In:Changes in Meaning and Function: Studies in historical linguistics with a focus on Spanish
Edited by Jorge Fernández Jaén and Herminia Provencio Garrigós
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 25] 2020
► pp. 159–172
The future tense in Spanish
An enactive approach
Published online: 2 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.25.07lop
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.25.07lop
Abstract
Linguistic theories emphasize either the inner point of
view that explains linguistic phenomena starting from universal structures
of the human mind, or the outer point of view that relies on the structure
of communication. Enaction is a cognitive approach that locates halfway
between formal and functional linguistics. This paper shows how the
principles of perceptual interchange can help to explain the evolution and
the main uses of the Spanish future tense. The current paradigm consists of
four forms, voy a amar, amaré, amaría, amare, respectively
temporal, modal, past, and rhetoric. Since none of them proceeds from the
classic Latin future amabo, it is concluded that they
originate in the adjustment of neural networks to the requirements of
communication.
Keywords: enaction, future tense, cortical words, limbic paradigms, embodied mind
Article outline
- Concluding remarks
References
References (16)
Becker, Martin. 2011. ”Tradiciones
discursivas y cambio lingüístico: el caso del futuro de
subjuntivo”. In Así
se van las lenguas variando. Nuevas tendencias en la investigación
del cambio lingüistico en español, ed.
by Mónica Castillo, and Lola Pons, 105–129. Bern: Peter Lang.
Cartagena, Nelson. 1995–1996. “La
inestabilidad del paradigma verbal de futuro, ¿hispanoamericanismo,
hispanismo, romanismo o universal
lingüístico?” Boletín de Filología de
la Universidad de
Chile 35: 79–100.
Escandell, María Victoria. 2010. “Futuro
y evidencialidad.” Anuario de
Lingüística Hispánica de la Universidad de
Valladolid 26: 9–34.
Gabryś-Barker, Danuta. 2010. “Multilinguals’
learning stories: Stability and
change.” TAL Conference,
University of Opole, November
2010.
Grégoire, Michäel. 2012. Le
lexique par le signifier. Méthode en application à
l’espagnol. Saarebruck: Presses Académiques Francophones.
Laca, Brenda. 2016. “Variación
y semántica de los tiempos verbales: el caso del
futuro.” XII
Congreso Internacional de Lingüística
General, University of Alcalá de
Henares 24-5-2016.
López-García, Ángel. 2011. ”Neurolinguistics
of the lexicon-syntax
interfacc.” In Linguo-Cultural
Competence and Phraseological Motivation, ed.
by Antonio Pamies, and Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij, 41–53, Duisburg: Schneider Verlag.
López-García, Ángel, Ricardo Morant, Manuel Prunyonosa, and Amparo Montaner. 2010. “Research
on first and second language cognition may benefit from small-world
network
methodology.” Forum 8–2: 267–277.
López-García, Ángel, and Ricardo Morant. 2013. ”An
empirical investigation of lexical and cognitive networks in the
brain.” Revista Española de la
Sociedad de Lingüística
Aplicada 26: 493–498.
Malkemus, Samuel A. 2012. “Toward
a General Theory of Enaction: Biological, Transpersonal, and
Phenomenological Dimensions.” The
Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology 44–2: 201–223.
Maturana, Humberto. 1978. ”Biology
of Language: the Epistemology of
Reality.” In Psychology
and Biology of Language and Thought, ed.
by Miller, George A., and E. Lenneberg, 27–63. New York: Academic Press.
Münte, Thomas, and Hans-Jochen Heinze. 1994. “Event-related
negativities during syntactic processing of written
words.” In Cognitive
electrophysiology, ed.
by Hans-Jochen Heinze. Boston: Birkhauser.
Osterhout, Lee, and Philip Holcomb. 1992. “Event-Related
brain potentials elicited by syntactic
anomaly.” Journal of Memory and
Language 31: 785–806.