Cover not available
Part of
From Verbal Periphrases to Complex Predicates
Edited by Mar Garachana Camarero, Sandra Montserrat Buendia and Claus Dieter Pusch
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 31] 2022
► pp. 131–148

Origin and development of Spanish verbal periphrases haber + (nexus) + infinitive

ORCID logo | University of Barcelona
ORCID logo | University of Barcelona
It is a well attested fact that possessive verbs spread to different meanings. In many languages, these lexical verbs often lead to auxiliary and semi-auxiliary verbs. This is the case of Lat. habeo, and its Romance descendants, that gave rises to different periphrastic constructions whose meaning goes from a past and a future tense to a deontic modality.
In this paper we reflect on the formation in Medieval Spanish of the deontic verbal periphrases haber + (nexus) + infinitive, which added some discursive meanings related to the modality to a new grammatical form. The emergence of these verbal constructions gave rise to a major change in the medieval verbal system, whose sources can be found in Latin.
Keywords: historical syntax, verbal periphrases, deontic meaning, habeo + infinitive, haber de + infinitive, Latin, Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Habeo + infinitive in Latin
    • 2.1The emergence of the Latin construction habeo + infinitive
    • 2.2The evolution of the Latin construction: Chronology and discourse tradition(s)
  • 3.Old Spanish aver + a/de + infinitive verbal periphrasis: State of the art
    • 3.1The Romance periphrasis: Meanings
    • 3.2The Romance periphrasis: Syntactic and lexical properties
      • 3.2.1Verbal tenses and moods in the aver + a/de + infinitive construction
      • 3.2.2From a prefab to a verbal periphrasis
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.31.07art
References (38)
Bibliography
Corpus
[biblia medieval] Enrique-Arias, Andrés (dir.). 2008. Biblia Medieval, <[URL]>.
[corde] Real Academia Española. Corpus Diacrónico del Español, <[URL]>.
[crea] Real Academia Española, Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual, <[URL]>.
[pld] Migne, Jacques-Paul (ed.). 1995 (1800–1875). Patrologia Latina Database, 5 volúmenes. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, <[URL]>.
[phi] The Packard Humanities Institute. Classical Latin Texts, <[URL]>.
[ThlL] = Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Stuttgart / Leipzig: Teubner, 1900– (electronic resource CD).Google Scholar
References
Bastardas, Joan. 1953. Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval (cartularios españoles de los siglos VIII al XII). Barcelona: CSIC.Google Scholar
Bourova, Viara, and Liliane Tasmowski. 2007. La préhistoire des futurs romans. Ordre des constituants et sémantique. In: Études semantiques et pragmatiques sur le temps, l’aspect et la modalité, Louis de Saussure, Jacques Moeschler, and Genoveva Puskás (eds.), 25–41. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bulhart, Vinzenz. 1925–1934. Habeo. In: Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In: Formulaic language, vol. 1: Distribution and historical change, Roberta L. Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), 187–217. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Robert. 1971. The origin and development of Latin habeo+infinitive. The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 21:1, 215–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. Further observations on habeo+infinitive as an exponent of futurity. The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 26:1, 151–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company, Concepción. 1994. Semántica y sintaxis de los posesivos duplicados en el español de los siglos xv y xvi. Romance Philology 46:2, 111–135.Google Scholar
Eklund, Sten. 1970. The periphrastic, completive and finite use of the present participle in Latin. With special regard to translations of Christian texts in Greek up to 600 A.D. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell (PhD diss.).
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fruyt, Michèle. 1996. La syntaxe de l’infinitif en latin tardif : réflexions sur la nature des processus évolutifs. Recherches augustiniennes 29, 43–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization. In: New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 4: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology, Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), 661–864. Berlin / Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Garachana, Mar. 1994. El proceso de sustitución de aver por tener en el siglo XV. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
. 1997. Acerca de los condicionamientos cognitivos y lingüísticos de la sustitución de aver por tener. Verba 24, 203–235.Google Scholar
. 2016. Restricciones léxicas en la gramaticalización de las perífrasis verbales. Rilce 32:1, 134–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garachana, Mar, and Malte Rosemeyer. 2011. Rutinas léxicas en el cambio gramatical. El caso de las perífrasis deónticas e iterativas. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 6, 35–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hertzenberg, Mari Johanne. 2012. The use and development of habere+infinitive in Latin. In: Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Ans van Kemenade and Nynke de Haas (eds.), 373–398. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes. 2011. Diskurstraditionen und Genres. In: Rahmen des Sprechens. Beiträge zu Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kreolistik, Kognitiver und Historischer Semantik, Sarah Dessì Schmid et al. (eds.), 89–100. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In: The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds.), 79–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Letoublon, Françoise. 1983. Les verbes de mouvement et l’auxiliarité en latin. Glotta 61, 218–228.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko, and Bernd Heine (eds.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1985. The development of future tense auxiliaries in Latin. Glotta 63, 186–208.Google Scholar
. 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In: Historical development of auxiliaries, Martin Harris and Paolo Ramat (eds.), 113–143. Berlin / New York / Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sentí, Andreu. 2012. Gramaticalització i subjectivització del verb modal haver (a/de) en català antic. Un estudi de corpus segons la gramàtica cognitiva. eHumanista/IVITRA 2, 85–117.Google Scholar
. 2013. Gramaticalització i subjectivització de la modalitat en català antic. Un estudi de corpus de les perífrasis verbals <deure + inf.> i <haver (a/de) + inf.>. Alacant: Universitat d’Alacant, (PhD diss.).
Strausbaugh, John Anthony. 1936. The use of aver and aver de as auxiliary verbs in Old Spanish from earliest Texts to the end of the xiiith Century. Chicago: University of Chicago (PhD diss.).
Tara, George Bogdan. 2014. Les périphrases verbales avec habeo en latin tardif. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Thielmann, Philipp. 1885. Habere mit dem Infinitiv und die Entstehung des romanisches Futurums. Archiv für Lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 2, 157–202.Google Scholar
Yllera, Alicia. 1980. Sintaxis histórica del verbo español. Las perífrasis medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, Departamento de Filología Francesa.Google Scholar