Cover not available
Part of
Contemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics: Selected papers from the Hispanic Linguistic Symposium 2015
Edited by Jonathan E. MacDonald
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15] 2018
► pp. 31–48

Chapter 2
Subcategorization and change

A diachronic analysis of sin embargo (de que)

 | Indiana University
 | Australian National University
This paper analyzes the syntactic and semantic changes undergone by the PP sin embargo ‘without obstacle/impediment’ as it develops its clause-taking properties in Spanish from the 12th to the 16th centuries, essential for its further reanalysis as a concessive connective. We argue against an account that explains this change through a metaphor from the lack of a barrier in the sociophysical world to the epistemic world. Instead, we show that the syntactic and semantic change stems from the subcategorization properties of the noun embargo, which in the 1400s selects for the preposition de and later for the complementizer que, with scope over a proposition. The selection of a clausal complement, and hence the increase in scope of the original prepositional phrase, underlies the creation of the sentence connective.
Keywords: concessive, clausal complementation, change, subcategorization, Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The construction: Data and summary of the properties
  • 3.Previous accounts
  • 4.Our account
    • 4.1The data
      • 4.1.1Early examples of the semantics of the noun embargo
      • 4.1.2Subcategorization properties of the noun embargo : Embargo (de) que
    • 4.2Sin embargo (de) que in the context of<(de) que> in the evolution of Spanish
    • 4.3Discussion: The semantic and syntactic properties of the construction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 14 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.15.03ama
References (32)
References
Amaral, P. (2016). When something becomes a bit . Diachronica, 33(2), 151–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barra Jover, M. (2002). Propiedades léxicas y evolución sintáctica. El desarrollo de los mecanismos de subordinación en español. La Coruña: Toxosoutos.Google Scholar
Bogard, S., & Company Company, C. (1989). Estructura y evolución de las oraciones completivas de sustantivo en el español. Romance Philology, 43(2), 258–274.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Delicado Cantero, M. (2013). Prepositional clauses in Spanish. A diachronic and comparative syntactic study. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Dequeísmo and queísmo in Portuguese and Spanish. In P. Amaral, & A. M. Carvalho (Eds.), Portuguese-Spanish interfaces: Diachrony, synchrony, and contact (pp. 95–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garachana Camarero, M. (1998). La evolución de los conectores contraargumentativos: La gramaticalización de no obstante y sin embargo . In M. A. Martín Zorraquino (Ed.), Los marcadores del discurso: Teoría y análisis (pp. 193–212). Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Herman, J. (1963). La formation du système roman des conjonctions de subordination. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Horno Chéliz, M. C. (2002). Lo que la preposición esconde. Estudio sobre la argumentalidad preposicional. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
König, E. (1988). Concessive connectives and concessive sentences. Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 145–166). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1991). Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations. In D. Zaefferer (Ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics (pp. 190–209). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, G., & Travis, L. (1987). The syntax of adjacency. In M. Crowhurst (Ed.), WCCFL 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 173–186). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Montero Cartelle, E. (1993). Las construcciones concesivas pleonásticas y el modo en castellano medieval y clásico. In P. Carrasco et al. (Eds.), Antiqva et Nova Romania. Estudios lingüísticos y filológicos en honor de José Mondéjar en su sexagesimoquinto aniversario (Vol. 1, pp. 163–192). Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, M. (2014). Oraciones causales. In C. Company Company (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: Preposiciones, adverbios y conjunciones. Relaciones internacionales (pp. 3447–3610). México: FCE/UNAM.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, M., & Hualde, J. I. (2012). Recurrent processes in the evolution of concessive subordinators in Spanish and Catalan. Unpublished article.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, M., & Salvador, V. (2014). Oraciones subordinadas concesivas. In C. Company Company (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: Preposiciones, adverbios y conjunciones. Relaciones interoracionales (pp. 3699–3839). México: FCE/UNAM.Google Scholar
Portolés, J. (1995). Diferencias gramaticales y pragmáticas entre los conectores discursivos pero, sin embargoy no obstante . Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 75, 231–269.Google Scholar
Rauh, G. (1993). On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions. From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 99–150). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Syntactic categories. Their identification and description in linguistic theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española. Diccionario de autoridades (1726–1739). Retrieved from <[URL]>
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S., & Traugott, E. (2000). Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact . Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1, 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serradilla, A. (1995). Sobre las primeras apariciones de construcciones preposicionales ante que completivo en español medieval. Factores determinantes. EPOS, 11, 147–163.Google Scholar
(1996). Diccionario sintáctico del español medieval. Verbos de entendimiento y lengua. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
(1997). El régimen de los verbos de entendimiento y lengua en español medieval. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., & Traugott, E. C. (1998). Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In A. Giacalone Ramat, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), The limits of grammaticalization (pp. 227–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarr, F. C. (1922). Prepositional complementary clauses in Spanish with special reference to the works of Pérez Galdós. Revue Hispanique, 56, 1–264.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. (2006). Relative frequency in the grammaticization of collocations: Nominal to concessive a pesar de . In T. L. Face, & C. A. Klee (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 37–49). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, L., & Lamontagne, G. (1992). The Case Filter and licensing of empty K. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 157–174.Google Scholar
Corpora
Davies, Mark. Corpus del Español. <[URL]>
Real Academia Española. Corpus Diacrónico del Español (CORDE). <[URL]>
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Amaral, Patrícia & Dylan Jarrett
2023. Causality and the PA/SN distinction. Linguistics 61:1 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Mojedano Batel, Andrea
2020. ‘Liking’ constructions in Spanish. In Historical Linguistics 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 350], ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.