Cover not available
Article published In:
Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
Edited by Ludovic De Cuypere, Clara Vanderschueren and Gert de Sutter
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31] 2017
► pp. 30–55

Cognitive and geographic constraints on morphosyntactic variation

The variable agreement of presentational haber in Peninsular Spanish

| KU Leuven |
In this paper, I examine whether the variation patterns of haber pluralization (e.g., hubo/hubieron fiestas ‘there was/were parties’) in Peninsular Spanish corroborate the hypothesis elaborated in earlier work that the phenomenon constitutes a competition between two variants of the presentational construction with haber that is constrained by domain-general cognitive constraints on spreading activation. In addition, this paper examines whether haber pluralization is incrementing in frequency in particular Peninsular regions and whether or not the phenomenon is spreading geographically. To meet these objectives, I analyze a dataset of more than 7,500 cases of haber + plural NP, which were culled from two publicly available data sources: the Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Español Rural (which represents only rural speakers born before the 1940s; Fernández-Ordóñez 2005-) and Twitter (which represents mainly young and middle-aged speakers). The results of a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis that tests the effects of tense, the absence/presence of negation, typical action-chain position of the noun, the regional origin of the examples, and the data sources support the competition hypothesis. This model also supports that pluralized haber is spreading westward from its epicenters (Valencia, Barcelona, and Murcia), while also incrementing in frequency in northern, eastern and southern Spain. However, its frequency appears to be declining in central Spain. A geographically more detailed, but similar picture is obtained with three generalized additive mixed models that test the effects of geography on the total dataset as well as on each of the two subcorpora.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Data
    • 2.2Statistical analysis: Mixed-effects logistic regression and generalized additive mixed modeling
  • 3.Cognitive Construction Grammar and cognitive constraints on haber pluralization
  • 4.Cognitive constraints on presentational haber pluralization
    • Markedness of coding
    • Statistical preemption
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1General distribution
    • 5.2Cognitive constraints
    • 5.3Geographic constraints
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 23 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00002.cla
References (57)
References
Bartón, Kamil. 2016. “MuMIn: Model Selection and Model Averaging Based on Information Criteria (AICc and alike).” Accessed May 2016. [URL].
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steven Walker. 2016. “lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4.” Accessed May 2016. [URL].
Bentivoglio, Paola, and Mercedes Sedano. 2011. “Morphosyntactic Variation in Spanish-Speaking Latin America.” In The handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics, ed. by Manuel Díaz-Campos, 123–147. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blas-Arroyo, José-Luis. 1995. “A Propósito de un Caso de Convergencia Gramatical por Causación Múltiple en el Área de Influencia Lingüística Catalana. Análisis Sociolingüístico.” Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica 21–22: 175–200.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Entre la Estabilidad y la Hipercorrección en un Antiguo ‘Cambio desde Abajo’: Haber Existencial en las Comunidades de Habla Castellonenses.” Lingüística Española Actual 6 (1): 69–108.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P., and David R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claes, Jeroen. 2014a. “A Cognitive Construction Grammar Approach to the Pluralization of Presentational Haber in Puerto Rican Spanish.” Language Variation and Change 26 (2): 219–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “La pluralización de Haber Presentacional y su distribución social en el español de La Habana, Cuba: Un acercamiento desde la Gramática de Construcciones.” Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 231: 165–187.Google Scholar
. 2014d. The Pluralization of Presentational Haber in Caribbean Spanish: A Study in Cognitive Construction Grammar and Comparative Sociolinguistics. Antwerp: University of Antwerp PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Competing Constructions: The Pluralization of Presentational Haber in Dominican Spanish.” Cognitive Linguistics 26 (1): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Cognitive, Social, and Individual Constraints on Linguistic Variation: A Case Study of Presentational Haber Pluralization in Caribbean Spanish. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “La Pluralización de Haber Presentacional en el Español Peninsular: Datos de Twitter.” Sociolinguistic Studies 11 (1): 41–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. under review. “A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Model of Morphosyntactic Alternations: A Case Study of Subject Pronoun Expression in Cuban Spanish.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics.
Claes, Jeroen and Daniel Ezra Johnson. under review. “Cognitive Linguistics and the Predictability of Effects: Agreement in English and Spanish Presentational Constructions.” Sociolinguistics Studies.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Aquino Ruiz, Giovanna. 2004. “ Haber Impersonal en el Habla de Caracas. Análisis Sociolingüístico.” Boletín de Lingüística 211: 3–26.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2002-. Corpus del Español. 100 million words (1200s-1900s). Accessed January 2016. [URL].
