Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:12:19.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in contemporary Spanish: Linguistic predictors of estar in four cases of language contact*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

KIMBERLY L. GEESLIN  and
PEDRO GUIJARRO-FUENTES
KIMBERLY L. GEESLIN*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
PEDRO GUIJARRO-FUENTES
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth
*
Address for correspondence: Kimberly L. Geeslin, Ballantine Hall 844, 1020 East Kirkwood, Bloomington, IN 47405-7103, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In some contact situations between Spanish and English there is an acceleration of the process of the extension of estar that may be due to lack of access to the formal written standard, features of English in particular or general processes of simplification that result from the cognitive demands of bilingualism (Silva-Corvalán, 1994). In our large-scale analysis of data from a contextualized preference task collected in four areas of the lberian Peninsula where Spanish is in contact with a regional language (Basque, Catalan, Galician and Valencian) and in monolingual regions of Spain, we identify differences in the numbers of unanimous responses, and frequency and predictors of estar selection across populations. We show that more frequent selection of estar is not a characteristic of all bilingual groups, and several linguistic predictors of estar are common to all groups. Additionally, we find that more frequent selection of estar occurs in some varieties even among bilinguals with ample access to the formal standard.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 3: LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, BILINGUALISM AND COPULA CHOICE IN SPANISH , November 2008 , pp. 365 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We are very grateful for the funding of this project provided by the British Academy (No: SG- 40255). We also would like to express our gratitude to all participants and, in particular, Nuria Alturo Monne and her colleagues for their help in collecting the data in Barcelona; Immaculada Penadés Martínez, Luz Zas and Marta Lanuza Vives for their help in data collection in Madrid, Galicia and Valencia, respectively; Manuel Triano-López, Vicent Pau Moreno, Josep Sobrer and Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez for their help with data in each of their respective native languages; and the three BLC reviewers – Carol Klee, Richard Cameron and Ana Maria Carvalho – for their invaluable comments and feedback on the initial draft of the paper, and Carmen Silva-Corvalán for her comments and all her editorial suggestions. Any remaining errors are our own.

References

Cameron, R. 1993. Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and non-specific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change, 5, 305–334.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. 1995. The scope and limits of switch reference as a constraint on pronominal subject expression. Hispanic Linguistics, 6/7, 1–27.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. 1989. On the semantic composition of English generic sentences. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B. & Turner, R. (eds.), Properties, types and meaning (vol. 2), pp. 167–192. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, J. C. 1988. The semantics and pragmatics of the Spanish <copula + adjective> construction. Linguistics, 26, 779–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, J. C. 2005. “Ser” and “estar” in the predicate adjective construction. In Clements, J. C. & Yoon, J. (eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse, and transitivity, pp. 161–202. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cortes-Torres, M. 2004. ¿Ser o estar? La variación lingüística y social de estar más adjetivo en el español de Cuernavaca, Mexico. Hispania, 87 (4), 788–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, B. 1993. (Dis)continuity in language change: “Ser” and “estar” + age in Latin American Spanish. In Drijkoningen, F. & Hengeveld, K. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, pp. 69–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Delbecque, N. 1997. The Spanish copulas “ser” and “estar”. In Cerspoor, M., Dong, K. Lee & Sweetser, E. (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, pp. 247–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. & Geeslin, K. 2004. Copula use in the Spanish of Venezuela. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Falk, J. 1979. Ser y estar con atributos adjetivales. Uppsala: Alqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fernández Leborans, M. J. 1999. La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, pp. 2354–2460. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. 2003. A comparison of copula choice in advanced and native Spanish. Language Learning, 53 (4), 703–764.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. 2005. Crossing disciplinary boundaries to improve the analysis of second language data: A study of copula choice with adjectives in Spanish. Munich: LINCOM Europa Publishers.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2006. The second language acquisition of variable structures in Spanish by Portuguese speakers. Language Learning, 56 (1), 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2007a. Spanish in contact with Galician: Exploring language learning and language use. In Potowski & Cameron (eds.), pp. 251–271.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2007b. Exploring copula choice in Spanish: A look at gender. In Holmquist, J., Lorenzino, A. & Sayahi, L. (eds.), Selected proceedings of The Third Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, pp. 92–102. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Geeslin, K. 2006a. Copula choice in the Spanish of Galicia: The effects of bilingualism on language use. Spanish in Context, 3, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Geeslin, K. 2006b. A synchronic view of Spanish copula choice in a multilingual context. Presented at Multilingualism and Applied Comparative Linguistics (MACL) conference, Brussels University.Google Scholar
Guitart, J. 2002. Spanish “ser” and “estar” in cognitive/ pragmatic perspective. Presented at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, Lexington, KY.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M. 1992. “Ser” y “estar” en el habla de Michoacán, México. México, D.F.: UNAM.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M. 2003. Simplification and innovation in US Spanish. Multilingua, 22, 169–184.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1991. Tipología, diacronía, sincronía. Foro Hispánico, 2, 81–94.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 1994. “Ser” y “estar”: Estado de la cuestión. Barataria, 1, 182–205.Google Scholar
Loureiro-Rodríguez, V. 2007. Are Galicians bound to diglossia? An analysis of the nature, uses and values of standard Galician. In Potowski & Cameron (eds.), pp. 119–132.Google Scholar
Malaver, I. 2000. “Cuando estábamos chiquitos”: “Ser” y “estar” en expresiones adjetivales de edad. Un fenómeno americano. Boletin de Lingüíistica, 16, 44–65.Google Scholar
Ortiz-López, L. 2000. La extensión de estar en contextos de ser en el español de Puerto Rico: ¿Evolución interna o contacto de lenguas? Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española, pp. 98–118.Google Scholar
Potowski, K. & Cameron, R. (eds.) 2007. Spanish in contact: Educational, linguistic and social perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Salazar, M. 2007. Está muy diferente a como era antes: “Ser” and “estar” + adjective in New Mexico Spanish. In Potowski & Cameron (eds.), pp. 343–353.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. & González, M. 1995. “Ser” and “estar” in Tortosí Catalan: Language contact, language variation and language change. Sintagma, 7, 5–25.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1986. Bilingualism and language change: The extension of estar in Los Angeles Spanish. Language, 62, 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Triano-López, M. 2007. Language attitudes and the lexical de-Castilianization of Valencian: Implications for language planning. In Potowski & Cameron (eds.), pp. 101–118.Google Scholar
Vañó-Cerdá, A. 1982. Ser y estar t adjectivos. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Vañó-Cerdá, A. 2002. Estar con adjetivos como expresión de cualidades permanentes en catalán. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 66, 523–556.Google Scholar