The pluralization of 'haber' in Puerto Rican Spanish

THE PLURALIZATION OF HABER IN PUERTO RICAN SPANISH

Jeroen Claes – University of Antwerp

Había or habían tres niñas en el parque?

Outline

Introduction to the phenomenon Research questions Theoretic framework Hypotheses Method Results Conclusions

Introduction to the phenomenon Impersonal, subjectless verb in normative Spanish.

Había niños en el parque.‘There were children in the park.’

In many varieties, optional number-agreement is observed. Había niños en el parque.

Habían niños en el parque.‘There were children in the park.’

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

No previous theoretic proposals can account for these constraints. No recent studies on Puerto Rico

Research questions

What is the linguistic distribution of the pluralization of presentational haber in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico?

What is the social distribution of the pluralization of presentational haber in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico?

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

Cognitive Construction Grammar

Usage-based. Broad generalizations and idiosyncratic

patterns (e.g. words, idioms) are form-meaning pairs, constructions (Goldberg 1995; 2006).

E.g. 5 constructions in John takes the glass. John, takes, the, glass, and <Subj. Verb Obj>.

Constructions that capture generalizations possess abstract meanings. E.g. <Subj. Verb Obj.> means “Transfer of energy

from agent to patient” (Langacker 1991: 302) .

Cognitive Construction Grammar

Constructions determine argument-structure.

Verbs can combine with different argument-structure constructions.

Agreement variation can be modeled by positing competing constructions (Dufter et al. 2009).

Main hypothesis

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, the pluralization of presentational haber corresponds to an advanced on-going language change from below (starting point: 16th century) that consists in the replacement of PRES-1 (<[Circ. Comp.] haber [Obj.]> ) by PRES-2 (<[Circ. Comp.] haber [Subj]>), which only differ in regards to the syntactic function of the NP (PRES-1: object; PRES-2: subject) and their sociolinguistic and stylistic significance.

Hypothesis 1

If a conceptualization comes close to the prototype of a grammatical function, it is most naturally coded by that grammatical function (Langacker 1991).

Humans are better exemplars of the subject category than non-humans (Langacker 1991). Hypothesis 1 (H1): The closer the

conceptualization coded by the NP comes to a prototypical subject or object, the more likely will it be coded as such, promoting the use of, respectively, PRES-2 or PRES-1.

Hypothesis 2

Forms that occur in a variety of patterns have strong independent representations and can easily be used in innovative ways.

Forms that occur primarily in one pattern are stored as a partially filled instance of this construction, which disfavors their use in competing patterns. (Goldberg 2006: 94-102). Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Those forms of haber that had a high token

frequency in the PRES-1 pattern, but occurred only sporadically in other constructions when PRES-2 began its advancement will disfavor PRES-2.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Those forms of haber that did not have a high token frequency in any particular construction or those forms that occurred in a variety of constructions with relatively high frequency, will favor PRES-2.

Hypothesis 2c (H2c): For those forms of haber that had a high token frequency in the PRES-1 pattern, but occurred only sporadically in other constructions when PRES-2 began its advancement, the effect that is normally observed will be neutralized when the need to code a more complex conceptualization bypasses the entrenched instance.

Hypothesis 3

“Morphological and syntactic variation is controlled by a tendency to preserve parallel structures in successive sentences” (Labov 1994: 550).

Similar conclusions have been put forward in psycholinguistics (Goldberg 2006: 120-125). Hypothesis 3: The earlier mention of one of

the variants in discourse will promote the use of the same variant in the next occurrence. That is, there will be structural priming effects at the argument-structure level regardless of variations in tense, mood or aspect.

Hypothesis 4, 5, 6

Advanced change from below: significant, but weak social correlations.

Apparent-time hypothesis (Labov 1994): Hypothesis 4 (H4): The youngest speakers will favor the

PRES-2 variant, whereas older speakers will make slightly more use of the PRES-1 variant.

