Article published in:
Revue Romane
Vol. 51:1 (2016) ► pp. 70–94

La polisemia de los verbos de colocación

Descripción sincrónica y evolución diacrónica de los cuasi-sinónimos poner / meter y poser / mettre

| Ghent University
This article compares the syntax and semantics of the locative verbs poner and meter in Spanish with their French cognates poser and mettre. In some contexts these lexemes are clearly interchangeable, whereas in others they are not. The purpose of this study is double. First, based on a large contemporary corpus for Spanish and French, it describes the intricate polysemy of the verbs. It shows that in modern Spanish mainly poner presents more grammaticalized uses — that is as a semi-copulative or causative verb. In contrast, its near-equivalent meter behaves more frequently like a true locative verb. In French, the situation is the other way around: mettre seems to display more grammaticalized uses, mainly as inchoative auxiliary verb, than poser does. The second part of the analysis provides an explanation for this different behavior and maps out the diachronic semantic development of the verbs, from the 13th century up to now.
Keywords: (locative) verbs of putting, Spanish, near-synonymy, grammaticalization, French, synchronic and diachronic corpus linguistics
Published online: 28 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.51.1.03com
References

Bibliografía

Corpus consultados

ATILF - CNRS and Université de Lorraine: Base textuelle FRANTEXT
http://​www​.frantext​.fr.
Real Academia Española
Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA). http://​corpus​.rae​.es​/creanet​.html.
Corpus Diacrónico del Español (CORDE). http://​corpus​.rae​.es​/cordenet​.html.
Rowling, J.K.
(2003): Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix. Bloomsbury, London.Google Scholar
Rovira Ortega, G.
(2004): Harry Potter y la orden del fénix. Salamandra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Ménard, J.-F.
(2003): Harry Potter et l’ordre du phénix. Gallimard Jeunesse, Paris.Google Scholar

Obras consultadas

ATILF
(2013): Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé. (http://​atilf​.atilf​.fr/)Google Scholar
Alarcos Llorach, E.
(1990): La noción de suplemento. Gobierno de la Rioja, Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes, Logroño.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1980): Language: The loaded weapon. Long Man, London/New York.Google Scholar
Boons, J.-P.
(1987): La notion sémantique de déplacement dans une classification syntaxique des verbes locatifs. Langue française, 76, pp. 5–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes, J.
(1999): Sintaxis y semántica del movimiento. Aspectos de gramática cognitiva. Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, Alicante.Google Scholar
(2004): Verbos locales estativos en español, in: Cifuentes, J. & C. Marimón (éds.): Estudios de Lingüística: el verbo. Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, pp. 73–118.Google Scholar
Cifuentes, J. & J. Llopis
(1996): Complemento indirecto y complemento de lugar: Estructuras locales de base personal en español. Universidad de Alicante, Alicante.Google Scholar
Company, C.
(2002): Reanálisis en cadena y gramaticalización. Dativos problemáticos en la historia del español. Verba, 29, pp. 31–69.Google Scholar
(2004): La gramaticalización en la historia del español, in: Company, C. (éd.): Gramaticalización y cambio sintáctico en la historia del español. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, pp. 3–61.Google Scholar
Corominas, J.
(1954): Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana. Editorial Francke, Berna.Google Scholar
Cuartero Otal, J.
(2003): Cosas que se hacen. Esquemas sintáctico-semánticos agentivos del español. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Damourette, J. & E. Pichon
(1911-1936): Des mots à la pensée. Essai de Grammaire de la Langue française. d’Artrey, Paris.Google Scholar
David, C.
(2003): Les ‘verbs of putting’: typologie, schéma syntaxique et organisation sémantique des constructions prépositionnelles en anglais contemporain. Université de Poitiers, Poitiers.Google Scholar
(2004): Putting ‘putting verbs’ to the test of corpora, in: Aijmer, K. & B. Altenberg (éds.): Advances in corpus linguistics. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 101–115.Google Scholar
De Mulder, W. & B. Lamiroy
(2012): Gradualness of grammaticalization in Romance. The position of French, Spanish and Italian, in: Davidse, K. et al. (éds.): Grammaticalization and Language Change. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 199–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.
(1991): A new approach to English grammar. On semantic principles. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Garachana, M.
(1999): Los procesos de gramaticalización. Moenia, 5, pp. 155–172.Google Scholar
García, E.
(1967): Auxiliaries and the criterion of simplicity. Language, 43, pp. 853–870. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(2010): Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1986): Prototypes: between Plato and Wittgenstein, in: Craig, C. (éd.): Noun classes and categorization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 77–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995): Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Goschler, J. & A. Stefanowitsch
(2013): Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guillet, A.
(1990): Une classification des verbes transitifs locatifs. LADL, Paris.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
(2002): On the role of context in grammaticalization, in: Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (éds.): New reflections on grammaticalization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 83–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1991): On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. & B. Heine (éds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 17–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & E. Traugott
(1993): Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990): Semantic structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Krug, M.
(2011): Auxiliaries and grammaticalization, in: Narrog, H. & H. Bernd (éds.): The Oxford handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 547–558.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson
(1980): Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B.
(1999): Auxiliaires, langues romanes et grammaticalisation. Langages, 135, pp. 33–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P. & E. Tobback
(2010): Les verbes attritubifs: inventaire(s) et statut(s). Langages, 179/180, pp. 79–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1982): Thoughts on grammaticalization. A programmatic sketch. Institut für Sparchwisssenschaft, Köln.Google Scholar
(1995): Thoughts on grammaticalization. Lincom Europa, München.Google Scholar
Margetts, A., & P. Austin
(2007): Three-participant events in the languages of the world: towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics, 45, pp. 393–451. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morimoto, Y. & Ma. Pavón Lucero
(2005): Aproximación semántica a la gramática de ponerse y quedar(se) . Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 31, pp. 385–392.Google Scholar
(2007): Los verbos pseudo-copulativos del español. Arcos/Libros, Madrid.Google Scholar
Newman, J.
(2005): Three-place predicates: A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 27, pp. 145–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pauwels, P.
(2000): Put, set, lay and place. A cognitive linguistic approach to verbal meaning. Lincom Europa, München.Google Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989): Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Posner, M.
(1986): Empirical studies of prototypes, in: Craig, C. (éd.): Noun classes and categorization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 53–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española
(2009): Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Espasa Libros, Madrid.Google Scholar
Reddy, M.
(1979): The Conduit Metaphor, in: Ordony, A. (éd.): Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 284–324.Google Scholar
Rey, A. & T. Hordé
(2006): Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. Le Robert, Paris.Google Scholar
Rojas Nieto, C.
(1988): Verbos locativos en español. Aproximación sintáctico-semántica. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.Google Scholar
Rojo, G.
(1985): En torno a los complementos circunstanciales, in: s.n. (éd.): Lecciones del I y II Curso de Lingüística funcional (1983 y 1984). Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, pp. 181–190.Google Scholar
Saunier, E.
(1999): Contribution à une étude de l’inchoation: se mettre à + inf, in: Vogeleer, S. et al. (éds.): La modalité sous tous ses aspects. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 259–288.Google Scholar
Sénéchal, M. & D. Willems
(2007): Classes verbales et régularités polysémiques: le cas des verbes trivalenciels locatifs. Le classement syntactico-sémantique des verbes français. Langue française, 153, pp. 92–110.Google Scholar
Svorou, S.
(2002): Semantic constraints in the grammaticalization of locative constructions, in: Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (éds.): New reflections on grammaticalization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 121–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000): Toward a cognitive semantics 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, L.
(2012): Ponerse como pseudo-cópula: una manera específica de concebir el cambio en español, in: Cabedo Nebot, A. & P. Infante Ríos (éds.): Lingüística XL. El lingüista del siglo XXI. SeL Ediciones, Madrid, pp. 395–401.Google Scholar
Verroens, F.
(2011): La construction inchoative se mettre à: syntaxe, sémantique et grammaticalisation. University of Ghent, Ghent.Google Scholar