Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:4 (2023) ► pp.568–592

Variation and society

The periphrases tener/haber que + infinitive by sex/gender of participants in Spanish

ORCID logo | Universidad de La Laguna

In Spanish, tener que and haber que + infinitive are modal periphrases that convey deontic meanings. The present investigation analyzes these periphrases as variants used in diverse communicative settings by different kinds of participants, acting as either speakers/writers or addressees. Tener que + infinitive tends to appear in those contexts where a more striking implication or unavoidable recommendation is needed. Haber que + infinitive is used more in a wide range of genres promoting a desubjectivizing-deontic meaning. As for the sex/gender of the participants, men more frequently use tener que + infinitive, whereas women tend to employ haber que + infinitive. The latter feature was also found to be significant when the sex/gender of the addressee is unknown; also, tener que + infinitive resulted more frequently in texts to be read or listened by women. The sociolinguistic distribution of the meanings conveyed by each periphrasis helps to delineate communicative styles based on the objectivity-subjectivity dimension.

Keywords: Deontics, Periphrasis, Objectivity, Sex/gender, Syntactic variation, Style, Subjectivity
Article outline
  • 1.Variation between modal periphrases and the cognitive-functional framework
  • 2.Modal deontics and desubjectivization
  • 3.Sociolinguistic analysis: The sex/gender of speakers and addressees/audience
  • 4.Methodology and corpus
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Variation across texts
    • 5.2Variation across sex/gender of participants
    • 5.3Communicative styles
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 18 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20040.ser
References
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel. A.
2019 Constructing us. The First and Second Persons in Spanish Media Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel and María José Serrano
2013 Style in Syntax. Investigating Variation in Spanish Pronoun System. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016 “A Matter of Style: Gender and Subject Variation in Spanish”. Gender and Language 10 (2): 240–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan
2014 The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bodine, Ann
1975 “Sex Differentiation in Language”. In Language and Sex: Difference and dominance, ed. by Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley, 130–151. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Boogart, Ronny and Egbert Fortuin
2016 “Modality and Mood in Cognitive Linguistics and Construction Grammars”. In The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. by Jan Nuyts and Johan van Auwera, 514–534. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Bravo, Ana and Luis García Fernández
2016 “Perífrasis Verbales”. In Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica, ed. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 785–796. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano
2016 “Cognitive Approaches to Grammar”. In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, ed. by Gitte Kristiansen, Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Michel Achard and René Dirven, 81–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Suzanne Fleischman
1995 “Modality in Grammar and Discourse: an Introductory Essay”. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman, 1–14. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah
1985 Feminist and Linguistic Theory. London: McMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1986 Women, Men and Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny
2001 “Girls’ Oppositional Stances: The Interactional Accomplishment of Gender in Nursery School and Family Life”. In Gender in Interaction, ed. by Bettina Baron and Helga Kotthoff, 21–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and Allan D. Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, Kristin Davidse and Lieven Vandelanotte
2010 “Introduction”. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse and Lieven Vandelanotte, 1–26. Mouton: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drager, Katie
2015 Linguistic Variation, Identity Construction and Cognition. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope
1993 “Cooperative Competition in Adolescent Girl Talk”. In Gender and Conversational Interaction, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 32–61. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. The Linguistic Construction of Social Meaning in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet
2003 Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken
2007 “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise: an Overview”. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken, 2–36. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony
2009 Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gili Gaya, Samuel
1980 Curso Superior de Sintaxis Española. Barcelona: Biblograf.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel
2001 “Theorizing Gender: Feminist Awareness and Language Change”. In Gender in Interaction, ed. by Bettina Baron and Helga Kotthoff, 329–347. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo
1988 Perífrasis verbales: sintaxis, semántica y estilística. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
1992 La impersonalidad gramatical: descripción y norma. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Goutier, N.
2009 “The Origin of Social Approach in Language and Cognition Research Exemplified by Studies into the Origins of Language”. In Language and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind, ed. by Hanna Pishwa, 25–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C.
2003 “Gender and Power in Online Communication”. In The Handbook of Language and Gender ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 202–223. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C. and Sharon Stoerger
2014 “Gender and (A)nonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication”. In The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, ed. by Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 567–586. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
2009 “Men, Masculinities and Leadership: Different Discourse Styles at Work”. In Gender and Spoken Interaction, ed. by Pia Pichler and Eva Eppler, 186–210. London: Palgrave McMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Language and Gender in the Workplace”. In The Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality ed. by Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 433–452. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Deborah
