Published as Delicado Cantero, Manuel. 2014.

Dequeísmo and queísmo in Portuguese and

Spanish, in Amaral, Patrícia & Ana Maria Carvalho: Portuguese-Spanish Interfaces.
Diachrony, synchrony, and contact, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 95-120.
DOI: 10.1075/ihll.1

This paper is under copyright and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use
or reprint the material in any form.

Dequeísmo and queísmo in Portuguese and Spanish

Manuel Delicado Cantero

Australian National University

This paper explores the nature and scope of two non-normative phenomena typical of
Portuguese and Spanish: dequeísmo and queísmo. In doing so, it concentrates on specific
goals: to establish coherent definitions for both languages, to re-examine the data through
the lens of such definitions in order to test the scope of the existing labels –both in the present
and in the past–, to highlight discrepancies in the analyses presented in the literature, and
finally to comment on the theoretical implications derived from such tasks.

1. Introduction

This paper examines two non-normative phenomena of Portuguese and Spanish, named

dequeísmo (section 2) and queísmo (section 3). In particular, I concentrate on delineating

strict, accurate definitions in order to evaluate whether the normative labels dequeísmo and

queísmo are indeed suitable for all the data usually discussed in the literature (2.1, 2.3; 3.1),

with special attention to historical evidence and the origins of these phenomena (2.2; 3.2, 3.3).

The conclusions offer a summary and critique (section 4). The paper provides data from

present-day and historical Portuguese and Spanish. 1 The reader is encouraged to obtain

further examples from the sources cited throughout the article.

2. Dequeísmo

2.1. Definition
Portuguese and Spanish share the grammatical construction whereby a prepositional verb (or

other preposition-taking category such as nouns and adjectives) can –or must, normatively–

maintain the preposition when selecting for a finite clause. Consider the following examples:

(1) a. Lembro-me de que fazia calor

Recall-me of that did heat
b. Me acuerdo de que ese día hacía calor
Me recall of that that day did heat
‘I remember that it was hot’

Both verbs take a functional preposition de, theoretically formalized as the materialization of

inherent Case (Rauh 1991, 1993, 2002; Delicado Cantero to appear, and many others). These

two languages seem to be the only two Romance languages where a construction like this is

widely available (but note Italian a che in formal registers; French does have à ce que and de

ce que, which are similar if not syntactically equivalent; see Zaring 1992). The Nordic

languages also share this syntactic configuration.

As opposed to this (normative) use of a preposition, dequeísmo is defined as the introduc-

tion of a spurious prepositional-looking de (‘of’) in front of the complementizer que in finite

contexts where such de is not normatively expected (Rabanales 1977: 543); hence it is

consistently condemned by prescriptivist grammarians (RAE 2010: 827, for Spanish). 2

Consider the following typical examples of dequeísmo:3

(2) a. está escrito no final de que há muito escrúpulo…

Is written in-the end of that exists much scruple
‘It is written in the end that s/he has a lot of scruples’
(Mollica 1995: 45)
b. Pienso de que tengo que estudiar
Think.1SG of that have.1SG that study.INF
‘I think that I have to study’

The most obvious difference between prepositional verbs and dequeísta contexts resides in

the fact that only the former will retain de with other categories, such as nouns and infinitives,

as their preposition is indeed required. Another salient characteristic of dequeísta examples is

the fact that they are substituted by the direct object pronoun lo (when possible), showing that
dequeísta de is not categorially an actual preposition, as it does not project its own preposi-

tional phrase.

Typical dequeísta contexts include sentential subjects and objects, sentential adjuncts, and

even predicates of copulative clauses4 (see the abundant examples in Rabanales 1977; Gómez

Torrego 1999; RAE 2010 for Spanish; Mollica 1989, 1991, 1995; Bechara 2001 for

Portuguese). Dequeísta clauses are typically complements of verbs (especially, verbs of

speaking, thought, feelings, etc.), and complements or adjuncts of nouns and adjectives, even

adverbs and complementizers. Even certain complex complementizers and prepositions may

combine with a spurious de (see De Mello 1995: 118; Silva-Villar 2005: 4–5). It is also

possible to find examples of spurious de with indirect interrogative finite clauses (see Mollica

1995: 20, for Portuguese; see Rabanales 1977 for Spanish; a search online retrieves many

examples)5 and comparative clauses (Mollica 1995: 68; a search online retrieves examples for

Spanish).

On a brief syntactic note, the spurious nature of dequeísta de is formally categorized by

Demonte and Fernández Soriano (2005: 1067) as a type of prepositional complementizer,

similar to English for, which selects for a CP (a que-clause) as its complement.6 The linking

value of dequeísta de is also captured by Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar (2007, 2012),

who argue that this spurious de is a linker, the result of (copulative) Predicate Inversion, as

formalized by Den Dikken in several works (see Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar 2012: 24;

see Mollica 1995: 56–57 for a compatible view from a different framework).7

In order to be coherent, I will adopt a restricted definition in this paper, whereby

dequeísta cases are those which fulfill the following requirements: they present a spurious de,

not a true functional preposition; are restricted to appear before que-clauses; the use of de is

completely unexpected (Gómez Torrego 1999: 2107), not an extension –even if non-

normative– from an existing paradigm.8

2.2. Historical data and dequeísmo

Early works on the subject (for instance, Bentivoglio 1980–1981) assumed that dequeísmo

was a recent phenomenon, a 70s/80s phenomenon. However, other linguists noted the

existence of apparent dequeísta examples in old texts, including Kany (1994: 411) and

Mollica (1995: 40–41), who concludes that “o Dequeísmo existe no português desde sempre”

(“Dequeísmo has always existed in Portuguese”).

The examples usually purported in the literature as historical dequeísmo, examined under

the scrutiny of the normative/standardized languages of today, tend to qualify as dequeísmo.

However, the first issue derives from the fact that the old languages exhibited richer

preposition selection variation, as it has long been noted in the literature (see Cano: 1977–

1978, 1984, 1985, among others). As Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar (2007, 2012) point

out, what would qualify as dequeísmo in the present might not do so in the past. That is to say,

it is necessary to test whether those examples meet the requirements listed above for

dequeísmo. Consider the following examples of temer (‘to fear’) in 16th century Spanish:

(3) a. aquellos que temían de que les succediesse alguna adversidad

those that feared of that them happened some adversity
‘Those that were afraid of suffering some adversity’
(Jardín de flores curiosas, Antonio de Torquemada, 16th c.)
b. Y temen de que an de salir de su casa y pueblo
And fear.3PL of that have.3PL of leave. INF of their house and town
‘And they fear they must leave their house and town’
(Nueva crónica y buen gobierno, Guamán Poma de Ayala, 16th c.)

Temer is currently not a prepositional verb, and the previous examples would qualify today as

dequeísmo. However, the situation in the 16th century was otherwise, since temer de could

take nouns and infinitives; that is to say, the use of de in temer de que was not exceptional:

(4) a. temen de cualquier muestra de su indignación

fear.3PL of any show of his indignation
‘They fear any proof of his indignation’
(Introducción del símbolo de la Fe, Luis de Granada, 16th c.)
b. teme de recaer
fear.3SG of relapse.INF
 ‘He is afraid of relapsing’
(Coloquios espirituales y sacramentales, González de Eslava, 16th c.)

The same applies to decir (mentioned by Kany 1994), which can be interpreted as ‘to speak

about’, hence the (non-spurious) preposition:

(5) a. también dijo de otros dos cristianos

too told.3SG of other two Christians
‘He also spoke about two other Christians’
(Carta de Luis Ramírez á su padre, Luis Ramírez, 16th c.)
b. rogándolos que no dijesen de haberlos encontrado
beging-them that not said.3PL of have.INF-them found
‘Begging them not to reveal that they had found them’
(Vida del escudero Marcos de Obregón, Vicente Espinel, 16th c.)

