Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Spanish
Edited by Inga Hennecke and Evelyn Wiesinger
[Constructional Approaches to Language 34] 2023
► pp. 224–254

Chapter 9
Que conste/sepas and como si
constructions in Spanish

| University of Sevilla
| University of Córdoba
The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, it explores the discursive functioning of two constructions in Spanish: [que conste/sepas (que) + clause] and [como si + subjunctive clause]. Second, it proposes, to this end, to extend the concept of “construction”, originating in Construction Grammar, towards a theoretical-methodological instrument necessary to explain discourse syntax, focusing on the description of the phenomena and their evolution. So far, the existing theoretical models on the architecture of discourse have determined and described categories (discourse markers) and functions (connection or modalization, among others). In macro-syntax or thetical grammar, even peripheral functions related to a proposition have been mentioned. But the existence of sentence patterns that acquire a discursive function in terms of a “construction”, and develop procedural meaning as a whole, has not been considered. Their analysis must take into account various factors, since the procedural meaning carried by the construction arises from the combination of open and fixed slots. These constructions are usually inserted into the syntactic scheme of the sentence or represent suspended statements that operate in reactive interventions. They represent a type of syntax different from the one traditionally considered, which confirms the need to use this extended concept of “construction” in the syntax of discourse as a methodological tool with great potential to explain all the diversity it contains.
Keywords: Spanish, pragmatics, discourse-syntax, Construction Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructions in discourse grammar
    • 2.1The need for constructions in discourse syntax
    • 2.2Our concept of construction
  • 3.Constructions and operators in a discursive approach
  • 4.[Que + knowledge verb (subjunctive)] constructions in Spanish
    • 4.1A non-prototypical directive construction
    • 4.2The formation of a new construction
      • 4.2.1Reinforcement of assertions
      • 4.2.2Focalisation of information
    • 4.3A new construction as a constituent of the utterance: Recategorisation
  • 5.The [como si + subjunctive clause] construction
    • 5.1The construction [como si + clause]
    • 5.2[Como si + sentence] as independent reactive turn
    • 5.3Construction [como si + indicative]: assertive distance
    • 5.4Como si as pragmatic marker: recategorisation
    • 5.5Final remarks
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.34.09fue
References (70)
References
Berrendonner, A. (1990). Pour une macro-syntaxe. In D. Willems (Ed.) Données orales et théories linguistiques. Travaux de Linguistique 21 (pp. 25–36). Paris: Louvain Duculot.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2000). Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Orphys.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Discourse markers. In A. H. Jucker, & I. Taatvisainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 285–314). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company, C. (2004). ¿Gramaticalización o desgramaticalización? Reanálisis y subjetivización de verbos como marcadores discursivos en la historia del español. Revista de Filología Española, 84(1), 29–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). On assessing situations and events in conversation: ‘extraposition’ and its relatives. Discourse Studies, 10(4), 443–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culioli, A. (1999). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Formalisation et opérations de repérage. Tome 2. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49(2), 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, G. (2004). Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). El decir y lo dicho. Buenos Aires: Hachette.Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Kotsinas, U. B. (1993). Pragmaticalization: The Case of ba’ and you know. Studier i modern språkvetenskap, 10, 79–93.Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, M. V. & Leonetti, M. (2009). La expresión del Verum Focus en español. Español actual, 92, 11–46.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolavea (Ed.), Finiteness (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Watanabe, H. (2016). The dynamics of insubordination: An overview. In N. Evans, & H. Watanabe (Eds.) Insubordination (pp. 1–38). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.Google Scholar
(1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. -O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language. The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (1999). La organización informativa del texto. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
(2000). Lingüística pragmática y análisis del discurso. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
(2003). Operador/conector, un criterio para la sintaxis discursiva. RILCE, 19(1), 61–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Enunciación, aserción y modalidad, tres clásicos. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, XXVII, 121–145.Google Scholar
(2016). Para colmo, scalar operator and additive connector. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(1), 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español (2nd ed.). Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
(2018b). Parentéticos. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
(2019). Categorías discursivas y segmentación en macrosintaxis. In C. Fuentes Rodríguez & S. Gutiérrez Ordóñez (Eds.), Avances en macrosintaxis (pp. 15–66). Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
(2020). Fijación fraseológica de construcciones con contenido procedimental. Romanica Olomucensia, 1, 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Discursive functions and constructionalization of independent ‘subordinate’ sentences in Spanish. CLAC, 87, 173–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. & Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. (Eds.) (2019). Avances en macrosintaxis. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
García Ramón, A. (2018). Epistemicidad en interacción: (a)simetrías epistémicas en secuencias de acuerdo y su relación con la construcción de roles funcionales en conversaciones y entrevistas. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de València.
Garrido Medina, J. (1999). Los actos de habla. Las oraciones imperativas. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Volume 3. (pp. 3879–3928). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Gili Gaya, S. (1961). Curso superior de sintaxis española (9th ed.). Bibliograf.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. (2010). Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat de Barcelona.
(2016). Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination. Insubordinate que-constructions in Spanish. In N. Evans, & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 113–143). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gras, P., & Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). An interactional account of discourse-connective que-constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk, 35(4), 505–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2007). Types of focus in English. In C. Lee, M. Gordon, & D. Büring (Eds.), Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation (pp. 83–100). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haverkate, H. (2002). The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51(6), 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hummel, M. (2004). El valor básico del subjuntivo español y románico (Annexe of the Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, 25). Universidad de Extremadura.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35(4), 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loureda Lamas, Ó., & Acín Villa, E. (Eds.). (2010). Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M. A. & Portolés, J. (1999). Los marcadores del discurso. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Volume 3 (pp. 4051–4213). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Pérez Béjar, V. (2019). Para el caso: análisis de una construcción versátil en sintaxis del discurso. ELUA, Anejo VI, 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Que conste: una construcción de refuerzo a la aserción. In C. Fuentes Rodríguez (Ed.), Operadores en proceso (pp. 147–176). München: Lincom.Google Scholar
(2020b). Resulta que … De cláusula subordinante a elemento procedimental del discurso. RILCE, 36(3), 1193–1217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. (2003). Que inicial átono como marca de modalidad. ELUA, 17, 531–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pop, L. (2009). Quelles informations se pragmatisent? Le cas des verbes plus ou moins marqueurs. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LIV(1–2), 161–172.Google Scholar
Porroche Ballesteros, M. (1998). Sobre algunos usos de que, si y es que como marcadores discursivos. In M. A. Martín Zorraquino, & E. Montolío Durán (Eds.), Los marcadores del discurso: teoría y análisis (pp. 229–242). Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Project MEsA (2017). Corpus MEsA (Macrosintaxis del Español Actual), [URL] [20/12/2022].
Real Academia Española, & Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009). Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española (NGLE). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española (online). Corpus de referencia del español actual (CREA), [URL] [20/12/2022].
. Corpus del español del siglo XXI (CORPES XXI), [URL] [20/12/2022].
Reyes, G. (1990). La pragmática lingüística. Barcelona: Montesinos.Google Scholar
(1994). Los procedimientos de cita: citas encubiertas y ecos. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, T. M. (2008). Estudio sintáctico y discursivo de algunas estructuras enunciativas y citativas del español. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 21, 269–288.Google Scholar
Sánchez López, C. (1995). Construcciones concesivas con para. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, 25(1), 99–127.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S., De Smet, H. & Cornillie, B. (2015). Displaced directives: Subjunctive free-standing que-clauses vs. imperatives in Spanish. Folia Linguistica, 49(1), 257–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santos Río, L. (2000). Rasgos, tipos y fronteras en la complementación respectual. In J. Borreo Nieto, J. Fernández González, L. Santos Río, & R. Senabre Sempere (Eds.), Cuestiones de actualidad en lengua española (pp. 119–126). Salamanca: University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization, [URL] [20/12/2022].
(2010). Grammaticalization. In A. H. Jucker, & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 97–126). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2005). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Linde, A. & Van de Velde, F. (2014). (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 226–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175–176(44), 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar