Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T08:07:22.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Current Perspectives on Historical Linguistics

from Part IV - Spanish in Social, Geographic, and Historical Contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2018

By
Patrícia Amaral
Edited by
Kimberly L. Geeslin
Kimberly L. Geeslin
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides a critical overview of recent research on syntactic and semantic change in Spanish, from both formal and functional perspectives. It aims to show how current scholarship on the history of Spanish bears on debates of ongoing interest in historical linguistics. Specifically, the chapter focuses on the theoretical contribution of diachronic studies on Spanish with respect to four topics: (i) mechanisms of syntactic and semantic change (i.e., reanalysis, analogy, bleaching, pragmatic inferencing), (ii) the relation between syntactic change and information structure, (iii) the identification of units of change (e.g., constructions, collocations), and (iv) the relation between language change and cognitive processes in language production. Topics include the creation of new subordination patterns in Spanish and other Romance languages, the evolution of concessive markers, the diachrony of polarity items, the origins of differential object marking in Spanish, and the creation of complex indefinite pronouns. The chapter does not aim to be an exhaustive overview of historical research on Spanish, but rather to situate studies on Spanish within the broader endeavors of historical linguistics. It also offers a general assessment of the studies with respect to emerging areas of research and identifies understudied topics. Contact-induced change is not discussed.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics , pp. 582 - 602
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaron, Jesse (2016). The Road Already Traveled. Constructional Analogy in Lexico-Syntactic Change. Studies in Language, 40 (1), 26–62.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana et al. (2011). Semantics and Pragmatics of Indefinites: Methodology for a Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Study. In Dipper, Stefanie and Zinsmeister, Heike (eds.), Beyond Semantics: Corpus-Based Investigations of Pragmatic and Discourse Phenomena. Proceedings of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) Workshop, Göttingen, February 23–25, 2011. Bochum: University of Bochum, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Amaral, Patrícia (2016). When something Becomes a bit. Diachronica, 33 (2), 151–186.Google Scholar
Amaral, Patrícia and Delicado Cantero, Manuel (2018). Subcategorization and Change: A Diachronic Analysis of sin embargo (de que). In Jonathan, E. MacDonald (ed.), Contemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Hispanic Linguistic Symposium 2015. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arlotto, Anthony (1972). Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Lanham, MD: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Barra Jover, M. (2002). Propiedades léxicas y evolución sintáctica. El desarrollo de los mecanismos de subordinación en español. La Coruña: Toxosoutos.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Sabine (2004). Structural and Functional Properties of Collocations in English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Batllori, Montserrat and Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa (2008). La polaridad negativa enfática en español: Un estudio diacrónico y comparativo. In Moreno de Alba, José (ed.), Actas del VII Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. Mérida (Yucatán), México, 4–8 de septiembre de 2006, Vol. 2. Madrid: Arco Libros, pp. 1183–1200.Google Scholar
Batllori, Montserrat and Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa (2013). Emphatic Polarity Particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua, 128, 9–30.Google Scholar
Bauman, Joseph (2016). From Possession to Obligation via Shifting Distributions and Particular Constructions. Diachronica, 33 (3), 297–329.Google Scholar
Bogard, Sergio and Company Company, Concepción (1989). Estructura y evolución de las oraciones completivas de sustantivo en el español. Romance Philology, 43, 258–273.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther and Rivas, Javier (2012). Grammatical Relation Probability: How Usage Patterns Shape Analogy. Language Variation and Change, 24, 317–341.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2015). Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Torres Cacoullos, Rena (2009). The Role of Prefabs in Grammaticalization: How the Particular and the General Interact in Language Change. In Corrigan, Robert, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid, and Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187–217.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle (2013). Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cervantes, Miguel de (1614). Segundo tomo del ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, que contiene su tercera salida y es la quinta parte de sus aventuras. Tarragona: Felipe Roberto. Virtual edition consulted at http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/segundo-tomo-del-ingenioso-hidalgo-don-quixote-de-la-mancha-que-contiene-su-tercera-salida-y-es-la-quinta-parte-de-sus-auenturas--0/html/ (last access December 16, 2017).Google Scholar
Company Company, C. (2010). Reanálisis, ¿mecanismo necesario de la gramaticalización? Una propuesta desde la diacronía del objeto indirecto en español. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española, 5, 35–66.Google Scholar
Company Company, C. and Pozas Loyo, Julia (2009). Los indefinidos compuestos y los pronombres genérico-impersonales omne y uno. In Company Company, C. (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Segunda parte: La frase nominal. Mexico City: FCE/UNAM, pp. 1075–1219.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Rufino et al. (1886–1994). Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
de Benito Moreno, Carlota and de Toledo, Octavio y Huerta, Álvaro (eds.) (2016). En torno a “haber.” Construcciones, usos y variación desde el latín hasta la actualidad. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
de Smet, Henrik (2009). Analyzing Reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–1755.Google Scholar
de Smet, Henrik (2016). How Gradual Change Progresses: The Interaction between Convention and Innovation. Language Variation and Change, 28, 83–102.Google Scholar
Delicado Cantero, Manuel (2013). Prepositional Clauses in Spanish. A Diachronic and Comparative Syntactic Study. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Delicado Cantero, Manuel (2014). Dequeísmo and queísmo in Portuguese and Spanish. In Amaral, P. and Carvalho, Ana M. (eds.), Portuguese–Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, Synchrony, and Contact. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–120.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele (2002). A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, G. (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Steven (2012). A History of the Spanish Lexicon. A Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine (2006). Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine (2012). Grammaticalization and Semantic Reanalysis. In Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von, Heusinger, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 2675–2701.Google Scholar
Elvira, Javier (1998). El cambio analógico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Elvira, Javier (2003). Sobre el origen de la locución concesiva por mucho que y similares. In Alconchel, José Luis Girón et al. (eds.), Estudios ofrecidos al profesor José Jesús de Bustos Tovar. Madrid: Editorial Complutense, Vol. 1, 217–231.Google Scholar
Elvira, Javier (2015). Lingüística histórica y cambio gramatical. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga (2013). An Inquiry into Unidirectionality as a Foundational Element of Grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 37 (3), 515–533.Google Scholar
Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz (1992). Variación sincrónica y diacrónica en las construcciones con haber en el español americano. Boletín de Filología, 33, 35–46.Google Scholar
Garachana Camarero, Mar (1997). Los procesos de gramaticalización. Una aplicación a los conectores contraargumentativos (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Barcelona.Google Scholar
García, Érica (1991). Morphologization: A Case of Reversible Markedness? Probus, 3 (1), 23–54.Google Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara et al. (eds.) (2015). Language Change at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele (2003). Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (5), 219–224.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice and Campbell, Lyle (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, József (1963). La formation du système roman des conjonctions de subordination. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Hernández Díaz, Axel (2006). Posesión y existencia. La competencia de haber y tener en la posesión y haber existencial. In Company Company, C. (ed.), Sintaxis histórica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal, Vol. 2. Mexico City: FCE/UNAM, pp. 1053–1160.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa (2005). Analogy as Structure and Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard and Rosenbach, Anette (2008). Priming and Unidirectional Language Change. Theoretical Linguistics, 34 (2), 85–113.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst.Google Scholar
Kabatek, J. (2005). Tradiciones discursivas y cambio lingüístico. Lexis, 29, 151–177.Google Scholar
Kabatek, J. (ed.) (2008). Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las tradiciones discursivas. Madrid and Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.Google Scholar
König, E. (1988). Concessive Connectives and Concessive Sentences. Cross-Linguistic Regularities and Pragmatic Principles. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 145–166.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laca, Brenda (2006). El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In Company Company, C. (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española, Primera parte, La frase verbal, Vol. 1. Mexico City: FCE/UNAM, pp. 423–478.Google Scholar
Lapesa, R. (2000) Los casos latinos: Restos sintácticos y sustitutos en español. In Lapesa, R. (ed.), Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español. Madrid: Gredos, pp. 73–122.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lenz, Rodolfo (1920). La oración y sus partes. Madrid: Junta para la Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David (1991). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David and Westergaard, Marit (2007). Language Acquisition and Language Change: Interrelationships. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (5), 396–416.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1967). A Note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences. Foundations of Language, 3, 390–396.Google Scholar
Márquez Guerrero, María (2006). Todavía: Valores y usos en textos de los siglos XII–XVI. In de Bustos Tovar, J. J. and Alconchel, J. L. Girón (eds.), Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Arco Libros, pp. 879–897.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana M. (2014). Syntactic Change in Portuguese and Spanish. Divergent and Parallel Patterns of Linguistic Splitting. In Amaral, P. and Carvalho, Ana M. (eds.), Portuguese–Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, Synchrony, and Contact. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–64.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1912). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza), 12 (6), 384–400. Reprinted in Meillet, A. (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion [1965], pp. 130–148.Google Scholar
Melis, Chantal (1995). El objeto directo personal en el Cantar de mio Cid. Estudio sintáctico-pragmático. In Pensado, C. (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor, pp. 133–163.Google Scholar
Menéndez Pidal, Ramón (1926). Orígenes del español. Estado lingüístico de la Península Ibérica hasta el siglo XI. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Montes de Oca-Sicilia, M. del Pilar (1994). La concordancia con haber impersonal. Anuario de Letras, 32, 7–35.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph (2002). A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pensado, Carmen (1995a). El complemento directo preposicional: Estado de la cuestión y bibliografía comentada. In Pensado, C. (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor, 11–91.Google Scholar
Pensado, Carmen (1995b). La creación del complemento directo preposicional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. In Pensado, C. (ed.), El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor, pp. 179–233.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, M. and Hualde, J. I. (in press). Recurrent Processes in the Evolution of Concessive Subordinators in Spanish and Catalan. In Bouzouita, Miriam, Sitaridou, Ioanna, and Pato, Enrique (eds.), Studies in Historical Ibero-Romance Morpho-Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–248.Google Scholar
Pérez Saldanya, M. and Salvador, V. (2014). Oraciones subordinadas concesivas. In Company Company, C. (ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: Preposiciones, adverbios y conjunciones. Relaciones interoracionales. Mexico City: FCE/UNAM, pp. 3699–3839.Google Scholar
Rivarola, J. L. (1976): Las conjunciones concesivas en español medieval y clásico. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luísa (1988). La sintaxis de qual quiere y sus variantes en el español antiguo. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 36 (1), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian (2007). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna (2003). Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte (2014). Auxiliary Selection in Spanish: Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte and Schwenter, Scott (2017). Entrenchment and Persistence in Language Change: The Spanish Past Subjunctive. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2016-0047.Google Scholar
Serradilla, Ana (1997). El régimen de los verbos de entendimiento y lengua en español medieval. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Tarr, Frederick C. (1922). Prepositional Complementary Clauses in Spanish with Special Reference to the works of Pérez Galdós. Revue Hispanique, 56, 1–264.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan (1977). Reanalysis and Actualization in Syntactic Change. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 141–177.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena (2006). Relative Frequency in the Grammaticization of Collocations: Nominal to Concessive a pesar de. In Face, Timothy L. and Klee, Carol A. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Schwenter, Scott (2006). Towards an Operational Notion of Subjectification. In Cover, Rebecca and Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the BLS. Berkeley, CA: BLS, pp. 347–358.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A. (2011): Collocations in Grammaticalization and Variation. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 225–238.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth (1995). Subjectification in Grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth (2012). The Status of Onset Contexts in Analysis of Micro-Changes. In Kytö, Merja (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 221–255.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth and Dasher, Richard (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth and Trousdale, Graeme (2014). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel (2014). Compositionality and Change. In Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 103–123.Google Scholar
Viotti, Evani (1998). Uma história sobre ter e haver. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 34, 41–50.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai (1995). The Formal Semantics of Grammaticalization. In Beckman, Jill N. (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25, Vol. 2. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 175–198.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. (2008). Verbal Semantics and the Diachronic Development of DOM in Spanish. Probus, 20 (1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Wanner, Dieter (2006). The Power of Analogy: An Essay on Historical Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×