Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study investigates the expression of predicative possession in Argentinian Spanish, focusing on the alternation between two constructions: tener (‘have’) + NP and estar con (‘be with’) + NP. Building on previous research, we explore the factors that determine speakers’ choices between these constructions, particularly the influence of temporal context and the presence of adverbs. Using a forced-choice experimental design, participants were presented with vignettes varying in temporal duration (durative vs. non-durative) and adverbial modification (extending, limiting, or none). Results show a strong overall preference for the tener + NP construction, particularly in durative contexts. However, the estar con + NP construction is more likely to be selected in non-durative contexts, especially when a limiting adverb is present. These findings suggest that the distinction between the two constructions is not purely semantic but also pragmatically modulated by temporal and contextual factors. We argue that this pattern reflects a subset-superset relationship between the two constructions, where tener + NP can cover a broader temporal scope than estar con + NP. This overlap mirrors cross-linguistic findings on possessive constructions and aspectual distinctions, with implications for understanding grammaticalization processes in Romance languages.

Haber de + infinitivo se considera tradicionalmente una perífrasis modal de necesidad deóntica, obligación atenuada y epistémica, además de temporal prospectiva (Blas Arroyo & Schulte 2017; Garachana & Hernández Díaz 2017; RAE/ASALE 2025: 28.6ñ-r). En este trabajo ampliamos la perspectiva documentando y analizando los orígenes del uso de la perífrasis para marcar lo que llamaremos aspecto inminencial inconcluso (AII), que denota eventos que estuvieron a punto de ocurrir, pero no ocurrieron (“action narrowly averted”, Kuteva 1998: 120). Este valor cuenta con un reconocimiento muy marginal en los estudios y repertorios gramaticales del español como parte de su gama de significados. A partir del CNDHE y CORDE, demostramos que el valor de AII de la perífrasis nace en el siglo XV, en el que se documentan los primeros ejemplos en los que este valor es incuestionable. Las ocurrencias se suceden durante los siglos XVI y XVII, alcanzando su momento de máximo esplendor en el XVIII, fecha a partir de la cual se inicia su declive. Durante el XIX y el XX todavía se localizan muestras esporádicas, pero en la época actual podemos considerarlo un uso desaparecido, prueba de ello es que los hablantes ya no reconocen este valor (Sinner & Dowah 2020). Planteamos la hipótesis de que el valor de AII es resultado de un proceso de gramaticalización en el que el valor de futuro (del pasado) de la perífrasis reinterpretado, primero, como una situación (aún) no realizada y, después, como una situación inminente que no llega a actualizarse (Bauman 2016). Haber de + infinitivo se considera tradicionalmente una perífrasis modal de necesidad deóntica, obligación atenuada y epistémica, además de temporal prospectiva. En este trabajo ampliamos la perspectiva documentando y analizando los orígenes del uso de la perífrasis para marcar lo que llamaremos aspecto inminencial inconcluso (AII), que denota eventos que estuvieron a punto de ocurrir, pero no ocurrieron (“action narrowly averted”, Kuteva 1998: 120). Este valor cuenta con un reconocimiento marginal en los estudios y repertorios gramaticales del español como parte de su gama de significados. A partir del CNDHE y CORDE, demostramos que el valor de AII de la perífrasis con el auxiliar en pretérito perfecto simple nace en el siglo XV, en el que se documentan los primeros ejemplos en los que este valor es incuestionable. Las ocurrencias se suceden durante los siglos XVI y XVII, alcanzando su momento de máximo esplendor en el XVIII, fecha a partir de la cual se inicia su declive. Durante el XIX y el XX todavía se localizan muestras esporádicas, pero en la época actual podemos considerarlo un uso desaparecido, prueba de ello es que los hablantes ya no reconocen este valor (Sinner & Dowah 2020). Planteamos la hipótesis de que el valor de AII es resultado de un proceso de gramaticalización en el que el valor de futuro (del pasado) de la perífrasis se reinterpreta, primero, como una situación (aún) no realizada y, después, como una situación inminente que no llega a actualizarse (Bauman 2016).

The chapters in this volume present a state of the art of grammaticalization research in the 2010s. They are concerned with the application of new models, such as constructionalization, the ongoing debate about the status and modelling of the development of discourse markers, and reveal a renewed interest in the typological application of grammaticalization and in the cognitive motivations for unidirectionality. The contributors consider data from a wide range of languages, including several that have not or marginally been looked at in terms of grammaticalization: Chinese, Dutch, (varieties of) English, French, German, Japanese, Maltese, Old Saxon, Spanish, and languages of the South Caucasian and Zhuang Tai-Kadai families. The chapters range from theoretical discussions to fine-grained analyses of new historical and comparative language data. This volume will be of interest to linguists studying morphosyntactic changes in a range of languages, and in particular to those interested in models for grammatical change.

\"Modals and Quasi-modals in English reports the findings of a corpus-based study of the modals and a set of semantically-related 'quasi-modals' in English. The study is informed by recent developments in the study of modality, including grammaticalization and recent diachronic change. The selection of the parallel corpora used, representing British, American and Australian English, was designed to facilitate the exploration of both regional and stylistic variation.\"--Jacket.

Memory is fleeting. New material rapidly obliterates previous material. How, then, can the brain deal successfully with the continual deluge of linguistic input? We argue that, to deal with this “Now-or-Never” bottleneck, the brain must compress and recode linguistic input as rapidly as possible. This observation has strong implications for the nature of language processing: (1) the language system must “eagerly” recode and compress linguistic input; (2) as the bottleneck recurs at each new representational level, the language system must build a multilevel linguistic representation; and (3) the language system must deploy all available information predictively to ensure that local linguistic ambiguities are dealt with “Right-First-Time”; once the original input is lost, there is no way for the language system to recover. This is “Chunk-and-Pass” processing. Similarly, language learning must also occur in the here and now, which implies that language acquisition is learning to process, rather than inducing, a grammar. Moreover, this perspective provides a cognitive foundation for grammaticalization and other aspects of language change. Chunk-and-Pass processing also helps explain a variety of core properties of language, including its multilevel representational structure and duality of patterning. This approach promises to create a direct relationship between psycholinguistics and linguistic theory. More generally, we outline a framework within which to integrate often disconnected inquiries into language processing, language acquisition, and language change and evolution.