This study replicates and expands an earlier investigation on Puerto Rican Spanish (Claes, submitted). Specifically, besides investigating whether the results that were obtained in San Juan also attain in Santo Domingo, this paper explores the question which mechanism can account for the extension of pluralized haber to verb-tenses for which an entrenched instance of singular haber exists. In order to do so, drawing upon Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006), I present an analysis of the pluralization of haber in Dominican Spanish (e.g. Habían fiestas ‘There were parties’) as an ongoing language change from below during which the canonical argument-structure construction ([Loc] haber [Obj]) is being replaced by an innovative schema ([Loc] haber [Subj]). Using a mixed effect multivariate analysis, in which the individual speakers and the NPs’ head nouns were included as random intercepts, I show that speakers pluralize presentational haber in about 47% of the cases and that the results for the factor groups animacy, definiteness/specificity hierarchy (Langacker, 1991), degree of entrenchment of the verb-form in PRES-1, production priming, comprehension priming, gender, social class and style support the main claim. In addition, I argue that production priming is responsible for extending the use of this variation to conceptualizations for which statistical preemption warns speakers against using the PRES-2 variant. Finally, the social factors that were tested in this study unveil that the variation expresses social class membership and, at least for younger Dominicans, gender identity.

1. The variable agreement
of presentational haber
in Dominican Spanish
Jeroen Claes
(Universiteit Antwerpen)
jeroenclaes@gmail.com

2. 1
Outline
• Introduction
• Research questions
• Theoretic framework
• Hypotheses
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusions

3. 2
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. 3
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. 4
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. 5
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. 6
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. 7
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. 8
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. 9
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. 10
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. 11
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. 12
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. 13
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. 14
6. Results
Plural haber
53.3% 46.7%
N= 859 Singular haber
N=1002

16. 15
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. 16
6.1 Animacy
.40
Inanimate
.40
.60
Animates
.60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Nouns Speakers

18. 17
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. 18
6.2 Degree of entrenchment of the
verb-form in PRES-1
Hayn and hubieron: mainly in .13
presentational expressions .17
Habrían, composed tenses and .71
verbal periphrases: infrequent .68
Habían, hubieran, hayan, habrá .73
n: mainly outside of… .70
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Nouns Speakers

20. 19
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. 20
6.3 Priming: Production priming
PRES-1, different verb-form .38
.37
PRES-1, identical verb-form .46
.45
No earlier use/last use 21+ .47
clauses removed .47
PRES-2, different verb-form .54
.58
PRES-2, identical verb-form .64
.63
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Nouns Speakers

22. 21
6.3 Production priming in language
change
80.00%
69.90% 71.40%
70.00% 64.40%
60.00% 57.40% 55.60%
50.00%
41.40%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00% 4.80% 6.70%
3.80%
Unprimed
0.00%
PRES-1
Habían, hubieran, hayan, habrán, habrían, the composed tenses and oth
Hayn Hubieron
PRES-2

23. 22
6.3 Priming: Comprehension
priming
No earlier use/last use 21+ .42
clauses removed .43
PRES-1 .45
.44
PRES-2 .63
.62
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Nouns Speakers

24. 23
6.4 Social class
Upper class .42
.44
Lower class .47
.46
Middle class .60
61
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Nouns Speakers

25. 24
6.5 Gender
Male 43.60%
Female 49.90%
40.00% 42.00% 44.00% 46.00% 48.00% 50.00% 52.00%
Note: p=0.007

26. 25
6.5 Gender (and age)
60.00% 52.40%
48.80% 47.60%
50.00%
40.00% 38.10%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
First generation Second generation
Male Female

27. 26
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. 27
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. 28
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. 29
References
DU 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. 30
References
LABOV, 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. 31
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. 32
Description of the variants
• Semantics:
• POINTING-OUT Idealized Cognitive Model (Lakoff
1987).
• Argument roles:
• NP argument: zero.
• Locative: location.

34. 33
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. 34
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. 35
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. 36
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. 37
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. 38