Del Moral (2008: 199) provides the following examples as early evidence of dequeísmo:

(6) a. mucho me pesó de que no me hallé en el convite de Navidad

much me weighs of that not me found.1SG in the feast of Xmas
‘It hurts me not to have been invited to the Xmas feast’
(Epistolario, Luis de la Puente, 16th c.)
b. La intención fue de que allá le matasen
The intention was of that there him killed.3PL
‘The intention was for them ti kill him there’
(Historias y leyendas, Lozano y Sánchez, 17th c.)
c. no tenía más que decirles de que él esperaba ... de volver presto
not had.1SG more that tell.INF-them of that he expected of return.INF
soon
‘He had nothing else to tell them but that he expected to return soon’
(Crónica de la Nueva España, Cervantes de Salazar, 16th c.)
d. lo que os iba diciendo de que hombres embusteros…
what you went.1SG telling of that men deceitful
‘... what I was saying about the fact that deceitful men...’
(Guía y avisos de forasteros, Liñán y Verdugo, 17th c.)

Such examples, placed in their contemporary context, do not seem to qualify as dequeísmo,

either because the construction is attested with de and infinitives or nouns, thus making de

que a generalization from an existing pattern, or because a non-dequeísta syntactic analysis is

warranted, as in (6c), where de que does not depend on decir but rather on más, or decir de is

understood as ‘to speak about’, as before. In (6d) de que is actually modifying the direct

object lo que (meaning ‘to say something about…’), a general use of nominal adjunction
common even today. Consider the following examples, which show that the use of de in

(6a,b,c) above is not exclusive to que-clauses:9

(7) a. Cierto que me pesa de haber por aquí venido

True that me weighs of have.INF for here come
‘It truly saddens me to have come here’
(El viaje entretenido, Rojas Villandrando, 17th c.)
b. creedme que me pesa de vuestros males
believe-me that me weighs of your misfortunes
‘Believe me when I say that I hurt for your misfortunes’
(Del Rey abajo, ninguno, Rojas Zorrilla, 17th c.)
c. mas el ejemplo y dechado fue de dar vista a los moros
but the example and model was of give.INF sight to the moors
‘But the model was to discover the Moors’
(Segunda parte del Lazarillo de Tormes, Juan de Luna, 17th c.)
d. No os doy, Señor, por respuesta Mas de que ya estoy casada
Not you give.1SG Sir for answer more of that yet am married
‘I won’t answer, Sir, more than that I am already married’
(La fuerza de la ley, Agustín Moreto, 17th c.)

A similar problem is found in Portuguese. Mollica (1995: 39) finds some early examples

of dequeísmo:

(8) a. Dicemos, olhando para a molher de seu Senhor, de que tantas mercês
haveis rrecebido
Spoke.3PL looking to the wife of his Lord of that many mercies
have.2SG received
‘We spoke, looking towards your Lord’s wife, about the fact/from
whom you have received so many mercies’
(A arte de furtar, 13th c.)
b. prezando-se de que ninguém melhor que elle ignorava, o que ignorava
priding-self of that nobody better that he ignored the what ignored
‘Priding himself on the fact that no one ignored what he ignored better’
(Apologos dialogaes, Francisco Manuel de Mello, 17th c.)

The first one could be interpreted as a relative clause, where que is referring back to Senhor.

Alternatively, this verb may be interpreted as ‘to speak about’, hence the preposition, as hap-

pened in historical Spanish. Decir de is attested in historical Portuguese with nouns,

suggesting that de with que is not unexpected:

(9) a. assi como dizemos desto, assi dizemos de todallas outras cousas que ...
thus as speak.1PL of-this thus speak.1PL of all-the other things that
‘As we speak of this, we also speak of all the other things that…’
(Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.)
b. quando lhe Nuno Vaz mandou que dissesse de seu direito
 when him Nuno Vaz ordered that spoke.3SG of his right
‘When Nuno Vaz ordered him to speak about his right’
(Décadas da Asia, João de Barros, 16th c.)

The second example of Mollica’s returns to the definition issue once again. First of all,

prezar-se de is attested with nouns and infinitives as well (examples from searchable texts

available at The Internet Archive, archive.org):

(10) a. não para se prezar d’elles

not for self pride.INF of-them
‘Not for priding himself on them’
(Apologos dialogaes, Francisco Manuel de Mello, 17th c.)
b. que mais se preza de ter este foro na real casa de V. Ex.ª
that more self prides of have.INF this forum in-the royal house of V.E.
‘That he prides himself more on having this forum on Your
Excellency’s royal house’
(Cartas, António Vieira, 17th c.)

The issue here relies on the fact that Mollica (1995) defines dequeísmo as any use of de in

alternation with 0, that is, 0 + que/de + que. With a definition so broad –criticized by Bechara

(2001: 314), any innovation involving the appearance of a preposition (or what looks like a

preposition) could in principle be labeled dequeísmo. However, the case of prezar-se de que

is a typical case of pronominal verbs extending the use of their required preposition –actual

Case functional preposition, not a spurious ones– to the finite clause, a different syntactic

change which does not qualify as dequeísmo (see Bechara 2001; Barra Jover 2002; Delicado

Cantero 2009, to appear). That is to say, the emergence of argumental/adjunct <P + que-

clauses>, both in the history of Spanish and that of Portuguese, does not qualify as dequeísmo.

As a prepositional verb, the presence of the preposition de with prezar-se and the like –both

in Portuguese and in Spanish– is widely attested with nouns and infinitives before it enters

the finite realm.

A different situation is found in the following 19th century examples, where the use of de

que is contemporarily equivalent to dequeísmo as is defined here for today’s Spanish and

Portuguese. Note that in (11a) decir is clearly ‘to tell’, not ‘to speak’; (11b) is not a case of
preposition swapping, as it is clearly the transitive verb pensar (‘to think’), not the

prepositional verb pensar en (‘to think of’) (example (11a) taken from Cervantes Virtual):

(11) a. Por eso te he dicho … de que nunca te canses de hacer bien

for that you have.1SG told of that never you tire.2SG of fo.INF good
‘That is why I have told you to never get over doing good’
(Cuentos, adivinanzas y refranes populares, Fernán Caballero, 19th c.)
b. No pienses de que te quiero porque te miro a la cara
Not think.2SG of that you love.1SG because you look.1SG to the face
‘Don’t think that I love because I look you in the face’
(Genio e ingenio del pueblo andaluz, Fernán Caballero, 19th c.)

Mollica (1995: 44) compiles examples of dequeísmo in a newspaper published in 1900; many

of them do not qualify as dequeísmo for the same reasons I have just commented, and also

because some of them are actually perfect examples of relative clauses. Alternatively, the

following example, where saber does not admit the reading of saber de (‘to know about’),

seems to fall under the definition of dequeísmo I am using in this paper:

(12) Já sei de que nada servirá a conferência

Yet know.1SG of that nothing will-serve the conference
‘I already know that the conference will be useless’
(Os fidalgos da casa mourisca, Júlio Dinis, 19th c.)

In sum, the question of the origin of dequeísmo is highly dependent on being able to

document whether the element de was indeed used only with finite clauses or not. Many of

the examples brought up in the literature end up not being actual evidence of early dequeísmo

once it is shown that de was indeed used with other categories. The very concept of

dequeísmo stems from a prescriptivist view imposed on language, which makes it even more

difficult to apply in “pre-normativized” times, considering the well-known prepositional

variation typical of old Romance languages.

2.3. Portuguese-Spanish differences and special cases

A comparison between Portuguese and Spanish allows me to highlight the existence of

diverging examples, or, at the very least, examples which have been explained differently.
 While in Spanish it is normative to use de with antes (‘before’) and después (‘after’) with a

finite clause, the opposite holds in standard Portuguese, where the following examples are

deemed incorrect (examples from Corpus do Português):

(13) a. A decisão foi tomada antes de que houvesse notícia sobre a crise
The decision was taken before of that had.3SG news about the crisis
‘The decision was made before he got news about the crisis’
(Dia de decisão para o mercado acionário, 10/27/1997)
b. Depois de que sofreu aquelas dores
After of that suffered.3SG those pains
‘After he suffered those pains’
(A máscara e o destino, Guedes de Amorim, 1944)

Mollica (1995: 54) considers these structures as dequeísmo. However, a comparison with

Spanish reveals that these cases actually qualify as regularizations of a pre-existing preposi-

tional regime, since antes de and depois de are perfect with nouns and infinitives, as in

Spanish (examples from Corpus do Português):

(14) a. Isso remonta à década de 50, antes de minha formação acadêmica

That goes-back to decade of 50 before of my formation academic
‘That goes back to the 50s, before my academic education’
(Nelson da Mata, 08/17/1997)
b. vendi uma loja antes de abrir
sold.1SG a store before of open.INF
‘I sold a store before opening it’
(Fortunato Russo, 07/21/1997)
c. dez anos depois de mim
ten years after of me
‘Ten years after me’
(Roberto Faria, 04/19/1997)
d. depois de ter sido capturado
after of have.INF been captured
‘After having been captured’
(Alípio de Freitas, 08/10/1997)

Furthermore, this de is used with morphologically inflected pronouns, which shows that it is a

Case-preposition, not a spurious de. Spanish antes de que and después de que are attested

innovations in the history of Spanish (Barra Jover 2002, among many others), in alternation

with the non-prepositional variants antes que and después que. Such is also the case in the

history of Portuguese:
 (15) a. antes de que o confirmasse o cõsentimento del Rey
before of that it confirmed the consent of-the King
‘Before the King’s consent confirmed it’
(Epanaphora politica primeira, Francisco Manuel de Melo, 17th c.)
b. depois de que, como a morto, lhe rezaram um responso
after of that as a dead him prayed.3PL a prayer
‘After they prayer for him like they would for a dead person’
(Apolo, Francisco Manuel de Melo, 17th c.)

Similarly, Portuguese verbs such as gostar (‘to like’), necessitar or precisar (‘to need’) are

prepositional with nouns and infinitives but not (normatively) with finite clauses (Duarte

2003: 636–637). Observe the asymmetry of the following European Portuguese examples:

(16) a. O João gosta da Maria

The John likes of-the Mary
‘John likes Mary’
b. O João gosta de tocar flauta
The John likes of play.INF flute
‘John likes playing the flute.’
(Duarte 2003: 637)
c. O João gosta que a Maria toque flauta
The John likes that the Mary plays flute
‘John likes Mary to play the flute.’
(Duarte 2003: 636)

Duarte (2003: 637) adduces that verbs such as gostar are Case-defective and do not require

the Case-preposition with finite clauses.10 More interestingly, gostar de que is grammatical in

Brazilian Portuguese (Álex Amaral & Flávia Cunha, p.c.; see also Mollica 1991: 265–266,

Mollica 1995: 54), which proves that for those speakers for whom this combination is indeed

grammatical the verb gostar has regularized its overt selectional requirements:

(17) a. Não gosto de que ninguém me diga que ...

Not like.1SG of that nobody me says that
‘I do not like to be told that …’
<www.cristaodauniversal.com.br/iurd/forca-jovem/ficar-pecado-e-por-
que-se-a-biblia-nao-fala-nada-disso> (1-3-12)
b. gosto de trabalhar e não gosto de que falem mal ...
like.1SG of work.INF and not like.1SG of that speak.3PL badly
‘I like to work and I don’t like it when people speak ill of my son’
<www.ceesd.org.br/pesquisa/?INFOCOD=159> (1-3-12)

This situation is not new in Portuguese. The first examples go back to the 19th century, and

many more are attested in the 20th century in the Corpus do Português:
 (18) meu pai talvez não gostasse de que eu assim procedesse com ...
my father maybe not liked of that I thus proceeded with
‘My father would probably not like me proceeding this way with …
(A mantilha de Beatriz, Manuel Pinheiro Chagas, 19th c.)

The verb necessitar (Port.)/necesitar (Sp.) (‘to need’) is also particularly interesting. In

both Portuguese and Spanish necessito/necesito de que is deemed incorrect or impossible (for

instance, it is labeled as dequeísmo by Gómez Torrego 1991: 34). Nevertheless, in both

Portuguese and Spanish necessitar/necesitar accept de with nouns. Gómez Torrego (1991)

indicates that this necesitar de is only used with nouns as a partitive, which is reduced to

quantifiable nouns, unlike infinitival and finite clauses. Interestingly, Portuguese does

tolerate necessitar de + infinitive, so the partitive reading cannot extend to this language.

What is more revealing, necessitar/necesitar de que is already attested in older Portuguese

and Spanish, once again as part of a clear prepositional pattern –even used by the same

author–, not only reduced to que-clauses:11

(19) a. Cada dia mais necessito de que V. M. me ouça

Each day more need.1SG of that V.M. me hears
‘Each day I need more and more that you listen to me’
(Cartas familiares, Francisco Manuel de Melo, 17th c.)
b. os robustos exercícios do campo necessitam de homens ... robustos
the robust exercises of-the field need of men robust
‘The robust exercise of country work requires strong men’
(Tacito, Francisco Manuel de Melo, 17th c.)
c. necessita de lhos darem para a colherem
need.3SG of them give.INF for her catch.INF
‘He needs to give them in order to catch it’
(Arte de furtar, Manuel da Costa, 17th c.)
d. las provincias … no necessitan de los estraños bienes
the provinces not need of the strange goods
‘The provinces do not need strange goods’
(El descubrimiento del Marañón, Manuel Rodríguez, 17th c.)
e. necessitaban de adelantarlos
needed.3PL of bring.INF-forward-them
‘They needed to bring them forward’
(El descubrimiento del Marañón, Manuel Rodríguez, 17th c.)
f. no necessitan de que se les escriban los motivos
not need.3PL of that self him write.3PL the motives
‘They do not need to have the reasons written down’
(El descubrimiento del Marañón, Manuel Rodríguez, 17th c.)
 A third context of interest is the optional prepositional-like element com used only with

que-clauses when selected by the verb fazer (‘to make’) in Portuguese:

(20) ele fazia com que nós lêssemos… os livros

he did with that us read.1PL the books
‘He made us read the books.’
(Cyrino, Nunes and Pagotto 2009: 70)

The question is whether such cases could be counted as dequeísmo. On the one hand, as in

dequeísmo, this com is not used with nouns or infinitival clauses, and seems to be the finite

equivalent of prepositional complementizers in infinitival clauses, thus resembling dequeísta

de as described by Demonte and Fernández Soriano (2005). On the other hand, these clauses

are normatively correct, and com is obviously not de, thus dequeísmo is the wrong label

(maybe comqueísmo would suffice). What is more interesting is that there is evidence

pointing to the fact that this com que has served as a model for analogical extension to other

contexts where com que is not normatively correct. Consider the case of é preciso com que

(Mollica 1995: 75). A search online retrieves examples like the following ones:

(21) a. é preciso com que a pessoa saiba qual é a principal causa

is necessary with that the person knows which is the main cause
‘It is necessary that the person know the main cause’
<www.mulheresdicas.com/saude-da-mulher/como-acabar-com-dores-
musculares.html> (8/16/12)
b. Quando morrer, não preciso com que chorem
When die.INF not need.1SG with that cry.3PL
‘When I die, I don’t need people to cry’
<www.armandinhoebanda.com.br/profiles/blogs/uma-lua-vai-brilhar-
gabriel> (8/24/12)

Another difference between Portuguese and Spanish is found in Portuguese apostar (‘to

bet’), which, unlike its Spanish counterpart and despite being a prepositional verb taking the

functional preposition a, is described as taking a que-clause directly (Carrasco González 2001:

162). However, once again the previous pattern can be extended by certain speakers to

include a finite clause as well:

(22) aposto a que ele recebeu mais

bet.1SG to that he received more
 ‘I bet that he received more’
<almaamargurada.blogs.sapo.pt/133947.html> (8/31/12)

Apostar falls under the same group as gostar as extensions of pre-existing prepositional para-

digms. Note that the nature of this (non-normative) extension confirms that this phenomenon

is truly different from dequeísmo: whether de or a, the regularization process behind the use

of gostar de que and apostar a que must be the same, and obviously not dequeísmo.

This Portuguese case is partially mimicked in French. French speakers may extend à ce

que to verbs, which, according to the standard rules, do not take it, such as aimer or

demander (Grevisse 1980: 1247–1248; Sandfeld 1965: 38). Consider the following examples:

(23) a. j'aimerais a ce que ce boutton en question se reactive …

I’d-love to this that this button in question self reactivates
‘I’d like the button in question to reactivate’
<213.186.36.39/~phpscrip/forum2/lire.php?id=12213&id2=12213&cit
er=1> (9/10/12)
b. Donc j'aimerais a ce que vous puissiez me rassurer si …
Thus I’d-love to this that you could me reassure whether
‘Thus, I’d like you to reassure me whether…’
<www.rambit.qc.ca/blog/virus/loterie-microsoft-windows-2010-pour-
la-promotion-de-linternet/> (9/10/12)

Interestingly, aimer may be used with à (see the entry for aimer at

www.cnrtl.fr/definition/aimer), again pointing to the likely analogical origin of this stigma-

tized use (Sandfeld 1965: 38). In as much as the speakers using aimer à are using aimer à ce

que, this counts as a generalization of a pre-existing paradigm, unlike dequeísmo.

3. Queísmo

3.1. Definition

Spanish and Portuguese share the grammatical construction whereby a prepositional verb (or

other preposition-taking categories such as nouns and adjectives) uses a preposition when

selecting for a finite clause (see examples in (1) above). As opposed to this (normative) use,

queísmo is defined as the absence of the otherwise required preposition de in sentential

complementation contexts (see Rabanales 1977; Mollica 1995; RAE 2010, among many

others).

It is common to study dequeísmo and queísmo together –as is the case here– and also to

hypothesize that they arise out of the application of opposing linguistic factors (see, for in-

stance, Rabanales 1977; Bentivoglio 1980–1981; García 1986; Mollica 1991, 1995;

Bentivoglio and Galué 1998–1999; Schwenter 1999). However, as is equally frequently

remarked in the literature (see Carbonero 1992; Mollica 1995: 31; Gómez Torrego 1999:

2133; Bechara 2001: 314, among others), queísmo is not the exact mirror image of dequeísmo

for several reasons, the first of them being that it affects the preposition de but also others,

such en/em or a. Rabanales (1977) himself defines queísmo as the absence of de but

nevertheless includes many examples of absent en, a as well. The label queísmo has also been

applied to the absence of the expected prepositions in relative clauses; I will not discuss them

here due to space limitations.

Variation in the presence of the preposition in finite sentential contexts is rather common

in Spanish and Portuguese with most prepositional verbs (pronominal or not) and clause-tak-

ing nouns and adjectives, and even with complex prepositions and adverbs, with variation in

frequency of use and degree of acceptability among speakers, as expected. The functional

prepositions de, a, and en may be left out and be labeled as queísta clauses, especially the

first one (see Rabanales 1977: 552–566; Lauchlan 1982: 34–48; Bentivoglio and Galué

1998–1999: 144–150; and especially Gómez Torrego 1999: 2135–2136, for Spanish; Mollica

1991, 1995: 53, 79; Peres and Móia 1995: 110–127; Duarte 2003, for Portuguese):12

(24) a. o senhor secretário ... ainda nos convence que pagar impostos...
the sir secretary still us convinces that pay.INF taxes
‘The secretary still convinces us that paying taxes…’ (Sábado,
17/12/88)
b. desejosos que o convívio resultasse num sucesso
wishful that the meeting resulted in-a success
‘Wishful that the meeting would become a success’ (Expresso,
4/11/89)
 (Duarte 2003: 619)
c. Me acuerdo que viniste a mi casa
Me recall.1SG that came.2SG to my house
‘I recall that you came to my house’
d. Estoy interesado que me envies su catalogo
Am interested that me send.2SG his catalogue
‘I am interested in you sending me his catalogue’
<www.olx.com.ve/itc/comment-about-distribuidor-de-zapatos-
deportivos-en-venezuela-en-venezuela-id-7723062-c-14> (2/15/12)

Prepositions may also be absent with indirect interrogative finite clauses –not headed by

the complementizer que and thus posing the same label issue as for dequeísmo–, as evidenced

by the following examples where the expected required preposition has been left out:

(25) a. não me lembro se era PPD

not me recall.1SG if was PPD
‘I do not remember if it was PPD’
(Corpus de Referência do Português Contemporâneo, text A163999)
b. El ministro dijo que todo depende si no hay impugnaciones
The minister said that all depends if not there-are contests
‘The minister said that all depends on whether there are any contests’
<peru.com/economia/firmarian-3-semanas-contrato-obras-tren-
electrico-noticia- 8682> (2/15/12)

Additional evidence allows us to separate dequeísmo from queísmo. Queísta contexts are

typical of sentential complementation (or adjunction; see Leonetti 1999) where the relevant

prepositions are indeed functional (Case) prepositions, not pseudo-prepositions as in

dequeísmo. That is to say, queísmo alternates with the (normative) use of required

prepositions, not with a spurious element.13 On a sociolinguistic note, queísmo is much more

common, if still not normative, and definitely less stigmatized than dequeísmo (see the

comments in Gómez Torrego 1999: 2141; RAE 2010). Moreover, queísmo is historically

differentiable from dequeísmo, as the next section will illustrate.

3.2. Historical data and queísmo

In order to understand queísmo, it is important to pay due attention to history, much more so

than for dequeísmo, and in particular to the emergence of argumental prepositional finite
clauses in Spanish and Portuguese, as it holds the key to understanding that what is norma-

tively rejected today was in reality common in old Spanish and Portuguese.

In medieval Portuguese, argumental finite clauses are usually not introduced by a preposi-

tion, even with prepositional verbs (see also Mattos e Silva 1989: 743–744, 1994: 109–110):

(26) a. que Deus o quisesse ajudar que regesse ben

that god him wanted help.INF that ruled.3SG well
‘That god wanted to help him rule well’
(Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.)
b. nembrate que sem elles tu nom foras
recall-you that without them you not were
‘Remember that without them you would not exist’
(Livro da virtuosa bemfeitoria do infante Dom Pedro, 15th c.)
c. maravilhousse que podya aquello seer
marveled.3SG-refl what could that be.INF
‘He marveled at what that could be’
(Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.)
d. eu som certo que sempre me consselharedes bë
I am certain that always me will-advice well
‘I am sure that you will always give me good advice’
(Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.)

The same situation is documented for medieval Spanish (Tarr 1922; Serradilla Castaño 1996,

1997; Barra Jover 2002; Delicado Cantero 2009, to appear). Observe the following examples

with prepositional verbs:

(27) a. …dixol que se marauellaua que con todos los otros…

told.3SG-him that refl marveled.3SG that with all the others
‘He told him that he was amazed that with all the others...’
(Apolonio, 13th c.)
b. tu me ayuda …que yo saque a Castylla del antygo dolor
you me help that I take to Castile of-the ancient pain
‘Help me release Castile from the old pain’
(Poema de Fernán González, 13th c.)
(Barra Jover 2002: 66)

Argumental prepositional finite clauses (both que-clauses and indirect interrogative finite

clauses) are usually claimed to appear to the 16th/17th centuries. In other words, the

phenomenon which is today labeled queísmo was indeed the “norm” in pre-Classical Portu-

guese (but see Castilho 2004: 3 and Mollica 1995, for Portuguese; and Serradilla Castaño

1995: 149; Tarr 1922: 145, 254–256, for Spanish, for early examples). Consider the
following examples with required functional prepositions de, a, em, and com (see also Dias

1959: 260–264):

(28) a. quanto o padre mais insistia em que lho contasse

as-much the father more insisted in that it told.3SG
‘The more the father insisted that he had told it’
(Historia da vida do Padre S. Francisco Xavier, Lucena, 17th c.)
b. me começava a alegrar de que fosseis vindo
me started.1SG to be-happy.INF of that were.2PL come
‘I was starting to feel happy that you had come’
(Cartas familiares, Francisco Manuel de Melo, 17th c.)
c. quejándose deque el obispo se hubiese introducido en esta visita
complaining-refl of that the bishop refl had introduced in this visit
‘Complaining that the bishop had joined this visit’
(Política indiana, Solórzano Pereira, 17th c.)
d. se maravillaba de que no se hubiese acordado este filósofo de…
self marveled.3SG of that not self had recalled this philosopher of
‘He marveled at the fact that this philosopher had not recalled...’
(Las seiscientas apotegmas, Juan Rufo, 16th c.)

What is most important is to remark that the non-prepositional alternative – the nowadays

labeled queísta alternative – has remained fully grammatical and frequent to this day (see

Dias 1959: 260–261; Brandão 1963: 545; Cano Aguilar 1985: 89–90). Consider the following

non-prepositional examples dated in the 16th and 17th centuries:

(29) a. queixando-se que S. A. lhe proibisse não se meter ...

complaining-refl that S.A. him forbade not self enter.INF
‘Complaining that Your Majesty had barred him from entering…’
(Cartas, Vieira, 17th c.)
b. ninguë vos obriga que deis, nem que queirais
nobody you forces that give.2PL nor that want.2PL
‘Nobody forces you to either give or want to’
(Contos & historias de proveito, Fernandes Trancoso, 16th c.)
c. se quejaba que le habían quitado el cargo
refl complained.3SG that him had.3PL stripped the position
‘He was complaining that they had been stripped of his position’
(Jornada de Omagua y Dorado, Francisco Vázquez, 16th c.)
d. obligando que el tímido ganado atónito se esparza
forcing that the shy cattle astonished self scatters
‘Forcing the shy cattle to scatter in astonishment’
(La gatomaquia, Lope de Vega, 16th c.)
In order to illustrate this type of variation, consider now the following 17th century Spanish

examples of the verb aguardar (‘to wait’), both with preposition (30a) and without it (30b),

which are both nevertheless by the same author:

(30) a. ni él aguardó a que le respondiese

nor he waited to that him answered
‘Nor did he wait to get an answer.’
(Novelas ejemplares, Cervantes, 17th c.)
b. sin aguardar queZoraida le respondiese
without wait.INF that Zoraida him answered
‘Without waiting for Zoraida’s answer’
(Don Quijote, Cervantes, 17th c.)
(Cano 1985: 83)

3.3. Historical syntax of prepositional finite clauses and queísmo

Unlike dequeísmo, the syntactic configuration nowadays labeled queísmo has been grammati-

cal in the language since the first textual attestations of Portuguese and Spanish and remains

so to this day as continuation of that historical pattern. Thus, despite Rabanales’s (1977: 567)

claim that queísmo is an innovation, as opposed to the –in his view– conservative use of de

que, it turns out to be the maintenance of an old paradigm. The label queísmo is an innovation,

as it only truly makes sense once there is prescriptivism imposed on the speakers, but the

syntactic phenomenon is not. Despite standardization and the push from normative

grammarians, variation persists to this day, especially frequent in speakers from some Latin-

American areas (see Rabanales 1977; Bentivoglio 1976; Gómez Torrego 1999, among others).

What we learn from observing the data is that the direction of change was from absence to

presence of a preposition, as is standard today. Several mechanisms have been examined in

the literature to account for the emergence of prepositional finite clauses in Spanish and

Portuguese. A number of linguists have argued for an analogy-based analysis, assuming that

the preposition extended from previously existing prepositional contexts to the finite clause

(Herman 1963 for Romance; Tarr 1922; Bogard and Company 1989; Serradilla Castaño 1997;

Bechara 2001). Tarr (1922: 253–254) assumes an analogical account and a regularization
process, via the extension of the preposition used with nouns and infinitives to the finite

clause. Nouns and infinitives are attested with the relevant prepositions earlier than their

finite counterparts.

On the other hand, Barra Jover (2002) argues against analogy and claims that it is the

features of the prepositions and the finite clauses involved which hold the key to this change.

Barra Jover’s (2002) analysis crucially relies on the nominality of the finite clause. The

absence of (argumental) prepositional finite clauses is argued to be due to their lack of

nominal features. While a complete critique of this hypothesis lies outside the scope of this

paper (see Delicado Cantero to appear), there are direct implications for the syntactic nature

of the non-prepositional construction, both in the medieval period and in the modern

languages (in Ibero-Romance and beyond).

Barra Jover’s study revolves around one very precise assumption about clausal syntax in

medieval Spanish: all clausal subordination with que-clauses is just apposition/adjunction in

medieval Spanish, not argumental complementation in any case, as a reflection of loose

syntax (Barra Jover 2002: 71, 86, 111). The same can be extended to Portuguese (and Italian,

French, etc.). Once finite clauses acquire the [+N] feature around the 16th century can they be

integrated as argumental prepositional finite clauses (as applicable) and receive/check Case

(Barra Jover 2002: 186). That is to say, non-prepositional cases, both old and modern

(queísmo), would all be analyzed as adjunct clauses (see Barra Jover 2002: 399 for such

implications for modern French sentential complementation). However, this hypothesis is too

strong when confronted with the data.14

The first issue has to do with the fact that finite clauses did actually appear in typically

nominal positions in older Portuguese and Spanish, for instance as direct objects, which are

typical arguments of the verb:

(31) a. Quero que fiquedes ë mynha casa

Want.1SG that stay.2SG in my house
 ‘I want you to stay in my house’
(Crónica Geral de Espanha de 1344, 14th c.)
b. non quiero que fagamos agora esta penitençia vos nin yo
not want.1SG that do.1PL now this penance you nor I
‘I don’t want either you or me to do this penance’
(Libro del Caballero Zifar, 13th c.)

Furthermore, extraction out of the embedded clause indicates that que-clauses could certainly

be argumental already in the medieval period:

(32) a. Senhor, que queres que eu faça?

Sir, what want.2SG that I do
‘Sir, what do you want me to do?’
(Crónica da Ordem dos Frades Menores, 13th c.)
b. dixole ihesu xpisto que quieres que te faga
told.him Jesus Christ what want.2SG that you do.1SG
‘Jesus Christ said to him: What do you want me to do to you?’
(Castigos y documentos para bien vivir, Sancho IV, 13th c.)

The second issue arises when trying to accommodate the evidence indicating that preposi-

tions could indeed take finite clauses, especially que-clauses, as their complements earlier

than the 16th century, both in the form of adverbial clauses, namely pora que, porque, fasta

que (‘so that’, ‘because’, ‘until’), and the like (see Herman 1963; Pavón Lucero 1999, 2003;

Bechara 1999; Brito 2003, among many others), or even as earlier examples of argumental

prepositional finite clauses (see Serradilla Castaño 1995; Mollica 1995; Delicado Cantero

2009, to appear). In other words, finite clauses must have already been [+N] in the medieval

period (see also Manzini 2005; Manzini and Savoia 2011; Roussou 2010, for additional

support for the nominality of que-clauses in Romance).

4. Conclusions

This paper has focused mainly on definitions, labels and the data they seem to cover. Strictly

speaking, dequeísmo is the non-normative introduction of a spurious de in front of que-

clauses (relative clauses inclusive), where such de is not used when selecting any other

categories. This poses the following questions:

1. “De”queísmo. As has been noted in the literature, the label dequeísmo can only be properly

applied to the most typical cases of this phenomenon (digo de que, acho de que), but it covers

neither indirect interrogative finite clauses, as they are not introduced by que, nor the Portu-

guese (normative) cases of com que (“comqueísmo”).

2. Spurious de vs. real preposition de. Not any case of alternation de que/que qualifies as

dequeísmo, as it is too broad and includes prepositional sentential complementation of

prepositional verbs. The modern acordarse de que/lembrar-se de que in (1) are not cases of

dequeísmo, as their prepositions are not spurious.

3. Not expected with any other categories vs part of an internal paradigm. Those contexts

where the selecting category, usually verbs, may use the prepositional-looking element with

other categories do not qualify as dequeísmo. This is particularly important when examining

historical data; for instance, temer de que in 16th century Spanish is not dequeísmo, as de was

also used with nouns and infinitives. Another such case is present-day Portuguese gostar de

que. The fact that gostar requires the functional preposition de with other categories, namely

nouns and infinitives, shows a pre-existing pattern. The introduction of de –not really a

spurious element– is an internal generalization, unlike the cases of digo de que, pienso/acho

de que, where the affected verbs are not themselves prepositional. This way, the relevant

constructions are analyzed in their grammatical contexts rather than exclusively against the

normative criteria of prescriptivism (Gómez Torrego 1999: 2107).

The historical examples of finite clauses with spurious de introduced by predicates

attested with a spurious element when taking infinitives –a prepositional complementizer– do

not qualify as dequeísmo sensu strictu either as they are extending a pre-existing pattern,

which each speaker may have chosen to generalize (influenced by or, better said, the logical

result of the well-known high degree of variability in the presence or absence of prepositions

and prepositional-looking elements in older stages of Spanish and Portuguese). The same
conclusion can be extended to colloquial uses of de + infinitive if extended to que-clauses;

for instance, the causative hacer de rabiar (‘to make somebody get angry’) could be extended

to hacer de que…, which would depend on each particular speaker acting on generalizing the

spurious de. Note that a spurious de would not immediately qualify as dequeísmo.15 What

counts as dequeísmo for one speaker may not count for another, which opens an avenue for

further research.

There are two important points that many of the previous examples share to a certain ex-

tent. The first one is the fact that many are indeed not normative, a reminder of the fact that

dequeísmo and queísmo are modern labels16 not immediately applicable to the past.

The second point in common has to do with the general mechanisms behind the discussed

phenomena. The fact that qualifying examples of dequeísmo are attested in so many other

configurations with que, including relative clauses, suggests that its implementation must

have been eminently analogical, surface-based (Gómez Torrego 1999; see also Demonte and

Fernández Soriano 2005, who show that this de is not a Case preposition), including

hypercorrection. Consider the following additional example of dequeísmo in Spanish, where

it is clear that the spurious de is introduced due to the presence of que:

(34) De que llueve, pues ¡hala!, al cine

Of that rains, so hey to-the cinema
‘If it rains, then, well, to the movies!’
(Quilis Sanz 1986: 146)

The same analogical mechanism explains gostar de que, aimer à ce que, and the like, also

including the historical emergence of prepositional finite clauses, more frequently attested

from the 16th century on, clearly not dequeísmo (see Serradilla Castaño 2006, 2007; Delicado

Cantero 2009, to appear) despite having que in common. While in these cases the mechanism

is internal, in dequeísmo there is an external model.

Queísmo is not the mirror image of dequeísmo, since, as noted from the first studies, it

does affect actual prepositions and is not reduced to de. The typical context of queísmo
nowadays is the continuation –as traceable throughout history– of the old grammatical pattern

whereby prepositional verbs and other categories would not take the preposition when

selecting or combining with a finite clause, as is much more common in French or Italian.

History is of particular relevance to understand this phenomenon.

In sum, comparing the evolution of Portuguese and Spanish sentences highlights the role

of analogy in change, the importance of accounting for variation at different stages in history,

such as the proliferation of prepositional regimes in older stages of Portuguese and Spanish,

and, in general, the suitability of consistent definitions when testing hypotheses and assessing

the applicability of certain labels to specific groups of examples.

This paper exemplifies the effects of analogy in the realm of syntactic patterns, in

particularly in showing how preexisting prepositional patterns initially limited to certain

objects can find their way into finite clauses (see Tarr 1922 or Serradilla Castaño 1997,

among others). Analogy being necessarily unpredictable in its outcomes (Wanner 2006), we

find that extensions occurring in Spanish are not necessarily present in Portuguese, and vice

versa (i.e., the absence of comqueísmo in Spanish). Divergence is expected and actually

attested even in the same language: note, for instance, the different standard uses of gostar de

que in Portuguese. While Portuguese and Spanish have richer prepositional sentential patterns,

the existence of the colloquial extension of à ce que in French is significant in this context as

it remarks the power of analogical regularization processes.

Furthermore, this paper also highlights the role of standardization in establishing patterns

that are to this day taught in schools regarding the use of prepositions with que-clauses and

the avoidance of queísmo and dequeísmo, despite being perfectly grammatical for a number

of speakers.

Studying dequeísmo and queísmo in Portuguese and Spanish, and by extension the

properties of their finite clauses, contributes to our understanding of the syntactic properties
of sentential complementation and the nature of finite clauses in general. In both languages

finite que-clauses can indeed be objects of prepositions, thus providing evidence against

Stowell’s (1981) CRP (Case Resistance Principle), as already shown by Plann (1986) for

Spanish. Other languages such as the Nordic languages allow that configuration (see

Delicado Cantero 2009, to appear and additional references there).

As briefly indicated at the end of section 3.3, que-clauses are perfect in typical nominal

positions and already were in the medieval period, facts which are supported by Manzini’s

(2005) and Manzini and Savoia’s (2011) categorial and syntactic reinterpretation of

complementizer/interrogative/relative que as a nominal category. Roussou (2010) argues that

complementizers such as English that and Greek oti also qualify as nominal.

If nominal, finite clauses must have always been able to carry and check Case features,

checked/materialized via functional Case prepositions de, en/em, a, etc. in Portuguese and

Spanish (see Lamontagne and Travis 1987; Rauh 1991, 1993, 2002; Travis and Lamontagne

1992; Tremblay 1996, among others). In the case of the queísta cases, where the preposition

is absent, licensing is managed positionally (see Bosque and Gutiérrez-Rexach 2009: 159), as

is the case in French and Italian, where argumental prepositional finite clauses are scarce but

not ungrammatical (see Scorretti 1991; Zaring 1992; Delicado Cantero to appear). As a

consequence, it follows that the apparent ungrammaticality of P + that-clause and equivalents

in languages such as English must necessarily be accounted for independently of the nominal

features of the clause (and its related Case properties).

References

Arjona, M. (1978). Anomalías en el uso de la preposición de en el español de México.

Anuario de Letras, 16, 67–90.

Barra Jover, M. (2002). Propiedades léxicas y evolución sintáctica. El desarrollo de los

mecanismos de subordinación en español. La Coruña: Toxosoutos.

Bechara, E. (1999). Moderna gramática portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Lucerna.

Bechara, E. (2001). O dequeísmo em português. In H. Urbano et al. (Eds.), Dino Preti e seus

temas: oralidade, literatura, mídia e ensino (pp. 310–317). São Paulo: Cortez.

Bentivoglio, P. (1976). Queísmo y dequeísmo en habla de Caracas. In F. M. Aid, M. C.

Resnick & B. Saciuk (Eds.), 1975 Linguistics Colloquium on Hispanic Linguistic

(pp. 1–18). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Bentivoglio, P. (1980–1981). El dequeísmo en Venezuela: ¿un caso de ultracorrección?

Homenaje a Ambrosio Rabanales. Boletín de Filología, 31, 705–719.

Bentivoglio, P. & D‘Introno F. (1977). Análisis socio-lingüístico del dequeísmo en el habla

culta de Caracas. Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española,

6, 58–82.

Bentivoglio, P. & Galué, D. (1998–1999). Ausencia y presencia de la preposición de ante

cláusulas encabezadas por que en el español de Caracas: un análisis variacionista.

Boletín de Filología de la Universidad de Santiago de Chile, 37, 139–159.

Bogard, S. & Company, C. (1989). Estructura y evolución de las oraciones completivas de

sustantivo en el español. Romance Philology, 43, 258–273.

Bosque, I. & Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.

Brandão, C. (1963). Syntaxe clássica portuguêsa. Belo Horizonte: Universidade de Minas

Gerais.

Brito, A. M. (2003). Subordinação adverbial. In M. H. Mateus, A. M. Brito, I. Duarte, I.

Faria, S. Frota, G. Matos, F. Oliveira, M. Vigário & A. Villalva (Eds.),

Gramática da língua portuguesa (7th ed., pp. 695–728). Lisboa: Caminho.

Cano Aguilar, R. (1977–1978). Cambios en la construcción de los verbos en castellano

medieval. Archivum, 27–28, 335–379.

Cano Aguilar, R. (1984). Cambios de construcción verbal en español clásico. Boletín de la

RAE, 64, 203–255.

Cano Aguilar, R. (1985). Sobre el régimen de las oraciones completivas en español clásico.

In J. Fernández-Sevilla, H. López Morales, J. A. de Molina, A. Quilis & G.

Salvador (Eds.), Philologica Hispaniensa in Honorem Manuel Alvar. II.

Lingüística (pp. 81–93). Madrid: Gredos.

Carbonero, P. (1992). Queísmo y dequeísmo en el habla culta de Sevilla: Análisis contrastado

con otras hablas peninsulares y americanas. In E. L. Traill (Ed.), Scripta

Philologica in Honorem Juan M. Lope Blanch a los 40 años de docencia en la

UNAM y a los 65 años de vida. II (pp. 43–63). Mexico City: Instituto de

Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Carrasco González, J. M. (2001). Manual de iniciación a la lengua portuguesa. Barcelona:

Ariel.

Castilho, C. (2004). Primeras histórias sobre a diacronia do dequeísmo: o clítico locativo en

e o dequeísmo das orações relativas no PM. VI Seminário do Projeto para a

História do Português Brasileiro. Retrieved from http://www.mundoalfal.org/de-

que-ismo.htm

Cyrino, S., Nunes, J. & Pagotto, E. (2009). Complementação. In A. T. de Castilho (general

coord.), M. Kato & M. do Nascimento (orgs.), Gramática do português culto

falado no Brasil. Volume 3. A construção da sentença (pp. 43–96). Campinas:

Editora da Unicamp.

Delicado Cantero, M. (2009). The syntax of Spanish prepositional finite clauses in a

historical and comparative perspective, Ph. D. diss., The Ohio State University.
Delicado Cantero, M. (to appear). Prepositional clauses in Spanish. A diachronic and

comparative syntactic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Del Moral, C. G. (2004). Grammaticalization of Spanish 'de': reanalysis of (de)queismo in

Southern Cone dialects, Ph. D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Del Moral, G. (2008). Spanish dequeísmo: a case study of subjectification, Nueva Revista de

Lenguas Extranjeras, 10, 183–214. Retrieved from

http://bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/2643

De Mello, G. (1995). El dequeísmo en el español hablado contemporáneo: ¿un caso de

independencia semántica? Hispanic Linguistics, 6/7, 117-152.

Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. (2005). Features in comp and syntactic variation: the

case of ‘(de)queísmo’ in Spanish. Lingua, 115 (8), 1063–1082.

Dias, A. E. (1959). Syntaxe historica portuguesa. Lisboa: Livraria Clássica Editora.

Duarte, I. (2003). Subordinação completiva – as orações completivas. In M. H. Mateus, A.

M. Brito, I. Duarte, I. Faria, S. Frota, G. Matos, F. Oliveira, M. Vigário & A.

Villalva (Eds.), Gramática da língua portuguesa (7th ed., pp. 593–651). Lisboa:

Caminho.

García, E. (1986). El fenómeno (de)queísmo desde una perspectiva dinámica del uso

comunicativo de la lengua. In J. Moreno de Alba (Ed.), Actas del II Congreso

Internacional sobre el Español de América (pp. 48–65). México: Universidad

Nacional Autónoma de México.

Gómez Torrego, L. (1991). Reflexiones sobre el 'dequeísmo' y el 'queísmo' en el español de

España. Español Actual, 55, 23–44.

Gómez Torrego, L. (1999). La variación en las subordinadas sustantivas: dequeísmo y

queísmo. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la

lengua española (pp. 2105–2148). Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española.

Grevisse, M. (1980). Le bon usage. Grammaire française avec des remarques sur la langue

française d’aujourd’hui. Paris-Gembloux: Duculot.

Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. & Silva-Villar, L. (2007). Predicative complementation: A new

approach to dequeísmo. Ms Ohio State University/Mesa State College (Colorado

Mesa University).

Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. & Silva-Villar, L. (2012). In M. González-Rivera & S. Sessarego (Eds.),

Current formal aspects of Spanish syntax and semantics (pp. 8–40). Newcastle

upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Herman, J. (1963). La formation du système roman des conjonctions de subordination.

Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Kany, C. E. (1994). Sintaxis hispanoamericana. Madrid: Gredos.

Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. (1987). The syntax of adjacency. WCCFL 6: The Proceedings

of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 173–186.

Leonetti, M. (1999). La subordinación sustantiva: las subordinadas enunciativas en los

complementos nominales. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática

descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 2083–2104). Madrid: Espasa-Real

Academia Española.

Manzini, M. R. (2010). The structure and interpretation of (Romance) complementizers. In E.

P. Panagiotidis (Ed.), The complementizer phase (pp. 167–199). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. M. (2005). I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi

generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. M. (2011). Grammatical categories. Variation in Romance

languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mattos e Silva, R. V. (1989). Estruturas trecenstistas. Elementos para uma gramática do

português arcaico. Lisboa: Impresa Nacional-Casa da moeda.

Mattos e Silva, R. V. (1994). O português arcaico. Morfologia e sintaxe. São Paulo:

Contexto.

McLauchlan, J. (1982). Dequeísmo y queísmo en el habla culta de Lima. Lexis: Revista de

Lingüística y Literatura, 6 (1), 11–55.

Mollica, M. C. (1989). Queismo e dequeismo no português do Brasil. Ph. D. diss.,

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.

Mollica, M. C. (1991). Processing and morpho-semantic effects in complementation in

Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change, 3, 265–274.

Mollica, M. C. (1995). (De) que falamos? Rio de Janeiro: Edições Tempo brasileiro Ltda.

Náñez Fernández, E. (1984). Sobre dequeísmo. Revista de Filología Románica, 2, 239–245.

Pavón Lucero, M. V. (1999). Clases de partículas: preposición, conjunción y adverbio. In I.

Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp.

565–655). Madrid: Espasa-Real Academia Española.

Pavón Lucero, M. V. (2003). Sintaxis de las partículas. Madrid: Visor.

Plann, S. (1986). On Case-marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case Resistance

Principle. Linguistic Inquiry, 17 (2), 336–345.

Peres, J. & Móia, T. (1995). Áreas críticas da língua portuguesa. Lisboa: Caminho.

Quilis Sanz, M. J. (1986). El dequeísmo en el habla de Madrid y en la telerradio difusión

española. Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española, 16,

139–149.

Rabanales, A. (1977). Queísmo y dequeísmo en el español de Chile. In J. M. Lope Blanch

(Ed.), Estudios sobre el español hablado en las principales ciudades de América

(pp. 541–569). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Rauh, G. (1991). Prepositional forms in the lexicon: problems and suggestions. In G. Rauh

(Ed.), Approaches to prepositions (pp. 169–223). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Rauh, G. (1993). On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. In C.

Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions. From mental processing

to natural language processing (pp. 99–150). Berlin-New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Rauh, G. (2002). Prepositions, features, and projections. In H. Bellermann (Ed.), Perspectives

on prepositions (pp. 3–23). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Real Academia Española (2010). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual. México:

Real Academia Española, Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española,

Editorial Planeta Mexicana (Espasa).

Rizzi, L. (1988). Il sintagma preposizionale. In L. Renzi (Ed.), Grande grammatica italiana

di consultazione. I. La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale (pp. 507–531).

Bologna: Il Mulino.

Roussou, A. (2010). Selecting complementizers. Lingua, 120 (3), 582–603.

Sandfeld, K. (1965). Syntaxe du français contemporain. Les propositions subordonnées.

Genève : Droz.

Schwenter, S. A. (1999). Evidentiality in Spanish morphosyntax: A reanalysis of dequeísmo.

In M. J. Serrano (Ed.), Estudios de variación sintáctica (pp. 65–87). Madrid:

Editorial Iberoamericana.

Scorretti, M. (1991). Complementizers in Italian and Romance. Ph. D. diss., University of

Amsterdam.

Serradilla Castaño, A. M. (1995). Sobre las primeras apariciones de construcciones

preposicionales ante que completivo en español medieval. Factores

determinantes. EPOS, XI, 147–163.

Serradilla Castaño, A. M. (1996). Diccionario sintáctico del español medieval. Verbos de

entendimiento y lengua. Madrid: Gredos.

Serradilla Castaño, A. M. (1997). El régimen de los verbos de entendimiento y lengua en

español medieval. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Silva-Villar, L. (2005). Dequeísmo. Actas de la IV conferencia científica internacional de

lingüística. La Habana: Instituto de Literatura y Lingüística “José Antonio

Portuondo Valdor”.

Stowell, T. A. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Ph. D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Tarr, F. C. (1922). Prepositional complementary clauses in Spanish with special reference to

the works of Pérez Galdós. Revue Hispanique, 56, 1–264.