Dell, Gary S. 1986. “A Spreading-Activation Theory of Retrieval in Sentence Production.” Psychological Review 92 (3): 283–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeMello, George. 1991. “Pluralización del Verbo Haber Impersonal en el Español Hablado Culto de Once Ciudades.” Thesaurus 461: 445–471.Google Scholar
Díaz Campos, Manuel. 2003. “The Pluralization of haber in Venezuelan Spanish: A Sociolinguistic Change in Real Time.” IU Working Papers in Linguistics 3 (5): 1–13.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. “Argument structure: Grammar in use.” In Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function, ed. by John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, and William Ashby, 11–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., and Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009. “Constructions and Their Acquisition: Islands and the Distinctiveness of Their Occupancy.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 71: 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 2005-. “Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Español Rural (COSER).” Accessed May 2016. [URL].
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2017. “Entrenchment as Onomasiological salience.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How we Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 153–174. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentry, Jeff. 2016. “twitteR: R Based Twitter Client.” Accessed August 2016. [URL].
Gili-Gaya, Samuel. 1980. Curso Superior de Sintaxis Española. Barcelona: Vox.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011. “Corpus Evidence of the Viability of Statistical Preemption.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Molina, José-Ramón. 2013. “Pluralización de Haber Impersonal en el Español de Valencia (España).” Verba 401: 253–284.Google Scholar
Kahle, David, and Hadley Wickman. 2016. “ggmap: Spatial Visualization with ggplot2.” Accessed August 2016. [URL].
Keenan, Edward. 1976. “Towards a Universal Definition of Subject.” In Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 305–333. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Cognitive Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, 87–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lastra, Yolanda, and Pedro Martín-Butragueño. 2016. “La concordancia de haber Existencial en la Ciudad de México.” Boletín de Filología 51 (2): 121–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llorente, Antonio Maldonado de Guevara. 1980. “Consideraciones sobre el Español Actual.” Anuario de Letras 181: 5–61.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Emilio. 1971. El Español de Hoy: Lengua en Ebullición. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Myachykov, Andriy, and Russel S. Tomlin. 2015. “Attention and Salience.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 31–52. Berlin/New York, NY: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi, and Holger Schielzeth. 2013. “A General and Simple Method for Obtaining R2 from Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 41: 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paredes-García, Florentino. 2016. “La pluralización del Verbo Haber Existencial en Madrid: ¿Etapas Iniciales de un Cambio Lingüístico?” Boletín de Filología 51 (2): 209–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pato, Enrique. 2016. “La Pluralización de Haber en Español Peninsular.” In En Torno a Haber: Construcciones, Usos y Variación desde el Latín hasta la Actualidad, ed. by Carlota de Benito Moreno and Álvaro Octavio de Toledo, 357–391. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. “The ZPG letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson, 295–326. New York, NY: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quilis, Antonio. 1983. La Concordancia Gramatical en la Lengua Española Hablada en Madrid. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL].
Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Samper-Padilla, José Antonio and Clara Eugenia Hernández-Cabrera. 2012 “En Torno a los Usos Personales de Haber en el Español de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria”. In Cum Corde et in Nova Grammatical: Estudios Ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo, ed. by Tomás Jiménez Juliá, Belén López Meirama, Victoria Vázquez Rozas, and Alexandre Veiga, 743–754. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Helmut Küchenhoff. 2013. “Collostructional Analysis and Other Ways of Measuring Lexicogrammatical Attraction: Theoretical Premises, Practical problems and Cognitive Underpinnings.” Cognitive Linguistics 24 (3): 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, Dirk. 2014. “Logistic Regression: A Confirmatory Technique for Comparisons in Corpus Linguistics.” In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, ed. by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson, 487–533. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2008. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. Berlin/Boston, NY: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Toutanova, Kristina, Christopher D. Klein, Dan Manning, and Yoram Singer. 2003. “Feature-Rich Part-of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network.” Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 252–259.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, Simonetta Montemagni, John Nerbonne, and Rolf Harald Baayen. 2014. “Lexical Differences between Tuscan Dialects and Standard Italian: Accounting for Geographic and Socio-Demographic Variation Using Generalized Additive Mixed Modeling.” Language 90 (3): 669–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2016. “mgcv: Mixed GAM Computation Vehicle with GCV/AIC/REML Smoothness Estimation.” Accessed May 2016. [URL].
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Willis, David
2020. Using social-media data to investigate morphosyntactic variation and dialect syntax in a lesser-used language: Two case studies from Welsh. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.