Labov’s (2001) Gender Principle: Hypothesis 5 (H5): Women will use, in comparison to men of

the same social characteristics, the PRES-2 variant slightly more.

Labov’s (2001) Curvilinear Principle: Hypothesis 6 (H6): The average prestige-groups will show

slightly higher rates of use of the PRES-2 construction than the groups of lower and higher prestige.

Hypothesis 7

Style-shifting patterns typical of advanced changes from below (Silva-Corvalán 2001): Hypothesis 7a (H7a): When formality

increases, the frequency of PRES-2 will also increase.

Hypothesis 7b (H7b): Speakers situated on the lower bound of the average-prestige group will display hypercorrect behavior, that is, they will surpass the speakers of the upper bound of this group in their use of PRES-2 in formal speech.

Method

Sample: 24 hours of recorded interviews with residents

of the Metropolitan Area of San Juan. Stratified by:

Age (25-35 vs. 55+) Education (University vs. no university) Gender (Male vs. female) Data recollection method/contextual style:

Interview Reading task Questionnaire

Results

N %

Pluralized haber 681 41.3%

Singular haber 968 58.7%

Total 1649 100%

Which factors can model subjecthood? (H1)

Empathy hierarchy (Langacker 1991) (Speaker > hearer >) human > animal >physical object >

abstract concept

Definiteness/specificity hierarchy (Langacker 1991) Definite > specific indefinite > indefinite.

Information-status Discourse-Old > Discourse-New (Prince

1992)

Empathy-scale (H1)

Weight N %Animal .67 106 49.1%

Physical object .55 166 59.1%

Human .53 203 46.8%Abstract concept

.39 206 33.3%

Input: .35 R: 28Chi-square/cell: 1.0909

Log likelihood = -789.674

Information-status (H1)

Weight N %

Discourse-new .54 466 40.9%

Discourse-old .41 215 42.2%


Log likelihood =

-789.674

Which forms were primarily used in presentationals before PRES-2 began to advance? (H2a-c)

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.

No independent representation. Very strong ties to PRES-1. Hubo: occurs primarily in PRES-1.

Very weak independent representation. Strong ties to PRES-1. Había, haya, habrá and hubiera: used in 3 constructions.

Strong independent representation. Not tied to any particular construction.

Habría & composed tenses: very infrequent. Strong independent representation. Not tied to any particular

construction.

Degree of entrenchment of the verb-form in PRES-1(H2a-b)

Weight N %

Habría, composed tenses and others

.81 324 59.9%

Había, hubiera, haya, habrá

.71 166 63.0%

Hay and hubo .15 62 9.7%


Log likelihood =

-789.674

Degree of conceptual/structural complexity: present tense & simple past (H2c)

N %

Simple, declarative or negative clause

E.g. (No) hay niños.

62 9.7%

One degree of structural/conceptual complexity or more

E.g. Debe de haber niños.

65 57.5%

Priming (H3)

Cases were coded for: Last variant that was used by the subject.

Less than 20 or more than 20 clauses removed? Relatedness of the verb-form: same or different

tense, mood & aspect? Last variant that was used by the investigator.

Less than 20 or more than 20 clauses removed? Relatedness of the verb-form: same or different

tense, mood & aspect?

Priming by the subject (H3)

Weight N %Earlier use of PRES-2, identical Tense, Mood, Aspect .65 123 67.6Earlier use of PRES-2, different Tense, Mood, Aspect .62 197 54.4Earlier use of PRES-1, different Tense, Mood, Aspect .47 205 40.9First use/no earlier use in the previous 20 clauses .44 85 35.3Earlier use of PRES-1, identical Tense, Mood, Aspect .39 71 19.6

Input: .35 R: 26Chi-

square/cell: 1.0909

Log likelihood

= -789.674

Priming by the investigator (H3)

Weig

htN %

Earlier use of PRES-2, identical Tense, Mood, Aspect .73 68 74.7%Earlier use of PRES-1, different Tense, Mood, Aspect .52 18 41.9%Earlier use of PRES-2, different Tense, Mood, Aspect .49 24 28.2%First occurrence/no earlier use in the previous 20 clauses .49 559 41.5%Earlier use of PRES-1, identical Tense, Mood, Aspect .34 12 14.6%


