Cover not available

Article published In: Beyond Corpus Data — Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Anton Granvik, Veera Hatakka, Olli O. Silvennoinen, Riku Erkkilä and Eveliina Mäntylä
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:2] 2025
► pp. 481–509

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Regular article

Subjectification and conativity

Origins and development of the verbal construction tratar de+ infinitive

 | Spanish National Research Council (CSIC-ILLA)
 | Universitat de Barcelona
Published online: 27 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00172.oct
Abstract
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.
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)
References
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, G. (2004). Auxiliary verb constructions in Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 151, 59–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coupe, A. (2007). A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández de Castro, F. (1999). Las perífrasis verbales en el español actual. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, W. (1986). The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Fernández, L., Carrasco, Á., Camus, B., Martínez-Atienza, M., & García, M.Á.. (2006). Diccionario de perífrasis verbales. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grano, Th. (2011). Mental action and event structure in the semantics of try. Proceedings of SALT, 211, 426–443. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Control, temporal orientation, and the cross-linguistic grammar of trying. Glossa, 2(94), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Z., & Rivière, N. (2007). Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in French. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 561–607). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagège, C. (2010). Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1963). Essais de linguistique genérale. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21, 201–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Metonymy between pragmatics, reference and diachrony. Metaphorik.de, 71, 6–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kulikov, L. (2011). Voice typology. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 368–398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, C. T., & Short, Ch. (1879). A Latin dictionary. New York & Oxford: Harper & Brothers Publishers/Clarendon Press [Avalaible online: [URL] (accessed August-October 2018)]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morera, M. (1991). Diccionario crítico de las perífrasis verbales del español. Fuerteventura: Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olbertz, H. (1998). Verbal periphrases in a functional grammar of Spanish. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
RAE / ASALE. Real Academia Española / Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rumsey, A. (2003). Language, desire, and the ontogenesis of intersubjectivity. Language & Communication, 231, 169–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siloni, T. (2012). Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural language and linguistic theory, 30(1), 261–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tamm, A. (2012). Scalar verb classes: scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the Estonian aspectual lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thegel, M., & Lindgren, J. (2020). Subjective and intersubjective modality: a quantitative approach to Spanish modal verbs. Studia Neophilologica, 92(1), 124–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Hopper, P. (2003 [1993]). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (2013). Conative. Linguistic Typology, 17(2), 269–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voinov, V. (2013). ‘Seeing’ is ‘Trying’: The relation of visual perception to attemptive modality in the world’s languages. Language and Cognition, 51, 61–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yllera, A. (1980). Sintaxis histórica del verbo español: las perífrasis medievales. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeisler, B. (2004). Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages: A comparative study. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue