Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:2 (2014) ► pp.338–364

Sociolingüística comparada y gramática de construcciones

Un acercamiento a la pluralización de haber presentacional en las capitales antillanas

| Universiteit Antwerpen
In this article, we investigate the pluralization of presentational haber (e.g., Habían fiestas. ‘There were parties.’) in the Spanish of Havana, Santo Domingo, and San Juan. Drawing on Goldberg’s (1995) Cognitive Construction Grammar, we claim that the phenomenon consists in a language change from below: the pluralized variant of the presentational haber construction (<AdvP haber Subject>) is replacing the impersonal variant (<AdvP haber Object>). Using a mixed-effects regression analysis, we show that speakers of the Caribbean dialects pluralize the verb in 41–46% of the cases. The linguistic factors that were investigated in this study (typical action-chain position of the noun’s referent, clause polarity, verb tense, comprehension-to-production priming and production-to-production priming) argue in favor of considering the variation an argument-structure alternation. The comparative sociolinguistic analyses reveal that these factors have the same effects and relative strengths in the three communities. For the three communities, the results for gender and social class support that the phenomenon constitutes an advanced language change from below.
Keywords: Cuban Spanish, Dominican Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish, cognitive construction grammar, compared sociolinguistics, pluralization of presentational haber

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.2.05cla
References (58)
Alba, O. (2004). ¿Cómo hablamos los dominicanos?: Un enfoque sociolingüístico. Santo Domingo: Grupo León Jimenes.Google Scholar
Baayen, H.R. (2014). Multivariate statistics. In R. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 337–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentivoglio, P., & Sedano, M. (1989). Haber: ¿Un verbo impersonal? Un estudio sobre el español de Caracas. En G. de Granda (Ed.), Estudios sobre el español de América y lingüística afroamericana. Ponencias presentadas en el 45 Congreso internacional de americanistas (pp. 59–81). Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
. (2011). Morphosyntactic variation in Spanish-speaking Latin America. En M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 123–147). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blas-Arroyo, J.L. (1999). Lenguas en contacto: Consecuencias lingüísticas del bilingüismo social de las comunidades de habla del este peninsular. Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, E., & Rivas, J. (2012). Grammatical relation probability: how usage patterns shape analogy. Language Variation and Change, 24(3), 317–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. En M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language (Vol. 21) (pp. 145–167). Londres: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claes, J. (2014). A cognitive construction grammar approach to the pluralization of presentational haber and its social significance in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 26(2), 219–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company-Company, C. (2003). La gramaticalización en la historia del español. Medievalia, 351, 3–61.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Aquino Ruiz, G. (2004). Haber impersonal en el habla de Caracas. Análisis sociolingüístico. Boletín de lingüística, 211, 3–26.Google Scholar
. (2008). El cambio linguistico de haber impersonal. Núcleo, 20(25), 103–124.Google Scholar
De Granda, G. (1994). Español de América, español de África y hablas criollas hispánicas: Cambios, contactos y contextos. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
DeMello, G. (1991). Pluralización del verbo haber impersonal en el español hablado culto de once ciudades. Thesaurus, 461, 445–471.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. (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
Domínguez-Hernández, M.A. (2007). Palabras preliminares. En M.A. Domínguez-Hernández (Ed.), La lengua en Cuba: Estudios (pp. 7–26). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Fontanella de Weinberg, M.B. (1992a). Variación sincrónica y diacrónica de de las construcciones con haber en el español americano. Boletín de filología de la universidad de Chile, 331, 35–46.Google Scholar
. (1992b). El español de América. Madrid: Mapfre.Google Scholar
Freites-Barros, F. (2008). Más sobre la pluralización de haber impersonal impersonal en Venezuela: El estado Táchira. Lingua americana, 12(22), 36–57.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Díaz, A. (2003). La semántica locativa de las construcciones existenciales con haber: Un ejemplo de gramaticalizacion. Medievalia, 351, 135–154.Google Scholar
Johnson, D.E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kany, C.E. (1951). Sintaxis hispanoamericana. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. En C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). Nueva York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Filadelfia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2010). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. (1984). Variación y significado. Buenos Aires: Hachette.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1967). A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of language, 31, 390–396.Google Scholar
Montes de Oca, M. (1994). La concordancia con haber impersonal. Anuario de Letras, 321, 7–35.Google Scholar
Moreno-Fernández, F. (2003). Metodología del proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y América (PRESEEA). Recuperado el 9 de abril del 2008 de: [URL].
Navarro-Correa, M. (1992). Valoración social de algunas formas verbales en el habla de Valencia. Lingüística española actual, 14(1), 97–106.Google Scholar
Pérez-Martín, A.M. (2007). Pluralización de había en el habla de El Hierro: datos cuantitativos. Revista de Filología de la Universidad de La Laguna, 251, 505–513.Google Scholar
Prince, E.F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. En W.C. Mann & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam/Filadelfia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quintanilla-Aguilar, J.R. (2009). La (des)pluralización del verbo ‘haber’ existencial en el español salvadoreño: ¿Un cambio en progreso?. Tesis doctoral. Miami: University of Florida.
Real Academia Española. (2008-). Corpus diacrónico del español (CORDE). Recuperado el 10 de junio del 2010 de: [URL].
Real Academia Española, & Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Rivas, J., & Brown, E. (2012). Stage-level and individual-level distinction in morphological variation: An example with variable haber agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 1(2), 73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Concordancia variable con haber en español puertorriqueño. Boletín de lingüística, 24(37-38), 102–118.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolingüística y pragmática del español. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 231, 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. En J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 729–763). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, H.R. (2012). Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaquero, M. (1978). Enseñar español, pero ¿qué español? Boletín de la academia puertorriqueña de la lengua española, 61, 127–146.Google Scholar
. (1996). Antillas. En M. Alvar-López (Ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América (pp. 51–67). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R., & Detges, U. (2008). Syntactic change from within and from without syntax: A usage-based analysis. En U. Detges & R. Waltereit (Eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance (pp. 13 – 30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, G., & Birner, B. (1995). Definiteness and the English existential. Language, 71(4), 722–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2003). Dialectology and linguistic diffusion. En B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 713–735). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Agulló, Jorge
2023. Existential Constructions, Definiteness Effects, and Linguistic Contact: At the Crossroads between Spanish and Catalan. Languages 9:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Hennecke, Inga & Evelyn Wiesinger
2023. Chapter 1. Construction Grammar meets Hispanic linguistics. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Manjón-Cabeza Cruz, Antonio & Radka Svetozarovová
2023. Haber e impersonalidad en español: patrones sociolingüísticos y geolectales. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 94 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
García, Raúl Antonio Gamboa
2022.  Pluralization of the Impersonal Verb Haber on Twitter . Hispanic Research Journal 23:6 ► pp. 484 ff. DOI logo
Hernández Díaz, Axel
2019. Refunctionalization. First-Person Plural of the Verb Haber in the History of Spanish. Languages 4:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Moreno-Fernández, Francisco
2019. Macroregional sociolinguistics: Uses and preferences on null direct objects in Spanish. Journal of Linguistic Geography 7:01 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Claes, Jeroen
2017. Cognitive and geographic constraints on morphosyntactic variation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.