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 (75)
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
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel
2023. Opciones múltiples, significados diferentes: las construcciones modales deónticas en el dis-curso oral y escrito de los medios de comunicación peninsulares. Dicenda. Estudios de lengua y literatura españolas 41 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Serrano, María José
2023. Sintaxis y discurso: el infinitivo independiente en los tuits como variante y punto de vista desubjetivador . Moenia DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.