Travis, L. & Lamontagne, G. (1992). The Case Filter and licensing of empty K. Canadian

Journal of Linguistics, 37 (2), 157–174.

Tremblay, M. 1996. Lexical and non-lexical prepositions in French. In A.-M. di Sciullo (Ed.),

Configurations. Essays on Structure and Interpretation (pp. 79–98). Somerville:

Cascadilla Press.

Wanner, D. (2006). The power of analogy. An essay on Historical Linguistics. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Zaring, L. (1992). French ce as a clausal determiner. Probus, 4 (1), 53–80.

On-line corpora

Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, www.cervantesvirtual.com

Corpus de Referência do Português Contemporâneo (CRPC), Centro de Linguística at the

Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.

www.clul.ul.pt/en/research-teams/183-crpc#cqp
Davies, M. Corpus del Español, www.corpusdelespanol.org

Davies, M. & Ferreira, M. Corpus do Português, www.corpusdoportugues.org

Google.com

The Internet Archive, archive.org

Real Academia Española. Corpus Diacrónico del Español (CORDE), www.rae.es

Real Academia Española, Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA), www.rae.es

1
Data have been extracted from a variety of sources, including academic publications, online corpora, and
online search engines for present-day (colloquial) examples. Certain examples taken from academic publications
have been shortened for ease of exposition, making sure that the target construction remains accurately
represented.
Unless otherwise indicated, the examples of historical Portuguese and Spanish are extracted from Corpus do
Português and Corpus del Español, and occasionally from CORDE (for instance, example (5a)).
2
The literature on dequeísmo has consistently focused on the analogical, social and semantic/pragmatic
causation of the phenomenon, including analogy/hypercorrection approaches (Rabanales 1977; Arjona 1978;
Bentivoglio 1980–1981; McLauchlan 1982; Náñez Fernández 1984; Gómez Torrego 1999; Bechara 2001).
Other linguists point to iconicity and evidentiality as the factors behind dequeísmo (and queísmo) (García 1986;
Mollica 1991; De Mello 1995; Schwenter 1999; Del Moral 2004, 2008; Demonte and Fernández Soriano 2005).
However, Mollica (1995) already pinpoints that the supposed value is not present in all (qualifying) dequeísta
cases and that, despite this value, de que still alternates with que. Furthermore, as Silva-Villar (2005)
extensively proves for Spanish, these accounts seem to have overlooked that dequeísmo can indeed co-appear
with evidential elements, which automatically cancels the lack of commitment. Due to space limitations, I will
not comment any further on these hypotheses.
3
Many of these earlier works already noted that possible grammatical factors such as tense, mood, intervention
of additional material, personal or impersonal form of the verb, etc. were irrelevant factors in contemporary
Spanish and Portuguese. Rabanales (1977), Bentivoglio (1976), McLauchlan (1982) or Quilis Sanz (1986) agree
on this. Furthermore, on a sociolinguistic note, Rabanales (1977: 545) already highlighted the existence of
variation dequeísmo vs. normative use even in the same speaker. Mollica (1995: 62–63, 71) indicated that
dequeísmo seems to be more prevalent among people with high levels of education, which speaks of the
relevance of hypercorrection (see also Bechara 2001). On a geographical note, Kany (1994: 411), De Mello
(1995) and others noted that dequeísmo is much more frequent in Latin America than in Spain, although it is
indeed present in speaker on both sides of the Atlantic (Spanish or Portuguese speakers). Due to space
limitations, I will not comment on sociolinguistic factors.
4
There are other examples where the intrusive preposition is actually replacing the expected preposition (pensar
de que instead of the expected pensar en/em que) (see Rabanales 1977: 552; Quilis Sanz 1986: 146; Gómez
Torrego 1999: 2111, among others). I will return to this in the section on queísmo. A spurious de may also
appear in relative clauses, which highlights the connection with the complementizer que. I will not examine
relative clauses in this article due to space limitations (see Castilho 2004 for comments on the history of
dequeísmo in Portuguese with special attention to relative clauses).
5
In their syntactic analysis, Demonte and Fernández Soriano (2005) argue that dequeísmo is incompatible with
wh-structures such as comparatives or interrogatives. Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar (2007, 2012) also build
their analysis on the supposed scarcity of such examples. However, the evidence suggests otherwise.
6
The commutability by direct object pronouns is actually one of the main pieces of evidence raised by Rizzi
(1988) to establish the syntactic nature of prepositional complementizers in (Italian) infinitival clauses.
7
Dequeísta de is conceived as a linker which would result from the inversion of the que-clause, itself the subject
of a small clause, and a null category which serves as the predicate of the que-clause (Gutiérrez-Rexach and
Silva-Villar 2012: 24):
(1) Pienso [DP [ Ø ] de [SC que María lo sabe [ [ I ] [XP ] ] ] ]
Think.1SG of that Mary it knows
‘I think that Mary knows it’
The empty element is a pronominal element similar to eso (‘that’) (Gutiérrez-Rexach and Silva-Villar 2012: 24):
Mollica (1995: 56-57) argued that some cases of dequeísmo could be reinterpreted as shortened version of a
respeito de que (‘regarding the fact that’), o fato de que (‘the fact that’), a ideia de que (‘the idea that’), thus
capturing the idea of an empty, implicit nominal. However, Mollica herself already noted that not all dequeísta
contexts could fall under this syntactic ellipsis hypothesis. For instance, comparative dequeísta clauses do not
allow the insertion of a deictic pronoun, so the hypothesis lacks coverage. A PI analysis does not easily account
for those cases where the speaker is hypercorrecting and may immediately resort to the correct form even within
the same sentence or if rephrasing his/her statement.
8
In agreement with the conclusions reached by Gómez Torrego (1999: 2113–2114) for luego de que and aparte
de que. For Gómez Torrego (1999: 2114), dequeísta de is restricted to finite clauses, and is not extended to
nouns. Thus, es seguro de que vamos a ganar (lit. ‘it’s sure of that we are going to win’) is dequeísmo and as
such the extension of de to other categories, as in the potential example es seguro de eso (lit. ‘it’s sure of this’,
intended meaning ‘this is sure’) is not expected. I follow Gómez Torrego’s description that dequeísta de is used
only with complementizer que. See also Rabanales (1977). See Gómez Torrego (1991: 27) for comments on this
test.
9
The corresponding examples for the other examples were also attested in the online corpora consulted for this
paper.
10
But note that que-clauses are grammatical as prepositional objects in Portuguese, where they must be Case-
marked (see Delicado Cantero to appear for a more detailed discussion on clauses and Case).
11
There are also examples of precisar de que in the 19th century.
12
It is important to highlight that in certain particular cases certain categories, especially verbs, may allow for
two differentiated and semantically different constructions, one with a required preposition, and the other
without one. Such is for instance the case of Spanish presumir, as Gómez Torrego (1999: 2139) illustrates. The
non-prepositional alternative, thus, does not qualify as queísmo.
13
Where dequeísmo and queísmo probably meet is in those cases where a spurious de is introduced with a
prepositional verb which requires a different preposition (for instance, pensar de que instead of pensar en que,
‘to think of that…’ as opposed to the expected ‘to think in that…’; see Gómez Torrego 1999: 2111), as they can
be understood as dequeísmo affecting queísta uses of prepositional verbs (see De Mello 1995: 145, fn 1).
14
This is not to say that all cases of queísmo are argumental in present-day Spanish and Portuguese (and the
same could be extended to the older stages of the language). For instance, Leonetti (1999) clearly differentiates
between argumental and adjunct clauses dependent on nouns. For instance, in el hecho de que vengas/ el hecho
que vengas (‘the fact that you are coming’), the clause is an adjunct, with or without the preposition. The same
can be extended to Portuguese. Note, crucially, that the argumental or adjunct nature of the clause is completely
independent from the presence or absence of the functional preposition de.
15
Actually, the use of this spurious de in contexts beyond finite que-clauses is known as deísmo (see the
comments in Arjona 1978: 71–72, among others). See also Núñez Fernández (1984: 241).
16
Actually, they could be deemed epiphenomena.