Search

In this paper we analyse Spanish verbal constructions that accept both the clitic se and the prefix auto- in order to determine whether these formations are or are not more agentive than the corresponding non-prefixed constructions (autocriticarse vs. criticarse). The proposal arises from the discussion about the different semantic values observed in formations with auto- and explores the distinctive features of such formations in contrast to those without auto-. We carried out a twofold analysis: first, we applied a set of tests of agentivity and control to a sample of 130 verbs with auto- extracted from the Modern Spanish Reference Corpus (CREA) and compared the sample with its non-prefixed pronominal pairs (i.e. verbs with clitic se). Second, we carried out a series of surveys using similar tests with Spanish speakers to guarantee the acceptability of the corpus interpretations. We argue that prefixed constructions show a higher degree of agentivity and control by external arguments, which results in the impossibility of bidirectionally replacing these constructions with those that only have the clitic se. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study represents a detailed examination of the linguistic variables that are significantly related to verb-form use in contexts of future-time reference for advanced learners and native speakers of Spanish. The results show that the factors lexical temporal indicator, clause type and temporal distance are related to the verb forms that both groups use to express the function of futurity and that (un)certainty and grammatical person and number are only important for native speakers, thus demonstrating that the learners have not yet reached native-like use of this variable structure. In addition to providing more information on the variable use of future-time reference for native and non-native speakers, the investigation makes methodological advancements in the study of morphosyntactic variation by defining a token by the function it performs in communication and by examining the full range of verb forms speakers use to fulfill this function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In most Indo-European languages, the direct perception of an event is represented by the construction [perceiver NP1 + perception verb + perceived participant NP2 + infinitive]. In Spanish and in French, the position of the perceived participant varies: it can be anteposed or postposed to the infinitive. This article examines the factors which determine the syntactic position of the perceived participant NP2. Based on a large corpus — containing about 4000 infinitival constructions — it is shown that, although at first sight Spanish and French prefer different basic word orders, a more universal conceptual parameter explains some striking analogies between the two languages, namely the modality of perception of the main verb. Quantitative research is used to demonstrate that due to the “objectival” character of visual perception, the internal structure of the infinitival complement after ver/ voir and mirar/ regarder is prototypically of non propositional nature, whereas the “eventive” character of auditory perception explains the propositional structure of the infinitival complement subordinated to oír/ entendre and escuchar/écouter. These different internal structures explain word order in the infinitival complement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has often been claimed that certain verb-subject configurations can convey a specificational meaning, but it has not been previously shown that they can also have the same syntactico-semantic and discourse properties as other types of sentences which mainly have a specificational meaning, such as clefts and pseudoclefts. In this article I examine Verb Object Subject (VOS) word order in Romance, and show that it shares the syntactic and semantic properties of specificational sentences. I also provide a description of the discourse functions of VOS in French, Spanish and Italian, and conclude that these differ significantly in each of the three languages. I argue that such differences follow naturally from the specificational nature of VOS clauses, and reflect the different functional types of specificational sentences attested cross-linguistically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]