Abstract
In this paper, we demonstrate that, like frequency, morphosyntactic persistence can have a conserving effect on language change. To substantiate this claim, we analyze the alternation between the Spanish past subjunctive forms ending in –ra and –se (as in comiera and comiese ‘had eaten’). Due to the ongoing replacement of –se by –ra, persistence and frequency are the best predictors of the alternation in our data. First, the persistence effect of a prior –se is significantly greater than the persistence effect of a prior –ra. Second, although –se is basically restricted to third person singular morphology in contexts without persistence, when primed by –se this restriction is drastically reduced. Our results also shed light on the relationship between frequency and persistence in language change. Although both result in conservation, the conserving effect of frequency causes irregularity such as the paradigmatic atrophy of Spanish –se forms. In contrast, persistence can temporarily re-establish paradigmatic regularity and consequently strengthen the cognitive representation of obsolescing constructions. However, this resuscitating effect of persistence appears to be restricted to low-frequency –se forms; because they are generally more entrenched, the activation of high-frequency –se forms relies less on persistence effects.
Funding statement: DFG Graduate School GRK 1624/1 “Frequency effects”; Research Fund Flanders (FWO), award K1G3316N; 2015–16 OSU Arts and Humanities Larger Grant Award for the project “Persistence and the Maintenance of Linguistic Variation.”
A Appendix
Full results from the logistic regression model.
| Variable | Level | n ra | n se | % se | Beta | OR | SE | Z | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −4.0779 | 0.0169 | 0.8022 | −5.0833 | <0.001*** | ||||
| Recent | None | 2354 | 243 | 9.35 | Reference level | ||||
| Ra | 1054 | 71 | 6.31 | 0.4832 | 1.6213 | 0.7545 | 0.6405 | >0.05 | |
| Se | 87 | 82 | 48.52 | 4.0600 | 57.9740 | 0.9073 | 4.4749 | <0.001*** | |
| Target_PersonThird | False | 452 | 32 | 6.61 | Reference level | ||||
| True | 3043 | 364 | 10.68 | 1.2716 | 3.5664 | 0.4517 | 2.8152 | <0.01** | |
| VerbFrequency | Numerical variable | 0.0001 | 1.0001 | 0.0000 | 3.3166 | <0.01** | |||
| Target_Number | Singular | 2573 | 326 | 11.25 | Reference level | ||||
| Plural | 922 | 70 | 7.06 | −0.3574 | 0.6995 | 0.1475 | −2.4227 | <0.05* | |
| Region | Europe | 599 | 103 | 14.67 | Reference level | ||||
| Unknown | 312 | 21 | 6.31 | −0.3490 | 0.7054 | 0.5741 | −0.6079 | >0.05 | |
| Mid/NorAm | 1590 | 86 | 5.13 | −0.9598 | 0.3830 | 0.1637 | −5.8635 | <0.001*** | |
| SouthAm | 994 | 186 | 15.76 | 0.0449 | 1.0459 | 0.1585 | 0.2832 | >0.05 | |
| Genre | Academic | 284 | 17 | 5.65 | Reference level | ||||
| Fict | 1849 | 255 | 12.12 | 0.6873 | 1.9883 | 0.6115 | 1.1240 | >0.05 | |
| News | 496 | 57 | 10.31 | 0.6690 | 1.9524 | 0.6368 | 1.0507 | >0.05 | |
| Oral | 866 | 67 | 7.18 | 0.2617 | 1.2992 | 0.6341 | 0.4128 | >0.05 | |
| Negation | False | 3102 | 349 | 10.11 | Reference level | ||||
| True | 393 | 47 | 10.68 | −0.0318 | 0.9687 | 0.1768 | −0.1799 | >0.05 | |
| Syntax | – Subordinated, – apodosis | 227 | 25 | 10.00 | Reference level | ||||
| – Subordinated, +apodosis | 64 | 7 | 10.00 | 0.0161 | 1.0162 | 0.4999 | 0.0322 | >0.05 | |
| +Subordinated, – protasis | 2883 | 334 | 10.00 | 0.3240 | 1.3826 | 0.2512 | 1.2898 | >0.05 | |
| +Subordinated, +protasis | 321 | 30 | 9.00 | 0.1337 | 1.1430 | 0.3104 | 0.4308 | >0.05 | |
| Auxiliary | False | 3096 | 329 | 9.61 | Reference level | ||||
| True | 399 | 67 | 14.38 | 0.3306 | 1.3917 | 0.1778 | 1.8590 | <0.1 | |
| RecentRA:Target_PersonThirdTRUE | −0.8810 | 0.4144 | 0.7818 | −1.1268 | >0.05 | ||||
| RecentSE:Target_PersonThirdTRUE | −2.2709 | 0.1032 | 0.9446 | −2.4041 | <0.05* | ||||
| RecentRA:VerbFrequency | −0.0002 | 0.9998 | 0.0001 | −1.2754 | >0.05 | ||||
| RecentSE:VerbFrequency | −0.0003 | 0.9997 | 0.0001 | −2.0282 | <0.05* | ||||
| Target_PersonThirdTRUE:VerbFrequency | −0.0001 | 0.9999 | 0.0000 | −2.7108 | <0.01** | ||||
| RecentRA:Target_PersonThirdTRUE:VerbFrequency | 0.0002 | 1.0002 | 0.0001 | 1.2387 | >0.05 | ||||
| RecentSE:Target_PersonThirdTRUE:VerbFrequency | 0.0003 | 1.0003 | 0.0001 | 2.2451 | <0.05* | ||||
| Model evaluation | AIC | 2294.4 | |||||||
| c index of concordance | 0.740 | ||||||||
| Somers’ dxy | 0.480 | ||||||||
References
Asratián, Arucia. 2007. Variación –ra/–se en el español hablado en Caracas. Boletín de lingüística 19(5). 5–41.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Bock, Kathrin J. & Zenzi M. Griffin. 2000. The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129(2). 177–192.10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.177Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Bock, Kathryn J. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–387.10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6Search in Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly, Martin Pickering & Alexandra Cleland. 1999. Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychological Bulletin and Review 6. 635–640.10.3758/BF03212972Search in Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45. 5–32.10.1023/A:1010933404324Search in Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo, Jerome Friedman, Charles J. Stone & Richard A. Olshen. 1984. Classification and regression trees. New York: Chapman and Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Richard Janda & Brian Joseph (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, volume I: Distribution and historical change, 187–217. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.82.09theSearch in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2002. Corpus del español (100 million words, 1200s-1900s). http://www.corpusdelespanol.org (accessed 22 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Day, Meagan. 2011. Variation in the use of the –ra and –se forms of the imperfect subjunctive in Modern Spoken Peninsular Spanish. NWAV 40, Georgetown University.Search in Google Scholar
DeMello, George. 1993. –ra vs. –se subjunctive: A new look at an old topic. Hispania 76(2). 235–243.10.2307/344667Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2011. Review article of ‘Language, usage and cognition’ by Joan Bybee. Language 87. 830–844.10.1353/lan.2011.0082Search in Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2008. Concept priming in language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34(2). 123–133.10.1515/THLI.2008.010Search in Google Scholar
Erker, Daniel & Gregory R. Guy. 2012. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language 88(3). 526–557.10.1353/lan.2012.0050Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 2003. The persistence of optional complementizer mention: Why saying a “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 379–398.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00523-5Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64. 501–538.10.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I. & Chris Davis. 1984. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10. 680–698.10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4). 365–399.10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2009. Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 163–186.10.1075/arcl.7.07griSearch in Google Scholar
Guzmán Naranjo, Matías. To appear. The se-ra alternation in Spanish subjunctive. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0017, February 2016.10.1515/cllt-2015-0017Search in Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Herman J. Kolk. 1998. Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech 41(2). 143–184.10.1177/002383099804100202Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Haverkate, Henk. 2002. The syntax, semantics and pragmatics of Spanish mood. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.96Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Relating language change to language processing: A second look at asymmetric priming. Paper presented at ICEHL18, Leuven.Search in Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674.10.1198/106186006X133933Search in Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian & Neal Snider. 2008. Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In Bradley C. Love, Ken McRae & Vladimir M. Sloutsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 1061–1066. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Anette Rosenbach. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34(2). 85–113.10.1515/THLI.2008.008Search in Google Scholar
Kempas, Ilpo. 2011. Sobre la variación en el marco de la libre elección entre cantara y cantase en el español peninsular. Moenia 17. 243–264.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English. A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511642210Search in Google Scholar
Lemon, Francis. 1925. The relative frequency of the subjunctive forms in –se and –ra. Hispania 8. 300–302.10.2307/331011Search in Google Scholar
Lope Blanch, Juan M. (ed.). 1977. Estudios sobre el español hablado en las principales ciudades de América. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Search in Google Scholar
Lunn, Patricia V. 1995. The evaluative function of the Spanish subjunctive. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 429–449. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.32.18lunSearch in Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Holly P. Branigan. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39(4). 633–651.10.1006/jmla.1998.2592Search in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.http://www.R-project.org (accessed 26 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Real Academia Española. 2010. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual. Madrid: Escasa Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2014. Auxiliary selection in Spanish. Gradience, gradualness, and conservation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.155Search in Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2015. How usage rescues the system: Persistence as conservation. In Aria Adli, Marco García García & Göz Kaufmann (eds.), Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches, 289–311. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346855-012Search in Google Scholar
Schwarz, Christian. 2016. Recency as a factor of phonological variation. In Heike Behrens & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language, 91–109. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346916-005Search in Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 2013. Strength of priming and the maintenance of variation in the Spanish past subjunctive. Paper presented at NWAV 2013, Pittsburgh.Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–348.10.1037/a0016973Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Sussman Goldberg, Barbara. 1995. The –ra and –se opposition in Spanish. In Ellen Contini-Morava & Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.), Meaning as explanation. Advances in linguistic sign theory, 381–404. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907575Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 113–150.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197808Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178.10.1017/S0954394512000129Search in Google Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith. 2014. Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2015. Gradual loss of analyzability: Diachronic priming effects. In Aria Adli, Marco García García & Göz Kaufmann (eds.), Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches, 265–287. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346855-011Search in Google Scholar
Valeš, Miroslav. 2006. El prestigio desigual de las formas del imperfecto de subjunctivo cantara/cantase. In Juan A. Moya Corral & Marcin Sosinski (eds.), Lexicografía y enseñanza de la lengua española. Actas de las XI Jornadas sobre la enseñanza de la lengua española, 303–311. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Leavitt O. 1926. The indicative forms in –ra in Spanish America. Hispania 9. 288–293.10.2307/331405Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
