Badia (1994) presents his grammar as diastratic, by which he means the distribution of variants into three stylistic levels. This use moves him away from the tradition, in which diastratic means social dimension. Therefore an analysis of the references Badia provides has been done to find out whether there is any clue in them to understand this decision. None of them use the term diastratic. So, two questions arise: where had he known it? Why did he decided to change its meaning? Our hypothesis are that (1) it is plausible that he read Flydal (1952) and/or Coseriu (1981), and (2) having to choose a fourth adjective meaning ‘dealing with stylistic variation’, he decided to set up a personal concept for functional variation.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados