Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First ArticlesSubjectification and conativity
Origins and development of the verbal construction tratar de+ infinitive
Conative constructions have enjoyed considerable attention over the past decade from a typological perspective.
However, the historical development of conativity in individual languages has been largely neglected to date. In this paper, we
put forth an exhaustive diachronic analysis of the Spanish verbal construction tratar de + INF (currently ‘to
attempt to INF’, whereby tratar originally means ‘handle’). We show that, unlike many periphrases, tratar
de + INF does not originate in a single construction, but emerges via the conflation of separate members in a
constructional network whose meanings slowly converged (in the manner of mutually supporting constructions) around a volitional
meaning to generate a conative structure. The discussion sheds light on likely constructionalization paths for the development of
conative meaning and highlights the role of non-periphrastic constructions as a principal means of conveying certain core modal
contents in particular languages.
Keywords: conative constructions, historical linguistics (Spanish), verbal periphrases, supporting constructions
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2. Tratar de + inf in the history of the Spanish language
- 3.Summary and discussion
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (56)
Abraham, W. (2012). (Inter)subjectification
of foreign consciousness / Other’s mind alignment as synchronic and diachronic concepts of
change? In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Covert
patterns of
modality (pp. 24–78). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Anderson, G. (2004). Auxiliary
verb constructions in Altai-Sayan
Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Beijering, K. (2012). Expressions
of epistemic modality in mainland Scandinavian. A study into the lexicalization-grammaticalization-pragmaticalization
interface. Zutphen: Wöhrmann Print Service (Groningen dissertations in linguistics 106). [Available
online: [URL] (accessed 16 January 2019)]
Bosque, I. (1985). Sobre
las oraciones recíprocas en español. Revista Española de
Lingüística,
15
1, 59–96.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The
evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the
world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cinque, G. (2001). Restructuring
and the order of aspectual and root modal heads. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current
studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo
Renzi (pp. 137–155). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 
CORDE. Real Academia
Española. (2000). Corpus diacrónico del
español. [Available online: [URL] (accessed August-October 2018)]
Cornillie, B. (2008). On
the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of Spanish evidential
(semi-)auxiliaries. In E. Seoane & M. J. López Couso (Eds.), Theoretical
and empirical issues in
grammaticalization (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Coupe, A. (2007). A
grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: De Gruyter.
(2018). Grammaticalization
processes in the languages of South Asia. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), Grammaticalization
from a typological
perspective (pp. 189–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Benito Moreno, C. (2022). The
middle voice and connected constructions in Ibero-Romance: A variationist and dialectal
account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De Smet, H., & Fischer, O. (2017). The
role of analogy in language change: Supporting
constructions. In M. Hundt, S. Pfenninger & S. Mollin (Eds.), The
changing English language: Psycholinguistic
perspectives (pp. 240–68). Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic
proto-roles and argument
selection. Language,
67
1, 547–619.
Evans, N., Levinson, S., Enfield, N., Gaby, A., & Majid, A. (2004). Reciprocal
constructions and situation type. In Asifa Majid (Ed.), Field
manual Volume
9 (pp. 25–30). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Fernández de Castro, F. (1999). Las
perífrasis verbales en el español
actual. Madrid: Gredos.
Foley, W. (1986). The
Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
García Fernández, L., Carrasco, Á., Camus, B., Martínez-Atienza, M., & García, M.Á.. (2006). Diccionario
de perífrasis
verbales. Madrid: Gredos.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions:
A construction grammar approach to argument
structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
(2006). Constructions
at work: The nature of generalization in
language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2019). Explain
me this. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Grano, Th. (2011). Mental
action and event structure in the semantics of try. Proceedings of
SALT,
21
1, 426–443.
(2017). Control,
temporal orientation, and the cross-linguistic grammar of
trying
. Glossa,
2
(94), 1–21.
Guentchéva, Z., & Rivière, N. (2007). Reciprocal
and reflexive constructions in French. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal
constructions (pp. 561–607). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hagège, C. (2010). Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (2023). On
what a construction is. [Online draft, [URL]].
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization.
A conceptual framework. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
Isačenko, A. (1964). On
the connative function of language. In J. Vachek (Ed.), A
Prague school reader in
linguistics (pp. 88–97). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1963). Essais
de linguistique
genérale. Paris: Minuit.
Knjazev, J. (2007). Lexical
reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal
constructions (pp. 115–146). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy:
Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical
Pragmatics,
2
1, 201–244.
(2004). Metonymy
between pragmatics, reference and
diachrony. Metaphorik.de, 71, 6–54.
Kulikov, L. (2011). Voice
typology. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of linguistic
typology (pp. 368–398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women,
fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive
grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, C. T., & Short, Ch. (1879). A
Latin dictionary. New York & Oxford: Harper & Brothers Publishers/Clarendon Press [Avalaible online: [URL] (accessed August-October 2018)]
Morera, M. (1991). Diccionario
crítico de las perífrasis verbales del
español. Fuerteventura: Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (2011). The
Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nedjalkov, V. (2007). Overview
of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related
issues. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal
constructions (pp. 3–114). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions
of (inter)subjectivity. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersections
of
intersubjectivity (pp. 53–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Olbertz, H. (1998). Verbal
periphrases in a functional grammar of Spanish. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
RAE / ASALE. Real Academia Española / Asociación de Academias de la Lengua
Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua
española. Madrid: Espasa.
Rákosi, G. (2008). The
inherent reflexive and the inherent reciprocal predicate in Hungarian: Each to their own argument
structure. In E. König & V. Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals
and reflexives: Cross-linguistic and theoretical
explorations (pp. 411–450). Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter.
Rosemeyer, M., & Garachana, M. (2019). De
la consecución a la contraexpectación: la construccionalización de lograr/conseguir +
infinitivo Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone
Linguistics,
12
(2), 383–422.
Rumsey, A. (2003). Language,
desire, and the ontogenesis of intersubjectivity. Language &
Communication,
23
1, 169–187.
Siloni, T. (2012). Reciprocal
verbs and symmetry. Natural language and linguistic
theory,
30
(1), 261–320.
Strauss, S. (2002). Distinctions
in completives: The relevance of resistance in Korean V-a/e pelita and V-ko malta and
Japanese V-te shimau
”. Journal of
Pragmatics,
34
(2), 143–166.
Tamm, A. (2012). Scalar
verb classes: scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the Estonian aspectual
lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Thegel, M., & Lindgren, J. (2020). Subjective
and intersubjective modality: a quantitative approach to Spanish modal verbs. Studia
Neophilologica,
92
(1), 124–148.
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions
in grammaticalization. In B. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The
handbook of historical
linguistics (pp. 624–647). Oxford: Blackwell.
(2010). (Inter)subjectivity
and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification,
intersubjectification and
grammaticalization (pp. 29–74). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C., & Hopper, P. (2003
[1993]). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vincent, N. (2013). Conative. Linguistic
Typology,
17
(2), 269–289.
Voinov, V. (2013). ‘Seeing’
is ‘Trying’: The relation of visual perception to attemptive modality in the world’s
languages. Language and
Cognition,
5
1, 61–80.
Yllera, A. (1980). Sintaxis
histórica del verbo español: las perífrasis
medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
Zeisler, B. (2004). Relative
tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.