The variable agreement of presentational haber in Dominican Spanish

Jeroen Claes(Universiteit Antwerpen)jeroenclaes@gmail.com

2

Outline

• Introduction• Research questions• Theoretic framework• Hypotheses• Methods• Results• Conclusions

3

1. Introduction

• Impersonal, subjectless verb in normative Spanish.- Había niños en el parque?

‘Was-there children in the park?’• NP argument is a direct object:

- Sí, losOBJ había.‘Yes, thereOBJ, PLUR was.’

• Default 3rd person singular verb-agreement.• In many varieties, optional number-agreement is

observed.- Había/habían niños en el parque.

‘There were children in the park.’

4

1. Introduction

• Variation has been around for at least 200 years (Fontanella de Weinberg, 1992).

• Change in progress, favored by: (e.g. Díaz-Campos 2003)- Human-reference NPs.- Certain verb-tenses.- Lower socioeconomic status.- Male gender.

5

2. Research questions

• What is the linguistic distribution of the pluralization of presentational haber in the Spanish of Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic?

• What is the social distribution of the pluralization of presentational haber in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic?

• How can these distributions be explained in a psychologically and sociolinguistically adequate manner?

6

3. Cognitive Construction Grammar

• Usage-based.

• Every meaningful aspect of language can be modeled

with constructions (form-meaning pairs).

• Broad generalizations (e.g. transitivity) and

idiosyncratic patterns (e.g. words, idioms) are

captured with the same ease.

7

3. Cognitive Construction Grammar

• Constructions determine argument-structure: - Which and how many argument roles.- How these are mapped onto syntactic

functions.- How information is distributed over the

arguments. • Verbs can combine with multiple argument-

structure constructions.

8

4.1 Main hypothesis

• In Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, the pluralization of presentational haber corresponds to a slowly advancing ongoing language change from below that consists in the replacement of PRES-1 by PRES-2, which only differ in regards to the syntactic function of the NP (PRES-1: object; PRES-2: subject) and the social and stylistic connotations that are expressed by their relative frequencies.

9

4.2 Corollary hypotheses

• Preference for unmarked coding (Langacker, 1991: 298):

H1: Speakers will tend to code subject-like NPs as subjects, using PRES-2.

10

4.2 Corollary hypotheses

• Usage-based memory model (e.g. Langacker, 1987: 59-60):- Forms that occur mainly in one pattern are stored as

partially filled instances of that schema.- This discourages speakers to use competing constructions

to express similar conceptualizations.

H2: The tenses for which the form of haber had a high token frequency in the PRES-1 pattern, but occurred only sporadically in other

constructions before PRES-2 began its advancement will disfavor PRES-2 .

11

4.2 Corollary hypotheses

• Language users tend to recycle structures (Goldberg, 2006: 120-125; Labov, 1994: Chap. 20):

H3: There will be priming effects at the argument-structure level.

• Linguistic change from below:H4: The variation will conform to the

Principles of Linguistic Change Labov (2001) formulates for changes from below.

12

5. Methods

• Recordings of 24 native speakers, residents of the Greater Santo Domingo Area.- Rougly 28 hours of speech/250,000 words.- Fieldwork took place in April-May, 2011.

• Stratified by: - Age (25-35 years; 55+ years).- Academic achievement (University vs. No university).- Gender (Male, Female).

• Post-stratified by: - Social class (Academic achievement, Housing, Profession).

13

5. Methods

• Three sections/speech styles:- +/- 30-minute sociolinguistic interview

• Included questions with the variable to test for comprehension priming.

- Reading task• 35 decision contexts.• 20 trials, 15 fillers.

- Questionnaire task.• 45 decision contexts.• 32 trials, 13 fillers.

14

5. Methods

• Mixed-effect logistic regression with Johnson’s (2009) Rbrul:- VARBRUL-style factor weight output:

• 0-0.5: factor disfavors variant• 0.5-1: factor favors variant

- Fixed effects:• Animacy, Definiteness/specificity, Distribution of the verb-forms

in the sixteenth century, Production priming, comprehension priming, academic achievement, age, gender, social class, interview section.

- Random intercepts:• Speakers• Lemmas of NPs’ heads

15

6. Results

46.7% N= 859

53.3% N=100

2

Plural haberSingular haber

16

6.1 Resemblance to prototypical subject

• Which objective factors can model object/subjecthood?- Best-known set (agent patient & topic focus)

cannot be used.- Animacy:

• Animates vs. inanimates (Du Bois, 1987)- Definiteness/specificity:

• Definite > Specific indefinite > indefinite (Langacker, 1991)

17

6.1 Animacy

Animates

Inanimate

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

.60

.40

.60

.40

Nouns Speakers

18

6.2 Degree of entrenchment of the verb-form in PRES-1

• Analysis of 10,000 tokens of 3rd-person haber in a sixteenth-century Latin-American corpus (CORDE):- Hay: practically exclusive to the PRES-1 pattern.

• Strongest cognitive representation: PRES-1 + hay.- Hubo: occurs primarily in PRES-1.

• Strongest cognitive representation: PRES-1 + hubo.- Había, haya, habrá and hubiera: used in 3 constructions.

• Strongest cognitive representation: independent node.- Habría & composed tenses: very infrequent.

• Strongest cognitive representation: independent node.

19

6.2 Degree of entrenchment of the verb-form in PRES-1

Habían, hubieran, hayan, habrán: mainly outside of presentational expressions

Habrían, composed tenses and verbal periphrases: infrequent

Hayn and hubieron: mainly in presentational expressions

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

.70

.68

.17

.73

.71

.13

Nouns Speakers

20

6.3 Priming

• Distance to the prime (in clauses)- 0-20 clauses- 21+ clauses

• Formal similarity to the prime- Same/different construction.- Same/different Tense, Mood, Aspect morphology

(TMA).

21

6.3 Priming: Production priming

PRES-2, identical verb-form

PRES-2, different verb-form

No earlier use/last use 21+ clauses removed

PRES-1, identical verb-form

PRES-1, different verb-form

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

.63

.58

.47

.45

.37

.64

.54

.47

.46

.38

Nouns Speakers

22

6.3 Production priming in language change

0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00%

4.80%

69.90%55.60%

3.80%

57.40%41.40%

6.70%

71.40% 64.40%

UnprimedPRES-1PRES-2

23

6.3 Priming: Comprehension priming

PRES-2

PRES-1

No earlier use/last use 21+ clauses removed

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

.62

.44

.43

.63

.45

.42

Nouns Speakers

24

6.4 Social class

Middle class

Lower class

Upper class

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

61

.46

.44

.60

.47

.42

Nouns Speakers

25

6.5 Gender

Note: p=0.007

Female

Male

40.00% 42.00% 44.00% 46.00% 48.00% 50.00% 52.00%

49.90%

43.60%

26

6.5 Gender (and age)

First generation Second generation0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

38.10%

48.80%52.40%

47.60%

Male Female

27

7. Discussion & conclusions

• Hypothesis 1 = confirmed- The most salient feature of protoypical subjects favors

PRES-2.

• Hypothesis 2 = confirmed- Those tense-forms that occurred mainly in presentational

clauses disfavor PRES-2.

• Hypothesis 3 = confirmed- Long-lasting priming effects at argument-structure level.

• Phenomenon = argument-structure variation

28

7. Discussion & conclusions

• Three general principles of language use constrain the

alternations:

• H1: The preference for unmarked coding encourages the use of

PRES-2 with NPs that approach the subject prototype.

• H2: Statistical preemption discourages the use of PRES-2 for

conceptualizations that match entrenched instances of PRES-1.

• H3: Priming extends the use of PRES-2 to conceptualizations that

match entrenched instances of PRES-1.

29

7. Discussion & conclusions

• Hypothesis 4 = partially confirmed- Social class pattern conforms to Labov’s (2001)

Principles of Linguistic Change.• The variation expresses social class identity for the entire speech

community.

- Gender is not statistically significant for all speakers.• Only for younger Dominicans the variation expresses

gender identity- Social meaning changes over time (Eckert 2008).

- Relatively early stage of an ongoing change from below (Labov, 2001: 307-309).

- Slowly progressing change.

30

ReferencesDU BOIS, J. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language. LXIII

(4), 805-855.ECKERT, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics, XII (4), 453-476. Fontanella de Weinberg, M.B. (1992). Variación sincrónica y diacrónica de las construcciones con haber en el español americano. Boletín de filología,XXXIII, 35-46. GOLDBERG, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.GOLDBERG, A. (1995). Constructions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. JOHNSON, D. E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis . Language and Linguistics Compass , III (1), 359-383.

31

ReferencesLABOV, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2. Oxford:

Blackwell. LABOV, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1. Oxford:

Blackwell. LABOV, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: UPenn

Press. LAKOFF, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago:

Chicago University Press. LANGACKER, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.2.

Stanford: Stanford University Press. LANGACKER, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

32

Description of the variants

• Syntax:

• PRES-1: <[Locative] haber [Object]>

• PRES-2: <[Locative] haber [Subject]>

• The constructions do not specify the linear ordering of the

arguments.

• Boldface square brackets indicate profiled, omissible

arguments.

• The locative is an argument, not an adjunct (Lakoff 1987).

33

Description of the variants

• Semantics:

• POINTING-OUT Idealized Cognitive Model (Lakoff

1987).

• Argument roles:

• NP argument: zero.

• Locative: location.

34

Description of the variants

• Pragmatics:

• Hearer-New NP argument (Lakoff 1987).

• Social connotations:

• This kind of meaning can be modeled quite

straightforwardly in Cognitive Construction Grammar.

35

Social connotations in CCG

• Only the frequencies of otherwise ‘meaningless’ alternations can signal social meaning directly.

• Constructions that capture ‘meaningless’ alternations connect abstractions of observed frequencies (probabilities) to social meanings.

• Central social meaning: subgroup membership (Silverstein 2003).

• Metonymy can account for the variety of interpretations that Eckert (2008) points out.

• Extensions can be extended multiple times more, which leads to the fluid ‘indexical field’ proposed by Eckert (2008).

36

Social connotations in CCG

• With time and repetition, some of these extended meanings can become conventionalized (e.g. stylistic appropriateness can be considered a conventionalized extension of social class; Silverstein 2003).

• The context of the usage event will activate or background potential meanings (Langacker 1987).

37

Where did this come from?

• Occasional confusion (online constructional blends caused by analogy [Desagulier, 2005)) has always existed in Spanish.- E avién allí muchos engeños e muchas armas

‘And there, there were a lot of deceits and a lot of weapons.’ (13th century; Moreno-Bernal (1978: 290-291)

• Not a change: occasional glitches caused by analogy.

38

Where did this come from?

• Actuation:- Latin America/Canary Islands:

• Language/dialect contact through colonization. Large Population of L2/D2 speakers; formation of a new variety.

• Greater opportunities for social mobility.

- Catalan Language Area:• Language/dialect contact during industrialization process

of the 19th century.• Pluralization in Catalan Pluralization in Spanish.• Rapid expansion during 19th century.

39