A Rough Guide to Caribbean Spanish By Jeroen Claes, PhD

1

About this document

This text was originally written as an appendix to my 2014 University of Antwerp PhD dissertation (Claes, 2014). I later decided not to include it, because many of the topics covered in these pages should be familiar to linguists of all

persuasions. Since it covers such basic topics as e.g., what is a dialect? what is a variety? and then applies these to the Caribbean, the material presented in this text is highly suitable for undergraduate students. Feel free to adapt the text to suit your needs, but please keep in mind the terms of the license. You can also do me a favor and send your suggestions for corrections and improvements to jeroenclaes@gmail.com. You may also let me know whether this document has been useful to you, or you can ask me for the source file if you need it.

I hereby release this document on the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) license. This means that you can copy and redistribute the text in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests I endorse you or your use. Also, you may not use the material for commercial purposes. Please refer to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ for more information on the specific terms that apply to this text.

2

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2  

Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3  

Chapter 2 The concept of ‘dialect’ and the Caribbean as a ‘dialect area’ ....................... 4  

1. Language, diasystem, accent, dialect, and dialect zone ............................................ 4  

2. The Caribbean as a dialect area ................................................................................ 6  

2.1 Henríquez-Ureña (1976) ..................................................................................... 6  

2.2 Rona (1993) ......................................................................................................... 8  

2.3 Cahúzac (1980) ................................................................................................. 11  

2.4 Zamora-Munné & Guitart (1982) ...................................................................... 12  

Chapter 3 Language contacts in the Hispanic Caribbean .............................................. 15  

1. Puerto Rico .............................................................................................................. 15  

2. The Dominican Republic ........................................................................................ 19  

3. Cuba ........................................................................................................................ 20  

Chapter 4. Phonetic variation in Caribbean Spanish ...................................................... 22  

1. Syllable-final /-s/ ..................................................................................................... 22  

2. Syllable-final /-n/ .................................................................................................... 23  

3. Syllable-final /-ɾ/ (and /-l/) ...................................................................................... 24  

4. The segment /tʃ / ..................................................................................................... 26  

5. Intervocalic /-d-/ ...................................................................................................... 27  

7. Overview ................................................................................................................. 29  

Chapter 5. Morphosyntactic divergence in Caribbean Spanish ..................................... 31  

1. Repair strategies for /-s/ deletion ............................................................................ 31  

2. Diminutive suffixes ................................................................................................. 32  

3. Double negation (and the Creole hypothesis) ......................................................... 32  

4. Cuban voseo ............................................................................................................ 34  

5. Su merced in the Dominican Republic .................................................................... 34  

6. Summary ................................................................................................................. 35  

Chapter 6. Dialect areas within Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba ....... 36  

Chapter 7. Summary and conclusion ............................................................................. 41  

References ...................................................................................................................... 42  

3

Chapter 1 Introduction This rough guide to Caribbean Spanish will help you gain a basic understanding of the language of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. To this end, Chapter 2 introduces some key concepts of dialectology and sociolinguistics and applies these to the proposals that have been formulated over the years as to the way Latin America should be divided in linguistic areas. A common feature of these proposals consists in that they include a ‘Caribbean dialect area’. From Chapter 3 onward, I will review the literature on the varieties of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, searching for evidence in favor of the claim that in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico a single Caribbean variety of Spanish is spoken. Particularly, in Chapter 3, I survey the different types of language contacts that exist in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. Chapter 4 is dedicated to phonetic variation in the three countries. In turn, Chapter 5 discusses morphological variation. In Chapter 6, I will show that the amount of geographic variation attested in Cuba and the Dominican Republic gives reason to believe that within these countries more than one variety is spoken. Before concluding, Chapter 7 provides a synthesis and some conclusions.

4

Chapter 2 The concept of ‘dialect’ and the Caribbean as a ‘dialect area’ In this Chapter, I will present the different proposals that have been advanced over the years regarding the division of Latin America in dialect areas. However, before we can address this issue, we should first consider what ‘dialect’ and ‘dialect area’ means and how these concepts are different from ‘language’, ‘accent’, and ‘diasystem’. To this end, Section 1 introduces and clarifies these concepts. Section 2 reviews the different dialect areas that have been proposed for Latin America.

1. Language, diasystem, accent, dialect, and dialect zone Definitions of ‘language’ typically contrast this term with the notion ‘dialect’ (Moreno-Fernández 1993:16). This can be seen in, for example, the influential definition by Alvar-López (1961:55), who defines language to be:

the linguistic system of which a speaking community makes use and that is characterized by being heavily differentiated, by possessing a high degree of leveling, by being the vehicle of an important literary tradition and, in some cases, by having imposed itself upon other linguistic systems of the same origin.1

From a more theoretical stance, languages can be thought of as ‘the sum of all conventionalized sound-meaning pairs that allows communication between two speakers’. This implies that languages cannot have speakers, because, for example, all speakers do not know all words that belong to the language and because using some of these sound-meaning pairs excludes using others at the same time.

For example:voy a ir (‘I’m going to go/I will go’) and iré (‘I will go’) are both conventional ways to express futurity in (Caribbean) Spanish (e.g., Claes & Ortiz-López, 2011). However, when a speaker uses voy a ir, this excludes the use of iré in that exact same instance, for which s/he only uses part of the communication system s/he grasps.

In other words, because speakers typically pertain to a certain timeframe, live in a determined location and belong to various social groups, they only use part of the ample gamma of sound-meaning pairs the language has to offer. Consequently, linguists consider that speakers use ‘varieties’ or ‘dialects’ of a language, that is, geographically, socially and temporally controlled instances of the system, such as, e.g., Madrid, Cuban, Dominican, or Puerto Rican Spanish Puerto Rico, Cuban, of Santo Domingo. The sum of all of these varieties is the Spanish language (Zamora-Munné & Guitart 1982:17; Chambers & Trudgill 1986:5; López-Morales 1992:29; Alba 2004:29-31; 2009:42-43) or Spanish ‘diasystem’ (Chambers & Trudgill 1986:41; Weinreich, 1954:389-390).

1

In Spanish “el sistema lingüístico del que se vale una comunidad hablante y que se caracteriza por estar fuertemente diferenciado, por poseer un alto grado de nivelación, por ser vehículo de una importante tradición literaria y, en ocasiones, por haberse impuesto a sistemas lingüísticos de su mismo origen” (Alvar-López 1961:55).

5

This leaves us with the difference between ‘accent’ and ‘dialect’. Both refer to regional varieties of speech as opposed to a ‘language’, but the notion of ‘accent’ is less restrictive than that of ‘dialect’. That is, ‘accent’ refers to those modalities of a language that do not show a large inventory of discriminatory features from different linguistic levels that set it apart from less geographically confined modalities, in many cases, a standardized variety (Alvar-López 1961:60; Chambers & Trudgill 1986:5). In turn, the notion of ‘dialect’ refers to

varieties which are grammatically (and perhaps lexically) as well as phonologically different from other varieties. If two speakers say, respectively, I done it last night and I did it last night, we can say that they are speaker different dialects (Chambers & Trudgill 1986:5).

This leaves us with the definition of the concept ‘dialect area’. From a sociolinguistic point of view – which is the one that will be applied here – a dialect area is conceived of as a geographic region that encloses a dialectal speech community. Since speech communities are not defined “by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms” (Labov 1972:120-121), quantitative information about speakers’ preference for a given variant, patterns of co-variation with linguistic and extralinguistic variables, and patterns of subjective evaluation of speech forms have to be taken into account. Only when all of these elements point in the same direction, indicating largely uniform linguistic conducts and evaluative judgments, we can conclude that two or more varieties belong to the same dialect area (Moreno-Fernández 1993:15:Morales 2000:349; Tagliamonte 2002; 2006:245-246). Let us take a look at the dialect areas that have been proposed for Latin American Spanish and how the sociolinguistic definition of dialect area applies to these. These will be the topics of the next Section.

6

2. The Caribbean as a dialect area In Latin American dialectology, multiple dialect maps of Latin America have been proposed over the years. In this Section, I will review these proposals chronologically, which will lead to the insight that all zonifications have included some version of a Caribbean dialect area.

2.1 Henríquez-Ureña (1976) Pedro Henríquez-Ureña elaborated the first influential list of dialect areas in 1921. Henríquez-Ureña’s division (see Map 1 and the list below) is primarily based geographic proximity, cultural and political divisions of the continent during the Spanish colonial era and contact with indigenous languages. In Henríquez-Ureña’s view, these external factors have provoked that the varieties of these areas have incorporated many loanwords from a particular pre-Colombian language, which differentiate these varieties from the varieties of other areas.

I. Náhuatl influence:South and southwest of the United States, Mexico and Central America

II. Lucayo influence:The Greater Antilles, the coasts of Venezuela and the southern part of Colombia2

III. Quichua influence:The Andean region of Venezuela, the interior and west-coast of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, the greater part of Bolivia and maybe northern Chile

IV. Araucano influence:The greater part of Chile3 V. Guaraní influence:Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and perhaps the Southeast

of Bolivia.

2 Rosenblat (1963:37) adds to this zone the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico and Central America, an addendum that is sometimes taken up in later discussions of the division by Henríquez-Ureña. 3 This Amerindian language is often indicated as Mapuche, whereas the indigenous population that speaks this language calls it Mapudungun (Mapudungú in Spanish).

7

Map 1:Dialectal division of Latin America according to Henríquez-Ureña (1976) (taken from Moreno-Fernández 1993:22)

However, these areas are so vast that it would be convenient to make subdivisions in them. This is observed by Henriquez-Ureña (1976:6), who proposes such a division for his first dialect area. Secondly, and more importantly, because the areas are defined primarily by the existing or historic contact with an indigenous language, the number of zones would have to be multiplied, because no less than 100 indigenous language families have been discovered on the continent (Rona 1993:65).

For example:In an area as small as the Greater Antilles, not less than five, albeit related, indigenous languages were spoken, of which Lucayo was only one (Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:Chap 1; López-Morales 1998:Chap. 1).

Moreover, the geographic limits of the dialects supposedly formed by contacts with certain indigenous languages do not coincide with the areas these languages were spoken in (Rona 1993:65). Furthermore, for the first zone, the influence of the indigenous languages is even more doubtful, since the extinction of these varieties,

8

through the assimilation or the extermination of the native population, is to be situated around 1520-1550 (Paz-Pérez 1988:15; Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:289-291; López-Morales 1992:34; 1998:Chap 2; Picó 2000:47; Moya-Pons 2008:26-33).

Furthermore, as Lope-Blanch (1989:50) argues, the contact with indigenous languages could have contributed to the idiosyncrasy of local speech forms, but it certainly was not a decisive factor, because indigenous languages have exerted a fairly limited effect on Spanish, even when these were vehicles of a rich culture and survive up until today (e.g., Nahúatl in Mexico). Additionally, recent studies have shown that the vocabulary of indigenous origin (excluding toponyms), which Henríquez-Ureña proposes as the main defining factor of his dialect zones, constitutes a very limited parcel of the actively used inventory of words. Indeed, Álvarez-Nazarío (1991:302) estimates that the total list of indigenous words used actively in Puerto Rico tops off at maximum 500 entries. Alba (1995:48) finds that in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba, only about 100 terms of indigenous affluence are actively used. Similarly, Domínguez-Hernández (2007a:317) reveals that, in Havana less than 1% of the frequently used vocabulary is of indigenous origin and that many of these words are not exclusive to this particular area, because words such as, aguacate ‘avocado’, maíz ‘corn’, or chocolate ‘chocolate’ are used throughout the (Hispanic) world.

In addition, most researchers feel that Henríquez-Ureña’s methodological choices constitute another important reason to reevaluate his proposal. Following the main trend of his time, the Dominican scholar based his conclusions upon literary imitations of popular speech and impressionistic descriptions in works written by non-specialists, rather than on the direct observation and comparison of varieties found in different points of the continent. In addition, the Dominican scholar’s classificatory system is informed primarily by sociological or ethnological information (i.e., the coexistence of languages in colonial ages), rather than by similarities in the vernaculars of these regions (Fontanella de Weinberg 1992a:124; Rona 1993:66-67). Therefore, it appears as if a prefabricated mold was imposed on the dialectal data. Furthermore, the choice of the Dominican scholar for the lexical variable rather than more fundamental linguistic levels such as phonology, morphology, or syntax constitutes another reason to question the validity of Henríquez-Ureña’s zonification, because this level is the least stable, least systematic and most superficial of any language (Gili-Gaya 1973:107; Zamora-Munné & Guitart 1982:182; Lope-Blanch 1989:55; Zamora-Munné 1993:91; Lipski 1994:19). Therefore, any zonification effort that hinges solely upon this criterion cannot be accepted as a “dialectal classification in the full sense of the word” (Alba 1995:113).4

In sum, most dialectologists now concur that Henríquez-Ureña’s merit has primarily been that of opening the path for more precise dialectal descriptions (Lope-Blanch 1989:56-57; Fontanella de Weinberg 1992a:124), that is, of being the precursor of modern Latin-American dialectology (Lope-Blanch 1989:30-41).

2.2 Rona (1993) 4 In Spanish:“clasificación dialectal en el pleno sentido de la palabra” (Alba 1995:113).

9

Rona, in a congress paper first published in 1964, sets out to establish a division of the continent based on the presence or absence of three phenomena of which he feels that, by that time, the distribution was sufficiently known: yeísmo,5 ʒeísmo,6 and the forms that are used for second-person singular (tú vs. vos). Combining the geographic distributions of these phenomena, Rona (1993:71-73) distinguishes 16 different dialect zones in the continent, as is shown in Map 2:

1. Mexico (except Chiapas, Tabasco, Yucatán and Quintana Roo), Antilles, Atlantic coast of Venezuela and Colombia, Oriental half of Panama.

2. Chiapas, Tabasco, Yucatán and Quintana Roo and the occidental half of Panama.

3. Pacific coast of Colombia and the interior of Venezuela 4. Andes of Venezuela 5. Andes of Ecuador 6. Mountainous zones of Ecuador 7. Coast of Peru, except the south 8. Andes of Peru 9. Southern zone of Peru 10. North of Chili, northwest of Argentina and the Bolivian departments of Oruro

and Potosí 11. Rest of Bolivia 12. Paraguay (except the area of Concepción) and the Argentinean Provinces of

Misiones, Corrientes and Formosa 13. Centre of Chili 14. South of Chili and a small portion of Argentinean Patagonia 15. Gaucho Provinces of Argentina (more or less Buenos Aires, Entre Rios, Santa

Fe, La Pampa, Río Negro, Chubut and Tierra de Fuego) and Uruguay (except the border area and the area past the mountains)

16. Uruguayan departments of Rocha and Maldonado and parts of Lavalleja and thirty three.

5 Yeísmo refers to the pronunciation of both /λ/ (the ll in calle ‘street’) and /ʝ/ (the y in mayo ‘may’) as /ʝ/. For example, in yeísta varieties, callo ‘I shut up’ and cayo ‘cay, key’ area pronounced identically. 6 ʒeísmo refers to the pronunciation of /λ/ and /ʝ/ as [ʒ]. For example, in ʒeísta varieties, callo ‘I shut up’ and cayo ‘cay, key’ are pronounced as /’kaʒo/.

10

Map 2:Dialectal division of Latin America according to Rona (1993) (taken from Moreno-Fernández 1993:28)

In addition, Rona separates the following seven varieties from the dialect zone they would normally belong to, because he feels that language contacts have given them a distinct flavor. This brings the total number of dialects to 23:

17. New Mexico and other continental U.S. possessions that used to form part of Mexico.

18. Cuba and Puerto Rico 19. Border zone of Uruguay (except the Tacuaremboense variety) 20. The Tacuaremboense variety of Uruguay 21. Area around Concepción in Paraguay 22. Caingusino in the Argentinean Province of Misiones 23. Province of Santiago del Estero in Argentina

Although Rona’s method for defining dialect areas clearly has some advantages when compared to that of Henríquez-Ureña, it still represents some flaws. Firstly, due to the

11

limited number of phenomena that are used for the discrimination of dialects, Rona’s method casts too wide a net, forcing us to include in one very large dialectal area varieties as different as those of Mexico and the Greater Antilles (Zamora-Munné & Guitart 1982:180; Vaquero 1991:118; López-Morales 1992:34; Moreno-Fernández 1993:29; Lipski 1994:17; Alba 1995:99). Moreover, there are questions to be raised concerning Rona’s decision to separate Cuba and Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic because of the strong idiomatic mixing that is allegedly observed on the former two Islands. As we will see later on, English contact has been overstated in the literature for Cuba and Puerto Rico (Lope-Blanch 1968:71; Zamora-Munné & Guitart 1982:180-181; Alba 1995:97).

In addition, we should wonder whether it is at all possible to formulate in advance any list of phenomena that distinguishes all American dialects in a satisfactory manner, because isolated traits are unable to capture the impression of identity and difference speakers experience when faced with another variety of their native tongue (Lope-Blanch 1989:54-55; Alba 1995:112). Furthermore, Zamora-Munné & Guitart (1982:181) argue that the criteria that are used for the discrimination of dialects should be phenomena that are exclusive to American Spanish and of which the isoglosses divide contingent areas of the continent, especially when no quantitative data are considered (Morales 2000:349). From this perspective, the criterion of yeismo seems to be badly picked, since almost the entire continent (with the notable exception of Paraguay) is yeísta, as are large areas of Spain. In turn, ʒeísmo, is not observed throughout the continent, for which it should not be used to identify dialects.

2.3 Cahúzac (1980) Cahúzac (1980:459) bases his dialect areas on the different denominations that are used in Latin America to indicate farmers, farmlands and other terms related to agriculture. With this information, he devises four dialectal zones, which coincide more or less with those of Henríquez-Ureña (see Map 3).

1. Southern United States, Mexico, Central America, Antilles, Venezuela, coasts of Colombia and Ecuador.

2. The Andean areas of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and the North of Chile, North-east of Argentina

3. Chile, without the northern region 4. The eastern plains of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia

12

Map 3:Dialectal division of Latin America according to Cahúzac 1980 (taken from Moreno-Fernández 1993:35).

Since this dialect map is based on lexical data, much of the criticism that applies to Henríquez-Ureña’s dialect areas also applies to Cahúzac’s. Additionally, as Alba (1995:116) objects, if using four or five phonemic oppositions (out of the 24 Latin American phonemes) is barely acceptable to delimit dialects, how can a handful of lexical oppositions (out of thousands of words) be accepted as a satisfactory discriminatory procedure? In any case, a classification that unites Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba in one dialect area, goes counter to whatever intuitive idea any native speaker of these dialects might have of the relations between Mexican and Antillean Spanish (Zamora-Munné & Guitart 1982:180).

2.4 Zamora-Munné & Guitart (1982) Zamora-Munné & Guitart (1982:182-183) and Zamora-Munné (1993) present a dialectal division of the continent that is based on the realization of three continent-wide variables: the forms used for second-person singular (tú vs. vos), the realization of the phoneme /x/ (the j in mujer ‘woman’) as [x] or [h], and the pronunciation of syllable-

13

final /-s/ as [-h] or [-s]. As an additional criterion, Zamora-Munné & Guitart include the requirement of geographic continuity, namely, regions for which the variables yield identical results are only included in the same dialectal area if they are not separated from each other by land or sea. This way, the authors arrive at a total of nine zones, depicted in Map 4:

I. The Greater Antilles, oriental coast of Mexico, oriental half of Panama, Northern coast of Colombia and the non-mountainous regions of Venezuela

II. Mexico (except the oriental coast and the border area with Guatemala) III. Central America, the border areas of Mexico and the occidental half of

Panama IV. Colombia (without the coast) and the mountainous part of Venezuela V. Pacific coast of Colombia and Ecuador

VI. Coastal areas of Peru (except the deep south) VII. Ecuador and Peru (except the regions enclosed in the former two areas), West

and Central Bolivia and North-West Argentina VIII. Chile

IX. East of Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina (except north-west).

In sum, nearly every dialect classification has included a ‘Caribbean dialect zone’, of “dialectal characteristics that permit describing it as the Caribbean insular modality, of Andalusian and Canarian basis, spoken in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba” (Vaquero 1996:53). 7 However, all of the above authors fail to recognize the fact that dialects cannot only be discriminated by differences in their inventories (e.g., /h/ instead of /x/), but also by their differentiated use of certain linguistic variables (e.g., [-Ø] vs. [-s] as the dominant realization of syllable-final /-s/) and the degree of appropriateness attributed to these variants. To make this point, in the Chapters to follow, I will review the literature on the Caribbean varieties of Spanish. This will show that the data available in the literature argue against treating Caribbean Spanish as a monolithic block. However, before addressing these topics, let us first consider how language contacts may differences between the varieties of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. This will be the topic of the next Chapter.

7 In Spanish: “características dialectales que permiten describirlo como la modalidad caribeña insular, de base andaluza-canaria, hablada en Cuba, la República Dominicana y Puerto Rico” (Vaquero 1996:53).

14

Map 4:Dialectal division of Latin America according to Zamora-Munné & Guitart (1982) and Zamora-Munné (1993) (taken from Moreno-Fernández 1993:33).

15

Chapter 3 Language contacts in the Hispanic Caribbean Language contacts that persist over centuries typically affect both languages in contact. It is, thus, to be expected that if one variety of a language enters in contact with another language, it will display certain characteristics that set it apart from other, closely related varieties of the same language (Trudgill 1983:103). Since the varieties that are commonly said to form the Caribbean dialect zone enter in contact with distinct languages to a differing degree, this could constitute a first source of divergence between these modalities. Therefore, in what follows, I will offer a limited overview of language contacts that persist up until today in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. First, I will discuss the influence English exerts on Puerto Rican Spanish. Subsequently, eventual language contacts in the Dominican Republic and Cuba will be surveyed.

1. Puerto Rico The law Num. 1 of February 28, 1993 establishes that Puerto Rico is a bilingual country, with English and Spanish as its official languages (López-Laguerre 1997:50-52; López-Morales 1998:195; Morales 2005:85). In reality, however, the Puerto Rican government will always address the population in Spanish, but federal government organizations usually operate in English (Morales 2005:90). The question of the bilingualism of Puerto Rico has been subject to public and political debate, since it is closely related to its political status as a non-incorporated territory of the United States and a history of U.S efforts to assimilate Puerto Ricans.

Beginning from the invasion of 1898 until the forties, American linguistic and educational policy in Puerto Rico was aimed at replacing the Hispanic language and culture with English and American values. This policy is known as ‘Americanization’ and the United States had successfully applied it before to the indigenous population of Hawaii and the continental United States (López-Laguerre 1997:32; Barreto 2000:5; Ayala & Bernabe 2007:75-76). One of the most important aspects of Americanization consisted in the erection of free public schools and the imposition of mandatory education.

However, the catch was that children were taught in English and were prohibited to speak Spanish at school. As a matter of fact, in many cases the teacher was not even a Puerto Rican, but rather a U.S born Anglophone. Yet, because English was not taught as a foreign language, but rather as if it were the children’s native tongue, only low levels of English proficiency were obtained. The students’ grasp of Spanish or other subjects was even worse, as can be derived from this passage by Navarro-Tomás (1948:222-223):

The deficiency of the lexicon of these students was not only manifested in relation to historic or scientific matters that had not been taught in the Spanish language. A large part of the questionnaire that was used in the study of the popular varieties was left without answering when repeated with University students. Youngsters of different

16

places of the Island did not know the names of atmospheric phenomena, the relief, agricultural operations and instruments. Some of them barely managed to give the names of some trees, bushes, herbs, vegetables and fruits of the rich flora of their country.8

These poor results, together with the rise of Puerto Rican nationalism during the twenties and thirties and the harsh repression that was used against students who criticized the educational policies (e.g., they were no longer allowed to attend schools in Puerto Rico; Ayala & Bernabe 2007:88-89) triggered protests from parents and teachers alike. Therefore, in 1948, Secretary of Education Mariano Villaronga, decreed that henceforth Spanish would be the language of instruction in all levels of public education, which it has been ever since (Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:536, 648-656; López-Laguerre 1997:Chap. 1; Barreto 2000:5; Picó 2000:250, 255).

However, keeping in mind that Puerto Rico depends politically on the United States, the official educational policy is aimed at the creation of a bilingual nation. Therefore, in the public schooling system, four weekly hours are dedicated to this language (López-Laguerre 1997:40; Morales 2005:96). Nevertheless, the private circuit, which represents about 40% of Puerto Rico’s student population (Morales 2005:93), continues to provide education in English, with Spanish as a preferred subject. Needless to say, the level of proficiency attained by private-school graduates is drastically higher, at least judging from College Board exams (Morales 2005:97), and, because of the high tuition fees of these schools, lower English proficiency tends to correlate with a less fortunate social background. In other words, the lower level of English proficiency attained in public schools tends to perpetuate inequality between students from different social backgrounds. This inequality is further upheld throughout higher education as only those who are fortunate enough (and speak English fluently) can attend prestigious universities in the United States (12% of the students) (Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:722; Barreto 2000:7; Morales 2005:94; Navarro-Tomás 1948:220).

Besides through the educational system and prolonged study visits to the United States, Puerto Ricans are also exposed to English in other ways. One of these ways is the return migration wave of the second half of the twentieth century. These immigrants brought with them a variety of Spanish that was seriously influenced by English and a generation of Puerto Ricans that had been educated completely in this language. More recently, Puerto Ricans seem to be traveling back and forth between the Island and their place of residence in the United States, which increases English contacts on the Island (Barreto 2000:9; Morales 2005:93).

8 In Spanish:La deficiencia del léxico de aquellos estudiantes no se manifestaba solamente en relación con materias históricas o científicas que durante sus años escolares no les habían sido enseñadas en lengua española. Mucha parte del cuestionario utilizado en el estudio del habla popular quedaba sin contestación al ser repasado con alumnos de la universidad. Muchachos procedentes de diversos lugares de la isla ignoraban los nombres de fenómenos atmosféricos, accidentes del terreno, operaciones agrícolas e instrumentos de labor. Algunos apenas acertaban a dar los nombres de unos pocos arboles [sic.], arbustos, hierbas, legumbres y frutas de la rica flora de su país (Navarro-Tomás 1948:222-223).

17

When looking at the previous paragraphs, one would expect nearly all Puerto Ricans to display at least a limited knowledge of English. Yet, census data indicate that this does not come even close to the truth. That is, the U.S. Census Bureau (2008:S1601) reports that 95.2% of the Island’s population aged 5 and above are native speakers of Spanish and no less than 73.8% of the households indicate that Spanish is the only language spoken at home. Furthermore, only 14.7% of the interrogated subjects indicate speaking English very well, whereas 73.3% indicates having a less than very good command of that language, a figure which is more than 10 percent higher (86.75%) when only the adult population (aged 18 and older) is taken into account. In addition, English proficiency seems to correlate with being born in the United States, since of this group, 42.7% of the subjects aged 5 and over indicates having good English language skills. Arguably, the census data contain a source of error, since it includes only two, rather vague, options for the contestants to fill in (López-Morales 1998:195). Therefore, it is no surprise that Alvar-López (1982:13), using a less rudimentary proficiency scale, found that of 150 Puerto Ricans, 55% indicated to speak English well, 18% to speak it a little bit, 8% to speak very little English and 13% indicated speaking not a single word of English.

In other words, whatever might be the proportions of bilinguals in Puerto Rican society, it is clear that the Island is not a bilingual nation at the level of, for example, the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain (e.g., Blas-Arroyo, 1999). In this regard, Álvarez-Nazarío (1991:609) argues that the low levels of English proficiency and effective bilingualism are to be explained by the failure of the schooling system, which is plagued by high desertion rates, overpopulation and a serious shortage of trained English teachers. Barreto (2000:5-7), on the other hand, hypothesizes that the low levels of bilingualism are best explained in terms of hostility towards a language associated with transculturation efforts and in terms of loyalty to the local variety of Spanish, which is the symbol of the cultural and national identity of Puerto Rico (Ayala & Bernabe 2007:76). Therefore, it is no surprise that not a single one of Alvar-López’s (1982:3) 150 subjects indicated that another language than Spanish was the language of Puerto Rico. In sum, Puerto Rico displays some kind of an instrumental bilingualism: English is learned, because it is considered a valuable tool (Alvarez-Nazarío 1991:723).

However, this is not to say that no traces at all can be found English influence on Puerto Rican Spanish. This variety is stereotypically connected with a higher incidence of Anglicisms and, more particularly, a tendency towards incorporating English loanwords without adaptation to Spanish phonetics, like, for example appointment, or the discourse connector so, which is widely used among university students and personnel as an equivalent for entonces ‘well, so’. Still, the dominant tendency consists of incorporating English words with adjustments to the native phonological and morphological system, such as, for example, esliding doors (instead of puertas corredizas ‘sliding doors’), or the slang janguear ‘to hang out’ and its derived noun jangueo ‘a night of hanging out’. Another frequently occurring phenomenon is the use of calques (or, literal translations; e.g., Te llamo p’ atrás ‘I’ll call you back’) or the extension of Spanish words due to

18

their similarity to certain English words, such as, for example, la planta eléctrica ‘the electrical plant’ (Navarro-Tomás 1948:220-225; Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:612).

In addition, studies have shown that important amounts of these Anglicisms are also actively used. In this regard, Huyke (1978:150) shows that spontaneous conversations among the educated classes show a density of English loanwords of about 10.40% (i.e., for every ten words, there appears one Anglicism). In addition, Huyke finds that 17.33% of the English-descent words she recollects are actively used, at least by her rudimentary criterion of being used by 50% of the informants (Huyke 1978:151). Similarly, López-Morales (1999a:168) finds that English loanwords constitute 8.10% of the actively used lexicon in Puerto Rico. Taking these results into account, Alba (2004:187) concludes that words of English origin possess more vitality in Puerto Rico than in other regions of the Hispanic world, since the percentage López-Morales arrives at is considerably more elevated than the 5.72% and 4.29% that are observed for, respectively, the Dominican Republic and Madrid, Spain.

It also appears that English influence is not limited to the lexical field in Puerto Rico. In this regard, it has been observed that the contact with English has caused Puerto Ricans use the periphrastic passive in contexts where no attention is given to the agent, as in example (1) (Gili-Gaya 1973:69; Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:630; López-Morales 1992:171).

(1) El trabajo fue hecho. El trabajo se hizo. ‘The work has been done.’

By the same token, speakers of this variety tend to use the continuous present even with verbs that cannot be interpreted referring to long-lasting events, as in example (2) (Gili-Gaya 1973:63; López-Morales 1992:170). However, recent analyses have revealed that this phenomenon also occurs in Peninsular Spanish, casting doubt on the causing influence of English contact. Rather, the statistical patterns reported by (Berry, in press) give reason to believe that the phenomenon can be explained as a result of the construction gaining a more abstract meaning.

(2) Te estoy escribiendo para pedirte un favor Te escribo para pedirte un favor ‘I’m writing you to ask you a favor.’

Additional grammatical transfers in Puerto Rican Spanish have been suggested for the use of the gerund. In normative Spanish, gerunds have verbal or adverbial status, in contrast to English, where the gerund can fulfill certain nominal functions, such as subject and copula complement. The contact with English produces constructions such as (3), where the gerund appears as a subject-complement, and (4), where the verbal adverb functions as a relative clause (Gili -Gaya 1973:90-92; López-Morales 1992:157-158).

(3) Su forma favorita de pasar las tardes es nadando. Su forma favorita de pasar las tardes es nadar. ‘His favorite way of pass the afternoon is swimming.’

19

(4) Te mando las cajas conteniendo los documentos. Te mando las cajas que contienen los documentos. ‘I send you the boxes containing the documents.’

Furthermore, the insertion of an adverb between estar and the gerund form in the continuous present (Está rápidamente hablando ‘He is rapidly speaking’) or between the auxiliary haber and the past participle (Ha rápidamente venido ‘he has rapidly come’) could derive from English (Gili-Gaya 1973:83-84; López-Morales 1992:146).

Finally, the tendency of Puerto Ricans to prefer the infinitive with a subject of its own (see example 5a) over a finite clause (as in example 5b), when the clause is introduced by a preposition has also been attributed to English contact (López-Morales 1992:161).

(5) a. Lo llamé para él venir a mi casa. b. Lo llamé para que viniera a mi casa. ‘I called him so that he would come to my house’.

Nonetheless, this may not be the case, because Navarro-Tomás (1948:132, note 2) recalls to have heard the construction in Murcia and Andalucía. By the same token, this pattern also appears very frequently in the Dominican Republic (Jorge-Morel 1978:125; Henríquez-Ureña 1982:230; Jiménez-Sabater 1984:169; Morales 2000:355) and, at least with the preposition para, in the educated speech of Caracas, Venezuela (DeMello 1995:827). Nevertheless, the empirical fact stands that these constructions are used more by bilingual Puerto Ricans than by monolingual speakers of this variety (López-Morales 1992:164). Therefore, it seems that the influence of English on the phenomenon is limited to intensifying a tendency that was already simmering beneath the surface.

2. The Dominican Republic With regard to language contacts in the Dominican Republic, little is known (Pérez-Guerra 1999). Most studies have either focused on the border area or on the Samaná Peninsula. In the border area, a large number of (illegal) Haitian immigrants reside and others cross the border every day for a variety of reasons (Ortiz-López & Guijarro-Fuentes 2008:120). In turn, on the Samaná peninsula, through an accident of history, Dominican Spanish lives side by side with African American Vernacular English and Haitian Creole (González & Benavides 1982:125; Jiménez-Sabater 1984:103; Lipski 1996:44). However, regarding the first region, most language contact investigations have focused on the expression/omission of subject and object pronouns (Ortiz-López & Guijarro-Fuentes 2008; 2009; Ortiz-López 2009), and, as a result, little is known about other, equally interesting variables. Concerning other regions of the country, much less is known about the effects of contacts with English, Haitian Creole and French.

Still, in Jiménez-Sabater’s opinion (1984:168) the influence of English, or any other language for that matter, on Dominican Spanish is negligible. Actually, the literature suggests that foreign languages only affect the lexical field, at least outside of the intense-contact areas. With regard to English, various scholars indicate that, in the last

20

few decades, (return) migration, economic and cultural contacts of different sorts have increased word-borrowing from this language (Jorge-Morel 1978:159; Germosén 1991; Alvar-López 2000:38; Alba 2004:182), mostly at the expense of French loanwords, abundant and vital in the past, but by the seventies already unfamiliar to 60% of Jorge-Morel’s (1978:164, 199) informants.

However, with all, the use of Anglicisms remains limited, because these words only reach a density of 0.49% (i.e., one word of English origin per 202 words) in conversation (Alba 1995:19; 2004:183). Furthermore, it seems that certain classes of activities or objects are more permeable to English influence than others, as loanwords are especially frequent in the fields of sports, clothing, transportation and furniture (Alba 2004:201; 2009:Chap. 7). In addition, many of these words are not exclusively imported into the Dominican variety, but are commonly found in entire Latin America, and many even appear throughout the languages of the world (Jorge Morel 1978:159; Alvar-López 2000:40). Yet, these words seem to be of great vitality, since 5.72% of the actively used lexicon consists of words of English origin (Alba 2004:187), a figure that is even higher among the educated classes. This suggest that the use of English terminology is a prestigious feature (Alba 1995:21, 28; 2004:200).

3. Cuba In the oriental region of Cuba, and more specifically, in the Santiago de Cuba Province, there are important numbers of Haitian immigrants (Figueroa-Arenciba 2007:179-180; 2009:96; Lipski 1996:37; Ortiz-López 1999a:296-297; 1999b:431-433; Paz-Pérez 1988:16-21; Staten 2005:19-20). These immigrants typically live in close-knit communities in isolation from mainstream society, near the coffee production sites, which favors the retention of Creole. As a result, the modality of Spanish that is found among many Haitian groups in Cuba displays signs of limited competence, such as the use of one form per verb to express all tenses, persons and modalities, the use of an invariant form of ser ‘to be’ in contexts normally reserved to estar ‘to be in a place’, and the use of infinitives rather than conjugated verb forms (Ortiz-López 1999a:297-301).

With regard to the influence of Creole in eastern Cuba, Figueroa-Arenciba (2007:182-183) observes that the Haitian bilingual communities of La Palmita and La Barranca use more unmarked plural NPs (i.e., plural NPs in which no instance of /-s/ appears) than monolingual speakers in Santiago or Guantánamo. Figueroa-Arenciba also observes that, on average, Santiago Spanish shows a marked preference for the Consonant Vocal syllable structure and higher levels of /-s/ dropping and lateralization of /-ɾ/ than the variety of the capital (Figueroa-Arenciba 2009:135). These elements and the fact that this region has received the largest concentration of African-descent slaves, and Haitian and Asian day laborers in the past, leads the author to hypothesize that the intensified contact during the 19th and 20th centuries with typologically different languages (such as Creole, Chinese and Bantu languages) has intensified certain phonologic processes that were already taking place, which culminated in a variety that has more in common with

21

Dominican Spanish than with any other Cuban modality of Spanish (Figueroa-Arenciba 2007:184-185, 212).

Finally, through affluence of many immigrants from the impoverished British Caribbean (Moya-Pons 2008:Chap. 19) and the increased economic contacts with the United States between the occupation of 1898 and the Revolution of 1959, Cuban Spanish has incorporated many loanwords from English (Paz-Pérez 1987:24-30; Valdés-Bernal 2007a:15). Nevertheless, with all, the importation of vocabulary from this language is confined to certain domains, such as that of technology, transportation, women’s clothing, traveling and sports. For these domains, an increased number of Anglicisms is documented in other varieties as well (Huyke 1978:149; Alba 2004:192-208; Domínguez-Hernández 2007a:319-321).

In summary, this Chapter has shown that the first differences between Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Cuban Spanish arise because of the different contact situations these modalities exist in. More precisely, I have shown that Puerto Rican Spanish displays a clear influence of English in both the lexical and the morphosyntactic field, whereas the influence of this language is limited to word-borrowing in the Dominican Republic and Havana. Additionally, it has been shown that the effect of Haitian Creole contact is only to be considered decisive for some local varieties of Cuban and Dominican Spanish.

22

Chapter 4. Phonetic variation in Caribbean Spanish In the previous Chapter we have seen that there are important differences between Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Cuban Spanish when it comes to the degree to which these varieties are influenced by other languages. In order to find more systematic (dis)similarities between the varieties, in this Section we will take a look at detailed investigations of a few well-studied consonantal phenomena. As we will see below, although these dialects display the same tendency towards the debilitation of syllable-final consonants, they seem to have arrived at different stages of the process. To make this point, Section 1 reviews the literature on syllable-final /-s/. Section 2 is concerned with syllable-final /-n/. In turn, Section 3 presents the results of studies that have investigated syllable-final /-ɾ/ (and /-l/). Section 4 presents the variation that affects the segment /tʃ /. Before summarizing in Section 6, Section 5 discusses the variation that is observed with intervocalic /-d-/.

1. Syllable-final /-s/ The behavior of syllable-final /-s/ constitutes one of the most salient characteristics of Caribbean Spanish. In this variety, /-s/ can either be realized as the sibilant [-s], as the aspirated variant [-h] or it can be elided [-Ø].

For Puerto Rico, Navarro-Tomás (1948:71) observes that the most frequent realization of this segment is the aspirated variant [-h]. This finding is confirmed by Terrell (1978:28), who finds that university-educated speakers use [-h] in 89% of the instances, followed by [-s] in 6% of the occurrences. In turn, the elided variant only appeared in 5% of the cases. However, the socially stratified data of San Juan investigated by López-Morales (1983:39) seem to suggest that, although [-h] continues to be the dominant variant (51.1% of the cases), the elided variant is second in importance (38.2% of the cases). In comparison to the data of Terell (1978), the [-s] allophone is about 4% more frequent in the stratified corpus than in educated speech (10.5% of the cases). In sum, the standard variant of /-s/ in San Juan appears to be [-h], as can be deduced from its overwhelming presence in educated speech. In contrast, the [-Ø] allophone correlates with lower class and masculine gender (López-Morales 1983:70). This suggest that [-Ø] is evaluated as substandard in Puerto Rico, which, for Ponce, has proven to be correct (Emmanuelli-Muñiz, 2000:211). 9 Along the same lines, this variant is also associated to heterosexual male identity in San Juan (Mack, 2011).

Turning now to Santo Domingo, Henríquez-Ureña (1982:169) argues that uneducated Dominicans elide the segment systematically, whereas those who have received some education prefer the aspirated or sibilant variants. However, Jorge-Morel (1978:75) observes that the zero allophone is predominant among all social groups in Santo 9 The proportions of the variants of /-s/ seems to be quite uniform across the Island and social groups, since Hammond (1982:160) finds [-h] in 49% of the instances, phonetic zero in 44.2% of the cases and sibilant variants in 6.9% of the occurrences in his study of rural, elderly lower-class Puerto Ricans from the south-eastern municipalities of Aibonito and Coamo.

23

Domingo, an observation that Navarro-Tomás (1956:421-422) and Jiménez-Sabater (1984:80) find to be valid for the entire country. Rigorous sociolinguistic investigations have not been able to refute these claims either, because Terrell (1982:305) finds 13% of sibilant realizations, 2% of aspiration and an overwhelming 85% of elision in Santo Domingo. Furthermore, /-s/ deletion reaches levels as high as 96% in the lowest sociolect, in which no cases of aspiration were found. In addition, among educated speakers, [-Ø] is equally the most important realization of /-s/, representing 68% of the occurrences among women and 84% among men, followed by [-s] in respectively 27% and 13% of the cases. Similarly, González-Tapia (1994:59-60), in a study of a series of televised interviews with Santo Domingo-based intellectuals, finds that phonetic zero is the dominant variant of /-s/ (35.6%), followed by [-h] (33.7%) and [-s] (30.7%). González-Tapia also indicates that well-educated women aspirate this segment more than men (respectively 37.9% vs. 31.5%) of the same instruction level, whereas both groups use the sibilant and zero variants with almost identical frequencies. Finally, González-Tapia (1994:62) observes an increasing use of phonetic zeros and aspirations when going from the youngest to the oldest group of his study, in clear detriment of the sibilant variant. This variant is used almost two times more by the oldest speakers in comparison to the youngest group (respectively 38.3% vs. 21.4%).

For Cuba, Ibășescu (1968:45-46) notes that the most common variant of /-s/ is its sibilant realization, but she also observes occurrences of elision and aspiration, as do Tristá & Valdés-Bernal (1978:12) and Choy-López (1986:409). Additionally, Tristá & Valdés-Bernal (1978:12) indicate that the complete loss of /-s/ is more frequently found among the lower socioeconomic strata of Havana. Furthermore, Terrell (1979:601) indicates that among university-educated speakers from of Havana, /-s/ is aspired in 61% of the instances, followed by its elision in 21% and sibilants in 18% of the cases. In turn, Montero-Bernal (2007a:154; 2007b:35) reports that in rural areas the trend clearly points towards a preference for the zero allophone (45.5%), followed closely by [-h] (32.8%), whereas the sibilant variant appears more in comparison to the capital (19.5%). In sum, it appears that, in Cuba, [-h] is considered the most prestigious variant of /-s/, because it appears most often in educated, urban speech, and least frequently in uneducated rural varieties. Let us consider now how syllable-final /-n/ behaves in Caribbean Spanish. This will be the topic of the next Section.

2. Syllable-final /-n/ In Caribbean Spanish, syllable-final /-n/ can be realized as an alveolar nasal [-n], similar to English /n/. It may also be realized as a velar nasal [-ŋ], which is highly similar to the sound represented by ng in English working. Finally, it can be elided, with backwards nasalization of the preceding vocal. For example, pan ‘bread’ is often pronounced as [pã].

In Puerto Rico, Navarro-Tomás (1948:101) found only velar realizations. In contrast, López-Morales (1983:107) documents [-n] in 79% of the cases. However, this is not to say that velarized variants are infrequent, since they represent 13.3% of the instances. López-Morales only documents a slightly different frequency for the elided variant,

24

which represents 7.4% of the cases. The lower social strata also use this variant more frequently, which suggests that it is evaluated negatively. In contrast, the upper classes and women favor [-ŋ]. Yet, because the plain variant remains most frequent across social groups, it probably has to be considered as the most prestigious solution (López-Morales 1983:117, 120).

Regarding Santo Domingo, Henríquez-Ureña (1982:139, 147) already argued that /-n/ is commonly velarized. Similarly, Jorge-Morel (1978:82) finds that 94% of her subjects pronounce the /-n/ of pan and joven as a velar nasal. Navarro-Tomás (1956:426), on the other hand, only observed the velar and elided variants among his rural subjects, whereas Jiménez-Sabater (1984:117) notes that the most frequent realization of this phoneme in Dominican Spanish is the nasalization of the preceding vocal (50% of the cases), followed by velar realizations (47% of the cases), and elision of /-n/ without any nasalization (1% of the cases). In contrast, [-n] only appears in only about 2% of the cases. In turn, Haché de Yunén (1982:147) finds that in Santiago de los Caballeros, the predominant variant is the velar allophone, which appears in 64.7% of the cases, followed by the elision of /-n/ with nasalization of the preceding vocal (28.7%) and the alveolar variant (5.5%). Haché de Yunén’s data also indicate that the velarized variant is judged favorably by the upper classes, since they use it slightly more than the lower strata. The opposite is true for the nasalization of the preceding vocal, which is almost twice as frequent among the lower socioeconomic classes (Haché de Yunén 1982:151). Finally, González-Tapia (1994:78-79) indicates that in his sample of the educated speech of Santo Domingo 96.7% of the collected instances of /-n/ were of the velar allophone.

For Cuba, Ibășescu (1968:50-51) observes that the phoneme /-n/ is typically realized as a velar nasal, but she also registers zero variants with nasalization of the preceding vocal. By the same token, Tristá & Valdés-Bernal (1978:15) and Choy-López (1986:410) indicate that final /-n/ is typically velar in the Spanish of Havana. These observations are confirmed by Hammond (1976:5), who finds that in his recordings of group conversations between highly educated Cuban immigrants to Miami, /-n/ is realized as a velar sound in 83% of the cases, followed by its omission with nasalization of the preceding vocal in 9.7% of the cases. [-n] only appears in 7.3% of the occurrences. Therefore, it is probably safe to assume that /-n/ velarization is evaluated favorably, whereas the elided and alveolar variants seem to enjoy less support among the upper classes.

3. Syllable-final /-ɾ/ (and /-l/) In Caribbean Spanish, the debilitation of the alveolar flap /-ɾ/ in syllable-final position has multiple outcomes. Firstly, the opposition between /-ɾ/ and /-l/ can neutralized in favor of /-l/ (e.g., calta instead of carta ‘letter’). This is known as ‘lambdacism’. Secondly, the opposite process may also occur, that is, the opposition between /-l/ and /-ɾ/ may also be neutralized in favor /- ɾ/ (e.g., cardo instead of caldo ‘soup’). This outcome is known as ‘rotacism’. Thirdly, /-ɾ/ and /-l/ can be (semi)vocalized, that is, they may be realized as [-i] (e.g., caita instead of carta, caido instead of caldo).

25

Fourthly, it may be the case that both /-l/ and /-ɾ/ are assimilated to the following consonant (e.g., puetta instead of puerta ‘door’). Finally, /-ɾ/ can be aspirated, but in Caribbean Spanish this seems to occur only before /l/ or /n/ (Alvar-López 2000:48; Montero-Bernal 2007b:33).

For Puerto Rico, López-Morales (1983:81) observes that, in San Juan, a fricative [-ɹ] is the most frequent realization of /-ɾ/ ( 45.6% of the cases) and that [-l] is also very frequent (34.6% of the cases). However, the results suggest that this variant appears to be stigmatized, because it is rejected by women and the rates of lateralization are significantly lower in formal speech styles (López-Morales 1983:93-95). Indeed, Emmanuelli-Muñiz (2000:211) finds that lateralization of /-ɾ/ is rated as substandard by the majority of her participants. Finally, I should add that, more recently, a fourth variant of /-ɾ/ has emerged, namely, a retroflex realization [ɻ]. This sound is similar to the /r/ sound in, for example, the English word work. In my experience, this is a highly prestigious allophone, which is favored by upper-and middle-class female professionals. However, no systematic investigation of this phenomenon has appeared in print.

Turning now to the Dominican Republic, Hendríquez-Ureña (1982:139) finds that in Santo Domingo, “although people try to avoid it, the interchanges of –r and –l reach all the way up to the educated classes”.10 Similarly, Jorge-Morel (1978:79) finds that the realization of /-ɾ/ as /-l/ is very frequent. By the same token, Jiménez-Sabater (1984:92) shows that capitaleños prefer [-l], [-ɹ], [-ɾ] and the mixed sound [-ɾl]. In contrast, González-Tapia (1994:67) finds that the educated classes realize /-ɾ/ as [-ɾ] in 57.7% of the cases, as [-ɹ] in 36.3% of the instances, as [-Ø] in 5.8% of the occurrences and as [-l] in the remaining 0.2% of the cases. This suggests that [-ɾ] is regarded most favorably. Alba’s (2004:89; 2009:28-29) data support similar conclusions, because [-l] and [-Ø] decrease in frequency when moving from the lower to the upper classes and from informal to formal speech styles.

For Cuba, Tristá & Valdés-Bernal (1978:16) observe that in the variety of Havana, the segment /-ɾ/ can be deleted, assimilated to the following consonant or realized as [-l], [-ɾl] or, in a very restrictive phonetic context, [-n]. Of these variants, Choy-López (1986:409) argues, assimilation is by far the most frequent outcome. This is confirmed by the study of Dohotaru (2007:116), who finds a predominance of assimilations (45.9%) and elisions (26.2%) among the popular strata of Havana. In addition, Dohotaru documents the use of [-ɹ] in 9.9% of the cases, followed by [-l] (8.4%) and [-ɾ] (5.8%). In turn, in the educated speech of Havana, Dohotaru documents [-ɾ] or [-ɹ] in 46.3% of the instances, assimilated variants in 36.3% of the contexts, and [-Ø] in 12.3% of the cases. [-l] only appeared in 1.3% of the tokens. Therefore, it appears that, in Havana, assimilation is considered to be the most prestigious outcome of /-ɾ/. However, elision is probably judged unfavorably, as well as the lateralized and fricative variants, which do not appear in educated speech.

10 In Spanish:“Aunque se procura evitarlo, suben hasta la clase culta los trastornos de la l y la r en el habla popular” (Henríquez-Ureña 1982:139).

26

Nevertheless, Havana does not appear to represent the same speech patterns as the rest of the country. That his, for rural Cuba, Montero-Bernal (2007a:160; 2007b:39) finds that participants retain /-ɾ/ in 75.8% of the instances, whereas it is lateralized and assimilated in respectively 10.5% and 7% of the cases. In an additional 2.7% and 2.2% of the cases /-ɾ/ was realized as, respectively [-d] or phonetic zero, whereas the aspiration or nasalization of this sound only occurred in less than 1% (0.9% and 0.8% respectively). For central Cuba, Alfaraz (2007:24) distinguishes four variants of /-ɾ/:the vibrant, the assimilated variant, lateralization and aspiration. Alfaraz finds that assimilation only occurs in about 18.5% of the cases of /-ɾ/, whereas it is a bit more common for /-l/, reaching a frequency of 20.5%. In a later study of the same data set, Alfaraz (2008:37) observes that the frequency of lateralization of /-ɾ/ sums 9.8%. Finally, Figueroa-Arenciba (2009:110, notes 26-27) reports that syllable-final /-ɾ/ is lateralized in 72.79% of the cases in Santiago de Cuba, whereas the vibrant is retained in 17.65% and the rest of the occurrences is scattered over a variety of realizations. At the word-ending, on the other hand, this investigator finds 72.09% of lateralization, followed by elision (16.28%), vocalization (9.3%) and the alveolar flap (2.73%). It appears, thus, as Cuban dialectologists have argued repeatedly, that the importance of the lateralized variant increases when moving from west to east, while the number of assimilations gradually decreases (Choy-López 1986:409; Montero-Bernal 2007b:40)

4. The segment /tʃ / The affricate /tʃ/ is the sound that is orthographically transcribed by the ch in mucho and its English translation much. Across dialects, there seem to be three possible outcomes for this speech sound. First, speakers may give equal importance to the occlusive and fricative moment of the phoneme, resulting in the plain [tʃ], as it is pronounced in Castile. Secondly, speakers may grant more importance to the fricative, eliding or obscuring the obstruent. This results in a variant [tʃ] or even [ʃ]. Finally, speakers can prolong the occlusive moment, granting only secondary importance to the fricative ([tʃ]), a variant commonly referred to as ‘adherent ch’ (Navarro-Tomás 1948:95; López-Morales 1983:147).

Navarro-Tomás (1948:95) observed a variety of realizations in Puerto Rico, with predominance of the adherent variant. However, Navarro-Tomás did not find a single realization of [tʃ] (Navarro-Tomás 1948:98). Later monographic studies, effectuated at the University of Puerto Rico under the guidance of Ruben Del Rosario, found a consistent decay of the adherent realization (Vaquero & Quilis 1973:1). This variant is is also observed by Vaquero & Quilis (1973:5), who report that in San Juan, the predominant allophone is the affricate with equal presence of the occlusive and fricative moments (89%), followed by a long fricative (7.8%) and a fricative sound composed of two fricative moments (2.1%). In the remaining 1.1% of the occurrences, an affricate variant that consists of a fricative moment, an occlusive moment and a second fricative was found. López-Morales (1983:149), who only distinguishes affricates and fricatives, obtains similar results. His results suggest that fricatives appear only in 5.3% of the cases, whereas affricates represent the remaining 94.4%. López-Morales argues that the

27

fricative variant must have emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, because it was not documented by Navarro-Tomás (1948) and the oldest speakers of his study do not use it at all.

For the Dominican Republic, Henríquez-Ureña (1982:139) notices that in Santo Domingo the pronunciation of /tʃ/ can tend to /ʃ/. Similarly, Jorge-Morel (1978:81-82) and Jiménez-Sabater (1984:106-108) find a predominance of affricate pronunciations, but the fricatives also occur in the speech of 17% of Jorge-Morel’s informants. This suggests that the phenomenon is more widely spread in Santo Domingo than in San Juan. Still, Navarro-Tomás (1956:425) hears only the true affricate and adherent variants among his rural subjects. Jiménez-Sabater (1984:106-108), on the other hand, finds the variant [tʃ] to be predominant in the Northern part of the Dominican Republic (El Cibao), whereas [tʃ] was registered more in the south-west. Pronunciations tending towards [tʃ] were predominant in the Cordillera Central and the Province of Santo Domingo.

Ibășescu (1968:48) observes that the segment is usually realized as an affricate in Cuba, but she also distinguishes fricative realizations. Tristá & Valdés-Bernal (1978:14), on the other hand, argue that in the dialect of La Habana, the phoneme /tʃ/ is usually realized with predominance of the fricative moment, i.e., as [tʃ]. However, they argue, speakers do tend to stress the occlusive element in emphatic speech styles. By the same token, these authors signal the existence of the allophone [ʃ] in the lower strata of the population. In turn, López-Morales (1992:70) argues that most speakers from Havana never use the fricative variant, whereas others use it sometimes and others still do not have another realization in their inventory. However, Alvar-López (2000:49) claims that it is not rare to find the fricative variant among the educated classes.

5. Intervocalic /-d-/ The /-d-/ that is observed in Spanish between two vocals has three possible allophones, neither of which are as strong as the dental stop that is observed at the beginning of the syllable. That is, rather than [-d-], a voiced dental obstruent, in intervocalic contexts [-ð-], a voiced dental fricative, appears. Throughout the Hispanic world, this is a segment that is typically affected by some process of debilitation. Firstly, it can be the case that /-d-/ is plainly pronounced as [-ð-]. Secondly, it is also frequently pronounced somewhat weaker, without changing its place or manner of articulation:[-ð-]. Finally, [-ð-] can omitted, leaving no trace at all of its presence, leading to the fusion of the two flanking vowels into one (e.g., nada ‘nothing’ can be pronounced [na]) or their pronunciation as a diphthong (e.g., hablado ‘spoken’ can be pronounced [hablao]).

For Puerto Rico, López-Morales (1983:124) finds that speakers from San Juan seem to prefer the weakened variant [-ð-] (53.4%), whereas plain [-ð-] and the zero allophone appear in, respectively, 25.5% and 21% of the cases. In addition, López-Morales observes that the debilitation or the elision of /-d-/ correlates with lower social class and rural affluence (López-Morales 1983:133, 135). This appears to suggest that [-ð-] and [-

28

Ø-] are evaluated negatively in San Juan. This has proven to be the case in Ponce (Emmanuelli-Muñiz 2000:211).

Regarding Santo Domingo, Henríquez-Ureña (1982:145) observes that the dominant trend consists of dropping intervocalic /-d-/, in the endings -ada, -ado, -eda, -edo, -ida, -ido, -uda, -udo and before accentuated vocals (e.g., peazo < pedazo ‘piece’), except for plurals (e.g., ustedes ‘you-plural’). In addition, Henríquez-Ureña reports that the dropping of /-d-/ is perceived as a sign of low cultural achievement. By the same token, Jorge-Morel (1978:69) finds the omission of this segment to be more predominant in uneducated circles, whereas its retention is more common among educated speaker. Furthermore, Navarro-Tomás (1956:420) and Jiménez-Sabater (1984:72-73) notice that in rural areas, intervocalic /-d-/ is almost consistently dropped. Still, Jiménez-Sabater (1984:73) also observes the dropping of /-d-/ in the informal speech of educated urban speakers. In turn, for Santiago de los Caballeros, Alba (1999:10) observes the elision of this sound in 23.27% of the cases. Still, this does not mean that the elision of intervocalic /-d-/ is widely accepted. Rather, the dropping of /-d-/ appears to be a stigmatized feature, which correlates with low social class (Alba 1999:11-13; 2000:61; 2004:54, 107).

For Cuba, Ibășescu (1968:38) observes that the dropping of intervocalic /-d-/ is very frequent, but not as generalized as in Spain. Tristá & Valdés-Bernal (1978:12), on the other hand, echo Henríquez-Ureña (1982) when they add that /-d-/ is usually dropped in the endings -ada, -ado, -eda, -edo, -ida, -ido, -uda, -udo, but only when the penultimate syllable is stressed. In addition, results reported in Alba (1999:5; 2000:52) indicate that in the educated speech of Havana, /-d-/ is dropped in 15.45% of the instances. This could suggest that the elision of /-d-/ may be stigmatized in the variety of this city.

6. Velar [ʁ] There are two important allophones of the multiple vibrant phoneme /r/ that is found in, for example, carro ‘car’. The normative variant is an alveolar vibrant sound [r]. The second allophone is a velar fricative [ʁ], similar in pronunciation to the /χ/ found in the northern peninsular pronunciation of caja ‘box’.

In Dominican and Cuban Spanish, the multiple alveolar vibrant /r/ shows no striking variation (Henríquez-Ureña 1982:139; Ibășescu 1968; Jorge-Morel 1978:80; Navarro-Tomás 1956:425; Tristá & Valdés-Bernal 1978:16), although some isolated cases of the velar variant have been reported in the literature (Alvar-López 2000:48; Navarro-Tomás 1948:94, note 1; López-Morales 1992:61).

However, in Puerto Rico, Navarro-Tomás (1948:91) observes the velar variant in 59% of the instances of /r/ he recollects. Additionally, Navarro-Tomás finds that the phenomenon is predominant in the north- and south-east of the country. Still, there do not seem to be regions where [ʁ] is the only allophone of /r/, because [ʁ] and [r] live side by side among all layers of the population in all regions of the island. This is even the case for the urban centers of San Juan, Ponce, Caguas, Arecibo and Mayagüez, where Navarro-Tomás (1948:92-93) documents a common use of [ʁ]. However, a lot

29

seems to have changed since the time the Spanish dialectologist travelled around Puerto Rico, because López-Morales (1983:139), observes the velar variant only in 14.1% of the cases in San Juan. Additionally, López-Morales shows that velar [ʁ] is essentially a stigmatized feature of rural Puerto Rican Spanish, associated with older age groups, masculine gender, and lower socioeconomic status (López-Morales 1983:144). Therefore, it is no surprise that in an investigation that targeted a rural area in western Puerto Rico, 72.2% of the collected instances were of the velar type (López-Morales 1992:62). Yet, in Ponce, the phenomenon appears to escape from this strong social stigma, which confirms Navarro-Tomás’ assertion that the velar variant is more common in the south. Particularly, Emmanuelli-Muñiz (2000:211) documents the velar variant in no less than 75% of the cases. Her data also point to a tacit acceptance of [ʁ] as this variant is neither rejected nor overtly approved (Emmanuelli-Muñiz 2000:211, 216).

7. Overview The review of the data available on phonetic variation in Caribbean Spanish has revealed both clear-cut differences concerning the quantitative importance of variants and qualitative oppositions. In addition, for /-s/ and /-ɾ/, we have also observed some limited differences in relation to the social evaluation of variants. Even within Cuba and the Dominican Republic, some differences can be found. This shows how even a brief overview of the literature can reveal the first cracks in the Caribbean dialect area. On the following page, Table 1 summarizes the discussion of this Chapter. In Chapter 5, we will take a look at morphosyntactic variation in Caribbean Spanish. This will cast further doubt on the idea of a Caribbean dialect area.

30

Table 1:Comparison of phonological variationis in the varieties of San Juan, Santo Domingo and Havana

San Juan Santo Domingo Havana /-s/ Order of preference Order of preference Order of preference [-h] > [-Ø] > [-s] [-Ø] > [-h] > [-s] [-h] > [-Ø] >[-s] Negatively evaluated Negatively evaluated Negatively evaluated [- Ø] [- h] [-Ø] /-n/ Order of preference Order of preference Order of preference [-n]>[-ŋ]>[-Ø]

Negatively evaluated [-ŋ]>[-Ø]>[-n] Negatively evaluated

[-ŋ] > [-Ø] >[-n] Negatively evaluated

[-Ø] [-Ø] [-Ø] /-ɾ/ Order of preference Order of preference Order of preference [-ɾ]>[-l]>[-Ø] [-ɾ] >[-Ø] > [-l] [¬] > [-ɾ] > [-Ø] > [-l]

Negatively evaluated Negatively evaluated Negatively evaluated [-l] [-l] ,[-Ø] to lesser degree [-l] ,[-Ø] to lesser degree

/tʃ/ Order of preference Order of preference Order of preference [tʃ] > [ʃ]

Negatively evaluated No signs of stigmatization

[tʃ] > [ʃ] Negatively evaluated Unknown

[tʃ] > [ʃ] Negatively evaluated Unknown

/-d-/ Order of preference Order of preference Order of preference [ -ð-] or [ -ð-] > [-Ø-] [ -ð-] or [ -ð-] > [-Ø-] [ -ð-] or [ -ð-] > [-Ø-]

Negatively evaluated Negatively evaluated Negatively evaluated [-Ø-]

[-Ø-]

[-Ø-]

/r/ Variants Variants Variants [r] and ]ʁ] [r] [r]

Negatively evaluated [ʁ]

31

Chapter 5. Morphosyntactic divergence in Caribbean Spanish In the previous Chapter we have observed that the varieties of Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba display some differences when it comes to the phonetic variants that are most frequently used and are evaluated more favorably. In this Chapter we will continue to compare the three varieties. Particularly, we will start by investigating the repair strategies that have been observed in Dominican Spanish for the loss of /-s/. Then, in Section 2, we will take a look at the differences that exist between the diminutive suffixes that are preferred by the three varieties. Section 3 will discuss the double negation particles that are sometimes found in Dominican Spanish. Section 4 will be concerned with the limited form of voseo that has been observed in an isolated region of Cuba. Finally, Section 5 will discuss the use of su merced in the Dominican Republic as an alternative for usted.

1. Repair strategies for /-s/ deletion In the previous Chapter, we have seen that Dominican Spanish favors the deletion or aspiration of /-s/. However, this sound has an important functional load:it marks both second-person singular on verbs and plurality on adjectives and nouns. Given the high rates of /-s/ deletion in this variety, some repair strategies have emerged, which are generally absent from Puerto Rican and Cuban Spanish, although they may be found in contact varieties from these countries (e.g., Figueroa-Arenciba 2007).

For example, it has been argued that the loss of the plural inflection has led to the introduction of a new plural suffix:-se as in muchacha, mucháchase ‘girl’, ñu (< ñudo ‘knot’), ñuses (Alba 2000:23; Henríquez-Ureña 1982:172; Jorge-Morel 1978:90; Jiménez-Sabater 1984:150). 11 Similarly, Jiménez-Sabater (1978:173-174; 1984:151) observes that the final /-s/ (or /-h/) of articles is frequently agglutinated to the noun that follows it, especially when the words starts with a consonant. This way, the plural suffix /-s/ is transformed to a plural prefix /s-/, as shown in example (6).

(6) a. !Qué sojo tiene! b. !Qué ojos tiene!

‘What eyes she has!’ However, such repair strategies should be considered as last resort devices. Research has shown that, in the majority of the cases, nominal plurality is redundantly marked at multiple sites in the NP and that speakers draw on cultural, phonological, pragmatic, and semantic information to resolve the number of the NP (López-Morales, 1983:55-57, 1992:91-93; Poplack, 1984:222). For instance, in example (7), the NP tantos cafés y bares ‘so many cafés and bars’ features three possible sites to mark plurality with [-s]:tantos, cafés, and bares. Of these three, the latter marks plurality unequivocally even without [-s] by the addition of plural [-e] to the stem /bar/. The plurality of the nominal 11 Plurals in –ses also occur in rural Puerto Rican Spanish, but in my experience their use is confined to words that end in a stressed vowel e.g., mangó – mangoses (instead of mangoes), revolú – revoluses (instead of revolúes).

32

can also be inferred from the coordination of the nouns cafés and bares and from the meaning of the indefinite quantifier tantos ‘so many’. When such disambiguating information is not available, plural [-s] is rarely realized as zero (Poplack, 1984:210). Let us now consider the diminutive suffixes that are preferentially used in the three varieties.

(7) Son años y como aquí hay tantos cafés y bares y, tú sabes, uno ha estado noches y noches, y horas y horas, y conversando sobre temas, y temas y temas y… (SJ12M12/SJ1391). ‘I’ve been around here for years and since there areSing so many cafés and bars around here, and you know, one has been out here for nights and nights, and hours and hours, and talking about topics, and topics, and topics, and…’

2. Diminutive suffixes Additionally, a few differences exist concerning the use of diminutive suffixes between the varieties of Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. That is, Navarro-Tomás (1948:119) observes that –ito is the only diminutive suffix that is used productively in Puerto Rico. In addition, this suffix is not substituted, as is common in Cuba and other countries, by /-ico/ when it enters in contact with /-t-/ (e.g., minuto, minutito vs. minuto, minutico ‘minute’, ‘little minute’) (Álvarez- Nazarío 1991:700). In Santo Domingo, however, this substitution appears to be the norm (Alba 2000:23). In addition, Jorge-Morel (1978:102-103) finds that in this dialect diminutives of plants are preferably formed with /-illo/ (e.g., pepino ‘cucumber’, pepinillo ‘small cucumber, pickle’). By the same token, Jorge Morel observes some limited use of /-ín/, but this suffix is less frequently as /-ito, -ico/. Turning now to Havana, recent inquiry shows that in the variety of this city, 60% of the diminutives are formed with /-ito/ (Domínguez-Hernández 2007a:313) and that the remaining 40% is divided over /-ico/ (mainly in contexts following /-t-/) and /-illo/. In other regions of Cuba, Morón-García (2007:58-61) finds /-ito/ to dominate as well, alternating only with /-ecito/ in the words piedra, pan, frío, leche and dulce. However, it should be noted that this investigation fails to include contexts that are usually prosperous for /-ico/, since none of the words contains a /-t-/ in the final syllable. Let us now turn to the double negative/positive particles that are sometimes found in Dominican Spanish.

3. Double negation (and the Creole hypothesis) In Dominican Spanish, a tendency has been documented towards using double negative and positive particles (Jiménez-Sabater 1984:170; González-Tapia 1994:94; Alba 2009:29-30). That is to say, speakers tend to repeat both affirmative and negative particles at the end of the sentence, as can be observed in (8).

(8) No vamos, no ‘We are not going, no.’

This phenomenon is not found in any of the other Antilles, a fact that has been given different interpretations in the literature. For, Jiménez-Sabater (1984:170), the repetition

33

of particles at the end of the clause is a repair strategy to compensate for the possible ambiguity that emerges when the greater part of the /-s/’s are elided.

For example:The repetition of the particle at the end of the sentence is an effective means to distinguish no(s) vamos ‘we go’ from no vamos ‘we don’t go’.

However, a group of linguists, spearheaded by Germán De Granda (e.g., De Granda 1994), has explained this phenomenon as suggesting that Caribbean Spanish was originally a creole language. Indeed, double negative and positive particles are consistently found in Creole and Pidgin languages such as Haitian Creole and the L2 varieties of Spanish that are spoken by Haitians in Cuba (Ortiz-López 1999a:308; 1999b:450). The fact that certain features of Caribbean Spanish are more markedly present among the Afro-Caribbean population and that these features are also found in Creole languages such as Palenquero and Gullah would constitute further evidence in favor of this hypothesis (González & Benavides 1982:128; Megenney 1982:189-193; De Granda 1994:138-139, 149, 180).

However, the current consensus is that Spanish-based creole languages never developed (Fontanella de Weinberg 1992a:241-249; Lipski, 1996; 2009; Megenney 1999; Ortiz-López 2000:366-372). This was mainly due to the fact that, African-born forced laborers (called ‘bozales’) lived in close contact with European settlers. In addition, due to the relatively low demand for forced labor, the import of new slaves from Africa was rather limited, because the natural renewal of the population was sufficient to fulfill the needs (Lipski, 2009:10, Chap. 4). Also, the original slave population had not been imported directly from Africa, but rather from Spain, where they had already learned (some) Spanish (Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:361; López-Morales 1998:Chap. 5; Moya-Pons 2008:184; Valdés-Bernal 1994:7; 2007b:41). These three factors ensured that slaves had enough contact with Spanish to acquire the language, although with varying proficiency (Álvarez-Nazarío 1991:363; Lipski 2009:Chap. 4). However, when the plantation economy finally took off in Cuba and Puerto Rico, after the Haitian Revolution of 1790 (Moya-Pons 2008:Chap. 15), the massive importation of bozales did seem to have triggered some pidginization. Still, even the offspring of these pidgin speakers were monolingual in the local dialect of American Spanish, with some subtle transfer phenomena (Lipski 2009:Chap. 4; López-Morales 1980; Valdés-Bernal 1994:7; 2007b:42). In other words, the presumed creole features that have been documented in the writings of African-born slaves and in literary imitations of their speech can be explained as the result of imperfect, adult language learning (Lipski 2009:Chap. 9; López-Morales 1980:115-116, 1998:Chap. 5; Megenney 1999:280; Valdés-Bernal 2007a:11), language contacts with, mainly, Haitian and Jamaican Creole (Lipski 1996:41-43; 2009:Chap. 9) and/or transfer from a Bantu L1 background (Lipski 2004:122-123; 2009:300). In other words, rather than being an indication of a lost Creole language, the particle doubling could be a simple contact phenomenon imported from Niger-Congo languages (the language spoken by African-born slaves) or Haitian Creole and it would, thus, constitute one of the more structural contact features of

34

Dominican Spanish (Lipski, 1996:41-43, 50). Let us turn now the limited form of voseo that is found in Cuba.

4. Cuban voseo As all Latin American dialects, the varieties of Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba share the common feature of having eliminated the difference between the informal and formal treatment of plural interlocutors. That is to say, whereas peninsular Spanish maintains the distinction between vosotros ‘you-plural-informal’ and ustedes ‘you-plural-formal’, Antillean Spanish only conserves ustedes for both the informal and the formal treatment of plural interlocutors. Additionally, it is usually assumed that the entire ‘Caribbean dialect area’ uses the pronominal and verbal forms that correspond to tú in contrast to some regions of continental Latin America (e.g., Argentina) that use the forms and/or the pronouns corresponding with vos.

After several anecdotal reports of the existence of voseo in oriental Cuba (e.g., Henríquez-Ureña, 1982:48; Padrón, 1949:166; Rona, 1993:72) and much controversy regarding the exactness of these reports (Hummel 2010:308-315), Blanco-Botta (1982) reports of a vestige of voseo in oriental Cuba, in an isolated area enclosed between the cities of Camagüey, Contramaestre and Baire (Valdés-Bernal 2007a:22). In this area, the singular informal way to address an interlocutor is not tú, but rather vo(s). The Cuban voseo is highly idiosyncratic, becasue the verb takes on the forms that correspond with vosotros (hablái(s), coméi(s), viví(s)), in contrast to the forms (hablás, comés,vivís) that are found on the continent. However, already at the beginning of the eighties, younger speakers tended to use only the voseo verb forms, but not the pronouns. This may be due to the fact that Blanco-Botta finds that, on average, Cuban voseo is a rural phenomenon that is associated with short formal education.

5. Su merced in the Dominican Republic An additional difference between the pronominal systems of the Caribbean varieties sets Dominican Spanish apart from the Cuban and Puerto Rican modalities. In the first variety, some remnant of the archaic form su merced, may still be observed (Hummel 2010:306). According to Alba (2004:146), su merced is used in the entire country across all layers of the population, but recent investigations reported in Hummel (2010:308), were not able to collect cases of su merced through participant observation in public places in Santo Domingo and Santiago de los Caballeros. Data from the eighties suggests that youngsters use su merced far less than previous generations, which casts further doubt upon Alba’s claim (Hummel 2010:307). In addition, in the interview format I used in Claes (2014), I included one question that attempted to measure the vitality of su merced in Santo Domingo. Of the 24 particpants, only one older female speaker responded that su merced was still actively used, but only outside of the capital Santo Domingo. In short, it appears that if some use of su merced continues to exist in Dominican Spanish, it will be in a very limited form.

35

6. Summary Table 2 resumes the discussion of this Chapter. If we combine this table with Table 1 from the previous Chapter, we obtain a relatively fine-grained picture of the linguistic unity and diversity of Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. In these tables, both clear-cut differences concerning the quantitative importance of variants and qualitative oppositions appear, which are situated on both the phonologic and the morphosyntactic levels. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain that the three varieties are representatives of one and the same dialect, because divergences are found regarding the frequency of variants, the inventory of forms and, most importantly, the norms12 that direct their use (Alba 1995:Chap. 3; 2009:Chap. 2). In other words, whatever be the concept of dialect that is applied (see Chapter 2), the three varieties of Caribbean Spanish are not homogeneous enough as to categorize them as representatives of one and the same variety. This becomes even more evident when we highlight the multiple phonologic and morphologic differences that exist between regions of Cuba and the Dominican Republic. These are the topic of the following Chapter.

Table 2:Comparison of aspects of the morphosyntax of the varieties of San Juan, Santo Domingo and Havana

San Juan Santo Domingo Havana Plural formation Variants Variants Variants [-h], [-s], [-Ø] with

contextual clues. [-s], [-h], [-e], [-se], [s-], [h-], [-Ø] with contextual clues.

[-h], [-s], [-Ø] with contextual clues.

Negatively evaluated Probably [s-, h-]

Diminutives Variants Variants Variants -ito -ito, -ín, ico -ito, -ico Contact with /-t/ Contact with /-t/ Contact with /-t/ -ito -ico -ico Pronouns Variants Variants Variants Tú/usted Tú/usted, su merced

(limitedly) Tú/usted

Respectful treatment usted

Respectful treatment usted/su merced (very limitedly)

Respectful treatment usted

Particle doubling Absent Present Absent in monolinguals

12 In the sense of a set of social and linguistic factors that determine the use of the variants.

36

Chapter 6. Dialect areas within Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba By now it will have become clear that the Caribbean varieties display different behavior in relation to the variables that have been discussed in the previous Chapters. In addition, for some of these alternations we have seen that within the relatively small areas that constitute Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba, there is a fair amount of linguistic diversity, which further undermines the notion of a homogenous Caribbean dialect area. Yet, the status of these internal divisions is a bit ambiguous, because Navarro-Tomás (1948:327) speaks of “partial divisions”, and Paz-Pérez (1988:31) labels them “curiosities of the language that do not impede the linguistic communication between speakers of one or the other Province”. 13 Moreover, Valdés-Bernal (2007a:25) explicitly states that in Cuba

dialects of our national language, the Cuban modality of Spanish do not exist. That is to say, the regional differences in the diverse levels of the language (phonologic, lexical, morphologic and syntactic) do not display nuances or features that permit classifying these regional types of speech as dialects. 14

Therefore, let us review first some dialectological studies of the three islands and save the matter of the status of the divisions that have been suggested in these works for the conclusion of this Chapter.

For Puerto Rico Navarro-Tomás (1948:169-173) devises five partial divisions (see Map 5), based on lexical and phonetic characteristics (pronunciation of /-s/, /r/ and /tʃ/).

• Zone I:San Germán and surroundings. • Zone II:Utuado and surroundings. • Zone III:Cayey and surroundings. • Zone IV:San Juan and surroundings. • Zone V:Vieques and the east-coast municipalities surrounding Fajardo

13 In Spanish:“divisiones parciales” (Navarro-Tomás 1948:327) and “curiosidades del idioma que no impiden la comunicación lingüística entre los hablantes de una u otra provincia” (Paz-Pérez 1988:31). 14 In Spanish:“no existen dialectos de nuestra lengua nacional, la modalidad cubana del español. O sea, las diferencias regionales en los diversos niveles de la lengua (fonológico, léxico, morfológico y sintáctico) no evidencian matices o rasgos que permitan clasificar estas hablas regionales como dialectos” (Valdés-Bernal 2007a:25).

37

Map 5:Geolinguistic zones of Puerto Rico, According to Navarro-Tomás (1948:map 75)

However, Navarro-Tomás (1948:174) adds that “none of these zones of popular Puerto Rican speech reunite the conditions of organic development that define the dialectal fysionomy”.15 It appears, thus, that in Puerto Rico only different accents exist.

For the Dominican Republic, Jiménez-Sabeter (1984:130) also proposes a dialectal division, depicted in Map 6. This division is based solely on the behavior of syllable-final /-l/ and /-ɾ/.

• Zone I:El Cibao, which vocalizes these phonemes. • Zone II:southwest of the country, which conserves [-ɾ] as the preferred

variant. • Zone III:southeast of the country, which assimilates [-ɾ, -l] to the following

consonant. • Zone IV:the eastern half of the Samaná Peninsula, which represents an array

of solutions as well as contact phenomena.

15 In Spanish:“ninguna de las zonas del habla popular de Puerto Rico reune [sic.] las condiciones de desarrollo orgánico que definen la fisonomía dialectal” (Navarro-Tomás 1948:174).

38

Map 6:Behavior of syllable-final /-ɾ ,-l/, according to Jiménez-Sabater (1984:map 5)

Of course, this zonification does not meet up to the definition of ‘dialect’ as it is proposed by Chambers & Trudgill (1986:5). At best, the areas enclosed in these zones display different accents. Yet, when we compare the maps provided by Jiménez-Sabater (1984) and the data discussed in Chapter 4, it seems that the variety of the northern part of the country (‘El Cibao’) is characterized by a convergence of multiple grammatical and phonolgocial phenomena, which clearly set it apart from other varieties of Dominican Spanish (Henríquez-Ureña 1982:38):

• Higher rates of aspiration and /-s/ • The vocalization or elision of syllable-final /-l/ and /- ɾ/, with elision escaping

from negative social evaluations (Jiménez-Sabater 1984:91) • The presence of ello as a pleonastic subject with impersonal verbs (Jiménez-

Sabater 1984:165) • Predominant use of the plurals in -se (Jiménez-Sabater 1984:map 11). • The absence of inversion of “se me” and “se te” (Jiménez-Sabater 1984:map

12) • The use of the subjunctive of the second and third conjugation instead of the

indicative (Jiménez-Sabater 1984:map 13)

In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that the heavy-contact zones near the border and on the Peninsula of Samaná constitute two additional dialect zones, which would bring the total number of the dialect areas to four.

39

For Cuba, different dialect maps have been advanced, beginning from the late nineteenth century onwards (see Valdés-Bernal 2007a:25-26). However, the most influential was perhaps the division of Choy-López (1986:405), who devised 5 zones based on phonological characteristics:

I. The Provinces of Pinar del Río, Havana City, Matanzas, Cienfuegos and Trinidad.

II. The Provinces of Santa Clara, Sancti Spíritus, Ciego de Ávila. III. The Provinces of Camagüey, Las Tunas, Holguín, Manzanillo and Bayamo. IV. The Provinces of Santiago de Cuba and Guantánamo. V. The municipality of Baracoa.

Montero-Bernal (2007a:152; 2007b:47), proposes a similar set of dialect areas (see Map 7), based on phonological data gathered for the Atlas lingüístico de Cuba project:

I. The Provinces of Pinar del Río, La Habana, Matanzas, Cienfuegos, and the municipalities of Corralillo (Villa Clara Province) and Trinidad (Sancti Spiritus Province)

II. The Provinces of Villa Clara (except Corralillo) and Sancti Spiritus (except Trinidad).

III. The Provinces of Ciego de Ávila, Camagüey, Las Tunas, Granma, Holguín (except the municipalities of Sagua de Tánamo and Moa) and Santiago de Cuba (except the municipalities of Mella and Segundo Frente).

IV. The municipalities of Mella and Segundo Frente (Santiago de Cuba Province) and El Salvador, Yateras and Caimanera (Guantánamo Province).

V. The municipalities of Sagua de Tánamo and Moa (Holguín Province) and Baracoa, Maisí y Imias (Guantánamo Province).

Map 7:Geolectal zones of Cuba, according to Montero-Bernal (2007b:132)

However, it should be reminded that these divisions are established taking only phonological data into account, for which the linguistic areas would only represent different accents. However, it may be the case that the differentiated behavior of these varieties also extends to other linguistic levels. Indeed, Santana-González & Menéndez-

40

Pryce (2007:109) report that the data obtained with the lexical part of the questionnaire of the Atlas lingüístico de Cuba project argues in favor of more or less the same divisions. These divisions also coincide largely with the ones Morón-García (2007:120) devises for the morphosyntactic field. It appears, thus, that some unified version of linguistic areas zones could be considered dialects.

In summary, this Chapter has shown that, whereas Cuba and the Dominican Republic, probably include more than one dialect area in their territories, this is less evident for Puerto Rico, where Navarro-Tomás only found partial convergences between certain phonological and lexical tendencies. Nevertheless, the existence of dialectal divisions within the larger two of the islands further casts doubt on the concept of a Caribbean dialect area.

41

Chapter 7. Summary and conclusion The data reviewed in this rough guide portray the notion of ‘Caribbean Spanish’ as a simplification, because the Puerto Rican, Dominican and Cuban Spanish do not constitute a dialectal speech community defined by a shared set of abstract, tacit norms, externalized as shared patterns of variation and subjective evaluation. This was evident from the fact that the varieties do not display complete (quantitative) uniformity, even not for the few features that have been used to delimit the different dialect areas of Latin America. Therefore, it is no surprise that native speakers of Puerto Rican, Dominican and Cuban Spanish consider that in the Caribbean three distinct varieties of Spanish are spoken (Alba 2009:24) and that they are able to distinguish between Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Cubans (Alba 1995:40), and, within a country, between regions.

Still, it is inarguably the case that the Caribbean dialects represent similar tendencies. Therefore, the region is more accurately portrayed as an amalgam of historically and genetically related dialects (Alba 1995:87), that is, a diasystem. From this perspective, the Caribbean constitutes a system made up of the Dominican, Cuban and Puerto Rican systems (Alba 1995:87), which, in turn, forms part of a larger diasystem such as Montes-Giraldo’s (1987:216) Superdialect B or Catalán’s (1989:Chap. 5-6) Atlantic Spanish. The national diasystems can be further broken down to low-level dialect areas, which are constituted in term by speech communities that can be dissected into social groups and styles (Alba 2004:29-31). This diasystem is portrayed in Diagram 1.

Diagram 1:Diasystems, dialects, speech communities, sociolects and styles in the Caribbean

Abstract Concrete

Atlantic Spanish/Superdialect B Antillean diasystem Puerto Rican, Dominican, Cuban diasystem Low-level dialect areas Speech communities Sociolects Stylistic varieties

42

References Álvarez-Nazarío, M. (1991). Historia de la lengua española en Puerto Rico. Su pasado y su presente en el marco de la realidad social. San Juan: Academia puertorriqueña de la lengua española.

Alba, O. (1992). Diferenciación objetiva y valoración social del debilitamiento de dos segmentos consonánticos en el español dominicano. In M. V. Ramírez, Homenaje a Humberto López-Morales (pp. 67-74). Madrid: Arco libros.

Alba, O. (1995). El español dominicano en su contexto americano. Santo Domingo: Soto Castillo.

Alba, O. (1999). Elisión de la /d/ intervocálica postónica en el español dominicano. In E. F. Braschi, J. Cardona, H. López-Morales, & A. Morales de Walters, Estudios de lingüística hispánica : homenaje a María Vaquero (pp. 3-21). San Juan: Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Alba, O. (2009). La identidad lingüística de los dominicanos. Santo Domingo: Ediciones Librería La Trinitaria.

Alba, O. (2000). Nuevos aspectos del español en Santo Domingo. Santo Domingo: Ediciones Librería La Trinitaria.

Alba, O. (2004). ¿Cómo hablamos los dominicanos? Un enfoque sociolingüístico. Santo Domingo: Grupo León Jimenes.

Alfaraz, G. G. (2007). Effects of age and gender on liquid assimilation in Cuban Spanish. In J. Holmquist, A. Lorenzino, & L. Sayahi, Selected proceedings of the third workshop on Spanish sociolinguistics (pp. 23-29). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Alfaraz, G. G. (2008). The lateral variant of (r) in Cuban Spanish. In M. Westmoreland, & J. A. Thomas, Selected proceedings of the 4th workshop on Spanish sociolinguistics (pp. 36-42). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Alvar-López, M. (2000). El español de la República Dominicana. Estudios, encuestas, textos. Alcalá de Henares: La Goleta.

Alvar-López, M. (1982). Español e inglés. Actitudes lingüísticas en Puerto Rico. Revista de filología española , LXII (1-2), 1-38.

Alvar-López, M. (1961). Hacia los conceptos de lengua, dialecto y hablas. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica , XV (1), 51-60.

Ayala, C., & Bernabe, R. (2007). Puerto Rico in the American century. A history since 1898. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

43

Barreto, A. A. (2000). Speaking English in Puerto Rico: the impact of affluence, education and return. Centro Journal , XII (1), 5-17.

Berry, G. M. (in press). Structural autonomy and aspectual import: A new(er) Spanish progressive. Probus .

Blanco-Botta, I. (1982). El voseo en Cuba: estudio socio-lingüístico de una zona de la Isla. Beitragen zur Romanischen Philologie , XXI (2), 291-304.

Blas-Arroyo, J. L. (1999). Lenguas en contacto. Consecuencias lingüísticas del bilingüismo social de las comunidades de habla del este peninsular. Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Choy-Lopez, L. R. (1986). Sistema fonético y sistema fonológico en el español actual de Cuba. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen , LXXXVII (3), 400-413.

Claes, J. (2014). The pluralization of presentational 'haber' in Caribbean Spanish. A study in Cognitive Construction Grammar and Comparative Sociolinguistics. Antwerp: University of Antwerp PhD dissertation.

Claes, J., & Ortiz-López, L. A. (2011). Restricciones pragmáticas y sociales en la expresión de futuridad en el español de Puerto Rico. Spanish in context , VIII (1), 50-72.

De Granda, G. (1994). Español de América, español de África y hablas criollas hispánicas. Cambios, contactos y contextos. Madrid: Gredos.

DeMello, G. (1995). Preposición + sujeto + infinitivo: 'para yo hacerlo'. Hispania , LXXVIII (4), 825-836.

Dohotaru, P. (2007). El segmento fonológico -/R/ en el habla popular de la cuidad de La Habana. In M. A. Domínguez-Hernández, La lengua en Cuba. Estudios (pp. 101-145). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Domínguez-Hernández, M. A. (2007a). "Cubanismos" en el habla culta de La Habana: el acento inconfundible. In M. A. Domínguez-Hernández, La lengua en Cuba. Estudios (pp. 309-342). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Emmanuelli-Muñiz, M. (2000). Valoración social y actuación lingüística hacia algunas variantes fonológicas del español puertorriqueño. Revista de estudios hispánicos , 209-218.

Figueroa-Arenciba, V. J. (2007). La pluralidad nominal en el español no estándar de la región suroriental cubana: influencia africana y haitiana. In M. A. Domínguez-Hernández, La lengua en Cuba. Estudios (pp. 179-218). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

44

Figueroa-Arencibia, V. J. (2009). Los contactos lingüísticos y el español no estándar de Santiago de Cuba. Onomázein , XX (2), 87-143.

Fontanella de Weinberg, M. B. (1992a). El español de América. Madrid: MAPFRE.

Germosén, I. (1991). El 'Dominican York' y su influjo en el habla actual de Santo Domingo. In C. Hernández, G. Granda, C. Hoyos, V. Fernández, D. Dietrick, & Y. Carballera, El español de América. Actas del III congreso internacional de El español de América. Valladolid, 3 a 9 de julio de 1989 (Vol. III, pp. 1247-1266). Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.

Gili y Gaya, S. (1973). Nuestra lengua materna: observaciones gramaticales y léxicas. San Juan: Instituto de cultura puertorriqueña.

González-Tapia, C. (1994). Estudio sobre el habla culta dominicana (resultados parciales de una investigación). Con un estudio especial de los idiolectos de Bosch y Balaguer. Santo Domingo: Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.

González-Tapia, C., & Benavides, C. (1982). ¿Existen rasgos criollos en el habla de Samaná? In O. Alba, El español del Caribe. Ponencias del VI Simposio de dialectología (pp. 107-132). Santiago de los Caballeros: Universidad católica Madre y Maestra.

Haché de Yunén, A. (1982). La /n/ final de sílaba en el español de Santiago de los Caballeros. In O. Alba, El español del Caribe. Ponencias del VI simposio de dialectología (pp. 143-154). Santiago de los Caballeros: Universidad católica Madre y Maestra.

Hammond, R. M. (1982). El fonema /s/ en el español jíbaro. Cuestiones teóricas. In O. Alba, El español del Caribe. Ponencias del VI simposio de dialectología (pp. 155-170). Santiago de los Caballeros: Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra.

Hammond, R. M. (1976). The velar nasal in rapid Cuban Spanish. Paper presented at the colloquium on Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian linguistics (3rd, July 1976). Washington: Educational resources information center.

Henríquez-Ureña, P. (1982). El español en Santo Domingo. Cuarta edición. Santo Domingo: Ediciones Taller.

Henríquez-Ureña, P. (1976). Observaciones sobre el español en América y otros estudios filológicos. Compilación y prólogo de Juan Carlos Ghiano. Buenos Aires: Academia argentina de letras.

Hummel, M. (2010). El estudio de las formas de tratamiento en las Antillas hispanohablantes. In M. Hummel, B. Kluge, & M. E. Vázquez-Laslop, Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico (pp. 293-324). Mexico City: El Colegio de México.

45

Huyke, I. (1978). Índices de densidad léxica: anglicismos en la zona metropolitana de San Juan. In H. López-Morales, Corrientes actuales en la dialectología del Caribe hispánico. Actas de un simposio (pp. 147-163). San Juan: Editorial universitaria de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Ibășescu, C. (1968). El español en Cuba. Observaciones fonéticas y fonológicas. Bucarest: Sociedad Rumana de lingüística románica.

Jiménez-Sabater, M. A. (1978). Estructuras morfosintácticas en el español dominicano: algunas implicaciones sociolingüísticas. In H. López-Morales, Corrientes actuales en la dialectología del Caribe. Actas de un simposio (pp. 167-180). San Juan: Editorial universitaria de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Jiménez-Sabater, M. A. (1984). Más datos sobre el español de la República Dominicana. Segunda edición. Santo Domingo: Editorial de la Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.

Jorge-Morel, E. (1978). Estudio lingüístico de Santo Domingo. Santo Domingo: Taller.

Labov, W. (1972a). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lipski, J. (2009). A history of Afro-Hispanic language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lipski, J. (1994). Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman.

Lipski, J. (2004). The Spanish language of Ecuatorial Guinea. Arizona journal of Hispanic cultural studies , VIII, 115-130.

Lope-Blanch, J. (1989). Estudios de lingüística hispanoamericana. Mexico: UNAM.

Lope-Blanch, J. M. (1968). El español de América. Madrid: Ediciones Alcalá.

López-Laguerre, M. (1997). El bilingüismo en Puerto Rico. San Juan: Editorial Espuela.

López-Morales, H. (1999a). Anglicismos en el léxico disponible de Puerto Rico. In L. Ortiz-López, El Caribe hispánico: perspectivas lingüísticas actuales. Homenaje a Manuel Álvarez-Nazarío (pp. 147-170). Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

López-Morales, H. (1992). El español del Caribe. Madrid: MAPFRE.

López-Morales, H. (1983). Estratificación social del español de San Juan de Puerto Rico. Mexico City: UNAM.

López-Morales, H. (1998). La aventura del español en América. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

López-Morales, H. (1980). Sobre la pretendida existencia y pervivencia del "criollo" cubano. Anuario de letras , XVIII, 85-116.

46

Mack, S. (2011). A sociophonetic variation of /-s/ variation in Puerto Rican Spanish. In L. A. Ortiz-López, Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 81-93). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Megenney, W. W. (1999). El español afrocaribeño: ¿mito o realidad? In L. Ortiz-López, El Caribe hispánico: perspectivas lingüísticas actuales. Homenaje a Manuel Alvarez Nazario (pp. 271-294). Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

Megenney, W. W. (1978). El problema de la R velar en Puerto Rico. Thesaurus , XXXIII (1), 72-86.

Montero-Bernal, L. (2007a). El español rural de Cuba y su variedad regional. In M. A. Domínguez-Hernández, La lengua en Cuba: estudios (pp. 147-178). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

Montero-Bernal, L. (2007b). Zonificación geolectal de Cuba desde el punto de vista fonético. In S. Valdés-Bernal, Visión geolectal de Cuba (pp. 33-50, maps pp.123-132). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Morales, A. (2005). Convivencia de español e inglés en Puerto Rico. Mitos y realidades. In L. Ortiz-López, & M. Lacorte, Contactos y contextos lingüísticos. El español en los Estados Unidos y en contacto con otras lenguas (pp. 85-104). Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

Morales, A. (2000). El español de Puerto Rico en su contexto caribeño. Revista de estudios hispánicos , XXVII (1), 349-359.

Moreno-Fernández, F. (1993). Las áreas dialectales del español americano: historia de un problema. In F. Moreno-Fernández, La división dialectal del español de América (pp. 11-37). Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.

Morón-García, M. (2007). Algunos aspectos morfológicos de la caracterización geolingüística del español de Cuba. In S. Valdés-Bernal, Visión geolectal de Cuba (pp. 51-104, maps pp. 133-139). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Moya-Pons, F. (2008). Historia del Caribe. Azúcar y plantaciones en el mundo atlántico. Santon Domingo: Ediciones Ferilibro.

Navarro-Tomás, T. (1956). Apuntes sobre el español dominicano. Revista iberroamericana , XXI, 417-429.

Navarro-Tomás, T. (1948). El español en Puerto Rico: Contribución a la geografía lingüística hispanoamericana. Río Piedras, San Juan: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Ortiz-López, L. (2000). El español de Puerto Rico en el contexto caribeño: debate sobre su génesis. Revista de estudios hispánicos , XXVII (1), 361-374.

47

Ortiz-López, L. (1999a). El sistema verbal del español haitiano en Cuba: implicaciones para las lenguas en contacto en el Caribe. In L. Ortiz-López, El Caribe hispánico: perspectivas lingüísticas actuales. Homenaje a Manuel Álvarez-Nazarío (pp. 295-316). Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

Ortiz-López, L. (1999b). La variante hispánica haitianizada en Cuba: otro rostro del contacto lingüístico en el Caribe. In E. F. Braschi, J. Cardona, H. López-Morales, & A. Morales de Walters, Estudios de lingüística hispánica : homenaje a María Vaquero (pp. 428-456). San Juan: Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Ortiz-López, L. (2009). Pronombres del sujeto en el español del Caribe: L2 vs. L1. In M. Lacorte, & J. Leeman, Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos de contacto: sociolinguística, ideología y pedagogía (pp. 85-110). Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

Ortiz-López, L., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2009). Interfaz sintáctica-semántica en los objetos directos: el español y el criollo haitiano. In J. Collentine, Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 268-281). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Ortiz-López, L., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Objetos directos (nulos) en la frontera dominico-haitiana: ¿Contacto de lenguas o motivaciones internas? Spanish in context , V (1), 110–141.

Paz-Pérez, C. (1988). De lo popular y lo vulgar en el habla cubana. La Habana: Editorial de ciencias sociales.

Pérez-Guerra, I. (1999). Contacto lingüístico dominico-haitiano en la República dominicana: datos para su estudio. In L. Ortiz-López, El Caribe hispánico: perspectivas lingüísticas actuales. Homenaje a Manuel Álvarez-Nazarío (pp. 317-332). Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.

Picó, F. (2000). Historia general de Puerto Rico. Séptima edición revisada y aumentada. San Juan: Ediciones Huracán.

Poplack, S. (1984). Variable concord and sentential plural marking in Portorican Spanish. Hispanic review , LII (2), 205-222.

Rona, J. P. (1993). El problema de la división del español americano en zonas dialectales. In F. Moreno-Fernández, La división dialectal del español de América (pp. 63-76). Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.

Santana-González, L., & Menéndez-Pryce, A. (2007). El léxico en el español de Cuba: visión geolectal. In S. Valdés-Bernal, Visión geolectal de Cuba (pp. 105-121). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Staten, C. (2005). The history of Cuba. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

48

Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tagliamonte, S. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. In J. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes, The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 729-763). Oxford: Blackwell.

Terrell, T. (1979). Final /s/ in Cuban Spanish. Hispania , LXII (4), 599-612.

Terrell, T. (1982). Relexificación en el español dominicano: implicaciones para la educación. In O. Alba, El español del Caribe. Ponencias del VI simposio de dialectología (pp. 302-318). Santiago de Los Caballeros: Universidad católica Madre y Maestra.

Terrell, T. (1978). Sobre la aspiración y elisión de /s/ implosiva y final en el español de Puerto Rico. Nueva revista de filología hispánica , XXVII (1), 24-38.

Tristá, A. M., & Valdés-Bernal, S. (1978). El consonantismo en el habla popular de La Habana. La Habana: Editorial de ciencias sociales.

Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.

Valdés-Bernal, S. (1994). El español de Cuba como parte del español del Caribe. In J. Lüdtke, & M. Perl, Lengua y cultura en el Caribe hispánico. Actas de una sección del Congreso de la Asociación de Hispanistas Alemanes celebrado en Augsburgo, 4-7 de marzo de 1993 (pp. 1-13). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Valdés-Bernal, S. (2007a). El poblamiento de Cuba y las áreas geolectales. In S. Valdés-Bernal, Visión geolectal de Cuba (pp. 7-28). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Valdés-Bernal, S. (2007b). Las bases lingüísticas del español en Cuba. In M. A. Domínguez-Hernández, La lengua en Cuba. Estudios (pp. 27-56). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

Vaquero de Ramírez, M. (1996). Antillas. In M. Alvar-López, Manual de dialectología hispánica. El español de América (pp. 51-67). Barcelona: Ariel.

Vaquero de Ramírez, M. (1991). El español de Puerto Rico en su contexto antillano. In C. Hernández, G. Granda, C. Hoyos, V. Fernández, D. Dietrick, & Y. Carballera, El español de América. Actas del III congreso internacional de 'El español de América', Valladolid, 3 a 9 de julio de 1989 (Vol. I, pp. 117-139). Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.

Vaquero de Ramírez, M., & Quilis, A. (1973). Realizaciones de ĉ en el área metropolitana de San Juan de Puerto Rico. Revista de filología hispánica , LVI (1-2), 1-52.

Weinreich, U. (1954). Is a structural dialectology possible? Word , X, 388-400.

49

Zamora-Munné, J. (1993). Las zonas dialectales del español americano. In F. Moreno-Fernández, La división dialectal del español de América (pp. 87-96). Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.

Zamora-Munné, J., & Guitart, J. (1982). Dialectología hispanoamericana. Teoría, descripción, historia. Salamanca: Ediciones Almar.