Log likelihood =

-789.674

Age (H4)

Weight N %

25-35 years .61 377 43.1%

55+ years .42 304 39.3 %


Log likelihood = -789.674

Gender (H5)

Weight N %

Female .56 373 44.9%

Male .43 308 37.6%

Input: .35 R: 13Chi-square/cell:

1.0909Log likelihood =

-789.674

Social prestige (H6)

N %Low prestige 171 43.7%

Average prestige 225 50.1%

High prestige 285 37.4%

Style (H7a)

Weight N %

Interview style .61 157 39.1%Reading and Questionnaire styles

.47 524 42.0%


Log likelihood =

-789.674

Style (H7a)

N %

Female Interview 75 40.8%

Questionnaire 225 55.3%

Male Interview 82 37.6%

Questionnaire 169 43.2%

Style (H7b)

N %Low prestige Interview 54 40.9%

Questionnaire

84 49.7%

Lower average-prestige

Interview 27 47.4%

Questionnaire

60 52.2%

Upper average-prestige

Interview 31 59.6%

Questionnaire

48 59.3%

High prestige Interview 45 28.0%

Questionnaire

202 46.7%

Style (H7b)

Agreement with object clitics is found in the Questionnaire test for all social subgroups, but only once in the interview style of a low-prestige male speaker. Una familia está rumbo al zoológico. En el carro, dice la

madre: “¡Ojalá haya esos leones que vimos la vez pasada!” Pregunta el esposo: “¿Por qué no los habrían?”(SJ14H22)‘A family is heading to the zoo. In the car, the mother says: “Hopfully there are those lions that we saw the last time!” Her husband asks: “Why wouldn’t they be there?”’

Individual, rather than quantitative hypercorrection.

Discussion

Hypothesis 1: false. No subjects in haber-clauses or atypical subjects? No subjects in haber-clauses or inadequate set of

parameters? Hypothesis 2A, 2B & 2C

Distribution of verb-forms in 16th century corpus correctly predicts their effect on the pluralization.

Argues in favor of main hypothesis. Hypothesis 3: correct for production-priming.

Speakers repeat argument-structures rather than specific verb-forms.

Argues in favor of the main hypothesis.

Discussion

Hypothesis 4 & 5: correct. Minimal differences between age cohorts & gender groups. Argues in favor of considering the variation an advanced change

from below. Hypothesis 6: false.

Social prestige does not condition the variation significantly. Suggests that the pluralization of haber has generalized to the

whole speech community and has lost its social significance. Argues in favor of considering the variation an advanced change

from below. Hypothesis 7: false.

Detailed contrasts between less and most formal style suggests that speakers attribute great correctness and refinement to PRES-2.

Argues in favor of considering the variation an advanced change from below.

Conclusions

The results suggest that: The variation is correctly described as an argument-

structure alternation. The variation is correctly described as an advanced change

from below. PRES-2 is no longer associated with any social subgroup,

but rather with stylistic refinement and correctness. The combination of Cognitive Construction Grammar

and sociolinguistic theory provides analysts working in the field with powerful tools.

Similar analyses could be applied to other cases of agreement variation or other phenomena of the variable syntax of (Puerto Rican) Spanish.

References

Díaz Campos, M. (2003). The pluralization of 'haber' in Venezuelan Spanish: A sociolinguistic change in real time. IU Working Papers in Linguistics , III (5), 1-13.

Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolingüística y pragmática del español. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Questions?

?

Arguments against subject-hypothesis

Is the NP always a subject? ¿Había niños en el parque? ‘Were there children in the park?’ Sí, los había. ‘Yes there were.’ *Sí, ellos había. ‘Yes there were.’

Partitative case in Spanish? De ces livres, j’en ai cinq. De esos libros, Ø tengo cinco. ‘Of these books, I have five.’

Agreement pattern Se vende libros. ‘Books are sold.’ *Se vende los libros. ‘The books are sold.’ Había(n) libros. “There were books.’ Había(n) los libros de que te hablé.

‘There were the books I had told you about.’

Geographic distribution

Spain: Common in Catalan (haver-hi) & Spanish among all

social strata on the Mediterranean coast (Blas-Arroyo 1995-1996).

Documented in informal, uneducated speech in: Extremadura (Álvarez-Martínez 1996). Castilla La Vieja (Hernández-Alonso 1996). Cantabria (Nuño-Álvarez 1996). + probably a lot more.

Latin America and Canary Islands: Common in the speech of all social strata

(Kany 1956; Catalán 1989).

Origen? Late Latin or independent evolutions?

Origen: Stable variable in Late Latin, passed on to Catalan & Spanish.

Canary Islands & Latin America: Social changes & dialect contacts converted the phenomenon

in a change from below during the formative period (15-16 c.) (Labov 2001 : 86).

Eastern Spain: Mass immigrations & subsequent social changes converted

the phenomenon in a fast change from below in Catalan during the 19th century (Data: Ramos-Alfajarín 2001, interpretation: mine).

Language contacts triggered an identical change in the Spanish of these communities (Blas-Arroyo 1995-1996).

Theoretic perspective

Syntax: <[Circ. Comp.] haber [Obj.]> (PRES-1) <[Circ. Comp.] haber [Subj]> (PRES-2)

Omissible, profiled Circ. Complement:Mira, hay habichuelas. ‘Look, there are beans’.

Omissible, profiled NP argument:Hubo chinas en el supermercado? Sí, sí hubo.Were there oranges in the supermarket? Yes, yes, there were.

Semantics: ‘POINTING-OUT’ ICM (Lakoff 1987: 537).

Bringing into awareness. Localization in a mental space. Adverbial = argument, not adjunct (Lyons 1967; Lakoff 1987:

542).

Theoretic perspective

Semantic roles: Adverbial: Locative NP: Zero

Pragmatics: (Discourse-/Hearer-) Old circumstantial complement. Hearer-New NP (Ward & Birner 1995)

Explains cases such as e.g. reminders: (*)Hay los libros (de que te hablé). (*)There are the books (I’ve told you about).

‘Definiteness restriction’ Maxim of Quantity (Grice 1975) Different quantitative associations to:

Speech styles (Stylistic significance’)

Earlier sociolinguistic studies

Venezuela:(Bentivoglio & Sedano 1989; Díaz-Campos 2003; D’Aquino-Ruiz 2004) Observed in 50-60% of instances. Linguistic factors:

Human reference (e.g. niños ‘children’). Imperfect tense (e.g. había, habían ‘there were’), verbal

periphrases (e.g. acaba de haber ‘there has just been’). Simple past (hubo, hubieron) & present tense (hay, (*)hain)

disfavor plural variants. Social factors:

Lower socioeconomic status. Male gender.

Frequencies increment in real and apparent time (Díaz-Campos 2003; D’Aquino-Ruiz 2008).

Earlier sociolinguistic studies

Puerto Rico: Vaquero (1978):

Attitude study among 288 students of University of Puerto Rico. Habían: 34% accept the form. Hubieron: 29% accept the form.

López Morales (1979): Investigation on linguistic (in)security among San Juan’s upper

classes. Habían: 62% accept the form.

DeMello (1991): Investigation on the Corpus of Educated Speech (Habla

culta) Plural haber is used in 31% of the cases in the San Juan

section.

Earlier theoretic accounts

Suñer (1982) Performance error caused by the NP’s

psychological prominence. Treviño (2003)

NP is a partitative-case subject that only triggers optional verb-agreement.

Rodríguez-Mondoñedo (2006) T checks its case/number feature with the

direct object through v.

The pluralization of 'haber' in Puerto Rican Spanish

Education

Transcript of The pluralization of 'haber' in Puerto Rican Spanish