Abstract
Departing from a proposal by Keizer on how to bridge the gap between the grammar and the lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), this article deals with three aspectual verbal periphrases in Spanish, which are, in the order of their degrees of grammaticalization, (i) weakly grammaticalized resultative tener+participle, (ii) egressive parar de+infinitive and (iii) strongly grammaticalized habitual soler+infinitive. In spite of their different syntactic behaviors, none of them is a truly lexical or truly grammatical item. After a detailed description of the syntax and semantics of these auxiliary constructions in comparison with truly auxiliary constructions, the article discusses the proposal by García Velasco (this issue) for the lexicon in FDG. This serves as a starting point for the development of the concept of lexical auxiliaries, which is then applied to the three periphrastic constructions. The representation of these constructions in FDG makes use of “combinations of partially instantiated frames,” introduced by Keizer (this issue), and adequately reflects the meanings and the morphosyntactic structure of lexical auxiliaries.
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments I was given by the participants of the Workshop on the lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar in Vienna, as well as the comments by Daniel García Velasco, Inge Genee, Evelien Keizer, Josefien Sweep, and two anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of this article. All remaining shortcomings are mine. Part of this article was written during a one-year stay at the São Paulo State University, financed by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant no. 2014/00034‒5.
References
Acosta, Diego de. 2011. Rethinking the genesis of the Romance periphrastic perfect. Diachronica 28(2). 143–185.10.1075/dia.28.2.01deaSearch in Google Scholar
Bravo, Ana. 2003. Properties of the prospective aspect. In Claus D. Pusch & Andreas Wesch (eds.), Verbalperiphrasen in den (ibero-) romanischen Sprachen, 135–146. Hamburg: Buske.Search in Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2012. An ontological approach to the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(4). 619–634.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.004Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Camus Bergareche, Bruno. 2006. Ir a+infinitivo. In Luis García Fernández (ed.) Diccionario de perífrasis verbales. 177–182. Madrid: Gredos.10.4994/hispanica1965.2006.177Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 1998. The evolution of Spanish clitic climbing: A corpus-based approach. Studia Neophilologica 69. 251–263.10.1080/00393279708588211Search in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar: The structure of the clause. 2nd revised edn., Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1999. El pronombre personal: formas y distribuciones; pronombres átonos y tónicos. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. 1209–1273. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel. 2007. Lexical competence and Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa: Revista de lingüística 51(2). 165–187. http://seer.fclar.unesp.br/alfa/article/view/1442/1150 (accessed 24 February 2013)Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel. 2009. Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua 119(8). 1164–1185. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438410800082X (accessed 24 February 2013)10.1016/j.lingua.2007.12.006Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel. 2011. The causative/inchoative alternation in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives, 115–135. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel & Kees Hengeveld. 2002. Do we need predicate frames? In Ricardo Mairal Usón & María Jesús Pérez Quintero (eds.), New perspectives on argument structure in Functional Grammar, 95–123. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Florian Haas. 2011. On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance: A diachronic-typological approach. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 127–166. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.124.05gasSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1988. Perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1999. Los verbos auxiliares: las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, 3321–3389. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1987. The auxiliarization of English modals. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 11–143. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Groot, Casper de. 1986. Predicate formation in Functional Grammar. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36(1–4). 69–91.Search in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog. 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 401–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110883282Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2014. Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics 24(2). 203–227.10.1075/prag.24.2.02henSearch in Google Scholar
Hernández Díaz, Axel. 2006. Posesión y existencia: la competencia de haber y tener y haber existencial. In Concepción Company Company (ed.), Síntaxis de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal, 1053–1160. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de México.Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. Some principles of grammaticalization. In Bernd Heine & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hopSearch in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar
Keizer, M. Evelien 2007. The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa: Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 35–56. http://seer.fclar.unesp.br/alfa/ article/view/1436/1138 (accessed 12 June 2008)Search in Google Scholar
Keizer, M. Evelien 2009. Verb-preposition constructions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua 119. 1186–1211.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.12.007Search in Google Scholar
Keizer, M. Evelien & Wim Honselaar. 2009. A Functional Discourse Grammar account of set nouns in Dutch and its implications for lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 22(4). 361–395.10.1093/ijl/ecp023Search in Google Scholar
Lastra, Yolanda & Pedro Martín Butragueño. 2010. Futuro perifrástico y futuro morfológico en el corpus sociolingüístico de la Ciudad de México. Oralia: análisis del discurso oral 13. 145–172.10.2307/j.ctv43vtzc.4Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Search in Google Scholar
Macpherson, Ian. 1967. Past participle agreement in Old Spanish: transitive verbs. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 44. 241–254.10.1080/1475382672000344241Search in Google Scholar
Marchese, Lynell. 1986. Tense/aspect and the development of auxiliaries in the Kru languages. Arlington, VA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1988a. The grammaticalization of auxiliaries: Spanish clitic climbing. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 352–363.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1792Search in Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1988b. Variation in Spanish clitic climbing. In Thomas J. Walsh (ed.) Synchronic and diachronic approaches to linguistic variation and change, 310–325. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella. 1995. Tener+participium in Functionele Grammatica. In Cees van Esch & Maarten Steenmeijer (eds.), 6e Symposium Spaans in onderwijs, onderzoek en bedrijfsleven, 31–44. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Search in Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella. 1998. Verbal periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820881Search in Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 193–223. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Real Academia. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española, publicada por la Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa.Search in Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1978. The category AUX in a language universal. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 3, 7–45. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 1999. Construction frequency and reductive change: Diachronic and register variation in Spanish clitic climbing. Language variation and change 11(2). 143–170.10.1017/S095439459911202XSearch in Google Scholar
Vossen, Piek. 1995. Grammatical and conceptual individuation in the lexicon. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix: Corpora
[Alcalá] Moreno Fernández, Francisco, Ana María Cestero Mancera, Isabel Molina Martos & Florentino Paredes García. 2002–2007. La lengua hablada en Alcalá de Henares. Corpus PRESEEA - ALCALÁ. 3 vols. (CD-ROM). Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.
[CASO] Davies, Mark. 2001–present. Corpus of American Soap Operas, 2001–2012. http://corpus2.byu.edu/soap/ (accessed 30 December 2013).
[CdP] Davies, Mark & Michael Ferreira. 2006-present. Corpus do Português: 45 million words, 1300s–1900s. http://www.corpusdoportugues.org (accessed 1 July 2014).
[CREA] Real Academia Española. online. Corpus de referencia del español actual. http://corpus.rae.es/ (accessed 18 September 2015).
[CdE] Davies, Mark. 2002-present. Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s–1900s. http://www.corpusdelespanol.org (accessed 30 December 2013).
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton