Abstract
This paper explores the existence of a continuum between regular, productive, conventional configurations and fixed, idiosyncratic and novel configurations within the full gamut of instances of secondary predication with decir ('say') and verba dicendi in present-day Spanish. Drawing on Cognitive Construction Grammar, it is argued that instances of the secondary predication with these verbs can be aptly regarded as forming part of the family of subjective-transitive constructions. Specifically, schematic configurations involving decir and other verba dicendi are shown to be instances of the denominative subjective-transitive construction. Configurations of this kind interact with partially filled in instances of secondary predication involving coercion via a reflexive pronoun in the postverbal NP slot as well as coercion in combination with an imperative form. This continuum is even more clearly observable in the case of configurations involving the reflex passive clitic se, giving rise to a three-point cline between (i) non-gramaticalized (compositional) configurations with an active counterpart, (ii) non-grammaticalized constructions without an active counterpart and (iii) grammaticalized (non-compositional) configurations without an active counterpart. At a higher level of delicacy, it is shown that lo que se dice XPCOMP construction, understood as the result of incipient grammaticalization, may function as a focusing/emphasizer subjunct or as a summative conjunct in present-day Spanish. One of the broad-scale generalizations emerging from this study is that the XPCOMP must lend itself to a subjective, evaluative construal on the part of the subject/speaker. All the instances of the subjective-transitive construction surveyed here impose this restriction on the XPCOMP. However, the lo que se dice XPCOMP construction functioning as a emphasizer/focusing subjunct also allows a more disparate range of non-evaluative XPCOMPs. A default inheritance system of the type invoked in Cognitive Construction Grammar is shown to capture the commonalities as well as the idiosyncratic particulars of this family of constructions and can thus be informally used to optimize the input for the instruction of grammar in the advanced Spanish L2 class.
Highlights
From its inception in the late 80’s (Lakoff, 1987; Fillmore et al, 1988), Construction Grammar ( CxG) vindicates the centrality of constructions as free-standing theoretical entities with their own inherent meaning and/or function. This stance is diametrically different from the Chomskyan conception of constructions as mere taxonomic artefacts which may prove useful in linguistic description but which are devoid of any theoretical status and explanatory power (Chomsky, 1995: 170)
At the other extreme we find other predicates which are systematically repelled by this construction, such as revelar (‘reveal’) or comprender (‘understand’), since they encode the acceptance or uncovering of some sort of state of affairs rather than the forming of an opinion by the subject/speaker, clashing with the meaning of the evaluative subjective-transitive construction, in contrast to their perfect acceptability with a finite que-clause, as shown in (18)(a)-(b). 8 In-between we find predicates which are only acceptable in this construction if coerced into the overall constructional meaning via a reflexive pronoun, such as pensar (‘think’) (cf. (19)): (18) (a) Lo consideré/ encontré/ *acepté/ *comprendí/*pensé conveniente ‘I considered/found/accepted/understood it convenient’ (b) Consideré/Encontré/Acepté/Comprendí/Pensé que era conveniente ‘I considered/found/accepted/understood/thought that it was convenient’
As in the case of the evaluative subjective-transitive construction, similar semantico-pragmatic restrictions are operational on the XPCOMP slot in this construction, as shown in (23): (23) Me dicen/llaman loco/traficante de drogas/#fontanero/#perdiendo mi tiempo/#el hombre que está sentado justo ahí ‘They call me mad/drug dealer/a plumber/wasting my time/the man who’s just sitting right there’
Summary
From its inception in the late 80’s (Lakoff, 1987; Fillmore et al, 1988), Construction Grammar ( CxG) vindicates the centrality of constructions as free-standing theoretical entities with their own inherent meaning and/or function.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
