Cover not available
Part of
Changes in Meaning and Function: Studies in historical linguistics with a focus on Spanish
Edited by Jorge Fernández Jaén and Herminia Provencio Garrigós
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 25] 2020
► pp. 21–46

Causative and inchoative constructions with poner and meter (‘to put’) in Spanish

A diachronic constructional approach

| University of Gent
| Ghent University
This article documents the historical evolution of the causative and inchoative constructions with the put verbs poner and meter in Spanish. The aim of this case study is to determine how both constructions developed out of the more general abstract caused-motion schema. The analysis is based on a large historical corpus, and traces their semantic and morphosyntactic characteristics from the 13th to the 21st century. The empirical observations are accounted for within the grammatical constructionalization framework. By adopting a network approach we argue that four micro-constructions emerged simultaneously, but that their constructionalization process has been completed to a varying extent. Individual differences are traced back to the upwards strength of the core semantics of the nucleus verb, and the sideward impact of other members in the network.
Keywords: inchoative construction, causative construction, put verbs, Spanish, constructionalization, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Materials and methods
  • 3.Constructional changes and semantic evolution: Prepositional use as an indication of a metaphorical extension
  • 4.Decrease in compositionality and syntactic reanalysis: On the auxiliary status of poner and meter
  • 5.Productivity measurements
    • 5.1Development of token frequency
    • 5.2Host-class expansion: Lexical analysis of the INF slot
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.25.02eng
References (40)
References
ADESSE corpus: [URL]. Base de datos de verbos, alternancias de diátesis y esquemas sintáctico semánticos del español [ADESSE]).
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander, and Gabriele Diewald (eds). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borillo, André. 2005. “Peut-on identifier et caractériser les formes lexicales de l’aspect en français?” In Les Périphrases Verbales, ed. by Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, and Nicole Le Querler, 83–102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2009. “The role of prefabs in grammaticization.” In Formulaic Language, ed. by Roberta Corrigan et al., 187–217. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes Honrubia, José L. 1999. Sintaxis y semántica del movimiento. Alicante: Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert.Google Scholar
Comer, Marie, Renata Enghels, and Clara Vanderschueren. 2015. “De verbos de colocación a pseudo-copulativos: procesos de gramaticalización en los cuasi-sinónimos poner/meter y pôr/meter en español y en portugués.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 131(2): 355–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie. 2018. “Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change.” In Category change from a construction grammar perspective, ed. by Muriel Norde et al.. 93–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Typology.” In The handbook of linguistics, ed. by Mark Aronoff, and Janie Rees-Miller, 337–368. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata. 2007. Les Modalités De Perception Visuelle Et Auditive: Différences Conceptuelles Et Répercussions Sémantico-syntaxiques En Espagnol Et En Français. Tübingen, Allemagne: Max Niemeyer.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enghels, Renata, and Eugeen Roegiest. 2014. “Contrasting the syntax and semantics of negative causation. The apparent similarity of Spanish and Portuguese.” Languages in Contrast 14(2): 278–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1983. “Generalized Union.” In Problems in syntax, ed. by Liliane Tasmowski, and Dominique Willems, 195–229. Gent: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Leborans, María J. 1999. “La predicación. Las oraciones copulativas.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2357–2460. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García-Miguel, José M. et al. 2010. “ADESSE. A Database with Syntactic and Semantic Annotation of a Corpus of Spanish.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari et al.. [URL]
Gisborne, Nikolas, and Amanda Patten. 2011. “Constructions and grammaticalization.” In The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, ed. by Heiko Narrog, and Bernd Heine, 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1988. Perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. “On the role of context in grammaticalization.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer, and Gabriele Diewald, 83–102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nicolaus. 2004. “Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal?” In What Makes Grammaticalization – A Look from its Fringes and Its Components, ed. by Walter Bisang et al., 19–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott (eds). 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe, Iraide. 2012. “Placement and removal events in Basque and Spanish.” In Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective, ed. by Anetta Kopecka, and Bhuvana Narasimhan, 123–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies, and Renata Enghels. 2013. “De verbo de percepción a marcador de disculpa: la evolución diacrónica del verbo sentir en español.” Revue de Linguistique Romane 77(305): 139–166.Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies. 2015. Hacia un enfoque múltiple de la polisemia. Un estudio empírico del verbo multimodal ‘sentir’ desde una perspectiva sincrónica y diacrónica. Gent: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. “Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory.” Functions of language 14(2): 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2016. “Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study.” Linguistics 54(1): 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CORDE) [en línea]. Corpus diacrónico del español. <[URL]>
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CORPES XXI) [en línea]. Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI (CORPES). <[URL]>
Rostila, Jouni. 2004. “Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization.” In Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Fred Karlsson. [URL]
Traugott, Elizabeth, and Richard Dasher (eds). 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth, and Graeme Trousdale (eds). 2013. Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. “Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English.” In Constructional approaches to English grammar, ed. by Graeme Trousdale, and Nikolas Gisborne, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English.” In Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, ed. by Katherina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, 51–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization.” Folia Linguistica 48(2): 557–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vergara Wilson, Damián. 2009. “From ‘remaining’ to ‘becoming’ in Spanish: The role of prefabs in the development of the construction ‘quedar(se) + adjective.” In Formulaic Language, ed. by Roberta Corrigan et al., 273–295. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verroens, Filip. 2011. La construction inchoative se mettre à: syntaxe, sémantique et grammaticalisation. Gent: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
Zeldes, Amir. 2012. Productivity in Argument Selection. From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar