Cover not available

Article published In: Spanish in Context
Vol. 15:3 (2018) ► pp.465–489

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Sobre la naturaleza de los corpus y la comparabilidad de resultados en lingüística histórica

Estudio de caso del marcador pragmático sabes

 | Ghent University
 | UNED

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 26 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00023.eng
Abstracto
Este artículo contribuye a la discusión sobre el valor de los datos empíricos en el campo de la lingüística histórica. En la literatura se han discutido ampliamente los problemas metodológicos derivados del hecho de que los análisis diacrónicos estén basados casi exclusivamente en fuentes escritas. Este problema general de la representatividad de los datos se acentúa cuando se aborda el estudio histórico de fenómenos típicos de la oralidad, como son los marcadores pragmáticos. Sin embargo, a pesar de los argumentos empleados tanto a favor del uso de fuentes escritas como en su contra, este problema metodológico no ha sido objeto aún de una verificación empírica consistente en español. Este estudio supone un primer paso para cubrir esta laguna, para lo cual se comparan los resultados de un análisis diacrónico reciente del marcador pragmático sabes en un corpus escrito literario y en un corpus de español hablado.
Article outline
  • 1.Introducción
  • 2.Estudio de caso: El marcador epistémico sabes.
    • 2.1Frecuencia y complejidad formal
    • 2.2Funciones de sabes
    • 2.3Posición de sabes en el discurso
  • 3.Corpus y metodología
    • 3.1Comparación de corpus orales y escritos
    • 3.2Método para el análisis cuantitativo: Modelo de Regresión de Poisson
  • 4.Comparación de los datos empíricos del subcorpus oral vs. el subcorpus literario
    • 4.1Resultados del parámetro ‘frecuencia de uso y complejidad formal’
    • 4.2Resultados del parámetro ‘cambio funcional’
    • 4.3Resultados del parámetro ‘posición en la intervención’
  • 5.Discusión
  • Notas
  • Referencias
References (47)
Referencias
Referencias bibliográficas
Aarts, Bas, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech, y Sean Wallis (eds.). 2013. The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. “A Lovely Little Example: Word Order Options and Category Shift in the Premodifying String.” En Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, ed. por Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach y Dieter Stein, 39–66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Agresti, Alan. 2015. Foundations of Linear and Generalized Linear Models. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1992. “Interjections: The Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azofra Sierra, Elena y Renata Enghels. 2017. “El proceso de gramaticalización del marcador epistémico deverbal sabes”. Iberoromania 851: 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1986. “On the investigation of Spoken/written differences.” Studia Linguistica 40 (1): 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006b. “Stance in spoken and written university registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51: 97–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Register as a predictor of linguistic variation.” Corpus Linguistics and linguistic theory 8 (1): 9–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Mark Davies, James K. Jones y Nicole Tracy-Ventura. 2006. “Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multi-dimensional analysis.” Corpora 1 (1): 1–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas y Edward Finegan. 1992. “The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries.” En History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, ed. por Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, y Irma Taavitsainen, 688–704. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blankenship, Jane. 1962. “A linguistic analysis of oral and written style.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 481: 419–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, y Albert Gilman. 1989. “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies.” Language in Society 18 (2): 159–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2017. “Oral features in fiction.” En Pragmatics of fiction, ed. por Miriam A. Locher y Andreas H. Jucker, 235–263. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Company, Concepción. 2004. “Gramaticalización por subjetivización como prescindibilidad de la sintaxis.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 52 (1): 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan y Merja Kytö. 2000. “Data in historical pragmatics. Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2): 175–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2006. “Towards the first comprehensive survey of register variation in Spanish.” En Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word: Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse, ed. por Eileen Fitzpatrick, 73–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse y Douglas Biber. 2016. “Do all roads lead to Rome?: Modelling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata, Clara Vanderschueren y Miriam Bouzouita. 2015. “Panorama de los corpus y textos del español peninsular contemporáneo.” En Manuel des anthologies, corpus et textes romans ( Manuals of Romance Linguistics 7), ed. por Eugeen Roegiest y Maria Iliescu, 147–170. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles y Zoë Field. 2012. Discovering Statistics using R. London: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2004. “What Counts as Evidence in Historical Linguistics?” En What counts as evidence in linguistics? The case of innateness, ed. por Martina Penke y Anette Rosenbach. Studies in Language 281: 710–740. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. “What are discourse markers?” Journal of Pragmatics 311: 931–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garachana, Mar. 2008. “En los límites de gramaticalización. La evolución de encima (de que) como marcador del discurso.” Revista de Filología Española 88 (1): 7–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. “Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics.” En Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, ed. por Gitte, Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven, y Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza, 21–49. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goetsch, Paul. 1985. “Fingierte Mündlichkeit in der Erzählkunst entwickelter Schriftkulturen.” Poetica 171: 202–2018.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. “Exploring variability within and between corpora: some methodological considerations.” Corpora 1 (2): 109–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. “On some principles of Grammaticization.” En Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. por Elizabeth C. Traugott, y Bernd Heine, 17–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. y Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hummel, Martin. 2014. “La reconstrucción diacrónica entre oralidad y escritura. El caso de los marcadores discursivos claro, entonces y total .” En Marcadores del discurso. Perspectivas y contrastes, ed. por M. Marta García Negroni, 35–61. Buenos Aires: Santiago Arcos editor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes. 2013. “¿Es posible una lingüística histórica basada en un corpus representativo?” Iberoromania 771: 8–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, Peter y Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgebrauch.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 361: 15–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Lengua hablada en la Romania: español, francés, italiano. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol 1. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López Serena, Araceli y Margarita Borreguero. 2010. “Los marcadores del discurso y la variación lengua hablada vs. lengua escrita.” En Los marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, ed. por Óscar Loureda y Esperanza Acín, 415–496. Madrid: Arco-Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narbona Jiménez, Antonio. 2015. Sintaxis del español coloquial. Sevilla: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 2014. “El siglo XX como diacronía: intuición y comprobación en el caso de o sea .” RILCE 30 (3): 985–1016.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sell, Roger D. 2000. Literature as Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1995. “Interjections in Early Modern English: From Imitation of Spoken to Conventions of Written Language.” En Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, ed. por Andreas H. Jucker, 439–465. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma y Andreas H. Jucker. 2010. “Trends and Developments in Historical Pragmatics.” En Historical Pragmatics, ed. por Andreas H. Jucker y Irma Taavitsainen, 3–30. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. (ed.). 1982. Spoken and Written language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood: New York: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. y Anthony Mulac. 1991. “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer that in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 151: 237–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. y Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Vanhaverbeke, Margot, Renata Enghels, María del Carmen Parafita Couto & Iva Ivanova
2025. Enhancing Code-Switching Research Through Comparable Corpora: Introducing the El Paso Bilingual Corpus. Languages 10:7 ► pp. 174 ff. DOI logo
Enghels, Renata & Linde Roels
2024. The apparent-time construct as a proxy to spoken conversational data in the 20th century. In Language Change in the 20th Century [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 340], ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue