University of Kentucky A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Spanish Past Narrations between the ACTFL OPI and OPIc Abstract After the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) adapted the Interagency Language Roundtable’s oral proficiency interview to academic contexts, the ACTFL OPI has become a mainstay in academic foreign language assessment for approximately 30 years. In 2006, an asynchronous electronic interface of the OPI, or OPIc, was made available in which candidates are asked to record themselves responding to questions delivered aurally via computer by Ava the avatar. Students’ performance on the OPI and OPIc seem to result in similar ratings according to Thompson, Cox, and Knapp (2016), who found that 53.5% of 154 students received the same rating on the OPI and the OPIc. Many of those who scored one sub-level higher on the OPIc were those rated at the Advanced Low level on the traditional OPI. What remains unanalyzed are the linguistic and discursive features of candidates’ speech during each assessment. The primary objective of this research was to analyze lexical, i.e., lexical diversity and lexical density, and discursive features, i.e., temporal fluency, of students’ speech from a subset of OPI and OPIc exams to examine the relationship between the language elicited from each exam type, i.e., face-to-face or via computer. The research consists of two studies that focus on candidates who received 1) an Advanced Mid rating on both assessments and 2) those who received Advanced Mid on the OPIc and Advanced Low on the OPI. Several statistical differences resulted from the within (i.e., OPI vs. OPIc) and between-group (i.e., same or disparate rating) comparisons in regard to lexical density and diversity and temporal and repair fluency. For example, participants’ syllables were longer on average during the OPIc than during the OPI, an index of slower speech. Moreover, participants produced significantly more verbatim repetitions and false starts during the OPI than during the OPIc.
University of Colorado A Language Contact Perspective on New Mexican Spanish Phonology This work examines the ways in which the phonological systems of two (or more) languages may be permeable. Interlingual phonological effects detected in experimental and naturalistic data suggest fine-grained phonic variability attributable to language convergence (e.g.; Bullock & Gerfen 2004, Amengual 2018). Additionally, the variable rates with which certain variants of a word or phone are chosen for use reveal phonological transfer effects (e.g.; Author, 2015). While many studies report instances of phonological convergence between languages in contact, few studies use evidence from bilingual speech production as a way to test theories of bilingual lexical representation.
This study analyzes instances of word-initial /s/ in the spontaneous speech of Spanish/English bilinguals and monolinguals to determine whether crosslinguistic influence from English is evident in Spanish. To explore the possible role of English knowledge and use on the Spanish spoken by Spanish-English bilinguals, this work examines /s/ articulations in two historically related varieties; one bilingual (speakers of Traditional New Mexican Spanish – NMCOSS) and one monolingual (Chihuahua, Mexico).
Using Variationist methodology, we code all realizations of word-initial /s/ as either non-reduced ([s]) or reduced ([h, Ø]) in a five consecutive minutes of a randomly selected subset of the NMCOSS corpus (9 females, 15 males) and approximately 150 minutes of recorded conversations with monolingual Spanish speakers from Chihuahua, Mexico (4 males). We demonstrate that in the variable reduction of word-initial /s/, Spanish words with an English cognate (cemento) reduce at a significantly lower rate (8%) in bilingual spontaneous discourse than Spanish words with no such English cognate (20%) (siempre ‘always’) (Х2: 10.98282, p < 0.000). This same significant cognate effect is absent from the speech of monolingual Spanish speakers (15% cognates, 16 % non-cognates). Further, while simultaneously considering other linguistic factors known to influence reduction (i.e.; phonological environment, lexical stress, word frequency, cognate status), generalized linear regression analyses using R reveal cognate status significantly contributes to the model of reduction in the bilingual data (N = 1994) but not in the monolingual data set (N = 692).
While bilingual speech characteristically lacks notable phonological interference from another language, these data suggest bilingual speech may portray subtle influences between languages; interference not just in the phonetic outputs of words as has been noted in the literature (i.e.; VOT of /t/), but also in the variable rates with which certain variants of a word (or phone) are chosen for use (i.e.; [s] vs. [h] or Ø]). Results show that ‘phonological transfer’ between two distinct languages can be probabilistic, and provide evidence in support of an Exemplar Model of lexical representation in which we assume the lexicon is a highly entwined network of connections based upon phonological, orthographic, and semantic overlap (Bybee 2001) that extends to bilingual cognitive representations.
University of Puerto Rico Anteposición del sujeto en oraciones exclamativas: datos del español puertorriqueño Abstract Las oraciones exclamativas y las interrogativas requieren la inversión del sujeto (1) en la mayoría de los dialectos del español (cf. Alonso Cortés 1999; Bosque 1984, 2017; Bosque & Gutiérrez- Rexach 2009; Comínguez 2018; Gutiérrez-Rexach 2008; Villalba 2008, 2016). En otras lenguas como el inglés, por ejemplo, no hay inversión en las oraciones exclamativas (2a-b), pero sí en las interrogativas (2c-d) (Elliot 1974; Grimshaw 1977; Kamata 1977; McCawley 1973). A pesar de que la inversión es una propiedad del español (cf. 1), las variedades caribeñas no suelen invertir el sujeto, aunque hay una preferencia al orden SVO con sujetos pronominales y una mayor inversión con SSDD plenos (3) (Francom 2012; Lipski 1977; Ortiz López 2016; Ordóñez & Olarrea 2008; Toribio 2000) (ver oraciones de relativo, Morales 1999). En este trabajo examinamos la (no) inversión del sujeto en oraciones exclamativas del español puertorriqueño (Morales & Vaquero 1990). La inversión del sujeto en las exclamativas es explicada, según Castroviejo (2004), del modo siguiente: el elemento qu- en estas oraciones contiene dos rasgos, un rasgo qu- y un rasgo exclamativo. Cada rasgo se coteja en posiciones distintas. La palabra qu- se mueve al Espec(ificador) del SFlex para verificar el rasgo [qu-]. Esto bloquea el ascenso del sujeto y fuerza la inversión del sujeto. Posteriormente, la palabra qu- se mueve a una posición más alta en el Espec del SComp para verificar el rasgo exclamativo y terminar en una posición adyacente al complementizador 'que' (4) (Villalba 2008). Varias variables son examinadas en este trabajo: el tipo de sujeto (pronominal vs SSDD plenos), la persona gramatical (yo, tú, él, etc.), el tipo de verbo (copulativos, verbos inergativos y ergativos) (5), entre otras variables de estudio. Nuestros datos muestran una mayor preferencia a la no inversión de sujetos pronominales, especialmente, el pronombre tú; interrogativas. mientras que los SSDD plenos si invierten, un patrón similar al encontrado en las interrogativas.
Ejemplos (1) a. ¡Qué inteligente (que) es Mariana! (*¡Qué inteligente (que) Mariana es!)
b. ¡Qué bien (que) canta Juan! (*¡Qué bien (que) Juan canta!)
c. ¿Cuán inteligente es Mariana?
d. ¿Cómo canta Juan?
(2) a. How tall he is!
b. How beautiful this flower is!
c. How tall is he?
d. How beautiful is this flower? (Kamata 1977)
(3) a. ¿Cómo tú te llamas? vs. ¿Cómo te llamas?, ¿Cómo te llamas tú?
b. ¿Dónde tú vives? vs. ¿Dónde vives?, ¿Dónde vives tú?
c. ¿Qué sabe Juan? vs. ¿Qué Juan sabe?
(4) a. ¡Qué inteligente (que) es Mariana!
b. es [Marcela inteligente]
c. [SFlex que inteligentek [F’ esi [sv hi Marcela hk ]]]]
d. [SCOMP que inteligentek [C’ que [SFlex t’k [F’ es [sv hi [Mariana hk ]]]]]]
(5) a. ¡Qué hermosa (que) es tu perra! vs. ¡Qué hermosa (que) tu perra es!
b. ¡Qué inteligente eres tú! vs. ¡Qué inteligente tú eres!
c. ¡Qué rápido corre Usain Bolt! vs. ¡Qué rápido Usain Bolt corre!
d. Me sorprende cuán altas crecen las flores aquí. vs. Me sorprende cuán altas las flores crecen aquí.
Bibliografía selecta (exclamativas) Alonso Cortés, Ángel. 1999. La exclamación en español: estudio sintáctico y pragmático. Madrid: Minera Ediciones.
Bosque, Ignacio. 2017. Advances in the analysis of Spanish exclamatives. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Bosque, Ignacio. 1984. Sobre la sintaxis de las oraciones exclamativas. Hispanic Linguistics 1, 293-304.
Bosque, Ignacio & Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach. 2009. Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.
Castroviejo, Elena. 2006. Wh-Exclamatives in Catalan. Universitat de Barcelona, tesis doctoral.
Comínguez, Juan Pablo. 2018. The nature and position of subjects in Puerto Rican Spanish wh-questions: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. En M. González-Rivera (ed.), Current Research in Puerto Rican Linguistics. Londres: Routledge. 67-89.
Elliott, Dale. 1974. Toward a grammar of exclamations. Foundations of Language 10, 41-53.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon”. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279-326.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2008. Spanish root exclamatives at the syntax/semantics interface. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7, 117-133.
Kamata, Seizaburo. 1977. Remarks on exclamatory constructions in English. Sophia linguistica, 58-76.
McCawley, Noriko. 1973. Boy! Is syntax easy! Chicago Linguistics Society 9, 369-377.
Morales, Amparo. 1999. Anteposición de sujeto en el español del Caribe. En L. Ortiz López (Ed.), El Caribe hispánico: Perspectivas lingüísticas actuales. Frankfurt: Vervuert Verlag. 77-98.
Morales, Amparo & Vaquero, María. 1990. El habla culta de San Juan. Río Piedras, PR: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Villalba, Xavier. 2016. Oraciones exclamativas. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica. Londres: Routledge. 737-749.
Villalba, Xavier. 2008. Exclamatives: A thematic guide with many questions and few answers. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7, 9-40.
California State University Bakersfield Anthroponymic perseverance of Spanish vestigial Abstract Following earlier sound changes, the Spanish voiceless velar fricative phoneme /x/ was until the early 19th century commonly represented by the letter , in addition to and (before e and i). This is observed in the former spellings of names like Quixote and common nouns like brúxula (brújula, 'compass'). Despite the RAE's 1815 official elimination of as an orthographic representation of /x/, it has survived in numerous indigenous toponyms and their derivations, particularly in Mexico, as well as in a handful of anthroponymic variants across the Spanish speaking world.
Using various sources of diatopic, diachronic demographic data, this paper explores the degree to which vestigial Spanish has experienced retention and even resurgence in six anthroponymic items (Ximena, Ximénez/Ximenes, Mexía/s, Roxas). These possibilities can be attributed to the generally conservative nature of proper versus common nouns and, in the case of Ximena, to the indexical functions of , most notably in Mexican society. During the revolutionary period in Mexico, acquired special status as a national symbol that reflected the country's self-determination and celebrated its indigenous identity. I argue that this affective stance toward as /x/ explains in large part the extraordinary popularity of the name Ximena in Mexico and its diaspora populations over the past century, but especially in recent years as pro-indigenous movements have been on the rise. Conversely, its low ranking in Spain suggests a traditional and continued aversion to the elective use of the feature.
As for the variant surnames examined, only Mexía and Ximénez were found to be moderately present in the Spanish-speaking world, with the nations of México, Honduras, and Uruguay emerging as numerically or proportionally significant. Curiously, Roxas was entirely limited to the Philippines (including its diasporas). The paper will also discuss the nature of exposure to and perceptions of anthroponymic archaic in the U.S., as well as the important absence of anthroponyms in historical critiques of the "deviant" feature, which were entirely aimed at indigenous toponyms.
email@example.com A prosodic-syntactic analysis of code-switching in New Mexico Abstract Bilinguals often code-switch, or fluidly alternate between languages, in the same conversation, as in (1). Research suggests that this is a skilled behavior reflective of the linguistic norms of a speech community. Speakers of more than one language may also utilize the phonetic features and quantitative patterns present in code-switching to anticipate a language switch (e.g. Fricke et al., 2016; Tamargo et al. 2016). Studies at the interface of prosody and syntax have been lacking, however.
...(0.8) porque si no lo hago while it's in my head,
‘because if I don’t do it’
no se hace. ‘it doesn’t get done.’ [NMSEB, 12 JuegodeScrabble, 09:47.3-09:51.0]
A sample of spontaneous, intra-sentential multi-word code-switches (MWCS; N=407) comprised of at least two words in each language is extracted from the New Mexico Spanish- English Bilingual corpus (NMSEB, see Torres Cacoullos & Travis 2018). NMSEB contains prosodically transcribed bilingual speech and utilizes the Intonation Unit (IU), “a stretch of speech uttered under a single, coherent intonation contour” (Du Bois et al. 1993:47), where each IU appears on a single line. The unit of analysis applied is the ‘prosodic sentence’ (PS), defined as one or more clauses in one or more IUs that end(s) in a final or appeal intonation contour (Chafe 1994:139-140), as in (1). A sample of bilingual PSs (N=323) containing MWCS is compared with a sample of unilingual PSs (N=584) produced by the same speakers. To assess the degree to which the prosodic-syntactic patterns observed in NMSEB reflect bilingualism, a sample of unilingual Spanish PSs (N=200) produced by older, less bilingual speakers (N=20) is taken from the New Mexico-Colorado Spanish Survey (Bills & Vigil 2008) and provides a benchmark for comparison. Prosodic position of MWCS, pause expression, and transitional continuity are considered.
Overall, clear prosodic-syntactic properties of MWCS emerge. First, speakers prefer to code-switch across IUs (72%, 292/407), as with line (c) in (1), rather than IU-internally (line (a)). For pause expression, pauses occurring at the beginning of an IU containing IU-internal MWCS tend to be unfilled, whereas pauses preceding MWCS across-IUs tend to be filled (e.g. uh). However, pauses do not similarly vary according to the prosodic position of the pause in the unilingual PSs. Therefore, speakers tend to prosodically separate the two languages through pauses, regardless of whether the code-switch is positioned across-IUs or IU-internally. At the same time, the asymmetry in pause expression according to prosodic position indicates the unique prosodic-syntactic signature of code-switching, in patterns that may play a role in the processing of bilingual speech (cf. Fricke et al. 2016). With respect to transitional continuity between IUs, IU-internal MWCS are more often preceded by a truncated IU (26%, 18/70) than are MWCS across-IUs (16%, 47/292), which may indicate that IU-internal MWCS are more demanding in production. Overall, however, MWCS occur on average no more after truncation (18%, 65/362) as compared to unilingual IUs in the same PS (22%, 215/976). Thus, code- switching is no less fluid than speech produced in just one language.
University of Utah Aniko Csirmaz
University of Utah A templatic treatment of temporal terms Abstract We examine the internal structure of a subclass of adverbials including several temporal adverbs, in Hungarian, Hindi, and Nepali, with comparison to German and different stages of English. Connections between adverbials like AGAIN and STILL in Hindi, Nepali, and Hungarian suggest an underlying generalised relational adverbial, for which we present a templatic formalisation. This follows in the tradition of research which seeks to unite the different meanings of English still (e.g. Michaelis 1993, Beck 2016); we extend this to include AGAIN and THEN.
Morphological relations across languages: English still & its rough semantic counterpart German noch (Beck 2016) appear with a variety of different meanings (shown in (1)-(3)) which in other languages may appear as distinct lexical items. Other temporal adverbials are morphologically related elsewhere: In Indo-Aryan we find that the form used for (ordering) THEN, Hindi phir, Nepali pheri, is also used for the repetitive AGAIN. Further, when combined with the additive particle Hindi bh ̄ı ‘too’, Nepali pani, this element denotes (concessive) STILL. In Hungarian , one of the component pieces of a common repetitive megint “again” re-appears in another adverbial, me ́g “still (various senses)”. Here too the (concessive) STILL is formed from me ́g & the additive particle is.
Defining THEN, AGAIN, STILL: (4) can serve as an underspecified definition for all of the adverbials under considera- tion: (ordering) THEN, AGAIN, and the various STILLs; see (4). The dimensions along which these adverbials differ is tabulated in (6). For THEN, the focus alternatives will involve variation of focussed elements of the sentence, as shown in (5). In the case of AGAIN the asserted eventuality and the presupposed eventuality are identical except in terms of their time t. Aspectual STILL involves an abutment relation between the two events. Concessive STILL is formed by appending an additive particle to basic ordering adverbial, which introduces an ordering by likelihood. In earlier English, again also could bear the sense “back”, a fact easily captured given the templatic approach suggested here. Conclusion: The interaction of ordering adverbials and additive particles, exemplified by the “concessive” STILL forms Hindi phir bh ̄ı, Nepali pheri pani, Hungarian me ́gis, point to further functions of additives beyond what has been previously discussed. Even German noch “still” similarly involves an additive particle, at least etymologically: noch < PGmc. *nuh < PIE *n- “now” plus the PIE additive particle *-kwe (Pokorny 1959). Positing an underlying basic template as in (4) captures the morphological & semantic interrelations between ordering adverbials in languages like Hindi/Nepali and Hungarian. The morphological similarity, which links different adverbials in different languages, is taken to reflect a single underlying meaning. This view of temporal adverbials is reminiscent of Kayne’s (2016) suggestion for functional items: if two functional items are homophones, they cannot have the same spelling.
University of Utah Characterizing speech production of bilingual hard of hearing children Abstract This project is part of a three-year study that examines the speech productions of Spanish-English bilingual hard of hearing (BHH) children from 3-7 years of age. All of the participants wear hearing aids or have cochlear implants but have had delayed medical intervention of up to two years. The goal of the study is to create a speech corpus of BHH children that will be used to study various aspects of their language development. The data presented here is from the first year of audio data collection using language testing materials and frog story narrations in both English and Spanish. The presentation focuses on oral language production of the target group participants (1) as compared to productions from the control groups (bilingual peers with normal hearing and monolingual hard of hearing peers from the same local community); and (2) between the first and second sessions showing the target group’s phonetic acquisition in both languages. Findings will contribute to the currently limited acoustic research on hard of hearing children whose home language differs from that of their schooling language program.
Michelle F. Ramos Pellicia
California State University San Marcos Counteracting languagelessness and linguistic racialization through linguistic landscaping Abstract The linguistic landscape refers to the language used in signs, advertisements, street signs, roads, signs of buildings, in other words, any public text, and any text in a public space. When we study our surrounding linguistic landscape we analyze the linguistic situation and the presence of different languages in a country or region. The study of the linguistic landscape shows the vitality of languages, and information about the identity of people who contribute to the region’s linguistic diversity.
For this presentation, we will describe the work completed in collaboration with seventy (70) undergraduate students. As part of the course requirements for “Spanish Sociolinguistics” and “Spanish in the US Southwest”, students had to document the linguistic landscape of their communities through the use of photos. At the end of the project, we collected a total of three hundred and sixty-three (363) photos of signs and advertisements in the different cities that belong to either North County San Diego or Riverside counties. The data were collected using cell phone cameras. With the use of Survey123, the students catalogued each photo according to its function, e.g. informative or symbolic, in the linguistic landscape. Additionally, the data collected was classified according to origin and influences, e.g. bottom-up or top-down. We used the mapping software Arc-GIS for the spatial and location analysis of each signage collected. As a group, students developed an understanding of how their communities use the Spanish language in signage and how this helps to maintain and transmit their linguistic traditions. In our presentation, we will comment on how Spanish is used in our linguistic landscape and will identify any particular ways in which Spanish is used and preserved or lost. We will also discuss cases of code switching between Spanish and English (or any other language). We will reflect how practices such as data collection of this kind helps to counteract the effects of languagelessness and linguistic racialization among the most recent generation of speakers.