386

The semantics ofperiphrases

deber 'must' (7.2.2.1.), while Volitional Modality is expressed through the periphrasis with deber (7.2.2.2.). The periphrastic expressions of Deontic Modality are poder + infinitive, tener que + infinitive and deber + infinitive (7.2.2.3.), and Epistemic Modality is expressed through the periphrases with poder, deber and tener que in general and llegar a "arrive at' in specific contexts (7.2.2.4.).

7.2.2.1. Inherent 7.2.2.1.0. Introduction As in the case of Participant-oriented Inherent Modality, there is an intrinsic and an extrinsic meaning to be distinguished. Event-oriented Intrinsic Inherent Modality (7.2.2.1.1.) means that the possibility that some SoA occurs is viewed from the perspective of its intrinsic properties. More concretely, what is considered is the physical possibility of the occurrence of the SoA. Eventoriented Extrinsic Inherent Modality (7.2.2.1.2.) means that the possibility or the necessity of the occurrence of some SoA is considered from the viewpoint of circumstances external to the SoA but inherent in the SoA in the sense that they condition its realization.

7.2.2.1.1. Intrinsic Inherent The periphrastic expression of Intrinsic Inherent Modality is poder + infinitive: (148)

CONTEXT: (on science-fiction) tiene muchisimos cräteres... llenos de una cosa parecida al agua nuestra pero es mucho mas densa; entonces, en esa agua (...) flotan cuerpos muy grandes, (...) 'it has got an awful lot of craters... full of something like our water but it is much denser; so, in this water (...) huge masses are floating (...)' hasta puede flotar una bola de hierro (M 55) even can.3SG float.INF a ball of iron 'even an iron ball can float'

In (148) the periphrasis with poder specifies that the SoA 'iron balls floating in a watery liquid' is physically possible in the world described in the context.

Modality

387

7.2.2.1.2. Extrinsic Inherent Event-oriented Extrinsic Inherent Modality can concern both the possibility and the necessity of the occurrence of some SoA. Extrinsic Inherent Possibility is expressed by periphrastic poder: (149)

donde se podia extender where REFL.3 could.IMPF.3SG extend.INF museo que era por la (...) museum which was.IMPF.3SG at the 'where the museum could extend, which was at Viturbio'

el (M 224) the Calle de Viturbio Calle de Viturbio the (...) Calle de

(150)

Aveces desde la calle podia verse (VAZ 25) sometimes from the street could.IMPF.3SG see.INF-REFL.3 su silueta sobre las azoteas his silhouette on the flat-roofs 'Sometimes it was possible to see his silhouette on the flat roofs from the street'

In (149), the possibility of the extension of the museum depends on the free space available, and in (150) the possibility of seeing the man's silhouette from the street depends on whether he is on the roof. Extrinsic Inherent Necessity is expressed through the periphrasis with tener que·. (151)

CONTEXT: (medieval ideas about a flying artefact for human beings) esas ruedas tendriart que ser de (TOM 153) those wheels have.COND.3PL REL be.INF of hierro para soportar el natural desgaste iron to endure.INF the natural wear 'these wheels should be of iron to endure the natural wear and tear'

(152)

CONTEXT: (about the selection of informants for the compilation of a corpus of oral texts representative of the speech of Madrid) tiene que ser que vivan en Madrid (M 412) have.3SG REL be.INF that live.SUBJ.3PL in Madrid 'it is necessary that they live in Madrid'

388 (153)

The semantics ofperiphrases CONTEXT: (medieval ideas about a flying artefact for human beings) repitio que las alas de un hombre (TOM 150) repeated.PF.3SG that the wings of a man tenian que medir (...) ciento treinta palmos had.IMPF.3PL REL measure.INF hundred thirty spans de longitud of length 'he repeated that the wings of a man should have a length of one hundred and thirty spans'

In the first of these examples, it is the circumstance of the expected frequent usage which determines the necessity of the SoA "the wheels be of iron', and in the second one it is the nature of the product to be made that imposes the necessity that 'they (the informants) live in Madrid*. In (153) it is the assumed necessity that there should be a proportional relation between the weight of a flying animal and the width of his wings that determines the necessity of the SoA 'the wings of a man measure 130 spans'. In the following example, both Extrinsic Inherent Possibility and Extrinsic Inherent Necessity are expressed: (154)

CONTEXT: estas pmcticas deberian hacerse dentro de la misma carrera; 'these practical trainings should be done as an integral part of university studies' para asi una vez terminada la carrera (M 94) in-order-to thus one time finished the studies poder emprender libremente esta profesion y no can.INF undertake.INF freely this profession and not tener que estar esperando a cumplir este periodo have.INF REL be.INF wait.GER to fulfil.INF this period de präcticas of practical-trainings 'so that, once the university studies have been finished, one can start practicing this profession freely without having to be waiting to fulfil this period of practical trainings'

In this example, the potential circumstance of the integration of the practical trainings in the university studies is said to create both a possibility 'start freely practicing this profession' and eliminate a necessity 'be waiting to fulfil this period of practical trainings'.

Modality

389

7.2.2.2. Volitional As an expression of Event-oriented Volitional Modality, deber + infinitive expresses the desirability of some SoA. The source of modal evaluation consists of general judgements of what would be good or useful: (155)

La gente deberia morirse en el (VAZ 14) the people must.COND.3SG die.INF-REFL.3 in the cuarto_de_bano con la radio puesta. bathroom with the radio switched-on 'People should die in the bathroom with the radio on.'

(156)

estas präcticas deberian hacerse (M 94) these practical-trainings must.C0ND.3PL do.INF-REFL.3 dentro de la misma carrera within the very studies 'this practical training should be done as an integral part of the university studies'

(157)

CONTEXT: —£ Volverä Borbolla, tras su retirada forzosa? —Es un gran politico, humanoy honesto. *—Do you think that Borbolla will come back after being forced to resign? —He is a great politician, humane and honest.' Una persona asi no se debia (C 968.43) a person like-this not REFL.3 must.PAST.IMPF.3SG perder. lose.INF Ά person like this should not dissappear.' (lit. Ά person like this should not get lost.')

It is typical of the expression of Event-oriented Volitional Modality that the Tense of the verb be either Conditional (155)-(156) or Imperfective Past (157). The Imperfective Past expresses non-actuality when used in Present Tense contexts (Cartagena 1976: 10-11); the Conditional does so in any context. As Volitional Modality presupposes non-actuality, the expression of non-actuality through the Imperfective Past or the Conditional somehow seems to be redundant. However, it is not, since it serves the purpose of indicating the speaker's doubts as to the possibility that the SoA can become reality.

390

The semantics ofperiphrases

7.2.2.3. Deontic Event-oriented Deontic Modality specifies the possibility or the necessity of the occurrence of some SoA from the perspective of some moral, social or legal norm (Hengeveld forthcoming: 111.10); put differently, it specifies whether the occurrence of some SoA is permissible or mandatory. The permissibility of a SoA is expressed by means of poder + infinitive; the mandatoriness of a SoA is expressed by means of deber + infinitive and tener que + infinitive. Consider the following examples of poder + infinitive: (158)

CONTEXT: (about what happens in Spain when unmarried couples have children) la solution, si pudiese ser, seria: (M 146) the solution if could.SUBJ.3SG be.INF be.COND.3SG se tiene el nino y esto continiia REFL.3 have.3SG the child and this continue.3SG exactamente igual exactly the-same 'the solution, if such thing were possible, would be: one has the child and everything goes on exactly as before'

(159)

CONTEXT: (about a special passport for people living and working with the UN in Geneva) I Est a legitimation puede ser revocada (C 965.18) this legitimation can.3SG be.INF nullified por las autoridades suizas? by the authorities Swiss 'Can this legitimation be nullified by the Swiss authorities?'

These two examples illustrate that the target of modal evaluation is a SoA, which may be a Situation (=non-dynamic), as in (158), or an Event (=dynamic), as in (159). The source of modal evaluation are moral and social norms in (158), and legal norms in (159). When occurring in negated contexts, deontic possiblity turns into deontic necessity, i.e. poder + infinitive expresses non-permission, which is equal to prohibition:

Modality (160)

391

CONTEXT: (an interview on ethics in tv-journalism) Jesus Quintero incumplio un compromiso que habia adquirido. No le quiero dar ni mäs ni menos importancia pero 'Jesüs Quintero broke an agreement he had made. I don't want to give it too much or too little emphasis but' no puede pasar a ser el paradigma (C 966.143) not can.3SG pass.INF to be.INF the paradigm de la proeza periodistica of the exploit journalistic 'it may not become the paradigm of the journalistic exploit'

Let us now turn to the periphrastic expressions of deontic necessity. Consider the following examples with deber + infinitive: (161)

(162)

Esa actitud muy noble de luchador infatigable (PAL 78) this posture very noble of fighter untiring nos debe servir de guia us.DAT must.3SG serve.INF PREP guide 'This very noble posture of an untiring fighter must be our model'

(163)

(about certain failings of leading members of the Socialist in their dealings with the press) debe ser corregido. (C 970.34) must.3SG be.INF corrected must be corrected.'

CONTEXT:

Party Es to this 'This

CONTEXT: Elgobierno tiene que dejar de meter sus pecadoras manos en los medios de comunicacion 'The Government must take its filthy hands off the media' y los informatives deben quedar (C 965.164) and the news-programmes must.3PL be-situated.INF algun dia en manos de la sociedad some day in hands of the community 'and the news programmes must be in the hands of the public one day'

In (161), a moral norm is the source of deontic evaluation, in (162) social norms on how a politician should behave in public, and in (163) social norms about the freedom of the press. Although it is often claimed in the manuals that the expression of deontic necessity in the sense of moral, social and legal mandatoriness is the primordial domain of deber (e.g. Coste— Redondo 1965: 516), I have found quite a few examples in which tener que + infinitive expresses deontic necessity (cf. also Dumitrescu 1988: 142n):

392

The semantics of periphrases

(164)

CONTEXT: (about the interest a hairdresser takes in her work) es verte entrar y ya (MAR 152) is.3SG see.INF-you come-in.INF and already te estä animando a lo_que_sea, como tiene you is.3SG encourage to whatever as have.3SG que ser REL be.INF 'the very moment you come in she encourages you to have something done, which is precisely as it has to be'

(165)

Un libro de literatura (...) tiene que tener (M 296) a book of literature have.3SG REL have.INF un mensaje a message Ά literature textbook (...) has to have a message'

(166)

el concepto intelectual es un concepto que (M 301) the concept intellectual is a concept which tiene que ser un concepto amplio have.3SG REL be.INF a concept broad 'the concept of intellectual activity is a concept that has to be a broad concept'

The norms that form the source of modal evaluation in these examples are basically social norms. In (164), the source of deontic necessity is a norm regarding professional ethics, in (165), it is a norm concerning the contents of literary studies, and in (166) it is a norm concerning the tasks of the intelligentsia. However, Event-oriented Deontic Necessity is expressed much more frequently by means of deber than by means of tener que.2* It is sometimes difficult to distinguish expressions of Event-oriented Volitional Modality from those of Event-oriented Deontic Necessity. The criterion for the distinction between the two is the source of modal evaluation. In the case of Deontic Modality the source consists of moral, social or legal norms, in the case of Volitional Modality the source consists of general ideas of what is desirable. The following is an example of a case that is difficult to decide on:

28. The literary and the journalistic corpora contain 44 instances of periphrastic and semi-auxiliary constructions with deber that express Event-oriented Deontic Modality veisus 10 periphrases with tener que in this function.

Modality (167)

393

CONTEXT: (an elderly man to his lady pen-pal) nuestra relacion epistolar, suficientemente (DEL 88) our relation epistolary sufficiently prolongada, debe dar paso a un trato directo prolonged must.3SG give.INF way to a contact direct 'our epistolary relationship, which has been suffienctly prolonged, should give way to a direct contact'

In this example, the SoA described obviously corresponds to the wish of the first-person writer, but the fact that he describes the duration of the 'epistolary relation' as 'sufficient' suggests that he bases the modal evaluation on some social convention. This example illustrates that there is no clear-cut semantic difference between the two distinctions.

7.2.2.4. Epistemic 7.2.2.4.0. Introduction Event-oriented Epistemic Modality concerns the relative probability of the occurrence of some SoA. Before going into details, I will briefly dwell on the difference between Event-oriented Epistemic Modality and Eventoriented Extrinsic Inherent Modality, because the two distinctions are semantically close to each other, which may lead to confusion. Firstly, the two modal distinctions differ with regard to the source of modal evaluation: with Inherent Modality, the source of modal evaluation is inherent in the SoA, with Epistemic Modality, the source is general knowledge of the world which is not made explicit. Secondly, epistemic evaluation is in principle gradable, i.e. the probability of occurrence of some SoA may be low, intermediate, high, very high etc., whereas extrinsic inherent evaluation is not gradable, i.e. the occurrence of a SoA can be either possible or necessary, but nothing in between. What distinguishes Epistemic Modality from all of the modal distinctions that I have discussed so far is that, in the case of Epistemic Modality, the moment of the occurrence of the SoA can be anterior to the moment of its modal evaluation, whereas in the case of non-epistemic domains of modal evaluation, the SoA can only be simultaneous or posterior to the time of modal evaluation.29

29. The following seems to be a counter-example, because tener que + infinitive obviously expresses deontic necessity, while the SoA which the periphrasis modifies seems to be anterior to the moment of speaking:

394

The semantics ofperiphrases

The possible, highly probable and certain occurrence of some SoA can be expressed through the periphrases with poder (possible), deber (highly probable) and tener que (certain). These expressions will be presented in section 7.2.2.4.1. Apart from this, there is one expression of Event-oriented Epistemic Modality that can only appear in a specific context: llegar a 'arrive at* + infinitive serves the expression of irreality in conditional clauses. This construction will be discussed in section 7.2.2.4.2.

7.2.2.4.1. Possibility, high probability, certainty In the following examples, poder + infinitive is used to indicate the possibility of the occurrence of the SoA in question: (168)

El muchacho puede ir_a_parar a un the boy can.3SG end-up.INF PREP a hospicio orphanage 'The boy can end up in an orphanage'

(VAZ 32)

(169)

iPiensa que sus (C 970.132) believe.2SG.(FORM) that your.(FORM) investigaciones pueden contribuir a resolver el investigations can.3PL contribute.INF to solve.INF the problema del cäncer? problem of-the cancer 'Do you believe that your research can contribute to solve the problem of cancer?'

(i) para conocer la läeratura espanola (...) denes que (M 298) to know.INF the literature Spanish have.2SG REL haber leido las jarchas (...) have.INF read the khaijas 'in order to know the Spanish literature (...) you have to have read the khaijas (...)' However, the deontic necessity specified in this example does not concern the event of reading the khaijas but the experience of having read them. In terms of syntax this means that haber leido is not an expression of Past Tense but of Experiential Perfect Aspect.

Modality (170)

395

CONTEXT: (a detective thinking about possible motives in a murder case) I Que pudo hacer para_que le (VAZ 41) what could.PF.3SG do.INF so-that him mataran? killed.SUBJ.3PL 'What can he have done to make someone kill him?'

In (168) the possibility of the occurrence of the SoA is asserted, in example (169) it is questioned, and in (170) the focus of the question is any possible past event that fits the description given, i.e. any SoA that can be a possible motive for the murder. 30 Let us now consider the following examples, where deber + infinitive functions to express Event-oriented Epistemic Necessity: (171)

CONTEXT: (during the Civil War, a group of Republicans are hiding in a deserted mine) Ahora, ahi arriba, debe de estar (LLA 28) now there up must.3SG PREP be.INF anocheciendo. get-dark.GER 'Now, up there, it must be getting dark.'

(172)

CONTEXT: (the first-person narrator arrives at the airport to pick up her son, who has arrived more than an hour earlier than he should have according to the schedule) No deberias estar en Madrid hasta (RIC 71) not must.COND.2SG be.INF in Madrid until dentro_de quince minutos por_lo_menos in fifteen minutes at-least 'You should not be in Madrid any earlier than at least fifteen minutes from now'

(173)

Debia haber llegado a must.PAST.IMPF.3SG have.INF arrived at hace una hora ago one hour 'He should have arrived home one hour ago'

casa home

(RIC 83)

30. This example illustrates the fact that, in Spanish, the anteriority of the SoA is maiked on the Tense of the finite verb rather than on the infinitive, as is the esse in English. Cf. 7.2.3.0. for more details.

396

The semantics ofperiphrases

In these examples deber + infinitive expresses that the SoA should be expected to occur under normal conditions. The Conditional in (172) and the Imperfective Past plus the Perfect infinitive of the lexical verb in (173) indicate non-actuality, which means that the conditions are not normal in these cases. The combination of Epistemic Modality with non-actuality occurs typically in constructions with deber, because, here, the degree of probability is lower than in constructions with tener que. Let us now look at a few examples with tener que + infinitive: (174)

CONTEXT: (about the the Cold War) Era un /also combate y (esto) (C 969.128) was.IMPF.3SG a false combat and this algun dia tenia que quedar al descubierto some day had.IMPF.3SG REL be.INF at-the uncovered 'It was a false combat and this had to become obvious some day'

(175)

CONTEXT: Me atormenta

(176)

que quizä tortures me is that perhaps she wasn't.' —Pero eso se tiene but this REFL.3 have.3SG '—But this has to be noted, don't

parecia felizy no lo era. 'What seemed to be happy while she que notar, 0 ] output: meterv-se a pred Vilrf (x^ ) Ag (a n ) restriction: pred v taf (x,: ) Ag (a") expresses an Action that requires some skill on the part of the Agent meaning: '(x^ begins pred v -ing (a11) (without being competent)'

The predicate frame in the input to the rule must designate an Action, which is accounted for in the semantic function of the first argument of this predicate. The indication between square brackets to the right of the inputformula means that the input predicate must have at least one argument. The index "V" of meter in the output predicate indicates that meter is the finite verb of the derived predicate, whereas the input-verb has an infinitival form, which is indicated by the subscript " i n f . The fact that the execution of the Action must require some (professional) qualification on the part of the Agent is represented as a selection restriction imposed by the non-finite part of the output predicate, i.e. by the infinitival construction, rather than as a restriction on the possible input predicates. The reason for this is that whether or not some action requires some skill may but need not depend on the nature of the verbal predicate. When meterse a combines with a verb that designates an action whose execution requires some training, such as conducir 'drive' the situation is not problematic: (12)

sin tener carnet se metio a without have.INF license REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to conducir drive.INF 'without having a drivers-license he started to drive'

Periphrastic derived predicates

453

If all cases were like (12), the restriction to this specific type of Actions could be accounted for as a restriction on the input predicate. However, the fact that the execution of the action requires some skill is often expressed not by the verbal predicate itself, but instead depends on the referents of the terms to be inserted in the argument slots of the predicate frame: (13)

a. Se metio a darme consejos REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to give.INF-me.DAT advice.PL 'He started giving me advice' b. ?? Se metio a darme REFL.3 put.PAST.PF.3SG to give.INF-me.DAT dinero money 'He started giving me money'

Example (13a) shows that meterse a can combine with dar 'give', and (13b) shows that the grammatically of such a combination depends on the nature of the referent of the second argument of dar. In (13b), the selection restrictions of the main verb dar 'give' are not violated, nor are there any restrictions on the input predicate in the predicate formation rule that are violated; what is violated are the selection restrictions of the main verb in the derived predicate, meterse α dar. Therefore, I will deal with restrictions of this kind as selection restrictions on the non-finite part of the derived predicate. The rule for the formation of derived predicates with ponerse a is similar but less complex, because the restrictions of ponerse a are less specific: (14)

INGRESSIVE PREDICATE FORMATION WITH PONERSE A (provisional)

input: pred v (x,: )Ag (an) output: ponerw-se a predVinf (xj: )Ag (an) meaning: ' (x^ begins predv-ing (a")'

[n > 0 ]

The restrictions on the possible input to rule (14) account for the fact that ponerse a requires the A1 to refer to an animate entity and the combining predication to designate an Action.2

2. My corpus contains one instance of ponerse a + infinitive that seems not to comply with this restriction on the input predicate: (i) se estaba poniendo a llover (MER 149) REFL.3 was.IMPF.3SG put.GER to rain.INF 'it was beginning to rain'

454

The syntax of periphrases

The above rules are still provisional because they fail to account for linguistic facts that are related to the partially periphrastic character of ponerse a + infinitive and meterse a + infinitive. It should be remembered that partially periphrastic constructions are periphrases only in those contexts that are incompatible with the predicate frame of the finite verb in its lexical function, i.e. apart from having an "upper limit" of applicability, partially periphrastic constructions also have a "lower limit" of applicability. Schematically, this situation can be represented as follows:

not applicable

periphrastic

lexical Figure 18. Limits of applicability of partially periphrastic constructions

Let us say that the box in Figure 18 represents the semantic domain of Ingression as a whole, and the white section represents the part that can be expressed by means of a periphrasis, e.g. meterse a + infinitive. The lower shaded section of the box stands for the part of Ingressive Aspect that is covered by the lexical construction with meterse a, while the upper shaded section represents the part of Ingressive Aspect that is beyond the applicability of meterse a in any of its functions. Now, the problem is that the set of restrictions imposed by the finite verb in its lexical function in most cases is a subset of the restrictions imposed by the same linguistic item when functioning as a periphrastic auxiliary. Again, the case of meterse a may serve to illustrate this fact: (15)

RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY PERIPHRASTIC METERSE A

a. b. c.

combining predication must designate an Action A 1 must refer to a human being the Action must require some competence of the Agent

Meteorological verbs like llover 'rain' are generally regarded as having no arguments at all. However, as I have shown in section 5.4., llover syntactically behaves as an agentive verb in combination with semi-auxiliaries. Therefore, I consider llover an agentive verb in the context of periphrases, too. For a more detailed discussion, cf. section 5.4. and the footnote in section 6.1.1.2.3. on the same example.

Periphrastic derived predicates (16)

455

RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY LEXICAL METERSE A

(a.-c. as above) d. the Action must be a professional activity In some way or other, it must be avoided that the specific subset with which a verb like meterse a forms lexical constructions can be the input to the predicate formation rule, because, if not, the rule would generate a periphrastic "doublet" of a lexical construction. Therefore, I will adapt the selection restrictions of the derived predicate in such a way as to exclude the generation of such "doublets".3 This means that in the case of meterse a the predicate formation rule will have to be adjusted as follows: (17)

INGRESSIVE PREDICATE FORMATION WITH METERSE A

input: output: restrictions:

meaning:

pred v (xt: )Ag (a") [n > 0 ] meter-y-se a predVillf (xt: )Ag (a") - predVijlf (x^ )Ag (a") expresses an action that requires some competence on the part of the Agent - predVinf (xt: )Ag (a") does not express a professional activity ' (x,) begins predv-ing (an) (without being competent)'

Analogously, the predicate formation rule for the formation of periphrastic constructions with ponerse a should be adapted in such a way as to exclude the generation of periphrases with the set of predicates with which ponerse a forms lexical constructions. In section 6.1.1.2.3., I stated that the complement of lexical ponerse a must express a concrete, i.e. observable, noncomplex Action, where by "complex Actions" I mean Actions that require the realization of several sub-acts. Again, this restriction is a restriction on the output rather than on the input, because it goes beyond the selection restrictions of possible input predicates (for a discussion cf. 6.1.1.2.3.). The adjusted predicate formation rule should therefore read as follows: (18)

INGRESSIVE PREDICATE FORMATION WITH PONERSE A

input: pred v (x,: )Ag (a") [n > 0 ] output: ponerv-se a pred v ω (χ,: )Ag (an) restriction: predVillf (x^ )Ag (an) does not express a concrete, non-complex Action meaning: '(x^ begins predv-ing (a11)'

3. For further discussion of this matter, cf. 8.2.1.1.

456

The syntax ofperiphrases

Again, the exclusion of elements that can occur as complements of lexical ponerse a concerns a specific type of predications rather than a specific type of predicates. Therefore, I represent this exclusion as a restriction imposed by the main verb in the output rather than a restriction on the possible input.

8.1.2. Persistive: quedar(se) + gerund As I have shown in section 7.1.1.1.2., on progressive and persistive meanings, the meaning of quedar(se) 'stay', 'remain' + gerund is quite close to that of estar + gerund: both periphrases indicate that the SoA is occurring at some reference point in time; the meaning of the former is more specific insofar as it implies that the SoA continues to occur from the reference point onwards. In order to indicate the restrictions applying to the use of quedar(se) + gerund, I will compare the applicability of quedar(se) + gerund to that of the strongly grammaticalized estar 'be (located)' + gerund (cf. 8.2.1.2. below). In choosing the examples of estar + gerund that will form the basis of the comparison I have striven to avoid any bias due to the semantic difference between the two periphrases. (19)

Estä bajando hacia aqui is.3SG get-down.GER toward here 'He is coming down in this direction'

(LLA 36)

(20)

se le estaba REFL.3 him.DAT was.IMPF.3SG el desayuno the breakfast 'his breakfast was getting cold*

(21)

la conversation estä dando unos bandazos the conversation is.3SG give.GER some sudden-shift magnificos magnificent 'the conversation is taking incredible turns'

(22)

ha estado hablando por telefono (MAR 149) have.3SG been speak.GER PREP telephone mucho rato much while 'she has been speaking on the phone for quite a while'

enfriando get-cold.GER

(MER 146)

(M 308)

Periphrastic derived predicates

457

I will now substitute the forms of estar in each of these examples with forms of quedar(se) and discuss the variants one by one. (19)

a.

* Se queda bajando hacia aqui REFL.3 remain.3SG get-down.GER toward here 'He keeps coming down in this direction'

This variant of (19) is ungrammatical because the SoA designated by bajando hacia aqui is an event that involves a change of situation (cf. Rijksbaron 1989: 29), in the present case, a change of location. 4 Quedar(se) + gerund cannot combine with predications that designate events involving changes. For the same reason, the following variant of (20) is ungrammatical, since the predicate enfriarse designates a telic event, and thus a change: (20)

a.

* se le quedaba enfriando REFL.3 him.DAT remained.IMPF.3SG get-cold.GER el desayuno the breakfast 'his breakfast kept getting cold*

Contrary to what might be expected, it is not the case that the inanimacy of the referent of A1 in (20) is a further cause of the ungrammaticality of this variant. The following instance of quedar(se) with an inanimate referent of A 1 may illustrate this: (23)

Miliares de tapones de corcho quedaron thousands of caps of cork remained.PF.3PL flotando en los muelles. floating in the bays 'Thousands of corks kept floating in the bays.'

(GIR 43)

However, quedar(se) + infinitive does require the referent of A1 to be a concrete entity. For this reason, the following variant of (21), whose Subject is an abstract entity, is ungrammatical:

4. Predications with movement verbs in combination with toward or the like pose a problem to the distinction between telic and atelic predications, because they do not entirely fit into either of these concepts (cf. Dahl 1981: 86).

458 (21)

The syntax ofperiphrases a.

* La conversation queda dando unos bandazos the conversation remain. 3SG give.GER some sudden-shift magnificos magnificent 'The conversation keeps taking incredible turns'

The predicate and the arguments of (22) comply with the restrictions imposed by quedar(se), and therefore (22a) is grammatical: (22)

a.

se ha quedado hablando por telefono REFL.3 have.3SG remained speak.GER PREP telephone mucho rato much while 'she has kept speaking on the phone for quite a while'

The referent of A1 is a person, i.e. a first-order-entity, and the predicate designates an event with no inherent endpoint. The constraints on the applicability of quedar(se) + gerund are remnants of the lexical properties of quedar and quedarse, which, as lexical verbs, are used to designate non-movement of concrete entities. The originally spatial meaning of non-movement has been applied to the temporal dimension in the periphrasis. The semantics of non-movement has remained intact, and therefore the periphrasis is incompatible with predications designating some sort of change, because changes are "movement in time", i.e. "movement" from one situation to another. Furthermore, the restriction of quedar and quedarse to concrete entities still holds in the periphrasis. Against the background of these restrictions, I will test the possibility of quedar(se) to combine with auxiliary constructions by making use of a copula construction: (24)

Estoy siendo sincere. be.lSG be.GER honest Ί am being honest.' a.

* Me quedo siendo REFL.3 keep.lSG be.GER Ί keep being honest.'

sincero. honest

The auxiliary-test yields a negative result, which means that quedar(se) + gerund should be considered the output of a predicate formation rule. A sketch of this rule could look as follows:

Periphrastic derived predicates (25)

459

PERSISTIVE PREDICATE FORMATION WITH QUEDAR(SE)

input: output: restriction: meaning:

pred v (xt) (a") [n > 0 ] quedarv(-se) pred v g „ (x^ (a") pred v ger ( x j (a") does not express change of situation '(x,) keeps pred v -ing (a")'

The necessity of having some concrete entity to refer to the first argument shared by quedar (se) and the main predicate is accounted for through the variable (x), which represents any first-order-entity, in the description of the possible input. As in the case of meterse a + infinitive, the semantic restriction is represented as a selection restriction of the main verb in the derived predicate rather than a restriction on the input predicate, because, as we have seen in example (19a), the question of whether a SoA designates a change of situation does not depend on the predicate alone but also on satellites like hacia aqui in (19). Given the fact that quedar(se) + gerund is a fully periphrastic construction, i.e. a periphrasis that is not limited in its applicability by the corresponding lexical verb, there are no restrictions in this respect.

8.1.3. Egressive: cesar de + infinitive The fully periphrastic infinitival construction with cesar de 'stop* can express cessative egressive meaning, but only with SoAs that are both dynamic and atelic. In order to illustrate these restrictions, I will compare cesar de + infinitive with its near-synonym dejar de + infinitive, which can be applied to any non-momentaneous SoA. Consider the following examples of dejar de + infinitive: (26)

no he dejado de leerla aunque no not have.lSG stopped PREP read.INF-it although not me gusta me.DAT please.3SG Ί have not stopped reading it although I don't like it'

(27)

En tal caso dejariamos de ser timidos (DEL 78) in such case stop.COND.IPL PREP be.INF shy 'In that case we would cease to be shy'

(28)

nunca la musica dejaria de serme (GAR 13) never the music stop.COND.3SG PREP be.INF-me.DAT ajena alien 'music would never cease to be alien to me'

460 (29)

The syntax ofperiphrases CONTEXT: (a tourist on a bicycle who has seen a strange appearance on a lonely path flees hastily) Llegue al hotel en un cuarto de hora, sin rnirar atras, Ί arrived at the hotel within a quarter of an hour, without looking back,' sin dejar un solo instante de pedalear. (PUE 135) without stop.INF a sole instance PREP pedal.INF 'without ceasing to pedal for one moment.'

In these examples, dejar de occurs with a telic SoA (26), with non-dynamic SoAs (27)-(28), and with a SoA that is both dynamic and atelic (29). Let us now consider the results of substituting dejar de with cesar de: (26)

a.

* no he cesado de leerla aunque not have.lSG stopped PREP read.INF-it although no me gusta not me.DAT please.3SG Ί have not stopped reading it although I don't like it'

(27)

a.

* En tal caso cesariamos de ser timidos in such case stop.COND.IPL PREP be.INF shy 'In that case we would cease to be shy'

(28)

a.

* nunca la müsica cesaria de never the music stop.COND.3SG PREP serme ajena be.INF-me.DAT alien 'music would never cease to be alien to me'

The variant of (26) illustrates that cesar de cannot occur with telic SoAs; similarly, the variants of (27) and (28) show that it cannot occur with nondynamic SoAs either. In (29), however, the event described is dynamic and atelic, and therefore the variant with cesar de is grammatical: (29)

a.

sin cesar un solo instante de without stop.INF a sole instance PREP 'without stopping to pedal for one moment'

pedalear pedal.INF

From the fact that (29) describes an Activity (an atelic Action), one might infer that cesar de + infinitive requires the combining predicate to designate an Activity. However, this is not the case; cesar de can also appear with Dynamisms (atelic Processes), and, furthermore, the A1 of the main predicate need not refer to an animate entity:

Periphrastic derived predicates (30)

es el tronco que is.3SG the log which y que no cesa and which not stop.3SG 'it is the log, which is in burning' (Tiempo 116)

461

estä en la chimenea is.3SG in the chimney de arder PREP burn.INF the chimney and which does not stop

There is even no need for the first argument to refer to a first-order entity; the referent of A1 may also be an event, i.e. a second-order entity: (31)

en aquella epoca los enfrentamientos entre las dos in that period the confrontations between the two pandillas cesaron de producirse gangs stopped.PF.3PL PREP occur.INF-REFL.3 'at that time the confrontations between the two gangs ceased to occur'

The lack of restrictions on the first argument arouses the suspicion that cesar de + infinitive is more grammaticalized than the periphrases that have been reviewed so far. Hence, the question of whether or not cesar de + infinitive can be combined with auxiliaries is of special interest. Taking into account the limited applicability of cesar de + infinitive, the only auxiliary construction that might be a candidate for this test is again a highly grammaticalized periphrasis. In this case it is ir + gerund, the high degree of grammaticalization of which has already been mentioned in section 6.2.2.2. (cf. 8.2.1.6. for further details): (32)

La deuda publica nunca deja de ir the debt public never stop.3SG PREP go.INF aumentando. increase.GER 'The national debt never ceases to be gradually increasing.' a.

* nunca cesa de ir aumentando never stop.3SG PREP go.INF increase.GER 'it never ceases to be gradually increasing'

Although (32a) is semantically compatible with cesar de, it is ungrammatical, which shows that cesar de + infinitive has to be regarded as a periphrastic derived predicate. Before turning to the presentation of a predicate formation rule for cesar de, I would like to go into the possible causes of the restricted applicability of cesar de + infinitive. The constraints on the use of the periphrasis are

462

The syntax ofperiphrases

analogous to the restrictions cesar imposes on its argument when functioning as an intransitive verb. The argument of lexical cesar must refer to an a-telic event (33) or a related abstract concept (34): (33)

durante unos minutos cesaba la (GAR 11) during some minutes stopped.IMPF.3SG the actividad de las mujeres activity of the women 'for a few minutes, the activity of the women stopped'

(34)

Soy partidario de que cese am.lSG follower of that stop.SUBJ.3SG Ί am in favour of having the violence stop' (Cambio 16, 26/03/90, 146)

la violencia the violence

Although the periphrasis has only indirectly developed from intransitive cesar (cf. 6.1.2.2.4.), it is probable that it has inherited its restrictions from intransitive cesar. As mentioned in section 7.1.1.1.3., cesar de + infinitive is highly infrequent and confined to literary language use. Although the low frequency of the periphrasis could simply be seen as a correlate of its restricted applicability, its stylistic specialization cannot be explained in this way. I have no explanation for the stylistic constraints of cesar de + infinitive. The predicate formation rule that is to produce derived predicates with cesar de will account only for the grammatical restrictions on the use of cesar de. This rule will have to look as follows: (35)

CESSATIVE EGRESSIVE PREDICATE FORMATION WITH CESAR DE

input: output: restriction: meaning:

(f: pred v : ) (a t ) (a")) [n > 0 ] cesarv de predv taf (a^ (an) predVillf (a,) (a11) does not designate telic events '(a,) stops to pred v (a n )'

In this predicate formation rule, I present the restriction of cesar de + infinitive to combinations with dynamic and with atelic events in different ways. Dynamicity is an inherent semantic property of the verbal predicate, therefore, it should be treated as a selection restriction on the slot to be occupied by the verbal predicate. This slot is represented by means of the predicate variable / , which I do not employ otherwise for reasons of convenience; I indicate the non-referentiality of the predicate by not indexing the variable. Thus the formula "(f: pred v : )" should be read as: "the predicate slot must be filled with a verbal predicate; this verbal predicate must designate a dynamic SoA". The telicity restriction cannot be accounted for in such a way. Although there are a few inherently atelic verbs, e.g. truly intransitive

Periphrastic derived predicates

463

movement verbs, most verbs can make telic or atelic predications depending on the nature and the quantification of their arguments (cf. 5.1.1.1.2.). A restriction concerning telicity can therefore never concern a predicate frame; instead, it is a restriction of the main verb in the derived predicate. Given the facts that, unlike ponerse a, meterse a and part of the uses of quedar(se), cesar de is not reflexive and that it can combine with transitive verbs, the question may rise whether it is possible to passivize the output of rule (35). Consider the following active example with cesar de and its passivized variant: (36)

el cura no cesaba de criticar a the priest not stopped.IMPF.3SG PREP criticize.INF PREP los incredulos del pueblo the unbelievers of-the village 'the priest never ceased to criticize the unbelievers of the village'

(36)

a.

* los incredulos del pueblo no eran the unbelievers of-the village not were.IMPF.3PL cesados de criticar stopped PREP criticize.INF 'the unbelievers of the village were never ceased to criticize'

Interestingly, (36a) is much more deviant than (36b), where only the main verb is passivized: (36)

b.

* los incredulos del pueblo no the unbelievers of-the village not de ser criticados por el PREP be.INF criticized by the 'the incredulous of the village never by the priest'

cesaban stoppped.IMPF.3PL cura priest ceased to be criticized

Given the fact that the periphrastic auxiliary cesar de cannot combine with auxiliary constructions, (36b) is ungrammatical, too. However, in spite of its ungrammaticality, (36b) is interpretable, while (36a) is so far-fetched that it is difficult to interpret. Moreover, this difference can be observed in the English translation, too. From the utter ungrammaticality of (36a) and its English translation, and from the fact that all the other derived predicates to be considered in the remainder of this section yield similar results, I conclude that, in principle, passive predicate formation cannot apply to analytic derived verbal predicates.

464

The syntax ofperiphrases

8.1.4. Perfect: llevar + participle The partially periphrastic construction with llevar 'carry', 'wear* expresses Resultative and Experiential Perfect (cf. 7.1.2.1.2.). In order to find out about the ways in which the use of this periphrasis is constrained, I will depart from examples of the strongly grammaticalized auxiliary construction haber + participle, whose meaning is similar to that of the periphrases. 5 (37)

Ha fallecido Biscuter have.3SG passed-away Biscuter 'Biscuter has passed away' a.

(VAZ 14)

* Lleva fallecido Biscuter carry.3SG passed-away Biscuter 'Biscuter has passed away'

Example (37a) is ungrammatical, because llevar + participle can combine with transitive verbs only. Apart from the limitation to transitive verbs, there is another, peculiar restriction on the use of llevar + participle: it can appear only in combination with an indefinite quantified A2, a restriction the periphrasis has inherited from its semi-auxiliary base (cf. 5.3.2.). In order to focus on the further restrictions of llevar + participle, I will give examples with haber that meet the specific requirements of llevar + participle with respect to A2. These examples with haber will be compared to the corresponding variants with llevar: (38)

Rafa y el habian mantenido por lo menos Rafa and he had.IMPF.3PL maintained at-least tres conversaciones largas sob re este tema three conversations long about this subject 'Rafa and he had had at least three long conversations about this subject' (adapted from POM 78)

5. Although in the comparison with periphrastic expressions of Perfect Aspect in sections 7.1.2.1.2. and 7.1.2.1.3., I have argued that the Perfect expressed by haber + participle has the temporal function of expressing Hodiernal Past, the construction still retains aspectual features, such as the capability of expressing Experiental and Resultative Perfect (cf. also Olbertz 1993: 257-259).

Periphrastic derived predicates a.

465

* Rafa y el llevaban mantenidas Rafa and he carried.IMPF.3PL maintained.FEM.PL por_lo_menos tres conversaciones largas at-least three conversations.(FEM) long.FEM.PL sobre este tema about this subject 'Rafa and he had had at least three long conversations about this subject*

What causes (38a) to be ungrammatical is the fact that mantener designates a non-dynamic SoA. (39)

Dos ninos se han lavado. two little-boys REFL.3 have.3PL washed 'Two little boys have washed (themselves).' a.

* Dos ninos se llevan lavados.6 two little-boys REFL.3 carry.3PL washed.MASC.PL 'Two little-boys have washed (themselves).'

The ungrammaticality of (39a) is due to the coreferentiality of A1 and A2. (40)

la reaparicion de Leonora ya me ha the reappearance of Leonora already me.DAT have.3SG causado dos ataques de jaqueca caused two attacks of migraine 'the reappearance of Leonora has caused me two attacks of migraine already' (adapted from SOR 137) a.

??

la reaparicion de Leonora ya me the reappearance of Leonora already me.DAT lleva causados dos ataques de carry.3SG caused.MASC.PL two attacks.(MASC) of jaqueca migraine 'the reappearance of Leonora has caused me two attacks of migraine already'

6. Whenreadas a reflexive passive, which, however, is improbable given the word order in this example, the example is grammatical.

466

The syntax ofperiphrases

Variant (40a) is doubtful because the referent of A1 is not an animate entity but an event. The above examples show that, apart from requiring a transitive verb with a quantified A2, llevar + participle requires the main predicate to designate a dynamic SoA, A 1 and A2 to have different referents and the A 1 of the combining predicate to refer to an animate entity. The last restriction is not as strict as the others, because (40a) was rejected categorically only by one of the four informants I consulted about this example, while the others found it doubtful. The following example of llevar + participle complies with all of its restrictions: (41)

CONTEXT: (a teacher talking to a pupil)

Ya llevo oidos muchisimos already carry.lSG heard.MASC.PL very-many cuentos_chinos pero nunca he oido tall-stories.(MASC) but never have.lSG heard ninguno como el tuyo. none like the yours Ί have already heard an awful lot of tall stories, but I have never heard any that is like yours.' Before testing the capability of llevar + participle to combine with auxiliary constructions, let me briefly dwell on the background of the restrictions on the applicability of llevar + participle. These restrictions are closely related to the meanings of llevar in its function as a transitive lexical predicate, meaning 'carry* and 'wear*. This may seem strange, as the periphrasis with llevar is based on a semi-auxiliary construction, but it is not because the semi-auxiliary itself is rooted in lexical llevar. As a transitive verb llevar requires an animate referent for its A1 and it has a second argument that cannot be coreferential with the first argument, because one cannot 'carry or wear oneself'. An explanation for the fact that llevar cannot combine with a participial predicate that designates a non-dynamic SoA may well be that the possible non-dynamic SoAs are semantically close to the original meaning of 'carry' or 'wear', because transitive verbs expressing non-dynamic SoAs typically are tener 'have got', mantener 'maintain' and the like. Given the transitivity restriction of llevar, the only way to test whether llevar can combine with auxiliary constructions is to combine llevar with the strongly grammaticalized periphrasis pensar + infinitive (cf. 8.O.), which is the only periphrasis based on a transitive lexical structure that does not express Perfect Aspect. Consider the following example:

Periphrastic derived predicates

(42)

Habia pensado escribir dos had.IMPF.lSG thought write.INF two Ί had intended to write two letters.'

467

cartas. letters

a. * Llevaba pensado escribir dos carried.IMPF. 1SG thought write.INF two Ί had intended writing two letters.'

cartas. letters

The combination in (42a) is ungrammatical although the lexical verb escribir is transitive and has an indefinite A2 preceded by a numeral quantifier. The ungrammatically of (42a) is evidence of the fact that llevar + participle is not a grammatical formative but a productive combination of two predicates. Apart from its specific restrictions llevar poses an additional problem: llevar + participle is the only weakly grammaticalized periphrastic construction that can occur with the reflexive passive: (43)

Se llevan vendidos mil ejemplares REFL.3 carry.3PL sold.MASC.PL thousand copies.(MASC) del libro. of-the book 'One thousand copies of the book have been sold.' (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 38)

This problem can be solved by introducing two predicate formation rules, one that has a basic transitive predicate as its input and another that has a detransitivized predicate as its input. The input to the latter rule is an originally transitive predicate that has undergone first argument reduction (cf. Dik 1985, 1988). The rule for combining llevar with basic transitive predicates should thus have the following form: (44)

a.

P E R F E C T PREDICATE FORMATION WITH LLEVAR

[n > 0 ] (f: pred v : ) (xj: ) (a2: ) (a") llevarw predVpart (x^ ) (iQa 2 : ) (a11) pred v * pred v (xi)Ag O^GO (a11) (χ,) and (a2) have different referents 'some participant is such at t; that (x^ predv-ed (a2) before t ; '

WITH BASIC PREDICATES

input: output: condition: restriction: meaning:

In this rule the input predicate is restricted in such a way that it must designate a dynamic SoA, and it must have at least two arguments. The first argument must refer to an animate entity. The second argument must refer to a countable entity, and the term operators on this argument are part of the out-

468

The syntax ofperiphrases

put; the indefiniteness operator "i" is constant, and "Q" represents an operator-variable representing any possible quantifier. There is an additional condition 7 on the input which excludes agentive predicates from the set of possible input predicates; these are excluded because they take the semiauxiliary construction with llevar (cf. 5.3.2.). The fact that llevar + participle does not admit truly reflexive constructions is accounted for separately in a selection restriction on the output predicate. The description of the meaning of llevar + participle corresponds to the semantic description given of Resultative and Experiential Perfect in section 7.1.2.1.2. The predicate formation rule that makes periphrases with llevar from detransitivized predicates should look as follows: (44)

b.

PERFECT PREDICATE FORMATION WITH LLEVAR WITH DETRANSITIVIZED PREDICATES

input: output: condition: meaning:

[N > 0 ]

(f: pred v : ) (ccj: ) Proc (a") llevarv predyp.r, (iQap )P(OC (a n ) pred v must be a detransitivized predicate 'some participant is such at t( that (aj) pred v -ed before t ; '

The input to this rule is an originally transitive predicate whose first argument has been reduced, such that the originally second argument has become the first argument. The semantic function of this first argument is Processed in all cases (cf. Dik 1985: 100). Given the fact that there is no way to unequivocally restrict the possible input predicates to detransitivized verbs, it is necessary to express such a restriction in an additional condition on the input. As the original first argument has disappeared in the detransitivized predicate, there is no need to maintain either the condition that excludes agentive predicates or the restriction with respect to coreferentiality, both of which are given in (44a).

8.1.5. Distributive: andar + gerund In this section, on the fully periphrastic expression of Distributive Aspect, andar + gerund, I deviate from the contrastive procedure followed so far, because there is no alternative construction expressing distributive meaning

7 . 1 use the label "condition" for the introduction of additional restrictions on the input predicate. "Conditions" should be carefully distinguished from what I have labelled "restrictions", which are restrictions imposed by the output of the rule, i.e. restrictions that are related to operations posterior to predicate formation, such as the insertion of terms, the introduction of term operators and the addition of predicate satellites.

Periphrastic derived predicates

469

or some similar shade of meaning. In order to illustrate the constraints on the use of andar + gerund, I will resort to made up examples. In sections 6.2.2.1.4. and 7.1.2.2.2., I mentioned the fact that, generally, andar + gerund occurs with predicates that require an animate referent for their first argument (cf. also Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 53). The following examples confirm this view: (45)

*

su barco anda desmoronändose their boat walk.3SG fall-apart.GER-REFL.3 'their boat goes about falling apart'

(46)

El cisne anda buscando pareja. the swan walk.3SG seek.GER pair 'The swan goes about looking for a female.'

(47)

el anduvo gestionändose el he walked.PF.3SG negotiate.GER-REFL.3 the nombramiento appointment 'he went about negotiating for his appointment'

(PAL 63)

However, under certain conditions andar + gerund can also occur in combination with inanimate referents of A 1 : (48)

Algo te anda rondando por something you.DAT walk.3SG go-round.GER about la cabeza. the head 'There is something going round in your head.' (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 54)

In example (48), the referent of A 1 is an obsessive thought that is conceived of as something that acts independently of the will of the person involved. It should be noted that such usage is marked and certainly not widely applicable, evidence of which is the fact that the following instance has been rejected by five of the six informants I consulted about this example: (49)

*

La tesis anda preocupändome cantidad. the thesis walk.3SG preoccupy.GER-me a-lot 'My PhD-thesis goes about worrying me a lot.'

Therefore, I regard andar + gerund as being principally restricted to a combination with verbs that require a living being for their A 1 . Furthermore,

470

The syntax ofperiphrases

andar + gerund cannot appear in non-dynamic SoAs (cf. also Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 54; Gomez Torrego 1988: 151): (50)

*

Anda teniendo suerte estos dias walk.3SG have.GER luck these days 'He goes about being lucky these days' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 151)

Although in most of the authentic examples I have come across andar occurs with agentive verbs, it may also occur in non-controlled contexts: (51)

Jaime (...) andaba halucinando Jaime walked.IMPF.3SG hallucinate.GER 'Jaime (...) went about hallucinating' (Allende 193)

The restrictions on the use of andar + gerund are causally related to the selection restrictions and the meaning of andar as a lexical movement verb. The animacy restriction is due to the fact that the action of walking requires an entity that is capable of autonomous movement. The limitation to dynamic SoAs is a consequence of the incompatibility of lack of dynamism with the original movement meaning of andar. For the auxiliary test, I will again make use of the strongly grammaticalized periphrasis with dejar de: (52)

*

Anda dejando de fumar desde principios walk.3SG stop.GER PREP smoke.INF since beginnings de junio. of June 'He has been going about stopping smoking since the beginning of June.'

As the combination of andar with the gerund of dejar de yields an ungrammatical result, it seems appropriate to deal with andar + gerund in terms of predicate formation. The predicate formation rule that accounts for the limitations of the use of this periphrasis should have the following form: (53)

DISTRIBUTIVE PREDICATE FORMATION WITH ANDAR

input: (f: pred v : ) (x,: ) (a n ) output: andarw pred V g w (x,: ) (a") meaning: '(xj) goes about pred v -ing (a11)'

[n > 0 ]

Periphrastic derived predicates

471

In this representation, the animacy restriction is represented as a selection restriction on the first argument slot of the input predicate and the dynamicity restriction as a restriction on the predicate slot.

8.1.6.

Discussion

Apart from the fact that they combine with verbal predicates only, the six weakly grammaticalized periphrases that I have dealt with here have two properties in common: (i) none of them is applicable to the entire domain of the grammatical distinction it serves to express; (ii) in all cases this is due to certain residues of the lexical base of the periphrasis. These residues concern the entity type of the arguments, the selection restrictions and the meanings, in short, any stipulation that may be contained in a lexical entry of a predicate. As Hopper (1991: 28-29) and Bybee—Perkins—Pagliuca (1994: 15-17) show, this phenomenon is typical of the auxiliarization of lexical verbs. In section 8 . 0 . 1 have stated that weakly as well as strongly grammaticalized periphrases may have different degrees of grammaticalization. It is tempting to try to read off the relative degree of grammaticalization from the predicate formation rules, assuming that the degree of grammaticalization is inversely proportional to the specificity of the stipulations in the rule. For example, one might feel inclined to regard quedar(se) + gerund as being more grammaticalized than e.g. ponerse a + infinitive, because ponerse a imposes an animacy-restriction on A 1 and combines with agentive predicates only, which quedar(se) does not. 8 However, the origin of ponerse a + infinitive is an agentive verb, which, thus, requires an animate referent for A 1 , whereas the origin of quedar(se) + gerund is a non-agentive verb, which, moreover, requires an animate referent only in its reflexive use. With respect to agentivity and animacy, both periphrastic auxiliaries are equally close to —or distant from— their lexical origin, and, therefore, there is no reason to assume that there should be a difference with respect to the degree to which ponerse a + infinitive and quedar(se) + gerund are grammaticalized. This example shows that the degree to which an item is grammaticalized in fact consists of the semantic and syntactic differences between the grammaticalized item and its lexical base, or, put differently, the degree to which features of the lexical base persist in the grammatical item (Hopper 1991: 28). Therefore, the relative degree of grammaticalization of lexical items cannot be assessed by comparing items that have different origins, which

8. Cf. Quesada (1994) for such an approach to the grammaticalization of periphrases in Spanish.

472

The syntax ofperiphrases

means that degrees of grammaticalization can only be measured for individual items or for sets of closely related items.

8.2. Periphrastic expressions of π-operators 8.2.0.

Introduction

The periphrases that will be treated as grammatical formatives expressing operators are all grammaticalized to such a degree that they combine with auxiliary constructions. A further correlate of the relatively high degree of grammaticalization of the periphrastic auxiliary is the fact that these periphrases are determined to a much lesser extent by properties inherited from the lexical base of the auxiliary. If there are any such restrictions, they have to form part of the expression rules.® Apart from the restrictions that are, directly or indirectly, related to the lexical background of the periphrastic auxiliary, there is another type of restrictions we have not been confronted with in the context of derived predicates: restrictions on the compatibility of operators (i) with specific semantic properties of the operandum and (ii) with each other. An example of the former type of restriction is the incompatibility of Inner Aspect with momentaneous core predications; an example of the latter type is the incompatibility of Habitual Aspect with Future Tense. What these restrictions have in common is the fact that they concern the conditions that must be fulfilled for an operator to be assigned to an operandum in the underlying structure of the clause. These conditions, a large portion of which may be languageindependent, are independent of the expression component. I will refer to these conditions as "assignment conditions". The character of "assignment conditions" is similar to that of selection restrictions (Dik 1989: 78-81): they do not serve as prohibitions on certain combinations of operators with operanda, but they serve to indicate the borderline between an unmarked linguistic expression, which applies when all relevant assignment conditions are observed, and a deviant linguistic expression, which applies when an assignment condition is violated. Deviant linguistic expressions may be either ungrammatical and uninterpretable, and will, therefore, normally not be

9. It is important to note that the expression rules to be given in this chapter are far from fully worked out. Rather than being a model of the rules that govern the process from a fully specified underlying clause structure towards its expression of in the form of an utterance, they are a formalized specification of the operator and the operandum, the expression of the operator and the conditions that are specific to the expression involved. For a more detailed account of expression rules and details of their implementations in a computational model of a natural language user see Dik (1989: chapters 14-15), and e.g. Dik (1992b).

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

473

produced by native speakers of a language, or they may be the result of special coding strategies, which require the addressee to apply analogous interpretation strategies. For example, Progressive Aspect can incidentally be applied to momentaneous predications; in that case, either the expression of Progressive Aspect will be interpreted as something other than Progressive Aspect, or the predication will be interpreted as being nonmomentaneous (cf. Goossens 1991: 16-17 on English; section 7.1.1.1.2. of this study on Spanish). The status of assignment conditions within Functional Grammar is, as yet, unclear, because, so far, no systematic work has been done in this field. 10 The discussion of each operator will centre around these two points, i.e. the assignment conditions for the operator and its expression by means of the periphrasis. In addition to the properties and the expression of individual operators, I will consider the mutual compatibility of the operators that are expressed by means of periphrases and the order in which they occur when they are combined. With respect to the latter point, I start from the assumption that the order of the periphrases in such combinations coincides with the order of the corresponding π-operators in the underlying structure. In this section, which is subdivided according to the width of the scope of the π-operators expressed by the periphrases, I will first deal with the periphrases that are expressions of predicate operators (8.2.1.) and then turn to the periphrases that function as expressions of predication operators (8.2.2.). Section 8.2.3. will concern periphrastic expressions of proposition operators and section 8.2.4. the periphrastic expressions at the level of the speech act. At the end of each section, I will consider the mutual interaction of the operators under review and, subsequently, I will deal with the way in which they interact with operators at lower levels. Section 8.2.5. contains the conclusions to be drawn from the interaction patterns described in the individual sections. 11

10. The existence of constraints on the applicability of operators and the necessity to account for them within the underlying structure of the clause has been observed earlier, above all in computational work on Functional Grammar, such as Dik (1992c) and Bakker (1994). 11. In order to facilitate the lecture of this section, a list of periphrastically expressed π-operators with key examples is given in Appendix IV.

474

The syntax ofperiphrases

8.2.1. Predicate operators: Inner Aspect 8.2.1.0. Introduction Predicate operators (also: ^-operators) serve the modification of the core predication, which consists of a predicate frame the argument slots of which have been filled with terms and have been provided with term operators and can have been additionally specified by means of satellites of e.g. Manner, Means or Speed (cf. 1.5.). The periphrastic expressions of predicate operators all concern the semantic domain of Inner Aspect. There is one semantic property that all Inner Aspect distinctions have in common, and which, therefore, will play a crucial role in the assignment these operators. This property is the incompatibility of Inner Aspect with momentaneousness (Comrie 1976: 42; cf. also section 5.1.1.1.2. of this study). The following set of examples illustrates the fact that truly momentaneous States of Affairs, i.e. those SoAs that do not allow for a nonmomentaneous interpretation, do not allow for the assignment of Inner Aspect operators: (54)

el globo se revienta the balloon REFL.3 pop.3SG 'the balloon pops' a.

empieza a * el globo the balloon begin.3SG PREP 'the balloon begins to pop*

reventarse pop.INF-REFL.3

estä reventändose b. * el globo the balloon is.3SG pop.GER-REFL.3 'the balloon is popping* c.

* el globo sigue reventändose the balloon go-on.3SG pop.GER-REFL.3 'the balloon is still popping'

viene reventändose d. * el globo the balloon come.3SG pop.GER-REFL.3 'the balloon has been popping' e.

el globo deja de the balloon stop.3SG PREP 'the balloon stops popping'

reventarse pop.INF-REFL.3

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators f.

* el globo va reventändose the balloon go.3SG pop.GER-REFL.3 'the balloon is gradually popping'

g.

* el globo termina de the balloon finish.3SG PREP 'the balloon completely pops'

475

reventarse pop.INF-REFL.3

This incompatibility should be reflected in a general assignment condition for Inner Aspect, which could be formalized as follows: (55)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR INNER ASPECT

INNER ASP [pred„: σ, (α")]

if: [prede: σ ι (a n ): ]

This condition should be read as follows: "Inner Aspect can be assigned to a core predication [predB: Oj (a11)] if this core predication describes a nonmomentaneous State of Affairs". 12 As this condition applies to the assignment of any Inner Aspect operator, I will not go into this matter when discussing the individual Inner Aspect periphrases in this section. Instead, I will mention only those conditions that are more specific than the one described in (55). In principle, the discussion of each individual periphrasis will be structured as follows. I will begin by showing that the periphrasis in question is applicable to auxiliary constructions, which means that is should be regarded as a grammatical formative. Subsequently, I will briefly go into possible restrictions that are due to the lexical background of the periphrastic auxiliary and I will end by giving a rough sketch of the expression rule. In the first five sub-sections of this section, I will deal with the periphrastic expression of Phasal Aspect: Ingressive (8.2.1.1.), Progressive (8.2.1.2.), Continuative (8.2.1.3.), Anterior-Persistive (8.2.1.4.) and Egressive (8.2.1.5.). Two sections are dedicated to the expression of Qualificational Aspect: Gradual Aspect (8.2.1.6.) and Completive Aspect (8.2.1.7.).

12. When negated, example (54g) is grammatical: h. el globo no termina de reventarse the balloon not finish.3SG PREP pop.INF-REFL.3 'the balloon does not pop however' What is expressed here is not that the "popping event" is not entirely completed but that the "popping event" does not occur at all. This means that the Completive Aspect operator should be understood as a specification of the lapse of time that immediately precedes the SoA reventarse el globo rather than a specification of this momentaneous SoA itself. Thus, rather than refuting the general assignment condition given in (55), this example is illustrative of the semantic relevance of assignment conditions (cf. 8.2.Ο.). (54)

476

The syntax ofperiphrases

Section 8.2.1.8. contains a brief discussion of the possible mutual interaction between periphrastically expressed predicate operators.

8.2.1.1. Ingressive: empezar / comenzar a + infinitive, pasar a + infinitive In section 7.1.1.1.1., I characterize the semantics of empezar / comenzar a 'begin to' + infinitive as Ingressive and that of pasar a 'proceed to' + infinitive as State-Ingressive because, independently of the dynamic or nondynamic character of the verb, pasar a presents the SoA as a situation rather than as an event. (i) Operators. In both cases the periphrastic auxiliary allows for an auxiliary in the position of the combining infinitive: (56)

en los anos veinte la literatura estadounidense in the years twenty the literature of-the-USA empezo a ser leida y honrada en todo began.PF.3SG PREP be.INF read and appreciated in all el mundo the world 'in the twenties, the literature of the USA began to be read and appreciated all over the world' (El Pais 110)

(57)

El maestro de la barba socialista (...) (GIR 33) the schoolteacher of the beard socialist paso a ser el mandamäs proceeded.PF.3SG to be.INF the big-shot 'The schoolteacher with the socialist beard (...) became the big shot'

In the examples above empezar a and pasar a occur with copula constructions, which shows that these periphrastic auxiliaries have exceeded the degree of grammaticalization that corresponds to predicate formation. Therefore, I consider these periphrases to be the expression of operators. As regards the behaviour of the periphrastic auxiliaries, it has become obvious in the discussions of empezar / comenzar a + infinitive and pasar a + infinitive in the corresponding sections of chapters 6 and 7 above, that neither of the two imposes any restriction on the nature of the combining predicate and/or its arguments. 13 Moreover, the examples above illustrate

13. As a lexical verb, pasar a requires an animate referent for A1, while periphrastic pasar a can also occur with predicates the A1 of which refers to an event (7.1.1.1.1., example (3)). For additional evidence with respect to empezar / comenzar a + infinitive cf. also

Periphrastic expressions of %-operators

All

that empezar a and pasar a do not require the lexical predicate to be a verb, because empezar a occurs with a participle (or: de-verbal adjective) in (56) and pasar a with a nominal term-predicate in (57). A first sketch of the expression rules for Ingressive and State-Ingressive Aspect could look as follows: (58)

EXPRESSION OF INGRESSIVE ASPECT (provisional)

INGR [prede: σ, (α")] —» empezar/comenzarv (59)

a pred einf

EXPRESSION OF STATE-INGRESSIVE ASPECT (provisional)

STATE-INGR [pred e : Oj (a*)] —» pasarv a predBinf As core predications can be non-verbal, the predicate in (58) and (59) wears the subscript "ß" (=any part of speech). Nevertheless, the subscript "inf" has been added to the predicate in the output of the rule. If the predicate is nonverbal, the introduction of the copula will be realized by means of an independent expression rule, the copula-support rule (cf. 1.7.; Dik 1980: chapter 4). After the application of one of the rules (58) or (59), the copula will receive the infinitival form. The rules thus fully specify the conditions for the application of the two Ingressive Aspect periphrases. However, what these rules do not account for is the fact that both empezar / comenzar a + infinitive and pasar a + infinitive are partially periphrastic constructions. Given the fact that the Ingressive and State-Ingressive operators can in principle be applied to any nonmomentaneous core predication, it is theoretically possible for the expression rule to produce a periphrastic construction with agentive predicates, while these should take semi-auxiliary empezar / comenzar a and lexical pasar a, respectively. The generation of such "doublets" must be avoided because it does not correspond to linguistic reality. Therefore, the rule must be adapted in such a way as to exclude agentive predicates from the scope of the Ingressive and the State-Ingressive operators. A possible way to do so could be the following: (60)

EXPRESSION OF INGRESSIVE ASPECT INGR [pred 8 : Σ, (CTN)] - » empezarlcomenzarw

a pred B

if: pred e * pred v ( x ^ (a n )

section 8.1.1., where this periphrasis is contrasted with the infinitival periphrases with ponerse a and meterse a in order to illustrate the restricted applicability of the latter two.

478 (61)

The syntax ofperiphrases EXPRESSION OF STATE-INGRESSIVE ASPECT STATE-INGR [pred e : σ, (Α11)] -> pasarw a pred B

if: pred e * pred v ( x ^ (a") Given the fact that, from a theoretical point of view, it may seem to be unattractive to restrict the power of expression rules, it is useful to consider some alternative approaches to this problem. There are two alternative solutions I can think of: the first one is to have the rules generate whatever they can and create a filtering device that rejects the inappropriate output of the rules at some moment before the underlying clause structure is turned into a definitive linguistic expression; the second one is to conceive of grammatical distinctions as highly abstract cognitive concepts, the realization of which depends on the availability of the lexical, semi-lexical or grammatical means that are available in some individual language. The first alternative is incompatible with the basic principles of Functional Grammar because "the filtering strategy would imply that NLUs [natural language users, H.O.] are designed in such a way as to produce an enormous number of construction types which will go to the mental dustbin before they can be uttered" (Dik 1989: 20). In short, such an approach lacks psychological adequacy (Dik 1989: 13) and should, therefore, be rejected. The second alternative is certainly a very attractive one, above all because it has crosslinguistic relevance. Although in a cognitive approach, too, the limitations of the applicability of the different lexical and grammatical expression strategies must be made explicit in some way or other, it should be possible to do so on a more general and abstract level. However, such an approach would require a profound investigation into cognitive aspects of grammar, which is beyond the scope of the present study. 14 I will, therefore, adhere to the method of explicitly excluding the generation of possible "doublets" in each individual rule.

8.2.1.2.

Progressive: estar + gerund

(i) Operator. The fully periphrastic construction estar + gerund occurs with auxiliary constructions:

14. Within Functional Grammar, Nuyts (e.g. 1989) has advocated such an approach to Tense, Aspect and Mood.

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators (62)

479

es tan siendo interrogados por la autoridad be.3PL be.GER examined by the authority judicial militar judicial military 'they are being questioned by the military judicial authorities' (El Pais of 3/3/1981, quoted from De Bruyne 1981: 58)

The fact that the periphrastic auxiliary estar can be followed by the gerund of the copula ser is evidence of the highly grammaticalized character of estar + gerund, which is such that the periphrasis should be considered the expression of an operator. (ii) Expression rule. In section 7.1.1.1.2., I have provided ample evidence of the fact that the periphrastic auxiliary estar has not inherited lexical properties from its lexical base, the localizing verb estar 'be here/there'. 15 Furthermore, example (62) above shows that the lexical predicate need not be a verbal predicate. This means that the periphrasis is applicable to any core predication that is semantically compatible with Progressive Aspect. The rule that takes care of the expression of Progressive Aspect would have to be: (63)

EXPRESSION OF PROGRESSIVE ASPECT PROGR [prede: Oj (a")] —» es tarw pred Bger

This rule parallels the provisional rules for the expression of Ingressive Aspect given in (58) and (59) above. Given the fact that estar + gerund is a fully periphrastic construction no condition is needed to exclude the production of "doublets".

8.2.1.3. Continuative: continuar / seguir + gerund (i) Operator. The periphrastic auxiliaries continuar and seguir parallel estar in the sense that they can occur with the gerund of an auxiliary, the copula ser:

15. As a localizing verb estar expresses non-movement and requires A1 to refer to a first-order entity. Section 7.1.1.1.2. contains examples of periphrastic estar with A 1 referring to a lapse of time (14), and to an event (15). Furthermore, in most of the examples quoted, estar + gerund is used with dynamic SoAs.

480

The syntax ofperiphrases

(64)

la personalidad autentica de Leonora seguia (SOR 132) the personality authentic of Leonora went-on.IMPF.3SG siendo para mi un enigma be.GER for me a mystery 'Leonora's true personality was still a mystery to me'

Given this possibility, the gerundial periphrases with continuar and seguir should be considered expressions of an operator. (ii) Expression rule. Continuar and seguir do not impose any restrictions inherited from their semi-auxiliary base. The A1 may refer to an abstract concept, as in (64), it may refer to an event, as in (65), or to a first-order entity, as in (66), and the Aktionsart of the predication may be non-dynamic, as in (64) and (65), or dynamic, as in (66): (65)

me sigue gustando de_vez_en_cuando (...) (M 78) me.DAT go-on.3SG please.GER from-time-to-time asistir α los partidos attend.INF PREP the matches Ί still like it form time to time (...) to go to the matches' (lit. 'it still pleases me from time to time (...) to go to the matches')

(66)

me siguen temblando las piernas me.DAT go-on.3PL tremble.GER the legs 'my legs are still trembling'

(M 73)

However, forming a partially periphrastic construction, seguir and continuar do not behave as periphrases when combining with predicates that fit their selection restrictions: with agentive predicates they function as semiauxiliaries. Therefore, the combination of seguir and continuar with agentive verbs must be excluded from the expression rule: (67)

EXPRESSION OF CONTINUATIVE ASPECT

CONT [predB: ol (a11)] - » seguir! continuar^ if: predB * pred v (xi) Ag (a")

pred Bger

8.2.1.4. Anterior-Persistive: venir + gerund (i) Operator. The fact that the fully periphrastic construction venir + gerund is a grammatical formative is obvious from the following example:

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators (68)

ano tras ano yo venia siendo year after year I came.IMPF.lSG be.GER derrotado defeated 'year after year I had been defeated'

481

(GAR 41)

In this example the place of the gerund is taken by the copula ser. Therefore, it is correct to treat venir + gerund as the expression of an operator. (ii) Expression rule. The periphrasis venir + gerund, although occurring less frequently, is almost as unrestricted in its use as are the gerundial periphrases with estar and seguir / continuar. The examples below indicate that, in spite of the movement origin of the periphrastic auxiliary venir, the A 1 can refer to a non-movable entity (69); likewise, there is no restriction with respect to the Aktionsart of the combining predicate: it may designate a non-dynamic (69) or a dynamic (70) SoA: (69)

el calor venia durando demasiado the heat came.IMPF.3SG last.GER too-much 'the heat had been lasting too long'

(GAR 24)

(70)

esa pregunta me viene atormentando desde hace this question me.DAT come.3SG torture.GER for ya muchos anos already many years 'this question has been torturing me for many years already* (Tomeo, El mayordomo miope 93)

There is, however, one restriction. Consider the following examples: (71)

*

La gente ya viene yendo the people already come.3SG go. GER 'People already come going' (Gomez Torrego 1988: 167)

(72)

*

El avion viene alejandose. the aeroplane come.3SG move-away.GER-REFL.3 'The aeroplane comes moving away.' (Garcia Gonzalez 1992: 58)

From the ungrammaticality of these examples, Gomez Torrego (1988: 167) and Garcia Gonzalez (1992: 58) conclude that the periphrastic auxiliary venir cannot combine with verbs that designate a movement away from the deictic centre, because the semantics of such verbs is in conflict with the lexical meaning of venir 'come'. I do not share this conclusion, because such com-

482

The syntax ofperiphrases

binations are only impossible when verbs like ir and alejarse 'move away' express their literal meaning of physical movement. This is the case whenever the A1 of such verbs refers to movable entities. The following example shows that venir + gerund can in fact combine with verbs like alejarse whenever a non-movable entity is the referent of A1, which triggers a nonliteral reading of the movement-verb: (73)

En los Ultimos afios ciertos pais es de la Comunidad in the last years certain countries of the community Europea se han venido alejando de European REFL.3 have.3PL come move-away.GER from los acuerdos establecidos en anos anteriores. the agreements established in years earlier 'In recent years, certain countries of the European Community have been drifting away from the agreements made in earlier years.'

The problem is thus not that the periphrasis cannot combine with these verbs but, rather, that it cannot combine with these verbs when they are used in their literal sense. It should be noted that this restriction is the consequence of what might be called the "lexical inheritance" of the periphrastic auxiliary, rather than a restriction following from the semantics of AnteriorPersistive Aspect itself. Taking this point into consideration, the expression rule for AnteriorPersistive Aspect should have the following form: (74)

EXPRESSION OF ANTERIOR-PERSISTIVE ASPECT 11 ANT-PERS [prede: σ, (α )] -> venirv predBger

if: [prede: σ, (α°)] * [(f: predv: cmove away from deictic centre>) (Xj: movable entity)Ag/Proc] The condition impedes the formation of a periphrasis with verbs like ir and alejarse whenever their first argument refers to a movable entity, so that ungrammatical expressions like (71) and (72) will not be produced.

8.2.1.5. Egressive: dejar de + infinitive (i) Operator. As has already been demonstrated in section 8.O., dejar 'stop' de + infinitive can be combined with auxiliaries. The following example with the copula ser is a further piece of evidence:

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

(75)

aquello habia dejado de ser that had.IMPF.3SG stopped PREP be.INF importante important 'that had ceased to be important'

483

(ORT 121)

(ii) Expression rule. Section 8.1.3., where examples of dejar de + infinitive are used to illustrate the restricted applicability of its near-synonym cesar de + infinitive, provides ample evidence of the fact that the periphrastic auxiliary dejar de does not have any inherited lexical property that might restrict its use. Furthermore, example (75) demonstrates that dejar de + infinitive, too, is not only applicable to verbal predicates, but admits non-verbal predicates as well. Given the fact that, moreover, dejar de + infinitive is a fully periphrastic construction, the rule for the expression of Egressive Aspect will simply be: (76)

EXPRESSION OF EGRESSIVE ASPECT

EGR [predB:

(a11)]

dejarv de pred ataf

Although, in section 7.1.1.1.3., I have used the label "Cessative Egressive" for the egressive meaning expressed by means of dejar de and cesar de, in order to distinguish them from "Completive Egressive" as expressed by means of the semi-auxiliaries acabarde and terminar de, there is no need to maintain this distinction here, because Cessative Egressive is the only meaning that can be expressed by means of an operator.

8.2.1.6. Gradual: ir + gerund Gradual Aspect differs from the other Inner Aspect operators discussed in this section in the sense that there is an additional condition that constraints the assignment of this operator. (i) Operator. Ir 'go' + gerund has also been mentioned in section 8.0. as an example of a periphrasis that is so strongly grammaticalized that it combines with auxiliaries. Let us consider one more example: (77)

CONTEXT: (about Baroque art in Latin America) Resulta fascinante

ver como, en estilos derivados de los europeos 'It is fascinating to see how, in styles derived from European ones' van siendo integrados representaciones de eventos y go.3PL be.GER integrated representations of events and sujetos americanos individuals American 'representations of American events and figures are gradually being integrated' (adapted from El Pais 102)

484

The syntax ofperiphrases

The fact that the place of the gerund can be occupied by the copula ser is additional evidence of the high degree of grammaticalization of ir + gerund. (ii) Assignment condition. Gradual Manner Aspect is the only Λ,-operator that cannot be assigned to every non-momentaneous predication. Due to the meaning of Gradual Aspect, which consists in specifying the way in which the SoA develops, the combining core predication must express some kind of development. This does not imply that the combining predicate must have a dynamic meaning; rather, it means that the core predication must, in some way or other, be interpretable as the description of a change in the situation. 16 Consider the following examples: (78)

(79)

CONTEXT: Hubo un momento en el que habia muchos hombres separados, 'There was a time when there were many men that had divorced,' pero ahora van quedando pocos (PUE 113) but now go.3PL remain. GER few 'but now they are becoming fewer'

a.

* pero ahora va quedando uno solo but now go.3SG remain.GER one only 'but now there is gradually remaining only one'

*

;Va usted temblando, Andres! go.2SG.(FORM) you (FORM) tremble.GER Andres 'You are trembling gradually, Andres!' (adapted from GIR 39)

In (78) the interpretation of the non-dynamic SoA as a change is motivated by the plural of the argument of quedar 'remain'; with a singular argument, such a reading is impossible. Consequently, (78a) is un grammatical. Example (79) illustrates the case of a dynamic predication that does not designate a change, since it does not show internal progression whether continued for some time or not (Rijksbaron 1989: 41). Due to this semantic property of the core predication, the combination with ir + gerund yields an ungrammatical result in spite of the dynamicity of the predicate. There should therefore be a condition like: (80)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR GRADUAL ASPECT

GRAD [prede: Oj (a")] if: [prede:

(a"): ]

16. Rijksbaron (1989) gives a detailed account of this approach to the semantic notion of change, which deviates from the one held by Dik (1989: 97), in whose view a Change is a telic, non-controlled SoA.

Periphrastic expressions of %-operators

485

(iii) Expression rule. The periphrastic auxiliary ir does not impose any specific restrictions on the combining predicate, a fact of which the discussion of the semantics of ir + gerund in section 7 . 1 . 1 . 2 . 1 . contains plenty of evidence. 17 Furthermore, example (77) above shows that ir + gerund equals the strongly grammaticalized periphrases discussed in the above sections in not requiring the combining predicate to be a verb. The expression rule should, therefore, be: (81)

EXPRESSION OF GRADUAL ASPECT

GRAD [predB: θ; (a n )] - » irv pred e ger

8.2.1.7. Completive: acabar / terminar de + infinitive (i) Operator. The example below, in which acabar de is followed by the infinitive of the copula ser, demonstrates that acabar / terminar 'finish* de + infinitive must be considered a grammatical formative: (82)

La explicacion codificada no acababa de the explanation codified not finished.IMPF.3SG PREP ser satisfactoria. be.INF satisfactory 'The codified explanation was not entirely satisfactory.' (La Vanguardia Espanola, quoted from Dominicy 1983: 50)

(ii) Expression rule. In section 6.1.2.1.3., I demonstrated that periphrastic acabar / terminar de can occur with verbs designating potentially telic Actions (44), as well as with Experiences (45). 18 As regards the reference of A 1 , there is no restriction either; it may refer to a thing, (6.1.2.1.4., example (44)) or an event (7.1.1.2.2., example (50)). In short, the periphrastic auxiliaries acabar de and terminar de have not inherited any restrictions from their semi-auxiliary base that might influence their functioning in the expression of Completive Aspect. Moreover, example (82) above illustrates that acabar / terminar de do not require the lexical predicate to be a verb.

17. The examples quoted in that section demonstrate that ir + gerund, whose lexical base requires an animate referent, or at least a movable entity for A1, can occur with any type of SoA and allows for any entity-type in first argument position: in (37) the referent of A1 is edificio 'building', a non-movable entity, and in (39) A1 refers to a prepositional content, sospecha 'suspicion'. Moreover, the periphrastic auxiliary ir can combine with verbs that contradict its original movement meaning, such as quedar 'remain' in example (44) of 7.1.1.2.1. (repeated as (78) is this section). 18. Furthermore, there are examples of acabar de with States (7.1.1.2.2., example (52)).

486

The syntax of periphrases

The rule for the expression of Completive Aspect would have to be as follows: (83)

EXPRESSION OF COMPLETIVE ASPECT

COMPL [pred e : at (a11)] —» acabar!terminarw

de pred Binf

8.2.1.8. Interaction of periphrases at the level of re, In the above sections on periphrastic expressions of predicate operators, I have distinguished a set of Phasal and Qualificational Aspect operators, which form the total of Inner Aspect operators. Together with the dichotomy of Perfective / Imperfective Aspect they constitute the complete set of possible Jtj operators in Spanish. In Table 16 below the Inner Aspect operators are represented in the order in which they have been discussed here. Table 16. Periphrastically expressed χ,-operators Phasal Aspect

Qualificational Aspect

INGR

GRAD

STATE-INGR

COMPL

PROGR CONT ANT-PERS EGR

The Inner Aspect operators freely interact with Perfective / Imperfective Aspect, i.e. each operator can combine with both alternatives. 19 Combinations between the various Inner Aspect operators are, however, severely restricted. The Qualificational Aspect operators Gradual and Completive as well as the Phasal Aspect operators State-Ingressive, Continuative and Anterior-Persistive cannot combine with other Inner Aspect operators. I assume that the cause of this is the internal complexity of the meanings of these operators. The possible combinations concern Ingressive and Egressive, each of which can co-occur with Progressive Aspect. These combinations are such that the Progressive periphrasis always precedes the Ingressive or Egressive periphrasis, which reflects the scope relation of the corresponding

19. The combination of Anterior-Persistive with Perfective Aspect is rare but not ungranunatical (Fente—Fernandez—Feijoo 1972: 33).

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

487

operators: the Progressive operator always takes the Ingressive or Egressive operator in its scope; the reverse is not possible: (84)

me estoy empezando a cabrear REFL.1SG be.lSG begin.GER PREP infuriate.INF Ί am beginning to get livid' a.

(85)

(RIC 85)

* empiezo a estar cabreändome begin. 1SG PREP be.INF infuriate.GER-REFL.lSG Ί begin to be getting livid'

Pedro estä dejando de fumar. Pedro is.3SG stop.GER PREP smoke.INF "Pedro is busy to stop smoking.' a.

* Pedro deja de estar fumando. Pedro stop.3SG PREP be.INF smoke.GER 'Pedro stops being smoking.'

These scope relations can be explained semantically. Let us first consider the question why the combinations as exemplified by (84) and (85) are possible. The reason for this is related to the fact that Progressive Aspect specifies that the SoA is in progress at the point of reference tj. In (84) and (85) Progressive Aspect is applied to predications that, due to their Ingressive and Egressive Aspect, respectively, will be interpreted as momentaneous SoAs as long as they are not further modified. On the one hand, the addition of the Progressive ensures a non-momentaneous reading, or, put differently, it indicates that empezar a cabrearse 'begin to get livid' in (84) and dejarde fumar 'stop smoking' in (85) take place gradually rather than abruptly. On the other hand, the Progressive indicates that the gradual processes described in (84) and (85) are in progress at tj. Let us now proceed to the explanation of the ungrammaticality of the reverse combination. Given the fact that in (84a) and (85a) there is no further modification of the Ingressive and Egressive Aspect, respectively, (84a) and (85a) must be read as descriptions of momentaneous SoAs. This means that the moment of occurrence of the SoA exactly coincides with tj. At the same time, the Progressive operator indicates that the events designated by fumar and cabrearse are in progress at tj. In other words, (84a) and (85a) are semantically contradictory: (84a) expresses that, at t;, A1 suddenly becomes livid and is being livid, and (85a) expresses that, at t,, A1 stops smoking and is smoking. On the basis of these data, the set of Inner Aspect operators can be represented schematically as follows:

488

The syntax of periphrases

PROGR

INGR EGR

STATE-INGR CONT ANT-PERS GRAD COMPL

Figure 19. Mutual interaction of periphrastically expressed

operators

The upper part of this figure contains the aspectual distinctions that can be combined with each other. The order in which they are presented reflects the order in which they apply. The lower part contains the aspectual distinctions that cannot be combined.

8.2.2. Predication operators 8.2.2.0. Introduction The difference between predication operators (also: jt2-operators) and predicate operators is a difference of scope. Predicate operators modify the core predication, whereas predication operators modify the extended predication, i.e. the fully specified core predication plus its predication satellites (cf. 1.5.). For the sake of simplicity, I will, henceforward, employ the term "predication" to refer to the extended predication. The periphrastic expressions of predication operators concern the semantic domains of Aspect, Modality, Polarity and Actual Evaluation, i.e. all the domains that are relevant at this level except Tense. The first five sections will deal with the periphrastic expressions corresponding to each domain: Outer Aspect (8.2.2.1.), Participant-oriented Modality (8.2.2.2.), Eventoriented Modality (8.2.2.3.), Polarity (8.2.2.4.) and Actual Evaluation (8.2.2.5.). In section 8.2.2.6. I will discuss the mutual interaction of periphrases at the level of the predication, and, finally, in section 8.2.2.7., I will go into the differences between predicate and predication operators. The discussion of the individual periphrases will be structured largely in the same way as the discussion of the periphrases at the level of the core predication in section 8.2.1.: I will first give an example of the periphrasis with an auxiliary in the place of the non-finite verb form, thus providing evidence of the fact that its degree of grammaticalization is such that the periphrasis qualifies for the status of grammatical formative. I will then turn to the semantics of the operator to be expressed, discussing possible incom-

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

489

patibilities, which should be accounted for by means of assignment conditions. I will end by considering the question of whether or not the periphrastic auxiliary has inherited from its lexical base any properties that might constrain the applicability of the periphrasis and then present a rough sketch of an expression rule.

8.2.2.1. Outer Aspect periphrases 8.2.2.1.0. Introduction Of the Outer Aspect distinctions that are expressed by means of strongly grammaticalized periphrases three concern Phasal Aspect and two Quantificational Aspect. The Phasal Aspect distinctions are Prospective (8.2.2.1.1.), Resultative and Experiential Perfect (8.2.2.1.2) and Perfect of Recent Past (8.2.2.1.3.). The Quantificational Aspect distinctions are Repetitive (8.2.2.1.4.) and Habitual (8.2.2.1.5.).

8.2.2.1.1. Prospective: ir a + infinitive (i) Operator. The fully periphrastic construction ir a 'go to' does not only combine with infinitives of lexical verbs, but can also occur with the infinitive of an auxiliary. Consider the following examples: (86)

CONTEXT: (a student talks about her arts classes and about what she expects them to be like by the end of the course) es to va a ser un autentico lio (M 45) this go.3SG to be.INF a authentic chaos 'this is going to be real chaos'

(87)

Pero en 1990 no parece que una (C 967.31) but in 1990 not seem.3SG that a Constitucion aprobada en 1978 vaya a ser constitution approved in 1978 go.SUBJ.3SG to be.INF modificada modified 'But it does not look as if a Constitution passed in 1978 is going to be modified in 1990'

These examples, in which the place of the infinitive is occuppied by the infinitive of the copula ser, are evidence of the fact that ir a + infinitive is a grammatical formative serving the expression of an operator.

490

The syntax ofperiphrases

(ii) Assignment condition. Due to its inherently imperfective character, Prospective Aspect is not compatible with Perfective Aspect. Hence, the following example is ungrammatical: (88)

a.

* mi artefacto volador fue a ser my artefact flying went.PF.3SG to be.INF muy simple very simple 'my flying artefact went to be very simple' (adapted from TOM 146)

Furthermore, Prospective Aspect is incompatible with Future Tense: (88)

b. * mi artefacto volador irä a ser muy my artefact flying go.FUT.3SG to be.INF very simple simple 'my flying artefact will be going to be very simple'

Therefore, there must be an assignment condition that excludes the combination of the Prospective with Perfective Aspect and Future Tense. Such a condition could have following form: (89)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR PROSPECTIVE ASPECT (PROSP EJ) if: (*FUT E^ [IMPF pred„: σ, (α")]: a 2 )

In this formula, the asterisk in front of FUT indicates that the Future Tense operator cannot be assigned in this context. (Hi) Expression rule. As regards the combinatorial possibilities of the periphrastic auxiliary ir in this periphrasis, there are no restrictions: in 7.1.2.1.1. I quoted several examples of periphrastic ir a with agentive and non-agentive dynamic verbs and (86) above exemplifies its co-occurrence with a non-dynamic predicate. In most of the examples we have seen in section 7.1.2.1.1., A1 refers to a person or a thing, but in (86) above the referent of A1 is an event, and in (87) it is an abstract concept. Furthermore, (86) and (87) are illustrative of the fact that ir a + infinitive can modify non-verbal predications. In short, the periphrastic auxiliary does not impose any restriction whatsoever on the applicability of the construction. Therefore, the rule for the expression of Prospective Aspect should have the following form: (90)

EXPRESSION OF PROSPECTIVE ASPECT (PROSP e,: [πχ predB: ot (a")]: o2) —>

irv a predg taf

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

491

The predicate may be verbal or non-verbal. In the latter case, the presence of the operator will trigger copula support (Dik 1980: chapter 4, 1983: 128).

8.2.2.1.2. Resultative and Experiential Perfect: tener + participle The participial periphrasis with tener 'have got' serves the expression of both Resultative and Experiential Perfect Aspect. I will first discuss the properties of the periphrastic auxiliary and then deal with both aspectual distinctions separately because they differ with respect to their assignment conditions. (0 Operator. The fully periphrastic construction tener + participle can occur in combination with a strongly grammaticalized periphrasis: (91)

este ano tenia pensado haberme (M 22) this year had-got.IMPF.lSG thought have.INF-REFL.lSG dedicado a estudiar (...) devoted to study.INF 'this year I had had the intention of taking up the study of (...)'

Evidence of the high degree of grammaticalization of pensar + infinitive has been given in section 8.O.; more details will be provided in section 8.2.2.2.1. (ii) Assignment conditions. In analogy to Prospective Aspect, Resultative Perfect and Experiential Perfect are incompatible with Perfective Aspect, which is a consequence of the fact that they do not serve to situate the event in time (cf. 7.1.2.1.2.). 20 Therefore, there must be an assignment condition analogous to the one for Prospective Aspect, given in (89): (92)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR RESULTATIVE PERFECT (PERF-RES e,) if: (e,: [IMPF pred g : σ , (α")]: σ 2 )

The assignment condition for Experiential Perfect is more specific because, while Resultative Perfect can in principle be assigned to any imperfective predication, Experiential Perfect can only be assigned to those imperfective predications that contain a predicate the A1 of which refers to an animate entity, because only animate, typically human, entities can have experiences (cf. 7.1.2.1.2.). This condition could be formulated as follows:

20. As haber + participle can co-occur with Perfective Aspect, one might argue that this restriction, too, is specific of the expression of Resultative and Experiential Perfect by means of tener + participle. However, haber + participle has a temporal function in this combination (cf. Ramsey—Spaulding 1956: 332).

492 (93)

The syntax ofperiphrases ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR EXPERIENTIAL PERFECT (PERF-EXP

e^ if: (e,:

[IMPF

prede: σ, (x^ ) (a n )]: o2)

(iii) Expression rules. Although example (91) is an irrefutable piece of evidence of the fact that tener + participle must be a grammatical formative rather than part of the lexical fund, the remaining properties of tener + participle seem to point into the opposite direction, because the applicability of tener + participle is as restricted as that of llevar + participle (cf. 8.1.4.). Firstly, tener combines only with participles that stem from transitive verbs: (94)

Ha fallecido Biscuter have.3SG passed-away Biscuter 'Biscuter has passed away' a.

(VAZ 14)

* Tiene fallecido Biscuter have-got.3SG passed-away Biscuter 'Biscuter has passed away'

Secondly, A1 must designate an animate entity: (95)

la reaparicion de Leonora me ha (SOR 137) the reappearance of Leonora me.DAT have.3SG causado un tremendo impacto caused a tremendous impact 'the reappearance of Leonora has had a tremendous impact on me' a.

* la reaparicion de Leonora me tiene the reappearance of Leonora me.DAT have-got.3SG causado un tremendo caused.MASC.SG a tremendous.MASC.SG impacto impact. (MASC) 'the reappearance of Leonora has had a tremendous impact on me'

Thirdly, tener does not allow for coreferentiality of the first and the second arguments in the participial periphrasis: (96)

El nino se ha lavado. the little-boy REFL.3 have.3SG washed 'The little boy has washed (himself).'

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators a.

* El nino se tiene the little-boy REFL.3 have-got.3SG 'The little boy has washed (himself).'

493

lavado. washed.MASC.SG

Fourthly, tener requires the verb in the participial form to be dynamic: (97)

las conversaciones que Rafa y el habian (POM 78) the conversations which Rafa and he had.IMPF.3PL mantenido durante tantos anos maintained during so-many years 'the conversations Rafa and he had had for so many years' a.

* las conversaciones que Rafa y el the conversations.(FEM) which Rafa and he tenian mantenidas durante tantos had-got.IMPF.3PL maintained.FEM.PL during so-many anos years 'the conversations Rafa and he had had for so many years'

From this impressive number of restrictions we may conclude that tener + participle is the "odd man out" among the strongly grammaticalized periphrases, because the restrictions are all related to the lexical background of tener.21 Given these restrictions, it is surprising that tener can combine with auxiliaries at all. In fact, the participle of periphrastic pensar is the only auxiliary participle with which tener can occur because, apart from the participial periphrases, pensar + infinitive is the only periphrastic construction that is based on a transitive predicate frame. A rough sketch of the rules that account for all these restrictions on the expression of Resultative and Experiential Perfect by means of tener + participle could look as follows:

21. The semantic concept of possession is the exclusive domain of humans and animals, whence the animacyrestrictionon A1. The possessor and the possessed item can never be identical, whence the impossibility of using tener + participle with reflexive predications. The cause of the incompatibility with non-dynamic verbs is the fact that transitive nondynamic verbs typically are tener, and mantener 'maintain', i.e. verbs that are identical with or similar to the periphrastic auxiliary.

494 (98)

The syntax ofperiphrases EXPRESSION OF RESULTATIVE PERFECT

(PERF-RES e^ [π, predB: θ! (α)) (α")]: σ 2 ) -> tenerw pred Bpirt if: either: (e: (f: pred v : ) (x;: ) (αρ (a") or: (99)

(PA/INT-DEL e,)

EXPRESSION OF EXPERIENTIAL PERFECT n (PERF-EXP e,: [re, pred e : σ, (a^ (a )]: a2) -»tenerv

if: either: or:

pred epllt (e: *π1 (f: pred v : ) (x;: ) (α;) (a") (PA/INT-DEL e t )

Apart from the different semantic labels, these two rules are identical. The condition that accounts for the ideosyncratic properties of the periphrastic auxiliary allows for two alternative scenarios. In the first scenario, tener combines with a lexical verb. The fact that the verbal predicate must designate a dynamic event and must have an animate referent for A1 is accounted for by means of the variables plus the selection restrictions (cf. the predicate formation rule of llevar + participle in section 8.1.4.). The fact that A1 and A 2 cannot be coreferential is accounted for by means of the indexation of the variables. There is an additional condition, indicated by means of "*π 1 ", that excludes the possibility of periphrastic expressions of predicate operators being introduced in between tener and the lexical predicate. 22 If this first scenario were the only one, tener + participle would have to be considered the output of a predicate formation rule, because the outcome of this awkward formula is equal to what a predicate formation rule would have produced. However, there is a second scenario, in which tener combines with the periphrastic expression of the predication operator Deliberative Intentional Modality, pensar + infinitive (cf. 8 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 1 . below). In this case, it is the periphrasis with pensar that fulfils the requirements of tener because it has a pseudo-transitive structure and it occurs only with human referents of A 1 . The condition that describes this scenario has to be read in such a way that the Perfect operator immediately precedes PA/INT-DEL.23 In this scenario, the nature of the lexical predicate and of the operators that are in the scope of pensar are entirely irrelevant. Example (91) is illustrative in this respect: the lexical predicate dedicarse 'devote oneself', 'take up' is a reflexive verb and the form of pensar is followed by the auxiliary haber to express the nonrealization of the event described by dedicarse and its arguments. It is only

22. Due to the scope relations to be specified in section 8.2.2.6., periphrastic expressions of other x-operators cannot be introduced in between tener and the participial predicate. 23. PA in the semantic label stands for "Participant-oriented"; for further details cf. section 8.2.2.2.2. below.

Periphrastic expressions of %-operators

495

in the combination with pensar + infinitive, that tener + participle can occur in such a construction.

8.2.2.1.3. Perfect of Recent Past: acabar de + infinitive (i) Operator. The fully periphrastic construction acabar de 'finish' can combine with the infinitive of the copula ser. (100)

acababa de ser destinado a (SOR 116) finished.IMPF.3SG PREP be.INF appointed to la conflictiva Africa del Sur the troubled South-Africa 'he had just been appointed to the troubled South-Africa'

This example proves that acabar de + infinitive is sufficiently grammaticalized to be considered the expression of an operator. (ii) Assignment condition. Perfect of Recent Past can only be assigned to predications that fulfil three different conditions. Firstly, in analogy to Prospective Aspect, Perfect of Recent Past is incompatible with Perfective Aspect and Future Tense (cf. 7.1.2.1.3.). Secondly, the Perfect of Recent Past is incompatible with negation. This incompatibility is a consequence of the fact that, with the Perfect of Recent Past, it is the recentness of the occurrence of the SoA which relates the SoA to tj. When the SoA is negated, the recentness component loses its function, because when it is stated that the SoA has not occurred at all, there is no point in specifying the recentness of its non-occurrence. This becomes obvious in the following ungrammatical example: (101)

*

No acabo de estar en el despacho not finish. 1SG PREP be.INF in the office del jefe del personal. of-the chief of-the personnel Ί have not just been in the office of the personnel manager.' (adapted from PAL 94)24

24. With acabar de + infinitive, negation cannot normally be read as a negation of the recentness component only, i.e. (101) cannot be interpreted in the sense of: Ί have been there, but not recently'. For a discussion of an apparent counterexample, cf. Olbertz (1991: 34«).

496

The syntax ofperiphrases

Thirdly, Perfect of Recent Past can only be expressed of predications that describe events and states of a limited duration: (102)

Baldomero es una persona Baldomero is.3SG a person 'Baldomero is a balanced person' a.

equilibrada balanced

* Baldomero acaba de ser una Baldomero finish.3SG PREP be.INF a equilibrada balanced

(DEL 64)

persona person

'Baldomero has just been a balanced person' The condition that accounts for these incompatibilities could look as follows: (103)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR PERFECT OF RECENT PAST (PERF-REC-PAST Β))

if:

(*FUT *NEG e t : [IMPF pred e : σ χ (α η )] σ 2 : t e m p o r a l l y limited>)

(Hi) Expression rule. The periphrastic auxiliary acabar de does not impose any specific restrictions: section 7.1.2.1.3. contains examples of acabar de with controlled (86) and non-controlled (87) dynamic predications and also with non-dynamic predications (88). Although, in most cases, A1 refers to first-order entities, there are examples with A1 referring to events (93). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that, as a periphrastic auxiliary, acabar de can combine with momentaneous predications, which it cannot in its semi-auxiliary function: (104)

el globo acaba de the balloon finish.3SG PREP 'the balloon has just popped'

reventarse pop.INF-REFL.3

As regards the part-of-speech class of the combining lexical predicate, example (100) quoted in the beginning of this section is illustrative of the fact that acabar de + infinitive does not require the lexical predicate to be a verb, since destinado is a participle and, as such, a non-verbal predicate. The rule for the expression of the Outer Aspect distinction Perfect of Recent Past should have the following form: (105)

EXPRESSION OF PERFECT OF RECENT PAST (PERF-REC-PAST e,: [predB: σ, (α°)]: σ 2 ) —>

acabarw de pred 8inf

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

497

8.2.2.1.4. Repetitive: volver a + infinitive (i) Operator. The following example illustrates the fact that the periphrastic auxiliary volver a 'return to' need not necessarily combine with the infinitive of a lexical verb. It can also occur with the infinitive of an auxiliary, as the copula ser in (106), which shows that volver a + infinitive is a grammatical formative: (106)

CONTEXT: (about the role of Madrid as the economic, cultural and political centre of the country to which the inhabitants of the periphery come to learn and study) vuelven a ser reexpedidos a la periferia (M 177) return. 3PL to be.INF redirected to the periphery 'and they are sent back again to the periphery*

(ii) Assignment condition. There is no assignment condition for Repetitive Aspect. (iii) Expression rule. The periphrastic auxiliary has not inherited any lexical properties from the corresponding movement verb that restrict the expressibility of Repetitive Aspect. In section 7.1.2.2.1. there are examples of both controlled (103) and non-controlled (105) dynamic predications and also of non-dynamic predications (104). The first arguments of the verbs with which volver a occurs in these examples refer to all kinds of first-order entities (105)-(106), but also to third-order entities (112). Furthermore, example (106), quoted in the beginning of this section, shows that there is no restriction with regard to the part-of-speech that forms the lexical predicate. Given this unrestricted applicability of the periphrastic auxiliary, the rule for the expression of Repetitive Aspect would have to look as follows: (107)

EXPRESSION OF REPETITIVE ASPECT (REPET ΒΡ [ÄJ predB: σ, (α")]: σ2)

volverv a pred einf

8.2.2.1.5. Habitual: soler + infinitive (i) Operator. Soler 'be in the habit of', 'usually do' very often occurs with the infinitive of an auxiliary. Typically, this is the infinitive of the copula ser, as in the following example: (108)

suele ser verdad usually-do.3SG be.INF truth 'usually it is true'

(M 84)

498

The syntax ofperiphrases

As soler is capable of taking an auxiliary in the place of the non-finite form, it must be treated as a grammatical formative rather than a derived predicate. (ii) Assignment condition. The assignment of Habitual Aspect is constrained in a similar way as that of the Prospective and the Perfect of Recent Past: Perfective Aspect and Future Tense must be excluded. The assignment condition for Habitual Aspect could be represented as follows: (109)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR HABITUAL ASPECT

(HABe,)

if: (#FUT e,: [IMPF pred„: σ, (α*)]: σ2)

(iii) Expression rule. The periphrastic auxiliary restricts the applicability of the Habitual Aspect operator in the sense that soler + infinitive is only partially periphrastic, which means that the constructions that can be formed by means of the semi-auxiliary soler, i.e. combinations with agentive verbs, must be a excluded from the scope of the operator in order to prevent the formation of a periphrastic "doublet". Apart from this particular, the periphrastic auxiliary does not restrict the applicability of the periphrasis. 25 Therefore, I propose the following the rule for the periphrastic expression of Habitual Aspect: (110)

EXPRESSION OF HABITUAL ASPECT

(HAB e,: pred e : σ, (α11)]: σ2) -» solerv pred eillf if: pred e (a") * pred v (x,) Ai

8.2.2.2. Participant-oriented modal periphrases 8.2.2.2.0. I n t r o d u c t i o n

The distinctions of Participant-oriented Modality that are expressed by means of periphrases are Volitional, Extrinsic Inherent and Deontic. An overview of these meanings and their expressions was given in Table 9 in section 7.2.1.4. The data of Table 9 allow for two conclusions with respect to the assignment conditions that hold for all strongly grammaticalized participant-oriented modal distinctions. Firstly, A1 must refer to an animate entity in all cases, because the target of modal evaluation is the animate primary

25. Periphrastic soler + infinitive originates from a semi-auxiliary construction, whose A1 must have an animate referent. In examples quoted in section 7.1.2.2.3., the first arguments of the lexical predicates refer to first and second order entities cf. e.g. (125) and (127), respectively. Example (108) above demonstrates that soler can also occur when A1 refers to a prepositional content.

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

499

participant in the SoA. Secondly, the SoA must be a controlled event, because, in some way or other, the strongly grammaticalized distinctions all concern the necessity of the participant's engaging in the SoA. These conditions could be formalized as follows: (111)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR PARTICIPANT-ORIENTED MODALITY

(PA e^

if: (e^

predB: σ, (x^ ) (a11)]: o 2 : )

This condition should be read as follows: "Participant-oriented modality (PA) can be assigned to a predication (et) if (e t ) is such that it contains a predicate the first argument of which refers to an animate entity and that it designates a controlled State of Affairs." As we will see presently, there are even more specific assignment conditions in the case of Volitional Modality. The expressions of Volitional Modality will be discussed in 8.2.2.2.1. and that of Extrinsic Inherent and Deontic Modality in 8.2.2.2.2.

8.2.2.2.1. Volitional: pensar + infinitive and estar por + infinitive As I have argued in section 7.2.1.2., the periphrastic expressions of Participant-oriented Volitional Modality concern two semantic variants of Intentionality: Intentional-Deliberative, expressed by means of pensar 'think' + infinitive, and Intentional-Desiderative, expressed by means of estar por 'be about' + infinitive. (i) Operators. Although my corpus does not contain any examples of the periphrastic auxiliaries pensar and estar por with infinitives of auxiliaries, such examples can easily be made up: (112)

CONTEXT: (a teacher before correcting exams) No pienso ser demasiado critico. not think.1SG be.INF too critical Ί do not intend to be too critical.'

(113)

Estoy por dejar de trabajar am.lSG about stop.INF PREP work.INF Ί feel like stopping working right now.'

ahoramismo. right-now

In (112) pensar occurs with the copula ser plus an adjectival predicate. Sentence (113) exemplifies the combination of estar por with the strongly grammaticalized periphrasis dejar de + infinitive (cf. 8.2.1.5.). The two examples are evidence of the non-derivational character of pensar + infinitive and estar por + infinitive.

500

The syntax of periphrases

(ii) Assignment conditions. The condition which a predication must fulfil in order to qualify for the assignment of Intentional Modality is more specific than the condition given in (111) above. Deliberative intentional meaning presupposes the capacity of logical reasoning in A1, and as logical reasoning is the exclusive domain of human beings, A1 must refer to a person. The corresponding condition can be formalized as follows: (114)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR INTENTIONAL-DELIBERATIVE MODALITY

(PA/INT-DEL ej) if: (e^

predB: σ, (x;: ) (α η )]: σ 2 : )

Desiderative intentionality is the outcome of some sort of sentiment; like logical reasoning, sentiments exclusively form part of human behaviour. As a consequence, Intentional-Desiderative Modality, too, can be specified only when A 1 refers to a person. Moreover, Intentional-Desiderative Modality can be assigned to Actions only. The assignment condition for Desiderative Modality will, therefore, have to be: (115)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR INTENTIONAL-DESIDERATIVE MODALITY

(PA/INT-DES e,) if: (e,: [π! predv: σ, (x^ ) Ag (a")]: o 2 )

Although this condition, at first sight, seems to be less complex than (114), it is more specific. The predicate must be a verb, because only verbs can designate Actions; the fact that the verb must be an agentive predicate is accounted for by means of the semantic function of the first argument. As agentivity implies control, there is, unlike in (114), no need to explicitly specify this feature. (Hi) Expression rules. The periphrastic auxiliaries es tar por and pensar do not impose any specific restriction on the applicability of the periphrases. In the case of estar por, this is a matter of course, since estar is highly grammaticalized in its copular function, out of which, in some way or other, estar por + infinitive must have developed (cf. 6.1.2.1.6.). As regards pensar, this lack of restriction is due to the fact that the lexical variant on which pensar + infinitive is probably based imposes selection restrictions that parallel the assignment conditions of the periphrasis (cf. 6.1.2.1.2.). The rules for the expression of Deliberative and Desiderative Intentional Modality should, therefore, have the following form: (116)

EXPRESSION OF INTENTIONAL-DELIBERATIVE MODALITY

(INT-DEL e,: [Π! pred e : (117)

(AN)]: a2) - > pensarv

pred e i l l f

EXPRESSION OF INTENTIONAL-DESIDERATIVE MODALITY

(INT-DES e,:

prede: Oj (a11)]: a2) -» estarv por pred eillf

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

501

8.2.2.2.2. Inherent and Deontic: tener que + infinitive Extrinsic Inherent Modality and Deontic Modality are both expressed by tener 'have' que + infinitive. As regards the distinction between the two modal meanings, it is important to distinguish between Possibility and Necessity. The only modal domain where this distinction is not relevant is that of volition, because necessity is inherent in the very concept of volition, which means that something like volitional possibility is difficult to conceive of (cf. Carretero (1992) for a different view). With respect to the domains of Inherent and Deontic Modality, we have seen that Possibility is expressed by the semi-auxiliary poder while Necessity can be expressed by means of the semi-auxiliary deber and by means of the periphrasis with tener que. The semantic difference between the operators that tener que + infinitive expresses in the field of Participant-oriented Modality concerns only their source: the source of Extrinsic Inherent Modality are the circumstances of the primary participant in the SoA; the source of Deontic Modality is a person that may but need not be primarily involved in the SoA. (i) Operator. In the following example, the periphrastic auxiliary combines with the infinitive of the copula ser: (118)

CONTEXT: (about the negative reactions on the marriage of Jacqueline Kennedy with Aristoteles Onassis) parece como si tuviera que ser una (M 97) seem.3SG as-if had.SUBJ.3SG REL be.INF a (...) virgen virgin 'it looks as if she had to live like a (...) virgin*

This example demonstrates that it is correct to treat tener que + infinitive as a grammatical formative and not as a derived predicate. (ii) Assignment conditions. There are no specific assignment conditions for either of the two modal distinctions. (iii) Expression rules. In the modal periphrasis the auxiliary tener has not inherited any lexical properties from its possessive lexical base. Evidence of this is the broad applicability of tener que + infinitive as a modal expression for all kinds of targets (participant, event and proposition), which has been documented in detail throughout section 7.2. Moreover, example (118) shows that tener que does not require the lexical predicate to be a verb. The rules for the expression of Inherent Extrinsic and Deontic Modality by means of tener que would have to be:

502 (119)

The syntax ofperiphrases EXPRESSION OF PARTICIPANT-ORIENTED EXTRINSIC INHERENT NECESSITY (PA/ABS-NEC/EXTR-INH

e,: [π, pred e : σ, (αη)]: a 2 )

tenerv que predB taf (120)

EXPRESSION OF PARTICIPANT-ORIENTED DEONTIC ABSOLUTE NECESSITY (PA/ABS-NEC/DEO E^ [Ä,

pred e : σ, ( poderv pred einf

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

525

In this and in all the representations to follow, I refrain from specifying satellite and operator variables, because this would render the representations unnecessarily complex. 8.2.3.1.2. Epistemic Absolute Necessity: tener que + infinitive (i) Operator. Evidence of the fact that tener que is a grammatical formative has been provided in section 8.2.2.2.2. above (example (118)). (ii) Expression rule. In the modal periphrasis, the periphrastic auxiliary tener does not have any inherited lexical property that might restrict the applicability of the periphrasis. The examples given throughout section 7.2. provide ample evidence of the unrestricted applicability of tener que + infinitive. The expression rule would, therefore, have to have the following form: (171)

EXPRESSION OF EPISTEMIC ABSOLUTE NECESSITY 11 (PR/TRUE/ABS-NEC/EPI X,: (e,: [pred„ (a )])) -> tenerv

que pred einf

8.2.3.1.3. Inferential Necessity: deber + infinitive (i) Operator. In section 8.2.2.3.2. I have provided evidence of the fact that fully periphrastic deber + infinitive should rightly be considered the expression of an operator (example (128)). (ii) Expression rule. The applicability of deber as a periphrastic auxiliary in the fully periphrastic construction is not restricted in any way. The diversity of the examples given in sections 7.2.2.4. and 7.2.3.2. are evidence of this fact. Thus, the expression rule would have to be as simple as the ones given in (170) and (171) above: (172)

EXPRESSION OF INFERENTIAL NECESSITY (PR/TRUE/NEC/INF X t : (e,: [pred„ (A11)]))

deberv predBinf

8.2.3.2. Periphrasis expressing falsehood commitment: ir a + infinitive The fully periphrastic construction ir a + infinitive functions in rhetorical questions to express the speaker's commitment to the falsehood of a proposition attributed to some person other than the speaker, in most cases the addressee. (i) Operator. Although in section 8.2.2.1.1. above I have shown that the periphrastic auxiliary ir a can take an auxiliary in the position of the

526

The syntax ofperiphrases

combining infinitive, I will give one more example here, because the function of ir a + infinitive to be discussed in this section differs from Prospective Aspect. Consider the following example: (173)

/Como va a ser verdad! Si eso es how go.3SG to be.INF truth if this is.3SG imposible. impossible 'How is this to be true! It's impossible, you know.' (Juan Jose Alonso Milan, Stratojet 991, quoted from Bauhr 1989: 227)

The capability of ir a to appear with an auxiliary in this function, too, proves that modal ir a + infinitive is the expression of an operator. (ii) Assignment condition. The assignment of the Falsehood Commitment operator is restricted to rhetorical questions, which, moreover, must be question word questions. It is important to formulate the assignment condition in such a way that the rhetorical character of the question is made explicit, because falsehood commitment, like truth commitment, cannot be expressed in regular questions. When occurring in true questions, the periphrasis with ir a + infinitive can only be an expression of Prospective Aspect: (174)

CONTEXT: (the addressee wants the speaker's daughter become a nun) iY por que vas a meter monja a mi nina? and why go.2SG to put.INF nun to my little-girl 'And why are you going to have my little girl become a nun? (Jaime de Arminän, La pareja, quoted from Bauhr 1989: 231)

Similarly essential is the presence of a question word. In rhetorical questions without a question word, ir a + infinitive can only be interpreted as an expression of Prospective Aspect: (175)

CONTEXT: (a lonely prisoner was musing on his situation, but then asked himself what was the use of it all)

^Es que mis penas iban a (TOM 163) is.3SG that my pains went.IMPF.3PL to verse reducidas por eso? see.INF-REFL.3 reduced by this 'Is it that my pains were going to be reduced by this?' The distinction between rhetorical questions and true questions can be made on formal grounds, despite of the fact that, in Spanish and English at least,

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

527

there is no morpho-syntactic difference between the two. There is, however, a phonological difference: given the fact that rhetorical questions are in fact emphatic assertions, the prosodic contours of rhetorical questions are not those of true questions but those of exclamations, which in orthography is often reflected by the lack of question marks or the use of exclamation marks instead. Therefore, I consider the illocution of rhetorical questions as the expression of a derived illocutionary frame made up of a basic Interrogative frame that is modified by the secondary illocutionary category Exclamative (cf. 8.2.4.0. below) to yield Exclamative-Interrogative (EXCL-INT). AS regards the question word, I follow Hengeveld (1990: 7), who makes the following distinction between question word questions and yes-no questions: given the fact that the focus of yes-no questions is the truth value of the propositional content presented in the question, yes-no-questions have a special indeterminacy operator (INDET) on the proposition variable (X), which question-word-questions have not. The lack of this operator on the variable indicates that, by default, the question is a question-word-question. On the basis of these considerations, I propose the following formulation of the assignment condition for the Falsehood Commitment operator: (176)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR FALSEHOOD COMMITMENT (PR/FALSE X,) if: Xt is argument of [EXCL-INT (S) (A) (*INDET

X)]

(iii) Expression rule. The examples of ir a + infinitive given in section indicate that ir does not have any remnants of its lexical function to limit its applicability as a periphrastic auxiliary in the modal periphrasis.30 Furthermore, example (173) above is evidence of the fact that ir a can modify propositions containing non-verbal predications. The expression rule will, therefore, have to be as follows: 7.2.3.1.2.

(177)

EXPRESSION OF FALSEHOOD COMMITMENT (PR/FALSE Xp (E^ [prede (A°)])) irv a predBinf

30. While the movement verb ir requires a movable entity as the referent of its A1 position, (195) in section 7.2.3.1.2. is an example of periphrastic ir a with a fact as referent of A1. Furthermore, the examples in section 7.2.3.1.2. illustrate that the periphrasis can occur with all kinds of predications, whether they be controlled, like (192), non-controlled, like (191), non-dynamic (passim) or dynamic, like the following example: (i) icomo me iba a abandonar? (GIR 55) how me went.IMPF.3SG to leave.INF 'how was she to leave me?'

528

The syntax ofperiphrases

8.2.3.3. Lack of interaction of periphrases at the level of a J Strongly grammaticalized periphrases express the following operators at the level of the proposition: Table 18. Periphrastically expressed *3-operators Epistemic Modality

Inferential Modality

PR/TRUE/POSS/EPI

PR/TRUE/NEC/INF

PR/TRUE/ABS-NEC/EPI PR/FALSE

In section 8.2.3.0. I claimed that proposition operators do not combine with each other. With respect to the operators specifying various degrees of truth commitment the cause of this lack of mutual interaction is obvious: combining operators of this type with each other would be contradictory. The situation is less clear in the case of potential interaction of the Falsehood Commitment operator with operators of truth commitment. Given the fact that it is the function of ir a + infinitive to evaluate some propositional content attributed to someone other than the speaker, it is imaginable that the speaker literally quotes the addressee, including the addressee's expression of truth commitment. In such a case, the Falsehood Commitment operator would have a truth commitment operator in its scope. However, the examples below show that, when the Falsehood Commitment operator is used in such a way, the speaker's quote cannot contain the truth commitment operator: (178)

— Entonces, tiene que ser muy fäcil then have.3SG REL be.INF very easy para ti for you '—Then it must be very easy for you' a.

(POM 84)

* — ;Como va a tener que ser fäcil how go.3SG to have.INF REL be.INF easy para mi! for me '—How is it to have to be easy for me!'

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators b. —

;C0mo va a ser fäcil para how go.3SG to be.INF easy for '—How is it to be easy for me!'

(179)

mi! me

— tu vida debe ser interesante your life must.3SG be.INF interesting '—your life must be interesting' a.

529

(VAZ 43)

* — iComo va a deber ser interesante! how go.3SG to must.INF be.INF interesting '—How is it to have to be interesting!'

b. —

jComo va a ser interesante! how go.3SG to be.INF interesting '—How is it to be interesting!'

In these examples the speakers of the original sentences (= the addressees of the reactions represented by the variants a. and b.) employ expressions of epistemic truth commitment (178) and of inferential truth commitment (179). The reactions, in which (178) and (179) are rejected as being false, are grammatical only when the expressions of truth commitment are not repeated, as is the case in (178b) and (179b). This is evidence of the fact that the Falsehood Commitment operator cannot take a truth commitment operator in its scope.

8.2.3.4. Proposition operators versus predication operators In section 8.2.3.0. I claimed that proposition operators take the predication plus its predication operators and predication satellites in their scope. With respect to the periphrastic expression of operators this means that, in principle, any periphrasis of truth or falsehood commitment can be followed by a periphrastic expression of Event- or Participant-oriented modality, Actual Evaluation, Polarity or Outer Aspect. In this section I will substantiate my claim, concentrating on those periphrases that do not fall within the scope of any of the periphrases at the level of x2 (cf. Figure 20 in section 8.2.2.6. above). In the following example poder + infinitive as an expression of Proposition-oriented Epistemic Possibility precedes tener que + infinitive, which serves the expression of Participant-oriented Absolute Deontic Necessity:

530

The syntax ofperiphrases

(180)

CONTEXT: (a girl who lives in a girl's dormitory is asked out late in the evening by two male friends of hers; she accepts the invitation and runs off to ask permission to leave the dormitory; one of the boys wants to hold her back, because he does not see the need of asking permission, but the other says:) Dejala, puede tener que preguntärselo. leave.IMP-her can.3SG have.INF REL ask.INF-them-it 'Leave her alone, she may have to ask them.'

Given the fact that both periphrases can express Proposition-oriented Modality, there is no point in testing the possibility of changing the order of the periphrases. In the following example, the expression of Proposition-oriented Epistemic Absolute Necessity tener que + infinitive is followed by the expression of Intentional-Deliberative Modality pensar + infinitive: (181)

CONTEXT: (the speaker gives his views on Spanish politics) Encuantoa Felipe Gonzalez, tiene que pensar as-to Felipe Gonzalez have.3SG REL think.INF seguir en el Gobierno hasta el ano 2000. continue.INF in the government until the year 2000 'As to Felipe Gonzalez, he must be determined to stay in the Government until the year 2000.' (adapted from C 966.33)

The order of the periphrases in (181) cannot be reversed without losing the meaning of truth commitment: (181)

a.

* piensa tener que seguir en el think.3SG have.INF REL continue.INF in the Gobierno hasta el ano 2000. government until the year 2000 'he thinks that he has to stay in the Government until the year 2000.'

In this variant, pensar has lost its periphrastic character and functions as a doxastic predicate, while tener que + infinitive expresses Participant-oriented Deontic Absolute Necessity. In (182), the expression of Inferential Modality deber + infinitive precedes the expression of Intentional-Desiderative Modality estar por + infinitive:

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators (182)

531

CONTEXT: (the speaker describes the end of a fellow-student's exams)

estuvo tan aliviado que debiö de was.PF.3SG so relieved that must.PAST.PF.3SG PREP estar por darle un abrazo a su profesor be.INF about give.INF-him a embrace PREP his teacher 'he was so relieved that he must have felt tempted to embrace his teacher' Variant (182a), where the periphrases are switched, is ungrammatical: (182)

a.

* estuvo por deber de darle was.PF.3SG about must.INF PREP give.INF-him un abrazo a embrace 'he felt tempted to have to embrace him'

In example (183), the expression of falsehood commitment ir a + infinitive is followed bypoder + infinitive as an expression of Event-oriented Intrinsic Inherent Possibility: (183)

CONTEXT: (about a fictive world where water is a heavy, dense liquid)

— Hasta puede flotar una even can.3SG float.INF a — Pero bueno, jcomo va a but well how go.3SG to una bola de hierro! a ball of iron '—Even an iron ball can float. —But, well, how is an iron ball going (adapted from Μ 55)

bola de ball of poder can.INF

hierro. iron flotar float.INF

to float!'

When the order of the two periphrases is switched, ir a + infinitive can no longer express falsehood commitment and the whole expression becomes nonsensical: (183)

a. * como puede ir a flotar una how can.3SG go.INF to float.INF a de hierro of iron 'how can an iron ball be going to float'

bola ball

532

The syntax ofperiphrases

The examples (181)-(183) illustrate that periphrastic expressions of proposition operators precede periphrastic expressions of predication operators. The fact that proposition operator periphrases precede predicationoperator periphrases is the reflection, in linguistic expression, of the fact that, in the underlying structure, re3-operators take jt 2 -operators in their scope. My corpus contains one counterexample, which my informants found grammatically deviant: (184)

CONTEXT: (a man condoles an old friend)

?? Estä teniendo que ser muy duro. is.3SG have.GER REL be.INF very hard 'It is having to be very hard.'

(POM 82)

In this example, estar + gerund, the expression of Progressive Aspect, precedes tener que + infinitive, which expresses strong truth commitment. Given the fact that, in this example, the operators whose mutual order has been reversed do not belong to neighbouring levels, but to the level of the predicate and the proposition, respectively, this example is much more deviant than the counterexample (168) quoted in section 8.2.2.7. above. The explanation of this instance of deviant usage is again a pragmatic one. Probably the speaker wants to underscore the truthfulness of his concern for his friend's fate by employing the Progressive, which, as I argued in section 7.1.1.1.2. above, can in certain contexts serve as a reinforcing device.

8.2.4. Illocutionary

operators

8.2.4.0. Introduction Periphrastic constructions with a function at the level of the illoction are used to express two different types of operators: the first type is an auxiliary operator that is triggered by means of a given basic Illocution; the second type serves to modify some basic or derived Illocution. In the description of Illocution, I will, in principle, follow Hengeveld (1990: 6-7), who assumes that Illocution is an abstract predicate frame, in which the sentence types that correspond to a given basic Illocution (Declarative, Interrogative, Imperative) are represented by means of the predicate and in which the participants in the speech act, speaker (S), addressee (A) and the propositional content (X), are the arguments of this abstract predicate. The abstract predicate can be substituted by a performatively used verbal predicate. In addition to the basic Illocutions Declarative, Interrogative and Imperative, I distinguish Exhortative as a subcategory of Imperative that includes the speaker,

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

533

and Exclamative as a secondary illocutionary category that can modify the illocutionary force of all basic Illocutions. More details will be given in the discussion of the two periphrastic constructions that express illocutionary operators. Of the two operators to be discussed in this section, one is an auxiliary operator in the sense that it is triggered by the Illocution Exhortative Imperative, (8.2.4.1.), and the other is a modifying operator, which expresses mitigation in declarative sentences and has been labelled "Hedge" (8.2.4.2.). Given the fact that the use of the periphrastic expression of Hedge is restricted to declarative sentences, there is no interaction of periphrases at the level of the speech act. In section 8.2.4.3., I will deal with the relation of illocutionary operators with operators at lower levels. In principle, the discussion of the individual periphrases will be structured in the same way as in the foregoing sections: I will first apply the auxiliary-test in order to show that the construction must be treated as the expression of an operator. Subsequently, I will discuss the conditions on the assignment of the operator. I will end by discussing possible restrictions resulting from inherited lexical properties of the periphrastic auxiliary and by giving a sketch of the corresponding expression rule.

8.2.4.1. Exhortative Imperative: ir a + infinitive Before I will procede to discussing the expression of the Exhortative Imperative operator, the nature of this operator has to be clarified. The abstract predicate frame that corresponds to Exhortative Imperative Illocution would have to look as follows: (185)

EXHORT-IMP (S) (A) (e,: [predB (x,: ): ])

The Exhortative Imperative illocutionary frame differs from the Declarative frame quoted in section 8.2.3.1.0. in the sense that the referent of the third argument is not a propositional content but a controlled SoA. In this way the illocutionary frame accounts for the fact that the specification of truth value is irrelevant (Hengeveld 1990: 7). The SoA is further specified with respect to the first argument, which must refer to the speaker and the addressee. The illocutionary frame will trigger an auxiliary operator on the predication variable to take care of the formal expression of Exhortative Imperative. Furthermore, it will trigger the expression rules that take care of the order of constituents that is specific to imperatives and regulate the prosodic contour of the exhortative imperative utterance. The periphrastic expression of Exhortative Imperative Illocution is ir a + infinitive.

534

The syntax ofperiphrases

(i) Operator. Although ir a + infinitive as used in the Exhortative Imperative function is the same periphrasis as ir a + infinitive in the functions of Prospective Aspect and Proposition-oriented Modality, I will give an example to show that, in this function, ir a is no less grammaticalized than in the others: (186)

Anda, jvamos a ser un poco mas tolerantes! walk.IMP go.IPL to be.INF a bit more tolerant.PL 'Come on, let's be a little more tolerant!'

The fact that, in this function too, ir a can combine with the infinitive of an auxiliary proves that it is correct to consider the periphrasis the expression of an operator. (ii) Assignment condition. There are no assignment conditions needed because all the relevant conditions are contained in the illocutionary frame. (Hi) Expression rule. There are no restrictions that are due to the specific lexical background of ir. Although in most of the examples given in section 7.5.1. the lexical predicate is a dynamic verb, example (186) above shows that dynamicity of the predicate is not obligatory; it shows, moreover, that ir does not require the predication to be a verbal one. There are thus no specific properties of ir a to take into account in the formulation of the expression rule: (187)

EXPRESSION OF EXHORTATIVE IMPERATIVE ILLOCUTION 11 (EXHORT-IMP e,: [pred„ (a")]) -» PRES irv a pred einf (a )

In this expression rule the periphrastic auxiliary is preceded by the auxiliary operator Present, which will take care of the default Present Tense form of the Exhortative Imperative.

8.2.4.2. Hedge: venir a + infinitive The fully periphrastic construction venir a 'come to' + infinitive expresses an operator that serves the mitigating modification of the Declarative illocutionary frame. As I argued in section 7.5.2., venir a + infinitive mitigates the Declarative illocutionary force in the sense that it functions as a hedging device: the speaker makes an assertion but at the same time instructs the addressee not to take it too seriously. (i) Operator. The fact that venir a + infinitive is indeed an operator becomes obvious from the following example, where the place of the infinitive is taken by the copula ser:

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators (188)

535

La compasion viene a ser el antidoto the compassion come.3SG to be.INF the antidote del suicidio of-the suicide 'Compassion somehow is the antidote to suicide' (Cela 94)

(ii) Assignment condition. The grammaticalized expression of hedging in declarative sentences usually occurs with "lawlike" statements like the one exemplified in (188) above. All the examples quoted in section 7.5.2. on the semantics of venir a + infinitive have the common property of not in the first place describing events, but rather of giving the speaker's personal view on events, situations or facts, which is given in a "lawlike" way, i.e. as a categorical statement. Therefore, the proposition contained in the Declarative illocutionary frame must refer to a proposition that is a categorical personal statement made by the speaker. In the following assignment condition I employ "categorical" as a shorthand for this restriction: (189)

ASSIGNMENT CONDITION FOR HEDGE OF DECLARATIVE ILLOCUTION

HEDGE DECL (S) (A) (X)

if:

(X: )

(iii) Expression rule. The use of the periphrastic auxiliary venir in the illocutionary periphrasis is not restricted by any inherited lexical properties. In spite of the movement origin of venir, the periphrasis does occur with non-movable entities as referents of A1 (cf. 7.5.2., example (244)). The periphrasis can also occur with verbal predicates that contradict the deictic aspect of the meaning of lexical venir of movement toward the deictic centre: (190)

El contenido del segundo capitulo viene a the content of-the second chapter come.3SG to alejarse de lo que promete la move-away.INF-REFL.3 of what promise.3SG the introduccion. introduction 'The content of the second chapter somehow drifts away from what the introduction promises.' 31

31. In section 8.2.1.4., on the expression of Anterior-Persistive Aspect, I showed that venir + gerund cannot co-occur with movement verbs like alejarse when used in their literal sense and, therefore, excluded this possibility in the expression rule. One might argue that this possibility should also be tested in the context of venir a + infinitive. However, I refrain from doing so, because the meaning of venir a + infinitive is such that its application to propositions containing descriptions of concrete, i.e. observable, movements is hardly conceivable, if not impossible.

536

The syntax ofperiphrases

Thus, the expression rule will simply have to be: (191)

EXPRESSION OF HEDGE OF DECLARATIVE ILLOCUTION [HEDGE DECL (S) (A) (Xj: (e^ tpredB (a")])] vertirv a pred8iilf (a")

8.2.4.3. Illocutionary operators versus other π-operators The Jt4-operators expressed by means of periphrases are represented in the following table: Table 19. Periphrastically expressed «^-operators

Expression of Illocution

Modification of Illocution

EXHORT-IMP

HEDGE

Neither of the two illocutionary operators presented here does in any way interact with proposition operators. The reason is obvious in the case of the Exhortative Imperative operator, because the corresponding illocutionary frame does not contain a proposition al level. The level which the Exhortative Imperative operator should be expected to take in its scope is that of the predication. In my corpus I found one example in which exhortative ir a co-occurs with the expression of the predication operator Repetitive: (192)

Vamos a volver a intentar go.IPL to return.INF to try.INF 'Let us try this subject again'

ese this

tema subject

(C 964.25)

This example illustrates the fact that the Exhortative Imperative operator takes the Repetitive operator in its scope; the reverse is not possible: (192)

a.

* volvemos a ir a intentar return.1PL to go.INF to try.INF 'we go to try this subject again'

ese this

tema subject

Interestingly, Repetitive is the only distinction at the level of π2 that Exhortative Imperative can combine with, because it is the only distinction at this level whose addition to a controlled SoA yields a new controlled SoA. The effect of other predication operators on controlled SoAs may be illustrated by means of the following example:

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators (193)

Vamos a tener que introducir una go.IPL to have.INF REL introduce.INF a variable variable 'We are going to have to introduce a variable'

537

(PAL 90)

In this example, ir a + infinitive can only express Prospective Aspect, because the combination of the controlled SoA introducir una variable with the Event-oriented Absolute Necessity operator yields a non-controlled SoA.32 The fact that the Exhortative Imperative cannot modify an originally controlled SoA that has been modified in such a way can be seen as negative evidence of the fact that the Exhortative Imperative operator takes both the predication and its predication operators in its scope. The fact that venir a + infinitive does not co-occur with periphrastic expressions of proposition operators is related to the categorical nature of the propositional content. A propositional content the truth value of which is modified is no longer a categorical statement. Consider the following example: (194)

Madrid viene a ser (...) una Madrid come.3SG to be.INF a 'Madrid somehow is a sort of hoax*

(195)

Madrid puede ser una especie Madrid can.3SG be.INF a sort 'Madrid may be a sort of hoax' a.

(196)

especie sort

de timo (M 177) of hoax

de timo of hoax

?? Madrid viene a poder ser una especie Madrid come.3SG to can.INF be.INF a sort de timo of hoax 'Madrid somehow may be some sort of a hoax'

Madrid tiene que ser una Madrid have.3SG REL be.INF a 'Madrid must be a sort of hoax'

especie sort

de timo of hoax

32. This example indicates that the parameter of control is indeed different from the Aktionsart parameters dynamicity, telicity and momentaneousness, because, unlike control, Aktionsart cannot be affected by Äj-operators (cf. chapter 1, footnote 1).

538

The syntax ofperiphrases a.

??

Madrid Madrid especie sort 'Madrid

viene a tener que ser una come.3SG to have.INF REL be.INF a de timo of hoax somehow must be some sort of a hoax'

The proposition contained in (194) Madrid (es) una especie de timo is a categorical statement. When its truth value is modified, as in the variants (195) and (196), the statement loses its categorical character, irrespective of the strength of truth commitment that is expressed. The fact that the grammaticalized Hedge cannot be applied to such propositions is negative evidence of the fact that the scope of this operator is wider than that of proposition operators, because the illocutionary operator Hedge takes both the proposition and its proposition operators in its scope. Another consequence of the assignment condition of the illocutionary operator Hedge is that Hedge never co-occurs with other periphrases. Categorical statements are similar to generic propositions in the sense that their combination with Tense, Mood / Modality and Aspect is problematic. This means that the periphrastic expression of the Hedge operator does not take any periphrastically expressed operator in its scope. Therefore, in this specific case, there is no positive evidence for establishing the width of the scope of the operator.

Periphrastic expressions of %-operators

539

8.2.5. Summary and discussion In the course of this section, I have shown that periphrases can express itoperators at four levels. The Table 20 gives an overview of the periphrastic expressions at the different levels: Table 20. Periphrastic expressions of ^-operators

*1

*2

ASPECT

ASPECT

empezar/comenzar a + infinitive (p) pasar a + infinitive (p) estar + gerund continuar/seguir + gerund (p) venir + gerund (1) dejar de + infinitive ir + gerund acabar/terminar de + infinitive

ir a + infinitive tener + participle (1) acabar de + infinitive volver a + infinitive soler + infinitive (p) MODALITY

pensar + infinitive estar por + infinitive tener que + infinitive poder + infinitive (p)/ deber + infinitive (p)/ llegar a + infinitive POLARITY

dejar de + infinitive ACTUAL EVALUATION

llegar a + infinitive acabar/terminar + gerund acabar/terminar por + infinitive (1) *3

*4

MODALITY

ILLOCUTION

poder + infinitive deber + infinitive tener que + infinitive ir a + infinitive

ir a + infinitive ILLOCUTIONARY MODIFICATION

venir a + infinitive

In this table, the indications between brackets should be read as follows: (p) = "partially periphrastic" and (1) = "having inherited lexical properties". The periphrases marked with "(p)/" are both partially and fully periphrastic. It is obvious from this table that it is only at the two lower levels that a peri-

540

The syntax ofperiphrases

phrastic auxiliary retains properties of its lexical background that restrict the applicability of the periphrasis. Furthermore, only the distinctions at the two lower levels can be expressed by partially periphrastic constructions. It may be concluded that there is a relation between the relative degree of grammaticalization of the expression of operators and the level at which the operator applies, which is such that operators at lower levels may be grammaticalized to a lesser degree than operators at higher levels. This relation is unsurprising in view of the fact that the grammatical distinctions at higher levels are increasingly abstract. In a sense, these grammatical distinctions themselves are more grammaticalized than those at a lower level. The fact that the degree of grammaticalization of the expressions of operators increases in analogy with the level of the operator can be seen as support for Hengeveld's hypothesis that "Diachronic developments in the field of operators tend to follow the direction π, > Λ2 > π 3 > " (Hengeveld 1989: 142). Having considered the individual expressions of operators, let us now turn to the interaction patterns. Within the two lower levels of π-operators, there is a hierarchical relation of the operators in the sense that certain operators can take other operators in their scope, whereas the reverse is not possible. Furthermore, the four levels themselves are also ordered in a hierarchical way, i.e. the scope relations are such that the operators at the higher level take operators at lower levels in their scope, whereas the reverse is not possible. These hierarchical relations are schematically represented in Figure 21, where each of the four boxes is an abstract representation of the internal structure of the set of periphrastically expressed operators. The box representing π, reflects the structure represented in Figure 19, while the box representing x2 reflects the structure in Figure 20. The form of the remaining boxes reflects the lack of mutual interaction at the levels of π 3 and π 4 .

*4

π

3

π2

π1

Figure 21. The hierarchical ordering of operators The ordering of periphrastic expressions of π-operators with respect to the predicate is such that the periphrasis at the highest level occupies the outermost position and the periphrasis at the lowest level occupies the innermost position: (197)

ORDERING OF PERIPHRASTIC EXPRESSIONS OF JI-OPERATORS

x 4 π 3 %2 it) [predg (a11)]

Periphrastic expressions of x-operators

541

This ordering coincides with the ordering principles of «-operators postulated by Hengeveld (1989: 141). It should be noted, however, that this ordering principle is only valid for periphrases. And although it may also be valid for other formats of expression of grammatical formatives, it is not valid for combinations of grammatical formatives that have different expression formats (Hengeveld 1990: 11).

8.3. Conclusion In this chapter I have distinguished periphrastic derived predicates and periphrastic expressions of operators on the basis of a parameter stemming from the theoretical framework used for the syntactic categorization of periphrases. At this point, I would like to show in which way this distinction is related to the more obvious properties of periphrases, which have come up in the course of their description. These are the degree to which they have retained lexical properties inherited from their origin on the one hand and their fully or partially periphrastic character on the other. Figure 22 below represents the relation between these two parameters and the ways in which periphrases have been accounted for in this chapter. residues of lexical base

no residues of lexical base

partially periphrastic construction

derived predicate

expression of operator

fully periphrastic construction

expression of operator or derived predicate

expression of operator

Figure 22. Derived predicates versus expressions of operators

This figure indicates, on the one hand, that periphrases which do not have any residues of their lexical base are always expressions of operators and, on the other hand, that periphrases which in addition to being partially periphrastic have residues of their lexical base can never be expressions of operators. This means that the distinction between periphrastic derived predicates and periphrastic expressions of operators is not only warranted from a theoretical point of view, but corresponds to major differences in grammaticalization.

9. Conclusions

The productive verbal constructions discussed in chapters 4, 5, 6 and 8 have been subcategorized into (i) lexical constructions, (ii) semi-auxiliary constructions and (iii) periphrastic constructions. The last category can be further subdivided according to the partially or fully periphrastic character of the construction on the one hand, and according to whether or not the finite verb has inherited properties from its lexical base on the other. Apart from the partial conclusions drawn in the course of this study, there is one major generalization to be made on the syntactic differences between these construction types. These syntactic differences concern the properties of the finite verb in the constructions, which reflect the different degrees to which the construction has been grammaticalized. Figure 23 gives a schematic representation of the different properties of the finite verbs in each construction type. The horizontal parameter concerns the properties of the finite verb. The rightmost category in the horizontal parameter, "finite verb restricts non-finite construction", consists of any kind of restriction, including the ones involved in predicate formation and contained in expression rules. The vertical parameter concerns the different construction types. In the lower two categories of the vertical parameter "[1]" stands for "retaining properties of lexical base" and "[p]" stands for "partially periphrastic".

productive lexical construction

finite verb subordinates non-finite construction

finite verb has arguments

finite verb restricts non-finite construction

+

+

+

+

+

semiauxiliary construction

—

periphrastic construction [+1] or [+p]

—

—

periphrastic construction [-1] and [-p]

—

—

+

—

Figure 23. Degrees of grammaticalization of verbal constructions

544

Conclusions

This figure indicates that the highest degree of grammaticalization has been reached by fully periphrastic constructions in which the finite verb has not inherited any properties from its lexical base. The finite verbs in these constructions are in fact identical to true auxiliaries like haber and ser, the only difference being that, synchronically, they fulfil a lexical function as well. An example of such a strongly grammaticalized periphrasis is dejar de + infinitive. On the other extreme of this representation of degrees of grammaticalization we find constructions with lexical verbs, which are not grammaticalized at all. An example of such verbs, discussed in section 4.1., is quedar en. In between these two extremes, two construction types of intermediate degrees of grammaticalization can be distinguished. The lesser grammaticalized type of these two consists of semi-auxiliary constructions, which share properties of both lexical verbs and verbal periphrases. Thus, they are like lexical verbs in the sense that they have at least one argument, while with respect to the non-finite construction they behave as auxiliary modifiers. A typical example of this category is tardar en. The second, more grammaticalized, intermediate category consists of periphrases that are partially periphrastic and/or are restricted by properties that the periphrastic auxiliary has retained from its lexical base. Examples of this category are meterse a + infinitive, which is both partially periphrastic and strongly restricted in its applicability as a result of properties inherited from the lexical base of the periphrastic auxiliary; andar + gerund, which is fully periphrastic but considerably restricted in its applicability; and continuar / seguir + gerund, which are partially periphrastic, but not restricted in any other way. As became obvious in the course of chapter 8, both particulars exemplified here lead to restrictions on the applicability of the periphrasis in question as an expression of grammatical meaning. A secondary aim of this study was to find out whether Functional Grammar would be capable of accounting for the complexities that might be encountered in the course of this descriptive study. It turned out that on three major points the theory had to be adapted. Firstly, I introduced the concept of semi-auxiliary predicates, which, just as fully lexical predicates, have at least one argument slot but, in addition, have a kind of auxiliary slot in which a core or extended predication can be inserted. Restrictions on the nature of this predication are contained in the semi-auxiliary predicate frame. Secondly, it turned out that the scope relations between operators as defined through the hierarchical structure of the clause are insufficient to account for all kinds of semantic incompatibilities between individual operators. In this study, these incompatibilities have been accounted for by so-called "assignment-conditions". In order to assess the status of such

Conclusions

545

conditions within the theory of Functional Grammar further theoretical and descriptive research will be necessary. Thirdly, it became obvious at several occasions that the typology of States of Affairs given in Dik (1989) cannot account for all the different restrictions that play a role in aspectual modification. Particularly, the need was felt for some category that accounts for "potential telicity" (section 5.1.1.1.2.) and "change" (e.g. section 8.2.1.6.). This problem has not been solved; instead I resorted to ad-hoc settlements in each individual case. In order to come to a structural solution, the typology of States of Affairs will have to be reconsidered in its entirety.

Appendices

I. The corpus and additional sources of examples Corpus Part 1. Oral texts: (M) Esgueva, Manuel y Margarita Cantarero (1981) El habla de la ciudad de Madrid. Madrid: C.S.I.C. Part 2. Journalistic texts: (C) Cambiol6 nos. 963-970 and Espana Econömica, no. 3719, published in May and June of 1990. Part 3. Literary texts: (DEL) Delibes, Miguel (1983) Cartas de amor de un sexagenario voluptuoso. 62-92. Barcelona: Destinolibro. (GAR) Garcia Hortelano, Juan (1988) "Gigantes de la musica", in: Mucho cuento. 11-43. Madrid: Mondadori. (GIR) Gironella, Jose Maria (1983) Cita en el cementerio. 26-58. Barcelona: Planeta. (LLA) Llamazares, Julio (1985) Luna de lobos. 11-39. Barcelona: Seix Barral. (MAR) Martin Gaite, Carmen (1988) "Tarde de tedio", in: Cuentos completes. 149-158. Madrid: Alianza. (MER) Merino, Jose Maria (1982) "El anillo judio" and "Expiaciön", in: Cuentos del reino secreto. 143-159. Madrid: Alfaguara. (ORT) Ortiz, Lourdes (1982) "Pasajes y figures", in: Ymelda Navajo (ed.), Doce relates de mujeres. 113125. Madrid: Alianza. (PAL) Palomino, Angel (1985) Elpecado de Paquita. 63-100. Barcelona: Planeta. (POM) Pombo, Alvaro (1990) "El Pesame". in: Juan Eslava Galän, et al., El fin del milenio. 85-105. Barcelona: Planeta. (PUE) Puertolas, Soledad (1990) "Camino de Houmt Souk", in: Juan Eslava Galän et al. 109-136. (RIC) Rico Godoy, Carmen (1990) Como ser una mujery no morirse en el intento. 68-95. Madrid: Ediciones Temas de Hoy. (SOR) Soriano, Elena (1989) "Leonora", in: La vida pequena. 109-138. Barcelona: Plaza y Janes.

548

Appendices

(TOM) Tomeo, Javier (1990) "El artefacto". in: Juan Eslava Galän et al.. 139-164. (TUS) Tusquets, Esther (1989) El amor es un juego solitario. 20-32. Barcelona: Lumen. (VAZ) Vazquez Montalban, Manuel (1988) Historias de padres e hijos. 12-44. Barcelona: Planeta.

Additional

sources of examples

Allende, Isabel (1982) La casa de los espiritus. Barcelona: Plaza y Jan6s. Barrero Perez, Oscar (ed.) (1989) El cuento espanol 1940-1980. Madrid: Castalia. Cela, Camilo Jos6 (1951) La colmena. Barcelona: Bruguera. Delibes, Miguel (1988) El loco. Barcelona: Destinolibro. Fernan-Gomez, Fernando (1984) Las bicicletas son para el verano. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Goytisolo, Juan (1982) Paisajes despuis de la batalla. Barcelona: Montesinos. Laforet, Carmen (1945) Nada. Barcelona: Destinolibro. Mendoza, Eduardo (1982) El laberinto de las aceitunas. Barcelona: Seix Barral. Tomeo, Javier (1986) Preparatives de viaje. Barcelona: Anagrama. Tomeo, Javier (1990) El mayordomo miope. Barcelona: Planeta. Torrente Ballester, Gonzalo (1989) Crönica del rey pasmado. Barcelona: Planeta. Trueba, Fernando & Oscar Ladoire (1981) Opera prima. Madrid: Authors' own edition. Cambiol6, edition of 26/03/90 El Pais Semanal, Nos. 84 (2719192), 154 (30/01/94) El Pais, 149211992 La historia revisada (Weekend supplement in 1992). Tiempo, edition of 12/02/90.

Appendices

549

II. Frequencies of verbal periphrases in the corpus A. Absolute

numbers1 Oral texts 148,195 w

Journalism 48,559 w

Literature 106,836 w

Total 303,590 w

INFINITIVAL

acabar de acabar por cesar de comenzar a deber dejar de empezar a estar por ir a llegar a meterse a pasara pensar poder ponerse a soler tener que terminar de terminar por venir a volver a

14

18 103 3 15 288 0 0 8 24

8 0 0 1 23 6 2 0 40 2 0 1 3 93 0 0 84 0 0 1 13

30 2 1 11 54 28 12 0 127 27 0 2 7 101 3 11 103 1 4 2 47

52 2 1 12 113 38 25 1 505 49 0 3 28 297 6 26 475 1 4 11 84

2 1 0 262 64 2 12 4 2

4 0 1 93 12 0 14 1 2

11 1 7 132 63 7 14 0 3

17 2 8 487 139 9 40 5 7

0 10

0 5

0 11

0 16

0 0 0

36 4 11 1 338 20 0 0

GERUNDIAL

acabar andar continuar estar ir quedar(se) seguir terminar venir PARTICIPIAL

llevar tener

1. For practical reasons, there are separate entries for synonymous auxiliaries (e.g. seguir and continuar) and the polysemy of individual periphrases (e.g. that of ir a + infinitive) has not been taken into consideration.

550

Appendices

Β. Number of occurrences

per 10,000

Oral texts

words2 Journalism

Literature

Total

INFINITIVAL

acabar de acabar por cesar de comenzar a deber dejar de empezar a estar por ir a llegar a meterse a pasara pensar poder ponerse a soler tener que terminar de terminar por venir a volver a

0.94 0 0 0 2.43 0.27 0.74 0.07 22.81 1.35 0 0 1.21 6.95 0.20 1.01 19.43 0 0 0.54 1.62

1.65 0 0 0.21 4.74 1.24 0.41 0 8.24 0.41 0 0.21 0.62 19.15 0 0 17.30 0 0 0.21 2.68

2.81 0.19 0.09 1.03 5.05 2.62 1.12 0 11.89 2.53 0 0.19 0.66 9.45 0.28 1.03 9.64 0.09 0.37 0.19 4.40

1.71 0.07 0.03 0.40 3.72 1.25 0.82 0.03 16.63 1.61 0 0.10 0.92 9.78 0.20 0.86 15.65 0.03 0.13 0.36 2.77

0.13 0.07 0 17.68 4.32 0.13 0.81 0.27 0.13

0.82 0 0.21 19.15 2.47 0 2.88 0.21 0.41

1.03 0.09 0.66 12.36 5.90 0.66 1.31 0 0.28

0.56 0.07 0.26 16.04 4.58 0.30 1.32 0.16 0.23

0 0.67

0 1.03

0 1.03

0 0.53

GERUNDIAL

acabar andar continuar estar ir quedar(se) seguir terminar venir PARTICIPIAL

llevar tener

2. As a consequence of the rounding up and down of the decimals, the totals may slightly differ from the arithmetic mean of the individual parts.

Appendices

551

III. Glossary of Spanish verbs in analytic constructions3 acabar acabar de acabar por acertar a alcanzar a andar cesar de comenzar comenzar a comenzar por continuar dar por darle a uno por darse a deber (de) dejar dejar a alguien hacer algo dejar de echarse a empezar empezar a empezar por estar estar al estar para estar por haber de haber que hartarse de hincharse de inflarse de ir ir a liarse a

finish, end finish, end end up succeed in reach walk stop begin begin begin by go on regard as take to, take into one's head to give oneself to must leave let someone do something stop; refrain from throw oneself to begin begin begin with/by be here/there be at the be in order to be near; be in favour of have to be necessary more than saturate oneself with inflate oneself with inflate oneself with go go to get tied up with, take to

llegar a llevar meterse a parar de parecer pasar a pensar poder ponerse a quedar en quedarse querer romper saber salir seguir ser de ser soler soltarse soltarse a

tardar en

tender a tener tener que terminar terminar de terminar por tratar de venir venir a ver volver a

arrive at carry, wear put oneself to stop seem proceed to think, believe can put oneself to agree on stay, remain want break know; can leave, go out go on be to be be in the habit of, usually do free oneself begin (=do for the first time in one's life), acquire a permanent skill take some span of time to perform some action; be long in tend to have got have to finish, end finish, end end up attempt to; deal with come come to see return to

3. The translations reflect the meanings of these verbs when used in a non-metaphorical and/or non-grammaticalized function.

552

Appendices

IV. Periphrastically expressed π-operators with key examples 4 Predicate

operators5

Anterior-Persistive Aspect meaning: SoA has been obtaining up to t( and is still obtaining at tj expression: venir + gerund (23) el calor venia durando demasiado 'the heat had been lasting too long'

ANT-PERS

Completive (Degree) Aspect meaning: SoA obtains entirely or has been totally achieved expression: acabarlterminar de + infinitive (52) no acaban de ser sinceros 'they are not entirely honest'

COMPL

Continuative Aspect meaning: SoA has been obtaining before tj and continues to obtain after t; expression: continuarlseguir + gerund (28) la personalidad autentica de Leonora seguia siendo para mi un enigma 'Leonora's true personality still was a mystery to me'

CONT

EGR Egressive Aspect meaning: SoA ceases to obtain expression: dejar de + infinitive (31) Habia dejado de reir 'She had stopped laughing' Gradual (Manner) Aspect meaning: SoA occurs gradually expression: ir + gerund (41) Goyo iba convirtiendo su casa en un museo 'Goyo was gradually turning his house into a museum'

GRAD

Ingressive Aspect meaning: SoA begins to obtain expression: empezar/comenzar a + infinitive (8) al anochecer, cuando las sombras empezaron a extenderse por el cielo 'at dusk, when the shadows began to expand about the sky'

INGR

4. The numbers of the examples correspond to the numbering in chapter 7, from which all the examples in this list have been quoted. For reasons of economy I refrain from repeating the interlinear translations. 5. The use of either obtain or occur in the meaning descriptions is not meant to imply anything about the dynamicity of the SoA. In most of the descriptions, obtain might just as well be replaced by occur and vice versa.

Appendices

553

PROGR Progressive Aspect meaning: SoA is obtaining at t; expression: estar + gerund (12) ahora mismo nos estän oyendo 'at this very moment they are hearing us' STATE-INGR State-Ingressive Aspect meaning: SoA begins to be the case expression: pasar a + infinitive (4) Entonces las mujeres pasaron a ocupar el primer piano 'Then women came to take the lead'

Predication

operators

Conclusive Actual Evaluation meaning: (Non-)Occurrence of SoA (i) is contrary to what was expected/desired (ii) is the result of some non-explicit process expression: acabar/terminar + gerund, acabar/terminarpor + infinitive (225) El acabö diciindome que la filosoßa era un camelo 'He ended up telling me that philosophy was poppycock' (230) Asi termini por caer en eso que llaman inapetencia sexual 'So, I ended up falling into what is called lack of libido'

CONCL

CULM Culminative Actual Evaluation meaning: (Non-)Occurrence of SoA is beyond (below) expectation expression: llegar a + infinitive (214) Mi padre llegö a liar pitillos con hojas de lechuga secas 'My father even rolled cigarettes with dry salad leaves' EV/ABS-NEC/DEO Event-oriented Deontic Absolute Necessity meaning: Occurrence of SoA is absolutely mandatory expression: tener que + infinitive (165) Un libro de literatura (...) tiene que tener un mensaje Ά literature textbook (...) has to have a message' EV/ABS-NEC/EPI Event-oriented Epistemic Absolute Necessity meaning: Occurrence of SoA is certain expression: tener que + infinitive (174) Era un /also combate y (esto) algun dia tenia que quedar al descubierto 'It was a false combat and (this) had to become obvious some day'

554

Appendices

EV/ABS-NEC/EXTR-INH Event-oriented Extrinsic Inherent Absolute Necessity meaning: Occurrence of SoA is necessary due to the circumstances expression: tener que + infinitive (151) esas ruedas tendrian que ser de hierro para soportar el natural desgaste 'these wheels should be of iron to endure the natural wear and tear' EV/IRR

Irrealis

meaning: Occurrence of SoA is unreal expression: llegar a + infinitive (in conditional clauses) (178) y si no llega a estar la telefönica, nos quedamos sin casa 'and if the Telephone Building had not been there, we would have no house anymore' EV/NEC/DEO Event-oriented Deontic Necessity meaning: Occurrence of SoA is mandatory expression: deber + infinitive (161) Esa actitud muy noble de luchador infatigable nos debe servir de guia 'This very noble posture of an untiring fighter must be our model' EV/NEC/EPI Event-oriented Epistemic Necessity meaning: Occurrence of SoA is to be expected expression: deber + infinitive (173) Debia haber llegado a casa hace una hora 'He should have arrived home an hour ago' EV/POSS/DEO Event-oriented Deontic Possibility meaning: Occurrence of SoA is permissible expression: poder + infinitive (158) la soluci6n, si pudiese ser, seria: se tiene el nino y esto continüa exactamente igual 'the solution, if such a thing were possible, would be: one has the child and everything goes on exactly as before' EV/POSS/EPI Event-oriented Epistemic Possibility meaning: Occurrence of SoA is conceivable expression: poder + infinitive (168) El muchacho puede ir a parar a un hospicio 'The boy can end up in an orphanage' EV/POSS/EXTR-INH Event-oriented Extrinsic Inherent Possibility meaning: Occurrence of SoA is possible due to the circumstances expression: poder + infinitive (149) donde se podia extender el museo, que era por la (...) Calle de Viturbio 'where the museum could extend, which was at the (...) Calle de Viturbio'

Appendices

555

Event-oriented Intrinsic Inherent Possibility meaning: Occurrence of S o A is physically possible expression: poder + infinitive (148) hasta puede flotar una bola de hierro 'even an iron ball can float'

EV/POSS/INTR-INH

Event-oriented Volitional Modality meaning: Occurrence of S o A is desirable expression: deber + infinitive (155) La gente deberia morirse en el cuarto de baAo con la radio puesta 'People should die in the bathroom with the radio on'

EV/VOL

HAB Habitual Aspect meaning: S o A occurs usually expression: soler + infinitive (130) el ombligo rasgado suele delator un vientre abultado 'the slanted navel usually betrays a massive belly' Double Negative Polarity meaning: S o A is not non-actual expression: dejar de + infinitive (plus a negation particle) ( 2 1 1 ) la escena no dejaba de tener su comicidad 'the scene was comical indeed'

NEG-NEG

Participant-oriented Deontic Absolute Necessity meaning: A 1 is forced to engage in SoA by a person expression: tener que + infinitive (144) No tienes que decirme d6nde has estado 'You don't have to tell me where you have been'

PA/ABS-NEC/DEO

Participant-oriented Extrinsic Inherent Absolute Necessity meaning: A 1 is forced to engage in SoA by the circumstances expression: tener que + infinitive (132) La tuve que vender porque me hacia falta el dinero Ί had to sell it because I needed the money'

PA/ABS-NEC/EXTR-INH

Participant-oriented Intentional-Deliberative Modality meaning: A 1 intends to engage in SoA expression: pensar + infinitive (135) pensaba vendermelo algün dia 'he intended to sell it to me one day'

PA/INT-DEL

Participant-oriented Intentional-Desiderative Modality meaning: A 1 feels tempted to engage in S o A expression: estarpor + infinitive (141) Es toy por darte una paliza ... Ί feel like slapping you in your face ...'

PA/INT-DES

556

Appendices

Experiential Perfect Aspect meaning: It is stated at tj (i) that animate A1 or A3 is such at t ; (ii) that A1 predv-ed A2 (to A3) before t, expression: tener + participle, llevar + participle (79) ;Te tengo dicho que no te metas en jaleos! Ί have told you not to get mixed up in a mess!' (81) Ya llevo oidos muchisimos cuentos chinos Ί have already heard an awful lot of tall stories (so far)'

PERF-EXP

Perfect of Recent Past Aspect It is stated at t; (i) that the situation is such at (ii) that SoA obtained shortly before tj expression: acabar de + infinitive (94) Pareces en luna de miel. Hablas α tu mujer como si te acabaras de casar. 'You appear to be in your honeymoon period. You talk to your wife as if you had just got married'

PERF-REC-PAST

meaning:

Resultative Perfect Aspect meaning: It is stated at tf (i) that A2 is such at tj (ii) that A1 predv-ed A2 before t; expression: tener + participle, llevar + participle (70) ya tenia disenado el artefacto que permitiria α los hombres volar Ί had already outlined the artefact which would allow men to fly' (73) Ya se llevan escritos miles de libros sobre este tema 'Thousands of books have already been written on this subject'

PERF-RES

Prospective Aspect meaning: It is stated at ^ (i) that there is some indication at tj (ii) that SoA will obtain after t; expression: ir a + infinitive (64) Mamä, me voy a desmayar 'Mama, I'm going to faint'

PROSP

Repetitive Aspect meaning: SoA occurs again expression: volver a + infinitive (105) Dios sabe cudndo nos volveremos a ver 'God knows when we will meat again'

REPET

Appendices Proposition

557

operators

PR/FALSE Falsehood Commitment meaning: Speaker commits him/herself to falsehood of someone's (addressee's) beliefs or addressee's presupposition expression: ir a + infinitive (in rhetorical questions) (191) —ι,No terminaräspronto? —fCömo lo voy a saber! '—Won't you finish soon? —How am I to know?' PR/TRUE/NEC/INF Proposition-oriented Inferential Necessity meaning: Speaker infers that propositional content is true expression: deber + infinitive (199) Τύ has corrido mucho mundo, (...) tu vida debe ser interesante 'You have seen a lot of the world, (...) your life must be interesting' PR/TRUE/ABS-NEC/EPI Proposition-oriented Epistemic Absolute Necessity meaning: Speaker is convinced of truth of propositional content expression: tener que + infinitive (186) Alguna explicaciön tiene que tener 'There must be some explanation' PR/TRUE/P0SS/EPI Proposition-oriented Epistemic Possibility meaning: Speaker believes that propositional content is possibly true expression: poder + infinitive (184) Piensa que puede ser una bobada cortarse el pelo 'She thinks that it may be a stupid idea to have her hair cut'

lllocution

operators

EXHORT-IMP Exhortative Imperative meaning: Speaker asks addressee to join him/her in performing some Action expression: ir a + infinitive (234) —Vamos a liegarnos hasta el final del malecon —propuso '—Let us go to the end of the pier —he suggested' HEDGE Hedge of Declarative lllocution meaning: Speaker indicates that the propositional content of his utterance is a tentative description of the facts expression: venir a + infinitive (in declarative sentences) (241) Todo es to ha venido a determinar la superpoblaciön de Madrid 'All this has somehow determined the overpopulation of Madrid'

References

Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.) 1982 Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. Allwood, Jens—Lars-Gunnar Andersson—Östen Dahl 1973 Logik für Linguisten. (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 8). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Alonso, Martin 1958 Enciclopedia del idioma. 3 vols. Madrid: Aguilar. Auwera, Johan van der—Louis Goossens (eds) 1987 Ins and Outs of the Predication. Dordrecht: Foris. Bakker, Dik 1994 Formal and Computational Aspects of Functional Grammar and Language Typology. Amsterdam: IFOTT. Bauhr, Gerhard 1989 El future en -re e ir a + infinitivo en espanol peninsular moderno. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Beale, Linda Mckinsack 1978 Lexical Analysis of the Preposition in Spanish: Semantics and Perception. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms Interational. Benveniste, Emile 1968 "Mutations in linguistic categories", in: Winfred P. Lehmann— Yakov Malkiel (eds), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 85-94. Benzing, Joseph 1931 "Zur Geschichte von ser als Hilfszeitwort bei transitiven Verben im Spanischen", Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 51: 383-460. Bolinger, Dwight 1970 "Modes of modality in Spanish and English", Romance Philology 23: 572-580. Bolkestein, Machtelt 1980 Problems in the description of modal verbs. Assen: Van Gorcum. Bolkestein, Machtelt—Henk A. Comb6—Simon C. Dik—Casper de Groot—Jadranka Gvozdanovic—Albert Rijksbaron—Co Vet 1981 Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press. Bolkestein, Machtelt—Casper de Groot—Lachlan Mackenzie (eds) 1985a Syntax and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Bolkestein, Machtelt—Casper de Groot—Lachlan Mackenzie (eds) 1985b Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.

560

References

Bosque, Ignacio 1990 "Sobre el aspecto en los adjetivos y en los participios", in: Ignacio Bosque (ed.), Tiempo y aspecto en espaAol. Madrid: Cätedra. 177211.

Bouzet, Jean 1953

"Origenes del empleo de 'estar'", Estudios dedicados a Menendez Pidal IV: 37-58.

Brinton, Laurel 1988 The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge: University Press. 1991 The origin and the development of the quasi-modal have to in English. [Paper read at the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics in Amsterdam.] Bruyne, Jaques de 1981 "Het gerundio in het moderne Spaans", Linguistica Antverpiensia: 15. 7-72. Bull, William E. 1950 "Quedar and quedarse: a study of contrastive ranges", Language 26: 467-480. Bybee, Joan 1988 "Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning", Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 247-264. 1991 Spanish tense and aspect from a typological perspective. [Unpublished ms.] Bybee, Joan—Östen Dahl 1989 "The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world", Studies in Language 13: 51-103. Bybee, Joan—William Pagliuca 1985 "Cross linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning", in: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation. Den Haag: Mouton. 59-83. Bybee, Joan—Revere Perkins—William Pagliuca 1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carretero, Marta 1992 "Una propuesta de tipologia de la modalidad: la aceptacion como categoria modal", Dicenda 10: 41-61. Cartagena, Nelson 1976 "Estructura y funciön de los tiempos del modo indicativo en el sistema verbal del espanol", Revista de lingüistica teorica y aplicada [Concepciön, Chile] 14-15: 5-44. Casado Velarde, Manuel 1983 "El verbo 'soler' y los modales", Boletin de la Real Academia Espanola 53: 67-76. Casino Pardos, Gema 1993 La perifrasis verbal obligativa tener de + infinitivo. Estudio diacrönico. [Unpublished paper, University of Amsterdam.]

References

561

Casino Pardos, Gema—Aldo Contreras Droguett—Bert van Kreveld Wagenaar—Hella Olbertz—Maurice Teters—Maike Verbeem—Brit Wijnmaalen 1993 Analytische verbale constructies in journalistieke teksten. Een verzameling van voorbeelden. [Unpublished paper. University of Amsterdam.] Chung, Sandra—Alan Timberlake 1985 "Tense, aspect, and mood", in: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Vol. 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. 202-258. Claudi, Ulrike—Bernd Heine 1986 "On the metaphorical base of grammar", Studies in Language 10: 297-335. Comb6, Henk A. 1981 "Some discrepancy phenomena in Spanish", in: Machtelt Bolkestein et al. 185-203. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: University Press. 1981 "Aspect and voice: some reflections on perfect and passive", in: Philip Tedeschi—Annie Zaenen (eds). 65-78. 1985 Tense. Cambridge: University Press. Corominas, Juan—Jose A. Pascual 1980 Diccionario critico etimolögico castellano e hispdnico. 4 vols. Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, Eugenio 1966 " ' T o m o y m e voy'. Ein Problem vergleichender europäischer Sprachwissenschaft", Vox Romanica 25: 13-55. 1976 Das romanische Verbalsystem. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Coste, Joaquin y Augustin Redondo 1965 Syntaxe de l'espagnol moderne. Paris: CEDES. Cuervo, Rufino C. 1886 Diccionario de construcciöny regimen de la lengua castellana. Vol. 1: Α-B. Paris: A. Roger et V. Chernoviz. 1893 Diccionario de construcciöny regimen de la lengua castellana. Vol. 2: C-D. Paris: A. Roger et V. Chernoviz. [1953] [vols. 1-2 reprinted, vol. 3: Ε- continued in installments, Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo]. Crystal, David 1985 A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. D'Introno, Francesco—Jorge Guitart—Juan Zamora 1988 Fundamentos de linguistica hispänica. Madrid: Playor. Dahl, Osten 1981 "On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-non-bounded) distinction", in: Philip Tedeschi—Annie Zaenen (eds). 79-91. 1985 Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dietrich, Wolf 1973 Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 140). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

562

References

Dik, Simon C. 1973 "Beginnen: semantische en syntaktische eigenschappen". Spektator 2: 163-179. 1979 "Raising in a Functional Grammar". Lingua 47: 119-140. 1980 Studies in Functional Grammar. London—New York: Academic Press. 1981a Functional Grammar. (3rd revised edition.) Dordrecht: Foris. 1981b "Over de behandeling van niet-productieve regelmatigheden". Forum der Letteren 22: 39-50. 1983 "Auxiliary and copula be in a Functional Grammar of English", in: Frank Heny—Barry Richards (eds), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles. Vol 2. Dordrecht: Reidel. 121-143. 1985 "Valentie en valentieoperaties in Funktionele Grammatika", in: Simon C. Dik (ed.), Valentie in Funktionele Grammatika. (Tijdschrift voorTaal- en Tekstwetenschap 5). Dordrecht: Foris. 95114. 1987 "Copula auxiliarization; how and why?", in: Martin Harris—Paolo Ramat (eds). 53-84. 1988 "Some developments in Functional Grammar: predicate formation", in: Floor Aarts—T. van Els (eds), Contemporary Dutch Linguistics. 58-79. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 1989 The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris. 1990 "On the semantics of conditionals", in: Jan Nuyts—Machtelt Bolkestein—Co Vet (eds). 233-261. 1992a "Idioms in a Functional Grammar". Linguistica computazionale 6: 241-266. 1992b "Computational description of verbal complexes in English and Latin", in: E. Engberg-Pedersen—Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen—Lone Schack Rasmussen (eds), Function and Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 353-383. 1992c Functional Grammar in Prolog; an integrated implementation for English, French and Dutch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, Simon C.—Kees Hengeveld—Elseline Vester—Co Vet 1990 "The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of adverbial satellites", in: Jan Nuyts—Machtelt Bolkestein—Co Vet (eds). 25-70. Dominicy, Marc 1983 "Notes sur 'acabar de' suivi de l'infinitif", Romanica Gandensia 20: 45-55. Dowty, David R. 1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

References

563

Dumitrescu, Domnita 1988 "Contribuciön al estudio de los verbos modales en espanol (con ejemplos del habla de Madrid)", Hispania 71: 139-147. 1993 "Funciön pragma-discursiva de la interrogaciön ecöica usada como respuesta en espafiol", in: Henk Haverkate—Kees Hengeveld—Gijs Mulder (eds), Aproximaciones pragmalingiiisticas al espanol (Diälogos Hispänicos 12). Amsterdam—Atlanta: Rodopi. 51-85. Fente, Rafael—Jesus Fernindez Alvarez—Lope G. Feijöo 1972 Perifrasis verbales. Madrid: Edi6. Fernändez de Castro, Felix 1990 Las perifrasis verbales en espanol. Oviedo: Publicaciones del Departamento de Filologia Espaäola. Fleischman, Suzanne 1982 The Future in Thought and Language. Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: University Press. Flydal, Leiv 1943 'Aller' et 'venir de' suivis de l'infinitif comme expressions de rapports temporeis. Oslo: Dybwad. Fontanella de Weinberg, Beatriz 1970 "Los auxiliares espanoles", Anales del Instituto de Lingüistica de la Universidad de Cuyo X: 61-73. Fortescue, Michaeal—Peter Harder—Lars Kristoffersen (eds) 1992 Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. Fraser, Bruce 1980 "Conversational mitigation", Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341-350. Furukawa, Naoyo 1987 "Sylvie a les yeux bleus: construction a double th&ne", Linguisticae Investigationes XI: 283-302. Garcia, Erica 1967 "Auxiliaries and the criterion of simplicity". Language 43: 853-870. Garcia Gonzalez, Javier 1992 Perifrasis verbales. Madrid: S.G.E.L. Garcia Padr6n, Dolores 1990 "En torna al llamado 'proceso de desemantizacion'", Revista de Filologia Romdnica 7: 241-253. Garrido Medina, Joaquin 1990 "Concepciön comunicativa de la norma desde una teoria flexible de la gramütica: el ejemplo del gerundio", Adas del segundo congreso delAESLE. Madrid: Gredos. 1-12. Gili Gaya, Samuel 1961 Curso superior de sintaxis espanola. Barcelona: Bibliograf. Glare, P.G.W. (ed) 1982 Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: University Press. Gomez Torrego, Leonardo 1988 Perifrasis verbales. Madrid: Arco/Libros. 1989 Manual de espanol correcto. 2 vols. Madrid: Arco/Libros.

564

References

Gömez Torrego, Leonardo 1992 La impersonalidad gramatical: descripciön y norma. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Goossens, Louis 1982 "On the development of the models and of the epistemic function in English", in: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), 74-84. 1985 "Modality and the modals: a problem for Functional Grammar", in: Machtelt Bolkestein—Casper de Groot—J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds) (1985a). 203-217. 1987a "Modal shifts and predication types", in: Johan van der Auwera—Louis Goossens (eds). 21-37. 1987b "The auxiliarization of English modals", in: Martin Harris—Paolo Ramat (eds). 111-143. 1991 "The English progressive tenses and the layered representation of Functional Grammar". Working Papers in Functional Grammar 41. Green, John 1982 "On the status of the Romance auxiliaries of voice", in: Nigel Vincent—Martin Harris (eds). 97-138. Grice, H. Paul 1975 "Logic and conversation", in: Peter Cole—Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press. 41-58. Groot, Casper de 1983 "Typology of States of Affairs", in: Hans Bennis—W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983. Dordrecht: Foris. 73-81. 1985 "Predicates and features", in: Machtelt Bolkestein—Casper de Groot —J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds) (1985b). 71-84. 1987 "Predicate formation in Functional Grammar". Working Papers in Functional Grammar 20. Gutierrez Ordofiez, Salvador 1980 "Tengo que vender unos libros / Tengo unos libros que vender". Verba 7: 389-396. Hadlich, Roger L. 1971 A Transformational Grammar of Spanish. Englewood Cliffs NJ.: Prentice-Hall. Hamplovi, Sylva 1968 "Acerca de la manera de acciön y el problema de su expresion mediante de las perifrasis verbales en espanol". Philologica pragensia 11: 209-231. Hannay, Mike—Elseline Vester (eds) 1990 Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications. Dordrecht: Foris. Harre, Catherine E. 1991 Tener + Past Participle. A case study in linguistic description. London—New York: Routledge.

References

565

Harris, Martin 1982 "The past simple and the present perfect in Romance", in: Nigel Vincent—Martin Harris (eds). 42-70. Harris, Martin—Paolo Ramat (eds) 1987 Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Haverkate, Henk 1979 Impositive Sentences in Spanish. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1989 Modale vormen van het Spaanse werkwoord. Hetgebruik van de imperative, indicative, subjuntivo. Dordrecht: Foris. 1991 "iC6mo aseverar cortesmente?", in: Henk Haverkate—Kees Hengeveld—Gijs Mulder—Hella Olbertz (eds). 55-68. 1994a La cortesia verbal. Madrid: Gredos. 1994b "Forma y estilo de la interpretaciön verbal en La Celestina: la retoricidad de la pregunta retörica", in: Elsa Dehennin—Henk Haverkate (eds), Lingüistica y estilistica de textos. (Foro Hispänico 8). Amsterdam—Atlanta: Rodopi. 41-53. Haverkate, Henk—Kees Hengeveld—Gijs Mulder—Hella Olbertz (eds) 1991 Exploraciones semdnticas y pragmäticas del espanol (Foro Hispänico 2). Amsterdam—Atlanta: Rodopi. Heine, Bernd 1993 Auxiliaries. Oxford: University Press. Heine, Bernd—Mechthild Reh 1982 "Patterns of grammaticalization in African Languages", Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 47. Heine, Bernd—Ulrike Claudi—Friederike Hünnemeyer 1991 "From cognition to grammar: evidence from African languages", in: Bernd Heine—Elizabeth Traugott (eds). 149-187. Heine, Bernd—Elizabeth Traugott (eds) 1991 Approaches to Grammaticalization. 2 vols. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hengeveld, Kees 1986 "Copular verbs in a Functional Grammar of Spanish", Linguistics 24: 393-420. 1988 "Illocution, mood and modality in a Functional Grammar of Spanish", Journal of Semantics 6: 227-269. 1989 "Layers and operators in Functional Grammar", Linguistics 25: 127157. 1990 "The hierarchical structure of utterances", in: Jan Nuyts—Machtelt Bolkestein—Co Vet (eds). 1-25. 1991 "Tipologia, diacronia, sincronia", in: Henk Haverkate—Kees Hengeveld—Gijs Mulder—Hella Olbertz (eds). 81-94. 1992a "Parts of speech" in: Michael Fortescue—Peter Harder—Lars Kristoffersen (eds). 29-55. 1992b Non-verbal Predication. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

566

References

Hengeveld, Kees 1995 "The internal structure of adverbial clauses", in: Betty Devriendt— Louis Goossens—Johan van der Auwera (eds), Complex Structures; a Functionalist Perspective. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 119-147 forthcoming "Mood and Modality", in: Geert Booij—Christian Lehmann— Joachim Mugdan (eds). Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Berlin—New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hemindez Alonso, C6sar 1967 "El 'que' espanol", Revista de Filologia Espa Ao la 50: 257-271. 1984 Gramätica funcional del espanol. Madrid: Gredos. Hernanz, Maria Luisa 1980 "Las perifrasis verbales de infinitivo en espaöol: hacia una posible soluciön transformacional", Revista Espanola de Lingüistica 10: 411-443. Hoffmann, Roland 1993 "'Periphrase' Operiphrastisch')", Glotta 71: 223-242. Hohn-Berghorn, Maria 1983 Periphrastische Passivkonstruktionen im geschriebenen Spanisch der Gegenwart. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Würzburg.] Hopper, Paul J. 1982 "Aspect between discourse and grammar: an introductory essay for the volume", in: Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense - Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. 3-18. 1991 "On some principles of grammaticalization", in: Bernd Heine— Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds). Vol. 1. 17-34. Hopper, Paul J.—Elizabeth Closs Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: University Press. Iglesias Bango, Manuel 1991 La voz en la gramätica espaAola (Colecciön Contextos 9). Le6n: Universidad de Leön. Jonge, Bob de 1993 "(Dis)continuity in language change: ser and estar + age in LatinAmerican Spanish", in: Frank Drijkoningen—Kees Hengveld (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. 69-80. Keizer, M. Evelien 1992a "Predicates as referring expressions", in: Michael Fortescue—Peter Harder—Lars Kristoffersen (eds). 1-27. 1992b Reference, predication and (in)definiteness in Functional Grammar. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam.] Keniston, Hayward 1936 "Verbal aspect in Spanish", Hispania 2: 163-176. 1937 The Syntax of Castilian Prose. Chicago: University Press.

References

567

Kiefer, Ferenc 1987 "On defining modality". Folia Linguistica 21: 67-94. King, Larry—Margarita Suner 1980 "The meaning of the progressive in Spanish and Portuguese", The Bilingual Review / Revista Bilingiie 7: 222-238. Kleiber, Georges 1983 "L'emploi 'sporadique' du verbepouvoir en fran^ais", in: J. David— Georges Kleiber (eds), La notion semantico-logique de la modaliti. Paris: Klinksiek. 183-203. Klein, Philip W. 1968 Modal Auxiliaries in Spanish. (Studies in Linguistics and Language Learning IV). Seattle: University of Washington. 1982 "On defining auxiliary verbs in Spanish", Hispanic Journal 4: 113128. Kock, Josse de 1975 "Pour une nouvelle d6finition de la notion d'auxiliarite". La Linguistique 11: 81-92. 1985 "La nociön de auxiliaridad. Las construcciones intransitives con adjetivo verbal", Philologica Hispaniensia. In honorem Manuel Alvar 2: 283-303. Kuöanda, Dubravko 1987 "On Serbo-Croatian 'true' reflexives and pseudo-reflexives", in: Johan van der Auwera—Louis Goossens (eds). 77-92. Kuttert, Rainer 1982 Syntaktische und semantische Differenzierung der spanischen Tempusformen der Vergangenheit perfecto simple, perfecto compuesto und imperfecto. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Lakoff, George 1972 "Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts", Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 183-228. Lakoff, George—Mark Johnson 1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Launay, Michel 1980 "Acerca de los auxiliares y frases verbales", Linguistica espanola actual 2: 39-79. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1969 A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman. Lehmann, Christian 1982 "Thoughts on grammaticalization". Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 48. 1985 "Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change", Lingua e stile 20:. 303-318. 1988 "Towards a typology of clause linkage" in: John Haiman—Sandra Thompson (eds), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. 181-225. 1989 "Grammatikalisierung und LexfeiXisierung" .Zeitschriftfür Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 11-19.

568

References

L6pez Rodriguez, Debora 1995 Haber de + inf. Un estudio diacrönico de sus valores seminticos. [Unpublished paper, University of Amsterdam.] Lyons, John 1977 Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge (etc.): University Press. 1989 "Semantic ascent: a neglected aspect of syntactic typology", in: Doug Arnold—Martin Atkinson—Jacques Durand—Claire Grover— Louisa Sadies (eds), Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar. Oxford: University Press. 153-186. Lunn, Patricia 1987 "The semantics of por and para", Indiana University Linguistics Club 1987, 19. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan 1987 "The representation of nominal predicates in the fund", Working Papers in Functional Grammar 25. 1992a "Places and things", in: Michael Fortescue—Peter Harder—Lars Kristoffersen (eds). 253-276. 1992b "English spatial prepositions in Functional Grammar", Working Papers in Functional Grammar 46. Macpherson, Ian 1967 "Past participle agreement in Old Spanish; transitive verbs", Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 44: 241-254. Maldonado, Ricardo 1988 "Energetic reflexives in Spanish", Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 153-165. Martinez Alvarez, Josefina 1978 "'Poder' mis infinitivo", Archivum 27-28: 395-414. Martinez de L6pez, Angelita 1990 "Las frases verbales con gerundio a la luz de un sistema 'tempomodal-aspectual'", Anuario Lingüistico Hispänico VI: 325-333. McCawley, James D. 1971 "Tense and time reference in English", in: Charles J. Fillmore—D. Terence Langendoen (eds), Studies in Linguistic Semantics. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 97-113. Meillet, Antoine 1909 "Sur la disparition des formes simples du preterit", GermanischRomanische Monatsschrift 1: 521-526. Menendez Pidal, Ram6n 1944 Cantar de Mio Cid. Texto, Gramdticay Vocabulario. 3 vols. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Michael, Ian (ed.) 1973 Poema de Mio Cid. Madrid: Castalia. Mittwoch, Anita 1991 "In defence of Vendler's achievements", Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 71-85. Moliner, Maria 1966 Diccionario de uso del espanol. 2 vols. Madrid: Gredos.

References

569

Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos 1990 "Impersonal constructions in Spanish", in: Mike Hannay—Elseline Vester (eds). 31-40. Morera, Marcial 1991 Diccionario critico de lasperi/rasis verbales del espanol. Puerto del Rosario: Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura. Mori, Olga 1974 "Sobre las construcciones espaAolas 'tenerque + infinitivo' y 'haber que + infinitivo* y sus equivalentes en ingl6s". Filologla moderna 15: 155-181. Myhill, John 1988a "The grammaticalization of auxiliaries: Spanish clitic climbing", Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 247-264. 1988b "Variation in Spanish clitic climbing", in: Thomas J. Walsh (ed.). 310-325. Naganuma, Naoe—Kiyoshi Mori 1962 Practical Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Publications Trading Co. Narbona Jimgnez, Antonio 1981 "iVerbos modales en espafiol?", Verba 8: 171-186. Noonan, Michael 1985 "Complementation", in: Timothy Shopen (ed.). Vol 2. Complex constructions. 42-140. Nuyts, Jan 1989 "Functional Procedural Grammar: an overview". Working Papers in Functional Grammar 31. 1992 "Subjective vs. objective modality: what is the difference?" in: Michael Fortescue—Peter Harder—Lars Kristoffersen (eds). 73-97. Nuyts, Jan—Machtelt Bolkestein—Co Vet (eds) 1990 Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: a Functional View. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. Olbertz, Hella 1989 "Periphrastic aspect in Spanish", Working Papers in Functional Grammar 32. 1991 "Acabar y no acabar", in: Henk Haverkate—Kees Hengeveld—Gijs Mulder—Hella Olbertz (eds). 29-41. 1993 "The grammaticalization of Spanish haber plus participle", in: Jaap van Marie (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1991. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. 243-263. Penny, Ralph 1991 A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: University Press. Pinkster, Harm 1987 "The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin", in Martin Harris—Paolo Ramat (eds). 193-223. Plank, Frans 1985 "Prädikativ und Koprädikativ", Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 13: 154-185.

570

References

Pountain, Christopher 1984 "How 'become' became in Castilian", in: Richard A. Cardwell (ed.), Essays in Honour of Robert Brian Tate from his Colleagues and Pupils. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Department of Hispanic Studies. 101-111. 1985 "Copulas, verbs of possession and auxiliaries in Old Spanish: the evidence for structurally interdependent changes", Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 57: 337-355. Quesada, Juan Diego 1994 Periphrastische Aktionsart im Spanischen. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Quirk, Randolph—Sidney Greenbaum—Geoffrey Leech—Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Ramat, Paolo 1987 "Introductory paper", in: Martin Harris—Paolo Ramat (eds). 3-19. Ramos, Manuel A. 1972 "El fenömeno de estar siendo", Hispania 55: 128-131. Ramsey, Marathon Montrose—Robert K. Spaulding 1956 A Textbook of Modern Spanish. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Real Academia EspaAola 1726 Diccionario de Autoridades. [1969] [Facsimile]. 3 vols. Madrid: Gredos. 1973 Esbozo de una nueva Gramätica de la Lengua Espanola. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Reese, Susanne 1991 Gerundialkonstruktionen im Spanischen. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr. Reichenbach, Hans 1947 Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press. Rescher, Nicholas 1968 Topics in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel. Riiho, Timo 1979 Por y para. Estudio sobre los origenes y la evoluciön de una oposictönprepositiva iberorromänica (Commentationes Humanorum Litterarum 62). Helsinki. Rijksbaron, Albert 1989 Aristotle, verb meaning and Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: Gieben. Rivero, Maria Luisa 1977 "Saber: hacia una gramätica de los terminos epistemolögicos", in: Maria Luisa Rivero, Estudios de gramätica generativa del espanol. Madrid: Cätedra. 111-120. Roca Pons, Jose 1954 "Sobre el valor auxiliar y copulativo del verbo 'andar'", Archivum IV: 166-182. 1955 "Dejar + participio", Revista de filologia espanola 39: 149-185.

References

571

Roca Pons, Jos6 1958 "Estudios sobre perifrasis verbales del espanol", Revista de filologia espanola Anejo 67. Rodriguez Espifleira, Maria Jos6 1990 "Clases de 'Aktionsart' y predicaciones habituates en espanol". Verba 17. 171-210. Rohrer, Christian 1977 "Die Beschreibung einiger spanischer Verbalperiphrasen im Rahmen eines zeitlogischen Systems", in: Christian Rohrer (ed.), On the Logical Analysis of Tense and Aspect. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 99129. S&nchez, Aquilino—Ernesto Martin—J.A. Matilla 1980 Gramätica präctica de espaAolpara extranjeros. Madrid: S.G.E.L. Seco, Manuel 1986 Diccionario de dudas y dificultades de la lengua espanola. (9th revised edition.) Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Seiler, Hansjakob 1973 "On the semanto-syntactic configuration 'Possessor of an Act'", in: Braj Kachru—Robert Lees—Yakov Malkiel—Angelina Pietrangeli— Sol Saporta (eds). Issues in Linguistics. Papers in Honor of Henry and Renie Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 836-853. Shepherd, Susan 1982 "From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, Creoles and language acquisition", in: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.). 316-323. Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 1985 Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siewierska, Anna 1991 Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. Silva Corvalän, Carmen 1983 "Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narratives", Language 59: 760780. Smith, John 1988 "Actualization reanalyzed: evidence from Romance compound tenses", in: Thomas Walsh (ed.). 310-325. Spaulding, Robert K. 1926 "History and syntax of the progressive constructions in Spanish", University of California Publications in Modern Philology 13: 229284. Stanchev, Svillen 1990 "Bulgarian se-constructions", in: Michael Hannay—Elseline Vester (eds). 17-30. Stolz, Thomas 1987 "The development of the AUX-category in pidgins and Creoles: the case of the resultative-perfective and its relation to anteriority", in: Martin Harris—Paolo Ramat (eds). 291-315.

572

References

Stone, Gregory Bee 1980 Analysis of the usage of verbal periphrases with the gerund in the educated speech of Havana. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.] Subirats-Riiggeberg, Carlos 1987 Sentential Complementation in Spanish. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: Benjamins. Tedeschi, Philip—Annie Zaenen (eds) 1981 Tense and Aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14). New York: Academic Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1978 "On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language", in: Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 369-400. Tweehuysen, Rolandt 1988 Verbale suffigering (s-vorm) in het Zweeds. [Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Amsterdam], Vendler, Zeno 1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Verkuyl, Henk 1972 On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1989 "Aspectual classes and aspectual composition", Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39-94. Vester, Elseline 1983 Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin. Assen: Van Gorcum. Vet, Co 1981 "Subject assignment in the impersonal constructions of French", in: Machtelt Bolkestein et al. 143-163. 1985 "Passive, reflexive, and causative predicate formation in French", in: Machtelt Bolkestein—Casper de Groot—Lachlan Mackenzie (eds) (1985b). 49-69. Vetters, Carl 1988 "Grammaticaliteit van de 'passe rfecent'", Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 8: 297-317. Veyrat Rigat, Montserrat 1990 La auxiliaciöny lasperifrasis verbales de infinitive con preposicion. Barcelona: ETD. Vincent, Nigel 1982 "The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance", in: Nigel Vincent—Martin Harris (eds). 71-96. Vincent, Nigel—Martin Harris (eds) 1982 Studies in the Romance Verb. London: Croom Helm. Vries, Lourens de 1985 "Topic and Focus in Wambon discourse", in: Machtelt Bolkestein— Casper de Groot—Lachlan Mackenzie (eds) (1985a). 155-180.

References

573

Walsh, Thomas J. (ed.) 1988 Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Variation and Change. (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1988). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Weinreich, Uriel 1969 "Problems in the analysis of idioms", in: Jaan Puhvel (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley—Los Angeles: University of California Press. 23-81. Yllera, Alicia 1979 Sintaxis histörica del verbo espanol: Las perifrasis medievales. Zaragoza: Departamento de Filologia, Universidad de Zaragoza.

Index of names

Allwood, Jens 131, 135 Alonso, Martin 73, 188, 526 Alonso Garcia, Choni 28 Alvarez, Ana 28 Andersson, Lars Gunnar 131, 135 Bakker, Dik 473 Bauhr, Gerhard 349, 350, 352, 408-410, 432, 516, 526 Beale, Linda Mckinsack 61, 248 Benveniste, Emile 316 Benzing, Joseph 314 Berniell, Silvia 28 Bolinger, Dwight 134, 157 Bolkestein, Machtelt 154, 246 Bosque, Ignacio 196, 253, 312 Bouzet, Jean 36, 301, 302 Brinton, Laurel 100, 104, 250, 384 Bruyne, Jacques de 479 Bull, William E. 293, 294 Butler, Chris 27 Bybee, Joan 122, 132, 246, 315, 320, 321, 323, 329, 335, 345, 374, 379, 471 Cabrera, Amapola 28 Cantarero, Margarita 27 Carretero, Marta 131, 132, 381, 501 Cartagena, Nelson 31, 336, 343, 364, 389 Casado Velarde, Manuel 127, 376 Casino Pardos, Gema 28, 252 Chung, Sandra 376, 400 Claudi, Ulrike 122, 318, 321 Combi, Henk 65, 66 Comrie, Bernard 9, 179, 195, 280, 301, 323, 330-333, 346, 347, 352, 358, 372, 474 Corominas, Juan 298 Coseriu, Eugenio 31, 336, 343 Coste, Joaquin 382, 383, 391 Crystal, David 31 Cuervo, Rufino C. 60, 71, 84, 262, 265, 268, 276, 277, 285, 293, 443

D'Introno, Francesco 38 Dahl, Osten 101, 122, 131, 135, 315, 320, 321, 329, 345, 357, 372, 374, 457 Dietrich, Wolf 1, 44, 46, 64, 73, 94, 107, 189 Dik, Simon C. 3, 5-13, 16, 19, 20, 24. 38, 59, 65-68, 70. 100, 102, 106, 107, 123, 129, 130, 143, 144, 162, 203, 205, 207, 220, 221, 229, 247, 268, 272, 293, 309, 320, 323-325, 346, 347, 364, 365, 370, 398, 430, 467, 468, 472, 473, 477, 478, 484, 491, 509, 545 Dominicy, Marc 344, 345, 360, 364, 485 Dowty, David 103 Dumitrescu, Domnita 384, 391, 399, 404, 406 Escandell, Vicky 28 Esgueva, Manuel 27 Feijöo, Lope G. 1, 43-46, 52, 53, 56-58, 69, 71, 72, 75, 155, 168, 180, 202, 207, 208, 221, 298, 309, 345, 364, 423, 433, 436, 486 Fente, Rafael 1, 43-46, 52, 53, 56-58, 69, 71, 72, 75, 155, 168, 180, 202, 207, 208, 221, 298, 309, 345, 364, 423, 433, 436, 486 Fernändez Alvarez, Jesus 1, 43-46, 52, 53, 56-58, 69, 71, 72, 75, 155, 168, 180, 202, 207, 208, 221, 298, 309, 345, 364, 423, 433, 436. 486 Fern&ndez de Castro, F61ix 1, 40, 44, 45, 50, 60, 64, 69, 71. 72. 82, 83. 94, 110, 111, 116, 124, 125, 136, 139, 155, 168, 180, 189, 202, 215, 298 Fleischman, Suzanne 320 Flydal, Leiv 362 Fontanella de Weinberg, Beatriz 40, 42, 48, 162

576

Index of names

Fräser, Bruce 435 Furukawa, Naoyo 313 Garcia, Erica 63, 92 Garcia Gonzälez, Javier 1, 44-46, 52, 57, 64, 71, 72. 74, 75, 77. 78, 82, 154, 159, 179, 200, 201, 204, 205, 286, 307, 310, 333, 343, 349, 351, 383, 418, 422, 433, 436, 467, 469, 470, 481 Garcia Padrön, Dolores 285, 292 Garcia Velasco, Daniel 28 Garrido Medina, Joaquin 28, 164 Gili Gaya, Manuel 43 Glare, P.G.W. 246 Gömez Torrego, Leonardo 1, 38, 40, 42, 44-46, 48, 53-57, 64, 66, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78-80, 82, 84, 93, 94, 110, 111, 124, 136, 139, 154, 155, 167, 168, 179, 180, 189, 193, 202, 219, 220, 241, 275, 281, 288, 290, 295, 298, 307, 326, 333, 345, 349, 383, 418, 423, 436, 470, 481 Goossens, Luis 102, 132, 144, 154, 321, 331, 333, 445, 473 Green, John 38, 197 Grice, H. Paul 420 Groot, Casper de 102, 103, 129, 291 Guerrero, Pilar 28 Guitart, Jorge 38 Guti6rrez Ord6nez, Salvador 250 Hadlich, Roger L. 41, 376 Hamplova, Sylva 43 Harre, Catherine E. 36, 43, 314-316 Harris, Martin 314 Haverkate, Henk 57, 77, 144, 160, 381, 399, 402, 430, 433 Heine, Bernd 122, 297, 315, 318, 319, 321 Hengeveld, Kees 3, 13, 16, 17, 19-22, 34, 36, 37, 65, 102-104, 131, 149, 154, 178, 221, 243, 247, 268, 280, 302, 312, 339, 357, 377, 378, 390, 400, 401, 405, 430, 524, 527, 532, 533,

540, 541 Hernandez Alonso, Cesar 94, 251, 376 Hernanz, Maria Luisa 1, 40, 41, 434 Hoffmann, Roland 31 Hohn-Berghorn, Maria 38 Hopper, Paul J. 315, 331, 471 Hünnemeyer, Friederike 318 Iglesias Ban go, Manuel 37 Jensen, Kjaer 27 Johnson, Mark 142, 318 Jonge, Bob de 36 Keizer, M. Evelien 21, 22, 25, 312 Keniston, Hayward 93, 151, 188, 243, 249, 250, 252, 262, 276, 292, 298 Kiefer, Ferenc 378 King, Larry 332 Kleiber, Georges 404 Klein, Philip W. 1, 43, 134, 142, 147, 152 Kock, Josse de 249 Ku5anda, Dubravko 204 Kuttert, Rainer 309, 355 Laca, Brenda 56, 152 Lakoff, George 142, 318, 376, 434 Launay, Michel 41-43, 94, 215 Leech, Geoffrey N. 402 Lehmann, Christian 43, 89, 178 Leonetti, Manuel 29 L6pez Rodriguez, Debora 442 Lunn, Patricia 249 Lyons, John 18, 23, 122, 131, 135, 149, 153, 280, 374, 400 Mackenzie, J. Lachlan 22-25, 54, 106, 122 Macpherson, Ian 196, 314 Maldonado, Ricardo 72 Martinez Alvarez, Josefina 127 Martinez de Lopez, Angelita 1 McCawley, James D. 359 Meillet, Antoine 398 Menendez Pidal, Ramön 246 Michael, Ian 280, 298, 302

Index of names Mittwoch, Anita 104, 332, 333 Moliner, Maria 57, 63, 79, 82, 83, 85, 114, 237 Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos 29, 204 Morera, Marcial 294, 355, 371 Mori, Kiyoshi 31 Mori, Olga 250 Myhill, John 43,410 Naganuma, Naoe 31 Narbona Jim6nez, Antonio 376 Noonan, Michael 86 Nuyts, Jan 149, 478 Olbertz, Hella 34, 102, 196, 198, 241, 314, 326, 345, 364, 464, 495 Pagliuca, William 132, 246, 321, 345, 374, 379, 471 Pascual, Jose A. 298 Penny, Ralph 237, 441 Perkins, Revere 132, 246, 345, 374, 379, 471 Pinkster, Harm 198, 251, 312-315, 320 Plank, Frans 200, 311 Portero, Maria Carmen 29 Pountain, Christopher 34, 261, 302, 422, 436 Quesada, Juan Diego 1, 31, 222, 326, 345, 362, 383, 450, 471 Quirk, Randolph 12, 153 Ramat, Paolo 316 Ramos, Manuel 331 Ramsey, Marathon Montrose 285, 406, 491 Real Academia Espanola 43, 151, 154, 188 Redondo, Augustin 382, 383, 391 Reese, Susanne 162, 164, 165, 330, 333 Reh, Mechthild 319, 321 Reichenbach, Hans 359 Rescher, Nicholas 378 Riiho, Timo 249 Rijksbaron, Albert 101, 291, 457, 484 Rivero, Maria Luisa 132

577

Roca Pons, Jose 1, 38, 43, 285, 289 Rodriguez Espifieira, Maria Jos6 374 Rohrer, Christian 336, 343, 345 Rojo, Guillermo 127 Sänchez, Aquilino 154 Sänchez Gala, Encarni 29 Seco, Manuel 155, 163, 442 Seiler, Hansjakob 356 Shepherd, Susan 321 Siewierska, Anna 5 Silva Corvalän, Carmen 331 Smith, John 196, 315 Spaulding, Robert K. 284, 285, 343, 406, 491 Stanchev, Svillen 205 Stolz, Thomas 321 Stone, Gregory Bee 1 Subirats-Rüggeberg, Carlos 57 Suiier, Margarita 332 Timberlake, Alan 376, 400 Torrego, Esperanza 29 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 122, 315 Tweehuysen, Rolandt 66 Vendler, Zeno 9, 330, 332 Verkuyl, Henk 9, 104 Vester, Elseline 129 Vet, Co 12, 37, 66 Vetters, Carl 362-364 Veyrat Rigat, Montserrat 1, 383, 434 Villa, Jesus de la 29 Vincent, Nigel 314 Vries, Lourens de 31 Weinreich, Uriel 68 Yllera, Alicia 81, 84, 124, 154, 222, 233, 237, 240, 246, 250, 252, 261, 262, 265, 276, 280, 283, 284, 292, 293, 298, 301, 302, 320, 351, 436, 441, 443 Zamora, Juan 38

Index of subjects

acabar de + infinitive identification of periphrasis 241243 origin of periphrasis 243 semantics of periphrasis 358-364 syntax of periphrasis 495-496 acabar/terminar, lexical intransitive 271-272, 276 transitive 107-109 acabar/terminar + gerund identification of periphrasis 271276 origin of periphrasis 276-277 semantics of periphrasis 423-426, 428 syntax of periphrasis 512-514 acabar/terminar de + infinitive identification of periphrasis 238240 origin of periphrasis 240 semantics of periphrasis 343-345 semi-auxiliary 99-107 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 9499 syntax of periphrasis 343-345 acabar/terminar por + infinitive identification of periphrasis 261262 origin of periphrasis 262-263 semantics of periphrasis 426-428, 430 syntax of periphrasis 513-514 acertar a + infinitive 78-79 Actual Evaluation 416-418, 429-430, 511 Conclusive 422-430 Culminative 418-422, 429-430 interaction with Polarity 420-421, 511 vs. Aspect, Modality, Polarity 421, 429 vs. Modality 416-418

alcanzar a + infinitive 82-83 andar, lexical 284-285 andar + gerund identification of periphrasis 285292 origin of periphrasis 292-293 semantics of periphrasis 370-372 syntax of periphrasis 468-471 andar + participle 45-46 apodosis see conditional clause Aspect 324, 418, 429 Completive 343-345, 485-486 Continuative 335-336, 479-480 Degree see Completive Distributive 370-372, 468-471 Egressive 336-338, 459-463, 482483, 487 Cessative vs. Completive 337 Gradual 340-343, 483-485 Habitual 372-376, 497-498 explicit vs. implicit 374-376 vs. Epistemic Modality 376 with gnomic predications 374375 Imperfective vs. Perfective 329« Ingressive 326-328, 421-422, 447456, 476-478, 487 Inner vs. Outer 93, 128-129, 324, 346 Inner Phasal 325, 335-336 474476, 486-488 Manner see Gradual Outer Phasal 346-347, 364-365 Outer vs. Tense 346-347 Phasal 325, 365 Perfect 352-365, 464-468, 491-495 Experiential 354-356 of Recent Past 358-364, 495-497 Resultative 352-354 vs. Hodiernal Past 357 perfect of persistent situation see Continuative

580

Index of subjects

Aspect (continued) Persistive Anterior 333-336, 480-482 Posterior 334-336, 456-459 Progressive 328-333, 335-336, 478-479, 486-487 vs. Imperfective 328-329 with momentaneous SoAs 332333 with Perfective 331-332 with States 330 Prospective 347-352, 364-365, 489-491, 516-517 conative 351 Repetitive 365-370, 497, 515-516 Qualificational 339-340, 345-346 Quantificational 188, 365, 377 State-Ingressive 326-327, 476-478 assignment conditions see x-operators auxiliarization see grammaticalization auxiliary, true 33-36 cesar, lexical 267-268 cesar de + infinitive identification of periphrasis 266267 origin of periphrasis 267-268 semantics of periphrasis 336-338 syntax of periphrasis 459-463 causative constructions 38 Change 10, 457, 484 clitic pronoun raising 43, 290 combinations of periphrases 486-488, 515-523, 528-532, 536-538 comenzar see empezar complementation 56-57, 85-86 conceptual expansion vs. shift 322 conditional clause 396-398, 507-509 continuar see seguir Contrastive Focus 203, 309 copularization vs. auxiliarization 177 core predication 14-15,106,146, 208 counterfactual see conditional clause dar por + participle 45-46 darle a uno por 53-54 darsea 83-84

deber + infinitive deber vs. deber de 153-154 identification of periphrasis 216218, 244-246 origin of periphrasis 246 semantics of periphrasis 389, 390396, 399, 401, 410-414 semi-auxiliary 151-160 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 154160 syntax of periphrasis 505-506, 525, 530-531 with negation 151-153 definition of periphrasis 32 dejar a alguien hacer algo 45-46 de jar de + infinitive identification of periphrasis 263265 origin of periphrasis 265-266 semantics of periphrasis 336-338, 414-416, 442-443 syntax of periphrasis 445-446, 482-483, 509-510 with negation 265-266, 414-416, 442-443, 509-510 dejar + participle 75-77 Deontic see Modality desemanticization see semantic criterion detransitivization 204, 467-477 "doublet" 455, 477-478 Duration 123 echar(se) a + infinitive 71-72 empezar/comenzar, lexical intransitive 191-193 transitive 107-109 empezar/comenzar a + infinitive identification of periphrasis 216218 semantics of periphrasis 327-328 semi-auxiliary 99-107, 190-192 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 9499 syntax of periphrasis 476-478 empezar/comenzar + gerund lexical 190-193

Index of subjects identification of periphrasis 193194 semi-auxiliary 188-190 empezar/comenzar por 60-62 energetic reflexives 72 estar localizing verb 299-300 semi-copula 34, 247-248, 301-302 estar al 77-78 estar + gerund identification of periphrasis 299301 origin of periphrasis 301-302 semantics of periphrasis 328-333, 335-336 syntax of periphrasis 478-479, 486-488 estar para + infinitive 74-75 estar + participle 46 estar por + infinitive identification of periphrasis 246248 origin of periphrasis 248-249 semantics of periphrasis 382-383 syntax of periphrasis 499-500 Evidential see Modality extended predication 15, 129-130, 144-146, 160, 190, 210 Facultative see Modality fully vs. partially periphrastic constructions 213-214, 318-322, 541-544 gerund construction lexical 161-166, 190-193 lexical vs. periphrastic 166 grammaticalization degrees of 445-446, 471-472, 540544 patterns of 321 unidirectionality of 315 haber 34-35, 251-252, 314-316 haber de + infinitive 45, 251-252, 406η haber que + infinitive 45, 250-251 Habitual see Aspect hartarse dela 57-60 hincharse dela 57-60

581

hyperbole 243 idiom 67-68, 69, 78 Illocution 430, 532-533 Declarative 524 Exclamative-Interrogative 527 Exhortative Imperative 431-433, 533-534, 536-537 Hedge 433-436, 534-536, 537-538 mitigation of see Hedge illocution frame 12-13, 532 illocutionary operators 532-538 Imperfective see Aspect infinitive construction lexical 39-40, 85-89 lexical vs. periphrastic 47-49 inflarse dela 57-60 ir a + infinitive 40-42 identification of periphrasis 231233 origin of periphrasis 233-234 semantics of periphrasis 347-352, 406-410, 431-433 syntax of periphrasis 489-491, 516-517, 525-527, 533-534, 536537 ir + gerund identification of periphrasis 277280 origin of periphrasis 280 semantics of periphrasis 340-343 syntax of periphrasis 483-485 ir + participle 38, 46 Irrealis see Modality lexicalization vs. grammaticalization 88-89 liarse a 52-53 like-subject constraint 49, 54, 85-86 llegar, lexical 258-261 llegar a + infinitive identification of periphrasis 257261

origin of periphrasis 261 semantics of periphrasis 396-398, 418-422, 429-430 syntax of periphrasis 507-509, 511-512

582

Index of subjects

llevar + gerund semantics of 178 semi-auxiliary 182-184 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 179182 llevar, lexical 184-187 llevar + participle identification of periphrasis 303305 semantics of periphrasis 353-354, 356 semi-auxiliary 204-206 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 201204 syntax of periphrasis 464-468 localizing predicate 280 "merger" vs. ambiguity 297η metaphor 59, 70, 73, 87, 175, 184, 261 meterse a + infinitive lexical 219-220, 222 identification of periphrasis 221222 semantics of periphrasis 326 syntax of periphrasis 447-456 metonymy 142 meteorological verbs 75, 212, 228n Modality 131-136,377-379,417-418, 429 Deontic 133-136, 146, 383-384, 503-507 Epistemic 393-398, 402-410, 503509, 516, 524-529, 530 Event-oriented 134-136, 141, 158, 385-399, 502-509 Evidential see Inferential Facultative 131-133, 136, see also Inherent Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic 132-133, 144-146 Inferential 153, 410-412, 525 Inherent 378, 380, 386, see also Facultative Extrinsic 380-381, 387-388, 501-502, 503-504, 506-507 Intrinsic 386, 503-504 Irrealis 396-398, 507-509

falsehood commitment 406-410, 525-527 objective see Event-oriented Participant-oriented 132-134, 378385, 498-502 Proposition-oriented 149n, 153154, 400-413, 523-532 Proposition- vs. Event-oriented 400-401 subjective see Proposition-oriented truth commitment 400-405, 523524 Volitional 381-383, 389, 499-500, 505-506 Deliberative 381-382, 499-500 Desiderative 381-383, 499-500 non-referentiality 106 non-specific reference 141, 158 objective modality see Modality omission test 42, 307-309 «-operators 13-17, 445-446, 472-473 assignment conditions of 472-473, 475η hierarchical ordering of 540-541 illocution see illocution operators interaction of 486-488, 515-523, 528-532, 536-538 predicate see predicate operators predication see predication operators proposition see proposition operators parar, lexical 114-115 parar de + infinitive semi-auxiliary 112-114 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 110112 parecer 64-66 participle 194-195 participle construction 195-200 pasar a + infinitive lexical 222-224 identification of periphrasis 224225 semantics of periphrasis 326-327 syntax of periphrasis 476-478 passive 12, 36-38, 195-196, 463

Index of subjects pensar + infinitive identification of periphrasis 234236 origin of periphrasis 236-237 semantics of periphrasis 381-383 syntax of periphrasis 499-500 Perfect see Aspect Perfective see Aspect periphrastic derived predicate 445447 periphrastic grammatical formative 445-446, 472 phraseological unit 68 place variable 22-24, 122 poder lexical 150 puede que 146-150 poder + infinitive identification of periphrasis 218219, 244-246 origin of periphrasis 246 semantics of periphrasis 386-388, 390-391, 394-395, 402-404 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 136141 semi-auxiliary 141-146 syntax of periphrasis 503-505, 517-518, 524-525 with negation 152 Polarity 414-414, 418, 429, 509-510 ponerse a + infinitive lexical 225-226 identification of periphrasis 226229 semantics of periphrasis 326 syntax of periphrasis 447-456 por 54, 61-62, 249 porahi 288-290 positional verb 301-302 possession 251, 309-317, 356« inalienable 313 predicate formation 7, 102, 446-472 predicate operators 474-488 assignment conditions of 475, 484 mutual interaction of 486-488 vs. predication operators 519-523

583

predicate variable 21-22, 24, 462, see also predicative argument predication operators 488-514 assignment conditons of 490-492, 496, 498-500 mutual interaction of 514-519 vs. predicate operators 519-523 vs. proposition operators 529-532 predicative adjunct 163-166, 185187, 191. 197-199, 207, 276-277, 312-314 predicative argument 55, 103, 199200, 220-221, 311, 313« Prepositional Object 12-13,52-53, 62 prepositional verb 12 productivity 67, 249 Progressive see Aspect pronominalization test see substitution test limits of applicability of see metaphor proposition operators 523-529 assignment conditions of 524, 527 lack of mutual interaction of 528529 vs. predication operators 529-532 pseudo-cleft 41, 156-157 pseudo-copula 177,185, 276 quantification 200, 206-208, 294, 307-309, 333 Quantity 123, 183, 333 que see relator quedar vs. quedarse 293-294 quedar en 56-57 quedar + participle 46 quedar(se) + gerund fully vs. partially periphrastic 295298 identification of periphrasis 294295 origin of periphrasis 298 semantics of periphrasis 334-336 syntax of periphrasis 456-459 querer + infinitive 80-81 raising 65, 147 redundancy 342, 369-370, 435 relative clause, non-finite 250-256

584

Index of subjects

relator 249 restrictor 7-8, 185, 197-198 rhetorical question 406-410, 526-527 romper a + infinitive 72-74 saber + infinitive 131-133 salir + gerund 69-70 secondary predicate see predicative argument secondary predication see predicative adjunct seguir + participle 46 seguirlcontinuar, lexical intransitive 175-177 transitive 173-174 with con 172-175 seguirlcontinuar + gerund identification of periphrasis 269270 semantics of periphrasis 335-336 semi-auxiliary 170-171 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 167170 syntax of periphrasis 479-480 selection restrictions 6-7, 96n, 472 semantic criterion 43 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 91-92, 543 representation in FG 102-107 semi-copula 20-21, 34-36, 177, 247248 ser 34-36 ser de + infinitive 45 soler + infinitive identification of periphrasis 216218 semantics of periphrasis 372-376 semi-auxiliary 128-130 semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 124128 syntax of periphrasis 497-489 soltarse a 54-56 Source 11, 123, 183-184 Subject assignment 11-12, 54, 66 subjective modality see Modality substitution test 39-42 with infinitival constructions 4749, 253

with gerundial constructions 161166

with participial constructions 197200 tardar, lexical 123-124 tardar en + infinitive semi-auxiliary vs. periphrasis 116119 semantics of semi-auxiliary 119121

syntax of semi-auxiliary 121-123 telicity, potential 101-102, 106, 291 temporal argument see time variable tender a 50-52 tener, lexical 305, 309-314, see also tener que tener de 252 tener + participle identification of periphrasis 305309 origin of periphrasis 314-317 semantics of periphrasis 352-358 syntax of periphrasis 491-495 tener que + infinitive diachrony 250-253 lexical 255-256 identification of periphrasis 253255 semantics of periphrasis 380-381, 383-384, 387-388, 392-394, 404405, 413-414 syntax of periphrasis 501-502, 506-507, 522-523, 525, 532 with negation 152-153 terminar see acabar time variable 122-123, 183-184 tratar de 62-64 typology of SoAs see Aktionsart valency reduction see detransitivization venir a + infinitive identification of periphrasis 231233 origin of periphrasis 233-234 semantics of periphrasis 433-436 syntax of periphrasis 534-536

Index of subjects venir + gerund identification of periphrasis 281283 origin of periphrasis 283-284 semantics of periphrasis 333-334, 335-336 syntax of periphrasis 480-482 verde 84-85 verse + participle 38

585

Volitional see Modality volver a + infinitive identification of periphrasis 231233 origin of periphrasis 233-234 semantics of periphrasis 365-370 syntax of periphrasis 497 ya 342-343

Functional Grammar Series Edited by A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot and J. Lachlan Mackenzie Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1 Syntax and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Edited by A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 1985. 2 Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar. Edited by A. Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 1985. 4 Josine A. Lalleman, Dutch Language Proficiency of Turkish Children Born in the Netherlands. 1986. 5 Getting One's Words into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar. Edited by Jan Nuyts and George de Schutter. 1987. 6 The Ins and Outs of Predication. Edited by Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goossens. 1987. 7 Judith Junger, Predicate Formation in the Verbal System of Modern Hebrew. 1988. 8 Ahmed Moutaouakil, Pragmatic Functions in a Functional Grammar of Arabic. 1989. 9 Simon C. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. 1989. 10 Functional Grammar and the Computer. Edited by John H. Connolly and Simon C. Dik. 1989. 11 Casper de Groot, Predicate Structure in a Functional Grammar of Hungarian. 1989. 13 Working with Functional Grammar. Descriptive and Computational Applications. Edited by Mike Hannay and Elseline Vester. 1990. 14 John H. Connolly, Constituent Order in Functional Grammar. Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. 1991. 15 Kees Hengeveld, Non-Verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony. 1992. 16 Function and Expression in Functional Grammar. Edited by Elisabeth EngbergPedersen, Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen and Lone Schack Rasmussen. 1994. 17 Complex Structures. A Functionalist Perspective. Edited by Betty Devriendt, Louis Goossens and Johan van der Auwera. 1996. 18 Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Edited by John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler and Richard A. Gatward, 1997. 19 Martine Cuvalay-Haak, The Verb in Literary and Colloquial Arabic. 1997. 20 Simon C. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Second, revised edition Edited by Kees Hengeveld. 1997. 21 Simon C. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Edited by Kees Hengeveld. 1997. 22 Hella Olbertz, Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. 1998.