1996 Derogatory Terms for Men and Women: A New Look. Paper Presented at Gender and Belief Systems: Fourth Women and Language Conference . Berkeley: California.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1990 “The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change”. Language Variation and Change 2(2), 205–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1990 “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1): 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1985 “Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity”. In Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 109–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999a “Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise”. In Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology, ed. by Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker, 15–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999b Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar”. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken, 444–480. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Leon, Felipe
2017 “From Modal Skepticism to Modal Empiricism”. In Modal Epistemology after Rationalism, ed. by Bob Fischer and Felipe Leon, 247–262. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maltz, Daniel N. and Bolker, Ruth A.
1982 “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication”. In Language and social identity, ed. by John. J. Gumperz, 196–216. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCormick, K. M.
2001 “Gender and Language”. In Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, ed. by Rajend Mesthrie and R. E. Asher, 336–345. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M.
2014 “Variation and Gender”. In The Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality, ed. by Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes, 87–102. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2012 Gender Matters. Feminist Linguistic Analysis. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, Irene, Thomas A. Farmer and Linda R. Waugh
2007 “They Actually Said That? An Introduction to Working with Usage Data through Discourse and Corpus Analysis”. In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Mónica González-Márquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson and Michael J. Spivey, 19–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NGLE
2010 Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. Nueva gramática de la lengua española, Madrid, Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2007 “Cognitive Linguistics and Functional Linguistics”. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 543–566. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “Analyses of the Modal Meanings”. In The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. by Jan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera, 31–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, John
2007 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, Michael R.
1983 Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Pishwa, Hanna
2009 “Linguistic Structures as Cues for Social Cognitive Functions: Introduction.” In Language and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind, ed. by Hanna Pishwa, 1–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul
2009 Modality. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Ramson, Evelyn N.
1977 “On the Representation of Modality”. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 357–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española
2005 Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas. Madrid: Santillana.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad
2009 “On Collective Cognition and Language”. In Language and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind, ed. by Hanna Pishwa, 163–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serrano, María José
2011 “Morphosyntactic Variation in Spain”. In Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics, ed. by Manuel Díaz-Campos, 187–204. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “La variación sintáctica”. In Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica, ed. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 809–821. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “La textualización de la desubjetivización: variación entre la perífrasis haber que + infinitivo y el clítico se”. Oralia 23 (1): 131–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “La modalidad deóntica como (de)subjetivación del discurso: variación entre las perífrasis haber/tener que+infinitivo», Anuario de Letras. Lingüística y Filología ” IX (2): 43–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serrano, María José and Miguel Ángel Aijón Oliva
2011 “Syntactic Variation and Communicative Style”. Language Sciences 331: 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, Jane
2004 Gendered Discourses. New York: Palgrave McMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Language and Gender. An Advance Resource Book. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sally
2012 Variationist Sociolinguistics. Change, Observation, Interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talbot, Mary
2010 Language and Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2007 “The Relation of Grammar to Cognition”. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, Bettina Bergen and Jörg Zinken, 481–544. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1986 That’s not what I meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks your Relation with Others. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
1991 You Just Don’t Understand. London: Virago.Google Scholar
1993 “The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies. Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance”. In Gender and Conversational Interaction, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 165–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997 “Yes: Women and Men Talking: an Interactional Sociolinguistic Approach”. In Women, Men and Gender: Ongoing Debates, ed. by Mary Roth Walsh, 82–90. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea
2008 “Introduction”. In Language in the Context of Use: Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language, ed. by Andrea Tyler, Kim Young and Mari Takada, 1–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-Jörg Schmid
1996 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Van Herk, Gerard
2012 What is Sociolinguistics? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weatherall, Ann
2000 Gender Relevance in Talk-in-Interaction in Discourse. Discourse and Society 111: 290–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele
2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media. London: Continuum Publishing group.Google Scholar