Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain: dialect attrition and revitalization of regional dialects of Spanish

Juan Manuel  Hernández-Campoy

The aim of this chapter is to show evidence of the formation of an intermediate regional variety between, on the one hand, central and standard Castilian Spanish and, on the other, southern innovative dialects. This new variety, which has gradually been emerging in the urban centres of east Andalusia, is a sort of koine melting innovative non-standard phonological traits with standard features. This paper presents data and results from a research project on the Sociolinguistic Patterns of Castilian Spanish (Pasos), as part of an International Research Project on the American and Castilian Urban Varieties of Spanish (Preseea-Project). Pasos currently deals with dialect convergence and divergence affecting both central conservative and southern innovative varieties.

This paper offers a sociolinguistic analysis of the consonants (s) and (d) in the coda position in the city of Madrid, within the framework of the Project for the Sociolinguistic Study of Spanish from Spain and America (PRESEEA). The purpose is to illustrate how varieties of southern Castilian Spanish and those from the central and northern Peninsula converge and diverge, taking into consideration the social, political, and economic parameters that affect said processes. The diversity of patterns that coexist in the Madrid speech community reflects the city’s historic social complexity, the varied geographical origins of its migrant population, the interests that motivate each community of practice, as well as other circumstances that influence the direction of change. The analysis of (s) and (d) in coda illustrates the way in which the dynamics of variation and change in Madrid fluctuate between two poles: standardization and regionalization, the same two axes around which the community's sociolinguistic patterns revolve.

These pages are dedicated to the analysis of some aspects of the Spanish perceptive dialectology and they refer, in a concrete way, to the linguistic situation of Spain. Unfortunately the linguistic attitudes related to Spanish and other languages of Spain have not been an item of priority in the linguistic investigation. This lack of linguistic investigation is striking interest brought about by not only as a result of the coexistence of languages in the Iberian Peninsula outside the environment of the linguistic speciality, but also due to the importance that the Spanish of Spain has in the entire Spanish American continent.3 Of the multiple aspects that have to do with the linguistic attitudes in the Spanish situation, the best known are those that affect the areas in which there is an official language besides Spanish; the aspects less analysed and known are the attitudes, on the part of the speakers that don't dwell in the bilingual territories, toward Spanish, toward the other languages of Spain, toward the coexistence of languages in Spain and toward Spanish dialectal complexity in Spain and in the world.

Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain: dialect attrition and revitalization of regional dialects of Spanish* JUAN MANUEL HERNÁNDEZ-CAMPOY and JUAN ANDRÉS VILLENA-PONSODA Abstract In any process of linguistic standardization, the promotion of one variety to the status of standard triggers the devaluation of the other linguistic varieties present within the boundaries of the nation state and impinges upon their domains. Diachronically speaking, this process is a constant struggle between the standard and the nonstandard varieties either to reach uniformity and invariance, or to avoid compliance and maintain local values and customs, always under the pressures of prestige of di¤erent kinds. The present study accounts for certain aspects of the dialect contact maintained between the standard Castilian Spanish and nonstandard varieties in Spain. This ongoing contact situation normally yields cases of, more often, dialect obsolescence together with standardization and leveling, on the one hand, or, conversely, and less often, survival processes of dialect maintenance, on the other. Particular attention is paid here to dialect attrition and revitalization with reference to innovative regional dialects in Spain, including, among others, Andalusian and Murcian varieties.1 1. 1.1. Introduction: the two sides of standardization Historical appraisal In any process of linguistic standardization, the promotion of one variety to the status of standard traditionally leads to the devaluation of the other linguistic varieties. This means that the development of the standard may eventually lead to the authoritative extension of a class-based use of language as an example of correctness, inducing perhaps even a majority of native speakers to believe that their (dialectal) usage is incorrect (see Milroy and Milroy 1985). Along with a process of prestige norm focusing, there develops the association of the standard with the idea of 0165–2516/09/0196-197–0181 6 Walter de Gruyter Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 196-197 (2009), pp. 181–214 DOI 10.1515/IJSL.2009.021 182 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda correct, adequate, and aesthetic, on the one hand, and, of the nonstandard with that of incorrect, inadequate, and even unaesthetic, on the other. Also, the rise of standard varieties is normally motivated by economic, social, political, geographic, and historical circumstances, and is related to such social practices as the nationalistic centralization of states. In the Iberian Peninsula, nation building and the creation and perception of a national identity have been a consciously planned project at the level of the state in which language has deliberately played a prominent role. In Spain, where Castile was established as the dominant power, Castilian Spanish, pretty much in the same way as English (see HernándezCampoy 2007), was used increasingly in situations of prestige and inﬂuence (the court, the church, and the army), in legal documents, in the administration of the incipient Spanish state and its empire, and at that time, in the proliﬁc output of literary and artistic production (during the Spanish Golden Age: Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderón, Quevedo, Garcilaso, etc.). But it was not really until the eighteenth century that normative language policies were established with, in 1713, the creation of the Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia de la Lengua Española) to standardize, ﬁx, and create the norms of the national language, and with its subsequent publications such as the ﬁrst authoritative dictionary (DRAE 1726–1739), the Ortografı́a for spelling norms (1741) and the Gramática Castellana (1771). In 1768, Charles III decreed that the Castilian language was to be used o‰cially throughout the kingdom both in administration and education (Mar-Molinero 2000; Moreno-Fernández 2005, 2007). The current rich mosaic of dialectal varieties in Peninsular Spanish is a reﬂection of what at a given moment constituted a conﬂuence of Latinbased traditional dialects (especially Castilian, Aragonese, and Leonese), earlier languages from other civilizations (Iberians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Visigoths, and Jews), and those varieties of Arabic that remained following the reconquering of Spain from Arab rule with the subsequent processes of Castilianization — i.e., the expansion of Spanish features from Old Castile in north-central Spain from the tenth century on (see Figures 1 and 2). This means that, from a historical point of view, the standard Spanish spoken in Spain was — and still is in fact — as much a dialectal variety of Spanish as any other regional variety in Spain. What happened is that Standard Spanish, to simplify somewhat, is descended from a mixture of the Hispano-Romance or Latin-based Spanish dialects originally spoken in the northern areas of the Iberian Peninsula — its source being mostly Castilian Spanish — and is also a superposed variety of language that, Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 183 Figure 1. The process of standardization of Castilian Spanish (from Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano 2003, adapted from Zamora-Vicente 1960) after having been modiﬁed through the centuries by learned people (courtly people, scholars, writers, etc.), came to be regarded as the model for all those who wished to speak and write well (see Menéndez-Pidal 1919; López-Garcı́a 1985; Penny 1991, 2000; Moreno-Fernández 2005, 2007; Garcı́a-Mouton 2006, 2007; or Villena-Ponsoda 2006a). This superimposition of Castilian Spanish as part of the project of nation building continued even in the twentieth century during the Franco 184 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Figure 2. The mosaic of contemporary Peninsular Spanish dialects and languages dictatorial regime (1939–1975), when it was used to maintain national unity and strengthen ‘‘Spanishness’’ by neutralizing any separatist or differing tendencies and consequently extremely conservative centralizing policies that resulted in the denial of linguistic rights: minority languages were portrayed as inferior and inconsequential and the use of any nonCastilian language was heavily suppressed, and even prohibited in public (see Mar-Molinero 2000). Since Franco’s death in 1975, Spain has been undergoing a process of redeﬁnition and reformulation through the establishment of internal quasi-federal states and self-governing regions. One consequence of the political, administrative, and social changes based on the claims of historical local nationalisms has been an increase in use and o‰cial status of the ‘‘historic’’ local varieties. The recognition of the multilingual nature of the Iberian Peninsula provided an impetus for the development of pluralistic educational policies in those ‘‘historic’’ regions where more than one native language variety was used (Catalonia and the Balearic Islands, Valencia, the Basque Country and Navarra, and Galicia). In these communities, where the minority language was in conﬂict with the majority one, language planning programs with identity-building projects have been designed by regional governments, but their experiences and results vary widely (see Mar-Molinero 2000; Lasagabaster 2003). As a consequence of the linguistic recognition of these ‘‘historic’’ regions, this process has also somehow a¤ected those politico-administrative communities whose varieties had not obtained the status of ‘‘languages,’’ such as Asturian in Asturias or Fabla in Aragón. In these cases, there has been a positive change in speakers’ perceptions of their own varieties (Garcı́aMouton 2004). Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 1.2. 185 Context and objectives Contact and interaction between standard and nonstandard varieties has historically meant convergence of the latter toward the former as a means of resolving competition between them. Nevertheless, dialect attrition and death through leveling of varieties has not been the only outcome. Dialects may persist and even revitalize after periods of decay. The case of innovative regional dialects of Spain, insofar as they are supported by regional or local identity, clearly shows how divergence from the standard variety is an alternative to leveling and homogenization. In the following pages we will be considering the results of contact between standard Castilian Spanish and the nonstandard regional varieties used in Spain. We will mainly focus on some of the varieties spoken in the South of Spain (Andalusian and Murcian), but most of our observations could be extended to the remaining nonstandard varieties of Spanish in Spain, too. The main hypothesis is that there are two distinct, even contradictory dialect processes taking place in central and southern Spain: the ﬁrst is a convergent trend toward the standard variety a¤ecting transitional (such as Murcian) and Eastern Andalusian regional dialects and whose result is the formation of a leveled koine (español común ‘common Spanish’); the second corresponds to the diachronically innovative divergence of Western Andalusian that, far from attrition, is reinforcing its divergent features and appears to be gaining prestige (sevillano, ‘Sevillian’). Every regional dialect of Spanish derives from Spain’s common language (Coseriu 1970), i.e., the fourteenth- and ﬁfteenth-century Castilian Spanish. The standard language is based on northern varieties, which have kept close to the medieval phonological system, whereas southern varieties have undergone innovating changes (see Section 2). Convergence toward the standard variety of Spanish among urban educated young speakers is frequent in all regional dialects. Prestigious speech patterns spread from Madrid right across the rest of the country. However, Andalusian dialects and transitional varieties (e.g., Murcian, Extremaduran), as well as southern varieties of Castilian (La Mancha in New Castile), are — to di¤erent degrees — innovative divergent nonstandard varieties. Therefore, educated speakers of these varieties, in particular Eastern Andalusians, tend to acquire or increase the frequency of use of some prestigious conservative traits (as the /s/–// distinction for seseo in Section 2, or intervocalic /d/ maintenance for chieﬂy past participle endings -ado/ ido in Section 3); but, nevertheless, at the same time they maintain other innovative features (open syllables, lenition of consonants). As a consequence, the leveling of varieties does not lead to advergence — i.e., approximation to a dominant variety through the mere substitution of 186 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda forms (see Mattheier 1996: 33–35) — as might be expected, but rather to the development of a new leveled spoken variety that converges all central and southern regional dialects of Spain. This new variety or español común (‘common Spanish’) is gaining prestige in the media and may be seen as a kind of koine of central and southern varieties. From a geographic point of view, it acts as a bu¤er between the national standard — based on northern Castilian dialects (castellano) — and southern innovative varieties (andaluz, ‘Andalusian’ and, in particular, sevillano, ‘Sevillian’). This new inter-regional leveled variety accepts southern innovative patterns of pronunciation a¤ecting consonants in syllable-ﬁnal position (see Section 2), but adopts overt-prestigious traits from the north particularly in syllable-initial position (see Sections 2 and 3). Thus, the español común is an emerging transitional variety between the traditional northern (Madrid) and southern (Seville) speech trends. The future spreading and social development of this variety beyond the areas where it is currently spoken is unlikely; but the balanced blend of prestigious traits with unmarked features leads us to believe that this new koine could be increasingly used by most peninsular speakers as their spoken variety. In fact, this variety could represent for Spanish something comparable to what Estuary English is for British English (see Lillo 1999). Nevertheless, not all southern varieties are actually converging in the direction of this new leveled variety. The inﬂuence of Seville as the source of innovations that have spread throughout Western Andalusia (Cádiz, Jerez, and Huelva) since the Middle Ages determines maintenance and even reinforcement both of phonological innovations and of the formation of a spoken regional standard based on the Seville urban dialect (sevillano or norma sevillana, the Seville variety or norm), which functions as an alternative to the national standard in this area (in the sense that it may be used in formal contexts and careful styles of planned discourse). However, this regional prestigious trend has not gained ground in central and Eastern Andalusia (Granada, Jaén, Córdoba, Málaga, or Almerı́a) (see Figure 3). As a result of these two processes, three di¤erent spoken varieties are at stake: the traditional Castilian Spanish national standard (español estándar), the regional spoken standard (sevillano), and the emerging interdialectal spoken variety (español común). In fact, these varieties correspond, respectively, to three di¤erent historico-geographic domains: Castile, Seville, and Granada/Murcia. In what follows we brieﬂy explain the diachronic formation of regional dialects in Spain (Section 2). In Section 3 we consider convergence and divergence of southern regional dialects. After presenting the general con- Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 187 Figure 3. The Autonomous Community of Andalusia with its provinces and the Region of Murcia with its main urban centers ﬁguration of the speech communities (Section 3.1), examples from Eastern Andalusian and Murcian varieties show the extent to which convergence toward the national standard and the subsequent adoption of mainstream prestigious traits combines with the use of unmarked regional patterns of pronunciation, giving rise to a leveled koine (Section 3.3). To show the other side of the coin, Western Andalusia’s divergent patterns of use are commented upon (Section 3.2). 2. 2.1. Regional dialects of Peninsular Spanish: innovative and conservative dialects Diachronic development The formation of regional dialects in Spain can largely be accounted for by considering a few very general principles that have been constraining Spanish phonology since the early Middle Ages. Regional dialects of Spanish can be classiﬁed into two main groups (see Table 1): innovative (I) and conservative (C), according to the constraints developed on syllable structure and phonological inventories (Villena-Ponsoda 2008a; Villena-Ponsoda and Vida-Castro 2004).2 On the one hand, innovative varieties underwent a set of latent phonological changes, deletion of codas and simpliﬁcation of the phonological inventory (Moreno-Fernández 2004) as a consequence of dialect contact and koineization during the period of resettlement of areas conquered by 188 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Table 1. Di¤erences between innovative and conservative dialects of Spanish Medieval Castilian caça casa cacho callo cayo caja cada las casas esto leción Conservative dialects [ts] [s÷ ] [t§] [·] [ ˇ] ˘ı [§] [d] [-s] [-s] [-n] ’kaa ’kas÷ a ’kat§o ˇo, ’ka·o ’ka˘ı ˇo ’ka˘ı ’kaxa ’ka¶a las÷ ’kas÷as÷ ’es÷ to le'jón Innovative dialects [] [s÷ ] [t§] [ ˇ]P[·] ˘ı [ ˇ] ˘ı [x] [¶] [s÷ ] [s÷ ] [n] ’ka s a ’ka s a ’ka§o ’ka‰o ’ka‰o ’kaha, ’ka ’ka la ’ka s a ’eto le’jõ Standard []P[s ] []P[s ] [§] [‰] [‰] [h]PØ Ø Ø Ø Ø caza casa cacho callo cayo caja cada las casas esto lección Gloss [] [s÷ ] [t§] [ ˇ] ˘ı [ ˇ] ˘ı [x] [¶] [s÷ ] [s÷ ] [n] ‘hunting’ ‘house’ ‘bit’ ‘corn’ ‘key’ ‘box’ ‘each’ ‘the houses’ ‘this’ ‘lesson’ the Christians from the Arabs and the subsequent mélange of people (Penny 2000). Since the thirteenth century, coda deletion and onset simpliﬁcation led to open syllables, as well as to mergers between old Castilian dental (ç, z, as in caça ‘hunting’ and pozo ‘pit, well’) and alveolar (s, ss, as in casa ‘house’, poso ‘dregs’; cf. oso ‘bear’ and osso ‘I dare’) consonants (the so-called southern ceceo and seseo; see below). These unmarked options produced a series of chain shifts that are responsible, among other changes, for the contemporary Andalusian dialect (VillenaPonsoda 2001). On the other hand, conservative varieties did not undergo the abovementioned changes. They reinforce codas and maintain marked contrasts between dental and alveolar consonants (ts, dz versus s, z), blocking and even reversing every change likely to favor ease of pronunciation. Pronunciation of the standard variety remains close to that of the conservative varieties, though some di¤erences exist (see Section 3.3): (i) a contrast ˇ/ coexists alongside a merger on /˘ı ˇ/ (yeı́smo: callo– between /·/ and /˘ı cayo), but the latter is more frequent among urban young speakers; (ii) consonant clusters (such as ['] in acción [a'’jon]) tend to be simpliﬁed in conservative varieties to a wide range of realizations; and (iii) elision of /d/ is gaining in frequency among urban speakers in informal styles (see Table 1). Andalusian dialects, as well as Canarian and Caribbean varieties, are the most salient innovative varieties of Spanish. As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, they show a simpliﬁed phoneme inventory as a consequence of the above-mentioned mergers of old Castilian contrasts (Villena-Ponsoda 2001: 29–56). As represented in Table 2, conservative dialects, ﬁrstly, maintain contrasts between dentoalveolar // or /l/ versus palatal /s/ or /·/, which Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 189 Table 2. Phonological inventories of conservative and innovative dialects of Spanish (Villena-Ponsoda 2008b) Conservative (C) Innovative (I) Obstruents Labial Dental Palatal Velar Labial Dental Palatal Velar p t t§ k Tense p t t§ k b d ˇ˘ı Lax b d ˇ˘ı f s x Fricative f s m n h Sonorant m n l · l ¸ lax ¸ r tense r entails the use of apicoalveolar retracted [s÷ ] and lateral [·]; secondly, they avoid fricatization [§] of palatal /t§/. Moreover, they use tense fricative velar /x/ and restrain other changes a¤ecting consonants in onset posiˇ/ fricatization to [§], and so on tion (/d/ deletion, /x/ lenition to [h], /˘ı — see Table 1). On the other hand, innovative dialects allow the expansion of these changes. As a result, innovative patterns of pronunciation include the merger on / s / of dental /s/ and // (casa ‘house’ ¼ caza ˇ/ and /·/ (rayar ‘to scratch’ ¼ rallar ‘to ‘hunting’) as well as palatal /˘ı grate’), fricatization of both tense palatal /t§/ ! [§] and lax palatal (apˇ/ ! [‰] ([’ka§o], cacho ‘bit’, [’ka‰o] callo ‘corn’), as well as proximant) /˘ı lenition or even deletion of other consonants (/d/ ! ¶ ! Ø: [a’Blao] hablado ‘spoken’, [ko’mio], comido ‘eaten’; /x/ ! h ! Ø: [ko’e] coger ‘to take’, etc.). The abovementioned merger on / s / of dental fricatives in words such as caza and casa produced two di¤erent patterns of pronunciation: (i) sibilant [s ] (caza [’kas a] and casa [’kas a]) with subsequent neutralization of 190 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda minimal pairs such as casa–caza; and (ii) nonsibilant [] (caza [’kaa] and casa [’kaa]) with the same e¤ect. The ﬁrst pattern is contemporarily known as seseo (widespread in American Spanish and southern areas of peninsular Spain and the Canary Islands) and the second as ceceo (usual in rural Andalusia, less extended and socially stigmatized).3 In Section 3, these variants, among others, are discussed as examples of dialect maintenance/attrition. As for consonants in coda position, needless to say among innovatory varieties open syllables are preferred and a strong reduction in the number of phonemes is a consequence of either neutralization — /r/ ¼ /l/ as in [’a¸to] alto and harto ‘high’ and ‘fed up’; /p/ ¼ /k/ as in [’ato] acto and apto ‘act’ and ‘apt’ — or deletion — [e’¶a] edad ‘age’, [ko’me] comer ‘to eat’, [krimi’na] criminal ‘criminal’. Furthermore, the remaining consonants tend to aspiration and backing (-n > -Ð [ka’mjõÐ, ka’mjõ] camión ‘lorry’, etc.). Syntagmatically, an ideal model of codaless syllable is becoming generalized (los niños son listos [lo ’nio õ ’lito] ‘boys are clever’) and a¤ricates tend to fricatization (un cachillo (de) pan pa(ra) comer [ũ ka’§i‰o pã pa ko’me] ‘a little bit of bread to eat’). Systemically, there is a tendency to produce a simpler inventory of consonants: (i) the conservative contrast between four fricatives (i.e., Med. Castilian: /f/ : /s / : /s÷ / : /§/; Mod. Spanish: /f/ : // : /s/ : /x/) entails greater division and more distinctions within the articulation space than the innovative merger of these phonemes: /f/ : / s / : /h/; and (ii) the lack of a palatal fricative favors ˇ/ ! [‰]. An inventory avoidinnovative fricatization of /t§/ ! [§] and /˘ı ing or at least hindering complex onset syllables (as in /t§/þ vowel) underlies innovative varieties. Other more advanced, mostly rural, minority patterns represent the ﬁnal result of the chain shifts responsible for the majority patterns described above (Villena-Ponsoda 2001, 2008b): ﬁrstly, sibilant fusion (/§/ ¼ /s / as in [’ras a] rasa, raza, racha ‘smooth’, (f ) ‘race’, ‘gust’); and secondly, sibilant backing (/ s / ! [h] as in [’raha] rasa, raza ‘smooth’, (f ) ‘race’), which pushes the aspirated variant [h] of /x/ to elision ([’ra] raja ‘slit’). The ﬁnal result is a remarkable simpliﬁcation of the innovative phonemic system with three fricatives (/f/ : /s / : /h/) for the fusion pattern and only two for the backing pattern (/f/ : /h/) (Table 3). 2.2. Social variation and evaluation Results of research on linguistic variation have revealed di¤erences in the use and social evaluation of the phonological variables commented upon above. Certain innovative variants are widespread and fully accepted by Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 191 Table 3. Consonantal processes in innovative dialects of Spanish (source: Villena-Ponsoda 2001, 2008b) urban educated speakers, whereas others are strenuously rejected as rural or tough. Carbonero (2003) has established four di¤erent sets of features according to their frequency of use and correlation with the speaker’s education (Table 4). (G)enerally accepted features are very frequent variants that can be found in every area and are used by every speaker. (W)estern and (E)astern features are used by everyone in geographically restricted areas: the distinction of /s/-// (seseo); and /t§/ realization as [§] or [t§] are the main isoglosses. Frequent but (R)ejected features (such as ceceo, /x/ deletion or deletion of /d/ in environments other than past participle, -ado, -ada) are nonprestigious variants even among speakers from the most innovative areas. Finally, (M)inority features (such as sibilant fusion and backing) connote rural, old, noneducated speakers and so are rejected by urban speakers from every social class. 3. 3.1. Dialect obsolescence and revitalization The southern speech communities The conﬂict between the standard and nonstandard varieties of Peninsular Spanish is particularly evident in the innovative areas, i.e., southern Spain. But this situation of dialects in competition is also found in Castilian, or Castilianized areas, such as León, Cantabria, Asturias, Aragón, and New Castile (La Mancha), which were able to retain local features. Southern innovative linguistic patterns lack overt prestige at the national level and hence urban middle-class speakers tend to converge toward the 192 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Table 4. Four types of phonological features in Andalusian Spanish (adapted from Carbonero 2003); the bold line di¤erentiates between features accepted (above)/rejected (below) by educated speakers: G ¼ generally accepted; W ¼ western; E ¼ eastern; R ¼ frequent but rejected; M ¼ minority G W E R M Coda lenition No coda · ¼ ˇ, ˘ı a¶o, a¶a ! a.o, a.a Lenition of /x/ ! [h] /n/ ! [Ð] seseo /t§/ ! [§] /s/ : // distinction /t§/ ! [t§] ’kasah, ’ka.hta ’kasa, ’ka.ta ˇa.o ka’˘ı ’kaha ’kas aÐ ’kas a ’ka§a ’kas a/’kaa ’kat§a casas, casta casas, casta callado, cayado caja casan, cazan casa, caza cacha casa/caza Cacha ceceo Elision of /x/ > [h] > Ø i¶o, i¶a, e¶o ! i.o, i.a, e.o Sibilant backing Sibilant fusion ’kaa ’ka.a, ’ia ko’mio, ’ia ’kaha ’kas a casa, caza caja, hija comido, ida casa casa, cacha conservative models of use. The reason for this may be related to the fact that the standard variety is based on northern conservative dialects, while southern nonstandard varieties are innovative, and thus more divergent from the standard than northern nonstandard ones. Although in this article we are focusing on some of the southern cases, most of them can be extrapolated to other geographic areas or cases not mentioned here. Given that the distance between Andalusian dialects and the standard variety, on the one hand, and between middle class and working-class Andalusian sociolects, on the other, are greater than for any other variety, Andalusian speech communities should be deﬁned as ‘‘divergentdialect speech communities’’ (J. Milroy 1992: 55–60), since: ‘‘[ . . . ] ﬁrst, the dialect is observed to be divergent from other dialects and, particularly, from ‘mainstream’ norms of language [ . . . ]; second, the dialect exhibits a great deal of internal variation.’’ (1992: 55). Southern speech patterns, then, are conditioned not only by the speaker’s social status, but also by a combination of di¤ering levels both of interdialectal contact (high or low) and social network density (dense or sparse) (Trudgill 1996). Both factors interact with spatial e¤ects (such as distance and size of interacting urban centers) as well as linguistic ones (the relative degree of similarity between the linguistic systems in contact) to mediate the likely linguistic ‘‘attraction’’ or inﬂuence of one place on another (Britain 2002; Hernández-Campoy 1999, 2003a, 2003b, 2004). The inﬂuence of Seville on its surrounding areas has been constant since Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 193 the Middle Ages, so that the Seville urban variety has become the basis of a regional spoken standard (i.e., a relatively focused variety full of regional-dialect traits and hence di¤ering considerably from the written standard), which represents an innovative alternative to the spoken national standard in this area. Western Andalusian speakers use this variety to perform functions that are accomplished by standard Castilian Spanish in other areas (Carbonero 2003). This inﬂuence, however, does not reach as far as the eastern areas of Andalusia, where there is not, however, any cultural, political, or economical urban center able to play functions similar to those carried out by Seville. Thus, eastern urban varieties (Granada, Málaga, Jaén, or Almerı́a) are not roofed by the Seville regional standard (i.e., there is not such a superordinate variety) nor have a prestigious regional variety of their own (Villena-Ponsoda 2006b). Therefore, they tend to converge toward the national standard. All this may be due to historical di¤erences in the formation of both speech communities (timing of the conquest of the area after Arab rule; the predominant backgrounds of resettled speakers, etc.). The situation in transitional areas, such as Murcia, is, mutatis mutandi, similar to that described for Eastern Andalusian varieties. As reﬂected in Figure 4, Western Andalusian speech communities show a conﬁguration near to what Auer (2005) considers as diaglossia, where Figure 4. Conﬁguration of varieties in Andalusian speech communities (Villena-Ponsoda 2008b) (S, standard; TD, tertiary dialect; RS, regional standard) 194 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda at least two varieties are placed between the national standard and the local dialects. These varieties are: (i) the regional standard (RS), an urban spoken variety that has resulted from the leveling of regiolects (see Auer 2005); and (ii) the tertiary dialect (TD), a diatopic variety derived from the standard language by dialectalization (Coseriu 1970) and represented here by the innovative features that are widely used (G). The western regional spoken standard is formed from the (G) features along with the western more salient traits (W) (see Table 4). Eastern speech communities, however, show what may be called a ‘‘convergent continuum,’’ where it is di‰cult to di¤erentiate discrete varieties from the tertiary dialect and the vernacular ones (Figure 4). The eastern convergent variety tends to include this set of G features with some prestigious traits shared with transitional regional dialects. This is where the above mentioned español común is beginning to develop as a koine (see Section 3.3). 3.2. Divergent varieties: the Seville regional standard Patterns of pronunciation among Western Andalusian speakers reveal innovative underlying inventories and, what is most interesting, demonstrate that divergent pronunciation is prestigious. Reduction of the medieval Castilian contrast between coronal fricatives is relatively common in western urban centers such as Seville or Jerez,4 while in eastern towns as Granada or Málaga the use of this innovative pattern is much less frequent. Moreover, if we consider the speech behavior of the most educated speakers, divergent patterns are shown to have been accepted as the mainstream norm in western towns, but not at all in the eastern ones. Thus, with regards to the realization of dental fricatives, western and eastern communities seem to be clearly separated (see Figure 5). These divergent patterns are variable and include social and stylistically conditioned uses (the so-called seseo, ceceo, and several local variants). Though reduction of the coronal fricative contrast is fairly common in both eastern towns (Granada and Málaga), it is obvious that this is not a mainstream overt-prestigious feature in eastern speech communities, since educated speakers strenuously reject it. ˇ/ ! [‰] The innovative fricative realization of palatal /t§/ ! [§] and /˘ı follows similar patterns of use, as shown in Figure 6. Among Western Andalusian speakers (Jerez), divergent unmarked variants such as fricative [§] are actually broadly accepted, since educated speakers use it nearly as much as the community in general. On the contrary, this variant Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 195 Figure 5. Patterns of use of the innovative phoneme inventory in four Andalusian towns — a comparison between university graduates and the general population (source: adapted from Villena-Ponsoda [2008b]: Seville (n ¼ 100; male ¼ 50, female ¼ 50; see Carbonero 2003), Jerez (n ¼ 54; male ¼ 27, female ¼ 27; see Carbonero et al. 1992), Granada (n ¼ 103; male ¼ 48; female ¼ 55; see Moya-Corral and Wiedemann 1995), Málaga (n ¼ 119; male ¼ 44, female ¼ 75; see VillenaPonsoda 1996) is scarcely used among eastern speakers, and strenuously rejected by the most educated. As stated above, if we look at both patterns of pronunciation, di¤erent and even opposed underlying norms seem to be operating in eastern and western speech communities. Convergence toward the mainstream prestigious linguistic norms among eastern speakers reveal, to a certain extent, their preference for conservative options, such as syllables with complex onsets — [’t§o.t§o] chocho ‘senile’ opposed to [’§o.§o] — and marked phonemic contrasts — as /s/–// ([’tas a] tasa ‘tax’ and [’taa] taza ‘cup’). This convergent trend is relatively recent, at least for the less peripheral areas of Eastern Andalusia (Granada, Málaga) as geolinguistic research clearly reveals (Morillo-Velarde 2001). Western speakers, however, prefer divergent phonetically unmarked options. As shown in Figure 7, gender di¤erences in /t§/ fricatization reveal that divergent innovative patterns are likely to be based on the western regional prestigious norms, while 196 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Figure 6. Fricatization of palatal /t§/ in three Andalusian towns — a comparison between university graduates and the general population (source: adapted from VillenaPonsoda 2008b) Figure 7. Sex di¤erences in the use of /t§/ fricatization in three Andalusian towns (source: Villena-Ponsoda 2008b) Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 197 the opposite seems to be true for eastern speakers. Empirical crosslinguistic evidence (Labov 2001: 259–322) has demonstrated that female linguistic behavior tends to favor standard variants, either through rejection of prototypical male variants (stable variation) or through imitation of the most prestigious uses (change from above). Data from Granada and Málaga conﬁrm this principle and reveal female rejection of divergent patterns, whereas those from Jerez seem to contradict them, since women in Jerez use those divergent patterns ([§]) more than men. So the most likely interpretation is that divergent patterns are prestigious in Jerez but not at all in Granada and Málaga, where [§] and other vernacular features, such as ceceo, are male vernacular markers. 3.3. Convergent varieties: the inter-regional koine 3.3.1. Eastern Andalusian. Dialect attrition among Eastern Andalusian varieties does not necessarily lead to advergence. On the contrary, convergence between dialects in contact in urban contexts seems to enhance the formation of an intermediate variety partially based on the southern tertiary dialect (common, as said above, to a broad number of southern varieties, including Western Andalusian), but also likely to acquire new prestigious conservative features or increase the frequency of use of those already in use. Even if this intermediate variety has not yet been well deﬁned nor completely described, it seems obvious that it accepts southern innovative simpliﬁcation of the pronunciation of consonants in coda position, but refrains from similar processes in onset position, and even accepts splits of mergers, due to the social prestige associated with the split and hence with the subsequent distinction of word classes (particularly between /s/ and //). This entails convergence between, on the one hand, Eastern Andalusian dialects and, on the other, transitional (Murcia, Extremadura) and southern Castilian varieties (La Mancha). As the development of this new variety is being led by young urban educated speakers, at least in Eastern Andalusian towns (MoyaCorral and Wiedemann 1995; Villena-Ponsoda 1996, 2001), it will probably gradually be acquiring some social prestige and become an interdialectal koine capable of playing social and stylistic functions that up to now have been played by the national standard (español estándar). The most striking feature of this variety is the social prestige associated with the distinction of /s/–//, which enhances the split of the early merger of old Castilian fricatives. The merged form has been the sole variant in some of the eastern and central Andalusian varieties until recently. Therefore, the acquisition of the standard prestigious distinction 198 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Table 5. Phonological inventory of the convergent innovative Eastern Andalusian variety (source: Villena-Ponsoda 2008b) Convergent Eastern Andalusian Obstruents Labial Dental Palatal Velar Tense p t t§ k Lax b d ˇ˘ı Nonsibilant fricative f Sibilant fricative h s is a change in progress from above led by young urban educated speakers. As this change probably started in the 1950s (see Villena-Ponsoda 2001), the split operates on the innovative inventory of phonemes (see Table 2), and thus both new contrasting phonemes are dental. Moreover, they are distinguished as sibilant (strident) versus nonsibilant (nonstrident). An intermediate phoneme inventory may be proposed to account for these patterns of pronunciation (see Table 5). As there is no palatal fricative, realizations of the a¤ricate /t§/ as the continuant (fricative) [§] would be expected to occur frequently. However, they are very unusual, because there appears to be a co-occurrence restriction between palatal [§] and sibilant [s ] (Villena-Ponsoda 2001). Moreover, the frequency of consonant elision in onset position (/x/, /d/; see Section 2.1) tends to be restricted. In fact, although Granada and Málaga show mean percentages of 54% for the /s/–// distinction, their respective use of the fricative variant [§] of a¤ricate /t§/ is 18% and 28%. The use of the convergent inventory increases as the speaker’s education is higher and age is younger, as shown in Figure 8. Urban university graduates have accepted the convergent inventory, and educated speakers born after 1970 use the /s/–// distinction pattern consistently.5 Together with these phonological features, some morpho-phonological di¤erences show an increasing divergence of eastern innovative varieties (Eastern Andalusian) from western ones (Western Andalusian), particularly the use of verbal and nominal paradigms common to central and northern dialects of Spain, which are distinct from Eastern Andalusian varieties (see Table 6). On the one hand, eastern varieties delete any realization of the number and person morpheme that is expressed by ﬁnal Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 199 Figure 8. The e¤ect of age and education on the use of the convergent inventory in Granada (n ¼ 103; education: 0 ¼ 42; 1 ¼ 42; 2 ¼ 19) and Málaga (n ¼ 119; education: 0 ¼ 69; 1 ¼ 30; 2 ¼ 20); source: adapted from Moya-Corral and Garcı́aWiedemann (1995) and Villena-Ponsoda (2008b) Table 6. Verbal paradigms among innovative western and conservative eastern dialects of Spanish Western Andalusian Eastern Andalusian and Common Spanish Standard Gloss yo como tú come-Ø él come nosotro comemo-Ø ustede come-Ø, ustede coméi-Ø ello come-Ø (yo) como (tú) com-Ø (él) come (nosotr) comem-Ø (vosotr) coméi-Ø (yo) como (tú) comes (él) come (nosotros) comemos (vosotros) coméis ‘I eat’ ‘you eat’ ‘s/he, it eats’ ‘we eat’ ‘you eat’ (ell) comen (ellos) comen ‘they eat’ /-s/ in the standard variety. This is true for noun phrases, where /s/ is the plural marker on articles, adjectives, and nouns, as in Examples (1) and (2): (1) La/una/otra casa bonita ‘The/a/another nice house’ (2) Las/unas/otras casas bonitas ‘The/some/other nice houses’ 200 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Table 7. Simple present and past verbal paradigms in Castilian Spanish Simple present tense: 2nd person singular 3rd person singular Simple past tense: 1st person singular 2nd person singular 3rd person singular (tú) com-es (usted) com-e (él/ella) com-e ‘you (familiar) eat’ ‘you (polite) eat’ ‘he/she eats’ (yo) com-ı́a (tú) com-ı́as (usted) com-ı́a (él/ella) com-ı́a ‘I ate’ ‘you (familiar) ate’ ‘you (polite) ate’ ‘he/she ate’ And it is equally true for verb forms, where word ﬁnal /s/ is heavily involved in person marking, as in Table 7. In the case of verb phrases in Western Andalusian varieties, however, they frequently tend to use preﬁxed personal pronouns (tú come-Ø, él come-Ø, etc.) to mark person (see Ranson 1991, 1992). Furthermore, they employ the 1st person plural pronoun ustedes instead of vosotros, the latter being the standard form in Castilian Spanish. On the other hand, eastern varieties, as seen above, use a verbal paradigm morphologically exactly like that of the standard except that they drop ﬁnal /-s/ — as part of the diachronic process of word-ﬁnal consonant loss.6 In this way, these varieties tended to adopt a compensatory, more open realization of vowels before deleted /s/ with the preceding stressed vowel undergoing a process of vowel harmony ([’k m, ko’mm ]), so that 2nd and 3rd person forms (comes/come ‘you eat/she, he, it eats’) are distinguished by this di¤erence ([’k m] and [’kome], respectively). As regards consonants in coda position, results from Vida-Castro’s (2005) research on Málaga town reveal that, as expected, the probability of coda retention (0.33) is lower than that of (0.67) because the dialect of Málaga is one of the most innovative of all the innovative dialects of Spanish (2005: 116–127). Nevertheless, the use of the sibilant [s ] variant is very low (0.01), so that aspirated [h] allophones (0.32) convey the functions (both grammatical and social) associated with [s] in conservative dialects. Although deletion is the most common variant, coda retention is favored by the most educated speakers (see Table 8). Syllables closed by [h] before stops (lah.tapa, las tapas) are also the most likely realization, particularly because aspiration tends to occur in the next syllable as an aspirated [tÆ] or even as a dental a¤ricate [ts] (lah.tapa, la.thapa, la.tsapa, las tapas) (see Colina 1997; Vida-Castro 2005: 49–86; Torreira 2006; Moya-Corral 2007; Ruch 2006). c c c Table 8. Educational stratiﬁcation of /s/ variants in Málaga (adapted from Vida-Castro 2005: 158–159) [h] Ø [h] þ [t] Ø þ [t] Elementary education Secondary education University education Sig. 8 0.00 e0.00 0.06 e0.04 0.90 e0.16 0.84 e0.22 0.14 e0.22 15 0.00 e0.02 0.06 e0.3 0.90 e0.05 0.90 e0.08 0.08 e0.08 25 0.01 e0.01 0.14 e0.7 0.80 e0.10 0.95 e0.07 0.03 e0.07 26 0.01 e0.02 0.12 e0.7 0.81 e0.10 0.95 e0.05 0.03 e0.05 ANOVA 0.575 0.000 0.001 0.023 0.021 Example Standard Gloss lasmesas lasalas lahmes a lahala lames a la ala lahtapa loh’tio laØtapa loØ’tio las mesas las alas las mesas las alas las mesas las alas las tapas los tı́os las tapas los tı́os ‘the tables’ ‘the wings’ ‘the tables’ ‘the wings’ ‘the tables’ ‘the wings’ ‘the lids’ ‘the guys’ ‘the lids’ ‘the guys’ Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain N [s] No education 201 202 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Figure 9. Educational di¤erences in the use of four phonological variables in Málaga: mean probability of /s/ : // distinction, coda maintenance, /x/ elision, and /t§/ ! [§] fricatization Figure 9 shows the e¤ect of the speaker’s education on the probability of use of the variables outlined above: on the one hand, the /s/–// distinction and coda retention and, on the other, fricatization of /t§/ and deletion of /x/. The pronunciation of codas and the above-mentioned split of the merger between medieval fricatives are favored by educated speakers, whereas the use of coda deletion and palatal fricatives increase as the speaker’s education decreases. The interdialectal variety (common Spanish) outlined above is thus developing into a new leveled koine of varieties in Spain. This variety is likely to be accepted as it blends a broad combination of linguistic, geographic, and social features: (i) central and southern dialects actually converge to build up a leveled variety based on the innovative inventory; (ii) this area includes economically disadvantaged (mostly rural) communities contrasting with the industrialized north of Spain; and (iii) the phonological repertoires of the di¤erent converging areas are closer. Moreover, southern Castilian, Murcian, and Extremaduran varieties have been using the prestigious phonemic contrasts (such as the /s/–// distinction), which are now being acquired by Eastern Andalusian speakers. Conversely, innovative variants in coda position (such as /-s/ deletion) are welcome among these intermediate varieties. In sum, the new koine seems Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 203 to show a well-integrated combination of linguistically natural and socially prestigious traits, but only time will tell us about its fortune. 3.3.2. Transition regional varieties: Murcian. Due to its covert prestige status (see Trudgill 1972), Murcian Spanish provides us with a good example of dialect contact and attrition in Spain (see Sánchez-López 1999, 2004; Jiménez-Cano 2001; Cutillas-Espinosa 2001a, 2001b, 2004; Hernández-Campoy 2003a, 2003b; Hernández-Campoy and JiménezCano 2003). Murcia is traditionally characterized as a predominantly nonstandard-speaking region; and, like Andalusian Spanish, it can best be considered as a southward extension of varieties originating in the central-northern areas of the Iberian Peninsula.7 The Murcian variety is a transitional regional dialect that shares features with Valencian Catalan, Castilian, Aragonese, and Andalusian Spanish. As stated above (see Section 2), the southern varieties of Spain are characterized as sharing a series of phonetic features related to articulatory weakening or relaxation that di¤erentiate them from the Standard pronunciation, which is closer to northern patterns. The Region of Murcia, in the southeast, is inevitably ‘‘su¤ering’’ the temptation of the standard prestige Castilian Spanish dialect and is undergoing a process of standardization to the detriment of features of the local vernacular variety. With their longitudinal trend study (from 1975 to 2000) using two social groups (G1: Murcian politicians and G2: Murcian non-politicians) and seven prominent features of the Murcian accent as variables, Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano (2003) were able to detect and measure the apparent process of standardization — i.e., the increase in usage of standard Castilian Spanish forms from northern Peninsular Spanish in the speech of the traditionally nonstandard-speaking Murcian community. The results (Figures 10–12) showed a slow but steady pattern of approximation to the standard Castilian Spanish prestige model, with the subsequent attrition of local vernacular features: the greater the standardization, the greater the erosion of Murcian Spanish. This means that the pronunciation of Murcian speakers was closer to the standard in the year 2000 (81% standardization) than in 1975 (57%).8 Note, also, that although the two social groups have di¤erent percentages of standard features, their evaluation of the two variants (standard and nonstandard) is exactly the same: both have changed their pronunciation in exactly the same direction, increasing the percentage of high-status standard Castilian Spanish forms in their speech. The negative linear pattern shows a general tendency for the individual variables to converge toward standard Castilian Spanish, though to different degrees. Among the variables considered in that study, there is a 204 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Figure 10. Global progression by time cohort and group of the erosion of the local nonstandard variety in Murcia (negative linear pattern): percentages of usage of nonstandard variants (local dialectal forms), ranging from 100% nonstandard to 0% nonstandard Figure 11. Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Murcian Spanish (Group 1: male politicians): percentage use of nonstandard variants (local dialectal forms), ranging from 100% (nonstandard) to 0% (standard) Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 205 Figure 12. Diachronic progression of the process of standardization of Murcian Spanish (Group 2: male non-politicians): percentage use of nonstandard variants (local dialectal forms), ranging from 100% (non-standard) to 0% (standard) group that is prone to standardization — the phonetic variables (r), (l ), (d ), as well as consonant permutation and the grammatical variable (para). Both (r) and (l ) refer to standard conservative pronunciation of /r/ and /l/ in coda position ([ko’me¸] for comer or [krimi’nal] for criminal ) instead of their nonstandard innovative counterparts ([ko’m], [krimi’næ]); consonant permutation describes the virtual switch between liquid consonants in coda position ([ko’mel] comer, [so¸’¶ao], soldado); (d ) represents [¶] maintenance or elision in intervocalic position ([sol’¶a¶o] > [sol’¶ao]); ﬁnally, (para) is a variable broadly extended in the Spanishspeaking world, the contracted form [pa] being a vernacular alternative to the standard [’pa¸a] of preposition para. However, there is another group of variables that is rather reluctant to standardize — variables (s) and consonant assimilation. The ﬁrst one, (s), points to maintenance (standard) or elision (nonstandard) of /s/ in coda position (casas: [’kasas] > [’kasæ]), whereas the second (consonant assimilation) refers to maintenance (standard) or simpliﬁcation (nonstandard) of consonant clusters (carne: [’ka¸ne] > [’kanne]). The nonstandard realization of these features is part of the essentially southern characterization, common to the group of innovative dialects (see Section 2.1) so deeply rooted within 206 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda the Murcian speech community that they are part of the local identity there. Postvocalic /s/, for example, has been studied in urban centers such as Toledo (Calero 1993; Molina-Martos 1998), Las Palmas (Samper 1990), Seville (Carbonero 2003; Guillén 1992), Jaén (Moya-Corral 1977), coastal Granada (Garcı́a-Marcos 1987), Ciudad Real (Bedmar 1992), Getafe (Martı́n-Butragueño 1991), Alcalá de Henares (Blanco-Canales 2004), Málaga (Vida-Castro 2005), and Orán, in western Algeria (MorenoFernández 1992, 1994), and in the provinces of Toledo, Ciudad Real (Garcı́a-Mouton and Moreno-Fernández 1994), and Madrid (MolinaMartos 2006). Features such as this can also be found in a good number of locations studied for the Atlas Lingüı́stico (y etnográﬁco) de Castilla– La Mancha (Garcı́a-Mouton and Moreno-Fernández 2003–2007) from central Spain (New Castile: Ciudad Real, Cuenca Guadalajara, and Albacete). In this region there is a much less apparent consciousness that the area is a nonstandard-speaking one than is the case in Andalusia or Murcia. Due to its geographic and linguistic transitional status between the conservative patterns of the north (Old Castile) and the innovative ones of the south (Andalusia) (see Section 1.2), the linguistic insecurity of speakers varies depending on how near the north or the south they come from. The studies carried out in La Mancha using rural adult speakers allow us to witness how even informants with a low educational level su¤er from the pressure of the standard. In contrast, both word-ﬁnal postvocalic /s/ and consonant assimilation among Murcian speakers demonstrate resistance to standardization. In fact, at least in Peninsular Spanish, according to Martı́nez-Martı́n (1983), the process of regressive consonant assimilation of consonantal clusters, such as -ds- (adscribir ‘assign’), -bs- (substracción ‘subtraction’), -ks- (exponente ‘exponent’), -rs- (intersticio ‘interstice’), -ns- (constar ‘state/record/consist of ’), -st- (canasta ‘basket’), -sk- (esquimal ‘Eskimo’), -rn- (carne ‘meat’), -rl- (Carlos), -kt- (contacto ‘contact’), -dk- (adquirir ‘acquire/purchase’), -d- (Magdalena), etc., which is a salient feature in nonstandard Spanish varieties in the south, is described as a phenomenon in the process of expansion in northern regions of Spain, which are apparently standard Castilian Spanish-speaking areas (see Table 9). The linguistic changes from nonstandard to standard usage captured at a terminal stage in Murcia were the cases of intervocalic /r/ in the word para and consonant permutation (r > l and r < l ). However, the standard forms of the postvocalic (l ) and (r) variables in word-ﬁnal position were not well embedded until the mid-1990s; intervocalic /d/, at a fairly advanced stage of standardization, appears in an intermediate-high position for both groups and behaves like a sociolinguistic marker. According to Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 207 Table 9. Regressive consonant assimilation in Murcian Spanish Murcian Standard Castilian [kæn’n] [’tætto] [ækki’¸i] [ka¸’ne]P[ka¸’net] [’takto]P[’ta'to] [a¶ki’¸i¸] Gloss ‘card/license’ ‘tact/sense’ ‘buy/acquire’ carnet tacto adquirir Table 10. Di¤erences in the percentage of use of variants of intervocalic /d/ in the linguistic environment /stressed vowel_vowel/ in six Spanish-speaking towns (source: adapted from Samper 1990: 258); between tense [¶] and deleted (Ø) variants, a non-tense, lenited, or intermediate variant is distinguished Panama Caracas San Juan Las Palmas Granada** Malaga*** Deletion Lenition Maintenance 20 12 21 30 64 33.1 12 68 67 26 38 53 32 5.8 61.2 ** only for some environments *** only university graduates Narbona et al. (1998: 176), the deletion of intervocalic /d/ is becoming a widespread phenomenon in the casual speech of peninsular Spanish. This variable was also studied by Williams (1987) in Valladolid, a city of Old Castile, where she found that it is subject to both social and stylistic variation, with a conscious use of the standard variant in formal contexts (see Penny 1991 and 2000). Similar patterns have been found in Toledo (Molina-Martos 1998, 2001), Alcalá de Henares (Blanco-Canales 2004), Getafe (Martı́n-Butragueño 1991), and Barcelona (Turell 1996). In Madrid, for example, the loss of intervocalic -d- in the masculine past participle ending (-ado > -ao) is a widespread feature in the informal speech of both male and female educated speakers (Garcı́a-Mouton 2003: 78), whereas in formal contexts the intervocalic -d- is maintained. Nevertheless, the loss of the feminine past participle ending (-ada > -á) is stigmatized and considered as vulgar. Results from ongoing research in Málaga (VUM 2007), included in a major coordinated study of ﬁve Spanish towns (Alcalá de Henares, Lleida, Valencia, Las Palmas, Granada, and Málaga), show that /d/ deletion is a well-accepted feature (33.1%) among Málaga university graduates (n ¼ 24) in the linguistic environment of /stressed vowel_vowel/ (see Table 10). However, if only past participle endings are considered, percentages of deletion markedly 208 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda increase (89%). Deletion of /d/ is more frequent, as expected, in colloquial, nontechnical, casual registers and among male speakers. Nevertheless, unexpectedly, younger educated speakers in Málaga lead /d/ deletion, so that the more widespread view that it is a stable sociolinguistic marker is not supported by this evidence. Samper (1990) conducted the phonological research on the variety of Las Palmas, where he also presents data from a number of other urban centers. It has frequently been assumed that /d/ deletion was a stable marker in Spanish, used mostly by old, noneducated male speakers. This assumption is based on the studies referred to in Table 10. However, our data from Málaga and those from Granada (Moya-Corral p.c.) show that young educated speakers under the age of 35 delete /d/ (34%) more than older people (35–54 years: 21%; over 54 years: 22%). These results do not deﬁnitively support the hypothesis of an ongoing change led by young educated speakers, but certainly question traditional assumptions. As mentioned above, the variable (d ) is also a marker in Murcia. The di¤erence with other areas lies in that intervocalic /d/ deletion in Murcia, as well as in most of Andalusia (see Narbona et al. 1998: 176–181), is both stylistically and socially more extensive: the nonstandard variant is consistently much more frequently found in formal situations and upper social classes in the Spanish of Murcia than in Old Castile. Similar patterns have been found in Las Palmas (Samper 1990), Córdoba (Uruburu 1994), coastal Granada (Garcı́a-Marcos 1987), Almerı́a (Garcı́a-Marcos and Fuentes-González 1996), and Cáceres (Paredes 2001). 4. Conclusion In this article we have been examining the consequences of contact between standard Castilian Spanish and nonstandard regional varieties spoken in Spain, with special attention given to the varieties spoken in the south of Spain (Andalusian and Murcian). Contact and interaction between standard and nonstandard varieties has historically meant convergence of the latter toward the former as a means of resolving competition between them. Nevertheless, dialect attrition and death through leveling of varieties has not been the only outcome. Dialects may persist and even revitalize after periods of decay. The case of regional dialects of Spain clearly shows how divergence from the standard variety, as it is supported by regional or local identity, is an alternative to leveling and homogenization. This ongoing contact situation normally yields cases of, more often, dialect obsolescence together with standardization and leveling, on the one Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 209 hand, or, conversely, and less often, survival processes of dialect maintenance, on the other. The accounts seen here of the conﬂict between the standard Castilian Spanish and nonstandard varieties in Spain demonstrate that this contact has normally yielded examples of dialect obsolescence together with standardization and leveling, on the one hand, but occasionally has led to survival processes of dialect maintenance, on the other. As far as the former is concerned, Andalusian dialects show both sides of the same coin: while divergent western varieties tend to persist, developing a regional standard based on the Seville variety, contrarily convergent eastern varieties are likely to accept mainstream prestigious features and approximate central and peripheral dialects, building up a new leveled koine (‘‘common Spanish’’). As far as dialect maintenance is concerned, Murcian varieties, given they are closer to the standard pronunciation than Andalusian ones within the dialect continuum, are more likely to converge and undergo leveling. But this is true only at a superﬁcial level, since, as shown, systemic as well as attitudinal reasons prevent some vernacular features from disappearing. These features are those which characterize the southern tertiary dialect, and form the basis of the new koine. Universidad de Murcia Universidad de Málaga Notes * 1. 