The diachronic development of the inchoative construction in Spanish: a case of constructionalization
-
Sven Van Hulle
and
Renata Enghels
Abstract
This study reconstructs the constructionalization process of the inchoative construction in Spanish, both from a formal and semantic viewpoint, operating within the framework of (Diachronic) Construction Grammar. The statistical method of VNC (Variability-based Neighbor Clustering) is implemented in order to obtain a bottom-up periodization of the evolution of the schema. Formally, the study maps the variation between a, de and en in the preposition slot of the construction. First, the paper uncovers that the formal fixation took place before the end of the 18th century, and prepared the integration of new members in the construction. Semantically, the extension of the auxiliary slot is scrutinized, unveiling when each micro-construction emerged and how each subschema became more productive. Second, the study shows that some inchoatives are coerced into the construction by metaphorical extensions, while others are recruited by analogical extension, based on an earlier incorporated (and to some extend conventionalized) member within the same subschema. Third, it is argued that these various developments reflect different needs of creativity and expressivity in the course of the history of the construction. Finally, based on the VNC-output and the empirical data, the analysis leads to the conclusion that the constructionalization was finalized around the 18th century, when both the preposition slot fixated with the preposition a and when the auxiliary slot extended significantly to other domains, resulting in the activation of all current subschemas in contemporary Spanish.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the reviewers for the useful suggestions and corrections.
References
Albertuz, Francisco. 2007. Sintaxis, semántica y clases de verbos: Clasificación verbal en el Proyecto ADESSE. In Pablo Cano López (ed.), Actas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General: Santiago de Compostela, 2015–2030. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence form case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.8Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18Search in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486210Search in Google Scholar
Borillo, Andrée. 2005. Peut-on identifier et caractériser les formes lexicales de l’aspect en français? In Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & Nicole Le Querler (eds.), Les périphrases verbales, 67–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lis.25.08borSearch in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for allostructions. Constructions 2006. hal-01495786. https://hal.science/hal-01495786/document (accessed 22 January 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Carrasco Gutiérrez, Ángeles, Bruno Camus Bergareche & Luis García Fernández. 2006. Diccionario de perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar
Comer, Marie. 2018. Desplazamiento, incoación y causación: Sobre la cuasi-sinonimia y gramaticalización de poner y meter en español. Ghent: Ghent University Doctoral Thesis.10.1515/9783110662757Search in Google Scholar
Comer, Marie & Renata Enghels. 2017. La evolución de perífrasis verbales causativa e incoativa con poner en español: Cambios de construcción y extensiones metafóricas. Bulletin of Hispanic studies 94(9). 903–924. https://doi.org/10.3828/bhs.2017.56.Search in Google Scholar
Corominas, Joan. 1984. Breve diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.21Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2023. The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009327848Search in Google Scholar
DLE = Real Academia Española. Diccionario de la lengua española, 23rd edn. https://dle.rae.es (accessed June 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & Marie Comer. 2018. Evaluating grammaticalization and constructional accounts: The development of the inchoative construction with put verbs in Spanish. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 107–133. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.21.c5Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & Marie Comer. 2020. La red construccional de perífrasis causativas: Definición, comparación sincrónica y evolución diacrónica. In Mar Garachana Camarero (ed.), La evolución de las perífrasis verbales en español: Una aproximación desde la gramática de construcciones diacrónica, 161–196. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & Sven Van Hulle. 2018. El desarrollo de perífrasis incoativas cuasi-sinónimas: Entre construccionalización y lexicalización. ELUA 32. 91–110. https://doi.org/10.14198/elua2018.32.4.Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & Sven Van Hulle. 2024. De “rumpere silentium” a “romper a llorar”: Los verbos de destrucción como fuente productiva de la construcción incoativa en español. In Mar Garachana Camarero & Esther Artigas Álvarez (eds.), Diacronía de las perífrasis fasales: Entre la aspectualidad y el discurso, 61–93. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783111340968-003Search in Google Scholar
Fente Gómez, Rafael, Lope G. Feijóo & Jesús Fernández Alvarez. 1972. Perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Sociedad General Española de Librería.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández de Castro, Félix. 1999. Las perífrasis verbales en el español actual. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar
Garachana Camarero, Mar. 2017. La gramática en la diacronía: La evolución de las perífrasis modales en español. Madrid: Iberoamericana.10.31819/9783954877362Search in Google Scholar
García González, Javier. 1992. Perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Sociedad General Española de Librería.Search in Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2023. From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar: A natural evolution of the paradigm. Studies in Language 47(4). 743–788. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20079.gil.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1988. Perífrasis verbales: Sintaxis, semántica y estilística. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Martin Hilpert. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora 3(1). 59–81. https://doi.org/10.3366/e1749503208000075.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Martin Hilpert. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn012.Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004446793Search in Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–44. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197440.1.21Search in Google Scholar
Hoffman, Thomas. 2018. Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0024.Search in Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam & Irene Renau. 2013. esTenTen, a vast web corpus of Peninsular and American Spanish. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 95. 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.617.Search in Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches and new trends. Linguistics 49(6). 1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, John R. Taylor & Ronald W. Langacker (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 163–209. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.163Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 1–67.10.1515/cogl.2004.001Search in Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2016. Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30. 115–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet.Search in Google Scholar
Roca Pons, Josep. 1958. Estudios sobre perífrasis verbales del español. Madrid: C.S.I.C.Search in Google Scholar
Simonton, Dean Keith. 2012. Teaching creativity: Current findings, trends, and controversies in the psychology of creativity. Teaching of Psychology 39(3). 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450444.Search in Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova. 2020. Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27Search in Google Scholar
Suttle, Laura & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49(6). 1237–1269. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.035.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 523–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2007.027.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2014. On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica 48(2). 557–578. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.018.Search in Google Scholar
Van Hulle, Sven & Renata Enghels. 2021. De Spaanse inchoatiefconstructie in beeld. Clusteranalyse als antwoord op het quasi-synonymie vraagstuk. Handelingen 75. 277–305. https://doi.org/10.21825/kzm.87036.Search in Google Scholar
Van Hulle, Sven & Renata Enghels. 2022. From “throwing rocks” to “starting to cry”. The grammaticalization of Spanish throw verbs into inchoative auxiliaries. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 17. https://doi.org/10.61430/FMWR9351 (accessed 22 January 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Van Hulle, Sven & Renata Enghels. 2024. The category of throw verbs as productive source of the Spanish inchoative construction. In Katrin Pfadenhauer & Evelyn Wiesinger (eds.), Romance motion verbs in language change: Grammar, lexicon, discourse, 213–240. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783111248141-009Search in Google Scholar
Van Hulle, Sven, Renata Enghels & Peter Lauwers. 2024. The many guises of productivity: A case-study of Spanish inchoative constructions. Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0087 (accessed 22 January 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Verroens, Filip. 2011. La construction inchoative se mettre à : syntaxe, sémantique et grammaticalization. Ghent: Ghent University Doctoral Thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Zawada, Britta. 2006. Linguistic creativity from a cognitive perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24(2). 235–254. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073610609486419.Search in Google Scholar
Zeldes, Amir. 2012. Productivity in argument selection: From morphology to syntax. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110303919Search in Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 990–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014.Search in Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2010. Count-mass coercion, and the perspective of time and variation. Constructions and Frames 2(1). 33–73. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.1.02zie.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
