Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 33:3 (2016) ► pp.297–329

From possession to obligation via shifting distributions and particular constructions

Studies of grammaticalization have identified a tendency for verbs of possession to develop modal meanings (Bybee et al. 1994, Heine & Kuteva 2002). I present evidence of the mechanisms contributing to both semantic and structural change in one such instance, the Modern Spanish deontic modal construction [tener que + Inf] “to have to”. Quantitative analysis of a corpus of written texts confirms that this process is gradual and layered, exhibiting semantic changes measurable in the ratio of lexical infinitive types to total tokens of the constructions, changing tendencies in the construction’s internal structure and the presence of highly frequent, lexically particular instances of tener que. This study presents quantifiable manifestations of grammaticalization processes that do not adhere to a linear, uniform cline and are consistently variable, even on a small scale.
Keywords: semantic change, modality, Spanish, Grammaticalization, lexical diffusion
Published online: 15 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.3.01bau
References (33)
Aaron, Jessi Elana. 2010. Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 22(1). 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal ‘have to’ in English. Online at: [URL] (last accessed 14 May 2016.)
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Roberta L. Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language 1: Distribution and historical change, 187–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corominas, Joan & José A. Pascual. 1980-1991. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2002-. Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s-1900s. Online at: [URL] (last accessed July, 2013.)
Denning, Keith. 1987. Obligation and space: The origins of markers of obligative modality. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 231. 45–55.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrick. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2006. The modal auxiliaries have to and must in the Corpus of Early Ontario English: Gradient change and colonial lag. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 511. 287–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enguita Utrilla, José María. 1985. Perífrasis verbales con idea de obligación en el Libro de Buen Amor. Revista de filología española 65(1). 75–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. The knowing ear: An Australian test of universal claims about the semantic structure of sensory verbs and their extension into the domain of cognition. Language 76(3). 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78(1). 137–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garachana Camarero, Mar & Malte Rosemeyer. 2011. Rutinas léxicas en el cambio gramatical: El caso de las perífrasis deónticas e iterativas. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 61. 35–60.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Negation in language: pragmatics, function, ontology. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 69–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Ordóñez, Salvador. 1980. Tengo que vender unos libros / Tengo unos libros que vender. Verba 71. 389–396.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott &Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization I1. 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study on grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
López Izquierdo, Marta. 2008. Las perífrasis modales de necesidad: emergencia y renovación. In Concepción Company Company & José G. Moreno de Alba (eds.), Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española 71, 789–806. Spain: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph. 2002. A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanz Martin, Blanca Elena. 2011. El proceso de auxiliarización del verbo tener: de la posesiónal aspecto. Aguascalientes, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2002. Le: From pronoun to verbal intensifier. Linguistics 40(2). 285- 318.Google Scholar
. 2012. Grammaticalization through inherent variability: The development of a progressive in Spanish. Studies in Language 36(1). 73–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth & Graeme Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaan, Michiel de. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Yllera, Alicia. 1980. Sintaxis histórica del verbo español: Las perífrasis medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Amarelo, Daniel
2023. La variación ter que, haber (de/que) y deber y sus valores modales en el gallego oral contemporáneo: una aproximación basada en el uso. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 16:2 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Rubinstein, Aynat
2019. Existential possessive modality in the emergence of Modern Hebrew. In Language Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 256], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.