2. 3. 4. We would like to thank Pilar Garcı́a-Mouton for her fruitful comments and suggestions. We are indebted to the editors of this volume for their critical revision and helpful comments which have very much informed our thoughts on this topic, though we alone are responsible for the manner and content of this article. Some of the results and data this article deals with are based on the DGICYT (Dirección General de Investigación Cientı́ﬁca y Tecnológica) Research Project on the Malaga Urban Spanish (MUS-Project; HUM2004-06052-c06-02/ﬁlo), which beneﬁts also from FEDER (Fonds Européen de Développement Régional) funds. See Villena-Ponsoda (2001, 2008a) and Villena-Ponsoda and Vida-Castro (2004) for an interpretation of these general principles constraining the pronunciation of Spanish since the early Middle Ages within the framework of Optimality Theory. See Penny (1991, 2000), Villena-Ponsoda (2001), Villena-Ponsoda et al. (1995), and Trudgill and Hernández-Campoy (2007). For the study of seseo in Murcia and Alicante, see Grandal-López (1999) and Abad-Merino (2004). For the study of Andalusian seseo and ceceo, see Moya-Corral and Wiedemann (1995), Martı́nez-Moya and Moya-Corral (2000), Villena-Ponsoda (2000, 2005). Though this reduction occurred in the Middle Ages, it is frequently referred to as /s/ ¼ // reduction, as the standard /s/–// contrast is taken as an anachronic reference. 210 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda 5. E¤ects for Málaga: ANOVA: R 2 ¼ 0:342; intergroup e¤ects: interaction ¼ not signiﬁcant; education: F ¼ 11:792 (2), sig. P < 0:001; age ¼ not signiﬁcant. Signiﬁcance scores for Granada are not available. 6. Diachronically speaking, the loss of any consonant (except -m and -n) in word-ﬁnal position has had dramatic consequences for the Eastern Andalusian and Murcian vowel systems. Historical word-ﬁnal /eC, oC, aC/ have become /, , æ/, and the same vocalic developments have occurred word-internally in the case of vowels before assimilated consonants (see Hernández-Campoy and Trudgill 2002). 7. See Lapesa (1980 [1942]), Zamora-Vicente (1960), Penny (1991), Alvar (1996), GómezOrtı́n (2004), Hernández-Campoy (2003a, 2003b, 2004), Hernández-Campoy and Trudgill (2002), Hernández-Campoy and Jiménez-Cano (2003), and Jiménez-Cano and Hernández-Campoy (2004) and Monroy-Casas (2002) for a suprasegmental approach. 8. The geolinguistic and variationist sociolinguistic studies carried out in HernándezCampoy (2003a, 2003b) showed that the use of standard Castilian Spanish features is spreading gradually and consistently across the Murcian region and among the di¤erent Murcian social substrata to the detriment of local southern linguistic features. Geolinguistically speaking, this slow but steady erosion of local features under pressure of standardization follows a hierarchical structure of di¤usion, from larger to smaller urban centers: Murcia City, in particular, is undergoing this process of standardization to a greater extent and at a higher rate than other parts of the region. Since illiteracy has dramatically decreased over the last twenty-ﬁve years, and given the close relationship between spelling and pronunciation in Spanish, orthography is playing a crucial role in favor of the standardization process in the nonstandard areas. c References Abad-Merino, Mercedes. 2004. Apuntes históricos y nuevas perspectivas en torno al seseo de Cartagena: Las Ordenanzas de 1738. Tonos Digital 8. 167–183. Alvar, Manuel (ed.). 1996. Manual de Dialectologı́a Hispánica: El Español de España. Barcelona: Ariel. Auer, Peter. 2005. Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/ standard constellations. In Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera & Dirk Geeraerts (eds.), Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, 7–42. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bedmar, Marı́a Jesús. 1992. Progresión de soluciones aspiradas de -s implosiva en la provincia de Ciudad Real. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española 2. 61–70. Blanco-Canales, Ana. 2004. Estudio sociolingüı́stico de Alcalá de Henares: Análisis fonético de una red social de Alcalá de Henares. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad. Britain, David. 2002. Space and spatial di¤usion. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 603–637. Oxford: Blackwell. Calero, Marı́a Ángeles. 1993. Estudio sociolingüı́stico del habla de Toledo. Lérida: Pagés. Carbonero, Pedro. 2003. Estudios de sociolingüı́stica andaluza. Sevilla: Universidad Pagés. Carbonero, Pedro, José Luis Álvarez, Joaquı́n Casas & Isabel Maria Gutiérrez. 1992. El habla de Jerez. Estudio sociolingüı́stico. Jerez: Ayuntamiento. Colina, Sonia. 1997. Identity constraints and Spanish resyllabiﬁcation. Lingua 103. 1–23. Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 211 Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. ‘‘Historische Sprache’’ und ‘‘Dialekt’’. In Joachim Göschel, Pavle Ivic & Kurt Kehr (eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie, 106–122. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio. 2001a. Variación sociolingüı́stica: Evolución de los roles de género en Fortuna (Murcia). In Isabel de la Cruz, Carmen Santamarı́a, Cristina Tejedor & Carmen Valero (eds.), La lingüı́stica aplicada a ﬁnales del siglo XX: Ensayos y propuestas, 685–692. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio. 2001b. Variación estilı́stica en los medios de comunicación: Una aproximación contrastiva a la teorı́a del diseño de la audiencia. In Ana Isabel Moreno Fernández & Vera Colwell (eds.), Perspectivas recientes sobre el discurso. León: University of León & AESLA. Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan Antonio. 2004. Variación genérica, edad y prestigio encubierto en Fortuna (Murcia). Tonos Digital (www.tonosdigital.com) 8. 147–165. Garcı́a-Marcos, Francisco. 1987. El segmento fónico vocal þs en ocho poblaciones de la costa granadina: Aportación informática, estadı́stica y sociolingüı́stica al reexamen de la cuestión. Epos: Revista de Filologı́a 3. 155–180. Garcı́a-Marcos, Francisco & Antonio Fuentes-González. 1996. Mecanismos de prestigio y repercusión sociolingüı́stica. Almerı́a: Universidad de Almerı́a. Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2003. Ası́ hablan las mujeres: Curiosidades y tópicos en el uso femenino del lenguaje. Madrid: La esfera de los libros. Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2004. Sur la dialectologie espagnole. In Jean Le Dû & Nelly Blanchard (eds.), La Bretagne linguistique 13: Dialectologie et géolinguistique, 331–339. Brest: Université de Bretagne. Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2006. El castellano hoy: Sus principales rasgos lingüı́sticos: Variedades del español hablado en España: Teorı́a y práctica. In Elena de Miguel (ed.), Las lenguas españolas: Un enfoque ﬁlológico, 151–174. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar. 2007. Lenguas y dialectos de España. Madrid: Arco Libros. Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar & Francisco Moreno-Fernández. 1994. Atlas lingüı́stico (y etnográﬁco) de Castilla–La Mancha: Materiales fonéticos de Ciudad Real y Toledo. In Pilar Garcı́a-Mouton (ed.), Geolingüı́stica: Trabajos europeos, 111–153. Madrid: CSIC. Garcı́a-Mouton, Pilar & Francisco Moreno-Fernández. 2003–2007. Atlas lingüı́stico y etnográﬁco de Castilla–La Mancha. Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá, www.uah.es/otrosweb/ alecman. Gómez-Ortı́n, Francisco. 2004. El dialecto murciano y sus variedades. Tonos Digital 8. 7– 26. Grandal-López, Alfonso. 1999. Sobre el origen del seseo cartagenero. Estudios de Lingüı́stica de la Universidad de Alicante 13. 269–279. Guillén, Rosario. 1992. Una cuestión de morfosintaxis: Realización en andaluz de la /s/ ﬁnal de palabra seguida de vocal. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 15. 135–153. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 1999. Geolingüı́stica: Modelos de interpretación geográﬁca para lingüistas. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2003a. Exposure to contact and the geographic adoption of standard features: Two complementary approaches. Language in Society 32. 227–255. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2003b. Geolinguistic patterns of di¤usion in a Spanish region: The case of the dialect of Murcia. Estudios de Sociolingüı́stica 4. 613–652. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2004. Requisitos teórico-metodológicos para el estudio geolingüı́stico del dialecto Murciano. Tonos digital (www.tonosdigital.com) 8. 269–326. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel. 2007. The ﬁght of nonstandardness under standard pressures. In Andreas Papapavlou & Pavlos Pavlou (eds.), Sociolinguistic and pedagogical dimensions of dialect in education, 50–77. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars. 212 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & José Marı́a Jiménez-Cano. 2003. Broadcasting standardisation: An analysis of the linguistic normalisation process in Murcia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7. 321–347. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Peter Trudgill. 2002. Functional compensation and southern peninsular Spanish /s/ loss. Folia Linguistica Historica 23. 141–167. Jiménez-Cano, José Marı́a. 2001. La enseñanza de la lengua española en contexto dialectal: Algunas sugerencias para el estudio del caso murciano. In Maria Isabel Montoya Ramı́rez (ed.), La lengua española y su enseñanza, 27–53. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Jiménez-Cano, José Marı́a & Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy. 2004. Quantifying the standardisation process in a non-standard local community: The case of Murcia. Spanish in Context 1. 67–93. Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Lapesa, Rafael. 1942/1980. Historia de la lengua Española. Madrid: Gredos. Lasagabaster, David. 2003. Trilingüismo en la enseñanza: Actitudes hacia la lengua minoritaria, la mayoritaria y la extranjera. Lleida: Milenio. Lillo, Antonio. 1999. El Inglés del Estuario y las innovaciones fonéticas del habla londinense. Atlantis 21. 59–77. López-Garcı́a, Ángel. 1985. El rumor de los desarraigados: Conﬂicto de lenguas en la Penı́nsula Ibérica. Barcelona: Anagrama. Mar-Molinero, Clare. 2000. The politics of language in the Spanish-speaking world. London: Routledge. Martı́n-Butragueño, Pedro. 1991. Desarrollos sociolingüı́sticos en una comunidad de habla. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid dissertation. Martı́nez-Martı́n, Miguel. 1983. Fonética y socioligüı́stica en la ciudad de Burgos. Madrid: CSIC. Martı́nez-Moya, Marı́a & Juan Antonio Moya-Corral. 2000. Reacciones actitudinales hacia la variación dialectal en hablantes granadinos. Lingüı́stica española actual 22. 137– 160. Mattheier, Klaus. 1996. Varietatenkonvergenz: Überlengungen zu einem Baustein einer Theorie der Sprachvariation. Sociolinguistica 10. 1–31. Menéndez-Pidal, Ramón. 1919. Orı́genes del español: Estado lingüı́stico de la Penı́nsula Ibérica hasta el siglo XI. Madrid: Gredos. Milroy, James. 1992. Language variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Molina-Martos, Isabel. 1998. La fonética de Toledo: Contexto geográﬁco y social. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. Molina-Martos, Isabel. 2001. Geografı́a y estratiﬁcación social de un cambio fonético: La -d- en español peninsular. Verba 28. 81–98. Molina-Martos, Isabel. 2006. Innovación y difusión del cambio lingüı́stico en Madrid. Revista de Filologı́a Española 86. 127–149. Monroy-Casas, Rafael. 2002. El sistema entonativo del español murciano coloquial. Aspectos comunicativos y actitudinales. Estudios Filológicos 37. 77–101. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 1992. El español de Orán: Notas históricas, dialectales y sociolingüı́sticas. Revista de Filologı́a Española 71. 5–35. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 1994. Debilitamiento de -s en el español de Orán: Análisis de sus contextos fónicos. Boletı́n de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española: 2 época 1. 91–111. Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain 213 Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 2004. Cambios vivos en el plano fónico del español: Variación dialectal y sociolingüı́stica. In Rafael Cano (ed.), Historia de la Lengua Española, 973–1009. Barcelona: Ariel. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 2005. Historia social de las lenguas de España. Barcelona: Ariel. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco. 2007. Social remarks on the history of Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 184. 7–20. Morillo-Velarde, Ramón. 2001. Sociolingüı́stica en el ALEA: Variable generacional y cambio lingüı́stico. Estudios de Lingüı́stica 15. 13–49. Moya-Corral, Juan Antonio. 1977. La pronunciación del español en Jaén. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Moya-Corral, Juan Antonio. 2007. Noticia de un sonido emergente: La africada dental procedente del grupo -st- en Andalucı́a. Revista de Filologı́a de La Laguna 25. 457–467. Moya-Corral, Juan Antonio & Emilio Wiedemann. 1995. El habla de Granada y sus barrios. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Narbona, Antonio, Rafael Cano & Ramón Morillo-Velarde. 1998. El español hablado en Andalucı́a. Barcelona: Ariel. Penny, Ralph. 1991. A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penny, Ralph. 2000. Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peredes, Florentino. 2001. El habla de la Jara. Los sonidos (Estudio sociolingüı́stico). Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares. Ranson, Diana. 1991. Person marking in the wake of /s/ deletion in Andalusian Spanish. Language Variation and Change 3. 133–152. Ranson, Diana. 1992. Nominal number marking in Andalusian Spanish in the wake of /s/ deletion. Hispanic Studies 4. 301–327. Ruch, Hanna. 2006. El fenómeno de la africada [ts] < /-st-/ en el andaluz: Aspectos fonéticos y sociolingüı́sticos. Zurich: Universität Zürich term paper. Samper, José Antonio. 1990. Estudio sociolingüı́stico del español de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Las Palmas: La Caja de Canarias. Sánchez-López, Laura. 1999. El habla de los vendedores de El Corte Inglés de Murcia: Estudio sociolingüı́stico. Murcia: Departamento de Lengua Española y Lingüı́stica General, Universidad de Murcia minor thesis. Sánchez-López, Laura. 2004. El habla de los vendedores de El Corte Inglés de Murcia: Estudio Sociolingüı́stico. Tonos digital (www.tonosdigital.com) 8. 117–146. Torreira, Francisco. 2006. Coarticulation between aspirated -s and voiceless stops in Spanish: An interdialectal comparison. In Nuria Sagarra & Jacqueline Almeida (eds.), 113– 120. Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1. 179–195. Trudgill, Peter. 1996. Dialect typology: Isolation, social network and phonological structure. In Gregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schi¤rin & John Baugh (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov: Volume 1, 3–22. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trudgill, Peter & Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy. 2007. Diccionario de sociolingüı́stica. Madrid: Gredos. Turell, Maria Teresa. 1996. El contexto de la variación lingüı́stica y su aplicación al estudio del morfema español — ADO. In Francisco Gutiérrez-Dı́ez (ed.), El español, lengua internacional (1492–1992), 639–654. Murcia: Compobell. 214 J. M. Hernández-Campoy and J. A. Villena-Ponsoda Uruburu, Agustı́n. 1994. El tratamiento del fonema /-d-/ en posición intervocálica en la lengua española hablada en Córdoba (España). La linguistique, revue de la societé internationale de linguistique fonctionnelle 30. 85–104. Vida-Castro, Matilde. 2005. Estudio sociofonológico del español hablado en la ciudad de Málaga: Condicionamientos sobre la variación de /-s/ en la distensión silábica. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 1996. Convergence and divergence in a standard–dialect continuum: Networks and individuals in Malaga. Sociolinguistica 10. 112–137. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2000. Identidad y variación lingüı́stica: Sistema y sı́ntoma en el español andaluz. In Georg Bossong & Francisco Báez de Aguilar (eds.), Identidades lingüı́sticas en la España autonómica, 107–150. Frankfurt & Madrid: Vervuert & Iberoamericana. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2001. La continuidad del cambio lingüı́stico: Tendencias conservadoras e innovadoras en la fonologı́a del español a la luz de la investigación sociolingüı́stica urbana. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2005. How similar are people who speak alike? An interpretive way of using social networks in social dialectology research. In Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European Languages, 303–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2006a. The Iberian Peninsula. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Soziolinguistik/Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society: Volume 3, 2nd edn., 1802– 1810. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2006b. Andaluz oriental y andaluz occidental: Estandarización y planiﬁcación en ¿una o dos comunidades de habla? In Ana Maria Cestero, Isabel Molina & Florentino Paredes (eds.), Estudios sociolingüı́sticos del español de España y América, 233–254. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2008a. La formación del español común en Andalucı́a. Un caso de escisión prestigiosa. In Esther Herrera & Pedro Martı́n Butragueño (eds.), Fonologı́a instrumental: Patrones fónicos y variación. México: El Colegio de México. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés. 2008b. Sociolinguistic patterns of Andalusian Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 193/194. 139–160. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés, José Sánchez-Sáez & Antonio Ávila-Muñoz. 1995. Modelos probabilı́sticos multinomiales para el estudio del seseo, ceceo y distinción de /s/ y //: Datos de la ciudad de Málaga. Estudios de Lingüı́stica de la Universidad de Alicante 10. 391–435. Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés & Matilde Vida-Castro. 2004. The e¤ect of social prestige on reversing phonological changes: Universal constraints on speech variation in Southern Spanish. In Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Lena Bergström, Gerd Eklund, Sta¤an Fidell, Lise Hansen, Angela Karstadt, Bengt Nordberg, Eva Sundergren & Mats Thelander (eds.), Language variation in Europe: Papers from the 2nd International Conference on Language Variation and Change in Europe (June 2003), 432–444. Uppsala: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University. VUM. 2007. Variación de /d/ intervocálica en Málaga, preliminary report. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga. Williams, Lynn. 1987. Aspectos sociolingüı́sticos del habla de la ciudad de Valladolid. Valladolid & Exeter: University of Valladolid & University of Exeter. Zamora-Vicente, Alonso. 1960. Dialectologı́a Española. Madrid: Gredos. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access an

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain: dialect attrition and revitalization of regional dialects of Spanish

Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain: dialect attrition and revitalization of regional dialects of Spanish

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS