Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Spanish
Edited by Inga Hennecke and Evelyn Wiesinger
[Constructional Approaches to Language 34] 2023
► pp. 309–339

Chapter 12
On the role of verb-particle constructions in Old Spanish

Onomasiological networks and typological change

| University of Tübingen

The present contribution investigates verb-particle constructions formed with atras ‘back(wards)’ in Old Spanish, against the background of the typological change from (mostly) satellite-framed patterns in Latin to the predominantly verb-framed strategies in the Romance languages. The study innovatively combines diachronic Construction Grammar with a functional-onomasiological perspective. This means that VPCs are studied relative to “competing” strategies of motion encoding such as instantiations of the prefix-construction [re-V] ‘V back’ and newly formed path verbs such as tornar/volver ‘turn/go back’.

The diachronic study shows that VPCs are in principle available at all language stages of Spanish. Moreover, the onomasiological perspective suggests that the observed “rise” of VPCs in Old Spanish could in fact be related to constructional micro-changes occurring among path verbs and instantiations of [re-V]. Within this network of functionally related constructions, VPCs prove to form a transparent and potentially expressive, mostly intransitive pattern to encode directed motion meanings.

Keywords: verb-particle construction, atrás, prefixation, path verbs, motion encoding
Article outline
  • 1.Motion encoding in Romance and the role of verb-particle constructions
  • 2.Theoretical and methodological premises
  • 3.Diachronic case study
    • 3.1Diachronic corpus data from CORDE
    • 3.2Constructional properties of VPCs formed with (P) atras
    • 3.3Prefixation and simple path verbs
      • 3.3.1Prefixation pattern [re-V]
      • 3.3.2Path verbs
      • 3.3.3Competing strategies?
  • 4.Discussion and implications of the findings
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.34.12wie
References
Acedo-Matellán, V.
(2016) The morphosyntax of transitions. A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, J., & Torres Cacoullos, R.
(2016) The generalization of preposition para via fusion and ensuing loss of compositionality. In C. Tortora, M. den Dikken, I. L. Montoya, & T. O’Neill (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2013 (pp. 39–59). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Shiao Wei, T.
(2010): The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(3), 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
(2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories. What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2002) Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14(4), 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnett, H., & Tremblay, M.
(2012) The evolution of the encoding of direction in the history of French: A quantitative approach to argument structure change. In A. M. C. van Kemenade, & N. de Haas (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009 (pp. 333–354). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CORDE = Real Academia Española
Corpus Diacrónico del Español, [URL] [25/08/2020].
Corominas, J.
(1980–1991) Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. 6 vol. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W. B., Sotirova, V. & Taoka, C.
(2010) Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 201–236). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuzzolin, P.
(2015) Reciprocals in Latin. A reappraisal. In G. Haverling (Ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century (pp. 221–239). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Detges, U., & Waltereit, R.
(2002) Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21(2), 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberenz, R.
(1997) Tornar/volver y descender/bajar: Orígenes de dos relevos léxicos. In C. García Turza, F. González Bachiller, & J. Mangado Martínez (Eds.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. La Rioja, 1–5 de abril de 1997 (pp. 109–125). La Rioja: AHLE/Gobierno de la Rioja/Universidad de la Rioja.Google Scholar
Fagard, B.
(2019) From ‘il s’envole hors’ to ‘il sort du nid’: A typological change in French motion expressions. In M. Aurnague, & D. Stosic (Eds.), The semantics of dynamic space in French. Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (pp. 110–138). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garachana Camarero, M.
(2011) Del espacio al tiempo en el sistema verbal del español. Las perífrasis verbales ir + a + infinitivo, venir + a + infinitivo y volver + a + infinitivo. In C. Sinner, J. L. Ramírez Luengo, & M. J. Torrens Álvarez (Eds.), Tiempo, espacio y relaciones espacio-temporales desde la perspectiva de la lingüística histórica (pp. 89–124). San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua.Google Scholar
García Hernández, B.
(1980) Semántica estructural y lexemática del verbo. Reus: Avesta.Google Scholar
García-Medall, J.
(1988) Sobre los prefijos verbales en español medieval. In M. Ariza Viguera A. Viudas Camarasa, & A. Salvador Plans (Eds.), Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. Cáceres, 30/03-04/04 1987 (pp. 377–384). Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
García-Miguel, J. M.
(2006) Los complementos locativos. In C. Company Company (Dir.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal (pp. 1253–1338). México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
(2012) Sobre polisemia de verbos y frecuencia de esquemas. El caso de volver. In T. Jiménez Juliá, B. López Meirama, V. Vázquez Rozas, & A. Veiga (Eds.), Cum corde et in nova grammatica. Estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo (pp. 367–382). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(2016) Entrenchment as onomasiological salience. In H. -J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 153–174). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
González Fernández, M. J.
(1997) Sobre la motivación semántica de las expresiones pleonásticas de movimiento: subir arriba, bajar abajo, entrar adentro y salir afuera. In C. Company Company (Ed.), Cambios diacrónicos en el español (pp. 123–141). México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Hijazo-Gascón, A.
(2017) Motion event contrasts in Romance languages. Deixis in Spanish as a second language. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages. Theory and applications (pp. 301–327). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2011) Was ist Konstruktionswandel? In A. Ziem, & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 59–76). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2012) Diachronic collostructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In J. A. Robynson, & K. Allan (Eds.), Current methods in Historical Semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2016) Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Historical Sociolinguistics and Construction Grammar. From mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In T. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, & A. Auer (Eds.), Exploring future paths for Historical Sociolinguistics (pp. 217–237). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Frequencies in diachronic corpora and knowledge of language. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language. Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 49–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Three open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–39). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, J. B., & Szantyr, A.
(1965) Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C.
(2009) The role of dialects in the emergence of Italian phrasal verbs. Morphology, 19, 15–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Grammaticalization and innovation in the encoding of motion events. Folia Linguistica, 46(2), 359–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Particle verbs in Romance. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe (pp. 626–658). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) ‘Rapiéçages faits avec sa propre étoffe’: Discontinuity and convergence in Romance prefixation. Word Structure, 12(2), 176–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Corona, L.
(2016a) ‘Romanes eunt domus’: Where you can go with Latin morphology. Variation in motion expression between system and usage. In J. Audring, F. Masini, & W. Sandler (Eds.), Quo vadis morphology? MMM 10 On-line Proceedings (pp. 73–87), [URL] [20/08/2020].
(2016b) L’espressione della direzione del moto dal latino classico all’italiano antico. In M. Fruyt, G. Haverling, & R. Sornicola (Eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013. Section 2: Linguistique latine/linguistique romane (pp. 87–100). Nancy: ATILF.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C., Corona, L., De Pasquale, N., & Buoniconto, A.
(2017) How should a ‘classical’ satellite-framed language behave? Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp. 95–118). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Fagard, B.
(2011) A diachronic approach to variation and change in the typology of motion event expression. Faits de langue, 38(2), 151–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Masini, F.
(2007) Verb-particle constructions and prefixed verbs in Italian. Typology, diachrony and semantics. In G. Booij, L. Ducceschi, B. Fradin, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (pp. 157–184), [URL] [20/08/2020].
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Hijazo-Gascón, A., & Moret-Oliver, M. -T.
(2017) The importance of minority languages in motion event typology. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages. Theory and applications (pp. 123–150). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2008) Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kany, C.
(1969) Sintaxis hispanoamericana. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W.
(1996) Sprachwandel und expressive Mündlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 102, 64–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A.
(2013) Describing motion events in Old and Modern French. Discourse effects of a typological change. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 163–183). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1983) Latin preverbs and cases. In H. Pinkster (Ed.), Latin linguistics and linguistic theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. April 1981 (pp. 145–161). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd, revised edition. Erfurt: Seminar der Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt, [URL] [20/08/2020].
Lewandowski, W.
(2021) Variable motion event encoding within languages and language types: A usage-based perspective. Language and Cognition, 13(1), 34–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdtke, J.
(1996) Gemeinromanische Tendenzen IV. Wortbildungslehre. In G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin, & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Vol. II, 1: Latein und Romanisch: Historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (pp. 235–272). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, W.
(1984) Transferenz oder autonome Bildung? Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 100, 408–432.Google Scholar
Martín García, J.
(1996) Gramática y diccionario: El prefijo re-. Tesis doctoral, Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Martín García, J., & Varela Ortega, S.
(1999) La prefijación. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 3: Entre la oración y el discurso. Morfología (pp. 4993–5038). Madrid: RAE/Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Masini, F.
(2019) Competition between morphological words and multiword expressions. In F. Rainer, F. Gardani, W. U. Dressler, & H. C. Luschützky (Eds.), Competition in inflection and word-formation (pp. 281–305). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J., & Rigau, G.
(2010) Verb-particle constructions in Romance: A lexical-syntactic account. Probus, 22, 241–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
(2004) The conceptual motivation of Fictive Motion. In G. Radden, & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Melis, C.
(2006) Verbos de movimiento. La formación de los futuros perifrásticos. In C. Company Company (Dir.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal (pp. 873–968). México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Mosca, M.
(2017) Latin to Ancient Italian motion constructions. A complex typological shift. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages. Theory and applications (pp. 151–176). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moussy, C.
(1997) La polysémie du préverbe RE-. Revue de philologie, LXXI(2), 227–242.Google Scholar
NGE = Real Academia Española/Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española
(Eds (2009): Nueva Gramática de la lengua española: Morfología, Sintaxis I. Madrid: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuijsen, D.
(2018) Changing frequencies in a constructional landscape. Diachronica, 35(2), 210–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, D.
(2016) For a radically usage-based diachronic Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, Á. S.
(2016a) Los relacionantes locativos en la historia del español. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Aprovechamiento del CORDE para el estudio sintáctico del primer español moderno (ca. 1675–1825). In J. Kabatek (Ed.), Lingüística de corpus y lingüística histórica iberorrománica (pp. 57–89). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penas Ibáñez, A.
(2018) Cambio semántico y lexemática verbal. De los preverbios latinos a los verbos españoles prefijados y de régimen preposicional. Su relación con los phrasal verbs. Romance Philology, 72(2), 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penny, R.
(2006) Gramática histórica del español. 2nd edition. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
(2016) Constructional contamination. What is it and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portilla Chaves, M.
(2011) El origen de las preposiciones en español. Filología y Lingüística, 37(1), 229–244.Google Scholar
Pujol Payet, I.
(2012) Neología en el s. XV: A propósito de algunos verbos con prefijo des- en el Vocabulario de Nebrija. In A. Fábregas Alfaro, E. Felíu Arquiola, J. Martín García, & J. Pazó Espinosa (Eds.), Los límites de la morfología. Estudios ofrecidos a Soledad Varela Ortega (pp. 353–368). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F.
(1993) Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Molina, J., & Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, Á. S.
(2017) La imprescindible distinción entre texto y testimonio: El CORDE y los criterios de fiabilidad lingüística. Scriptum Digital, 6, 5–68.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, M.
(2013) Tornar and volver. The interplay of frequency and semantics in compound tense auxiliary selection in Medieval and Classical Spanish. In E. Van Gelderen, J. Barðdal, & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Argument structure in flux. The Naples-Capri papers (pp. 435–458). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Prieto Borja, P.
(1992) Alternancia entre el lexema con y sin prefijo en castellano medieval (el verbo). In M. Ariza Viguera (Ed.), Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. Vol. I (pp. 1323–1336). Sevilla: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. -J., & Küchenhoff, H.
(2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. -J., & Mantlik, A.
(2015) Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schøsler, L.
(2008) L’expression des traits manière et direction des verbes de mouvement. Perspectives diachroniques et typologiques. In E. Stark, R. Schmidt-Riese, & E. Stoll (Eds.), Romanische Syntax im Wandel. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Wulf Oesterreicher (pp. 113–132). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schrickx, J.
(2015) Reflexionen über lateinische re-Komposita. Glotta, 91, 264–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sletsjøe, L.
(1979) Le préfixe re- en latin et dans les langues romanes occidentales. Studia Neophilologica, 51, 85–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolova, N.
(2005) The return source domain and the iterative aspect in the 16th-century Spanish. A corpus analysis of ‘tornar/volver + preposition + infinitive’. In A. Wallington, J. Barnden, S. Glasbey, M. Lee, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Interdisciplinary Workshop on Corpus-Based Approaches to Figurative Language held in conjunction with Corpus Linguistics 2005. 14th July 2005 (pp. 72–79). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
(2015) Cognitive Linguistics and lexical change. Motion verbs from Latin to Romance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Suárez Fernández, M.
(1999) Valores semántico-sintácticos de un verbo muy productivo en la lengua medieval: Tornar. Verba, 26, 311–325.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2007) The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 97–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Modeling language change with constructional networks. In S. Pons Bordería, & Ó. Loureda Lamas (Eds.), Beyond grammaticalization and discourse markers. New issues in the study of language change (pp. 17–50). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Troberg, M., & Burnett, H.
(2017) From Latin to Modern French: A punctuated shift. In E. Mathieu, & R. Truswell (Eds.), Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax (pp. 104–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiesinger, E.
(2018) no volver a repetir lo mismo pa’ tras: [V para atrás] als Konstruktion im Sprachkontakt. In J. Erfurt, & S. De Knop (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie (OBST), 94, 105–125.Google Scholar
(2020) ¿Esto se echa para atrás? Una aproximación a los verbos sintagmáticos en el español peninsular a base de un estudio de corpus de [V para atrás]. Romanica Olomucensia, 32(1), 201–230, [URL] [20/08/2020].
(2021) The Spanish verb-particle construction [V para atrás]. Disentangling constructional contact and change. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 139–187). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
accepted). Verbos con partículas en los márgenes de la lexicografía y la gramaticografía del español. In M. Garachana Camarero, & M. S. Sansiñena Pascual Eds Marginalia en la lingüística del español Boletín de Filología de la Universidad de Chile
submitted). Entre innovación y traducción: Los verbos con partículas en el español antiguo. In Actas del XII Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. León, 16–19 de mayo de 2022. León: Universidad de León.
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., & B. Szmrecsanyi
(2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30(3), 381–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yllera, A.
(1980) Sintaxis histórica del verbo español: Las perífrasis medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, P.
(2018) Processing and representation of morphological complexity in native language comprehension and production. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology (pp. 583–602). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar